HomeMy WebLinkAboutApndx B_2011 OPSP EIR
APPENDIX B
2011 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND
PHASE I PROJECT EIR
2<67(532,1763(&,),&3/$1$1'3+$6(,352-(&7
'UDIW(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW
6&+1R
-DQXDU\
&LW\RI6RXWK6DQ)UDQFLVFR
'HSDUWPHQWRI(FRQRPLFDQG&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW
0DSOH$YHQXH
6RXWK6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
/$03+,(5*5(*25<
85%$13/$11,1*(19,5210(17$/$1$/<6,6 352-(&70$1$*(0(17_
-DQXDU\
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE i
CONTENTS
Page
Chapter 1: Introduction....................................................................................................................1-1
Purpose of the Environmental Impact Report..................................................................................1-1
EIR Review Process.........................................................................................................................1-1
Content and Organization of the EIR...............................................................................................1-2
Chapter 2: Executive Summary and Impact Overview.................................................................2-1
Summary Description.......................................................................................................................2-1
Summary of Impacts and Mitigation Measures...............................................................................2-2
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts That Cannot be Mitigated to a Level of Less Than
Significant..................................................................................................................................2-2
Impacts Reduced to a Level of Less Than Significant Through Mitigation..............................2-3
Impacts Determined Not to be Significant................................................................................2-6
Alternatives................................................................................................................................2-7
Chapter 3: Project Description........................................................................................................3-1
Introduction......................................................................................................................................3-1
Oyster Point Specific Plan Location................................................................................................3-1
Site Conditions and Existing Uses...................................................................................................3-1
Oyster Point Specific Plan Description............................................................................................3-2
Programmatic Specific Plan...................................................................................................3-2
Phase I Project........................................................................................................................3-4
Redevelopment Plan Amendments.........................................................................................3-6
Project Objectives..........................................................................................................................3-11
Intended Uses of this EIR..............................................................................................................3-12
Chapter 4: Aesthetics........................................................................................................................4-1
Introduction......................................................................................................................................4-1
Setting..............................................................................................................................................4-1
Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................................................................................4-15
Scenic Vista.............................................................................................................................4-15
Scenic Highways.....................................................................................................................4-17
Visual Character......................................................................................................................4-17
Light and Glare........................................................................................................................4-18
Cumulative Aesthetic Impacts.................................................................................................4-20
Chapter 5: Agricultural, Forest and Mineral Resources...............................................................5-1
Introduction......................................................................................................................................5-1
Agricultural and Forest Resources...................................................................................................5-1
Mineral Resources............................................................................................................................5-2
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE ii OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Chapter 6: Air Quality.....................................................................................................................6-1
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................6-1
Setting..............................................................................................................................................6-1
Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................................................................................6-12
Clean Air Plan (CAP) and VMT Consistency........................................................................6-13
Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs)....................................6-14
Objectionable Odors................................................................................................................6-16
Construction-Related Impacts.................................................................................................6-16
Operational Related Impacts...................................................................................................6-21
Cumulative Impacts................................................................................................................6-24
Chapter 7: Biological Resources......................................................................................................7-1
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................7-1
Environmental Setting...................................................................................................................7-11
Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................................7-12
Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................................................................................7-19
Habitat Modification...............................................................................................................7-20
Disturbance or Loss of Special-Status Species.......................................................................7-27
Trees Protected by the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance.......................................................7-31
Impacts of In-Water Construction...........................................................................................7-31
Habitat Conservation Plan or Natural Community Conservation Plan...................................7-37
Cumulative Biological Resources Impacts.............................................................................7-37
Chapter 8: Cultural Resources........................................................................................................8-1
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................8-1
Environmental Setting.....................................................................................................................8-1
Regulatory Setting...........................................................................................................................8-4
Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................8-5
Disturbance of Cultural Resources............................................................................................8-5
Chapter 9: Geology and Soils...........................................................................................................9-1
Introduction.....................................................................................................................................9-1
Regulatory Setting...........................................................................................................................9-1
Geologic Setting and Seismicity......................................................................................................9-3
Geotechnical Design Considerations...............................................................................................9-5
Impacts and Mitigation Measures....................................................................................................9-8
Surface Fault Rupture...............................................................................................................9-9
Exposure to Strong Seismic Ground Shaking...........................................................................9-9
Seismically Induced Ground Failure, including Liquefaction and Ground Surface
Settlement................................................................................................................................9-10
Variable Subsurface Conditions..............................................................................................9-12
Landfill Gas at Building-Soil Interface...................................................................................9-14
Settlement of Landfill Materials and Bay Mud.......................................................................9-14
Underground Utilities..............................................................................................................9-15
Soil Erosion.............................................................................................................................9-18
Expansive Soils.......................................................................................................................9-18
Landslides...............................................................................................................................9-18
Volcanic Hazards....................................................................................................................9-18
Septic Systems........................................................................................................................9-19
Unique Geological Features....................................................................................................9-19
CONTENTS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE iii
Chapter 10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions.......................................................................................10-1
Setting............................................................................................................................................10-1
Regulatory Context for GHG Emissions and Climate Change......................................................10-8
Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................................................10-11
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change..................................................................10-11
Construction GHG Emissions................................................................................................10-12
Operational Emissions...........................................................................................................10-13
Consistency with Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plans.............................................................10-16
Chapter 11: Hazardous Materials.................................................................................................11-1
Introduction....................................................................................................................................11-1
Regulatory Setting..........................................................................................................................11-1
Setting............................................................................................................................................11-4
Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................................................................................11-9
Hazardous Materials Use, Transport.......................................................................................11-9
Accidental Hazardous Materials Release..............................................................................11-11
Hazardous Materials Near Schools........................................................................................11-16
Hazardous Materials Sites.....................................................................................................11-16
Airport Land Use Plan...........................................................................................................11-19
Adopted Emergency Response Plan......................................................................................11-19
Wildland Fires.......................................................................................................................11-19
Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impacts........................................................11-19
Chapter 12: Hydrology...................................................................................................................12-1
Introduction....................................................................................................................................12-1
Setting............................................................................................................................................12-1
Regulatory Setting..........................................................................................................................12-3
Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................................................................................12-6
Water Quality Standards or Waste Discharge Requirements..................................................12-6
Groundwater Depletion/ Recharge..........................................................................................12-9
Increased Erosion or Siltation to Receiving Waters..............................................................12-10
Changes in Stormwater Runoff.............................................................................................12-11
Otherwise Substantially Degrade Water Quality...................................................................12-11
Structures Within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area.................................................................12-11
Significant Risk Involving Flooding.....................................................................................12-11
Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami or Mudflow.........................................................................12-15
Cumulative Hydrology Impact Analysis...............................................................................12-15
Chapter 13: Land Use.....................................................................................................................13-1
Introduction....................................................................................................................................13-1
Setting............................................................................................................................................13-1
Regulatory Setting..........................................................................................................................13-2
Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................................................................................13-9
Dividing Established Community............................................................................................13-9
Conflict with Plans and Policies............................................................................................13-10
Conflict with Conservation Plan............................................................................................13-10
Chapter 14: Noise............................................................................................................................14-1
Introduction....................................................................................................................................14-1
Setting............................................................................................................................................14-1
Regulatory Setting..........................................................................................................................14-9
Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................................................14-12
Appropriateness of Noise Levels for Proposed Uses.............................................................14-13
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE iv OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Permanent Noise Level Increases.........................................................................................14-14
Cumulative Noise Level Increases........................................................................................14-15
Vibration...............................................................................................................................14-15
Construction Noise................................................................................................................14-16
Aircraft Noise........................................................................................................................14-19
Chapter 15: Population, Public Services and Recreation............................................................15-1
Introduction...................................................................................................................................15-1
Population/Housing.......................................................................................................................15-1
Setting.....................................................................................................................................15-1
Population/Housing Impact Analysis......................................................................................15-3
Public Services..............................................................................................................................15-4
Setting.....................................................................................................................................15-4
Public Services Impact Analysis.............................................................................................15-5
Recreation......................................................................................................................................15-7
Setting.....................................................................................................................................15-7
Recreation Impact Analysis....................................................................................................15-7
Chapter 16: Transportation and Circulation...............................................................................16-1
Introduction...................................................................................................................................16-1
Setting............................................................................................................................................16-1
Impacts and Mitigation Measures................................................................................................16-30
Trip Generation.....................................................................................................................16-31
Trip Distribution....................................................................................................................16-32
Pedestrian Facilities..............................................................................................................16-33
Bicycle Facilities...................................................................................................................16-33
Internal Circulation...............................................................................................................16-34
Year 2015 Intersection Operation.........................................................................................16-36
Year 2015 Vehicle Queuing..................................................................................................16-40
Year 2015 Freeway Mainline and On/Off-Ramp Operation.................................................16-43
Year 2035 Intersection Operation.........................................................................................16-45
Year 2035 Freeway Mainline and On/Off-Ramp Operation.................................................16-55
Parking..................................................................................................................................16-58
Chapter 17: Utilities........................................................................................................................17-1
Introduction...................................................................................................................................17-1
Setting............................................................................................................................................17-1
Regulatory Setting.........................................................................................................................17-5
Impacts and Mitigation Measures..................................................................................................17-7
Water Supplies........................................................................................................................17-8
Wastewater..............................................................................................................................17-9
Increase in Stormwater Flows...............................................................................................17-12
Landfill Capacity...................................................................................................................17-14
Energy...................................................................................................................................17-15
Cumulative Utilities Impacts.................................................................................................17-15
Chapter 18: Other CEQA Considerations....................................................................................18-1
Introduction...................................................................................................................................18-1
Significant Irreversible Modifications in the Environment...........................................................18-1
Growth Inducing Impacts..............................................................................................................18-2
Cumulative Impacts.......................................................................................................................18-2
CONTENTS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE v
Chapter 19: Alternatives................................................................................................................19-1
Introduction....................................................................................................................................19-1
OPSP Objectives............................................................................................................................19-1
OPSP Impacts................................................................................................................................19-2
AlternativesAnalysis.....................................................................................................................19-3
Selection of Alternatives.........................................................................................................19-3
Alternative A: No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative.....................................................19-5
Alternative B: Reduced Intensity (FAR 1.0) Alternative........................................................19-8
Alternative C: Reduced Intensity (FAR 1.12) Alternative....................................................19-13
Environmentally Superior Alternative.........................................................................................19-17
Chapter 20: References...................................................................................................................14-1
Report Preparers.............................................................................................................................14-1
References......................................................................................................................................14-2
Appendices
Appendix A - Notice of Preparation (NOP) and Comments
Appendix B - Air Quality and GHG Emissions Quantification
Appendix C – Biological Resources Report
Appendix D – Noise Modeling
Appendix E - Traffic Analysis
Appendix F – Water Supply Assessment
Appendix G – Utilities Study
Figures
3.1: Site Location and Vicinity....................................................................................................3-15
3.2: Existing Uses........................................................................................................................3-17
3.3: Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project....................................................................3-19
3.4: Phase I Project Site Plan.......................................................................................................3-21
3.5: Grading and Drainage Plan..................................................................................................3-23
3.6: Elevations, Phase I Office/R&D...........................................................................................3-25
3.7: Elevations, Phase I Building 1A...........................................................................................3-27
4.1: Viewpoint Location Map........................................................................................................4-9
4.2a: Existing View, U.S. 101 Oyster Point Boulevard Off-ramp, Looking East.........................4-10
4.2b: Visual Simulation, U.S. 101 Oyster Point Boulevard Off-ramp, Looking East...................4-10
4.3a: Existing View, Bay Trail Near 7000 Shoreline Court, Looking Southeast..........................4-11
4.3b: Visual Simulation, Bay Trail Near 7000 Shoreline Court, Looking Southeast....................4-11
4.4a: Existing View, Bay Trail North of DNA Way, Looking Northwest....................................4-12
4.4b: Visual Simulation, Bay Trail North of DNA Way, Looking Northwest..............................4-12
4.5a: Existing View, Bay Trail at Oyster Point/Park Windsurf Launch Ramp, Looking West....4-13
4.5b: Visual Simulation, Bay Trail at Oyster Point/Park Windsurf Launch Ramp, Looking
West......................................................................................................................................4-13
4.6: The Bay Trail in the vicinity of the OPSP and the potential to affect views........................4-16
7.1: Habitat Map............................................................................................................................7-3
12.1: Areas of Inundation for Sea Level Rise – Existing Condition...........................................12-13
12.2: Areas of Inundation for Sea Level Rise – Proposed Graded Condition.............................12-14
14.1: Noise Measurement Locations.............................................................................................14-7
16.1: Traffic Study Intersections and Lane Geometry..................................................................16-3
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE vi OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Tables
2.1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures.........................................................2-4
3.1: Development Assumptions....................................................................................................3-3
3.2: Redevelopment Projects That Are In Progress......................................................................3-7
3.3: Potential Future Redevelopment Projects Analyzed in General Plan or Redevelopment
Plan EIRs...............................................................................................................................3-8
3.4: Potential Future Redevelopment Projects Not Yet Analyzed Pursuant to CEQA...............3-10
6.1: Health-Based Ambient Air Quality Standards.......................................................................6-6
6.2: Summary of Criteria Air Pollution Monitoring Data.............................................................6-7
6.3: Regional Attainment Status...................................................................................................6-8
6.4: Applicable Buffers Between Air Pollutant Sources and Sensitive Receptors.....................6-12
6.5: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction of the Phase I Project................6-18
6.6: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations Projected Out to 2035..................6-22
6.7: Predicted 8-Hour Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Levels.....................................................6-24
7.1: Biotic Habitat/Land Use Acreages within the Boundaries of the OPSP Area.......................7-5
9.1: Faults in the Vicinity..............................................................................................................9-5
10.1: GHG Emission Inventory for South San Francisco Community-Wide Emissions - 2005..10-4
10.2: Phase I Project and OPSP Build Out GHG Emissions......................................................10-14
11.1: Select General Plan Policies Regarding Hazardous Materials.............................................11-3
11.2: Vicinity Hazardous Materials Sites.....................................................................................11-5
12.1: Potential Pollutants from Industrial Activities.....................................................................12-7
14.1 Definitions of Acoustical Terms in this Report...................................................................14-2
14.2 Typical Noise Levels in the Environment............................................................................14-3
14.3 Reaction of People and Damage to Buildings for Continuous Vibration Levels.................14-5
14.4: Summary of Short-Term Noise Measurement Data............................................................14-7
14.5: Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment.......................................................14-16
14.6: Typical Ranges of Energy Equivalent Noise Levels at 50 Feet.........................................14-17
16.1: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria...................................................................................16-6
16.2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria...............................................................................16-6
16.3: Intersection Level of Service – Existing AM & PM Peak Hour..........................................16-8
16.4: Summary of Existing U.S.101 Freeway Operation............................................................16-10
16.5: Detailed U.S.101 Freeway Existing Operating Conditions, May 2009.............................16-10
16.6: Off-Ramp Capacity & Volumes at Diverge From Freeway Mainline Existing, Year
2015 & Year 2035..............................................................................................................16-11
16.7: On-Ramp Capacity & Volumes Existing, Year 2015 & Year 2035..................................16-12
16.8: Transit Service – South San Francisco..............................................................................16-13
16.9: Alliance Shuttle Service – South San Francisco................................................................16-14
16.10: Existing, Approved & Planned Development Trip Generation by 2015, Developments
East of the U.S.101 Freeway or Just West of the U.S.101 Freeway Contributing
Significant Traffic to U.S.101 Interchanges in South San Francisco................................16-17
16.11: Intersection Level of Service – Year 2015 – AM & PM Peak Hours................................16-20
16.12: 95th Percentile Queues* - Year 2015 Intersections at or Near U.S.101 Interchanges
Potentially Impacted by the Phase I Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of
Service...............................................................................................................................16-21
16.13: Year 2015 U.S.101 Freeway Operation – AM & PM Peak Hours.....................................16-23
16.14: Existing, Approved & Planned Development Trip Generation by 2035, Developments
East of the U.S.101 Freeway or Just West of the U.S.101 Freeway Contributing
Significant Traffic to U.S.101 Interchanges in South San Francisco................................16-24
16.15: Net Change in East of 101 Trip Generation – 2016 to 2035..............................................16-25
16.16: Intersection Level of Service –Year 2035 – AM & PM Peak Hours.................................16-26
CONTENTS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE vii
16.17: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues – Year 2035, Intersections at or Near U.S.101
Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the OPSP with Signal Timing for Optimized
Level of Service..................................................................................................................16-28
16.18: Year 2035 U.S.101 Freeway Operation – AM & PM Peak Hours.....................................16-30
16.19: OPSP Phase I Project Trip Generation...............................................................................16-32
16.20: OPSP Traffic Distribution..................................................................................................16-32
16.21: Year 2015 Base Case + Phase I Project All-Way Stop......................................................16-34
16.22a: Year 2035 Base Case + OPSP (Phases III / IV Garage Access Option 1).........................16-35
16.22b: Year 2035 Base Case + OPSP (Phases III / IV Garage Access Option 2).........................16-36
16.23: Mitigated Intersection Level Of Service -- Year 2015.......................................................16-38
17.1: South San Francisco District Water Supplies.......................................................................17-1
17.2: Existing and Projected Sewer Flows....................................................................................17-9
17.3: Net Change in Impervious Area.........................................................................................17-13
19.1. Summary Comparison of Impacts, Proposed OPSP and Alternatives...............................19-19
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE viii OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 1-1
1
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The California Environmental Quality Act and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder (together
“CEQA”) require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared for any project which may
have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an informational document, the purposes of
which, according to CEQA are “to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed
information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways
in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to
such a project.” The information contained in this EIR is intended to be objective and impartial, and to
enable the reader to arrive at an independent judgment regarding the significance of the impacts
resulting from the proposed project.
This EIR evaluates the potential environmental impacts that may be associated with the Oyster Point
Specific Plan (OPSP), including the first phase of development (Phase I Project) in the City of South
San Francisco, California and the related Redevelopment Plan amendment. The applicant is Oyster
Point Ventures, LLC and the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. The Lead Agency is
the City of South San Francisco. The applicant is seeking amendments of the City’s General Plan,
Redevelopment Plan and Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan, as well as several entitlements to enable
development of the OPSP, including but not limited to approval of a subdivision or parcel map, design
review, a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, a Development Agreement, and a
Disposition and Development Agreement to enable redevelopment of the OPSP and Phase I Project
site. The OPSP would include replacing the existing light industrial/office park with an office/research
and development (R&D) development, improvements to the site circulation, utilities, and landfill cap,
provision of a flexible use recreation area and bay-front open space, and replacement of uses in the
Oyster Point Marina area, potentially including one or two hotels with an aggregate of up to 350 rooms.
Approval must be given by the City of South San Francisco and trustee agencies, including the
Regional Water Quality Control Board and Bay Conservation and Development Commission before
construction may begin.
EIR REVIEW PROCESS
This EIR is intended to enable City decision makers, public agencies and interested citizens to evaluate
the broad environmental issues associated with the overall character and concept of the proposed
OPSP. An EIR does not control the agency’s ultimate discretion on the OPSP. As required under
CEQA, the agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the EIR by making findings and
if necessary and warranted, by adopting a statement of overriding considerations. In accordance with
California law, the EIR must be certified before any action on the project can be taken. However, EIR
certification does not constitute project approval.
Together, this Draft EIR (Draft EIR) and the Final EIR (Final EIR) will constitute the EIR for the
project. During the review period for this Draft EIR, interested individuals, organizations and agencies
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 1-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
may offer their comments on its evaluation of project impacts and alternatives. The comments received
during this public review period will be compiled and presented together with responses to these
comments in the Final EIR. The South San Francisco City Council will review the EIR documents and
will determine whether or not the EIR provides a full and adequate appraisal of the project and its
alternatives.
In reviewing the Draft EIR, readers should focus on the sufficiency of the document in identifying and
analyzing the possible environmental impacts associated with the Project. Readers are also encouraged
to review and comment on ways in which significant impacts associated with this Project might be
avoided or mitigated. Comments are most helpful when they suggest additional specific alternatives or
mitigation measures that would provide better ways to avoid or mitigate significant environmental
impacts. Reviewers should explain the basis for their comments and, whenever possible, should submit
data or references in support of their comments.
The 45 day review period for the Draft EIR is from January 25, 2011 to March 10, 2011.
Comments should be submitted in writing during this review period to:
Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner
Department of Economic and Community Development
City of South San Francisco
315 Maple Avenue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Please contact Gerry Beaudin at 650-877-8535 or gerry.beaudin@ssf.net if you have any questions.
After reviewing the Draft EIR and the Final EIR and certifying the EIR as adequate and complete, the
South San Francisco City Council will be in a position to consider approval, denial, or modification of
the OPSP and Phase I Project and related actions.
CONTENT AND ORGANIZATION OF THE EIR
A Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued in February 2010 to solicit comments from public agencies
and the public regarding the scope of the environmental evaluation for the project (see Appendix A).
The NOP and all written responses are presented in Appendix A. The responses were taken into
consideration during Draft EIR preparation.
An Executive Summary follows this introduction as Chapter 2. This summary presents an overview of
the project and the potentially significant environmental impacts which may be associated with the
project, including a listing of recommended mitigation measures and a discussion of those impacts
which would remain significant and unavoidable even following mitigation.
The Draft EIR presents a description of the project in Chapter 3. Chapters 4 through 18 present
environmental analysis of the OPSP and Phase I Project, focusing on the following issues:
4.Aesthetics
5.Agricultural, Forest and Mineral Resources
6.Air Quality
7.Biological Resources
8.Cultural Resources
9.Geology and Soils
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 1-3
10.Greenhouse Gas Emissions
11.Hazards and Hazardous Materials
12.Hydrology and Water Quality
13.Land Use and Planning
14.Noise
15.Population, Public Services and Recreation
16.Traffic/Transportation
17.Utilities/Service Systems
Chapter 18 presents Other CEQA Considerations, including a discussion of a discussion of significant
and irreversible modifications in the environment, growth inducing impacts, and cumulative impacts.
Chapter 19 presents an evaluation of the environmental effects which may be associated with the
proposed project and three alternatives evaluated: the "No Project" alternative and two reduced
development intensity alternatives.
Chapter 20 lists the persons who prepared the Draft EIR, identifies those persons and organizations
contacted during the preparation of the document, and lists the reference materials used.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 1-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-1
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
SUMMARY DESCRIPTION
This EIR analyze the potential for environmental impacts resulting from implementation of the
proposed Oyster Point Specific Plan (OPSP), including the first phase of development (Phase I Project)
in the City of South San Francisco, California. The applicant is Oyster Point Ventures, LLC and the
City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. The Lead Agency is the City of South San
Francisco. The applicant is seeking amendments of the City’s General Plan, Redevelopment Plan and
Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan, as well as several entitlements to enable development of the OPSP,
including but not limited to approval of a subdivision or parcel map, design review, a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Plan, a Development Agreement, and a Disposition and Development
Agreement to enable redevelopment of the OPSP and Phase I Project site.
The OPSP site includes areas commonly known as the Oyster Point Business Park and the Oyster Point
Marina. The Oyster Point Business Park encompasses 25 acres of the OPSP area. It is a privately
owned series of five single-story light-industrial buildings at 375/377, 379, 384, 385 and 389 Oyster
Point Boulevard that were developed in the early 1980s totaling 403,212 square feet of space with
surrounding parking (see Figure 3.2). Currently, these buildings are occupied by a variety of light
industrial, office, and Research and Development (R&D) tenants.
The 48-acre area known as the Oyster Point Marina area fills the remainder of the OPSP area other than
roadway elements, which complete the 80-acre area. This land served as a municipal landfill for the
City of South San Francisco from 1956 until it stopped accepting waste in 1970. The Marina area is
owned by the City of South San Francisco and managed through a Joint Powers Agreement with the
San Mateo County Harbor District. Currently, this area hosts a variety of uses including a dry boat
storage area, a marine support services building, two small office buildings, a 30-room inn and banquet
hall, a bait and tackle shop, a boat and motor mart and a yacht club, all totaling 74,360 square feet. The
remaining area is vacant or serves as parking for the docks, boat ramp, and the Bay Trail (see Figure
3.2).
The Oyster Cove Marina is privately owned and located to the west of the Oyster Point Business Park;
it contains 235 berths. The Oyster Point Marina is located on the north side of the Oyster Point Marina
area and contains 600 berths, a boat ramp, fuel dock and fishing pier. The South San Francisco Ferry
Terminal with service to/from San Francisco and the East Bay is currently under construction and
scheduled to be completed at the Oyster Point Marina in early 2011. (The Ferry Terminal is shown on
Figure 3.3). This Ferry Terminal is a separate project with its own certified environmental review. As
the Ferry Terminal project is currently underway, it has been assumed for this analysis that the Ferry
Terminal will be operational.
The OPSP would include replacing the existing light industrial/office park with an up to 2,300,000
square foot office/research and development (R&D) development, improvements to the site circulation,
utilities, and the landfill cap, provision of a flexible use recreation area and bay-front open space, and
replacement of uses in the Oyster Point Marina area, potentially including one or two hotels with an
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
aggregate of up to 350 rooms. Approval must be given by the City of South San Francisco and trustee
agencies, including the Regional Water Quality Control Board and Bay Conservation and Development
Commission before construction may begin. The OPSP is analyzed on a programmatic level in this
EIR.
The Phase I Project is the first phase of the OPSP and included in the description of the OPSP in the
above paragraph. The Phase I Project involves improvements to the site circulation, utilities, and the
landfill cap, provision of a flexible use recreation area and bay-front open space, and development of
up to 600,000 square feet of Office/R&D uses on a currently vacant parcel at the southeast corner of
Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Drive. The Phase I Project is analyzed on a project level in this EIR.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The analyses in Chapters 4 through 18 of this document provide a description of the existing setting,
identify potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the OPSP and Phase I
Project, and recommend mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts that
could occur as a result of OPSP implementation. Table 2.1 at the end of this chapter lists a summary
statement of each potentially significant impact and corresponding mitigation measure(s), as well as the
resulting level of significance.
SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL
OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Significant environmental impacts require the implementation of mitigation measures or alternatives
(where feasible) to reduce those impacts, or a finding by the Lead Agency that possible mitigation
measures are infeasible for specific reasons. For some of the significant impacts, feasible mitigation
measures either have not been identified, have uncertain feasibility, or may not be effective in reducing
the impacts to a less than significant level. These impacts are designated as significant and
unavoidable, as follows:
x Air Quality: Development anticipated as a result of the OPSP would increase employment in an
area designed for employment centers served by local and regional transit. However, city-wide,
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was projected to increase at a faster rate than the city’s population,
which conflicts with assumptions in the local Clean Air Plan. Mitigation Measure Traf-1 would
reduce this impact by requiring implementation of a TDM Plan to reduce trips and VMT. However,
the TDM Plan would not likely reduce the number of trips and VMT to an amount that would be
assumed under the existing General Plan designation for the site. Thus, this impact would be
considered significant and unavoidable.
x Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The Phase I Project and development anticipated as a result of the
OPSP would increase operational emissions of greenhouse gasses. These emissions would be
above the Air District’s 2010 thresholds. Although this analysis was begun before those thresholds
were in place, this has conservatively been determined to be a significant and unavoidable impact.
The developer plans many measures that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions including
implementation of City-required waste reduction and implementation of an aggressive
Transportation Demand Management Plan and design intended to achieve LEED certification.
x Noise: Noise generated by construction on the site would substantially increase noise levels at live-
aboard boats in the vicinity of the site temporarily. This impact would be partially reduced through
implementation of construction noise control measures (Mitigation Measure Noise-5), but the
impact would remain significant and unavoidable as a result of the extended period of time that
adjacent receivers could be exposed to construction noise though the noise increases would be both
episodic and temporary.
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-3
x Traffic: The Phase I Project and proposed OPSP would increase traffic to and from the site,
resulting in declines in operation of and queuing greater than the established standards at U.S. 101
ramps and/or intersections serving them as well as the mainline U.S. 101.
IMPACTS REDUCED TO A LEVEL OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT THROUGH MITIGATION
The following potentially significant impacts could be reduced to less than significant levels with
implementation of mitigation measures:
x Aesthetics: The many windows and outdoor lights associated with increased development intensity
within the OPSP area could potentially be substantial sources of nighttime light and daytime glare.
A lighting plan to minimize light pollution (Mitigation Measure Vis-2a) and choice of building
materials to reduce glare (Mitigation Measure Vis-2b) would reduce the impact to less-than-
significant.
x Air Quality: Development anticipated under the OPSP may expose sensitive receptors to health
risks through development of new non-residential development that may be sources of TACs and
PM2.5 and the potential for development of ancillary uses, such as daycare facilities, that would
bring sensitive users to the site. Such exposure would represent a potentially significant impact.
Assessment of health risk for specific projects that come through which will bring sensitive users to
the site for long periods each day, such as child daycare facilities, and implementation of
appropriate mitigating features as outlined in mitigation measure Air-2 would ensure that resulting
TAC and PM2.5 exposures would be below the BAAQMD thresholds and therefore less-than-
significant.
Construction of development projects under the OPSP would result in temporary emissions of dust,
diesel exhaust and odors that may result in both nuisance and health impacts. With implementation
of fugitive dust, emissions and odor reduction measures (Mitigation Measures Air-4a and Air-4b),
impacts would be reduced to a level of less than significant.
x Biological Resources: Development of the OPSP could result in disturbance or loss of wetland or
aquatic habitats. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-2a through Bio-2d would reduce
impacts to a less-than-significant level through delineations of jurisdictional areas along the
shoreline, avoidance or minimization of impacts through specifics of design as possible, restoration
of temporarily impacted areas where feasible, and compensation for/replacement of impacted
habitat when loss cannot be avoided.
Increases in turbidity resulting from construction constitutes a potentially significant impact to
aquatic wildlife species, including special-status fish species such as steelhead and sensitive native
species such as the Olympia oyster. Water quality degradation could also negatively impact
eelgrass beds if they occur in the OPSP area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-3a and
Bio-3b would reduce indirect impacts to water quality and sensitive habitats from construction-
period increases in turbidity to a less-than-significant level through minimization of soil
disturbance adjacent to these habitats and implementation of best management practices for water
quality during construction.
Stormwater outfalls from the buildings to be constructed in the southwestern part of the site outfall
into vegetated swales that are to be constructed just upslope from the wetlands and tidal channel
that form the southwestern boundary of the site. If these swales are not adequately constructed,
there is some potential for excessive erosion or the release of untreated runoff into these wetlands
and tidal waters. Implementation of Mitigation Measure Bio-4 will ensure adequate capacity and
maintenance of the stormwater system to reduce these impacts to a less-than-significant level.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Construction-related noise and activity could disturb or displace special-status breeding birds
and/or burrowing owls. These potential impacts are reduced through implementation of pre-
construction nesting bird and burrowing owl surveys (and resulting recommendations) as called for
in Mitigation Measure Bio-6 and Bio-7a through 7c.
OPSP’s proposed buildings will project higher than existing structures, creating new, somewhat
greater strike hazard for migrating and foraging birds. Implementation of building design and
lighting measures presented in Mitigation Measures Bio-10a and Bio-10b will avoid and minimize
such impacts.
If in-water construction is undertaken as contemplated for a couple of the piers as a part of the
OPSP, such construction activities could result in impacts to Essential Fish Habitat, special-status
fish or marine mammals, Olympia oysters and/or eelgrass beds. These impacts could be reduced
through implementation of Best Management Practices for water quality (Mitigation Measure Bio-
3a) as well as Best Management Practices specific to species and appropriate construction
techniques and worker training, surveys when necessary, avoidance if possible, and replacement
when populations are impacted and avoidance is not feasible (Mitigation Measures Bio-12, 13-a -b,
14-a -b -c, and 15-a, -b -c.)
Avoidance of salmonid migration periods and wetland and aquatic vegetation and appropriate
worker training (Mitigation Measure Bio-12) as well as implementation of best management
practices for water quality during construction (Mitigation Measure Bio-3a) would reduce this
impact.
Implementation of mitigation measures Bio-13a and Bio-13b would reduce impacts to special-
status fish and marine mammal species due to percussive in-water construction activities to less-
than-significant levels by minimizing percussive noise through utilization of appropriate design and
construction techniques.
x Cultural Resources: Construction in the OPSP area could disturb unidentified archeological or
paleontological resources and/or human remains. Halting of work in the event such resources are
discovered during construction and implementation of appropriate measures (Mitigation Measures
Cultural-1a and 1b) would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels.
x Geology and Soils: The Bay Area is a seismically active region, so there is a high probability that
the proposed development will be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from an earthquake
during its design life including the possibility of seismic-related ground failure such as
liquefaction, densification, ground surface settlement and/or failure of the perimeter dikes.
Compliance with applicable regulations (Mitigation Measures Geo-2a, -2c and -3b) and a design-
level geotechnical investigation (Mitigation Measures Geo-2b, -3a and -4) will reduce these
impact.
Variable subsurface conditions at the OPSP site include varying thicknesses of Bay Mud, landfill
waste and other fill as well as sloping bedrock surface and possible paleochannels in the
north/northwest of the site. These will influence the design, performance and constructability of
foundation systems for the proposed buildings, which could include deep foundations (Mitigation
Measure Geo-5a), pre-drilling and pointed-tip pile configurations (Geo-5b), an indicator pile
program (Geo-5c), and accounting for drag load on deep foundations due to consolidation and on-
going decomposition-induced settlement of the wastes (Geo-6).
Placement of buildings over the landfill cap could allow landfill gas to accumulate beneath
building floors and permeate into the building interiors, which could adversely affect the health and
safety of building occupants. This impact would be reduced through implementation of measures
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-5
for the control of landfill gas such as a collection system, floor slab shielding and interior alarms
(Mitigation Measure Geo-7).
Placement of additional fill or other new loads at the site will result in additional site settlement due
to consolidation settlement of the Bay Mud soils and the compaction and decomposition induced
settlement of submerged waste and waste above groundwater. This impact will be reduced through
compliance with design-level Geotechnical Investigation recommendations to minimize new fill
and structure loads (Mitigation Measure Geo-8a) and building-soil interfaces designed to allow free
movement to accommodate ongoing settlement (Geo-8b).
Placement of underground utilities in the OPSP area could result in impacts related to contact with
hazards and damage to the landfill cap during excavation or maintenance, and differential
settlement causing stresses at building connections and in utility line materials, and disruption of
the flow gradient. These impacts would be reduced through monitoring and testing during
excavation (Mitigation Measure Geo-9a), locating utilities in common trenches (Geo-11) and in the
soil cap when practicable (Geo-9b), sealing trenches and underground structures to preclude gas
intrusion (Geo-9c), requiring utility trenches and other underground structures to be configured to
maintain continuity of the landfill cap (Geo-10), using flexible pipe materials and joints to
accommodate settlement (Geo-12), and consideration of increasing the flow gradient in sewers and
storm drains of utilizing a pumping system rather than gravity flow (Geo-13).
Soils exposed during site grading would be subject to erosion during storm events and could impact
the Bay. Implementation of a required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (Mitigation Measure
Geo-14) would reduce this impact.
x Hazardous Materials: While specific tenants have not yet been identified, research laboratories are
likely to handle materials considered to be biological hazards, chemical hazards and/or carry a risk
of fire or explosion, which pose a risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from
routine transport, storage, use and disposal. This impact is reduced through compliance with
existing regulations, plans and programs (Mitigation Measures Haz-1a through Haz-1e and Haz-5).
Hazardous materials could be accidentally released during site preparation and construction
activities in the vicinity of the landfill or during demolition of buildings. These impacts are reduced
through implementation of measures to avoid releases of wastes or waste water into the
environment and to protect workers and the public during excavation and re-disposition of landfill
materials (Mitigation Measure Haz-2) and implementation of a demolition plan (Haz-3).
Landfill materials, which include hazardous materials in solid waste, groundwater and soil vapor,
will remain on-site following construction. Installation of new structures presents the potential for
build up of soil gasses within the structures, posing a risk to building occupants and additional
loading of the site surface could increase the rate of on-site waste settlement, leading to off-site
migration of leachate. Exposure during maintenance work on underground utilities in the vicinity
of the landfill can also not de discounted. Mitigation Measures Haz-4a through Haz-4e and Haz-6a
through -6d reduce the risk of future releases related to future exposure to existing landfill
materials.
x Hydrology and Water Quality: Proposed development in the vicinity of the landfill poses a risk of
off-site migration of lechate as a result of modification of the landfill cap and underlying Bay Mud.
This impact will be reduced through use of BMPs during installation of foundation piers
(Mitigation Measure Hydro-1), landfill cap upgrades (Haz-4a), and continued monitoring for
leachate migration during operation and maintenance (Haz-4d and -4e).
Construction activities at the site will create temporary and long term alterations of the site
terrain, creating potential erosion concerns. Additionally, the migration of laboratory and
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
parking lot pollutants into the bay could potentially impair water quality. This impact would be
reduced through implementation of Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities permit
requirements and a SWPPP (Mitigation Measures Hydro-3 and Hydro-2).
x Traffic: Development of the Phase I Project and OPSP would result in increases in traffic that
would impact local intersections. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these impacts
to less than significant levels including improvements included in the Transportation Improvement
Plan (TIP) and those to which development would be required to contribute a fair share.
Additionally, because of the size of the OPSP, implementation of a Transportation Demand
Management Plan would be required to reduce peak-hour trips.
x Utilities: Development under the OPSP would exceed capacity of some elements of the wastewater
system, including Pump Station Number 2 and the Oyster Point Subtrunk. While adequate capacity
exists to accommodate the Phase I Project, fair share contribution to improvements to Pump Station
Number 2 (MM Util-2a) and the Oyster Point Subtrunk (MM Util-2b) will be required for all
projects under the OPSP.
IMPACTS DETERMINED NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
The following impacts related to the OPSP and Phase I Project would be considered to have no impact
or a less than significant impact, with no mitigation required:
x Aesthetics: The San Bruno Mountains and the San Francisco Bay are scenic resources that can be
viewed from the OPSP area and surrounding areas, including from the recreational Bay Trail.
Development in the OPSP area will block partial views of these scenic resources from private
development and from portions of the U.S. 101 and Bay Trail. However, due to the nature of the
views and site and fact that views along U.S. 101 and the Bay Trail change as users move along
them, the impact related to scenic vistas and views is less than significant. The OPSP area is not
located near a Scenic Highway and the change in the visual character of the site would not be
considered adverse.
x Air Quality: The OPSP would intensify the land use, and would result in new air pollutant
emissions, primarily from automobile use. However, these emission levels are anticipated to be
below thresholds of significance. Due to the nature of uses proposed in the OPSP area and the
surrounding area, operation would not be anticipated to create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people.
x Biological Resources: The OPSP area is not within an area covered by a Habitat Conservation Plan
(HCP) or Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or proposed for salt marsh restoration.
Development of the OPSP would result in the modification or loss of common terrestrial habitats,
including potentially habitat for non-breeding special-status wildlife species. However, none of
these habitats represent particularly sensitive, valuable (from the perspective of providing
important wildlife habitat), or exemplary occurrences of these habitat types and would be no
substantial loss of foraging or non-breeding habitat for any special-status species. Development
would also likely result in removal of one or more mature blue gum trees that may satisfy size
requirements for a “protected tree” under the City of South San Francisco’s Tree Protection
Ordinance. A permit would be required for removal of any “protected trees” though this species in
particular provides low habitat functions and would not otherwise be expected to have an impact on
biological resources.
Development under the OPSP would also cause increased lighting impacts and recreational
disturbance on wildlife, however the area is already largely habituated to high levels of human
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-7
activity and artificial lighting from existing development and the impacts from increased
development would be less than significant.
x Geology and Soils: The OPSP site is not contained within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zone boundary so the potential impact of surface fault rupture is considered less-than-significant.
This site is also not at significant risk for impacts related to expansive soils, landslides, or volcanic
hazards, does not include mineral resources or unique geologic features and does not propose septic
systems.
x Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Temporary construction-related exhaust would contribute to GHG
emissions as would operation on an on-going basis primarily through consumption of energy for
transportation and energy usage. While the emissions were calculated to be below both the
operational threshold and conservative annual construction-period thresholds of significance,
measures to reduce the construction-period emissions were included as encouraged by the Air
District, such as utilizing some alternate-fueled vehicles, locally-sourcing some building materials
and recycling/reusing some of the demolition materials and construction waste.
x Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The buildings in the OPSP area will meet height limits set for
safety under the Airport Land Use Plan for the nearby San Francisco International Airport. The
OPSP is not in an area subject to wildfires and the proposed development will not interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan.
x Hydrology: The site is not in close proximity to a landlocked body of water that could cause
inundation by seiche. The site is also nearly level and not bordered by hills which could result in
mudflow across the site. The OPSP area is near the shoreline, but avoids development at the fringe
area at risk of run up from a tsunami or inundation resulting from climate-change induces sea level
rise. The OPSP will not place new structures within the 100-year flood hazard zone or otherwise
represent a significant risk of flooding.
x Land Use: The OPSP would not divide an established community, would not conflict with plans
and policies intended to avoid or mitigate an environmental effect, and would not conflict with a
conservation plan.
x Noise: The uses proposed as a part of the OPSP have projected noise levels within the standards
established by the City of South San Francisco, including intermittent noise from aircraft
associated with San Francisco International Airport. Following construction, the OPSP will not
create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels at existing uses in the vicinity and
would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.
x Utilities: Demand for water, stormwater, solid waste services would be met with through service
providers and/or on-site improvements, as necessary. Impacts related to increased demand for
utilities would be considered less than significant.
ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives to the proposed OPSP were considered in detail in the alternatives analysis presented
in Chapter 19 of this document, as discussed below.
Some alternatives were considered but rejected from further analysis. Given the nature of the OPSP (a
Specific Plan for a specific site), the fact that the applicant owns this site and does not intend to develop
these uses in another place, an off-site alternative was not feasible. Also, because the types of uses
proposed are generally allowed under the existing General Plan designation for the site, and because
the OPSP is compliant with TDM program trip reductions, only development intensity was targeted as
a parameter that could be changed to affect impacts.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Alternative A: No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative. Alternative A is a “no project”
alternative. It assumes the proposed OPSP is not approved and the existing uses remain on the site, and
are not redeveloped at higher density. As the only currently vacant area, the portion of the OPSP area to
the south of Oyster Point Boulevard and east of Gull Road would reasonably be expected to be
developed even without approval of the OPSP. For this analysis, it has been assumed this area would
be developed with uses similar to the existing Oyster Point Business Park, consisting of a single-story
office/light industrial building of approximately 65,000 square feet. This Alternative assumes no other
development and no roadway, recreational, or landfill cap improvements.
Alternative B: Reduced Intensity (FAR 1.0) Alternative. Alternative B would allow redevelopment
of the OPSP site at an FAR of 1.0 for office/R&D uses. This alternative assumes the same area for
office/R&D uses with the same 40/60 split between office and R&D development and similar phasing
and parking ratio. The remainder of development, i.e., hotel and recreation fields, would remain the
same as that proposed under the OPSP. This alternative would result in the construction of
approximately 714,400 square feet of office uses and 1,071,600 square feet of R&D uses, for a total of
1,786,000 square feet of office/R&D development. Buildout under Alternative B would result in
approximately 5,000 office/R&D employees on the OPSP site (1,440 less than under the proposed
OPSP).
Alternative C: Reduced Intensity (FAR 1.12) Alternative. Alternative C would allow redevelopment
of the OPSP site at an FAR of 1.12 for the office/R&D areas, with no change to the other planned
development (hotel, recreation fields). This alternative assumes the same area for office/R&D uses with
the same 40/60 split between office and R&D development and similar phasing and parking ratio. This
alternative would result in the construction of approximately 800,110 square feet of office uses and
1,200,165 square feet of R&D uses, for a total of 2,000,275 square feet of office/R&D development.
Buildout under Alternative C would result in approximately 5,600 office/R&D employees on the OPSP
site (840 less than under the proposed OPSP).
Alternatives Conclusion
Alternative A, the No Project Alternative would avoid all the identified Significant and Unavoidable
impacts under the proposed OPSP. However, benefits identified under the OPSP would not be realized
under Alternative A, such as improvements to the landfill cover, remediation of the industrial sumps,
protection against sea level rise and provision of recreational areas. Nonetheless, on balance,
Alternative A would be the environmentally superior alternative.
The other two alternatives, Alternatives B and C, would reduce the amount of development on the site,
resulting in roughly 80% or 90% of the trips as would have been generated under the proposed OPSP,
respectively. However, although these alternatives would result in some reduction of employees or
vehicle trips to the OPSP site, they would not reduce impacts to a degree that would reduce the
Significant and Unavoidable impacts to air quality, GHG, noise, and traffic to a less than significant
level. Therefore, no analyzed alternative is superior in this regard and, similar to the proposed OPSP,
all analyzed alternatives would result in the significant and unavoidable impacts.
Additionally, Alternatives B and C may not be economically feasible. They would generate less
revenue from private redevelopment. With this reduced revenue, the completion of needed upgrades to
the landfill site and upgrades to utilities and infrastructure and the environmental mitigation that would
be required for these improvements and any re-development would be in question under Alternatives B
and C.
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-9
Table 2.1: Summary of Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Significant and Unavoidable – No Feasible Mitigation to Reduce to Less Than Significant
Impact Air-1: Conflict with Clean Air Plan
Assumptions. Development anticipated as a
result of the OPSP would increase employment in
an area designed for employment centers served
by local and regional transit. However, city-wide,
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) was projected to
increase at a faster rate than the city’s population,
which conflicts with CAP assumptions. This is a
significant impact.
Mitigation Measure Traf-1 would reduce impact
Air-1 by requiring implementation of a TDM Plan
to reduce trips and VMT.
However, the TDM Plan would not likely reduce the
number of trips and VMT to an amount that would
be assumed under the existing General Plan
designation for the site. Thus, this impact would be
considered significant and unavoidable.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact GHG-2: Operational Greenhouse Gas
Emissions. New development in the OPSP area
would be an additional source of GHG emissions,
primarily through consumption of energy for
transportation and energy usage, which could
contribute to significant impacts on the
environment. This impact is potentially
significant.
Mitigation Measure Traf-1 and energy efficiency
measures included in the project design would
reduce this impact. However, since the quantified
emissions are above 2010 thresholds, this impact is
conservatively determined to be Significant and
Unavoidable.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact Noise-5: Construction Noise. The
OPSP area includes existing sensitive receptors
consisting of live-aboard boats in the marinas. In
periods of construction, during construction
hours, noise generated by construction on the site
would substantially increase noise levels at
residential land uses in the vicinity of the site
temporarily above levels existing without the
project. This is a significant impact.
Noise-5: Construction Noise. To reduce noise
levels generated by construction, the following
standard construction noise control measures shall
be included in all construction projects within the
OPSP area.
• Equip all internal combustion engine driven
equipment with intake and exhaust mufflers that
are in good condition and appropriate for the
equipment.
• Unnecessary idling of internal combustion
engines should be strictly prohibited.
• Locate stationary noise generating equipment
such as air compressors or portable power
generators as far as possible from sensitive
receptors. Construct temporary noise barriers to
screen stationary noise generating equipment
when located near adjoining sensitive receptors.
Temporary noise barriers could reduce
construction noise levels by 5 dBA.
• Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other
stationary noise sources where technology exists.
• Route all construction traffic to and from the
OPSP area via designated truck routes where
possible. Prohibit construction related heavy
truck traffic in residential areas where feasible.
• Control noise from construction workers’ radios
to a point that they are not audible at existing
residences bordering the OPSP area.
• The contractor shall prepare and submit to the
City for approval a detailed construction plan
identifying the schedule for major noise-
generating construction activities.
Significant and
Unavoidable
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
• Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who
would be responsible for responding to any local
complaints about construction noise. The
disturbance coordinator will determine the cause
of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too early,
bad muffler, etc.) and will require that
reasonable measures warranted to correct the
problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a
telephone number for the disturbance
coordinator at the construction site and include it
in the notice sent to neighbors regarding the
construction schedule.
• For pile driving activities, consider a) pre-
drilling foundation pile holes to minimize the
number of impacts required to seat the pile, b)
using multiple pile driving rigs to expedite this
phase of construction, and/or c) the use of
“acoustical blankets” for receivers located within
100 feet of the site.
Impact Traf-13: Off-Ramp Operation At
Mainline Diverge. The following off-ramp
diverge location from the U.S.101 freeway
mainline would receive a significant impact due
to the addition of Phase I Project traffic to year
2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 16.6).
• U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to
Oyster Point Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would
increase volumes by 8.2 percent at a location
where Base Case diverge volumes would already
be exceeding 1,500 vehicles per hour (from 1,618
up to 1,750 VPH).
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-13: Off-Ramp Operation At Mainline Diverge.
• U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to
Oyster Point Boulevard
No improvements are feasible to mitigate Phase I
Project-specific impacts. The spacing of southbound
off-ramp connections to Airport Boulevard and to
Oyster Point Boulevard precludes the possibility of
providing a second off-ramp lane connection to
southbound U.S.101 to serve the Oyster Point
Boulevard southbound off-ramp. A second off-ramp
lane connection to the freeway mainline would
require a long (1,000-foot or longer) deceleration
lane with only 300 feet of available space. There is
no room for provision of this lane.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact Traf-14: Off-Ramp Operation At
Mainline Diverge. The following off-ramp
diverge location from the U.S.101 freeway
mainline would receive a significant impact due
to the addition of Phase I Project traffic to year
2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 16.6).
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque
Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would
increase volumes above the 1,500 VPH limit for
single lane off-ramp diverge volumes (from
1,356 up to 1,536 VPH).
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-14: Improvements for Off-Ramp
Operation At Mainline Diverge. (see Figure 23 in
Appendix E).
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque
Avenue
• Provide a second off-ramp lane connection to the
U.S.101 mainline. Off-ramp diverge capacity
would be increased to at least 2,200 vehicles per
hour, which would accommodate the Base Case
+ Phase I Project AM peak hour volume of 1,536
vehicles per hour. This measure will require the
approval of Caltrans. Also, this measure is
currently not included in the East of 101 Traffic
Impact Fee list. It should be noted that because
the improvement is within Caltrans’ jurisdiction,
the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency
for the project, cannot guarantee that the
mitigation will be implemented While it is likely
that Caltrans will implement the measure,
thereby reducing the impact to a less than
significant level, because the measure is beyond
the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for CEQA
Significant and
Unavoidable
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-11
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
purposes, this impact is considered to be
significant and unavoidable.
Impact Traf-17: Intersection Level of Service.
The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue /
U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would degrade
acceptable (LOS D) Base Case operation to
unacceptable (LOS E) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-17: Intersection Level of Service. There are
no improvements feasible to mitigate the OPSP-
specific impacts.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact Traf-18: Intersection Level of Service.
The following improvements would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
/ U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 22.7 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 22.5 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-18: Intersection Level of Service (see
Figure 24 in Appendix E). The following
improvements would partially mitigate OPSP-
specific impacts, but not reduce them to a level of
insignificance. Some of these measures are not
included as part of the current East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The
OPSP shall provide a fair share contribution towards
all measures currently not part of the TIP.
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard /
U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
• Adjust signal timing.
• Provide an additional through lane on the Oyster
Point westbound approach (extending from
Veterans Boulevard) and continue to the
Dubuque/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
intersection.
• Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound
approach from a left, 2 throughs and a combined
through/right turn lane to a left, 2 throughs and
an exclusive right turn lane.
• Restripe the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
approach from 2 through lanes and an exclusive
right turn lane to two through lanes and a
combined through/right turn lane. In conjunction
with this measure, add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point Boulevard (not
part of TIP).
• Add a second exclusive right turn lane on the
southbound Genentech property driveway
approach (not part of TIP).
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS F-194 seconds control delay,
which would not be better than Base Case operation
(LOS F-124 seconds delay).
PM Peak Hour: LOS F-118 seconds control delay,
which would not be better than Base Case operation
(LOS F-108 seconds delay).
Significant and
Unavoidable
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-12 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact Traf-26: 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp or approach to an adjacent
intersection leading away from an off-ramp
would receive a significant queuing impact due to
the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base
Case volumes (see Table 16.17).
• Oyster Point Blvd. / Gateway Blvd. / U.S.101
Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 54.6 percent in the through lanes on
the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach
to Gateway Boulevard and increase the 95th
percentile queue above available storage. The
95th percentile vehicle queue would be extended
from 756 up to about 1,200 feet with only 900
feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-26: Vehicle Queuing (see Figure 24 in
Appendix E). The following improvements would
partially mitigate OPSP-specific impacts, but not
reduce them to a level of insignificance. These
measures are not included as part of the current East
of 101 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP).
The OPSP shall also provide a fair share
contribution towards all measures currently not part
of the TIP.
• Oyster Point Blvd. / Gateway Blvd. / U.S.101
Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
Adjust signal timing.
Provide an additional through lane on the Oyster
Point westbound approach (extending from
Veterans Boulevard) and continue to the
Dubuque/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
intersection.
Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound
approach from a left, 2 throughs and a combined
through/right turn lane to a left, 2 throughs and
an exclusive right turn lane.
Restripe the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
approach from 2 through lanes and an exclusive
right turn lane to two through lanes and a
combined through/right turn lane. In conjunction
with this measure, add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point Boulevard (not
part of TIP).
Add a second exclusive right turn lane on the
southbound Genentech property driveway
approach (not part of TIP).
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing:
AM Peak Hour: Eastbound through 95th percentile
queue would be reduced to 1,102 feet, which would
not be less than the Base Case queue of 756 feet.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact Traf-27: 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp/approach to an adjacent
intersection leading away from an off-ramp
would receive a significant queuing impact due to
the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base
Case volumes (see Table 16.17).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 14.2 percent in the through lanes on
the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach
to Dubuque Avenue at a location with Base Case
95th percentile queuing greater than established
standards. The eastbound through lane queue
would be extended from 586 up to 637 feet at a
location with only 250 feet of storage. In
addition, the queue lanes on the northbound
Dubuque Avenue approach to Oyster Point
Boulevard would be increased beyond available
Traf-27: Vehicle Queuing. No improvements are
feasible to mitigate OPSP-specific impacts.
Significant and
Unavoidable
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-13
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
storage (from 78 up to about 351 feet at a
location with only 210 feet of available storage).
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 21.9 percent on the Oyster Point
eastbound approach to Dubuque Avenue at a
location with Base Case 95th percentile queuing
greater than established standards. The eastbound
through lane queue would be extended from 302
up to 376 feet at a location with only 250 feet of
storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Impact Traf-29: Off-Ramp Queuing To
Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours -
SIM traffic evaluation. The following off-ramp
would receive a significant impact with backups
extending to the freeway mainline sometime
during one or both peak hours due to the addition
of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes.
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport
Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes on the off-ramp by 2.9 percent at a
location with year 2035 Base Case off-ramp
traffic occasionally backing up to the freeway
mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-29: Off-Ramp Queuing. No
improvements are feasible to mitigate OPSP-
specific impacts.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact Traf-30: Off-Ramp Queuing To
Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours.
SIM Traffic evaluation The following off-ramp
would receive a significant impact with backups
extending to the freeway mainline sometime
during one or both peak hours due to the addition
of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes.
• U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster
Point Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 16.6 percent at a location with year
2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally
backing up to the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-30: Vehicle Queuing. No improvements
are feasible to mitigate the OPSP-specific impact.
Measures recommended in Traf-28 would reduce
off-ramp queuing. However, backups would
continue to occasionally extend to the freeway
mainline during the AM peak hour.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact Traf-31: Off-Ramp Queuing To
Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours.
SIM Traffic evaluation The following off-ramp
would receive a significant impact with backups
extending to the freeway mainline sometime
during one or both peak hours due to the addition
of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes.
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque
Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 28.9 percent at a location with year
2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally
backing up to the freeway mainline.
Traf-31: Vehicle Queuing. No improvements
are feasible to mitigate the OPSP-specific impact.
Significant and
Unavoidable
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-14 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 18.5 percent at a location with year
2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally
backing up to the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Impact Traf-32: Off-Ramp Queuing To
Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours.
SIM Traffic evaluation The following off-ramp
would receive a significant impact with backups
extending to the freeway mainline sometime
during one or both peak hours due to the addition
of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes.
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to
E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive Intersection
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 1.7 percent at a location with year
2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally
backing up to the freeway mainline. The primary
reason for the backup would be congestion at
downstream intersections along E. Grand
Avenue.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-32: Vehicle Queuing. No improvements
are feasible to mitigate the OPSP-specific impact.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact Traf-33: Off-Ramp Operation At
Mainline Diverge. The analysis concluded that
there would be a significant impact at the
Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp Diverge to the
Oyster Point / Gateway Boulevard intersection
due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035
Base Case volumes (see Table 16.6). AM peak
hour volumes would be increased by 16.6 percent
(from 2,107 up to 2,456 vehicles per hour) at a
location where Base Case volumes would already
be exceeding the off-ramp diverge capacity of
1,500 vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-33: Improvement to Diverge Capacity –
U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster
Point Boulevard
No improvements are feasible to mitigate OPSP-
specific impacts. The spacing of southbound off-
ramp connections to Airport Boulevard and to
Oyster Point Boulevard precludes the possibility of
providing a second off-ramp lane connection to
southbound U.S.101 to serve the Oyster Point
Boulevard southbound off-ramp. A second off-ramp
lane connection to the freeway mainline would
require a long (1,000-foot or longer) deceleration
lane with only 300 feet of available space. There is
no room for provision of this lane.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact Traf-34: Off-Ramp Operation At
Mainline Diverge. The analysis concluded that
there would be a significant impact at the
Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge to the Dubuque
Avenue due to the addition of OPSP traffic to
year 2035 Base Case volumes (see Table 16.6).
AM peak hour volumes would be increased by
28.7 percent (from 1,556 up to 2,002 vehicles per
hour) at a location where Base Case volumes
would already be exceeding the off-ramp diverge
capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-34: Improvement to Diverge Capacity
U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque
Avenue. The following improvements would
mitigate the OPSP-specific impact (see Figure 24 in
Appendix E).
Provide a second off-ramp lane connection to the
U.S.101 mainline. Off-ramp diverge capacity would
be increased to at least 2,200 vehicles per hour,
which would accommodate the Base Case + OPSP
AM peak hour volume of 1,556 vehicles per hour.
This measure will require the approval of Caltrans.
Also, this measure is currently not included in the
East of 101 TIP. Therefore, the OPSP shall provide
a fair share contribution towards this measure. It
should be noted that because the improvement is
within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San
Francisco, as lead agency for the OPSP, cannot
guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented
Significant and
Unavoidable
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-15
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the
measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than
significant level, because the measure is beyond the
lead agency’s jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this
impact is considered to be significant and
unavoidable.
Impact Traf-35: On-Ramp Operation. The
analysis concluded that there would be a
significant impact at the Northbound On-Ramp
from Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue
due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035
Base Case volumes (see Table 16.7). PM peak
hour volumes would be increased by 17.0 percent
(from 2,190 up to 2,563 vehicles per hour) at a
location where Base Case volumes would be just
less than the on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vehicles
per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-35: Improvement to On-Ramp Capacity
Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard
/ Dubuque Avenue (see Figure 24 in Appendix E).
Provision of a second on-ramp lane would increase
capacity to about 3,000 to 3,100 vehicles per hour.
This measure will require the approval of Caltrans.
Also, this measure is currently not included in the
East of 101 TIP. Therefore, the OPSP shall provide
a fair share contribution towards this measure. It
should be noted that because the improvement is
within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San
Francisco, as lead agency for the OPSP, cannot
guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented
While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the
measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than
significant level, because the measure is beyond the
lead agency’s jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this
impact is considered to be significant and
unavoidable. There are no other physical
improvements possible acceptable to Caltrans to
accommodate the Base Case + OPSP volume of
about 2,563 vehicles per hour.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact Traf-36: On-Ramp Operation. The
analysis concluded that there would be a
significant impact at the Southbound On-Ramp
from Dubuque Avenue due to the addition of
OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes
(see Table 16.7). PM peak hour volumes would
be increased by 11.5 percent (from 1,906 up to
2,125 vehicles per hour) at a location where Base
Case volumes would be just less than the on-
ramp capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-36: Improvement to On-Ramp Capacity
Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue (see
Figure 24 in Appendix E). This OPSP should
provide a fair share contribution as determined by
the City Engineer to the following measure.
Provide a second on-ramp lane connection to the
U.S.101 freeway. On-ramp capacity would be
increased from 2,000 up to 3,000 vehicles per hour,
with a Base Case + OPSP PM peak hour volume of
about 2,125 vehicles per hour. This measure will
require the approval of Caltrans. Also, this measure
is currently not included in the East of 101 TIP.
Therefore, the OPSP shall provide a fair share
contribution towards this measure. It should be
noted that because the improvement is within
Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San
Francisco, as lead agency for the OPSP, cannot
guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented
While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the
measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than
significant level, because the measure is beyond the
lead agency’s jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this
impact is considered to be significant and
unavoidable.
Significant and
Unavoidable
Impact Traf-37: Freeway Mainline Operation.
One U.S.101 mainline segments would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Traf-37: Improvement to Freeway Mainline.
Mitigation of this impact would require widening
the current freeway or construction of a new
freeway. Given the location of the mainline freeway
and its close proximity to surrounding development,
Significant and
Unavoidable
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Table 16.18).
• U.S.101 Southbound (to the north of the
Oyster Point interchange)
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 3.6 percent (from 9,698 up to 10,047
vehicles per hour) at a location with unacceptable
LOS F year 2035 Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
such mitigation is not feasible. Additionally, such
mitigation would be prohibitively expensive in
relation to the types of land uses it would benefit.
Given these specific concerns, mitigation of Impact
14A is not feasible as defined by CEQA.
Less than Significant with Mitigation
Impact Vis-2: Light and Glare. The many
windows and outdoor lights associated with
increased development intensity within the OPSP
area could potentially be substantial sources of
nighttime light and daytime glare. This impact is
potentially significant.
Vis-2a: Lighting Plan. In order to reduce
sources of light and glare created by lighting within
the OPSP area, the applicant shall specify fixtures
and lighting that maintains appropriate levels of
light at building entries, walkways, courtyards,
parking lots and private roads at night consistent
with minimum levels detailed in the City’s building
codes. These fixtures shall be designed to eliminate
spillover, high intensity, and unshielded lighting,
thereby avoiding unnecessary light pollution.
Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase
of construction within the OPSP, the applicant shall
submit a Lighting Design Plan for review and
approval by the City of South San Francisco
Planning Department. The plan shall include, but
not necessarily be limited to the following:
• The Lighting Design Plan shall disclose all
potential light sources with the types of lighting
and their locations.
• Typical lighting shall include low mounted,
downward casting and shielded lights that do not
cause spillover onto adjacent properties and the
utilization of motion detection systems where
applicable.
• No flood lights shall be utilized.
• Lighting shall be limited to the areas that would
be in operation during nighttime hours.
• Low intensity, indirect light sources shall be
encouraged.
• On-demand lighting systems shall be encouraged.
• Mercury, sodium vapor, and similar intense and
bright lights shall not be permitted except where
their need is specifically approved and their
source of light is restricted.
• Generally, light fixtures shall not be located at the
periphery of the property and should shut off
automatically when the use is not operating.
Security lighting visible from the highway shall
be motion-sensor activated.
• Use “cut-off” fixtures designed to prevent the
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-17
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
upward cast of light and avoid unnecessary light
pollution where appropriate.
• All lighting shall be installed in accordance with
the building codes and the approved lighting plan
during construction.
Vis-2b: Glare Reduction. In order to reduce
sources of daytime glare created by reflective
building materials, the applicant shall specify
exterior building materials for all proposed
structures constructed for the Phase I Project and
each subsequent phase of development under the
OPSP that include the use of textured or other non-
reflective exterior surfaces and non-reflective glass
types, including double glazed and non-reflective
vision glass. These materials shall be chosen for
their non-reflective characteristics and their ability
to reduce daytime glare. All exterior glass must
meet the specifications of all applicable codes for
non-reflective glass and would therefore reduce
daytime glare emanating from the OPSP area.
Impact Air-2: Possible Exposure of Sensitive
Receptors to TACs and PM2.5. Development
anticipated under the OPSP may expose sensitive
receptors to TACs and PM2.5 through
development of new non-residential development
that may be sources of TACs and PM2.5 and the
potential for development of ancillary uses, such
as daycare facilities, that would bring sensitive
users to the site. Such exposure would represent a
potentially significant impact.
Air-2: Health Risk Assessment for Proposed
Sensitive Receptors. New projects within the OPSP
area that would include sensitive receptors (e.g.,
daycare centers) shall analyze TAC and PM2.5
impacts and include mitigation measures to reduce
exposures to less than significant levels. The
following measures could be utilized in site
planning and building designs to reduce TAC
exposure:
• New development of sensitive receptors located
within OPSP area shall require site specific
analysis to determine the level of TAC and PM2.5
exposure. This analysis shall be conducted
following procedures outlined by BAAQMD. If
the site specific analysis reveal significant
exposures, based on BAAQMD guidance, then
additional measures listed below shall be required.
• Where exterior exposures are significant, consider
site planning to buffer new sensitive receptors
from TAC emissions. Active site uses and
building air intakes shall be situated away from
TAC sources
• Provide tiered plantings of vegetation along the
site boundaries closest to TAC sources.
Preliminary laboratory studies show that redwood
and/or deodar cedar trees can remove some of the
fine particulate matter emitted from traffic under
low wind speeds. Low wind speeds typically
result in the highest particulate matter
concentrations.
Less than
Significant
Impact Air-4: Construction Period Dust,
Emissions and Odors. Construction of
development projects under the OPSP would
result in temporary emissions of dust, diesel
Air-4a: Implement BAAQMD-Recommended
Measures to Control Particulate Matter
Emissions during Construction. Measures to
reduce diesel particulate matter and PM10 from
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-18 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
exhaust and odors that may result in both
nuisance and health impacts. Without appropriate
measures to control these emissions, these
impacts would be considered significant.
construction are recommended to ensure that
short-term health impacts to nearby sensitive
receptors are avoided.
Dust (PM10) Control Measures:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice
daily and more often during windy periods.
Active areas adjacent to residences should be
kept damp at all times.
• Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two
feet of freeboard.
• Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply
(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking areas, and staging areas.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved
access roads, parking areas, and staging areas
and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if
visible soil material is deposited onto the
adjacent roads.
• Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to
inactive construction areas (i.e., previously-
graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or
more).
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-
toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles.
• Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15
mph.
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly
as possible.
• Suspend construction activities that cause visible
dust plumes to extend beyond the construction
site.
• Post a publically visible sign(s) 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. The Air District’s phone
number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations.
Additional Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate
Matter and PM2.5 and other construction emissions:
• The developer or contractor shall provide a plan
for approval by the City or BAAQMD
demonstrating that the heavy-duty (>50
horsepower) off-road vehicles to be used in the
construction project, including owned, leased
and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project
wide fleet-average 20 percent NOx reduction and
45 percent particulate reduction compared to the
most recent CARB fleet average for the year
2011
• Clear signage at all construction sites will be
posted indicating that diesel equipment standing
idle for more than five minutes shall be turned
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-19
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
off. This would include trucks waiting to deliver
or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk
materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could
keep their engines running continuously as long
as they were onsite or adjacent to the
construction site.
• Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate
emissions from off-road diesel powered
equipment. Each project shall ensure that
emissions from all construction diesel powered
equipment used on the project site do not exceed
40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in
any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed
40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be
repaired immediately
• The contractor shall install temporary electrical
service whenever possible to avoid the need for
independently powered equipment (e.g.
compressors).
• Properly tune and maintain equipment for low
emissions.
Air-4b: Implement Odor-Control Measures
During Refuse Relocation. The following
measures shall be implemented during
disturbance of the landfill for refuse relocation:
• All areas shall remain under foundation layer
cover until localized refuse relocation occurs.
• Limit the horizontal area of opened foundation
layer to at most an acre of horizontal area at any
one time per area (an acre for the area being
excavated and an acre for the area where trash is
being relocated).
• Excavation and fill zones shall be covered at the
end of each day, either with secured tarping or
with the foundation layer of soil.
• Additional measures for odor control such as a
foam cover or scented misters in active areas
and/or covering of the materials in the haul
trucks may be considered and implemented
based upon actual field conditions.
• Post a publically visible sign(s) with a 24-hour
contact number for odor complaints. The Air
District’s phone number shall also be visible to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Concerns/complaints related to odor from the
work will be evaluated and protocol measures
will be amended as necessary.
• If 10 or more complaints are logged with
BAAQMD within a 90-day period, BAAQMD
will have regulatory authority that supersedes
this mitigation measure consistent with
BAAQMD Regulation 7.
Impact Bio-2: Disturbance or Loss of Wetland or
Aquatic Habitats. Development of the OPSP
Bio-2a: Delineate Jurisdictional Boundaries.
Prior to construction of any programmatic OPSP
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-20 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
would result in the disturbance or loss of
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh, Open Water and
Jurisdictional Armored Rock Levee Slope
Habitats. Due to the ecological importance of
wetland and aquatic habitats, such impacts would
be potentially significant.
elements that are expected to potentially have direct
impacts on USACE jurisdictional habitats, a focused
delineation shall be performed to determine the
precise limits of USACE jurisdiction at the site, and
USACE approval of the jurisdictional boundaries
will be obtained.
Bio- 2b: Impact Avoidance/Minimization. Future
OPSP elements near the Bay shoreline shall be
designed with consideration of the boundaries of
sensitive wetland and aquatic habitats in order to
avoid and minimize impacts to these sensitive
habitats to the extent practicable while still
accomplishing OPSP objectives. For example,
building and trail construction, landscaping
activities, and other terrestrial activities shall be
planned and designed to avoid impacting the
sensitive habitats near the Bay shoreline to the
extent feasible. For activities that cannot avoid
impacting sensitive habitats due to their water-
related purpose or location, such as construction or
replacement of piers or docks in the marina, the
amount of new fill or the footprint of new structures
placed in or on the water shall be limited to the
minimum necessary to achieve the objectives of that
component. The City shall review plans for any
proposed activities that will result in impacts to
sensitive wetland and aquatic habitats to ensure that
impacts have been avoided and minimized to the
extent feasible.
Bio-2c: Restoration of Temporarily Impacted
Wetland/Aquatic Habitats. USACE-jurisdictional
areas that are temporarily impacted during
construction of programmatic elements shall be
restored to preexisting contours and levels of soils
compaction following build-out. The means by
which such temporarily impacted areas will be
restored shall be described in the mitigation plan
described in Measure 2d below.
Bio-2d: Compensation for Permanently
Impacted Wetland/Aquatic Habitats. Unavoidable
permanent fill of all habitats within USACE
jurisdiction shall be replaced at a minimum 1:1
(mitigation area: impact area) ratio by creation or
restoration of similar habitat around San Francisco
Bay. Any aquatic, marsh, or mudflat habitat areas
experiencing a net increase in shading as a result of
docks or other structures constructed over or on the
water shall require compensatory mitigation at a
0.5:1 (mitigation area: impact area) ratio; this ratio
is less than the 1:1 required for permanent filling of
such habitats because shaded areas are expected to
retain some ecological habitat value. Mitigation
could be achieved through a combination of on-site
restoration or creation of wetlands or aquatic
habitats (including removal of on-site fill or
structures, resulting in a gain of wetland or aquatic
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-21
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
habitats); off-site restoration/creation; funding of
off-site restoration/creation projects implemented by
others; and/or mitigation credits purchased at
mitigation banks within the San Francisco Bay
Region. Because impacts to aquatic habitats on-site
could also potentially impact special-status fish and
EFH (see Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and
Special-Status Fish below), all compensatory
mitigation for impacts to aquatic habitat must also
provide habitat for green sturgeon, Central
California Coast steelhead, and longfin smelt that is
of a quality at least as high as that impacted.
For funding of off-site improvements or purchase of
mitigation bank credits, the OPSP Applicant shall
provide written evidence to the City that either (a)
compensation has been established through the
purchase of a sufficient number of mitigation credits
in a mitigation bank to satisfy the mitigation acreage
requirements of the OPSP activity, or (b) funds
sufficient for the restoration of the mitigation
acreage requirements of the OPSP activity have
been paid to an entity implementing a project that
would create or restore habitats of the type being
impacted by the OPSP.
For areas to be restored to mitigate for temporary or
permanent impacts, the OPSP Applicant shall
prepare and implement a mitigation plan. The OPSP
Applicant shall retain a restoration ecologist or
wetland biologist to develop the mitigation plan,
and it shall contain the following components (or as
otherwise modified by regulatory agency permitting
conditions):
1. Summary of habitat impacts and proposed
mitigation ratios, along with a description of any
other mitigation strategies used to achieve the
overall mitigation ratios, such as funding of off-
site improvements and/or purchase of mitigation
bank credits
2. Goal of the restoration to achieve no net loss of
habitat functions and values
3. Location of mitigation site(s) and description of
existing site conditions
4. Mitigation design:
• Existing and proposed site hydrology
• Grading plan if appropriate, including bank
stabilization or other site stabilization features
• Soil amendments and other site preparation
elements as appropriate
• Planting plan
• Irrigation and maintenance plan
• Remedial measures/adaptive management, etc.
5. Monitoring plan (including final and
performance criteria, monitoring methods, data
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-22 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring
schedule, etc.)
6. Contingency plan for mitigation elements that do
not meet performance or final success criteria.
Impact Bio-3: Construction-Period Increases in
Turbidity. Sediment may wash from construction
areas into adjacent aquatic habitats, or soil
loosened by grading could slide downslope into
such areas. Increases in turbidity resulting from
construction constitutes a potentially significant
impact to aquatic wildlife species, including
special-status fish species such as steelhead and
sensitive native species such as the Olympia
oyster. Water quality degradation could also
negatively impact eelgrass beds if they occur in
the OPSP area. Due to the ecological importance
of these aquatic habitats and sensitive resources,
such impacts would be potentially significant.
Bio-3a: Incorporate Best Management Practices
for Water Quality During Construction. The Plan
shall incorporate Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for water quality to minimize impacts in the
surrounding wetland environment, sloughs and
channels, and the San Francisco Bay during
construction. These BMPs shall include numerous
practices that will be outlined within the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including, but
not limited to, the following mitigation measures:
1. No equipment will be operated in live flow in
any of the sloughs or channels or ditches on or
adjacent to the site.
2. No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust,
cement, concrete, washings, petroleum products
or other organic or earthen material shall be
allowed to enter into or be placed where it may
be washed by rainfall or runoff into aquatic or
wetland habitat.
3. Standard erosion control and slope stabilization
measures will be required for work performed in
any area where erosion could lead to
sedimentation of a waterbody. For example, silt
fencing will be installed just outside the limits of
grading and construction in any areas where such
activities will occur upslope from, and within 50
ft of, any wetland, aquatic, or marsh habitat. This
silt fencing will be inspected and maintained
regularly throughout the duration of
construction.
4. Machinery will be refueled at least 50 ft from
any aquatic habitat, and a spill prevention and
response plan will be developed. All workers
will be informed of the importance of preventing
spills and of the appropriate measures to take
should a spill occur.
Bio-3b: Minimize Soil Disturbance Adjacent to
Wetland and Marsh Habitat. To the extent feasible,
soil stockpiling, equipment staging, construction
access roads, and other intensively soil-disturbing
activities shall not occur immediately adjacent to
any wetlands that are to be avoided by the OPSP.
The limits of the construction area shall be clearly
demarcated with Environmentally Sensitive Area
fencing to avoid inadvertent disturbance outside the
fence during construction activities.
Less than
Significant
Impact Bio-4: Operational Stormwater Impacts
on Wetlands and a Tidal Channel. Installation of
stormwater outfalls from the buildings to be
constructed in the southwestern part of the site
Bio-4: Ensure Adequate Stormwater Run-off
Capacity. Increases in stormwater run-off due to
increased hardscape shall be mitigated through the
construction and maintenance of features designed
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-23
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
shall outfall into vegetated swales that are to be
constructed just upslope from the wetlands and
tidal channel that form the southwestern
boundary of the site. If these swales are not
adequately constructed, there is some potential
for excessive erosion or the release of untreated
runoff into these wetlands and tidal waters. Due
to the value of wetland habitats to the ecology of
the Bay’s aquatic habitats and the value of these
aquatic habitats to a variety of fish, benthic
organisms, and other species, degradation of
water quality or wetlands would be a potentially
significant impact.
to handle the expected increases in flows and
provide adequate energy dissipation. All such
features, including outfalls, shall be regularly
maintained to ensure continued function and prevent
failure following construction.
Impact Bio-6: Disturbance of Special-Status
Nesting Birds. Construction-related noise and
activity could disturb or displace special-status
breeding birds. The number of nesting
individuals that could be disturbed is very small,
and the OPSP’s impacts would not substantially
reduce regional populations of special-status bird
species, and thus these impacts do not meet the
CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse
effect on these species. However, the loss of any
active nests of protected birds would be in
violation of federal and state laws, thus this
impact would be considered potentially
significant.
Bio-6: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey.
Pre-construction surveys for nesting birds protected
by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or
Fish and Game Code of California within 100 feet
of a development site in the OPSP area shall be
conducted if construction commences during the
avian nesting season, between February 1 and
August 31. The survey should be undertaken no
more than 15 days prior to any site-disturbing
activities, including vegetation removal or grading.
If active nests are found, a qualified biologist shall
determine an appropriate buffer in consideration of
species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and
type of construction activity. The buffers should be
maintained until after the nestlings have fledged and
left the nest.
Less than
Significant
Impact Bio-7: Construction-Period Disturbance
of Burrowing Owls. Burrowing owls could
potentially burrow in grassland habitats and/or
use crevices in shoreline riprap as temporary
refugia. Due to the marginal nature of habitat on
the site, and the current lack of suitable breeding
sites in the form of ground squirrel burrows, the
OPSP will not result in a significant loss of
burrowing owl habitat. Nevertheless, any loss of
burrowing owls or fertile eggs, any activities
resulting in nest abandonment, or the destruction
of occupied burrowing owl burrows would
constitute a potentially significant impact under
CEQA due to the regional rarity of the species
and declining nature of its populations.
Bio-7a: Pre-construction Burrowing Owl
Surveys. Pre-construction surveys for burrowing
owls shall be completed in potential habitat in
conformance with the California Burrowing Owl
Consortium protocol, no more than 30 days prior to
the start of construction. If no burrowing owls are
located during these surveys, no additional action
would be warranted. However, if burrowing owls
are located on or immediately adjacent to the site,
mitigation measures Bio-7b and Bio-7c shall be
implemented.
Bio-7b: Buffer Zones. For burrowing owls
present during the non-breeding season (generally 1
September to 31 January), a 150-ft buffer zone shall
be maintained around the occupied burrow(s) if
practicable. If such a buffer is not practicable, then a
buffer adequate to avoid injury or mortality of owls
shall be maintained, or the birds shall be evicted as
described for Mitigation Measures Bio-7c, below.
During the breeding season (generally 1 February to
31 August), a 250-ft buffer, within which no new
activity shall be permissible, shall be maintained
between OPSP activities and occupied burrows.
Owls present on site after 1 February shall be
assumed to be nesting unless evidence indicates
otherwise. This protected buffer area shall remain in
effect until 31 August, or based upon monitoring
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-24 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
evidence, until the young owls are foraging
independently or the nest is no longer active.
Bio-7c: Passive Relocation. If construction will
directly impact occupied burrows, eviction of owls
should occur outside the nesting season to prevent
injury or mortality of individual owls. No burrowing
owls shall be evicted from burrows during the
nesting season (1 February through 31 August)
unless evidence indicates that nesting is not actively
occurring (e.g., because the owls have not yet begun
nesting early in the season, or because young have
already fledged late in the season). Relocation of
owls during the non-breeding season shall be
performed by a qualified biologist using one-way
doors, which should be installed in all burrows
within the impact area and left in place for at least
two nights. These one-way doors shall then be
removed and the burrows backfilled immediately
prior to the initiation of grading.
Impact Bio-10: Increased Potential for Bird
Strikes. Relative to the height of the existing
structures, several of the OPSP’s proposed
buildings will project higher, creating new,
somewhat larger obstacles along the flight path of
migrating and foraging birds. Therefore, the
OPSP could result in the creation of a new strike
hazard for migrating. Although large-scale injury
or mortality of birds due to collisions with
buildings is not anticipated, because of the
potential for such mortality to occur, the OPSP is
considered to have a potentially significant
impact to migratory birds.
Bio-10a: Lighting Measures to Reduce Impacts to
Birds. During design of any building greater than
100 feet tall, the OPSP Applicant shall consult with
a qualified biologist experienced with bird strikes
and building/lighting design issues to identify
lighting-related measures to minimize the effects of
the building’s lighting on birds. Such measures,
which may include the following and/or other
measures, shall be incorporated into the building’s
design and operation.
• Use strobe or flashing lights in place of
continuously burning lights for obstruction
lighting. Use flashing white lights rather than
continuous light, red light, or rotating beams.
• Install shields onto light sources not necessary for
air traffic to direct light towards the ground.
• Extinguish all exterior lighting (i.e., rooftop
floods, perimeter spots) not required for public
safety.
• When interior or exterior lights must be left on at
night, the operator of the buildings shall examine
and adopt alternatives to bright, all-night, floor-
wide lighting, which may include:
• Installing motion-sensitive lighting.
• Using desk lamps and task lighting.
• Reprogramming timers.
• Use of lower-intensity lighting.
• Windows or window treatments that reduce
transmission of light out of the building shall be
implemented to the extent feasible.
Bio-10b: Building Design Measures to Minimize
Bird Strike Risk. During design of any building
greater than 100 feet tall, the OPSP Applicant shall
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-25
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
consult with a qualified biologist experienced with
bird strikes and building/lighting design issues to
identify measures related to the external appearance
of the building to minimize the risk of bird strikes.
Such measures, which may include the following
and/or other measures, shall be incorporated into the
building’s design.
• Use non-reflective tinted glass.
• Use window films to make windows visible to
birds from the outside.
• Use external surfaces/designs that “break up”
reflective surfaces rather than having large,
uninterrupted areas of surfaces that reflect, and
thus may not appear noticeably different (to a
bird) from, the sky.
Impact Bio-12: In-Water Construction Impacts
on Essential Fish Habitat. Special-status fish
species that occur in the OPSP vicinity and could
potentially be impacted by in-water construction
activities are the southern green sturgeon, the
Central California Coast steelhead, and the
longfin smelt. Habitat for occasional dispersing
individuals of all three species is similarly
located in open waters and estuarine habitats of
the San Francisco Bay along the boundaries of
the OPSP area. This is a potentially significant
impact.
Bio-12: Measures to Reduce Impacts on
Essential Fish Habitat. The following mitigation
measures, adapted from Amendment 11 of the West
Coast Groundfish Plan (PFMC 2006) and Appendix
A of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 2003),
shall be implemented during in-water construction
activities unless modified by the federal permitting
agencies (NMFS or USACE).
Avoidance of Salmonid Migration Periods. In-water
work when juvenile salmonids are moving through
the Bay on the way to the open ocean or when
groundfish and prey species could be directly
impacted shall be avoided. Because steelhead are
potentially present, the allowed dredge window for
this area of the San Francisco Bay is June 1 through
November 30. All in-water construction shall occur
during this window. If completion of in-water work
within this period is not feasible due to scheduling
issues, new timing guidelines shall be established
and submitted to the NMFS and CDFG for review
and approval.
Worker Training. Personnel involved in in-water
construction and deconstruction activities shall be
trained by a qualified biologist in the importance of
the marine environment to special-status fish, and
birds and the environmental protection measures put
in place to prevent impacts to these species, their
habitats, and EFH. The training shall include, at a
minimum, the following:
1. A review of the special-status fish and sensitive
habitats that could be found in work areas
2. Measures to avoid and minimize adverse effects
to special-status fish, birds, their habitats, and
EFH
3. A review of all conditions and requirements of
environmental permits, reports, and plans (i.e.,
USACE permits)
Avoidance of Areas of Wetland and Aquatic
Vegetation. All construction equipment used in
conjunction with in-water work (pipelines, barges,
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-26 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
cranes, etc.) shall avoid wetlands, marshes, and
areas of sub-aquatic vegetation (including eelgrass
beds).
Mitigation Measure Bio-3a would also reduce
impact Bio-12 through implementation of Best
Management Practices for water quality during
construction.
Impact Bio-13: Percussive In-Water
Construction Noise and Special-Status Fish. If in-
water construction is undertaken and includes
jackhammering, pile-driving or other in-water
percussive activities, pressure waves could cause
negative behavioral, psychological and
physiological effects that could disturb, injure or
kill special-status fish or marine mammals. Due
to the number of fish that could be present near
in-water construction areas, the potential
presence of special-status fish, and the sensitivity
of marine mammals such as harbor seals and
California sea lions, such impacts are potentially
significant.
Bio-13a: Incorporation of Design Considerations
that Minimize the Need for Percussive Construction
Techniques. If programmatic OPSP elements after
the Phase I Project include in-water construction of
structures that require percussive techniques,
structure design shall adhere to the following
principles to the greatest extent practicable:
1. Engineer structures to use fewer or smaller piles,
where feasible, and preferably, solid piles
2. Design structures that can be installed in a short
period of time (i.e., during periods of slack tide
when fish movements are lower).
3. The City, with consultation from a qualified
biologist who is familiar with marine biology,
shall review the final plan design to ensure that
these design requirements have been
incorporated into the plan.
Bio-13b: Utilization of Construction Tools and
Techniques that Minimize Percussive Noise. If
programmatic OPSP elements include construction
of structures that require percussive techniques,
construction activities shall employ the following
techniques to the greatest extent practicable.
1. Drive piles with a vibratory device instead of an
impact hammer if feasible, and use a cushioning
block between the hammer and the pile.
2. Restrict driving of steel piles to the June 1 to
November 30 work window, or as otherwise
recommended by the NMFS (driving of concrete
piles would not be subject to this condition).
3. If steel piles must be driven with an impact
hammer, an air curtain shall be installed to
disrupt sound wave propagation, or the area
around the piles being driven shall be dewatered
using a coffer dam. The goal of either measure is
to disrupt the sound wave as it moves from water
into air.
4. If an air curtain is used, a qualified biologist
shall monitor pile driving to ensure that the air
curtain is functioning properly and OPSP-
generated sound waves do not exceed the
threshold of 180183-decibels generating 1
micropascal (as established by NMFS
guidelinesthe Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working
Group; 2008). This shall require monitoring of
in-water sound waves during pile driving.
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-27
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
5. Use of fewer piles, or smaller piles, or a different
type of pile, with hollow steel piles appearing to
create the most impact at a given size
6. Driving piles when species of concern are absent
7. Use of a vibratory hammer rather than an impact
hammer
8. Use of a cushioning block between hammer and
pile
9. Use of a confined or unconfined air bubble
curtain; and
10. Driving piles during periods of reduced currents
Impact Bio-14: In-Water Construction
Disturbance of Olympia Oyster Beds. There is a
known population of Olympia oysters at Oyster
Point. In-water construction activities, including
activities at the marina and along the shoreline,
could potentially impact oysters through the
removal of substrate supporting oysters,
smothering of oyster beds with fill, or
degradation of water quality. Such oysters,
including their larvae, provide food, refugia, and
attachment sites for a number of aquatic
organisms and filter nutrients and pollutants from
the water. As a result, these oysters perform a
valuable function to the Bay ecosystem, and
impacts to oysters from in-water construction
activities are potentially significant.
Bio-14a: Avoidance of Suitable Oyster
Habitat. To the greatest extent practicable, OPSP
activities shall avoid removing or disturbing riprap
and other rocky substrates that serve as suitable
oyster habitat. If impacts to oysters and their habitat
are unavoidable, measures Bio-14b and Bio-14c
shall be implemented.
Bio-14b: Native Oyster Surveys. A detailed
survey for native oysters shall be conducted in all
suitable substrates within the OPSP area. This
survey shall be conducted by a qualified oyster
biologist at low tides that expose the maximum
amount of substrate possible. Surveys can be
conducted at any time of year, but late summer and
early fall are optimal because newly settled oysters
are detectable. This survey shall occur before any
construction within aquatic habitats takes place to
establish a baseline condition. If few or no oysters
are observed on hard substrates that would remain
in place after construction, no further mitigation is
required.
Bio-14c: Replacement of Suitable Oyster
Habitat. If more than 100 oysters would be removed
or are in areas where construction-generated
sediment could settle out onto the oysters,
compensatory mitigation shall be provided by the
OPSP Applicant at a minimum 1:1 ratio. The OPSP
Applicant shall retain a qualified oyster biologist to
develop an Oyster Restoration Plan that shall be
reviewed and approved by the City. This Plan shall
include site selection, substrate installation, and
monitoring procedures, and include the following
components (unless otherwise modified by NMFS):
1. A suitable site for installation of replacement
substrate would be one with adequate daily tidal
flow, a location that would not be affected by
maintenance dredging or other routine marina
maintenance activities, and one that is lacking in
appropriate settlement substrate. A location
outside of the breakwaters or in association with
any eelgrass mitigation sites would be
appropriate.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-28 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
2. Although oysters may settle on a variety of
materials, the most appropriate for restoration
purposes is oyster shell. This is typically
installed by placing the shell into mesh bags that
can then be placed in piles on the seafloor of the
mitigation site. Enough shell shall be installed
under the guidance of a qualified oyster biologist
to make up for the loss attributable to the OPSP.
Mitigation shall occur after construction of all
in-water elements of the OPSP.
3. The restoration site shall be monitored on a
regular basis by a qualified oyster biologist for a
minimum of two years, or until success criteria
are achieved if they are not achieved within two
years. Monitoring shall involve routine checks
(bi-monthly during the winter and monthly
during the spring and summer) to evaluate
settlement, growth, and survival on the
mitigation site. Success shall be determined to
have been achieved when settlement and survival
rates for oysters are not statistically significantly
different between the mitigation site and the
populations being impacted.
Mitigation Measure Bio-3a would also reduce
impact Bio-14 through implementation of Best
Management Practices for water quality during
construction.
Impact Bio-15: Increased Turbidity During
In-Water Construction and Eelgrass Beds. In-
water construction activities that result in
increased turbidity could potentially result in
adverse effects to eelgrass by covering eelgrass
with sediment. Because eelgrass beds provide
nursery habitat for a variety of fish species, they
are very important to the Bay ecosystem, and
impacts to eelgrass beds are thus potentially
significant.
Bio-15a: Water Quality Best Management
Practices for Eelgrass. In addition to the water
quality BMPs described above in Measure Bio-3a,
the following BMPs shall minimize impacts to any
eelgrass beds in the OPSP area.
1. Conduct all in-water work during periods of
eelgrass dormancy (November 1-March 31)
[Note: the majority of this period conflicts with
the period during which in-water activities
should not occur to avoid impacts to salmonids;
only the period November 1-30 would avoid
impacts during sensitive periods for both taxa.]
2. Install sediment curtains around the worksite to
minimize sediment transport
If these BMPs are not feasible, or if OPSP activities
will occur in aquatic areas outside of the marina,
mitigation measures 15b and 15c shall be
undertaken.
Bio-15b: Eelgrass Survey. Prior to any
construction activities in aquatic habitats, a survey
for eelgrass beds or patches shall be conducted
within 750 ft of expected aquatic construction
activities. The survey shall be conducted by a
biologist(s) familiar with eelgrass identification and
ecology and approved by NMFS to conduct such a
survey. Survey methods shall employ either
SCUBA or sufficient grab samples to ensure that the
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-29
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
bottom was adequately inventoried. The survey
shall occur between August and October and collect
data on eelgrass distribution, density, and depth of
occurrence for the survey areas. The edges of any
eelgrass beds or patches shall be mapped. At the
conclusion of the survey a report shall be prepared
documenting the survey methods, results, and
eelgrass distribution, if any, within the survey area.
This report shall be submitted to NMFS for
approval. If OPSP activities can be adjusted so that
no direct impacts to eelgrass beds would occur, no
further mitigation would be required. If direct
impacts to eelgrass beds cannot be avoided, the
following measures shall be implemented.
Bio-15c: Compensatory Eelgrass Mitigation.
If direct impacts to eelgrass beds cannot be avoided,
compensatory mitigation shall be provided in
conformance with the Southern California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy. Mitigation shall entail the
replacement of impacted eelgrass at a 3:1
(mitigation: impact) ratio on an acreage basis, based
on the eelgrass mapping described in mitigation
measure 8B above, and detailed designs of the
feature(s) that would impact eelgrass beds. Such
mitigation could occur either off site or on site
(NMFS 2005b). Off-site mitigation could be
achieved through distribution of a sufficient amount
of funding to allow restoration or enhancement of
eelgrass beds at another location in the Bay. If this
option is selected, all funds shall be distributed to
the appropriate state or federal agency or
restoration-focused non-governmental agency (i.e.,
CDFG restoration fund, California Coastal
Conservancy, Save the Bay, etc). The OPSP
Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City
that either a) compensation has been established
through the purchase of a sufficient number of
mitigation credits to satisfy the mitigation acreage
requirements of the OPSP activity, or funds
sufficient for the restoration of the mitigation
acreage requirements of the OPSP activity have
been paid. These funds shall be applied only to
eelgrass restoration within the Bay.
If on-site mitigation is selected as the appropriate
option, the OPSP Applicant shall retain a qualified
biologist familiar with eelgrass ecology to prepare
and implement a detailed Eelgrass Mitigation Plan.
Unless otherwise directed by NMFS, the Eelgrass
Mitigation Plan shall follow the basic outline and
contain all the components required of the Southern
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (as revised in
2005), including: identification of the mitigation
need, site, transplant methodology, mitigation extent
(typically 3:1 on an acreage basis), monitoring
protocols (including frequency, staffing, reviewing
agencies, duration, etc), and success criteria. A draft
Eelgrass Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-30 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
NMFS, for its review and approval prior to
implementation, with a copy to the City. Once the
plan has been approved, it shall be implemented in
the following appropriate season for transplantation.
Restored eelgrass beds shall be monitored for
success over a 5-year period.
Mitigation Measure Bio-3a would also reduce
impact Bio-15 through implementation of Best
Management Practices for water quality during
construction.
Impact Culture-1: Disturbance of Unidentified
Paleontological Resources, Archaeological
Resources or Human Remains. During earth-
moving activities at the OPSP site, it is possible
that unidentified paleontological resources,
archaeological resources or human remains could
be uncovered and disturbed.
Culture-1a: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate
Find and Implement Mitigation. In the event that
any previously unidentified paleontological or
archaeological resources are uncovered during site
preparation, excavation or other construction
activity, all such activity shall cease until these
resources have been evaluated by a qualified
paleontologist or archaeologist and specific
mitigation measures can be implemented to protect
these resources.
Culture-1b: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate
Find and Take Appropriate Action in Coordination
with Native American Heritage Commission. In the
event that any human remains are uncovered during
site preparation, excavation or other construction
activity, all such activity shall cease until these
resources have been evaluated by the County
Coroner, and appropriate action taken in
coordination with the Native American Heritage
Commission.
Less than
Significant
Impact Geo-2: Seismic Ground Shaking. There is
a high probability that the proposed development
will be subjected to strong to violent ground
shaking from an earthquake during its design life.
Strong to violent seismic ground shaking is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Geo-2a: Compliance with California Building
Code. OPSP development shall meet requirements
of the California Building Code, including the
California Building Standards, published by the
International Conference of Building Officials, and
as modified by the amendments, additions and
deletions as adopted by the City of South San
Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic
construction standards will reduce the potential for
catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as
complete structural failure, but will not completely
eliminate the hazard of seismically induced ground
shaking.
Geo-2b: Compliance with a design-level
Geotechnical Investigation report prepared by a
Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with
Structural Design Plans as prepared by a Licensed
Professional Engineer. Proper foundation
engineering and construction shall be performed in
accordance with the recommendations of a
Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed
Professional Engineer. The structural engineering
design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation,
shall incorporate seismic parameters compliant with
the California Building Code.
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-31
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Geo-2c: Obtain a building permit. The OPSP
applicant shall obtain a building permit through the
City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan
Review of planned buildings and structures shall be
completed by the Building Division for adherence to
the seismic design criteria for planned commercial
and industrial sites in the East of 101 area of the
City of South San Francisco. According to the East
of 101 area plan, Geotechnical Safety Element,
buildings shall not be subject to catastrophic
collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will
allow egress of occupants in the event of damage
following a strong earthquake.
Impact Geo-3. Liquefaction, Densification, and
Ground Surface Settlement. The Association of
Bay Area Governments identifies the OPSP area
as an area of high hazard for liquefaction.
However, based on the subsurface data obtained
from the previous drilled borings at Oyster Point
(noted above among the references reviewed), the
existing landfill materials, residual soils, Bay
Mud, and Franciscan Complex bedrock have a
low potential for liquefaction. Therefore, damage
due to liquefaction at Oyster Point is considered
low. It should be noted that the landfill is
contained by soil dikes along the water-side site
perimeter. These perimeter dikes are reported to
have been constructed of Bay Mud, which has
low potential for liquefaction. Prior to new site
development, geotechnical studies shall be
undertaken to confirm the material types used in
the construction of the perimeter dikes to verify
the assumed low potential for liquefaction.
Liquefaction or densification of soils composing
or underlying the perimeter dikes could result in
settlement and differential settlement of site
improvements including buildings, pavements,
and utilities and pose a threat to human health.
The potential for liquefaction of perimeter dike
soils is considered a potentially significant
impact.
Geo-3a: Compliance with recommendations
of a Geotechnical Investigation and in conformance
with Structural Design Plans. A design-level
Geotechnical Investigation shall be prepared for the
site under the direction of a California Registered
Geotechnical Engineer and shall include analysis for
liquefaction potential of the site soils, particularly in
the perimeter dikes. Proper foundation engineering
and construction shall be performed in accordance
with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Investigation. The Geotechnical Investigation shall
be reviewed and approved by the City’s
Geotechnical Consultant and by the City Engineer.
A Registered Structural Engineer shall prepare
project structural design plans. Structures shall be
designed to reduce the effects of anticipated seismic
settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer shall review
the Structural Design Plans and provide approval for
the Geotechnical elements of the plans. The design
plans shall identify specific mitigation measures to
reduce liquefaction potential, if the potential for
liquefaction is found to exist, or other ground failure
modes such as lateral spreading, seismic
densification or stability of the perimeter dike
slopes. Mitigation measures may include ground
improvement by methods such as stone columns or
jet grouting.
Geo-3b: Obtain a building permit. The OPSP
applicant shall obtain a building permit through the
City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan
Review of planned buildings and structures shall be
completed by the Building Division for adherence to
the seismic design criteria for planned commercial
and industrial sites in the East of 101 area of the
City of South San Francisco. According to the East
of 101 area plan, Geotechnical Safety Element,
buildings should not be subject to catastrophic
collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will
allow egress of occupants in the event of damage
following a strong earthquake.
Less than
Significant
Impact Geo-4. Perimeter Dike Stability. Based
on a review of available subsurface information,
the dikes that surround the site are assumed to be
Geo-4: Compliance with recommendations of a
Geotechnical Investigation. A design-level
Geotechnical Investigation shall include an
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-32 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
constructed primarily of cohesive soils derived
from Bay Mud. Slope stability of the perimeter
dikes is critical to the integrity of the site. Slope
stability of the dikes is controlled primarily by
the strength of the materials used in dike
construction and of the soils on which the dikes
are founded. Prior to new site development,
geotechnical studies shall be undertaken to
confirm the material types used in the
construction of the perimeter dikes to verify that
the slopes meet minimum criteria for stability
under both static and seismic conditions. Failure
of the perimeter dike slopes could result in
settlement and differential settlement of site
improvements including buildings, pavements,
and utilities and pose a threat to human health. In
the absence of evidence that demonstrates
adequate stability of the perimeter dike slopes
under both static and seismic conditions, stability
of the perimeter dike slopes is considered a
potentially significant impact.
evaluation of static stability and seismic stability
under a design magnitude earthquake event.
Seismic analyses shall include pseudo-static
analyses to estimate permanent slope displacements
due to earthquake motions. The Geotechnical
Engineer shall prepare recommendations to mitigate
potential slope instability, if slope stability problems
are identified. Mitigation measures may include
ground improvement by methods such as stone
columns or jet grouting. Design-level Geotechnical
Investigations shall be completed during
preliminary and final design stages and will confirm
material types used in the construction of the
perimeter dikes to verify that the slopes meet
minimum criteria for stability under both static and
seismic conditions. Knowledge of the stability of
the perimeter dikes will guide the selection of any
future measures to mitigate any deficiencies
identified in the perimeter dike.
Impact Geo-5: Variable Subsurface Conditions
and Selection of Foundation Types and Depths.
Geotechnical considerations for the selection of
alternative foundation types for the site include
the following:
• The presence of Bay Mud, landfill waste and
other area fill over most of the proposed
building footprint areas;
• Varying thicknesses of Bay Mud, landfill waste
and other fill;
• Sloping bedrock surface; and
• Presence of possible paleochannels in the
north/northwest portions of the site.
These variable subsurface conditions will
influence the design, performance and
constructability of foundation systems for the
proposed buildings and are considered a
potentially significant impact.
Geo-5a: Deep Foundations. Because of the
magnitude of expected settlement of Bay Mud soils
and waste fill materials that would occur under new
building loads, the OPSP applicant must consider
the use of deep foundations such as driven piles.
Specific recommendations for suitable deep
foundation alternatives and required penetrations
will be provided during the course of a design-level
geotechnical investigation and will depend on
factors such as the depth and hardness of the
underlying clays, sands or bedrock, and the
corrosivity of the waste materials and Bay Mud
soils. Suitable deep foundation types may include
driven precast, prestressed concrete piles or driven
closed-end steel pipe piles with the interior of the
pile filled with concrete after driving.
Deep foundations shall extend through all waste
materials and Bay Mud and be tipped in underlying
stiff to hard clays, dense sands or weathered
bedrock. Where waste and Bay Mud soils underlie
the site, wall and column loads as well as floor slabs
shall be founded on deep foundations. Settlement of
properly-designed and constructed deep foundation
elements is typically less than about one-half inch.
The majority of settlement typically occurs during
construction as the loads are applied.
Where landfill waste and Bay Mud are not present
(possibly at extreme western and northwestern
edges of the site) and competent soil or bedrock are
present near the ground surface (within about 5 feet
of finished grade elevation), shallow foundations
such as footings or mats may be appropriate
foundation types, as determined during the course of
a design-level geotechnical investigation. Where
proposed structures straddle a transition zone
between these conditions, a combination of shallow
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-33
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
and deep foundations may be required. Any
transition zones shall be identified during site-
specific geotechnical investigations for preliminary
and final designs.
Geo-5b: Predrilling and/or Pile Configuration.
Piles either shall be predrilled through the fill and
landfill materials to protect the piles from damage
due to unknown materials, to reduce pushing waste
material deeper, and to reduce pile alignment
problems or shall have a pointed tip configuration.
If a drill is used, it should only loosen and break up
in-place obstructions that may cause pile damage.
During recent subsurface investigations reported by
Treadwell & Rollo (2009b) obstructions including
concrete rubble was encountered throughout the
landfill area, particularly in the northern end of the
site. Even with predrilling, precast concrete piles
could be damaged during installation at a landfill
site such as Oyster Point. For preliminary planning
purposes, a precast concrete pile breakage rate
during installation of 10 to 15 percent may be
considered applicable.
Piles usually have to include pointed tip
configurations to avoid pushing landfill waste
downward. These configurations are typically
readily accommodated by pile driving contractors.
Geo-5c: Indicator Pile Program. Prior to
specifying the lengths of the production piles, drive
indicator piles at the structure sites in order to
observe the driving characteristic of the piles and
the ability of the driving equipment when a driven
pile is used. The driving criteria and pile length of
production piles shall also be estimated from the
information obtained from driving of the indicator
piles. The contractor shall use the same equipment
to drive both the indicator and production piles.
Indicator pile lengths and locations shall be selected
by the Geotechnical Engineer, in conjunction with
the Structural Engineer and Contractor after the
foundation plan has been finalized.
The indicator pile program will serve to establish
information on the following:
• Estimates of production pile lengths;
• Drivability of production piles;
• Performance of pile driving equipment; and
• Variation in driving resistance relative to depth
and location of piles.
Impact Geo-6: Drag Load on Deep Foundations.
The landfill wastes and the underlying Bay Mud
are settling due to consolidation and on-going
decomposition-induced settlement of the wastes.
Deep foundations (piles) will extend through the
waste and Bay Mud layers and into underlying
materials that are relatively incompressible. The
Geo-6: Account for Drag Load on Deep
Foundations. The Geotechnical Engineer shall
account for accumulation of drag load in the
structural design of the deep foundations elements
(piles).
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-34 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
settlement of the waste and Bay Mud around the
piles will tend to move downward relative to the
pile. This settlement will accumulate a drag load
on the pile element, which will depend on the
material layering and thickness, pile length and
load on the pile. On-going settlement of Bay
Mud soils and waste materials is considered a
potentially significant impact.
Impact Geo-7: Landfill Gas Entry into Buildings.
Construction of buildings over the landfill cap
could allow landfill gas to accumulate beneath
building floors and permeate into the building
interiors. Landfill gas accumulation inside
buildings and at the building-soil interface may
adversely affect the health and safety of building
occupants. Accumulation of landfill gas beneath
and inside structures is a potentially significant
impact.
Geo-7: Incorporate Systems for Landfill Gas
Control. Measures for the control of landfill gas
shall be included in building design. Measures for
the control of landfill gas typically include a
collection system, floor slab shielding and interior
alarms.
Less than
Significant
Impact Geo-8: Landfill Waste Materials and Bay
Mud. Placement of additional fill or other new
loads at the site will result in additional site
settlement due to consolidation settlement of the
Bay Mud soils and the compaction and
decomposition induced settlement of submerged
waste and waste above groundwater. Due to the
generally heterogeneous nature of the landfill,
differential settlement of the soil cap will be on-
going. This differential settlement can disrupt
drainage patterns and cause damage to
pavements, underground utilities and soil-
supported structures. The magnitude of new
settlement in response to additional fill will
depend on the thickness of the fill, the lateral
extent, and the current thickness of the soil cap.
For estimating purposes, settlements on the order
of 3 to 5 inches for every foot of new fill should
be anticipated. Settlement due to the presence of
unstable soil, waste and Bay Mud is a potentially
significant impact.
Geo-8a: Avoid Significant New Loads on
Landfill Waste and Bay Mud. A design-level
Geotechnical Investigation shall include exploration
to more thoroughly determine the thickness and
areal extent of landfill waste and Bay Mud. To
avoid inducing additional settlement to the
settlement that is already on-going, grading plans
shall include as little additional new fill as possible,
and significant new structure loads or any structures
that are settlement-sensitive shall be founded on
deep foundations extended below the Bay Mud, as
recommended in the design-level Geotechnical
Investigation report.
All grading shall be planned to avoid penetrating the
landfill cap and to reduce the amount of long-term
settlement in response to new fills. Because the Bay
Mud and waste across most of the site are still
settling under the weight of existing fill and waste
decomposition and will settle more under new fills,
additional settlement should be expected, with the
creation of localized low-lying surface areas.
Existing low areas shall be corrected during site
grading to allow for proper drainage. Long-term
maintenance planning for the development shall
also include provisions for periodic grading to
correct drainage problems and improve site grades,
as outlined in the Disposition and Development
Agreement.
The Geotechnical Engineer will recommend other
site-specific recommendations based on the results
of the design-level Geotechnical Investigation to
mitigate on-going settlement and any additional
settlement to be expected in response to new
development.
Geo-8b: Design Building-Soil Interface to
Allow Free Movement. The Structural Engineer
shall provide that structures not supported on deep
foundations not be structurally tied into pile-
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-35
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
supported buildings, except as noted below, and
shall be designed to allow free vertical movement
between structures.
Articulated ramps on walkways and building
entrances at the interface between the pile and soil-
supported areas can provide a smooth walkway over
moderate differential settlements with some amount
of maintenance. As the magnitude of the differential
settlement increases, however, these ramps may
need to be rebuilt or realigned to account for the
larger elevation differential. Similar ramps may also
reduce differential settlements between driveways
and pile-supported parking lots.
Over time, voids will tend to form beneath pile-
supported buildings due to on-going settlement of
the landfill. Use of wall skirts around the building
perimeter will help to reduce the visual impact of
these voids.
Impact Geo-9: Hazardous Conditions During
Excavation and Following Construction.
Excavations extending into either the landfill cap
or into the waste fill are expected to encounter
potentially hazardous conditions including
poisonous and explosive gases. This may be true
in shallower excavations as well. This is a
potentially significant impact during and
following site construction activities.
Geo-9a: Monitoring and Testing. Special
precautions shall be taken to monitor the safety
conditions and to provide for the safety of workers
in the area. Additionally, if excavations encounter
water, this water shall be tested for contaminants
and may have to undergo specialized handling,
treatment and/or disposal if it is contaminated. A
system to disperse methane during construction
shall be installed in or adjacent to the trenches.
Geo-9b: Locate Underground Utilities in Soil
Cap. To the extent practicable, the utilities shall be
constructed in the soil landfill cap to avoid direct
contact of the utility lines and construction workers
with the waste material. If construction of utilities in
the waste material is necessary, proper design and
construction precautions shall be taken to protect the
system and the workers from the corrosive and
hazardous conditions of the waste.
Geo-9c: Seal Trenches and Underground
Structures. Trenches and underground structures
shall be sealed to preclude gas intrusion. Typical
types of sealing procedures include providing a low
permeability clay cover of 1 foot over the top of the
pipe, or the utility trench be lined with a relatively
impervious geomembrane. Underground manholes
may be shielded from methane intrusion by
placement of a membrane around the outside of the
structure. To reduce gas migration off-site within
the utility trenches, all trenches crossing the
transition zone between the landfill and non-landfill
portions of the property shall be sealed with a clay
plug surrounding the pipe or other approved
methods. In addition, plugs shall also be provided at
the perimeters of buildings to reduce migration of
gas through the utility trenches to beneath the
buildings.
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-36 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact Geo-10: Damage to Landfill Cap Due
to Excavation. Excavations for buildings, utilities
and other underground structures that extend into
the landfill cap may result in damage to the
landfill cap. This would be a potentially
significant impact on safety during and after
construction and on the continued performance of
the landfill cap.
Geo-10: Provide For Continuity of Landfill
Cap. Following planned landfill excavation and
landfill cap repair, the project Civil Engineer shall
require that excavations for building foundations,
utility trenches and other underground structures be
configured to maintain continuity of the landfill cap.
The specific configuration will depend upon the
excavation depth and orientation to underlying
wastes. However, a low-permeability layer of soil or
a geomembrane properly tied to surrounding cap
areas may be required.
Less than
Significant
Impact Geo-11: Stresses at Building
Connections. Underground utilities will be
subject to distress at building connection
locations due to differential settlement. It is
anticipated that the most crucial sections of the
utility lines will occur at the interface between
the soil supported utility line and the pile
supported buildings. At this interface differential
settlements of several feet are possible. This
would be a potentially significant impact on the
performance of underground utilities.
Geo-11: Common Trenches and Vaults. Where
underground utilities are to be located in landfill
areas, consideration shall be given to reducing the
number of utilities trenches by locating utilities in
common trenches to the extent practicable. In
addition, vaulted systems shall be designed and
maintained at such interfaces that provide flexible
and/or expandable connections to the proposed
buildings. In addition, the utility lines beneath
buildings shall be suspended from hangers fastened
to structural floor slabs.
Less than
Significant
Impact Geo-12: Stresses in Utility Line
Materials. Differential settlement will cause
distress to the materials used in underground
utilities construction. On a landfill site the
effects of differential settlement are typically
more severe than at a conventional site due to the
generally higher levels of settlement that occur.
Differential settlement is a potentially significant
impact on the performance of underground
utilities.
Geo-12: Flexible Materials and Joints. Utility
lines shall be constructed of flexible pipe such as
welded polyethylene to accommodate differential
settlement within the waste material and landfill
cap. At the border of the landfill, where differential
settlements are expected to be large, the utility lines
shall be designed to allow for rotation. As with
buried utilities on a conventional site, proper
bedding and backfilling shall be completed, as
specified in a design-level geotechnical
investigation report.
Less than
Significant
Impact Geo-13: Disruption of Flow Gradient.
Differential settlement will tend to disrupt flow
gradients in gravity-flow sewers and storm
drains. This is a potentially significant impact on
the performance of these utilities.
Geo-13: Increase Flow Gradient. The Civil
Engineer shall consider increasing the flow gradient
in sewers and storm drains so that differential
settlements will not disrupt the flow. An alternative
is to provide a pumping system that does not rely on
gravity flow. Such measures will reduce the impact
of reduced flow gradient due to differential
settlement to less than significant. This applies to
the entire OPSP, including the Phase I Project.
Less than
Significant
Impact Haz-1: Routine transportation, use or
disposal of hazardous materials. While specific
tenants have not yet been identified, research
laboratories are likely to handle materials
considered to be biological hazards, chemical
hazards and/or carry a risk of fire or explosion.
The risk of accidental upset and environmental
contamination from routine transport, storage,
use and disposal of hazardous and potentially
hazardous materials to the public and
environment is a potentially significant impact.
Haz-1a: Plan Review for Adherence to Fire and
Safety Codes. Building space shall be designed to
handle the intended use, with sprinklers, alarms,
vents, and secondary containment structures, where
applicable. These systems shall pass plan review
through the City of South San Francisco Planning,
Building and Fire Departments.
Haz-1b: Construction Inspection and Final
Inspection Prior to Occupancy. During construction,
the utilities including sprinkler systems shall pass
pressure and flush tests to make sure they perform
as designed. At the end of construction, occupancy
shall not be allowed until a final inspection is made
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-37
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
by the Fire Department for conformance of all
building systems with the Fire Code and National
Fire Protection Agency Requirements. The
inspection shall include testing of sprinklers
systems, alarm systems, ventilation and airflow
systems, and secondary containment systems. The
inspection shall include a review of the emergency
evacuation plans. These plans shall be modified as
deemed necessary.
Haz-1c: Hazardous Materials Business Plan
Program. Businesses occupying the development
shall complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan
for the safe storage and use of chemicals. The
Business Plan shall include the type and quantity of
hazardous materials, a site map showing storage
locations of hazardous materials and where they
may be used and transported from, risks of using
these materials, material safety data sheets for each
material, a spill prevention plan, an emergency
response plan, employee training consistent with
OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact
information. Businesses qualify for the program if
they store a hazardous material equal to or greater
than the minimum reportable quantities. These
quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for
solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature
and pressure) for compressed gases.
Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-
packaged consumer goods; medical professionals
who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in
quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each
material, and who store or use no other hazardous
materials; or facilities that store no more than 55
gallons of a specific type of lubricating oil, and for
which the total quantity of lubricating oil not exceed
275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These
exemptions are not expected to apply to on-site
laboratory facilities.
Businesses occupying and/or operating at the
proposed development shall submit a business plan
prior to the start of operations, and shall review and
update the entire Business Plan at least once every
two years, or within 30 days of any significant
change, including without limitation, changes to
emergency contact information, major increases or
decreases in hazardous materials storage and/or
changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans
shall be submitted to the San Mateo County
Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD)
Business Plan Program, which may be contacted at
(650) 363-4305 for more information. The
SMCEHD shall inspect the business at least once a
year to make sure that the Business Plan is complete
and accurate.
Haz-1d: Hazardous Waste Generator Program.
Qualifying businesses shall register and comply
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-38 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
with the hazardous waste generator program. The
State of California DTSC authorized the SMCEHD
to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous
waste generators in San Mateo County based on the
Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the
California Health and Safety Code Division 20,
Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the CCR Title
22, Division 4.5. Regulations require businesses
generating any amount of hazardous waste as
defined by regulation to properly store, manage and
dispose of such waste. SMCEHD staff also conducts
surveillance and enforcement activities in
conjunction with the County District Attorney's
Office for businesses or individuals that
significantly violate the above referenced law and
regulations.
Haz-1e: Compliance with Applicable Laws and
Regulations. All transportation of hazardous
materials and hazardous waste to and from the
OPSP area shall be in accordance with CFR Title
49, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State
of California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans), and local laws, ordinances and
procedures including placards, signs and other
identifying information.
Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials
Release During Disturbance of Landfill
Materials. Site preparation and construction
activities in the vicinity of the landfill could
result in release of hazardous solid waste,
groundwater and/or soil vapor and the potential
for direct exposure to workers engaged in soil
excavation and dewatering activities. This
represents a potentially significant impact.
Haz-2: Waste Excavation and Re-
disposition. A plan shall be written for management
of excavated wastes/refuse. Non-hazardous
excavated waste shall be re-deposited in an alternate
part of the site and any hazardous waste shall be
relocated off-site for appropriate disposal. The plan
can be a section of the Site Management Plan
(Mitigation Measure Haz-4a), or a stand alone
document. The plan shall include measures to avoid
releases of wastes or waste water into the
environment and to protect workers and the public.
The details of the plan shall be based, in part, on the
amount of material to be removed and the final
design of foundation structures, but will generally
include the following, as deemed appropriate by the
regulatory agencies, particularly DTSC and
RWQCB:
• To the greatest extent possible, use existing boring
data to obtain pre-characterization of refuse for
off-site disposal, and to pre-plan areas to be
removed versus areas to be re-deposited on-site.
• Divide excavation areas into daily sections; plan
to complete excavation and backfilling a section
during each working day. Minimize the time
period that refuse is exposed.
• Review existing boring data and existing site
documentation to evaluate potential subsurface
materials to be encountered.
• Stake out area to be excavated.
• If excavation is to be conducted at depths where
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-39
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
groundwater is to be encountered, conduct
dewatering to minimize worker potential direct
contact with groundwater. Removed groundwater
shall be treated in accordance with the
requirements outlined in the Site Management
Plan (Mitigation Measure Haz-4a).
• Screen excavation site with a portable
photoionization detector and combustible gas
monitor for landfill gasses. Continue screening
progress of each excavation section as work
proceeds. Use foam suppressants or 6 inches
minimum of daily soil cover for nuisance odors.
• Provide carbon dioxide gas source (fire
extinguisher or cylinder) to flood excavation as
necessary to prevent migration of gases into
atmosphere above excavation, minimize explosive
or fire potential, and control nuisance and odors.
• Begin excavation and segregate soil and /or clay
cap material above refuse for reuse as foundation
layer.
• Upon reaching refuse, place refuse into dump
truck standing by on-site.
• Dispose of each truck load of refuse immediately
after filling equipment. All loads to be covered
when hauling. Refuse shall be either re-deposited
on-site in a specified area, or hauled to an off-site
disposal facility.
• Prior to relocation, field verify each load for
disposal classification type (landfill classification,
Class 3 or Class 2). If waste for off-site disposal
is characterized as either California or Federal
Hazardous Waste as defined in the criteria
described in CCR Title 22 Section 66261, then the
hazardous waste shall be tracked using the
Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest System
(USEPA Form 8700-22).
• Hazardous and if necessary, non-hazardous waste
shall be transported to the appropriate disposal
facility using a permitted, licensed, and insured
transportation company. Transporters of
hazardous waste shall meet the requirements of 40
CFR 263 and 22 CCR 66263. Copies of uniform
hazardous waste manifests signed by the
designated waste disposal facility shall be retained
for at least five years from the date the waste was
accepted by the initial transporter. Copies of
records pertaining to the characterization of
hazardous or nonhazardous waste shall be retained
for a minimum of three years.
• Upon reaching over-excavation depth, place a
minimum of 6-inch thick layer of appropriate
backfill soil on excavation bottom to seal exposed
refuse surface. Place soil by the end of the same
day excavation is completed.
• Upon completion of excavation, begin cap
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-40 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
placement procedures.
Specific measures shall be targeted to minimize the
duration of waste exposure, plan for appropriate
final destination of wastes based on the presence of
contaminants of concern, allow for adjustment in
plan based on unexpected occurrences, and to
protect worker safety and the public. Additional
work plan measures are discussed in Haz-4a. In
addition, worker protection measures for soil and
dewatering are discussed in Haz-6a. Measures
specific to off-site air quality during construction
are included in mitigation measure Air-4.
Impact Haz-3: Accidental Release of Hazardous
Building Materials. During demolition of existing
buildings, hazardous building materials could be
released from structures at the site. These
represent potentially significant impacts.
Haz-3: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A
demolition plan with permit applications shall be
submitted to the City of South San Francisco
Building Department for approval prior to
demolition. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit
from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition survey shall be
conducted in accordance with the requirements of
BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2. Prior to building
demolition, hazardous building materials such as
peeling, chipping and friable lead-based paint and
asbestos containing building materials, if identified
on the site, shall be removed in accordance with all
applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The
Demolition Plan for safe demolition of existing
structures shall incorporate recommendations from
the site surveys for the presence of potentially
hazardous building materials, as well as additional
surveys if required by the City. The demolition plan
shall address both on-site Worker Protection and
off-site resident protection from both chemical and
physical hazards. Contaminated building materials,
if identified, shall be tested for contaminant
concentrations and shall be disposed of to
appropriate licensed landfill facilities. The
Demolition Plan shall include a program of air
monitoring for dust particulates and attached
contaminants, as merited by the surveys. The need
for dust control and suspension of work during dry
windy days shall be addressed in the plan.
Less than
Significant
Impact Haz-4: Accidental Future Hazardous
Materials Release of Pre-existing Site Materials.
Landfill materials, which include hazardous
materials in solid waste, groundwater and soil
vapor, shall remain on-site following
construction. Installation of new structures
presents the potential for build up of soil gasses
within the structures, posing a risk to building
occupants and additional loading of the site
surface could increase the rate of on-site waste
settlement, leading to off-site migration of
leachate. This represents a potentially significant
impact.
Haz-4a: Landfill Cap Upgrades. A landfill
cap currently exists to prevent exposure of the
public to impacted solids or groundwater. The cap
shall be repaired and upgraded to meet CCR Title
27 requirements. CCR Title 27 requires closed
landfills have a minimum 4 foot cap, consisting of a
2 foot base layer, a 1 foot clay layer with specified
low hydraulic conductivity and a 1 foot erosion
control layer. The minimum 4 feet of clean material
that comprises the cap shall prevent exposure of the
underlying material, preventing releases at the
surface. The low hydraulic conductivity layer shall
also act to minimize generation of leachate.
Haz-4b: Use Of Deep Foundations To
Prevent Load Induced Settlement. Buildings on fill
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-41
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
shall be supported using driven steel or concrete
piles founded in stiff to hard clays, dense sands or
weathered bedrock underlying the fill. Both the
structural loads and building floor slabs shall be
supported on piles. This will avoid placing
additional building loads on fill material.
Haz-4c: Minimization of Irrigation Water
Use. Landscaping of the site shall be selected to
stabilize the soil, prevent erosion, and reduce the
need for extensive irrigation. Excessive water could
infiltrate the landfill cap and produce leachate. To
prevent this, low-water vegetation shall be selected
to reduce irrigation water. In addition the thickness
of the erosion resistant layer in landscaped areas
will be increased to minimize intrusion of roots into
the lower layers of the cover.
Haz-4d: Monitoring for Leachate Migration.
A series of natural and man-made barriers have
been implemented to prevent migration of impacted
leachate into the surrounding area. Based on
monitoring at the site implemented per the PCMP,
these measures are currently effective in preventing
releases. Leachate shall continue to be monitored, as
discussed in Haz-4e, below. Leachate containment
for the landfill portion of the OPSP shall be
upgraded as needed during and following
construction, as per the requirements of RWQCB
Order No. 00-046 and the PCMP.
Haz-4e: Operation and Maintenance Activities.
Operation and maintenance (O&M) activities are
expected to occur indefinitely at the site. Operation
and maintenance activities shall include inspections
and observations of site features to protect the
landfill cap, prevent utility damage, maintain
gravity flow of sewer systems, maintain the landfill
gas barrier and venting systems, and monitor for
leachate and groundwater contaminant
concentrations. O&M shall act to prevent releases of
hazardous materials by identifying deficits in
engineering controls prior to release events.
Impact Haz-5: Accidental Hazardous Materials
Release of Laboratory Chemicals. Following
construction, operations at the proposed facilities
are expected to represent a continuing threat to
the environment through accidental release of
hazardous materials since the site is proposed to
include laboratory facilities, where hazardous
materials stored or used on site could lead to an
accidental release. This represents a potentially
significant impact.
Haz-5: California Accidental Release
Prevention Program (CalARP). Future businesses at
the development shall check the state and federal
lists of regulated substances available from the
SMCEHD. Chemicals on the list are chemicals that
pose a major threat to public health and safety or the
environment because they are highly toxic,
flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine
which list to use in consultation with the SMCEHD.
Should businesses qualify for the program, they
shall complete a CalARP registration form and
submit it to SMCEHD. Following registration, they
shall submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP).
RMPs are designed to handle accidental releases
and ensure that businesses have the proper
information to provide to emergency response teams
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-42 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that
store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ)
of a regulated substance shall develop a RMP and
follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public
health and the environment if a regulated substance
is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals
and childcare facilities. RMPs shall include
procedures for keeping employees and customers
safe, the handling regulated substances, staff
training, equipment maintenance, checking that
substances are stored safely, and responding to an
accidental release.
Impact Haz-6: Exposure to Contaminated Soil,
Soil Vapor, and Groundwater. As currently
designed, utilities and foundation slabs shall be
separated from landfill wastes by a minimum of 4
feet of clean material, however the potential for
future maintenance work to penetrate into the
subsurface where contamination remains cannot
entirely be discounted. Soil and groundwater
disturbance presents an exposure hazard to
workers and trespassers. Disturbance of the
subsurface also increases the potential for
contamination to spread through surface water
runoff, and through wind blown dust. These
impacts are potentially significant.
Haz-6a: Development and Implementation of
Site Management Plans. A Site Management Plan
shall be prepared that addresses the exposure risk to
people and the environment resulting from future
demolition, construction, occupancy, and
maintenance activities on the property. The plans
for the landfill portion of the OPSP shall be in
accordance with RWQCB order No. 00-046, the
PCMP and recommendations of the Environmental
Consultant, and shall be reviewed and approved by
the RWQCB, DTSC, the SMCEHD Groundwater
Protection Program and the City of South San
Francisco Public Works Department.
Specific mitigation measures designed to protect
human health and the environment shall be provided
in the plan. At a minimum, the plan shall include the
following:
1) Requirements for site specific Health and Safety
Plans (HASP) shall be prepared in accordance
with OSHA regulations by all contractors at the
OPSP area. This includes a HASP for all
demolition, grading and excavation on the site,
as well as for future subsurface maintenance
work. The HASP shall include appropriate
training, any required personal protective
equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to
determine exposure. The HASP shall be
reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial
Hygienist. The plan shall also designate
provisions to limit worker entry and exposure
and shall show locations and type of protective
fencing to prevent public exposure to hazards
during demolition, site grading, and construction
activities.
2) Requirements for site-specific construction
techniques that would minimize exposure to any
subsurface contamination shall be developed.
This shall include dewatering techniques to
minimize direct exposure to groundwater during
construction activities, treatment and disposal
measures for any contaminated groundwater
removed from excavations, trenches, and
dewatering systems in accordance with local and
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-43
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Regional Water Quality Control Board
guidelines. Groundwater encountered in
excavations shall not be discharged into the
neighboring storm drain, but into a closed
containment facility, unless proven to have
concentrations of contaminants below
established regulatory guidelines. Extracted
contaminated groundwater shall be required to
be stored in tanks or other sealed container until
tested. If testing determines that the water can be
discharged into the sanitary sewer system, then
the applicant shall acquire a ground water
discharge permit from the City of South San
Francisco Sanitary Sewer District and meet local
discharge limits before being allowed to
discharge into the sanitary sewer. Water shall be
analyzed for the chemicals of concern at the site,
including benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes,
chlorobenzene, naphthalene and additional
compounds as requested by the receiving facility
or the City of South San Francisco.
3) Waste relocation. Relocation or removal of
existing landfill waste/refuse will be required for
landfill cap upgrades and for site construction.
Excavated waste can either be re-deposited on
site or disposed of at an active landfill facility.
Off-site disposal will require pre-characterization
of the waste for acceptance at an approved waste
disposal facility. Waste manifests will be
prepared to document transportation and
disposal. On-site disposal shall require proper
placement, compaction, and capping of the
refuse material. In either case, segregation of
Class 2 and Class 3 from Class 1 material for
disposal purposes shall be performed on-site to
the extent possible. No Class 1 material shall be
relocated or re-deposited on-site. BAAQMD
Regulation 8 Rule 34 section 118 documents a
limited exemption for construction activities at
landfill sites. This section specifies that when the
construction activities are related to “installing,
expanding, replacing, or repairing components of
the landfill gas, leachate, or gas condensate
collection and removal systems.” Excavation for
cap upgrades falls under this exemption.
Excavation for construction purposes will also
likely fall under this exemption. As such it will
be necessary to provide BAAQMD with
construction plans and other documentation as
detailed under this regulation for the purposes of
obtaining a letter of exemption from BAAQMD.
Excavation procedures are also discussed in
Measure Haz-2.
4) Future subsurface work plan. The plan shall
document procedures for future subsurface
landscaping work, utility maintenance, etc., with
proper notification, where applicable. The plan
shall include a general health and safety plan for
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-44 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
each expected type of work, with appropriate
personal protective equipment, where applicable.
This plan may be included in the operations and
maintenance plan as appropriate.
Haz-6b: Landfill Gas System. Section 21160
of Title 27 of the CCR requires that closed landfills
implement and maintain landfill gas control. A
landfill gas (LFG) venting system shall be placed
under the bottom slabs of each structure built
entirely or partially over landfill material, to collect
and vent the build up of gases diffusing through the
landfill cap. The LFG system shall include spray-
applied vapor barrier membranes, horizontal
collection and passive venting, gas detection and
monitoring. The system shall either have backup
active collection and venting or shall be designed to
facilitate retrofitting with an active system, if
measures warrant the retrofit. Potential migration of
LFG into the building space shall be mitigated by
the collection and venting system, and secondly by
the spray-applied membrane. Subsurface landfill
gases shall be vented by a network of perforated
piping placed beneath the building slabs. The
exhaust gases shall be manifolded to a series of riser
piping that is to be vented above structure roofs.
Passive landfill gas systems do not require permits,
however if an active system is installed, either at the
time of construction or as part of a retrofit, a
BAAQMD permit will be needed.
Haz-6c: Non-use of Groundwater. Water
supply wells shall not be installed at the site. This
will prevent direct contact between the public and
site groundwater and leachate.
Haz-6d: San Mateo County Environmental
Health Department Closure of Existing Facilities.
Any businesses on the site that are currently
registered in the hazardous materials business plan
program shall submit a closure work plan in
accordance with the SMCEHD Business Closure
Policy prior to vacating the property. The closure
plan shall detail any necessary sampling and
remediation. Closure shall not be granted until
businesses have demonstrated there is no need for
further remediation, and shall include
documentation of the removal of any hazardous
chemicals.
Impact Hydro-1: Potential Contamination of
Off-Site Waters due to Leachate Migration. The
OPSP area is located within the historical limits
of the Bay. Subsurface water at the site is
underlain by Bay Mud and has a low-hydraulic
conductivity cap, which confines the
groundwater. Based on ongoing monitoring at
the site, leachate, which has elevated contaminant
concentrations from the landfill material, is not
migrating off-site. Re-development of the site
shall require excavation of a portion of the
Hydro-1: Best Management Practices (BMPs)
shall be used during installation of foundation piers
to reduce the potential for gaps in the subsurface
confining layers around the piers. BMP
requirements shall be identified in the SWPPP and
shall be developed by the applicant or their
authorized representative. The exact BMPs to be
implemented shall depend on final pier design and
type, but can include pre-drilling and grouting of
concrete piers, use of hollow steel piers, or other
methods to reduce the risk of displaced refuse
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-45
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
landfill cap, and shall require deep foundation
piers which may penetrate the Bay Mud. The
potential for off-site migration of leachate as a
result of modification the landfill cap and
underlying Bay Mud represents a potentially
significant impact.
creating a void in the Bay Mud layer. The proposed
BMPs shall be benchmarked against the California
Department of Transportation Stormwater Quality
Handbooks Construction Site Best Management
Practices (BMPs) Manual (2003 and associated
updates).
Mitigation Measure Haz-4a: Landfill Cap
Upgrades would also reduce impact Hydro-1
through repair and upgrade of the cap which will act
to minimize generation of leachate.
Mitigation Measure Haz-4d and 4e: Monitoring for
Leachate Migration and Operation and Maintenance
Activities would also reduce impact Hydro-1
through requirements for post-construction
monitoring for leachate migration, with repairs to
prevent migration completed on an as needed basis.
Impact Hydro-2: Potential Construction and
Post-construction Contamination of Bay Waters:
Construction activities at the site will create
temporary and long term alterations of the site
terrain, creating potential erosion concerns. The
migration of laboratory and parking lot pollutants
into the bay could potentially impair water
quality. This represents a potentially significant
impact.
Hydro-2: Preparation and Implementation of
Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES requirements,
the applicant of a project under the OPSP shall
develop a SWPPP to protect water quality during
construction. If the SWPP will be developed after
September 2, 2011, the SWPPP shall be developed
by a California Qualified SWPPP Developer in
accordance with the State Water Resources Control
Board Construction General Permit 2009-009-
DWQ. The project SWPPP shall include, but is not
limited, to the following mitigation measures for the
construction period:
1) Grading and earthwork shall be allowed with the
appropriate SWPPP measures during the wet
season (October 1 through April 30) and such
work shall be stopped before pending storm
events.
2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such
as straw mulching, erosion control blankets,
erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall
be utilized in accordance with the regulations
outlined in the Association of Bay Area
Governments “Erosion & Sediment Control
Measures” manual. Silt fences shall be installed
down slope of all graded slopes. Hay bales shall
be installed in the flow path of graded areas
receiving concentrated flows and around storm
drain inlets.
3) BMPs to be developed by the applicant shall be
used for preventing the discharge or other
construction-related NPDES pollutants beside
sediment (i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream
waters.
4) After construction is completed, all drainage
facilities shall be inspected for accumulated
sediment and these drainage structures shall be
cleared of debris and sediment.
In accordance with the handbook C.3
Stormwater Technical Guidance, Version 2,
permanent mitigation measures for stormwater
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-46 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
shall be submitted as part of project application
submittals with the Planning Permit Application
and the Building Permit Application. Elements
that shall be addressed in the submittals include
the following:
5) Description of potential sources of erosion and
sediment at the OPSP area. R&D activities and
significant materials and chemicals that could be
used at the proposed OPSP area shall be
described. This shall include a thorough
assessment of existing and potential pollutant
sources.
6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the
OPSP area based on identified industrial
activities and potential pollutant sources.
Emphasis shall be placed on source control
BMPs, with treatment controls used as needed.
7) Development of a monitoring and
implementation plan. Maintenance requirements
and frequency shall be carefully described
including vector control, clearing of clogged or
obstructed inlet or outlet structures,
vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement
of media filters, etc.
8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall
be conducted as described in Haz-4e.
9) Proposed pervious and impervious surfaces,
including site design measures to minimize
impervious surfaces and promote infiltration
(except where the landfill cover is present).
10) Proposed locations and approximate sizes of
stormwater treatment measures.
Impact Hydro-3: Erosion or Siltation On- or
Off-Site. Construction of the proposed OPSP
would involve demolition of existing structural
foundations and will involve excavation of both
landfill waste material and the earthen cap
overlying the waste. Construction operations
associated with the OPSP would present a threat
of soil erosion from soil disturbance by
subjecting unprotected bare soil areas to the
erosional forces of runoff during construction
activities. This represents a potentially significant
impact.
Hydro-3: Compliance with NPDES
Requirements. Applicants for a project under the
OPSP shall comply with all Phase I NPDES General
Construction Activities permit requirements
established by the CWA and the Grading Permit
requirements of the City of South San Francisco.
Erosion control measures to be implemented during
construction shall be included in the project
SWPPP. The project SWPPP shall accompany the
NOI filing and shall outline erosion control and
storm water quality management measures to be
implemented during and following construction.
The SWPPP shall also provide the schedule for
monitoring performance. Refer to Mitigation
Measure Hydro-2 for more information regarding
the project SWPPP. Implementation of Phase I
NPDES General Construction Activities permit
requirements would reduce construction-related
impacts associated with erosion and/or siltation to
less-than-significant.
Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100
Trips During Peak Hours. Both the Phase I
Project and the entire OPSP would generate more
than 100 net new two-way trips during the AM
Traf-1: Transportation Demand Management
Program. The OPSP sponsors shall implement a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program consistent with the City of South San
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-47
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
and PM peak hours (1,402 trips during the AM
peak hour and 1,621 trips during the PM peak
hour at build out of the OPSP, as shown in Table
16.19). The San Mateo City/County Association
of Governments (C/CAG) Agency Guidelines for
the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion
Management Program (“C/CAG Guidelines”)
specifies that local jurisdictions must ensure that
the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new
peak hour trips (including the first 100 trips)
projected to be generated by the development.
This would be a significant impact.
Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.400
Transportation Demand Management, and
acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once
implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life
of the development. The C/CAG guidelines specify
the number of trips that may be credited for each
TDM measure.
Impact Traf-2: Pedestrian Walkways. Sidewalks
will be provided along both sides of Oyster Point
Boulevard and Marina Boulevard internal to the
OPSP site. Sidewalks will also be provided along
both sides of all other internal roadways
connecting to Marina Boulevard. The Phase I
TDM Conceptual Site Plan (June 1, 2010) shows
pedestrian connections between OPSP buildings
and the sidewalks lining Oyster Point Boulevard
and Marina Boulevard. No such detail has been
provided by the applicant for the other phases of
development.
No detail has been provided regarding pedestrian
access to the Phases III & IV garage and whether
pedestrian access points are proposed that could
encourage midblock crossing.
These would be potentially significant impacts.
Traf-2: Pedestrian Facilities. To discourage
mid-block crossing, pedestrian flow across Oyster
Point Boulevard between the Phase III & IV garage
and the Phase III & IV offices shall be regulated to
the following extent.
Pedestrian access shall only be allowed at the
north and south ends of the garage, adjacent to
signalized or all-way stop intersections.
Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-5: Year 2035 Internal Circulation.
Year 2035 Base Case + OPSP AM and PM peak
hour volumes expected internal to the OPSP site
along Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard (with full OPSP development) are
presented in Appendix E, Figure 21, while
projected roadway geometrics and control are
presented in Appendix E Figure 22. Operations
analysis has been conducted for the Oyster Point
Boulevard / Marina Boulevard, Marina
Boulevard / Phase I access / Bayfront parking lot,
Oyster Point Boulevard / Phase II garage / Phases
III / IV garage and Oyster Point Boulevard /
North Access intersections. The north
intersection includes an easterly extension of
Oyster Point Boulevard to serve a secondary
access to the OPSP Phases III / IV garage as well
as traffic from two existing office buildings to the
east of the OPSP. The western leg of the north
access intersection will provide access to the
Oyster Cove Marina to the west of the OPSP.
Based upon an iterative analysis process, it was
determined that all-way stop control would only
provide acceptable operation at the Marina
Boulevard / Phase I and Oyster Point Boulevard /
North Access intersections. Signalization would
be required at the other two locations. At City
Traf-5: Internal Circulation System
Signalization.
The OPSP applicant shall provide
signals at the Oyster Point Boulevard / Marina
Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard / Phase II
Access / Phases III / IV garage access intersections
when volumes are approaching warrant criteria
levels.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-48 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
request, two access options were evaluated for
the OPSP Phases III / IV garage to the east of
Oyster Point Boulevard.
As shown, all internal intersections should
function at acceptable AM and PM peak hour
levels of service with the assumed geometrics
and signal / all-way stop control with either
Phases III / IV garage access Option 1 or 2.
Failure of the applicant to provide required
signalization would result in less than acceptable
operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Impact Traf-6: Intersection Level of Service. The
following intersection would receive a significant
impact due to the addition of Phase I Project
traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.11).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
/ U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would
increase volumes by 9.11 percent at a location
with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would
degrade acceptable Base Case LOS D operation
to unacceptable LOS E operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-6: Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway
Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
(see Table 16.23 and Figure 23 in Appendix E) The
following improvements would mitigate the Phase I
Project-specific impacts. All of these improvements
(other than measures to the Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp, the eastbound departure and the
southbound approach) are included as part of the
East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP) and will be funded via the Phase I Project’s
traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The
Phase I Project shall also provide a fair share
contribution towards all measures currently not part
of the TIP.
Adjust signal timing.
Provide an additional through lane on the Oyster
Point westbound approach (extending from
Veterans Boulevard) and continue to the
Dubuque/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
intersection.
Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound
approach from a left, 2 throughs and a combined
through/right turn lane to a left, 2 throughs and
an exclusive right turn lane.
Restripe the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
approach from 2 through lanes and an exclusive
right turn lane to two through lanes and a
combined through/right turn lane. In conjunction
with this measure, add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point Boulevard (not
part of TIP).
Add a second exclusive right turn lane on the
southbound Genentech property driveway
approach (not part of TIP).
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Phase I Project
Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS E-79.8 seconds control delay,
which is better than LOS F 91.7 seconds control
delay Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-54.7 seconds control delay,
which is acceptable operation.
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-49
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact Traf-7: Intersection Level of Service. The
following intersection would receive a significant
impact due to the addition of Phase I Project
traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.11).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard
PM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would
increase volumes by 12.6 percent at a location
with unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized
operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-7: Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans
Boulevard (see Table 16.23 and Figure 23 in
Appendix E) The following improvements would
mitigate the Phase I Project-specific impacts. These
improvements are included as part of the East of
101 Transportation Improvement Program and will
be funded via the Phase I Project’s traffic impact fee
contribution to this program.
Adjust signal timing.
Restripe the two-lane northbound driveway
approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane
and a combined left / through / right turn lane.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Phase I Project
Signalized Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS E-64.3 seconds control delay
(which would be better than Base Case LOS F-88.5
seconds control delay operation)
Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-8: Intersection Level of Service. The
following intersection would receive a significant
impact due to the addition of Phase I Project
traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.11).
• Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard /
Mitchell Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would
degrade acceptable LOS D Base Case operation
to unacceptable LOS E Base Case + Phase I
Project signalized operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-8: Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport
Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue. (see Table 16.23 and
Figure 23 in Appendix E) The following
improvement would mitigate the Phase I Project-
specific impacts. This improvement is included as
part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the Phase I Project’s
traffic impact fee contribution to this program.
1. Widen the southbound Gateway Boulevard
approach to provide a second exclusive right turn
lane. The approach would contain one left turn
lane, one through lane and 2 exclusive right turn
lanes.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Phase I Project
Signalized Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.4 seconds control delay,
which is acceptable operation.
Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-9: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing
— Synchro software evaluation. The following
off-ramp/approach to an adjacent intersection
leading away from an off-ramp would receive a
significant queuing impact due to the addition of
Phase I Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.12).
• Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard /
Oyster Point Boulevard
The Phase I Project would increase volumes by
3.0 percent in the through and combined/through
right turn lane on the Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound approach to Airport Boulevard at a
location with Base Case 95th percentile queuing
greater than established standards. The through
lane or through/right turn lane queue would be
extended from 283 to 287 feet at a location with
only 250 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-9: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing.
(see Figure 23 in Appendix E) The following
improvements would mitigate the Phase I Project-
specific impact. These improvements are included
in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the Phase I Project’s
traffic impact fee contribution to this program:
• Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard /
Oyster Point Boulevard
• Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing – Oyster
Point Boulevard Westbound Approach Lanes
PM Peak Hour: Each westbound through lane or
westbound through / right turn lane = 230 feet,
which would be within the available 250 feet of
storage per lane.
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-50 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact Traf-10: 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following approach to an adjacent intersection
leading away from an off-ramp would receive a
significant queuing impact due to the addition of
Phase I Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.12).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would
increase volumes by 6.5 percent in the through
lanes on the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound
approach to Dubuque Avenue at a location with
Base Case 95th percentile queuing greater than
established standards. The 95th percentile vehicle
queue would be extended from 309 up to about
327 feet in a location with only 250 feet of
storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-10: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing.
(see Figure 23 in Appendix E) The following
improvements would mitigate the Phase I Project-
specific impact. These improvements are included
in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the Phase I Project’s
traffic impact fee contribution to this program:
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue
• Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing – Oyster
Point Boulevard Eastbound Approach Through
Lane
AM Peak Hour: Eastbound through lane queue =
206 feet, which is less than the 309-foot Base Case
queue.
Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-11: Off-Ramp Queuing To
Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours –
SIM Traffic Evaluation The following off-ramp
would receive a significant impact with backups
extending to the freeway mainline sometime
during the AM peak hour due to the addition of
Phase I Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case
volumes.
• U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to
Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would
increase volumes on the Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp by 7.1 percent at a location with year
2015 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally
backing up to the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-11: Improvements for Off-Ramp
Queuing. The following improvements would
mitigate the Phase I Project-specific impacts. These
improvements are not included in the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program.
• U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to
Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
(see Table 16.23 and Figure 23 in Appendix E)
The following improvements would mitigate the
Phase I Project-specific impacts. All of these
improvements (other than measures to the
Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp, eastbound
departure and southbound approach) are
included as part of the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and
will be funded via the Phase I Project’s traffic
impact fee contribution to this program. The
Phase I Project shall also provide a fair share
contribution towards all measures currently not
part of the TIP.
Provide an additional through lane on the Oyster
Point westbound approach (extending from
Veterans Boulevard) and continue to the
Dubuque / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
intersection.
Adjust signal timing.
Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound
approach from a left, 2 throughs and a combined
through / right turn lane to a left, 2 throughs and
an exclusive right turn lane.
Restripe the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
approach from 2 through lanes and an exclusive
right turn lane to two through lanes and a
combined through/right turn lane. In conjunction
with this measure, add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point Boulevard (not
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-51
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
part of TIP).
Add a second exclusive right turn lane on the
southbound Genentech property driveway
approach (not part of TIP).
Resultant Off-Ramp Queuing:
AM Peak Hour: Backups to freeway mainline
eliminated.
Impact Traf-12: Off-Ramp Queuing To
Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours –
SIM Traffic Evaluation The following off-ramp
would receive a significant impact with backups
extending to the freeway mainline sometime
during the AM peak hour due to the addition of
Phase I Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case
volumes.
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque
Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would
increase volumes on the off-ramp by 12.8 percent
at a location with year 2015 Base Case off-ramp
traffic occasionally backing up to the freeway
mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-12: Improvements for Off-Ramp
Queuing. (see Figure 23 in Appendix E) The
following improvements would mitigate the Phase I
Project-specific impacts. These improvements are
included in the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program and will be funded via the
Phase I Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to
this program.
• U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque
Avenue
• Adjust signal timing.
Resultant Off-Ramp Queuing:
AM Peak Hour: Backups to freeway mainline
eliminated.
Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-19: Intersection Level of Service.
The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 14.4 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would degrade
acceptable (LOS D) Base Case operation to
unacceptable (LOS F) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-19: Intersection Level of Service. (see
Figure 24 in Appendix E) The following
improvements would partially mitigate OPSP-
specific impacts and reduce them to a level of
insignificance. These measures are currently not
included as part of the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program. The OPSP shall provide a
fair share contribution towards all measures
currently not part of the TIP.
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard
Restripe the northbound 2-lane private driveway
approach to contain an exclusive left turn lane
and a combined left / through / right turn lane.
Widen the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard
approach and provide an exclusive right turn
lane.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-52.6 seconds control delay,
which would not be acceptable operation.
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-36.8 seconds control delay,
which would be acceptable operation.
Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-20: Intersection Level of Service.
The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would degrade
acceptable (LOS B) Base Case operation to
Traf-20: Intersection Level of Service. (see
Figure 24 in Appendix E) The following
improvement would mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts. This measure is currently not included as
part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program. The OPSP shall provide a fair share
contribution towards all measures currently not part
of the TIP
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-52 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
unacceptable (LOS F) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
• Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue
Provide an exclusive right turn lane on the
eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS C-33.3 seconds control delay,
which is acceptable operation.
Impact Traf-21: Intersection Level of Service.
The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 1.3 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 1.8 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-21: Intersection Level of Service. (see
Figure 25 in Appendix E) The following
improvement would partially mitigate OPSP-
specific impacts, but not reduce them to a level of
insignificance. This measure is currently not
included as part of the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program. The OPSP shall provide a
fair share contribution towards all measures
currently not part of the TIP.
• Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
Adjust signal timing.
Restripe the 2-lane eastbound Grand Avenue
approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane
and a combined left / through / right turn lane.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS E-63.4 seconds control delay,
which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-
81.6 seconds delay).
PM Peak Hour: LOS E-59.6 seconds control delay,
which is better than Base Case operation (LOS E-
60.7 seconds delay).
Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-22: Intersection Level of Service.
The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 4.0 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would degrade
acceptable (LOS D) Base Case operation to
unacceptable (LOS E) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-22: Intersection Level of Service. (see
Figure 25 in Appendix E) The following
improvements would mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts. These measures are currently not included
as part of the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program. The OPSP shall provide a
fair share contribution towards all measures
currently not part of the TIP.
• E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard
Restripe the southbound Gateway Boulevard
approach to contain 1 left turn lane, 1 through
lane, a combined through / right turn lane and an
exclusive right turn lane. Also restripe the
northbound Gateway Boulevard approach to
contain a left turn lane, a combined through /
right turn lane and an exclusive right turn lane.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS F-86.0 seconds control delay,
which is better than Base Case operation (LOS F-
121 seconds delay).
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-43.1 seconds control delay,
which is acceptable operation.
Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-23: Intersection Level of Service.
The following intersection would receive a
Traf-23: Intersection Level of Service. (see
Figure 25 in Appendix E) The following
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-53
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard /
Harbor Way
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 2.8 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 4.1 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation. In
addition, operation would be degraded to LOS F.
This would be a significant impact.
improvements would mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts. These measures are currently not included
as part of the East of 101 Transportation
Improvement Program. The OPSP shall provide a
fair share contribution towards all measures
currently not part of the TIP.
• E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor
Way
Adjust signal timing.
Restripe the southbound Forbes Boulevard
approach to contain 2 exclusive right turn lanes,
a through lane and a combined through / left turn
lane.
Restripe the northbound Harbor Way approach
to contain 2 exclusive right turn lanes, a
combined through / left turn lane and an
exclusive left turn lane.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-52.2 seconds control delay,
which is acceptable operation.
PM Peak Hour: LOS C-24.6 seconds control delay,
which is acceptable operation.
Impact Traf-24: Intersection Level of Service.
The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue /
Produce Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would degrade
acceptable (LOS D) Base Case operation to
unacceptable (LOS E) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-24: Intersection Level of Service. (see
Figure 25 in Appendix E) The following
improvement would mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts. This measure is currently not included as
part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program. The OPSP shall provide a fair share
contribution towards all measures currently not part
of the TIP.
• Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue /
Produce Avenue
Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-44.9 seconds control delay,
which is acceptable operation.
Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-25: Intersection Level of Service.
The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.16).
• S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound
Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 2.4 percent at a location with
unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-25: Intersection Level of Service. (see
Figure 25 in Appendix E) The following
improvement would mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts. This measure is currently not included as
part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program. The OPSP shall provide a fair share
contribution towards all measures currently not part
of the TIP.
• S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound
Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane
Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-54.9 seconds control delay,
which is acceptable operation.
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-54 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact Traf-28: 95th Percentile Vehicle
Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp/approach to an adjacent
intersection leading away from an off-ramp
would receive a significant queuing impact due to
the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base
Case volumes (see Table 16.17).
Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard /
Oyster Point Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 7.1 percent in the left turn lane on the
Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach to
Airport Boulevard at a location with Base Case
95th percentile queuing greater than established
standards. The left turn lane queue would be
extended from 256 up to 273 feet at a location
with only 140 feet of storage.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase
volumes by 3.2 percent in the left turn lane on the
Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach to
Airport Boulevard at a location with Base Case
95th percentile queuing greater than established
standards. The left turn lane queue would be
extended from 524 up to 542 feet at a location
with only 140 feet of storage. In addition, the
OPSP would increase volumes by 10.5 percent in
the through lanes on the Oyster Point Boulevard
westbound approach to Airport Boulevard at a
location with Base Case 95th percentile queuing
greater than established standards. The through
lane queue would be extended from 415 to 447
feet at a location with only 250 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Traf-28: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing.
(see Figure 24 in Appendix E) The following
improvement would mitigate the OPSP-specific
impact. This improvement is included in the East of
101 Transportation Improvement Program and will
be funded via the OPSP’s traffic impact fee
contribution to this program:
• Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard /
Oyster Point Boulevard
Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing – Oyster
Point Boulevard Westbound Approach Lanes
AM Peak Hour: Left turn lane queue = 242 feet,
with a Base Case 95th percentile queue of 250 feet.
PM Peak Hour: Left turn lane queue = 506 feet,
with a Base Case 95th percentile queue of 524 feet.
Each through lane queue = 280 feet, with a Base
Case 95th percentile queue of 415 feet.
Less than
Significant
Impact Util-2: Exceed Existing Pump Station and
Subtrunk Wastewater Capacity. The additional
wastewater flows from the construction of the
total OPSP will exceed the hydraulic capacities
of the existing Oyster Point Subtrunk, and Pump
Station No. 2. The inadequate capacity to serve
the project’s projected demand of the wastewater
subtrunk and pump station is a potentially
significant impact.
Util-2a: Upsize Pump Station No. 2. To provide
the required sewer capacity for the Plan, Pump
Station No. 2 will need to be upsized to a firm
capacity of 1.6.
The Sewer Master Plan includes expanding Pump
Station No. 2. Improvements under the Sewer
Master Plan are funded through a flat-rate sewer
connection fee for new development and a monthly
impact fee. The amount of the impact fee is based
on the quantity (flow) of wastewater generated. The
occupants of the proposed OPSP development shall
pay the sanitary sewer fees imposed by the City of
South San Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of
the pump station upgrade necessary to manage the
wastewater flows generated by the OPSP.
Util-2b: Oyster Point Subtrunk Replacement. To
provide the required sewer capacity, the Oyster
Point Subtrunk will need to be replaced with a
larger sized trunk line, with sizes ranging from 12,
15, and 18-inches.
The majority of these improvements are included in
Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-55
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
the Sewer Master Plan and are funded through a
flat-rate sewer connection fee for new development
and a monthly impact fee. The amount of the impact
fee is based on the quantity (flow) of wastewater
generated. The occupants of the proposed OPSP
shall pay the sanitary sewer fees imposed by the
City of South San Francisco in order to mitigate the
cost of the sewer system upgrades necessary to
manage the wastewater flows generated by the
OPSP.
An additional 700 feet of 8-inch diameter sewer
trunk from Eccles Avenue to Gull Road needs to be
upsized to a 12-inch diameter trunk sewer. This
segment of sewer trunk was not included in the
recommendations in the Sewer Master Plan. The
applicants shall either work with the City to include
this improvement in an Sewer Master Plan update or
directly fund their fair share of the improvement.
Less than Significant Impacts
Impact Vis-1: Scenic Vista. Many prominent
visual landmarks, such as the San Bruno
Mountains, the San Francisco Bay, Sign Hill, and
Wind Harp, are visible from properties in the
East of 101 Area in South San Francisco,
including along the Bay Trail. CEQA generally
protects against significant adverse impacts to
public views of such scenic vistas, taking into
consideration the environmental context i.e.,
whether the view is from a recreation area or
scenic expanse, as opposed from a developed
urban area. Here, the Project will not
significantly impact public views of a scenic vista
from a recreation area or scenic expanse. Further,
given the OPSP’s urban setting, a less-than-
significant impact would result on scenic vistas
with no mitigation warranted.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Air-3: Possible Exposure of Sensitive
Receptors to Operational Odors. Development
anticipated under the OPSP may expose
sensitive receptors to odors through development
of new non-residential development that may be
sources of odors near sensitive receptors. Such
exposure would represent a less-than-significant
impact.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Bio-1: Loss of Common Terrestrial
Habitats. Development of the OPSP would result
in the modification or loss of Developed and
Landscaped areas, California Annual
Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub, Ornamental
Woodland Habitats and Non-Jurisdictional
Armored Rock Levee Slope Habitats. However,
none of these habitats represent particularly
sensitive, valuable (from the perspective of
providing important wildlife habitat), or
exemplary occurrences of these habitat types.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-56 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Therefore, impacts to these habitats, and the loss
of potential nesting, roosting, and foraging
opportunities associated with such habitats, are
considered a less-than-significant impact.
Impact Bio-5: Loss of Habitat for Non-breeding
Special-Status Wildlife Species. Several
terrestrial special-status species may use the
OPSP area as transients or migrants, or may
occur in very low numbers, but are not expected
to breed at the site or to be present in any
numbers. These species include the American
peregrine falcon, black skimmer, harlequin duck,
northern harrier, Vaux’s swift, yellow warbler,
tricolored blackbird, white-tailed kite and
loggerhead shrike. There would be no substantial
loss of foraging or non-breeding habitat for any
of these species, as the OPSP footprint primarily
includes already developed and/or heavily
impacted areas. Therefore, the impact on non-
Breeding Special-Status Wildlife Species would
be less-than-significant.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Bio-8: Increased Recreational
Disturbance on Wildlife. Recreational demand in
the Oyster Point area is expected to increase with
the development of the OPSP and such increased
use could potentially subject biological resources
(both within and outside the OPSP area, such as
waterbirds using the edge of San Francisco Bay)
to greater disturbance by people walking and
biking. However, because there is already a
substantial amount of human activity at Oyster
Point, the area is already largely habituated to
high levels of human activity. Increased use of
trails or other areas that are already fairly heavily
used by people is thus not expected to reduce the
use of such areas by wildlife. Therefore, an
increase in recreational users of the Bay Trail and
other areas adjacent to wildlife habitat resulting
from construction of the OPSP would have a
less-than-significant impact on wildlife in these
areas.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Bio-9: Increased Lighting Impacts on
Wildlife. Lighting in and adjacent to more natural
areas on the OPSP area, especially the shoreline
along San Francisco Bay, is expected to increase
as a result of the OPSP. Artificial lighting has
been demonstrated to cause changes in the
physiology and behavior of certain animals.
However, the OPSP area is already subjected to
substantial amounts of artificial night lighting,
including night lighting from roads, parking lots,
and buildings. As a result, any wildlife currently
using the site is habituated to the lighting present
within this urban area. The OPSP incorporates
guidelines for the design of lighting to minimize
light pollution in areas other than those intended
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-57
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
to be lit. Therefore, impacts from increased
lighting levels on wildlife will be less-than-
significant.
Impact Bio-11: Protected Tree Removal. One or
more mature blue gum trees within the
ornamental woodland habitat may satisfy size
requirements for a “protected tree” under the City
of South San Francisco’s Tree Protection
Ordinance. Trees are considered protected if they
are 48 inches or more at 54 inches above the
natural grade. These trees, while providing some
wildlife habitat, are non-native invasive trees that
severely degrade natural habitats. Eucalyptus
species outcompete native species and produce
leaf litter that reduces the diversity and cover,
and can alter fire regimes within the associated
woodland understory. If any of these trees are
found to be of sufficient size to be considered
protected under the City’s ordinance, a permit
will be required for their removal. However, due
to the low habitat functions and values provided
by these trees, their loss, and the loss of potential
nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities
associated with them, this is considered a less-
than-significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Geo-1: Surface Fault Rupture. According
to the latest available maps, the OPSP site is not
contained within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zone boundary. Published geologic maps of
the area show the San Andreas fault (the closest
known fault to the site) as lying about 7.3
kilometers (4.5 miles) to the west. The potential
impact of surface fault rupture is considered less-
than-significant.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Geo-15: Expansive Soils. Available
existing geotechnical information for the OPSP
site does not identify the presence of highly-
plastic, near-surface expansive soils. Therefore,
at this time the impact of expansive soils with
respect to shallow foundations is considered to be
less-than-significant. This applies to the entire
OPSP, including the Phase I Project.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact GHG-1: Construction-Period GHG
Emissions. Temporary construction-related
exhaust would be an additional source of GHG
emissions that could contribute to significant
impacts on the environment. This is a less-than-
significant impact.
Although the impact is less-than-significant,
BAAQMD recommends implementation of best
management practices to further reduce
construction-period GHG impacts.
GHG-1: Construction GHG Reduction Measures.
The following best practice measures shall be
included in construction contracts to reduce GHG
emissions during construction, as feasible.
• At least 15 percent of the fleet of construction
vehicles/equipment shall be alternative fueled
(e.g., biodiesel, electric).
• At least 10 percent of the building materials shall
be locally sourced.
Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-58 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
• At least 50 percent of construction waste or
demolition materials shall be recycled or reused.
Impact Haz-7 Airport Land Use Plan. The OPSP
would be located within the jurisdiction of the
Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco
International Airport. According to the East of
101 area plan, the most stringent height limits in
South San Francisco are south of Forbes
Boulevard and Lindenville (the area between
Railroad Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, and San
Mateo Avenue), which is south of the site.
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, limits
building heights to an elevation of 161 feet above
mean sea level, approximately 12 to 14 stories, in
the most restricted areas, increasing at a slope of
20:1 to a height of 361 feet above mean sea level.
Since the tallest building portion would not
exceed 161 feet in height, the OPSP would be in
compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan. The
impact of the OPSP on the Airport Land Use Plan
is less-than-significant with no mitigation
warranted.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Haz-8: Cumulative Hazardous Impacts.
The OPSP would be one of numerous sites, some
of which are also existing hazardous materials
sites that are anticipated to undergo
development/redevelopment in the vicinity. The
OPSP would contribute to a cumulative increase
in the number of sites handling hazardous
materials, and would result in a cumulative
increase in transportation, use, disposal, and
potential for exposure to and/or accidental release
of hazardous materials during both construction
and operations. However, the cumulative impact
is expected to be slight and identified project-
specific mitigation measures would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level with no
additional mitigation required.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Hydro-4: Risk of Flooding. The OPSP
is not located within the vicinity of a levee, nor in
a potential flood path of a dam failure. The OPSP
is located on the coast of the San Francisco Bay
and therefore could potentially be at risk of
flooding due to climate-induced sea level rise.
However, grading changes proposed as a part of
the Phase I Project would reduce the potential of
flooding to a less-than-significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Hydro-5: Inundation by Tsunami.
Tsunamis, or tidal waves, are huge sea waves that
are caused by seismic activity or other
disturbance of the ocean floor. Portions of South
San Francisco that are near the bay and low-lying
are considered to be at risk for inundation by
tsunami wave run-up. Wave run up is estimated
at 6 feet above mean sea level for a 500-year
tsunami. The margins of the OPSP area
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-59
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
immediately border the bay waters. As such, a
fringe of area is at or below 6 feet above mean
sea level. However, development plans to not
include development of the margins of the site
that are at or below 6 feet above mean sea level.
In addition, much of the shoreline of the OPSP
area is protected by rip-rap to prevent damage to
the shoreline by wave run-up. Consequently, this
impact would be less-than-significant with no
mitigation required.
Impact Hydro-6: Cumulative Impacts on
Hydrology and Water Quality. The increased
construction activity and new development
resulting from the OPSP, in conjunction with
other foreseeable development in the city, would
result in less-than-significant impacts on
hydrology and water quality conditions with no
additional mitigation measures necessary.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Noise-1: Noise Levels at Proposed
Uses. The OPSP will not expose persons to or
generation of noise levels in excess of standard
established by the City of South San Francisco.
This is a less-than-significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Noise-2: Projected Noise Increases.
Following construction, the OPSP will not create
a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above existing
without the project. This is a less-than-significant
impact.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Noise-3: Cumulative Noise Increases.
Traffic volumes along roadways serving the
OPSP area will increase as a result of cumulative
growth planned in and around the City of South
San Francisco. The OPSP would not make a
“cumulatively considerable” contribution to
cumulative traffic noise increases at noise
sensitive receptors within the OPSP area. This is
a less-than-significant cumulative impact.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Noise-4: Groundborne Vibration. The
OPSP is not anticipated to expose persons to or
generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels. This is a less-than-
significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Noise-6: Aircraft Noise. Proposed uses
developed at the site would be exposed to
intermittent noise from aircraft associated with
San Francisco International Airport. The exterior
noise environment at the OPSP area would be
considered compatible with proposed sensitive
uses. This is a less-than-significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Pop-1: Indirect Population Growth. As a
large employment center, build-out of both Phase
I Project and the entire OPSP would indirectly
induce population growth through creation of
additional jobs. However, these additional jobs
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-60 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
would help in part to correct job deficiencies
region-wide and the impact would be considered
less-than-significant.
Impact Traf-3: Bicycle Lane. Class II bicycle
lanes will be provided along Oyster Point
Boulevard and Marina Boulevard their entire
lengths internal to the OPSP site. The Bay Trail
bike/pedestrian path will also be completed
internal to the OPSP site. The Phase I TDM
conceptual site plan shows that bike parking
areas will be provided within the building’s
garage.
These would be a less-than-significant impact,
therefore no mitigation is required.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-4: Year 2015 Internal Circulation.
Year 2015 Base Case + Phase I Project and AM
and PM peak hour volumes and roadway
geometrics expected internal to the project site
along Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard (with Phase I development) are
presented in Figure 16 in Appendix E. Analysis
has been conducted of the Oyster Point
Boulevard / Marina Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard / Phase I access/Bayfront parking lot
intersections assuming all-way stop control at
each intersection. As shown in Table 16.21
below, both intersections should operate
acceptably with projected year 2015 volumes,
including development of the Phase I Project.
This would be a less-than-significant impact,
therefore no mitigation is required.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-15: On-Ramp Operation. Phase I
Project traffic would not produce a significant
impact at any on-ramp (see Table 16.7).
This would be a less-than-significant impact,
therefore no mitigation is required.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Traf-16: Freeway Mainline Operation.
No U.S.101 mainline segment would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of Phase I
Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes.
Operation would remain LOS D or better at all
locations (see Table 16.13).
This would be a less-than-significant impact,
therefore no mitigation is required.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Util-1: Increased Water Demand. Build-
out of the OPSP area would increase water
demand and use of the local water system.
However, according to the Water Supply
Assessment and Utilities Study, there is sufficient
water supply through the year 2030, including the
increased demand from the OPSP, and adequate
water system capacity. This is a less-than-
significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND IMPACT OVERVIEW
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 2-61
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact Util-3: Increased Wastewater Treatment
Demand. Build-out of the OPSP area would
increase wastewater flows and increase demand
at the South San Francisco-San Bruno Water
Quality Control Plant. However, according to the
South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality
Control Plant Draft Facilities Plan Update, there
is sufficient capacity through the year 2030,
including a reserve capacity for flows from the
East of 101 area. As the wastewater treatment
plant has adequate capacity to serve the OPSP’s
projected demand, this increased demand is a
less-than-significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Util-4: Increased Impervious Area. OPSP
area build-out will increase the impervious area
by two acres, or 2.6 percent, which could result in
increased stormwater flows and/or runoff not
meeting treatment requirements, without
appropriate on-site controls. However, the
potential for increased flows will be mitigated
through required compliance with the NPDES
permit process, which will require such controls.
Additionally, stormwater controls are proposed to
meet or exceed LEED standards. The OPSP
would not require additional off-site storm water
facilities or fail to meet treatment requirements.
This is a less-than-significant impact.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Util-5: Increased Solid Waste Disposal
Demand. The OPSP would increase solid waste
generation at the site but would be served by a
landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the OPSP’s solid waste disposal
needs, and would not impede the ability of the
City to meet the applicable federal, state and
local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste. The OPSP would have a less-than-
significant impact with no mitigation warranted.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
Impact Util-6: Increased Energy Consumption.
The OPSP would have an incremental increase in
the demand for gas and electrical power given the
increase in development in the OPSP area.
However, the OPSP is expected to be served with
existing capacity and would not require or result
in construction of new energy facilities or
expansion of existing off-site facilities and would
not violate applicable federal, state and local
statutes and regulations relating to energy
standards. Additionally, buildings in the OPSP
are proposed to meet or exceed LEED standards.
The OPSP would have a less-than-significant
impact relating to energy consumption with no
mitigation warranted.
No mitigation warranted. Less than
Significant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 2-62 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 3-1
3
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
INTRODUCTION
The City of South San Francisco and a private developer are proposing a public-private redevelopment
of approximately 80 acres in the proposed new Oyster Point Specific Plan area for research and
development, office, commercial, hotel, recreational, and public open space uses (“OPSP”). The OPSP
consists of (1) certain private and public improvements to be constructed in an initial phase of
development, described in more detail below, which are analyzed on a project level in this EIR (“Phase
I Project”), (2) additional private and public improvements to be constructed in later phases of
development, which are analyzed on a programmatic level (including the Phase I Project), and (3)
amendments to the Redevelopment Plan for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Project.
This chapter describes the OPSP location, site conditions and existing uses, specific elements of the
OPSP and the Phase I Project, OPSP objectives, and intended uses of the EIR
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN LOCATION
The site of the Oyster Point Specific Plan, including the Phase I Project and all subsequent phases of
development (collectively, the “OPSP”) is part of the City of South San Francisco’s “East of 101”
planning area, the traditional and continued core of South San Francisco’s industrial and technological
businesses, including bioscience offices. The East of 101 area consists of roughly 1,700 acres of land
bound by San Francisco Bay on the east side, Highway 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of
Brisbane and San Francisco Bay on the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south.
The area has a mix of land uses, including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and
bioscience research and development facilities. The area is also separated from most of South San
Francisco’s residential uses by U.S. 101 though some live-aboard boats are permitted at the two
marinas located on Oyster Point and Oyster Cove marinas.
The approximately 80-acre Plan site is located about 3/4 of a mile east of Highway 101, at the eastern
end (Bay side) of Oyster Point and Marina Boulevards. Its location is shown in Figure 3.1.
As more fully described in the following pages, the first phase of the OPSP (“Phase I Project”) will be
analyzed on a project level, while subsequent phases of the OPSP will be analyzed on a programmatic
level. Amendments to the Redevelopment Agency’s fiscally merged Redevelopment Plans, including
the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan are also proposed.
SITE CONDITIONS AND EXISTING USES
The OPSP site includes areas commonly known as the Oyster Point Business Park and the Oyster Point
Marina. The Oyster Point Business Park encompasses 25 acres of the OPSP area. It is a privately
owned series of five single-story light-industrial buildings at 375/377, 379, 384, 385 and 389 Oyster
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Point Boulevard that were developed in the early 1980s totaling 403,212 square feet of space with
surrounding parking (see Figure 3.2). Currently, these buildings are occupied by a variety of light
industrial, office, and Research and Development (R&D) tenants.
The 48-acre area known as the Oyster Point Marina area fills the remainder of the OPSP area other than
roadway elements, which complete the 80-acre area. This land served as a municipal landfill for the
City of South San Francisco from 1956 until it stopped accepting waste in 1970. The Marina is owned
by the City of South San Francisco and managed through a Joint Powers Agreement with the San
Mateo County Harbor District. Currently, this area hosts a variety of uses including a dry boat storage
area, a marine support services building, two small office buildings, a 30-room inn and banquet hall, a
bait and tackle shop, a boat and motor mart and a yacht club, all totaling 74,360 square feet. The
remaining area is vacant or serves as parking for the docks, boat ramp, and the Bay Trail at the Oyster
Point Marina area (see Figure 3.2).
The Oyster Cove Marina is privately owned and located to the west of the Oyster Point Business Park;
it contains 235 berths. The Oyster Point Marina is located on the north side of the Oyster Point Marina
area and contains 600 berths, a boat ramp, fuel dock and fishing pier.
The South San Francisco Ferry Terminal with service to/from San Francisco and the East Bay is
currently under construction and scheduled to be completed at the Oyster Point Marina in early 2011.
(The Ferry Terminal is shown on the Specific Plan Development Program, Figure 3.3). This Ferry
Terminal is a separate project with its own environmental review. As the Ferry Terminal project is
currently underway, it has been assumed for this analysis that the Ferry Terminal will be operational.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN DESCRIPTION
PROGRAMMATIC SPECIFIC PLAN
As it is proposed, the OPSP will be a public and private redevelopment, consisting of the following, as
shown on Figure 3.3. When specific reasonable development assumptions were needed for analysis,
those shown in Table 3.1 were used.
Private development including new office/research and development (R&D) buildings in the western
portion of the site:
x demolition of the existing inn located at 425 Marina Drive, the office buildings at 360 Oyster Point
Boulevard and 401 Marina Boulevard, the boat and motor mart at 671 Marina Boulevard, the Yacht
Club at 911 Marina Boulevard, and the light-industrial buildings at 375-389 Oyster Point
Boulevard,
x new public roadway alignment (and utility infrastructure) of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina
Drive, including relocation of sewer pump station #1 adjacent to 377 Oyster Point
Boulevard,
x office/R&D buildings with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to 1.25 across the 41 acres of private
land area, totaling up to 2,300,000 square feet of building space, including 10,000 square feet of
accessory commercial uses,
x four phases of office/R&D uses of approximately 500,000 to 700,000 square feet each,
x each phase will include or have access to courtyards, plazas, shuttle bus stops, and/or structured
parking,
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 3-3
Table 3.1: Development Assumptions
Building
Size (square feet if not
otherwise specified)
Uses to Remain
Oyster Point Bait and Tackle 1,440
Oyster Cove Marina 235 berths
Oyster Point Marina 600 berths
Phase I
Office/R&D Building 508,000 to 600,000
Auxiliary Commercial 10,000
Oyster Pt Marina Beach approximately 3.1 acres
Recreation Area approximately 3 acres
Additional Phases
New Hotel(s) 350 rooms
Commercial/Retail/Restaurant in Hotel40,000
Office/R&D Building (Phase II) 700,000
Office/R&D Building (Phase III) 525,000
Office/R&D Building (Phase IV) 517,000
Uses to Remain until Hotel Construction, then be Rebuilt on Site
Oyster Point Yacht Club 4,000
Oyster Point Maintenance 2,500
Note that a split of 40% Office and 60% Research & Development uses
was assumed for all Office/R&D buildings. No office/research &
development has been assumed on the proposed City-owned portion,
however, such development would be allowed under the proposed
changes to the General Plan and zoning. Any potential office/research &
development on City-owned portion would be subject to subsequent
environmental review.
x dedication and construction of an approximately 3.1 acre parcel for use as waterfront public open
space.
x Site preparation and/or construction on the former landfill site will involve disturbance and
relocation of landfill refuse on-site (or off-site if the material is hazardous) and modifications to the
landfill cap, as more fully described under the Phase I Project description below.
Public redevelopment including public open space, recreation fields, marina improvements, and a
hotel:
x one or two hotels with a total of 350 rooms and 40,000 square feet of retail/restaurant, as well as
replacement of the Yacht Club (4,000 square feet) and maintenance building (2,500 Square feet),
x new road and utility infrastructure to serve the future hotel site and Oyster Point Marina area,
x a flexible-use recreation area,
x reconfiguration of parking adjacent to the new ferry terminal and shuttle bus turnaround proposed
with the ferry terminal,
x improvements to the Bay Trail and surrounding open space throughout Oyster Point Marina and
the proposed office/R&D Project (subject to BCDC Guidelines and approval),
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
x possible changes to two of the docks in the Oyster Point Marina, which could include removal and
replacement,
x enhancement (landscape and other cosmetic improvements) of existing uses at the eastern end of
Oyster Point in conjunction with required landfill cap repairs, and
x roadway connections to the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal, which is currently under
construction.
x site preparation and/or construction on the former landfill site will involve disturbance and
relocation of landfill refuse on-site (or off-site if the material is hazardous), as more fully described
under the Phase I Project description below.
PHASE I PROJECT
The first phase (“Phase I Project”) of the OPSP will include the development of a minimum of 508,000
square feet up to a maximum of 600,000 square feet of office/R&D space attached to a parking garage
structure on approximately 10 acres, creation of waterfront open space, construction of the flexible
recreation area, grading of most of the future hotel site, and construction of new roads serving Oyster
Point Marina. The specific details of the Phase I Project work are outlined below and in the attached
Phase I Site Plan, Figure 3.4.
Office/R&D buildings on Developer’s Land (Private Development)
Demolition
x Phase I will include demolition of the four existing buildings totaling 66,420 square feet, including
the Oyster Point Inn at 425 Marina Drive, two Office buildings at 360 Oyster Point Boulevard and
401 Marina Boulevard, and the boat and motor mart at 671 Marina Boulevard.
Landfill Consolidation and Grading
x Site preparation and building construction in Phase I will involve excavation and relocation of up
to approximately 100,000 to 120,000 cubic yards of uncompacted landfill materials. Almost all of
this material is anticipated to be non-hazardous and will be relocated on-site in accordance with an
approved grading plan. Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of potentially hazardous material is
anticipated. Any excavated hazardous material will be relocated off-site for appropriate disposal.
The Phase I Grading and Drainage Plan is included as Figure 3.5.
Site and Massing (see Figure 3.4: Phase I Site Plan and Figures 3.6 and 3.7: Elevations):
x The Office/R&D buildings will occupy a site of approximately 10 acres to the south of Oyster
Point Boulevard directly east of Gull Drive.
x Phase I will include the construction of between 508,000 to 600,000 square feet of office/R&D
space.
x Office/R&D complex will include three office/lab buildings, the western-most of which could
reach up to 10 stories, the other two of which could reach up to 6 stories.
x Buildings will be located on a plaza, which will attached to a parking garage structure.
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 3-5
Access:
x The building entrances and lobbies will be located at plaza level.
x A shuttle stop and passenger drop off will be located at plaza level off Oyster Point Boulevard.
x Access to the parking garage will be through an entrance/exit at the northeastern corner of the
garage off of Marina Boulevard.
x Service entries and loading docks for each building will be accessed at the southwest corner of the
site off of Gull Drive.
Open Space and Infrastructure Improvements on City’s Land (Public Redevelopment)
Roads:
x Phase I will include the reconfiguration of Marina Boulevard and a portion of Oyster Point
Boulevard.
x The new roadway construction will also include bicycle lanes, sidewalks and street trees.
x Utilities will be provided in the new roads and will be sized for the full build-out of all phases
including sewer, water, fire water, and a joint trench for PG&E and telecom, as shown on Figure
3.9: Utilities Plan.
x The parking lot adjacent to the west basin of Oyster Point Marina will be reconstructed after
landfill cover improvements have been completed to access the new Marina Boulevard
configuration (see Figure 3.4: Phase 1 Site Plan).
Landfill Cover:
x Improvements will be constructed to update the landfill cover to current regulatory requirements
(Title 27), as shown on Figure 3.10: Landfill Improvement Plan.
Open Space/Recreation:
x An approximately 3-acre site to the east of the Office/R&D buildings will be graded and
constructed as a flexible-use recreation area, which are to be programmed by the City of South San
Francisco. (See Figure 3.4)
x An approximately 3.1-acre waterfront site to the north and east of the Oyster Point Boulevard and
Marina Boulevard intersection will be graded and landscaped as a public park per City
Specifications (See Figure 3.4) and BCDC design guidelines.
x Off-street pedestrian paths (including new portions of the Bay Trail) will connect the ferry terminal
to the existing Bay Trail
Future Hotel Site:
x The approximately 4.7-acre site to the east of the recreation area will be graded to allow for a
future hotel and retail complex. To the east of this area, the Yacht Club structure and the Harbor
District garage, yard and access would remain intact throughout Phase I. (See Figure 3.4)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
REDEVELOPMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS
Amendments to the South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency’s fiscally merged Redevelopment
Plans are also proposed for approval, in order to (1) combine the fiscal limit on the amount of
outstanding debt for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan Added Area, which includes the
Oyster Point Marina area, with the overall debt limit for the other fiscally merged redevelopment
project areas, (2) increase the time period to incur debt for the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan
Added Area and the El Camino Redevelopment Plan Added Area by ten years, and (3) refine the
methodology for allocation of revenues towards the combined tax increment collection limit for the
fiscally merged Project Areas that are subject to such limit to exclude housing set-aside, pass-through
payments and state take-aways (SERAF). The changes could potentially help fund a number of
redevelopment projects already contemplated for the City’s various project areas. For the reasons stated
below and as documented in the following discussion, additional CEQA review of these projects—to
the extent such review has not already been completed—is not required at this time, and therefore is not
included as part of the EIR for the OPSP.
The development and construction of such projects is not related to the OPSP. Most of the other
projects that may ultimately be funded pursuant to the Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan
Amendments are not proposed for approval at this time, and no entitlements for such projects will be
issued as part of any approval for the OPSP. While some of the redevelopment projects are in the
process of being constructed (following separate CEQA review), the timing, scope, and precise design
of many of the projects is still unknown. The Downtown/Central Redevelopment Plan Amendments
proposed as part of the OPSP will simply operate as a funding mechanism for the other potential
redevelopment projects that are unrelated to the OPSP development. Government funding mechanisms
or other government fiscal activities that do not involve any commitment to any specific project are not
considered a “project” requiring CEQA review. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15378(b)(4).) A “project”
requiring CEQA review, is an activity that has the potential for resulting in either a direct or reasonably
foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Accordingly, potential redevelopment projects
that have not been approved, but that may be funded by the proposed Downtown/Central
Redevelopment Plan Amendments to the extent the funding is not solely for the OPSP projects, will be
subject to a separate CEQA analysis at the time that a particular scope and design for the project is
proposed, as that is the time that the potential projects could result in a physical change in the
environment. In some cases, the redevelopment project has already been approved and is under
construction, and therefore, has been subject to separate CEQA review. Table 3.2 identifies completed
and in-progress redevelopment projects for which separate, individualized CEQA review has already
been completed.
To the extent that any CEQA review of potential future redevelopment projects is required, it is
important to note that the CEQA impacts of many of the potential future redevelopment projects that
will be funded by Amendments were analyzed in certified EIRs at the time the corresponding
Redevelopment Plan, or previous amendments thereto, were proposed for adoption. Once an EIR has
been certified for a redevelopment plan, individual components of the redevelopment plan and
subsequent activities within the scope of the redevelopment plan are subject to limited CEQA review.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15180.) As particular development projects are proposed, their potential impacts
will be evaluated against the impacts analyzed in the certified EIRs to determine what, if any, CEQA
analysis is still required. Table 3.3 identifies potential redevelopment projects that may be funded by
the OPSP Redevelopment Plan Amendments, and the previous CEQA documents in which the
particular projects were analyzed.
This EIR for the OPSP development, including associated Redevelopment Plan Amendments,
expressly relies on the analyses contained in the CEQA documents identified in Tables 3.2 and 3.3. The
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 3-7
CEQA documents identified in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 are in the custody of the City’s Chief Planner, and
are available for review during normal business hours at the City of South San Francisco Planning
Division, 315 Maple Avenue, South San Francisco, CA 94080. This EIR for the OPSP development
expressly relies on the tiering procedures described in the CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15152, 15153,
and 15180.
Table 3.2: Redevelopment Projects That Are In Progress
Potential Future Redevelopment Project / Activity CEQA Review
Downtown / Central Project Area
Improve parking in the area with the Miller Avenue Parking Garage Revised Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Miller
Avenue Parking Structure
[“Miller Avenue
IS/MND”] (adopted
March 12, 2008)
Fourth Lane streetscape improvements Miller Avenue IS/MND
Gateway Project Area
Develop job opportunities Gateway Master Plan EIR
(certified 2010)
Table 3.3: Potential Future Redevelopment Projects Analyzed in General Plan or Redevelopment
Plan EIRs
Potential Future Redevelopment Project / Activity
CEQA Review
(General Plan or Re-
development Plan EIR)
Downtown / Central Project Area
Enhance linkages from downtown to transit centers, create street
connectivity with the neighborhoods and improve utilities, lighting
and other public facilities
Redevelopment Plan for
the Downtown / Central
Redevelopment Project
EIR [“Downtown / Central
EIR”] (certified May 10,
1989)
General Plan Update EIR
(certified ~2000)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Create a pedestrian environment to increase foot traffic in the
Downtown area
Downtown / Central EIR
General Plan Update EIR
Continue support for cultural and civic uses and promote downtown
as a financial hub for South San Francisco
Downtown / Central EIR
Create local job opportunities and preserve the area’s existing job
base
General Plan Update EIR
Promote downtown as a central financial hub and activity center General Plan Update EIR
Retain and expand retail opportunities and provide diversification of
uses, including retail, commercial, residential, and recreational
Downtown / Central EIR
Preserve historic fabric and style of architecture Downtown / Central EIR
Baden Avenue development Downtown / Central EIR
Oyster Point improvements and support to encourage and facilitate
development
Downtown / Central EIR
Expand and upgrade housing opportunities in the community
acquisition
Downtown / Central EIR
418 Linden Avenue housing development site Negative Declaration in
progress
El Camino Real Project Area
Oak Avenue extension General Plan Update EIR
El Camino Real/Chestnut
Avenue Area Plan EIR
[“ECR/Chestnut EIR”]
(certification expected in
2011)
Develop the South San Francisco BART area as major
pedestrian neighborhood
ECR/Chestnut EIR
Develop the El Camino Corridor with Grand Boulevard Design
Elements
South El Camino real
General Plan Amendment
EIR [“South ECR EIR”]
(certified 2010)
ECR/Chestnut EIR
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 3-9
Expand open space and pedestrian access, including the expansion of
Orange Avenue Park
El Camino SEIR
General Plan Update EIR
Develop and implement a Business Retention and Development
Assistance Program, including a Commercial Rehabilitation
Program, to encourage private sector investment
El Camino SEIR
Increase sales, taxes, and revenues to the City El Camino SEIR
Achieve an environment with a higher level of concern for historic
fabric
General Plan Update EIR
Chestnut Avenue / Cal Water site acquisition and infrastructure
development
Acquisition:El Camino
Corridor Redevelopment
Plan Amendment
Supplemental EIR [“El
Camino SEIR”] (certified
2000)
Continue rehabilitation efforts in Willow Gardens Neighborhood El Camino SEIR
Develop a spectrum of housing types for all segments of the
community
Redevelopment Plan for the
El Camino Corridor
Redevelopment Project EIR
(certified 1993)
Shearwater Project Area
Improve pedestrian access to open space U.S. Steel Redevelopment
Project EIR [“Shearwater
EIR” (certified 1985)
General Plan Update EIR
Strengthen economic base of Project Area by eliminating
impediments to development and redevelopment and creating job
opportunities
Shearwater EIR
General Plan Update EIR
Expand and upgrade housing opportunities in the community Shearwater EIR
Finally, Table 3.4 identifies the remaining potential redevelopment projects that may be funded by the
Redevelopment Plan Amendments, but which have not been the subject of separate CEQA review or
analyzed in the EIRs for the Redevelopment Plans or previous amendments thereto. It is not yet known
if or when these projects will be constructed; if they are ever to be constructed, the scope and design
plans for these projects are also unknown at this time. In accordance with CEQA, the degree of
specificity with which an EIR must analyze impacts, should correspond to the degree of specificity
associated with the underlying activity described in the EIR. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15146.) CEQA does
not require a lead agency to speculate as to the impacts of an activity which may be unforeseeable.
(CEQA Guidelines, § 15144-15145.) Accordingly, the level of detail in the analysis of a project
proposed for construction will be greater than the level of detail in the analysis of the secondary effects
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
that can be expected to follow from the adoption or amendment of a land use plan. (CEQA Guidelines,
§ 15146.) Here, the potential redevelopment projects that may be funded by the OPSP Redevelopment
Plan amendments are not proposed for construction at this time, but rather are the “secondary effects”
of the funding mechanism that will be created by the proposed Redevelopment Plan amendments.
Therefore, the appropriate time for CEQA review of these remaining potential redevelopment projects
is when a specific development and construction proposal is prepared for approval. At that time, the
remaining potential redevelopment projects that have not already been subject to environmental review,
will be analyzed in a separate CEQA document. Nevertheless, to the extent that certain impacts of these
remaining potential redevelopment projects are foreseeable at this time, analysis of such impacts have
been incorporated, at a programmatic level, into the analysis of the OPSP development. Analysis of the
impacts on population and housing and the growth-inducing impacts of the entitlements currently
proposed for approval, for example, include analysis of the impacts of the remaining potential
redevelopment projects.
Table 3.4: Potential Future Redevelopment Projects Not Yet Analyzed Pursuant to CEQA
Potential Redevelopment Project / Activity
Downtown / Central Project Area
Provide new or improved parks, open spaces and recreational facilities
Grand Avenue mixed-use development site acquisition
Promote new public/private sector investments and incentivize infill development to
encourage downtown revitalization
Redesign stagnant areas and facilities and facilitate assembly of parcels into developable sites
for desirable uses
El Camino Project Area
Eliminate or ameliorate substandard conditions including, parking, circulation, inadequate
infrastructure, and other similar public deficiencies
Increase opportunities for regional and neighborhood uses possibly including a grocery store
Design, develop and construct Main Library
Rehabilitate and redevelop the Project Area in accordance with the General Plan, specific
plans and prevent the spread of non-conforming uses
Gateway Project Area
Eliminate infrastructure deficiencies to stimulate new developments, employment and
economic growth
Improve circulation, water, sewer, and storm drain infrastructure and mitigate hazardous
materials
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 3-11
CalTrain pedestrian plaza/station area improvements
Complete Gateway Day Care Center
Revitalize stagnant areas and facilities
Train station site development assistance, including site acquisition and cleanup
Expand and upgrade housing opportunities in the community
Shearwater Project Area
Improve circulation, water, sewer, storm drainage, and other facility and utility deficiencies adversely
affecting the Project Area
Revitalize obsolete plant facilities
PROJECT OBJECTIVES
1.Create a vibrant destination and a new gateway to the City of South San Francisco.
2.Reorganize the area into a better pattern of land uses that will benefit all of the community’s
stakeholders.
3.Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the General Plan designation as
a site for business and technology park facilities.
4.Continue to develop the East of 101 area into a nationally recognized research and development
center that will attract other life science and high technology businesses.
5.Enhance availability of public open space and access to the Bay.
6.Provide flexible recreational amenities for public use.
7.Repair and upgrade the landfill closure to Title 27 standards.
8.To counteract the potential effects of sea level rise on the closed landfill and public and
surrounding property.
9.Untangle the various ground leases and land uses that has prohibited the City from realizing its
vision for a coherent mixture of public and private land uses on Oyster Point.
10.Redevelop under-utilized land.
11.Reconfigure existing roads to enhance view corridors to the Bay and accommodate a more efficient
layout of development sites.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-12 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
12.Generate additional demand for the transit mode-shift opportunities inherent in proximity to the
upcoming ferry terminal.
13.Build a Project that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco.
14.Generate net property tax and other fees from the development Project and enhance property
values.
15.Build a Project that is viable in the East of 101 area based upon market conditions and projected
service requirements for the area.
16.Develop a Project of high quality design as called for in the Design Element of the East of 101 area
Plan and which integrates with adjoining properties.
17.Allow for use of redevelopment tax increment and debt to help ensure fiscal feasibility of this and
other redevelopment area projects.
INTENDED USES OF THIS EIR
As discussed in Chapter 1, the City of South San Francisco is the Lead Agency responsible for
preparation of this EIR (pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15051). This EIR is intended to function
as a project-level EIR for the Phase I Project and be used to provide CEQA clearance for all required
discretionary actions for the Phase I Project. This EIR is also intended to function as a program-level
EIR for subsequent phases of the OPSP. The EIR provides City of South San Francisco decision
makers, reviewing agencies, and the general public with relevant environmental information to use in
considering the required discretionary actions for approval. The following approvals would be
required:
x Certification of the EIR
x General Plan Amendment
x Specific Plan Amendment
x Zoning Amendment
x Redevelopment Plan Amendment
x Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Adoption
x Design Review
x Development Agreement
x Disposition and Development Agreement
x Subdivision or Parcel Map
x Relocation and/or vacation of city streets, rights-of-way and public utilities
x Joint Powers Agreement Amendment/Facilities Agreement with the Harbor District
x Administrative approval of subsequent demolition, grading and building permits
Approvals from the following bodies are anticipated to be required:
x City of South San Francisco
x City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 3-13
x San Mateo County Harbor District
x San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
x San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board
x San Mateo County Health Services Department
x California Department of Public Health
x California Department of Boating and Waterways
x Airport Land Use Commission
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-14 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 3-15
Figure 3.1: Site Location and Vicinity
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
C
HA
P
T
E
R
3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 3-17
Fi
g
u
r
e
3
.
2
:
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
s
e
s
DRA
F
T
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
3-
1
8
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Th
i
s
P
a
g
e
I
n
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
L
e
f
t
B
l
a
n
k
CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 3-19
Figure 3.3: Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-20 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 3-21
Figure 3.4: Phase I Project Site Plan
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-22 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 3-23
Figure 3.5: Grading and Drainage Plan
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-24 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 3-25
Figure 3.6: Elevations, Phase I Office/R&D
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-26 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 3-27
Figure 3.7: Elevations, Phase I Building 1A
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 3-28 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 4-1
4
AESTHETICS
INTRODUCTION
New development can substantially change the visual qualities and characteristics of an urban area. It
may also have long term lasting effects on the evolution of the urban area, thereby stimulating growth
and increasing its attractiveness for new or expanding businesses, residential development or other
desired or planned land uses. On the other hand, new development can change the character of an area
by disrupting the visual and aesthetic features that establish the identity and value of an urban area for
its existing residents, merchants or other users. Loss of such identity and value may discourage new
investment, continued residency or business activity or other activities that attract visitors to the area. A
single new development can add to a district’s appeal and complement adopted goals for development
and change or entirely overwhelm a district’s scale and visual landmarks. Over time, a new
development may become a valued component of the district and its identity, or generate dissatisfaction
by residents, visitors, employers and employees.
The visual value of any given feature is highly subject to personal sensibilities and variations in
subjective reaction to the features of an urban area. A negative visual impression on one person may be
viewed as positive or beneficial by another. Objective or commonly agreed upon standards are difficult
to establish, but an extensive body of literature is devoted to the subject of urban design and visual
aesthetics.
REGULATORY SETTING
FEDERAL
There are no federal statutes related to aesthetics that would apply to the proposed OPSP.
STATE
Caltrans Scenic Highway Program
California’s Scenic Highway Program is administered by the California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). The Scenic Highway Program was created by the Legislature in 1963. Its purpose is to
protect and enhance the natural scenic beauty of California highways and adjacent corridors, through
special conservation treatment. A highway may be designated scenic depending upon how much of the
natural landscape can be seen by travelers, the scenic quality of the landscape, and the extent to which
development intrudes upon the traveler's enjoyment of the view. The State Scenic Highway System
includes a list of highways that are either eligible for designation as scenic highways or have been
officially designated.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Within South San Francisco, sections of Interstate-280 (I-280) have been designated as scenic corridors
under the State Scenic Highway program, however, these are not in the vicinity of the OPSP site. U.S.
101 has not been designated or identified as eligible in the vicinity.1
LOCAL
Aesthetic and visual resource regulations must be identified on a project-by-project basis. Potentially
pertinent local aesthetic policies currently in place are listed below under their respective plan or
ordinance. Many of the aesthetic-related policies are broader-reaching than simply to avoid
environmental impacts. Note that the following impact section will analyze the potential for
environmental impacts related to aesthetics and does not replace the design review process or prevent
decision-makers from determining an inconsistency with policies in the future during that process.
South San Francisco General Plan (1999)
The City of South San Francisco General Plan describes goals and policies for future growth and
development throughout the City. The General Plan governs the maximum amount and intensity of
development within the East of 101 area, including the OPSP site. Policies pertinent to aesthetics are
listed below:
2-I-3 Undertake planned development for unique projects or as a means to achieve high community
design standards, not to circumvent development intensity standards.
2-I-4a Establish design requirements to achieve an FAR bonus as set forth in Table 2.2-2.
2-I-8 As part of establishment of design guidelines and standards, and design review, improve the
community orientation of new development.
2-I-9 Ensure that any design and development standards and guidelines that are adopted reflect the
unique patterns and characteristics of individual neighborhoods.
5.1-1-8 Improve the accessibility and visibility of Sign Hill Park and the bayfront. Appropriate
departments in the City should study issues of access, safety and protection of surrounding
neighborhoods in conjunction with enhanced access programs to assure greater use of Sign Hill Park
does not create unacceptable impacts to surrounding areas.
East of US 101 Area
3.5-G-2 Direct and actively participate in shaping the design and urban character of the East of 101
Area.
3.5-G-3 Promote campus-style biotechnology, high-technology, and research and development uses.
3.5-I-4 Unless otherwise stipulated in a specific plan, allow building heights in the East of 101 area to
the maximum limits permissible under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77.
1 California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Program, Eligible and Designated Routes, website:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm, accessed on November 6, 2010.
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 4-3
East of 101 Area Plan (adopted 1994)
The OPSP site is also located within the East of 101 Area Plan, a detailed implementation guide for the
area. The East of 101 Area Plan principally provides direction related to design and certain other facets
of development in the area not otherwise covered in the General Plan or other City plans. The City will
use consistency with these policies in evaluating proposals for new development. Policies potentially
pertinent to the aesthetics of projects in the OPSP are listed below:
Land Use
LU-2
New land uses that are similar to or compatible with surrounding development are encouraged.
New developments should visually enhance and contribute to the aesthetic character of the East of 101
Area.
LU-23
Maximum heights of buildings in the East of 101 Area shall not exceed the maximum heights
established by the Airport Land Use Commission based on Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77
Criteria.
Edges
DE-2
Projects in the vicinity of US 101 should be designed with the freeway in mind.
Visual Landmarks
DE-5
Developments in the East of 101 Area should be designed to take advantage of views of San Francisco
Bay and Point San Bruno Hill with its “Windchime” [now known as the Wind Harp]. Wherever
possible, open space areas should be designed to provide views of these areas, and any new roadways
should be laid out to provide vistas of them as well.
Note that the East of 101 Area Plan also includes an Open Space and Recreation goal related to views:
Goal 4.3 Preserve and enhance the natural amenities and features of the East of 101 Area
including the views of the San Francisco Bay , San Bruno Mountain, and San Bruno Point Hill.
However, there are no relevant implementing policies other than DE-5 above and the only vista point
identified in the Plan is at the southwestern corner of the East of 101 Plan Area (not near the OPSP
area), where a view of the Bay and Airport operations are available.
DE-6
Within each development a landmark building should be encouraged to mark the project approach for
visitors coming to it. Such landmarks shall not include signs.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Parking, Loading, and Access Design
DE-15
Site design should de-emphasize the visual prominence of parking areas by separating parking areas
into relatively small components and locating parking behind buildings whenever possible. The
standard practice of placing the majority of the parking between the building and the main street
frontage should be avoided when possible, as shown in Figure B [of the East of 101 Area Plan].
DE-16
All loading and service areas shall be designed so that the maneuvering of vehicles can be
accomplished on-site without special effort and without disrupting on-site circulation.
DE-17
In all land use categories except Light Industrial, loading docks and service areas should be located at
the rear or side of the development, and should be separated from automobile parking areas.
DE-20
Projects should be designed to minimize driveways and vehicular circulation areas, while maximizing
outdoor public spaces. For example, owners of adjacent properties could develop shared facilities such
as driveways, pedestrian plazas and walkways.
Site Design and Open Space
DE-21
Developments should include a landscaped buffer zone along property lines that is appropriate to the
land use category, as shown in Figure A and specified in Section D of the Design Element [of the East
of 101 Area Plan].
DE-22
Developments in the Planned Commercial, Planned Industrial and Coastal Commercial categories
should include on-site open space as a unifying element and as areas for employee use. Open space
should be continuous and should connect separate buildings or sites, especially in campus-like
developments, as shown in Figure B. Open spaces should particularly be located adjacent to lunch
rooms and conference rooms.
DE-23
Open space should be located and designed with consideration for sun exposure and wind protection.
Where possible, open space should offer seating areas with views of San Francisco Bay and Point San
Bruno Hill.
Landscaping and Lighting
DE-28
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 4-5
Plant species chosen for the area should include low maintenance plants and plants adaptive to the
extremes of climate in the area. In addition, plant species and planting design should complement the
design of the development.
DE-29
Lighting on the exteriors of buildings should be incorporated into the overall building and landscape
design. Security and entry lights should align with, be centered on, or otherwise coordinate with the
building elements.
Building Design
DE-38
The form and location of structures, the use of building colors and materials, and the selection of
landscape materials and street furniture shall consider the overall context of the project and promote the
development of a sense of identity for the East of 101 Area.
DE-39
All sides of buildings that are visible from a public street or area should be detailed and treated with
relief elements and changes in plane. Architectural elements used to provide relief could include
awning projections, trellises, built in planters, integrated plazas, colonnades or arcades, expression of
structural elements, wall/window recesses and/or projections, changes in materials and textures or
elements/treatments that create patterns of shade/shadow. Blank walls should be avoided.
In addition to the specific policies mentioned above, the East of 101 Area Plan also lists guiding
policies to control the design of individual buildings, sites, and streetscape, including policies related to
parking, loading, and access design; landscaping and lighting; utility lines; fencing and screening; open
space; and signage.
DE-41
Building facades should be constructed of durable materials such as those already used in the area,
including stucco, well-detailed tilt-up concrete or metal panels, and decorative masonry. Within a
limited range, building surfaces should incorporate more than one material or texture. Highly reflective
materials are discouraged. Building materials shall be chosen to weather the salt air in the area, and
shall be subject to review by the Design Review Board and the approval of the Chief Planner.
Additional policies for the Light Industrial and Coastal Commercial categories are included in Section
D of this Design Element.
DE-42
Building color pallets shall be as approved by the applicable City body with the advice of the Design
Review Board. Building colors may include earth tones and appropriate pastels. Bright colors and
simple primary colors should be avoided, except as accents. Within a limited range, building surfaces
should incorporate more than one color.
DE-43
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Retail, flex and industrial buildings should not exceed 35 feet in height. Landmark design elements
should not exceed 50 feet in height. Office buildings are not subject to a height limit other than that of
the ALUC, as outlined in Policy LV-23. Additional restrictions on building height in the Coastal
Commercial category are included in Section D of this Design Element. Exceptions to this policy may
be made if warranted by a specific proposed use, or if taller building heights are included in an
approved Master Plan.
Rooftop Mechanical Equipment
DE-52
Rooftop mechanical equipment should be screened from view by integral architectural elements such
as pitched roofs, ornamental parapets, mansards or low towers, as shown in Figure A. If screening from
all significant public viewpoints is not possible due to changes in grade, then the equipment should also
be enclosed in a housing that is compatible with the design of the main building.
DE-53
Mechanical equipment shall be painted to match the color of the roof where it is located.
South San Francisco Municipal Code
The zoning regulations for the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan District would be substantially
revised as part of the approvals required for the OPSP and will be replaced with zoning regulations for
the new Oyster Point Specific Plan District. Development in the OPSP area will need to comply with
permitted uses, height, bulk, setbacks, etc. under this zoning.
SETTING
South San Francisco’s urban character is one of contrasts within a visually well-defined setting. San
Bruno Mountain to the north, the ridge along Skyline Boulevard to the west, and the San Francisco Bay
to the east provide the city with distinctive edges.2 The city is contained in almost a bowl-like fashion
by hills on two sides and the City of San Bruno to the south. The city’s terrain ranges from the flatlands
along the water to hills west and north. Hills are visible from all parts of the city, and Sign Hill and San
Bruno Mountain (which is outside city limits) in the distance are visual landmarks. Much of the city’s
topography is rolling, resulting in distant views from many neighborhoods. Geographically, the city is
relatively small, extending approximately two miles in a north-south direction and about five miles
from east to west. South San Francisco’s industrial roots are reflected in its urban character, especially
in its eastern parts. Almost 20 percent of South San Francisco’s land is occupied by industrial and
warehousing uses.
The OPSP area is located in the East of 101 planning area of South San Francisco. The East of 101 area
was part of the first industrial development in South San Francisco over 100 years ago. Since then, the
area has undergone many transformations. Pioneering industrial uses, such as steel manufacturing and
meat packaging gave way to industrial park, warehousing and distribution uses that came to dominate
the area in the 1950s and 1960s. The recent emergence of modern office buildings marks the third
2 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing
Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997, p.4-2, 4-10, 4-15.
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 4-7
major wave of land use change in the area. The newly emerging research and development and office
areas are unique in their uses of consistent and conscious street tree planting. Older manufacturing
uses, industrial park structures and tilt-up warehousing buildings can all be found in the area and blocks
are generally very large in size.
Major landmarks in the East of 101 Area include San Francisco Bay and Point San Bruno Hill, which
has a large sculpture known as the Wind Harp at its peak.
There is no dominant building character or streetscape pattern in the East of 101 Area. The scale of the
built environment ranges from one to seven stories, with some larger ten- to twelve-story hotels and
buildings in the area. The condition of the structures varies from dilapidated to virtually new.
Land uses in the general vicinity of the OPSP area are mostly limited to office, research &
development, commercial (including childcare facilities, fitness centers, restaurants), and light
industrial uses. An existing two building office complex will remain at the terminus of Oyster Point
Boulevard, to the north and east of the OPSP area.
Site Description
The approximately 80-acre OPSP site is located about 3/4 of a mile east of Highway 101, at the eastern
end (Bay side) of Oyster Point and Marina Boulevards. Its location is shown in Figure 3.1.
The OPSP site includes areas commonly known as the Oyster Point Business Park and the Oyster Point
Marina area. The Oyster Point Business Park consists of a series of five single-story light-industrial
buildings with surrounding parking. The Oyster Cove Marina is located to the west of the Oyster Point
Business Park. The Oyster Point Marina area, a former municipal landfill, currently hosts a variety of
uses including a dry boat storage area, a marine support services building, two small office buildings, a
small inn and banquet hall, a bait and tackle shop, a boat and motor mart and a yacht club. The
remaining area is vacant or serves as parking for the docks, boat ramp, and the Bay Trail. The Oyster
Point Marina is located on the north side of the Oyster Point Marina area. (See Figure 3.2.) The South
San Francisco Ferry Terminal with service to/from San Francisco and the East Bay is currently under
construction and scheduled to be completed at the Oyster Point Marina in 2011. See Figure 3.3.
Due to the relatively flat topography of the site and surrounding area, views from much of the OPSP
area are largely restricted to short-range views of nearby structures, roadways and parking areas.
However, surrounding development to the south can be viewed from some of the higher elevations
toward the west of the OPSP area. In addition, there are direct Bay views to the northeast, east, and
southeast, and long range views of the San Bruno Mountains and Sierra Point to the northwest. Because
the sign on Sign Hill is located west of the site and faces south, it cannot be seen from the OPSP area or
immediate vicinity.
Photographs of the site in its existing condition can be seen in Figures 4.2a, 4.3a, 4.4a and 4.5a.
Changes with the OPSP and Phase I Project
The full description of the proposed changes can be found in Chapter 3: Project Description and was
used to assess aesthetic impacts. The proposed changes can be summarized as follows:
With development of the OPSP, the majority of existing building would be demolished and replaced
with new buildings as development proceeds in phases. For visual modeling of the proposed structures,
we have assumed “worst-case” massing. In this instance, that means that we have modeled all buildings
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
at the maximum heights anticipated in the OPSP area. In actuality, the buildings will likely vary in
height and could not all be built out to these masses, as it would result in much greater square footage
than is actually proposed to be permitted. Because the final design for the buildings under the OPSP are
not known, this methodology provides a conservative analysis of potential aesthetic impacts.
All Office/R&D development have been modeled as 10 stories (approximately 210 feet with podium
level and rooftop screening). While it is difficult to determine the size of the parking garage structures
as it will depend on specifics of future design, we have assumed footprints consistent with current
conceptual plans and heights of 5 stories, which is conservative based on parking demand and
provision assumptions.
Note that relocation of landfill material on-site will change the grading within the OPSP and
specifically within the vicinity of the landfill. This changed grading will be intended to correct landfill
settlement and raise low areas to reduce the potential for flooding and counteract the adverse effect of
sea level rise. Particularly in relation to changes in proposed building heights, these grade changes will
not have a substantial impact on aesthetic-related impacts.
While little is known of the potential design for the future hotel(s), a footprint consistent with current
conceptual plans, 75 foot height, and basic hotel styles have been used for visual modeling purposes.
Visual models of the proposed development can be seen in Figures 4.2 through 4.5, with the upper
figure “a” showing the existing context and the lower figure “b” showing the visual modeling of the
proposed development in that context. The map of viewpoint locations is included as Figure 4.1.
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 4-9
Figure 4.1: Viewpoint Location Map
Note that this figure shows only modeled building footprints and is not intended to represent all the improvements
under the OPSP such as parks and infrastructure improvements.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Figure 4.2a: Existing View, U.S. 101 Oyster Point Boulevard Off-ramp, Looking East
Figure 4.2b: Visual Simulation, U.S. 101 Oyster Point Boulevard Off-ramp, Looking East
Note: These structures have all been modeled at proposed maximum heights to provide a worst case analysis. In
actuality, less total building mass would be allowable and buildings would be anticipated to vary in height.
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 4-11
Figure 4.3a: Existing View, Bay Trail Near 7000 Shoreline Court, Looking Southeast
Figure 4.3b: Visual Simulation, Bay Trail Near 7000 Shoreline Court, Looking Southeast
Note: These structures have all been modeled at proposed maximum heights to provide a worst case analysis. In
actuality, less total building mass would be allowable and buildings would be anticipated to vary in height.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-12 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Figure 4.4a: Existing View, Bay Trail North of DNA Way, Looking Northwest
Figure 4.4b: Visual Simulation, Bay Trail North of DNA Way, Looking Northwest
Note: These structures have all been modeled at proposed maximum heights to provide a worst case analysis. In
actuality, less total building mass would be allowable and buildings would be anticipated to vary in height.
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 4-13
Figure 4.5a: Existing View, Bay Trail at Oyster Point Marina/Park Windsurf Launch Ramp, Looking West
Figure 4.5b: Visual Simulation, Bay Trail at Oyster Point Marina/Park Windsurf Launch Ramp, Looking West
Note: These structures have all been modeled at proposed maximum heights to provide a worst case analysis. In actuality,
less total building mass would be allowable and buildings would be anticipated to vary in height.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-14 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 4-15
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Standards of Significance
The following thresholds for measuring aesthetic impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines thresholds:
1.Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
2.Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
3.Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
4.Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect
day or nighttime views in the area?
SCENIC VISTA
Impact Vis-1: Scenic Vista. Development of the OPSP area would result in new buildings of
increased heights and size on the OPSP site, which would obstruct some views of
the San Bruno Mountains and the San Francisco Bay from some locations, but
would not significantly adversely impact views of any scenic vistas from public
viewing points. Further, given the OPSP’s urban setting, a less-than-significant
impact would result on scenic vistas with no mitigation warranted.
Many prominent visual landmarks, such as the San Bruno Mountains, the San Francisco Bay, and the
Wind Harp at San Bruno Point Hill are visible from properties in the East of 101 Area in South San
Francisco, including from along the recreational Bay Trail. These landmarks are not designated scenic
vistas, nor are there any identified vista point from which they are intended to be viewed in the vicinity
of the OPSP area. CEQA generally protects against significant adverse impacts to public views of
scenic vistas, taking into consideration whether the view is from a location at which people gather
specifically to enjoy views and the environmental context (i.e., if the area is a natural area or a
developed urban area). The following bullet points discuss of the impacts to views of these prominent
visual landmarks.
x The Wind Harp at Point San Bruno Hill is located over a half mile away, south of the OPSP area
and is not fully visible due to the distance, grade difference, and buildings between. Development
in the OPSP area would not significantly obstruct views of the Wind Harp. (No impact.)
x The San Francisco Bay is a prominent view from the OPSP area, other parts of the city, and traffic
along the U.S. 101. Figures 4.2 and 4.3 show existing southeast/easterly views in the first figure,
labeled “a”, as well as how those views would be changed with development in the OPSP area as
the second figure, labeled “b”. Development in the OPSP area would change views toward the Bay
from private development to the west, from the traffic on U.S. 101 and from portions of the Bay
Trail.Figure 4.6 shows nearby portions of the Bay Trail and the locations from which views
toward the Bay could be further affected by development in the OPSP area. However, as can be
seen in Figures 4.1 and 4.2, the topography of the area does not provide substantial views of the
Bay, and most sightlines that could be affected by development in the OPSP are already blocked by
existing development. . Therefore, the impact to views of the Bay would be less than significant.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
x The San Bruno Mountains can be seen from many locations throughout the city, including from the
OPSP area, as seen in Figures 4.4 and 4.5. The second figures of these, “b”, show how
construction under the OPSP may block out a portion of the existing northwestern and western
views of the San Bruno Mountains from certain locations to the south of the OPSP area and from
the Oyster Point Marina area within the OPSP, including from portions of the Bay Trail and the
new Ferry Terminal. To provide a “worst case” analysis, the buildings were shown all to the
maximum heights anticipated (while in actuality, less total building mass would be allowable and
buildings would be anticipated to vary in height). The locations for the visual modeling were
chosen specifically to show the most affected views. Most view locations would be affected to a
lesser degree. Figure 4.6 shows nearby portions of the Bay Trail and the locations from which
views of the San Bruno Mountains could be further affected by development in the OPSP area (the
views are already affected by existing development and topography).
While views toward the San Bruno Mountains would be affected by development in the OPSP
area, the San Bruno Mountains are not designated as a scenic vista and the locations from which
views are affected are not places where people gather in order to gain a view of the San Bruno
Mountains. Proposed development in the OPSP area would block views from portions of the Bay
Trail toward the San Bruno Mountains. However, while the Bay Trail is a recreational trail, it is
intended to co-exist along development areas and there are no designated scenic outlooks of the
Figure 4.6: The Bay Trail in the vicinity of the OPSP and the potential to affect views.
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 4-17
San Bruno Mountains along these portions of the Trail, which would retain intended views of the
Bay. Therefore, the impact to views of the San Bruno Mountains would be less than significant.
There are no other scenic vistas or visual landmarks that would be affected by the proposed OPSP and,
as discussed above, impacts on views of the San Bruno Mountain and San Francisco Bay would be
considered less than significant. Therefore, development in the OPSP area would not be considered to
have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista and the impact is less-than-significant.
SCENIC HIGHWAYS
As described in the Regulatory Setting section above, the OPSP area is not located in the vicinity of a
scenic highway, and therefore would have no impact related to scenic resource damage on a scenic
highway.
VISUAL CHARACTER
The visual character of the East of 101 area consists of a mixture of older and newer office and
industrial buildings, with differing amounts of associated landscaping. Development in the Oyster Point
Business Park portion of the OPSP area would involve replacement of older office/light industrial
buildings with new construction of modern buildings with a high quality design including notable
landscaping and pedestrian improvements. In the Oyster Point Marina area, existing buildings will be
replaced with larger, newer buildings as well as a new park area adjacent to the Bay and a recreational
area east of the Phase I office/R&D project. These changes will result in a highly visible change to the
site.
During construction, four basic types of activities would be expected. First, demolition of existing
structures within the OPSP site would occur. Second, the sites would be prepared, excavated, and
graded to accommodate the new building foundations. Next, new buildings and associated landscaping
and site improvements would be developed. Visual impacts associated with construction activities
would be temporary in nature as they would only exist for the duration of construction activities. Such
temporary impacts would include exposed pads and staging areas for grading, excavation, and
construction equipment. In addition, temporary structures could be located on the OPSP site during
various stages of demolition or construction, within material storage areas, or associated with
construction debris piles.
While these activities would take place exclusively within the OPSP site, these visual impacts could
affect surrounding land uses. In addition, automobiles traveling along area roads and the U.S. 101
could have short-term views of the OPSP site during construction. Pedestrians and bicyclists along the
Bay Trail may also have short-term views of construction activity occurring on the site. However, this
visual condition would be a temporary visual distraction typically associated with construction
activities and equipment and would not be considered a significant impact.
The height of buildings in the OPSP area are expected to substantially increase over the current
situation to a scale on par with other office/R&D development in the East of 101 area. Representative
visual modeling shown in Figures 4.2 through 4.5 depict the possible visual outcome. However, while
the visual character would change, the construction of modern buildings meeting or exceeding the
city’s design criteria would not “degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site.” The
proposed OPSP would have no adverse impact on the visual character of the site or the East of 101
area.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-18 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
LIGHT AND GLARE
Impact Vis-2: Light and Glare. The many windows and outdoor lights associated with increased
development intensity within the OPSP area could potentially be substantial
sources of nighttime light and daytime glare. This impact is potentially significant.
Sources of light and glare in the OPSP vicinity include interior and exterior building lights, service
areas and surface parking lots, and city street lights. Vehicular traffic along major thoroughfares in the
area also create sources of light and glare. The existing level and sources of light and glare are
generally typical of those in a developed urban setting.
Development in the OPSP area as proposed would create new sources of light from interior lighting,
exterior building illumination, lighted vehicle and pedestrian circulation, and emphasis for key
architectural or landscape features and outdoor spaces. Illumination levels in the OPSP area will
conform to regulatory requirements and recommendations of the Illumination Engineering Society of
North America (IESNA) and be the lowest end of the range of illumination levels provided in the
IESNA. This would maintain appropriate levels of light at building entries, walkways, courtyards, and
parking lots at night consistent with minimum levels required by building codes.
Nighttime security lighting would not be expected to substantially increase over current conditions.
Lighting would be directed onto the specific locations intended for illumination and would be
characteristic of existing lighting in the surrounding industrial areas.
As the proposed OPSP calls for an increase in the density and height of development, nighttime light
would increase if inappropriate levels of light are used or inappropriate lighting plans are implemented.
However, development within the OPSP would comply with the guidelines in the Design Element of
the East of 101 Area Plan, including those related to lighting, specifically Guidelines DE-29 and DE-
50.
Mitigation Measure
Vis-2a: Lighting Plan. Prior to issuance of building permits for each phase of construction
within the OPSP, the applicant shall submit a Lighting Design Plan for review and
approval by the City of South San Francisco Planning Department. The plan shall
specify fixtures and lighting that maintains appropriate levels of light at building
entries, walkways, courtyards, parking lots and private roads at night consistent
with minimum levels detailed in the City’s building codes. These fixtures shall be
designed to eliminate spillover, high intensity, and unshielded lighting, thereby
avoiding unnecessary light pollution. At a minimum, the Plan shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to the following measures and requirements:
x The Lighting Design Plan shall disclose all potential light sources with the
types of lighting and their locations.
x Typical lighting shall include low mounted, downward casting and shielded
lights that do not cause spillover onto adjacent properties and the utilization of
motion detection systems where applicable.
x No flood lights shall be utilized.
x Lighting shall be limited to the areas that would be in operation during
nighttime hours.
CHAPTER 4: AESTHETICS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 4-19
x Low intensity, indirect light sources shall be encouraged.
x On-demand lighting systems shall be encouraged.
x Mercury, sodium vapor, and similar intense and bright lights shall not be
permitted except where their need is specifically approved and their source of
light is restricted.
x Generally, light fixtures shall not be located at the periphery of the property
and should shut off automatically when the use is not operating. Security
lighting visible from the highway shall be motion-sensor activated.
x Use “cut-off” fixtures designed to prevent the upward cast of light and avoid
unnecessary light pollution where appropriate.
x All lighting shall be installed in accordance with the building codes and the
approved lighting plan during construction.
As the proposed OPSP calls for an increase in development at the site from one-story buildings to more
visible four- to ten-story buildings, daytime glare would increase if reflective materials were used,
which could adversely affect views by distant land uses, such as motorists traveling along US 101
looking towards the OPSP site to views of the San Francisco Bay, and the San Bruno Mountains.
The building design within the OPSP could incorporate a mixture of materials including concrete,
metals, composite, brick, terracotta, stove, wood, stucco and/or various types of glass. Buildings in the
OPSP area would comply with the guidelines in the Design Element of the East of 101 Area Plan,
including those related to building design, specifically Guidelines DE-41 and DE-42.
Mitigation Measure
Vis-2b: Glare Reduction. In order to reduce sources of daytime glare created by
reflective building materials, the applicant shall specify exterior building materials
for all proposed structures constructed for the Phase I Project and each subsequent
phase of development under the OPSP, including the following:
x Exterior building materials shall include the use of textured or other non-
reflective exterior surfaces and non-reflective glass types, including double
glazed and non-reflective vision glass.
x These materials shall be chosen for their non-reflective characteristics and
their ability to reduce daytime glare. All exterior glass must meet the
specifications of all applicable codes for non-reflective glass and would
therefore reduce daytime glare emanating from the OPSP area.
Since development under the OPSP would consist of development and lighting treatments typical of the
existing commercial/industrial urban settings and would incorporate standard and tailored lighting
measures to address undue lighting on adjacent areas and glare off the building as specified in
Mitigation Measures Vis-2a and Vis-2b, it would not result in new sources of substantial adverse light
or glare. The impact would be reduced to less-than-significant.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 4-20 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
CUMULATIVE AESTHETIC IMPACTS
The East of 101 area in South San Francisco is the geographic context for cumulative assessment of
visual quality and aesthetics. This area is a historically industrial area transitioning to high technology
office/R&D uses as reflected in this and other foreseeable projects in the area. These projects largely
involve replacement of older facilities and/or vacant sites and include landscaping and pedestrian
improvements to current City standards. All future development that could occur in the vicinity of the
OPSP would be required to adhere to established restrictions, guidelines, standards, policies, and
criteria that address building appearance, height, bulk, and configuration. Given the current condition
of the East of 101 area and the highly designed developments in the foreseeable and anticipated future,
as well as mitigation included in this OPSP to reduce contributions to light and glare impacts, the
cumulative aesthetic impacts would be less than significant.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 5-1
5
AGRICULTURAL, FOREST AND MINERAL
RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the Draft EIR contains discussion regarding the CEQA topic areas of Agricultural,
Forest and Mineral Resources. Only limited analysis and discussion for these topic areas is required to
make significance determinations due to the nature and specifics of the OPSP site, including the Phase
I Project site. .
AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES
Under the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, development of the OPSP
area as proposed would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in:
1.Conversion of Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland) as shown on maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use;
2.A conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract; or
3.A 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)).
4.The loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to no-forest land.
5.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.
The OPSP site is located in an urbanized area and includes land that is currently developed with light
industrial/office buildings and land that is a closed landfill. No portion of the site has been zoned for
agricultural use, forest land, timberland, or Timber Production. No portion of the site currently supports
agricultural operations or operates under a Williamson Act contract. There are currently no agricultural
operations in the immediate vicinity of the OPSP site, and no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance has been identified on or in the vicinity of the OPSP area. No
portion of the site currently contains any forest land for forest uses. There would be no impact related
to agricultural and forest resources.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 5-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
MINERAL RESOURCES
Under the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, development of the OPSP
site as proposed would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in:
1.Loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the
residents of the state; or.
2.Loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan.
There are no known mineral resources located at the OPSP area, and no locally important mineral
resource recovery site located at the OPSP area or in the vicinity. The OPSP area has not been
delineated as a locally important mineral recovery site on the City of South San Francisco General
Plan, on any specific plan, or on any other land use plan. Therefore, the proposed development of the
OPSP site would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resources or the loss of
availability of any locally important mineral resource recovery site (no impact).
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 6-1
6
AIR QUALITY
INTRODUCTION
This analysis evaluates the air quality impacts of the OPSP, including the Phase I Project . The impacts
associated with implementation of the OPSP were evaluated in terms of construction and operational
impacts to air quality. The primary focus of the air quality analysis was to evaluate future OPSP-related
emissions on regional air quality, as well as existing sources of air pollution near the areas subject to
the proposed zoning modifications that could affect new sensitive receptors. This analysis was
conducted following guidance provided by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) 1.
SETTING
South San Francisco enjoys generally good air quality due largely to the presence of the San Bruno
Gap, a break in the Santa Cruz Mountains that allows onshore winds with cool Pacific air to flow easily
into San Francisco Bay and quickly disperse air pollutants. As a result, winds are usually from the west.
There are periods in fall and winter where winds tend to flow from easterly or southerly directions.
Within South San Francisco, certain areas of the city are more likely to result in elevated air pollutant
exposure for residents and workers. These areas include the U.S. Highway 101, Interstate 280, and El
Camino Real corridors, which experience relatively high pollutant concentrations due to heavy traffic
volumes, particularly during peak periods. Winds blowing out of the south and southeast expose the
city to emissions from the San Francisco International Airport and the industrial areas that are east of
US Highway 101.
REGULATORY AIR QUALITY SETTING
South San Francisco is located within the nine county San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin. The Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) monitors air quality in the basin through a regional
network of air pollution monitoring stations to determine if the national and State standards for criteria
air pollutants and emission limits of toxic air contaminants are being achieved.
The Federal and California Clean Air Acts have established ambient air quality standards for different
pollutants. The national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) were established by the Federal Clean
Air Act of 1970 (amended in 1977 and 1990) for six "criteria" pollutants. These criteria pollutants now
include carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter with a diameter
less than 10 microns (PM10), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb). In 1997, EPA added fine particulate
matter or PM2.5 as a criteria pollutant. The air pollutants that standards have been established for are
considered the most prevalent air pollutants that are known to be hazardous to human health.
1 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines for Assessing Air Quality Impacts from Projects and Plans, 1996, revised 1999.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Federal Regulations
At the federal level, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) administers and
enforces air quality regulations. Federal air quality regulations were developed primarily from
implementation of the Federal Clean Air Act. If an area does not meet NAAQS over a set period (three
years), EPA designates it as a "nonattainment" area for that particular pollutant. EPA requires states
that have areas that do not comply with the national standards to prepare and submit air quality plans
showing how the standards would be met. If the states cannot show how the standards would be met,
then they must show progress toward meeting the standards. These plans are referred to as the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Under severe cases, EPA may impose a federal plan to make progress in
meeting the federal standards.
EPA also has programs for identifying and regulating hazardous air pollutants. The Clean Air Act
requires EPA to set standards for these pollutants and sharply reduce emissions of controlled
chemicals. Industries were classified as major sources if they emitted certain amounts of hazardous air
pollutants.
The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin is subject to air quality planning programs required by the
federal Clean Air Act (CAA) (1977, last amended in 1990, 42 United States Code [USC] 7401 et seq.)
to address ozone air pollution. The CAA requires that regional planning and air pollution control
agencies prepare a regional Air Quality Plan to outline the measures by which both stationary and
mobile sources of pollutants can be controlled in order to achieve all standards within the deadlines
specified in the Clean Air Act.
State Regulations
The California Clean Air Act of 1988, amended in 1992, outlines a program for areas in the State to
attain the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) by the earliest practical date. The
California Air Resources Board (CARB) is the state air pollution control agency and is a part of the
California Environmental Protection Agency. The California Clean Air Act set more stringent air
quality standards for all of the pollutants covered under national standards, and additionally regulates
levels of vinyl chloride, hydrogen sulfide, sulfates, and visibility-reducing particulates. If an area does
not meet CAAQS, CARB designates the area as a nonattainment area. The San Francisco Bay Area Air
Basin currently does not meet the CAAQS for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5. CARB requires regions that do
not meet CAAQS for ozone to submit Clean Air Plans that describe measures to attain the standard or
show progress toward attainment.
CARB regulates the amount of air pollutants that can be emitted by new motor vehicles sold in
California. Motor vehicle emissions standards in California have always been more stringent than
federal standards since they were first imposed in 1961. CARB has also developed Inspection and
Maintenance (I/M) and "Smog Check" programs with the California Bureau of Automotive Repair.
Inspection programs for trucks and buses have also been implemented. CARB also has authority to set
standards for fuel sold in California.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is primarily responsible for assuring that
the National and State ambient air quality standards are attained and maintained in the Bay Area.
BAAQMD is also responsible for adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant
sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, inspecting stationary sources of air
pollutants, responding to citizen complaints, monitoring ambient air quality and meteorological
conditions, awarding grants to reduce motor vehicle emissions, conducting public education
campaigns, as well as many other activities. BAAQMD has jurisdiction over much of the nine-county
Bay Area counties, including San Mateo County, in which Oyster Point is located.
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 6-3
City of South San Francisco
The City of South San Francisco’s general plan goals address concerns about air quality, and in June
2010, the BAAQMD adopted their CEQA Guidelines, which provide guidance in addressing impacts
on global warming. These planning policies are used during the permitting process to assess if the
OPSP, including the Phase I Project, is consistent with the policies and whether they meet the
established goals.
CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS
Ambient air quality standards have been established by state and federal environmental agencies for
specific air pollutants most pervasive in urban environments. These pollutants are referred to as criteria
air pollutants because the standards established for them were developed to meet specific health and
welfare criteria set forth in the enabling legislation. The criteria air pollutants emitted by development,
traffic and other activities anticipated under the proposed development include ozone (O3), ozone
precursors oxides of nitrogen and reactive organic gases (NOx and ROG), carbon monoxide (CO),
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and suspended particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5). Other criteria pollutants,
such as lead (Pb) and sulfur dioxide (SO2), would not be substantially emitted by the proposed
development or traffic, and air quality standards for them are being met throughout the Bay Area.
Ozone (O3)
While O3 serves a beneficial purpose in the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) by reducing ultraviolet
radiation potentially harmful to humans, when it reaches elevated concentrations in the lower
atmosphere it can be harmful to the human respiratory system and to sensitive species of plants. O3
concentrations build to peak levels during periods of light winds, bright sunshine, and high
temperatures. Short-term O3 exposure can reduce lung function in children, make persons susceptible to
respiratory infection, and produce symptoms that cause people to seek medical treatment for respiratory
distress. Long-term exposure can impair lung defense mechanisms and lead to emphysema and chronic
bronchitis. Sensitivity to O3 varies among individuals, but about 20 percent of the population is
sensitive to O3, with exercising children being particularly vulnerable. O3 is formed in the atmosphere
by a complex series of photochemical reactions that involve “ozone precursors” that are two families of
pollutants: oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG). NOx and ROG are emitted
from a variety of stationary and mobile sources. While NO2, an oxide of nitrogen, is another criteria
pollutant itself, ROGs are not in that category, but are included in this discussion as O3 precursors.
Carbon Monoxide (CO)
Exposure to high concentrations of CO reduces the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood and can
cause dizziness and fatigue, impair central nervous system function, and induce angina in persons with
serious heart disease. Primary sources of CO in ambient air are passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and
residential wood burning. Emission controls placed on automobiles and the reformulation of vehicle
fuels have resulted in a sharp decline in CO levels, especially since 1991.
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2)
The major health effect from exposure to high levels of NO2 is the risk of acute and chronic respiratory
disease. NO2 is a combustion by-product, but it can also form in the atmosphere by chemical reaction.
NO2 is a reddish-brown colored gas often observed during the same conditions that produce high levels
of O3 and can affect regional visibility. NO2 is one compound in a group of compounds consisting of
oxides of nitrogen (NOx). As described above, NOx is an O3 precursor compound.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Particulate Matter (PM)
Respirable particulate matter, PM10, and fine particulate matter, PM2.5, consist of particulate matter that
is 10 microns or less in diameter and 2.5 microns or less in diameter, respectively. PM10 and PM2.5
represent fractions of particulate matter that can be inhaled and cause adverse health effects. PM10 and
PM2.5 are a health concern, particularly at levels above the Federal and State ambient air quality
standards. PM2.5 (including diesel exhaust particles) is thought to have greater effects on health because
minute particles are able to penetrate to the deepest parts of the lungs. Scientific studies have suggested
links between fine particulate matter and numerous health problems including asthma, bronchitis, acute
and chronic respiratory symptoms such as shortness of breath and painful breathing. Children are more
susceptible to the health risks of PM2.5 because their immune and respiratory systems are still
developing. Very small particles of certain substances (e.g., sulfates and nitrates) can also directly
cause lung damage or can contain absorbed gases (e.g., chlorides or ammonium) that may be injurious
to health.
Particulate matter in the atmosphere results from many kinds of dust- and fume-producing industrial
and agricultural operations, fuel combustion, and atmospheric photochemical reactions. Some sources
of particulate matter, such as mining and demolition and construction activities, are more local in
nature, while others, such as vehicular traffic, have a more regional effect. In addition to health effects,
particulates also can damage materials and reduce visibility. Dust comprised of large particles
(diameter greater than 10 microns) settles out rapidly and is more easily filtered by human breathing
passages. This type of dust is considered more of a soiling nuisance rather than a health hazard.
In 1983, CARB replaced the standard for “suspended particulate matter” with a standard for suspended
PM10 or “respirable particulate matter.” This standard was set at 50 μg/m3 for a 24-hour average and 30
μg/m3 for an annual average. CARB revised the annual PM10 standard in 2002, pursuant to the
Children's Environmental Health Protection Act. The revised PM10 standard is 20 μg/m3 for an annual
average. PM2.5 standards were first promulgated by the EPA in 1997, and were recently revised to
lower the 24-hour PM2.5 standard to 35 μg/m3 for 24-hour exposures and revoked the annual PM10
standard due to lack of scientific evidence correlating long-term exposures of ambient PM10 with health
effects. CARB has adopted an annual average PM2.5 standard, which is set at 12 μg/m3, which is more
stringent than the Federal standard of 15 μg/m3.
TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS
Besides the "criteria" air pollutants, there is another group of substances found in ambient air referred
to as Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) under the Federal Clean Air Act and Toxic Air Contaminants
(TACs) under the California Clean Air Act. These contaminants tend to be localized and are found in
relatively low concentrations in ambient air. However, they can result in adverse chronic health effects
if exposure to low concentrations occurs for long periods. They are regulated at the local, state, and
federal level.
TACs are a broad class of compounds known to cause morbidity or mortality (cancer risk), and include,
but are not limited to, the criteria air pollutants listed above. TACs are found in ambient air, especially
in urban areas, and are caused by industry, agriculture, fuel combustion, and commercial operations
(e.g., dry cleaners). TACs are typically found in low concentrations, even near their source (e.g.,
benzene near a freeway). Because chronic exposure can result in adverse health effects, TACs are
regulated at the regional, state, and federal level.
Diesel exhaust is the predominant TAC in urban air, and is estimated to represent about two-thirds of
the cancer risk from TACs (based on the statewide average). According to CARB, diesel exhaust is a
complex mixture of gases, vapors and fine particles. This complexity makes the evaluation of health
effects of diesel exhaust a complex scientific issue. Some chemicals in diesel exhaust, such as benzene
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 6-5
and formaldehyde, have been previously identified as TACs by ARB, and are listed as carcinogens
either under State Proposition 65 or under the Federal Hazardous Air Pollutants programs.
CARB reports that recent air pollution studies have shown an association that diesel exhaust and other
cancer-causing toxic air contaminants emitted from vehicles are responsible for much of the overall
cancer risk from TACs in California. Particulate matter emitted from diesel-fueled engines (diesel
particulate matter [DPM]) was found to comprise much of that risk. In August, 1998, CARB formally
identified DPM as a TAC. Diesel particulate matter is of particular concern, since it can be distributed
over large regions, thus leading to widespread public exposure. The particles emitted by diesel engines
are coated with chemicals, many of which have been identified by EPA as hazardous air pollutants, and
by CARB as TACs. Diesel engines emit particulate matter at a rate about 20 times greater than
comparable gasoline engines. The vast majority of diesel exhaust particles (over 90 percent) consist of
PM2.5, which are the particles that can be inhaled deep into the lung. Like other particles of this size, a
portion will eventually become trapped within the lung, possibly leading to adverse health effects.
While the gaseous portion of diesel exhaust also contains TACs, CARB’s 1998 action was specific to
DPM, which accounts for much of the cancer-causing potential from diesel exhaust. California has
adopted a comprehensive diesel risk reduction program to reduce DPM emissions 85 percent by 2020.
The U.S. EPA and CARB adopted low sulfur diesel fuel standards in 2006 that reduce diesel particulate
matter substantially.
In cooler weather, smoke from residential wood combustion can be a source of TACs. Localized high
TAC concentrations can result when cold stagnant air traps smoke near the ground and, with no wind,
the pollution can persist for many hours, especially in sheltered valleys during winter. Wood smoke
also contains a significant amount of PM10 and PM2.5. Wood smoke is an irritant, and is implicated in
worsening asthma and other chronic lung problems.
ODORS
Objectionable odors may be associated with a variety of pollutants. Common sources of odors include
wastewater treatment plants, landfills, composting facilities, refineries and chemical plants. Odors
rarely have direct health impacts, but they can be very unpleasant and can lead concern over possible
health effects among the public. Each year the Air District receives thousands of citizen complaints
about objectionable odors.2
The Phase I Project includes disturbance of the landfill and relocation of landfill materials. The
following is a list of general compound categories that could be present in a typical landfill and can
cause odors.
x Reduced sulfur compounds have low odor detection threshold levels and offensive characteristics
such as those of rotten eggs or other rotting materials.
x Aldehydes and Amines also have low odor detection threshold levels and pungent and offensive
characteristics such as those of old sweaty socks or dead fish.
x Ketones and alcohols have low to moderate odor detection levels are generally not offensive and
can result in a sweet odor.
x Volatile and semi-volatile hydrocarbon compounds have moderate to high odor detection threshold
levels and can be generally classified as a chemical/solvent or gasoline (aromatic)/diesel-like odor.
x Chlorinate organics have moderate to high odor detection threshold levels and are generally sweet
or chlorine-like in nature.
2 BAAQMD, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, December 2009, as amended.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Odor compounds can have significantly different characteristics and odor detection thresholds, with a
low threshold indicating they are discernable at lower concentrations. In general, reduced sulfur
compounds and certain amines and aldehydes have low thresholds and odors that are considered
objectionable. Volatile and semi-volatile hydrocarbons and chlorinate organics have distinctive odors;
however the odor threshold concentrations are relatively high. Some compounds such as ketones and
alcohols have moderate to low odor thresholds, however their odors are sweet and generally not
objectionable. Because of the innate variation of materials within a landfill, it is difficult to predict the
extent and intensity of potential odors.
NATIONAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
The CAA and CCAA promulgate, respectively, national and state ambient air quality standards for
carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter 10 microns or less in
diameter (PM10), and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter (PM2.5).3 Ambient standards
specify the concentration of pollutants to which the public may be exposed without adverse health
effects. Individuals vary widely in their sensitivity to air pollutants, and standards are set to protect
more pollution-sensitive populations (e.g., children and the elderly). National and state standards are
reviewed and updated periodically based on new health studies. California ambient standards tend to be
at least as protective as national ambient standards, and are often more stringent. National and
California ambient air quality standards are shown in Table 6.1, below.
For planning purposes, regions like the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin are given an air quality
status designation by the federal and state regulatory agencies. Areas with monitored pollutant
concentrations that are lower than ambient air quality standards are designated “attainment” on a
pollutant-by-pollutant basis. When monitored concentrations exceed ambient standards within an air
basin, it is designated “nonattainment” for that pollutant. U.S. EPA designates areas as “unclassified”
when insufficient data are available to determine the attainment status; however, these areas are
typically considered to be in attainment of the standard.
Table 6.1: Health-Based Ambient Air Quality Standards
Pollutant Averaging Time California Standard National Standard
Ozone 1 Hour 0.09 ppm ---
8 Hour 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm
Carbon Monoxide 1 Hour 20 ppm 35 ppm
8 Hour 9.0 ppm 9 ppm
Nitrogen Dioxide 1 Hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm
Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm
Sulfur Dioxide 24 Hour 0.04 ppm 0.14 ppm
Annual --- 0.030 ppm
Particulates 24 Hour 50 ug/m3 150 ug/m3
< 10 microns Annual 20 ug/m3 ---
Particulates 24 Hour --- 35 ug/m3
< 2.5 microns Annual 12 ug/m3 15 ug/m3
Concentrations: ppm = parts per million ug/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Bay Area Pollution Summary – 2010.
3 Other pollutants (e.g., lead, sulfur dioxide) also have ambient standards, but they are not discussed in this
document because emissions of these pollutants from the Project are expected to be negligible.
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 6-7
EXISTING AIR QUALITY
Air quality in the region is controlled by the rate of pollutant emissions and meteorological conditions.
Meteorological conditions such as wind speed, atmospheric stability, and mixing height may all affect
the atmosphere’s ability to mix and disperse pollutants. Long-term variations in air quality typically
result from changes in air pollutant emissions, while frequent, short-term variations result from changes
in atmospheric conditions. The San Francisco Bay Area is considered to be one of the cleanest
metropolitan areas in the country with respect to air quality. BAAQMD monitors air quality conditions
at more than 30 locations throughout the Bay Area. While no monitoring station is located in South San
Francisco, the monitoring sites closest to the OPSP site are located in San Francisco and Redwood
City. Monitoring station measurements indicate that air quality in the vicinity of South San Francisco
performs well against State standards for criteria air pollutants. No violations of the State standard for
ozone occurred between 2007 and 2009. Table 6.2 summarizes exceedances of the state and federal
standards at the San Francisco monitoring site and Bay Area-wide.
Table 6.2: Summary of Criteria Air Pollution Monitoring Data
Pollutant Standard Monitoring Site Days Standard Exceeded
2007 2008 2009
Ozone State 1-Hour
San Francisco
Redwood City
SF Bay Area Air
0
0
4
0
0
9
0
0
11
Ozone Federal 8-Hour
San Francisco
Redwood City
SF Bay Area Air
0
0
1
0
0
12
0
0
8
Ozone State 8-Hour
San Francisco
Redwood City
SF Bay Area Air
0
0
9
0
0
20
0
0
13
PM10 Federal 24-Hour
San Francisco
Redwood City
SF Bay Area Air
0
0
0
0
*
0
0
*
0
PM10 State 24-Hour
San Francisco
Redwood City
SF Bay Area Air
2
1
4
0
*
5
0
*
1
PM2.5 Federal 24-Hour
San Francisco
Redwood City
SF Bay Area Air
5
1
14
0
0
12
1
0
11
Carbon
Monoxide
State/Federal
8-Hour
San Francisco
Redwood City
SF Bay Area Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Nitrogen
Dioxide State 1-Hour
San Francisco
Redwood City
SF Bay Area Air
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Notes:
PM10 and PM2.5 are measured every sixth day in San Francisco and other Bay Area sites, so the number of days
exceeding the standard is estimated.
PM10 monitoring was discontinued at Redwood City on June 30, 2008
In 2006, the PM2.5 standard was changed from 65 μg/m3 to 35 μg/m3
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District Air Pollution Summaries
(http://www.baaqmd.gov/pio/aq_summaries/index.htm)
In San Francisco, the Years 2007 through 2009 monitoring data indicate that the air pollutant levels
met all state ambient air quality standards except those for particulate matter. There were two days that
24-hour PM10 state standards were exceeded and 6 days that the PM2.5 standards were exceeded.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 6.2 shows that air quality as a result of exceedances of O3 and PM2.5 and PM10 standards are
problematic in the San Francisco Bay Area. In recent years, the State O3 standards have been exceeded
at least somewhere in the Bay Area on 4 to 20 days per year. Because the San Francisco station does
not lie downwind of major air pollution sources, O3 standards have not been exceeded in the last 3
years at this location. On the other hand, a station like Concord that lies downwind has exceeded
standards on 2 to 14 days per year. Ozone levels in the Bay Area exceeded the federal standard on one
day in 2007, and 12 days in 2006 and 2008. PM10 is just as problematic in the Bay Area, where
exceedances of state standards are estimated at over 15 days per year. However, the federal PM10
standard has not been exceeded. In 2006, U.S. EPA reduced the 24-hour PM2.5 standard to 35
micrograms per cubic meter. Statistics on the number of days exceeding this standard have only been
kept since 2006. The Bay Area has exceeded this standard on 10 to 14 sampling days per year.
Continuous monitoring of PM2.5 monitoring in San Francisco shows there were 6 days in 2007 through
2009 where the concentrations were above the standards. Standards for CO and NO2, or any other
criteria air pollutant, are not exceeded anywhere in the Bay Area.
ATTAINMENT STATUS
Areas that do not violate ambient air quality standards are considered to have attained the standard.
Violations of ambient air quality standards are based on air pollutant monitoring data and are judged
for each air pollutant. The attainment status for the area is summarized in Table 6.3, below. The Bay
Area as a whole does not meet state or federal ambient air quality standards for ground level ozone and
State standards for PM10 and PM2.5.
Table 6.3: Regional Attainment Status
PollutantFederal StatusState Status
Ozone (O3) – 1-Hour StandardNo DesignationSerious Nonattainment
Ozone (O3) – 8-Hour StandardMarginal NonattainmentNonattainment
Respirable Particulate Matter (PM10)UnclassifiedNonattainment
Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5)NonattainmentNonattainment
Carbon Monoxide (CO)Attainment/UnclassifiedAttainment
Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2 Unclassified Attainment
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)Attainment Attainment
Sulfates No Designation Attainment
Lead No Designation Attainment
Hydrogen Sulfide No Designation Unclassified
Visibility Reducing Particles No Designation Unclassified
Source: Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
California Air Resource Board
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 6-9
Under the Federal CAA, the U.S. EPA has classified the region as marginally nonattainment for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard. U.S. EPA required the region to attain the standard by 2007. The U.S.
EPA determined that the Bay Area has met this standard, but a formal redesignation request and
maintenance plan would have to be submitted before formal redesignation could be made. In May
2008, U.S. EPA lowered the 8-hour ozone standard from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm. The USEPA was poised
to promulgate nonattainment designations under the 2008 ozone NAAQS in December 2009, which
would have included the Bay Area. These nonattainment designations would have become effective by
March 12, 2010. However, in January, 2010, the USEPA announced delay of the final designations for
the 2008 NAAQS until March 12, 2011, to allow adequate time for reconsideration and possible
revision of the 2008 NAAQS. The range of standards under consideration would be a significant
change, which would undoubtedly result in a nonattainment designation for the Bay Area and much of
California. The Bay Area has met the CO standards for over a decade, and is classified attainment
maintenance by the U.S. EPA. The U.S. EPA grades the region unclassified for all other air pollutants,
which include PM10 and PM2.5. In December 2008, U.S. EPA designated the entire Bay Area as
nonattainment for the federal 24-hour PM2.5 standard. PM2.5 monitoring data showed violations at the
Vallejo and San Jose monitoring stations. The Bay Area will have until 2015 to attain the standards,
although U.S. EPA could grant extensions to 2020.
At the State level, the region is considered serious non-attainment for ground level O3 and non-
attainment for PM10 and PM2.5. California ambient air quality standards are more stringent than the
national ambient air quality standards. The region is required to adopt plans on a triennial basis that
show progress towards meeting the State O3 standard. The Bay Area is also considered nonattainment
for PM10 and PM2.5 standards. The area is considered attainment or unclassified for all other pollutants.
REGIONAL AIR QUALITY PLANS
The BAAQMD and other agencies prepare clean air plans in response to the State and federal Clean
Air Acts. The City of South San Francisco also includes General Plan policies that encourage
development that reduces air quality impacts. In addition, the BAAQMD has developed CEQA
Guidelines to assist local agencies in evaluating and mitigating air quality impacts. 4
2001 Ozone Attainment Plan Addressing the National Standards
The BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG) prepared the Bay Area 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan. This plan is a proposed
revision to the Bay Area’s part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to achieve the NAAQS for the 1-
hour ozone standard. The plan was prepared in response to U.S. EPA's partial approval and partial
disapproval of the Bay Area's 1999 Ozone Attainment Plan. Although U.S. EPA revoked the 1-hour
NAAQS, commitments made in that plan along with emissions budgets remain valid until the region
develops an attainment demonstration/maintenance plan for the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. The U.S.
EPA has already determined that the region met the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. However, the region
will be required to submit a maintenance plan and demonstration of attainment with a request for
redesignation to U.S. EPA prior to be formally redesignated. BAAQMD will likely not act on this
submittal for a few years. In addition, the U.S. EPA’s new, slightly more stringent, 8-hour standard was
recently established. The U.S. EPA will be making new attainment designations based on that standard
in about 3 years and eventually revoking the older standard.
4 Bay Area Air Quality Management District California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
1991 Clean Air Plan and Subsequent Updates Addressing the State Standards
In 1991, the BAAQMD, MTC and ABAG prepared the Bay Area 1991 Clean Air Plan or CAP. This air
quality plan addresses the California Clean Air Act. Updates are developed approximately every three
years. The plans were meant to demonstrate progress toward meeting the more stringent 1-hour ozone
CAAQS. The latest update to the plan, which was adopted in September 2010, is called the Bay Area
2010 Clean Air Plan. The plan includes the following:
x Updates the recent Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy in accordance with the requirements of the
California Clean Air Act to implement “all feasible measures” to reduce ozone;
x Provide a control strategy to reduce ozone, particulate matter (PM), TACs, and greenhouse gases in
a single, integrated plan;
x Review progress in improving air quality in recent years; and
x Establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the 2010-2012 timeframe.
PM10 and PM2.5 Plans
BAAQMD has found that the primary constituents of elevated PM2.5 and PM10 are secondary
ammonium nitrate and wood smoke. Secondary ammonium nitrate forms in the atmosphere as a result
primarily of fossil fuel combustion (e.g., motor vehicles). The clean air planning efforts for ozone will
also reduce PM10 and PM2.5, since a substantial amount of this air pollutant comes from combustion
emissions such as vehicle exhaust. BAAQMD adopts and enforces rules to reduce particulate matter
emissions and develops public outreach programs to educate the public to reduce PM10 and PM2.5
emissions (e.g., Spare the Air Program). SB 656 requires further action by CARB and air districts to
reduce public exposure to PM10 and PM2.5. Efforts identified by BAAQMD in response to SB 656 are
primarily targeting reductions in wood smoke emissions and adoption of new rules to further reduce
NOx and particulate matter from internal combustion engines and reduce particulate matter from
commercial charbroiling activities. BAAQMD recently adopted a rule addressing residential wood
burning. The rule restricts operation of any indoor or outdoor fireplace, fire pit, wood or pellet stove,
masonry heater or fireplace insert on specific days during the winter when air quality conditions are
forecasted to exceed the NAAQS for PM2.5. The proposed rule also limits excess visible emissions
from wood burning devices and requires clean burning technology for wood burning devices sold (or
resold) or installed in the Bay Area. Controls on ozone precursor emissions that include NOx and ROG
would reduce particulate matter concentrations in winter. NOx emissions contribute to ammonium
nitrate formation that resides in the atmosphere as particulate matter. The Bay Area experiences the
highest PM10 and PM2.5 in winter, when wood smoke and ammonium nitrate contributions to
particulate matter are highest.
Because U.S. EPA designated the Bay Area nonattainment for the 24-hour PM2.5 standard, CARB and
BAAQMD will have to develop a plan for meeting the standard by December 2014. The plan must be
submitted to U.S. EPA by December 2012. Statewide, CARB has taken recent actions at reducing
PM2.5 from diesel trucks and construction equipment.
On June 2, 2010, the Air District adopted updated thresholds and the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines in
support of the new Clean Air Plan. The CEQA Guidelines Update revised significance thresholds,
assessment methodologies, and mitigation strategies for criteria pollutants, air toxics, odors, and
greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is BAAQMD policy that these updated thresholds would not
apply to projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was published prior to the effective date of
June 2, 2010.
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 6-11
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of South San Francisco General Plan addresses
air quality and includes the following Policies specifically to air quality in the South San Francisco
area:
x 7.3-G-1 Continue to work toward improving air quality and meeting all national and State ambient
air quality standards and by reducing the generation of air pollutants both from stationary and
mobile sources, where feasible.
x 7.3-G-2 Encourage land use and transportation strategies that promote use of alternatives to the
automobile for transportation, including bicycling, bus transit, and carpooling.
x 7.3-G-3 Minimize conflicts between sensitive receptors and emissions generators by distancing
them from one another.
The Transportation element of the General Plan contains the following Policies which indirectly apply
to air quality in the South San Francisco area:
x 4.4-G-1 Promote local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco.
x 4.4-G-2 Explore mechanisms to integrate various forms of transit.
o 4.4-I-4 - Encourage SamTrans to increase the shuttle or bus-service to East of 101 area to
better serve the area’s growing employment base.
o 4.4-I-5 -As part of any revisions to the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan, explore the
feasibility of providing or reserving site for a ferry terminal.
SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
"Sensitive receptors" are defined as facilities where sensitive population groups, such as children, the
elderly, the acutely ill and the chronically ill, are likely to be located. These land uses include
residences, schools, playgrounds, childcare centers, retirement homes, convalescent homes, hospitals
and medical clinics. The recreation fields located in the center of the Phase I Project development area
is the only potentially “sensitive” receptor in the primarily office/commercial uses proposed in the
OPSP.
BUFFERS FROM SOURCES OF AIR POLLUTION AND ODORS
The BAAQMD and CARB recommend that communities include buffers between sensitive receptors
and sources of air toxic contaminant emissions and odors. In April, 2005, CARB released the final
version of the Air Quality and Land Use Handbook, which is intended to encourage local land use
agencies to consider the risks from air pollution prior to making decisions that approve the siting of
new sensitive receptors near sources of air pollution. Unlike industrial or stationary sources of air
pollution, siting of new sensitive receptors does not require air quality permits, but could create human
health problems. The primary purpose of the CARB document is to highlight the potential health
impacts associated with proximity to common air pollution sources, so that those issues are considered
in the planning process. CARB makes recommendations regarding the siting of new sensitive land uses
near freeways, truck distribution centers, dry cleaners, gasoline dispensing stations, and other air
pollution sources. These “advisory” recommendations are based primarily on modeling information for
studies conducted throughout the state, and may not be entirely reflective of conditions in Oyster Point.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-12 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
CARB-recommended setback distances that would apply to Oyster Point are summarized in Table 6.4,
below.
Table 6.4: Applicable Buffers Between Air Pollution Sources and Sensitive Receptors
Source Recommended Setback Comments
Truck
Distribution
Centers
Up to 1,000 feet
Setback distance is dependent on volumes and types
of trucks and their equipment. As with freeways,
emission rates will decrease substantially in the
future
Siting of new sensitive land uses within these recommended distances may be appropriate due to site-
specific conditions (e.g., source strength or meteorology), but should only be done after site-specific
studies are conducted to identify the actual health risks. CARB acknowledges that land use agencies
have to balance other siting considerations such as housing and transportation needs, economic
development priorities and other quality of life issues. Buffers should be considered with existing and
proposed industrial sources to avoid health, odor and nuisance impacts.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist) contains a list of air quality effects
that may be considered significant. Implementation of the OPSP would have a significant effect on the
environment if it were to:
1.Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan;
2.Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality
violation;
3.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);
4.Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations; or
5.Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
The CEQA Guidelines state that, where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the above
determinations. BAAQMD has updated their thresholds and Guidelines on June 2, 2010, but has
specifically noted that they would not apply to projects for which a Notice of Preparation (NOP) was
published prior to the effective date of June 2, 2010. The NOP for this analysis was published on
February 26, 2010, well before this date. Therefore, the OPSP and Phase I Project are compared against
thresholds in place at the date of publication of the NOP though comparisons against the updated
thresholds are also included for discussion purposes where they are different, as noted in detail under
each impact area below.
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 6-13
CLEAN AIR PLAN (CAP) POPULATION AND VMT CONSISTENCY
Impact Air-1: Conflict with Clean Air Plan Assumptions. Development anticipated as a result
of the OPSP would increase employment in an area designed for employment
centers served by local and regional transit. However, city-wide, vehicle miles
traveled (VMT) was projected to increase at a faster rate than the city’s population,
which conflicts with CAP assumptions. This is a significant impact.
According to the BAAQMD (in both the 1999 and 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines, though terminology
has been updated), the following criteria must be satisfied for a local plan to be determined to be
consistent with the CAP and not have a significant air quality impact:
1.The local plan should be consistent with the CAP population and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) or
Vehicle Trip assumptions. This is demonstrated if the population growth over the planning period
will not exceed the growth rate included in the current CAP and the projected rate of vehicle miles
travelled or vehicle trips is less than or equal to the population increase; and
2.The local plan demonstrates reasonable efforts to implement the appropriate Air Quality Plan
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) included in the CAP.
In addition, the plans should not lead to development that would lead to violations of ambient air
quality standards, which would include projected vehicle miles traveled or vehicle trip increases greater
than projected population increases.
A key element in air quality planning is to make reasonably accurate projections of future human
activities that are related to air pollutant emissions. When the 1991 CAP was updated (Bay Area 2010
Clean Air Plan), it utilized the most recent projections developed by ABAG and vehicle activity
projected by the MTC. These projections were based on the most recent projections at the time using
land use designators developed by cities and counties through the General Plan process. The City of
South San Francisco General Plan was updated in 1999, and so the CAP included the latest General
Plan projections. The proposed OPSP is intended to guide development in the Oyster Point Area
through 2035. Related amendments to the existing City of South San Francisco General Plan are
proposed in order to ensure that the OPSP would be consistent with the General Plan.
Implementation of the OPSP would enable the City of South San Francisco to accommodate additional
development. The level of non-residential growth assumed for traffic modeling purposes in this Draft
EIR is likely higher than will actually occur in the Oyster Point Area based on past trends, regardless of
holding capacity.
ABAG projections since 2007 are now policy-based in order to encourage city-centered, transit-
oriented development in the Bay Area. The most recently released report from ABAG, Projections
2009, would go considerably further in focusing development in areas served by transit, to further a
number of inter-related policies regarding GHG reduction, protection of open space, and
encouragement of healthy cities. If the OPSP is adopted and implemented, it would be consistent with
these projections, and subsequently with the recent CAP recently adopted by BAAQMD. The OPSP
promotes the type of development which would tend to reduce adverse regional air quality impacts, by
implementing traffic demand measures that reduce per capita vehicle trips. The proposed plan does not
include residential growth and the commercial growth in an area already designated for that type of
growth would be subject to City required TDM measures that would reduce the trip rate growth.
The EIR prepared for the City’s 1999 General Plan identified an inconsistency with the Bay Area Clean
Air Plan, related to Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). VMT was projected to increase at a faster rate than
the City’s population, due in large part to regional traffic growth that would pass through South San
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-14 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Francisco, including U.S. 101. The EIR for the General Plan identified the impact as significant and
unavoidable. The CAP has been subsequently updated and would include the population and traffic
effects of implementing the General Plan.
The City of South San Francisco General Plan, updated in 1999, contained policies to reduce emissions
from transportation sources. These measures identified in the City of South San Francisco General Plan
in section 4.3 the Transportation Element and Section 7.3 the Air Quality Section. Those policies
identified as implementation of CAP TCMs in the General Plan are also consistent with TCMs
included in the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan. The OPSP would continue to implement the General
Plan TCMs. The proposed OPSP is consistent with the 1999 General Plan and the respective EIR.
Under the General Plan policies, projects are required to implement a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program to reduce project trips. A TDM program, along with General Plan
policies and Mitigation Measures identified in the Transportation and Circulation chapter of this
document (Mitigation Measure Traf-1) would reasonably implement TCMs consistent with those
contained in the latest approved Clean Air Plan. The OPSP’s contribution to this particular pre-existing
impact would be reduced through implementation of a TDM program. In addition, the proposed OPSP
would development employment centers that are served by regional transit. Transit service near the
OPSP area includes local bus service and shuttle service to Caltrain and BART. Future ferry service is
expected to serve the OPSP site from the on-site ferry terminal currently under construction.
Mitigation Measure Traf-1 would reduce impact Air-1 by requiring implementation of a TDM Plan
to reduce trips and VMT.
The OPSP would not conflict with implementation of the CAP TCMs and would result in a reduced
rate of vehicle trip generation due to the implementation of a TDM program and proximity to transit.
However, because implementation of a TDM Plan would already be assumed under the General Plan,
because the intensity of development and therefore trip generation is greater under the OPSP than
under the General Plan designation for the site, and because VMT growth is known to be higher than
population growth under the General Plan, the impact related to inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan
would be considered significant and unavoidable.
EXPOSURE OF SENSITIVE RECEPTORS TO TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS (TACS)
Impact Air-2: Possible Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to TACs and PM2.5.Development
anticipated under the OPSP may expose sensitive receptors to TACs and PM2.5
through development of new non-residential development that may be sources of
TACs and PM2.5 and the potential for development of ancillary uses, such as
daycare facilities, that would bring sensitive users to the site. Such exposure would
represent a potentially significant impact.
According to the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines (both 1999 and 2010), for a plan to have a less-than-
significant impact with respect to TACs, buffer zones must be established around existing and
proposed land uses that would emit these air pollutants. Buffer zones to avoid TAC impacts must be
reflected in local plan policies, land use maps, or implementing ordinances.
New stationary sources of TACs would be subject to BAAQMD rules and regulations. BAAQMD
Regulation 2, Rule 5 requires that new stationary sources meet emission standards and the BAAQMD
would be required to ensure that health risks associated with TAC emissions would be acceptable.5
5 BAAQMD risk policy requires that these sources have a cancer risk of less than 10 in one million, which is the
same as BAAQMD’s recommended CEQA threshold.
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 6-15
Sources of air pollutant emissions complying with all applicable BAAQMD regulations generally will
not be considered to have an individual significant air quality impact. Stationary sources that are
exempt from BAAQMD permit requirements due to low emission thresholds would not be considered
to have a significant air quality impact. There are potential sources that are not regulated by BAAQMD
that could be considered TAC sources. Such sources are identified in Table 6.4. These sources are not
likely to be part of the OPSP. As a result, the OPSP would have a less than significant impact.
When siting new sensitive receptors, the BAAQMD Guidelines advise that lead agencies examine
existing or future proposed sources of TAC and/or PM2.5 emissions that would adversely affect
individuals within the planned project. Although the OPSP does not propose new residences, recreation
uses could be included in the OPSP area. As a result, the OPSP could place sensitive receptors near an
existing truck distribution area. In addition, there are stationary sources of TAC and PM2.5 emissions in
the OPSP area. The combination of these sources could result in TAC levels that would be significant
for new sensitive receptors.
Neither the General Plan nor the OPSP includes policies to require buffers or reduce exposure of
existing and future sensitive receptors from existing and future sources of TACs and odors. The Oyster
Point area is generally fully commercialized and there is no opportunity to develop buffer zones that
would be needed to ensure that exposures are consistent with CARB and BAAQMD guidance (e.g.,
CARB Air Quality and Land Use Handbook and BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines).
There are a limited number of existing industries in Oyster Point area that create air pollution. The
OPSP proposes no changes in the types of uses allowed in the area than are currently permitted under
existing zoning. While new regulations under the OPSP would allow a somewhat greater intensity of
use than currently permitted, new uses would be required to meet higher standards of performance for
the release of odors and other potential air quality pollutants and; therefore, the impacts of these new
uses should be much less than the impacts of existing businesses that were established without such
controls. There is no evidence that these uses would result in TAC or PM2.5 emissions that would create
a significant community risk impact (i.e., incremental cancer risk or 10 in one million chances, Hazard
of 1.0 or annual PM2.5 concentration of 0.3 μg/m3).
Despite the improvements in pollution control requirements, there could be localized effects if sensitive
receptors are located close to industrial or commercial uses that may create conflicts. The OPSP does
include recreation fields, however, the uses are transient in nature. Users of the fields would not have
extended exposures, such that they could be exposed to unhealthy levels of TACs or PM2.5. The OPSP
cannot anticipate such localized impacts, but can avoid significant impacts by ensuring that individual
projects built under the OPSP do not create these conflicts. The exposure of new sensitive receptors to
unhealthy levels of TACs would be a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Air-2: Health Risk Assessment for Proposed Sensitive Receptors. New projects within
the OPSP area that would include sensitive receptors (e.g., daycare centers) shall
analyze TAC and PM2.5 impacts and include mitigation measures to reduce
exposures to less than significant levels. The following measures could be utilized
in site planning and building designs to reduce TAC exposure:
x New development of sensitive receptors located within OPSP area shall
require site specific analysis to determine the level of TAC and PM2.5
exposure. This analysis shall be conducted following procedures outlined by
BAAQMD. If the site specific analysis reveal significant exposures, based on
BAAQMD guidance, then additional measures listed below shall be required.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
x Where exterior exposures are significant, consider site planning to buffer new
sensitive receptors from TAC emissions. Active site uses and building air
intakes shall be situated away from TAC sources
x Provide tiered plantings of vegetation along the site boundaries closest to TAC
sources. Preliminary laboratory studies show that redwood and/or deodar cedar
trees can remove some of the fine particulate matter emitted from traffic under
low wind speeds. Low wind speeds typically result in the highest particulate
matter concentrations.
Assessment of health risk for specific projects that come through which will bring sensitive users to the
site for long periods each day, such as child daycare facilities, and implementation of appropriate
mitigating features as outlined in mitigation measure Air-2 would ensure that resulting TAC and PM2.5
exposures would be below the BAAQMD thresholds and therefore less-than-significant.
The potential for health risk related to the construction period is discussed under Construction-Period
Impacts.
OBJECTIONABLE ODORS
Impact Air-3: Possible Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Operational Odors. Development
anticipated under the OPSP may expose sensitive receptors to odors through
development of new non-residential development that may be sources of odors
near sensitive receptors. Such exposure would represent a less-than-significant
impact.
Odors are assessed based on the potential of the proposed OPSP to result in odor complaints (in both
the 1999 and 2010 BAAQMD Guidelines). This could result by the proposed project creating
objectionable odors or placing people near sources of objectionable odors.
Due to the commercial nature of the Oyster Point area, odors may be present. Responses to odors are
subjective and vary by individual and type of use. Sensitive land uses that include outdoor uses, such as
residences and possibly daycare facilities, are likely to be affected most by existing odors. However,
such uses are not located in or near the OPSP area such that frequent odor complaints are expected. As
a result, the impact would be considered less-than-significant.
The potential for odor impacts related to the construction period is discussed under Construction-Period
Impacts, below.
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS
Impact Air-4: Construction Period Dust, Emissions and Odors. Construction of development
projects under the OPSP would result in temporary emissions of dust, diesel
exhaust and odors that may result in both nuisance and health impacts. Without
appropriate measures to control these emissions, these impacts would be
considered significant.
Construction of development projects under the OPSP would involve demolition, some grading or site
preparation, and building erection. Dust would be generated during demolition, grading and
construction activities. Most of the dust would result during demolition activities and site preparation.
The amount of dust generated would be highly variable, and is dependent on the size of the area
disturbed, amount of activity, soil conditions and meteorological conditions. Typical winds during late
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 6-17
spring through summer are from the west. Afternoon winds in late spring and summer can be gusty
when conditions are dry. Land uses in the surrounding area include residential, office and commercial
or retail areas that could be adversely affected by dust generated from construction. In addition,
construction dust emissions can contribute to regional PM10 emissions.
Although these construction activities would be temporary, they would have the potential to cause both
nuisance and health-related air quality impacts. PM10 is the pollutant of greatest concern associated
with dust. If uncontrolled, PM10 levels downwind of actively disturbed areas could possibly exceed
State standards. In addition, dust fall on adjacent properties could be a nuisance. If uncontrolled, dust
generated by grading and construction activities represents a significant impact associated with OPSP-
related development.
Construction impacts would be a source of exhaust emissions from construction vehicles. Exhaust from
construction equipment and associated heavy-duty truck traffic emits diesel particulate matter, which is
a known Toxic Air Contaminant. In the new CEQA Guidelines the BAAQMD has developed
procedures or guidelines for identifying impacts from temporary construction activities where
emissions are transient. These thresholds, however, do not apply to plan level impacts.
Construction emissions for the Phase I Project were computed using the URBEMIS2007 model.
Construction was assumed to occur over an approximate 3.5-year period (spanning 2012 through 2015)
and include demolition of the existing buildings. The URBEMIS2007 model was used to predict
construction emissions for construction of the Phase I Project. Construction phases included the
following:
x Demolition of the existing building on site;
x Mass grading, including landfill relocations (including relocation of up to 120,000 cubic yards of
material);
x Fine site grading of the site;
x Trenching was used to address the installation of wet and dry utilities along with paving was
assumed to occur at the same time as trenching and also overlap with some grading activities;
x Building construction would start when site grading is completed;
x Paving would occur at the completion of the building exterior; and
x Architectural coatings (e.g., painting) would occur during the final year and one half of building
construction.
Emissions from construction are shown in Table 6.5.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-18 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 6.5: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Construction of the Phase I Project
(Pounds Per Day)
Description
Reactive
Organic
Gases
Nitrogen
Oxides
Particulate
Matter (PM10)*
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5) *
2012 10.9 66.7 3.5 3.2
2013 8.6 37.9 2.3 2.1
2014 33.9 17.5 1.0 0.9
2015 35.6 27.9 1.9 1.8
1999 BAAQMD Thresholds No quantitative thresholds
2010 BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54
* Applies to exhaust emissions only
As shown in Table 6.5, emissions of NOx would be anticipated to be over BAAQMD 2010 thresholds.
However, these thresholds would not be applicable to this analysis as it was begun prior to adoption of
those thresholds. The applicable 1999 thresholds include only the implementation of best management
practices and not quantitative thresholds for the construction period. Therefore, no exceedance of any
applicable threshold would be identified based upon the projected construction-period emissions.
Diesel exhaust in the form of diesel particulate matter or DPM is a TAC. During Phase I Project
construction, DPM would be emitted and may affect sensitive receptors. People residing on live-
aboard boats would be located about 300 to over 1,000 feet from most construction activities. Some
construction activities could be as close as 150 feet. In general, sensitive receptors would be 500 feet
or further from the bulk of the construction activity. Impacts of TACs on sensitive receptors are
typically evaluated in terms of health risk. In the case of DPM, these impacts are evaluated based on
predicted cancer risk, based on a lifetime exposure that is assumed to be 70 years. As described above,
construction would occur over about a 4-year period with daily emissions ranging from 1.0 to 2.6
pounds per day of PM10 exhaust. Assuming all of this exhaust is DPM, the emission rate would be
relatively low. Given the relatively short period of exposure and the separation distance between
sensitive receptors and construction activities, health risks would likely be well below the significance
thresholds of 10 excess cancer cases per million or a Hazard Index greater than 1. (These are 1999 and
2010 BAAQMD thresholds, though these thresholds were not generally applied to the construction-
period under the 1999 BAAQMD Guidelines). However, the impact would be considered significant if
measures to reduce DPM emission are not included during construction (see mitigation measure Air-4,
below).
Given the age of some buildings in the area, asbestos-containing materials may be present in existing
structures that may be demolished as part of development projects constructed under the OPSP.
Investigations would be required to identify these materials prior to any construction activities.
Demolition activities would require permits from the BAAQMD if removal or disturbance of
hazardous materials were to occur. For instance, the handling of asbestos containing materials is
subject to BAAQMD Regulation 11 – Hazardous Pollutants, Rule 2 – Asbestos Demolition,
Renovation and Manufacturing. Asbestos is a TAC that has been known to cause a number of disabling
and fatal diseases such as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. There is no identified safe level
of exposure to asbestos; therefore, all exposure to asbestos should be avoided. Project applicants would
be required to consult with the BAAQMD’s Enforcement Division prior to handling materials that may
contain asbestos. Adherence to this requirement on a project-by-project basis ensures that asbestos-
related impacts would be less than significant. The regulation is designed to employ the best available
dust mitigation measures in order to reduce and control dust emissions for both onsite workers and the
public.
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 6-19
Construction activities include disturbance of the landfill and relocation of landfill materials both on-
and off-site, temporarily having the potential to cause odors that could affect nearby businesses and
people residing on live-aboard boats in the marinas. These odors would be transient and temporary and
such activities would be conducted in accordance with current BAAQMD rules and regulations. The
applicant has proposed measures to reduce the potential impact of these temporary odors, which have
been included as Mitigation Measure Air-4b below.
The BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines do not identify plan level thresholds that apply to
construction. Although construction activities at individual project sites are expected to occur during a
relatively short time, the combination of temporary dust from activities and diesel exhaust from
construction equipment poses both a health and nuisance impact to nearby receptors. In addition, NOx
emissions during grading and soil export would exceed 2010 BAAQMD NOx emission thresholds.
This would not have been identified as an NOx exceedance under the 1999 BAAQMD thresholds,
which included no quantitative threshold for construction-period emissions but recommended
implementation of feasible control measures to determine the impact would be less than significant. As
a result, this would be considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Air-4a: Implement BAAQMD-Recommended Measures to Control Particulate Matter
Emissions during Construction. Measures to reduce diesel particulate matter and
PM10 from construction are recommended to ensure that short-term health impacts
to nearby sensitive receptors are avoided.
Dust (PM10) Control Measures:
x Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during
windy periods. Active areas adjacent to residences should be kept damp at all
times.
x Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
x Pave, apply water at least twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on
all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas.
x Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and
staging areas and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil
material is deposited onto the adjacent roads.
x Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas
(i.e., previously-graded areas that are inactive for 10 days or more).
x Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed
stockpiles.
x Limit traffic speeds on any unpaved roads to 15 mph.
x Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
x Suspend construction activities that cause visible dust plumes to extend
beyond the construction site.
x Post a publically visible sign(s) 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. The Air District’s phone
number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-20 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Additional Measures to Reduce Diesel Particulate Matter and PM2.5 and other
construction emissions:
x The developer or contractor shall provide a plan for approval by the City or
BAAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (>50 horsepower) off-road
vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased and
subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20 percent
NOx reduction and 45 percent particulate reduction compared to the most
recent CARB fleet average for the year 2011
x Clear signage at all construction sites will be posted indicating that diesel
equipment standing idle for more than five minutes shall be turned off. This
would include trucks waiting to deliver or receive soil, aggregate, or other bulk
materials. Rotating drum concrete trucks could keep their engines running
continuously as long as they were onsite or adjacent to the construction site.
x Opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate emissions from off-road diesel
powered equipment. Each project shall ensure that emissions from all
construction diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed
40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any
equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be
repaired immediately
x The contractor shall install temporary electrical service whenever possible to
avoid the need for independently powered equipment (e.g. compressors).
x Properly tune and maintain equipment for low emissions.
Mitigation Measure
Air-4b: Implement Odor-Control Measures During Refuse Relocation. The following
measures shall be implemented during disturbance of the landfill for refuse
relocation:
x All areas shall remain under foundation layer cover until localized refuse
relocation occurs.
x Limit the horizontal area of opened foundation layer to at most an acre of
horizontal area at any one time per area (an acre for the area being excavated
and an acre for the area where trash is being relocated).
x Excavation and fill zones shall be covered at the end of each day, either with
secured tarping or with the foundation layer of soil.
x Additional measures for odor control such as a foam cover or scented misters
in active areas and/or covering of the materials in the haul trucks may be
considered and implemented based upon actual field conditions.
x Post a publically visible sign(s) with a 24-hour contact number for odor
complaints. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure
compliance with applicable regulations. Concerns/complaints related to odor
from the work will be evaluated and protocol measures will be amended as
necessary.
x If 10 or more complaints are logged with BAAQMD within a 90-day period,
BAAQMD will have regulatory authority that supersedes this mitigation
measure consistent with BAAQMD Regulation 7.
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 6-21
With implementation of the fugitive dust, emissions reduction, and odor control measures presented in
mitigation measures Air-4a and Air-4b, the air quality impacts associated with grading and new
construction to a level of less than significant. This satisfies the 1999 BAAQMD qualitative threshold
requiring implementation of feasible control measures during construction. Note that these measures
would also reduce total NOx emissions by at least 10 percent; however, they would remain above the
2010 BAAQMD threshold of 54 pounds per day during Phase I Project construction.
OPERATIONAL RELATED IMPACTS
Impact Air-5: Operational Air Quality Impacts. Operation under the OPSP would result in
permanent emissions of ozone precursor pollutants and particulate matter. These
impacts would be considered less-than-significant.
The OPSP would intensify the land use, and would result in new air pollutant emissions, primarily from
automobile use. Future changes to air quality resulting from these automobile trips were predicted
using computer models. Emissions were calculated using the URBEMIS2007 model, while predicted
CO concentrations were modeled using screening methodologies based on the Caline4 model. The
modeling outputs are contained in Appendix B.
Regional Air Quality Impacts
Emissions from operation of the Phase I Project could cumulatively contribute to air pollutant levels in
the region. Since the Bay Area is considered nonattainment for ozone, PM10 and PM2.5, emissions of
these pollutants or their precursors could contribute to existing air quality problems. For this reason,
BAAQMD has adopted emission-based significance thresholds to measure the significance of a
project’s contribution. These thresholds apply to the Phase I Project impacts and not programmatic
impacts for the remainder of the OPSP.
The project would emit air pollutants that affect air quality in the region. These air pollutants include
ROG and NOx that affect ozone levels (and to some degree – particulate levels), PM10 and PM2.5. The
proposed project would add new traffic trips, which would lead to increased emissions of air pollutants.
Emissions of air pollutants associated with the project were predicted using the URBEMIS2007 model
(Version 9.2.4), distributed by the Rimpo Associates (www.urbemis.com) and recommended for use by
BAAQMD. This model predicts daily emissions associated with development projects by combining
predicted daily traffic activity, associated with the different land use types, with emission factors from
the State’s mobile emission factor model (i.e. EMFAC2007). Trip generation rates used in
URBEMIS2007 are based on the traffic model outputs discussed in Table 16.19 in Chapter 16: Traffic
and Circulation in this EIR. Trip generation estimates take into account the assumption that a moderate
TDM program will reduce compared to existing traffic generation rates. The objective of TDM
programs is to reduce vehicle trips at commercial/residential developments by incorporating project
components such as encouraging increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists
and pedestrians. South San Francisco has a “menu” of potential TDM programs, each with a specific
number of points that relate to the program’s effectiveness. Examples of TDM programs include
bicycle racks and lockers, free carpool parking, shuttle services, and on-site amenities.
The URBEMIS2007 model also predicts area source emissions associated with the proposed project.
Those sources, which include water and space heating, are minor compared to emissions associated
with traffic.
Default parameters for the San Francisco Bay Area were used in the URBEMIS2007 model such as the
temperature, trip types and lengths, and vehicle mix. Since the BAAQMD thresholds are based on
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-22 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
average daily emissions, average daily emissions were predicted with the model using the annual
emissions and averaging them over a typical year.
Phase I Project conditions include about 508,000 square feet of office/research and development
buildings and approximately 10,000 square feet of Auxiliary Commercial uses. The traffic study
predicts that this phase would add 2,671 two-way daily trips. The Phase I Project was assumed to be
completed and fully operational in 2015. Area and mobile emissions associated with the existing uses
are reported in Table 6.6. These emissions are compared to the significance thresholds adopted by the
BAAQMD.
Emissions associated with full build-out of the proposed OPSP in 2035 are also reported in Table 6.6.
Existing and Proposed emissions are presented for the OPSP buildout. The difference between
proposed OPSP and the emissions associated with existing land uses (projected into the future) are
shown as the “Net Increase” in the Table.
Table 6.6: Daily Regional Air Pollutant Emissions for Operations Projected Out to 2035 (Pounds
Per Day)
Description
Reactive
Organic
Gases
Nitrogen
Oxides
Particulate
Matter (PM10)
Fine Particulate
Matter (PM2.5)
Phase I Project New Uses26.0 27.2 30.5 6.4
Proposed OPSP
Existing Uses to be Replaced 15.4 12.5 36.7 7.6
Proposed OPSP Buildout 56.9 45.9 107.8 22.3
Net Increase Caused by OPSP 41.5 33.4 71.1 14.7
1999 BAAQMD Project
Significance Thresholds 80 80 80 N/A
2010 BAAQMD Project
Significance Thresholds 54548254
1999 and 2010 BAAQMD
Plan Significance Thresholds None
The URBEMIS2007 vehicle emission rates are based on the CARB’s EMFAC2007 emission factor
model. This is the latest version of the State’s model used to develop past, existing and projected
vehicle emission inventories. The vehicle emission rates are dependent on the age and mix of the
vehicle fleet. The model predicts a continuation of decreases in vehicle air pollutant emission rates for
future vehicle fleets. These were represented in the modeling.
Vehicle emission rates for ROG and NOx are currently decreasing with each year and are predicted to
decrease substantially between 2010 and 2020. For instance, NOx emission rates are predicted to
decline by 56 percent during that period, due to improvements in vehicle emissions and retirement of
older, more polluting, vehicles from the roadways. Emission rates would continue to decline through
2035, when the entire OPSP is expected to be built out.
Particulate matter emissions are comprised of vehicle exhaust, tire and brake wear, and the entrainment
of dust into the atmosphere from vehicles traveling on paved roadways. The EMFAC2007 portion of
CHAPTER 6: AIR QUALITY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 6-23
the URBEMIS2007 model provides emission rates of PM10 and PM2.5 from exhaust and tire and brake
wear. URBEMIS2007 includes emission of entrained roadway dust based on the type of roadways that
are primarily traveled. For this assessment, all travel was considered to occur on paved arterial or
collector roadways. The contribution of tire and brake wear is small compared to the other PM
emission processes. Gasoline powered engines have small rates of particulate matter emissions
compared with diesel-powered vehicles. Since much of the traffic fleet would be made up of light-duty
gasoline-powered vehicles, a large portion of the PM10 emissions would be from entrainment of
roadway dust from vehicle travel. The URBEMIS2007 default silt loading values were changed to
reflect values that CARB uses for calculating paved roadway dust emissions for the average vehicle
traveling on arterial and collector roadways.
Daily air emissions predicted with full build-out of the proposed Phase I Project are reported in Table
6.6 above and compared against BAAQMD thresholds. The project-level emissions would be below
the significance thresholds established by BAAQMD (both the 1999 and 2010 thresholds). As a result,
the Phase I Project would have a less-than-significant impact on regional air quality. Emissions for the
entire OPSP build-out are shown for informational purposes, as there is no emission-based significance
threshold for plan-level impacts. Plan level impacts to air quality, with respect to regional emissions,
are evaluated under Impact Air-1 consistent with BAAQMD Guidelines. This impact evaluates the
consistency of the OPSP with the clean air plan. However, it should be noted that emissions from the
OPSP at full build out would be below the current BAAQMD project level emission thresholds.
Carbon Monoxide
The OPSP related traffic would increase concentrations of carbon monoxide along roadways serving
the Oyster Point area. Carbon monoxide is a localized air pollutant, where the highest concentrations
are found very near sources. The major source of carbon monoxide is automobile traffic. Elevated
concentrations, therefore, are usually only found near areas of high traffic volume and congestion.
The contribution of OPSP related traffic to these levels was predicted following the screening guidance
recommended by the BAAQMD. This contribution was added to the background levels. Carbon
monoxide concentrations measured over a three year period in San Francisco and Redwood City
indicate a maximum concentration of 2.9 parts per million over an 8-hour averaging period. A review
of intersection traffic volumes and level of service was conducted to identify intersections with the
potential for highest carbon monoxide levels that would be affected by implementation of the OPSP.
The intersections with a combination of poor level of service (LOS) and high traffic volumes were
evaluated for potential high carbon monoxide levels. The intersections in the Oyster Point area with
LOS E or worse that had high traffic volumes were modeled. Future carbon monoxide levels were
predicted near these intersections for existing conditions and future “With Project” conditions in place
using traffic projections provided in the Section F: Transportation/Traffic, below. Emission factors
used were calculated using the EMFAC2007 model, developed by the California Air Resources Board,
with default assumptions for San Francisco County during the winter, including a temperature of 40
degrees F. A slow travel speed of 5 miles per hour was used which results in higher emission rates. The
screening analysis included the number of through lanes in the intersection configuration with a
receptor located at the edge of the roadway. Table 6.7, below, summarizes the highest predicted
concentrations.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 6-24 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 6.7: Predicted 8-Hour Worst Case Carbon Monoxide Levels (In PPM)
As shown in Table 6.7, the modeling indicates that existing 8-hour Carbon Monoxide levels are
currently below National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The 8-hour carbon monoxide
levels with implementation of the OPSP (in 2035) are predicted to remain below ambient air quality
standards. This is the result of decreases in emission rates due to newer automobiles with much
improved exhaust emission control replacing older vehicles. The decline in carbon monoxide emissions
rates began two decades ago. It has been reflected in the monitoring data, which show that a carbon
monoxide concentration has not exceeded standard since about 1991. As a result, the impact on local
air quality resulting from OPSP implementation is below 1999 and 2010 BAAQMD thresholds and
considered to be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Additional analysis to determine cumulative impacts of a project or plan is not necessary. In
developing thresholds of significance for air pollutants, BAAQMD considered the emission levels at
which a project’s individual emissions would be cumulatively considerable. Because the Phase I
Project emissions during construction and operation would not exceed these thresholds, they would not
have a cumulatively considerable effect. Impacts to local air quality, which were found to be less than
significant, have already included cumulative traffic conditions. The analysis of construction impacts
identified as mitigation “Best Management Practices” to minimize localized emissions of PM10 and
diesel exhaust. However, Implementation of the OPSP was considered to conflict with the regional
Clean Air Plan, because it could increase VMT to a higher level than included in the regional
projections used to develop the latest Clean Air Plan. This was identified as a significant and
unavoidable impact.
Intersection Existing
(2010)
Future
Baseline
(2015)
Future
Phase I
Project
(2015)
Future
Baseline
(2035)
Future
OPSP
(2035)
Oyster Point Blvd. & Dubuque/NB Onramp 6.2 ppm 6.2 ppm 6.2 ppm 2.8 ppm 3.7 ppm
Gateway Blvd. & Oyster Point Blvd. 6.2 ppm 6.2 ppm 6.2 ppm 3.0 ppm 3.7 ppm
Gateway Blvd. & East Grand Ave. 5.3 ppm 5.3 ppm 5.3 ppm 3.1 ppm 3.6 ppm
Significance Thresholds (CAAQS, same for 1999 and 2010 BAAQMD Thresholds): 9.0 ppm for 8-hour
exposure
Source: Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-1
7
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter is based on the Biological Resources Report prepared by H. T. Harvey & Associates for
this analysis, dated September 21, 2010, the full text of which is included as Appendix C. Site visits
were conducted for this analysis on November 11, 2009, December 12, 2009, May 5, 2010 and
September 17, 2010. The Biological Resources Report was also based on review of the following
documents:
x California Department of Fish and Game’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2010);
x Candlestick Point/Hunters Point Shipyard Project Biological Technical Report (PBS&J 2009);
x South San Francisco Ferry Terminal Draft Environmental Impact Report (San Francisco Bay Area
Water Transit Authority 2005); and
x other technical databases and publications on special-status species in the vicinity.
This chapter provides information on biological resources in the OPSP area, including the Phase I
Project site. A discussion of federal, state, and local laws, policies, and regulations that influence the
protection of such biological resources is presented. The chapter identifies impacts on biological
resources that may result from site grading and construction, and habitat conversion, reduction or
elimination and identifies mitigation measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for potential
significant impacts to biological resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Biotic Habitats
Seven biotic habitats/land use types occur on the OPSP area: developed/landscaped, California annual
grassland/coyote brush scrub, armored rock levee slope, northern coastal salt marsh, ornamental
woodland, sandy beach, and open water. These habitats are described in detail below, and their
distribution both within the OPSP area and, for certain sensitive habitats, in adjacent areas is shown on
Figure 7.1.Table 7.1 provides the approximate acreage of each habitat and land use type within the
OPSP boundary.
CHAPTER 6: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
PAGE 6-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
DRA
F
T
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 7-3
Fi
g
u
r
e
7
.
1
:
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
M
a
p
So
u
r
c
e
:
H
.
T
.
H
a
r
v
e
y
a
n
d
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-5
Table 7.1: Biotic Habitat/Land Use Acreages within the Boundaries of the OPSP Area
Biotic Habitat/Land Use Total Area (ac)
Developed/Landscaped 57.16
California Annual Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub 18.90
Armored Rock Levee Slope 1.81
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh 2.47
Ornamental Woodland 0.57
Sandy Beach 0.38
Open Water, Marine 0.27
Total 81.56
Developed/Landscaped
The OPSP area includes approximately 57.16 ac of developed and landscaped land uses comprised of
hardscaped roads, buildings, parking lot surfaces, paved trail surfaces, ornamental and landscaped areas
(typically irrigated with a mulch base), and irrigated turf. The habitat suitability for rare or native
vegetation in these areas is very low. All developed areas within the survey area appear to be
purposefully and continually maintained, or otherwise are permanently impacted by hardscape and
structures.
Developed habitats primarily support common, urban-adapted wildlife species, and overall wildlife
abundance and diversity are low. Likewise, landscaped habitats are used sparingly by most wildlife
species, largely because of the uniform, open nature of most landscaping, and regular disturbances due
to landscape maintenance and use. However animals living in adjacent habitats and migratory birds
often exploit foraging opportunities offered by landscaped habitats, and dense shrub and tree landscape
components may offer sufficient cover for nesting birds and mammals.
California Annual Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub
Approximately 18.90 ac of the OPSP area are dominated by California annual grassland/coyote brush
scrub. These areas vary in composition based on water availability and soil characteristics. Non-native
annual grass species are dominant throughout the annual grassland. Native purple needlegrass,
(Nassella pulchra) is becoming establishedsouth of Marina Boulevard near the road along with
herbaceous species such as birds-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), flax (Linum sp.), and blue eyed grass
(Sisyrinchium bellum). However, this patch of native grass is too small to be distinguished as a separate
habitat type. Some shrubs such as coyote brush (Baccharispilularis), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia),
and big saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis) have become established along the slopes above the estuarine
canal south of Marina Boulevard.
The grassland and scrubby habitats within the Project boundaries host a variety of common
invertebrates, which in turn provide food for widespread reptiles and for a number of bird and mammal
species. A western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and a Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya) were observed
foraging at the southwestern corner of the OPSP area. Although other grassland-associated species
occur in the Project vicinity and may forage in the OPSP area on occasion, this patch of grassland is
likely too small to support nesting pairs of these species. Small mammals and mesocarnivores
including house mice, striped skunks, and raccoons may forage in these habitats, and several valley
pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows were observed in the grassland in the southwestern corner
of the OPSP area.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Armored Rock Levee Slope
Armored rock levee slope covers approximately 1.81 ac within the OPSP area and extends downslope
from the Project boundary in a number of areas. The rock levees surround the Marina Boulevard
peninsula and the OPSP area bordering the water west of Oyster Point Boulevard. This habitat is
primarily composed of large rock rip-rap on varying degrees of slope approximately 10-15 ft wide at
the edge of the water and tidal flats. Vegetation in this community is only found between the rocks and
bordering the top of the slopes. It is dominated by non-native species. North of Marina Boulevard, the
rock levee intergrades somewhat with salt marsh species. The rock levee slope west of Oyster Point
Boulevard is influenced by landscape plantings, which have been planted along the top edges of the
rip-rap.
Armored rock levees such as those along the periphery of the OPSP area provide limited wildlife
habitat because of their unyielding surfaces, lack of vegetation, and proximity to open marine water,
but are nonetheless utilized by several species for foraging or refugia. Rocky shore crab species could
shelter in crevices between the rocks, foraging on algae that grow there. Rocky shore-associated birds
such as black turnstones (Arenaria melanocephala) have been observed foraging occasionally on the
rocks at Oyster Point. The levee slopes also could provide habitat for nuisance species such as Norway
rats, black rats (Rattus rattus), and feral cats, which are known to prey upon native wildlife species.
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
Approximately 2.47 ac of northern coastal salt marsh occurs in the OPSP area in strips or larger areas
surrounding the rock levees and along the estuarine canal South of Marina Boulevard. In some areas,
this marsh continues downslope from the Project boundary. These areas are in the intertidal zone, and
are influenced daily by rising and falling tides within the bay. In slightly higher elevation areas of the
marshes, natives such as saltgrass and spearscale (Atriplex triangularis) occur with ruderal, non-native
species such as brass buttons (Cotula coronopifolia). As the elevation decreases these species give way
to a mix of native coastal salt marsh and alkaline-adapted species such as pickleweed (Salicornia
virginica), sea lavender (Limonium californicum), and marsh jaumea (Jaumea carnosa). Other common
plants in the salt marsh include coast gumweed (Grindelia stricta) and red sand spurry (Spergularia
rubra). In frequently inundated areas and some marsh channels, stands of cordgrass (Spartina sp.) have
been sprayed through control efforts between the 2009 and 2010 site visits. Therefore, much of the
emergent tall grass structure typical of the lowest elevation portions of the marsh was missing from the
OPSP area.
The salt marsh southwest of the Oyster Cove Marina off of Oyster Point Boulevard has accumulated
sediment and supports a small but productive tidal wetland community. The vegetation here matches
that described above but covers a larger, more continuous area. It also supports a suite of bulrushes
(Schoenoplectus sp.), rushes (Juncus sp.), and cattails (Typha sp.), which indicate the influence of
freshwater from the adjacent drainage. A large population of cordgrass (Spartina sp.) was observed
growing in this marsh during the November 2009 site visit. In May 2010 the cordgrass in this marsh
was dead, indicating that it too had been controlled through Spartina control efforts.
Salt marsh habitats form unique ecological communities in the San Francisco Bay that support wildlife
species adapted to a saline environment and frequent cyclic changes in water levels, as well as several
more widely-adapted common species. The mudflats associated with Bay salt marsh habitats provide
shelter for burrowing invertebrates and rich foraging habitats for a plethora of wildlife species.
Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) and snowy egrets (Egretta thula) were observed foraging in the tidal
channels in the salt marsh habitat along the southwestern portion of the OPSP area, as well as roosting
higher up in pickleweed beds, and white-crowned sparrows were seen foraging in the highest edges of
these salt marshes. Common bird species that live in adjacent habitats may also forage in the higher
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-7
portions of these salt marshes on occasion; it is possible that Alameda song sparrows (Melospiza
melodia pusillula) could be found here in very low numbers. The mudflats and exposed tidal channels
within the OPSP area are probably used by many of the shorebird species known to occur in the Bay
Area. Mammals such as rats, striped skunks, and raccoons may forage in the salt marshes in the OPSP
area, but these marshes are too limited in extent, underdeveloped in vegetation, and isolated from
known populations to support salt marsh adapted mammal species such as salt marsh harvest mice
(Reithrodontomys raviventris) or salt marsh wandering shrews (Sorex vagrans halicoetes).
Ornamental Woodland
Approximately 0.57 ac of the OPSP area is dominated by ornamental woodland. This area is located
near the southwest corner of the OPSP area at the intersection of Gull Drive and Marina Boulevard.
Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) dominates the area with a few Monterey pine (Pinus radiata)
interspersed. Vegetation beneath the dense eucalyptus canopy is sparse due to canopy shading and a
thick cover of leaf litter. Non-native species such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) and
French broom (Genista monspessulana) are able to survive in this environment. A few shrubs such as
coyote brush, toyon, and coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica) are thriving on the sunnier edges of the
woodland along with the non-native pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata).
This grove of eucalyptus and Monterey pine trees is likely to host an array of common invertebrate
species. The trees and shrubs provide suitable nesting habitat for common birds. The trees may also
support a nest of one of the larger common raptors, such as red-shouldered hawks (Buteo lineatus), red-
tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), and great horned owls, all of which breed in the Project vicinity.
However, due to the territorial nature of these birds, no more than one nest of one of these species
would be expected to occur here. The trees could also be used as roost sites by small numbers of
common roosting bats such as California myotis (Myotis californicus). Other mammals, including
house mice, striped skunks, and raccoons, are also likely to forage in this area.
Sandy Beach
Sandy beach is present on approximately 0.38 ac within the OPSP area. This area is located at the edge
of the Bay along Marina Boulevard, to the northwest of Oyster Point Marina. This area includes some
habitat below the wrack indicating the high tide line as well as beach sands above the high tide line that
are not typically inundated. Vegetation on the beach is sparse due to the mostly unconsolidated sand
substrate, high drainage, and perpetual sand movement. Typical sandy beach species such as the native
beach bur (Ambrosia chamissonis), as well as non-natives such as wild radish and sea fig are becoming
established on the upper edges that do not undergo frequent disturbance. This vegetation merges with
California annual grassland as the slope rises away from the water. The southern end of the beach is
bordered by northern coastal salt marsh vegetation and the northern end is bordered by armored rock
levee slope.
Sandy beaches, relatively rare within the Bay, are home to intertidal invertebrates that serve as prey for
shorebirds and seabirds. Western sandpipers and Brewer’s blackbirds (Euphagus cyanocephalus) were
observed during the reconnaissance survey, foraging along the wrack line on the small sandy beach
within the OPSP area. Urban-adapted mammals living in the vicinity are likely to forage
opportunistically on the sandy beach; we observed two feral cats on the sandy beach during the
reconnaissance survey. Due to the extremely limited extent of the sandy beach on the OPSP area,
beach-nesting birds such as the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), are not
expected to occur here.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Open Water
Open water habitat is present within approximately 0.27 ac of the OPSP area. However, extensive open
water is present in the Oyster Point Marina and the Oyster Cove Marina, as well as the Bay waters
surrounding the peninsula. The area is underlain with unconsolidated bay mud or gravel. The average
water depth at the marina averages 5 ft; however, water depth fluctuates due to tidal fluctuation, and is
typically shallower around the levees and marshes. The water temperature is cooler than what would be
found in estuarine habitats and supports a diversity of algae growing on rocks and piers.
Open water habitat is also present within a linear tidal canal south of Marina Boulevard. This habitat is
heavily influenced by tidal fluctuations with water depth ranging from approximately 0 to 5 ft. This
area has a mud substrate made up of fine silt and clay that supports little vegetation in the main canal. It
is bordered on both banks by northern coastal salt marsh habitat that is thickest on the south bank.
There is little evidence of significant influence from fresh water tributaries due to the lack of presence
of brackish plant species.
The San Francisco Bay supports a thriving community of estuarine life. Benthic invertebrates present
within open water and intertidal habitats in the Project vicinity include the native Olympia oyster
(Ostreola conchaphila). Native Olympia oysters were historically abundant in San Francisco Bay.
Currently, populations of native oysters within the Bay are relatively low compared to historical
conditions. Suitable habitat, which consists of solid surfaces to which the larvae can easily attach, is
distributed throughout the shoreline of the OPSP area and on the breakwater of the Oyster Point
marina, and a population has been documented in these areas.
A diversity of other invertebrates provide an ample prey base for common fish, which in turn provide
food sources for seabirds and marine mammals such as harbor seals (Phoca vitulina). California and
western gulls, surf scoters (Melanitta perspicillata), scaup (Aythya spp.), eared grebes (Podiceps
nigricollis), Clark’s grebes (Aechmophorus clarkii), western grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis),
buffleheads (Bucephala albeola), California brown pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), and double-
crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) were observed foraging in the Bay just offshore of the
OPSP area during the reconnaissance survey. During low tide, shorebirds forage on intertidal mudflats
here.
Fish such as starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) that are common in estuarine waters around the San
Francisco Bay could inhabit the narrow channel of estuarine water within the OPSP area. Mallards and
snowy egrets were observed foraging in the channel during the reconnaissance survey, and other
waterbirds are likely to forage in the channel on occasion.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND SENSITIVE HABITATS
CEQA requires assessment of the effects of a project on species that are “threatened, rare, or
endangered”; such species are typically described as “special-status species”. For the purpose of
environmental review of the Project, special-status species have been defined as described below.
Impacts to these species are regulated by some of the federal, state, and local laws and ordinances
described under “Regulatory Setting” below.
For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” plants are considered plant species that are:
Listed under the FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a
candidate species.
x Listed under the CESA as threatened, endangered, rare, or a candidate species.
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-9
x Listed by the CNPS as rare or endangered on Lists 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4.
For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” animals are considered animal species that are:
x Listed under the FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed endangered, or a
candidate species.
x Listed under the CESA as threatened, endangered, or a candidate threatened or endangered species.
x Designated by the CDFG as a California species of special concern.
x Listed in the California Fish and Game Code as a fully protected species (birds at §3511, mammals
at §4700, reptiles and amphibians at §5050, and fish at §5515).
Figures 3 and 4 in Appendix C depict the CNDDB-mapped records of plants and wildlife, respectively,
in the vicinity of the OPSP area. These generalized maps are valuable on a historical basis, and show
areas where special-status species occur or have occurred previously.
Special-Status Plant Species
The CNPS identifies 89 special-status plant species as potentially occurring in at least one of the seven
quadrangles containing or surrounding the OPSP area or, for List 4 species, in San Mateo County. Most
of these have a low likelihood of occurrence within the OPSP area due to the following reasons: lack of
specific edaphic requirements on site for the species in question, the species is known to be extirpated
from the area, the site is outside the highly endemic range of the species in question, the elevation
range of the species is outside of the range on site, or degraded habitat conditions on site are not likely
to support the species in question. Of the 89 plant species considered, only six were considered to have
enough potential for occurrence in the Project vicinity, based on proximity to locally documented
populations mapped by the CNDDB and similar habitat requirements to those on site, to be considered
in detail. Appendix A of Appendix C lists the plants that were rejected for consideration and the
reasons for rejection.
The six special-status plant species considered to have some potential for occurrence on the OPSP area
were reviewed in depth and are listed in Table 2 in Appendix C. Of the six species considered in this
assessment, none were ultimately determined to have potential to occur on-site after careful
consideration of the site’s habitats due to the site’s marginal suitability, lack of recent recorded
occurrence on or in the vicinity of the site, lack of noted occurrence on site during the site visits, and
the highly disturbed nature of much of the OPSP site, as discussed in detail in the full Biological
Resources Report included as Appendix C.
Special-status Animal Species
The legal status and likelihood of occurrence of special-status wildlife species known to occur, or
potentially occurring, in the general Project vicinity are presented in Table 2 in Appendix C. Figure 4
in Appendix C depicts the CNDDB-mapped locations of special-status animals in the Project vicinity.
Several of the special-status species listed in Table 2 in Appendix C are not expected to occur in the
OPSP area because the site lacks suitable habitat, is outside the distributions of the species, and/or is
isolated from the nearest known extant populations by development or otherwise unsuitable habitat.
Several other special-status species are expected to occur in the OPSP area only as uncommon to rare
visitors, migrants, or transients, or may forage on the site while breeding in adjacent areas. However,
these species are not expected to breed in the OPSP area in any numbers, or to be affected by Project
implementation.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
A number of other special-status wildlife species are known or expected to occur regularly on or near
the OPSP area and may breed there, or are species for which resource agencies have expressed
particular concern.
The species with at least some potential to occur on the OPSP site are listed below. Further information
about these species as well as discussion of the special-status species determined to be absent or
unlikely to occur can be found in Table 2 of Appendix C.
Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Federally listed Threatened. Some
potential to occur. Juveniles and adult steelhead could be found in the open waters adjacent to the
OPSP area as they migrate to and from spawning and rearing streams in South San Francisco Bay.
Populations are known from relatively nearby creeks on the peninsula (i.e., San Francisquito Creek).
Southern green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). Federally listed Threatened. Some potential for
occurrence. The species forages in the Bay, possibly including estuarine habitats near the OPSP area.
The OPSP area is within designated critical habitat for this species.
Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys). State listed Threatened. Some potential for occurrence. Based
on a 2009 status review, the primary distribution of larval fish is determined by outflow from the
Sacramento-San Joaquin River Estuary where adults spawn. As they develop swimming ability,
occasional individuals could disperse as far as the OPSP area (the species is also known to spawn in the
South Bay). They are captured in the Bay as by-catch during bay shrimp (Crangon franciscorum)
harvesting.
California least tern (Sternula antillarum browni). Federally listed Endangered, State listed
Endangered, State Protected Species. Some potential for occurrence. This species does not currently
breed anywhere on the west side of South San Francisco Bay, and no suitable breeding habitat is
present on the OPSP area. However, there is some potential for small numbers of individuals from East
Bay or Suisun Bay breeding areas to forage in Bay waters near the OPSP area.
Harlequin duck (Histrionicus histrionicus). California Species of Special Concern (breeding). Some
potential for occurrence. Occasional individuals could occur in the OPSP area during the non-breeding
season. However, the OPSP area is outside of the breeding range of this species and does not provide
suitable breeding habitat, and this species is only a species of special concern while nesting.
Black skimmer (Rynchops niger). California Species of Special Concern (breeding). Some potential
for occurrence. Occasional individuals may forage in the waters immediately adjacent to the OPSP
area, but there is no suitable breeding habitat on-site. This species is only a species of special concern
while nesting.
Northern harrier (Circus cyaneus). California Species of Special Concern (breeding). Some potential
for occurrence. Breeding has been confirmed in the Project vicinity, and suitable foraging habitat exists
on the OPSP area. The lack of extensive marshland or tall grasses precludes nesting on the OPSP area.
This species is only a species of special concern while nesting.
Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi). California Species of Special Concern (breeding). Some potential for
occurrence. Birds may forage in the OPSP area during the post-breeding season, but no suitable nesting
habitat is available on the OPSP area. This species is only a species of special concern while nesting.
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). California Species of Special Concern (breeding). Some
potential for occurrence. A small amount of suitable foraging habitat exists within the Phase I portion
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-11
of the OPSP area, and up to one pair of birds could potentially breed here. Breeding shrikes have been
confirmed in the Project vicinity (Sequoia Audubon Society 2001), but records in the area are few, and
the OPSP area is isolated from larger patches of suitable habitat by extensive development. Most likely
occurs as an occasional nonbreeding visitor, if at all.
Yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia). California Species of Special Concern (breeding). Expected to
occur. Expected to forage in landscaped or ornamental forest areas of the OPSP area during migration,
but not expected to breed in the OPSP area, as no suitable breeding habitat is present. This species is
only a species of special concern while nesting.
San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa). California Species of Special
Concern. May occur. Suitable emergent aquatic habitat is present in the OPSP area, and individuals
have been observed on the OPSP area during the breeding season (eBird 2010). Up to a few pairs may
breed in these marshes.
Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). California Species of Special Concern (breeding). Some
potential for occurrence. No suitable breeding habitat is present on the OPSP area; however tricolored
blackbirds may occur as occasional visitors during the non-breeding season. This species is only a
species of special concern while nesting.
White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus). State Protected Species. Some potential for occurrence. The
OPSP area provides some suitable foraging habitat, and individuals have been observed in the OPSP
vicinity. There are no confirmed breeding records in the OPSP area (Sequoia Audubon Society 2001).
Most likely to occur as an occasional nonbreeding visitor.
Sensitive and Regulated Plant Communities and Habitats
The CDFG ranks certain rare or threatened plant communities, such as wetlands, meadows, and
riparian forest and scrub, as ‘threatened’ or ‘very threatened’. These communities are tracked in the
CNDDB. Impacts to CDFG sensitive plant communities, or any such community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, and regulations, must be considered and evaluated under the California
Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations: Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G).
Furthermore, wetland and riparian habitats are also afforded protection under applicable federal, state,
or local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation, protection, or consideration by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), CDFG, and/or
the USFWS. Essential Fish Habitat is identified and regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) in collaboration with regional, state and local agencies, and is defined as any habitat that is
essential to the long-term survival and health of United States fisheries. Eelgrass beds are considered a
sensitive resource by the USACE and CDFG because little accurate information exists about the
historic distribution of eelgrass beds, and because of their current relative scarcity and importance in
the overall ecology of the bay.
CDFG Sensitive Habitats
No sensitive habitats are mapped by the CDFG in the OPSP vicinity (Figure 3 in Appendix C).
Essential Fish Habitat
The tidal aquatic habitats on and adjacent to the OPSP area are considered EFH by the NMFS for a
species assemblage that includes anchovies, sardines, rockfish, sharks, sole, and flounder. Areas
supporting the native Olympia oyster, such as the hardened shoreline and the marina breakwater, are
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-12 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
also considered EFH by NMFS because oyster beds serve a number of important roles in the Bay
ecosystem.
Eelgrass Beds
Eelgrass beds form areas of important habitat for birds, fish, and crustaceans and are one of the
preferred spawning habitats of pacific herring (Wyllie-Echeverria and Fonseca 2003). These plants also
support grazing crustaceans, shrimp, and amphipods. Because it requires light for photosynthesis,
eelgrass is limited by water clarity to depths of about 6 feet or less. Eelgrass beds and patches occur in
both subtidal and intertidal areas of the San Francisco Bay. Although no eelgrass beds or patches have
been mapped closer than 3 mi from the OPSP area, the NMFS (2010) considers portions of Oyster
Point to offer suitable eelgrass habitat, and there is some evidence that eelgrass populations in the Bay
are expanding (Merkel & Associates 2004). Thus, we cannot rule out the possibility that eelgrass
patches or beds have become established in or near the OPSP area.
Waters of the U.S./State
As discussed under Regulatory Setting below, open water and intertidal habitats of San Francisco Bay,
the tidal canal at the southern edge of the OPSP site, and associated wetlands and shoreline areas
(extending up to the high tide line or the upper limits of wetlands, whichever is higher) are considered
Waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act and Waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Water
Quality Control Act. The approximate upslope limits of such areas are shown on Figure 7.1. These
wetlands and aquatic habitats are also important habitats for a variety of animal species.
REGULATORY SETTING
This section describes the local, state, and federal plans, policies, and laws that are relevant to
biological, resources and that are applicable to the OPSP.
FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (jurisdictional waters) are subject to the
jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under provisions of Section 404
of the 1972 Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act) and Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers
and Harbors Act (described below). These waters may include all waters used, or potentially used, for
interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters,
all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.),
all impoundments of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of the U.S.,” tributaries of waters otherwise
defined as “Waters of the U. S.,” the territorial seas, and wetlands (termed Special Aquatic Sites)
adjacent to “Waters of the U.S.” (33 CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3). Wetlands on non-agricultural lands
are identified using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory
1987).
Areas typically not considered to be jurisdictional waters include non-tidal drainage and irrigation
ditches excavated on dry land, artificially-irrigated areas, artificial lakes or ponds used for irrigation or
stock watering, small artificial water bodies such as swimming pools, and water-filled depressions (33
CFR, Part 328).
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-13
Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The placement of fill
into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE permit will be
effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the state agency (together with the
Regional Water Quality Control Boards [RWQCBs]) charged with implementing water quality
certification in California.
OPSP Applicability: Any work within areas defined as Waters of the U.S. (i.e., wetlands and other
waters), including open water and intertidal habitats of San Francisco Bay, the tidal canal at the
southern edge of the OPSP site, and associated wetlands and shoreline areas (extending up to the high
tide line or the upper limits of wetlands, whichever is higher) may require a Section 404 fill discharge
permit from the USACE and Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the RWQCB. The
approximate upslope limits of USACE jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act are shown on Figure 7.1.
A jurisdictional wetland delineation to determine the precise boundaries of USACE jurisdiction has not
been performed for the OPSP.
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The RWQCB is responsible for protecting surface, ground, and coastal waters within its boundaries,
pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of the California Water Code. The RWQCB
has jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for activities that could result in a discharge
of dredged or fill material to a water body. Federal authority is exercised whenever a proposed project
requires a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the USACE in the form of a Section 401 Water
Quality Certification. State authority is exercised when a proposed project is not subject to federal
authority, in the form of a Notice of Coverage, Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements. Many
wetlands fall into RWQCB jurisdiction, including some wetlands and waters that are not subject to
USACE jurisdiction. RWQCB jurisdiction of other waters, such as streams and lakes, extends to all
areas below the ordinary high water mark.
The RWQCB has no formal technical manual or expanded regulations to help in identifying their
jurisdiction. The only guidance can be found in Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, Chapter 2
(Definitions), which states, “‘waters of the State’ means any surface water or ground water, including
saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.”
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the SWRCB and the nine regional boards also
have the responsibility of granting Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits and waste discharge requirements for certain point-source and non-point discharges
to waters. These regulations limit impacts to aquatic and riparian habitats from a variety of urban
sources.
OPSP Applicability: As stated above, any OPSP activities that impact waters of the U.S./State will
require 401 Certification and/or a Waste Discharge Requirement from the RWQCB. In the Study Area,
these include the same boundaries of aquatic, intertidal, and wetlands/shoreline habitats as described
above for areas subject to jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.
Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899) 33 U.S.C. 403 regulates the construction of structures,
placement of fill, and introduction of other potential obstructions to navigation in navigable waters.
Under Section 10 of the Act, the building of any wharfs, piers, jetties, and other structures is prohibited
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-14 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
without Congressional approval, and excavation or fill within navigable or tidal waters requires the
approval of the Chief of Engineers.
The USACE has the authority to issue permits for the discharge of refuse into, or affecting, navigable
waters under section 13 of the 1899 Act (33 U.S.C. 407; 30 Stat. 1152). The Act was modified by title
IV of P.L. 92-500, October 18, 1972; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972
(33 U.S.C. 1341-1345; 86 Stat. 877), as amended, established the NPDES permits.
OPSP Applicability: Within the OPSP area, all tidally influenced open water and intertidal habitats of
San Francisco Bay, the tidal canal at the southern edge of the OPSP site, and associated wetlands and
shoreline areas (extending up to the mean high water line) are subject to USACE jurisdiction under the
Rivers and Harbors Act, and any activities affecting these areas would potentially require a Section 10
Letter of Permission.
Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects listed wildlife species from harm or “take” which
is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt
to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or degradation that directly
results in death or injury of a listed wildlife species. An activity can be defined as “take” even if it is
unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less protection than listed wildlife species.
Listed plant species are legally protected from take under the FESA only if they occur on federal lands
or if the project requires a federal action, such as a Clean Water Act Section 404 fill permit from the
USACE.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened and
endangered wildlife species under the FESA, while the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has
jurisdiction over federally listed, threatened and endangered, marine and anadromous fish.
OPSP Applicability: Several federally listed species occur in the general vicinity of the OPSP area.
Although only limited habitat for such species occurs in the OPSP area, federally listed animal species
that occur, or could potentially occur, in the OPSP area include the green sturgeon (Acipenser
medirostris), Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and California least tern
(Sterna antillarum browni), and possibly several Central Valley-breeding salmonids.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act governs all fishery management
activities that occur in federal waters within the United States’ 200-nautical-mile limit. The Act
establishes eight Regional Fishery Management Councils responsible for the preparation of fishery
management plans to achieve the optimum yield from U.S. fisheries in their regions. These councils,
with assistance from the NMFS, establish Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) in fishery management plans
for all managed species. Federal agencies that fund, permit, or implement activities that may adversely
affect EFH are required to consult with the NMFS regarding potential adverse effects of their actions
on EFH, and respond in writing to recommendations by the NMFS.
OPSP Applicability: A number of fish species regulated by the Coastal Pelagics and Pacific
Groundfish Fisheries Management Plans occur in tidal habitats of San Francisco Bay, including the
open water habitats on and adjacent to the OPSP area. Thus, these tidal waters are considered EFH.
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-15
Marine Mammal Protection Act
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted in 1972 and amended through 2007 (16
USC 1631). All marine mammals are protected by the MMPA, which prohibits their take in U.S.
Waters. Take is defined in the MMPA as “harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect, or attempt to harass,
hunt, capture, kill or collect” [16 USC 1631 Section 3(13)].
OPSP Applicability: The only two marine mammal species that have potential to occur in the OPSP
vicinity at all regularly are the harbor seal and the California sea lion (Zalophus californianus), both of
which may occasionally forage in Bay waters near the OPSP site. The MMPA would apply to the
OPSP, because in-water construction activities such as pile driving could potentially harass these
animals.
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C., §703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits killing,
possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations prescribed by the
Secretary of the Interior. The trustee agency that addresses issues related to the MBTA is the USFWS.
Migratory birds protected under this law include all native birds and certain game birds (e.g., turkeys
and pheasants; Federal Register 70(2):372-377). This act encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and
bird nests and eggs. The MBTA protects active nests from destruction and all nests of species protected
by the MBTA, whether active or not, cannot be possessed. An active nest under the MBTA, as
described by the Department of the Interior in its 16 April 2003 Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum,
is one having eggs or young. Nest starts, prior to egg laying, are not protected from destruction.
OPSP Applicability: All native bird species occurring in the Study Area are protected by the MBTA.
STATE
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA, Fish and Game Code of California, Chapter 1.5,
Sections 2050-2116) prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as rare
(plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with the CESA, the CDFG has jurisdiction over
state-listed species. The CDFG regulates activities that may result in “take” of individuals listed under
the Act (i.e., “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill”).
Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in the definition of “take” under the Fish
and Game Code. The CDFG, however, has interpreted “take” to include the “killing of a member of a
species which is the proximate result of habitat modification.”
OPSP Applicability: Although habitat suitability in the OPSP area for these species is marginal, State-
listed animal species that occur, or could potentially occur, in the OPSP area include the longfin smelt
(Spirinchus thaleichthys) and California least tern.
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law that requires state and local agencies,
such as the City of South San Francisco, to document and consider the environmental implications of
their actions and to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if there are
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects. CEQA
requires the full disclosure of the environmental effects of agency actions, such as approval of a general
plan update or the projects covered by that plan, on resources such as air quality, water quality, cultural
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
resources, and biological resources. The State Resources Agency promulgated guidelines for
implementing CEQA known as the State CEQA Guidelines.
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in evaluating impacts of projects to biological
resources and determining which impacts will be significant. CEQA defines “significant effect on the
environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area
affected by the proposed project.” Under CEQA Guidelines section 15065, a project's effects on biotic
resources are deemed significant where the project would:
“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”
In addition to the section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance, Appendix G of
the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts to consider when analyzing the
significance of project effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G may or may not be significant,
depending on the level of the impact. For biological resources, these impacts include whether the
project would:
“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”
“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”
“have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act”
“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”
“conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance”
“conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan”
Section 15380(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or state lists
of protected species may be considered rare if the species can be shown to meet certain specified
criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in the FESA and the CESA and the
section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered plants or animals. This
section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in which a public agency is
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-17
reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a species that has not yet been listed by either
the USFWS or CDFG or species that are locally or regionally rare.
The CDFG has produced three lists (amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals) of “species of
special concern” that serve as “watch lists”. Species on these lists are of limited distribution or the
extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations may be
imminent. Thus, their populations should be monitored. They may receive special attention during
environmental review as potential rare species, but do not have specific statutory protection. All
potentially rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare species, are considered for
environmental review per the CEQA § 15380(b).
The CNPS, a non-governmental conservation organization, has developed lists of plant species of
concern in California. Vascular plants included on these lists are defined as follows:
List 1A Plants considered extinct.
List 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
List 2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.
List 3 Plants about which more information is needed - review list.
List 4 Plants of limited distribution-watch list.
These CNPS listings are further described by the following threat code extensions:
.1—seriously endangered in California;
.2—fairly endangered in California;
.3—not very endangered in California.
Although the CNPS is not a regulatory agency and plants on these lists have no formal regulatory
protection, plants appearing on List 1B or List 2 are, in general, considered to meet the CEQA’s
Section 15380 criteria, and adverse effects to these species may be considered significant. Impacts to
plants that are listed by the CNPS on List 3 or 4 are also considered during CEQA review, although
because these species are typically not as rare as those on List 1B or List, impacts to them are less
frequently considered significant.
OPSP Applicability: All impacts to biological resources will be considered during CEQA review of
the OPSP in the context of this EIR.
California Fish and Game Code
The California Fish and Game Code includes regulations governing the use of, or impacts to, many of
the state’s fish, wildlife, and sensitive habitats. The CDFG exerts jurisdiction over the bed and banks of
rivers, lakes, and streams according to provisions of §§1601–1603 of the Fish and Game Code. The
Fish and Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the fill or removal of material
within the bed and banks of a watercourse or waterbody and for the removal of riparian vegetation.
Certain sections of the Fish and Game Code describe regulations pertaining to certain wildlife species.
For example, Fish and Game Code §§3503, 2513, and 3800 (and other sections and subsections)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-18 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
protect native birds, including their nests and eggs, from all forms of take. Disturbance that causes nest
abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by the CDFG. Raptors (i.e., eagles,
falcons, hawks, and owls) and their nests are specifically protected in California under Fish and Game
Code §3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the
order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of
any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.”
Non-game mammals are protected by Fish and Game Code §4150, and other sections of the Code
protect other taxa.
OPSP Applicability: All native bird and mammal species that occur in the OPSP area are protected by
the state Fish and Game Code. Because no non-tidal creeks are present in the OPSP area, it is unlikely
that a Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required for OPSP activities.
REGIONAL
McAteer-Petris Act
The McAteer-Petris Act created the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
(BCDC) in 1965. BCDC’s mission is to preserve the San Francisco Bay from unregulated filling.
BCDC has prepared a comprehensive study of the Bay and determined how future development of the
Bay should occur, resulting in the production of the San Francisco Bay Plan in 1968. BCDC’s
jurisdiction includes all areas below the mean high tide line and an area within a shoreline band that
extends landward for 100 feet from the mean high tide line. The McAteer-Petris Act includes a
permitting process for projects that would place fill in, on, or over any part of BCDC’s jurisdiction.
OPSP Applicability: Portions of the OPSP in, on, or over the Bay, including areas within 100 feet of
the mean high tide elevation (or, in areas supporting coastal wetlands, within 100 feet of the mean high
tide elevation plus 5 feet), are within BCDC’s jurisdiction, and BCDC approval of any activities within
these areas would be required.
City of South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance
Under Chapter 13.30 of the South San Francisco Municipal Code, the City of South San Francisco
maintains a tree preservation ordinance designed to:
(a) Provide standards and requirements for the protection of certain large trees (trees with a
circumference of 48 inches or greater at 54 inches above the natural grade) and trees and stands with
unique characteristics (having been so designated by the Parks and Recreation director);
(b) Provide standards and requirements for planting and maintenance of trees for new
development; and
(c) Establish recommended standards for planting and maintaining trees on property that is already
developed. This chapter achieves these objectives in ways that support and encourage the reasonable
economic enjoyment of private property, not in ways that prevent it. (Ord. 1271 § 1 (part), 2000: Ord.
1060 § 1 (part), 1989).
Protected trees are not to be removed or pruned without a permit from the City, and must be protected
from development-related impacts such as soil compaction and underground trenching for utilities.
Additionally, new developments must conform to a series of tree planting requirements.
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-19
OPSP Applicability: No trees of protected size or that were known to be protected by special
designation from the Parks and Recreation director (as demarcated by a fence) were found to occur on-
site. As the Oyster Point Business Park will be located in an areas designated as community
commercial, business commercial, coastal commercial, office or business and technology park, one
landscape tree must be planted for every 2000 square feet of new floor area.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CRITERIA OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed OPSP may have effects on the biological resources of the OPSP area. The California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in evaluating project
impacts and determining which impacts will be significant. CEQA defines “significant effect on the
environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical conditions which exist in the area
affected by the proposed project.” Under CEQA Guidelines section 15065(a)(1) and Appendix G, a
project’s effects on biotic resources may be significant when the project would:
1. 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
2.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
3.have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community (e.g.,
oak woodland) identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
4.have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act
5.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
6.conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance
7.conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan
The following impact analyses consider the project-specific impacts of proposed Phase I activities and
the programmatic impacts of other activities that could be performed as part of the OPSP.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-20 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Key Assumptions for the Phase I Project
x No grading or placement of fill, either temporary or permanent, will occur in any aquatic or
wetland habitat (i.e., within the “Approximate Limit of USACE Jurisdiction” indicated on
Figure 7.1) during Phase I Project activities.
x The tallest building to be constructed in Phase I is 10 stories high.
x Lighting will be in conformance with the OPSP’s lighting guidelines.
Key Assumptions for the Remainder of the OPSP
x The tallest of the new office/R&D buildings to be constructed outside the Phase I area will be
no more than 10 stories high.
x Lighting will be in conformance with the OPSP’s lighting guidelines.
HABITAT MODIFICATION
Terrestrial Habitats
Impact Bio-1: Loss of Common Terrestrial Habitats. Development of the OPSP would result
in the modification or loss of Developed and Landscaped areas, California Annual
Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub, Ornamental Woodland Habitats and Non-
Jurisdictional Armored Rock Levee Slope Habitats. However, none of these
habitats represent particularly sensitive, valuable (from the perspective of
providing important wildlife habitat), or exemplary occurrences of these habitat
types. Therefore, impacts to these habitats, and the loss of potential nesting,
roosting, and foraging opportunities associated with such habitats, are considered a
less-than-significant impact.
Phase I construction may result in the loss or conversion of up to 20.05 ac of developed and landscaped
areas, 14.20 ac of California annual grassland/coyote brush scrub, and 0.57 ac of ornamental woodland
habitat due to the construction of buildings, landscaping, and other activities. These habitats are located
within the boundary of Phase I of the OPSP, and above USACE jurisdiction. An additional 0.72 acres
of northern coastal salt marsh, 0.01 acres of armored rock levee slope, and 0.11 acres of sandy beach
habitat are located within the boundary of Phase I of the OPSP and within USACE jurisdiction;
however, these areas will be avoided during construction.
Portions of the OPSP area outside of the Phase I boundary contain 37.11 ac of developed and
landscaped areas, 4.54 ac of California annual grassland/coyote brush scrub, and 1.04 ac of armored
rock levee slope habitats. As a result, there is some potential for some or all of these habitats to be lost
or modified due to the construction of buildings, installation of landscaping, and other activities. These
habitats are located above the approximate limits of USACE jurisdiction.
Impacts to these habitats during construction activities will reduce the extent of these habitat types on
the OPSP area, and will result in a reduction in abundance of some of the common wildlife species that
use the site. However, these habitat types are relatively abundant and widespread regionally, and none
of the habitats to be impacted by the OPSP represent sensitive, valuable (from the perspective of
providing important wildlife habitat), or exemplary occurrences of these habitat types. Therefore,
impacts to these habitats, and the loss of potential nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities
associated with such habitats, are considered a less-than-significant impact.
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-21
Wetland or Aquatic Habitats
Impact Bio-2: Disturbance or Loss of Wetland or Aquatic Habitats. Development of the
OPSP would result in the disturbance or loss of Northern Coastal Salt Marsh, Open
Water and Jurisdictional Armored Rock Levee Slope Habitats. Due to the
ecological importance of wetland and aquatic habitats, such impacts would be
potentially significant.
A total of 1.74 acres of northern coastal salt marsh, 0.27 acres of open water (including intertidal
habitats), and 0.76 acres of armored rock levee slope below the approximate limits of USACE
jurisdiction are present within the OPSP area outside of the boundaries of Phase I activities. While the
actual acreage of impacts to these sensitive/jurisdictional habitats is unknown, it is possible that these
habitats could be impacted due to the construction of buildings, marina improvements, Bay Trail
improvements, landscaping, and other activities. Additional wetland and open water habitat, within the
“Additional Study Area” but outside the OPSP boundaries (see Figure 2 in Appendix C), could
potentially be impacted by marina improvements, such as addition or replacement of piers and
reconstruction of docks, and by shading from such structures.
Mitigation Measures
Bio-2a: Delineate Jurisdictional Boundaries. Prior to construction of any programmatic
OPSP elements that are expected to potentially have direct impacts on USACE
jurisdictional habitats, a focused delineation shall be performed to determine the
precise limits of USACE jurisdiction at the site, and USACE approval of the
jurisdictional boundaries will be obtained.
Bio- 2b: Impact Avoidance/Minimization. Future OPSP elements near the Bay shoreline
shall be designed with consideration of the boundaries of sensitive wetland and
aquatic habitats in order to avoid and minimize impacts to these sensitive habitats
to the extent practicable while still accomplishing OPSP objectives. For example,
building and trail construction, landscaping activities, and other terrestrial
activities shall be planned and designed to avoid impacting the sensitive habitats
near the Bay shoreline to the extent feasible. For activities that cannot avoid
impacting sensitive habitats due to their water-related purpose or location, such as
construction or replacement of piers or docks in the marina, the amount of new fill
or the footprint of new structures placed in or on the water shall be limited to the
minimum necessary to achieve the objectives of that component. The City shall
review plans for any proposed activities that will result in impacts to sensitive
wetland and aquatic habitats to ensure that impacts have been avoided and
minimized to the extent feasible.
Bio-2c: Restoration of Temporarily Impacted Wetland/Aquatic Habitats. USACE-
jurisdictional areas that are temporarily impacted during construction of
programmatic elements shall be restored to preexisting contours and levels of soils
compaction following build-out. The means by which such temporarily impacted
areas will be restored shall be described in the mitigation plan described in
Measure 2d below.
Bio-2d: Compensation for Permanently Impacted Wetland/Aquatic Habitats.
Unavoidable permanent fill of all habitats within USACE jurisdiction shall be
replaced at a minimum 1:1 (mitigation area: impact area) ratio by creation or
restoration of similar habitat around San Francisco Bay. Any aquatic, marsh, or
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-22 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
mudflat habitat areas experiencing a net increase in shading as a result of docks or
other structures constructed over or on the water shall require compensatory
mitigation at a 0.5:1 (mitigation area: impact area) ratio; this ratio is less than the
1:1 required for permanent filling of such habitats because shaded areas are
expected to retain some ecological habitat value. Mitigation could be achieved
through a combination of on-site restoration or creation of wetlands or aquatic
habitats (including removal of on-site fill or structures, resulting in a gain of
wetland or aquatic habitats); off-site restoration/creation; funding of off-site
restoration/creation projects implemented by others; and/or mitigation credits
purchased at mitigation banks within the San Francisco Bay Region. Because
impacts to aquatic habitats on-site could also potentially impact special-status fish
and EFH (see Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and Special-Status Fish below),
all compensatory mitigation for impacts to aquatic habitat must also provide
habitat for green sturgeon, Central California Coast steelhead, and longfin smelt
that is of a quality at least as high as that impacted.
For funding of off-site improvements or purchase of mitigation bank credits, the
OPSP Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that either (a)
compensation has been established through the purchase of a sufficient number of
mitigation credits in a mitigation bank to satisfy the mitigation acreage
requirements of the OPSP activity, or (b) funds sufficient for the restoration of the
mitigation acreage requirements of the OPSP activity have been paid to an entity
implementing a project that would create or restore habitats of the type being
impacted by the OPSP.
For areas to be restored to mitigate for temporary or permanent impacts, the OPSP
Applicant shall prepare and implement a mitigation plan. The OPSP Applicant
shall retain a restoration ecologist or wetland biologist to develop the mitigation
plan, and it shall contain the following components (or as otherwise modified by
regulatory agency permitting conditions):
1. Summary of habitat impacts and proposed mitigation ratios, along with a
description of any other mitigation strategies used to achieve the overall
mitigation ratios, such as funding of off-site improvements and/or purchase of
mitigation bank credits
2. Goal of the restoration to achieve no net loss of habitat functions and values
3. Location of mitigation site(s) and description of existing site conditions
4. Mitigation design:
x Existing and proposed site hydrology
x Grading plan if appropriate, including bank stabilization or other site
stabilization features
x Soil amendments and other site preparation elements as appropriate
x Planting plan
x Irrigation and maintenance plan
x Remedial measures/adaptive management, etc.
5. Monitoring plan (including final and performance criteria, monitoring
methods, data analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring schedule, etc.)
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-23
6. Contingency plan for mitigation elements that do not meet performance or
final success criteria.
Implementation of mitigation measures Bio-2a through Bio-2d would reduce impacts related to
disturbance or loss of wetland and aquatic habitats to a less-than-significant level through delineations
of jurisdictional areas, avoidance or minimization of impacts through specifics of design as possible,
restoration of temporarily impacted areas where feasible, and compensation for/replacement of
impacted habitat when loss cannot be avoided.
Indirect Impacts to Water Quality and Sensitive Habitats
Impact Bio-3: Construction-Period Increases in Turbidity. Sediment may wash from
construction areas into adjacent aquatic habitats, or soil loosened by grading could
slide downslope into such areas. Increases in turbidity resulting from construction
constitutes a potentially significant impact to aquatic wildlife species, including
special-status fish species such as steelhead and sensitive native species such as the
Olympia oyster. Water quality degradation could also negatively impact eelgrass
beds if they occur in the OPSP area. Due to the ecological importance of these
aquatic habitats and sensitive resources, such impacts would be potentially
significant.
Construction in and near drainage channels, storm drains, or the Bay could have a significant adverse
effect on water quality in the Bay within and adjacent to the OPSP area due to increased turbidity, if
ground-disturbing activities occur during the wet season, if soil is allowed to enter channels or storm
drains, or if dredging or other substrate-disturbing activities take place within the Bay.
Some grading, construction, and landscaping will occur in close proximity to, and upslope from,
sensitive aquatic habitats. There is thus some potential for construction activities to result in indirect
effects on these habitats and on water quality in adjacent aquatic habitats. For example, in the absence
of measures to prevent erosion and sedimentation, sediment may wash from construction areas into
adjacent aquatic habitats, or soil loosened by grading could slide downslope into such areas. Such
impacts could result in the loss or degradation of wetland or aquatic habitats, and degradation of water
quality in adjacent waters.
Mitigation Measures
Bio-3a: Incorporate Best Management Practices for Water Quality During
Construction. The Plan shall incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
water quality to minimize impacts in the surrounding wetland environment,
sloughs and channels, and the San Francisco Bay during construction. These BMPs
shall include numerous practices that will be outlined within the Stormwater
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), including, but not limited to, the following
mitigation measures:
1.No equipment will be operated in live flow in any of the sloughs or channels or
ditches on or adjacent to the site.
2.No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, cement, concrete, washings,
petroleum products or other organic or earthen material shall be allowed to
enter into or be placed where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into
aquatic or wetland habitat.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-24 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
3.Standard erosion control and slope stabilization measures will be required for
work performed in any area where erosion could lead to sedimentation of a
waterbody. For example, silt fencing will be installed just outside the limits of
grading and construction in any areas where such activities will occur upslope
from, and within 50 ft of, any wetland, aquatic, or marsh habitat. This silt
fencing will be inspected and maintained regularly throughout the duration of
construction.
4.Machinery will be refueled at least 50 ft from any aquatic habitat, and a spill
prevention and response plan will be developed. All workers will be informed
of the importance of preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take
should a spill occur.
Bio-3b: Minimize Soil Disturbance Adjacent to Wetland and Marsh Habitat. To the
extent feasible, soil stockpiling, equipment staging, construction access roads, and
other intensively soil-disturbing activities shall not occur immediately adjacent to
any wetlands that are to be avoided by the OPSP. The limits of the construction
area shall be clearly demarcated with Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing to
avoid inadvertent disturbance outside the fence during construction activities.
Implementation of mitigation measures Bio-3a and Bio-3b would reduce indirect impacts to water
quality and sensitive habitats from construction-period increases in turbidity to a less-than-significant
level through minimization of soil disturbance adjacent to these habitats and implementation of best
management practices for water quality during construction.
Impact Bio-4: Operational Stormwater Impacts on Wetlands and a Tidal Channel.
Installation of stormwater outfalls from the buildings to be constructed in the
southwestern part of the site shall outfall into vegetated swales that are to be
constructed just upslope from the wetlands and tidal channel that form the
southwestern boundary of the site. If these swales are not adequately constructed,
there is some potential for excessive erosion or the release of untreated runoff into
these wetlands and tidal waters. Due to the value of wetland habitats to the ecology
of the Bay’s aquatic habitats and the value of these aquatic habitats to a variety of
fish, benthic organisms, and other species, degradation of water quality or wetlands
would be a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Bio-4: Ensure Adequate Stormwater Run-off Capacity. Increases in stormwater run-
off due to increased hardscape shall be mitigated through the construction and
maintenance of features designed to handle the expected increases in flows and
provide adequate energy dissipation. All such features, including outfalls, shall be
regularly maintained to ensure continued function and prevent failure following
construction.
Implementation of mitigation measure Bio-4 would reduce indirect impacts to wetland and aquatic
habitats related to stormwater outfalls to a less-than-significant level through assuring adequate
capacity and maintenance of the stormwater system.
Habitat for and Individuals of Non-Breeding Special-Status Wildlife Species
Impact Bio-5: Loss of Habitat for Non-breeding Special-Status Wildlife Species. Several
terrestrial special-status species may use the OPSP area as transients or migrants,
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-25
or may occur in very low numbers, but are not expected to breed at the site or to be
present in any numbers. These species include the American peregrine falcon,
black skimmer, harlequin duck, northern harrier, Vaux’s swift, yellow warbler,
tricolored blackbird, white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike. There would be no
substantial loss of foraging or non-breeding habitat for any of these species, as the
OPSP footprint primarily includes already developed and/or heavily impacted
areas. Therefore, the impact on non-Breeding Special-Status Wildlife Species
would be less-than-significant.
American peregrine falcons have been observed occasionally on the OPSP area and throughout the
OPSP vicinity; the nearest confirmed breeding location is on Bair Island near Redwood City (Sequoia
Audubon Society 2001). This species is uncommon throughout the Bay Area, and does not occur
frequently or in large numbers in the OPSP area. Black skimmers and California least terns are known
to occur in the Bay in low numbers throughout the year, and a small breeding population of each
species has become established in the South Bay. However there is no suitable nesting habitat for these
species on the OPSP area and individuals are expected to forage in the small amount of marine aquatic
habitat within the OPSP area rarely if at all. Harlequin ducks occur regularly in low numbers in the
OPSP vicinity during the non-breeding season only. The OPSP area is outside of the known breeding
range of the species (Robertson and Goudie 1999), and individuals are expected to occur in the OPSP
area rarely if at all. Northern harriers breed in San Mateo County (Sequoia Audubon Society 2001) and
are regularly observed in grassy and marshy habitats throughout the year. Occasional individuals may
forage in the grassy habitats on the OPSP area, but harriers are not expected to occur there in any
numbers, or to nest on the site. Vaux’s swifts may occasionally forage for insects over the OPSP area,
but would not roost there, nor would they occur frequently or in large numbers. Yellow warblers have
been observed in the OPSP vicinity during migration, and the species forages in the OPSP area during
migratory periods. However, the species is not expected to nest on the OPSP area. Tricolored
blackbirds may occasionally forage in open grassy or ruderal portions of OPSP area, but records of
birds in the vicinity are few, and they are not expected to occur there in any numbers or to nest on the
site. The white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike could possibly also forage in the portion of the OPSP
area outside the Phase I area, but they are not expected to nest here.
OPSP construction would not result in injury or mortality of any individuals of these species, which are
mobile enough to avoid construction equipment. There would be no substantial loss of foraging or non-
breeding habitat for any of these species, as the OPSP footprint primarily includes already developed
and/or heavily impacted areas. As a result, the OPSP’s impacts do not meet the CEQA standard of
having a substantial adverse effect on these species’ populations, and the OPSP will have a less than
significant impact on these species.
Habitat for and Individuals of Certain Potentially Nesting Special-Status Birds
Impact Bio-6: Disturbance of Special-Status Nesting Birds. Construction-related noise and
activity could disturb or displace special-status breeding birds. The number of
nesting individuals that could be disturbed is very small, and the OPSP’s impacts
would not substantially reduce regional populations of special-status bird species,
and thus these impacts do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial
adverse effect on these species. However, the loss of any active nests of protected
birds would be in violation of federal and state laws, thus this impact would be
considered potentially significant.
Some special-status bird species could potentially nest in or adjacent to the OPSP area but are not
expected to be significantly impacted by the OPSP. These species include the white-tailed kite and
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-26 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
loggerhead shrike, for which there is a very low probability of nesting, as well as the San Francisco
common yellowthroat, Alameda song sparrow, and Bryant’s savannah sparrow, which have a
somewhat higher probability of nesting in wetland vegetation at the periphery of the site.
White-tailed kites and loggerhead shrikes are uncommon to rare on the Peninsula due to the scarcity of
suitable grassland habitat, and due to the limited extent of foraging habitat and disturbance, there is a
low probability that either species nests on the site. Nevertheless, there is some potential for up to one
pair of each species to nest in the southwestern portion of Phase I of the OPSP area. Any such nesting
pairs would be displaced by OPSP activities. Therefore, a small amount of marginal nesting and
foraging habitat will be removed as a result of OPSP activities.
San Francisco common yellowthroats occur throughout the Bay Area in tidal marshes and nearby
freshwater riparian areas. Common yellowthroats have been observed in the OPSP area, and enough
suitable nesting habitat exists on the OPSP area that up to two pairs of common yellowthroats could
establish nesting territories in wetland vegetation along the tidal channel south of the OPSP area or just
outside the northwestern part of the OPSP area. OPSP activities will not result in the loss of any nesting
or foraging habitat, but breeding individuals could be disturbed or displaced by construction-related
noise and activity.
Alameda song sparrows are restricted to salt marsh habitat, which will not be impacted by Phase I of
the proposed OPSP. Bryant’s savannah sparrows utilize salt marsh habitat as well, but can also be
found in adjacent ruderal or grassland habitats, which will be lost as a result of OPSP activities. Pairs of
song sparrows or savannah sparrows nesting in the salt marsh habitat within the OPSP area could be
disturbed by noise, movement, and other construction activities. Any pairs of savannah sparrows
nesting in the ruderal or grassland areas within the Phase I footprint would be displaced by OPSP
activities. However, the amount of salt marsh habitat in the OPSP area is small and the quality is low,
and thus the number of pairs of these species that could potentially be disturbed due to OPSP activities
represents a very small fraction of the regional population. Likewise, the number of savannah sparrows
that could potentially nest in the small patch of ruderal grassland habitat within the Phase I footprint is
low.
Because the amount and quality of habitat for white-tailed kites, loggerhead shrikes, San Francisco
common yellowthroats, Alameda song sparrows, and Bryant’s savannah sparrows being impacted is
low, and the number of nesting individuals that could be disturbed is very small, the OPSP’s impacts
would not substantially reduce regional populations of these species, and thus these impacts do not
meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect on these species. However, the loss of
any active nests of protected birds would be in violation of federal and state laws (see Regulatory
Setting above).
Mitigation Measure
Bio-6: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Pre-construction surveys for nesting
birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game
Code of California within 100 feet of a development site in the OPSP area shall be
conducted if construction commences during the avian nesting season, between
February 1 and August 31. The survey should be undertaken no more than 15 days
prior to any site-disturbing activities, including vegetation removal or grading. If
active nests are found, a qualified biologist shall determine an appropriate buffer in
consideration of species, stage of nesting, location of the nest, and type of
construction activity. The buffers should be maintained until after the nestlings
have fledged and left the nest.
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-27
Implementation of pre-construction nesting bird surveys as called for in Mitigation Measure Bio-6
would reduce the impacts related to disturbance of nesting special-status birds to a less-than-
significant level.
DISTURBANCE OR LOSS OF SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Burrowing Owls
Impact Bio-7: Construction-Period Disturbance of Burrowing Owls. Burrowing owls could
potentially burrow in grassland habitats and/or use crevices in shoreline riprap as
temporary refugia. Due to the marginal nature of habitat on the site, and the current
lack of suitable breeding sites in the form of ground squirrel burrows, the OPSP
will not result in a significant loss of burrowing owl habitat. Nevertheless, any loss
of burrowing owls or fertile eggs, any activities resulting in nest abandonment, or
the destruction of occupied burrowing owl burrows would constitute a potentially
significant impact under CEQA due to the regional rarity of the species and
declining nature of its populations.
Although no burrowing owls or ground squirrel burrows were observed on the OPSP area during the
November 2009 or September 2010 reconnaissance surveys, burrowing owls could potentially occur on
the Phase I site in grassland habitats if ground squirrels are present. There is also some potential for
occasional transient owls to use crevices in shoreline riprap as temporary refugia. In the unlikely event
that owls were nesting on the site, construction-related disturbance during the breeding season could
result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment.
However, if burrowing owls occur on the site at all, they likely do so as nonbreeding visitors. Because
this species live in burrows even during the non-breeding season, they are more likely to take refuge in
those burrows rather than flushing in response to disturbance as most birds do, therefore raising the risk
of individual owls being crushed in their burrows during construction activities in any season.
Mitigation Measures
Bio-7a: Pre-construction Burrowing Owl Surveys.Pre-construction surveys for
burrowing owls shall be completed in potential habitat in conformance with the
California Burrowing Owl Consortium protocol, no more than 30 days prior to the
start of construction. If no burrowing owls are located during these surveys, no
additional action would be warranted. However, if burrowing owls are located on
or immediately adjacent to the site, mitigation measures Bio-7b and Bio-7c shall
be implemented.
Bio-7b: Buffer Zones.For burrowing owls present during the non-breeding season
(generally 1 September to 31 January), a 150-ft buffer zone shall be maintained
around the occupied burrow(s) if practicable. If such a buffer is not practicable,
then a buffer adequate to avoid injury or mortality of owls shall be maintained, or
the birds shall be evicted as described for Mitigation Measures Bio-7c, below.
During the breeding season (generally 1 February to 31 August), a 250-ft buffer,
within which no new activity shall be permissible, shall be maintained between
OPSP activities and occupied burrows. Owls present on site after 1 February shall
be assumed to be nesting unless evidence indicates otherwise. This protected
buffer area shall remain in effect until 31 August, or based upon monitoring
evidence, until the young owls are foraging independently or the nest is no longer
active.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-28 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Bio-7c: Passive Relocation. If construction will directly impact occupied burrows,
eviction of owls should occur outside the nesting season to prevent injury or
mortality of individual owls. No burrowing owls shall be evicted from burrows
during the nesting season (1 February through 31 August) unless evidence
indicates that nesting is not actively occurring (e.g., because the owls have not yet
begun nesting early in the season, or because young have already fledged late in
the season). Relocation of owls during the non-breeding season shall be performed
by a qualified biologist using one-way doors, which should be installed in all
burrows within the impact area and left in place for at least two nights. These one-
way doors shall then be removed and the burrows backfilled immediately prior to
the initiation of grading.
With implementation of Mitigation Measures Bio-7a through Bio-7c, impacts related to disturbance of
burrowing owls would be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Increased Recreational Disturbance on Wildlife
Impact Bio-8: Increased Recreational Disturbance on Wildlife. Recreational demand in the
Oyster Point area is expected to increase with the development of the OPSP and
such increased use could potentially subject biological resources (both within and
outside the OPSP area, such as waterbirds using the edge of San Francisco Bay) to
greater disturbance by people walking and biking. However, because there is
already a substantial amount of human activity at Oyster Point, the area is already
largely habituated to high levels of human activity. Increased use of trails or other
areas that are already fairly heavily used by people is thus not expected to reduce
the use of such areas by wildlife. Therefore, an increase in recreational users of the
Bay Trail and other areas adjacent to wildlife habitat resulting from construction of
the OPSP would have a less-than-significant impact on wildlife in these areas.
Impacts of Lighting on Terrestrial and Aquatic Animals
Impact Bio-9: Increased Lighting Impacts on Wildlife. Lighting in and adjacent to more
natural areas on the OPSP area, especially the shoreline along San Francisco Bay,
is expected to increase as a result of the OPSP. Artificial lighting has been
demonstrated to cause changes in the physiology and behavior of certain animals.
However, the OPSP area is already subjected to substantial amounts of artificial
night lighting, including night lighting from roads, parking lots, and buildings. As
a result, any wildlife currently using the site is habituated to the lighting present
within this urban area. The OPSP incorporates guidelines for the design of lighting
to minimize light pollution in areas other than those intended to be lit. Therefore,
impacts from increased lighting levels on wildlife will be less-than-significant.
Artificial lighting has been demonstrated to cause changes in the physiology and behavior of a number
of animal taxa; while some animals take advantage of artificial lighting to more easily detect prey at
night, or take advantage of prey concentrations attracted to artificial lights, other animals are adversely
affected by artificial lighting (Rich and Longcore 2006). Species such as birds and amphibians can
become disoriented by changes in lighting, and many species of insects are attracted to light (Longcore
and Rich 2004). Reproductive behaviors of some species can be affected by the increased risk of
predation caused by increases in lighting, and visual communication between individuals of can be
disrupted by lighting (Longcore and Rich 2004). In more remote areas that are not already subjected to
urban lighting, an increase in night lighting could disrupt the behavior of animals, potentially increase
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-29
predation on some nocturnal animals, and result in displacement of the most sensitive species from
areas with increased lighting. However, the OPSP area is already subjected to substantial amounts of
night lighting, including night lighting from roads, parking lots, and buildings. As a result, any wildlife
currently using the site is habituated to the lighting present within this urban area.
The OPSP incorporates guidelines for the design of lighting to minimize light pollution in areas other
than those intended to be lit. For example, lighting will be directed downward at low cut-off angles to
minimize off-site light migration and the OPSP’s contribution to light pollution. Implementation of a
lighting plan is included in Mitigation Measure Vis-2a, detailed in Chapter 4 and would further reduce
this impact. Because there is already a substantial amount of artificial lighting at Oyster Point, the
implementation of these guidelines will prevent the installation of new lighting from substantially
increasing lighting levels, and from impacting terrestrial and aquatic species. Therefore, impacts from
increased lighting levels on wildlife will be less than significant.
Impacts to Migratory Birds from Buildings and Lighting
Impact Bio-10: Increased Potential for Bird Strikes. Relative to the height of the existing
structures, several of the OPSP’s proposed buildings will project higher, creating
new, somewhat larger obstacles along the flight path of migrating and foraging
birds. Therefore, the OPSP could result in the creation of a new strike hazard for
migrating. Although large-scale injury or mortality of birds due to collisions with
buildings is not anticipated, because of the potential for such mortality to occur,
the OPSP is considered to have a potentially significant impact to migratory birds.
The Study Area is located along the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds, and the juxtaposition of
wetland, shoreline, and open water habitats used by birds results in large-scale movements of birds
along the edge of San Francisco Bay, both during long-distance movements (such as migration) and
during daily movements between roosting and foraging habitats. During spring and fall migratory
periods in particular, birders have documented high densities of migrant songbirds using vegetated
areas at the edges of San Francisco Bay, and the OPSP area has the potential to support high densities
of birds at times during migration. There is thus potential for injury or mortality of birds due to
collisions with artificial structures such as buildings as birds engage in such movements.
Many birds migrate at night, when it is difficult for them to see structures in their paths. In addition,
birds migrating at night are often attracted to sources of artificial light, particularly during periods of
inclement weather. Exposure to night lighting can cause alteration of flight paths and can attract birds
to the light source (Keyes 2005, Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). As a result, bright lights on buildings
can result in bird collisions with the buildings. Even during the day, birds may collide with windows or
with tall, glass-covered buildings. Large-scale collisions resulting in mortality of large numbers of
birds have been documented in eastern and Midwestern North America (Avery 1979), but it is possible
that such mortality could occur in the West as well.
Within the OPSP area, there is some potential for birds to collide during daytime and nocturnal flights
with structures such as windows of office buildings. Structures currently present along the southern
portion of Oyster Point are one to three stories high, while several structures at the northern end of
Oyster Point are five stories high. The existing structures at Oyster Point are relatively low, and the
exteriors of these buildings have been designed with clear patterns that do not result in extensive areas
of reflective surfaces. As a result, most migrating birds would be flying above these buildings, and
birds would easily be able to see these buildings because they are not comprised of extensive areas that
reflect, and that thus would appear to a bird to be similar to, the sky. Therefore, the risk of bird strikes
under existing conditions is expected to be relatively low.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-30 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
The tallest new building that will be constructed during Phase I of the OPSP could be 10 stories high.
Relative to the height of the existing structures, several of the OPSP’s proposed buildings will project
higher, creating new, somewhat larger obstacles along the flight path of migrating and foraging birds.
Although all of these buildings are likely to be at a lower height than most migrating birds will be
flying, the OPSP would create potential bird strike hazards at elevations that do not currently exist.
With structures up to 195 ft tall and windy, often foggy conditions along San Francisco Bay, the risk of
collision for birds would increase. Therefore, the OPSP could result in the creation of a new strike
hazard for migrating birds that could result in the loss of substantial numbers of birds over the life of
the OPSP. Additionally, operating effects associated with the lighting of the buildings can alter the
flight patterns of migratory birds and potentially increase bird strike collisions with the tall buildings.
Although large-scale injury or mortality of birds due to collisions with buildings has not been reported
from the West Coast, depending on the design of the buildings there is some potential for such
mortality to occur in the absence of mitigation measures. Because of these potential effects, the OPSP
is considered to have a potentially significant impact to migratory birds.
Mitigation Measures
Bio-10a: Lighting Measures to Reduce Impacts to Birds. During design of any building
greater than 100 feet tall, the OPSP Applicant shall consult with a qualified
biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues to
identify lighting-related measures to minimize the effects of the building’s lighting
on birds. Such measures, which may include the following and/or other measures,
shall be incorporated into the building’s design and operation.
x Use strobe or flashing lights in place of continuously burning lights for
obstruction lighting. Use flashing white lights rather than continuous light, red
light, or rotating beams.
x Install shields onto light sources not necessary for air traffic to direct light
towards the ground.
x Extinguish all exterior lighting (i.e., rooftop floods, perimeter spots) not
required for public safety.
x When interior or exterior lights must be left on at night, the operator of the
buildings shall examine and adopt alternatives to bright, all-night, floor-wide
lighting, which may include:
x Installing motion-sensitive lighting.
x Using desk lamps and task lighting.
x Reprogramming timers.
x Use of lower-intensity lighting.
x Windows or window treatments that reduce transmission of light out of the
building shall be implemented to the extent feasible.
Bio-10b: Building Design Measures to Minimize Bird Strike Risk. During design of any
building greater than 100 feet tall, the OPSP Applicant shall consult with a
qualified biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues
to identify measures related to the external appearance of the building to minimize
the risk of bird strikes. Such measures, which may include the following and/or
other measures, shall be incorporated into the building’s design.
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-31
x Use non-reflective tinted glass.
x Use window films to make windows visible to birds from the outside.
x Use external surfaces/designs that “break up” reflective surfaces rather than
having large, uninterrupted areas of surfaces that reflect, and thus may not
appear noticeably different (to a bird) from, the sky.
Implementation of the building design and lighting measures presented in mitigation measures Bio-10a
and Bio-10b will avoid and minimize impacts to migrating and foraging birds as a result of increased
bird strikes and the impact will be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
TREES PROTECTED BY THE CITY’S TREE PROTECTION ORDINANCE
Impact Bio-11: Protected Tree Removal. One or more mature blue gum trees within the
ornamental woodland habitat may satisfy size requirements for a “protected tree”
under the City of South San Francisco’s Tree Protection Ordinance. Trees are
considered protected if they are 48 inches or more at 54 inches above the natural
grade. These trees, while providing some wildlife habitat, are non-native invasive
trees that severely degrade natural habitats. Eucalyptus species outcompete native
species and produce leaf litter that reduces the diversity and cover, and can alter
fire regimes within the associated woodland understory. If any of these trees are
found to be of sufficient size to be considered protected under the City’s ordinance,
a permit will be required for their removal. However, due to the low habitat
functions and values provided by these trees, their loss, and the loss of potential
nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities associated with them, this is
considered a less-than-significant impact.
IMPACTS OF IN-WATER CONSTRUCTION
In-water construction is not proposed as a part of Phase I of the OPSP, but could be included in the
form of removal and replacement of piers in the Oyster Point Marina during future phases of OPSP
development. If such in-water construction were to take place, it could result in the following
additional impacts.
Essential Fish Habitat and Special-Status Fish
Impact Bio-12: In-Water Construction Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat. Special-status fish
species that occur in the OPSP vicinity and could potentially be impacted by in-
water construction activities are the southern green sturgeon, the Central California
Coast steelhead, and the longfin smelt. Habitat for occasional dispersing
individuals of all three species is similarly located in open waters and estuarine
habitats of the San Francisco Bay along the boundaries of the OPSP area. This is a
potentially significant impact.
The tidal aquatic habitats adjacent to the OPSP area are considered Essential Fish Habitat by the
NMFS. If programmatic OPSP elements include construction activities in the waters of the Bay, such
activities could adversely impact Essential Fish Habitat in the OPSP area
Mitigation Measure
Bio-12: Measures to Reduce Impacts on Essential Fish Habitat. The following
mitigation measures, adapted from Amendment 11 of the West Coast Groundfish
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-32 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Plan (PFMC 2006) and Appendix A of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC
2003), shall be implemented during in-water construction activities unless
modified by the federal permitting agencies (NMFS or USACE).
Avoidance of Salmonid Migration Periods. In-water work when juvenile
salmonids are moving through the Bay on the way to the open ocean or when
groundfish and prey species could be directly impacted shall be avoided. Because
steelhead are potentially present, the allowed dredge window for this area of the
San Francisco Bay is June 1 through November 30. All in-water construction shall
occur during this window. If completion of in-water work within this period is not
feasible due to scheduling issues, new timing guidelines shall be established and
submitted to the NMFS and CDFG for review and approval.
Worker Training. Personnel involved in in-water construction and deconstruction
activities shall be trained by a qualified biologist in the importance of the marine
environment to special-status fish, and birds and the environmental protection
measures put in place to prevent impacts to these species, their habitats, and EFH.
The training shall include, at a minimum, the following:
1.A review of the special-status fish and sensitive habitats that could be found in
work areas
2.Measures to avoid and minimize adverse effects to special-status fish, birds,
their habitats, and EFH
3.A review of all conditions and requirements of environmental permits, reports,
and plans (i.e., USACE permits)
Avoidance of Areas of Wetland and Aquatic Vegetation. All construction
equipment used in conjunction with in-water work (pipelines, barges, cranes, etc.)
shall avoid wetlands, marshes, and areas of sub-aquatic vegetation (including
eelgrass beds).
Mitigation Measure Bio-3a would also reduce impact Bio-12 through implementation of Best
Management Practices for water quality during construction.
Implementation of mitigation measures Bio-12 and Bio-3a would reduce impacts to essential fish
habitat to a less-than-significant level through avoidance of salmonid migration periods and wetland
and aquatic vegetation, appropriate worker training, and implementation of best management practices
for water quality during construction.
Pile-Driving Impacts to Fish and Marine Mammals
Impact Bio-13: Percussive In-Water Construction Noise and Special-Status Fish. If in-water
construction is undertaken and includes jackhammering, pile-driving or other in-
water percussive activities, pressure waves could cause negative behavioral,
psychological and physiological effects that could disturb, injure or kill special-
status fish or marine mammals. Due to the number of fish that could be present
near in-water construction areas, the potential presence of special-status fish, and
the sensitivity of marine mammals such as harbor seals and California sea lions,
such impacts are potentially significant.
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-33
If programmatic OPSP elements include construction activities in the waters of the Bay, individuals of
special-status fish species could suffer injury or mortality due to construction activities including
percussive noise due to jackhammering, pile-driving, or other in-water percussive activities. Pile-
driving outside of the water will not result in pressure waves sufficient to result in injury or mortality of
fish or marine mammals. This discussion of pile-driving impacts and mitigation pertains only to pile-
driving within the water. For further information related to pile-driving and vibration, see Chapter 12:
Noise. The in-water pressure wave, if of sufficient magnitude, can injure or kill fish. Pressure waves
have an actual force associated with them and the stronger the force, the more likely they are to damage
sensitive tissues in aquatic species. Pressure waves interact with fish in the water column, causing
behavioral and physiological effect such as avoidance, stress, temporary loss of hearing, rupture of
swim bladders (air pockets that are used for buoyancy), the formation of bubbles in the circulatory
system and corresponding rupturing of blood vessels, traumatic brain injuries, and death. Current
criteria indicate that sound levels of 183 decibels can injure or kill fish (Fisheries Hydroacoustic
Working Group 2008). Marine mammals, which have sensitive hearing, can also easily be disturbed by
sound-generated pressure waves, although effects from OPSP activities would be unlikely to cause
injury or mortality of these species.
Mitigation Measures
Bio-13a: Incorporation of Design Considerations that Minimize the Need for
Percussive Construction Techniques. If programmatic OPSP elements after the
Phase I Project include in-water construction of structures that require percussive
techniques, structure design shall adhere to the following principles to the greatest
extent practicable:
1.Engineer structures to use fewer or smaller piles, where feasible, and
preferably, solid piles
2.Design structures that can be installed in a short period of time (i.e., during
periods of slack tide when fish movements are lower).
3.The City, with consultation from a qualified biologist who is familiar with
marine biology, shall review the final plan design to ensure that these design
requirements have been incorporated into the plan.
Bio-13b: Utilization of Construction Tools and Techniques that Minimize Percussive
Noise.If programmatic OPSP elements include construction of structures that
require percussive techniques, construction activities shall employ the following
techniques to the greatest extent practicable.
1.Drive piles with a vibratory device instead of an impact hammer if feasible,
and use a cushioning block between the hammer and the pile.
2.Restrict driving of steel piles to the June 1 to November 30 work window, or
as otherwise recommended by the NMFS (driving of concrete piles would not
be subject to this condition).
3.If steel piles must be driven with an impact hammer, an air curtain shall be
installed to disrupt sound wave propagation, or the area around the piles being
driven shall be dewatered using a coffer dam. The goal of either measure is to
disrupt the sound wave as it moves from water into air.
4.If an air curtain is used, a qualified biologist shall monitor pile driving to
ensure that the air curtain is functioning properly and OPSP-generated sound
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-34 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
waves do not exceed the threshold of 180183-decibels generating 1
micropascal (as established by NMFS guidelinesthe Fisheries Hydroacoustic
Working Group; 2008). This shall require monitoring of in-water sound waves
during pile driving.
5.Use of fewer piles, or smaller piles, or a different type of pile, with hollow
steel piles appearing to create the most impact at a given size
6.Driving piles when species of concern are absent
7.Use of a vibratory hammer rather than an impact hammer
8.Use of a cushioning block between hammer and pile
9.Use of a confined or unconfined air bubble curtain; and
10.Driving piles during periods of reduced currents
Implementation of mitigation measures Bio-13a and Bio-13b would reduce impacts to special-status
fish and marine mammal species due to percussive in-water construction activities to less-than-
significant levels by minimizing percussive noise through utilization of appropriate design and
construction techniques.
Impacts to Olympia Oyster Beds
Impact Bio-14: In-Water Construction Disturbance of Olympia Oyster Beds. There is a known
population of Olympia oysters at Oyster Point. In-water construction activities,
including activities at the marina and along the shoreline, could potentially impact
oysters through the removal of substrate supporting oysters, smothering of oyster
beds with fill, or degradation of water quality. Such oysters, including their larvae,
provide food, refugia, and attachment sites for a number of aquatic organisms and
filter nutrients and pollutants from the water. As a result, these oysters perform a
valuable function to the Bay ecosystem, and impacts to oysters from in-water
construction activities are potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
Bio-14a: Avoidance of Suitable Oyster Habitat. To the greatest extent practicable, OPSP
activities shall avoid removing or disturbing riprap and other rocky substrates that
serve as suitable oyster habitat. If impacts to oysters and their habitat are
unavoidable, measures Bio-14b and Bio-14c shall be implemented.
Bio-14b: Native Oyster Surveys. A detailed survey for native oysters shall be conducted in
all suitable substrates within the OPSP area. This survey shall be conducted by a
qualified oyster biologist at low tides that expose the maximum amount of
substrate possible. Surveys can be conducted at any time of year, but late summer
and early fall are optimal because newly settled oysters are detectable. This survey
shall occur before any construction within aquatic habitats takes place to establish
a baseline condition. If few or no oysters are observed on hard substrates that
would remain in place after construction, no further mitigation is required.
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-35
Bio-14c: Replacement of Suitable Oyster Habitat. If more than 100 oysters would be
removed or are in areas where construction-generated sediment could settle out
onto the oysters, compensatory mitigation shall be provided by the OPSP
Applicant at a minimum 1:1 ratio. The OPSP Applicant shall retain a qualified
oyster biologist to develop an Oyster Restoration Plan that shall be reviewed and
approved by the City. This Plan shall include site selection, substrate installation,
and monitoring procedures, and include the following components (unless
otherwise modified by NMFS):
1.A suitable site for installation of replacement substrate would be one with
adequate daily tidal flow, a location that would not be affected by maintenance
dredging or other routine marina maintenance activities, and one that is lacking
in appropriate settlement substrate. A location outside of the breakwaters or in
association with any eelgrass mitigation sites would be appropriate.
2.Although oysters may settle on a variety of materials, the most appropriate for
restoration purposes is oyster shell. This is typically installed by placing the
shell into mesh bags that can then be placed in piles on the seafloor of the
mitigation site. Enough shell shall be installed under the guidance of a
qualified oyster biologist to make up for the loss attributable to the OPSP.
Mitigation shall occur after construction of all in-water elements of the OPSP.
3.The restoration site shall be monitored on a regular basis by a qualified oyster
biologist for a minimum of two years, or until success criteria are achieved if
they are not achieved within two years. Monitoring shall involve routine
checks (bi-monthly during the winter and monthly during the spring and
summer) to evaluate settlement, growth, and survival on the mitigation site.
Success shall be determined to have been achieved when settlement and
survival rates for oysters are not statistically significantly different between the
mitigation site and the populations being impacted.
Mitigation Measure Bio-3a would also reduce impact Bio-14 through implementation of Best
Management Practices for water quality during construction.
With implementation of mitigation measures Bio-14a through Bio-14c and Bio-3a, the impacts to
related to in-water construction disturbance of Olympia oyster beds would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level by implementing Best Management Practices for water quality, identifying oyster
populations, avoiding suitable habitat where possible and replacement of suitable habitat when
avoidance is not feasible.
Impacts to Eelgrass Beds
Impact Bio-15: Increased Turbidity During In-Water Construction and Eelgrass Beds. In-
water construction activities that result in increased turbidity could potentially
result in adverse effects to eelgrass by covering eelgrass with sediment. Because
eelgrass beds provide nursery habitat for a variety of fish species, they are very
important to the Bay ecosystem, and impacts to eelgrass beds are thus potentially
significant.
Although no eelgrass beds or patches have been mapped closer than 3 mi from the OPSP area, the
NMFS (2010) considers portions of Oyster Point to offer suitable eelgrass habitat, and there is some
evidence that eelgrass populations in the Bay are expanding (Merkel & Associates 2004). Thus, we
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-36 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
cannot rule out the possibility that eelgrass patches or beds have become established, or will become
established prior to the initiation of programmatic activities, in or near the OPSP area.
Mitigation Measures
Bio-15a: Water Quality Best Management Practices for Eelgrass. In addition to the
water quality BMPs described above in Measure Bio-3a, the following BMPs shall
minimize impacts to any eelgrass beds in the OPSP area.
1.Conduct all in-water work during periods of eelgrass dormancy (November 1-
March 31) [Note: the majority of this period conflicts with the period during
which in-water activities should not occur to avoid impacts to salmonids; only
the period November 1-30 would avoid impacts during sensitive periods for
both taxa.]
2.Install sediment curtains around the worksite to minimize sediment transport
If these BMPs are not feasible, or if OPSP activities will occur in aquatic areas
outside of the marina, mitigation measures 15b and 15c shall be undertaken.
Bio-15b: Eelgrass Survey. Prior to any construction activities in aquatic habitats, a survey
for eelgrass beds or patches shall be conducted within 750 ft of expected aquatic
construction activities. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist(s) familiar
with eelgrass identification and ecology and approved by NMFS to conduct such a
survey. Survey methods shall employ either SCUBA or sufficient grab samples to
ensure that the bottom was adequately inventoried. The survey shall occur between
August and October and collect data on eelgrass distribution, density, and depth of
occurrence for the survey areas. The edges of any eelgrass beds or patches shall be
mapped. At the conclusion of the survey a report shall be prepared documenting
the survey methods, results, and eelgrass distribution, if any, within the survey
area. This report shall be submitted to NMFS for approval. If OPSP activities can
be adjusted so that no direct impacts to eelgrass beds would occur, no further
mitigation would be required. If direct impacts to eelgrass beds cannot be avoided,
the following measures shall be implemented.
Bio-15c: Compensatory Eelgrass Mitigation. If direct impacts to eelgrass beds cannot be
avoided, compensatory mitigation shall be provided in conformance with the
Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Mitigation shall entail the
replacement of impacted eelgrass at a 3:1 (mitigation: impact) ratio on an acreage
basis, based on the eelgrass mapping described in mitigation measure 8B above,
and detailed designs of the feature(s) that would impact eelgrass beds. Such
mitigation could occur either off site or on site (NMFS 2005b). Off-site mitigation
could be achieved through distribution of a sufficient amount of funding to allow
restoration or enhancement of eelgrass beds at another location in the Bay. If this
option is selected, all funds shall be distributed to the appropriate state or federal
agency or restoration-focused non-governmental agency (i.e., CDFG restoration
fund, California Coastal Conservancy, Save the Bay, etc). The OPSP Applicant
shall provide written evidence to the City that either a) compensation has been
established through the purchase of a sufficient number of mitigation credits to
satisfy the mitigation acreage requirements of the OPSP activity, or funds
sufficient for the restoration of the mitigation acreage requirements of the OPSP
activity have been paid. These funds shall be applied only to eelgrass restoration
within the Bay.
CHAPTER 7: BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 7-37
If on-site mitigation is selected as the appropriate option, the OPSP Applicant shall
retain a qualified biologist familiar with eelgrass ecology to prepare and implement
a detailed Eelgrass Mitigation Plan. Unless otherwise directed by NMFS, the
Eelgrass Mitigation Plan shall follow the basic outline and contain all the
components required of the Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy (as
revised in 2005), including: identification of the mitigation need, site, transplant
methodology, mitigation extent (typically 3:1 on an acreage basis), monitoring
protocols (including frequency, staffing, reviewing agencies, duration, etc), and
success criteria. A draft Eelgrass Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to NMFS, for
its review and approval prior to implementation, with a copy to the City. Once the
plan has been approved, it shall be implemented in the following appropriate
season for transplantation. Restored eelgrass beds shall be monitored for success
over a 5-year period.
Mitigation Measure Bio-3a would also reduce impact Bio-15 through implementation of Best
Management Practices for water quality during construction.
With implementation of mitigation measures Bio-15a through Bio-15c and Bio-3a, the impacts to
related to in-water construction disturbance of eelgrass beds would be reduced to a less-than-
significant level by implementing Best Management Practices for water quality, additional Best
Management Practices for eelgrass, and if necessary, conducting eelgrass surveys and replacement
when avoidance is not feasible.
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN OR NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN
The OPSP area is not within an area covered by a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or proposed for salt marsh restoration. The proposed OPSP
would not conflict with other wildlife protection or enhancement programs that includes Alameda
County, such as the Alameda County Wildlife Friendly Pond Restoration Program, a U.S. Fish &
Wildlife Service “Safe Harbor Agreement” for the enhancement of the California red-legged frog and
California tiger salamander. There are no ponds on the OPSP area and no habitat for red-legged frogs
or tiger salamanders (no impact).
CUMULATIVE BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts arise from a concatenation of impacts from past, current, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects in the region. With implementation of the mitigation measures above, no
significant impacts are expected as a result of project-level or program-level implementation of the
OPSP. The proposed OPSP will not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative
impacts to biological resources.
With the exception of isolated protected open spaces, the OPSP vicinity is largely built up, and few
areas for new development remain. However, infill development and redevelopment of existing areas
are likely to occur in the OPSP vicinity. For example, the Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard
redevelopment project is proposed just north of the OPSP area (City of San Francisco 2010). All of
these Projects are each expected to complete (or have completed) their own separate CEQA reviews,
and to address any potential impacts therein by mitigating them to a less than significant level.
OPSP impacts will result primarily from the loss or modification of regionally abundant terrestrial
habitats and the associated modification of wildlife communities dominated by regionally abundant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 7-38 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
species. Due to the abundance of these species and habitat types regionally, the OPSP will not
contribute to cumulative impacts on these resources.
Wetland and aquatic habitats of San Francisco Bay, which could be impacted by the OPSP, are of
particular ecological importance, have undergone more substantial modification by human activities,
and are less extensive regionally than the upland habitats that will be impacted by the OPSP. However,
not only will the OPSP mitigate its contribution to cumulative impacts to these resources, but
restoration projects such as the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project and others throughout San
Francisco Bay will enhance and restore Bay habitats and animal communities in the coming decades,
thus helping to reverse cumulative impacts on these resources.
The OPSP area does not contain areas that would be considered federally protected wetlands, riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural communities, does not appear to constitute a major movement corridor
for native wildlife, and does not conflict with any conservations plans or local ordinances.
While the OPSP has the potential to impact the special status species, burrowing owl, a mitigation
measure requiring a preconstruction survey that would detect use of the site by these owls and
implementation of avoidance measures if found would reduce the impact to less than significant and
would not contribute to cumulative impacts (no impact).
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 8-1
8
CULTURAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
This section describes existing cultural resources at the OPSP site and describes whether
implementation of the OPSP and Phase I Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historic or archaeological resource (as defined in Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines), directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature, or result in the disturbance of any human
remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Preparation of this section used data
from the South San Francisco East of 101 Area Plan and South San Francisco Ferry Terminal EIR
(prepared by EIP, 2006).
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
ARCHAEOLOGY
Prehistoric and Ethnographic Context
At the time of initial contact between European explorers and the Native Californians, the area that is
now San Francisco was inhabited by a people who were of Penutian linguistic stock and who spoke the
Ramaytush language. These people, referred to as Costanoan, reaped the benefit of living in a
bountiful, temperate environment. Abundant marine and terrestrial resources made both agriculture and
animal husbandry unnecessary.
Evidence of the success of their hunter/gatherer subsistence strategy may be seen in the number of
flourishing village sites known to have existed at the time of contact with the Spanish. The detritus of
these sites was found in numerous locations around the shoreline of San Francisco Bay in the form of
shellmounds—large accumulations of shell, ash, human artifacts, and occasionally human remains.
With the influx of European settlers in the mid-nineteenth century, most of these sites were destroyed
or covered by buildings and roads at numerous locations around the bay shoreline, including the OPSP
site. Additionally, the OPSP site is located along the southwestern shoreline of the San Francisco Bay.
Gold rush-era silt accumulation and historic settlement (e.g., landfills) effectively filled in hundreds
acres of the original bay shoreline. Portions of the OPSP site is located on such fill, and as a result the
original shoreline would have been located approximately 2,000 feet west and 3,000 feet south of the
OPSP area. Estuary and marsh locales along the former bay shoreline would have offered abundant
food resources to prehistoric human population.
The term Costanoan is derived from the Spanish word Costaños, or "coast people," but its application
as a means of identifying this population is based in linguistics. Costanoan actually designates a family
of eight languages. Of these, Ramaytush was the language spoken by the estimated 1,400 people who
occupied the area now designated as San Francisco and San Mateo counties. Tribal groups occupying
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 8-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
the area from the Pacific Coast to the Diablo Range and from San Francisco to Point Sur spoke the
other seven languages of the Costanoan family. Modern descendants of the Costanoan prefer to be
known as Ohlone and formed a corporate entity in 1971, the Ohlone Indian Tribe. They are named after
the Oljón tribal group, which occupied the San Gregorio watershed in San Mateo County.
On the basis of linguistic evidence, it has been suggested that the ancestors of the Ohlone arrived in the
San Francisco Bay area about 500 A.D. from the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta region. Extended
families lived in domed structures thatched with tule, grass, wild alfalfa, ferns or carrizo. Semi-
subterranean sweathouses were built into pits excavated in stream banks and covered with a structure
against the bank. The tule raft, propelled by double-bladed paddles were used to navigate across San
Francisco Bay. The Ramaytush usually cremated a corpse immediately upon death but, if there were no
relatives to gather wood for the funeral pyre, interment occurred. Mortuary goods were all or most of
the personal belongings of the deceased. Mussels were an important staple in the Costanoan diet as
were acorns of the coast live oak, valley oak, tanbark oak and California black oak. Seeds and berries,
roots, grasses, and the meat of deer, elk, grizzly, sea lion, rabbit, and squirrel also contributed to the
Costanoan diet. Careful management of the land through controlled burning served to insure a plentiful
and reliable source of all these foods.
The arrival of the Spanish in the San Francisco Bay Area in 1775 led to the rapid demise of native
California populations. Diseases, declining birth rates, and the effects of the mission system served to
eradicate the aboriginal life ways (which are currently experiencing resurgence among Ohlone
descendants). Brought into the missions, the surviving Costanoan along with former neighboring
groups of Esselen, Yokuts, and Miwok were transformed from hunters and gatherers into agricultural
laborers. With abandonment of the mission system and Mexican takeover in the 1840s, numerous
ranchos were established. Generally, the few native Californians who remained were then forced, by
necessity, to work on the ranchos.
HISTORIC BACKGROUND
History of the OPSP Site and Vicinity
The OPSP site is located on the San Mateo Peninsula, a landform that divides the Pacific Ocean from
the southern San Francisco Bay, and connects the City of San Francisco with the Santa Clara Valley.
The OPSP site is located within the historic boundaries of Rancho Buri Buri, which was first
established as grazing land for Mission Dolores and the Presidio of San Francisco. Although ranchos
on the Peninsula were generally smaller than those established elsewhere in the Bay Area, the 15,000
acres that made up Buri Buri extended from the San Bruno hills south into modern-day Burlingame,
and from the San Andreas Valley east to the shore of San Francisco Bay. By 1810, a successful cattle
operation was being run within its boundaries. In October 1827, Sublieutenant José Antonio Sánchez,
who was stationed at the Presidio, was granted permission by Mexican governor José María de
Echeandía to occupy the rancho for “grazing and agricultural purposes”. With the help of his 10
children and local Indian laborers, Sánchez worked the land from the time it was granted to him until
his death in 1843. Upon his death, the rancho lands were divided between his children.
In the decade after Sánchez’s death, settlement patterns throughout California changed dramatically.
With the discovery of gold in 1849, the once isolated California frontier was soon awash in immigrants
from all corners of the world. California’s 1848 population of less than 14,000 (exclusive of Native
Californians) increased to 224,000 in four years. By 1850, California had gained statehood and became
inextricably linked to the markets and economic forces of the rest of the United States. In the transition,
Rancho Buri Buri had become extremely valuable land, not only because it afforded access to a
growing transportation network, but because of its proximity to the City of San Francisco the center of
CHAPTER 8: CULTURAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 8-3
regional commerce and cultural activity. In 1872, the heirs to Rancho Buri Buri were forced to sell
their land to pay for the high cost of property taxes, legal fees, and loans. The new owners of Rancho
Buri Buri included prominent men such as D. O. Mills, Ansel Easton and Charles Lux. Just two years
after Charles Lux consolidated the Rancho Buri Buri property, he formed a permanent partnership with
fellow San Francisco butcher and entrepreneur Henry Miller. The two worked together to build one of
the most powerful cattle businesses in nineteenth-century California. The prime grazing land of Rancho
Buri Buri was ideal for holding cattle prior to slaughter, and Miller and Lux not only purchased more
land within the former grant, but leased additional land on the Peninsula for grazing purposes. Miller
and Lux quickly acquired other rancho properties, and by the end of the 1860s they owned over
300,000 acres of grazing land spread throughout the fertile San Joaquin Valley and the ranchos just east
of Monterey Bay. They would use their vast holdings to supply beef to the growing San Francisco
market. The San Jose Road served as their cattle trail during the 1860s and the San Francisco and San
Jose Railroad (completed in 1866) followed the same route. Although their holdings were vast, Rancho
Buri Buri was particularly important because of its proximity to the population center of San Francisco.
When Charles Lux died, his wife Miranda sold his property in South San Francisco to Gustavus Swift,
who represented the American Cattle Trust of Chicago. In the early 1890s the American Cattle Trust
was one of the nation’s most powerful business conglomerate. The Cattle Trust formed the South San
Francisco Land & Improvement Company in 1891 and created the Western Meat Company, a
meatpacking firm. The South San Francisco Land & Improvement Co. began promoting the town of
South San Francisco and the Western Meat Company was the first of many industrial concerns to be
located at Point San Bruno. The Western Meat Company was quickly able to underbid the merchants of
San Francisco’s Butchertown, and a struggle for control of San Francisco’s profitable meatpacking and
processing industry escalated in the following years. The standoff was finally resolved when the 1906
earthquake almost completely destroyed the Butchertown facilities, which had been built on piers over
San Francisco’s water lots. In addition to increasing the power of South San Francisco’s meatpacking
facilities, the earthquake encouraged settlement south of San Francisco, as refugees fled the damage
left by the powerful earthquake and fire.
Propelled by the South San Francisco Land & Improvement Co., and with a population of just 1,989
people, South San Francisco incorporated in 1908. The 1910 Sanborn map reveals that Point San Bruno
was home to a host of industries by that time, including several steel companies. The South San
Francisco Belt Railroad had been built to service the industries in the easternmost portion of town and
connected their goods and services to the Southern Pacific’s main line. By the time of the 1925
Sanborn mapping, those industries had grown to include other steel, smelting, refining, packing, and
milling companies as well as a U.S. Naval Radio Station.
The industries located in South San Francisco focused on wartime production during both world wars.
The Shaw Batcher Co. shipyards (located at what would become 1050 Oyster Point Blvd.) built ships at
the Oyster Point Channel between 1914 and 1918 to help fulfill World War I naval requirements. Shaw
Batcher was purchased by Western Pipe and Steel, and between 1940 and 1945 they built 45 ships in
48 months for the Maritime Commission during World War II. The expansion of the ship building
industry was part of a widespread boom in the Bay Area that brought an influx of residents. The 1950s
saw the construction of large housing developments to accommodate the growing community; and the
wartime shipbuilding activities contributed to the infrastructure that allowed South San Francisco to
become an important twentieth-century port.
In addition to increased housing, the 1950s also ushered in an era of land reclamation. Unused
marshland, such as portions of the current OPSP site, was made available for industrial development.
Before reclamation, the eastern portion of the landfill on the OPSP site was characterized by Bay mud,
while the upland western portion consisted of soil overlying bedrock. The landfill was in operation
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 8-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
from 1956 to 1970 and was operated by the South San Francisco Scavenger Company, who leased the
site from the City of South San Francisco. The landfill was used primarily for the disposal of solid
wastes. The landfill began to receive liquid industrial waste in 1961. Liquid waste was placed into
sumps constructed within the fill. In addition, Bay Mud berms were constructed in 1961, 1962, and
1964 to help contain waste. Waste disposal resulted in the extension of the shoreline approximately
3,000 feet east of the original shoreline. With the landfill still in operation, the Marina was constructed
in 1962. In 1963, plans for a 600-acre industrial park adjacent to the Marina were announced. With
comprehensive planning and modern facilities, the industrial park attracted light industry to the area.
Since 1977, the Marina has been managed by the San Mateo County Harbor District. The Marina was
expanded in 1978, the year after major landfill activities ceased. Site closure activities included
compaction of the fill and placement of a 2-foot layer of low permeability soil on top of the fill. Today
the Marina is a recreation destination within South San Francisco with boat launching facilities, a
fishing pier, and a large park with hiking trails and picnic facilities.
Possible Shipwreck in the Vicinity
The California Shipwreck Database maintained by the California State Lands Commission (CSLC)
contains one historic shipwreck entry within the vicinity of the OPSP site. The database entry was
based on a reference in California Shipwrecks: Footsteps in the Sea, which has subsequently been
found to be notoriously inaccurate. The entry in the CSLC Shipwreck Inventory lists the Echo, a sloop
that reportedly foundered and sank in San Mateo County on January 15, 1879, in San Francisco Bay
“between Redwood City and San Francisco.” In the List of Merchant Vessels of the United States for
the years 1874, 1876, and 1877 (1878 not available), the Echo (vessel #8002) is listed consistently as a
27.59-ton sloop home ported in San Francisco. The sloop is not listed in Merchant Vessels in
subsequent years, which lends some credibility to the date of loss provided in California Shipwrecks:
Footsteps in the Sea (and the CSLC database). The Echo does not appear in the Lloyd’s Register of
British and Foreign Shipping, American Lloyd’s Universal, or the Record of American and Foreign
Shipping during that time period.
REGULATORY SETTING
CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES
In considering impact significance under CEQA, the significance of the resource itself must first be
determined. At the state level, consideration of significance as an “important archaeological resource”
is measured by cultural resource provisions considered under CEQA Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4,
and the draft criteria regarding resource eligibility for listing on the California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR). Generally under CEQA, a historical resource is considered significant if it meets
the criteria for listing on the CRHR. These criteria are set forth in CEQA Section 15064.5, and defined
as any historical resource that:
(a) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
California’s history and cultural heritage;
(b) Is associated with lives of persons important in our past;
(c) Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or
(d) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
CHAPTER 8: CULTURAL RESOURCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 8-5
Section 15064.5 of CEQA also assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures
to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are detailed under Public
Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98.
Impacts to “unique archaeological resources” and “unique paleontological resources” are also
considered under CEQA, as described under PRC Section 21083.2. A unique archaeological resource is
an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that without merely
adding to the current body of knowledge there is a high probability that it meets one of the following
criteria:
(a) The archaeological artifact, object, or site contains information needed to answer important
scientific questions, and there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
(b) The archaeological artifact, object, or site has a special and particular quality, such as being the
oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or
(c) The archaeological artifact, object, or site is directly associated with a scientifically recognized
important prehistoric or historic event or person.
A non-unique archaeological resource is an archaeological artifact, object, or site that does not meet the
above criteria. Impacts to non-unique archaeological resources and resources that do not qualify for
listing on the CRHR receive no further consideration under CEQA.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
CRITERIA OF IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE
Under the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, a significant impact will
occur if the proposed OPSP would:
1.Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resources as defined in CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5;
2.Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5;
3.Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature;
or
4.Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
DISTURBANCE OF CULTURAL RESOURCES
Impact Culture-1: Disturbance of Unidentified Paleontological Resources, Archaeological
Resources or Human Remains. During earth-moving activities at the OPSP site,
it is possible that unidentified paleontological resources, archaeological resources
or human remains could be uncovered and disturbed.
As discussed under Environmental Setting, above, a possible shipwreck may exist offshore of the
OPSP site, however, the potential in-water activities associated with the OPSP consisting of the
possible removal and replacement of two docks would be limited to the existing navigation channel
within the Marina. Furthermore, the original shoreline of San Francisco Bay was situated
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 8-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
approximately 2000 feet west and 3000 feet south of the OPSP site. Consequently, there is little
likelihood that cultural deposits associated with prehistoric occupation or utilization of the OPSP site
(such as those associated with a shipwreck) will be encountered in the area to undergo in-water
construction. In addition, any historic materials that may have been located within potential in-water
construction area, such as shipwreck remains or cultural material discarded into the near shore waters,
have long since been destroyed, as the navigation channel has been routinely dredged for maintenance
purposes for a considerable length of time.
None of the structures on OPSP site are of historic age (over 50 years) or classified as historical
resources and no archaeological or paleontological resources have been identified at the OPSP site. As
a previously-disturbed site, it is unlikely buried resources (paleontological, archeological or human
remains) exist on the OPSP site. However, excavation for grading and building foundations has the
potential to uncover previously unknown resources.
While development of the OPSP site as proposed would not be expected to result in any substantial
adverse effects on any cultural resource, any excavation activity carries the possibility that previously
unidentified archaeological resources, paleontological resources or human remains could be uncovered.
This potential impact can be mitigated though implementation of the following standard measures.
Mitigation Measures
Culture-1a: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Implement Mitigation. In the
event that any previously unidentified paleontological or archaeological resources
are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other construction activity, all
such activity shall cease until these resources have been evaluated by a qualified
paleontologist or archaeologist and specific mitigation measures can be
implemented to protect these resources.
Culture-1b: Halt Construction Activity, Evaluate Find and Take Appropriate Action in
Coordination with Native American Heritage Commission. In the event that
any human remains are uncovered during site preparation, excavation or other
construction activity, all such activity shall cease until these resources have been
evaluated by the County Coroner, and appropriate action taken in coordination
with the Native American Heritage Commission.
Incorporation of mitigation measures Culture-1a and Culture-1b will reduce the impacts associated
with possible disturbance of unidentified paleontological resources, archaeological resources or
unidentified human remains at the OPSP site to a level of less than significant.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 9-1
9
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
INTRODUCTION
This section summarizes geologic and geotechnical aspects of the site as they relate to the OPSP and
Phase I Project. The discussion is based on a review of the following documents:
x Gabewell, Inc. with Harding Lawson Associates, 2000, “Final Closure and Post-Closure
Maintenance Plan, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California”. September
x EIP Associates, 2006, “Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment, South
San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project”. Chapter 3.6. February 14.
x Kleinfelder, 2007, “Feasibility Study and Cost Estimate, Proposed Oyster Point Marina
Redevelopment, South San Francisco, California”. November 12.
x Treadwell & Rollo, 2009a, “Preliminary Foundation Design Criteria,” Memorandum to Steve
Shanks, SKS Investments, January 16.
x Treadwell & Rollo, 2009b, “Geotechnical Investigation of the Landfill Cover, Oyster Point
Landfill, South San Francisco, California,” February 13.
x Treadwell & Rollo, 2009c, “Work Plan for Field Investigation of SUMP 1, Oyster Point Business
Park / Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California.” Draft, February 10.
x Treadwell & Rollo, 2009d, “Methene Mitigation Systems: Description and Unit Costs, Oyster
Point Landfill / Oyster Point Business Park, South San Francisco, California.” Draft, January 29.
REGULATORY SETTING
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN
The City of South San Francisco has adopted the Association of Bay Area Governments Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan as the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) for the City by resolution 65-2006, on
August 16, 2006. The HMP has been designed to identify the areas where people or structures may
have higher vulnerability to earthquakes, flood, wildland fires, and other natural hazards. The plan
identifies policies and actions that may be implemented by the City to reduce the potential for loss of
life and property damage in these areas based on an analysis of the frequency of earthquakes, floods,
wildland fires and landslides in terms of frequency, intensity, location, history, and damage effects.
The Plan serves as a guide for decision-makers as they commit resources to reduce the effects of
natural hazards.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 9-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE EIR
The General Plan Update Health and Safety Element includes a section on Geological and Seismic
Hazards. This section identifies geotechnical and geologic impacts to the general City of South San
Francisco area. The most recent General Plan update was completed in October 1999.
EAST OF 101 AREA PLAN
The 1999 General Plan update also includes a summary of the East of 101 area plan, providing
specific policies for the area located east of U.S. Highway 101.
ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONING ACT
The California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 requires the mapping and zoning
of active faults within the State of California. Under the act, development within zones of active fault
displacement is restricted for structures intended for human occupancy. Any development site located
within an Earthquake Fault Zone Boundary as delineated on State maps must be studied to determine
if an active fault crosses the subject parcel. Setbacks from active faults are required under the Act.
There is an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Map for the South San Francisco Quadrangle, in
which the Project site is located.
CALIFORNIA SEISMIC HAZARDS MAPPING ACT
The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California Public Resources Code Sections
2690-2699.6) addresses seismic hazards other than surface rupture, such as liquefaction and
seismically induced landslides. The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act specifies that the lead agency for a
project may withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for
specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards associated with
seismicity and unstable soils. The State of California does not currently have a Seismic Hazard Map
for the South San Francisco Quadrangle, in which the Project is located. However, the Seismic
Hazard Map Home Page indicates that mapping for the southern part of the South San Francisco
Quadrangle is currently under preparation.1 This map may be completed in the near future.
CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (2010)
The California Building Code (CBC) was developed to incorporate modifications to the International
Building Code (developed by the International Conference of Building Officials) required by
California law and statute and has been adopted by most jurisdictions in California, including the City
of South San Francisco, to oversee construction. The CBC defines four Seismic Zones in California,
which are ranked according to their seismic hazard potential. Zone 1 has the least seismic potential
and Zone 4 has the highest seismic potential. The City of South San Francisco is located in Seismic
Zone 4 and thus development is required to comply with all design standards applicable to Seismic
Zone 4. The earthquake protection law (California Health and Safety Code section 19100 et seq.)
requires that structures be designed to resist stresses produced by lateral forces caused by wind and
earthquakes. Specific minimum standards for seismic safety and structural design to meet earthquake
protection requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the CBC.
1 http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/Pages/Index.aspx, January 16, 2008.
CHAPTER 9: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 9-3
GEOLOGIC SETTING AND SEISMICITY
REGIONAL GEOLOGY
The San Francisco Bay Area lies within the Coast Range geomorphic province, a series of
discontinuous northwest trending mountain ranges, ridges, and intervening valleys characterized by
complex folding and faulting. The general area of Oyster Point is located on the reclaimed baylands
along the westerly shores of San Francisco Bay. The bay is underlain by a depressed rock block,
which is Cenozoic in age, and is wedged between two uplifted blocks featuring the East Bay Hills on
the east and the Coastal Range of the San Francisco Peninsula on the west. This series of blocks is
associated with the complex zone of the San Andreas fault system. The San Andreas fault is located
in the Coastal Ranges along the western edge of the depressed block, and the Hayward fault (located
at the base of the East Bay Hills) forms the east delineation of the depressed block.
During the geologic period known as the Pleistocene Epoch, when the sea level was lowered
approximately 300 feet in the Bay Area due to glacial activity, ravines and canyons were created by
erosion in the elevated rock blocks. Alluvial debris was washed onto the depressed bedrock areas
forming the alluvial cones, alluvial slopes, and a central plane. This central plane was an extension of
Santa Clara Valley with an outlet through the Golden Gate gap to an ocean shoreline, which was
miles from the present shore.
As the melting of the continental ice sheets raised ocean levels, the valley, which is now San
Francisco Bay, was progressively flooded by salt water. During this process, sandy alluvial deltas
were built up upon the valley topography in shallow water, while in deeper water the fine-grained
soils were deposited as mud. Eventually, the bay water level rose to sufficient height to submerge the
alluvial cones at the margin of the valley, together with the intervening low ground and ravine outlets.
Bay Mud deposits accumulated to a uniform level, burying the submerged ravines, cones, and deltas
to vary depths depending upon the elevation of the original topography. The bay deposits can be
summarized as follows:
x Bay mud; unconsolidated and soft, consisting of silty, slightly sandy clays and sandy silts often
with organic inclusions.
x Alluvial sands and clays underlying the bay mud.
x Lower bay clay; consolidated and of similar composition to the Bay Mud.
x Sandy soils; medium to fine-grained, compact and angular, underlying the lower bay clay and
directly overlying bedrock.
x Bedrock; locally weathered and decomposed, consisting of sandstone, shale, and in places,
serpentine and other intrusive rock. Available data indicate that the depth of the rock in the
vicinity of Oyster Point ranges from near the ground surface at the western edge of the site to
estimated depths of 200 feet or more at the east end of the landfill.
LOCAL GEOLOGY
Oyster Point is located within the historic margins of the San Francisco Bay, which is directly east of
the site. According to available geological information (Bonilla, 1971)2, Oyster Point is underlain by
2 Bonilla, M.G., 1971, “Preliminary geologic map of the San Francisco South 7.5-minute quadrangle and part of
the Hunters Point 7.5-minute quadrangle, California,” U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field Studies
Map MF-311; scale 1:24,000.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 9-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
artificial fill, Bay mud, and sandstone units of the Franciscan formation. Deep channels that have
been filled with Bay Mud of varying thicknesses are known to traverse shorelines in the site vicinity
and have been described by others as present at the west end of the site (Treadwell & Rollo 2009a).
These ancient buried channels are commonly called paleochannels. Available information pertaining
to historical shorelines and known fill areas (Nichols & Wright, 1971)3 indicates that historically the
Oyster Point Marina area was developed by filling a low tideland area. The fill appears to have been
placed circa 1958 at the west end of Oyster Point, and after 1958 at the east end.
According to a 2000 report for the Post Closure Management of the Oyster Point Landfill prepared by
Gabewell with PES Environmental, the lithologic units present within and beneath the closed Oyster
Point Landfill consist of a surficial clay/imported fill cap present at thicknesses from 1 to 14 feet,
waste beneath the cap present up to 45 feet thick, Bay Mud present beneath the waste up to 90 feet
thick, alluvial units beneath the Bay Mud of indeterminate thickness, and Franciscan bedrock that
crops out a the western end of the landfill and dips steeply eastward beneath the Bay Mud and
alluvium to estimated depths of about 200 feet or more. According to recent subsurface investigations
by Treadwell & Rollo (2009) the thickness of the waste layer ranges from a few feet at the landfill
perimeter to 35 to 40 feet over most of the site, and up to about 70 feet in some areas.
FAULTING AND SEISMICITY
Geologic and geomorphic structures within the San Francisco Bay Area are dominated by the San
Andreas fault (SAF), a right-lateral strike-slip fault that extends from the Gulf of California in
Mexico, to Cape Mendocino, on the Coast of Humboldt County in northern California. It forms a
portion of the boundary between two independent tectonic plates on the surface of the earth. To the
west of the SAF is the Pacific plate, which moves north relative to the North American plate, located
east of the fault. In the San Francisco Bay Area, movement across this plate boundary is concentrated
on the SAF; however, it is also distributed, to a lesser extent across a number of other faults that
include the Hayward, Calaveras, and Concord among others. Together, these faults are referred to as
the SAF system. Movement along the SAF system has been ongoing for about the last 25 million
years. The northwest trend of the faults within this fault system is largely responsible for the strong
northwest structural orientation of geologic and geomorphic features in the San Francisco Bay Area.
The site is situated within the San Francisco Bay Area, which is characterized by numerous active
faults and moderate to high seismic activity. Based on the information provided in Hart and Bryant
(1997)4 the site is not located within a State-designated, Earthquake Fault Rupture Hazard Zone
where site-specific studies addressing the potential for surface fault rupture are required and no
known active faults traverse the site.
Table 9.1 below shows the name, distance, direction, and magnitude of the closest faults to Oyster
Point.
3 Nichols, D.R., and Wright, N.A., 1971, "Preliminary map of historical margins of marshland, San Francisco
Bay, California,” U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, Basic Data Contribution 9, scale 1:125,000.
4 Hart, E. W. and W. A. Bryant. 1997. “Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act with index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps.” (Special Publication 42) California Division of
Mines and Geology. Sacramento, CA.
CHAPTER 9: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 9-5
Table 9.1: Faults in the Vicinity
Fault Name
Distance
(km) Direction
Maximum Moment
Magnitude
San Andreas - 1906 Rupture 7.3 Southwest 7.9
San Andreas – Peninsula 7.3 Southwest 7.0
San Gregorio 15.2 West 7.3
Hayward – North 22.6 Northeast 6.9
Hayward – Total 22.6 Northeast 7.1
Hayward – South 23.4 East 6.9
Monte Vista 27.5 Southeast 6.5
Calaveras (North of Calaveras Reservoir) 36.9 Northeast 6.8
Concord - Green Valley 43.5 Northeast 6.9
Healdsburg - Rodgers Creek 47.5 North 7.0
Hayward - South East Extension 48.0 Southeast 6.5
Based on the map of known active faults (ICBO, 1998)5, the San Andreas fault is the closest fault and
is located approximately 7.3 kilometers southwest of Oyster Point. A major seismic event on these or
other nearby faults may cause substantial ground shaking at the site.
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Geotechnical properties of the fill and native soils at the site that will affect the performance of future
site improvements are discussed below.
GENERALIZED SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
The majority of the site is underlain by landfilled solid wastes. The thickness of the landfill varies
from about 4 to 70 feet and generally increases toward the center of the site. The landfill waste
material consists of a variety of materials including wood, paper, plastic, cardboard, tin, rags, bricks,
glass, and various organic debris mixed with varying amounts of soil. The bottom of the landfill is
generally above elevation +10 feet (MSL) in the western portion of the site, and as deep as El -20 feet
in the eastern portion.
A soil cap varying in thickness from about 1 to 14 feet overlies the landfill areas. The soil cap
consists primarily of stiff to very stiff silty and sandy clays of low to moderate plasticity, and medium
dense clayey sands, with occasional gravelly clay and silty sand layers.
Throughout most of the site the waste materials are underlain by very soft to soft clays and silty clays
(Bay Mud) with organics and shells. The exception to this is at the western margin of the site where
the waste fill is underlain by bedrock consisting of weathered claystone, sandstone, and siltstone. The
Bay Mud is underlain by bedrock in the western portion of the site and by very stiff to hard clays and
dense sands under the remainder of the landfill. Most of the site is underlain by 50 to 90 feet of Bay
Mud.
5 International Conference of Building Officials, 1998. “Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in
California and Adjacent Portion of Nevada – To be used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code,” California
Division of Mines and Geology, February.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 9-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Groundwater elevations range from about 5 feet to 20 feet above mean lower low water (MLLW).
The higher groundwater elevations are found toward the western margin of the site where the
topography is higher. The majority of the project site has a groundwater elevation from about 5 to 8
feet above MLLW.
The above is a general description of the soil, rock, waste and groundwater conditions documented in
the boring logs encountered in our research. Soil, rock and groundwater conditions can deviate from
those encountered at the boring locations. In addition, the subsurface conditions may have changed as
a result of settlement, decomposition of waste and/or erosion, and therefore the description herein
may not reflect the current subsurface conditions at the site.
SETTLEMENT
A major geotechnical issue for design, construction and maintenance of structures at the site is
settlement of the waste material and Bay Mud soils that underlie most of the waste. There are three
major settlement mechanisms that are on-going at the site: consolidation settlement of the waste
material and the underlying Bay Mud soils, compaction of the waste and biological decomposition
shrinkage of the waste.
Both consolidation and compaction of waste are load-induced settlements. Consolidation settlement
results from the expulsion of water from void spaces within soil or waste in response to new loads.
The Bay Mud soils that underlie the site have been undergoing consolidation settlement in response to
the waste and soil fill weight since filling began in the 1950s. Laboratory test data from consolidation
tests indicate that consolidation settlement of Bay Mud is on-going throughout the site. Imposition of
new loads as part of new site development will lead to additional consolidation settlement of Bay
Mud and waste materials below the groundwater level. Consolidation settlements are likely accruing
due to the expulsion of both water and air from the waste mass. The magnitude of consolidation
settlement in the waste and in the Bay Mud is difficult to estimate. However, since no new significant
fill has been placed in over 40 years, it is speculated that much of the consolidation settlement of both
the waste and of the underlying Bay Mud has already occurred under current loads.
Compaction settlement results from crushing of the material under a new load. The magnitude of
compaction settlement under new loads from new site development is of some concern, especially in
the proposed building areas where grade may be raised. However, the magnitude of settlement due to
waste compaction is small compared to the magnitude of settlement due to biological decomposition
shrinkage, as described below.
We anticipate the major portion of the settlement to be the result of decomposition of the waste.
Unlike consolidation and compaction settlements, shrinkage is somewhat independent of the load.
Shrinkage is defined as the settlement resulting from the biological conversion of waste with organic
solids into methane, carbon dioxide and other decomposition products. The rate and magnitude of
settlements resulting from the biological shrinkage of the waste is dependent on several factors
including waste thickness, composition, and age of the waste. A large portion of the settlements occur
within the first two years following placement with a relatively steady rate occurring after that for an
indefinite period of time. Based on our review of published performance information at landfills of
similar size and composition to the project site, we expect total shrinkage settlements of between 10
to 15 percent of the initial waste fill height. The thickness of the waste fill at the subject landfill varies
between 1.5 and 70 feet at the deepest portion. Considering the age of the landfill and the elapsed
time since closure of the landfill, the anticipated settlements are expected to fall between 3 to 6 feet
over the next 15 years, for the thickest portion of the landfill at the east side of the site. Since the
settlement of the landfill is time dependent and it is uncertain when the decomposition of the waste
ceases to occur, it is prudent to assume that the decomposition process occurs indefinitely.
CHAPTER 9: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 9-7
Differential settlements within the waste portion of the site are difficult to predict due to the
significant variety of waste material and its substantial thickness. At other landfill sites with waste
thickness of approximately 25 to 30 feet, differential settlements of up to about 25 percent of the total
settlement have been measured over a horizontal distance of 100 feet for a period of 12 years. Due to
the uncertainties associated with settlement at the site and the substantial thickness of the waste,
differential settlements could easily exceed 50 percent of the total settlement over a distance of 100
feet in the next 15 years. Consideration must also be given to differential settlement between the
waste and non-waste portions (including pile supported structures) of the site. Since the non-waste
areas are not expected to undergo significant settlement, the differential settlement will be equal to
approximately the total settlement of the waste at the interface location.
Placement of additional fill at the site will result in additional settlement due to consolidation
settlement of the Bay Mud soils and the submerged waste and further compaction of waste above
groundwater. The magnitude of the new settlement will depend on the thickness of the fill, the lateral
extent and the current thickness of the soil cap. For estimating purposes, settlements on the order of 3
to 5 inches for every foot of new fill should be anticipated.
GROUND IMPROVEMENT
Several techniques are sometimes used at landfill sites in an effort to improve ground conditions and
reduce settlements. Ground improvement techniques may include dynamic deep compaction or
preloading with temporary soil fills. Although these techniques can reduce settlements in waste
materials, they do not eliminate them as they do not prevent decomposition. Common ground
improvement techniques would not likely improve the Bay Mud properties significantly across much
of the site. Accordingly, we do not feel ground improvement methods are particularly feasible at
Oyster Point.
Seismic Hazards
The site is in a region of high seismic activity and is expected to be subjected to major shaking during
the design life of the project. Seismic hazards commonly investigated for projects in the site vicinity
include strong-ground shaking, soil liquefaction, lateral spreading and seismic densification.
Strong Ground Shaking
The San Francisco Bay Area is a seismically active region. The OPSP site and region will likely be
subjected to strong to violent seismically induced ground shaking within the design life of the
development. The site is located in an area of active regional seismicity near active seismic sources.
According to a recent study completed by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities
(WGCEP)6, which assesses the probability of earthquakes in the San Francisco Bay Area, there is a
62 percent probability that an earthquake of Magnitude 6.7 or greater will strike within the life of the
OPSP improvements.
Liquefaction
Soil liquefaction is a condition in which saturated, granular soils undergo a substantial loss of strength
and deformation due to pore pressure increase resulting from cyclic stress application induced by
6 Working Group On California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), 2003, Earthquake Probabilities in the San
Francisco Bay Region: 2002–2031, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-214.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 9-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
earthquakes. In the process, the soil acquires mobility sufficient to permit both horizontal and vertical
movements if the soil mass is not confined. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are saturated, loose,
clean, uniformly-graded, and fine-grained sand deposits. If liquefaction occurs, foundations resting on
or within the liquefiable layer may undergo settlements. This will result in reduction of foundation
stiffness and capacity.
Based on the subsurface data obtained from the previous drilled borings at Oyster Point (noted above
among the references reviewed), the existing landfill materials, residual soils, Bay Mud, and
Franciscan Complex bedrock have a low potential for liquefaction. Therefore, damage due to
liquefaction at Oyster Point is considered low. It should be noted that the landfill is contained by soil
dikes along the water-side site perimeter. These perimeter dikes are reported to have been constructed
of Bay Mud, which has low potential for liquefaction. Prior to new site development, geotechnical
studies shall be undertaken to confirm the material types used in the construction of the perimeter
dikes to verify the assumed low potential for liquefaction.
Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading is a consequence of liquefaction, which results in lateral movement toward a slope.
Because liquefaction potential is considered to be low at this site, the potential for lateral spreading is
also considered to be low. Again, the perimeter dikes shall be evaluated to confirm that they consist
of materials with low liquefaction potential.
Seismic Densification
During earthquake shaking, certain soils above the groundwater table may undergo densification,
which could result in additional ground-surface settlement. Typically, granular soils above the water
table are subject to densification during significant strong ground shaking due to earthquakes.
Landfill waste material can behave as a “granular” material. Therefore, the waste material, if subject
to a significant earthquake, could result in some settlement. However, based on the age of the landfill,
the amount of settlement due to seismic densification is not anticipated to be greater than the future
settlements anticipated as a result of the consolidation of the landfill material and underlying Bay
mud.
Slope Stability
A principal geotechnical issue in developing final plans for the project is stability of the existing
landfill perimeter dikes. Slope stability at the site is controlled primarily by the strength of the
materials used in the dike construction and of the Bay Mud on which the dikes are founded. Stability
analyses shall include analyses for both static stability and seismic stability under a design magnitude
earthquake event. Seismic analyses shall include pseudo-static analyses to estimate permanent slope
displacements due to earthquake motions.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
According to CEQA Guidelines, exposure of people or structures to major geological hazards is
considered a significant adverse impact. The potential geologic, geotechnical, and seismic effects of
the proposed OPSP can be considered from two points of view: (1) construction impacts; and, (2)
geologic hazards to people or structures. The basic criterion applied to the analysis of construction
impacts is whether construction of the OPSP will create unstable geologic conditions that would last
CHAPTER 9: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 9-9
beyond the short-term construction period. The analysis of geological hazards is based on the degree
to which the site geology could produce hazards to people or structures from earthquakes, ground
shaking, ground movement, fault rupture, or other geologic hazards, features or events.
According to CEQA Guidelines, the project would have a significant environmental impact if it were
to result in:
1.The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving 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;
2.The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking;
3.The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction and seismic-
induced landslides;
4.The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving landslides;
5.Development located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable (or that would become unstable as
a result of the OPSP) and which could potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse;
6.The exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of
loss, injury or death involving volcanic hazards;
7.Development located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life and property;
8.The loss of topsoil or development in an area of erodible soils.
9.Development in areas where soils are incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks
or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater;
10.The alteration or destruction of a unique geological feature.
SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE
Impact Geo-1: Surface Fault Rupture. According to the latest available maps, the OPSP site is
not contained within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone boundary.
Published geologic maps of the area show the San Andreas fault (the closest
known fault to the site) as lying about 7.3 kilometers (4.5 miles) to the west. The
potential impact of surface fault rupture is considered less-than-significant.
EXPOSURE TO STRONG SEISMIC GROUND SHAKING
Impact Geo-2: Seismic Ground Shaking. There is a high probability that the proposed
development will be subjected to strong to violent ground shaking from an
earthquake during its design life. Strong to violent seismic ground shaking is
considered a potentially significant impact.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 9-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Mitigation Measures
Geo-2a: Compliance with California Building Code. OPSP development shall meet
requirements of the California Building Code, including the California Building
Standards, published by the International Conference of Building Officials, and
as modified by the amendments, additions and deletions as adopted by the City of
South San Francisco, California. Incorporation of seismic construction standards
will reduce the potential for catastrophic effects of ground shaking, such as
complete structural failure, but will not completely eliminate the hazard of
seismically induced ground shaking.
Geo-2b: Compliance with a design-level Geotechnical Investigation report prepared
by a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and with Structural Design Plans as
prepared by a Licensed Professional Engineer. Proper foundation engineering
and construction shall be performed in accordance with the recommendations of
a Registered Geotechnical Engineer and a Licensed Professional Engineer. The
structural engineering design, with supporting Geotechnical Investigation, shall
incorporate seismic parameters compliant with the California Building Code.
Geo-2c: Obtain a building permit. The OPSP applicant shall obtain a building permit
through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of
planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for
adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial
sites in the East of 101 area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the
East of 101 area plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings shall not be
subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow
egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake.
Conformity with mitigation measures Geo-2a, -2b and -2c would reduce the impact of strong seismic
ground shaking to a level of less-than-significant through compliance with applicable regulations and
a design-level geotechnical investigation. This applies to the entire OPSP, including the Phase I
Project.
SEISMICALLY INDUCED GROUND FAILURE, INCLUDING LIQUEFACTION AND GROUND
SURFACE SETTLEMENT
Impact Geo-3. Liquefaction, Densification, and Ground Surface Settlement. The Association
of Bay Area Governments identifies the OPSP area as an area of high hazard for
liquefaction. However, based on the subsurface data obtained from the previous
drilled borings at Oyster Point (noted above among the references reviewed), the
existing landfill materials, residual soils, Bay Mud, and Franciscan Complex
bedrock have a low potential for liquefaction. Therefore, damage due to
liquefaction at Oyster Point is considered low. It should be noted that the landfill
is contained by soil dikes along the water-side site perimeter. These perimeter
dikes are reported to have been constructed of Bay Mud, which has low potential
for liquefaction. Prior to new site development, geotechnical studies shall be
undertaken to confirm the material types used in the construction of the perimeter
dikes to verify the assumed low potential for liquefaction. Liquefaction or
densification of soils composing or underlying the perimeter dikes could result in
settlement and differential settlement of site improvements including buildings,
pavements, and utilities and pose a threat to human health. The potential for
liquefaction of perimeter dike soils is considered a potentially significant impact.
CHAPTER 9: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 9-11
Mitigation Measures
Geo-3a: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation and in
conformance with Structural Design Plans. A design-level Geotechnical
Investigation shall be prepared for the site under the direction of a California
Registered Geotechnical Engineer and shall include analysis for liquefaction
potential of the site soils, particularly in the perimeter dikes. Proper foundation
engineering and construction shall be performed in accordance with the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation. The Geotechnical
Investigation shall be reviewed and approved by the City’s Geotechnical
Consultant and by the City Engineer. A Registered Structural Engineer shall
prepare project structural design plans. Structures shall be designed to reduce the
effects of anticipated seismic settlements. The Geotechnical Engineer shall
review the Structural Design Plans and provide approval for the Geotechnical
elements of the plans. The design plans shall identify specific mitigation
measures to reduce liquefaction potential, if the potential for liquefaction is found
to exist, or other ground failure modes such as lateral spreading, seismic
densification or stability of the perimeter dike slopes. Mitigation measures may
include ground improvement by methods such as stone columns or jet grouting.
Geo-3b: Obtain a building permit. The OPSP applicant shall obtain a building permit
through the City of South San Francisco Building Division. Plan Review of
planned buildings and structures shall be completed by the Building Division for
adherence to the seismic design criteria for planned commercial and industrial
sites in the East of 101 area of the City of South San Francisco. According to the
East of 101 area plan, Geotechnical Safety Element, buildings should not be
subject to catastrophic collapse under foreseeable seismic events, and will allow
egress of occupants in the event of damage following a strong earthquake.
Conformity with mitigation measures Geo-3a and 3b would reduce the impact of liquefaction or
densification of soils composing or underlying the perimeter dikes to a level of less-than-significant.
This applies to the entire OPSP, including the Phase I Project.
Impact Geo-4. Perimeter Dike Stability. Based on a review of available subsurface
information, the dikes that surround the site are assumed to be constructed
primarily of cohesive soils derived from Bay Mud. Slope stability of the
perimeter dikes is critical to the integrity of the site. Slope stability of the dikes is
controlled primarily by the strength of the materials used in dike construction and
of the soils on which the dikes are founded. Prior to new site development,
geotechnical studies shall be undertaken to confirm the material types used in the
construction of the perimeter dikes to verify that the slopes meet minimum
criteria for stability under both static and seismic conditions. Failure of the
perimeter dike slopes could result in settlement and differential settlement of site
improvements including buildings, pavements, and utilities and pose a threat to
human health. In the absence of evidence that demonstrates adequate stability of
the perimeter dike slopes under both static and seismic conditions, stability of the
perimeter dike slopes is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-4: Compliance with recommendations of a Geotechnical Investigation. A
design-level Geotechnical Investigation shall include an evaluation of static
stability and seismic stability under a design magnitude earthquake event.
Seismic analyses shall include pseudo-static analyses to estimate permanent
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 9-12 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
slope displacements due to earthquake motions. The Geotechnical Engineer shall
prepare recommendations to mitigate potential slope instability, if slope stability
problems are identified. Mitigation measures may include ground improvement
by methods such as stone columns or jet grouting. Design-level Geotechnical
Investigations shall be completed during preliminary and final design stages and
will confirm material types used in the construction of the perimeter dikes to
verify that the slopes meet minimum criteria for stability under both static and
seismic conditions. Knowledge of the stability of the perimeter dikes will guide
the selection of any future measures to mitigate any deficiencies identified in the
perimeter dike.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of seismically-induced ground
failure and seismic slope stability to a less-than-significant level. This applies to the entire OPSP,
including the Phase I Project.
VARIABLE SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Impact Geo-5: Variable Subsurface Conditions and Selection of Foundation Types and
Depths.Geotechnical considerations for the selection of alternative foundation
types for the site include the following:
The presence of Bay Mud, landfill waste and other area fill over most of the
proposed building footprint areas;
Varying thicknesses of Bay Mud, landfill waste and other fill;
Sloping bedrock surface; and
Presence of possible paleochannels in the north/northwest portions of the
site.
These variable subsurface conditions will influence the design, performance and
constructability of foundation systems for the proposed buildings and are
considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Geo-5a: Deep Foundations. Because of the magnitude of expected settlement of Bay
Mud soils and waste fill materials that would occur under new building loads, the
OPSP applicant must consider the use of deep foundations such as driven piles.
Specific recommendations for suitable deep foundation alternatives and required
penetrations will be provided during the course of a design-level geotechnical
investigation and will depend on factors such as the depth and hardness of the
underlying clays, sands or bedrock, and the corrosivity of the waste materials and
Bay Mud soils. Suitable deep foundation types may include driven precast,
prestressed concrete piles or driven closed-end steel pipe piles with the interior of
the pile filled with concrete after driving.
Deep foundations shall extend through all waste materials and Bay Mud and be
tipped in underlying stiff to hard clays, dense sands or weathered bedrock. Where
waste and Bay Mud soils underlie the site, wall and column loads as well as floor
slabs shall be founded on deep foundations. Settlement of properly-designed and
constructed deep foundation elements is typically less than about one-half inch.
The majority of settlement typically occurs during construction as the loads are
applied.
CHAPTER 9: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 9-13
Where landfill waste and Bay Mud are not present (possibly at extreme western
and northwestern edges of the site) and competent soil or bedrock are present
near the ground surface (within about 5 feet of finished grade elevation), shallow
foundations such as footings or mats may be appropriate foundation types, as
determined during the course of a design-level geotechnical investigation. Where
proposed structures straddle a transition zone between these conditions, a
combination of shallow and deep foundations may be required. Any transition
zones shall be identified during site-specific geotechnical investigations for
preliminary and final designs.
Geo-5b: Predrilling and/or Pile Configuration. Piles either shall be predrilled through
the fill and landfill materials to protect the piles from damage due to unknown
materials, to reduce pushing waste material deeper, and to reduce pile alignment
problems or shall have a pointed tip configuration. If a drill is used, it should
only loosen and break up in-place obstructions that may cause pile damage.
During recent subsurface investigations reported by Treadwell & Rollo (2009b)
obstructions including concrete rubble was encountered throughout the landfill
area, particularly in the northern end of the site. Even with predrilling, precast
concrete piles could be damaged during installation at a landfill site such as
Oyster Point. For preliminary planning purposes, a precast concrete pile breakage
rate during installation of 10 to 15 percent may be considered applicable.
Piles usually have to include pointed tip configurations to avoid pushing landfill
waste downward. These configurations are typically readily accommodated by
pile driving contractors.
Geo-5c: Indicator Pile Program. Prior to specifying the lengths of the production piles,
drive indicator piles at the structure sites in order to observe the driving
characteristic of the piles and the ability of the driving equipment when a driven
pile is used. The driving criteria and pile length of production piles shall also be
estimated from the information obtained from driving of the indicator piles. The
contractor shall use the same equipment to drive both the indicator and
production piles. Indicator pile lengths and locations shall be selected by the
Geotechnical Engineer, in conjunction with the Structural Engineer and
Contractor after the foundation plan has been finalized.
The indicator pile program will serve to establish information on the following:
x Estimates of production pile lengths;
x Drivability of production piles;
x Performance of pile driving equipment; and
x Variation in driving resistance relative to depth and location of piles.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of variable subsurface conditions
on the construction and performance of foundations to a less-than-significant level. This applies to
the entire OPSP, including the Phase I Project.
Impact Geo-6: Drag Load on Deep Foundations. The landfill wastes and the underlying Bay
Mud are settling due to consolidation and on-going decomposition-induced
settlement of the wastes. Deep foundations (piles) will extend through the waste
and Bay Mud layers and into underlying materials that are relatively
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 9-14 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
incompressible. The settlement of the waste and Bay Mud around the piles will
tend to move downward relative to the pile. This settlement will accumulate a
drag load on the pile element, which will depend on the material layering and
thickness, pile length and load on the pile. On-going settlement of Bay Mud soils
and waste materials is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-6: Account for Drag Load on Deep Foundations. The Geotechnical Engineer
shall account for accumulation of drag load in the structural design of the deep
foundations elements (piles).
Implementation of this mitigation measure will reduce the impact of drag load on the performance of
deep foundations to a less-than-significant level. This applies to the entire OPSP, including the
Phase I Project.
LANDFILL GAS AT BUILDING-SOIL INTERFACE
Impact Geo-7: Landfill Gas Entry into Buildings. Construction of buildings over the landfill
cap could allow landfill gas to accumulate beneath building floors and permeate
into the building interiors. Landfill gas accumulation inside buildings and at the
building-soil interface may adversely affect the health and safety of building
occupants. Accumulation of landfill gas beneath and inside structures is a
potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-7: Incorporate Systems for Landfill Gas Control. Measures for the control of
landfill gas shall be included in building design. Measures for the control of
landfill gas typically include a collection system, floor slab shielding and interior
alarms.
Implementation of a landfill gas control system will reduce the impact of landfill gas at the building-
soil interface to a level of less-than-significant. This applies to the entire OPSP, including the Phase I
Project.
SETTLEMENT OF LANDFILL MATERIALS AND BAY MUD
Impact Geo-8: Landfill Waste Materials and Bay Mud. Placement of additional fill or other
new loads at the site will result in additional site settlement due to consolidation
settlement of the Bay Mud soils and the compaction and decomposition induced
settlement of submerged waste and waste above groundwater. Due to the
generally heterogeneous nature of the landfill, differential settlement of the soil
cap will be on-going. This differential settlement can disrupt drainage patterns
and cause damage to pavements, underground utilities and soil-supported
structures. The magnitude of new settlement in response to additional fill will
depend on the thickness of the fill, the lateral extent, and the current thickness of
the soil cap. For estimating purposes, settlements on the order of 3 to 5 inches for
every foot of new fill should be anticipated. Settlement due to the presence of
unstable soil, waste and Bay Mud is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Geo-8a: Avoid Significant New Loads on Landfill Waste and Bay Mud. A design-
level Geotechnical Investigation shall include exploration to more thoroughly
CHAPTER 9: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 9-15
determine the thickness and areal extent of landfill waste and Bay Mud. To avoid
inducing additional settlement to the settlement that is already on-going, grading
plans shall include as little additional new fill as possible, and significant new
structure loads or any structures that are settlement-sensitive shall be founded on
deep foundations extended below the Bay Mud, as recommended in the design-
level Geotechnical Investigation report.
All grading shall be planned to avoid penetrating the landfill cap and to reduce
the amount of long-term settlement in response to new fills. Because the Bay
Mud and waste across most of the site are still settling under the weight of
existing fill and waste decomposition and will settle more under new fills,
additional settlement should be expected, with the creation of localized low-lying
surface areas. Existing low areas shall be corrected during site grading to allow
for proper drainage. Long-term maintenance planning for the development shall
also include provisions for periodic grading to correct drainage problems and
improve site grades, as outlined in the Disposition and Development Agreement.
The Geotechnical Engineer will recommend other site-specific recommendations
based on the results of the design-level Geotechnical Investigation to mitigate on-
going settlement and any additional settlement to be expected in response to new
development.
Geo-8b: Design Building-Soil Interface to Allow Free Movement. The Structural
Engineer shall provide that structures not supported on deep foundations not be
structurally tied into pile-supported buildings, except as noted below, and shall
be designed to allow free vertical movement between structures.
Articulated ramps on walkways and building entrances at the interface between
the pile and soil-supported areas can provide a smooth walkway over moderate
differential settlements with some amount of maintenance. As the magnitude of
the differential settlement increases, however, these ramps may need to be rebuilt
or realigned to account for the larger elevation differential. Similar ramps may
also reduce differential settlements between driveways and pile-supported
parking lots.
Over time, voids will tend to form beneath pile-supported buildings due to on-
going settlement of the landfill. Use of wall skirts around the building perimeter
will help to reduce the visual impact of these voids.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of settlement and differential
settlement of landfill materials and Bay Mud soils on the performance of constructed site
improvements to a less-than-significant level. This applies to the entire OPSP, including the Phase I
Project.
UNDERGROUND UTILITIES
Impact Geo-9: Hazardous Conditions During Excavation and Following Construction.
Excavations extending into either the landfill cap or into the waste fill are
expected to encounter potentially hazardous conditions including poisonous and
explosive gases. This may be true in shallower excavations as well. This is a
potentially significant impact during and following site construction activities.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 9-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Mitigation Measures
Geo-9a: Monitoring and Testing. Special precautions shall be taken to monitor the
safety conditions and to provide for the safety of workers in the area.
Additionally, if excavations encounter water, this water shall be tested for
contaminants and may have to undergo specialized handling, treatment and/or
disposal if it is contaminated. A system to disperse methane during construction
shall be installed in or adjacent to the trenches.
Geo-9b: Locate Underground Utilities in Soil Cap. To the extent practicable, the
utilities shall be constructed in the soil landfill cap to avoid direct contact of the
utility lines and construction workers with the waste material. If construction of
utilities in the waste material is necessary, proper design and construction
precautions shall be taken to protect the system and the workers from the
corrosive and hazardous conditions of the waste.
Geo-9c: Seal Trenches and Underground Structures. Trenches and underground
structures shall be sealed to preclude gas intrusion. Typical types of sealing
procedures include providing a low permeability clay cover of 1 foot over the top
of the pipe, or the utility trench be lined with a relatively impervious
geomembrane. Underground manholes may be shielded from methane intrusion
by placement of a membrane around the outside of the structure. To reduce gas
migration off-site within the utility trenches, all trenches crossing the transition
zone between the landfill and non-landfill portions of the property shall be sealed
with a clay plug surrounding the pipe or other approved methods. In addition,
plugs shall also be provided at the perimeters of buildings to reduce migration of
gas through the utility trenches to beneath the buildings.
Implementation of these mitigation measures will reduce the impact of hazardous conditions due to
high landfill gas concentrations during excavation and on the constructed improvements to a less-
than-significant level. This applies to the entire OPSP, including the Phase I Project.
Impact Geo-10: Damage to Landfill Cap Due to Excavation. Excavations for buildings, utilities
and other underground structures that extend into the landfill cap may result in
damage to the landfill cap. This would be a potentially significant impact on
safety during and after construction and on the continued performance of the
landfill cap.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-10: Provide For Continuity of Landfill Cap. Following planned landfill excavation
and landfill cap repair, the project Civil Engineer shall require that excavations
for building foundations, utility trenches and other underground structures be
configured to maintain continuity of the landfill cap. The specific configuration
will depend upon the excavation depth and orientation to underlying wastes.
However, a low-permeability layer of soil or a geomembrane properly tied to
surrounding cap areas may be required.
Provisions for landfill continuity of the landfill cap following planned landfill excavation and landfill
cap repair, designed by a qualified Civil Engineer, will reduce the impact level of excavations into the
landfill cap to less than significant. This applies to the entire OPSP in the vicinity of the landfill,
including the Phase I Project.
CHAPTER 9: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 9-17
Impact Geo-11: Stresses at Building Connections. Underground utilities will be subject to
distress at building connection locations due to differential settlement. It is
anticipated that the most crucial sections of the utility lines will occur at the
interface between the soil supported utility line and the pile supported buildings.
At this interface differential settlements of several feet are possible. This would
be a potentially significant impact on the performance of underground utilities.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-11: Common Trenches and Vaults. Where underground utilities are to be located in
landfill areas, consideration shall be given to reducing the number of utilities
trenches by locating utilities in common trenches to the extent practicable. In
addition, vaulted systems shall be designed and maintained at such interfaces that
provide flexible and/or expandable connections to the proposed buildings. In
addition, the utility lines beneath buildings shall be suspended from hangers
fastened to structural floor slabs.
Implementation of these measures will reduce utility stresses at building connections to levels less
than significant. However, even with special design to mitigate the expected differential settlement,
extra maintenance and repair will be necessary on the utility lines located in the landfill area. This
applies to the entire OPSP, including the Phase I Project.
Impact Geo-12: Stresses in Utility Line Materials. Differential settlement will cause distress to
the materials used in underground utilities construction. On a landfill site the
effects of differential settlement are typically more severe than at a conventional
site due to the generally higher levels of settlement that occur. Differential
settlement is a potentially significant impact on the performance of underground
utilities.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-12: Flexible Materials and Joints. Utility lines shall be constructed of flexible pipe
such as welded polyethylene to accommodate differential settlement within the
waste material and landfill cap. At the border of the landfill, where differential
settlements are expected to be large, the utility lines shall be designed to allow
for rotation. As with buried utilities on a conventional site, proper bedding and
backfilling shall be completed, as specified in a design-level geotechnical
investigation report.
Use of flexible materials and joints in underground utilities will reduce distress of the buried utilities
to levels less than significant. However, even with special design to mitigate the expected differential
settlement, extra maintenance and repair will be necessary on the utility lines located in the landfill
area. This applies to the entire OPSP, including the Phase I Project.
Impact Geo-13: Disruption of Flow Gradient. Differential settlement will tend to disrupt flow
gradients in gravity-flow sewers and storm drains. This is a potentially
significant impact on the performance of these utilities.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-13: Increase Flow Gradient. The Civil Engineer shall consider increasing the flow
gradient in sewers and storm drains so that differential settlements will not
disrupt the flow. An alternative is to provide a pumping system that does not rely
on gravity flow. Such measures will reduce the impact of reduced flow gradient
due to differential settlement to less than significant. This applies to the entire
OPSP, including the Phase I Project.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 9-18 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Detailed design of utilities, landfill gas shielding and collection systems, foundation systems and
floor slabs will require careful coordination among civil, environmental, structural and geotechnical
consultants. Even with careful design and construction, the need for utility maintenance will likely be
greater than at a conventional site.
SOIL EROSION
Impact Geo-14: Soil Erosion. The OPSP would involve mass grading at a location that drains
stormwater to the San Francisco Bay. Demolition of existing structures and
pavements could expose underlying landfill cap soils to the elements. Excavation
of soil for construction of new buildings and pavement sections would also be
performed and temporary stockpiles of loose soil will be created. Soils exposed
during site grading would be subject to erosion during storm events. Grading
would disturb site soils potentially leading to impacts to the San Francisco Bay.
This would be a potentially significant impact during and following site
construction activities.
Mitigation Measure
Geo-14: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. In accordance with the Clean Water
Act and the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), the Applicant shall
file a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the start of
construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best management practices to
reduce soil erosion. This is required to obtain coverage under the General Permit
for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity
(Construction General Permit, 99-08-DWQ).
Implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan (mitigation measure Geo-14) will reduce
the impact of soil erosion to a level of less-than-significant. This applies to the entire OPSP,
including the Phase I Project.
EXPANSIVE SOILS
Impact Geo-15: Expansive Soils. Available existing geotechnical information for the OPSP site
does not identify the presence of highly-plastic, near-surface expansive soils.
Therefore, at this time the impact of expansive soils with respect to shallow
foundations is considered to be less-than-significant. This applies to the entire
OPSP, including the Phase I Project.
LANDSLIDES
The OPSP site is a nearly level area with no nearby hills that could fail by landsliding. There is no
impact related to landslides. This applies to the entire OPSP, including the Phase I Project.
VOLCANIC HAZARDS
The OPSP site is not located in an active volcano or volcanic hazard area. There is no impact related
to volcanic hazards. This applies to the entire OPSP, including the Phase I Project.
CHAPTER 9: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 9-19
SEPTIC SYSTEMS
A sewer system is present in the area and septic systems are not required at the site. The OPSP would
have no impact related to septic systems. This applies to the entire OPSP, including the Phase I
Project.
UNIQUE GEOLOGICAL FEATURES
No unique geologic features will be impacted by the proposed OPSP. The OPSP would have no
impact related to unique geological features. This applies to the entire OPSP, including the Phase I
Project.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 9-20 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 10-1
10
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
SETTING
There is a general scientific consensus that global climate change is occurring, caused in whole or in
part, by increased emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that keep the Earth’s surface warm by
trapping heat in the Earth’s atmosphere1, in much the same way as glass traps heat in a greenhouse.
While many studies show evidence of warming over the last century and predict future global warming,
the precise causes of such warming and its potential effects are far less certain.2 In its “natural”
condition, the greenhouse effect is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on Earth, but human
activity has caused increased concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere, thereby contributing to
an increase in global temperatures.
The U.S. EPA has recently concluded that scientists know with virtual certainty that:
“Human activities are changing the composition of Earth’s atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse
gases like CO2 in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well documented and understood.
x The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human
activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
x A warming trend of approximately 0.7 to 1.5°F occurred during the 20th century. Warming
occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans.
x The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods
ranging from decades to centuries. It is, therefore, virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations
of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades. Increasing greenhouse gas
concentrations tend to warm the planet.”3 At the same time, there is much uncertainty concerning
the magnitude and rate of the warming. Specifically, the U.S. EPA notes that “important scientific
questions remain about how much warming will occur; how fast it will occur; and how the
warming will affect the rest of the climate system, including precipitation patterns and storms.
Answering these questions will require advances in scientific knowledge in a number of areas:
1 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Global Warming – Climate: Uncertainties (web page),
January 2000, http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateUncertainties.html#likely,
accessed July 24, 2007.
2 “Global climate change” is a broad term used to describe any worldwide, long-term change in the earth’s
climate.
“Global warming” is more specific and refers to a general increase in temperatures across the earth, although it
can cause other climatic changes, such as a shift in the frequency and intensity of weather events and even
cooler temperatures in certain areas, even though the world, on average, is warmer.
3 U.S. EPA, 2000, op. cit.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 10-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
o Improving understanding of natural climatic variations, changes in the sun’s energy, land-use
changes, the warming or cooling effects of pollutant aerosols, and the impacts of changing
humidity and cloud cover.
o Determining the relative contribution to climate change of human activities and natural causes.
o Projecting future greenhouse emissions and how the climate system will respond within a
narrow range.
o Improving understanding of the potential for rapid or abrupt climate change.”4
GREENHOUSE GASES
Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), ozone (O3), and water vapor (H2O) are the
principal GHGs, and when concentrations of these gases exceed the natural concentrations in the
atmosphere, the greenhouse effect may be enhanced. Without these GHGs, Earth’s temperature would
be too cold for life to exist. CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally, as well as through human activity. Of
these gases, CO2 and CH4 are emitted in the greatest quantities from human activities. Emissions of
CO2 are largely byproducts of fossil fuel combustion, whereas CH4 results from off gassing associated
with agricultural practices and landfills. Man-made GHGs–with much greater heat-absorption potential
than CO2–include fluorinated gases, such as hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and
sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are byproducts of certain industrial processes.5
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY ON GHG EMISSIONS
As mentioned above, the primary GHG generated by human activity is CO2. Fossil fuel combustion,
especially for the generation of electricity and powering of motor vehicles, has led to substantial
increases in CO2 emissions (and thus substantial increases in atmospheric concentrations). In 1994,
atmospheric CO2 concentrations were found to have increased by nearly 30 percent above pre-
industrial (c.1860) concentrations.
The effect each GHG has on climate change is measured as a combination of the volume of its
emissions, and its global warming potential (GWP),6 and is expressed as a function of how much
warming would be caused by the same mass of CO2. Thus, GHG emissions are typically measured in
terms of pounds or tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2e).
(1) Global Emissions. Worldwide emissions of GHGs in 2004 were 30 billion tons of CO2e per year7
(including both ongoing emissions from industrial and agricultural sources, but excluding emissions
from land-use changes).
(2) U.S. Emissions. In 2004, the United States emitted about 8 billion tons of CO2e or about 25
tons/year/person. Of the four major sectors nationwide - residential, commercial, industrial and
4 U.S. EPA, 2000, op. cit.
5 CalEPA, 2006b. Final 2006 Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and Legislature. Sacramento, CA.
April 3.
6 The potential of a gas or aerosol to trap heat in the atmosphere.
7 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Sum of Annex I and Non-Annex I
Countries Without Counting Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF). Predefined Queries: GHG
total without LULUCF (Annex I Parties). Bonn, Germany, http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/
predefined_queries/items/3814.php, accessed May 2, 2007.
CHAPTER 10: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 10-3
transportation - transportation accounts for the highest fraction of GHG emissions (approximately 35 to
40 percent); these emissions are entirely generated from direct fossil fuel combustion.8
(3) State of California Emissions. In 2004, California emitted approximately 550 million tons of
CO2e, or about 6 percent of the U.S. emissions. This large number is due primarily to the sheer size of
California compared to other states. By contrast, California has one of the fourth lowest per capita
GHG emission rates in the country, due to the success of its energy-efficiency and renewable energy
programs and commitments that have lowered the State’s GHG emissions rate of growth by more than
half of what it would have been otherwise.9 Another factor that has reduced California’s fuel use and
GHG emissions is its mild climate compared to that of many other states.
The California EPA Climate Action Team stated in its March, 2006, report that the composition of
gross climate change pollutant emissions in California in 2002 (expressed in terms of CO2 equivalence)
were as follows:
x Carbon dioxide (CO2) accounted for 83.3 percent;
x Methane (CH4) accounted for 6.4 percent;
x Nitrous oxide (N2O) accounted for 6.8 percent; and
x Fluorinated gases (HFCs, PFC, and SF6) accounted for 3.5 percent.10
The California Energy Commission found that transportation is the source of approximately 41 percent
of the State’s GHG emissions, followed by electricity generation (both in-state and out of- state) at 23
percent, and industrial sources at 20 percent. Agriculture and forestry is the source of approximately
8.3 percent, as is the source categorized as “other,” which includes residential and commercial
activities.11
(4) Bay Area Emissions. In the Bay Area, fossil fuel consumption in the transportation sector (on-
road motor vehicles, off-highway mobile sources, and aircraft) is the single largest source of the Bay
Area’s GHG emissions, accounting for just over half of the Bay Area’s 85 million tons of GHG
emissions in 2002. Industrial and commercial sources were the second largest contributors of GHG
emissions with about 25 percent of total emissions. Domestic sources (e.g., home water heaters,
furnaces, etc.) account for about 11 percent of the Bay Area’s GHG emissions, followed by power
plants at 7 percent. Oil refining currently accounts for approximately 6 percent of the total Bay Area
GHG emissions.12 BAAQMD updated the GHG emission inventory in 2008 to reflect the base year
inventory for 200713. This updated inventory includes additional sources of GHG emissions such as
those from electricity generation outside of the Bay Area, use of ozone depleting substances (e.g.,
refrigerants), additional sources from oil refining, and ship emissions extended out to 100 miles (the
2002 inventory only looked at emissions 3 miles out). The new inventory also reflects year 2007
8 U.S. EPA, 2000, op. cit.
9 California Energy Commission (CEC), Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to
2004 - Final Staff Report, publication # CEC-600-2006-013-SF, Sacramento, CA, December 22, 2006; and
January 23, 2007 update to that report.
10 CalEPA, 2006b, op. cit.
11 California Energy Commission (CEC), 2007, op. cit.
12 BAAQMD, 2006. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. November.
13 BAAQMD, 2008. Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions. December.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 10-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
activity. As a result, the 2007 Bay Area region-wide inventory was estimated at 102.7 MMCO2e.
Much of the difference between the 2002 and the 2007 inventories is attributable to the methodology of
the computations. About 46-percent of the County inventory is attributable to on-road vehicles.
(5) City of South San Francisco Emissions. At present, the City of South San Francisco does not
have an adopted plan or specific policies to reduce GHG emissions, although many of the City’s
policies and ordinances—such as one of the region’s most aggressive Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) programs—achieve the same objective. The City is completing an emissions
survey that will provide a basis for formally developing such tools. Although the General Plan did not
specify policies and programs designed to reduce GHG emissions, many of the Plan’s policies will
contribute to this objective by promoting development that is less reliant on motor vehicles. Further,
the Update carries forward South San Francisco’s current TDM Ordinance, which requires that non-
residential development generating more than 100 daily trips, must incorporate measures to ensure that
at least 28% of all trips are made through alternative mode use. As incentives to implement programs
that will further reduce vehicle trips, the TDM provisions provide a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus in
accordance with the General Plan when 30% to 45% of all trips involve alternative mode use,
depending on the type of development and requested FAR. Adherence to such requirements would
reduce potential impacts associated with this issue to a no impact level. As shown in Table 10.1,
below, South San Francisco emitted approximately 527,000 tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2e) in 2005
from all major sources, nearly half of which were from transportation
Table 10.1: GHG Emission Inventory for South San Francisco Community-Wide
Emissions - 2005 (Metric Tons/Year)
Potential Source
Tons of Carbon
Dioxide Equivalent
(CO2e)
Percent
of Total
Transportation
City Roads (Non-Highway)
State Highways
240,257
87,406
152,851
46%
17%
29%
Commercial/Industrial
Electrical
Natural Gas
185,240
80,723
104,517
35%
15%
20%
Residential
Electrical
Natural Gas
70,059
22,258
47,801
13%
4%
9%
Waste 31,210 6%
Total 526,766 100%
Source: City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Update, December 17, 2009
It is easy to dismiss the impact any single community can have on GHG emissions. In the context of
the State of California, the City of South San Francisco accounts for .001 percent (perhaps slightly
higher, if we account for traffic outside the city borders and waste impacts) of GHG emissions.
However, it is important to understand that reduction of GHG emissions is partially a matter of the
availability of options in transportation and other energy use. Achievement of the reductions required
by Measure G and State law require local action.
CHAPTER 10: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 10-5
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Globally, climate change has the potential to impact numerous environmental resources through
potential, though uncertain, impacts related to future air temperatures and precipitation patterns.
Scientific modeling predicts that continued GHG at or above current rates would induce more extreme
climate changes during the 21st century than were observed during the 20th century. A warming of
about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade is projected, and there are identifiable signs that global warming is
taking place, including substantial ice loss in the Arctic.14
However, the understanding of GHG emissions, particulate matter, and aerosols on global climate
trends remains uncertain. In addition to uncertainties about the extent to which human activity rather
than solar or volcanic activity is responsible for increasing warming, there is also evidence that some
human activity has cooling, rather than warming, effects, as discussed in detail in numerous
publications by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), namely “Climate Change 2001, The
Scientific Basis” (2001).15
Acknowledging uncertainties regarding the rate at which anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
would continue to increase (based upon various factors under human control, such as future population
growth and the locations of that growth; the amount, type, and locations of economic development; the
amount, type, and locations of technological advancement; adoption of alternative energy sources;
legislative and public initiatives to curb emissions; and public awareness and acceptance of methods for
reducing emissions), and the impact of such emissions on climate change, the IPCC devised a set of six
“emission scenarios” which utilize various assumptions about the rates of economic development,
population growth, and technological advancement over the course of the next century.16 These
emission scenarios are paired with various climate sensitivity models to attempt to account for the
range of uncertainties that affect climate change projections. The wide range of temperature,
precipitation, and similar projections yielded by these scenarios and models reveal the magnitude of
uncertainty presently limiting climate scientists’ ability to project long-range climate change (as
previously discussed).
The projected effects of global warming on weather and climate are likely to vary regionally, but are
expected to include the following direct effects, according to the IPCC.17
x Snow cover is projected to contract, with permafrost areas sustaining thawing.
x Sea ice is projected to shrink in both the Arctic and Antarctic.
x Hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation events are likely to increase in frequency.
x Future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will likely become more intense.
x Non-tropical storm tracks are projected to move poleward, with consequent changes in wind,
precipitation, and temperature patterns. Increases in the amount of precipitation are very likely in
high-latitudes, while decreases are likely in most subtropical regions.
14 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, 2000,
www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/002.htm, accessed July 24, 2007.
15 The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations
Environment Program to assess scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the
understanding of climate change, its potential impacts and options for adoption and mitigation.
16 IPCC, 2000, op. cit.
17 Ibid.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 10-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
x Warming is expected to be greatest over land and at most high northern latitudes, and least over the
Southern Ocean and parts of the North Atlantic Ocean.
Potential secondary effects from global warming include global rise in sea level, impacts to agriculture,
changes in disease vectors, and changes in habitat and biodiversity.
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF HUMAN ACTIVITY ON STATE OF CALIFORNIA
According to CARB, some of the potential impacts in California of global warming may include loss in
snow pack, sea level rise, more extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest
fires, and more drought years.18 Several recent studies have attempted to explore the possible negative
consequences that climate change, left unchecked, could have in California. These reports
acknowledge that climate scientists’ understanding of the complex global climate system, and the
interplay of the various internal and external factors that affect climate change, remains too limited to
yield scientifically valid conclusions on such a localized scale. Substantial work has been done at the
international and national level to evaluate climatic impacts, but far less information is available on
regional and local impacts. In addition, projecting regional impacts of climate change and variability
relies on large-scale scenarios of changing climate parameters, using information that is typically at too
general a scale to make accurate regional assessments.19
Below is a summary of some of the potential effects reported in an array of studies that could be
experienced in California as a result of global warming and climate change:
x Air Quality – Higher temperatures, conducive to air pollution formation, could worsen air quality
in California. Climate change may increase the concentration of ground-level ozone, but the
magnitude of the effect, and therefore its indirect effects, are uncertain. For other pollutants, the
effects of climate change and/or weather are less well studied, and even less well understood.20 If
higher temperatures are accompanied by drier conditions, the potential for large wildfires could
increase, which, in turn, would further worsen air quality. However, if higher temperatures are
accompanied by wetter, rather than drier conditions, the rains would tend to temporarily clear the
air of particulate pollution and reduce the incidence of large wildfires, thus ameliorating the
pollution associated with wildfires. Additionally, severe heat accompanied by drier conditions and
poor air quality could increase the number of heat related deaths, illnesses, and asthma attacks
throughout the State.21
x Water Supply – Uncertainty remains with respect to the overall impact of global climate change on
future water supplies in California. For example, models that predict drier conditions (i.e., parallel
climate model [PCM]) suggest decreased reservoir inflows and storage and decreased river flows,
relative to current conditions. By comparison, models that predict wetter conditions (i.e.,
HadCM2) project increased reservoir inflows and storage, and increased river flows.22
18 California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2006c. Public Workshop to Discuss Establishing the 1990 Emissions
Level and the California 2020 Limit and Developing Regulations to Require Reporting of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Sacramento, CA. December 1.
19 Kiparsky, M. and P.H. Gleick, 2003. Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and Summary
of the Literature. Oakland, CA: Pacific Institute for Studies in Development. July.
20 U.S. EPA, 2007, op. cit.
21 California Climate Change Center (CCCC), 2006. Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California,
CEC- 500-2006-077, Sacramento, CA. July.
22 Brekke, L.D., et afl, 2004. “Climate Change Impacts Uncertainty for Water Resources in the San Joaquin River
CHAPTER 10: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 10-7
A July 2006, technical report prepared by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR)
addresses the State Water Project (SWP), the Central Valley Project, and the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta. Although the report projects that “climate change will likely have a significant
effect on California’s future water resources and future water demand,” it also reports that “much
uncertainty about future water demand remains, especially for those aspects of future demand that
will be directly affected by climate change and warming. While climate change is expected to
continue through at least the end of this century, the magnitude and, in some cases, the nature of
future changes is uncertain.
This uncertainty serves to complicate the analysis of future water demand, especially where the
relationship between climate change and its potential effect on water demand is not well
understood.”23 DWR adds “it is unlikely that this level of uncertainty will diminish significantly in
the foreseeable future.”24 Still, changes in water supply are expected to occur, and many regional
studies have shown that large changes in the reliability of water yields from reservoirs could result
from only small changes in inflows.25 Water purveyors, such as the East Bay Municipal Utilities
District (EBMUD), are required by state law to prepare Urban Water Management Plans (UWMPs)
(discussed below, under Regulatory Context forGreenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change)
that consider climatic variations and corresponding impacts on long-term water supplies.26 DWR
has published a 2005 SWP Delivery Reliability Report, which presents information from computer
simulations of the SWP operations based on historical data over a 73-year period (1922–1994). The
DWR notes that the results of those model studies “represent the best available assessment of the
delivery capability of the SWP.” In addition, the DWR is continuing to update its studies and
analysis of water supplies. EBMUD would incorporate this information from DWR in its update of
its current UWMP 2005 (required every five years per the California Water Code), and information
from the UWMP can be incorporated into Water Supply Assessments (WSAs) and Water
Verifications prepared for certain development projects in accordance with Cal. Water Code
Section 10910, et seq. and Cal. Government Code Section 66473.7, et seq.
x Hydrology – As discussed above, climate change could potentially affect the amount of snowfall,
rainfall and snow pack; the intensity and frequency of storms; flood hydrographs (flash floods, rain
or snow events, coincidental high tide and high runoff events); sea level rise and coastal flooding;
coastal erosion; and the potential for salt water intrusion. Sea level rise can be a product of global
warming through two main processes: expansion of seawater as the oceans warm, and melting of
ice over land. A rise in sea levels could result in coastal flooding and erosion and could also
jeopardize California’s water supply. In particular, saltwater intrusion would threaten the quality
and reliability of the state’s major fresh water supply that is pumped from the southern portion of
the Sacramento/San Joaquin River Delta. Increased storm intensity and frequency could affect the
ability of flood-control facilities (including levees) to handle storm events.
x Agriculture – California has a $30 billion agricultural industry that produces half the country’s
fruits and vegetables. The California Climate Change Center (CCCC) notes that higher CO2 levels
Basin, California.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 40(2): 149–164. Malden, MA,
Blackwell Synergy for AWRA.
23 California Department of Water Resources (DWR), 2006. Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into
Management of California Water Resources, Sacramento, CA. July.
24 Ibid.
25 Kiparsky 2003, op. cit; DWR, 2005, op. cit.; Cayan, D., et al, 2006. Scenarios of Climate Change in California:
An Overview (White Paper, CEC-500-2005-203-SF), Sacramento, CA. February.
26 California Water Code, Section 10631(c).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 10-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
can stimulate plant production and increase plant water-use efficiency. However, if temperatures
rise and drier conditions prevail, water demand could increase; crop-yield could be threatened by a
less reliable water supply; and greater ozone pollution could render plants more susceptible to pest
and disease outbreaks. In addition, temperature increases could change the time of year that certain
crops, such as wine grapes, bloom or ripen, and thus affect their quality.27
x Ecosystems and Wildlife – Increases in global temperatures and the potential resulting changes in
weather patterns could have ecological effects on a global and local scale. In 2004, the Pew Center
on Global Climate Change released a report examining the possible impacts of climate change on
ecosystems and wildlife.28 The report outlines four major ways in which it is thought that climate
change could affect plants and animals: (1) timing of ecological events; (2) geographic range; (3)
species’ composition within communities; and (4) ecosystem processes such as carbon cycling and
storage.
REGULATORY CONTEXT FOR GHG EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
International and Federal
Kyoto Protocol. The United States participates in the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) (signed on March 21, 1994). The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty made under
the UNFCCC and was the first international agreement to regulate GHG emissions. It has been
estimated that if the commitments outlined in the Kyoto Protocol are met, global GHG emissions could
be reduced by an estimated 5 percent from 1990 levels during the first commitment period of 2008–
2012. It should be noted that although the United States is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, Congress
has not ratified the Protocol and the United States is not bound by the Protocol’s commitments.
Climate Change Technology Program. The United States has opted for a voluntary and incentive-
based approach toward emissions reductions in lieu of the Kyoto Protocol’s mandatory framework.
The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is a multi-agency research and development
coordination effort (which is led by the Secretaries of Energy and Commerce) that is charged with
carrying out the President’s National Climate Change Technology Initiative.29
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). To date, the U.S. EPA has not regulated GHGs
under the Clean Air Act (discussed above) based on its assertion in Massachusetts et al. v. EPA et al30
that the “Clean Air Act does not authorize it to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate
change and that it would be unwise to regulate GHG emissions because a causal link between GHGs
and the increase in global surface air temperatures has not been unequivocally established.” However,
in the same case (Massachusetts v. EPA), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the U.S. EPA can, and
should, consider regulating motor-vehicle GHG emissions.
27 California Climate Change Center (CCCC), 2006, op. cit.
28 Parmesan, C. and H. Galbraith, Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U.S., Arlington, VA: Pew
Center on Global Climate Change, November 2004.
29 Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), About the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (web
page), Washington, D.C., last updated April 2006, http://www.climatetechnology.gov/about/index.htm, accessed
July 24, 2007.
30 U.S. Supreme Court, Massachusetts et. al. v. EPA et. al (No. 05-1120, 415F 3d 50), April 2, 2007.
CHAPTER 10: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 10-9
State of California
Assembly Bill (AB) 1493. On July 1, 2002, the California Assembly passed Assembly Bill (AB) 1493
(signed into law on July 22, 2002), requiring the CARB to “adopt regulations that achieve the
maximum feasible and cost-effective reduction of GHG emissions from motor vehicles.” The
regulations were to be adopted by January 1, 2005, and apply to 2009 and later model-year vehicles. In
September 2004, CARB responded by adopting “CO2-equivalent fleet average emission” standards.
The standards will be phased in from 2009 to 2016, reducing emissions by 22 percent in the “near
term” (2009–2012) and 30 percent in the “mid term” (2013– 2016), as compared to 2002 fleets.
Executive Order (EO) S-3-05. On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive
Order (EO) S-3-05, establishing statewide GHG emissions reduction targets. This EO provides that by
2010, emissions shall be reduced to 2000 levels; by 2020, emissions shall be reduced to 1990 levels;
and by 2050, emissions shall be reduced to 80 percent of 1990 levels. The Secretary of the California
Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) is charged with coordinating oversight of efforts to meet
these targets and formed the Climate Action Team (CAT) to carry out the EO. Several of the programs
developed by the CAT to meet the emission targets are relevant to residential construction and are
outlined in a March 2006 report.31 These include prohibition of idling of certain classes of construction
vehicles; provision of recycling facilities within residential buildings and communities; compliance
with the Energy Commission’s building and appliance energy efficiency standards; compliance with
California’s Green Buildings and Solar initiatives; and implementation of water-saving technologies
and features.
California Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32). On August 31, 2006, the California Assembly passed Bill 32
(AB 32) (signed into law on September 27, 2006), the California Global Warming Solutions Act of
2006. AB 32 commits California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels and establishes a multi-year
regulatory process under the jurisdiction of the CARB to establish regulations to achieve these goals.
CARB must adopt such regulations by January 1, 2008. The regulations shall require monitoring and
annual reporting of GHG emissions from selected sectors or categories of emitters of GHGs. By
January 1, 2008, CARB was also required to adopt a statewide GHG emissions limit equivalent to the
statewide GHG emissions levels in 1990, which must be achieved by 2020. By January 1, 2011,
CARB is required to adopt rules and regulations, which shall become operative January 1, 2012) to
achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective GHG emission reductions.
On April 20, 2007, CARB published Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in
California.32 This publication indicated that the issue of GHG emissions in CEQA and GeneralPlans
was being deferred for later action, so the publication did not discuss any early actionmeasures
generally related to CEQA or to land use decisions. As noted in that report: “AB 32requires that all
GHG reduction measures adopted and implemented by the Air Resources Boardbe technologically
feasible and cost effective.”33 The law permits the use of market-basedcompliance mechanisms to
achieve those reductions and also requires that GHG measures haveneither negative impacts on
conventional pollutant controls nor any disproportionatesocioeconomic effects (among other criteria).
31 California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), 2006a. Climate Action Team, Executive Summary.
Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. Sacramento, CA,
March.
32 CalEPA, Air Resources Board (CARB), Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in California.
Sacramento, CA, April 20, 2007.
33 Ibid.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 10-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
On October 24, 2008, CARB released a “Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal,” “Recommended
Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gas under the California
Environmental Quality Act”. AB 32 also requires CARB to monitor compliance with and enforcement
of any rule, regulation, order, emission limitation, emissions reduction measure, or market-based
compliance mechanism that it adopts.
California Senate Bill 97 (SB 97). Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB 97 (Chapter 185, Statutes
2007) into law on August 24, 2007. The legislation provides partial guidance on how greenhouse gases
should be addressed in certain CEQA documents. Pursuant to Senate Bill 97, the Natural Resources
Agency reviewed and adopted the amendments to the CEQA Guidelines on December 30, 2010,
prepared and forwarded by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), including
guidelines addressing GHGs. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. OPR
recommends that each agency develop an approach to addressing GHG emissions that is based on best
available information. The approach includes three basic steps: (1) identify and quantify emissions; (2)
assess the significance of the emissions; and (3) if emissions are significant, identify mitigation
measures or alternatives that will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level.
California Urban Water Management Act. The California Urban Water Management Planning Act
requires various water purveyors throughout the State of California (such as EBMUD) to prepare
UWMPs, which assess the purveyor’s water supplies and demands over a 20-year horizon (California
Water Code, Section 10631 et seq.). As required by that statute, UWMPs are updated by the purveyors
every five years. As discussed above, this is relevant to global climate change, which may affect future
water supplies in California, as conditions may become drier or wetter, affecting reservoir inflows and
storage and increased river flows.34
Senate Bill 375. Senate Bill 375, signed into law in October, 2008, requires CARB to establish
regional targets for reduction of GHG emissions due to transportation and land use, requires
metropolitan planning organizations (Association of Bay Area Governments in the Bay Area) to
prepare regional sustainable land use plans to reach these targets, and directs regional transportation
agencies (Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the Bay Area) to ensure that regional
transportation plans are consistent with and support the regional sustainability plans. Many infill
development projects consistent with these plans will be exempt from CEQA. The process of
establishing targets and plans is expected to take several years, based on timelines in SB 375.
However, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) has already begun preparing revised
Policy-Based Projections for its 2009 land use projections, and has estimated GHG impacts as part of
its initial assessment of alternative projection scenarios. Overall, the Bay Area is expected to grow by
approximately 2,000,000 people by 2035. DRAFT Projections 2009 have been released for
jurisdictional staff review. In order to accommodate the increased population and meet the mandates of
AB 32, the draft projections have a significantly increased focus on higher intensity transit-oriented
development as a key strategy.
34 Brekke, 2004, op. cit.
CHAPTER 10: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 10-11
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist) contains a list of air quality effects
that may be considered significant. Implementation of the OPSP, including the Phase I Project, would
have a significant effect on the environment if it were to:
x Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact
on the environment
x Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases
In June 2010 the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted the new CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines; these guidelines are for project level and program level analyses. If a project or
plan is located in a community with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, the project may be
considered less than significant if it is consistent with the GHG Reduction Strategy. South San
Francisco does not have an adopted GHG Reduction Strategy, so this threshold cannot be used. In the
absence of a GHG Reduction Strategy, a project or plan can be compared to a quantitative threshold.
BAAQMD provides two alternative quantitative thresholds, a brightline threshold of 1,100 MT of
CO2e per year to assess smaller projects or an efficiency-based threshold of 4.6 MT CO2e per Service
Population (SP) per year to assess larger projects. BAAQMD defines the SP as the number of residents
and employees generated by the project or plan. Since the City has not yet adopted a qualified GHG
Reduction Strategy and the OPSP would be too large to compare against the brightline threshold, a
significant impact with respect to GHG emissions would occur if annual CO2e emissions from the
Phase I Project or the OPSP exceed the efficiency threshold of 4.6 metric tons per SP. While
BAAQMD provides an alternate efficiency-based threshold for General Plans or regional transportation
and air quality plans, the above thresholds are the same for both a project and a specific plan.
It should be noted that it is BAAQMD policy that these adopted thresholds do not apply to projects for
which a Notice of Preparation was published prior to the effective date of June 2, 2010. The Notice of
Preparation for this analysis was published on February 26, 2010, well before this date. However, given
that there were no previous quantitative thresholds and that these are the same as the interim thresholds
in place at that time of publication of the Notice of Preparation, they are conservatively used in this
analysis as the best available thresholds.
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS AND CLIMATE CHANGE
The adoption of the OPSP, in itself, will have no impacts related to GHG. However, individual
projects developed in conformance with the OPSP will generate GHG impacts from their construction
and operation. Overall, the following activities associated with a typical development could contribute
to the generation of GHG emissions:
x Removal of Vegetation. The net removal of vegetation for construction results in a loss of the
carbon sequestration in plants. However, planting of additional vegetation would result in
additional carbon sequestration and lower the carbon footprint of a project.
x Demolition of existing buildings. Existing buildings have “embedded energy,” related to the energy
involved in their initial construction that is then lost when they are demolished. The disposal of
demolished building materials may also have GHG emissions related to transport to recycling
facilities and other locations, including the disposal of some materials.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 10-12 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
x Construction Activities. Construction equipment typically uses fossil-based fuels to operate. The
combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.
Furthermore, methane is emitted during the fueling of heavy equipment. Construction activities
include demolition and site preparation as well building construction.
x Gas, Electric and Water Use. Natural gas use results in the emissions of two GHGs: methane (the
major component of natural gas) and carbon dioxide from the combustion of natural gas. Methane
is released prior to initiation of combustion of the natural gas (as before a flame on a stove is
sparked), and from the small amount of methane that is uncombusted in a natural gas flame.
Electricity use can result in GHG production if the electricity is generated by combusting fossil
fuel. California’s water conveyance system is energy intensive. Preliminary estimates indicate that
total energy used to pump and treat this water exceeds 15,000 GWh per year, or at least 6.5 percent
of the total electricity used in the State per year. 35
x Motor Vehicle Use. Transportation associated with development projects would result in GHG
emissions from the combustion of fossil fuels in daily automobile and truck trips. However, these
emissions would not be “new” since drivers are likely relocated from another area. Also, as
discussed previously, the OPSP is designed to limit auto trips.
While implementation of the OPSP would lead to the generation of GHG emissions as described above,
the BAAQMD and the City of South San Francisco’s anticipated implementation of a Climate Action
Plan (which would be expected to include an array of programs and measures) would collectively
reduce the levels of GHG emissions and contributions to global climate change attributable to activities
throughout South San Francisco.
GHG emissions were computed for the full build out scenario of the proposed OPSP. Specifically,
construction emissions were computed for the Phase I Project under an assumed approximately 3.5-
year construction period, including relocation of landfill materials and landfill cap improvements. As
discussed in Chapter 6: Air Quality, the URBEMIS2007 model was used to compute annual air
pollutant emissions. The URBEMIS2007 input files were then processed with the new BAAQMD
Greenhouse Gas Model (BGM). Emissions model results are included in Appendix B.
CONSTRUCTION GHG EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-1: Construction-Period GHG Emissions. Temporary construction-related exhaust
would be an additional source of GHG emissions that could contribute to
significant impacts on the environment. This is a less-than-significant impact.
BAAQMD does not have an adopted threshold of significance for construction-related GHG emissions,
though recommends quantification using URBEMIS for proposed land use development projects. The
URBEMIS2007 modeling conducted for the air quality analysis provided the estimate of construction
GHG emissions in the form of CO2. Emissions associated with construction were assumed to all occur
in 2012 through 2015. Total construction emissions for the Phase I Project would be 3,787 metric tons
of CO2 from construction equipment, truck traffic and associated construction worker traffic over this
3.5 year construction period. Because emissions vary over time based on the actual construction work
being completed during any given time-period, the highest annual emissions have been determined to
be 979 metric tons of CO2. (See emissions model results in Appendix B for additional detail.)These
would be temporary emissions. Emissions associated with construction of the entire OPSP were not
35 California Energy Commission (CEC), 2004. Water Energy Use in California (online information sheet)
Sacramento, CA, August 24, http://energy.ca.gov/pier/iaw/industry/water.html, accessed July 24, 2007.
CHAPTER 10: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 10-13
computed as the specifics of the construction schedule cannot be known at this time. However, it can
be assumed that schedules for construction of future phases of the OPSP would be similar to that for
Phase I, with similar annual emissions, though in actually, construction equipment are likely to produce
fewer emissions over time to meet increasingly strict regulations, which would result in reduced
emissions from those modeled today.
In order to determine significance in the absence of a threshold for the construction-period, these
emissions of up to 979 metric tons of CO2 annually has been conservatively compared to the
operational threshold of 1,100 annual metric tons and determined to be a less-than-significant impact
for the construction period. Note that such a comparison is considered very conservative as other
jurisdictions divide the construction emission over the anticipated lifetime of the project, instead of
looking at the highest year of emissions. Although the impact is less-than-significant, BAAQMD
recommends implementation of best management practices to further reduce construction-period GHG
emissions. Accordingly, mitigation measure GHG-1 is included below.
Mitigation Measure
GHG-1: Construction GHG Reduction Measures. The following best practice measures
shall be included in construction contracts to reduce GHG emissions during
construction, as feasible.
x At least 15 percent of the fleet of construction vehicles/equipment shall be
alternative fueled (e.g., biodiesel, electric).
x At least 10 percent of the building materials shall be locally sourced.
x At least 50 percent of construction waste or demolition materials shall be
recycled or reused.
With the implementation of appropriate reduction measures, impacts related to construction-period
GHG emissions would be further reduced from the already less than significant level.
OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS
Impact GHG-2: Operational Greenhouse Gas Emissions. New development in the OPSP area
would be an additional source of GHG emissions, primarily through consumption
of energy for transportation and energy usage, which could contribute to
significant impacts on the environment. This impact is potentially significant.
BAAQMD developed a GHG model referred to as the BAAQMD GHG Model or BGM. BGM is an
Excel workbook tool that uses the URBEMIS2007 file to provide GHG emissions in the form of
equivalent CO2 emissions (CO2e) in metric tons per year. Unless otherwise noted below, the model
defaults for the San Francisco Bay Area were used.
The URBEMIS2007 modeling file for the Year 2020 was used in the BGM model. BGM provides
emissions for transportation, areas sources, electricity consumption, natural gas combustion, electricity
usage associated with water usage and wastewater discharge, and solid waste land filling and transport.
Annual emissions in term of metric tons per year are provided in Table 10.2.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 10-14 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Model Year
The model uses mobile emission factors from the California Air Resources Board’s EMFAC2007
model. This model is sensitive to the year selected, since vehicle emissions have and continue to be
reduced due to fuel efficiency standards and low carbon fuels. The Year 2020 was selected for Phase I
Project, since BAAQMD thresholds are based on meeting the AB32 reduction goals by 2020. Full
build out of the OPSP would occur around 2035.
Traffic
Trip generation rates developed for the traffic study were used along with the default trip lengths in
URBEMIS2007.
Table 10.2: Phase I Project and OPSP Build Out GHG Emissions (in metric tons/year of CO2e)
Source Description
Phase I Project in
2020
OPSP Build Out in
2035
Transportation (i.e., traffic) 4,267 13,450
Area (e.g., landscape equipment) 1 1
Electricity 1,536 7,062
Natural Gas 505 2,519
Water & Wastewater 48 207
Solid Waste 1,776 8,447
Total (Gross*)8,132 31,686
Number of Employees (Gross*) 1,433 6,821
Annual Metric Tons Per SP 5.67 4.64
* Note that for comparison to the efficiency-based metric, gross emissions and gross employees were used in this
analysis rather than net increases.
Area Sources
The proposed project would be designed to achieve LEED certification. Therefore, energy efficiency
would be 20 percent greater than Title 24 standards in place during this analysis (2010). This should be
achievable, because development under the OPSP would be subject to the Title 24 amendments to the
code that became effective on January 1, 2011.
Adjustments were made either in the BGM model or to the model output. These include:
x Energy efficiency of the project was assumed to be 20% greater than Title 24 standards;
x A minimum waste diversion rate of 50% was assumed;
x Emissions associated with electricity consumption output by BGM were adjusted to account for
PG&E’s lower emission rate. BGM uses a Statewide rate of 805 pounds of CO2 per megawatt of
electricity produced, while the rate for PG&E is at 537 pounds per megawatt.
CHAPTER 10: GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 10-15
Development under the OPSP would be required to comply with existing City of South San Francisco
and the BAAQMD policies and programs that will further reduce the GHG emissions from individual
development projects, including:
x Energy Efficiency – Projects developed under OPSP are required to comply with all applicable
local, state, and federal regulations associated with the generation of GHG emissions and energy
conservation. In particular, construction of development under the OPSP is required to meet
California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings, and the
requirements of pertinent City policies as identified in the City’s Residential and Commercial
Energy Conservation Ordinances (RECO and CECO), helping to reduce future energy demand as
well as reduce each project’s contribution to regional GHG emissions. The applicant proposes the
following energy efficiency measures to meet or exceed Title 24 and CalGreen Code:
o A high efficiency glazing to reduce solar heat gain/loss and to maximize daylighting
o A curtain wall system “tuned” based upon solar orientation and design to maximize passive
solar heating
o A cool roof system to reduce solar heat gain and heat island effect
o Advance lighting controls for the base building
o A garage and service dock is naturally ventilated
In addition, the tenant improvements will likely have the following energy efficiency measures
which will meet or exceed title 24 and CalGreen:
o High performance HVAC systems
o High efficiency water heating systems
o Advanced lighting controls for tenant spaces
As indicated above, the City of South San Francisco has a variety of other policies, programs and
actions to address global climate change that will apply to the Oyster Point area. These were discussed
above under the existing regulatory environment, and include:
x Construction Waste. Any project built in South San Francisco must comply with the City’s
Construction and Waste Reduction Ordinance and submit a Construction and Demolition Waste
Reduction Plan for review and approval. As a result, construction-related truck traffic (which
primarily relies on diesel-fueled engines) would be reduced since some demolition debris hauled
off site would be reused on site. In addition, reuse of concrete, asphalt, and other debris will
reduce the amount of material introduced to area landfills.
x City Standards. Any development project is also subject to all the regulatory requirements
including the City’s standard conditions of approval, which would reduce GHG emissions of the
project. These include conditions to address adherence to best management construction practices
and equipment use. It must also minimize post construction stormwater runoff that could affect the
ability to accommodate potentially increased storms and flooding within existing floodplains and
infrastructure systems.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 10-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
x Transportation Demand Management (TDM) The City of South San Francisco requires that all new
nonresidential developments expected to generate 100 or more average daily trips implement a
TDM plan to reduce vehicle traffic. The Transportation/Traffic Section of the EIR discusses the
various TDM measures that were included in the traffic analysis for the OPSP. The TDM
measures as analyzed in the Transportation/Traffic Section of the EIR show a 9.5% reduction in
peak hour traffic compared to the existing traffic, while an intensive TDM program will reduce
peak hour traffic by an additional 20 to 25%.
Projected Service Population
The BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines identify an efficiency-based threshold to evaluate emissions
associated with projects and plans. This metric is based on the “service population,” which is a
combination of projected population and employment associated with the growth projections assumed.
Approximately 250 square feet of floor space per employee is a rule of thumb for office uses, though
research and development uses would be anticipated to need more space per employee, estimated at
500 square feet per employee. Assuming a 40-percent /60-percent split of Office/Research &
Development and 294 employees in the 350 room hotel and 40,000 square foot retail/restaurant uses,
this would yield a projection of 1,433 employees for the Phase I Project and 6,821 employees for the
full build-out of the OPSP. Note that for comparison to the efficiency-based metric, gross emissions
and employees were used in this analysis rather than net increases. The service population for the Phase
I Project and full build-out of the OPSP are shown in Table 10.2.
Conclusions
Annual emissions reported in Table 10.2 are divided by the service population (i.e., number of
employees) to evaluate the significance. BAAQMD has identified an efficiency threshold of 4.6 metric
tons per capita per year for projects and plans of this type. This threshold has been conservatively used
in this analysis even though the analysis was begun before adoption of the threshold, as discussed
previously in this chapter. In 2020, the Phase I Project build-out is anticipated to have per-capita
emissions of 5.67 metric tons per capita per year. In 2035, build-out of the entire OPSP would have
emissions of 4.64 metric tons per capita per year, reflecting the lower transportation-related emission
rates. The Phase I Project and OPSP would include many best practices and additional measures to
reduce GHG emissions and increase efficiencies, as described previously in this chapter. However,
since quantified emissions would be above the 2010 BAAQMD efficiency-based threshold, even
though this threshold would not strictly apply to this analysis because it was begun before the threshold
was adopted, the impact of GHG emissions from the Phase I Project and full build-out of the OPSP
have conservatively been determined to be significant and unavoidable.
CONSISTENCY WITH GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION PLANS
The OPSP is not located in a community with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy, so
consistency with such a plan cannot be analyzed. Emissions associated with the development of the
proposed Phase I Project and OPSP were analyzed per the BAAQMD June 2010 CEQA Air Quality
Guidelines. BAAQMD’s thresholds and methodologies take into account implementation of state-wide
regulations and plans, such as the AB 32 Scoping Plan and adopted state regulations such as Pavley and
the low carbon fuel standard. Therefore, there would be no impact in relation to consistency with GHG
reduction plans.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 11-1
11
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
INTRODUCTION
A hazardous material is a substance or combination of substances which, because of its quantity,
concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics, may either 1) cause, or significantly
contribute to, an increase in mortality or an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating
reversible illness; or 2) pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health and safety, or
the environment when improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed.
Hazardous waste (a subset of hazardous materials) refers to hazardous material that is abandoned,
discarded or recycled.
The information summarized below was derived from several sources including:
x Gabewell, Inc. with Harding Lawson Associates, 2000, “Final Closure and Post-Closure
Maintenance Plan, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California”. September
x EIP Associates, 2006, “Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment, South
San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project”. Chapter 3.6. February 14.
x Kleinfelder, 2007, “Feasibility Study and Cost Estimate, Proposed Oyster Point Marina
Redevelopment, South San Francisco, California”. November 12.
x Perkins + Will, 2009, “Master Plan + Design Guidelines, Shorenstein/SKS, Oyster Point”. Draft.
September 10.
x Treadwell & Rollo, 2009a, “Methane Mitigation Systems: Description and Unit Costs, Oyster
Point Landfill/Oyster Point Business Park, South San Francisco, California”. Draft. January 29.
x Treadwell & Rollo, 2009b, “Geotechnical Investigation of the Landfill Cover, Oyster Point
Landfill, South San Francisco, California”. Draft. February 13.
x Review of the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) Database
(www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov) (November 17, 2009).
x Review of the State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker Database (accessed via the above
referenced Envirostor website).
x The City of South San Francisco General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan Element.
REGULATORY SETTING
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 27, DIVISION 2
The primary design and construction standard related to the presence of landfill waste at the OPSP
area is Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Division 2 (Solid Waste). The two state
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 11-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
regulatory agencies cited in Title 27 CCR Division 2 are the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB) and the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). The San Mateo
County Health Services Agency (SMCHSA) – Environmental Services Division is the Local
Enforcement Agency (LEA) as per Title 27 CCR Section 2005.
BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is responsible for monitoring site
operations that affect air quality. Air pollution control measures at the site are directed towards
minimizing fugitive dust emissions and controlling landfill gas (LFG) migration. Regulation 8, Rule
34 requires all landfill operators to collect and process landfill gas. Based on estimates that the entire
landfill exceeds one million tons of refuse, Regulation 8, Rule 34 would require the City of South San
Francisco to reduce emissions of methane and non-methane organic compounds from the waste
decomposition process at Oyster Point Landfill. However, the site should qualify for an exemption
from Regulation 8, Rule 34 (8-34-110) because it meets the following criteria:
x It is a closed or inactive landfill, and has no design capacity available for future refuse deposition,
x It last received waste at least 30 years ago (1970), and
x The owner has demonstrated that the site does not pose a health risk to the public health and
safety, nor does it threaten the environment under the California Health and Safety Code, Section
41805.5.
In order to be exempt from BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 34, the City of South San Francisco shall
submit a Design Capacity Report to BAAQMD. It is assumed that the development site will not need
an active LFG collection and treatment system. However, it is assumed that the buildings shall
require, at a minimum, a passive LFG venting system, which would need to have the capacity to be
retrofitted to an active system by the addition of blowers. Therefore, a new emission source for the
proposed development for the emitting gases collected under the hotel foundation would be reviewed
under BAAQMD Regulation 8 Rule 2 as a general organic emission source and Regulation 2 Rule 5
as a new source of toxic air contaminants.
An Application for Authority to Construct/Permit to Operate (form P-101B) shall be necessary to file
a minimum of 30 days prior to construction in order to coordinate and document regulatory
exemption.
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD - SAN FRANCISCO
The landfill portion of the OPSP site previously operated under Waste Discharge Requirements
issued by the RWQCB. The RWQCB issued on June 21, 2000 Order No. 00-046 – Updated Waste
Discharge Requirements and Recision of Order No. 77-19 for City of South San Francisco Oyster
Point Landfill, South San Francisco, San Mateo County.
SAN MATEO COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES AGENCY
The SMCHSA, as the LEA, is responsible for enforcement of the final closure and post-closure
maintenance activities of the landfill under Title 27 CCR Chapter 1, Section 20005, as overseen by
the CIWMB, including items related to LFG control and monitoring. Approval of the final post-
closure development application by the LEA is required prior to site construction. Details for these
planned closure and post-closure actions for the entire Oyster Point Landfill, including the OPSP
area, are provided by in the Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan (PCMP) (Gabewell,
2000).
CHAPTER 11: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 11-3
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
The City of South San Francisco Planning, Engineering, and Building Divisions shall review all
architectural, structural, civil, electrical, and landscape plans and specifications associated with the
entire development. Typically a City Fire Department shall review and approve the LFG monitoring
and alarm systems within the buildings as well.
In addition, the City of South San Francisco General Plan contains several policies that relate to
hazardous materials and waste, mainly contained in General Plan Section 8.3, shown in Table 11.1.
Table 11.1: Select General Plan Policies Regarding Hazardous Materials
Policy Goal
8.3-G-1 Reduce solid and hazardous waste, and recycle to slow the filling of landfills in accord with the
California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989.
8.3-G-2 Enforce revised zoning ordinance prohibition of intensive industrial production of hazardous
waste and the permanent storage of hazardous materials. Limit light industrial uses that produce
hazardous waste, such as auto repair and auto painting businesses.
8.3-I-3 Establish a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) database of sites included on the Cortese
List. The GIS should assist in the development approval process.
8.3-I-4 Establish an ordinance specifying routes for transporting hazardous materials. Routes should
not pass through residential areas or other sensitive areas and allow specific times for transport
to reduce the impact and accident risk during peak travel periods.
Source: City of South San Francisco General Plan
OTHER REGULATIONS, PLANS AND PROGRAMS
The Hazardous Materials Business Plan is used to keep track of the use of hazardous materials by
businesses in accordance with both state and federal laws. The California Accidental Release
Prevention (CalARP) Program is a merging of the federal and state programs for the prevention of
accidental release of regulated toxic and flammable substances. The goal is to eliminate the need for
two separate and distinct chemical risk management programs. CalARP is the Federal Risk
Management Plan Program with additional state requirements, including a list of regulated substances
and thresholds and requires preparation of a Risk Management Plan for businesses using regulated
substances.
The Hazardous Waste Generator Program was started in 1984 when the State of California DTSC
authorized the Health Department to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous waste generators
in San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste Control Law found in the California Health and
Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5 and regulations found in the CCR, Title 22, Division 4.5.
The groundwater protection program is funded wholly or in part, by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA), under Cooperative Agreement L-009450-1-0 to the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and by Contract 8-014-550 to the County of San Mateo. In
conjunction with these laws the underground storage tank program was created to regulate the chief
source of underground contamination, leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) or fuel tanks
(LUFTs).
Many regulatory agencies maintain a database of sites. Currently, both the DTSC
(www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov) and State Water Resources Control Board (geotracker.swrcb.ca.gov)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 11-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
maintain online searchable databases of hazardous materials sites. Other databases with information
on hazardous materials sites include the Federal Superfund list started through the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Conservation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980 and the USEPA, the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System
(CERCLIS), HAZNET, the leaking underground storage tank information system (LUST), and the
Cortese list. Air pollution is regulated through the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD).
These programs and regulations are intended to restrict environmental contamination, including
hazards to wildlife, provide protection for natural resources, and limit public exposure to harmful
chemicals. Specific programs intended to protect workers from exposure to hazardous materials and
from accidental upset are covered under the Occupational Health and Safety Administration at both
the Federal Level (OSHA) and the state level (CAL-OSHA). Title 40 of the Federal Code of
Regulations covers worker training and safety regulations pertinent to hazardous materials. OSHA
regulations for hazardous waste operations training in California are found in both the Code of
Federal Regulation 29CFR, Section 1910.120(e) and CCR Title 8, General Industry Safety Orders
(GISO) 5192. The law requires General Site Workers receive a minimum of 40 hours of instruction
off the site, and a minimum of three days of actual field experience, while Occasional Site Workers
receive a minimum 24 hours of instruction off the site, and a minimum of one day actual field
experience.
Transportation of hazardous materials on the highways is regulated primarily through the Federal
Department of Transportation (DOT) and the California Department of Transportation
(CALTRANS). This includes a system of placards, labels, and shipping papers required to identify
the hazards of shipping each class of hazardous materials. Existing federal and state laws address
risks associated with the transport of hazardous materials. These laws include regulations outlined in
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act administered by the DOT. Caltrans is mandated to
implement the regulations established by the DOT, which is published as the Code of Federal
Regulations, Title 49, commonly referred to as 49 CFR. The California Highway Patrol (CHP)
enforces these regulations. Regulations of hazardous materials and wastes include the manufacture of
packaging and transport containers; packing and repacking; labeling; marking or placarding;
handling; spill reporting; routing of transports; training of transport personnel; and registration of
highly hazardous material transport.
SETTING
SITE HISTORY
Prior to the development of the Oyster Point landfill in the 1950’s, the San Francisco Bay shoreline
was located at the west end of the OPSP area. West of the original shoreline there was a low shale and
sandstone bluff which comprised a portion of the original Oyster Point. Following the 1957
enactment of laws prohibiting open air burning of rubbish in the Bay Area, plans were made to
establish a solid waste disposal site on the submerged lands just east of the original Oyster Point. The
landfill was developed in three phases. The first area to be filled extended about 1,500 feet eastward
from the original bluff. Filling of the first section began in 1957 and was completed by late 1961. In
1962, a small craft harbor was constructed along the north shore of the landfill. To create a filled
breakwater for the east side of the marina, the second phase of landfill was placed in the form of a
mole extending from the eastern end of the first fill and north about 400 feet into the bay. The third
phase of filling began in 1964 and was accomplished by dredging up Bay Mud and forming mud
dikes and a dike-enclosed cell in which solid waste was later placed.
CHAPTER 11: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 11-5
The Oyster Point Landfill was in operation from 1957 to 1970. Landfill closure activities were
conducted from 1970 to 1981 and in 1987. The RWQCB has historically been the LEA regulating the
landfill. The RWQCB issued Order No. 00-046 – Updated Waste Discharge Requirements and
Recision of Order No. 77-19 for City of South San Francisco Oyster Point Landfill, South San
Francisco, San Mateo County on June 21, 2000. This document updated the 1977 self-monitoring and
closure program for the landfill. The Updated Waste Discharge Requirements apply only to the
landfill portion of the OPSP.
The landfill is currently owned by the City of South San Francisco and is operated as a marina, ferry
terminal, hotel, office space and open space. The City of South San Francisco and the San Mateo
County Harbor District hold responsibility for landfill maintenance pursuant to a Joint Powers
Agreement.
Portions of the OPSP area are outside the boundaries of the former landfill.
VICINITY HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
There are numerous hazardous materials sites throughout the area east of Highway 101 in South San
Francisco, reflecting the long industrial history of the area. Due to the density of sites, only those
within or bordering the OPSP area are discussed here since potential contamination from these
adjacent sites would have the greatest potential impact during development of the site. The sites were
identified in the Geotracker and Envirostor databases, which are maintained by SWRCB and DTSC
respectively, as shown in Table 11.2.
Table 11.2: Vicinity Hazardous Materials Sites
NAME/ADDRESS CONTAMINANTS
OF CONCERN
POTENTIAL
MEDIA
AFFECTED
CASE STATUS/DATE DATABASE
Oyster Cove Marina
385 Oyster Point Blvd. Gasoline Soil Closed as of
10/12/1994 Geotracker - Luft
Seaboard Paper Co.
336 Oyster Point Blvd. Gasoline
Groundwater
(non-drinking
water)
Closed as of
11/1/1995 Geotracker - Luft
Wildberg Bros
349 Oyster Point Blvd. Gasoline Soil Closed as of
7/17/2001 Geotracker - Luft
Wildberg Bros
349 Oyster Point Blvd.
Arsenic, lead,
antimony and
compounds,
mercury and
compounds, nickel
Soil
Certified as of
11/30/1987
5-yr review on
11/28/1995
confirmed No
Further Action status
Envirostor –
Voluntary
Cleanup
The facility at 349 Oyster Point Blvd. is located adjacent to the OPSP area. While all of the sites are
identified as having prior releases of hazardous materials, there is no reported evidence available from
the databases of active leaks or contamination from these sites affecting soil or groundwater that
could migrate to the OPSP area or represent significant releases in the OPSP area requiring any
additional actions. Given the closed status of sites, any residual or off-site contamination would likely
be secondary to the contamination present on the OPSP area from the landfill.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 11-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
In addition, the 2006 Draft EIR for the Ferry Terminal (EIP Associates, 2006) presented search
information obtained from Environmental Data Resources, Inc. for a wider variety of regulatory
databases. Databases containing information for sites on or immediately adjacent to the OPSP area
include:
CERCLIS-NFRAP - Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Information System – No Further Response Action Planned
ERNS Emergency Response Notification System
RCRIS-LQG & RCRIS SQG - Resource Conservation and Recovery Information System Large
& Small Quantity Generators.
CHMIRS California Hazardous Material Incident Report System
CORTESE:Contains listing for LUST (Leaking Underground Storage Tank), SWF/LS, and Cal-
Sites databases.
SWF/LF Solid Waste Information System
CA FID Facility Inventory Database of USTs
HAZNET: Hazardous Waste Database.
VCP:Voluntary Cleanup Program
Files were also obtained directly from the South San Francisco Fire Department and the San
Francisco Bay RWQCB.
The Ferry Terminal Draft EIR (EIP, 2006) contained the following information regarding facilities
located on or immediately adjacent to the current OPSP area (see Figure 3.3 in Chapter 3: Project
Description for exact locations):
Former Landfill (within the OPSP) – “Listed on the CERC-NFRAP database. This listing is due
to the closed, unlined Class III landfill that extends across the project site. Listing on this
database indicates that the site was determined not to be eligible for listing on the NPL. Status
of the landfill is closed, meaning that the landfill is no longer accepting waste and that it is
covered with a cap. An order was issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) in response to a previous proposed development (Order No. 00-046
issued June 21, 2000). The order imposes new closure and post-closure requirements on the
City as part of future development. New closure and post-closure requirements are presented
to ensure that future development and construction activities at the site:
› Maintain the landfill cap and cutoff wall integrity
› Minimize settlement-induced leachate generation
› Prevent hazardous accumulations of landfill gas
› Inhibit migration of leachate and landfill gas
In addition, quarterly monitoring of subsurface landfill conditions is ongoing. Further
investigation could be required by the RWQCB in such instances as a proposed change in
land use, proposed development activities, or if a release from the landfill is discovered. As
CHAPTER 11: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 11-7
such, a Development (or Redevelopment) Proposal shall be submitted to the RWQCB in
accordance with Order No. 00-046 for the project site.
› The Ferry Terminal Draft EIR (EIP, 2006) indicated that several areas of the landfill cover
did not meet Title 27 requirements. The areas are indicated in Figure 9 of the Geotechnical
Investigation of the Landfill Cover (Treadwell & Rollo, 2009b), and include three different
potential deficiencies,
1.Six areas where the landfill cover thickness is less than 4 feet
2.Four areas where a low hydraulic conductivity layer thickness is less than 1 foot thick
3.One area where permeability of low hydraulic conductivity is greater than 1 x 10-6
cm/sec
671 Marina Boulevard (within the OPSP)—“Listed as a small quantity generator of hazardous
waste. This facility has been occupied by various boat sales and maintenance companies
since its construction. Based on San Mateo County Health Department—Environmental
Health Division (SMCHDEHD) records reviewed, wastes reported to have been generated at
this facility in the past include waste oil, oily debris/filters, Safety Kleen solvent, waste
acetone, waste coolant, and glycol. These wastes were generated during boat maintenance
activities. Waste oil was formerly stored within a 350-gallon AST at this facility. Solvent
storage sinks were formerly located within the service areas. Waste acetone was stored within
a 55-gallon drum. The EDR indicates that no violations were reported in connection with
hazardous waste management at this facility. Safety Kleen solvent is no longer used at this
facility. Corrections noted in the most recent SMCHDEHD inspection (2000) of this facility
include disposing of all unused chemicals (lube oil, batteries, diesel, gasoline, acetone),
providing housekeeping beneath compressors, storing batteries and drums under cover, and
not allowing soapy water to enter the storm drain. These corrections have been
implemented”. In addition the site had “a release of 50 gallons of propane from a loose fitting
on a propane tank.”
95 Harbor Master Road (within the OPSP)—“Eight incidents were listed in the ERNS.
These incidents included:
› A reported oily sheen on the eastern end of the launch ramp in 2002
› A release of one-half cup of diesel fuel into the bay during replacement of fuel lines at the
fuel dock in 2000 (cleaned up using absorbents and booms)
› A release of two pounds of diesel in 1992 (contained using booms)
› A release of hydraulic oil from a bilge pump of a vessel due to the rain in 2000 (remediated
using booms and absorbents)
› A 40-foot sheen of fuel from a sunken sailboat in 1998 (remediated using booms)
› Two other listings for 95 Harbor Master Road did not provide details”
In a separate database, there was a report of “an unknown sheen extending from a boat that
sunk was reported in November 2002.”
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 11-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
925 Marina Boulevard, 671 Marina Boulevard, & 1 Harbor Master Road (within the OPSP)
—Based “on information provided in the EDR report, wastes transported from the site for off
site disposal include organic solids; unspecified organic liquid mixture; waste oil and mixed
oil; oil containing waste; hydrocarbon solvents; aqueous solution with less than 10% total
organic residues; off-specification, aged, or surplus organics; and oxygenated solvents.
During the most recent site visit, wastes observed to be stored at the site were within the used
oil collection area and within the yard of the Harbor District maintenance building. Drums
containing monitoring well purge water, one drum containing waste oil, and two totes
containing waste oil were observed in the yard. Limited staining has occurred at the base of
the drum and totes; however, it is limited to the surface of the asphalt.”
384 Oyster Point Boulevard (within the OPSP)— “According to records reviewed, a UST was
formerly located to the south of this facility, near the northern boundary of the project site.
This UST was 1000 gallons in capacity and was formerly used for a generator at this facility.
This UST was removed in August 2002. No releases from the UST were noted.”
385 Oyster Point Boulevard (within the OPSP) - “Based on SMCHDEHD records reviewed,
facilities currently and formerly located at this facility that generate/store hazardous waste
include Oyster Cove Marina, Oxon Media, Intervention Therapeutics Corporation, AXYS
Pharmaceuticals, ChemRX, and Morrow Services. Waste solvent, waste flammable liquids,
waste corrosive liquids, and medical waste were reported to be generated. No significant
concerns or releases were noted in hazardous waste management records for this facility.
project site, based on the data available.” According to alternate database information for the
site “two 350-gallon waste oil USTs were removed from this facility in July 1992. Based on
confirmation samples, these locations were over excavated in August 1992. Two monitoring
wells were installed and monitored for four quarters. Groundwater was below detection limits
for four quarters for total petroleum hydrocarbons as diesel (TPH-d), total petroleum
hydrocarbons as motor oil (TPH-mo), and total oil and grease (TOG). The LUST case was
granted closure in October 1994.”
375 Oyster Point Boulevard (within the OPSP) —“No violations were reported in connection
with hazardous waste management at this facility. This facility was not listed on any
databases searched by EDR that indicate that a release has occurred.”
349 Oyster Point Boulevard (adjacent to the OPSP)—“Based on records reviewed for this
facility, a fuel oil UST was removed from this facility in 1982. In 1997, during construction
activities, impacted soil from the UST was discovered under a concrete slab. According to a
case closure memorandum, the groundwater beneath this facility does not have appreciable
beneficial uses due to its natural salinity from its proximity to the bay. The soil was excavated
and the LUST case for this facility was closed in July 2001. Its listings on the VCP database
are likely due to the former use of this facility as a metals refining/metals recovery facility.
Elevated metals (zinc, nickel, and antimony) were reported in groundwater beneath this
facility. Remedial actions included dredging the lagoon on the northern portion of this
facility, sludge removal, filling the lagoon with clean soil, and removal of a slag pile.
Groundwater monitoring at this facility indicted that groundwater flowed to the north,
towards the Bay. Elevated metal concentrations in groundwater do not appear to extend to the
south of this facility, towards the project site, based on the data available.”
CHAPTER 11: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 11-9
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a project’s environmental impacts are based upon CEQA
Guidelines thresholds:
1. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
2. Would the project 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?
3. Would the project produce hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
4. Would the project 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?
5. Would the project be 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?
6. 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?
7. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
8. Would the project 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?
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS USE, TRANSPORT
This section pertains to recurring transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of long
term site activities. One time transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials related to
construction and development is discussed in the following sections.
Impact Haz-1: Routine transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials. While
specific tenants have not yet been identified, research laboratories are likely to
handle materials considered to be biological hazards, chemical hazards and/or
carry a risk of fire or explosion. The risk of accidental upset and environmental
contamination from routine transport, storage, use and disposal of hazardous and
potentially hazardous materials to the public and environment is a potentially
significant impact.
The proposed development includes construction of office buildings and research laboratories.
Depending upon the specific nature of research planned at the proposed facilities, which has not yet
been determined, there are likely to be both hazardous and potentially hazardous materials stored and
used on the site that will eventually require disposal. There are likely to be biological hazards,
chemical hazards and risk of fire or explosion. There is also likely to be transportation of hazardous
materials to and from the site, probably traveling along Highway 101 and Oyster Point Boulevard.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 11-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Mitigation Measures
Haz-1a: Plan Review for Adherence to Fire and Safety Codes. Building space shall be
designed to handle the intended use, with sprinklers, alarms, vents, and
secondary containment structures, where applicable. These systems shall pass
plan review through the City of South San Francisco Planning, Building and Fire
Departments.
Haz-1b: Construction Inspection and Final Inspection Prior to Occupancy. During
construction, the utilities including sprinkler systems shall pass pressure and
flush tests to make sure they perform as designed. At the end of construction,
occupancy shall not be allowed until a final inspection is made by the Fire
Department for conformance of all building systems with the Fire Code and
National Fire Protection Agency Requirements. The inspection shall include
testing of sprinklers systems, alarm systems, ventilation and airflow systems, and
secondary containment systems. The inspection shall include a review of the
emergency evacuation plans. These plans shall be modified as deemed necessary.
Haz-1c: Hazardous Materials Business Plan Program. Businesses occupying the
development shall complete a Hazardous Materials Business Plan for the safe
storage and use of chemicals. The Business Plan shall include the type and
quantity of hazardous materials, a site map showing storage locations of
hazardous materials and where they may be used and transported from, risks of
using these materials, material safety data sheets for each material, a spill
prevention plan, an emergency response plan, employee training consistent with
OSHA guidelines, and emergency contact information. Businesses qualify for the
program if they store a hazardous material equal to or greater than the minimum
reportable quantities. These quantities are 55 gallons for liquids, 500 pounds for
solids and 200 cubic feet (at standard temperature and pressure) for compressed
gases.
Exemptions include businesses selling only pre-packaged consumer goods;
medical professionals who store oxygen, nitrogen, and/or nitrous oxide in
quantities not more than 1,000 cubic feet for each material, and who store or use
no other hazardous materials; or facilities that store no more than 55 gallons of a
specific type of lubricating oil, and for which the total quantity of lubricating oil
not exceed 275 gallons for all types of lubricating oil. These exemptions are not
expected to apply to on-site laboratory facilities.
Businesses occupying and/or operating at the proposed development shall submit
a business plan prior to the start of operations, and shall review and update the
entire Business Plan at least once every two years, or within 30 days of any
significant change, including without limitation, changes to emergency contact
information, major increases or decreases in hazardous materials storage and/or
changes in location of hazardous materials. Plans shall be submitted to the San
Mateo County Environmental Health Department (SMCEHD) Business Plan
Program, which may be contacted at (650) 363-4305 for more information. The
SMCEHD shall inspect the business at least once a year to make sure that the
Business Plan is complete and accurate.
Haz-1d: Hazardous Waste Generator Program. Qualifying businesses shall register
and comply with the hazardous waste generator program. The State of California
DTSC authorized the SMCEHD to inspect and regulate non-permitted hazardous
CHAPTER 11: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 11-11
waste generators in San Mateo County based on the Hazardous Waste Control
Law found in the California Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.5
and regulations found in the CCR Title 22, Division 4.5. Regulations require
businesses generating any amount of hazardous waste as defined by regulation to
properly store, manage and dispose of such waste. SMCEHD staff also conducts
surveillance and enforcement activities in conjunction with the County District
Attorney's Office for businesses or individuals that significantly violate the above
referenced law and regulations.
Haz-1e: Compliance with Applicable Laws and Regulations. All transportation of
hazardous materials and hazardous waste to and from the OPSP area shall be in
accordance with CFR Title 49, US Department of Transportation (DOT), State of
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and local laws, ordinances
and procedures including placards, signs and other identifying information.
Implementation of the above mitigation measures for uses handling hazardous materials in the OPSP,
including office/R&D buildings as part of the Phase I Project, would reduce the impact of routine
transportation, use or disposal of hazardous materials to a level of less than significant through
compliance with existing regulations, plans and programs as discussed specifically in mitigation
measures Haz-1a through Haz-1e that act to ensure adequate safety levels are reached and maintained
throughout the life of the OPSP.
ACCIDENTAL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS RELEASE
The OPSP area was formerly a municipal landfill, and is proposed to be developed as a multi-use area
including biotechnology research, office, hotel, commercial/retail and open space. As such, there are
potential hazardous materials release concerns related to the former use and to the proposed future
uses of the OPSP area.
Construction-Period
Impact Haz-2: Accidental Hazardous Materials Release During Disturbance of Landfill
Materials.Site preparation and construction activities in the vicinity of the
landfill could result in release of hazardous solid waste, groundwater and/or soil
vapor and the potential for direct exposure to workers engaged in soil excavation
and dewatering activities. This represents a potentially significant impact.
The majority of the waste disposed of at the landfill was municipal, non-hazardous, material.
However decomposing organic waste generates methane and areas of hazardous materials in the
subsurface have been encountered, primarily related to two mapped sumps. In addition, hazardous
household wastes (i.e., paint cans) have been found during trenching activities. Contaminants in
groundwater (leachate) have been identified at the site. Redevelopment plans include site grading,
construction of a sub-grade parking structure, and installation of utility trenches, which will involve
excavation of landfill waste material. Excavated non-hazardous waste will be relocated on-site.
Excavated hazardous waste would be removed from the site and transported for appropriate off-site
disposal. Parking structure installation will likely require construction dewatering of the subgrade.
Soil gases, primarily methane, have been identified at the site at levels exceeding the lower explosive
limit (LEL).
Mitigation Measure
Haz-2: Waste Excavation and Re-disposition. A plan shall be written for management
of excavated wastes/refuse. Non-hazardous excavated waste shall be re-deposited
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 11-12 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
in an alternate part of the site and any hazardous waste shall be relocated off-site
for appropriate disposal. The plan can be a section of the Site Management Plan
(Mitigation Measure Haz-4a), or a stand alone document. The plan shall include
measures to avoid releases of wastes or waste water into the environment and to
protect workers and the public. The details of the plan shall be based, in part, on
the amount of material to be removed and the final design of foundation
structures, but will generally include the following, as deemed appropriate by the
regulatory agencies, particularly DTSC and RWQCB:
x To the greatest extent possible, use existing boring data to obtain pre-
characterization of refuse for off-site disposal, and to pre-plan areas to be
removed versus areas to be re-deposited on-site.
x Divide excavation areas into daily sections; plan to complete excavation and
backfilling a section during each working day. Minimize the time period that
refuse is exposed.
x Review existing boring data and existing site documentation to evaluate
potential subsurface materials to be encountered.
x Stake out area to be excavated.
x If excavation is to be conducted at depths where groundwater is to be
encountered, conduct dewatering to minimize worker potential direct contact
with groundwater. Removed groundwater shall be treated in accordance with
the requirements outlined in the Site Management Plan (Mitigation Measure
Haz-4a).
x Screen excavation site with a portable photoionization detector and
combustible gas monitor for landfill gasses. Continue screening progress of
each excavation section as work proceeds. Use foam suppressants or 6 inches
minimum of daily soil cover for nuisance odors.
x Provide carbon dioxide gas source (fire extinguisher or cylinder) to flood
excavation as necessary to prevent migration of gases into atmosphere above
excavation, minimize explosive or fire potential, and control nuisance and
odors.
x Begin excavation and segregate soil and /or clay cap material above refuse
for reuse as foundation layer.
x Upon reaching refuse, place refuse into dump truck standing by on-site.
x Dispose of each truck load of refuse immediately after filling equipment. All
loads to be covered when hauling. Refuse shall be either re-deposited on-site
in a specified area, or hauled to an off-site disposal facility.
x Prior to relocation, field verify each load for disposal classification type
(landfill classification, Class 3 or Class 2). If waste for off-site disposal is
characterized as either California or Federal Hazardous Waste as defined in
the criteria described in CCR Title 22 Section 66261, then the hazardous
waste shall be tracked using the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest System
(USEPA Form 8700-22).
x Hazardous and if necessary, non-hazardous waste shall be transported to the
appropriate disposal facility using a permitted, licensed, and insured
transportation company. Transporters of hazardous waste shall meet the
CHAPTER 11: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 11-13
requirements of 40 CFR 263 and 22 CCR 66263. Copies of uniform
hazardous waste manifests signed by the designated waste disposal facility
shall be retained for at least five years from the date the waste was accepted
by the initial transporter. Copies of records pertaining to the characterization
of hazardous or nonhazardous waste shall be retained for a minimum of three
years.
x Upon reaching over-excavation depth, place a minimum of 6-inch thick layer
of appropriate backfill soil on excavation bottom to seal exposed refuse
surface. Place soil by the end of the same day excavation is completed.
x Upon completion of excavation, begin cap placement procedures.
Specific measures shall be targeted to minimize the duration of waste exposure,
plan for appropriate final destination of wastes based on the presence of
contaminants of concern, allow for adjustment in plan based on unexpected
occurrences, and to protect worker safety and the public. Additional work plan
measures are discussed in Haz-4a. In addition, worker protection measures for
soil and dewatering are discussed in Haz-6a. Measures specific to off-site air
quality during construction are included in mitigation measure Air-4.
Implementation of mitigation measure Haz-2 would reduce the impact related to accidental hazardous
materials release during disturbance of landfill materials to a level of less than significant through
implementation of measures to avoid releases of wastes or waste water into the environment and to
protect workers and the public during excavation and re-disposition of landfill materials, which is
anticipated to occur during the Phase I Project and may also occur during subsequent construction
activities at the landfill site, such as buildout of the hotel site.
Impact Haz-3: Accidental Release of Hazardous Building Materials. During demolition of
existing buildings, hazardous building materials could be released from structures
at the site. These represent potentially significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-3: Demolition Plan and Permitting. A demolition plan with permit applications
shall be submitted to the City of South San Francisco Building Department for
approval prior to demolition. Prior to obtaining a demolition permit from the Bay
Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), an asbestos demolition
survey shall be conducted in accordance with the requirements of BAAQMD
Regulation 11, Rule 2. Prior to building demolition, hazardous building materials
such as peeling, chipping and friable lead-based paint and asbestos containing
building materials, if identified on the site, shall be removed in accordance with
all applicable guidelines, laws, and ordinances. The Demolition Plan for safe
demolition of existing structures shall incorporate recommendations from the site
surveys for the presence of potentially hazardous building materials, as well as
additional surveys if required by the City. The demolition plan shall address both
on-site Worker Protection and off-site resident protection from both chemical and
physical hazards. Contaminated building materials, if identified, shall be tested
for contaminant concentrations and shall be disposed of to appropriate licensed
landfill facilities. The Demolition Plan shall include a program of air monitoring
for dust particulates and attached contaminants, as merited by the surveys. The
need for dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days shall be
addressed in the plan.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 11-14 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Implementation of mitigation measure Haz-3 would reduce the impact related to accidental release of
hazardous building materials to a level of less than significant through compliance with existing
regulations and permitting requirements to ensure any hazardous building materials in structures to be
demolished are identified and removed safely. This would be applicable to any buildings demolished
as part of the Phase I Project or subsequent phases of development under the OPSP.
Post-Construction and Operations
Impact Haz-4: Accidental Future Hazardous Materials Release of Pre-existing Site
Materials.Landfill materials, which include hazardous materials in solid waste,
groundwater and soil vapor, shall remain on-site following construction.
Installation of new structures presents the potential for build up of soil gasses
within the structures, posing a risk to building occupants and additional loading
of the site surface could increase the rate of on-site waste settlement, leading to
off-site migration of leachate. This represents a potentially significant impact.
As discussed above, there are both known and potential hazardous solid materials in the landfill and
contaminants in the groundwater (leachate). Increasing development on the site could lead to an
increased rate of on-site waste settlement and off-site migration of leachate. Additionally, soil gases,
primarily methane, have been identified at the site at levels exceeding the lower explosive limit
(LEL). A series of passively vented landfill gas recovery trenches were installed in 2007 with the goal
of decreasing methane levels in the soil. Installation of new structures presents the potential for build
up of soil gasses within the structures, posing a risk to building occupants. (The landfill cap upgrades
referred to as mitigation measure Haz-4a are included as part of the Phase I Project.)
Mitigation Measures
Haz-4a: Landfill Cap Upgrades. A landfill cap currently exists to prevent exposure of
the public to impacted solids or groundwater. The cap shall be repaired and
upgraded to meet CCR Title 27 requirements. CCR Title 27 requires closed
landfills have a minimum 4 foot cap, consisting of a 2 foot base layer, a 1 foot
clay layer with specified low hydraulic conductivity and a 1 foot erosion control
layer. The minimum 4 feet of clean material that comprises the cap shall prevent
exposure of the underlying material, preventing releases at the surface. The low
hydraulic conductivity layer shall also act to minimize generation of leachate.
Haz-4b: Use Of Deep Foundations To Prevent Load Induced Settlement. Buildings on
fill shall be supported using driven steel or concrete piles founded in stiff to hard
clays, dense sands or weathered bedrock underlying the fill.Both the structural
loads and building floor slabs shall be supported on piles. This will avoid placing
additional building loads on fill material.
Haz-4c: Minimization of Irrigation Water Use. Landscaping of the site shall be selected
to stabilize the soil, prevent erosion, and reduce the need for extensive irrigation.
Excessive water could infiltrate the landfill cap and produce leachate. To prevent
this, low-water vegetation shall be selected to reduce irrigation water. In addition
the thickness of the erosion resistant layer in landscaped areas will be increased
to minimize intrusion of roots into the lower layers of the cover.
Haz-4d: Monitoring for Leachate Migration. A series of natural and man-made barriers
have been implemented to prevent migration of impacted leachate into the
surrounding area. Based on monitoring at the site implemented per the PCMP,
these measures are currently effective in preventing releases. Leachate shall
CHAPTER 11: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 11-15
continue to be monitored, as discussed in Haz-4e, below. Leachate containment
for the landfill portion of the OPSP shall be upgraded as needed during and
following construction, as per the requirements of RWQCB Order No. 00-046
and the PCMP.
Haz-4e: Operation and Maintenance Activities. Operation and maintenance (O&M)
activities are expected to occur indefinitely at the site. Operation and
maintenance activities shall include inspections and observations of site features
to protect the landfill cap, prevent utility damage, maintain gravity flow of sewer
systems, maintain the landfill gas barrier and venting systems, and monitor for
leachate and groundwater contaminant concentrations. O&M shall act to prevent
releases of hazardous materials by identifying deficits in engineering controls
prior to release events.
Mitigation measures Haz-4a through Haz-4e include measures to reduce the risk of future releases
related to the existing landfill materials that will reduce the OPSP’s impact related to accidental future
hazardous materials release of pre-existing site materials to a level of less-than-significant.These
measures would be applicable to any development on the landfill site including portions of the Phase
I Project as well as subsequent phases under the OPSP, such as development on the hotel site.
Impact Haz-5: Accidental Hazardous Materials Release of Laboratory Chemicals.
Following construction, operations at the proposed facilities are expected to
represent a continuing threat to the environment through accidental release of
hazardous materials since the site is proposed to include laboratory facilities,
where hazardous materials stored or used on site could lead to an accidental
release. This represents a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Haz-5: California Accidental Release Prevention Program (CalARP). Future
businesses at the development shall check the state and federal lists of regulated
substances available from the SMCEHD. Chemicals on the list are chemicals that
pose a major threat to public health and safety or the environment because they
are highly toxic, flammable or explosive. Businesses shall determine which list to
use in consultation with the SMCEHD.
Should businesses qualify for the program, they shall complete a CalARP
registration form and submit it to SMCEHD. Following registration, they shall
submit a Risk Management Plan (RMP). RMPs are designed to handle accidental
releases and ensure that businesses have the proper information to provide to
emergency response teams if an accidental release occurs. All businesses that
store or handle more than a threshold quantity (TQ)1 of a regulated substance
shall develop a RMP and follow it.
Risk Management Plans describe impacts to public health and the environment if
a regulated substance is released near schools, residential areas, hospitals and
childcare facilities. RMPs shall include procedures for keeping employees and
customers safe, the handling regulated substances, staff training, equipment
1 California Code of Regulations; Title 19. Public Safety; Division 2. Office of Emergency Services; Chapter
4.5 California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program, § 2770.5.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 11-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
maintenance, checking that substances are stored safely, and responding to an
accidental release.
Implementation of this mitigation measure Haz-5 for uses handling hazardous materials in the OPSP,
including office/R&D buildings as part of the Phase I Project, would reduce the OPSP’s impact
related to Accidental Release of Laboratory Chemicals to a level of less-than-significant through
compliance with the California Accidental Release Prevention Program including implementation of
Risk Management Plans as appropriate.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS NEAR SCHOOLS
The OPSP area is not located within one-quarter mile of a school site. Therefore the OPSP, including
the Phase I Project, would have no impact based on proximity to school sites.
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS SITES
The site has a well-documented history of use as a municipal landfill, including the use of two sumps
for disposal of liquid wastes including hazardous materials. In addition, there have been a variety of
historic and active USTs and ASTs on site. A series of site upgrades have been installed to mitigate
for potential impacts related to the landfill including construction of a landfill cap, installation of a sea
wall to prevent leachate migration and installation of methane collection trenches. Collectively these
modifications have reduced the hazardous materials exposure risks to an acceptable level. However,
future use of the site could result in potential exposure if not appropriately mitigated.
Impact Haz-6: Exposure to Contaminated Soil, Soil Vapor, and Groundwater. As currently
designed, utilities and foundation slabs shall be separated from landfill wastes by
a minimum of 4 feet of clean material, however the potential for future
maintenance work to penetrate into the subsurface where contamination remains
cannot entirely be discounted. Soil and groundwater disturbance presents an
exposure hazard to workers and trespassers. Disturbance of the subsurface also
increases the potential for contamination to spread through surface water runoff,
and through wind blown dust. These impacts are potentially significant.
The potential for accidental release of and construction-worker exposure to existing hazardous
materials during build-out under the OPSP is discussed separately under Impact Haz-2 above.
Accidental release of existing hazardous materials following construction are discussed under Impact
Haz-5.
MitigationMeasures
Haz-6a:Development and Implementation of Site Management Plans. A Site
Management Plan shall be prepared that addresses the exposure risk to people
and the environment resulting from future demolition, construction, occupancy,
and maintenance activities on the property. The plans for the landfill portion of
the OPSP shall be in accordance with RWQCB order No. 00-046, the PCMP and
recommendations of the Environmental Consultant, and shall be reviewed and
approved by the RWQCB, DTSC, the SMCEHD Groundwater Protection
Program and the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department.
Specific mitigation measures designed to protect human health and the
environment shall be provided in the plan. At a minimum, the plan shall include
the following:
CHAPTER 11: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 11-17
1)Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASP) shall be
prepared in accordance with OSHA regulations by all contractors at the
OPSP area. This includes a HASP for all demolition, grading and excavation
on the site, as well as for future subsurface maintenance work. The HASP
shall include appropriate training, any required personal protective
equipment, and monitoring of contaminants to determine exposure. The
HASP shall be reviewed and approved by a Certified Industrial Hygienist.
The plan shall also designate provisions to limit worker entry and exposure
and shall show locations and type of protective fencing to prevent public
exposure to hazards during demolition, site grading, and construction
activities.
2)Requirements for site-specific construction techniques that would minimize
exposure to any subsurface contamination shall be developed. This shall
include dewatering techniques to minimize direct exposure to groundwater
during construction activities, treatment and disposal measures for any
contaminated groundwater removed from excavations, trenches, and
dewatering systems in accordance with local and Regional Water Quality
Control Board guidelines. Groundwater encountered in excavations shall not
be discharged into the neighboring storm drain, but into a closed containment
facility, unless proven to have concentrations of contaminants below
established regulatory guidelines. Extracted contaminated groundwater shall
be required to be stored in tanks or other sealed container until tested. If
testing determines that the water can be discharged into the sanitary sewer
system, then the applicant shall acquire a ground water discharge permit
from the City of South San Francisco Sanitary Sewer District and meet local
discharge limits before being allowed to discharge into the sanitary sewer.
Water shall be analyzed for the chemicals of concern at the site, including
benzene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, chlorobenzene, naphthalene and additional
compounds as requested by the receiving facility or the City of South San
Francisco.
3)Waste relocation. Relocation or removal of existing landfill waste/refuse will
be required for landfill cap upgrades and for site construction. Excavated
waste can either be re-deposited on site or disposed of at an active landfill
facility. Off-site disposal will require pre-characterization of the waste for
acceptance at an approved waste disposal facility. Waste manifests will be
prepared to document transportation and disposal. On-site disposal shall
require proper placement, compaction, and capping of the refuse material. In
either case, segregation of Class 2 and Class 3 from Class 1 material for
disposal purposes shall be performed on-site to the extent possible. No Class
1 material shall be relocated or re-deposited on-site. BAAQMD Regulation 8
Rule 34 section 118 documents a limited exemption for construction
activities at landfill sites. This section specifies that when the construction
activities are related to “installing, expanding, replacing, or repairing
components of the landfill gas, leachate, or gas condensate collection and
removal systems.” Excavation for cap upgrades falls under this exemption.
Excavation for construction purposes will also likely fall under this
exemption. As such it will be necessary to provide BAAQMD with
construction plans and other documentation as detailed under this regulation
for the purposes of obtaining a letter of exemption from BAAQMD.
Excavation procedures are also discussed in Measure Haz-2.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 11-18 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
4)Future subsurface work plan. The plan shall document procedures for future
subsurface landscaping work, utility maintenance, etc., with proper
notification, where applicable. The plan shall include a general health and
safety plan for each expected type of work, with appropriate personal
protective equipment, where applicable. This plan may be included in the
operations and maintenance plan as appropriate.
Haz-6b: Landfill Gas System. Section 21160 of Title 27 of the CCR requires that closed
landfills implement and maintain landfill gas control. A landfill gas (LFG)
venting system shall be placed under the bottom slabs of each structure built
entirely or partially over landfill material, to collect and vent the build up of
gases diffusing through the landfill cap. The LFG system shall include spray-
applied vapor barrier membranes, horizontal collection and passive venting, gas
detection and monitoring. The system shall either have backup active collection
and venting or shall be designed to facilitate retrofitting with an active system, if
measures warrant the retrofit. Potential migration of LFG into the building space
shall be mitigated by the collection and venting system, and secondly by the
spray-applied membrane. Subsurface landfill gases shall be vented by a network
of perforated piping placed beneath the building slabs. The exhaust gases shall be
manifolded to a series of riser piping that is to be vented above structure roofs.
Passive landfill gas systems do not require permits, however if an active system
is installed, either at the time of construction or as part of a retrofit, a BAAQMD
permit will be needed.
Haz-6c: Non-use of Groundwater. Water supply wells shall not be installed at the site.
This will prevent direct contact between the public and site groundwater and
leachate.
Haz-6d:San Mateo County Environmental Health Department Closure of Existing
Facilities.Any businesses on the sitethat are currently registered in the
hazardous materials business plan program shall submit a closure work plan in
accordance with the SMCEHD Business Closure Policy prior to vacating the
property. The closure plan shall detail any necessary sampling and remediation.
Closure shall not be granted until businesses have demonstrated there is no need
for further remediation, and shall include documentation of the removal of any
hazardous chemicals.
Implementation of mitigation measures Haz-6a through Haz-6d during disturbance of landfill
materials, , which is anticipated to occur during the Phase I Project and may also occur during
subsequent construction activities at the landfill site, such as buildout of the hotel site, would reduce
the impact from exposure of construction and maintenance workers and the public to contaminated
soils, groundwater and soil vapor to a level of less-than-significant.
AIRPORT LAND USE PLAN
Impact Haz-7 Airport Land Use Plan. The OPSP would be located within the jurisdiction of
the Airport Land Use Plan for the San Francisco International Airport. According
to the East of 101 area plan, the most stringent height limits in South San
Francisco are south of Forbes Boulevard and Lindenville (the area between
Railroad Avenue, South Spruce Avenue, and San Mateo Avenue), which is south
CHAPTER 11: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 11-19
of the site. Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77, limits building heights to an
elevation of 161 feet above mean sea level, approximately 12 to 14 stories, in the
most restricted areas, increasing at a slope of 20:1 to a height of 361 feet above
mean sea level. Since the tallest building portion would not exceed 161 feet in
height, the OPSP would be in compliance with the Airport Land Use Plan. The
impact of the OPSP on the Airport Land Use Planis less-than-significant with
no mitigation warranted.
The OPSP area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Private aircraft are sometimes
granted air space in the East of 101 area, but OPSP buildings and structures are expected to conform
to design guidelines for visibility and meet aviation requirements. Therefore, the OPSP, including the
Phase I Project, would have no impact relating to a private airstrip.
ADOPTED EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN
Although there will be some realignment of existing roads, no changes to the major access and
evacuation routes are planned. Roads shall be designed to have adequate capacity for ingress/egress to
the OPSP area. As the site is located at the shoreline, roads do not and will not exist which go through
the site to other areas. Therefore, the OPSP would have no impact related to an adopted emergency
response plan.
WILDLAND FIRES
The OPSP area is urbanized and is not in an area adjacent to wildland subject to wildfires. Therefore
the OPSP, including the Phase I Project, would have no impact from wildland fires.
CUMULATIVE HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IMPACTS
Impact Haz-8: Cumulative Hazardous Impacts. The OPSP would be one of numerous sites,
some of which are also existing hazardous materials sites that are anticipated to
undergo development/redevelopment in the vicinity. The OPSP would contribute
to a cumulative increase in the number of sites handling hazardous materials, and
would result in a cumulative increase in transportation, use, disposal, and
potential for exposure to and/or accidental release of hazardous materials during
both construction and operations. However, the cumulative impact is expected to
be slight and identified project-specific mitigation measures would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level with no additional mitigation required.
Potentially significant impacts of the OPSP are detailed above under the Impact Analysis section of
this document. While build-out of the OPSP would incrementally increase the use and transport of
hazardous materials as well as the potential for accidental release, implementation of the identified
mitigation measures Haz-1b, Haz-1c, Haz-1d, Haz-1e, Haz-1f and Haz-5 would reduce the
cumulative impact to less-than-significant.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 11-20 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 12-1
12
HYDROLOGY
INTRODUCTION
This section presents an evaluation of potential impacts to hydrology and water quality resulting from
the Phase I Project and buildout of the OPSP. The discussion is based on a review of the following
documents:
x Gabewell, Inc. with Harding Lawson Associates, 2000, “Final Closure and Post-Closure
Maintenance Plan, Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California”. September
x EIP Associates, 2006, “Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment, South
San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project”. Chapter 3.6. February 14.
x Kleinfelder, 2007, “Feasibility Study and Cost Estimate, Proposed Oyster Point Marina
Redevelopment, South San Francisco, California”. November 12.
x The City of South San Francisco General Plan and East of 101 Area Plan Element.
x Federal Emergency Management Agency, 1981, “Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of South San
Francisco, California San Mateo County, Community Panel Number 0650620002B”. September
2.
x Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2001, “Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill
Determination Document (Removal), City of South San Francisco, California San Mateo County,
Community Panel Number 0650620002B dated September 2, 1981”. September 14.
SETTING
CLIMATE AND TOPOGRAPHY
The OPSP area is located in a relatively flat area east of Highway 101, immediately adjacent to the
San Francisco Bay shoreline, in the City of South San Francisco. The regional climate is typical of the
San Francisco Bay Area and is characterized by dry, mild summers and moist, cool winters. About 80
percent of the total annual precipitation occurs during the months of November through March with
an average annual precipitation of 20.25 inches. Average daily temperatures range from a high of
73.4 degrees Fahrenheit in September to a low of 42.4 degrees Fahrenheit in January.1
The OPSP area consists of approximately 81 acres of land, consisting of the former Oyster Point
landfill, which was a municipal waste facility operating from 1957 to 1970 and the Oyster Point
Business Park. The surrounding area is largely developed with marina, research and development,
light industrial, office, hotel, and open space uses. Portions of the site are hard-scaped with a mix of
1 Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Weather Station: San Francisco WSO AP, California (047769).
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 12-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
asphalt parking and building structures. The unpaved portions of the former landfill are overlain by a
low hydraulic conductivity landfill cap, which acts, in part, to restrict the flow of water into the waste
material. A series of man-made structures provide for drainage of surface waters. The site slopes
toward the bay, with the direction of slope varying across the site. The site elevation ranges from 0 to
approximately 25 feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL).
REGIONAL HYDROLOGY
The majority of the OPSP area consists of fill material located east of the historic shoreline within the
San Francisco Bay. As such, the site lacks natural surface drainages. A series of man-made structures
provide drainage of surface waters. The largest watershed in the immediate vicinity is the Colma
Creek watershed. The Colma Creek watershed includes portions of San Bruno Mountain as well as
urbanized areas of Daly City, Colma, and South San Francisco. Most of this urbanized creek is
channelized and/or conveyed underground to allow for urban development. The percent of
impervious surface area in Colma Creek was previously estimated at 63 percent, the highest in the
County.2 Colma Creek is a flood control channel maintained by the San Mateo County Department of
Public Works that discharges into the San Francisco Bay just north of the San Francisco International
Airport. In addition to the Colma Creek Watershed, a series of small watersheds are located along the
shoreline in the vicinity of the site.
GROUNDWATER
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) defines state groundwater basins based on
geologic and hydrogeologic conditions. According to the DWR, the site is located within the
Visitacion Valley Groundwater Basin. The Visitacion Valley Groundwater Basin consists of bedrock
and unconsolidated sediments. Unconsolidated material in the Visitacion Valley Groundwater Basin
has a relatively low storage capacity and minimal protection from potential surface contamination.
Franciscan Complex bedrock underlies the water-bearing formations. Onsite there is a subsurface,
low permeability, clayey formation of Bay Mud. The Bay Mud layer is overlain by waste material
placed beyond the historic shoreline limits while the site was used as a landfill. The waste material is
protected at the surface by a landfill cap. The landfill cap is discussed in more detail in the Hazards
section of this document. The landfill cap includes a low hydraulic conductivity clay layer which acts
to reduce infiltration of precipitation into the waste material, thus limiting the production of
contaminated leachate. The Bay Mud layer and landfill cap confine the shallow groundwater.
SITE HYDROLOGY
As mentioned, the majority of the OPSP area is currently covered by low permeability surfaces. A
network of surface drainage ditches is located on site along paved roads and parking lots. A drainage
channel is located along the southern boundary of the OPSP area. Surface water is collected in six
drainage pipes, four of which drain to the drainage channel and two which drain directly to the San
Francisco Bay.
FLOODING
The majority of OPSP area is located outside of the 100-year flood hazard zone as delineated by the
current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs)
(1981). The borders of the site which abut the bay waters are within the V-1 zone designation, which
defines areas in the 100-year flood hazard zone with wave action. When mapped in 1981, a portion of
2 City of Daly City Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, 1998
CHAPTER 12: HYDROLOGY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 12-3
the northern, center of the site was also within the V-1 zone, however subsequent landfill closure
activities included changes in site elevation. Therefore, this area would likely no longer be within this
zone but cannot be confirmed due to the age of the available FEMA FIRMS. FERM has updated
information related to fill areas near the site, but not within the OPSP area (2001).
REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed OPSP must be constructed in accordance with several regulatory programs, laws, and
regulations that aim to protect surface water resources. In some cases, Federal laws are administered
and enforced by state and local government. In other cases, state and local regulations in California
are stricter than those imposed by Federal law. This section summarizes relevant regulatory programs,
laws, and regulations with respect to hydrology and water quality and how they relate to the proposed
OPSP.
FEDERAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since
inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms the
basis for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate
water pollution in the nation’s rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribed the
basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum water quality
standards for all waters of the United States. Several mechanisms are employed to control domestic,
industrial, and agricultural pollution under the CWA.
At the Federal level, the CWA is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
At the state and regional level, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs). The State of
California has developed a number of water quality laws, rules, and regulations, in part to assist in the
implementation of the CWA and related federally mandated water quality requirements. In many
cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards and policies and the laws, rules, and
regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards exceed the Federal requirements.
STATE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCBs as the
principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water quality
in California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCBs for adopting,
implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth the state’s
water quality standards (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and the objectives or
criteria necessary to protect those beneficial uses. The NPDES permit (see subsequent section) must
be consistent with the Basin Plan for the site region.
NPDES Permit Requirements
The CWA has nationally regulated the discharge of pollutants to the waters of the U.S. from any point
source since 1972. In 1987, amendments to the CWA added section 402(p), which established a
framework for regulating nonpoint source (NPS) storm water discharges under the National Pollutant
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 12-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Elimination System (NPDES). The Phase I NPDES storm water program regulates storm water
discharges from industrial facilities, large and medium-sized municipal separate storm sewer systems
(those serving more than 100,000 persons), and construction sites that disturb five or more acres of
land. Under the program, the applicant shall be required to comply with NPDES permit requirements.
The NPDES General Construction Permit Requirements apply to clearing, grading, and disturbances
to the ground such as excavation. The applicant is required to submit a Notice of Intent (NOI) with
the State Water Resource Control Board’s (SWRCB) Division of Water Quality. The NOI includes
general information on the types of construction activities that will occur on the site. The applicant
shall also be required to submit a site-specific plan called the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) for construction activities. The SWPPP shall include a description of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to minimize the discharge of pollutants from the site during construction. It is the
responsibility of the property owner to obtain coverage under the permit prior to site construction.
The NPDES General Industrial Permit Requirements apply to the discharge of storm water associated
with industrial sites. It is assumed that the future R&D labs would require compliance with the
requirements because it is likely that the Standard Industrial Code for the R&D labs would be 2834
(Pharmaceutical Preparations). The permit requires the implementation of management measures that
will achieve the performance standard of best available technology (BAT) economically achievable
and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Under the statute, operators of new
facilities must implement industrial BMPs in the Plan SWPPP and perform monitoring of storm water
discharges and unauthorized non-storm water discharges. An annual report must be submitted to the
RWQCB each July 1. Operators of new facilities must file an NOI at least 14 days prior to the
beginning of operations.
Sea Level Rise and Executive Order S-13-08
In November 2008, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger issued Executive Order S-13-08. The order
indicates that future potential sea level rise associated with climate change may have a substantial
effect on coastal development, and provided for the formation of an independent panel to complete a
California Sea Level Rise Assessment Report by December 1, 2010. This panel, the California
Adaptation Advisory Panel to the State of California, published the required report in November 2010
titled Preparing for the Effects of Climate Change – A Strategy for California.3 This study notes that
the State has requested an assessment of defensible sea level rise projections for the West Coast from
the National Research Council, but that this study has not yet been completed.
In the interim, BCDC has proposed Bay Plan amendment language, which includes guidance for
addressing future sea level rise scenarios associated with planning and permitting development in
potentially susceptible areas in the San Francisco Bay Area. These scenarios are:
• a sea level rise of 16 inches by 2050; and
• a sea level rise of 55 inches by 2100.
These values represent the upper end of the range of sea level rise estimates and are consistent with
preliminary state recommendations for 100-year sea level rise. These values are meant to ensure that
projects take these potentially high estimates into account when planning infrastructure and
development projects, prior to the release of official sea level rise projections.
3 California Adaptation Advisory Panel to the State of California, prepared by Pacific Council, Preparing for the
Effects of Climate Change – A Strategy for California, November 2010.
CHAPTER 12: HYDROLOGY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 12-5
LOCAL PROGRAMS AND REGULATIONS
San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program
To comply with the Clean Water Act, San Mateo County and the 20 cities and towns in the County
formed the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP). STOPPP
holds a joint municipal NPDES permit from the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. The permit includes a
comprehensive plan to reduce the discharge of pollutants to creeks, San Francisco Bay, and the ocean
to the maximum extent possible.
San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of
the Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin Plan is the master policy
document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of water quality
regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of surface
waters and groundwater within its region and specifies water quality objectives to maintain the
continued beneficial uses of these waters. Projects under the proposed OPSP are required to adhere to
all water quality objectives identified in the Basin Plan.
Beneficial Uses of Surface Waters and Groundwaters
The Basin Plan defines beneficial uses for surface waters and groundwater in its corresponding
jurisdiction. The beneficial uses of groundwater in the Visitacion Valley Groundwater Basin include
municipal and domestic supply, industrial process supply, industrial supply, and agricultural supply.
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 area plan provides detailed planning policies that are consistent with policies of the
adopted South San Francisco General Plan. With respect to hydrology and water quality, the plan
aims to reduce flooding by evaluating specific development proposals to determine drainage and
flood protection requirements, and to prevent the degradation of water quality by minimizing erosion
and sedimentation, and requiring that projects under the proposed OPSP comply with NPDES permit
requirements.4
City of South San Francisco
The City of South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant requires Source Control Measures of
Stormwater Pollutants to comply with their NPDES permit, including methods for managing
pollution sources. Applicable control measures include utilization of stormwater pollution prevention
devices, management of refuse areas, management of pesticide/fertilizer application for landscaping,
use of treatment devices for interior level parking garage floor drains, and marking of on-site storm
drains.5
4 City of South San Francisco, East of 101 Area Plan, 1994.
5 South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant, July 2005
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 12-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring hydrology impacts are based upon CEQA Guidelines
thresholds:
1. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
2. Would the project 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)?
3. Would the project 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?
4. Would the project 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, which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
5. Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of
existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff?
6. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
7. Would the project 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?
8. Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede
or redirect flood flows?
9. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death
involving flooding, including flooding as a result of climate-induced sea level rise or the
failure of a levee or dam?
10. Would the project cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
WATER QUALITY STANDARDS OR WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS
Potential sources of pollutants include groundwater that is in contact with landfill waste material
(leachate) and traditional non-point source pollutants. Non-point source pollutants (NPS) are washed
by rainwater from roofs, landscape areas, and streets and parking areas into the drainage network.
Typical industrial NPS pollutants for various industrial activities are listed in Table 12.1 below.
CHAPTER 12: HYDROLOGY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 12-7
Parking and research uses at the site may generate some of these classes of pollutants.
Impact Hydro-1: Potential Contamination of Off-Site Waters due to Leachate Migration.
The OPSP area is located within the historical limits of the Bay. Subsurface
water at the site is underlain by Bay Mud and has a low-hydraulic conductivity
cap, which confines the groundwater. Based on ongoing monitoring at the site,
leachate, which has elevated contaminant concentrations from the landfill
material, is not migrating off-site. Re-development of the site shall require
excavation of a portion of the landfill cap, and shall require deep foundation
piers which may penetrate the Bay Mud. The potential for off-site migration of
leachate as a result of modification the landfill cap and underlying Bay Mud
represents a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Hydro-1: Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be used during installation of
foundation piers to reduce the potential for gaps in the subsurface confining
TABLE 12.1
POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS FROM INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITIES
INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t
s
Nu
t
r
i
e
n
t
s
Me
t
a
l
s
Or
g
a
n
i
c
s
a
n
d
T
o
x
i
c
a
n
t
s
Fl
o
a
t
a
b
l
e
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
Ox
y
g
e
n
-
D
e
m
a
n
d
i
n
g
Su
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
Oi
l
&
G
r
e
a
s
e
Ba
c
t
e
r
i
a
Pe
s
t
i
c
i
d
e
s
Vehicle & Equipment Fueling X X X
Vehicle & Equipment Washing X X X X X X
Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance & Repair X X X
Outdoor Loading & Unloading of Materials X X X X X X X
Outdoor Container Storage of Liquids X X X X X X
Outdoor Process Equipment Operations &
Maintenance
X X X X
Outdoor Storage of Raw Materials, Products, &
Byproducts
X X X X X X X
Waste Handling & Disposal X X X X X X
Contaminated or Erodible Surface Areas X X X X X X X X
Building & Grounds Maintenance X X X X X X X
Building Repair, Remodeling, & Construction X X X X
Parking/Storage Area Maintenance X X X X
Source: California Stormwater Quality Association, 2003. California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Industrial & Commercial.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 12-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
layers around the piers. BMP requirements shall be identified in the SWPPP
and shall be developed by the applicant or their authorized representative. The
exact BMPs to be implemented shall depend on final pier design and type, but
can include pre-drilling and grouting of concrete piers, use of hollow steel
piers, or other methods to reduce the risk of displaced refuse creating a void in
the Bay Mud layer. The proposed BMPs shall be benchmarked against the
California Department of Transportation Stormwater Quality Handbooks
Construction Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual (2003 and
associated updates).
Mitigation Measure Haz-4a: Landfill Cap Upgrades would also reduce impact Hydro-1 through
repair and upgrade of the cap which will act to minimize generation of leachate.
Mitigation Measure Haz-4d and 4e: Monitoring for Leachate Migration and Operation and
Maintenance Activities would also reduce impact Hydro-1 through
requirements for post-construction monitoring for leachate migration, with
repairs to prevent migration completed on an as needed basis.
Implementation of these mitigation measures Hydro-1, Haz-4a, Haz-4d and Haz-4e would reduce the
OPSP’s impact related to contamination of off-site waters to a level of less-than-significant through
use of BMPs during installation of foundation piers, landfill cap upgrades, and continued monitoring
for leachate migration during operation and maintenance.
Impact Hydro-2: Potential Construction and Post-construction Contamination of Bay
Waters:Construction activities at the site will create temporary and long term
alterations of the site terrain, creating potential erosion concerns.The
migration of laboratory and parking lot pollutants into the bay could potentially
impair water quality. This represents a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Hydro-2: Preparation and Implementation of Project SWPPP. Pursuant to NPDES
requirements, the applicant of a project under the OPSP shall develop a
SWPPP to protect water quality during construction. If the SWPP will be
developed after September 2, 2011, the SWPPP shall be developed by a
California Qualified SWPPP Developer in accordance with the State Water
Resources Control Board Construction General Permit 2009-009-DWQ. The
project SWPPP shall include, but is not limited, to the following mitigation
measures for the construction period:
1) Grading and earthwork shall be allowed with the appropriate SWPPP
measures during the wet season (October 1 through April 30) and such
work shall be stopped before pending storm events.
2) Erosion control/soil stabilization techniques such as straw mulching,
erosion control blankets, erosion control matting, and hydro-seeding, shall
be utilized in accordance with the regulations outlined in the Association
of Bay Area Governments “Erosion & Sediment Control Measures”
manual. Silt fences shall be installed down slope of all graded slopes. Hay
bales shall be installed in the flow path of graded areas receiving
concentrated flows and around storm drain inlets.
CHAPTER 12: HYDROLOGY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 12-9
3) BMPs to be developed by the applicant shall be used for preventing the
discharge or other construction-related NPDES pollutants beside sediment
(i.e. paint, concrete, etc) to downstream waters.
4) After construction is completed, all drainage facilities shall be inspected
for accumulated sediment and these drainage structures shall be cleared of
debris and sediment.
In accordance with the handbook C.3 Stormwater Technical Guidance, Version
2, permanent mitigation measures for stormwater shall be submitted as part of
project application submittals with the Planning Permit Application and the
Building Permit Application. Elements that shall be addressed in the submittals
include the following:
5) Description of potential sources of erosion and sediment at the OPSP area.
R&D activities and significant materials and chemicals that could be used
at the proposed OPSP area shall be described. This shall include a
thorough assessment of existing and potential pollutant sources.
6) Identification of BMPs to be implemented at the OPSP area based on
identified industrial activities and potential pollutant sources. Emphasis
shall be placed on source control BMPs, with treatment controls used as
needed.
7) Development of a monitoring and implementation plan. Maintenance
requirements and frequency shall be carefully described including vector
control, clearing of clogged or obstructed inlet or outlet structures,
vegetation/landscape maintenance, replacement of media filters, etc.
8) The monitoring and maintenance program shall be conducted as described
in Haz-4e.
9) Proposed pervious and impervious surfaces, including site design measures
to minimize impervious surfaces and promote infiltration (except where the
landfill cover is present).
10) Proposed locations and approximate sizes of stormwater treatment
measures.
Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP at the OPSP area and implementation of the permanent
mitigation measures following completion of site construction, as included in mitigation measure
Hydro-2, would reduce impacts on potential contamination of local groundwater to a level of less-
than-significant.
GROUNDWATER DEPLETION/ RECHARGE
The proposed OPSP shall not directly draw on, or otherwise reduce groundwater resources. (See
Chapter 17: Utilities for a further discussion of water supply through CalWater.) The site is located
within the historic limits of the Bay. Precipitation at the site shall be directed into the subsurface or
into a water conveyance structure which shall direct water to the Bay. Although redevelopment of the
site would result in an increase in the total amount of hard-scaping at the site (impervious surface
areas), given the nature of the site, this will not affect the recharge of a useable groundwater basin.
Thus, the proposed OPSP would not likely have a negative effect on groundwater recharge. No
impact would occur and no mitigation is required.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 12-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
INCREASED EROSION OR SILTATION TO RECEIVING WATERS
The proposed OPSP is not subject to the hydromodification management measures of the Lead
Agency’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit.6 This exclusion is
attributed to the OPSP area’s location in an identified ‘Low Gradient Area.’ In addition, the OPSP
area’s stormwater is discharged directly to the Bay via hardened channels.
Changes in the timing and volume of runoff from a site are known as “hydrograph modification” or
“hydromodification”. When a site is developed, much of the rainwater can no longer infiltrate into the
soil, so it flows offsite at faster rates and greater volumes. As a result, erosive levels of flow occur
more frequently and for longer periods of time in creeks and channels downstream of the OPSP.
As indicated above, the proposed OPSP shall be designed to minimize the potential for an increase in
leachate (water percolating through waste material within the former landfill). Water shall be directed
to into concrete lined drainage structures. Existing drainage structures divert water into the sub-
surface and directly into bay waters. Additional drainage structures, if needed, shall direct
precipitation into bay waters. Site waters shall not enter natural creeks or other earthen channels, and
shall move directly from the site to the bay. The Post Closure Monitoring Plan (Gabewell, 2000) for
the site also required a minimum 2 foot erosion resistant layer for all non-paved areas. These areas
shall also be landscaped to further protect the surface from erosion. This requirement is also discussed
in the “Hazardous Materials” section of this document.
Despite the low erosion potential of the OPSP, portions of the OPSP area will consist of bare earth
susceptible to rainfall during construction. In the event of rainfall, silt could be transported to the San
Francisco Bay via overland transport.
Impact Hydro-3: Erosion or Siltation On- or Off-Site. Construction of the proposed OPSP
would involve demolition of existing structural foundations and will involve
excavation of both landfill waste material and the earthen cap overlying the
waste. Construction operations associated with the OPSP would present a
threat of soil erosion from soil disturbance by subjecting unprotected bare soil
areas to the erosional forces of runoff during construction activities. This
represents a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Hydro-3:Compliance with NPDES Requirements. Applicants for a project under the
OPSP shall comply with all Phase I NPDES General Construction Activities
permit requirements established by the CWA and the Grading Permit
requirements of the City of South San Francisco. Erosion control measures to
be implemented during construction shall be included in the project SWPPP.
The project SWPPP shall accompany the NOI filing and shall outline erosion
control and storm water quality management measures to be implemented
during and following construction. The SWPPP shall also provide the schedule
for monitoring performance. Refer to Mitigation Measure Hydro-2 for more
information regarding the project SWPPP. Implementation of Phase I NPDES
General Construction Activities permit requirements would reduce
construction-related impacts associated with erosion and/or siltation to less-
than-significant.
6 Appendix J, C.3Stormwater Technical Guidance Manual, San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution
Prevention Program.
CHAPTER 12: HYDROLOGY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 12-11
CHANGES IN STORMWATER RUNOFF
The OPSP area currently has a high ratio of impervious surfaces, including both hardscaping and the
low hydraulic conductivity layer of the landfill cap. Redevelopment of the site will result in changes
in the route of water flow on site, primarily based on diversion of precipitation from roofs directly
into concrete lined drainage channels, however the net runoff from the site is expected to be similar
prior to and following re-development. In addition, water from the site is transported directly from the
site to the bay through over-land sheet flow or through the drainage system. Water does not enter
downstream infrastructure. No impact associated with increases in peak runoff is anticipated and no
mitigation is necessary.
The OPSP will have no impact on stormwater drainage system, and no mitigation is required. As part
of the stormwater information to be included with application submittals with the Planning Permit
Application and the Building Permit Application, the project applicant shall submit hydraulic
computations to establish no increased run off from the site. In the event that post development flows
are higher than pre-development flows, the project applicant shall mitigate the excess run off from the
site.
OTHERWISE SUBSTANTIALLY DEGRADE WATER QUALITY
The proposed OPSP will not alter the amount of surface area contributing non-point source pollution
runoff. Other previously mentioned impacts, if mitigated, would ameliorate potential short and long
term negative impacts on water quality. Therefore, there will be no additional significant impact on
water quality.
STRUCTURES WITHIN A 100-YEAR FLOOD HAZARD AREA
The OPSP does not include housing and the majority of the OPSP area is located outside of the 100-
year flood hazard zone as delineated by the current Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). The OPSP will have no impact related to housing and
flooding.
The OPSP area will not place new structures within the 100-year flood hazard zone as delineated by
the current Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs).
In regard to impeding flood or any other flows, the OPSP will have no impact.
SIGNIFICANT RISK INVOLVING FLOODING
Impact Hydro-4: Risk of Flooding. The OPSP is not located within the vicinity of a levee, nor
in a potential flood path of a dam failure. The OPSP is located on the coast of
the San Francisco Bay and therefore could potentially be at risk of flooding due
to climate-induced sea level rise. However, grading changes proposed as a part
of the Phase I Project would reduce the potential of flooding to a less-than-
significant impact.
As discussed in the regulatory section above, the recommended sea level rise assumptions of 16
inches by 2050 and 55 inches by 2100 have been used to assess the potential for climate-induced sea
level rise flooding at the OPSP site. Figure 12.1 shows the potential for flooding under these assumed
future conditions with no changes to the OPSP site. This figure indicates that substantial portions of
the Marina area would be susceptible to flooding under the year 2100 sea level rise scenario. The
Phase I Project proposes landfill waste relocation and re-grading of the Marina area according to an
approved grading plan. The proposed re-grading will result in higher elevation of areas near the
shoreline, with the resultant reduced potential for flooding under assumed future climate-change
induced sea level rise conditions shown in Figure 12.2.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 12-12 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 12: HYDROLOGY
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 12-13
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
2
.
1
:
A
r
e
a
s
o
f
I
n
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
S
e
a
L
e
v
e
l
R
i
s
e
–
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
So
u
r
c
e
:
W
i
l
s
e
y
H
a
m
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,
1
/
1
4
/
1
1
DRA
F
T
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
12
-
1
4
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
2
.
2
:
A
r
e
a
s
o
f
I
n
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
S
e
a
L
e
v
e
l
R
i
s
e
–
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
G
r
a
d
e
d
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
So
u
r
c
e
:
W
i
l
s
e
y
H
a
m
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
,
1
/
1
4
/
1
1
CHAPTER 12: HYDROLOGY
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 12-15
As shown on Figure 12.2, with construction of the Phase I Project including the proposed grading, no
structures will be located in areas subject to inundation under potentially highsea level rise
projections for 2050 or 2100. The impact related to risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of climate-induced sea level rise would be less than significant.
INUNDATION BY SEICHE, TSUNAMI OR MUDFLOW
A seiche is a tide-like rise and drop of the surface of a landlocked body of water (e.g., a lake); its
period can vary from a few minutes to several hours. The site is not in close proximity to a landlocked
body of water that could cause inundation by seiche. The site is also nearly level and not bordered by
hills which could result in mudflow across the site. Consequently, there would be no impact related to
seich or mudflow.
Impact Hydro-5: Inundation by Tsunami. Tsunamis, or tidal waves, are huge sea waves that
are caused by seismic activity or other disturbance of the ocean floor. Portions
of South San Francisco that are near the bay and low-lying are considered to be
at risk for inundation by tsunami wave run-up. Wave run up is estimated at 6
feet above mean sea level for a 500-year tsunami.7 The margins of the OPSP
area immediately border the bay waters. As such, a fringe of area is at or below
6 feet above mean sea level. However, development plans to not include
development of the margins of the site that are at or below 6 feet above mean
sea level. In addition, much of the shoreline of the OPSP area is protected by
rip-rap to prevent damage to the shoreline by wave run-up. Consequently, this
impact would be less-than-significant with no mitigation required.
CUMULATIVE HYDROLOGY IMPACT ANALYSIS
Impact Hydro-6: Cumulative Impacts on Hydrology and Water Quality. The increased
construction activity and new development resulting from the OPSP, in
conjunction with other foreseeable development in the city, would result in
less-than-significant impacts on hydrology and water quality conditions with
no additional mitigation measures necessary.
Assuming concurrent implementation of the OPSP with other reasonably foreseeable future projects
in the vicinity, adverse cumulative effects on hydrology and water quality could include construction
impacts related to increases in stormwater runoff and pollutant loading to San Francisco Bay. The
OPSP and other future projects in the city would be required to comply with drainage and grading
ordinances intended to control runoff and regulate water quality at each development site. New
projects would be required to demonstrate that stormwater volumes could be managed by downstream
conveyance facilities and would not induce flooding. Therefore, the effect of the OPSP on water
quality and hydrology, in combination with other foreseeable projects, would be less-than-
significant.
7 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Health and
Safety Element, 1999, p. 250.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 12-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 13-1
13
LAND USE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes existing land uses, adopted General Plan land use classifications, and zoning
designations on and around the OPSP. This chapter also describes the applicable plans and policies that
guide development in the OPSP area and evaluates the OPSP’s consistency with these plans and
policies and other existing land use regulations.
SETTING
HISTORY
South San Francisco has a distinctive land use pattern that reflects the decision to initially locate
industrial areas east of supporting homes and businesses in order to take advantage of topography and
winds on Point San Bruno.1 Another development trend that shaped the arrangement of uses was the
extensive residential development that occurred during the 1940s and 1950s, creating large areas
almost entirely developed with single-family housing. As a result, South San Francisco is largely
comprised of single-use areas, with industry in the eastern and southeastern portions of the City, single
family homes to the north and west, commercial uses along a few transportation corridors, and multiple
family housing clustered in those same corridors and on hillsides.
During the 1950s, the City of South San Francisco converted previously unused marshlands into areas
usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the
City for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 for a 600-acre industrial park adjacent to the
newly developed Oyster Point Marina. This industrial park was South San Francisco’s first industrial
development to incorporate comprehensive planning and integrated design and performance provisions.
It supplied ample parking and consistent landscaping and building design.
In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been making an industrial
transformation for the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy industries have largely been
replaced by warehousing, research, development and biotechnology. Because the City’s industrial base
has continued to evolve as the context for industry has changed, industry will continue to play an
important role in South San Francisco’s future.
The City’s continued status as a goods transportation hub, stemming mainly from proximity to San
Francisco International Airport, is reflected in the presence of large tracts of land, formerly used for
heavy industry, east of U.S. 101. As high technology businesses have moved into many of these older
industrial areas, conflicts, such as between automobile and truck traffic, and land use and visual
1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett and Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan, 1999.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 13-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
character have become increasingly pronounced. The needs of business centers include smaller blocks,
more through street connections, ancillary facilities such as restaurants, easier connections to transit,
sidewalks and bikeways and higher landscape standards. These needs are much different than those of
warehousing and industrial areas. The City attempts to balance regional growth objectives with
conservation of residential and industrial neighborhoods.
EXISTING USES
The OPSP is located in the East of 101 area, which is largely comprised of industrial and high
technology business uses. As with the proposed OPSP, many other sites in the area have already or
have plans to increase the intensity of research and development uses in this area.
The Oyster Point Business Park encompasses the northern portion of the OPSP area. It is a privately
owned series of five single-story buildings currently occupied by a variety of light industrial, office,
and R&D tenants (see Figure 3.2).
The Oyster Point Marina fills the remainder of the OPSP area. This area was a landfill closed in the
1970s and is owned by the City of South San Francisco and managed through a Joint Powers
Agreement with the San Mateo County Harbor District. Currently, this area hosts a variety of uses
including a dry boat storage area, a marine support services building, two small office buildings, a
small inn and banquet hall, a bait and tackle shop, a boat and motor mart and a yacht club. The
remaining area is vacant or serves as parking for the docks, boat ramp, and the Bay Trail at the Oyster
Point Marina (see Figure 3.2).
The Oyster Cove Marina is located to the west of the Oyster Point Business Park and the Oyster Point
Marina is located on the north side of the Point. A ferry terminal with connections to Oakland is
approved and is being constructed in the Oyster Point Marina as a separate project – service is set to
begin in 2011.
REGULATORY SETTING
There are no federal regulations applicable to the proposed OPSP.
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commissions (BCDC) and the San Francisco Bay
Plan
As required by the McAteer-Petris Act, the San Francisco Bay Plan was submitted to the Legislature
and the Governor of California in 1969. During the legislative session that year, revisions were enacted
into the McAteer-Petris Act designating the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) as the permanent agency responsible for carrying out the Bay Plan. The 1969
revisions to the Act further specified the area and scope of the Commission's authority and established
the permit system for the regulation of the Bay and shoreline.
In addition to the controls over filling and dredging in the Bay, BCDC has limited control over the Bay
shoreline as specified in the McAteer-Petris Act. Such limited shoreline jurisdiction is necessary to
reduce pressures for Bay filling that would result from poor use of available shoreline land, and to
assure that public access to the Bay is provided wherever feasible. BCDC's shoreline jurisdiction, as
defined in the McAteer-Petris Act, consists of the area between the Bay shoreline, as defined in the
Act, and a line 100 feet landward of and parallel to the shoreline. The Act further specifies that certain
water-oriented land uses should be permitted on the shoreline, including ports, water-related industries,
airports, wildlife refuges, water-oriented recreation and public assembly, desalinization plants, and
CHAPTER 13: LAND USE
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 13-3
power plants requiring large amounts of water for cooling purposes. Priority use areas designated for
such uses in the Bay Plan are to be reserved for them in order to minimize the need for future filling in
the Bay for such uses. Within the 100-foot shoreline jurisdiction but outside of the areas designated for
priority uses, BCDC may deny an application for a permit for a proposed project only on the grounds
that the project fails to provide maximum feasible public access, consistent with the proposed project,
to the Bay and the shoreline. These other shoreline areas should be used in any manner that would not
adversely affect enjoyment of the Bay and shoreline by residents, employees, and visitors within the
area itself or within adjacent areas of the Bay and shoreline.
Any public agency or private owner holding shoreline lands is required to obtain a permit from BCDC
before proceeding with development. Permits may be granted or denied only after public hearings
(except for emergency or minor repairs or minor improvements which may be granted by the Executive
Director) and after the process for review and comment by the city or county has been completed.
The shoreline along the OPSP area is designated as a Waterfront Park Priority Use area, with the
following description:
Oyster Point Marina Park - Preserve and improve marina and shoreline park. Preserve picnicking,
swimming, boating, hiking, windsurfing, and fishing opportunities. Possible ferry terminal. Allow if
compatible with park and marina use; serve with bus public transit to reduce traffic and parking needs.
Some fill may be needed. Provide signage regarding fish consumption advisories for anglers.
South San Francisco General Plan
The City of South San Francisco General Plan (1999 as amended in 2010) provides long-term guidance
and policies for maintaining and improving the quality of life in, and the resources of, the community,
both man-made and natural. The General Plan provides direction for the City’s growth and
development. The site’s General Plan designation is Park and Recreation along the Bay edge, Business
Commercial to the west and north of the existing Oyster Point Boulevard and Costal Commercial on
the remainder of the area. The base floor area ratio (FAR) for Business Commercial is 0.5, but can be
increased to 1.0 with structured parking or above that amount with transportation demand management
plans as allowed by municipal code section 20.110.003(C).
As part of OPSP approvals, a General Plan amendment would be adopted. The Business Commercial
designation would be expanded to include all the proposed office/R&D buildings, with Coastal
Commercial filling the remaining non-Park and Recreation area. Additionally, the text of the General
Plan would be modified to reflect the higher intensity of planned development in this area. An FAR of
1.25 for the Business Commercial area is proposed, 2.0 for the hotel area and 1.0 for the remainder of
the Coastal Commercial area and to clarify the City’s policy that office/R&D uses are permitted in the
Coastal Commercial and Business Commercial areas.
East of 101 Area Plan
The OPSP site is part of the “East of 101” Planning Sub-Area as defined by the City of South San
Francisco General Plan. The East of 101 area plan, adopted in 1994, was prepared to maximize the
potential of undeveloped or underused properties in the City’s traditional industrial East of 101 area.
Upgrading of existing uses and provisions for quality design are important components of the OPSP. In
addition to policies relating to land use dispersion, intensities, and transportation, the OPSP includes a
Design Element to help achieve high-standard development.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 13-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
South San Francisco Municipal Code and the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan District
Policies set forth in the General Plan and East of 101 area plan are implemented through enforcement
of the City’s zoning regulations as presented in the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
(SSFMC). Zoning regulations prescribe the allowable uses within specific zoning districts and impose
standards on those uses. The area to the west and north of the existing Oyster Point Boulevard is zoned
B-C (Business Commercial) under the City’s existing zoning regulations. The remainder of the OPSP
area makes up the Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan District, which is subject to the provisions of the
SSFMC Chapter 20.230 (Oyster Point Marina Specific Plan District) as proposed for amendment.
As part of OPSP approvals, a Specific Plan amendment would be adopted, changing the name of the
district to the “Oyster Point Specific Plan District” (dropping the “Marina”) and incorporating the
entire OPSP area. The municipal code would be revised to be consistent with the development planned
under the proposed OPSP.
CONSISTENCY DISCUSSION
The proposed OPSP and Phase I Project development is consistent with the following applicable
General Plan policies:
Land Use
Policy 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.
The proposed OPSP would result in higher density office/R&D uses to take advantage of the
opportunities of this Bay-side site and upcoming ferry service as well as other uses such as a hotel,
recreation, and supporting retail/restaurant/commercial uses.
Policy 2-G-3 Provide land use designations that maximize benefits of increased
accessibility that will result from BART extension to the city and adjacent
locations.
The proposed OPSP would provide a large employment center near the soon to be complete ferry
terminal and would be expected to link into the existing BART and Caltrain commute via bicycle,
SamTrans busses and/or shuttles.
East of 101 Area
Policy 3.5-G-1 Provide appropriate settings for a diverse range of non-residential uses.
The proposed OPSP would result in office/R&D uses as well as other uses such as a hotel,
recreation/open space, supporting retail/restaurant/commercial uses, and retention of the marinas.
New residential uses are not proposed.
Policy 3.5-G-3 Promote campus style biotechnology, high technology and research and
development uses.
CHAPTER 13: LAND USE
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 13-5
The proposed OPSP includes higher density office/R&D uses in a campus-like setting including
open space, structured parking and plazas shared among buildings.
Policy 3.5-I-3 Do not permit any residential uses in the East of 101 area.
The OPSP does not propose new residential uses in the OPSP area. Existing live-aboard boats in
the marina would continue to be permitted.
Policy 3.5-I-4 Unless otherwise stipulated in a specific plan, allow building heights in
the East of 101 area to the maximum limits permissible under Federal
Aviation Regulations Part 77.
The OPSP will default to allowable building heights under Federal Aviation Regulations Part 77.
Policy 3.5-I-5 Do not vary permitted maximum development intensities based on lot-size.
Per the proposed Oyster Point Specific Plan District, the Floor Area Ratio for the office/R&D uses
in the OPSP area would be determined across the entire planning area in aggregate, rather than on a
lot-by-lot basis.
Policy 3.5-I-8 Encourage the development of employee-serving amenities with
restaurants, cafes, support commercial establishments such as dry-
cleaners, to meet the needs of the employees in the East of 101 area. Such
uses could be located in independent centers or integrated into office
parks or technology campuses.
The OPSP proposes 10,000 square feet of auxiliary commercial in Phase I, approximately 40,000
square feet of retail/restaurant/commercial with the hotel use, and could support additional
commercial as an allowed auxiliary use when subsequent phases of the office/R&D are built out.
Policy 3.5-I-10 Prepare a new Concept Plan for the Oyster Point area. Work with the Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) to reconcile the
differing designations for the area in the City’s General Plan and
BCDC’s park priority use in the San Francisco Bay Plan.
The Applicant proposes a new Oyster Point Specific Plan. Development in the OPSP area will
require coordination with and permitting from BCDC, consistent with the proposed OPSP and
BCDC regulations. In 1999, the City worked with BCDC to amend the Bay Plan to allow for a
wider range of uses in and around the Oyster Point Marina area.
Policy 3.5-I-11 Do not permit any new warehousing and distribution north of East Grand
Avenue or in areas designated Business Commercial.
The proposed OPSP does not include any warehousing or distribution uses; in fact, the proposed
OPSP includes the framework to transition away from warehousing uses toward uses that are more
compatible with the Business Commercial land use designation.
Policy 3.5-I-13 Facilitate waterfront enhancement and accessibility by:
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 13-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Establishment of uses that would bring people to the waterfront (see
polices 3.5-I-8 and 3.5-I-9);
Establishment of a Bayshore design review area as part of the Zoning
Ordinance; and
Ensuring that the Park Recreation and Open Space Master Plan
include specific improvements for shoreline enhancement and
accessibility, as spelled out in the East of 101 Area Plan.
In the OPSP area, office/R&D uses and open space will attract employees to the waterfront, the
hotel will attract visitors, and the open space, park and Bay Trail uses will attract residents and
enhance the shoreline.
Transportation
Policy 4.2-G-5 Make efficient use of existing transportation facilities and, through the
arrangement of land uses, improved alternate modes, and enhanced
integration of various transportation systems serving South San
Francisco, strive to reduce the total vehicle-miles traveled.
A ferry terminal is currently under construction in the OPSP area. A TDM plan will be required for
office/R&D development in the OPSP area and it is anticipated this will encourage mode shifts to
the on-site ferry service as well as the nearby BART and Caltrain services currently serving East of
101 commuters.
Policy 4.2-G-10 Exempt development within one-quarter mile of a Caltrain or BART
station, or a City-designated ferry terminal, from LOS standards.
The OPSP area includes an approved ferry terminal currently under construction. LOS standards
have been used to determine traffic impacts in this EIR, but the City can take this policy into
consideration when deciding whether to adopt a finding of overriding consideration for significant
and unavoidable impacts.
Policy 4.3-G-1 Develop a comprehensive and integrated system of bikeways that promote
bicycle riding for transportation and recreation.
The roadways in the OPSP area will include bicycle lanes and the Bay Trail will be connected
throughout the OPSP area.
Policy 4.3-I-4 Require provision of secure covered bicycle parking at all existing and
future multifamily residential, commercial, industrial, and office /
institutional uses.
Secure bicycle parking will be incorporated into OPSP area and Phase I Project development per
the required TDM plans and regulations.
CHAPTER 13: LAND USE
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 13-7
Policy 4.3-I-6 As part of any development in Lindenville or East of 101, require project
proponents to provide sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage
improvements for new development and redevelopment projects.
The OPSP proposes sidewalks and street trees as part of frontage improvements (See Figures 3.3
and 3.4).
Policy 4.4-G-1 Promote local and regional public transit serving South San Francisco.
The location of the OPSP area poises this employment center to take advantage of the on-site ferry
terminal currently under construction in addition to the existing East of 101 area transit service
from BART, Caltrain and SamTrans (busses).
Parks, Recreation and Open Space
Policy 5.1-G-1 Develop additional park land in the city, particularly in areas lacking
these facilities, to meet the standards of required park acreage for new
residents and employees.
The proposed OPSP includes approximately 6 acres of dedicated open space and park uses in
addition to the Bay Trail (See Figures 3.3 and 3.4).
Policy 5.1-G-2 Improve bayfront access along its entire length and endorse the
prominence of this important natural asset.
The proposed OPSP includes the Bay Trail along all shorelines as well as 3.1 acres of bay front
open space and a 3-acre flexible use recreation area in the vicinity of the shore. Two existing
marinas and a ferry terminal currently under construction will be accommodated under the OPSP.
Further, the main roadway through the OPSP site will be re-aligned, resulting in superior access to
the Bay (See Figures 3.3 and 3.4).
The proposed OPSP is consistent with the following East of 101 area plan goals:
Land Use
Goal 1.1 Promote planned industrial, office, and commercial uses in the East of
101 Ares, and discourage other uses that would be inconsistent with these
uses.
The proposed OPSP includes office/R&D uses and commercial uses consistent with the developing
character of the East of 101 Area and this bay side location.
Goal 1.2 Encourage development that enhances net revenues to the City.
The proposed OPSP includes office/R&D uses and commercial uses that will contribute to
revenues to the city while enhancement of the Bay Trail, streetscape, open space and recreation
will offer a high quality of development to encourage success of this and surrounding areas.
Goal 1.3 Promote development that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 13-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
The proposed OPSP includes office/R&D uses, a hotel, and some retail/restaurant uses which will
provide a mixture of job opportunities including upper and moderate income salaries.
Goal 1.5 Provide for the development of more retail services to serve the
employees of the East of 101 Area.
The proposed OPSP includes auxiliary commercial uses which can include retail, services and/or
restaurant uses.
Goal 1.8 Encourage the appropriate development of additional hotel facilities in
the East of 101 Area.
The proposed OPSP includes the demolition of a 30 room inn and construction of one or two hotels
with an aggregate total of up to 350 rooms.
Circulation
Goal 2.5 Encourage and support transportation modes other than single-
occupancy automobiles including ridesharing, bicycling, walking and
transit.
The proposed OPSP would provide a large employment center near the upcoming ferry terminal
and would be expected to link to that and the existing BART and Caltrain commute via bicycle,
walking, SamTrans busses and/or shuttles.
Goal 2.6 Promote the use of public transit to and within the East of 101 Area.
The location of the OPSP area poises this employment center to take advantage of the on-site ferry
terminal currently under construction in addition to the existing East of 101 area transit service
from BART, Caltrain and SamTrans (busses).
Open Space and Recreation
Goal 4.1 Encourage uses which take advantage of the San Francisco Bay shoreline
and the views associated with the Bay.
The proposed OPSP includes the Bay Trail along the shoreline as well as an additional
approximately 3.1 acre bayside open space and an approximately 3-acre near-shore recreation area.
Additionally, shoreline access and views would be considered a draw for the planned office/R&D
buildings as well as the hotel.
Goal 4.2 Implementation of the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan in cooperation with
the Bay Conservation and Development Commission to secure a
continued public access trail along the San Francisco Bay Frontage.
The proposed OPSP accommodates and enhances the Bay Trail along the Bay frontage.
CHAPTER 13: LAND USE
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 13-9
Design
Goal 5.1 Promote high quality site, architectural and landscape design that
increases a sense of identity in the East of 101 Area.
Development in the OPSP area is subject to the OPSP’s design guidelines to meet this goal.
Goal 5.2 Improve streetscape quality of the East of 101 Area through plantings of
street trees and provision of entry monuments.
The proposed OPSP includes sidewalks, bicycle lanes and landscape improvements along streets as
well as plazas and promenades to provide further high-quality connections for pedestrians.
Goal 5.3 Protect visually significant features of the East of 101 Area, including
views of the Bay and San Bruno Mountain.
The proposed OPSP would enhance enjoyment of views of the Bay from the site by bringing in
more employees, visitors and residents. The potential to negatively impact views is analyzed in
Chapter 4: Aesthetics and has been found to be less than significant.
Goal 5.5 Promote public access to views of the San Francisco Bay and to the Bay
Trail.
The proposed OPSP would enhance enjoyment of views of the Bay from the site by bringing in
more employees, visitors and residents and providing bayfront open space and near-shore
recreation opportunities.
Goal 5.6 Improve the visual quality of the East of 101 Area as seen from Highway
101 along the perimeter of the Area.
The proposed OPSP would provide high-quality development in a location visible from portions of
Highway 101. The potential to negatively impact views is analyzed in Chapter 4: Aesthetics and
has been found to be less than significant.
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring environmental impacts are based on CEQA Guidelines
thresholds:
1.Would the plan or project physically divide an established community?
2.Would the plan or project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the Project?
3.Would the plan or project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 13-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
DIVIDING ESTABLISHED COMMUNITY
The proposed OPSP is located at the boundary of the City adjacent to the Bay and represents
redevelopment of this commercial area. There are no residential communities in the vicinity, though
there are some live-aboard boats in Oyster Point Marina. The alignment of roads to and through the
area will be modified, but access will not be reduced. There would be no impact related to the division
of an established community.
CONFLICT WITH PLANS AND POLICIES
Under CEQA, environmental effects must involve an adverse change in physical conditions, as
opposed to mere inconsistency with existing policies. That a project or plan might be inconsistent with
particular policies in the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, or other applicable plan, policies or
regulations does not necessarily constitute a significant environmental effect.2 Rather, the threshold of
significance relates not to all potential inconsistencies, but only inconsistencies with current policies
that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects.
A general discussion of consistency has been included in the setting section above. Policy language is
often subject to varying interpretations. The following conclusions are focused on an analysis of
current policies and regulations that might lead to adverse effects on the physical environment. This
environmental analysis is not intended to pre-suppose the City’s determinations on consistency, or
prevent imposition of "conditions of approval" to correct any determined inconsistencies outside of the
CEQA forum.
Approval of the OPSP will involve a General Plan and Specific Plan amendments as well as revisions
to the Zoning Map and Ordinance. Once approved, the OPSP will be consistent with applicable policies
and regulations and such amendments and revisions would not be considered to result in environmental
impacts beyond those identified as impacts throughout this EIR. No inconsistencies with policies
intended to mitigate environmental effects have been identified.
While it is in the domain of the City’s decision-makers to decide ultimate project consistency with
applicable City plans and policies related to OPSP approval, from a CEQA perspective, the OPSP
would not conflict with plans or policies in any way that could have an adverse environmental impact.
(No impact.)
CONFLICT WITH CONSERVATION PLAN
The OPSP area is not within an area covered by a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) or Natural
Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or proposed for salt marsh restoration, as discussed in more
detail in Chapter 7: Biological Resources.
Per the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code, Section 13.30.020, a protected tree is “Any tree
with a circumference of forty-eight inches or more when measured fifty-four inches above natural
grade.” One or more mature blue gum trees within the ornamental woodland habitat may satisfy size
requirements for a “protected tree” under this ordinance. However, these trees are non-native invasive
trees that severely degrade natural habitats, as discussed in more detail in Chapter 7: Biological
Resources. If any of these trees are found to be of sufficient size to be considered protected under the
City’s ordinance, a permit will be required for their removal. This is considered a less-than-significant
impact.
2 See Baldwin v. City of Los Angeles (1999) 70 Cal. App 4th 819,8420843
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 14-1
14
NOISE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter evaluates the potential significance of noise impacts that could result from the OPSP and
Phase I Project, including the noise and land use compatibility of proposed uses, as well as, the
potential for temporary, periodic, or permanent noise level increases at nearby sensitive receptors
attributable to the OPSP.
The Setting Section of this report presents the fundamentals of environmental noise and environmental
vibration, describes regulatory criteria that would be applicable in the OPSP’s assessment, and
summarizes the results of a noise monitoring survey made at the OPSP area. The Impacts and
Mitigation Measures Section describes the significance criteria used to evaluate OPSP impacts,
provides a discussion of each OPSP impact, and presents mitigation measures necessary to provide a
compatible OPSP in relation to surrounding noise sources and sensitive land uses.
SETTING
FUNDAMENTALS OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air pressure above and
below atmospheric pressure. Sound levels are usually measured and expressed in decibels (dB) with 0
dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of hearing. Decibels and other technical terms are defined in
Table 14.1.
Most of the sounds that we hear in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, but rather a
broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. The intensities of each
frequency add together to generate a sound. The method commonly used to quantify environmental
sounds consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound in accordance with a weighting that
reflects the facts that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extreme high frequencies
than in the frequency mid-range. This is called "A" weighting, and the decibel level so measured is
called the A-weighted sound level (dBA). In practice, the level of a sound source is conveniently
measured using a sound level meter that includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting
curve. Typical A-weighted levels measured in the environment and in industry are shown in Table
14.2 for different types of noise.
Although the A-weighted noise level may adequately indicate the level of environmental noise at any
instant in time, community noise levels vary continuously. Most environmental noise includes a
conglomeration of noise from distant sources, which create a relatively steady background noise in
which no particular source is identifiable. To describe the time-varying character of environmental
noise, the statistical noise descriptors, L01, L10, L50, and L90, are commonly used. They are the A-
weighted noise levels equaled or exceeded during 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of a stated time period. A
single number descriptor called the Leq is also widely used. The Leq is the average A-weighted noise
level during a stated period of time.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
TABLE 14.1 DEFINTIONS OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS IN THIS REPORT
Term Definitions
Decibel, dB A unit describing, the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the logarithm to the
base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the sound measured to the reference
pressure. The reference pressure for air is 20.
Sound Pressure Level Sound pressure is the sound force per unit area, usually expressed in micro
Pascals (or 20 micro Newtons per square meter), where 1 Pascal is the pressure
resulting from a force of 1 Newton exerted over an area of 1 square meter. The
sound pressure level is expressed in decibels as 20 times the logarithm to the base
10 of the ratio between the pressures exerted by the sound to a reference sound
pressure (e.g., 20 micro Pascals). Sound pressure level is the quantity that is
directly measured by a sound level meter.
Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below
atmospheric pressure. Normal human hearing is between 20 Hz and 20,000 Hz.
Infrasonic sound are below 20 Hz and Ultrasonic sounds are above 20,000 Hz.
A-Weighted Sound Level,
dBA
The sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound level meter using the
A-weighting filter network. The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes the very low
and very high frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the
frequency response of the human ear and correlates well with subjective reactions
to noise.
Equivalent Noise Level, Leq The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
Lmax, Lmin The maximum and minimum A-weighted noise level during the measurement
period.
L01, L10, L50, L90 The A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 1%, 10%, 50%, and 90% of the
time during the measurement period.
Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn
or DNL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition
of 10 decibels to levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Community Noise
Equivalent Level, CNEL
The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day, obtained after addition
of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00 pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10
decibels to sound levels measured in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Ambient Noise Level The composite of noise from all sources near and far. The normal or existing
level of environmental noise at a given location.
Intrusive That noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient noise at a given
location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound depends upon its amplitude,
duration, frequency, and time of occurrence and tonal or informational content as
well as the prevailing ambient noise level.
CHAPTER 14: NOISE
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 14-3
TABLE 14.2 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS IN THE ENVIRONMENT
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities
110 dBA Rock band
Jet fly-over at 1,000 feet
100 dBA
Gas lawn mower at 3 feet
90 dBA
Diesel truck at 50 feet at 50 mph Food blender at 3 feet
80 dBA Garbage disposal at 3 feet
Noisy urban area, daytime
Gas lawn mower, 100 feet 70 dBA Vacuum cleaner at 10 feet
Commercial area Normal speech at 3 feet
Heavy traffic at 300 feet 60 dBA
Large business office
Quiet urban daytime 50 dBA Dishwasher in next room
Quiet urban nighttime 40 dBA Theater, large conference room
Quiet suburban nighttime
30 dBA Library
Quiet rural nighttime Bedroom at night, concert hall
(background)
20 dBA
Broadcast/recording studio
10 dBA
0 dBA
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
FUNDAMENTALS OF GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION
Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average motion of zero.
Several different methods are typically used to quantify vibration amplitude. One is the Peak Particle
Velocity (PPV) and another is the Root Mean Square (RMS) velocity. The PPV is defined as the
maximum instantaneous positive or negative peak of the vibration wave. The RMS velocity is defined
as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal. The PPV and RMS vibration velocity amplitudes
are used to evaluate human response to vibration. In this section, a PPV descriptor with units of
mm/sec or in/sec is used to evaluate construction generated vibration for building damage and human
complaints. Table 14.3 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings that continuous
vibration levels produce. The annoyance levels shown in Table 14.3 should be interpreted with care
since vibration may be found to be annoying at much lower levels than those shown, depending on the
level of activity or the sensitivity of the individual. To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the
threshold of perception can be annoying.
Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight rattling of
windows, doors or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to exaggerated vibration complaints,
even though there is very little risk of actual structural damage. In high noise environments, which are
more prevalent where groundborne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon
may also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in exterior doors
and windows.
Construction activities can cause vibration that varies in intensity depending on several factors. The use
of pile driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generate the highest construction related
ground-borne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature of such activities, the use of the peak
particle velocity descriptor (PPV) has been routinely used to measure and assess ground-borne
vibration and almost exclusively to assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and the
degree of annoyance for humans.
The two primary concerns with construction-induced vibration, the potential to damage a structure and
the potential to interfere with the enjoyment of life are evaluated against different vibration limits.
Studies have shown that the threshold of perception for average persons is in the range of 0.008 to
0.012 in/sec PPV. Human perception to vibration varies with the individual and is a function of
physical setting and the type of vibration. Persons exposed to elevated ambient vibration levels such as
people in an urban environment may tolerate a higher vibration level.
Structural damage can be classified as cosmetic only, such as minor cracking of building elements, or
may threaten the integrity of the building. Safe vibration limits that can be applied to assess the
potential for damaging a structure vary by researcher and there is no general consensus as to what
amount of vibration may pose a threat for structural damage to the building. Construction-induced
vibration that can be detrimental to the building is very rare and has only been observed in instances
where the structure is at a high state of disrepair and the construction activity occurs immediately
adjacent to the structure.
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The OPSP area is located in South San Francisco, east of Highway 101, in the City’s industrial and
technological core area. Land uses in the vicinity of the OPSP area include commercial, industrial,
office, recreational/open space, and hotel uses. The major arterial street that serves the OPSP area
vicinity is Oyster Point Boulevard.
CHAPTER 14: NOISE
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 14-5
TABLE 14.3 REACTION OF PEOPLE AND DAMAGE TO BUILDINGS FOR CONTINUOUS
VIBRATION LEVELS
Vibration
Level,
PPV (in/sec) Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0.006 to 0.019 Threshold of perception,
Possibility of intrusion Vibration unlikely to cause damage of any type
0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the vibration to
which ruins and ancient monuments should be
subjected
0.10 Level at which continuous
vibrations begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural” damage to
normal buildings
0.20 Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk of
“architectural” damage to normal dwellings
such as plastered walls or ceilings.
0.4 to 0.6
Vibrations considered
unpleasant by people subjected
to continuous vibrations
Vibration at this level would cause
“architectural” damage and possibly minor
structural damage.
Source: Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations (Caltrans Experiences), Technical Advisory,
Vibration TAV-02-01-R9601, California Department of Transportation, February 20, 2002.
A noise monitoring survey was conducted from January 14, 2010 to January 15, 2010 to quantify the
existing noise environment at the site and in the OPSP area vicinity. The noise monitoring survey
included one long-term noise measurement (LT-1), and four short-term measurements (ST-1 through
ST-4) as indicated on Figure 14.1. The noise environment at the site results primarily from local traffic
noise generated along arterial streets serving the plan area, distant traffic noise from Highway 101, and
aircraft over flights associated with San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Figure 1 in Appendix D
shows the daily trend in noise levels for the long-term noise measurement.
Noise measurement location LT-1 was approximately 175 feet from the nearest boat slip of the
southern portion of the Oyster Point Marina. This noise measurement location represented the noise
environment resulting from local traffic in the marina parking lot, distant Highway 101, and aircraft
noise. Hourly average noise levels typically ranged from 58 to 64 dBA Leq during the day, and from 44
to 62 dBA Leq at night. The day-night average noise level at this measurement location was 63 dBA
CNEL.
Short-term (ten-minute) noise measurements were made at four additional locations within the Specific
OPSP area to complete the noise monitoring survey. Short-term noise measurement ST-1 was made at
the southeast corner of the OPSP area, near the existing boat ramp facility. The average noise level
during this time period was 61 dBA Leq. Short-term noise measurement ST-2 was conducted at a
distance of approximately 55 feet from the center of Marina Boulevard, at the entrance gate to the
marina. The average noise level during this time period was 62 dBA Leq. Short-term noise measurement
ST-3 was conducted at a distance of 57 feet from the center of Oyster Point Boulevard. The average
noise level during this time period was 64 dBA Leq. Short-term noise measurement ST-4 was conducted
approximately 55 feet from the center of Oyster Point Boulevard adjacent to Eccles Avenue. The
average noise level during this time period was 68 dBA Leq.Table 14.4 summarizes the results of these
measurements.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 14: NOISE
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 14-7
TABLE 14.4: SUMMARY OF SHORT-TERM NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA
Noise Measurement Location Lmax L(1) L(10)L(50)L(90)Leq CNEL
ST-1: Southeast corner of OPSP area. (1/15/2010,
1:10-1:20 p.m.) 74 72 63 56 53 61 65
ST-2: ~55 feet from the center of Marina
Boulevard. (1/15/2010, 1:30-1:40 p.m.) 72 71 67 58 54 62 62
ST-3: ~57 feet from the center of Oyster Point
Boulevard. (1/15/2010, 1:50-2:00 p.m.) 73 72 68 61 57 64 68
ST-4: ~55 feet from the center of Oyster Point
Boulevard, near Eccles Ave. (1/15/2010, 2:10-2:20
a.m.)
77 75 72 66 59 68 69
Note: CNELapproximated by correlating to corresponding period at long-term site.
FIGURE 14.1: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
ST-3
ST-1
ST-2
LT-1ST-4
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
CHAPTER 14: NOISE
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 14-9
REGULATORY SETTING
The proposed OPSP and Phase I Project would be subject to noise-related regulations, plans, and
policies established within documents prepared by the State of California and the City of South San
Francisco. These planning documents are implemented during the environmental review process to
limit noise exposure at existing and proposed noise sensitive land uses. Applicable planning documents
include: (1) the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, (3) the
California State Building Code, (3) the City of South San Francisco Noise Element of the General Plan,
and (4) the City of South San Francisco Municipal Code. Regulations, plans, and policies presented
within these documents form the basis of the significance criteria used to assess OPSP and Phase I
Project impacts.
2007 California Building Code
The development of new dormitory, apartment and other multi-family housing types, other than
detached single family dwellings are subject to the environmental noise limits set forth in the 2007
California Building Code (Chapter 12, Appendix Section 1207.11.2). The noise limit is a maximum
interior noise level of 45 dBA Ldn/CNEL. Where
exterior noise levels exceed 60 dBA Ldn/CNEL, a
report must be submitted with the building plans
describing the noise control measures that have
been incorporated into the design of the project to
meet the noise limit.
City of South San Francisco General Plan
The Noise Element of the City of South San
Francisco General Plan addresses noise sources in
the community and identifies ways to reduce the
impacts of these noise sources. The Element
contains policies and programs to achieve and
maintain noise levels compatible with various types
of land uses. Land uses that are sensitive to noise
are identified and future noise generating land uses
are located so that they do not impact those
sensitive areas. The following are the guiding and
implementation policies contained in the Noise
Element of the City of South San Francisco’s
General Plan.
Guiding Policies
Policy 9-G-1: Protect public health and welfare by
eliminating or minimizing the effects of existing
noise problems, and by preventing increased noise
levels in the future.
Policy 9-G-2: Continue efforts to incorporate noise
considerations into land use planning decisions, and
guide the location and design of transportation
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
facilities to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent land uses.
Implementation Policies
Implementation Policy 9-I-4. Ensure that new noise-sensitive uses, including schools, hospitals,
churches, and homes, in areas near roadways identified as impacting sensitive receptors by producing
noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL, incorporate mitigation measures to ensure that interior noise
levels do not exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
Implementation Policy 9-I-5. Require that applicants for new noise-sensitive developments in areas
subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL, obtain the services of a
professional acoustical engineer to provide a technical analysis and design of mitigation measures.
Implementation Policy 9-I-6. Where site conditions permit, require noise buffering for all noise-
sensitive development subject to noise generators producing noise levels greater than 65 dBA CNEL.
This noise attenuation method should avoid the use of visible sound walls, where practical.
Implementation Policy 9-I-7. Require the control of noise at source through site design, building
design, landscaping, hours of operation, and other techniques, for new developments deemed to be
noise generators.
City of South San Francisco Municipal Code
The noise regulations of the City of South San Francisco’s Municipal Code are contained in Chapter
8.32 of the Code. The following contain the quantitative noise limits and construction noise
regulations.
8.32.030 Maximum permissible sound levels.
(a) It is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated any source of sound at any location
within the city or allow the creation of any noise on property owned, leased, occupied or otherwise
controlled by such person, which causes the noise level when measured on any other property to
exceed:
(1) The noise level standard for that land use as specified in Table 8.32.030 for a cumulative period of
more than thirty minutes in any hour;
(2) The noise level standard plus five dB for a cumulative period of more than fifteen minutes in any
hour;
(3) The noise level standard plus ten dB for a cumulative period of more than five minutes in any hour;
(4) The noise level standard plus fifteen dB for a cumulative period of more than one minute in any
hour; or
(5) The noise level standard or the maximum measured ambient level, plus twenty dB for any period of
time.
(b) If the measured ambient level for any area is higher than the standard set in Table 8.32.030, then
the ambient shall be the base noise level standard for purposes of subsection (a)(1) of this section. In
such cases, the noise levels for purposes of subsections (a)(2) through (a)(5) of this section shall be
increased in five dB increments above the ambient.
CHAPTER 14: NOISE
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 14-11
(c) If the measurement location is on a boundary between two different zones, the noise level
standard shall be that applicable to the lower noise zone plus five dB.
(d)Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, no person shall willfully make or continue,
or cause to be made or continued, any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the
peace or quiet of any neighborhood.
Table 8.32.030
NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS*
Land Use CategoryTime PeriodNoise Level (dB)
10 p.m.—7 a.m.50R-E, R-1 and R-2 zones or any
single-family or duplex residential
in a specific plan district 7 a.m.—10 p.m.60
10 p.m.—7 a.m.55R-3 and D-C zones or any
multiple-family residential or
mixed residential/commercial in
any specific plan district
7 a.m.—10 p.m.60
10 p.m.—7 a.m.60C-1, P-C, Gateway and Oyster
Point Marina specific plan districts
or any commercial use in any
specific plan district
7 a.m.—10 p.m.65
M-1, P-1Anytime70
*Source: Adapted from “The Model Community Noise Control Ordinance,” Office of Noise Control, California
Department of Health. (Ord. 1088 § 1 (part), 1990)
8.32.040 Interior noise limits.
It is unlawful for any person to operate or cause to be operated any source of sound, on multifamily
residential property or multi-tenant commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than ten dB
above the level allowed by Section 8.32.030 three feet from any wall, floor or ceiling inside any unit on
the same property when the windows and doors of the unit are closed, except within the unit in which
the noise source or sources is located. (Ord. 1088 § 1 (part), 1990)
8.32.050 Special provisions.
(d) Construction. Construction, alteration, repair or landscape maintenance activities which are
authorized by a valid city permit shall be allowed on weekdays between the hours of eight a.m. and
eight p.m., on Saturdays between the hours of nine a.m. and eight p.m., and on Sundays and holidays
between the hours of ten a.m. and six p.m., or at such other hours as may be authorized by the permit, if
they meet at least one of the following noise limitations:
No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding ninety dB at a distance of
twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or trailer on the property, the measurement
shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to twenty-five feet from the equipment as
possible.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-12 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
The noise level at any point outside of the property plane of the project shall not exceed ninety dB.
(Ord. 1088 § 1 (part), 1990)
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (Environmental Checklist) contains a list of noise effects that
may be considered significant. Potential noise effects from a project are considered significant if any of
the following occur:
x 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;
x exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise
levels;
x a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project;
x a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project;
x 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;
x for a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise levels.
The following quantifiable criteria were used to evaluate the significance of impacts:
Noise and Land Use Compatibility. A significant noise impact would be identified where noise-
sensitive land uses are proposed in exterior noise environments exceeding 65 dBA CNEL and
commercial land uses exceed 70 dBA CNEL. Interior noise levels within residential land uses in excess
of 45 dBA CNEL would also result in a significant noise impact.
Substantial Permanent Increase to Noise Levels. A significant noise impact would be identified where
project-generated traffic would increase traffic noise levels at existing noise-sensitive land uses by 3
dBA CNEL or more. A 3 dBA CNEL increase in noise is used as a threshold because this is the level at
which the human ear can perceive an increase in noise, below that the increase would not be noticeable.
Substantial Temporary Noise from Construction. Construction activities generate temporary noise level
increases in the vicinity of project sites. Since noise generated by construction would be short-term and
vary considerably day-to-day, construction noise is evaluated somewhat differently than operational
noise. When construction activities are predicted to cause prolonged interference with normal activities
at noise-sensitive receptors, generate noise levels in excess of 60 dBA Leq, and exceed ambient noise
levels by 5 dBA Leq or more, the impact would be considered significant. Prolonged interference is
defined as a substantial noise level increase that occurs for one year or more.
CHAPTER 14: NOISE
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 14-13
APPROPRIATENESS OF NOISE LEVELS FOR PROPOSED USES
Impact Noise-1: Noise Levels at Proposed Uses. The OPSP will not expose persons to or
generation of noise levels in excess of standard established by the City of South
San Francisco. This is a less-than-significant impact.
Exterior Noise Levels
Office/R&D buildings developed as part of the programmatic OPSP are proposed east and west of
Oyster Point Boulevard on the northern portion of the site. Future exterior noise levels along Oyster
Point Boulevard are calculated to be approximately 68 dBA CNEL at a distance of 55 feet from the
roadway. The noise environment at portions of the OPSP area planned for office/research and
development (R&D) would not exceed the City’s noise level goal for exterior noise (70 dBA CNEL) as
a result of transportation noise sources in the site vicinity (e.g., Oyster Point Boulevard, Marina
Boulevard and aircraft over flights).
Office/R&D buildings developed as part of Phase I Project are proposed south of the intersection of
Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard. Future exterior noise levels along this portion of Oyster
Point Boulevard are calculated to be approximately 67 dBA CNEL at a distance of 55 feet from the
roadway. Noise levels at Phase I Project buildings would not exceed the City’s noise level goal for
exterior noise (70 dBA CNEL) as a result of transportation noise sources.
The future hotel site is proposed east of the office/R&D plaza, along Marina Boulevard. Grading and
site preparation for the hotel and accompanying retail uses are all that are proposed for Phase I of the
OPSP. Future exterior noise levels at the proposed hotel site are calculated to be approximately 65 dBA
CNEL. Noise levels at a future hotel and retail/restaurant site would not exceed the City’s noise level
goal for exterior noise (65 dBA CNEL) as a result of transportation noise sources.
Future open space is proposed east of the intersection of Marina Boulevard and Oyster Point
Boulevard, adjacent to the Oyster Point Marina. Future exterior noise levels at the proposed open space
use are calculated to be approximately 64 dBA CNEL. Noise levels at future open space uses would not
exceed the City’s noise level goal for exterior noise (75 dBA CNEL) as a result of transportation noise
sources.
Interior Noise Levels
For an office development, the noise and land use compatibility guidelines are designed to screen
projects and provide guidance in determining when special building sound insulation treatments may
be necessary in order to adequately control the intrusion of environmental noise. The goal for hourly
average noise levels inside offices varies, depending upon the type of office space. Typically, traffic
noise levels should be reduced to an hourly average noise level of between 35 and 45 dBA Leq.
Standard office construction normally provides about 30 dBA of noise reduction when going from
outside to inside. Predicted interior noise levels at the offices on the northern facades of the Phase I
office/R&D building overlooking Oyster Point Boulevard would be about 37 dBA Leq assuming
standard office construction.
Predicted interior noise levels at the offices on the eastern and western facades of the office buildings
overlooking Marina Boulevard would be about 34 dBA Leq assuming standard office construction.
Portions of the office buildings located further away from these roadways or in acoustically shielded
areas will experience even lower noise levels. Noise levels at the proposed office buildings will comply
with City of South San Francisco standards (45 dBA CNEL or less) and would result in a less-than
significant impact.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-14 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
The California State Building Code and the City of South San Francisco General plan require interior
noise levels to be maintained at or below 45 dBA CNEL in noise sensitive land uses. Predicted interior
noise levels at the proposed hotel site would be about 35 dBA CNEL assuming standard hotel
construction. Interior noise levels at the proposed hotel will comply with the State Building Code and
City of South San Francisco standards and would result in a less-than-significant impact.
PERMANENT NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Impact Noise-2: Projected Noise Increases. Following construction, the OPSP will not create a
substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
existing without the project. This is aless-than-significantimpact.
On-Site Operational Noise Increases
The OPSP allows for the development of retail/restaurant as accessory uses in the same location with
office/R&D. Noise sources at these commercial uses could include loading docks, outdoor mechanical
equipment (e.g., heating and cooling equipment, etc.), and parking lots.
Noise associated with the use of parking lots would include vehicle circulation, loud engines, car
alarms, squealing tires, door slams, and human voices. The maximum sound (Lmax) of a passing car at
15 mph typically ranges from 43 dBA to 53 dBA at 150 feet. The noise generated during an engine
start is similar. Door slams create lower noise levels. Hourly average noise levels resulting from all of
these noise-generating activities in a busy parking lot could range from 35 dBA to 45 dBA Leq at a
distance of 150 feet from the parking area.
Heating, ventilation, and cooling equipment could generate noise levels in the range of 50 dBA to 70
dBA Leq at 150 feet depending on the number, type, and size of the proposed equipment. Trash
compactors typically generate maximum noise levels of 40 to 50 dBA at 150 feet, depending on the
power rating and enclosure characteristics.
Recreation fields and open space are also sources of community noise. Proposed fields could contain
one or more of the following amenities that are often part of recreation fields: playfields, open turf area,
picnic tables with barbeques, trails, etc. Noise generated by a particular park is a function of the
amenities provided, groups which use the facilities, and the timing and duration of use. For normal
active park events such as soccer games, baseball games, dog parks, etc., average noise levels of about
55 to 60 dBA Leq could be expected at a distance of 150 feet from the center of activities. The nearest
docks at the marina are located approximately 600 feet from the proposed recreation fields. Noise
generated by such active fields would generate noise levels of approximately 43 to 48 dBA Leq. Noise
from passive open space areas and recreation fields would not exceed standards set forth in the City’s
Municipal Code.
The nearest noise sensitive receptors are live-aboard boats located in the marinas and are located
approximately 150 to 550 feet from shore. Noise levels associated with commercial operations would
generally be less than existing ambient noise levels and would not exceed City Municipal Code
standards (60 dBA L50 during nighttime hours and 65 dBA L50 at night) for stationary noise sources at
the nearest receptors within and around the mixed-use developments.
Traffic Noise Increases
Traffic volume information was reviewed at study area intersections around the plan area. Traffic
volumes under the “Existing”, “Base Case”, “Base Case plus project” traffic scenarios were compared to
CHAPTER 14: NOISE
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 14-15
calculate the relative increase in traffic noise attributable to the proposed OPSP and Phase I Project. A
noise impact would be identified at noise-sensitive land uses where the OPSP would result in a noise
level increase of 3 dBA CNEL or more.
There are no noise sensitive receivers located on the roadways surrounding the site. The comparison of
base case and base case plus project traffic volumes indicates that the OPSP would not substantially
increase traffic noise levels at noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity. The OPSP would increase traffic
noise levels by 0 to 2 dBA CNEL, and the impact would be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE NOISE LEVEL INCREASES
Impact Noise-3: Cumulative Noise Increases. Traffic volumes along roadways serving the OPSP
area will increase as a result of cumulative growth planned in and around the City
of South San Francisco. The OPSP would not make a “cumulatively considerable”
contribution to cumulative traffic noise increases at noise sensitive receptors within
the OPSP area. This is aless-than-significantcumulative impact.
The Project would result in a significant cumulative traffic noise impact if existing sensitive receptors
would be exposed to cumulative traffic noise level increases greater than 3 dBA CNEL above existing
traffic noise levels and if the Project would make a “cumulatively considerable” contribution to the
overall traffic noise level increase. A “cumulatively considerable” contribution would be defined as an
increase of 1 dBA CNEL or more attributable solely to the proposed project. Cumulative traffic noise
levels are calculated to increase substantially along roadways serving the project site because of
cumulative growth forecast in local General Plans.
Project traffic volumes under the “Existing”, “Base Case”, and “Base Case plus project” traffic scenarios
were compared to calculate the relative increase in traffic noise attributable to the proposed project. The
comparison of base case and base case plus project traffic volumes indicates that the project would not
substantially increase traffic noise levels at noise sensitive receptors in the vicinity. Cumulative traffic
noise level increases were calculated by comparing “2035 Base Case plus project” traffic volumes to
“2035 Base Case without project” volumes. The OPSP’s contribution to cumulative noise level increases
would be 1 to 2 dBA CNEL along roadways surrounding the OPSP area, however, there are no noise
sensitive receptors located on the affected roadway segments. This increase in noise would not be
considered substantial. The OPSP would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to increased
noise levels at noise sensitive receptors resulting from the build-out of the area.
VIBRATION
Impact Noise-4: Groundborne Vibration. The OPSP is not anticipated to expose persons to or
generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels.This is
aless-than-significant impact.
The proposed uses are not the type that will generate substantial groundborne vibration during
operations.
The nearest noise-sensitive receptors to the OPSP area are live-aboard boats located in the marinas.
Any construction related groundborne vibrations would not be felt at adjacent noise-sensitive receptors
because they are located on water and groundborne vibration would not be transmitted from the ground
to the boats.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
For structural damage, the California Department of Transportation uses a vibration limit of 0.2 in/sec,
PPV for buildings that are found to be structurally sound but where structural damage is a major
concern. Office buildings located adjacent to the proposed OPSP are located approximately 100 feet
away from temporary construction activities and it is not anticipated that construction activities will
result in vibration levels that exceed 0.2 in/sec PPV. Table 14.5 depicts vibration source levels for
various types of construction equipment.
TABLE 14.5: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT1
Equipment PPV at 100 ft. (in/sec)
upper range 0.145 Pile Driver (Impact)
typical 0.081
upper range 0.092 Pile Driver (Sonic)
typical 0.021
Clam shovel drop 0.025
in soil 0.001 Hydromill (slurry wall)
in rock 0.002
Vibratory Roller 0.026
Hoe Ram 0.011
Large bulldozer 0.011
Caisson drilling 0.011
Loaded trucks 0.010
Jackhammer 0.004
Small bulldozer 0.000
CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Impact Noise-5: Construction Noise. The OPSP area includes existing sensitive receptors
consisting of live-aboard boats in the marinas. In periods of construction, during
construction hours, noise generated by construction on the site would substantially
increase noise levels at residential land uses in the vicinity of the site temporarily
above levels existing without the project. This is asignificant impact.
Noise impacts resulting from construction depend on the noise generated by various pieces of
construction equipment, the timing and duration of noise generating activities, and the distance
between construction noise sources and noise sensitive receptors. Where noise from construction
activities exceeds 60 dBA Leq and exceeds the ambient noise environment by at least 5 dBA Leq at
noise-sensitive uses in the OPSP vicinity for a period of more than one construction season, the impact
would be considered significant.
Table 1 in Appendix D depicts the range of A-weighted noise levels generated by specific pieces of
construction equipment at a distance of 50 feet. Table 14.6 presents typical ranges in hourly average
noise levels at a distance of 50 feet generated different phases of construction. Construction activities
1 Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, United States Department of Transportation, Office of Planning
and Environment, Federal Transit Administration, May 2006.
CHAPTER 14: NOISE
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 14-17
generate considerable amounts of noise, especially during the demolition phase and the construction of
OPSP infrastructure when heavy equipment is used. Typical hourly average construction generated
noise levels are about 75 dBA to 89 dBA measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center of the site
during busy construction periods (e.g., earth moving equipment, impact tools, etc.). Construction
generated noise levels drop off at a rate of about 6 dBA per doubling of distance between the source
and receptor.
TABLE 14.6: TYPICAL RANGES OF ENERGY EQUIVALENT NOISE LEVELS AT 50 FEET
Domestic
Housing
Office Building,
Hotel, Hospital,
School, Public
Works
Industrial Parking
Garage, Religious
Amusement &
Recreations, Store,
Service Station
Public Works
Roads &
Highways,
Sewers, and
Trenches
I II I II I II I II
Ground Clearing 83 83 84 84 84 83 84 84
Excavation 88 75 89 79 89 71 88 78
Foundations 81 81 78 78 77 77 88 88
Erection 81 65 87 75 84 72 79 78
Finishing 88 72 89 75 89 74 84 84
I - All pertinent equipment present at site.
II - Minimum required equipment present at site.
Source: U.S.E.P.A., Legal Compilation on Noise, Vol. 1, p. 2-104, 1973.
Construction projects of this type are typically built out over more than one construction season, and
some construction methods generate higher noise levels and noise that would be considered impulsive.
Phase I demolition, landfill materials relocation and cap upgrades, grading and infrastructure
construction is predicted to last approximately 12 months and Phase I vertical construction is
anticipated to last approximately 20 months, including seating the piles. Adding in interior build-out
and paving and landscaping of the site, the entire Phase I construction schedule is anticipated to span
approximately 3.5 year and could start as early as 2011. Construction noise impacts primarily result
when construction activities occur during noise-sensitive times of the day (early morning, evening, or
nighttime hours), the construction occurs in areas immediately adjoining noise sensitive receptors, or
when construction durations last over extended periods of time. Limiting the hours when construction
can occur to daytime hours is often a simple method to reduce the potential for noise impacts. In areas
immediately adjacent to construction, controls such as constructing temporary noise barriers and
utilizing “quiet” construction equipment can also reduce the potential for noise impacts.
The nearest existing noise sensitive receptors are about 150 feet from the OPSP area. Hourly average
noise levels would range from 71 dBA to 78 dBA during the busiest construction periods along the
perimeter of the site. As construction focuses on other portions of the OPSP located further away from
these receptors, noise levels would be lower.
Construction noise levels are anticipated to exceed 60 dBA Leq and the ambient by 5 dBA Leq or more
over extended periods of time. It is conceivable that a particular receptor or group of receptors would
be subject to construction noise levels in excess of 60 dBA Leq and the ambient by 5 dBA Leq for
durations exceeding one construction season. The construction of the OPSP would result in a
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-18 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
significant temporary noise level increase at on-site noise-sensitive receptors consisting of live-aboard
boats in the marinas.
Noise-generating activities at the construction site or in areas adjacent to the construction site will be
restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on
Saturday, and from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays and holidays. The City of San Francisco
Municipal Code also requires that no individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level
exceeding ninety dB at a distance of twenty-five feet. If the device is housed within a structure or
trailer on the property, the measurement shall be made outside the structure at a distance as close to
twenty-five feet from the equipment as possible. The noise level at any point outside the property plane
of the OPSP area shall not exceed ninety dB.
Mitigation Measure
Noise-5: Construction Noise. To reduce noise levels generated by construction, the
following standard construction noise control measures shall be included in all
construction projects within the OPSP area.
x Equip all internal combustion engine driven equipment with intake and
exhaust mufflers that are in good condition and appropriate for the equipment.
x Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines should be strictly
prohibited.
x Locate stationary noise generating equipment such as air compressors or
portable power generators as far as possible from sensitive receptors. Construct
temporary noise barriers to screen stationary noise generating equipment when
located near adjoining sensitive receptors. Temporary noise barriers could
reduce construction noise levels by 5 dBA.
x Utilize "quiet" air compressors and other stationary noise sources where
technology exists.
x Route all construction traffic to and from the OPSP area via designated truck
routes where possible. Prohibit construction related heavy truck traffic in
residential areas where feasible.
x Control noise from construction workers’ radios to a point that they are not
audible at existing residences bordering the OPSP area.
x The contractor shall prepare and submit to the City for approval a detailed
construction plan identifying the schedule for major noise-generating
construction activities.
x Designate a "disturbance coordinator" who would be responsible for
responding to any local complaints about construction noise. The disturbance
coordinator will determine the cause of the noise complaint (e.g., starting too
early, bad muffler, etc.) and will require that reasonable measures warranted to
correct the problem be implemented. Conspicuously post a telephone number
for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site and include it in the
notice sent to neighbors regarding the construction schedule.
CHAPTER 14: NOISE
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 14-19
x For pile driving activities, consider a) pre-drilling foundation pile holes to
minimize the number of impacts required to seat the pile, b) using multiple pile
driving rigs to expedite this phase of construction, and/or c) the use of
“acoustical blankets” for receivers located within 100 feet of the site.
Although the above measures would reduce noise generated by the construction of the proposed OPSP
and Phase I Project, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable as a result of the extended
period of time that adjacent receivers would be exposed to construction noise, though the noise would
be episodic and temporary in nature.
AIRCRAFT NOISE
Impact Noise-6: Aircraft Noise. Proposed uses developed at the site would be exposed to
intermittent noise from aircraft associated with San Francisco International
Airport. The exterior noise environment at the OPSP area would be considered
compatible with proposed sensitive uses. This is aless-than-significant impact.
Intermittent aircraft noise resulting from operations of San Francisco International Airport would be
audible at the OPSP area, but aircraft noise levels would not be considered incompatible with the
proposed uses. The City of South San Francisco General Plan noise contour map2 shows where the
projected 2006 65 dBA CNEL contours are located. According to the data on the contour map, the
OPSP area would be located well outside the airport’s 65 dBA CNEL noise contour in an area that
would be defined as noise-affected. The OPSP area is also located more than 2 miles from the San
Francisco International Airport. The exterior noise environment at the OPSP area resulting from
aircraft would be considered compatible with proposed sensitive uses.
2 San Mateo County Airport Land Use OPSP; San Francisco International Airport.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 14-20 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 15-1
15
POPULATION, PUBLIC SERVICES AND
RECREATION
INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the Draft EIR contains discussion regarding three CEQA topic areas related to the
increase in employees at the site: Population/Housing, Public Services, and Recreation. It describes the
change in employment n the OPSP area and analyzes the potential for impacts on population and
housing, public services, and recreation resulting from implementation of the proposed project.
Preparation of this section used data from various sources. These sources include the Association of
Bay Area Governments (“ABAG”) and the City of South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element
(“Housing Element”), updated in June 2009.
POPULATION/HOUSING
SETTING
The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide governs
regulations applicable to population and housing for the proposed OPSP. California’s Housing Element
Law assigns responsibility for developing projections of regional housing need and for allocating a
share of this need to localities within the region to regional councils of government. For the San
Francisco Bay Area, these determinations are prepared by ABAG and documented in its San Francisco
Bay Area Housing Needs Plan (plan).
The plan documents the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for the Bay Area. The RHNA
process is a state mandate, devised to address the need for and planning of housing across a range of
affordability and in all communities throughout the state. Each jurisdiction within the Bay Area (101
cities, nine counties) is given a share of the anticipated regional housing need. The Bay Area's regional
housing need is specified by the California State Department of Housing and Community Development
(HCD) and finalized through negotiations with ABAG. The timeframe for this RHNA process is 2007
through 2014 (a seven year planning period). South San Francisco General Plan, Municipal Code, and
the General Plan Housing Element govern regulations applicable to population and housing for the
proposed OPSP. The City’s General Plan Housing Element seeks to maximize residential development
opportunities on infill sites. The intent here is that increased residential development within the City
will help alleviate traffic impacts resulting from economic development, and provide residential
opportunities to those that work in the City but currently live elsewhere.
The State of California’s Housing and Community Development Department works with regional
Councils of Governments (COGs) to determine the amount of housing needed within the region.
ABAG is this region’s COG. The determination of housing need is based on existing need and
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 15-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
estimated population growth. Need is determined for households in all income categories: very-low,
low, moderate and above-moderate incomes. Once the total regional need is determined, ABAG works
with local governments and others to allocate the total need to individual cities and counties. Local
governments are then required to plan where and how the allocated housing units will be developed
within their communities. This is done through the Housing Element of each local government’s
General Plan.
Based on a methodology that weighs a number of factors (e.g., projected population growth,
employment, commute patterns, available sites), ABAG determines quantifiable needs for housing
units in the region according to various income categories. ABAG publishes an annual report that
discusses housing issues of importance to the San Francisco Bay Area. The 2008 report, San Francisco
Bay Area Housing Needs Plan, 2007-2014, explains the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
process and outcomes. The San Francisco Bay Area Housing Needs Plan, 2007-2014, allocates 1,635
housing units to the City of South San Francisco.
The City’s current Housing Element was adopted in June 2009 and addressed ABAG’s previous
RHNA. The planning horizon for the Housing Element extends from 2007 to 2014. Between January 1,
2007, and June 30, 2009, South San Francisco built 815 new units. In addition there were 15 housing
units that were substantially rehabilitated and converted from market rate to affordable housing.
Consequently, the City has a remaining balance of 805 units which it must plan for during the
remainder of the planning period. According to the General Plan Housing Element, South San
Francisco has an adequate number of sites to accommodate its share of the regional housing need
between 2007 and 2014. There is sufficient land to support the production of more than 1,195 new
housing units.
According to the General Plan Housing Element, the City has a history of imbalance in its jobs/housing
ratio. South San Francisco is a “jobs rich” City with substantial in-commuting from other jurisdictions.
In 2007, there were approximately 30,000 employed residents in the City compared to 50,000 jobs, a
ratio of 1.7 jobs per every working resident of the City. By comparison, in 2007 San Mateo County had
a much closer balance between the number of employed residents and total jobs with approximately
370,000 employed residents and 340,000 jobs, a ratio of 0.9 jobs per every working resident of the
County. The City’s jobs-housing balance is a measure for land use planning purposes. The City does
not currently have an adopted jobs-housing ratio goal.
Given that much of the land in the City, including all of the East of 101 Area, is not zoned for
residential development, attainment of a jobs and housing balance in South San Francisco is doubtful.
On the other hand, continued job growth in the City will promote a greater regional balance between
jobs and housing. As an inner Bay Area community well served by all modes of transit—including air
and rail, BART and ferry service in the near future—future employees from and traveling to the City
will have varied means of reaching employment sites.
As South San Francisco’s employment base, the East of 101 Area is expected to accommodate a major
share of South San Francisco’s new non-residential development. While under the General Plan total
building floor space is expected to increase by about 50 percent (from 12.0 million square feet [sf] to
about 17.4 million sf), overall employment levels are expected to more than double (from 22,200 in
1997 to 42,000 at General Plan buildout in 2020).
Consistent with this, ABAG Projections 2009 projects the City’s total employment number to be
48,290 in 2020. This represents an increase in employment in the City of 3,110 jobs from 2005 to 2015
and 2,940 jobs from 2015 to 2020. Both the Traffic Impact Fee Study Update and the ABAG
Projections 2009 are based upon existing planning documentation; therefore, as new projects are
CHAPTER 15: POPULATION, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 15-3
approved, the projection numbers would also change. As such, the employment buildout projections are
not treated as limits, rather they project the employment for the region based upon the best available
data.
POPULATION/HOUSING IMPACT ANALYSIS
Standards of Significance
Under the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, development of the OPSP
site as proposed would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in:
1.The inducement of 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); or
2.The displacement of substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere; or
3.The displacement of substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere.
Displacement of Housing or People
The only residences in the OPSP area are live-aboard boats in the marinas, which are not proposed to
be affected by the OPSP. Thus, no residents would be displaced, and construction of replacement
housing elsewhere would not be necessitated. Therefore, there would be no impact and no mitigation
measures are required.
Inducing Population Growth
Impact Pop-1: Indirect Population Growth. As a large employment center, build-out of both
Phase I Project and the entire OPSP would indirectly induce population growth
through creation of additional jobs. However, these additional jobs would help in
part to correct job deficiencies region-wide and the impact would be considered
less-than-significant.
The OPSP does not propose any housing. The existing 403,000 square feet of light industrial uses could
support at least 733 employees and likely more depending on the mix of uses. Additionally, there are
approximately 123 or more employees in the office buildings, boat and motor mart, and inn currently
on the Phase I site. The Phase I Project and subsequent phases of the OPSP propose the construction of
up to 600,000 square feet of office/R&D and a maximum of 2,300,000 square feet of office/R&D uses
over subsequent phases in addition to up to 350 hotel rooms with up to 40,000 square feet of
retail/restaurant uses that will in part replace existing uses. This could result in a net increase of
approximately 1,310 employees for the Phase I Project and a total net increase of approximately 5,965
employees for the full build-out of the OPSP.
ABAG projects an increase in employment in the City of 3,110 jobs from 2005 to 2015 and 2,940 jobs
from 2015 to 2020 for a total increase of 6,050 by 2020. Therefore, the Phase I Project and OPSP’s
contributions to the increase in employment in the City would be within ABAG’s employment
projections for the City for both the years of 2015 and 2020. The increase in employees in the City
could result in an increase in demand for housing. As described previously, the City is primarily built
out and any housing constructed within the City limits would most likely be infill housing. Therefore,
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 15-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
the OPSP could result in an increased unfavorable jobs/housing ratio in the City which would increase
over the implementation of the Phase I Project and subsequent phases of the OPSP.
A jobs-housing ratio is a numeric representation of the relationship between the total number of jobs
and the total number of residential units in an area. This ratio indicates the ability of a region to provide
both adequate employment and housing opportunities for its existing and projected population. A jobs
housing ratio of 1.0 represents a balance of jobs and housing. An overall jobs-housing ratio of 1.0 to
1.5 is generally considered balanced (so that there is little in- or out-commuting). A balance of jobs and
housing can benefit the regional environment by reducing commute times and distances between
residential areas and employment centers. Longer commutes result in increased vehicle trip length,
which creates environmental effects, such as those associated with transportation, air quality, and noise.
As discussed in the setting above, South San Francisco currently has a high jobs/housing ratio of 1.7;
this means that South San Francisco is a job center that imports employees from surrounding
communities, or alternatively, that exports housing.
Based on ABAG’s projections, the future jobs/housing ratio in the City for 2015 would increase to
approximately 2.09 by 2015 and to 2.11 by 2020. These ratios suggest poor housing availability
relative to the amount of jobs projected, and a high level of in-commuting. Housing availability,
already projected to be out of balance, would decrease with implementation of the Phase I Project and
subsequent phases of the OPSP. Assuming that not more than one person per household would be
employed by the OPSP, the OPSP would add 1,646 employees with Phase I and 5,717 more by build
out of the OPSP. This would create the need for 8,488 new units of housing, which can not all be
provided for within South San Francisco city limits. Consequently, the potential employment increase
resulting from the OPSP would result in indirect growth that may not be accommodated by existing or
proposed housing projections for the City. However, continued job growth in the City will promote a
greater regional balance between jobs and housing. The City is a strategically located inner Bay Area
community well served by all modes of transit—including air and rail, BART, and on a site that will
soon be hosting ferry service as well. Therefore, future employees commuting to jobs in the City would
have varied means of reaching the project.
Given the fact that the City does not have an adopted jobs/housing ratio goal, and overall the OPSP
would promote a greater regional jobs balance, the impact of the Phase I Project and OPSP on indirect
population growth would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
PUBLIC SERVICES
SETTING
Police Service
Police service within the OPSP area is provided by the South San Francisco Police Department
(SSFPD). The SSFPD has an agreement with the San Mateo County Harbor District for radio
communication and emergency response coordination. The South San Francisco Police Department’s
jurisdictional area includes the entire city. The Department currently has a total of 79 sworn officers
and 35 civilian employees covering a city of approximately 60,000 residents with a daytime population
around 100,000 people.1 That’s a ratio of approximately 1.3 sworn officers for every one thousand
1 City of South San Francisco website, http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=285. Accessed 9/23/2010.
CHAPTER 15: POPULATION, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 15-5
residents. The Department is generally able to respond to high priority calls within two to three
minutes. These times are within the Department’s response time goals. The Department typically works
a four-beat system, but the watch supervisor has the discretion to deploy his personnel as he sees fit to
accomplish daily goals and objectives. Each beat is typically staffed by a one officer unit with between
six and nine other officers consisting of traffic, K-9, training, float, and supervisory units available for
backup and overlap.
The South San Francisco General Plan establishes guiding policies 8.5-G1 to 8.5-G2 to provide police
services that are responsive to citizen’s needs to ensure a safe and secure environment for people and
property in the community and to assist in crime prevention through physical planning and community
design.
Fire Service
Fire protection and emergency services within the OPSP area is the responsibility of the South San
Francisco Fire Department (SSFFD). The SSFFD has 85 members. Minimum on-duty staffing is 20
persons. There are currently five fire stations located throughout South San Francisco. In addition to
the paramedics, the rest of the fire personnel are certified Emergency Medical Technicians (EMT). The
SSFFD also has Advanced Life Support (ALS) engines that arrive on scene with a paramedic aboard.
Station #62 is the closest station to the OPSP site, less then one mile away at 249 Harbor Way.
Schools
The City of South San Francisco is served by the South San Francisco Unified School District. The
South San Francisco Unified School District includes ten elementary schools for kindergarten through
5th grade, three middle schools for grades 6 through 8 and three high schools for grades 9 through 12 as
well as an adult education program.
PUBLIC SERVICES IMPACT ANALYSIS
Standards of Significance
Under the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, development of the OPSP
site as proposed would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in:
1.Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental 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 public services:
x fire services
x police services
x schools
x parks
x other public facilities
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 15-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Police Services
Implementation of the proposed OPSP would increase development within the OPSP area, which
would translate to an increase in workers on the site, specifically a net increase in 1,646 employees
working on the site by the end of the Phase I Project and 5,717 additional by build-out of the OPSP, as
discussed in more detail under Population, above. Compared to a daytime population of 100,000, this
would represent minor increases in the City’s daytime population (1.6% for the Phase I Project and
5.7% for the OPSP) and would not lead to a change in response times and/or requirement for
construction of new facilities.
The SSFPD is generally able to respond to high priority calls within two to three minutes time and
average response times are five to seven minutes depending on the priority. These times are within the
department’s response time goals. With implementation of the proposed OPSP, police surveillance at
the OPSP site would continue adequately with routine patrols and responses to calls for assistance.
As implementation of the proposed OPSP, including the Phase I Project, would constitute a negligible
increase in the City’s population, and would not result in SSFPD’s inability to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives or meet the goals of the General Plan.
Current response times and service ratios are adequate and no new facilities that would result in
potential significant impacts would be required. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant
and no mitigation measures are required.
Fire Services
Station #62 is the closest station to the OPSP site, less then one mile away at 249 Harbor Way, and
would provide all first response services to the OPSP. Build-out of the OPSP would not be anticipated
to result in SSFPD’s inability to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives. Current response times and service ratios are adequate and no new facilities
that would result in potential significant impacts would be required. The OPSP site is not located in any
of the city’s fire hazard management unit areas. The OPSP’s design would be required to comply with
the City’s Fire Code (Chapter 15.24 of the Municipal Code) and the City Fire Marshall’s code
requirements regarding on site access for emergency vehicles as is a standard condition for any project
approval. Therefore, the OPSP would have a less than significant impact on the city’s fire protection
services.
Schools
It is possible that some users of the OPSP site would relocate to the City, thereby generating a small
student population increase in the South San Francisco Unified School District. However, because the
OPSP would not involve construction of new residences, it is not expected that the school district
would experience a significant growth in student population. Therefore, the impact on the South San
Francisco Unified School District would be less than significant.
Other
The potential impacts related to parks are discussed under recreation, below. No impacts to other public
services are anticipated.
CHAPTER 15: POPULATION, PUBLIC SERVICES AND RECREATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 15-7
RECREATION
SETTING
The City of South San Francisco Parks and Recreation Department manages parks and recreation
centers within the city boundaries. According to the Parks, Recreation, and Open Space element of the
South San Francisco General Plan, there is an estimated 320 acres of parks and open space in the city,
including community parks, neighborhood parks, mini-parks, linear parks, open spaces and school
lands.
RECREATION IMPACT ANALYSIS
Standards of Significance
Under the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G – Environmental Checklist Form, development of the OPSP
site as proposed would have a significant environmental impact if it were to result in:
1.Increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated; or
2.Substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
recreation facilities, or the need for new or physically altered recreation facilities, the construction
of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios.
The South San Francisco General Plan requires 0.5 acres of parks per 1,000 new employees in
employment areas or payment of in-lieu fees. Using the estimate of 5,965 net new on-site employment
discussed above, 2.98 acres of parks or appropriate in lieu fees would be required. The proposed OPSP
includes an approximately 3-acre flexible-use recreation area (park) and an additional approximately
3.1 acres of bay front open space, which is more than the projected need generated by employees of the
site. Thus the OPSP would have not only a less-than-significant impact on existing facilities, but a net
beneficial impact on recreational facilities.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 15-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-1
16
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
INTRODUCTION
This section of the Draft EIR describes the transportation conditions in the study area in terms of
existing roads and traffic operations, transit service and pedestrian and bicycle conditions. Excerpts and
findings from the following EIRs or initial studies/negative declarations have been included in this
chapter: Genentech Master Plan Revised Draft EIR (EIP Associates and Korve Engineering, as
partially revised December 2006), 213 East Grand Avenue Draft EIR (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane
Transportation Group, December 2007), 328 Roebling Road Draft EIR (Lamphier-Gregory and Crane
Transportation Group, April 2008), 494 Forbes Draft Focused EIR (Impact Sciences and Crane
Transportation Group, October 2009) and the Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft and Final EIRs
(Christopher Joseph Associates and Crane Transportation Group, March 2010).
SETTING
ROADWAYS
The OPSP site is located at the west end of Oyster Point Boulevard and along Marina Boulevard. At
the Oyster Point Boulevard / Marina Boulevard T-intersection, Oyster Point continues north to existing
development, and Marina Boulevard goes south/east toward the Ferry Terminal (currently under
construction), Oyster Point Park and the Oyster Point Marina (see Figures 3.1 through 3.4). OPSP
access to the U.S. 101 freeway is provided by a variety of major streets with several route options
available to the three interchanges that could potentially be used by OPSP traffic. Each is briefly
described below, while a schematic presentation of existing intersection approach lanes and control are
presented in Figure 16.1.
Freeways
U.S.101 is an eight-lane freeway that provides access to the OPSP area. It extends from downtown San
Francisco and northern California to Los Angeles and southern California. Within the study area,
U.S.101 has northbound on-ramps at South Airport Boulevard (at Wondercolor Lane between Mitchell
Avenue and Utah Avenue), at Grand Avenue and at Oyster Point Boulevard; northbound off-ramps are
provided at, South Airport Boulevard (at Wondercolor Lane between Mitchell Avenue and Utah
Avenue), at East Grand Avenue / Executive Drive and at Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point
Boulevard). Southbound on-ramps are provided from Airport Boulevard (north of Oyster Point
Boulevard), Dubuque Avenue (just south of Oyster Point Boulevard), and at Produce Avenue;
southbound off-ramps are provided at Airport Boulevard (just north of Oyster Point Boulevard), Oyster
Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard and at Produce Avenue. There are auxiliary lanes on northbound
U.S.101 both north and south of Oyster Point Boulevard and on southbound U.S.101 south of Oyster
Point Boulevard. In 2008 U.S.101 carried an annual average daily traffic (ADT) volume of 203,000
vehicles south of Produce Avenue, 203,000 vehicles south of Oyster Point Boulevard and 194,000
vehicles just north of Oyster Point Boulevard.1
1 Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, Caltrans 2008.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oyster Point Boulevard is one of the primary arterial access routes serving the “East of 101 area” in
South San Francisco. It has six travel lanes near its interchange with the U.S.101 freeway, four lanes
east of Veterans Boulevard and two lanes near Gull Road and farther to the east (and north) internal to
the OPSP site.
East Grand Avenue is a major arterial street and a central access route serving the industrial/ office
areas east of the U.S.101 freeway. It has six travel lanes in the vicinity of the freeway and narrows to
four travel lanes east of the Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way intersection.
Harbor Way is a two-lane street serving existing and planned industrial/office uses south of East Grand
Avenue. Harbor Way provides access to South Airport Boulevard and several U.S.101 freeway ramps
via Mitchell Avenue and Utah Avenue.
Forbes Boulevard is a four-lane collector street connecting the San Bruno Point Genentech area with
East Grand Avenue. In the OPSP vicinity it is 60 feet wide curb to curb with an intermittent raised
median that is 12 feet wide. On-street parking is prohibited.
Airport Boulevard is a four- to six-lane, north-south arterial street that parallels the west side of the
U.S.101 freeway. This roadway continues north into the City of Brisbane and the City of San
Francisco, where it is called Bayshore Boulevard. South of San Mateo Avenue, Airport Boulevard
changes names to Produce Avenue. In the General Plan, Airport Boulevard is classified as a major
arterial.
Marina Boulevard is a two-lane collector street extending easterly from Oyster Point Boulevard and
ending at the east end of Oyster Point Park and Oyster Point Marina. It primarily serves as access to
parking areas for the Marina and the Park.
Gateway Boulevard is a four-lane major arterial street connecting East Grand Avenue with South
Airport Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard.
Littlefield Avenue is a 40-foot-wide, two-lane north-south street connecting East Grand Avenue with
Utah Avenue.
Utah Avenue is a four-lane east-west street connecting Littlefield Avenue with South Airport
Boulevard.
South Airport Boulevard is a four-lane divided roadway traveling from the Airport Boulevard / San
Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue intersection on the north near U.S.101 to the San Bruno Avenue East
/ North McDonnell Road intersection on the south. Most of South Airport Boulevard runs parallel to
and east of U.S.101.
Dubuque Avenue is a two- to four-lane roadway running east of and almost parallel to U.S.101 in a
north/south direction. Extending from East Grand Avenue to Oyster Point Boulevard this roadway
functions as a connector street for the traffic traveling primarily between U.S.101 and Oyster Point
Boulevard.
Mitchell Avenue is a two-lane roadway running in an east/west direction. Mitchell Avenue connects
Airport Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard on the west to Harbor Way on the east.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-3
Figure 16.1: Traffic Study Intersections and Lane Geometry
OPSP
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-5
Volumes
Weekday AM and PM peak hour analysis was requested by City staff at the following 23 major
intersections serving the OPSP site. Twenty-two locations are currently in operation, while intersection
number 2, below, at the Terrabay office access along Airport Boulevard, will be active after completion
and occupancy of the OPSP.
1.Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Hook Ramps (Signal)
2.Airport Boulevard / Terrabay Phase 3 Access (Signal)—Future conditions only.
3.Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard (Signal)
4.Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp (Signal)
5.Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp & Southbound On-Ramp (Signal)
6.Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp Flyover
(Signal)
7.Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard / Gateway Driveway
8.Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue
9.Oyster Point Boulevard / Gull Road
10.Forbes Boulevard / Allerton Avenue
11.Airport Boulevard / Miller Avenue / U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp (Signal)
12.Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (Signal)
13.Grand Avenue Overcrossing / Dubuque Avenue (Signal)
14.E. Grand Avenue / Grand Avenue Overcrossing (Signal)
15.E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard (Signal)
16.E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way (Signal)
17.E. Grand Avenue / Littlefield Avenue (Signal)
18.E. Grand Avenue / Allerton Avenue (Allerton Stop Sign Controlled)
19.U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp / E. Grand Avenue-Executive Drive (E. Grand Stop Sign
Controlled)
20.Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue (Signal)
21.Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue (Signal)
22.S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane (Signal)
23.S. Airport Boulevard / Utah Avenue (Signal)
Existing counts were obtained at all but three locations by TJKM Associates in either March 2008 or
June 2009, while counts at locations 10, 18 and 19 were conducted by Crane Transportation Group in
June 2009.
Figures 3 and 4 in Appendix E present existing AM and PM peak hour volumes at the analysis
intersections along with indications regarding which counts were conducted by TJKM versus Crane
Transportation Group.
INTERSECTION OPERATION
Analysis Methodology
Signalized Intersections. Intersections, rather than roadway segments between intersections, are almost
always the capacity controlling locations for any circulation system. Signalized intersection operation
is graded based upon two different scales. The first scale employs a grading system called Level of
Service (LOS) which ranges from Level A, indicating uncongested flow and minimum delay to drivers,
down to Level F, indicating significant congestion and delay on most or all intersection approaches.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
The Level of Service scale is also associated with a control delay tabulation (year 2000 Transportation
Research Board [TRB] Highway Capacity Manual [HCM] operations method) at each intersection. The
control delay designation allows a more detailed examination of the impacts of a particular project.
Greater detail regarding the LOS/control delay relationship is provided in Table 16.1.
Table 16.1: Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
(Seconds Per Vehicle)
A Operations with very low delay occurring with favorable progression
and/or short cycle lengths. 10.0
B Operations with low delay occurring with good progression and/or short
cycle lengths. 10.1 to 20.0
C Operations with average delays resulting from fair progression and/or
longer cycle lengths. Individual cycle failures begin to appear. 20.1 to 35.0
D
Operations with longer delays due to a combination of unfavorable
progression, long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity (V/C)
ratios. Many vehicles stop and individual cycle failures are noticeable.
35.1 to 55.0
E
Operations with high delay values indicating poor progression, long
cycle lengths, and high V/C ratios. Individual cycle failures are frequent
occurrences. This is considered to be the limit of acceptable delay.
55.1 to 80.0
F Operation with delays unacceptable to most drivers occurring due to
oversaturation, poor progression, or very long cycle lengths. > 80.0
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board).
Unsignalized Intersections. Unsignalized intersection operation is also typically graded using the
Level of Service A through F scale. LOS ratings for all-way stop intersections are determined using a
methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. Under this methodology, all-
way stop intersections receive one LOS designation reflecting operation of the entire intersection.
Average control delay values are also calculated. Intersections with side streets only stop sign
controlled (two-way stop control) are also evaluated using the LOS and average control delay scales
using a methodology outlined in the year 2000 TRB Highway Capacity Manual. However, unlike
signalized or all-way stop analysis where the LOS and control delay designations only pertain to the
entire intersection, in side street stop sign control analysis LOS and delay designations are computed
for only the stop sign controlled approaches or individual turn and through movements. Table 16.2
provides greater detail about unsignalized analysis methodologies.
Table 16.2: Unsignalized Intersection LOS Criteria
Level of
Service Description Average Control Delay
(Seconds Per Vehicle)
A Little or no delays 10.0
B Short traffic delays 10.1 to 15.0
C Average traffic delays 15.1 to 25.0
D Long traffic delays 25.1 to 35.0
E Very long traffic delays 35.1 to 50.0
F
Extreme traffic delays with intersection capacity exceeded (for
an all-way stop), or with approach/turn movement capacity
exceeded (for a side street stop controlled intersection)
> 50.0
Source: 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board).
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-7
Analysis Software
All existing and future operating conditions have been evaluated using the Synchro software program.
Standards
The City of South San Francisco considers Level of Service D (LOS D) to be the poorest acceptable
operation for signalized and all-way-stop intersections, with LOS E the poorest acceptable operation
for unsignalized city street intersection turn movements.
Existing Intersection Operating Conditions
Table 16.3 shows that all 22 existing analyzed intersections are currently operating at good to
acceptable (LOS D or better) Levels of Service during both the AM and PM peak traffic hours.
VEHICLE QUEUING
Analysis Methodology
The Synchro software program has determined projections of vehicle queuing on the critical
approaches to five signalized off-ramp intersections evaluated in this study and on the approaches to
adjacent intersections that need to accommodate flow from the off-ramp intersection:
x U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp / Airport Boulevard / Miller Avenue intersection & the adjacent
Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue intersection
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp / South Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane intersection
x U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp / Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
intersection
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp / Dubuque Avenue intersection & the adjacent Oyster Point
Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection
x U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp / Airport Boulevard intersection
In addition, off-ramp queuing was also evaluated on the U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp connection to
East Grand Avenue / Executive Drive. While this off-ramp is not controlled on its approach to this first
intersection, East Grand Avenue is signal controlled at its next major intersection to the east (at Grand
Avenue Overcrossing). Queuing results for this signalized location were evaluated to see if any
queuing extended back to the off-ramp. Projections are provided for each off-ramp as well as for turn
lanes and other surface street approaches that have nearby adjacent intersections.
Queuing Standards
The standard adopted by the City of South San Francisco and Caltrans is that the 95th percentile
vehicle queue must be accommodated within available storage for each off-ramp and on the approaches
to intersections adjacent to off-ramp intersections that accommodate a significant amount of off-ramp
traffic. In addition, no off-ramp traffic is allowed to back up to the freeway mainline during the entire
AM or PM peak traffic hour. The 95th percentile queue indicates that vehicle backups will only extend
beyond this length five percent of the time during the analysis hour. Queuing analysis is presented in
this study for year 2015 and 2035 Base Case and Base Case + Project conditions. Off-ramp queuing has
been evaluated using both the Synchro software output, which details queuing for one of the signal
cycles during the peak traffic hour, as well as using the SIM traffic feature of the Synchro program,
which evaluates off-ramp operation and backups during the entire peak traffic hour.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 16.3: Intersection Level of Service – Existing AM & PM Peak Hour
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Airport Blvd./U.S.101 SB Hook Ramps (Signal) C-25.5(1) C-27.0
Airport Blvd./Terrabay Phase 3 Access (Signal) NA(1)
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point
Blvd. (Signal)
C-25.5(1) C-24.2
Oyster Point/Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB On-
Ramp (Signal)
C-23.0(1) C-22.2
Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off-Ramp & SB On-
Ramp (Signal)
B-12.6(1) D-45.7
Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway/U.S.101 SB Off-
Ramp Flyover (Signal)
C-30.0(1) C-22.3
Oyster Point Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) B-11.4(1) B-19.1
Oyster Point Blvd./Gull Rd. (Signal) C-22.5(1) C-31.6
Airport Blvd./Miller/U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp
(Signal)
C-28.5(1) B-17.4
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) D-40.4(1) C-32.0
E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave. (Signal) A-6.5(1) A-3.4
E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing (Signal) B-18.3(1) B-13.0
E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) C-25.1(1) C-22.6
E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way. (Signal) B-17.3(1) D-35.4
E. Grand Ave./Littlefield Ave. (Signal) B-13.9(1) B-11.5
E. Grand Ave/Allerton Ave.
(Allerton Stop Sign Control)
A-9.2(2) C-18.3
Forbes Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) B-13.3(1) B-17.5
Forbes Blvd./Allerton Ave. (All Way Stop) B-11.3(3) B-10.5
Forbes Blvd./Gull Rd. (Signal) B-17.0(1) B-15.9
Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce Ave.
(Signal)
D-36.7(1) C-33.5
Gateway Blvd./S. Airport Blvd./Mitchell Ave.
(Signal)
C-34.1(1) D-44.8
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook Ramps/
Wondercolor (Signal)
C-31.2(1) C-27.1
S. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave. (Signal) C-28.3(1) C-30.5
(1) Signalized level of service—vehicle control delay in seconds.
(2) Unsignalized level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds/Allerton Ave. southbound stop
sign controlled approach right turn to E. Grand Ave.
(3) All way stop level of service – vehicle control delay in seconds.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-9
FREEWAY OPERATION
Analysis Methodology
U.S.101 freeway segments have been evaluated based on the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual as
specified by Caltrans and the San Mateo County Congestion Management Program (CMP). U.S.101
existing traffic conditions have been evaluated for the weekday AM and PM peak hours. Existing
traffic volumes used for the analysis were derived from year 2009 U.S.101 mainline counts from
Caltrans as provided by TJKM Associates as part of their work for the updating of the City’s East of
101 Traffic Modeling. Freeway mainline analysis was performed using the HCS software based upon
the HCM methodology for freeway mainlines.
San Mateo CMP Standards for Regional Roads and Local Streets
The LOS standards established for roads and intersections in the San Mateo County CMP street
network vary based on geographic differences. For roadway segments and intersections near the county
boarder, the LOS standard was set as LOS E in order to be consistent with the recommendations in the
neighboring counties. If the existing Level of Service in 1990/91 was F, the standard was set to LOS F.
If the existing or future LOS was or will be E, the standard was set to E. For the remaining roadways
and intersections, the standard was set to be one letter designation worse than the projected LOS in the
year 2000.
If a proposed land use change would either cause a deficiency (to operate below the standard LOS) on a
CMP-designated roadway system facility, or would significantly affect (by using LOS F in the 1991
CMP baseline LOS, mitigation measures are to be developed so that LOS standards are maintained on
the CMP-designated roadway system. If mitigation measures are not feasible (due to financial,
environmental or other factors), a Deficiency Plan must be prepared for the deficient facility. The
Deficiency Plan must indicate the land use and infrastructure action items to be implemented by the
local agency to eliminate the deficient conditions.
A Deficiency Plan may not be required if the deficiency would not occur if traffic originating outside
the County were excluded from the determination of conformance.
Existing Freeway Operation
Existing Levels of Service on the freeway segments in South San Francisco were based upon analysis
of year 2009 volumes. Table 16.4 shows a summary of existing U.S. 101 freeway operation and Table
16.5 shows details of the existing freeway Level of Service results. Currently, all U.S.101 freeway
segments are operating at an acceptable LOS D or better during the weekday AM and PM peak hours.
Conditions are generally poorer along U.S.101 to the north of Oyster Point Boulevard, and peak in both
the northbound and the southbound directions during the AM peak hour and in the northbound
direction during the PM peak hour.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 16.4: Summary of Existing U.S.101 Freeway Operation
AM Peak Hour
Southbound LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange southbound off-ramps
LOS B South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp (just north of I-380)
Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off-ramp (just north of I-380)
LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange & northbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd.
PM Peak Hour
Southbound LOS C North of the Oyster Point interchange southbound off-ramps
LOS C South of the Produce Avenue on-ramp (just north of I-380)
Northbound LOS C South of the S. Airport Blvd. off-ramp (just north of I-380)
LOS D North of the Oyster Point interchange & northbound off-ramp to Bayshore Blvd.
x LOS – Level of Service
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Table 16.5: Detailed U.S.101 Freeway Existing Operating Conditions, May 2009
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
U.S. 101 Segment Volume LOS* Density** Volume LOS* Density**
North of Oyster Point Blvd.
Northbound Direction 7,452 D 30.1 7,530 D 30.5
Southbound Direction 6,774 D 26.3 6,314 C 24.1
North of I-380
Northbound Direction 9,713 C 24.9 7,605 C 19.1
Southbound Direction 6,421 B 16.4 8,377 C 21.1
* LOS = Level of Service
** Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile.
Density is not computed when free-flow speed is less than 55 mph.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
OFF-RAMP OPERATION AT DIVERGE FROM FREEWAY MAINLINE
Analysis Methodology & Standards
Caltrans uses an off-ramp volume of 1,500 vehicles per hour as the maximum acceptable limit that can
be accommodated by a single lane off-ramp at its divergence from the freeway mainline.
Existing Off-Ramp Diverge Operations
Table 16.6 shows that currently all U.S.101 freeway off-ramps serving South San Francisco and the
East of 101 area are operating acceptably and have volumes below 1,500 vehicles per hour during the
AM and PM peak traffic hours, with the exception of the northbound off-ramp to East Grand
Avenue/Executive Drive during the AM peak hour (with a volume of 1,618 vehicles per hour).
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-11
Table 16.6: Off-Ramp Capacity & Volumes at Diverge From Freeway Mainline
Existing, Year 2015 & Year 2035
AM PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
YEAR 2015 YEAR 2035
U.S.101 OFF-RAMP CAPACITY*
(VEH/HR)
EXISTING
2008
BASE
CASE
BASE
CASE +
PHASE I
PROJECT
BASE
CASE
BASE
CASE
+ OPSP
SB Off-Ramp to Airport Blvd. 1500 207 318 318 431 431
SB Off-Ramp Flyover to Oyster
Point/Gateway
1500 1249 1618 1750 2107 2456
SB Off-Ramp to Airport Blvd./
Miller Ave.
1500 531 779 780 1000 1010
NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport
Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane
1500** 1195 1765 1767 2091 2151
NB Off-Ramp to E. Grand Ave./
Executive Drive
1500** 1618 1756 1756 2138 2174
NB Off-Ramp to Dubuque Ave. 1500 716 1356 1536 1556 2002
PM PEAK HOUR
SB Off-Ramp to Airport Blvd. 1500 419 512 512 755 755
SB Off-Ramp Flyover to Oyster
Point/Gateway
1500 154 331 348 335 418
SB Off-Ramp to Airport Blvd./
Miller Ave.
1500 531 638 640 744 748
NB Off-Ramp to S. Airport
Blvd./ Wondercolor Lane
1500** 559 769 769 765 804
NB Off-Ramp to E. Grand Ave./
Executive Drive
1500** 536 539 539 650 665
NB Off-Ramp to Dubuque Ave. 1500 494 635 655 682 808
* Caltrans desired volume limit that can be accommodated by a single off-ramp lane connection to the freeway
mainline.
** Programmed provision of second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline will increase capacity to
2,300 vehicles per hour.
Bolded results = significant impacts
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
ON-RAMP OPERATION
Analysis Methodology & Standards
On-ramp operation has been evaluated using planning level methodology contained in the Year 2000
Highway Capacity Manual (page 25-4/Exhibit 25-3). Capacity is dependent upon the free flow speed
of on-ramp traffic. For single lane diamond on-ramps with higher speeds, capacity has been set at 2,200
vehicles per hour, while for single lane button hook or curving on-ramps, capacity has been set at 2,000
vehicles per hour.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-12 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Existing On-Ramp Operations
Table 16.7 shows that currently, all U.S.101 freeway on-ramps serving South San Francisco and the
East of 101 area are operating acceptably and have volumes well below capacity during the AM and
PM peak hours.
Table 16.7: On-Ramp Capacity & Volumes
Existing, Year 2015 & Year 2035
AM PEAK HOUR
VOLUMES
YEAR 2015 YEAR 2035
U.S.101 OFF-RAMP CAPACITY*
(VEH/HR)
EXISTING
2008
BASE
CASE
BASE
CASE +
PHASE I
PROJECT
BASE
CASE
BASE
CASE +
OPSP
SB On-Ramp from Dubuque
Ave.
2000 495 601 622 901 987
SB On-Ramp from Produce
Ave.
3300** 1026 1019 1019 1288 1305
NB On-Ramp from S. Airport
Blvd./Wondercolor Lane
2000 269 334 334 387 388
NB On-Ramp from Grand
Ave.
2000 650 752 752 844 844
NB On-Ramp from Oyster
Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave.
2200 746 974 991 1467 1538
PM PEAK HOUR
SB On-Ramp from Dubuque
Ave.
2000 1263 1553 1677 1906 2125
SB On-Ramp from Produce
Ave.
3300** 1836 2000 2095 2539 2854
NB On-Ramp from S. Airport
Blvd./Wondercolor Lane
2000 476 608 608 893 897
NB On-Ramp from Grand
Ave.
2000 842 1282 1283 1213 1213
NB On-Ramp from Oyster
Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave.
2200 1184 1923 1999 2190 2563
* Planning level capacity: Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual, TRB Report 209.
** Produce Avenue on-ramp has two travel lanes. One on-ramp lane merges to the freeway mainline, while the
other on-ramp continues as an auxiliary lane to the I-380 off-ramp.
Bolded results = significant impacts
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
TRANSIT & SHUTTLE SERVICE
Transit service in the study area includes local bus service, shuttle service and regional rail service.
Figure 5 in Appendix E shows bus/shuttle service east of the U.S.101 freeway in the OPSP vicinity,
while Table 16.8 lists the type and frequency of transit service provided to South San Francisco and the
OPSP area and Table 16.9 lists the Alliance Shuttle Service shuttles and schedule.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-13
Table 16.8: Transit Service – South San Francisco
Frequency
Service Route AM/PM Peak Midday Area Served
Airport/Linden—Daly
City and Colma BART
Stations (130)
20/20 30 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave.
South SF BART
Station (132) 30/30 50 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave.
Airport/Linden-
Serramonte (133) 30/30 60 Airport Blvd./Linden Ave.
Palo Alto-Daly City
(390) 30/30 30 South SF BART Bay 3
Redwood City-Colma
BART Station (391) 15/30(a) 15(a) El Camino Real/South SF
BART Station
SamTrans
San Mateo-SF (292) 15/15(a) 30 Airport Blvd./Baden Ave.
Caltrain Gilroy-SF 30/30 60 South SF Caltrain Station
Pittsburg-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station
Fremont-Daly City 15/15 15 Daly City BART Station
Richmond-Daly City 15/15 — Daly City BART Station
BART
Dublin-Millbrae 15/15 15 South SF BART Station
Gateway Area 30/30 — Genentech Bldgs B9, B5
Oyster Point Area 30/30(a) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384
Oyster Point
Sierra Point Area 30/30(a) — 5000 Shoreline Ct.
Caltrain Shuttle
to SSF Station
Utah-Grand Area 30/30(a) — Cabot/Allerton
BART Shuttle Sierra Point Area 35/35 — 5000 Shoreline Ct.
to SSF Station Gateway Area 20/20 — 1000 Gateway
Genentech 15/15 — Genentech Bldgs. B5, B54
Oyster Point Area 23/23(a) — Gull/Oyster Point and 384
Oyster Point
Utah-Grand Area 23/23(a) — Cabot/Allerton
Frequency of transit service is presented in minutes.
SF = San Francisco
(a) = average frequency period.
Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission (511.org), San Mateo County ALLIANCE (commute.org)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-14 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 16.9: Alliance Shuttle Service – South San Francisco
Shuttle Station Served Schedule Area Served
BART eight AM & nine PM trips
Oyster Point Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips
Oyster Point Blvd., Gull Rd.,
Eccles Ave., Forbes Blvd.,
Veterans Blvd.
BART nine AM & nine PM tripsUtah-Grand Caltrain seven AM & seven PM trips
E. Grand Ave., Utah Ave.,
Harbor Way, Littlefield Ave.
BART ten AM & twelve PM trips
Gateway Area Caltrain six AM & five PM trips
Gateway Blvd.-BART
Gateway Blvd., Genentech
Office-Caltrain
BART four AM & four PM Sierra Point Caltrain four AM & four PM trips Sierra Point, Shoreline
Both shuttles alternate between 15- and 30-minute headways during both peak hours.
Source: San Mateo County ALLIANCE (Commute.org)
Bus Service
The San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) provides bus service to South San Francisco.
However, currently there is no SamTrans service east of the U.S.101 freeway. Bus service running just
west of the freeway is as follows.
Route 34: Tanforan Shopping Center–Geneva operates along Bayshore Boulevard and Airport
Boulevard between Brisbane and the San Bruno BART station in the study area. This route operates
during midday only on weekdays with headways of about two hours.
Route 130: Daly City/Colma BART–South San Francisco operates along Linden Avenue and Grand
Avenue in the study area. It connects central South San Francisco with the Colma BART station and
Daly City. It operates with 20-minute peak period headways and 30- to 60-minute non-peak headways
on weekdays, 30-minute headways on Saturdays and 60-minute headways on Sundays.
Route 132: Airport/Linden-Arroyo/El Camino operates along Hillside Avenue and Grand Avenue
connecting to the South San Francisco BART station. It operates on 30-minute peak period headways
and 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays and 60-minute headways on Saturdays.
Route 292: San Francisco–SF Airport–Hillsdale Shopping Center operates along Airport Boulevard. It
operates with 20- to 30-minute peak headways and 25- to 60-minute non-peak headways on weekdays
and 30- to 60- minute headways on Saturdays and Sundays.
Caltrain
Caltrain provides train service between Gilroy, San Jose and San Francisco. There is a station located
on the corner of Dubuque Avenue and Grand Avenue Overcrossing in South San Francisco. Trains
operate every 15 to 20 minutes during commute periods and hourly during midday.
Caltrain/BART Shuttles
Van shuttles are provided between the South San Francisco Caltrain station and employment centers
east of U.S.101 during commute hours. Separate shuttles provide service to/from the Colma BART
station. Shuttle stops are provided at two locations along East Grand Avenue and at one location along
Harbor Way adjacent to the OPSP site.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-15
The Gateway Area/Genentech Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) provides service on Gateway Boulevard,
Oyster Point Boulevard, Forbes Boulevard, Grandview Drive and East Grand Avenue. There are 15
morning trips and 15 afternoon trips on the BART shuttle, and six morning trips and five afternoon
trips on the Caltrain shuttle.
The Utah-Grand Shuttle (BART and Caltrain) serves over 20 employers in the Utah/Grand/Littlefield
area. It provides service on Harbor Way, East Grand Avenue, Cabot Court, Grandview Avenue,
Littlefield Avenue, Haskin Way and Utah Avenue. There are nine trips in the morning and nine trips in
the afternoon on the BART shuttle, with nine morning and eight afternoon trips on the Caltrain shuttle.
All shuttle service is fixed-route, fixed-schedule and is provided on weekdays during the commute
periods. The shuttles are free to riders. The operating costs are borne by the Joint Powers Board (JPB),
SamTrans, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, and the City/County Association of
Governments (75 percent) and sponsoring employers (25 percent).
PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Sidewalks are in place along Oyster Point Boulevard in the OPSP vicinity. There are no sidewalks
along Marina Boulevard. However, there are paved pathways in Oyster Point Park adjacent to Marina
Boulevard. There are no Class II or Class III bicycle lane designations along Oyster Point Boulevard or
Marina Boulevard internal to the OPSP site, although there are numerous bicycle facilities available in
the study area. Bike lanes are provided along East Grand Avenue east of Littlefield Avenue, Sister
Cities Boulevard, Oyster Point Boulevard (east of Gateway Avenue), Gull Road, and Gateway
Boulevard (south of East Grand Avenue). Bike routes are designated on South Airport Boulevard and
on East Grand Avenue between Executive Drive and the East Grand Overcrossing. Bike paths are
available along Executive Drive, and along the shoreline. Future bike lanes are planned along Gateway
Boulevard, East Grand Avenue, Allerton Avenue, and Forbes Boulevard (east of Allerton Avenue).
Future bike routes are planned along Forbes Boulevard (west of Allerton Avenue), while a future bike
path is planned along the Caltrain right-of-way. The proposed future bike lanes, routes, and paths are
designated in the General Plan Transportation Element.
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM
The City of South San Francisco requires that all nonresidential development expected to generate 100
or more average daily trips, based on the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates or a
project seeking a floor area ratio (FAR) bonus implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
measures to reduce vehicle traffic (Chapter 20.120 Transportation Demand Management). The
purposes of the TDM ordinance are as follows:
x Implement a program designed to reduce the amount of traffic generated by new nonresidential
development, and the expansion of existing nonresidential development pursuant to the City’s
police power and necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
x Ensure that expected increases in traffic resulting from growth in employment opportunities in the
City of South San Francisco will be adequately mitigated.
x Reduce drive-alone commute trips during peak traffic periods by using a combination of services,
incentives, and facilities.
x Promote the more efficient utilization of existing transportation facilities and ensure that new
developments are designed in ways to maximize the potential for alternative transportation usage.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
x Establish minimum TDM requirements for all new nonresidential development.
x Allow reduced parking requirements for projects implementing the requirements of this chapter.
x Establish an ongoing monitoring and enforcement program to ensure that the measures are
implemented.
The analysis prepared for the General Plan Amendment includes the assumption that a moderate TDM
program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an additional 9.5 percent compared to existing
traffic generation rates, while an intensive TDM program will reduce peak hour traffic generation by an
additional 20 to 25 percent. The objective of TDM programs is to reduce vehicle trips at
commercial/residential developments by incorporating project components such as encouraging
increased transit use, carpooling, and providing facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians.
South San Francisco has a “menu” of potential TDM programs, each with a specific number of points
that relate to the program’s effectiveness. Examples of TDM programs include bicycle racks and
lockers, free carpool parking, shuttle services, and on-site amenities.
FUTURE BASE CASE (WITHOUT PROJECT) CONDITIONS
The traffic impacts have been evaluated in relation to both year 2015 and year 2035 Base Case
conditions. Year 2015 reflects a horizon year that the Phase I Project of the OPSP should be completed,
while year 2035 reflects the most distant horizon year currently utilized by the City Public Works
Department and Caltrans for analysis purposes and the assumed build out of the OPSP and East of 101
area. This section details the process to determine Base Case traffic operation for year 2015 and 2035
conditions.
Year 2015 Base Case Development
The year 2015 Base Case conditions include traffic generated by existing, approved and proposed
development in the study area, as well as traffic generated by projects that are under construction. The
development list was provided by City Planning staff. Projects and their associated trip generation are
provided in the Table 16.10 and have been utilized by TJKM Associates to develop local area
intersection and freeway volumes for use in the City’s updated East of 101 Transportation Capital
Improvement Program study. Year 2015 peak hour Base Case (without project) conditions were
developed by adding traffic expected to be generated by all the approved and proposed developments
in the greater East of 101 Area to the existing traffic network. Year 2015 projections include traffic
from several recently approved background projects such as Gateway Business Park, 213 E. Grand,
Lowe’s, Home Depot, Terrabay, the ferry terminal that is currently under construction and the
Genentech Corporate Facilities Master Plan, as well as traffic from the proposed 494 Forbes and 328
Roebling Road developments. Year 2015 Base Case (without project) AM and PM peak hour
intersection volumes are presented in Figures 6 and 7 in Appendix E.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-17
Table 16.10: Existing, Approved & Planned Development Trip Generation by 2015
Developments East of the U.S.101 Freeway or Just West of the U.S.101 Freeway
Contributing Significant Traffic to U.S.101 Interchanges in South San Francisco
DAILY AMPEAK HOUR PMPEAK HOURLANEUSE
(ITECODE)
SIZE/
UNIT
Rate Total
Trip
Rate
In/Out
% In Out Total
Trip
Rate
In/Out
% In Out Total
Genentech(1)
(20% TDM Reduction)
1988 318 2306 271 1613 1884
Hotel 350
Rooms
8.17 2860 0.56 61:39 120 76 196 0.59 53:47 109 97 206
R&D(3) 372,000
sf
0.51 83:17 158 32 190 0.39 16:84 23 122 145 Genentech
Triangle(2)
Office(3) 248,000
sf
0.82 87:13 178 26 204 0.63 17:83 26 129 155
R&D(4) 680,499
sf
3.62 2464 0.57 83:17 322 66 388 0.47 15:85 48 272 320
Ferry
Terminal(5)
(010)
1 Berth 814 138 26 164 54 101 155 Oyster
Point
Marina
(420)
716
Berths
2.96 2119 0.08 33:67 19 38 57 0.19 60:40 82 54 136
Commercial(4) (820) 364,502
sf
43.19 15,741 0.91 61:39 202 129 331 4.15 49:51 741 772 1513
Home Center(4)(862) 290,794
sf
23.29 6774 1.26 57:43 209 158 367 2.37 48:52 331 358 689
Hotel (310) 3385
Rooms
8.17 27,655 0.56 61:39 1156 739 1895 0.59 53:47 1058 939 1997
R&D(4) (760)
(20% TDM Reduction)
7,824,074
sf
3.62 28,326 0.57 83:17 3705 759 4464 0.47 15:85 547 3100 3647
Office(4) (710)
(20% TDM Reduction)
360,000
sf
7.10 2554 1.05 88:12 333 45 378 1.00 17:83 61 300 361
Manufacturing (140)
(15% TDM Reduction)
8,019,777
sf
3.25 26,040 0.62 78:22 3881 1095 4976 0.62 36:64 1791 3185 4976
Total Trips 115,374 12,409 3507 15,916 5142 11,042 16,184
(1) Trips based on existing land use as published in the Genentech EIR (with 20% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the EIR).
(2) The “Genentech Triangle” is a parcel on the north side of Oyster Point Boulevard bordered by Caltrain on the west and Veterans Boulevard on the east
and north. It is owned by Genentech, but separated from the rest of their campus and its trip generation/distribution has always been calculated separately
from the rest of the campus.
(3) Rates based on Genentech EIR (with 20% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the EIR).
(4) Rates developed from ITE equations.
(5) Trips based on SF Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) ridership forecast.
Trip rate source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition)
Compiled by: TJKM Associates
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-18 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
YEAR 2015 BASE CASE OPERATING CONDITIONS
Roadway Improvements Planned by 2015
The City’s East of 101 capital improvement program funds certain roadway and intersection
improvements in the City’s East of 101 area through the collection of lawfully adopted impact fees. In
accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, impact fees are imposed on and collected from development
projects in the East of 101 area, held in a separate account, and used to fund improvements benefiting
the area and the projects from which the fees were collected. Like other projects in the East of 101 area,
the projects developed under the OPSP, including the Phase I Project, will pay a proportionate share
towards these improvements. The City is in the process of updating their capital improvement program
list for the East of 101 area; a new list is expected to be available in mid 2011. Based on currently
available funding, projected growth rates, and the pending update, the City of South San Francisco
Public Works division expects that the following intersection improvements will be funded and
constructed by 2015. Accordingly, the improvements have been factored into the year 2015 Base Case
traffic modeling conducted by TJKM Associates for the 2010 Updated East of 101 Capital
Improvement Program.
x S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps / Wondercolor Lane
x Add a second northbound off-ramp right turn lane.
x Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp-Southbound On-Ramp
x Eliminate the exclusive left turn lane on the southbound Dubuque approach.
x Restripe the Northbound Off-Ramp approach to provide 2 exclusive left turn lanes and a
combined through / right turn lane.
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard
x Add a second lane to the northbound (private driveway) approach. Stripe as one left turn
lane and a combined through / right turn lane.
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Airport Boulevard
x Add an exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Airport Boulevard approach and
restripe the existing combined through / right turn lane as an exclusive through lane.
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
x Widen the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach and provide 2 exclusive left turn lanes,
1 through lane and 2 exclusive right turn lanes. Also, provide a second exclusive right turn
lane on the westbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach (extending partway to Gateway
Boulevard).
x E. Grand Avenue / Grand Avenue Overcrossing
x Provide a second right turn lane on the northbound E. Grand Avenue approach.
x E. Grand / US 101
x Widen existing NB off ramp to add an additional lane.
Figure 8 in Appendix E provides a schematic presentation of year 2015 intersection approach lanes and
control.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-19
Intersection Level of Service
All intersections with year 2015 Base Case volumes would be operating at acceptable Levels of Service
with the following exceptions (see Table 16.11).
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp
(Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F
x E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS E
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard (Signal)
PM Peak Hour: LOS F
x Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS E
x E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Blvd. / Harbor Way (Signal)
PM Peak Hour: LOS E
Vehicle Queuing
The following off-ramps and/or approaches to adjacent intersections would have 95th percentile year
2015 Base Case queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the Synchro software
program (see Table 16.12).
x Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Airport Boulevard southbound approach left turn and through
movements would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage.
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through movement
would have 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage.
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The flyover off-ramp approach right turn movement would have 95th
percentile queue demands greater than available storage.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-20 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 16.11: Intersection Level of Service – Year 2015 – AM & PM Peak Hours
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Base Case Base Case
+ Phase I
Project
Base Case Base Case
+ OPSP
Airport Blvd./U.S.101 SB Hook Ramps
(Signal)
B-15.4(1) B-15.5 C-35.4 D-35.5
Airport Blvd./Terrabay Phase 3 Access
(Signal) B-14.81) B-15.0 B-11.9 B-11.9
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster
Point Blvd. (Signal) C-31.5(1) C-32.0 D-41.6 D-41.7
Oyster Point/Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB
On-Ramp (Signal) C-20.2(1) C-22.5 C-25.0 C-25.2
Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off-Ramp &
SB On-Ramp (Signal) C-21.3(1) C-21.9 C-23.8 C-25.1
Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway/U.S.101 SB
Off-Ramp Flyover (Signal) F-91.1(1) F-130.1 D-52.8 E-58.3
Oyster Point/Veterans Blvd. (Signal) C-20.2 C-30.9 F-88.5 F-99.5
Oyster Point Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) B-17.0(1) D-45.6 B-18.4 B-18.7
Oyster Point Blvd./Gull Rd. (Signal) B-10.7(1) B-18.9 C-32.5 D-33.5
Airport Blvd./Miller/U.S.101 SB Off-
Ramp (Signal) C-27.8(1) C-27.8 B-19.1 B-19.1
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) E-59.6 (1) E-60.1 D-44.3 D-44.3
E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave.
(Signal) A-8.5(1) A-8.5 B-10.7 B-10.8
E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing
(Signal) B-19.9(1) B-19.9 B-14.0 B-14.0
E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd.
(Signal) E-62.7(1) E-63.2 D-35.5 D-37.4
E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./
Harbor Way. (Signal) D-35.2(1) D-35.7 E-64.0 E-64.6
E. Grand Ave./Littlefield Ave. (Signal) B-19.1(1) B-19.3 B-19.6 B-19.6
E. Grand Ave./Allerton Ave. (Signal) A-9.2(2) A-9.2 C-21.5 C-21.6
Forbes Blvd./Allerton Ave.
(All Way Stop) B-11.5(3) B-11.5 B-12.4 B-12.5
Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce
Ave. (Signal) C-30.7(1) C-30.7 D-43.7 D-43.3
Gateway Blvd./S. Airport Blvd./Mitchell
Ave. (Signal) C-30.2(1) C-30.3 D-53.7 E-68.7
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook
Ramps/Wondercolor (Signal) D-35.1(1) C-35.2 C-34.5 C-34.5
S. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave.
(Signal) C-28.1(1) C-28.1 C-31.0 C-31.0
Bold results = significant impacts. Base Case + Phase I Project and Base Case + OPSP LOS E or F results not bolded would
not be significant since project traffic would not increase Base Case volumes by 1% or more for freeway ramp intersections or
by 2% or more for South San Francisco intersections.
(1) Signalized level of service—vehicle control delay in seconds.
(2) Unsignalized level of service—vehicle control delay in seconds/Allerton Ave. southbound stop sign controlled approach
right turn to E. Grand Ave.
(3) All way stop level of service—vehicle control delay in seconds.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-21
Table 16.12: 95th Percentile Queues* - Year 2015
Intersections at or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the
Phase I Project with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service
Year 2015
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Storage
Distance*
Base
Case
Base Case +
Phase I
Project
Base
Case
Base Case +
OPSP
Airport Blvd./Grand Avenue
SB Left Turn 300 393 387 237 237
SB Through 300 335 335 204 204
SB Right Turn 300 32 32 48 51
Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave.
EB Through 250 309 327 150 164
WB Through 840 103 105 143 134
WB Left 840 104 114 601 616
WB Right 550 37 38 249 243
NB Left Turn 175 76 88 155 145
NB Left/Through 270 23 25 49 50
NB Right Turn 240 61 117 5 5
Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 SB On/ NB Off-Ramps
Off-Ramp/Left/Through 975 418 513 300 310
Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp/ Commercial Access
SB Off-Ramp Through 3350 699 800 144 152
SB Off-Ramp Right Turn Lane 400 565 565 104 104
EB Through 900 686 827 220 212
Airport Blvd./SB 101 On-Off Ramp*
SB Off-Ramp Left Turn 950 85 98 310 310
Airport Blvd./Terrabay Entrance
SB Through 450 204 214 120 121
SB Right Turn 300 21 17 1 1
E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing
NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane 800 271 272 301 301
NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane 800 146 146 37 37
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.
WB Left Turn 250 113 114 178 182
WB Through/Right Turn 250 104 103 283 286
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB On and Off/Wondercolor Lane
NB Off Left/Through/Right 825 450 451 220 220
Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./U.S.101 SB Off
SB Off Left/Through 750 309 309 225 227
Bolded results = significant project impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to vehicle queuing
for any other approach lane or lanes experiencing Base Case 95th percentile queuing greater than established
standards as project traffic contributions would be less than 1 percent of the total.
* Storage and queues—in feet per lane.
Synchro software used for all analysis.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-22 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
x Sister Cities Blvd. / Airport Blvd. / Oyster Point Blvd.
PM Peak Hour: The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach through and combined
through/right turn movements would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than
available storage.
The following off-ramps would have year 2015 Base Case queuing extending back to the U.S.101
mainline one or more times during the peak traffic hours as determined using the SIM traffic software
program.
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
Off-Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline
The following off-ramps would have year 2015 Base Case volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles/hour on a
one-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline or 2,200 to 2,300 vehicles/hour on a two-lane
off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline (see Table 16.6).
x U.S.101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
Intersection
AM Peak Hour: 1,618 vehicles per hour using off-ramp.
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive Intersection
AM Peak Hour: 1,756 vehicles per hour using off-ramp (being widened to 2 lanes – 2,300
VPH capacity).
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to So. Airport Blvd. / Wondercolor Lane
AM Peak Hour: 1,765 vehicles per hour using off-ramp (being widened to 2 lanes – 2,300
VPH capacity).
On-Ramp Operation
No on-ramps would have year 2015 Base Case volumes exceeding ramp capacities (see Table 16.7).
U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Level of Service
The following mainline freeway segment would be operating at unacceptable Levels of Service with
year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 16.13).
x U.S.101 Northbound (North of the Bayshore Boulevard Off-Ramp)
PM Peak Hour: LOS F operation.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-23
Table 16.13: Year 2015 U.S.101 Freeway Operation – AM & PM Peak Hours
AM PEAK HOUR
Base Case Base Case + Phase I Project
Segment Vol LOS Density Vol LOS Density
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 8099 D 34.0 8116 D 34.1
Southbound 7260 D 28.5 7376 D 29.2
North of I-380
Northbound 11203 D 29.7 11380 D 30.4
Southbound 6695 B 16.7 6717 B 16.7
PM PEAK HOUR
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 8092 D 33.9 8205 D 34.8
Southbound 6792 D 26.1 6808 D 26.1
North of I-380
Northbound 8337 C 20.8 8362 C 20.8
Southbound 9504 C 24.0 9665 C 24.4
The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to any freeway segment.
LOS = Level of Service
Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
YEAR 2035 BASE CASE OPERATING CONDITIONS
The year 2035 Base Case conditions include traffic generated by all development detailed in the 2015
analysis, the last half of the Genentech master plan the remaining half of the Gateway Master Plan as
well as other increases in manufacturing, commercial, office and R&D uses. The daily and peak hour
trip generation potential of all developments expected in the East of 101 area by 2035 is presented in
Table 16.14. In addition to these specific developments, traffic on Airport Boulevard to/from Brisbane
to the north as well as on Sister Cities Boulevard and other surface streets to the west of the U.S. 101
freeway were projected to grow from 2016 to 2035 at rates projected in the C/CAG regional model
(after allowance for traffic to/from new development east of the 101 freeway). The net increase in local
area trip generation between 2016 and 2035 is presented in Table 16.15.
Year 2035 intersection AM and PM peak hour as well as U.S.101 freeway segment traffic volumes
were developed by TJKM Associates for the City’s Update of the East of 101 Capital Improvements
Program. Year 2035 Base Case (without project) AM and PM peak hour intersection volumes are
presented in Figures 9 and 10 in Appendix E.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-24 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 16.14: Existing, Approved & Planned Development Trip Generation by 2035
Developments East of the U.S.101 Freeway or Just West of the U.S.101 Freeway
Contributing Significant Traffic to U.S.101 Interchanges in South San Francisco
Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Lane Use
(ITE Code)
Size/
Unit
Rate Total
Trip
Rate
In/Out
% In Out Total
Trip
Rate
In/Out
% In Out Total
Genentech(1)
(25% TDM Reduction)
3015 427 3442 453 2513 2966
Hotel 350
Rooms
8.17 2860 0.56 61:39 120 76 196 0.59 53:47 109 97 206
R&D(3) 372,000 sf 0.48 83:17 148 30 178 0.37 16:84 21 115 136
Genentech
Triangle(2)
Office(3) 248,000 sf 0.77 87:13 167 24 191 0.58 17:83 24 121 145
R&D(4) 680,499 sf 3.28 2464 0.52 83:17 232 66 388 0.42 15:85 48 272 320
Ferry
Terminal(5)
(010)
1 Berth 814 138 26 164 54 101 155 Oyster
Point
Marina
(420)
716 Berths 2.96 2119 0.08 33:67 19 38 57 0.19 60:40 82 54 136
Commercial(4) (820) 693,302 sf 34.14 23,671 0.69 61:39 291 186 477 3.33 49:51 1130 1176 2306
Home Center(4)(862) 290,794 sf 23.29 6774 1.26 57:43 209 158 367 2.37 48:52 331 358 689
Hotel (310) 3385
Rooms
8.17 27,655 0.56 61:39 1156 739 1895 0.59 53:47 1058 939 1997
R&D(4) (760)
(25% TDM Reduction)
8,638,902
sf
3.28 28,316 0.52 83:17 3733 765 4498 0.42 15:85 547 3098 3645
Office(4) (710)
(25% TDM Reduction)
1,230,570
sf
4.94 6079 0.76 88:12 825 112 937 0.87 17:83 181 886 1067
Manufacturing (140)
(15% TDM Reduction)
11,291,567
sf
3.25 36,664 0.62 78:22 5465 1541 7006 0.62 36:64 2522 4484 7006
Total Trips 137,416 15,609 4188 19,797 6560 14,214 20,774
(1) Trips based on existing land use as published in the Genentech EIR (with 25% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the DEIR).
(2) The “Genentech Triangle” is a parcel on the north side of Oyster Point Boulevard bordered by Caltrain on the west and Veterans Boulevard on the east
and north. It is owned by Genentech, but separated from the rest of their campus and its trip generation/distribution has always been calculated separately
from the rest of the campus.
(3) Rates based on Genentech EIR (with 25% TDM applied instead of 7.5% TDM used in the EIR).
(4) Rates developed from ITE equations.
(5) Trips based on SF Bay Area Water Transit Authority (WTA) ridership forecast.
Trip rate source: Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8th Edition)
Compiled by: TJKM Associates
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-25
Table 16.15: Net Change in East of 101 Trip Generation – 2016 to 2035
AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Inbound Outbound Total Inbound Outbound Total
Total 3200 681 3881 1418 3172 4590
Source: TJKM Associates
Roadway Improvements Planned by 2035
At City Public Works Department direction, all roadway improvements currently listed in the City’s
July 2007 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update for the East of 101 Area were assumed to be built and in
operation for year 2035 Base Case and Base Case + OPSP evaluation. Figure 11 in Appendix E
provides a schematic presentation of year 2035 intersection approach lanes and control.
Intersection Level of Service
All intersections with year 2035 Base Case volumes would be operating at acceptable levels of service
with the following exceptions (see Table 16.16).
x Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard/U.S.101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp
(Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F
PM Peak Hour: LOS F
x Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard/Oyster Point Boulevard
PM Peak Hour: LOS E
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard (Signal)
PM Peak Hour: LOS E
x Airport Blvd. / Grand Avenue (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F
PM Peak Hour: LOS E
x E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way (Signal)
PM Peak Hour: LOS E
x S. Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane / U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps
AM Peak Hour: LOS E
x E. Grand Avenue/Gateway Boulevard (Signal)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-26 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 16.16: Intersection Level of Service –Year 2035 – AM & PM Peak Hours
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Base Case Base Case
+ OPSP
Base Case Base Case
+ OPSP
Airport Blvd./U.S.101 SB Hook Ramps
(Signal) C-26.4(1) C-26.5 D-47.6 D-47.6
Airport Blvd./Terrabay Phase 3 Access
(Signal) B-15.3(1) B-15.6 B-19.0 B-19.0
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster
Point Blvd. (Signal) D-43.2(1) D-47.0 D-48.3 D-49.0
Oyster Point/Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB
On-Ramp (Signal) C-22.7(1) D-44.1 D-40.2 E-66.1
Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 NB Off-Ramp &
SB On-Ramp (Signal) C-20.5(1) C-22.8 D-38.0 D-41.4
Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway/U.S.101 SB
Off-Ramp Flyover (Signal) F-124(1) F-231 F-108 F-187
Oyster Point Blvd./Veterans Blvd. (Signal) C-29.8(1) F-130 E-55.3 E-56.3
Oyster Point Blvd./Eccles Ave. (Signal) B-17.0(1) F-181 C-20.1 C-21.0
Oyster Point Blvd./Gull Rd. (Signal) C-31.4(1) B-15.0 D-38.0 D-38.7
Airport Blvd./Miller/U.S.101 SB Off-
Ramp (Signal) C-27.0(1) C-27.0 C-20.9 C-21.0
Airport Blvd./Grand Ave. (Signal) F-81.6(1) F-85.1 E-60.7 E-62.6
E. Grand Overcrossing/Dubuque Ave.
(Signal) A-8.2(1) A-8.2 B-10.7 B-11.1
E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing
(Signal) C-21.2(1) C-21.4 B-15.5 B-15.5
E. Grand Ave./Gateway Blvd. (Signal) F-124(1) F-138 D-44.2 E-55.3
E. Grand Ave./Forbes Blvd./Harbor Way.
(Signal) D-52.1(1) E-55.9 E-64.9 F-89.5
E. Grand Ave./Littlefield Ave. (Signal) C-20.9(1) C-21.3 B-19.2 B-19.2
E. Grand Ave./Allerton Ave. (Signal) B-10.7(1) B-11.0 B-12.6 B-15.9
Forbes Blvd./Allerton Ave.
(All Way Stop) B-13.7(2) C-17.8 C-16.6 D-31.5
Airport Blvd./San Mateo Ave./Produce
Ave. (Signal) C-33.3(1) C-33.5 D-53.8 E-63.9
Gateway Blvd./S. Airport Blvd./Mitchell
Ave. (Signal) B-18.8(1) B-19.6 C-33.9 D-35.0
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook
Ramps/ Wondercolor (Signal) E-58.6(1) E-62.2 D-46.6 D-49.0
S. Airport Blvd./Utah Ave. (Signal) C-31.6(1) C-31.8 D-40.8 D-41.8
Bold results = significant project impacts. Base Case + Phase I Project and Base Case + OPSP LOS E or F results not bolded would not be
significant since project traffic would not increase Base Case volumes by 1% or more for freeway ramp intersections or by 2% or more for
South San Francisco intersections.
(1) Signalized level of service—vehicle control delay in seconds.
(2) All Way Stop level of service—vehicle control delay in seconds.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-27
Vehicle Queuing
The following off-ramps and/or approaches to adjacent intersections would have 95th percentile year
2035 Base Case queuing exceeding available storage as determined using the Synchro software
program (see Table 16.17).
x Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Airport Boulevard southbound approach left turn movement would
have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage.
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach through movement
would have a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage.
PM Peak Hour: The Dubuque Avenue northbound approach left turn movement and the
Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound through turn movement would have 95th percentile
queue demands greater than available storage.
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S. Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The U.S.101 southbound off-ramp right turn movement would have a 95th
percentile queue demand greater than available storage.
x Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane would have
a 95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage.
PM Peak Hour: The Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach left turn lane and through
lanes would have 95th percentile queue demands greater than available storage.
x Airport Boulevard / Terrabay Entrance
PM Peak Hour: The Airport Boulevard southbound approach through lanes would have a
95th percentile queue demand greater than available storage.
The following off-ramps would have year 2035 Base Case queuing extending back to the U.S.101
mainline one or more times during the peak traffic hours as determined using the SIM traffic software
program (unless noted).
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive
AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-28 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 16.17: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queues – Year 2035
Intersections at or Near U.S.101 Interchanges Potentially Impacted by the
OPSP with Signal Timing for Optimized Level of Service
Year 2035
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Storage
Distance* Base
Case
Base Case +
OPSP
Base
Case
Base Case +
OPSP
Airport Blvd./Grand Avenue
SB Left Turn 300 393 396 158 158
SB Through or SB Through/Right 300 220 230 195 196
Oyster Point Blvd./Dubuque Ave.
EB Through 250 586 637 302 376
WB Through 840 94 106 162 141
WB Left 840 118 197 534 472
WB Right 550 42 44 296 311
NB Left Turn 270 86 89 338 339
NB Left/Through 270 81 90 134 190
NB Right Turn 240 78 351 151 59
Dubuque Ave./U.S.101 SB On/ NB Off-Ramps
Off-Ramp/Left/Through 975 436 784 386 642
Oyster Point Blvd./Gateway Blvd./U.S.101 SB Off-Ramp/ Commercial Access
SB Off-Ramp Through 3350 922 1323 185 236
SB Off-Ramp Right Turn Lane 400 910 970 120 120
EB Through 900 756 1197 266 413
Airport Blvd./SB 101 On-Off Ramp*
SB Off-Ramp Left Turn 950 196 196 393 393
Airport Blvd./Terrabay Entrance
SB Through 450 408 415 503 509
SB Right Turn 300 47 44 10 9
E. Grand Ave./Grand Ave. Overcrossing
NB E. Grand Right Turn Lane 800 156 156 301 303
NB E. Grand Left Turn Lane 800 332 337 42 43
Airport Blvd./Sister Cities Blvd./Oyster Point Blvd.
WB Left Turn 140 256 273 524 542
WB Through 250 89 90 415 447
WB Right Turn 250 89 83 106 90
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB On and Off/Wondercolor Lane
EB Left Turn 825 768 813 293 320
Airport Blvd./Miller Ave./U.S.101 SB Off
SB Left Turn/Through 750 269 273 293 293
Boldedresults = significant project impact. The proposed project would not result in significant impacts to vehicle queuing for any
other approach lane or lanes experiencing Base Case 95th percentile queuing greater than established standards as project traffic
contributions would be less than 1 percent of the total.
* Storage and queues—in feet per lane.
Synchro software used for all analysis unless noted.
Source: Crane Transportation Group
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-29
x U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
x U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor Lane
AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
x U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Airport Boulevard / Miller Avenue
AM Peak Hour: Backups to mainline.
Off-Ramp Operation at Diverge from Freeway Mainline
The following off-ramps would have year 2035 Base Case volumes exceeding 1,500 vehicles/hour on a
one-lane off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline or 2,200 to 2,300 vehicles/hour on a two-lane
off-ramp connection to the freeway mainline (see Table 16.6).
x U.S.101 Southbound (Flyover) Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard/Gateway Boulevard
Intersection
AM Peak Hour: 2,107 vehicles per hour using off-ramp.
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: 1,556 vehicles per hour using off-ramp.
On-Ramp Operation
No on-ramps would have year 2035 Base Case volumes exceeding ramp capacities (see Table 16.7).
U.S.101 Freeway Mainline Level of Service
The following mainline freeway segment with year 2035 Base Case volumes would be operating at
unacceptable Levels of Service (see Table 16.18).
x U.S.101 Southbound (North of the Oyster Point On-Ramp)
AM Peak Hour: LOS F operation.
x U.S.101 Northbound (North of the Oyster Point On-Ramp)
PM Peak Hour: LOS F operation.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-30 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 16.18: Year 2035 U.S.101 Freeway Operation – AM & PM Peak Hours
AM PEAK HOUR
Base Case Base Case + OPSP
Segment Vol LOS Density Vol LOS Density
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 9379 F* __ 9449 F* __
Southbound 9698 F* — 10047 F* —
North of I-380
Northbound 13068 E 37.7 13610 E 41.3
Southbound 8530 C 20.8 8623 C 21.1
PM PEAK HOUR
North of Oyster Point Boulevard
Northbound 8543 E 36.2 8913 E 39.6
Southbound 7847 D 31.1 7930 D 31.6
North of I-380
Northbound 8592 C 21.0 8772 C 21.4
Southbound 11387 D 29.5 11907 D 31.7
Bold = significant project impact. The proposed project would result in a significant impact to one
freeway segment experiencing Base Case LOS F operation as project volume increases would be
greater than 1 percent.
* unacceptable freeway segment operating conditions.
LOS = Level of Service
Density is shown in passenger cars per lane per mile.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual Analysis Methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
Standards of Significance have been measured based on CEQA, City of South San Francisco and
C/CAG Guideline thresholds. Therefore, project impacts would be significant if they result in any of
the following conditions:
a.The project would exceed 100 net new peak hour trips on the local roadway system (C/CAG
criteria only).
b.Signalized intersection operation and all-way-stop operation would change from Level of Service
(LOS) A, B, C or D to LOS E or F and total volumes passing through the intersection would be
increased by at least two percent.
c.Uncontrolled turn movements or stop sign controlled approaches at side street stop sign controlled
intersections would change from LOS A, B, C, D or E to LOS F and total volumes passing through
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-31
the intersection would be increased by at least two percent. Side street criteria are applicable only
for stop sign controlled approaches with more than 25 trips during any peak traffic hour.
d.The proposed project would increase total volumes passing through an intersection by two percent
or more with signalized or all-way stop operation already at a Base Case LOS E or F, or when the
intersection is side street stop sign controlled and the stop sign controlled Base Case operation is at
LOS F (and there are more than 25 vehicles on the stop sign controlled approach).
e.Project traffic would increase Base Case volumes at an unsignalized intersection to meet peak hour
volume signal warrant criteria levels, or to meet pedestrian/school crossing signal warrant criteria
levels.
f.The proposed project would increase traffic entering an unsignalized intersection by two percent or
more with Base Case traffic levels already exceeding peak hour volume signal warrant criteria
levels.
g.Project traffic would increase acceptable Base Case 95th percentile vehicle queuing on a freeway
off-ramp and/or also on the approaches to adjacent intersections leading away from off-ramp
intersections to unacceptable levels (as determined by the Synchro software program), or if Base
Case 95th percentile queuing on the freeway off-ramps or on the approaches to adjacent
intersections leading away from off-ramp intersections is already projected at unacceptable lengths,
the project would increase queuing volumes by one percent or more.
h.Project traffic results in queues exceeding off-ramp storage capacity based upon SIM traffic
software evaluation. If base case traffic already exceeds the storage capacity of the off-ramp, then a
one-percent addition in traffic due to the project is considered a significant impact.
i.Project traffic would degrade operation of the U.S. 101 freeway or freeway ramps from LOS E to
LOS F with at least a one percent increase in volume, or would increase volumes by more than one
percent on a freeway segment or a freeway ramp with Base Case LOS F operation.
j.If on-site circulation would be confusing to drivers and result in excessive traffic flow through
various parts of the project site.
k.Project development or project traffic would produce a detrimental impact to local transit or shuttle
service.
l.If, in the opinion of the registered traffic engineer conducting the EIR analysis, a significant traffic,
pedestrian or bicycle safety concern would be created or worsened.
TRIP GENERATION
Table 16.19 shows that by 2015 the Phase I Project would generate 369 inbound and 48 outbound net
new trips during the AM peak hour, with 55 inbound and 343 outbound net new trips during the PM
peak hour. This assumes a 20.0 percent reduction in peak hour trips due to a vigorous City-mandated
TDM program. By 2035, total net new trip generation after OPSP completion would be 1,158 inbound
and 244 outbound trips during the AM peak hour, with 426 inbound and 1,195 outbound trips during
the PM peak hour. The 2035 analysis assumes a 25 percent reduction in peak hour trips due to a
vigorous City-mandated TDM program.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-32 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 16.19: OPSP Phase I Project Trip Generation
Year 2015
Daily AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips
Condition 2-Way Trips* Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
W/O Project (Includes
Ferry Terminal)
4968 352 119 191 315
With Phase I Project 7639 721 167 346 658
Net Change Project vs.
W/O Project
2671 369 48 55 343
Year 2035
W/O OPSP Includes
Ferry Terminal)
4968 352 119 191 315
With OPSP 17,684 1510 363 617 1510
Net Change OPSP vs.
W/O OPSP
12,716 1158 244 426 1195
* Total inbound + outbound.
Volume source: TJKM Associates
Compiled by: Crane Transportation Group
TRIP DISTRIBUTION
OPSP traffic was distributed to the regional roadway network based upon East of 101 development
traffic patterns contained in the April 2001 Draft SEIR for the South San Francisco General Plan
Amendment and Transportation Demand Ordinance, the 2008 Genentech Corporate Facilities Master
EIR and recent traffic modeling for the East of 101 Traffic Modeling update traffic study (see Table
16.20). It is likely that OPSP drivers destined to/from the U.S.101 freeway either north or south would
choose to access the freeway via several routes and interchanges. Year 2015 AM and PM peak hour
project traffic is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Appendix E, Figures 12 and 13,
with Figures 14 and 15 presenting resultant year 2015 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + Phase I
Project volumes at major intersections. Figure 16 in Appendix E presents year 2015 AM and PM peak
hour volumes at project driveways internal to the site. Year 2035 AM and PM peak hour OPSP traffic
is shown distributed to the local roadway network in Appendix E, Figures 17 and 18, with Figures 19
and 20 presenting resultant year 2035 AM and PM peak hour Base Case + OPSP volumes at major
intersections. Figure 21 in Appendix E presents year 2035 AM and PM peak hour volumes at major
intersections internal to the OPSP site.
Table 16.20: OPSP Traffic Distribution
Year 2015 Year 2035
Direction
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
AM Peak
Hour
PM Peak
Hour
U.S.101 North/San Francisco / Brisbane 37 35 34 32
U.S.101 South(1) 48 48 48 48
South San Francisco (central area) 6 6 6 6
Daly City/Colma via Sister Cities Blvd. 6 6 6 6
Local East of U.S.101 3 5 6 8
TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100%
(1) Also includes use of S. Airport Blvd. to/from I-380 interchange.
Sources: City of South San Francisco, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report, South San Francisco General
Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, April 2001 and TJKM Traffic Modeling for 2010
East of 101 Capital Improvement Program Fee Update Traffic Study.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-33
Impact Traf-1: Trip Generation Exceeds 100 Trips During Peak Hours. Both the Phase I
Project and the entire OPSP would generate more than 100 net new two-way trips
during the AM and PM peak hours (1,402 trips during the AM peak hour and
1,621 trips during the PM peak hour at build out of the OPSP, as shown in Table
16.19). The San Mateo City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG)
Agency Guidelines for the implementation of the 2003 Draft Congestion
Management Program (“C/CAG Guidelines”) specifies that local jurisdictions
must ensure that the developer and/or tenants will mitigate all new peak hour trips
(including the first 100 trips) projected to be generated by the development.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-1: Transportation Demand Management Program. The OPSP sponsors shall
implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program consistent with
the City of South San Francisco Zoning Ordinance Chapter 20.400 Transportation
Demand Management, and acceptable to C/CAG. These programs, once
implemented, must be ongoing for the occupied life of the development. The
C/CAG guidelines specify the number of trips that may be credited for each TDM
measure.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES
Impact Traf-2: Pedestrian Walkways. Sidewalks will be provided along both sides of Oyster
Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard internal to the OPSP site. Sidewalks will
also be provided along both sides of all other internal roadways connecting to
Marina Boulevard. The Phase I TDM Conceptual Site Plan (June 1, 2010) shows
pedestrian connections between OPSP buildings and the sidewalks lining Oyster
Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard. No such detail has been provided by the
applicant for the other phases of development.
No detail has been provided regarding pedestrian access to the Phases III & IV
garage and whether midblock pedestrian access points are proposed that could
encourage midblock crossing.
These would be potentially significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-2: Pedestrian Facilities. To discourage mid-block crossing,pedestrian flow across
Oyster Point Boulevard between the Phase III & IV garage and the Phase III & IV
offices shall be regulated to the following extent.
Pedestrian access shall only be allowed at the north and south ends of the
garage, adjacent to signalized or all-way stop intersections.
Impacts reduced to a less-than-significant level.
BICYCLE FACILITIES
Impact Traf-3: Bicycle Lane. Class II bicycle lanes will be provided along Oyster Point
Boulevard and Marina Boulevard their entire lengths internal to the OPSP site. The
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-34 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Bay Trail bike/pedestrian path will also be completed internal to the OPSP site.
The Phase I TDM conceptual site plan shows that bike parking areas will be
provided within the building’s garage.
These would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore no mitigation is required.
INTERNAL CIRCULATION
Impact Traf-4: Year 2015 Internal Circulation. Year 2015 Base Case + Phase I Project and AM
and PM peak hour volumes and roadway geometrics expected internal to the
project site along Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard (with Phase I
development) are presented in Figure 16 in Appendix E. Analysis has been
conducted of the Oyster Point Boulevard / Marina Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard / Phase I access/Bayfront parking lot intersections assuming all-way
stop control at each intersection. As shown in Table 16.21 below, both
intersections should operate acceptably with projected year 2015 volumes,
including development of the Phase I Project.
Table 16.21: Year 2015 Base Case + Phase I Project
All-Way Stop
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Oyster Point Blvd. / Marina Blvd.
(All-Way Stop) C-17.8(1) D-31.2(1)
Marina Blvd. / Phase I Access
(All-Way Stop) A-9.1(1) B-11.5(1)
(1) Level of service – control delay in seconds.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
This would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore no mitigation is required.
Impact Traf-5: Year 2035 Internal Circulation. Year 2035 Base Case + OPSP AM and PM peak
hour volumes expected internal to the OPSP site along Oyster Point Boulevard and
Marina Boulevard (with full OPSP development) are presented in Appendix E,
Figure 21, while projected roadway geometrics and control are presented in
Appendix E Figure 22. Operations analysis has been conducted for the Oyster
Point Boulevard / Marina Boulevard, Marina Boulevard / Phase I access / Bayfront
parking lot, Oyster Point Boulevard / Phase II garage / Phases III / IV garage and
Oyster Point Boulevard / North Access intersections. The north intersection
includes an easterly extension of Oyster Point Boulevard to serve a secondary
access to the OPSP Phases III / IV garage as well as traffic from two existing
office buildings to the east of the OPSP. The western leg of the north access
intersection will provide access to the Oyster Cove Marina to the west of the
OPSP. Based upon an iterative analysis process, it was determined that all-way
stop control would only provide acceptable operation at the Marina Boulevard /
Phase I and Oyster Point Boulevard / North Access intersections. Signalization
would be required at the other two locations. At City request, two access options
were evaluated for the OPSP Phases III / IV garage to the east of Oyster Point
Boulevard. Each is described below.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-35
Phase III/IV Parking Garage Access Option 1
Phases III / IV garage access will be provided as a fourth (easterly) leg of the
Oyster Point / Phase II garage access intersection: Outbound flow only will be
provided from the Phases III / IV garage.
Primary inbound access to the Phases III / IV garage will be provided to
Oyster Point Boulevard just to the north of the signalized Oyster Point
Boulevard / Phase II garage / Phases III / IV garage exit intersection.
Secondary inbound / outbound access to the Phases III / IV garage will be
provided from Oyster Point Boulevard running along the north side of the
garage.
Phase III/IV Parking Garage Access Option 2
Phases III / IV garage access will be provided as a fourth (easterly) leg of the
Oyster Point / Phase II garage access intersection. Both inbound and outbound
flow will be provided for the Phases III / IV garage.
Inbound flow to the Phases III / IV garage just north of this intersection will be
eliminated.
Secondary inbound / outbound access to the Phases III / IV garage will be
provided from Oyster Point Boulevard running along the north side of the
garage.
Operating results are presented below in Tables 13.22a and b for the two access options.
Table 16.22a: Year 2035 Base Case + OPSP (Phases III / IV Garage Access Option 1)
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Oyster Point Blvd. / Marina Blvd.
(Signal) B-14.3(1) B-15.0(1)
Marina Blvd. Phase I Access
(All-Way Stop) B-13.0(2) C-15.5(2)
Oyster Point Blvd. / Phase II
Access / Phases III / IV Garage
(Signal)
A-7.6(1) C-26.8(1)
Oyster Point Blvd. / North
Intersection
(All-Way Stop)
A-7.1(2) A-9.0(2)
(1) Signalized level of service – control delay in seconds.
(2) All-way stop level of service – control delay in seconds.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-36 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 16.22b: Year 2035 Base Case + OPSP (Phases III / IV Garage Access Option 2)
Intersection AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Oyster Point Blvd. / Marina Blvd.
(Signal) B-14.3(1) B-15.0(1)
Marina Blvd. Phase I Access
(All-Way Stop) B-13.0(2) C-15.5(2)
Oyster Point Blvd.. / Phase II
Access / Phases III / IV Garage
(Signal)
B-12.21) C-26.6(1)
Oyster Point Blvd. / North
Intersection
(All-Way Stop)
A-7.8(2) A-9.0(2)
(1) Signalized level of service – control delay in seconds.
(2) All-way stop level of service – control delay in seconds.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
As shown, all internal intersections should function at acceptable AM and PM
peak hour levels of service with the assumed geometrics and signal / all-way stop
control with either Phases III / IV garage access Option 1 or 2. Failure of the
applicant to provide required signalization would result in less than acceptable
operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-5: Internal Circulation System Signalization.
The OPSP applicant shall provide signals at the Oyster Point Boulevard /
Marina Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard / Phase II Access / Phases III /
IV garage access intersections when volumes are approaching warrant criteria
levels.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
YEAR 2015 INTERSECTION OPERATION
Impact Traf-6: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of Phase I Project traffic to year 2015 Base
Case volumes (see Table 16.11).
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would increase volumes by 9.11 percent
at a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would degrade acceptable Base Case
LOS D operation to unacceptable LOS E operation.
This would be a significant impact.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-37
Mitigation Measure
Traf-6: Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp (see Table 16.23 and Figure 23 in Appendix E) The following
improvements would mitigate the Phase I Project-specific impacts. All of these
improvements (other than measures to the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp, the
eastbound departure and the southbound approach) are included as part of the East
of 101 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and will be funded via the
Phase I Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The Phase I
Project shall also provide a fair share contribution towards all measures currently
not part of the TIP.
Adjust signal timing.
Provide an additional through lane on the Oyster Point westbound approach
(extending from Veterans Boulevard) and continue to the Dubuque/U.S.101
Northbound On-Ramp intersection.
Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach from a left, 2
throughs and a combined through/right turn lane to a left, 2 throughs and an
exclusive right turn lane.
Restripe the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp approach from 2 through lanes
and an exclusive right turn lane to two through lanes and a combined
through/right turn lane. In conjunction with this measure, add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point Boulevard (not part of TIP).
Add a second exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Genentech property
driveway approach (not part of TIP).
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Phase I Project Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS E-79.8 seconds control delay, which is better than LOS F
91.7 seconds control delay Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-54.7 seconds control delay, which is acceptable
operation.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The City’s East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program provides a mechanism for collecting fair
share contributions toward necessary area improvements and pooling them to pay for these
improvements. This program is funded via the traffic impact fee that is assessed with all new projects
in the area.
The planned implementation of these improvements would maintain or improve the current levels of
service at these intersections (see Table 16.23), which would mitigate potential Phase I Project
impacts.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-38 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 16.23: Mitigated Intersection Level Of Service -- Year 2015
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection
Base
Case
Base Case
+ Phase I
Project
Mitigated
Base Case
+ Phase I
Project
Base
Case
Base Case
+ Phase I
Project
Mitigated
Base Case
+ Phase I
Project
Oyster Point Blvd. /
Gateway Blvd. / U.S.101
SB Flyover Off-Ramp
(Signal)
F-91.7 F-130.1 E-79.8(1) D-52.8 E-58.5 D-54.7(1)
Oyster Point Blvd. /
Veterans Blvd. F-88.5 F-99.5 E-64.3(2)
Gateway Blvd. / S.
Airport Blvd./ Mitchell
Ave. (Signal)
D-53.7 E-68.7 D-38.4(3)
* Signalized intersection level of service—vehicle control delay (in seconds).
(1) Adjust signal timing. Restripe the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach from a left, 2 throughs and a
combined through/right turn lane to a left, 2 throughs and an exclusive right turn lane. Provide an
additional through lane on the Oyster Point westbound approach (extending from Veterans Boulevard) and
continue to the Dubuque/U.S.101 Northbound On-Ramp intersection. Restripe the Southbound Flyover
Off-Ramp approach from 2 through lanes and an exclusive right turn lane to two through lanes and a
combined through/right turn lane. In conjunction with this measure, add a third eastbound departure lane
on Oyster Point Boulevard. Add a second exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Genentech property
driveway approach.
(2) Restripe the two-lane northbound driveway approach to provide an exclusive left turn lane and a combined left /
through /right turn lane.
(3) Provide a second exclusive right turn lane on the Gateway southbound approach.
Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual analysis methodology
Source: Crane Transportation Group
Impact Traf-7: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of Phase I Project traffic to year 2015 Base
Case volumes (see Table 16.11).
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard
PM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would increase volumes by 12.6 percent at
a location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case signalized operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-7: Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard (see Table 16.23 and Figure 23 in
Appendix E) The following improvements would mitigate the Phase I Project-
specific impacts. These improvements are included as part of the East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the Phase I Project’s
traffic impact fee contribution to this program.
Adjust signal timing.
Restripe the two-lane northbound driveway approach to provide an exclusive
left turn lane and a combined left / through / right turn lane.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-39
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Phase I Project Signalized Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS E-64.3 seconds control delay (which would be better than
Base Case LOS F-88.5 seconds control delay operation)
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard intersection is included in the City’s East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore, a portion of the traffic impact fee collected for the
proposed Phase I Project will be used to help fund planned improvements to this intersection that
would maintain or improve the current levels of service and reduce the Phase I Project’s impact to a
level of less-than-significant.
Impact Traf-8: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of Phase I Project traffic to year 2015 Base
Case volumes (see Table 16.11).
x Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue
PM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would degrade acceptable LOS D Base
Case operation to unacceptable LOS E Base Case + Phase I Project signalized
operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-8: Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue. (see Table
16.23 and Figure 23 in Appendix E) The following improvement would mitigate
the Phase I Project-specific impacts. This improvement is included as part of the
East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program and will be funded via the Phase
I Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program.
1. Widen the southbound Gateway Boulevard approach to provide a second
exclusive right turn lane. The approach would contain one left turn lane, one
through lane and 2 exclusive right turn lanes.
Resultant 2015 Base Case + Phase I Project Signalized Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-38.4 seconds control delay, which is acceptable
operation.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The Gateway Boulevard / S. Airport Boulevard / Mitchell Avenue intersection is included in the City’s
East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. The proposed Phase I Project will pay to fund
planned improvements to this intersection that would maintain or improve the current levels of service
and reduce the Phase I Project’s impact to a level of less-than-significant.
The proposed Phase I Project would not result in significant impacts at other intersections experiencing
unacceptable Base Case operation as Phase I Project volume increases would be less than 2 percent.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-40 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
AM Peak Hour:
x Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue (.29%)
x E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard (.46%)
PM Peak Hour:
x E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way (.14%)
YEAR 2015 VEHICLE QUEUING
Impact Traf-9: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp/approach to an adjacent intersection leading away from an off-
ramp would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of Phase I
Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 16.12).
x Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
The Phase I Project would increase volumes by 3.0 percent in the through and
combined/through right turn lane on the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound
approach to Airport Boulevard at a location with Base Case 95th percentile
queuing greater than established standards. The through lane or through/right
turn lane queue would be extended from 283 to 287 feet at a location with only
250 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-9: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Figure 23 in Appendix E) The
following improvements would mitigate the Phase I Project-specific impact. These
improvements are included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the Phase I Project’s traffic impact fee contribution
to this program:
x Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
x Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing – Oyster Point Boulevard
Westbound Approach Lanes
PM Peak Hour: Each westbound through lane or westbound through / right
turn lane = 230 feet, which would be within the available 250 feet of
storage per lane.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The Oyster Point Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Airport Boulevard intersection is included in the
City’s East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. The proposed Phase I Project will pay to fund
planned improvements to this intersection that would improve vehicle queuing capacity and reduce the
Phase I Project’s impact to a level of less-than-significant.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-41
Impact Traf-10: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following approach to an adjacent intersection leading away from an off-ramp
would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of Phase I Project
traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see Table 16.12).
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would increase volumes by 6.5 percent in
the through lanes on the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach to
Dubuque Avenue at a location with Base Case 95th percentile queuing greater
than established standards. The 95th percentile vehicle queue would be
extended from 309 up to about 327 feet in a location with only 250 feet of
storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-10: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Figure 23 in Appendix E) The
following improvements would mitigate the Phase I Project-specific impact. These
improvements are included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the Phase I Project’s traffic impact fee contribution
to this program:
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue
x Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing – Oyster Point Boulevard
Eastbound Approach Through Lane
AM Peak Hour: Eastbound through lane queue = 206 feet, which is less
than the 309-foot Base Case queue.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
The Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue intersection is included in the City’s East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program. Therefore the proposed Phase I Project will pay to fund planned
improvements to this intersection that would improve vehicle queuing capacity and reduce the Phase I
Project’s impact to a level of less-than-significant.
The proposed Phase I Project would not increase traffic more than one percent on the approaches to
any other location which is projected to experience year 2015 Base Case 95th percentile queuing
greater than established standards.
Impact Traf-11: Off-Ramp Queuing To Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours – SIM
Traffic Evaluation The following off-ramp would receive a significant impact
with backups extending to the freeway mainline sometime during the AM peak
hour due to the addition of Phase I Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes.
x U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard /
Gateway Boulevard
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-42 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would increase volumes on the
Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp by 7.1 percent at a location with year 2015
Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally backing up to the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-11: Improvements for Off-Ramp Queuing. The following improvements would
mitigate the Phase I Project-specific impacts. These improvements are not included
in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program.
x U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway
Boulevard (see Table 16.23 and Figure 23 in Appendix E) The following
improvements would mitigate the Phase I Project-specific impacts. All of these
improvements (other than measures to the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp,
eastbound departure and southbound approach) are included as part of the East of
101 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and will be funded via the Phase I
Project’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program. The Phase I Project shall
also provide a fair share contribution towards all measures currently not part of the
TIP.
Provide an additional through lane on the Oyster Point westbound approach
(extending from Veterans Boulevard) and continue to the Dubuque / U.S.101
Northbound On-Ramp intersection.
Adjust signal timing.
Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach from a left, 2
throughs and a combined through / right turn lane to a left, 2 throughs and an
exclusive right turn lane.
Restripe the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp approach from 2 through lanes
and an exclusive right turn lane to two through lanes and a combined
through/right turn lane. In conjunction with this measure, add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point Boulevard (not part of TIP).
Add a second exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Genentech property
driveway approach (not part of TIP).
Resultant Off-Ramp Queuing:
AM Peak Hour: Backups to freeway mainline eliminated.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact Traf-12: Off-Ramp Queuing To Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours – SIM
Traffic Evaluation The following off-ramp would receive a significant impact
with backups extending to the freeway mainline sometime during the AM peak
hour due to the addition of Phase I Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes.
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-43
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would increase volumes on the off-ramp
by 12.8 percent at a location with year 2015 Base Case off-ramp traffic
occasionally backing up to the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-12: Improvements for Off-Ramp Queuing. (seeFigure 23 in Appendix E) The
following improvements would mitigate the Phase I Project-specific impacts.
These improvements are included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program and will be funded via the Phase I Project’s traffic impact fee contribution
to this program.
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
x Adjust signal timing.
Resultant Off-Ramp Queuing:
AM Peak Hour: Backups to freeway mainline eliminated.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
YEAR 2015 FREEWAY MAINLINE AND ON/OFF-RAMP OPERATION
Impact Traf-13: Off-Ramp Operation At Mainline Diverge. The following off-ramp diverge
location from the U.S.101 freeway mainline would receive a significant impact due
to the addition of Phase I Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.6).
x U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would increase volumes by 8.2 percent at a
location where Base Case diverge volumes would already be exceeding 1,500
vehicles per hour (from 1,618 up to 1,750 VPH).
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-13: Off-Ramp Operation At Mainline Diverge.
x U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard
No improvements are feasible to mitigate Phase I Project-specific impacts. The
spacing of southbound off-ramp connections to Airport Boulevard and to Oyster
Point Boulevard precludes the possibility of providing a second off-ramp lane
connection to southbound U.S.101 to serve the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound
off-ramp. A second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline would
require a long (1,000-foot or longer) deceleration lane with only 300 feet of
available space. There is no room for provision of this lane.
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-44 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Impact Traf-14: Off-Ramp Operation At Mainline Diverge. The following off-ramp diverge
location from the U.S.101 freeway mainline would receive a significant impact due
to the addition of Phase I Project traffic to year 2015 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.6).
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The Phase I Project would increase volumes above the 1,500 VPH
limit for single lane off-ramp diverge volumes (from 1,356 up to 1,536 VPH).
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-14: Improvements for Off-Ramp Operation At Mainline Diverge. (see Figure 23 in
Appendix E).
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
x Provide a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S.101 mainline. Off-ramp
diverge capacity would be increased to at least 2,200 vehicles per hour, which
would accommodate the Base Case + Phase I Project AM peak hour volume of
1,536 vehicles per hour. This measure will require the approval of Caltrans.
Also, this measure is currently not included in the East of 101 Traffic Impact
Fee list. It should be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans’
jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the project,
cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that
Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less
than significant level, because the measure is beyond the lead agency’s
jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be significant
and unavoidable.
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
Phase I Project traffic would not significantly increase volumes nor produce a significant impact at the
other four U.S.101 off-ramp locations in South San Francisco.
Impact Traf-15: On-Ramp Operation. Phase I Project traffic would not produce a significant
impact at any on-ramp (see Table 16.7).
This would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore no mitigation is required.
Impact Traf-16: Freeway Mainline Operation. No U.S.101 mainline segment would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of Phase I Project traffic to year 2015 Base
Case volumes. Operation would remain LOS D or better at all locations (see Table
16.13).
This would be a less-than-significant impact, therefore no mitigation is required.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-45
YEAR 2035 INTERSECTION OPERATION
Impact Traf-17: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.16).
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue / U.S.101 Northbound On-
Ramp
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would degrade acceptable (LOS D) Base Case
operation to unacceptable (LOS E) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-17: Intersection Level of Service. There are no improvements feasible to mitigate the
OPSP-specific impacts.
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
Impact Traf-18: Intersection Level of Service. The following improvements would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.16).
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 22.7 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 22.5 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-18: Intersection Level of Service (see Figure 24 in Appendix E).The following
improvements would partially mitigate OPSP-specific impacts, but not reduce
them to a level of insignificance. Some of these measures are not included as part
of the current East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The OPSP
shall provide a fair share contribution towards all measures currently not part of
the TIP.
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Gateway Boulevard / U.S.101 Southbound
Flyover Off-Ramp
x Adjust signal timing.
x Provide an additional through lane on the Oyster Point westbound approach
(extending from Veterans Boulevard) and continue to the Dubuque/U.S.101
Northbound On-Ramp intersection.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-46 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
x Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach from a left, 2
throughs and a combined through/right turn lane to a left, 2 throughs and an
exclusive right turn lane.
x Restripe the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp approach from 2 through lanes
and an exclusive right turn lane to two through lanes and a combined
through/right turn lane. In conjunction with this measure, add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point Boulevard (not part of TIP).
x Add a second exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Genentech property
driveway approach (not part of TIP).
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS F-194 seconds control delay, which would not be better
than Base Case operation (LOS F-124 seconds delay).
PM Peak Hour: LOS F-118 seconds control delay, which would not be better
than Base Case operation (LOS F-108 seconds delay).
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
Impact Traf-19: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.16).
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 14.4 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would degrade acceptable (LOS D) Base Case
operation to unacceptable (LOS F) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-19: Intersection Level of Service. (see Figure 24 in Appendix E) The following
improvements would partially mitigate OPSP-specific impacts and reduce them to
a level of insignificance. These measures are currently not included as part of the
East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. The OPSP shall provide a fair
share contribution towards all measures currently not part of the TIP.
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard
Restripe the northbound 2-lane private driveway approach to contain an
exclusive left turn lane and a combined left / through / right turn lane.
Widen the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach and provide an
exclusive right turn lane.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-47
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-52.6 seconds control delay, which would not be acceptable
operation.
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-36.8 seconds control delay, which would be acceptable
operation.
Impact recued to a less-than-significant level.
Impact Traf-20: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.16).
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would degrade acceptable (LOS B) Base Case
operation to unacceptable (LOS F) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-20: Intersection Level of Service. (see Figure 24 in Appendix E) The following
improvement would mitigate OPSP-specific impacts. This measure is currently not
included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. The
OPSP shall provide a fair share contribution towards all measures currently not
part of the TIP
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Eccles Avenue
Provide an exclusive right turn lane on the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard
approach.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS C-33.3 seconds control delay, which is acceptable operation.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact Traf-21: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.16).
x Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 1.3 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 1.8 percent at a location
with unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-48 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Mitigation Measure
Traf-21: Intersection Level of Service. (seeFigure 25 in Appendix E) The following
improvement would partially mitigate OPSP-specific impacts, but not reduce them
to a level of insignificance. This measure is currently not included as part of the
East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. The OPSP shall provide a fair
share contribution towards all measures currently not part of the TIP.
x Airport Boulevard / Grand Avenue
Adjust signal timing.
Restripe the 2-lane eastbound Grand Avenue approach to provide an exclusive
left turn lane and a combined left / through / right turn lane.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS E-63.4 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case
operation (LOS F-81.6 seconds delay).
PM Peak Hour: LOS E-59.6 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case
operation (LOS E-60.7 seconds delay).
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact Traf-22: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.16).
x E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 4.0 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would degrade acceptable (LOS D) Base Case
operation to unacceptable (LOS E) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-22: Intersection Level of Service. (seeFigure 25 in Appendix E) The following
improvements would mitigate OPSP-specific impacts. These measures are
currently not included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program. The OPSP shall provide a fair share contribution towards all measures
currently not part of the TIP.
x E. Grand Avenue / Gateway Boulevard
Restripe the southbound Gateway Boulevard approach to contain 1 left turn
lane, 1 through lane, a combined through / right turn lane and an exclusive
right turn lane. Also restripe the northbound Gateway Boulevard approach to
contain a left turn lane, a combined through / right turn lane and an exclusive
right turn lane.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-49
AM Peak Hour: LOS F-86.0 seconds control delay, which is better than Base Case
operation (LOS F-121 seconds delay).
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-43.1 seconds control delay, which is acceptable operation.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact Traf-23: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.16).
x E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 2.8 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS F Base Case operation.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 4.1 percent at a location
with unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation. In addition, operation would be
degraded to LOS F.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-23: Intersection Level of Service. (seeFigure 25 in Appendix E) The following
improvements would mitigate OPSP-specific impacts. These measures are
currently not included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program. The OPSP shall provide a fair share contribution towards all measures
currently not part of the TIP.
x E. Grand Avenue / Forbes Boulevard / Harbor Way
Adjust signal timing.
Restripe the southbound Forbes Boulevard approach to contain 2 exclusive
right turn lanes, a through lane and a combined through / left turn lane.
Restripe the northbound Harbor Way approach to contain 2 exclusive right
turn lanes, a combined through / left turn lane and an exclusive left turn lane.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-52.2 seconds control delay, which is acceptable operation.
PM Peak Hour: LOS C-24.6 seconds control delay, which is acceptable operation.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact Traf-24: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.16).
x Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-50 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would degrade acceptable (LOS D) Base Case
operation to unacceptable (LOS E) operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-24: Intersection Level of Service. (seeFigure 25 in Appendix E) The following
improvement would mitigate OPSP-specific impacts. This measure is currently not
included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. The
OPSP shall provide a fair share contribution towards all measures currently not
part of the TIP.
x Airport Boulevard / San Mateo Avenue / Produce Avenue
Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-44.9 seconds control delay, which is acceptable operation.
Impact recued to a less-than-significant level.
Impact Traf-25: Intersection Level of Service. The following intersection would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.16).
x S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps / Wondercolor
Lane
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 2.4 percent at a
location with unacceptable LOS E Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-25: Intersection Level of Service. (seeFigure 25 in Appendix E) The following
improvement would mitigate OPSP-specific impacts. This measure is currently not
included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program. The
OPSP shall provide a fair share contribution towards all measures currently not
part of the TIP.
x S. Airport Boulevard / U.S.101 Northbound Hook Ramps / Wondercolor
Lane
Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-54.9 seconds control delay, which is acceptable operation.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-51
YEAR 2035 VEHICLE QUEUING
Impact Traf-26: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp or approach to an adjacent intersection leading away from an
off-ramp would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see Table 16.17).
x Oyster Point Blvd. / Gateway Blvd. / U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 54.6 percent in the
through lanes on the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach to Gateway
Boulevard and increase the 95th percentile queue above available storage. The
95th percentile vehicle queue would be extended from 756 up to about 1,200
feet with only 900 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-26: Vehicle Queuing (see Figure 24 in Appendix E).The following improvements
would partially mitigate OPSP-specific impacts, but not reduce them to a level of
insignificance. These measures are not included as part of the current East of 101
Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The OPSP shall also provide a fair
share contribution towards all measures currently not part of the TIP.
x Oyster Point Blvd. / Gateway Blvd. / U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-
Ramp
Adjust signal timing.
Provide an additional through lane on the Oyster Point westbound approach
(extending from Veterans Boulevard) and continue to the Dubuque/U.S.101
Northbound On-Ramp intersection.
Restripe the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach from a left, 2
throughs and a combined through/right turn lane to a left, 2 throughs and an
exclusive right turn lane.
Restripe the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp approach from 2 through lanes
and an exclusive right turn lane to two through lanes and a combined
through/right turn lane. In conjunction with this measure, add a third eastbound
departure lane on Oyster Point Boulevard (not part of TIP).
Add a second exclusive right turn lane on the southbound Genentech property
driveway approach (not part of TIP).
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing:
AM Peak Hour: Eastbound through 95th percentile queue would be reduced to
1,102 feet, which would not be less than the Base Case queue of 756 feet.
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-52 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Impact Traf-27: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp/approach to an adjacent intersection leading away from an off-
ramp would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see Table 16.17).
x Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 14.2 percent in the
through lanes on the Oyster Point Boulevard eastbound approach to Dubuque
Avenue at a location with Base Case 95th percentile queuing greater than
established standards. The eastbound through lane queue would be extended
from 586 up to 637 feet at a location with only 250 feet of storage. In addition,
the queue lanes on the northbound Dubuque Avenue approach to Oyster Point
Boulevard would be increased beyond available storage (from 78 up to about
351 feet at a location with only 210 feet of available storage).
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 21.9 percent on the
Oyster Point eastbound approach to Dubuque Avenue at a location with Base
Case 95th percentile queuing greater than established standards. The eastbound
through lane queue would be extended from 302 up to 376 feet at a location
with only 250 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-27: Vehicle Queuing. No improvements are feasible to mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts.
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
Impact Traf-28: 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing — Synchro software evaluation. The
following off-ramp/approach to an adjacent intersection leading away from an off-
ramp would receive a significant queuing impact due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see Table 16.17).
x Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 7.1 percent in the left
turn lane on the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach to Airport
Boulevard at a location with Base Case 95th percentile queuing greater than
established standards. The left turn lane queue would be extended from 256 up
to 273 feet at a location with only 140 feet of storage.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 3.2 percent in the left
turn lane on the Oyster Point Boulevard westbound approach to Airport
Boulevard at a location with Base Case 95th percentile queuing greater than
established standards. The left turn lane queue would be extended from 524 up
to 542 feet at a location with only 140 feet of storage. In addition, the OPSP
would increase volumes by 10.5 percent in the through lanes on the Oyster
Point Boulevard westbound approach to Airport Boulevard at a location with
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-53
Base Case 95th percentile queuing greater than established standards. The
through lane queue would be extended from 415 to 447 feet at a location with
only 250 feet of storage.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-28: Improvements for Vehicle Queuing. (see Figure 24 in Appendix E) The
following improvement would mitigate the OPSP-specific impact. This
improvement is included in the East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program
and will be funded via the OPSP’s traffic impact fee contribution to this program:
x Airport Boulevard / Sister Cities Boulevard / Oyster Point Boulevard
Adjust signal timing.
Resultant 95th Percentile Vehicle Queuing – Oyster Point Boulevard
Westbound Approach Lanes
AM Peak Hour: Left turn lane queue = 242 feet, with a Base Case 95th
percentile queue of 250 feet.
PM Peak Hour: Left turn lane queue = 506 feet, with a Base Case 95th
percentile queue of 524 feet. Each through lane queue = 280 feet, with a
Base Case 95th percentile queue of 415 feet.
Impact reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Impact Traf-29: Off-Ramp Queuing To Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours - SIM
traffic evaluation. The following off-ramp would receive a significant impact
with backups extending to the freeway mainline sometime during one or both peak
hours due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes.
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to S. Airport Boulevard / Wondercolor
Lane
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes on the off-ramp by 2.9
percent at a location with year 2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally
backing up to the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-29: Off-Ramp Queuing. No improvements are feasible to mitigate OPSP-specific
impacts.
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
Impact Traf-30: Off-Ramp Queuing To Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours. SIM
Traffic evaluation The following off-ramp would receive a significant impact
with backups extending to the freeway mainline sometime during one or both peak
hours due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-54 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
x U.S.101 Southbound Off-Ramp to Oyster Point Boulevard
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 16.6 percent at a
location with year 2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally backing up to
the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-30: Vehicle Queuing. No improvements are feasible to mitigate the OPSP-specific
impact. Measures recommended in Traf-28 would reduce off-ramp queuing.
However, backups would continue to occasionally extend to the freeway mainline
during the AM peak hour.
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
Impact Traf-31: Off-Ramp Queuing To Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours. SIM
Traffic evaluation The following off-ramp would receive a significant impact
with backups extending to the freeway mainline sometime during one or both peak
hours due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes.
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to Dubuque Avenue
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 28.9 percent at a
location with year 2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally backing up to
the freeway mainline.
PM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 18.5 percent at a
location with year 2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally backing up to
the freeway mainline.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-31: Vehicle Queuing. No improvements are feasible to mitigate the OPSP-specific
impact.
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
Impact Traf-32: Off-Ramp Queuing To Freeway Mainline During Peak Traffic Hours. SIM
Traffic evaluation The following off-ramp would receive a significant impact
with backups extending to the freeway mainline sometime during one or both peak
hours due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes.
x U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to E. Grand Avenue / Executive Drive
Intersection
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 1.7 percent at a
location with year 2035 Base Case off-ramp traffic occasionally backing up to
the freeway mainline. The primary reason for the backup would be congestion
at downstream intersections along E. Grand Avenue.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-55
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-32: Vehicle Queuing. No improvements are feasible to mitigate the OPSP-specific
impact.
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
YEAR 2035 FREEWAY MAINLINE AND ON/OFF-RAMP OPERATION
Impact Traf-33: Off-Ramp Operation At Mainline Diverge. The analysis concluded that there
would be a significant impact at the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp Diverge to
the Oyster Point / Gateway Boulevard intersection due to the addition of OPSP
traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see Table 16.6). AM peak hour volumes
would be increased by 16.6 percent (from 2,107 up to 2,456 vehicles per hour) at a
location where Base Case volumes would already be exceeding the off-ramp
diverge capacity of 1,500 vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-33: Improvement to Diverge Capacity – U.S.101 Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp
to Oyster Point Boulevard
No improvements are feasible to mitigate OPSP-specific impacts. The spacing of
southbound off-ramp connections to Airport Boulevard and to Oyster Point
Boulevard precludes the possibility of providing a second off-ramp lane
connection to southbound U.S.101 to serve the Oyster Point Boulevard southbound
off-ramp. A second off-ramp lane connection to the freeway mainline would
require a long (1,000-foot or longer) deceleration lane with only 300 feet of
available space. There is no room for provision of this lane.
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
Impact Traf-34: Off-Ramp Operation At Mainline Diverge. The analysis concluded that there
would be a significant impact at the Northbound Off-Ramp Diverge to the
Dubuque Avenue due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.6). AM peak hour volumes would be increased by 28.7
percent (from 1,556 up to 2,002 vehicles per hour) at a location where Base Case
volumes would already be exceeding the off-ramp diverge capacity of 1,500
vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-34: Improvement to Diverge Capacity U.S.101 Northbound Off-Ramp to
Dubuque Avenue. The following improvements would mitigate the OPSP-
specific impact (see Figure 24 in Appendix E).
Provide a second off-ramp lane connection to the U.S.101 mainline. Off-ramp
diverge capacity would be increased to at least 2,200 vehicles per hour, which
would accommodate the Base Case + OPSP AM peak hour volume of 1,556
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-56 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
vehicles per hour. This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. Also,
this measure is currently not included in the East of 101 TIP. Therefore, the
OPSP shall provide a fair share contribution towards this measure. It should
be noted that because the improvement is within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the
City of South San Francisco, as lead agency for the OPSP, cannot guarantee
that the mitigation will be implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will
implement the measure, thereby reducing the impact to a less than significant
level, because the measure is beyond the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for CEQA
purposes, this impact is considered to be significant and unavoidable.
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
OPSP traffic would not significantly increase volumes nor produce a significant impact at the other
four U.S.101 off-ramp locations in South San Francisco.
Impact Traf-35: On-Ramp Operation. The analysis concluded that there would be a significant
impact at the Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster Point Boulevard / Dubuque
Avenue due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see
Table 16.7). PM peak hour volumes would be increased by 17.0 percent (from
2,190 up to 2,563 vehicles per hour) at a location where Base Case volumes would
be just less than the on-ramp capacity of 2,200 vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-35: Improvement to On-Ramp Capacity Northbound On-Ramp from Oyster
Point Boulevard / Dubuque Avenue (see Figure 24 in Appendix E). Provision of
a second on-ramp lane would increase capacity to about 3,000 to 3,100 vehicles
per hour. This measure will require the approval of Caltrans. Also, this measure is
currently not included in the East of 101 TIP. Therefore, the OPSP shall provide a
fair share contribution towards this measure. It should be noted that because the
improvement is within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as
lead agency for the OPSP, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be
implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby
reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond
the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be
significant and unavoidable. There are no other physical improvements possible
acceptable to Caltrans to accommodate the Base Case + OPSP volume of about
2,563 vehicles per hour.
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
Impact Traf-36: On-Ramp Operation. The analysis concluded that there would be a significant
impact at the Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque Avenue due to the addition
of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case volumes (see Table 16.7). PM peak hour
volumes would be increased by 11.5 percent (from 1,906 up to 2,125 vehicles per
hour) at a location where Base Case volumes would be just less than the on-ramp
capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour.
This would be a significant impact.
CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 16-57
Mitigation Measure
Traf-36: Improvement to On-Ramp Capacity Southbound On-Ramp from Dubuque
Avenue (see Figure 24 in Appendix E). This OPSP should provide a fair share
contribution as determined by the City Engineer to the following measure.
Provide a second on-ramp lane connection to the U.S.101 freeway. On-ramp
capacity would be increased from 2,000 up to 3,000 vehicles per hour, with a Base
Case + OPSP PM peak hour volume of about 2,125 vehicles per hour. This
measure will require the approval of Caltrans. Also, this measure is currently not
included in the East of 101 TIP. Therefore, the OPSP shall provide a fair share
contribution towards this measure. It should be noted that because the
improvement is within Caltrans’ jurisdiction, the City of South San Francisco, as
lead agency for the OPSP, cannot guarantee that the mitigation will be
implemented While it is likely that Caltrans will implement the measure, thereby
reducing the impact to a less than significant level, because the measure is beyond
the lead agency’s jurisdiction, for CEQA purposes, this impact is considered to be
significant and unavoidable.
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
Impact Traf-37: Freeway Mainline Operation. One U.S.101 mainline segments would receive a
significant impact due to the addition of OPSP traffic to year 2035 Base Case
volumes (see Table 16.18).
x U.S.101 Southbound (to the north of the Oyster Point interchange)
AM Peak Hour: The OPSP would increase volumes by 3.6 percent (from 9,698
up to 10,047 vehicles per hour) at a location with unacceptable LOS F year
2035 Base Case operation.
This would be a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-37: Improvement to Freeway Mainline. Mitigation of this impact would require
widening the current freeway or construction of a new freeway. Given the location
of the mainline freeway and its close proximity to surrounding development, such
mitigation is not feasible. Additionally, such mitigation would be prohibitively
expensive in relation to the types of land uses it would benefit. Given these
specific concerns, mitigation of Impact 14A is not feasible as defined by CEQA.
(See Pub. Resources Code §21061.1 (defining “feasible” as “capable of being
accomplished…taking into account economic…and technological factors.”).)
Under CEQA, the City in this matter has an obligation to balance public
objectives, including specific economic concerns, against the benefits of the
project. (See Pub. Resources Code §21081. subd. (a)(3); CEQA Guidelines,
§15021. subd. (d).) Where economic concerns render a particular mitigation
measure infeasible, the lead agency may reject the measure. (See Pub. Resources
Code §21081. subd. (a)(3).)
IMPACT WOULD REMAIN SIGNIFICANT & UNAVOIDABLE.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 16-58 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
PARKING
Parking supply was eliminated from the state’s CEQA Guidelines with the revisions that became
effective in March 2010. The Court of Appeals has held that parking is not part of the permanent
physical environment, that parking conditions change over time as people change their travel patterns,
and that unmet parking demand created by a project need not be considered a significant environmental
impact under CEQA unless it would cause significant secondary effects.2 Parking supply/demand
varies by time of day, day of week, and seasonally. Parking deficits are an inconvenience to drivers, but
not a significant physical impact on the environment. Decreased availability and increased time and
potentially monetary costs result in changes to people’s mode and pattern of travel.
However, parking deficits may be associated with secondary physical environmental impacts, such as
air quality and noise effects, caused by congestion resulting from drivers circling as they look for a
parking space. Cars circling and looking for a parking space in areas of limited parking supply is
typically a temporary condition, often offset by a reduction in vehicle trips due to others who are aware
of constrained parking conditions in a given area. Emissions for cars looking for parking would not be
anticipated to contribute substantially to regional air quality or greenhouse gas and it is anticipated that
such a temporary condition would lead to improved trip reduction under the required TDM Plan.
The City of South San Francisco promotes reduction in parking from City zoning standards as a way to
support trip reduction goals required per the City’s TDM ordinance and supported by various policies
in the General Plan (G.P. Policies 4.3-1-8, 11 and 12).
While the parking in the OPSP area is anticipated to be below that required by City code criteria, such a
reduction is promoted by various policies in the General Plan (G.P. Policies 4.3-1-8, 11 and 12) as a
way to support trip reduction goals and would not be anticipated to result in secondary impacts, such as
increased noise or air emissions from idling cars. A Transportation Demand Management Plan has
been prepared and is included in the Appendix E. The targeted reduction in trips would be supported by
a reduced amount of parking. This is a non-CEQA item and there would be no impact related to
parking.
2 San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. the City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102
Cal.App.4th 656.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 17-1
17
UTILITIES
INTRODUCTION
This chapter describes existing public utilities on and in the vicinity of the OPSP and evaluates the
impact of the proposed OPSP and Phase I Project on the provision of public utilities and possible
adverse physical impacts to the environment that could result from constructing expanded facilities.
This chapter is based on a utilities study prepared by Carollo Engineers, the full text of which is
included in Appendix G (Utilities Study) and the SB 610 Water Supply Assessment prepared by
California Water Service Company , included in Appendix F (WSA).
SETTING
WATER SYSTEM
The water system in the East of Highway 101 area is owned and operated by the California Water
Service Company (CWSC). CWSC’s supply source consists of eight groundwater wells and surface
water wholesaled by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC). CWSC is a member of
the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA). CWSC serves three districts on the
San Francisco Peninsula: Bear Gulch, Mid Peninsula, and South San Francisco.
The South San Francisco District water supply is a combination of purchased water obtained from the
SFPUC, groundwater produced from CWSC owned wells, and SB7 conservation generated supply
savings.Table 17.1 summarizes the projected water supply sources and their annual quantity for the
next 20 years assuming that the SB7 forecasted demand is achieved.
TABLE 17.1:SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT WATER SUPPLIES (AFY)
Water Supply Sources
2005
Actual
2010
Actual 2015 2020 2025 2030
SFPUC 8,869 8012 7,604 6,931 7,126 7,326
CWSC Groundwater Wells 0 451 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
SB7 Conservation Savings 0 0 441 1,335 1,365 1,393
Total (SB7 Baseline Demand) 8,869 8,463 9,545 9,766 9,991 10,219
Purchased Water
CWSC purchases treated surface water from the SFPUC. This supply is predominantly from the Sierra
Nevada, delivered through the Hetch Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by the
SFPUC from its local watersheds and facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 17-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
The amount of imported water available to SFPUC’s retail and wholesale customers is constrained by
hydrology, physical facilities, and the institutional factors that allocate the water supply of the
Tuolumne River. Due to these constraints, the SFPUC is very dependent on reservoir storage to firm-up
its water supplies.
The SFPUC meets its retail and wholesale water demands through an integrated regional water system
that includes water from local Bay Area water sources as well as imported water from Hetch Hetchy
reservoir. Local watershed facilities are operated to capture local runoff as well as store imported
water. Local reservoirs include: Crystal Springs Reservoir, San Andreas Reservoir, Pilarcitos
Reservoir, Calaveras Reservoir, and San Antonio Reservoir.
The Raker Act, which authorized the Hetch Hetchy project, prevents a privately owned utility such as
CWSC from receiving water from the Hetch Hetchy system, but allows local sources to be purchased.
In addition, CWSC is subject to the Water Supply Agreement between The City and County of San
Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County.
The water purchased is treated by SFPUC prior to delivery to CWSC.
The district takes delivery from SFPUC from eleven metered connections from five SFPUC
transmission lines.
Supply Guarantee
In July 2009, CWSC along with 29 other Bay Area water suppliers signed a Water Supply Agreement
(SFWSA) between The City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda
County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County, which replaced the Settlement Agreement and
Master Water Sales Contract (Master Contract) with San Francisco that had been in place since 1984.
The SFWSA continues the provision to provide a Supply Guarantee of 184 mgd, expressed on an
annual average basis to SFPUC wholesale customers collectively. SFPUC retail customers receive 81
mgd as a supply guarantee. CWSC’s Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) is 35.68 mgd or 39,967 acre
feet per year.
The SFPUC can meet the water demands of its retail and wholesale customers in wet and normal years,
however; the SFWSA allows the SFPUC to reduce water deliveries during droughts, emergencies, and
for scheduled maintenance activities. The SFWSA between the SFPUC and its wholesale customers
adopted in July 2009 provides that the SFPUC will determines the available water supply in drought
years and call for reductions to deal with these shortages of up to 20% on an average, system-wide
basis. A reduction in available supply of greater than 20% would require special negotiation between
SFPUC and BAWSCA.
Groundwater
Groundwater is extracted from CWSC owned wells the Merced Formation of the Colma Creek Basin, a
sub-basin of the Merced Valley Groundwater Basin, which is popularly referred to as the Westside
Basin. Groundwater supplies ten to fifteen percent of the district’s water demand.
The water level has remained relative constant since 1990 due to the area receiving average to above
average rainfall and that the wells have been operating at less than 60% of total capacity. The water
levels have been rising since 2003 since the wells have been placed off-line as part of a SFPUC
program to demonstrate the feasibility of a conjunctive use program. SFPUC proposes to install wells
in the Westside Basin, then have CWSC, Daly City and San Bruno not pump their wells during periods
of above average precipitation and thereby “bank” the groundwater or increase the quantity of
CHAPTER 17: UTILITIES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 17-3
groundwater basin storage. During dry periods when SFPUC anticipates reductions in its deliverable
surface supplies, CWSC, Daly City and San Bruno would pump their normal amounts plus additional
amounts of the stored water using the SFPUC installed wells to make up for the surface supply cutback.
Agreements to implement this plan, which has been demonstrated to be technically feasible, are
currently being negotiated among the parties.
The South San Francisco District has five active wells with a total design capacity of 955 GPM. If
operated full-time, these wells could produce 1.38 mgd (1,540 AFY). This production capacity
represents about 17 percent of the annual demand in the district. A maximum of 1,560 AFY was
pumped in 1970 and 1983. Over the past two decades, CWSC’s average groundwater production has
been 1,015 AFY, due largely to the availability of SFPUC supplies.
The future production of groundwater from 2010 to 2030 will be held at 1500 AFY. Based on historical
data, future demand projections, contracted treated water deliveries from SFPUC under normal
hydrologic conditions and the mandated SB7 conservation savings are expected to generate a surplus
SFPUC supply during the period 2015 to 2030 of between 2.0 and 3.84 MGD.
Other Potential Supply Plan Opportunities
Recycled Water
Recycling of wastewater is evaluated by CWSC in the SSF UWMP. Use of recycled water for non-
potable uses (e.g., landscape irrigation) can reduce demands on SFPUC and groundwater supplies.
Currently, no recycled water is used in the SSF District, though the potential for future recycling for
non-potable uses may exist, but are not currently planned.
Desalinated Water
Desalination of either brackish groundwater or San Francisco Bay water has been assessed by CWSC
in its December 2010 Integrated Long Term Supply Plan (ILTSP) for its three peninsula districts that
are served by the San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC). It was found to be potentially
feasible and the plan recommends proceeding in the near future with more detailed investigations to
further develop technical, cost, environmental and permitting information. In addition to technical and
cost feasibility studies, desalination treatment facilities require environmental studies and close
coordination with local and state agencies. Conservatively, eight years of lead-time may be required
from feasibility and environmental studies and permitting to initiation of construction. Currently, there
are no desalinated water supplies available.
Water Transfer Agreements and Exchanges
As indicated in the ILTSP for the three peninsula districts, CWSC is pursuing water transfer
agreements with water agencies in the Central Valley (CV). With the right source and water agency,
water could be acquired by CWSC and transferred to the Tuolumne River Basin for subsequent SFPUC
conveyance, treatment and delivery to CWSC’s three peninsula districts. Another option is to acquire
water from an agency that is a state water contractor and negotiate a transfer with Department of Water
Resources (DWR) for delivery to the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) via the State Water
Project (SWP) to the South Bay Aqueduct for transmission, treatment and transfer to CWSC’s Los
Altos Suburban District (LAS), which is served by SCVWD. CWSC could negotiate an exchange with
another agency that is served by both SFPUC and SCVWD so that instead of taking SFPUC water, the
agency received SCVWD water that is not used by CWSC. This would help increase groundwater
storage in LAS since less groundwater would be pumped under this plan. Another option is for CWSC
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 17-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
to transfer acquired CV supply treated by SCVWD to its Bear Gulch District through a newly
constructed pump station and pipeline. Initial transfers amounts of approximately 4,000 to 6,000 AFY
would increase SSF district supply since SFPUC supply to the three peninsula districts is treated as a
whole, i.e., CWSC can decide which district receives the added supply credit. CWSC envisions that it
would take 3 to 5 years to develop a water supply transfer agreement and address all planning,
environmental and engineering requirements.
Existing OPSP Area Water System
The OPSP area is supplied from a 16-inch diameter water main in Oyster Point Boulevard. From there,
mains in Oyster Point Boulevard, Marina Boulevard and along the north side of the waterfront serve
the various portions of the OPSP area. (Figure 3 in Appendix G illustrates the storm drainage facilities.)
WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM
The existing wastewater system serving the OPSP site and surrounding community is operated and
maintained by the City of South San Francisco Public Works Department. The complete sewer network
consists of approximately 155 miles of 6-inch through 36-inch diameter pipes, which convey flows
from the cities of South San Francisco, San Bruno, and portions of Daly City and Colma to the South
San Francisco-San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant (WQCP) located at the end of Belle Air Road in
South San Francisco.1
Since the first construction in 1945, the jointly owned South San Francisco and San Bruno WQCP
Plant has undergone many upgrades and expansions. The last major expansion occurred in 2000.
Currently, the plant processes include preliminary treatment (headworks), primary clarifiers, secondary
treatment utilizing an air activated sludge process, effluent disinfection and dechlorination. An
overview of the existing facilities is provided in Figure 5 in Appendix G. The treated effluent is
discharged to the San Francisco Bay in a 54-inch diameter submarine gravity outfall.
The most recent WQCP upgrade project was completed in 2005. The project included improvements to
accommodate peak wet weather flows, including a 7-million gallon (MG) secondary effluent storage
basin, an expansion of the influent pump station, and an effluent pump station.
The WQCP currently has an average dry weather flow capacity of 13 mgd and a wet weather flow
capacity of 62 mgd. The City is implementing a new capital improvement plan (CIP) to increase wet
weather flow capacity, add reliability improvements, and add green energy facilities. The CIP will be
implemented in several phases over the next 10 years.
Existing OPSP Area Wastewater System
The City’s wastewater collection system in the East of Highway 101 area consists of approximately 13
miles of 6-inch through 30-inch diameter sewers (see Figure 4 in Appendix G). The system consists of
a series of gravity sewers and pump stations that convey flow to the main pump station (Pump Station
No 4); Pump Station No. 7 conveys a small portion of the East of 101 area to the WQCP as well.
The portion of the City’s collection system that serves the Oyster Point development area includes the
Oyster Point Subtrunk, Pump Station No. 2, the Gateway Trunk, the Harbor Way Trunk, Pump Station
1 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, 249 East Grand Ave EIR, 2005
CHAPTER 17: UTILITIES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 17-5
No 4, and the Pump Station No. 4 Forcemain. Pump Station No. 1 is existing on and currently serving
the business park uses along Oyster Point Boulevard in this area.
STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM
The storm water system consists of a variety of disconnected drainage systems, including surface street
drainage, and underground storm drains that drain to numerous outfalls that discharge to the San
Francisco Bay (Bay) along the north, west, and eastern sides of Oyster Point. (Figure 6 in Appendix G
illustrates the storm drainage facilities.) Stormwater flow from the outfalls is not treated.
Existing OPSP Area Storm Drainage System
The quantity of storm runoff during rainfall events is affected by the percentage of impervious surfaces
versus pervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces, such as pavement and buildings, cause more runoff than
pervious surfaces such as landscaped areas. The area of impervious surfaces for the existing
development was estimated using aerial imagery and geographical information system (GIS) software.
Figure 7 in Appendix G illustrates the pervious and impervious areas prior to development of the
OPSP. The existing impervious area covers approximately 45 of the total 80 acres, or 57 percent of the
total area.
REGULATORY SETTING
Wastewater treatment and disposal in the City of South San Francisco is governed by laws, regulatory
programs and policies established by the Federal government, the State of California, the San Francisco
Bay RWQCB, and the City of South San Francisco. Most of the pertinent requirements affecting
wastewater facilities for the proposed OPSP are contained in the following:
Federal Laws and Regulations
Clean Water Act (CWA)
The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and amended several times since its
inception. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the United States, and forms the basis
for several state and local laws throughout the country. Its objective is to reduce or eliminate water
pollution in the nation’s rivers, streams, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA prescribed the basic
federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as set minimum water quality standards for
all waters of the United States. At the Federal level, the CWA is administered by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). At the state and regional level, the CWA is administered and
enforced by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (RWQCBs). The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws,
rules, and regulations to assist in the implementation of the CWA and related Federally mandated water
quality requirements. In many cases, the Federal requirements set minimum standards, and the laws,
rules, and regulations adopted by the State and Regional Boards are more restrictive, i.e. more
protective of the environment.
State Laws and Regulations
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act establishes the SWRCB and the RWQCB as the
principal state agencies having primary responsibility for coordinating and controlling water quality in
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 17-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
California. The Porter-Cologne Act establishes the responsibility of the RWQCBs for adopting,
implementing, and enforcing water quality control plans (Basin Plans), which set forth the state’s water
quality standards (i.e. beneficial uses of surface waters and groundwater) and the objectives or criteria
necessary to protect those beneficial uses.
San Francisco Bay Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan)
The San Francisco Bay RWQCB is responsible for the development, adoption, and implementation of
the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the San Francisco Bay region. The Basin Plan is the
master policy document that contains descriptions of the legal, technical, and programmatic bases of
water quality regulation in the San Francisco Bay Region. The Basin Plan identifies beneficial uses of
surface waters and groundwater within its region and specifies effluent limitations, discharge
prohibitions, and water quality objectives to maintain the existing potential beneficial uses of the
waters. The proposed OPSP is required to adhere to all applicable requirements of the Basin Plan.
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit Requirements
The San Francisco-San Bruno WQCP operates under an NPDES permit issued by RWQCB under the
authority of the State of California. One of the requirements of the permit is that the WQCP implement
a Pretreatment Program to regulate the collection of toxic and hazardous wastes in municipal sewers.
Under the Pretreatment Program, dischargers of industrial wastewater are required to abide by specific
wastewater discharge limits and prohibitions. Industrial dischargers are also required to submit self-
monitoring reports on the total volume and pollutant concentrations of their wastewater, and to allow
for inspections by the City of South San Francisco.
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit
(Provision C3) for South San Francisco, requires that best management practices (BMPs) and low
impact development (LID) practices be implemented as part of the redevelopment of the OPSP area.
Local Programs and Regulations
East of 101 Area Plan
The East of 101 area plan was adopted by the City of South San Francisco in 1994 in order to guide
and regulate development in the City’s East of 101 area, which includes the OPSP site. The Plan
provides detailed planning policies for land use, circulation, public facilities, design, conservation,
financing and other related elements. With respect to wastewater collection and treatment, the Plan
outlines policies for the repair and reconstruction of East of 101 area sewer collection lines, pump
stations, and the WQCP. The Plan also addresses the issue of increasing wastewater treatment demand,
and recommends that new projects that will generate large wastewater quantities be required to lower
their wastewater treatment needs through water recycling, on-site treatment, graywater irrigation, or
other similar technologies wherever feasible.
STORM DRAINAGE FACILITIES
The existing drainage system in the East of 101 area is generally designed and constructed for
industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Thus, any redevelopment of
existing development will generally not increase runoff.
CHAPTER 17: UTILITIES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 17-7
SOLID WASTE
Solid waste is collected from South San Francisco homes and businesses and then processed at the
South San Francisco Scavenger Company’s materials recovery facility and transfer station. Materials
that cannot be recycled or composted are transferred to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill, near Half
Moon Bay. Browning-Ferris Industries, owner of the landfill, has a permit for forward expansion of the
Corinda Los Trancos Canyon at Ox Mountain. When the permit expires, either Corinda Los Trancos
will be expanded further or Apanolio Canyon will be opened for fill. In 2005, the City landfilled
approximately 85,091 tons. The landfill has a permitted maximum disposal of 3,598 tons per day. As of
2000 (the most recent quantification available), the landfill has exceeded its originally permitted
capacity of 37.9 million cubic yards by approximately 6.7 million cubic yards (17.8 percent). The
operators are permitted until 2018 to expand the Ox Mountain landfill capacity and they continue to
accept waste as the landfill gradually settles and new space becomes available. The closure date is
planned for 2018.2
After collection, waste is brought to the Scavenger Company’s Blue Line Transfer, Inc. facility, a
public disposal and recycling center located at 500 East Jamie Court. The Blue Line Transfer facility is
permitted to receive a daily maximum of 2,400 tons per day of wastes and recyclable materials3, but
receives an average of approximately 800 tons per day4. This facility gives the Company increased
capability to recover valuable materials from wastes, reducing the amount of waste being sent to the
landfill. South San Francisco recycles both household and industrial solid waste and sewage sludge and
has an estimated diversion rate of 40%.5
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
STANDARDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The following thresholds for measuring a Project’s environmental impacts are based upon CEQA
Guidelines:
1.Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
2.Would the project require substantial expansion or alteration of the City’s water or wastewater
treatment and collection facilities?
3.Would the project require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities?
2 California Integrated Waste Management Board, Active Landfills Profile for Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill
(41-AA-0002), website:
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/Landfill/LFProfile1.asp?COID=7&FACID=41-AA-0002, accessed
December 17, 2010.
3 San Mateo County, Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, Multi-Jurisdiction Non-Disposal Facility
Element (NDFE), draft June 2010 amendment.
4 City of South San Francisco, prepared by Christopher A. Joseph & Associates, Gateway Business Park Master
Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report, October 2009, page IV.N-8
5 San Mateo County, Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, Multi-Jurisdiction Non-Disposal Facility
Element (NDFE), draft June 2010 amendment
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 17-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
4.Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
5.Would the project 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?
6.Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
7.Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
WATER SUPPLIES
Impact Util-1: Increased Water Demand. Build-out of the OPSP area would increase water
demand and use of the local water system. However, according to the Water
Supply Assessment and Utilities Study, there is sufficient water supply through the
year 2030, including the increased demand from the OPSP, and adequate water
system capacity. This is a less-than-significant impact.
Projected Plan Water Flows
The WSA prepared for the OPSP (Appendix F) estimated a total net new water demand for the Phase I
Project of 43,038 gpd and for the OPSP of 239,023 gpd. These estimates are conservative, as they are
based upon water usage assumptions for older buildings (1980s) that do not employ current water
efficiency measures. The actual water usage within the OPSP is anticipated to be lower than this
estimate.
OPSP-Proposed Improvements
The OPSP proposes a new on-site distribution system consisting of new 12-inch diameter water mains
routed along the realigned Marina Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. The new mains will branch
from the existing 16-inch water main in Oyster Point Boulevard and connect with the existing 8-inch
water main on the marina waterfront to form distribution loops around the marina facilities. The new
12-inch diameter loop system is subject to review by CWSC. (Figure 9 in Appendix G illustrates the
proposed water system.)
Supply and System Capacity
The OPSP area is currently served with a 16-inch diameter water main located in Oyster Point
Boulevard. According to CWSC staff, the 16-inch main is adequate to serve the OPSP with adequate
water pressure and flow. Accordingly, no impacts to the water main system are anticipated from the
development of Phase I Project or entire OPSP.
According to the WSA, a surplus SFPUC supply is anticipated during the period 2015 to 2030 of
between 2.0 and 3.84 MGD. The projected demand for the OPSP is 0.24 MGD. Therefore, CWSC
believes under normal hydrologic conditions supplies will be adequate to meet the projected 20-year
demand for the SSF District including OPSP with its forecasted increase of SFPUC supplies,
groundwater supplies, increased demand management or conservation. CWSC has indicated that they
will provide the developer of OPSP developer with a will serve letter indicating its intention to provide
water service after the proposed development is approved by the City of South San Francisco.
CHAPTER 17: UTILITIES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 17-9
Therefore, the impact of increased water demand on water supply and system capacity will be less than
significant.
WASTEWATER
Impact Util-2: Exceed Existing Pump Station and Subtrunk Wastewater Capacity. The
additional wastewater flows from the construction of the total OPSP will exceed
the hydraulic capacities of the existing Oyster Point Subtrunk, and Pump Station
No. 2. The inadequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand of the
wastewater subtrunk and pump station is a potentially significant impact.
Projected Plan Wastewater Flows
The 2007 East of 101 Sewer System Master Plan Update (Sewer Master Plan) estimated wastewater
flows for the East of 101 area at 90 percent of the water demands. Based on this ratio, the average daily
wastewater flow for the total OPSP is estimated at 0.36 mgd. The average daily wastewater flow from
the Phase I Project is estimated at 0.072 mgd.
The hydraulic model of the sewer collection system developed for the Sewer Master Plan was used to
assess the impacts of wastewater flows from the OPSP. The model simulates hourly dry weather flow
variations in the sewers, and peak flows during wet weather. High flows during wet weather come from
extraneous flows (groundwater, stormwater, also known as infiltration and inflow) that enter the sewer
through pipe defects such as off-set joints or cracks.
Table 17.2 summarizes the net change in wastewater flow for average and peak wet weather flow
conditions. According to the model, the construction of the Phase I Project will increase the average
daily flow by 0.05 mgd (from 0.09 mgd to 0.14 mgd). The peak wet weather flow (PWWF) will
increase by 0.13 from (0.25 mgd to 0.38 mgd). The construction of the total OPSP will increase the
ADF by 0.28 mgd (from 0.09 mgd to 0.37 mgd). The PWWF would increase by 0.61 mgd (from 0.25
mgd to 0.86 mgd).
Table 17.2: Existing and Projected Sewer Flows
OPSP-Proposed Improvements
To accommodate the realignment of a portion of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard, the
existing sewer system in this area will need to be revised. Figure 10 in Appendix G shows the proposed
changes. Pump Station No. 1, located on Oyster Point Boulevard across from north end of Oyster Point
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 17-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Park, will be relocated to north of the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard
and configured to pump flow through a new 8-inch diameter forcemain. The new pump station will
have three dry well submersible pumps equipped with variable frequency drives. The new 8-inch
diameter forcemain will discharge flow to the existing 8-inch diameter gravity sewer in Oyster Point
Boulevard near the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Road.
Future developments on the eastern portion of the OPSP area, including the proposed future hotel, will
drain to new gravity sewers and a new pump station (not yet numbered). The pump station will pump
flows into a new 6-inch diameter forcemain. The 6-inch forcemain will discharge flow at the same
discharge point for Pump Station 1, at a common manhole.
Pump Station
The Sewer Master Plan recommended expanding Pump Station No. 2 in order to convey future flows.
The “firm capacity” is the pump station’s capacity with its largest pump out of service. Pump stations
need to have sufficient firm capacity to convey peak flows. The existing firm capacity of Pump Station
No. 2 is 1.4 mgd. Existing peak wet weather flows at Pump Station No.2 reach 1.1 mgd.
With the development of the Phase I Project, the peak wet weather flows to Pump Station No. 2
increase to 1.16 mgd. Development of the total OPSP increases the peak flows to 1.6 mgd. Therefore,
the development of the Phase I Project will not trigger an upgrade of Pump Station No. 2. as the
projected peak flow can be accommodated within the existing capacity, but once the total OPSP is
developed, Pump Station No. 2 will need to be expanded to a firm capacity of 1.6 mgd to accommodate
projected flows.
The Sewer Master Plan recommended expanding Pump Station No. 2 in order to convey future flows.
The existing firm capacity of Pump Station No. 2 is 1.4 mgd. Existing peak flows at Pump Station No.2
reach 1.1 mgd.
Mitigation Measure
Util-2a: Upsize Pump Station No. 2. To provide the required sewer capacity for the Plan,
Pump Station No. 2 will need to be upsized to a firm capacity of 1.6.
The Sewer Master Plan includes expanding Pump Station No. 2. Improvements
under the Sewer Master Plan are funded through a flat-rate sewer connection fee
for new development and a monthly impact fee. The amount of the impact fee is
based on the quantity (flow) of wastewater generated. The occupants of the
proposed OPSP development shall pay the sanitary sewer fees imposed by the City
of South San Francisco in order to mitigate the cost of the pump station upgrade
necessary to manage the wastewater flows generated by the OPSP.
With the expansion of Pump Station No. 2 included in the Sewer Master Plan, impacts related to pump
station capacity would be reduced to less than significant.
Note that there are geology/soils considerations related to utilities. These are discussed and addressed
in Chapter 9: Geology and Soils, including the potential for differential settlement throughout the area
causing stresses at utility connections and in utility lines and the potential for disruption of the flow
gradient (Impact and Mitigation Measure Geo-12) This potential utility-related geology/soils impact
can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through implementation of the recommended
mitigation measures.
CHAPTER 17: UTILITIES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 17-11
Sewer Trunk Capacity
Evaluation criteria from the Sewer Master Plan were used to determine the impacts from the increased
wastewater flows. The criteria defines a sewer trunk as deficient if the depth of flow to pipeline
diameter (d/D) for peak dry weather flow (PDWF) conditions is greater than 0.9. During PWWF, a
sewer trunk is deficient if the hydraulic grade line rises to within one foot of the manhole rim elevation.
According to modeling results, the existing sewer trunk lines have enough capacity of convey the
increase in flow resulting from the construction of the Phase I Project.
The projected increase in flow from the construction of the total OPSP creates capacity deficiencies in
the existing Oyster Point Subtrunk from Pump Station No. 2 to the intersection of Oyster Point
Boulevard and Gull Road. The deficient segments of sewer trunk are illustrated in Figure 12 in
Appendix G and described in mitigation measure Util-1b, below.
Mitigation Measure
Util-2b: Oyster Point Subtrunk Replacement. To provide the required sewer capacity,
the Oyster Point Subtrunk will need to be replaced with a larger sized trunk line,
with sizes ranging from 12, 15, and 18-inches.
The majority of these improvements are included in the Sewer Master Plan and are
funded through a flat-rate sewer connection fee for new development and a
monthly impact fee. The amount of the impact fee is based on the quantity (flow)
of wastewater generated. The occupants of the proposed OPSP shall pay the
sanitary sewer fees imposed by the City of South San Francisco in order to
mitigate the cost of the sewer system upgrades necessary to manage the wastewater
flows generated by the OPSP.
An additional 700 feet of 8-inch diameter sewer trunk from Eccles Avenue to Gull
Road needs to be upsized to a 12-inch diameter trunk sewer. This segment of
sewer trunk was not included in the recommendations in the Sewer Master Plan.
The applicants shall either work with the City to include this improvement in an
Sewer Master Plan update or directly fund their fair share of the improvement.
The improvements specified in the Sewer Master Plan call for the Oyster Point Subtrunk to be
increased from Pump Station No. 2 to the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue.
The improvement calls for a new 18-inch diameter pipe to replace the existing 12-inch sewer that
continues northward on Gateway Boulevard from Pump Station No. 2. The portion that continues
eastward along Oyster Point Boulevard from Gateway Boulevard consists of a new 15-inch diameter
sewer to replace existing 10-inch and 12-inch diameter sewers. A new 12-inch diameter section is
needed to replace approximately 800 feet of existing 8-inch diameter sewer trunk to the intersection of
Oyster Point Boulevard and Eccles Avenue.
With the Sewer Master Plan improvements and the additional 800 feet from Eccles Avenue to Gull
Road identified in Mitigation Measures Util-2a and -2b, impacts related to sewer trunk capacity would
be reduced to less than significant.
Note that there are geology/soils considerations related to utilities. These are discussed and addressed
in Chapter 9: Geology, including the potential for hazardous soil or vapor conditions in the vicinity of
the landfill (Impact Geo-9 and Mitigation Measures Geo-9a through 9c), the potential for differential
settlement throughout the area causing stresses at utility/building connections and in utility lines and
the potential for disruption of the flow gradient (Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geo-11, Geo-12 and
Geo-13, respectively), and the need to maintain continuity of the landfill cap when working in the
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 17-12 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
vicinity of the landfill (Impact and Mitigation Measure Geo-10). These potential utility-related
geology/soils impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures.
Wastewater Treatment
Impact Util-3: Increased Wastewater Treatment Demand. Build-out of the OPSP area would
increase wastewater flows and increase demand at the South San Francisco-San
Bruno Water Quality Control Plant. However, according to the South San
Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Draft Facilities Plan Update,
there is sufficient capacity through the year 2030, including a reserve capacity for
flows from the East of 101 area. As the wastewater treatment plant has adequate
capacity to serve the OPSP’s projected demand, this increased demand is a less-
than-significant impact.
As discussed earlier, the OPSP will increase the average dry weather flow by 0.28 mgd and the peak
flow by 0.61 mgd. The City is currently updating the WQCP facilities plan to evaluate the existing and
future treatment capacity needs. Carollo Engineers issued a draft Facilities Plan report (Draft Facilities
Plan) in April 2010. The Draft Facilities Plan estimates average flow projections through the year 2040
to reach 10.3 mgd, which is lower than the existing average dry weather plant capacity of 13 mgd. The
increase of flow is within the project flows for the East of 101 area. Based on the findings from the
Draft Facilities Plan, the increased flows from the OPSP will have a less than significant impact on the
WQCP.
Mitigation Measure: None
INCREASE IN STORMWATER FLOWS
Impact Util-4: Increased Impervious Area. OPSP area build-out will increase the impervious
area by two acres, or 2.6 percent, which could result in increased stormwater flows
and/or runoff not meeting treatment requirements, without appropriate on-site
controls. However, the potential for increased flows will be mitigated through
required compliance with the NPDES permit process, which will require such
controls. Additionally, stormwater controls are proposed to meet or exceed LEED
standards. The OPSP would not require additional off-site storm water facilities or
fail to meet treatment requirements. This is a less-than-significant impact.
The volume of stormwater is directly related to the amount of impervious area within a development.
The percentage of impervious surfaces from developing the Phase I Project will slightly decrease from
46 percent impervious to 37 percent impervious. According to current conceptual plans, after build-out
of the OPSP, the percentage of impervious area will slightly increase. The existing development is 56.7
percent impervious, while the OPSP is estimated to be 59.3 percent impervious. This increase will
cause a slight increase in stormwater flows.
Table 17.3 summarizes the changes to the pervious and impervious areas as a result of the Phase I
Project and the initial infrastructure construction than as a result of build-out of the entire OPSP area.
Figures 13 and 14 in Appendix G graphically show the pervious and impervious areas for the Phase I
Project and the entire OPSP area respectively. Based on these results, the construction of the Phase I
Project will not have an impact on the storm drainage system.
CHAPTER 17: UTILITIES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 17-13
Table 17.3: Net Change in Impervious Area
Stormwater runoff is regulated by the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. The City’s NPDES Permit specifies that redevelopment projects are subject to
Provision C3. Provision C3 requires the permit holder to use its planning authority to impose best
management practices on new developments or redevelopment projects. The practices include:
•source controls,
•stormwater treatment measures to address both soluble and insoluble pollution discharges,
•limit runoff flows from new developments and redevelopment projects,
•site design measures,
Site design measures include:
•low impact development (LID) techniques,
•post construction stormwater site design treatment controls (for example; directing runoff to
vegetative areas, vegetative swales, tree wells or bioretention gardens),
•minimizing land disturbances,
•clustering of structures and pavement,
•use of micro detention, including landscape based detention,
•preservation of open space, and
•protection and/or restoration of riparian areas and wetlands as project amenities.
Because the OPSP does not significantly increase the impervious area and post-construction
stormwater treatment and LID site design measures will be required by the NPDES permit, the OPSP is
not expected to significantly impact to the storm drainage system.
Note that there are geology/soils considerations related to utilities. These are discussed and addressed
in Chapter 9: Geology, including the potential for hazardous soil or vapor conditions in the vicinity of
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 17-14 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
the landfill (Impact Geo-9 and Mitigation Measures Geo-9a through 9c), the potential for differential
settlement throughout the area causing stresses at utility/building connections and in utility lines and
the potential for disruption of the flow gradient (Impacts and Mitigation Measures Geo-11, Geo-12 and
Geo-13, respectively), and the need to maintain continuity of the landfill cap when working in the
vicinity of the landfill (Impact and Mitigation Measure Geo-10). These potential utility-related
geology/soils impacts can be mitigated to a level of less than significant through implementation of the
recommended mitigation measures.
LANDFILL CAPACITY
Impact Util-5: Increased Solid Waste Disposal Demand. The OPSP would increase solid waste
generation at the site but would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted
capacity to accommodate the OPSP’s solid waste disposal needs, and would not
impede the ability of the City to meet the applicable federal, state and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste. The OPSP would have a less-than-
significant impact with no mitigation warranted.
As discussed in the setting section of this chapter, the Scavenger Company is contracted by the City of
South San Francisco as the sole hauler of solid waste and operator of recycling services for the City.
The Scavenger Company transports all solid waste from the OPSP area to the Blue Line Transfer
facility. The Blue Line Transfer facility has a permitted capacity of 2,400 tons per day. Once the
useable materials have been separated at the Blue Line Transfer facility, the remaining trash is then
transported to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. The landfill has a permitted maximum disposal of
3,598 tons per day.
The proposed OPSP would increase the amount of development at the site, resulting in an increase of
solid waste to the Blue Line Transfer facility and Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill from the OPSP area.
Development under the proposed OPSP would result in an additional 3,610 tons of solid waste per year
(approximately 9.88 tons per day)6, representing less than 1 percent of the permitted maximum amount
accepted daily at the Blue Line Transfer facility and Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill (approximately
0.41 percent and 0.27 percent respectively). The remaining capacity of the Blue Line Transfer facility
would be able to accommodate the additional solid waste.
While the Ox Mountain landfill is currently in excess of its originally permitted capacity, they are
permitted until 2018 to expand the Ox Mountain landfill and continue to accept waste as the landfill
gradually settles and new space becomes available. As discussed previously, the operators would either
further expand Corinda Los Trancos or open Apanolio Canyon for fill to ensure adequate available
capacity after 2018. Thus, the increase in solid waste generated under the proposed OPSP would be
sufficiently served by the Blue Line Transfer facility and the Ox Mountain Landfill. Therefore, the
impact would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Solid waste disposal and recycling in the City of South San Francisco is regulated by the City’s
SSFMC, particularly Chapters 8.16 and 8.28. As neither of these chapters establishes quantitative
disposal or recycling rates, the OPSP site would not be subject to diversion requirements. However,
under the SSFMC, the project would be required to have its solid waste, including construction and
6 A rule of thumb of a solid waste generation rate of 0.0108 pounds per square foot per day was applied to the
existing and proposed development to generate estimates of net waste generation. This factor comes originally
from Guidelines for Preparation of Environmental Assessments for Solid Waste Impacts, Ventura County Solid
Waste Management Department, May 1998.
CHAPTER 17: UTILITIES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 17-15
demolition debris, and recyclable materials collected by the Scavenger Company. Additional health and
sanitation requirements set forth in the SSFMC would be met by the Scavenger Company.
As described in the Regulatory Framework, AB 939 requires that local jurisdictions divert at least 50
percent of all solid waste by 2000. Prior to 2004, the City of South San Francisco was not been able to
meet the AB 939 requirement. However, the CIWMB has repeatedly granted the City time extensions
to achieve the 50 percent diversion goal. Between 2004 and 2006, the City met the AB 939
requirement. As analyzed above, the OPSP area is not a substantial contributor to the City’s generation
of solid waste disposal at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. Implementation of the proposed OPSP
would increase the OPSP area’s solid waste contribution by less than 1 percent to the Blue Line
Transfer facility and Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill. Consequently, because the proposed OPSP would
not impede the City’s compliance with AB 939, the impact related to compliance with solid waste
regulations would be less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
ENERGY
The OPSP would be considered to have a significant impact related to energy use if it would violate
applicable federal, state and local statutes and regulations relating to energy standards and/or if energy
consumption increases resulting from the OPSP would trigger the need or expanded off-site energy
facilities.
Impact Util-6: Increased Energy Consumption. The OPSP would have an incremental increase
in the demand for gas and electrical power given the increase in development in
the OPSP area. However, the OPSP is expected to be served with existing capacity
and would not require or result in construction of new energy facilities or
expansion of existing off-site facilities and would not violate applicable federal,
state and local statutes and regulations relating to energy standards. Additionally,
buildings in the OPSP are proposed to meet or exceed LEED standards. The OPSP
would have a less-than-significant impact relating to energy consumption with no
mitigation warranted.
The OPSP would be required by the City to comply with all standards of Title 24 of the California
Code of Regulations and the new California Green Building Standards Code (CALGREEN), as
applicable, aimed at the incorporation of energy-conserving design and construction. PG&E
infrastructure exists on the OPSP site, and any improvements and extensions required to accommodate
the OPSP would be determined in consultation with PG&E prior to installation. As a result, although
the OPSP would incrementally increase energy consumption, it would not result in a significant impact
related to the provision of energy services.
CUMULATIVE UTILITIES IMPACTS
The geographic context for a discussion of cumulative impacts to utilities is the service area of the
utility in question. For instance, the geographic context for cumulative impacts to water supply is the
CWSC and SFPUC service areas; to wastewater, it is the East of 101 Area; and to the storm drainage
system, the geographic context is the local watershed. The cumulative impacts analysis for each utility
includes all cumulative growth within its respective service area, as identified by the providers’
demand projections.
The surplus SFPUC supply identified under the analysis above takes into account assumed cumulative
increases in system-wide water demand and would accommodate anticipated development in the area
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 17-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
including the OPSP. This assumes increased demand management and/or conservation system-wide
over time. The cumulative impact related to water supply would be less-than significant.
The existing drainage system in the East of 101 Area is generally designed and constructed for
industrial development, which has a high ratio of impervious surfaces. Stormwater point and non-point
source discharges are a major source of pollution in San Francisco Bay from the City, as the City’s
storm drainage system discharges to the Bay. As redevelopment in the East of 101 Area continues,
development could degrade water quality through industrial/R&D pollutant discharges or simply as a
result of increased traffic.
To combat this problem, the San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (STOPPP)
has prepared a Best Management Practices plan to control pollutants in their stormwater system.
Compliance with the permit requirements for non-point source stormwater discharge under the NPDES
also requires the property owner of all construction projects over one acre in size to obtain a
stormwater discharge permit. The storm water system consists of a variety of disconnected drainage
systems, including surface street drainage, and underground storm drains that drain to numerous
outfalls that discharge to the San Francisco Bay (Bay) along the north, west, and eastern sides of Oyster
Point. Stormwater flow from the outfalls is not treated. The developer has proposed to connect to the
existing underground drainage network at several locations, and the existing outfalls will continue to be
used with modifications to comply with BMPs. According to the OPSP, stormwater treatment and
controls will be designed in conformance with the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs), and LID
practices such as vegetated swales, vegetative buffer strips, media filters, and bioretention areas per the
requirements of Provision C3 of the City’s NPDES permit.
The WQCP operates under STOPPP’s Joint Municipal NPDES Permit. Cumulative impact and
redevelopment may result in a significant increase of pollutant load in the runoff. The proposed project
represents 81 acres or approximately 4.8 percent of the 1,700 acres in the East of 101 Area. Therefore,
the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. Additionally, compliance with NPDES
will ensure project-specific and cumulative impacts will be further reduced.
The Sewer Master Plan required sewer system upgrades and allocated construction costs to existing and
future users. The OPSP will increase the average dry weather flow by 0.28 mgd and the peak flow by
0.61 mgd. The City is currently updating the WQCP facilities plan to evaluate the existing and future
treatment capacity needs. Carollo Engineers issued a draft Facilities Plan report (Draft Facilities Plan)
in April 2010. The Draft Facilities Plan estimates average flow projections through the year 2040 to
reach 10.3 mgd, which is lower than the existing average dry weather plant capacity of 13 mgd. The
increase of flow is within the project flows for the East of 101 area and the cumulative impact is less
than significant.
Deficiencies in the collection system identified in Sewer Master Plan still need to be implemented to
provide for future capacity. Specific to the OPSP, the improvements specified in the Sewer Master Plan
call for Pump Station No. 2 to be upgraded with a larger capacity and the Oyster Point Subtrunk to be
increased. (There is an additional 800 feet that would need to be upgraded that is not currently included
in the Sewer Master Plan.) Through Mitigation Measures Util-1a and 1b and payment of connection
fees that will go toward area improvements, the collection system in the vicinity will adequately the
serve the cumulative growth, the impact to the collection systems is less than significant.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 18-1
18
OTHER CEQA CONSIDERATIONS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter of the Draft EIR contains discussion of the following additional CEQA considerations:
x Significant Irreversible Modifications In The Environment
x Growth Inducing Impacts
x Cumulative Impacts
SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE MODIFICATIONS IN THE ENVIRONMENT
An EIR must identify any significant irreversible environmental changes that could be caused by a
project. These may include current or future uses of non-renewable resources, and secondary or
growth-inducing impacts that commit future generations to similar uses. Irretrievable commitments of
resources should be evaluated to assure that such current consumption is justified. The CEQA
Guidelines describe three distinct categories of significant irreversible changes: 1) changes in land use
which would commit future generations to specific uses; 2) irreversible changes from environmental
actions; and 3) consumption of non-renewable resources.
Changes in Land Use Which Would Commit Future Generations
The OPSP would modify the mix of land uses in the OPSP area consistent with the evolving character
of the East of 101 area. Office/R&D uses would be intensified, light industrial uses would be replaced,
the hotel use would be intensified, and supporting commercial uses would be allowed. All of these
changes are consistent with plans and policies for development of the area and region.
Irreversible Changes from Environmental Actions
Irreversible changes to the physical environment could stem from the accidental release of hazardous
materials associated with development and/or on-going use of the site as a research facility. However,
compliance with hazardous materials regulations and policies as outlined in Chapter 11 of this
document, Hazardous Materials, is expected to maintain this potential impact at a less-than-significant
level.
Consumption of Nonrenewable Resources
Consumption of nonrenewable resources includes increased energy consumption, conversion of
agricultural lands, and lost access to mining reserves. The OPSP would not result in the loss of
agricultural lands or mining reserves. The OPSP would result in the consumption of some
nonrenewable resources during construction and operation, such as electricity and construction
materials. While this would require additional energy of several types for construction and on-going
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 18-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
use, it would not require the construction of major new lines to deliver energy, and it is anticipated
service providers can provide the capacity to serve the OPSP with existing infrastructure.
Development of the OPSP area as proposed could result in the commitment of nonrenewable resources
(e.g., gravel and petroleum products) and slowly renewable resources (e.g., wood products) used in
construction. The operation of the proposed uses would also require further commitment of water and
energy resources (e.g., petroleum products for vehicle operations, natural gas and electricity for
lighting, heating, and cooling). Although the OPSP would result in the irreversible commitment of
resources, these are weighed against the appropriateness of the location for such development with
access to transit and views and the benefits of additional employment, revenue and recreation
opportunities.
GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
The OPSP would not be expected to result in a direct increase in the local population, since it would
not result in the construction of any new housing units. The OPSP area is located at a terminus, with
the Bay on both the north and east sides and it is therefore not anticipated that infrastructure
improvements for this area would be used to support substantial additional growth in surrounding
areas. Indirect increases in population due to greater employment opportunities are discussed in more
detail under Population/Housing section in Chapter 15 and found to be less than significant.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As defined in Section 15355 of the CEQA Guidelines, a cumulative impact consists of an impact which
is created as a result of the combination of the OPSP evaluated in the EIR together with other projects
causing related impacts. “Cumulative impacts” refer to two or more individual effects which, when
considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts. The
cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment that results from the
incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present and reasonably
foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but
collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.
The potential for cumulative impacts are discussed in the analysis chapters 4 through 17 of this
document. In summary, development of the OPSP site as proposed would contribute to a cumulative
increase in impacts in areas such as Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Geology and Soils,
Hazardous Materials, Hydrology, Noise, Transportation/Traffic and Utilities. However, the OPSP’s
contribution to these cumulative effects would be less-than-significant or would be reduced to a level
of less than cumulatively considerable through implementation of any project-specific mitigation
measures for all except the following items, which would be significant and unavoidable on a
cumulative level.
x Air Quality: Inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan related to increases in vehicles miles traveled
greater than increases in city-wide population and General Plan assumptions for the site.
x Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Emissions of greenhouse gasses that would be above the Air District’s
2010 thresholds. As described in Chapter 10, these thresholds do not apply to this analysis because
this EIR was commenced prior to the effective date of these thresholds.
x Traffic: Declines in operation of and unacceptable queuing at U.S. 101 ramps and/or intersections
serving them as well as the mainline U.S. 101.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-1
19
ALTERNATIVES
INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines, 1970, as amended, Section
15126.6) require an EIR to include a discussion of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed
project. The CEQA Guidelines also require that the EIR explain why specific project alternatives
considered at one time were rejected in favor of the proposed project. The selection of alternatives is to
be guided by the provision of reasonable choices and the promotion of informed decision making and
informed public participation. An EIR need not evaluate alternatives that would have effects that
cannot be determined, or for which implementation would be remote and speculative.
The Guidelines also require that the EIR specifically evaluate a “no project” alternative within this
discussion and that an “environmentally superior” alternative be identified (Section 15126.6 [e]).
The alternatives addressed in this EIR were selected based on the following factors:
1.The extent to which the alternative would accomplish most of the basic project objectives
2.The extent to which the alternative would avoid or lessen any of the identified significant
environmental effects of the project (discussed in Chapters 4 through 18)
3.The potential feasibility of the alternative (as discussed in this Chapter)
4.The extent to which the alternative contributes to a “reasonable range” of alternatives necessary to
permit a reasoned choice
The proposed OPSP and Phase I Project are fully described in Chapter 3 of this EIR (Project
Description). The environmental consequences are addressed in Chapters 4 through 18 of this EIR.
OPSP OBJECTIVES
CEQA requires the analysis of alternatives that would feasibly attain “most of the basic objectives of
the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project.”1
Therefore, the stated objectives can be used as a metric against which an alternative can be measured
when determining overall feasibility.2 Additionally, CEQA requires the evaluation of a proposed
project to address only impacts to the physical environment; economic and social effects can be
analyzed only as one link in a chain of cause and effect from a proposed decision (e.g., physical
1 CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6 (a)
2 Ibid., Section 15126.6 (a)
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
changes caused, in turn, buy economic and social changes).3 However, economic viability can be
considered when determining the feasibility of a project alternative.4
The following are applicant and city objectives that are fulfilled by the proposed OPSP (also outlined
on page 3-2 of this document). Alternatives will be evaluated in part based on their ability to meet these
objectives.
1.Create a vibrant destination and a new gateway to the City of South San Francisco.
2.Reorganize the area into a better pattern of land uses that will benefit all of the community’s
stakeholders.
3.Provide quality research and development facilities consistent with the General Plan designation as
a site for business and technology park facilities.
4.Continue to develop the East of 101 area into a nationally recognized research and development
center that will attract other life science and high technology businesses.
5.Enhance availability of public open space and access to the Bay.
6.Provide flexible recreational amenities for public use.
7.Repair and upgrade the landfill closure to Title 27 standards.
8.To counteract the potential effects of sea level rise on the closed landfill and public and
surrounding property.
9.Untangle the various ground leases and land uses that has prohibited the City from realizing its
vision for a coherent mixture of public and private land uses on Oyster Point.
10.Redevelop under-utilized land.
11.Reconfigure existing roads to enhance view corridors to the Bay and accommodate a more efficient
layout of development sites.
12.Generate additional demand for the transit mode-shift opportunities inherent in proximity to the
upcoming ferry terminal.
13.Build a project that creates quality jobs for South San Francisco.
14.Generate net property tax and other fees from the development project and enhance property
values.
15.Build a project that is viable in the East of 101 area based upon market conditions and projected
service requirements for the area.
16.Develop a project of high quality design as called for in the Design Element of the East of 101 area
Plan and which integrates with adjoining properties.
17.Allow for use of redevelopment tax increment and debt to help ensure fiscal feasibility of this and
other redevelopment area projects.
3 Ibid., Section 15131.
4 Ibid., Section 15126.6(f)(1).
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-3
OPSP IMPACTS
The OPSP would not result in significant impacts to agricultural and forest resources, construction-
period greenhouse gas emissions, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and housing,
public services, or recreation. Impacts associated with the following topics would be significant
without the implementation of mitigation measures, but would be reduced to a less-than-significant
level if the mitigation measures recommended in this EIR are implemented.
Aesthetics
Air Quality
Biological Resources
Cultural Resources
Geology and Soils
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Hydrology
Noise
Transportation and Circulation
Utilities and Service Systems
Based on the analysis contained in this Draft EIR, implementation of the OPSP would result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to the following:
x Air Quality: Inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan related to increases in vehicles miles traveled
greater than increases in city-wide population and General Plan assumptions for the site.
x Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Operational emissions of greenhouse gasses that would be above the
Air District’s 2010 thresholds. As described in Chapter 10, these thresholds do not apply to this
analysis because this EIR was commenced prior to the effective date of these thresholds.
x Noise: Construction-period noise at on-site live-aboard boats over an extended period.
x Traffic: Declines in operation of and unacceptable queuing at U.S. 101 ramps and/or intersections
serving them as well as the mainline U.S. 101.
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The alternatives analysis is presented as a comparative analysis to the proposed OPSP. A project may
have the potential to generate significant impacts, but changes to certain features may also afford the
opportunity to avoid or reduce such impacts. The following alternatives analysis compares the potential
significant environmental impacts of the alternatives with those of the proposed OPSP for each of the
environmental topics analyzed in detail in Chapters 4 through 18 of the EIR and discusses feasibility of
implementation, and ability to meet objectives.
SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives were evaluated. All of the alternatives are located on the OPSP site. Differences
between the alternatives focus on square footage of development. The three alternatives to be analyzed
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
in comparison to the proposed OPSP are shown in Table 19.1 at the end of this chapter and are as
follows:
Alternative A: No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative. Alternative A is a “no project”
alternative. It assumes the proposed OPSP is not approved and the existing uses remain on the site, and
are not redeveloped at higher density. As the only currently vacant area, the portion of the OPSP area
to the south of Oyster Point Boulevard and east of Gull Road would reasonably be expected to be
developed even without approval of the OPSP. For this analysis, it has been assumed this area would
be developed with uses similar to the existing Oyster Point Business Park, consisting of a single-story
office/light industrial building of approximately 65,000 square feet. This Alternative assumes no other
development and no roadway, recreational, or landfill cap improvements.
This alternative satisfies the CEQA requirement to evaluate a “No Project” alternative, which means
“the existing conditions, as well as what would reasonably be expected to occur in the foreseeable
future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available
infrastructure and community services” (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.6[e][2]). While the
Guidelines allow the no project alternative to assess development under the continuation of the existing
plan, policy, or operation into the future, the site is currently developed as a office/light industrial
business park and while it is possible the site will be redeveloped at some future point even if a project
does not proceed at this time, there is no reason to believe this would happen in the near-term or that
new development would necessarily be more dense than the existing development. Therefore,
Alternative A presumes the site would remain largely in its current state.
Alternative B: Reduced Intensity (FAR 1.0) Alternative. Alternative B would allow redevelopment
of the OPSP site at an FAR of 1.0 for office/R&D uses. This alternative assumes the same area for
office/R&D uses with the same 40/60 split between office and R&D development and similar phasing
and parking ratio. The remainder of development, i.e., hotel and recreation fields, would remain the
same as that proposed under the OPSP. This alternative would result in the construction of
approximately 714,400 square feet of office uses and 1,071,600 square feet of R&D uses, for a total of
1,786,000 square feet of office/R&D development. Buildout under Alternative B would result in
approximately 5,000 office/R&D employees on the OPSP site (1,440 less than under the proposed
OPSP).
Alternative C: Reduced Intensity (FAR 1.12) Alternative. Alternative C would allow redevelopment
of the OPSP site at an FAR of 1.12 for the office/R&D areas, with no change to the other planned
development (hotel, recreation fields). This alternative assumes the same area for office/R&D uses with
the same 40/60 split between office and R&D development and similar phasing and parking ratio. This
alternative would result in the construction of approximately 800,110 square feet of office uses and
1,200,165 square feet of R&D uses, for a total of 2,000,275 square feet of office/R&D development.
Buildout under Alternative C would result in approximately 5,600 office/R&D employees on the OPSP
site (840 less than under the proposed OPSP).
Alternatives Rejected as Infeasible
As described above, Section 15126.6(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires an EIR to identify any
alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping
process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency’s determination. Given the nature of
the project (a Specific Plan for a specific site), the fact that the project applicant owns this site and does
not intend to develop these uses in another place, an off-site alternative was not feasible. Also, because
the types of uses proposed are allowed under the existing General Plan designation for the site, and
because the OPSP is compliant with TDM program trip reductions and reduced parking levels, only
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-5
development intensity was targeted as a parameter that could be changed to affect impacts. Two
reduced intensity alternatives were analyzed, office/R&D development at a FAR of 1.0 and Alternative
C, with an FAR half-way between that and the proposed FAR of 1.25, at 1.12, with a reasonable
expectation that this reduction could reduce known significant and unavoidable impacts.
ALTERNATIVE A: NO PROJECT/NO REDEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVE
Impact Analysis
The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant
under the proposed OPSP. Less than significant impacts are generally discussed only if implementation
of the alternative will substantially increase the impact.
Impact Summary
The No Project Alternative would involve only limited changes to the existing development at the
OPSP site and so only a limited potential for environmental impacts. The impacts of the existing uses
are consistent with the baseline for evaluation of this EIR, and are therefore not considered new
impacts. The only new impacts would result from the development of the currently vacant parcel at the
southeast corner of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Drive. However, this Alternative would not
involve improvements to the roadways or upgrading of the landfill cap and would not involve
development of a recreational area and waterfront open space. As discussed below, the majority of
impacts would be substantially reduced under this Alternative, including the avoidance of all
Significant and Unavoidable impacts identified under the proposed OPSP, which are related to conflict
with the Clean Air Plan, construction noise and traffic congestion.
Aesthetics
The already less-than-significant impact related to partial blockage of scenic views from public and
private locations both on and off site would be anticipated to be substantially reduced, as this
Alternative includes only one additional single-story building, which would not be located at the
shoreline and would not be anticipated to substantially impact any views. Lighting and building
materials on the site under Alternative A would be anticipated to be similar to existing uses and would
be subject to the same City standards as the proposed OPSP.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Because this Alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips to the site than the proposed OPSP as well
as less building space that would require water and use energy, air quality impacts and greenhouse gas
emissions would be roughly 95% less than those identified under the proposed OPSP. Based on
BAAQMD screening levels (121,000 square feet of light industrial uses and 50,000 square feet of
office), greenhouse gas emissions for Alternative A would be anticipated to be below the threshold of
significance and therefore replace the significant and unavoidable impact identified under the proposed
OPSP with a less than significant impact under Alternative A. Because of this significantly reduced
level of traffic and emissions that are below even those assumed under the General Plan, this
alternative would avoid the Significant and Unavoidable impact related to conflict with the Clean Air
Plan identified for the proposed OPSP.
The substantially lower amount of construction under Alternative A would equate to substantially
lower construction-period emissions, though BAAQMD standard construction measures would be
required to reduce the impact to less than significant and BAAQMD-recommended construction
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
greenhouse gas reduction measures would be implemented to further reduce impacts, as under the
proposed OPSP.
It can be assumed that no auxiliary uses would be developed under this Alternative, so unlike under the
proposed OPSP, there would be no impacts related to bringing sensitive users to the site.
As this Alternative would involve substantially less disruption of the landfill materials, it is assumed
that already less than significant odor impacts would be further reduced.
Biological Resources
Development under Alternative A would disturb substantially less area than the proposed OPSP. While
impacts related to loss of sensitive habitat is already less than significant, it would be much reduced. It
is assumed no Bay Trail improvements or in-water construction would occur under this Alternative, so
impacts related to wetland or aquatic habitats or species would be fully avoided, except that compliance
with NPDES requirements and best management practices would still be required to ensure
construction-period runoff would not impact wetland or water environments.
While burrowing owls were not found on the site, they could take up residence prior to construction,
under either the proposed OPSP or Alternative A. Additionally, most nesting birds are protected under
the by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California. Nesting birds
or burrowing owls could be disturbed by construction activities. The impacts would be substantially
reduced because of the smaller area to be disturbed under Alternative A, but would require pre-
construction surveys with appropriate mitigation if nesting birds or burrowing owls are found to ensure
these impacts are less than significant.
Because the exact layout under Alternative A is not known, it is assumed that potential impacts related
to stormwater outfall and the wetlands/tidal channel on the southwestern part of the site would be
similar to those under proposed OPSP and could be mitigated through assurance of adequate capacity
and maintenance of the stormwater system.
Geology and Soils
The Bay Area is a seismically active region, so the potential for subjecting people or structures to
ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure and/or failure of the perimeter dikes exists under both
the proposed OPSP or Alternative A and would require compliance with applicable regulations and
design-level geotechnical investigation. However, because development intensity would be reduced
under Alternative A, and therefore would result in less structures and people, the impact would also be
marginally reduced.
Impacts related to variable subsurface conditions including Bay Mud, landfill waste and other fill
including settlement and gas accumulation would be substantially reduced under Alternative A and
would still require specific construction techniques and structural elements to reduce the impacts to less
than significant.
Because of the substantially smaller area to be disturbed during construction, impacts related to
construction-period disturbance of soil and erosion would be substantially reduced, though still require
implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-7
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
While the new building included in Alternative A would likely handle some materials considered to be
biological hazards, chemical hazards and/or carry a risk of fire or explosion, which pose a risk of
accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use and disposal, the
much reduced intensity of development coupled with the likely use for office/light industrial as
opposed to research and development, would substantially reduce this risk compared to the proposed
OPSP. If applicable, development under Alternative A would need to demonstrate compliance with
existing regulations, plans and programs.
Impacts related to construction such as fugitive contaminated dust during grading and construction and
potential contact with contaminated landfill materials/gasses and groundwater during construction as
well as ongoing maintenance activities would remain, but be much reduced under Alternative A due to
the substantially reduced building area, area of disturbance during construction as well avoiding the
need for demolition of any structures.
Under either the proposed OPSP or Alternative A, buildings will meet height limits set for safety under
the Airport Land Use Plan for the nearby San Francisco International Airport. The subject site is not in
an area subject to wildfires and the proposed development will not interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan. These impacts would be the same under the proposed OPSP or Alternative A.
Hydrology
Proposed development in the vicinity of the landfill poses a risk of off-site migration of leachate. This
impact will be reduced through use of BMPs during installation of foundation piers, landfill cap
upgrades, and continued monitoring for leachate migration during operation and maintenance. Under
Alternative A, construction in the vicinity of the landfill and resultant impacts would be substantially
reduced compared to the proposed OPSP.
Again, because the proposed square footage, construction activities and disturbed area would be
substantially reduced under Alternative A, impacts to construction-period and operational hydrology
and water quality would be substantially reduces from those described for the proposed OPSP and
would be less than significant with mitigation.
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the proposed OPSP, Alternative A would not result in any significant land use impacts. It
would not divide an established community, would not conflict with plans and policies intended to
avoid or mitigate an environmental effect, and would not conflict with a conservation plan.
Noise
Because only one building is proposed under Alternative A, it is expected that the construction phase
would be substantially shortened, thereby decreasing the duration of construction-related noise in the
OPSP area and resulting in substantially reduced construction-related noise impacts compared to those
described for the proposed OPSP. The impact would be considered less than significant with mitigation
under Alternative A, whereas it was Significant and Unavoidable under the extended construction
period of the proposed OPSP.
Because of the reduced intensity of development and lower levels of resultant traffic, increases in noise
at and in the vicinity of the site would be substantially less under Alternative A than under the proposed
OPSP. These impacts are less than significant under either scenario.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-8 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Transportation and Circulation
Alternative A would result in new vehicle trips in the vicinity, but with substantially less development
proposed, these would equate to only about 5% of the trip generation assumed under the proposed
OPSP. The number of trips generated under this Alternative would likely still result in an increase over
the threshold of 100 new vehicle trips, triggering the requirement of a TDM Plan.
These substantially reduced traffic levels would avoid significant and unavoidable impacts related to
declines in operation of and unacceptable queuing at U.S. 101 ramps and/or intersections serving them
or on the U.S. 101 mainline to less than significant levels, as the contribution of traffic under
Alternative A would likely be below levels that would be cumulatively considerable.
While the exact layout under Alternative A is not known, it is assumed the one parcel that would be
developed would be designed to avoid potential impacts related to pedestrian/vehicle conflict.
Utilities and Service Systems
Because only a limited new square footage is proposed under Alternative A, there would not be
substantial increased demand for utilities from the existing condition. Alternative A would still be
required to comply with applicable regulations and pay applicable connection fees, but would not
require the upgrade of sewer system improvements beyond that anticipated to be paid for through
connection fees.
Ability to Accomplish OPSP Objectives and Feasibility
Alternative A would not support many of the project objectives, and those it would, only to a
substantially lesser degree than would the OPSP. By developing only the currently vacant parcel and
not redeveloping any of the existing uses, development intensity would be reduced by approximately
95% and all of the project objectives would be seriously compromised, including:
x The site would not be transformed into a gateway and underutilized land would not be redeveloped.
x There would be substantially fewer jobs created during the construction and operation of the
development and substantially fewer employees that would be potential Ferry users brought to the
site.
x Reorganizing the land use pattern and redeveloping underutilized land will be less feasible because
substantially less tax increment will be generated and there would be substantially less value in the
private redevelopment to support public infrastructure and community benefits through a
community facilities district;
x The quality of development and jobs in the area would not be substantially enhanced, nor would
the collection of taxes and fees.
x This alternative would not create new recreational space or provide for landfill cover repair or
protection from sea level rise.
While economically feasible as described, Alternative A does not propose needed upgrades to the
landfill site or upgrades to utilities and infrastructure and the environmental mitigation that would be
required to do so. It is uncertain how such improvements would be made under Alternative A.
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-9
ALTERNATIVE B: REDUCED INTENSITY (FAR 1.0) ALTERNATIVE
Impact Analysis
The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant
under the proposed OPSP. Less than significant impacts are generally discussed only if implementation
of the alternative will substantially increase the impact.
Impact Summary
Reducing the allowable office/R&D development to that which is currently allowed under the General
Plan (i.e., a reduction of approximately 20%) would primarily reduce impacts related to vehicle trips
and to some degree construction-period impacts, such as air quality emissions, traffic and noise.
Alternative B would also avoid the new Significant and Unavoidable impact due to the conflict
regarding assumptions in the Clean Air Plan related to growth in vehicles miles traveled versus
population growth (Impact Air-1). While the growth in vehicles miles traveled would still be above that
identified in the Clean Air Plan, Alternative B would be consistent with the General Plan, which
already disclosed this inconsistency for development consistent with the General Plan. Therefore, no
new impact would be identified related to conflict with the Clean Air Plan. However, Alternative B
would not, as discussed below, result in the avoidance or lessening of any other significant and
unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level.
Aesthetics
Similar to the proposed OPSP, Alternative B would replace single story office/light industrial buildings
with larger, modern office/R&D buildings and would have no adverse impact on visual character. The
already less-than-significant impact related to partial blockage of scenic views from public and private
locations both on and off site would be anticipated to be somewhat reduced due to less building mass
on the site. Lighting and building materials on the site under Alternative B would be anticipated to be
similar to the proposed OPSP and would be subject to the same City standards as the proposed OPSP.
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Because this Alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips to the site than the proposed OPSP as well
as less building space that would require water and use energy, air quality impacts and greenhouse gas
emissions would be roughly 20% less than those identified under the proposed OPSP. This would
marginally reduce the already less-than-significant air quality impacts that had been identified under
the OPSP. However, because greenhouse gas emissions are compared against an efficiency-based
threshold and the reduction in square footage and traffic emissions under Alternative B would go along
with a reduction in employees on the site, it is anticipated that the significant and unavoidable
greenhouse gas emissions impact identified for the OPSP would be the same under Alternative B.
As with the proposed OPSP, operation of Alternative B would not be anticipated to create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
While the exact layout of buildings under the reduced-intensity Alternative B is not known, less
building space would equate to marginally lower construction-period emissions, though BAAQMD
fugitive dust and emissions reduction measures would be required to reduce the impact to less than
significant and BAAQMD-recommended construction greenhouse gas reduction measures would be
implemented to further reduce impacts, as under the proposed OPSP.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-10 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
As with the proposed OPSP, any proposed auxiliary uses which would bring sensitive users to the site
for long periods each day (such as a daycare facility) would require assessment of the health risk. This
impact would be the same under Alternative B and the proposed OPSP.
Because Alternative B would result in greater development intensity than existing on the site now, a
Significant and Unavoidable impact related to increases in vehicles miles traveled above that assumed
in the Clean Air Plan would remain, though it would be slightly reduced from that under the OPSP.
Biological Resources
While habitats in the OPSP area are generally not particularly sensitive, valuable (from the perspective
of providing important wildlife habitat), or exemplary occurrences and would represent no substantial
loss of foraging or non-breeding habitat for any special-status species, there is the possibility of
impacting wetland or aquatic habitats and/or special-status species within them primarily through in-
water construction related to replacement of up to two docks and work on the shoreline Bay Trail, both
of which are proposed under either the OPSP or Alternative B, so the impact would be the same. These
areas could additionally be impacted by sediment from construction-period runoff, though this would
be similar under either the proposed OPSP or Alternative B and mitigated through minimizing near-
water soil disturbance and incorporating best management practices.
Again, because the exact layout under Alternative B is not known, it is assumed that potential impacts
related to stormwater outfall and the wetlands/tidal channel on the southwestern part of the site would
be similar to those under proposed OPSP and could be mitigated through assurance of adequate
capacity and maintenance of the stormwater system.
While burrowing owls were not found on the site, they could take up residence prior to construction,
under either the proposed OPSP or Alternative B. Additionally, most nesting birds are protected under
the by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California. Nesting birds
or burrowing owls could be disturbed by construction activities. The impacts would be similar under
either the proposed OPSP or Alternative B and would require pre-construction surveys with appropriate
mitigation if nesting birds or burrowing owls are found to ensure these impacts are less than significant.
Proposed buildings will project higher than existing structures, creating new, somewhat greater strike
hazard for migrating and foraging birds. As the specifics of building design under Alternative B is not
known, it is assumed impacts would be similar to the proposed OPSP and would require building
design and lighting measures to minimize such impacts. Impacts would also be anticipated to be
generally the same as under the proposed OPSP related to tree removal and increased lighting impacts
and recreational disturbance on wildlife.
Geology and Soils
The Bay Area is a seismically active region, so the potential for subjecting people or structures to
ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure and/or failure of the perimeter dikes exists under both
the proposed OPSP or Alternative B and would require compliance with applicable regulations and
design-level geotechnical investigation. However, because development intensity would be reduced
under Alternative B, and therefore would result in less structures and people, the impact would also be
marginally reduced.
Again, impacts related to variable subsurface conditions including Bay Mud, landfill waste and other
fill including settlement and gas accumulation would be similar under Alternative B as under the
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-11
proposed OPSP and would require specific construction techniques and structural elements to reduce
the impacts to less than significant.
While the specifics of development under Alternative B are not known, it can be assumed the disturbed
area would not substantially change and that impacts related to construction-period disturbance of soil
and erosion would remain similar to that under the proposed OPSP and be able to be reduced to less
than significant through implementation of a required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
While specific tenants have not yet been identified, research laboratories are likely to handle materials
considered to be biological hazards, chemical hazards and/or carry a risk of fire or explosion, which
pose a risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use
and disposal. These impacts would be marginally reduced under Alternative B as compared to the
proposed OPSP due to the fact that reduction in building size could be anticipated to reduce research
and development activities on site with fewer employees and decreased use of hazardous materials.
Under either the proposed OPSP or Alternative B, compliance with existing regulations, plans and
programs would reduce the impact to less-than-significant.
Similar to the proposed OPSP, this Alternative would result in impacts related to construction such as
release of hazardous materials from structure materials during demolition, fugitive contaminated dust
during grading and construction, and potential contact with contaminated landfill materials/gasses and
groundwater during construction as well as ongoing maintenance activities. Additionally, the building
loads on the landfill could result in off-site migration of leachate from the landfill. While the specifics
of development under Alternative B are not known, it can be assumed the disturbed area would not
substantially change and that impacts related to construction-period hazards would remain similar to
that under the proposed OPSP and be able to be reduced to less than significant through
implementation of a demolition plan and measures to avoid releases of wastes or waste water into the
environment and to protect workers and the public during excavation and re-disposition of landfill
material and design elements to mitigate the potential for accumulation of soil vapors.
Under either the proposed OPSP or Alternative B, buildings will meet height limits set for safety under
the Airport Land Use Plan for the nearby San Francisco International Airport. The subject site is not in
an area subject to wildfires and the proposed development will not interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan. These impacts would be the same under the proposed OPSP or Alternative B.
Hydrology
Proposed development in the vicinity of the landfill poses a risk of off-site migration of leachate as a
result of modification of the landfill cap and underlying Bay Mud. This impact will be reduced through
use of BMPs during installation of foundation piers, landfill cap upgrades, and continued monitoring
for leachate migration during operation and maintenance. While the specifics of development under
Alternative B are not known, it is assumed construction in the vicinity of the landfill would not
substantially change and impacts could be similar as under the proposed OPSP.
While the square footage of office/R&D uses under Alternative B would be reduced by approximately
20%, the area disturbed during construction and resultant building footprint would not necessarily be
expected to substantially change. As a result, Alternative B would result in the same or similar impacts
to construction-period and operational hydrology and water quality as those described for the proposed
OPSP and would be less than significant with mitigation.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-12 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the proposed OPSP, Alternative B would not result in any significant land use impacts. It
would not divide an established community, would not conflict with plans and policies intended to
avoid or mitigate an environmental effect, and would not conflict with a conservation plan.
Noise
Because the square footage of office/R&D uses would be reduced by approximately 20% under
Alternative B, it is expected that construction phases would be shortened, thereby decreasing the
duration of construction-related noise in the OPSP area and resulting in somewhat reduced
construction-related noise impacts compared to those described for the proposed OPSP. However,
because the construction would still require an extended period of time, the impact would remain
Significant and Unavoidable, even under Alternative B.
Again, because of the reduced intensity of development including lower levels of resultant traffic,
increases in noise at and in the vicinity of the site would be marginally less under Alternative B than
under the proposed OPSP. These impacts are less than significant under either scenario.
Transportation and Circulation
Similar to the proposed OPSP, Alternative B would result in new vehicle trips in the vicinity, equating
to roughly a 20% reduction in trips. The number of trips generated under this Alternative would still
result in an increase over the threshold of 100 new vehicle trips, triggering the requirement of a TDM
Plan.
This degree of trip generation reduction would not reduce traffic levels sufficiently to reduce
significant and unavoidable impacts, which are related to declines in operation of and unacceptable
queuing at U.S. 101 ramps and/or intersections serving them or on the U.S. 101 mainline. These
impacts would be marginally reduced under Alternative B compared to the proposed OPSP. Other
impacts that can be brought to a less than significant level through mitigation would also be marginally
reduced.
Because the exact layout under Alternative B is not known, it is assumed that potential impacts related
to pedestrian/vehicle conflict could be similar to those under the proposed OPSP and could be
mitigated through improved design and facilities.
Utilities and Service Systems
Similar to the proposed OPSP, Alternative B would increase the demand for utilities, though to a lesser
degree than under the proposed OPSP. However, a smaller project such as that proposed under
Alternative B may not include as many energy or water-efficiency measures and may not be designed
for LEED certification. Alternative B would still be required to comply with applicable regulations and
contribute fair share costs toward sewer system improvements (upgrade of the Oyster Point subtrunk
and Pump Station 2) anticipated to be required even under this alternative.
Ability to Accomplish OPSP Objectives and Feasibility
Alternative B would not support all project objectives. By reducing the proposed development
intensity by approximately 20%, several project objectives are seriously compromised, including:
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-13
x The economic viability of transforming the area into a gateway into South San Francisco because
the net property tax and other fees from development will be reduced;
x Reorganizing the land use pattern and redeveloping underutilized land will be less feasible because
less tax increment will be generated by projects that are within the redevelopment area and there
would be less value in the private redevelopment to support public infrastructure and community
benefits through a community facilities district;
x There would be fewer users of the Ferry Terminal since South San Francisco’s terminal is an
employment destination, and the fewer employees in the area, the fewer potential riders; and
x There would be fewer jobs created during the construction and operation of the development.
x This alternative would not create new recreational space or provide for landfill cover repair or
protection from sea level rise.
Without allowances of greater FAR for private development, many of the basic OPSP objectives could
not be met.
Alternative B would generate less revenue from private redevelopment and may not be economically
feasible. The economic feasibility of completing the needed upgrades to the landfill site and upgrades
to utilities and infrastructure and the environmental mitigation that would be required for these
improvements and any re-development would be in question under this reduced intensity alternative.
ALTERNATIVE C: REDUCED INTENSITY (FAR 1.12) ALTERNATIVE
Impact Analysis
The impact analysis below focuses on those impacts that were determined to be potentially significant
under the proposed OPSP. Less than significant impacts are discussed only if implementation of the
alternative will substantially increase the impact.
Impact Summary
Reducing the allowable office/R&D development to an FAR of 1.12 (a reduction of approximately
10%) would primarily reduce impacts related to vehicle trips and to some degree construction-period
impacts, such as air quality emissions, traffic and noise. However, while Alternative C would
marginally reduce some impacts, it would not, as discussed below, result in the avoidance or lessening
of the identified significant and unavoidable impacts to a less than significant level.
Aesthetics
Similar to the proposed OPSP, Alternative C would replace single story office/light industrial buildings
with larger, modern office/R&D buildings and would have no adverse impact on visual character. The
already less-than-significant impact related to partial blockage of scenic views from public and private
locations both on and off site would be anticipated to be somewhat reduced due to less building mass
on the site. Lighting and building materials on the site under Alternative C would be anticipated to be
similar to the proposed OPSP and would be subject to the same City standards as the proposed OPSP.
Additionally, similar to the proposed OPSP, there would be no impact related to state scenic highways.
Therefore, impacts to visual character and light and glare under Alternative C would be less than
significant and the same as under the OPSP. Overall impacts to visual resources would be the same as
under the OPSP.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-14 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Because this Alternative would result in fewer vehicle trips to the OPSP site than the proposed OPSP
as well as less building space requiring less water and using energy, air quality impacts and greenhouse
gas emissions would be less than those identified under the proposed OPSP, roughly 10% lower. This
would marginally reduce the already less-than-significant air quality impacts that had been identified
under the OPSP. However, because greenhouse gas emissions are compared against an efficiency-
based threshold and the reduction in square footage and traffic emissions under Alternative C would go
along with a reduction in employees on the site, it is anticipated that the significant and unavoidable
greenhouse gas emissions impact identified for the OPSP would be the same under Alternative C.
As with the proposed OPSP, operation of Alternative C would not be anticipated to create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people.
While the exact layout of buildings under the reduced-intensity Alternative C is not known, less
building space would equate to marginally lower construction-period emissions, though BAAQMD
fugitive dust and emissions reduction measures would be required to reduce the impact to less than
significant and BAAQMD-recommended construction greenhouse gas reduction measures would be
implemented to further reduce impacts, as under the proposed OPSP.
As with the proposed OPSP, any proposed auxiliary uses which would bring sensitive users to the site
for long periods each day (such as a daycare facility) would require assessment of the health risk. This
impact would be the same under Alternative C as under the proposed OPSP.
Because Alternative C would result in greater development intensity than that assumed under the
General Plan, a Significant and Unavoidable impact related to increases in vehicles miles traveled
above that assumed in the Clean Air Plan would remain though it would be slightly reduced from that
under the OPSP.
Biological Resources
While habitats in the OPSP area are generally not particularly sensitive, valuable (from the perspective
of providing important wildlife habitat), or exemplary occurrences and would represent no substantial
loss of foraging or non-breeding habitat for any special-status species, there is the possibility of
impacting wetland or aquatic habitats and/or special-status species within them primarily through in-
water construction related to replacement of a couple docks and work on the shoreline Bay Trail, both
of which are proposed under either the OPSP or Alternative C, so the impact would be the same. These
areas could additionally be impacted by sediment from construction-period runoff, though this would
be similar under either the proposed OPSP or Alternative C and mitigated through minimizing near-
water soil disturbance and incorporating best management practices.
Again, because the exact layout under Alternative C is not known, it is assumed that potential impacts
related to stormwater outfall and the wetlands/tidal channel on the southwestern part of the site would
be similar to those under the proposed OPSP and could be mitigated through assurance of adequate
capacity and maintenance of the stormwater system.
While burrowing owls were not found on the site, they could take up residence prior to construction,
under either the proposed OPSP or Alternative C. Additionally, most nesting birds are protected under
the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and/or Fish and Game Code of California. Nesting birds or
burrowing owls could be disturbed by construction activities. The impacts would be similar under
either the proposed OPSP or Alternative C and would require pre-construction surveys with appropriate
mitigation if nesting birds or burrowing owls are found to ensure these impacts are less than significant.
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-15
Proposed buildings will project higher than existing structures, creating new, somewhat greater strike
hazard for migrating and foraging birds. As the specifics of building design under Alternative C is not
known, it is assumed impacts would be similar to the proposed OPSP and would require building
design and lighting measures to minimize such impacts. Impacts would also be anticipated to be
generally the same as under the proposed OPSP related to tree removal and increased lighting impacts
and recreational disturbance on wildlife.
Geology and Soils
The Bay Area is a seismically active region, so the potential for subjecting people or structures to
ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure and/or failure of the perimeter dikes exists under both
the proposed OPSP or Alternative C and would require compliance with applicable regulations and
design-level geotechnical investigation. However, because development intensity would be reduced
under Alternative C, and therefore would result in less structures and people, the impact would also be
marginally reduced.
Impacts related to variable subsurface conditions including Bay Mud, landfill waste and other fill
including settlement and gas accumulation would be similar under Alternative C as under the proposed
OPSP and would require specific construction techniques and structural elements to reduce the impacts
to less than significant.
While the specifics of development under Alternative C are not known, it can be assumed the disturbed
area would not substantially change and that impacts related to construction-period disturbance of soil
and erosion would remain similar to that under the proposed OPSP and be able to be reduced to less
than significant levels through implementation of a required Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
While specific tenants have not yet been identified, research laboratories are likely to handle materials
considered to be biological hazards, chemical hazards and/or carry a risk of fire or explosion, which
pose a risk of accidental upset and environmental contamination from routine transport, storage, use
and disposal. These impacts would be marginally reduced under Alternative C as compared to the
proposed OPSP due to the fact that reduction in building size could be anticipated to reduce research
and development activities on site with fewer employees and decreased use of hazardous materials.
Under either the proposed OPSP or Alternative C, compliance with existing regulations, plans and
programs would reduce the impact to less-than-significant.
Similar to the proposed OPSP, Alternative C would result in impacts related to construction such as
release of hazardous materials from structure materials during demolition, fugitive contaminated dust
during grading and construction, and potential contact with contaminated landfill materials/gasses and
groundwater during construction as well as ongoing maintenance activities. Additionally, the building
loads on the landfill could result in off-site migration of leachate from the landfill. While the specifics
of development under Alternative C are not known, it can be assumed the disturbed area would not
substantially change and that impacts related to construction-period hazards would remain similar to
that under the proposed OPSP and be able to be reduced to a less than significant level through
implementation of a demolition plan and measures to avoid releases of wastes or waste water into the
environment and to protect workers and the public during excavation and re-disposition of landfill
material and design elements to mitigate the potential for accumulation of soil vapors.
Under either the proposed OPSP or Alternative C, buildings will meet height limits set for safety under
the Airport Land Use Plan for the nearby San Francisco International Airport. The subject site is not in
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
an area subject to wildfires and the proposed development will not interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan. These impacts would be the same under the proposed OPSP or Alternative C.
Hydrology
Proposed development in the vicinity of the landfill poses a risk of off-site migration of leachate as a
result of modification of the landfill cap and underlying Bay Mud. This impact will be reduced through
use of BMPs during installation of foundation piers, landfill cap upgrades, and continued monitoring
for leachate migration during operation and maintenance. While the specifics of development under
Alternative C are not known, it is assumed construction in the vicinity of the landfill would not
substantially change and impacts could be similar to those under the proposed OPSP.
While the square footage of office/R&D uses under Alternative C would be reduced by approximately
10%, the area disturbed during construction and resultant building footprint would not necessarily be
expected to substantially change. As a result, Alternative C would result in the same or similar impacts
to construction-period and operational hydrology and water quality as those described for the proposed
OPSP and would be less than significant with mitigation.
Land Use and Planning
Similar to the proposed OPSP, Alternative C would not result in any significant land use impacts. It
would not divide an established community, would not conflict with plans and policies intended to
avoid or mitigate an environmental effect, and would not conflict with a conservation plan.
Noise
Because the square footage of office/R&D uses would be reduced by approximately 10% under
Alternative C, it is expected that construction phases would be shortened, thereby decreasing the
duration of construction-related noise in the OPSP area and resulting in somewhat reduced
construction-related noise impacts compared to those described for the proposed OPSP. However,
because the construction would still require an extended period of time, the impact would remain
Significant and Unavoidable, even under Alternative C.
Again, because of the reduced intensity of development including lower levels of resultant traffic,
increases in noise at and in the vicinity of the site would be marginally less under Alternative C than
under the proposed OPSP. These impacts are less than significant under either scenario.
Transportation and Circulation
Similar to the proposed OPSP, Alternative C would result in new vehicle trips in the vicinity, equating
to roughly a 10% reduction in trips. The number of trips generated under this Alternative would still
result in an increase over the threshold of 100 new vehicle trips, triggering the requirement of a TDM
Plan.
This degree of trip generation reduction would not reduce traffic levels sufficiently to reduce
significant and unavoidable impacts, which are related to declines in operation of and unacceptable
queuing at U.S. 101 ramps and/or intersections serving them or on the U.S. 101 mainline. These
impacts would be marginally reduced under Alternative C compared to the proposed OPSP. Other
impacts that can be brought to a less than significant level through mitigation would also be marginally
reduced.
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-17
Because the exact layout under Alternative C is not known, it is assumed that potential impacts related
to pedestrian/vehicle conflict could be similar to those under the proposed OPSP and could be
mitigated through improved design and facilities.
Utilities and Service Systems
Similar to the proposed OPSP, Alternative C would increase the demand for utilities, though to a lesser
degree than under the proposed OPSP. However, a smaller project such as that proposed under
Alternative C may not include as many energy or water-efficiency measures and may not be designed
for LEED certification. Alternative C would still be required to comply with applicable regulations and
contribute fair share costs toward sewer system improvements (upgrade of the Oyster Point subtrunk
and Pump Station 2) anticipated to be required even under this alternative.
Ability to Accomplish Project Objectives and Feasibility
Alternative B would not support all project objectives. By reducing the proposed development
intensity by approximately 10%, several project objectives are compromised, including:
x The economic viability of transforming the area into a gateway into South San Francisco because
the net property tax and other fees from development will be reduced;
x Reorganizing the land use pattern and redeveloping underutilized land will be less feasible because
less tax increment will be generated by projects that are within the redevelopment area and there
would be less value in the private redevelopment to support public infrastructure and community
benefits through a community facilities district;
x There would be fewer users of the Ferry Terminal since South San Francisco’s terminal is an
employment destination, and the fewer employees in the area, the fewer potential riders; and
x There would be fewer jobs created during the construction and operation of the development.
x This alternative would not create new recreational space or provide for landfill cover repair or
protection from sea level rise.
Without allowances of greater FAR for private development, many of the basic OPSP objectives would
be compromised.
Alternative C would generate less revenue from private redevelopment and may not be economically
feasible. The economic feasibility of completing the needed upgrades to the landfill site and upgrades
to utilities and infrastructure and the environmental mitigation that would be required for these
improvements and any re-development would be in question under this reduced intensity alternative.
ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE
In addition to the discussion and comparison of impacts of the proposed OPSP and the alternatives,
Section 15126.6 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an “environmentally superior” alternative be
selected and the reasons for such a selection disclosed. In general, the environmentally superior
alternative is the alternative that would be expected to generate the least amount of significant impacts.
Identification of the environmentally superior alternative is an informational procedure and the
alternative selected may not be the alternative that best meets the goals or needs of the City.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 19-18 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Table 19.1, on the following pages, provides a summary comparison of the environmental impacts of
the alternatives compared to the proposed OPSP. The table lists the level of significance of the impacts
of the proposed OPSP to each of the environmental topics areas analyzed in the EIR and shows
whether the impacts anticipated under each proposed alternative would be similar to (“s”), greater (“+”)
or lesser (“-”) than the proposed OPSP.
Alternative A, the No Project/No Redevelopment Alternative, proposes development only on a
currently vacant parcel and would result in the fewest employees on the site and therefore, the least
amount of vehicle trips, roughly only 5% of the trips that would have been seen under the proposed
OPSP. This lesser amount of trips would provide the largest decrease in operational emissions,
vehicular-related noise increases, and traffic impacts, including avoidance of all the identified
Significant and Unavoidable impacts under the proposed OPSP. However, benefits identified under the
OPSP would not be realized under Alternative A, such as improvements to the landfill cover,
remediation of the industrial sumps, protection against sea level rise and provision of recreational areas.
Nonetheless, on balance, Alternative A would be the environmentally superior alternative.
The CEQA Guidelines also require that “if the environmentally superior alternative is the ‘no project’
alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other
alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2)). In general, the environmentally superior
alternative minimizes adverse impacts to the environment, while still achieving the basic project
objectives.
The other two alternatives, Alternatives B and C, would reduce the amount of development on the site,
resulting in roughly 80% or 90% of the trips as would have been generated under the proposed OPSP,
respectively. However, although these alternatives would result in some reduction of employees or
vehicle trips to the OPSP site, they would not reduce impacts to a degree that would reduce the
Significant and Unavoidable impacts to air quality, GHG, noise, and traffic to a less than significant
level. Therefore, no analyzed alternative is superior in this regard and, similar to the proposed OPSP,
all analyzed alternatives would result in the significant and unavoidable impacts.
Additionally, Alternatives B and C may not be economically feasible. They would generate less
revenue from private redevelopment. With this reduced revenue, the completion of needed upgrades to
the landfill site and upgrades to utilities and infrastructure and the environmental mitigation that would
be required for these improvements and any re-development would be in question under Alternatives B
and C.
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS (w/MM) = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A “-” (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An “s” signifies the impact would be the same or similar
under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project.
A “+” (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-19
TABLE 19.1.SUMMARY COMPARISON OF IMPACTS,PROPOSED OPSP AND ALTERNATIVES
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA OPSP ALTERNATIVE
A
ALTERNATIVE
B
ALTERNATIVE
C
No Project/ No
Redevelopment
Reduced
Intensity (FAR
1.0)
Reduced
Intensity (FAR
1.12)
AESTHETICS
Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on a scenic vista?
LTS - - -
Would the project substantially damage
scenic resources, including, but not limited
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
NI s s s
Would the project substantially degrade
the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
NI s s s
Would the project create a new source of
substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in
the area?
LTS
(w/MM)
- s s
AIR QUALITY
Would the project conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
SU - - s
Would the project violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
LTS - - -
Would the project 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?
LTS
(w/MM)
- - -
Would the project expose sensitive
receptors to substantial pollutants?
LTS
(w/MM)
- s s
Would the project create objectionable
odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
LTS - s s
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS (w/MM) = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A “-” (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An “s” signifies the impact would be the same or similar
under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project.
A “+” (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
PAGE 19-20 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA OPSP ALTERNATIVE
A
ALTERNATIVE
B
ALTERNATIVE
C
Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on species identified
as candidate, sensitive, or special status
species in local or regional plans, policies,
or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or US Fish
and Wildlife Services?
LTS
(w/MM)
- s s
Would the project have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community
identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Game,
or the US Fish and Wildlife Service?
LTS
(w/MM)
- s s
Would the project 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?
LTS
(w/MM)
- s s
Would the project interfere substantially
with the movement of any native resident
of migratory fish or wildlife species or
with established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites?
LTS
(w/MM)
- s s
Would the project conflict with local
policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance?
NI - s s
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving rupture of a known
earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faulting
Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist
for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
LTS s s s
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS (w/MM) = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A “-” (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An “s” signifies the impact would be the same or similar
under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project.
A “+” (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-21
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA OPSP ALTERNATIVE
A
ALTERNATIVE
B
ALTERNATIVE
C
Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving exposure to strong seismic
ground shaking?
LTS
(w/MM)
- - -
Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving potential seismic ground
failure, including liquefaction,
densification, and differential settlement?
LTS
(w/MM)
- - -
Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving landslides?
NI s s s
Would the project be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable (or that would
become unstable as a result of the project)
and which could potentially result in on-
or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
LTS
(w/MM)
- s s
Would the project expose people or
structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or
death involving volcanic hazards;
NI s s s
Development located on expansive soil,
creating substantial risks to life and
property
LTS - s s
Would the project result in soil erosion? LTS
(w/MM)
- s s
Would the project be located in an area
where soils are incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternate waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water?
NI s s s
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
SU - s s
Conflict with any applicable plan, policy NI s s s
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS (w/MM) = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A “-” (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An “s” signifies the impact would be the same or similar
under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project.
A “+” (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
PAGE 19-22 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA OPSP ALTERNATIVE
A
ALTERNATIVE
B
ALTERNATIVE
C
or regulation of an agency adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases?
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS
MATERIALS
Would the project create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
LTS
(w/MM)
- - -
Would the project 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?
LTS
(w/MM)
- - -
Would the project emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or
proposed school?
NI s s s
Would the project 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?
LTS
(w/MM)
- s s
Is the project located within an airport
land use plan area, would it result in a
safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
LTS s s s
Would the project impair implementation
of or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
NI s s s
Would the project expose people or
structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving wild land fires,
including where wild lands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where residences are
intermixed with wild lands?
NI s s s
HYDROLOGY AND WATER
QUALITY
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS (w/MM) = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A “-” (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An “s” signifies the impact would be the same or similar
under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project.
A “+” (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-23
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA OPSP ALTERNATIVE
A
ALTERNATIVE
B
ALTERNATIVE
C
Would the project violate water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements?
LTS
(w/MM)
- s s
Would the project 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?
NI s s s
Would the project 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?
LTS
(w/MM)
- s s
Would the project 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, which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
NI s s s
Would the project place housing within a
]00-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood
hazard delineation map?
NI s s s
Would the project place within a 100-year
flood hazard area structures which would
impede or redirect flood flows?
NI s s s
Would the project 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?
NI s s s
Would the project expose people or
structures to inundation by seiche,
tsunami, or mudflow?
LTS - s s
LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project physically divide an
established community?
NI s s s
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS (w/MM) = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A “-” (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An “s” signifies the impact would be the same or similar
under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project.
A “+” (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
PAGE 19-24 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA OPSP ALTERNATIVE
A
ALTERNATIVE
B
ALTERNATIVE
C
Would the project 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 with the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
NI s s s
Would the project conflict with any
applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
LTS s s s
NOISE
Would the project result in exposure of
persons to or generation of noise in excess
of standards established in the local
general plan or noise ordinance, or
applicable standards of other agencies?
LTS - s s
Would the project cause a substantial
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
LTS - - -
Would the project result in substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity?
SU - - -
Would the project result in exposure of
persons to or generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
LTS - s s
Would the project result in exposure of
people residing or working at the project
site to excessive noise levels from a project
located within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public use airport?
LTS s s s
Would the project result in exposure of
people residing or working at the project
site to excessive noise levels from a private
airstrip?
NI s s s
TRANSPORTATION AND
CIRCULATION
Would the project conflict with an SU - - -
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS (w/MM) = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A “-” (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An “s” signifies the impact would be the same or similar
under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project.
A “+” (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-25
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA OPSP ALTERNATIVE
A
ALTERNATIVE
B
ALTERNATIVE
C
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?
Would the project 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?
SU - - -
Would the project substantially increase
hazards due to a design feature or
incompatible uses?
LTS
(w/MM)
- s s
Result in inadequate emergency access? LTS s s s
Would the project conflict with adopted
policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities?
LTS - s s
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project create or contribute
runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted runoff?
LTS s s s
Would the project require or result in the
construction of new water treatment,
distribution, or conveyance facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
LTS - s s
Would the project require or result in the
construction of new storm water drainage
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
LTS - s s
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS (w/MM) = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A “-” (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An “s” signifies the impact would be the same or similar
under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project.
A “+” (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
PAGE 19-26 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE AREA OPSP ALTERNATIVE
A
ALTERNATIVE
B
ALTERNATIVE
C
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
Would the project have insufficient water
supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources
or are new or expanded entitlements
needed?
LTS - s s
Would the project result in a
determination by the wastewater treatment
provider that serves or may serve the
project that it has inadequate capacity to
serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
LTS
(w/MM)
- - -
Would the project be served by a landfill
with insufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste
disposal needs?
LTS - - -
Would the project comply with federal,
state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
LTS s s s
CHAPTER 19: ALTERNATIVES
LTS = Less Than Significant
LTS (w/MM) = Less Than Significant After Mitigation
SU = Significant and Unavoidable
NI = No Impact
A “-” (minus sign) signifies a minimal reduction in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project.
An “s” signifies the impact would be the same or similar
under the Alternative as compared to the proposed Project.
A “+” (plus sign) would have signified an increase in the
impact under the Alternative as compared to the proposed
Project, but was not applicable to items in this table.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 19-27
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 20-1
17
REFERENCES
REPORT PREPARERS
Lamphier-Gregory
(Primary Report Preparers)
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, Ca. 94606
510-535-6690
Scott Gregory, President
Rebecca Gorton, Associate Planner
Environmental Vision
(Visual Modeling)
Marcia Gale, President
Illingworth & Rodkin
(Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas Emissions Calculations, Noise)
Richard Rodkin, PR, Principal
James Reyff, Project Scientist
Keith Pommereck, Senior Consultant
H. T. Harvey & Associates
(Biological Resources)
Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., Principal
Patrick Boursier, Ph.D., Senior Plant Ecologist
Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D., Senior Plant Ecologist
Nellie Thorngate, M.S., Wildlife Ecologist
Catherine Roy, M.S., Plant Ecologist
Kleinfelder
(Geology and Soils, Hazardous Materials, Hydrology)
R. Jeffrey Dunn, PE, GE
Glenn Leong, REA
Charles Almestad, RG, CHG
Crane Transportation Group
(Transportation and Circulation)
Mark Crane, Principal
Carollo Engineers
(Utilities)
Mike Britten, Principal
Tim Loper, Professional Engineer
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 20-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
REFERENCES
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), www.abag.ca.gov.
ABAG, San Francisco Bay Trail website: http://baytrail.abag.ca.gov/.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1996 (Revised
1999).
BAAQMD, Annual Bay Area Air Quality Summaries,
http://www.baaqmd.gov/pio/aq_summaries/index.htm.
BAAQMD, BAAQMD California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, June 2010.
BAAQMD, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, November, 2006.
BAAQMD, Source Inventory of Bay Area Greenhouse Gas Emissions, December, 2008.
BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and ABAG, Bay Area 2001 Ozone
Attainment Plan, 2001.
BAAQMD, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and ABAG, Bay Area 2010 Clean
Air Plan, September 2010.
Bonilla, M.G., “Preliminary geologic map of the San Francisco South 7.5-minute quadrangle and part
of the Hunters Point 7.5-minute quadrangle, California,” U.S. Geological Survey Miscellaneous Field
Studies Map MF-311; scale 1:24,000 , 1971.
Brekke, L.D., et al, “Climate Change Impacts Uncertainty for Water Resources in the San Joaquin
River Basin, California.” Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 40(2): 149–164.
Malden, MA, Blackwell Synergy for AWRA, 2004.
California Adaptation Advisory Panel to the State of California, prepared by Pacific Council, Preparing
for the Effects of Climate Change – A Strategy for California, November 2010.
California Air Resources Board (CARB), Public Workshop to Discuss Establishing the 1990 Emissions
Level and the California 2020 Limit and Developing Regulations to Require Reporting of Greenhouse
Gas Emissions, Sacramento, CA. December 1, 2006.
California Climate Change Center (CCCC), Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California,
CEC- 500-2006-077, Sacramento, CA. July, 2006..
California Code of Regulations; Title 19. Public Safety; Division 2. Office of Emergency Services;
Chapter 4.5 California Accidental Release Prevention (CalARP) Program, § 2770.5.
California Department of Fish and Game’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), 2010.
California Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) Database www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov.
California Department of Transportation, Scenic Highway Program, Eligible and Designated Routes,
website: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm.
CHAPTER 20: REFERENCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 20-3
California Department of Water Resources (DWR), Progress on Incorporating Climate Change into
Management of California Water Resources, Sacramento, CA, July, 2006..
California Energy Commission (CEC), Inventory of California Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks:
1990 to 2004 - Final Staff Report, publication # CEC-600-2006-013-SF, Sacramento, CA, December
22, 2006; and January 23, 2007 update.
CEC, Water Energy Use in California (online information sheet) Sacramento, CA, August 24, 2004,
http://energy.ca.gov/pier/iaw/industry/water.html.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Climate Action Team, Executive Summary.
Climate Action Team Report to Governor Schwarzenegger and the California Legislature. Sacramento,
CA, March, 2006.
CalEPA, Final 2006 Climate Action Team Report to the Governor and Legislature. Sacramento, CA.
April 3, 2006.
CalEPA, Air Resources Board (CARB), Proposed Early Actions to Mitigate Climate Change in
California. Sacramento, CA, April 20, 2007.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, Active Landfills Profile for Ox Mountain Sanitary
Landfill (41-AA-0002), website:
http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/Facility/Landfill/LFProfile1.asp?COID=7&FACID=41-AA-0002.
Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), About the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program
(web page), Washington, D.C., last updated April 2006,
http://www.climatetechnology.gov/about/index.htm.
Caltrans,Traffic Volumes on California State Highways, 2008.
City of South San Francisco, prepared by Brady and Associates, East of 101 Area Plan, adopted July
1994.
City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, South San Francisco General Plan: Existing
Conditions and Planning Issues, 1997.
City of South San Francisco, prepared by Dyett & Bhatia, City of South San Francisco General Plan,
adopted October 1999.
City of South San Francisco General Plan Housing Element (“Housing Element”), updated in June
2009.
City of South San Francisco website, http://www.ci.ssf.ca.us/index.aspx?NID=285.
City of South San Francisco, prepared by Christopher Joseph Associates and Crane Transportation
Group,Gateway Business Park Master Plan Draft and Final EIRs, October 2009 and March 2010.
City of South San Francisco, prepared by Carollo Engineers, City of San Francisco East of Highway
101 Sewer System Master Plan, September 2002.
City of South San Francisco, prepared by Lamphier-Gregory, 249 East Grand Avenue Project
Environmental Impact Report, Draft December 2005, Final June 2006.
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 20-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
City of South San Francisco, prepared by EIP Associates and Korve Engineering, Genentech
Corporate Facilities Master Plan Draft EIR, December 2006.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Flood Insurance Rate Map, City of South San Francisco,
California San Mateo County, Community Panel Number 0650620002B”, September 2, 1981.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill Determination
Document (Removal), City of South San Francisco, California San Mateo County, Community Panel
Number 0650620002B dated September 2, 1981”, September 14, 2001.
Gabewell, Inc. with Harding Lawson Associates, “Final Closure and Post-Closure Maintenance Plan,
Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California”, September, 2000.
Hart, E. W. and W. A. Bryant, “Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Act with index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps.” (Special Publication 42) California
Division of Mines and Geology. Sacramento, CA, 1997.
International Conference of Building Officials, “Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in
California and Adjacent Portion of Nevada – To be used with the 1997 Uniform Building Code,”
California Division of Mines and Geology, February 1998.
International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, 2000,
www.grida.no/climate/ipcc/emission/002.htm.
Kleinfelder, “Feasibility Study and Cost Estimate, Proposed Oyster Point Marina Redevelopment,
South San Francisco, California”. November 12, 2007.
Kiparsky, M. and P.H. Gleick, Climate Change and California Water Resources: A Survey and
Summary of the Literature. Oakland, CA: Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, July 2003.
Kiparsky, op. cit; DWR, 2005, op. cit.; Cayan, D., et al, 2006. Scenarios of Climate Change in
California: An Overview (White Paper, CEC-500-2005-203-SF), Sacramento, CA, February 2003.
Nichols, D.R., and Wright, N.A., "Preliminary map of historical margins of marshland, San Francisco
Bay, California,” U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report, Basic Data Contribution 9, scale
1:125,000, 1971.
Parmesan, C. and H. Galbraith, Observed Impacts of Global Climate Change in the U.S., Arlington,
VA: Pew Center on Global Climate Change, November 2004.
PBS&J, Candlestick Point/Hunters Point Shipyard Project Biological Technical Report, 2009
San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. the City and County of San Francisco (2002) 102
Cal.App.4th 656.
San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, prepared by EIP, Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Assessment, South San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project, February 2006.
San Mateo County, Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan, Multi-Jurisdiction Non-Disposal
Facility Element (NDFE), draft June 2010 amendment.
CHAPTER 20: REFERENCES
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 20-5
State Water Resources Control Board Geotracker Database (accessed via the above referenced
Envirostor website).
Transportation Research Board, Highway Capacity Manual, 2000.
Treadwell & Rollo, “Preliminary Foundation Design Criteria,” Memorandum to Steve Shanks, SKS
Investments, January 16, 2009.
Treadwell & Rollo, “Geotechnical Investigation of the Landfill Cover, Oyster Point Landfill, South San
Francisco, California,” February 13, 2009.
Treadwell & Rollo, “Work Plan for Field Investigation of SUMP 1, Oyster Point Business Park /
Oyster Point Landfill, South San Francisco, California.” Draft, February 10, 2009.
Treadwell & Rollo, “Methane Mitigation Systems: Description and Unit Costs, Oyster Point Landfill /
Oyster Point Business Park, South San Francisco, California.” Draft, January 29, 2009.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Sum of Annex I and Non-
Annex I Countries Without Counting Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).
Predefined Queries: GHG total without LULUCF (Annex I Parties). Bonn, Germany,
http://unfccc.int/ghg_emissions_data/ predefined_queries/items/3814.php.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Planning and Environment, Federal Transit
Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.
U.S. Supreme Court, Massachusetts et. al. v. EPA et. al (No. 05-1120, 415F 3d 50), April 2, 2007.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Global Warming – Climate: Uncertainties (web
page http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/ClimateUncertainties.html#likely),
January 2000.
URBEMIS2007 model (Version 9.2.4), distributed by the Rimpo Associates (www.urbemis.com)
Western Regional Climate Center, 2005. Weather Station: San Francisco WSO AP, California
(047769).
Working Group On California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), Earthquake Probabilities in the San
Francisco Bay Region: 2002–2031, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 03-214, 2003.
2<67(532,1763(&,),&3/$1$1'3+$6(,352-(&7
)LQDO(QYLURQPHQWDO,PSDFW5HSRUW
6&+1R
-DQXDU\
&LW\RI6RXWK6DQ)UDQFLVFR
'HSDUWPHQWRI(FRQRPLFDQG&RPPXQLW\'HYHORSPHQW
0DSOH$YHQXH
6RXWK6DQ)UDQFLVFR&$
/$03+,(5*5(*25<
85%$13/$11,1*(19,5210(17$/$1$/<6,6 352-(&70$1$*(0(17_
0DUFK
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE i
CONTENTS
Page
Chapters 1 through 20 can be found in the Draft EIR
Chapter 21: Introduction to the Final EIR...................................................................................21-1
Purpose of the Final EIR................................................................................................................21-1
EIR Review Process.......................................................................................................................21-2
Report Organization.......................................................................................................................21-3
Chapter 22: Revisions to the Draft EIR........................................................................................22-1
Revisions to the Draft EIR.............................................................................................................22-1
Changes to Chapter 2: Executive Summary............................................................................22-1
Changes to Chapter 3: Project Description..............................................................................22-2
Changes to Chapter 9: Geology and Soils...............................................................................22-3
Changes to Chapter 15: Population, Public Services, Recreation...........................................22-4
Changes to Chapter 16: Transportation and Circulation.........................................................22-4
Chapter 23: Response to Comments..............................................................................................23-1
Introduction....................................................................................................................................23-1
Response to Specific Comments....................................................................................................23-2
Chapter 24: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.....................................................24-1
Introduction....................................................................................................................................24-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Table...................................................................24-3
Appendices
Appendices A through G can be found in the Draft EIR
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE ii OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 21-1
21
INTRODUCTION TO THE FINAL EIR
PURPOSE OF THE FINAL EIR
The California Environmental Quality Act and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder (together
“CEQA”) require an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared for any project which may
have a significant impact on the environment. An EIR is an informational document, the purposes of
which, according to CEQA are “to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed
information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list
ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate
alternatives to such a project.” The information contained in this EIR is intended to be objective and
impartial, and to enable the reader to arrive at an independent judgment regarding the significance of
the impacts resulting from the proposed project.
This document, together with the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) published in
January 2011, shall constitute the Final Environmental Impact Report (Final EIR) prepared pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as amended (commencing with Section 21000
of the California Public Resources Code) and the CEQA Guidelines for the proposed Oyster Point
Specific Plan (OPSP), including the first phase of development (Phase I Project) in the City of South
San Francisco, California and the related Redevelopment Plan amendment. The applicant is Oyster
Point Ventures, LLC and the City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency. The Lead Agency
is the City of South San Francisco.
The applicant is seeking amendments of the City’s General Plan, Redevelopment Plan and Oyster
Point Marina Specific Plan, as well as several entitlements to enable development of the OPSP,
including but not limited to approval of a subdivision or parcel map, design review, a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Plan, a Development Agreement, and a Disposition and Development
Agreement to enable redevelopment of the OPSP and Phase I Project site. The OPSP would include
replacing the existing light industrial/office park with an office/research and development (R&D)
development, improvements to the site circulation, utilities, and landfill cap, provision of a flexible
use recreation area and bay-front open space, and replacement of uses in the Oyster Point Marina
area, potentially including one or two hotels with an aggregate of up to 350 rooms. Approval must be
given by the City of South San Francisco and trustee agencies, including the Regional Water Quality
Control Board and Bay Conservation and Development Commission before construction may begin.
EIR REVIEW PROCESS
Draft EIR
A Draft EIR was made available for public review in January 2011. During the public review period
for the Draft EIR (ending March 10, 2011), the City received verbal comments from the South San
Francisco Planning Commission and written comments.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 21-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Final EIR
This Final EIR contains all comments received by the City on the Draft EIR and also includes
responses to these comments, together with necessary changes or revisions to the text of the Draft
EIR document. Changes to the text of the Draft EIR are included in Chapter 22 of this Final EIR,
shown in underline for new text or strikeout for deleted text. None of the revisions or responses to
comments contained in this Final EIR would be considered “significant new information” under
section 15088.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and therefore no recirculation of the Draft EIR would be
required.
This Final EIR will be presented to the Planning Commission and City Council at public hearings to
consider recommendation for and certification of this document as a technically adequate, full
disclosure document consistent with the requirements of CEQA. Assuming certification of this EIR as
complete and adequate under CEQA, this document together with the Draft EIR will constitute the
EIR for this Project. The Planning Commission may recommend and the City Council may require
additional changes or modifications to this Final EIR prior to certification.
An EIR does not control the agency’s ultimate discretion on the OPSP. As required under CEQA, the
agency must respond to each significant effect identified in the EIR by making findings and if
necessary and warranted, by adopting a statement of overriding considerations. In accordance with
California law, the EIR must be certified before any action on the project can be taken. However, EIR
certification does not constitute project approval.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
This Final EIR consists of the following chapters, commencing after Chapter 20 of the Draft EIR:
Chapter21: Introduction to the Final EIR. This chapteroutlines the purpose, organization and
scope of the Final EIR document and important information regarding the public review and approval
process.
Chapter 22: Revisions to the Draft EIR. This chapter includes corrections, clarifications or
additions to text contained in the Draft EIR based on comments received during the public review
period.
Chapter 23: Response to Comments. This chapter provides reproductions of letters received on the
Draft EIR. The comments are numbered in the right margin. The responses to comments are also
provided in this chapter immediately following each comment letter, and are keyed to the numbered
comments.
Chapter 24: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. This chapter contains the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) to be adopted to ensure that the mitigation measures
identified in the EIR are implemented.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 22-1
22
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
The following are minor text changes, additions or modifications made to the Draft EIR for
the Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project. An explanation of the changes made in
response to comments can be found in Chapter 23.
Comments, including the original location in the Draft EIR of the text to be changed, are in
italics. Deletions are noted by strikethrough. Additions are underlined.
CHANGES TO CHAPTER 2: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
x Page 2-1, paragraph 4
The following revision is made to clarify the timing of completion of the ferry terminal.
The South San Francisco Ferry Terminal with service to/from San Francisco and the East
Bay is currently under construction and scheduled is anticipated to be completed at the
Oyster Point Marina in early by the end of 2011.
x Page 2-1, paragraph 4
The following revision is made to clarify the number of berths in the Oyster Point Marina.
The Oyster Point Marina is located on the north side of the Oyster Point Marina area and
contains 600 465 berths, a boat ramp, fuel dock and fishing pier.
x Page 2-12
Mitigation measure Traf-26 is hereby revised in Table 2.1, consistent with revisions to page
16-51.
x Page 2-36
Impact Geo-14 and mitigation measure Geo-14 were accidently omitted from the summary
table. They are hereby added to Table 2.1, as follows.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 22-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Potential Environmental Impacts Recommended Mitigation Measures
Resulting
Level of
Significance
Impact Geo-14: Soil Erosion. The OPSP
would involve mass grading at a location that
drains stormwater to the San Francisco Bay.
Demolition of existing structures and pavements
could expose underlying landfill cap soils to the
elements. Excavation of soil for construction of
new buildings and pavement sections would also
be performed and temporary stockpiles of loose
soil will be created. Soils exposed during site
grading would be subject to erosion during storm
events. Grading would disturb site soils
potentially leading to impacts to the San
Francisco Bay. This would be a potentially
significant impact during and following site
construction activities.
Geo-14: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan.
In accordance with the Clean Water Act and the
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB),
the Applicant shall file a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prior to the start of
construction. The SWPPP shall include specific best
management practices to reduce soil erosion. This is
required to obtain coverage under the General
Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated
with Construction Activity (Construction General
Permit, 99-08-DWQ).
Less than
Significant
Impact Geo-16 and mitigation measure Geo-16 are hereby added to Table 2.1, consistent
with revisions to page 9-19.
CHANGES TO CHAPTER 3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION
x Page 3-2, paragraph 3
The following revision is made to clarify the timing of completion of the ferry terminal.
The South San Francisco Ferry Terminal with service to/from San Francisco and the East
Bay is currently under construction and scheduled is anticipated to be completed at the
Oyster Point Marina in early by the end of 2011.
x Page 3-2, paragraph 2
The following revision is made to clarify the number of berths in the Oyster Point Marina.
The Oyster Point Marina is located on the north side of the Oyster Point Marina area and
contains 600 465 berths, a boat ramp, fuel dock and fishing pier.
x Page 3-2, 1st bullet point
The following revision is made to clarify that demolition of the Yacht Club is not proposed.
x demolition of the existing inn located at 425 Marina Drive, the office buildings at 360
Oyster Point Boulevard and 401 Marina Boulevard, the boat and motor mart at 671
Marina Boulevard, the Yacht Club at 911 Marina Boulevard, and the light-industrial
buildings at 375-389 Oyster Point Boulevard,
CHAPTER22: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 22-3
x Page 3-3, Table 3.1
The following revisions are made to clarify the number of berths in the Oyster Point Marina
and that demolition of the Yacht Club is not proposed.
Table 3.1: Development Assumptions
Building
Size (square feet if not
otherwise specified)
Uses to Remain
Oyster Point Bait and Tackle 1,440
Oyster Cove Marina 235 berths
Oyster Point Marina 600 465 berths
Phase I
Office/R&D Building 508,000 to 600,000
Auxiliary Commercial 10,000
Oyster Pt Marina Beach approximately 3.1 acres
Recreation Area approximately 3 acres
Additional Phases
New Hotel(s) 350 rooms
Commercial/Retail/Restaurant in Hotel40,000
Office/R&D Building (Phase II) 700,000
Office/R&D Building (Phase III) 525,000
Office/R&D Building (Phase IV) 517,000
Uses to Remain until Hotel Construction, then be Rebuilt on Site
Oyster Point Yacht Club 4,000
Oyster Point Maintenance 2,500
CHANGES TO CHAPTER 9: GEOLOGY AND SOILS
x Page 9-19
The following text is hereby added to specify that the design of the bayside open space would
need to comply with recommendations of a qualified costal engineering consultant.
SUSTAINABILITY OF BAYSIDE OPEN SPACE
Impact Geo-16: Bayside Open Space Wave Stability. The bayside open space area could
be subject to wave action, which could erode improvements and
potentially lead to instability. The potential for erosion and instability of
the bayside open space area is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Geo-16: Compliance with Recommendations of a Coastal Engineer. A design-
level investigation of the sustainability of the proposed bayside open space
in the local wave environment shall be prepared by a qualified coastal
engineer. Elements of this analysis shall include an investigation of the
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 22-4 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
local wave environment at the proposed bayside open space location,
development and verification of numerical models of local wave action
based on comparisons of measured and predicted wave heights, and
application of the predictive numerical models to refine the open space
design. Depending on the results of this investigation, the design of the
bayside open space may need to incorporate protection measures such as
structural elements (e.g., concrete seatwalls) and/or buffer zones (i.e.,
lengths of flat beach between the dynamic beach slope and any needed
structural elements). The design plans shall incorporate appropriate
recommendations from this investigation.
If the recommendations require any construction in-water or near the
shoreline, these may require subsequent permitting from BCDC and/or
USACE and would also be subject to mitigation measures Bio-12, -13a, -
13b, 14a, -14b, -14c, -15a, -15b, and -15c.
Conformity with mitigation measure Geo-16 would reduce the impact of erosion and wave
action on the bayside open space to a level of less-than-significant.
CHANGES TO CHAPTER 15: POPULATION, PUBLIC SERVICES, RECREATION
x Page 15-7
The following text is hereby added to specify that the Bay Trail runs through the area and
has its own plan.
The San Francisco Bay Trail runs through the OPSP area and is programmed through the
regionally adopted San Francisco Bay Trail Plan (ABAG, 1989)
CHANGES TO CHAPTER 16: TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
x Page 16-15
The following text is hereby added to reference the Bay Trail specifically.
The San Francisco Bay Trail is an existing multi-use bicycle and pedestrian facility along the
shoreline in the OPSP area and is programmed through the regionally adopted San Francisco
Bay Trail Plan (ABAG, 1989)
x Page 16-20
The following change is made to Table 16.11 to correct the LOS reference as shown.
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Intersection Base Case Base Case
+ Phase I
Project
Base Case Base Case
+ OPSP
S. Airport Blvd./U.S.101 NB Hook
Ramps/Wondercolor (Signal) D-35.1(1) C D-35.2 C-34.5 C-34.5
CHAPTER22: REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT EIR
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 22-5
x Page 16-33
The following text is hereby added to address the continuity of the Bay Trail during
construction.
Impact Traf-2b: Construction Disruption of Bay Trail. Continuity of the Bay Trail could
be disrupted by construction activities in the OPSP area. This is
considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measures
Traf-2b: Bay Trail Continuity Provisions in Construction Management Plan.
Continuity of the Bay Trail shall be included in construction management
plans for all phases of development in the OPSP. When feasible,
construction shall avoid disrupting the Bay Trail and when not feasible,
the construction management plan shall specify plans for clear and safe
detours for bicyclists and pedestrians and be ADA accessible.
Conformity with mitigation measure Traf-2b will reduce the impact of disruption of the Bay
Trail during construction activities to a level of less-than-significant.
x Pages 16-46 and 16-47
The following revision is made to correct inconsistencies in the discussion of resultant
operation following implementation of mitigation measure Traf-19.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-19: Intersection Level of Service. (see Figure 24 in Appendix E) The
following improvements would partially mitigate OPSP-specific impacts
and reduce them to a level of insignificance. These measures are currently
not included as part of the East of 101 Transportation Improvement
Program. The OPSP shall provide a fair share contribution towards all
measures currently not part of the TIP.
Oyster Point Boulevard / Veterans Boulevard
Restripe the northbound 2-lane private driveway approach to contain
an exclusive left turn lane and a combined left / through / right turn
lane.
Widen the eastbound Oyster Point Boulevard approach and provide an
exclusive right turn lane.
Resultant 2035 Base Case + OPSP Operation:
AM Peak Hour: LOS D-52.6 seconds control delay, which would not be
acceptable operation.
PM Peak Hour: LOS D-36.8 seconds control delay, which would be
acceptable operation.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 22-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Impact recued reduced to a less-than-significant level.
x Pages 16-51
The following revision is made to correct the reference to the Traffic Improvement Program
in mitigation measure Traf-26.
Mitigation Measure
Traf-26: Vehicle Queuing (see Figure 24 in Appendix E). The following
improvements would partially mitigate OPSP-specific impacts, but not
reduce them to a level of insignificance. These measures All of these
improvements (other than measures to the Southbound Flyover Off-Ramp,
the eastbound departure and the southbound approach) are not included as
part of the current East of 101 Transportation Improvement Program
(TIP). The OPSP shall also provide a fair share contribution towards all
measures currently not part of the TIP.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 23-1
23
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
INTRODUCTION
This chapter contains response to the Commissioner comments from the February 17, 2011 Planning
Commission hearing and written comments on the Draft EIR. Where revisions to the Draft EIR are
appropriate, such changes are summarized below and the actual text changes are included in Chapter
22.
The City of South San Francisco received five (5) letters commenting on the Oyster Point Specific
Plan and Phase I Project Draft EIR during the comment period. The comments are organized in
chronological order as follows:
Meeting PC: Planning Commission Meeting February 17, 2011
Letter A: John Bergener, San Francisco International Airport
Letter B: Rob Wood, Native American Heritage Commission
Letter C: Ming Yeung, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC)
Letter D: Peter Grenell, San Mateo County Harbor District
Letter E: Laura Thompson, San Francisco Bay Trail Project
RESPONSES TO SPECIFIC COMMENTS
The following pages contain comments on the Draft EIR. Each comment is numbered and responses
to these comments are provided following each comment letter.
In some instances, responding to a comment received on the Draft EIR resulted in a revision to the
text of the Draft EIR. In other cases, the information provided in the responses is deemed adequate in
itself, and modification of the Draft EIR text was not necessary.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 25-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
MEETING PC: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2011
A public hearing to collect comment on the Draft EIR was held before the South San Francisco
Planning Commission on February 17, 2011. There were no comments received during the public
portion of the hearing. The Commissioners made a few comments, some of which related to the
specifics of the project description or broader plans for the East of 101 area. The official minutes of
this meeting are not yet available, so the Planning Commission’s comments relating to the
environmental analysis have been summarized below with responses following.
Comment PC-1
The Commission asked how the fact that the area is low would affect the ability to provide sewer
service and whether settling was an issue for sewer pipes.
Response to Comment PC-1
The project proposes relocation of the existing on-site pump station #1 at 383 Oyster Point Boulevard
and installation of an additional pump station in the Oyster Point Marina area, as discussed on pages
17-9 and 17-10. Additionally, Mitigation Measures Util-2a and Util-2b require upgrading of the off-
site pump station #2 and sewer lines to assure adequate capacity for cumulative growth in the East of
101 Area including the OPSP.
On the area that is a former landfill, the Phase I Project will involve relocating of landfill materials
and reconstruction of the landfill cap. As part of that process, new utility pipes will be installed.
Mitigation Measures Geo-11, Geo-12 and Geo-13 (page 9-17) address settling and other concerns
regarding sustainability of utility infrastructure by encouraging location of utilities in common
tranches, requiring the use of flexible pipe, and increasing gradient flow to offset differential
settlements. These measures are designed to ensure that new utility lines and connections continue to
function properly as further settlement occurs over time.
Comment PC-2
The Commission noted that the construction period for total build-out of the OPSP would continue
over a long period with some intermittent gaps in between and wanted to be sure noise and air
quality/health impacts had been analyzed and minimized for the entire construction period for both
the nearby tenants as well as families that may use the Bay Trail and proposed recreation facilities.
He asked whether the pacing of construction activity could be evaluated to minimize these impacts.
Response to Comment PC-2
The proposed construction schedule for the Phase I Project was input into air quality modeling and
considered for determination of the noise impacts, as discussed in the Draft EIR on pages 6-16
through 6-21 and 14-16 through 14-19, respectively. As construction of the office/R&D project is
proposed to occur in four approximately equally sized phases, it is reasonable to anticipate that
impacts would be similar for each phase.
Mitigation measures have been recommended that would reduce potential construction-period
impacts for each construction phase including Air-4a and -4b to reduce dust, diesel particulate matter
and odors (pages 6-19 and 6-20) and Noise-5 to reduce noise levels generated by construction
activities (page 14-18). These would apply to Phase I construction as well as subsequent phases.
These mitigation measures would ensure impacts related to construction period emissions and noise
are reduced to the extent feasible. However, while potential noise impacts have been reduced to the
CHAPTER 23: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 23-3
extent feasible, the noise from construction activities can still be intermittently disruptive. Because of
the duration of the construction period for a project that would be implemented over many years, the
noise impact has been determined to be significant and unavoidable.
As for the pacing of construction, it is anticipated this will be informed by economic impetus as well
as the realities of coordinating such large construction projects and could only be constrained to a
minimal degree. It is more a qualitative question of whether slightly less noise over a longer period
would be more palatable than slightly more noise over a shorter period when we are discussing a
matter of many years. Successive phasing as proposed from the south to the northern part of the site
will help move noise and emissions sources away from the new uses coming on-line as each phase is
completed and limit impacts over time to the extent possible. There is no recommendation for
modification of the construction phasing from that proposed.
Comment PC-3
The Commission followed-up on the previous question relating to the low level of the area by asking
whether the area would need to be re-diked and if so how that would impact the Bay Trail and
liquefaction.
Response to Comment PC-3
Development in the OPSP area will generally avoid development or other activities within tidal areas,
marshland or in-water, with the exception of possible changes to docks in the Oyster Point Marina,
which are not proposed as a part of the Phase I Project and for which there are no specific design or
construction proposals. If, during the approval process for specific development projects, it is
determined that activities will encroach into these areas, appropriate review and permits will be
pursued.
The grading plan can be found in the Draft EIR, Figure 3.5. The changes to the grading in relation to
anticipated future sea level rise can be seen graphically on Figures 12.1 and 12.2 on pages 12-13 and
12-14, which demonstrate how the proposed grading will protect proposed uses including
enhancements to the Bay Trail, from future sea level rise.
The potential for liquefaction at the site is discussed on page 9-8, as excerpted below:
“Based on the subsurface data obtained from the previous drilled borings at Oyster Point (noted above
among the references reviewed), the existing landfill materials, residual soils, Bay Mud, and
Franciscan Complex bedrock have a low potential for liquefaction. Therefore, damage due to
liquefaction at Oyster Point is considered low. It should be noted that the landfill is contained by soil
dikes along the water-side site perimeter. These perimeter dikes are reported to have been constructed
of Bay Mud, which has low potential for liquefaction. Prior to new site development, geotechnical
studies shall be undertaken to confirm the material types used in the construction of the perimeter
dikes to verify the assumed low potential for liquefaction.”
Mitigation Measure Geo-4 outlines the specifics of compliance with recommendations of a
geotechnical investigation including static and seismic stability of the perimeter dikes (pages 9-11 and
9-12).
LetterA
A-
1
A-
1
c
o
n
t
'
d
.
A-
2
A-
3
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 23-6 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
LETTER A: JOHN BERGENER, SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Response to Comment A-1
The current San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan was prepared an adopted by
the City/County Association of governments of San Mateo County (C/CAG) in its designated role as
the Airport Land Use Commission for San Mateo County, California in December 1996. The OPSP
was determined in this EIR to be consistent with regulations of the Comprehensive Airport Land Use
Plan related to environmental issues (see hazards/height discussion on pages 11-18 and 11-19 and
noise discussion on page 14-19) and as noted in this comment, the project will undergo consistency
review through the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission. On February 24, 2011, the
C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee unanimously recommended that the C/CAG Board, acting as
the Airport Land Use Commission, find that the Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project is
consistent with the December 1996 Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan. The C/CAG Board is
scheduled to consider the matter on March 10, 2011.
It is understood that the project referenced in the third paragraph was intended to be the Oyster Point
Specific Plan and Phase I Project and not the Transit Corridors Plan. Note that it is anticipated the
EIR for this project will be certified in March 2011, prior to adoption of a new Comprehensive
Airport Land Use Plan.
Response to Comment A-2
As noted on pages 11-18 and 11-19 of the Draft EIR, the building heights proposed are below the
permissible limits.
Response to Comment A-3
As discussed on page 14-14 of the Draft EIR, the hotel will comply with the California State Building
Code and the City of South San Francisco General Plan, which require interior noise levels to be
maintained at or below 45 dBA CNEL. Noise modeling and comparison to the noise contour map in
the South San Francisco General Plan indicate that predicted interior noise levels at the proposed
hotel site would be below this level assuming standard hotel construction. See also Impact Noise-6
and the following discussion on 14-19 for additional information. No new residential uses are
proposed or permitted as part of the OPSP.
LetterB
B-
1
CHAPTER 23: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 23-9
LETTER B: ROB WOOD, NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION
Response to Comment B-1
These comments outline standard practice for cultural review of a project. The recommended actions
are incorporated in the Draft EIR, pages 8-1 to 8-6.
The Oyster Point EIR references the Ferry Terminal study conducted in the Project area in 2005. This
previous Sacred Lands File check "failed to indicate the presence of Native American resources" in
the area (While also referenced in the Draft EIR, the full reference to the Ferry Terminal EIR is: San
Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority, prepared by EIP, Draft Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Assessment, South San Francisco Ferry Terminal Project, February 2006).
Additionally, because the original shoreline in the area would have been 2000 feet west and 3000 feet
south of the OPSP site (see pages 8-4 and 8-6 for additional information), there is a very low
likelihood that undiscovered historical/Native American resources or remains will be encountered
during construction activity. Nonetheless, the Draft EIR includes Mitigation Measures Culture-1a and
Culture-1b, which require construction activity to be halted and appropriate action taken in the event
any cultural resources or remains are discovered (page 8-6 of the Draft EIR).
The following message has been sent to the tribal consultation list attached to the comment letter,
though as discussed above, no responses are anticipated:
Lamphier-Gregory has been contracted to prepare the environmental analysis for the Oyster Point
Specific Plan (OPSP) in South San Francisco. The project area is situated at Oyster Point in
unsectioned land, in Township 3 South, Range 5 West as depicted on the San Francisco South and
Hunters Point USGS 7.5’ topographic quadrangles (attached). The OPSP would include replacing the
existing light industrial/office park with an up to 2,300,000 square foot office/research and
development (R&D) development, improvements to the site circulation, utilities, and the landfill cap,
provision of a flexible use recreation area and bay-front open space, and replacement of uses in the
City’s Oyster Point Marina area, potentially including one or two hotels with an aggregate of up to
350 rooms.
A previous Sacred Lands File check did not to indicate the presence of Native American Resources
and historic assessment indicates the site is on fill at least 2000 feet into the Bay from the original
shoreline and therefore the site is unlikely to include Native American remains or cultural resources.
We are contacting individuals identified by the Native American Heritage Commission as persons
who might have information to contribute regarding potential Native American concerns in the
project area. Any information or concerns that you may have regarding village sites, traditional
properties or modern Native American uses in any portion of the project vicinity will be welcomed. If
you know other individuals who are familiar with the vicinity, we would welcome this information as
well.
LetterC
C-
1
C-
1
c
o
n
t
'
d
C-
3
C-
2
C-
3
c
o
n
t
'
d
C-
4
C-
5
C-
6
C-
7
C-
8
C-
9
C-
9
c
o
n
t
'
d
C-
1
2
C-
1
1
C-
1
0
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 23-16 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
LETTER C: MING YEUNG, SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT
COMMISSION (BCDC)
Response to Comment C-1
Development in the OPSP area will generally avoid development or other activities within the Bay or
mean high tide, with the exception of possible changes to docks in the Oyster Point Marina, discussed
below. If, during the approval process for specific development projects, it is determined that
activities will encroach into this area or into the 100 foot shoreline band, appropriate permits will be
pursued from BCDC along with any required plans.
Because possible changes to two of the docks in the Oyster Point Marina were being contemplated
during preparation of the Draft EIR, the potential environmental impacts associated with potential in-
water construction for these docks were analyzed in the Draft EIR at a programmatic level of detail,
consistent with the level of detail currently known about these contemplated changes. These potential
actions are not part of the Phase I Project and there is currently no specific design or construction
proposal for such docks. If changes to the docks are indeed proposed at a later date, the specifics will
need to undergo appropriate review and permitting.
Response to Comment C-2
The Waterfront Park Priority designation was discussed on pages 13-2 to 13-3 of the Draft EIR. The
City will continue to coordinate with BCDC during the approval/permitting process to ensure
consistency with exact boundaries of waterfront priority designations.
Response to Comment C-3
No Bay fill is currently proposed as a part of the OPSP or Phase I Project. If, during the approval
process for specific development projects, it is determined that any subsequent activity will require
Bay fill, such as for changes to the docks (the specifics of which are not currently available),
appropriate review and permitting will be pursued at that time.
Response to Comment C-4
This is not a comment on the environmental analysis. Appropriate detail will be provided for any
permitting through BCDC.
Response to Comment C-5
This is not a comment on the environmental analysis. When final development plans for the future
hotel development site and flexible use recreation area are planned/programmed, details of the public
access through these sites will be considered, including connections to/from Marina Boulevard and
the Bay Trail and/or through the Phase I Office/R&D site to Gull Drive.
Response to Comment C-6
Full and detailed analysis of aesthetic impacts was included in the Draft EIR on pages 4-1 through 4-
20, including visual models from four locations. This analysis meets the requirements for CEQA
review. Additional detail and discussion can be provided as required for any subsequent permitting
through BCDC. With the planned roadway realignment, bayside open space, recreational area and
Bay Trail improvements, the project will provide, enhance and preserve views of the Bay and
shoreline.
CHAPTER 23: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 23-17
Response to Comment C-7
The Draft EIR included a full and detailed analysis of potential biological impacts on pages 7-1 to 7-
38 and Appendix C of the Draft EIR. This information included recommended mitigation measures
and aspects of the proposed project’s construction and use that would avoid or minimize impacts to
special-status species and habitat. This analysis also included a full assessment of in-water impacts
that could result if changes to the docks are subsequently proposed including measures to minimize
potential impacts (see pages 7-31 to 7-37).
Response to Comment C-8
The Draft EIR included a full and detailed analysis of potential impacts to water quality and
recommended measures to reduce these impacts on pages 12-6 through 12-11, including measure
Hydro-1 requiring best management practices during installation of foundation piers, Hydro-2
requiring preparation and implementation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Hydro-3
requiring compliance with NPDES requirements for erosion control measures, and measures
requiring monitoring for leachate from the landfill (Haz-4a, Haz-4d and Haz-4e).
Response to Comment C-9
No Bay fill is currently proposed as a part of the OPSP or Phase I Project. If, during the approval
process for specific development projects, it is determined that any subsequent activity pursuant to the
OPSP will require Bay fill, such as for changes to the docks (the specifics of which are not currently
available), appropriate review and permitting will be pursued at that time.
Response to Comment C-10
Impact and Mitigation Measure Geo-16 have been added to address the stability of the bayside open
space and require investigation by and compliance with recommendations of a coastal engineer. See
the revisions in Chapter 22 of this document. Compliance with mitigation measure Geo-16 will
reduce potential impacts related to instability of the bayside open space to a level of less than
significant.
Response to Comment C-11
Development in the OPSP area will generally avoid development or other activities within tidal areas,
marshland or in-water, with the exception of possible changes to docks in the Oyster Point Marina,
discussed below. If, during the approval process for specific development projects, it is determined
that activities will encroach into these areas, appropriate review and permits will be pursued.
Because possible changes to two of the docks in the Oyster Point Marina were being contemplated
during preparation of the Draft EIR, the potential environmental impacts associated with potential in-
water construction for these docks were analyzed in the Draft EIR at a programmatic level of detail,
consistent with the level of detail currently known about these contemplated changes. These potential
actions are not part of the Phase I Project and there is currently no specific design or construction
proposal for such docks. If changes to the docks are indeed proposed at a later date, the specifics will
need to undergo appropriate review and permitting.
Response to Comment C-12
The potential impact of future sea level rise is discussed in full on pages 12-11 through 12-15 of the
Draft EIR. Figure 12.2 of the Draft EIR demonstrates protection of the entire development area under
proposed grading conditions, including the public access areas, under potential sea level rise
scenarios.
LetterD
Commentsarenumbered
accordingtothenumberedbullet
pointsbelow,startingwithD-1.
CHAPTER 23: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 23-21
LETTER D: PETER GRENELL, SAN MATEO COUNTY HARBOR DISTRICT
Response to Comment D-1
Clarification of the timing of completion of the ferry terminal has been added. See the revisions in
Chapter 22 of this document.
Response to Comment D-2
Clarification of the number of berths at Oyster Point Marina has been added. See the revisions in
Chapter 22 of this document.
Response to Comment D-3
Clarification that demolition of the Oyster Point Yacht Club is not proposed has been added. See the
revisions in Chapter 22 of this document.
Response to Comment D-4
Clarification of the number of berths at Oyster Point Marina has been added. See the revisions in
Chapter 22 of this document.
Response to Comment D-5
The comment has been evaluated, but does not raise an environmental issue, nor address the adequacy
of the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2), and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, no further response is required.
Response to Comment D-6
The comment has been evaluated, but does not raise an environmental issue, nor address the adequacy
of the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2), and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, no further response is required.
Response to Comment D-7
Clarification that demolition of the Oyster Point Yacht Club is not proposed has been added. See the
revisions in Chapter 22 of this document.
Response to Comment D-8
The comment has been evaluated, but does not raise an environmental issue, nor address the adequacy
of the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2), and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, no further response is required.
Response to Comment D-9
The comment has been evaluated, but does not raise an environmental issue, nor address the adequacy
of the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2), and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, no further response is required.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 23-22 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Response to Comment D-10
The comment has been evaluated, but does not raise an environmental issue, nor address the adequacy
of the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2), and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, no further response is required.
Response to Comment D-11
The comment has been evaluated, but does not raise an environmental issue, nor address the adequacy
of the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2), and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, no further response is required.
Response to Comment D-12
The comment has been evaluated, but does not raise an environmental issue, nor address the adequacy
of the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2), and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, no further response is required.
Response to Comment D-13
The comment has been evaluated, but does not raise an environmental issue, nor address the adequacy
of the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2), and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, no further response is required.
Response to Comment D-14
The comment has been evaluated, but does not raise an environmental issue, nor address the adequacy
of the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2), and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, no further response is required.
Response to Comment D-15
The comment has been evaluated, but does not raise an environmental issue, nor address the adequacy
of the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2), and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, no further response is required.
Response to Comment D-16
The comment has been evaluated, but does not raise an environmental issue, nor address the adequacy
of the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2), and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, no further response is required.
Response to Comment D-17
The comment has been evaluated, but does not raise an environmental issue, nor address the adequacy
of the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2), and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, no further response is required.
CHAPTER 23: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 23-23
Response to Comment D-18
Impact Hydro-4 is discussed in full on pages 12-11 through 12-15 of the Draft EIR, including Figure
12.2 that demonstrates protection of the entire development area under proposed grading conditions,
including the eastern end of the shoreline.
Response to Comment D-19
The environmental analysis was completed to satisfy requirements under the California
Environmental Quality Act for the Oyster Point Specific Plan and Phase I Project, including
infrastructure improvements, which includes full and detailed analysis of traffic on pages 16-1
through 16-58 and Appendix E of the Draft EIR including identification of significant and
unavoidable impacts to US 101 and the ramps and/or intersections serving them and identification of
18 additional potentially significant impacts and the mitigation to reduce these to less than significant;
full and detailed analysis of hazardous materials on pages 11-1 through 11-19 of the Draft EIR
including impacts and mitigation for potentially significant impacts related to hazardous and
potentially hazardous landfill materials; and full and detailed analysis of geological impacts on 9-1
through 9-19 of the Draft EIR including impacts and mitigation relating to construction over variable
subsurface conditions including landfill materials that may subside over time and in a seismically
active region. Additionally, the adequacy of the proposed utility infrastructure was examined in a full
and detailed analysis included in the Draft EIR on pages 17-1 through 17-16 and Appendix G.
The comment does not raise any specific environmental issue to which a specific written response can
be provided; accordingly no further response is required
Response to Comment D-20
Page 1-1, 2nd paragraph identifies the applicant as “Oyster Point Ventures, LLC and the City of South
San Francisco Redevelopment Agency.” Chapter 3: Project Description describes in more detail the
proposed public-private redevelopment.
Response to Comment D-21
As outlined in the first paragraph of page 3-1 of the Draft EIR, the Phase I Project has been analyzed
on a project level in the EIR. Because elements of the future phases within the OPSP are conceptual
at this point, these have been analyzed on a programmatic level. While conceptual, as much detailed
information as possible has been included for future phases to ensure a more exhaustive consideration
of effects and alternative for the entire OPSP than would have been possible if each phase had been
considered separately. See the detailed description of the programmatic OPSP on pages 3-2 through
3-4 and 3-19 of the Draft EIR. Programmatic analysis is explicitly allowed for projects of this type
under section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, and is a common practice for large multi-phase
Specific Plans that would not be considered “segmentation” under CEQA.
Response to Comment D-22
The comment has been evaluated, but does not raise an environmental issue, nor address the adequacy
of the environmental analysis. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21091(d)(2), and CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088, no further response is required.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 23-24 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Response to Comment D-23
This is not a comment on the environmental analysis. This non-CEQA issue will be coordinated
between the City and Harbor District. If temporary enhancements are subsequently proposed in
connection with the Americas Cup competition, these may require subsequent environmental review.
Administered by the Association of Bay Area Governments
P.O. Box 2050 • Oakland, CA 94604-2050
Phone: 510-464-7900 • Fax: 510-464-7970
Web: www.baytrail.org
March9,2011
GerryBeaudin,SeniorPlanner
DepartmentofEconomicandCommunityDevelopment
CityofSouthSanFrancisco
315MapleAvenue
SouthSanFrancisco,CA94083
Subject:OysterPointSpecificPlanandPhaseIProject
DraftEnvironmentalImpactReport
DearMr.Beaudin:
OnbehalfoftheSanFranciscoBayTrailProject,IamsubmittingcommentsontheDraft
EnvironmentalImpactReportfortheOysterPointSpecificPlanandPhaseIProject.TheSan
FranciscoBayTrailisavisionaryplanforasharedͲusebicycleandpedestrianpaththatwillone
dayallowcontinuoustravelaroundSanFranciscoBay.Currently,310milesoftrailhavebeen
completed.Eventually,theBayTrailwillextendover500milestolinktheshorelineofnine
counties,passingthrough47citiesandcrossingseventollbridges.
Weareparticularlyinterestedinthisdevelopmentprojectanditsbicycleandpedestrian
circulationplansbecauseitwillaffectover10milesofcontinuous,wellͲusedBayTraillinkingto
aregionalferrytransitterminal.
ThefollowingcommentsaresuggestedforinclusionintheFinalEnvironmentalImpactReport:
ProgrammaticSpecificPlan
o ImprovementstotheBayTrailandsurroundingopenspacethroughoutOysterPoint
Marinaandtheproposedoffice/R&DprojectTheFEIRshouldclarifythesectionsofthe
BayTrailthatwillbeimprovedaspartofthisproject.Inorderforthetrailnetworkto
befunctional,trailresurfacingandwideningshouldalsooccurbeyondtheprojectarea
toavoiduserconflictsonoldnarrowtrailsections.
PhaseIProject
o EnhancementofexistingusesattheeasternedgeofOysterPointTheBayTrailshould
beimprovedattheeasternedgeofOysterPointtocreateconsistentanduniformtrail
accesstothenewdevelopment.
o LandfillconsolidationandgradingSegmentsoftheBayTrailarecurrentlyinundated
duringhightideeventsmakingitunusableduringthesetimes.TheFEIRshouldaddress
thisissueandensurethatthegradingplanelevatestheedgeoftheshorelinetoprotect
apermanentBayTrailalignment.
LetterE
E-
1
E-
2
E-
3
o OffͲstreetpedestrianpaths(includingportionsoftheBayTrail)willconnecttheferry
terminaltotheexistingBayTrailThesetrailsectionsshouldbeatleast12feetwideand
shouldbemultiͲusetrails(notjustpedestrianpaths)thatwillfunctionasarecreation
andtransportationcorridorwithdirectconnectiontothenewdevelopmentandthe
ferryterminal.
Chapter15:Population,PublicServicesandRecreation
o RecreationImpactAnalysisTheFEIRshouldoutlineacommitmenttomaintainingthe
continuityoftheBayTrailduringconstruction.Whenthisisnotfeasible,itshould
defineclearandsafedetoursforbicyclists,pedestriansandpeopleinwheelchairsto
travelthroughthearea,maintainvisualaccesstotheshorelineandsafelytravel
separatedfromvehicletraffic.
o TheSanFranciscoBayTrailPlan(ABAG,1989)shouldbementionedasaregionally
adoptedplanthathaspoliciesrelevanttotheOysterPointSpecificPlan.
Chapter16:Traffic
o PedestrianandBicycleFacilitiesTheBayTrailshouldbespecificallyreferencedinthis
sectionasanexistingmultiͲusebicycleandpedestrianfacilityalongtheshoreline.
o BicycleFacilities,ImpactTrafͲ3Amitigationmeasureshouldbeincludedrequiringthat
theBayTrailbicycle/pedestrianpathwaybecompletedandimprovedbeyondtheOyster
PointSpecificPlanprojectareaasreferencedintheDEIRonpage3Ͳ3.Thespecificplan
projectareaisasmallarealocatedwithinalargersystemoftheBayTrailatOysterPoint
Marina.Effortsshouldbemadetoimprovethealignmentinthegeneralvicinityto
ensuresufficientcapacityfortheprojectedincreaseinbicycleandpedestrianuseasa
resultofthenewdevelopment.TheFEIRshouldprovideamapindicatingtheextentof
theseimprovements.
o Amapshowingthelocationofallnewsidewalks,bicyclelanesandimprovedmultiͲuse
pathintheOysterPointMarinaareashouldbeincludedintheFEIR.
Thankyouforconsideringthesecommentsandpleasecontactmeat510Ͳ464Ͳ7935or
laurat@abag.ca.govifyouhavequestionsaboutthisletterortheBayTrailingeneral.
Sincerely,
LauraThompson
BayTrailProjectManager
E-
4
E-
5
E-
6
E-
7
E-
8
E-
9
CHAPTER 23: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 23-27
LETTER E: LAURA THOMPSON, SAN FRANCISCO BAY TRAIL PROJECT
Response to Comment E-1
The City will continue to coordinate with the San Francisco Bay Trail Project to detail plans for
improvement of the Bay Trail at this site.
While not considered an environmental impact for this project or required mitigation, the City will
continue to work with the Bay Trail Project to improve the Bay Trail throughout the City of South
San Francisco.
Response to Comment E-2
Improvements to the Bay Trail at the eastern edge are included in Phase I of the project. The City will
continue to coordinate with the San Francisco Bay Trail Project to detail plans for improvement of the
Bay Trail at this site.
Response to Comment E-3
The potential impact of future sea level rise is discussed in full on pages 12-11 through 12-15 of the
Draft EIR. Figure 12.2 of the Draft EIR demonstrates protection of the entire development area under
proposed grading conditions, including the Bay Trail, under potential sea level rise scenarios. The
City will continue to coordinate with the San Francisco Bay Trail Project to detail plans for
improvement of the Bay Trail at this site.
Response to Comment E-4
The City will continue to coordinate with the San Francisco Bay Trail Project to detail plans for
improvement of the Bay Trail and connections to it at this site.
Response to Comment E-5
Impact and Mitigation Measure Traf-2b have been added to address the continuity of the Bay Trail
during construction. See the revisions in Chapter 22 of this document. Compliance with mitigation
measure Traf-2b will reduce this potential impact a level of less than significant.
Response to Comment E-6
A discussion of the regionally adopted San Francisco Bay Trail Plan has been added, as requested.
See the revisions in Chapter 22 of this document.
Response to Comment E-7
A discussion of the San Francisco Bay Trail Plan has been added, as requested. See the revisions in
Chapter 22 of this document.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 23-28 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Response to Comment E-8
While not considered an environmental impact for this project or required mitigation, the City will
continue to work with the Bay Trail Project to improve the Bay Trail throughout the City of South
San Francisco.
Response to Comment E-9
The City will continue to coordinate with the San Francisco Bay Trail Project to detail plans for
improvement of the Bay Trail at this site.
OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT PAGE 24-1
24
MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) fulfills Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6 which requires adoption of a mitigation monitoring program when
mitigation measures are required to avoid or reduce a proposed projects significant
environmental effects. The MMRP is only applicable if the City of South San Francisco
decides to approve the proposed Project.
The MMRP is organized to correspond to environmental issues and significant impacts
discussed in the EIR. The table below is arranged in the following five columns:
x Recommended mitigation measures,
x Timing for implementation of the mitigation measures,
x Party responsible for implementation,
x Monitoring action,
x Party or parties responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation
measures, and
x A blank for entry of completion date as mitigation occurs.
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
PAGE 24-2 OYSTER POINT SPECIFIC PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
This page intentionally left blank.
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-3
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Ai
r
-
2
:
H
e
a
l
t
h
R
i
s
k
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
Re
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
.
N
e
w
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
r
e
a
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
d
a
y
c
a
r
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
T
A
C
a
n
d
PM
2
.
5
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
n
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
e
v
e
l
s
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
co
u
l
d
b
e
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
s
i
t
e
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
TA
C
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
:
ż
Ne
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
re
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
l
o
c
a
t
ed
w
i
t
h
i
n
OP
S
P
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
i
t
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
th
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
T
A
C
a
n
d
P
M
2
.
5
ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
.
T
h
i
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
s
h
a
l
l
be
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
d
b
y
BA
A
Q
M
D
.
I
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
r
e
v
e
a
l
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
s
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
B
A
A
Q
M
D
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
,
t
h
e
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
b
e
l
o
w
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
ż
Wh
e
r
e
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
,
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
s
i
t
e
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
t
o
b
u
f
f
e
r
n
e
w
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
f
r
o
m
T
A
C
em
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
A
c
t
i
v
e
s
i
t
e
u
s
e
s
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
i
r
i
n
t
a
k
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
si
t
u
a
t
e
d
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
T
A
C
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
ż
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
t
i
e
r
e
d
p
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
s
o
f
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
o
n
g
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
c
l
o
s
e
s
t
t
o
T
A
C
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
st
u
d
i
e
s
s
h
o
w
t
h
a
t
r
e
d
w
o
o
d
a
n
d
/
o
r
d
e
o
d
a
r
c
e
d
a
r
t
r
e
e
s
c
a
n
re
m
o
v
e
s
o
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
f
i
n
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
m
a
t
t
e
r
e
m
i
t
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
tr
a
f
f
i
c
u
n
d
e
r
l
o
w
w
i
n
d
s
p
e
e
d
s
.
L
o
w
w
i
n
d
s
p
e
e
d
s
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
re
s
u
l
t
i
n
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
e
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
m
a
t
t
e
r
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Du
r
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
of
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
re
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
of
H
A
S
f
o
r
pr
o
p
o
s
a
l
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
re
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
Ai
r
-
4
a
:
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
B
A
A
Q
M
D
-
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
Co
n
t
r
o
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
M
a
t
t
e
r
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
i
e
s
e
l
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
m
a
t
t
e
r
a
n
d
P
M
1
0
f
r
o
m
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
s
h
o
r
t
-
t
e
r
m
h
e
a
l
t
h
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
y
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
m
e
t
du
r
i
n
g
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
4
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
n
e
a
r
b
y
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
a
r
e
a
v
o
i
d
e
d
.
Du
s
t
(
P
M
1
0
)
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
:
ż
Wa
t
e
r
a
l
l
a
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
s
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
t
w
i
c
e
d
a
i
l
y
a
n
d
mo
r
e
o
f
t
e
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
w
i
n
d
y
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
.
A
c
t
i
v
e
a
r
e
a
s
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
re
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
k
e
p
t
d
a
m
p
a
t
a
l
l
t
i
m
e
s
.
ż
Co
v
e
r
a
l
l
h
a
u
l
i
n
g
t
r
u
c
k
s
o
r
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
t
w
o
f
e
e
t
o
f
fr
e
e
b
o
a
r
d
.
ż
Pa
v
e
,
a
p
p
l
y
w
a
t
e
r
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
t
w
i
c
e
d
a
i
l
y
,
o
r
a
p
p
l
y
(
n
o
n
-
t
o
x
i
c
)
so
i
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
l
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
,
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
,
an
d
s
t
a
g
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
.
ż
Sw
e
e
p
d
a
i
l
y
(
w
i
t
h
w
a
t
e
r
s
w
e
e
p
e
r
s
)
a
l
l
p
a
v
e
d
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
,
pa
r
k
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
,
a
n
d
s
t
a
g
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
a
n
d
s
w
e
e
p
s
t
r
e
e
t
s
d
a
i
l
y
(w
i
t
h
w
a
t
e
r
s
w
e
e
p
e
r
s
)
i
f
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
s
o
i
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
i
s
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
e
d
on
t
o
t
h
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
r
o
a
d
s
.
ż
Hy
d
r
o
s
e
e
d
o
r
a
p
p
l
y
(
n
o
n
-
t
o
x
i
c
)
so
i
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
r
s
t
o
i
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
s
(
i
.
e
.
,
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
-
g
r
a
d
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
in
a
c
t
i
v
e
f
o
r
1
0
d
a
y
s
o
r
m
o
r
e
)
.
ż
En
c
l
o
s
e
,
c
o
v
e
r
,
w
a
t
e
r
t
w
i
c
e
da
i
l
y
,
o
r
a
p
p
l
y
(
n
o
n
-
t
o
x
i
c
)
s
o
i
l
bi
n
d
e
r
s
t
o
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
s
t
o
c
k
p
i
l
e
s
.
ż
Li
m
i
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
s
p
e
e
d
s
o
n
a
n
y
u
n
p
a
v
e
d
r
o
a
d
s
t
o
1
5
m
p
h
.
ż
Re
p
l
a
n
t
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
a
s
q
u
i
c
k
l
y
a
s
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
ż
Su
s
p
e
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
th
a
t
c
a
u
s
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
d
u
s
t
pl
u
m
e
s
t
o
e
x
t
e
n
d
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
.
ż
Po
s
t
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
l
l
y
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
s
i
g
n
(s
)
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
an
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
t
o
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
a
t
t
h
e
L
e
a
d
A
g
e
n
c
y
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
d
u
s
t
co
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
.
T
h
i
s
p
e
r
s
o
n
s
h
al
l
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
a
n
d
t
a
k
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-5
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
ac
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
4
8
h
o
u
r
s
.
T
h
e
Ai
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
’
s
p
h
o
n
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
sh
a
l
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
e
n
s
u
re
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
R
e
d
u
c
e
D
i
e
s
e
l
P
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
M
a
t
t
e
r
a
n
d
PM
2
.
5
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
:
ż
Th
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
o
r
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
r
B
A
A
Q
M
D
d
e
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
he
a
v
y
-
d
u
t
y
(
>
5
0
h
o
r
s
e
p
o
w
e
r
)
o
f
f
-
r
o
a
d
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
t
o
b
e
u
s
e
d
in
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
o
w
n
e
d
,
l
e
a
s
e
d
a
n
d
su
b
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
,
w
i
l
l
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
a
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
d
e
f
l
e
e
t
-
av
e
r
a
g
e
2
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
N
O
x
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
4
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
pa
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
r
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
m
p
a
r
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
r
e
c
e
n
t
C
A
R
B
fl
e
e
t
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
y
e
a
r
2
0
1
1
ż
Cl
e
a
r
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
a
t
a
l
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
o
s
t
e
d
in
d
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
d
i
e
s
e
l
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
t
a
n
d
i
n
g
i
d
l
e
f
o
r
m
o
r
e
th
a
n
f
i
v
e
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
o
f
f
.
T
h
i
s
w
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
tr
u
c
k
s
w
a
i
t
i
n
g
t
o
d
e
l
i
v
e
r
o
r
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
s
o
i
l
,
a
g
g
r
e
g
a
t
e
,
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
bu
l
k
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
R
o
t
a
t
i
n
g
d
r
u
m
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
t
r
u
c
k
s
c
o
u
l
d
k
e
e
p
th
e
i
r
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
r
u
n
n
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
ly
a
s
l
o
n
g
a
s
t
h
e
y
w
e
r
e
on
s
i
t
e
o
r
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
.
ż
Op
a
c
i
t
y
i
s
a
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
o
f
ex
h
a
u
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
fr
o
m
o
f
f
-
r
o
a
d
d
i
e
s
e
l
p
o
w
e
r
e
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
E
a
c
h
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
sh
a
l
l
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
a
l
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
d
i
e
s
e
l
po
w
e
r
e
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
u
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
d
o
n
o
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
40
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
p
a
c
i
t
y
f
o
r
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
t
h
r
e
e
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
i
n
a
n
y
o
n
e
ho
u
r
.
A
n
y
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
f
o
u
n
d
t
o
e
x
c
e
e
d
4
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
p
a
c
i
t
y
(o
r
R
i
n
g
e
l
m
a
n
n
2
.
0
)
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
p
a
i
r
e
d
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
ż
Th
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
wh
e
n
e
v
e
r
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
l
y
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
s
re
f
u
s
e
re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
6
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
po
w
e
r
e
d
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
(
e
.
g
.
c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
o
r
s
)
.
ż
Pr
o
p
e
r
l
y
t
u
n
e
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
l
o
w
e
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
.
Ai
r
-
4
b
:
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
O
d
o
r
-
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
D
u
r
i
n
g
R
e
f
u
s
e
Re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
f
o
r
r
e
f
u
s
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
ż
Al
l
a
r
e
a
s
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
m
a
i
n
u
n
d
e
r
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
l
a
y
e
r
c
o
v
e
r
u
n
t
i
l
lo
c
a
l
i
z
e
d
r
e
f
u
s
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
c
c
u
r
s
.
ż
Li
m
i
t
t
h
e
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
a
r
e
a
o
f
o
p
en
e
d
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
la
y
e
r
t
o
a
t
mo
s
t
a
n
a
c
r
e
o
f
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
a
r
e
a
a
t
a
n
y
o
n
e
t
i
m
e
p
e
r
a
r
e
a
(
a
n
ac
r
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
b
e
i
n
g
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
a
n
a
c
r
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
wh
e
r
e
t
r
a
s
h
i
s
b
e
i
n
g
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
)
.
ż
Ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
z
o
n
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
ea
c
h
d
a
y
,
e
i
t
h
e
r
w
i
t
h
s
e
c
u
r
e
d
t
a
r
p
i
n
g
o
r
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
l
a
y
e
r
o
f
s
o
i
l
.
ż
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
o
d
o
r
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
u
c
h
a
s
a
f
o
a
m
c
o
v
e
r
or
s
c
e
n
t
e
d
m
i
s
t
e
r
s
i
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
a
r
e
a
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
c
o
v
e
r
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
i
n
t
h
e
h
a
u
l
t
r
u
c
k
s
m
a
y
b
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
u
p
o
n
a
c
t
u
a
l
f
i
e
l
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
ż
Po
s
t
a
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
l
l
y
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
s
i
g
n
(
s
)
w
i
t
h
a
2
4
-
h
o
u
r
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
nu
m
b
e
r
f
o
r
o
d
o
r
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
.
T
h
e
A
i
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
’
s
p
h
o
n
e
nu
m
b
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
/
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
od
o
r
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
w
i
l
l
b
e
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
ż
If
1
0
o
r
m
o
r
e
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
a
r
e
l
o
g
g
e
d
w
i
t
h
B
A
A
Q
M
D
wi
t
h
i
n
a
9
0
-
d
a
y
p
e
r
i
o
d
,
B
A
A
Q
M
D
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
au
t
h
o
r
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
s
u
p
e
r
s
e
d
e
s
t
h
i
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
co
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
B
A
A
Q
M
D
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
7
.
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-7
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Bi
o
-
2
a
:
D
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
e
J
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
B
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
y
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
a
t
i
c
O
P
S
P
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
to
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
h
a
v
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
on
U
S
A
C
E
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
,
a
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
d
e
l
i
n
e
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
e
rf
o
r
m
e
d
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
p
r
e
c
i
s
e
li
m
i
t
s
o
f
U
S
A
C
E
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
t
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
,
a
n
d
U
S
A
C
E
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
th
e
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
a
n
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
s
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
o
r
lo
s
s
o
f
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
or
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
ha
b
i
t
a
t
s
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
by
U
S
A
C
E
o
f
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
bo
u
n
d
a
r
y
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
Bi
o
-
2
b
:
I
m
p
a
c
t
A
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
/
M
i
n
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
Fu
t
u
r
e
O
P
S
P
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
ne
a
r
t
h
e
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
sh
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
bo
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
o
f
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
av
o
i
d
a
n
d
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
pr
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
w
h
i
l
e
s
t
i
l
l
a
c
c
o
m
p
l
i
s
h
i
n
g
O
P
S
P
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
.
F
o
r
ex
a
m
p
l
e
,
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
r
a
i
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
uc
t
i
o
n
,
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
ot
h
e
r
t
e
r
r
e
s
t
r
i
a
l
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
pl
a
n
n
e
d
a
n
d
d
e
s
i
gn
e
d
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
im
p
a
c
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
fe
a
s
i
b
l
e
.
F
o
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
no
t
a
v
o
i
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
i
n
g
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
ha
b
i
t
a
t
s
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
w
a
t
e
r
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
o
r
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
p
i
e
r
s
o
r
d
o
c
k
s
i
n
t
h
e
m
a
r
i
n
a
,
t
h
e
am
o
u
n
t
o
f
n
e
w
f
i
l
l
o
r
t
h
e
f
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
o
f
n
e
w
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
p
l
a
c
e
d
i
n
o
r
o
n
th
e
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
m
i
n
im
u
m
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
t
h
e
ob
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
o
f
t
h
a
t
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
p
l
a
n
s
f
o
r
a
n
y
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
r
e
s
u
lt
i
n
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
an
d
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
a
v
o
i
d
e
d
a
n
d
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
a
n
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
s
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
o
r
lo
s
s
o
f
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
or
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
ha
b
i
t
a
t
s
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
ar
e
a
v
o
i
d
e
d
o
r
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
d
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
Bi
o
-
2
c
:
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
T
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
l
y
I
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
/
A
q
u
a
t
i
c
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
s
.
US
A
C
E
-
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
l
y
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
a
t
i
c
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
If
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
e
d
b
y
Bi
o
-
2
a
a
n
d
B
i
o
-
2b
,
d
u
r
i
n
g
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
s
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
8
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
re
s
t
o
r
e
d
t
o
p
r
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
o
u
r
s
a
n
d
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
s
o
i
l
s
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
-
o
u
t
.
Th
e
m
e
a
n
s
b
y
w
h
i
c
h
s
u
c
h
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
i
l
y
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
s
h
a
l
l
be
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
2
d
b
e
l
o
w
.
Bi
o
-
2
d
:
C
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
l
y
I
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
We
t
l
a
n
d
/
A
q
u
a
t
i
c
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
.
Un
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
f
i
l
l
o
f
a
l
l
ha
b
i
t
a
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
U
S
A
C
E
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
a
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
1:
1
(
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
:
i
m
p
a
c
t
a
r
e
a
)
r
a
ti
o
b
y
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
si
m
i
l
a
r
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
a
r
o
u
n
d
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
.
A
n
y
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
,
m
a
r
s
h
,
o
r
mu
d
f
l
a
t
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
a
r
e
a
s
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
i
n
g
a
n
e
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
s
h
a
d
i
n
g
a
s
a
re
s
u
l
t
o
f
d
o
c
k
s
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
o
v
e
r
o
r
o
n
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
sh
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
ti
o
n
a
t
a
0
.
5
:
1
(
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
:
im
p
a
c
t
a
r
e
a
)
r
a
t
i
o
;
t
h
i
s
r
a
t
i
o
i
s
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
1
:
1
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
pe
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
f
i
l
l
i
n
g
o
f
s
u
c
h
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
s
h
a
d
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
a
r
e
ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
t
a
i
n
s
o
m
e
e
c
o
l
o
g
i
ca
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
v
a
l
u
e
.
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
u
l
d
be
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
c
o
m
b
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
of
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
of
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
o
r
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
(
i
n
c
l
ud
i
n
g
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
f
i
l
l
o
r
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
,
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
i
n
a
g
a
i
n
o
f
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
o
r
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
)
;
o
f
f
-
si
t
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
/
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
;
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
/
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
o
t
h
e
r
s
;
a
n
d/
o
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
r
e
d
i
t
s
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
d
at
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
n
k
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
R
e
g
i
o
n
.
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
c
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
sp
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
f
i
s
h
a
n
d
E
F
H
(
s
e
e
I
m
pa
c
t
s
t
o
E
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
F
i
s
h
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
an
d
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
S
t
a
t
u
s
F
i
s
h
b
e
l
o
w
)
,
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
im
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
m
u
s
t
a
l
s
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
g
r
e
e
n
st
u
r
g
e
o
n
,
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
C
o
a
s
t
st
e
e
l
h
e
a
d
,
a
n
d
l
o
n
g
f
i
n
s
m
e
l
t
t
h
a
t
is
o
f
a
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
a
s
h
i
g
h
a
s
t
h
a
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
.
Fo
r
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
r
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
f
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
ba
n
k
c
r
e
d
i
t
s
,
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
sh
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
t
o
th
e
C
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
e
i
t
h
e
r
(
a
)
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
at
i
o
n
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
we
t
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
aq
u
a
t
i
c
a
r
e
a
s
;
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
fo
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
ar
e
a
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
Ce
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
o
r
lo
s
s
o
f
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
or
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
ha
b
i
t
a
t
s
cr
e
d
i
t
s
o
r
re
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-9
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
th
e
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
f
a
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
r
e
d
i
t
s
i
n
a
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
n
k
t
o
s
a
t
i
s
f
y
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
ti
o
n
a
c
r
e
a
g
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
OP
S
P
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
o
r
(
b
)
f
u
n
d
s
s
uf
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
r
e
a
g
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
pa
i
d
t
o
a
n
e
n
t
i
t
y
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
a
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
c
r
e
a
t
e
o
r
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
ha
b
i
t
a
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
b
e
i
n
g
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
.
Fo
r
a
r
e
a
s
t
o
b
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
f
o
r
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
o
r
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
im
p
a
c
t
s
,
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
.
T
h
e
O
P
S
P
A
p
p
li
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
t
a
i
n
a
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
ec
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
o
r
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
t
o
de
v
e
l
o
p
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
,
a
n
d
i
t
sh
a
l
l
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
nt
s
(
o
r
a
s
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
by
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
a
g
e
n
c
y
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
)
:
1.
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
an
d
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
s
,
al
o
n
g
w
i
t
h
a
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
y
o
t
he
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
e
s
u
s
e
d
t
o
ac
h
i
e
v
e
t
h
e
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
o
f
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
/
o
r
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
f
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
n
k
c
r
e
d
i
t
s
2.
G
o
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
n
o
n
e
t
l
o
s
s
o
f
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
v
a
l
u
e
s
3.
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
(
s
)
a
n
d
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
co
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
4.
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
:
ż
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
i
t
e
h
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
ż
Gr
a
d
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
i
f
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
b
a
n
k
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
ot
h
e
r
s
i
t
e
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
ż
So
i
l
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
i
t
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
s
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
ż
Pl
a
n
t
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
1
0
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
ż
Ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
p
l
a
n
ż
Re
m
e
d
i
a
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
/
a
d
a
p
t
i
v
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
e
t
c
.
5.
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
fi
n
a
l
a
n
d
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
,
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
,
d
a
t
a
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
,
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
,
e
t
c
.
)
6.
C
o
n
t
i
n
g
e
n
c
y
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
on
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
d
o
n
o
t
m
e
e
t
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
o
r
f
i
n
a
l
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
.
Bi
o
-
3
a
:
I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
B
e
s
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
W
a
t
e
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
D
u
r
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
P
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
B
e
s
t
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
(
B
M
P
s
)
f
o
r
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
im
p
a
c
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
w
et
l
a
n
d
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
,
s
l
o
u
g
h
s
a
n
d
ch
a
n
n
e
l
s
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Ba
y
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
s
e
BM
P
s
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
n
u
m
e
r
o
u
s
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
o
u
tl
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
th
e
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
P
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
(
S
W
P
P
P
)
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
,
b
u
t
no
t
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
:
1.
N
o
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
l
i
v
e
f
l
o
w
i
n
a
n
y
o
f
t
h
e
s
l
o
u
g
h
s
or
c
h
a
n
n
e
l
s
o
r
d
i
t
c
h
e
s
o
n
o
r
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
2.
N
o
d
e
b
r
i
s
,
s
o
i
l
,
s
i
l
t
,
s
a
n
d
,
b
a
r
k
,
s
l
a
s
h
,
s
a
w
d
u
s
t
,
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
,
wa
s
h
i
n
g
s
,
p
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
o
r
o
t
he
r
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
o
r
e
a
r
t
h
e
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
sh
a
l
l
b
e
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
t
o
e
n
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
o
r
be
p
l
a
c
e
d
w
h
e
r
e
i
t
m
a
y
b
e
w
a
s
h
e
d
by
r
a
i
n
f
a
l
l
o
r
r
u
n
o
f
f
i
n
t
o
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
o
r
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
3.
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
a
n
d
sl
o
p
e
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
w
o
r
k
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
i
n
an
y
a
r
e
a
w
h
e
r
e
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
c
o
u
l
d
l
e
a
d
to
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
w
a
t
e
r
b
o
d
y
.
F
o
r
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,
s
i
l
t
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
b
e
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
j
u
s
t
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
l
i
m
i
t
s
o
f
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
a
n
y
ar
e
a
s
w
h
e
r
e
s
u
c
h
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
ur
u
p
s
l
o
p
e
f
r
o
m
,
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
5
0
ft
o
f
,
a
n
y
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
,
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
,
o
r
m
a
r
s
h
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
T
h
i
s
s
i
l
t
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
w
i
l
l
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
ar
e
m
e
t
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-11
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
be
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
ta
i
n
e
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
ho
u
t
t
h
e
d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
4.
M
a
c
h
i
n
e
r
y
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
f
u
e
l
e
d
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
5
0
f
t
f
r
o
m
a
n
y
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
,
an
d
a
s
p
i
l
l
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
pl
a
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
.
A
l
l
wo
r
k
e
r
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
o
f
t
h
e
i
m
po
r
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
s
p
i
l
l
s
a
n
d
of
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
to
t
a
k
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
a
s
p
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
.
Bi
o
-
3
b
:
M
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
S
o
i
l
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
A
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
Ma
r
s
h
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
T
o
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
s
o
i
l
s
t
o
c
k
p
i
l
i
n
g
,
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
st
a
g
i
n
g
,
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
r
o
a
d
s
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
l
y
s
o
i
l
-
di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
o
c
c
ur
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
a
n
y
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
t
o
b
e
a
v
o
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
.
T
h
e
l
i
m
i
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
d
e
m
a
r
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
Se
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
A
r
e
a
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
i
n
a
d
ve
r
t
e
n
t
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
nc
e
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
fe
n
c
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
Du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
En
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
ll
y
S
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
Ar
e
a
s
a
r
e
av
o
i
d
e
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Bi
o
-
4
:
E
n
s
u
r
e
A
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
S
t
o
r
mw
a
t
e
r
R
u
n
-
o
f
f
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
.
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
i
n
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
r
u
n
-
o
f
f
d
u
e
t
o
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
h
a
r
d
s
c
a
p
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
on
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
h
a
n
d
l
e
t
h
e
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
i
n
f
l
o
w
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
e
n
e
r
g
y
d
i
s
s
i
p
a
t
i
o
n
.
A
l
l
s
u
ch
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
o
u
t
f
a
l
l
s
,
sh
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
d
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
pr
e
v
e
n
t
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
f
o
l
l
o
wi
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
ru
n
-
o
f
f
ca
p
a
c
i
t
y
i
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Bi
o
-
6
:
P
r
e
-
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
N
e
s
t
i
n
g
B
i
r
d
S
u
r
v
e
y
.
P
r
e
-
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
su
r
v
e
y
s
f
o
r
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
b
i
r
d
s
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
M
i
g
r
a
t
o
r
y
B
i
r
d
T
r
e
a
t
y
Ac
t
o
f
1
9
1
8
a
n
d
/
o
r
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
G
a
m
e
C
o
d
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
0
fe
e
t
o
f
a
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
i
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
i
f
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
i
f
d
u
r
i
n
g
ne
s
t
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
of
s
u
r
v
e
y
a
n
d
,
if
b
i
r
d
s
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
1
2
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
c
o
m
m
e
n
c
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
a
v
i
a
n
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
,
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
Fe
b
r
u
a
r
y
1
a
n
d
A
u
g
u
s
t
3
1
.
T
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
n
n
o
mo
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
5
d
a
y
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
a
ny
s
i
t
e
-
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
r
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
.
I
f
a
c
t
i
v
e
n
e
s
t
s
a
r
e
f
o
u
n
d
,
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
pr
i
a
t
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
i
n
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
sp
e
c
i
e
s
,
s
t
a
g
e
o
f
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
,
l
o
c
a
ti
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
,
a
n
d
t
y
p
e
o
f
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
s
sh
o
u
l
d
b
e
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
u
n
t
i
l
a
f
t
e
r
th
e
n
e
s
t
l
i
n
g
s
h
a
v
e
f
l
e
d
g
e
d
a
n
d
l
e
f
t
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
.
pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
bu
f
f
e
r
Bi
o
-
7
a
:
P
r
e
-
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
B
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
O
w
l
S
u
r
v
e
y
s
.
P
r
e
-
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
f
o
r
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
i
n
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
n
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
O
w
l
Co
n
s
o
r
t
i
u
m
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
,
n
o
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
30
d
a
y
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
s
t
a
r
t
o
f
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
I
f
n
o
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
a
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
,
no
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
i
f
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
ow
l
s
a
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
o
r
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
a
d
ja
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
,
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
B
i
o
-
7
b
a
n
d
B
i
o
-
7
c
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
of
s
u
r
v
e
y
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
Bi
o
-
7
b
:
B
u
f
f
e
r
Z
o
n
e
s
.
F
o
r
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
no
n
-
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
(
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
1
S
e
p
t
em
b
e
r
t
o
3
1
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
)
,
a
1
5
0
-
ft
b
u
f
f
e
r
z
o
n
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
b
u
r
r
o
w
(
s
)
i
f
pr
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
I
f
s
u
c
h
a
b
u
f
f
e
r
i
s
n
o
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
,
t
h
e
n
a
b
u
f
f
e
r
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
i
n
j
u
r
y
o
r
m
o
r
t
a
l
i
t
y
of
o
w
l
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
,
o
r
th
e
b
i
r
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
e
v
i
c
t
e
d
a
s
d
e
s
c
ri
b
e
d
f
o
r
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
B
i
o
-
7c
,
b
e
l
o
w
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
(
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
1
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
t
o
3
1
Au
g
u
s
t
)
,
a
2
5
0
-
f
t
b
u
f
f
e
r
,
w
i
t
h
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
n
o
n
e
w
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
pe
r
m
i
s
s
i
b
l
e
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
O
P
S
P
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
oc
c
u
p
i
e
d
b
u
r
r
o
w
s
.
O
w
l
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
s
i
t
e
a
f
t
e
r
1
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
as
s
u
m
e
d
t
o
b
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
u
n
l
e
s
s
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
.
T
h
i
s
If
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
e
d
b
y
Bi
o
-
7
a
,
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
bu
f
f
e
r
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-13
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
pr
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
b
u
f
f
e
r
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
m
a
i
n
in
e
f
f
e
c
t
u
n
t
i
l
3
1
A
u
g
u
s
t
,
o
r
ba
s
e
d
u
p
o
n
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
,
un
t
i
l
t
h
e
y
o
u
n
g
o
w
l
s
a
r
e
f
o
r
a
g
i
n
g
in
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
l
y
o
r
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
i
s
n
o
l
o
n
g
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
.
Bi
o
-
7
c
:
P
a
s
s
i
v
e
R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
I
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
oc
c
u
p
i
e
d
b
u
r
r
o
w
s
,
e
v
i
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
w
l
s
sh
o
u
l
d
o
c
c
u
r
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
se
a
s
o
n
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
j
u
r
y
o
r
m
o
r
t
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
o
w
l
s
.
N
o
bu
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
e
v
i
c
t
e
d
fr
o
m
b
u
r
r
o
w
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
se
a
s
o
n
(
1
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
3
1
Au
g
u
s
t
)
u
n
l
e
s
s
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
th
a
t
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
i
s
n
o
t
a
c
t
i
v
e
l
y
o
c
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
(
e
.
g
.
,
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
o
w
l
s
h
a
v
e
no
t
y
e
t
b
e
g
u
n
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
e
a
r
l
y
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
a
s
o
n
,
o
r
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
y
o
u
n
g
h
a
v
e
al
r
e
a
d
y
f
l
e
d
g
e
d
l
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
a
s
o
n
).
R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
o
w
l
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
no
n
-
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
e
r
f
or
m
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
us
i
n
g
o
n
e
-
w
a
y
d
o
o
r
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
s
h
o
u
ld
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
a
l
l
b
u
r
r
o
w
s
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
n
d
l
e
f
t
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
f
o
r
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
t
w
o
n
i
g
h
t
s
.
Th
e
s
e
o
n
e
-
w
a
y
d
o
o
r
s
s
h
a
l
l
t
h
e
n
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
b
u
r
r
o
w
s
ba
c
k
f
i
l
l
e
d
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
.
If
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
e
d
b
y
Bi
o
-
7
a
,
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
re
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
Bi
o
-
1
0
a
:
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
R
e
d
u
c
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
B
i
r
d
s
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
o
f
a
n
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
1
0
0
f
e
e
t
t
a
l
l
,
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
w
i
t
h
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d
w
i
t
h
bi
r
d
s
t
r
i
k
e
s
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
/
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
d
e
si
g
n
i
s
s
u
e
s
t
o
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
-
re
l
a
t
e
d
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
’
s
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
on
b
i
r
d
s
.
S
u
c
h
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
ot
h
e
r
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
’
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
ż
Us
e
s
t
r
o
b
e
o
r
f
l
a
s
h
i
n
g
l
i
g
h
t
s
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
o
f
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
y
bu
r
n
i
n
g
l
i
g
h
t
s
f
o
r
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
.
U
s
e
f
l
a
s
h
i
n
g
w
h
i
t
e
li
g
h
t
s
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
o
u
s
l
i
g
h
t
,
r
e
d
l
i
g
h
t
,
o
r
r
o
t
a
t
i
n
g
Du
r
i
n
g
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
de
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
p
r
i
o
r
to
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
n
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
gr
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
1
0
0
fe
e
t
t
a
l
l
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
gr
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
1
0
0
fe
e
t
t
a
l
l
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
th
a
t
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
s
bi
r
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
1
4
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
be
a
m
s
.
ż
In
s
t
a
l
l
s
h
i
e
l
d
s
o
n
t
o
l
i
g
h
t
s
o
u
r
ce
s
n
o
t
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
f
o
r
a
i
r
tr
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
i
g
h
t
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
.
ż
Ex
t
i
n
g
u
i
s
h
a
l
l
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
(
i
.
e
.
,
r
o
o
f
t
o
p
f
l
o
o
d
s
,
pe
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
s
p
o
t
s
)
n
o
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
s
a
f
e
t
y
.
ż
Wh
e
n
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
o
r
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
l
i
g
h
t
s
mu
s
t
b
e
l
e
f
t
o
n
a
t
n
i
g
h
t
,
t
h
e
op
e
r
a
t
o
r
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
a
l
l
e
x
a
m
i
n
e
a
n
d
a
d
o
p
t
al
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
t
o
b
r
i
g
h
t
,
a
l
l
-
n
i
g
h
t
,
f
l
o
o
r
-
w
i
d
e
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
,
w
h
i
c
h
ma
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
:
ż
In
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
m
o
t
i
o
n
-
s
en
s
i
t
i
v
e
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
.
ż
Us
i
n
g
d
e
s
k
l
a
m
p
s
a
n
d
t
a
s
k
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
.
ż
Re
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g
t
i
m
e
r
s
.
ż
Us
e
o
f
l
o
w
e
r
-
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
.
ż
Wi
n
d
o
w
s
o
r
w
i
n
d
o
w
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
r
a
n
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
of
l
i
g
h
t
o
u
t
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
sh
a
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
ex
t
e
n
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
.
Bi
o
-
1
0
b
:
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
M
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
B
i
r
d
S
t
r
i
k
e
Ri
s
k
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
a
n
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
ng
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
1
0
0
f
e
e
t
t
a
l
l
,
t
h
e
OP
S
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
w
i
t
h
a
q
u
al
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
d
wi
t
h
b
i
r
d
s
t
r
i
k
e
s
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
/
l
i
gh
t
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
i
s
s
u
e
s
t
o
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
ap
p
e
a
r
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
t
o
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
r
i
s
k
o
f
b
i
r
d
s
t
r
i
k
e
s
.
S
u
c
h
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
w
h
i
c
h
m
a
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
in
t
o
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
’
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
.
ż
Us
e
n
o
n
-
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
t
i
n
t
e
d
g
l
a
s
s
.
Du
r
i
n
g
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
de
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
p
r
i
o
r
to
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
a
n
y
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
gr
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
1
0
0
fe
e
t
t
a
l
l
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
gr
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
1
0
0
fe
e
t
t
a
l
l
In
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
of
d
e
s
i
g
n
fe
a
t
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
b
i
r
d
im
p
a
c
t
s
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-15
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
ż
Us
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
f
i
l
m
s
t
o
m
a
k
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
b
i
r
d
s
f
r
o
m
th
e
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
.
ż
Us
e
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
/
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
t
h
a
t
“
b
r
e
a
k
u
p
”
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
su
r
f
a
c
e
s
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
h
a
v
i
n
g
l
a
r
g
e
,
u
n
i
n
t
e
r
r
u
p
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
su
r
f
a
c
e
s
t
h
a
t
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
,
a
n
d
t
h
u
s
m
a
y
n
o
t
a
p
p
e
a
r
n
o
t
i
c
e
a
b
l
y
di
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
(
t
o
a
b
i
r
d
)
f
r
o
m
,
t
h
e
s
k
y
.
Bi
o
-
1
2
:
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
R
e
d
u
c
e
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
n
E
s
s
e
n
t
i
a
l
F
i
s
h
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
,
a
d
a
p
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
A
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
1
1
o
f
th
e
W
e
s
t
C
o
a
s
t
G
r
o
u
n
d
f
i
s
h
P
l
a
n
(
P
F
M
C
2
0
0
6
)
a
n
d
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
A
o
f
th
e
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
C
o
a
s
t
S
a
l
m
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
P
F
M
C
2
0
0
3
)
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
i
n
-
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
ct
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
u
n
l
e
s
s
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
fe
d
e
r
a
l
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
(
N
M
F
S
o
r
U
S
A
C
E
)
.
Av
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
o
f
S
a
l
m
o
n
i
d
M
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
e
r
i
o
d
s
.
I
n
-
w
a
t
e
r
w
o
r
k
w
h
e
n
ju
v
e
n
i
l
e
s
a
l
m
o
n
i
d
s
a
r
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
t
h
r
o
ug
h
t
h
e
B
a
y
o
n
t
h
e
w
a
y
t
o
t
h
e
op
e
n
o
c
e
a
n
o
r
w
h
e
n
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
i
s
h
a
n
d
p
r
e
y
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
v
o
i
d
e
d
.
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
s
t
e
e
l
h
e
a
d
a
r
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
pr
e
s
e
n
t
,
t
h
e
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
d
r
e
d
g
e
w
i
n
d
o
w
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
o
f
t
h
e
S
a
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
i
s
J
u
n
e
1
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
.
A
l
l
i
n
-
w
a
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
i
s
w
i
n
d
o
w
.
I
f
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
n
-
wa
t
e
r
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
i
s
p
e
r
i
o
d
is
n
o
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
d
u
e
t
o
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
i
n
g
is
s
u
e
s
,
n
e
w
t
i
m
i
n
g
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
th
e
N
M
F
S
a
n
d
C
D
F
G
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
Wo
r
k
e
r
T
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
.
P
e
r
s
o
n
n
e
l
i
n
v
o
l
v
ed
i
n
i
n
-
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
de
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
t
r
a
i
ne
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
n
th
e
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
r
i
n
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
me
n
t
t
o
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
f
i
s
h
,
a
n
d
bi
r
d
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
p
u
t
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
t
o
pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
t
h
e
i
r
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
,
a
n
d
E
F
H
.
T
h
e
tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
,
a
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
Du
r
i
n
g
i
n
-
w
a
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
i
f
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
oc
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
“
i
n
wa
t
e
r
”
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
a
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
to
a
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
1
6
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
1.
A
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
fi
s
h
a
n
d
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
t
h
a
t
co
u
l
d
b
e
f
o
u
n
d
i
n
w
o
r
k
a
r
e
a
s
2.
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
a
n
d
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
t
o
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
fi
s
h
,
b
i
r
d
s
,
t
h
e
i
r
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
,
a
n
d
E
F
H
3.
A
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
a
l
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
pe
r
m
i
t
s
,
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
,
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
s
(
i
.
e
.
,
U
S
A
C
E
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
)
Av
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
o
f
A
r
e
a
s
o
f
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
A
q
u
a
t
i
c
V
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
A
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
u
s
e
d
i
n
c
o
nj
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
-
w
a
t
e
r
w
o
r
k
(p
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
s
,
b
a
r
g
e
s
,
c
r
a
n
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
s
h
a
l
l
a
v
o
i
d
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
,
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
,
a
n
d
ar
e
a
s
o
f
s
u
b
-
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
b
e
d
s
)
.
Bi
o
-
1
3
a
:
I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
D
e
s
i
g
n
C
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
M
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
th
e
N
e
e
d
f
o
r
P
e
r
c
u
s
s
i
v
e
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
.
I
f
pr
o
g
r
a
m
m
a
t
i
c
O
P
S
P
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
i
n
-
wa
t
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
t
h
at
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
p
e
r
c
u
s
s
i
v
e
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
,
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
h
a
l
l
a
d
h
e
r
e
t
o
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
p
r
i
n
c
i
p
l
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
gr
e
a
t
e
s
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
:
1.
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
t
o
u
s
e
f
e
w
e
r
o
r
s
m
a
l
l
e
r
p
i
l
e
s
,
w
h
e
r
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
an
d
p
r
e
f
e
r
a
b
l
y
,
s
o
l
i
d
p
i
l
e
s
2.
D
e
s
i
g
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
a
s
h
o
r
t
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
t
i
m
e
(i
.
e
.
,
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
o
f
s
l
a
c
k
t
i
d
e
w
h
e
n
f
i
s
h
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
l
o
w
e
r
)
.
3.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
,
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
w
h
o
i
s
fa
m
i
l
i
a
r
w
i
t
h
m
a
r
i
n
e
b
i
o
l
o
g
y
,
s
h
a
l
l
re
v
i
e
w
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
p
l
a
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
o
en
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
th
e
p
l
a
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
i
n
-
wa
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
i
f
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
oc
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
“
i
n
wa
t
e
r
”
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
in
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
de
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
ca
r
r
i
e
d
o
u
t
du
r
i
n
g
i
n
-
wa
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-17
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Bi
o
-
1
3
b
:
U
t
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
T
o
o
l
s
a
n
d
T
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
t
h
a
t
Mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
P
e
r
c
u
s
s
i
v
e
N
o
i
s
e
.
I
f
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
m
a
t
i
c
O
P
S
P
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
es
t
h
a
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
p
e
r
c
u
s
s
i
v
e
te
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
,
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
te
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
s
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
1.
D
r
i
v
e
p
i
l
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
v
i
b
r
a
t
o
r
y
d
e
v
i
c
e
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
o
f
a
n
i
m
p
a
c
t
h
a
m
m
e
r
if
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
a
n
d
u
s
e
a
c
u
s
h
i
o
n
i
n
g
b
l
o
c
k
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
h
a
m
m
e
r
a
n
d
t
h
e
pi
l
e
.
2.
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
o
f
s
t
e
e
l
p
i
l
e
s
t
o
th
e
J
u
n
e
1
t
o
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
3
0
w
o
r
k
wi
n
d
o
w
,
o
r
a
s
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
N
M
F
S
(
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
o
f
co
n
c
r
e
t
e
p
i
l
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
su
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
i
s
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
)
.
3.
I
f
s
t
e
e
l
p
i
l
e
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
d
r
i
v
e
n
w
i
t
h
a
n
i
m
p
a
c
t
h
a
m
m
e
r
,
a
n
a
i
r
cu
r
t
a
i
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
t
o
d
i
s
ru
p
t
s
o
u
n
d
w
a
v
e
p
r
o
p
a
g
a
t
i
o
n
,
o
r
t
h
e
ar
e
a
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
p
i
l
e
s
b
e
i
n
g
d
r
i
v
e
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
c
o
f
f
e
r
da
m
.
T
h
e
g
o
a
l
o
f
e
i
t
h
e
r
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
i
s
to
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
t
h
e
s
o
u
n
d
w
a
v
e
a
s
i
t
mo
v
e
s
f
r
o
m
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
t
o
a
i
r
.
4.
I
f
a
n
a
i
r
c
u
r
t
a
i
n
i
s
u
s
e
d
,
a
q
u
a
li
f
i
e
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
s
h
a
l
l
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
p
i
l
e
dr
i
v
i
n
g
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
a
i
r
c
u
rt
a
i
n
i
s
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
a
n
d
OP
S
P
-
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
s
o
u
n
d
w
a
v
e
s
d
o
n
o
t
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
o
f
18
0
1
8
3
-
d
e
c
i
b
e
l
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
1
m
i
c
r
o
p
a
s
c
a
l
(
a
s
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
N
M
F
S
gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
t
h
e
F
i
s
h
e
r
i
e
s
H
y
d
r
o
a
c
o
u
s
t
i
c
W
o
r
k
i
n
g
G
r
o
u
p
;
2
0
0
8
)
.
T
h
i
s
sh
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
o
f
i
n
-
w
a
t
e
r
s
o
u
n
d
w
a
v
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
i
l
e
dr
i
v
i
n
g
.
5.
U
s
e
o
f
f
e
w
e
r
p
i
l
e
s
,
o
r
s
m
a
l
l
e
r
p
i
l
e
s
,
o
r
a
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
t
y
p
e
o
f
p
i
l
e
,
wi
t
h
h
o
l
l
o
w
s
t
e
e
l
p
i
l
e
s
a
p
p
e
a
r
i
n
g
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
a
t
a
gi
v
e
n
s
i
z
e
6.
D
r
i
v
i
n
g
p
i
l
e
s
w
h
e
n
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
f
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
a
r
e
a
b
s
e
n
t
7.
U
s
e
o
f
a
v
i
b
r
a
t
o
r
y
h
a
m
m
e
r
r
a
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
a
n
i
m
p
a
c
t
h
a
m
m
e
r
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
p
i
l
e
s
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
1
8
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
8.
U
s
e
o
f
a
c
u
s
h
i
o
n
i
n
g
b
l
o
c
k
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
h
a
m
m
e
r
a
n
d
p
i
l
e
9.
U
s
e
o
f
a
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
o
r
u
n
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
a
i
r
b
u
b
b
l
e
c
u
r
t
a
i
n
;
a
n
d
10
.
D
r
i
v
i
n
g
p
i
l
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
o
f
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
s
Bi
o
-
1
4
a
:
A
v
o
i
d
a
n
c
e
o
f
S
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
T
o
t
h
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
s
t
ex
t
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
,
O
P
S
P
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
sh
a
l
l
a
v
o
i
d
r
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
o
r
di
s
t
u
r
b
i
n
g
r
i
p
r
a
p
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
r
o
c
k
y
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
e
r
v
e
a
s
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
oy
s
t
e
r
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
I
f
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
o
y
s
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
a
r
e
un
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
,
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
B
i
o
-
1
4
b
a
n
d
B
i
o
-
1
4
c
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
.
Bi
o
-
1
4
b
:
N
a
t
i
v
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
S
u
r
v
e
y
s
.
A
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
f
o
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
oy
s
t
e
r
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
i
n
a
l
l
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
ar
e
a
.
T
h
i
s
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
oy
s
t
e
r
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
at
l
o
w
t
i
d
e
s
t
h
a
t
e
x
p
o
s
e
t
h
e
m
a
x
i
m
u
m
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
Su
r
v
e
y
s
c
a
n
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
a
t
a
n
y
t
i
m
e
o
f
y
e
a
r
,
b
u
t
l
a
t
e
s
u
m
m
e
r
a
n
d
ea
r
l
y
f
a
l
l
a
r
e
o
p
t
i
m
a
l
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
n
e
w
l
y
s
e
t
t
l
e
d
o
y
s
t
e
r
s
a
r
e
d
e
t
e
c
t
a
b
l
e
.
Th
i
s
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
h
a
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
b
e
f
o
r
e
an
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
ha
b
i
t
a
t
s
t
a
k
e
s
p
l
a
c
e
t
o
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
b
a
s
e
l
i
n
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
.
I
f
f
e
w
o
r
n
o
oy
s
t
e
r
s
a
r
e
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
o
n
h
a
r
d
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
af
t
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
n
o
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
Bi
o
-
1
4
c
:
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
S
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
I
f
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
10
0
o
y
s
t
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
o
r
a
r
e
i
n
a
r
e
a
s
w
h
e
r
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
c
o
u
l
d
s
e
t
t
l
e
o
u
t
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
o
y
s
t
e
r
s
,
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
a
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
1:
1
r
a
t
i
o
.
T
h
e
O
P
S
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
al
l
r
e
t
a
i
n
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
o
y
s
t
e
r
bi
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
O
y
s
t
e
r
R
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
t
h
a
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
it
y
.
T
h
i
s
P
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
i
t
e
se
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
,
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
,
an
d
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
,
a
n
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
(u
n
l
e
s
s
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
b
y
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
i
n
-
w
a
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
i
f
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
t
h
e
n
,
if
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
,
co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
of
p
l
a
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
oc
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
“
i
n
wa
t
e
r
”
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
su
r
v
e
y
o
r
,
i
f
ha
b
i
t
a
t
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
,
ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
re
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
pl
a
n
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-19
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
NM
F
S
)
:
1.
A
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
s
i
t
e
f
o
r
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
on
e
w
i
t
h
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
d
a
i
l
y
t
i
d
a
l
f
l
o
w
,
a
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
af
f
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
d
r
e
d
g
i
n
g
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
r
o
u
t
i
n
e
m
a
r
i
n
a
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
o
n
e
th
a
t
i
s
l
a
c
k
i
n
g
i
n
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
.
A
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
b
r
e
a
k
w
a
t
e
r
s
o
r
i
n
as
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
a
n
y
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
ti
o
n
s
i
t
e
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
2.
A
l
t
h
o
u
g
h
o
y
s
t
e
r
s
ma
y
s
e
t
t
l
e
o
n
a
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
t
h
e
m
o
s
t
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
f
o
r
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
i
s
o
y
s
t
e
r
s
h
e
l
l
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
b
y
p
l
a
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
h
e
l
l
i
n
t
o
m
e
s
h
b
a
g
s
t
h
a
t
c
a
n
t
h
e
n
b
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
in
p
i
l
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
e
a
f
l
o
o
r
o
f
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
.
E
n
o
u
g
h
s
h
e
l
l
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
g
u
i
d
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
q
u
al
i
f
i
e
d
o
y
s
t
e
r
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
t
o
m
a
k
e
up
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
o
s
s
a
t
t
r
i
b
u
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
.
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
a
f
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
l
l
i
n
-
w
a
t
e
r
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
.
3.
T
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
o
n
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
b
a
s
i
s
b
y
a
qu
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
o
y
s
t
e
r
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
f
o
r
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
t
w
o
y
e
a
r
s
,
o
r
u
n
t
i
l
su
c
c
e
s
s
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
a
r
e
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
i
f
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
n
o
t
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
w
o
ye
a
r
s
.
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
v
o
l
v
e
r
o
ut
i
n
e
c
h
e
c
k
s
(
b
i
-
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
w
i
n
t
e
r
a
n
d
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
sp
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
u
m
m
e
r
)
t
o
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
,
g
r
o
w
t
h
,
a
n
d
s
u
r
v
i
v
a
l
on
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
.
S
u
c
c
e
s
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
w
h
e
n
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
su
r
v
i
v
a
l
r
a
t
e
s
f
o
r
o
y
s
t
e
r
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
s
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
be
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
e
i
n
g
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
.
Bi
o
-
1
5
a
:
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
B
e
s
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
f
o
r
Ee
l
g
r
a
s
s
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
B
M
P
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
i
n
Me
a
s
u
r
e
B
i
o
-
3
a
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
B
M
P
s
s
h
a
l
l
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
n
y
ee
l
g
r
a
s
s
b
e
d
s
i
n
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
r
e
a
.
1.
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
a
l
l
i
n
-
w
a
t
e
r
w
o
r
k
d
u
r
i
ng
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
o
f
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
d
o
r
m
a
n
c
y
Du
r
i
n
g
i
n
-
w
a
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
i
f
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
)
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
oc
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
“
i
n
wa
t
e
r
”
Ad
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
du
r
i
n
g
i
n
-
wa
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
2
0
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
(N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
-
M
a
r
c
h
3
1
)
[
N
o
t
e
:
t
h
e
ma
j
o
r
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
i
s
p
e
r
i
o
d
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
wi
t
h
t
h
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
w
h
i
c
h
i
n
-
w
at
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
o
c
c
u
r
t
o
av
o
i
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
s
a
l
m
o
n
i
d
s
;
o
n
l
y
th
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
-
3
0
w
o
u
l
d
av
o
i
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
t
a
x
a
.
]
2.
I
n
s
t
a
l
l
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
c
u
r
t
a
i
n
s
a
r
ou
n
d
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
s
i
t
e
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
se
d
i
m
e
n
t
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
If
t
h
e
s
e
B
M
P
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
o
r
i
f
O
P
S
P
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
i
n
aq
u
a
t
i
c
a
r
e
a
s
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
r
i
na
,
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
1
5
b
a
n
d
15
c
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
n
.
Bi
o
-
1
5
b
:
E
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
S
u
r
v
e
y
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
a
n
y
c
o
n
s
tr
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
aq
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
,
a
s
u
r
v
e
y
f
o
r
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
b
e
d
s
o
r
p
a
t
c
h
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
7
5
0
f
t
o
f
e
x
p
e
ct
e
d
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
Th
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
b
y
a
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
(
s
)
f
a
m
i
l
i
a
r
w
i
t
h
ee
l
g
r
a
s
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
e
c
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
N
M
F
S
t
o
co
n
d
u
c
t
s
u
c
h
a
s
u
r
v
e
y
.
S
u
r
v
e
y
m
e
th
o
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
i
t
h
e
r
S
C
U
B
A
or
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
g
r
a
b
s
a
m
p
l
e
s
t
o
e
n
s
ur
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
b
o
t
t
o
m
w
a
s
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
in
v
e
n
t
o
r
i
e
d
.
T
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
h
a
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
A
u
g
u
s
t
a
n
d
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
an
d
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
d
a
t
a
o
n
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
,
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
d
e
p
t
h
o
f
oc
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
a
r
e
a
s
.
T
h
e
e
d
g
e
s
o
f
a
n
y
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
b
e
d
s
o
r
pa
t
c
h
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
a
p
p
e
d
.
A
t
t
h
e
c
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
a
r
e
p
o
r
t
sh
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
,
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
,
a
n
d
ee
l
g
r
a
s
s
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
,
i
f
a
n
y,
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
a
r
e
a
.
T
h
i
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
h
a
l
l
be
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
N
M
F
S
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
I
f
O
P
S
P
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
c
a
n
b
e
ad
j
u
s
t
e
d
s
o
t
h
a
t
n
o
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
to
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
b
e
d
s
w
o
u
l
d
o
c
c
u
r
,
n
o
fu
r
t
h
e
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d.
I
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
be
d
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
v
o
i
d
e
d
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
.
Bi
o
-
1
5
c
:
C
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
E
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
I
f
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
If
t
r
i
g
g
e
r
e
d
b
y
Bi
o
-
1
5
a
,
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
in
-
w
a
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
oc
c
u
r
r
i
n
g
“
i
n
wa
t
e
r
”
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
of
s
u
r
v
e
y
a
n
d
,
if
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
oc
c
u
r
,
fu
l
f
i
l
l
m
e
n
t
o
f
co
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
SFF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-21
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
ee
l
g
r
a
s
s
b
e
d
s
c
a
n
n
o
t
b
e
a
v
o
i
d
e
d,
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
o
r
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
E
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
l
i
c
y
.
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
e
n
t
a
i
l
t
h
e
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
im
p
a
c
t
e
d
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
a
t
a
3
:
1
(
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
:
i
m
p
a
c
t
)
r
a
t
i
o
o
n
a
n
a
c
r
e
a
g
e
ba
s
i
s
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
m
a
p
p
i
n
g
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
8
B
a
b
o
v
e
,
a
n
d
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
(
s
)
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
im
p
a
c
t
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
b
e
d
s
.
S
u
c
h
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
u
l
d
o
c
c
u
r
e
i
t
h
e
r
o
f
f
s
i
t
e
o
r
on
s
i
t
e
(
N
M
F
S
2
0
0
5
b
)
.
O
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
c
h
i
e
v
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
en
t
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
re
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
e
e
l
gr
a
s
s
b
e
d
s
a
t
a
n
o
t
h
e
r
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
th
e
B
a
y
.
I
f
t
h
i
s
o
p
t
i
o
n
i
s
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
,
al
l
f
u
n
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
d
t
o
th
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
s
t
a
t
e
o
r
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
a
g
e
n
c
y
o
r
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
-
f
o
c
u
s
e
d
n
o
n
-
go
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
a
g
e
n
c
y
(
i
.
e
.
,
C
D
F
G
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
u
n
d
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Co
a
s
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
n
c
y
,
S
a
v
e
t
h
e
B
a
y
,
e
t
c
)
.
T
h
e
O
P
S
P
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d
e
w
r
i
t
t
e
n
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
e
i
t
h
e
r
a
)
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
i
o
n
h
a
s
be
e
n
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
o
f
a
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
r
e
d
i
t
s
t
o
s
a
t
i
s
f
y
t
h
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
r
e
a
g
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
th
e
O
P
S
P
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
o
r
f
u
n
d
s
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
c
r
e
a
g
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
pa
i
d
.
T
h
e
s
e
f
u
n
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
o
n
l
y
t
o
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
B
a
y
.
If
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
a
s
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
o
p
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
Ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
t
a
i
n
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
b
i
ol
o
g
i
s
t
f
a
m
i
l
i
a
r
w
i
t
h
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
ec
o
l
o
g
y
t
o
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
E
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
.
U
n
l
e
s
s
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
N
M
F
S
,
t
h
e
E
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
Pl
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
f
o
l
l
o
w
t
h
e
b
a
s
i
c
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
a
l
l
t
h
e
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
o
f
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
e
r
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
E
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
o
l
i
c
y
(
a
s
re
v
i
s
e
d
i
n
2
0
0
5
)
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
:
i
d
e
n
ti
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
n
e
e
d
,
si
t
e
,
t
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
m
e
t
h
o
d
o
l
o
g
y
,
m
i
t
i
g
a
ti
o
n
e
x
t
e
n
t
(
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
3
:
1
o
n
a
n
ac
r
e
a
g
e
b
a
s
i
s
)
,
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
p
r
o
t
o
c
o
l
s
(i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
,
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
,
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
2
2
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
re
v
i
e
w
i
n
g
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
,
d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
e
t
c
)
,
a
n
d
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
.
A
d
r
a
f
t
Ee
l
g
r
a
s
s
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
N
M
F
S
,
f
o
r
i
t
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
an
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
w
i
t
h
a
c
o
p
y
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
O
n
c
e
th
e
p
l
a
n
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
,
i
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
s
ea
s
o
n
f
o
r
t
r
a
n
s
p
l
a
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
R
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
e
e
l
g
r
a
s
s
be
d
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
f
o
r
s
u
c
c
e
s
s
o
v
e
r
a
5
-
y
e
a
r
p
e
r
i
o
d
.
Cu
l
t
u
r
e
-
1
a
:
H
a
l
t
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
F
i
n
d
a
n
d
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
I
n
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
a
n
y
p
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
l
y
un
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
p
a
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
o
r
a
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
a
r
e
un
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
a
l
l
s
u
c
h
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
c
e
a
s
e
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
s
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
ev
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
p
a
l
e
o
n
t
o
l
o
gi
s
t
o
r
a
r
c
h
a
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
a
n
d
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
c
a
n
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
te
d
t
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
t
h
e
s
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
Cu
l
t
u
r
e
-
1
b
:
H
a
l
t
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
E
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
F
i
n
d
a
n
d
Ta
k
e
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
A
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
N
a
t
i
v
e
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
I
n
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
a
n
y
h
u
m
a
n
re
m
a
i
n
s
a
r
e
u
n
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
,
a
l
l
s
u
c
h
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
c
e
a
s
e
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
s
e
re
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
o
u
n
t
y
C
o
r
o
n
e
r
,
a
n
d
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
t
a
k
e
n
i
n
c
o
o
r
di
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
N
a
t
i
v
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
He
r
i
t
a
g
e
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ha
l
t
t
o
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
if
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
fo
u
n
d
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
Ge
o
-
2
a
:
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
.
O
P
S
P
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
m
e
e
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Co
d
e
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
u
i
l
d
in
g
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
,
p
u
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
In
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
o
n
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
o
f
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
i
c
i
a
l
s
,
a
n
d
a
s
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
b
y
th
e
a
m
e
n
d
m
e
n
t
s
,
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
d
e
l
e
t
i
on
s
a
s
a
d
o
p
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a.
I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ad
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
co
d
e
,
co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
re
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
pe
r
m
i
t
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-23
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
d
u
c
e
th
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
c
a
t
a
s
t
r
o
p
h
i
c
ef
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
h
a
k
i
n
g
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
,
b
u
t
wi
l
l
n
o
t
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
t
h
e
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
f
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
a
l
l
y
i
n
d
u
c
e
d
gr
o
u
n
d
s
h
a
k
i
n
g
.
Ge
o
-
2
b
:
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
a
d
e
s
i
g
n
-
l
e
v
e
l
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
In
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
p
o
r
t
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
a
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
a
n
d
w
i
t
h
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
l
a
n
s
a
s
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
a
Li
c
e
n
s
e
d
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
an
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
a
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
a
n
d
a
Li
c
e
n
s
e
d
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
T
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
,
wi
t
h
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
v
e
st
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
,
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
se
i
s
m
i
c
p
a
r
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
d
e
.
Ge
o
-
2
c
:
O
b
t
a
i
n
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
T
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
ob
t
a
i
n
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
.
P
l
a
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
pl
a
n
n
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
se
i
s
m
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
f
o
r
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
s
i
t
e
s
in
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
a
r
e
a
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
.
Ac
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
a
r
e
a
p
l
a
n
,
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
S
a
f
e
t
y
El
e
m
e
n
t
,
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
c
a
t
a
s
t
r
o
p
h
i
c
c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
un
d
e
r
f
o
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
e
v
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
a
l
l
o
w
e
g
r
e
s
s
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
t
o
f
d
a
m
a
g
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
a
s
t
r
o
n
g
e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
.
Ge
o
-
3
a
:
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
a
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
In
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
i
n
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
l
a
n
s
.
A
d
e
s
i
g
n
-
l
e
v
e
l
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
v
e
st
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
si
t
e
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
R
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
fo
r
l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
o
f
t
h
e
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
of
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
re
p
o
r
t
,
ad
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
o
f
pl
a
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
2
4
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
si
t
e
s
o
i
l
s
,
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y
i
n
t
h
e
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
d
i
k
e
s
.
P
r
o
p
e
r
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
en
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
th
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
’
s
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
a
n
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
A
Re
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
de
s
i
g
n
p
l
a
n
s
.
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
an
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
T
h
e
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
re
v
i
e
w
t
h
e
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
f
o
r
t
h
e
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
.
T
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
l
a
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
i
f
t
h
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
l
i
q
u
e
f
a
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
f
o
u
n
d
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
,
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
f
a
i
l
u
r
e
mo
d
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
s
p
r
e
a
d
i
n
g
,
s
ei
s
m
i
c
d
e
n
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
th
e
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
d
i
k
e
s
l
o
p
e
s
.
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
b
y
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
s
t
o
n
e
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
o
r
j
e
t
g
r
o
u
t
i
n
g
.
Ge
o
-
3
b
:
O
b
t
a
i
n
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
.
T
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
ob
t
a
i
n
a
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
.
P
l
a
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
pl
a
n
n
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
a
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
se
i
s
m
i
c
d
e
s
i
g
n
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
f
o
r
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
co
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
a
n
d
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
s
i
t
e
s
in
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
a
r
e
a
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
.
Ac
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
a
r
e
a
p
l
a
n
,
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
S
a
f
e
t
y
El
e
m
e
n
t
,
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
c
a
t
a
s
t
r
o
p
h
i
c
c
o
l
l
a
p
s
e
un
d
e
r
f
o
r
e
s
e
e
a
b
l
e
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
e
v
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
a
l
l
o
w
e
g
r
e
s
s
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
t
o
f
d
a
m
a
g
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
a
s
t
r
o
n
g
e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
.
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
o
n
a
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
b
y
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
b
a
s
i
s
re
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
pe
r
m
i
t
Ge
o
-
4
:
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
a
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
In
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
A
d
e
s
i
g
n
-
l
e
v
e
l
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
t
a
t
i
c
s
t
a
b
il
i
t
y
a
n
d
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
u
n
d
e
r
a
de
s
i
g
n
m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
e
v
e
n
t
.
S
e
i
s
m
i
c
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
of
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
re
p
o
r
t
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-25
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
ps
e
u
d
o
-
s
t
a
t
i
c
a
n
a
l
y
s
e
s
t
o
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
p
e
rm
a
n
e
n
t
s
l
o
p
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
du
e
t
o
e
a
r
t
h
q
u
a
k
e
m
o
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
pr
e
p
a
r
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
to
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
l
o
p
e
i
n
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
,
i
f
sl
o
p
e
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
a
r
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
ie
d
.
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
m
a
y
in
c
l
u
d
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
b
y
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
s
t
o
n
e
c
o
l
u
m
n
s
o
r
je
t
g
r
o
u
t
i
n
g
.
D
e
s
i
g
n
-
l
e
v
e
l
G
e
o
t
ec
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
a
n
d
f
i
na
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
t
a
g
e
s
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
co
n
f
i
r
m
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
t
y
p
e
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
di
k
e
s
t
o
v
e
r
i
f
y
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
l
o
p
e
s
m
e
e
t
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
f
o
r
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
un
d
e
r
b
o
t
h
s
t
a
t
i
c
a
n
d
s
e
i
s
m
i
c
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
K
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
st
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
d
i
k
e
s
w
i
l
l
gu
i
d
e
t
h
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
y
f
u
t
u
r
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
a
n
y
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
i
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
di
k
e
.
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ge
o
-
5
a
:
D
e
e
p
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
o
f
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
B
a
y
M
u
d
s
o
i
l
s
a
n
d
w
a
s
t
e
f
i
l
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
oc
c
u
r
u
n
d
e
r
n
e
w
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
l
o
a
d
s
,
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
m
u
s
t
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
th
e
u
s
e
o
f
d
e
e
p
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
d
r
i
v
e
n
p
i
l
e
s
.
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
d
e
e
p
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
o
f
a
de
s
i
g
n
-
l
e
v
e
l
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
d
e
p
e
n
d
o
n
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
su
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
d
e
p
t
h
a
n
d
h
a
r
d
n
e
s
s
o
f
t
h
e
u
n
d
e
r
l
y
i
n
g
c
l
a
y
s
,
s
a
n
d
s
o
r
be
d
r
o
c
k
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
c
o
r
r
o
s
i
v
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
w
a
s
t
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
B
a
y
M
u
d
so
i
l
s
.
S
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
d
e
e
p
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
t
y
p
e
s
m
a
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
r
i
v
e
n
p
r
e
c
a
s
t
,
pr
e
s
t
r
e
s
s
e
d
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
p
i
l
e
s
o
r
d
r
i
v
e
n
c
l
o
s
e
d
-
e
n
d
s
t
e
e
l
p
i
p
e
p
i
l
e
s
w
i
t
h
th
e
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
o
f
t
h
e
p
i
l
e
f
i
l
l
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
a
f
t
e
r
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
.
De
e
p
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
e
x
t
e
n
d
t
hr
o
u
g
h
a
l
l
w
a
s
t
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
B
a
y
Mu
d
a
n
d
b
e
t
i
p
p
e
d
i
n
u
n
d
e
r
l
y
i
n
g
s
ti
f
f
t
o
h
a
r
d
c
l
a
y
s
,
d
e
n
s
e
s
a
n
d
s
o
r
we
a
t
h
e
r
e
d
b
e
d
r
o
c
k
.
W
h
e
r
e
w
a
s
t
e
a
n
d
B
a
y
M
u
d
s
o
i
l
s
u
n
d
e
r
l
i
e
t
h
e
si
t
e
,
w
a
l
l
a
n
d
c
o
l
u
m
n
l
o
a
d
s
a
s
w
el
l
a
s
f
l
o
o
r
s
l
a
b
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
f
o
u
n
d
e
d
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
p
i
l
e
s
Ad
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
2
6
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
on
d
e
e
p
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
-
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
a
n
d
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
d
e
e
p
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
i
s
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
a
b
o
u
t
on
e
-
h
a
l
f
i
n
c
h
.
T
h
e
m
a
j
o
r
i
t
y
o
f
s
e
tt
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
o
c
c
u
r
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
s
t
h
e
l
o
a
d
s
a
r
e
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
.
Wh
e
r
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
w
a
s
t
e
a
n
d
B
a
y
M
u
d
a
r
e
n
o
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
(
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
a
t
ex
t
r
e
m
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
a
n
d
n
o
r
t
h
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
e
d
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
)
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
e
t
e
n
t
so
i
l
o
r
b
e
d
r
o
c
k
a
r
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
(
w
i
t
h
i
n
a
b
o
u
t
5
fe
e
t
o
f
f
i
n
i
s
h
e
d
g
r
a
d
e
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
)
,
s
h
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
fo
o
t
i
n
g
s
o
r
m
a
t
s
m
a
y
b
e
a
p
p
r
op
r
i
a
t
e
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
t
y
p
e
s
,
a
s
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
c
o
u
r
s
e
o
f
a
d
e
s
i
g
n
-
l
e
v
e
l
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
in
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
W
h
e
r
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
t
r
u
ct
u
r
e
s
s
t
r
a
d
d
l
e
a
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
z
o
n
e
be
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
c
o
mb
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
s
h
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
d
d
e
e
p
fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
m
a
y
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
A
n
y
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
z
o
n
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
g
e
ot
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
a
n
d
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
s
.
Ge
o
-
5
b
:
P
r
e
d
r
i
l
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
P
i
l
e
C
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
P
i
l
e
s
e
i
t
h
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
be
p
r
e
d
r
i
l
l
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
f
i
l
l
a
n
d
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
t
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
t
h
e
pi
l
e
s
f
r
o
m
d
a
m
a
g
e
d
u
e
t
o
u
n
k
n
o
w
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
p
u
s
h
i
n
g
wa
s
t
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
d
e
e
p
e
r
,
a
n
d
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
p
i
l
e
a
l
i
g
n
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
o
r
sh
a
l
l
h
a
v
e
a
p
o
i
n
t
e
d
t
i
p
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
I
f
a
d
r
i
l
l
i
s
u
s
e
d
,
i
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
on
l
y
l
o
o
s
e
n
a
n
d
b
r
e
a
k
u
p
i
n
-
p
l
a
c
e
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
c
a
u
s
e
p
i
l
e
da
m
a
g
e
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
r
e
c
e
n
t
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
e
d
b
y
Tr
e
a
d
w
e
l
l
&
R
o
l
l
o
(
2
0
0
9
b
)
o
b
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
ng
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
r
u
b
b
l
e
wa
s
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
o
u
t
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
,
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y
i
n
t
h
e
no
r
t
h
e
r
n
e
n
d
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
E
v
e
n
w
i
t
h
p
r
e
d
r
i
l
l
i
n
g
,
p
r
e
c
a
s
t
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
pi
l
e
s
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
d
a
m
a
g
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
t
a
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
s
i
t
e
s
u
c
h
a
s
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
.
F
o
r
p
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
,
a
p
r
e
c
a
s
t
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
pi
l
e
b
r
e
a
k
a
g
e
r
a
t
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
on
o
f
1
0
t
o
1
5
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
m
a
y
b
e
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
Pi
l
e
s
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
h
a
v
e
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
p
o
i
nt
e
d
t
i
p
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-27
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
pu
s
h
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
w
a
s
t
e
d
o
w
n
w
a
rd
.
T
h
e
s
e
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
ty
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
r
e
a
d
i
l
y
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
d
b
y
p
i
l
e
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
.
Ge
o
-
5
c
:
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
P
i
l
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
s
p
e
c
i
f
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
s
of
t
h
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
i
l
e
s
,
d
r
i
v
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
to
r
p
i
l
e
s
a
t
t
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
i
t
e
s
i
n
or
d
e
r
t
o
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
t
h
e
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
c
h
a
r
a
ct
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
o
f
t
h
e
p
i
l
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
of
t
h
e
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
w
h
e
n
a
dr
i
v
e
n
p
i
l
e
i
s
u
s
e
d
.
T
h
e
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
a
n
d
p
i
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
o
f
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
i
l
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
fr
o
m
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
b
ta
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
p
i
l
e
s
.
Th
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
u
s
e
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
t
o
d
r
i
v
e
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
in
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
a
n
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
i
l
e
s
.
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
p
i
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
s
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
ca
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
,
i
n
c
o
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
th
e
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
a
n
d
C
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
a
f
t
e
r
t
h
e
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
h
a
s
be
e
n
f
i
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
.
Th
e
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
p
i
l
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
w
i
l
l
s
e
r
v
e
t
o
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
ż
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
o
f
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
i
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
s
;
ż
Dr
i
v
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
i
l
e
s
;
ż
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
o
f
p
i
l
e
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
;
a
n
d
ż
Va
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
s
ta
n
c
e
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
t
o
d
e
p
t
h
a
n
d
lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
i
l
e
s
.
Ge
o
-
6
:
A
c
c
o
u
n
t
f
o
r
D
r
a
g
L
o
a
d
o
n
D
e
e
p
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
f
o
r
a
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
d
r
a
g
l
o
a
d
in
t
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
e
p
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
p
i
l
e
s
)
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
p
i
l
e
s
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
h
a
s
ad
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
dr
a
g
l
o
a
d
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
2
8
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Ge
o
-
7
:
I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
S
y
s
t
e
m
s
f
o
r
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
G
a
s
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
.
Me
a
s
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
o
f
l
a
n
d
f
il
l
g
a
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
de
s
i
g
n
.
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
o
f
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
g
a
s
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
f
l
o
o
r
s
l
a
b
s
h
i
e
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
l
a
r
m
s
.
Fo
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
o
n
or
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
,
du
r
i
n
g
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
pr
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
an
d
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
o
n
a
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
b
y
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
b
a
s
i
s
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
fo
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
of
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
g
a
s
ar
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ge
o
-
8
a
:
A
v
o
i
d
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
N
e
w
L
o
a
d
s
o
n
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
W
a
s
t
e
a
n
d
Ba
y
M
u
d
.
A
d
e
s
i
g
n
-
l
e
v
e
l
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
ex
p
l
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
m
o
r
e
t
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
l
y
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
a
n
d
a
r
e
a
l
ex
t
e
n
t
o
f
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
w
a
s
t
e
a
n
d
B
a
y
M
u
d
.
T
o
a
v
o
i
d
i
n
d
u
c
i
n
g
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
i
s
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g
,
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
s
sh
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
s
l
i
t
t
l
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
n
e
w
fi
l
l
a
s
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
,
a
n
d
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
ne
w
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
l
o
a
d
s
o
r
a
n
y
s
t
r
u
ct
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
-
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
sh
a
l
l
b
e
f
o
u
n
d
e
d
o
n
d
e
e
p
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
x
t
e
n
d
e
d
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
B
a
y
M
u
d
,
as
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
-
l
e
v
e
l
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
re
p
o
r
t
.
Al
l
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
t
o
av
o
i
d
p
e
n
e
t
r
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
c
a
p
an
d
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
ne
w
f
i
l
l
s
.
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
B
a
y
M
u
d
a
n
d
w
a
s
t
e
a
c
r
o
s
s
m
o
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
ar
e
s
t
i
l
l
s
e
t
t
l
i
n
g
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
w
e
i
g
h
t
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
f
i
l
l
a
n
d
w
a
s
t
e
de
c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
o
r
e
u
n
d
e
r
n
e
w
f
i
l
l
s
,
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
,
wi
t
h
t
h
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
o
c
a
l
i
z
e
d
l
o
w
-
ly
i
n
g
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
s
.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
l
o
w
a
r
e
a
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
gr
a
d
i
n
g
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
p
r
o
p
e
r
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
.
L
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
al
l
a
l
s
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
re
p
o
r
t
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-29
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
pe
r
i
o
d
i
c
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
t
o
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
a
n
d
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
s
i
t
e
gr
a
d
e
s
,
a
s
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
D
i
s
p
o
s
it
i
o
n
a
n
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
.
Th
e
G
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
w
i
l
l
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
i
t
e
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
-
l
e
v
e
l
Ge
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
at
e
o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
n
y
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
b
e
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
i
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
o
n
e
w
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
Ge
o
-
8
b
:
D
e
s
i
g
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
-
S
o
i
l
I
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
t
o
A
l
l
o
w
F
r
e
e
Mo
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
sh
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
a
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
no
t
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
o
n
d
e
e
p
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
n
o
t
b
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
l
y
t
i
e
d
i
n
t
o
p
i
l
e
-
su
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
e
x
c
e
p
t
a
s
n
o
t
e
d
b
e
l
o
w
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
to
a
l
l
o
w
f
r
e
e
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
m
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
.
Ar
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
r
a
m
p
s
o
n
w
a
l
k
w
a
y
s
a
n
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
s
a
t
t
h
e
in
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
p
i
l
e
a
n
d
s
o
i
l
-
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
c
a
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
sm
o
o
t
h
w
a
l
k
w
a
y
o
v
e
r
m
o
d
e
r
a
t
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
t
h
s
o
m
e
am
o
u
n
t
o
f
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
.
A
s
t
h
e
m
a
g
n
i
t
u
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
,
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
s
e
r
a
m
p
s
m
a
y
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
r
e
b
u
i
l
t
or
r
e
a
l
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
a
c
c
o
u
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
a
r
g
e
r
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
.
S
i
m
i
l
a
r
ra
m
p
s
m
a
y
a
l
s
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
s
an
d
p
i
l
e
-
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
.
Ov
e
r
t
i
m
e
,
v
o
i
d
s
w
i
l
l
t
e
n
d
t
o
f
o
r
m
be
n
e
a
t
h
p
i
l
e
-
s
u
p
p
o
rt
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
du
e
t
o
o
n
-
g
o
i
n
g
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
l
a
nd
f
i
l
l
.
U
s
e
o
f
w
a
l
l
s
k
i
r
t
s
a
r
o
u
n
d
th
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
w
i
l
l
h
e
l
p
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
v
i
s
u
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
vo
i
d
s
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
s
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
Ge
o
-
9
a
:
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
T
e
s
t
i
n
g
.
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
p
r
e
c
a
u
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
ta
k
e
n
t
o
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
t
h
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
ns
a
n
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
a
f
e
t
y
Fo
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
,
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
Ad
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
i
f
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
3
0
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
of
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y,
i
f
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
w
a
t
e
r
,
th
i
s
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
t
e
s
t
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
a
n
d
m
a
y
h
a
v
e
t
o
u
n
d
e
r
g
o
sp
e
c
i
a
l
i
z
e
d
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
,
t
r
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
/
o
r
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
i
f
i
t
i
s
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
.
A
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
o
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
e
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
d
u
ri
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
in
o
r
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
t
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
.
pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
w
a
t
e
r
di
s
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ge
o
-
9
b
:
L
o
c
a
t
e
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
S
o
i
l
C
a
p
.
T
o
t
h
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
pr
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
,
t
h
e
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
s
tr
u
c
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
o
i
l
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
c
a
p
to
a
v
o
i
d
d
i
r
e
c
t
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
o
f
t
h
e
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
wi
t
h
t
h
e
w
a
s
t
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
.
I
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
w
a
s
t
e
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
i
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
p
r
o
p
e
r
d
e
si
g
n
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
e
c
a
u
t
i
o
n
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
t
a
k
e
n
t
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
t
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
a
n
d
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
co
r
r
o
s
i
v
e
a
n
d
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
w
a
s
t
e
.
Ge
o
-
9
c
:
S
e
a
l
T
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
a
n
d
U
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
.
T
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
an
d
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
e
a
l
e
d
t
o
p
r
e
c
l
u
d
e
g
a
s
in
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
.
T
y
p
i
c
a
l
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
s
e
a
li
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
i
n
cl
u
d
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
i
n
g
a
lo
w
p
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
c
l
a
y
c
o
v
e
r
o
f
1
f
o
o
t
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
t
o
p
o
f
t
h
e
p
i
p
e
,
o
r
t
h
e
ut
i
l
i
t
y
t
r
e
n
c
h
b
e
l
i
n
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
r
el
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
g
e
o
m
e
m
b
r
a
n
e
.
Un
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
m
a
n
h
o
l
e
s
m
a
y
b
e
s
h
i
e
l
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
m
e
t
h
a
n
e
i
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
b
y
pl
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
m
e
m
b
r
a
n
e
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
.
T
o
re
d
u
c
e
g
a
s
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
th
e
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
t
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
,
a
l
l
t
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
cr
o
s
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
t
r
a
n
s
i
t
i
o
n
z
o
n
e
b
et
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
po
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
e
al
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
c
l
a
y
p
l
u
g
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
th
e
p
i
p
e
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
p
l
u
g
s
s
h
a
l
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
pr
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
p
e
r
i
m
e
t
e
r
s
o
f
b
u
il
d
i
n
g
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
g
a
s
th
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
t
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
t
o
b
e
n
e
a
t
h
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
Fo
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
,
pr
i
o
r
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
an
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
pl
a
n
s
a
n
d
ad
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
pl
a
n
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ge
o
-
1
0
:
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
F
o
r
C
o
n
t
in
u
i
t
y
o
f
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
C
a
p
.
F
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
pl
a
n
n
e
d
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
c
a
p
r
e
p
a
i
r
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
C
i
v
i
l
Fo
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
,
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
c
a
p
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-31
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
a
t
e
x
ca
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
ut
i
l
i
t
y
t
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
b
e
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
e
d
t
o
ma
i
n
t
a
i
n
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
ca
p
.
T
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
c
o
n
f
i
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
wi
l
l
d
e
p
e
n
d
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
t
h
a
n
d
o
r
i
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
u
n
d
e
r
l
y
i
n
g
wa
s
t
e
s
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
a
l
o
w
-
p
e
r
m
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
l
a
y
e
r
o
f
s
o
i
l
o
r
a
ge
o
m
e
m
b
r
a
n
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
t
i
e
d
t
o
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
c
a
p
a
r
e
a
s
m
a
y
b
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
.
pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
S
S
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ge
o
-
1
1
:
C
o
m
m
o
n
T
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
a
n
d
V
a
u
l
t
s
.
W
h
e
r
e
u
n
d
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
t
o
b
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
l
a
n
df
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
s
,
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
gi
v
e
n
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
of
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
t
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
b
y
l
o
c
a
t
i
n
g
ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
o
m
m
o
n
t
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
ex
t
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
va
u
l
t
e
d
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
a
t
s
u
c
h
i
n
t
e
r
f
a
c
e
s
th
a
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
f
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
a
n
d
/
o
r
e
x
p
a
n
d
a
b
l
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
b
e
n
e
a
t
h
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
su
s
p
e
n
d
e
d
f
r
o
m
h
a
n
g
e
r
s
f
a
s
t
e
n
e
d
t
o
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
f
l
o
o
r
s
l
a
b
s
.
Fo
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
,
du
r
i
n
g
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
de
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
p
r
i
o
r
to
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
a
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
to
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ge
o
-
1
2
:
F
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
J
o
i
n
t
s
.
U
t
i
l
i
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
o
f
f
l
e
x
i
b
l
e
p
i
p
e
s
u
c
h
a
s
w
e
l
d
e
d
p
o
l
y
e
t
h
y
l
e
n
e
t
o
ac
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
w
a
s
t
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
n
d
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
c
a
p
.
A
t
t
h
e
b
o
r
d
e
r
o
f
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
,
w
h
e
r
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
b
e
l
a
r
g
e
,
t
h
e
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
l
i
n
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
a
l
l
o
w
fo
r
r
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
A
s
w
i
t
h
b
u
r
i
e
d
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
o
n
a
co
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
a
l
s
i
t
e
,
p
r
o
p
e
r
b
e
d
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
b
a
c
k
f
i
l
l
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
,
a
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
a
d
e
s
i
g
n
-
l
e
v
e
l
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
re
p
o
r
t
.
Fo
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
,
du
r
i
n
g
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
de
s
i
g
n
,
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
an
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
a
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
to
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ge
o
-
1
3
:
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
F
l
o
w
G
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
C
i
v
i
l
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
co
n
s
i
d
e
r
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
l
o
w
g
r
a
d
i
e
nt
i
n
s
e
w
e
r
s
a
n
d
s
t
o
r
m
d
r
a
i
n
s
s
o
Fo
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
,
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
a
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
3
2
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
th
a
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
di
s
r
u
p
t
t
h
e
f
l
o
w
.
A
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
is
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
p
u
m
p
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
t
h
at
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
r
e
l
y
o
n
g
r
a
v
i
t
y
f
l
o
w
.
Su
c
h
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
i
l
l
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
i
m
p
ac
t
o
f
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
f
l
o
w
g
r
a
d
i
e
n
t
d
u
e
to
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
T
h
i
s
a
p
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
en
t
i
r
e
O
P
S
P
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
du
r
i
n
g
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
de
s
i
g
n
,
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
an
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
t
o
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
S
S
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ge
o
-
1
4
:
S
t
o
r
m
W
a
t
e
r
P
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
.
In
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
wi
t
h
t
h
e
C
l
e
a
n
W
a
t
e
r
A
c
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
W
a
t
e
r
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
Bo
a
r
d
(
S
W
R
C
B
)
,
t
h
e
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
al
l
f
i
l
e
a
S
t
o
r
m
W
a
t
e
r
P
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
Pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
(
S
W
P
P
P
)
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
s
t
a
r
t
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
SW
P
P
P
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
b
e
s
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
so
i
l
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
.
T
h
i
s
i
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
ob
t
a
i
n
c
o
v
e
r
a
g
e
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Pe
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
D
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
s
o
f
S
t
o
r
m
Wa
t
e
r
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ac
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
,
9
9
-
0
8
-
D
W
Q
)
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
pl
a
n
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ge
o
-
1
6
:
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
a
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
A
d
e
s
i
g
n
-
l
e
v
e
l
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
s
t
a
i
n
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
b
a
y
s
i
d
e
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
l
w
a
v
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
.
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
sh
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
n
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
l
w
a
v
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
t
t
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
b
a
y
s
i
d
e
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
v
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
m
o
d
e
l
s
o
f
l
o
c
a
l
w
a
v
e
a
c
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
c
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
s
o
f
me
a
s
u
r
e
d
a
n
d
p
r
e
d
i
c
t
e
d
w
a
v
e
h
e
ig
h
t
s
,
a
n
d
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
pr
e
d
i
c
t
i
v
e
n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
m
o
d
e
l
s
t
o
r
e
f
i
n
e
t
h
e
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
.
De
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
o
f
t
h
i
s
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
t
h
e
ba
y
s
i
d
e
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
m
a
y
n
e
e
d
t
o
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
su
c
h
a
s
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
s
e
a
t
w
a
l
l
s
)
a
n
d
/
o
r
b
u
f
f
e
r
Du
r
i
n
g
pr
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
de
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
p
r
i
o
r
to
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
th
e
b
a
y
s
i
d
e
op
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
st
u
d
y
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-33
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
zo
n
e
s
(
i
.
e
.
,
l
e
n
g
t
h
s
o
f
f
l
a
t
b
e
a
c
h
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
b
e
a
c
h
s
l
o
p
e
an
d
a
n
y
n
e
e
d
e
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
e
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
)
.
T
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
p
l
a
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
in
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
on
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
i
s
i
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
If
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
n
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
-
w
a
t
e
r
o
r
n
e
a
r
th
e
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
,
t
h
e
s
e
m
a
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
B
C
D
C
an
d
/
o
r
U
S
A
C
E
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
Bi
o
-
1
2
,
-
1
3
a
,
-
1
3
b
,
1
4
a
,
-
1
4
b
,
-
1
4
c
,
-
1
5
a
,
-
1
5
b
,
a
n
d
-
1
5
c
.
Ha
z
-
1
a
:
P
l
a
n
R
e
v
i
e
w
f
o
r
A
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
F
i
r
e
a
n
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
C
o
d
e
s
.
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
h
a
n
d
l
e
t
h
e
i
n
t
e
nd
e
d
u
s
e
,
w
i
t
h
sp
r
i
n
k
l
e
r
s
,
a
l
a
r
m
s
,
v
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
d
s
ec
o
n
d
a
r
y
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
,
wh
e
r
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
T
h
e
s
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
s
h
a
l
l
p
a
s
s
p
l
a
n
r
e
v
i
e
w
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
,
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
F
i
r
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
s
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
o
n
a
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
b
y
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
b
a
s
i
s
Ad
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
Fi
r
e
a
n
d
Sa
f
e
t
y
C
o
d
e
s
an
d
S
S
F
F
i
r
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ha
z
-
1
b
:
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
F
i
n
a
l
I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
Oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
.
D
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
u
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
s
p
r
i
n
k
l
e
r
sy
s
t
e
m
s
s
h
a
l
l
p
a
s
s
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
a
n
d
f
l
u
s
h
t
e
s
t
s
t
o
m
a
k
e
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
y
pe
r
f
o
r
m
a
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
.
A
t
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
s
h
a
l
l
no
t
b
e
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
u
n
t
i
l
a
f
i
n
a
l
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
m
a
d
e
b
y
t
h
e
F
i
r
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
c
o
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
o
f
a
l
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
F
i
r
e
Co
d
e
a
n
d
N
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
F
i
r
e
P
r
o
t
e
c
ti
o
n
A
g
e
n
c
y
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
T
h
e
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
of
s
p
r
i
n
k
l
e
r
s
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
a
l
a
r
m
sy
s
t
e
m
s
,
v
e
n
t
i
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
a
i
r
f
l
o
w
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
a
n
d
s
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
co
n
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
T
h
e
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
t
h
e
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
e
v
a
c
u
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
p
l
a
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
o
d
i
f
i
e
d
a
s
de
e
m
e
d
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
Du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
pr
i
o
r
t
o
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
o
n
a
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
b
y
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
b
a
s
i
s
Fu
l
f
i
l
l
m
e
n
t
o
f
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
3
4
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Ha
z
-
1
c
:
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
o
c
c
u
p
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
Ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
l
a
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
a
f
e
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
a
n
d
u
s
e
o
f
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
s
.
Th
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
a
n
d
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
o
f
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
a
s
i
t
e
m
a
p
s
h
o
w
i
n
g
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
y
m
a
y
b
e
u
s
e
d
a
n
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
,
r
i
s
k
s
of
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
f
e
t
y
d
a
t
a
s
h
e
e
t
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
,
a
s
p
i
l
l
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
,
a
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
p
l
a
n
,
em
p
l
o
y
e
e
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
O
S
H
A
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,
a
n
d
em
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
B
u
si
n
e
s
s
e
s
q
u
a
l
i
f
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
if
t
h
e
y
s
t
o
r
e
a
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
q
u
a
l
t
o
o
r
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
mi
n
i
m
u
m
r
e
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
5
5
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
f
o
r
li
q
u
i
d
s
,
5
0
0
p
o
u
n
d
s
f
o
r
s
o
l
i
d
s
a
n
d
2
0
0
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
(
a
t
s
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
te
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
)
f
o
r
c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
e
d
g
a
s
e
s
.
E
x
e
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
s
e
l
l
i
n
g
o
n
l
y
p
r
e
-
p
a
c
k
a
g
e
d
co
n
s
u
m
e
r
g
o
o
d
s
;
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
w
h
o
s
t
o
r
e
o
x
y
g
e
n
,
n
i
t
r
o
g
e
n
,
an
d
/
o
r
n
i
t
r
o
u
s
o
x
i
d
e
i
n
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
i
e
s
no
t
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
1
,
0
0
0
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
f
o
r
ea
c
h
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
,
a
n
d
w
h
o
s
t
o
r
e
o
r
u
s
e
n
o
o
t
h
e
r
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
;
o
r
fa
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
s
t
o
r
e
n
o
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
5
5
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
o
f
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
t
y
p
e
o
f
lu
b
r
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
o
i
l
,
a
n
d
f
o
r
wh
i
c
h
t
h
e
t
o
t
a
l
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
of
l
u
b
r
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
o
i
l
n
o
t
ex
c
e
e
d
2
7
5
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
f
o
r
a
l
l
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
l
u
b
r
i
c
a
t
i
n
g
o
i
l
.
T
h
e
s
e
ex
e
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
ap
p
l
y
t
o
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
l
a
b
o
r
a
t
o
r
y
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
o
c
c
u
p
y
i
n
g
a
n
d
/
o
r
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
a
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
p
l
a
n
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
s
t
a
r
t
o
f
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
e
n
t
i
r
e
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
l
a
n
a
t
le
a
s
t
o
n
c
e
e
v
e
r
y
t
w
o
y
e
a
r
s
,
o
r
w
i
t
h
i
n
3
0
d
a
y
s
o
f
a
n
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
ch
a
n
g
e
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
l
i
m
i
t
a
t
i
on
,
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
,
m
a
j
o
r
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
o
r
d
e
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
i
n
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
st
o
r
a
g
e
a
n
d
/
o
r
c
h
a
n
g
e
s
i
n
l
o
c
a
t
i
on
o
f
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
.
P
l
a
n
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
S
a
n
Ma
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
b
y
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
ge
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
u
s
e
r
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
qu
a
l
i
f
y
i
n
g
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
a
d
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
to
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-35
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
(
S
M
C
E
H
D
)
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
l
a
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
w
h
i
c
h
m
a
y
b
e
co
n
t
a
c
t
e
d
a
t
(
6
5
0
)
3
6
3
-
4
3
0
5
f
o
r
m
o
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
S
M
C
E
H
D
sh
a
l
l
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
t
h
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
o
n
c
e
a
y
e
a
r
t
o
m
a
k
e
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
Bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
l
a
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
n
d
a
c
c
u
r
a
t
e
.
Ha
z
-
1
d
:
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
W
a
s
t
e
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
Q
u
a
l
i
f
y
i
n
g
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
ge
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
T
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
T
S
C
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
t
h
e
SM
C
E
H
D
t
o
i
n
s
p
e
c
t
a
n
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
e
n
o
n
-
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
ge
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
W
a
s
t
e
Co
n
t
r
o
l
L
a
w
f
o
u
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
fo
r
n
i
a
H
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
C
o
d
e
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
2
0
,
C
h
a
p
t
e
r
6
.
5
a
n
d
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
u
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
C
C
R
T
i
t
l
e
2
2
,
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
4
.
5
.
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
y
a
m
o
u
n
t
of
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
a
s
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
b
y
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
s
t
o
r
e
,
ma
n
a
g
e
a
n
d
d
i
s
p
o
s
e
o
f
s
u
c
h
w
a
s
t
e
.
S
M
C
E
H
D
s
t
a
f
f
a
l
s
o
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
s
su
r
v
e
i
l
l
a
n
c
e
a
n
d
e
n
f
o
r
c
em
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
i
n
c
o
nj
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
Co
u
n
t
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
A
t
t
o
r
n
e
y
'
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
f
o
r
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
o
r
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
t
h
a
t
si
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
v
i
o
l
a
t
e
t
h
e
a
b
o
v
e
re
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d
l
a
w
a
n
d
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ha
z
-
1
e
:
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
A
p
p
l
i
c
ab
l
e
L
a
w
s
a
n
d
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
A
l
l
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
t
o
a
n
d
fr
o
m
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
C
F
R
T
i
t
l
e
4
9
,
U
S
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
(D
O
T
)
,
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
C
a
l
t
r
an
s
)
,
a
n
d
l
o
c
a
l
l
a
w
s
,
o
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
an
d
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
p
l
a
c
a
r
d
s
,
s
i
g
n
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
in
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
Al
l
p
h
a
s
e
s
a
s
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
qu
a
l
i
f
y
i
n
g
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
r
s
Ad
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
st
a
t
e
d
l
a
w
s
an
d
re
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
SS
F
F
i
r
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ha
z
-
2
:
W
a
s
t
e
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
-
d
i
s
p
o
s
i
t
i
o
n
.
A
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
wr
i
t
t
e
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
e
d
w
a
s
t
e
s
/
r
e
f
u
s
e
.
N
o
n
-
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ex
c
a
v
a
t
e
d
w
a
s
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
-
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
e
d
i
n
a
n
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
e
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
of
p
l
a
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
3
6
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
an
d
a
n
y
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
di
s
p
o
s
a
l
.
T
h
e
p
l
a
n
c
a
n
b
e
a
s
e
c
t
i
on
o
f
t
h
e
S
i
t
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
H
a
z
-
4
a
)
,
o
r
a
s
ta
n
d
a
l
o
n
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
p
l
a
n
sh
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
s
o
f
w
a
s
t
e
s
o
r
w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
in
t
o
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
t
o
p
r
o
te
c
t
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
.
T
h
e
de
t
a
i
l
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
b
a
s
e
d
,
i
n
p
a
r
t
,
o
n
t
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
to
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
i
gn
o
f
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
,
b
u
t
w
i
l
l
ge
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
,
a
s
d
e
e
m
e
d
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
,
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y
D
T
S
C
a
n
d
R
W
Q
C
B
:
ż
To
t
h
e
g
r
e
a
t
e
s
t
e
x
t
e
n
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
,
u
s
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
o
r
i
n
g
d
a
t
a
t
o
ob
t
a
i
n
p
r
e
-
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
r
e
fu
s
e
f
o
r
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
,
an
d
t
o
p
r
e
-
p
l
a
n
a
r
e
a
s
t
o
b
e
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
v
e
r
s
u
s
a
r
e
a
s
t
o
b
e
r
e
-
de
p
o
s
i
t
e
d
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
.
ż
Di
v
i
d
e
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
s
i
n
t
o
d
a
i
l
y
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
;
p
l
a
n
t
o
co
m
p
l
e
t
e
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
b
a
c
k
fi
l
l
i
n
g
a
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
e
a
c
h
wo
r
k
i
n
g
d
a
y
.
M
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
t
h
a
t
r
e
f
u
s
e
i
s
ex
p
o
s
e
d
.
ż
Re
v
i
e
w
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
o
r
i
n
g
d
a
t
a
a
n
d
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
e
v
a
l
u
a
t
e
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
to
b
e
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
e
d
.
ż
St
a
k
e
o
u
t
a
r
e
a
t
o
b
e
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
e
d
.
ż
If
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
t
o
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
a
t
d
e
p
t
h
s
w
h
e
r
e
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
i
s
t
o
b
e
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
e
d
,
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
t
o
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
w
o
r
k
e
r
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
i
r
e
c
t
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
w
i
t
h
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
.
R
e
m
o
v
e
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
at
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
t
r
e
a
t
e
d
i
n
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
S
i
t
e
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
H
a
z
-
4
a
)
.
ż
Sc
r
e
e
n
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
w
i
t
h
a
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
p
h
o
t
o
i
o
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-37
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
de
t
e
c
t
o
r
a
n
d
c
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
b
l
e
g
a
s
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
g
a
s
s
e
s
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
p
r
o
g
r
e
s
s
o
f
e
a
c
h
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
s
wo
r
k
p
r
o
c
e
e
d
s
.
U
s
e
f
o
a
m
s
u
p
p
r
e
s
s
a
n
t
s
o
r
6
i
n
c
h
e
s
mi
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
d
a
i
l
y
s
o
i
l
c
o
v
e
r
f
o
r
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
o
d
o
r
s
.
ż
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
c
a
r
b
o
n
d
i
o
x
i
d
e
g
a
s
s
o
u
r
c
e
(
f
i
r
e
e
x
t
i
n
g
u
i
s
h
e
r
o
r
cy
l
i
n
d
e
r
)
t
o
f
l
o
o
d
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
mi
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
g
a
s
e
s
i
n
t
o
a
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
e
a
b
o
v
e
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
e
x
p
l
o
s
i
v
e
o
r
f
i
r
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
,
a
n
d
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
an
d
o
d
o
r
s
.
ż
Be
g
i
n
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
s
e
g
r
e
g
a
t
e
s
o
i
l
a
n
d
/
o
r
c
l
a
y
c
a
p
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
a
b
o
v
e
r
e
f
u
s
e
f
o
r
r
e
u
s
e
a
s
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
l
a
y
e
r
.
ż
Up
o
n
r
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
r
e
f
u
s
e
,
p
l
a
c
e
r
e
f
u
s
e
i
n
t
o
d
u
m
p
t
r
u
c
k
st
a
n
d
i
n
g
b
y
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
.
ż
Di
s
p
o
s
e
o
f
e
a
c
h
t
r
u
c
k
l
o
a
d
o
f
r
e
f
u
s
e
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
a
f
t
e
r
fi
l
l
i
n
g
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
A
l
l
l
o
a
d
s
t
o
b
e
c
o
v
e
r
e
d
w
h
e
n
h
a
u
l
i
n
g
.
Re
f
u
s
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
e
i
t
h
e
r
r
e
-
d
e
p
o
s
it
e
d
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
i
n
a
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
ar
e
a
,
o
r
h
a
u
l
e
d
t
o
a
n
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
ż
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
f
i
e
l
d
v
e
r
i
f
y
e
a
c
h
l
o
a
d
f
o
r
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
cl
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
t
y
p
e
(
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
c
l
a
s
s
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
C
l
a
s
s
3
o
r
C
l
a
s
s
2)
.
I
f
w
a
s
t
e
f
o
r
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
i
s
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
e
d
a
s
e
i
t
h
e
r
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
o
r
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
W
a
s
t
e
a
s
d
e
f
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
C
C
R
T
i
t
l
e
2
2
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
6
6
2
6
1
,
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
t
r
a
c
k
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
U
n
i
f
o
r
m
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
W
a
s
t
e
M
a
n
i
f
e
s
t
S
y
s
t
e
m
(
U
S
E
P
A
F
o
r
m
8
7
0
0
-
22
)
.
ż
Ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
a
n
d
i
f
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
,
n
o
n
-
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
ia
t
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
u
s
i
n
g
a
pe
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
,
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
,
a
n
d
i
n
s
u
r
e
d
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
.
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
3
8
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
r
s
o
f
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
m
e
e
t
t
h
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
4
0
C
F
R
2
6
3
a
n
d
2
2
C
C
R
6
6
2
6
3
.
C
o
p
i
e
s
of
u
n
i
f
o
r
m
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
m
a
n
i
f
e
s
t
s
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
de
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
w
a
s
t
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
o
r
a
t
le
a
s
t
f
i
v
e
y
e
a
r
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
w
a
s
t
e
w
a
s
a
c
c
e
p
t
e
d
b
y
th
e
i
n
i
t
i
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
e
r
.
C
o
p
i
e
s
of
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
p
e
r
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
ch
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
o
r
n
o
n
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
w
a
s
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
be
r
e
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
o
r
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
t
h
r
e
e
y
e
a
r
s
.
ż
Up
o
n
r
e
a
c
h
i
n
g
o
v
e
r
-
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
d
e
p
t
h
,
p
l
a
c
e
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
6-
i
n
c
h
t
h
i
c
k
l
a
y
e
r
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
b
a
c
k
f
i
l
l
s
o
i
l
o
n
ex
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
b
o
t
t
o
m
t
o
s
e
a
l
e
x
p
o
s
e
d
r
e
f
u
s
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
.
P
l
a
c
e
so
i
l
b
y
t
h
e
e
n
d
o
f
t
h
e
s
a
m
e
d
a
y
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
ż
Up
o
n
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
,
b
e
g
i
n
c
a
p
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
t
a
r
g
e
t
e
d
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
d
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
wa
s
t
e
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
,
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
at
e
f
i
n
a
l
d
e
s
t
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
w
a
s
t
e
s
ba
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
o
f
c
o
n
t
am
i
n
a
n
t
s
o
f
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
,
a
l
l
o
w
f
o
r
ad
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
i
n
p
l
a
n
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
u
n
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
s
,
a
n
d
t
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
wo
r
k
e
r
s
a
f
e
t
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
w
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
H
a
z
-
4
a
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n,
w
o
r
k
e
r
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
so
i
l
a
n
d
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
a
r
e
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
H
a
z
-
6
a
.
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
t
o
of
f
-
s
i
t
e
a
i
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
ti
o
n
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
A
i
r
-
4
.
Ha
z
-
3
:
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
e
r
m
i
t
t
i
n
g
.
A
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
w
i
t
h
pe
r
m
i
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
Pr
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
ad
e
q
u
a
t
e
p
l
a
n
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-39
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
o
b
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
m
i
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
A
i
r
Qu
a
l
i
t
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(
B
A
A
Q
M
D
)
,
a
n
a
s
b
e
s
t
o
s
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
su
r
v
e
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
BA
A
Q
M
D
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
1
1
,
R
u
l
e
2
.
P
r
i
o
r
t
o
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
,
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
p
e
e
l
i
n
g
,
c
h
i
p
p
i
n
g
a
n
d
f
r
i
a
b
l
e
le
a
d
-
b
a
s
e
d
p
a
i
n
t
a
n
d
a
s
b
e
s
t
o
s
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
i
f
id
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
re
m
o
v
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
a
l
l
ap
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,
l
a
w
s
,
a
n
d
or
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
s
.
T
h
e
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
fo
r
s
a
f
e
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
ng
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
o
f
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
su
r
v
e
y
s
i
f
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y.
T
h
e
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
bo
t
h
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
W
o
r
k
e
r
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
bo
t
h
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
a
n
d
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
h
a
z
a
r
d
s
.
C
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
i
f
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
,
s
h
a
l
l
be
t
e
s
t
e
d
f
o
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
co
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
e
d
o
f
t
o
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
i
c
e
n
s
e
d
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
T
h
e
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
P
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
o
f
ai
r
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
f
o
r
d
u
s
t
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
t
e
s
a
n
d
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
,
a
s
me
r
i
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
.
T
h
e
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
d
u
s
t
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
a
n
d
s
u
s
p
e
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
wo
r
k
d
u
r
i
n
g
d
r
y
w
i
n
d
y
d
a
y
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
.
pe
r
m
i
t
Ha
z
-
4
a
:
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
C
a
p
U
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
.
A
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
c
a
p
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
e
x
i
s
t
s
t
o
pr
e
v
e
n
t
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
t
o
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
s
o
l
i
d
s
o
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
.
Th
e
c
a
p
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
p
a
i
r
e
d
a
n
d
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
d
t
o
m
e
e
t
C
C
R
T
i
t
l
e
2
7
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
C
C
R
T
i
t
l
e
2
7
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
c
l
o
s
e
d
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
s
h
a
v
e
a
mi
n
i
m
u
m
4
f
o
o
t
c
a
p
,
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
i
n
g
o
f
a
2
f
o
o
t
b
a
s
e
l
a
y
e
r
,
a
1
f
o
o
t
c
l
a
y
la
y
e
r
w
i
t
h
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
d
l
o
w
h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
co
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
a
n
d
a
1
f
o
o
t
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
o
l
l
a
y
e
r
.
T
h
e
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
4
f
e
e
t
o
f
c
l
e
a
n
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
t
h
a
t
c
o
m
p
r
i
s
e
s
th
e
c
a
p
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
u
n
d
e
r
l
y
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
,
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
.
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
c
a
p
up
g
r
a
d
e
s
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
up
g
r
a
d
e
d
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
c
a
p
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
4
0
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
s
a
t
t
h
e
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
.
T
h
e
l
o
w
h
y
d
r
a
u
l
i
c
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
la
y
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
a
l
s
o
a
c
t
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
.
Ha
z
-
4
b
:
U
s
e
O
f
D
e
e
p
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
T
o
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
L
o
a
d
I
n
d
u
c
e
d
Se
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t
.
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
o
n
f
i
l
l
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
su
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
d
r
i
v
e
n
s
t
e
e
l
or
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
p
i
l
e
s
f
o
u
n
d
e
d
i
n
s
t
i
ff
t
o
h
a
r
d
c
l
a
y
s
,
d
e
n
s
e
s
a
n
d
s
o
r
we
a
t
h
e
r
e
d
b
e
d
r
o
c
k
u
n
d
e
r
l
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
il
l
.
B
o
t
h
t
h
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
a
l
l
o
a
d
s
a
n
d
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
l
o
o
r
s
l
a
b
s
s
h
al
l
b
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
e
d
o
n
p
i
l
e
s
.
T
h
i
s
w
i
l
l
a
v
o
i
d
pl
a
c
i
n
g
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
ng
l
o
a
d
s
o
n
f
i
l
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
.
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
p
i
l
e
s
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
ad
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
i
n
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
pl
a
n
s
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
Ha
z
-
4
c
:
M
i
n
i
m
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
I
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
W
a
t
e
r
U
s
e
.
L
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
o
f
th
e
s
i
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
th
e
s
o
i
l
,
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
re
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
.
E
x
c
e
s
s
i
v
e
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
u
l
d
in
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
e
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
c
a
p
a
n
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
.
T
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
t
h
i
s
,
l
o
w
-
wa
t
e
r
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
to
r
e
d
u
c
e
i
r
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
w
a
t
e
r
.
I
n
ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
h
e
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
o
f
t
h
e
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
l
a
y
e
r
i
n
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
ar
e
a
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
i
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
o
f
r
o
o
t
s
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
l
o
w
e
r
la
y
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
v
e
r
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
.
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
Ve
r
i
f
y
l
o
w
-
wa
t
e
r
d
e
m
a
n
d
sp
e
c
i
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
pl
a
n
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
Ha
z
-
4
d
:
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
f
o
r
L
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
M
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
A
s
e
r
i
e
s
o
f
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
an
d
m
a
n
-
m
a
d
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
mi
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
.
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
p
e
r
t
h
e
P
C
M
P
,
t
h
e
s
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
ar
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
e
f
f
e
c
t
i
v
e
i
n
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
s
.
L
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
s
h
a
l
l
co
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
b
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
,
a
s
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
H
a
z
-
4
e
,
b
e
l
o
w
.
L
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
co
n
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
d
as
n
e
e
d
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
ng
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
s
p
e
r
t
h
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
R
W
Q
C
B
O
r
d
e
r
N
o
.
0
0
-
0
4
6
a
n
d
t
h
e
P
C
M
P
.
Af
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
.
Ci
t
y
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
of
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
ba
r
r
i
e
r
(
s
)
a
n
d
pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
o
f
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ch
e
m
i
c
a
l
re
l
e
a
s
e
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-41
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Ha
z
-
4
e
:
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
(
O
&
M
)
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
e
x
p
ec
t
e
d
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
i
n
d
e
f
i
n
i
t
e
l
y
a
t
th
e
s
i
t
e
.
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
te
n
a
n
c
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
in
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
o
b
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
s
it
e
f
e
a
t
u
r
e
s
t
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
ca
p
,
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
d
a
m
a
g
e
,
m
a
i
n
ta
i
n
g
r
a
v
i
t
y
f
l
o
w
o
f
s
e
w
e
r
sy
s
t
e
m
s
,
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
g
a
s
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
a
n
d
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
a
n
d
mo
n
i
t
o
r
f
o
r
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
a
n
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
O&
M
s
h
a
l
l
a
c
t
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
s
o
f
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
b
y
id
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
d
e
f
i
c
i
t
s
i
n
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
c
on
t
r
o
l
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
e
v
e
n
t
s
.
Af
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
.
Ci
t
y
i
s
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
;
a
l
l
ot
h
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
ar
e
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
pr
o
p
e
r
t
y
o
w
n
e
r
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
an
d
pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
o
f
ha
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
ch
e
m
i
c
a
l
re
l
e
a
s
e
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ha
z
-
5
:
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
A
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
Re
l
e
a
s
e
P
r
e
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(C
a
l
A
R
P
)
.
F
u
t
u
r
e
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
a
t
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
c
h
e
c
k
t
h
e
st
a
t
e
a
n
d
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
l
i
s
t
s
o
f
r
e
g
u
l
a
te
d
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
SM
C
E
H
D
.
C
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
s
o
n
t
h
e
l
i
s
t
a
r
e
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
s
t
h
a
t
p
o
s
e
a
m
a
j
o
r
th
r
e
a
t
t
o
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
or
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
y
ar
e
h
i
g
h
l
y
t
o
x
i
c
,
f
l
a
m
m
a
b
l
e
o
r
e
x
p
l
o
s
i
v
e
.
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
w
h
i
c
h
l
i
s
t
t
o
u
s
e
i
n
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
S
M
C
E
H
D
.
Sh
o
u
l
d
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
q
u
a
l
i
f
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
,
t
h
e
y
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
Ca
l
A
R
P
r
e
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
m
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
i
t
t
o
S
M
C
E
H
D
.
F
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
re
g
i
s
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
y
s
h
a
l
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
a
R
i
s
k
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
(
R
M
P
)
.
RM
P
s
a
r
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
h
a
n
d
l
e
a
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
s
a
n
d
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
h
a
v
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
o
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
t
e
a
m
s
i
f
a
n
a
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
o
c
c
u
r
s
.
A
l
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
t
h
a
t
st
o
r
e
o
r
h
a
n
d
l
e
m
o
r
e
t
h
a
n
a
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
(
T
Q
)
o
f
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
su
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
R
M
P
a
n
d
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
t
.
Ri
s
k
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
p
u
b
l
i
c
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
t
h
e
Af
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
pr
i
o
r
t
o
qu
a
l
i
f
y
i
n
g
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
qu
a
l
i
f
y
i
n
g
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
As
s
u
r
a
n
c
e
qu
a
l
i
f
y
i
n
g
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
pr
e
p
a
r
e
R
M
P
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
4
2
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
en
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
i
f
a
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
ce
i
s
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
d
n
e
a
r
s
c
h
o
o
l
s
,
re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
,
h
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
s
a
n
d
c
h
i
l
d
c
a
r
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
R
M
P
s
s
h
a
l
l
in
c
l
u
d
e
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
e
s
a
n
d
c
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
s
s
a
f
e
,
t
h
e
ha
n
d
l
i
n
g
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
,
s
t
a
f
f
t
r
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
c
h
e
c
k
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
a
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
s
a
f
e
l
y
,
a
n
d
re
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
t
o
a
n
a
c
c
i
d
e
n
t
a
l
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
.
Ha
z
-
6
a
:
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
S
i
t
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
Pl
a
n
s
.
A
S
i
t
e
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
t
h
a
t
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
s
t
h
e
ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
r
i
s
k
t
o
p
e
op
l
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
f
u
t
u
r
e
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
,
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
,
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
o
n
th
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
T
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
l
a
nd
f
i
l
l
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
in
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
R
W
Q
C
B
o
r
d
e
r
N
o
.
0
0
-
0
4
6
,
t
h
e
P
C
M
P
a
n
d
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
re
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
R
W
Q
C
B
,
D
T
S
C
,
t
h
e
S
M
C
E
H
D
Gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
P
u
b
l
i
c
W
o
r
k
s
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
ed
t
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
h
u
m
a
n
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
th
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
p
l
a
n
.
A
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
,
t
h
e
pl
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
1)
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
s
i
t
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
H
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
P
l
a
n
s
(
H
A
S
P
)
sh
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
O
S
H
A
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
y
a
l
l
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
a
t
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
r
e
a
.
T
h
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
H
A
S
P
f
o
r
a
l
l
de
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
,
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
n
th
e
s
i
t
e
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
f
o
r
f
u
t
u
r
e
su
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
w
o
r
k
.
T
h
e
H
A
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
tr
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
y
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
o
f
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
.
T
h
e
H
A
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
be
r
e
v
i
e
w
e
d
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
b
y
a
C
e
r
ti
f
i
e
d
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
H
y
g
i
e
n
i
s
t
.
T
h
e
pl
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
a
l
s
o
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
on
s
t
o
l
i
m
i
t
w
o
r
k
e
r
e
n
t
r
y
a
n
d
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
.
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
pl
a
n
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
SS
F
F
i
r
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-43
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
ex
p
o
s
u
r
e
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
s
h
o
w
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
t
y
p
e
o
f
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
t
o
pr
e
v
e
n
t
p
u
b
l
i
c
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
t
o
h
a
z
a
r
d
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
d
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
,
s
i
t
e
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
,
an
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
2)
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
s
i
t
e
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
c
o
n
s
tr
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
mi
n
i
m
i
z
e
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
t
o
a
n
y
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
.
T
h
i
s
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
di
r
e
c
t
e
x
p
o
s
u
r
e
t
o
gr
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
a
n
y
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
re
m
o
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
t
r
e
n
c
h
e
s
,
a
n
d
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
i
n
ac
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
l
o
c
a
l
a
n
d
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
B
o
a
r
d
gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
e
d
i
n
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
i
n
g
st
o
r
m
d
r
a
i
n
,
b
u
t
i
n
t
o
a
c
l
o
s
e
d
co
n
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
u
n
l
e
s
s
p
r
o
v
e
n
t
o
h
a
v
e
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
b
e
l
o
w
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
re
g
u
l
a
t
o
r
y
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
.
E
x
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
co
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
s
t
o
r
e
d
i
n
t
a
n
k
s
o
r
ot
h
e
r
s
e
a
l
e
d
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
e
r
u
n
t
i
l
t
e
s
t
e
d
.
I
f
t
e
s
t
i
n
g
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
wa
t
e
r
c
a
n
b
e
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
s
e
w
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
t
h
e
n
t
h
e
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
a
c
q
u
i
r
e
a
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
S
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
S
e
w
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
a
n
d
m
e
e
t
l
o
c
a
l
di
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
l
i
m
i
t
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
b
e
i
n
g
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
to
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
s
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
se
w
e
r
.
W
a
t
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
s
o
f
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
a
t
t
h
e
si
t
e
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
,
e
t
h
y
l
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
,
x
y
l
e
n
e
s
,
c
h
l
o
r
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
,
na
p
h
t
h
a
l
e
n
e
a
n
d
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
m
p
o
u
n
d
s
a
s
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
re
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
o
r
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
.
3)
W
a
s
t
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
wa
s
t
e
/
r
e
f
u
s
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
f
o
r
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
c
a
p
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
a
n
d
f
o
r
s
i
t
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
e
d
w
a
s
t
e
c
a
n
e
it
h
e
r
b
e
r
e
-
d
e
p
o
s
i
t
e
d
o
n
s
i
t
e
o
r
di
s
p
o
s
e
d
o
f
a
t
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
O
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
w
i
l
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
p
r
e
-
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
w
a
s
t
e
f
o
r
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
n
c
e
a
t
a
n
ap
p
r
o
v
e
d
w
a
s
t
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
W
a
s
t
e
m
a
n
i
f
e
s
t
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
4
4
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
to
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
i
sp
o
s
a
l
.
O
n
-
s
i
t
e
d
i
s
p
o
s
a
l
s
h
a
l
l
re
q
u
i
r
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
c
a
p
p
i
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
f
u
s
e
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
.
I
n
e
i
t
h
e
r
c
a
s
e
,
s
e
g
r
e
g
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
l
a
s
s
2
a
n
d
C
l
a
s
s
3
f
r
o
m
Cl
a
s
s
1
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
f
o
r
d
i
s
p
os
a
l
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
e
d
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
t
o
th
e
e
x
t
e
n
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
N
o
C
l
a
s
s
1
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
o
r
r
e
-
de
p
o
s
i
t
e
d
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
.
B
A
A
Q
M
D
R
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
8
R
u
l
e
3
4
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
1
1
8
do
c
u
m
e
n
t
s
a
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
e
m
p
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
t
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
si
t
e
s
.
T
h
i
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
h
en
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
r
e
re
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
“
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
i
n
g
,
e
x
p
a
n
d
i
n
g
,
r
e
pl
a
c
i
n
g
,
o
r
r
e
p
a
i
r
i
n
g
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
of
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
g
a
s
,
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
,
o
r
g
a
s
c
o
n
d
e
n
s
a
t
e
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
re
m
o
v
a
l
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
.
”
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
c
a
p
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
f
a
l
l
s
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
i
s
ex
e
m
p
t
i
o
n
.
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
c
o
n
s
tr
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
w
i
l
l
a
l
s
o
l
i
k
e
l
y
fa
l
l
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
i
s
e
x
e
m
p
t
i
o
n
.
A
s
s
u
c
h
i
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
BA
A
Q
M
D
w
i
t
h
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
s
de
t
a
i
l
e
d
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
i
s
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
th
e
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
o
f
o
b
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
a
l
e
t
t
e
r
of
e
x
e
m
p
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
B
A
A
Q
M
D
.
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
a
l
s
o
di
s
c
u
s
s
e
d
i
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
H
a
z
-
2
.
4)
F
u
t
u
r
e
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
w
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
.
T
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
pr
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
f
u
t
u
r
e
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
ac
e
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
i
n
g
w
o
r
k
,
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
e
t
c
.
,
w
i
t
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
no
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
w
h
e
r
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
T
h
e
pl
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
t
y
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
ty
p
e
o
f
w
o
r
k
,
w
i
t
h
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
pe
r
s
o
n
a
l
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
v
e
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
,
wh
e
r
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
T
h
i
s
p
l
a
n
m
a
y
b
e
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
p
l
a
n
a
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
Ha
z
-
6
b
:
L
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
G
a
s
S
y
s
t
e
m
.
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
2
1
1
6
0
o
f
T
i
t
l
e
2
7
o
f
t
h
e
CC
R
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
l
o
s
e
d
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
s
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
ga
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
.
A
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
g
a
s
(
L
F
G
)
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
un
d
e
r
t
h
e
b
o
t
t
o
m
s
l
a
b
s
o
f
e
a
c
h
s
t
ru
c
t
u
r
e
b
u
i
l
t
e
n
t
i
r
e
l
y
o
r
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
ov
e
r
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
,
t
o
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
a
n
d
v
e
n
t
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
u
p
o
f
g
a
s
e
s
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
o
n
a
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
b
y
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
b
a
s
i
s
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
g
a
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
sy
s
t
e
m
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
de
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-45
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
di
f
f
u
s
i
n
g
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
c
a
p
.
T
h
e
L
F
G
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
sp
r
a
y
-
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
v
a
p
o
r
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
m
e
m
b
r
a
n
e
s
,
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
pa
s
s
i
v
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
,
g
a
s
d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
h
a
l
l
ei
t
h
e
r
h
a
v
e
b
a
c
k
u
p
a
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
l
l
ec
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
de
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
r
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
i
f
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
wa
r
r
a
n
t
t
h
e
r
e
t
r
o
f
i
t
.
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
m
i
gr
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
L
F
G
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
sp
a
c
e
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
c
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
,
a
n
d
se
c
o
n
d
l
y
b
y
t
h
e
s
p
r
a
y
-
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
m
e
m
b
r
a
n
e
.
S
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
g
a
s
e
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
v
e
n
t
e
d
b
y
a
n
e
t
w
o
r
k
o
f
pe
r
f
o
r
a
t
e
d
p
i
p
i
n
g
p
l
a
c
e
d
b
e
n
e
a
t
h
th
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
l
a
b
s
.
T
h
e
e
x
h
a
u
s
t
g
a
s
e
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
m
a
n
i
f
o
l
d
e
d
t
o
a
s
e
r
i
e
s
of
r
i
s
e
r
p
i
p
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
i
s
t
o
b
e
v
e
nt
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
r
o
o
f
s
.
P
a
s
s
i
v
e
la
n
d
f
i
l
l
g
a
s
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
d
o
n
o
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
,
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
i
f
a
n
a
c
t
i
v
e
sy
s
t
e
m
i
s
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
,
e
i
t
h
e
r
a
t
t
h
e
t
i
m
e
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
a
re
t
r
o
f
i
t
,
a
B
A
A
Q
M
D
p
e
r
m
i
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
.
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Ha
z
-
6
c
:
N
o
n
-
u
s
e
o
f
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
.
W
a
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
w
e
l
l
s
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
i
s
w
i
l
l
p
r
ev
e
n
t
d
i
r
e
c
t
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
pu
b
l
i
c
a
n
d
s
i
t
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
l
e
a
c
h
a
t
e
.
Be
f
o
r
e
,
d
u
r
i
n
g
an
d
a
f
t
e
r
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
.
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
pa
r
t
i
e
s
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
n
o
w
e
l
l
s
in
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
Ha
z
-
6
d
:
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
E
n
v
i
ro
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
H
e
a
l
t
h
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Cl
o
s
u
r
e
o
f
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
A
n
y
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
r
e
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
p
l
a
n
pr
o
g
r
a
m
s
h
a
l
l
s
u
b
m
i
t
a
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
w
o
r
k
p
l
a
n
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
SM
C
E
H
D
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
P
o
l
i
c
y
pr
i
o
r
t
o
v
a
c
a
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
.
Th
e
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
t
a
i
l
a
n
y
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
re
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
.
C
l
o
s
u
r
e
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
g
r
a
n
t
e
d
u
n
t
i
l
b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
h
a
v
e
de
m
o
n
s
t
r
a
t
e
d
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
qu
a
l
i
f
y
i
n
g
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
va
c
a
n
c
y
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
re
g
i
s
t
e
r
e
d
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s
Co
m
p
l
e
t
i
o
n
of
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
pl
a
n
f
o
r
qu
a
l
i
f
y
i
n
g
bu
s
i
n
e
s
s
SS
F
F
i
r
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
4
6
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
m
o
v
a
l
o
f
a
n
y
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
s
.
Hy
d
r
o
-
1
:
B
e
s
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
(
B
M
P
s
)
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
u
s
e
d
du
r
i
n
g
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
pi
e
r
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
ga
p
s
i
n
t
h
e
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
c
o
n
f
i
n
i
n
g
l
a
y
e
r
s
a
r
o
u
n
d
t
h
e
p
i
e
r
s
.
B
M
P
re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
S
W
P
P
P
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
a
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
r
e
p
r
e
se
n
t
a
t
i
v
e
.
T
h
e
ex
a
c
t
B
M
P
s
t
o
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
s
h
a
ll
d
e
p
e
n
d
o
n
f
i
n
a
l
p
i
e
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
an
d
t
y
p
e
,
b
u
t
c
a
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
p
r
e
-
d
r
i
l
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
g
r
o
u
t
i
n
g
o
f
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
p
i
e
r
s
,
us
e
o
f
h
o
l
l
o
w
s
t
e
e
l
p
i
e
r
s
,
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
r
i
s
k
o
f
di
s
p
l
a
c
e
d
r
e
f
u
s
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
v
o
i
d
i
n
t
h
e
B
a
y
M
u
d
l
a
y
e
r
.
T
h
e
pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
B
M
P
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
b
e
n
c
h
m
a
r
k
e
d
a
g
a
i
n
s
t
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
H
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
s
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
S
i
t
e
B
e
s
t
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
a
c
t
i
c
e
s
(
B
M
P
s
)
M
a
n
u
a
l
(2
0
0
3
a
n
d
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
u
p
d
a
t
e
s
)
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
th
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
a
r
e
a
.
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
p
i
l
e
s
Ad
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
BM
P
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
Hy
d
r
o
-
2
:
P
r
e
p
a
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
W
P
P
P
.
Pu
r
s
u
a
n
t
t
o
N
P
D
E
S
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
,
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
o
f
a
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
u
n
d
e
r
th
e
O
P
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
S
W
P
P
P
t
o
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
I
f
t
h
e
S
W
P
P
w
i
l
l
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
a
f
t
e
r
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
2
,
20
1
1
,
t
h
e
S
W
P
P
P
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
y
a
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
Q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
SW
P
P
P
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
S
t
a
t
e
W
a
t
e
r
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
Co
n
t
r
o
l
B
o
a
r
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
P
e
r
m
i
t
2
0
0
9
-
0
0
9
-
D
W
Q
.
T
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
W
P
P
P
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
,
b
u
t
i
s
n
o
t
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
,
t
o
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
i
o
d
:
1)
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
a
r
t
h
w
o
r
k
s
h
a
l
l
be
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
SW
P
P
P
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
w
e
t
s
e
a
s
o
n
(
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
A
p
r
i
l
30
)
a
n
d
s
u
c
h
w
o
r
k
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
t
o
p
p
e
d
b
e
f
o
r
e
p
e
n
d
i
n
g
s
t
o
r
m
e
v
e
n
t
s
.
2)
E
r
o
s
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
/
s
o
i
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
on
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
s
t
r
a
w
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
pl
a
n
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
d
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-47
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
mu
l
c
h
i
n
g
,
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
b
l
a
n
k
e
ts
,
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
m
a
t
t
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
hy
d
r
o
-
s
e
e
d
i
n
g
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
ou
t
l
i
n
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
G
o
v
e
r
n
m
e
n
t
s
“
E
r
o
s
i
o
n
&
Se
d
i
m
e
n
t
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
”
m
a
n
u
a
l.
S
i
l
t
f
e
n
c
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
do
w
n
s
l
o
p
e
o
f
a
l
l
g
r
a
d
e
d
s
l
o
p
e
s
.
H
a
y
b
a
l
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
fl
o
w
p
a
t
h
o
f
g
r
a
d
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
r
e
c
e
i
v
i
n
g
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d
f
l
o
w
s
a
n
d
a
r
o
u
n
d
st
o
r
m
d
r
a
i
n
i
n
l
e
t
s
.
3)
B
M
P
s
t
o
b
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
u
s
e
d
f
o
r
pr
e
v
e
n
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
d
i
s
c
h
a
r
g
e
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
N
P
D
E
S
po
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
b
e
s
i
d
e
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
(
i
.
e
.
p
a
i
n
t
,
c
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
,
e
t
c
)
t
o
d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m
wa
t
e
r
s
.
4)
A
f
t
e
r
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
i
s
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
d
,
a
l
l
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
in
s
p
e
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
a
c
c
u
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
e
d
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
sh
a
l
l
b
e
c
l
e
a
r
e
d
o
f
d
e
b
r
i
s
a
n
d
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
.
In
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
h
a
n
d
b
o
o
k
C
.
3
S
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
Gu
i
d
a
n
c
e
,
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
2
,
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
f
o
r
st
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
P
e
r
m
it
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Pe
r
m
i
t
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
.
E
l
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
h
at
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
su
b
m
i
t
t
a
l
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
5)
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
s
e
d
i
m
e
n
t
a
t
t
h
e
OP
S
P
a
r
e
a
.
R
&
D
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
a
n
d
c
h
e
m
i
c
a
l
s
th
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
u
s
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
O
P
S
P
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
.
Th
i
s
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
t
h
o
r
o
u
g
h
a
s
s
e
ss
m
e
n
t
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
po
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
6)
I
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
B
M
P
s
t
o
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
r
e
a
ba
s
e
d
o
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
al
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
o
l
l
u
t
a
n
t
so
u
r
c
e
s
.
E
m
p
h
a
s
i
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
l
a
c
e
d
o
n
s
o
u
r
c
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
B
M
P
s
,
w
i
t
h
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
u
s
e
d
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
.
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
4
8
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
7)
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
f
a
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
.
Ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
n
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
a
r
e
f
u
l
l
y
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
v
e
c
t
o
r
c
o
n
t
ro
l
,
c
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
o
f
c
l
o
g
g
e
d
o
r
ob
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
i
n
l
e
t
o
r
o
u
t
l
e
t
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
,
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
/
l
a
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
ma
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
,
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
m
e
d
i
a
f
i
l
t
e
r
s
,
e
t
c
.
8)
T
h
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
d
u
c
t
e
d
a
s
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
i
n
H
a
z
-
4
e
.
9)
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
a
n
d
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
,
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
a
n
d
p
r
o
m
o
t
e
i
n
f
i
l
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
(e
x
c
e
p
t
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
c
o
v
e
r
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
)
.
10
)
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
s
i
z
e
s
o
f
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
tr
e
a
t
m
e
n
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
.
Hy
d
r
o
-
3
:
C
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
N
P
D
E
S
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
A
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
fo
r
a
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
mp
l
y
w
i
t
h
a
l
l
P
h
a
s
e
I
N
P
D
E
S
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
p
e
r
m
i
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
y
th
e
C
W
A
a
n
d
t
h
e
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
P
e
r
m
i
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
Sa
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
.
E
r
o
s
i
o
n
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
W
P
P
P
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
SW
P
P
P
s
h
a
l
l
a
c
c
o
m
p
a
n
y
t
h
e
N
O
I
fi
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
h
a
l
l
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
o
l
a
n
d
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
b
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
S
W
P
P
P
s
h
a
l
l
al
s
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
f
o
r
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
.
R
e
f
e
r
t
o
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
H
y
d
r
o
-
2
f
o
r
m
o
r
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
pr
o
j
e
c
t
S
W
P
P
P
.
I
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
P
h
a
s
e
I
N
P
D
E
S
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
p
e
r
m
i
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
-
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
e
r
o
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
/
o
r
s
i
l
t
a
t
i
o
n
to
l
e
s
s
-
t
h
a
n
-
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
a
n
d
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
N
P
D
E
S
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
be
i
n
g
c
a
r
r
i
e
d
ou
t
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-49
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
No
i
s
e
-
5
:
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
N
o
i
s
e
.
T
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
n
o
i
s
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
s
t
a
nd
a
r
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
s
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
a
l
l
c
on
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
OP
S
P
a
r
e
a
.
ż
Eq
u
i
p
a
l
l
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
c
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
o
n
e
n
g
i
n
e
d
r
i
v
e
n
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
wi
t
h
i
n
t
a
k
e
a
n
d
e
x
h
a
u
s
t
m
u
f
f
l
e
r
s
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
i
n
go
o
d
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
an
d
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
.
ż
Un
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
i
d
l
i
n
g
o
f
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
c
o
m
b
u
s
t
i
o
n
e
n
g
i
n
e
s
s
h
o
u
l
d
be
s
t
r
i
c
t
l
y
p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d
.
ż
Lo
c
a
t
e
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
n
o
i
s
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
s
u
c
h
a
s
a
i
r
co
m
p
r
e
s
s
o
r
s
o
r
p
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
p
o
w
e
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
s
a
s
f
a
r
a
s
po
s
s
i
b
l
e
f
r
o
m
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
.
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
no
i
s
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
t
o
s
c
r
e
e
n
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
n
o
i
s
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
w
h
e
n
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
n
e
a
r
ad
j
o
i
n
i
n
g
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
r
e
c
e
p
t
o
r
s
.
Te
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
n
o
i
s
e
b
a
r
r
i
e
r
s
c
o
u
l
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
s
e
le
v
e
l
s
b
y
5
d
B
A
.
ż
Ut
i
l
i
z
e
"
q
u
i
e
t
"
a
i
r
c
o
m
p
r
e
s
s
o
r
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
n
o
i
s
e
so
u
r
c
e
s
w
h
e
r
e
t
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
e
x
i
s
t
s
.
ż
Ro
u
t
e
a
l
l
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
t
o
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
r
e
a
vi
a
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
t
r
u
c
k
r
o
u
t
e
s
w
h
e
r
e
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
P
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
h
e
a
v
y
t
r
u
c
k
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
wh
e
r
e
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
.
ż
Co
n
t
r
o
l
n
o
i
s
e
f
r
o
m
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
’
r
a
d
i
o
s
t
o
a
p
o
i
n
t
th
a
t
t
h
e
y
a
r
e
n
o
t
a
u
d
i
b
l
e
a
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
b
o
r
d
e
r
i
n
g
th
e
O
P
S
P
a
r
e
a
.
ż
Th
e
c
o
n
t
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
e
p
a
r
e
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
f
o
r
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
a
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
p
l
a
n
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
f
o
r
m
a
j
o
r
n
o
i
s
e
-
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
.
Du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
y
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
in
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
co
n
t
r
a
c
t
s
,
ad
h
e
r
e
n
c
e
t
o
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
du
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Division
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
5
0
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
ż
De
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
a
"
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
"
w
h
o
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
t
o
a
n
y
l
o
c
a
l
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
s
a
b
o
u
t
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
n
o
i
s
e
.
T
h
e
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
w
i
l
l
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
c
a
u
s
e
o
f
t
h
e
n
o
i
s
e
c
o
m
p
l
a
i
n
t
(
e
.
g
.
,
s
t
a
r
t
i
n
g
to
o
e
a
r
l
y
,
b
a
d
m
u
f
f
l
e
r
,
e
t
c
.
)
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
a
t
re
a
s
o
n
a
b
l
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
e
d
t
o
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
b
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
.
C
o
n
s
p
i
c
u
o
u
s
l
y
p
o
s
t
a
t
e
l
e
p
h
o
n
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
f
o
r
th
e
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
a
t
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
in
c
l
u
d
e
i
t
i
n
t
h
e
n
o
t
i
c
e
s
e
n
t
t
o
n
e
i
g
h
b
o
r
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
ż
Fo
r
p
i
l
e
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
)
p
r
e
-
d
r
i
l
l
i
n
g
fo
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
p
i
l
e
h
o
l
e
s
t
o
m
i
n
i
m
i
z
e
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
t
o
s
e
a
t
t
h
e
p
i
l
e
,
b
)
u
s
i
n
g
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
p
i
l
e
d
r
i
v
i
n
g
r
i
g
s
to
e
x
p
e
d
i
t
e
t
h
i
s
p
h
a
s
e
o
f
c
o
n
s
tr
u
c
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
/
o
r
c
)
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
“a
c
o
u
s
t
i
c
a
l
b
l
a
n
k
e
t
s
”
f
o
r
r
e
c
e
i
v
e
r
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
0
f
e
e
t
of
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
Tr
a
f
-
1
:
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
m
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
T
h
e
OP
S
P
s
p
o
n
s
o
r
s
s
h
a
l
l
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
D
e
m
a
n
d
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
(
T
D
M
)
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
nt
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
Fr
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Z
o
n
i
n
g
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
C
h
ap
t
e
r
2
0
.
4
0
0
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
De
m
a
n
d
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
C
/
C
A
G
.
T
h
e
s
e
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
s
,
on
c
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
,
m
u
s
t
b
e
o
n
g
o
i
n
g
f
o
r
t
h
e
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
l
i
f
e
o
f
t
h
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
C
/
C
A
G
g
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
s
p
e
c
i
f
y
t
h
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
t
r
i
p
s
th
a
t
m
a
y
b
e
c
r
e
d
i
t
e
d
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
T
D
M
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
pa
r
t
i
e
s
Ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
Fi
n
a
l
T
D
M
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
Tr
a
f
-
2
:
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
.
T
o
d
i
s
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
m
i
d
-
b
l
o
c
k
c
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
,
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
f
l
o
w
a
c
r
o
s
s
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
II
I
&
I
V
g
a
r
a
g
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
I
&
I
V
o
f
f
i
c
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
r
e
g
u
l
a
t
e
d
t
o
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
p
l
a
n
s
sh
o
w
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-51
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
e
x
t
e
n
t
.
ż
Pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
s
h
a
l
l
o
n
l
y
b
e
a
l
l
o
w
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
a
n
d
so
u
t
h
e
n
d
s
o
f
t
h
e
g
a
r
a
g
e
,
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
s
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
o
r
a
l
l
-
w
a
y
st
o
p
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
I
a
n
d
I
V
ga
r
a
g
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
co
m
p
l
i
e
d
w
i
t
h
an
d
S
S
F
Public Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Tr
a
f
-
2
b
:
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
C
o
n
t
i
n
u
i
t
y
Pr
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
s
i
n
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
P
l
a
n
.
Co
n
t
i
n
u
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
s
f
o
r
a
l
l
p
h
a
s
e
s
o
f
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
OP
S
P
.
W
h
e
n
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
l
l
a
v
o
i
d
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
B
a
y
Tr
a
i
l
a
n
d
w
h
e
n
n
o
t
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
,
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
sp
e
c
i
f
y
p
l
a
n
s
f
o
r
c
l
e
a
r
a
n
d
s
a
f
e
d
e
t
o
u
r
s
f
o
r
b
i
c
y
c
l
i
s
t
s
a
n
d
pe
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
s
a
n
d
b
e
A
D
A
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
t
h
e
is
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
an
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
pa
r
t
i
e
s
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
of
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
in
t
h
e
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
ma
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
pl
a
n
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
a
n
d
SS
F
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Di
v
i
s
i
o
n
.
Tr
a
f
-
5
:
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
C
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
on
S
y
s
t
e
m
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
O
P
S
P
ap
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
l
s
a
t
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
Ma
r
i
n
a
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
n
d
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
A
c
c
e
s
s
/
Ph
a
s
e
s
I
I
I
/
I
V
g
a
r
a
g
e
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
w
h
e
n
v
o
l
u
m
e
s
a
r
e
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
i
n
g
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
c
r
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
.
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Bl
v
d
.
/
M
a
r
i
n
a
Bl
v
d
.
i
s
8
0
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
a
n
d
20
%
C
i
t
y
;
o
t
h
e
r
in
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
10
0
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
In
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
si
g
n
a
l
s
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Tr
a
f
-
6
:
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
U
.
S
.
1
0
1
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
F
l
y
o
v
e
r
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
(
s
e
e
T
a
b
l
e
1
6
.
2
3
a
n
d
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
3
i
n
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
pr
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
Ph
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
A
l
l
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
o
t
h
e
r
th
a
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
F
l
y
o
v
e
r
O
f
f-
R
a
m
p
,
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
fi
n
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
TI
P
:
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
Fe
e
s
;
No
n
-
T
I
P
:
2
9
.
2
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
4
.
1
%
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
fe
e
,
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
of
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
5
2
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
de
p
a
r
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
)
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
Ea
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
T
I
P
)
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
fu
n
d
e
d
v
i
a
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
th
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
T
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
a
l
l
a
l
s
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
a
l
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
T
I
P
.
ż
Ad
j
u
s
t
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
i
m
i
n
g
.
ż
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
la
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
(
e
x
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
V
e
t
e
r
a
n
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
)
an
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
/
U
.
S
.
1
0
1
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
n
-
Ra
m
p
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
fr
o
m
a
l
e
f
t
,
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
a
n
d
a
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
la
n
e
t
o
a
l
e
f
t
,
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
a
n
d
an
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
F
l
y
o
v
e
r
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
f
r
o
m
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
t
o
t
w
o
th
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
a
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
I
n
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e,
a
d
d
a
t
h
i
r
d
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
de
p
a
r
t
u
r
e
l
a
n
e
o
n
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
T
I
P
)
.
ż
Ad
d
a
s
e
c
o
n
d
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
(
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
T
I
P
)
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
2
0
1
5
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
E
-
7
9
.
8
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
b
e
t
t
e
r
th
a
n
L
O
S
F
9
1
.
7
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
D
-
5
4
.
7
s
ec
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ci
t
y
,
6
6
.
7
%
Ot
h
e
r
Tr
a
f
-
7
:
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
V
e
t
e
r
a
n
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(
s
e
e
T
a
b
l
e
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
S
S
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-53
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
16
.
2
3
a
n
d
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
3
i
n
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
wo
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
f
u
nd
e
d
v
i
a
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
ż
Ad
j
u
s
t
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
i
m
i
n
g
.
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
t
w
o
-
l
a
n
e
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
a
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
l
e
f
t
/
th
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
2
0
1
5
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
E
-
6
4
.
3
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
(
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
be
t
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
L
O
S
F
-
8
8
.5
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
)
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
fi
n
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
(T
I
P
)
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
fe
e
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Tr
a
f
-
8
:
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
.
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
M
i
t
c
h
e
l
l
Av
e
n
u
e
.
(
s
e
e
T
a
b
l
e
1
6
.
2
3
a
n
d
F
i
g
u
re
2
3
i
n
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
im
p
a
c
t
s
.
T
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
v
i
a
t
h
e
Ph
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
ż
Wi
d
e
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
s
e
c
o
n
d
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
gh
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
T
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
wo
u
l
d
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
o
n
e
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
la
n
e
,
o
n
e
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
2
ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
2
0
1
5
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
g
n
a
l
i
z
e
d
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
D
-
3
8
.
4
s
e
c
o
nd
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
fi
n
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
(T
I
P
)
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
fe
e
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
5
4
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Tr
a
f
-
9
:
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
.
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
3
i
n
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
pr
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
Ph
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
.
T
h
e
s
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
r
an
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
fu
n
d
e
d
v
i
a
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
th
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
:
ż
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
i
s
t
e
r
C
i
t
i
e
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
ż
Ad
j
u
s
t
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
i
m
i
n
g
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
9
5
t
h
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
V
e
h
ic
l
e
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
–
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
L
a
n
e
s
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
E
a
c
h
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
o
r
w
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
=
2
3
0
f
e
e
t
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
25
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
p
e
r
l
a
n
e
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
fi
n
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
(T
I
P
)
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
fe
e
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Tr
a
f
-
1
0
:
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
.
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
3
i
n
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
pr
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
Ph
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
.
T
h
e
s
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
r
an
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
fu
n
d
e
d
v
i
a
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
th
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
:
ż
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
ż
Ad
j
u
s
t
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
i
m
i
n
g
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
9
5
t
h
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
V
e
h
i
cl
e
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
–
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
T
h
r
o
u
g
h
L
a
n
e
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
q
u
e
u
e
=
2
0
6
f
e
e
t
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
le
s
s
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
3
0
9
-
f
o
o
t
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
q
u
e
u
e
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
fi
n
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
(T
I
P
)
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
fe
e
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-55
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Tr
a
f
-
1
1
:
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
.
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
Th
e
s
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
ż
U.
S
.
1
0
1
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
F
l
y
o
v
e
r
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
t
o
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(
s
e
e
T
a
b
l
e
1
6
.
2
3
a
n
d
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
3
i
n
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
wo
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
A
l
l
o
f
th
e
s
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
(
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
So
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
F
l
y
o
v
e
r
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
,
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
d
e
p
a
r
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
so
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
)
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
10
1
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
nt
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
T
I
P
)
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
be
f
u
n
d
e
d
v
i
a
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m.
T
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
h
a
l
l
al
s
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
c
o
nt
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
a
l
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
T
I
P
.
ż
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
la
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
(
e
x
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
V
e
t
e
r
a
n
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
)
an
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
/
U
.
S
.
1
0
1
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
n
-
Ra
m
p
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
ż
Ad
j
u
s
t
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
i
m
i
n
g
.
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
ul
e
v
a
r
d
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
fr
o
m
a
l
e
f
t
,
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
a
n
d
a
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
la
n
e
t
o
a
l
e
f
t
,
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
a
n
d
an
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
F
l
y
o
v
e
r
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
f
r
o
m
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
t
o
t
w
o
th
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
a
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
I
n
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e,
a
d
d
a
t
h
i
r
d
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
fi
n
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
TI
P
:
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
Fe
e
s
;
No
n
-
T
I
P
:
2
9
.
2
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
4
.
1
%
Ci
t
y
,
6
6
.
7
%
Ot
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
fe
e
;
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
of
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
5
6
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
de
p
a
r
t
u
r
e
l
a
n
e
o
n
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
T
I
P
)
.
ż
Ad
d
a
s
e
c
o
n
d
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
(
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
T
I
P
)
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
:
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
B
a
c
k
u
p
s
t
o
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
m
a
i
n
l
i
n
e
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
.
Tr
a
f
-
1
2
:
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
.
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
3
in
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
Ph
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
in
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
r
an
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
fu
n
d
e
d
v
i
a
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
’
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
th
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
ż
U.
S
.
1
0
1
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
t
o
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
ż
Ad
j
u
s
t
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
i
m
i
n
g
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
:
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
B
a
c
k
u
p
s
t
o
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
m
a
i
n
l
i
n
e
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
fi
n
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
(T
I
P
)
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
fe
e
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Tr
a
f
-
1
4
:
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
t
M
a
i
n
l
i
n
e
Di
v
e
r
g
e
(s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
3
i
n
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
.
ż
U.
S
.
1
0
1
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
t
o
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
ż
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
s
e
c
o
n
d
o
f
f
-
r
a
m
p
l
a
n
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
U
.
S
.
1
0
1
ma
i
n
l
i
n
e
.
O
f
f
-
r
a
m
p
d
i
v
e
r
g
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
o
a
t
le
a
s
t
2
,
2
0
0
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
Ba
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
1
,
5
3
6
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
.
T
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
w
i
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
.
A
l
s
o
,
t
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
fi
n
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
TI
P
:
P
a
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
Ea
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
F
e
e
s
;
No
n
-
T
I
P
:
3
0
.
9
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
4
.
4
%
Ci
t
y
,
6
4
.
7
%
Ot
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
fe
e
;
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
of
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-57
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Ea
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
r
a
f
f
i
c
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
l
i
s
t
.
I
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
n
o
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
be
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
’
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
a
s
l
e
a
d
a
g
e
n
c
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
ca
n
n
o
t
g
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
ti
o
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
W
h
i
l
e
it
i
s
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
h
a
t
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
w
i
l
l
i
m
pl
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
,
t
h
e
r
e
b
y
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
t
o
a
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
e
v
e
l
,
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
i
s
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
l
e
a
d
a
g
e
n
c
y
’
s
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
,
f
o
r
C
E
Q
A
pu
r
p
o
s
e
s
,
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
un
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
.
Tr
a
f
-
1
8
:
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
(s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
4
i
n
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E)
.
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
O
P
S
P
-
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
m
t
o
a
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
i
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
.
So
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
E
a
s
t
of
1
0
1
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
T
I
P
)
.
T
h
e
O
P
S
P
sh
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
c
o
n
t
ri
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
a
l
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
T
I
P
.
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
U
.
S
.
1
0
1
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Fl
y
o
v
e
r
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
:
ż
Ad
j
u
s
t
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
i
m
i
n
g
.
ż
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
la
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
(
e
x
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
V
e
t
e
r
a
n
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
)
an
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
/
U
.
S
.
1
0
1
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
n
-
Ra
m
p
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
fr
o
m
a
l
e
f
t
,
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
a
n
d
a
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
la
n
e
t
o
a
l
e
f
t
,
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
a
n
d
an
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
F
l
y
o
v
e
r
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
f
r
o
m
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
TI
P
:
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
Fe
e
s
;
No
n
-
T
I
P
:
2
9
.
2
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
4
.
1
%
Ci
t
y
,
6
6
.
7
%
Ot
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
fe
e
a
n
d
f
a
i
r
sh
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
5
8
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
t
o
t
w
o
th
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
a
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
I
n
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e,
a
d
d
a
t
h
i
r
d
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
de
p
a
r
t
u
r
e
l
a
n
e
o
n
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
T
I
P
)
.
ż
Ad
d
a
s
e
c
o
n
d
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
(
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
T
I
P
)
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
2
0
3
5
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
O
P
S
P
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
F
-
1
9
4
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
be
b
e
t
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
o
p
e
r
a
ti
o
n
(
L
O
S
F
-
1
2
4
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
d
e
l
a
y
)
.
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
F
-
1
1
8
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
be
b
e
t
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
o
p
e
r
a
ti
o
n
(
L
O
S
F
-
1
0
8
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
d
e
l
a
y
)
.
Tr
a
f
-
1
9
:
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
4
i
n
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
OP
S
P
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
m
t
o
a
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
i
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
.
Th
e
s
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
T
h
e
O
P
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
fa
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
a
l
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
th
e
T
I
P
.
ż
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
V
e
t
e
r
a
n
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
2
-
l
a
n
e
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
to
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
a
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
l
e
f
t
/
th
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
ż
Wi
d
e
n
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
a
n
d
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
2
0
3
5
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
O
P
S
P
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
D
-
5
2
.
6
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
44
.
4
%
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
6.
3
%
C
i
t
y
,
4
9
.
3
%
Ot
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
fa
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-59
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
no
t
b
e
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
D
-
3
6
.
8
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Tr
a
f
-
2
0
:
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
4
i
n
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
O
P
S
P
-
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
T
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
th
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
r
a
n
sp
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
T
h
e
O
P
S
P
sh
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
c
o
n
t
ri
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
a
l
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
T
I
P
ż
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
E
c
c
l
e
s
A
v
e
n
u
e
ż
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
2
0
3
5
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
O
P
S
P
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
C
-
3
3
.
3
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
54
.
8
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
7.
8
%
C
i
t
y
,
37
.
4
%
O
t
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
fa
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Tr
a
f
-
2
1
:
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
5
i
n
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
p
a
r
t
i
a
l
l
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
OP
S
P
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
m
t
o
a
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
in
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
.
T
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
nt
l
y
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
Ea
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
T
h
e
O
P
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
a
l
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
pa
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
T
I
P
.
ż
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
ż
Ad
j
u
s
t
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
i
m
i
n
g
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
4.
3
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
0.
9
%
C
i
t
y
,
94
.
8
%
O
t
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
fa
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
6
0
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
2
-
l
a
n
e
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
ap
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
a
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
l
e
f
t
/
th
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
2
0
3
5
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
O
P
S
P
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
E
-
6
3
.
4
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
b
e
t
t
e
r
th
a
n
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
L
OS
F
-
8
1
.
6
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
d
e
l
a
y
)
.
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
E
-
5
9
.
6
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
b
e
t
t
e
r
th
a
n
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
L
OS
E
-
6
0
.
7
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
d
e
l
a
y
)
.
Tr
a
f
-
2
2
:
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
5
i
n
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
pr
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
O
P
S
P
-
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
of
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
T
h
e
OP
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
c
o
nt
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
a
l
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
T
I
P
.
ż
Gr
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
/
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
co
n
t
a
i
n
1
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
,
1
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
,
a
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
th
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
Al
s
o
r
e
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
to
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
a
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
,
a
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
la
n
e
a
n
d
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
2
0
3
5
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
O
P
S
P
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
F
-
8
6
.
0
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
b
e
t
t
e
r
th
a
n
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
(L
O
S
F
-
1
2
1
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
d
e
l
a
y
)
.
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
D
-
4
3
.
1
s
ec
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
10
.
5
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
2.
2
%
C
i
t
y
,
87
.
3
%
O
t
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
fa
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-61
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Tr
a
f
-
2
3
:
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
5
i
n
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
pr
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
O
P
S
P
-
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
of
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
T
h
e
OP
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
c
o
nt
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
a
l
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
T
I
P
.
ż
E.
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
n
u
e
/
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
ż
Ad
j
u
s
t
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
i
m
i
n
g
.
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
F
o
r
b
e
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
co
n
t
a
i
n
2
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
,
a
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
a
n
d
a
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
/
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
t
o
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
2
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
s
,
a
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
/
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
la
n
e
a
n
d
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
2
0
3
5
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
O
P
S
P
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
D
-
5
2
.
2
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
C
-
2
4
.
6
s
e
c
o
nd
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
5.
8
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
1.
2
%
C
i
t
y
,
93
.
0
%
O
t
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
fa
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Tr
a
f
-
2
4
:
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
5
i
n
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
O
P
S
P
-
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
T
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
th
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
pr
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
T
h
e
O
P
S
P
sh
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
c
o
n
t
ri
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
a
l
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
T
I
P
.
ż
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
e
n
u
e
/
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
14
.
2
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
2.
9
%
C
i
t
y
,
82
.
9
%
O
t
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
fa
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
6
2
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
ż
Ad
j
u
s
t
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
i
m
i
n
g
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
2
0
3
5
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
O
P
S
P
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
D
-
4
4
.
9
s
ec
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
Tr
a
f
-
2
5
:
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
.
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
5
i
n
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
O
P
S
P
-
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
T
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
th
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
r
a
n
sp
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
.
T
h
e
O
P
S
P
sh
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
c
o
n
t
ri
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
a
l
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
T
I
P
.
ż
S.
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
U
.
S
.
1
0
1
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
H
o
o
k
R
a
m
p
s
/
Wo
n
d
e
r
c
o
l
o
r
L
a
n
e
ż
Ad
j
u
s
t
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
i
m
i
n
g
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
2
0
3
5
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
O
P
S
P
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
O
S
D
-
5
4
.
9
s
e
c
o
n
d
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
d
e
l
a
y
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
5.
4
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
0.
8
%
C
i
t
y
,
93
.
8
%
O
t
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
fa
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Tr
a
f
-
2
6
:
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
4
i
n
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
.
T
h
e
fo
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
p
a
r
ti
a
l
l
y
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
O
P
S
P
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
im
p
a
c
t
s
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
m
t
o
a
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
i
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
c
e
.
T
h
e
s
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
a
s
p
a
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
(
T
I
P
)
.
T
h
e
O
P
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
a
l
s
o
pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
a
l
l
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
pa
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
T
I
P
.
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
.
/
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
B
l
v
d
.
/
U
.
S
.
1
0
1
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
F
l
y
o
v
e
r
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
TI
P
:
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
Fe
e
s
;
No
n
-
T
I
P
:
2
9
.
2
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
4
.
1
%
Ci
t
y
,
6
6
.
7
%
Ot
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
fa
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-63
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Of
f
-
R
a
m
p
:
ż
Ad
j
u
s
t
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
i
m
i
n
g
.
ż
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
la
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
we
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
(
e
x
t
e
n
d
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
V
e
t
e
r
a
n
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
)
an
d
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
/
U
.
S
.
1
0
1
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
n
-
Ra
m
p
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
fr
o
m
a
l
e
f
t
,
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
a
n
d
a
co
m
b
i
n
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
la
n
e
t
o
a
l
e
f
t
,
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
s
a
n
d
an
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
ż
Re
s
t
r
i
p
e
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
F
l
y
o
v
e
r
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
f
r
o
m
2
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
a
n
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
t
o
t
w
o
th
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
s
a
n
d
a
c
o
m
b
i
n
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
/
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
.
I
n
co
n
j
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
ur
e
,
a
d
d
a
t
h
i
r
d
e
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
de
p
a
r
t
u
r
e
l
a
n
e
o
n
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
(
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
T
I
P
)
.
ż
Ad
d
a
s
e
c
o
n
d
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
r
i
g
h
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
o
n
t
h
e
s
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
Ge
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
d
r
i
v
e
w
a
y
a
p
pr
o
a
c
h
(
n
o
t
p
a
r
t
o
f
T
I
P
)
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
9
5
t
h
P
e
r
c
e
n
ti
l
e
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
:
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
E
a
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
9
5
t
h
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
q
u
e
u
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
re
d
u
c
e
d
t
o
1
,
1
0
2
f
e
e
t
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
qu
e
u
e
o
f
7
5
6
f
e
e
t
.
Tr
a
f
-
2
8
:
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
.
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
4
i
n
Ap
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
OP
S
P
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
.
T
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
10
1
T
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
v
i
a
th
e
O
P
S
P
’
s
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
:
ż
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
S
i
s
t
e
r
C
i
t
i
e
s
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
(T
I
P
)
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
tr
a
f
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
fe
e
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
6
4
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
ż
Ad
j
u
s
t
s
i
g
n
a
l
t
i
m
i
n
g
.
Re
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
9
5
t
h
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
V
e
h
ic
l
e
Q
u
e
u
i
n
g
–
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
Bo
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
W
e
s
t
b
o
u
n
d
A
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
L
a
n
e
s
AM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
q
u
e
u
e
=
2
4
2
f
e
e
t
,
w
i
t
h
a
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
95
t
h
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
q
u
e
u
e
o
f
2
5
0
f
e
e
t
.
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
:
L
e
f
t
t
u
r
n
l
a
n
e
q
u
e
u
e
=
5
0
6
f
e
e
t
,
w
i
t
h
a
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
95
t
h
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
q
u
e
u
e
o
f
5
2
4
f
e
e
t
.
E
a
c
h
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
l
a
n
e
q
u
e
u
e
=
2
8
0
fe
e
t
,
w
i
t
h
a
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
9
5
t
h
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
l
e
q
u
e
u
e
o
f
4
1
5
f
e
e
t
.
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
Tr
a
f
-
3
4
:
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
D
i
v
e
r
g
e
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
U
.
S
.
1
0
1
No
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
f
f
-
R
a
m
p
t
o
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
.
Th
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
w
o
u
l
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
-
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
i
m
p
a
c
t
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
24
i
n
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
s
e
c
o
n
d
o
f
f
-
r
a
m
p
l
a
n
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
U
.
S
.
1
0
1
m
a
i
n
l
i
n
e
.
Of
f
-
r
a
m
p
d
i
v
e
r
g
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
w
o
ul
d
b
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
t
o
a
t
l
e
a
s
t
2
,
2
0
0
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
o
u
l
d
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
OP
S
P
A
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
v
o
l
u
m
e
o
f
1
,
5
5
6
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
.
T
h
i
s
me
a
s
u
r
e
w
i
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
.
A
l
s
o
,
t
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
i
s
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
I
P
.
T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
sh
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
t
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
.
I
t
sh
o
u
l
d
b
e
n
o
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
’
ju
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
a
s
l
e
a
d
a
g
e
n
c
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
OP
S
P
,
c
a
n
n
o
t
g
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
Wh
i
l
e
i
t
i
s
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
h
a
t
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
w
i
l
l
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
,
t
h
e
r
e
b
y
re
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
t
o
a
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
e
v
e
l
,
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
i
s
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
l
e
a
d
a
g
e
n
c
y
’
s
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
,
f
o
r
C
E
Q
A
pu
r
p
o
s
e
s
,
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
30
.
9
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
4.
4
%
C
i
t
y
,
64
.
7
%
O
t
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
fa
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-65
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
un
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
.
Tr
a
f
-
3
5
:
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
N
o
r
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
n
-
Ra
m
p
f
r
o
m
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
o
u
l
e
v
a
r
d
/
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
(
s
e
e
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
4
i
n
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
.
P
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
o
f
a
s
e
c
o
n
d
o
n
-
r
a
m
p
l
a
n
e
wo
u
l
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
t
o
a
b
o
u
t
3
,
00
0
t
o
3
,
1
0
0
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
.
Th
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
w
i
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
a
p
pr
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
.
A
l
s
o
,
t
h
i
s
me
a
s
u
r
e
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
I
P
.
T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
th
e
O
P
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
t
h
i
s
me
a
s
u
r
e
.
I
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
n
o
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
Ca
l
t
r
a
n
s
’
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
of
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
a
s
l
e
a
d
ag
e
n
c
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
,
c
a
n
n
o
t
g
u
a
r
a
n
t
ee
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
W
h
i
l
e
i
t
i
s
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
h
at
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
w
i
l
l
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
me
a
s
u
r
e
,
t
h
e
r
e
b
y
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
t
o
a
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
le
v
e
l
,
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
i
s
b
e
yo
n
d
t
h
e
l
e
a
d
a
g
e
n
cy
’
s
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
,
fo
r
C
E
Q
A
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
,
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
t
o
b
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
un
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
.
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
n
o
o
t
h
e
r
p
h
y
s
i
c
a
l
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
ac
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
t
o
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
t
h
e
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
O
P
S
P
vo
l
u
m
e
o
f
a
b
o
u
t
2
,
5
6
3
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
22
.
4
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
4.
6
%
C
i
t
y
,
7
3
%
Ot
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
fa
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
Tr
a
f
-
3
6
:
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
O
n
-
R
a
m
p
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
S
o
u
t
h
b
o
u
n
d
O
n
-
Ra
m
p
f
r
o
m
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
A
v
e
n
u
e
(
s
e
e
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
4
i
n
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
E
)
.
T
h
i
s
OP
S
P
s
h
o
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
c
o
nt
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
a
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
t
o
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
.
Pr
o
v
i
d
e
a
s
e
c
o
n
d
o
n
-
r
a
m
p
l
a
n
e
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
U
.
S
.
1
0
1
f
r
e
e
w
a
y
.
On
-
r
a
m
p
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
f
r
o
m
2
,
0
0
0
u
p
t
o
3
,
0
0
0
ve
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
,
w
i
t
h
a
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
O
P
S
P
P
M
p
e
a
k
h
o
u
r
v
o
l
u
m
e
of
a
b
o
u
t
2
,
1
2
5
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
p
e
r
h
o
u
r
.
T
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
w
i
l
l
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
t
h
e
ap
p
r
o
v
a
l
o
f
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
.
A
l
s
o
,
t
h
i
s
m
e
as
u
r
e
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
21
.
1
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
4.
3
%
C
i
t
y
,
74
.
6
%
O
t
h
e
r
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
fa
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
6
6
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
th
e
E
a
s
t
o
f
1
0
1
T
I
P
.
T
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
,
t
h
e
OP
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
t
o
w
a
r
d
s
t
h
i
s
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
.
I
t
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
n
o
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
th
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
’
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
,
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
Sa
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
,
a
s
l
e
a
d
a
g
e
n
c
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
,
c
a
n
n
o
t
g
u
a
r
a
n
t
e
e
t
h
a
t
th
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
Wh
i
l
e
i
t
i
s
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
h
a
t
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
wi
l
l
i
m
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
t
h
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
,
t
h
e
r
e
b
y
r
e
d
u
c
i
n
g
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
t
o
a
l
e
s
s
th
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
e
v
e
l
,
be
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
i
s
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
l
e
a
d
ag
e
n
c
y
’
s
j
u
r
i
s
d
i
c
t
i
o
n
,
f
o
r
C
E
Q
A
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
s
,
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
to
b
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
u
n
a
v
o
i
d
a
b
l
e
.
Ut
i
l
-
2
a
:
U
p
s
i
z
e
P
u
m
p
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
2
.
To
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
se
w
e
r
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
l
a
n
,
P
u
m
p
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
2
w
i
l
l
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
up
s
i
z
e
d
t
o
a
f
i
r
m
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
o
f
1
.
6
.
Th
e
S
e
w
e
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
e
x
p
a
n
d
i
n
g
P
u
m
p
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
N
o
.
2
.
Im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
S
e
w
e
r
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
a
r
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
fl
a
t
-
r
a
t
e
s
e
w
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
e
e
f
o
r
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
im
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
.
T
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
(f
l
o
w
)
o
f
w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
.
T
h
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
OP
S
P
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
p
a
y
t
h
e
s
a
n
i
t
a
ry
s
e
w
e
r
f
e
e
s
i
m
p
o
s
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
i
n
or
d
e
r
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
pu
m
p
s
t
a
t
i
o
n
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
m
a
n
a
g
e
t
h
e
w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
s
ge
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
.
Ut
i
l
-
2
b
:
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
u
b
t
r
u
n
k
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
.
T
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
re
q
u
i
r
e
d
s
e
w
e
r
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
,
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
S
u
b
t
r
u
n
k
w
i
l
l
n
e
e
d
t
o
b
e
re
p
l
a
c
e
d
w
i
t
h
a
l
a
r
g
e
r
s
i
z
e
d
t
r
u
n
k
l
i
n
e,
w
i
t
h
s
i
z
e
s
r
a
n
g
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
1
2
,
15
,
a
n
d
1
8
-
i
n
c
h
e
s
.
Th
e
m
a
j
o
r
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
S
e
w
e
r
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
a
r
e
f
u
n
d
e
d
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
a
f
l
a
t
-
r
a
t
e
s
e
w
e
r
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
e
e
fo
r
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
.
T
h
e
a
m
o
u
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
c
e
r
t
i
f
i
c
a
t
e
o
f
oc
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
o
r
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
wh
i
c
h
w
a
r
r
a
n
t
cr
i
t
e
r
i
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
ar
e
a
p
p
r
o
a
c
h
e
d
,
if
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
88
.
4
8
%
De
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
,
11
.
5
2
%
C
i
t
y
Pa
y
m
e
n
t
o
f
se
w
e
r
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
fe
e
a
n
d
f
a
i
r
sh
a
r
e
co
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
SS
F
P
u
b
l
i
c
Works
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-67
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
im
p
a
c
t
f
e
e
i
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
q
u
a
n
t
i
t
y
(
f
l
o
w
)
o
f
w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
.
Th
e
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
O
P
S
P
s
h
a
l
l
p
a
y
t
h
e
s
a
n
i
t
a
r
y
s
e
w
e
r
fe
e
s
i
m
p
o
s
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
mi
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
c
o
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
w
e
r
s
y
s
t
e
m
u
p
g
r
a
d
e
s
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
m
a
n
a
g
e
th
e
w
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
f
l
o
w
s
g
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
.
An
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
7
0
0
f
e
e
t
o
f
8
-
i
n
c
h
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
s
e
w
e
r
t
r
u
n
k
f
r
o
m
E
c
c
l
e
s
Av
e
n
u
e
t
o
G
u
l
l
R
o
a
d
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
b
e
u
p
s
i
z
e
d
t
o
a
1
2
-
i
n
c
h
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
tr
u
n
k
s
e
w
e
r
.
T
h
i
s
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
o
f
s
e
w
e
r
t
r
u
n
k
w
a
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
re
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
t
h
e
S
e
w
e
r
M
a
st
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
T
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
ei
t
h
e
r
w
o
r
k
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
t
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
i
n
a
n
S
e
w
e
r
Ma
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
o
r
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
f
u
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
f
a
i
r
s
h
a
r
e
o
f
t
h
e
im
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
.
Vi
s
-
2
a
:
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
P
l
a
n
.
I
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
l
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
gl
a
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
b
y
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
a
r
e
a
,
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
sp
e
c
i
f
y
f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s
a
n
d
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
e
v
e
l
s
o
f
li
g
h
t
a
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
e
n
t
r
i
e
s
,
w
a
l
k
w
a
y
s
,
c
o
u
r
t
y
a
r
d
s
,
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
s
a
n
d
pr
i
v
a
t
e
r
o
a
d
s
a
t
n
i
g
h
t
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
t
w
it
h
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
l
e
v
e
l
s
d
e
t
a
i
l
e
d
i
n
th
e
C
i
t
y
’
s
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
fi
x
t
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
el
i
m
i
n
a
t
e
s
p
i
l
l
o
v
e
r
,
h
i
g
h
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
an
d
u
n
s
h
i
e
l
d
e
d
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
,
t
h
e
r
e
b
y
av
o
i
d
i
n
g
u
n
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
l
i
g
h
t
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
.
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
o
f
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
f
o
r
e
a
c
h
p
h
a
s
e
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
,
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
ll
s
u
b
m
i
t
a
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
l
a
n
fo
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
b
y
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
i
l
y
b
e
li
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
ż
Th
e
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
l
a
n
s
h
a
l
l
d
i
s
c
l
o
s
e
a
l
l
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
i
g
h
t
so
u
r
c
e
s
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
s
o
f
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
ż
Ty
p
i
c
a
l
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
l
o
w
m
o
u
n
t
e
d
,
d
o
w
n
w
a
r
d
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
pl
a
n
s
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
FIN
A
L
ENV
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
IMP
A
C
T
REP
O
R
T
PAG
E
24
-
6
8
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLAN AND PHASE I PROJECT
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
ca
s
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
h
i
e
l
d
e
d
l
i
g
h
t
s
t
h
a
t
d
o
n
o
t
c
a
u
s
e
s
p
i
l
l
o
v
e
r
o
n
t
o
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
ut
i
l
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
m
o
t
i
o
n
d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
sy
s
t
e
m
s
w
h
e
r
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
.
ż
No
f
l
o
o
d
l
i
g
h
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
.
ż
Li
g
h
t
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
s
t
h
a
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
i
n
op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
n
i
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
h
o
u
r
s
.
ż
Lo
w
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
y
,
i
n
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
i
g
h
t
so
u
r
c
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
.
ż
On
-
d
e
m
a
n
d
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
d
.
ż
Me
r
c
u
r
y
,
s
o
d
i
u
m
v
a
p
o
r
,
a
n
d
s
i
m
i
l
a
r
i
n
t
e
n
s
e
a
n
d
b
r
i
g
h
t
li
g
h
t
s
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
e
x
ce
p
t
w
h
e
r
e
t
h
e
i
r
n
e
e
d
i
s
sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
o
f
l
i
g
h
t
i
s
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
.
ż
Ge
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
,
l
i
g
h
t
f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
a
t
t
h
e
pe
r
i
p
h
e
r
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
s
h
o
u
l
d
s
h
u
t
o
f
f
a
u
t
o
m
a
t
i
c
a
l
l
y
wh
e
n
t
h
e
u
s
e
i
s
n
o
t
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g.
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
v
i
s
i
b
l
e
fr
o
m
t
h
e
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
s
h
a
l
l
be
m
o
t
i
o
n
-
s
e
n
s
o
r
a
c
t
i
v
a
t
e
d
.
ż
Us
e
“
c
u
t
-
o
f
f
”
f
i
x
t
u
r
e
s
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
t
h
e
u
p
w
a
r
d
c
a
s
t
of
l
i
g
h
t
a
n
d
a
v
o
i
d
u
n
n
e
c
e
ss
a
r
y
l
i
g
h
t
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
w
h
e
r
e
ap
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
.
ż
Al
l
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
c
o
d
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
ov
e
d
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
d
u
r
i
n
g
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
Vi
s
-
2
b
:
G
l
a
r
e
R
e
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
I
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
d
a
y
t
i
m
e
gl
a
r
e
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
b
y
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
sp
e
c
i
f
y
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
f
o
r
a
l
l
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
n
d
e
a
c
h
s
u
b
s
e
q
u
e
n
t
p
h
a
s
e
o
f
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
u
n
d
e
r
t
h
e
O
P
S
P
t
h
a
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
t
e
x
t
u
r
e
d
o
r
Pr
i
o
r
t
o
i
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
of
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
pe
r
m
i
t
s
Ap
p
l
i
e
s
t
o
a
l
l
co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
th
a
t
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
t
pl
a
n
s
pr
e
p
a
r
e
d
a
n
d
im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
e
d
SSF
Pl
a
n
n
i
n
g
Division
CHA
P
T
E
R
24
:
MIT
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
MON
I
T
O
R
I
N
G
A
N
D
REPORTING PROGRAM
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
SPE
C
I
F
I
C
PLA
N
A
N
D
PHA
S
E
I PRO
J
E
C
T
PAGE 24-69
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
P
l
a
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
R
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
Ve
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
Mi
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
Ti
m
i
n
g
/
Sc
h
e
d
u
l
e
Im
p
l
e
m
e
n
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Ac
t
i
o
n
Mo
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
Re
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
Date Completed
ot
h
e
r
n
o
n
-
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
g
l
a
s
s
t
y
p
e
s
,
in
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
d
o
u
b
l
e
g
l
a
z
e
d
a
n
d
n
o
n
-
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
v
i
s
i
o
n
g
l
a
s
s
.
T
h
e
s
e
ma
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
h
o
s
e
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
i
r
n
o
n
-
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
s
t
i
c
s
a
n
d
th
e
i
r
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
a
y
t
i
m
e
g
l
ar
e
.
A
l
l
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
g
l
a
s
s
m
u
s
t
m
e
e
t
th
e
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
a
l
l
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
c
o
d
e
s
f
o
r
n
o
n
-
r
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
v
e
g
l
a
s
s
an
d
w
o
u
l
d
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
a
y
t
i
m
e
g
l
a
r
e
e
m
a
n
a
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
OP
S
P
a
r
e
a
.
APPENDIX A
NOTICE OF PREPARATION (NOP) AND
COMMENTS
26 • California State Clearinghouse Handbook
Reference: California Code of Regulations, Title 14, (CEQA Guidelines) Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375.
DateSignature
Title
Telephone
To:
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
Notice of Preparation
________________________________________ will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental
impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and
content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in
connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when
considering your permit or other approval for the project.
The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects are contained in the attached
materials. A copy of the Initial Study ( is is not ) attached.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not
later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to _______________________________________________ at the address
shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency.
Project Title:
Project Applicant, if any:
(Address)
26
Form B
From:
(Address)
Notice of Preparation
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street
City of South San Francisco, Planning Division
315 Maple Avenue
Sacramento, CA 95814 South San Francisco, CA 94080
City of South San Francisco
✘
Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner
Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Area Redevelopment Master Plan and Project
Oyster Point Ventures, LLC & City of South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
Gerry Beaudin, Senior Planner
(650) 877-8535
Note: The State Clearinghouse will assign identification numbers for all new projects. If a SCH number already exists for a project (e.g. Notice of Preparation or
previous draft document)please fill in.
Revised 2008
Notice of Completion & Environmental Document Transmittal
Mail to: State Clearinghouse, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 (916) 445-0613
For Hand Delivery/Street Address: 1400 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Project Title:
Lead Agency: Contact Person:
Mailing Address: Phone:
City: Zip: County:
Project Location: County: City/Nearest Community:
Cross Streets: Zip Code:
Longitude/Latitude (degrees, minutes and seconds): N / W Total Acres:
Assessor's Parcel No.: Section: Twp.: Range: Base:
Within 2 Miles: State Hwy #: Waterways:
Airports: Railways: Schools:
Document Type:
CEQA: NOP Draft EIR NEPA: NOI Other: Joint Document
Early Cons Supplement/Subsequent EIR EA Final Document
Neg Dec (Prior SCH No.) Draft EIS Other:
Mit Neg Dec Other: FONSI
Local Action Type:
General Plan Update Specific Plan Rezone Annexation
General Plan Amendment Master Plan Prezone Redevelopment
General Plan Element Planned Unit Development Use Permit Coastal Permit
Community Plan Site Plan Land Division (Subdivision, etc.) Other:
Development Type:
Residential: Units Acres
Office: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Transportation: Type
Commercial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Mining: Mineral
Industrial: Sq.ft. Acres Employees Power: Type MW
Educational: Waste Treatment:Type MGD
Recreational: Hazardous Waste:Type
Water Facilities:Type MGD Other:
Project Issues Discussed in Document:
Aesthetic/Visual Fiscal Recreation/Parks Vegetation
Agricultural Land Flood Plain/Flooding Schools/Universities Water Quality
Air Quality Forest Land/Fire Hazard Septic Systems Water Supply/Groundwater
Archeological/Historical Geologic/Seismic Sewer Capacity Wetland/Riparian
Biological Resources Minerals Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading Growth Inducement
Coastal Zone Noise Solid Waste Land Use
Drainage/Absorption Population/Housing Balance Toxic/Hazardous Cumulative Effects
Economic/Jobs Public Services/Facilities Traffic/Circulation Other:
Present Land Use/Zoning/General Plan Designation:
Project Description: (please use a separate page if necessary)
SCH #
Appendix C
OysterPointBusinessParkandMarinaAreaRedevelopmentMasterPlanandProject
CityofSouthSanFrancisco GerryBeaudin,SeniorPlanner
P.O.Box711 (650)877-8535
SouthSanFrancisco 94083 SanMateoCounty
San MateoCounty SouthSanFrancisco
OysterPointBoulevardandMarinaBoulevard 94080
-122238.6 373945.8 81
101 SanFranciscoBay
SanFranciscoInternational MultipleElementaries
✔
✔
✔✔✔
✔
✔✔
✔
✔
✔
2.3mil 41
✔
playingfields,openspace,BayTrailimpvmnts
possible dock Hotel(upto350rooms+40ksfretail/rest.)
✔ See Attchmnt,p.5
GP:Office,CoastalCommercial,andParkandRec;Zoning:P-I(PlannedIndustrialDistrict),P-C(PlannedCommercial)andOysterPointSpecificPlanDistrict
SeeAttachedSheetsforProjectDescription.
(Page5oftheattachedsheetsincludesadiscussionofprobableenvironmentaleffects.)
Revised 2008
Reviewing Agencies Checklist
Lead Agencies may recommend State Clearinghouse distribution by marking agencies below with and "X".
If you have already sent your document to the agency please denote that with an "S".
Air Resources Board Office of Emergency Services
Boating & Waterways, Department of Office of Historic Preservation
California Highway Patrol Office of Public School Construction
Caltrans District # Parks & Recreation, Department of
Caltrans Division of Aeronautics Pesticide Regulation, Department of
Caltrans Planning Public Utilities Commission
Central Valley Flood Protection Board Regional WQCB #
Coachella Valley Mtns. Conservancy Resources Agency
Coastal Commission S.F. Bay Conservation & Development Comm.
Colorado River Board San Gabriel & Lower L.A. Rivers & Mtns. Conservancy
Conservation, Department of San Joaquin River Conservancy
Corrections, Department of Santa Monica Mtns. Conservancy
Delta Protection Commission State Lands Commission
Education, Department of SWRCB: Clean Water Grants
Energy Commission SWRCB: Water Quality
Fish & Game Region # SWRCB: Water Rights
Food & Agriculture, Department of Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Forestry and Fire Protection, Department of Toxic Substances Control, Department of
General Services, Department of Water Resources, Department of
Health Services, Department of
Housing & Community Development Other:
Integrated Waste Management Board Other:
Native American Heritage Commission
Local Public Review Period (to be filled in by lead agency)
Starting Date Ending Date
Lead Agency (Complete if applicable):
Consulting Firm: Applicant:
Address: Address:
City/State/Zip: City/State/Zip:
Contact: Phone:
Phone:
Signature of Lead Agency Representative:Date:
Authority cited: Section 21083, Public Resources Code. Reference: Section 21161, Public Resources Code.
4
3
2
x See Attached
2/16/2010 3/18/2010
Lamphier-Gregory OysterPointVentures,LLC
1944Embarcadero 601CaliforniaStreet,Suite1310
Oakland,CA94606 SanFrancisco,CA94108
Rebecca Gorton 415-421-8200
510-535-6690
ATTACHMENT TO OYSTER POINT BUSINESS PARK AND MARINA AREA REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AND PROJECT
PAGE 1 OF 5
Project Description -
Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Area Redevelopment Master Plan and Project
The proposed Oyster Point Redevelopment Project affects approximately 81 acres of land at the eastern
end of Oyster Point and Marina Boulevards in South San Francisco. The Project is a public private
partnership, and as proposed, it consists of:
Programmatic Master Plan (Refer to Figure 1: Project Location and Phases)
Private development including new office/research and development (R&D) buildings in the western
portion of the site;
x Demolition of existing restaurant and hotel located at 425 Marina Drive, and the light-industrial
buildings at 375-389 Oyster Point Boulevard,
x New public roadway alignment (and utility infrastructure) of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard,
x Office/R&D buildings with an FAR of up to 1.25 across the 41 acres of private land area,
x Four phases of approximately 500,000 to 600,000 square feet each,
x Each phase will include or have access to courtyards, plazas, shuttle/bus stops, and structured
parking, and
x Dedication and construction of beach front open space.
Public redevelopment including public open space, recreation fields, marina improvements, and a site
that could accommodate a future hotel at the eastern end of the site;
x Preparation of a site to accommodate a future hotel which will include up to 350 rooms and 40,000
square feet of retail/restaurant,
x New road and utility infrastructure to serve the future hotel site and Oyster Point Marina,
x A recreation field complex,
x A shuttle bus turnaround and reconfiguration of parking adjacent to the South San Francisco Ferry
Terminal,
x Improvements to the Bay Trail and surrounding open space throughout Oyster Point Marina and the
proposed office/R&D project (subject to BCDC guidelines and input),
x Enhancement (landscape and other cosmetic improvements) of existing uses at the eastern end of
Oyster Point in conjunction with required landfill cap repairs, and
x Connections to the previously permitted South San Francisco Ferry Terminal.
Phase I Project (Refer to Figure 2: Phase 1 Site Plan)
The first phase (“Phase I”) of the Project will include the development of a maximum of 600,000 square
feet of office/R&D space within three new buildings with associated structured parking on approximately
10 acres, creation of waterfront open space, construction of the recreation field complex, grading of the
future hotel site, and construction of new roads serving Oyster Point. The specific details of the Phase I
work are outlined below.
Office/R&D buildings on Developer’s Land (Private Development)
Demolition
x Phase I will include demolition of the Inn at Oyster Point, a three-story wood frame structure; two
office buildings at the Village at Oyster Point, two-story wood frame structures; and the Marine
Collection Buildings, a two-story steel structure; totaling approximately 65,000 square feet.
Demolition may begin as early as 2012. Approximately 90 percent of the demolition waste will be
reused or recycled.
ATTACHMENT TO OYSTER POINT BUSINESS PARK AND MARINA AREA REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AND PROJECT
PAGE 2 OF 5
Landfill Excavation and Grading
x The Project will include excavation of landfill materials at the Oyster Point Landfill and relocation of
these materials on- and/or off-site. In addition to this excavation and required grading, the landfill cap
will be upgraded to meet the requirements of Title 27 of the California Code of Regulations with the
approval of the Regional Water Quality Control Board and San Mateo County Environmental Health
Division.
Buildings:
x The Phase I Office/R&D buildings will occupy a site of approximately 10-acres to the south of Oyster
Point Boulevard, directly east of Gull Drive.
x Phase I will include the construction of up to 600,000 square feet of office/R&D space, including
three office/lab buildings (Buildings IA, IB and IC) and a retail/restaurant building (Building IR), as
detailed below:
x Building IA will have a maximum of 10 levels and 220,000 square feet.
x Buildings IB and IC will have a maximum of 6 levels and 190,000 square feet each.
x Building IR will have a maximum 1 level and 10,000 square feet of retail located at the plaza level.
x Associated structured parking
Open Space and Infrastructure Improvements on City’s Land (Public Redevelopment)
Roads:
x Phase I will include the reconfiguration of Marina Boulevard and a portion of Oyster Point
Boulevard.
x Utilities will be provided in the new roads and will be sized for the full build-out of all phases
including sewer, water, fire water, and a joint trench for PG&E and telecom. Storm drainage will also
be provided.
x A new shuttle turn-around will be constructed adjacent to the Ferry Terminal.
x The parking lot adjacent to the west basin of Oyster Point Marina will be reconstructed after landfill
cover improvements have been completed to access the new Marina Boulevard configuration.
Landfill Cover:
x Improvements will be constructed to update the landfill cover to current regulatory requirements
(Title 27).
Open Space/Recreation:
x Parcels to the east of the Office/R&D buildings will be graded to allow for sports fields which are to
be programmed by the City of South San Francisco.
x A waterfront site to the north and east of the Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard
intersection will be graded and landscaped.
x Off-street pedestrian paths (including new portions of the Bay Trail) will connect public and private
portions of the development.
Future Hotel Site:
x The site to the east of the sports fields will be graded to allow for a future hotel and retail complex.
On this site, the Yacht Club structure and the Harbor District garage, yard and surrounding access
roads would remain intact throughout Phase I.
So
u
r
c
e
:
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
V
e
n
t
u
r
e
s
,
L
L
C
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
I
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
Ph
a
s
e
I
Re
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
Fi
e
l
d
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
H
o
t
e
l
S
i
t
e
Op
e
n
Sp
a
c
e
N
LE
G
E
N
D
500’
10
1
38
0
SF
O
SS
F
C
a
l
t
r
a
i
n
Sa
n
B
r
u
n
o
BA
R
T
East-of-101
Do
w
n
t
o
w
n
S
S
F
Oyster Point BlvdMarina Blvd
Ea
s
t
-
o
f
-
1
0
1
A
r
e
a
M
a
p
N
LE
G
E
N
D
1/2 MI1/4 MI
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
s
ATT
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
T
O
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
BUS
I
N
E
S
S
PAR
K
A
N
D
MAR
I
N
A
ARE
A
RED
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
MAS
T
E
R
PLA
N
A
N
D
PRO
J
E
C
T
PAG
E
3 O
F
5
IC
IB
IA
IR
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
Ga
r
a
g
e
Sh
u
t
t
l
e
Tu
r
n
-
a
r
o
u
n
d
Pl
a
z
a
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
M arina Blvd
Re
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
Ya
c
h
t
C
l
u
b
a
n
d
H
D
st
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
s
t
o
r
e
m
a
i
n
af
t
e
r
P
h
a
s
e
I
~3
.
4
a
c
r
e
Wa
t
e
r
f
r
o
n
t
Si
t
e
N
Sc
o
p
e
o
f
Ph
a
s
e
I
w
o
r
k
~1
0
.
0
a
c
r
e
s
i
t
e
(D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
’
s
F
e
e
Ti
t
l
e
L
a
n
d
Ph
a
s
e
I
)
So
u
r
c
e
:
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
V
e
n
t
u
r
e
s
,
L
L
C
Fi
g
u
r
e
2
:
P
h
a
s
e
I
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
ATT
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
T
O
OYS
T
E
R
POI
N
T
BUS
I
N
E
S
S
PAR
K
A
N
D
MAR
I
N
A
ARE
A
RED
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
MAS
T
E
R
PLA
N
A
N
D
PRO
J
E
C
T
PAG
E
4 O
F
5
ATTACHMENT TO OYSTER POINT BUSINESS PARK AND MARINA AREA REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN AND PROJECT
PAGE 5 OF 5
Probable Environmental Effects -
Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Area Redevelopment Master Plan and Project
An Initial Study Checklist has not been prepared for this Notice of Preparation. A comprehensive EIR
will be prepared for the project that will address all environmental topics. Potential environmental effects
are anticipated related to visual character, regional air quality, special-status biological species and
potential wetlands, soil character and seismic risks, greenhouse gas emissions, known and potential
landfill-related hazardous materials and post-occupancy research-related use of hazardous materials,
changes in stormwater runoff and groundwater quality, temporary and permanent increases in ambient
noise, retaining acceptable public service levels and utility service systems, and increases in traffic.
APPENDIX B
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSIONS QUANTIFICATION
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
4
:
4
8
:
4
9
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
1
Fi
l
e
N
a
m
e
:
Z
:
\
I
&
R
D
o
c
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
-
1
3
2
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
S
F
\
J
a
m
e
s
U
R
B
E
M
I
S
\
S
S
F
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
P
h
a
s
e
1
r
e
v
.
u
r
b
9
2
4
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
:
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
P
h
a
s
e
I
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
A
i
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
On
-
R
o
a
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
:
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
:
E
m
f
a
c
2
0
0
7
V
2
.
3
N
o
v
1
2
0
0
6
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
:
O
F
F
R
O
A
D
2
0
0
7
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
S
u
m
m
e
r
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
(
P
o
u
n
d
s
/
D
a
y
)
Ur
b
e
m
i
s
2
0
0
7
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
9
.
2
.
4
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
4
:
4
8
:
4
9
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
2
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
D
e
t
a
i
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
S
u
m
m
e
r
P
o
u
n
d
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
,
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
TO
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
2
6
.
0
3
2
7
.
2
3
3
0
.
4
6
6
.
4
0
3
6
,
6
9
5
.
7
5
SU
M
O
F
A
R
E
A
S
O
U
R
C
E
A
N
D
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
TO
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
2
2
.
3
8
2
3
.
6
9
3
0
.
4
3
6
.
3
7
3
2
,
5
0
7
.
3
2
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
(
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
)
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
TO
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
3
.
6
5
3
.
5
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
3
4
,
1
8
8
.
4
3
AR
E
A
S
O
U
R
C
E
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
20
1
4
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
3
3
.
9
3
1
7
.
5
1
0
.
2
4
1
.
0
3
1
.
2
8
0
.
0
9
0
.
9
4
1
.
0
3
6
,
7
7
6
.
6
9
20
1
5
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
3
5
.
6
1
2
7
.
8
6
0
.
2
5
1
.
9
2
2
.
1
8
0
.
0
9
1
.
7
5
1
.
8
5
8
,
1
5
8
.
0
2
20
1
3
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
8
.
6
2
3
7
.
8
8
0
.
4
8
2
.
3
0
2
.
7
8
0
.
1
7
2
.
0
9
2
.
2
6
1
3
,
4
7
7
.
4
5
20
1
2
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
1
0
.
0
9
6
6
.
7
0
1
4
3
.
1
1
3
.
5
2
1
4
6
.
6
3
2
9
.
9
3
3
.
2
2
3
3
.
1
5
1
2
,
5
0
3
.
5
0
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
D
u
s
t
PM
1
0
E
x
h
a
u
s
t
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
D
u
s
t
PM
2
.
5
Ex
h
a
u
s
t
PM
2
.
5
CO2
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
Su
m
m
a
r
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
4
:
4
8
:
4
9
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
3
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
D
u
s
t
PM
1
0
E
x
h
a
u
s
t
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
D
u
s
t
PM
2
.
5
E
x
h
a
u
s
t
PM
2
.
5
CO2
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
3
/
2
/
2
0
1
2
-
8
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
2
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
1
3
1
5.
3
7
4
6
.
2
7
1
4
5
.
1
2
3
1
.
9
1
5
,
7
6
7
.
2
3
14
2
.
8
7
2
.
2
5
2
9
.
8
5
2
.
0
7
14
5
.
1
2
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
0
3
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
2
-
09
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
2
5.
3
7
4
6
.
2
7
31
.
9
1
5
,
7
6
7
.
2
3
14
2
.
8
7
2
.
2
5
2
9
.
8
5
2
.
0
7
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
O
n
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
6
4
9
.
6
8
0
.
0
6
0
.
3
5
0
.
4
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
3
2
0
.
3
4
1
,
7
3
2
.
4
0
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
1
7
8
.
5
6
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
D
u
s
t
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
4
2
.
8
0
0
.
0
0
1
4
2
.
8
0
2
9
.
8
2
0
.
0
0
2
9
.
8
2
0
.
0
0
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
4
.
6
8
3
6
.
5
0
0
.
0
0
1
.
8
9
1
.
8
9
0
.
0
0
1
.
7
4
1
.
7
4
3
,
8
5
6
.
2
6
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
1
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
3
/
1
/
2
0
1
2
A
c
t
i
v
e
Da
y
s
:
4
3
3.
2
7
2
5
.
8
5
4
.
8
6
2
.
0
7
2
,
8
5
6
.
2
6
3.
3
8
1
.
4
8
0
.
7
1
1
.
3
6
4.
8
6
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
0
1
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
03
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
2
3.
2
7
2
5
.
8
5
2.
0
7
2
,
8
5
6
.
2
6
3.
3
8
1
.
4
8
0
.
7
1
1
.
3
6
De
m
o
O
n
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
1
6
2
.
5
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
4
4
7
.
3
3
De
m
o
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
7
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
2
7
.
5
4
Fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
D
u
s
t
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
.
3
6
0
.
0
0
3
.
3
6
0
.
7
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
7
0
0
.
0
0
De
m
o
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
3
.
0
7
2
3
.
2
8
0
.
0
0
1
.
3
9
1
.
3
9
0
.
0
0
1
.
2
8
1
.
2
8
2
,
2
8
1
.
3
8
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
4
:
4
8
:
4
9
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
4
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
9
/
4
/
2
0
1
2
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
2
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
8
5
6.
5
5
3
5
.
7
2
2
.
2
5
1
.
9
2
8
,
5
5
2
.
9
5
0.
2
5
2
.
0
1
0
.
0
9
1
.
8
3
0.
7
4
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
0
9
/
0
4
/
2
0
1
2
-
0
3
/
0
5
/
2
0
1
3
1
.
8
4
1
5
.
3
0
0.
6
8
1
,
8
1
6
.
6
7
0.
0
0
0
.
7
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
6
8
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
2
.
0
4
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
1
.
8
0
1
5
.
2
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
7
3
0
.
7
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
6
7
0
.
6
7
1
,
7
1
4
.
6
4
1.
5
1
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
9
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
0
6
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
3
4
.
7
2
2
0
.
4
3
1.
2
4
6
,
7
3
6
.
2
7
0.
2
4
1
.
2
7
0
.
0
9
1
.
1
6
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
1
.
3
1
2
.
2
7
0
.
2
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
6
4
,
2
7
8
.
7
3
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
2
6
3
.
3
5
0
.
0
3
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
6
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
3
8
3
6
.
3
5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
3
.
1
4
1
4
.
8
1
0
.
0
0
1
.
0
4
1
.
0
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
9
5
0
.
9
5
1
,
6
2
1
.
2
0
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
9
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
9
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
A
c
t
i
v
e
Da
y
s
:
1
10
.
0
9
66
.
7
0
14
6
.
6
3
33
.
1
5
12,503.50
14
3
.
1
1
3.
5
2
29
.
9
3
3.
2
2
14
5
.
1
2
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
0
3
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
2
-
09
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
2
5.
3
7
4
6
.
2
7
31
.
9
1
5
,
7
6
7
.
2
3
14
2
.
8
7
2
.
2
5
2
9
.
8
5
2
.
0
7
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
O
n
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
6
4
9
.
6
8
0
.
0
6
0
.
3
5
0
.
4
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
3
2
0
.
3
4
1
,
7
3
2
.
4
0
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
1
7
8
.
5
6
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
D
u
s
t
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
4
2
.
8
0
0
.
0
0
1
4
2
.
8
0
2
9
.
8
2
0
.
0
0
2
9
.
8
2
0
.
0
0
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
4
.
6
8
3
6
.
5
0
0
.
0
0
1
.
8
9
1
.
8
9
0
.
0
0
1
.
7
4
1
.
7
4
3
,
8
5
6
.
2
6
1.
5
1
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
9
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
0
6
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
3
4
.
7
2
2
0
.
4
3
1.
2
4
6
,
7
3
6
.
2
7
0.
2
4
1
.
2
7
0
.
0
9
1
.
1
6
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
1
.
3
1
2
.
2
7
0
.
2
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
6
4
,
2
7
8
.
7
3
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
2
6
3
.
3
5
0
.
0
3
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
6
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
3
8
3
6
.
3
5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
3
.
1
4
1
4
.
8
1
0
.
0
0
1
.
0
4
1
.
0
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
9
5
0
.
9
5
1
,
6
2
1
.
2
0
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
4
:
4
8
:
4
9
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
5
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
3
/
6
/
2
0
1
3
-
3
/
2
9
/
2
0
1
3
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
1
8
4.
3
1
1
8
.
9
4
1
.
3
9
1
.
1
3
6
,
7
3
8
.
7
3
0.
2
4
1
.
1
5
0
.
0
9
1
.
0
5
1.
3
9
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
9
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
0
6
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
3
4
.
3
1
1
8
.
9
4
1.
1
3
6
,
7
3
8
.
7
3
0.
2
4
1
.
1
5
0
.
0
9
1
.
0
5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
1
.
1
9
2
.
0
6
0
.
2
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
6
4
,
2
8
1
.
1
3
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
2
4
2
.
9
8
0
.
0
3
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
4
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
1
8
3
6
.
4
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
2
.
8
8
1
3
.
9
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
9
3
0
.
9
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
8
6
0
.
8
6
1
,
6
2
1
.
2
0
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
1
/
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
3
/
5
/
2
0
1
3
A
c
t
i
v
e
Da
y
s
:
4
6
6.
0
5
3
3
.
1
1
2
.
0
8
1
.
7
6
8
,
5
5
5
.
4
6
0.
2
5
1
.
8
3
0
.
0
9
1
.
6
7
0.
6
8
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
0
9
/
0
4
/
2
0
1
2
-
0
3
/
0
5
/
2
0
1
3
1
.
7
4
1
4
.
1
7
0.
6
3
1
,
8
1
6
.
7
3
0.
0
0
0
.
6
8
0
.
0
0
0
.
6
3
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
0
2
.
0
9
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
1
.
7
2
1
4
.
1
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
6
8
0
.
6
8
0
.
0
0
0
.
6
2
0
.
6
2
1
,
7
1
4
.
6
4
1.
3
9
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
9
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
0
6
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
3
4
.
3
1
1
8
.
9
4
1.
1
3
6
,
7
3
8
.
7
3
0.
2
4
1
.
1
5
0
.
0
9
1
.
0
5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
1
.
1
9
2
.
0
6
0
.
2
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
6
4
,
2
8
1
.
1
3
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
2
4
2
.
9
8
0
.
0
3
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
4
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
1
8
3
6
.
4
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
2
.
8
8
1
3
.
9
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
9
3
0
.
9
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
8
6
0
.
8
6
1
,
6
2
1
.
2
0
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
4
/
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
6
/
3
/
2
0
1
3
A
c
t
i
v
e
Da
y
s
:
4
6
8.
6
2
37
.
8
8
2.
7
8
2.
2
6
13,477.45
0.
4
8
2.
3
0
0.
1
7
2.
0
9
1.
3
9
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
9
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
0
6
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
3
4
.
3
1
1
8
.
9
4
1.
1
3
6
,
7
3
8
.
7
3
0.
2
4
1
.
1
5
0
.
0
9
1
.
0
5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
1
.
1
9
2
.
0
6
0
.
2
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
6
4
,
2
8
1
.
1
3
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
2
4
2
.
9
8
0
.
0
3
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
4
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
1
8
3
6
.
4
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
2
.
8
8
1
3
.
9
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
9
3
0
.
9
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
8
6
0
.
8
6
1
,
6
2
1
.
2
0
1.
3
9
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
4
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
4
.
3
1
1
8
.
9
4
1.
1
3
6
,
7
3
8
.
7
3
0.
2
4
1
.
1
5
0
.
0
9
1
.
0
5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
1
.
1
9
2
.
0
6
0
.
2
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
6
4
,
2
8
1
.
1
3
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
2
4
2
.
9
8
0
.
0
3
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
4
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
1
8
3
6
.
4
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
2
.
8
8
1
3
.
9
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
9
3
0
.
9
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
8
6
0
.
8
6
1
,
6
2
1
.
2
0
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
4
:
4
8
:
4
9
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
6
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
8
/
1
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
4
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
1
0
9
33
.
9
3
17
.
5
1
1.
2
8
1.
0
3
6,776.69
0.
2
4
1.
0
3
0.
0
9
0.
9
4
0.
0
0
Co
a
t
i
n
g
0
8
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
2
0.
0
0
3
5
.
7
5
0.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
Co
a
t
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
5
.
7
5
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
2
9
.
9
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1.
2
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
4
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
3
.
9
3
1
7
.
4
9
1.
0
2
6
,
7
4
0
.
9
4
0.
2
4
1
.
0
3
0
.
0
9
0
.
9
4
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
1
.
0
8
1
.
8
7
0
.
2
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
6
4
,
2
8
3
.
2
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
2
2
2
.
6
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
3
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
0
8
3
6
.
4
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
2
.
6
3
1
2
.
9
7
0
.
0
0
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
7
6
0
.
7
6
1
,
6
2
1
.
2
0
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
6
/
4
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
3
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
1
5
1
4.
3
1
1
8
.
9
4
1
.
3
9
1
.
1
3
6
,
7
3
8
.
7
3
0.
2
4
1
.
1
5
0
.
0
9
1
.
0
5
1.
3
9
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
4
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
4
.
3
1
1
8
.
9
4
1.
1
3
6
,
7
3
8
.
7
3
0.
2
4
1
.
1
5
0
.
0
9
1
.
0
5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
1
.
1
9
2
.
0
6
0
.
2
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
6
4
,
2
8
1
.
1
3
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
2
4
2
.
9
8
0
.
0
3
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
4
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
1
8
3
6
.
4
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
2
.
8
8
1
3
.
9
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
9
3
0
.
9
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
8
6
0
.
8
6
1
,
6
2
1
.
2
0
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
1
/
1
/
2
0
1
4
-
7
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
4
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
1
5
2
3.
9
3
1
7
.
4
9
1
.
2
7
1
.
0
2
6
,
7
4
0
.
9
4
0.
2
4
1
.
0
3
0
.
0
9
0
.
9
4
1.
2
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
4
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
3
.
9
3
1
7
.
4
9
1.
0
2
6
,
7
4
0
.
9
4
0.
2
4
1
.
0
3
0
.
0
9
0
.
9
4
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
1
.
0
8
1
.
8
7
0
.
2
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
6
4
,
2
8
3
.
2
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
2
2
2
.
6
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
3
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
0
8
3
6
.
4
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
2
.
6
3
1
2
.
9
7
0
.
0
0
0
.
8
2
0
.
8
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
7
6
0
.
7
6
1
,
6
2
1
.
2
0
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
4
:
4
8
:
4
9
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
7
Ph
a
s
e
:
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
1
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
3
/
1
/
2
0
1
2
-
D
e
m
o
5
0
k
s
f
Ph
a
s
e
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
4
/
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
1
9
7
35
.
6
1
27
.
8
6
2.
1
8
1.
8
5
8,158.02
0.
2
5
1.
9
2
0.
0
9
1.
7
5
0.
0
0
Co
a
t
i
n
g
0
8
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0.
0
0
3
5
.
7
6
0.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
Co
a
t
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
5
.
7
6
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
2
9
.
9
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1.
2
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
4
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
3
.
5
8
1
6
.
0
9
0.
9
6
6
,
7
4
2
.
7
1
0.
2
4
0
.
9
6
0
.
0
9
0
.
8
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
9
7
1
.
7
1
0
.
2
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
6
4
,
2
8
4
.
9
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
2
1
2
.
3
5
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
8
3
6
.
5
5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
2
.
4
0
1
2
.
0
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
7
6
0
.
7
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
7
0
0
.
7
0
1
,
6
2
1
.
2
0
0.
9
7
As
p
h
a
l
t
0
4
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
2
.
0
3
1
1
.
7
6
0.
8
9
1
,
3
7
9
.
5
4
0.
0
1
0
.
9
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
8
8
Pa
v
i
n
g
O
n
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
7
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
4
3
.
2
6
Pa
v
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
2
0
4
.
3
7
Pa
v
i
n
g
O
f
f
-
G
a
s
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
Pa
v
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
1
.
8
8
1
1
.
5
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
9
5
0
.
9
5
0
.
0
0
0
.
8
7
0
.
8
7
1
,
1
3
1
.
9
2
Ti
m
e
S
l
i
c
e
1
/
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
3
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
Ac
t
i
v
e
D
a
y
s
:
6
4
33
.
5
8
1
6
.
1
1
1
.
2
0
0
.
9
6
6
,
7
7
8
.
4
8
0.
2
4
0
.
9
6
0
.
0
9
0
.
8
7
0.
0
0
Co
a
t
i
n
g
0
8
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0.
0
0
3
5
.
7
6
0.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
Co
a
t
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
3
5
.
7
6
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
2
9
.
9
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1.
2
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
4
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
3
.
5
8
1
6
.
0
9
0.
9
6
6
,
7
4
2
.
7
1
0.
2
4
0
.
9
6
0
.
0
9
0
.
8
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
9
7
1
.
7
1
0
.
2
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
6
4
,
2
8
4
.
9
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
2
1
2
.
3
5
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
9
0
.
1
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
9
8
3
6
.
5
5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
2
.
4
0
1
2
.
0
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
7
6
0
.
7
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
7
0
0
.
7
0
1
,
6
2
1
.
2
0
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
4
:
4
8
:
4
9
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
8
1
W
a
t
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
(
1
8
9
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
Ph
a
s
e
:
T
r
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
9
/
4
/
2
0
1
2
-
3
/
5
/
2
0
1
3
-
F
i
n
s
s
i
t
e
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
i
t
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
P
l
a
t
e
C
o
m
p
a
c
t
o
r
s
(
1
0
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
7
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
G
r
a
d
e
r
s
(
1
7
4
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
6
1
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
2
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
(
1
0
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
7
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
R
u
b
b
e
r
T
i
r
e
d
D
o
z
e
r
s
(
3
5
7
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
9
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Ac
r
e
s
t
o
b
e
P
a
v
e
d
:
7
.
1
4
Ph
a
s
e
:
P
a
v
i
n
g
4
/
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
P
a
v
i
n
g
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
1
O
t
h
e
r
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
(
2
3
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
1
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
2
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
(
1
6
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
7
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
(
1
0
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
0
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
R
u
b
b
e
r
T
i
r
e
d
D
o
z
e
r
s
(
3
5
7
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
9
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
/
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
S
a
w
s
(
1
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
7
3
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
3
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
(
1
0
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
D
a
i
l
y
(
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
)
:
8
0
0
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
T
o
t
a
l
(
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
)
:
9
.
8
E
+
0
8
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
On
R
o
a
d
T
r
u
c
k
T
r
a
v
e
l
(
V
M
T
)
:
1
1
1
.
1
1
On
R
o
a
d
T
r
u
c
k
T
r
a
v
e
l
(
V
M
T
)
:
4
3
0
.
3
20
l
b
s
p
e
r
a
c
r
e
-
d
a
y
1
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
(
1
6
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
7
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
To
t
a
l
A
c
r
e
s
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
:
2
8
.
5
8
Ph
a
s
e
:
M
a
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
3
/
2
/
2
0
1
2
-
9
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
M
a
s
s
S
i
t
e
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
T
r
a
s
h
R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
D
u
s
t
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
D
e
t
a
i
l
:
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
D
a
i
l
y
A
c
r
e
a
g
e
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
:
7
.
1
4
Tr
u
c
k
t
r
a
v
e
l
inc
l
u
d
e
s
r
o
u
n
d
t
r
ipd
ist
a
n
c
e
o
f
0
.
5
m
ile
o
n
-
s
ite
an
d
8
0
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
f
s
i
t
e
h
a
u
l
i
n
g
,
w
h
e
r
e
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
y
d
*
*
3
h
a
u
l
e
d
o
n
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
10
,
0
0
0
y
d
*
*
3
h
a
u
l
e
d
o
f
f
s
i
t
e
t
o
d
i
s
t
a
n
t
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
4
:
4
8
:
4
9
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
9
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
S
e
t
s
(
4
9
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
7
4
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
(
1
0
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
3
W
e
l
d
e
r
s
(
4
5
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
4
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
2
F
o
r
k
l
i
f
t
s
(
1
4
5
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
3
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
6
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Ph
a
s
e
:
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
/
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
/
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
1
C
r
a
n
e
s
(
3
9
9
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
4
3
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
6
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Ru
l
e
:
N
o
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
n
s
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
e
n
d
s
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
4
0
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
2
5
0
Ru
l
e
:
N
o
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
n
s
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
e
n
d
s
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
4
0
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
2
5
0
Ru
l
e
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
n
s
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
e
n
d
s
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
4
0
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
2
5
0
Ph
a
s
e
:
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
8
/
1
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
Ru
l
e
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
n
s
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
e
n
d
s
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
4
0
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
2
5
0
1
R
o
l
l
e
r
s
(
9
5
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
6
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
7
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Ph
a
s
e
:
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
9
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
6
/
3
/
2
0
1
3
-
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
2
P
a
v
i
n
g
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
(
1
0
4
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
3
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
6
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
4
C
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
M
o
r
t
a
r
M
i
x
e
r
s
(
1
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
6
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
6
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
P
a
v
e
r
s
(
1
0
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
6
2
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
7
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
(
1
0
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
3
W
e
l
d
e
r
s
(
4
5
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
4
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
S
e
t
s
(
4
9
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
7
4
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
1
C
r
a
n
e
s
(
3
9
9
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
4
3
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
6
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
2
F
o
r
k
l
i
f
t
s
(
1
4
5
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
3
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
6
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
4
:
4
8
:
4
9
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
1
0
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
S
u
m
m
e
r
P
o
u
n
d
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
,
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Of
f
i
c
e
p
a
r
k
20
.
5
3
21
.
3
8
27
.
4
8
5.
7
5
29
,
3
7
5
.
1
2
Ci
t
y
p
a
r
k
0.
0
7
0.
0
4
0.
0
5
0.
0
1
54
.
8
9
St
r
i
p
m
a
l
l
1.
7
8
2.
2
7
2.
9
0
0.
6
1
3,
0
7
7
.
3
1
TO
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
22
.
3
8
23
.
6
9
30
.
4
3
6.
3
7
32
,
5
0
7
.
3
2
So
u
r
c
e
RO
G
N
O
X
P
M
1
0
P
M
2
5
C
O
2
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
D
e
t
a
i
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
3.
0
3
Co
n
s
u
m
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
0.
0
0
He
a
r
t
h
-
N
o
S
u
m
m
e
r
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
0.
3
7
0.
0
6
0.
0
2
0.
0
2
8.
4
3
Na
t
u
r
a
l
G
a
s
0.
2
5
3.
4
8
0.
0
1
0.
0
1
4,
1
8
0
.
0
0
TO
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
3.
6
5
3.
5
4
0.
0
3
0.
0
3
4,
1
8
8
.
4
3
So
u
r
c
e
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
AR
E
A
S
O
U
R
C
E
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
S
u
m
m
e
r
P
o
u
n
d
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
,
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Ar
e
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
D
e
t
a
i
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
Do
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
p
a
s
s
b
y
t
r
i
p
s
Do
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
o
u
b
l
e
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
t
r
i
p
s
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
:
Ar
e
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
s
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
4
:
4
8
:
4
9
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
1
1
He
a
v
y
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
3
3
,
0
0
1
-
6
0
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
0
.
4
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Me
d
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
1
4
,
0
0
1
-
3
3
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
1
.
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
Mo
t
o
r
H
o
m
e
0
.
6
0
.
0
8
3
.
3
1
6
.
7
Ot
h
e
r
B
u
s
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Sc
h
o
o
l
B
u
s
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Mo
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e
3
.
2
5
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
0
.
0
Ur
b
a
n
B
u
s
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Li
g
h
t
T
r
u
c
k
<
3
7
5
0
l
b
s
1
2
.
7
0
.
8
9
6
.
8
2
.
4
Li
g
h
t
A
u
t
o
5
3
.
8
0
.
2
9
9
.
6
0
.
2
Li
t
e
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
1
0
,
0
0
1
-
1
4
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
0
.
6
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
Li
t
e
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
8
5
0
1
-
1
0
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
0
.
9
0
.
0
7
7
.
8
2
2
.
2
Me
d
T
r
u
c
k
5
7
5
1
-
8
5
0
0
l
b
s
6
.
6
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
Li
g
h
t
T
r
u
c
k
3
7
5
1
-
5
7
5
0
l
b
s
1
9
.
9
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
F
l
e
e
t
M
i
x
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
T
y
p
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
T
y
p
e
N
o
n
-
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
D
i
e
s
e
l
St
r
i
p
m
a
l
l
4
3
.
1
9
1
0
0
0
s
q
f
t
1
0
.
0
0
4
3
1
.
9
0
3
,
1
9
3
.
0
4
Of
f
i
c
e
p
a
r
k
7
.
1
0
1
0
0
0
s
q
f
t
5
0
8
.
0
0
3
,
6
0
6
.
8
0
3
0
,
2
3
2
.
2
0
Ci
t
y
p
a
r
k
1
.
5
9
a
c
r
e
s
4
.
8
0
7
.
6
3
5
6
.
9
2
4,
0
4
6
.
3
3
3
3
,
4
8
2
.
1
6
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
s
La
n
d
U
s
e
T
y
p
e
A
c
r
e
a
g
e
T
r
i
p
R
a
t
e
U
n
i
t
T
y
p
e
N
o
.
U
n
i
t
s
T
o
t
a
l
T
r
i
p
s
T
o
t
a
l
V
M
T
Em
f
a
c
:
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
:
E
m
f
a
c
2
0
0
7
V
2
.
3
N
o
v
1
2
0
0
6
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
Y
e
a
r
:
2
0
1
5
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
F
)
:
8
5
S
e
a
s
o
n
:
S
u
m
m
e
r
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
4
:
4
8
:
4
9
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
1
2
%
o
f
T
r
i
p
s
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
3
2
.
9
1
8
.
0
4
9
.
1
%
o
f
T
r
i
p
s
-
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(
b
y
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
)
St
r
i
p
m
a
l
l
2.
0
1
.
0
9
7
.
0
Ci
t
y
p
a
r
k
5.
0
2
.
5
9
2
.
5
Of
f
i
c
e
p
a
r
k
48
.
0
2
4
.
0
2
8
.
0
Tr
i
p
s
p
e
e
d
s
(
m
p
h
)
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
Ur
b
a
n
T
r
i
p
L
e
n
g
t
h
(
m
i
l
e
s
)
1
0
.
8
7
.
3
7
.
5
9
.
5
7
.
4
7
.
4
Ru
r
a
l
T
r
i
p
L
e
n
g
t
h
(
m
i
l
e
s
)
1
6
.
8
7
.
1
7
.
9
1
4
.
7
6
.
6
6
.
6
Tr
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Ho
m
e
-
W
o
r
k
H
o
m
e
-
S
h
o
p
H
o
m
e
-
O
t
h
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
N
o
n
-
W
o
r
k
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
5
:
0
5
:
1
6
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
1
Fi
l
e
N
a
m
e
:
Z
:
\
I
&
R
D
o
c
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
-
1
3
2
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
S
F
\
J
a
m
e
s
U
R
B
E
M
I
S
\
S
S
F
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
P
h
a
s
e
1
r
e
v
.
u
r
b
9
2
4
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
:
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
P
h
a
s
e
I
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
A
i
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
On
-
R
o
a
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
:
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
:
E
m
f
a
c
2
0
0
7
V
2
.
3
N
o
v
1
2
0
0
6
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
:
O
F
F
R
O
A
D
2
0
0
7
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
A
n
n
u
a
l
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
(
T
o
n
s
/
Y
e
a
r
)
Ur
b
e
m
i
s
2
0
0
7
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
9
.
2
.
4
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
5
:
0
5
:
1
6
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
2
Co
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
D
e
t
a
i
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
A
n
n
u
a
l
T
o
n
s
P
e
r
Y
e
a
r
,
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
TO
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
4
.
6
9
5
.
6
8
5
.
5
6
1
.
1
6
6
,
4
2
4
.
7
7
SU
M
O
F
A
R
E
A
S
O
U
R
C
E
A
N
D
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
TO
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
4
.
0
6
5
.
0
3
5
.
5
6
1
.
1
6
5
,
6
6
1
.
1
6
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
(
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
)
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
TO
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
0
.
6
3
0
.
6
5
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
7
6
3
.
6
1
AR
E
A
S
O
U
R
C
E
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
20
1
4
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
2
.
1
5
2
.
2
8
0
.
0
3
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
7
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
2
0
.
1
3
8
8
1
.
6
4
20
1
5
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
4
.
5
8
3
.
2
6
0
.
0
3
0
.
2
2
0
.
2
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
2
0
0
.
2
1
1
,
0
2
0
.
4
8
20
1
3
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
0
.
7
0
3
.
2
3
0
.
0
4
0
.
1
9
0
.
2
3
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
7
0
.
1
9
1
,
0
7
6
.
1
8
20
1
2
T
O
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
0
.
7
1
5
.
1
4
9
.
5
1
0
.
2
7
9
.
7
8
1
.
9
9
0
.
2
4
2
.
2
3
8
0
8
.
9
2
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
D
u
s
t
PM
1
0
E
x
h
a
u
s
t
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
D
u
s
t
PM
2
.
5
Ex
h
a
u
s
t
PM
2
.
5
CO2
CO
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
Su
m
m
a
r
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
5
:
0
5
:
1
6
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
3
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
D
u
s
t
PM
1
0
E
x
h
a
u
s
t
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
D
u
s
t
PM
2
.
5
E
x
h
a
u
s
t
PM
2
.
5
CO2
20
1
2
0
.
7
1
5
.
1
4
9
.
7
8
2
.
2
3
8
0
8
.
9
2
9.
5
1
0
.
2
7
1
.
9
9
0
.
2
4
0.
0
6
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
9
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
0
6
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
3
0
.
2
0
0
.
8
8
0.
0
5
2
8
9
.
6
6
0.
0
1
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
5
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
6
0
.
1
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
1
8
3
.
9
9
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
3
5
.
9
6
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
1
3
0
.
6
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
4
6
9
.
7
1
0.
0
3
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
0
9
/
0
4
/
2
0
1
2
-
0
3
/
0
5
/
2
0
1
3
0
.
0
8
0
.
6
5
0.
0
3
7
7
.
2
1
0.
0
0
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
3
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
4
.
3
4
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
0
8
0
.
6
5
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
3
7
2
.
8
7
0.
1
0
De
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
0
1
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
03
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
2
0.
0
7
0
.
5
6
0.
0
4
6
1
.
4
1
0.
0
7
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
3
De
m
o
O
n
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
9
.
6
2
De
m
o
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
.
7
4
Fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
D
u
s
t
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
0
5
.
8
0
0
.
0
0
2
0
5
.
8
0
4
2
.
8
1
0
.
0
0
4
2
.
8
1
0
.
0
0
De
m
o
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
0
7
0
.
5
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
3
4
9
.
0
5
9.
5
8
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
0
3
/
0
2
/
2
0
1
2
-
09
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
2
0.
3
5
3
.
0
5
2.
1
1
3
8
0
.
6
4
9.
4
3
0
.
1
5
1
.
9
7
0
.
1
4
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
O
n
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
0
4
0
.
6
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
2
1
1
4
.
3
4
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
1
.
7
9
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
D
u
s
t
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
9
.
4
2
0
.
0
0
9
.
4
2
1
.
9
7
0
.
0
0
1
.
9
7
0
.
0
0
Ma
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
3
1
2
.
4
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
1
3
0
.
1
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
1
2
0
.
1
2
2
5
4
.
5
1
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
5
:
0
5
:
1
6
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
4
20
1
4
2
.
1
5
2
.
2
8
0
.
1
7
0
.
1
3
8
8
1
.
6
4
0.
0
3
0
.
1
3
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
2
0.
0
0
Co
a
t
i
n
g
0
8
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
1
.
6
3
0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
1
.
9
5
0.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
Co
a
t
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
1
.
9
5
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
1
.
6
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
1
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
4
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
0
.
5
1
2
.
2
8
0.
1
3
8
7
9
.
6
9
0.
0
3
0
.
1
3
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
2
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
1
4
0
.
2
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
5
5
8
.
9
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
3
0
.
3
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
1
0
9
.
1
6
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
3
4
1
.
6
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
1
1
0
.
1
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
0
2
1
1
.
5
7
20
1
3
0
.
7
0
3
.
2
3
0
.
2
3
0
.
1
9
1
,
0
7
6
.
1
8
0.
0
4
0
.
1
9
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
7
0.
1
4
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
4
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
0
.
4
2
1
.
8
7
0.
1
1
6
6
3
.
7
6
0.
0
2
0
.
1
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
1
2
0
.
2
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
4
2
1
.
6
9
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
2
0
.
2
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
8
2
.
3
9
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
2
8
1
.
3
7
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
8
1
5
9
.
6
9
0.
0
2
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
0
9
/
0
4
/
2
0
1
2
-
0
3
/
0
5
/
2
0
1
3
0
.
0
4
0
.
3
3
0.
0
1
4
1
.
7
8
0.
0
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
.
3
5
Tr
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
0
4
0
.
3
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
3
9
.
4
4
0.
0
8
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
9
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
0
6
/
0
3
/
2
0
1
3
0
.
2
4
1
.
0
4
0.
0
6
3
7
0
.
6
3
0.
0
1
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
6
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
7
0
.
1
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
2
3
5
.
4
6
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
4
6
.
0
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
1
6
0
.
7
6
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
5
8
9
.
1
7
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
5
:
0
5
:
1
6
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
5
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
On
R
o
a
d
T
r
u
c
k
T
r
a
v
e
l
(
V
M
T
)
:
1
1
1
.
1
1
1
R
u
b
b
e
r
T
i
r
e
d
D
o
z
e
r
s
(
3
5
7
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
9
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
C
o
n
c
r
e
t
e
/
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
S
a
w
s
(
1
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
7
3
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Ph
a
s
e
:
D
e
m
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
1
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
3
/
1
/
2
0
1
2
-
D
e
m
o
5
0
k
s
f
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
D
a
i
l
y
(
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
)
:
8
0
0
0
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
o
l
u
m
e
T
o
t
a
l
(
c
u
b
i
c
f
e
e
t
)
:
9
.
8
E
+
0
8
3
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
(
1
0
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
To
t
a
l
A
c
r
e
s
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
:
2
8
.
5
8
Ph
a
s
e
:
M
a
s
s
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
3
/
2
/
2
0
1
2
-
9
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
M
a
s
s
S
i
t
e
G
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
T
r
a
s
h
R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
Ph
a
s
e
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
20
1
5
4
.
5
8
3
.
2
6
0
.
2
5
0
.
2
1
1
,
0
2
0
.
4
8
0.
0
3
0
.
2
2
0
.
0
1
0
.
2
0
0.
1
0
As
p
h
a
l
t
0
4
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
0
.
2
0
1
.
1
6
0.
0
9
1
3
5
.
8
8
0.
0
0
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
9
Pa
v
i
n
g
O
n
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
4
.
2
6
Pa
v
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
1
3
Pa
v
i
n
g
O
f
f
-
G
a
s
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
Pa
v
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
1
8
1
.
1
3
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
9
1
1
1
.
4
9
0.
0
0
Co
a
t
i
n
g
0
8
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
3
.
9
1
0
.
0
0
0.
0
0
4
.
6
7
0.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
Co
a
t
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
4
.
6
7
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
3
.
9
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
0.
1
6
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
0
4
/
0
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
0
.
4
7
2
.
1
0
0.
1
3
8
7
9
.
9
2
0.
0
3
0
.
1
3
0
.
0
1
0
.
1
1
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
W
o
r
k
e
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
1
3
0
.
2
2
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
5
5
9
.
1
9
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
V
e
n
d
o
r
T
r
i
p
s
0
.
0
3
0
.
3
1
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
1
0
9
.
1
7
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
O
f
f
R
o
a
d
D
i
e
s
e
l
0
.
3
1
1
.
5
7
0
.
0
0
0
.
1
0
0
.
1
0
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
9
0
.
0
9
2
1
1
.
5
7
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
5
:
0
5
:
1
7
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
6
4
C
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
M
o
r
t
a
r
M
i
x
e
r
s
(
1
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
6
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
6
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
2
P
a
v
i
n
g
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
(
1
0
4
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
3
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
6
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
P
a
v
e
r
s
(
1
0
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
6
2
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
7
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
(
1
0
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
0
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Ac
r
e
s
t
o
b
e
P
a
v
e
d
:
7
.
1
4
Ph
a
s
e
:
P
a
v
i
n
g
4
/
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
P
a
v
i
n
g
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
2
F
o
r
k
l
i
f
t
s
(
1
4
5
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
3
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
6
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
C
r
a
n
e
s
(
3
9
9
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
4
3
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
6
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
R
o
l
l
e
r
s
(
9
5
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
6
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
7
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
Ph
a
s
e
:
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
9
/
3
/
2
0
1
2
-
6
/
3
/
2
0
1
3
-
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
1
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
(
1
6
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
7
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
1
P
l
a
t
e
C
o
m
p
a
c
t
o
r
s
(
1
0
0
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
7
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
G
r
a
d
e
r
s
(
1
7
4
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
6
1
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Fu
g
i
t
i
v
e
D
u
s
t
L
e
v
e
l
o
f
D
e
t
a
i
l
:
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
D
a
i
l
y
A
c
r
e
a
g
e
D
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
:
7
.
1
4
On
R
o
a
d
T
r
u
c
k
T
r
a
v
e
l
(
V
M
T
)
:
4
3
0
.
3
20
l
b
s
p
e
r
a
c
r
e
-
d
a
y
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
Ph
a
s
e
:
T
r
e
n
c
h
i
n
g
9
/
4
/
2
0
1
2
-
3
/
5
/
2
0
1
3
-
F
i
n
s
s
i
t
e
g
r
a
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
i
t
e
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
s
1
O
t
h
e
r
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
(
2
3
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
1
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
2
E
x
c
a
v
a
t
o
r
s
(
1
6
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
7
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
2
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
(
1
0
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
7
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
R
u
b
b
e
r
T
i
r
e
d
D
o
z
e
r
s
(
3
5
7
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
9
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
W
a
t
e
r
T
r
u
c
k
s
(
1
8
9
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Tr
u
c
k
t
r
a
v
e
l
inc
l
u
d
e
s
r
o
u
n
d
t
r
ipd
ist
a
n
c
e
o
f
0
.
5
m
ile
o
n
-
s
ite
an
d
8
0
m
i
l
e
s
o
f
f
s
i
t
e
h
a
u
l
i
n
g
,
w
h
e
r
e
1
1
0
,
0
0
0
y
d
*
*
3
h
a
u
l
e
d
o
n
s
i
t
e
a
n
d
10
,
0
0
0
y
d
*
*
3
h
a
u
l
e
d
o
f
f
s
i
t
e
t
o
d
i
s
t
a
n
t
l
a
n
d
f
i
l
l
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
5
:
0
5
:
1
7
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
7
Ph
a
s
e
:
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
8
/
1
/
2
0
1
4
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
1
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
(
1
0
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
3
W
e
l
d
e
r
s
(
4
5
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
4
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Ru
l
e
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
n
s
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
e
n
d
s
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
4
0
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
2
5
0
Ru
l
e
:
N
o
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
n
s
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
e
n
d
s
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
4
0
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
2
5
0
Ru
l
e
:
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
n
s
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
e
n
d
s
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
4
0
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
2
5
0
Ru
l
e
:
N
o
n
r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
I
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
b
e
g
i
n
s
1
/
1
/
2
0
0
5
e
n
d
s
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
4
0
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
e
s
a
V
O
C
o
f
2
5
0
3
W
e
l
d
e
r
s
(
4
5
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
4
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
S
e
t
s
(
4
9
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
7
4
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
/
L
o
a
d
e
r
s
/
B
a
c
k
h
o
e
s
(
1
0
8
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
5
5
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Ph
a
s
e
:
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
4
/
1
/
2
0
1
3
-
1
2
/
3
1
/
2
0
1
5
-
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
-
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
/
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
2
F
o
r
k
l
i
f
t
s
(
1
4
5
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
3
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
6
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
o
r
S
e
t
s
(
4
9
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
7
4
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
8
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
:
1
C
r
a
n
e
s
(
3
9
9
h
p
)
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
n
g
a
t
a
0
.
4
3
l
o
a
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
f
o
r
6
h
o
u
r
s
p
e
r
d
a
y
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
5
:
0
5
:
1
7
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
8
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
A
n
n
u
a
l
T
o
n
s
P
e
r
Y
e
a
r
,
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Of
f
i
c
e
p
a
r
k
3.
7
0
4.
5
4
5.
0
2
1.
0
5
5,
1
1
5
.
8
8
Ci
t
y
p
a
r
k
0.
0
1
0.
0
1
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
9.
5
6
St
r
i
p
m
a
l
l
0.
3
5
0.
4
8
0.
5
3
0.
1
1
53
5
.
7
2
TO
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
4.
0
6
5.
0
3
5.
5
6
1.
1
6
5,
6
6
1
.
1
6
So
u
r
c
e
RO
G
N
O
X
P
M
1
0
P
M
2
5
C
O
2
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
D
e
t
a
i
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
0.
5
5
Co
n
s
u
m
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
0.
0
0
He
a
r
t
h
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
0.
0
3
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
7
6
Na
t
u
r
a
l
G
a
s
0.
0
5
0.
6
4
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
76
2
.
8
5
TO
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
0.
6
3
0.
6
5
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
76
3
.
6
1
So
u
r
c
e
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
AR
E
A
S
O
U
R
C
E
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
A
n
n
u
a
l
T
o
n
s
P
e
r
Y
e
a
r
,
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Ar
e
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
D
e
t
a
i
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
Do
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
p
a
s
s
b
y
t
r
i
p
s
Do
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
o
u
b
l
e
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
t
r
i
p
s
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
:
Ar
e
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
s
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
5
:
0
5
:
1
7
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
9
He
a
v
y
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
3
3
,
0
0
1
-
6
0
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
0
.
4
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Me
d
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
1
4
,
0
0
1
-
3
3
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
1
.
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
Mo
t
o
r
H
o
m
e
0
.
6
0
.
0
8
3
.
3
1
6
.
7
Ot
h
e
r
B
u
s
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Sc
h
o
o
l
B
u
s
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Mo
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e
3
.
2
5
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
0
.
0
Ur
b
a
n
B
u
s
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Li
g
h
t
T
r
u
c
k
<
3
7
5
0
l
b
s
1
2
.
7
0
.
8
9
6
.
8
2
.
4
Li
g
h
t
A
u
t
o
5
3
.
8
0
.
2
9
9
.
6
0
.
2
Li
t
e
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
1
0
,
0
0
1
-
1
4
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
0
.
6
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
Li
t
e
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
8
5
0
1
-
1
0
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
0
.
9
0
.
0
7
7
.
8
2
2
.
2
Me
d
T
r
u
c
k
5
7
5
1
-
8
5
0
0
l
b
s
6
.
6
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
Li
g
h
t
T
r
u
c
k
3
7
5
1
-
5
7
5
0
l
b
s
1
9
.
9
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
F
l
e
e
t
M
i
x
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
T
y
p
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
T
y
p
e
N
o
n
-
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
D
i
e
s
e
l
St
r
i
p
m
a
l
l
4
3
.
1
9
1
0
0
0
s
q
f
t
1
0
.
0
0
4
3
1
.
9
0
3
,
1
9
3
.
0
4
Of
f
i
c
e
p
a
r
k
7
.
1
0
1
0
0
0
s
q
f
t
5
0
8
.
0
0
3
,
6
0
6
.
8
0
3
0
,
2
3
2
.
2
0
Ci
t
y
p
a
r
k
1
.
5
9
a
c
r
e
s
4
.
8
0
7
.
6
3
5
6
.
9
2
4,
0
4
6
.
3
3
3
3
,
4
8
2
.
1
6
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
s
La
n
d
U
s
e
T
y
p
e
A
c
r
e
a
g
e
T
r
i
p
R
a
t
e
U
n
i
t
T
y
p
e
N
o
.
U
n
i
t
s
T
o
t
a
l
T
r
i
p
s
T
o
t
a
l
V
M
T
Em
f
a
c
:
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
:
E
m
f
a
c
2
0
0
7
V
2
.
3
N
o
v
1
2
0
0
6
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
Y
e
a
r
:
2
0
1
5
S
e
a
s
o
n
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
1/
2
0
/
2
0
1
1
5
:
0
5
:
1
7
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
1
0
%
o
f
T
r
i
p
s
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
3
2
.
9
1
8
.
0
4
9
.
1
%
o
f
T
r
i
p
s
-
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(
b
y
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
)
St
r
i
p
m
a
l
l
2.
0
1
.
0
9
7
.
0
Ci
t
y
p
a
r
k
5.
0
2
.
5
9
2
.
5
Of
f
i
c
e
p
a
r
k
48
.
0
2
4
.
0
2
8
.
0
Tr
i
p
s
p
e
e
d
s
(
m
p
h
)
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
Ur
b
a
n
T
r
i
p
L
e
n
g
t
h
(
m
i
l
e
s
)
1
0
.
8
7
.
3
7
.
5
9
.
5
7
.
4
7
.
4
Ru
r
a
l
T
r
i
p
L
e
n
g
t
h
(
m
i
l
e
s
)
1
6
.
8
7
.
1
7
.
9
1
4
.
7
6
.
6
6
.
6
Tr
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Ho
m
e
-
W
o
r
k
H
o
m
e
-
S
h
o
p
H
o
m
e
-
O
t
h
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
N
o
n
-
W
o
r
k
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
10
/
7
/
2
0
1
0
3
:
0
5
:
0
7
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
1
Fi
l
e
N
a
m
e
:
Z
:
\
I
&
R
D
o
c
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
-
1
3
2
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
S
F
\
J
a
m
e
s
U
R
B
E
M
I
S
\
S
S
F
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
U
s
e
s
t
o
b
e
R
e
m
o
v
e
d
.
u
r
b
9
2
4
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
:
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
s
e
s
t
o
B
e
R
e
m
o
v
e
d
b
v
y
2
0
3
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
A
i
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
On
-
R
o
a
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
:
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
:
E
m
f
a
c
2
0
0
7
V
2
.
3
N
o
v
1
2
0
0
6
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
:
O
F
F
R
O
A
D
2
0
0
7
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
S
u
m
m
e
r
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
(
P
o
u
n
d
s
/
D
a
y
)
Ur
b
e
m
i
s
2
0
0
7
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
9
.
2
.
4
TO
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
1
5
.
4
1
1
2
.
4
6
3
6
.
6
7
7
.
5
9
SU
M
O
F
A
R
E
A
S
O
U
R
C
E
A
N
D
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
TO
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
1
2
.
3
8
9
.
4
7
3
6
.
6
4
7
.
5
6
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
(
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
)
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
TO
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
3
.
0
3
2
.
9
9
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
3
AR
E
A
S
O
U
R
C
E
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
Su
m
m
a
r
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
10
/
7
/
2
0
1
0
3
:
0
5
:
0
7
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
2
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
S
u
m
m
e
r
P
o
u
n
d
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
,
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Of
f
i
c
e
p
a
r
k
11
.
7
6
9.
0
3
34
.
9
4
7.
2
1
Ci
t
y
p
a
r
k
0.
0
3
0.
0
1
0.
0
5
0.
0
1
Ho
t
e
l
0.
5
9
0.
4
3
1.
6
5
0.
3
4
TO
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
12
.
3
8
9.
4
7
36
.
6
4
7.
5
6
So
u
r
c
e
RO
G
N
O
X
P
M
1
0
P
M
2
5
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
D
e
t
a
i
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
2.
4
5
Co
n
s
u
m
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
0.
0
0
He
a
r
t
h
-
N
o
S
u
m
m
e
r
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
0.
3
7
0.
0
6
0.
0
2
0.
0
2
Na
t
u
r
a
l
G
a
s
0.
2
1
2.
9
3
0.
0
1
0.
0
1
TO
T
A
L
S
(
l
b
s
/
d
a
y
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
3.
0
3
2.
9
9
0.
0
3
0.
0
3
So
u
r
c
e
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
AR
E
A
S
O
U
R
C
E
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
S
u
m
m
e
r
P
o
u
n
d
s
P
e
r
D
a
y
,
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Ar
e
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
D
e
t
a
i
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
Do
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
p
a
s
s
b
y
t
r
i
p
s
Do
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
o
u
b
l
e
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
t
r
i
p
s
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
:
Ar
e
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
s
10
/
7
/
2
0
1
0
3
:
0
5
:
0
7
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
3
He
a
v
y
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
3
3
,
0
0
1
-
6
0
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
0
.
3
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Me
d
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
1
4
,
0
0
1
-
3
3
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
1
.
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
Mo
t
o
r
H
o
m
e
0
.
6
0
.
0
8
3
.
3
1
6
.
7
Ot
h
e
r
B
u
s
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Sc
h
o
o
l
B
u
s
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Mo
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e
3
.
2
3
4
.
4
6
5
.
6
0
.
0
Ur
b
a
n
B
u
s
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Li
g
h
t
T
r
u
c
k
<
3
7
5
0
l
b
s
1
2
.
5
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
Li
g
h
t
A
u
t
o
5
4
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
Li
t
e
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
1
0
,
0
0
1
-
1
4
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
0
.
6
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
Li
t
e
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
8
5
0
1
-
1
0
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
0
.
9
0
.
0
7
7
.
8
2
2
.
2
Me
d
T
r
u
c
k
5
7
5
1
-
8
5
0
0
l
b
s
6
.
7
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
Li
g
h
t
T
r
u
c
k
3
7
5
1
-
5
7
5
0
l
b
s
1
9
.
9
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
F
l
e
e
t
M
i
x
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
T
y
p
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
T
y
p
e
N
o
n
-
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
D
i
e
s
e
l
Ho
t
e
l
8.
1
7
r
o
o
m
s
3
0
.
0
0
2
4
5
.
1
0
1
,
8
2
7
.
8
3
Of
f
i
c
e
p
a
r
k
1
1
.
4
2
1
0
0
0
s
q
f
t
4
0
3
.
2
1
4
,
6
0
4
.
6
6
3
8
,
5
9
6
.
2
4
Ci
t
y
p
a
r
k
1
.
5
9
a
c
r
e
s
4
.
8
0
7
.
6
3
5
6
.
9
2
4,
8
5
7
.
3
9
4
0
,
4
8
0
.
9
9
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
s
La
n
d
U
s
e
T
y
p
e
A
c
r
e
a
g
e
T
r
i
p
R
a
t
e
U
n
i
t
T
y
p
e
N
o
.
U
n
i
t
s
T
o
t
a
l
T
r
i
p
s
T
o
t
a
l
V
M
T
Em
f
a
c
:
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
:
E
m
f
a
c
2
0
0
7
V
2
.
3
N
o
v
1
2
0
0
6
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
Y
e
a
r
:
2
0
3
5
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
F
)
:
8
5
S
e
a
s
o
n
:
S
u
m
m
e
r
10
/
7
/
2
0
1
0
3
:
0
5
:
0
7
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
4
%
o
f
T
r
i
p
s
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
3
2
.
9
1
8
.
0
4
9
.
1
%
o
f
T
r
i
p
s
-
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(
b
y
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
)
Ho
t
e
l
5.
0
2
.
5
9
2
.
5
Ci
t
y
p
a
r
k
5.
0
2
.
5
9
2
.
5
Of
f
i
c
e
p
a
r
k
48
.
0
2
4
.
0
2
8
.
0
Tr
i
p
s
p
e
e
d
s
(
m
p
h
)
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
Ur
b
a
n
T
r
i
p
L
e
n
g
t
h
(
m
i
l
e
s
)
1
0
.
8
7
.
3
7
.
5
9
.
5
7
.
4
7
.
4
Ru
r
a
l
T
r
i
p
L
e
n
g
t
h
(
m
i
l
e
s
)
1
6
.
8
7
.
1
7
.
9
1
4
.
7
6
.
6
6
.
6
Tr
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Ho
m
e
-
W
o
r
k
H
o
m
e
-
S
h
o
p
H
o
m
e
-
O
t
h
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
N
o
n
-
W
o
r
k
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
10
/
7
/
2
0
1
0
3
:
0
5
:
5
7
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
1
Fi
l
e
N
a
m
e
:
Z
:
\
I
&
R
D
o
c
s
\
2
0
0
9
\
0
9
-
1
3
2
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
S
F
\
J
a
m
e
s
U
R
B
E
M
I
S
\
S
S
F
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
U
s
e
s
t
o
b
e
R
e
m
o
v
e
d
.
u
r
b
9
2
4
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
N
a
m
e
:
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
U
s
e
s
t
o
B
e
R
e
m
o
v
e
d
b
v
y
2
0
3
5
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
:
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
A
i
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
On
-
R
o
a
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
:
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
:
E
m
f
a
c
2
0
0
7
V
2
.
3
N
o
v
1
2
0
0
6
Of
f
-
R
o
a
d
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
:
O
F
F
R
O
A
D
2
0
0
7
Co
m
b
i
n
e
d
A
n
n
u
a
l
E
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
(
T
o
n
s
/
Y
e
a
r
)
Ur
b
e
m
i
s
2
0
0
7
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
9
.
2
.
4
TO
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
2
.
8
2
2
.
5
5
6
.
6
9
1
.
3
8
7
,
4
6
4
.
1
7
SU
M
O
F
A
R
E
A
S
O
U
R
C
E
A
N
D
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
TO
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
2
.
3
0
2
.
0
1
6
.
6
9
1
.
3
8
6
,
8
2
2
.
1
6
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
(
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
)
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
TO
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
0
.
5
2
0
.
5
4
0
.
0
0
0
.
0
0
6
4
2
.
0
1
AR
E
A
S
O
U
R
C
E
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
Su
m
m
a
r
y
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
10
/
7
/
2
0
1
0
3
:
0
5
:
5
7
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
2
OP
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
A
n
n
u
a
l
T
o
n
s
P
e
r
Y
e
a
r
,
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Of
f
i
c
e
p
a
r
k
2.
1
9
1.
9
2
6.
3
8
1.
3
2
6,
5
0
6
.
9
2
Ci
t
y
p
a
r
k
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
9.
5
2
Ho
t
e
l
0.
1
1
0.
0
9
0.
3
0
0.
0
6
30
5
.
7
2
TO
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
2.
3
0
2.
0
1
6.
6
9
1.
3
8
6,
8
2
2
.
1
6
So
u
r
c
e
RO
G
N
O
X
P
M
1
0
P
M
2
5
C
O
2
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
D
e
t
a
i
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
Ar
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
C
o
a
t
i
n
g
s
0.
4
5
Co
n
s
u
m
e
r
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
0.
0
0
He
a
r
t
h
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
La
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
0.
0
3
0.
0
1
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
0.
7
6
Na
t
u
r
a
l
G
a
s
0.
0
4
0.
5
3
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
64
1
.
2
5
TO
T
A
L
S
(
t
o
n
s
/
y
e
a
r
,
u
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
)
0.
5
2
0.
5
4
0.
0
0
0.
0
0
64
2
.
0
1
So
u
r
c
e
RO
G
NO
x
PM
1
0
PM
2
.
5
CO
2
AR
E
A
S
O
U
R
C
E
E
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
E
S
T
I
M
A
T
E
S
A
n
n
u
a
l
T
o
n
s
P
e
r
Y
e
a
r
,
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
Ar
e
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
U
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
D
e
t
a
i
l
R
e
p
o
r
t
:
Do
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
p
a
s
s
b
y
t
r
i
p
s
Do
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
o
u
b
l
e
c
o
u
n
t
i
n
g
a
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
i
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
t
r
i
p
s
Op
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
:
Ar
e
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
t
o
D
e
f
a
u
l
t
s
10
/
7
/
2
0
1
0
3
:
0
5
:
5
7
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
3
He
a
v
y
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
3
3
,
0
0
1
-
6
0
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
0
.
3
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Me
d
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
1
4
,
0
0
1
-
3
3
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
1
.
0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
8
0
.
0
Mo
t
o
r
H
o
m
e
0
.
6
0
.
0
8
3
.
3
1
6
.
7
Ot
h
e
r
B
u
s
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Sc
h
o
o
l
B
u
s
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Mo
t
o
r
c
y
c
l
e
3
.
2
3
4
.
4
6
5
.
6
0
.
0
Ur
b
a
n
B
u
s
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
Li
g
h
t
T
r
u
c
k
<
3
7
5
0
l
b
s
1
2
.
5
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
Li
g
h
t
A
u
t
o
5
4
.
0
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
Li
t
e
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
1
0
,
0
0
1
-
1
4
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
0
.
6
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
Li
t
e
-
H
e
a
v
y
T
r
u
c
k
8
5
0
1
-
1
0
,
0
0
0
l
b
s
0
.
9
0
.
0
7
7
.
8
2
2
.
2
Me
d
T
r
u
c
k
5
7
5
1
-
8
5
0
0
l
b
s
6
.
7
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
Li
g
h
t
T
r
u
c
k
3
7
5
1
-
5
7
5
0
l
b
s
1
9
.
9
0
.
0
1
0
0
.
0
0
.
0
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
F
l
e
e
t
M
i
x
Ve
h
i
c
l
e
T
y
p
e
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
T
y
p
e
N
o
n
-
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
C
a
t
a
l
y
s
t
D
i
e
s
e
l
Ho
t
e
l
8.
1
7
r
o
o
m
s
3
0
.
0
0
2
4
5
.
1
0
1
,
8
2
7
.
8
3
Of
f
i
c
e
p
a
r
k
1
1
.
4
2
1
0
0
0
s
q
f
t
4
0
3
.
2
1
4
,
6
0
4
.
6
6
3
8
,
5
9
6
.
2
4
Ci
t
y
p
a
r
k
1
.
5
9
a
c
r
e
s
4
.
8
0
7
.
6
3
5
6
.
9
2
4,
8
5
7
.
3
9
4
0
,
4
8
0
.
9
9
Su
m
m
a
r
y
o
f
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
s
La
n
d
U
s
e
T
y
p
e
A
c
r
e
a
g
e
T
r
i
p
R
a
t
e
U
n
i
t
T
y
p
e
N
o
.
U
n
i
t
s
T
o
t
a
l
T
r
i
p
s
T
o
t
a
l
V
M
T
Em
f
a
c
:
V
e
r
s
i
o
n
:
E
m
f
a
c
2
0
0
7
V
2
.
3
N
o
v
1
2
0
0
6
An
a
l
y
s
i
s
Y
e
a
r
:
2
0
3
5
S
e
a
s
o
n
:
A
n
n
u
a
l
10
/
7
/
2
0
1
0
3
:
0
5
:
5
7
P
M
Pa
g
e
:
4
%
o
f
T
r
i
p
s
-
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
3
2
.
9
1
8
.
0
4
9
.
1
%
o
f
T
r
i
p
s
-
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
(
b
y
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
)
Ho
t
e
l
5.
0
2
.
5
9
2
.
5
Ci
t
y
p
a
r
k
5.
0
2
.
5
9
2
.
5
Of
f
i
c
e
p
a
r
k
48
.
0
2
4
.
0
2
8
.
0
Tr
i
p
s
p
e
e
d
s
(
m
p
h
)
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
5
.
0
Ur
b
a
n
T
r
i
p
L
e
n
g
t
h
(
m
i
l
e
s
)
1
0
.
8
7
.
3
7
.
5
9
.
5
7
.
4
7
.
4
Ru
r
a
l
T
r
i
p
L
e
n
g
t
h
(
m
i
l
e
s
)
1
6
.
8
7
.
1
7
.
9
1
4
.
7
6
.
6
6
.
6
Tr
a
v
e
l
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
Ho
m
e
-
W
o
r
k
H
o
m
e
-
S
h
o
p
H
o
m
e
-
O
t
h
e
r
C
o
m
m
u
t
e
N
o
n
-
W
o
r
k
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
ProjectName:OysterPointBusinessParkandMarinaAreaRedevelopmentMasterPlan
ProjectYears:2020Phase1
SourceCategory
ProjectCO2e
(metric
tons/year)
Converted
forPG&E
rates
Transportation:4267 4267
AreaSource:1 1
Electricity:2303 1536
NaturalGas:505 505
Water&Wastewater:73 48
SolidWaste:1776 1776
Total:8132
NumberofEmployees1771
4.6
ProjectName:OysterPointBusinessParkandMarinaAreaRedevelopmentMasterPlan
ProjectYears:2035FullBuildOut
SourceCategory
Mitigated
ProjectͲ
BaselineCO2e
(metric
tons/year)
Converted
forPG&E
rates
Transportation:13450 13,450
AreaSource:1 1
Electricity:10586 7,062
NaturalGas:2519 2,519
Water&Wastewater:310 207
SolidWaste:8447 8,447
Total:31,686
NumberofEmployees8,488
3.7
CO
I
n
t
2
OY
S
T
E
R
P
O
I
N
T
B
U
I
S
N
E
S
S
P
A
R
K
CA
R
B
O
N
M
O
N
O
X
I
D
E
A
N
A
L
Y
S
I
S
PM
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
As
s
u
m
e
s
w
o
r
s
t
c
a
s
e
o
f
a
l
l
i
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
o
t
a
l
v
o
l
u
m
e
,
L
O
S
a
n
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
r
a
f
f
i
c
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
Tr
a
f
f
i
c
V
o
l
u
m
e
1-
H
o
u
r
C
O
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
1
-
H
o
u
r
C
O
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
To
t
a
l
8
-
H
o
u
r
C
O
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
2
0
1
5
B
a
s
e
20
1
5
B
a
s
e
+
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
2
0
3
5
B
a
s
e
20
3
5
B
a
s
e
+
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
2
0
1
5
B
a
s
e
20
1
5
B
a
s
e
+
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
2
0
3
5
B
a
s
e
20
3
5
B
a
s
e
+
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
2
0
1
5
B
a
s
e
2
0
1
5
B
a
s
e
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
2
0
3
5
B
a
s
e
20
3
5
B
a
s
e
+
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
2
0
1
5
B
a
s
e
2
0
1
5
B
a
s
e
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
2
0
3
5
B
a
s
e
Li
n
k
:
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
&
D
u
b
u
q
u
e
/
N
B
o
n
R
a
m
p
8.
8
7
.
7
7
.
9
5
.
8
5
.
6
6
.
2
5
.
8
6
.
0
4
.
2
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
E
a
s
t
2
8
0
2
4
0
4
7
4
2
9
9
4
9
2
6
3
5
0
1
2
.
2
2
.
1
2
.
2
0
.
8
0
.
6
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
W
e
s
t
1
5
9
9
2
2
0
1
2
2
4
5
2
6
9
2
3
2
3
8
1
.
3
1
.
1
1
.
2
0
.
5
0
.
5
Du
b
u
q
u
e
S
o
u
t
h
1
8
8
7
2
5
1
0
2
6
0
3
2
8
9
6
3
2
9
9
0
.
5
0
.
4
0
.
4
0
.
1
0
.
2
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
N
o
r
t
h
1
1
8
4
1
8
8
4
1
9
9
9
2
1
9
0
1
2
5
4
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
1
0
.
1
Li
n
k
:
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
a
n
d
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
8.
8
8
.
3
8
.
7
5
.
9
5
.
5
6
.
2
6
.
1
6
.
3
4
.
3
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
E
a
s
t
2
0
5
5
3
0
4
0
3
4
2
7
3
2
9
5
2
6
5
9
1
.
6
1
.
6
1
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
4
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
W
e
s
t
2
9
5
6
4
3
7
9
4
6
4
7
5
2
8
8
3
5
0
1
2
.
4
2
.
3
2
.
4
0
.
9
0
.
6
Ba
t
e
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
1
1
4
7
1
8
7
1
1
9
9
0
2
4
5
6
1
2
4
9
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
3
0
.
1
0
.
1
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
N
o
r
t
h
0
4
7
0
4
7
0
4
8
7
4
7
1
0
.
0
0
.
1
0
.
1
0
.
0
0
.
0
Li
n
k
:
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
B
l
v
d
.
&
E
.
G
r
a
n
d
A
v
e
.
7.
6
7
.
1
7
.
1
5
.
5
5
.
6
5
.
3
5
.
2
5
.
3
4
.
0
E.
G
r
a
n
d
E
a
s
t
1
7
7
3
2
7
2
6
2
7
2
9
3
1
1
6
3
8
9
5
1
.
4
1
.
4
1
.
4
0
.
5
0
.
7
E.
G
r
a
n
d
W
e
s
t
1
5
9
6
2
3
0
6
2
3
1
9
2
7
5
3
2
8
5
2
1
.
3
1
.
2
1
.
2
0
.
5
0
.
5
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
o
u
t
h
7
3
8
1
6
1
4
1
7
1
8
2
0
1
0
1
6
8
3
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
1
0
.
1
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
N
o
r
t
h
6
8
9
1
2
2
2
1
3
3
6
1
3
9
9
9
0
6
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
2
0
.
1
0
.
0
*
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
(
d
u
e
t
o
h
i
g
h
e
r
v
o
l
u
m
e
)
Em
i
s
s
i
o
n
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
(
E
M
F
A
C
2
0
0
7
-
5
m
p
h
)
Di
s
p
e
r
s
i
o
n
F
a
c
t
o
r
s
Sa
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Pr
i
m
a
r
y
Ed
g
e
2
L
n
1
4
.
0
LO
S
E
o
r
F
(
5
m
p
h
)
2
0
1
0
(
5
m
p
h
)
6.
7
4
3
g/
m
i
4
L
n
1
1
.
9
|
2
0
1
5
(
5
m
p
h
)
4.
3
2
2
6
L
n
9
.
5
|
2
0
3
5
(
5
m
p
h
)
1.
4
1
9
g/
m
i
V
g
/
m
i
S
e
c
o
n
d
a
r
y
2
L
n
3
.
7
Ba
c
k
g
r
o
u
n
d
C
O
L
e
v
e
l
s
-
1-
H
o
u
r
8-
H
o
u
r
4
L
n
3
.
3
4.
5
2
.
5
6
L
n
2
.
8
In
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
APPENDIX C
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT
983 University Avenue, Building D Los Gatos, CA 95032 Ph: 408.458.3200 F: 408.458.3210
OYSTER POINT BUSINESS PARK AND MARINA AREA
REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT
Prepared by:
H. T. Harvey & Associates
Steve Rottenborn, Ph.D., Principal
Patrick Boursier, Ph.D., Senior Plant Ecologist
Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D., Senior Plant Ecologist
Nellie Thorngate, M.S., Wildlife Ecologist
Catherine Roy, M.S., Plant Ecologist
Prepared for:
Rebecca Gorton
Lamphier-Gregory
1944 Embarcadero
Oakland, California 64606
21 September 2010 Project No. 3105-01
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS.................................................................................................................I
INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1
PROJECT DESCRIPTION..............................................................................................................2
PROJECT LOCATION..............................................................................................................2
EXISTING USES.......................................................................................................................2
PLAN DESCRIPTION...............................................................................................................5
Programmatic Master Plan......................................................................................................5
Phase I Project.........................................................................................................................6
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.....................................................................................................8
GENERAL PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION.........................................................................8
BIOTIC SURVEYS....................................................................................................................8
BIOTIC HABITATS..................................................................................................................9
Developed and Landscaped....................................................................................................9
California Annual Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub...............................................................11
Armored Rock Levee Slope..................................................................................................11
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh.................................................................................................12
Ornamental Woodland..........................................................................................................13
Sandy Beach..........................................................................................................................14
Open Water...........................................................................................................................14
REGULATORY SETTING...........................................................................................................16
FEDERAL.................................................................................................................................16
Clean Water Act....................................................................................................................16
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act..........................................................................17
Rivers and Harbors Act.........................................................................................................17
Federal Endangered Species Act..........................................................................................18
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.........................................18
Marine Mammal Protection Act...........................................................................................19
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.......................................................................................19
STATE......................................................................................................................................19
California Endangered Species Act......................................................................................19
California Environmental Quality Act..................................................................................20
California Fish and Game Code............................................................................................22
REGIONAL..............................................................................................................................22
McAteer-Petris Act...............................................................................................................22
City of South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance..................................................23
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND SENSITIVE HABITATS..............................................23
Special-status Plant Species..................................................................................................24
Federal or State Endangered or Threatened Species.............................................................25
CNPS-listed Species.............................................................................................................25
Special-status Animal Species..............................................................................................38
Sensitive and Regulated Plant Communities and Habitats...................................................49
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES.............................................................................51
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 2010i
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS: MASTER PLAN PHASE I.............................................51
Key Assumptions..................................................................................................................51
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.....................................................52
Impacts to Developed/Landscaped, California Annual Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub, and
Ornamental Woodland Habitats............................................................................................52
Impacts to Habitat for and Individuals of Non-breeding Special-Status Wildlife Species...53
Impacts to Habitat for and Individuals of Certain Potentially Nesting Special-Status Birds53
Impacts of Lighting on Terrestrial and Aquatic Animals.....................................................54
Impacts of Increased Recreational Disturbance on Wildlife................................................55
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.................55
Indirect Impacts to Water Quality and Sensitive Habitats....................................................55
Impacts to Individual Burrowing Owls.................................................................................57
Impacts to Migratory Birds from Buildings and Lighting....................................................58
PROGRAMMATIC ANALYSIS.............................................................................................60
Key Assumptions..................................................................................................................60
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT.....................................................60
Impacts to Developed/Landscaped, California Annual Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub, and
Non-jurisdictional Armored Rock Levee Slope Habitats.....................................................60
Impacts to Certain Special-status Wildlife Species and Their Habitats...............................60
Impacts to Habitat for and Individuals of Certain Potentially Nesting Special-Status Birds61
Impacts of Lighting on Terrestrial and Aquatic Animals.....................................................61
Impacts of Increased Recreational Disturbance on Wildlife................................................61
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION.................62
Impacts to Northern Coastal Salt Marsh, Open Water, and Jurisdictional Armored Rock
Levee Slope Habitats............................................................................................................62
Impacts to Migratory Birds from Buildings and Lighting....................................................63
Impacts to Aquatic Species Due to Degradation of Water Quality during Construction.....64
Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and Special-Status Fish...................................................64
Pile-Driving Impacts to Fish and Marine Mammals.............................................................65
Impacts to Olympia Oyster Beds..........................................................................................66
Impacts to Eelgrass Beds......................................................................................................68
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS......................................................................................................69
LITERATURE CITED..................................................................................................................71
FIGURES:
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map......................................................................................................3
Figure 2. Habitat Map....................................................................................................................4
Figure 3. Plant CNDDB Map.......................................................................................................26
Figure 4. Wildlife CNDDB Map.................................................................................................27
TABLES:
Table 1. Biotic Habitat/Land Use Acreages within the Boundaries of the Oyster Point Business
Park and Marina Area Redevelopment Master Plan...............................................................9
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 2010ii
Table 2. Special-status Plant and Animal Species, Their Status, and Potential Occurrence on the
Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Area Redevelopment Master Plan Area................28
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A. SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES REJECTED FOR OCCURRENCE...79
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 2010iii
INTRODUCTION
This report describes the biological resources within the boundaries of the Oyster Point Business
Park and Marina Area Redevelopment Master Plan (hereafter referred to as the “Project”). Phase
I of the Project includes the development of up to 600,000 square feet (ft) of offices and
Research and Development (R&D) facilities on approximately 10 acres (ac) in the southwestern
corner of the Project area; the creation of approximately 3.4 ac of waterfront open space in the
central portion of the Project area behind the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard; construction of a 3.8-ac recreational field complex immediately east of the proposed
office facility; grading of a 9-ac planned hotel site adjacent to the proposed recreational field
complex; and the construction of new multi-use roads serving the Oyster Point Marina.
Subsequent phases of the Project will entail a variety of activities including construction of an
additional 1,800,000 square ft of office and R&D space; landfill cap repairs; rehabilitation and
enhancement of roads, parking lots, landscaping, public facilities, and utilities infrastructure;
improvements to the Bay Trail and associated open spaces throughout the Project area; and
connectivity with the previously permitted Oyster Point Ferry Terminal. These phases of the
Project, while treated programmatically in this document, will undergo separate project-specific
environmental analyses as planning moves forward.
This report includes a project-specific analysis of Phase I of the Master Plan, and a programmatic
analysis of the remainder of the Master Plan.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 20101
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
PROJECT LOCATION
The Project site is part of the City of South San Francisco’s “East of 101” Planning Area, the
traditional and continued core of South San Francisco’s industrial and technological businesses,
including bioscience offices. The East of 101 area consists of roughly 1700 ac of land bound by
San Francisco Bay on the east side, Highway 101 and railway lines on the west, the City of
Brisbane on the north, and San Francisco International Airport on the south. The area has a mix
of land uses, including industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience
research and development facilities. The area is also separated from most of South San
Francisco’s residential uses by U.S. 101, though some houseboats are permitted at Oyster Point.
The approximately 80-ac Project site is located approximately 3/4 mile east of Highway 101, at
the eastern end (Bay side) of Oyster Point and Marina Boulevards. Figure 1 shows the general
Project location and Figure 2 shows the proposed Project boundaries and phases.
EXISTING USES
The Oyster Point Business Park encompasses 25 ac of the Project area. It is a privately owned
series of five single-story light-industrial buildings at 375-389 Oyster Point Boulevard that were
developed in the early 1980s, totaling 404,000 square ft of space with surrounding parking.
Currently these buildings are occupied by a variety of light industrial, office, and R&D tenants.
Other than roadway elements, the 48-ac Oyster Point Marina fills the remainder of the Project
area. This land served as a municipal landfill for the City of South San Francisco from 1956
until it stopped accepting waste in 1970. The Marina is owned by the City of South San
Francisco and managed through a Joint Powers Agreement with the San Mateo County Harbor
District. Currently, this area includes a variety of uses including a dry boat storage area, a
marine support services building, two small office buildings, and a 30-room inn and banquet
hall. The remaining area is vacant or serves as parking for the docks, boat ramp, and the Bay
Trail at the Oyster Point Marina.
The Oyster Cove Marina is located to the west of the Oyster Point Business Park and contains
235 berths. The larger Oyster Point Marina is located on the north side of the Oyster Point
Marina area and contains 600 berths, a boat ramp, fuel dock and fishing pier. A previously
permitted ferry terminal with service to the East Bay is currently scheduled to be completed at
the Oyster Point Marina in early 2011, and is not part of the current Project.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 20102
Millbrae
Brisbane
SanBruno
SouthSanFrancisco
82
35
82
101
280
380
280
GEN
E
V
A
AVE
MIS
S
I
O
N
S
T
HI
L
LSI
D
E
B
L
V
D
BA
Y
S
HOR
E
B
LVD
GRAN
DAVE
SILVER
A
V
E
SA
N
M
A
TE
OA
VE
AIR
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
VIE
N
N
A
S
T
O
L
D
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
H
W
Y
SANB
R
U
N
O
A VEW
FELTON
S
T
M
A
G
N
O
L
I
A
A
V
E
MANSE LLSTSA
N
J
O
S
E
A
V
E
M
I
S
SI
O
N
R
D
C
R
E
S
T
M
O
O
R
D
R
SUNN
Y
DALEAVE
PARKW
A
Y
ARR
O
Y
O
D
R
S
A
I
R
P
O
R
T
B
L
V
D
IN
G
A
L
L
S
S
T
B
A
Y
S
H
O
R
E
B
L
V
D
H
U
N
T
I
N
G
T
O
N
A
V
E
UTAHAVE
CRY
S
T
A
L
S
P
R
I
N
G
S
R
D
LOM I TAAV
E
SS
P
RU
C
E
A
V
E
IN
N
E
S
A
V
E
CH
ES
T
N
U
T
A
V
E
JENE
VEIN
A
V
E
SHAWRD
DWIGHT
S
T
SL
I
NDE
N
A
V
E
RICH
M
O
N
D
D
R
F ORBESBLVD
BEL
L
E
V
U
E
A
V
E
M
A
D
I
S
O
N
A
V
E
ORA
NG EAV
EW
PA
L
O
U
A
V
E
FL
E
E
T
W
O
O
D
D
R
AV
A
L
O
N
A
V
E
THORNTO
N
A
V
E
G
L
E
N
V
I
E
W
D
R
R
I
D
G
E
W
O
O
D
D
R
PARK
B
L
V
D
LUDE
M
ANL
N
OYSTERPOINTBLVD
SN E ATH
L
N
Col
m
a
C
r
e
e
k
Col
m
a
C
r
e
e
k
Mills
C
r
e
e
k
MillsC
r
e
e
k
SanAndreasLakeSanAndreasLake
NorthBasinNorthBasin
SouthBasinSouthBasin
SanFrancisco
International
SanBrunoMtState&CntyPark
GoldenGateNationalRecArea
SanFrancisco
Bay
1010.5
Miles
Napa
Oakland
SanJose
StocktonMartinez
Hollister
Fairfield
SantaCruz
SanRafael
SantaRosa
RedwoodCity
SanFrancisco
SOLANO
SANTACLARA
ALAMEDA
NAPA
SONOMA
CONTRACOSTA
MARIN
SANMATEO
SANTACRUZ
SANJOAQ
STANISLAUS
SANBEN
YOLO
MONTEREY
SANFRANCISCO
PACIFIC
OCEAN
MasterPlan
Boundary
Detail
California
020
Miles
Figure1:VicinityMap
September2010
N:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
3
0
0
0
\
3
1
0
5
-
0
1
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
Project
Vicinity
OysterPointBusinessPark(3105-01)
OY
S
T
E
R
P
O
I
NT
B
L
V
D
G
U
L
L
D
R
MARI
N
A
B
L
V
D
EAST BASINRD
OYSTERPOINTBLVD
3400340170
Feet
Figure2:HabitatMap
September2010
N:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
3
0
0
0
\
3
1
0
5
-
0
1
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
OysterPointBusinessPark(3105-01)
ImagerySource:MicrosoftVirtualEarth
LEGEND
MasterPlanBoundary
PhaseIBoundary
AdditionalStudyAreaBoundary
ApproximateLimitofUSACEJurisdiction
HabitatTypes(WithAcreageswithintheMasterPlanBoundary)
DevelopedandLandscaped(57.16ac)
CaliforniaAnnualGrassland/CoyoteBrushScrub(18.90ac)
ArmoredRockLeveeSlope(1.81ac)
NorthernCoastalSaltMarsh(2.47ac)
OrnamentalWoodland(0.57ac)
SandyBeach(0.38ac)
OpenWater(0.27ac)
SanFranciscoBay
PLAN DESCRIPTION
Programmatic Master Plan
As it is proposed, the Project will be a public and private redevelopment. Private development
will include new office/R&D buildings in the western portion of the site, which will entail the
following elements:
x Demolition of the existing restaurant and hotel located at 425 Marina Drive, and the light-
industrial buildings at 375-389 Oyster Point Boulevard
x New public roadway alignment (and utility infrastructure) of Oyster Point Boulevard and
Marina Drive
x Office/R&D buildings within the 41 ac of private land area, built in four phases of
approximately 500,000 to 600,000 square ft each
x Each phase will include or have access to courtyards, plazas, shuttle bus stops, and/or
structured parking
x Dedication and construction of an approximately 4-ac parcel for use as a beachfront open
space.
Public redevelopment will include public open space, recreation fields, marina improvements,
and a site that could accommodate a future hotel at the eastern end of the site, entailing the
following elements:
x Preparation of a site to accommodate a future hotel which will include up to 350 rooms and
40,000 square ft of retail/restaurant
x New road and utility infrastructure to serve the future hotel site and Oyster Point Marina
x A recreation field complex
x A shuttle bus turnaround and reconfiguration of parking adjacent to the new ferry terminal
x Improvements to the Bay Trail and surrounding open space throughout Oyster Point Marina
and the proposed office/R&D Project (subject to BCDC Guidelines and input)
x Enhancement (landscape and other cosmetic improvements) of existing uses at the eastern
end of Oyster Point in conjunction with required landfill cap repairs
x Connections to the previously permitted Oyster Point Ferry Terminal.
The programmatic component of the Project may also include replacement of two docks in the
Oyster Point Marina. Although other marina-related activities, such as maintenance dredging,
boat refueling, and boating on the Bay are expected to continue, such activities currently occur in
the absence of the Project and would continue regardless of Project implementation; thus, these
activities are not considered part of the Master Plan analyzed in this document.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 20105
Phase I Project
The first phase (“Phase I”) of the Master Plan will include the development of 508,000 to
600,000 square ft of office/R&D space over a two-level parking garage podium on
approximately 10 ac, creation of waterfront open space, construction of the recreation field
complex, grading of most of the future hotel site, and construction of new roads serving Oyster
Point Marina. The specific details of the Phase I work are outlined below.
Demolition
Phase I will include demolition of the four existing Oyster Point Inn and Office buildings.
Portions of the demolition waste will be salvaged and reused. This Phase of the Project would
also include some grading of the old landfill to ensure appropriate drainage, and subsequent
recapping.
Site and Massing/Building Details
Phase I will include the construction of 508,000 to 600,000 square feet of office/R&D space.
The new office/R&D buildings will occupy a site of approximately 10 ac to the south of Oyster
Point Boulevard directly east of Gull Drive. The office/R&D complex will include three
office/lab buildings (Buildings IA, IB and IC) and a retail/restaurant building (Building IR), and
will be located on a plaza, which will be built over a two-level parking garage podium.
Building IA will have a maximum of 10 levels and 220,000 square ft, while buildings IB and IC
will have a maximum of 6 levels and 190,000 square ft each. Levels within these buildings will
have a 16-ft typical floor-to-floor height. Internal organization for each building will entail a
maximum of 70% lab space and a minimum of 0% lab space (i.e.,. a minimum of 30% office
space and a maximum of 100% office space). Building IR will only be one level and will
provide 10,000 square ft of retail space located at the plaza level. The two-level parking garage
will accommodate a maximum of 1,680 cars, based on a 2.8/1,000 square ft ratio, and will be
above grade and open air on the south and east facades.
The building entrances and lobbies will be located at plaza level. A shuttle stop and passenger
drop off will also be located at plaza level off Oyster Point Boulevard. Access to the parking
garage will be through an entrance/exit at the northeastern corner of the garage off of Marina
Boulevard. Service entries and loading docks for each building will be accessed at the southwest
corner of the site off of Gull Drive.
Phase I activities will include grading to install stormwater drainage infrastructure on the site. At
the southwestern portion of the site, this drainage will include a conveyance system that will
outfall to constructed vegetated swales on the north side of the tidal channel that comprises the
southwestern edge of the Project site.
Open Space and Infrastructure Improvements on City’s Land (Public Redevelopment)
Phase I will include the reconfiguration of Marina Boulevard and a portion of Oyster Point
Boulevard. The new roadway construction will also include bicycle lanes, sidewalks and street
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 20106
trees on both sides of the roadway. Utilities will be provided in the new roads and will be sized
for the full build-out of all phases (not just Phase I improvements). These will include sewer,
water, fire water, and a joint trench for PG&E and telecom. Storm drainage will also be
provided. A new shuttle turn-around will be constructed adjacent to the Ferry Terminal, and the
parking lot adjacent to the west basin of Oyster Point Marina will be reconstructed after landfill
cover improvements have been completed to access the new Marina Boulevard configuration. In
addition to the road and utility improvements, additional improvements will be constructed to
update the landfill cover to current regulatory requirements (Title 27).
Planned recreational elements to be constructed in Phase I include a 3.8-acre site to the east of
the office/R&D buildings. This site will be graded to allow for sports fields, which are to be
programmed by the City of South San Francisco. A 3.4-acre waterfront site to the north and east
of the Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard intersection will be graded and landscaped
per Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) design guidelines. Off-street
pedestrian paths (including new portions of the Bay Trail) will connect the ferry terminal to the
existing Bay Trail, the footbridge to the south of the site, to the eastern edge of the Plaza in
Phase I and to Gull Drive to the south of the Phase I buildings.
Finally, the 9-acre site to the east of the sports fields will be graded to allow for a future hotel
and retail complex. On this site, the Yacht Club structure and the Harbor District garage, yard
and surrounding access roads would remain intact throughout Phase I.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 20107
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
GENERAL PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION
The Project footprint for the Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Area Redevelopment
Master Plan comprises approximately 80 ac of developed, landscaped, coastal salt marsh, and
ruderal lands within the City of South San Francisco. The area investigated for biotic resources
included the Project footprint and adjacent areas. The area supports a mix of land uses including
industry, warehousing, retail, offices, hotels, marinas, and bioscience research and development
facilities. While the majority of the Project site comprises developed and landscaped lands,
small portions of the Project area feature patches of ruderal grassland, shrubs, and forest; a
segment of the Bay Trail, bordered by patches of coastal scrub and marsh vegetation, runs along
the edge of the Project area on the southeast, east, and north.
The Project site is located near the northeastern edge of the San Mateo peninsula, north of the
San Francisco Airport and south of Candlestick Point, where sandstone and greenstone bedrock
of the Franciscan formation intergrades with quaternary alluvium of the Santa Clara formation.
The Project area is underlain by soils made up of the Urban Land-Orthents, reclaimed complex,
0 to 2 percent slopes (SCS 1991) and water. The Urban Land-Orthents, reclaimed complex is
composed of fill soils and landfill materials placed in areas that were once part of San Francisco
Bay, as well as silts built up in adjacent tidal flats that support salt marshes. These soils are well
drained and have slight to moderate salinity. The typical profile of this soil type can be variable
for the top 40 inches, and underlain with silty clay, and clay from 40 to 60 inches. Within areas
mapped by SCS (1991) as Urban Land-Orthents, there may be minor components (<2%) of the
native Novato and Reyes soils, as well as Orthents cut and fill soil complexes.
Elevations on the site range from sea level to approximately 80 ft in the southeastern corner of
the site. The National Wetland Inventory (NWI 1985) depicts four wetland or aquatic habitat
types on or near the Project footprint: 1) estuarine, subtidal unconsolidated bottom aquatic
habitat within the open waters of San Francisco Bay and within the marinas; 2) estuarine,
intertidal, emergent wetland, regularly flooded in the marshes to the west of the Oyster Cove
Marina; and outside the Project area, 3) estuarine intertidal rocky shore, regularly flooded, along
the northern extent of the peninsula to the east of the Oyster Cove Marina; and 4) estuarine,
intertidal, unconsolidated shore irregularly flooded along the north shore of Oyster Cove. The
mean annual precipitation varies from 15 to 30 inches, and the mean annual temperature ranges
from 54-57 degrees Fahrenheit.
BIOTIC SURVEYS
Prior to conducting field work, H. T. Harvey & Associates ecologists reviewed the Draft Oyster
Point Master Plan and Design Guidelines (Shorenstein/SKS 2009); the California Department of
Fish and Game’s Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2010); recent ecological studies of other
projects in the Project vicinity, including the Candlestick Point/Hunters Point Shipyard Project
Biological Technical Report (PBS&J 2009) and the South San Francisco Ferry Terminal Draft
Environmental Impact Report (San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority 2005); and other
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 20108
technical databases and publications on special-status species in the vicinity, in order to assess
the current distribution of special-status plants and wildlife in the Project vicinity.
Reconnaissance-level field surveys of the Project site were conducted by H. T. Harvey &
Associates on 11 November 2009.The purpose of these surveys was to provide a project-
specific impact assessment for Phase I as described above, and a programmatic impact
assessment for the remainder of the Project. Specifically, surveys were conducted to: 1) assess
existing biotic habitats in the Project area, 2) assess the site for its potential to support special-
status species and their habitats, and 3) identify potential jurisdictional habitats such as Waters of
the U.S. and riparian habitat. Survey personnel included plant ecologist Kelly Hardwicke, Ph.D.
and wildlife ecologist Nellie Thorngate, M.S. K. Hardwicke again visited the site on 12
December 2009 to further refine mapping of coastal salt marsh vegetation. A follow-up visit was
conducted on 5 May 2010 by plant ecologist Catherine Roy, M.S., to assess spring conditions
and look for suitable habitat for special-status plants that may not have been apparent during the
fall surveys and on 17 September 2010 by wildlife ecologist Robin Carle, M.S. to complement
the previous reconnaissance-level surveys.
BIOTIC HABITATS
Seven biotic habitats/land use types occur on the Project site: developed/landscaped, California
annual grassland/coyote brush scrub, armored rock levee slope, northern coastal salt marsh,
ornamental woodland, sandy beach, and open water. Wherever possible, habitats were described
based on Holland’s system of classification (1986), a relatively coarse level of classification
based on general species assemblages and broad edaphic characteristics. These habitats are
described in detail below, and their distribution both within the Project site and, for certain
sensitive habitats, in adjacent areas is shown on Figure 2. Table 1 provides the approximate
acreage of each habitat and land use type within the Master Plan boundary.
Table 1. Biotic Habitat/Land Use Acreages within the Boundaries of the Oyster Point
Business Park and Marina Area Redevelopment Master Plan.
Biotic Habitat/Land Use Total Area (ac)
Developed/Landscaped57.16
California Annual Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub 18.90
Armored Rock Levee Slope 1.81
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh 2.47
Ornamental Woodland 0.57
Sandy Beach 0.38
Open Water, Marine 0.27
Total81.56
Developed and Landscaped
Vegetation. The Master Plan area includes approximately 57.16 ac of developed and landscaped
land uses comprised of hardscaped roads, buildings, parking lot surfaces, paved trail surfaces,
ornamental and landscaped areas (typically irrigated with a mulch base), and irrigated turf. The
habitat suitability for rare or native vegetation in these areas is very low, and most areas mapped
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 20109
as developed/landscaped are under altered hydrologic regimes, being either dewatered by
hardscape or irrigated to support landscaping. The few naturally occurring plants are typical
lawn and sidewalk weeds, such as English daisy (Bellis perennis), smooth cat’s ear (Hypochaeris
glabra), and yellow sorrel (Oxalis corniculata). All developed areas within the survey area
appear to be purposefully and continually maintained, or otherwise are permanently impacted by
hardscape and structures.
Wildlife. Developed habitats primarily support common, urban-adapted wildlife species, and
overall wildlife abundance and diversity are low. Likewise, landscaped habitats are used
sparingly by most wildlife species, largely because of the uniform, open nature of most
landscaping, and regular disturbances due to landscape maintenance and use. However animals
living in adjacent habitats and migratory birds often exploit foraging opportunities offered by
landscaped habitats, and dense shrub and tree landscape components may offer sufficient cover
for nesting birds and mammals. Common butterflies such as cabbage whites (Pieris rapae) and
painted ladies (Vanessa cardui), as well as honeybees (Apismellifera) and other common
invertebrate species, are expected to use flowering landscape plants for foraging.
Cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), tree swallows (Tachycineta bicolor), and barn
swallows (Hirundo rustica) have been observed at Oyster Point (Sequoia Audubon Society 2001,
eBird 2010), and swallows may occasionally nest in the eaves of buildings within the Project
area. Black phoebes (Sayornis nigricans) and house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), which
were observed in the Project area during the reconnaissance survey, also likely nest on buildings
and under bridges or other structures on or near the Project site. White-crowned sparrows
(Zonotrichia leucophrys) and golden-crowned sparrows (Zonotrichia atricapilla) were observed
foraging and sheltering in landscape shrubbery in the Project area. Hummingbirds including
Anna’s hummingbirds (Calypte anna) and possibly Allen’s hummingbirds (Selasphorus sasin)
forage in areas where the landscaping includes flowering plants. Foraging flocks of yellow-
rumped warblers (Dendroica coronata) were seen utilizing trees throughout landscaped portions
of the Project area. The profusion of trees incorporated into the landscaping in the Oyster Point
area host a variety of foraging songbirds throughout the year, and common species such as dark-
eyed juncos (Junco hyemalis), northern mockingbirds (Mimus polyglottos), and American robins
(Turdus migratorius), all of which were observed on the site during the reconnaissance survey,
may nest in landscape shrubs or trees on the Project site.
Mexican free-tailed bats (Tadarida brasiliensis) could roost in small numbers in structures that
offer crevices or cavities (such as weep holes or vents) for shelter, though likely in low numbers
given the relatively cool conditions along the edge of the bay. Small, non-native mammals such
as house mice (Mus musculus), eastern gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis), and fox squirrels
(Sciurus niger) are expected to forage in shrubs and trees in the landscaped potions of the Project
area, and invasive Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) are expected to use landscaping as well as
inhabiting storage areas and garbage facilities at least in small numbers. Feral cats (Felis catus)
were observed on the Project site, and may shelter in or under buildings and in landscape shrubs
in the Project area. Urban-adapted native mammals such as raccoons (Procyon lotor) and striped
skunks (Mephitis mephitis) likely occur in this land use type as well.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201010
California Annual Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub
Vegetation.Approximately 18.90 ac of the Project site are dominated by California annual
grassland/coyote brush scrub. This habitat is primarily found south and southwest of Marina
Boulevard, with small patches north of Marina Boulevard., and west of the northern coastal salt
marsh on the western side of Oyster Point Boulevard. These areas vary in composition based on
water availability and soil characteristics. Non-native annual grass species such as wild oats
(Avena fatua), rip-gut brome (Bromus diandrus), and mouse barley (Hordeum murinum) are
dominant throughout the annual grassland. Annual grasslands along the estuarine canal south of
Marina Boulevard, and west of the sandy beach, support dense stands wild oats and wild radish
(Raphanus sativa) approximately 2-4 feet in height. Grassland areas bordering the western end
of Marina Boulevard have been mown, opening the canopy for herbaceous species such as
smooth cat’s ear (Hypochaeris glabra). North of Marina Boulevard there is a patch that is
dominated by mouse barley and annual ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum) growing 1-3 ft in height.
South of Marina Boulevard near the road, there are patches of grassland with lower densities of
annual grasses. Native purple needlegrass, (Nassella pulchra) is becoming establishedhere
along with herbaceous species such as birds-foot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), flax (Linum sp.),
and blue eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum). However, this patch of native grass is too small to be
distinguished as a separate habitat type.
Some shrubs such as coyote brush (Baccharispilularis), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and
big saltbush (Atriplex lentiformis) have become established along the slopes above the estuarine
canal south of Marina Boulevard. These are spaced sporadically and range in height from
approximately 6-8 feet, and are between 5-8 feet wide.
Wildlife. The grassland and scrubby habitats within the Project boundaries host a variety of
common invertebrates, which in turn provide food for widespread reptiles such as western fence
lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis), and for a number of bird and mammal species. A western
meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) and a Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya) were observed foraging at
the southwestern corner of the Project site. Although other grassland-associated species such as
white-tailed kites (Elanus leucurus), American kestrels (Falco sparverius), and loggerhead
shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus) occur in the Project vicinity (Sequoia Audubon Society 2001,
eBird 2010) and may forage in the Project area on occasion, this patch of grassland is likely too
small to support nesting pairs of these species. Small mammals and mesocarnivores including
house mice, striped skunks, and raccoons may forage in these habitats, and several valley pocket
gopher (Thomomys bottae) burrows were observed in the grassland in the southwestern corner of
the Project area.
Armored Rock Levee Slope
Vegetation.Armored rock levee slope covers approximately 1.81 ac within the Project site and
extends downslope from the Project boundary in a number of areas. The rock levees surround
the Marina Boulevard peninsula and the Project area bordering the water west of Oyster Point
Boulevard. This habitat is primarily composed of large rock rip-rap on varying degrees of slope
approximately 10-15 ft wide at the edge of the water and tidal flats. Vegetation in this
community is only found between the rocks and bordering the top of the slopes. It is dominated
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201011
by non-native species such as wild radish, wild oats, bristly ox-tongue (Picris echioides), and
buckthorn plantain (Plantago aristata). North of Marina Boulevard, the rock levee intergrades
somewhat with salt marsh species. Plants with higher salt tolerances such as alkali Russian
thistle (Salsola soda), sea fig (Carpobrotus sp.), and saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) occur
sporadically.
The rock levee slope west of Oyster Point Boulevard is steeper than the rock levee surrounding
Marina Boulevard. Vegetation in this community is influenced by landscape plantings such as
prostrate manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.), and nasturtium (Tropaeolum majus), which have been
planted along the top edges of the rip-rap. Plants growing among the rocks above the high tide
line include non-native volunteer species such as New Zealand spinach (Tetragonia
tetragonioides), spring vetch (Vicia sativa), and native saltgrass.
Wildlife.Armored rock levees such as those along the periphery of the Project area provide
limited wildlife habitat because of their unyielding surfaces, lack of vegetation, and proximity to
open marine water, but are nonetheless utilized by several species for foraging or refugia. Rocky
shore crab species could shelter in crevices between the rocks, foraging on algae that grow there.
Rocky shore-associated birds such as black turnstones (Arenaria melanocephala) have been
observed foraging occasionally on the rocks at Oyster Point (eBird 2010). The levee slopes also
could provide habitat for nuisance species such as Norway rats, black rats (Rattus rattus), and
feral cats, which are known to prey upon native wildlife species.
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh
Vegetation. Approximately 2.47 ac of northern coastal salt marsh occurs in the Project area in
strips or larger areas surrounding the rock levees and along the estuarine canal South of Marina
Boulevard. In some areas, this marsh continues downslope from the Project boundary. These
areas are in the intertidal zone, and are influenced daily by rising and falling tides within the bay.
In slightly higher elevation areas of the marshes, natives such as saltgrass and spearscale
(Atriplex triangularis) occur with ruderal, non-native species such as brass buttons (Cotula
coronopifolia). As the elevation decreases these species give way to a mix of native coastal salt
marsh and alkaline-adapted species such as pickleweed (Salicornia virginica), sea lavender
(Limonium californicum), and marsh jaumea (Jaumea carnosa). Other common plants in the salt
marsh include coast gumweed (Grindelia stricta) and red sand spurry (Spergularia rubra). In
frequently inundated areas and some marsh channels, stands of cordgrass (Spartina sp.) have
been sprayed through control efforts between the 2009 and 2010 site visits. Therefore, much of
the emergent tall grass structure typical of the lowest elevation portions of the marsh was
missing from the Project area.
The salt marsh southwest of the Oyster Cove Marina off of Oyster Point Boulevard has
accumulated sediment and supports a small but productive tidal wetland community. The
vegetation here matches that described above but covers a larger, more continuous area. It also
supports a suite of bulrushes (Schoenoplectus sp.), rushes (Juncus sp.), and cattails (Typha sp.),
which indicate the influence of freshwater from the adjacent drainage. A large population of
cordgrass (Spartina sp.) was observed growing in this marsh during the November 2009 site
visit. In May 2010 the cordgrass in this marsh was dead, indicating that it too had been
controlled through Spartina control efforts.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201012
Wildlife.Salt marsh habitats form unique ecological communities in the San Francisco Bay that
support wildlife species adapted to a saline environment and frequent cyclic changes in water
levels, as well as several more widely-adapted common species. The mudflats associated with
Bay salt marsh habitats provide shelter for burrowing invertebrates and rich foraging habitats for
a plethora of wildlife species. Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos) and snowy egrets (Egretta thula)
were observed foraging in the tidal channels in the salt marsh habitat along the southwestern
portion of the Project area, as well as roosting higher up in pickleweed beds, and white-crowned
sparrows were seen foraging in the highest edges of these salt marshes. Common bird species
such as song sparrows (Melospiza melodia), house finches (Carpodacus mexicanus), and
American goldfinches (Spinus tristis) that live in adjacent habitats may also forage in the higher
portions of these salt marshes on occasion; it is possible that Alameda song sparrows (Melospiza
melodia pusillula) could be found here in very low numbers. The mudflats and exposed tidal
channels within the Project area are probably used by many of the shorebird species known to
occur in the Bay Area; during the reconnaissance surveys, we observed black-bellied plovers
(Pluvialis squatarola), willets (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), California gulls (Larus
californicus), western gulls (Larus occidentalis), snowy egrets, western sandpipers (Calidris
mauri), black-necked stilts (Himantopus mexicanus), long-billed curlews (Numenius
americanus), and whimbrels (Numenius phaeopus) foraging across the flats. Mammals such as
rats, striped skunks, and raccoons may forage in the salt marshes in the Project area, but these
marshes are too limited in extent, underdeveloped in vegetation, and isolated from known
populations to support salt marsh adapted mammal species such as salt marsh harvest mice
(Reithrodontomys raviventris) or salt marsh wandering shrews (Sorex vagrans halicoetes).
Ornamental Woodland
Vegetation. Approximately 0.57 ac of the Project area is dominated by ornamental woodland.
This area is located near the southwest corner of the Project site at the intersection of Gull Drive
and Marina Boulevard. Blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) dominates the area with a few
Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) interspersed. Vegetation beneath the dense eucalyptus canopy is
sparse due to canopy shading and a thick cover of leaf litter. Non-native species such as
Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor) and French broom (Genista monspessulana) are able to
survive in this environment. A few shrubs such as coyote brush, toyon, and coffeeberry
(Rhamnus californica) are thriving on the sunnier edges of the woodland along with the non-
native pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata).
Wildlife. This grove of eucalyptus and Monterey pine trees is likely to host an array of common
invertebrate species. The trees and shrubs provide suitable nesting habitat for common birds
such as American robins, California towhees (Pipilo crissalis), and dark-eyed juncos. The trees
may also support a nest of one of the larger common raptors, such as red-shouldered hawks
(Buteo lineatus), red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis), and great horned owls, all of which breed
in the Project vicinity (Sequoia Audubon Society 2001). However, due to the territorial nature of
these birds, no more than one nest of one of these species would be expected to occur here. The
trees could also be used as roost sites by small numbers of common roosting bats such as
California myotis (Myotis californicus). Other mammals, including house mice, striped skunks,
and raccoons, are also likely to forage in this area.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201013
Sandy Beach
Vegetation.Sandy beach is present on approximately 0.38 ac within the Project area. This area
is located at the edge of the Bay along Marina Boulevard, to the northwest of Oyster Point
Marina. This area includes some habitat below the wrack indicating the high tide line as well as
beach sands above the high tide line that are not typically inundated. Vegetation on the beach is
sparse due to the mostly unconsolidated sand substrate, high drainage, and perpetual sand
movement. Typical sandy beach species such as the native beach bur (Ambrosia chamissonis),
as well as non-natives such as wild radish and sea fig are becoming established on the upper
edges that do not undergo frequent disturbance. This vegetation merges with California annual
grassland as the slope rises away from the water. The southern end of the beach is bordered by
northern coastal salt marsh vegetation and the northern end is bordered by armored rock levee
slope.
Wildlife.Sandy beaches, relatively rare within the Bay, are home to intertidal invertebrates that
serve as prey for shorebirds and seabirds. Western sandpipers and Brewer’s blackbirds
(Euphagus cyanocephalus) were observed during the reconnaissance survey, foraging along the
wrack line on the small sandy beach within the Project area. Urban-adapted mammals living in
the vicinity are likely to forage opportunistically on the sandy beach; we observed two feral cats
on the sandy beach during the reconnaissance survey. Due to the extremely limited extent of the
sandy beach on the Project site, beach-nesting birds such as the western snowy plover
(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus), are not expected to occur here.
Open Water
Vegetation.Open water habitat is present within approximately 0.27 ac of the Project area.
However, extensive open water is present in the Oyster Point Marina and the Oyster Cove
Marina, as well as the Bay waters surrounding the peninsula within the “Additional Study Area”
boundary shown on Figure 2. The area is underlain with unconsolidated bay mud or gravel. The
average water depth at the marina averages 5 ft; however, water depth fluctuates due to tidal
fluctuation, and is typically shallower around the levees and marshes. The water temperature is
cooler than what would be found in estuarine habitats and supports a diversity of algae growing
on rocks and piers.
Open water habitat is also present within a linear tidal canal south of Marina Boulevard. This
habitat is heavily influenced by tidal fluctuations with water depth ranging from approximately 0
to 5 ft. This area has a mud substrate made up of fine silt and clay that supports little vegetation
in the main canal. It is bordered on both banks by northern coastal salt marsh habitat that is
thickest on the south bank. There is little evidence of significant influence from fresh water
tributaries due to the lack of presence of brackish plant species.
Wildlife. The San Francisco Bay supports a thriving community of estuarine life. Benthic
invertebrates present within open water and intertidal habitats in the Project vicinity include the
native Olympia oyster (Ostreola conchaphila). Native Olympia oysters were historically
abundant in San Francisco Bay. Currently, populations of native oysters within the Bay are
relatively low compared to historical conditions (Harris 2004). Suitable habitat, which consists
of solid surfaces to which the larvae can easily attach, is distributed throughout the shoreline of
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201014
the Project area and on the breakwater of the Oyster Point marina, and a population has been
documented in these areas (Zabin et al. 2010).
A diversity of other invertebrates provide an ample prey base for common fish, which in the
Project vicinity may include such species as Pacific herring (Clupea pallasi), Pacific halibut
(Hippoglossus stenolepis), Pacific sardine (Sardinops sagax), and anchovies (Anchoa spp.),
which in turn provide food sources for seabirds and marine mammals such as harbor seals
(Phoca vitulina). California and western gulls, surf scoters (Melanitta perspicillata), scaup
(Aythya spp.), eared grebes (Podiceps nigricollis), Clark’s grebes (Aechmophorus clarkii),
western grebes (Aechmophorus occidentalis), buffleheads (Bucephala albeola), California brown
pelicans (Pelecanus occidentalis), and double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) were
observed foraging in the Bay just offshore of the Project site during the reconnaissance survey.
During low tide, shorebirds forage on intertidal mudflats here.
Fish such as starry flounder (Platichthys stellatus) that are common in estuarine waters around
the San Francisco Bay could inhabit the narrow channel of estuarine water within the Project
area. Mallards and snowy egrets were observed foraging in the channel during the
reconnaissance survey, and other waterbirds are likely to forage in the channel on occasion.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201015
REGULATORY SETTING
Biological resources within the Project site are regulated by a number of federal, state, and local
laws and ordinances, as described below.
FEDERAL
Clean Water Act
Areas meeting the regulatory definition of “Waters of the U.S.” (jurisdictional waters) are
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under
provisions of Section 404 of the 1972 Clean Water Act (Federal Water Pollution Control Act)
and Section 10 of the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act (described below). These waters may
include all waters used, or potentially used, for interstate commerce, including all waters subject
to the ebb and flow of the tide, all interstate waters, all other waters (intrastate lakes, rivers,
streams, mudflats, sandflats, playa lakes, natural ponds, etc.), all impoundments of waters
otherwise defined as “Waters of the U.S.,” tributaries of waters otherwise defined as “Waters of
the U. S.,” the territorial seas, and wetlands (termed Special Aquatic Sites) adjacent to “Waters
of the U.S.” (33 CFR, Part 328, Section 328.3). Wetlands on non-agricultural lands are
identified using the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental
Laboratory 1987).
Areas typically not considered to be jurisdictional waters include non-tidal drainage and
irrigation ditches excavated on dry land, artificially-irrigated areas, artificial lakes or ponds used
for irrigation or stock watering, small artificial water bodies such as swimming pools, and water-
filled depressions (33 CFR, Part 328).
Construction activities within jurisdictional waters are regulated by the USACE. The placement
of fill into such waters must comply with permit requirements of the USACE. No USACE
permit will be effective in the absence of state water quality certification pursuant to Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) is the state agency
(together with the Regional Water Quality Control Boards [RWQCBs]) charged with
implementing water quality certification in California.
Project Applicability. Any work within areas defined as Waters of the U.S. (i.e., wetlands and
other waters), including open water and intertidal habitats of San Francisco Bay, the tidal canal
at the southern edge of the site, and associated wetlands and shoreline areas (extending up to the
high tide line or the upper limits of wetlands, whichever is higher) may require a Section 404 fill
discharge permit from the USACE and Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the
RWQCB. The approximate upslope limits of USACE jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act are
shown on Figure 2. A jurisdictional wetland delineation to determine the precise boundaries of
USACE jurisdiction has not been performed for the Project.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201016
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The RWQCB is responsible for protecting surface, ground, and coastal waters within its
boundaries, pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of the California Water
Code. The RWQCB has jurisdiction under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act for activities that
could result in a discharge of dredged or fill material to a water body. Federal authority is
exercised whenever a proposed project requires a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit from the
USACE in the form of a Section 401 Water Quality Certification. State authority is exercised
when a proposed project is not subject to federal authority, in the form of a Notice of Coverage,
Waiver of Waste Discharge Requirements. Many wetlands fall into RWQCB jurisdiction,
including some wetlands and waters that are not subject to USACE jurisdiction. RWQCB
jurisdiction of other waters, such as streams and lakes, extends to all areas below the ordinary
high water mark.
The RWQCB has no formal technical manual or expanded regulations to help in identifying their
jurisdiction. The only guidance can be found in Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act,
Chapter 2 (Definitions), which states, “‘waters of the State’ means any surface water or ground
water, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.”
Under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the SWRCB and the nine regional boards
also have the responsibility of granting Clean Water Act National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits and waste discharge requirements for certain point-source
and non-point discharges to waters. These regulations limit impacts to aquatic and riparian
habitats from a variety of urban sources.
Project Applicability. As stated above, any Project activities that impact waters of the
U.S./State will require 401 Certification and/or a Waste Discharge Requirement from the
RWQCB. In the Study Area, these include the same boundaries of aquatic, intertidal, and
wetlands/shoreline habitats as described above for areas subject to jurisdiction under the Clean
Water Act.
Rivers and Harbors Act
Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (1899) 33 U.S.C. 403 regulates the construction of
structures, placement of fill, and introduction of other potential obstructions to navigation in
navigable waters. Under Section 10 of the Act, the building of any wharfs, piers, jetties, and
other structures is prohibited without Congressional approval, and excavation or fill within
navigable or tidal waters requires the approval of the Chief of Engineers.
The USACE has the authority to issue permits for the discharge of refuse into, or affecting,
navigable waters under section 13 of the 1899 Act (33 U.S.C. 407; 30 Stat. 1152). The Act was
modified by title IV of P.L. 92-500, October 18, 1972; the Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Amendments of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1341-1345; 86 Stat. 877), as amended, established the NPDES
permits.
Project Applicability. Within the Project area, all tidally influenced open water and intertidal
habitats of San Francisco Bay, the tidal canal at the southern edge of the site, and associated
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201017
wetlands and shoreline areas (extending up to the mean high water line) are subject to USACE
jurisdiction under the Rivers and Harbors Act, and any activities affecting these areas would
potentially require a Section 10 Letter of Permission.
Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) protects listed wildlife species from harm or “take”
which is broadly defined as to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture,
collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct. Take can also include habitat modification or
degradation that directly results in death or injury of a listed wildlife species. An activity can be
defined as “take” even if it is unintentional or accidental. Listed plant species are provided less
protection than listed wildlife species. Listed plant species are legally protected from take under
the FESA only if they occur on federal lands or if the project requires a federal action, such as a
Clean Water Act Section 404 fill permit from the USACE.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has jurisdiction over federally listed threatened
and endangered wildlife species under the FESA, while the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) has jurisdiction over federally listed, threatened and endangered, marine and
anadromous fish.
Project Applicability. Several federally listed species occur in the general vicinity of the
Project site. Although only limited habitat for such species occurs in the Project area, federally
listed animal species that occur, or could potentially occur, in the Project area include the green
sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), Central California Coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss),
and California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), and possibly several Central Valley-
breeding salmonids.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act governs all fishery
management activities that occur in federal waters within the United States’ 200-nautical-mile
limit. The Act establishes eight Regional Fishery Management Councils responsible for the
preparation of fishery management plans to achieve the optimum yield from U.S. fisheries in
their regions. These councils, with assistance from the NMFS, establish Essential Fish Habitat
(EFH) in fishery management plans for all managed species. Federal agencies that fund, permit,
or implement activities that may adversely affect EFH are required to consult with the NMFS
regarding potential adverse effects of their actions on EFH, and respond in writing to
recommendations by the NMFS.
Project Applicability.A number of fish species regulated by the Coastal Pelagics and Pacific
Groundfish Fisheries Management Plans occur in tidal habitats of San Francisco Bay, including
the open water habitats on and adjacent to the Project site. Thus, these tidal waters are
considered EFH.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201018
Marine Mammal Protection Act
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) was enacted in 1972 and amended through 2007
(16 USC 1631). All marine mammals are protected by the MMPA, which prohibits their take in
U.S. Waters. Take is defined in the MMPA as “harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect, or attempt
to harass, hunt, capture, kill or collect” [16 USC 1631 Section 3(13)].
Project Applicability. The only two marine mammal species that have potential to occur in the
Project vicinity at all regularly are the harbor seal and the California sea lion (Zalophus
californianus), both of which may occasionally forage in Bay waters near the site. The MMPA
would apply to the Project, because in-water construction activities such as pile driving could
potentially harass these animals.
Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA; 16 U.S.C., §703, Supp. I, 1989) prohibits
killing, possessing, or trading of migratory birds except in accordance with regulations
prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior. The trustee agency that addresses issues related to the
MBTA is the USFWS. Migratory birds protected under this law include all native birds and
certain game birds (e.g., turkeys and pheasants; Federal Register 70(2):372-377). This act
encompasses whole birds, parts of birds, and bird nests and eggs. The MBTA protects active
nests from destruction and all nests of species protected by the MBTA, whether active or not,
cannot be possessed. An active nest under the MBTA, as described by the Department of the
Interior in its 16 April 2003 Migratory Bird Permit Memorandum, is one having eggs or young.
Nest starts, prior to egg laying, are not protected from destruction.
Project Applicability.All native bird species occurring in the Study Area are protected by the
MBTA.
STATE
California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA, Fish and Game Code of California, Chapter 1.5,
Sections 2050-2116) prohibits the take of any plant or animal listed or proposed for listing as
rare (plants only), threatened, or endangered. In accordance with the CESA, the CDFG has
jurisdiction over state-listed species. The CDFG regulates activities that may result in “take” of
individuals listed under the Act (i.e., “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt,
pursue, catch, capture, or kill”). Habitat degradation or modification is not expressly included in
the definition of “take” under the Fish and Game Code. The CDFG, however, has interpreted
“take” to include the “killing of a member of a species which is the proximate result of habitat
modification.”
Project Applicability. Although habitat suitability in the Project area for these species is
marginal, State-listed animal species that occur, or could potentially occur, in the Project area
include the longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) and California least tern.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201019
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is a state law that requires state and local
agencies, such as the City of San José, to document and consider the environmental implications
of their actions and to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if
there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that can substantially lessen or avoid those
effects. CEQA requires the full disclosure of the environmental effects of agency actions, such
as approval of a general plan update or the projects covered by that plan, on resources such as air
quality, water quality, cultural resources, and biological resources. The State Resources Agency
promulgated guidelines for implementing CEQA known as the State CEQA Guidelines.
CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in evaluating impacts of projects to
biological resources and determining which impacts will be significant. CEQA defines
“significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical
conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project.” Under CEQA Guidelines
section 15065, a project's effects on biotic resources are deemed significant where the project
would:
“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”
In addition to the section 15065 criteria that trigger mandatory findings of significance,
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a checklist of other potential impacts to consider
when analyzing the significance of project effects. The impacts listed in Appendix G may or
may not be significant, depending on the level of the impact. For biological resources, these
impacts include whether the project would:
“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”
“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”
“have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act”
“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”
“conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance”
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201020
“conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan”
Section 15380(b) of the CEQA Guidelines provides that a species not listed on the federal or
state lists of protected species may be considered rare if the species can be shown to meet certain
specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions in the FESA and the
CESA and the section of the California Fish and Game Code dealing with rare or endangered
plants or animals. This section was included in the guidelines primarily to deal with situations in
which a public agency is reviewing a project that may have a significant effect on a species that
has not yet been listed by either the USFWS or CDFG or species that are locally or regionally
rare.
The CDFG has produced three lists (amphibians and reptiles, birds, and mammals) of “species of
special concern” that serve as “watch lists”. Species on these lists are of limited distribution or
the extent of their habitats has been reduced substantially, such that threat to their populations
may be imminent. Thus, their populations should be monitored. They may receive special
attention during environmental review as potential rare species, but do not have specific statutory
protection. All potentially rare or sensitive species, or habitats capable of supporting rare
species, are considered for environmental review per the CEQA § 15380(b).
The CNPS, a non-governmental conservation organization, has developed lists of plant species
of concern in California. Vascular plants included on these lists are defined as follows:
List 1A Plants considered extinct.
List 1B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere.
List 2 Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere.
List 3 Plants about which more information is needed - review list.
List 4 Plants of limited distribution-watch list.
These CNPS listings are further described by the following threat code extensions:
.1—seriously endangered in California;
.2—fairly endangered in California;
.3—not very endangered in California.
Although the CNPS is not a regulatory agency and plants on these lists have no formal regulatory
protection, plants appearing on List 1B or List 2 are, in general, considered to meet the CEQA’s
Section 15380 criteria, and adverse effects to these species may be considered significant.
Impacts to plants that are listed by the CNPS on List 3 or 4 are also considered during CEQA
review, although because these species are typically not as rare as those on List 1B or List,
impacts to them are less frequently considered significant.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201021
Project Applicability. All impacts to biological resources will be considered during CEQA
review of the Project in the context of this EIR.
California Fish and Game Code
The California Fish and Game Code includes regulations governing the use of, or impacts to,
many of the state’s fish, wildlife, and sensitive habitats. The CDFG exerts jurisdiction over the
bed and banks of rivers, lakes, and streams according to provisions of §§1601–1603 of the Fish
and Game Code. The Fish and Game Code requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement for the
fill or removal of material within the bed and banks of a watercourse or waterbody and for the
removal of riparian vegetation.
Certain sections of the Fish and Game Code describe regulations pertaining to certain wildlife
species. For example, Fish and Game Code §§3503, 2513, and 3800 (and other sections and
subsections) protect native birds, including their nests and eggs, from all forms of take.
Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take”
by the CDFG. Raptors (i.e., eagles, falcons, hawks, and owls) and their nests are specifically
protected in California under Fish and Game Code §3503.5. Section 3503.5 states that it is
“unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds
of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise
provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Non-game mammals are
protected by Fish and Game Code §4150, and other sections of the Code protect other taxa.
Project Applicability. All native bird and mammal species that occur in the Project area are
protected by the state Fish and Game Code. Because no non-tidal creeks are present in the
Project area, it is unlikely that a Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required for Project
activities.
REGIONAL
McAteer-Petris Act
The McAteer-Petris Act created the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) in 1965. BCDC’s mission is to preserve the San Francisco Bay from
unregulated filling. BCDC has prepared a comprehensive study of the Bay and determined how
future development of the Bay should occur, resulting in the production of the San Francisco Bay
Plan in 1968. BCDC’s jurisdiction includes all areas below the mean high tide line and an area
within a shoreline band that extends landward for 100 feet from the mean high tide line. The
McAteer-Petris Act includes a permitting process for projects that would place fill in, on, or over
any part of BCDC’s jurisdiction.
Project Applicability. Portions of the Project in, on, or over the Bay, including areas within 100
feet of the mean high tide elevation (or, in areas supporting coastal wetlands, within 100 feet of
the mean high tide elevation plus 5 feet), are within BCDC’s jurisdiction, and BCDC approval of
any activities within these areas would be required.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201022
City of South San Francisco Tree Preservation Ordinance
Under Chapter 13.30 of the South San Fancisco Municipal Code, the City of South San
Francisco maintains a tree preservation ordinance designed to:
(a) Provide standards and requirements for the protection of certain large trees (trees
with a circumference of 48 inches or greater at 54 inches above the natural grade) and trees and
stands with unique characteristics (having been so designated by the director);
(b) Provide standards and requirements for planting and maintenance of trees for new
development; and
(c) Establish recommended standards for planting and maintaining trees on property
that is already developed. This chapter achieves these objectives in ways that support and
encourage the reasonable economic enjoyment of private property, not in ways that prevent it.
(Ord. 1271 § 1 (part), 2000: Ord. 1060 § 1 (part), 1989).
Protected trees are not to be removed or pruned without a permit from the City, and must be
protected from development-related impacts such as soil compaction and underground trenching
for utilities. Additionally, new developments must conform to a series of tree planting
requirements.
Project Applicability. No trees of protected size or that were known to be protected by special
designation from the City director (as demarcated by a fence) were found to occur on-site. As
the Oyster Point Business Park will be located in an areas designated as community commercial,
business commercial, coastal commercial, office or business and technology park, one landscape
tree must be planted for every 2000 square feet of new floor area.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND SENSITIVE HABITATS
CEQA requires assessment of the effects of a project on species that are “threatened, rare, or
endangered”; such species are typically described as “special-status species”. For the purpose of
environmental review of the Project, special-status species have been defined as described
below. Impacts to these species are regulated by some of the federal, state, and local laws and
ordinances described under “Regulatory Setting” above.
For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” plants are considered plant species that are:
x Listed under the FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed
endangered, or a candidate species.
x Listed under the CESA as threatened, endangered, rare, or a candidate species.
x Listed by the CNPS as rare or endangered on Lists 1A, 1B, 2, 3, or 4.
For purposes of this analysis, “special-status” animals are considered animal species that are:
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201023
x Listed under the FESA as threatened, endangered, proposed threatened, proposed
endangered, or a candidate species.
x Listed under the CESA as threatened, endangered, or a candidate threatened or
endangered species.
x Designated by the CDFG as a California species of special concern.
x Listed in the California Fish and Game Code as a fully protected species (birds at §3511,
mammals at §4700, reptiles and amphibians at §5050, and fish at §5515).
Figures 3 and 4 depict the CNDDB-mapped records of plants and wildlife, respectively, in the
vicinity of the Project area. These generalized maps are valuable on a historical basis, and show
areas where special-status species occur or have occurred previously.
Special-status Plant Species
Information concerning threatened, endangered or other special-status species that may occur in
the Project area was collected from several sources and reviewed by H. T. Harvey & Associates’
biologists. These sources included the CNDDB (2010), the Online Inventory of Rare and
Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS 2010), The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of
California (Hickman 1993), CalFlora (2010), the Consortium of California Herbaria (2010), and
other information available through the USFWS, CDFG, and technical publications. The
specific habitat requirements and the locations of known occurrences of each special-status
species were the principal criteria used for inclusion in the list of species potentially occurring on
the site.
We conducted a search of CNDDB Rarefind published accounts (CNDDB 2010) for all special-
status species within the USGS Topographic quadrangle maps containing the Project site
(principally San Francisco South, although the eastern tip of the peninsula lies along the
boundary of the Hunter’s Point quadrangle), and within the five landside quadrangles
surrounding these quadrangles, which include: San Francisco North, Oakland West, Point
Bonita, Montara Mountain, and San Mateo. For plants, we reviewed all species on current
CNPS Lists 1A, 1B, 2, 3 occurring in any of the seven USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles listed
above. A typical nine-quadrangle search was not feasible, as no land-containing quadrangles are
located to the west. We also considered the list for San Mateo County as CNPS does not
maintain quadrangle-level records on List 4 species.
Reconnaissance-level surveys were conducted on 11 November and 12 December 2009 and 5
May 2010 for special-status plants and for habitats capable of supporting these species.
The CNPS identifies 89 special-status plant species as potentially occurring in at least one of the
seven quadrangles containing or surrounding the Project site or, for List 4 species, in San Mateo
County. Most of these have a low likelihood of occurrence within the Project area due to the
following reasons: lack of specific edaphic requirements on site for the species in question, the
species is known to be extirpated from the area, the site is outside the highly endemic range of
the species in question, the elevation range of the species is outside of the range on site, or
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201024
degraded habitat conditions on site are not likely to support the species in question. Of the 89
plant species considered, only six were considered to have enough potential for occurrence in the
Project vicinity, based on proximity to locally documented populations mapped by the CNDDB
and similar habitat requirements to those on site, to be considered in detail. Appendix A lists the
plants that were rejected for consideration and the reasons for rejection.
The six special-status plant species considered to have some potential for occurrence on the
Project site were reviewed in depth and are listed in Table 2. Those species listed as Threatened
or Endangered by the state or federal Endangered Species Acts, or considered rare by the CNPS,
are discussed in detail below.Of the six species considered in this assessment, none were
ultimately determined to have potential to occur on-site after careful consideration of the site’s
habitats.
Federal or State Endangered or Threatened Species
White-rayed pentachaeta (Pentachaeta bellidiflora). Federal Listing Status: Endangered;
State Listing Status: Endangered; CNPS List: 1B.1. This annual herb in the composite
(Asteraceae) family occurs in cismontane woodlands and valley and foothill grassland habitats at
elevations of approximately 115 - 2050 ft (CNPS 2010). When occurring in grassy habitats, this
species is often found on serpentine-derived substrates, scoring a 2.4 (weak indicator) in affinity
to serpentine soils (CalFlora 2010). The blooming period extends from March to May. White-
rayed pentachaetawas known from 12 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles in Marin, Santa Cruz, and
San Mateo counties, but is now presumed extirpated from all historical locations except those in
the Woodside quadrangle in San Mateo County. All of the previously known occurrences in
other quadrangles were lost to development, making this a major threat for the species. The
species is now known from fewer than 20 occurrences, as the Monterey County occurrence once
attributed to this species is actually P. exilis var. aeolica (CNPS 2010).
The CNDDB lists two occurrences within either the Project quadrangle or eight surrounding
quadrangles. One occurrence off of Skyline Boulevard, above San Andreas Lake in San Mateo
County indicates that available habitat has been lost due to the presence of a road. Both
occurrences are documented as being extirpated or possibly extirpated. CalFlora (2010) has
records of five reported occurrences in San Mateo County from as recent as 1994. Recent
occurrences are in the serpentinite soils of Edgewood Park. It is unlikely that the fill soils in the
Project area would support serpentinite species or are sufficiently rocky. Additionally, this
species is only known to occur at elevations outside the elevation range within the Project area.
Based on the distance from the nearest documented populations and the quality of on-site soils,
this species is presumed absent from the Project area.
CNPS-listed Species
Coastal marsh milk-vetch (Astragalus pycnostachyus var. pycnostachyus). Federal Listing
Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 1B.2. Coastal marsh milk-vetch is a
perennial herb in the legume family (Fabaceae) that blooms from April to October. It occurs in
mesic coastal dunes, coastal scrub, and marshes and swamps from 0 to 98 ft. elevation. When
occurring in marshes, the variety is specifically associated with coastal salt influence and/or and
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201025
Colma
Millbrae
Pacifica
Brisbane
SanBruno
Broadmoor
DalyCity
Burlingame
SouthSanFrancisco
82
35
1
35
82
1
101
92
280
380
280
280
Colm
a
Creek
Colma
Creek
MM ii ll ll ss CC rr ee ee kk
SS
aa
nn
PP
ee
ddrroo
CCrree
ee
kk
SS
aannMMaattee
o
o
CC
r
r
ee
ee
kk
Sa
n
ch
e
z
C
r
e
e
k
Sa
n
ch
e
z
C
r
e
e
k
NN oo rrtt hh FF oo rr kk SS aannPPeeddrrooCCrreeeekk
EE aassttoonn CC rr ee ee kk
S anc
h
e
z
C
r
e
e
k
San
c
h
e
z
C
r
e
e
k
SanchezCreekSanchezCreek
SanAndreasLakeSanAndreasLake
NorthBasinNorthBasin
SouthBasinSouthBasin
beachlayiabeachlayia
bristlysedgebristlysedge
seasidetarplantseasidetarplant
roseleptosiphonroseleptosiphon
bluecoastgiliabluecoastgilia
seasidetarplantseasidetarplant
FranciscanthistleFranciscanthistle
FranciscanthistleFranciscanthistle
Kellogg'shorkeliaKellogg'shorkelia
Kellogg'shorkeliaKellogg'shorkelia
DiablohelianthellaDiablohelianthella
robustspineflowerrobustspineflower
robustspineflowerrobustspineflower
SanFranciscocollinsiaSanFranciscocollinsia
SanFranciscolessingiaSanFranciscolessingia
SanFranciscogumplantSanFranciscogumplant
SanFranciscocollinsiaSanFranciscocollinsia
white-rayedpentachaetawhite-rayedpentachaeta
bent-floweredfiddleneckbent-floweredfiddleneck
coastyellowleptosiphoncoastyellowleptosiphon
FranciscanonionFranciscanonion
SanFranciscoowl's-cloverSanFranciscoowl's-clover
SanFranciscoowl's-cloverSanFranciscoowl's-clover
SanFranciscoowl's-cloverSanFranciscoowl's-clover
SanFranciscoowl's-cloverSanFranciscoowl's-clover
SanFranciscoBayspineflowerSanFranciscoBayspineflower
short-leavedevaxshort-leavedevax
fragrantfritillaryfragrantfritillary
SanFranciscoBayspineflowerSanFranciscoBayspineflower
SanFranciscocollinsiaSanFranciscocollinsia
SanFranciscoowl's-cloverSanFranciscoowl's-clover
SanFranciscocollinsiaSanFranciscocollinsia
PointReyeshorkeliaPointReyeshorkelia
SanFranciscocollinsiaSanFranciscocollinsia
SanFranciscocollinsiaSanFranciscocollinsia
SanFranciscocollinsiaSanFranciscocollinsia
SanFranciscocollinsiaSanFranciscocollinsia
compactcobwebbythistlecompactcobwebbythistle
adobesanicleadobesanicle
alkalimilk-vetchalkalimilk-vetch
westernleatherwoodwesternleatherwood
CrystalSpringslessingiaCrystalSpringslessingia
SanFranciscoowl's-cloverSanFranciscoowl's-clover
Kellogg'shorkeliaKellogg'shorkelia
CaliforniaseabliteCaliforniaseablite
DiablohelianthellaDiablohelianthella
PresidiomanzanitaPresidiomanzanita
FranciscanmanzanitaFranciscanmanzanita
SanFranciscogumplantSanFranciscogumplant
SanFranciscogumplantSanFranciscogumplant
SanFranciscogumplantSanFranciscogumplant
SanFranciscogumplantSanFranciscogumplant
white-rayedpentachaetawhite-rayedpentachaeta
SanFranciscoBayspineflowerSanFranciscoBayspineflower
CaliforniaseabliteCaliforniaseablite
SanFranciscoBayspineflowerSanFranciscoBayspineflower
PacificmanzanitaPacificmanzanita
coastaltriquetrellacoastaltriquetrella
arcuatebush-mallowarcuatebush-mallow
arcuatebush-mallowarcuatebush-mallow
arcuatebush-mallowarcuatebush-mallow
SanFranciscoBayspineflowerSanFranciscoBayspineflower
SanFranciscocampionSanFranciscocampion
arcuatebush-mallowarcuatebush-mallow
roseleptosiphonroseleptosiphon
SanFranciscolessingiaSanFranciscolessingia
papposetarplantpapposetarplant
Choris'popcorn-flowerChoris'popcorn-flower
SanBrunoMountainmanzanitaSanBrunoMountainmanzanita
Choris'popcorn-flowerChoris'popcorn-flower
westernleatherwoodwesternleatherwood
SanFranciscogumplantSanFranciscogumplant SanFranciscocollinsiaSanFranciscocollinsia
SanBrunoMountainmanzanitaSanBrunoMountainmanzanita
SanFranciscoBayspineflowerSanFranciscoBayspineflower
DiablohelianthellaDiablohelianthella
SanFranciscoBayspineflowerSanFranciscoBayspineflower
Choris'popcorn-flowerChoris'popcorn-flower
SanBrunoMountainmanzanitaSanBrunoMountainmanzanita
coastaltriquetrellacoastaltriquetrella
MontaramanzanitaMontaramanzanita
SanFranciscocampionSanFranciscocampion
westernleatherwoodwesternleatherwood
SanFranciscoInternational
Figure3a:CNDDBPlantRecords
September2010
N:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
3
0
0
0
\
3
1
0
5
-
0
1
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
OysterPointBusinessPark(3105-01)
1.201.20.6
Miles
LEGEND
ProjectLocation
5MileBuffer
CNDDBRecords
SpecificLocation
GeneralArea
ApproximateLocation
Plants
GeneralArea
TerrestrialCommunities
ApproximateLocation
SanFrancisco
BayPacificOcean
Colma
Millbrae
Pacifica
Brisbane
SanBruno
Broadmoor
DalyCity
Burlingame
SouthSanFrancisco
82
35
1
35
82
1
101
92
280
380
280
280
Colm
a
Creek
Colma
Creek
MM ii ll ll ss CC rr ee ee kk
SS
aa
nn
PP
ee
ddrroo
CCrree
ee
kk
SS
aannMMaattee
o
o
CC
r
r
ee
ee
kk
Sa
n
ch
e
z
C
r
e
e
k
Sa
n
ch
e
z
C
r
e
e
k
NN oo rrtt hh FF oo rr kk SS aannPPeeddrrooCCrreeeekk
EE aassttoonn CC rr ee ee kk
S anc
h
e
z
C
r
e
e
k
San
c
h
e
z
C
r
e
e
k
SanchezCreekSanchezCreek
SanAndreasLakeSanAndreasLake
NorthBasinNorthBasin
SouthBasinSouthBasin
Aleaf-cutterbeeAleaf-cutterbee
sandybeachtigerbeetlesandybeachtigerbeetle
pallidbatpallidbat
hoarybathoarybat
hoarybathoarybat
hoarybathoarybat
Stage'sdufourinebeeStage'sdufourinebee
bankswallowbankswallow
bankswallowbankswallow
tidewatergobytidewatergoby
bigfree-tailedbatbigfree-tailedbat
Myrtle'ssilverspotMyrtle'ssilverspot
CaliforniablackrailCaliforniablackrail
CaliforniaclapperrailCaliforniaclapperrail
CaliforniaclapperrailCaliforniaclapperrail
callippesilverspotbutterflycallippesilverspotbutterfly
AlamedasongsparrowAlamedasongsparrow
AlamedasongsparrowAlamedasongsparrow
bumblebeescarabbeetlebumblebeescarabbeetle
MissionbluebutterflyMissionbluebutterfly
MissionbluebutterflyMissionbluebutterfly
hardheadhardhead
MissionbluebutterflyMissionbluebutterfly
SanBrunoelfinbutterflySanBrunoelfinbutterfly
saltmarshcommonyellowthroatsaltmarshcommonyellowthroat
saltmarshcommonyellowthroatsaltmarshcommonyellowthroat
AlamedasongsparrowAlamedasongsparrow
MissionbluebutterflyMissionbluebutterfly
BaycheckerspotbutterflyBaycheckerspotbutterfly
MissionbluebutterflyMissionbluebutterfly
MissionbluebutterflyMissionbluebutterfly
SanFranciscoforktaildamselflySanFranciscoforktaildamselfly
westernpondturtlewesternpondturtle
steelhead-centralCaliforniacoastESUsteelhead-centralCaliforniacoastESU
MissionbluebutterflyMissionbluebutterfly
TomalesisopodTomalesisopod
TomalesisopodTomalesisopod
monarchbutterflymonarchbutterfly
MissionbluebutterflyMissionbluebutterfly
SanFranciscoforktaildamselflySanFranciscoforktaildamselfly
SanBrunoelfinbutterflySanBrunoelfinbutterfly
SanBrunoelfinbutterflySanBrunoelfinbutterfly
callippesilverspotbutterflycallippesilverspotbutterfly
BaycheckerspotbutterflyBaycheckerspotbutterfly
BaycheckerspotbutterflyBaycheckerspotbutterfly
double-crestedcormorantdouble-crestedcormorant
SanFranciscoforktaildamselflySanFranciscoforktaildamselfly
hoarybathoarybat
MissionbluebutterflyMissionbluebutterfly
MissionbluebutterflyMissionbluebutterfly
MissionbluebutterflyMissionbluebutterfly
saltmarshcommonyellowthroatsaltmarshcommonyellowthroat
callippesilverspotbutterflycallippesilverspotbutterfly
fringedmyotisfringedmyotis
callippesilverspotbutterflycallippesilverspotbutterfly
AlamedasongsparrowAlamedasongsparrow
MissionbluebutterflyMissionbluebutterfly
merlinmerlin
callippesilverspotbutterflycallippesilverspotbutterfly
CalifornialeastternCalifornialeasttern
westernpondturtlewesternpondturtle
CaliforniaclapperrailCaliforniaclapperrail
incredibleharvestmanincredibleharvestman
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLFCRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
CRLFCRLF
mimictryonia(=Californiabramimictryonia(=Californiabra
westernsnowwesternsnow
CaliforniaclapperrailCaliforniaclapperrail
CalifornialCalifornialdouble-crestedcormorantdouble-crestedcormorant
double-crestedcormorantdouble-crestedcormorant
SanFranciscodusky-footedwoodratSanFranciscodusky-footedwoodrat
Leech'sskylinedivingbeetleLeech'sskylinedivingbeetle
SanFranciscoInternational
Figure3b:CNDDBAnimalRecords
September2010
N:
\
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
3
0
0
0
\
3
1
0
5
-
0
1
\
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
\
OysterPointBusinessPark(3105-01)
1.201.20.6
Miles
LEGEND
SpecificLocation
GeneralArea
ApproximateLocation
ProjectLocation
Animals
5MileBuffer
CNDDBRecords
SanFrancisco
BayPacificOcean
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
P
l
a
n
t
a
n
d
A
n
i
m
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
T
h
e
i
r
S
t
a
t
u
s
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
A
r
e
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
A
r
e
a
.
NA
M
E
*
S
T
A
T
U
S
H
A
B
I
T
A
T
P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
F
O
R
OC
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
O
N
S
I
T
E
Fe
d
e
r
a
l
o
r
S
t
a
t
e
E
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
o
r
T
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
Wh
i
t
e
r
a
y
e
d
p
e
n
t
a
c
h
a
e
t
a
(Pe
n
t
a
c
h
a
e
t
a
b
e
l
l
i
d
i
f
l
o
r
a
)
FE
,
S
E
,
C
N
P
S
1
B
.
1
V
a
l
l
e
y
a
n
d
f
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
.
G
r
a
s
s
y
a
r
e
a
s
o
r
ro
c
k
y
s
l
o
p
e
s
o
f
t
e
n
w
i
t
h
s
o
i
l
s
d
e
r
i
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
se
r
p
e
n
t
i
n
e
(
1
1
5
-
2
0
5
0
f
t
)
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
n
g
e
f
o
r
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
d
o
e
s
no
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
Th
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
ed absent from the site
du
e
t
o
a
l
a
c
k
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
e
d
a
p
h
i
c
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
an
d
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
Ba
y
c
h
e
c
k
e
r
s
p
o
t
b
u
t
t
e
r
f
l
y
(Eu
p
h
y
d
r
y
a
s
e
d
i
t
h
a
b
a
y
e
n
s
i
s
)
FT
S
e
r
p
e
n
t
i
n
e
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
s
i
n
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
ar
e
a
w
h
e
r
e
h
o
s
t
p
l
a
n
t
(
Pl
a
n
t
a
g
o
e
r
e
c
t
a
)
i
s
pr
e
s
e
n
t
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
H
o
s
t
p
l
a
n
t
s
a
b
s
e
n
t
,
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
ra
n
g
e
Ca
l
l
i
p
e
s
i
l
v
e
r
s
p
o
t
b
u
t
t
e
r
f
l
y
(Sp
e
y
e
r
i
a
c
a
l
l
i
p
e
c
a
l
l
i
p
e
)
FE
G
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
Ar
e
a
.
L
a
r
v
a
e
f
e
e
d
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
y
o
n
Vi
o
l
a
pe
d
u
n
c
u
l
a
t
a
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
H
o
s
t
p
l
a
n
t
s
a
b
s
e
n
t
My
r
t
l
e
'
s
s
i
l
v
e
r
s
p
o
t
(Sp
e
y
e
r
i
a
z
e
r
e
n
e
m
y
r
t
l
e
a
e
)
FE
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
d
u
n
e
s
,
s
c
r
u
b
l
a
n
d
s
,
a
n
d
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
s
i
n
Ma
r
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
E
g
g
s
a
r
e
l
a
i
d
o
n
l
y
o
n
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
f
Vi
o
l
a
f
o
u
n
d
i
n
M
a
r
i
n
C
o
u
n
t
y
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
H
o
s
t
p
l
a
n
t
s
a
b
s
e
n
t
,
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
ra
n
g
e
28
Sa
n
B
r
u
n
o
e
l
f
i
n
b
u
t
t
e
r
f
l
y
(Ca
l
l
o
p
h
r
y
s
m
o
s
s
i
i
b
a
y
e
n
s
i
s
)
FE
R
o
c
k
y
o
u
t
c
r
o
p
p
i
n
g
s
i
n
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
s
c
r
u
b
l
a
n
d
s
i
n
t
h
e
Sa
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
A
r
e
a
.
E
g
g
s
a
r
e
l
a
i
d
ex
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
y
o
n
s
t
o
n
e
c
r
o
p
(
Se
d
u
m
s
p
a
t
h
u
l
i
f
o
l
i
u
m
).
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
H
o
s
t
p
l
a
n
t
s
a
b
s
e
n
t
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
b
l
u
e
b
u
t
t
e
r
f
l
y
(Pl
e
b
e
j
u
s
i
c
a
r
i
o
i
d
e
s
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
e
n
s
i
s
)
FE
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
s
c
r
u
b
l
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
s
.
E
g
g
s
a
r
e
l
a
i
d
,
an
d
l
a
r
v
a
e
f
e
e
d
,
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
v
e
l
y
o
n
s
i
l
v
e
r
l
u
p
i
n
e
(Lu
p
i
n
u
s
a
l
b
i
f
r
o
n
s
),
s
u
m
m
e
r
l
u
p
i
n
e
(
L.
fo
r
m
o
s
u
s
),
a
n
d
m
a
n
y
-
c
o
l
o
r
e
d
l
u
p
i
n
e
(
L.
ve
r
s
i
c
o
l
o
r
).
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
H
o
s
t
p
l
a
n
t
s
a
b
s
e
n
t
Wh
i
t
e
a
b
a
l
o
n
e
(Ha
l
i
o
t
e
s
s
o
r
e
n
s
e
n
i
)
FE
R
o
c
k
y
m
a
r
i
n
e
s
u
b
t
i
d
a
l
(
t
o
2
0
0
f
e
e
t
d
e
e
p
)
a
n
d
ex
t
r
e
m
e
l
o
w
e
r
i
n
t
e
r
t
i
d
a
l
(
b
e
l
o
w
1
5
f
e
e
t
d
e
e
p
)
ha
b
i
t
a
t
s
.
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
d
e
p
l
e
t
e
d
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
i
s
t
o
o
s
h
a
l
l
o
w
a
n
d
mo
d
i
f
i
e
d
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
C
o
a
s
t
C
o
h
o
s
a
l
m
o
n
(On
c
o
r
h
y
n
c
h
u
s
k
i
s
u
t
c
h
)
FE
,
S
E
S
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
i
n
a
c
c
e
s
s
i
b
l
e
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
,
ge
n
e
r
a
l
l
y
i
n
a
r
e
a
s
w
i
t
h
c
o
m
p
l
e
x
i
n
-
s
t
r
e
a
m
ha
b
i
t
a
t
,
h
e
a
v
y
f
o
r
e
s
t
c
o
v
e
r
,
a
n
d
h
i
g
h
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
wa
t
e
r
.
J
u
v
e
n
i
l
e
s
r
e
a
r
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
a
r
e
a
s
f
o
r
t
w
o
y
e
a
r
s
be
f
o
r
e
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
o
c
e
a
n
.
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
.
T
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
ex
t
i
r
p
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
.
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
P
l
a
n
t
a
n
d
A
n
i
m
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
T
h
e
i
r
S
t
a
t
u
s
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
A
r
e
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
A
r
e
a
.
NA
M
E
*
S
T
A
T
U
S
H
A
B
I
T
A
T
P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
F
O
R
OC
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
O
N
S
I
T
E
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
C
o
a
s
t
s
t
e
e
l
h
e
a
d
(On
c
o
r
h
y
n
c
h
u
s
m
y
k
i
s
s
)
FT
S
p
a
w
n
s
i
n
c
o
o
l
,
c
l
e
a
r
,
w
e
l
l
-
o
x
y
g
e
n
a
t
e
d
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
.
Ju
v
e
n
i
l
e
s
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
f
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
o
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
ye
a
r
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
o
c
e
a
n
.
So
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
.
J
u
v
e
n
i
l
e
s
a
n
d
a
d
u
l
t
st
e
e
l
h
e
a
d
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
f
o
u
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
o
p
e
n
w
a
t
e
r
s
ad
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
s
t
h
e
y
m
i
g
r
a
t
e
t
o
an
d
f
r
o
m
s
p
a
w
n
i
n
g
a
n
d
r
e
a
r
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
i
n
So
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
.
P
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
kn
o
w
n
f
r
o
m
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
n
e
a
r
b
y
c
r
e
e
k
s
o
n
t
h
e
pe
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
(
i.
e
.
,
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
q
u
i
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
)
.
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
s
t
e
e
l
h
e
a
d
(On
c
o
r
h
y
n
c
h
u
s
m
y
k
i
s
s
)
FT
S
p
a
w
n
s
i
n
c
o
o
l
,
c
l
e
a
r
,
w
e
l
l
-
o
x
y
g
e
n
a
t
e
d
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
.
Ju
v
e
n
i
l
e
s
r
e
m
a
i
n
i
n
f
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
o
n
e
o
r
m
o
r
e
ye
a
r
s
b
e
f
o
r
e
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
n
g
t
o
t
h
e
o
c
e
a
n
.
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
.
T
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
i
s
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
th
e
m
i
g
r
a
t
o
r
y
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
(
i.e.,
be
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
G
o
l
d
e
n
G
a
t
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
Ri
v
e
r
)
.
O
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
c
o
u
l
d
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
w
a
n
d
e
r
s
o
u
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
G
o
l
d
e
n
G
a
t
e
,
bu
t
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
oc
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
B
a
y
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
Sa
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
R
i
v
e
r
W
i
n
t
e
r
-
r
u
n
C
h
i
n
o
o
k
(On
c
o
r
h
y
n
c
h
u
s
t
s
h
a
w
y
t
s
c
h
a
)
FE
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
b
l
e
w
a
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
,
cl
e
a
n
g
r
a
v
e
l
,
a
n
d
g
o
o
d
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
Sp
a
w
n
i
n
g
o
c
c
u
r
s
u
p
s
t
r
e
a
m
o
f
t
h
e
R
e
d
B
l
u
f
f
Di
v
e
r
s
i
o
n
D
a
m
.
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
.
T
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
i
s
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
th
e
m
i
g
r
a
t
o
r
y
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
(
i.e.,
be
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
G
o
l
d
e
n
G
a
t
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
Ri
v
e
r
)
.
O
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
c
o
u
l
d
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
w
a
n
d
e
r
s
o
u
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
G
o
l
d
e
n
G
a
t
e
,
bu
t
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
oc
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
B
a
y
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
29
Ce
n
t
r
a
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
S
p
r
i
n
g
-
r
u
n
C
h
i
n
o
o
k
(On
c
o
r
h
y
n
c
h
u
s
t
s
h
a
w
y
t
s
c
h
a
)
FT
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
V
a
l
l
e
y
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
w
i
t
h
s
t
a
b
l
e
w
a
t
e
r
s
u
p
p
l
y
,
cl
e
a
n
g
r
a
v
e
l
,
a
n
d
g
o
o
d
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
Sp
a
w
n
i
n
g
o
c
c
u
r
s
o
n
l
y
i
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
a
r
i
e
s
t
o
t
h
e
Sa
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
R
i
v
e
r
.
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
.
T
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
i
s
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
th
e
m
i
g
r
a
t
o
r
y
c
o
r
r
i
d
o
r
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
(
i.e.,
be
t
w
e
e
n
t
h
e
G
o
l
d
e
n
G
a
t
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
Ri
v
e
r
)
.
O
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
c
o
u
l
d
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
w
a
n
d
e
r
s
o
u
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
G
o
l
d
e
n
G
a
t
e
,
bu
t
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
oc
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
B
a
y
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
So
u
t
h
e
r
n
g
r
e
e
n
s
t
u
r
g
e
o
n
(Ac
i
p
e
n
s
e
r
m
e
d
i
r
o
s
t
r
i
s
)
FT
M
i
g
r
a
t
e
s
t
h
r
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
t
o
sp
a
w
n
i
n
g
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
i
n
t
h
e
u
p
p
e
r
S
a
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
Ri
v
e
r
.
J
u
v
e
n
i
l
e
s
m
o
v
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
e
s
t
u
a
r
y
a
n
d
l
i
k
e
l
y
re
a
r
i
n
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
.
So
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
T
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
fo
r
a
g
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
B
a
y
,
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
y
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
e
s
t
u
a
r
i
n
e
ha
b
i
t
a
t
s
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
is
w
i
t
h
i
n
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
t
e
d
c
r
i
t
i
c
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
.
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
P
l
a
n
t
a
n
d
A
n
i
m
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
T
h
e
i
r
S
t
a
t
u
s
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
A
r
e
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
A
r
e
a
.
NA
M
E
*
S
T
A
T
U
S
H
A
B
I
T
A
T
P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
F
O
R
OC
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
O
N
S
I
T
E
Lo
n
g
f
i
n
s
m
e
l
t
(Sp
i
r
i
n
c
h
u
s
t
h
a
l
e
i
c
h
t
h
y
s
)
ST
N
a
t
i
v
e
t
o
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
.
A
d
u
l
t
s
s
p
a
w
n
i
n
up
p
e
r
e
s
t
u
a
r
i
e
s
i
n
e
a
r
l
y
w
i
n
t
e
r
.
L
a
r
v
a
e
a
r
e
di
s
p
e
r
s
e
d
b
y
d
o
w
n
s
t
r
e
a
m
f
l
o
w
a
n
d
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
i
s
de
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
o
u
t
f
l
o
w
.
A
d
u
l
t
s
f
o
u
n
d
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
t
h
e
Ba
y
i
n
s
o
m
e
y
e
a
r
s
.
So
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
a
20
0
9
s
t
a
t
u
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
,
t
h
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
la
r
v
a
l
f
i
s
h
i
s
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
d
b
y
o
u
t
f
l
o
w
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
Sa
c
r
a
m
e
n
t
o
-
S
a
n
J
o
a
q
u
i
n
R
i
v
e
r
E
s
t
u
a
r
y
w
h
e
r
e
ad
u
l
t
s
s
p
a
w
n
.
A
s
t
h
e
y
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
s
w
i
m
m
i
n
g
ab
i
l
i
t
y
,
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
c
o
u
l
d
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
e
a
s
fa
r
a
s
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
(
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
a
l
s
o
kn
o
w
n
t
o
s
p
a
w
n
i
n
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
B
a
y
)
.
T
h
e
y
a
r
e
ca
p
t
u
r
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
B
a
y
a
s
b
y
-
c
a
t
c
h
d
u
r
i
n
g
b
a
y
sh
r
i
m
p
(
Cr
a
n
g
o
n
f
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
r
u
m
) harvesting.
Ti
d
e
w
a
t
e
r
g
o
b
y
(Eu
c
y
c
l
o
g
o
b
i
u
s
n
e
w
b
e
r
r
y
i
)
FE
,
C
S
S
C
B
r
a
c
k
i
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
c
o
a
s
t
,
f
a
i
r
l
y
s
t
i
l
l
bu
t
n
o
t
s
t
a
g
n
a
n
t
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
h
i
g
h
o
x
y
g
e
n
l
e
v
e
l
s
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
s
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
o
f
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
i
s
st
r
o
n
g
l
y
i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
d
b
y
t
i
d
a
l
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
.
N
o
s
a
n
d
y
or
g
r
a
v
e
l
l
y
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
.
N
o
r
e
c
e
n
t
CN
D
D
B
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
e
x
i
s
t
f
r
o
m
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
.
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
t
i
g
e
r
s
a
l
a
m
a
n
d
e
r
(Am
b
y
s
t
o
m
a
c
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
e
n
s
e
)
FT
,
S
C
V
e
r
n
a
l
o
r
t
e
m
p
o
r
a
r
y
p
o
o
l
s
i
n
a
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
s
or
o
p
e
n
w
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
s
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
Ma
r
g
i
n
a
l
u
p
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
o
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
i
s
is
o
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
m
o
r
e
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
u
p
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
br
e
e
d
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
,
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
k
n
o
w
n
br
e
e
d
i
n
g
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
.
30
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
r
e
d
-
l
e
g
g
e
d
f
r
o
g
(Ra
n
a
d
r
a
y
t
o
n
i
i
)
FT
,
C
S
S
C
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
a
n
d
s
e
m
i
-
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
f
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
ha
b
i
t
a
t
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
c
r
e
e
k
s
a
n
d
c
o
l
d
-
w
a
t
e
r
p
o
n
d
s
,
wi
t
h
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
t
a
n
d
s
u
b
m
e
r
g
e
d
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
on
o
r
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
ha
b
i
t
a
t
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
k
n
o
w
n
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Sa
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
g
a
r
t
e
r
s
n
a
k
e
(Th
a
m
n
o
p
h
i
s
s
i
r
t
a
l
i
s
t
e
t
r
a
t
a
e
n
i
a
)
FE
,
S
E
,
F
P
I
n
h
a
b
i
t
s
p
o
n
d
s
,
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
,
r
i
v
e
r
s
,
a
n
d
r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
s
,
ty
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
w
i
t
h
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
o
r
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
t
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Re
q
u
i
r
e
s
u
p
l
a
n
d
a
r
e
a
s
f
o
r
a
e
s
t
i
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
ne
s
t
i
n
g
,
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
w
i
t
h
i
n
1
0
0
y
a
r
d
s
o
f
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
wa
t
e
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
o
n
t
h
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
be
t
w
e
e
n
o
n
s
i
t
e
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
n
e
a
r
b
y
f
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
we
t
l
a
n
d
s
.
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
n
o
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
f
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
we
t
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
g
a
r
t
e
r
s
n
a
k
e
po
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
r
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
i
r
p
r
e
y
-
b
a
s
e
(r
e
d
-
l
e
g
g
e
d
f
r
o
g
s
o
r
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
c
h
o
r
u
s
f
r
o
g
s
[Ps
e
u
d
a
c
r
i
s
r
e
g
i
l
l
a
]) in the Project vicinity.
Fu
r
t
h
e
r
,
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
i
s
i
s
o
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
n
e
a
r
e
s
t
kn
o
w
n
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
b
y
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
u
r
b
a
n
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
P
l
a
n
t
a
n
d
A
n
i
m
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
T
h
e
i
r
S
t
a
t
u
s
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
A
r
e
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
A
r
e
a
.
NA
M
E
*
S
T
A
T
U
S
H
A
B
I
T
A
T
P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
F
O
R
OC
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
O
N
S
I
T
E
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
c
l
a
p
p
e
r
r
a
i
l
(Ra
l
l
u
s
l
o
n
g
i
r
o
s
t
r
i
s
o
b
s
o
l
e
t
u
s
)
FE
,
S
E
,
S
P
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
t
o
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
a
n
d
t
i
d
a
l
s
l
o
u
g
h
s
;
us
u
a
l
l
y
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
h
e
a
v
y
g
r
o
w
t
h
o
f
p
i
c
k
l
e
-
we
e
d
;
f
e
e
d
s
o
n
m
o
l
l
u
s
k
s
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
m
u
d
in
s
l
o
u
g
h
s
.
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
.
T
h
e
t
i
d
a
l
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
r
e
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
i
n
e
x
t
e
n
t
(t
o
o
s
m
a
l
l
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
)
,
a
n
d
a
r
e
hi
g
h
l
y
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
s
o
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
a
wa
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
t
o
f
o
r
a
g
e
i
n
t
h
e
m
a
r
s
h
we
s
t
o
f
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
C
o
v
e
M
a
r
i
n
a
,
b
u
t
s
u
c
h
a
n
oc
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
v
e
r
y
i
n
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
t
.
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
b
l
a
c
k
r
a
i
l
(La
t
e
r
a
l
l
u
s
j
a
m
a
i
c
e
n
s
i
s
)
ST
,
S
P
I
n
h
a
b
i
t
s
t
i
d
a
l
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
b
o
r
d
e
r
i
n
g
l
a
r
g
e
r
b
a
y
s
,
or
o
t
h
e
r
f
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
a
n
d
b
r
a
c
k
i
s
h
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
,
a
t
l
o
w
el
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
.
T
h
e
p
i
c
k
l
e
w
e
e
d
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
i
n
th
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
r
e
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
l
y
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
i
n
e
x
t
e
n
t
,
an
d
a
r
e
h
i
g
h
l
y
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
.
T
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
n
o
t
cu
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
k
n
o
w
n
t
o
n
e
s
t
i
n
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Ba
y
.
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
l
e
a
s
t
t
e
r
n
(St
e
r
n
u
l
a
a
n
t
i
l
l
a
r
u
m
b
r
o
w
n
i
)
FE
,
S
E
,
S
P
N
e
s
t
s
o
n
s
a
n
d
y
,
u
p
p
e
r
o
c
e
a
n
b
e
a
c
h
e
s
,
a
n
d
oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
u
s
e
s
m
u
d
f
l
a
t
s
;
f
o
r
a
g
e
s
o
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
su
r
f
l
i
n
e
,
e
s
t
u
a
r
i
e
s
,
o
r
t
h
e
o
p
e
n
o
c
e
a
n
.
So
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
T
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
do
e
s
n
o
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
b
r
e
e
d
a
n
y
w
h
e
r
e
o
n
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
si
d
e
o
f
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
,
a
n
d
n
o
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
s
o
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
fo
r
s
m
a
l
l
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
o
f
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
f
r
o
m
E
a
s
t
B
a
y
or
S
u
i
s
u
n
B
a
y
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
t
o
f
o
r
a
g
e
i
n
B
a
y
wa
t
e
r
s
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
31
Ma
r
b
l
e
d
m
u
r
r
e
l
e
t
(Br
a
c
h
y
r
a
m
p
h
u
s
m
a
r
m
o
r
a
t
u
s
)
FT
M
a
t
u
r
e
,
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
f
o
r
e
s
t
s
f
o
r
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
;
ne
a
r
b
y
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
w
a
t
e
r
f
o
r
f
o
r
a
g
i
n
g
;
n
e
s
t
s
i
n
co
n
i
f
e
r
s
t
a
n
d
s
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
t
h
a
n
1
5
0
y
e
a
r
s
o
l
d
a
n
d
ma
y
b
e
f
o
u
n
d
u
p
t
o
3
5
m
i
l
e
s
i
n
l
a
n
d
;
w
i
n
t
e
r
s
o
n
su
b
t
i
d
a
l
a
n
d
p
e
l
a
g
i
c
w
a
t
e
r
s
o
f
t
e
n
w
e
l
l
o
f
f
s
h
o
r
e
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
:
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
o
r
f
o
r
a
g
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
in
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
.
We
s
t
e
r
n
s
n
o
w
y
p
l
o
v
e
r
(Ch
a
r
a
d
r
i
u
s
a
l
e
x
a
n
d
r
i
n
u
s
n
i
v
o
s
u
s
)
FT
,
C
S
S
C
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
b
e
a
c
h
e
s
a
b
o
v
e
t
h
e
n
o
r
m
a
l
h
i
g
h
t
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
in
f
l
a
t
,
o
p
e
n
a
r
e
a
s
w
i
t
h
s
a
n
d
y
o
r
s
a
l
i
n
e
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
s
;
ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
d
r
i
f
t
w
o
o
d
a
r
e
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
s
p
a
r
s
e
o
r
ab
s
e
n
t
.
Un
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
.
T
h
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
e
x
t
e
n
t
o
f
o
p
e
n
sa
n
d
y
s
u
b
s
t
r
a
t
e
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
p
r
e
c
l
u
d
e
s
br
e
e
d
i
n
g
p
l
o
v
e
r
s
f
r
o
m
o
c
c
u
p
y
i
n
g
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
ar
e
a
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
i
s
a
v
e
r
y
l
o
w
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
s
wo
u
l
d
f
o
r
a
g
e
o
n
t
h
e
l
i
m
i
t
e
d
b
e
a
c
h
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
o
n
th
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
P
l
a
n
t
a
n
d
A
n
i
m
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
T
h
e
i
r
S
t
a
t
u
s
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
A
r
e
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
A
r
e
a
.
NA
M
E
*
S
T
A
T
U
S
H
A
B
I
T
A
T
P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
F
O
R
OC
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
O
N
S
I
T
E
Sa
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
h
a
r
v
e
s
t
m
o
u
s
e
(Re
i
t
h
r
o
d
o
n
t
o
m
y
s
r
a
v
i
v
e
n
t
r
i
s
)
FE
,
S
E
,
F
P
S
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
d
e
n
s
e
p
l
a
n
t
c
o
v
e
r
o
r
pi
c
k
l
e
w
e
e
d
o
r
s
p
e
a
r
s
c
a
l
e
;
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
u
p
l
a
n
d
re
f
u
g
i
a
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
S
m
a
l
l
m
a
t
s
o
f
p
i
c
k
l
e
w
e
e
d
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
sa
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
r
e
h
i
g
h
l
y
di
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
.
T
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
h
a
s
n
o
t
b
e
e
n
r
e
c
o
r
d
e
d
on
t
h
e
P
e
n
i
n
s
u
l
a
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
F
o
s
t
e
r
C
i
t
y
/
S
a
n
Ma
t
e
o
B
r
i
d
g
e
a
r
e
a
i
n
d
e
c
a
d
e
s
.
Ca
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
f
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
Ri
v
e
r
l
a
m
p
r
e
y
(La
m
p
e
t
r
a
a
y
r
e
s
i
i
)
CS
S
C
L
a
r
g
e
p
e
r
e
n
n
i
a
l
r
i
v
e
r
s
;
e
s
t
u
a
r
i
e
s
;
o
p
e
n
o
c
e
a
n
.
L
o
w
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
fr
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
o
r
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
.
N
e
a
r
e
s
t
s
o
u
r
c
e
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
po
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
n
g
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
i
s
n
o
r
t
h
e
a
s
t
a
n
d
ac
r
o
s
s
t
h
e
B
a
y
.
We
s
t
e
r
n
p
o
n
d
t
u
r
t
l
e
(Ac
t
i
n
e
m
y
s
m
a
r
m
o
r
a
t
a
)
CS
S
C
P
o
n
d
s
,
s
l
o
w
-
m
o
v
i
n
g
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
a
n
d
r
i
v
e
r
s
,
ir
r
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
d
i
t
c
h
e
s
,
a
n
d
r
e
s
e
r
v
o
i
r
s
w
i
t
h
a
b
u
n
d
a
n
t
em
e
r
g
e
n
t
a
n
d
/
o
r
r
i
p
a
r
i
a
n
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
:
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
pr
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
32
Ha
r
l
e
q
u
i
n
d
u
c
k
(Hi
s
t
r
i
o
n
i
c
u
s
h
i
s
t
r
i
o
n
i
c
u
s
)
CS
S
C
(
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
)
U
s
u
a
l
l
y
n
e
s
t
s
a
l
o
n
g
s
h
o
r
e
s
o
f
s
h
a
l
l
o
w
,
s
w
i
f
t
ri
v
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
p
l
e
n
t
i
f
u
l
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
i
n
v
e
r
t
e
b
r
a
t
e
s
.
Fo
r
a
g
e
s
i
n
b
a
y
s
a
n
d
o
p
e
n
o
c
e
a
n
.
So
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
O
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
c
o
u
l
d
o
c
c
u
r
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
n
-
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
i
s
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
t
h
e
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
r
a
n
g
e
o
f
th
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
br
e
e
d
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
,
a
n
d
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
o
n
l
y
a
sp
e
c
i
e
s
o
f
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
w
h
i
l
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
.
Bl
a
c
k
s
k
i
m
m
e
r
(Ry
n
c
h
o
p
s
n
i
g
e
r
)
CS
S
C
(
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
)
F
o
r
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
,
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
l
a
r
g
e
s
t
r
e
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
b
a
r
e
la
n
d
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
l
y
i
s
o
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
l
a
n
d
-
b
a
s
e
d
pr
e
d
a
t
o
r
s
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
.
Fo
r
a
g
e
s
i
n
o
p
e
n
w
a
t
e
r
.
So
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
O
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
in
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
m
a
y
f
o
r
a
g
e
i
n
t
h
e
w
a
t
e
r
s
im
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
b
u
t
th
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
.
Th
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
o
n
l
y
a
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
f
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
co
n
c
e
r
n
w
h
i
l
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
.
No
r
t
h
e
r
n
h
a
r
r
i
e
r
(Ci
r
c
u
s
c
y
a
n
e
u
s
)
CS
S
C
(
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
)
N
e
s
t
s
a
n
d
f
o
r
a
g
e
s
i
n
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
s
a
l
t
-
o
r
fr
e
s
h
-
w
a
t
e
r
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
.
N
e
s
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
sh
r
u
b
b
y
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
o
r
t
a
l
l
g
r
a
s
s
e
s
.
So
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
B
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
h
a
s
be
e
n
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
,
a
n
d
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
g
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
e
x
i
s
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
.
T
h
e
l
a
c
k
o
f
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
m
a
r
s
h
l
a
n
d
o
r
t
a
l
l
gr
a
s
s
e
s
p
r
e
c
l
u
d
e
s
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
o
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
Th
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
o
n
l
y
a
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
f
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
co
n
c
e
r
n
w
h
i
l
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
.
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
P
l
a
n
t
a
n
d
A
n
i
m
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
T
h
e
i
r
S
t
a
t
u
s
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
A
r
e
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
A
r
e
a
.
NA
M
E
*
S
T
A
T
U
S
H
A
B
I
T
A
T
P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
F
O
R
OC
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
O
N
S
I
T
E
Bu
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
(At
h
e
n
e
c
u
n
i
c
u
l
a
r
i
a
)
CS
S
C
F
o
u
n
d
i
n
o
p
e
n
,
d
r
y
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
s
,
d
e
s
e
r
t
s
,
a
n
d
ru
d
e
r
a
l
a
r
e
a
s
.
R
e
q
u
i
r
e
s
su
i
t
a
b
l
e
s
m
a
l
l
m
a
m
m
a
l
bu
r
r
o
w
s
f
o
r
s
h
e
l
t
e
r
a
n
d
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
.
Lo
w
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
n
o
re
c
o
r
d
s
o
f
b
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
o
w
l
s
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
i
n
t
h
e
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
B
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
Bi
r
d
A
t
l
a
s
(
S
e
q
u
o
i
a
A
u
d
u
b
o
n
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
2
0
0
1
)
,
an
d
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
, while containing some
lo
w
-
g
r
o
w
i
n
g
h
e
r
b
a
c
e
o
u
s
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
,
d
i
d
n
o
t
s
h
o
w
an
y
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
o
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
q
u
i
r
r
e
l
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
du
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
n
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
i
n
2
0
0
9
.
Oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
n
g
o
r
d
i
s
p
e
r
s
i
n
g
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
co
u
l
d
f
o
r
a
g
e
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
is
n
o
t
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
b
r
e
e
d
,
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
g
u
l
a
r
l
y
,
o
r
oc
c
u
r
i
n
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
Va
u
x
’
s
s
w
i
f
t
(Ch
a
e
t
u
r
a
v
a
u
x
i
)
CS
S
C
(
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
)
R
e
d
w
o
o
d
,
D
o
u
g
l
a
s
f
i
r
,
&
o
t
h
e
r
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
fo
r
e
s
t
s
.
N
e
s
t
s
i
n
l
a
r
g
e
h
o
l
l
o
w
t
r
e
e
s
&
s
n
a
g
s
.
Of
t
e
n
n
e
s
t
s
i
n
f
l
o
c
k
s
.
F
o
r
a
g
e
s
o
v
e
r
m
o
s
t
t
e
r
r
a
i
n
s
an
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
.
So
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
B
i
r
d
s
m
a
y
fo
r
a
g
e
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
o
s
t
-
br
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
,
b
u
t
n
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
is
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
o
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
on
l
y
a
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
f
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
w
h
i
l
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
.
33
Lo
g
g
e
r
h
e
a
d
s
h
r
i
k
e
(La
n
i
u
s
l
u
d
o
v
i
c
i
a
n
u
s
)
CS
S
C
(
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
)
G
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
s
,
o
p
e
n
w
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
s
,
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
o
p
e
n
ar
e
a
s
f
e
a
t
u
r
i
n
g
h
u
n
t
i
n
g
p
e
r
c
h
e
s
a
n
d
s
h
a
r
p
br
a
n
c
h
e
s
o
r
b
a
r
b
e
d
w
i
r
e
f
o
r
i
m
p
a
l
i
n
g
p
r
e
y
i
t
e
m
s
.
Ne
s
t
s
i
n
d
e
n
s
e
p
a
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
s
h
r
u
b
b
e
r
y
.
So
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
A
s
m
a
l
l
am
o
u
n
t
o
f
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
g
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
e
x
i
s
t
s
wi
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
,
an
d
u
p
t
o
o
n
e
p
a
i
r
o
f
b
i
r
d
s
c
o
u
l
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
br
e
e
d
h
e
r
e
.
B
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
h
r
i
k
e
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
co
n
f
i
r
m
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
(
S
e
q
u
o
i
a
Au
d
u
b
o
n
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
2
0
0
1
)
,
b
u
t
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
ar
e
f
e
w
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
i
s
i
s
o
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
la
r
g
e
r
p
a
t
c
h
e
s
o
f
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
b
y
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
M
o
s
t
l
i
k
e
l
y
o
c
c
u
r
s
a
s
a
n
oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
n
o
n
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
,
i
f
a
t
a
l
l
.
Ye
l
l
o
w
w
a
r
b
l
e
r
(De
n
d
r
o
i
c
a
p
e
t
e
c
h
i
a
)
CS
S
C
(
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
)
N
e
s
t
s
i
n
d
e
n
s
e
s
t
a
n
d
s
o
f
w
i
l
l
o
w
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
ri
p
a
r
i
a
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
Ex
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
.
E
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
f
o
r
a
g
e
i
n
la
n
d
s
c
a
p
e
d
o
r
o
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
a
l
f
o
r
e
s
t
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
t
h
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
b
u
t
n
o
t
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
to
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
,
a
s
n
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
br
e
e
d
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
T
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
on
l
y
a
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
f
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
w
h
i
l
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
.
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
P
l
a
n
t
a
n
d
A
n
i
m
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
T
h
e
i
r
S
t
a
t
u
s
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
A
r
e
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
A
r
e
a
.
NA
M
E
*
S
T
A
T
U
S
H
A
B
I
T
A
T
P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
F
O
R
OC
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
O
N
S
I
T
E
Sa
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
c
o
m
m
o
n
y
e
l
l
o
w
t
h
r
o
a
t
(Ge
o
t
h
l
y
p
i
s
t
r
i
c
h
a
s
s
i
n
u
o
s
a
)
CS
S
C
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
t
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
Ba
y
a
r
e
a
.
N
e
s
t
s
i
n
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
t
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
v
e
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
,
de
n
s
e
s
h
r
u
b
s
,
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
d
e
n
s
e
g
r
o
w
t
h
.
Ma
y
o
c
c
u
r
.
S
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
t
a
q
u
a
t
i
c
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
is
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
,
a
n
d
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
ha
v
e
b
e
e
n
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
th
e
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
s
e
a
s
o
n
(
e
B
i
r
d
2
0
1
0
)
.
U
p
t
o
a
f
e
w
pa
i
r
s
m
a
y
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
.
Br
y
a
n
t
'
s
s
a
v
a
n
n
a
h
s
p
a
r
r
o
w
(Pa
s
s
e
r
c
u
l
u
s
s
a
n
d
w
i
c
h
e
n
s
i
s
)
CS
S
C
T
i
d
a
l
l
y
i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e
d
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
a
n
d
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
r
u
d
e
r
a
l
or
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
a
r
e
a
s
;
a
l
s
o
n
e
s
t
s
i
n
u
p
l
a
n
d
gr
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
s
.
Lo
w
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
T
h
e
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
ha
b
i
t
a
t
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
i
s
m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
fo
r
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
,
p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
d
u
e
t
o
i
t
s
s
m
a
l
l
s
i
z
e
a
n
d
pr
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
;
p
e
r
h
a
p
s
a
f
e
w
p
a
i
r
s
co
u
l
d
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
.
Tr
i
c
o
l
o
r
e
d
b
l
a
c
k
b
i
r
d
(Ag
e
l
a
i
u
s
t
r
i
c
o
l
o
r
)
CS
S
C
(
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
)
N
e
s
t
s
c
o
l
o
n
i
a
l
l
y
i
n
c
a
t
t
a
i
l
s
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
e
m
e
r
g
e
n
t
ve
g
e
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
o
u
n
d
f
r
e
s
h
w
a
t
e
r
p
o
n
d
s
.
So
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
br
e
e
d
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
s
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
;
ho
w
e
v
e
r
t
r
i
c
o
l
o
r
e
d
b
l
a
c
k
b
i
r
d
s
m
a
y
o
c
c
u
r
a
s
oc
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
o
n
-
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
se
a
s
o
n
.
T
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
o
n
l
y
a
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
f
sp
e
c
i
a
l
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
w
h
i
l
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
.
34
Pa
l
l
i
d
b
a
t
(An
t
r
o
z
o
u
s
p
a
l
l
i
d
u
s
)
CS
S
C
F
o
r
a
g
e
s
o
v
e
r
m
a
n
y
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
;
r
o
o
s
t
s
i
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
la
r
g
e
o
a
k
s
o
r
r
e
d
w
o
o
d
s
,
r
o
c
k
y
o
u
t
c
r
o
p
s
a
n
d
ro
c
k
y
c
r
e
v
i
c
e
s
i
n
m
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
c
a
v
e
s
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
N
o
r
e
c
e
n
t
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
vi
c
i
n
i
t
y
;
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
o
f
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
k
n
o
w
n
ra
n
g
e
.
To
w
n
s
e
n
d
’
s
b
i
g
-
e
a
r
e
d
b
a
t
(Co
r
y
n
o
r
h
i
n
u
s
t
o
w
n
s
e
n
d
i
i
CS
S
C
R
o
o
s
t
s
p
r
i
m
a
r
i
l
y
i
n
c
a
v
e
s
,
m
i
n
e
s
,
a
t
t
i
c
s
,
ab
a
n
d
o
n
e
d
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
a
n
d
l
a
r
g
e
t
r
e
e
s
w
i
t
h
b
o
w
l
s
su
c
h
a
s
f
o
u
n
d
i
n
b
u
r
n
e
d
o
l
d
-
g
r
o
w
t
h
r
e
d
w
o
o
d
s
.
Fo
r
a
g
e
s
o
v
e
r
m
a
n
y
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
:
N
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
r
o
o
s
t
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
p
r
e
s
e
n
t
.
Sa
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
d
u
s
k
y
-
f
o
o
t
e
d
w
o
o
d
r
a
t
(Ne
o
t
o
m
a
f
u
s
c
i
p
e
s
a
n
n
e
c
t
e
n
s
)
CS
S
C
B
u
i
l
d
s
n
e
s
t
s
i
n
a
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
ri
p
a
r
i
a
n
a
r
e
a
s
,
o
a
k
w
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
s
,
a
n
d
s
c
r
u
b
.
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
L
i
m
i
t
e
d
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
o
c
c
u
r
s
o
n
t
h
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
i
s
i
s
o
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
ne
a
r
e
s
t
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
y
e
x
t
e
n
s
i
v
e
de
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
,
a
n
d
n
o
e
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
o
f
o
c
c
u
p
a
n
c
y
b
y
wo
o
d
r
a
t
s
w
a
s
f
o
u
n
d
a
n
y
w
h
e
r
e
o
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
si
t
e
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
n
n
a
i
s
s
a
n
c
e
s
u
r
v
e
y
.
Sa
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
w
a
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
s
h
r
e
w
(So
r
e
x
v
a
g
r
a
n
s
h
a
l
i
c
o
e
t
e
s
)
CS
S
C
S
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
w
i
t
h
a
d
e
n
s
e
p
l
a
n
t
c
o
v
e
r
o
r
pi
c
k
l
e
w
e
e
d
o
r
f
a
t
h
e
n
;
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
u
p
l
a
n
d
r
e
f
u
g
i
a
.
No
t
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
.
S
m
a
l
l
m
a
t
s
o
f
pi
c
k
l
e
w
e
e
d
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
i
n
t
h
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
a
r
e
h
i
g
h
l
y
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
.
N
o
C
N
D
D
B
re
c
o
r
d
s
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
.
Ta
b
l
e
2
.
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
P
l
a
n
t
a
n
d
A
n
i
m
a
l
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
T
h
e
i
r
S
t
a
t
u
s
,
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
O
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
o
n
t
h
e
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
A
r
e
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
A
r
e
a
.
NA
M
E
*
S
T
A
T
U
S
H
A
B
I
T
A
T
P
O
T
E
N
T
I
A
L
F
O
R
OC
C
U
R
R
E
N
C
E
O
N
S
I
T
E
St
a
t
e
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
C
E
Q
A
R
a
r
e
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
a
n
d
C
N
P
S
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
Co
a
s
t
a
l
m
a
r
s
h
m
i
l
k
-
v
e
t
c
h
(As
t
r
a
g
a
l
u
s
p
y
c
n
o
s
t
a
c
h
y
u
s
v
a
r
.
py
c
n
o
s
t
a
c
h
y
u
s
)
CN
P
S
1
B
.
2
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
d
u
n
e
s
,
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
.
M
e
s
i
c
s
i
t
e
s
in
d
u
n
e
s
o
r
a
l
o
n
g
s
t
r
e
a
m
s
o
r
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
(0
-
9
8
f
t
)
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
S
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
o
c
c
u
r
s
o
n
si
t
e
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
C
a
l
F
l
o
r
a
(
2
0
1
0
)
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
2
0
0
7
.
It
i
s
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
c
c
u
r
s
o
n
s
i
t
e
i
n
th
e
a
r
e
a
s
m
a
p
p
e
d
a
s
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
Pa
l
e
y
e
l
l
o
w
h
a
y
f
i
e
l
d
t
a
r
p
l
a
n
t
(He
m
i
z
o
n
i
a
c
o
n
g
e
s
t
a
s
s
p
.
c
o
n
g
e
s
t
a
)
CN
P
S
1
B
.
2
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
g
r
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
,
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
s
c
r
u
b
,
v
a
l
l
e
y
a
n
d
fo
o
t
h
i
l
l
w
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
.
G
r
a
s
s
y
v
a
l
l
e
y
s
a
n
d
h
i
l
l
s
,
fa
l
l
o
w
f
i
e
l
d
s
(
<
1
0
0
0
f
t
)
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
T
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
r
e
s
i
s
t
a
n
t
t
o
di
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
,
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
f
o
r
e
m
a
r
g
i
n
a
l
l
y
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
gr
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
e
x
i
s
t
s
o
n
s
i
t
e
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
oc
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
s
i
n
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
a
r
e
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
Sa
n
B
r
u
n
o
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
s
u
m
m
i
t
,
t
o
o
f
a
r
t
o
s
e
r
v
e
as
a
s
o
u
r
c
e
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
i
s
a
r
e
a
.
Sa
l
i
n
e
c
l
o
v
e
r
(Tr
i
f
o
l
i
u
m
d
e
p
a
u
p
e
r
a
t
u
m
va
r
.
hy
d
r
o
p
h
i
l
u
m
)
CN
P
S
1
B
.
2
S
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
,
a
l
k
a
l
i
n
e
s
o
i
l
s
.
V
a
l
l
e
y
a
n
d
f
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
gr
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
v
e
r
n
a
l
p
o
o
l
s
(
0
-
9
8
4
f
t
)
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
A
c
c
o
r
d
i
n
g
t
o
C
N
D
D
B
(
2
0
1
0
)
,
t
h
i
s
sp
e
c
i
e
s
w
a
s
l
a
s
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
in
1
8
8
6
.
I
t
i
s
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
h
a
t
t
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
i
s
l
o
c
a
l
l
y
ex
t
i
n
c
t
.
Sa
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
o
w
l
'
s
-
c
l
o
v
e
r
(Tr
i
p
h
y
s
a
r
i
a
f
l
o
r
i
b
u
n
d
a
)
CN
P
S
1
B
.
2
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
p
r
a
i
r
i
e
,
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
s
c
r
u
b
,
v
a
l
l
e
y
a
n
d
f
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
gr
a
s
s
l
a
n
d
.
S
e
r
p
e
n
t
i
n
i
t
e
o
r
s
a
n
d
y
s
o
i
l
s
(
3
3
-
5
2
5
f
t
)
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
L
a
s
t
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
n
e
a
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
i
n
19
6
5
.
I
t
i
s
n
o
t
e
x
p
e
c
t
e
d
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
d
u
e
t
o
th
e
p
o
o
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
o
f
f
i
l
l
s
o
i
l
s
a
n
d
l
a
c
k
o
f
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
ed
a
p
h
i
c
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
35
La
r
g
e
f
l
o
w
e
r
e
d
l
e
p
t
o
s
i
p
h
o
n
(Le
p
t
o
s
i
p
h
o
n
g
r
a
n
d
i
f
l
o
r
u
s
)
CN
P
S
4
.
2
C
o
a
s
t
a
l
b
l
u
f
f
s
c
r
u
b
,
c
l
o
s
e
d
c
o
n
e
c
o
n
i
f
e
r
o
u
s
fo
r
e
s
t
,
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
d
u
n
e
s
,
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
p
r
a
i
r
i
e
,
u
s
u
a
l
l
y
sa
n
d
y
(
1
6
-
3
6
7
4
f
t
)
Ab
s
e
n
t
.
T
h
i
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
c
c
u
r
s
i
n
a
w
i
d
e
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
of
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
,
b
u
t
t
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
n
o
s
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
l
y
un
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
t
h
a
t
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
ar
e
a
s
o
f
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
b
l
u
f
f
s
c
r
u
b
,
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
d
u
n
e
s
,
o
r
me
s
i
c
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
p
r
a
i
r
i
e
s
.
Am
e
r
i
c
a
n
P
e
r
e
g
r
i
n
e
F
a
l
c
o
n
(Fa
l
c
o
p
e
r
e
g
r
i
n
u
s
a
n
a
t
u
m
)
SP
N
e
s
t
s
o
n
c
l
i
f
f
s
,
a
n
d
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
o
n
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
o
r
br
i
d
g
e
s
;
f
o
r
a
g
e
s
f
o
r
b
i
r
d
s
o
v
e
r
m
a
n
y
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
.
Lo
w
p
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
O
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
di
s
p
e
r
s
i
n
g
o
r
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
n
g
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
m
a
y
m
o
v
e
th
r
o
u
g
h
a
n
d
f
o
r
a
g
e
i
n
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
ar
e
a
,
b
u
t
n
o
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
o
c
c
u
r
s
o
n
si
t
e
.
Wh
i
t
e
-
t
a
i
l
e
d
K
i
t
e
(El
a
n
u
s
l
e
u
c
u
r
u
s
)
SP
O
p
e
n
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
g
r
a
s
s
y
p
l
a
i
n
s
,
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
fi
e
l
d
s
,
o
p
e
n
o
a
k
w
o
o
d
l
a
n
d
s
,
a
n
d
m
a
r
s
h
e
s
.
N
e
s
t
s
in
t
a
l
l
s
h
r
u
b
s
a
n
d
t
r
e
e
s
.
So
m
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
f
o
r
o
c
c
u
r
r
e
n
c
e
.
T
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
ar
e
a
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
s
o
m
e
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
g
i
n
g
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
,
an
d
i
n
d
i
v
i
d
u
a
l
s
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
o
b
s
e
r
v
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
v
i
c
i
n
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
r
e
a
r
e
n
o
c
o
n
f
i
r
m
e
d
br
e
e
d
i
n
g
r
e
c
o
r
d
s
i
n
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
(
S
e
q
u
o
i
a
Au
d
u
b
o
n
S
o
c
i
e
t
y
2
0
0
1
)
.
M
o
s
t
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
o
c
c
u
r
as
a
n
o
c
c
a
s
i
o
n
a
l
n
o
n
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
v
i
s
i
t
o
r
,
36
SP
E
C
I
A
L
S
T
A
T
U
S
S
P
E
C
I
E
S
C
O
D
E
D
E
S
I
G
N
A
T
I
O
N
S
FE
=
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
l
y
l
i
s
t
e
d
E
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
FT
=
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
l
y
l
i
s
t
e
d
T
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
FC
=
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
C
a
n
d
i
d
a
t
e
.
S
u
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
su
p
p
o
r
t
a
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
t
o
l
i
s
t
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
a
s
E
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
o
r
T
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
SE
=
S
t
a
t
e
l
i
s
t
e
d
E
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
ST
=
S
t
a
t
e
l
i
s
t
e
d
T
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
CS
S
C
=
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
f
S
p
e
c
i
a
l
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
SP
=
S
t
a
t
e
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
CN
P
S
1
B
=
P
l
a
n
t
s
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
e
d
b
y
C
N
P
S
t
o
b
e
r
a
r
e
,
th
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
d
,
o
r
e
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
i
n
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
,
a
n
d
e
l
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
.
streamsides. Coastal marsh milk-vetch is a California endemic occurring in 15 USGS
quadrangles in Humboldt, Mendocino, Marin, and San Mateo counties (CNPS 2010).
The CNDDB has two documented occurrences within San Mateo County, last seen in 1902.
Both of these populations are presumed extant. CalFlora (2010) documents or reports four
occurrences dating from as recent as 2007 in San Mateo County. One occurrence in 2004 cites
the location of a population of around 200 individuals in coastal bluff, estuarine flat, and
constructed levee locations and in other occurrences it was found in marsh and dune habitats.
Based on the recent documentation of the species in San Mateo County, and the occurrence in
salt marsh habitat, and levees, suitable habitat occurs within the Project area. However, all
known occurrences are located on the Pacific coastline, not within San Francisco Bay, so it is not
expected that any extant populations could serve as seed sources for this species within the
Project area, and the species is presumed absent.
Pale yellow hayfield tarplant (Hemizonia congesta ssp. congesta). Federal Listing Status:
None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 1B.2. Pale yellow hayfield tarplant is an
annual herb of the sunflower family (Asteraceae) that is native and endemic to the state of
California. It is sometimes found on serpentine soil and is typically found in coastal grassland
and sometimes roadsides. The blooming period for the species extends from April to November
and occurs at elevations between 0-1000 ft.This species is known to occur in Mendocino,
Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, and Sonoma counties (CNPS 2010).
The CNDDB has only 2 documented occurrences of pale yellow hayfield tarplant since 1909
within the Project quadrangles and surrounding quadrangles. These are thought to be extirpated
or extant due to alteration from urban development. Due to the documented ability of the species
to exist in disturbed habitats, and the presence of grassland habitat on site, marginally suitable
grassland habitat exists for this species on site. However, as the only documented occurrences
are found near the summit of San Bruno Mountain, too far to serve as source populations for the
species on site, hayfield tarplant is considered absent from the Project Area.
Saline clover (Trifolium depauperatum var. hydrophilum). Federal Listing Status: None;
State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 1B.2. Saline clover is an annual herb in the legume
family (Fabaceae) that occurs in mesic, alkaline, or saline sites in valley and foothill grassland
habitat, in vernal pool habitat, or in marshes and swamps at elevations from 0 to 984 ft.
Hickman (1993) specifically indicates that the species occurs in coastal salt marshes as well as
inland marshes. The blooming period extends from April through June, although in salt marshes
the species may flower slightly later than seen in alkaline grassland areas. The range of this
species has been reduced to remaining alkaline grasslands in Alameda, Colusa, San Mateo,
Monterey, Napa, San Luis Obispo, San Benito, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, and Santa Cruz
counties. The species is documented from 22 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles. Many occurrences
of the species have likely been extirpated; the species is threatened by development, trampling,
road construction, and vehicles (CNPS 2010).
The CNDDB lists two records of saline cloveroccurring in San Mateo County in marshes,
swamps, valley and foothill grassland or vernal pools. However, the Jepson Interchange (2010)
suggests the possibility that the species is locally extinct. Due to the rarity of this species, the
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201037
lack of a nearby source population, and the long history of disturbance of the Project site, it is
presumed absent.
San Francisco owl’s-clover (Triphysaria floribunda). Federal Listing Status: None; State
Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 1B.2.San Francisco owl’s-clover is an annual herb in the
figwort family (Scrophulariaceae) that is documented from nine USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles
in the counties of Marin, San Francisco, and San Mateo. It is usually found on serpentinite soils
in coastal prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats at elevations from 33
to 525 ft. It blooms from April to June and is threatened by grazing, trampling, and competition
(CNPS 2010).
The CNDDB lists eight documented occurrences of San Francisco owl’s clover within the
Project site quadrangle or the eight surrounding quadrangles. It was last seen in the Project
vicinity in the 1960s. It is unlikely that the fill soils onsite would be suitable habitat for the
species since it is typically associated with serpentine soils. Due to the lack of any recent records
in the Project vicinity, the long history of disturbance of the Project site, and the marginal nature
of habitat on the site, this species is presumed absent.
Large-flowered leptosiphon (Leptosiphon grandiflorus; formerly Linanthus grandiflorus).
Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status: None; CNPS List: 4.2. Large-flowered
leptosiphon is an annual herb in the phlox family (Polemoniaceae) found on sandy soils in
coastal bluff scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal
prairie, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland habitats. It occurs within Alameda, Kern,
Madera, Merced, Monterey, Marin, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo,
San Mateo, and Sonoma counties. It is considered to be extirpated from Santa Barbara County.
The blooming period for this species is April through August at elevations from 16 to 3674 ft.
Many historical occurrences have been extirpated by development (CNPS 2010).
There is limited documentation for this species in San Mateo County. CALFLORA (2010) has
one documented occurrence in San Mateo County in 1961. The CNPS suggests that the species
prefers sandy soils. However, it is known to inhabit a wide variety of habitats over a broad range
in California. There are no sufficiently undisturbed habitats on-site, and areas approximating the
habitat conditions of known occurrence locations in coastal bluff scrub or dunes or mesic coastal
prairies are not present. Therefore, this species is presumed absent.
Special-status Animal Species
Reconnaissance-level field surveys of the Project site were conducted on 11 November 2009 and
17 September 2010 to assess the site’s potential for supporting special-status wildlife species.
Additional information regarding the occurrence of special-status wildlife species in the Project
area was obtained from previous H. T. Harvey & Associates projects performed in the vicinity.
The legal status and likelihood of occurrence of special-status wildlife species known to occur,
or potentially occurring, in the general Project vicinity are presented in Table 2. Figure 4 depicts
the CNDDB-mapped locations of special-status animals in the Project vicinity.
Several of the special-status species listed in Table 2 are not expected to occur in the Project area
because the site lacks suitable habitat, is outside the distributions of the species, and/or is isolated
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201038
from the nearest known extant populations by development or otherwise unsuitable habitat. For
instance, several federally endangered butterfly species are known to occur (or to have occurred
historically) in the vicinity, primarily on Mount San Bruno to the northwest of the site; these
include the Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), callippe silverspot
(Speyeria callipe callippe), mission blue butterfly (Plebejus icarioides missionensis), Myrtle’s
silverspot (Speyeria zerene myrtleae), and San Bruno elfin (Callophrys mossii bayensis).
However the site does not support any of the host plants required by these species, and is outside
of their currently known distributions. Other species not expected to occur in the Project area for
the reasons outlined above include the white abalone (Haliotes sorenseni), tidewater goby
(Eucyclogobius newberryi), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense), western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), marbled murrelet
(Brachyramphus marmoratus), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), pallid bat
(Antrozous pallidus), salt marsh harvest mouse, salt marsh wandering shrew, and San Francisco
dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens).
Several other special-status species are expected to occur in the Project area only as uncommon
to rare visitors, migrants, or transients, or may forage on the site while breeding in adjacent
areas. However, these species are not expected to breed in the Project area in any numbers, or to
be affected by Project implementation. Several Central Valley fish species, including the river
lamprey (Lampetra ayresii), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and Sacramento
River Winter-run and Central Valley Spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha)
occur regularly in the Delta and in the San Joaquin and Sacramento rivers, and occasional
individuals could conceivably drift into the Project area during migration between those areas
and the Golden Gate. However, we do not expect these species to occur with any regularity near
the Project area, and they are not expected to be affected by Project activities. Other species
expected to occur only as occasional visitors include the American peregrine falcon (Falco
peregrinus anatum), black skimmer (Rynchops niger), harlequin duck (Histrionicus
histrionicus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), Vaux’s swift (Chaetura vauxi), yellow warbler
(Dendroica petechia), and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor).
A number of other special-status wildlife species are known or expected to occur regularly on or
near the Project site and may breed there, or are species for which resource agencies have
expressed particular concern; expanded discussions of these species follow.
Federal or State Threatened or Endangered Species
Central California Coast steelhead. Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State Listing
Status: Species of Special Concern. The Central California Coast Distinct Population Segment
(DPS) of steelhead was listed as federally threatened in 1998 (NMFS 1998), and critical habitat
was designated in 2005 (NMFS 2005).The Project site is within critical habitat boundaries for
the Central California Coast DPS. Steelhead, the anadromous form of rainbow trout, occur in
most perennial, free-flowing coastal streams in central and northern California where the water
temperature does not exceed 70°F. The Central California Coast steelhead ranges from the
Russian River south to Aptos Creek and includes the populations within San Francisco Bay
(Moyle 2002). In central California, adult steelhead migrate upstream to spawn from early
winter to mid-spring, after winter storms provide sufficient flows to facilitate migration to
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201039
spawning grounds. Spawning occurs between December and June, typically in gravelly
substrates free of fine sediments, roots, and emergent vegetation.Preferred streams typically
support a dense canopy cover that provides shade, woody debris, and organic matter. Most
young steelhead remain in freshwater for 1 to 2 years in cool, clear streams with brisk currents,
more riffles than pools, and abundant riparian cover, before they become smolt and enter the
ocean (Moyle 2002). Streambed degradation, alteration, and blockages have significantly
reduced steelhead habitat, and this reduction, as well as reduced genetic diversity and climate
change, has seriously impacted Central Coastal California steelhead populations (Busby et al.
1996).
The closest potential steelhead spawning streams in South San Francisco Bay are San Mateo
Creek (approximately 7 mi south of the Project area), Alameda Creek (approximately 14 miles
southeast of the Project area), and San Francisquito Creek (approximately 20 miles south of the
Project area). Other South Bay watersheds farther south also support populations of steelhead.
Because the Project area is between their spawning and rearing streams and the Pacific Ocean,
fish from any of these streams could be found in the Bay adjacent to the Project site during adult
migrations from the Pacific Ocean to spawning sites or during juvenile migrations from their
natal streams to the Pacific Ocean.
Southern green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris). Federal Listing Status: Threatened;
State Listing Status: None. The southern DPS of green sturgeon was listed as threatened by
the NMFS on April 7, 2006 (NMFS 2006a), and critical habitat was designated in October 2009
(NMFS 2009). Critical habitat for the green sturgeon includes all of San Francisco Bay. The
green sturgeon is a long-lived, anadromous, native fish that occurs in low numbers in the San
Francisco Estuary and Sacramento River. Adults spawn in freshwater rivers from British
Columbia south to the Sacramento River. Larvae develop within these freshwater systems,
migrate downstream, and remain in the estuaries for between 1 and 4 years before migrating to
the ocean. Mature adults move into estuaries in the spring and spawning adults move up the
rivers of their origins in late spring/early summer. Post spawning adults return to the estuary
before migrating back to the ocean in late fall. Sub-adult fish also are thought to enter estuaries
during summer and fall months.
The Project area does not support the necessary freshwater spawning habitat for adult sturgeon,
but individuals could occasionally wander into the portion of San Francisco Bay adjacent to the
Project site, where they may forage, and juvenile fish and sub-adults may rear in the adjacent
waters of San Francisco Bay in small numbers.
Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys). Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State Listing
Status: None.Longfin smelt were listed under the California Endangered Species Act as a
threatened species in 2009. This species is endemic to the west coast of North America with
small populations likely still present in the Klamath River and Russian River estuaries (Moyle
2002). However, the bulk of the longfin smelt population appears to be in San Francisco Bay.
Adults spawn primarily in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary almost as far upstream as the
City of Sacramento on the Sacramento River and to Turner Cut on the San Joaquin River.
Adults spawn in these upstream freshwater locations in early winter. The larval smelt are
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201040
distributed downstream by natural river flow. As they mature, swimming ability improves and
their distribution expands.
Although the bulk of this species’ population apparently spawns in the Delta region, the species
also likely spawns in freshwater waters elsewhere in the Bay Area, including streams in the
South Bay. No suitable spawning habitat is present on or very near the Project site, but small
numbers of this species could be found in Bay waters adjacent to the Project area as individuals
disperse and feed in the Bay.
California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii). Federal Listing Status: Threatened; State
Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The California red-legged frog is generally
restricted to riparian and lacustrine habitats in California and northern Baja California. Red-
legged frogs prefer deep, calm pools (usually more than 2 ft deep) in creeks, rivers, or lakes
below 5000 ft in elevation (Jennings and Hayes 1994). Breeding habitat requirements include
freshwater emergent or dense riparian vegetation, such as willows adjacent to shorelines. Red-
legged frogs can survive in seasonal bodies of water that are dry for short periods if a permanent
water body or dense vegetation stands are nearby.
Adult red-legged frogs are normally active at night and breed in still water during the late winter
or early spring after waters recede. Females attach eggs in a single cluster to vegetation just
under the surface of the water. The eggs hatch in approximately one week and larvae feed on
plant and animal material. It takes a minimum of approximately 4 months for the larvae to
metamorphose into juvenile frogs. On rare occasions larvae over winter. Red-legged frogs can
move considerable distances overland. Dispersal often occurs within creek drainages, but
movements of more than a mile over upland habitats have been reported (Bulger et al. 2003).
Red-legged frogs are often found in summer months in habitat that would not be suitable for
breeding; these individuals presumably move seasonally between summer foraging habitat and
winter breeding habitat.
The USFWS listed the California red-legged frog as threatened in 1996, due to continued habitat
degradation throughout the species’ range and population declines. Critical habitat was most
recently designated for the California red-legged frog in 2010 (USFWS 2010), but this critical
habitat designation does not include the Project area.
The population of red-legged frogs closest to the Project site occurs in a wetland at the edge of
tidal influence, to the west of Highway 101 next to the San Francisco Airport, approximately 3.5
mi south of the Project area (CNDDB 2010). This and other more distant populations in the
Project vicinity are separated from the Project area by extensive development and substantial
barriers including Highway 101. The Project site does not support fresh pools, streams, or
ponds, and the existing tidal marshes within the Project area are saline. Therefore we do not
expect this species to occur on the Project site.
San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia). Federal Listing Status:
Endangered; State Listing Status: Endangered and Fully Protected. The San Francisco
garter snake was listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1967 (USFWS
1976). Critical habitat has not been designated for this species.The historic distribution of the
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201041
San Francisco garter snake extended from the southern San Francisco County line to Año Nuevo
in southern San Mateo County. While the current distribution is likely similar, populations have
declined within the range, and have become increasingly fragmented due to habitat alteration in
the region (Brode et al. 1994). The San Francisco garter snake frequents wetlands and
grasslands with dense vegetation cover near ponds or streams, though they have been known to
make use of less suitable habitat (USFWS 2007). Additionally, San Francisco garter snakes
require some upland habitat with burrows or interstitial spaces for basking and aestivation, and
suitable habitat must support a prey base of species such as red-legged frogs, pacific chorus frogs
(Pseudacris regilla), and western toads (Bufo boreas). The San Francisco garter snake is a live-
bearing reptile, and young are born in late summer (Brode et al. 1994). The San Francisco garter
snake continues to be threatened by increasing habitat loss and degradation, as well as illegal
collecting by reptile fanciers (USFWS 2007).
The nearest known population of San Francisco garter snakes occurs in a wetland to the west of
Highway 101 next to the San Francisco Airport, approximately 3.5 mi south of the Project area
(CNDDB 2010). This and other more distant populations in the Project vicinity are separated
from the Project area by extensive development and substantial barriers including Highway 101.
The Project site does not support freshwater marshes, and the saltmarshes within the Project
boundaries do not support a sufficient amphibian prey base for garter snakes. Therefore we do
not expect the species to occur on the Project site.
California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus). Federal Listing Status: None;
State Listing Status: Threatened and Fully Protected. Historically, black rails ranged along
the Pacific coast from Tomales Bay in the north to northern Baja California in the south, but
comprehensive and ongoing habitat loss has reduced their distribution and abundance
considerably, leading to their state status as a fully protected and threatened bird (Evens et al.
1991, Eddleman and Evens 1994). The current range of the California black rail is restricted
primarily to the tidal marshes of the northern San Francisco Bay, with small localized
populations also occurring in the southern portion of the bay, in Marin County, in the foothills of
the western Sierra Nevada, and in the Colorado River area (Spautz et al. 2005). It is estimated
that up to 90% of habitat in California, and at least 85% of San Francisco salt-marsh habitat, has
been degraded or destroyed, mostly due to agriculture and development. The vast majority of
California black rails frequent tidal marshes with quantities of low, dense, emergent vegetation,
while the few remaining inland rail populations are associated with shallow, stable freshwater
marshes dominated by fine-stemmed vegetation. Prime black rail habitat features large,
contiguous stretches of stable tidal marsh dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia spp), Scirpus
spp, or cattails, with low levels of urban development (Spautz et al. 2005). Rails begin nesting in
late February, constructing well-hidden cup nests low to the ground near the high flood line.
They nest through July, after which juveniles disperse erratically; adults remain on their breeding
grounds year-round (Eddleman et al. 1994).
The tidal marsh habitat on the Project site consists of thin strips along the edges of the site,
dominated in some areas by pickleweed and in others by tall cattails and rushes. These marshes
are limited in extent, provide open to moderate cover rather than dense cover, offer a narrow
tidal zone, and are highly disturbed by adjacent human activities. This habitat is of marginal
quality, at best, for nonbreeding black rails, and not sufficiently extensive for use by breeding
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201042
rails. Further, the species is not currently known to breed in the South Bay. Therefore, we do
not expect black rails to occur on the Project site.
California clapper rail (Rallus longirostrus obsoletus). Federal Listing Status: Endangered;
State Listing Status: Endangered and Fully Protected. The California clapper rail was listed as
endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1970 (USFWS 1970) and is designated as
both endangered and fully protected in the state of California (Baron and Takekawa 1994).
Critical Habitat has not been designated for this species. The California clapper rail is a year-round
endemic to the tidal marshes fringing the San Francisco Bay (Schwartzbach et al. 2006), although
historically populations also occurred in salt marshes in the Tomales, Monterey, and Morro Bays
(Harvey 1990, Eddleman and Conway 1998). Rail populations were decimated by extensive habitat
loss and hunting in the 19th and early 20th centuries (Baron and Takekawa 1994). Continued
degradation and loss of tidal marsh habitat, pollution, and the ubiquitous presence of non-native
predators such as red fox (Vulpes vulpes) and feral cats (Felis catus) continue to limit rail populations
throughout their remaining distribution (Foin et al. 1997, Schwartzbach et al. 2006). Rails are obligate
salt-marsh inhabitants, particularly where pickleweed (Salicornia spp.) and/or non-native cordgrass
(Spartina spp.) are the dominant vegetation. They construct cup nests in the upper marshes near tidal
sloughs beginning in late March; the breeding season runs through August. They forage in the mud of
tidal sloughs, retreating to the upper marsh during high tides. Prime habitat for California clapper rails
consists of broad patches of pickleweed-dominated salt marsh free from introduced predators, with
abundant slough channels, a fringe of tall salt marsh vegetation above the high-tide line, and abundant
invertebrate populations (Eddleman and Conway 1998).
California clapper rails are documented occurring throughout portions of San Francisco Bay in
relatively extensive channeled tidal marshes dominated by pickleweed. The nearest recently
documented breeding population is a small group of birds that persist in a tidal marsh just north
of the San Francisco Airport, approximately 1.5 mi south of the Project site (CNDDB 2010).
Locations of other nearby populations include southern Alameda Island approximately 10 mi
east of the Project site, the Emeryville Crescent Marsh approximately 12 mi northeast of the
Project site, and Seal Slough approximately 7.5 mi south of the Project site (CNDDB 2010). The
tidal marsh habitat on the Project site consists of thin strips along the edges of the site, dominated
in some areas by pickleweed and in others by tall cattails and rushes. These marshes are limited
in extent, provide open to moderate cover, offer only one narrow channel, and are highly
disturbed by adjacent human activities. They therefore do not provide suitable breeding habitat
for clapper rails. It is possible that an occasional dispersant could use marsh vegetation on the
site, but such individuals are expected to occur very infrequently and for brief duration, if at all.
California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni). Federal Listing Status: Endangered; State
Listing Status: Endangered and Protected. The California least tern was listed as endangered
by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1970 (USFWS 1970), and is designated as both
endangered and fully protected in the state of California. No critical habitat has been designated
for this species. California least terns historically nested widely along the Pacific Coast from the
San Francisco Bay area to Baja California, but pervasive habitat loss, along with increasing
predation pressures and disturbance due to recreational activities, has radically constrained the
range and abundance of this species. Habitat degradation is ongoing, and nest predation by feral
cats and other human-associated species such as raccoons and crows now poses a grave threat
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201043
(Atwood et al. 1994, Akçakaya et al. 2003). Currently, California least terns are found only in one
breeding colony in the San Francisco Bay area, and breed sparsely at a few coastal sites from San
Luis Obispo County to San Diego County (Atwood et al. 1994). California least terns inhabit
broad, sparsely vegetated sandy beaches or mudflats near the coast, where they can construct
shallow scrape nests in sand or gravel (Thompson et al. 1997). Ideal nesting habitat for
California least terns is typified by open, undisturbed beaches with little to no vegetation or
debris and an absence of nest predators. Least terns exhibit high site fidelity despite the typically
ephemeral nature of their preferred breeding habitat (Thompson et al. 1997, Akçakaya et al.
2003). Nesting colonies averaging 30-50 pairs begin to establish themselves in late April, and
breeding continues through early September, after which the birds migrate to wintering grounds
in southern Mexico (Thompson et al. 1997).
California least terns occur in the San Francisco Bay, and have established a nesting population
near the Alameda Naval Air Station approximately 9 mi northeast of the Project site. The
Project site does offer a strip of sandy beach habitat, but it is very small, highly disturbed, and
frequented by predators such as feral cats and American crows. Therefore, suitable nesting
habitat for California least terns is absent from the Project site. It is possible that birds from the
Alameda colony, or possibly from a colony in Suisun Bay, could forage in the Bay adjacent to
the Project site, though such individuals are expected to occur irregularly and/or in small
numbers.
Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). Federal Listing Status:
Threatened; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. Coastal populations of
western snowy plover were listed as threatened by the USFWS in 1993 (USFWS 1993), and
critical habitat was designated in 1999 (USFWS 1999). The western snowy plover is a small
shorebird distributed along the pacific and gulf coasts of the United States, and patchily in the
interior west during the winter months (Page et al. 1995). Snowy Plover breeding habitat on the
pacific coast is typified by sandy beaches, gravel spits, salt pans, and other open, sparsely
vegetated habitats near the ocean (Colwell et al. 2005). Breeding begins in California around
mid-February, and nesting birds lay one to three clutches of 2 to 6 eggs in shallow scrapes near
patches of cover such as driftwood, kelp, or low vegetation. The breeding season runs through
September, and in central California plover populations persist throughout the year, with non-
breeding birds foraging on invertebrates on shorelines, tidal flats, and salt ponds (Page et al.
1995). Optimal snowy plover nesting habitat is comprised of sandy substrates with sparsely
distributed camouflaging debris or shrubs, supporting only low numbers of native predators and
no introduced predators, and protected from human activities including off-road vehicles. The
majority of coastal snowy plover habitat is threatened by habitat loss and degradation,
disturbance due to human activities, and an influx of introduced nest predators (Ruhlen et al.
2003, Neuman et al. 2004).
Although snowy plovers nest primarily on sandy beaches along the coast, breeders inside San
Francisco Bay nest primarily in extensive salt pannes. Salt panne habitat is absent from the
Project site, and the small patch of sandy beach on the Project site is too small, highly disturbed,
and frequented by predators such as feral cats and American crows to provide suitable breeding
habitat, or even foraging habitat for this species. Therefore, the snowy plover is not expected to
occur on the Project site.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201044
Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris). Federal Listing Status:
Endangered; State Listing Status: Endangered. The salt marsh harvest mouse was listed as
endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1970 (USFWS 1970) and by the California
Fish and Game in 1971. Critical habitat has not been designated for this species. The salt marsh
harvest mouse is restricted to the San Francisco bay area and its tributaries. It is a salt marsh
obligate and requires both dense patches of pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and high ground
refuge locations during high tide (Shellhammer 1982, Shellhammer et al. 1982). Salt marsh
harvest mice subsist mainly on leaves, seeds, plant stems and green grasses (Bias 1994,
Shellhammer 1982). The listing of the salt marsh harvest mouse was a direct result of habitat
loss, which has declined by 80% (Shellhammer 1982) from its original size of 183 mi2. Breeding
of the salt marsh harvest mouse takes place primarily between August and November (Bias
1994, Bias and Morrison 2006). Average home range is approximately 0.53 ac for both sexes.
Continued threats to the salt marsh harvest mouse are further habitat fragmentation and
degradation (e.g., pollution, invasion by non-native predators).
Salt marsh harvest mice have not been recorded on the San Francisco peninsula north of Foster
City in decades. The pickleweed marshes on the Project site are poorly developed and highly
disturbed, offering marginal habitat at best for the species. The nearest extant populations are
distant and separated from the Project area by substantial habitat alteration. Therefore, we do not
expect salt marsh harvest mice to occur on the Project site.
California Species of Special Concern or State Fully Protected Species
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Federal Listing Status: None; State Listing Status:
Fully Protected. The white-tailed kite ranges throughout the western states and Florida where
suitable habitat occurs.In California, white-tailed kites can be found in the Central Valley and
along the coast, in grasslands, agricultural fields, cismontane woodlands, and other open habitats
(Polite et al. 1990, Dunk 1995, Erichsen et al. 1996). Although the species rallied impressively
after marked reductions during the early 20th century, populations may be exhibiting new
declines as a result of recent increases in habitat conversion and disturbance (Erichsen et al.
1996). White-tailed kites are year-round residents of the state, establishing breeding territories
that encompass open areas with healthy prey populations, and snags, shrubs, trees, or other
nesting substrates (Dunk 1995).Non-breeding birds typically remain in the same area over the
winter, although some movements do occur (Polite et al. 1990). The presence of white-tailed
kites is closely tied to the presence of prey species, particularly voles, and prey base may be the
most important factor in determining habitat quality for white-tailed kites (Dunk and Cooper
1994, Skonieczny and Dunk 1997).
White-tailed kites have been observed in the general Project vicinity during the breeding season
(CNDDB 2010, eBird 2010). The annual grassland and even some landscaped habitats on the
Project site offer suitable foraging habitat. Although the pines and Eucalyptus trees comprising
the ornamental forest offer potential nesting habitat, there is a low probability that a pair of kites
would establish a nest in such a highly disturbed area with such limited foraging habitat.
Therefore, if the species occurs on the Project site, it is likely to occur only as an occasional
nonbreeding visitor.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201045
Burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). Federal Listing Status:None; State Listing Status:
Species of Special Concern (breeding). Western burrowing owls can be found in grassland
habitats throughout western and Midwestern North America (Haug et al. 1993). In California
burrowing owls are distributed throughout the state, with populations in the northeast; in the
Central Valley, interior San Francisco Bay Area, and Salinas Valley; on the Carrizo Plain and in
the Imperial Valley; and on several of the Channel Islands. Habitat loss has reduced the abundance
of this species within its range and resulted in local extirpations, particularly along the central and
southern coasts (Gervais et al. 2008). California hosts both migratory and sedentary populations of
burrowing owls (Rosenberg et al. 2007). These owls favor flat, open grassland or gentle slopes
and sparse shrubland ecosystems for breeding, through they will also readily colonize
agricultural fields and other developed areas (Haug et al. 1993, Conway et al. 2006). Mammal
burrows, or other structures that mimic burrows, provide secure nesting locations and non-
breeding refuges and are a fundamental ecological requirement of burrowing owls (Gervais et al.
2008); in California, owls are most often found in close association with California ground
squirrel burrows (Rosenberg et al. 2007). Ideal habitat for burrowing owls is comprised of
annual and perennial grasslands with low vegetation height, sparse or nonexistent tree or shrub
cover, and an abundance of mammal burrows (Coulombe 1971, Haug and Oliphant 1990,
Plumpton and Lutz 199). The nesting season as recognized by the California Department of Fish
and Game (1995) runs from February 1 through August 31. After nesting is completed, adult
owls may remain in their nesting burrows or in nearby burrows, or may migrate; young birds
disperse across the landscape, from 0.12 mi to 33 mi from their natal burrows (Rosier et al.
2006).
Burrowing owls occur at scattered locations throughout the South San Francisco Bay Area where
low grasslands and ruderal habitats support ground squirrel colonies. Although the Project site
features several patches of annual grassland and ruderal habitat, such habitat is very limited in
extent, and no ground squirrel burrows were in evidence during the reconnaissance survey in
November 2009. Nonbreeding burrowing owls could potentially occur on the Project site (e.g.,
during migration and winter), possibly roosting in riprap, but due to the limited nature of suitable
foraging habitat and absence of high-quality burrows, such individuals are expected to occur
irregularly and in small numbers, if at all.
Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). Federal Listing Status:None; State Listing Status:
Species of Special Concern (nesting). The loggerhead shrike is distributed throughout much of
California, except in higher-elevation and heavily forested areas including the Coast Ranges, the Sierra
Nevada, the southern Cascades, the Klamath and Siskiyou ranges, and the highest parts of the
Transverse Ranges (Humple 2008). While the species range in California has remained stable over
time, populations have declined steadily (Cade and Woods 1997). Loggerhead shrikes establish
breeding territories in open habitats with relatively short vegetation that allows for visibility of prey;
they can be found in grasslands, scrub habitats, riparian areas, other open woodlands, ruderal habitats,
and developed areas including golf courses and agricultural fields (Yosef 1996). They require the
presence of structures for impaling their prey; these most often take the form of thorny or sharp-
stemmed shrubs, or barbed wire (Humple 2008). Ideal breeding habitat for loggerhead shrikes is
comprised of short grass habitat with many perches, shrubs or trees for nesting, and sharp branches or
barbed wire fences for impaling prey. Shrikes nest earlier than most other passerines, especially in the
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201046
west where populations are sedentary. The breeding season may begin as early as late February, and
lasts through July (Yosef 1996).Nests are typically established in shrubs and low trees including
sagebrush, willow, and mesquite, through brush piles may also be used when shrubs are not available.
Loss and degradation of breeding habitat, as well as possible negative impacts of pesticides, are
considered to be the major contributors to the population declines exhibited by this species (Cade and
Woods 1997).
Loggerhead shrikes are uncommon in the Bay Area but have been recorded occasionally in the
Project vicinity (eBird 2010), and have been documented breeding on east San Bruno Mountain
(Sequoia Audubon Society 2001). The Project site offers potential foraging and nesting habitat,
particularly in the southeastern corner where Phase I of the Project is planned. However, there is
a low probability that a pair would establish a nest in such a highly disturbed area with such
limited foraging habitat. Therefore, if the species occurs on the Project site, it is likely to occur
only as an occasional nonbreeding visitor.
San Francisco common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa). Federal Listing Status: None
State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern (breeding). The San Francisco (also known as
Salt Marsh) subspecies of the widely-distributed common yellowthroat is found only on the immediate
coast of California from Tomales Bay in the north to the southern edge of San Mateo County in the
south, including the San Francisco Bay. Their current range reflects their historic distribution, but
habitat degradation and loss dramatically reduced the abundance of the subspecies within its range,
even resulting in local extirpations before increases in freshwater marsh habitats on the bay began
increasing in the 1980s as a result of increases in freshwater effluent discharged from wastewater
treatment plants (Gardali and Evens 2008). San Francisco common yellowthroats are typically
associated with brackish marshes and freshwater riparian swamps; they nest in the dense emergent
vegetation that grows up in such moist areas (Guzy and Ritchison 1999).Common yellowthroats will
use small and isolated patches of habitat as long as groundwater is close enough to the surface to
encourage the establishment of dense stands of rushes (Scirpus spp.), cattails, willows (Salix spp.),
Juncus spp., or other emergent vegetation (Nur et al. 1997). Ideal habitat, however, is comprised of at
least 0.4 ha of thick riparian or marsh vegetation in perpetually moist areas, where populations of
brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) are low (Menges 1998). Common yellowthroats build open-
cup nests low in the vegetation, and nest from mid-march through late July. Common yellowthroats
remain in their breeding range year-round (Guzy and Ritchison 1999, Gardali and Evens 2008).
Common yellowthroats have been observed in the Project area during the breeding season (eBird
2010), and the site possesses small amounts of potential breeding habitat for the species. A few
pairs could have breeding territories on the Project site, most likely along the tidal channel on the
southern edge of the site.
Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula). Federal Listing Status: None; State
Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. The Alameda song sparrow is a subspecies of the
widely distributed song sparrow, which can be found, typically near water, in nearly every
habitat type throughout North America (Arcese et al. 2002).The Alameda song sparrow is a
year-round endemic resident of the salt marshes of the San Francisco Bay from the cities of San
Francisco and El Cerrito at the northern end of its range, to the southern limits of the Bay in
Santa Clara County (Chan and Spautz 2008). While the range of the Alameda song sparrow has
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201047
remained relatively unchanged over time, populations have been reduced substantially and are
continually threatened by the loss and fragmentation of salt marshes around the Bay (Nur et al.
1997, Chan and Spautz 2008). Alameda song sparrows are inhabitants of tidally-influenced salt
marshes dominated by pickleweed (Salicornia sp.) and cordgrass (Spartina sp.) (Chan and
Spautz 2008). They breed from February through August, and require some areas of high marsh
for nesting habitat, in order to avoid inundation of nests during high tides (Arcese et al. 2002).
While Alameda song sparrows will nest in exotic cordgrass as well as native pickleweed, birds
nesting in cordgrass experience a significantly lower rate of nest success, largely due to tidal
flooding, than birds nesting in native pickleweed, which is typically found at higher elevations in
the marsh and is thus less susceptible to flooding (Nordby et al. 2008). Alameda song sparrows
forage on bare ground along sloughs and in bare patches within the tidal marshes, consuming
plants and invertebrates. Prime habitat for Alameda song sparrows is composed of large areas of
tidally-influenced marsh intersected by tidal sloughs, offering dense vegetative cover, singing perches,
and areas of high marsh for nesting; free from cordgrass and introduced predators; and adjacent to
extensive upland habitat (Chan and Spautz 2008).
Alameda song sparrows have been documented historically in the Project vicinity in Belmont,
San Bruno, San Mateo, and near Colma Creek (CNDDB 2010). Song sparrows of undetermined
subspecies were observed in the Project area during the November 2009 reconnaissance survey,
and have been observed near the Project area at Colma Creek during the breeding season (eBird
2010). The small amounts of tidal marsh within the Project area serve as potential breeding
habitat for Alameda song sparrows. If this subspecies breeds on or near the Project site, it is
most likely to breed along the tidal channel on the southern edge of the site or in the marsh
adjacent to the site near the Oyster Cove Marina.
Bryant’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus). Federal Listing Status:
None; State Listing Status: Species of Special Concern. Bryant’s savannah sparrow, a subspecies
of the widely distributed savannah sparrow, is a California endemic ranging along the immediate coast
from Humboldt Bay, Humboldt County, in the north; to Point Conception, Santa Barbara County, in
the south (Wheelwright and Rising 2008). Bryant’s savannah sparrows breed from April through July
(Dobkin and Granholm 1990) in the upper portions of tidally-influenced marshes, grasslands and
ruderal habitats adjacent to tidal marshes, moist grasslands and pastures within the fog belt, and
occasionally in drier grasslands up to 25 mi inland. Ideal habitat is comprised of extensive moist
grassland or upper marsh habitats with relatively short vegetation, some patches of bare ground, and
nearby drainages (Fitton 2008). Cup nests are built on or near the ground in dense vegetation
(Wheelwright and Rising 2008). Non-breeding habitat preferences are little known, but may be similar
to breeding season habitats. The range of the Bryant’s savannah sparrow has remained relatively
stable, but numbers have declined, largely due to habitat loss, fragmentation, and degradation (Fitton
2008).
Savannah sparrows have been regularly observed in the Project vicinity, but most of these
individuals were observed during migration and winter periods. A few individuals have been
documented during the breeding season about 3.5 mi north of the Project site at Bayview Hill,
and approximately 8 mi south of the Project site at Tidelands Park in Foster City (eBird 2010).
Breeding savannah sparrows have been documented on western San Bruno Mountain, in San
Bruno, and in Millbrae (Sequoia Audubon Society 2001). The salt marsh habitat adjacent to the
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201048
Project site is of marginal quality for this species due to its small size and proximity to human
disturbance, but up to a few pairs could potentially breed along the tidal channel on the southern
edge of the site or in the marsh adjacent to the site near the Oyster Cove Marina.
Sensitive and Regulated Plant Communities and Habitats
The CDFG ranks certain rare or threatened plant communities, such as wetlands, meadows, and
riparian forest and scrub, as ‘threatened’ or ‘very threatened’. These communities are tracked in
the CNDDB. Impacts to CDFG sensitive plant communities, or any such community identified
in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, must be considered and evaluated under the
California Environmental Quality Act (California Code of Regulations: Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3,
Appendix G). Furthermore, wetland and riparian habitats are also afforded protection under
applicable federal, state, or local regulations, and are generally subject to regulation, protection,
or consideration by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB), CDFG, and/or the USFWS. Essential Fish Habitat is identified and
regulated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) in collaboration with regional, state
and local agencies, and is defined as any habitat that is essential to the long-term survival and
health of United States fisheries. Eelgrass beds are considered a sensitive resource by the
USACE and CDFG because little accurate information exists about the historic distribution of
eelgrass beds, and because of their current relative scarcity and importance in the overall ecology
of the bay.
CDFG Sensitive Habitats. No sensitive habitats are mapped by the CDFG in the Project
vicinity (Figure 3).
Essential Fish Habitat. The tidal aquatic habitats on and adjacent to the Project site are
considered EFH by the NMFS for a species assemblage that includes anchovies, sardines,
rockfish, sharks, sole, and flounder. Areas supporting the native Olympia oyster, such as the
hardened shoreline and the marina breakwater, are also considered EFH by NMFS because
oyster beds serve a number of important roles in the Bay ecosystem.
Eelgrass Beds. Eelgrass beds form areas of important habitat for birds, fish, and crustaceans and
are one of the preferred spawning habitats of pacific herring (Wyllie-Echeverria and Fonseca
2003). These plants also support grazing crustaceans, shrimp, and amphipods. Because it
requires light for photosynthesis, eelgrass is limited by water clarity to depths of about 6 feet or
less. Eelgrass beds and patches occur in both subtidal and intertidal areas of the San Francisco
Bay. Although no eelgrass beds or patches have been mapped closer than 3 mi from the Project
area, the NMFS (2010) considers portions of Oyster Point to offer suitable eelgrass habitat, and
there is some evidence that eelgrass populations in the Bay are expanding (Merkel & Associates
2004). Thus, we cannot rule out the possibility that eelgrass patches or beds have become
established in or near the Project area.
Waters of the U.S./State. As discussed under Regulatory Setting above, open water and
intertidal habitats of San Francisco Bay, the tidal canal at the southern edge of the site, and
associated wetlands and shoreline areas (extending up to the high tide line or the upper limits of
wetlands, whichever is higher) are considered Waters of the U.S. under the Clean Water Act and
Waters of the State under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The approximate
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201049
upslope limits of such areas are shown on Figure 2. These wetlands and aquatic habitats are also
important habitats for a variety of animal species.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201050
IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed Project may have effects on the biological resources of the Project site. The
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the CEQA Guidelines provide guidance in
evaluating project impacts and determining which impacts will be significant. CEQA defines
“significant effect on the environment” as “a substantial adverse change in the physical
conditions which exist in the area affected by the proposed project.” Under CEQA Guidelines
section 15065 and Appendix G, a project’s effects on biotic resources may be significant when
the project would:
x “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”
x “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”
x “have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community (e.g., oak woodland) identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations
or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service”
x “have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act”
x “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”
x “conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a
tree preservation policy or ordinance”
x “conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan”
The following impact analyses consider the Project-specific impacts of proposed Phase I
activities and the programmatic impacts of other activities that could be performed as part of the
Project.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC ANALYSIS: MASTER PLAN PHASE I
Key Assumptions
The following impact analysis is based on several key assumptions:
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201051
x No grading or placement of fill, either temporary or permanent, will occur in any aquatic
or wetland habitat (i.e., within the “Approximate Limit of USACE Jurisdiction” indicated
on Figure 2) during Phase I activities.
x The tallest building to be constructed in Phase I is 10 stories high.
x Lighting will be in conformance with the Master Plan’s lighting guidelines.
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Impacts to Developed/Landscaped, California Annual Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub, and
Ornamental Woodland Habitats
Phase I construction may result in the loss or conversion of up to 20.05 ac of
developed/landscaped, 14.20 ac of California annual grassland/coyote brush scrub, and 0.57 ac
of ornamental woodland habitat due to the construction of buildings, landscaping, and other
activities. These habitats are located within the boundary of Phase I of the Project, and above
USACE jurisdiction. An additional 0.72 acres of northern coastal salt marsh, 0.01 acres of
armored rock levee slope, and 0.11 acres of sandy beach habitat are located within the boundary
of Phase I of the Project and within USACE jurisdiction; however, these areas will be avoided
during construction. Impacts to habitats during Phase I of construction will reduce the extent of
these habitat types on the Project site, and will result in a reduction in abundance of some of the
common wildlife species that use the site. However, these habitat types are relatively abundant
and widespread regionally, and none of the habitats to be impacted by Phase I activities represent
particularly sensitive, valuable (from the perspective of providing important wildlife habitat), or
exemplary occurrences of these habitat types. Therefore, impacts to these habitats, and the loss
of potential nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities associated with such habitats, are not
considered significant.
Impacts to Trees Protected by the City’s Tree Protection Ordinance
One or more mature blue gum trees within the ornamental woodland habitat may satisfy size
requirements for a “protected tree” under the City of South San Francisco’s Tree Protection
Ordinance. Trees are considered protected if they are 48 inches or more at 54 inches above the
natural grade. These trees, while providing some wildlife habitat, are non-native invasive trees
that severely degrade natural habitats. Eucalyptus species outcompete native species and
produce leaf litter that reduces the diversity and cover, and can alter fire regimes within the
associated woodland understory. If any of these trees are found to be of sufficient size to be
considered protected under the City’s ordinance, a permit will be required for their removal.
However, due to the low habitat functions and values provided by these trees, their loss, and the
loss of potential nesting, roosting, and foraging opportunities associated with them, is not
considered significant.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201052
Impacts to Habitat for and Individuals of Non-breeding Special-Status Wildlife Species
Several terrestrial special-status species may use the Project area as transients or migrants, or
may occur in very low numbers, but are not expected to breed at the site or to be present in any
numbers, and thus would not be impacted significantly by Project activities. These species
include the American peregrine falcon, black skimmer, harlequin duck, northern harrier, Vaux’s
swift, yellow warbler, and tricolored blackbird.
American peregrine falcons have been observed occasionally on the Project site and throughout
the Project vicinity; the nearest confirmed breeding location is on Bair Island near Redwood City
(Sequoia Audubon Society 2001). This species is uncommon throughout the Bay Area, and does
not occur frequently or in large numbers in the Project area. Black skimmers and California least
terns are known to occur in the Bay in low numbers throughout the year, and a small breeding
population of each species has become established in the South Bay. However there is no
suitable nesting habitat for these species on the Project site and individuals are expected to
forage in the small amount of marine aquatic habitat within the Project area rarely if at all.
Harlequin ducks occur regularly in low numbers in the Project vicinity during the non-breeding
season only. The Project site is outside of the known breeding range of the species (Robertson
and Goudie 1999), and individuals are expected to occur in the Project area rarely if at all.
Northern harriers breed in San Mateo County (Sequoia Audubon Society 2001) and are regularly
observed in grassy and marshy habitats throughout the year. Occasional individuals may forage
in the grassy habitats on the Project site, but harriers are not expected to occur frequently or in
any numbers, or to nest on the site. Vaux’s swifts may occasionally forage for insects over the
Project area, but would not roost there, nor would they occur frequently or in large numbers.
Yellow warblers have been observed in the Project vicinity during migration, and the species
forages in the Project area during migratory periods. However, the species is not expected to
nest on the Project site. Tricolored blackbirds may occasionally forage in open grassy or ruderal
portions of Project area, but records of birds in the vicinity are few, and they are not expected to
occur there in any numbers or to nest on the site.
Project construction would not result in injury or mortality of any individuals of these species,
which are mobile enough to avoid construction equipment. There would be no substantial loss of
foraging or non-breeding habitat for any of these species, as the Project footprint primarily
includes already developed and/or heavily impacted areas. As a result, the Project’s impacts do
not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect on these species’ populations,
and the Project will have a less than significant impact on these species.
Impacts to Habitat for and Individuals of Certain Potentially Nesting Special-Status Birds
Some special-status bird species could potentially nest in or adjacent to the Project area but are
not expected to be significantly impacted by the Project. These species include the white-tailed
kite and loggerhead shrike, for which there is a very low probability of nesting, as well as the
San Francisco common yellowthroat, Alameda song sparrow, and Bryant’s savannah sparrow,
which have a somewhat higher probability of nesting in wetland vegetation at the periphery of
the site.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201053
White-tailed kites and loggerhead shrikes are uncommon to rare on the Peninsula due to the
scarcity of suitable grassland habitat, and due to the limited extent of foraging habitat and
disturbance, there is a low probability that either species nests on the site. Nevertheless, there is
some potential for up to one pair of each species to nest in the southwestern portion of Phase I of
the Project area. Any such nesting pairs would be displaced by Project activities. Therefore, a
small amount of marginal nesting and foraging habitat will be removed as a result of Project
activities.
San Francisco common yellowthroats occur throughout the Bay Area in tidal marshes and nearby
freshwater riparian areas. Common yellowthroats have been observed in the Project area, and
enough suitable nesting habitat exists on the Project site that up to two pairs of common
yellowthroats could establish nesting territories in wetland vegetation along the tidal channel
south of the Project site or just outside the northwestern part of the Project site. Project activities
will not result in the loss of any nesting or foraging habitat, but breeding individuals could be
disturbed or displaced by construction-related noise and activity.
Alameda song sparrows are restricted to salt marsh habitat, which will not be impacted by Phase
I the proposed Project. Bryant’s savannah sparrows utilize salt marsh habitat as well, but can
also be found in adjacent ruderal or grassland habitats, which will be lost as a result of Project
activities. Pairs of song sparrows or savannah sparrows nesting in the salt marsh habitat within
the Project area could be disturbed by noise, movement, and other construction activities. Any
pairs of savannah sparrows nesting in the ruderal or grassland areas within the Phase I footprint
would be displaced by Project activities. However, the amount of salt marsh habitat in the
Project area is small and the quality is low, and thus the number of pairs of these species that
could potentially be disturbed due to Project activities represents a very small fraction of the
regional population. Likewise, the number of savannah sparrows that could potentially nest in
the small patch of ruderal grassland habitat within the Phase I footprint is low.
Because the amount and quality of habitat for white-tailed kites, loggerhead shrikes, San
Francisco common yellowthroats, Alameda song sparrows, and Bryant’s savannah sparrows
being impacted is low, and the number of nesting individuals that could be disturbed is very
small, the Project’s impacts would not substantially reduce regional populations of these species,
and thus these impacts do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse effect on
these species. Although the loss of any active nests of protected birds would be in violation of
federal and state laws (see Regulatory Setting above), impacts to these species and their habitats
would not be considered a significant impact under the CEQA.
Impacts of Lighting on Terrestrial and Aquatic Animals
Lighting in and adjacent to more natural areas on the Project site, especially the shoreline along
San Francisco Bay, is expected to increase as a result of the Project. Artificial lighting has been
demonstrated to cause changes in the physiology and behavior of a number of animal taxa; while
some animals take advantage of artificial lighting to more easily detect prey at night, or take
advantage of prey concentrations attracted to artificial lights, other animals are adversely
affected by artificial lighting (Rich and Longcore 2006). Species such as birds and amphibians
can become disoriented by changes in lighting, and many species of insects are attracted to light
(Longcore and Rich 2004). Reproductive behaviors of some species can be affected by the
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201054
increased risk of predation caused by increases in lighting, and visual communication between
individuals of can be disrupted by lighting (Longcore and Rich 2004). In more remote areas that
are not already subjected to urban lighting, an increase in night lighting could disrupt the
behavior of animals, potentially increase predation on some nocturnal animals, and result in
displacement of the most sensitive species from areas with increased lighting. However, the
Project area is already subjected to substantial amounts of night lighting, including night lighting
from roads, parking lots, and buildings. As a result, any wildlife currently using the site is
habituated to the lighting present within this urban area.
The Project incorporates guidelines for the design of lighting to minimize light pollution in areas
other than those intended to be lit. For example, lighting will be directed downward at low cut-
off angles to minimize off-site light migration and the Project’s contribution to light pollution.
Because there is already a substantial amount of artificial lighting at Oyster Point, the
implementation of these guidelines will prevent the installation of new lighting from
substantially increasing lighting levels, and from impacting terrestrial and aquatic species.
Therefore, impacts from increased lighting levels on wildlife will be less than significant.
Impacts of Increased Recreational Disturbance on Wildlife
Recreational demand in the Oyster Point area is expected to increase with the development of the
Project, resulting from the associated increase in the population of people working at and using
the oyster point site. Increases in the use of Oyster Point could potentially subject biological
resources (both within and outside the oyster point site, such as waterbirds using the edge of San
Francisco Bay) to greater disturbance by people walking and biking. However, because there is
already a substantial amount of human activity at Oyster Point, wildlife that is present at Oyster
Point and in surrounding areas is already largely habituated to high levels of human activity.
Increased use of trails or other areas that are already fairly heavily used by people is thus not
expected to reduce the use of such areas by wildlife. Therefore, an increase in recreational users
of the Bay Trail and other areas adjacent to wildlife habitat resulting from construction of the
Project is not expected to have a substantial effect on wildlife in these areas.
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION
Indirect Impacts to Water Quality and Sensitive Habitats
Although no Phase I activities will occur in wetland or aquatic habitats, some grading,
construction, and landscaping will occur in close proximity to, and upslope from, such sensitive
habitats. There is thus some potential for Phase I activities to result in indirect effects on these
habitats and on water quality in adjacent aquatic habitats. For example, in the absence of
measures to prevent erosion and sedimentation, sediment may wash from construction areas into
adjacent aquatic habitats, or soil loosened by grading could slide downslope into such areas.
Such impacts could result in the loss or degradation of wetland or aquatic habitats, and
degradation of water quality in adjacent waters. Also, Phase I activities include the installation
of stormwater outfalls from the buildings to be constructed in the southwestern part of the site.
These features will outfall into vegetated swales that are to be constructed just upslope from the
wetlands and tidal channel that form the southwestern boundary of the site. If these swales are
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201055
not adequately constructed, there is some potential for excessive erosion or the release of
untreated runoff into these wetlands and tidal waters. Due to the value of wetland habitats to the
ecology of the Bay’s aquatic habitats and the value of these aquatic habitats to a variety of fish,
benthic organisms, and other species, degradation of water quality or wetlands would be a
significant impact.
The following mitigation measures will reduce construction-phase impacts on water quality to a
less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure 1A. Incorporate Best Management Practices for Water Quality
During Construction. The Project will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
water quality to minimize impacts in the surrounding wetland environment, sloughs and
channels, and the San Francisco Bay during construction. These BMPs will include numerous
practices that will be outlined within the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), but
will include measures such as:
1.No equipment will be operated in live flow in any of the sloughs or channels or ditches
on or adjacent to the site.
2.No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, cement, concrete, washings, petroleum
products or other organic or earthen material shall be allowed to enter into or be placed
where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into aquatic or wetland habitat.
3.Standard erosion control and slope stabilization measures will be required for work
performed in any area where erosion could lead to sedimentation of a waterbody. For
example, silt fencing will be installed just outside the limits of grading and construction
in any areas where such activities will occur upslope from, and within 50 ft of, any
wetland, aquatic, or marsh habitat. This silt fencing will be inspected and maintained
regularly throughout the duration of construction.
4.Machinery will be refueled at least 50 ft from any aquatic habitat, and a spill prevention
and response plan will be developed. All workers will be informed of the importance of
preventing spills and of the appropriate measures to take should a spill occur.
Mitigation Measure 1B. Minimize Soil Disturbance Adjacent to Wetland and Marsh
Habitat. To the extent feasible, soil stockpiling, equipment staging, construction access roads,
and other intensively soil-disturbing activities will not occur immediately adjacent to any
wetlands that are to be avoided by the Project. The limits of the construction area will be clearly
demarcated with Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing to avoid inadvertent disturbance
outside the fence during construction activities.
Mitigation Measure 1C. Ensure Adequate Stormwater Run-off Capacity. Increases in
stormwater run-off due to increased hardscape will be mitigated through the construction and
maintenance of features designed to handle the expected increases in flows and provide adequate
energy dissipation. All such features, including outfalls, will be regularly maintained to ensure
continued function and prevent failure following construction.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201056
Impacts to Individual Burrowing Owls
Although no burrowing owls or ground squirrel burrows were observed on the Project site during
the November 2009 or September 2010 reconnaissance surveys, burrowing owls could
potentially occur on the Phase I site in grassland habitats if ground squirrels are present. There is
also some potential for occasional transient owls to use crevices in shoreline riprap as temporary
refugia. In the unlikely event that owls were nesting on the site, construction-related disturbance
during the breeding season could result in the incidental loss of fertile eggs or nestlings, or
otherwise lead to nest abandonment. However, if burrowing owls occur on the site at all, they
likely do so as nonbreeding visitors. Because this species live in burrows even during the non-
breeding season, they are more likely to take refuge in those burrows rather than flushing in
response to disturbance as most birds do, therefore raising the risk of individual owls being
crushed in their burrows during construction activities in any season.
Due to the marginal nature of habitat on the site, and the current lack of suitable breeding sites in
the form of ground squirrel burrows, the Project will not result in a significant loss of burrowing
owl habitat. Nevertheless, any loss of burrowing owls or fertile eggs, any activities resulting in
nest abandonment, or the destruction of occupied burrowing owl burrows would constitute a
significant impact under CEQA due to the regional rarity of the species and declining nature of
its populations. The following mitigation measures would reduce impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 2A. Pre-construction Surveys.Pre-construction surveys for burrowing
owls shall be completed in potential habitat in conformance with the California Burrowing Owl
Consortium protocol, no more than 30 days prior to the start of construction. If no burrowing
owls are located during these surveys, no additional action would be warranted. However, if
burrowing owls are located on or immediately adjacent to the site the following mitigation
measures will be implemented.
Mitigation Measure 2B. Buffer Zones.For burrowing owls present during the non-breeding
season (generally 1 September to 31 January), a 150-ft buffer zone will be maintained around the
occupied burrow(s) if practicable. If such a buffer is not practicable, then a buffer adequate to
avoid injury or mortality of owls will be maintained, or the birds will be evicted as described for
Mitigation Measures 2C, below. During the breeding season (generally 1 February to 31
August), a 250-ft buffer, within which no new activity will be permissible, will be maintained
between Project activities and occupied burrows. Owls present on site after 1 February will be
assumed to be nesting unless evidence indicates otherwise. This protected buffer area will
remain in effect until 31 August, or based upon monitoring evidence, until the young owls are
foraging independently or the nest is no longer active.
Mitigation Measure 2C. Passive Relocation.If construction will directly impact occupied
burrows, eviction of owls should occur outside the nesting season to prevent injury or mortality
of individual owls. No burrowing owls will be evicted from burrows during the nesting season
(1 February through 31 August) unless evidence indicates that nesting is not actively occurring
(e.g., because the owls have not yet begun nesting early in the season, or because young have
already fledged late in the season). Relocation of owls during the non-breeding season will be
performed by a qualified biologist using one-way doors, which should be installed in all burrows
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201057
within the impact area and left in place for at least two nights. These one-way doors will then be
removed and the burrows backfilled immediately prior to the initiation of grading.
Impacts to Migratory Birds from Buildings and Lighting
The Study Area is located along the Pacific Flyway for migratory birds, and the juxtaposition of
wetland, shoreline, and open water habitats used by birds results in large-scale movements of
birds along the edge of San Francisco Bay, both during long-distance movements (such as
migration) and during daily movements between roosting and foraging habitats. During spring
and fall migratory periods in particular, birders have documented high densities of migrant
songbirds using vegetated areas at the edges of San Francisco Bay, and the Oyster Point Project
area has the potential to support high densities of birds at times during migration. There is thus
potential for injury or mortality of birds due to collisions with artificial structures such as
buildings as birds engage in such movements.
Many birds migrate at night, when it is difficult for them to see structures in their paths. In
addition, birds migrating at night are often attracted to sources of artificial light, particularly
during periods of inclement weather. Exposure to night lighting can cause alteration of flight
paths and can attract birds to the light source (Keyes 2005, Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). As a
result, bright lights on buildings can result in bird collisions with the buildings. Even during the
day, birds may collide with windows or with tall, glass-covered buildings. Large-scale collisions
resulting in mortality of large numbers of birds have been documented in eastern and
Midwestern North America (Avery 1979), but it is possible that such mortality could occur in the
West as well.
Within the Project area, there is some potential for birds to collide during daytime and nocturnal
flights with structures such as windows of office buildings. Structures currently present along
the southern portion of Oyster Point are one to three stories high, while several structures at the
northern end of Oyster Point are five stories high. The existing structures at Oyster Point are
relatively low, and the exteriors of these buildings have been designed with clear patterns that do
not result in extensive areas of reflective surfaces. As a result, most migrating birds would be
flying above these buildings, and birds would easily be able to see these buildings because they
are not comprised of extensive areas that reflect, and that thus would appear to a bird to be
similar to, the sky. Therefore, the risk of bird strikes under existing conditions is expected to be
relatively low.
The tallest new building that will be constructed during Phase I of the Project will be 10 stories,
or 195 ft, with additional buildings at heights of 130 ft and 75 ft.Relative to the height of the
existing structures, several of the Project’s proposed buildings will project higher, creating new,
somewhat larger obstacles along the flight path of migrating and foraging birds. Although all of
these buildings are likely to be at a lower height than most migrating birds will be flying, the
Project would create potential bird strike hazards at elevations that do not currently exist. With
structures up to 195 ft tall and windy, often foggy conditions along San Francisco Bay, the risk
of collision for birds would increase. Therefore, the Project could result in the creation of a new
strike hazard for migrating birds that could result in the loss of substantial numbers of birds over
the life of the Project. Additionally, operating effects associated with the lighting of the
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201058
buildings can alter the flight patterns of migratory birds and potentially increase bird strike
collisions with the tall buildings.
Although large-scale injury or mortality of birds due to collisions with buildings has not been
reported from the West Coast, depending on the design of the buildings there is some potential
for such mortality to occur in the absence of mitigation measures. Because of these potential
effects, the Project is considered to have a potentially significant impact to migratory birds. To
avoid and minimize impacts to migrating and foraging birds as a result of Project construction,
the following measures will be implemented:
Mitigation Measure 3A. Lighting Measures to Reduce Impacts to Birds. During design of
any building greater than 100 feet tall, the Project Applicant shall consult with a qualified
biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues to identify lighting-
related measures to minimize the effects of the building’s lighting on birds. Such measures,
which may include the following and/or other measures, will be incorporated into the building’s
design and operation.
x Use strobe or flashing lights in place of continuously burning lights for obstruction
lighting. Use flashing white lights rather than continuous light, red light, or rotating
beams.
x Install shields onto light sources not necessary for air traffic to direct light towards the
ground.
x Extinguish all exterior lighting (i.e., rooftop floods, perimeter spots) not required for
public safety.
x When interior or exterior lights must be left on at night, the operator of the buildings shall
examine and adopt alternatives to bright, all-night, floor-wide lighting, which may
include:
o Installing motion-sensitive lighting.
o Using desk lamps and task lighting.
o Reprogramming timers.
o Use of lower-intensity lighting.
x Windows or window treatments that reduce transmission of light out of the building will
be implemented to the extent feasible.
Mitigation Measure 3B. Building Design Measures to Minimize Bird Strike Risk. During
design of any building greater than 100 feet tall, the Project Applicant will consult with a
qualified biologist experienced with bird strikes and building/lighting design issues to identify
measures related to the external appearance of the building to minimize the risk of bird strikes.
Such measures, which may include the following and/or other measures, will be incorporated
into the building’s design.
x Use non-reflective tinted glass.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201059
x Use window films to make windows visible to birds from the outside.
x Use external surfaces/designs that “break up” reflective surfaces rather than having large,
uninterrupted areas of surfaces that reflect, and thus may not appear noticeably different
(to a bird) from, the sky.
PROGRAMMATIC ANALYSIS
Key Assumptions
The following impact analysis is based on several key assumptions:
x The tallest of the new office/R&D buildings to be constructed outside the Phase I area
will be no more than 10 stories high.
x Lighting will be in conformance with the Master Plan’s lighting guidelines.
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
Impacts to Developed/Landscaped, California Annual Grassland/Coyote Brush Scrub, and
Non-jurisdictional Armored Rock Levee Slope Habitats
Portions of the Project site outside of the Phase I boundary, which comprise the programmatic
components of the Project site, contain 37.11 ac of developed/landscaped, 4.54 ac of California
annual grassland/coyote brush scrub, and 1.04 ac of armored rock levee slope habitats. As a
result, there is some potential for some or all of these habitats to be lost or modified due to the
construction of buildings, installation of landscaping, and other activities. These habitats are
located within the Project area but outside of the Phase I boundary and above the approximate
limits of USACE jurisdiction. The acreages of these habitats that will be impacted are unknown;
the provided acreages are the maximum possible acreages that could be impacted by
programmatic components of the Project. These impacts will reduce the extent of these habitat
types on the Project site, and will result in a reduction in abundance of some of the common
wildlife species that use the site. However, these habitat types are relatively abundant and
widespread regionally, and none of these habitats represents particularly sensitive, valuable
(from the perspective of providing important wildlife habitat), or exemplary occurrences of these
habitat types. Therefore, impacts to these habitats, and the loss of potential nesting, roosting, and
foraging opportunities associated with such habitats, are not considered significant.
Impacts to Certain Special-status Wildlife Species and Their Habitats
As discussed above for the Phase I component of the Project, several terrestrial special-status
species may use the Project area as transients or migrants, or may occur in very low numbers, but
are not expected to breed at the site or to be present in any numbers, and thus would not be
impacted significantly by Project activities. These species include the American peregrine
falcon, black skimmer, harlequin duck, northern harrier, Vaux’s swift, yellow warbler, and
tricolored blackbird. The white-tailed kite and loggerhead shrike could possibly also forage in
the portion of the Project site outside the Phase I area, but they are not expected to nest here.
However, as discussed previously, Project construction would not result in injury or mortality of
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201060
any individuals of these species, which are mobile enough to avoid construction equipment.
There would be no substantial loss of foraging or non-breeding habitat for any of these species,
as the Project footprint primarily includes already developed and/or heavily impacted areas. As
a result, the Project’s impacts do not meet the CEQA standard of having a substantial adverse
effect on these species’ populations, and the Project will have a less than significant impact on
these species.
Impacts to Habitat for and Individuals of Certain Potentially Nesting Special-Status Birds
As discussed above for the Phase I component of the Project, some special-status bird species
could potentially nest in or adjacent to the Project area but are not expected to be significantly
impacted by the Project. These species include the San Francisco common yellowthroat,
Alameda song sparrow, and Bryant’s savannah sparrow, which could potentially nest in very low
numbers in wetland vegetation at the periphery of the site. However, because the amount and
quality of habitat for these species being impacted is low, and the number of nesting individuals
that could be disturbed is very small, the Project’s impacts would not substantially reduce
regional populations of these species, and thus these impacts do not meet the CEQA standard of
having a substantial adverse effect on these species. Although the loss of any active nests of
protected birds would be in violation of federal and state laws (see Regulatory Setting above),
impacts to these species and their habitats would not be considered a significant impact under the
CEQA.
Impacts of Lighting on Terrestrial and Aquatic Animals
The effects of increased lighting on terrestrial and aquatic animals, as discussed above for the
Phase I component of the Project, would also apply to any new lighting provided by
programmatic Project activities. As discussed above, any wildlife currently using the site is
habituated to the lighting present within this urban area, and the Project incorporates guidelines
for the design of lighting to minimize light pollution in areas other than those intended to be lit.
Because there is already a substantial amount of artificial lighting at Oyster Point, the
implementation of these guidelines will prevent the installation of new lighting from
substantially increasing lighting levels, and from impacting terrestrial and aquatic species.
Therefore, impacts from increased lighting levels on wildlife will be less than significant.
Impacts of Increased Recreational Disturbance on Wildlife
The effects of increased recreational disturbance on wildlife, as discussed above for the Phase I
component of the Project, would also apply to the programmatic Project activities. Although the
construction of new office/R&D facilities as part of the programmatic portion of the Project
would result in an increase in the number of recreational users of bayside areas in the Oyster
Point vicinity, there is already a substantial amount of human activity at Oyster Point, and
wildlife that is present at Oyster Point and in surrounding areas is already largely habituated to
high levels of human activity. Increased use of trails or other areas that are already fairly heavily
used by people is thus not expected to reduce the use of such areas by wildlife. Therefore, an
increase in recreational users of the Bay Trail and other areas adjacent to wildlife habitat
resulting from construction of the Project is not expected to have a substantial effect on wildlife
in these areas.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201061
IMPACTS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION
Impacts to Northern Coastal Salt Marsh, Open Water, and Jurisdictional Armored Rock
Levee Slope Habitats
A total of 1.74 acres of northern coastal salt marsh, 0.27 acres of open water (including intertidal
habitats), and 0.76 acres of armored rock levee slope below the approximate limits of USACE
jurisdiction are present within the Project area outside of the boundaries of Phase I activities.
While the actual acreage of impacts to these sensitive/jurisdictional habitats is unknown, it is
possible that these habitats could be impacted due to the construction of buildings, marina
improvements, Bay Trail improvements, landscaping, and other activities. Additional wetland
and open water habitat, within the “Additional Study Area” but outside the Project boundaries
(see Figure 2), could potentially be impacted by marina improvements, such as addition or
replacement of piers and reconstruction of docks, and by shading from such structures. Due to
the ecological importance of wetland and aquatic habitats, such impacts would be potentially
significant. The following mitigation measures will reduce these impacts to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4A. Delineate Jurisdictional Boundaries. Prior to construction of any
programmatic Project elements that are expected to potentially have direct impacts on USACE
jurisdictional habitats, a focused delineation will be performed to determine the precise limits of
USACE jurisdiction at the site, and USACE approval of the jurisdictional boundaries will be
obtained.
Mitigation Measure 4B. Impact Avoidance/Minimization. Future Project elements will be
designed to avoid and minimize impacts to these sensitive habitats to the extent practicable while
still accomplishing Project objectives.
Mitigation Measure 4C. Restoration of Temporarily Impacted Wetland/Aquatic Habitats.
USACE-jurisdictional areas that are temporarily impacted during construction of programmatic
elements will be restored to preexisting contours and levels of soils compaction following build-
out. The means by which such temporarily impacted areas will be restored shall be described in
the mitigation plan described in Measure 4D below.
Mitigation Measure 4D. Compensation for Permanently Impacted Wetland/Aquatic
Habitats. Unavoidable permanent fill of all habitats within USACE jurisdiction will be replaced
at a minimum 1:1 (mitigation area: impact area) ratio by creation or restoration of similar habitat
around San Francisco Bay. Any aquatic, marsh, or mudflat habitat areas experiencing a net
increase in shading as a result of docks or other structures constructed over or on the water will
require compensatory mitigation at a 0.5:1 (mitigation area: impact area) ratio; this ratio is less
than the 1:1 required for permanent filling of such habitats because shaded areas are expected to
retain some ecological habitat value. Mitigation could be achieved through a combination of on-
site restoration or creation of wetlands or aquatic habitats (including removal of on-site fill or
structures, resulting in a gain of wetland or aquatic habitats); off-site restoration/creation;
funding of off-site restoration/creation projects implemented by others; and/or mitigation credits
purchased at mitigation banks within the San Francisco Bay Region. Because impacts to aquatic
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201062
habitats on-site could also potentially impact special-status fish and EFH (see Impacts to
Essential Fish Habitat and Special-Status Fish below), all compensatory mitigation for impacts
to aquatic habitat must also provide habitat for green sturgeon, Central California Coast
steelhead, and longfin smelt that is of a quality at least as high as that impacted.
For funding of off-site improvements or purchase of mitigation bank credits, the Project
Applicant shall provide written evidence to the City that either (a) compensation has been
established through the purchase of a sufficient number of mitigation credits in a mitigation bank
to satisfy the mitigation acreage requirements of the Project activity, or (b) funds sufficient for
the restoration of the mitigation acreage requirements of the Project activity have been paid to an
entity implementing a project that would create or restore habitats of the type being impacted by
the Project.
For areas to be restored to mitigate for temporary or permanent impacts, the Project Applicant
shall prepare and implement a mitigation plan. The Project Applicant shall retain a restoration
ecologist or wetland biologist to develop the mitigation plan, and it shall contain the following
components (or as otherwise modified by regulatory agency permitting conditions):
1. Summary of habitat impacts and proposed mitigation ratios, along with a description of
any other mitigation strategies used to achieve the overall mitigation ratios, such as
funding of off-site improvements and/or purchase of mitigation bank credits
2. Goal of the restoration to achieve no net loss of habitat functions and values
3. Location of mitigation site(s) and description of existing site conditions
4. Mitigation design:
x Existing and proposed site hydrology
x Grading plan if appropriate, including bank stabilization or other site stabilization
features
x Soil amendments and other site preparation elements as appropriate
x Planting plan
x Irrigation and maintenance plan
x Remedial measures/adaptive management, etc.
5. Monitoring plan (including final and performance criteria, monitoring methods, data
analysis, reporting requirements, monitoring schedule, etc.)
6. Contingency plan for mitigation elements that do not meet performance or final success
criteria.
Impacts to Migratory Birds from Buildings and Lighting
As discussed above for the Phase I component of the Project, there is potential for injury or
mortality of birds due to collisions with artificial structures such as buildings as birds engage in
long-distance movements (such as migration) and daily movements between roosting and
foraging habitats. The existing structures at Oyster Point are relatively low, and the risk of bird
strikes under existing conditions is expected to be relatively low. Any buildings constructed by
the programmatic components of the Project that will project higher than the existing buildings
will create new, somewhat larger obstacles along the flight path of migrating and foraging birds.
Although any new buildings are likely to be at a lower height than most migrating birds will be
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201063
flying, the Project could create potential bird strike hazards at elevations that do not currently
exist. Therefore, the programmatic portion of the Project could result in the creation of a new
strike hazard for migrating birds that could result in the loss of substantial numbers of birds over
the life of the Project. Additionally, operational effects associated with the lighting of the
buildings can alter the flight patterns of migratory birds and potentially increase bird strike
collisions with the tall buildings.
Depending on the design of the buildings there is some potential for such mortality to occur in
the absence of mitigation measures. Because of these potential effects, the programmatic
components of the Project are considered to have a potentially significant impact to migratory
birds. To avoid and minimize impacts to migrating and foraging birds as a result of
programmatic Project construction, Mitigation Measures 3A and 3B, described above, shall be
implemented during design and construction of the programmatic components of the Project,
thus reducing this impact to a less than significant level.
Impacts to Aquatic Species Due to Degradation of Water Quality during Construction
Construction in and near drainage channels, storm drains, or the Bay could have a significant
adverse effect on water quality in the Bay within and adjacent to the Project site due to increased
turbidity, if ground-disturbing activities occur during the wet season, if soil is allowed to enter
channels or storm drains, or if dredging or other substrate-disturbing activities take place within
the Bay. Increases in turbidity resulting from construction constitutes a potentially significant
impact to aquatic wildlife species, including special-status fish species such as steelhead and
sensitive native species such as the Olympia oyster. Water quality degradation could also
negatively impact eelgrass beds if they occur in the Project area. Due to the ecological
importance of these aquatic habitats and sensitive resources, such impacts would be potentially
significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 1A through 1C, described above, would
reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Impacts to Essential Fish Habitat and Special-Status Fish
The tidal aquatic habitats adjacent to the Project site are considered EFH by the NMFS. If
programmatic Project elements include construction activities in the waters of the Bay, such
activities could adversely impact Essential Fish Habitat in the Project area. Special-status fish
species that occur in the Project vicinity and could potentially be impacted by programmatic
elements of the Project are the southern green sturgeon, the Central California Coast steelhead,
and the longfin smelt. Habitat for occasional dispersing individuals of all three species is
similarly located in open waters and estuarine habitats of the San Francisco Bay along the
boundaries of the Project area. In combination with the BMPs for water quality described above,
the following mitigation measures, adapted from Amendment 11 of the West Coast Groundfish
Plan (PFMC 2006) and Appendix A of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan (PFMC 2003), will reduce
impacts to EFH and special-status fish to a less than significant level. Unless modified by the
federal permitting agencies (NMFS or USACE), these measures shall be implemented during
construction by the Project Applicant.
Mitigation Measure 5A. Avoidance of Salmonid Migration Periods. In-water work when
juvenile salmonids are moving through the Bay on the way to the open ocean or when groundfish
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201064
and prey species could be directly impacted shall be avoided. Because steelhead are potentially
present, the allowed dredge window for this area of the San Francisco Bay is June 1 through
November 30. All in-water construction shall occur during this window. If completion of in-
water work within this period is not feasible due to scheduling issues, new timing guidelines
shall be established and submitted to the NMFS and CDFG for review and approval.
Mitigation Measure 5B. Worker Training. Personnel involved in in-water construction and
deconstruction activities shall be trained by a qualified biologist in the importance of the marine
environment to special-status fish, and birds and the environmental protection measures put in
place to prevent impacts to these species, their habitats, and EFH. The training shall include, at a
minimum, the following:
1.A review of the special-status fish and sensitive habitats that could be found in work
areas
2.Measures to avoid and minimize adverse effects to special-status fish, birds, their
habitats, and EFH
3.A review of all conditions and requirements of environmental permits, reports, and
plans (i.e., USACE permits)
Mitigation Measure 5C. Avoidance of Areas of Wetland and Aquatic Vegetation. All
construction equipment used in conjunction with in-water work (pipelines, barges, cranes, etc.)
shall avoid wetlands, marshes, and areas of sub-aquatic vegetation (including eelgrass beds).
Pile-Driving Impacts to Fish and Marine Mammals
If programmatic project elements include construction activities in the waters of the Bay,
individuals of special-status fish species could suffer injury or mortality due to construction
activities including percussive noise due to jackhammering, pile-driving, or other percussive
activities. The in-water pressure wave, if of sufficient magnitude, can injure or kill fish.
Pressure waves have an actual force associated with them and the stronger the force, the more
likely they are to damage sensitive tissues in aquatic species. Pressure waves interact with fish
in the water column, causing behavioral and physiological effect such as avoidance, stress,
temporary loss of hearing, rupture of swim bladders (air pockets that are used for buoyancy), the
formation of bubbles in the circulatory system and corresponding rupturing of blood vessels,
traumatic brain injuries, and death. Current criteria indicate that sound levels of 183 decibels
can injure or kill fish (Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group 2008). Marine mammals, which
have sensitive hearing, can also easily be disturbed by sound-generated pressure waves, although
effects from Project activities would be unlikely to cause injury or mortality of these species.
Due to the number of fish that could be present near in-water construction areas, the potential
presence of special-status fish, and the sensitivity of marine mammals such as harbor seals and
California sea lions, such impacts are potentially significant. To reduce impacts to special-status
fish and marine mammal species due to percussive activities to less than significant levels, the
following measures shall be employed.
Mitigation Measure 6A. Incorporation of Design Considerations that Minimize the Need
for Percussive Construction Techniques. If programmatic Project elements include
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201065
construction of structures that require percussive techniques, structure design shall adhere to the
following principles to the greatest extent practicable:
1. Engineer structures to use fewer or smaller piles, where feasible, and preferably, solid
piles
2. Design structures that can be installed in a short period of time (i.e., during periods of
slack tide when fish movements are lower).
3. The City, with consultation from a qualified biologist who is familiar with marine
biology, shall review the final Project design to ensure that these design requirements
have been incorporated into the Project.
Mitigation Measure 6B. Utilization of Construction Tools and Techniques that Minimize
Percussive Noise. If programmatic Project elements include construction of structures that
require percussive techniques, construction activities shall employ the following techniques to
the greatest extent practicable.
1. Drive piles with a vibratory device instead of an impact hammer if feasible, and use a
cushioning block between the hammer and the pile.
2. Restrict driving of steel piles to the June 1 to November 30 work window, or as
otherwise recommended by the NMFS (driving of concrete piles would not be subject
to this condition).
3. If steel piles must be driven with an impact hammer, an air curtain shall be installed
to disrupt sound wave propagation, or the area around the piles being driven shall be
dewatered using a coffer dam. The goal of either measure is to disrupt the sound
wave as it moves from water into air.
4. If an air curtain is used, a qualified biologist shall monitor pile driving to ensure that
the air curtain is functioning properly and Project-generated sound waves do not
exceed the threshold of 180183-decibels generating 1 micropascal (as established by
NMFS guidelinesthe Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group; 2008). This shall
require monitoring of in-water sound waves during pile driving.
5. Use of fewer piles, or smaller piles, or a different type of pile, with hollow steel piles
appearing to create the most impact at a given size
6. Driving piles when species of concern are absent
7. Use of a vibratory hammer rather than an impact hammer
8. Use of a cushioning block between hammer and pile
9. Use of a confined or unconfined air bubble curtain; and
10. Driving piles during periods of reduced currents
Impacts to Olympia Oyster Beds
There is a known population of Olympia oysters at Oyster Point. In-water construction
activities, including activities at the marina and along the shoreline, could potentially impact
oysters through the removal of substrate supporting oysters, smothering of oyster beds with fill,
or degradation of water quality. Such oysters, including their larvae, provide food, refugia, and
attachment sites for a number of aquatic organisms and filter nutrients and pollutants from the
water. As a result, these oysters perform a valuable function to the Bay ecosystem, and impacts
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201066
to oysters from programmatic activities are potentially significant. To mitigate these impacts to
less than significant levels, the following measures shall be implemented:
Mitigation Measure 7A. Implementation of Best Management Practices for Water Quality.
The water quality Best Management Practices described above in Measure 1A shall be followed
to the greatest extent practicable. If increases in turbidity due to Project activities cannot be
minimized, Measures 7C and 7D shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measure 7B. Avoidance of Suitable Oyster Habitat. To the greatest extent
practicable, project activities shall avoid removing or disturbing riprap and other rocky substrates
that serve as suitable oyster habitat. If impacts to oysters and their habitat are unavoidable,
measures 7C and 7D shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measure 7C. Native Oyster Surveys. A detailed survey for native oysters shall be
conducted in all suitable substrates within the project area. This survey shall be conducted by a
qualified oyster biologist at low tides that expose the maximum amount of substrate possible.
Surveys can be conducted at any time of year, but late summer and early fall are optimal because
newly settled oysters are detectable. This survey shall occur before any construction within
aquatic habitats takes place to establish a baseline condition. If few or no oysters are observed
on hard substrates that would remain in place after construction, no further mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measure 7D. Replacement of Suitable Oyster Habitat. If more than 100 oysters
would be removed or are in areas where construction-generated sediment could settle out onto
the oysters, compensatory mitigation shall be provided by the Project Applicant at a minimum
1:1 ratio. The Project Applicant shall retain a qualified oyster biologist to develop an Oyster
Restoration Plan that shall be reviewed and approved by the City. This Plan shall include site
selection, substrate installation, and monitoring procedures, and include the following
components (unless otherwise modified by NMFS):
1.A suitable site for installation of replacement substrate would be one with adequate
daily tidal flow, a location that would not be affected by maintenance dredging or
other routine marina maintenance activities, and one that is lacking in appropriate
settlement substrate. A location outside of the breakwaters or in association with any
eelgrass mitigation sites would be appropriate.
2.Although oysters may settle on a variety of materials, the most appropriate for
restoration purposes is oyster shell. This is typically installed by placing the shell
into mesh bags that can then be placed in piles on the seafloor of the mitigation site.
Enough shell shall be installed under the guidance of a qualified oyster biologist to
make up for the loss attributable to the Project. Mitigation shall occur after
construction of all in-water elements of the Project.
3.The restoration site shall be monitored on a regular basis by a qualified oyster
biologist for a minimum of two years, or until success criteria are achieved if they are
not achieved within two years. Monitoring shall involve routine checks (bi-monthly
during the winter and monthly during the spring and summer) to evaluate settlement,
growth, and survival on the mitigation site. Success shall be determined to have been
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201067
achieved when settlement and survival rates for oysters are not statistically
significantly different between the mitigation site and the populations being impacted.
Impacts to Eelgrass Beds
Although no eelgrass beds or patches have been mapped closer than 3 mi from the Project area,
the NMFS (2010) considers portions of Oyster Point to offer suitable eelgrass habitat, and there
is some evidence that eelgrass populations in the Bay are expanding (Merkel & Associates
2004). Thus, we cannot rule out the possibility that eelgrass patches or beds have become
established, or will become established prior to the initiation of programmatic activities, in or
near the Project area. In-water construction activities that result in increased turbidity could
potentially result in adverse effects to eelgrass by covering eelgrass with sediment. Because
eelgrass beds provide nursery habitat for a variety of fish species, they are very important to the
Bay ecosystem, and impacts to eelgrass beds are thus potentially significant. In addition to the
implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures for water quality described above,
the following measures will be implemented to reduce impacts to eelgrass beds to less than
significant levels.
Mitigation Measure 8A. Water Quality Best Management Practices for Eelgrass. In
addition to the water quality BMPs described above in Measure 1A, the following BMPs will
minimize impacts to any eelgrass beds in the Project area.
1.Conduct all in-water work during periods of eelgrass dormancy (November 1-March 31)
[Note: the majority of this period conflicts with the period during which in-water
activities should not occur to avoid impacts to salmonids; only the period November 1-30
would avoid impacts during sensitive periods for both taxa.]
2.Install sediment curtains around the worksite to minimize sediment transport
If these BMPs are not feasible, or if Project activities will occur in aquatic areas outside of the
marina, the following measures shall be undertaken.
Mitigation Measure 8B. Eelgrass Survey.Prior to any construction activities in aquatic
habitats, a survey for eelgrass beds or patches will be conducted within 750 ft of expected
aquatic construction activities. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist(s) familiar with
eelgrass identification and ecology and approved by NMFS to conduct such a survey. Survey
methods shall employ either SCUBA or sufficient grab samples to ensure that the bottom was
adequately inventoried. The survey shall occur between August and October and collect data on
eelgrass distribution, density, and depth of occurrence for the survey areas. The edges of any
eelgrass beds or patches shall be mapped. At the conclusion of the survey a report shall be
prepared documenting the survey methods, results, and eelgrass distribution, if any, within the
survey area. This report shall be submitted to NMFS for approval. If Project activities can be
adjusted so that no direct impacts to eelgrass beds would occur, no further mitigation would be
required. If direct impacts to eelgrass beds cannot be avoided, the following measures shall be
implemented.
Mitigation Measure 8C. Compensatory Eelgrass Mitigation. If direct impacts to eelgrass
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201068
beds cannot be avoided, compensatory mitigation shall be provided in conformance with the
Southern California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy. Mitigation shall entail the replacement of
impacted eelgrass at a 3:1 (mitigation: impact) ratio on an acreage basis, based on the eelgrass
mapping described in mitigation measure 8B above, and detailed designs of the feature(s) that
would impact eelgrass beds. Such mitigation could occur either off site or on site (NMFS
2005b). Off-site mitigation could be achieved through distribution of a sufficient amount of
funding to allow restoration or enhancement of eelgrass beds at another location in the Bay. If
this option is selected, all funds shall be distributed to the appropriate state or federal agency or
restoration-focused non-governmental agency (i.e., CDFG restoration fund, California Coastal
Conservancy, Save the Bay, etc). The Project Applicant shall provide written evidence to the
City that either a) compensation has been established through the purchase of a sufficient number
of mitigation credits to satisfy the mitigation acreage requirements of the Project activity, or
funds sufficient for the restoration of the mitigation acreage requirements of the Project activity
have been paid. These funds shall be applied only to eelgrass restoration within the Bay.
If on-site mitigation is selected as the appropriate option, the Project Applicant shall retain a
qualified biologist familiar with eelgrass ecology to prepare and implement a detailed Eelgrass
Mitigation Plan. Unless otherwise directed by NMFS, the Eelgrass Mitigation Plan shall follow
the basic outline and contain all the components required of the Southern California Eelgrass
Mitigation Policy (as revised in 2005), including: identification of the mitigation need, site,
transplant methodology, mitigation extent (typically 3:1 on an acreage basis), monitoring
protocols (including frequency, staffing, reviewing agencies, duration, etc), and success criteria.
A draft Eelgrass Mitigation Plan shall be submitted to NMFS, for its review and approval prior
to implementation, with a copy to the City. Once the plan has been approved, it shall be
implemented in the following appropriate season for transplantation. Restored eelgrass beds
shall be monitored for success over a 5-year period.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Cumulative impacts arise from a concatenation of impacts from past, current, and reasonably
foreseeable future projects in the region. With implementation of the mitigation measures above,
no significant impacts are expected as a result of project-level or program-level implementation
of the Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Area Redevelopment Master Plan. The proposed
Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Area Redevelopment Master Plan will not result in a
cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative impacts to biological resources.
With the exception of isolated protected open spaces, the Project vicinity is largely built up, and
few areas for new development remain. However, infill development and redevelopment of
existing areas are likely to occur in the Project vicinity. For example, the Candlestick Point-
Hunters Point Shipyard redevelopment project is proposed just north of the Project site (City of
San Francisco 2010). All of these Projects are each expected to complete (or have completed)
their own separate CEQA reviews, and to address any potential impacts therein by mitigating
them to a less than significant level.
Project impacts will result primarily from the loss or modification of regionally abundant
terrestrial habitats and the associated modification of wildlife communities dominated by
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201069
regionally abundant species. Due to the abundance of these species and habitat types regionally,
the Project will not contribute to cumulative impacts on these resources.
Wetland and aquatic habitats of San Francisco Bay, which could be impacted by the Project, are
of particular ecological importance, have undergone more substantial modification by human
activities, and are less extensive regionally than the upland habitats that will be impacted by the
Project. However, not only will the Project mitigate its contribution to cumulative impacts to
these resources, but restoration projects such as the South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project
and others throughout San Francisco Bay will enhance and restore Bay habitats and animal
communities in the coming decades, thus helping to reverse cumulative impacts on these
resources.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201070
LITERATURE CITED
Akçakaya, H. R., J. L. Atwood, D. Breininger, C. T. Collins, and B. Duncan. 2003. Metapopulation
dynamics of the California least tern. Journal of Wildlife Management 67(4): 829-842.
Arcese, P., M. K. Sogge, A. B. Marr and M. A. Patten. 2002. Song Sparrow (Melospiza
melodia).In A Poole, ed. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of
Ornithology. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/704. Accessed 18 December 2008.
Atwood, J., J. Fancher, and L. Feeney. 1994. California least tern Sterna antillarum browni. Pp 184-
187 In C. G. Thelander, D. C. Pearson, and G. E. Olson, eds. Life on the Edge: A guide to
California’s endangered natural resources. 550 pp.
Avery, M. L. 1979. Review of Avian Mortality due to Collisions with Manmade Structures.
Wildlife Damage Management, Internet Center for Bird Control Seminars Proceedings.
Baron, T. and J. Takekawa. 1994. California Clapper Rail Rallus longirostrus obsoletus. Pp 158-159
In C. G. Thelander, D. C. Pearson, and G. E. Olson, eds. Life on the Edge: A guide to
California’s endangered natural resources. 550 pp.
Bias M. A. 1994. Ecology of the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse in San Pablo Bay. Doctoral
Dissertation in Wildland Resource Science, University of California Berkeley.
Bias M. A., and M. L. Morrison. 2006. Habitat Selection of the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and
Sympatric Rodent Species. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:732–742.
Brode, J., R. W. Hanson, and P. Keel. 1994. San Francisco Garter Snake Thamnophis sirtalis
Tetrataenia. Pp 280-281 In C. G. Thelander, D. C. Pearson, and G. E. Olson, eds. Life on the
Edge: A guide to California’s endangered natural resources. 550 pp.
Bulger, J. B., N. J. Scott, Jr., and R. B. Seymour. 2003. Terrestrial activity and conservation of
adult California red-legged frogs Rana aurora draytonii in coastal forests and grasslands.
Biol. Conserv. 110:85-95.
Busby, P. J., T. C. Wainwright, G. J. Bryant, L. J. Lierheimer, R. S. Waples, F. W. Waknitz, and
I. V. Lagomarsino. 1996. Status review of west coast steelhead from Washington, Idaho,
Oregon, and California. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-27.
Cade, T. J. and C. P. Woods. 1997. Changes in distribution and abundance of the loggerhead shrike.
Conservation Biology 11(1): 21-31.
Calflora. 2010. Website: http://www.calflora.org/index.html. Accessed November 2009 and
May 2010.
California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing owl survey protocol and mitigation
guidelines.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201071
[CDFG] California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff report on Burrowing Owl
mitigation. 9pp.
Chan, Y. and H. Spautz. 2008. Alameda Song Sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula).In
Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, eds. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked
assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation
concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo,
California; and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
City of San Francisco. 2010. Candlestick Point-Hunters Point Shipyard Phase II Development Plan
Project Final EIR.
[CNPS] California Native Plant Society. 2010. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online
edition, v7-10b). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on Mon, May
10, 2010 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory.
[CNDDB] California Natural Diversity Data Base. 2010. Rarefind. California Department of
Fish and Game.
Colwell, M. A., C. B. Millett, J. J. Meyer, J. N. Hall, S. J. Hurley, S. E. McAllister, A. N.
Transou, and R. R. LeValley. 2005. Snowy plover reproductive success in beach and
river habitats. Journal of Field Ornithology 76(4): 373-382.
Consortium of California Herbaria. 2010. Regents of the University of California.
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium/. Accessed 10 May 2010.
Conway, C. J., V. Garcia, M. D. Smith, L. A. Ellis, and J. L. Whitney. 2006. Comparative
demography of burrowing owls in agricultural and urban landscapes in southeastern
Washington. Journal of Field Ornithology 77(3): 280-290.
Coulombe, H. N. 1971. Behavior and Population Ecology of the Burrowing Owl, Speotyto
cunicularia, in the Imperial Valley of California. Condor 73:162-176.
Dobkin, D. and S. Granholm. 1990. Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis.In Zeiner,
D.C., W.F.Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. California's Wildlife. Vol.
I-III. California Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
Dunk, J. R. and R. J. Cooper. 1994. Territory-size regulation in black-shouldered kites. Auk
111(3): 588-595.
Dunk, J. R. 1995. White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus).In The Birds of North America Online
(A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North
America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/178.
[eBird] California eBird: North America's destination for birding on the web [Internet]. 2010.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201072
Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology and New York: National Audubon Society. Accessed
1 September 2010 from http://ebird.org/ebird/ca/eBirdReports?cmd=Start.
Eddleman, W.R. and J. Evens. 1994. California Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus. Pp
156-157 In C. G. Thelander, D. C. Pearson, and G. E. Olson, eds. Life on the Edge: A guide to
California’s endangered natural resources. 550 pp.
Eddleman, W. R., R. E. Flores, and M. Legare. 1994. Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis).In A.
Poole, ed. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/123.Accessed 31 December 2008.
Eddleman, W. R. and C. J. Conway. 1998. Clapper Rail (Rallus longirostrus).In A. Poole, ed. The
Birds of North America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/340. Accessed 17 December 2008.
Erichsen, E. L., S. K. Smallwood, A. M. Commandatore, B. W. Wilson, and M. D. Fry. 1996.
White-tailed Kite movement and nesting patterns in an agricultural landscape. In Raptors
in Human Landscapes, D. Bird, D. Varland, and J. Negro, Eds. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press. Pp 165-175.
Evens, J. G., G. W. Page, S. A. Laymon, and R. W. Stallcup. 1991. Distribution, relative abundance,
and status of the California black rail in western North America. Condor 93: 952-966.
Fitton, S. D. 2008. Bryant’s Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus). In Shuford,
W. D. and T. Gardali, eds. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment
of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in
California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California;
and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Fisheries Hydroacoustic Working Group. 2008. Memorandum on the Agreement in Principle for
Interim Criteria for Injury to Fish from Pile Driving Activities. 12 June, 2008. 2 pp.
Foin, T. C., E. J. Garcia, R. E. Gill, S. D. Culberson, and J. N. Collins. 1997. Recovery strategies for
the California clapper rail (Rallus longirostrus obsoletus) in the heavily urbanized San
Francisco estuarine ecosystem. Landsc. Urb. Plann. 38: 229-243.
Gardali, T. and J. Evens. 2008.San Francisco Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas
sinuosa).In Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, eds. California Bird Species of Special Concern:
A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate
conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists,
Camarillo, California; and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Gauthreaux, S. A., Jr. and C. Belser. 2006. Ecological Consequences of Artificial Night
Lighting: Effects of Artificial Night Lighting on Migrating Birds, Island Press,
Washington.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201073
Gervais, J. A., D. K. Rosenberg and L. A. Comrack. 2008. Burrowing Owl Athene cunicularia.
In Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, editors. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A
Ranked Assessment of Species, Subspecies, and Distinct Populations of Birds of Immediate
Conservation Concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field
Ornithologists, Camarillo, California; and California Department of Fish and Game,
Sacramento.
Guzy, M. J. and G. Ritchison. 1999. Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas).In A Poole,
ed. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/448.Accessed 31 December 2008.
Harris, H.E., 2004. Distribution and limiting factors of Ostreola conchaphila in San Francisco
Bay, MS Thesis,San Francisco State University.
Harvey, T. 1990. Clapper Rail Rallus longirostrus. Pp 174-175 in Zeiner, D.C., W.F.Laudenslayer,
Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. III. California
Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.
Haug, E. A., and L. W. Oliphant. 1990. Movements, Activity Patterns and Habitat Use of
Burrowing Owls in Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:27-35.
Haug, E. A., B. A. Millsap, and M. S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia).In
A. Poole, ed. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology.
http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/061. Accessed 7 January 2009.
Hickman, J. C. (ed.). 1993. The Jepson manual – higher plants of California. University of
California Press. Berkeley, CA.
Holland, R. F. 1986. Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. California Department of Fish & Game.
Humple, D. 2008. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus).In Shuford, W. D. and T. Gardali, eds.
California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and
distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of
Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California; and California
Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in
California. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho
Cordova, California.
Jepson Interchange. 2010. The Jepson Online Interchange. California Floristics. University of
California, Berkeley.http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/interchange.html
Keyes, T. 2005. Building Bird Strike Study, The Citizen Scientist, Non-game-Endangered
Wildlife Program.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201074
Longcore, T., and C. Rich. 2004. Ecological Light Pollution.Frontiers in Ecology and the
Environment 2(4): 191-198.
Menges, T. 1998. Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas).In The Riparian Bird Conservation
Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California. California
Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html.
Merkel & Associates. 2004. San Francisco Bay Eelgrass Inventory, June-October 2003.
Prepared for Caltrans and NOAA Fisheries.
Moyle, P. B. 2002. Inland fishes of California.University of California press. CA: Berkeley.
Pp 245-251.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. No Date. Native Oyster Habitat Restoration,
Program Briefing Document. Fisheries Southwest Region.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998. Endangered and Threatened Species:
Threatened Status for Two ESUs of Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and California;
Final Rule. Federal Register 63(53): 13347-13371.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005a. Endangered and threatened species:
Designation of critical habitat for seven Evolutionarily Significant Units of Pacific
steelhead and salmon in California. Final Rule. Federal Register 70(170): 52488-52626.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2005b. Southwest Regional Office Southern
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy, as revised August 30, 2005. Website:
http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/policies/EELPOLrev11_final.pdf. Accessed 24 February
2010.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006a.Endangered and Threatened Species:
Threatened Status for Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green
Sturgeon. Final Rule. Federal Register 71: 17757.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2006b. Fisheries Management Plan (FMP) Species
Distributions In San Francisco, San Pablo and Suisun Bays. Website:
http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/hcd/loclist.htm#South%20SF%20Bay. Accessed 19 February
2010.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2009.Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants: Final Rulemaking to Designate Critical Habitat for the Threatened Southern
Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon. Final Rule. Federal
Register 74: 52300.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2010.San Francisco Bay Project Impact
Evaluation System Natural history Mapping Project.http://mapping2.orr.noaa.gov/
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201075
website/pies_naturalhistory/viewer.htm Accessed 24 February 2010.
Neuman, K. K, G. W. Page, L. E. Stenzel, J. C. Warriner, and S. Warriner. 2004. Effect of
mammalian predator management on Snowy Plover breeding success. Waterbirds
27(3):257-263.
Nordby, J. C., A. N. Cohen, and S. R. Beissinger. 2008. Effects of a habitat-altering invader on
nesting sparrows: an ecological trap? Biological Invasions. Published online 25 April 2008.
Nur, N., S. Zack, J. Evans, and T. Gardali. 1997. Tidal marsh birds of the San Francisco Bay region:
status, distribution, and conservation of five category 2 taxa. Final draft report to the United
States Geological Survey. Petaluma: PRBO Conservation Science. 66 pp.
Page, G. W., J. S. Warriner, J. C. Warriner and P. W. Paton. 1995. Snowy Plover (Charadrius
alexandrinus).In The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell
Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http:
//bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/154.
PBS&J. 2009. Candlestick Point/Hunters Point Shipyard Project Biological Technical Report.
Prepared for the San Francisco Redevelopment Agency and the San Francisco Planning
Department.
[PFMC] Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 2003. Pacific Coast Salmon Plan – Fishery
management plan for commercial and recreational salmon fisheries off the coast of
Washington, Oregon, and California as revised through Amendment 14 (adopted March
1999).
[PFMC] Pacific Fisheries Management Council. 2006. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fishery
Management Plan as revised through Amendment 19(March 2006).
Plumpton, D. L., and R. S. Lutz. 1993. Nesting Habitat Use by Burrowing Owls in Colorado.
Journal of Raptor Research 27:175-179.
Polite, C. 1990. Black-shouldered Kite Elanus caeruleus.In California’s Wildlife, Vol II:
Birds. D. C. Zeiner, W. F. Laudenslayer Jr, K.E. Mayer, and M. White, Eds. California
Department of Fish and Game, California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships
System. Pp 120-121.
Rich, C., and T. Longcore (eds.). 2006. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting.
Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Rosenberg, D. K., L. A. Trulio, D. Catlin, D. Chromczack, J. A. Gervais, N. Ronan and K. A.
Haley. 2007. The Ecology of the Burrowing Owl in California. Unpubl. report to
Bureau of Land Management.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201076
Robertson, G. J. and R. I. Goudie. 1999. Harlequin Duck (Histrionicushistrionicus), The Birds
of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved
from the Birds of North America Online:http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/466
doi:10.2173/bna.466.
Rosier, J. R., N. A. Ronan, and D. K. Rosenberg. 2006. Post-breeding dispersal of burrowing
owls in an extensive California grassland. American Midland Naturalist 155: 162-167.
Ruhlen, T. D., S. Abbott, L. E. Stenzel, and G. W. Page. 2003. Evidence that human
disturbance reduces snowy plover chick survival. Journal of Field Ornithology 74(3):
300-304.
San Francisco Bay Area Water Transit Authority. 2005. South San Francisco Ferry Terminal
Draft and Final Environmental Impact Report. http://www.watertransit.org/
newsInformation/ssf-eirFinal.aspx. Accessed 24 February 2010.
Sequoia Audubon Society. 2001. San Mateo County Breeding Bird Atlas. 223 pp.
Shellhammer H. S. 1982. Reithrodontomys raviventris.Mammalian Species 196:1-3.
Shellhammer H. S., R. Jackson, W. Davilla, A.M. Gilroy, H.T. Harvey and S. Lee. 1982.
Habitat preferences of salt marsh harvest mice (Reithrodontomys raviventris). Wasmann
Journal of Biology 40:102-114.
Shorenstein/SKS. 2009. Draft Oyster Point Master Plan and Design Guidelines.
Spautz, H., N. Nur, and D. Stralberg. 2005. California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis
coturniculus) distribution and abundance in relation to habitat and landscape features in
the San Francisco Bay Estuary.In C. J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, eds. Bird Conservation
Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International
Partners in Flight Conference. USDA Gen Tech Rep PSW-GTR-191. 1286 pp.
Schwartzbach, S. E., J. D. Albertson, and C. M. Thomas. 2006. Effects of predation, flooding, and
contamination on reproductive success of California clapper rails (Rallus longirostrus
obsoletus) in San Francisco Bay. Auk 123(1): 45-60.
Skonieczny, M. F., and J. R. Dunk. 1997. Hunting synchrony in White-tailed Kites. Journal of
Raptor Research 31(1): 79-81.
Thompson, B.C., J. A. Jackson, J. Burger, L. A. Hill, E. M. Kirsch and J. L. Atwood. 1997. Least
Tern (Sternaantillarum).In A Poole, Ed. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca:
Cornell Lab of Ornithology. http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/290. Accessed 5
January 2009.
[USFWS] United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1970. Conservation of Endangered Species and
Other Fish or Wildlife: Appendix D. United States list of endangered native fish and wildlife.
Federal Register 35(199): 16047-16048.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201077
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for the Pacific Coast Population of the
Western Snowy Plover. Federal Register 58(42): 12864-12874.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western
Snowy Plover; Final Rule. Federal Register 64(234): 68508-68544.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Endangered and Threatened wildlife and
plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana
aurora draytonii); Proposed Rule. Federal Register 69(71):19620-19642.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2007. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office: Species
Account: San Francisco garter snake Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia.
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/animal_spp_acct/sf_garter_snake.pdf. Accessed 2
February 2010.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2008. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; Revised Critical Habitat for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora
draytonii); Proposed Rule. Federal Register 73(180)53492-53680. Sacramento Field
Office. 16 September 2008. 188pp.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants:
Revised designation of critical habitat for California red-legged frog; Final rule. Federal
Register 75:12816-12959.
Wheelwright, N. T. and J. D. Rising. 2008. Savannah Sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis).In A.
Poole, Ed. The Birds of North America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; retrieved
from the Birds of North America Online, http: //bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/045.
Wyllie-Echeverria, S., and M. Fonseca. 2003. Eelgrass (Zostera marina) research in San
Francisco Bay, California from 1920 to the Present. Prepared for the National Centers
for Coastal Ocean Science.
http://mapping2.orr.noaa.gov/portal/subtidal/pdfs/projectreports/partnership_seagrassrev_fin.pdf
Accessed 24 February 2010.
Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead Shrike (Lanius ludovicianus).In A. Poole, Ed. The Birds of North
America Online. Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; retrieved from the Birds of North
America Online, http: //bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/231.
Zabin, C. J., S. Attoe, E. D. Gorsholz, and C. C. Hulbert. 2010. Shellfish Conservation and
Restoration in San Francisco Bay: Opportunities and Constraints. Final Report for the Subtidal
Habitat Goals Committee.
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201078
APPENDIX A.
SPECIAL-STATUS PLANT SPECIES REJECTED FOR OCCURRENCE
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201079
Appendix A. Special-status Plant Species Considered but Rejected for Occurrence.
Scientific Name Common Name La
c
k
o
f
S
e
r
p
e
n
t
i
n
e
(
S
)
o
r
A
l
k
a
l
i
n
e
(A
)
S
o
i
l
s
.
La
c
k
o
f
O
t
h
e
r
E
d
a
p
h
i
c
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
n
g
e
f
o
r
Sp
e
c
i
e
s
.
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
E
n
d
e
m
i
c
R
a
n
g
e
o
r
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
K
n
o
w
n
E
x
t
a
n
t
R
a
n
g
e
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
T
y
p
e
N
o
t
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
on
S
i
t
e
.
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
o
n
S
i
t
e
t
o
o
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
d
t
o
Su
p
p
o
r
t
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
Acanthomintha duttonii San Mateo thorn-mint SXX
Allium peninsulare var. franciscanum Franciscan onion SXX
Amsinckia lunaris bent-flowered fiddleneck X
Arabis blepharophylla coast rock cress X
Androsace elongata ssp. acuta California androsace X
Arctostaphylos andersonii Anderson's manzanita XX
Arctostaphylos franciscana Franciscan manzanita XX
Arctostaphylos hookeri ssp. ravenii Presidio manzanita XXX
Arctostaphylos imbricata
San Bruno Mountain
manzanita XX
Arctostaphylos montaraensis Montara manzanita XX
Arctostaphylos pacifica Pacific manzanita XX
Arctostaphylos regismontana Kings Mountain manzanita XXX
Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort X
Astragalus nuttallii var. nuttallii ocean bluff milk-vetch X
Atriplex joaquiniana San Joaquin spearscale XX
Calandrinia breweri Brewer's calandrinia X
California macrophylla round-leaved filaree XX
Carex comosa bristly sedge X
Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris Point Reyes bird's-beak X
Calochortus umbellatus Oakland star-tulip X
Castilleja ambigua ssp. ambigua johnny-nip X X
Calochortus uniflorus large-flowered mariposa lily X
Centromadia parryi ssp. parryi pappose tarplant X
Chorizanthe cuspidata var. cuspidata
San Francisco Bay
spineflowerX
Chorizanthe robusta var. robusta robust spineflower XX
Chorizanthe valida Sonoma spineflower XX
Cirsium andrewsii Franciscan thistle X
Cirsium fontinale var. fontinale Crystal Springs fountain XXX
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201080
Appendix A. Special-status Plant Species Considered but Rejected for Occurrence.
Scientific Name Common Name La
c
k
o
f
S
e
r
p
e
n
t
i
n
e
(
S
)
o
r
A
l
k
a
l
i
n
e
(A
)
S
o
i
l
s
.
La
c
k
o
f
O
t
h
e
r
E
d
a
p
h
i
c
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
n
g
e
f
o
r
Sp
e
c
i
e
s
.
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
E
n
d
e
m
i
c
R
a
n
g
e
o
r
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
K
n
o
w
n
E
x
t
a
n
t
R
a
n
g
e
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
T
y
p
e
N
o
t
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
on
S
i
t
e
.
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
o
n
S
i
t
e
t
o
o
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
d
t
o
Su
p
p
o
r
t
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
thistle
Cirsium occidentale var. compactum compact cobwebby thistle XX
Clarkia franciscana Presidio clarkia SXX
Collinsia corymbosa
round-headed Chinese-
housesX
Collinsia multicolor San Francisco collinsia X
Cypripedium fasciculatum clustered lady's-slipper SX
Dirca occidentalis western leatherwood XX
Elymus californicus California bottle-brush grass X
Equisetum palustre marsh horsetail X
Eriophyllum latilobum San Mateo woolly sunflowerXX
Erysimum franciscanum San Francisco wallflower X
Fritillaria biflora var. ineziana Hillsborough chocolate lily SXX
Fritillaria lanceolata var. tristulis Marin checker lily X
Fritillaria liliacea fragrant fritillary X
Gilia capitata ssp. chamissonis blue coast gilia X
Gilia millefoliata dark-eyed gilia X
Grindelia hirsutula var. maritima San Francisco gumplant X
Helianthella castanea Diablo helianthella X
Hesperevax sparsiflora var. brevifolia short-leaved evax X
Hesperolinon congestum Marin western flax SX
Holocarpha macradenia Santa Cruz tarplant X
Horkelia cuneata ssp. sericea Kellogg's horkelia XX
Horkelia marinensis Point Reyes horkelia X
Iris longipetala coast iris X
Layia carnosa beach layia X
Leptosiphon acicularis bristly leptosiphon X
Leptosiphon ambiguus serpentine leptosiphon SX
Leptosiphon croceus coast yellow leptosiphon X
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201081
Appendix A. Special-status Plant Species Considered but Rejected for Occurrence.
Scientific Name Common Name La
c
k
o
f
S
e
r
p
e
n
t
i
n
e
(
S
)
o
r
A
l
k
a
l
i
n
e
(A
)
S
o
i
l
s
.
La
c
k
o
f
O
t
h
e
r
E
d
a
p
h
i
c
Re
q
u
i
r
e
m
e
n
t
s
.
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
E
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
R
a
n
g
e
f
o
r
Sp
e
c
i
e
s
.
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
E
n
d
e
m
i
c
R
a
n
g
e
o
r
Ou
t
s
i
d
e
K
n
o
w
n
E
x
t
a
n
t
R
a
n
g
e
.
Sp
e
c
i
f
i
c
H
a
b
i
t
a
t
T
y
p
e
N
o
t
P
r
e
s
e
n
t
on
S
i
t
e
.
Ha
b
i
t
a
t
o
n
S
i
t
e
t
o
o
d
e
g
r
a
d
e
d
t
o
Su
p
p
o
r
t
S
p
e
c
i
e
s
.
Leptosiphon rosaceus rose leptosiphon X
Lessingia arachnoidea Crystal Springs lessingia SX
Lessingia germanorum San Francisco lessingia X
Lessingia hololeuca woolly-headed lessingia SX
Lilium maritimum coast lily X
Lotus formosissimus harlequin lotus X
Lupinus arboreus var. eximius San Mateo tree lupine XX
Malacothamnus aboriginum Indian Valley bush-mallow XXX
Malacothamnus arcuatus arcuate bush-mallow X
Malacothamnus davidsonii Davidson's bush-mallow XX
Malacothamnus hallii Hall's bush-mallow X
Micropus amphibolus Mt. Diablo cottonweed X
Microseris paludosa marsh microseris X
Monardella undulata curly-leaved monardella X
Monolopia gracilens woodland woolythreads XX
Piperia michaelii Michael's rein orchid X
Plagiobothrys chorisianus var.
chorisianus Choris' popcorn-flower X
Plagiobothrys diffusus
San Francisco popcorn-
flowerXX
Polemonium carneum Oregon polemonium X
Potentilla hickmanii Hickman's cinquefoil X
Sanicula hoffmannii Hoffmann's sanicle X
Sanicula maritima adobe sanicle XX
Silene verecunda ssp. verecunda San Francisco campion X
Stebbinsoseris decipiens Santa Cruz microseris X
Sueada californica California seablite X
Triquetrella californica coastal triquetrella XX
Zigadenus micranthus var. fontanus marsh zigadenus SX
Oyster Point Redevelopment Master Plan EIR
Biological Resources Report
H. T. Harvey & Associates
21 September 201082
APPENDIX D
NOISE MODELING
Figure 1: Daily Trend in Noise Levels
Noise Levels at LT-1
South Marina Parking Lot
January 15 to January 16, 2010
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
14:0016:0018:0020:0022:000:002:004:006:008:0010:0012:00
Hour Beginning
N
o
i
s
e
L
e
v
e
l
(
d
B
A
)
Leq
L(1)
L(10)
L(50)
L(90)
CNEL = 63 dBA
TABLE 1: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT 50-FOOT NOISE EMISISON LIMITS
Equipment Category Lmax Level (dBA)1,2 Impact/Continuous
Arc Welder
Auger Drill Rig
Backhoe
Bar Bender
Boring Jack Power Unit
Chain Saw
Compressor3
Compressor (other)
Concrete Mixer
Concrete Pump
Concrete Saw
Concrete Vibrator
Crane
Dozer
Excavator
Front End Loader
Generator
Generator (25 KVA or less)
Gradall
Grader
Grinder Saw
Horizontal Boring Hydro Jack
Hydra Break Ram
Impact Pile Driver
Insitu Soil Sampling Rig
Jackhammer
Mounted Impact Hammer (hoe ram)
Paver
Pneumatic Tools
Pumps
Rock Drill
Scraper
Slurry Trenching Machine
Soil Mix Drill Rig
Street Sweeper
Tractor
Truck (dump, delivery)
Vacuum Excavator Truck (vac-truck)
Vibratory Compactor
Vibratory Pile Driver
All other equipment with engines larger than 5 HP
73
85
80
80
80
85
70
80
85
82
90
80
85
85
85
80
82
70
85
85
85
80
90
105
84
85
90
85
85
77
85
85
82
80
80
84
84
85
80
95
85
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Impact
Impact
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Continuous
Notes:
1 Measured at 50 feet from the construction equipment, with a “slow” (1 sec.) time constant.
2 Noise limits apply to total noise emitted from equipment and associated components operating at full power while
engaged in its intended operation.
3 Portable Air Compressor rated at 75 cfm or greater and that operates at greater than 50 psi
APPENDIX E
TRAFFIC ANALYSIS
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
Figure 1
NORTH
Not To Scale
Area Map
101
Mitchell Ave
S
.
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Ha
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv d
Gate
w
a
y
Air
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
Gran
d
A
v
e
Gr
a
n
d
A
ve
Gran
d
vi ew
Dr
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
Av
e
P
r
od
u
c
e
A
v
e
Fo
r
b
e
s
101
Siste
r
C
i
t
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Bay
s
h
o
r
e
B
lvd
Oyster Poi nt Blvd
Exe
c
u
t
i
v
e
D
r
B
l
v
d
Du
b
u
q
u
e
A
v
e
E ccle
s
Ave
G
u
l
l
Rd
Alle
r
t
o
n
Ave
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
Utah
A
v
e
380
East
E Grand
E
G
r
a
n
d
Ove
r
c
ros
sin
g
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
Project
Site
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
101
101
O ys ter
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
rton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Miller
Grand
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
12
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
17 E Grand
Grand
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
SB 101
Offramp
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
8
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
23
13
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
Oyster
Point 7
= Signal
= Stop Sign
F
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
Terrabay
S Airport
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
Flyo
v
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4 Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
Figure 2
Existing
Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
20 Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
Grand Over
crossing
E Grand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
14
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Figure 3
Existing
AM Peak Hour Volumes
Ex
e
cu
t
i
ve
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
1460
281
2867415519
13
205 0
20
14
1062556
101
101
O yster
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Miller Av
Grand Av
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
rton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
S Airport
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
Grand
Overcross
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
Grand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
14
20
13
Terrabay
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
12
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
SB 101
Offramp
Flyov
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
ys
t
e
r
Pt
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
228
439
26
147
14
3204
101
997
27
42
2819927
258
204
176 177
162
242
638
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
201
107
137
3
1
302
0000
58743
894
355
256
671
0
45
0
67
102
183
498
626
412
413
38
10 7
274
0
51
12
1040
8 5
121
831072
63
1080
95 45 22 12
15
947459
35
26
11
11
18
15
52
35
108
152
161337 35
3 64482
332
471
102
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4
233
174
86
Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
35
4951964
37
630
594433
56
266
52
7
95
24
306
12
177
212
263
764 286 7147
332
339
423
224
33442180
2551118
6
129
134 104
392
214
515
155
17 E Grand
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
1059
47
39
58
12
0
3
0 0 184
375
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
54 5
1149
230
176
142657
128
403
114
394
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
242
198 53 17
25
1289
8
11
18
1
3
3
0 0 0
134
118
651
548
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
23
24 99
24
18
21
1
1
327425
219
541
298
50
162
1213
61
78
180
390 249154
366
803
672
22
50
172
106
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Ex
e
c
u
ti
v
e
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
9
471 65
101
101
Oyster
Point
Terrabay
Sister Citie
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Miller
Grand
Utah A
v
Grand
Gr
a
n
d
Ave
Forbe s Blv d
Ave
Alle
r
ton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Ec cles
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
Figure 4
Existing
PM Peak Hour Volumes
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
339
71
1430216
12 0 7
0
00 0
0
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
17 E Grand
Grand
Overcross
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Grand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
23
14
13
Terrabay
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
12
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
Flyo
v
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
230 13
5414
61
301
22
64
12711841
158
337
416 720
229
243
911
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
906
625
1002
2
2
1582
0000
48223
127
27
46
481
0
13
0
186
177
574
178
140
268
129
100
388 0
134
35
750
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
165
34
335206175
77
1010 47
100
179197
160
342 131 4 19
95
2836179
16
13
12
8
16
15
1 222
32
13
20
401
54
49
2
1
12
26
0
1
0 0
951
110333 45
5 391226
160
306
145
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4
165
49
76
Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
40
13596712
29
290
620497
1109
34
222290
143
62
153
476
833 819
178
63
36
1020
518144
917
SB 101
Offramp
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
42
112
108
288
244
222
278
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
1214
39 282 10
13
251
8
16
19
2
0
1
0 1 1
473
630
151
112
69
388
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
111
1070
159
54 4566
933407
93
286
74
289315
188
358
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
3
350
103
61
124
494
7
200
355
34
101
342
231
71
S AirportSan Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
20
389
178
632
19129 78
152
1004
76
121
134
200
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
Figure 5
Alliance Shuttle Stops
in Oyster Point Area
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
Oy
s
t
e
r
Po
i
n
t
Bl
v
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
B
lv
d
G
u
l
l
R
d
Marina Blvd
395 Building
384 & 400 Buildings
Shuttle Buses for South San Francisco BART Station
and South San Francisco Caltrain Station
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
S Airport
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
17 E Grand
Grand
Overcross
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
302
198
63 31
32
1443
8
Grand
E Grand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
23
Figure 6
2015 Base Case
AM Peak Hour Volumes
Ex
e
cu
t
i
ve
Of
f
r
a
m
p
14
19
20
13
Terrabay
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
3
12
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
SB 101
Offramp
Flyov
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
Pt
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
295
118
216
430
22
140
31
3
315
102
1030
49
183
47022645
371
286
176 216
191
295
789
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
3
1
441
266
11205474
79
1009
1204
430
537
1283
0
79
0
69
142
228
44
31
11 8
0
92
14
12940
8 10
115
108 687
62
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
1619
325
3509115119
3
33411
90
12261623
54
95 153183 86
22
103
126
131
76
80
25
60
18
15
62
52
99
35
108
24
42
38
18
40
47
78
123
7
3
26
10
25
9
2
14
3 0 0
36
3
27 7
238
176
421
35
3101585
482
481
110
248
316
86
Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
41
14
543
1199556
96 85
72
902
619592
56
300
145
7
95
24
358
15
177
208
325
945 63842047
345
1010
428
226
36050204
25515126
6
166
187
1423
238
104
410
202
275
625
235
428
204
142666 363
158
143
65
571
476
219
151
489
143
647
666
541
307
74
221
1590
95
88
199
400 261170
430
1255
962
25
119
185
111
Du
b
u
q
u
e
337
231
185
523
843
505
969
50
359
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4
101
101
Oys ter
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Miller Av
Grand Av
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
rton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Ex
e
c
u
ti
v
e
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
9
469 68
101
101
Oyster
Point
Terrabay
Sister Citie
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Utah A
v
Grand
Gr
a
n
d
Ave
Forbe s Blv d
Ave
Alle
r
ton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Ec cles
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
S Airport
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
17 E Grand
Grand
Overcross
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
1337
87
282 18
48
339
8
Grand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
23
Figure 7
2015 Base Case
PM Peak Hour Volumes
14
20
13
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
12
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
SB 101
Offramp
Flyo
v
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
129
13
420
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11 2099
75
181055262
274
286
259
73
163
212
427
684
27 18
9450
13 5
86
75 928
67
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
462
110
1614279
18 2 7
2
45 75
498
215 357
177
419209113 182
105
31
164
299
105
70
40
88
76
15
139
46
222
112
89
32
37
44
13
112
401
130
93
38
2
5
53
22
9
2
26
4 2 1
25
1
46 7
1162
138
52145
183
366
145
173
113
76
6
108
179830034
99
336
Terrabay Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
450
20
3713
12
500
63
310
23
200
261
12874
442
490
422 711
277
354
1204
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
1569
716
1238
2
2
584
0
48
0
150
109 202
324
487
200
113
472
0
199
35
6147
1572
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4 Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
734
724
99
1429
543
3
350
103
1607
43
382
220
980
332 177 16675
124
268
501
300
248
191
142
93
550
146
13 352731
196
62
153
573
1039 1349
200
98 36
1272
168918 600
557
291
97
250
144
963
286
355
630
178
161
90
349
79
168
385
103
59
101
405 301367
210
489
324
45
167
149
214
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
101
101
O ys ter
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
rton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Miller
Grand
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
Figure 8
Grand
S Airport
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
12
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
17 E Grand
Grand
Overcross
Grand Over
crossing
Du
b
u
q
u
e
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Wonder-
US 101
NB Ramps
ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
SB 101
Offramp
Flyov
e
r
Oyster Pt
Oyster
Point
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
t
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
Ec
c
l
e
s
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
8
E Grand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
23
Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
Year 2015
Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control
14
20
13
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
Oyster
Point 7
Terrabay Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1 Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
= Signal
= Stop Sign
F
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
*
*= With Project
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Ex
e
c
u
ti
v
e
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
23
1282856
101
101
Oys ter
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Miller Av
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
rton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
S Airport
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
17 E Grand
Grand
Overcross
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
366
337
87 43
51
1657
8
Grand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
23
Figure 9
2035 Base Case (Without Project)
AM Peak Hour Volumes
14
20
13
Terrabay
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
12
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
SB 101
Offramp
Flyo
v
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
371
128
186
557
22
158
24
3
428
104
1025
54
184
674
26260
790
323
177 216
197
364
1246
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
444
207
220
3
1
521
11235474
85
1036
1485
622
571
266
1430
0
92
0
73
157
240
44
31 629
844
1016
1029
110
11 12
390
0
96
14
14940
13 24
166
122 995
66
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
1966
318
4369115219
4
34404
90
20882129
55
137168204 110
30
517
153
121
92
87
25
65
19
15
65
58
99
35
125
24
50
38
18
41
51
87
156
7
3
27
10
26
13
2
14
16
3 0 0
37
3
28 12
276
200
452
35
31271106
777
522
126
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4
249
403
86
Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
48
60510596
85
1295
619946
43
340
246
7
106
24
427
26
182
219
425
976 87910679
787
873
448
226
507
159
213
257
17834
6
175
272
2428
333
104
533
330 371
776
247 661
339
163723 498
161
164
65
771
479
223
135
529
214
867
631
781
367
74
222
2016
88
110
247
525 274218
445
1559
1350
41
134
212
129
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Ex
e
c
u
ti
v
e
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
9
582 68
101
101
O ys ter
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
r
ton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Miller
Grand
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
Grand
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
13
150
193733355
117
437
S Airport
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
Overcross
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
1413
107
365 44
70
409
8
Grand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
23
Figure 10
2035 Base Case (Without Project)
PM Peak Hour Volumes
14
20
Terrabay
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
12
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
SB 101
Offramp
Flyov
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
652
20
37
164
13
655
13
143
612
64
319
26
387
314
14291
554
594
435 687
431
556
1433
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
1838
1019
1439
2
2
2316
221362
75
262
210
330
289
73
225
633
0
49
0
233
545
803
150
109 224
375
588
255
128
27 32
486
0
234
35
11553
19 5
27
110
1351531
79
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
538
136
1771279
21 5 8
2
127 75
498
413
227
507472175 321
254
52
223
270
115
70
45
101
76
15
163
61
231
112
93
32
145
52
13
138
36
2
5
61
23
26
4 2 1
1718
162
527
45
51481869
243
364
144
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4
192
149
76
Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
820
841
97
1506
715
3
622
103
1788
45
396
267
1369
473 119 190159
118
266
502
300
357
206
184
96
669
168
7
408
908
382
47
324
701
1541
268
117
17 E Grand
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
395
574
166
108
15
2
27
1
46 12 1356
22
1718
1891175 713
433
386
108
250
126
1164
316
408
815
275
161
94
461
88
179
583
158
79
101
541 317464
203
492
447
45
179
175
245
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Ex
e
c
u
t
i
v
e
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
101
101
O yster
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
r
ton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Miller
Grand
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
Figure 11
Grand
S Airport
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
12
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
17 E Grand
Grand
Overcross
Grand Over
crossing
Du
b
u
q
u
e
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Wonder-
US 101
NB Ramps
ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
SB 101
Offramp
Flyo
v
e
r
Oyster Pt
Oyster
Point
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
Ec
c
l
e
s
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
8
E Grand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
23
Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
Year 2035
Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control
14
20
13
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
Oyster
Point 7
Terrabay Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1 Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
= Signal
= Stop Sign
F
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
*
*= With Project
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Figure 12
Year 2015 Project Increment
AM Peak Hour Volumes
Ex
e
cu
t
i
ve
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
1 0
101
101
O ys ter
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Miller Av
Grand
Av
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
rton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
S Airport
17 E Grand
Grand
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
2320
13
Terrabay Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
Flyov
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
Pt
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
1
12 22
1
21 3
2
20
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
2
17
6
22
45
229
116
174 1 55 174
21
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
366
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
47
8
366
47
1
3
1
1
1
22
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4 Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
20
1 1
1 1 3
1
1
1
3
8
47
4 2
1
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
OvercrossGrand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
14
2 1 7
1
8 10
366
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
12
SB 101
Offramp
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
3 4
1
1
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Figure 13
Year 2015 Project Increment
PM Peak Hour Volumes
Ex
e
cu
t
i
ve
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
2
1 2
0
101
101
O ys ter
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Miller Av
Grand
Av
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
rton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
17 E Grand
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
OvercrossGrand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
14
S Airport
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
Grand
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
337
8
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
2320
13
Terrabay
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
12
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
SB 101
Offramp
Flyo
v
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
Pt
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
1 3
1
25
4 4
3 21
10
2
2
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
116
115
36
70
221
31
16
23 1 8 23
3
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
51
51
337
1
5
2 1
1
68
1
1
1
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4 Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
2
4
103
4 4
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
2
2
3
10
10 10
1
1
1
93
1
1
1
1
2
8
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9 2 5
3
3
338
52
1
98
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Ex
e
c
u
ti
v
e
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
14
1200556
101
101
Oys ter
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Miller Av
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
rton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
S Airport
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
17 E Grand
Grand
Overcross
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
349
198
63 31
32
1809
8
Grand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
23
Figure 14
2015 Base Case + Project
AM Peak Hour Volumes
14
20
13
Terrabay
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
12
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
SB 101
Offramp
Flyo
v
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
295
118
217
431
22
140
31
3
315
102
1052
49
184
482
22645
392
286
176 219
193
295
809
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
354
237
207
3
1
486
266
11205474
81
1238
1320
430
537
1457
0
79
0
69
142
228
45
31 523
898
505
1143
50
11 8
359
0
92
14
15040
8 10
116
109 687
62
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
1985
325
3979115119
3
33411
90
12261623
54
95 153183 86
22
103
127
131
76
80
25
60
18
15
62
52
99
35
108
24
43
41
18
40
47
78
123
7
3
28
10
25
9
2
14
3 0 0
36
3
27 7
238
179
421
35
3101607
483
481
110
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4
248
320
86
Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
41
5439685
72
910
619612
56
300
145
7
95
24
358
15
177
208
325
947 63842747
345
1013
428
226
36150205
255
15226
6
167
187
1423
239
104
411
202 275
625
235 429
204
142666 364
205
143
65
572
476
219
151
489
143
647
1032
541
308
74
231
1590
95
92
199
400 262170
430
1257
970
25
119
188
111
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Ex
e
c
u
ti
v
e
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
9
471 68
101
101
O ys ter
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
rton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Miller
Grand
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
Grand
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
13
108
180830034
99
336
S Airport
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
Overcross
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
1674
87
282 19
49
390
8
Grand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
23
Figure 15
2015 Base Case + Project
PM Peak Hour Volumes
14
20
Terrabay
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
12
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
SB 101
Offramp
Flyo
v
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
454
20
38
132
13
422
13
12
500
63
313
23
205
26312874
445
490
422 732
287
358
1206
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
1684
752
1308
2
2
2320
75
181055262
390
317
275
73
163
607
0
48
0
212
435
686
151
109 202
332
487
223
113
27 18
472
0
199
35
9750
13 5
88
75 928
67
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
513
110
1951279
18 2 7
2
45 75
498
357
178
419211113 182
105
31
164
299
105
70
40
88
76
15
139
46
222
112
89
32
42
47
13
112
38
2
5
53
22
26
4 2 1
1162
138
522
45
6149
1640
183
366
146
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4
173
114
76
Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
734
726
99
1429
543
3
350
103
1617
43
382
225
1073
334 178 16675
124
269
501
300
248
191
142
93
653
156
13
356
829
196
62
153
577
1349
203
98
17 E Grand
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
215
402
130
93
9
2
25
1
46 7 1039
36
1272
168918 604
895
292
97
251
144
963
286
355
630
178
213
90
350
80
169
387
103
59
101
405 302367
210
489
325
45
167
149
214
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
CR
A
N
E
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
G
R
O
UP
2
NO
R
T
H
No
t
T
o
S
c
a
l
e
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
R
e
de
v
e
l
p
o
m
e
n
t
E
IR
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
oi
n
t
B
l
v
d
Oyster Point Blvd
Dr
o
p
O
f
f
Gull Rd
Marina
Marina
P
h
a
s
e
1
A
c
c
e
s
s
20
1
5
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
6
2
0
1
5
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
M
a
n
d
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
t
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
5
40
20
15
40
5
5
20
15
0
50
5
17
5
16
0
39
5
5
8
5
8
39
5
Oyster Point Blvd
Blv
d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Dr
o
p
O
f
f
Gull Rd
P
h
a
s
e
1
A
c
c
e
s
s
20
1
5
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
5
13
0
11
5
45
=
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
5
44
5
10
7
85
75
7
0
7
0
5
8
=
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
45
=
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
5
8
=
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
I
n
c
r
e
m
e
n
t
36
3
36
3
Blv
d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Oyster Point
Blvd
=
S
i
g
n
a
l
=
A
l
l
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
Dr
o
p
Of
f
Gull Rd
Marina
P
h
a
s
e
1
A
c
c
e
s
s
Blvd
La
n
e
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
s
a
n
d
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
P
H
A
S
E
1
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
P
H
A
S
E
1
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Figure 17
2035 Project Increment
AM Peak Hour Volumes
Ex
e
cu
t
i
ve
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
36
101
101
O yster
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Miller Av
Grand
Av
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
r
ton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
S Airport
17 E Grand
Grand
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
2320
13
Terrabay Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
Flyo
v
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
Pt
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
3
12 60
4
2
48 14
14
45
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
24
2
3
71
32
88
191
566
349
440 3 120 446
50
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
965
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
219
8
969
66
19
216
21
1117
178
23
6
8 48
9
112
2
86
17
3
1
1
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4 Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
45
3 3
5 1 6 69
12
1
6
2
2
1
2
1
1
3
3
11 1
1
1
6
11
137
7
34
222
13 60 2 1
8
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
OvercrossGrand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
14
36
1
16 39
20 7
2
36 6 114
981
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
12
SB 101
Offramp
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
15
5
8
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Figure 18
2035 Project Increment
PM Peak Hour Volumes
Ex
e
cu
t
i
ve
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
15
101
101
O yster
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Miller Av
Grand
Av
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
r
ton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
17 E Grand
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
OvercrossGrand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
14
S Airport
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
Grand
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
968
8
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
2320
13
Terrabay
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
12
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
SB 101
Offramp
Flyo
v
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
Pt
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
5 14
15
19
5
3
0
9
2
3
4 4
54 72
14
47
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
267
373
95
219
687
211
83
126 8 82 3 129 14
40
43
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
337
343
956
22
22
25
1
3
3 2 4
4
1
11
6
14
3
3
34
7
34
15
14
2
14
219
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4 Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
47
25
4
215
180 128
20
138
12
5
12
5
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
163
2
2
27
27
3
48
2110
52
1210 10
1726
3
17
8
305
35
7
22
22
1713
17
20
2
1
1
23
25
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
209
70
985
357
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Ex
e
c
u
ti
v
e
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
23
1318856
101
101
Oyster
Point
Terrabay
Sister Citie
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Miller Av
Utah A
v
Grand
Gr
a
n
d
Ave
Forbe s Blv d
Ave
Alle
r
ton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Ec cles
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
S Airport
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
17 E Grand
Grand
Overcross
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
585
337
87 52
54
2626
8
Grand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
23
Figure 19
2035 Base Case + Project
AM Peak Hour Volumes
14
20
13
Terrabay
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
12
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
SB 101
Offramp
Flyo
v
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
Pt
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
372
128
189
694
22
164
24
3
428
104
1085
54
188
686
26260
838
323
177 230
211
365
1291
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
515
239
308
3
1
712
12255474
109
1602
1834
622
571
266
1870
0
92
0
73
157
240
47
31 629
964
1016
1475
110
11 13
390
0
102
14
19940
13 26
178
145 995
66
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
2931
318
6529116221
6
34404
90
20882129
66
137175204 110
30
517
169
121
94
87
28
65
19
15
65
58
99
35
125
24
71
216
18
43
62
87
156
7
3
27
10
26
13
2
17
16
3 0 0
37
3
28 12
276
215
453
35
31291192
777
527
129
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4
249
422
86
Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
48
60510598
85
1329
619991
43
340
246
7
106
24
427
27
182
219
442
1012 92714579
787
942
448
226
513
160
213
257
19835
6
178
289
2428
341
104
544
330 371
890
247 669
339
163723 501
383
166
65
779
479
234
136
529
214
867
1612
781
372
74
228
2082
88
123
247
525 280219
445
1619
1386
41
135
219
129
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
E Grand
Ex
e
c
u
ti
v
e
Of
f
r
a
m
p
19
9
597 68
101
101
Oys ter
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cit
i
e
s
B
l
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
r
ton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Miller
Grand
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
Grand
Overcross
Du
b
u
q
u
e
13
155
198533355
118
449
S Airport
15 E Grand
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
Overcross
18 E Grand
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Oyster
Point
Ec
c
l
e
s
Oyster
Point
Gu
l
l
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
9
2381
107
365 58
85
752
8
Grand
Ea
s
t
Gr
a
n
d
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
21 Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
UtahDriveway
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
23
Figure 20
2035 Base Case + Project
PM Peak Hour Volumes
14
20
Terrabay
Grand
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Du
b
u
q
u
e
3
12
Wonder-US 101
NB Ramps ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
SB 101
Offramp
Flyo
v
e
r
Oyster Pt
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
t
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
656
20
42
191
13
818
13
143
612
64
333
26
396
32814291
608
594
435 759
445
560
1480
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
1
Miller
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
11
2211
1114
1658
2
2
3003
241662
75
262
477
541
372
73
225
759
0
49
0
233
570
826
158
109 224
457
588
384
128
27 34
486
0
237
35
15853
19 8
27
137
1751531
79
Oyster Point
Ve
t
e
r
a
n
s
7
875
136
2727279
24 5 11
2
157 75
498
413
249
527610175 321
254
52
240
270
117
70
45
105
76
15
165
61
231
112
93
32
354
122
13
140
36
2
5
61
23
30
4 2 1
1718
170
52745
51532088
243
365
146
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
4
192
154
76
Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
6
SB On/off
Ramps
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
2
820
888
97
1526
715
3
750
103
1840
48
396
270
1674
490 119 216159
135
277
502
300
364
206
185
96
884
203
7
433
1088
382
81
324
722
1541
282
117
17 E Grand
Li
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
395
596
166
108
15
2
27
1
46 12 1356
56
1718
1891185 732
1418
387
108
253
148
1189
316
408
815
275
518
104
473
95
194
597
158
92
101
541 327468
225
509
459
45
179
181
245
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
CR
A
N
E
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
G
R
O
U
P
2NO
R
T
H
No
t
T
o
S
c
a
l
e
NO
R
T
H
No
t
T
o
S
c
a
l
e
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
E
I
R
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Oyster Point Blvd
Dr
o
p
O
f
f
Gull Rd
20
3
5
A
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
1
2
0
3
5
B
a
s
e
C
a
s
e
+
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
M
a
n
d
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
V
o
l
u
m
e
s
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
t
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
25
5
5
3
3
5
2
35
5
19
0
10
10 90
90
13
0
10
10
15
26
0
13
3
60
0
25
41
0
74
5
8
5
75
11
4
5
68
5
29
0
38
5
5
5
Blv
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
I
&
I
V
G
a
r
a
g
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
G
a
r
a
g
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
G
a
r
a
g
e
Marin
a
20
3
5
P
M
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
Oyster Point Blvd
5
5
3
5
10
10 90
90
25
3
12
0
25
41
0
26
5
48
0
85
75
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
I
&
I
V
G
a
r
a
g
e
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
2
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
1
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Oyster Point Blvd
Dr
o
p
O
f
f
Gull Rd
70
10
5 10
23
5
5
45
10
54
5
30
20
46
5
55
0
21
5
35
5
35
12
3
5
30
14
0
16
5
10
0
21
0
29
0
26
5
27
5
36
5
32
5
6
5
34
0
Blv
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
I
&
I
V
G
a
r
a
g
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
G
a
r
a
g
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
G
a
r
a
g
e
Marin
a
Oyster Point Blvd
10
5
10
10
30
20
46
5
55
0
60
30
16
5
10
0
24
0
11
0
29
0
26
5
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
I
&
I
V
G
a
r
a
g
e
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
2
AL
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
1
CR
A
N
E
T
R
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
G
R
O
U
P
2
NO
R
T
H
No
t
T
o
S
c
a
l
e
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
E
I
R
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Oyster Point Blvd
Dr
o
p
O
f
f
Gull Rd
Mari na
F
i
g
u
r
e
2
2
2
0
3
5
I
n
t
e
r
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
L
a
n
e
G
e
o
m
e
t
r
i
c
s
a
n
d
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
I
n
t
e
r
n
a
l
t
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
S
i
t
e
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
1
&
2
Blvd
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
I
&
I
V
G
a
r
a
g
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
G
a
r
a
g
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
G
a
r
a
g
e
=
S
i
g
n
a
l
=
A
l
l
W
a
y
S
t
o
p
Marina
Blv
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
G
a
r
a
g
e
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Oyster Point Blvd
Dr
o
p
O
f
f
Gull Rd
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
I
&
I
V
G
a
r
a
g
e
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
G
a
r
a
g
e
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
1
A
L
T
E
R
N
A
T
I
V
E
2
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
101
101
Oys t er
Poin t
Terr abay
Sister Cities Blvd
Airp
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Utah A
v
Grand
G
r
a
n
d
Ave
F o rb es Blvd
Ave
Alle
r
ton
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccles
Miller
Grand
Gate wa y
Du
b
u
qu
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
17 18
13 1514 16
23
22
21
10
11
4
3
65 7 8 9
1
2
12 19
20
Project
Site
Figure 23
Year 2015 Mitigated
Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control
Du
b
u
q
u
e
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
5
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
3
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
Mitchell
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
S
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
S Airport
Fly
o
v
e
r
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
Oyste
r
Poin
t
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
V
e
t
e
r
a
n
s
B
l
v
d
FSFS
FS
FS
FS
FS
21
= Existing Signal
= 2015 Base Case Lanes
Add a third Eastbound
departure lane for offramp
traffic
Add a fourth
Eastbound
departure
lane
T
T
T
T
= Mitigated Lanes
= Mitigation
= Fair Share ContributionFS
= Adjust signal timing
to accomodate specific
queueing issues as
opposed to optimizing
intersection level of service
T
4 6
7
Provide second offramp
lane connection to
freeway mainline
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
101
101
Oys t er
Poin t
Terr abay
Sister Cities Blvd
Airp
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
VeteransBlvd
Blv
dAve
Utah A
v
Grand G
r
a
n
d
Ave
F o rb es Blvd
Ave
Alle
r
to
n
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccles
Miller
Grand
Gate wa y
Du
b
u
qu
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
10
4
3
65 7 8 Project
Site
Figure 24
Year 2035 Mitigated
Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control
Oyster Point Corridor and Forbes/Allerton
Du
b
u
q
u
e
5
Sister
Cities
Oyster
Point
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
3
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
Fly
o
v
e
r
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
Oyste
r
Poin
t
Oyster
Point
NB
O
n
r
a
m
p
V
e
t
e
r
a
n
s
B
l
v
d
E
c
c
l
e
s
A
v
e
FS
FS FS
= Existing Signal
= 2035 Base Case Lanes
Add a third Eastbound
departure lane
Add a fourth
Eastbound
departure
lane
T
FS
FS
= Mitigated Lanes
= New All Way Stop
= Mitigation
= Fair Share ContributionFS
= Adjust signal timing
to accomodate specific
queueing issues as
opposed to optimizing
intersection level of service
T
T
4 6
7
8
Forbes
Al
l
e
r
t
o
n
Dr
i
v
e
w
a
y
10
Provide second offramp
lane connection to
freeway mainline
Provide 2nd
onramp lane
connection to
freeway
mainline
SB 101
Onramp
NB 101
Offramp
Provide second onramp
lane connection to
freeway mainline
CRANE TRANSPORTATION GROUP
NORTH
Not To Scale
2
101
101
Oyster
Point
Terrabay
Sister Cities Bl
v
d
Air
p
o
r
t
Sa
n
M
a
t
e
o
A
v
P
r
o
d
u
c
e
A
v
e
L
i
t
t
l
e
f
i
e
l
d
A
v
e
H
a
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
Blv
d
Vetera nsBlvd
Blv
dAve
Utah A
v
Grand G
r
a
n
d
Ave
Forbes Blv d
Ave
Alle
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
D
r
Gul
l
Eccl
e
s
Miller
Grand
Gate
way
Du
b
u
q
u
e
East
E
Wondercolor
Ln
Mitchell Av
15 16
22
12
20
Project
Site
Figure 25
Year 2035 Mitigated
Intersection Lane Geometrics and Control
South of Oyster Point Corridor
Oyster Point Redevelopment EIR
= Existing Signal
= 2035 Base Case Lanes
= Mitigated Lanes
= Mitigation
= Adjust signal timing
to accomodate specific
queueing issues as
opposed to optimizing
intersection level of service
T
= Timing to be adjusted
to optimize intersection
level of service
Grand
S Airport
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
12
Wonder-
US 101
NB Ramps
ColorS
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
22
San Mateo
Ai
r
p
o
r
t
Pr
o
d
u
c
e
20
15
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
16E Grand
Ha
r
b
o
r
Fo
r
b
e
s
ST
ST
ST
ST
APPENDIX F
WATER SUPPLY ASSESSMENT
1
SB 610 Water Supply Assessment
For
Oyster Point Business Park and
Marina Area Redevelopment Master Plan and Project
January 19, 2011
Prepared by
California Water Service Company
341 North Delaware Ave
San Mateo, California 94401
2
Introduction
The City of South San Francisco (City) through its consultant, Lamphier Gregory, has requested
California Water Service Company (Cal Water) prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) in
accordance with California SB 610 requirements for the proposed Oyster Point Specific Plan
(OPSP) which is comprised of the Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Area.
The site of the OPSP, including the Phase I Project and all subsequent phases of development is
part of the City’s “East of 101” planning area. The approximately 80 acre Plan site is located
about 3/4 of a mile east of Highway 101, at the eastern end (Bay side) of Oyster Point and
Marina Boulevards. The Oyster Point Business Park covers 25 acres of the OPSP area. It
contains privately owned five single-story light-industrial buildings at 375/377, 379, 384, 385
and 389 Oyster Point Boulevard that were developed in the early 1980s totaling 403,212 square
feet of space and surrounding parking. Currently, these buildings are occupied by a variety of
light industrial, office, and research and development (R&D) tenants.
Other than roadway elements, the 48 acre Oyster Point Marina constitutes the remainder of the
OPSP area. This land served as a municipal landfill for the City of South San Francisco from
1956 until it stopped accepting waste in 1970. The Marina is owned by the City of South San
Francisco and managed through a Joint Powers Agreement with the San Mateo County Harbor
District. Currently, this area includes a variety of uses: a dry boat storage area, a marine support
services building, two small office buildings, Oyster Point Inn, a 30 room inn and banquet hall,
Oyster Point Bait and Tackle shop, a boat and motor mart and the Oyster Point Yacht Club,
totaling 74,360 square feet. The remaining area is vacant or serves as parking for the docks, boat
ramp, and the Bay Trail at the Oyster Point Marina.
The Oyster Cove Marina is privately owned and located to the west of the Oyster Point Business
Park; it contains 235 berths. The Oyster Point Marina is located on the north side of the Oyster
Point Marina area and contains 600 berths, a boat ramp, fuel dock and fishing pier.
The South San Francisco Ferry Terminal with service to/from San Francisco and the East Bay is
currently scheduled to be completed at the Oyster Point Marina in early 2011. This Ferry
Terminal is a separate project with its own environmental review.
The proposed project is to be implemented in four (4) phases includes demolition of existing
commercial and recreational buildings. The Existing Conditions Aerial photo (SKS June 1, 2010)
and Proposed Development Phases (Shorenstein/SKS September 10, 2009) show location
features and development sequence. No set timeframe has been given for Phases II, III, and IV.
As proposed, the OSPS will be a public and private redevelopment comprised of the uses shown
in Table 1 below. A split of 60% Research & Development and 40% Office space use is
proposed in the specific plan. The total for all Office and R&D building area cannot exceed
2,300,000 square feet.
3
Table 1: Oyster Point Specific Plan Proposed Land Uses
Building
Size (square feet if not
otherwise specified)
Uses to Remain
Oyster Point Bait and Tackle 1,440
Oyster Cove Marina 235 berths
Oyster Point Marina 600 berths
Phase I
Office/R&D Building 508,000-600,000
Auxiliary Commercial 10,000
Oyster Pt Marina Beach 3.1 acres
Phases II, III, IV
New Hotels 350 rooms
Commercial/Retail/Restaurant in
Hotel 40,000
Office/R&D Building (Phase II) 700,000
Office/R&D Building (Phase III) 525,000
Office/R&D Building (Phase IV) 517,000
Recreation Fields 4.8 acres
Uses to Remain until Hotel Construction, then be rebuilt on
Site
Oyster Point Yacht Club 4,000
Oyster Point Maintenance 2,500
Following is a more specific breakdown of the proposed project:
Private development including new office/research and development (R&D) buildings in the
western portion of the site:
x Demolition of the existing inn located at 425 Marina Drive, the office buildings at 360 Oyster
Point Boulevard and 401 Marina Boulevard, the boat and motor mart at 671 Marina
Boulevard, the Yacht Club at 911 Marina Boulevard, and the light-industrial buildings at
375-389 Oyster Point Boulevard,
x New public roadway alignment (and utility infrastructure) of Oyster Point Boulevard and
Marina Drive, including relocation of sewer pump station #1 adjacent to 377 Oyster Point
Boulevard,
x Office/R&D buildings with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of up to 1.25 across the 41 acres of
private land area, totaling up to 2,300,000 square feet of building space, including 10,000
square feet of accessory commercial uses,
x Four phases of approximately 500,000 to 700,000 square feet each,
x Each phase will include or have access to courtyards, plazas, shuttle bus stops, and/or
structured parking,
x Dedication and construction of an approximately 3.1 acre parcel for use as waterfront public
open space.
4
x Site preparation and/or construction on the former landfill site could involve disturbance and
relocation of landfill refuse on- or off-site.
Public redevelopment including public open space, recreation fields, marina improvements, and
a hotel:
x One or two hotels with a total of 350 rooms and 40,000 square feet of retail/restaurant, as
well as replacement of the Yacht Club (4,000 square feet) and maintenance building (2,500
Square feet),
x New road and utility infrastructure to serve the future hotel site and Oyster Point Marina,
x A recreation or open space field,
x Reconfiguration of parking adjacent to the new ferry terminal and shuttle bus turnaround
proposed with the ferry terminal,
x Improvements to the Bay Trail and surrounding open space throughout Oyster Point Marina
and the proposed office/R&D Project (subject to BCDC Guidelines and input),
x Possible changes to two of the docks in the Oyster Point Marina, which could include
removal and replacement,
x Enhancement (landscape and other cosmetic improvements) of existing uses at the eastern
end of Oyster Point in conjunction with required landfill cap repairs, and
x Roadway connections to the previously permitted South San Francisco Ferry Terminal.
x Site preparation and/or construction on the former landfill site could involve disturbance and
relocation of landfill refuse on- or off-site.
Phase I Development
The first phase or Phase I will include development of a minimum of 508,000 square feet up to a
maximum of 600,000 square feet of office/R&D space over a 2-level parking garage podium on
approximately 10 acres, creation of waterfront open space, construction of the recreation field
complex, grading of most of the future hotel site, and construction of new roads serving Oyster
Point Marina. The specific details of the Phase I Project work are outlined below and in the
attached Phase I Site Plan.
Private Development of Office/R&D buildings
Demolition
x Phase I will include demolition of the four existing buildings totaling 66,420 square feet,
including the Oyster Point Inn at 425 Marina Drive, two Office buildings at 360 Oyster Point
Boulevard and 401 Marina Boulevard, and the boat and motor mart at 671 Marina Boulevard.
Landfill Consolidation and Grading
x Site preparation and building construction in Phase I will involve excavation and relocation
of landfill materials. The material will be either relocated on-site or relocated to an
appropriate off-site facility.
5
Site Specifics:
x The Office/R&D buildings will occupy a site of approximately 10 acres to the south of
Oyster Point Boulevard directly east of Gull Drive.
x Phase I will include the construction of between 508,000 to 600,000 square feet of
office/R&D space.
x Office/R&D complex will include three office/lab buildings, the western-most of which
could reach up to 10 stories, the other two of which could reach up to 6 stories.
x Buildings will be located on a plaza, which will be built over a 2-level parking garage
podium.
Open Space and Infrastructure Improvements on City’s Land (Public Redevelopment)
Roads:
x Reconfiguration of Marina Boulevard and a portion of Oyster Point Boulevard.
x New roadway construction will include bicycle lanes, sidewalks and street trees.
x Utilities will be provided in the new roads and will be sized for the full build-out of all
phases including sewer, water, fire water, and a joint trench for PG&E and telecom.
x Parking lot adjacent to the west basin of Oyster Point Marina will be reconstructed after
landfill cover improvements have been completed to access the new Marina Boulevard
configuration.
Landfill Cover:
x Improvements will be constructed to update the landfill cover to current regulatory
requirements.
Open Space/Recreation):
x A 3-acre site to the east of the Office/R&D buildings will be graded and constructed as a
sports field complex or flexible open space - to be determined by City.
x A 3.1-acre waterfront site to the north and east of the Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard intersection will be graded and landscaped per City Specifications and BCDC
design guidelines.
x Off-street pedestrian paths (including new portions of the Bay Trail) will connect the ferry
terminal to the existing Bay Trail and to the eastern edge of the Plaza in Phase I and to Gull
Drive to the south of Phase I.
Future Hotel Site:
x The 4.7-acre site to the east of the sports fields will be graded to allow for a future hotel and
retail complex. On this site, the Yacht Club structure and the Harbor District garage, yard and
surrounding access roads remain intact through Phase I.
6
This OPSP is not specifically covered in Cal Water’s 2006 South San Francisco (SSF) District
Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP), which was adopted on December 15, 2006; therefore,
its water requirements and how they would be met are addressed in this Water Supply
Assessment (WSA). The SSF District UWMP document provides historic and forecasted water
demand and supply data and analyses and can be referenced for more detailed information on
those topics. Cal Water updates its Urban Water Management Plans every three to five years.
Senate Bills 610 (Chapter 643, Statutes of 2001) (SB 610) and Senate Bill 221 (Chapter 642,
Statutes of 2001) (SB 221) amended state law, effective January 1, 2002, to improve the link
between information on water supply availability and land use development decisions made by
cities and counties. SB 610/SB 221 are companion measures that require detailed information
regarding water supply availability be provided to local public agency decision-makers prior to
approval of development projects that meet or exceed any of the following criteria:
1.A residential development of more than 500 dwelling units.
2.A shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having
more than 500,000 square feet.
3.A commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than
250,000 square feet of floor space.
4.A hotel or motel with more than 500 rooms.
5.An industrial, manufacturing or processing plant or industrial park planned to house more
than 1,000 persons occupying more than 40 acres of land or having more than 650,000
square feet of floor area.
6.A mixed-used project that includes one or more of the projects specified above.
7.A project that would demand an amount of water equivalent to, or greater than the amount of
water required by a 500 dwelling unit project.
Since the proposed Oyster Point Redevelopment Project development project exceeds several
criteria, a SB 610 WSA and a SB 221 verification document are required.
A SB 610 WSA must address the adequacy of the water supply to meet estimated demands of the
proposed project over the next 20 years in addition to those of Cal Water’s existing customers
and other anticipated future users under normal, single dry year and multiple dry year conditions.
(Water Code §10911(a).) SB 610 and SB221 require that the information developed to address
the adequacy of the water supply question be included in the administrative record that serves as
the evidentiary basis for an approval action by the local public agency.
Both state bills recognize local control and decision-making regarding the availability of water
for projects and the approval of projects.Under SB 610, water supply assessments must be
furnished to local governments for inclusion in any required California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) documents. Water Code 10910 (a) requires that any city or county that determines
that a project, as defined in Section 10912, is subject to CEQA shall comply with the
requirements of this part of the water code. Under SB 221, approval by a city or county of certain
7
residential subdivisions requires an affirmative written verification of sufficient water supply. An
SB 221 verification document is required for tentative tract map approval.
In December 2010, the City requested Cal Water prepare a SB 610 WSA for the OPSP. Cal
Water submitted a Draft WSA for the proposed development to the City for review
approximately 30 days later. (Water Code 10910(g) requires the water supplier to prepare the
assessment within 90 days of request.) On January 19, 2011, Cal Water received review
comments from the City. Cal Water subsequently revised the Draft WSA to address those
comments resulting in this WSA document.
As referenced, Cal Water adopted its current SSF District UWMP for the District on December
15, 2006. Per Section 10910(c) (3) of the Water Code, this water supply assessment is based on
information contained in the UWMP and from other more recent sources cited here.
Following is a description of the proposed Oyster Point Redevelopment Project development
project, its projected water demands, and a description and assessment of the proposed water
supply to meet those and all other forecasted demands in the SSF District in accordance with the
requirements of SB 610.
OPSP Implementation Schedule
Available information on the OPSP did not include a specific implementation schedule for all
four development phases. To be responsive to WSA requirements, a schedule was developed and
is shown in Table 2.
Table 2
Oyster Point Specific Plan: Estimated Implementation Schedule
Phase
Implementation
Period Old Use
Old Area (sq
ft or acres)New Use
New Area
(sq ft or
acres)
Net Area
Increase (sq ft
or acres)
I Private2012 - 2015 Office/commercial 66,420Office240,000173,580
I Private2012 - 2015NA0R&D360,000360,000
I Public2012 - 2015Commercial mix74,360NA00
I Public2012 - 2015Landscape Area2 Sports field, WF park 6.14.1
I Private2012 - 2015Landscape AreaLandscape Area0
II Private2015 - 2018Office112,264Office280,000167,736
II Private2015 - 2018NA0R&D420,000420,000
II Public2015 - 2018Commercial mix74,360Hotel/com/retail320,000245,640
II Public2015 - 2018Landscape Area1 park & public space 43.0
III Private2018 - 2020Office112,264Office210,00097,736
III Private2018 - 2020NA0R&D315,000315,000
IV Private2020 - 2022Office112,264Office206,80094,536
IV Private2020 - 2022NA0R&D310200310,200
Total Office936,800533,588
R&D1,405,2001,405,200
Hotel/com/retail320,000245,640
Irrigated Areas107
8
In Table 2, it is assumed at the end of full implementation in 2022 that full occupancy and use
occurs and correspondingly full water demand.
Water Demand Forecast: Oyster Point Specific Plan
For the proposed new facilities, it is assumed that water usage rates for new office space, R&D
laboratories, commercial and retail uses and landscape irrigation will be the same as similar
existing facilities in the Oyster Point area. For the December 2008 South San Francisco Gateway
Business Park project WSA, actual water use records were obtained for specific buildings along
with interior square footage. The following is a summary of this data.
For the period from July 2007 – June 2008 (1 year or 365 days), total internal metered water use
for five existing buildings at 700, 1000, 750, 800 and 850 Gateway Boulevard was 3,392,180
gallons for an area of 234,013 square feet. Overall average annual day water use was 0.04
gallons/day/ft2.
The existing building at 700 Gateway Blvd is nearly all office space use. The building area is
55,098 square feet and annual water use from July 2007 – June 2008 was 722, 568 gallons or
0.036 gallons/day/ft2.
The existing building at 800 Gateway Blvd is nearly all biotechnology research and development
laboratory space use. The building area is 45,400 square feet and annual water use from July
2007 – June 2008 was 1,039,720 gallons or 0.063 gallons/day/ft2.
For the July 2007 – June 2008 period, total landscape irrigation water use was 7,219,192 gallons
for an area of 250,143 square feet. Average annual day irrigation water use was: 0.079
gallons/day/ft2.
It is assumed that use of the existing average annual day water use rates will be the same in the
new development. Therefore, the only change in water demand will be that due to the net
increase in building space.
Estimating water usage for commercial, retail, restaurants and hotels on a gallons/square feet
basis requires characterizing the type and mix of businesses that are anticipated in the
development. If the commercial/retail/restaurant/hotel mix has a higher concentration of higher
water using businesses such as supermarkets, restaurants, coffee shops, health clubs, etc., the
water use factor will be significantly higher than a mix largely comprised of dry goods retail
activities such as clothing, shoes, jewelry, sporting goods, drug stores, bookstores, etc.
For another development project in Cal Water’s Dominguez District in Torrance, CA, PCR
Services Corporation (PCR) using data derived by the County Sanitation Districts of Los
Angeles (CCDLA) developed a table of estimated water demand for a variety of commercial
activities.
Since there was good agreement between the estimate of residential water usage derived from
Cal Water data and those developed by PCR using CCDLA data, estimates of water demand for
commercial activities developed by PCR using CCDLA factors are used here for the OPSP and
are summarized below.
9
Commercial Activities Water Use Factors
Average Use
Category gallons/sq ft/day
Retail:
Shopping Center 0.358
Electronic Superstore 0.110
Home Improvement 0.110
Discount Club 0.110
Home Furnishing 0.110
Office Supplies 0.110
Pet Supply 0.110
Supermarket 0.65
Restaurants:
High turnover 1.100
Fast Food 1.100
Quality 1.100
Hotel water use has been estimated at 0.50 gallons/sq ft/day.
The estimated net increase in space by use category is:
Hotel: 280,000 – 80,000 = 200,000 ft2
Restaurant: 3,000 – 1,000 = 2,000 ft2
Retail: 43,560 ft2
Total: 245,640 ft2
The composite water use factor for the new hotel, restaurant and retail:
0.814 x 0.50 + 0.177 x 0.11 + 0.008 x 1.1 = 0.407 + 0.019 + 0.009 = 0.435 gpd/ft2
The estimated water demand for the OPSP is presented in Table 3.
10
Table 3
Oyster Point Specific Plan: Estimated Water Demand
Phase
Implementa
tion Period New Use
New Area
(ft2)
Net Area
Increase
(ft2)
Unit
Water
Demand
(gpd/ft2)
Net
Water
Demand
Increase
(gpd)
I Private2012 - 2015Office360,000173,5800.0366,249
I Private2012 - 2015R&D240,000360,0000.06322,680
I Public2012 - 2015NA00
I Public2012 - 2015
Sports field, WF
park 261360178,5960.07914,109
I Private2012 - 2015Landscape Area0
II Private2015 - 2018Office420,000167,7360.0366,038
II Private2015 - 2018R&D280,000420,0000.06326,460
II Public2015 - 2018Hotel/com/retail320,000245,6400.435106,853
II Public2015 - 2018
Park & Public
space 174,240130,6800.07910,324
III Private2018 - 2020Office315,00097,7360.0363,518
III Private2018 - 2020R&D210,000315,0000.06319,845
IV Private2020 - 2022Office206,80094,5360.0363,403
IV Private2020 - 2022R&D206800310,2000.06319,543
Four PhaseTotal:Office1,301,800533,5880.03619,209
R&D936,8001,405,2000.06388,528
Hotel/com/retail320,000245,6400.435106,853
Irrigated Areas435,600309,2760.07924,433
Grand OPSP Total:239,023
Phase I Total Net Water Demand:43,038gpd
Phase II Total Net Water Demand:149,676gpd
Phase III Total Net Water Demand:23,363gpd
Phase IV Total Net Water Demand:23,248gpd
SSF District
The South San Francisco District is located in northern San Mateo County approximately six
miles south of the City of San Francisco. The district serves the communities of South San
Francisco, Colma, a small portion of Daly City, and an unincorporated area of San Mateo County
known as Broadmoor, which lies between Colma and Daly City.
Figure 2 is a map showing the District’s service areas.
11
Figure 2: South San Francisco District
Cal Water designates customer classifications as follows:
Single Family Residential
Multifamily Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Government
Other
The residential sector of CWS water service customers includes permanent single and
multifamily residents.
A variety of land uses exist in the South San Francisco service area. Within the City of South
San Francisco, 28 percent of the land is residential, 21 percent industrial, seven-percent
commercial, 11 percent is vacant and agricultural land and the balance is for public and utility
use. In the City of Colma, approximately 77 percent of the land is used for cemeteries. The
balance of the land is for residential, commercial, and public use. The Broadmoor area is
primarily residential.
Although the South San Francisco District is predominantly surrounded by communities served
by other water companies, a few pockets of growth and several areas of redevelopment remain.
12
The average annual services for calendar year 2004 were 16,137. Single family residential
services represented 85.5 percent, commercial services 11.6 percent and all other services 2.90
percent.
SSF District Water Demand
Total district demand is forecasted by multiplying the number of services for each customer class
by the demand per service for that class. This method accounts for the significant differences
between the demand per service associated with each customer class and the different growth
rates for each class.
Two growth patterns were considered in the SSF UWMP: 1) 5-year average service connection
growth rate, and 2) 10-year average service connection growth rate.
The growth rate for the five-year period 2000 to 2004 is 0.02 percent/year. The growth rate for
the ten-year period 1996 to 2005 is 0.42 percent/year. Each customer class, such as residential,
commercial and other uses, grows at a different rate. Therefore, the use of short-term or long-
term growth rates in developing total annual service connections is done on the basis of customer
class.
The 10-year average service connection growth pattern is used in the updated UWMP for making
demand projections because it is more representative of actual growth in the South San Francisco
District.
The SSF UWMP develops three demand scenarios: low, average and high. The low and high
scenarios set the range boundaries for the forecasted demand growth, while the average demand
is determined by Cal Water in making a forecast of anticipated demand.
Cal Water’s historical methodology for forecasting demand in the SSF District’s for the UWMP
is to use the average demand per service by class is combined with the 10-year rate of growth in
services by class to arrive at the most probable demand through the year 2040.
However, the updated UWMP will focus on the requirements of SB7 which mandates a per
capita demand reduction of 20% be accomplished by 2020 and that a baseline and a conservation
demand goal be based on using one of four permitted methods.
Table 4 shows projected average annual water demand and the SB7 pre-conservation baseline
and post conservation demand goal for the SSF District to the year 2030.
Table 4
Actual and Forecasted Annual SSF District Water Demand
(Acre-Feet)
Year Average SB7 Baseline SB7 Goal
2005 8,869
2010 8,463 9,085 9,085
2015 8,980 9,545 9,105
2020 9,205 9,766 8,431
2025 9,433 9,991 8,626
2030 9,668 10,219 8,826
13
The SB7 baseline was determined by combining the forecasted population for the SSF District
with the baseline per capita demand of 144 gpcd. Since the SSF District already has a low per
capita demand compared to other regional communities the mandated per capita goal is set at
124 gpcd, which represents a 13% reduction in overall demand from the current baseline level.
The following analysis demonstrates that the forecasted demand of the OPSP can be considered
as part of the SSF District forecasted demand growth. Cal Water used the SB7 Baseline demand,
as presented in Table 4 above as the forecasted demand that would occur in the absence of
achieving mandated SB7 demand reductions. Water savings generated by the SB7 program are
treated as a water supply source. Use of these savings and additional supplies from other sources
supports increased demand within the SSF service area.
The SB7 Baseline demand for the SSF District in 2015 is 9,545 acre-feet/year (AFY) or 8.52
million gallons per day (mgd). The forecasted demand for 2010 is 9,085 AF, so the forecasted
increase in average day demand for the 5-year period 2010 to 2015 is 460 AFY or 0.411 mgd.
From Table 3, Phase I OPSP forecasted increase in demand in 2015 is 43,038 gpd or 48.2 AFY.
This represents 10.5% (48.2/460) of the projected increase in forecasted SSF District water
demand for that period.
The SB7 Baseline demand for the SSF District in 2030 is 10,219 AFY or 9.12 mgd so the
increase in average day demand from 2010 to 2030 (20-year period) is 1,134 AFY or 1.012 mgd.
The OPSP forecasted net increase in demand in 2030 for all four phases is 239,023 gallons/day
or 268 AFY. This represents 23.6% (268/1,134) of the projected increase in forecasted SSF
District water demand for the 20 year period.
With respect to either the 5-year or 20-year forecasts, the OPSP does not represent a significant
percentage in the projected increase in District demand. For 2015, it leaves 89.5% of the
projected increase in demand for other projects and general growth within the District. For 2030,
it leaves 76.4% for other projects and general growth.
Therefore, for purposes of this WSA, the increases in water demand due to the OPSP are
assumed to be part of Cal Water’s SSF District demand forecast.
SSF District Water Supply
The South San Francisco District water supply is a combination of purchased water obtained
from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, groundwater produced from Company
owned wells, and SB7 conservation generated supply savings. Table 5 summarizes the projected
water supply sources and their annual quantity for the next 20 years assuming that the SB7
forecasted demand is achieved.
14
Table 5: SSF District Water Supplies
(AFY)
Water Supply Sources 2005
Actual
2010
Actual 2015 2020 2025 2030
San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 8,869 8012 7,604 6,931 7,126 7,326
Cal Water Groundwater Wells 0 451 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500
SB7 Conservation Savings 0 0 441 1,335 1,365 1,393
Total (SB7 Baseline Demand) 8,869 8,463 9,545 9,766 9,991 10,219
Purchased Water
Cal Water purchases treated surface water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC). This supply is predominantly from the Sierra Nevada, delivered through the Hetch
Hetchy aqueducts, but also includes treated water produced by the SFPUC from its local
watersheds and facilities in Alameda and San Mateo Counties.
The amount of imported water available to SFPUC’s retail and wholesale customers is
constrained by hydrology, physical facilities, and the institutional factors that allocate the water
supply of the Tuolumne River. Due to these constraints, the SFPUC is very dependent on
reservoir storage to firm-up its water supplies.
The SFPUC meets its retail and wholesale water demands through an integrated regional water
system that includes water from local Bay Area water sources as well as imported water from
Hetch Hetchy reservoir. Local watershed facilities are operated to capture local runoff as well as
store imported water. Local reservoirs include: Crystal Springs Reservoir, San Andreas
Reservoir, Pilarcitos Reservoir, Calaveras Reservoir, and San Antonio Reservoir.
The Raker Act, which authorized the Hetch Hetchy project, prevents a privately owned utility
such as Cal Water from receiving water from the Hetch Hetchy system, but allows local sources
to be purchased. In addition, Cal Water is subject to the Water Supply Agreement between The
City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo
County and Santa Clara County. The water purchased is treated by SFPUC prior to delivery to
Cal Water.
The district takes delivery from SFPUC from eleven metered connections from five SFPUC
transmission lines.
Supply Guarantee
In July 2009, Cal Water along with 29 other Bay Area water suppliers signed a Water Supply
Agreement (SFWSA) between The City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers
in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County, which replaced the Settlement
Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract (Master Contract) with San Francisco that had been
in place since 1984. The SFWSA continues the provision to provide a Supply Guarantee of 184
mgd, expressed on an annual average basis to SFPUC wholesale customers collectively. SFPUC
retail customers receive 81 mgd as a supply guarantee. Cal Water’s Individual Supply Guarantee
(ISG) is 35.68 mgd or 39,967 acre feet per year.
15
The SFPUC can meet the demands of its retail and wholesale customers in years of average and
above average precipitation. The SFWSA allows SFPUC to reduce water deliveries during
droughts, emergencies and for scheduled maintenance activities. SFPUC’s wholesale customers
through their collective organization, the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
(BAWSCA) during 2010 negotiated the Drought Implementation Plan (DRIP), which will
replace the previously adopted Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan. The SFWSA allocates
the required reduction of available water supply between San Francisco’s retail and wholesale
customers. The SFWSA established that during a called upon 20% drought reduction, collective
wholesale customers face up to a 28% reduction in their available supply, while SFPUC retail
customers face only a 2% reduction.
The DRIP aggregates the reduction applied to the wholesale customers and allocates it among
individual wholesale customers during water shortages of up to 20% of system-wide. Although
the DRIP has not yet been adopted by the wholesale customers, it was formulated in unanimous
consensus by a BAWSCA committee of designated representatives from each wholesale
customer. It is anticipated that the DRIP will be adopted in early 2011.
The DRIP uses an allocation process that takes into consideration the wholesale customer’s ISG
and the seasonal water use pattern of the wholesale customer’s service area. Communities that
use substantially more water in the summer will face a greater reduction in their allocated
drought supply. Health and safety adjustments were provided to increase the drought allocation
of several wholesale customers that have extremely low ISG values.
Much like the previously approved Interim Water Supply Allocation Plan, during a called upon
20% drought reduction because of the seasonal water use pattern of its customers and the recent
high demand that has reached or exceeded it’s ISG, Cal Water’s customers face a potential 33%
reduction in their available supply. By implementing conservation and seeking outside water
supplies that can be transferred into Cal Water’s service area, the magnitude of the potential
reduction can be reduced.
The SFWSA also calls for implementation of an Interim Supply Allocation (ISA) accompanied
by an Environmental Enhancement Fee. If the entire SFPUC service area exceeds the collective
supply guarantee of 264 mgd (81 mgd to SFPUC retail and 184 mgd to wholesale), then any
individual customer that exceeds their ISA will be assessed the yet to be determined
Environmental Enhancement Fee. Cal Water’s ISA has been set at its ISG of 35.68 mgd. This is
intended to be an incentive to implement conservation. In 2010, the collective SFPUC service
area used 214.4 mgd; the five year average use is 237.6 mgd.
Groundwater
Groundwater is extracted from Cal Water owned wells the Merced Formation of the Colma
Creek Basin, a sub-basin of the Merced Valley Groundwater Basin, which is popularly referred
to as the Westside Basin. Groundwater supplies ten to fifteen percent of the district’s water
demand.
Cal Water monitors the groundwater level of its wells. Figure 3 shows the average ground water
level for the South San Francisco District. The water level has remained relative constant since
1990 due to the area receiving average to above average rainfall and that the wells have been
operating at less than 60% of total capacity. The water levels have been rising since 2003 since
16
the wells have been placed off-line as part of a SFPUC program to demonstrate the feasibility of
a conjunctive use program.SFPUC proposes to install wells in the Westside Basin, then have Cal
Water, Daly City and San Bruno not pump their wells during periods of above average
precipitation and thereby “bank” the groundwater or increase the quantity of groundwater basin
storage. During dry periods when SFPUC anticipates reductions in its deliverable surface
supplies, Cal Water, Daly City and San Bruno would pump their normal amounts plus additional
amounts of the stored water using the SFPUC installed wells to make up for the surface supply
cutback. Agreements to implement this plan, which has been demonstrated to be technically
feasible, are currently being negotiated among the parties.
Figure 3: South San Francisco District Average Static Groundwater Levels
In June 2003, Cal Water entered into an agreement with the SFPUC to conduct a conjunctive use
test program its practicality and potential impact on the regional groundwater basin and Lake
Merced recovery. The conjunctive use program was for a three year duration. As shown in the
above figure, groundwater levels rose in 2004 and 2005. In 2009, Cal Water’s wells were placed
back into operation.
The South San Francisco District has five active wells with a total design capacity of 955 GPM.
If operated full-time, these wells could produce 1.38 mgd (1,540 AFY). This production
capacity represents about 17 percent of the annual demand in the district. A maximum of 1,560
AFY was pumped in 1970 and 1983. Over the past two decades, Cal Water’s average
groundwater production has been 1,015 AFY, due largely to the availability of SFPUC supplies.
Groundwater Basin Boundaries and Hydrology
The Westside Basin is the largest groundwater basin in the San Francisco Bay hydrologic region.
It is separated from the Lobos Basin to the north by a northwest trending bedrock ridge through
17
the northeastern part of Golden Gate Park. The San Bruno Mountains bound the basin on the
east. The San Andreas Fault and Pacific Ocean form its western boundary and its southern limit
is defined by bedrock high that separates it from the San Mateo Plain Groundwater Basin. The
basin opens to the Pacific Ocean on the northwest and San Francisco Bay on the southeasti.
Additional information on the basin is given in the DWR Groundwater Bulletin 118, which is
included as Appendix D in the SSF District UWMP.
The DWR bulletin provides information on:
San Francisco Bay Hydrologic Region
Merced Valley (Westside) Basin
Santa Clara Sub-basin
Groundwater Basin Number: 2-35
Non-adjudicated Status of Basin
SFPUC Proposed Conjunctive Use Westside Basin Groundwater Management Plan
SFPUC, Cal Water, San Bruno and Daly City for the past 5 years have been working on
developing a conjunctive use plan for managing Westside Basin groundwater. Technical and cost
studies were conducted along with extensive hydrogeologic modeling to determine the feasibility
of using the basin to store water during above normal hydrologic years so that during drought
years, the stored water could be extracted to make up for reductions in SFPUC treated surface
water supply. Basin storage would be increased due to three utilities (who normally extract
groundwater) not pumping during surplus supply years as a result of receiving more SFPUC
water. During drought periods, the three utilities would resume pumping and in addition SFPUC
would pump the “added” stored groundwater from wells it proposes to construct and operate and
either feed this water into its transmission mains or the distribution systems of the three utilities.
Considerable effort has been expended in the last three years in working on an agreement among
the four parties. This conjunctive use plan would help to reduce the severity of drought supply
reductions from SFPUC but would not be adequate since total additional pumped supply among
the utilities is considerably less than the proposed combine surface water supply reductions.
Recycled Water
Recycling of wastewater is evaluated by Cal Water in the SSF UWMP. Use of recycled water for
non-potable uses (e.g., landscape irrigation) can reduce demands on SFPUC and groundwater
supplies. Currently, no recycled water is used in the SSF District. Following is a summary of the
potential for future recycling for non-potable uses.
Wastewater Collection
The North San Mateo County Sanitation District (NSMCSD) treats wastewater from Cal Water’s
South San Francisco service area communities of Broadmoor and portions of Colma.
Communities also within the NSMCSD, but not in Cal Water’s service area include Westlake,
Westborough County Water District, Daly City, and the San Francisco County Jail. Municipal
wastewater is generated in the NSMCSD service area by residential, commercial, and limited
industrial sources. NSMCSD owns, operates and maintains its sewer system consisting of gravity
sewers and pumping stations.
18
South San Francisco and San Bruno own and operate the South San Francisco Water Quality
Control Plant (SSFWQCP). Wastewater from Cal Water’s South San Francisco service area
communities of South San Francisco and Colma is treated at the SSFWQCP. Wastewater from
San Bruno and a small portion of Daly City is also treated at the SSFWQCP, but these areas are
not within Cal Water’s service area. The sewer system includes gravity lines and force mains that
combine both wastewater and storm water runoff.
The quantity of wastewater generated is proportional to the population and the water use in the
service area. For 2008, it is estimated that 3,300 AFY of wastewater flows from Cal Water’s
South San Francisco District. It is projected to increase to 3,700 AFY in 2028.
Wastewater Treatment in SSF District Area
Wastewater at the North San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant (NSMWTP) receives secondary
treatment. The NSMWTP can not provide tertiary treatment. NSMWTP design treatment
capacity is 10.3 MGD average daily flow but currently receives 6.8 MGD from the North San
Mateo County Sanitation District service area. Effluent is discharged to an outfall at Thornton
Beach via pipeline. Secondary non-public contact treated water is currently recycled from this
plant for irrigation of landscaped medians in Westlake. Recycled water from the NSMWTP is
not available to the SSF District service area.
Wastewater from the South San Francisco Water Quality Control Plant (SSFWQCP) receives
secondary treatment with chlorination and de-chlorination before being discharged to the San
Francisco Bay. The SSFWQCP also provides de-chlorination for chlorinated effluent for
Burlingame, Millbrae, and San Francisco International Airport. The SSFWQCP has capacity to
treat 13 MGD average daily flow (instantaneous peak wet weather flow capacity of 30 mgd) and
currently receives 10 MGD from the SSFWQCP service area. The SSFWQCP does not provide
recycled water. An assessment of using recycled water from this plant was made by the firm
CDM in preparing the Cal Water’s Water Supply and Facilities Master Plan for the SSF District
and although it was concluded to not be feasible presently, it was recommended that recycling
should be re-evaluated in the future.
Potential Water Recycling in District
South San Francisco has conducted studies to assess the feasibility of developing a recycled
water program and is continuing with further investigations to determine capital and operations
and maintenance costs associated with various stages of implementation of a water recycling
program as well as environmental, institutional, regulatory, and financial issues that must be
addressed.
NSMCWTP staff has worked on upgrading its treatment facilities to meet Title 22 requirements,
i.e., tertiary treatment. Some process improvements have been made. Planned uses for recycled
water include irrigation of three golf courses adjacent to the treatment plant and irrigation of
local median strips and athletic fields. However, theses golf courses currently use groundwater
for irrigation. The golf courses and median strips are not within Cal Water’s SSF district service
area. In addition, Cal Water’s service areas in Broadmoor and Colma are residential communities
with no current use for recycled water. It is hoped that potential customers will be served with
recycled water from the North San Mateo Wastewater Treatment Plant in the future, but none of
these potential customers are within Cal Water’s service area.
19
Current projected recycled water demand for Cal Water’s service area, which is served by
NSMWTP through 2030 is 0 acre-feet per year.
Cal Water will continue to participate in planning for future recycled water project(s) with South
San Francisco, San Bruno and SFPUC and consider supporting a joint feasibility study with Daly
City to investigate supplying recycled water to Colma cemeteries.
The SSFWQCP will be at capacity in approximately 5 years and any available space will be used
to increase capacity. Under current conditions the SSFWQCP does not have plans to provide
recycled water at any time in the near future.
Desalinated Water
Desalination of either brackish groundwater or San Francisco Bay water has been assessed by
Cal Water in its December 2010 Integrated Long Term Supply Plan (ILTSP) for its three
peninsula districts that are served by the San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC). It
was found to be potentially feasible and the plan recommends proceeding in the near future with
more detailed investigations to further develop technical, cost, environmental and permitting
information. In addition to technical and cost feasibility studies, desalination treatment facilities
require environmental studies and close coordination with local and state agencies.
Conservatively, eight years of lead-time may be required from feasibility and environmental
studies and permitting to initiation of construction. Currently, there are no desalinated water
supplies available.
The following is information is summarized from Cal Water’s December 2010 Integrated Long
Term Supply Plan for the three peninsula districts prepared by the engineering firm CDM.
Cal Water Peninsula Districts (3)
Desalination Alternatives
Location
Varies: From SSF to Redwood City -See Figure
Intakes
Vertical wells (brackish groundwater)
Slant wells (seawater)
Open water (seawater)
Brine Disposal
Joint use WWTP outfall
New outfall
Cargill brine line
20
Cal Water Peninsula Districts (3)
DesalinationAlternatives (continued)
Small capacity plants
Sub-surface intake
1 to 10 mgd
Simplify permitting
Lower costs and environmental risk
Large capacity plants
10 to 20 mgd
Open water intake
Greater costs and risks
Factors Influencing Desalination Feasibility
Yield
Extraction amounts
Brine disposal quantities -Hydraulics and NPDES
permitting
Operations Considerations
Continuous vs intermittent production
Degree of facilities redundancy
Staffing
Approvals
EIR –adequate water conservation and recycling?
Permitting
21
Potential Desalination Plant Intake Locations,
and Brine Discharge Locations
22
Possible Locations for Desalination
Treatment Facilities in SSF District
Water Transfer Agreements and Exchanges
As indicated in the ILTSP for the three peninsula districts, Cal Water is pursuing water transfer
agreements with water agencies in the Central Valley (CV). With the right source and water
agency, water could be acquired by Cal Water and transferred to the Tuolumne River Basin for
subsequent SFPUC conveyance, treatment and delivery to Cal Water’s three peninsula districts.
Another option is to acquire water from an agency that is a state water contractor and negotiate a
transfer with Department of Water Resources (DWR) for delivery to the Santa Clara Valley
Water District (SCVWD) via the State Water Project (SWP) to the South Bay Aqueduct for
transmission, treatment and transfer to Cal Water’s Los Altos Suburban District (LAS), which is
served by SCVWD. Cal Water could negotiate an exchange with another agency that is served
by both SFPUC and SCVWD so that instead of taking SFPUC water, the agency received
SCVWD water that is not used by Cal Water. This would help increase groundwater storage in
LAS since less groundwater would be pumped under this plan. Another option is for Cal Water
to transfer acquired CV supply treated by SCVWD to its Bear Gulch District through a newly
constructed pump station and pipeline. Initial transfers amounts of approximately 4,000 to 6,000
AFY would increase SSF district supply since SFPUC supply to the three peninsula districts is
treated as a whole, i.e., Cal Water can decide which district receives the added supply credit. Cal
Water envisions that it would take 3 to 5 years to develop a water supply transfer agreement and
address all planning, environmental and engineering requirements.
Purchased Water
As previously indicated, Cal Water serves the South San Francisco District, Mid- Peninsula
District (San Mateo and San Carlos), and Bear Gulch District (Atherton, Portola Valley,
23
Woodside, portions of Menlo Park, and adjacent unincorporated portions of San Mateo County
including; West Menlo Park, Ladera, North Fair Oaks, and Menlo Oaks). The major supply for
three districts is purchased treated water from SFPUC.
The Water Supply Agreement between The City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale
Customers in Alameda County, San Mateo County and Santa Clara County (WSA), provides for
a 206,106 AFY (184 mgd annual average basis), Supply Guarantee to SFPUC’s wholesale
customers collectively. This allocation was reached through negotiation in the early 1990s
between the SFPUC and Bay Area Water Users Association (BAWUA), the predecessor
organization to BAWSCA. Cal Water’s Individual Supply Guarantee (ISG) for the three districts
is 39,966 AFY (35.68 mgd).
The SFPUC can meet the water demands of its retail and wholesale customers in wet and normal
years, however; the SFWSA allows the SFPUC to reduce water deliveries during droughts,
emergencies, and for scheduled maintenance activities. The SFWSA between the SFPUC and its
wholesale customers adopted in July 2009 provides that the SFPUC will determines the available
water supply in drought years and call for reductions to deal with these shortages of up to 20%
on an average, system-wide basis. The table below taken from the SFWSA identifies various
potential levels of supply reductions in terms of share of available supply, percent of available
supply and resulting percent reduction faced for SFPUC retail and wholesale customers. A
reduction in available supply of greater than 20% would require special negotiation between
SFPUC and BAWSCA.
SFWSA Interim Water Shortage Allocation Plan - Tier 1 Reduction Rates
Level of System Wide Reduction
0% 5% or less 6% to 10% 11 % to 15% 16% to 20%
Percent Reduction (1) 0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Interim Supply Limitation (ISL) 265.0 251.8 238.5 225.3 212.0
Wholesale
Customers
Share
69.4%64.5%64.0%63.0% 62.5%
Share of Available Water(1)
SFPUC
Share 30.6%35.5%36.0%37.0% 37.5%
Wholesale
Customers 184.0 162.4 152.6 141.9 132.5 Quantity of Available Water
( mgd ) SFPUC
Retail 81.0 89.4 85.9 83.3 79.5
Wholesale
Customers 0.0%-11.8%-17.0%-22.9% -28.0% Percent
Reduction
from Normal Supply SFPUC
Retail 0.0%10.3%6.0%2.9% -1.9%
In the SFWSA, SFPUC has the authority to determine that during a moderate drought (taken here
as a “dry year”) resulting in an available supply reduction of 5% to 10%, it may cut back
deliveries to the wholesale customers of 17% of the wholesale customers collective Individual
Supply Guarantee (ISG). Likewise during a severe drought (taken here as “multiple dry years”)
resulting in an available supply reduction of 11% to 20%, it may cut back deliveries by 28% of
the wholesale customers collective ISG amount.
24
SFPUC in cooperation with the members of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation
Agency (BAWSCA) prepared a Water Supply and Facilities Master Plan for the service area,
which lead to the Water Supply Improvement Program (WSIP). As a BAWSCA member, Cal
Water reviewed 2030 demand projections prepared by BAWSCA and determined the most likely
purchase amounts for that time period.
Cal Water has and continues to work with SFPUC and BAWSCA in developing SFPUC’s
Capital Improvement Plan. This has included development of demand projections. Cal Water
has reviewed and concurs with SFPUC and BAWSCA’s projected service area population,
customer water demand, conservation program levels and estimates of supply purchases from the
SFPUC. Their projections are consistent with and are within the range of values contained in
Cal Water’s SSF Urban Water Management Plan; both the currently approved and draft updated
versions. Copies of these concurrence statements and the associated values are included in
Appendix K of the SSF UWMP.
Because SFPUC will not increase the available supply to its wholesale water customers, at least
in the foreseeable future, Cal Water developed an Integrated Long Term Supply Plan for its three
peninsula districts to meet future growth and droughts. This plan calls for enhanced
conservation as mandated by SB7, development of water supply transfers, and investigation of
the feasibility of desalinization.
During normal or above normal hydrologic conditions and based on water demand forecasts
included in the ILTWSP prepared by CDM, Cal Water’s three districts as a whole do not need
additional supplies through 2030. Under normal hydrologic conditions with the SFPUC ISG and
90% of local supply available, Cal Water can meet its projected demand in 2030 for all three
peninsula districts. Table 6 shows anticipated supplies versus demand for all three Cal Water
peninsula districts under normal hydrologic conditions.
Table 6: Normal and One Dry Year Hydrologic Conditions:
Supply Vs Demand (3 Peninsula Districts)
MGD
Demand After
Conservation -
All Districts
Combined(1)
SFPUC ISGLocal SupplySupply -Demand
2010 37.6635.682.300.32
2015 36.2735.682.301.71
2020 34.3835.682.303.6
2025 35.0935.682.302.9
2030 35.8235.682.302.2
2035 36.5735.682.301.4
2040 37.3535.682.300.6
(1) Demands with projected conservation reductions (Draft Cal Water 2010
UWMP)
25
During drought periods when SFPUC intends to reduce its delivered supply, Cal Water must
impose additional conservation measures to reduce demands and/or provide new supplemental
supplies to offset reduced supply from SFPUC. There are various combinations of supplemental
supplies and levels of increased conservation being assessed by Cal Water under the supply
reductions planned by SFPUC during drought.
Cal Water’s experience shows its can achieve an additional 5% - 10% demand reduction through
voluntary measures during drought. An additional 5% of demand reduction can be readily
achieved through mandatory rationing resulting in a total of 15% additional demand reduction.
The amount of additional supplies that need to be developed and provided by Cal Water depends
on the drought level and effectiveness of additional conservation and rationing measures.
The range of additional supplies required under the two drought conditions (moderate and
severe) is presented in Table 7. The demand, supply and reductions quantities included in Table
6 above and Table 7 below; and also discussed below are from early draft updates of the UWMP
and from BAWSCA’s DRIP. These are reasonably similar but not exactly the same as those
included in the versions under consideration for adoption.
Table 7: Multiple Dry Year Conditions (Moderate and Severe Drought)
Cal Water's 3 Peninsula Districts (mgd)
Year
Demand
with
Conservat
ion
Local
Supply
17%
Reduction
of SFPUC
Supply
28%
Reduction
of SFPUC
Supply
15%
Drought
Driven
Demand
Reductio
n
Moderate
Drought:
Net
Supply
Severe
Drought:
Net
Supply
201037.661.1029.6125.695.65-1.30-5.22
201536.271.1029.6125.695.44-0.12-4.04
202034.381.1029.6125.695.161.49-2.43
202535.091.1029.6125.695.260.89-3.04
203035.821.1029.6125.695.370.27-3.66
In 2010, for a 17% SFPUC supply reduction accompanied by an additional 15% drought driven
demand reduction, the additional supply required is 1.3 mgd (1,457 AFY).
In 2010, for a 28% SFPUC supply reduction accompanied by an additional 15% drought driven
demand reduction, the additional supply required is 5.22 mgd (5,852 AFY).
In 2020, because Cal Water will have progressively implemented permanent demand reductions
as a result of its enhanced conservation program in compliance with SB 7, no additional supply
is required for a 17% reduction in SFPUC supply if there is an additional 15% drought driven
demand reduction. There would be a net surplus of 1.49 mgd in this case.
In 2020, even with the benefits of an enhanced conservation program in compliance with SB 7,
and a 15% drought driven demand reduction, the 28% reduction in SFPUC supply results in a
shortfall of supply of 2.43 mgd (2,724 AFY).
26
In 2030, additional supply requirement is projected to increase again since there is no assumed
further increase in water conservation demand reduction. For the 17% SFPUC supply reduction
with 15% additional drought driven demand reduction, there is a slight supply surplus of 0.27
mgd (303 AFY).
In 2030, for a 28% SFPUC supply reduction with 15% additional drought driven demand
reduction, additional supply needed is 3.66 mgd (4,103 AFY).
As indicated in Table 7, projected increases in water conservation reduce supply needs between
2010 and 2030 by 1.84 mgd (2,062 AFY).
The above SFPUC supply analysis is based on no additional reductions in supply from
SFPUC. However, that is not certain since in October 2010 SFPUC advised Cal Water
and BAWSCA that newly agreed to fishery flow releases on Alameda Creek (Calaveras
Reservoir) and San Mateo Creek (Crystal Springs Reservoir) will reduce the limited
SFPUC annual average local supply by an additional 7.4 mgd. This reduction in local
supply could have a more significant effect on Cal Water due to the Raker Act which
limits Cal Water to local SFPUC supply sources rather than the much larger supply
source from the Tuolumne River basin. The potential additional reduction in supply has
not been established by the SFPUC. However, it could result in additional SFPUC
supply reductions during drought periods and possibly during normal hydrologic
conditions.
Water Quality
Historically and presently, Cal water meets all state and federal water quality regulations.
The well field in the SSF District has treatment facilities for removal of iron and manganese ions
and blending for nitrates and Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). The water purchased from
SFPUC has trihalomethane concentrations that can exceed California drinking water standards.
To reduce this problem, SFPUC has converted its disinfection system from free chlorine to
chloramines. Cal Water has also installed ammonia chemical feed equipment at its well field to
accomplish chloramination of well water. The well field is permitted for use only when pumped
groundwater is blended with SFPUC water. The need for back-up supply is the most important
challenge with respect to water quality.
Water Supply Projects
Cal Water will continue its annual main replacement program to upgrade and improve the
distribution system of the SSF District. Storage facilities and new booster pumps will be added
as needed to meet the average day and maximum day requirements. Because growth potential is
limited, no major new facilities are currently planned, only replacement of existing facilities.
Future capital expenditures are planned for drilling and developing new wells to replace aging
wells currently in operation, which will increase system reliability and allow Cal Water to pump
its full share of sustainable extracted groundwater from the Westside basin, which Cal Water
estimates at 1,500 AFY. Cal Water’s SSF Water Supply and Facilities Master Plan includes a
capital improvements plan and schedule.
27
Water Demand Management
Water conservation reduces water supply needs. In addition to Cal Water’sexisting conservation
programs, Cal Water received approval from the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)
in December 2010 for expanded SB7 driven programs for 2011 – 2013. This approval increases
conservation expenditures in some of its districts by over 700% annually. Expanded
conservation programs will enable Cal Water to achieve greater per capita water use reductions
as required by SB7. Based on Cal Water’s analysis of SB7 requirements, SSF District potable
water use is projected to be reduced by 1,393 AF in 2030 compared to the forecasted demand
without SB 7 (Table 4).
Cal Water is also implementing enhanced water conservation programs in response to the
requirements of SB7 in its Bayshore (San Mateo and San Carlos) District and Bear Gulch (part
of Menlo Park, Atherton, Woodside, Portola Valley and other areas) District during this period
with the same goal to achieve substantial reductions in water demand by 2020.
During severe drought periods it is likely that further reductions in demand beyond those
projected from implementation of the SB7 conservation program will be required. This is shown
in Table 7 as a 15% drought driven demand reduction
With respect to in-place conservation programs, Cal Water is a member of the California Urban
Water Conservation Council (CUWCC). The CUWCC was created to increase efficient water
use statewide through partnerships among urban water agencies, public interest organizations,
and private entities. The Council's goal is to integrate urban water conservation Best
Management Practices (BMP) into the planning and management of California's water resources.
Implementation of water conservation BMPs will help limit water demand from customers
within the SSF District’s service area and reduce water supply requirements. Cal Water submits
reports to the CUWCC every two years describing implementation of its conservation best
management practices (BMP).
The Department of Water Resources (DWR), water utilities, environmental organizations and
other interested groups collaboratively developed urban BMPs for conserving water and signed a
Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Urban Water Conservation in California (MOU)
(amended March 9, 2005) to implement these BMPs. The MOU is administered by the CUWCC.
As a signatory of the MOU, Cal Water has agreed to implement the BMPs as defined in Exhibit
1 of the MOU that are cost beneficial and complete implementation in accordance with the
schedule assigned to each BMP. Table 8 presents the BMPs as defined by the MOU.
28
Table 8: Existing Water Conservation Best Management Practices
No. BMP Name
1 Water survey programs for single-family residential and multi-family
residential connections
2 Residential plumbing retrofit
3 System water audits, leak detection and repair
4 Metering with commodity rates for all new connections and retrofit of
existing connections
5 Large landscape conservation programs and incentives
6 High-efficiency washing machine rebate programs
7 Public information programs
8 School education programs
9 Conservation programs for commercial, industrial, and institutional accounts
10 Wholesale agency assistance programs
11 Conservation pricing
12 Conservation coordinator
13 Water waste prohibition
14 Residential ULFT replacement programs
Water Demand Reduction
Should there be periods of anticipated water supply shortages, Cal Water has in place plans and
measures for further reducing customer water demand. This includes if necessary mandatory
reductions, rationing, and penalties.
As shown in Table 9, Cal Water has a four-stage water demand reduction plan comprised of
voluntary and mandatory stages. Approval from the CPUC must be obtained prior to
implementation of mandatory restrictions.
Table 9: SSF District Water Demand Reduction Plan
Supply Shortage Stage Demand Reduction
Goal Type of Program
Minimum
5 - 10% Stage 1 10% reduction Voluntary
Moderate
10 - 20% Stage 2 20% reduction Voluntary or
Mandatory*
Severe
20 - 35% Stage 3 35% reduction Mandatory*
Critical
35 - 50% Stage 4 50% reduction Mandatory*
* Mandatory = Allocations
29
The following summarizes the actions to be taken during periods when demand reduction is
required:
Stage 1
Public information campaign consisting of distribution of literature, speaking
engagements, monthly bill inserts, and conservation messages printed in local
newspapers (ongoing)
Educational programs in area schools (ongoing)
Stage 2
More aggressive public information and education programs
Requests to consumers to reduce voluntarily water use by 10 to 20 percent or mandatory
reductions will be implemented
Prior to implementation of mandatory reductions, obtain approval from CPUC
Lobby for passage of drought ordinances by appropriate governmental agencies
Stage 3
Implement mandatory reductions after receiving approval from CPUC
Maintain rigorous public information campaign explaining water shortage conditions.
Water use restrictions go into effect; prohibited uses explicitly defined
Limiting landscape irrigation by restricting hours of the day and or days of the week
during which water for irrigation can be used
Monitor production weekly for compliance with necessary reductions
Installation of flow restrictors on the service lines of customers who consistently violate
water use restrictions
Stage 4
All of steps taken in prior stages intensified.
Discontinuance of water service for customers consistently violating water use
restrictions
Monitor production daily for compliance with necessary reductions
More restrictive conditions or a prohibition of landscape irrigation
Section 357 of the Water Code requires that suppliers that are subject to regulation by the CPUC
shall secure its approval before imposing water consumption regulations and restrictions required
by water shortages.
Water Rights to the SSF District Groundwater Supply
Cal Water owns the land on which its wells are located in the SSF District. Under state law, the
use of percolating groundwater in California is governed by the doctrine of correlative rights and
reasonable use, which gives the overlying property owner a common right to reasonable,
beneficial use of the basin supply on the overlying land. The Westside Basin is an unadjudicated
groundwater basin.
Design, Construction and Operation of OPSP Water Supply Facilities
Cal Water will provide the developer of the private development portion of the OPSP with a will
serve letter indicating its intention to serve as the water utility for providing water service. A
30
complete water system includes distribution system, meters, etc. As planning and design proceed
further, Cal Water anticipates working closely with the developer, its engineer, the City of South
San Francisco, CA Dept of Public Health and any other agencies that may be involved with the
approval of required water supply facilities.
Cal Water will review all proposed design drawings and specifications for compliance with state
and Cal Water’s standards with respect to pipe sizes, valves, materials, etc. and connection to its
existing system.
Cal Water’s SSF District, supported by its engineering, water quality and customer service staff
in San Jose, will be responsible for providing ongoing local operations and maintenance services
of the water system.
SB 610 Section 10910 Paragraph (d)(2) requires identification of existing water supply
entitlements, water rights, or water service contracts held by the public water system shall be
demonstrated by providing information related to all of the following:
(A)Written contracts or proof of entitlement to an identified water supply.
Proof of entitlement to use of the wells cited as a major supply source to the District is
demonstrated by Cal Water’s ownership of the property and the wells and its legal right
to use the underlying percolated waters.
Proof of entitlement to the use of SFPUC treated water are provided in the contracts cited
in this document between Cal Water and SFPUC and are available for review.
(B)Copies of a capital outlay program for financing the delivery of a water supply system
that has been adopted by the public water system.
Capital costs for design and construction of the water distribution system within the
development site are the responsibility of the developer. The developer will also be
responsible for per lot assessment fees in accordance with California Public Utility
Commission (CPUC) rules to cover the cost of the water supply.
Cal Water’s SSF District capital improvement program is separate from and does not
include any of the costs associated with the design and construction of the water system
for or within the OPSP area. However, upon legal transfer of the completed water system
external to the development site to Cal Water by the developer, the water system will be
incorporated into Cal Water’s capital improvement and maintenance programs.
The SSF District Water Supply and Facilities Master Plan provides specific
recommendations for water system facility or capital improvements to the year 2030. It is
Cal Water’s intention to update this plan and recommended capital improvements every
five years.
Federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure associated
with delivering the water supply.
For any distribution system improvements, the developer will be required to obtain the
necessary building permits from the City of South San Francisco.
31
It does not appear that additional storage facilities are needed for this project. Were a
storage tank required, Cal Water would be responsible for its design and construction and
for obtaining a conditional use permit and building permit. The developer would be
responsible for direct reimbursement of those costs to Cal Water.
Cal Water is highly experienced in preparing applications and obtaining the necessary permits
that are needed in order to proceed with design, construction, startup and operation of water
distribution facilities. Cal Water is familiar with approvals it must obtain from the City of South
San Francisco and California Dept of Public Health.
Comparison of Supply and Demand
Demand and Supply Comparison for a Normal Hydrologic Year:
Table 6 presents a supply and demand comparison for normal hydrologic conditions for all three
Cal Water peninsula districts that are served by SFPUC. It demonstrates that the combination of
existing local and purchased supplies are adequate to meet forecasted demands for the OPSP and
those associated with existing Cal Water customers and all other new developments in the SSF
District.
Active wells in the SSF District have total capacity of 1,540 AFY. The SSF District had for
several years not pumped any groundwater due to Cal Water’s participation in a demonstration
study for a proposed SFPUC in-lieu groundwater storage program. Hence, Table 5, groundwater
production in 2005 is 0 AFY. The total supply capacity of SSF wells is expected to increase
slightly over time as new wells are installed. As illustrated in Table 5, the future production of
groundwater from 2010 to 2030 will be held at 1500 AFY. Based on historical data, future
demand projections, contracted treated water deliveries from SFPUC under normal hydrologic
conditions and the mandated SB7 conservation savings are expected to generate a surplus
SFPUC supply during the period 2015 to 2030 of between 2.0 and 3.84 MGD.
Therefore, Cal Water believes under normal hydrologic conditions supplies will be adequate to
meet the projected 20 year demand for the SSF District including OPSP with its forecasted
increase of SFPUC supplies, groundwater supplies, increased demand management or
conservation. Other supply plan objectives include water transfers and/or desalination of local
waters.
Demand and Supply Comparison for a Single Dry Year:
For a single dry year based on previous experience, Cal Water expects no reduction in SFPUC
supplied water. Therefore the total supply available to the three peninsula districts and the SSF
district during a single dry year is considered to be the same as for a normal hydrologic year. The
same assumption applies to the amount of groundwater that will be pumped, even though it is
Cal Water’s intention to develop sufficient redundant capacity to extract more water than its
average annual pumpage. During a single dry year local surface runoff that feeds the Bear Gulch
Reservoir in Cal Water’s Bear Gulch District may be reduced. While a single dry year may
trigger increased water conservation measures in Cal Water’s upgraded conservation program, as
shown in Table 6, demand has not been further reduced to reflect those likely changes.
32
Demand and Supply Comparison for Multiple Dry Years:
As shown in Table 7, SFPUC has indicated that depending on the degree of drought during a
multiple dry year period, it proposes to reduce supply to its wholesale customers by 17% for a
moderate drought and 28% for a severe drought. During the first year, it is expected that demand
and supply might be as indicated in Table 6.
In the second and third years, it is expected that Cal Water would implement additional
conservation measures to reduce demand by 15% because of SFPUC’s probable imposition of a
17% supply reduction requirement. As shown, this would result in a near adequate supply for all
three Cal Water peninsula districts in 2015 (minus 120,000 gpd) and a positive supply condition
from 2015 to 2030.
Should SFPUC reduce supply by 28% due to a more severe drought condition and Cal Water has
not yet been able to complete development of additional supplies as described previously in this
WSA, Cal Water would have a net shortage of supply on average of around 4.0 mgd (4,484
AFY). Under these circumstances, Cal Water might have to implement Stage 3 mandatory
reductions to achieve another 11% of drought driven demand reduction (i.e., 4.0 mgd) for a total
of 26% drought driven demand reduction.
It is assumed here that Westside Basin groundwater supplies would continue to be pumped at
current rates even though that would result in a reduction in basin storage and a lowering of
groundwater levels. It is also assumed that the local runoff supply that feeds the Bear Gulch
Reservoir in Cal Water’s Bear Gulch District would under these circumstances be zero.
Water Supply Assessment Conclusion
Based on:
1.Current Westside Basin groundwater supplies and Cal Water’s current and projected
groundwater production rates from its active wells,
2.Generally adequate long-term normal hydrologic supplies provided by the SFPUC, but
recent significant proposed reductions in supply during moderate and severe droughts,
3.An enhanced demand reduction program to meet requirements of state law SB7 to
achieve 20% reduction in supply by 2020,
4.Future Cal Water plans to develop additional supply sources including transfers of
supplies from outside the peninsula area and development of local desalination facilities,
5.The prospect of longer term additional local supplies being obtained from SFPUC’s
proposed conjunctive use program for the Westside Basin,
6.Possible recycled water projects being developed collaboratively among local wastewater
and water utilities in the SSF District area,
7.Cal Water’s ability to achieve additional drought driven reductions in demand (15% to
26%) during moderate and severe droughts (multiple dry years) through its established
in-place water rationing programs,
8.Historical performance which demonstrates Cal Water’s ability to both increase supply
sources and effectively achieve demand reductions if required,
Cal Water’s concludes that for the next 20 years, its SSF District will be able to provide adequate
water supplies to meet its existing and projected customer demands which includes all four
33
phases of the proposed Oyster Point Specific Plan for normal, single dry year and multiple dry
year conditions.
Cal Water is currently engaged in planning, designing and constructing new water supply
projects including wells, groundwater treatment facilities and related distribution and storage
facilities so as to increase supply capacity ahead of projected demand growth. The plan is to
provide adequate supply capacity to accommodate growth even during dry weather periods that
result in reductions in SFPUC surface water deliveries.
Implementation
Cal Water will provide the developer of OPSP developer with a will serve letter indicating its
intention to provide water service after the proposed development is approved by the City of
South San Francisco. Cal Water will insure that the required water facilities are designed
consistent with the proposed development plan and will coordinate with the developer, its
engineer, the City of South San Francisco, and the California Dept of Public Health in the
design, construction and operation of the proposed water distribution system.
Cal Water will insure compliance with state and city standards with respect to pipe sizes, fire
flows, equipment, materials, valves, appurtenances and connection to its system.
Cal Water’s SSF District supported by its engineering, water quality and customers service staff
in San Jose, will be responsible for providing ongoing operations and maintenance services for
the constructed water facilities.
End of WSA Document
APPENDIX G
UTILITIES STUDY
2700 YGNACIO VALLEY ROAD • SUITE 300 • WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94598 • (925) 932-1710 • FAX (925) 930-1
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc(Draft)
Lamphier -Gregory
OYSTER POINT BUSINESS PARK AND MARINA
REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
UTILITIES STUDY
FINAL
January2011
FINAL – January 2011i
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/ OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
OYSTER POINT BUISNESS PARK AND MARINA REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
UTILITIES STUDY
DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 BACKGROUND.......................................................................................................
Page No.
1
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION.......................................................................................1
3.0 UTILITY DEMANDS................................................................................................. 4
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING UTILITIES................................................................7
4.1 Water System...............................................................................................7
4.2 Wastewater Collection System.....................................................................8
4.3 Storm Drainage System.............................................................................13
5.0 PROPOSED CHANGES TO UTILITIES................................................................. 13
5.1 Initial Infrastructure and Phase I Construction............................................13
5.2 Water System Changes..............................................................................16
5.3 Sewer Collection System Changes.............................................................16
5.4 Stormwater System Changes.....................................................................16
6.0 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON EXISTING UTILITIES AND RECOMMENDED
IMPROVEMENTS.............................................................................................................21
6.1 Water System.............................................................................................21
6.2 Recommended Water System Improvements ............................................23
6.3 Wastewater Collection System...................................................................23
6.4 Wastewater Treatment...............................................................................26
6.5 Storm Drainage System Impacts................................................................27
6.6 Storm Drainage System Improvements......................................................27
7.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................31
7.1 Water System.............................................................................................31
7.2 Wastewater System...................................................................................31
7.3 Storm Drainage System.............................................................................32
7.4 Recommended Improvements....................................................................33
APPENDIX A - Provision C3 NPDES Permit No. CAS612008
APPENDIX B - SB 610 Water Supply AssessmentForOyster Point Business Park and
Marina Area Redevelopment Master Plan and Project
FINAL –January 2011ii
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc(Draft)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Proposed Project Square Footage by Phase ..................................................4
Table 2 Water Demand Factors...................................................................................5
Table 3 Water Demand Calculations...........................................................................6
Table 4 Existing and Projected Sewer Flows...............................................................7
Table 5 Net Change in Water Demand......................................................................22
Table 6 Net Change in Wastewater Flow...................................................................24
Table 7 Net Change to Impervious Surfaces.............................................................28
Table 8 Recommended Improvements ......................................................................33
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Location Map..................................................................................................2
Figure 2 Proposed Project Phasing..............................................................................3
Figure 3 Existing Water Distribution System.................................................................9
Figure 4 Existing Wastewater Collection System........................................................10
Figure 5 Existing WQCP Facilities ..............................................................................12
Figure 6 Existing Storm Drainage Collection System..................................................14
Figure 7 Existing Pervious and Impervious Areas .......................................................15
Figure 8 Initial Phase I Construction Area...................................................................17
Figure 9 Proposed Water Distribution System............................................................18
Figure 10 Proposed Wastewater Collection System.....................................................19
Figure 11 Proposed Storm Drainage Collection System...............................................20
Figure 12 Collection System Impacts from Oyster Point Redevelopment.....................25
Figure 13 Phase I Pervious and Impervious Areas......................................................29
Figure 14 Proposed Project –Pervious and Impervious Areas .....................................30
FINAL –January 20111
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc(Draft)
City of South San Francisco
DRAFT UTILITES STUDY
1.0BACKGROUND
The Oyster Point Business Park and Marina Area Redevelopment (Project) site is located in the
north eastern portion of the City of South San Francisco (City) between Highway 101 and the
San Francisco Bay on the eastern end of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard. The
Project location is illustrated in Figure 1.
The Project is under the planning jurisdiction of theSouth San Francisco East of 101 Planning
Area,which consists primarily ofindustrial and bio-technological offices. The current project site
encompasses a varietyof uses, including marina services buildings, the Oyster Point Business
Park, the Oyster Point Inn andadjacent office buildings, and a bait and tackle shop.
Carollo Engineers Inc.was contracted by Lamphier-Gregoryto determine the impacts of the
project onexisting utilities within the City, including the water system, wastewater collection
system, wastewater treatment, and stormwater system.This study will be included inthe
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Project.
2.0PROJECTDESCRIPTION
According to the Draft Oyster Point Master Plan and Design Guidelines Report (Oyster Point
Master Plan, Perkins and Will, September 2009) the Project will be locatedonapproximately
81acres of privately and publicly held lands.Private properties will beredeveloped asanoffice,
researchand development business park, andauxiliary commercial and retail properties.
Redevelopment plans for publicallyheldproperties includeanew hotel, recreational fields,and
open space(OysterPoint Park).Infrastructure improvements required for the new planinclude
realigning Marina Boulevardand replacing the existing utilities.
The Project is planned for four phases,plus a hotelplanned for the more distant future.The
projectsiteis shownin Figure 2. The four phases will developovertwo million square feet of
office and research and development space. The planned floor space needs for the four phases
are summarized in Table 1. Per direction from City staff, a 40/60 split between office and
research and development(R&D)was assumed.
The EIR will address the impacts from the Project on a project level and a programmatic level.
The project level evaluation is based on the development of Phase I, where the programmatic
evaluation considers the impacts from the total Project. The development of Phase I includes
518,000 square feet of office, R&D, and auxiliary commercial space.
Pacific Ocean
"³
"Ò
.¬
F
A
$¦
$Á"³
.¬
Q
S
A
M
South
San Francisco
Napa
Lodi
Tracy
Oakland
Fremont
Concord
Woodland
Stockton
San Jose
Richmond
Palo Alto
Los Gatos
Santa Rosa
Sacramento
Walnut Creek
San Francisco
.
010205
Miles
Elevation
High : 3300
Low : 0
Major Roads
?@
California
South
San Francisco
Figure 1
Location Map
Utilities Study - Oyster Point Business Park
and Marina Redevelopment Master Plan
Lamphier - Gregory
MarinaBlvd
G u ll R d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Gul l R d
Oyster Point Blvd
Harbor Master Rd
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
F
u
t
u
r
e
H
o
t
e
l
Ph
a
s
e
I
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
I
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
Figure 2
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
h
a
s
i
n
g
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Lamphier - Gregory
.02
5
0
5
0
0
Fe
e
t
Le
g
e
n
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
P
h
a
s
i
n
g
Ph
a
s
e
I
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
Ph
a
s
e
I
I
I
Ph
a
s
e
I
V
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
H
o
t
e
l
S
i
t
e
Op
e
n
S
p
a
c
e
FINAL –January 20114
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc(Draft)
Table 1Proposed Project Square Footage by Phase
Oyster Point Redevelopment Utilities Study
Lamphier -Gregory
Project PhaseProposed Land Use
Maximum Proposed Square
Footage/Usage Unit(2)
R&D304,800
IOffice203,200
Auxiliary Commercial10,000
Sub Total Phase I518,000
II R&D420,000
Office280,000
Sub Total Phase II700,000
III R&D315,000
Office210,000
Sub Total Phase III525,000
IV R&D310,200
Office206,800
Sub Total Phase IV517,000
Future Hotel Site Hotel350 Rooms
Retail/Restaurant40,000
Total(3)2,300,000
Notes:
1.Excludes the square footage for the future hotel site. Specifics other than the number of rooms are
unknownat the time.
2.Assumes Office/R&D is 40percentoffice and 60percentR&D.
3.Total does not include future hotel square footage.
3.0UTILITY DEMANDS
Utility demand projections that will result from the Project area were estimated to determine the
impacts on the existing and planned utility systems. Water demand projections prepared for the
City’s East of Highway 101Sewer System Master Planin 2007were used as the basis for
projecting water demand for the Project.Thewater demands were based on projections
prepared by EIP and Associates for the Genentech Research and Development Overlay District
Water Supply Assessment in 2006 (Genentech WSA). The water demand factors used for this
assessment are shown in Table 2.
FINAL –January 20115
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc(Draft)
Table 2Water Demand Factors
Oyster Point Redevelopment Utilities Study
Lamphier –Gregory
Building Type
Water Demand Factor(1)
gpm/1000 ft2 gpd/1000 ft2
Commercial0.01116
Office0.04159
R&D0.155223
Manufacturing0.06188
Other0.04463
Hotel 130 gallons per room130 gallons per room
Notes:
1.Water Demand Factors from the City of South San Francisco Draft Water Supply Assessmentfor the Proposed
Expansion of the Genentech Research and DevelopmentOverlay District (July 2006).
The Genentech/WSA water demand factors wereused to project water demands for the Project.
Office/R&D land use types were assumed to develop as40 percentofficespaceand 60 percent
R&Dspace.Table3 summarizes the projected water demands.The estimated average daily
demand (ADD) for the Project totals approximately 0.4 mgd. Based on peaking factors in
California Water Service Company’s South San Francisco District Urban Water Management
Plan, a peaking factor of 1.57 was applied to the ADD to determine the projected Maximum Day
Demand.Using this factor, the maximum daywater demand for the Project is estimated to be
0.63mgd.
The estimated average daily water demand for Phase I totals approximately 0.08 mgd, while the
maximum day water demand is estimated to reach 0.13mgd.
2.2 WASTEWATER FLOWS
The 2007 Sewer Master Plan Updateestimatedwastewaterflows for the East of 101 area at 90
percent of the water demands. Based on this ratio, the average daily wastewaterflow for the
total Project is estimated at 0.36 mgd.The average daily wastewater flow from Phase I is
estimated at 0.072 mgd.
The hydraulic model of the sewer collection system developed for the East of Highway 101
Sewer Master PlanUpdate was used to assess the impacts of wastewater flows from the
Project. The model simulateshourlydry weatherflow variations inthe sewers,andpeak flows
during wet weather. High flows during wet weather come from extraneous flows (groundwater,
stormwater, also known as infiltration and inflow)that enter the sewer through pipe defects such
as offsetjoints or cracks.
FINAL –January 20116
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB Study.doc (Draft)
Ta
b
l
e
3
W
a
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
C
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
La
m
p
h
i
e
r
–
G
r
e
g
o
r
y
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
P
h
a
s
e
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
Sq
u
a
r
e
F
o
o
t
a
g
e
/
Us
a
g
e
U
n
i
t
2
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
U
n
i
t
1
Av
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
i
l
y
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
s
(g
a
l
/
d
a
y
)
Ma
x
i
m
u
m
D
a
i
l
y
Wa
t
e
r
D
e
m
a
n
d
3
(g
a
l
/
d
a
y
)
Peak Hour Water Demand (gal/day)
I
R&
D
3
0
4
,
8
0
0
5
9
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
/
d
a
y
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
6
9
,
9
7
0
1
0
6
,
7
1
4
1
6
0
,
0
7
0
Of
f
i
c
e
2
0
3
,
2
0
0
2
2
3
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
/
d
a
y
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
1
,
9
9
9
1
8
,
8
2
2
2
8
,
2
3
4
Au
x
i
l
l
i
a
r
y
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
1
0
,
0
0
0
1
6
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
/
d
a
y
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
16
0
2
5
1
3
7
7
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
1
5
1
8
,
0
0
0
8
0
,
1
1
9
1
2
5
,
7
8
7
1
8
8
,
6
8
1
II
R&
D
4
2
0
,
0
0
0
5
9
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
/
d
a
y
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
9
3
,
6
6
0
1
4
7
,
0
4
6
2
2
0
,
5
6
9
Of
f
i
c
e
2
8
0
,
0
0
0
2
2
3
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
/
d
a
y
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
6
,
5
2
0
2
5
,
9
3
6
3
8
,
9
0
5
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
1
1
0
,
1
8
0
1
7
2
,
9
8
3
2
5
9
,
4
7
4
II
I
R&
D
3
1
5
,
0
0
0
5
9
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
/
d
a
y
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
7
0
,
2
4
5
1
1
0
,
2
8
5
1
6
5
,
4
2
7
Of
f
i
c
e
2
1
0
,
0
0
0
2
2
3
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
/
d
a
y
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
2
,
3
9
0
1
9
,
4
5
2
2
9
,
1
7
8
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
I
5
2
5
,
0
0
0
8
2
,
6
3
5
1
2
9
,
7
3
7
1
9
4
,
6
0
5
IV
R&
D
3
1
0
,
2
0
0
5
9
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
/
d
a
y
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
6
9
,
1
7
5
1
0
8
,
6
0
4
1
6
2
,
9
0
6
Of
f
i
c
e
2
0
6
,
8
0
0
2
2
3
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
/
d
a
y
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
2
,
2
0
1
1
9
,
1
5
6
2
8
,
7
3
4
Su
b
T
o
t
a
l
P
h
a
s
e
I
V
5
1
7
,
0
0
0
8
1
,
3
7
6
1
2
7
,
7
6
0
1
9
1
,
6
4
0
Fu
t
u
r
e
H
o
t
e
l
S
i
t
e
Ho
t
e
l
3
5
0
r
o
o
m
s
1
3
0
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
p
e
r
r
o
o
m
/
d
a
y
4
5
,
5
0
0
7
1
,
4
3
5
1
0
7
,
1
5
3
Re
t
a
i
l
/
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
4
0
,
0
0
0
1
6
g
a
l
l
o
n
s
/
d
a
y
/
1
0
0
0
s
f
1
64
0
1
,
0
0
5
1
,
5
0
7
Su
b
t
o
t
a
l
H
o
t
e
l
S
i
t
e
46
,
1
4
0
7
2
,
4
4
0
1
0
8
,
6
6
0
To
t
a
l
2
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
4
0
0
,
4
5
0
6
2
8
,
7
0
7
9
4
3
,
0
6
0
No
t
e
s
:
1.
O
f
f
i
c
e
,
R
&
D
,
a
n
d
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
d
e
m
a
n
d
f
a
c
t
o
r
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
D
r
a
f
t
W
a
t
e
r
S
u
p
p
l
y
A
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
G
e
n
e
n
t
e
c
h
Research
an
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(
E
I
P
A
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
J
u
l
y
2
0
0
6
)
.
2.
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
O
f
f
i
c
e
/
R
&
D
i
s
4
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
o
f
f
i
c
e
a
n
d
6
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
R
&
D
p
e
r
E
I
P
M
e
m
o
.
O
f
f
i
c
e
d
e
m
a
n
d
c
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
5
9
g
p
d
/
1
,
0
0
0
s
f
,
w
h
e
r
e
R
&
D
demand
co
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
i
s
2
2
3
g
p
d
/
1
,
0
0
0
s
f
.
3.
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
a
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
D
a
y
t
o
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
D
a
y
p
e
a
k
i
n
g
f
a
c
t
o
r
o
f
1
.
5
7
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
2
0
0
6
U
r
b
a
n
W
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
ement
Pl
a
n
.
4.
A
s
s
u
m
e
s
a
P
e
a
k
H
o
u
r
t
o
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
D
a
y
p
e
a
k
i
n
g
f
a
c
t
o
r
o
f
1
.
5
,
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
S
o
u
t
h
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
2
0
0
6
U
r
b
a
n
W
a
t
e
r
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
nt Plan.
FINAL –January 20117
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
Table 4 summarizes the simulated sewer flows for average, peak dry weather, and peak
wet weather flow conditions,According to the model, The construction of Phase I will
increase the average daily flow by 0.05mgd (from 0.09 mgd to 0.14mgd). The PWWF will
increase from by 0.13 from (0.25 mgd to 0.38 mgd).
The construction of the totalProject willincrease the average dailyflow (ADF) by 0.28 mgd
(from 0.09 mgd to 0.37 mgd). The peak wet weather flow (PWWF) would increase by
0.61mgd(from 0.25 mgd to 0.86 mgd).
Table 4Existing and Projected Sewer Flows
Oyster Point Redevelopment Utilities Study
Lamphier -Gregory
Flow ConditionExisting Flows(mgd)
Phase I
(mgd)
Post Oyster
Point
Redevelopment
(Total Project)
(mgd)
ADF1 0.090.140.37
PDWF2 0.210.340.81
PWWF3 0.250.380.86
Notes:
1.Average Dry Weather Flow.
2.Peak Dry Weather Flow.
3.Peak Wet Weather Flow.
4.0DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING UTILITIES
The existing developments at Oyster Point currently receive utility service from the City for
wastewater and storm drainage. Water service is provided by the California Water Service
Company (CWSC).
4.1Water System
The water system in the East of Highway 101 areais owned and operated by the California
Water Service Company (CWSC). CWSC’ssupply source consists of eight groundwater
wells andsurface waterwholesaled bythe San Francisco Public Utilities Commission
(SFPUC). CWSC is a member of the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency
(BAWSCA).CWSC serves three districtson the San Francisco Peninsula:Bear Gulch, Mid
Peninsula, and, South San.
FINAL –January 20118
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
4.1.1 WaterDistribution System
The existing water distribution system for the Project area is illustrated in Figure 3.The area
is supplied from a16-inch diameter water main in Oyster Point Boulevard.The eastern
portion of the system that serves the Marina consists of 12-inch diameter water mains in
Marina Boulevard and 8-inch diameter mains along the north side of the waterfront. A
12-inch diameter main runs north along Oyster Point Boulevardto serve businesses in the
Oyster Point Business Park.
4.1.2 WaterSupply Sources
CWSC is a wholesale customer of SFPUC. According to the Bay Area Waster Supply and
Conservation Agency (BAWSCA)Long Term Reliable Water Supply Strategy Phase I
Scoping Report,CWSC is guaranteed an allocation from SFPUC of 35.68 mgd during
normal years. CWSC also relies on groundwater wells within the Westside Groundwater
Basin and surface water from the Bear Gulch Reservoirto supplement the water they are
allocated fromSFPUC.The groundwater and surface water supplies account for 1.37 mgd
each, for a total of 2.74 mgd.
The combination of SFPUC allocations and local sources provides a maximumsupply of
38.68 mgd during normal non-drought conditions(35.68 mgd from SFPUC plus 2.74 from
groundwater and surface water). CWSC distributes the total supply among the three
districtson the San Francisco peninsula, and can apportion water among the districts as
required to meet demands.
4.2Wastewater Collection System
The City’s wastewater collection system in the East of Highway 101 area consists of
approximately 13 miles of 6-inch through 30-inch diameter sewers(see Figure 4). The
system consists of a series of gravity sewersand pump stations that convey flow to the
main pump station (Pump Station No4);Pump Station No. 7conveys a small portion of the
East of 101 area to the WQCP as well).The portion of the City’s collection system that
serves the Oyster Point development area includes the Oyster Point Subtrunk, Pump
Station No.2, the Gateway Trunk, the Harbor Way Trunk, Pump Station No 4,and the
Pump station No. 4 Forcemain. The collection system components serving Oyster Point are
described below.
4.2.1 Trunk Lines
The Harbor Trunk begins at Pump Station No. 4 and continues northward (upstream) along
Harbor Way with a 30-inch trunk sewer, then a 27-inch pipeto East Grand Avenue. This is
the largest interceptor in the system that conveys flow from the system north of Mitchell and
East Harris Avenues.
M a ri n a B l v d
G u ll R d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Marina
Blvd
Gul l R d
Oyster Point Blvd
W B a s i n R d
Harbor Master Rd
E Basin Rd
1
2''
1
6
'
'
8''
8''
12''
8
'
'
12''
12''
8''
8'
'
8''
12''
8''
8''
8''
8''
12''
1
2
''
12''
8''
8''
8''
12''
1
2
''
1
2
''
8''
8''
8''
8''
12''
8''
1 2''
1
2
''
1
2
''
12''
12''
1 2 ''
12''
8''
8''
12''
8''
1
6
'
'
12''
Figure 3 Existing Water Distribution System
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Lamphier - Gregory
.
0
2
5
0
5
0
0
Fe
e
t
Le
g
e
n
d
Fi
r
e
H
y
d
r
a
n
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
Ro
a
d
s
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
s
,
&
Ot
h
e
r
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
Pe
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
Oyster Point
Project AreaOyster Point Subtrunk
Gateway Trunk
Harbor Way Trunk
21" Force Main
WQCP
.¬
Mitchell Ave
Ha
r
b
o
r
W
a
y
AirportBlvd
G ate w a y Blv d
Grand Ave
U t a h A v e
Oy ster Point Blvd
SistersCitiesBlvd
O
l
d
B
a
y
s
h
o
r
e
H
w
y
A
i
r
p
o
r
t
B
l
v
d
AirportBlvd
ForbesBlvd
E c cl e s A v e
Marina Blvd
Allerton Ave
PS 7
PS 6
PS 4 PS 3
PS 8
PS 2
PS 1
PS 10
PS 14
18''
6''
10''
27''15''
8''
2
1
'
'
12''
10''
8''
1 0''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8
'
'
6''
8''
8''
8 ''
2
1
'
'
10''
1 0''
8 ''
8
'
'
8''
15''
8''
8''
18''15''
8''8''
8''
15''
1 5 ''
8''
8 ''
8 ''
15''
15''
8 ''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
15''
8''
1
0''
8''
8
''
18
'
'
8''
8''
10''
6''
15''
8''
8''
1 0 ''
8
'
'
8''
15''
8''18''
8 ''
6 ''
8''
8
'
'
8''
8 ''
8''
8 ''
8''
8''
8 ''
8''
8 ''
8'
'
8''
8''
8 ''
8''
1 2 ''
8''
15''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
15''
8''
8''
Figure 4
Existing Wastewater Collection System
Utilities Study - Oyster Point Business Park
and Marina Redevelopment Master Plan
Lamphier - Gregory.
06001,200
Feet
Legend
Lift Station
Existing Collection System
Gravity Main
8" and Smaller
10" - 12"
15" and Larger
Force Main
8" and Smaller
10" - 12"
15" and Larger
Oyster Point Project Area
WQCP
Parcels
FINAL –January 201111
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
The Oyster Point Subtrunk begins at the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and
Gateway Boulevard as a 12-inch diameter sewer. It continues east (upstream) to the
intersection of Gull Road and Oyster Point Boulevard. The trunk becomes an 8-inch
diameter sewer between Eccles Avenue and Veterans Boulevard.
4.2.1 Pump Stations
Pump Stations No. 2 and No. 4 convey flow from the Oyster Point area. Pump Station No. 2
is located at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Oyster Point Boulevard. It consists
of two 20 horsepower pumps each with a capacity of 1,000 gallons per minute (gpm). The
firm and total capacity is 1.44 and 2.88 million gallons per day (mgd) respectively. Pump
Station No. 2 dischargesinto a 843-foot long 10-inch diameter forcemain.
Pump Station No. 4 is located at the intersection of Harbor Way and Mitchell Avenue. Pump
Station No. 4 was upgraded by installing four new 70 Hp motors and four new 3,000 gpm
pumps. The new firm and total capacity are 12.9 mgd and 17.3 mgd respectively. Pump
Station No. 4 is the largest pump station in the system and discharges flow to a 2,814 linear
foot 21-inch diameter forcemain that discharges at the headworks of the WQCP.
4.2.2 Wastewater Treatment System–Water Quality Control Plant
Sincethe first construction in 1945, thejointly owned South San Francisco and San Bruno
WQCPPlant has undergone many upgrades and expansions. The last major expansion
occurred in 2000.
Currently, the plant processes include preliminary treatment (headworks), primary clarifiers,
secondary treatment utilizing an air activated sludge process, effluent disinfection and
dechlorination. An overview of the existing facilities is provided in Figure5. The treated
effluent is discharged to the San Francisco Bayin a 54-inch diameter submarine gravity
outfall.
The most recent WQCP upgrade project was completed in 2005. The project included
improvements to accommodate peak wet weather flows, includinga 7-million gallon (MG)
secondary effluent storage basin, an expansion of the influent pump station, and an effluent
pump station.
The WQCP currently has a average dry weather flow capacity of 13 mgd and a wet weather
flow capacity of 62 mgd.The City is implementing a new capital improvementplan (CIP) to
increase wet weather flow capacity, add reliability improvements, and add green energy
facilities. The CIP will be implemented in several phases over the next 10 years.
Sludge Dewatering Building
Primary Sludge PS
Effluent PS
Digester 1
Digester 2
DAFT2
DAFT1
Digester 4Primary Clarifier 1
4
3
2
7
6
5
1
Primary Clarifier 3
Secondary Clarifier 1
Secondary Clarifier 2
Secondary Clarifier 3
Secondary Effluent Storage
RAS/WAS PS
Primary Clarifier 2
Primary Clarifier 4
Digester 5
Digester Control Bldg.
Aeration Basins
Aeration Basins
Aeration Basins
9
8
Blower Bldg. 2
Blower Bldg. 1
Headworks
Grit Removal
Admin. Bldg.
Maintenance Bldg.
Digester 3Sludge Storage Tank
Standby Generator Bldg.Flow Splitting StructureExisting Cogeneration
ssf810m1-8543.ai
Switchgear and Generator Bldg.
Sodium Hypochlorite Facility
Sodium Bisulfite Facility
Chlorine Contact Basins 1 and 2
DAFT Building
Figure 5
Existing WQCP Facilities
Utilities Study - Oyster Point Business Park
And Marina Redevelopment Master Plan
Lamphier - Gregory
FINAL –January 201113
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
4.3Storm Drainage System
Figure 6 illustrates the storm drainage facilities. Thestorm watersystem consists of a
variety of disconnected drainage systems, including surface street drainage, and
underground storm drainsthat drain tonumerous outfalls that discharge to the San
Francisco Bay (Bay)along the north, west, and eastern sides of Oyster Point. Stormwater
flow from theoutfallsis not treated. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit(Provision C3) for South San Francisco, requires
that best management practices (BMPs) and low impact development (LID) practices be
implemented as part of the redevelopment of the Project area.
The quantity of storm runoff during rainfall events is affected by the percentage of
impervious surfaces versus pervious surfaces. Impervious surfaces, such as pavement and
buildings, cause more runoff than pervious surfaces such as landscaped areas. Thearea of
impervious surfacesfor the existing development was estimated using aerial imagery and
geographical information system (GIS) software. Figure 7 illustrates the pervious and
impervious areas prior to development of the Project. The existing impervious areacovers
approximately 45 of the total 80 acres, or 57 percent of the total area.
5.0PROPOSED CHANGES TO UTILITIES
The redevelopment of Oyster Point includes a realignment of the eastern portion of Oyster
Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevard. As a result,many of the existing utilities will be
abandoned and replaced. This section describes the changes to the existing utilities,the
construction sequence for Phase I, and the initial infrastructure developmentproposed by
the Project developers.
5.1Initial Infrastructure and Phase I Construction
The Oyster Point Master Plan describes the proposed construction sequence and the initial
infrastructure development that will occur before the construction of Phase I. According to
the Master Plan,the developers propose to:
x Demolish the Oyster Point Inn, adjacent office buildings, the Oyster Point Marina
entry kiosk and the marina service building,
x Construct the reconfigured Oyster Point and Marina Boulevard intersection and install
the proposed utilities (described in the sections to follow) in Oyster Point and Marina
Boulevards,
x Complete site work to include, landfill cover modifications, grading for Phase I of the
office and R&D development, the open space, and the future hotel site.
M a ri n a B l v d
G u ll R d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Marina
Blvd
Gul l R d
Oyster Point Blvd
W B a s i n R d
Harbor Master Rd
E Basin Rd
15''
1 2 ''2
4
''
30
'
'
24''
12''
2
4
''
24''
Figure 6
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
t
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Lamphier - Gregory
.
0
2
5
0
5
0
0
Fe
e
t
Le
g
e
n
d
Pu
m
p
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
Ma
n
h
o
l
e
/
C
a
t
c
h
B
a
s
i
n
Ou
t
f
a
l
l
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
t
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
Ro
a
d
s
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
s
,
&
Ot
h
e
r
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
Pe
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
M a ri n a B l v d
G u ll R d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Marina
Blvd
Gul l R d
Oyster Point Blvd
W B a s i n R d
Harbor Master Rd
E Basin Rd
Figure 7
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
a
n
d
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Lamphier - Gregory
.
0
2
5
0
5
0
0
Fe
e
t
Le
g
e
n
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
(
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
)
Ro
a
d
s
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
s
,
&
Ot
h
e
r
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
Pe
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
FINAL –January 201116
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
Figure 8 shows the extent of the initial infrastructure development and site work proposed
by the Developer before the construction of Phase I.
5.2Water System Changes
Figure 9illustrates the proposed water system. The new on-site distribution system will
consist of new 12-inch diameter water mainsrouted along the realigned Marina Boulevard
and Oyster Point Boulevard.The new mains will branch from the existing 16-inch water
main in Oyster Point Boulevardandconnect with the existing 8-inch water main on the
marina waterfrontto form distribution loops around the marinafacilities.The new 12-inch
diameter loop system is subject to review by CWSC. The analysis in this study will only
asses impacts to existing 16-inch diameter water main that will serve the Project area.
5.3Sewer Collection System Changes
To accommodatethe realignment of a portion of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina
Boulevard,the existing sewer systemin this area will need to be revised.Figure 10shows
the proposed changes. Pump Station No. 1, located on Oyster PointBoulevard across from
north end ofOyster Point Park,will be abandoned. A new pump station will be constructed
at north of the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Marina Boulevardandconfigured
topump flow through a new 8-inch diameter forcemain. The new pump station will have
three dry well submersible pumps equipped with variable frequency drives. The new 8-inch
diameter forcemain will discharge flow to the existing 8-inch diameter gravity sewer in
Oyster Point Boulevard near the intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Road.
Future developments on the eastern portion of the Project site, including the proposed
future hotel,will drain to new gravity sewers and a new pump station. The pump station will
pump flows into a new 6-inch diameter forcemain. The 6-inch forcemain will discharge flow
at the same discharge point for Pump Station 1, at a common manhole.
5.4StormwaterSystem Changes
As described previously, the existing storm drainage system consists of many disconnected
drainage networks. The developer hasproposed to connect to the existing underground
drainage network at several locations, and the existing outfalls will continue to be used with
modifications to comply with BMPs. According to the Oyster Point Master Plan, stormwater
treatment and controls will be designed in conformancewith the use of Best Management
Practices (BMPs),and LID practicessuch as vegetated swales, vegetative buffer strips,
media filters,and bioretention areasper the requirements of Provision C3 of the City’s
NPDES permit.Figure 11illustrates the proposed storm drainage system.
M a ri n a B l v d
G u ll R d
MarinaBlvd
Gul l R d
Oyster Point Blvd
W B a s i n R d
Harbor Master Rd
E Basin Rd Figure 8 Initial Phase I Construction Area
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Lamphier - Gregory
.
0
1
5
0
3
0
0
Fe
e
t
Le
g
e
n
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
(
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
)
Ro
a
d
s
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
s
,
&
Ot
h
e
r
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
Pe
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
MarinaBlvd
G u ll R d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
8''
8''
8''
Gul l R d
Oyster Point Blvd
Harbor Master Rd
1
2
'
'
1 2 ''
12''
12''
12''
12''
1
6
'
'
8''12''
12''
12''
12''
12''8''
8''
12''8''
12''
12''
Figure 9
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Lamphier - Gregory
.
0
2
5
0
5
0
0
Fe
e
t
Le
g
e
n
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
Ro
a
d
s
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
s
,
&
Ot
h
e
r
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
H
o
t
e
l
S
i
t
e
Pe
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
MarinaBlvd
G u ll R d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Re
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
P
S
1
PS
1
Gul l R d
Oyster Point Blvd
Harbor Master Rd
6''
8 ''
6
'
'
8''
2.5''3''3''3''
3'
'
4'
'
4''
3''
3''
3''
4'
'
3''
3''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
Figure 10
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Lamphier - Gregory
.
0
2
5
0
5
0
0
Fe
e
t
Le
g
e
n
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
L
i
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
Re
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
P
u
m
p
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
Gr
a
v
i
t
y
M
a
i
n
Fo
r
c
e
M
a
i
n
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
Ro
a
d
s
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
s
,
&
Ot
h
e
r
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
H
o
t
e
l
S
i
t
e
Pe
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
MarinaBlvd
G u ll R d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Gul l R d
Oyster Point Blvd
Harbor Master Rd
15''
1 2 ''2
4
''
30
'
'
2
4
''
1 2''
15''
24''
24''
Figure 11
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
t
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Lamphier - Gregory
.
0
2
5
0
5
0
0
Fe
e
t
Le
g
e
n
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
O
u
t
f
a
l
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
M
a
n
h
o
l
e
/
Ca
t
c
h
B
a
s
i
n
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
O
u
t
f
a
l
l
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
S
t
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
t
o
r
m
D
r
a
i
n
a
g
e
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
Ro
a
d
s
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
s
,
&
Ot
h
e
r
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
H
o
t
e
l
S
i
t
e
Pe
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
FINAL –January 201121
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
6.0ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS ON EXISTING UTILITIES AND
RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
6.1Water System
6.1.1 Water Distribution
The Oyster Point area is currently served with a 16-inch diameter water main located in
Oyster Point Boulevard. According to CWSC staff, the 16-inch main is adequate to serve
the Project with adequate water pressure and flow. Accordingly, no impacts to the water
main system areanticipated from the development of Phase I or the total Project.
6.1.2 Water Supply
The CWSC purchases the majority of its water supply from the SFPUC. Since 2008 several
events have occurred that has affectedthe amount of water available to CWSC. In October
2008, the San Francisco Planning Commission certified the Programmatic Environmental
Impact Report (PEIR) for the SFPUC Water SystemImprovement Program (WSIP). The
purpose of the WSIP is to repair, replace,and seismically upgrade the SFPUC regional
water system, whichis nearing the end of its useful life and is vulnerable to damage during
earthquakes.
The SFPUC along with the San Francisco Planning Department ultimately decided on a
phased WSIP Variant that established, as part of the 2009 Water Supply Agreement
between the City and County of San Francisco and Wholesale Customers,the Interim
Supply Limitation, whichcapped the amount of water available to wholesale customers
(BAWSCA)at 184mgd until the year 2018.
In order to limit SFPUC water purchases to 184mgd, BAWSCA developed the Water
Conservation Implementation Plan (WCIP, Maddaus Water Management and Brown and
Caldwell, September 2009). The WCIP developed projected water demands for BAWSCA
member agencies for the year 2018 and 2030. According to the WCIP, BAWSCA members
would need to implement water conservation programs in order to conserve up to 10 mgd
to keep SFPUC purchases below 184 mgdby 2018.
According to CWSC staff, since CWSC is a BAWSCA member agency,the Interim Supply
Limitation has an impact on growth as any new demand within CWSC’s SSF District will
need to be served through conservation, transfers between CWSC’s three districtsor by
developing new supply sources such as groundwater wells, or desalinization.The decision
on how to developthe new supply source would be made between the Project developer
and CWSC.
Groundwater produced in the South San Francisco District comes from the Westside
(Merced Valley) Basin. According to CWSC’s South San Francisco District 2006 Urban
FINAL –January 201122
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
Water Management Plan (SSFD UWMP), the Westside Basin is not adjudicated, but CWSC
has voluntarily agreed to limit groundwater production to500 million gallons per year or
1.37 mgd.Currently CWSC has seven (7) wells in the South San Francisco District capable
of producing over 2.0 mgd. If it is determined that new supply should come from
groundwater, CWCS has the ability to develop wells in one of its other districts, such as the
Bear Gulch or Mid Peninsula districts, and exchange water with the South San Francisco
District.
According to CWSC,groundwater sources in the Oyster Pointarea tendto be brackish, and
new groundwater wells would most likely need treatment to reduce Iron and manganese,
andpossibly nitrates.
As described in Section 2.1,average daily water demands for Phase I and thetotalProject
are estimated at 0.08 mgd and 0.4 mgdrespectively.According to data provided by the City
for the 2007 Master Plan Update,the average daily water demand for the existing users at
OysterPoint totalsapproximately 0.02mgdfor the Phase I area and 0.1 for the total Project
area.
Table 5 summarizes the existing and projected water demands and the net change in water
demand for Phase I and the total Project.Phase I and the totalProject areplanned to
increase the average daily water demand by approximately 0.06mgd and 0.3 mgd
respectively.Theincrease will need to be metbydevelopingnewsupply sources.
Table 5Net Change in Water Demand
Oyster Point Redevelopment Utilities Study
Lamphier -Gregory
Demand Scenario
ADD 1
(mgd)
MDD2
(mgd)
Net Change in Water
Demand3
ADD
(mgd)
MDD
(mgd)
Existing Phase I Area0.020.03----
Existing Total Project Area0.100.16----
After Development of Phase I0.160.250.060.09
Development of Total Project0.400.630.300.47
Notes:
1.Average Daily Demand.
2.Maximum Daily Demand.
3.The net change in water demand is the projected water demandminus the existing water demand for
Phase I and the total Project.
FINAL – January 201123
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
6.2Recommended WaterSystemImprovements
According to Department of Public Health Standards, supply sources should be sized to
supplymaximum day demands (MDD) with peak hour demands being met with water from
storage tanks and reservoirs. The Project is estimated to increase the average water
demand by 0.06mgd for Phase I and 0.3 mgdfor the total Project.Basedona MDD
peaking factor of 1.57, the MDD would increase byapproximately 0.09mgdfor Phase I and
0.75 mgdfor the total Project.
The CWSC prepareda Water Supply Assessment(WSA)according to the requirements of
Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) in order to evaluate their potential to supply watertothe Project
with the constraints placed on future supply from SFPUC. The WSA details CWSC’s
approach to meeting future demands in the SSF District. CWSC has developed an
Integrated Long Term Supply Plan (ILTSP) that calls for:
x Projected groundwater production rates,
x Enhanced conservation measured,
x Development of water supply transfers, and
x Investigation into desalinization.
Based on the ILTSP as discussed in the WSA, CWSC has concluded that they will be able
to supply the projected demands of the SSF District and subsequently the Project. The
complete WSA is located in Appendix B.
6.3WastewaterCollection System
6.3.1
The development of Phase I will increase the average wastewater flow from 0.09 mgd to
0.14 mgd. Phase I will increase the peak flows from 0.25 mgd to 0.38 mgd Theconstruction
of the totalProject will increase the average wastewater flow conveyed in the City’s
collection system an additional 0.28 mgd and the peak flow by0.61.Table 6 summarizes
the net change in wastewater flow resulting from the development of Phase I and the total
Project.
Sewer TrunkLines
FINAL –January 201124
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
Evaluation criteria from the East of 101 Sewer Master Plan were used to determine the
impacts from the increasedwastewaterflows.Thecriteria defines a sewer trunk as deficient
if the depth of flow to pipeline diameter (d/D) for PDWF conditions is greater than 0.9.
During PWWF, a sewer trunk is deficient if the hydraulic grade line rises to within one foot
of the manhole rim elevation. Pump Stations are evaluated based on their firm capacity.
The firm capacity is the pump stations capacity with its largest pump out of service. Pump
stations need to have sufficient firm capacity to convey peak flows.
According to modeling results the existing sewer trunk lines have enough capacity of
convey the increase in flow resulting from the construction of Phase I.
The projectedincrease in flowfrom the construction of the total Projectcreates capacity
deficiencies in the existing Oyster Point Subtrunk from Pump Station No. 2 to the
intersection of Oyster Point Boulevard and Gull Road. The deficient segments of sewer
trunk are illustrated in Figure 12.
Table 6Net Change in Wastewater Flow
Oyster Point Redevelopment Utilities Study
Lamphier -Gregory
Flow Scenario
ADF 1
(mgd)
PWWF2
(mgd)
Net Change in Wastewater
Flow3
ADF
(mgd)
PWWF
(mgd)
Existing System0.090.25----
Phase I0.140.380.050.14
Total Project0.370.860.280.61
Notes:
1.Average Daily Flow.
2.Peak Wet Weather Flow. PWWF is defined as the peak hourly flow experienced in collection system.
3.The net change in wastewater flow is the projected wastewater flow for Phase I and the total Project minus
the existing flow.
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
S
u
b
t
r
u
n
k
.¬
Forbes
Blvd
18
"
15
"
12
"
12
"
Ga
t
e
w
a
y
T
r
u
n
k
Up
s
i
z
e
P
S
N
o
.
2
to
a
F
i
r
m
C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
of
1
.
6
m
g
d
.
Re
p
l
a
c
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
8
"
,
10
"
,
&
1
2
"
S
e
w
e
r
s
wi
t
h
N
e
w
1
2
"
,
1
5
"
,
&
1
8
"
S
e
w
e
r
s
Re
p
l
a
c
e
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
8"
S
e
w
e
r
w
i
t
h
Ne
w
1
2
"
S
e
w
e
r
Oyster Point Project Area
Forb
es
Bl
vd
Airport
Blvd
E
c
cle
s
A
v
e
Oyster
Point
Blv
d
G
ate
w
ay
Blvd
Executive
Dr
GullRd
Marina
Blvd
C orp orate D r
Sister
CitiesBlvd
Dna
Way
L e w i s A v e
AllertonAve
Gr
a
n
d
v
i
e
w
D
r
CarltonCt
H a r b o r M a s t e r R d PS 8
PS
2
PS
1
PS
1
0
PS
1
4
1
0
'
'
8''
8'
'
8''
12'
'
12''
10
'
'
8''
18''
1 0''
6''
27''
15''
21''
12''
8''
8''
8''
8''
8''
15''
18''
6''
1
0
''
8''
8
'
'
8
'
'
8
''
8''
10''
1
5
'
'
15''
15''
8''
8''
8
''
8''
1
5''
1
0''
8''
15''
8''
6''
8''
8''
8''
8''
18''
8''
8''
15''
8''
1 0''
8''
8
'
'
1
5
''
8''
8''
1
5''
8''
8''
8''
8''
15''
8''
Figure 12 Collection System Impacts from Oyster Point Redevelopment
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Lamphier - Gregory
.04
0
0
8
0
0
Fe
e
t
Le
g
e
n
d
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
U
p
s
i
z
e
d
L
i
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
Li
f
t
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
i
p
e
l
i
n
e
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
Ex
i
s
t
i
n
g
C
o
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
S
y
s
t
e
m
Gr
a
v
i
t
y
M
a
i
n
8"
a
n
d
S
m
a
l
l
e
r
10
"
a
n
d
L
a
r
g
e
r
Fo
r
c
e
M
a
i
n
8"
a
n
d
S
m
a
l
l
e
r
10
"
a
n
d
L
a
r
g
e
r
Pa
r
c
e
l
s
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
A
r
e
a
FINAL –January 201126
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
6.3.2 Pump Stations
The East of 101 Master Plan recommendedexpanding Pump Station No. 2 in order to
convey future flows. The existing firm capacity of Pump StationNo. 2 is 1.4 mgd. Existing
peak flowsat Pump Station No.2 reach 1.1 mgd.
With the development of Phase I, the peak flows to Pump Station No. 2 increase to 1.16
mgd. Development of the totalProject, increases the peak flows to1.6 mgd.Therefore, the
development of Phase I will not trigger an upgrade of Pump Station No. 2., but once the
total Projectis developed Pump Station No. 2 will need to be expanded to afirm capacity of
1.6 mgd.
6.3.3 Wastewater Collection System Improvements
The improvements specified in the East of 101 Master Plan call for the Oyster Point
Subtrunk to be increasedfrom Pump Station No. 2 to the intersection of Oyster Point
Boulevard and Eccles Avenue. The improvement calls for a new 18-inch diameter pipe to
replace the existing 12-inch sewer that continues northward on Gateway Boulevard from
Pump Station No. 2. The portion that continues eastward along Oyster Point Boulevard
from Gateway Boulevard consists of a new 15-inch diameter sewer to replace existing 10-
inch and 12-inch diameter sewers. A new 12-inch diameter section is needed to replace
approximately 800feet of existing 8-inch diameter sewer trunk to the intersection of Oyster
Point Boulevard andEccles Avenue.
An additional 700 feet of 8-inch diameter sewer trunk from Eccles Avenue to Gull Road
need to be upsized to a 12-inch diameter trunk sewer. This segment of sewer trunk was not
included in the recommendations in the East of 101 Master Plan.
The East of 101 Master Planalsorecommends upgrading Pump Station No. 2 to a firm and
total capacity of 3.5 mgd and 4.9 mgd respectively. The recommended capacities in the
East of 101 Master Plan would allow Pump Station No. 2 to have capacity for growth to
2030.
6.4Wastewater Treatment
As discussed earlier, the Project will increase the average dry weather flow by 0.28 mgd
andthe peak flow by0.61mgd.The City is currently updating the WQCP facilities plan to
evaluate the existing and futuretreatmentcapacity needs. Carollo Engineers issued a draft
Facilities Plan report (Draft Facilities Plan) in April 2010. The Draft Facilities Plan estimates
average flow projections through the year 2040 to reach 10.3 mgd, which is lower than the
existing average dry weather plant capacity of 13 mgd. The increase of flow is within the
project flows forthe East of 101 area. Based on the findings from the Draft Facilities Plan,
the increased flows from the Project will not impact the WQCP.
FINAL –January 201127
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
6.5Storm Drainage System Impacts
As described above, the existing Project site consists of approximately 57 percent
impervious surfaces. Table 6summarizes the existing and proposed pervious surface areas
for the existing Phase I project area and for the total Project site.
6.5.1 Phase I Storm Drainage Impacts
ForPhase I,the Developer is proposing to construct the reconfigured intersection of Oyster
Point and Marina Boulevards, along with the demolition of the Oyster Point Inn, the marina
services building and other adjacent office buildings. Table 7summarizes the changes to
the pervious and impervious areas as a result of Phase I and the initial infrastructure
construction. The development of Phase I along with the +initial infrastructure construction,
demolition,and site workwillincrease the pervious area by 2.9 acres. Figure 13 shows the
area affected by the construction of Phase I and the supporting infrastructure. Based on
these results the construction of Phase I will not have an impact on the storm drainage
system.
6.5.2 Total Project Storm Drainage Impacts
The construction of the totalProject will increasein the impervious areaby the modest
amount oftwo acres,or 2.6 percent.Figure 14 shows the pervious and impervious areas
for the total Project.
6.6Storm Drainage System Improvements
The slight increasein stormwater flow with the construction of the total Projectwillbe
mitigated by implementingthe requirements in Provisions C3 of the City’s NPDES permit.
The complete text of Provision C3 is provided in Appendix A. Provision C3requires the
permit holder to use itsplanning authority to impose best management practices on new
developments or redevelopment projects. The practices include:
x source controls,
x stormwater treatment measures to address both soluble and insoluble pollution
discharges,
x limitrunoff flows from new developments and redevelopment projects,
x site designmeasures,
Site design measures include:
x low impact development (LID) techniques,
x post construction stormwater site design treatmentcontrols (for example; directing
runoff to vegetative areas, vegetative swales, tree wells or bioretention gardens),
FINAL –January 201128
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
Ta
b
l
e
7
N
e
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
t
o
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
S
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
U
t
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
La
m
p
h
i
e
r
-
G
r
e
g
o
r
y
Pr
e
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(1
)
Po
s
t
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(2
)
(
3
)
Net Change(4)
La
n
d
A
r
e
a
A
r
e
a
(
a
c
r
e
s
)
%
o
f
A
r
e
a
A
r
e
a
(
a
c
r
e
s
)
%
o
f
A
r
e
a
A
r
e
a
(
a
c
r
e
s
)
%
o
f
A
r
e
a
Ph
a
s
e
1
Pe
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
1
7
.
9
5
4
2
0
.
8
6
3
+
2
.
9
+
9
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
1
4
.
9
4
6
1
2
.
0
3
7
-
2
.
9
-
9
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
3
2
.
8
1
0
0
3
2
.
8
1
0
0
-
0
.
0
-
0
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
Pe
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
3
4
.
7
4
3
3
2
.
6
4
1
-
2
.
1
-
3
Im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
4
5
.
3
5
7
4
7
.
4
5
9
+
2
.
1
+
3
To
t
a
l
A
r
e
a
8
0
.
0
1
0
0
8
0
.
0
1
0
0
+
0
.
0
+
0
No
t
e
s
:
1.
E
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
L
a
n
d
A
r
e
a
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
u
s
i
n
g
a
e
r
i
a
l
i
m
a
g
e
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
r
e
a
.
2.
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
l
a
n
d
a
r
e
a
s
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
p
r
o
g
r
a
m
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
d
r
a
f
t
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
+
D
e
s
i
g
n
Gu
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
S
e
p
t
e
m
b
e
r
1
0
,
2
0
0
9
)
.
3.
I
t
w
a
s
a
s
s
u
m
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
h
o
t
e
l
s
i
t
e
w
o
u
l
d
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
o
f
0
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
i
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
u
n
d
e
r
P
h
a
s
e
1
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
a
n
d
9
5
percent
im
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
r
e
a
f
o
r
“
u
l
t
i
m
a
t
e
”
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
.
4.
N
e
t
C
h
a
n
g
e
=
P
o
s
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
–
P
r
e
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
MarinaBlvd
G u ll R d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Gul l R d
Oyster Point Blvd
Harbor Master Rd
Figure 13
Ph
a
s
e
I
P
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
a
n
d
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Lamphier - Gregory
.
0
1
5
0
3
0
0
Fe
e
t
Le
g
e
n
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
(
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
)
Ro
a
d
s
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
s
,
&
Ot
h
e
r
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
H
o
t
e
l
S
i
t
e
*
Pe
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
*A
s
s
u
m
e
s
F
u
t
u
r
e
H
o
t
e
l
S
i
t
e
i
s
9
5
%
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
MarinaBlvd
G u ll R d
Oy
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
l
v
d
Gul l R d
Oyster Point Blvd
Harbor Master Rd
Figure 14
Pr
o
p
o
s
e
d
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
P
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
a
n
d
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
Ut
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
S
t
u
d
y
-
O
y
s
t
e
r
P
o
i
n
t
B
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
P
a
r
k
an
d
M
a
r
i
n
a
R
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
Lamphier - Gregory
.
0
2
5
0
5
0
0
Fe
e
t
Le
g
e
n
d
Bu
i
l
d
i
n
g
F
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
(
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
)
Ro
a
d
s
,
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
s
,
&
Ot
h
e
r
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
Fu
t
u
r
e
H
o
t
e
l
S
i
t
e
*
Pe
r
v
i
o
u
s
A
r
e
a
s
*A
s
s
u
m
e
s
F
u
t
u
r
e
H
o
t
e
l
S
i
t
e
i
s
9
5
%
I
m
p
e
r
v
i
o
u
s
FINAL –January 201131
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
x minimizing land disturbances,
x clustering of structures and pavement,
x use of micro detention, including landscape based detention,
x preservation of open space, and
x protection and/or restoration of riparian areas and wetlands as project amenities
Becausethe Project does notsignificantlyincrease the impervious area and post-
construction stormwater treatment and LID site design measureswill be required by the
NPDES permit, the project is not expected tosignificantlyimpact to the stormdrainage
system.
7.0CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1Water System
Projected average water demands from Phase I and the total Project areestimated tobe
0.06 mgd and0.3 mgd more than the existing average demands for Oyster Point.The
maximum day demand for Phase I and the total Project is expected to increase by
0.09mgd and 0.47mgd.
7.1.1 Water Distribution System
The existing 16-inch diameter watermain that serves the area has enough capacity to meet
Phase I and the total Project demandswith adequate pressure. The Project will not cause a
significant impact to the existing 16-inch water main.
7.1.2 Water Supply System
x According to the WSA, CWSC will have sufficient water supply to serve the SSF
Distinct for the next 20-years.
x Future water supply for the SSF District is to be met by implementation of CWSC’s
Integrated Long Term Supply Plan.
7.2WastewaterSystem
x The development of Phase I will increase the average wastewater flows from 0.09
mgd to 0.14 mgd. The peak wet weather flow after the development of Phase I will
increase from 0.25 mgd to 0.38 mgd.
x The total Project will increase the current average wastewater flows from 0.09 mgd
to 0.37 mgd. The peak wet weather flows will increase from 0.25 mgd to 0.86 mgd.
FINAL – January 201132
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
7.2.1
x The development of Phase I will not have an impact on the existing wastewater
collection systemdownstream of the Project site.
Wastewater Collection System
x The additional wastewater flows from the construction of the total Project willexceed
the hydraulic capacities of theexisting Oyster Point Subtrunk, and Pump Station No.
2.
x To provide the required sewer capacity, the Oyster Point Subtrunkwill need to be
replaced with a larger sized trunk line, with sizes ranging from12, 15, and 18-
inches.
x Pump Station No. 2 currently has a firm capacity of 1.4 mgd. Wastewater flows from
the project will increase peak flows to 1.6 mgd. Pump Station No. 2 will need to
upsized to a firm capacity of 1.6 mgd to have capacity to serve the Project.
7.2.2
According to the South San Francisco/San Bruno Water Quality Control Plant Draft
Facilities Plan Update (Carollo, April 2010), the WQCP has sufficient capacity through the
year 2030, includinga reserve capacityfor flows fromthe East of 101 area. Accordingly, the
Project willisnotexpected to appreciably impact thewastewater treatment plant.
Wastewater Treatment System
7.3StormDrainage System
The volume of stormwater is directly related to the amount of imperviousarea within a
development. The percentage of impervious surfaces from developing Phase I will slightly
decrease from 46 percent impervious to 37 percentimpervious.
After the development of the totalProjectthe percent imperviouswill slightly increase.The
existing developmentis 56.7 percent impervious, while thetotalProjectsite is estimated to
be59.3 percentimpervious. This increase will cause a slight increase in stormwater flows.
Stormwater runoff is regulated by the City’s National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. The City’s NPDES Permit specifies that redevelopment projects
are subject to Provision C3. Provision C3will require the Project developers to implement
BMPs and low impact development (LID) techniques employing landscape based treatment
measures. With the implementation of the requirements of Provision C3,the slightincrease
instormwaterflow resulting from the developing the total Project will be mitigated. It is
anticipated that the Project will not have an impact on the existing storm drainage system.
FINAL – January 201133
pw://Carollo/Documents/Client/CA/South SF/8543A00/Deliverables/OPSB_Study.doc (Draft)
7.4Recommended Improvements
The recommended improvements required to mitigate impacts from Phase I and thetotal
Projectandthe identified party responsible for implementing them, aresummarized in
Table 8.
Table 8 Recommended Improvements
Oyster Point Redevelopment Utilities Study
Lamphier - Gregory
System
Phase I
Improvements
Total Project
(Phases Ito VI)Responsible Party
16-inch Diameter
Water Main None None N/A
On-Site Water
Distribution System
12-inch Diameter
Distribution
Pipeline
12-inch Diameter
Distribution LoopDeveloper
Water Supply System
Development of
0.09mgdof
supply(1)
Development of
0.47 mgd of
supply(1)
California Water
Service Company
(CWSC)
Wastewater Collection
System None
Upsize Oyster
Point Subtrunk,
Upsize Pump
Station No. 2
City of South San
Francisco
Wastewater Treatment
System NoneNoneN/A
Storm Drainage
System
Low Impact
Develop and Best
Management
Practices per
Provision C3 of the
NPDES Permit
Low Impact
Develop and Best
Management
Practices per
Provision C3 of the
NPDES Permit
Developer
Notes:
1.Development of the new supply sources will be through CWSC’s implementationof
theIntegrated LongTerm Supply Plan(ILTSP).
Lamphier -Gregory
APPENDIX A –PROVISION C3 NPDES PERMIT
NO. CAS612008