BCDC app SupplementalInfoDoc 20170303 5. CEQA IS-MND.pdf1,600-foot (500 meter) open-water safety zone shall be maintained. ... mammal safety zone may change based on the findings of

Wharves 3 and 4 Fender Replacement Project A5-1 ESA / 150621 BCDC Permit Application March 2017

Attachment 5 CEQA IS/MND

PORT OF REDWOOD CITY WHARVES 3 AND 4 FENDER REPLACEMENT PROJECT

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared for December 2016 Port of Redwood City

PORT OF REDWOOD CITY WHARVES 3 AND 4 FENDER REPLACEMENT PROJECT

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Prepared for December 2016 Port of Redwood City

550 Kearny Street Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 415.896.5900 www.esassoc.com

Irvine

Los Angeles

Oakland

Orlando

Palm Springs

Petaluma

Portland

Sacramento

San Diego

Seattle

Tampa

Woodland Hills

D150621

http://www.esassoc.com/

OUR COMMITMENT TO SUSTAINABILITY | ESA helps a variety of public and private sector clients plan and prepare for climate change and emerging regulations that limit GHG emissions. ESA is a registered assessor with the California Climate Action Registry, a Climate Leader, and founding reporter for the Climate Registry. ESA is also a corporate member of the U.S. Green Building Council and the Business Council on Climate Change (BC3). Internally, ESA has adopted a Sustainability Vision and Policy Statement and a plan to reduce waste and energy within our operations. This document was produced using recycled paper.

Wharves 3 and 4 Fender Replacement Project 1 ESA / 150621 Mitigated Negative Declaration December 2016

Mitigated Negative Declaration

Date of this Notice: December 14, 2016

Lead Agency: Port of Redwood City 675 Seaport Boulevard

Redwood City, CA 94063

Project Title: Port of Redwood City Wharves 3 and 4 Fender Replacement Project Project Sponsor: Port of Redwood City Contact Person: Don Snaman Telephone: 650-306-4150

Project Location: Port of Redwood City 675 Seaport Boulevard Redwood City, CA 94063 City and County: City of Redwood City, San Mateo County

Project Description: The Port of Redwood City is proposing to replace the fender systems at Wharves 3 and 4, which have been degraded since their original construction in the 1980s. Fender systems typically consist of timber fender piles at the face of the wharf with energy absorbing fenders between the timber fender piles and the wharf. In addition, the Port is proposing to replace the damaged steel truss walkways that connect the two wharves. The existing timber, steel, and rubber fender systems at the faces of Wharves 3 and 4 would be demolished and removed, including approximately 111 creosote-treated timber piles. New pile supported dolphins would be installed near the face of Wharf 3 and at the corners of the wharf. The new dolphins would be supported by an estimated nine (9) new 66-inch diameter steel pipe monopiles. Seven (7) of the dolphins would be installed through the deck of Wharf 3, requiring a portion of the concrete deck to be demolished to allow for pile installation. The concrete deck would be replaced subsequent to installation of the piles. Two (2) dolphins would be installed outside the deck at the north and south corners of Wharf 3. No new piles are proposed at Wharf 4 as the existing dolphins are sufficient to support the new fenders and adequately transfer berthing loads to the soils. The new fender system at Wharf 4 would consist of a pair of energy absorbing rubber fenders that would be mounted to the face of each of the six (6) existing dolphins using epoxy anchors. A new access pier system is proposed to connect the end dolphins of Wharf 3 to Wharf 4 to replace the existing walkways. The new access pier would likely consist of two (2) approximately 120-foot lengths of steel pile supported walkways. The new access pier would provide pedestrian access between the vessels as well as ship-to-shore access. The new access pier system would be supported by approximately ten (10) new 30-inch steel pipe piles. The walkways would be 10 feet wide, framed with steel, and would be decked with a grating type material to allow light penetration to the water surface. The project also includes minor repairs to the existing concrete structures supporting the wharves. These repairs would likely consist of spall repairs and coating repairs to hardware. The Port of Redwood City, serving as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), is completing the required environmental review for the proposed project pursuant to CEQA, prior to approval of the project. In accordance with Section 15071 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Port has prepared an Initial Study to determine the potential environmental consequences of approval and implementation of the project.

Basis for Mitigated Negative Declaration Recommendation: The Port of Redwood City finds that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures have been added to the project that avoid or reduce all impacts to a less than significant level. This determination is based upon the criteria of the Guidelines of the State Secretary for Resources Sections 15064 (Determining the Significance of the Environmental Effects Caused by a Project), 15065 (Mandatory Findings of Significance), and 15070 (Decision to Prepare a Negative or Mitigated Negative Declaration), and the mitigation measures listed below. Mitigation Measures: Mitigation measures are included in this project to avoid potentially significant effects.

Air Quality

Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Implement BAAQMD Basic Mitigation Measures. The Applicant and/or its construction contractors shall comply with the following applicable BAAQMD basic control measures during project construction:

1. Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) two times per day.

2. Cover all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site.

3. Remove all visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. Limit all vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.

5. Pave all roadways, driveways, and sidewalks as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Minimize idling times either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. Maintain and properly tune all construction equipment tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.

8. Post a publicly visible sign 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.

Biological Resources

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Pile Driving.

• To the extent feasible all piles (30-inch and 66-inch) will be installed using a vibratory hammer. Vibratory pile installation will be conducted in accordance with the USACE’s “Proposed Additional Procedures and Criteria for Permitting Projects Under a Programmatic Determination of Not Likely to Adversely Affect Select Listed Species in California.1”

• The Applicant and/or its construction contractors shall limit construction-related sound exposure to 206 dB peak and 187 dB accumulated SEL for all listed fish weighing two grams or more. Conditions during all pile driving shall be monitored at approximately 33 feet (10 meters) for the first five piles driven or for two full days of pile driving, whichever is greater, to ensure that sound

1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2013. Proposed Additional Procedures and Criteria for Permitting Projects Under a Programmatic Determination of Not Likely to Adversely Affect Select Listed Species in California (the 2013 NLAA Program). August 13, 2013.



pressure levels comply with the sound thresholds. In the event of use of an impact hammer, or observed exceedance of the sound thresholds, a cushion, bubble curtain, jetting, or other sound attenuation method will be utilized to reduce sound levels. If sound level criteria are still exceeded with the use of attenuation methods, the contractor will revise sound attenuation methods and monitor an additional five piles or for two days of driving, whichever is greater, until demonstration of compliance is obtained, and the demonstrated methods shall be used for the remainder of the pile driving.

• If attenuation methods fail to reduce sound levels below NMFS thresholds for marine mammal

harassment (160 dB root-mean-square sound pressure level [RMS] or greater for impulse sounds [e.g., impact pile driving] and 120 dB RMS for continuous noise [e.g., vibratory pile driving]) a 1,600-foot (500 meter) open-water safety zone shall be maintained. At the discretion of the resource agencies (USACE and NMFS in particular), the size or configuration of the marine mammal safety zone may change based on the findings of sound attenuation monitoring that will be performed during pile driving.

• Work activities shall be halted when a marine mammal enters the 1,600-foot safety zone and resume only after the animal has been gone from the area for a minimum of 15 minutes.

• A “soft start” technique shall be employed when initiating impact pile driving to provide marine mammals the opportunity to vacate the area.

• A NMFS-approved biological monitor will conduct daily surveys before and during impact hammer pile driving to inspect the work zone and adjacent waters for marine mammals. The monitor will be present as specified by NMFS during the impact pile-driving phases of construction.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Bird Protection. Prior to proposed construction activities that have the potential to result in impacts on nesting birds, the Port of Redwood City shall take the following steps to avoid direct losses of active nests, eggs, and nestlings and indirect impacts to avian breeding success:

• During the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall survey construction areas in the vicinity of the project area for nesting raptors and passerine birds not more than 14 days prior start of construction. Surveys shall include all potential habitats within 500 feet (for raptors) of activities and all on-site vegetation including bare ground within 250 feet of activities (for all other species).

• If construction activities occur only during the non-breeding season, between August 31 and February 1, no surveys shall be required.

• Results of the surveys shall be forwarded to CDFW (if results are positive for nesting birds) and avoidance procedures shall be adopted, if necessary, on a case-by-case basis. These may include construction buffer areas (up to 250 feet in the case of raptors due to the existing conditions) or seasonal avoidance.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Construction Activities. Construction activities shall avoid or minimize adverse effects on jurisdictional waters to the full extent feasible. Specifically:

• Any jurisdictional salt marsh areas across the Redwood Creek channel shall be protected by setbacks throughout project construction. The Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals (Goals Project, 1999) recommend a minimum 300-foot marsh buffer be incorporated into project design wherever possible and recommend an absolute minimum buffer of 100 feet where existing uses preclude the establishment of larger buffers.

• To prevent sediment from any construction activities on the upland portion of the site from entering drainages or the Redwood Creek channel, equipment such as backhoes and cranes used


for sediment removal of material or debris shall operate from dry land where possible. Construction operations within the Redwood Creek channel shall be barge-mounted or utilize other water-based equipment such as scows, derrick barges, and tugs.

• In addition, BMPs to avoid impacts to water quality resulting from open water construction activities that are identified in the Long-term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region (LTMS) (USACE, 2001) shall be implemented. These BMPs include silt fencing and gunderbooms, or other appropriate methods, for keeping dredged materials or other sediments from leaving the Study Area.

Cultural Resources

Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources. If prehistoric or historic-era cultural resources are encountered by construction personnel during project implementation, the Port shall halt all construction activities within 100 feet until a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, can assess the significance of the find.

If it is determined that the project could damage a historical resources or unique archaeological resource, construction shall cease in an area determined by the archaeologist until a mitigation plan has been prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the archaeologist (and Native American representative if the resource is prehistoric, who will be identified by the Native American Heritage Commission [NAHC]).

The mitigation plan shall recommend preservation in place, as a preference, or, if preservation in place is not feasible, data recovery through excavation. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one of the following means: (1) modifying the construction plan to avoid the resource; (2) incorporating the resource within open space; (3) capping and covering the resource before building appropriate facilities on the resource site; or (4) deeding the resource site into a permanent conservation easement. If preservation in place is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan to recover the scientifically consequential information from the resource prior to any excavation at the resource site. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not necessarily be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. If potential human remains are encountered, all work will halt within 100 feet of the find and the Port will be contacted by onsite construction crews. The Port will contact the San Mateo County coroner in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the NAHC. As provided in PRC Section 5097.98, the NAHC will identify the person or persons believed most likely to be descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent will make recommendations for means of treating, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98.

Geology and Soils

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: A site-specific, design level geotechnical investigation for the proposed project site shall be required as part of this project. The investigation shall include an analysis of expected ground motions at the site from known active faults. The analyses shall be in accordance with the Redwood City Building and Inspection Department requirements and meet or exceed the most recent version of the California Building Code, which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. In addition, the investigations shall determine final design parameters for the proposed new piles, including the appropriate depth of completion, and any surrounding related improvements. The investigation shall be reviewed and approved by a state registered geotechnical engineer


or engineering geologist. All recommendations by the project engineer and geotechnical engineer shall be included in the final design.

With adoption of the proposed mitigation measures, this project could not have a significant effect on the environment and an environmental impact report is not required. A reporting or monitoring program must be adopted for measures to mitigate significant impacts at the time the Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved, in accord with the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.

Michael J. Giari Executive Director Port of Redwood City

Signature Date

This page intentionally left blank

Wharves 3 and 4 Fender Replacement Project i ESA / 150621 Initial Study December 2016

TABLE OF CONTENTS Port of Redwood City Wharves 3 and 4 Fender Replacement Project Initial Study

Page

Initial Study 1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 2

I. Project Description 3 1. Overview 3 2. Project Site 3 3. Project Vicinity 6 4. Proposed Project 7 5. Permits and Approvals Required 11

II Environmental Checklist 13 1. Aesthetics 13 2. Agriculture and Forest Resources 15 3. Air Quality 16 4. Biological Resources 21 5. Cultural Resources 38 6. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 42 7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 45 8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 48 9. Hydrology and Water Quality 52 10. Land Use and Planning 55 11. Mineral Resources 57 12. Noise 58 13. Population and Housing 61 14. Public Services 62 15. Recreation 64 16. Transportation and Traffic 66 17. Utilities and Service Systems 68 18. Mandatory Findings of Significance 70

List of Figures

1. Project Location 4 2. Port of Redwood City 5 3. Wharves 3 and 4 Design Plan 8 4. Walkway Plan 10 5. CNDDB Occurrences in the Port of Redwood City Wharves 3 and 4 Fender

Replacement Project Study Area 23

Table of Contents

Page

Wharves 3 and 4 Fender Replacement Project ii ESA / 150621 Initial Study December 2016

List of Tables

3-1 Construction Daily Criteria Pollutant Emissions (ppd) 19

Wharves 3 and 4 Fender Replacement Project 1 ESA / 150621 Initial Study December 2016

PORT OF REDWOOD CITY WHARVES 3 AND 4 FENDER REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study

1. Project Title: Port of Redwood City Wharves 3 and 4 Fender Replacement Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Port of Redwood City 675 Seaport Boulevard Redwood City, CA 94063

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Mr. Michael J. Giari Executive Director 650-306-4150

4. Project Location: Port of Redwood City 675 Seaport Boulevard Redwood City, CA 94063

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Port of Redwood City 675 Seaport Boulevard Redwood City, CA 94063

6. General Plan Designation(s): Industrial-Port Related

7. Zoning Designation(s): GI (General Industrial) 8. Description of Project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to

later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)

See attached.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting. (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings.)

See attached.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement. Indicate whether another agency is a responsible or trustee agency.)

Responsible Agencies: Bay Area Air Quality Management District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission


Environmental Factors Potentially Affected

The proposed project could potentially affect the environmental factor(s) checked below. The following pages present a more detailed checklist and discussion of each environmental factor.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology, Soils and Seismicity

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality

Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population and Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial study:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, no further environmental documentation is required.

Signature Date Printed Name For


CHAPTER I Project Description

1. Overview

The Port of Redwood City is proposing to replace the fender systems at Wharves 3 and 4, which have been degraded since their original construction in the 1980s. Fender systems typically consist of timber fender piles at the face of the wharf with energy absorbing fenders between the timber fender piles and the wharf. In addition, the Port is proposing to replace the damaged steel truss walkways that connect the two wharves. Figures 1 and 2 show the regional location of the Port.

2. Project Site

The Port of Redwood City (Port) is a publicly-owned commercial port located 18 nautical miles south of San Francisco and is the only deepwater port in the southern San Francisco Bay. A deepwater port is any port that can accommodate a Panamax-class ship (defined as any ship that will fit through the Panama Canal). Access to the Port is provided via the Redwood Creek channel, a federally funded navigation area that is dredged periodically by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and maintained at -30 feet mean lower low water (MLLW).

The Port has been involved in shipping bulk and neo-bulk commodities since 1937 and currently handles inbound cargoes which include cement, sand/gravel aggregates, bauxite and gypsum, among other commodities. Outbound commodities consist primarily of recycled metals. Approximately 75 percent of the Port’s revenue is related to maritime activity while the remainder is derived from commercial leasing and marina operations. The Port specializes in international dry bulk, break bulk, and project cargoes. A federally authorized 30-foot deep channel from south of the San Mateo Bridge to the Port is used for ocean-going ships and tug/barge vessel traffic.

The project site consists of the two over-water wharves and the adjacent upland roads and parking areas. Wharves 3 and 4 were built in the 1980s and consist of pile-supported concrete structures designed to allow for cargo vessel access, mooring, and loading/unloading, predominantly of scrap metal and dry bulk cargo. The over-water wharves connect to a reinforced shoreline (including seawall and rip-rap armoring) along the open waters of Redwood Creek. Wharves 3 and 4 are currently used to offload gypsum, bauxite, and to load shredded scrap metal. The adjacent roads and parking areas are a combination of paved and compacted dirt surfaces.

SAN MATEO

BELMONT

SAN CARLOS

FOSTERCITY

REDWOOD CITY

BairIsland

GrecoIsland

EAST PALO ALTO

MenloPark

PALO ALTO

114

109

84

84

82

280

101

San Francisco Bay

El Camino Real

Redwoo

d Sho

res

Pkwy

San

Carlos Ave

Mar

sh R

d Bay Rd

Rd

Broadway

Rd

Seap

ort B

lvd

Blvd

VeteransBritt

an Ave

Alameda

delas

Pulgas

Whipple Ave

Brewste

r Ave

Roosevelt

Ave

Jeffe

rson A

ve

Farm

HillBlvd

Edgewood

Athe

rton

Ave

Selby

Ln

Woo

dsid

e

Univers

ity Av

e

ProjectLocation

0 1

Mile

Wharves 3 & 4 Fender Replacement . 150621Figure 1

Project LocationSOURCE: Thomas Bros. Maps; ESA

ProjectLocation

N

FREMONT

SANRAMON

WALNUTCREEK

ALAMEDA

DALYCITY

BERKELEY

EMERYVILLEEMERYVILLE

REDWOODCITY

SANMATEO

OAKLAND

HILLSBOROUGH

HAYWARD

MOUNTAINVIEW

PacificOcean

SanFrancisco

Bay

SANFRANCISCO

280880

580

68080

101

Redw

ood C

reek

Seap

ort B

lvd

U.S. 101U.S. 101

Bair IslandBair Island

Wharves 3 & 4Wharves 3 & 4

Seap

ort B

lvd

PacificShoresOffice

Complex

PacificShoresOffice

Complex

Wharves 3 & 4 Fender Replacement . 150621Figure 2

Port of Redwood CitySOURCE: Google Maps; ESA

0 2,000

Feet

I. Project Description


Wharf 3, constructed in 1984-1985 to replace a timber wharf, is approximately 455 feet by 43.5 feet. It consists of a concrete deck supported by plumb and battered prestressed concrete piles. The deck consists of concrete pile cap girders running transversely to the wharf at 20-foot spacings. The pile cap supports prestressed deck plank sections topped with a cast-in-place concrete slab. Mooring cleats and double mooring bollards run along the face of the wharf. The wharf, designed to accommodate 60,000 deadweight tons (DWT) vessels, is equipped with a continuous timber fender system.

Wharf 4 is composed of a reinforced concrete wharf deck, approximately 81.5 feet by 47 feet, supplemented by six breasting dolphins spaced approximately 100 feet apart. The reinforced concrete breasting dolphins, approximately 24 feet by 22 feet, are connected to the wharf via concrete bridge decks as well as steel truss walkways. The steel walkways also tie into Wharf 3 as part of a continuous fender line. The wharf deck is connected to the shore by a 26-foot-wide reinforced concrete access trestle. All Wharf 4 structures are supported by plumb and battered 18 inch square precast, prestressed concrete piles. Mooring cleats and double mooring bollards run along the face of the wharf. Similar to Wharf 3, Wharf 4 was designed to accommodate 60,000 DWT vessels with the wharf, dolphins, and bridges equipped with fender systems.

The project site is designated Industrial-Port Related by the City of Redwood City General Plan, and is zoned GI (General Industrial). The operations at the Port are also subject to the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s (BCDC) San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan.

3. Project Vicinity

Immediately north of the project site are the Port’s Wharves 1 and 2; lands to the south along the waterfront includes a small public access area and Wharf 5. Lands to the east of the site are occupied by various Port tenants, including Sims Metal and Pabco Gypsum. Immediately west of the site are the open waters of Redwood Creek. Across Redwood Creek is the eastern shoreline of Bair Island, approximately 650 feet from the outermost edge of Wharf 3.

Other Port facilities located south of Wharf 5 include the Portside I and II commercial office complexes. Located at 460-509 Seaport Court, the commercial properties encompass 90,000 square feet. Services surrounding the facilities include a conference center, waterfront public access, viewing areas, picnic areas, fishing pier, and parking.

The Port also contains a 190-berth municipal small-boat marina, the Spinnaker Sailing School, Sequoia Yacht Club, and dry boat storage facilities. A small number of local residents inhabit the mobile home community southeast of Seaport Boulevard and also reside in some of the boats in the 40-slip Redwood Landing marina, adjacent to the Portside I office complex.

Other residential areas near the Port include the Downtown, Middlefield, Ampex and Friendly Acres neighborhoods. Land uses in these neighborhoods include mixed residential, commercial, and industrial uses. Northeast of the Port is the 106-acre Pacific Shores Center, a cluster of ten four- to five-story commercial buildings encompassing over 1.5 million square feet of office



space. The Pacific Shores Center also includes surface parking areas, recreational facilities, landscaped areas and public shoreline access. To the west, north, and northeast of the Port are 30,000 acres of saltwater marshes, mudflats, and vernal pool habitats that comprise the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The wetlands are distributed amongst the Inner, Middle and Outer Bair Islands to the west and Greco Island to the north and northeast. Cargill’s Industrial Salt Plant Site is located south of the Pacific Shores Center.

The main road that provides access to the Port from U.S. Highway 101 is Seaport Boulevard, which runs parallel to the Port in a north-south direction. Herkner Road and Hinman Road provide direct access to Wharves 3 and 4 via Frontage Road, a two-lane road adjacent to Seaport Boulevard. The Port connects to inland transportation networks via U.S. Highway 101 and Union Pacific Railroad.

4. Proposed Project

The fender systems at Wharves 3 and 4 have degraded due to age, abrasion, and marine borer attack. The fender systems are at the end of their useful lives and no longer are functioning as intended. To support continued vessel operations the Port is proposing to replace the fender systems at both wharves. In addition, the Port is proposing to replace the damaged steel truss walkways that connect the two wharves. The proposed project consists of the following major elements:

4.1 Wharf 3 Replacement Dolphins

The existing timber, steel, and rubber fender systems at the face of Wharf 3 would be demolished and removed, including approximately 49 creosote-treated timber piles. Materials will either be recycled or disposed at appropriate land fill facilities. New pile supported dolphins would be installed near the face of the wharf and at the corners of the wharf. The new dolphins would be supported by an estimated nine (9) new 66-inch diameter steel pipe monopiles. The spacing between dolphins alternates between 50 and 70 feet. Piles would be installed with a vibratory hammer where possible. If piles cannot be installed to tip elevation with a vibratory hammer alone, an impact hammer would be used. The dolphins will be outfitted with energy absorbing rubber fenders and ultra-high molecular weight (UHMW) polyethylene faced steel fender panels. Seven (7) of the dolphins would be installed through the deck of Wharf 3, requiring a portion of the concrete deck to be demolished to allow for pile installation. The concrete deck would be replaced subsequent to installation of the piles. Two (2) dolphins would be installed outside the deck at the north and south corners of the existing wharf. The new dolphins will be isolated structurally from the wharf such that berthing loads will only be resisted by the new dolphins. See Figure 3, Wharves 3 and 4 Design Plan.

Wharves 3 & 4 Fender Replacement . 150621

Figure 3Wharves 3 and 4 Design Plan

SOURCE: COWI



4.2 Wharf 4 Replacement Fenders

The existing timber, steel, and rubber fender systems at the face of Wharf 4 would be demolished and removed, including approximately 62 creosote-treated timber piles. Materials will either be recycled or disposed at appropriate land fill facilities. The new fender system at Wharf 4 would consist of a pair of energy absorbing rubber fenders that would be mounted to the face of each of the six (6) existing dolphins using epoxy anchors. The fenders would be outfitted with panels and chains. No new piles are proposed at Wharf 4 as the existing dolphins are sufficient to support the new fenders and adequately transfer berthing loads to the soils. See Figure 3.

4.3 Replacement Walkways

A new access pier system is proposed to connect the end dolphins of Wharf 3 to Wharf 4 to replace the existing walkways. The new access pier would likely consist of two (2) approximately 120-foot lengths of steel pile supported walkways. The new access pier would provide pedestrian access between the vessels as well as ship-to-shore access. The new access pier system would be supported by approximately ten (10) new 30-inch steel pipe piles. Similar to the pile installation proposed at Wharf 3, vibratory hammers would be used where feasible. If piles cannot be installed to tip elevation with a vibratory hammer alone, an impact hammer would be used. The walkways would be 10 feet wide, framed with steel, and would be decked with a grating type material to allow light penetration to the water surface. See Figure 4, Walkway Plan. Three (3) twelve-foot-tall light poles with directional lighting would provide lighting for worker safety and security. Two poles would be added on both sides of dolphin 6 and another on dolphin 7.

4.4 Other Work

The project also includes minor repairs to the existing concrete structures supporting the wharves. These repairs would likely consist of spall repairs and coating repairs to hardware.

4.5 Construction

Major materials would be delivered by barge and heavy lifting would be supported by a floating derrick due to access constraints on-shore. A support crane may provide assistance from on-shore. Smaller material deliveries and support equipment would be provided via land. Roads and parking areas adjacent to the wharves may be utilized for construction staging and access. Construction is estimated to take approximately five months, with about 100 days of in-water work.

In order to avoid and/or minimize potential impacts to jurisdictional waters and water quality, the following standard construction best management practices (BMPs) would be implemented by the project. These measures would be subject to modification and additions based upon regulatory and resource agency review:

• No debris, rubbish, creosote-treated wood, soil, silt, sand, cement, concrete, or washings thereof, or other construction-related materials or wastes, oil, or petroleum products shall be allowed to enter into or placed where it would be subject to erosion by rain, wind, or waves and enter into jurisdictional waters.

Wharves 3 & 4 Fender Replacement . 150621

Figure 4Walkway Plan

SOURCE: COWI



No fresh concrete or concrete washings shall enter the water.

Protective measures will be utilized to prevent accidental discharges to waters during fueling, cleaning, and maintenance.

Floating booms shall be used to contain debris discharged into waters and any debris shall be removed as soon as possible, and no later than the end of each workday.

Machinery or construction materials not essential for project improvements shall not be allowed at any time in the intertidal zone. The construction contracts shall be responsible for checking daily tide and current reports.

The Port shall implement silt control measures during the rainy season and will monitor these measures for effectiveness, conducting repairs and placement as needed. Buildup of soil behind silt fences shall be removed promptly and any breaches or undermined areas shall be repaired immediately.

The Port shall have a spill contingency plan for hazardous waste spills into the San Francisco Bay. The plan shall include floating booms and absorbent materials to recover hazardous wastes. Non-buoyant debris discharged into waters shall be recovered (by divers) as soon as possible after discharge.

To reduce potential effects to biological resources, the Port will implement the following measures:

To prevent the spread of invasive species, all equipment that may have come into contact with invasive plants or their seeds shall be cleaned before arriving on-site will be cleaned before removal from the site.

To reduce pile-driving noise levels below established injury/harm thresholds (such as 206 decibels [dB] peak; 187 dB sound exposure level [SEL]), the Port shall implement one or more of the following as needed:

Use vibratory methods for installation to the extent practicable

Use cushion blocks between hammer and piles

Implement a “soft start” technique

Use bubble curtains

5. Permits and Approvals Required

The project site is located within the Port of Redwood City’s land use jurisdiction; thus, the Port of Redwood City (Port) is the Lead Agency responsible for adoption of the mitigated negative declaration. The project site is not located within any other special use districts, overlay districts, or habitat conservation plans. The following permits or approvals are anticipated to be required from the following Responsible Agencies:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Nationwide Permit 3 (Section 10/404)

San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board: Section 401 Certification/WDRs



San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC): Abbreviated Regionwide Permit #3 or Non-Material Amendment to Existing BCDC Permit

California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service: Informal consultations under Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act, Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, and the Marine Mammal Protection Act

State Historic Preservation Office: Consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act


CHAPTER II Environmental Checklist

1. Aesthetics

Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporation

Less Than Significant

Impact No Impact

1. AESTHETICS — Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?

Discussion

There are no designated scenic vistas in the project vicinity; therefore no impact would occur.

a) According to the State of California Scenic Highway Mapping System, there are four Eligible and Designated State Scenic Highways within San Mateo County. The nearest scenic highway is Interstate I-280, which is an Officially Designated State Scenic Highway, located 5 miles west of the project site (Caltrans, 2015). Due to proximity to the site and the developed uses in between I-280 and the site, the project site is not visible from I-280; therefore, no impacts from a state scenic highway would occur.

b) The project site is located within the Port of Redwood City, which has a heavy industrial and commercial visual character. The wharves exhibit generally low visual quality and lack visually significant geologic, hydrologic, vegetative or unique structural features and exhibit signs of disturbance attributable to heavy industrial uses which further degrade the visual character appearance of the site. The wharves are bordered by Sims Metal and Pabco Gypsum to the east and Wharves 1 and 2 (CEMEX Aggregates) to the north. A small public access area and Wharf 5 are located to the south of the project site. Immediately west of the site are the open waters of Redwood Creek, which connects to the San Francisco Bay. Across Redwood Creek is the eastern shoreline of Bair Island.

II. Environmental Checklist


Throughout the bayfront area, shorelines and open inland areas provide views to marshlands, sloughs, and waterways to the west of the site. However, existing trees along Frontage Road and tenant buildings generally screen views of these features from Seaport Boulevard. Views of the project would largely be unseen from the landside of the wharves. The fender replacement would occur below the deck surface of the wharves with the exception of two new dolphins that would be located on each corner of Wharf 3. The new walkways connecting the wharves would be wider than the existing walkways but it would be sited in the same general position and would utilize an existing dolphin located between the Wharves 3 and 4. While temporary (approximately five months) visual impacts associated with construction equipment could occur, the proposed use of the site would be consistent with the existing industrial and commercial visual character of the site and immediately surrounding area.

Motorists along Frontage Road, Seaport Boulevard and other roads within the Portside I and II office complex would have views of the project site during construction and operation; however, views from vehicles are generally short in duration. In addition, views from much of the surrounding area are likely to be limited due to screening from trees, fencing, and other industrial/commercial structures and buildings in the vicinity. The project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. The impact would be less than significant.

c) The Port, including Wharves 3 and 4, already contain sources of light associated with the existing materials unloading, storage, and handling activities. Lighting is currently provided on the walkways by a light pole on dolphin 5. The project would add three twelve-foot-tall light poles with downward directional lighting to dolphins 6 and 7 on the replacement walkways for worker safety and security. The additional light generated by the project would not increase the existing lighting at the wharves to an extent that nighttime views would be affected. The impact would be less than significant.

Discussion of Potential Cumulative Impacts

The geographic scope for potential cumulative visual impacts encompasses projects generally within 0.5 mile of the project site that could affect scenic vistas, scenic resources, or the visual character of the area. As noted above, there are no scenic vistas within the vicinity of the proposed project, and therefore, the project, in combination with other pending and developed projects, would not have a significant impact to a scenic vista. As described above, the project would not degrade the visual character of the project site or area, nor would it create a new substantial source of light and glare. Similarly, there are no projects within the cumulative scenario that would together, with the proposed project, result in a cumulatively considerable impact to the visual character to the Port of Redwood City. In addition, there are no projects within the cumulative scenario that would, together with the project, result in a substantial increase of new sources of light or glare. Therefore, the project would result in a less than significant cumulative impact to visual resources.



References

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), 2015. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, San Mateo County. www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/scenic_hwy.htm.

2. Agriculture and Forest Resources



Impact


with Mitigation Incorporation


Impact No Impact

2. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES — In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project:

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Discussion

a – b) There are no designated Williamson Act lands within the project site and the site does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of State Importance as designated by California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The California Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program identifies the project site as Urban and Built-Up Land, which is defined as “…land [that] is used for residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, public administrative purposes, railroad and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.” Because the site does not contain agricultural uses and is not zoned for such uses, the project would not convert any Prime farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of



Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use. The wharves are located 0.3 miles west of Cargill’s Industrial Salt Plant Site that falls under a Williamson Act contract; however the project site itself does not fall under a Williamson Act contract and would not have any impacts on the salt crystallization ponds. Therefore, no impacts regarding a conflict with the conversion of farmland, an agricultural land use, or Williamson Act contract would occur.

c – e) The project site is within a parcel intended for industrial use. The project would not require construction or operation activities that would conflict with existing zoning of forest land or timberland or result in the loss or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. The project would be localized to the project site and would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use. Thus, no significant forest resources or operations would be affected as a result of the project and no impacts would occur.


The proposed project would have no impact on agriculture or forest resources; therefore, it would not contribute to cumulative impacts to these resources.

References

California Department of Conservation, 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, San Mateo County Important Farmland 2014. Map published February 2016.

City of Redwood City, 2010. Redwood City General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available at http://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/community-development-department/planning-housing/planning-services/environmental-documents/general-plan-eir.

City of Redwood City, 2016. Redwood City Zoning Map. Available at www.redwoodcity.org/home/showdocument?id=4721.

3. Air Quality



Impact




Impact No Impact

3. AIR QUALITY — Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?





Impact




Impact No Impact

3. AIR QUALITY — Would the project:

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Discussion

Under amendments to the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has classified air basins or portions thereof as either “attainment” or “non-attainment” for each criteria air pollutant, based on whether or not the national standards have been achieved. The California CAA, which is patterned after the federal CAA, also requires areas to be designated as “attainment” or “non-attainment” for the state standards. Thus, areas in California have two sets of attainment / non-attainment designations: one set with respect to the national standards and one set with respect to the state standards. The San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (Bay Area) is currently designated as a nonattainment area for state and national ozone standards, state particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) standards, and federal PM2.5 (24-hour) standard.

The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) is the regional air quality authority in the project area. The most recently adopted air quality plan for the San Francisco Bay Area is the Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan (BAAQMD, 2010). The 2010 Clean Air Plan (2010 CAP) is an update to the BAAQMD 2005 Ozone Strategy to comply with State air quality planning requirements. The 2010 CAP also serves as a multi-pollutant air quality plan to protect public health and the climate. The 2010 CAP control strategy includes revised and new measures in three categories: stationary sources, mobile sources, and transportation controls measures. In addition, the 2010 CAP identifies two new categories of control strategies: land use/local impact measures and energy/climate measures.

BAAQMD updated CEQA Air Quality Guidelines, including new thresholds of significance in June 2010, and revised them in May 2011. The Air Quality Guidelines advise lead agencies on how to evaluate potential air quality impacts, including establishing quantitative and qualitative thresholds of significance. The BAAQMD resolutions adopting and revising the significance thresholds in 2011 were set aside by a judicial writ of mandate on March 5, 2012.1 In May of 2012, BAAQMD updated its CEQA Air Quality Guidelines to continue to provide direction on

1 The thresholds BAAQMD adopted were called into question by a minute order issued January 9, 2012 in California

Building Industry Association v. BAAQMD, Alameda Superior Court Case No. RGI0548693. The minute order states that “The Court finds [BAAQMD’s adoption of thresholds] is a CEQA project, the court makes no further findings or rulings.” The claims made in the case concerned the CEQA impacts of adopting the thresholds, particularly, how the thresholds would affect land use development patterns. Petitioners argued that the thresholds for Health Risk Assessments encompassed issues not addressed by CEQA.



recommended analysis methodologies, but without recommended quantitative significance thresholds (BAAQMD, 2012). On August 13, 2013, the First District Court of Appeal ordered the trial court to reverse the judgment and upheld the BAAQMD’s CEQA thresholds.2 Subsequently, the First District Court of Appeal’s decision was appealed to the California Supreme Court, which granted review and is currently considering the matter.3 BAAQMD has not formally reinstated these thresholds considering that the trial court’s order remains in place pending final resolution of the lawsuit.

To determine the potential impacts of the project, the air quality impact analysis below uses thresholds of the BAAQMD previously adopted in the 2011 update to the CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. While the significance thresholds adopted by BAAQMD in 2011 cannot currently be recommended by the BAAQMD, these thresholds are nonetheless based on substantial evidence identified in BAAQMD’s 2009 Justification Report and are therefore used within this document. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15064.7 [thresholds of significance must be based on substantial evidence].)

a) The most recently adopted air quality plan in the Bay Area is the BAAQMD’s 2010 Clean Air Plan (CAP) (BAAQMD, 2010). The 2010 CAP is a roadmap showing how the San Francisco Bay Area will achieve compliance with the State one-hour ozone standard as expeditiously as practicable, and how the region will reduce transport of ozone and ozone precursors to neighboring air basins. The control strategy includes stationary source control measures to be implemented through BAAQMD regulations; mobile source control measures to be implemented through incentive programs and other activities; and transportation control measures to be implemented through transportation programs in cooperation with the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), local governments, transit agencies, and others. The 2010 CAP also represents the Bay Area’s most recent triennial assessment of the region’s strategy to attain the State one-hour ozone standard.

BAAQMD guidance states that “if approval of a project would not result in significant and unavoidable air quality impacts, after the application of all feasible mitigation, the project would be considered consistent with the 2010 CAP.” As indicated in the discussion of criteria “b” and “c” below, the project would not result in significant air quality impacts. This impact is less than significant.

b) Construction

Construction would involve the use of a barge-mounted crane, intermittent tug boat operations to maneuver the barge, generators, welders and air compressors over approximately 100 work days. A vibratory pile driver and potentially an impact pile driver would be used over an estimated 11 days of pile driving activity during the overall construction period. Additionally, there would be worker vehicle and truck trips as well

2 California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., Case No. A135335 & A136212 (Court of

Appeal, First District, August 13, 2013) 3 California Building Industry Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist., Case No. S213478 (California Supreme Court,

case started September 20, 2013)



as vendor truck trips to deliver concrete and other materials. Emissions from all of these construction emission sources were estimated using the CalEEMod emission estimator model version 2013.2.2. Table 3-1 summarizes the project’s construction emissions. BAAQMD’s thresholds for PM10 and PM2.5 are for exhaust emissions only. BAAQMD construction thresholds represent average daily emissions. Construction emissions would be less than significant for all pollutants.

TABLE 3-1 CONSTRUCTION DAILY CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSIONS (ppd)

Emissions Category ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5

Total Emissions 3.6 23.9 1.6 1.6

BAAQMD Thresholds 54 54 82 54

Exceed Thresholds? No No No No

NOTE: Pounds per day estimates are based on CalEEMod annual emissions in tons per year divided by 100 days of construction. BAAQMD’s threshold for PM10 and PM2.5 are for exhaust emissions only.

Implementation of BAAQMD basic control measures for fugitive dust, which are recommended for every construction project, would reduce impacts associated with fugitive dust emissions to less than significant.

Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Implement BAAQMD Basic Mitigation Measures.

The Applicant and/or its construction contractors shall comply with the following applicable BAAQMD basic control measures during project construction:

1. Water all exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) two times per day.

2. Cover all haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site.

3. Remove all visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.

4. Limit all vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.

5. Pave all roadways, driveways, and sidewalks as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.

6. Minimize idling times either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.

7. Maintain and properly tune all construction equipment tuned in accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.



8. Post a publicly visible sign 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.

Operation

The proposed project involves the replacement and improvement of fenders, dolphins, and walkways at the existing Wharves 3 and 4 related to natural deterioration of the facilities since their original construction in the 1980s. Therefore, the project would not result in increased throughput at the wharves that could potentially result in increased operational emissions above existing conditions.

c) According to the BAAQMD, no single project is sufficient in size, by itself, to result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards for regional criteria pollutants. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts. Many projects throughout San Francisco Bay area have been identified as having significant and unavoidable operational and construction-related regional pollutant impacts. Consequently, for assessment of cumulative regional pollutant impacts, BAAQMD has developed a methodology of assessing whether a project would have a cumulatively considerable contribution. According to the BAAQMD Justification Report, if a project exceeds the identified significance thresholds, its emissions would be cumulatively considerable, resulting in significant adverse air quality impacts to the region’s existing air quality conditions (BAAQMD, 2009).

As described in criterion “b” above, the project would not exceed the BAAQMD’s ROG, NOx, PM10, or PM2.5 significance thresholds. Thus, the project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in relation to ROG, NOx, PM10, PM2.5, and CO.

d) The project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. The nearest sensitive receptors would be residents living on boats at the Redwood Landing marina. The closest boat is about 1,350 feet south of Wharf 4. These marine receptors would be beyond the BAAQMD-recommended 1,000 foot zone of influence and would not be exposed to substantial toxic air contaminants (TACs) and PM2.5

concentrations from construction activities. Consequently, the project would not result in a significant health risk nor expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

e) The project would not include uses identified by BAAQMD as potential sources of objectionable odors. Therefore, operation of the project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. Odor impacts would be less than significant.


The geographic scope for cumulative impacts related to air quality is the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, under the jurisdiction of BAAQMD. Development under the project area, combined with cumulative development citywide, including past, present, existing, approved, pending, and



reasonably foreseeable future development in the project area, would result in less than significant cumulative air quality impacts. As discussed in criteria a, b, and c above, the proposed project would not make a contribution to cumulatively considerable impacts regarding implementation of the Clean Air Plan, and the project would have a less than significant cumulative impact in relation to air quality standards including ROG, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5.

The project would have individually less than cumulatively significant impacts on sensitive receptors. Furthermore, the project would not contribute to cumulatively significant impacts on sensitive receptors. The nearest sensitive receptors would be residents living on boats at the Redwood Landing marina well beyond the BAAQMD-recommended 1,000 foot zone of influence for TAC analysis. The project would not generate cumulatively considerable TAC emissions that could impact sensitive receptors.

The project would not include uses identified by BAAQMD as potential sources of objectionable odors, and no cumulatively significant impact would occur regarding this topic.

References

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report, California Environmental Quality Act, Thresholds of Significance, October 2009.

BAAQMD, 2010. Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan, adopted September 15, 2010. http://www.baaqmd.gov.

BAAQMD, 2012, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2012. http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ceqa/ceqa_guide.pdf.

4. Biological Resources



Impact




Impact No Impact

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?





Impact




Impact No Impact

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the project:

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

Discussion

This section describes the existing biological resources within the vicinity of Wharves 3 and 4. Information used in preparation of this section is from a biological reconnaissance survey by ESA biologists in August 2016, and database queries from of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW, 2016), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory (2016), and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS, 2016). In addition, ESA reviewed and incorporated applicable information from the following resources:

• Redwood City Wharves 1 and 2 Redevelopment Project Draft EIR (ESA, 2010)

• Star Concrete Batch Plant Project Initial Study (ESA, 2016)

• Redwood City Ferry Terminal Biological Resources Assessment (WRA, 2007)

The project site and immediate surrounding areas are herein referred to as the “Study Area,” which is also displayed on Figure 5. Habitat quality and species distribution were considered in evaluating the likelihood of special-status species occurrence in the vicinity of the project site.

Habitat Types Past and ongoing development and other human activities have altered natural vegetative patterns or otherwise limited large expanses of most natural communities along the shore of San Francisco Bay. Habitat types found in the vicinity of the Wharves 3 and 4 include shallow bay and channel, tidal flat, rocky shore (riprap), annual grassland, and developed and ruderal (disturbed and weedy) areas. Vegetation communities and habitat types occurring within and adjacent to the proposed project area are described below, along with wildlife species typically associated with each community.

The vegetation/habitat classification presented herein is based on field observations and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the CNDDB (CDFW, 2010). Additional habitat classifications were obtained from the Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals (Goals Project, 1999).

STUDY AREA

Seap

ort Bl

vd

Hinman Rd

Herkner

Wharves 3 and 4 Fender Replacement . 150621Figure 5

CNDDB Occurrences in the Port of Redwood City Wharves 3 and 4 Fender Replacement Project Study Area

SOURCE: California Department of Fish and Game

1 Mile Buffer Alameda song sparrow

California clapper rail

California least tern

hoary bat

Northern Coastal Salt Marsh

Point Reyes bird's-beak

northern harrier

salt-marsh harvest mouse

San Francisco garter snake

Santa Cruz kangaroo rat

short-eared owl

western snowy plover

white-tailed kite0 1,000 2,000

Feet



Shallow Bay and Channel

Shallow bay and channel habitats are found where water depth ranges between mean lower lowest water (MLLW) and –18 feet below MLLW. Within the Study Area, this habitat type consists of the tidally influenced Redwood Creek channel, which occurs along the Port of Redwood City waterfront extending northwest to the Study Area boundary. The sediments of shallow bay and channel habitat are generally mud composed of clays and silts. This habitat type supports a diversity of invertebrates and is thus a productive foraging area for a number of fishes that are mentioned below. Birds that use this habitat include western grebe (Aechmophorus occidentalis), canvasback (Aythya valisineria), surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), ruddy duck (Oxyura jamaicensis), and Forster’s tern (Sterna forsteri), among others. Harbor seal (Phoca vitulina) and California sea lion (Zalophus californianus) can also be found in these shallower waters.

Tidal Flat

Tidal mud flats occur at the fringes of salt marsh areas or in channels within salt marshes. Within the Study Area, mud flats are present between the lowest tides (MLLW) to the mean tide level4 (MTL), and are often submerged. Tidal flats generally lack vascular vegetation. Any tidal flats that might once have existed along the Port of Redwood City shoreline have been displaced by shoreline structures or removed by channel dredging to facilitate ship traffic, but this habitat occurs northwest of the Study Area in the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Shorebirds frequent tidal flats to forage at low tide and include American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), willet (Tringa semipalmata), dunlin (Calidris alpina), black-bellied plover (Pluvialis squatarola), and western sandpiper (Calidris mauri). The federal and State-listed endangered Ridgway’s rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) has been documented in the saltmarsh habitat within and adjacent to the tidal flat habitat of the Don Edwards NWR, across Redwood Creek from the Study Area.

Rocky Shore (Riprap)

Rocky shore occurs beneath the existing wharves and along the majority of the shoreline in the Port of Redwood City. The riprap armored shoreline habitat in the Study Area provides an attachment substrate for marine algae as well as sessile marine organisms such as mussels (Mytilus sp.) and various species of barnacle. Vegetation documented in this habitat includes pickleweed (Salicornia sp.), gumplant (Grindelia sp.), smilo grass (Stipa miliacea var. miliacea), common beet (Beta vulgaris), and Lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium album). Rocky shore habitat also provides cover for invertebrates such as rock crabs (Cancer antennarius and C. productus) and birds such as killdeer (Charadrius vociferous). Piles and wharf structures provide an artificial substrate for many species of marine algae, mussels, barnacles, annelids, and crustaceans, all of which are food sources for large marine invertebrates, fishes, birds, and marine mammals.

Annual Grassland

Annual grassland exists in small patches between the upland portion of the riprap shoreline and the industrial hardscape. Grassland in these areas is dominated by non-native annual species including wild oats (Avena barbata), fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), ripgut brome (Bromus 4 Mean tide level (MTL) is halfway between the average of all high tides in an area, mean high water (MHW), and

the average of all low tides in that area, mean low water (MLW).



diandrus), pampas grass (Cortaderia jubata), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), bur clover (Medicago polyomorpha), yellow star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), plantain (Plantago sp.) white sweet clover (Melilotus albus). Native vegetation documented in this community in the Study Area consists of purple needle grass (Stipa pulchra). Wildlife species that are expected within Study Area grassland include gopher snake (Pituophis melanoleucus), Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae), California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), and western harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys megalotis), all of which regularly forage or nest in this habitat. Grasslands can also be important foraging grounds for aerial and ground-foraging insect eaters such as Myotis bat species and pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus). Numerous bird species forage or breed in grassland habitats, including red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), American kestrel (Falco sparverius), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), and savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis).

Developed/Ruderal

This community type includes areas occupied by buildings, roads, parking lots, proposed staging areas, and other developed facilities, as well as adjacent landscaped or heavily disturbed areas. Developed areas support little vegetation other than ornamental landscaping. Vegetation in such areas consists mostly of non-native species, including few casuarina (Casuarina sp.) trees. Ruderal habitat occurs in portions of the Study Area that are subject to repeated or otherwise profound disturbance. Such areas support weedy or opportunistic plant species that can easily colonize disturbed areas. Ruderal portions of the Study Area are typically dominated by non-native and often highly invasive species, including cotoneaster (Cotoneaster sp.), fennel, coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), knotweed (Polygonum sp.), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and bristly ox-tongue (Helminthotheca echioides). Ruderal vegetation is found in several small patches along the seawall and elsewhere within the Study Area.

Developed and ruderal landscaping provide habitat for wildlife species adapted to human habitation, such as striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), raccoon (Procyon lotor), domestic cat (Felis catus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), American robin (Turdus migratorius), rock dove (Columba livia), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura).

Potentially Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands No wetlands occur in the Study Area. The shallow bay/channel of Redwood Creek in the Study Area is considered Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and State Water Resources Control Board jurisdiction pursuant to the Clean Water Act (Sections 404 and 401), Rivers and Harbor Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act, and falls within the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) bay and shoreline band jurisdiction.

The California State Lands Commission is a state agency that retains review and approval authority public trust lands that are locally managed. The State Lands Commission is charged with protecting lands under its jurisdiction for public trust use, and it has the authority to issue permits for activities in its jurisdiction. As such, the State Lands Commission oversees open



water areas in the region; however, Redwood Creek within the Study Area was granted to the Redwood City in 1954. Thus, this agency does not have jurisdiction over the project.

Wildlife Movement Corridors Wildlife movement corridors link together areas of suitable wildlife habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or by areas of human disturbance or urban development. Topography and other natural factors in combination with urbanization have fragmented or separated large open-space areas. The fragmentation of natural habitat creates isolated “islands” of vegetation that may not provide sufficient area to accommodate sustainable populations and can adversely affect genetic and species diversity. Movement corridors mitigate the effects of this fragmentation by allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, which in turn allows depleted populations to be replenished and promotes genetic exchange between separate populations. While the Study Area does not contain any wildlife corridors, it is in proximity to the expansive corridor of salt marsh habitat in the Don Edwards NWR; however, the proposed Project would not impact that area.

Special-Status Wildlife

Chinook salmon central valley DPS

The population of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in San Francisco Bay consists of three distinct races: winter-run, spring-run, and fall/late fall-run. These races are distinguished by the seasonal differences in adult upstream migration, spawning, and juvenile downstream migration. Chinook salmon are anadromous fish, spending three to five years at sea before returning to fresh water to spawn. These fish pass through San Francisco Bay waters to reach their upstream spawning grounds. In addition, juvenile salmon migrate through the bay en route to the Pacific Ocean.

Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, listed as endangered under the federal and state endangered species acts, migrate through San Francisco Bay from December through July with a peak in March (Moyle, 2002). Spawning is confined to the mainstem Sacramento River and occurs from mid-April through August (Moyle, 2002). Juveniles emerge between July and October and are resident in their natal stream for 5 to 10 months, followed by an indeterminate residency period in estuarine habitats (Moyle, 2002).

Central Valley spring-run Chinook, listed as threatened under the federal and state endangered species acts, migrate to the Sacramento River from March to September with a peak spawning period between late August and October (Moyle, 2002). Juvenile salmon emerge between November and March and are resident in streams for a period of 3 to 15 months before migrating to downstream habitats (Moyle, 2002).

The Central Valley fall/late fall-run Chinook salmon is a California species of special concern. These salmon enter the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers from June through December and spawn from October through December, with a peak in November.



While all three chinook salmon races are found in San Francisco Bay, the Central Valley fall/late fall-run race is the most likely to spawn in southern San Francisco Bay streams. However, most stream habitat in South San Francisco Bay lacks the necessary flow regime, habitat availability, and/or water quality to support spawning salmonids. Additionally, individuals from each of these runs have not been documented in recent years within the Project site or the immediate vicinity; and any occurrence would only be temporary as the surrounding bay habitat is primarily utilized as a migration corridor (IEP, 2014).

Steelhead – central coast DPS

The central California coast steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) distinct population segment (DPS)5 is listed as threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and also as a California species of special concern. Anadromous rainbow trout, or steelhead, occur in California and in streams of the San Francisco Estuary and Central Valley (Moyle, 2002). These fish possess the ability to spawn repeatedly and maintain the mechanisms to return to the Pacific Ocean after spawning in freshwater. Juvenile steelhead may spend up to four years residing in fresh water prior to migrating to the ocean as smolts. Tributaries to the San Francisco Estuary support the ocean-maturing steelhead ecotype, as well as non-anadromous, or resident, forms of rainbow trout (Leidy et al., 2005). Steelhead are known to spawn in several South Bay creeks including San Francisquito Creek and Steven’s Creek south of the project area, but no known population exists in Redwood Creek (Leidy et al, 2005). Southern San Francisco Bay is not considered a quality estuarine habitat for steelhead to reside or forage in, but individuals migrating between the ocean and spawning habitat could be present in waters adjacent to Wharves 3 and 4.

Green Sturgeon

Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) is listed as threatened under the federal and state endangered species acts. The most widely distributed member of the sturgeon family and the most marine-oriented, green sturgeon enter rivers only to spawn. Juveniles rear in fresh water for as long as 2 years before migrating to sea. Green sturgeon are thought to spawn every 3 to 5 years in deep pools with turbulent water velocities and prefer cobble substrates but can use substrates ranging from clean sand to bedrock. Females produce 60,000 to 140,000 eggs that are broadcast to settle into the spaces in between cobbles. Adult green sturgeon migrate into freshwater beginning in late February with spawning occurring in the Sacramento River in late spring and early summer (March through July), with peak activity in April and June. After spawning, juveniles remain in fresh and estuarine waters for one to four years and then begin to migrate out to the sea (Moyle et al. 1995). The upper Sacramento River has been identified as the only known spawning habitat for green sturgeon in the southern DPS (Moyle 2002). According to recent studies, green sturgeon adults begin moving upstream through the Bay during the winter (Kelly et al. 2003). Adults in the San Joaquin Delta are reported to feed on benthic invertebrates including shrimp, amphipods and occasionally small fish while juveniles have been reported to feed on opossum shrimp and amphipods (Moyle et al. 1995). Within the bays and estuaries, sufficient water flow is required to allow adults to successfully orient to the incoming flow and migrate

5 DPS: Distinct population segment: A population segment markedly separate from other populations of the same

taxon due to physical, physiological, ecological, or behavioral factors and significant to the conservation of the entire taxon.



upstream to spawning grounds. Subadult and adult green sturgeon occupy a diversity of depths within bays and estuaries for feeding and migration. Tagged adults and subadults within the San Francisco Bay-Delta have been observed occupying waters over shallow depths of less than 33 feet, either swimming near the surface or foraging along the bottom. Green sturgeon are unlikely to occur in the Study Area or immediate vicinity, as they rarely utilize habitat in South San Francisco Bay (IEP, 2014).

Longfin Smelt

Longfin smelt (Spirinchus thaleichthys) is listed as threatened under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and is a candidate for listing under the Federal ESA. Longfin smelt is a small, slender‐bodied pelagic fish that measures about 3 inches in length as an adult. The species generally lives for two years although some three-year smelt have been observed. Pre-spawning longfin smelt migrate upstream into the lower reaches of rivers during the late fall and winter. Smelt have adhesive eggs which are deposited on sand, gravel, rocks, submerged aquatic vegetation, and other hard substrates during spawning. Spawning typically occurs during the late winter and early spring (mid- to late February) but varies among years in response to factors such as seasonal water temperatures. During spawning each female produces approximately 5,000 to 24,000 eggs and it is estimated that total reproduction within a year is in the hundreds of millions of eggs or more (Moyle, 2002). As with most fish, mortality rates for eggs and larvae in longfin smelt are high. Those that survive to the planktonic larval stage are transported into the western Delta and Suisun Bay during the late winter and spring where juveniles rear. Longfin smelt have a two year lifecycle and reside as juveniles and pre-spawning adults in the more saline habitats within San Pablo Bay and Central Bay during a majority of their life (Moyle, 2002). Movement patterns based on catches in CDFW fishery sampling suggest that longfin smelt actively avoid water temperatures greater than 22° C (72° F) (Baxter et al., 1999). These conditions occur within the Delta during the summer and early fall, when longfin smelt inhabit more marine waters further downstream in the bays and are not present within the Delta. Longfin smelt have been recorded in low numbers in recent years in portions of South San Francisco adjacent to the project site (IEP, 2014). As such, they have a low potential to occur within the study area.

Pacific herring

Pacific herring (Culpea harengus pallasi) is a marine fish that migrates from offshore habitats into coastal estuaries to spawn. San Francisco is a major spawning ground for herring, and they are present in northern San Francisco Bay November through March. Adult fish mobilize in deep channels within the bay until they move into shallower areas where suitable spawning microhabitat is present (Goals Project, 1999). Herring spawning occurs in waves separated by one to several weeks, and eggs are typically attached to aquatic vegetation, rocks, structures in the water, or other solid substrates (Lassuy, 1989).

Eelgrass (Zostera marina) and Olympia oyster beds (Ostrea lurida), are the two Habitat Areas of Particular Concern (HAPC) as designated by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for the San Francisco Bay-Delta region. Eelgrass beds are especially good habitat for spawning adult herring. Both the Pacific herring and its eggs belong to an important San Francisco Bay commercial fishery, and populations are monitored closely by NMFS. Eelgrass habitat and



Olympia oyster beds do not exist in the vicinity of the project area, but rocky shore and pier pilings provide potential spawning habitat for Pacific herring (Merkel & Associates, 2015).

Marine Mammals

Pacific harbor seals (Phoca vitulina richardsi) are fairly common along the entire California coast, and are the only permanent resident marine mammals in San Francisco Bay. Harbor seals typically occupy shallower waters, where they feed on fish, crustaceans, and cephalopods. Mudflats, nearshore rocks, or sandy coves provide habitat for large colonies of harbor seals to haul out and rest. Two major pupping sites exist in San Francisco Bay; one is under the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge, and the other is in Mowry Slough near Fremont. Bair and Greco Islands support moderate numbers of seals as haul-out and rookery habitats (Lidecker, 1997), and harbor seals have been observed foraging in the Redwood Creek channel (WRA, 2007).

California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) are also present in San Francisco Bay and are one of the most abundant marine mammals along the California coast (Zeiner, 1990). Sea lions migrate to breeding sites in the Channel Islands and Mexico during spring, and return northward during late summer. Major haul-out sites include Año Nuevo and the Farallon Islands, and a well-known colony is present at Fisherman’s Wharf on the San Francisco waterfront. California sea lions could haul out on tidal flats surrounding Bair and Greco Islands.

American peregrine falcon

The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus antum), a state Fully-Protected species, occurs in many different habitats in California, including the Sierra Nevada and Cascade mountain ranges, as well as the entire California coastline. Peregrine falcons nest on open sites high above the ground on ledges or rocky outcrops. Peregrine have been recorded nesting on overhangs of large buildings, and nest boxes are often installed to increase the chances of young successfully hatching and fledging. Peregrine falcons’ typical prey includes smaller birds, and they are most often found foraging along the outside of salt marshes such as those within the Don Edwards NWR, where they prey on abundant shorebird populations.

California least tern

The California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), a federal and state-listed endangered species, is a small tern, about nine inches long with a 20-inch wingspan. This migratory bird winters in Latin America and nests along the Pacific coast from southern Baja California to San Francisco Bay. Least terns usually arrive in California in April and depart in August. They nest colonially on bare or sparsely vegetated flat substrates near the coast. Typical nesting sites are on isolated or specially protected sand beaches or on natural or artificial bare, mostly unvegetated areas in remnant coastal wetlands. These sites are typically near estuaries, bays, or harbors where small fish are abundant. The former Alameda Naval Air Station is one of the largest and most successful breeding colonies in the state (H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2005). The California least tern has been recorded nesting at Bair Island and in the salt ponds near the Study Area, but habitat has deteriorated in recent years and the salt pond nesting colony is now considered extirpated6.

6 Extirpation is when a population segment of a species becomes extinct or the habitat that population was using is no

longer viable or preferred.



Many of the salt pond and open bay habitats south of the area are valuable foraging habitat for least terns, and high numbers have been observed there in recent years (H.T. Harvey and Associates, 2005). Redwood Creek channel and connected sloughs around Bair Island provide foraging habitat for California least tern. Nesting habitat is not present in or near the Study Area.

Ridgway’s rail

Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus) can be found year-round in coastal wetlands and brackish areas around San Francisco and Monterey Bays. These chicken-sized birds require emergent wetlands and mud flats for survival, preferring salt marshes dominated by Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) and pickleweed (Salicornia pacifica). Ridgway’s rails will forage in higher marsh vegetation along the mudflat interface and in tidal creeks, feeding on crabs, mussels, clams, snails, insects, spiders, worms, and even mice and dead fish. Ridgway’s rails nest in lower tidal zones where cordgrass grows abundantly and tidal sloughs are nearby, building a nesting platform concealed by a canopy of woven cordgrass, pickleweed, or marsh gumplant (Grindelia stricta), or of cattail (Typha spp.) or bulrush (Scirpus spp.) in fresh and brackish waters. In the Bay Area, the breeding season varies but is typically described from February through August, with a clutch size ranging from 5 to 14 (USFWS, 2015). The nearest occurrence of Ridgway’s rail is on Bair Island, over 750 feet northwest of the Study Area (Olofson, 2012).

Nesting and Migratory Birds

Redwood Creek and the surrounding area provides habitat for numerous common birds, with some species as year-round residents, other species as wintering visitors, and still others passing through along the Pacific Flyway during spring and fall migrations. Trees, shrubs, and upland and marine-based structures within the Study Area provide potential nesting habitat for a variety of resident and migratory birds, including barn swallow (Hirundo rustica) and cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota) underneath the existing Wharves 3 and 4. Other common species that could nest in the Study Area include Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), American robin, mourning dove, rock dove, house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), European starling, and brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater). As discussed in the Regulatory Setting, most migratory birds are protected from harm by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and most nesting birds in California are protected under the California Fish and Game Code (Section 3503).

Salt-Marsh Harvest Mouse

The salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) is a small rodent that lives in the salt marshes of the San Francisco Bay and feeds primarily on the stems and leaves of salt marsh plants. The species is typically associates with tall, dense, continuous stands of perennial pickleweed. Other highly important habitat considerations include high tide/flood refugia of emergent gumplant (Grindelia sp.), seasonal use of terrestrial grassland, and stands of chairmaker’s bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus). The species is generally nocturnal and requires access to cover on high ground to escape high tides. Few major, resilient, or secure populations of the species persist in the South San Francisco Bay, including those identified at Bair Island, and are very small and isolated compared with the historical pattern of distribution and abundance of the subspecies (CDFW, 2016; USFWS, 2013; SFEI, 2016).



Key predators of the salt marsh harvest mouse include the domestic cat and red fox, in addition to native predators such as hawks, owls, herons and Ridgway’s rail (Rallus obsoletus) (USFWS, 2013). Predation and diminished habitat quality and size are the greatest threats to salt-marsh harvest mouse population numbers (Shellhammer, 1998; USFWS, 2013). Populations of the species are documented in Bair Island approximately 0.5 to 2 miles north of the Study Area in Don Edwards NWR (CNDDB, 2016). Salt marsh harvest mouse population size is generally correlated with the depth and other characteristics of the pickleweed plain (i.e., the middle zone of tidal marshes) (Shellhammer, 1998). Patches of scattered pickleweed within rocky shore habitat in the Study Area are relatively sparse and separated from higher quality habitat in the Don Edwards NWR. For these reasons, these rocky shore areas do not provide habitat for salt-marsh harvest mouse.

Special-Status Bat Species

Two special-status bat species, both California species of special concern, have the potential to occur in the Study Area. The pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) is a California species of concern present in most low elevations in California. Preferred habitats for the pallid bat include rocky outcrops with crevices with access to open areas, but can be found in a variety of other habitats as well. Day roosts can be found in crevices, caves, mines, and occasionally hollow buildings and trees, while night roosts can be in more open areas such as open buildings or porches (Zeiner et al, 1990). Pallid bats are nocturnal and present year-round in most areas of California. The hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus) is a California species of special concern with broad distribution in California. Maternity roosts of this species are typically found in woodlands with medium to large trees and dense foliage cover (Zeiner et al, 1990). Hoary bats migrate between summer and winter ranges but can be found year-round in the San Francisco Bay Area. While not common behavior, hoary bats may roost or be present on buildings or in building attics. Local sightings of these two bat species are reported at Stanford University, and within the cities of Menlo Park and Woodside (CDFW, 2016). Either species is unlikely to roost in the industrial warehouses of the Port of Redwood City or the few trees located in the southern portion of the Study Area due to the ongoing industrial activity.

Figure 5 displays CNDDB plant and wildlife occurrences present within a one-mile radius of the proposed project Study Area.

a, b) The Study Area is not suitable for special-status plants to inhabit or colonize because of poor substrate quality or inability to compete with non-native plants species. For these reasons, no impacts on special-status plants are expected as a result of the proposed project. In addition, no riparian habitat occurs within the Study Area.

Marshlands of Bair Island, a portion of the greater Don Edwards NWR, located approximately 700 feet to the west of the Study Area support northern coastal salt marsh, a CDFW sensitive natural community. This community is outside of the Study Area and would not be affected by the proposed project.


Special Status Wildlife

As discussed above, the occurrence of special-status aquatic species within the Study Area is unlikely and would be temporary in nature. Short-term impacts on special-status fishes and other aquatic biological resources could occur from pile driving, walkway construction, and placement of fill within the Redwood Creek channel. Impacts that are typically associated with these activities include temporary harmful sound pressure levels associated with pile-driving, short-term loss of benthic habitat and associated benthos and floating aquatic plants, and short-term loss and disruption of potential fishery habitat. As such, in-water construction activities will be restricted to a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) approved seasonal work window (June 1 – November 30) when special-status aquatic species are unlikely to be present in the study area (USACE, 2001).

Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. (2016) recently conducted an assessment of the potential sound levels generated from proposed pile driving activity. The proposed pile driving analyzed in the study included the installation of nine (9) 66-inch diameter steel piles and thirteen (13) 30-inch steel piles7. It is not currently known whether the piles would be installed using a diesel impact hammer, vibratory hammer, or both, and as these methods of installation differ in relative acoustic impact, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 will ensure that, in the unlikely event that special-status aquatic species are present in the Study Area during pile driving activity, the impact on these species would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Pile Driving.

• To the extent feasible all piles (30-inch and 66-inch) will be installed using a vibratory hammer. Vibratory pile installation will be conducted in accordance with the USACE’s “Proposed Additional Procedures and Criteria for Permitting Projects Under a Programmatic Determination of Not Likely to Adversely Affect Select Listed Species in California.8”

• The Applicant and/or its construction contractors shall limit construction-related sound exposure to 206 dB peak and 187 dB accumulated SEL for all listed fish weighing two grams or more. Conditions during all pile driving shall be monitored at approximately 33 feet (10 meters) for the first five piles driven or for two full days of pile driving, whichever is greater, to ensure that sound pressure levels comply with the sound thresholds. In the event of use of an impact hammer, or observed exceedance of the sound thresholds, a cushion, bubble curtain, jetting, or other sound attenuation method will be utilized to reduce sound levels. If sound level criteria are still exceeded with the use of attenuation methods, the contractor will revise sound attenuation methods and monitor an additional five piles or for two days of driving, whichever is greater, until demonstration of compliance is obtained, and the demonstrated methods shall be used for the remainder of the pile driving.

7 As noted in the Project Description, only ten (10) 30-inch piles are currently proposed for construction of the walkways.

8 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2013. Proposed Additional Procedures and Criteria for Permitting Projects Under a Programmatic Determination of Not Likely to Adversely Affect Select Listed Species in California (the 2013 NLAA Program). August 13, 2013.




• If attenuation methods fail to reduce sound levels below NMFS thresholds for marine mammal harassment (160 dB root-mean-square sound pressure level [RMS] or greater for impulse sounds [e.g., impact pile driving] and 120 dB RMS for continuous noise [e.g., vibratory pile driving]), a 1,600-foot (500 meter) open-water safety zone shall be maintained. At the discretion of the resource agencies (USACE and NMFS in particular), the size or configuration of the marine mammal safety zone may change based on the findings of sound attenuation monitoring that will be performed during pile driving.

• Work activities shall be halted when a marine mammal enters the 1,600-foot safety zone and resume only after the animal has been gone from the area for a minimum of 15 minutes.

• A “soft start” technique shall be employed when initiating impact pile driving to provide marine mammals the opportunity to vacate the area.

• A NMFS-approved biological monitor will conduct daily surveys before and during impact hammer pile driving to inspect the work zone and adjacent waters for marine mammals. The monitor will be present as specified by NMFS during the impact pile-driving phases of construction.

The sparse and isolated pickleweed vegetation present along Redwood Creek bank does not provide suitable nesting or foraging habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse or Ridgway’s rail due to the ongoing industrial activity present within the Study Area. Additionally, due to the distance from the Study Area, salt marsh harvest mouse and Ridgway’s rail potentially nesting or foraging on Bair Island would not be impacted by the increased noise expected during the construction of the project. The installation of project facilities, including the dolphins, fenders, and piles, and wharf deck and walkways demolition and construction would have no impact on salt marsh harvest mouse or Ridgway’s rail, or potential habitat for these species.

Similarly, due to the ongoing industrial activity present within the Study Area and lack of suitable roosting habitat, proposed project construction would have no impact on common and special-status roosting bats.

The federal and state-listed endangered and fully protected California least tern and American Peregrine falcon may occasionally pass over the Study Area; however, nesting and foraging habitat does not occur in the Study Area. Neither California least tern nor American Peregrine falcon would be impacted by the proposed project.

California Fish and Game (CFG) Code 3503 protects all raptors, their nests, and eggs, and the needless destruction of nests or eggs of most passerine bird species. Barn and cliff swallows were observed flying above and underneath the wharves during the site visit (ESA, 2016), and these species commonly nest on man-made structures such as those in the Study Area. Other common raptors or birds could be found nesting in rocky shoreline, ruderal habitat, and the few trees in the southwestern portion of the Study Area.



Increased noise and activity resulting from construction, were it to exceed ambient levels, could cause nest abandonment and death of young or loss of reproductive potential at active bird nests located in the Study Area. In addition, removal or alteration of existing wharf structures could result in direct losses of active nests, eggs, or nestlings. Such impacts on common and special-status nesting birds would be considered significant. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce impacts on nesting birds to less-than-significant levels.

Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Nesting Bird Protection.

Prior to proposed construction activities that have the potential to result in impacts on nesting birds, the Port of Redwood City shall take the following steps to avoid direct losses of active nests, eggs, and nestlings and indirect impacts to avian breeding success:

• During the avian nesting season (February 1 through August 31), a qualified biologist shall survey construction areas in the vicinity of the project area for nesting raptors and passerine birds not more than 14 days prior to start of construction. Surveys shall include all potential habitats within 500 feet (for raptors) of activities and all on-site vegetation including bare ground within 250 feet of activities (for all other species).

• If construction activities occur only during the non-breeding season, between August 31 and February 1, no surveys shall be required.

• Results of the surveys shall be forwarded to CDFW (if results are positive for nesting birds) and avoidance procedures shall be adopted, if necessary, on a case-by-case basis. These may include construction buffer areas (up to 250 feet in the case of raptors due to the existing conditions) or seasonal avoidance.

c) Proposed project construction, including dolphin, fender, pile and walkway construction could result in substantial adverse effects on waters of the U.S. under the jurisdiction of the USACE, waters of the State under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, and waters and land under San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission and State Lands Commission jurisdiction. Potential significant impacts resulting from proposed construction activities include, but are not limited to, permanent fill, or temporary disturbance of jurisdictional waters; degradation of water quality and aquatic habitat; and accidental discharge of sediment or toxic materials. As such, the Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would be required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Construction Activities.

Construction activities shall avoid or minimize adverse effects on jurisdictional waters to the full extent feasible. Specifically:

• Any jurisdictional salt marsh areas across the Redwood Creek channel shall be protected by setbacks throughout project construction. The Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals (Goals Project, 1999) recommend a minimum 300-



foot marsh buffer be incorporated into project design wherever possible and recommend an absolute minimum buffer of 100 feet where existing uses preclude the establishment of larger buffers.

• To prevent sediment from any construction activities on the upland portion of the site from entering drainages or the Redwood Creek channel, equipment such as backhoes and cranes used for sediment removal of material or debris shall operate from dry land where possible. Construction operations within the Redwood Creek channel shall be barge-mounted or utilize other water-based equipment such as scows, derrick barges, and tugs.

• In addition, BMPs to avoid impacts to water quality resulting from open water construction activities that are identified in the Long-term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region (LTMS) (USACE, 2001) shall be implemented. These BMPs include silt fencing and gunderbooms, or other appropriate methods, for keeping dredged materials or other sediments from leaving the Study Area.

d) Although the Study Area is in the vicinity of ecologically sensitive habitats to the northwest in the Don Edwards NWR, these areas would not be directly or indirectly impacted by proposed activities. It is unlikely that wildlife species would pass through the Study Area since it is surrounded by highly industrial areas with little to no wildlife habitat. Eelgrass and Olympia oyster beds are not present within the Study Area and would not be impacted by the project.

Special-status aquatic species primarily utilize South San Francisco Bay as a migration corridor, thus any presence within the Study Area would be temporary. Although the potential exists for Pacific herring habitat within the Study Area, only longfin smelt have been recorded in recent years in the vicinity (IEP, 2014). All construction activities would occur within the footprint of the proposed project site. Proposed new lighting along the walkways would cover a similar area to the existing lighting features and has been designed to reduce light pollution. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor and impacts would be less than significant.

e) The few trees that exist within the Study Area would not be impacted by the proposed project; therefore, the project would not conflict with the City of Redwood City’s tree preservation policy or ordinance or any other policy relating to biological resources. No impact would occur.

f) There is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), nor other similar approved conservation plan within or in close proximity to the plan area. The closest HCP to the plan area is the San Bruno Mountain HCP, located approximately 12 miles north of the plan area. No impact would occur.




For biological resources, the geographic scope for cumulative impacts includes the project site, and surrounding lands and drainages that are within or connected to the project site. Impacts to terrestrial and marine biological resources as a result of the project include impacts to nesting birds and jurisdictional waters, which would occur within the Study Area during construction. Once constructed, no operational affects to biological resources would occur as a result of the proposed project. All reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would comply with existing local, state, and federal policies and plans relating to biological resources. With implementation of these regulatory requirements, cumulative impacts related to nesting birds and jurisdictional waters would be less than significant.

As noted above, the proposed project would have no impact on special-status plants or riparian habitat, nor would it conflict with an approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or tree protection ordinance. Therefore, the proposed project’s contribution to impacts would not be cumulatively considerable to these resources.

References

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), 2016. California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), Rare Find 5. Accessed October, 2016.

California Native Plant Society, 2016. Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory. San Mateo County. Available at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/simple.html. Accessed October, 2016.

City of Redwood City, General Plan, Draft Environmental Impact Report, May 2010.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2010. Port of Redwood City Wharves 1 & 2 Redevelopment Project Draft EIR. Prepared for the Port of Redwood City. March 2010.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2016. Star Concrete Batch Plant Project Initial Study. Prepared for the Port of Redwood City. July 2016.

Goals Project. 1999. Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals: A Report of Habitat Recommendations Prepared by the San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. San Francisco Estuary Project. http://sfep.abag.ca.gov/pdf/habitat_goals/Habitat_Goals.pdf.

H.T. Harvey and Associates. 2005. South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project: Biology and Habitats Existing Conditions Report. 237 pp.

Illingworth and Rodkin, Inc. 2016. Analysis of Underwater Sound Levels for Port of Redwood City Fender System Replacement Project. October 2016.

Interagency Ecological Program for the San Francisco Bay Estuary (IEP); San Francisco Bay Study. 2010-2014. 2010-2014. Unpublished Raw Mid-water and Otter Trawl Data.

Kelly, J. T., A. P. Klimley, and C. E. Crocker, 2003. Movements of adult and sub-adult green sturgeon in the San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Bay Delta Estuary, 6th Biennial State of the Estuary Conference, Poster, Abstract.



Lassuy, D.R. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Pacific Northwest)—Pacific herring. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(11.126). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR-EL-82-4. 18 pp.

Lidicker, W.Z. 1997. Harbor seal (Phoca viltulina richardi). In: San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project, Amphibians, Reptiles and Mammals Narratives.

Merkel & Associates. 2015. San Francisco Bay Eelgrass Inventory: October 2014. Prepared for the NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service. November 2015.

Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake, 1995. Fish Species of Special Concern in California. Second edition. Final report to California Department of Fish and Game, contract 2128IF.

Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California, University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA.

Olofson Environmental, Inc. 2012. California Clapper Rail Surveys for the San Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project 2012. Prepared for the State Coastal Conservancy. Prepared by Jen McBroom Olofson Environmental, Inc. December, 2012.

San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse, Reithrodontomys raviventris, Database and Maps. Queried for Redwood Point USGS 7.5 Minute Quadrangle. Online at: http://www.ecoatlas.org/regions/ecoregion/bay-delta. Accessed 14 April, 2015.

San Francisco Bay Subtidal Habitat Goals Report. 2010. Appendix 7-1: Shellfish Conservation and Restoration in San Francisco Bay: Opportunities and Constraints. September 17, 2010. Available at: http://www.sfbaysubtidal.org/PDFS/Ap7-1%20Shellfish.pdf

Shellhammer, H., PhD. 1998. A Marsh is a Marsh is a Marsh . . .But not Always to a Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse. Tideline Vol. 18 No. 4 1-3.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001. Long-term management strategy for the placement of dredged material in the San Francisco Bay region. Management Plan 2001.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2013. Species Account Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse Reithrodontomys raviventris. Updated March 19, 2013.

USFWS. 2015. Species Account: California Ridgway’s Rail (Rallus obsoletus obsoletus). Bay-Delta Office, Fish and Wildlife Service. Last updated: July 22, 2015.

USFWS. 2016. Species List for Port of Redwood City Wharves 3 and 4 Project. United States Department of the Interior. Accessed October 3, 2016.

Wetland Research Associates (WRA). 2007. Biological Resources Assessment for Redwood City Ferry Terminal. Prepared for CHS Consulting Group.

Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1988-1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. I-III. California Depart. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.



5. Cultural Resources



Impact




Impact No Impact

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the project:

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

e) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074

Discussion

a) CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 requires the lead agency to consider the effects of a project on historical resources. A historical resource is defined as any building, structure, site, or object listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (California Register), or determined by a lead agency to be significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, or cultural annals of California.

The project site contains wharves and the adjacent roads and parking areas. Wharves 3 and 4 were built in the 1980s and consist of pile-supported concrete structures designed to allow for cargo vessel access, mooring, and loading/unloading cargo. Wharf 3 is constructed of cast-in-place concrete and is approximately 455 feet by 43.5 feet. It replaced an older timber wharf. Wharf 4 is composed of a reinforced concrete wharf deck and is approximately 81.5 feet by 47 feet. Both over-water wharves connect to a reinforced shoreline along the open waters of Redwood Creek. The adjacent roads and parking areas are a combination of paved and compacted dirt surfaces.

Wharves 3 and 4 were constructed in the 1980s and therefore do not meet the minimum age threshold (more than 45 years) to be considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. These utilitarian, pile-supported concrete structures are not eligible for listing as a historical resource in the California Register, or local registers; therefore, the proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.

The project site does not contain any buildings, structures, or objects that could be considered historical resources as defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5; therefore, no impact would result.



b) This section discusses archaeological resources, both as historical resources according to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 as well as unique archaeological resources as defined in Section 21083.2(g). A significant impact would occur if the project would cause a substantial adverse change to an archaeological resource through physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource.

ESA completed a records search at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System on September 23, 2013 (File No. 13-0476) and updated the search on September 22, 2016 (File No. 16-0443). No recorded prehistoric or historic-era archaeological sites are located in or adjacent to the project site. The nearest recorded sites are more than two miles to the south and southeast. During the nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries, the project site was within the channel of Redwood Creek, which extended through adjacent marshland. Late Period prehistoric occupation was established along more stable landforms to the south and east as indicated by recorded prehistoric sites in the vicinity. Earlier prehistoric sites may be buried by estuarine deposits and/or artificial fill; however, the project site is within the historic creek channel which was subject to tidal actions and may have disturbed or destroyed archaeological sites. Additionally there is low potential to identify archaeological resources during pile-driving activities especially in previously disturbed areas. For these reasons, the archaeological potential of the project site is considered low.

A search of the shipwreck database maintained by the California State Lands Commission (CSLC) identified two known shipwrecks in the project vicinity. The Morgan Shell was a tugboat that burned in 1951 near Redwood Point. The City of Glendale was a fishing schooner that burned by arson in 1921 in Redwood Creek just north of the Port. There are no known remnants of these vessels in the project vicinity or in the immediate project site. The CSLC cautions that not all historic shipwrecks were reported, and that not all reported shipwrecks have accurate location data.

There is a low potential for the discovery of historic-era maritime resources that may be present in the project site, including features such as wooden wharf or pier remnants as well as shipwreck remains, as a result of proposed project-related pile-driving activities. Such remains, if they exist in the project site, could qualify as significant cultural resources. Damage or destruction of a potentially significant cultural resource would be an adverse impact.

The inadvertent discovery of archaeological resources or maritime resources cannot be entirely discounted. Disturbance to an archaeological or maritime resource would be a significant impact. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 (Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources), which requires avoidance measures or the appropriate treatment of cultural resources if inadvertently discovered during project construction.



Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Inadvertent Discovery of Cultural Resources.

If prehistoric or historic-era cultural resources are encountered by construction personnel during project implementation, the Port shall halt all construction activities within 100 feet until a qualified archaeologist, defined as one meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology, can assess the significance of the find.

If it is determined that the project could damage a historical resources or unique archaeological resource, construction shall cease in an area determined by the archaeologist until a mitigation plan has been prepared and implemented to the satisfaction of the archaeologist (and Native American representative if the resource is prehistoric, who will be identified by the Native American Heritage Commission [NAHC]).

The mitigation plan shall recommend preservation in place, as a preference, or, if preservation in place is not feasible, data recovery through excavation. If preservation in place is feasible, this may be accomplished through one of the following means: (1) modifying the construction plan to avoid the resource; (2) incorporating the resource within open space; (3) capping and covering the resource before building appropriate facilities on the resource site; or (4) deeding the resource site into a permanent conservation easement. If preservation in place is not feasible, a qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a detailed treatment plan to recover the scientifically consequential information from the resource prior to any excavation at the resource site. Treatment for most resources would consist of (but would not necessarily be limited to) sample excavation, artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim to target the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the significant resource to be impacted by the project. The treatment plan shall include provisions for analysis of data in a regional context, reporting of results within a timely manner, curation of artifacts and data at an approved facility, and dissemination of reports to local and state repositories, libraries, and interested professionals.

c) Paleontological resources are the fossilized evidence of past life found in the geologic record. Despite the tremendous volume of sedimentary rock deposits preserved worldwide, and the enormous number of organisms that have lived through time, preservation of plant or animal remains as fossils is an extremely rare occurrence. There are no known paleontological resources or unique geologic features at the project site. The project site is underlain by engineered fill and Bay Mud, which are not considered paleontologically sensitive or geologically unique. Therefore, the project would not result in any impacts on paleontological resources.

d) There is no indication from the archival research that the project site has been used for human burial purposes in the recent or distant past. Therefore, it is unlikely that human remains would be encountered during construction of the project. However, the possibility of inadvertent discovery cannot be entirely discounted, and would result in a potentially significant impact. This impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-2 (Inadvertent Discovery of



Human Remains), which requires avoidance measures or the appropriate treatment of human remains if accidentally discovered during project construction.

Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains.

If potential human remains are encountered, all work will halt within 100 feet of the find and the Port will be contacted by onsite construction crews. The Port will contact the San Mateo County coroner in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner will contact the NAHC. As provided in PRC Section 5097.98, the NAHC will identify the person or persons believed most likely to be descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent will make recommendations for means of treating, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98.

e) CEQA requires the lead agency to consider the effects of a project on tribal cultural resources. As defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074, tribal cultural resources are sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are listed, or determined to be eligible for listing, on the national, state, or local register of historical resources.

The Port sent letters to the tribes requesting consultation as required by state law. Based on the background research and environmental context there are no tribal cultural resources in the project site. The project would have no impact to tribal cultural resources and no separate mitigation measure would be necessary. In the event that an archaeological resource determined to be a tribal cultural resource is identified during project construction, Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would apply.


The proposed project would have no impact on historical resources, archaeological resources, paleontological resources, human remains, or tribal cultural resources, and therefore would not contribute to any potential cumulative impacts in these resource areas. No impacts would occur.

References

City of Redwood City, General Plan, adopted October 11, 2010.

City of Redwood City, 2010. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. http://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/community-development-department/planning-housing/planning-services/environmental-documents/general-plan-eir



6. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity



Impact




Impact No Impact

6. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY — Would the project:

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.)

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including

liquefaction?

iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or

that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Discussion

a.i) The purpose of the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act is to regulate development near active faults so as to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture (CGS, 2007). Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, the California Geological Survey (CGS) has established zones on either side of the active fault that delimits areas susceptible to surface fault rupture.9 These zones are referred to as Fault Rupture Hazard Zones and are shown on official maps published by the CGS. While San Mateo County does contain principal faults and active fault-rupture zones, the project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Fault Rupture Hazard Zone10 and no active faults are known to pass through the immediate project region. The nearest active faults to the project site are the San Andreas Fault, located approximately 5 miles west of the site, and the Hayward Fault, located approximately 12 miles east of the site (Jennings, 2010). The Palo Alto fault is the nearest fault to the site, located within close proximity to the site, however this fault has not been accurately located

9 CGS designates zones that are most likely to experience fault rupture, although surface fault rupture is not

necessarily restricted to those specifically zoned areas. An active fault is defined by the State of California as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 11,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined as a fault that has shown evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary (last 1.6 million years), unless direct geologic evidence demonstrates inactivity for all of the Holocene or longer (CGS, 2007).

10 Alquist-Priolo Zones designate areas most likely to experience fault rupture, although surface fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to those specifically zoned areas.



and is not considered active (State of California, 1974). The Palo Alto fault is categorized as a Quaternary fault indicating that there has been no evidence of any displacement for at least 700,000 years and maybe as much as 1.6 million years ago. Because the site is not located on or relatively close to an active fault, the potential for surface rupture is low and the impact would be less than significant.

a.ii) The project site is located in an un-surveyed area within the San Mateo portion of the Redwood 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, as designated by the CGS seismic zonation program. While the project site is not located in an area surveyed by CGS, adjacent quadrangles have been surveyed and are sufficient for determining seismic conditions in the vicinity of the project site. The Palo Alto 7.5 minute Quadrangle is located only 0.38 miles south of the project site and can be used for the purposes of this evaluation due to the relatively similar geologic characteristics and distances to regional fault sources. According to the Seismic Hazard Zone study compiled by the CGS for this adjacent quadrangle, the shoreline areas of the Bay have been identified as being in a very seismically active region (ABAG, 2015) that would likely experience at least one major earthquake (Richter magnitude (M) 6.7 or higher) within the next 30 years (USGS, 2015). An earthquake of this magnitude would likely cause very strong groundshaking at the project site which could result in structural damage to proposed improvements. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, below, the project would be ensured of sound design and construction to reduce the potential impact from ground shaking to less than significant levels.

Mitigation Measure GEO-1: A site-specific, design level geotechnical investigation for the proposed project site shall be required as part of this project. The investigation shall include an analysis of expected ground motions at the site from known active faults. The analyses shall be in accordance with the Redwood City Building and Inspection Department requirements and meet or exceed the most recent version of the California Building Code, which requires structural design that can accommodate ground accelerations expected from known active faults. In addition, the investigations shall determine final design parameters for the proposed new piles, including the appropriate depth of completion, and any surrounding related improvements. The investigation shall be reviewed and approved by a state registered geotechnical engineer or engineering geologist. All recommendations by the project engineer and geotechnical engineer shall be included in the final design.

a.iii) Seismic shaking of this intensity can also trigger ground failures caused by liquefaction, potentially resulting in foundation damage, disruption of utility service and roadway damage. A geotechnical investigation has not been completed for the project. However, it is not uncommon for Bay margin locations to have a high liquefaction potential. The soils most susceptible to liquefaction are clean, loose, uniformly graded, saturated, and fine-grained and occur close to the ground surface, usually at depths of less than 50 feet. Mapping compiled by the Association of Bay Area Governments that is taken from USGS data shows the site to be located in an area that has a high potential for liquefaction. The effects of liquefaction can cause considerable structural damage if not appropriately mitigated in the design. The project would include standard geotechnical practices including recommendations of design specifications (i.e. foundation types and



pile specifications) to minimize potential damage. Furthermore, the project would not include the construction of habitable structures and construction activities would be temporary. Also, any potential damage that could occur due to ground shaking and liquefaction would be minimized through the adherence to applicable California Bundling Code (CBC) requirements. Lastly, with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, the project would be ensured of sound design and construction to reduce the potential impact from ground shaking to less than significant levels.

a.iv) Landslides generally are any type of ground movement that occurs primarily due to gravity acting on relatively weak soils and bedrock on an over-steepened slope. The project site is located in the tidal flat areas and coastline, where the risk of landslides is considered very low. The project site does not contain slopes that are susceptible to landslides or slope failure. The relatively flat topography of the area would result in less than significant impacts regarding landslides or slope failure due to seismic activity.

b) Construction activities associated with the project would not require any land disturbing activities such as earthmoving, trenching, or grading that could increase the susceptibility of soils to erosion by wind and/or water, and subsequently result in significant soil loss or erosion. Regardless, construction activities would include implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) as required for protection of water quality (discussed further below in Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality). Implementation of these water quality BMPs would ensure that all construction activities would have less than significant impacts related to erosion or loss of topsoil.

c) Based on the location of the project site and proximity to San Francisco Bay, there is a potential for weak compressible soil deposits in the project area. Placement of structural loads, such as the new piles, on weak soils can result in damage to improvements. The amount and rate of consolidation settlement would depend on such factors as the weight of the improvements, thickness of any existing fill, strength of soil deposits, and the degree to which consolidation of underlying Bay Mud deposits has already occurred. The potential for seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction for the proposed project is discussed above under a.iii). The potential landslide hazard for the proposed project is discussed above in a.iv). Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1, above, would reduce the potential hazard from unstable soils, including lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse to a less-than-significant level.

d) Improvements founded on expansive soils that change volume according to changes in moisture content of the soils can be subject to significant structural damage. The presence of expansive soils is unknown in the project area but there are no landside improvements proposed and the new piles would be completed in saturated sediments that do not experience changes in moisture content. As a result of the proposed project characteristics and the properties of the underlying deposits, the potential impact from expansive soils would be less than significant.



e) The project would not require the use of septic or other alternative disposal wastewater systems. Therefore, no impact would result.


For geology and soils, the geographic scope for cumulative impacts includes the project site and areas immediately adjacent to the project site. Geologic impacts resulting from the proposed project are limited to seismic effects and the potential for location on an unstable geologic unit. There are no other projects immediately adjacent to the project site that would expose substantial numbers of people to seismic risks that would, in combination with the project, create a cumulative impact. With implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1, and compliance with CBC requirements, cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

References

Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2015. San Mateo County Earthquake Hazard Map, http://resilience.abag.ca.gov/earthquakes/sanmateo.

ABAG, 2015. Liquefaction Susceptibility, http://gis.abag.ca.gov/website/Hazards/?hlyr=liqSusceptibility.

California Geological Survey (CGS), 2007. Fault Rupture Hazard Zones in California. Special Publication 42, Interim Revision 2007. Accessed at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sp/Sp42.pdf.

CGS, 2003. Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Palo Alto 7.5 minute Quadrangle, Alameda County, California.

City of Redwood City, 2010. Redwood City General Plan Draft Environmental Impact Report. Available at http://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/community-development-department/planning-housing/planning-services/environmental-documents/general-plan-eir.

Jennings, C. W., 2010. Fault activity map of California, California Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6. California Geological Survey, also available at http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/.

7. Greenhouse Gas Emissions



Impact




Impact No Impact

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project:

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?



Discussion

Greenhouse gases (GHGs) trap heat by preventing some of the solar radiation that hits the earth from being reflected back into space. Some GHGs occur naturally and are needed to keep the earth’s surface habitable. Over the past 100 years, human activities have substantially increased the concentration of GHGs in our atmosphere. This has intensified the natural greenhouse effect, increasing average global temperatures.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are the principal GHGs associated with land use projects. CO2, CH4, and N2O occur naturally, and through human activity. Emissions of CO2 are largely by-products of fossil fuel combustion and CH4 results from off gassing11 associated with agricultural practices and landfills.

CO2 is the reference gas for climate change because it is the predominant GHG emitted. The effect that each of the aforementioned gases can have on global warming is a combination of the mass of their emissions and their global warming potential (GWP). GWP indicates, on a pound-for-pound basis, how much a gas contributes to global warming relative to how much warming would be predicted to be caused by the same mass of CO2. CH4 and N2O are substantially more potent GHGs than CO2, with 100-year GWPs of 28 and 265 times that of CO2, respectively.

In emissions inventories, GHG emissions are typically reported as metric tons of CO2 equivalents (CO2e). CO2e are calculated as the product of the mass emitted of a given GHG and its specific GWP. While CH4 and N2O have much higher GWPs than CO2, CO2 is emitted in such vastly higher quantities that it accounts for the majority of GHG emissions in CO2e.

Both the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) consider GHG impacts to be exclusively cumulative impacts (BAAQMD, 2012; CAPCOA, 2008). Therefore, assessment of significance is based on whether a project’s GHG emissions represent a cumulatively considerable contribution to the global atmosphere.

BAAQMD, in its 2009 Justification Report, formulated thresholds using AB 32 and California Climate Change Scoping Plan GHG reduction targets (BAAQMD, 2009). The Scoping Plan included several strategies to reduce GHG emissions statewide. Consequently, a project cannot exceed a numeric BAAQMD threshold without also conflicting with AB 32 and the Scoping Plans on which it is based. Therefore, if a project exceeds a numeric threshold and results in a significant cumulative impact, it would also result in a significant cumulative impact with respect to plan, policy, or regulation consistency, even though the project may incorporate measures and have features that would reduce its contribution to cumulative GHG emissions.

Redwood City has also developed a Climate Action Plan that contains 15 measures to reduce GHG emissions (Redwood City, 2013). Those measures are grouped into three categories: 1) energy, 2) transportation and land use, and 3) solid waste. The Plan’s 15 measures were developed to ensure that Redwood City’s GHG emissions would not conflict with AB 32 or

11 Off-gassing is defined as the release of chemicals under normal conditions of temperature and pressure.



CARB’s Scoping Plans (CARB, 2008; CARB, 2013). If the project conflicts with any of the 15 measures, it would result in a significant cumulative GHG impact.

BAAQMD has established no construction-related emission thresholds. BAAQMD has also developed two thresholds of significance for operational emissions, the first for stationary source land uses (typically defined as sources that require air permits) and the second for land use development projects (such as residential and commercial development projects). For this analysis, BAAQMD’s land use development threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year of CO2e is used in-lieu of a construction specific threshold. GHG emissions above this level are considered significant.

If the project operational GHG emissions would exceed this threshold then, consistent with BAAQMD Guidelines, it would be considered to have a cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and a cumulatively significant impact on climate change.

a) Construction would involve the use of a barge-mounted crane, intermittent tug boat operations to maneuver the barge, generators, welders and air compressors over approximately 100 work days. Additionally, there would be worker vehicle and truck trips as well as vendor truck trips to deliver concrete and other materials. GHG emissions from all of these construction emission sources were estimated using the CalEEMod emission estimator model version 2013.2.2. Project construction would generate 136 metric tons of CO2e per year. These emissions are substantially below the 1,100 metric ton threshold established by the BAAQMD (BAAQMD, 2009) and would represent a cumulatively less than significant GHG impact.

b) Since the project’s GHG emissions would not exceed BAAQMD’s significance threshold of 1,100 metric tons CO2e per year which was developed using the quantitative goals for achieving the mandates of AB 32, the project is also assumed to be consistent with AB 32 and CARB’s Scoping Plans (CARB, 2008, CARB, 2014). In addition, the proposed project would not conflict with or prevent implementation of any of the 15 measures identified in the City’s Climate Action Plan. Since the project would not conflict with Redwood City’s Climate Action Plan, it would result in a less than significant cumulative GHG impact.


GHG emissions are inherently a cumulative concern, in that the significance of GHG emissions is determined based on whether such emissions would have a cumulatively considerable impact on global climate change; therefore, the geographic scope of cumulative impacts related to GHG emissions and climate change is global. As described in criteria a and b above, the proposed project would result in GHG emissions from construction-related sources only, and these emissions would comply with the GHG reduction goals of AB32, and Redwood City’s Climate Action Plan. While the emissions from the proposed project would cumulatively contribute to GHG emissions globally, they individually fall within the standards of relevant jurisdictions to be considered less than cumulatively considerable, and impacts would be less than significant.



References

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report California Environmental Quality Act Thresholds of Significance, October 2009.

BAAQMD, 2012, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines, May 2012, http://www.baaqmd.gov/pln/ceqa/ceqa_guide.pdf.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA), 2008. CEQA & Climate Change, Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, January 2008.

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan.

CARB, 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan.

Redwood City, 2013. Redwood City Climate Action Plan, adopted April 22, 2013.

8. Hazards and Hazardous Materials



Impact




Impact No Impact

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?





Impact




Impact No Impact

8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — Would the project:

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Discussion

a, b) Construction of the project would involve the use of hazardous materials, such as fuels, oils and lubricants, paints and thinners, solvents, and other chemicals. Impacts could occur if construction-related activities were to result in hazards or the release of hazardous materials and could be considered potentially significant. The use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous material used during construction of the project would be carried out in accordance with federal, state, and county regulations as well as permit requirements. Due to the nature of the construction activities that would take place in or near jurisdictional surface waters, permits from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service would be required. These permit requirements would include implementation of Best Management Practice (BMPs) that would ensure any hazardous materials used for construction would be stored in appropriate containers in a dedicated area away from surface waters, with secondary containment to contain a potential release. Hazardous materials may also be encountered in existing piles and fenders that have been treated with creosote. Disturbance of these creosote-treated features could release hazardous materials into the water. However, as noted above, construction activities would require implementation of BMPs which would include measures to ensure that disturbance of any creosote-treated areas is minimized. Once constructed, the project would not create any hazards to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials or accident conditions involving the release of these substances and impacts would be less than significant.

c) There are no schools within 0.25-mile of the project site; therefore, no impact would occur.

d) According to the Department of Toxic Substance Control’s (DTSC’s) EnviroStor Database, there are no database sites located within 1,000 feet of the project site when using the 675 Seaport Boulevard address (DTSC, 2016a). However, several other database sites were located outside of this radius but within 0.25-mile of the project site that includes the project site itself. Other than the database entry for the Port, there are the following sites: a Redwood City Services Facility site (80001488) with an “Inactive (needs evaluation)” status, located at 475 Seaport Boulevard; the Port of Redwood City site (80001379) with a “Certified/Operation & Maintenance” status; the Pressure Vessel Services, Inc. site (71003366) with a “Inactive (needs evaluation)” status located at 501 Seaport Boulevard; and the Clean Harbors Environmental Services site listed at



695 Seaport Boulevard, which is operating as a hazardous materials transfer/storage facility with no corrective actions or cleanup activities being conducted or required by DTSC or the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

The Port of Redwood City site is listed as a certified operation and maintenance status that includes land use restrictions (DTSC, 2016b). The site includes an 8.9-acre area that is located on the site of a former hazardous waste treatment and storage facility. The site was developed in 1963 when Texaco, Inc. leased the property from the Port and constructed aboveground bulk storage tanks and associated pipelines and equipment for the storage, loading, and unloading of predominately gasoline, jet fuel, and diesel. After 1983, the site was leased to several other companies. From 1992 to 1995, the facility was operated solely by Gibson Environmental under a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Interim Status Document permit as a hazardous waste treatment and storage facility. In October 1995, Gibson Environmental ceased operations and abandoned the site. The site had 18 Hazardous Waste Management Units (HWMUs), 12 of which were Regulated Units (RUs) prior to completion of demolition activities in 2007. Additionally, the site had one Area of Concern (AOC), known as the Petrox Tank Area. The HWMUs, RUs, and AOC required different regulatory approaches and documents to achieve final closure as part of the RCRA corrective action program that included remediation of the site soil and groundwater.

Localized areas of petroleum-related contaminations in shallow soil and/or shallow groundwater consisting predominantly of jet fuel, gasoline and diesel were identified. The Corrective Measures Study Report was prepared to identify several areas requiring cleanup and evaluate the soil and groundwater cleanup options. A work plan for cleanup was submitted and approved in 2006. The Port submitted the Closure Report in 2008 and DTSC approved the risk-based “non-residential exposure clean closure” on June 30, 2008. A land use covenant (LUC) was recorded with San Mateo County on February 23, 2009. According to the LUC, residential land uses are prohibited at the property. Other conditions include the prohibition of excavation of contaminated soils without DTSC review and approval; no groundwater extraction at any depth without approval; notification of DTSC prior to subsurface work; and soil disturbance activities shall only be permitted pursuant to a Health and Safety Plan and a Soil Management Plan approved by the DTSC. Adherence to the terms of the LUC would reduce the impact to less than significant.

As discussed above, the proposed project would not involve any landward disturbance of subsurface soils and all in-water work would be conducted in accordance with permitted requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the land use restrictions of the former hazardous waste treatment and storage facility and would not change the land uses of the site. Therefore, the potential impacts from being listed on an environmental database for these past hazardous materials uses would be less than significant.



e) The project is located approximately 2 miles south of the San Carlos Airport. According to the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the airport, the project is located within “Area B” of the Airport Influence Area, which is defined by the Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 774 as a conical surface12. However, the project is located outside of the identified Airport Safety Zones (ESA, 2015). In addition, the project would be in compliance with any applicable policies and guidelines of the San Carlos Airport ALUCP and does not propose any substantive aboveground improvements that could affect air traffic. Therefore, impacts related to exposing the public to airport-related hazards would be less than significant.

f) The project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, no impact would occur.

g) The proposed project would not involve the temporary or permanent closure of any roads and it would not interfere with any emergency response or evacuation plans. There would be no substantive change to emergency access or evacuation from the site. No impact would occur.

h) The project site is not located in a designated wildland area that would contain substantial forest fire risks or hazards. Consequently, the risk of increased wildland fire hazards would not constitute an environmental impact of the proposed project.


The geographic scope for cumulative effects relating to hazards and hazardous materials would be the air basin, watershed boundary, groundwater basin, or extent of affected soil. Hazardous materials impacts related to the project could result from use of hazardous materials and disturbance of any legacy contaminated soils or groundwater. These impacts would be primarily restricted to the project site and immediate vicinity. As described above, the proposed project would only involve an increase in the use of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous wastes during construction. Once constructed the proposed project would not involve any substantive changes to the use, storage, transport or disposal of hazardous materials. Cumulative projects, however, could include an increase in the use of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous wastes. All reasonably foreseeable cumulative projects would comply with existing local, state and federal policies and plans relating to hazardous materials management, which would minimize potential exposure to the public to any accidental releases of hazardous materials or waste; in addition, compliance with these applicable policies would also protect against potential environmental contamination such as groundwater and soil. With implementation of these regulatory requirements, cumulative impacts related to the use of hazardous materials and generation of hazardous wastes would be less than significant.

The project is located approximately 2 miles south of the San Carlos Airport. While within an area designated as part of an Airport Influence Area, the proposed project and all cumulative

12 A conical surface is defined as a surface extending outward and upward from the periphery of the horizontal

surface at a slope of 20 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 4,000 feet.



development projects would comply with any applicable policies and guidelines of the San Carlos Airport ALUCP. Therefore, impacts related to exposing the public to airport-related hazards would be less than significant.

Project-related activities would not occur within 0.25-mile of an existing or proposed school or within 2 miles of a private airstrip. There would be no impact on adopted emergency response or evacuation plans. The project site is not located within a high fire hazard area. Lastly, the project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, the project would have no contribution to a cumulative effect related to these criteria and no impacts would occur.

References

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2016a, EnviroStor Database, http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/mapfull.asp?global_id=&x=-119&y=37&zl=18&ms=640,480&mt=m&findaddress=True&city=675%20Seaport%20boulevard%20redwood%20city%20ca&zip=&county=&federal_superfund=true&state_response=true&voluntary_cleanup=true&school_cleanup=true&ca_site=true&tiered_permit=true&evaluation=true&military_evaluation=true&school_investigation=true&operating=true&post_closure=true&non_operating=true. Accessed September 27, 2016a.

DTSC, 2016b. Envirostor Database, Port of Redwood City (80001379). Available at: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/profile_report.asp?global_id=80001379. Accessed September 27, 2016b.

Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2015. Final Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport. Prepared for City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County. September 2015. Available at: http://ccag.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/SQL_FinalALUCP_Sep15_read.pdf

9. Hydrology and Water Quality



Impact




Impact No Impact

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or by other means, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?





Impact




Impact No Impact

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would the project:

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or by other means, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Discussion

a) The project would not discharge wastewater to surface waters. There would be no consequential discharges of water and therefore, the project would not violate any water quality standards, and no impact would occur. Water quality effects from construction activities are discussed below in c) – f).

b) The proposed project would not require any extraction of local groundwater resources. Water supplies for the project site are provided by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission which obtains its water from the Hetch Hetchy reservoir in the Sierras. Groundwater recharge would not be significantly affected by the changes to impervious surfaces resulting from the proposed project. The impact would be less than significant.

c – f) Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not require land disturbing activities such as grading, earthmoving, backfilling, or compaction and therefore would not expose soils to the effects of stormwater runoff, and would not result in erosion or soil loss. The proposed improvements would not result in any substantial change to the impervious surface area under operating conditions. Therefore, the drainage pattern at the project site would be consistent with existing conditions and no alteration of streams or the existing drainage pattern would occur. Stormwater runoff from the project site is conveyed toward the Bay. Temporary erosion hazards during construction would not be anticipated; the construction activities would nonetheless be required to adhere to Best Management Practices (BMPs) as part of the permit requirements of the project to protect water quality. As noted above, all construction activities would be required to



obtain permits from Regional Water Quality Control Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/National Marine Fisheries Service. Compliance with these permit requirements would reduce the impact to less than significant.

g) The project does not propose to construct any housing. Therefore, no impact would occur.

h, i) The upland portion of the project site is located within the 100-year flood zone but the proposed improvements are all located offshore or along the wharves. The project does not include any elements that would cause or become damaged by flood flows. The impact would be less than significant.

j) Tsunamis are waves caused by an underwater earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. Flooding from tsunamis would generally affect Pacific Ocean coastal areas to a greater degree than low-lying areas along San Francisco Bay. Tsunami waves that might reach the Golden Gate entry in the Bay would naturally attenuate, making areas that are further away less susceptible to damaging waves. In addition, the project site is not located immediately adjacent to the Bay. The project site is not located within the California Geological Survey’s Tsunami Inundation Map for San Mateo County and is thus not seen as having an elevated risk of inundation by a seismic sea wave. A seiche is a tidal change in an enclosed or semi-enclosed water body caused by sustained high winds or an earthquake. Due to the Port’s proximity to the San Francisco Bay, the project site could experience seiche or seiche-related effects during seismic activity. The project site would not be located directly along the San Francisco Bay shoreline, but rather within a recessed area of waterways and islands. Due to this distance from the San Francisco Bay shoreline and buffer of islands, the severity of the seiche energy would be decreased upon reaching the Port, representing a less than significant impact in regards to seiche inundation. The project area is relatively flat and not susceptible to mudflows. Impacts regarding tsunami, seiche, and mudflow would be less than significant.


Implementation of the proposed project, together with past present and other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity could cumulatively increase stormwater runoff and pollutant loading to the Bay. Other current and future projects in the vicinity would be required to comply with current construction, drainage and grading requirements intended to control runoff and regulate water quality at each site. Additionally, new projects would be required to demonstrate that stormwater volumes could be managed by stormwater conveyance facilities designed to control onsite stormwater flows. New development projects in Redwood City also would be required to comply with City of Redwood City ordinances regarding water quality. All construction work and dredging activities within Redwood Creek and surrounding areas would require permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board, which require all activities to minimize adverse effects to water quality. Therefore, the effect of the project on water quality and hydrology, in conjunction with other cumulative projects, would be less than significant.



Implementation of the proposed project, together with past present and other reasonably foreseeable future projects in the vicinity, would potentially expose people and/or property to flooding from a 100-year event and sea level rise (as discussed under criteria h-j above). However, other future projects in the vicinity would be required to comply with flood control requirements intended to provide flood protection including San Mateo County and City of Redwood City flood control requirements and the proposed project would not include any elements that alter flood flows. Therefore, the project, in combination with other cumulative projects, would not result in a significant cumulative impact to people and/or property from a 100-year event in combination with sea level rise. The project would have a less than cumulatively considerable impact, and cumulative effects, therefore, would be less than significant.

References

California Geological Survey, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, Redwood Point Quadrangle/Palo Alto Quadrangle, June 15, 2009.


City of Redwood City, 2010. General Plan Environmental Impact Report. http://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/community-development-department/planning-housing/planning-services/environmental-documents/general-plan-eir.

10. Land Use and Planning



Impact




Impact No Impact

10. LAND USE AND PLANNING — Would the project:

a) Physically divide an established community?

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?

Discussion

a) There are no established communities located on the project site. The nearest established residential community is Centennial, located approximately 1.66 miles southwest. The project site’s use as an industrial operation would continue, and would not disrupt or divide the activities of nearby residents, including use of recreational facilities. The project would constitute a continuation of the existing uses on the project site and would not introduce any new uses to the site that would be incompatible with the site’s



surroundings. As such, the proposed project would not disrupt or divide an established community, and no impact would occur.

b) The project site is designated Industrial-Port Related by the City of Redwood City General Plan within the Seaport Redevelopment Area (City of Redwood City, 2010), and is zoned General Industrial (GI) (City of Redwood City, 2016). The designation of Industrial-Port Related provides for heavy industrial activities requiring large properties and water access for materials loading, storage, and processing. Allowed uses include industrial operations involved in the loading/unloading, storing, recycling, and transferring of large quantities of dry, liquid, and neo‐bulk cargoes; green energy production; rail facilities; as well as maritime‐oriented activities, including passenger vessels, ship repair or construction, and related ocean vessel support services. The project would be consistent with industrial, Port-Related uses that exist on the site and in the immediate vicinity. The proposed project would not require a change in land use designation.

The Port is located within the boundaries of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s (BCDC) San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan (Seaport Plan). This plan is incorporated into BCDC’s San Francisco Bay Plan, where it serves as the basis of the plan’s port policies. Areas determined to be necessary for future port development are designated as “port priority use areas” by the Seaport Plan. These areas are reserved for port-related and other uses that will not impede development of the sites for port purposes. The project site is located within the Port’s priority use area.

According to the Seaport Plan, proposed changes in use within port priority use areas would be subject to review by the Seaport Planning Advisory Committee, which would forward its recommendation to the BCDC and Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). The proposed project would continue the existing use of the site as a marine terminal; therefore, the project would not conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations of an agency with jurisdiction over the project and the impact would be less than significant.

c) As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, there is no adopted Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP), or other similar approved conservation plan within or in close proximity to the project area. The closest HCP to the project area is the San Bruno Mountain HCP, located approximately 12 miles north. In addition, the project site is not located in a natural resource area as designated by the Redwood City General Plan (City of Redwood City, 2010). No impact would occur.


As described above, the proposed project would be consistent with the existing land use and zoning designations at the project site and in the vicinity. The proposed project would have no impact on existing land use or land use policies; therefore, it would not contribute to cumulative effects in these topics and impacts would be less than significant.



References

City of Redwood City, 2010. General Plan, adopted October 11, 2010.

City of Redwood City, Redwood City Zoning Code. Article 19. Available at: https://www.municode.com/library/ca/redwood_city/codes/zoning?nodeId=ART19GIGEINDI.

City of Redwood City, Redwood City Zoning Map. Available at: www.redwoodcity.org/home/showdocument?id=4721

San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) and Metropolitan Transportation Commission, 2012. San Francisco Bay Area Seaport Plan, April 18, 1996, as amended through January 2012.

________________________

11. Mineral Resources



Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact No Impact

11. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the project:

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

Discussion

a – b) According to the California Geological Survey, there are no known mineral resources at the project site (CGS, 1996). The project site does not fall within an area designated as having a classification of MRZ-2 (Regionally Significant Aggregate Resources). The proposed project would not require quarrying, mining, dredging, or extraction of locally important mineral resources on-site, nor would it deplete any nonrenewable natural resource. Therefore, the project would have no impact on mineral resources.


The proposed project would have no effects on mineral resources; therefore, no significant cumulative impacts would occur.

References

California Geological Survey (CGS), 1996. Update of Mineral Land Classification: Aggregate Materials in the South San Francisco Bay Production-Consumption Region. Available at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/OFR_96-03/OFR_96-03_Text.pdf.



12. Noise



Impact




Impact No Impact

12. NOISE — Would the project:

a) Result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

b) Result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, in an area within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

Discussion

The proposed project’s short-term construction impacts on the ambient noise environment would be considered substantial if the project would expose sensitive receptors or other identified land uses to noise levels in excess of regulatory standards or codes. Page PS-67 of the Redwood City General Plan, Public Safety Element, defines sensitive receptors with respect to noise as homes, schools, hospitals, and parks. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are residents living on boats at the Redwood Landing marina, approximately 1,350 feet to the south.

a) The proposed project would result in noise from short-term construction activities. Potential impacts are assessed below.

Construction

Construction of the proposed project would cause a temporary increase in noise levels within the project vicinity. Construction equipment would generate noise that could be audible to occupants of nearby properties. According to the project sponsor, the construction period would occur over approximately 100 days. Construction noise levels would fluctuate depending on construction phase, equipment type, duration of use, distance between noise source and affected receptor, and the presence (or absence) of barriers. Impacts would generally be limited to the periods during which new foundations and structural elements would be constructed.



Construction noise is regulated by the Redwood City Noise Ordinance (Chapter 24 of the Municipal Code). The ordinance requires that noise levels from individual pieces of construction equipment not exceed 110 dBA on any residentially zoned property. Additionally, Section 24.32 of the Ordinance prohibits construction work in or within 500 feet of a residentially zoned property between 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

The nearest residentially zoned property is Pete’s Harbor which is over one mile to the southwest and beyond the 500-foot influence zone codified in the Noise Ordinance. Construction would involve the use of a barge-mounted crane, intermittent tug boat operations to maneuver the barge, generators, welders, and air compressors. Tug Boats generate noise levels on the order of 87 dBA at 50 feet (Epsilon Associates, March 2006). The other equipment generates noise levels at 50 feet of 73 to 85 dBA (FHWA, 2006).

Additionally, there would be an estimated 11 days of pile driving activity during daytime hours, most of which would involve a vibratory pile driver but some piles may require final installation using an impact pile driver. Pile drivers generate noise levels of 101 dBA at 50 feet (FHWA, 2006). Consequently, construction of the proposed project would not generate noise in excess of standards established by the Noise Ordinance. Although not zoned as residential uses, there are live-aboard vessels moored at the marina approximately 1,350 feet south of Wharves 3 and 4. Noise levels at these live-aboards from construction activities, assuming simultaneous operation of the two noisiest pieces of equipment, would be 60 dBA during normal construction activities and 72 dBA during the estimated 11 days of pile driving during daytime hours. Consequently, construction of the proposed project also would not generate noise in excess of standards established by the Noise Ordinance to live-aboard vessels, were they to apply.

Operation

The proposed project involves the replacement and improvement of fenders, dolphins, and walkways at the existing Wharves 3 and 4 related to natural deterioration of the facilities since their original construction in the 1980s. Therefore, the project would not result in increased throughput at the wharves that could potentially result in increased operational noise above existing conditions.

b) There would be an estimated 11 days of pile driving activity during daytime hours, most of which would involve a vibratory pile driver but some piles may require final installation using an impact pile driver. Vibration is not regulated by the City of Redwood City Noise Ordinance but the Federal Transit Administration (FTA, 2006) and Caltrans (Caltrans, 2013) publish guidance on assessing impacts from vibration. Pile drivers generate vibration levels of 0.644 inches per second at 25 feet (FHWA, 2006). Resultant vibration levels at the nearest potential receptors (live-aboard vessels moored at the marina approximately 1,350 feet south of Wharves 3 and 4) would be attenuated to 0.0016 inches per second. This vibration level would be below the threshold for building damage to fragile buildings (0.12 inches per second) and below the threshold for human perceptibility. All other construction equipment would generate substantially less vibration. Consequently, vibration impacts would be less than significant.



c) See the operational noise analysis in “a”. Impacts would be less than significant.

d) See the construction noise analysis in “a”. Impacts would be less than significant.

e, f) The proposed project is located within two miles of the San Carlos Airport. However, the site does not fall within the airport’s 60 dBA contour (City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, 2015). Furthermore, the project does not include development of any noise sensitive land uses and is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. This impact would be less than significant.


For noise, the geographic scope for cumulative impacts, given the localized impact, a smaller more localized area surrounding the immediate project site is appropriate for consideration. Noise generated from the proposed project would not be compounded when taken in context with other noise-generating projects in the larger geographic and temporal scope. This is primarily because of the relative distances and timing of other cumulative projects and that it would be highly unlikely for noise emanating from more than one construction or noise-generating project to be heard from an individual receptor. Therefore, when considered in addition to the anticipated impacts of other projects in the cumulative scenario, the project’s incremental contribution to noise impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.

References

Caltrans, Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, September 2013.


City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County, Draft Final Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Environs of San Carlos Airport, April 2015.

Epsilon Associates, Hudson River PCB’s Superfund Site, Phase 1 Final Design Report Attachment J Noise Impact Assessment, March 2006.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006.



13. Population and Housing



Impact




Impact No Impact

13. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the project:

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

Discussion

a) In general, a project would be considered growth-inducing if its implementation would result in substantial population increases and/or new development that might not occur if the project were not approved and implemented. The proposed project would not involve residential development and would not require a change in land use designation or zoning that would support substantial population growth. Further, the project would not intensify the existing industrial land use of the site such that it would result in a substantial increase in on-site employees or expand existing infrastructure. The project would require a maximum of approximately 15 employees during all phases of construction. It is expected that construction workforce requirements would be met by residents of Redwood City and the surrounding area; it is anticipated that construction employees would commute from within San Mateo County and nearby communities, rather than relocate from more distant cities and towns. Although construction workers might temporarily relocate from other areas, any population increase due to this relocation would be minor and temporary. Because the proposed project would not construct residential units at the project site nor expand the existing infrastructure, it is not likely to induce population growth, either directly or indirectly. The impact would be less than significant.

b, c) No housing exists on the project site; therefore, the proposed project would not displace existing housing or people and no impact would result.


The geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts on population growth includes the vicinity of the project site where residential and commercial uses occur. Potential cumulative impacts on population growth would include construction and operations hours (including daytime and night-time work), which would require the presence of employees at the site. During this time frame, employees would potentially use business services, such as restaurants in the vicinity of the project site, but the use of these services would be small in comparison to current uses, and would not create a need for additional employees. As discussed above, the potential number of



employees working at the project site that are not already residents of Redwood City or the Bay Area would be small compared to overall employment in Redwood City. Most project employees would commute from the nearby surrounding area and the proposed project would not generate a need for employees to relocate from other areas. Thus, the proposed project would not contribute to substantial population growth or create a demand for housing outside the Bay Area and potential cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

The proposed project would have no impact on potential displacement of housing units or people, and therefore would not result in cumulative impacts regarding these topics.

14. Public Services



Impact




Impact No Impact

14. PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project:

a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the 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 following public services:

i) Fire protection?

ii) Police protection?

iii) Schools?

iv) Parks?

v) Other public facilities?

Discussion

a.i) The Redwood City Fire Department (RCFD) provides fire protection services to the Port. The RCFD currently has seven fire stations housing seven engines, one truck, one battalion chief and approximately 90 employees including firefighters, firefighter/paramedics, captains, battalion chiefs, fire prevention training staff, and administrative staff. The RCFD provides comprehensive fire prevention and fire code enforcement, fire suppression, emergency medical services, and community emergency preparedness in Redwood City (City of Redwood City 2016a). There are two fire stations located near the Port: Fire Station No. 9, located approximately 1.7 miles southwest of the project site, at 755 Marshall Street, is the primary station serving the Port; and Fire Station No. 11 is located approximately 1.5 miles southeast of the project site at 1091 2nd Avenue. The RCFD has a minimum daily staffing requirement of 20 on-duty staff per day, which allows them to reach their goal of responding to calls for service within five minutes at least 85 percent of the time. The average response time for Station No. 9



in 2009 was 4 minutes, 16 seconds; for Station No. 11 it was 4 minutes, 42 seconds. The proposed project would incrementally increase the demand on fire protection and medical response services at the Port during the five month construction period, but it would not create a need for additional fire personnel or new or altered facilities to maintain adequate response times and other objectives and standards. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to fire protection and emergency medical response provisions.

a.ii) The Redwood City Police Department (RCPD) provides police protection services to the Port from its facility at 1301 Maple Street, approximately 1.0 mile southwest of the project site. The RCPD consists of 161 employees: 96 sworn officers, 36 civilian employees, 4 reserve officers, and 25 volunteers (City of Redwood City, 2016b). The sworn employees include police chief, captains, sergeants, and officers. The officer–to-population ratio in Redwood City is currently 1.23 officers per 1,000 residents. The proposed project would incrementally increase the demand on police protection services at the Port during project construction, but it would not create a need for additional police personnel or new or altered facilities to maintain adequate response times and other objectives and standards. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact regarding police protection.

a.iii) The Redwood City School District and Sequoia Union High School District operate Redwood City’s public schools. The closest school to the project site is Sequoia High School located at 1201 Brewster Avenue in Redwood City, 1.5 miles southwest. The proposed project does not include a residential component that would directly result in school-age children moving to the area, nor would it indirectly induce substantial population growth in the area. The minimal increase in employees living in Redwood City that could result during operation of the project would not result in the generation of large numbers of school-age children that would affect nearby public school facilities. This impact would be less than significant.

a.iv-v) The proposed project would not adversely affect nearby parks (see Section 15, Recreation). The nearest park to the project site is Hoover Park, located approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project site at 2100 Spring Street. The project would not directly or indirectly induce population growth in the area, therefore, the construction or alteration of other new public facilities would not be required as a result of the project. This impact would be less than significant.


The geographic scope for potential cumulative public services impacts encompasses public service providers in the vicinity of the project site and Port of Redwood City. Public services in the project vicinity include services provided by Redwood City Police Department, Redwood City Fire Department, the Sequoia Union High School District, and the Redwood City School District. Similar to the proposed project, projects within the vicinity would utilize services provided by these departments.



The proposed project’s temporary increase in employment would incrementally increase demand for public services, but this increase would not be cumulatively considerable because the increase in demand would not be beyond levels anticipated and planned for in the project site vicinity. Additionally, most project construction workers would commute from the nearby surrounding area and the proposed project would not generate an increased need to serve employees from other areas. For these reasons, the proposed project would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative public service impacts, and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.

References

City of Redwood City, 2016a. Fire Department, About the Department. http://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/fire-department/about-the-department.

City of Redwood City, 2016b. Police Department, About Us. http://www.redwoodcity.org/departments/police-department/about-us.



15. Recreation



Impact




Impact No Impact

15. RECREATION — Would the project:

a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated?

b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

Discussion

a) There are no recreational facilities at the project site. The proposed project would continue the maritime use of the project site, which is not zoned or intended for general public uses. A small public access area on Redwood Creek is located just south of Wharf 4. This area includes a grassy lawn, benches, and picnic tables. The Portside I and II commercial office complexes are located further south of Wharf 4 and include a conference center, waterfront public access, viewing areas, picnic areas, fishing pier, and parking. Sequoia Yacht Club and Spinnaker Sailing are recreational boating facilities located immediately south of the



office complex. Westpoint Harbor is located approximately 0.75-mile northeast of the site and offers a full service marina consisting of 416-berths (Westpoint Harbor LLC, 2015). The closest park in Redwood City is 10.18-acre Hoover Park, located at 2100 Spring Street, approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the project site, which offers a playground, picnic tables, restrooms, a grass area, barbecue pits, baseball and soccer fields, and a swimming pool (City of Redwood City, 2015). During project construction and operation, Hoover Park, the Sequoia Yacht Club, Westpoint Harbor, and all other surrounding recreational facilities would remain open. Further, as described in Section 13, Population and Housing, the project would not induce substantial population growth in the project area, either directly or indirectly and would not result in the alteration of existing or construction of new recreation facilities Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact on recreation.

b) The project would not include construction or expansion of recreational facilities; therefore, no impact would result.


The geographic scope for potential cumulative recreation impacts encompasses recreational and open space areas in the vicinity of the project site and Port of Redwood City. Potential cumulative recreation impacts would be limited to the time workers would able to use recreational facilities. Workers would be present at the site during daytime hours, and would likely not make use of surrounding recreational facilities during nighttime hours. Other projects in the vicinity of the project site could result in increased population that could use nearby parks and recreation facilities; however, the proposed project would not noticeably contribute to that usage. Additionally, most project employees would commute from the nearby surrounding area and the proposed project would not generate an increased need to serve employees from other areas. The proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts for this topic and the impact would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment, and therefore would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts in this regard. No cumulative impact would occur.

References


City of Redwood City, 2016. Park Locations: Hoover Park. http://www.redwoodcity.org/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/41/1912.

Westpoint Harbor LLC, 2015. http://westpointharbor.com.



16. Transportation and Traffic



Impact




Impact No Impact

16. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC — Would the project:

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location those results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

Discussion

The following analysis does not discuss CEQA Checklist items “b” level of service (LOS) standards established by congestion management programs (CMP), “c” air traffic, “e” emergency access, and “f” alternative transportation. CMP LOS standards are intended to monitor and address long-term traffic impacts resulting from future development, not temporary impacts associated with construction activities (Item “b”); the project site is located outside the Safety Areas of the closest airports (San Carlos Airport and Palo Alto Airport) (Item “c”); the project would not change the configuration of the project area’s road network and therefore would not affect the project site’s access for vehicles, including emergency vehicles (Item “e”); and the project would not directly or indirectly affect current or planned policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (Item “f”).

a) Regional access to the project area is provided via U.S. 101 and State Route 84 (SR 84). In the vicinity of the project site, U.S. 101 is primarily an eight-lane freeway. During the a.m. and p.m. peak commute periods, one lane in each direction is reserved for use by high occupancy vehicles. The project site is accessible from Seaport Boulevard via the interchange of U.S. 101 and SR 84 (Woodside Road).



Woodside Road (SR 84) is a four- to six-lane arterial through Redwood City between I-280 and U.S. 101, and is a designated state highway. Woodside Road becomes Seaport Boulevard and provides access to the project site from Frontage Road, which parallels Seaport Boulevard. Seaport Boulevard is a four-lane roadway extending from the U.S. 101 interchange northward to the Pacific Shores office development. Seaport Boulevard is the primary access route for truck traffic to and from the Port of Redwood City and U.S. 101.

Transit Service. Existing transit service to the study area is provided by the San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans) and Caltrain, but there are no bus routes serving the project site, and the Redwood City Caltrain Station is approximately two miles southwest of the project site.

Bicycle Facilities. There are five designated bicycle facilities in the vicinity of the site. A Class I off-street bicycle pathway fronts the west side of Cargill’s Industrial Salt Plant Site in the vicinity of the proposed project. Blomquist Street provides a Class II bike lane extending from Maple Street eastward to Seaport Boulevard. The East Bayshore Road/Haven Avenue Class III on-street bike route (designated by signs and pavement markings) stretches from Seaport Boulevard in the west to the City of Menlo Park in the east.

Pedestrian Facilities. Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals. There are no pedestrian facilities in the vicinity of the proposed project along Seaport Boulevard besides the bicycle path mentioned above. Pedestrian facilities in the project area consist primarily of sidewalks along the streets in most industrial areas, with the exception of Frontage Road, where existing train tracks front the western side of the street.

Project Impacts

During the approximate five-month construction period, project traffic would be generated from two sources: truck trips to and from the work sites, and construction work crews and supervisory staff working at the sites. Construction equipment would be delivered to, and removed from, the site as needed, i.e., these truck trips would not occur every day, and the number of daily truck trips would vary with the intensity of the construction activity on any given day.

Construction-generated traffic would be temporary and therefore would not result in long-term degradation in operating conditions on project roadways. The percent increase in traffic volumes caused by project-generated construction traffic on the arterials and freeways serving the project work site would not be substantial, nor would project traffic significantly disrupt daily traffic flow on these roadways. The primary impacts from construction truck traffic would include a temporary and intermittent reduction of roadway capacities due to the slower movements and larger turning radii of the trucks compared to passenger vehicles. Drivers would experience only intermittent delays if they were traveling behind a construction truck. Therefore, the project traffic impact would be less than significant.



d) The potential for the proposed project to substantially increase traffic safety hazards was assessed in terms of project-caused changes to roadway configurations and/or to the characteristics of traffic flow, and in terms of the effect of introducing added traffic volumes with the prevailing roadway and traffic features (e.g., available sight distance and presence of traffic signals and stop signs) on area roadways. Although higher traffic volumes could increase the potential for added vehicle collisions, project-generated traffic would be temporary and intermittent, and the proposed project would neither alter the physical configuration of the existing roadway network serving the area, nor introduce unsafe design features. Therefore, the project impact to traffic safety hazards would be less than significant.

17. Utilities and Service Systems



Impact




Impact No Impact

17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project:

a) Conflict with wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that would serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Discussion

a, b, e) The proposed project would be served by Silicon Valley Clean Water, located in Redwood Shores, which is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) (City of Redwood City General Plan, 2010). The proposed project would obtain all necessary permits, including RWQCB Section 401 Certification, and would not include water or wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore,



would have less than significant impacts regarding conflicts with wastewater treatment requirements, construction of treatment facilities, or capacity of Silicon Valley Clean Water.

c) Construction activities associated with the proposed project would not require land disturbing activities such as grading, earthmoving, backfilling, or compaction and therefore would not require construction of new storm drainage facilities. No impact would result.

d) The Port is served by the Redwood City water supply system, which receives all of its domestic water supply from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission’s (SFPUC) regional system via the Hetch Hetchy reservoir. The City has a contractual water supply assurance of 12,243 acre-feet per year (AFY), but currently consumes approximately 1,000 AFY less than the contractual amount. Recycled water is also available for dust control from Redwood City via the Silicon Valley Clean Water wastewater treatment plant. Sufficient water supplies are therefore available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources as no increase in operational water use would occur. This impact would be less than significant.

f, g) Waste from the Port is taken to the South Bayside Transfer Station in San Carlos where approximately 90 percent is transported to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill located three miles east of Half Moon Bay. The other 10 percent is diverted to numerous other landfills in the Bay Area. The proposed project would comply with all standard regulatory conditions for solid waste reduction and recycling. These landfills would have sufficient capacity for waste produced by the proposed project. Timber piles proposed for demolition are assumed to be treated with creosote and would be disposed at an approved facility. Impacts would be less than significant.


The geographic scope for potential cumulative utilities impacts include Redwood City for water and wastewater systems, Silicon Valley Clean Water for wastewater service, and those jurisdictions that transport and dispose of solid waste at the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill and other landfills in the bay area. Similar to the proposed project, projects within these service areas would utilize the same water, wastewater, and waste disposal systems, which would potentially increase the demand on such facilities.

While cumulative development projects would increase demand for water conveyance, storage and supply, these developments would provide additional tax revenue and other development fees that would go toward paying for increased utilities and service systems. Such requirements would cumulatively reduce the increased demand for water. The proposed project would not increase demand on the water supply in conjunction with such projects; therefore, cumulative impacts to the SFPUC water system would be less than significant.

Increased waste generation from the proposed project and cumulative developments would be partially offset by existing Redwood City ordinances and policies regarding waste reduction. The



increasing rate of diversion through recycling, composting, and other methods would result in a decreasing share of total waste disposed in local landfills. Cumulative impacts regarding overall contributions of the proposed project and surrounding development projects to landfills, as well as compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste, would be less than significant.

The proposed project would not conflict with wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB, would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, or require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities, or expansion of existing facilities and would result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that would serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. Therefore, the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable and the impact would be less than significant.

References



City of Redwood City, Public Works Department, Water Supply, www.redwoodcity.org//water/water_supply.htm.

18. Mandatory Findings of Significance



Impact




Impact No Impact

18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE — Would the project:

a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

b) Have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?

c) Have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?



Discussion

a) The proposed project would have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or reduce the number of a rare or endangered animal. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1, BIO-2, and BIO-3 described in Section 4, Biological Resources, would reduce these potential impacts to less-than-significant levels.

b) The proposed project would have potentially significant environmental effects in the areas of air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and geology. No project-specific significant effects were identified in the Initial Study that could not be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The project would not result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a cumulative impact in any of the above resource areas.

c) The proposed project may have significant adverse effects on human beings in the areas of air quality and geology. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and GEO-1would reduce the effects to less-than-significant levels.

Documents

BCDC app SupplementalInfoDoc 20170303 5. CEQA IS-MND.pdf1,600-foot (500 meter) open-water safety zone shall be maintained. ... mammal safety zone may change based on the findings of