INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND IMPACT ANALYSIS

Transcription

1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND IMPACT ANALYSIS for the Eagle Rock Aggregates Marine Aggregate Receiving, Storage and Distribution Terminal Port of Redwood City, California For Information Contact: Mr. Michael Giari Executive Director Port of Redwood City 675 Seaport Boulevard Redwood City, California (650) Project Sponsor: Eagle Rock Aggregates, Inc. 325 Birch Hollow Court Roswell, Georgia Prepared by: AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. 703 Market Street, Suite 1511 San Francisco, California (415)

2 Initial Study Environmental Checklist and Impact Analysis Environmental Checklist Form 1. Project title: Eagle Rock Aggregates Inc., Marine Aggregate Receiving, Storage & Distribution Terminal. 2. Lead agency name and address: Port of Redwood City, San Francisco Bay, 675 Seaport Boulevard, Redwood City, California Contact person and phone number: Michael Giari, Executive Director, (650) Project location: The proposed project site is located at the Port of Redwood City, on the west side of the frontage road paralleling Seaport Boulevard, approximately 300 feet north of the intersection of Seaport Boulevard/ Seaport Court/ Frontage Road and south of Henry A. Beeger Road which serves Wharf No. 5, on an approximately 8.9-acre portion of Assessor s Parcel Number , commonly referred to as the former Liquid Bulk Terminal site at 475 Seaport Boulevard. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Eagle Rock Aggregates Inc., 325 Birch Hollow Court, Roswell, Georgia Contact: David Singleton, President. 6. General Plan Designation: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) Seaport Plan designates the project site as a liquid bulk terminal in recognition of the preexisting use. 7. Zoning: GI (General Industrial District) Redwood City. 8. Surrounding land uses and setting: The project site is located at the Port of Redwood City in an area previously developed as a liquid bulk terminal, but which is no longer operational, and is in the implementation phase of remediation. Surrounding land uses are primarily maritime-related (wharfs and ship offloading facilities), along with building construction materials, chemical storage, Portside Business Park, and a yacht harbor. Land uses adjacent to the project site include road access to Wharf No. 5 and Basic Chemical Solutions (BCS) to the north; the frontage road of Seaport Boulevard and Union Pacific Railroad tracks to the east, and asphalt covered parking areas serving offices located in the Portside Business Park and the yacht harbor to the south and west (Figure 1). 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). The Port of Redwood City (Board of Port Commissioners) will be the decision making body for approval of this project and will also be responsible as the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or other environmental document, as required. Accompanying the request for a land use permit is a companion case to amend the Port of Redwood City Seaport Plan and the corresponding BCDC Seaport Plan. The project will also be subject to review by the City of Redwood City, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), BCDC, and the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Additional agencies will review the environmental document as Responsible Agencies during the public review period and may suggest additional mitigations or project modifications

3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Insert Figure

4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 Project Objective Recent closure of a number of quarries has constrained local supplies of high quality construction aggregate products, increasing demand for aggregate imported by sea, rail and long-haul surface transportation. Long-haul road deliveries contribute to traffic congestion and air emissions, and provide limited volume relative to local demand. The purpose of the project is to develop a bulk aggregate receiving, storage and transfer facility at the Port of Redwood City, to operate as an efficient entry point for servicing major South Bay markets, including San Jose, San Mateo and Peninsular communities. 1.2 Overview and Project Setting Eagle Rock Aggregates, Inc. (Eagle Rock) is a subsidiary company of Polaris Minerals Corporation (Polaris), a Canadian Public Company, based in Vancouver, British Columbia. Eagle Rock is engaged in the marine transportation, transfer, storage and distribution of construction aggregate materials from a majority-owned Polaris company, Orca Sand & Gravel Quarry, based at Port McNeill, Vancouver Island, British Columbia. Polaris partners in the Orca Quarry are the Namgis First Nation tribe, which owns 12 percent of Orca Sand & Gravel. Eagle Rock is proposing to construct a facility sited on approximately 4.5 acres of land, to receive aggregate through Wharf No. 5 at the Port of Redwood City for storage and local distribution. The project is scheduled to begin operation in 2008 and would build to a full operating capacity of 1.5 million tons per annum over a period of approximately 5 years. Aggregate would be received at Wharf No. 5 and delivered to the storage area by a covered conveyance system. Aggregate would be stored in open stockpiles before being transferred by conveyor to smaller day bins which would feed materials to a truck load-out facility, prior to the delivery of aggregate to local markets. The Port of Redwood City is located 18 nautical miles south of San Francisco Bay. It is the only deep water port in south San Francisco Bay (Figure 1). Surface access to the Port is from U.S. Highway 101 to Seaport Boulevard. Seaport Boulevard extends to the end of the peninsula with short access roads serving Port users between Seaport Boulevard and the waterfront. Land uses at the Port primarily consist of handling, processing, storage and transportation of imported construction materials, scrap metal, construction debris for recycling, and chemicals. The Orca Sand & Gravel operation in British Columbia is adjacent to deep navigable water and will include all crushing, grading and washing of aggregate, prior to delivery to California in Panamax self-discharging vessels. The Orca Sand & Gravel Quarry has received all applicable approvals and began operations of the quarry in February

5 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1.3 Delivery Vessel and Aggregate Offloading System Eagle Rock s proposed project would primarily use deep draft Panamax ships to deliver aggregate to the Port in loads of up to approximately 40,000 tons of sand and gravel. The ships have capacity to deliver 70,000 tons, but short loads would be required to accommodate the water depths available in the navigation channel approaching the Port. The wharf would also be capable of receiving aggregate delivered from self-discharging barges, with delivery capability ranging from 4,000 tons to 7,000 tons. Panamax vessels would dock at Wharf No. 5. The location relative to the Redwood City Landing Marina, a small floating dock marina consisting of approximately 40 slips, is shown in Figure 2. Project vessels would require a water depth of 34 feet at the Wharf No. 5 berth. Barges used for this purpose would have a fully loaded draft varying from 12 to 18 feet. The Port maintains its berths under a multi-episodal dredge permit with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The aggregate would be offloaded from the Panamax vessel to shore by an enclosed conveyance system and into a land-based receiving hopper at a rate of approximately 4,000 tons per hour. The receiving hopper would be of steel construction with an approximate 25-ton capacity, and would be approximately 74 feet high. The design of the receiving hopper has been established to afford full road and rail access under the delivery conveyor to the storage facility. When the delivery of aggregate is provided by a self-discharging barge, the vessel would discharge directly into a separate hopper permanently located on Wharf No. 5. Aggregate would be conveyed from this hopper via a covered conveyor to the main feed conveyor at the rate of approximately 1,000 tons per hour. Dust suppression at the receiving hoppers would be achieved through use of canvas housing and a dust suppression system. This equipment, called a sonic or dry fog system, uses airatomized water to suppress airborne dust. The receiving hopper would discharge material onto a conveyor through a belt feeder. From the receiving conveyor, the aggregate would be elevated to an enclosed transfer hopper to be located at the north end of the storage facility at a height of approximately 50 feet. The entry point onto the main feed conveyor would be covered to prevent the escape of dust into the atmosphere. Thereafter, discharged aggregate would proceed to the storage facility. See Figures 3 and 4 for the site layout in plan and crosssectional views, respectively. The duration of the offloading process would be approximately 10 to 12 hours for ships, and eight to nine hours for barges

6 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Insert Figure 2-5 -

7 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Insert Figure 3-6 -

8 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Insert Figure 4-7 -

9 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1.4 Aggregate Transfer to Storage Area From the transfer hopper, the aggregate would be transported by a 54-inch overhead tripper conveyor, which would be programmed to deposit specifically sized aggregate onto open storage stockpiles. Similar to the receiving hopper, the transfer point would be equipped with a dust suppression system. 1.5 Aggregate Storage The storage area would be capable of holding approximately 120,000 tons of construction aggregate in sizes ranging from one-inch to sand. The function of the storage area would be to receive and store finished product. No crushing or screening would take place at the project facility. All crushing and processing of materials, including cleaning and washing, will occur at the quarry site on Vancouver Island, British Columbia. The aggregate would be stored in open stockpiles having a maximum height of approximately 45 feet. An overhead sprinkler system would provide dust suppression and maintain the required moisture content to meet sales specifications, subject to satisfactory water quality. Assuming the chemical composition of recycled water is compatible with future uses of the aggregate as cement, Eagle Rock would use recycled water for dust suppression when the recycled water becomes available from the City of Redwood City 1. Prior to using recycled water, water for the sprinkler system would be provided by City-supplied water. The sprinkler system would be operated when required to suppress wind-blown fine particles and to maintain product specifications. Estimated water usage at the site is approximately 2,000 gallons per hour, based on a maximum annual throughput of 1.5 million tons. A 30-inch longitudinal conveyor, running the length of the stockpiles, would be fed by a frontend loading shovel, via four feed hoppers, to convey aggregate to four day bins from which a continual supply of finished product would be conveyed to the load-out and weigh-scale building. The purpose of the day bins is to eliminate the need for random vehicle loading adjacent to the open stockpiles, which is traditionally a noisy and dusty operation. The day bins would be supplied by a covered overhead conveyor and would maintain the separation of each individual product. An under hopper reclaim conveyor would feed precisely loaded finished products to the covered load out weigh station where aggregate would be dropped into delivery trucks sitting on one of two weigh-scales. 1 Redwood City is implementing its Recycled Water Project, which is scheduled for construction September 2006 along Shoreline Drive. See

10 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1.6 Recovery System and Weight Scale Station Delivery trucks carrying up to 25 tons of finished product would be weighed and dispatched from this location. The truck loading system would be controlled by a computer system located in the dispatch office. The weigh scale station would consist of two parallel 80-foot platform weigh scales housed within a covered and solid-sided structure. The station would be a steel-clad building with flexible curtain doorways at each end for entrance and egress of vehicles. The dispatch office would be located near this building. A dust suppression unit would be provided at the loading out transfer point. 1.7 Landscaping Eagle Rock has prepared a preliminary landscape plan for the facility, to provide landscaping along the eastern and southern boundaries of the site. The plan was prepared by certified Landscape Consultants to achieve the most appropriate ground, shrub, and tree cover, and was prepared in consultation with the Redwood City Planning Department to accommodate City of Redwood City s landscape requirements and water conservation guidelines. Conceptual drawings of the plan are shown in Figures 5 and 6. Landscaping was designed to provide visual screening and a buffer against wind and sound, adding density to existing landscaping. The proposed plantings are suitable for use with recycled water, in anticipation of its use at the site when recycled water becomes available. Eagle Rock agrees to use recycled water for landscape plantings when it becomes available. 1.8 Stormwater and Drainage The facility design would include drainage controls to manage storm water flow and discharge at the project site, and would be prepared in the later design phases of the project after remediation work has been carried out by the Port (see Project Construction). A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) would be prepared for the construction and operation phases of the project to establish best management practices (BMPs) to prevent pollution from site runoff. The plans would be required as part of the National Pollutant Discharge and Elimination System (NPDES) permits required for construction and operation. 1.9 Lighting The project design includes lighting at all transfer points and conveyor walkways, the load-out building, and for personal security around the administration office area. All external lighting would have shielding tilting downward to avoid offsite glare

11 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Insert Figure 5. Conceptual Land Use Plan

12 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Insert Figure 6. Proposed Plantings and Heights

13 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1.10 Project Operations Eagle Rock projects the annual throughput to be 300,000 tons initially, reaching full operating capacity of 1.5 million tons of aggregate in 5 years. At full operating capacity the facility would receive approximately three Panamax vessels per month, which may be augmented by approximately one barge delivery per month. At no time is it anticipated that the combination of Panamax vessels and barge deliveries would exceed five visits per month. Aggregate would be picked-up by trucks from the project site and delivered to customers via Seaport Boulevard and U.S. Highway 101. A total estimated 255 trucks would enter and exit the site during proposed operating hours. Eagle Rock will seek to secure a supply agreement to a Port located ready mix concrete plant, which will effectively retain a portion of the aggregate in the Port area and not require truck transit along Seaport Boulevard. Table 1 shows expected annual aggregate sales, and destinations relative to the project site and the Port. Table 1 Planned Aggregate Sales Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 & Beyond Total Aggregate Sales, tons 300, , ,000 1,200,000 1,500,000 Aggregate shipped on U.S. Highway 101 North, tons Aggregate shipped on U.S. Highway 101 South, tons Local Ready Mix, million tons (no transit on U.S. Highway 101) 50, , , , ,000 60, , , , , , , , , ,000 Table 2 shows truck movements on U.S. Highway 101, by year and destination, assuming the sales noted in Table 1 and a delivery truck capacity of 25 tons. Deliveries kept within the Port are not reported in Table 2. Table 2 Truck Movements on U.S. Highway 101 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 & Beyond Daily Truck Movements on U.S. Highway 101 North Daily Truck Movements on U.S. Highway 101 South Daily Truck Movements on U.S. Highway 101 TOTAL Proposed operating hours are Monday through Saturday, 4 a.m. to 10 p.m. Increasingly, however, major road contracts are being carried out during off-peak hours to avoid road

14 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS congestion. Therefore, under certain supply contract conditions, Eagle Rock may operate the aggregate storage facility over limited 7-day and/or 24-hour periods. During afternoon peak traffic hours, 4 p.m. to 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, the operation would suspend outbound truck deliveries to avoid additional truck traffic along Seaport Boulevard near U.S. Highway 101. Eagle Rock would require all contractors loading or hauling aggregate to or from the site to comply with all BAAQMD standards, and to implement best available control methods to reduce dust emissions during project operations. As noted above, the project design incorporates dust suppression at transfer points, an enclosed conveyance system and dust suppression in the stockpile area. The vessels, front-end loader and delivery trucks are the only combustion emission sources required for the operations. Other equipment used for project operations would be electrically driven, and no diesel-fired generators or similar power sources would be required Employment Eagle Rock anticipates employing a maximum of three people per 9-hour shift at the terminal. The work area would consist of an office building, personnel facilities, and a parking area for employees and visitors. Additional people would be required for tie-up and cast-off operations during vessel calls Project Construction The project site is on a portion of the former 8.9-acre Gibson site. Currently, the site has 10 aboveground bulk storage tanks, associated pipelines, ancillary equipment and structures, an office building, warehouse and truck loading facilities. Plans for demolition and remediation of the site are underway as a separate action by the Port, and are not part of this project. 2 When the Eagle Rock project begins construction, the site will have been cleared of existing infrastructure and materials, and will be prepared for new site development. Terminal construction would involve Bay mud stabilization over the extent of the aggregate storage area, and piled foundations for the receiving hopper, transfer tower, weigh station and day bin area. Approximately 100 or fewer new piles are expected to be needed to provide support for these areas. Existing tank farm foundation piles would provide stability, and would be supplemented with jet grouting 3 or other techniques to stabilize areas between existing piles. 2 See Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Former Gibson Environmental Facility, Former Liquid Bulk Terminal, Port of Redwood City, August Jet grouting is a technique used for ground stabilization, which has been used in various locations in the San Francisco Bay Area where stabilization of Bay mud is necessary. Examples include the Islais Creek Tunnels (San Francisco) and seismic retrofit projects

15 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Normal building and civil engineering plant and equipment would be used for site preparation, ground stabilization, and construction. A concrete slab would be poured to provide the foundation for the stockpile area, and the truck access roads would be asphalt-paved. Construction would involve the use of pile-driving equipment and light and heavy civil engineering to prepare the site, and to construct the transfer and storage site components. Portside Business Park tenants and people known by the Port to live aboard their boats in nearby marinas would be given notice prior to commencement of pile-driving activities, which are expected to be completed within one month. Eagle Rock would require that the contractor provide at least three days notice to each tenant of the Portside Business Park and post notices at the marinas under jurisdiction of the Port prior to commencement of scheduled pile-driving activities. The piles and ground stabilization are the only structural components that would be below existing grade. Soils testing and analysis would be conducted prior to completing the final design to determine appropriate composition of building materials and stabilization methods. Site preparation and construction activities would be carried out consistent with Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and CalOSHA regulations and local requirements to provide for worker and public safety. The proposed project shall also comply with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Volume 2, Chapter 16, Divisions IV and V, and the Redwood City Building Codes. Additional design recommendations would be derived from the geotechnical study prepared for this site. 4 In order to reduce short-term construction emissions, Basic Control Measures recommended by the BAAQMD would be implemented. 5 Specific measures would be defined in the work plan, which would be dependent on final engineering decisions on ground stabilization techniques, and site condition prior to construction. The BAAQMD would review and approve site-specific control measures as part of the permit application review (see discussion below on agency approvals) prior to construction. Project construction is expected to last approximately 8 to 10 months. Pending regulatory review and approvals, construction is estimated to commence in 2007, with project operations beginning in Agency Approvals Required Table 3 notes approvals and permits other than compliance with the CEQA required to construct and operate the Eagle Rock receiving, storage and transfer facility. 4 Geotechnical Study, Aggregate Terminal Complex, Port of Redwood City, California, AMEC, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines

16 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Table 3 Agency Approvals Permit/Approval Agency Activity Permitted Board of Commissioners Certification Port of Redwood City Lease of Port facilities Board of Commissioners Port of Redwood City Seaport Plan Amendment to Dry Bulk Materials BCDC Seaport Plan Major permit General Construction Stormwater Permit (NPDES permit) General Industrial Storm Water Permit (NPDES permit) Bay Conservation and Development Commission Bay Conservation and Development Commission State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) SWRCB Seaport Plan Amendment to Dry Bulk Materials Construction within 100 feet of the San Francisco Bay shoreline Discharges into waters of the state associated with construction activities Discharges associated with industrial activities into waters of the state Building permit City of Redwood City Construction of building for aggregate storage Grading permit City of Redwood City Grading of lots requiring greater than 50 cubic yards of cut/fill Authority to Construct and Permit to Operate Bay Area Air Quality Management District Facility construction and operation

17 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 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, nothing further is required. Signature Date Michael Giari Printed Name Port of Redwood City For

18 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. 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 day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE 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 Dept. of Conservation as an option model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. 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?

19 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

20 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? 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? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS -- Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) 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?

21 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? VII. 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 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 2 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?

22 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

23 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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 which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? I. 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?. 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? I. NOISE -- Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

24 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? II. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

25 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact III. PUBLIC SERVICES -- Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? IV. RECREATION -- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? V. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC -- Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

26 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? VI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS -- Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

27 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Issues: Potentially Significant Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE -- i) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ii) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? iii) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

28 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: I. AESTHETICS. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The project site would be visible from Seaport Boulevard and the Redwood Creek Channel, neither of which are designated as scenic highways or scenic vistas. b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The project site is not located within or adjacent to a State scenic highway, and would not remove existing scenic resources such as trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings. c) Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? The site is presently developed with nine large capacity (566,500 to 5,500,000 gallons) cylinder tanks ranging in height from 48 feet to 50 feet tall; a two-story office building; open stockpile storage; plus miscellaneous features such as above-ground pipes and a sump pond. See Figure 7. These facilities will be removed 6, as part of a separate project, and replaced with the project features and structures, the most visible of which are the conveyance system (maximum height of approximately 50 feet); open aggregate stockpiles (approximately 45 feet high, as shown in Figure 4); and a receiving hopper, approximately 74 feet high, adjacent to the Wharf No. 5 dock. The project will be visually consistent with the industrial uses of the port and the heights of structures currently existing on the site. The landscaping described in the project description and shown in Figures 5 and 6 would improve the current screening, and provide a visual and sound buffer. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the existing industrial setting and would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site. d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? The project design includes lighting at all transfer points and conveyor walkways, the load-out building, and for personal security around the administration office area. All external lighting will have shielding tilting downward to avoid offsite glare. 6 The tanks have since been removed, in January 2007, as part of the implementation of the cleanup of the former Gibson facility. 27

29 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Figure 7 View of the Project Site from Adjacent Property Source: Vallier Design Safety lighting would be in accordance with OSHA requirements and would include motion sensors where feasible. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. a) Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use? The project site is not located in an area containing agricultural resources. b) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? The existing zoning for the project site is general industrial. c) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? The project site is located at an industrialized port and would not affect farmland. 28

30 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION III. AIR QUALITY. a/b) Would the project conflict with implementation of the applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standard, or contribute to an existing or project air quality violation? The BAAQMD (District) develops and implements Rules and Regulations that govern air pollution sources to ensure that air emissions from facilities do not adversely affect public health or the environment, and that air quality plan goals are implemented. New sources of air pollution must submit an application to the BAAQMD to ensure that the facility will be designed and operated in accordance with these strict air pollution control requirements. Eagle Rock is in the process of preparing an application for Authority to Construct (ATC) and Permit to Operate (PTO) to the BAAQMD. As a part of the permit process, an assessment demonstrating that the facility will comply with the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations will be conducted by the District. Compliance with these rules will ensure that the project will not conflict with or obstruct air quality plan goals. Project operations would generate combustion emissions and dust from the aggregate. The combustion emission sources are the vessels, front-end loader used to transfer aggregate from the stockpiles to the day bins, and delivery trucks. Dust suppression is incorporated into the project by use of enclosed conveyors and transfer hoppers, sonic/dry fog systems, and the sprinkler system over the stockpiles. Project emissions estimates in this analysis assume conditions at full buildout, which would not be realized for the first 5 years of operation (see Project Description). The estimated emissions associated with project operation were calculated using industry accepted emission factors. Actual project emissions will be dependent upon throughput at the facility and operational conditions placed on the facility as a result of the facility s BAAQMD PTO. The estimated emissions associated with project operation including vehicular traffic and aggregate handling processes, are presented in Appendix A, Air Quality Analysis, and summarized below in Tables 4 and 5. Table 4 Operational Emissions Daily (Pounds per Day) Emission Source ROC NO x CO SO x PM 10 Facility Operations 19.0 Traffic Marine Vessels TOTAL BAAQMD Significance Criteria N/A a 80 Significant? No Yes No No No a No daily significance threshold for SO x emissions. 29

31 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Table 5 Operational Emissions Annual (Tons per Year) Emission Source ROC NO x CO SO x PM 10 Facility Operations 1.5 Traffic Marine Vessels TOTAL BAAQMD Significance Criteria a 100 a 15 Significant? No Yes No No No a Annual significance criteria for CO and SOx based on conservative major source threshold for certain industrial sources. As shown in Tables 4 and 5, the emissions associated with the maximum project operating scenario are above the BAAQMD s significance criteria for air quality impacts for NO x. Because estimated emissions exceed these significance criteria, Eagle Rock will be required to apply mitigation measures to reduce emissions. These measures will be determined by the BAAQMD during its review and analysis of the project for permitting. The BAAQMD, in its issuance of an ATC and PTO will establish permit requirements based on the District s review of the project and applicable regulations, and these conditions will be verified and enforced, by means of applicant reporting. The project cannot begin construction until the District has established permit conditions and mitigations and has issued a PTO. Mitigations could include offsets, reduced vessel calls, use of low-sulfur fuel, to name a few. These conditions will serve to maintain impacts below significance levels and will ensure that the project will not conflict with implementation of the applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standard, or contribute to an existing or project air quality violation. Eagle Rock has committed to apply for applicable air permits and to implement air quality mitigations required by the District to begin construction and operation of the project. With mitigation, the impact of the project on air quality would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 1: Estimated emissions for the project at maximum buildout exceed BAAQMD CEQA thresholds for NO (daily and annual). Mitigation measures will be applied to the project to reduce the estimated emissions to levels below the significance thresholds, based on the District s review and analysis of the project. Mitigation measures may include restrictions on the number of vessel trips, emission offsets, or other measures provided for in the BAAQMD rules and determined by the District. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated c) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? The San Mateo County portion of the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFAB) is currently considered a serious nonattainment area for the NAAQS for O 3. The area is also considered a serious nonattainment area for the CAAQS for O 3. The San Mateo County 30

32 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION portion of the SFAB is also considered a nonattainment area for the CAAQS for PM 10. The area is classified as in attainment for the NAAQS, and unclassified for the CAAQS for CO, SO 2, and NO 2. The project includes measures to control emissions, including dust suppression methods noted in the discussion above, and will apply measures in accordance with the Caltrans Interim PM 10 Qualitative PM 10 Hot Spot Guidance. In addition, a permit issued by the BAAQMD will be required, which will apply mitigating conditions to the project (see discussion in Section a,b, above). Therefore the project will not create a considerable net increase in criteria pollutants. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated d) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Health-based air quality standards have been established by California and the federal government for the following criteria air pollutants: O 3, CO, NO 2, PM 10, and SO 2. These standards were established to protect sensitive receptors from adverse health impacts due to exposure to air pollution. CAAQS are more stringent than the federal standards, and in the case of PM 10 and O 3, much more stringent. It is the responsibility of the BAAQMD to ensure that state and federal ambient air quality standards are achieved and maintained in the Bay Area Air Basin. The emissions associated with project operation, including vehicular traffic and aggregate handling processes, are presented in Tables 4 and 5 (Appendix A and reproduced above). In addition, a permit issued by the BAAQMD will be required, which will apply mitigating conditions to the project. Thus operational emissions would not cause or contribute to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations (see discussion in Section a,b, above). e) Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? The project would not be expected to be a significant source of diesel exhaust particulates or odors that would cause a significant impact on a substantial number of people (see Appendix A, Air Quality Analysis). IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plants, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The project site has a long history of disturbance by industrial development and is surrounded by fencing, discouraging its use by wildlife. Adjacent and surrounding areas are occupied by industrial and commercial facilities and are highly disturbed. 31

33 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION As noted in the Initial Study prepared for the former liquid bulk terminal, the Site currently provides no significant habitat for wildlife or other biological resources. A biological characterization study completed as part of the study identified three habitat types on the Site: 1) developed land, 2) eastern drainage swale with muted tidal influence, and 3) western drainage swale with non-native herbaceous upland vegetation. The western swale does not drain but is a flat area located between the containment dike and the perimeter landscaping. The only potentially sensitive habit identified at the Site is the manmade eastern drainage swale with muted tidal influence that is potentially under the jurisdiction of the USACE. This eastern drainage swale is adjacent to the eastern property line of the Site with a portion located inside the property fence. The eastern swale empties into a gated culvert that discharges into the yacht harbor on Redwood Creek to the south. The eastern swale supports a continuous strip of pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) through its entirety. Although the pickleweed can provide habitat for the endangered salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), the small amount of pickleweed at the Site does not provide adequate habitat, therefore, salt marsh harvest mice are not expected to occur at the Site. No special status plant species were identified at the Site. No special status species are expected to regularly occur at the Site. 7 The state- and federally listed endangered California least tern (Sterna antillarum browni), and the federally listed, threatened western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus [state Species of Concern]) use estuarine habitats along the margin of San Francisco Bay for nesting and foraging. Nesting occurs on large barren plains and sandspits above the limit of the high tide in areas that are free from daily human activity and disturbances. The project site is surrounded by urban development that generates substantial human activity and noise and is not suitable habitat for these species. The federally listed and state-listed endangered California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) and the federally listed salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) have been observed at Bair Island Ecological Reserve located across Redwood Creek. Suitable habitats for these species consist of marshes dominated by pickleweed and Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa) within tidal channels and adjacent supra-tidal transitional zones to upland habitat. Other special status species that may occur in the vicinity of the proposed project include the state-listed threatened bank swallow (Riparia riparia), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus) and the salt marsh wandering shrew (Sorex vagrans halicoetes). The project site does not provide suitable foraging or nesting habitat for any of these species. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on areas used by individuals or populations of special-status species. 7 See Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Former Gibson Environmental Facility, Former Liquid Bulk Terminal, Port of Redwood City, August

34 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? The proposed project site does not contain riparian areas and, as noted previously, does not provide significant habitat for wildlife. The Don Edwards National Wildlife Refuge and the Bair Island Ecological Reserve, both managed by the California Department of Fish & Game, are located across from Wharf No. 5, approximately one-quarter mile away from proposed off-loading activities. No modifications to Wharf No. 5 or to the waterfront are proposed that would affect shoreline habitat. Vessel activity would be consistent with historical and current use of the Port and would not introduce a new industrial activity to the project area. Appendix B provides information on historical vessel calls at the Port. Noise and dust that could potentially occur as a consequence of off-loading aggregate from the ship and indirectly impact these nearby habitat areas would be substantially reduced through the use of covered conveyors and enclosed hoppers. Dust control measures would be designed to meet BAAQMD requirements, which are protective of sensitive receptors. Because the shoreline would not be altered by project construction or vessel movements, and project noise and dust would be controlled, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on sensitive shoreline habitats in the project area. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Important marine and estuarine habitats located in the vicinity of the proposed project site include Bair Island Ecological Reserve and the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, both of which border Redwood Creek. Neither of these habitat areas would be affected through removal, filling, or otherwise by implementation of the proposed project. Although the drainage swale along the Seaport Boulevard side of the site is potentially under USACE jurisdiction, the project would not involve removal, fill, hydrological interruption, or other alteration of this area. d) Would the project 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? At full capacity, the project would generate approximately four vessel deliveries per month, of which three deliveries would be by Panamax vessel and the fourth a barge delivery. In some instances five vessels may call in one month. This volume of vessel characteristics and traffic is consistent with historical vessel calls at the Port, and noted previously. Vessel calls would be infrequent and an intermittent activity, and therefore would not be expected to interfere with migratory patterns or movements. The project 33

35 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION would operate in an existing industrial area, and would not construct new structures along the waterfront or in the channel. Therefore project activity would not interfere substantially with fish or wildlife movement. e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? The City of Redwood City Strategic General Plan, Conservation Element, states (C-3) Environmentally unique open spaces such as San Francisco Bay, its tributaries, sloughs, and marshlands should be protected and enhanced for conservation and recreation purposes. Across Redwood Creek to the west is the Bair Island Ecological Preserve. The project would not cause an adverse impact on the Bair Island Ecological Reserve and would not conflict with the above-mentioned local policy protecting biological resources. f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? As noted previously, the project s marine traffic would be similar in character and intensity to current activity at the Port of Redwood City, and would not conflict with ongoing restoration of intertidal zones of Bair Island Ecological Reserve. No other known habitat conservation plans regarding Bair Island or other areas in the vicinity of the Port of Redwood City exist. Therefore, the proposed project does not conflict with any adopted plans. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section ? The project site is not located near historic structures listed in Appendix A of the City of Redwood City s Historic Resources Element. Historic structures in the vicinity are associated with the Frank Tanning Company (located on the east bank of Redwood Creek where Mervyns s Plaza is presently located) and the Alaska Codfish Company (located on Greco Island) both of which are located over 1,000 feet from the project site. The Port was the location of an active ship building industry with the last wooden ship launched in In 1912 the Redwood City Harbor Company was formed in an effort to move the Port closer to the San Francisco Bay. The area was originally tidal flats and was filled to develop Seaport Boulevard and the surrounding area. Rail connections were extended to serve a salt company and, later, the Portland Cement Company that manufactured its product from oyster shells and mud dredged from the bay bottom. Assuming the historic rail connections are located within the existing Union Pacific rightof-way (ROW) primarily along the frontage road of Seaport Boulevard, they may be located in the vicinity of the project site. However, Redwood City does not list the 34

36 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION railroad ROW as an historical resource. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section ? According to Holman & Associates, an extensive marsh system comprised the original landscape of the Redwood Creek area. 8 More permanent settlements demonstrating long periods of habitation (up to 5,000 years ago at nearby San Bruno Mountain) were located west of the Bay margin on dry lands bordering the fresh water and in close proximity to the hills farther west. Village sites were marked by shells and other refuse, in some instances eventually creating raised shell mounds, several of which have been found in Redwood City. However, none of these locally identified former shell mounds are on the proposed project site (City of Redwood City, 1990). A 1981 archaeological survey completed for the 150-acre Leslie Salt pond sites revealed no cultural resources (Port of Redwood City, 2003). Because there is no evidence of recorded archaeological resources in or immediately around the project site, the project would have no impacts on archaeological resources. c) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? No paleontological resources or unique geologic features are known to exist onsite, which is highly disturbed with an established industrial use. The bayward portion of the baylands are tidal flats. d) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? The project site is highly disturbed and has a long history of industrial use. The likelihood of uncovering buried archaeological resources, including human remains, at the project site is very low, therefore no impacts are anticipated. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. a) Would the project 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? The project site is located in the general proximity of several active and potentially active faults. AMEC prepared a geotechnical study that included the examination of 8 Summary of Findings of an Archaeological Study of the Marina Shores Village Project Area, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California (2002). 35

37 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION local and regional faulting and a review of existing historic earthquake data. 9 The site is not located within a currently established Earthquake Fault Zone (formally known as Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone). Active faults are those which have ruptured during the past 11,000 years. The San Andreas Fault (Peninsular) is the governing fault for the seismic design of the proposed improvements. The San Andreas fault is located approximately 5.7 miles (9.2 Kilometers) from the project site and is considered to be a type A fault. Seismic design criteria incorporated in the UBC 10 specify the site soil profile type to be S f and the project to be located in seismic zone 4. The project facilities would be built to UBC and City of Redwood City building codes to reduce the potential for structural failure caused by rupture of a fault. The project, which would consist primarily of open stockpiles, conveyance systems and transfer areas, will not be frequented by the public. Therefore, the project is not expected to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects involving earthquakes. ii) strong seismic ground shaking? Based upon 1997 UBC Section , Type S f soils require the preparation of a site-specific elastic design response spectrum. AMEC prepared the required sitespecific spectrum calculated according to the 1997 publication by Boore, Joyner & Fumal and Abrahamson & Silva which is contained in Appendix C of the geotechnical study cited above. Project structures will be constructed in accordance with appropriate building codes to reduce effects of potential ground shaking. iii) seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? The potential for liquefaction onsite is considered to be low because subsurface exploration did not encounter significant layers of loose fine-grained sandy soils. The liquefaction potential of the soils underlying the site was verified using the procedures outlined by Seed, Tokimatsu, Harder and Chung (1985), as cited in the geotechnical study. These analyses considered the depth to groundwater and the relative densities and material characteristics of the in-situ soils. An earthquake magnitude of 7.9 and a ground acceleration of 0.52g was incorporated into the evaluation. The analysis verifies the assumption of low liquefaction potential onsite. (AMEC 2003) iv) landslides? The project would be located on a flat, level site in an area of artificial fill where no natural landforms would be altered. Therefore, the project would not trigger a landslide. 9 Geotechnical Study, Aggregate Terminal Complex, Port of Redwood City, AMEC, UBC Volume 2, Chapter 16, Divisions IV and V. 36

38 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Site preparation and equipment installation would result in localized, temporary soil disturbance that would be regulated through grading permits issued by the City of Redwood City. c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would be unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? In the Geotechnical Study performed for the proposed project site (AMEC 2003), alluvialestuarine deposits recognized as the Quaternary Bay Mud deposits were encountered underlying the artificial fill in the exploratory borings. The alluvial deposits consist of younger bay mud overlying older bay mud at depths ranging from 22 to 30 feet. The depth of the upper and the lower contacts of the sand and gravel lens ranged between 133 feet to 136 feet and the depth of the lower contact varied between 138 feet to 152 feet. Groundwater was encountered at depths ranging from approximately 2.5 to 5.2 feet below the ground surface, fluctuating based on tidal currents, precipitation, and site drainage. As stated in the project description, ground stabilization will be accomplished by a combination of techniques, including the use of existing piles, new piles and possibly additional stabilization from jet grouting or similar techniques. These methods would be selected and implemented in accordance with applicable building codes. d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? Laboratory testing indicates onsite surficial soils to be highly susceptible to consolidation. It is anticipated that settlements of up to three inches can occur. The geotechnical study findings recommend the use of spread or conventional footings in the future design of pavement and portable structures should be considered. As stated in the project description, all construction design and activities would conform with the UBC and Redwood City Building Code, and pile supports and ground stabilization requirements would be incorporated into the final design. e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? The project would be served by existing sanitary and wastewater collection facilities available at the site, and does not require septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. 37

39 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? The project would transport and store aggregate, which is not a hazardous material. The ships and tugs towing the barges that would call at Wharf No. 5 carry fuel and other hazardous materials (lubricants, solvents) for use onboard the vessels. These products are not in bulk quantities and are not discharged to marine waters, in accordance with state, federal and international requirements and standards. Routine use of these materials during project operations would not create a significant hazard to the public or environment. Similarly, the facility would not receive, store or dispose of hazardous materials. No diesel or other fuels would be stored on site, and lubricants or other materials for general site use would not exceed threshold quantities of hazardous materials. b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Project construction and operations would require the use of diesel-powered equipment and minimal quantities of hazardous materials such as petroleum products, lubricants, and solvents. Eagle Rock would prepare a Hazardous Materials Management/Spill Prevention, Control, and Containment Plan in compliance with Standard Fire Department and County Health Department regulations to provide on-site construction/operation managers, environmental compliance monitors, and regulatory agencies with detailed descriptions of hazardous materials management, spill prevention, and spill response/cleanup measures associated with construction and operation. Vessels carrying aggregate to the terminal would also require the use of hazardous materials including petroleum products, lubricants, and solvents. As noted above, Panamax vessels and tugs carry fuel and are subject to federal, state and international regulation addressing oil spill prevention, response and financial responsibility. Marine vessels are regulated by the International Maritime Dangerous Goods (IMDG) Code and all vessels traveling to or from the terminal would be required to comply with all provisions of the code. Project operations would be conducted in accordance with regulations established to prevent and control releases of hazardous materials, which would reduce the potential for and consequences of a potential release of hazardous material (oil). Therefore the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. 38

40 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile on an existing or proposed school? No schools exist or are proposed within one-quarter mile of the proposed project site. The nearest schools to the proposed project site are located over 2 miles away, and would not be affected by the project. d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? The proposed project site is a former liquid bulk terminal used to store and transfer petroleum hydrocarbons that was active between 1963 and During this period, petroleum- and metal-bearing wastes were released and entered soil and groundwater. Cleanup and closure of the site will be completed within risk-based levels of contamination remaining on site that is protective of human health and the environment prior to Eagle Rock s commencement of construction activities. A land use covenant may be entered into upon completion of closure of the cleanup. Any future construction and operations at the site would be done in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations addressing any remaining contamination that will protect all on-site workers. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 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? The closest airport is San Carlos Airport located in the City of San Carlos approximately 2 miles (10,000 feet) from the site. AMEC contacted the San Carlos Airport Manager to verify that the project would have no impact on airport operations at San Carlos Airport. 11 The San Carlos airstrip is 3,200 feet long. According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) form , no instrument plans would be affected and the proposed hopper height of 74 feet would be shielded by other obstructions. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard to 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? There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site. 11 Personal communication with Mark Larson, San Carlos Airport Manager, 2004 and

41 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION g) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? The project site would be accessed from the frontage road that serves industrial and maritime uses at the Port of Redwood City. This road would be the primary access from the Port to inland areas in case of evacuation of the Port. Standard regulatory review by the City Traffic Division would verify that trucks entering or exiting the site would not block the frontage road on Seaport Boulevard. The project conveyor system design incorporates adequate clearance for emergency vehicles within the port. h) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? The Port of Redwood City is not located in a high fire hazard area. Storage of aggregate would not present a potential wildland fire hazard. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. a) Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? The proposed project would not discharge wastewater to surface waters, and would operate under site-specific controls incorporated in the facility s SWPPP and SWMP. Construction activities would involve more than 5 acres of land disturbance; therefore development of a SWPPP for construction activities would be required as a standard regulatory condition. A separate SWPP and SWMP would be prepared for operations. Because the facility will manage stormwater discharges in accordance with site-specific SWPPP and SWMP requirements, the impact to water quality would be less than significant. b) Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table? The proposed project would be served by existing potable water infrastructure from the City of Redwood City. The City of Redwood City obtains potable water through the Hetch Hetchy water project, therefore groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge would not be affected by implementation of the proposed project. 40

42 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION c) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? After cleanup of the site is completed and closed, the project site will be leveled and graded. The project will not substantially alter drainage patterns, and no streams or rivers will be altered. Eagle Rock would prepare SWPPPs for construction and operations in accordance with regulatory requirements for managing erosion. Effects of the project on the existing drainage pattern of the site would be less than significant. d) Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? The development and implementation of a SWPPP for construction and operations would be in place to manage surface runoff in accordance with storm water regulations. e) Would the project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Following completion and closure of cleanup activities at the project site, the site will be leveled and existing stormwater infrastructure will be removed. An existing drainage swale east of the project site drains into Redwood Creek through a tidal gate. Eagle Rock would incorporate drainage controls and implement a site-specific SWPPP to control stormwater discharge from the terminal during high tide and strong rain events to prevent contributions to potential flood events. Further, compliance with standard regulatory conditions and SWPPP requirements would be applied to manage surface runoff in compliance with storm water regulations. f) Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? The proposed project has a low potential to degrade water quality because the proposed storage of aggregate is not a hazardous material. No wells or springs exist on the proposed project site. The project would not withdraw groundwater or otherwise create hydraulic gradients that would promote saltwater intrusion into aquifers. Runoff from the site would be contained and treated in accordance with SWPPP requirements. 41

43 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION g) Would the project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No housing units are associated with the proposed project. h) Would the project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? No. All project structures will be on the project site, which is not within a 100-year flood hazard area. 12 i) Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? The site is in a designated Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) urbanized area (Figure 8) and would not pose a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flood. 13 j) Would the project experience inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? The project is not located in a seiche, tsunami, or mudflow inundation area. I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. a) Would the project physically divide an establish community? Port-related commercial and industrial uses and waterways dominate the general vicinity. The project would be situated on a vacant lot previously occupied by a liquid fuel bulk terminal. The proposed project would continue to be a general industrial, portrelated use. b) Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? The San Francisco Bay Plan designates the site as a Port priority use area that reserves the project site for Port-related uses or other uses that will not impede Port development. The City of Redwood City designates the site as General Industrial (GI), and the proposed project is consistent with the uses specified in the GI ordinance. The BCDC Seaport Plan for the Port of Redwood City designates the use as a Liquid Bulk 12 FEMA and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) flood insurance maps: accessed 18 September FEMA/ABAG accessed 18 September

44 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Fuel site, reflecting its prior use. An amendment to the Seaport Plan from Liquid to Dry Bulk Materials would be required prior to implementation of the proposed project. Because the proposed project is consistent with Port priority and GI uses, the project would be consistent with BCDC s Seaport Plan. c) Would the project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? The project would not conflict with the habitat or natural community conservation plans on the Bair Island Ecological Reserve. Therefore the project would not conflict with local policies protecting biological resources (see discussion in Section IV, Biological Resources). 43

45 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Insert Figure 8 44

46 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. MINERAL RESOURCES. a) Would the project 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? No mineral resources exist onsite. The proposed project would supply aggregate to the Bay Area region; aggregate is a resource that is forecast to become depleted in the Bay area region and statewide, and the project would provide a means of importing the material. b) Would the project 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? No mineral resource sites delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan exist at the project site. I. NOISE. a) Would the project 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? The main noise sources with respect to office buildings located to the west and the northernmost building of Portside Business Park would be the Truck Load Out Weigh Station and two Hoppers receiving aggregate from the ship or barge (Figure 9). As proposed, the Truck Load Out Weigh Station would have a maximum capacity of up to 20 trucks per hour. The distance from the existing office building to the west of the proposed load out station is approximately 188 feet. Wharf No. 5 would receive approximately four vessels per month, and the vessels would discharge aggregate to one of two land-based hoppers for transfer to the stockpiles. The distance from the hopper used for ship deliveries to the northernmost portion of the Portside Business Park building (closest to the hopper) would be approximately 291 feet. If the aggregate is delivered by barge, a separate hopper will be used, and it would be approximately 307 feet from the northernmost portion of the Portside Business Park building. The Truck Load Out Weigh Station, which will be in an enclosed building, would be automated, allowing a truck to pull in, receive aggregate directly into its bins through an overhead conveyor, and pull out. Noise levels generated by trucks vary in based on the vehicle s age, mechanical condition, and manufacturer; and whether back-up warning systems are used. While there could be multiple trucks in the queue to the Truck Load Out Weigh Station, noise ordinances typically address noise from one source, estimated to be decibels (dba) at 50 feet (trucks idling in a queue). Noise is estimated to attenuate at a rate of 6 dba per doubling of distance. Therefore, noise at 100 feet would be dba. At 200 feet, noise would be estimated at dba. The interior of office buildings would be expected to attenuate noise by 10 decibels with windows open; and from 20 to 30 decibels depending on how the building was constructed. Noise from 45

47 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Insert Figure 9 46

48 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION trucks would be estimated to create interior noise levels of dba with windows open, and dba with windows closed. Interference with speech is estimated to occur when noise levels exceed 66 decibels; therefore, tenants of the office building to the west would not be adversely affected by the truck queue. The receiving hoppers would be constructed of steel with a capacity of 25 tons, covered with canvas housing and equipped with a sonic/dry fog system that would control dust and attenuate noise. The aggregate would be carried by covered conveyors from the vessels into a land-based hopper for a total discharge period of approximately 10 to 12 hours for ships and 8 to 9 hours for barges. The hopper would empty into a 54-inch receiving conveyor through a vibrating feeder. Aggregate would then be carried by covered conveyors from the land-based hopper to the storage area. The City of Redwood City General Plan Noise Element states that exterior noise levels up to 75 dba using the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) standard are acceptable for land use compatibility. 14 A noise study performed for a similar project proposed by Eagle Rock used a reference of 79 dba at a distance of 145 feet from the noise source based on noise measurements taken by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., at the Hanson Aggregate facility located at Pier 94 on the Embarcadero in San Francisco. Measurements were taken as aggregate was being off-loaded from the ship to the open-air storage area, which is similar to the proposed project. A separate measurement at the same facility was taken near the stockpile area during ship offloading. A noise level of 76 dba was recorded approximately 145 feet from the noise source. 15 The hopper of proposed project would be enclosed, which would attenuate the noise. Another study of a proposed aggregate receiving facility at the Port of San Diego obtained reference noise levels for tug and barge operations. This study found a reference noise level of 77 db at 50 feet. 16 It is likely that the noise generated by the ship s presence at the Port and associated offloading of aggregate into the hopper 3 to 4 days per month would be noticeable to tenants of the business park during conventional business hours, as well as people who live aboard their boats during nighttime (10 p.m. - 7 a.m.). However, although periodic offloading up to four times per month would cause an increase in ambient noise, the noise at the exterior of the Portside office building would be below the 75 dba land use compatibility standard. The project would generate intermittent noise from trucks and vessels. These are consistent with the industrial uses of the Port and the immediate area along Seaport Boulevard, and while noticeable, would not result in violation of Noise Element policies related to industrial land uses. 14 General Plan (1990), page Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc San Diego Unified Port District

49 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION b) Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? The proposed project has the potential to generate ground-borne noise and vibration from construction activities during the construction phase. The use of heavy equipment to install pilings necessary for the foundation could generate localized ground-borne vibration. According to Illingworth & Rodkin, pile driving can generate noise levels of up to 100 dba at a distance of 100 feet. 17 However, this activity would be of a short duration. The noise generated by construction would be temporary, and the applicant will require that the contractor provide at least 3 days notice to each tenant of the Portside Business Park as well as posting notices at the marinas prior to scheduled timing of piledriving activities. Contractors would be required to provide hearing protection for site workers in accordance with OSHA requirements to avoid exposure to workers. Ground-borne vibration associated with heavy truck traffic from the project site would be below the threshold of perceptibility for receptors within 300 feet. 18 c) Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Noise levels measured at 675 Seaport Boulevard at the Port of Redwood City, approximately 0.5 miles north of the proposed project site averaged 62 dba, with a range of 51 dba to 78 dba. 19 This is within the Redwood City Noise Element land use compatibility recommendation for industrial land uses. During operation of the facility, heavy trucks would pull into the site from Seaport Boulevard and proceed down Henry A. Beeger Road to the Eagle Rock facility entrance. Trucks would proceed slowly through the site, generating noise estimated at 65 to 70 dba at 50 feet, therefore 59 to 64 dba at 188 feet, to 52 to 57 dba at a distance of 232 feet from the Portside office complex. Truck noise at the Portside office to the west of the Truck Load Out Weigh Station would be from 6 to 11 decibels under existing ambient noise. Truck noise at the Portside office complex to the north would potentially be 5 to 10 decibels under existing ambient noise measurements of 62 dba. The impact is determined to be less than significant. Less than Significant Impact. d) Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Construction activities have the potential to result in temporary increases in ambient noise levels. The project would require the ground stabilization and piling, construction of new buildings and ancillary facilities. Noise during project construction would be 17 Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc ATS Consulting, LLC, ATS Consulting, LLC,

50 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION generated by heavy equipment, machinery, construction workers, and large trucks traveling to and from the project site. At a distance of 50 feet from the center of construction activities, noise levels are estimated to be a L eq of 85 to 90 dba. 20 The highest noise levels from the construction of the new facilities would likely occur during the preparation of the foundation. The proposed project has the potential to generate ground-borne noise and vibration from construction activities associated with pile driving. As noted above, according to Illingworth & Rodkin, pile driving can generate noise levels of up to 100 dba at a distance of 100 feet. Noise impacts could peak at dba at 50 feet. 21 Although the distance from construction and interior walls of the office building (188 feet to the west) and the Portside Business Park (232 feet) would help attenuate construction noise; during pile driving interior noise levels would be expected to interfere with speech. Therefore, as proposed by Eagle Rock, the contractor shall notify tenants within 300 feet of when pile driving activities are scheduled to occur. The construction phase would be temporary and tenants in the business park would be notified in advance of pile driving activities for planning purposes. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? The Port of Redwood City is located outside Noise Contours associated with operations at San Carlos Airport. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No private airstrip exists within the vicinity of the project site. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. a) Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly or indirectly? The project would reuse an existing site; therefore no extension of roads or populationinducing infrastructure would be necessary. The proposed project would employ three employees per shift to operate the conveyors and monitor the storage facility, which is insufficient to induce substantial population growth. 20 USEPA USEPA

51 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Because the proposed project site was previously developed as a Liquid Bulk Fuel Terminal in a commercial/industrial-zoned area, the project would not remove any existing housing units. c) Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The proposed project site was previously developed as a Liquid Bulk Fuel Terminal in a commercial/industrial-zoned area. Therefore, the project would not require construction of replacement housing. III. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or altered facilities in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for fire protection? a) Fire Protection: The project site is located within the fire protection jurisdiction of the Redwood City Fire Department (RCFD). The Fire Marshal coordinates development plan and design reviews to ensure appropriate street access, hydrant placement, building materials, and enforcement of applicable building and fire codes. The nearest fire stations are Station No.9, located at 755 Marshall Street, and Station No. 11, located at nd Avenue. Response time averages 4.3 minutes for the department. Implementation of the proposed project would not require new or altered RCFD facilities in order to maintain proper response times. b) Police Protection: The Redwood City Police Department (RCPD) serves the Port. The police station is located at 1301 Maple Street in Redwood City. The Police Department s Marine Enforcement Unit (MEU) is responsible for all emergency response occurring in the 17 miles of waterway in Redwood City, including the South Bay from San Mateo Bridge south to Dumbarton Bridge. The project would replace a liquid bulk terminal and would not have an expected effect on police protection resources. c) Schools: The following schools located nearest to the project site are located over 2 miles away, generally to the southwest and south: Fair Oaks Elementary School; Hoover Elementary School; Orion Elementary School; and Taft Elementary School. Construction and operation of the proposed project site are not expected to affect the performance objectives of these schools. 50

52 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION d) Parks: Portside Park is located at the end of Seaport Court. It provides waterfront public access, walkways, viewing areas, picnic areas, restrooms, and parking. Fishing is allowed from the public fishing pier. A small public access area is located south of Wharf No. 4, near the Port office. The City of Redwood City Noise Compatibility Interpretation for recreational open space states that less than 75 CNEL range is satisfactory to avoid noise impact, and would require no special noise insulation for new construction. e) Other Public Facilities: The Redwood City Municipal Marina is located approximately 325 feet south at its closest point to the proposed project. Boats accessing the marina would use Redwood Creek and the Deep Water Turning Basin, where Wharf No. 5 is located; to access San Francisco Bay. Wharf No. 5 is an existing Port facility and would not be physically altered for the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not have an adverse effect or the performance objective of any other public facilities. IV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Implementation of the proposed project would not increase the use of Portside Park, the closest existing neighborhood park. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project does not include recreational facilities, nor would expansion of recreational facilities be required as a result of project implementation. V. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. a/b/d) A traffic study was conducted by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., to evaluate potential project impacts; a copy of the report produced to summarize these analyses is included in Appendix C. The traffic study analyzed the impacts of project traffic on intersection levels of service (LOS) and on freeway segments, for near-term and far-term cases. Although Eagle Rock estimates maximum project throughput (and associated traffic) will not be realized for at least 5 years (see Section 1), the analysis addresses impacts associated with maximum throughput and truck trips. Eagle Rock anticipates a total of 174 daily round truck trips, which will generate a total of 348 daily truck trips (174 inbound trips and 174 outbound trips). A passenger-car equivalent of 2.0 was applied to the expected truck traffic, as prescribed in the Highway Capacity Manual Applying the 2.0 passenger-car equivalent to the expected daily truck trips yields a total of 696 daily (passenger-car equivalent) trips. 51

53 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION The facility is anticipated to operate for 16 hours a day, and to suspend operations during the afternoon peak traffic period (4:00 p.m. - 6:00 p.m.). Assuming that the trucks will be scheduled throughout the 16-hour day, approximately 44 trips would occur during each hour, including the AM peak hour. Half of these trips (22 trips) are expected to be inbound trips, and half of them are expected to be outbound trips. In addition, it is anticipated that the project will employ a maximum of three people per 9- hour shift at the terminal. For the traffic analysis, a total of six employee/visitor daily trips were assumed, with half of these occurring during the AM peak hour. This yields a total of 702 daily (passenger car) trips, with a total of 47 trips occurring during the AM peak hour (25 inbound trips and 22 outbound trips). Because the project would suspend operations during the PM peak period, the project would not generate any traffic during the PM peak hour. Intersection level of service -- The traffic analysis results show that, measured against the City of Redwood City LOS standards, all of the study intersections, with the exception of the intersection of Seaport Boulevard and Blomquist Street, would operate at acceptable levels of service during the AM peak hour under project conditions. This intersection was projected to operate an unacceptable level under background conditions, and it would continue to operate at an unacceptable LOS E under project conditions. Although the intersection of Seaport Boulevard and Blomquist Street is projected to operate at an unacceptable level under project conditions, the project would not cause a significant impact because it would add less than 5 seconds of average delay to the intersection (see Appendix C for full discussion of significance criteria and their application for this project). The results apply to near-term and far-term conditions. Freeway segment analysis -- Although it was determined the project did not require a Congestion Management Program (CMP) analysis on the basis of its projected peakhour trips, four freeway segments in the vicinity of the project site were analyzed as part of the study for informational purposes. The study freeway segments were analyzed based on CMP standards. Under CMP standards, the project is considered to have a CMP impact if it adds traffic demand equal to one percent (1%) or more of the segment capacity or causes the freeway segment volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio to increase by one percent (1%). Project-related traffic volumes on freeway segments were calculated and compared to the segment s capacity. It is estimated that the project would add traffic representing less than one percent (1%) of the freeway s capacity to the all the study freeway segments for both near-term and far-term conditions. Therefore, based on CMP standards, the project would not cause a significant impact to the freeway segments evaluated. Truck Traffic on Seaport Boulevard The traffic analysis noted Seaport Boulevard was not designed for the current volume of truck traffic, an issue raised by the City of Redwood City Traffic Engineer. As noted in Appendix C, there are no adopted significance criteria addressing structural pavement sections, and no scheduled improvements to resurface this portion of Seaport Boulevard. To address this concern, the Port will include in its lease agreement with Eagle Rock a provision for contributing to a Fair Share program if and when one is established to apply to Seaport Boulevard. 52

54 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION c) The project would not result in a change to air traffic patterns. d) See above discussion related to truck traffic. Regarding vessel traffic and movements at the Port, as shown in Figure 2, project vessels would be near the Redwood City Landing Marina. Eagle Rock proposes to position the vessels with the stern away from the marina (as shown in Figure 2) to avoid the potential for prop wash. AMEC contacted the San Francisco Bar Pilots to confirm this position would be appropriate for the berth. According to the Bar Pilots, the turning basin used for Wharf No. 5 is adequate for the project vessels, and the proposed vessel position is the most appropriate means of reducing the potential for prop wash at the marina. 22 Tugs and barges are not considered to be of concern for prop wash in this location. e) Emergency access by emergency vehicles to the site would not be impeded by the proposed project. The receiving hopper design is sized to provide adequate clearance for emergency vehicles. f) There would be three project employees on site during 9-hour shifts per day, and onsite parking spaces would be provided for use by employees and visitors. This would meet the City s municipal parking standard. g) The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. The project would not affect the existing rail line or impact potential use of the Port as commuter ferry terminal. VI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. a) Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? The project site was previously permitted to discharge up to 100,000 gallons per day of wastewater to the publicly owned treatment water (POTW) facility. As stated in the project description, only three employees will be present at any given shift during operation of the facility. Therefore, the project would discharge minimal amounts of wastewater for hand-washing and sanitary uses, and would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the San Francisco RWQCB. 22 Communication with Eric Dohm, San Francisco Bar Pilots, 11 January

55 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION b) Would the project 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? Water service for the Port District is provided by the City of Redwood City, which contracts for water from the San Francisco Water Department. San Francisco water is delivered to the peninsula via a 24-inch pipeline from the Crystal Springs Reservoir. Potable water is available at the site. Redwood City maintains sanitary sewers and pump stations within City limits and joins with other jurisdictions through a Joint Power Authority in operating the South Bayside System Authority (SBSA) advanced secondary treatment plant located at 1400 Radio Road, Redwood City. The plant has a capacity of 24 million gallons per day; peak flow is 2.6 million gallons per hour. Sanitary lines serving Port tenants are available at the project site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater facilities of expansion of existing facilities. c) Would the project 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? A new storm water system would be designed and installed at the project site following completion and closure of the current cleanup of the site. The storm water system would be designed and installed by Eagle Rock in accordance with storm water regulations. d) Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? The proposed project would be a replacement of an existing use. The project water use at the site is estimated to be a maximum of 2,000 gallons per hour, based on the maximum annual throughput of 1.5 million tons. The Master Sales Contract for the City of Redwood City for Hetch Hetchy water is scheduled to expire July 1, The City of Redwood City is currently researching additional water resources. In addition, the City and Port District are in the design phase for a pipeline that would deliver treated wastewater for landscaping that would partially offset water demand, 24 and Eagle Rock has incorporated the use of recycled water into its selections of plantings for the landscaping. The implementation of the proposed project would not require new or expanded entitlements in addition to the current Master Sales Contract, nor would it affect the City s ability to develop new entitlements following the expiration of the current Master Sales Contract. e) Would the project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to 23 Redwood City Urban Water Management Plan See 54

56 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION serve the project s projected demand in addition to the provider s existing commitments? The proposed project would be a replacement of an existing use. Operation of the facility would involve three workers on-site at a time. Sanitary water use would be well below the 100,000 gallon per day use permitted. f) Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project s solid waste disposal needs? Waste from the Port of Redwood City is taken to the San Carlos Transfer Station where it is transported to the Ox Mountain Sanitary Landfill located 3 miles east of Half Moon Bay. Solid waste production during operation of the facility would be negligible because only three workers would be employed, and the receiving, storage and transfer operations would not generate wastes. g) Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? The proposed project would be designed to comply with all standard regulatory conditions for solid waste reduction and recycling (Assembly Bill [AB] 939), including the provision of adequate space for the storage and collection of recyclable materials at the facility for an operation employing three people. VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. i) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Important marine and estuarine habitants in the vicinity of the project site include the Bair Island Ecological Reserve and the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, both of which border Redwood Creek. Construction and operation of the proposed facilities would not disturb either of these areas and would occur in a previously disturbed area zoned for general industrial use. No significant impacts to fish and wildlife population levels or rare or endangered species would occur as result of the proposed project. In addition, no known historical buildings or artifacts are present on the proposed project site. If cultural resources are discovered during site excavation or grading all work would be stopped until a qualified archaeologist determined the significance of such artifacts. Therefore impacts to examples of California history would be less than significant. 55

57 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION ii) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? Project impacts on traffic and air were analyzed and determined to be less than significant, when mitigation for air quality impacts are incorporated. Traffic effects during peak periods are reduced by Eagle Rock s suspension of truck traffic during the PM commute periods. BAAQMD requirements and permit limits are designed to address individual and cumulative impacts, and will be applied to this project prior to initiation of project construction. iii) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? The project would be expected to create an increase in ambient noise during the three to four times per month that shipping vessels are in Port offloading aggregate. The noise impacts would be of relatively short-duration on a periodic basis (3 to 4 times per month) and would not typically be associated with human health concerns. No other adverse effects to human beings would occur as a result of the proposed project. 56

58 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION MITIGATION MEASURES AND MONITORING Mitigation Measure 1: Air Quality Estimated emissions for the project at maximum buildout exceed BAAQMD CEQA thresholds for NO (daily and annual). Mitigation measures will be applied to the project to reduce the estimated emissions to levels below the significance thresholds, based on the District s review and analysis of the project. Mitigation measures may include restrictions o the number of vessel trips, emission offsets, or other measures provided for in the BAAQMD rules and determined by the District. The mitigation measures will be incorporated into the terms of the permit (ATC and PTO). The District is responsible for monitoring and enforcing the air quality permit conditions. 57

59 SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES (CONTINUED): August 2005 SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES: AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc Geotechnical Study, Aggregate Terminal Complex, Port of Redwood City, California. September 15. ATS Consulting, LLC Operational Noise Analysis Eagle Rock Aggregate Facility, Richmond, CA. Memorandum to Lisa Burns, AMEC Earth & Environmental. January 7. ATS Consulting, LLC Noise Study, Proposed Eagle Rock Aggregate Facility, Port Hueneme, California. Technical Memorandum (Draft) to Eloise Emery, AMEC Earth & Environmental. November 26. Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) CEQA Guidelines. California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines & Geology. Seismic Hazard Map. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Resources Agency. 1996a. Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. October. CDFG. 1996b. Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants of California. January. California Environmental Protection Agency, Hazardous Materials Data Management Program Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. City of Redwood City Redwood City Zoning Ordinance, TP (Tidal Plain) District. City of Redwood City Strategic General Plan. January 22. City of Redwood City Marina Shores Village Project, Draft EIR. March. City of Redwood City Abbott Laboratories West Coast Research Center, Draft EIR. City of Redwood City Official Zoning Map. City of Redwood City Redwood City Zoning Ordinance, GI (General Industrial) District. March. City of Redwood City Urban Water Management Plan. December 19. City of Richmond Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Eagle Rock Aggregates Receiving, Storage & Load-out Terminal Project. March. Dohm, Eric, San Francisco Bar Pilots Telephone communication with Denise Toombs, AMEC. January 11, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Flood insurance maps: Accessed 18 September. Governor's Office of Planning and Research Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act. Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc Eagle Rock Aggregates Distribution Terminal, Transportation Impact Analysis.. 58

60 SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES (CONTINUED): August 2005 Holman & Associates Summary of findings San Mateo. Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc Hanson Aggregates Mid-Pacific Inc. Transfer Facility, Port of Richmond Environmental Noise Checklist, Richmond, California. July 25. Larson, Mark, Airport Manager, San Carlos Airport and Personal correspondence with Lisa Burns, AMEC. September 10, 2004, and January 10, Port of Redwood City Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan, Port of Redwood City Liquid Bulk Terminal. June 5. Port of Redwood City Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Hanson Marine Terminal, Port of Redwood City, California. February. Port of Redwood City Liquid Bulk Terminal Report of Findings and Recommendations. Sullivan International Group, Inc. and Han-Padron, LLP Associates. July. Port of Redwood City Wave and Wake Baseline Analysis. (Draft) June. Port of Redwood City Initial Study and Negative Declaration for the Former Gibson Environmental Facility, Former Liquid Bulk Terminal. August. San Diego Unified Port District Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration, San Diego International Terminals, Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal, San Diego, California. June. U.S Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment and Home Appliances, PB U.S. Geological Survey Geologic Map of San Mateo County, California. 59

61 MAIN N SCALE: 1" = 1 MILE 101 Smith BAIR ISLAND PROJECT SITE Slough Corkscrew Slough SEAPORT BOULEVARD Redwood Creek Westpoint Slough San Francisco Bay GRECO ISLAND SAN FRANCISCO SAN MATEO PACIFIC OCEAN 101 OAKLAND San Francisco Bay 280 PROJECT LOCATION REDWOOD CITY SCALE: 1" = 15 MILES PALO ALTO HAYWARD N 3 2 VETERANS BOULEVARD SAN CARLOS BROADWAY REDWOOD CITY STREET 84 WOODSIDE ROAD BAYSHORE FREEWAY ATHERTON SEAPORT BOULEVARD BOULEVARD HARRY A. BEEGER ROAD PROJECT SITE KEY Pacific Shores Center RMC Pacific Materials Central Concrete Port Office RMC Cement Marine Terminal Harbor Sand & Gravel Wharf U.S.G.S. Wharf 5 Basic Chemical Solutions 6 7 Wharf 2 Hanson Cement Terminal/ Griffin soil Liquid Bulk Terminal (Proposed Project Site) Portside Business Park 8 9 Wharf 3 Hanson Marine Terminal (approved; not constructed) Municipal Marina/ Sequoia Yacht Club Salt Evaporation Ponds Port Warehouse #2/ Esbro Chemical PG&E Substation SimsMetal America Marine Science Institute Seaport Plaza Cargill Salt (Proposed Abbott Labs) N SCALE IN FEET Wharf 4 Pabco Gypsum ROMIC Seaport Center Office Park Seaport Conference Center ,500 F I G U R E Land Uses in Vicinity of Proposed Eagle Rock Aggregate Project 1

62 SHIP UNLOADER REDWOOD CITY LANDING MARINA PROJECT SITE N SCALE IN FEET ,000 F I G U R E Wharf 5 and Approximate Ship Position 2

63 N SCALE IN FEET F I G U R E Proposed Eagle Rock Aggregate Project Site Development Plan 3

64 SCALE IN FEET F I G U R E Proposed Eagle Rock Aggregate Project Section/ElevationLooking South 4

65 N SCALE IN FEET F I G U R E Conceptual Landscaping Plan 5

66 SCALE IN FEET F Proposed Plantings and Heights I G U 6 R E