and would
reduce the potential impacts to sensitive natural communities to a less -
than
-
significant level.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO
-
1h, above, would prevent people from
accessing and
damaging off
-
site marsh habitat
.
This impact would be les
s than significant with
implementation of
mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO
-
1h
,
as described above under Impact BIO
-
1. Implementation of
Mitigation
Measure BIO
-
3 ,
as described below under Impact BIO
-
3. Significance A
fter Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure
s BIO
-
1h and
BIO
-
3 would reduce potential impacts to
sensitive natural communities to a less
-
than
-
significant level.
Threshold
3 :
Would the project ha
ve a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Environmental Impact Analysis
Biological Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.1 -
23 Impact BIO
-
3 T
HE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD
REQUIRE THE
PE
RMANENT
FILL OF APPROXIMATELY
0.28 ACRE OF SEASONAL WETLANDS AND
0.69 ACRE OF SALT MARSH AND ASSOCIATED UNVEGETATED WATERS IN
REMNANT SALT PONDS ON THE EASTERN COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT SITE .
I
MPACTS WOULD BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION
.
The propo
sed project would not involve construction or operation activities within the western component of the project site.
The proposed project would have no impacts on wetlands or other waters within the western component of the project site.
According to the c
onfirmed Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
map
a total of 1.69 acres
of
potentially jurisdictional wetlands are located within the eastern component of the
project site. This
includes 1.41 acres of salt marsh and 0.28 acres of seasonal wetlands
considered to be federally
protected wetlands as defined by CWA Section 404. Of these total on -
site wetlands,
construction of
the proposed project would require the
permanent
fill of approximately 0.28 acre of seasonal
wetlands and 0.69 acre of sa
lt marsh and associated unvegetated waters in remnant salt ponds on the eastern component of the project site.
Fill would be permanent because a portion of the
proposed parking lot and relocated San Francisco Bay Trail segment would be constructed on top o f
the fill material.
Although t
he proposed project would include preservation of
all wetlands and
other waters
on the western component of the project site
, the
fill of approximately 0.28 acre of
seasonal wetlands and 0.69 acre of salt marsh
on the eastern
component
would be a potentially
significant
adverse
impact
.
I
mplementation of Mitigation Measure BIO
-
3 would be required to
reduce potential impacts to protected wetlands to a less -
than
-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure
BIO
-
3 Protected Wetlands Mitig
ation Credits
To compensate for impacts to
approximately
0.97 acre of waters of the U.S., the
project
applicant
shall
purchase wetland mitigation credits at a
minimum of
1:1 mitigation ratio from an approved
mitigation bank with a Service Area that covers
the project site. The San Francisco Bay Wetland
Mitigation Bank currently has "Tidal Wetland and Other Waters Creation" credits available
for
purchase
.
Either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or the CDFW may adjust the mitigation ratio and the applicant sh
all comply, but in
no
case shall the mitigation ratio be less than 1:1.
Significance A
fter Mitigation
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO
-
3 would reduce potential impacts to
federally protected
wetlands
to a less
-
than
-
significant level.
4.1.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative setting for biological resources includes proposed development and construction within Hayward that is west of Interstate 880
. This cumulative extent is appropriate because it
encompasses
the mosaic of representative habitat types (and associated biological resources) affected by the proposed project, including a variety of wetlands habitats and industrial uses along the shoreline.
Areas to the east of Interstate 880 are urban until the fo othills of the East Bay Hills,
which provide habitat unlike that in areas west of Interstate 880, including the project site and San Francisco Bay shoreline.
The project site is located just north of the CDFW Eden Landing Ecological Reserve and west of ex
isting office/light industrial uses. Implementation of the proposed project would be consistent City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.1 -
24 with both of these surrounding uses, as part of the project would construct a new industrial building and the other part would involve preservation of an open s pace/wetland preserve on the western
side of the project site. Project activities would occur entirely on the project site, and the interaction between the affected environment and project activities and facilities would be limited to this area.
Cumulative
projects within the assessment area are listed in Table 3 -
1, in Section 3, Environmental
Setting. The projects listed in Table 3
-
1 are not along the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. There are no salt ponds at cumulative project sites because they are n ot along the shoreline of the Bay and
were not used for salt production, unlike the project site. Therefore, cumulative projects in Table 3 -
1 would not impact special
-
status species found in salt marsh habitat, such as salt marsh harvest mouse or salt mars
h wandering shrew.
However, cumulative project sites may support other
special
-
status species that could also be impacted by the project, such as migratory nesting birds or special
-
status bat species.
For example, the residential subdivision project propos ed at 24765
Hesperian Boulevard is on a property with trees and vegetation cover, which could be used by nesting birds.
Cumulative projects may also contain wetlands and riparian habitat. Specifically, construction of the cumulative projects could
result i
n:
Trampling, and degradation of sensitive habitats
Disruption of habitat values associated with edge habitat
Degradation of wetlands, creeks, drainages, riparian habitat, water quality, associated habitat values and functions, and ecosystems services; inc
luding channelization of storm runoff that
may increase stream flow, erosion, and sedimentation
Disruption of wildlife utilization of biological resources for foraging; hydration; cover, shelter, aestivation/hybernacula; nesting and breeding; movement, dis persal, and migration, sensitive
and native nesting birds
, and special
-
status bats.
Loss of sensitive natural communities
including seasonal wetlands
Introduction of litter (including human foods), urine and fecal matter, illegal off -
leash dogs
(causing ha
rassment and mortality of wildlife)
Taken cumulatively, these impacts would result in degradation of the suite of habitat types and associated biological resources that occur within the cumulative setting in the Hayward Regional Shoreline area and could re
sult in overall diminished regional ecological functions and values.
However, impacts to biological resources would be considered and mitigated on a project -
by
-
project basis. Permanent losses of sensitive habitats, including sensitive natural communities a nd
listed species, associated with cumulative development would be mitigated to a less than significant level. As such,
the project’s contribution to
cumulative impacts would be significant but mitigable
,
and after mitigation would not be cumulatively cons
iderable
.
Mitigation measures for biological resources identified in this EIR would reduce project -
level
impacts to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO
-
3 would
require the project
applicant to compensate for impacts to 0.97 acre of waters of the U.S. by purchasing wetland mitigation credits at a 1:1 ratio from an approved mitigation bank with
in
a
s
ervice
a
rea covering the
project site. This would mitigate permane
nt loss of waters of the U.S., and also support preservation of essential habitat for the SMHM to promote the recovery of the species in the region.
Implementation of these mitigation measures
outlined in this section
and above in Impact BIO
-
1 would reduce
project
-
level impacts to a less than significant level and would ensure that the project’s contribution to cumulative biological resources impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.2 -
1 4.2
Cultural
Resources
This section assesses
the potential for the proposed project to result in
impact
s
to cultural
resources
, including historic resources and prehistoric or archaeological resources.
4.2.1 Setting
a.
Regional Setting
Prehistory
The
project site is
in
the San Francisco Bay Area archaeological region (Milliken et al. 2007, Moratto 1984). Following Milliken et al. (2007), the prehistoric cultural chronology for the Bay Area can be generally divided into five periods: The Early Holocene (8,000 -
3,500 BCE),
Early (3,500
-
500 BCE),
Lower Middle (500 BCE to CE 430), the Upper Middle (CE 430 -
1050), and the Late Period (CE1050
-
contact).
The five general prehistoric periods are summarized below.
Early Holocene (8,000
-
3,500 BCE)
Archaeological evidence from the
early Holocene is limited, as many sites dating to this period are likely buried under Holocene alluvial deposits (Moratto 1984; Ragir 1972). The available data suggest that the Early Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area is characterized by a mobile fora ger
pattern and the presence of millingslabs, handstones, and a variety of leaf -
shaped projectile points.
Early Period (3,500
-
600 BCE)
The Early Period saw the introduction of new ground stone technologies (i.e., mortar and pestle), an increase in regional
trade, and the first cut shell beads. By 1,500 BCE, mortars and pestles had almost completely replaced millingslabs and handstones. The advent of the mortar and pestle indicates a greater reliance on processing nuts such as acorns.
The earliest cut bead h
orizon is also
associated with this period. (Milliken et al. 2007).
Lower Middle Period (500 BCE
-
CE 430)
Rectangular shell beads, common during the Early Period, disappear completely and are replaced by split
-
beveled and saucer Olivella beads
during the L
ower Middle Period
. Mortars and pestles
continued to be the dominant grinding tool (Milliken et al. 2007). Evidence for the Lower Middle Period in the Bay Area comes from sites such as the Emeryville shell mound (CA -
ALA
-
309) and Ellis
Landing (CA
-
CCO
-
295)
(Moratto 1984).
Upper Middle Period (CE 430
-
1050)
Around CE 430, Olivella saucer bead trade networks that had been established during earlier periods collapsed and over half of known sites occupied during the Lower Middle Period were abandoned.
New types o
f material culture appear at sites, including elaborate, decorative blades, fishtail charmstones, new Haliotis ornament forms, and mica ornaments. Sea otter bones became more abundant, suggesting changes in faunal exploitation patterns from earlier periods
(Milliken et al.
2007).
City of Hayward
4350
Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.2 -
2 Late Period (CE 1050
-
Contact)
The Late Period saw an increase in social complexity, indicated by differences in burials, and an increased level of sedentism relative to preceding periods. Small, finely worked projectile points asso
ciated with bow and arrow technology appear around CE 1250
(Milliken et al. 2007). This period
saw an increase in the intensity of resource exploitation that correlates with an increase in population (Moratto 1984).
Ethnographic Overview
The project site
i
s
an area traditionally occupied by the Ohlone (or Costanoan) people. The pre -
contact Ohlone were semi
-
sedentary, with a settlement system characterized by base camps and seasonal reserve camps composed of tule reed houses with thatched roofs made of matte d grass
(Schick 1994; Skowronek 1998). Just outside a base camp, there was sometimes a large sweat house built into the ground near stream banks used for spiritual ceremonies and possibly hygiene (Schick 1994, Jones 2015).
Ohlone
cemeteries
were set away from villages and visited during the annual Mourning Anniversary (Leventhal and DiGiuseppe 2009). Some Ohlone graves have been found with ritually buried animals, such as wolf, squirrel, deer, mountain lion, gray fox, elk, badger, grizzly be ar, blue goose,
and bat ray. Similar to human burials, ceremonial offerings were added to ritually buried animal graves like shell beads, ornaments, and exotic goods (Kroeber 1925; Field and Leventhal 2003; Jones 2010).
Ohlone subsistence was based on hun
ting, gathering, and fishing (Kroeber 1925:467, Skowronek 1998).
S
maller game
was
hunted and snared on a regular basis (Schick 1944:17). Like the rest of California, the acorn was an important staple and was prepared by leaching acorn meal both in openwork
baskets and in holes dug into the sand (Kroeber 1925:467). Fishing was
done with nets
and gorge hooks out of tule reed canoes (Schick 1994:16 -
17). Mussels were a particularly important
food resource (Kroeber 1925:467), along with sea mammals (Kroeber 1925 :467).
Seven Franciscan missions were built within Ohlone territory in the late 1700s, and all members of the Ohlone group were eventually brought into the mission system (Kroeber 1925:462, Skowronek 1998). After the establishment of the missions, Ohlone
population dwindled from roughly 10,000
people in 1770 to 1,300 in 1814 (Skowronek 1998
).
History
The Post
-
European contact history of California is generally divided into three periods: the Spanish Period (1769
–
1822), the Mexican Period (1822
–
1848), and
the American Period (1848
–
present).
Each of these periods is briefly described below.
Spanish Period (1769
–
1821)
Spanish exploration of California began when Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo led the first European expedition into the region in 1542
, but it took
more than 200 years to establish a settlement
(Bean
1968; Rolle 2003). In the autumn of 1769, an expedition led by Gaspar de Portolá entered San Francisco Bay. Portola sent a detachment led by Jose Francisco de Ortega in search of a land route to Point Rey
es. By November, the party reached a stream that was most likely Alameda Creek, whose course passes approximately 2.5 miles southeast of the project site
. On March 31, 1776,
an
expedition
led by
Juan Bautista de Anza
established a campsite at Arroyo de la
Harina, near what is
now Hayward City Hall (Circa 2009).
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.2 -
3 During this period,
the
influx of European settlers brought the local Native American population in contact with European diseases which they had no immunity against, resulting in a catastrophic redu
ction in native populations throughout the state (McCawley 1996).
Mexican Period (1821
–
1848)
The Mexican Period commenced when news of the success of the Mexican War of Independence (1810
–
1821) against the Spanish crown reached California in 1822. Thi s period saw the
privatization of mission lands in California with the passage of the Secularization Act of 1833. During this era, a class of wealthy landowners known as rancheros worked large ranches based on cattle hide and tallow production. In the earl
y 1840s, the area now comprising Hayward was granted as two ranchos making up separate divisions of Rancho San Lorenzo. In 1841, Mexican Governor Juan Alvarado granted Guillermo Castro a 600
-
acre tract. Two years later, Governor Juan B. Alvarado
granted Ca
stro an additional six leagues of “former mission grazing lands” in 1843. Castro eventually constructed an adobe residence near the present location of Mission Boulevard and C Street in downtown Hayward. In 1842 and 1844, neighboring lands located south of
San Lorenzo Creek were
issued to Francisco Soto (Circa 2009; Kyle 2003).
American Period (1848
–
Present)
The Mexican Period officially ended in early January 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, formally concluding the Mexican
-
Ameri
can War. Under the treaty, the United
States agreed to pay Mexico $15 million for conquered territory, including California, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming.
The discovery of gold in Northern
California in 1848 led to
the California Gold Rush (Workman 1935; Guinn 1976). The Gold Rush significantly transformed Northern California and contributed to an exponential increase in the territory’s population overall. During this time, San Francisco became California’s first tru e city,
growing from a population of 812 to 25,000 in only a few years. California was admitted as a state in 1850, and b
y 1853, its
population
exceeded 300,000.
Hayward (ca. 1850
–
Present)
American
-
era settlement in what is now Hayward began in the latter half of the 19 th
century with
the establishment of a handful of small communities, including Hayward (originally named Haywards), Russell City, and Mt. Eden.
The
nearby San Francisco Bay sh
oreline was home to
important shipping points for produce farmed in the Amador and Livermore valleys. The arrival of the rail service in Hayward in 1865 eventually undercut local shipping ventures but made Hayward a local overland transportation hub. Along
the shoreline, industry was shaped by several solar salt producers, who established plants with large evaporating ponds amid the bay’s tidal marshes. John Johnson built the first of these near Mt. Eden in 1853. Salt plants soon proliferated, and by the 18 90s several operations run by families or small corporations existed in the area. Among these outfits was that of Swedish immigrant Andrew August Oliver, who established the Acme Salt Company near Mt. Eden in 1872. His sons would later run the Oliver Broth ers Salt Company, which
developed the
current
project
site
as a salt works (Watt et al. n.d.; Anonymous 2020).
As was the case in many California communities, the state’s population boom was felt locally, as Hayward’s
population increased from 6,700 in 194
0 to 72,000 in 1960. Demand for housing helped
to inflate local real estate prices, convincing many farmers to sell their holdings to residential and commercial developers. As Hayward expanded, it annexed several outlying communities to the City of Hayward
4350
Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.2 -
4 south and west,
including Russel
l
City, Mt. Eden, and the area comprising the
project site
(Circa
2009; 2010).
b.
Project Site Setting
Records Search
Rincon
Consultants
requested a search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the Northwestern
Information Center (NWIC), located at Sonoma State University. NWIC staff conducted the search and Rincon
Consultants
received the results on August 24, 2020.
The
CHRIS search included a review of the NRHP, CRHR, the California Points of Historical Intere st list,
the California Historical Landmarks list, the Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility list, the Built Environment Resource Directory, and the California State Historic Resources Inventory list.
The
records search results identified 45 previously conducted cultural resources studies within a 0.5 -
mile radius of the project site, of which seven studies included a portion of the project site: S -
001743, S
-
009768, S
-
02300, S
-
023200a, S
-
023200b, S
-
0232
00c, and S
-
023200d.
E
ight previously
recorded cultural resources were
also
identified through the records search
.
These include five
historic archaeological sites, three historic buildings or structures, and one historic landscape. Two of these resources a
re present within the project site;
one is included in the western component (a
historical
-
period archaeological site), one is included in the eastern component (the Oliver Brothers Salt Company), and one is adjacent. The historical
-
period archaeological s
ite recorded within the
project site was completely collected at the time of its recording and is therefore no longer present.
Historical Aerial Imagery Review
Rincon
Consultants
conducted a review of historical aerial photographs and topographic maps to identify potential cultural resources concerns within the project site. The research individuated that salt fields began development in 1942, with three buildings and evaporators emerging by 1958.
Grading within the
eastern component of the
project site is
identified from 1987 to the present day.
Pedestrian Field Survey
Rincon
Consultants
conducted a pedestrian field survey of the project site on September 22, 2020.
All areas of
exposed ground surface
were examined
for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools,
tool
-
making debris, stone milling tools, ceramics, fire
-
affected rock), ecofacts (marine shell and bone),
soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions, and features indicative of the former presence of structur
es or buildings (e.g., standing exterior walls,
postholes, foundations) or historic debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics). Ground disturbances such as burrows and drainages were also visually inspected. Transects were generally spaced 10 to 20 meters throu
ghout the survey based on surface visibility.
All buildings, structures, and landscaped
features within the project site were
visually inspected
,
documenting their style, method of
construction, and physical condition
.
Results of the survey indicated that
the project site has been heavily disturbed.
Disturbance was
evident throughout the
project site
in the form of soil spoils piles, nonlocal gravel, concrete and construction debris, and levee construction. Ground visibility was limited by the presence of s
tanding water in the water storage ponds in the western portion of the project site and by vegetation in the eastern portion of the project site. No archaeological resources were identified within the
project site
during the field survey.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.2 -
5 Soil Remediation
To obtain further understanding of the sensitivity of the project site, Rincon
Consultants
reviewed
the soil remediation studies conducted by Aqua Science Engineers, Inc.
(2013).
In
1998 two
underground storage tanks containing diesel
-
fuel and hydrocarbon
s were removed from the project
site and from 1
998 to 2012 soil remediation efforts includ
ed
multiple soil samples taken of the
contaminated area
s,
and groundwater assessments to determine the extent of the site contamination
(Aqua Science Engineers 2013)
.
Additionally,
“
h
ot spots”
were identified
within the
project site
,
which were
excavated, bioremediated onsite,
then
backfilled. Other soil remediation
efforts included overexcavation, in
-
situ soil treatment, and groundwater monitoring.
Other
remediation e
fforts included the destruction of 12
monitoring wells, the deepest well approximately
360 feet below
ground
surface (Aqua Science Engineers 2013). Soil remediation efforts covered approximately 16 percent of the
western component of the
project site
, and
approximately 81
percent of
the eastern component of the site
.
4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
Cultural resources, including built environment and archaeological resources, may be designated as historic by national, state, or local authorities. For a resource to qualif y for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), or as a locally significant resource, it must meet one or more identified criteria of significance. The resource must also retain suff
icient historic integrity, defined in National Register Bulletin 15 as the “ability of a property to convey its significance” (National Park Service 1990). An explanation of these designations follows.
a.
Federal Regulations
National Register of Historic Plac
es
The National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) was established by the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 as “an authoritative guide to be used by Federal, State, and local governments, private groups and citizens to identify the Nation’ s cultural resources and to indicate
what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment” (CFR 36 CFR
60.2). The NRHP recognizes properties that are significant at the national, state, and local levels. To be eligible for lis
ting in the NRHP, a resource must be significant in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, or culture. Districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of potential significance must also possess integrity of location, design, settin g, materials, workmanship, feeling,
and association. A property is eligible for the NRHP if it is significant under one or more of the following criteria:
Criterion A:
It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patt
erns of our history;
or
Criterion B:
It is associated with the lives of persons who are significant in our past;
or
Criterion C:
It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or represents the work of a
master, or possesses high artistic values,
or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; and/or
Criterion D:
It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
City of Hayward
4350
Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.2 -
6 In addition to meeting these criteria, a property must retain historic integrity, which is defined in National Register Bulletin 15 as the “ability of a property to convey its significance” (National Park Service 1990). In order to assess integrit
y, the National Park Service recognizes seven aspects or qualities that, considered together, define historic integrity. To retain integrity, a property must possess several, if not all, of these seven qualities, which are defined in the following manner i n
National Register Bulletin 15:
Location.
The place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred;
Design.
The combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property;
Set
ting.
The physical environment of a historic property;
Materials.
The physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property.
Workmanship.
The physical e
vidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory;
Feeling.
A property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time; and/or
Association.
The direct link between an imp
ortant historic event or person and a historic
property.
b.
State Regulations
California Environmental Quality Act
Under CEQA, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historic resource is a project that may have a sign
ificant effect on the environment” (California
Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21084.1). Answering this question is a two -
part process: first,
the determination must be made as to whether the proposed project involves historic
resources;
second, if
his
toric
resources are present, the proposed project must be analyzed for a potential “substantial adverse change in the significance” of the resource.
California Register of Historical Resources
The CRHR helps government agencies identify, evaluate, and prot ect California’s historical
resources, and indicates which properties are to be protected from substantial adverse change (PRC Section 5024.1(a)). The CRHR is administered through the State Office of Historic Preservation, a part of the California State Pa
rks system.
A
historic
resource is evaluated under four CRHR criteria to determine its historical significance. A resource must be significant at the local, state, or national level in accordance with one or more of the following criteria set forth in the
State CEQA Guidelines at Section 15064.5(a)(3):
1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad pattern of California’s history and cultural heritage.
2. It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past.
3. It
embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.2 -
7 4.
It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important i n prehistory or history.
In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, the CRHR requires that sufficient time must have passed to allow a “scholarly perspective on the events or individuals associated with the resource.” Fifty years is used as
a general estimate of the time needed to understand the historical importance of a resource according to State Historic Preservation Office publications. CRHR also requires a resource to possess integrity, defined as “the authenticity of a historical resou rce’s
physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and associati
on.” Archaeological resources can sometimes qualify
as “historical resources” [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(c)(1)].
According to CEQA, all buildings constructed over 50 years ago that possess architectural or historical significance may be considered
potential historic resources. Most resources must meet
the 50
-
year threshold for historic significance, but resources less than 50 years in age may be eligible for listing on the CRHR if it can be demonstrated that sufficient time has passed to understand
their historical importance.
If a project can be demonstrated to cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, the lead agency may require reasonable efforts to permit any or all of these resources to be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed sta
te. To the extent that resources cannot be left undisturbed, mitigation measures are required (PRC Section 21083.2[a], [b], and [c]).
PRC Section 21083.2(g) defines a unique archaeological resource as an artifact, object, or site about which it can be
clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:
1)
Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a de
monstrable public interest in that information
2)
Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type
3)
Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic eve nt
or person
Two other programs are administered by the state: California Historical Landmarks and California “Points of Historical Interest.” California Historical Landmarks are buildings, sites, features, or events statewide significance and that have an
thropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other historical value. California Points of Historical Interest are buildings, sites, features, or events of local (city or county)
significance and
that have anthropological, cultural, military, political, architectural, economic, scientific or technical, religious, experimental, or other historical value.
Impacts to significant cultural resources are considered a significant effect on the environment if
they affect the characteristics of any resource that qualify it for the NRHP or adversely alter the significance of a resource listed in or eligible for listing in the CRHR. These impacts could result from physical demolition, destruc
tion, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of an historical resource would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5 [b][1], 2000). Material impairment is defined as demolition or
alteration in an adverse manner [of] those characteristics of an historical resource that convey its historical significance and that justify its inclusion in, or eligibility for inclusion in, the CRHR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5[b][2][A]).
City of Hayward
4350
Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.2 -
8 Codes Go
verning Human Remains
The CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 also assign special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. The disposition of human remains is governed by Health and Safety Cod
e Section 7050.5 and PRC Sections 5097.94
and 5097.98; it falls under the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Association (NAHC). If human remains are discovered, the county coroner must be notified within 48 hours and there should be no further d
isturbance to the site where the remains were found. If the remains are determined by the coroner to be Native American, the coroner is responsible to contact the NAHC within 24 hours. The NAHC, pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98, will immediately notify thos e persons
it believes to be most likely descended from the deceased Native Americans so they can inspect the burial site and make recommendations for treatment or disposal.
c.
Local
Regulations
City of Hayward
The City of Hayward adopted a Historic Preservati
on Ordinance in 1989
, and comprehensively
updated that the Ordinance
in 2010
. The purpose of this Ordinance is to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of the inhabitants of the City by providing for the identification, protection, enhancem
ent, perpetuation and use of historical resources, including buildings, structures, signs, objects, features, sites, historic and prehistoric archaeological sites, places, districts, designed landscapes, cultural landscapes and areas within the City that r eflect special
elements of the City's architectural, artistic, cultural, engineering, aesthetic, historical, political, social and other heritage (Article 11, Section 10
-
11.010). The City or any property owner may
request the designation of an historical r
esource or a potentially significant historical resource or the designation of an historic district by submitting an application for such designation to the Planning Division. The Planning Commission is authorized to approve in whole or in part, or disappr
ove in whole or in part, the application for designation of the resource as an historical resource on the local register (Article 11, Section 10
-
11.090). The Ordinance specifies that a
property may be determined historically significant if it possesses one
of the following:
1)
An association with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of national, state and/or local history and cultural heritage
2)
An association with the lives of persons significant in national, state and/or local
past
3)
The embodiment of the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master or important creative individual, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and
distinguishable entity
whose components may lack individual distinction
4)
Details that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history
4.2.3 Impact Analysis
a.
Methodology and Significance Thresholds
This section describes th
e potential environmental impacts of
the proposed project
relevant to
cultural
resources.
The analysis evaluates the potential for proposed activities to result in
impact
s
to
cultural resources, based on records of resources within the project site ,
observ
ations of the
Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.2 -
9 pedestrian survey completed by Rincon Consultants in September 2020 , and the history and
sensitivity of the project vicinity
. Complete documentation of the records search and pedestrian survey, including potential impacts to resources, is pro vided in the Cultural Resources Assessment
Report, prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. in February 2021. The Cultural Resources Assessment Report is provided as Appendix
B
to this EIR.
According to Appendix G
of the State
CEQA Guidelines
, impacts related to
cultural resources
from
the proposed project would be significant if the project would:
Cause a
substantial adverse
change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to §
15064.5;
Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §
15064.5; or
Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
b.
Impact Analysis
Threshold
1 :
Would the project cause a substanti
al adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Impact CUL
-
1 D
EMOLITION OF THE
O
LIVER
B
ROTHERS
S
ALT
C
OMPANY PROCESSING PLANT AND
FILLING OF PORTIONS OF THE
ASSOCIATED
SALT EVAPORATION PONDS
ON THE EASTERN COMPONENT OF THE
PROJECT SI
TE
WOULD ADVERSELY
IMPACT FEATURES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF
A HISTORIC
AL
RESOURCE
.
I
MPACTS WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT
AND UNAVOIDABLE
.
The proposed project would not involve construction or
operation
activities within the western
component of the p
roject site. The proposed
wetland preserve within the western component of
the project site would involve no maintenance or operational activities. Therefore, the proposed wetland preserve
would have no impacts on
historic resources within the
western comp
onent of
the project site.
The field survey and background research identified one built -
environment historical resource in the
eastern component of the
project site
:
the Oliver Brothers Salt Company. The resource has been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP and is listed in the CRHR; the property, therefore, qualifies as a historical resource as defined by CEQA.
The project site, including the eastern and
west
ern component of the site, are also part of a historic landscape affiliated with the former salt production operations.
Although the proposed project would not result in the demolition or alteration of the salt evaporation ponds and levees located on the w estern component of the
project site, it would result in the demolition of the processing plant and filling of portions of existing salt evaporation ponds located on the eastern component of the project site. The eastern component
of the site is essential
in the larger property’s ability to convey its significance ,
as it
contains the only remaining buildings on the
project
site and is the location of the primary salt
processing activities. Due to proposed demolition and construction activities that would im pact
contributing features within the eastern component, the proposed project would cause the material impairment of the resource, meaning it would alter in an adverse manner those physical characteristics that convey its historical significance and that j ustify its inclusion in the NRHP and
CRHR.
Filling the salt ponds and demolishing the building on the eastern component of the site would also alter the historic landscape, as would constructing a new industrial building.
The project
would therefore result
in a substantial adverse change to the significance of a historical resource and result in a significant impact pursuant to CEQA.
City of Hayward
4350
Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.2 -
10 Although not capable of reducing impacts to below the level of significance ,
two mitigation
measures
are
required
which woul
d minimize project impact
s
relating to the demolition of the
Oliver Brother Salt Company property to the maximum extent feasible : CUL
-
1a and CUL
-
1b
.
Mitigation Measures
CUL
-
1 a
Building Recordation
Archival documentation of as
-
built and as
-
found condition
sh
all
be prepared for the Oliver Brothers
Salt Company prior to demolition. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the City of Hayward shall ensure that documentation of the buildings and structures proposed for demolition is completed that follows the g
eneral guidelines of Historic American Building Survey (HABS) -
level III
documentation. The documentation shall include high resolution digital photographic recordation, a historic narrative report, and compilation of historic research. The documentation sh all be
completed by a qualified professional who meets the standards for history, architectural history, or architecture as set forth by the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards (36 CFR, Part 61). The original archival
-
quality d
ocumentation shall be offered as donated material to
the Hayward Library and
/or
Hayward Area Historical Society to make it available for current and future generations. Archival copies of the documentation shall
be submitted to the City of Hayward
where it
shall
be available to local researchers.
CUL
-
1b
Interpretive Display
An interpretive display shall be developed and installed on site to commemorate the history of the Oliver Brothers Salt Company. The display may include historic photographs, drawings, a nd text to
convey the history of the site and the significance of salt processing in Alameda County. The display shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to installation at a site to be chosen by the City.
The installation shall occur prior to issu
ance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
Significance After Mitigation
Although not capable of reducing impacts to below the level of significance ,
mitigation measures
CUL
-
1a
and CUL
-
1b
would minimize project impact
s
relating to the demolition of the Oliver Br
other
Salt Company property.
Impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Threshold
2 :
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to
§15064.5?
Impact CUL
-
2 C
ONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD INVOLVE GROUND -
DISTURBING
ACTIVITIES
THAT
HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO UNEARTH OR ADVERSELY IMP
ACT PREVIOUSLY UNIDENTIFIED
ARCHAEOLOGICAL RESOURCES
WITHIN THE EASTERN COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT SITE
.
I
MPACTS WOULD BE
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
.
The proposed project would not involve construction or
excavation
activities within
the western
component of the project site. The proposed project would have no impacts on potential subsurface
archaeological resources within the
western component of the project site.
Construction of the proposed project, including the proposed industrial
building
, surface parking,
utilities and landscaping,
and relocated segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail
,
would involve
excavation and ground disturbance
on the site’s eastern component
. For example, the proposed
industrial building would require subsur
face utility connections that requiring trenching below Environmental Impact Analysis
Cultural Resources
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.2 -
11 existing ground surface.
Although t
he
project site
has been
hea
v
i
ly disturbed
due to salt works
operations
and
soil remediation efforts
from 1998 to 2012
, ground
-
disturbing activities
would
have
the p
otential to unearth previously unidentified archaeological resources. Project impacts to unanticipated discoveries would be significant
but mitigable
.
Mitigation Measures
CUL
-
2 Unanticipated Discovery of
Archaeological
Resources
In the event
that
archaeological resources are
unexpectedly
encountered during ground
-
disturbing
activities, work in the immediate area
shall
be halted and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification
s
Standards for archeology (Nationa
l Park Service 1983)
shall
be contacted immediately to evaluate the find.
If the find is prehistoric, then a Native American
representative should also be contacted to participate in the evaluation of the find.
If necessary,
as
determined by the archaeolog
ist in consultation with the City,
the evaluation may require
preparation of a treatment plan and archaeological testing for California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR)
eligibility. If the discovery proves to be
eligible for the CRHR
and cannot be
a
voided by the
modified project
, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted to mitigate impacts to
archaeological
resources.
Threshold
3 :
Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemete
ries?
Impact CUL
-
3 T
HE DISCOVERY OF HUMAN REMAINS IS ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY DURING GROUND -
DISTURBING ACTIVITIES
.
G
ROUND DISTURBANCE
REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
COULD
DISTURB OR DAMAGE KNOWN OR UNKNOWN HUMAN REMAINS
WITHIN THE EASTERN COMPONENT OF
TH
E PROJECT SITE
.
T
HIS IMPACT WOULD BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
DUE TO MANDATORY
ADHERENCE TO
EXISTING REGULATIONS
.
The discovery of human remains is always a possibility during ground disturbing activities
extending
at least several feet into the ground surfa
ce
. If human remains are found, the State of California
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Secti
on 5097.98. In the event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner must be notified immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a most likely
descendant (MLD). The
MLD has 48 hours to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains. The MLD has 48 hours from being granted site access to make recommendations for the disposition of the remains.
If the MLD does not make recommendations wit
hin 48 hours, the landowner shall reinter the
remains in an area of the property secure from subsequent disturbance.
The proposed project would not involve construction or
excavation
activities within the western
component of the project site. The propose
d project would have no impacts on
potential human
remains, if present, within the
western component of the project site.
Construction within the eastern component of the project site would require ground disturbance to several feet or more below ground su
rface, such as grading for relocation of the San Francisco Bay Trail, utility connections for the industrial building, or drilling for the displacement pier supports for the building foundation. These project activities would have potential to encounter an d disturb
unknown or previously undiscovered human remains, since this is usually a possibility regardless of City of Hayward
4350
Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.2 -
12 project or location. However, mandatory adhere to existing regulations to protect human remains, such as Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 wou
ld prevent significant impacts. Impacts would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
N
o mitigation measures are indicated
.
Significance After Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant without mitigation .
4.2.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative i
mpacts assessment area for cultural resources consists of the project site, including both the western and eastern components of the project site. The project site was determined to be
appropriate because implementation of the proposed project would result in no structural demolition or ground disturbance or associated potential to impact buried cultural resources beyond the boundaries of the project site. Likewise, historic resources o n the project site occur
solely on the project site and not within the sites of other cumulative projects, list in Table 3 -
1 in
Section 3,
Environmental Setting
.
There are no other ongoing or reasonably foreseeable future projects within the project site
other
than the proposed project. Potential impacts to cultural resources associated with implementation of the proposed project are described above.
Implementation of the proposed project would result
in significant and unavoidable impacts to historic reso urces associated with demolition of the
former Oliver Brothers Salt Company structure and alterations to salt evaporation ponds within the eastern component of the project site. The proposed project would have no impacts to historic resources located elsew
here in the City because project activities would be limited to the project site. However, because the proposed project would result in direct significant impacts to historic resources on the project site, there would be fewer historic resources remaining in the City, and the
cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.
Within implementation of mitigation
measures CUL
-
1a and CUL
-
1b, impacts would be
reduced, but would remain significant and
unavoidable.
The reasonably foreseeable future projects
listed in Table 3
-
1 of Section 3,
Environmental Setting
,
would require ground disturbance and excavation during construction.
Ground disturbance and
excavation activities would have the potential to encounter previously unidentified or unknown subsurface c
ultural resources. Construction of the proposed project would also require excavation and result in the same potential to encounter or damage subsurface resources. However, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL
-
2 would be required and would reduce impac
ts to less
than significant.
Other projects would undergo environmental review with the City as lead agency, and mitigation would be required to reduce or avoid significant impacts, similar to the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no significant
cumulative impacts to archaeological resources
and human remains.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.3 -
1 4.3
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
This section evaluates the potential
impacts relating to hazards and hazardous materials
associated
with the proposed project
.
4.3.1 Setting
a.
Project Site
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the project site by Cornerstone Earth Group in March 2017. The Phase I ESA is incl
uded as Appendix
E
to
the
Initial Study
, and
the
Initial Study is included as Appendix A to this EIR. The Phase I ESA
focuses on the eastern component
of the project site
. According the Phase I ESA,
a salt production and processing facility
, known as
Olive
r Brothers Salt Works,
operated on
the east component of
the project site until approximately
1981. The salt facility consisted of a processing plant and a shop, both of which were on the eastern component of the project site. The shop has since been demo lished. A salt pile or heap was located
south of the plant on the eastern component of the site, as were salt rinsing ponds. The salt pile is no longer present, but the former salt ponds remain.
Former salt ponds are also located on the
western component o
f the project site. Railroad tracks were used to transport salt between ponds and the processing plant. Much of the track system no longer remains, but some evidence, such as old railroad ties and spikes
,
can still be found on
-
site. A gasoline
-
powered loco
motive was
reportedly used to move railroad cars along the tracks, and an underground storage tank and associated pump were reportedly located next to the railroad track south of the shop, on the eastern component of the site. According to the Phase
I
ESA,
the gasoline tank had capacity for
approximately 100 gallons. Additionally, a 500
-
gallon underground storage tank with diesel fuel was
also on
-
site and
associated with the former salt production operations. Both underground storage tanks were removed in 1
998. Petroleum
-
related contamination
was
detected in underlying soil and
groundwater after the tanks were removed. Subsequent remedial activities were conducted through 2008. Soil sampling conducted in 2013 indicated there were additional areas outside of the
remediated areas where elevated concentrations of contaminants of potential concern remain. In addition,
elevated
concentrations of contaminants of potential concern were also detected in samples collected from temporary soil vapor probes in 2012, and in groundwater monitoring well
samples collected in 2013.
The contaminants of potential concern consist
ed
primarily of benzene,
TPHo, and 1,2
-
DCA. Additionally,
the
groundwater
sampling in 2013 revealed residual
concentrations of TPH
-
G
and BTEX
that exceed
ESL and/or MCL thresholds.
The potential for residual petroleum contamination is the only Recognized Environmental Condition identified
in the Phase I ESA. Additionally, a
Risk Management Plan (RMP) prepared for the project
site in 2014 identifies residual petroleum hydrocarbons as a concern within soil and groundwater.
According to the RMP, the project site
is acceptable for redevelopment without restrictions
except
for two areas on the eastern component of the site where residual petroleum hydrocarbons remain within soil and ground
water.
These two areas are referred to as the restricted areas
and are shown
on Figure 4.3
-
1 .
B
enzene concentrations in groundwater beneath the
restricted
areas
and in an area
slightly beyond the restricted areas
exceed the commercial non
-
drinking water Environmental
Screening Level (ESL) of 27 parts per billion (ppb) set by the RWQCB, which was established based on potential vapor intrusion to indoor air situati
ons.
The extent of benzene contamination
exceeding ESL in groundwater is shown on Figure 4.3
-
2. City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.3 -
2 Figure
4.3 -
1 Restricted Areas
Source: ASE 2014
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.3 -
3 Figure
4.3 -
2 Extent of Benzene Exceeding ESLs in Shallow Groundwater
Source: ASE 2014
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.3 -
4 The
RMP
, which is provided as an Appendix to the Phase I ESA,
provides general protocols for
managing soil and groundwater at the site; recommendations for soil vapor mitigations for future structures; and restricted areas where detectable concentrations of c ontaminants of potential
concern may be present. On December 23, 2014, a deed restriction was recorded with Alameda County. The deed restriction identified that the project site was contaminated by petroleum products, and requires the following:
Property m
ust be used consistent with the 2014 RMP
Inhabited structures built on
-
site must be compliant with the RMP
Excavation on
-
site must be compliant with the RMP
Future uses on
-
site must preserve integrity of cap, vapor barrier, or installed ventilation systems
No water wells may be installed on
-
site unless approved by the State Water Resources Control Board
The State Water Resources Control Board must be notified if the integrity of cap, vapor barrier, or installed ventilation systems is compromised
The State Water Resources Control Board granted case closure for the project site on February 18, 2015. However, the State Water Resources Control Board noted that the case does not meet all criteria of the low
-
threat closure policy, but no further action
was still appropriate
because
:
The contamination plume is defined and on
-
site
The exposure pathways have been defined and assessed
Pollutant sources have been reportedly removed or remediated
Groundwater contamination plumes appear to be decreasing
Risk ma
nagement measures appear appropriate
The State Water Resources Control Board noted that “there may be residual petroleum -
contaminated soil and groundwater at the site that could pose an unacceptable risk as a result of future construction/development activ
ities” and “proper management may include sampling risk assessment, additional cleanup work, mitigation measures, or some combination of these tasks.”
b.
Asbestos and Lead
-
Based Paint
The
Phase I ESA also indicates that existing on
-
site structures
associated
with the former Oliver
Brothers Salt Works operation
may contain asbestos due to their age. These structures may also contain lead
-
based paint. Both asbestos and lead are harmful to human health.
c.
Off
-
site Sources of Contamination
According to the Phase I
ESA, there are 11 sites within approximately 0.25 mile of the project site (see Appendix
E of the Initial Study
). None of these sites are listed as active contamination cases, and some are noted to generate hazardous waste but have no known contamination a ssociated
with them. One of the 11 sites, located at 4125 Breakwater Avenue , approximately 0.1 mile to the
north of the eastern component of the project site,
and known as “Big Al’s Waste Hauling,” is noted
to have potential contamination requiring evaluat
ion.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.3 -
5 4.3.2
Regulatory Setting
a.
Federal Regulations
Toxic Substances Control Act (1976) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA)
These acts
established a program administered by the USEPA for the regulation of the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste. RCRA was amended in 1984 by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Act, which affirmed and extended the “cradle to grave” system of regulating hazardous wastes. Among other things, the use of cert ain techniques for the disposal of
some hazardous wastes was
specifically prohibited by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Act
.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (1 986)
This law was enacted in 1980 and provides broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the environment.
Among other things, Comprehensive Environmental Respo
nse, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA) established requirements concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites, provided for liability of persons responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites, and established a trust fund to provi
de for cleanup when no responsible party could be identified.
CERCLA also enabled revision of the National Contingency Plan, which provided the guidelines and procedures needed to respond to releases and threatened releases of hazardous substances, polluta
nts, or contaminants. The National Contingency Plan
also established the National Priorities
List.
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
This Act (7 U.S. Code [USC] 136 et seq.) provides Federal control of pesticide distribution, sale, and u
se. The USEPA was given authority under the Act to study the consequences of pesticide usage, and to require users (farmers, utility companies, and others) to register when purchasing pesticides.
Later amendments to the law required users to take exams for
certification as applicators of
pesticides. All pesticides used in the United States must be registered (licensed) by the USEPA.
Registration assures that pesticides will be properly labeled and that, if used in accordance with specifications, they will n
ot cause unreasonable harm to the environment.
Lead
-
Based Paint
Regulations
Regulations for Lead
-
Based Paint (LBP) are contained in the Lead
-
Based Paint Elimination Final Rule
,
24 CFR 33, governed by the U.S. Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which requires sellers and lessors to disclose known LBP and LBP hazards to perspective purchasers and lessees. Additionally, all LBP abatement activities must be in compliance with Cali fornia
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal/OSHA)
and Federal OSHA and with the State of California Department of Health Services requirements. Only LBP
-
trained and
-
certified abatement personnel are allowed to perform
abatement activities. A
ll LBP removed from structures must be hauled and disposed of by a transportation company licensed to transport this type of material at a landfill or receiving facility licensed to accept the waste.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.3 -
6 Regulations to manage and control exposure to lead
-
based
paint are
also
described in CFR Title 29,
Section 1926.62 and C
alifornia
C
ode of
R
egulations
Title 8 Section 1532.1. These regulations cover
the demolition, removal, cleanup, transportation, storage, and disposal of lead -
containing material.
The regulatio
ns outline the permissible exposure limit, protective measures, monitoring, and compliance to ensure the safety of construction workers exposed to lead -
based materials.
Cal/OSHA’s Lead in Construction Standard requires project proponents to develop and imp lement a
lead compliance plan when lead
-
based paint would be disturbed during construction. The plan must describe activities that could emit lead, methods for complying with the standard, safe work practices, and a plan to protect workers from exposure to
lead during construction activities.
Cal/OSHA requires 24
-
hour notification if more than 100
sf
of lead
-
based paint would be disturbed.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The USEPA is the agency primarily responsible for enforcement and implementation o f Federal laws
and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable Federal regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are contained in the CFR Titles 29, 40, and 49. Hazardous materials, as defined in the CFR, are listed in 49 CFR 172.101. The
management of hazardous materials is governed by the
following laws:
1. Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976) (42 USC 6901 et seq.); Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (also called the Superfund Act) (42 U
SC 9601 et seq.)
2. Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (7 USC 136 et. Seq.)
3. Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99 499)
These laws and associated regulations include specific requirements for facilities that gene rate, use,
store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous materials. USEPA provides oversight and supervision for Federal Superfund investigation/remediation projects, evaluates remediation technologies, and develops hazardous materials disposal restrictions an
d treatment standards.
Asbestos
Regulations
Asbestos is a naturally occurring fibrous material that was extensively used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction materials before such uses were banned by the US
EPA in
the 1970s. Asbes
tos
-
containing materials (ACMs) were commonly used for insulation of heating ducts as well as ceiling and floor tiles
. Undisturbed
ACMs contained within building materials
present no significant health risk because there is no exposure pathway. However, on ce these tiny
fibers are disturbed, they can become airborne and become a respiratory hazard. The fibers are very small and cannot be seen with the naked eye. Once they are inhaled, they can become lodged into the lungs, and may cause cancer, lung disease
or other pulmonary complications.
The USEPA regulations under Title 40 CFR Part 61 regulate the removal and handling of ACMs. The statute is implemented by the Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD). The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administ
ration also has a survey requirement under Title 29 CFR that is implemented by Cal/OSHA under Title 8 California Code Regulations. These regulations require facilities to take all necessary precautions to protect employees and the public from exposure to a
sbestos.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.3 -
7 b.
State Regulations
Department of Toxic Substances Control
As a department of the California EPA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is the primary agency in California that regulates hazardous waste, cleans up existing contamination,
and
looks for ways to reduce the hazardous waste produced in California. DTSC regulates hazardous waste in California primarily under the authority of RCRA and the California Health and Safety Code.
DTSC also administers the California Hazardous Waste Con trol Law (HWCL) to regulate hazardous
wastes. While the HWCL is generally more stringent than RCRA, until the USEPA approves the California program, both state and federal laws apply in California. The HWCL lists 791 chemicals and approximately 300 common
materials that may be hazardous; establishes criteria for identifying, packaging, and labeling hazardous wastes; prescribes management controls; establishes permit requirements for treatment, storage, disposal, and transportation; and identifies some waste
s that cannot be disposed of in landfills.
Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the DTSC, the State Department of Health Services, the SWRCB, and CalRecycle to compile and annually update lists of hazardous waste sites and land designated as hazardous
waste sites throughout the state. The Secretary for Environmental Protection consolidates the information submitted by these agencies and distributes it to each city and county where sites on the lists are located. Before the lead agency accepts an applic ation for
any development project as complete, the applicant must consult these lists to determine if the site at issue is included.
If any soil is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials, it would be considered a hazardous waste if it exceed
ed specific criteria in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.
Remediation of hazardous wastes found at a site may be required if excavation of these materials is performed, or if certain other soil disturbing activities would occur. Even if soil or groundwater at a
contaminated site does not have the characteristics required to be defined as hazardous waste, remediation of the site may be required by regulatory agencies subject to jurisdictional authority.
Cleanup requirements are determined on a
case
-
by
-
case basis by the agency taking jurisdiction.
Hazardous Waste Control Act
The hazardous waste management program enforced by DTSC was created by the Hazardous Waste Control Act (California Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.), which is im plemented by
regulations described in CCR Title 26. The State program is similar to, but more stringent than, the Federal program under RCRA. The regulations list materials that may be hazardous, and establish criteria for their identification, packaging,
and disposal. Environmental health standards for
management of hazardous waste are contained in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Title 22, Division 4.5. As required by California Government Code Section 65962.5, DTSC maintains a Hazardous Waste and Sub
stances Site List for the State called the Cortese List.
California Department of Pesticide Regulation, Department of Food and Agriculture, and the Department of Public Health
The California Department of Pesticide Regulations (DPR), a division of Californ ia Environmental
Protection Agency, in coordination with the California Department of Food and Agriculture, a division of Measurement Standards and the California Department of Public Health have the primary responsibility to regulate pesticide use, vector
control, food, and drinking water safety. CCR
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.3 -
8 Title 3 requires the coordinated response between the County Agricultural Commissioner and the Sonoma County Department of Health Services to address the use of pesticides used in vector control for animal and
human health on a local level. DPR registers pesticides; the County tracks pesticide use. Title 22 is used also to regulate both small and large California Department of Public Health water systems.
California Fire Building Code
The 2016 Fire and Building Code (2016) establishes the minimum requirements consistent with nationally recognized good practices to safeguard the public health, safety, and general welfare for the hazards of fire, explosion,
or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures and premises, and to provide safety and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provisions of this code apply to the construction, alteration, mo vement
enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such building structures throughout the State of California.
c.
Local
Regulations
Alameda
County
Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan
The
Alameda
County
Local
Hazard Mitigation Plan
assesses hazards, risks, and capabilities for hazard
mitigation, and then provides a blueprint for a mitigation strategy.
The hazard and risk assessment
focuses on
dam failure inundation, drought,
earthquake, flood, landslide,
liquefaction, tsunami, and
w
ildfire.
The Alameda County 2016 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors in January 2016, and was approved by FEMA in October 2016.
Alameda
County
Department of
Environmental Health
The
mission of the
Alameda County Dep
artment of Environmental Health (ACDEH) is to protect the health, safety and well
-
being of the public through the promotion of environmental quality.
The
department
’s Hazardous Materials Division contains the Clean Water Program, Waste Tire Program, and th
e Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA).
Alameda County
Water Department (ACWD)
The Alameda County Water District (ACWD) manages the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin, which underlies the project site, through comprehensive programs that protect and improve water
supplies for groundwater users. The project site is also locate d
within ACWD’s jurisdictional
boundary. ACWD is identified within the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) as the exclusive local agency within its statutory boundaries to compl y with SGMA with its boundaries.
ACWD is also the Groundwater Sustainability Agency for the Niles Cone Groundwater Basin and has an approved Alternative to a Groundwater Sustainability Plan.
City of Hayward General Plan
The Hazards Element of the City of H
ayward General Plan
defines hazardous materials and provides
the following information:
Hazardous materials are toxic, ignitable, corrosive, or reactive substances that can cause harm to people.
Hazardous materials are used by households and businesses wi thin urban
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.3 -
9 areas.
The improper use and disposal of hazardous materials can contaminate soil and groundwater resources and compromise the health and quality of life of residents.
Accidents
involving the transportation of hazardous materials can also cause
explosions or spills that
endanger the lives and property of nearby residents and businesses.
The
Hazards Element of the
City of Hayward
General Plan
includes the following goals and policies
that
aim to reduce potential damage from hazardous materials:
Goal HAZ
-
6 : Protect people and environmental resources from contaminated hazardous material sites and minimize risks associated with the use, storage, transport, and disposal of hazardous materials
.
HAZ
-
6.2 :
The City shall require site
investigations to determine the presence of hazardous
materials and/or waste contamination before discretionary project approvals are issued by the City. The City shall require appropriate measures to be taken to protect the health and safety of site user
s and the greater Hayward community.
HAZ
-
6.7 :
The City shall coordinate with State, Federal, and local agencies to develop and promote best practices related to the use, storage, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials.
G
oal
HAZ
-
6 and its suppo
rting policies are designed to establish strategies to minimize exposure to hazardous materials through the documentation, monitoring, clean -
up, and re
-
use of hazardous
material sites; and the implementation of best practices for the routine use, storage, transport, and
disposal of hazardous materials.
4.3.3 Impact Analysis
a.
Methodology and Thresholds of Significance
According to
CEQA Guidelines
Appendix G, impacts related to
hazards
and
hazardous materials
are
considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would:
1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials
;
2. Create a significant hazard to the public or t
he environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment
;
3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one
-
quar
ter mile of an existing or proposed school
;
4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environm
ent
;
5. For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles
of a public airport or public use airport, result in a safety hazard
or
excessive noise
for people residing or working in the project ar
ea
;
6. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
; or
7. Expose people or structures
, either directly or indirectly,
to a significant risk of loss, injury, or
death involving wildland fir
es
.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.3 -
10 CEQA checklist items
1 ,
3 , and
5 through 7
were found to be less than significant in the Initial Study
(Appendix
A
)
.
Therefore, no further analysis is warranted, and these t opics
will not be discussed
further in this section.
Threshold
2 :
Would the project
c
reate a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the e
nvironment
?
Impact HAZ
-
1 T
HE PROJECT
HAS THE POTENTIAL TO
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
DUE TO POTENTIAL HAZARD
OUS MATERIALS THAT
MAY BE PRESENT IN THE EXISTING ON
-
SITE STRUCTURES
.
T
HIS IMPACT WOULD BE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
BUT
MITIGABLE
.
The proposed project would preserve the western component of the project site as it currently exists. No construction activiti
es or ground disturbance would occur within the western component of the project site. Additionally, no operational activities would occur within the western component of the project site.
There are no on
-
site structures or known contamination on the
weste
rn component of the project site
.
B
ecause the project would
not involve
activities or
occupancy
on
the western component, the proposed preserve would have no potential to create a significant hazard to the public or environment.
Due to the age of the
form
er Oliver Brothers Salt Works
structures
on the eastern component of the
project site
, they
could
contain LBP and/or ACM (
see Phase I ESA included as
Appendix
E to the
Initial Study
).
Project construction would include demolition of the existing structures. During demolition, LBP and/or ACM, if present could become mobilized as dust or directly handled by construction workers.
Exposure to lead can cause adverse health
effects, including
disturbance of
the
gastrointestinal system, anemia, kidney disease, and neuromuscular and neurological dysfunction (in severe cases).
Lead
-
based paint and other lead
-
containing materials associated with
the
proposed project
would be
required to be
handled
in compliance with Cal/OSHA regulations
regarding lead
-
based paints and materials. The California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1, requires testing, monitoring, containment, and disposal of lead -
based paints and materials, such
that exposure levels do
not exceed Cal/OSHA standards. Compliance with
applicable
Cal/OSHA
regulations
would ensure impacts related to
LB
P would be
less than significant.
Friable ACMs are regulated as a hazardous air pollutant under the Clean Air Act , and the Bay Area
Air Qualit
y Management District (BAAQMD) regulates ACM in Regulation 11, Rule 2, which governs the proper handling and disposal of ACM for demolition activities . As a worker safety hazard, they
are also regulated under the authority of Cal/OSHA. In structures slated
for demolition, any ACMs
would be abated in accordance with
state
and
federal
regulations prior to the start of
demolition or
renovation activities and in compliance with all applicable existing rules and regulations.
However,
in order to ensure the prese
nce of asbestos is known, Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
1, which requires
a
demolition plan and
asbestos testing, would be required.
Adherence to these
regulatory
requirements
if asbestos is detected
would ensure that asbestos removal would not result in the rele
ase of hazardous materials to the environment that could impair human health. Therefore, the impact related to ACMs would be less than significant
with mitigation
implemented
.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.3 -
11 Mitigation Measures
HAZ
-
1 Project
Demolition
Activities
In conformance with Sta
te and local laws, a visual inspection/pre
-
demolition survey, and possible
sampling, shall be conducted prior to the demolition of on -
site building(s) to determine the
presence of asbestos
-
containing materials (ACMs) and/or lead
-
based paint (LBP). Document
ation of
the survey shall be provided to the City prior to commencement of demolition activities.
During demolition activities, all building materials containing lead -
based paint shall be removed in
accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Title 8, California Code
of Regulations (CCR), Section 1532.1,
including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead
-
based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of lead b
eing disposed.
All potentially friable asbestos containing materials (ACMs) shall be removed in accordance with National Emission Standards for Air Pollution (NESHAP) guidelines prior to demolition or renovation activities that may disturb ACMs. All
demolition activities shall be undertaken in accordance with Cal/OSHA standards contained in Title 8, CCR, Section 1529, to protect workers from asbestos exposure.
A registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and dispose of ACMs i
dentified in the asbestos survey performed for the site in accordance with the standards stated above in this mitigation measure. Materials containing more than one -
percent asbestos are also
subject to Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) regu lations. Removal of materials
containing more than one
-
percent asbestos shall be completed in accordance with BAAQMD requirements and notifications.
Based on Cal/OSHA rules and regulations, the following conditions shall be implemented
to limit
impacts to
construction workers
:
Prior to commencement of demolition activities, a building survey, including sampling and testing, shall be completed to identify and quantify building materials containing lead -
based
paint.
During demolition activities, all
building materials containing lead
-
based paint shall be removed
in accordance with Cal/OSHA Lead in Construction Standard, Title 8, CCR, Section 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring and dust control.
Any debris or soil containing le
ad
-
based paint or coatings shall be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the type of waste being disposed.
Significance After Mitigation
Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
1 would reduce impacts by requiring
testing
to indicate
whether
lead
-
based
paint or
asbestos is present in the structures slated for demolition. If lead or
asbestos is
detected,
these materials
would be abated in accordance with state, federal, and local regulations to ensure
they would not
be released to the environment or impa
ir human health.
Threshold
4 :
Would the project be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the env ironment?
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.3 -
12 Impact HAZ
-
2 T
HE PROJECT
W
OULD
INVOLVE
DEVELOPMENT
ON A SITE THAT IS INCLUDED ON A LIST OF
HAZARDOUS MATERIAL SITES COMPILED PURSUANT TO
G
OVERNMENT
C
ODE
S
ECTION
65962.5
,
AND DUE TO
THE POTENTIAL TO ENCOUNTER RESIDUAL SOIL AND GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
ON THE
EASTERN
COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT SITE
,
IMPACTS WOULD BE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT BUT MITIGABLE
.
Project Construction
The western component
of the project site
is not located on a site listed on Government Code
Section 65962.5
. Additionally
,
the proposed
project would not involve ground disturbance or
operational activities
on the western component of the site. Therefore, there
would be no
potential
for a signif
icant hazard to the public as a result of the proposed preserve on the western component of the project site.
The
eastern component of the
project site is included on a list of hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 a
s a result of leaking underground storage tanks that
were once present on the eastern component of the project site, as described in Section 4.3.1 above. Remediation after removal of the tanks has resulted in less on -
site contamination hazard,
and the Stat
e Water Resources Control Board granted case closure for the project site on February 27 , 2015.
In the closure letter, SWRCB notes
that there may be residual contamination, and that
therefore contractors performing subsurface activities should be prepared to encounter soil and
groundwater contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons, and that if encountered, it must be properly managed. To address this, a Risk Management Plan ( RMP
) was prepared
.
The R
M
P identifies two areas within the eastern component of the project site where residual
contamination levels are of concern.
These areas are referred to as the restricted areas and are shown on Figure 3 of the RMP.
Soil within the
restricted
areas could contain detectable
concentrations of TPH
-
G, TPH
-
D, and BTEX. T
hese compounds are referred to as chemicals of
potential concern (COPCs). In addition, COPCs are present at moderate concentrations in groundwater in a slightly larger area surrounding the
restricted
areas.
According to the RMP,
elevated concentrations of
the COPCs in soil could be encountered during construction activities at depths of 5
-
feet below ground surface or deeper, within the
restricted
areas on the eastern
component of the project site.
Therefore, project construction activities involving excavat ion to approximately 5 feet below ground
surface, such as construction of the proposed building foundation or buried utility connections ,
could disturb contaminated soils or groundwater and expose construction workers. Because c
ontaminated soils generally
exist on
-
site at depths greater than 5 feet below ground surface ,
o
ther
shallow ground disturbance during project construction, such as relocating the segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail
,
would have
less
potential to disturb contaminated soils and expos
e construction
workers to contamination.
Nonetheless, the potential for construction workers to be exposed to contaminated soil or groundwater during project construction would be a potentially significant but mitigable impact.
Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a wo
uld reduce this impact to a less than significant
level.
Likewise
,
project
construction would generate dust. If soils from the contamination areas are stockpiled on site and become airborne dust, either from wind erosion or construction equipment, off
-
site
receptors could be exposed, as well as project construction workers. Reuse of contaminated soils as fill material on site could also expose workers to contamination, as well as future employees
of the industrial building or people using the San Francisco Bay Trail. Impacts would be potentially
significant but mitigable.
Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.3 -
13 The proposed industrial building would be constructed atop the restricted
areas on the eastern
component
of the project site. The building would be constructed using pursuant to recommendations of the
Geotechnical
Engineering Services
Report prepared by
Professional
Services Industries, Inc., an Intertek company,
in
January 2018 for the project. Mitigation Measure
GEO
-
1 in the Initial Study (see Appendix A) requires that recommendations of the geotechnical report be incorporated into the project design and construction. The geotechnical report includes the use of disp
lacement piers to support the foundation of the proposed industrial building.
Displacement piers use a hollow mandrill that is filled with crushed rock that is vibrated into the ground to a preselected depth and is then raised and lowered, while vibrating,
to densify the gravel
and the surrounding soils. This produces a column of compacted gravels and increases the density of the surrounding soils.
The column of gravel created from displacement piers would create a potential
pathway
for migration of contami
nated groundwater plume to aquifers at depths of up to
20 feet below ground surface, as that is the recommended depth of the piers for the project. Due to the site’s proximity to the bay, the displacement piers may also create a preferential pathway for gr
oundwater associated with sea level rise, as the piers would displace lower permeable materials (e.g., clays and silts). Migration of the
groundwater
contamination plume into aquifers would be
potentially significant but mitigable.
Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2 c would reduce this impact to a less
than significant level.
Project Operation
The proposed industrial building would be constructed atop the restricted
areas on the eastern
component of the project site.
During project operation, vapors from contaminated
soil and
groundwater could potentially infiltrate the proposed industrial building, including spaces within the
building wher
e employees would be routinely present. The accumulation of vapors in the breathing zone inside the building could present a potent
ial hazard to human health. Therefore, the potential
for soil vapor intrusion during operation would be a potentially significant but mitigable impact.
Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Some stormwater run
off from impervious surfaces of the project would be directed to bioretention areas. The bioretention areas would slow runoff and aid infiltration in order to reduce the amount of runoff discharge to the storm drain system. However, if improperly designed,
the bioretention
areas could result in contaminant
s
leaching from soil into groundwater or result in migration of the existing contamination plume within groundwater.
At least one of the proposed bioretention swales
would be located partially within the r
estricted areas.
Migration or leaching of contamination would
be a potentially significant environmental impact, but mitigable.
Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2b would
reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
HAZ
-
2a
Implementation
o
f the RMP
The project shall implement the appropriate handling procedures and worker health and safety measures during excavating or dewatering activities, as well as the use of an engineered vapor
barrier as described in the site
-
specific RMP
developed fo
r the project in 2014. The RMP is an
appendix to the Phase I ESA. The Phase I ESA is
included as Appendix
E
to
the Initial Study, which is
provided as Appendix A to
this EIR
.
Measures included in the RMP to control potential hazardous contamination and exp
osure include
,
but are not limited to the following:
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.3 -
14
Construction contractors shall implement dust control mitigation measures during construction activities at the project site to minimize the generation of dust. Examples of dust control measures that sha
ll be implemented include limiting construction vehicles speeds to 5 miles per hour when on
-
site; routinely applying water to exposed soils while
performing excavation activities; and, covering soil stockpiles with plastic sheets at the end of each workday
. Additional dust control measures shall be implemented by the selected contractor, as necessary, especially if windy conditions persist during site grading and excavation. These measures may include moisture, conditioning the soil, using dust suppressants
, or covering the exposed soil and stockpiles with weighted plastic sheeting to prevent exposure of the soil.
To prevent or minimize construction equipment from tracking polluted spoils off the site onto roadways, construction equipment that contacts soils
deeper than 5
-
feet below
ground surface shall be decontaminated prior to leaving the site. Decontamination methods shall include brushing and/or vacuuming to remove loose dirt on vehicle exteriors and wheels. In the event that these dry decontamination me
thods are inadequate, methods
such as steam cleaning, high pressure washing, and cleaning solutions shall be used, as necessary, to thoroughly remove accumulated dirt and other materials. Decontamination activities shall be performed in an on
-
site decontam
ination facility established by the
contractor.
All project construction workers performing construction activities at depths below 5 -
feet
below ground surface in the restricted areas shall adhere to decontamination procedures when exiting the area. Decont
amination measures shall include: (a) vacuuming the surface of coveralls, head covers, and footwear to remove accumulated soil particles and changing into other clean clothes if practical; (b) vacuuming or washing small tools, hand tools, or personal equip
ment to remove accumulated soil particles; and, (c) placing work clothes and personal equipment in sealed plastic bags or other suitable containers for transportation or on
-
site storage.
In the event that disturbed soil appears to contain contaminants of potential concern (COPCs), such as odors, staining, and/or discoloration, work should halt in that area and an environmental professional (EP), such as a geologist, engineer, industrial hy gienist, or
environmental health specialist with expertise in these matters, shall be called to the site to oversee the work and determine safe construction and soil handling procedures.
The EP shall be present on
-
site during excavations greater than 5
-
fe
et below ground surface
in the restricted areas to observe field conditions and measure hydrocarbon vapors using a hand held photoionization detector (PID).
If
PID readings are measured in a specific area
showing concentrations in excess of construction wo
rker screening levels published by the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), construction activities in that area shall halt until appropriate risk mitigation measures are implemented. If necessary, HAZWOPER trained personnel shall be called to the
site to complete the construction activities in that
area.
Soil excavated from deeper than 5
-
feet b
elow ground surface
in the restricted area sh
all
only be
reused on
-
site as backfill after sampling and analysis soil proves the soil is acceptable to remain
on site.
C
ommercial ESLs
shall be used as the threshold to
determine if
soils may remain
on site or require off
-
site disposal. All appropriate regulatory sampling
methods, holding times,
and detection limits shall be followed.
A health and safety plan sha
ll be developed and implemented for project construction that incorporates measures and procedures
to minimize direct contact by construction workers
with site groundwater, particularly in the restricted areas. The health and safety plan shall Environmental Impact Analysis
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.3 -
15 be approved
by either the City or the RWQCB, or both as applicable, prior to excavation activities.
If groundwater is encountered within the former remediation area during construction of the project, as shown on Figure 4 of the RMP, an EP shall be called to the site to determine
safe handling procedures. The groundwater shall be pumped into appropriate containers and samples shall be obtained for chemical analysis of the COPCs in accordance with a site sampling plan and the requirements of the waste disposal facility to which the material is
sent. If water sample analytical results indicate the water is free of all detectable concentrations of COPCs, such water can be re
-
used at the site if deemed appropriate by
Alameda County and the RWQCB. If water sample analytical results indicate the water
contains concentrations of COPCs above appropriate RWQCB screening levels, such water shall not be re
-
used at the site. The contractor and the EP shall elect to: (a) treat the groundwater on
-
site to render it free of detectable c
oncentrations of COPCs (e.g. by
activated carbon filtration); or, (b) transport the groundwater to a local treatment or disposal facility for appropriate handling.
The proposed industrial building shall be constructed on top of a minimum of a 5 -
foot
bioatt
enuation zone within the restricted areas. This bioattenuation zone shall consist of a minimum of 5
-
feet of soil above the anticipated shallowest groundwater elevation, and the soil shall not contain total petroleum hydrocarbons greater than 100 parts per million.
An engineered vapor barrier shall be employed to further protect against possible vapor intrusion of COPCs into the proposed industrial building. The vapor barrier shall be designed to meet the needs of building. Vapor barriers are generally const ructed using membranes
constructed with high
-
density polyethylene (HDPE) or other polyolefin
-
based resins.
The
vapor barrier shall be resistant to VOCs.
The vapor barrier shall meet the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM) guideline for a vapo
r barrier and have a permeance rating
of 0.1 perms or less. The thickness and strength of the vapor barrier shall be based on the needs for the building, but the architect and contractor shall use a material strong enough to easily withstand the building c
onstruction and other building considerations. The selected vapor barrier shall be approved by the RWQCB prior to installation.
HAZ
-
2 b
Bioretention Design Coordination
The project applicant shall consult with
the City
on
location and/or
design of the on
-
si
te
bioretention basins to ensure protection of the groundwater basin, which may include ,
but is not
limited to
, locating the basins outside of the restricted areas or
use of a liner in the detention basin.
The final design and location of the on
-
site biore
tention basins shall demonstrate that groundwater
would be protected from contamination.
HAZ
-
2 c
Displacement Pier Design and Construction
The project applicant shall retain a geotechnical engineer to design the displacement piers for support of the
building foundation. The displacement piers shall be designed in a way to prevent creating a preferential pathway between shallow groundwater at approximately 5 feet below ground surface and deeper groundwater. The displace pier design developed by the geo technical
engineer shall be incorporated into project plans prior to commencement of construction. This mitigation measure shall apply to all displacement piers with in
the restricted areas
or the larger
area where benzene concentrations exceed ESLs, as sho
wn in Figure 4.3
-
2 of the EIR
. Additionally,
air
-
jetting
shall not be used to create the holes for the displacement piers within the restricted areas to avoid bringing subsurface soils to the ground surface.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.3 -
16 Significance After Mitigation
With incorporation
of Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a
, the provisions of the RMP would reduce
potential hazardous materials impacts associated with the past on -
site contamination to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measures HAZ
-
2 b
and HAZ
-
2 c
would require coordination wi
th local
agencies to ensure that groundwater quality is protected and reduce the environmental impact associated with the existing contamination that may be affected by the bioretention basin and
that
the displacement piers
be designed and constructed to r
esult in
a less than significant
impact
.
4.3.4 Cumulative Impacts
A
project’s environmental impacts are “cumulatively considerable” if the “incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects” ( CEQA Guidelines
Section 15065[a][3]). The geographic scope for cumulative hazardous materials impacts is limited to projects within
Hayward that are west of Interstate 880
. This geographic scope is appropriate for
hazardous materials because risks associated with hazards and hazardous materials occur largely in a site
-
specific and localized context as a
dverse impacts from a hazardous materials release or spill diminish in m
agnitude with distance. Cumulative development in the vicinity of the
project site is
identified in Table 3
-
1. Continued urban development has the potential to increase exposure to hazards. However, overall, hazards and hazardous materials impacts associat ed with individual
developments are site specific in nature
and must be addressed on a case
-
by
-
case basis.
T
he
magnitude of hazards for individual projects would depend upon the location, type, and size of development and the specific hazards associated wi
th individual sites. Since hazards and hazardous
materials are required to be examined as part of the permit application and environmental review process, it is anticipated that potential impacts associated with individual projects will be adequately addre
ssed and mitigated prior to permit approval. Compliance with regulatory requirements would avoid potential hazard impacts associated with cumulative development .
With
adherence to existing policies and other local, regional, state, and federal regulations,
no significant
cumulative human
or environmental
health impacts are anticipated.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.4 -
1 4.4
Transportation
This section analyzes impacts related to transportation. The analysis is based largely on the Transportation Analysis Memorandum
prepared by
Kittelson & Associates
and dated
January 27,
2021
. The
Transportation Analysis Memorandum
,
contained
in its
entiret
y in Appendix
C
to this EIR
,
provides
information relative to existing, existing plus project, future, and future plus project conditions based on project traffic volumes
and an analysis of vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
.
4.4.1 Setting
a.
Roadway Network
The
project
site is accessed
by vehicle
from Point Eden Way, primarily via Eden Landing Road and State Route 92. Point Eden Road and Eden Landing road are two
‐
lane undivided roadways with a
functional classification of local roadways in the City ’
s
General Plan Circulation Element. State Route
92 (SR
92) is a
six
‐
lane
f
reeway under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans).
SR 92 is one of the primary routes used for access between East Bay and the Peninsula
in
the Sa
n Francisco Bay
.
Key intersections to access the site are the signalized intersection at Clawiter Road at SR ‐
92 e
astbound
r
amps, and the stop
‐
controlled intersections at Clawiter Road at SR
‐
92 w
estbound
r
amps, and at Eden Landing Road at Point Eden Way.
b.
Tr
ansit, Bicycle, and Pedestrian Facilities
The Alameda
-Contra Costa Transit District provides transit/bus service in the City of Hayward. The nearest AC Transit bus route to the project site is transit route 86. Route 86 begins at the Hayward Bart station a
nd travels west on Winton Avenue, south on Cabot Boulevard, and east on Depot Road. It then travels south on Industrial Boulevard and east on Tennyson Road before terminating at the South Hayward BART station. The nearest bus stop along route 86 is on Indu strial Boulevard at
Depot Road, approximately 1 mile from the project site.
There are no pedestrian sidewalk connections to the project site on Point Eden Way. Additionally, Point Eden Way contains no formal bicycle lanes. However, the San Francisco Bay Tr ail is located
along the eastern edge of the project site. The San Francisco Bay Trail is open to both pedestrian and bicycle travel and provides access through much of the Bay Area.
c.
Vehicle Miles Traveled
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a measure used ext
ensively in transportation planning for a variety
of purposes. It measures the amount of travel for all vehicles in a geographic region over a given period of time, such as a 24
-
hour period or a one
-
year period. It is calculated as the sum of the
number of
miles traveled by each vehicle.
The City has calculated and mapped the existing or baseline VMT for each Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ) or census block within the incorporated limits of Hayward.
According to the City’s GIS
portal,
the project site is
in a TAZ with an
existing
VMT of
18.23 per capita or employee
.
The regional
average VMT per employee is 18.15.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.4 -
2 4.4.2
Regulatory Setting
a.
State Regulations
State Senate Bill
743
On September 27, 2013, California Governor Jerry Brown signed S enate Bill (S
B
)
743 into law and
started a process that changes transportation impact analysis as part of CEQA compliance. SB 743 requires
the Governor’s
Office of Planning and Research (OPR)
to identify new metrics for
identifying and mitigating transportation impacts w
ithin CEQA. In January 2018, OPR transmitted its
proposed CEQA Guidelines implementing SB 743 to the California Natural Resources Agency for adoption, and in January 2019 the Natural Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines, which incorpor
ated SB 743 modifications. As of July 1, 2020, localities are required to rely on vehicle miles traveled (VMT), instead of traffic delay, as the primary metric for evaluating transportation impacts in CEQA documents. Under SB 743, automobile delay, as desc
ribed solely by
level of service or traffic congestion, shall not be
considered
a
significant
environmental impact
except for certain types of transportation projects
(
Public
Resource Code, § 21099 (b)(2)).
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3
Originating
from SB 743, Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines establishes vehicle miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts, shifting away from the level of service analysis that evaluated a project’s impacts on traffic co nditions on nearby roadways
and intersections. The primary components of new section 15064.3 include:
Identifies VMT (amount and distance of automobile traffic attributable to a project) as the most appropriate measure of transportation impacts;
Declares t
hat a project’s effect on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental impact except for projects increasing roadway capacity;
Creates a rebuttable presumption of no significant transportation impacts for (a) land use projects within o
ne
-
half mile of either an existing major transit stop or a stop along an existing high quality transit corridor, (b) land use projects that reduce VMT below existing conditions, and (c) transportation projects that reduce or have no impact on VMT;
Allows a
lead agency to qualitatively evaluate VMT if existing models are not available; and
Gives lead agencies discretion to select a methodology to evaluate a project’s VMT but requires lead agencies to document that methodology in the
environmental document prepared for the
project.
In December 2018, OPR issued a
Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA
(OPR 2018). The technical advisory contains technical recommendations regarding assessment of VMT, thresholds of
significance, and mitigation measures. The technical advisory suggests a significance threshold for VMT that is based on state mandated GHG emission reduction targets.
The technical advisory recommends a quantitative per capita or per employee VMT that is
15 percent below that of existing development as a possible threshold of significance that would comply with the state’s long
-
term climate goals.
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.4 -
3 b.
Regional and
Local Regulations
Metropolitan Transportation Commission
The Metropolitan Transportation Commiss
ion (MTC) is designated by the State as the regional
transportation planning agency for the nine
-
county San Francisco Bay Area. MTC is responsible for
updating the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which plans the future transit, highway, roadway, railro
ad, bicycle and pedestrian facilities. MTC portions out federal funding to local agencies for transportation projects and determines their compliance with the Regional Transportation Plan.
Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy
MTC recently updated its RTP which was adopted by ABAG and MTC in July 2017. This new plan, 2040 Plan Bay Area, specifies how future transportation spending will occur through 2040. The new plan incorporates a California mandated Sustainable Communities St rategy. It also focuses on
reducing greenhouse gas emissions as it relates to transportation, per the requirements set out in the California Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008. Part of this effort includes the goal to increase non
-
a
uto mode share. Other main transportation goals of the plan include reducing vehicle operating and maintenance costs due to pavement conditions and reduce per
-
rider transit delay due to aged infrastructure.
Alameda County Transportation Commission
The Alam
eda County Transportation Commission (ACTC) coordinates transportation planning efforts throughout Alameda County and programs local, regional, State and federal funding for project implementation. It prepares the CMP, a program mandated by California law to describe the
strategies to address congestion problems on the CMP network, which includes state highways and principal arterials. The CMP requires analysis of Metropolitan Transportation System (MTS) roadway and transit system and uses level
-
of
-
service
standards as a means to measure congestion and has
established level
-
of
-
service standards to determine how local governments meet the standards of the CMP.
City of Hayward VMT Thresholds of Significance
CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) indicates that lan
d use projects would have a significant impact
if the project resulted in VMT exceeding an applicable threshold of significance.
In June 2020, the
City of Hayward adopted the following thresholds of significance for VMT analysis according the guidance from
OPR
:
Residential: 15 percent below existing average VMT per capita for the City
Employment
–
Office: 15 percent below existing regional average VMT per employee
Employment
–
Industrial: Below existing regional average VMT per employee
Retail: Net increas
e in total regional VMT
In addition, the City of Hayward has developed screening criteria to provide project applicants with a conservative indication of whether a project could result in potentially significant VMT impacts. If the screening criteria are m
et by a project, the applicant would not need to perform a detailed VMT assessment for their project. The thresholds and screening criteria that apply to the proposed project are discussed further in Section 4.4.3,
Impact Analysis
.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.4 -
4 4.4.3
Impact Analysis
a.
Methodol
ogy and Significance Thresholds
Methodology
The analysis presented herein is derived primarily from a Transportation Analysis
prepared by
Kittelson & Associates
for the
proposed project, included as Appendix
C
to this EIR. The Analysis,
dated January 2021,
assess
es
the VMT impact of the project.
Before undertaking
the VMT
analysis, the project underwent a screening assessment to determine if the impact can be screened out as having a less than significant impact according to criteria adopted by the City of Hayward, discussed further under
Significance Thresholds
below.
The
proposed
preserve area on the western component of the project site would generate no vehicle trips or associated VMT because no activities are proposed within this portion of the project site. Similarly, the relocated segment of the San Francisco Bay Tra
il would generate no VMT because
the trail
realignment would change the number of people who drive to use the trail . Therefore, the project’s
potential VMT impacts
were
analyzed as two major components:
Office:
the approximately 2,785 square
-
foot office
portion of
the proposed industrial building
would house U
-Haul’s regional corporate offices. The screening criteria and thresholds of significance for employment
-office projects was applied to this project compon
ent.
Industrial:
the approximately
114,059
square foot warehouse
portion of the proposed building
would be used to house U
-Haul storage pods, materials
,
and trucks. The screening criteria and
thresholds of significance for employment
-industrial projects we
re applied to this project
component.
The screening criteria and thresholds of significance adopted by the City for employment
-office
projects
and
employment
-industrial projects
ar
e discussed further under
Significance Thresholds
below.
Significance Thresh
olds
According to the adopted Appendix G
of the State
CEQA Guidelines
, impacts related to
transportation and circulation from the proposed project would be significant if the project would:
Conflict with a
program,
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing
the
circulation system, including
transit
, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities
;
C
onflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b) ;
Substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp
curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) ; or
Result in inadequate emergency access
.
Impacts associated with CEQA checklist items
1, 3, and
4 were determined to be less than significant
or no impact in the Initial Study
prepared for the proposed project and included with this EIR
as
Appendix A. Therefore, no further analysis is warranted, and these t opics
will not be discussed
further in this section.
Section 15064.3 of State CEQA Guidelines, referenced in significance t hreshold 3 above, pertains to
VMT.
The City of Hayward adopted VMT thresholds for
specific land use
types
. The adopted VMT
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.4 -
5 thresholds for each land use are present
ed in
Table
4.4 -
1 , and
Table
4.4 -
2 shows the City’s screening
criteria for projects to be considered to have a less than significant VMT impact.
Table
4.4 -
1 City of Hayward VMT Thresholds of Significance
Land Use
VMT Threshold
Precedent
Residential
15% below existing average VMT per capita
for City of Hayward
Governor’s Office of Planning and
Research (OPR)
Employment
-
Office
15 % below existing regional average
employee per employee
OPR
Employment
–
Industrial
Below existing regional average VMT per
employee
City of San Jos
é
Retail
Net increase in total regional VMT
OPR
Source:
Appendix
C
Table
4.4 -
2 City of Hayward Screening Criteria for Development Projects
Screen Type
Screening Criteria
Small Infill Projects
Single
-
family detached housing of 15 units or less
Single
-
family attached or
multi
-
family housing of 25 units or less
Office of 10,000 square feet of gross floor area or less
Local Serving Retail
50,000 square feet of total gross floor area or less
Local Serving Public
Facilities
Local public serving facility
(determined with staff input, depending on the land use)
Residential and
Employment
-
Office
Land Use Projects
or Components
Location
: within a half mile of a major transit stop1 or in an area with low (below the threshold) VMT per
capita/employee and in an area with planned growth
Density/FAR:
-
Minimum gross floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.75 as applicable for employment project
-
Minimum of 35 units per acre as applicable for residential projects
-
If located in an area where zoning
calls for lower than 0.75 FAR or fewer than 35
units per acre, the maximum FAR or units per acre density allowed must be used
Parking
: No more than the minimum number of parking spaces required; in cases where no minimum is required and a maximum is ident
ified, no more than the
maximum number of parking spaces
Does not replace affordable residential units (including naturally occurring affordable residential units) with a smaller number of moderate -
or high
-
income
residential units
Consistent
with local p
lans for development priorities
Restricted
Affordable
Residential Projects
or Components
Affordability:
100% deed
-
restricted affordable housing (exception for the manager’s
unit(s)); affordability must extend for a minimum of 55 years for rental homes or 45
years
for for
-
sale homes. Affordability for this purpose is restricted to households making 80%
or less of the area’s median income.
Location:
within an area with below average VMT per capita
Parking:
no more than the minimum number of parking
spaces required; in cases where
no
minimum is required and a maximum is identified, no more than the maximum
n
umber of
parking spaces
Source:
Appendix
C
Threshold
2 :
Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.4 -
6 Impact TR
-
1 T
HE
PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD GENERATE
18.23 VMT
PER EMPLOYEE
,
WHICH
EXCEEDS THE
VMT
THRESHOLD OF THE EXISTING REGIONAL AVERAGE OF
18.15 BY
0.5 PERCENT
.
I
MPAC
TS
WOULD BE
POTENTIALLY
SIGNIFICANT
,
BUT
MITIGA
BLE
.
Pursuant to the City of Hayward’s guidelines, projects should undergo a screening assessment by land use type. The proposed project
is comprised of
a trail realignment, establishment of a preserve,
an off
ice use
,
and an industrial use.
Realignment of the San Francisco Bay Trail and Preserve Establishment
These project components would not generate trips and would have no effect on VMT. Realignment of the trail segment would not generate new trail users.
P
reservation of the western component of
the project site would not generate vehicle trips or associated VMT because no development or maintenance activities are proposed within the preserve area.
Office Use Component
The City’s
VMT screening
criteria for employment
-
office land uses
provide an opportunity to screen
out small projects such as offices of 10,000 square feet of gross floor area or less. The proposed
building
would
contain approximately
2,785 square
feet of
office space.
Therefore, the proposed
office use on the project site would be below the screening criteria for employment -
office land uses.
Projects that do not exceed the screening criteria have less than significant VMT impacts and require no additional
analysis or mitigation.
Industrial Use Component
Pursuant to the City’s screening criteria presented in
Table
4.4 -
2 , above, employment projects
locate
d in areas with low baseline VMT and/or within a half mile of a major transit stop or corridor and include features that support low VMT can be assumed to have less than significant impacts and additional analysis is unnecessary.
As described above in Sect
ion 4.1,
Setting
, the nearest transit
stop to the project site is approximately 1 mile away. Therefore, the project site is not within a half mile of a major transit stop. The City’s VMT mapping also indicates that the project site is not within a low base
line VMT area. Therefore, the warehouse portion of the proposed project does not meet VMT screening criteria.
According to the City’s GIS portal, the project site is in a TAZ with an existing VMT of 18.23 per capita or employee. Therefore,
the Transportati
on Analysis
determined that the
proposed project
,
including both the industrial warehouse space and the office space
would also generate 18.23 VMT
per capita, consistent with the baseline VMT of the TAZ (see Appendix C
).
As presented in
Table
4.4 -
2 , above, employment
-
industrial land uses result in significant impacts if VMT would exceed the existing regional average VMT per employee, which is 18.15. Becaus e
the
project would generate
VMT of 18.23 per employee, it would exceed the regional average of 18.15 by approximately 0.5 percent. Impacts would be potentially significant. Therefore, Mitigation Measure TR
-
1 would be
required to reduce this potential impa
ct to a less
-
than
-
significant level.
Mitigation Measures
TR
-
1 Travel Demand Management
The project
applicant
shall implement
at least
one of the
measures described below:
Environmental Impact Analysis
Transportation
Draft Environmental Impact Report
4.4 -
7
Voluntary Employer Commute Program:
The project applicant
shall encourage alternative
modes of transportation through a program that may include elements such as: a carpool or vanpool program, subsidized or discounted transit passes, bike amenities, commute trip -
reduction marketing, and preferential parking perm
it program.
Employer Carpool Program:
The project applicant
shall encourage carpooling by providing ride
matching assistance to employees, providing priority parking for carshare vehicles, and providing incentives for carpooling.
The applicant shall prov
ide to the City documentation that at least one of the above measures is implemented. Documentation shall be provided annually.
Significance A
fter Mitigation
Impacts would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure TR -
1. As
describ
ed above,
project VMT would exceed the threshold of significance by approximately 0.5 percent. As demonstrated below, each of the measures in Mitigation Measure TR -
1 would reduce
project VMT by at least 0.5 percent.
The Transportation Analysis prepared for
the project recommends an additional mitigation to
reduce VMT consisting of an employer transit pass subsidy. The measure would require the project applicant to partially subsize transit passes for project employees. This measure is not included as mitiga
tion in this EIR because the project site is approximately 1 mile from the nearest transit stop.
Given the distance between the project site and transit stop, and that Point Eden Way contains no sidewalks, it is unlikely a transit pass subsidy would effect ively reduce impacts to less than
significant.
Voluntary Employer Commute Program
As described in Appendix
C
, assuming that 100 percent of employees would be eligible to participate in the
program, a VMT reduction of 6 percent would occur. This would exceed the 0.5 percent
reduction required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Employer Carpool Program
As described in Appendix
C
, assuming that 100 percent of employees would be eligible to participate in the program, a VMT reduction of
8 percent would occur. This would exceed the 0.5 percent reduction required to reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
4.4.4 Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts assessment area for transportation is the City of Hayward
. This area is
appropriat
e because some VMT
is
evaluated using
citywide
thresholds, making the
City
the
appropriate geographic extent for the cumulative impacts assessment.
Some cumulative
growth in the City
would increase residency in the
City
, and thus the number of
vehicles that operate in the
City
. Increase
d
vehicle use could result in increased VMT in the
City
,
depending on the origin and destination of trips. Because reasonably foreseeable future projects would increase VMT, cumulative imp
acts could
be potentially significant.
As described under Impact
TR
-
1,
the proposed project
would have a less than significant VMT impact
with implementation of
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
4.4 -
8 Mitigation Measure TR
-
1. With implementation of the indicated mitigation, VMT of the proposed p
roject
would be below the existing regional VMT
,
and
the proposed project would not have a
cumulatively considerable contribution to
cumulative VMT impacts.
Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Environmental Impact Report
5 -
1 5
Other CEQA Required
Discussions
This section discusses growth
-
inducing impacts
and
irreversible environmental impacts
that would
be caused by the proposed project.
5.1 Growth Inducement
Section 15126(d) of the CEQA Guidelines requires a discussion of a proposed project’s potentia l to
foster economic or population growth, including ways in which a project could remove an obstacle to growth. Growth does not necessarily create significant physical changes to the environment.
However, depending upon the type, magnitude, and location o f growth, it can result in significant
adverse environmental effects. The proposed project’s growth inducing potential is therefore considered significant if project
-
induced growth could result in significant physical effects in one or more environmental i
ssue areas.
5.1.1 Population Growth
As discussed in Section XIII,
Population and Housing
, of the Initial Study (Appendix
A
), the proposed
project would not directly
induce substantial
population growth because i
t is not a large technology
campus or medical facil
ity or similar type of development that would create jobs that attract people to relocate to the region from other areas of the state or country .
The project would result in
approximately 20
-
25 on
-
site employees. It is likely
that most of
these would be
drawn from the
existing workforce
in the Bay Area
.
5.1.2 Economic Growth
The proposed project would generate employment opportunities during construction. Because construction workers would be expected to be drawn from the existing regional work force, construction of the project would not be growth
-
inducing from a temporary em
ployment
standpoint. However, the proposed project would also
add
20 -
25 long
-
term employment
opportunities associated with operation of
the proposed industrial building
.
The proposed
project
would not induce substantial economic expansion to the extent tha t direct physical environmental
effects would result. Moreover, the environmental effects associated with future development in or around
the City of
Hayward
would be addressed as part of the CEQA environmental review for such development projects.
5.1.3 Removal
of Obstacles to Growth
The project site is located adjacent to
urbanized areas of the City of Hayward.
As discussed in
Section XVII,
Utilities
and Service Systems
, of the
Initial Study (Appendix
A
)
, there are
existing water,
wastewater treatment, stormwat
er drainage, electric power, natural gas, and telecommunication facilities in the right
-
of
-
way of Point Eden Way
that are available to serve the project
. The project
would not require the extension
of,
or add substantial capacity to,
roads
or other infrast
ructure that
would facilitate or accommodate development beyond the project site .
The project would also
include relocation of the San Francisco Bay Trail but would not extend the trail to new areas of the
Bay.
Because the project does not
involve or
requi
re the extension of new infrastructure through
or
to
undeveloped areas,
or increase infrastructure capacity in such a way as to facilitate or City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way
Industrial Development Project
5 -
2 accommodate growth beyond the project site,
project implementation would not remove an
obstacle to growth.
5.2 Irrever
sible Environmental Effects
The CEQA Guidelines require that EIRs contain a discussion of significant irreversible environmental changes. This section
addresses non
-
renewable resources, the commitment of future generations to the proposed uses, and irrever
sible impacts associated with the proposed project.
Construction and operation of the project would involve an irreversible commitment of construction materials and non
-
renewable energy resources. The project would involve the use of building materials and
energy, some of which are non
-
renewable resources, to construct the overall building
floor area.
Likewise, relocation of the San Francisco Bay Trail would require energy consumption.
Consumption of these resources would occur with any
development in the region and are not
unique to the proposed project.
The proposed project would also irreversibly increase local demand for non -
renewable energy
resources such as petroleum products and natural gas. However, increasingly efficient building
design would offset this demand to some degree by reducing energy demands of the project.
The
project would
be required to
comply with standards set
forth
in California Building Code (CBC) Title
24, which would minimize the wasteful, inefficient, or unnec essary consumption of energy
resources during operation
.
CALGreen
(as codified in CCR
Title 24, Part 11) requires implementation
of energy
-
efficient light fixtures and building materials into the design of new construction projects.
Furthermore, the 2019 B
uilding Energy Efficiency Standards (CBC Title 24, Part 6) requires newly constructed buildings to meet energy performance standards set by the CEC
.
T
hese standards are
specifically crafted for new buildings to
achieve
energy efficient performance. The sta
ndards are
updated every three years
,
and each iteration
increases
energy efficien
cy
standards. For example,
according to the CEC,
n
onresidential buildings will use about 30 percent less energy due mainly
to
lighting upgrades (CEC 2018c
).
The City also has
a Reach Code that requires efficiency beyond
CalGreen, which would be applicable to the proposed project.
Furthermore, the project would
continue to reduce its use of nonrenewable energy resources as the percentage of electricity
generated by renewable re
sources provided by PG&E continues to increase to comply with state requirements through Senate Bill 100, which requires
electricity providers to increase procurement
from eligible renewable energy resources to 33 percent of total retail sales by 2020, 60 percent by
2030, and 100 percent by 2045
.
Additional vehicle trips associated with the proposed project would incrementally increase local traffic and regional air pollutant and GHG emissions. However, as discussed in Section 3 ,
Air Quality
,
and Section
7 ,
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
, of the Initial Study (Appendix
A
), development and
operation of the project would not generate air quality or GHG emissions that would result in a significant impact. Additionally, Section 4.
4 ,
Transportation
, of
this EIR
conclu
de
s
that
impacts
associated with the proposed project would be less than significant
with mitigation
based on
adopted City threshold
s.
The project would also require a commitment of law enforcement, fire protection, water supply, wastewater treatment, and solid waste disposal services. However, as discussed in Section 15 ,
Public Services
, and Section
19 ,
Utilities and Service Systems
, of
the Initial Study
, impacts to these
service systems would not be significant.
Other CEQA Required Discussions
Draft Environmental Impact Report
5 -
3 CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve a project. The analysis contained in this EIR
concludes that the proposed project would result in
impacts that are less than significant or less
than significant with mitigation
, except for potential impacts to historic resources. As described in Section 4.2,
Cultural Resources
,
and below in 5.3,
Significant and Unavoidable Impacts
,
implementation of the project would result in potentially significant unavoidable impacts to historic resources due to proposed demolition of the Oliver Brothers Salt Works structures .
5.3 Significant and
Unavoidable Impacts
The proposed project includes demolition of the Oliver Brothers Salt Works structures. As described in Section 4.2,
Cultural Resources
, demolition of the structures and development of the project site would result in potentially signifi
cant impacts to historic resources. Implementation of mitigation measures CUL
-
1a and CUL
-
1b, as described in Section 4.2, would be required. However, impacts would remain significant and unavoidable with implementation of mitigation measures.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way
Industrial Development Project
5 -
4 This page
i
ntentionally left blank
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
6 -
1 6
Alternatives
As required by Section 15126.6 of the
CEQA Guidelines
, this EIR examines a range of reasonable
alternatives to the proposed project that would attain most of the basic project objectives (stated in Section 2.0
,
Project Description
,
of this EIR
) but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant adverse impacts.
As discussed in Section 2.0,
Project Description
, the objectives for the proposed project, are as
follows:
Develop an industrial building to house U
-
Haul corporate headquarters and
a warehouse.
Locate the building at the western edge of Hayward in proximity to a regional highway and other industrial, warehousing and logistics uses to avoid land use conflicts.
Cre
ate new employment and economic growth opportunities by redeveloping a vacant and
underutilized property.
Establish a wetland preserve adjacent to the San Francisco Bay.
Remove a dilapidated and unsafe structure from a currently underutilized property at the gateway to the City.
Included in this analysis are
three
alternative
s, including the CEQA
-
required “no project” alternative,
that involve changes to the project that
would
reduce the project
-
related
potentially significant
environmental impacts as identified in this EIR. Alternatives have been developed to provide a reason
able range of options to consider that would help
decision makers and the public understand
the general implications of revising or e
liminating certain components of the proposed project.
The following alternatives are evaluated in this EIR:
Alternative 1:
No Project
Alternative 2:
Enterprise Avenue
Alternate
Site
Alternative 3: Reduced Project
Detailed descriptions of the alternatives are included in the impact analysis for each alternative. The potential environmental impacts of each
alternative are analyzed in Sections 6.
2 through
6. 4
.
6.1 Potentially Significant Impacts
According to Section 15126.6(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the discussion
of
EIR
alternatives
shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location which are cap able of
avoiding or
substantially lessening significant effects of the project . The City prepared an Initial Study and this
EIR to
analyze the project for potentially significant impacts related to each of the environmental issues or resource areas contain
ed in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines (see Appendix A to this EIR).
The results of the Initial Study and EIR analyses determined that the proposed project would have potentially significant and unavoidable impacts to historic resources (see Section
4.2,
Cultural Resources
).
Additionally, mitigation measures
a
re identified
in this EIR
for the following
topics
that would
reduce the respective potentially significant impacts of the project to less than significant
levels
:
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
6 -
2
Biological Resources, specific
ally effects on special
-
status wildlife species and their habitat and
natural communities (mitigated to less
-
than
-
significant impact level by Mitigation Measures
BIO
-
1a through 1h)
Biological Resources, specifically effects on jurisdictional wetlands (miti gated to less
-
than
-
significant impact level by Mitigation Measure BIO
-
3)
Cultural Resources, specifically effects related to previously unidentified subsurface
resources
(mitigated to less
-
than
-
significant impact level by Mitigation Measures CUL
-
1 through
CUL
-
3
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, specifically effects related to exposure of project construction personnel to
lead paint and/
o
r
asbestos containing materials during demolition of existing structures hazardous (mitigated to less
-
than
-
significant impa
ct level by Mitigation Measure
HAZ
-
1)
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, specifically effects related to exposure of persons or
groundwater
to hazardous contamination (petroleum hydrocarbons, soil vapor, etc.) during construction and operation (mitigated to
less
-
than
-
significant impact level by Mitigation
Measures HAZ
-
2a through 2c)
Transportation, specifically effects related to vehicle miles traveled
(VMT)
, as the project
VMT
per employee
would
exceed the regional average by 0.5 percent (mitigated to less
-
than
-
significant level by Mitigation Measures TR
-
1)
6.2 Altern
a
tive 1: No Project Alternative
6.2.1 Description
The No Project Alternative assumes that the
industrial
building,
surface parking, driveway
,
landscaping,
and other
project components
associated with
the proposed
industrial building
are not
constructed.
Additionally, the San Francisco Bay Trail would remain in its current location and would not be realigned. Likewise, a wetland preserve would not be established on the western component of the project
site.
The western component of the project site would not
be preserved in perpetuity
via recordation of a deed restriction or other appropriate legal mechanism ; therefore,
the salt ponds
and other areas of the western component of the site could be utilize
d for flood pla
i
n and
agricultural uses such as chemical extraction from baywater, crop and tree farming, dredging, farming or ranching and limited sales of materials grown on site .
The project site would remain in its
current
unused
s
tat
e, and the existin
g structures associated with the former Oliver Brothers Salt Works operation would not be demolished.
T
he No Project Alternative would not fulfill
any of
the
p
roject
o
bjectives
.
6.2.2 Impact Analysis
a.
Biological
Resources
Under the No Project Alternative, the ne
w medical office building would not be constructed and
operated on the project site, nor would the various utility, landscape, and street improvements occur.
There would be no change to listed species or habitat, including that of the salt marsh harvest mo
use or burrowing owl, and the San Francisco Bay Trail would not be relocated. No riparian or wetland habitat would be affected. As no construction would occur on the site, no potential impacts to nesting birds would occur. T
here would be no biological resources impacted or enhanced under this alternative compared with existing conditions.
However, effects unrelated to the project, such
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
6 -
3 as the potential for sea level rise to impact habitat for salt marsh harvest mouse, would o ccur
regardless of the potential implementation of this alternative or the proposed project.
The proposed project
’s
impacts related to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation (see Section 4.1,
Biological Resources
). Because the
No Project Alternative would have no
impact, biological resources impacts would be
reduced
compared to the proposed project
and no
mitigation measures would be required
.
b.
Cultural Resources
The No Project Alternative would not involve construction or ground
disturbance on the project site.
Therefore, there would be no potential for encountering or damaging potential buried cultural resources. Because this alternative would preclude development of the project site, the former Oliver Brother Salt Works buildin
g on the eastern component of the project site would not be demolished. The structure would remain in place but would be subject to continued natural deterioration
,
weathering
and squatting
by homeless individuals
.
The No Project Alternative would
have no
impact on cultural resources.
As described in Section 4.2,
Cultural Resources
, the proposed project would have significant and
unavoidable impacts to historic resources resulting from demolition of the Oliver Brother Salt Works building
, and mitigation mea
sures would be required
. Because the No Project Alternative would
avoid this significant impact, as well as potential impacts to subsurface resources, impacts would be reduced
compared to the proposed project
and no mitigation would be required
.
c.
Hazards an
d Hazardous Materials
Under the
N
o Project Alternative, there would be no demolition of the existing on -
site structures
and no new construction, and no impacts related to potential exposure to
lead or
asbestos
-
containing materials.
Additionally, the propos
ed building would not be constructed, including
displacement piers for the building foundation or on
-
site bioretention areas for stormwater
management. Therefore, the No Project Alternative would have no potential to create new preferential pathways for sh
allow contaminated groundwater to reach deeper groundwater.
Additionally, because the proposed building would not be constructed, it also would not be occupied and there would be no potential for vapor intrusion risk. The No Project Alternative would have
no impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
As described in Section 4.3,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
, the proposed project would have
potentially significant but mitigable impacts related to hazards materials and hazardous contamination. Bec
ause the No Project Alternative would have no impact, impacts of this alternative would be
reduced
compared to the proposed project
and no mitigation would be
required
.
d.
Transportation
The No Project Alternative would result in no new development or changes
to the project site.
Currently, the project site is
unused
and does not generate VMT. Therefore, the No Project
Alternative would generate no new VMT, as the site would continue to be unused
. Additionally, the
No Project
Alternative
would have no conflict
s with plans or programs pertaining to circulation,
including bicycle, pedestrian, and transit circulation. The San Francisco Bay Trail would remain in its current alignment and available for bicycle and pedestrian travel.
The No Project Alternative would
have no impacts on transportation.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
6 -
4 As described in Section 4.4,
Transportation
, the proposed project would generate new VMT that
exceeds the regional average VMT per employee. Impacts would be potentially significant but mitigable. Because the No Project Alternative would have no transportation impacts, impacts of this alternative w
ould be
reduced
compared to the proposed project
and no mitigation would be
required
.
6.3 Alternative 2:
Enterprise Avenue
Alternate
Site
6.3.1 Description
Under the
Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative,
the proposed industrial building
would be
constructed
on an approximately 10.8
-
acre property located at 3636 Enterprise Avenue in Hayward.
The property is identified as APN 439
-
0099
-
036
-
02, and is zoned as General Industrial (IG). The
property is mostly vacant with the exception of several radio communication
towers scattered
across the property. A small structure is located at the base of one tower and is associated with the tower operations. Vegetation is present across nearly the entire property, and based on aerial photography, consists
primarily
of
low gr
asses, weeds, and shrubs
.
Alternative 2 assumes that the industrial building and associated surface parking lot would be approximately the same size and design as the proposed project, only located on the Enterprise
Avenue
property instead of the project
site.
However, because the Enterprise Avenue property is an
upland area, Alternative 2 would not include establishing a wetland preserve on -
site or off
-
site.
Likewise, this alternative assumes the existing structures and ponds associated with the former Ol
iver Brothers Salt Works operation on the project site would remain unchanged from current conditions, because Alternative 2 would involve no activities or development at the project site.
The San Francisco Bay Trail is not adjacent the Enterprise Avenue property. Therefore, Alternative 2
would not involve relocation of the trail or coordination with the East Bay Regional Parks District.
However, Alternative 2 would include relocating the existing radio communication towers and associated building that cur
rently exist on the Enterprise Avenue property.
The Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative would fulfill
some
project objectives
but not all
objectives. For example, this alternative would develop an industrial building to house U
-
Haul
corporate headquarters and a substantial warehouse
at the western edge of Hayward in proximity
to regional roadways. Alternative 2 would also be near
other industrial and warehousing land uses
and would create new employment opportunities by developing a property that is currently vacant.
However,
Alternative 2 would not fulfill project objectives to establish a wetland preserve adjacent to the San Fra
ncisco Bay or to remove the dilapidated Oliver Brothers Salt Works structures from the State Route 92 gateway to the City.
6.3.2 Impact Analysis
a.
Biological
Resource
s
The Enterprise Avenue site is not in proximity to salt marsh habitat. Therefore, implementation of
the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative
would have no potential to impact species
associated with salt marsh habitat, such as salt marsh harvest mouse or salt marsh wandering shrew. Additionally, the existing structure on the Enterprise Avenue site is a small shed
-
like
structure associated with current operations of the on
-
site radio communication towers. Because
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
6 -
5 the towers are currently operated and maintained, it is assumed that bats do not actively roost in the structure, and this alternative
would have no impact to special
-
status bats.
The Enterprise Avenue site consists primarily of open grass. The radio communication towers may provide perching spots for foraging raptor species, given that the towers are in open grassland.
Additionally, the
towers or the grass habitat may be used for nesting migratory bird species, and the grassland habitat specifically could be suitable for burrowing owl. Construction of the Enterprise
Avenue Site Alternative
would require removal of the radio communication
towers and grass
habitat. The site would be converted into the proposed industrial building and associated surface parking and landscaping. Therefore, the
Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative
would have
potentially significant but
mitigable impacts to special
-
status species. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO
-
1b through BIO
-
1e and BIO
-
1g would be required for this alternative.
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, there are no wetland areas on the
Enterprise Avenue
site
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020).
Therefore, construction of an industrial building on the site would have no impacts on wetlands. Because the site is upland grass, construction of this alternative would also have no impacts on sensitive natural
communities.
Overall, the
Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative
would have potentially significant but
mitigable impacts on special
-
status species, but fewer special
-
status species would be impacted
compared to the proposed project. Additionally,
while the proposed project would have potentially
significant but mitigable impacts to wetlands and sensitive natural communities, the Enterprise
Avenue
Alternate
Site Alternative
would have no impact. Accordingly, impacts of the
Enterprise
Avenue
Alternat
e
Site Alternative
would be less than significant with mitigation and
reduced
compared to the proposed project.
b.
Cultural Resources
Construction of the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative
would require demolition or
removal of the on
-
site radio com
munication towers and associated shed
-
like structure. Based on a
review of aerial photography, the towers and associated structure were constructed sometime after 1982 but before 1987 (Historic Aerials 2021). Based on the apparent age of these structures (
approximately 39 years to 34 years), the Enterprise Avenue site contains no
known
historic
structures or potentially historic structures. Therefore, construction of the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site Alternative would have
unknown but ex
pected
less than
significant effect
on historic
resources because historic structures are not known to be present .
Construction of the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative
would require ground disturbance
and excavation for the building foundation, utility connecti ons, and other subsurface project
component
s
. There is always potential for previously unknown or unidentified subsurface cultural resources to be uncovered during ground disturbance and excavation. If construction of the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
A
lternative
were to encounter resources and result in damage or
destruction of the resource or resources, impacts would be potentially significant but mitigable.
Implementation of the Mitigation Measure
C
U
L
-
2 in Section 4.2,
Cultural Resources
, would be
req
uired for this alternative.
Implementation of mitigation would reduce impacts to less than significant.
Overall, the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative
would
likely
avoid
or reduce
the project’s
potentially significant and unavoidable impact to h
istoric resources. Impacts to buried or subsurface
resources would be reduced to less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
Because the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative
would completely avoid significant and
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
6 -
6 unavoidable i
mpacts to historic resources, impacts would be
reduced
compared to the proposed
project.
c.
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
Construction of the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative
would require demolition or
removal of the existing on
-
site radio communication towers and associated shed
-
like structure.
Based on a review of aerial photography, the towers and associated structure were constructed sometime after 1982 but before 1987 (H
istoric Aerials 2021). Because the towers and shed
-
like
structure were constructed in the 1980s, lead
-
based paint and asbestos would not have been used
in their construction. Therefore, demolition of removal of the towers and structure would not expose con
struction workers or others to potential hazards. The Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative
would have no impact related to
reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment .
Accor
ding to the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the project site is not on a
list of hazardous material sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5
(SWRCB
2021
; DTSC
2021
)
. Therefore, construction
of the Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative
would have
negligible
potential to create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment. The Enterprise Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative
would have
less than significant
impacts
.
The Enterprise Avenue
Alternate
Site
Alternative would have a reduced hazards and hazardous materials compared to the proposed project.
d.
Transportation
According to the City’s GIS portal, the
average
VMT per employee
within the traffic analysis zo
ne
(TAZ) containing the
Enterprise Avenue Site is 20.64
(City of Hayward 2020)
.
As described in Section
4.4,
Transportation
, the regional average VMT per capita
or employee
for industrial projects is
18.15. Therefore, the Enterprise Avenue
Alternate
Site A
lternative would require a VMT reduction
of approximately 14 percent to achieve a less than significant impact. This is higher than the proposed project site’s VMT per employee of 18.23, which requires a 0.5 percent reduction.
Therefore, the VMT impact of
the Enterprise Avenue
Alternate
Site Alternative would
be potentially
significant. Compared with the proposed project, impacts of this alternative would
be greater and
additional mitigation
would be required
compared to the proposed project.
6.4 Alternative
3 :
Reduced
Project Alternative
6.4.1 Description
The
Reduced
Project Alternative assumes that
, like the proposed project,
the industrial building,
surface parking, driveway, landscaping, and other
project components
associated with the proposed
industrial building
would be
constructed
on the eastern component of the project site
. Additionally,
the San Francisco Bay Trail would be realigned
to encompass the eastern component of the site, like
the proposed project
.
Lik
ewise, a wetland preserve would be established on the western component of the project site
, consistent with the proposed project
.
However, the industrial
building and surface parking lot would be reduced in size by approximately 50 percent
and shifted
sou
th within the eastern component of the project site in order to avoid demolition of the former Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
6 -
7 Oliver Brothers Salt Works building in the northeast part of the site.
The existing building would be
left in place.
The Reduced Project
Alternative would fulfil
l
most
but not all
project
objectives. For example, this
alternative would
involve
develop
ment of
an industrial
building to house U
-
Haul corporate
headquarters and a warehouse
at the western edge of Hayward in proximity to regional roadways.
Alternative 3
would also be near other industrial and warehousing land uses and would create new employment opportunities by developing a property that is currently unused. Additionally, Alternative 3 would also fulfill the project objective to establish a wetland prese
rve adjacent to the
San Francisco Bay
.
However,
Alternative
3 would not fulfill
the
project objective to remove the
dilapidated Oliver Brothers Salt Works structures from the State Route 92 gateway to the City.
In
addition, this alternative would reduce th
e space available for the proposed project elements
compared to the propose project, which would result in smaller office and warehouse spaces
by
approximately 50 percent
.
6.4.2 Impact Analysis
a.
Biological Resources
The Reduced Project Alternative would be
constructed on the eastern component of the project
site. Therefore, construction of this alternative would impact the same biological resources as the proposed project, including special
-
status species, wetlands, and sensitive natural communities.
However
, the Reduced Project Alternative would require the industrial building and surface parking to be located farther south within the eastern component of the project site, result in additional wetland impacts compared to the proposed project. Additional wetl and impacts would occur
because the southern portion of the eastern component of the project site consists of wetlands.
Establishment of the preserve in the western component of the project site would have no impact to biological resources because no const
ruction, maintenance, or management activities would be conducted within the western component of the project site under this alternative , same as f
o
r the
proposed project
.
Overall, the Reduced Project Alternative would have significant but mitigable impac ts to biological
resources. Implementation of all mitigation measures in Section 4.1, Biological Resources
, would be
required. These mitigation measures include BIO
-
1a through BIO
-
1h and BIO
-
3. Compared to the
proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternat
ive would result in slightly greater impacts because
this alternative would impact more wetland areas.
b.
Cultural Resources
Because no construction, maintenance, or management activities would occur within the preserve area on the western component of the pr
oject site, establishment of a wetland preserve under this alternative would result in no impacts to cultural resources , as with the proposed project
.
Under the Reduced Project Alternative, the salt plant structure from the former Oliver Brothers Salt Work
s on the eastern component of the project site would be retained. Demolition of the structure would not be required because the project would be designed to avoid the structure. While the structure would be retained, construction of the Reduced Project Alt ernative would require
placement of fill within former salt ponds at the south end of the eastern component of the project site. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in impacts to components of the historic Oliver Brothers Salt Works sit
e. Additionally, the proposed industrial building would be of modern design and construction and could conflict with the historic landscape designation of the City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
6 -
8 existing structure on the
project site. While retention of the salt plant structure, as well as p
reservation of all former salt ponds in the western component of the project site ,
would help to
retain the historic integrity of the Oliver Brothers Salt Works site, required filling of salt ponds on the eastern component of the site could have potentially significant impacts on historic resources.
The Reduced Project Alternative would
involve construction and ground disturbance in the eastern component of the project site. Although the proposed industrial building and surface parking lot would be reduced in size, the excavation required for utility connections and foundation supports w
ould have the potential to uncover and disturb previously unknown or unidentified archaeological resources or human remains within the eastern component of the project site. Grading required for relocation of the San Francisco Bay Trail would also have the
potential to uncover and disturb or
damage subsurface archaeological resources. Disturbance or damage to archaeological resources would be a potentially significant but mitigable impact. Implementation of the Mitigation Measure CUL
-
2 in Section 4.2,
Cultu
ral Resources
, would be required for this alternative. Implementation of mitigation
measures
would reduce impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant.
Compliance with existing regulations, such as
Public Resources Code Section 5097.98
, wou
ld
prevent significant impacts related to discovery of human remains.
Overall, the Reduced Project Alternative would have potentially significant impacts to historic resources and significant but mitigable impacts to archaeological resources. Compared to t he
proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in reduced impacts because this alternative would avoid demolition of the Oliver Brothers Salt Works salt plant structure, which is a prominent component of the historic site and historic la ndscape.
c.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Because no construction, maintenance, or management activities would occur within the preserve area on the western component of the project site, establishment of a wetland preserve under this alternative would resu
lt in no impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
The Reduced Project Alternative would not require demolition of the former Oliver Brothers Salt Works salt plant structure, which could contain lead paint or asbestos containing materials. Becaus e
demolition would be avoided, there would be no potential for construction workers to be exposed to these hazards accidently during construction. Impacts would be less than significant.
The Reduced Project Alternative would be constructed on the eastern c omponent of the project
site. Therefore, construction of this alternative would require construction within the restricted areas, where soil and groundwater contamination exist (see Section 4.3, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
). During construction, worker
s could be exposed to hazardous contamination, especially during excavation activities reaching depths of five feet or more below ground surface.
Likewise,
construction would generate dust. If soils from the contamination areas are stockpiled on site and b
ecome airborne dust, either from wind erosion or construction equipment, off -
site receptors could
be exposed, as well as project construction workers. Impacts would be potentially significant but mitigable. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a in Se
ction 4.3,
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
, would be required, and impacts would be reduced to less than significant.
Given the extent and location of the restricted areas within the eastern component of the project site, the proposed industrial building w
ould at least partially overlie the areas under this alternative, despite the building be positioned closer to the south end of the site. Displacement piers required for the building foundation could create a preferential pathway for shallow groundwater co
ntamination to reach deeper groundwater. Likewise, bioretention areas for this alternative could Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
6 -
9 result in leaching of runoff through multiple underlying aquifers, creating a pathway for contamination. Impacts would be potentially significant but mitigable .
Mitigation Measures HAZ
-
2b
and HAZ
-
2c would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Additionally, because the building would be atop the restricted areas, there would be potential for vapor intrusion, exposing office and warehouse workers to
hazardous vapors. Impacts would be
potentially significant. Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a would reduce this impact to a less than
significant level.
Overall, the Reduced Project Alternative would have significant but mitigable impacts related
to
hazards and h
azardous materials
. Implementation of all
M
itigation
M
easures
HAZ
-
2a, HAZ
-
2b, and
HAZ
-
2c
in Section 4.
3 ,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
, would be required. Compared to the
proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would result in slightly reduced
impacts because
this alternative would
avoid potential impacts related
to
the accidental release of lead or asbestos
.
d.
Transportation
Realignment of the San Francisco Bay Trail would not generate new VMT compared to existing conditions because realignment w
ould not increase vehicle trips from new trail users. Likewise, because no maintenance or management activities would occur within the preserve area on the western component of the project site, establishment of a wetland preserve under this alternative wo
uld generate no VMT.
The proposed industrial building would be reduced in size if the Reduced Project Alternative were implemented. Despite being reduced in size compared to the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative would generate the same VMT
per employee as the proposed project. The VMT would
be the same because it is based on the average VMT per employee for the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) where the project site is located. Therefore, like the proposed project, the Reduced Project Alternative
would generate 18.23 VMT per employee. As described in Section 4.4, Transportation
,
the regional average VMT per capita or employee for industrial projects is 18.15. Therefore, the Reduced Project Alternative would generate VMT exceeding the regional aver age VMT, and impacts
would be potentially significant but mitigable. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TR -
1 in
Section 4.4, Transportation, would be required and would reduce impacts to less than significant
levels
.
Impacts
of th
e Reduced Project A
lternative would be
similar
to the proposed project.
6.5 Alternatives Considered
b
ut Rejected
Section 15126.6 of the State
CEQA Guidelines
states that:
“An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the proj ect, and evaluate the comparative merits
of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and
public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible.
The lead agency is responsible for selecting a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternat ives. There is no ironclad rule
governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.”
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
6 -
10 Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (1) failure to meet m
ost of the basic project objectives, (2) infeasibility, or (3) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts. Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of
infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquir
e, control or otherwise have access to the alternative
site (or the site is already owned by the proponent). An EIR need not consider an alternative whose effect cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is remote and speculative.
The Cali
fornia Supreme Court, in Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990), indicated that a discussion of alternative sites is needed if the project “may be feasibly accomplished in a successful manner considering the economic, environmental, socia l, and technological factors
involved” at another site. Several criteria form the basis of whether alternative sites need to be considered in detail. These criteria take the form of the following questions:
1. Could the size and other characteristics of anoth
er site physically accommodate the project?
2. Is another site reasonably available for acquisition?
3. Is the timing of carrying out development on an alternative site reasonable for the applicant?
4. Is the project economically feasible on another site?
5. What are
the land use designation(s) of alternative sites?
6. Does the lead agency have jurisdiction over alternative sites? and
7. Are there any social, technological, or other factors which may make the consideration of alternative sites infeasible?
Site characteristic
s that could support a project that meets the project objectives include:
appropriate size to accommodate an economically viable
industrial building that also can house U
-
Haul corporate headquarters
;
proximity to a regional highway in Hayward
; and
proximit
y to other
industrial, warehousing, and logistics land uses to avoid land use conflicts .
In order to accommodate
the needed industrial and office uses, the industrial building must be located on a property or contiguous properties measuring approximately 6
.8 acres or larger. Additionally, the property must
be zoned Industrial Park or for industrial uses.
The following alternative
site
s were initially considered. However, for reasons discussed below, they were dismissed from further consideration.
6.5.1 4327 Break
water Avenue Site
Alternative
Under this alternative, the proposed building would have been constructed on a property at 4327 Breakwater Avenue identified as APN 439
-
0099
-
017
-
04. The property is adjacent to the north side
of State Route 92, opposite of the
project site. The property is currently vacant, but there is a freeway billboard on the property, adjacent to State Route 92. The property is in proximity to a regional highway, given that is adjacent to State Route 92. The property is zoned as Industrial
Park,
which would allow for an industrial warehouse. However, the property measures approximately 1 acre in size, and adjoining properties are either developed or consist of marshland that cannot be developed. Because the property measures only approximat ely 1 acre, which is less than the 6.8
acres needed for the industrial warehouse, the 4327 Breakwater Avenue Site Alternative was dismissed from further consideration.
Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Report
6 -
11 6.5.2
3590 Enterprise
Avenue
Site Alternative
Under this alternative, the proposed building wo
uld have been constructed on a property at 3590
Enterprise Avenue identified as APN 439
-
0099
-
003
-
07. The property is located at the southwest
corner of the intersection of Enterprise Avenue and Whitesell Street in eastern Hayward. The property is currently
vacant and has been scraped or cleared of vegetation. The property is in proximity to State Route 92. The property is zoned as General Industrial, which would allow for an industrial warehouse. However, the property measures approximately 3.9 acres in siz e, which is less
than the 6.8 acres needed for the industrial warehouse. Therefore, the 3590 Enterprise Avenue Site Alternative was dismissed from further consideration.
6.5.3 Arden Road Site Alternative
Under this alternative, the proposed building would have b een constructed on a property accessible
from an existing driveway on Arden Road identified as APN 461 -
0040
-
004
-
04. The property is
adjacent to an existing warehouse to the west and an asphalt parking surface to the north. Railroad tracks are located immed
iately east of the property. Wetlands and the Eden Ecological Reserve area located south of the property.
Industrial Boulevard is to the east, less than a mile, and provides access to State Route 92 to the north.
The property is currently vacant but
does a
ppear disturbed in some areas, and there is a dirt road in the southern portion. The property measures approximately 34.6 acres in size, which is beyond sufficient for the 6.8 acres needed for the industrial warehouse. However, according to the U.S. Fish a
nd Wildlife Service,
much of the property is freshwater ponds that are either permanently or seasonally inundated
(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2020)
. Therefore, the developable area of the
property is less than 34 acres. The configuration of the mapped ponds on the property do not
provide large contiguous developable areas
of at least 6.8 acres
. Additionally, the property is zoned
as Open Space
District
, which does not allow for development of an industrial building. Because the property contains ponds t
hat reduce developable area to less than needed for the industrial building, and the property is zoned as Open Space
District
, the Arden Road Site Alternative was
dismissed from further consideration.
6.6 Environmentally Superior Alternative
Table
6 -
1 indicates whether each alternative’s environmental impact is greater than, less than, or similar to that of the proposed project for each of the issue areas studied
in this section of the EIR
.
Based on the alternatives analysis provided above, Alternative
1 would be the environmentally
superior alternative
, though it is the No Project Alternative, and therefore would not meet the objectives of the proposed project.
The environmentally superior development alternative would be Alternative 2, as it would reduce impacts in the categories of biological resource s, cultural
resources, and hazards and hazardous materials,
but
it would result in greater impacts regarding
transportation. Alternative 2, however, would not meet all the objectives of the proposed project ,
such as establishing a wetland preserve or remov
ing a dilapidated structure from the gateway to the
City
.
Neither
of
the alternatives analyzed above would create significant or unavoidable impacts , but
the proposed project would have a significant and unavoidable impact to historic resources .
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
6 -
12 Table 6
-
1 Impact Comparison of Alternatives
Issue
Proposed Project
Impact
Classification
1 Alternative 1: No
Project
Alternative
Alternative 2:
Enterprise
Avenue Alternate Site
Alternative
Alternative 3:
Reduced Project
Alternative
Biological Resources
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
+
+
-
Cultural Resources
Significant and
Unavoidable
+
+
+
Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
Less than Significant
with Mitigation
+
+
+
Transportation
Less than Significant
with
Mitigation
+
-
=
1 Most severe level of impact determination for proposed project is presented in this table.
+ Superior to the proposed project (reduced level of impact)
-
Inferior to the proposed project (increased level of impact)
= Similar level of
impact to the proposed project
References
Draft Environmental Impact Report
7 -
1 7
References
7.1 Bibliography
Biological Resources
California Department of Fish and Game. 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600
-
1607. Environmental Service Division, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA
.
California Department of Fish and Game. 2010. List of Vegetation Alliances and Associations.
Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. September 2010.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
. 2020. California Natural Diversity Database, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento, CA. Accessed: June 2020
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Ve
rsion 2.0). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer
Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. September 28, 2008.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vic
ksburg, Mississippi 39180
-
0631.
San Francisco Estuary Institute. 2020. California Aquatic Resource Inventory. Available at:
http://www.sfei.org/cari#sthash.Mzz93W9i.dpbs. Accessed: June 2020
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. National Wetlands Inventory . Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/index.html. Accessed: June 2020
U.S. Geological Survey. 2020. Redwood Point, California 7.5 -
minute quadrangle topographic map.
Cultural Resources
Anonymous
.
2020
.
“Four Generations of Salt
Production.” The Oliver Salt Company.
https://oliversalt.wordpress.com/2013/03/18/four
-
generations
-
of
-
salt/. Accessed
September 9, 2020.
Aqua Science Engineers, Inc. 2013. Recommendation for Case Closure as a Low -
Thread Underground
Storage Tank Case and Up
dated Site Conceptual Model ASE Job No. 3831 at Former Oliver Salt Facility, 4150 Point Eden Way, Hayward, California.
Bean, Walton
.
1968
.
California: An Interpretive History. New York, New York: McGraw -
Hill Book
Company.
Circa: Historic Property Developm
ent
.
2009
.
Historic Context Statement for the City of Hayward,
Administrative Draft Report. August. Prepared for the City of Hayward.
____.
2010
City of Hayward Historical Resources Survey and Inventory Report, Final. July.
Prepared for the City of Hayward
.
D’Oro, Stella
.
2009
.
Native California Prehistory and Climate in the San Francisco Bay Area. Master’s Thesis, San Jose State University.
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial
Development Project
7 -
2 Dumke, Glenn S.
19 9
4 .
The Boom of the Eighties in Southern California. San Marino, California:
Huntington
Library
Publications.
Engelhardt, Zephyrin
.
1927
.
San Fernando Rey: The
Mission of the Valley. Chicago, Illinois:
Franciscan Herald Press.
Guinn, James M.
1976
.
Gold!
Gold! Gold! from San Francisquito! in Los Angeles Biography of a City.
John Caughey and
L
aRee Caughey, eds. Pp. 107
-
108. Berkeley, California: University of
California, Berkeley Press.
Hylkema, Mark G.
2002
.
Tidal Marsh, Oak Woodlands, and Cultural Florescence in the Southern San Francisco Bay Region. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the California
Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson and Terry L. Jones, pp.233 –
262. Perspectives in California
Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology.
Kyle,
Douglas
E.
2002
.
Historic Spots in California. 5th ed. Stanford University
Press, Stanford,
California.
Lightfoot, Kent G., and Edward M. Luby
.
2002
.
Late Holocene in the San Francisco Bay Area:
Temporal Trends in the Use and Abandonment of Shell Mounds in the East Bay. In Catalysts to Complexity: Late Holocene Societies of the
California Coast, edited by Jon M. Erlandson
and Terry L. Jones, pp.263
-
281. Perspectives in California Archaeology, Vol. 6. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
McCawley, William
.
1996
.
The First Angelinos: The Gabrielin
o Indians of Los Angeles. Malki
Museum/Ballena Press Cooperative Publication, Banning or Novato, California.
Milliken, R. T., R.T. Fitzgerald, M. G. Hylkema, R. Groza, T. Origer, D. G. Bieling, A. Leventhal, R. S.
Wiberg, A. Gottsfield, D. Gillette, V. Bel
lifemine, E. Strother, R. Cartier, and D. A.
Fredrickson
.
2007
.
Punctuated Cultural Change in the San Francisco Bay Area. In California Prehistory: Colonization, Culture, and Complexity. Edited by Terry L. Jones and Kathryn A.
Klar. AltaMira Press.
Morat
to, Michael J.
1984
.
California Archaeology. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press, Inc.
National Park Service
.
1983
.
Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. Electronic document, online at http://www.nps.gov/
history/local
-
law
-
Arch_Standards.htm, accessed December 6, 2011.
Nevin, David
.
1978
.
The Mexican War. Time Life Books.
Poole, Jean Bruce
.
2002
.
El Pueblo
-
The Historic Heart of Los Angeles. Los Angeles: The Getty Conservation Institute and the J Paul Getty Museum.
Ragir, Sonia
.
1972
.
The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Re
search Facility, No. 15. Berkeley.
Rolle, Andrew
.
2003
.
California: A History. Arlington Heights, Illinois: Harlan Davidson, Inc.
Shumway, Burgess McK.
2007
.
California Ranchos: Patented Private Land Grants Listed by County.
Michael Burgess and Mary Wicki
zer Burgess, eds. Rockville, Maryland: Borgo Publishing Press.
Watt
Laura, Marie Galvin, David Blau, Charlane Gross, Aki Omi, and Donna Plunkett, and Lou Ann Speulda
-
Drews
.
n.d.
Historic American Landscapes Survey Alviso Salt Works HALS No. CA -
92. References
Draft Environmental Impact Report
7 -
3 http://l
cweb2.loc.gov/master/pnp/habshaer/ca/ca4000/ca4062/data/ca4062data.pdf.
Accessed September 9, 2020.
Workman, Boyle
.
1935
.
The City that Grew. Los Angeles, California: The Southland Publishing Company.
Alternatives
Department of Toxic Substances Control (D
TSC). 2021. EnviroStor [map database]. Retrieved on
February 9, 2021, from
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
Hayward, City of. 2020. Vehicle Miles Traveled 2020 database. https://maps.hayward
-
ca.gov/portal/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b5a75035f77e4d80972424580c636354
(accessed January 2021).
Historic Aerials. 2021. Historic Aerials by NETRONLINE [map database of aerial photography].
Retrieved on January 6, 2021, from
https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer
State Water Resources Control Boar
d (SWRCB). 2021. GeoTracker [map database]. Retrieved on February 9, 2021, from
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. National Wetlands Inventory: Surface Waters and Wetlands [map database]. Retrieved on January 22, 2
021, from
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html
7.2 List of Preparers
This EIR was prepared by the City of
Hayward
, with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Consultant staff involved in the preparation of the EIR are listed below.
R
INCON
C
ONSULT
ANTS
,
I
NC
.
Abe Leider, AICP CEP
, Principal
George Dix, Project Manager
Katherine Green,
AICP,
Assistant Project Manager
Beth Wilson, Environmental Planner
Kari Zajac, MESM, Senior Planner
Hannah Haas, MA, RPA,
Senior Archaeologist
James Williams, Architec
tural Historian
Steven Treffers,
Senior Architectural Historian
Allysen Valencia, GIS Analyst
K
ITTELSON
&
A
SSOCIATES
,
I
NC
.
Damian Stefanakis
Fernando Sotelo
City of Hayward
4350 Point Eden Way Industrial
Development Project
7 -
4 This page
intentionally left blank
415
0 Point Eden Way
Ind
ustrial Development Project
Fi
nal Environmental Impact Report
Re
sponse to Comments Document
SC
H# 2020110180
p
repared by
City of Ha
yward
777
B Street
Ha
yward, California 94541
Contact: Leigh
a Schmidt, Senior Planner
p
repared with the assistance of
Rincon
Consultants, Inc.
449 15th S
treet, Suite 303
Oak
land, California 94612
June 20
21 ATTACHMENT VIII
4 1
50 Point Eden Way
Industrial Development Project
Final
Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments Document
SCH# 2020110180
prepared by
City of Hayward
777 B Street
Hayward, C
alifornia
94541
Contact: Leigha Schmidt, Senior Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
449
15th Street, Suite 303
Oakland, California 94612
June
202
1 This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post -
consumer content
.
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to C
o
mment
s Document
1 I
ntroduction
1. 1
Purpose of the Response to Comments Document
This Response to Comments (RTC) document provides response s
to public and agency
written
comments received by the
City of
Hayward
on the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the
proposed
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial
Development Project
(project).
The Draft EIR identifies the
likely environmental consequences associated with development of the proposed project and recommends
mitigation measures to reduce potentially significant impacts.
In addition to providing
responses to public and agency
comments
received on the Draft EIR, this RTC document also makes revisions to the Draft EIR, as necessary, in response to those comments or to make clarifications to
information presented
in the Draft EIR.
This document, together with the Draft EIR, constitutes the Final EIR for the proposed projec
t.
1. 2
Environmental Review Process
Pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), lead agencies are required to consult with public agencies having jurisdiction over a propose d project and to provide the general public
with an opportunity to comment on the Draft EIR.
On
November 10, 2020
, the City of
Hayward
circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP)
and Initial
Study
for a 30
-
day period to identify
environmental issue areas pote
ntially affected
if the p
roposed
project
were to be implemented
.
The
NOP was mailed
or otherwise provided
to public agencies
,
the
State Clearinghouse, organizations, and individuals considered likely to be interested in the proposed project and its potenti
al impacts. Comments received by the City of
Hayward
on the NOP
and Initial Study
are
provided in Appendix A of the Draft EIR and are
summarized in Table
1 -
1 of the
Draft EIR
. These comments
were taken into account
during the preparation of the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR was made available for public review on
April 9
, 20
2 1, and was distributed to local and
State agencies. Copies of the Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR were mailed to a list of interested partie
s, groups and public agencies, as well as property owners and occupants of neighboring and nearby properties. The Draft EIR and an announcement of its availability were posted electronically on the
City’s
website, and a paper copy was available for public
review at
City
Hall
.
The Notice of
Availability of the Draft EIR was also posted at the office of the Alameda
County Clerk
, and the Draft
EIR was available
for public review
at the
Hayward
Public Library
.
The 45
-
day CEQA public comment period began on
Apri
l 9
and ended on
May 24
, 20
2 1. The City of
Hayward
received
five
comment letters on the Draft EIR. Copies of written comments on the Draft EIR received during the comment period
, as well as responses to those comments,
are included in
Section
3 of this d
ocument.
1.3 Document Organization
This
RTC
document consists of the following sections:
1 City of Hayward
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments D
ocument
Section
1: Introduction.
This
section
discusses the purpose and organization of this RTC
Document and the Final EIR, and summarizes the environmental review proces s for the
project.
Section
2 :
List of Commenters.
This
section
contains a list of the agencies
and
private groups
and
organizations
that submitted written comments during the public review period on the Draft EIR.
No c
omment
s
were
received from
individuals
.
Section
3: Comments and Responses.
This
section
contains reproductions of all comment
letters received on the Draft EIR. A written response for each CEQA -
related comment
received during the public review period is provided. Each response is keyed to the c
orresponding comment.
Section 4: Draft EIR Revisions.
Revisions
to the Draft EIR that are necessary in light of the
comments received and responses provided, or necessary to amplify or clarify material in the Draft EIR, are contained in this
section
. Und
erlined text represents language that has
been added to the Draft EIR; text with strikeout has been deleted from the Draft EIR.
2 Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments Document
2 List of Commenters
This section
presents a list of comment letters received during the public review period and describes the organization of the letters and comments that are provided in Section 3 ,
Comments
and Responses
, of this document.
2.1 Organization of Comment
Letters and Responses
The
five
letters are presented in the following order: State agencies ( 1 ), regional and local public
agencies (
2 ), and private groups and organizations (
2 ).
No
federal agencies and no
i
ndividuals
provided written comments
.
Each commen
t letter has been numbered sequentially and each
separate issue raised by the commenter has been assigned a number. The responses to each comment identify first the number of the comment letter, and then the number assigned to each issue. For example, Resp
onse 1.1 indicates that the response is for the first issue raised in comment Letter
1. 2.2
Comments Received
The following letters were submitted to the City during the public review period :
Letter Number and Commenter
Agency/ Group/ Organization
Page
Number
State
Agencies
1. Mark Leong
,
District Branch Chief
California Department of Transportation
5 Regional and
Local
Agencies
2. Laura J. Hidas
, Manager
of Water Resources
Alameda County Water District
10 3.
Chantal Alatorre
,
Senior
Planner
East Bay Regional Park District
14 Private Groups and Organizations
4. Carin High, Committee Co
-
Chair
Citizens Committee to
Complete the
Refuge
16 5.
Paige Fennie
Lozeau Drury LLP
80 Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to C
o
mment
s Document
3 Comments and Responses
Written responses to each comment letter received on the Draft EIR are provided in this section
. All
letters received during the public review period on the Draft EIR are provided in their entirety.
Please note that text within individual letters that has not been numbered does not specifically raise
environmental issues nor relate directly to the adequacy of the information or analysis within the Draft EIR, and therefore no comment is enumerated or response required, p
ursuant to
State
CEQA
Guidelines
Secti
on
s
15088 and
15132.
Revisions to the Draft EIR necessary in light of the comments received and responses provided, or necessary to amplify or clarify material in the Draft EIR, are included in the responses.
Underlined
text represents language that has been added to the Draft EIR; text with strikeout
has been deleted
from the Draft EIR.
All revisions are then compiled in the order in which they would appear in the Draft EIR (by page number) in Section
4,
Draft EIR
Tex
t Revisions
, of this document. Page numbers
cited in this section correspond to the page numbers of the Draft EIR. When mitigation measure language has been changed, it has been changed in both the text
on the stated Draft EIR page
and
the summary table (T
able 1) in the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR.
4 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
—
CALIFORNIA STATE TRANSPORTATION AGENC Y
GAVIN NEWSOM, Gove rnor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DISTRICT 4
OFFICE OF TRANSIT AND COMMUNITY PLANNING
P.O. BOX 23660, MS
-
10D
OAKLAND, CA 94623
-
0660
www.dot.ca.gov
Making Conservation
a California Way of Life.
May 24,
2021
SCH #:
202
0110180
GTS #:
04 -
ALA
-
2019
-
00581
GTS ID:
14875
Co/Rt/Pm:
AL/
92 /4.012
Leigha Schmidt, Senior Planner
Cit
y of Hayward
777 B
Street
Hayward, CA 94541
Re:
4150 Point Eden Way
+
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR)
Dear
Leigha Schmidt
:
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the
4150 Point Eden Way
project
. We are
committed to ensuring that impacts to the State’s multimodal transportation system and to our natural environment are identified and mitigated to support a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system. The following c
omments are based on our review of the
Ma
y
2021
DEIR.
Project Understanding
The proposed project is located at 4150 Point Eden Way in Hayward , adjacent
to
State Route (
SR
)
-
92 . The site is divided into the eastern component and western component. The proposed
project consists of a new industrial building
on the eastern component of the project site and establishing a wetland preserve on the western component. The building would be used to house U -
Haul storage pods, materials and trucks and their regional corpor ate offices. The
San Francisco Bay Trail is located on the eastern edge of the eastern component of the project site. The proposed project includes a land swap for East Bay Regional Park District to relocate the Bay Trail from the current location along th
e eastern property line to meander along the southern property line and then to turn north to run along the western property line. The proposed project also includes establishing a preserve on the western component of the project site, which are currently
characterized by salt evaporation ponds from
the former salt production operation on the project site that would remain in place.
5 Leigha Schmidt, Senior Planner
May 24
, 2021
Page
2 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
Lead Agency
As the Lead Agency, the
City
of
Hayward
is responsible for all project mitigation,
including any needed improvem
ents to
SR
-
92. The project’s fair share
contribution, financing, scheduling, implementation responsibilities and lead agency monitoring should be fully discussed for all proposed mitigation measures.
Construction
-
Related Impacts
Potential impacts to the State Right
-
of
-
Way (ROW) from project
-
related
temporary access points should be analyzed. Mitigation for significant impacts due to construction and noise should be identified. Project work that require s
movement of oversized or excessive load vehicles on state roadways requires a transportation permit that is issued by Caltrans. To apply, visit:
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic
-
operations/transportation
-
permits.
Prior to construction, coordination ma
y be required with Caltrans to develop a
Transportation Management Plan (TMP) to reduce construction traffic impacts to
SR
-
92 .
Encroachment Permit
Please be advised that any permanent work or temporary traffic control that encroaches onto the ROW require
s a Caltrans
-
issued encroachment permit. As
part of the encroachment permit submittal process, you may be asked by the Office of Encroachment Permits to submit a completed encroachment permit application package, digital set of plans clearly delineating th e State ROW,
digital copy of signed, dated and stamped (include stamp expiration date) traffic control plans, this comment letter, your response to the comment letter, and where applicable, the following items: new or amended Maintenance Agreement (MA), ap
proved Design Standard Decision Document (DSDD),
approved encroachment exception request, and/or airspace lease agreement.
Your application package may be emailed to
[email protected]
.
To download the perm
it application and to obtain more information on all
required documentation, visit
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic
-
operations/ep/applications
.
Equitable Access
If any Ca
ltrans facilities are impacted by the project, those facilities must meet American Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards after project completion. As well, the project must maintain bicycle and pedestrian access during construction. These access considerations
support Caltrans’ equity mission to provide a safe,
sustainable, and equitable transportation network for all users.
6 Leigha Schmidt, Senior Planner
May 24
, 2021
Page
3 “Provide a safe, sustainable, integrated and efficient transportation system to enhance California’s economy and livability”
Thank
y
ou
again for including Caltrans in the environmental review process.
Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please c ontact
Laurel Sears
at
[email protected]
. Additionally, for future notifications and requests for review of new projects, please contact
LDIGR
-
[email protected]
.
Sincerely,
MARK LEONG
District Branch Chief
Local Development
-
Intergovernmental Review
c: State Clearinghouse
7 Final Environmental Impact Report
Res
ponse to Comments Document
Letter
1 COMMENTER:
Mark Leon
g
,
District Branch Chief
,
California Department of Transportation
DATE:
May 24
, 20
2 1
Response
1 .1
The commenter
states
their understanding of the proposed project in
the form of
a summary
.
The commenter
’
s understanding of the proposed project is an accura
te summary of the project as
proposed and evaluated in the Draft EIR
.
This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response
1 .
2 The commenter
states that as the lead agency, the City of Hayward is responsible for project mitigation, including improve
ment
s to State Route 92
, and that
m
itigation measures should be
described in full, including project fair
-
share contributions, scheduling, implementation, and
monitoring.
CEQA requires lead agencies to mitigate or avoid potenti ally significant environmental impacts to
the extent feasible. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(a), except for certain roadway capacity projects, a project’s effects on automobile delay shall not constitute a significant environmental effect. Ac
cordingly, the Draft EIR does not include mitigation requiring improvements to State Route 92 because there would be no CEQA -
related significant impacts to
State Route 92. Table ES
-
1 in the Executive Summary of the Draft EIR lists the required project miti
gation measures. As shown in Table ES
-
1, there are no mitigation measures pertaining to State Route 92.
There are also no project mitigation measures containing fair -
share contribution
requirements.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15097 requires the City, in its r ole as lead agency, to adopt a Mitigation
Monitoring and/or Reporting Program (MMRP). Accordingly, the City must adopt a MMRP for the project, if the Final EIR is certified and the project approved. The MMRP will list each requirement mitigation measure co
ntained in either the Draft EIR or the Initial Study, as well as the timing for implementation, monitoring requirements, and reporting requirements, as applicable. The MMRP will also identify the agency, organization or otherwise, responsible for carrying out the identified
mitigation measures.
This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response
1 .
3 The commenter
states
an opinion
that potential impacts of temporary access points from State right
-
of
-
way should be analyzed, and mi
tigation for significant impacts due to construction and noise should be identified. The commenter also states that use of state roadways by oversized or excessive load vehicles
for project construction requires a permit.
The proposed project does
not
incl
ude temporary access to the project site from State right -
of
-
way,
such as the right
-
of
-
way for State Route 92.
Construction access, as well as access during project
operation, would be from Point Eden Way, which is not a State roadway. While temporary acce ss
points from State Route 92 would not be required for construction, construction equipment would 8 City of Hayward
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments D
ocument
be hauled or delivered to the project site on the surrounding roadway network, including State Route 92. The project applicant would be responsible for obtai ning all regulatory permits and
approvals, including permits from Caltrans for the use of oversized or excessive load vehicles on State roadways.
Both the Initial Study and the Draft EIR evaluate the potential impacts of the entire proposed project, includ
ing project construction and project operation.
The analysis in the Initial Study and
Draft EIR identified both less
-
than
-
significant and significant
-
but
-
mitigable impacts related to
project construction. For example,
noise impacts of project construction
are analyzed on pages 83
through 90 of the Initial Study, which is included as Appendix A to the Draft EIR. As described therein, there would be no significant noise impacts resulting from project construction. Because noise impacts would be less than sign
ificant, no mitigation is required.
Therefore,
as construction impacts are analyzed and mitigated to the extent feasible and applicant in the Draft EIR,
no additional revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.
Response
1 .
4 The co
mmenter
states that
coordination with Caltrans to develop a Transportation Management Plan may be required to reduce construction traffic impacts to State Route 92 .
This comment does not pertain to the Draft EIR or CEQA. Therefore, no additional revisions to the
Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. However, for informative purposes, as stated in Response 1.3 above, the project applicant would be responsible for obtaining all regulatory permits and approvals, including permits and approvals f rom Caltrans.
Response
1 .
5 The commenter
states that project traffic control measures within State roadway right -
of
-
way
require a Caltrans
-
issued encroachment permit.
This comment does not pertain to the Draft EIR or CEQA. Therefore, no additional revisions to the
Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment. However, for informative purposes, as stated in Response 1.3 above, the project applicant would be responsible for obtaining all regulatory permits and approvals, including pe
rmits and approvals from Caltrans.
Response
1 .
6 The commenter
states that Caltrans facilities impacted by the project must meet American with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards after project completion, and bicycle and pedestrian access must be maintained du
ring construction.
The proposed project does not include modifications or changes to Caltrans facilities. The project is in proximity to State Route 92 and a land parcel known as Caltrans Pond. However, as described in Section 2,
Project Description
, of th
e EIR, no work or project activities are proposed within the State Route 92 right
-
of
-
way or on the Caltrans Pond property.
Therefore, no pedestrian or bicycle access
on Caltrans facilities would be affected by the proposed project.
This comment is noted an
d does
not require revisions to the Draft EIR.
9 D
IRECTORS
A
Z
I
Z
A
K
B
A
R
I
J
A
M
E
S
G
.
G
U
N
T
H
E
R
J
U
D
Y
C
.
H
U
A
N
G
P
A
U
L
S
E
T
H
Y
J
O
H
N
H
.
W
E
E
D
4 3
8 8
5 S
O
U
T
H
G
R
I
M
M
E
R
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
•
F
R
E
M
O
N
T
,
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
9 4
5 3
8 (510)
66 8
-
420
0 •
F
A
X
(
5 1
0 )
7 7
0 -
1 7
9 3
•
www.acwd.org
MANAGEMENT
R
O
B
E
R
T
S
H
A
V
E
R
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
K
U
R
T
A
R
E
N
D
S
O
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
L
A
U
R
A
J
.
H
I
D
A
S
W
a
t
e
r
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
E
D
S
T
E
V
E
N
S
O
N
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
a
n
d
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
J
O
N
A
T
H
A
N
W
U
N
D
E
R
L
I
C
H
Finance
M
a
y
2
,
2 0
2 1
VIA
E
L
E
C
TRONIC
M
AIL
L
e
i
g
h
a
S
c
h
m
i
d
t
C
i
t
y
o
f
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
,
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
7 7
7 B
S
t
r
e
e
t
Hayward,
C
A
9 4
5 4
1 Dear
M
s
.
S
c
h
m
i
d
t
:
S
u
b
j
e
c
t
:
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
Availability
o
f
a
Draft
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
for
the
4 1
5 0
P
o
i
n
t
E
d
e
n
Way
Industrial
D
evelopment
P
roject
,
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
T
h
e
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
C
o
u
n
t
y
W
a
t
e
r
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(
A
C
W
D
)
w
i
s
h
e
s
t
o
t
h
a
n
k
y
o
u
f
o
r
t
h
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
N
o
t
i
c
e
o
f
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
a
Dr
aft
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
E
I
R
)
f
o
r
t
h
e
4 1
5 0
P
o
i
n
t
E
d
e
n
W
a
y
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
(
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
)
.
ACWD
h
a
s
r
eviewed
t
he
Draft
E
IR
a
n
d
o
f
f
e
r
s
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
f
o
r
y
o
u
r
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
:
1. H
a
z
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
H
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
:
a.
P
a
g
e
s
4 .
3 -
1 4
a
n
d
4 .
3 -
1 5
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
s
t
a
t
e
,
“
I
n
t
h
e
e
v
e
n
t
t
h
a
t
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
e
d
s
o
i
l
a
p
p
e
a
r
s
t
o
c
o
n
t
a
i
n
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
n
t
s
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
(
C
O
P
C
s
)
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
o
d
o
r
s
,
s
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
/
o
r
d
i
s
c
o
l
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
w
o
r
k
s
h
o
u
l
d
h
a
l
t
i
n
t
h
a
t
a
r
e
a
a
n
d
a
n
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
(
E
P
)
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
a
g
e
o
l
o
g
i
s
t
,
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
,
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
h
y
g
i
e
n
i
s
t
,
o
r
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
h
e
a
l
t
h
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
i
s
t
w
i
t
h
e
x
p
e
r
t
i
s
e
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
m
a
t
t
e
r
s
,
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
a
l
l
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
t
o
o
v
e
r
s
e
e
t
h
e
w
o
r
k
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
a
f
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
s
o
i
l
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
,
”
a
n
d
“
I
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
i
s
e
n
c
o
u
n
t
e
r
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
f
o
r
m
e
r
r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
e
a
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
o
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
4 o
f
t
h
e
R
M
P
,
a
n
E
P
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
c
a
l
l
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
a
f
e
h
a
n
d
l
i
n
g
p
r
o
c
e
d
u
r
e
s
.
”
ACWD
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
E
I
R
a
l
s
o
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
a
p
r
o
v
i
s
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
r
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
B
o
a
r
d
(
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
B
o
a
r
d
)
and
A
C
W
D
a
s
s
o
o
n
a
s
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
i
f
s
o
i
l
a
n
d
/
o
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
i
s
encountered.
b.
P
a
g
e
4 .
3 -
1 4
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
s
t
a
t
e
s
,
“
S
o
i
l
e
x
c
a
v
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
d
e
e
p
e
r
t
h
a
n
5 -
f
e
e
t
b
e
l
o
w
g
r
o
u
n
d
surf
a
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
h
a
l
l
o
n
l
y
b
e
r
e
u
s
e
d
o
n
-
s
i
t
e
a
s
b
a
c
k
f
i
l
l
a
f
t
e
r
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
a
n
d
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
s
o
i
l
p
r
o
v
e
s
t
h
e
s
o
i
l
i
s
a
c
c
e
p
t
a
b
l
e
t
o
r
e
m
a
i
n
o
n
s
i
t
e
.
C
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
E
S
L
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
u
s
e
d
a
s
t
h
e
t
h
r
e
s
h
o
l
d
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
i
f
s
o
i
l
s
m
a
y
r
e
m
a
i
n
o
n
s
i
t
e
o
r
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
o
f
f
-
sit
e
disposal.”
A
C
W
D
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
B
o
a
r
d
’
s
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
u
s
e
o
f
P
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
2.1 2.2
Letter 2
10 C
i
t
y
o
f
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
P
a
g
e
2 M
a
y
2
,
2 0
2 1
H
y
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
S
o
i
l
a
n
d
I
n
e
r
t
W
a
s
t
e
(
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2 0
0 6
)
1 t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
b
e
a
p
p
l
i
e
d
t
o
all
r
e
u
s
e
o
f
o
n
s
i
t
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
s
o
i
l
.
A
s
o
i
l
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
p
l
a
n
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
i
n
g
t
h
e
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
m
e
t
h
o
d
,
s
a
m
p
l
i
n
g
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
,
a
n
a
l
y
t
i
c
a
l
m
e
t
h
o
d
s
,
a
n
d
s
o
i
l
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
,
f
o
r
a
n
y
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
s
o
i
l
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
f
o
r
r
e
u
s
e
,
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
B
o
a
r
d
f
o
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
a
n
d
a
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
.
2. H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
:
P
a
g
e
4 .
3 -
1 6
o
f
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
I
R
s
t
a
t
e
s
,
“
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
HAZ
-
2 b
a
n
d
H
A
Z
-
2 c
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
t
h
l
o
c
a
l
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
i
s
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
a
n
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
b
e
a
f
f
e
c
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
b
i
o
r
e
t
e
n
t
i
o
n
b
a
s
i
n
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
i
e
r
s
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
e
d
t
o
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
a
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
.
”
ACWD
a
p
p
r
e
c
i
a
t
e
s
t
h
e
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
a
s
o
u
t
l
i
n
e
d
i
n
o
u
r
D
e
c
e
m
b
e
r
9 ,
2 0
2 0
,
letter.
3. A
C
W
D
C
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
:
T
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
A
C
W
D
c
o
n
t
a
c
t
s
a
r
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
s
o
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
Hayward
c
a
n
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
w
i
t
h
A
C
W
D
a
s
n
e
e
d
e
d
d
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
e
C
E
Q
A
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
:
M
i
c
h
e
l
l
e
M
y
e
r
s
,
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
a
t
(
5 1
0 )
6 6
8 -
4 4
5 4
,
o
r
b
y
e
m
a
i
l
f
o
r
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
A
C
W
D
’
s
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
K
i
t
S
o
o
,
W
e
l
l
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
C
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
o
r
,
a
t
(
5 1
0 )
6 6
8 -
4 4
5 5
,
o
r
b
y
e
m
a
i
l
f
o
r
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
w
e
l
l
s
a
n
d
d
r
i
l
l
i
n
g
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
.
T
h
a
n
k
y
o
u
f
o
r
t
h
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
4 1
5 0
P
o
i
n
t
E
d
e
n
W
a
y
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
S
incerely,
L
a
u
r
a
J
.
H
i
d
a
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
al
/
mh
B
y
E
m
a
i
l
c
c
:
E
d
S
t
e
v
e
n
s
o
n
,
A
C
W
D
1 R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
Board
,
2 0
0 6
.
T
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
D
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
,
C
h
a
r
a
c
t
e
r
i
z
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
R
e
u
s
e
o
f
P
e
t
r
o
l
e
u
m
H
y
d
r
o
c
a
r
b
o
n
I
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
S
o
i
l
a
n
d
I
n
e
r
t
W
a
s
t
e
.
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
o
n
l
i
n
e
:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb2/water_issues/programs/groundwater/reuse_guidance -
oct06.pdf
.
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
.
2.2 2.3
2.4 11
Final Environmental Impact Report
Res
ponse to Comments Document
Letter
2 COMMENTER:
Laura J. Hidas
,
Manager of Water Resources
,
Alameda County Water District
DATE:
May 2
0 , 2021
Response
2 .1
The commenter
quotes some of the text from Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a on pages 4.3
-
13 and 4.3
-
14 of the Draft EIR
and asks that the mitigation measure be revised to require coordination with the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Alameda County Wa ter District
.
In response to this comment,
page
s
4.3 -
1 4
and
4.3 -
15 of the Draft EIR
are
revised
as follows
.
…
In the event that disturbed soil appears to contain contaminants of potential concern (COPCs), such as odors
, staining, and/or discoloration, work should halt in that area and an environmental professional (EP), such as a geologist, engineer, industrial hygienist, or environmental health specialist with expertise in these matters, shall be called to the site to oversee the work and determine safe construction and soil handling procedures.
Additionally, if contaminated soil is encountered, the project applicant shall coordinate with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Alameda County Water
District to determine adequate and proper remediation and handling actions.
…
If groundwater is encountered within the former remediation area during construction of the
project, as shown on Figure 4 of the RMP, an EP shall be called to the site to de termine
safe handling procedures. The groundwater shall be pumped into appropriate containers and samples shall be obtained for chemical analysis of the COPCs in accordance with a site sampling plan and the requirements of the waste disposal facility to wh ich the material is
sent.
The project applicant shall coordinate with the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Alameda County Water District if possible contaminated groundwater is encountered
.
If water sample analytical results indicate the water
is free of all detectable
concentrations of COPCs, such water can be re
-
used at the site if deemed appropriate by
Alameda County and the RWQCB. If water sample analytical results indicate the water contains concentrations of COPCs above appropriate RWQCB s creening levels, such water
shall not be re
-
used at the site. The contractor and the EP shall elect to: (a) treat the groundwater on
-
site to render it free of detectable concentrations of COPCs (e.g. by activated carbon filtration); or, (b) transport the g
roundwater to a local treatment or
disposal facility for appropriate handling
…
No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.
Response
2 .
2 The commenter
recommends applying the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality C ontrol Board
document titled
Characterization and Reuse of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacted Soil and Inert Waste
for the reuse of soil excavated on
-
site. Additionally, the commenter states
that
a soil
management plan should be prepared and submitted to the R egional Water Quality Control Board.
In response to this comment,
Mitigation Measure HAZ
-
2a on
page
4.3 -
14 of the Draft EIR
is
revised
as follows.
12 City of Hayward
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments D
ocument
Soil excavated from deeper than 5
-
feet below ground surface in the restricted area shall
only be reused on
-
site as backfill after sampling and analysis soil proves the soil is acceptable to remain on site. Commercial ESLs
or concentration limits established in the
San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board document titled Characterization and
Reuse
of Petroleum Hydrocarbon Impacted Soil and Inert Waste
(2006), whichever is lowest,
shall be used as the threshold to determine if soils may remain on site or require off -
site
disposal. All appropriate regulatory sampling methods, holding times, and detection limits
shall be followed.
No additional revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.
Response
2 .
3 The commenter
states their appreciation of the Draft EIR including Mitigation Measure HAZ -
2a and
HAZ
-
2b.
This comment is no
ted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR
.
Response
2 .
4 The commenter
provides contact information for the Alameda County Water District.
This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR .
13 May 2
4 , 2021
Leigha Schmidt, Senior Planner
City of Hayward, Planning
777 B Street
Hayward, CA 94541
RE: Comments on U
-
Haul Development
-
4150 Point Eden Way
Dear Ms. Leigha Schmidt,
East Bay Regional Park District (Park
District) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the U -
Haul
Development project at 4150 Point Eden Way.
In addition to the letters previously submitted on February 11, 2020 and December 14, 2020, the Park District would like to submit the following comm ents:
•
Alternative Site #2: 3636 Enterprise Avenue is in close proximity to
the Park District’s
ongoing
restoration efforts at Hayward Marsh.
If this site is selected, the Park District would like the opportunity to provide input on design elements.
•
Figure 2.4 land use designations shows the new parkland owned by the Park District as Baylands which is correct. Figure 2.5 Zoning Districts show
s that same area zoned as industrial park; this appears to be inconsistent and outdated.
T
hank you for considering these comments and concerns.
The Park D
i
strict
continues to
look
f
orward to
being involved in
the design
review and final approval of
land transfer
to relocate
the SF Bay Trail.
Please
reach out to Chantal Alatorre, Senior Planner at
calatorre@
ebparks.org
to discuss.
Best Regards,
Chantal Alatorre
Chantal Alatorre
Senior Planner
Cc: Brian Holt, Chief of Planning & GIS
Sean Dougan, Trails Development Program Manager
14 Final Environmental Impact Report
Res
ponse to Comments Document
Letter
3 COMMENTER:
Chantal
Alatorre
,
Senior Planner
,
East Bay Regional Park District
DATE:
May 24, 2021
Response
3 .1
The commenter
states
that the alternate site analyzed in the Draft EIR as Alternative 2 is in proximity to the East Bay Regional Park District’s (EBRPD) marsh restor ation efforts and would like
for the City to coordinate with the EBRPD
if
Alternative 2 is selected.
This comment does not question the
analysis or conclusions of the
Draft EIR. Therefore, no revisions
to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this com
ment. However, for informative purposes, the
alternate site analyzed as Alternative 2 is a property located at 3636 Enterprise Avenue, as described on
P
age 6
-
4 of the Draft EIR. The commenter does not specify the exact location of the EBRPD’s marsh restora
tion efforts. However, based on aerial photography, there appears to be marshland within approximately 200 feet of the alternate site boundary , as well as potentially on
the alternate site
. Given this proximity, the City will
coordinate with
the EBRPD shou
ld Alternative 2
be selected and proceed.
Response
3 .
2 The commenter
states
that
parkland acquired by the EBRPD is shown as Industrial Park zoning district on Figure 2
-
5 of the Draft EIR, and that Industrial Park
zoning
is outdated information.
Figure 2
-
5 of
P
age 2
-
8 of the Draft EIR shows the current zoning districts for the project site and the surrounding area, generally 500 to 2,000 feet away, depending on direction. The parkland recently acquired by the EBRPD is nor
th of the project site and is shown as Industrial Park zoning district on Figure 2
-
5, as the commenter correctly states. However, the zoning districts shown on Figure 2 -
5 are
current and are not outdated
according to the City’s GIS webmap (
http://webmap.hayward
-
ca.gov/
)
.
The current and correct zoning districts are shown on Figure 2 -
5. Therefore, no revisions to
the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.
While revisions to the Draft EIR are not nec
essary in response to this comment, it should be noted
that the General Plan land use designation for the EBRPD parkland property is Baylands, as shown on Figure 2
-
4 on
P
age 2
-
7 of the Draft EIR.
Response
3 .
3 The commenter states that the EBRPD looks forw
ard to being involved in the project and land
transfer to relocate the San Francisco Bay Trail.
The City will continue to coordinate with the EBRPD. As described on page 2 -
14 of the Draft EIR, the
EBRPD will be responsible for approving the proposed land e xchange to relocate the San Francisco
Bay Trail.
15 C
C
C
R
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
U
H
a
u
l
D
E
I
R
5 -
24 -
21 P
a
g
e
1 o
f
7 L
e
i
g
h
a
S
c
h
m
i
d
t
,
S
e
n
i
o
r
P
l
a
n
n
e
r
C
i
t
y
o
f
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
,
P
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
2 4
M
a
y
2 0
2 1
7 7
7 B
S
t
r
e
e
t
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
,
C
A
9 4
5 4
1 leigha.schmidt@hayward
-
ca.gov
R
e
:
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
D
E
I
R
)
f
o
r
t
h
e
4 1
5 0
P
o
i
n
t
E
d
e
n
W
a
y
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
S
t
a
t
e
C
l
e
a
r
i
n
g
h
o
u
s
e
N
o
.
2 0
2 0
1 1
0 1
8 0
,
U
H
a
u
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
a
r
M
s
.
S
c
h
m
i
d
t
,
T
h
e
s
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
a
r
e
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
o
n
b
e
h
a
l
f
o
f
t
h
e
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
t
o
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
h
e
R
e
f
u
g
e
(
C
C
C
R
)
.
W
e
w
o
u
l
d
l
i
k
e
t
o
t
h
a
n
k
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
D
r
a
f
t
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
(
D
E
I
R
)
f
o
r
t
h
e
4 1
5 0
P
o
i
n
t
E
d
e
n
W
a
y
I
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
e
n
t
a
i
l
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
1 1
4,059
s
q
u
a
r
e
f
e
e
t
o
f
w
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
s
p
a
c
e
,
a
2 ,
7 8
5 -
s
quare
-
f
o
o
t
o
f
f
i
c
e
s
p
a
c
e
t
o
h
o
u
s
e
U
-
H
a
u
l
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
p
o
d
s
a
n
d
U
-
H
a
u
l
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
o
f
f
i
c
e
s
a
n
d
a
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
.
B
a
s
e
d
o
n
o
u
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
t
h
e
D
E
I
R
w
e
h
a
v
e
s
e
v
e
r
a
l
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
v
e
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
p
e
r
t
i
n
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
A
c
t
(
C
E
Q
A
)
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
:
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
l
i
s
t
s
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
a
s
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
:
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
t
o
h
o
u
s
e
U
-
H
a
u
l
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
h
e
a
d
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
w
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
.
L
o
c
a
t
e
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
a
t
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
e
d
g
e
o
f
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
i
n
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
a
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
h
i
g
h
w
a
y
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
,
w
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
i
n
g
a
n
d
l
o
g
i
s
t
i
c
s
u
s
e
s
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
l
a
n
d
u
s
e
c
o
n
f
l
i
c
t
s
.
C
r
e
a
t
e
n
e
w
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
g
r
o
w
t
h
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
b
y
r
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
i
n
g
a
v
a
c
a
n
t
a
n
d
u
n
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
property.
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
.
R
e
m
o
v
e
a
d
i
l
a
p
i
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
u
n
s
a
f
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
f
r
o
m
a
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
u
n
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
t
h
e
g
a
t
e
w
a
y
t
o
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
.
“
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
a
n
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
t
o
h
o
u
s
e
U
-
H
a
u
l
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
h
e
a
d
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
s
a
n
d
w
a
r
e
h
o
u
s
e
”
is
t
h
e
p
r
i
m
a
r
y
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
.
T
h
e
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
o
f
s
o
m
e
o
f
t
h
e
o
t
h
e
r
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
s
e
e
m
s
s
u
p
e
r
f
l
u
o
u
s
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
u
r
p
o
s
e
a
n
d
i
n
s
t
e
a
d
s
o
n
a
r
r
o
w
l
y
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
s
t
o
r
e
n
d
e
r
i
t
i
m
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
f
o
r
a
n
y
o
t
h
e
r
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
y
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
t
h
e
“
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
s
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
,
”
c
a
p
a
b
l
e
o
f
m
e
e
t
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
:
“
E
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
”
a
n
d
P
.
O
.
B
o
x
2 3
9 5
7 ,
S
a
n
J
o
s
e
,
C
A
9 5
1 5
3 T
e
l
:
6 5
0 -
493
-
5540
E
m
a
i
l
:
wws
w.bayrefuge.org
C
i
t
i
z
e
n
s
C
o
m
m
i
t
t
e
e
t
o
C
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
t
h
e
R
e
f
u
g
e
16 C
C
C
R
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
U
H
a
u
l
D
E
I
R
5 -
24 -
21 P
a
g
e
2 o
f
7
“
R
e
m
o
v
e
a
d
i
l
a
p
i
d
a
t
e
d
a
n
d
u
n
s
a
f
e
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
f
r
o
m
a
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
u
n
d
e
r
u
t
i
l
i
z
e
d
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
t
t
h
e
g
a
t
e
w
a
y
t
o
t
h
e
City
.
”
T
h
e
s
e
t
w
o
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
a
r
e
o
v
e
r
l
y
s
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
t
o
t
h
e
4 1
5 0
P
o
i
n
t
E
d
e
n
W
a
y
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
i
s
i
n
v
i
o
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
C
E
Q
A
f
o
r
t
h
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
s
t
a
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
.
F
l
a
w
e
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
:
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2 ,
w
o
u
l
d
“
r
e
d
u
c
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
i
n
t
h
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
o
f
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
a
n
d
h
a
z
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
,
b
u
t
i
t
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
r
e
a
t
e
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
.
”
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2 w
a
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
D
E
I
R
a
s
t
h
e
“
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
s
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
”
;
h
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
i
t
w
a
s
r
e
j
e
c
t
e
d
b
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
h
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
t
o
“
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
a
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
”
o
r
r
e
m
o
v
e
t
h
e
o
l
d
O
l
i
v
e
r
B
r
o
t
h
e
r
s
P
l
a
n
t
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
A
s
s
t
a
t
e
d
a
b
o
v
e
,
t
h
e
i
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
t
w
o
o
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
t
o
o
n
a
r
r
o
w
l
y
c
o
n
s
t
r
a
i
n
s
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
p
e
r
m
i
t
s
t
h
e
r
e
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
p
r
a
c
t
i
c
a
b
l
e
,
f
e
a
s
i
b
l
e
a
n
d
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
s
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
.
B
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
:
S
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
h
a
r
v
e
s
t
m
o
u
s
e
(
S
M
H
M
)
a
n
d
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
w
a
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
s
h
r
e
w
(
S
M
W
S
)
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
n
o
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
de
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
o
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
:
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
i
e
s
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
f
e
d
e
r
a
l
l
y
a
n
d
s
t
a
t
e
-
l
i
s
t
e
d
e
n
d
a
n
g
e
r
e
d
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
h
a
r
v
e
s
t
m
o
u
s
e
(
S
M
H
M
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
w
a
n
d
e
r
i
n
g
s
h
r
e
w
(
S
M
W
S
)
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
b
o
t
h
d
i
r
e
c
t
m
o
r
t
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
/
o
r
h
a
r
a
s
s
m
e
n
t
.
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
bio
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
B
I
O
-
1 a
,
B
I
O
-
1 b
,
a
n
d
B
I
O
-
1 c
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
M
H
M
a
n
d
S
M
W
S
f
r
o
m
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
l
a
t
e
d
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
.
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
n
y
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
p
o
s
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
m
o
r
t
a
l
i
t
y
a
n
d
/
o
r
h
a
r
a
s
s
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
s
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
t
h
e
r
t
h
a
n
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
u
b
l
i
c
a
c
c
e
s
s
e
x
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
f
e
n
c
i
n
g
(
M
M
B
I
O
-
1 h
)
.
F
o
r
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
o
f
t
r
a
s
h
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
e
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
t
h
e
S
M
H
M
a
n
d
S
M
W
S
,
d
e
a
l
s
o
n
l
y
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
e
r
i
o
d
o
f
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
(
M
M
B
I
O
-
1g)
.
T
h
e
r
e
i
s
n
o
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
o
f
h
o
w
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
,
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
E
d
e
n
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
d
e
a
l
t
with.
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
a
l
s
o
mentions
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
i
m
p
a
c
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
n
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
s
p
e
cies:
“...
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
u
p
l
a
n
d
a
r
e
a
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
a
l
t
p
o
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
e
a
s
t
e
r
n
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
d
i
s
t
u
r
b
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
m
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
i
n
g
l
y
i
m
p
o
r
t
a
n
t
t
o
S
M
H
M
a
n
d
S
M
W
S
a
s
e
s
c
a
p
e
r
e
f
u
g
i
a
d
u
r
i
n
g
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
n
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
S
M
H
M
a
n
d
S
M
W
S
a
r
e
r
e
g
a
r
d
e
d
a
s
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
”
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
i
l
l
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
y
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
l
o
s
s
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
and
e
s
c
a
p
e
r
e
f
u
g
i
a
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
M
H
M
a
n
d
t
h
e
S
M
W
S
.
N
o
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
i
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
how
the
impacts
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
l
o
s
s
o
f
S
M
H
M
a
n
d
S
M
W
S
e
s
c
a
p
e
r
e
f
u
g
i
a
w
i
l
l
b
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
e
v
e
n
t
h
o
u
g
h
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
“
a
r
e
r
e
g
a
r
d
e
d
a
s
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
.
”
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
d
o
e
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
B
I
O
-
3 :
P
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
C
r
e
d
i
t
s
T
o
c
o
m
p
e
n
s
a
t
e
f
o
r
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
0 .
9 7
a
c
r
e
o
f
w
a
t
e
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
U
.
S
.
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
c
r
e
d
i
t
s
a
t
a
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
o
f
1 :
1 m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
f
r
o
m
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
b
a
n
k
w
i
t
h
a
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
A
r
e
a
t
h
a
t
c
o
v
e
r
s
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
B
a
n
k
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
h
a
s
"
T
i
d
a
l
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
a
n
d
O
t
h
e
r
W
a
t
e
r
s
C
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
"
c
r
e
d
i
t
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
e
.
E
i
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
U
.
S
.
A
r
m
y
C
o
r
p
s
o
f
E
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
o
r
t
h
e
C
D
F
W
m
a
y
a
d
j
u
s
t
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
a
n
d
t
h
e
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
c
o
m
p
l
y
,
b
u
t
i
n
n
o
c
a
s
e
s
h
a
l
l
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
r
a
t
i
o
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
1 :
1 .
W
h
i
l
e
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
t
o
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
i
r
e
c
t
f
i
l
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
to
s
e
a
s
o
n
a
l
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
d
i
s
c
l
o
s
e
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
s
a
l
t
m
a
r
s
h
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
e
x
i
s
t
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
W
e
t
l
a
n
d
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
B
a
n
k
.
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
d
i
s
c
l
o
s
e
h
o
w
t
h
e
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
S
M
H
M
a
n
d
17 C
C
C
R
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
U
H
a
u
l
D
E
I
R
5 -
24 -
21 P
a
g
e
3 o
f
7 S
M
W
S
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
d
o
r
t
h
e
l
o
s
s
o
f
e
s
c
a
p
e
r
e
f
u
g
i
a
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
d
u
r
i
n
g
f
l
o
o
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
i
n
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,
w
h
i
c
h
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
a
s
a
“
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
”
i
m
p
a
c
t
.
E
m
i
l
y
W
a
r
f
i
e
l
d
1 ,
i
n
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
n
g
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
t
o
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
a
n
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
sea
-
level
-
r
i
s
e
i
n
t
o
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
s
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
e
f
o
l
l
o
w
i
n
g
:
“
T
h
i
s
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
a
r
g
u
e
s
t
h
a
t
,
r
e
g
a
r
d
l
e
s
s
o
f
t
h
e
a
m
b
i
g
u
i
t
y
i
n
t
h
e
l
a
w
a
n
d
i
n
c
o
n
s
i
s
t
e
n
c
y
i
n
i
t
s
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
s
e
a
-
l
e
v
e
l
r
i
s
e
i
s
i
n
f
a
c
t
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
d
i
n
a
n
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
i
m
p
a
c
t
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
o
r
d
e
r
t
o
p
r
o
p
e
r
l
y
f
o
r
e
c
a
s
t
t
h
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
a
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
n
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
.
W
h
e
n
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
c
o
a
s
t
l
i
n
e
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
r
i
s
e
a
n
d
c
a
u
s
e
“
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
s
q
u
e
e
z
e
,
”
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
c
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
y
i
n
t
e
r
f
e
r
e
w
i
t
h
t
i
d
e
l
a
n
d
e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
,
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
,
a
n
d
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
p
r
o
c
e
s
s
e
s
l
i
k
e
b
e
a
c
h
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
a
f
f
e
c
t
i
n
g
m
i
n
e
r
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
a
n
d
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
t
h
a
t
i
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
e
t
h
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
t
r
u
s
t
d
o
c
t
r
i
n
e
.
W
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
e
f
f
e
c
t
s
o
f
s
e
a
-
l
e
v
e
l
r
i
s
e
m
a
y
b
e
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
i
n
a
n
E
I
R
u
n
d
e
r
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
c
a
t
e
g
o
r
i
e
s
l
i
s
t
e
d
i
n
A
p
p
e
n
d
i
x
G
o
f
t
h
e
C
E
Q
A
G
u
i
d
e
l
i
n
e
s
,
a
n
i
n
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
a
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
s
e
a
-
l
e
v
e
l
r
i
s
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
i
n
a
n
E
I
R
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
a
t
w
h
a
t
p
o
i
n
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
u
l
d
t
h
r
e
a
t
e
n
o
r
d
e
p
l
e
t
e
c
o
a
s
t
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
.
”
T
h
e
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
provide
s
a
g
l
i
m
p
s
e
o
f
e
n
l
i
g
h
t
e
n
e
d
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
l
ow
-
l
y
i
n
g
a
r
e
a
s
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
B
a
y
.
W
e
k
n
o
w
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
c
o
n
s
e
q
u
e
n
c
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
a
r
e
a
s
a
s
s
e
a
l
e
v
e
l
r
i
s
e
s
.
M
a
p
p
i
n
g
e
v
e
n
e
x
i
s
t
s
t
o
d
e
p
i
c
t
w
h
a
t
a
r
e
a
s
a
r
e
l
i
k
e
l
y
t
o
b
e
i
n
u
n
d
a
t
e
d
b
y
v
a
r
y
i
n
g
d
e
g
r
e
e
s
o
f
s
e
a
l
e
v
e
l
r
i
s
e
[
s
e
e
a
t
t
a
c
h
e
d
i
m
a
g
e
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
A
d
a
p
t
i
n
g
t
o
R
i
s
i
n
g
T
i
d
e
s
B
a
y
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
F
l
o
o
d
E
x
p
l
o
r
e
r
M
a
p
[
https://explorer.adaptingtorisingtides.org/home
]
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
]
.
W
e
k
n
o
w
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
S
M
H
M
a
n
d
S
M
W
S
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
l
y
e
x
i
s
t
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
b
o
u
n
d
a
r
i
e
s
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
d
u
r
i
n
g
p
e
r
i
o
d
s
o
f
i
n
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
,
b
o
t
h
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
e
s
c
a
p
e
r
e
f
u
g
i
a
.
W
i
t
h
t
h
i
s
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
k
n
o
w
l
e
d
g
e
i
n
m
i
n
d
,
t
h
e
D
E
I
R
s
h
o
u
l
d
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
a
n
d
a
v
o
i
d
o
r
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
e
t
h
e
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
n
S
M
H
M
a
n
d
S
M
W
S
.
A
d
v
e
r
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
n
i
g
h
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
(
l
i
g
h
t
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
)
a
n
d
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
–
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
n
o
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
,
m
a
y
b
e
i
n
a
dequate:
I
n
o
u
r
s
c
o
p
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
w
e
s
t
a
t
e
d
:
T
h
e
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
S
i
t
e
P
l
a
n
S
h
e
e
t
1 s
h
o
w
s
t
h
e
r
o
a
d
b
e
h
i
n
d
t
h
e
n
e
w
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
b
o
u
t
4 0
f
e
e
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
C
D
F
W
’
s
E
d
e
n
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
(
t
h
e
“
C
a
l
t
r
a
n
s
P
o
n
d
”
)
.
T
h
e
I
n
i
t
i
a
l
S
t
u
d
y
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
l
i
g
h
t
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
w
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
a
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
m
p
a
c
t
a
n
d
t
h
a
t
:
“
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
a
l
l
y
,
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
m
u
s
t
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
a
n
d
e
r
e
c
t
e
d
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
s
o
t
h
a
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
s
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
c
a
s
t
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
i
g
h
t
o
r
g
l
a
r
e
u
p
o
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
i
g
h
t
s
-
of
-
w
a
y
.
M
a
n
d
a
t
o
r
y
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1 0
-
1 .
1 6
0 6
w
o
u
l
d
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
r
e
a
t
e
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
n
e
w
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
l
i
g
h
t
t
h
a
t
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
a
f
f
e
c
t
d
a
y
t
i
m
e
o
r
n
i
g
h
t
t
i
m
e
v
i
e
w
s
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
.
”
T
h
i
s
i
s
s
u
e
m
u
s
t
a
l
s
o
b
e
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
D
E
I
R
f
r
o
m
a
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
p
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
n
i
g
h
t
-
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
n
o
i
s
e
w
o
u
l
d
h
a
v
e
a
n
y
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
n
t
h
e
b
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
E
d
e
n
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
(
E
L
E
R
)
.
L
i
g
h
t
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
i
s
d
o
c
u
m
e
n
t
e
d
t
o
h
a
v
e
s
e
r
i
o
u
s
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
f
o
r
a
w
i
d
e
r
a
n
g
e
o
f
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
r
a
n
g
i
n
g
f
r
o
m
i
n
v
e
r
t
e
b
r
a
t
e
s
t
o
m
a
m
m
a
l
s
.
I
t
d
i
s
r
u
p
t
s
m
i
g
r
a
t
o
r
y
p
a
t
t
e
r
n
s
,
f
o
r
a
g
i
n
g
c
a
p
a
b
i
l
i
t
i
e
s
,
p
r
e
d
a
t
i
o
n
,
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
,
b
r
e
e
d
i
n
g
,
e
t
c
.
L
o
n
g
c
o
r
e
a
n
d
R
i
c
h
2 r
e
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
f
B
u
c
h
a
n
a
n
(
1 9
9 8
“
L
o
w
-
i
l
l
u
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
e
y
1 W
a
r
f
i
e
l
d
,
E
m
i
l
y
.
2 0
1 9
.
“
I
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
i
n
g
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
o
f
S
e
a
-
L
e
v
e
l
R
i
s
e
I
n
t
o
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
I
m
p
a
c
t
R
e
p
o
r
t
s
.
”
UCL
A
J
o
u
r
n
a
l
o
f
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
L
a
w
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
c
y
.
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/44h558wz
2 Longcore
,
T
r
a
v
i
s
a
n
d
C
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
e
Rich
.
2 0
0 4
.
“
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
L
i
g
h
t
P
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
”
F
r
o
n
t
i
e
r
s
i
n
Eco
l
o
g
y
a
n
d
t
h
e
Environ
ment.
Vol.
2 (
4 )
:
1 9
1 -
198
18 C
C
C
R
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
U
H
a
u
l
D
E
I
R
5 -
24 -
21 P
a
g
e
4 o
f
7 d
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n
b
y
s
q
u
i
r
r
e
l
t
r
e
e
f
r
o
g
s
,
”
J
H
e
r
p
e
t
o
l
o
g
y
3 2
:
2 7
0 -
7 4
)
i
n
w
h
i
c
h
t
h
r
e
e
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
f
a
m
p
h
i
b
i
a
n
s
f
o
r
a
g
e
a
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
l
l
u
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
t
e
n
s
i
t
i
e
s
.
A
s
a
n
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
,
t
h
e
s
q
u
i
r
r
e
l
t
r
e
e
f
r
o
g
(
H
y
l
a
s
q
u
i
r
r
e
l
a
)
f
o
r
a
g
e
s
o
n
l
y
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
1 0
-
5 l
u
x
a
n
d
1 0
-
3 l
u
x
u
n
d
e
r
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
w
h
i
l
e
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
t
o
a
d
(
B
u
f
o
b
o
r
e
a
s
)
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
a
g
e
s
a
t
i
l
l
u
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
1 0
-
1 a
n
d
1 0
-
5 l
u
x
.
E
v
i
d
e
n
c
e
s
u
g
g
e
s
t
s
l
i
g
h
t
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
a
f
f
e
c
t
s
t
h
e
c
h
o
i
c
e
o
f
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
s
i
n
t
h
e
b
l
a
c
k
-
t
a
i
l
e
d
g
o
d
w
i
t
,
w
i
t
h
c
h
o
i
c
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
e
i
n
g
t
h
e
f
a
r
t
h
e
r
a
w
a
y
f
r
o
m
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
(
D
e
M
o
l
e
n
a
a
r
e
t
a
l
2 0
0 0
,
i
n
L
o
n
g
c
o
r
e
a
n
d
R
i
c
h
)
.
B
u
c
h
a
n
a
n
f
o
u
n
d
f
r
o
g
s
h
e
w
a
s
s
t
u
d
y
i
n
g
s
t
o
p
p
e
d
t
h
e
i
r
m
a
t
i
n
g
c
a
l
l
s
w
h
e
n
t
h
e
l
i
g
h
t
s
o
f
a
n
e
a
r
b
y
s
t
a
d
i
u
m
w
e
r
e
t
u
r
n
e
d
o
n
.
”
T
h
e
B
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
a
o
n
e
-
p
a
r
a
g
r
a
p
h
d
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
b
l
e
m
s
p
o
s
e
d
b
y
l
i
g
h
t
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
,
a
n
d
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
“
.
.
.
M
a
n
d
a
t
o
r
y
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1 0
-
1 .
1 6
0 6
o
f
t
h
e
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
w
i
l
l
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
c
r
e
a
t
e
s
u
b
s
t
a
n
t
i
a
l
n
e
w
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
l
i
g
h
t
t
h
a
t
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
l
y
a
f
f
e
c
t
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
i
n
t
h
e
a
r
e
a
s
n
e
a
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
.
.
.
”
a
n
d
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
s
t
h
a
t
“
I
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
n
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
f
r
o
m
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
t
h
m
a
n
d
a
t
o
r
y
c
o
m
p
l
i
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
c
o
d
e
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
.
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
M
u
n
i
c
i
p
a
l
C
o
d
e
S
e
c
t
i
o
n
1 0
-
1 .
1 6
0 6
s
t
a
t
e
s
:
“
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
,
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
.
E
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
l
o
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
i
n
a
c
c
o
r
d
a
n
c
e
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
S
e
c
u
r
i
t
y
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
O
r
d
i
n
a
n
c
e
(
N
o
.
9 0
-
2 6
C
.
S
.
)
a
n
d
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
b
y
a
q
u
a
l
i
f
i
e
d
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
r
a
n
d
e
r
e
c
t
e
d
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
e
d
s
o
t
h
a
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
s
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
n
o
t
c
a
s
t
d
i
r
e
c
t
l
i
g
h
t
o
r
g
l
a
r
e
u
p
o
n
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
p
r
o
p
e
r
t
i
e
s
o
r
p
u
b
l
i
c
r
i
g
h
t
s
-
of
-
w
a
y
.
S
u
c
h
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
a
l
s
o
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
s
u
c
h
t
h
a
t
i
t
i
s
i
n
k
e
e
p
i
n
g
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
.
”
N
o
t
h
i
n
g
i
n
t
h
i
s
c
o
d
e
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
a
n
y
a
c
t
u
a
l
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
i
n
g
o
r
a
s
s
e
s
s
m
e
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
w
i
l
l
o
c
c
u
r
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
l
i
g
h
t
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
e
s
c
a
p
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
-
s
t
a
t
u
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
.
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
,
S
c
h
u
l
t
e
-
R
o
m
e
r
,
e
t
a
l
3 n
o
t
e
t
h
a
t
d
i
f
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
o
f
o
p
i
n
i
o
n
e
x
i
s
t
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
a
n
d
l
i
g
h
t
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
e
x
p
e
r
t
s
o
n
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
o
r
n
o
t
n
i
g
h
t
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
i
n
s
t
a
l
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
a
v
e
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
.
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
s
h
o
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
o
f
h
o
w
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
/
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
w
i
l
l
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
l
i
g
h
t
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
(
b
o
t
h
f
r
o
m
e
x
t
e
r
i
o
r
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
r
i
o
r
l
i
g
h
t
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
)
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
s
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
f
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
,
a
n
d
c
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
v
e
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
m
ust
b
e
u
n
d
e
r
t
a
k
e
n
i
f
l
i
g
h
t
p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
i
s
n
o
t
c
o
n
f
i
n
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
f
o
o
t
p
r
i
n
t
.
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
s
h
o
u
l
d
a
l
s
o
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
t
h
e
t
y
p
e
o
f
l
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
.
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
F
a
c
i
n
g
W
i
n
d
o
w
s
a
n
d
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
B
i
r
d
S
t
r
i
k
e
:
T
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
ct
i
s
i
m
m
e
d
i
a
t
e
l
y
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
t
o
E
d
e
n
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
n
d
w
o
u
l
d
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
f
a
c
i
n
g
windows
,
b
u
t
f
a
i
l
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
t
h
i
s
a
s
a
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
t
h
r
e
a
t
t
o
a
v
i
a
n
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
o
r
describe
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
b
i
r
d
c
o
l
l
i
s
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
i
s
d
e
f
i
c
i
e
n
c
y
o
f
t
h
e
D
E
I
R
m
u
s
t
b
e
r
e
c
t
i
f
i
e
d
.
T
h
e
t
h
r
e
a
t
p
o
s
e
d
b
y
w
i
n
d
o
w
s
t
o
b
i
r
d
s
a
n
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
a
r
e
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
d
o
n
m
a
n
y
w
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
w
e
b
s
i
t
e
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
i
s
w
e
b
si
t
e
b
y
t
h
e
U
.
S
.
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
Wi
l
d
l
i
f
e
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
:
https://www.fws.gov/birds/bird
-
enthusiasts/threats
-
to
-
birds/collisions/buildings
-
and
-
glass.php
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
(
M
M
)
B
I
O
-
1d:
M
M
B
I
O
-
1 d
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
t
h
a
t
B
u
r
r
o
w
i
n
g
O
w
l
(
B
U
O
W
)
s
u
r
v
e
y
t
e
c
h
n
i
q
u
e
s
a
r
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
o
f
F
i
s
h
a
n
d
W
i
l
d
l
i
f
e
(
C
D
F
W
)
s
t
a
f
f
.
S
h
o
u
l
d
t
h
e
p
r
e
s
e
n
c
e
o
f
B
U
O
W
b
e
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
,
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
n
e
x
t
s
t
e
p
s
m
u
s
t
b
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
C
D
F
W
s
t
a
f
f
(
i
n
c
l
u
d
i
n
g
b
u
f
f
e
r
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
,
e
t
c
.
)
3 Schulte
-
R
ö
m
e
r
N
,
M
e
i
e
r
J
,
D
a
n
n
e
m
a
n
n
E
,
S
ö
d
i
n
g
M
.
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s
v
e
r
s
u
s
L
i
g
h
t
P
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
E
x
p
e
r
t
s
?
I
n
v
e
s
t
i
g
a
t
i
n
g
V
i
e
w
s
o
n
a
n
E
m
e
r
g
i
n
g
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
C
o
n
c
e
r
n
.
Sustainability
.
2 0
1 9
;
1 1
(
6 )
:
1 6
9 6
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su11061696
19 C
C
C
R
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
U
H
a
u
l
D
E
I
R
5 -
24 -
21 P
a
g
e
5 o
f
7 M
M
B
I
O
-
1e:
I
n
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
t
o
n
o
t
i
f
y
i
n
g
U
S
F
W
S
a
n
d
C
D
F
W
s
h
o
u
l
d
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
L
e
a
s
t
T
e
r
n
,
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
S
n
o
w
y
P
l
o
v
e
r
,
o
r
B
l
a
c
k
S
k
i
m
m
e
r
b
e
d
e
t
e
c
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
5 0
0 f
e
e
t
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
t
h
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
m
e
n
d
e
d
t
o
s
t
a
t
e
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
a
g
e
n
c
i
e
s
w
i
l
l
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
t
h
e
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
b
u
f
f
e
r
d
i
s
t
a
n
c
e
s
f
r
o
m
n
e
s
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
M
M
B
I
O
-
1g:
A
s
w
a
s
s
t
a
t
e
d
e
a
r
l
i
e
r
,
M
M
B
I
O
-
1g
p
e
r
t
a
i
n
s
o
n
l
y
t
o
m
a
n
a
g
i
n
g
t
r
a
s
h
d
u
r
i
n
g
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
I
n
o
u
r
s
c
o
p
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
w
e
d
esc
r
i
b
e
d
t
h
e
n
e
e
d
f
o
r
a
l
o
n
g
-
t
e
r
m
p
r
e
d
a
t
o
r
a
n
d
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
p
l
a
n
.
G
i
v
e
n
t
h
e
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
e
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
E
d
e
n
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
,
t
h
e
D
E
I
R
s
h
o
u
l
d
i
d
e
n
t
i
f
y
,
a
n
a
l
y
z
e
a
n
d
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
p
r
e
d
a
t
o
r
/
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
b
e
a
t
t
r
a
c
t
e
d
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
U
-
H
a
u
l
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
.
T
h
e
p
l
a
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
h
o
w
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
s
u
c
h
a
s
N
o
r
w
a
y
o
r
r
o
o
f
r
a
t
s
c
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
o
n
t
r
o
l
l
e
d
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
S
M
H
M
o
r
S
M
W
S
.
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
:
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
s
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
n
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
32 -
a
c
r
e
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
/
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
o
n
t
h
e
w
e
s
t
e
r
n
c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
.
W
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
s
f
o
r
t
i
d
a
l
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
a
l
s
o
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
r
e
a
s
t
h
a
t
c
o
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
e
a
l
e
v
e
l
r
i
s
e
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
c
e
i
n
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
.
H
o
w
e
v
e
r
,
t
h
e
D
E
I
R
a
l
s
o
s
tates:
“
T
h
e
3 2
-
a
c
r
e
P
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
i
n
p
e
r
p
e
t
u
i
t
y
v
i
a
r
e
c
o
r
d
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
d
e
e
d
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
e
g
a
l
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
,
e
n
s
u
r
i
n
g
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
s
a
l
t
p
o
n
d
s
a
r
e
p
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t
l
y
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
a
s
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
i
n
p
e
r
p
e
t
u
i
t
y
.
N
o
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
e
a
s
e
m
e
n
t
o
r
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
o
r
e
n
d
o
w
m
e
n
t
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
.
B
e
c
a
u
s
e
t
h
e
3 2
-
a
c
r
e
a
r
e
a
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
d
i
n
p
e
r
p
e
t
u
i
t
y
w
i
t
h
a
d
e
e
d
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
o
n
o
r
o
t
h
e
r
a
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
e
l
e
g
a
l
m
e
c
h
a
n
i
s
m
,
w
i
t
h
o
u
t
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
,
n
o
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
o
r
i
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
i
s
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
.”
W
h
o
w
i
l
l
h
o
l
d
t
h
e
f
e
e
t
i
t
l
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
e
3 2
-
acres
–
t
h
e
l
a
n
d
-
owner
?
W
h
o
h
a
s
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
m
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
i
n
g
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
e
s
?
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
o
f
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
l
e
v
e
e
s
i
s
o
f
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
t
o
e
n
s
u
r
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
E
d
e
n
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
B
a
y
a
r
e
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
e
d
.
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
s
t
h
e
s
e
f
o
r
m
e
r
s
a
l
t
p
o
n
d
s
a
s
a
r
e
a
s
w
h
e
r
e
“
h
y
p
e
r
s
a
l
i
n
e
b
r
i
n
e
s
a
n
d
s
a
l
t
w
e
r
e
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
p
o
n
d
s
v
i
a
e
v
a
p
o
r
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
s
a
l
t
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
”
P
r
e
s
u
m
a
b
l
y
w
a
t
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
s
a
l
t
p
o
n
d
s
w
o
u
l
d
n
o
t
b
e
s
u
i
t
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
r
e
l
e
a
s
e
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
B
a
y
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
i
r
h
i
g
h
s
a
l
i
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
W
h
a
t
i
f
n
u
i
s
a
n
c
e
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
b
e
c
o
m
e
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
s
e
p
o
n
d
s
,
s
u
c
h
a
s
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
G
u
l
l
,
w
h
i
c
h
i
s
k
n
o
w
n
t
o
p
r
e
d
a
t
e
e
g
g
s
a
n
d
y
o
u
n
g
o
f
t
h
e
C
a
l
i
f
o
r
n
i
a
L
e
a
s
t
T
e
r
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
S
n
o
w
y
P
l
o
v
e
r
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
n
e
s
t
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
b
i
r
d
s
?
F
o
r
t
h
e
s
e
r
e
a
s
o
n
s
,
t
h
e
D
E
I
R
s
h
o
u
l
d
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
h
o
w
t
h
e
s
e
i
s
s
u
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
d
e
a
l
t
w
i
t
h
,
a
n
d
w
h
o
w
i
l
l
b
e
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
i
b
l
e
p
a
r
t
y
m
o
v
i
n
g
f
o
r
w
a
r
d
.
W
e
h
i
g
h
l
y
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
r
e
q
u
i
r
e
a
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
a
n
d
m
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
e
n
d
o
w
m
e
n
t
.
H
a
z
a
r
d
s
a
n
d
h
a
z
a
r
d
o
u
s
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
:
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
m
e
n
t
i
o
n
s
t
w
o
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
a
n
d
s
t
a
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
“
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
i
n
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
b
e
n
e
a
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
a
n
d
i
n
a
n
a
r
e
a
s
l
i
g
h
t
l
y
b
e
y
o
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
t
h
e
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
i
a
l
n
o
n
-
d
r
i
n
k
i
n
g
w
a
t
e
r
E
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
S
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
L
e
v
e
l
(
E
S
L
)
o
f
2 7
p
a
r
t
s
p
e
r
b
i
l
l
i
o
n
(
p
p
b
)
s
e
t
b
y
t
h
e
R
W
Q
C
B
,
w
h
i
c
h
w
a
s
e
s
t
a
b
l
i
s
h
e
d
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
v
a
p
o
r
i
n
t
r
u
s
i
o
n
t
o
i
n
d
o
o
r
a
i
r
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
”
T
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
D
e
s
c
r
i
p
t
i
o
n
s
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
tates:
“
T
h
e
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
r
e
p
o
r
t
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
t
h
e
u
s
e
o
f
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
i
e
r
s
t
o
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
t
h
e
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
i
n
d
u
s
t
r
i
a
l
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
.
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
i
e
r
s
u
s
e
a
h
o
l
l
o
w
m
a
n
d
r
i
l
l
t
h
a
t
i
s
f
i
l
l
e
d
w
i
t
h
c
r
u
s
h
e
d
r
o
c
k
t
h
a
t
i
s
v
i
b
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
t
o
a
p
r
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
e
d
d
e
p
t
h
a
n
d
i
s
t
h
e
n
r
a
i
s
e
d
a
n
d
l
o
w
e
r
e
d
,
w
h
i
l
e
v
i
b
r
a
t
i
n
g
,
t
o
d
e
n
s
i
f
y
t
h
e
g
r
a
v
e
l
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
i
l
s
.
T
h
i
s
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
s
a
c
o
l
u
m
n
o
f
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
e
d
g
r
a
v
e
l
s
a
n
d
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
t
h
e
d
e
n
s
i
t
y
o
f
t
h
e
s
u
r
r
o
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
i
l
s
.
T
h
e
c
o
l
u
m
n
o
f
g
r
a
v
e
l
c
r
e
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
i
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
f
o
r
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
l
u
m
e
t
o
a
q
u
i
f
e
r
s
a
t
d
e
p
t
h
s
o
f
u
p
t
o
2 0
f
e
e
t
b
e
l
o
w
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
,
a
s
t
h
a
t
i
s
t
h
e
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
d
e
p
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
p
i
e
r
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
D
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
’
s
p
r
o
x
i
m
i
t
y
t
o
t
h
e
b
a
y
,
t
h
e
20 C
C
C
R
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
U
H
a
u
l
D
E
I
R
5 -
24 -
21 P
a
g
e
6 o
f
7 displac
e
m
e
n
t
p
i
e
r
s
m
a
y
a
l
s
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
a
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
f
o
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
d
w
i
t
h
s
e
a
l
e
v
e
l
r
i
s
e
,
a
s
t
h
e
p
i
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
l
o
w
e
r
p
e
r
m
e
a
b
l
e
m
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
(
e
.
g
.
,
c
l
a
y
s
a
n
d
s
i
l
t
s
)
.
M
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
p
l
u
m
e
i
n
t
o
a
q
u
i
f
e
r
s
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
potent
i
a
l
l
y
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
b
u
t
m
i
t
i
g
a
b
l
e
.
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
H
A
Z
-
2 c
w
o
u
l
d
r
e
d
u
c
e
t
h
i
s
i
m
p
a
c
t
t
o
a
l
e
s
s
t
h
a
n
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
l
e
v
e
l
.
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
H
A
Z
-
2c:
“
HAZ
-
2 c
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
i
e
r
D
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
C
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
The
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
n
t
s
h
a
l
l
r
e
t
a
i
n
a
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
t
o
d
e
s
i
g
n
t
h
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
i
e
r
s
f
o
r
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
f
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
i
e
r
s
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
d
e
s
i
g
n
e
d
i
n
a
w
a
y
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
b
e
t
w
e
e
n
s
h
a
l
l
o
w
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
a
t
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
5 f
e
e
t
b
e
l
o
w
g
r
o
u
n
d
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
a
n
d
d
e
e
p
e
r
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
.
T
h
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
p
i
e
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
e
n
g
i
n
e
e
r
s
h
a
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
l
a
n
s
p
r
i
o
r
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
T
h
i
s
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
h
a
l
l
a
p
p
l
y
t
o
a
l
l
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
i
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
a
r
e
a
s
o
r
t
h
e
l
a
r
g
e
r
a
r
e
a
w
h
e
r
e
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
c
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
e
x
c
e
e
d
E
S
L
s
,
a
s
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
F
i
g
u
r
e
4.3 -
2 o
f
t
h
e
E
I
R
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
l
y
,
a
i
r
-
j
e
t
t
i
n
g
s
h
a
l
l
n
o
t
b
e
u
s
e
d
t
o
c
r
e
a
t
e
t
h
e
h
o
l
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
i
e
r
s
w
i
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
restricted
a
r
e
a
s
t
o
a
v
o
i
d
b
r
i
n
g
i
n
g
s
u
b
s
u
r
f
a
c
e
s
o
i
l
s
t
o
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
surface.
”
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
states
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
N
i
l
e
s
C
o
n
e
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
B
a
s
i
n
u
n
d
e
r
l
i
e
s
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
i
t
e
,
b
u
t
d
o
e
s
n
o
t
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
h
o
w
f
a
r
b
e
l
o
w
or
t
h
e
(
d
e
p
t
h
)
t
h
i
c
k
n
e
s
s
o
f
r
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
i
v
e
l
a
y
e
r
s
t
h
a
t
m
a
y
p
r
o
t
e
c
t
t
h
e
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
b
a
s
i
n
f
r
o
m
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
geotech
n
i
c
a
l
mitigation
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
s
i
t
e
.
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
f
a
i
l
s
t
o
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
d
e
s
c
r
i
b
e
h
o
w
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
w
i
l
l
b
e
m
o
n
i
t
o
r
e
d
a
n
d
h
o
w
i
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
t
o
t
h
e
N
i
l
e
s
C
o
n
e
G
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
B
a
s
i
n
a
n
d
o
t
h
e
r
u
n
d
e
r
l
y
i
n
g
l
a
y
e
r
s
o
f
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
w
i
l
l
b
e
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
e
d
.
H
o
w
d
o
e
s
o
n
e
“
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
p
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
t
i
a
l
p
a
t
h
w
a
y
?
”
W
o
u
l
d
t
h
e
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
o
f
v
i
b
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
c
o
m
p
a
c
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
u
l
t
i
n
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
e
d
g
r
o
u
n
d
w
a
t
e
r
p
l
u
m
e
?
H
a
s
t
h
e
S
a
n
F
r
a
n
c
i
s
c
o
B
a
y
R
e
g
i
o
n
a
l
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
l
i
t
y
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
B
o
a
r
d
(
R
W
Q
C
B
)
b
e
en
c
o
n
s
u
l
t
e
d
r
e
g
a
r
d
i
n
g
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
g
e
o
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
?
C
l
o
s
e
c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
u
s
e
o
f
d
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
p
i
e
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
a
n
d
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
o
c
c
u
r
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
R
W
Q
C
B
a
n
d
A
l
a
m
e
d
a
W
a
t
e
r
C
o
n
t
r
o
l
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
(
A
W
C
D
)
.
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
m
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
t
o
p
r
e
v
e
n
t
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
b
e
n
z
e
n
e
c
o
n
t
a
m
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
s
s
e
e
m
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
.
M
a
t
e
r
i
a
l
s
N
o
t
E
v
i
d
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
D
E
I
R
:
I
t
i
s
n
’
t
p
o
s
s
i
b
l
e
t
o
d
e
t
e
r
m
i
n
e
w
h
e
t
h
e
r
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
.
I
t
i
s
a
l
s
o
u
n
c
l
e
a
r
t
h
e
l
e
v
e
l
o
f
a
n
t
i
c
i
p
a
t
e
d
s
e
a
l
e
v
e
l
r
i
s
e
t
h
a
t
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
i
n
c
o
r
p
o
r
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
o
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
d
e
s
i
g
n
.
T
h
i
s
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
s
t
a
t
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
D
E
I
R
.
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
n
o
t
e
s
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
p
a
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
d
a
t
m
i
n
i
m
u
m
b
y
5 ’
?
[
D
E
I
R
,
p
a
g
e
E
S
-
1 2
]
W
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
e
d
a
n
d
h
a
v
e
b
e
e
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
a
t
o
p
o
g
r
a
p
h
i
c
m
a
p
o
f
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
b
u
t
h
a
v
e
n
o
t
b
e
e
n
a
b
l
e
t
o
d
i
s
c
e
r
n
w
h
a
t
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
f
i
n
a
l
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
s
i
t
e
w
o
u
l
d
b
e
.
T
h
e
D
E
I
R
s
h
o
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
a
p
l
a
n
v
i
e
w
t
h
a
t
c
l
e
a
r
l
y
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
s
i
t
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
,
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
s
i
t
e
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
e
l
e
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
B
a
y
T
r
a
i
l
.
Conclusion:
B
a
s
e
d
u
p
o
n
o
u
r
r
e
v
i
e
w
o
f
t
h
e
D
E
I
R
,
w
e
f
i
n
d
t
h
e
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
O
b
j
e
c
t
i
v
e
s
a
n
d
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
s
A
n
a
l
y
s
i
s
a
r
e
f
l
a
w
e
d
a
n
d
t
h
e
B
i
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
d
o
n
o
t
a
d
e
q
u
a
t
e
l
y
a
d
d
r
e
s
s
t
h
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
o
n
s
p
e
c
i
a
l
s
t
a
t
u
s
s
p
e
c
i
e
s
a
n
d
s
e
n
s
i
t
i
v
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
s
.
W
h
i
l
e
w
e
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
l
a
n
d
s
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
c
l
o
s
e
t
o
t
h
e
e
d
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
B
a
y
t
h
a
t
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
l
y
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
o
m
e
h
a
b
i
t
a
t
v
a
l
u
e
s
a
n
d
c
o
u
l
d
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
t
i
d
a
l
w
e
t
l
a
n
d
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
a
c
e
a
n
d
s
e
a
l
e
v
e
l
r
i
s
e
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
c
e
,
t
h
e
l
a
c
k
o
f
a
n
y
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
p
l
a
n
f
o
r
t
h
e
3 2
-
a
c
r
e
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
C
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
r
a
i
s
e
s
c
o
n
c
e
r
n
s
a
b
o
u
t
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
a
d
v
e
r
s
e
i
m
p
a
c
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
a
d
j
a
c
e
n
t
E
d
e
n
L
a
n
d
i
n
g
E
c
o
l
o
g
i
c
a
l
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
n
d
t
h
e
r
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
B
a
y
.
21 C
C
C
R
C
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
U
H
a
u
l
D
E
I
R
5 -
24 -
21 P
a
g
e
7 o
f
7 B
a
s
e
d
u
p
o
n
t
h
e
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
,
w
e
u
r
g
e
t
h
e
s
e
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
A
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
2 .
I
t
a
p
p
e
a
r
s
t
o
b
e
t
h
e
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
a
l
l
y
s
u
p
e
r
i
o
r
a
l
t
e
r
n
a
t
i
v
e
a
n
d
a
v
o
i
d
s
t
h
e
f
u
t
u
r
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
o
f
p
l
a
c
i
n
g
n
e
w
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
h
a
r
m
’
s
w
a
y
.
P
l
a
c
i
n
g
n
e
w
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
a
r
e
a
s
t
h
a
t
w
i
l
l
b
e
s
u
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
i
n
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
s
e
a
l
e
v
e
l
r
i
s
e
i
s
f
o
l
l
y
.
W
e
mus
t
a
d
m
i
t
w
e
w
e
r
e
p
a
r
t
i
c
u
l
a
r
l
y
s
u
r
p
r
i
s
e
d
a
n
d
extremely
d
i
s
a
p
p
o
i
n
t
e
d
b
y
t
h
e
p
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
T
h
e
C
i
t
y
o
f
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
h
a
s
s
e
t
a
g
o
o
d
e
x
a
m
p
l
e
o
f
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
f
o
r
fu
t
u
r
e
s
e
a
l
e
v
e
l
r
i
s
e
r
e
s
i
l
i
e
n
c
e
t
o
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
o
f
t
h
e
S
a
n
M
a
t
e
o
B
r
i
d
g
e
through
t
h
e
H
a
y
w
a
r
d
S
h
o
r
e
l
i
n
e
M
a
s
t
e
r
P
l
a
n
.
S
a
d
l
y
,
t
h
i
s
c
u
r
r
e
n
t
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
p
r
o
p
o
s
a
l
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
s
p
l
a
n
n
i
n
g
e
r
r
o
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
a
s
t
,
b
y
fail
ing
t
o
c
o
n
s
i
d
e
r
t
h
e
i
m
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
c
r
e
a
t
i
n
g
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
o
n
f
i
l
l
p
a
d
s
i
n
f
u
t
u
r
e
s
e
a
l
e
v
e
l
r
i
s
e
i
n
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
z
o
n
e
s
o
n
neigh
bo
r
i
n
g
c
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
.
A
s
s
e
a
l
e
v
e
l
s
c
o
n
t
i
n
u
e
t
o
r
i
s
e
,
r
e
m
o
v
i
n
g
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
p
a
c
e
b
y
f
i
l
l
i
n
g
t
h
e
e
d
g
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
B
a
y
w
i
l
l
o
n
l
y
f
o
r
c
e
t
h
e
r
i
s
i
n
g
B
a
y
e
l
s
e
w
h
e
r
e
.
A
n
d
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
i
n
a
r
e
a
s
o
f
predicted
futur
e
s
e
a
l
e
v
e
l
r
i
s
e
inundation
o
n
l
y
puts
more
p
e
o
p
l
e
a
n
d
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
h
a
r
m
’
s
w
a
y
.
T
h
a
n
k
y
o
u
f
o
r
t
h
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
y
t
o
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
s
.
W
e
r
e
q
u
e
s
t
t
h
a
t
w
e
b
e
k
e
p
t
i
n
f
o
r
m
e
d
o
f
f
u
t
u
r
e
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
o
c
o
m
m
e
n
t
o
n
t
h
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
R
e
s
p
e
c
t
f
u
l
l
y
s
u
b
m
i
t
t
e
d
,
C
a
r
i
n
H
i
gh
C
C
C
R
C
o
-
Chair
22 UCLA
UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy
Title
Incorporating Analysis of Sea-Level Rise Into Environmental Impact
Reports
Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/44h558wz
Journal
UCLA Journal of Environmental Law and Policy, 37(2)
Author
Warfield, Emily
Publication Date
2019
eScholarship.org
Powered by the
California Digital Library
University of California
23 259
Incorporating Analysis of Sea-Level Rise Into
Environmental Impact Reports
Emily Warfield
About the Author
J.D. Candidate, UCLA School of Law, May 2020. All views expressed herein are those of the author.
Table of Contents
Introduction
...................................................................................................... 259
I.
Sea-Level Rise: Projections, Effects, and Damage
Control Tools
.......................................................................................... 260
A
.
CEQA Can Help Local Governments Evaluate the Risks
of Sea-Level Rise
................................................................................ 263
II.
The Current Case Law and OPR Guidelines
....................................
263
A
.
Sea-Level Rise in the Public Resources Code and the OPR Guidelines
............................................................................................ 264
B
.
Ballona Wetlands and CBIA vs. BAAQMD
....................................
265
1. Sea-Level Rise Analysis is Not Reverse-CEQA
.......................
267
III.
Incorporating Analysis of Sea-Level Rise Into EIRs
......................
268
A
.
Analysis of Sea-level Rise Effects on Resources Listed
in Appendix G of the OPR Guidelines
.............................................
270
1. Mineral Resources
........................................................................ 270
2. Biological Resources
..................................................................... 272
3. The Public Trust
............................................................................. 272
4. The
Sierra Club v. City of Oxnard
Approach
.............................
275
Conclusion
......................................................................................................... 276
Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act
1 is a powerful tool both
for understanding and for mitigating the risk of environmental degradation because it mandates full public disclosure of the significant effects that a future development will have on the environment.
2 However, confusing judicial treat
-
ment on the issue of sea-level rise analysis in EIRs has resulted in inconsistency in analysis. The judiciary has suggested in dicta that analysis of sea-level rise
1. Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§§ 21001–21189.
2. Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§ 21002.1.
© 2019 Emily Warfield
259
24 260
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
V37:2
is “reverse-CEQA,” and not required. This muddled dicta is in conflict with CEQAs policy of complete and good faith disclosure in EIRs. Perhaps due to the conflict between CEQAs principle of full disclosure of environmental effects, and the well accepted prohibition on “reverse-CEQA” analysis, some EIRs for projects in coastal areas include analysis of sea-level rise in environ -
mental impact reports, and some do not.
3 This Comment argues that, regardless of the ambiguity in the law and inconsistency in its application, analysis of sea-level rise is in fact required in an environmental impact report in order to properly forecast the significant effects of a project on the environment. When dynamic coastlines continue to rise and cause “coastal squeeze,” development can significantly interfere with tideland ecosystems, wetlands, and coastal processes like beach migration, affecting mineral resources, biological resources, and resources that implicate the public trust doctrine. While the effects of sea-level rise may be analyzed in an EIR under resource categories listed in Appendix G of the CEQA Guide -
lines, an independent analysis of sea-level rise should be included in an EIR to determine at what point the project could threaten or deplete coastal resources.
Part
I
of this Comment will provide an overview of how sea-level rise affects coastal resources, and the role that CEQA can play in mitigating these affects. Part
II
will detail what an EIR currently requires with regard to sea- level rise analysis and forecasting. Part
III
will then argue that the paradigm
created by the judiciary and inconsistently adhered to by practitioners fails to account for the science behind coastal dynamics, and that a lead agency should always consider sea-level rise over time in an EIR to sufficiently protect coastal environmental resources.
I.
Sea-Level Rise: Projections, Effects, and Damage
Control Tools
Our coastline is dynamic, in that it changes seasonally. However, anthro -
pogenic climate change has seen the coastline move more consistently inland.
Where development interferes with this natural process, sea-level rise can
3. Often, where a local government has commissioned the EIR, there is analysis of sea-level rise. However, where the local government is the lead agency in approving a project that will developed by private entity, the EIR lacks sea-level rise analysis.
Compare
Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network Master Plan Final Environmental Impact Report
, Santa Cruz County Regional Transportation Commission (November 7 , 2013), 111, available at https://sccrtc.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/MBSST-Network- Master-Plan-FEIR.pdf [https://perma.cc/SUJ9-CT58],
with
Final Environmental Impact
Report, South of Tioga (May 9, 2018) https://www.sandcity.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/ South-of-Tioga-Project_FEIR.pdf [https://perma.cc/M22M-AU3J]. 25 2019
I
NCORPORATING
A
NAL
y
SIS
OF
S
EA
-L
EVEL
R
ISE
261
threaten expensive coastal infrastructure
4 and deplete coastal environmental
resources, thereby endangering coastal ecosystems.
5 Where rising seas meet development instead of cliffside, sandy beach, or marshy wetland, flooding can destroy valuable property and cause “coastal squeeze.”
6 “Coastal squeeze” occurs where coastal development impedes the natural inland migration of beaches, depleting habitat for one of the most biodiverse marine ecosystems on the planet, and harming a crucial cultural resource.
7 Many coastal communities in California are already experienc -
ing these impacts,
8 and the best available science suggests that damages will worsen as sea-level rise accelerates.
9 Further, the dense development on the
4. See generally
Cal. Coastal Comm’n, Sea Level Rise Policy Guidance: Interpretive Guidelines for Addressing Sea Level Rise in Local Coastal Programs and Coastal Development Permits
26 (2018),
https://documents.coastal.ca.gov/ reports/2018/9/w6g/w6g- 9-2018-exhibits.pdf [https://perma.cc/9NRF-FRRN] [hereinafter CCC SLR Guidelines] (for a discussion of the infrastructure affected by rising seas in California).
5. CCC SLR Guidelines,
supra
note 4, at 27 , n.4 (clarifying that the threat to coastal resources means a threat to beaches, wetlands, agricultural lands, coastal habitats, recre -
ational opportunities, and more);
Cal. Ocean Prot. Council, Sea-Level Rise Guidance:
2018 Update
7–8 (2018), http://www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/agenda_items/20180314/ Item3_Exhibit-A_OPC_SLR_Guidance-rd3.pdf [https://perma.cc/MG3F-3S2K] [hereinaf -
ter
OPR Guidance
] (describing those threats of sea-level rise that are specific to California).
6. Griggs,
infra
note 9, at 45.
7. Id.
at 45.
See also
Ctr. for Ocean Sols., The Public Trust Doctrine: A
Guiding Principle for Governing California’s Coast Under Climate Change 3 (2017),
https://oceansolutions.stanford.edu/news-stories/public-trust-doctrine-guiding-principle-
governing-californias-coast-under-climate [https://perma.cc/43X5-F86Z] (“If not proactively managed, coastal development may impede natural landward migration of these important coastal features and impair the public’s ability to enjoy the social and economic benefits provided by the coast.”).
8. See e.g.
, Mary Callahan,
Caltrans Prepares to Shift Highway 1 at Gleason Beach
,
Press Democrat
(Apr. 16, 2014), https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/1860880-181/cal -
trans-prepares-to-shift-highway [https://perma.cc/KQ86-AJ3V];
Peter Flimrite,
Pacific Ocean
Devours Pacifica Cliffs in Aerial Photos Over Decades
,
SF Gate
(Feb. 3, 2016, 4:00 AM), https://
www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Pacific-Ocean-devours-Pacifica-cliffs-in-aerial-6802840.php [https://perma.cc/S5UT-WJ77]; Oliver Milman,
Sinking Santa Cruz: Climate Change Threatens
Famed California Beach Town
,
Guardian
(Oct. 11, 2018, 1:00 PM), https://www.theguardian.
com/us-news/2018/oct/11/santa-cruz-sinking-climate-change-beaches-surfing
[https://perma.
cc/H8UL-JBRV];
The Grand Bayway
,
Resilient by Design Bay Area Challenge
, http://
www.resilientbayarea.org/grand-bayway (describing the plan to modify the low lying Highway 37 , which will soon be inundated as a result of sea-level rise).
9. The rate of sea-level rise will accelerate over the next century even under the most conservative emissions scenarios. California specific reports estimate 6 to 11 feet of rise by 2100.
See
Griggs et al., California’s Coast and Ocean Summary Report, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment 17 (2018),
http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/
docs/20180827-oceancoastsummary.pdf [https://perma.cc/86Y7-CQXF]; Gary Griggs et
al
.,
Rising Seas in California: An Update on Sea-Level Rise in California
24 (2017), http://
www.opc.ca.gov/webmaster/ftp/pdf/docs/rising-seas-in-california-an-update-on-sea-level- rise-science.pdf [https://perma.cc/WD5T-LD2J];
See generally
John A. Church et al
.,
Sea
Level Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis
, in
1137 Climate Change
2013:
The Physical
26 262
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
V37:2
California coast suggests even more so that the damage will be devastating: 68 percent of the state population lives within its nineteen coastal counties, and these coastal areas account for 80 percent of the state GDP . 10 However, local governments have the requisite tools to mitigate the eco -
nomic, cultural, and environmental consequences of sea-level rise, but need adequate information to evaluate risk and make planning decisions that allevi -
ate the burden rising sea-levels place on coastal communities and ecosystems. 11 Since land use decisions in California are made on a local level, local governments in California bear the responsibility of making land use decisions that mitigate these harms. Thereby, they have the power to adopt and imple -
ment adaptation strategies in order to save valuable coastal infrastructure and ecosystems.
12 Whereas local governments may implement any of several strat -
egies to mitigate the effects of sea-level rise, these local governments need to be adequately informed in order to implement them. Adaption strategies include: (1)
retreat
from the shoreline; (2)
adapt
infrastructure to be resil
-
ient to sea-level rise; and (3)
protect
shoreline infrastructure from sea-level
rise.
13 Local governments have a repertoire of regulatory tools with which to implement one or more of these adopted strategies.
14 However, to effectively
implement any one of these strategies, it is crucial for local government offi -
cials and their constituents to be properly informed of the way that sea-level rise will affect development on the coastline—enter the California Environ -
mental Quality Act.
Science Basis
(T.F. Stocker et al., eds., 2013), http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/ report/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf [https://perma.cc/NY7F-2URH] [hereinafter IPCC Report] (providing a global assessment of sea-level rise projections).
10. Gary
Griggs et al., California’s Coast and Ocean Summary Report, California’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment
12 (2018), http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/state/
docs/20180827-oceancoastsummary.pdf [https://perma.cc/ZC6B-VT5L] (noting that much of California’s coast was developed at a time where there was little El Niño flooding or storm activity).
11. OPR Guidance,
supra
note 5, at 23–27 .
12. See
IPCC Report,
supra
note 9.
13. Jesse Reiblich et al.,
Enabling and Limiting Conditions of Coastal Adaptation:
Local Governments, Land Uses, and Legal Challenges
, 22
Ocean & Coastal L.J
. 156, 162–63
(2017) (“Proactive planning and preparation for these likely effects should be a top pri -
ority for coastal communities on the frontlines of climate change. Linking the best avail -
able scientific information on climate hazards to adaptation policy is the vital next step in successful coastal adaptation . . . . this information may be necessary for determining the appropriate adaptation approaches for an area.”).
See also
Megan M. Herzog & Sean B.
Hecht,
Combatting Sea Level Rise in Southern California: How Local Governments Can Seize Adaptation Opportunities While Minimizing Legal Risk , 19
Hastings W. N.W. J. Envtl.
L. & Pol’y
463, 543 (2013) (“local governments already exercise a robust suite of police powers and other regulatory powers that can be harnessed to achieve successful adaptation outcomes . . . . Preparing for sea level rise will require local governments to make difficult decisions about the future of their coastal communities.”).
14. See generally
Herzog & Hecht,
supra
note 13.
27 2019
I
NCORPORATING
A
NAL
y
SIS
OF
S
EA
-L
EVEL
R
ISE
263
Without adequate information about the risks of sea-level rise to coastal development (and vice versa), local governments often approve development in high-risk areas.
15 Accordingly, the OPR Guidelines for Sea-Level Rise Adap -
tation set forth a five-step
decision-making process to help local governments
plan appropriate development in coastal areas.
16 Knowledge and disclosure of
risks is a crucial part of the five-step process, and where a private development requires discretionary approval, local government can use the CEQA process to be adequately informed of the risks that the development may create with respect to sea-level rise.
A.
CEQA Can Help Local Governments Evaluate the Risks
of Sea-Level Rise
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
17 is a regulatory
tool that mandates the disclosure of environmental risks when a state or local agency approves a discretionary project. Therefore, one of the myriad tools local government can harness to employ sea-level rise adaptation strategies in a proactive planning context is the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Through the EIR, CEQA “may provide an opportunity for local governments to evaluate, on a project-by-project basis or at the planning stage, the rela -
tionship between future sea-level rise and planned development near the coastline.”
18 Because CEQA requires public agencies to disclose any signif -
icant environmental impacts of a proposed development and mitigate any effects they deem above a certain threshold of significance, it is a powerful public disclosure tool.
19 As will be discussed in Part
II
, analysis of sea-level rise
is not explicitly required by CEQA or its guidelines,
so
there is not currently
uniform disclosure of the effects of sea-level rise on a project over time. None -
theless, CEQA does require agencies to forecast environmental risks to the best of their ability.
20 Sea-level rise may, over time, affect traditional resource categories that are governed by CEQA.
II.
The Current Case Law and OPR Guidelines
Case law indicates that lead agencies need not analyze sea-level rise in EIRs unless a proposed development would exacerbate the effects of sea-level
15. Kevin Stark & Mary Catherine O’Connor,
Mapping the Shoreline Building
Boom as Seas Rise.
S.F. Pub. Press
(Apr. 21, 2017 , 5:36 PM), https://sfpublicpress.org/
news/searise/2017-04/mapping-the-shoreline-building-boom-as-seas-rise [https://perma.cc/ W44Y-UA66 ] (implying that a surge in coastal development is a result of the loosening of CEQA requirements, but it is unclear whether the projects described in the article are all subject to CEQA or whether an evolution of sea-level rise flooding would have changed the decision of the lead agencies in those cases).
16. OPR Guidance,
supra
note 5, at 23.
1 7.
Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§ 21000–21189 (West 2016).
18. Herzog & Hecht,
supra
note 13, at 485.
19. Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§ 21002.1(a) (setting forth the purpose of the EIR).
20. Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 14, § 15144 (2019).
28 264
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
V37:2
rise. Due to the lack of direction in the California Public Resources Code and the California Code of Regulations, decisions about whether or not an anal -
ysis of sea-level rise is required in an EIR have been made on a case-by-case basis in CEQA litigation. Executive Order S-13-08 and B-30-15 both direct state agencies to consider sea-level rise in planning and financing decisions, but there is no indication that local agencies are required to consider sea-level rise in planning decision.
21 The California Court of Appeal held in
Ballona Wetlands
that sea-level
rise analysis was not required because that would be reverse-CEQA. The Cal -
ifornia Supreme Court confirmed this holding in a different case that did not involve sea-level rise and added an exception to the general rule for cases where the project might exacerbate the existing environmental conditions.
However, the Court did not clarify whether sea-level rise fell within this excep -
tion. According to recently approved environmental impact reports (EIRs), practitioners and lead agencies still interpret
CBIA v. BAAQMD
to mean that
sea-level rise analysis is not required for coastal projects. In other words, sea- level rise does not fit into the exacerbation exception. However, this approach is inconsistent with the idea that a project affected by sea-level rise will always interrupt the littoral cycle. It is also inconsistent with the idea that blocking the sea-level rise with a development project will always affect environmental resources. For these reasons, the holding in
Sierra Club v. City of Oxnard
pres
-
ents a better approach to the sea-level rise analysis.] This Part presents an analysis of the judicial decisions on this question.
The ambiguities presented herein underscore both the complexity of CEQA and judicial misunderstanding of coastal processes. Further ambiguity arises from application of the law to the incredible variety of coastal environments in California—built, armored, and undeveloped.
A.
Sea-Level Rise in the Public Resources Code and the OPR Guidelines Given that the California Public Resources Code (CPR) includes only broad language about the requirements of an EIR, it is not surprising that sea- level rise is not specifically mentioned in the CEQA statute. Rather, the CPR requires an EIR to analyze significant impacts on the “environment,” which is defined as “physical conditions that exist within the area of the proposed project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, or objects of historic or aesthetic significance.”
22 This definition is devoid of the words “sea-
level rise” and “mean high tide.” However, if placing a development in the way of sea-level rise would cause coastal squeeze and thus affect the inward migration of beach over time, an EIR analyzing potential effects on envi -
ronmental resources would be appropriate. The EIR would consider issues
21. See
Cal. Exec. Order No. B-30-15 (Apr. 29, 2015) (requiring state agencies to factor climate change into all planning and investment decisions).
22. Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§ 21060.5 (2016).
29 2019
I
NCORPORATING
A
NAL
y
SIS
OF
S
EA
-L
EVEL
R
ISE
265
explicitly contemplated by CEQA’s Appendix G such as sand (“minerals”) and wave energy (“water”).
23 Again, analysis of sea-level rise may be neces
-
sary to adequately forecast the effects that sea-level rise may have on those listed environmental resource categories that are more traditionally consid -
ered in an EIR.
Often, agencies rely on Appendix G in the OPR Guidelines when com -
pleting an EIR. The CPR mandates that the Office of Planning and Resources promulgate guidelines detailing how to comply with CEQA. 24 Appendix G
is the result; it is a nonexhaustive checklist of environmental resources in the OPR Guidelines that an agency should consider in determining whether a project will have significant impacts on the environment. The Appendix gen -
erally reflects the categories listed in the CEQA definition of “environment,” and fails to include “sea-level rise.”
25 While this void is not dispositive, Cal
-
ifornia courts have provided little additional guidance regarding analysis of sea-level rise in an EIR.
B.
Ballona Wetlands and CBIA vs. BAAQMD
In
Ballona Wetlands Land Trust v. City of Los Angeles
(
Ballona Wet
-
lands
), the California Court of Appeal held that CEQA does not require the lead agency to analyze or disclose the effects of sea-level rise on the proposed development.
26 CEQA requires analysis and disclosure of a project’s effects on the environment, and that to require the opposite—an analysis of the envi -
ronment’s effects on the project—would be contrary to the language and purpose of CEQA.
27 In
Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt.
Dist
. (
CBIA
), the California Supreme Court upheld the underlying rationale for the holding in
Ballona Wetlands
by condemning reverse-CEQA. However,
the Court carved out an exception to this general rule where a development may exacerbate an environmental hazard.
28 The misunderstandings and ambi
-
guity in these decisions reflect either a confusion about the nature of coastal dynamics, a confusion about the imminence of sea-level rise and its effects, or both. The forecasting and disclosure principles in CEQA suggest that is it not useful to put analysis of sea-level rise into the reverse-CEQA paradigm at all.
23. See
Cal.’s Fourth Climate Change Assessment, California’s Coast and Ocean Summary Report,
supra
note 9,
at 45 (describing coastal squeeze and its effects on
the environment).
See generally
Kiki P atsch & Gary Griggs, Inst. of Marine Sci. at U.C., Santa Cruz, Littoral Cells, Sand Budgets, And Beaches: Understanding California’s Shoreline
(2006), http://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/ucldc-nuxeo-ref-media/a956aa7a- bef7-423a-9b96-9708b00072d1 [https://perma.cc/PE4E-9VZP] (describing the way that coastal development can interfere with the littoral cycle and deplete beaches).
24. Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§ 21083 (2016).
25. Cal. Code Regs
. tit. 14, App. G (2019).
26. Ballona Wetlands Land Tr. v. City of L.A., 201 Cal. App. 4th 455 (2011). 2 7.
Id.
28. Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n v. Bay Area Air Quality Mgmt. Dist, 62 Cal. 4th 369 (2015). 30 266
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
V37:2
In
Ballona Wetlands
, the lead agency certified a revised EIR for a mixed-
use real estate development two miles from the ocean.
29 The project was
subject to CEQA because it required the City of Los Angeles to amend both its general and specific plan, approve a vesting tentative map, and adopt an ordinance authorizing a development agreement.
30 The revised EIR discussed
sea-level rise caused by global climate change only to the extent that it was required to in order to respond to public comments, and included no analysis of projected rise as related to the development.
31 The court held that analysis of sea-level rise beyond the statutory require -
ments for comment response would be reverse-CEQA: “Identifying the effects on the project and its users of locating the project in a particular environmen -
tal setting is neither consistent with CEQA’s legislative purpose nor required by the CEQA statutes . . . .
we hold that an EIR need not identify or analyze
[the effects on the project caused by the environment]. ”
32 While Appendix G of
the Guidelines requires lead agencies to analyze the exacerbation of environ -
mental hazards, the court held that this guideline was invalid to the extent that it required an analysis of the environment’s effect on a project .
33 The court’s holding in
Ballona Wetlands
reflects judicial misunderstand
-
ing of both coastal dynamics and the rapidly increasing rate of sea-level rise.
This misunderstanding led the court to hold that analysis of sea-level rise is reverse-CEQA, which kept the court from reaching the issue of whether the lead agency met its duty to reasonably forecast future environmental impacts.
While this holding is widely-followed,
34 its application to sea-level rise is
unique to this opinion and not consistent with the science of coastal dynamics.
This application ignores the effects that a coastal development could have on environmental resources in the future as a result of sea-level rise. Whereas sea- level rise analysis is not explicitly required by CEQA or the OPR Guidelines, a developments interference with sea-level rise does in fact effect resources that are explicitly protected by CEQA.
29. Ballona Wetlands
, 201 Cal. App. 4th at 462–63.
30. Id.
31. The city responded by refuting a comment which presented a projection of sea- level rise (the projection enumerated in “The Impacts of Sea-Level Rise on the California Coast” by the California Climate Change Center) because it was a worst-case scenario pro -
jection. The comment response also noted that the development was two miles from the coastline, unlikely to be affected by wave action, and that the land between the development and the coast was elevated.
Id.
at 472 (“[The Draft EIR] briefly noted that global warming could result in a rise in sea-level and the inundation of coastal areas. They stated that the ccc paper failed to account for the fact that the project site was two miles from the ocean and unlikely to be affected by wave action, failed to account for elevated land between the proj -
ect site and the coastline that would act as a barrier, and failed to account for the topography of the project site and building elevations.”).
32. Id.
at 474.
33. Id.;
Cal. Code Regs
. tit. 14, App. G (2019).
34. See e.g
.,
Pres. Poway v. City of Poway
, 245 Cal. App. 4th 560, 582 (2016).
31 2019
I
NCORPORATING
A
NAL
y
SIS
OF
S
EA
-L
EVEL
R
ISE
267
In
CBIA
, the California Supreme Court upheld the
rule against reverse-
CEQA, while also potentially opening the door to sea-level rise analysis requirements in certain instances. There, the air quality management district promulgated new thresholds of significance for certain air pollutants. The new thresholds would be standards against which lead agencies would compare the pollutants emitted by their projects for the purposes of CEQA analysis. The plaintiff petitioned for mandamus and argued that that the air district’s new thresholds were arbitrary and capricious because they required lead agencies to analyze the way that a project would affect future users. The court held that, “it is the project’s impact on the environment—and not the environment’s impact on the project—that compels an evaluation of how future residents or users could be affected by exacerbated conditions . . . In light of CEQA’s text and structure, we conclude that
CEQA generally does not require an analysis of
how existing environmental conditions will impact a project’s future users
or res
-
idents
.”
35 The court thereby held that reverse-CEQA analysis is not required.
Yet, because the facts in
CBIA
did not involve sea-level rise, the court did
not speak directly to whether sea-level rise fell within the reverse-CEQA para -
digm or into the court’s new exception. Whereas the court in Ballona Wetlands
invalidated Appendix G of the Guidelines to the extent that it violated the no reverse-CEQA rule, the court in
CBIA
qualified this wipeout with an excep
-
tion for developments that could exacerbate an already existing environmental hazard.
36 The court cited
Ballona Wetlands
when holding that reverse-CEQA
is not required in an EIR. However, regarding the exacerbation exception, the court noted that “the holding from
Ballona Wetlands
is not explicitly over
-
ruled,” but that it merely “considered factors that the court in Ballona Wetlands
did not.” On one hand, the court cited
Ballona Wetlands
to come to its main
conclusion, and on the other, it did not have the opportunity to decide whether sea-level rise should be analyzed or even fit into the paradigm.
1. Sea-Level Rise Analysis is Not Reverse-CEQA
Both
Ballona Wetlands
and
CBIA
condemn the use of reverse-CEQA
under the rationale that the purpose of CEQA is to forecast foreseeable sig -
nificant impacts of a project on the environment, not the other way around. 37 Unfortunately, both cases make the issue of sea-level rise analysis in EIRs more complicated than it needs to be, muddling the issue in a way that contradicts CEQAs explicit purpose of disclosure of environmental risks. Part III
argues
that CEQA’s purpose—protection of California’s environmental resources— is better realized when an EIR is used to analyze sea-level rise over time, and presents ways to analyze sea-level rise in and EIR.
35. Id.
(emphasis added).
36. Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n
, 62 Cal. 4th 369, 386 (2015).
3 7.
Id.
;
Ballona Wetlands
, 201 Cal. App. 4th at 474.
32 268
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
V37:2
Moving forward, there are two ways to incorporate sea-level rise analysis into EIRs under the current law in order to adequately fulfill CEQAs purpose as a public disclosure statute.
First, using the exception created by the California Supreme Court in CBIA
, an EIR could analyze sea-level rise on the basis that it is an existing envi -
ronmental hazard and a development could exacerbate its effects. Although the Court in
CBIA
stopped short of an explicit statement that sea-level rise is an environmental hazard that may fall into the exception, it is clear that such an exemption is warranted where a development contributes to coastal squeeze. Using this exception may lead to an entire section of an EIR which looks at whether and to what degree sea-level rise effects may be exacerbated by a development over its lifetime.
Second, avoiding the concept of reverse-CEQA altogether, an EIR could analyze the effect that a development could have on coastal resources listed in Appendix G as the sea rises over the lifetime of the project. While this solution ignores the precedent set by
Ballona Wetlands
,
this approach more adequately
accounts for the way that the built environment affects coastal resources via the phenomenon of coastal squeeze.
In these instances, the effects of sea-
level rise do not necessarily fall within the typical reverse-CEQA paradigm because a project in the way of sea-level rise, by impeding the dynamic coast -
line’s inland migration, will necessarily affect environmental resources. This approach would look at the resources listed in Appendix G and forecast how each one would be impacted by coastal squeeze.
Of course, this analysis would differ dependent on the coastal environment adjacent to or abutting the cited development. A development on land that is upland of undeveloped tidelands may impede migration of shoreline and cause coastal squeeze in the future. These developments may require an analysis of sea-level rise in their EIRs if the project is discretionary in order to evaluate the consequences of sea-level rise to cultural resources and coastal ecosystems.
Where a development is proposed on a coastline that is already developed, there may only be infrastructural consequences. In those areas, the coastal eco -
system and beaches have already been depleted. Thus, in such circumstances, CEQA’s requirement that a lead agency consider sea-level rise to protect resources may not apply to developed coastlines. Much of California’s recent boom in development has been concentrated in the San Francisco Peninsula. In this area, the environmental resources that an EIR would usually evaluate have already been depleted, so sea-level rise analysis in an EIR would be irrelevant.
III.
Incorporating Analysis of Sea-Level Rise Into EIRs
CEQA provides long-term protection for environmental resources by mandating that public agencies approving projects disclose the significant envi -
ronmental risks associated with those projects.
38 Further, agencies must either
38. Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§§ 21100, 21151 (mandating that lead agencies draft and 33 2019
I
NCORPORATING
A
NAL
y
SIS
OF
S
EA
-L
EVEL
R
ISE
269
mitigate risks that they determine are above a threshold of significance or explain why the impact is necessary to the public good.
39 The purpose of the EIR process
is to “[i]nform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential, significant environmental effects of proposed activities.” 40 The OPR Guidelines
acknowledge that this requires some degree of forecasting to determine future environmental risks and notes that “an agency must use its best efforts to find out and disclose all that it reasonably can” regarding future risks. 41 After determining that a project is subject to CEQA, the lead agency on a project must determine whether the project will have any significant effect on the environment.
42 If it determines that there is a significant effect, the lead agency must prepare a full EIR wherein all significant effects on the environ -
ment are analyzed and disclosed.
43 The purpose of an EIR “is to identify the
significant effects on the environment of a project, to identify alternatives to the project, and to indicate the manner in which those significant effects can be mitigated or avoided.”
44 This ensures that an EIR provides “decision makers
with information they can use in deciding whether to approve a proposed project.”
45 “An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences.” 46 According to these principles of interpretation, the EIR should be drafted to include as much information as possible about present and reasonably foresee -
able future environmental effects.
Despite these announced principles regarding the EIR process in gen -
eral, neither the text of CEQA nor the Office of Planning and Resources Guidelines for interpreting CEQA mandate analysis of sea-level rise in an EIR. This is not dispositive. The Legislature has made clear that an EIR is “an certify EIRs for discretionary state and private projects and setting forth what the EIR must include);
Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 14, § 15002(f) (“An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is the public document used by the governmental agency . . . . to disclose
possible ways to reduce or
avoid the possible environmental damage”) (emphasis added).
See also
Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§ 21065(a) (defining “project” as “an activity directly undertaken by any public agency.”); C
al. Pub. Res. Code
§ 21068 (defining “significant effect on the environment” as a “substan -
tial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment.”).
39. Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§ 21100.
40. Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 14, § 15002(a) (2019).
41. Id.
at § 15144.
42. See id
. at
Appendix A
(providing a flowchart of the CEQA process).
43. Id.
44. Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§ 21002.1(a). The Code also sets forth the purpose of an EIR:
“[t]he purpose . . . is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed infor -
mation about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment . . . ” .
Id.
at § 21061.
45. Laurel Heights Improvement Ass’n. of S.F. v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal., Cal. 3d 376, 394 (1988).
46. Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 14, § 15151 (2019) (detailing the “Standards for Adequacy of an EIR”).
34 270
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
V37:2
informational document” and that “[t]he purpose of an environmental impact report is to provide public agencies and the public in general with detailed information about the effect which a proposed project is likely to have on the environment; to list ways in which the significant effects of such a project might be minimized; and to indicate alternatives to such a project.” 47 In fact,
CEQA should be interpreted to effect the broadest protections possible on the environment.
48 A.
Analysis of Sea-level Rise Effects on Resources Listed in Appendix G of the OPR Guidelines
The primary effect that sea-level rise can have on the environment is coastal squeeze. When infrastructure is placed in the way of sea-level rise, it affects coastal retreat by interrupting the littoral cycle and depleting coastal resources. Our shoreline is dynamic—tons of sand move down the coast every day, placing buildings in the way of the rising sea as the coastline changes. Newly placed infrastructure prevents sand from moving down the coast, the accretion of beach land, and the shoreline from moving inland as a result of sea-level rise. 49 In an EIR, loss of beach may be evaluated under Appendix G as deple -
tion of mineral resources or loss of habitat.
50 More controversially, an EIR could
evaluate loss of beach as a depletion of public trust resources. In unpublished opinions, California Superior Courts have determined that an EIR must evalu -
ate sea-level rise and its effects where wetland migration is impeded by a project or where groundwater supply is at risk of contamination. 51 Although the collat
-
eral effects on these environmental resources are generally analyzed under other categories in Appendix G, a lead agency should follow the lead of the California courts and separately analyze sea-level rise over time with respect to the project in order to adequately disclose to the public and local government if and when beach migration or cliff erosion would be impeded by development.
1. Mineral Resources
Where a project includes an analysis of sea-level rise, that project will inher -
ently interfere with the littoral cycle and deplete the sand budget of a littoral cell. 4 7.
Cal. Pub. Res. Code
§ 21061 (West 2016).
See also
Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 14, § 15003
(b–e) (2019).
48. See, e.g.
, Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Cty. of San Bernardino, 247 Cal. App. 4th 326, 327 (2016) (“The foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act ‘to be interpreted in such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the envi -
ronment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.’”) (quoting Laurel Heights
Improvement Ass’n
, 47 Cal. 3d at 394).
49. See
generally,
P atsch & Griggs
,
supra
note 23.
50. Cal. Code Regs
. tit. 14, App. G (2019).
51. E.g.
, Sierra Club v. City of Oxnard, No. 56201100401161, 2012 WL 7659201 (Cal.
Super. Oct. 15, 2012). This decision is not binding. However, the court’s approach to sea- level rise and CEQA is more logical and persuasive than the court’s approach in Ballona
Wetlands
.
35 2019
I
NCORPORATING
A
NAL
y
SIS
OF
S
EA
-L
EVEL
R
ISE
271
Appendix G of the OPR Guidelines requires that a lead agency analyze the project’s significant impacts on mineral resources.
52 An analysis of sea-level rise
over time near a project should be conducted to determine whether, or approxi -
mately when, the project could interfere with the sand budget. 53 Coastal squeeze is caused by developing too close to the shoreline, com -
bined with movement inland of beach. This results in loss of beach through erosion and lack of sand supply:
The coastline of California can be divided into a set of distinct, self-contained littoral cells or beach compartments. These compartments are geographi -
cally limited, and consist of a series of sand sources (such as rivers, streams, and eroding coastal bluffs) that provide sand to the shoreline, sand sinks (such as coastal dunes and submarine canyons) where sand is lost from the shoreline, and longshore transport or littoral drift that moves sand along the shoreline . . . Beach sand moves on and offshore seasonally in response to changing wave energy, and also moves alongshore, driven by waves that usually approach the beach at some angle. Most beach sand along the coast of California is transported from north to south as a result of the dominant waves approaching the shoreline from the northwest, although alongshore transport to the north occurs in some locations and at certain times of the year in response to waves from the south . . . It is the balance between the volumes of sand entering and leaving a littoral cell over the long-term that govern the long-term width of the beaches within the cell.
Where sand supplies have been reduced through the construction of dams or debris basins in coastal watersheds, through armoring the sea cliffs, by mining sand or restricting littoral transport through large coastal engineer -
ing structures, the beaches may temporarily or permanently narrow. 54 Essentially, where bluffs and beaches are armored by seawalls or the development itself, the sand budget of a littoral cell is depleted. A lead agency may be required to analyze this environmental effect through the traditional resource categories in Appendix G. However, when development begins, the project’s interaction with sea-level rise may not be immediately appar -
ent. Therefore, the lead agency should analyze whether the project will, at any point during its lifetime, interact with sea-level rise.
Although the lead agency in
Ballona Wetlands
was correct to notice that
the project was two miles out from the coast, sea-level rise analysis could have
52. Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 14, App. G, § XI (2016) (“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?”).
53. See
The Public Trust Doctrine: A Guiding Principle for Governing California’s Coast Under Climate Change
,
Ctr. for Ocean Sols.
2 (2017), https://oceansolutions.stan
-
ford.edu/news-stories/public-trust-doctrine-guiding-principle-governing-californias-coast-
under-climate [https://perma.cc/QFW6-JP5H] (“California’s policy makers, coastal manag -
ers, and communities increasingly recognize that the inevitable collision of sea-level rise with certain coastal development trends—what some have termed ‘coastal squeeze’—threatens California’s Coast”).
54. P atsch & Griggs
,
supra
note 23, at 7 .
36 272
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
V37:2
been used to determine and ensure that the project would never, within its life -
time, interfere with a sand source. The ever-increasing rate of sea-level rise necessitates this type of analysis to protect mineral resources even where proj -
ects may not initially appear to be a risk to coastal resources.
2. Biological Resources
Where coastal development combines with sea-level rise to result in “coastal squeeze,” there will be a substantial reduction in habitat for wildlife species dependent upon the tidal biome. Appendix G requires assessment of impacts on wildlife and habitat that has already been designated as endan -
gered or sensitive in a section labeled “Biological Resources.” 55 The Appendix
also includes a catchall category at the end labeled “Mandatory Findings of Significance” wherein the lead agency must determine whether “the project ha[s] the potential to . . . 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 of animal community . . . ” 56 If the project, over
its lifetime, results in coastal squeeze, there would be a significant impact on the resources identified in this subsection of the Appendix.
3. The Public Trust
California has an affirmative and continuing duty to exercise supervision over public trust resources.
57 The public trust doctrine itself is a common law
principle that reaffirms “the duty of the state to protect the people’s common heritage of streams, lakes, marshlands and tidelands, surrendering that right of protection only in rare cases.”
58 When a development could contribute to
coastal squeeze by inhibiting shoreline migration or interrupting the littoral cycle, the development could interfere with the public’s right to use the land seaward of the mean high-tide line.
59 Although case law makes clear that the
public trust doctrine obligates the state to protect tidelands independent of CEQA, it is unclear whether compliance with the public trust doctrine must be analyzed in an EIR, or otherwise accounted for in the CEQA review process.
The purpose and structure of CEQA suggest that it is an ideal tool through which to obligate the government to consider the public trust doctrine in relation to a project. Accordingly, it would serve the needs of the people to streamline public trust review into CEQA review by adding consideration of the public trust to Appendix G of the guidelines.
55. See
Cal. Code Regs.
tit. 14, App. G, § IV (2010).
56. Id
. at § XXI.
5 7.
See
Nat’l Audubon Soc’y v. Super. Ct., 33 Cal. 3d 419, 425 (1983) (“The core of the public trust doctrine is the state’s authority as sovereign to exercise a continuous supervision and control over the navigable waters of the state and the lands underlying those waters”).
58. Id.
at 441.
59. Ctr. For Ocean Sols.
,
supra
note 7 , at 3.
37 2019
I
NCORPORATING
A
NAL
y
SIS
OF
S
EA
-L
EVEL
R
ISE
273
In
Marks v. Whitney
, the Supreme Court held that the public trust doc
-
trine applies to tidelands—land seaward of the mean high tide. 60 Further, the
Court held that the state could consider the importance of recreational uses and conservation, such that the trust need not only exist in the traditional con -
text of fishing and navigation.
61 In fact, the very origins of the public trust
doctrine in Roman law beg protection of the shores for the enjoyment of the people.
62 Where a development could interfere with the use of a tideland for recreation and conservation of marine ecosystems, it might also interfere with resources protected by the public trust. Thus, the State has an obligation to protect those uses.
Since courts have construed CEQA to require analysis of effects on the environment, it is uncertain whether a lead agency must consider the public trust when certifying an EIR. Usually, an action for the state to consider a public trust resource is brought via an independent cause of action where plaintiffs seek injunctive relief. An allegedly deficient EIR is challenged via a petition for writ of mandate.
63 Neither precedent nor the OPR Guidelines con
-
firm that a plaintiff could file a writ of mandamus specifically alleging that an EIR is deficient for failing to consider the public trust, rather than separately alleging that the state has not considered the public trust. On one hand, the purposes and disclosure mechanisms of CEQA make it a great vehicle through which to confirm that a lead agency (as a conduit for the state) has sufficiently considered the public trust. On the other hand, the court in CBIA
made
clear that CEQA must analyze a project’s effects on the environment, and it eschewed expansions of CEQA to protect entities that are not environmental resources.
64 The public trust doctrine, despite effectively protecting environ -
mental resources, is meant to protect public
uses
of certain protected resources.
CEQA, however, usually mandates disclosure of impacts on physical
environ
-
mental resources. Although the public trust doctrine is often litigated to meet an environmentally conscious end,
65 the legal principle remains grounded in
common law property rights as a way to prioritize uses of property to prevent nuisance and collective action problems.
66 In
S.F. Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Commission
, the First Appellate Dis
-
trict held that an EIR regarding sand mining leases in the San Francisco Bay was
60. Marks v. Whitney, 6 Cal. 3d 251, 257 (1971);
see also
Nat’l Audubon Soc’y
, 33 Cal.
3d at 425.
61. Marks
, 6 Cal. 3d at 257
.
62. Caesar Flavius Justinian, The Institutes of Justinian, 2.1.1 (J.B. Moyle trans.,
5th ed. 1913) (“Thus, the following things are by natural law common to all—the air, running water, the sea, and consequently the seashore. No one therefore is forbidden access to the seashore . . . .”).
63. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code
§ 1085 (West);
See also
CEQA: A Summary, Cal. Civ. Prac.
Environmental Litigation Ch. 8 Summary).
64. Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n
, 62 Cal. 4th at 386.
65. See e.g.
,
Marks
, 6 Cal. 3d at 257 .
66. See
Garrett Hardin,
The Tragedy of the Commons
, 162
Science
1243 (1968)
38 274
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
V37:2
inadequate because it failed to consider the public trust doctrine. 67 Rather than
arguing that analysis of a project’s effects on public trust resources is not required in an EIR, the State Lands Commission argued that “CEQA review eliminates the obligation to consider whether a project violates the public trust.” 68 The court
was unclear as to whether this evaluation of public trust resources needed to occur
in the EIR
, but it did make clear that an evaluation of the public trust doc -
trine by the State was required and could not be displaced by CEQA review. 69 The
S.F. Baykeeper
court relied on its prior decision in
Citizens for East
Shore Parks v. State Lands Commission
to reach its conclusion.
70 There, the
court held that consideration of the public trust doctrine through CEQA review was
sufficient
consideration of public trust needs, but not
necessary
.
71 Nonetheless, the holding acknowledges that CEQA accepts the public trust doctrine into its legal framework.
Although CEQA requires analysis of significant impacts on the environ -
ment in an EIR, the public trust doctrine as a concept of the common law is not necessarily equivalent to “the environment.” However, compliance with the public trust doctrine necessarily implicates the protection of resources listed under the definition of “environment.” Development on the coastline will result in the eventual depletion of a resource held in trust by the state for the people. This occurs in two different ways.
72 First, the proposed project could
interfere with an up-current sand source.
73 Second, the proposed develop
-
ment, or armoring thereof, could interfere with the inward migration of beach (“impoundment”).
74 Armoring of a bluff or beach to protect the development can affect the size of the beach through placement of the armoring (“place -
ment loss”).
75 Coastal structures can also interfere directly with beach access.
Although some of these interferences would also affect mineral resources, they all implicate public trust resources.
Loss of beach necessarily has detrimental effects on other environmental resources, but the beach, which is seaward of the mean high tide, is protected 6 7.
S.F. Baykeeper, Inc. v. State Lands Com., 242 Cal. App. 4th 202, 242–43 (2015).
68. Id.
at 235.
69. Id.
70. See
Citizens for E. Shore Parks v. State Lands Com., 202 Cal. App. 4th 549 (2011) (“Plaintiffs have cited no case, and we are aware of none, that suggests that where no change is being made to a public trust use and there has been compliance with CEQA, the public trust doctrine independently imposes an additional impact analysis requirement and requires the consideration of additional project alternatives and mitigation measures in connection with other public trust uses.”).
71. Id.
72. Gary B. Griggs,
The Effects of Armoring Shorelines—The California Experience ,
in
Puget Sound Shorelines and the Impacts of Armoring—Proceedings of a State of the Science Workshop, May 2009
77 , 80 (Hugh Shipman et al. ed., 2009).
73. Id.
74. Id.
75. Id.
39 2019
I
NCORPORATING
A
NAL
y
SIS
OF
S
EA
-L
EVEL
R
ISE
275
by the public trust doctrine. In this context, the public trust doctrine states that the state of California holds the navigable waters and the lands underlying those waters in trust for the people of the state.
76 Therefore, the state is obli
-
gated to protect these resources and to consider them in its decisionmaking.
What remains undetermined, however, is whether a lead agency must consider the public trust in a CEQA determination.
While case law is inconclusive about the interaction between CEQA and the public trust doctrine, streamlining review of the public trust by combining it with CEQA review would serve both efficiency and the CEQA principle of full disclosure. Further, the relationship between the public trust uses and the availability of natural resources is too intertwined to argue that review of the public trust is not required as part of a CEQA determination.
4. The
Sierra Club v. City of Oxnard
Approach
Some lower courts have reasoned that sea-level rise analysis in an EIR is required only where it will affect more tangible environmental resources so that courts can avoid considering the public trust. For example, the Orange County Superior Court held that analysis of sea-level rise was required where the development might affect the inland migration of wetlands. 77 There, the
lead agency (the City of Oxnard) certified a final EIR for a mixed-use devel -
opment that would require an amendment to the City’s general and specific plan.
78 That development was located 3.4 miles inland of a wetland area, where a wetland restoration plan would be completed in the future by the state coastal conservancy.
79 The City addressed sea-level rise in the FEIR only to the extent necessary to dismiss public comments, and declined to analyze the effects of sea-level rise fully.
80 Although the EIR noted that the sea-level would rise 1.6–
6.6 feet in the next hundred years, the EIR did not map or analyze sea-level rise because it would not be possible to determine what the effect of the proj -
ects on the uncompleted wetlands preservation plan could be. 81 The court relied on three main arguments for holding that sea-level rise analysis was required in this narrow situation.
82 First, the court argued that
sea-level rise analysis in this instance was not reverse-CEQA because sea- level rise would have direct effects on environmental resources. Second, the court argued that sea-level rise should be analyzed so that an EIR may disclose to the public the effects on these resources (in this case, wetlands) over time.
The court recognized that “the research [on sea-level rise] all points in the
76. Marks
, 6 Cal. 3d 251 (1971).
7 7.
Sierra Club v. City of Oxnard, No. 56201100401161, 2012 WL 7659201, 50–51 (Cal.
Super. Oct. 15, 2012).
78. Id
.
79. Id.
at 13.
80. Id.
at 14.
81. Id
.
82. Id.
at 47–50.
40 276
JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
V37:2
same direction, and that direction is the creation of a new paradigm in CEQA coastal land use analysis.”
83 The court further held that an EIR needs to con
-
sider not only the project’s immediate effect upon adjacent coastal wetlands but the projected long-term effect upon expected coastal wetlands migration over the projects life.
84 Deferring analysis of sea-level rise would be deferred mitigation, and that the public has a right to know about wetland migration with respect to the project.
85 Third, the court held both that the reverse-CEQA
paradigm did not fit this situation, as it involved the significant effects of the project on the environment.
86 The court did, however, note that if the case
were inserted into that paradigm at all, it would fit an exception to the gen -
eral rule: “Beyond the ultimate loss of coastal wetlands, as the coastal wetland moves inland toward the [project], the previously studied effects of the [proj -
ect] upon those wetlands will likely be exacerbated.”
87 The court’s approach may also be applied where sea-level rise could cause a development to impact on environmental resources. In Sierra Club v.
Oxnard
, a wetland was at issue, but there are other environmental resources that would be similarly affected when a project is in the way of sea-level rise.
For instance, where a project falls below mean high tide or comes into the path of a 100-year storm, there could be significant effects on the environmental resources listed in OPR ’s Appendix G. Analysis of sea-level rise in an EIR is a way for a lead agency to disclose to public officials and citizens exactly when the project will come into contact with the mean high tide line, and how likely that is to occur within the project’s lifetime. The court in Sierra Club v. Oxnard
applied this holding to assert that sea-level rise analysis should be conducted to determine the project’s
expected
impact on
future
wetland migration. This
same rationale could be applied to protect other resources in natural habitats on the coastline such as mineral resources, biological resources, and resources protected by the public trust doctrine.
Conclusion
In order to adequately forecast a development’s environmental impacts, an EIR should evaluate whether the development will impede the inland migration of shoreline caused by sea-level rise. Where a development impedes shoreline migration, there will be onerous burdens on protected environmental resources.
Local governments have regulatory tools aside from CEQA that they can use to affect positive coastal land use planning that considers accurate estimates of sea- level rise. More specifically, where an EIR is required for a discretionary project, CEQA becomes a unique tool for uniform disclosure of risk.
83. Sierra Club
, 2012 WL 7659201, at 47 .
84. Id.
85. Id.
at 49–50.
86. Id.
8 7.
Id.
41 A
s diurnal creatures, humans have long sought
methods to illuminate the night. In pre-industrial
times, artificial light was generated by burning various materials, including wood, oil, and even dried fish.
While these methods of lighting certainly influenced
animal behavior and ecology locally, such effects were
limited. The relatively recent invention and rapid prolif- eration of electric lights, however, have transformed the nighttime environment over substantial portions of the
Earth’s surface.
Ecologists have not entirely ignored the potential dis- ruption of ecological systems by artificial night lighting.
Several authors have written reviews of the potential
effects on ecosystems or taxonomic groups, published in the “gray” literature (Health Council of the Netherlands 2000; Hill 1990), conference proceedings (Outen 2002;
Schmiedel 2001), and journal articles (Frank 1988;
Verheijen 1985; Salmon 2003). This review attempts to
integrate the literature on the topic, and draws on a con- ference organized by the authors in 2002 titled
Ecological
Consequences of Artificial Night Lighting.
We identify the
roles that artificial night lighting plays in changing eco- logical interactions across taxa, as opposed to reviewing these effects by taxonomic group. We first discuss the scale and extent of ecological light pollution and its relation- ship to astronomical light pollution, as well as the mea- surement of light for ecological research. We then address the recorded and potential influences of artificial night lighting within the nested hierarchy of behavioral and
population ecology, community ecology, and ecosystem
ecology. While this hierarchy is somewhat artificial and certainly mutable, it illustrates the breadth of potential consequences of ecological light pollution. The important effects of light on the physiology of organisms (see Health Council of the Netherlands 2000) are not discussed here. /square6
Astronomical and ecological light pollution: scale
and extent
The term “light pollution” has been in use for a number of years, but in most circumstances refers to the degrada- tion of human views of the night sky. We want to clarify that this is “astronomical light pollution”, where stars and other celestial bodies are washed out by light that is
either directed or reflected upward. This is a broad-scale phenomenon, with hundreds of thousands of light sources cumulatively contributing to increased nighttime illumi- nation of the sky; the light reflected back from the sky is called “sky glow” (Figure 1). We describe artificial light that alters the natural patterns of light and dark in ecosys- tems as “ecological light pollution”. Verheijen (1985)
proposed the term “photopollution” to mean “artificial
light having adverse effects on wildlife”. Because pho- topollution literally means “light pollution” and because light pollution is so widely understood today to describe the degradation of the view of the night sky and the
human experience of the night, we believe that a more
descriptive term is now necessary. Ecological light pollu- tion includes direct glare, chronically increased illumina- 191
© The Ecological Society of America
www.frontiersinecology.org
REVIEWS
REVIEWS
REVIEWS
Ecological light pollution
Travis Longcore and Catherine Rich
Ecologists have long studied the critical role of natural light in regulating species interactions, but, with limited exceptions, have not investigated the consequences of artificial night lighting. In the past century, the extent and intensity of artificial night lighting has increased such that it has substantial effects on the biology and ecology of species in the wild. We distinguish “astronomical light pollution”, which obscures the view of the night sky, from “ecological light pollution”, which alters natural light regimes in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Some of the catastrophic consequences of light for certain taxonomic groups are well known, such as the deaths of migratory birds around tall lighted structures, and those of hatchling sea turtles disoriented by lights on their natal beaches. The more subtle influences of artificial night lighting on the behavior and community ecology of species are less well recognized, and constitute a new focus for research in ecology and a pressing conservation challenge.
Front Ecol Environ
2004; 2(4): 191–198
The Urban Wildlands Group, PO Box 24020, Los Angeles, CA 90024-0020 ([email protected])
In a nutshell:
•
Ecological light pollution includes chronic or periodically increased illumination, unexpected changes in illumination, and direct glare
•
Animals can experience increased orientation or disorienta- tion from additional illumination and are attracted to or repulsed by glare, which affects foraging, reproduction, commu- nication, and other critical behaviors
•
Artificial light disrupts interspecific interactions evolved in natural patterns of light and dark, with serious implications for community ecology
42 Ecological light pollution T Longcore and C Rich
tion, and temporary, unexpected fluctuations in light-
ing. Sources of ecological light pollution include sky
glow, lighted buildings and towers, streetlights, fishing boats, security lights, lights on vehicles, flares on off- shore oil platforms, and even lights on undersea
research vessels, all of which can disrupt ecosystems to varying degrees. The phenomenon therefore involves
potential effects across a range of spatial and temporal scales.
The extent of ecological light pollution is global
(Elvidge
et al
. 1997; Figure 2). The first atlas of artificial
night sky brightness illustrates that astronomical light pollution extends to every inhabited continent (Cinzano et al
. 2001). Cinzano
et al
. (2001) calculate that only
40% of Americans live where it becomes sufficiently
dark at night for the human eye to make a complete
transition from cone to rod vision and that 18.7% of the terrestrial surface of the Earth is exposed to night sky brightness that is polluted by astronomical standards.
Ecosystems may be affected by these levels of illumina- tion and lights that do not contribute to sky glow may
still have ecological consequences, ensuring that ecolog- ical light pollution afflicts an even greater proportion of the Earth. Lighted fishing fleets, offshore oil platforms, and cruise ships bring the disruption of artificial night lighting to the world’s oceans.
The tropics may be especially sensitive to alterations in natural diel (ie over a 24-hour period) patterns of light and dark because of the year-round constancy of daily
cycles (Gliwicz 1999). A shortened or brighter night is more likely to affect tropical species adapted to diel pat- terns with minimal seasonal variation than extratropical species adapted to substantial seasonal variation. Of
course, temperate and polar zone species active only dur- ing a portion of the year would be excluded from this gen- eralization. Species in temperate zones will
also be susceptible to disruptions if they
depend on seasonal day length cues to trigger
critical behaviors.
/square6
Measurements and units
Measurement of ecological light pollution
often involves determination of illumination
at a given place. Illumination is the amount
of light incident per unit area – not the only
measurement relevant to ecological light pol-
lution, but the most common. Light varies in
intensity (the number of photons per unit
area) and spectral content (expressed by
wavelength). Ideally, ecologists should mea-
sure illumination in photons per square meter
per second with associated measurements of
the wavelengths of light present. More often,
illumination is measured in lux (or footcan-
dles, the non-SI unit), which expresses the
brightness of light as perceived by the human
eye. The lux measurement places more emphasis on
wavelengths of light that the human eye detects best and less on those that humans perceive poorly. Because other organisms perceive light differently – including wave-
lengths not visible to humans – future research on ecolog- ical light pollution should identify these responses and measure light accordingly. For example, Gal
et al
. (1999)
calculated the response curve of mysid shrimp to light
and reported illumination in lux adjusted for the spectral sensitivity of the species.
Ecologists are faced with a practical difficulty when
communicating information about light conditions. Lux
is the standard used by nearly all lighting designers, light- ing engineers, and environmental regulators; communi-
cation with them requires reporting in this unit. Yet the use of lux ignores biologically relevant information. High- pressure sodium lights, for instance, will attract moths because of the presence of ultraviolet wavelengths, while low-pressure sodium lights of the same intensity, but not producing ultraviolet light, will not (Rydell 1992).
Nevertheless, we use lux here, both because of the need to communicate with applied professionals, and because
of its current and past widespread usage. As this research field develops, however, measurements of radiation and
spectrum relevant to the organisms in question should be used, even though lux will probably continue to be the
preferred unit for communication with professionals in
other disciplines.
Ecologists also measure aspects of the light environ-
ment other than absolute illumination levels. A sudden
change in illumination is disruptive for some species
(Buchanan 1993), so percent change in illumination,
rate, or similar measures may be relevant. Ecologists may also measure luminance (ie brightness) of light sources that are visible to organisms.
192
www.frontiersinecology.org
©
The Ecological Society of America
Figure 1.
Diagram of ecological and astronomical light pollution.
Astronomical light pollution reduces the
number of visible stars
Unshielded lights can cause both
astronomical and ecological light
pollution
Tall, lighted structures
are collision hazards
Shielded lights
reduce astronomical
light pollution but
may still cause
ecological light
pollution
Sky glow from cities
disrupts distant
ecosystems
43 T Longcore and C Rich Ecological light pollution
/square6
Behavioral and population ecology
Ecological light pollution has demonstrable effects on the behavioral and population ecology of organisms in natural settings. As a whole, these effects derive from changes in ori- entation, disorientation, or misorientation, and attraction or repulsion from the altered light environment, which in turn may affect foraging, reproduction, migration, and communi- cation.
Orientation/disorientation and attraction/repulsion
Orientation and disorientation are responses to ambient illumination (ie the amount of light incident on objects in an environment). In contrast, attraction and repulsion
occur in response to the light sources themselves and are therefore responses to luminance or the brightness of the source of light (Health Council of the Netherlands 2000).
Increased illumination may extend diurnal or crepuscular behaviors into the nighttime environment by improving an animal’s ability to orient itself. Many usually diurnal birds (Hill 1990) and reptiles (Schwartz and Henderson 1991), for example, forage under artificial lights. This has been termed the “night light niche” for reptiles and seems benefi- cial for those species that can exploit it, but not for their prey (Schwartz and Henderson 1991).
In addition to foraging, orientation under artificial illumi- nation may induce other behaviors, such as territorial
singing in birds (Bergen and Abs 1997). For the northern mockingbird (
Mimus polyglottos
), males sing at night before
mating, but once mated only sing at night in artificially lighted areas (Derrickson 1988) or during the full moon.
The effect of these light-induced behaviors on fitness is unknown.
Constant artificial night lighting may also disorient
organisms accustomed to navigating in a dark environment.
The best-known example of this is the disorientation of hatchling sea turtles emerging from nests on sandy beaches.
Under normal circumstances, hatchlings move away from
low, dark silhouettes (historically, those of dune vegeta- tion), allowing them to crawl quickly to the ocean. With beachfront lighting, the silhouettes that would have cued movement are no longer perceived, resulting in disorienta- tion (Salmon
et al
. 1995). Lighting also affects the egg-lay-
ing behavior of female sea turtles. (For reviews of effects on sea turtles, see Salmon 2003 and Witherington 1997).
Changes in light level may disrupt orientation in noctur- nal animals. The range of anatomical adaptations to allow night vision is broad (Park 1940), and rapid increases in light can blind animals. For frogs, a quick increase in illumi- nation causes a reduction in visual capability from which the recovery time may be minutes to hours (Buchanan
1993). After becoming adjusted to a light, frogs may be attracted to it as well (Jaeger and Hailman 1973; Figure 3).
Birds can be disoriented and entrapped by lights at night (Ogden 1996). Once a bird is within a lighted zone at
night, it may become “trapped” and will not leave the
lighted area. Large numbers of nocturnally migrating birds are therefore affected when meteorological conditions
bring them close to lights, for instance, during inclement weather or late at night when they tend to fly lower.
193
© The Ecological Society of America
www.frontiersinecology.org
Figure 2.
Distribution of artificial lights visible from space. Produced using cloud-free portions of low-light imaging data acquired by the US Air Force Defense Meteorological Satellite Program Operational Linescan System. Four types of lights are identified: (1) human settlements – cities, towns, and villages (white), (2) fires – defined as ephemeral lights on land (red), (3) gas flares (green),
and (4) heavily lit fishing boats (blue). See Elvidge
et al.
(2001) for details. Image, data processing, and descriptive text by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Geophysical Data Center. 44 Ecological light pollution T Longcore and C Rich
Within the sphere of lights, birds may collide with each other or a structure, become exhausted, or be taken by
predators. Birds that are waylaid by buildings in urban areas at night often die in collisions with windows as they try to escape during the day. Artificial lighting has
attracted birds to smokestacks, lighthouses (Squires and Hanson 1918), broadcast towers
(Ogden 1996), boats (Dick and
Donaldson 1978), greenhouses, oil
platforms (Wiese
et al.
2001), and
other structures at night, resulting
in direct mortality, and thus inter-
fering with migration routes.
Many groups of insects, of which
moths are one well-known example
(Frank 1988), are attracted to
lights. Other taxa showing the
same attraction include lacewings,
beetles, bugs, caddisflies, crane flies,
midges, hoverflies, wasps, and bush
crickets (Eisenbeis and Hassel
2000; Kolligs 2000; Figure 4).
Attraction depends on the spec-
trum of light – insect collectors use
ultraviolet light because of its
attractive qualities – and the char-
acteristics of other lights in the
vicinity.
Nonflying arthropods vary in their reaction to lights.
Some nocturnal spiders are negatively phototactic (ie
repelled by light), whereas others will exploit light if avail- able (Nakamura and Yamashita 1997). Some insects are
always positively phototactic as an adaptive behavior and others always photonegative (Summers 1997). In arthro-
pods, these responses may also be influenced by the frequent correlations between light, humidity, and temperature.
Natural resource managers can exploit the responses of
animals to lights. Lights are sometimes used to attract fish to ladders, allowing them to bypass dams and power plants (Haymes
et al
. 1984). Similarly, lights can attract larval
fish to coral reefs (Munday
et al
. 1998). In the terrestrial
realm, dispersing mountain lions avoid lighted areas to such a degree that Beier (1995) suggests installing lights to deter them from entering habitats dead-ending in areas
where humans live.
Reproduction
Reproductive behaviors may be altered by artificial night lighting. Female
Physalaemus pustulosus
frogs, for exam-
ple, are less selective about mate choice when light levels are increased, presumably preferring to mate quickly and avoid the increased predation risk of mating activity
(Rand
et al
. 1997). Night lighting may also inhibit
amphibian movement to and from breeding areas by stim-
ulating phototactic behavior. Bryant Buchanan (pers
comm) reports that frogs in an experimental enclosure
stopped mating activity during night football games,
when lights from a nearby stadium increased sky glow.
Mating choruses resumed only when the enclosure was
covered to shield the frogs from the light.
In birds, some evidence suggests that artificial night
lighting affects the choice of nest site. De Molenaar
et al.
194
www.frontiersinecology.org
©
The Ecological Society of America
Figure 4.
Thousands of mayflies carpet the ground around a security light at Millecoquins Point in Naubinway on the Upper Peninsula of Michigan.
Courtesy of PJ DeVries
Figure 3.
Attraction of frogs to a candle set out on a small raft.
Illustration by Charles Copeland of an experiment in northern Maine or Canada described by William J Long (1901). Twelve or fifteen bullfrogs (
Rana catesbeiana
) climbed on to the small
raft before it flipped over.
45 T Longcore and C Rich Ecological light pollution
(
2000) investigated the effects of roadway
lighting on black-tailed godwits (
Limosa l.
limosa
) in wet grassland habitats. Breeding
densities of godwits were recorded over 2
years, comparing lighted and unlighted con-
ditions near a roadway and near light poles
installed in a wet grassland away from the
road influence. When all other habitat fac-
tors were taken into account, the density of
nests was slightly but statistically lower up to
300 m away from the lighting at roadway and
control sites. The researchers also noted that
birds nesting earlier in the year chose sites
farther away from the lighting, while those
nesting later filled in sites closer to the lights.
Communication
Visual communication within and between
species may be influenced by artificial night
lighting. Some species use light to communi-
cate, and are therefore especially susceptible
to disruption. Female glow-worms attract males up to
45 m away with bioluminescent flashes; the presence of
artificial lighting reduces the visibility of these communi- cations. Similarly, the complex visual communication
system of fireflies could be impaired by stray light (Lloyd 1994).
Artificial night lighting could also alter communication patterns as a secondary effect. Coyotes (
Canis latrans
)
group howl and group yip-howl more during the new
moon, when it is darkest. Communication is necessary
either to reduce trespassing from other packs, or to assem- ble packs to hunt larger prey during dark conditions
(Bender
et al
. 1996). Sky glow could increase ambient illu-
mination to eliminate this pattern in affected areas.
Because of the central role of vision in orientation and behavior of most animals, it is not surprising that artificial lighting alters behavior. This causes an immediate conser- vation concern for some species, while for other species the influence may seem to be positive. Such “positive”
effects, however, may have negative consequences within the context of community ecology.
/square6
Community ecology
The behaviors exhibited by individual animals in
response to ambient illumination (orientation, disorien- tation) and to luminance (attraction, repulsion) influ- ence community interactions, of which competition and
predation are examples.
Competition
Artificial night lighting could disrupt the interactions of groups of species that show resource partitioning across illumination gradients. For example, in natural commu-
nities, some foraging times are partitioned among species that prefer different levels of lighting. The squirrel
treefrog (
Hyla squirrela
) is able to orient and forage at
lighting levels as low as 10
-
5 lux and under natural condi-
tions typically will stop foraging at illuminations above 10 -
3 lux (Buchanan 1998). The western toad (
Bufo
boreas
) forages only at illuminations between 10
-
1 and 10
-
5 lux, while the tailed frog (
Ascaphus truei
) forages only
during the darkest part of the night at below 10
-
5 lux
(Hailman 1984). While these three species are not neces- sarily sympatric (ie inhabiting the same area), and differ in other niche dimensions, they illustrate the division of the light gradient by foragers.
Many bat species are attracted to insects that congre-
gate around light sources (Frank 1988). Although it
may seem that this is a positive effect, the increased
food concentration benefits only those species that
exploit light sources and could therefore result in
altered community structure. Faster-flying species of
bats congregate around lights to feed on insects, but
other, slower-flying species avoid lights (Blake
et al
.
1994; Rydell and Baagøe 1996).
Changes in competitive communities occur as diurnal
species move into the “night light niche” (Schwartz and Henderson 1991). This concept, as originally described, applies to reptiles, but easily extends to other taxa, such as spiders (Frank pers comm) and birds (Hill 1990; Figure 5).
Predation
Although it may seem beneficial for diurnal species to be able to forage longer under artificial lights, any gains from increased activity time can be offset by increased preda- tion risk (Gotthard 2000). The balance between gains
from extended foraging time and risk of increased preda- 195
© The Ecological Society of America
www.frontiersinecology.org
Figure 5.
Crowned hornbill (
Tockus alboterminatus
) hawking insects at a
light at the Kibale Forest National Park, Uganda.
Courtesy of PJ DeVries
46 Ecological light pollution T Longcore and C Rich
tion is a central topic for research on small mammals, rep- tiles, and birds (Kotler 1984; Lima 1998). Small rodents forage less at high illumination levels (Lima 1998), a ten- dency also exhibited by some lagomorphs (Gilbert and
Boutin 1991), marsupials (Laferrier 1997), snakes
(Klauber 1939), bats (Rydell 1992), fish (Gibson 1978), aquatic invertebrates (Moore
et al
. 2000), and other taxa.
Unexpected changes in light conditions may disrupt
predator–prey relationships. Gliwicz (1986, 1999) des-
cribes high predation by fish on zooplankton during nights when the full moon rose hours after sunset. Zooplankton had migrated to the surface to forage under cover of dark- ness, only to be illuminated by the rising moon and sub- jected to intense predation. This “lunar light trap”
(Gliwicz 1986) illustrates a natural occurrence, but unex- pected illumination from human sources could disrupt
predator–prey interactions in a similar manner, often to the benefit of the predator.
Available research shows that artificial night lighting disrupts predator–prey relationships, which is consistent with the documented importance of natural light regimes in mediating such interactions. In one example, harbor
seals (
Phoca vitulina
) congregated under artificial lights to
eat juvenile salmonids as they migrated downstream; turn- ing the lights off reduced predation levels (Yurk and Trites 2000). Nighttime illumination at urban crow roosts was
higher than at control sites, presumably because this helps the crows avoid predation from owls (Gorenzel and
Salmon 1995). Desert rodents reduced foraging activity
when exposed to the light of a single camp lantern (Kotler 1984). Frank (1988) reviews predation by bats, birds,
skunks, toads, and spiders on moths attracted to artificial lights. Mercury vapor lights, in particular, disrupt the interaction between bats and tympanate moths by inter-
fering with moth detection of ultrasonic chirps used by bats in echolocation, leaving moths unable to take their normal evasive action (Svensson and Rydell 1998).
From these examples, it follows that community struc-
ture will be altered where light affects interspecific inter- actions. A “perpetual full moon” from artificial lights will favor light-tolerant species and exclude others. If the dark- est natural conditions never occur, those species that max- imize foraging during the new moon could eventually be
compromised, at risk of failing to meet monthly energy
budgets. The resulting community structure would be sim- plified, and these changes could in turn affect ecosystem characteristics.
/square6
Ecosystem effects
The cumulative effects of behavioral changes induced by artificial night lighting on competition and predation
have the potential to disrupt key ecosystem functions.
The spillover effects from ecological light pollution on aquatic invertebrates illustrates this point. Many aquatic invertebrates, such as zooplankton, move up and down
within the water column during a 24-hour period, in a
behavior known as “diel vertical migration”. Diel vertical migration presumably results from a need to avoid preda- tion during lighted conditions, so many zooplankton for- age near water surfaces only during dark conditions
(Gliwicz 1986). Light dimmer than that of a half moon
(<10
-
1 lux) is sufficient to influence the vertical distribu- tion of some aquatic invertebrates, and indeed patterns of diel vertical migration change with the lunar cycle
(Dodson 1990).
Moore
et al
. (2000) documented the effect of artificial
light on the diel migration of the zooplankton
Daphnia
in
the wild. Artificial illumination decreased the magnitude of diel migrations, both in the range of vertical movement and the number of individuals migrating. The researchers hypothesize that this disruption of diel vertical migration may have substantial detrimental effects on ecosystem
health. With fewer zooplankton migrating to the surface to graze, algae populations may increase. Such algal
blooms would then have a series of adverse effects on
water quality (Moore
et al
. 2000).
The reverberating effects of community changes caused
by artificial night lighting could influence other ecosys- tem functions. Although the outcomes are not yet pre-
dictable, and redundancy will buffer changes, indications are that light-influenced ecosystems will suffer from
important changes attributable to artificial light alone and in combination with other disturbances. Even
remote areas may be exposed to increased illumination
from sky glow, but the most noticeable effects will occur in those areas where lights are close to natural habitats.
This may be in wilderness where summer getaways are
built, along the expanding front of suburbanization, near the wetlands and estuaries that are often the last open spaces in cities, or on the open ocean, where cruise ships, squid boats, and oil derricks light the night.
/square6
Conclusions
Our understanding of the full range of ecological conse- quences of artificial night lighting is still limited, and the field holds many opportunities for basic and applied
research. Studies of natural populations are necessary to investigate hypotheses generated in the laboratory, evi- dence of lunar cycles in wild populations, and natural his- tory observations. If current trends continue, the influ- ence of stray light on ecosystems will expand in
geographic scope and intensity. Today, 20% of the area of the coterminous US lies within 125 m of a road (Riiters and Wickham 2003). Lights follow roads, and the propor- tion of ecosystems uninfluenced by altered light regimes is decreasing. We believe that many ecologists have
neglected to consider artificial night lighting as a relevant environmental factor, while conservationists have cer-
tainly neglected to include the nighttime environment in reserve and corridor design.
Successful investigation of ecological light pollution
will require collaboration with physical scientists and 196
www.frontiersinecology.org
©
The Ecological Society of America
47 T Longcore and C Rich Ecological light pollution
engineers to improve equipment to measure light charac- teristics at ecologically relevant levels under diverse field conditions. Researchers should give special considera-
tion to the tropics, where the constancy of day–night
lighting patterns has probably resulted in narrow niche breadths relative to illumination. Aquatic ecosystems
deserve increased attention as well, because despite the central importance of light to freshwater and marine
ecology, consideration of artificial lighting has so far been limited. Research on the effects of artificial night lighting will enhance understanding of urban ecosystems – the two National Science Foundation (NSF) urban
Long Term Ecological Research sites are ideal locations for such efforts.
Careful research focusing on artificial night lighting will probably reveal it to be a powerful force structuring local communities by disrupting competition and predator–prey interactions. Researchers will face the challenge of disen- tangling the confounding and cumulative effects of other facets of human disturbance with which artificial night lighting will often be correlated, such as roads, urban development, noise, exotic species, animal harvest, and resource extraction. To do so, measurements of light dis- turbance should be included routinely as part of environ- mental monitoring protocols, such as the NSF’s National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). Future
research is likely to reveal artificial night lighting to be an important, independent, and cumulative factor in the dis- ruption of natural ecosystems, and a major challenge for their preservation.
Ecologists have studied diel and lunar patterns in the
behavior of organisms for the greater part of a century (see Park 1940 and references therein), and the deaths of birds from lights for nearly as long (Squires and Hanson 1918).
Humans have now so altered the natural patterns of light and dark that these new conditions must be afforded a
more central role in research on species and ecosystems beyond the instances that leave carcasses on the ground. /square6
Acknowledgements
We thank PJ DeVries for his photographs, and B Tuttle
and C Elvidge for the satellite image. Research was sup- ported in part by the Conservation and Research
Foundation. We are grateful for constructive comments
and advice from W Briggs, BW Buchanan, KD Frank, JE
Lloyd, JR Longcore, MV Moore, WA Montevecchi, G
Perry, and M Salmon.
/square6
References
Beier P . 1995. Dispersal of juvenile cougars in fragmented habitat.
J
Wildlife Manage
59 : 228–37.
Bender DJ, Bayne EM, and Brigham RM. 1996. Lunar condition influences coyote (
Canis latrans
) howling.
Am Midl Nat
136
:
413–17.
Bergen F and Abs M. 1997. Etho-ecological study of the singing activity of the blue tit (
Parus caeruleus
), great tit (
Parus major
)
and chaffinch (
Fringilla coelebs
).
J Ornithol
138
: 451–67.
Blake D, Hutson AM, Racey PA,
et al
. 1994. Use of lamplit roads
by foraging bats in southern England.
J Zool
234
: 453–62.
Buchanan BW . 1993. Effects of enhanced lighting on the behav- iour of nocturnal frogs.
Anim Behav
45 : 893–99.
Buchanan BW . 1998. Low-illumination prey detection by squirrel treefrogs.
J Herpetol
32 : 270–74.
Cinzano P , Falchi F , and Elvidge CD. 2001. The first world atlas of the artificial night sky brightness.
Mon Not R Astron Soc
328
:
689–707.
De Molenaar JG, Jonkers DA, and Sanders ME. 2000. Road illumi- nation and nature. III. Local influence of road lights on a black-tailed godwit (
Limosa l. limosa
) population. Wageningen,
The Netherlands: Alterra.
Derrickson KC. 1988. Variation in repertoire presentation in northern mockingbirds.
Condor
90 : 592–606.
Dick MH and Donaldson W . 1978. Fishing vessel endangered by crested auklet landings.
Condor
80 : 235–36.
Dodson S. 1990. Predicting diel vertical migration of zooplankton.
Limnol and Oceanogr
35 : 1195–1200.
Eisenbeis G and Hassel F . 2000. Zur Anziehung nachtaktiver Insekten durch Straßenlaternen – eine Studie kommunaler Beleuchtungseinrichtungen in der Agrarlandschaft Rein-
hessens [Attraction of nocturnal insects to street lights – a study of municipal lighting systems in a rural area of
Rheinhessen (Germany)].
Natur und Landschaft
75 : 145–56.
Elvidge C, Baugh KE, Kihn EA, and Davis ER. 1997. Mapping city lights with nighttime data from the DMSP Operational
Linescan System.
Photogramm Eng Rem S
63 : 727–34.
Elvidge CD, Imhoff ML, Baugh KE,
et al
. 2001. Nighttime lights of
the world: 1994–95. ISPRS
J Photogramm Rem S
56 : 81–99.
Frank KD. 1988. Impact of outdoor lighting on moths: an assess- ment.
J Lepidop Soc
42 : 63–93.
Gal G, Loew ER, Rudstam LG, and Mohammadian AM. 1999.
Light and diel vertical migration: spectral sensitivity and light avoidance by
Mysis relicta. Can J Fish Aquat Sci
56 : 311–22.
Gibson RN. 1978. Lunar and tidal rhythms in fish. In: Thorpe JE (Ed). Rhythmic activity of fishes. London: Academic Press.
Gilbert BS and Boutin S. 1991. Effect of moonlight on winter activity of snowshoe hares.
Arctic Alpine Res
23 : 61–65.
Gliwicz ZM. 1986. A lunar cycle in zooplankton.
Ecology
67 :
883–97.
Gliwicz ZM. 1999. Predictability of seasonal and diel events in tropical and temperate lakes and reservoirs. In: Tundisi JG, Straskraba M (Eds). Theoretical reservoir ecology and its appli- cations. São Carlos: International Institute of Ecology.
Gorenzel WP and Salmon TP . 1995. Characteristics of American Crow urban roosts in California.
J Wildlife Manage
59 : 638–45.
Gotthard K. 2000. Increased risk of predation as a cost of high growth rate: an experimental test in a butterfly.
J Anim Ecol
69 :
896–902.
Hailman JP . 1984. Bimodal nocturnal activity of the western toad (
Bufo boreas
) in relation to ambient illumination.
Copeia
1984
:
283–90.
Haymes GT, Patrick PH, and Onisto LJ. 1984. Attraction of fish to mercury vapor light and its application in a generating station forebay.
Int Rev Hydrobiol
69 : 867–76.
Health Council of the Netherlands. 2000. Impact of outdoor light- ing on man and nature. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands. Publication No. 2000/25E.
Hill D. 1990. The impact of noise and artificial light on waterfowl behaviour: a review and synthesis of the available literature.
Norfolk, United Kingdom: British Trust for Ornithology
Report No. 61.
Jaeger RG and Hailman JP . 1973. Effects of intensity on the photo- tactic responses of adult anuran amphibians: a comparative sur- vey.
Z Tierpsychol
33 : 352–407.
Klauber LM. 1939. Rattlesnakes: their habits, life histories, and influence on mankind. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
197
© The Ecological Society of America
www.frontiersinecology.org
48 Ecological light pollution T Longcore and C Rich
Kolligs D. 2000. Ökologische Auswirkungen künstlicher Lichtquellen auf nachtaktive Insekten, insbesondere Schmetterlinge
(Lepidoptera) [Ecological effects of artificial light sources on noc- turnally active insects, in particular on moths (Lepidoptera)].
Faunistisch-Ökologische Mitteilungen Suppl
28 : 1–136.
Kotler BP . 1984. Risk of predation and the structure of desert rodent communities.
Ecology
65 : 689–701.
Laferrier J. 1997. The influence of moonlight on activity of wooly opossums (
Caluromys philander
).
J Mammal
78 : 251–55.
Lima SL. 1998. Stress and decision-making under the risk of preda- tion: recent developments from behavioral, reproductive, and ecological perspectives.
Adv Stud Behav
27 : 215–90.
Lloyd JE. 1994. Where are the lightningbugs?
Fireflyer Companion
1 : 1, 2, 5, 10.
Long WJ. 1901. Wilderness ways. Boston, MA: Ginn and
Company.
Moore MV , Pierce SM, Walsh HM,
et al
. 2000. Urban light pollu-
tion alters the diel vertical migration of
Daphnia. Verh Internat
Verein Limnol
27 : 779–82.
Munday PL, Jones GP , Ohman MC, and Kaly UL. 1998.
Enhancement of recruitment to coral reefs using light-attrac- tors.
B Mar Sci
63 : 581–88.
Nakamura T and Yamashita S. 1997. Phototactic behavior of noc- turnal and diurnal spiders: negative and positive phototaxes.
Zool Sci
14 : 199–203.
Ogden LJE. 1996. Collision course: the hazards of lighted structures and windows to migrating birds. Toronto, Canada: World
Wildlife Fund Canada and Fatal Light Awareness Program.
Outen AR. 2002. The ecological effects of road lighting. In:
Sherwood B, Culter D, and Burton JA (Eds). Wildlife and roads:
the ecological impact. London, UK: Imperial College Press.
Park O. 1940. Nocturnalism — the development of a problem.
Ecol
Monogr
10 : 485–536.
Rand AS, Bridarolli ME, Dries L, and Ryan MJ. 1997. Light levels influence female choice in Tungara frogs: predation risk assess- ment?
Copeia
1997
: 447–50.
Riiters KH and Wickham JD. 2003. How far to the nearest road? Front Ecol Environ
1 : 125–29.
Rydell J. 1992. Exploitation of insects around streetlamps by bats in Sweden.
Funct Ecol
6 : 744–50.
Rydell J and Baagøe HJ. 1996. Gatlampor ökar fladdermössens pre- dation på fjärilar [Streetlamps increase bat predation on moths].
Entomol Tidskr
117
: 129–35.
Salmon M. 2003. Artificial night lighting and sea turtles.
Biologist
50 : 163–68.
Salmon M, Tolbert MG, Painter DP ,
et al
. 1995. Behavior of logger-
head sea turtles on an urban beach. II. Hatchling orientation.
J
Herpetol
29 : 568–76.
Schmiedel J. 2001. Auswirkungen künstlicher Beleuchtung auf die Tierwelt – ein Überblick [Effects of artificial lighting on the animal world – an overview].
Schriftenreihe Landschaftspflege und
Naturschutz
67 : 19–51.
Schwartz A and Henderson RW . 1991. Amphibians and reptiles of the West Indies: descriptions, distributions, and natural history.
Gainesville, FL: University of Florida Press.
Squires WA and Hanson HE. 1918. The destruction of birds at the lighthouses on the coast of California.
Condor
20 : 6–10.
Summers CG. 1997. Phototactic behavior of
Bemisia argentifolii
(Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) crawlers.
Ann Entomol Soc Am
90 :
372–79.
Svensson AM and Rydell J. 1998. Mercury vapour lamps interfere with the bat defence of tympanate moths (
Operophtera
spp;
Geometridae).
Anim Behav
55 : 223–26.
Verheijen FJ. 1985. Photopollution: artificial light optic spatial control systems fail to cope with. Incidents, causations, reme- dies.
Exp Biol
44 : 1–18.
Wiese FK, Montevecchi WA, Davoren GK,
et al
. 2001. Seabirds at
risk around offshore oil platforms in the North-west Atlantic.
Mar Pollut Bull
42 : 1285–90.
Witherington BE. 1997. The problem of photopollution for sea tur- tles and other nocturnal animals. In: Clemmons JR and
Buchholz R (Eds). Behavioral approaches to conservation in the wild. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Yurk H and Trites A W . 2000. Experimental attempts to reduce pre- dation by harbor seals on out-migrating juvenile salmonids.
Trans Am Fish Soc
129
: 1360–66.
198
www.frontiersinecology.org
©
The Ecological Society of America
49 sustainability
Article
Lighting Professionals versus Light Pollution
Experts? Investigating Views on an Emerging
Environmental Concern
Nona Schulte-Römer
1,
*
, Josiane Meier
2 , Etta Dannemann
3 and Max Söding
1,2
1 Department of Urban and Environmental Sociology, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, 04318 Leipzig, Germany; [email protected]
2 School of Planning-Building-Environment, Technische Universität Berlin, 10623 Berlin, Germany; [email protected]
3 Studio Dannemann, Baerwaldstraße 63A, 10961 Berlin, Germany; [email protected] *
Correspondence: [email protected]
Received: 25 February 2019; Accepted: 15 March 2019; Published: 21 March 2019 /gid00030/gid00035/gid00032/gid00030/gid00038/gid00001/gid00033/gid00042/gid00045/gid00001 /gid00048/gid00043/gid00031/gid00028/gid00047/gid00032/gid00046 Abstract:
Concerns about the potential negative effects of artificial light at night on humans, flora and fauna, were originally raised by astronomers and environmentalists. Yet, we observe a growing interest in what is called light pollution among the general public and in the lighting field. Although lighting professionals are often critical of calling light ‘pollution’, they increasingly acknowledge the problem and are beginning to act accordingly. Are those who illuminate joining forces with those who take a critical stance towards artificial light at night? We explore this question in more detail based on the results of a non-representative worldwide expert survey. In our analysis, we distinguish between “lighting professionals” with occupational backgrounds linked to lighting design and the lighting industry, and “light pollution experts” with mostly astronomy- and environment-related professional backgrounds, and explore their opposing and shared views vis- à
-vis issues of light
pollution. Our analysis reveals that despite seemingly conflicting interests, lighting professionals and light pollution experts largely agree on the problem definition and problem-solving approaches.
However, we see diverging views regarding potential obstacles to light pollution mitigation and associated governance challenges.
Keywords:
light pollution; sustainable lighting; light planning; expert survey; ALAN
1. Introduction
Light pollution broadly describes unwanted or excess artificial lighting at night, and the negative effects artificial illumination can have on humans and the living environment. While the concept is rather ill-defined, it has received increased public attention in recent years. The concerns are reflected in growing numbers of media reports, fuelled by public campaigns and findings based on scientific evidence from various disciplines. Biologists have highlighted the negative effects of artificial light at night on species as diverse as birds, bats, fish, insects, water organisms, mammals and plants [
1 –
3 ]. Medical research suggests that light at the wrong time confuses the human circadian rhythm with negative effects on people’s sleep, which may impact their health [ 4 ,
5 ]. Astronomers
highlight the reduced visibility of the night sky [
6 ], and in the social sciences and humanities, natural darkness is being rediscovered and re-evaluated as a cultural asset and distinct social space [ 7 ,
8 ].
These multifaceted issues reverberate in civic complaints about light nuisances in urban and natural environments, and in new policies for outdoor lighting such as the national light pollution laws in France and Slovenia [
9 ,
10 ]. Together with concerned individuals and advocacy groups, researchers who take a critical view of artificial light at night can be considered as an emerging community of Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696; doi:
10.3390/su11061696
www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
50 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
2 of 20
light pollution experts. They draw attention to the unwanted side effects of artificial illumination by producing, exchanging and publicizing information and knowledge via social media, mass media and scientific journals, and at events. They also actively propose new planning and policy approaches as they question established light practices and reasons for illuminating public spaces, buildings, signs or landscapes.
The new notion that light is also a pollutant problematizes artificial lighting, which is usually overwhelmingly positively connoted [
11 –
13 ]. It is therefore not surprising that lighting professionals, who develop lighting technology, sell lighting products, and plan and design lighting schemes, have not been the loudest voices in debates about light pollution. Nevertheless, lighting designers, light planners and manufacturers, who are traditionally concerned with the improvement and dissemination of light sources and installations, have begun discussing scientific evidence for environmental and health concerns in conferences and professional journals, and are beginning to adjust their practices, products and professional education accordingly [
14 ,
15 ].
The recognition of the problem by those who illuminate and create lighting is highly relevant when it comes to tackling the issue of light pollution. However, this raises the question of how the views of actors in the lighting field compare to those of the researchers and activists that have adopted a critical stance toward lighting. How do the professional interests of lighting designers, planners and manufacturers align with the recommendations and claims of light pollution experts? Where do they agree or disagree? What are the practical and political implications of their respective perspectives? In this paper, we explore and contrast the views of lighting professionals and light pollution experts with the goal of highlighting common ground and conflicting views. Our analysis is grounded in qualitative research and professional experience, and draws on the results of an online expert survey on light pollution. Conducted in 2018, it was completed by 205 participants. They include lighting designers, planners and lighting engineers or manufacturers, which we categorize as “lighting professionals” (n = 67), and respondents who work on light pollution issues and largely have astronomical and environmental backgrounds, which we identify as “light pollution experts” ( n = 89
).
Our findings suggest that lighting professionals surprisingly often agree with light pollution experts, not only in their views regarding light pollution, but also when it comes to recommending solutions to the problem. Their views diverge more when it comes to identifying obstacles to light pollution mitigation. These results also have practical relevance, as they reveal which policy options for sustainable lighting can find support in both groups and where alternative or opposing views should be tested and further discussed.
2. Materials and Methods
This paper is part of a larger research project, and is informed by our previous professional and research experience in the fields of lighting and light pollution [ 16 ]. The idea for this study emerged
from our observation that the lighting community and the emerging community of light pollution experts engage in arenas that are in many ways worlds apart, but at the same time, closely connected through their focus on artificial light. The outsets of the two groups seemingly contradict each other:
while lighting professionals earn their living creating light, light pollution experts are concerned with reducing artificial light at night. At the same time, light pollution has clearly become a point of debate in the lighting world, and the light pollution community aims to include lighting professionals [ 17 ,
18 ].
Based on these observations and our empirical and practical knowledge of lighting practices and debates around light pollution and its mitigation, we developed a set of theses in order to explore how the views and goals of lighting professionals and light pollution experts compare. These assumptions were then tested in our online expert survey.
2.1. Data Collection Based on an Online Expert Survey
The questionnaire was developed for “experts”, i.e., respondents with practical or theoretical knowledge of and interest in artificial lighting and/or light pollution [ 19 ]. The survey design ensured
51 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
3 of 20
this expertise in three ways: First, respondents were asked to outline their “light-related activities”.
Second, some questions were highly specific and demanded an in-depth understanding of lighting issues, as pre-testers confirmed. Third, we consciously chose to use the term “light pollution”, including in the survey’s title. By using the term so explicitly, we specifically addressed respondents who are familiar with the issue. The survey was only distributed in English, which could possibly result in an under-representation of experts that are not part of the relevant English-language discourse.
The expert survey was launched in March, 2018, and was online for two months. The invitation was circulated internationally via e-mail, twitter and professional networks, creating a snowball effect (more information at [
16 ]). Clearly, this sampling strategy could not produce a representative sample.
However, in line with our exploratory approach, it allowed as many experts as possible who wished to share their opinions on light pollution to do so.
The questionnaire contained both quantitative and qualitative elements. Participants were asked to tick boxes to describe their personal background and to evaluate specific aspects around the issue of light pollution on Likert scales from one to five. In addition to single and multiple choice questions, open questions allowed the respondents to answer using their own words and to add aspects not included in our suggested answers for closed questions. Our questions covered three thematic areas:
(1) The definition of and opinions on light pollution; (2) the governance challenge in terms of main obstacles, clashing interests and responsibilities; (3) possible solutions in the form of recommendations.
2.2. Group-Specific Data Analysis
The survey was completed by 205 participants. For the stakeholder-specific analysis, we identified and created the group categories “lighting professionals” and “light pollution experts” within our sample. While the concept of “lighting professionals” is quite straightforward and includes people who professionally plan, design, or produce artificial light and lighting technology, the notion of “light pollution experts” calls for an explanation. We conceptualize this group as a heterogeneous “issue public” [
20 ] consisting mostly of astronomers, conservationists, natural and social scientists who problematize artificial light at night (ALAN) from their various viewpoints. In reality, the two groups can overlap. At an individual level, there are lighting professionals that engage heavily in raising awareness for light pollution and developing solutions for its mitigation, as well as persons with backgrounds in fields such as astrophysics or biology who have acquired detailed knowledge of lighting technology and lighting practices and e.g. advise municipalities on sustainable lighting.
While we are aware of these overlaps, we nevertheless distinguish between lighting professionals and light pollution experts on the basis of their different foci and fields of activity. Table 1 outlines the
answers to both closed and open questions, on the basis of which we categorized the respondents.
The categorization process left us with a sample of 156 respondents: 89 light pollution experts and 67 lighting professionals. The respondents were aged between 20 and 79, and about one third was female. Most of them (101; 65%) were based in Europe, 29 (19%) in Anglo America, 13 (8%) in Australia/New Zealand, 5 (3%) in Middle Eastern or African countries, 4 (3%) in Latin America and 3 (2%) in Asia (1 answer missing).
Based on this data, we performed our analysis in three steps using the software R. First, we studied relative frequencies and mean values to identify answers where the two groups’ views converge or diverge. Second, where mean values and relative frequencies differed considerably, we performed regression analyses to test the impact of participants’ occupations and whether divergences can be better explained by other independent variables. To be more precise, we tested in binomial logistic regression models for the impact of occupation (light pollution experts or lighting professionals), place of residence (Europe or Anglo America/Oceania and Anglo America or Europe/Oceania as well as urban or not), age (in years), first encounter with light pollution (number of years) and gender (male or female, the two “other” responses were considered as “missing”, see Table S1 and Figure S1).
We found that occupational backgrounds were indeed the best predictor, while age, gender or place of residence were rarely significant. The dependent variable was the approval of the respective 52 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
4 of 20
item (4 and 5 on a scale of 1 to 5). Third, open statements helped us confirm shared opinions and understand differences. In line with our research interest and in light of our non-representative sample, we focused more on converging views than on differences, which we had expected to be dominant, as outlined in the following. Figures are produced with the Microsoft software Excel.
Table 1.
Categorization of respondents based on “light-related” and “other” main occupations.
Categories Based On Closed Questions
Regarding The Respondents’ Light-Related
Main Occupation
Categories Based On Open Answers
Regarding “Other” Than Light-Related
Main Occupations.
Lighting professionals
(N = 67; 25 females, 41
males, 1 other; aged
between 26 and 79)
•
Architectural and decorative lighting
design (indoor/outdoor)
•
Functional light planning (streets,
parking lots, etc.)
•
Development of urban lighting
concepts/master plans
•
Light art/artistic work using light
(no answer)
•
Marketing and/or the sale of
lighting products
•
Lighting technology research
and development
•
Providing of lighting or information on
lighting (via online platforms,
electronics engineering services, as part
of energy provision and consulting in
developing countries).
Light pollution experts
(N = 89; 23 females, 65
males, 1 other; aged
between 20 and 75)
•
Environmental protection related
to lighting
•
Raising awareness for light pollution
•
Astrosciences and -technology related
occupations (e.g., professional or
amateur astronomers, airglow
researchers, educators in planetariums)
•
Environment-related occupations
(including scientific work in biology,
chronobiology or the environmental
sciences, educational work in nature
reserves and parks, journalism, etc.)
•
Other research related to the effects of
lighting (university lecturers and
researchers of various disciplines,
including law, archaeology, history,
sociology, physiology, etc.)
•
Raising awareness for light pollution
(non-profit activists, voluntary dark-sky
educational work, etc.)
•
Retired respondents with an interest in
astronomy and light
pollution mitigation.
3. A Conceptual Framework: Exploring Expert Perspectives on Light Pollution In recent years, initial studies have explored the general populations’ views on lighting and light pollution. For instance, Lyytimäki and Rinne [
21 ] carried out an online survey to understand
how people in Finland perceive and respond to light trespass and other light nuisances (n=2053).
In Germany, Besecke and Hänsch [
22 ] explored how residents of an inner-city street of Berlin and inhabitants of a nearby suburban community perceived light and darkness before and after street lighting refurbishments to LED lighting. Green et al. [ 23 ] used ethnographic data, household survey
and documentary sources to explore responses to street lighting reductions in eight areas of England and Wales. This study complements this strand of research by providing results on expert
perspectives
on the topic. Expert perspectives are relevant as outdoor lighting has long been delegated to expert systems and is only just re-emerging as a public issue [ 24 ]. In contrast to studies of the general
public, which are methodologically challenging as they demand asking people about their implicit practical knowledge about lighting [
25 ], focusing on experts makes it possible to investigate the issue—including its technical aspects—in more depth and detail, given the respondents’ higher level of previous engagement with specificities of the topic. Other than most laypersons, they pay attention 53 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
5 of 20
to light and darkness and also have a vocabulary to express their observations and feelings about lighting. Moreover, expert opinions are also particularly relevant as they shape realities of artificial light and natural darkness by planning, designing or contesting lighting.
Since we could not draw on existing expert surveys, we had to come up with our own conceptual framework for assessing the group-specific views. Social-scientific theory suggests that expert groups form “communities of practice” with specific understandings and shared views on their respective issues of concern [
26 ]. Recent discourses in the two stakeholder groups allowed us to develop the three thematic areas covered in the survey based on explicit assumptions, as outlined below (Table 2 ).
In line with our empirical observation, Chall
é
at and colleagues [
19 ] have described two camps vis-
à
-vis
lighting in France: lighting professionals who promote a technical view on “light nuisance” and astronomers, conservationists and citizens who take an environmental stance against “light pollution”.
3.1. Light Pollution Experts and the Negative Side-Effects of Artificial Light at Night (ALAN) To conceptualize the views of the light pollution experts on a global scale, we can draw on the growing body of scientific literature on the effects of artificial light at night (ALAN), which is also the basis for social scientific and planning discourses on ALAN as well as for activists. This interdisciplinary and emerging field can be roughly divided into three areas: Research mainly by astronomers and astrophysicists on sky glow and light trespass as an impediment to the observation of the universe; biological research investigating the impact of ALAN on individual animal and plant species, and increasingly, on ecosystems; medical research exploring the chronobiological hormonal effects that are triggered by ALAN and are suspected to increase the risk of depression, cancer, cardio-vascular diseases and obesity.
Experts who work on these issues have significantly shaped the notion of light pollution.
Astronomers, both professionals and amateurs, are a driving force behind initiatives for dark-sky protection. With the spread of electric lighting in the early 20th century, they were among the first to criticize and quantify the reduced visibility of celestial objects [ 27 ]. Today, they explore and develop
new instruments and methods for assessing the illumination of the night sky [ 6 ,
28 –
30 ]. They also
warn that blue-rich LED light scatters more strongly in the atmosphere and will, in combination with rebound effects, increase not only sky glow but also glare [ 31 ,
32 ].
Biologists and ecologists have been studying the effects of artificial light at night on birds, insects, aquatic organisms, reptiles, mammals and plants to understand and assess its impact on these different species as well as entire ecosystems. In recent years, they have substantiated their suspicion that light affects animal behavior (e.g., through distraction) and disturbs the circadian rhythm of living organisms more generally, both with negative consequences for the finely orchestrated processes of all life that have evolved over millennia under planetary rhythms of light and darkness [ 1 ]. All
light spectra can be potentially harmful, as different species are sensitive to different types of light.
Therefore, full-spectrum light sources and blue-rich light seem to be more problematic than light with a narrow spectrum and longer wavelengths, as these will probably affect more species [ 33 ,
34 ]. Since
circadian processes also govern the human body, exposure to ALAN, and particularly to blue-rich light, has also become a public health concern [
5 ]. Medical studies suggest that ALAN is a stressor for people who work night shifts or are exposed to blue-rich light at night, such as that emitted by LED lighting [
35 ].
Although scientific evidence on the biological impacts of ALAN is still patchy, many biologists and physicians have come to take a precautionary stance and promote the protection or restoration of natural darkness or reduced light levels. In that and in their reservations regarding blue-rich lighting, they share views and goals with astronomers, as well as with actors that engage critically with the illumination of the night from other viewpoints, such as culture or aesthetics [ 3 ,
36 ]. In the latter respect,
it is frequently highlighted that we are losing the experience of natural darkness and the visibility of the stars and planets, which has been a key to human civilization [ 37 ].
54 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
6 of 20
Light pollution experts also actively recommend, develop and test counter-measures. They develop models to assess the scope and effects of the problem, as well as the viability of solutions [
3 ,
27 ,
32 ,
38 ]
. They criticize the fact that existing lighting technology, lighting standards and regulations are not sufficient and that they should be updated to acknowledge issues of light pollution [
39 ]. Advocacy organizations such as the International Dark-Sky Association (IDA), but also researchers in the ALAN community, address the wide-spread ignorance of the issue and actively engage in raising awareness for light pollution (e.g., ida.org, cost-lonne.eu, stars4all.eu). Finally, light pollution experts are actively involved in shaping lighting technology (e.g., shielded luminaires, PC amber LEDs) and the governance of lighting via tools that range from technical recommendations (e.g., avoidance of light above the horizontal and blue-rich lighting) to education (e.g., in observatories) and mandatory legislation [
40 –
42 ].
Table 2.
Overview of our empirically grounded assumptions regarding group-specific views.
Assumptions Light Pollution Experts Lighting Professionals Basic assumptions
What are the
group-specific interests?
•
Reduce artificial light at night, stop loss
of the night.
•
Acknowledge and tackle the problem in
projects, guide-lines, rules
and regulations.
•
Sell lighting expertise in design and
building projects.
•
Promote good, visually comfortable,
aesthetically appealing light
and darkness.
Problem perception
What is light pollution?
•
All artificial light at night is a form
of pollution.
•
It depends on the situation, whether
light is pollution.
•
Given the many positive effects of
lighting, the term ‘pollution’
is inappropriate.
Why is it a problem?
•
ALAN can have negative effects on flora,
fauna, humans and ecosystems.
•
Experience of natural darkness and the
visibility of night-time skies are lost.
•
Visual discomfort (e.g., due to glare)
and light trespass.
•
Negative effects on people’s sleep.
•
Unnecessary energy consumption
and cost.
Governance challenge
What are the obstacles?
•
Lack of awareness and knowledge
amongst decision-makers, lighting
professionals and light users.
•
Worldwide increase in blue-rich white
LED lighting which intensifies
the problem.
•
Lighting professionals have
solutions, but they are not invited.
•
Adequate technology and best
practices are available, but need to
be disseminated.
Possible solutions
Who is responsible?
•
Actors in the lighting field, regulators
and light users.
•
Actors in the lighting field.
What should be done?
•
Reduce artificial light at night, avoid
blue-rich light.
•
Develop policies for mitigating light
pollution, including hard regulations.
•
Develop better technology that reflects
the state of knowledge regarding the
negative effects of lighting.
•
Encourage sustainable instead of
cheap solutions.
•
Apply existing knowledge
and recommendations.
•
Plan and design according to the
state of the art in lighting.
•
Use smart technology and apply
adaptive lighting.
55 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
7 of 20
Based on these discourses and developments, we assumed the following:
1. Regarding the definition of light pollution, we expect that light pollution experts contend that all artificial light at night is pollution
, because even small amounts of ALAN are an alteration of natural darkness and may affect living beings and the possibility to observe the night sky. In terms of the problem’s dimensions, we assume that they highlight potential non-visual effects of light on flora, fauna, humans and ecosystems, as well as the cultural loss of natural darkness and star-filled skies.
2. Regarding the governance challenge, we expect that light pollution experts call for more political commitment and highlight the need to raise awareness for light pollution, to provide more guidance and information to decision makers.
3. In terms of the problem’s solutions, there seems to be a widely-shared consensus in the light pollution community that
systemic change
is necessary. We therefore assume that light pollution
experts recommend more sustainable technology, better education and information, as well as better technical guidance, lighting standards and stricter regulations.
3.2. Lighting Professionals and the Art of Planning, Designing and Manufacturing Light Lighting professionals’ perspectives are less obvious, as they often do not refer to light pollution when they write about potential negative side-effects of lighting. As a lighting designer remarked in response to our survey invitation, “the term ‘light pollution’ is an evocative phrase for many lighting designers, including me. Our stance is that light is a pure and natural phenomenon, and the ‘pollution’ angle comes from the misuse of light, or light in the wrong place. We feel that the terms ‘obtrusive light’ and/or ‘light trespass’ are more fitting.” In a commentary published in Nature, lighting designer Zielinska-Dabkowska outlines the potentially negative health effects of lighting without mentioning the term “light pollution” even once [
43 ].
Looking at lighting practices and projects, energy and cost efficiency constitute long-standing benchmarks that can be linked to light reduction. Accordingly, the British Institution of Lighting Professionals (ILP) argues in its Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light: “Do not ‘over’ light. This is a major cause of obtrusive light and is a waste of energy. There are published standards for most lighting tasks, adherence to which will help minimize upward reflected light.” [ 44 ] (p. 1111).
This recommendation also reflects the basic stance that ‘good’ lighting means providing appropriate lighting for a given time, place and task. Light engineering and illuminating societies develop technical standards to provide orientation towards achieving this complex goal (ies.org, theilp.org.uk and licht.de). Lighting design associations and expert networks provide information, education and exchange platforms that enable their members to plan and design light in situation-specific ways and according to their clients’ needs (e.g., iald.org, pld-c.com, luciassociation.org). Light manufacturers also subscribe to this goal which allows them to further develop and diversify their product lines, for instance with a focus on heath or enhanced work performance [
45 ,
46 ].
Knowing how to accomplish ‘good’ lighting is considered a characteristic and distinctive skill of lighting professionals, which qualifies them more than electricians, civil engineers, architects or private home owners to illuminate the world at night. However, in reality, such explicit lighting expertise is often ignored or only invited in the final stages of building or design projects. Therefore, light planners, specifiers and lighting designers often describe light pollution as a problem of missed opportunities:
Short-sighted cost-benefit calculations, lack of expertise and time pressure lead to suboptimal solutions that cause nuisances and unwanted side effects.
Professional experience and knowhow appear to be particularly relevant in light of two major developments: For one, climate change policies affect lighting practices in the form of economic incentives, but also product bans like the out-phasing of the incandescent light bulb [ 25 ]. For another,
light-emitting diodes (LEDs) constitute a disruptive technological innovation [ 47 ]. LED technology
is widely seen as an energy efficient means to provide “the right light at the right place at the right 56 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
8 of 20
time”, since LEDs are highly directional and can be digitally controlled and adapted in brightness and color temperature. They thus open new business opportunities, which also relate to issues of light pollution. For instance, light manufacturers work on optical systems that reduce glare, conduct their own research on the non-visual effects of blue-rich LED light and offer new products, including PC amber LEDs, to meet the demands of dark-sky friendly lighting schemes.
Finally, new conceptual approaches to lighting are relevant to light pollution debates. First, LED lighting is promoted with visions of adaptive “smart” lighting that responds to lighting needs, thereby reducing excess light [
47 ,
48 ]. The notion of “human-centric lighting” highlights the relationship between light and well-being, thereby widening the thus-far dominant focus on more functional aspects like visibility and safety [
49 ]. In this concept, lighting professionals show a preference for adaptable white light sources with a continuous spectrum, which provide better color rendering than the widely-used sodium vapor street lamps, and are thus assumed to enhance visual comfort in outdoor spaces. Last but not least, lighting designers also highlight the value of darkness, but more for aesthetic than for environmental reasons, which are less prominently voiced in lighting projects [ 13 ]
(pp. 182–187).
Based on these observations, we assumed the following:
1. Regarding the problem’s definition, we expect lighting professionals to argue that it depends
on the situation
whether light is pollution, or even to
reject the notion that light can be pollution
altogether. In terms of the problem’s dimensions, they will probably be more concerned with reducing energy consumption and improving humans’ visual comfort (full light spectrum, no glare) and well-being than with protecting natural darkness and star-filled skies or reducing potential negative effects on flora and fauna.
2. With regard to the governance challenge, we expect that lighting professionals take responsibility and make the mitigation of light pollution their own task, as it calls for professional skills and constitutes a potential business case. It seems likely that they will argue that light pollution would not be a problem if lighting were properly planned and designed by experts.
3. Regarding the problem’s solutions, we accordingly assume that lighting professionals blame procedural and project-related shortcomings like the lack of lighting expertise in building projects and call for an earlier and more consistent involvement of professionals. We further expect them to rely on the self-regulatory functions of their professional institutions and the state of the art in their professional domain (existing guidelines, best practices, innovative technological solutions and products) rather than calling for ‘external’ intervention via stricter rules and more regulation.
4. Findings: Where Experts (Dis)agree
Overall, our results show that light pollution experts generally express stronger opinions on the issue than lighting professionals. We further see that views are more consensual regarding understandings of the problem and possible solutions than they are regarding the question of why it is difficult to tackle light pollution, that is, the governance challenge. To better understand the contexts in which the survey respondents form their opinions, we asked them to specify how their professional or voluntary light-related work is affected by current trends (Figure S2 and Table S2).
The results show that the two groups perform their activities under the impression of relatively similar dynamics, especially the introduction of LED lighting in outdoor spaces, irrespective of their geographical background.
4.1. What is Light Pollution?
To test our assumptions regarding problem perceptions, we asked the respondents to express their opinions about the notion of light pollution. Not surprisingly, light pollution experts were more critical of ALAN than lighting professionals (Figure
1 ): 47% of them consider
all outdoor lighting as
pollution
, while 53% think that
it depends on the situation
. Conversely, given the frequently encountered
57 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
9 of 20
scepticism towards the term, we were surprised that 28% of the lighting professionals in our sample even subscribed to the absolute view that “all outdoor lighting after dark is a form of pollution.” Of the respondents, 66% think it depends on the situation, and 3% of lighting professionals answered that “outdoor lighting is never pollution”.
Figure 1.
Problem definition: “What is your personal opinion regarding light pollution?” Answers in percentage per group and (absolute numbers).
In a follow-up question, we then asked those who had answered “it depends” to specify problematic situations (multiple choice). Figure
2 shows that light pollution experts find more
situations problematic: 66% of them ticked nine out of eleven possible answers, while only 23% of the lighting professionals agreed with nine answer options. The majority of lighting professionals agree with light pollution experts, albeit to a lesser extent, that light is pollution when it enters areas where
it is unwanted
(light trespass), is
not used
,
obscures the visibility of the stars
and
produces glare
.
Discrepancies between the groups vary. They are smallest when light is not automatically considered pollution, such as
colorful lighting
or
moving and blinking lights
. Opinions differ most
when it comes to the illumination of specific spaces like natural areas
or
close to bodies of water
or
observatories
(inter-group differences of more than 45 percentage points) and lighting-technological aspects like
blue-rich lighting, color temperature and glare
(inter-group differences between 37 and 44
percentage points).
The discrepancy allows two interpretations: Firstly, the comparatively low recognition of problematic spaces among lighting professionals might be a sign of their unawareness or indifference with regard to effects of ALAN on water organisms, flora and fauna in general, or astronomical observations. However, as we will see below, answers to follow-up questions do not support this interpretation. Secondly, we might conclude that light pollution experts lean towards more definite essentialist understandings of the problem, whereas lighting professionals have more relativist views. 58 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
10 of 20
Figure 2.
Problem dimensions: “In which situations do you consider lighting as pollution?” Percentage of positive answers by group (multiple choice, filter question following the definition “it depends”, n = 91, sorted by lighting professionals’ feedback).
4.2. Why is it a Problem?
The light pollution experts’ more acute perception of the problem is also reflected in their evaluation of its different dimensions (Figure
3 ). When asked why light pollution should be reduced,
82% of the respondents in this group rated
all six
suggested arguments as “important” or “very
important”, in contrast to 58% of lighting professionals.
Figure 3.
Problem dimension: “In your opinion, why should light pollution be reduced? Please indicate how important you find the following...” Percentage of respondents in each group who answered 4 or 5 on a scale from 1-
not at all important
to 5-
very important
. The option “I doubt this is an issue” (
−
1) was
not chosen (sorted by lighting professionals’ feedback). See Table S3 for more detail.
Over 90% of all respondents agreed that the
negative effects of lighting on animals and ecosystems
are important or very important reasons to tackle the problem. The least supported argument in both groups—
people are endangered due to glare/distraction
—was still considered important by 82% of the
59 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
11 of 20
light pollution experts and 58% of the lighting professionals. This last place on the list may reflect the expert debate on whether glare should be discussed as a form of light pollution. Interestingly, this valuation stands in contrast to the fairly high ratings for glare as a form of light pollution (Figure 3 ).
When exploring inter-group discrepancies, we see that the inter-group differences are greatest and that the impact of occupation is thereby also statistically significant in regressions with various explaining variables (see footnote 3) for the three last-ranking arguments that regard negative effects on
people’s sleep
(
p
< 0.05),
people’s incapacity to experience natural darkness and star-filled skies (
p
< 0.01)
and
dangers due to glare/distraction
(
p
< 0.05).
4.3. What is the Governance Challenge?
The governance challenge was operationalized in terms of potential obstacles to light pollution mitigation. Again, light pollution experts express stronger opinions in almost all points (Figure 4 ).
The only possible obstacle that does not fit this pattern concerns the definition of light pollution
. While
50% of the lighting professionals think that the lack of a clear-cut definition is an important impediment, this view is only shared by 32% of the light pollution experts, which corresponds with their more definite understanding of the problem as outlined above.
Figure 4.
Obstacles to light pollution mitigation: “Based on your experience, how relevant are the following potential obstacles to avoiding/reducing light pollution?” Percentage of respondents in each group who answered 4 or 5 on a scale from 1-
not at all important
to 5-
very important
(sorted by lighting
professionals’ ranking). See Table S4 for more detail.
Focusing on the ranking of the listed items, the top three obstacles for the lighting professionals are first, the
general lack of awareness that lighting can have negative effects (68%), second,
the low priority of
the issue in lighting projects
(61%), and third,
the installation of LEDs without consideration of side-effects (57%). These potential obstacles are also considered as most important
by light pollution experts, but
they rank the LED problem second (94%) and the low priority of light pollution in lighting projects third (85%). In both groups, the complex issue of
public safety concerns
ranks fourth, albeit very close to
the third-most important item.
Looking more closely at the discrepancies between the groups, we find an interesting pattern. The inter-group differences are greatest and statistically significant ( p
< 0.001) in regressions asking for
the impact of occupation and for the three items that concern lighting practices (introduction of LED lighting, lighting standards, lack of adequate lighting technology). Light pollution experts consider these potential obstacles as considerably greater than lighting professionals (34 percentage points and 60 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
12 of 20
more). Scepticism or even frustration regarding current lighting practices also dominate about half of the open statements to this question: “Mindless installation of harsh, eye-gouging LEDs has become an epidemic worldwide and it just keeps getting worse and worse,” writes one light pollution expert.
Another criticizes “manufacturers and National agencies ignoring/minimizing light pollution as side effect . . . ”
Light pollution experts’ negative or sceptical views on current lighting practices could be interpreted as a result of their vigilant observation of, but limited access to, the lighting field.
It also supports our assumption that lighting professionals are less critical of their field as they think they could solve the problem if they were invited to give their expertise. Accordingly, one lighting professional proposes to “promote good lighting design” as a way of light pollution mitigation. Another complains that “specification and installation decisions are made by parties without appropriate training/expertise.”
The gap between the groups is smaller regarding what can be summarized as light user-related
obstacles (lack of awareness regarding the negative effects of lighting, low priority of the issue in lighting projects, and concerns about public safety), which are rated amongst the most important impediments to light pollution mitigation. While differences between the groups still range between 24–29 percentage points when considering only the high values (answers 4 and 5), they are even smaller when looking at
all
responses (entire scale from 1 to 5): the difference between the group-specific mean values is below 0.9 with relatively high average scores between 3.6 and 4.8 (see Table S4).
The user-related obstacles’ importance is also reflected in the open responses (n = 36 for both groups), where almost half of the statements address unawareness, ignorance or misconceptions among light users, including municipalities. “There is a general ignorance and apathy on the issue”, remarks a light pollution expert and adds that “slowly but surely people are waking up.” A lighting professional criticizes “the poor knowledge and the deficient light culture of politics and city administrations.”
4.4. Who is Responsible for Tackling the Issue?
Since environmental issues like light pollution raise questions of accountability, we asked the survey participants to attribute responsibility to a list of stakeholders. Again, the responses show that light pollution experts attribute generally more responsibility to each listed group than lighting professionals, but the inter-group differences are smaller than the potential obstacles (Figure 5 ).
In particular, there is broad agreement that lighting designers/planners, politicians and public administration are responsible, followed by lighting manufacturers. The inter-group comparison shows that the lighting professionals in our sample are, as expected, willing to take on responsibility, which is also assigned to them by light pollution experts. The lighting professionals’ willingness to tackle the problem is underlined by the responses of the nine respondents who sell lighting products as their main occupation: They all find that lighting manufacturers are responsible. Furthermore, lighting professionals hold the actors in their field more responsible than politicians and public administrations, whereas light pollution experts see them as being roughly equally responsible. 61 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
13 of 20
Figure 5.
Responsibility: “In your opinion, to which degree are the following actor groups responsible for avoiding or reducing light pollution?” Percentages of respondents in both groups who answered 4 or 5 on a scale from 1-
not at all responsible
to 5-
very much responsible
(sorted by lighting professionals’
feedback). See Table S5 for more detail.
The trust in professional expertise is also reflected in the responses regarding the responsibility of individual consumers. Only 52% of the lighting professionals in our sample consider them highly responsible (values 4 or 5), whereas 27% think that end users of light are not
responsible (values
1 or 2). Light pollution experts, too, rank individual consumers least responsible, but hold them considerably more accountable: Only 7% find individual consumers have no responsibility, while 75% think they do. The discrepancy might result from lighting professionals’ expert attitudes towards their clients as expressed in some open statements (e.g., “Clients in general ask for more”), whereas light pollution experts might identify themselves as individual consumers who take action against light pollution. This interpretation corresponds with a sense of self-responsibility that was expressed in several open survey statements (Question: "In your light-related activity, do you actively take precautions/action to avoid or reduce light pollution?"). Here, light pollution experts describe how they chose specific technology to reduce light pollution in their immediate surroundings or participate in public campaigns and education to raise awareness for the issue.
Finally, that most light pollution experts (75% and more) rank all items listed in the question highly likely reflects their interest in mobilizing against light pollution and addressing the issue broadly.
This is also expressed in open statements regarding responsibilities: “We are all responsible”, argues one light pollution expert. Others attribute responsibility to “civil society/local communities (people that live in areas which suffer from too less or too much light)” or to “people in general”, as “they are the final users of the lighting systems and have to have a capital role in this issue . . . ” Despite differences in degree, we see that over 70% of the survey respondents in both groups can agree that the main responsibility for tackling light pollution lies with decision makers and institutional actors in the lighting field and in politics. That they hold individual consumers less responsible can be interpreted as a sign of their system understanding of the challenge and sense of realism. After all, most respondents also indicated that the general lack of awareness among light users is a major obstacle to light pollution mitigation, making them a difficult stakeholder group to start with. 62 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
14 of 20
4.5. What Should be Done?
Regarding possible light pollution mitigation measures, the views of lighting professionals and light pollution experts converge far more than in previous questions, with especially small inter-group differences for high-ranking potential measures. The
promotion of best practice lighting projects,
e.g.,
in municipalities,
is unequivocally strongly recommended, i.e., by 95% of all respondents (Figure 6 ).
Moreover, 89.6% of the lighting professionals and 84.5% of the light pollution experts recommend to use lighting concepts and integrated light planning
to tackle the problem. The great for such strategic policy instruments is remarkable as they are still in a phase of development and not yet very well established in urban and regional light planning practice [
50 ,
51 ]. This might explain why light pollution experts
find education measures and awareness-raising even more desirable (mean values between 3.6 and 4.7, see Table S6).
Figure 6.
Recommendations: “To which extent would you recommend the following measures to avoid/reduce light pollution?” Percentage of respondents in each group who answered 4 or 5 on a scale from 1-
not at all
to 5-
very strongly
(sorted by lighting professionals’ feedback). See Table S6 for more detail.
The impacts of occupational backgrounds (lighting professional or light pollution expert) were only statistically significant for the three least important possible recommendations: Light pollution experts more strongly recommend
allowing people to experience naturally dark nights
(
p
< 0.01). They are
also significantly more in favor of
mandatory regulations and legal frameworks
(
p
< 0.001) and more
strongly recommend
improving voluntary standards for lighting applications and products (
p
< 0.05).
The discrepancy, especially with regard to binding regulations, partly matches our assumption that lighting professionals would rather support the better use of existing expertise and technology. Yet, we also see that more than half of them recommend the creation of regulations and better standards for tackling light pollution. Meanwhile, the share of light pollution experts who recommend better regulatory frameworks is smaller than we expected. This slightly diminished enthusiasm might result from the experience that rules and regulations need to be understood, followed and enforced if they are to make a difference, which has proven problematic in the lighting field [ 16 ] (pp. 151–152).
63 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
15 of 20
Seen overall, it is relevant that the respondents show a high degree of agreement to all
suggested
measures (agreement above 50% in both groups for all items). One open statement (Question: Why do you find specific measures more advisable than others?) explains how the items complement each other: “We need a mix of (1) measures to avoid mistakes (education; binding regulations); (2) retrofitting programmes to fix past mistakes; and (3) more dark sky parks experience to spread the benefits of low light pollution.” Another points out that outdoor lighting has historically been designed and installed with little regard for its potential negative impact: “Overcoming this will take a coordinated approach using awareness raising, education, rules and regulation cross the range of the industry including end users.”
5. Discussion: Differences, but Common Grounds
The findings of our expert survey both confirm and challenge our group-specific expectations (Section
3 ). While it is important to keep in mind that the lighting professionals in our sample are likely particularly sensitive to and reflexive about light pollution issues due to a self-selection bias, the analysis of the survey results nonetheless point towards both shared and conflicting views.
5.1. Problem Perception: Absolute and Situated Definitions across Expert Groups First of all, the results highlight that light pollution experts and lighting professionals can agree on relevant points. This is most evident in the unexpected result that most lighting professionals in our sample accept the concept of light as pollution (Figure 1 ). More than half of all respondents
perceive light pollution as a situation-dependent phenomenon. The four top-ranking critical situations in both groups (Figure
2 ) describe light trespass, unused light, sky glow and glare. Focusing on disagreement, it seems that the most important difference is that light pollution experts define light pollution in more absolute terms, for instance when light shines in natural areas, irrespective of its specific purpose or use. This discrepancy seems important when it comes to possible counter-measures, as an essentialist understanding calls for zoning and thresholds in regulatory approaches, whereas a relativist understanding calls for deliberation and the negotiation of conflicting interests.
Regarding the potential dimensions of the problem (Figure 3 ), we found support for our
assumptions that light pollution experts overwhelmingly consider the lost experience of natural darkness and the night sky as a relevant reason for reducing light pollution, whereas lighting professionals find other aspects such as energy savings more important. Interestingly, they rated aspects related to the human experience of light and darkness least important. This was unexpected in light of professional debates on visual comfort and human-centric lighting.
Given that ecology is rarely an issue in lighting projects, the almost unanimous perception of unwanted side effects on flora and fauna as being highly relevant was surprising. This can be understood as a sign that the lighting field is ready to take into account the increasing scientific evidence on effects of ALAN. Recent publications by lighting designers support this conclusion [ 52 ],
calling for “biologically benign forms of energy-efficient lighting” and transdisciplinary efforts by physicists, engineers, medical experts, biologists, designers, planners, regulators and policymakers to “minimize the negative impacts of artificial lighting at night, indoors and out.” [ 43 ] (p. 274).
We conclude that a shared concern for the unwanted environmental effects of ALAN could constitute common grounds for lighting professionals and light pollution experts. After all, tackling light pollution is also perfectly in line with energy-saving goals as a positive side effect and another selling argument for light pollution mitigation.
5.2. Governance Challenge: Raising Awareness is Key
Regarding challenges and opportunities for tackling light pollution, we see a broad consensus that there is a problematic and general unawareness of the problem (Figure 4 ): More than two-thirds
of the respondents agree that light pollution mitigation is hampered by the fact that people are not aware that light can have negative effects. This result fully confirms our expectations regarding light 64 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
16 of 20
pollution experts. For lighting professionals, it indirectly supports our assumption that they consider themselves unsolicited experts, especially as they point toward the low priority of light pollution in lighting projects as the second most important obstacle. In other words, lighting professionals seem convinced that the problem could be managed if they were only asked more often to offer their expertise. Yet, this implies that clients are aware of the problem in the first place.
Moreover, both groups express their concern that the introduction of LED lighting endangers light pollution mitigation. As expected, these responses reflect the light pollution experts’ concern that the worldwide increase in blue-rich LED lighting will intensify the problem, and lighting professionals’ dissatisfaction with bad or badly installed LED technology. It is important to note, however, that light pollution experts significantly more often see LED lighting as an important impediment to light pollution mitigation. The same applies to the lighting industry and existing lighting standards, which light pollution experts consider much more problematic than lighting professionals.
Taken together, the group-specific responses to our question regarding potential obstacles differ more than those regarding the problem and possible solutions. We interpret this as a result of different practical experiences: While lighting professionals are perfectly familiar with, and therefore criticize, imperfect project realities, light pollution experts observe the lighting field from their concerned outsider perspectives as astronomers, environmentalists, researchers or citizens and criticize the entire system.
5.3. Possible Solutions: Who will Tackle the Problem of Light Pollution and How? Finally, expert opinions on possible solutions have great practical relevance. Here, our assumptions regarding responsibility attribution were only partly confirmed. Both groups hold individual consumers least responsible and lighting designers and planners most responsible, followed by politicians and public administrations (Figure
5 ). As expected, the lighting professionals in our
sample are overwhelmingly ready to take on the challenge. Meanwhile, light pollution experts unexpectedly attributed responsibility to practically anyone, including themselves (“all of us”). Thus, it seems that contrary to many environmental debates where scapegoating prevents action [ 53 ], the
majority of the survey respondents appeared to be ready to take action. This is also reflected in their answers to another open question, where we asked whether they “actively take precautions/action to avoid or reduce light pollution”: The numerous responses showed a broad range of activities, including the private use of adaptive lighting systems, the promotion of darkness in municipal lighting schemes and public dark-sky initiatives [
16 ] (pp. 199–202).
The respondents’ recommendations on how to tackle the problem are surprisingly consensual across the two groups (Figure
6 ). The promotion of best practice in lighting projects is highly recommend by 95% of the survey participants. They also broadly agree that integrated light planning is a promising measure. This common ground seems to be particularly relevant, as these instruments are not yet widely established, but municipalities seem increasingly open to rethinking their lighting schemes in response to the profound technological transition, climate change policies and an increasing public concern for light pollution [
50 ]. Moreover, lighting professionals have begun to explicitly consider light pollution concerns when they develop lighting schemes and guidelines [ 54 ,
55 ]. These
planning-oriented recommendations send a clear message to policy makers, as they can inform best practice, make the philosophy of demonstration projects more tangible and offer guidance to decision makers and light planners.
In line with the widely-shared view that lacking awareness of light as pollution is a key obstacle to tackling the problem, education of both lighting experts and users is a highly consensual recommendation. In comparison, regulatory measures like binding law were less consensual. We thus conclude that the largest common grounds among the two groups exist regarding soft measures, such as setting good examples and raising awareness. From a policy perspective, such educational and best-practice measures constitute low-hanging fruit, as they are likely to raise attention and enthusiasm with less controversy and opposition than may be the case with hard regulation. The experts who 65 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
17 of 20
participated in our survey seem well-aware of this across the board. However, regarding the question of whether such soft measures will be enough, our survey indicates that opinions differ.
6. Conclusions
This exploratory study focuses on expert views on light pollution to explore common grounds for future debates and political strategies. Our findings show that lighting professionals who provide illumination and light pollution experts, who problematize artificial light at night, do not necessarily live and work in worlds apart. Instead, the lighting designers, planners and manufacturers that participated in our survey are ready to take into account the increasing scientific evidence on negative non-visual effects of artificial light at night on ecosystems in order to provide better lighting as part of their business. They accept the notion of light pollution, especially in situations where lighting does not live up to quality standards of light engineering, planning or design. Finally, they largely agree with astronomers, environmentalists, researchers and dark-sky activists that there is a need for raising awareness for the unwanted side-effects of lighting.
While light pollution is far from being a mainstream topic, these findings suggest that there is a rising awareness for the problem and its potential effects not only in science and society, but also in the lighting field. As an emerging environmental concern, the issue also raises questions that go beyond this study. For instance, the problem and solutions seem to be less controversial than the obstacles that prevent light pollution mitigation. To better understand the governance challenge, it therefore seems advisable to not only study the effects of ALAN, but also the societal and cultural contexts in which it is produced, used and changed [
13 ,
25 ,
47 ]. Disagreement and controversies can thereby offer a salient starting point for understanding the values and fears, path dependencies and future visions associated with light and darkness [
19 ,
39 ,
56 ].
Moreover, the governance challenge of light pollution shows interesting parallels with other environmental issues that are more established and may offer instructive insights, like noise or chemical pollution [
57 ]. One lesson learnt is that patchy knowledge bases and scientific uncertainty constitute a challenge for risk communication [
58 ]. With regard to our results, this raises the sensitive question of how to create public awareness for light pollution without either dramatizing or downplaying its potential effects. Research alone cannot meet this challenge. Instead, it highlights the need for science-policy interfaces as well as inter- and transdisciplinary exchange. A number of initiatives and organizations in both the lighting field and the emerging ALAN research community offer platforms to meet this demand [
16 ] (pp. 224–246). However, although experts of both fields have started to exchange views and knowledge, a joint platform for opening and closing debates is still missing, which can cause uncertainty among light users [
25 ].
The commonalities between two fields of expertise highlighted in this paper thus have practical relevance, as they can facilitate exchange between experts that share an interest in light pollution mitigation despite their diverse, and potentially opposing, professional backgrounds. Fostering this exchange seems pivotal since light pollution mitigation means a transformation of lighting practices and the positive connotation of lighting [
13 ]. It is even more important as the strong support for situation-specific definitions of light pollution in our study suggests that the issue can hardly be solved only in principle, but calls for negotiation at the level of lighting projects and in public discourses. Seen from this perspective, the recommendation to raise awareness and education seems to be a ‘no-brainer’.
Instead, it raises the question about what should be taught to whom and how. In this respect, critical debates on light planning and lighting design that engage local residents and stakeholders from lighting and non-lighting backgrounds on-site in concrete projects seems a promising starting point.
After all, there is no shortage of technological options or visionary concepts like “human centric” or “smart” lighting, but a lack of projects that realize these possibilities in sustainable ways. This is not surprising, as determining what “sustainable” lighting actually is, will very likely stir debate, opposition and controversies over means and goals. It is also quite possible that lighting professionals and light pollution experts who agree in principle will disagree when it comes to concrete decisions. 66 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
18 of 20
Therefore, public testing and reality checks of visionary ideas and concepts are essential. They bear potential for improvement, mutual understanding and, most importantly, bring the global discussion on light pollution into a local, practical context, and make it real in its consequences.
Supplementary Materials:
The following are available online at
http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/6/1696/
s1
, Table S1: Variables used in regressions, Figure S1: Regressional analyses, Table S2: Trends, Figure S2: Trends, Table S3: Problem dimension, Table S4: Obstacles, Table S5: Responsibilities, Table S6: Recommendations. An overview of variables is available at
www.ufz.de/light-pollution
.
Author Contributions:
N.S.-R., J.M. and E.D. have conceived and conceptualized the study and questionnaire.
N.S.-R. and M.S. prepared and carried out the survey and analyzed the survey data. N.S.-R. and J.M. wrote the first draft of the paper and all four authors contributed to writing, revising and editing the manuscript.
Funding:
This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest:
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1. Longcore, T.; Rich, C. Ecological light pollution.
Front. Ecol. Environ.
2004
,
2 , 191–198. [
CrossRef
]
2. Navara, K.J.; Nelson, R. The dark side of light at night: Physiological, epidemiological, and ecological consequences.
J. Pineal Res.
2007
,
43 , 215–224. [
CrossRef
] [
PubMed
]
3. Gaston, K.J.; Visser, M.E.; Hölker, F. The biological impacts of artificial light at night: The research challenge.
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.
2015
,
370
, 1–6. [
CrossRef
] [
PubMed
]
4. Roenneberg, T.; Kantermann, T.; Juda, M.; Vetter, C.; Allebrandt, K.V . Light and the human circadian clock.
Handb. Exp. Pharmacol.
2013
,
217
, 311–331.
5. American Medical Association (AMA).
Report of the Council on Science and Public Health on Human and Environmental Effects of Light Emitting Diode (LED) Community Lighting ; Presented by Luis J. Kraus, MD, Chair
2016, (CSAPH Report 2-A-16); American Medical Association (AMA): Chicago, IL, USA, 2016.
6. Falchi, F.; Cinzano, P .; Duriscoe, D.; Kyba, C.C.M.; Elvidge, C.D.; Baugh, K.; Portnov, B.A.; Rybnikova, N.A.; Furgoni, R. The new world atlas of artificial night sky brightness.
Sci. Adv.
2016
,
2 , e1600377. [
CrossRef
]
[
PubMed
]
7. Bille, M.; Sørensen, T.F. An Anthropology of Luminosity: The Agency of Light.
J. Mater. Cult.
2007
,
12 ,
263–284. [
CrossRef
]
8. Bach, S.; Degenring, F.
Dark Nights, Bright Lights: Night, Darkness, and Illumination in Literature ; Walter de
Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG: Berlin, Germany, 2015; Volume 50.
9. Barentine, J. France Adopts National Light Pollution Policy among Most Progressive in the World. Available online:
https://www.darksky.org/france-light-pollution-law-2018/ (accessed on 12 February 2019).
10. Chain, P . Slovenia Takes Dim View of Light Pollution.
BBC News
8 September 2010. Available online:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11220636
(accessed on 15 March 2019).
11. Hirdina, K. Belichte. Beleuchten. Erhellen. In
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Philosophische Fakultät III, Institut für Kultur- und Kunstwissenschaften ; Seminar für Ästhetik: Berlin, Germany,
1997; Volume 89.
12. Böhme, H. Das Licht als Medium der Kunst. Über Erfahrungsarmut und ästhetisches Gegenlicht in der technischen Zivilisation. In
Licht, Farbe, Raum. Künstlerisch-Wissenschaftliches Symposium ; Schwarz, M., Ed.;
Humboldt University zu Berlin: Braunschweig, Germany, 1997; pp. 111–137.
13. Edensor, T.
From Light to Dark: Daylight, Illumination, and Gloom
; University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis,
MN, USA, 2017.
14. Philips Lighting Light Pollution—The Effects on Animals and Humans. Available online:
http://www.lighting.philips.com/main/education/lighting-university/lighting-university-browser/ webinar/lighting-pollution
(accessed on 11 February 2019).
15. Lentz, L.C. August 2016 Product Briefs: Dark Sky-Friendly Light Fixtures.
Architectural Record
2016.
Available online:
https://www.architecturalrecord.com/articles/11823-august-2016-product-briefs-dark- sky-friendly-light-fixtures?v=preview
(accessed on 15 March 2019).
16. Schulte-Römer, N.; Dannemann, E.; Meier, J.
Light Pollution—A Global Discussion
; Helmholtz-Centre for
Environmental Research GmbH—UFZ: Leipzig, Germany, 2018. Available online:
http://www.ufz.de/
index.php?en=20939&ufzPublicationIdentifier=21131
(accessed on 11 February 2019).
67 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
19 of 20
17. McGowan, S. Night Watch: Checking in with the dark sky movement.
Architectural Lighting
8 March 2007.
Available online:
https://www.archlighting.com/industry/night-watch-checking-in-with-the-dark-sky- movement_o
(accessed on 15 March 2019).
18. ALAN Official Website. Available online:
http://www.artificiallightatnight.org/
(accessed on 11 February
2019).
19. Chall
é
at, S.; Lapostolle, D.; B
é
nos, R. Consider the darkness. From an environmental and sociotechnical controversy to innovation in urban lighting.
J. Urban Res.
2014
,
11 , 1–17.
20. Marres, N. The Issues Deserve More Credit: Pragmatist Contributions to the Study of Public Involvement in Controversy.
Soc. Stud. Sci.
2007
,
37 , 759–780. [
CrossRef
]
21. Lyytimäki, J.; Rinne, J. Voices for the darkness: Online survey on public perceptions on light pollution as an environmental problem.
Integr. Environ. Sci.
2013
,
10 , 127–139. [
CrossRef
]
22. Besecke, A.; Hänsch, R. Residents’ perceptions of light and darkness. In Urban Lighting, Light Pollution and
Society
; Meier, J., Hasenöhrl, U., Krause, K., Pottharst, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015.
23. Green, J.; Perkins, C.; Steinbach, R.; Edwards, P . Reduced street lighting at night and health: A rapid appraisal of public views in England and Wales.
Health Place
2015
,
34 , 171–180. [
CrossRef
] [
PubMed
]
24. Schulte-Römer, N.; Hänel, A. Dimming it Down: Lighting Conflicts and Regulation—Introduction. In Urban
Lighting, Light Pollution and Society
; Meier, J., Hasenöhrl, U., Krause, K., Pottharst, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 100–104.
25. Bille, M.
Homely Atmospheres and Lighting Technologies in Denmark: Living with Light ; Bloomsbury Publishing:
London, UK, 2019.
26. Wenger, E.
Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity ; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge,
UK, 1999.
27. Hasenöhrl, U. Lighting conflicts from a historical perspective. In Urban Lighting, Light Pollution and Society
;
Meier, J., Hasenöhrl, U., Krause, K., Pottharst, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 105–124.
28. Cinzano, P .; Falchi, F.; Elvidge, C.D. The first World Atlas of the artificial night sky brightness.
Monthly Not.
R. Astron. Soc.
2001
,
328
, 689–707. [
CrossRef
]
29. Hänel, A.; Posch, T.; Ribas, S.J.; Aub
é
, M.; Duriscoe, D.; Jechow, A.; Kollath, Z.; Lolkema, D.E.; Moore, C.; Schmidt, N.; et al. Measuring night sky brightness: Methods and challenges.
J. Quant. Spectrosc. Radiat.
Transf.
2018
,
205
, 278–290. [
CrossRef
]
30. Holzhauer, S.; Franke, S.; Kyba, C.; Manfrin, A.; Klenke, R.; Voigt, C.; Lewanzik, D.; Oehlert, M.; Monaghan, M.; Schneider, S. Out of the dark: Establishing a large-scale field experiment to assess the effects of artificial light at night on species and food webs.
Sustainability
2015
,
7 , 15593–15616. [
CrossRef
]
31. Aub
é
, M. Physical behaviour of anthropogenic light propagation into the nocturnal environment.
Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
2015
,
370
, 20140117. [
CrossRef
] [
PubMed
]
32. Aub
é
, M.; Kocifaj, M. Using two light-pollution models to investigate artificial sky radiances at Canary Islands observatories.
Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.
2012
,
422
, 819–830. [
CrossRef
]
33. Spoelstra, K.; van Grunsven, R.H.; Donners, M.; Gienapp, P .; Huigens, M.E.; Slaterus, R.; Berendse, F.; Visser, M.E.; Veenendaal, E. Experimental illumination of natural habitat—An experimental set-up to assess the direct and indirect ecological consequences of artificial light of different spectral composition.
Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
2015
,
370
, 20140129. [
CrossRef
] [
PubMed
]
34. Schroer, S.; Hölker, F. Impact of lighting on flora and fauna.
Handb. Adv. Light. Technol.
2017
, 957–989.
[
CrossRef
]
35. Stevens, R.G.; Zhu, Y. Electric light, particularly at night, disrupts human circadian rhythmicity: Is that a problem?
Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci.
2015
,
370
, 20140120. [
CrossRef
]
36. Meier, J. Designating Dark Sky Areas: Actors and interests. In Urban Lighting, Light Pollution and Society
;
Meier, J., Hasenöhrl, U., Krause, K., Pottharst, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 177–196.
37. Bogard, P .
The end of Night: Searching for Natural Darkness in an Age of Artificial Light ; Hachette: London, UK,
2013.
38. S
á
nchez de Miguel, A.
Spatial, Temporal and Spectral Variation of Light Pollution and Its Sources: Methodology and Results
; Universidad Complutense de Madrid: Madrid, Spain, 2015.
39. Meier, J.; Hasenöhrl, U.; Krause, K.; Pottharst, M.
Urban Lighting, Light Pollution and Society
; Routledge: New
York, NY, USA, 2015.
68 Sustainability
2019
,
11 , 1696
20 of 20
40. Morgan-Taylor, M. Regulating light pollution in Europe: Legal challenges and ways forward. In Urban
Lighting, Light Pollution and Society
; Meier, J., Hasenöhrl, U., Krause, K., Pottharst, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 159–176.
41. AstroLab, Activity guide 2017–2018: AstroLab. Parc National du Mont-M é
gantic Parc National
du Mont-M
é
gantic. 2017. Available online:
http://astrolab-parc-national-mont-megantic.org/files/
ssparagraph/1491459118/form_groupe_2017_scolaire_english.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2019).
42. LoNNe What Can We Do Against Light Pollution. Available online:
http://www.cost-lonne.eu/
recommendations/
(accessed on 11 February 2019).
43. Zielinska-Dabkowska, K.M. Make lighting healthier.
Nature
2018
,
553
, 274–276. [
CrossRef
]
44. Institution of Lighting Professionals (ILP).
Guidance Notes for the Reduction of Obtrusive Light
; Institution
of Lighting Professionals: Rugby, UK, 2011. Available online:
https://www.theilp.org.uk/documents/
obtrusive-light/guidance-notes-light-pollution-2011.pdf (accessed on 15 March 2019).
45. Lighting Research Center. The Light and Health Alliance. Available online:
https://www.lrc.rpi.edu/
programs/lightHealth/alliance.asp
(accessed on 12 February 2019).
46. Philips Lighting. Shining a Light on Health and Well-Being. Available online:
http://www.lighting.
philips.com/main/education/lighting-university/lighting-university-browser/webinar/light-and- health-implications-for-hospitality
(accessed on 11 February 2019).
47. Schulte-Römer, N.
Innovating in Public. The Introduction of LED Lighting in Berlin and Lyon ; Technical University
Berlin: Berlin, Germany, 2015.
48. Ocana-Miguel, A.; Andres-Diaz, J.; Hermoso-Orz
á
ez, M.; Gago-Calder
ó
n, A. Analysis of the Viability of
Street Light Programming Using Commutation Cycles in the Power Line.
Sustainability
2018
,
10 , 4043.
[
CrossRef
]
49. Boyce, P .
Exploring Human-Centric Lighting
; SAGE Publications Sage: London, UK, 2016.
50. Köhler, D. The lighting master plan as an instrument for municipalities? A Critical Assessment of possibilities and limitations. In
Urban Lighting, Light Pollution and Society
; Meier, J., Hasenöhrl, U., Krause, K., Pottharst, M.,
Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 141–158.
51. Chall
é
at, S.; Lapostolle, D.
Getting Night Lighting Right. Taking Account of Nocturnal Urban Uses for Better-Lit Cities
; M
é
tropolitiques.eu: La Plaine Saint-Denis, France, 2018.
52. Zielinska-Dabkowska, K.; Rhode, M.F.
New Perspectives on the Future of Healthy Light and Lighting in Daily Life ;
callidus; Verlag wissenschaftlicher Publikationen: Wismar, Germany, 2017.
53. Bobertz, B.C. Legitimizing pollution through pollution control laws: Reflections on scapegoating theory.
Texas Law Rev.
1994
,
73 , 711.
54. Scott, L.A. Roger Narboni. In
Lighting. Illumination in Architecture
; Revo Media Partners Ltd.: London, UK,
2015; Volume 47, pp. 72–79.
55. IDA; IES.
Model Lighting Ordinance (MLO) with User’s Guide—Featuring Lighting Zones (LZ0-4) and BUG Rating System
; International Dark-Sky Association and Illuminating Engineering Society: New York, NY, USA, 2011; p. 44. Available online:
https://www.ies.org/product/model-lighting-ordinance-mlo-with-users-guide (accessed on 15 March 2019).
56. Meier, J.M. Contentious Light: An Analytical Framework for Lighting Conflicts.
Int. J. Sustain. Light.
2018
,
20 , 62–77. [
CrossRef
]
57. Krause, K. Regulating urban lighting: Prospects for institutional change. In Urban Lighting, Light Pollution
and Society
; Meier, J., Hasenöhrl, U., Krause, K., Pottharst, M., Eds.; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2015; pp. 125–140.
58. Lyytimäki, J.; Tapio, P .; Assmuth, T. Unawareness in environmental protection: The case of light pollution from traffic.
Land Use Policy
2012
,
29 , 598–604. [
CrossRef
]
©
2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
).
69 City of Hayward
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments Document
Letter
4 COMMENTER:
Carin High
,
Co
-
Chair
,
Citizens Committee to Complete the Refuge
DATE:
May
24, 2021
Response
4 .1
The commenter
states their understanding of the proposed project in the form of a summary.
The commenter
’
s understanding of the proposed project is an accurate summary of one component of the project as proposed and evaluated in
the Draft EIR
.
However, as described on
P
age 2
-
6 of the
Draft EIR, the proposed also includes two other components. These two other components include a land exchange to relocate the San Francisco Bay Trail and establishing an approximately 32 -
acre
wetland
preserve.
This comment is noted and does not require revisions to the Draft EIR.
Response
4 .
2 The commenter lists the project objectives while stating an opinion that
one of the objectives is the
purpose of the project and two of the objectives
appear to
be intended to
prohibit the selection of
alternatives to the project
, which the commenter opines is
a violat
ion of
CEQA
.
The commenter correctly lists the project objectives. As described on P
age 2
-
13 of the Draft EIR, the
objectives of the proposed projec
t are to:
Develop an industrial building to house U
-
Haul corporate headquarters and warehouse.
L
ocate the building at the western edge of Hayward in proximity to a regional highway and
other industrial, warehousing and logistics uses to avoid land use conf licts.
Create new employment and economic growth opportunities by redeveloping a vacant and
underutilized property.
Establish a wetland preserve adjacent to the San Francisco Bay.
Remove a dilapidated and unsafe structure from a currently underutilized pro perty at the
gateway to the City.
The commenter’s
assertion
that the
primary
objective
of the project is
to develop an industrial
building
to house U
-
Haul corporate headquarters and
a
warehouse
is partially correct.
T
he project
also has the purpose of establishing a wetland preserve, as described in the objectives listed above and on
P
age 2
-
13 of the Draft EIR.
The commenter’s
opinion
that the last two listed objectives are overly specific such that they confine
consid
eration of alternatives
and
render it impossible for any other
alternative location
to
be selected is incorrect.
An alternative to a project does not need to meet every objective of that project. Pursuant to Section 15126.6 of the
State CEQA Guidelines
, “
A
n EIR shall describe a range of
reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project…”
Based on Section 15126.26 of the
State CEQA
Guidelines
, an alternative to t
he proposed project need not meet all objectives listed below, but only most of them, such as the first three listed. Therefore, listing all objectives of the project, including specific objectives, does not violate CEQA or inhibit the City’s alternatives analysis or
selection.
70 Final
Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments Document
Section 6 of the Draft EIR is the analysis of alternatives to the proposed project. Alternative 2, which is an alternate site alternative, is identified as the environmentally superior alternative on page 6 -
11 of the Draft EIR. As de
scribed on page 6
-
11 of the Draft EIR, Alternative 2 would fail to meet two of the five project objectives.
Despite not meeting all five objectives, the City retains the ability to select and proceed with Alternative 2 instead of the proposed project.
Beca
use the Draft EIR evaluates a reasonable range of alternatives to the project
pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines
, including alternatives that meet most of the basic objectives of the project, additional alternatives analyses are unnecessary. No revisions to the D raft EIR are necessary in response to this
comment.
Response
4 .
3 The commenter states that the Draft EIR identifies Alternative 2 as the environmentally superior alternative, but that Alternative 2 is rejected because it fails to meet two project objective s.
As discussed in Response 4.2, Alternative 2, which is an alternate site alternative, is identified as the environmentally superior alternative on
P
age 6
-
11 of the Draft EIR. As described on
Page
6 -
11 of the
Draft EIR, Alternative 2 would fail to meet tw
o of the five project objectives. Despite not meeting all five objectives, the City retains the ability to select and proceed with Alternative 2 instead of the proposed project. Alternative 2 is not rejected from consideration.
Additionally, Section 15126.
6 of
the
State CEQA Guidelines
only requires that an EIR identify the environmentally superior alternative. CEQA does not require the City to select or implement the environmentally superior alternative.
Because the Draft EIR evaluates a reasonable range o
f alternatives to the project and identifies an
environmentally superior alternative, additional alternatives analyses are unnecessary. No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.
Response
4 .
4 The commenter states
an opinion
th
at project operation would generate trash that attracts species that would be a nuisance to salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) and salt marsh wandering shrew (SMWS), but that the Draft EIR provides no mitigation for impacts of nuisance species to SMHM or SMWS
.
Typically, the types of trash or waste that attract nuisance species, such as feral cats or Norway rats, consists of food scraps and food packaging. Food waste is generally associated with either residential areas or commercial development with restauran ts, where there are many people
cooking and preparing meals, which in turn generates food waste. The proposed project consists of an industrial building to be used for an office and warehouse. Office and warehouse use would not generate substantial amounts
of food waste or by
-
products. Workers on
-
site could bring meals to
the building and discard food trash in small quantities. However, waste generated by workers would be disposed of in proper trash receptables, such as a dumpster, and the receptables would
be
stored inside the building. Because project dumpsters would be in an enclosed area, they would be largely
inaccessible to feral cats or rats.
P
ets such as domestic cats would
not be expected to
reside
within the industrial building.
Therefore, operatio
n of the proposed project would not
significantly
attract or support populations of nuisance species.
Because the project would not attract nuisance
species, there would be no significant impact of nuisance species on SMHM or SMWS and mitigation is not req
uired.
No revisions to the Draft EIR are necessary in response to this comment.
71 City of Hayward
4150 Point Eden Way Industrial Development Project
Final Environmental Impact Report
Response to Comments Document
Response
4 .
5 The commenter states that no discussion is provided regarding how the impacts of the project on the loss of SMHM and SMWS escape refugia will be mitigated even though the impacts “are
regarded as potentially significant.” The comment letter also discusses sea level rise and the need for SMHM and SMWS escape refugia.