DOCSLIB.ORG

203287 TP Final Vol 2.Ai

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
203287 TP Final Vol 2.Ai 4.1 Overview4.1 4.1 Overview CHAPTER 4 WSIP Facility Projects – Setting and Impacts Chapter 4 Sections 4.1 Overview 4.11 Public Services and Utilities 4.2 Plans and Policies 4.12 Recreational Resources 4.3 Land Use and Visual Quality 4.13 Agricultural Resources 4.4 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 4.14 Hazards 4.5 Hydrology and Water Quality 4.15 Energy Resources 4.6 Biological Resources 4.16 Collective Impacts Related to WSIP Facilities 4.7 Cultural Resources 4.17 Cumulative Effects 4.8 Traffic, Transportation, and Circulation (References included under each section) 4.9 Air Quality 4.10 Noise and Vibration 4.1 Overview This chapter addresses the Water System Improvement Program (WSIP) facility improvement projects described in Chapter 3, Section 3.9, and provides a program-level evaluation of the potential environmental impacts of constructing and operating each of the 22 regional WSIP facility projects. This overview section describes key aspects of the approach to analysis that applies to the program-level impact evaluation of WSIP facility projects. This chapter focuses only on the WSIP projects and does not address the effects of the proposed WSIP water supply and system operations through 2030, which are evaluated separately in Chapter 5. Chapter 5 addresses the effects of the proposed water supply and system operations on the Tuolumne River system, Alameda Creek system, Peninsula system, and Westside Basin Groundwater Resources. The Chapter 4 impact analysis is based on preliminary information about the individual projects that are proposed for implementation following approval of the WSIP. The project information presented is conceptual in nature, based on readily available information about the projects, types of facilities proposed, and their general site locations. This level of information is appropriate for this programmatic analysis of these projects. This chapter identifies the general types of impacts that could be expected to result from the individual projects, based on existing project SF Planning Department Case No. 2005.0159E 4.1-1 PEIR on SFPUC Water System Improvement Program / 203287 4. WSIP Facility Projects – Setting and Impacts Overview information. The information about the individual projects continues to evolve as data about the project sites, design, operation, and effects are refined. All projects will be examined in more detail at the project level. If the individual WSIP projects have additional significant impacts that were not addressed in this Program EIR, the San Francisco Planning Department will prepare EIRs or negative declarations to examine the site-specific and project-specific effects of the individual projects. More detailed information about the individual projects (i.e., construction plans as well as siting and operational details) will be considered in the project-level environmental documents. Sections 4.2 through 4.15 present program-level impacts associated with each WSIP facility project by environmental resource topic. Section 4.16 presents combined or collective impacts resulting from implementation of multiple WSIP facility projects, also organized by environmental resource topic. Section 4.17 presents cumulative impacts resulting from implementation of the WSIP as a whole in conjunction with other cumulative development. Scope of the WSIP Facility Impact Analysis This program-level impact analysis identifies the potential environmental effects of the individual WSIP projects based on general information about each project and project site(s). To date, many of the WSIP projects have been developed at the conceptual level only and only some projects have more detailed siting and design information. Accordingly, this program-level evaluation addresses all projects from a broad, overview perspective. It does not provide detailed, site- specific impact assessment of each project, but rather frames the nature and magnitude of the expected environmental impacts associated with the proposed WSIP projects. Based on these impacts, Chapter 6 identifies the appropriate program-level mitigation measures in general terms; these measures would be refined to specifically apply to each project as the projects are further developed. Since there are undetermined aspects of many of the WSIP projects at this stage of program planning, this Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) errs on the conservative side of impact significance determination and assumes that separate, project-level California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review would confirm the existing conditions and degree of impact. The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) is conducting detailed project development studies on many of the WSIP projects concurrent with preparation of the PEIR. For many of the WSIP projects, project-level CEQA review is being conducted or will be conducted as appropriate to provide additional information and analyses and further address the site-specific impacts outlined in this PEIR. The project-level analyses will consider whether additional project information changes the environmental impact determinations contained in the PEIR about the individual project, and whether the programmatic mitigation measures identified in this PEIR should be refined. Both project-level EIRs and negative declarations are being prepared or will be prepared for many of the WSIP projects. All projects will be assessed to determine whether additional environmental review is required. [Additional discussion on the appropriate level of detail for environmental analysis was prepared in response to comments on the Draft PEIR. Please refer to Section 14.4, Master Response on PEIR Appropriate Level of Analysis (Vol. 7, Chapter 14).] SF Planning Department Case No. 2005.0159E 4.1-2 PEIR on SFPUC Water System Improvement Program / 203287 4. WSIP Facility Projects – Setting and Impacts Overview Study Area for WSIP Regional Facility Projects The study area applicable to the WSIP facility projects discussed in this chapter extends from Oakdale Portal on the SFPUC regional water system, which is the easternmost location of any of the WSIP projects (i.e., the San Joaquin Pipeline System project, SJ-3), westward along the regional water system to San Francisco, which is the westernmost location of the WSIP projects. The study area for the WSIP facility projects includes the five regions described in Chapter 2, Section 2.2 and shown in Figure 2.1: the San Joaquin (SJ), Sunol Valley (SV), Bay Division (BD), Peninsula (PN), and San Francisco (SF) Regions (there are five regional WSIP projects located in both San Francisco and northern San Mateo County, overlapping with parts of the Peninsula Region). No WSIP facility projects are proposed east of Oakdale Portal in the Hetch Hetchy region of the regional system, so no discussion of this eastern region is provided in this chapter. The locations of the WSIP projects are shown in Figures 3.5a and 3.5b. In a few instances (i.e., Section 4.15, Energy Resources, and Section 4.16, Collective Impacts Related to WSIP Facilities), the impact analysis addresses impacts of the program area rather than the study area. The program area encompasses the entire area affected by the WSIP, from Hetch Hetchy Reservoir to San Francisco. WSIP Project Names Chapter 3, Table 3.10, describes each WSIP project and gives the complete project name and number. Throughout this chapter, the WSIP project names are abbreviated and the project number is also referenced. To aid the PEIR reader, a complete WSIP project list is presented as Figure 4.1-1. The list gives the full project names, abbreviated project names, and reference numbers and is organized by region. Proposed Project Sites The impact analysis in this PEIR is based on project description information provided by the SFPUC with respect to facility location and conceptual project construction and operation scenarios for each of the projects. This information is summarized in Chapter 3 and further detailed in Appendix C. In cases where the SFPUC has chosen a preferred site location for a particular project, each section in this chapter evaluates the impacts of the WSIP facility improvement projects at their preferred site locations (as listed in Table 3.12 in Chapter 3). Some WSIP projects have alternative locations (specified in Tables 3.10 and 3.11); impacts associated with potential project development at these alternative locations are not evaluated in this PEIR, although generic impacts for each type of facility that could apply to the alternative sites are described. Project location alternatives and alternative site design and layout would be evaluated as appropriate in the project-level CEQA evaluations for select WSIP projects. For some WSIP projects, specific project locations have not yet been developed. In these cases, the program-level analysis considers the range of alternatives presented and a reasonable worst-case scenario regarding the potential environmental impacts that could occur. SF Planning Department Case No. 2005.0159E 4.1-3 PEIR on SFPUC Water System Improvement Program / 203287 GUIDE TO NAMES AND NUMBERS OF WSIP FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS SAN JOAQUIN REGION No. Project Title Abbreviated Project Title SJ-1 Advanced Disinfection Advanced Disinfection SJ-2 Lawrence Livermore Supply Improvements Lawrence Livermore SJ-3 San Joaquin Pipeline System SJPL System SJ-4 Rehabilitation of Existing San Joaquin Pipelines SJPL Rehabilitation SJ-5 Tesla Portal Disinfection Station Tesla Portal Disinfection SUNOL VALLEY REGION
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements and Skyline Bridge Replacement Projects
    Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvements and Skyline Bridge Replacement Projects Highlights, Timelines & FAQs In 2018, work was competed on several interconnected efforts by the County of San Mateo and the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) to make improvements to the Lower Crystal Springs Dam and replaced the bridge on top of the dam, which allows the re-opening of Skyline Boulevard. Below are some key facts: Lower Crystal Springs Dam Improvement Highlights (SFPUC Project): • Doubling the width of the spillway to 200 feet • Raising the parapet wall on top of the dam by 9 feet • Replacing the stilling basin (which stills released water before it enters San Mateo Creek) with a new larger basin and erosion protection at the toe of the dam • $35 million total project cost, over two years (completed December 2012) Skyline Bridge Replacement Highlights (County of San Mateo project): • The new bridge is 626 feet long and 51.5 feet wide and approximately 7 feet higher than the former bridge. • Constructing retaining walls at the Scenic Vista Point parking area due to the change in bridge elevation. • Created a new 15-foot wide recreational trail on the west side of the bridge that is separated from vehicular traffic and providing connectivity for Crystal Springs Regional Trail users. • Installed new split rail fencing. • A new trail section south of the bridge allows trail users to continue along the Crystal Springs Regional Trail to the relatively new “South of Dam” trail section. • PG&E relocated overhead 230kV electrical transmission lines to the underside of the new bridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Bioassessment and Water Quality Monitoring in the San Mateo Creek Watershed San Mateo County, California
    Bioassessment and Water Quality Monitoring in the San Mateo Creek Watershed San Mateo County, California San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program August 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Bioassessment and Water Quality Monitoring in the San Mateo Creek Watershed San Mateo County, California San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Prepared for the San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program by EOA, Inc. 1410 Jackson St. Oakland, CA 94612 August 2005 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1 2.0 BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................1 2.1 Description of Study Area ...................................................................................................1 2.2 Regulatory Information........................................................................................................1 2.3 Previous Water Quality Investigations ................................................................................2 3.0 METHODS ..............................................................................................................................2 3.1 Bioassessment....................................................................................................................2
    [Show full text]
  • 1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California
    1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California Prepared for: Premia Capital, LLC 801 Hamilton Street Redwood City, CA Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. January 18, 2019 1180 MAIN STREET PROJECT, CULTURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY AND EVALUATION REPORT, REDWOOD CITY, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA This document entitled 1180 Main Street Project, Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report, Redwood City, San Mateo County, California was prepared by Stantec Inc. (“Stantec”) for the account of Premia Capital, LLC (the “Client”). Any reliance on this document by any third party is strictly prohibited. The material in it reflects Stantec’s professional judgment in light of the scope, schedule and other limitations stated in the document and in the contract between Stantec and the Client. The opinions in the document are based on conditions and information existing at the time the document was published and do not take into account any subsequent changes. In preparing the document, Stantec did not verify information supplied to it by others. Any use which a third party makes of this document is the responsibility of such third party. Such third party agrees that Stantec shall not be responsible for costs or damages of any kind, if any, suffered by it or any other third party as a result of decisions made or actions taken based on this document. Prepared by (signature) Joanne Grant, Archaeologist, MA, RPA Reviewed by (signature) John A. Nadolski, M.A. Approved
    [Show full text]
  • Podcast Show Notes & Transcript
    SHOW NOTES & TRANSCRIPT EPISODE SHOW NOTES Episode Title: Crystal Springs Dam Episode # & Date: Episode #24 – April 9, 2020 About this Episode: Peter uncovers the history of San Mateo’s great drinking water and the impressive Crystal Springs Dam that makes it possible. Episode Web Page: https://sanmateofocus.com/crystal-springs-dam/ EPISODE TRANSCRIPT This is San Mateo Focus, I’m Peter Radsliff filling in this week for Judy Gordon. When choosing what to present for this episode, it wasn’t lost on Judy and I how surreal life is right now and whether talking about local topics even made a difference in a San Mateo that is locked- down. But maybe because of this lack of normalcy, it’s all the more important to ensure we have some semblance of routine in our lives. It’s with that in mind that we offer ongoing stories of San Mateo’s history, culture, food, and things to do. Onto this week’s episode. When San Mateans hear the words Hetch Hetchy, most know it’s the name of a valley in Yosemite National Park about a four-hour drive away. Some might also know it’s the site of the impressive 431- foot tall O’Shaughnessy Dam that forms the Hetch Hetchy reservoir, which feeds the 160-mile long journey to Upper Crystal Springs Reservoir for us San Mateans to drink. What most probably don’t know is that the Lower Crystal Springs reservoir first existed because of the 141-foot tall Crystal Springs Dam that was built over San Mateo Creek in 1888, a full 35 years before O’Shaughnessy Dam opened in Hetch Hetchy! In this episode we’re going to explore the history of the Crystal Springs Dam and how vital it is to the lifestyle, economy, and safety of San Mateo.
    [Show full text]
  • State of the Regional Water System Report
    San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2018 State of the Regional Water System Report State of the Regional Water System September 2018 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission September 2018 1 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2018 State of the Regional Water System Report List of Contributors: Manouchehr Boozarpour Mary Ellen Carroll Jason Chen John Chester Eric Choi Jonathan Chow Fonda Davidis Andrew DeGraca Alexis Dufour Anna Fedman Stacie Feng Ed Forner Josh Gale Nancy Hom Margaret Hannaford Annie Li Nicholas Martin Adam Mazurkiewicz Chris Nelson Tim Ramirez Scott Riley Brian Rolley Ken Salmon Enio Sebastiani Eddy So Shailen Talati Dan Wade James West Mike Williams Derrick Wong San Francisco Public Utilities Commission September 2018 2 San Francisco Public Utilities Commission 2018 State of the Regional Water System Report Table of Contents 1. Overview........................................................................................................................................... 13 1.1 Purpose of this Report ............................................................................................................... 13 1.2 Value Added Under Water System Improvement Program ...................................................... 14 1.3 Continuing to Invest .................................................................................................................. 15 1.4 Recent Notable Events .............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Hazard Vulnerability Assessment
    SAN MATEO COUNTY HAZARD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT HAZARD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT APPENDIX TO THE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS PLAN (HAZARD + RISK = VULNERABILITY) San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office Homeland Security Division Office of Emergency Services J A N U A R Y 2 , 2 0 1 5 SAN MATEO COUNTY HAZARD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT County of San Mateo Sheriff’s Office Homeland Security Division Office of EmergencyServices 400 County Center Redwood City, CA 94063 650-363-4955 www.smcsheriff.com i 01/02/2015 SAN MATEO COUNTY HAZARD VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS GENERAL ............................................................................................................................. 1 SAN MATEO COUNTY PROFILE ................................................................................................ 3 HAZARD 1: DAM FAILURE ...................................................................................................... 5 HAZARD 2: DROUGHT ......................................................................................................... 11 HAZARD 3: EARTHQUAKES ................................................................................................... 15 HAZARD 4: EXTREME HEAT .................................................................................................. 23 HAZARD 5: FLOODING ......................................................................................................... 25 HAZARD 6: HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fang Family San Francisco Examiner Photograph Archive Negative Files, Circa 1930-2000, Circa 1930-2000
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/hb6t1nb85b No online items Finding Aid to the Fang family San Francisco examiner photograph archive negative files, circa 1930-2000, circa 1930-2000 Bancroft Library staff The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ © 2010 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Finding Aid to the Fang family San BANC PIC 2006.029--NEG 1 Francisco examiner photograph archive negative files, circa 1930-... Finding Aid to the Fang family San Francisco examiner photograph archive negative files, circa 1930-2000, circa 1930-2000 Collection number: BANC PIC 2006.029--NEG The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ Finding Aid Author(s): Bancroft Library staff Finding Aid Encoded By: GenX © 2011 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Collection Summary Collection Title: Fang family San Francisco examiner photograph archive negative files Date (inclusive): circa 1930-2000 Collection Number: BANC PIC 2006.029--NEG Creator: San Francisco Examiner (Firm) Extent: 3,200 boxes (ca. 3,600,000 photographic negatives); safety film, nitrate film, and glass : various film sizes, chiefly 4 x 5 in. and 35mm. Repository: The Bancroft Library. University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ Abstract: Local news photographs taken by staff of the Examiner, a major San Francisco daily newspaper.
    [Show full text]
  • Strong Ground Motion
    The Lorna Prieta, California, Earthquake of October 17, 1989-Strong Ground Motion ROGER D. BORCHERDT, Editor STRONG GROUND MOTION AND GROUND FAILURE Thomas L. Holzer, Coordinator U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 1551-A UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1994 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BRUCE BABBITT, Secretary U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Gordon P. Eaton, Director Any use of trade, product, or firm names in this publication is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government. Manuscript approved for publication, October 6, 1993 Text and illustrations edited by George A. Havach Library of Congress catalog-card No. 92-32287 For sale by U.S. Geological Survey, Map Distribution Box 25286, MS 306, Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 CONTENTS Page A1 Strong-motion recordings ---................................. 9 By A. Gerald Brady and Anthony F. Shakal Effect of known three-dimensional crustal structure on the strong ground motion and estimated slip history of the earthquake ................................ 39 By Vernon F. Cormier and Wei-Jou Su Simulation of strong ground motion ....................... 53 By Jeffry L. Stevens and Steven M. Day Influence of near-surface geology on the direction of ground motion above a frequency of 1 Hz----------- 61 By John E. Vidale and Ornella Bonamassa Effect of critical reflections from the Moho on the attenuation of strong ground motion ------------------ 67 By Paul G. Somerville, Nancy F. Smith, and Robert W. Graves Influences of local geology on strong and weak ground motions recorded in the San Francisco Bay region and their implications for site-specific provisions ----------------- --------------- 77 By Roger D.
    [Show full text]
  • 203287 TP Final Vol 2.Ai
    4.7 Cultural Resources 4.7 Cultural4.7 4. WSIP Facility Projects – Setting and Impacts 4.7 Cultural Resources Cultural resources include paleontological resources, archaeological resources, historical resources, and human remains. This section provides a program-level assessment of potential WSIP impacts on historical, paleontological, or archaeological resources that might be present in the vicinity of the WSIP projects and/or historic water system facilities. Programmatic mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potentially significant impacts on these cultural resources are identified in this section and presented in detail in Chapter 6. This analysis does not identify specific cultural resources at each of the 22 WSIP facility project sites, although some previously identified cultural resources are located at or near those project sites. Site-specific analysis will be conducted as part of separate, project-level CEQA review for individual WSIP projects. 4.7.1 Setting and Resource Types Paleontological Setting Paleontological resources within the WSIP study area consist of the fossilized remains of plants and animals, including vertebrates (animals with backbones) and invertebrates (e.g., starfish, clams, ammonites, and coral marine). Fossils of microscopic plants and animals, or microfossils, are also considered in this analysis. The age and abundance of fossils depend on the location, topographic setting, and particular geologic formation in which they are found. The geologic formations containing the majority of fossils in the WSIP study area are considered geologically young; the oldest fossil-bearing formation dates to the Paleocene epoch (65 million years old). Most of the fossil-bearing geologic units in the WSIP study area were formed in ancient marine environments such as inland embayments, coastal areas, and extensive inland seas.
    [Show full text]
  • PENINSULA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Environmental Impact Report
    San Francisco Planning Department PENINSULA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Environmental Impact Report San Francisco Planning Department File No. 96.222E State Clearinghouse No. 98082030 Draft EIR Publication Date: December 18, 1999 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: February 1, 2000 (in San Mateo) and February 3, 2000 (in San Francisco) Draft EIR Public Comment Period: December 18, 1999 through February 18, 2000 EIR Certification Date: January 11, 2001 This report has been printed on post-consumer recycled paper San Francisco Planning Department PENINSULA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN Final Environmental Impact Report San Francisco Planning Department File No. 96.222E State Clearinghouse No. 98082030 Draft EIR Publication Date: December 18, 1999 Draft EIR Public Hearing Date: February 1, 2000 (in San Mateo) and February 3, 2000 (in San Francisco) Draft EIR Public Comment Period: December 18, 1999 through February 18, 2000 EIR Certification Date: January 11, 2001 Changes from the text of the Draft EIR are indicated by a dot ( ) This report has been printed on post-consumer recycled paper 225 Bush Street 315 Washington Street 700 University Avenue 4221 Wilshire Boulevard Suite 1700 Suite 102 Suite 130 Suite 480 San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, Los Angeles, California California California California 94104 94607 95825 90010 (415) 896-5900 (510) 839-5066 (916) 564-4500 (213) 933-6111 930385 TABLE OF CONTENTS PENINSULA WATERSHED MANAGEMENT PLAN EIR Page I. SUMMARY I-1 A. Management Plan Description I-1 B. Fifield/Cahill Ridge Trail (Project-Level Analysis) I-3 C. Principal Environmental Effects I-3 D. Mitigation Measures I-11 E. Management Plan Alternatives I-13 F.
    [Show full text]
  • Peninsula Open May Be Selected to Plan a Geology Field Trip
    65 7. Field Trip to the Skyline Ridge Area also include excursions to the fault itself in the Los Trancos and Monte Bello Open Space preserves. The inclusion of all in the Central Santa Cruz Mountains stops listed below might be possible only with an early start and plans for a long day in the field. Stop descriptions below Trip highlights: San Andreas Fault scarps, sag ponds, vegeta- include information about interesting geologic features in the tion and bedrock contrasts, regional vistas, Quaternary gravels, vicinity, but they may require additional hiking to visit (fig. Tertiary marine rocks, ancient submarine landslide deposits, 7-1). volcanic rocks (Mindego Basalt), Native American mortar Note that rattlesnakes can be encountered anywhere. holes in sandstone Poison oak is prevalent, and ticks can be encountered any time of year, but mostly in the spring. The area is also mountain This field-trip guide includes a collection of stops that lion habitat. It is advisable to contact the Midpeninsula Open may be selected to plan a geology field trip. The field-trip Space District before planning group visits to the preserves; stops are along Highway 9 (Saratoga Road) and Highway 35 maps and information are available on their website at http:// (Skyline Boulevard) between Castle Rock State Park and La www.openspace.org. Honda on Highway 84. Most stops are on lands maintained Geologic maps with descriptions of this region include by the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District. Outcrop Brabb and others (1997, 1998, and 2000). These maps are and natural areas along the ridgeline crest of the Santa Cruz ideal for field-trip discussions.
    [Show full text]
  • Phleger Estate
    PHLEGER ESTATE PHLEGER ESTATE n 1935, Herman and Mary Elena Phleger purchased their Mountain Meadow property that has come to be known as the Phleger Estate. In 1984, Herman died. IHe and Mary Elena had been life-long boosters of conservation and environmen- tal causes. In that spirit, Mary Elena offered the Peninsula Open Space Trust (POST) the opportunity to preserve the property. Within four years, POST managed to raise the necessary funding to make the purchase possible. On April 29, 1995, the Phleger Estate was dedicated as a part of the GGNRA. The 1,084 acre parcel1 is located west of Cañada Road and north of San Mateo Coun- ty’s Huddart Park in the southern hill country of the Peninsula, once a portion of Ran- cho Cañada de Raymundo in the heart of a robust logging industry during the nine- teenth century. Its western boundary is a forested ridge plainly visible from United States Interstate 280 to the east. This ridge and slope is the eastern portion of Kings Mountain of the Sierra Morena or Santa Cruz Range of Mountains (also referred to as the Skyline) and at 2,315 feet is the second highest point in San Mateo County.2 Three major drainages run from the Mountain into West Union Creek. The Phleger Estate includes redwoods, mixed evergreens and tan oak woodlands. The redwoods are mostly in stream corridors of canyons of the Skyline and also along West Union Creek. These trees include mostly second-growth redwoods, however, the lumberjacks did not take every one of the original sequoias, because a few old growth trees, obviously the more inaccessible ones, live in the upper portions of the property.
    [Show full text]