At the time of preparation of the Mission Bay FSEIR, the 11-acre project site several buildings and facilities and was noted as lacking any notable “contained with no threatened, endangered or rare plants or to vegetative habitat,” animals “known occur in the upland portion of the Mission Bay plan area, including the project site.” According to the initial to that time, the project site has been subject study, “Subsequent to building removal, grading, excavation, and construction of paved surface parking lots, fencing and utilities on portions of the Today, the project site consists of two paved site.” parking lots and an undeveloped covered in with lot “largely gravel” “sparse” vegetation by non‐native annual grasses and to “dominated opportunistic weedy species.” Adjacent one of the parking lots is depressed area (measuring approximately 320 feet by 280 “a feet) created by an excavation and backfill associated with a prior environmental cleanup of that portion of the site. A surface swale extends west within this portion of the site to allow for drainage of surface water into the depression.” Plaintiffs characterize the excavation pit as a half-acre wetland and argue that draining and filling the pit will significantly impact endemic and migratory birds. The initial study found the project would have no significant effect on biological resources even if the excavation pit were deemed a wetland because its limited due to the value “is sparse and ruderal nature of onsite vegetation, as well as the location in a densely site’s urbanized A biologist conducted a site survey and found no protected environment.” species or habitat that could The initial study concluded: “desirable support” them. several bird species were observed foraging and hunting onsite, these species are “While common to San Francisco and would continue to be supported by vegetation communities and water features found in the project vicinity. Because the excavation depressions on the site are small, isolated features resulting from recently completed hazardous materials remediation activities and are surrounded by paved areas and urban development, these features do not provide the important biological habitat functions and values that are typically associated with federally protected wetlands. As such, the proposed removal of these features would not constitute a significant adverse impact on wetland habitat resources.”
At the time of preparation of the Mission Bay FSEIR, the 11-acre project site “contained several buildings and facilities and was noted as lacking any notable vegetative habitat,” with no threatened, endangered or rare plants or animals “known to occur in the upland portion of the Mission Bay plan area, including the project site.” According to the initial study, “Subsequent to that time, the project site has been subject to building removal, grading, excavation, and construction of paved surface parking lots, fencing and utilities on portions of the site.” Today, the project site consists of two paved parking lots and an undeveloped lot “largely covered in gravel” with “sparse” vegetation “dominated by non‐native annual grasses and opportunistic weedy species.” Adjacent to one of the parking lots is “a depressed area (measuring approximately 320 feet by 280 feet) created by an excavation and backfill associated with a prior environmental cleanup of that portion of the site. A surface swale extends west within this portion of the site to allow for drainage of surface water into the depression.” Plaintiffs characterize the excavation pit as a half-acre wetland and argue that draining and filling the pit will significantly impact endemic and migratory birds. The initial study found the project would have no significant effect on biological resources even if the excavation pit were deemed a wetland because its value “is limited due to the sparse and ruderal nature of onsite vegetation, as well as the site’s location in a densely urbanized environment.” A biologist conducted a site survey and found no protected species or “desirable habitat that could support” them. The initial study concluded: “While several bird species were observed foraging and hunting onsite, these species are common to San Francisco and would continue to be supported by vegetation communities and water features found in the project vicinity. Because the excavation depressions on the site are small, isolated features resulting from recently completed hazardous materials remediation activities and are surrounded by paved areas and urban development, these features do not provide the important biological habitat functions and values that are typically associated with federally protected wetlands. As such, the proposed removal of these features would not constitute a significant adverse impact on wetland habitat resources.”
A148865.DOCX