Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rolls

Transcription

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
for the
Rolls-Royce Engine Services-Oakland Inc.
Test Cell Upgrade Project
OAKLAND, ALAMEDA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared for:
Port of Oakland
530 Water Street
Oakland, California 94607
Contact: Colleen Liang
Port Environmental Scientist
[email protected]
Date:
June 2013
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ......................................................................................... 1
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION ..................................................................................................... 1
2.1 PROJECT TITLE ..................................................................................................................... 1
2.2 LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS....................................................................................... 1
2.3 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER ............................................................................... 1
2.4 PROJECT LOCATION .............................................................................................................. 2
2.5 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION AND ZONING DISTRICT ............................................................. 2
2.6 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING............................................................................... 2
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..................................................................................................... 5
3.1 PROJECT CONTEXT ............................................................................................................... 5
3.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 5
3.3 PROJECT–RELATED APPROVALS, AGREEMENTS, AND PERMITS .............................................. 6
3.4 PROJECT SCHEDULE ............................................................................................................. 6
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED .............................................. 15
4.1 AESTHETICS ........................................................................................................................ 17
4.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ......................................................................... 18
4.3 AIR QUALITY ....................................................................................................................... 19
4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................... 25
4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 40
4.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .......................................................................................................... 44
4.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ............................................................................................ 47
4.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ............................................................................... 49
4.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...................................................................................... 54
4.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING .................................................................................................. 57
4.11 MINERAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................... 64
4.12 NOISE ............................................................................................................................... 64
4.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING ............................................................................................... 76
4.14 PUBLIC SERVICES ............................................................................................................. 77
4.15 RECREATION ..................................................................................................................... 78
4.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ............................................................................................... 79
4.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ...................................................................................... 82
4.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ........................................................................... 85
5.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/PROPOSED MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION ...................................................................................................... 88
5.1 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 88
COMMENT LETTER A: SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION .. 89
COMMENT LETTER B: BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ..................................... 92
COMMENT LETTER C: SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER .............................................................. 94
RESPONSE TO COMMENT C-1.................................................................................................. 102
6.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 112
CHECKLIST INFORMATION SOURCES ........................................................................................ 112
SETTING REFERENCES ............................................................................................................ 112
7.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................ 115
i
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Area Location Map ........................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Aerial of the Project Area .............................................................................................. 4 Figure 3a. Test Cell Wall Elevations ............................................................................................ 7 Figure 3b. Test Cell Ground Floor Plan ....................................................................................... 8 Figure 4a. Test Cell Ground Floor Sections (Indoor/Outdoor) ..................................................... 9 Figure 4b. Outdoor Area Plan ..................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4c. Outdoor Test Cell Sections and Details .................................................................... 11 Figure 4d. Outdoor Oil/Water Separator .................................................................................... 12 Figure 4e. Outdoor Holding Tank ............................................................................................... 13 Figure 5. Biological Communities in the Study Area .................................................................. 30 Figure 6. CNDDB Plant Occurrences within 2 Miles of Project Area ......................................... 32 Figure 7. CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences within 2 Miles of Project Area ...................................... 33 Figure 7a. Approximate BCDC 100’ Shoreline Band ................................................................. 63 Figure 8. Ambient Noise Measurement ..................................................................................... 71 Figure 9. Long-term Noise Measurement, Location 1 ................................................................ 72 Figure 10. Long-term Noise Measurement, Location 2 .............................................................. 72 LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Test Cell Project Construction Emissions Estimate ..................................................... 22 Table 2. Test Cell Project – Changes in Operating Emissions .................................................. 23 Table 3. Wildlife and Plant Species Observed in the Study Area .............................................. 27 Table 4. Summary of Biological Communities within the Study Area. ....................................... 29 Table 5. Maximum Allowable Receiving Noise Level Standards (dBA) ..................................... 67 Table 6. Maximum Allowable Receiving Noise Level Standards from Temporary Construction or
Demolition (dBA) ......................................................................................................................... 67 Table 7. Alameda County ALUC Noise Compatibility Criteria ................................................... 69 Table 8. Oakland General Plan Noise Land Use Compatibility Matrix ....................................... 70 Table 9. Short-Term Ambient Noise Measurements, 8 January 2013 ....................................... 73 Table 10. Construction Equipment Noise Generation ................................................................ 75 LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
APPENDIX B. MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
APPENDIX C. HISTORICAL WEATHER DATA FROM OAKLAND AIRPORT DURING NOISE MONITORING
ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
This Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impacts is being
prepared to conform to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Statute and Guidelines (California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.).
This Initial
Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration evaluates the potential environmental impacts
which might reasonably be anticipated to result from implementation of the Rolls-Royce Engine
Services – Oakland Inc. (RRESO) Test Cell Upgrade Project (Proposed Project). The Port of
Oakland (Port) is the Lead Agency as defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15050.
Per CEQA Guidelines 15300.2(e), a categorical exemption shall not be used for a project
located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the
Government Code. The provisions in Government Code Section 65962.5 are commonly
referred to as the "Cortese List" (after the Legislator who authored the legislation that enacted it)
and relate to hazardous material sites. The list, or a site's presence on the list, has bearing on
the local permitting process as well as on compliance with the CEQA. The Proposed Project
cannot qualify for a categorical exemption because the site is listed on the Cortese list.
The purpose of an Initial Study is to provide the Lead Agency with information to use as the
basis for deciding whether to prepare and Environmental Impact Report or a Negative
Declaration for the Proposed Project. A Negative Declaration briefly describes the reason that a
Proposed Project would result in a significant effect on the environment, and the basis of the
decision not to prepare an EIR. This Initial Study describes the Port’s efforts to ensure that all
resource impacts are reduced to less-than-significant level with mitigation incorporated,
qualifying for a Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
This Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration provides the Port, its Board of Port
Commissioners, and the public with an understanding of the potential environmental impacts
associated with the Proposed Project. The purpose of the Proposed Project includes the
physical modifications of the RRESO Test Cell Facility that are required in order to
accommodate the testing of a new engine line.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
2.1 Project Title
Rolls-Royce Engine Services – Oakland Inc. Test Cell Upgrade Project
2.2 Lead Agency Name and Address
Port of Oakland
530 Water Street
2.3 Contact Person and Phone Number
Colleen Liang, Port Environmental Scientist
[email protected]
(510) 627-1198
RRESO Test Cell Upgrade Project
Port of Oakland
1
June 2013
2.4 Project Location
The Project Area is located at 6701 Old Earhart Road, in the City of Oakland (APN 42-4404-112). The Project Area is within Oakland International Airport (OAK or Airport)-North Field1
property but within the existing Rolls-Royce Engine Services – Oakland, Inc. (RRESO)
leasehold. Currently, the Project Area includes several testing facilities and above- and underground storage tanks (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
2.5 General Plan Designation and Zoning District
The Project Area is located within the Seaport and Airport/Gateway Showcase District and
designated for airport uses by the City of Oakland General Plan.
2.6 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The Project Area is located in the vicinity of the San Francisco Bay. To the west of the Project
Area are the North Port of Oakland Refuse Disposal Site (former landfill), Harbor Bay Parkway,
and the Alameda Chuck Corica Golf Complex. To the east of the Project Area is the muted2
tidal Fan Marsh, San Leandro Bay and Martin Luther King, Jr. Shoreline Park. To the north is
Harbor Bay Parkway. To the south is the North Field, which is a designated Area of Primary
Importance (Local Historic District) by the City of Oakland. Immediately to the north of the
Project Area, but separated by Harbor Bay Parkway, is Doolittle Pond, a designated wildlife
sanctuary.3
The Project Area is an area (0.12 acre) within the existing RRESO facilities adjacent to the
existing indoor propeller test stand. The Project Area is located on an expanse of paved,
developed ground. Improvements to be included in the Project Area is a new exterior water
cooling system for the proposed remodeled test stand, consisting of a cooling tower, water
piping, pumps and sumps and an oil/water separation system.
1
2
3
There are two areas at OAK: The North Field and the South Field. The North Field is defined as the
area north of Ron Cowan Parkway, including Runways 9R-27L, 9L-27R, and 15-33, that contains a
variety of aviation land uses, primarily general aviation aircraft hangars, ramps, and fixed-base
operators, as well as some air cargo facilities. The South Field is generally defined as the airport
area south of Ron Cowan Parkway that includes Runway 11-29 and is dominated by passenger
facilities, including Terminals 1 and 2, and air cargo facilities.
Muted means that the tidal flows are conveyed through culverts which has the effect of reducing or
“muting” the tidal range within the Fan Marsh.
East Bay Regional Parks District. Available at: http://www.ebparks.org/parks/martinlking#trailmap.
Accessed January 8, 2013.
Port of Oakland
2
June 2013
Detail Area
San Francisco Bay Trail
Spunkmeyer Field
(NPORDS)
Fan Marsh
Project Area
Doolittle Trail
Figure 1. Project Area Location Map
.
Oakland, California
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\22000\22245\GIS\ArcMap\Fig1_LocMap_20130127.mxd
0
0.25
0.5
Miles
1
Map Date: April 2013
Map By: Michael Rochelle
Base Source: ESRI Topo and National Geographic
Fan Marsh
Spunkmeyer
Field
(NPORDS)
Test Cell #1
Ol
a rh
dE
ar t
ad
Ro
Pump House #2
Test Cell Facility (2.04 acres)
Project Area (Test Cell #1) (0.12 acre)
Indoor Project Area
Outdoor Project Area
Figure 2. Aerial of the Project Area
.
Oakland, California
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\22000\22245\GIS\ArcMap\Fig2_Aerial_20130517.mxd
0
50
100
Feet
200
Date: April 2013
Base Source: Microsoft 2010
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Project Context
The existing Test Cell Facility main features include six engine test cells with auxiliary
structures, one 30,000-gallon above-ground liquefied petroleum fuel tank, three jet-A-fuel
underground storage tanks (USTs; one 10,000-gallon & twin 8,000-gallon tanks), two oil/water
separators, and one cooling tower. Operations at the Test Cell facility consist of testing turbine
engines that have undergone repair at RRESO's Main Building or elsewhere. The operations
include testing the mechanical and electrical functions of the repaired turbine engines as well as
operating the turbine engines under simulated flight conditions. The tested turbine engines are
prepared for testing in the Engine Preparation Area and subsequently tested in one of the active
test cells at the site.
In 2011, RRESO was granted a license from Rolls‐Royce Corporation to overhaul, repair and
test an engine model that is still being manufactured. Currently a large component of RRESO’s
overhaul, repair and testing work are older and considered “legacy” engines that being phased
out of production. The license granted to RRESO to service the newer engines provides
RRESO with an important strategic opportunity to ensure the long term stability and growth of its
business, thereby keeping valuable and skilled jobs in Oakland.
All activities associated with this project are within the existing facility (located at 7200 Earhart
Road, Oakland) and are internal to the facility. Most of the work will be within existing buildings;
however, a portion involves construction adjacent to the existing building housing Test Cell #1 at
the Test Cell Facility.
3.2 Project Description
The proposed internal modifications to the Test Cell Facility include the conversion of the indoor
propeller test stand, Test Cell #1, into a dynamometer test stand configuration. Externally, the
only visible changes to the site are expected to be the addition of a water cooling system for the
dynamometer, water supply and return piping with associated water pumps from the
dynamometer to the cooling tower system, and an oil/water separation system, similar to ones
that are used for Test Cells #6 and #7. The water cooling system would be comprised of a
cooling tower (14’ by 24’), water piping (8” diameter supply and 14” diameter return), and
associated pumps and sumps. The foundation for the cooling tower will be approximately four
feet below grade, resting on eight pilings spaced around the perimeter that will be driven
approximately 60 feet through the ground. The final height of the water tower resting on the
mentioned foundation would be approximately 17 feet, compared to the existing building height
of 22 feet (or approximately 5 feet higher). Similarly, the oil/water separation system would
include an above grade separator unit, approximately 4’ by 7’ by 3’ in size along with a 1,500gallon gray water collection tank and a 55-gallon container for collecting the separated waste.
The slab foundation for the separator and pumps will be adjacent to the Test Cell #1 building,
along its north side, and will be supported by an additional two pilings to those mentioned above.
The dynamometer test bed and control systems would be located entirely within the existing
building (Test Cell #1). Internally, there would also be some unique propeller test structures,
such as the propeller ring, propeller test bed and exhaust turning vane that would be removed to
allow for the test bed to be installed. A new engine exhaust system would be installed and
Port of Oakland
5
June 2013
would be contained within the existing building structure (Figure 3a). Additional views of the
Proposed Project site plans are illustrated in Figures 4a-4e. No changes are expected to the
entrances or exits of the building.
Regarding the engine operation, advanced design technology relative to the older engines has
been incorporated in the new model, so that fuel consumption4 is expected to be lower than it has
been for the engines that have previously been tested in Test Cell #1. Conducting tests with a
dynamometer rig rather than a propeller system would also move much less airflow through the
building, resulting in a reduction in noise levels during operation of Test Cell #1.
3.3 Project–Related Approvals, Agreements, and Permits
The information contained in this Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration will be
used by the Port (the CEQA Lead Agency) as it considers whether or not to approve the
Proposed Project. If the project is approved, the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration would be used by the Port and responsible and trustee agencies in conjunction with
various approvals and permits, including an administrative permit from the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), or a non-material amendment of the Port
of Oakland's existing BCDC permit No. M1989.075.
3.4 Project Schedule
Based on the construction schedule, construction activities would occur over an estimated three
to four month period. Outdoor working hours will be during normal business hours (7 AM to 5
PM). Outdoor construction after business hours is not anticipated.
4
The RRESO Test Cell Facility uses Jet Aviation Fuel (Jet-A) as the fuel medium for existing and
future testing purposes.
Port of Oakland
6
June 2013
L:\Acad 2000 Files\22000\22245\Graphics\11x17-L
0’
8’
Scale: 1/8” = 1’
Figure 3a. Test Cell Wall Elevations
Oakland, CA
Date: March 2013
Source: Aero Systems Engineering, Inc.
0’
8’
Scale: 1/8” = 1’
Figure 3b. Test Cell Ground Floor Plan
Oakland, CA
Date: March 2013
Proposed Cooling Tower
INDOOR
OUTDOOR
INDOOR
OUTDOOR
INDOOR
INDOOR
Figure 4a. Test Cell Ground Floor Sections (Indoor/Outdoor)
Oakland, CA
Date: March 2013
See Figure 4c
See Figure 4d
See Figure 4e
Figure 4b. Outdoor Project Area Plan
Oakland, CA
Date: March 2013
AREA SHOWN
COOLING TOWER FOUNDATION PLAN
Figure 4c. Outdoor Test Cell Sections and Details
Oakland, CA
Date: March 2013
AREA SHOWN
Figure 4d. Outdoor Oil/Water Separator
Oakland, CA
Date: March 2013
Source: Highland Tank
AREA SHOWN
Figure 4e. Outdoor Holding Tank
Oakland, CA
Date: March 2013
Source: Highland Tank
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
at least one impact that is potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated, as indicated
by the checklist on the following pages.
X
Aesthetics
Land Use/Planning
Agriculture and Forestry
Resources
Mineral Resources
Air Quality
Noise
Biological Resources
Population and Housing
Cultural Resources
Public Services
Geology and Soils
Recreation
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Transportation/Traffic
x
Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
x
Hydrology and Water Quality ,
___ Utilities , / /
x
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
D
~
D
D
D
I find that the project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the project MAY have a "Potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant
unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Proposed Project, nothing further is required.
~"'f
34,,ie_
Signature
Date
Name and Title: Diane Heinze, Port Environmental Assessment Supervisor
Port of Oakland
15
I~, J.bt'3
June 2013
Initial Study Checklist
This section describes the existing environmental conditions in and near the Project Area and
evaluates environmental impacts associated with the Proposed Project. The environmental
checklist, as recommended in the CEQA Guidelines (Appendix G), was used to identify
environmental impacts that could occur if the Proposed Project is implemented. The right-hand
column in the checklist cites the source(s) for the answer to each question. The cited sources
are identified at the end of this section.
Each of the environmental categories was fully evaluated, and one of the following four
determinations was made for each checklist question:
“No Impact” means that no impact to the resource would occur as a result of
implementing the project.
“Less than Significant Impact” means that implementation of the project would not
result in a substantial and/or adverse change to the resource, and no mitigation
measures are required.
“Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” means that the incorporation of
one or more mitigation measures is necessary to reduce the impact from potentially
significant to less than significant.
“Potentially Significant Impact” means that there is either substantial evidence that a
project-related effect may be significant, or, due to a lack of existing information,
could have the potential to be significant.
Port of Oakland
16
June 2013
4.1 Aesthetics
AESTHETICS — Would the project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista?
b)
Substantially damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c)
Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
d)
Create a new source of substantial light or
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1,2
1
1
1
Environmental Setting
The Project Area is located adjacent to San Leandro Bay, in the North Field of the Airport. A
muted tidal wetland (Fan Marsh), including a segment of the developed Doolittle Trail, are
located to the east. A segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail is northwest of the Project Area
on the north side of Doolittle Drive. The Project Area encompasses the developed areas within
RRESO’s private Test Cell Facility (refer to Figure 1).
Views of the Project Area are generally limited to the recreational fields and trails associated
with the soccer field called Spunkmeyer Field (within the North Port of Oakland Refuse Disposal
Site (NPORDS)) west of the Project Area, from portions of Harbor Bay Parkway west to the
Project Area, and from motorists traveling on the Doolittle Drive (State Route 61). Temporary
park uses, golfers associated with the Chuck Corica Municipal Golf Complex, and some airline
passengers flying into or out of OAK would have views of the Project Area.
The Project Area is not located along any designated or eligible scenic highways and is not
visible from Interstate 580, which is the nearest designated scenic highway located more than
four miles east of the Project Area (California Department of Transportation 2012).
Discussion of Impacts
a, b)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to
introduce incompatible scenic elements within a field of view containing a scenic vista or
substantially block views of a scenic vista. Additionally, a significant impact may occur
where scenic resources would be damaged or removed by a project. No public scenic
vistas exist in or near the Project Area. For the purposes of this analysis, a scenic vista
is defined as a vantage point with a broad and expansive view of a significant landscape
feature (e.g., a mountain range, the Bay, lake, or coastline) or of a significant historical
or architectural feature (e.g., views of a historic tower). Public views of San Leandro Bay
are afforded at the terminus of Old Earhart at Doolittle Drive. The Proposed Project
would not significantly alter or obstruct views from this location. No rock outcroppings or
similar recognized visual resources exist on the site, and none would be damaged
through construction of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project would not
significantly alter pre-construction conditions. Views from superior positions (i.e., views
Port of Oakland
17
June 2013
looking down at the Project Area from higher elevations) would not be significantly
altered as a result of the Proposed Project because the Proposed Project would be
consistent with the existing industrial facility and would not stand out in comparison to
existing conditions. Therefore, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on
these resources.
c)
introduce incompatible visual elements on the project site or visual elements that would
be incompatible with the character of the area surrounding the project site. External
equipment associated with the Proposed Project includes the installation a cooling tower
and below-grade equipment for engine testing. The dimensions of the equipment would
be similar, not larger, to current conditions and would be installed adjacent to existing
buildings. Views of the material stored in the Project Area, construction equipment, and
stockpiled soil would be available for brief periods. The activities are typical of
equipment installation in developed areas and would not substantially degrade views of
the existing setting. Therefore, views would be similar to existing conditions and impacts
would be less than significant.
d)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to introduce new sources of
light or glare on or from the project site which would be incompatible with the area
surrounding the project site, or which pose a safety hazard to motorists utilizing adjacent
streets or freeways. The Proposed Project would not create a new permanent source of
light or glare. The Proposed Project would involve the construction of equipment and
structures similar to existing conditions in a built-up area, and no nighttime construction
would take place. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
4.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES — Would the project:
a)
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique
Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the
maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the
California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use?
b)
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c)
Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resources Code section 4526), or
timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section
51104(g))?
d)
Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
Port of Oakland
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
4
1, 2, 3
1, 3, 4
1
18
June 2013
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
RESOURCES — Would the project:
e)
Involve other changes in the existing
environment, which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use??
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
The Project Area does not contain any farmland or forestry land and is not designated for
agricultural or forestry uses or Prime, Statewide, or Locally Important Farmland (California
Department of Conservation 2010). The Proposed Project is located in a semi-developed area
and follows existing roads. Surrounding land is developed with industrial and recreational uses.
a-e)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to result in the conversion
of State-designated agricultural land from agricultural use to another non-agricultural
use, result in the conversion of land zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act
Contract from agricultural use to another non-agricultural use, conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland
Production, result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use,
or results in the conversion of farmland to another non-agricultural use or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use. The City of Oakland General Plan designates the Project
Area for airport uses. The Project Area is also not zoned for agricultural use or under a
Williamson Act contract. The Proposed Project would not result in the conversion of
forest land or farmland to a non-agricultural use, and would thus have no impact on
agricultural resources.
4.3 Air Quality
AIR QUALITY— Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
a)
Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan?
b)
Violate any air quality standard or
contribute to an existing or projected air
quality violation?
c)
Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which
the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air
quality standard (including releasing
emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d)
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations?
Port of Oakland
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
1
1
1
19
June 2013
AIR QUALITY— Where available, the
significance criteria established by the applicable
air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following
determinations. Would the project:
e)
Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
The Proposed Project is located in an industrial area, immediately west of Highway 61/Doolittle
Drive. Other nearby air pollutant sources (to the south of the facility) include rental car agency
gasoline dispensing facilities, and overall aviation operations in the North and South Field of
OAK.
Both U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California have developed several
ambient air quality standards (AAQS) which have become increasingly stringent over the last
several decades. Although emissions and ambient air pollution concentrations have decreased
considerably over that timeframe, the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) is still
classified as “nonattainment” with respect to standards for ozone—most of which is formed in
the atmosphere by chemical reactions between reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) rather than being emitted directly—and particulate matter (PM). Separately, the
portion of Alameda County in which the Project is proposed is classified as a “maintenance
area”, a subset of attainment, with respect to the National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for carbon monoxide (CO), which means that while it currently meets the CO NAAQS,
it was previously classified as nonattainment for that pollutant. The ambient air quality monitors
closest to the project site are located at sites that are more inland and therefore influenced by
more upwind sources, and even at those monitors, the latest quality-assured data available from
the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) (for calendar year 2011) showed only
three violations of the 24-hour NAAQS for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and zero violations of
AAQS for ozone and CO.5 For the Bay Area as a whole, BAAQMD has estimated average daily
emissions in 2012 as 331 tons/day (662,000 lb/day) of ROG, 432 tons/day (864,000 lb/day) of
NOx, 220 tons/day (441,000 lb/day) of respirable particulate matter (PM10), and 89 tons/day
(178,000 lb/day) of fine particulate matter (PM2.5).6
There are multiple definitions of what project-level emissions increase would be considered
“significant”. For temporary activities such as construction, if the project required Federal
support or approvals, General Conformity regulations would require a quantitative, formal
determination of General Conformity with State Implementation Plans (SIPs) if emissions of
NOx, ROG, or CO were in excess of 100 tons per year (referred to as Federal de minimis
levels).7 If a large (“major”) stationary source of air pollution were proposed for location at the
project site, Federal New Source Review (NSR) regulations would define a “significant”
5
“ Bay Area Air Pollution Summary – 2011,” available from http://www.baaqmd.gov/DivisioAns/
Communications-and-Outreach/Air-Quality-in-the-Bay-Area/Air-Quality-Summaries.aspx.
6
BAAQMD, “Bay Area 2010 Clean Air Plan,” Final Clean Air Plan – Volume I, adopted Sept. 15, 2010
and available from http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planning-and-Research/Plans/Clean-AirPlans.aspx.
7
Separately, Federal regulations for General Conformity identify “routine maintenance and repair
activities, including repair and maintenance of administrative sites, roads, trails, and facilities” as
“actions which would result in...an increase in emissions that is clearly de minimis” [40 CFR
93.153(c)(2)(iv)]
Port of Oakland
20
June 2013
emissions increase as 100 tons per year (TPY) of CO, 40 TPY of ROG or NOx., 25 TPY of PM10
(respirable particulate matter), or 15 TPY of PM2.5 (fine particulate matter).8 For sources
operating year-round (365 days/year), these four thresholds correspond to approximately 548
lb/day, 219 lb/day, 137 lb/day, and 82 lb/day, respectively.
In 2010, BAAQMD adopted quantitative thresholds of significance for CEQA purposes of 82
lb/day for exhaust PM10 and 54 lb/day for exhaust PM2.5, NOx, and ROG, and also identified that
best management practices (BMPs) needed to be used for controlling fugitive dust from
construction to avoid being considered “significant”. The BAAQMD’s June 2010 adopted
thresholds of significance were challenged in a lawsuit. On March 5, 2012 the Alameda County
Superior Court issued a judgment finding that the BAAQMD had failed to comply with CEQA
when it adopted the thresholds. The court found that the adoption of the thresholds was a
project under CEQA and ordered the BAAQMD to examine whether the thresholds would have
a significant impact on the environment under CEQA before recommending their use. The court
did not determine whether the thresholds are or are not based on substantial evidence and thus
valid on the merits. The court issued a writ of mandate ordering the District to set aside the
thresholds and cease dissemination of them until the BAAQMD had complied with CEQA. The
court’s order permits the BAAQMD to develop and disseminate guidelines for CEQA compliance
within the District, as long as they do not implement the 2010 thresholds of significance. In light
of the court’s order, all references of the Air District’s June 2010 adopted thresholds, including
related screening criteria, have been removed from the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines.9 Hence,
this analysis relies on thresholds described in the previous version of the BAAQMD CEQA
Guidelines, published in 1999, but also includes a comparison with the more conservative June
2010 BAAQMD CEQA thresholds as a point of reference.10 Under the previous version, the
thresholds of significance for emissions increases at stationary sources were 80 lb/day for PM10,
NOx, and ROG. The BMPs for controlling fugitive dust from construction in the 1999 thresholds
are very similar to those identified in the 2010 version.
Although the 2010 BAAQMD CEQA Guideline thresholds are no longer recommended for
generally applicable measures of impacts, they are conservative, given that they are more
stringent than the earlier thresholds mentioned above. Therefore, emissions increases that are
less than the 2010 thresholds will be considered less than significant for purposes of CEQA in
this Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
For the Proposed Project, there are emissions associated with construction and operations of
maintaining and repairing the new engines.
Construction Activities
Air emissions associated with the construction of this project were calculated using the latest
version of the California Emissions Estimator Model™ (CalEEMod™) (Environ 2011), as
recommended by BAAQMD, and information regarding construction equipment that is expected
to be used. CalEEMod is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide
a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental
professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions associated
8
9
10
40 CFR 51.165(a)(1)(x)(A); 51.166(b)(23)(i); 52.21(b)(23).
BAAQMD, “Updated CEQA Guidelines”, available from http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planningand-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx.
BAAQMD, “BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines”, December 1999, pp. 13-15.
Port of Oakland
21
June 2013
with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. On February 29,
2012, the BAAQMD hosted a training class for CalEEMod, which was released in February
2011 and is recommended for use for air quality analysis by air districts throughout the state.
New construction equipment has been subject to increasingly stringent emissions requirements
in federal regulations (e.g., 40 CFR 89 and 1039), which provide for designation of construction
equipment engines as “Tier 1”, “Tier 2”, “Tier 3”, etc. Older construction equipment is subject to
potential retrofit requirements required by the State of California (13 CCR 2449, 13 CCR 24502466, and 17 CCR 93116), and California also imposes standards for emissions from portable
engines often used in construction projects in the Portable Equipment Registration Program
(PERP), which is administered by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Average daily emissions for the Proposed Project were determined by dividing the construction
emissions by 101 calendar days. Emissions of the pollutants identified above are described in
Table 1. Emissions calculations assume that construction equipment, such as loaders,
excavators, aerial lifts, paver and rollers, would meet federal Tier 2 emissions standards.
Table 1. Test Cell Project Construction Emissions Estimate
1999 BAAQMD 2010 BAAQMD
Pollutant
Total Tons lb/day
Threshold*
Threshold**
ton/yr (lb/day)
ton/yr(lb/day)
ROG
0.07
1
-
10 (54)
NOX
0.19
4
-
10 (54)
PM10 (Exhaust)
0.01
0
-
15 (82)
PM2.5 (Exhaust)
0
0
-
10 (54)
* No numeric construction thresholds were established in 1999.
** For reference only.
Operations
Emissions from the newer engines are lower than those from the older engines, but the newer
engines need to be tested for longer periods of time. Air emissions associated with the
operation of the test cell were calculated based on load-specific emissions information and
information regarding the amount of time spent at various load points. The emissions rate was
calculated for each engine and each load for which Rolls-Royce provided information (100%
load, 85% load, 30% load, and 7% load). For gaseous pollutants (NOx, CO, and HC) this
simply involved multiplying the fuel consumption rate (expressed in lb/hr) by the emission factor
(expressed in grams of emissions per kilogram of fuel, which is the same as pounds per
thousand pounds of fuel) and dividing by (60 min/hr) and 1000 (to reflect the fact that the factor
is pounds per thousand pounds). For particulate, the smoke number is not always directly
translatable into an emissions factor (g/kg), for the older engine model load-specific information
Port of Oakland
22
June 2013
from Corporan, Quick, and DeWitt (2008)11 (which also reported similar smoke numbers to the
ones identified by RRESO) was used and for the newer engine model a ratio was used to
reduce these numbers down based on the smoke numbers; i.e., emission factors for the newer
engine model were calculated for each load point. There are currently between 35-50 tests
conducted per year of the older engine model, and it is expected that approximately 35-50 tests
will be conducted per year of the newer engine model; therefore, the emissions changes
associated with switching the test cell from one the older engine type to the newer model were
calculated based on both 35 and 50 tests per year (Table 2).
Table 2. Test Cell Project – Changes in Operating Emissions
35
lb/average day
CO
HC
NOX
Old Engine Model
0.18
0.025
3.7
50
0.26
Tests/Year
0.036
PM10
MT/Year
CO2
0.5
134
5.3
0.7
192
New Engine Model
35
0.94
0.009
5.9
0.3
227
50
1.34
0.013
8.4
0.4
325
Changes in Operating Emissions
35
0.76
-0.016
2.2
-0.2
93
50
1.08
-0.023
3.1
-0.3
133
BAAQMD CEQA Thresholds
1999 Thresholds*
-
-
80
80
-
2010 Thresholds**
-
-
54
82
1,100
Note: This table describes the increases or decreases in operating emissions from the change in engine
type.
* No thresholds available for CO and HC or CO2 in 1999.
** For reference only.
These construction and operation emissions changes are well below the significance thresholds
that were adopted in 2010 by BAAQMD.
a, b)
11
Less than Significant. A significant air quality impact may occur if a project is not
consistent with the applicable Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) or would in
some way represent a substantial hindrance to employing the policies or obtaining
the goals of that plan or impact if project-related emissions would exceed federal,
state, or regional standards or thresholds, or if project-related emissions would
substantially contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation.
Rolls-Royce’s information regarding “smoke number” was translated into mass emissions of
particulate matter using data from Corporan, Quick, and DeWitt 2008.
Port of Oakland
23
June 2013
As identified above, emissions from project construction and operation are far below
the significance thresholds for emissions that were adopted by BAAQMD in 2010.
With the exception of air emissions associated with tank truck trips required to
periodically dispose of contents pumped from the oil/water separation system, the
project would not result in an increase in operational air emissions related to traffic
as no new employees would be required. The current magnitude of emissions is so
low that they will not violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
projected air quality violation. No mitigation is necessary. However, to ensure that
construction emissions deemed to be insignificant are consistent with the emissions
estimates, above, the contractor would comply with the 2012 BAAQMD CEQA Air
Quality Guidelines and the 2010 Bay Area Clean Air Plan. All self-propelled off-road
diesel vehicles over 25 horsepower would comply with CARB’s In-Use Off-Road
Diesel Vehicle regulation (revised May 2012) to reduce emissions of oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM). The regulation requires the contractor to
provide the following:
1. Idling limited to five minutes
2. Written Idling Policy (for “Medium” and “Large” fleets defined by summation
of fleet horsepower)
3. Disclosure of selling vehicles
4. Reporting to CARB using DOORS (Diesel Off-Road Online Reporting
System)
5. Labeling with CARB identification number from DOORS
6. Annual Reporting
The construction contractor shall implement the following BMPs as required by the
1999 BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines:
1. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded
areas) will be watered two times per day, as appropriate; pave, apply water
three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access
roads, parking area and staging areas.
2. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site will be
covered.
3. All paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the
construction site will be swept daily with water sweepers. All visible mud or
dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads will be removed using wet power
vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
4. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved will be completed as
soon as possible.
5. All construction equipment will be maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer‘s specifications, and all equipment will be
checked by a certified visible emissions evaluator.
6. A publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at
the lead agency regarding dust complaints will be posted in or near the
Project Area. The contact person will respond to complaints and take
corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District‘s phone number will also
be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
Port of Oakland
24
June 2013
c)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would add
a considerable cumulative contribution to federal or state non-attainment pollutant.
As mentioned in the Environmental Setting, the area is non-attainment with respect
to AAQS for ozone and particulate matter. The BAAQMD 2010 Clean Air Plan
addresses these AAQS and evaluates cumulative impacts by considering emissions
from all sources and projecting future activity. As mentioned above for a) and b), the
emissions from the Proposed Project would be negligible, the construction emissions
will cease when construction is complete, and operating emissions are episodic and
of short duration, not continuous. Emissions totals are well below all quantitative
significance thresholds in the BAAQMD 1999 and 2010 CEQA Guidelines. The
Proposed Project would therefore result in a less-than-significant contribution to
cumulative pollutant levels in the region.
d)
generate pollutant concentrations to a degree that would significantly affect sensitive
receptors. Sensitive receptors are located more than one and a half miles
downwind.
Fugitive dust will be minimal, construction equipment is mobile
(dispersing and diluting pollutants over a wider area than if they were fixed in place)
and the contractor is also required to comply with CARB’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel
Vehicle regulation. The nearest sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project
would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations, and impacts would be
less than significant.
e)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would
create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. BAAQMD’s
2012 CEQA Guidelines identify the following as potential sources of objectionable
odors: wastewater treatment plants, landfills, confined animal facilities, composting
stations, food manufacturing plants, refineries, and chemical plants. This Proposed
Project does not involve construction of any of those types of facilities. Project
activities would involve the use of combustion equipment that emits exhaust gases
and particulate matter, which can have objectionable odors.
However, the
magnitude of emissions increases is very low, and emissions will result in less than
significant odor impacts.
4.4 Biological Resources
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the
project:
a)
Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special-status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Port of Oakland
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
25
June 2013
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Would the
project:
b)
Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c)
Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means?
d)
Interfere substantially with the movement of
any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites?
e)
Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f)
Conflict with the provisions of an adopted
Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other
approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
1
1
1
1
The analysis of potential biological impacts is based on a site visit conducted by WRA on
January 9, 2013 as well as a review of existing biological information for the Airport and the
surrounding region. For the purpose of describing biological resources, the Study Area
encompasses the Project Area and a 100-foot buffer surrounding the Project Area. Because of
the nearby presence of wetlands, the Study Area also includes the non-tidal waters associated
with Pump House #2 located south of the Test Cell Facility and the entire 8.58-acre muted tidal
wetlands within the Fan Marsh east of the Test Cell Facility. Two sets of culverts under Doolittle
Drive connect the Fan Marsh to San Leandro Bay and the restriction to flow caused by these
culverts results in a reduced tidal range in Fan Marsh. Stormwater runoff from the Airport
collected in the detention pond south of the Test Cell Facility is pumped into the Fan Marsh
through the basin at Pump House #2 (Figure 2). The Project Area is separated from the Fan
Marsh by a paved levee (also used as a controlled vehicular access road).
The Project Area is developed with pavement, asphalt, and buildings or structures used to test
equipment. Habitats in the larger Study Area; however, include native vegetation, non-native
annual grassland and jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the U.S. The biological
communities in the Study Area are illustrated in Figure 5.
Port of Oakland
26
June 2013
Table 3 lists wildlife and plant species observed during the January 9, 2013 site visit. Table 4
summarizes the area of each biological community type observed in the Study Area. Nonsensitive biological communities in the Study Area included 2.59 acres of non-native annual
grassland and 2.49 acres of developed land. There are 8.58 acres of muted tidal wetlands (Fan
Marsh) adjacent to the Project Area that is considered a sensitive biological community.
Table 3. Wildlife and Plant Species Observed in the Study Area
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
ORIGIN/STATUS
Wildlife
Agelaius phoeniceus
red-winged blackbird
common resident
Anas platyrhynchos
mallard
common resident and migrant
Ardea alba
great egret
common resident
Branta canadensis
Canada goose
common migrant
Bucephala albeola
bufflehead
common migrant
Buteo jamaicensis
red-tailed hawk
common resident
Calypte anna
Anna's hummingbird
common resident
Carpodacus mexicanus
house finch
common resident
Columba livia
rock pigeon
common resident; non-native
Corvus brachyrhynchos
American crow
common resident
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
common resident
Euphagus cyanocephalus
Brewer’s blackbird
common resident
Larus occidentalis
western gull
common resident
Numenius phaeopus
whimbrel
common resident and migrant
Sayornis nigricans
black phoebe
common resident
Sturnus vulgaris
European starling
common resident; non-native
Avena fatua
wild oat
non-native; invasive
Baccharis glutinosa
marsh baccharis
native
Baccharis pilularis
coyote brush
native
Beta vulgaris
common beet
non-native
Bolboschoenus [Scirpus]
maritimus
alkali-bulrush
native
Brassica sp.
mustard
non-native
Bromus diandrus
ripgut brome
Plants
Port of Oakland
27
June 2013
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
ORIGIN/STATUS
Bromus hordeaceus
soft brome
Carduus pycnocephalus
Italian thistle
Conium maculatum
poison hemlock
Cupressus sempervirens
Italian cypress
not native
Cyperus eragrostis
tall flatsedge
native
Distichlis spicata
saltgrass
native
Dittrichia graveolens
stinkwort
Festuca perennis [Lolium
multiflorum]
perennial ryegrass
Foeniculum vulgare
fennel
non-native, invasive
Frankenia salina
alkali sea-heath
native
Grindelia stricta
coastal gumweed
native
Helminthotheca [Picris] echioides
bristly ox-tongue
Hirschfeldia incana
summer mustard
Hordeum marinum
Mediterranean barley
Lepidium latifolium
perennial pepperweed
Malva neglecta
common mallow
non-native
Pennisetum sp.
fountain grass
N/A
Plantago coronopus
rattail plantain
non-native
Pyracantha sp.
firethorn
non-native
Raphanus sativus
wild radish
Rubus armeniacus
Himalayan blackberry
Rumex crispus
curly dock
Salicornia pacifica [S. virginica]
pickleweed
native
Salsola soda
oppositeleaf Russian thistle
Spartina alterniflora x foliosa
cordgrass
non-native, invasive
Silybum marianum
milk thistle
Trifolium sp.
clover
N/A
Typha sp.
cattail
native
Vinca major
big periwinkle
Port of Oakland
28
June 2013
Table 4. Summary of Biological Communities within the Study Area.
Community Type
Area (acres)
Non-native annual grassland
2.59
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh (muted Tidal
Wetland/Fan Marsh)
8.58
Wetland drainage channel
2.26
Developed
2.49
Total Study Area Size
15.92
Non-Sensitive Biological Communities
Non-Native Annual Grassland
Non-native annual grassland comprises approximately 2.59 acres in the Study Area. Dominant
plant species observed in the non-native grassland in the Study Area included summer and
other mustards, Italian thistle, wild radish, bristly ox-tongue, common mallow, and non-native
annual grasses. Himalayan blackberry and Italian cypress occur along the fence between the
Project Area and the non-native annual grassland west of the Project Area. Wildlife species
observed in non-native grassland in the Study Area included black phoebe, Brewer’s blackbird
and red-tailed hawk.
Developed
Approximately 2.49 acres of developed area are located within the Study Area and include the
Proposed Project location, existing Test Cell Facility buildings, storage tanks, and access roads.
Sensitive Biological Communities
Northern Coastal Salt Marsh (muted Tidal Wetland/Fan Marsh)
Holland (1986) describes northern coastal salt marsh as highly productive, herbaceous and
suffructescent, salt-tolerant hydrophytes forming moderate to dense cover and up to 1 m tall.
Most species are active in summer, dormant in winter. Usually segregated horizontally with
Spartina nearer the open water and, Salicornia at higher elevations. Characteristic vegetation
includes saltgrass, pickleweed, sedges (Carex spp.), and rushes (Schoenoplectus spp., Scirpus
spp., etc.). Vegetation may occur in elevational zones related to depth, length, and frequency of
tidal inundation. Northern coastal salt marsh comprises approximately 8.58 acres in the Study
Area.
Port of Oakland
29
June 2013
Fan Marsh
(CCR Habitat)
Study Area (15.92 acres)
Project Area (0.12 acre)
dE
Ol
Pump House #2
ad
Ro
rt
ha
ar
Developed (2.49 acres)
Non-native Annual
Grassland (2.59 acres)
Muted Tidal Wetland (8.58 acres)
Other Waters of the U.S.
(2.26 acres)
Figure 5. Biological Communities in the Study Area
.
Oakland, California
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\22000\22245\GIS\ArcMap\Fig5_BioComms_20130127.mxd
0
50
100
Feet
200
Date: April 2013
Wetland Drainage Channel
The muted tidal wetland (Fan Marsh) receives freshwater from a storm water detention basin
(Pump House #2) outfall south of RRESO’s Test Cell Facility. Habitat surrounding the other
waters associated with Pump House #2 is comprised of non-native grassland. The muted tidal
wetland drains into the San Leandro Bay through a culvert under Doolittle Drive. Wildlife
species observed in this habitat included Anna’s hummingbird, mallard, bufflehead, red-winged
blackbird, great egret, whimbrel, western gull and white-tailed kite.
Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands
The jurisdictional wetland delineation was approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) in March 2011. The Corps determined that 8.58 acres of the muted Fan Marsh is a
tidally influenced wetland complex subject to the Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. Similarly, the Corps has determined Section 404 jurisdiction over the non-tidal
other waters associated with the Pump House #2 south of the Test Cell Facility (HuffmanBroadway 2007).
Special-Status Species
Prior to the site visit, background literature was reviewed to determine potential presence of
sensitive vegetation types, aquatic communities, and special-status plant and wildlife species.
Resources reviewed include aerial photography, mapped soil types, the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the San Leandro
United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ quadrangle map, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2012), the California Native Plant
Society (CNPS) Online Database (2012), USFWS species list for the San Leandro USGS
quadrangle map, and species habitat requirements as noted in available literature. The
California Clapper Rail Survey Reports from 2009 – 2013, 2012 California Clapper Rail Habitat
Enhancement Program Progress Report prepared Olofson Environmental Inc. for the San
Francisco Estuary Invasive Spartina Project (ISP), and a Habitat Evaluation for Federally Listed
Wetland Species at Oakland International Airport prepared by URS were reviewed. CNDDB
special-status plant and wildlife historical and current occurrences within 2-miles of the Project
Area are illustrated in Figures 6 and 7, respectively. A list of potential special-status species
within the USGS quadrangle is provided in Appendix A.
Plants
Project Area
As previously stated, the Project Area is developed with asphalt paving, gravel, and Test Cell
Facility buildings. Therefore, no special-status plant species occur within the Project Area.
Study Area
As for the Study Area, based upon a review of the resources and databases listed above, 12
special-status plants have been documented within the San Leandro USGS quadrangle. Most
of the species included in the special-status lists (Appendix A) occur in habitats not found in the
Study Area such as coastal dune, coastal prairie, chaparral, scrub, valley and foothill grassland,
woodland, or forest habitats. Two species, Point Reyes bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum
ssp. palustre, syn. Cordylanthus maritimus ssp. palustris) and California seablite (Suaeda
californica) have documented occurrences within the San Leandro USGS quadrangle and have
the potential to occur in the Study Area. The potential for these species to occur within the
Study Area is discussed below.
Port of Oakland
31
June 2013
California seablite
alkali milk-vetch
Kellogg's horkelia
robust spineflower
Point Reyes bird's-beak
saline clover
adobe sanicle
woodland woollythreads
Project Area
2 Mi le Buffe r
Figure 6. CNDDB Plant Occurrences
within 2 Miles of Project Area
Oakland, California
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\22000\22245\GIS\ArcMap\CNDDB_Plants.mxd
.
0
0.25
0.5
Miles
1
Alameda Island mole
California tiger salamander
Alameda song sparrow
monarch butterfly
burrowing owl
salt-marsh harvest mouse
California black rail
salt-marsh wandering shrew
California clapper rail
saltmarsh common yellowthroat
California least tern
western snowy plover
Project Area
2 Mi le Buffe r
Figure 7. CNDDB Wildlife Occurrences
within 2 Miles of Project Area
Oakland, California
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\22000\22245\GIS\ArcMap\CNDDB_Wildlife.mxd
.
0
0.25
0.5
Miles
1
Point Reyes bird’s-beak (Chloropyron maritimum ssp. palustre, syn. Cordylanthus
maritimus ssp. palustris); California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Rank 1B.2. A
CDFW CNDDB occurrence of this species has been documented from within one mile of the
Study Area (CDFW 2013). According to CNDDB (2013), it is likely that this population is
extirpated. However, the coastal salt marsh habitat in the eastern portion of the Study Area
contains suitable habitat elements for this species (regular tidal influence, undisturbed native
soils, and associate species), and as such, there is moderate potential for this species to occur
there.
California seablite (Suaeda californica); Federal Endangered, CNPS Rare Plant Rank
1B.1. The Study Area is located within a specific area occurrence of this species, with a
voucher specimen dated from 1943. This population is also described as extirpated (CDFW
2013). The species is associated with coastal salt marsh. However, the CNPS states that the
species was formerly found in the San Francisco Bay area, where extirpated by development.
However, the plant is now extant only in Morro Bay and near Cayucos Pt. (CNPS 2013). The
potential for this species to be found within the Study Area is low.
Wildlife
Project Area
Sixteen special-status species of wildlife have been recorded in the San Leandro USGS
quadrangle. The Project Area does not contain suitable habitat to support any special-status
wildlife species.
Study Area
Eight special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur in the Study Area. One specialstatus wildlife species, white-tailed kite, was observed foraging over the muted tidal Fan Marsh
during the site assessment. Special-status wildlife species that were observed or which have a
potential to occur in the Study Area are discussed below. These species include: saltmarsh
common yellowthroat, California black rail, Alameda song sparrow, California clapper rail, saltmarsh harvest mouse, and white-tailed kite.
Saltmarsh Common Yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas sinuosa), USFWS Bird of
Conservation Concern, CDFW Species of Special Concern. This subspecies of the
common yellowthroat is found in freshwater marshes, coastal swales, riparian thickets, brackish
marshes, and saltwater marshes. Their breeding range extends from Tomales Bay in the north,
Carquinez Strait to the east, and Santa Cruz County to the south. This species requires thick,
continuous cover such as tall grasses, tule patches, or riparian vegetation down to the water
surface for foraging and prefers willows for nesting. This species was not observed during the
field assessment.
White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus); CDFW Fully Protected. White-tailed kite is resident in
agricultural areas, grasslands, scrub habitats, wet meadows, and emergent wetlands throughout
the lower elevations of California. Nests are constructed mostly of twigs and placed in small to
large trees, often at habitat edges (Dunk 1995). This species preys upon a variety of small
mammals and other vertebrates. This species may forage over the open salt marsh and nonnative annual grassland within the Study Area, although nesting habitat is limited. This species
was observed foraging over the muted Fan Marsh.
Port of Oakland
34
June 2013
Salt-marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris); Federal Endangered Species,
State Endangered, CDFW Fully Protected Species. The salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM)
is found only in saline emergent wetlands of San Francisco Bay where suitable dense
vegetative cover is present for escape during high tides. The primary food source for SMHM is
seeds and dense pickleweed. They are also accustomed to drinking moderately saline water
and are capable of swimming to dispersal habitats. This species typically nests in a loose ball
of grasses on the surface of the ground.
SMHM is found in pickleweed dominated vegetation (Fisler 1965), though more recent studies
have shown that SMHM is supported equally in pickleweed dominated and mixed-vegetation
(including native and non-native salt- and brackish-marsh species) (Sustaita et al. 2005,
Sustaita et al. 2011). The SMHM does not burrow, and thus it is dependent on year-round
vegetative cover. SMHM also requires areas of refuge from high tide events. Potential sources
of refuge include tall stands of pickleweed that remain unsubmerged during high tides, as well
as gumplant (Grindelia), common bulrush (Schoenoplectus americanus), natural and artificial
dikes and levees, floating debris, and grasslands adjacent to the marsh edge. Diked marshes
are generally not favored where adjacent upland cover has been eliminated, however harvest
mice appear to have adapted to these areas where suitable salt- and brackish-marsh vegetation
is present (Shellhammer et al. 1982, Geissel 1988, Sustaita et al. 2011). Salt marsh harvest
mice have not been observed in the muted tidal Fan Marsh; however, their potential habitat is
present. SMHM is presumed absent in the Study Area based on a report prepared by URS in
2012 (URS 2012). The URS report states that there are no current or historical CNDDB records
of the salt marsh harvest mouse within the Airport boundary.
Alameda song sparrow (Melospiza melodia pusillula); CDFW Species of Special Concern.
Alameda song sparrow, a subspecies of the common and widespread song sparrow (M.
melodia), is an endemic resident of marsh habitat along the fringes of south and east San
Francisco Bay. This subspecies prefers tidally influenced marsh, and taller shrubs such as
gumplant are required for breeding to avoid nest flooding during high tides (Chan and Spautz
2008). This species was not observed during the site assessment but the Study Area is
included in a CNNDB nonspecific occurrence area (CDFW 2013).
California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus); Federal Endangered, State
Endangered, CDFW Fully Protected. This species has been documented in the Study Area
(CDFW 2013). Tidal marsh vegetation in the muted Fan Marsh provides suitable habitat.
Annual CCR surveys conducted as part of the Invasive Spartina Project (ISP), have detected
CCR in Fan Marsh since 2009. The ISP’s 2012 CCR report found various numbers of CCR
detections during the three years of surveys (2009; 10-14, 2010; 12-14, 2011; 8-10, 2012: 2).
Based on personal communication with Jen McBroom of Olofson Environmental Inc., these
trends are variable given the pairs move between various nesting locations in the Bay. Draft
2013 survey data found 2-4 CCR occurrences. While, this species is not anticipated to occur
within the Project Area; it may be sensitive to noise disturbance if they are within audible range
of Project-related construction noise (typically within 700 feet).
California Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), State Threatened, CDFW Fully
Protected, USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern. This species occurs most commonly in
upper tidal zone of emergent wetlands or brackish marshes dominated by bulrush (Scirpus
spp.), cordgrass (Spartina spp.), and pickleweed (Salicornia spp.), most commonly nesting in
dense cover such as pickleweed (Eddelman et al., 1994). This species has not been
Port of Oakland
35
June 2013
documented in the Study Area but has been identified on Arrowhead Marsh east of the Study
Area across the Airport Channel.
a)
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. A significant impact may
occur if a project were to remove or modify habitat for any species identified or
designated as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or the USFWS.
Impact BIO–1 Special-Status Wildlife
The proposed internal and external modifications to the Test Cell Facility include the
conversion of the indoor propeller test stand, Test Cell #1, into a dynamometer test
stand configuration. Externally, the only visible changes to the site are expected to
be the addition of a water cooling system for the dynamometer and an oil/water
separation system, similar to ones that are used for Test Cells #6 and #7. The
Project Area does not have the potential to support special-status plant or wildlife
species. Therefore, no direct impacts to special-status species are anticipated.
However, special-status wildlife species within the Study Area may be temporarily
and indirectly impacted by construction activities. Potentially indirect significant
impacts to these species are described below.
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
Habitat suitable for salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM) is located adjacent to the
Project Area in the muted tidal wetland (Fan Marsh). The Proposed Project would
not impact suitable habitat during construction or operation because transportation of
equipment and staging of construction-related materials and equipment would be
located on developed areas of within the Project Area. Impacts to SMHM habitat
would therefore be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
California Clapper Rail
As noted in the Project Description and the Noise section of this Initial Study (see
Section 4.12), Test Cell #1 operates with the older engine model fitted with a
propeller. With the project, Test Cell #1 would be used with the newer engine model
fitted with a dynamometer. Since the two engines are comparable in size and power,
the major change (with respect to noise) will be the operation of Test Cell #1 with a
dynamometer instead of a propeller.
Based on observations of the existing Test Cell #1, the dominant noise source is the
propeller. The noise is associated with the air turbulence created at the propeller
blades as the propeller converts the power of the engine into air flow. With the
Proposed Project there would no longer be a propeller and, therefore, no air
turbulence noise from the propeller blades. Instead the engine shaft would be
attached to a dynamometer which converts the engine power into heat through a
system of gears in oil. This is generally a quieter operation since the gears are
enclosed in a substantial steel casing.
Acoustical measurements at RRESO were taken outdoors approximately 240 to 300
feet from the existing test cells operating with older engines. After correcting for
distance, these measurements indicate that Test Cell #7 with a dynamometer is
about 17 dBA quieter than Test Cell #1 with a propeller (or approximately 70%
quieter than the test conducted with a propeller). This comparison includes the noise
Port of Oakland
36
June 2013
contribution of the cooling tower associated with the dynamometer used in Test Cell
7.
Wildlife use of the Fan Marsh, and in particular, use by Clapper Rail has occurred
under existing operational conditions of the Test Facility and they appear to have
acclimated to those conditions. The proposed upgrade will result in less noise, which
will be a beneficial outcome of the Proposed Project. The only potential impacts
would be for noise generated during construction for the exterior facilities. For
additional species protection, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included to further
reduce noise impacts to CCR.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1
California Clapper Rail Indirect Impacts from Noise
The Project applicant or contractor shall implement the following measures during
construction to minimize indirect impacts:






The construction contractor shall implement feasible noise controls to
minimize outdoor equipment noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors.
Feasible noise controls include improved mufflers, use of intake silencers,
ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds.
Equipment used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically
powered impact tools (e.g., jack hammers) wherever possible to avoid noise
associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools.
Where use of pneumatically-powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler
on the compressed air exhaust shall be used. A muffler could lower noise
levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)).
External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible; this
could achieve a reduction of five dB(A). Quieter procedures shall be used
(such as drilling rather than impact equipment) wherever feasible.
The construction contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise
reduction measures that include shutting off idling equipment.
The construction contractor shall minimize use of vehicle backup alarms. A
common approach to minimizing the use of backup alarms is to design the
construction site with a circular flow pattern that minimizes backing up of
trucks and other heavy equipment. Another approach to reducing the
intrusion of backup alarms is to require all equipment on the site to be
equipped with ambient sensitive alarms. With this type of alarm, the alarm
sound is automatically adjusted based on the ambient noise.
Construction workers’ radios shall be controlled so as to be inaudible beyond
the limits of the project site boundaries.
Heavy equipment, such as paving and grading equipment, shall be stored onsite whenever possible to minimize the need for extra heavy truck trips on
local streets.
California Clapper Rail Visual Impacts
The Proposed Project could potentially affect CCR temporarily through visual
impacts associated with the increase in vehicle activities and construction equipment
staging during construction. While the existing ten-foot high fence and berm along
the eastern Project Area boundary provides some visual screening between the Fan
Marsh and Project Area, impacts to CCR and CBR are considered potentially
Port of Oakland
37
June 2013
significant.
CCR typically forage and nest in low to mid-marsh areas.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would reduce any impacts to a lessthan-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO–2
California Clapper Rail Visual Impacts
If construction work is proposed during the CCR breeding season (February 1 to
August 31), placement of a temporary screen along the existing approximately 10foot high fence above the grade of Fan Marsh at the eastern Project Area boundary
will screen virtually all construction equipment (with the possible exception of a pile
driver) and ensure that any potentially significant visual impacts are reduced to a
less-than-significant level. The temporary screen shall be opaque and installed from
the existing berm up to the bottom of the barbed wire portion of the existing fence.
Prior to the investigation, a construction employee education program shall be
conducted to discuss potential listed species adjacent to the Project Area. At a
minimum, the program shall consist of a presentation by persons knowledgeable in
listed species and protection to those personnel working within the Project Area.
Contractors, their employees, and other on-site personnel shall undergo sensitive
species training prior to involvement with construction activities in the Project Area.
The program will include the following:




a description of the species and their habitat needs,
reports of occurrences in the Project Area,
an explanation of the status of each endangered species and their protection
under the ESA, and
a list of measures being taken to reduce potential impacts to the species
during Project implementation.
Fact sheets conveying this information shall be prepared for distribution to
investigation personnel and anyone else who may enter the Project Area. Records
of sensitive species training shall be retained by the approved biologist.
California Black Rail Indirect Noise
Habitat characteristics of the Project Area are not suitable for California black rail
(CBR); however, the marsh habitats of the Martin Luther King Jr. Regional Shoreline
east of the Project Area are known to support this species. The Regional Shoreline
is managed by the East Bay Regional Parks District. According to the CNDDB, the
nearest CBR occurrences are located in Arrowhead Marsh, approximately 2,600 feet
east of the Proposed Project. However, annual CCR surveys conducted as part of
the ISP, have detected CCR in Fan Marsh since 2009, and it’s likely the marsh can
support CBR. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would lessen
potentially significant impacts to CBR to a less-than-significant level.
California Black Rail Visual Impacts
The Proposed Project could potentially affect potential nesting CBR through visual
impacts associated with the increase in vehicle activities and construction equipment
staging. While the existing berm along the eastern Project Area boundary provides
some visual screening between the Fan Marsh and Project Area, impacts to CBR are
considered potentially significant. Although CBR have not been found in the muted
Fan Marsh east of the Project Area, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2-4
would reduce any impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Port of Oakland
38
June 2013
Other Avian Special-Status Species
This assessment determined that ten special-status avian species (excluding CCR
and CBR) may use the Study Area for breeding and/or foraging. These species may
forage in the muted tidal wetland (Fan Marsh) and grassland communities adjacent
to the Project Area, and several species may find nesting habitat in trees, shrubs,
grasses, and emergent wetland vegetation throughout the Study Area. During the
WRA site visit, an inactive nest was identified on the eastern side of the
northernmost test cell facility building. This nest is typical of common bird species
such as a house sparrow or house finch. Although these species are common, they
are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Therefore, temporary impacts to
birds due to construction activities would be potentially significant. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO–3 would reduce potentially significant impacts to a less-thansignificant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO–3
Pre-Construction Breeding Bird Surveys
For any outside construction-related activities that are proposed to occur during the
avian breeding season (February 1 through August 31), breeding bird surveys are
required. Specifically, pre-construction breeding bird surveys shall be conducted
within 14 days of ground disturbance to avoid disturbance to active nests, eggs,
and/or young of nesting birds. A qualified biologist familiar with nesting birds shall
conduct a pre-construction survey; if nesting birds are detected within the test cell
facility near the construction activity (which is currently paved in its entirety), the
biologist shall notify the construction site supervisor so that nest will be avoided until
the young have fledged or the nest is no longer active. As described in Mitigation
Measure BIO-2, the qualified biologist shall conduct environmental awareness
training for all construction crews and contractors before work on the Proposed
Project is initiated. The training will include a brief review of all the special-status
species and other sensitive communities that may exist in the Study Area. Training
will be conducted as-needed (i.e., for new workers after start of construction or any
updates as the work progresses). No surveys or other avoidance measures for
breeding bird species would be necessary for outside project activities conducted
during the period of September 1 through January 31, which is outside the avian
breeding season. This work window also occurs outside the CCR breeding season,
and thus no CCR or other breeding bird surveys are required for project activities
conducted between September 1 and January 31.
After implementation of the above avoidance and minimization measures, impacts to
special-status species, including migratory birds, would be less than significant.
b)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if riparian habitat or any other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by
the CDFW or USFWS were to be adversely modified without adequate mitigation.
The entirety of the Project Area is comprised of developed and urban landscape.
These habitat types are not sensitive biological communities. Riparian or other
sensitive natural habitat communities are absent from the Project Area. Therefore,
no impacts to sensitive habitats are anticipated.
c)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if federally protected wetlands, as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, would be modified or removed by the
Proposed Project without adequate mitigation. Wetlands and other waters of the
Port of Oakland
39
June 2013
U.S. are adjacent to the Project Area but are absent from the Project Area as
described above. No impacts would occur to wetlands or waters of the United States.
d)
interfere with or remove access to a migratory wildlife corridor or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife movement corridors are absent
from the Project Area, however they may reside in the Fan Marsh adjacent to the
Project Area. The Proposed Project would be constructed within an existing
industrial complex and any impacts to wildlife movement would be less than
significant.
e)
No Impact. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if a project would
cause an impact that is inconsistent with local regulations pertaining to biological
resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The Project Area falls
within the area covered by the City of Oakland General Plan. The Conservation and
Open Space Elements of the General Plan define and guide for the conservation of
rare and/or unique species and sensitive habitats. Given the nature of the project
under consideration, no impacts to sensitive habitat or special-status species are
expected. Potential impacts are described above in Section 4.4 (a-d).
Additionally, the Proposed Project does not include the removal of any trees that
would conflict with an existing tree ordinance or policy. Consistency with the City’s
General Plan and the Port requirements would ensure that the Proposed Project
would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, thus no impacts.
f)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is inconsistent with mapping
or policies in any conservation plans of the types cited. No state, regional, or federal
habitat conservation plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans have been
adopted for the Project Area.
4.5 Cultural Resources
CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the
project:
a)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
identified in Section 15064.5?
b)
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
pursuant to Section 15064.5?
c)
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature?
d)
Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
Port of Oakland
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1, 7
1, 7
1, 7
1, 7
40
June 2013
Archaeological Resources
According to the Rolls-Royce Engine Services Building Addition Project (Port of Oakland 2000)
and the Final Environmental Impact Report prepared for the Proposed Airport Development
Program (Port of Oakland 1997 in Port of Oakland 2000), there are no known unique ethnic,
cultural or archeological or paleontological resources in the Project Area. Additionally, no
religious or sacred uses are known to exist in the Project Area. The Project Area is located
primarily on imported fill material deposited in the early 1900s during the construction of the
original airfield (Port of Oakland 2000). In 1989 Sorensen Consulting Civil Engineers compiled
numerous historic aerial photographs and described the chronology of fill and development
related to OAK. Considerable fill was required for the construction of the Airport, particularly at
the north end. Progressive development of the lighter-than-air (blimp) site and the adjacent
random-fill area at the north end of the Airport adjacent to Doolittle Drive occurred from 19491953. T-Hangars at the north end of Runway 15-33 were completed around 1958. Prior to
construction of the hangars the grade of the entire area was raised with rock fill material. In
1959, the continuous random fill in the area north of Runway 15-33 is apparent. Many of the
photographs illustrate the steady progression of fill and development of the Project Area. For
example, the area around the Airport was used for many years by the Cities of Oakland,
Alameda, and San Leandro for garbage and rubbish dumps. Much of this disposal was on land
leased from the Port. Another photograph, taken in 1949, shows the initial fill for the Alameda
City Dump, later called "Mount Trashmore" located adjacent to and north of Doolittle Drive,
northwest of the Project Area. Several other photographs illustrate the expansion of this dump
site (Sorenson 1989). Based on the amount of fill, debris, and development described in the
report, cultural resources are not expected within the Project Area.
Historic Resources
The North Field of OAK is a designated City Historic Landmark, exclusive of its structures and
facilities. In February 1980, the Oakland City Council passed Resolution 1979-8 and City
Ordinance 9872 allowing for alterations to the structures and facilities of the airport while
establishing the airport as a whole to be a Historic Landmark District (Port of Oakland 2000).
However, the City of Oakland expressed no concerns regarding the effects of the Airport
Development Program on cultural resources at the airport (Port of Oakland 2000). The Airport
Development Program is an umbrella program for a number of on-going improvement and
enhancement projects at OAK.
Paleontological Resources
The Project Area is situated on a thin band of artificial fill (af; USGS 2000). The USGS defines
artificial fill as “Man-made deposit(s) of various materials and ages…” Because the underlying
geology of the Project Area comprises recently deposited amalgamation of sediments, it is very
unlikely to contain any prehistoric or paleontological artifacts.
a)
No Impact. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines a historical resource
as: 1) a resource listed in or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources
Commission, for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); 2) a
resource listed in a local register of historical resources or identified as significant in an
historical resource survey meeting certain state guidelines; or 3) an object, building,
structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which a lead agency determines to be
significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural,
educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of California, provided that the
Port of Oakland
41
June 2013
lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole
record. A project-related significant adverse effect would occur if a project were to
adversely affect a historical resource meeting one of the above definitions. The Project
Area does not contain any known historical resources. Nearby historical buildings would
not be affected by the Proposed Project because all disturbances would take place
within the existing facility, and the Proposed Project would not change the visual
character near historical buildings. Therefore, no impacts on known historical resources
are expected.
b, d)
Less than Significant Impact. Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines
significant archaeological resources as resources which meet the criteria for historical
resources, as discussed above, or resources which constitute unique archaeological
resources. A project-related significant adverse effect could occur if a project were to
affect archaeological resources which fall under either of these categories or if a project
were to disturb human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Accidental Discovery
The Project Area does not contain any known archaeological resources and has a low
potential to contain buried cultural deposits or human remains based on past
disturbances. The contractor will comply with applicable federal and state laws and the
Port’s Emergency Plan of Action for Discoveries of Unknown Historical or Archeological
Resources in the event of an inadvertent discovery of potential human remains or
cultural resources and halt all work in the vicinity of the find until the resource can be
assessed. Therefore impacts to these resources would be less than significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-1 and CULT-2 would further reduce less
than significant impacts.
Mitigation Measure CULT–1: Accidental Discovery
In the event of post-review discoveries of cultural resources the following requirements
apply:

If any archaeological or paleontological deposits are encountered, all soildisturbing work should be halted at the location of any discovery until a qualified
archaeologist or paleontologist evaluates the significance of the find(s) and
prepares a recommendation for further action. If the cultural materials are
determined to be significant, a qualified archaeologist shall develop an
appropriate treatment plan in consultation with the Port’s Environmental
Programs and Planning Division and/or their representative to mitigate the
discovery. The plan could include avoidance and preservation measures to
preserve the materials in place; scientific collection and analysis; preparation of a
professional report in accordance with current professional standards; and,
professional museum curation of collected cultural materials and resource
documentation.
Port of Oakland
42
June 2013
Mitigation Measure CULT-2: Accidental Discovery of Human Remains or Funerary
Objects
The treatment of human remains and of associated or unassociated funerary objects
discovered during any soils-disturbing activity will comply with applicable state laws. In
the event of the accidental discovery or recognition of any human remains in any
location other than a dedicated cemetery, the following steps should be taken:



c)
The treatment of human remains and of associated or unassociated funerary
objects discovered during any soil-disturbing activity within the project shall
comply with applicable State laws. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of the Health and
Safety Code, and PRC Section 5097.94, in the event of the discovery of human
remains during construction, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance
of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains.
The Alameda County Coroner shall be immediately notified and shall make a
determination as to whether the remains are Native American.
In the event of the coroner's determination that the human remains are Native
American, notification of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), is
required who shall appoint a Most Likely Descendant (MLD) (PRC Section
5097.98). The archaeological consultant, project sponsor, and MLD shall make
all reasonable efforts to develop an agreement for the treatment, with appropriate
dignity, of human remains and associated or unassociated funerary objects
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(d)). The agreement should take into
consideration the appropriate excavation, removal, recordation, analysis,
custodianship, curation, and final disposition of the human remains and
associated or unassociated funerary objects.
California Public Resources Code allows 48 hours to reach agreement on these
matters. If the MLD and the other parties do not agree on the reburial method,
the project will follow PRC Section 5097.98(b) which states that "the landowner
or his or her authorized representative shall reinter the human remains and items
associated with Native American burials with appropriate dignity on the property
in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance."
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project directly or
indirectly destroys a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
No unique paleontological or geologic resources are anticipated in the Project Area. Any
paleontological materials occurring in the imported fill would have been inadvertently
transported to the area and would thus no longer be in situ (i.e., no longer remains within
its original context).As such, these impacts to unique paleontological resource or unique
geologic features with project implementation would be less than significant.
Port of Oakland
43
June 2013
4.6 Geology and Soils
GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Would the project:
a)
Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for
the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b)
Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil?
c)
Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable
as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse?
d)
Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code, creating substantial risks to life or
property?
e)
Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
2,8
2, 8
2, 8
2, 8
1
2, 8, 9
2, 8, 9
1, 9
Soils
The Project Area is located primarily on fill material deposited in the early 1900s during the
construction of the original airfield; artificial fill (af; USGS 2000). Additionally, during the past
century, following the 1906 earthquake, tens of millions of cubic meters of fills have been placed
along bay margins including the expansion of San Francisco and Oakland airports (WLA 2008).
Seismicity
The San Francisco Bay area is one of the most seismically active areas in the country. While
seismologists cannot predict earthquake events, the U.S. Geological Survey’s Working Group
on California Earthquake Probabilities (2003) estimates there is a 62 percent chance of at least
one magnitude 6.7 earthquake occurring in the Bay Area region between 2003 and 2032. As
seen with damage in San Francisco and Oakland due to the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake that
was centered about 50 miles south, significant damage can occur at considerable distances.
Higher levels of shaking and damage would be expected for earthquakes occurring at closer
Port of Oakland
44
June 2013
distances. The faults considered capable of generating significant earthquakes in the area are
generally associated with the well-defined areas of crustal movement, which trend
northwesterly. Faults considered active by the State of California and located closest to the site
include San Andreas, and Hayward. The presence of these two faults within 10-15 miles (13
miles southwest and 5.6 miles northeast, respectively) of Oakland creates a high cumulative
probability of future earthquakes locally. Of these two faults, the Hayward fault poses the most
serious threat by far to Oakland due to its location through the city, the intensity of land uses
near the fault zone, and the long interval since the last major quake along the fault (ABAG
2013). The Project Area is not located within a State-designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake fault
rupture zone.12
a-i, ii)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project site is
subject to fault rupture from a known earthquake fault as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Fault Zoning Map or based on substantial evidence of a known
fault. Additionally, a significant impact may occur if the Proposed Project were to
represent an increased risk to public safety or destruction of property by exposing
people, property, or infrastructure to seismically induced ground shaking hazards
that are greater than the average risk associated with locations in the Northern
California region. Geologic records show that fault displacement usually happens in
areas where displacement has previously occurred. For this reason, the grounddisplacement hazard is normally confined to a narrow zone along the traces of
earthquake faults considered to be active or potentially active. These zones have
been legally defined by the State Geologist as earthquake fault zones (EFZs). The
only EFZ found in Oakland occurs through the Oakland hills, along both sides of the
Hayward fault. No faults cross through the Project Area, and surface rupture
associated with a fault is not anticipated in the Project Area. Seismic-related ground
failure is not anticipated in the Project Area, and the project would not expose people
to these hazards.
Seismic activity associated with nearby faults could cause ground shaking in the
Project Area and could create a risk for construction workers, if an earthquake
happens during construction. Occasional ground shaking is common in the Bay
Area, and construction workers would take the necessary precautions to maintain
worker safety in the event of an earthquake. In addition, the design of project
components would adhere to California Building Code requirements specific to the
area to minimize the potential for damage from earthquake activity in the future.
Therefore, impacts associated with seismic ground shaking would be less than
significant.
a-iii)
12
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a Proposed Project
were to represent an increased risk to public safety or destruction of property by
exposing people, property, or infrastructure to seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction. ABAG has created a map of the Bay Area which classifies
land according to five liquefaction-susceptibility levels: very low, low, moderate, high
and very high. These maps indicate that most of West Oakland, areas surrounding
San Leandro Bay and much of the rest of the City of Oakland’s shoreline have a
“high” or “very high” susceptibility to liquefaction (ABAG 2013). The project is subject
to all Federal, State, and local regulations and standards for seismic conditions
California Geological Survey Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Maps.
http://www.quake.ca.gov/gmaps/ap/ap_maps.htm. Accessed: December 30, 2012.
Port of Oakland
45
Available at:
June 2013
including the Uniform Building Code, California Edition and would be designed to
conform with all building requirements. Therefore, impacts associated with seismicrelated ground failure, including liquefaction, would be less than significant.
a-iv)
No Impact. A project-related significant adverse effect may occur if a project is
located in a hillside area with soil conditions that would suggest a high potential for
landslides. The Project Area is relatively flat and would not be at risk for slope
failure. The project does not involve additional construction on undeveloped soil.
Final project design and construction details will conform to applicable Federal,
State, and local regulations and standards for seismic conditions including the
Uniform Building Code, California Edition. Therefore, the Proposed Project would
have no impacts related to landsides.
b)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project exposes
large areas to the erosional effects of wind or water for a protracted period of time.
Equipment installation would involve soil disturbance below-grade for equipment
installation, which would temporarily expose soils to wind and water erosion. No
native topsoil would be disturbed because the activities would take place in existing
paved areas. Construction measures included in Section 4.9 would be implemented
to minimize the potential for erosion and indirect effects associated with soil erosion
(i.e., water quality impacts, fugitive dust). Therefore, impacts associated with
substantial soil erosion are less than significant.
c, d)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is built in
an unstable area without proper site preparation or design features to provide
adequate foundations for the project buildings, thus posing a hazard to life and
property. The potential for geologic and soil hazards from unstable or expansive
soils in the Project Area is considered low based on the geologic units, soil types,
and flat topography. The project is subject to all Federal, State, and local regulations
and standards for seismic conditions including the Uniform Building Code, California
Edition and would be designed to conform with all building requirements. Therefore,
impacts associated with soil hazards or life and property are less than significant.
e)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is built in
an area with soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water. The project does not involve construction of septic tanks
but does include the installation of an oil/water separator. A similar oil/water
separator is currently operating on the site. Soils, therefore, are capable of
supporting the use of such equipment. Final project design and construction details
will conform to applicable Federal, State, and local regulations and standards for
seismic conditions including the Uniform Building Code, California Edition. Therefore,
impacts associated with inadequate soil support are less than significant.
Port of Oakland
46
June 2013
4.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS —
Would the project:
a)
Generate greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment?
b)
Conflict with any applicable plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency
adopted for the purpose of reducing
the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
1
Assembly Bill 32, adopted in 2006, established the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 which
requires the State to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. Senate
Bill 97, adopted in 2007, required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research to develop
CEQA guidelines “for the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions or the effects of greenhouse
gas emissions,” and the Resources Agency certified and adopted the amendments to the
guidelines on December 30, 2009.
GHGs are recognized by wide consensus among the scientific community to contribute to global
warming/climate change and associated environmental impacts. The major GHGs released
from human activity are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide (Governor’s Office of
Planning and Research 2008). The primary sources of GHGs are vehicles (including planes
and trains), energy plants, and industrial and agricultural activities (such as dairies and hog
farms).
Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have local or regional impacts,
emissions of greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming or global climate change have
a broader, global impact. Global warming is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the
atmosphere contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. The
principal GHGs contributing to global warming are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous
oxide (N2O), and fluorinated compounds. These gases allow visible and ultraviolet light from the
sun to pass through the atmosphere, but they prevent heat from escaping back out into space.
Among the potential implications of global warming are rising sea levels, and adverse impacts to
water supply, water quality, agriculture, forestry, and habitats. In addition, global warming may
increase electricity demand for cooling, decrease the availability of hydroelectric power, and
affect regional air quality and public health. Like most criteria and toxic air pollutants, much of
the GHG production comes from motor vehicles. GHG emissions can be reduced to some
degree by improved coordination of land use and transportation planning on the city, county,
and subregional level, and other measures to reduce automobile use.
In 2010, BAAQMD adopted a quantitative threshold of significance of 10,000 metric tonnes per
year (MT/yr) of GHG emissions, expressed in CO2 equivalents (CO2e), which applied only to
operational emissions (i.e., not construction emissions). While BAAQMD “is no longer
recommending that [those] Thresholds be used as a generally applicable measure of a project’s
Port of Oakland
47
June 2013
significant air quality impacts”,13 BAAQMD did support the threshold14 with evidence that at least
the cumulative impacts of all projects with emissions above 10,000 MT/yr CO2e would be
significant, though the District did not address the fact that “the mere existence of significant
cumulative impacts caused by other projects alone shall not constitute substantial evidence that
the Proposed Project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable” [§15064(h)(4)].
10,000 MT/yr CO2e is a tiny fraction of the AB 32 GHG reduction goals (reducing annual
emissions by 169,000,000 MT/yr by 2020, when business-as-usual scenario emissions would
otherwise be 596,000,000 MT/yr).
At the federal level, the so-called "Tailoring Rule," see 75 Fed. Reg. 31514 (2010) establishes
greenhouse gas emissions thresholds for purposes of triggering Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) review of new sources or major modifications of existing sources. Under
the Tailoring Rule, the threshold for most new sources or modified existing sources of
greenhouse gases is 75,000 MTCO2e, and it will not fall below 50,000 MTCO2e before 2016.
Based on the foregoing, the threshold that BAAQMD adopted in 2010, though currently not
recommended for use by BAAQMD due to litigation, is very conservative—i.e., projects which
are below that threshold are clearly not significant.
The project involves changing out a test cell to enable the testing (and subsequent use) of
newer engines which are more efficient than the ones previously being tested. The emissions
associated with testing the engines at the facility are higher than they were previously, however,
in part because the test cycles are longer (3 hours, compared with 1.5 hours for the current
engines). As a result GHG emissions from testing the engines are expected to increase by
between 93 and 133 MT CO2/yr (the range depends on whether 35 engines are tested per year
or 50 engines are tested per year).15 As shown in Table 4, this is far below the significance
threshold adopted by BAAQMD in 2010 (1,100 MT C02e/yr) and the overall benefit associated
with subsequent use of the newer engines would far outweigh these minor increases in
emissions associated with longer test cycles.
a)
13
14
15
generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment. With the exception of GHG emissions
associated with tank truck trips required to periodically dispose of contents pumped
from the oil/water separation system, the project would not result in an increase in
operational GHG emissions related to traffic as no new employees would be
required. The increase in GHG emissions from testing is far below even the
significance threshold adopted by BAAQMD in 2010, and this minor increase in
emissions during testing would also be outweighed by the subsequent use of more
efficient engines in aircraft than those that have been used in the past. While the
Proposed Project would have an incremental contribution to GHG emissions within
the context of the City and region, the individual impact is considered less than
significant.
BAAQMD, “Updated CEQA Guidelines”, available from http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planningand-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx.
BAAQMD, “Revised Draft Options and Justification Report, California Environmental Quality Act
Thresholds of Significance,” October 2009, available from http://www.baaqmd.gov/Divisions/Planningand-Research/CEQA-GUIDELINES/Updated-CEQA-Guidelines.aspx.
Emissions of other GHGs, such as CH4 and N2O.
Port of Oakland
48
June 2013
b)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were conflict with any
applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. The project would not generate
significant emissions of GHG and, therefore, would not conflict with any applicable
plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions.
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS —
Would the project:
a)
Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b)
Create a significant hazard to the public or
the environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment?
c)
Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d)
Be located on a site which is included on a
list of hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the
environment?
e)
For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people
residing or working in the Project Area?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the
Project Area?
g)
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
h)
Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Port of Oakland
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1, 10
1, 10
1, 10
1, 10
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
1, 2
49
June 2013
The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines “hazard” as any
substance or chemical which is a “health hazard” or “physical hazard,” including: chemicals
which are carcinogens, toxic agents, irritants, corrosives, sensitizers; agents which act on the
hematopoietic system; agents which damage the lungs, skin, eyes, or mucous membranes;
chemicals which are combustible, explosive, flammable, oxidizers, pyrophorics, unstablereactive or water-reactive; and chemicals which in the course of normal handling, use, or
storage may produce or release dusts, gases, fumes, vapors, mists or smoke which may have
any of the previously mentioned characteristics.16 The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) incorporates the OSHA definition, and lists over 350 hazardous and extremely hazardous
substances. EPA includes any item or chemical which can cause harm to people, plants, or
animals when released by spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging,
injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping or disposing into the environment.17 The U.S.
Department of Transportation defines a hazardous material as any item or chemical which,
when being transported or moved, is a risk to public safety or the environment and is regulated
under the Hazardous Materials Regulations.18
Under Government Code Section 65962.5, the California Department of Toxic Substances
Control (DTSC) maintains a list of hazardous substance sites. This list, referred to as the
“Cortese List,” includes CALSITE hazardous material sites, sites with leaking underground
storage tanks, and landfills with evidence of groundwater contamination. The Project Area is
listed in the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region
(RWQCB) webpage GeoTracker with a Global ID of T06019775776, and as such is considered
listed on the Cortese List. Environmental investigations and remediation for the site are
conducted with regulatory oversight by Alameda County Environmental Health (ACEH, formerly
ACDEH) under site number #RO0002606 (PES 2010).
Three documented chemical releases have occurred at the Test Cell Facility since 1992 (all of
which occurred under the previous operator). The Test Cell Facility’s main features include six
engine test cells with auxiliary structures, one 30,000-gallon above-ground liquefied petroleum
(LP) fuel tank, three jet-A-fuel underground storage tanks (USTs; one 10,000-gallon & twin
8,000-gallon tanks), and an unlined drainage ditch along the southwestern edge of site which
formerly collected storm water and runoff from operations at Test Cells 1 through 4. Collected
storm water flows through the ditch into an underground pipe, which drains to the south where it
is pumped to the muted tidal wetland (Fan Marsh) and eventually discharges to San Leandro
Bay (PES 2010).
On-site Soil
Three petroleum hydrocarbon mixtures (TPHj, TPHg, and TPHd) as well as benzene and
naphthalene, were identified as chemicals of potential concern (COPCs) in on-site soil. Five
metals (antimony, arsenic, lead, mercury, and zinc) also exceeded commercial/industrial and/or
construction/trench worker San Francisco RWQCB Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) in
at least one on-site location, and were therefore identified as COPCs (PES 2010).
Concentrations of TPHg, TPHd and TPHj in soil exceeded risk-based commercial/industrial
and/or construction/trench worker ESLs at numerous locations across the site. Naphthalene
exceeded the construction/trench worker ESL, while benzene exceeded the
commercial/industrial ESL only in sidewall samples from an excavation performed near Test
16
17
18
29 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1910.1200.).
40 CFR § 355.
49 CFR §§ 100-180.
Port of Oakland
50
June 2013
Cell #2 in September 2007 (PES 2010). Arsenic concentrations exceeded commercial/industrial
and construction/trench worker screening levels across the site, but were consistent with
background arsenic levels in fill material across the Port, of which OAK is a part, of 16.4 mg/kg,
as identified in the SMP (SAIC 2010; PES 2010).
None of the samples that exceeded the commercial/industrial and/or construction/trench worker
ESLS for the constituents noted above was located near the Proposed Project upgrade areas
located at Test Cell #1.
Airport Land Use Committee
The Project Area is within OAK’s Airport Influence Area (AIA), which is subject to the airport
land use commission (ALUC) review. The Project Area is located adjacent to the North Field of
the OAK, which is regulated by the Alameda County ALUC. The potential for aircraft accidents
in the North Field of OAK is substantial and the need for land use restrictions is high. .
a, b)
occur if a project would involve the use or disposal of hazardous materials as part of
its routine operations, or create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release
of hazardous materials.
Excavation, Transportation and Disposal of Potentially Contaminated Soil
Small amounts of hazardous materials would be used during construction activities
for equipment maintenance (e.g., fuel and solvents) and re-paving equipment, if
necessary. Use of hazardous materials would be limited to construction and would
comply with applicable local, state, and federal standards associated with the
handling and storage of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials would not be
stored or used, such as for equipment maintenance, where they could affect nearby
land uses. Standard construction measures will be implemented to contain spills of
oil and other hazardous materials, and the contractor will be required to ensure that
adequate materials are on hand to clean up any accidental spill that may occur. Any
spills will be cleaned up immediately, and all wastes and used spill control materials
will be properly disposed of at approved disposal facilities as required.
As part of the project, soil may be removed from the site and transported to
designated landfills for disposal. The soil removal would be required only during site
preparation for foundation modifications (e.g., trenching for the water supply, water
tower foundation, and test bed foundation work) and is expected to be of a short
duration. Any contaminated materials encountered during the site preparation would
be handled and disposed of in accordance with any applicable State and Federal
regulations for transportation and disposal of contaminated materials or hazardous
waste.
The Project Area is considered a low risk for exposure to employees or construction
crews since there is no indication that constituents present in other areas of the site
are present within the Test Cell #1 area. However, exposure to potentially
contaminated soils by workers during construction of the Proposed Project may
occur and as such a potentially significant impact; however, the potential
construction duration is expected to be short and temporary. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, impacts associated with the use or accidental spill of
Port of Oakland
51
June 2013
hazardous materials or exposure to contaminated soil, groundwater or hazardous
waste would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ–1: Excavation, Transportation and Disposal of Potentially
Contaminated Soils
1. Site Specific Health and Safety Plan. Develop and implement a site specific
Health and Safety Plan for construction activities to reduce the potential for
adverse exposure of people to hazardous contamination. The Health and
Safety Plan will include personal protective equipment, a hazard assessment,
site control, handling procedures, chain of command, and emergency
evacuation plan.
2. Response Measures. If potentially contaminated soil is encountered during
construction, identify and implement response measures necessary to comply
with all applicable local, state and Federal laws and regulations.
3. Handling, Recycling, and Hauling. Adhere to all applicable local, State and
Federal laws, regulations and standards regarding the handling (including
storing), recycling and hauling of hazardous materials. Hazardous materials
will be hauled by certified hazardous waste haulers if required by applicable
law. All hazardous materials will be adequately characterized and hazardous
waste loads, if any, will be manifested following EPA procedures.
4. Disposal. The disposal of contaminated soil and hazardous materials will
comply with applicable local, State and Federal laws and regulations.
Hazardous wastes generated as part of the project, if any, will be properly
disposed of in accordance with applicable law. Disposal sites will provide
written acceptance of the characterized material before the material leaves
the site.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Dewatering, Water Testing, Storage and Treatment
For locations requiring dewatering where environmental contamination could be
encountered during construction, the RRESO would ensure that the contractor prearranges for dewatering, water testing, storage, and treatment, in compliance with
applicable NPDES or pretreatment permits, depending on the discharge point and
the nature of any contamination encountered.
c)
No Impact. A project-related significant adverse effect may occur if the project site
is located within 0.25 miles of an existing or proposed school site, and is projected to
release toxic emissions, which would pose a health hazard beyond regulatory
thresholds. The Project Area is not located within 0.25-mile of existing or proposed
school. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to schools in the area.
d)
occur if a project is located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The
Proposed Project occurs in an area that has been used as an airport for at least
seventy years, including a period prior to the advent of many current environmental
laws and regulations. Environmental investigations and remediation are conducted
with regulatory oversight by Alameda County Environmental Health (ACEH, formerly
ACDEH) under site number #RO0002606. The Project Area is listed in the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB)
webpage GeoTracker with a Global ID of T06019775776, and there have been
documented releases elsewhere within the Test Cell Facility (though not within the
Port of Oakland
52
June 2013
Project Area). Accordingly, human and environmental exposure due to the
disturbance of soils during excavation activities in connection with project
construction would be considered to be a potentially significant impact. Excavated
soils shall be handled and disposed of following local, State and Federal regulations,
including, as applicable, regulations governing the transportation and disposal of
hazardous waste. Compliance with Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would ensure that the
Proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public, to construction
workers or site employees or to the environment, and impacts would be less than
significant.
e)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant project-related impact may occur if a
project were placed within a public airport land use plan area or within two miles of a
public airport, and subject to a safety hazard. The Project Area is within a one-half
mile north of OAK. According to the Airport Influence AIA boundary for OAK, the
Project Area is within the AIA, which is subject to the ALUC review. The Project
Area is located adjacent to the North Field of the OAK, which is regulated by the
Alameda County ALUC.
Additionally, the FAA sets forth guidelines in the Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR)
Part 77, to determine if an object is an obstruction to air navigation. The regulations
address potential light, glare, and air emissions that could distract aircraft operators.
The Proposed Project would neither include development that would exceed height
restrictions nor result in light, glare, and air emissions that could distract aircraft
operators.
There are no other implications with respect to safety and proximity to OAK; the
Proposed Project would not conflict with the height restrictions set forth by the FAA
and would not interfere with air traffic. Operation of the Proposed Project would be
similar to existing conditions.
Therefore, impacts are considered less than
significant.
f)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were
placed within the vicinity of a private airstrip that could result in a safety hazard for
people residing or working in the project area. The Project Area is not within the
vicinity of a private airstrip. The Proposed Project includes internal improvements
within an existing facility. The Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard
for people working in the Project Area.
g)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to interfere with
roadway operations used in conjunction with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan, or would generate sufficient traffic to create traffic
congestion that would interfere with the execution of such a plan. Emergency
access to or evacuation from surrounding areas would not be restricted during
construction because of the Proposed Project is not located in an area that would
block emergency response or evacuation and all equipment would be staged within
the Project Area. No impact would occur.
h)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is located
in proximity to wildland areas and would pose a potential fire hazard, which could
affect persons or structures in the area in the event of a fire. The Project Area is in a
developed area in between a maintained non-native annual grassland and adjacent
muted tidal wetlands associated the Fan Marsh and is not near any wildlands that
provide suitable fuel for a wildland fire. However, according to the Association of
Port of Oakland
53
June 2013
Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Threat map, the
Project Area is located in an area subject to moderate fire threat and adjacent to a
fire threatened community.19 Given the project’s location and control measures
already enforced within the Test Cell Facility, the project would not increase the risk
of wildfire near an urban area and impacts would be less than significant.
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would
the project:
a)
Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements?
b)
Substantially deplete groundwater supplies
or interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level which would not
support existing land uses or planned uses
for which permits have been granted)?
c)
Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or offsite?
d)
Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including through
the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or
amount of surface runoff in a manner which
would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e)
Create or contribute runoff water that would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
storm water drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
f)
Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality?
g)
Place housing within a 100-year flood
hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
h)
Place within a 100-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect
flood flows?
19
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
1, 2, 7,
9, 10
1, 2, 7,
10
1, 7,
10
1, 7,
10
1, 7,
10
1, 2, 7,
9
1, 2, 7,
9
ABAG. ABAG Geographical Information Systems - Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Threat.
Accessed October 20, 2010. Available at: http://quake.abag.ca.gov/wildfires/. Accessed December
30, 2012.
Port of Oakland
54
June 2013
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Would
the project:
i)
Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury or death involving
flooding, including flooding as a result of
the failure of a levee or dam?
j)
Inundation of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1, 2, 7,
9
1, 2, 7,
9
According to the RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Basin, the Project
Area is located in the South Bay Basin. San Leandro Bay is the closest natural surface water
body south of the Project Area but the Test Cell Facility is also bordered by muted tidal wetlands
to the east (Fan Marsh) and non-tidal wetlands to the south. In the Project Area, the soil is
artificial fill on top of mostly unconsolidated clays (bay mud) on top of older, consolidated clays.
These soil conditions mean that significant structures (i.e., buildings) must be constructed on
piles and that drainage conditions are often challenging (e.g., ground water does not percolate
into the soil) (Port of Oakland 2006). The Test Cell Facility includes an unlined drainage ditch
along the southwestern edge of site which formerly collected storm water and runoff from
operations at Test Cells 1 through 4.
According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Federal Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM), the Project Area is not located in a flood zone.20 The Project Area is located in
Zone X, areas determined to be outside the 0.2% annual chance floodplain. However, the
Project Area is located within the projected inundation area for the 16 inch sea level rise
scenario over the next century.21 The Project Area is also located within a mapped Tsunami
Inundation Area22 but is not subject to seiches or dam failure inundation. 23
a)
occur if a project were to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements.
Impact HYDRO–1: Water Quality Standards
The proposed internal and external modifications to the Test Cell Facility include the
conversion of the indoor propeller test stand, Test Cell #1, into a dynamometer test
stand configuration. Externally, the only changes to the site are expected to be the
addition and operation of a water cooling system for the dynamometer and an
oil/water separation system, similar to ones that are currently used for Test Cells #6
and #7. The oil/water separation system tanks will be periodically emptied by
pumping the contents into tank trucks for disposal at an approved location off-site.
20
21
22
23
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Insurance Rate Map. Community-Panel Number
06001C0251G. August 3, 2009.
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). Sea Level Rise Scenario Map for Long-Range
Planning, http://gis.abag.ca.gov/Website/SeaLevelRise/index.html, accessed January 15, 2013.
ABAG. Earthquake and Hazards Program, Tsunami Maps and Information. December 11, 2012.
Available at: http://quake.abag.ca.gov/tsunamis/ and accessed on January 15, 2013
ABAG. Earthquake and Hazards Program, Dam Failure Inundation. January 3, 2013. Available at:
http://quake.abag.ca.gov/dam-failure/ and accessed on January 15, 2013
Port of Oakland
55
June 2013
Soils excavated during construction would be handled and disposed of following
applicable State and Federal regulations. The Proposed Project would be subject to
RRESO’s Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) (RRESO
2009). RRESO also has and is subject to the requirements of a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that includes Best Management Practices
applicable to oil spill prevention and spill response that is monitored by the Port.
Detailed procedures for varied emergency response including fire, weather and
hazardous material spills are described in RRESO’s Hazardous Materials
Management Plan (HMMP). Additionally, RRESO’s Facility Response Plan would be
used in the event of a major oil release into navigable waters.
Additional standard construction measures are recommended during periods of rain
to minimize pollutants carried from the Project Area in runoff. Violations of any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be potentially significant.
After implementation of BMPs described under Mitigation Measure HYDRO–1, water
quality impacts during construction and operation of the project would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure HYDRO–1: Water Quality Standards
The project shall comply with terms of the Port’s project level Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Program (SWPPP) for projects under one acre of impact. The project
shall also comply with the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan
(SPCCP), the Hazardous Materials Management Plan (HMMP), and the Industrial
SWPPP.
b)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project includes deep excavations
resulting in the potential to interfere with groundwater movement or includes
withdrawal of groundwater or paving of existing permeable surfaces important to
groundwater recharge. The project would not require use of groundwater supplies or
affect groundwater recharge in the area as the Project Area is already developed.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
c, d, e)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project results in a substantial
alteration of drainage patterns that would result in a substantial increase in erosion or
siltation during construction or operation of the project, results in increased runoff
volumes during construction or operation of the project that would result in flooding
conditions affecting the project site or nearby properties, or increases the volume of
storm water runoff to a level which exceeded the capacity of the storm drain system
serving a project site. The Proposed Project would not substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the area. The proposed internal and external modifications to the
Test Cell Facility would not contribute substantial erosion or siltation or increase the
rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite.
f)
occur if a project substantially degrades water quality. The project would not have
other water quality impacts beyond those discussed under Section 4.8 (a-b) and item
4.9 (a) above. Although it is not likely that the project would otherwise substantially
degrade water quality any such impacts would be potentially significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 would lessen potentially significant
impacts to a less-than-significant level.
Port of Oakland
56
June 2013
g, h, i)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project place housing within a 100year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map, place within a 100-year
flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows, or expose
people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam The Project Area is not
located in a FEMA designated floodplain. San Leandro Bay and the larger San
Francisco Bay are not enclosed water bodies, thus the Project Area is not
susceptible to seiches. Also, the flat topography and location of the Project Area
prohibits mudflow events. Therefore, the project would not involve placement of
housing or other structures in a flood zone and would not expose people or
structures to risks from flooding or inundation by seiche or mudflow. Therefore, no
impacts are anticipated.
j)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project were
subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The Proposed Project is
located in a tsunami inundation area. A tsunami is a series of waves generated in a
body of water by a rapid disturbance that vertically displaces the water. These
changes can be caused by an underwater fault rupture (that generates an
earthquake) or underwater landslides (typically triggered by earthquakes). Tsunamis
affecting the Bay Area can result from off-shore earthquakes within the Bay Area, or
from very distant events. The Project Area is located approximately two miles east
of the open waters of the San Francisco Bay. The mouth of the San Francisco Bay
is too constricted to permit a significant wave to form inside the Bay from a tsunami.
Tsunami waves would be expected to attenuate through the bay (ESA 2012). Due to
the distance of the Project Area from the open waters of the San Francisco Bay,
project impacts associated with tsunami hazards are considered less than significant.
4.10 Land Use and Planning
LAND USE AND PLANNING – Would the
project:
a)
Physically divide an established
community?
b)
Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific
plan, local coastal program, or zoning
ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental
effect?
c)
Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural communities
conservation plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
2, 3
1
The Project Area is located adjacent to the San Francisco Bay north of the OAK. To the west of
the Project Area are the Chuck Corica Municipal Golf Complex and the North Field of OAK,
which is a designated Area of Primary Importance (Local Historic District) and is administered
Port of Oakland
57
June 2013
by the Port. The North Field accommodates a number of private and business/charter aircraft.
To the east are lands associated with the Airport including the Federal Aviation Administration,
and San Leandro Bay. The Project Area is located approximately 0.08 miles (422 feet) from the
nearest shoreline and is adjacent to a parcel containing what appear to be diked wetlands.
The Project Area encompasses a small area of the existing RRESO facilities adjacent to the
existing indoor propeller test stand and water cooling system. The Project Area is located on an
expanse of paved, developed ground. The Proposed Project includes a new exterior water
cooling system for the proposed remodeled test stand, consisting of a cooling tower, water
piping, pumps and sumps and an oil/water separation system.
As discussed in Policy OS-7.4 of the Oakland General Plan, the only public access in the area
is parallel to the northern edge of the main runway, where a short shoreline path extends from
Harbor Bay Parkway along the top of the airport dike. The path skirts a tidal pond and provides
viewing access to a least tern nesting area. Past the south end of the runway and along Oyster
Bay, there is no public water access until San Leandro.
The City of Oakland General Plan provides policies and implementation strategies for
management of the resources and land uses in the City and the Port administrative area, and
the City Codes provide restrictions and requirements to protect resources and comply with local,
state, and federal laws. No habitat conservation plans have been adopted for the area.
Airport Land Use Committee
According to the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for OAK, the Project Area is within the
AIA, which is subject to the airport land use commission (ALUC) review. The Project Area is
located adjacent to the North Field of the Airport, which is regulated by the Alameda County
ALUC.
The Project Area is approximately 0.24 miles (1,428 feet) north of runway 15-33, which extends
parallel to Harbor Bay Parkway. Per the ACLU plan (ACLUP), the Project Area is neither
located within the airport’s Runway Protection nor the Safety Zones, but is located within the
Inner Approach/Departure Zone and/or Inner Turning Zone and the typical approach and
departure flight paths for Runway 15-33. Exposure to potential aircraft accidents diminishes
with distance from the airport runways. The Inner Approach/Departure Zone and/or Inner
Turning Zone are those portions of the airport which encompass areas overflown at low
altitudes (typically 200-400 feet above runway elevation) and areas where aircraft are typically
turning from the base to final approach legs of the standard traffic pattern and are descending
from traffic pattern altitude; this zone also includes the area where departing aircraft normally
complete the transition from takeoff power and flap settings to a climb mode and have begun to
turn their en-route heading. The Proposed Project qualifies as infill development as defined in
Section 2.7.5.7 of the ALUCP.
City of Oakland General Plan
The Proposed Project is subject to the following General Plan goals, policies, action items, and
regulations:
Land Use Element
Policy I/C1.2: Existing businesses and jobs within Oakland which are consistent with the longrange objectives of this Plan should, whenever possible, be retained.
Port of Oakland
58
June 2013
Policy I/C1.9: Adequate public infrastructure should be ensured within existing and proposed
industrial and commercial areas to retain viable existing uses, improve the
marketability of existing vacant or underutilized sites, and encourage future use
and development of these areas with activities consistent with the goals of this
Plan.
Policy I/C1.10: The City and Port should mutually develop and implement a coordinated plan-ofaction to support all airport and port-related activities which expand the local or
regional employment or revenue base.
Policy I/C2.1: The environmental cleanup of contaminated industrial properties should be
actively pursued to attract new users in targeted industrial and commercial areas.
Policy I/C4.1: Existing industrial, residential, and commercial activities and areas which are
consistent with long-term land use plans for the City should be protected from the
intrusion of potentially incompatible land uses.
Policy W5.1: Lands needed for maritime and aviation operations are of local, regional,
national, and international importance and should be recognized as a valuable
economic resource. The development of these lands to enhance maritime and
aviation functions should be encouraged, and uses that would impair functional
operation of the airport and seaport should not be permitted.
Policy W6.2: Development of sites proximate to airport flight paths should be in conformance
with Federal and State standards, as articulated in Federal Aviation Regulation,
Part 77 and Part 150 ALUC planning guidelines, and any other applicable
regulations and amendments.
Policy W7.1: Outside of the seaport and airport, land should be developed with a variety of
uses that benefit from the close proximity to the seaport and airport and that
enhance the unique characteristics of the seaport and airport. These lands
should be developed with uses which can buffer adjacent neighborhoods from
impacts related to such activities.
Policy W7.2: Other commercial and industrial uses should be encouraged at appropriate
locations (Port-owned or not) where they can provide economic opportunity to
the community at large.
Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element
Action OS-1.2.6: Encourage the Port of Oakland to retain wetlands within Oakland
International Airport as Resource Conservation Areas, where compatible with
FAA regulations.
Objective OS-3:
To retain institutional and functional (including the clear zones around
Oakland Airport) open space areas and enhance their recreational and
aesthetic benefits.
Action CO-1.1.3: Consider soil constraints such as shrink-swell and low soil strength in the
design of buildings and roads. Suitable base materials and drainage
provisions should be incorporated where necessary.
Port of Oakland
59
June 2013
Policy CO-1.2:
Minimize hazards associated with soil contamination through the appropriate
storage and disposal of toxic substances, monitoring of dredging activities,
and clean-up of contaminated sites. In this regard, require soil testing for
development of any site (or dedication of any parkland or community garden)
where contamination is suspected due to prior activities on the site.
Policy CO-5.3
Employ a broad range of strategies, compatible with the Alameda
Countywide Clean Water Program, to: a) reduce water pollution associated
with hazardous spills, runoff from hazardous material areas, improper
disposal of household hazardous wastes, illicit dumping, and marina “liveaboards;” and c) improve water quality in Lake Merritt to enhance the lake’s
aesthetic, recreational, and ecological functions.
Action CO-5.3.7: Work with the Port of Oakland on an on-going basis to clean up toxic hot
spots, prevent further pollutant accumulation, compile and monitor water
quality data, and develop a clean-up plan for live-aboards (houseboats) in
Oakland waters.
Policy CO-13.3:
Encourage the use of energy-efficient construction and building materials.
Encourage site plans for new development which maximize efficiency.
Noise Element
Action 1.1:
Use the noise-land use compatibility matrix in conjunction with the noise contour
maps (especially for roadway traffic) to evaluate the acceptability of residential
and other proposed land uses and also the need for any mitigation or abatement
measures to achieve the desired degree of acceptability.
Action 1.3:
Continue working with the Alameda County Community Development Agency (in
its role as the county’s airport land use commission) and with the Port of Oakland
to ensure consistency with the county’s airport land-use plan of the city’s various
master-planning documents, zoning ordinance and land-use development
proposals near Oakland’s airport.
Safety Element
Action HM-1.4: Continue to participate in the Alameda County Waste Management Authority
and, as a participant, continue to implement policies under the county’s
hazardous-waste management plan to minimize the generation of hazardous
wastes.
Airport Land Use Plan
Table 2-3 Inner Approach/Departure Zones/Approach Surface





Schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and places of worship are
prohibited.
Nonresidential development is limited to low—intensity uses
Above-ground storage, hazardous materials or other hazards to flight or objects
exceeding Part 77 height limits are prohibited.
Only low-density residential development is permitted, unless unacceptable due to noise
impacts.
Aviation easement dedication.
Port of Oakland
60
June 2013
Table 2-3 Inner Turning Zones/Transitional Surface





Critical infrastructure facilities are prohibited.
Only low-density residential development is permitted, unless unacceptable due to noise
impacts.
Avoid non-residential uses having moderate or higher usage intensities (e.g. major
shopping centers, fast food restaurants, theaters, meeting halls, buildings with more than
three above-ground floors).
Schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, and places of worship are
prohibited.
Aviation easement dedication.
Section 3.3.1.6 Interior Noise Levels

(b): The maximum, aircraft-related, interior noise level which shall be
considered acceptable for land uses including office environments and other
miscellaneous commercial facilities within the AIA is 50dB CNEL
Table 3-1 Noise Compatibility Criteria

Exterior noise exposures of 65 to 70 dB CNEL for commercial and industrial uses is
acceptable for outdoor activities, although some noise interference may occur; caution
should be exercised with regard to noise-sensitive uses.
Table 3-2 Safety Compatibility Criteria
Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 77


Section 77.5(b): [This part applies to] alteration of any permanent or temporary existing
structure by a change in its height (including appurtenances), or lateral dimensions,
including equipment or materials used therein.
Section 77.13(a)(iii): [Except as provided in Section 77.15, each sponsor who proposes
any of the following construction or alteration shall notify the Administrator in the form
and manner prescribed in Sec. 77.17] 25 to 1 for a horizontal distance of 5,000 feet from
the nearest point of the nearest landing and takeoff area of each heliport specified in
paragraph (a)(5) of this section).
a)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to physically divide an
established community. The Project Area encompasses an interior remodel and a
new exterior water cooling system for the proposed remodeled test stand, consisting
of a cooling tower, water piping, pumps and sumps and an oil/water separation
system, located on an expanse of paved, developed ground within a small area of
the existing RRESO facilities. The project will have no physical impacts on
established communities and no impacts are expected.
b)
Less than Significant Impact. A Proposed Project would have a significant impact
if it were to conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an
agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan,
specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Proposed Project is subject to
several local policies, plans, and regulations, as described above.
The Proposed Project is an interior remodel and the installation of a new exterior
water cooling system for the proposed remodeled test stand, consisting of a cooling
tower, water piping, pumps and sumps, and an oil/water separation system located
Port of Oakland
61
June 2013
on an expanse of paved, developed ground within a small area of the existing
RRESO facilities. These actions would not conflict with the Oakland General Plan or
other applicable plans or policies.
The Proposed Project would not be in an area is located within the San Francisco
Bay Conservation and Development Commission’s (BCDC) approximate 100-foot
shoreline band and therefore is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) (Figure 7a). The Proposed
Project would therefore require authorization through the BCDC permit process.
BCDC’s jurisdiction generally extends to all areas of San Francisco Bay that are
subject to tidal action, including sloughs and marshlands, a line 100 feet landward of
and parallel with that line surrounding the Bay. It also includes salt ponds, managed
wetlands, and certain designated waterways. However, neither the muted Fan
Marsh nor any portion of the Project Area is mapped as within the 100-foot shoreline
protection band by the agency (BCDC 1997 and 2007) or otherwise falls within
BCDC Jurisdiction. The Project Area is located in an area illustrated in the San
Francisco Bay Plan as part of the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport and
therefore is not subject to BCDC requirements.
Based on a review of the San Francisco Bay Plan as well as the Proposed Project
setting and characteristics, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any
applicable policies of the San Francisco Bay Plan and would be consistent with the
McAteer-Petris Act. Specifically, the Proposed Project would not result in any
dredging or fill, nor affect navigational safety, in San Francisco or San Leandro Bay.
No subtidal areas, tidal marshes or flats would be impacted by the Project. In
addition, after mitigation, the Proposed Project would not result in any significant
impacts related to water quality or biological resources. Also, the Proposed Project
would not result in any impacts to public access given the isolated location of the
Proposed Project, and impacts related to views would be less than significant.
Furthermore, as mentioned above, the project is located within OAK’s influence area.
The project proposes temporary construction work. The project does not propose
uses with a very high concentration of people. Operation of the project would be
similar to existing conditions and would be consistent with the Oakland
Comprehensive Land Use Plan policies and applicable policies. Therefore, impacts
c)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to conflict with any
applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No
habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans have been
adopted for the City of Oakland. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict
with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities conservation
plan.
Port of Oakland
62
June 2013
pr
Ap
ox
a
im
te
BC
DC
10
0'
Sh
or
el i
Fan Marsh
ne
Ba
nd
Spunkmeyer
Field
(NPORDS)
Test Cell #1
Ol
a rh
dE
ar t
ad
Ro
Pump House #2
Approximate BCDC 100' Shoreline Band
Indoor Project Area
Figure 7a. Approximate BCDC 100' Shoreline Band
.
Oakland, California
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\23000\23015\GIS\ArcMap\Fig7a_BCDC_20130517.mxd
0
50
100
Feet
200
Date: April 2013
4.11 Mineral Resources
MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the
project:
a)
Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would
be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
b)
Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other
land use plan?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
2
2
The Project Area is situated on a thin band of artificial fill (af; USGS 2000). The USGS defines
artificial fill as “Man-made deposit(s) of various materials and ages…” There are no known
mineral resources within the vicinity of the Project Area.
a, b)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the project site is located in an area
used or available for extraction of a regionally-important mineral resource, or if the
Proposed Project would convert an existing or future regionally-important mineral
extraction use to another use, or if the Proposed Project would affect access to a site
used or potentially available for regionally-important mineral resource extraction.
The Project Area is not in or adjacent to any important mineral resource areas.
Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
4.12 Noise
NOISE — Would the project result in:
a)
Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
b)
Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
c)
A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project?
d)
A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
Port of Oakland
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1,2
1
1
1
64
June 2013
NOISE — Would the project result in:
e)
For a project located within an airport land
use plan or, where such a plan has not
been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport of public use airport, would the
project expose people residing or working
in the Project Area to excessive noise
levels?
f)
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the Project Area to
excessive noise levels?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
1
Sound is technically described in terms of amplitude (loudness) and frequency (pitch). The
standard unit of sound amplitude measurement is the decibel (dB). The decibel scale is a
logarithmic scale that describes the physical intensity of the pressure vibrations that make up
any sound. The pitch of the sound is related to the frequency of the pressure vibration. Since
the human ear is not equally sensitive to a given sound level at all frequencies, a special
frequency-dependent rating scale has been devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The Aweighted decibel scale (dBA) provides this compensation by discriminating against frequencies
in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear.
Noise, on the other hand, is typically defined as unwanted sound. A typical noise environment
consists of a base of steady “background” noise that is the sum of many distant and
indistinguishable noise sources. Superimposed on this background noise is the sound from
individual local sources. These can vary from an occasional aircraft or train passing by to
virtually continuous noise from, for example, traffic on a major highway.
Several rating scales have been developed to analyze the adverse effect of community noise on
people. Since environmental noise fluctuates over time, these scales consider that the effect of
noise upon people is largely dependent upon the total acoustical energy content of the noise, as
well as the time of day when the noise occurs. Those that are applicable to this analysis are as
follows:
 Leq – An Leq, or equivalent energy noise level, is the average acoustic energy
content of noise for a stated period of time. Thus, the Leq of a time-varying noise
and that of a steady noise are the same if they deliver the same acoustic energy
to the ear during exposure. For evaluating community impacts, this rating scale
does not vary, regardless of whether the noise occurs during the day or the night.

Lmax – The maximum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period
of time.

Lmin – The minimum instantaneous noise level experienced during a given period
of time.

CNEL – The Community Noise Equivalent Level is a 24-hour average Leq with a 5
dBA “weighting” during the hours of 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. and a 10 dBA
“weighting” added to noise during the hours of 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. to account
Port of Oakland
65
June 2013
for noise sensitivity in the evening and nighttime, respectively. The logarithmic
effect of these additions is that a 60 dBA 24 hour Leq would result in a
measurement of 66.7 dBA CNEL.
Noise environments and consequences of human activities are usually well represented by
median noise levels during the day, night, or over a 24-hour period. For residential uses,
environmental noise levels are generally considered low when the CNEL is below 60 dBA,
moderate in the 60–70 dBA range, and high above 70 dBA.24 Noise levels greater than 85 dBA
can cause temporary or permanent hearing loss. Examples of low daytime levels are isolated,
natural settings with noise levels as low as 20 dBA and quiet suburban residential streets with
noise levels around 40 dBA. Noise levels above 45 dBA at night can disrupt sleep. Examples
of moderate level noise environments are urban residential or semi-commercial areas (typically
55–60 dBA) and commercial locations (typically 60 dBA). People may consider louder
environments adverse, but most will accept the higher levels associated with more noisy urban
residential or residential-commercial areas (60–75 dBA) or dense urban or industrial areas (65–
80 dBA).
It is widely accepted that in the community noise environment the average healthy ear can
barely perceive CNEL noise level changes of 3 dBA. CNEL changes from 3 to 5 dBA may be
noticed by some individuals who are extremely sensitive to changes in noise. A 5 dBA CNEL
increase is readily noticeable, while the human ear perceives a 10 dBA CNEL increase as a
doubling of sound.
Noise levels from a particular source generally decline as distance to the receptor increases.
Other factors, such as the weather and reflecting or barriers, also help intensify or reduce the
noise level at any given location. A commonly used rule of thumb for roadway noise is that for
every doubling of distance from the source, the noise level is reduced by about 3 dBA at
acoustically “hard” locations (i.e., the area between the noise source and the receptor is nearly
complete asphalt, concrete, hard-packed soil, or other solid materials) and 4.5 dBA at
acoustically “soft” locations (i.e., the area between the source and receptor is normal earth or
has vegetation, including grass). Noise from stationary or point sources is reduced by about 6
to 7.5 dBA for every doubling of distance at acoustically hard and soft locations, respectively.
Noise levels are also generally reduced by 1 dBA for each 1,000 feet of distance due to air
absorption. Noise levels may also be reduced by intervening structures – generally, a single
row of buildings between the receptor and the noise source reduces the noise level by about 5
dBA, while a solid wall or berm reduces noise levels by 5 to 10 dBA. The normal noise
attenuation within residential structures with open windows is about 17 dBA, while the noise
attenuation with closed windows is about 25 dBA.25
Oakland Municipal Code
The City of Oakland Municipal Code (Chapter 17.120) contains noise performance standards for
noise generating land uses. Table 5 shows the standards which are based on the type of
receiving land use and the duration of the noise. The noise level is to be measured at the
receiving land use. These noise levels are to be reduced by 5 dBA for a simple tone noise such
as a whine, screech, or hum, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring
impulse noise such as hammering or riveting. In the event the measured ambient noise level
24
25
Office of Planning and Research, State of California General Plan Guidelines, October 2003 (in
coordination with the California Department of Health Services).
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report 117, Highway Noise: A Design Guide for
Highway Engineers, 1971.
Port of Oakland
66
June 2013
exceeds the applicable noise level standard in any category above, the stated applicable noise
level shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level.
Table 5. Maximum Allowable Receiving Noise Level Standards (dBA)
Residences and Schools
Cumulative Number of Minutes in Either
the Daytime or Nighttime One Hour Time
Period
Daytime
(7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.)
Nighttime
(10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.)
20
60
45
10
65
50
5
70
55
1
75
60
0
80
65
Source: City of Oakland, Planning Code Performance Standards, Chapter 17.120.050, Table 17.120.1
The municipal code also has separate noise limits for daytime construction and demolition
activities as shown in Table 6. For time periods outside the hours addressed in Table 6 the
noise limits in Table 5 apply. Table 6.
Maximum Allowable Receiving Noise Level Standards from Temporary
Construction or Demolition (dBA)
Daily
Weekends
Time Period
7 a.m. to 7 p.m.
9 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Short-Term Operation
Residential
80
65
Commercial, Industrial
85
70
Residential
65
55
Commercial, Industrial
70
60
Long-Term Operation
Source: City of Oakland, Planning Code Performance Standards, Chapter 17.120.050, Table 17.120.04
Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC)
The Alameda County ALUC specifies maximum acceptable airport-related noise levels for
various types of land use developments in its Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP).
The ALUCP for the Airport (adopted in December 2010) contains the noise compatibility criteria
shown in Table 7.
Table 7 indicates that residential uses and schools are considered “compatible” when exposed
to a community noise equivalent level (CNEL) of up to 60 dBA and are “conditional” when
exposed to a CNEL of up to 65 dBA. A CNEL in excess of 65 dBA or greater is considered
incompatible. Table 7 does not indicate the compatibility of schools when exposed to a CNEL
less than 60 dBA but it does include an interpretation/comment that residences are “compatible”
Port of Oakland
67
June 2013
when exposed to a CNEL of less than 60 dBA. Since the graphical designations in Table 7 for
schools are identical to those for residences, it is presumed that schools would also be
acceptable when exposed to a CNEL of less than 60 dBA.
Oakland General Plan
The City of Oakland’s General Plan Noise Element compatibility guidelines are shown in Table
8. Residential and school land use are considered “normally acceptable” when exposed to a
CNEL of 60 dBA or less, “conditionally acceptable” when exposed to a CNEL between 60 and
70 dBA. The City’s Noise Element also provides compatibility guidelines as shown in Table 8.
Noise Environment
To quantify the existing noise environment, ambient noise measurements were conducted at the
nearest residential areas. These locations are in the City of Alameda to the north and west of
the project site. Location 1 is along the shoreline adjacent to the playfields at Lincoln Middle
School. This location is also next to residences along Washington Court. Location 2 is along
Island Drive near the Earhart Elementary School and homes along Centre Court. The noise
measurement locations are shown in Figure 8 and the results are shown in Figures 9 and 10
and Table 9. The long-term measurement charts also indicate the times when the engine test
cells at RRESO were operating.
The major noise sources at the ambient noise measurement locations were traffic and aircraft.
At Location 1 the traffic noise was from distant roadways including Interstate 880, Fernside
Boulevard, Doolittle Drive and the Bay Farm Island Bridge.
During the short-term
measurement, jets from OAK generated maximum noise levels ranging from 52 to 60 dBA.
Seagulls and children playing at the adjacent school were also audible. General aviation aircraft
from North Field were not a significant noise source during the short-term noise measurement.
At Location 2 the noise levels were entirely from traffic on Island Drive.
To determine the noise level contribution of the existing Test Cell #1, it was turned on and off
during the short-term ambient noise measurements. The instantaneous noise level at Location
1 was barely affected, if at all, when Test Cell #1 was operating. For example, the background
noise level (in between identifiable events such as aircraft or birds) increased from 46 dBA to 47
dBA when Test Cell #1 was operating. This means that the noise level contribution from Test
Cell #1 was, at most, about 40 dBA.26 This noise exposure is within the Oakland Noise
Ordinance limits for continuous noise at residences and schools of 60 dBA during the day and
45 dBA at night. At Location 2, because of the nearby roadway traffic, there was no detectable
change in background noise level that might be due to the Test Cell operation.
The long-term noise measurements results also show that the noise levels in the nearest
residential areas are not affected by the operation of the RRESO Test Cells. This is apparent in
Figures 9 and 10 since the noise levels do not show a consistent correlation with highlighted
times when the engine test cells were operating. In other words, the noise levels at the noise
monitors are affected by the daily variation in ambient noise sources other than the engine test
cells at RRESO.
26
By the mathematics of decibel addition, 40 + 46 = 47. That is, if one source by itself generates a
sound level of 40 dBA and another noise source by itself generates a sound level of 46 dBA, then
with the two sources operating simultaneously the combined noise level will be 47 dBA. The formula
for decibel addition is as follows: L = 10·Log10( ∑10(Li/10) ).
Port of Oakland
68
June 2013
Table 7. Alameda County ALUC Noise Compatibility Criteria27
27
Alameda County ALUC, Oakland International Airport – Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, page 9,
Table 3-1, December 2010.
Port of Oakland
69
June 2013
Table 8. Oakland General Plan Noise Land Use Compatibility Matrix28
28
City of Oakland, Oakland General Plan Noise Element, page 21, Figure 6, June 2005
Port of Oakland
70
June 2013
Figure 8. Ambient Noise Measurement
Port of Oakland
71
June 2013
Figure 9. Long-term Noise Measurement, Location 1
80
A-weighted Sound Level, dBA
Leq
L90
70
60
50
40
RRESO Test Cell Run Times
Monday, 7 January 2013
Tuesday, 8 January 2013
14:00
12:00
10:00
8:00
6:00
4:00
2:00
0:00
22:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
14:00
12:00
10:00
8:00
6:00
4:00
2:00
0:00
22:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
30
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
Time of Day
Figure 10. Long-term Noise Measurement, Location 2
80
Leq
L90
70
60
50
40
RRESO Test Cell Run Times
Monday, 7 January 2013
Tuesday, 8 January 2013
14:00
12:00
10:00
8:00
6:00
4:00
2:00
0:00
22:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
14:00
12:00
10:00
8:00
6:00
4:00
2:00
0:00
22:00
20:00
18:00
16:00
30
Wednesday, 9 January 2013
Time of Day
Port of Oakland
72
June 2013
Table 9. Short-Term Ambient Noise Measurements, 8 January 2013
Location
Time
Leq
Lmax
L10
L33
L90
CNEL*
1
Along Shoreline near Lincoln Middle School and Homes
on Washington Court.
1:22 – 1:42
PM
51
64
54
50
46
61
2
Along Island Drive next to Homes on Centre Court. 30
feet from curb.
1:51 – 2:10
PM
67
78
69
67
60
68
* CNEL estimated based on correlation with simultaneous measurement at long-term noise measurement location.
a, c)
result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies or a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
In the existing condition, Test Cell #1 operates with the older engine model fitted with
a propeller. With the project, Test Cell #1 would be used with the newer engine
model fitted with a dynamometer. Since the two engines are comparable in size and
power, the major change (with respect to noise) will be the operation of Test Cell #1
with a dynamometer instead of a propeller.
Based on observations of the existing Test Cell #1, the dominant noise source is the
propeller. The noise is associated with the air turbulence created at the propeller
blades as the propeller converts the power of the engine into air flow. With the
Proposed Project there would no longer be a propeller and, therefore, no air
turbulence noise from the propeller blades. Instead the engine shaft would be
attached to a dynamometer which converts the engine power into heat through a
system of gears in oil. This is generally a quieter operation since the gears are
enclosed in a substantial steel casing.
Acoustical measurements at RRESO were taken outdoors approximately 240 to 300
feet from the existing test cells operating with older engines. After correcting for
distance, these measurements indicate that Test Cell 7 with a dynamometer is about
17 dBA quieter than Test Cell #1 with a propeller (or approximately a one-quarter of
the perceived noise with a propeller). This comparison includes the noise
contribution of the cooling tower associated with the dynamometer used in Test Cell
#7.
Under the Proposed Project, Test Cell #1 would run as frequently as the existing
conditions (approximately 35-50 test cycles per year), however, each test cycle
would increase in length from approximately 1.5 hours to 3 hours with the new
engine type. The time of day of the operations would not be expected to change, as
the project would be allowed to run at any time, as in the existing condition. The
increase in duration of test cell cycle run times will not affect the compliance with the
City of Oakland Noise Ordinance since the run time in both instances is greater than
20 minutes in an hour.
Port of Oakland
73
June 2013
Comparative noise measurement data for the proposed new engine model was not
available at the time of this analysis. Based on the community noise measurements
and the operating conditions at the existing facility, the noise generated by the
existing RRESO does not exceed applicable standards at the nearest residences
and schools and it is not expected that noise exposure will increase as a result of the
project. Thus, because the Proposed Project includes the testing of qualitatively
quieter engines, it is not expected that noise exposure will substantially increase and
therefore impacts are considered less than significant.
b)
result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels. Construction activities can generate groundborne
vibration that is feelable (causes annoyance) and in extreme cases, causes physical
damage to nearby buildings. Generally, groundborne vibration is feelable at much
lower levels than would be necessary to cause physical damage. Piles would be
installed to support the cooling tower structure. The closest sensitive receptors are
3,600 feet or more from the Project Area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not
result in the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels and impacts would be less than significant.
d)
result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Construction activities will
temporarily increase noise level in the vicinity of the project site. Table 10 presents
noise levels from typical construction activities at a reference distance of 50 feet.
Since the nearest residences and schools are at least 3,600 feet from the project
site, the noise levels at these locations will be at least 37 dBA less than the levels
shown in Table 10. Therefore, the temporary construction noise levels experienced
by the nearest residences and schools would be below the Noise Ordinance Limits
for construction activities and the Proposed Project would not result substantial
temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above
levels existing without the project. Thus, impacts would be less than significant.
e)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were
located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,
within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose
people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. The Project
Area is located within the ALUP for the Airport and within the CNEL 60 dBA contour.
This noise exposure is considered compatible for industrial land use such as the
RRESO facility. Although the Proposed Project would expose people residing or
working in the Project Area to excessive noise levels, these noise levels have been
analyzed and impacts are considered less than significant.
f)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project is located
within the vicinity of a private airstrip and would expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels. The North Field is a public facility but
private planes are permitted to use the airstrip. This existing use has been included
as part of the ambient noise calculations and the Proposed Project would not
permanently increase noise levels in the Project Area. Therefore, the Proposed
Port of Oakland
74
June 2013
Project would not expose people residing or working in the Project Area to excessive
noise levels and impacts would be less than significant.
Table 10. Construction Equipment Noise Generation
Typical Noise Level (dBA)
50 feet from Source
Equipment
Air Compressor
81
Backhoe
80
Ballast Equalizer
82
Ballast Tamper
83
Compactor
82
Concrete Mixer
85
Concrete Pump
82
Concrete Vibrator
76
Crane, Derrick
88
Crane, Mobile
83
Dozer
85
Generator
81
Grader
85
Impact Wrench
85
Jack Hammer
88
Loader
85
Paver
89
Pile-driver (Impact)
101
Pile-driver (Sonic)
96
Pneumatic Tool
85
Pump
76
Roller
74
Saw
76
Scarifier
83
Scraper
89
Shovel
82
Truck
88
Source: Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006
Port of Oakland
75
June 2013
4.13 Population and Housing
POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would the
project:
a)
Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (for example, by
proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension
of roads or other infrastructure)?
b)
Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
c)
Displace substantial numbers of people
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
1
1
The Project Area is located east of a developed residential neighborhood community of
Alameda. The Project Area has a City of Oakland General Plan land use designation of general
industrial/transportation. Surrounding land uses west of the Project Area are the Chuck Corica
Municipal Golf Complex and the North Field of OAK, which is a designated Area of Primary
Importance (Local Historic District) and is administered by the Port. The North Field
accommodates a number of private and business/charter aircraft. To the east are lands
associated with the Airport including the Federal Aviation Administration, and San Leandro Bay.
a-c)
No Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project would locate new
development such as homes, businesses, or infrastructure, with the effect of
substantially inducing growth in the project area that would otherwise not have
occurred as rapidly or in as great a magnitude. A significant impact may also occur if
the project would result in the substantial displacement of existing housing units or
people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The
Project Area is located in Census Tract 4090, which is a large irregularly shaped
tract that extends roughly between the San Francisco Bay and San Leandro
Boulevard, and High Street and 98th Avenue (ESA 2012). External equipment
associated with the Proposed Project includes the installation a cooling tower and
below-grade equipment associated with engine testing.
The equipment would be similar to current conditions and would be installed adjacent
to existing buildings. All other modification would be internal to the existing Test Cell
Facility. The Proposed Project is located in a developed industrial area and is not
designed to extend infrastructure to accommodate growth. The Proposed Project
would not displace people or housing. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
Port of Oakland
76
June 2013
4.14 Public Services
PUBLIC SERVICES — Would the project:
a)
Result in substantial adverse physical
impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times,
or other performance objectives for any of
the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
1
1
1
1
Fire protection services to the Project Area are provided by the Oakland Fire DepartmentAirport Division (Fire Department). The Fire Department serves a population of approximately
390,72429 and covers the City of Oakland and the Airport. The Fire District responds to
approximately 60,000 emergency calls a year with over 80 percent of them being emergency
medical services calls.30 The Operations Division responds out of 25 Fire Stations, located
throughout the City and the Airport, operating a fleet of 24 Engines, 7 Trucks, and numerous
other special operations, support, and reserve units throughout 3 Battalions.31 The Airport
houses a 33,000 square foot facility with four Oshkosh specialized airport fire trucks as well as
other rescue vehicles and equipment. The station houses a crew of six including a captain and
five firefighters. The crew provides firefighting, and fire prevention services as well as first aid
and emergency medical technician services throughout the airport area.32
Police services to OAK are provided by the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office Airport Police
Services (APS) which operates from its headquarters at 8980 Earhart Road.33
The Project Area is located approximately 0.33 miles (1,742 feet) north of the Doolittle Staging
Area and Trail, which is part of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline Park. The rest of
Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline Park, including a segment of the Francisco Bay Trail,
29
30
31
32
33
2010 US Census. Available at:
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPD
P1. Accessed January 2, 2013.
City of Oakland Fire Department. Available at:
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/OFD/index.htm. Accessed January 8, 2013.
Ibid.
Press release, Oakland International Airport. Available at:
http://www.flyoakland.com/press_releases_detail.aspx?ID=93&t=p. Accessed January 8, 2012.
Alameda County Sheriff’s Office website. Available at:
https://www.alamedacountysheriff.org/les_contracts.php. Accessed January 8, 2013.
Port of Oakland
77
June 2013
is located to the east across San Leandro Bay. The park is owned and operated by the East
Bay Regional Parks District. To the west of the Project Area is Spunkmeyer Field, NPORDS,
and the Chuck Corica Municipal Golf Complex in the City of Alameda.
The Project Area is within 1.58 miles of Bay Farm Elementary School and 2.0 miles from
Brookside Elementary School. Other schools in the area include Embry-Riddle College and the
Institute of Medical Education located approximately 1.06 miles east of the Project Area.
Discussion of Impact
a)
No Impact. A significant impact to public services may occur if a project resulted in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered government facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response
times or other performance objective for any of the above mentioned public services.
As the project does not involve any new residential population or employees, it would
not increase the demand for public services or require construction of new
governmental facilities. The purpose of the project is an interior remodel and minor
exterior alterations to an existing commercial and industrial parcel.
4.15 Recreation
RECREATION — Would the project:
a)
Increase the use of existing neighborhood
and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b)
Include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse
physical effect on the environment?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
1
The Project Area is located approximately 0.33 miles (1,742 feet) north of the Doolittle Staging
Area and Trail, which is part of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline Park. The rest of
Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline Park, including a segment of the Francisco Bay Trail,
is located to the east across San Leandro Bay. The Park is owned and operated by the East
Bay Regional Parks District. To the west of the Project Area are the North Port of Oakland
Refuse Disposal Site (former landfill), Harbor Bay Parkway, and the Alameda Chuck Corica Golf
Complex. To the east of the Project Area is the tidal Fan Marsh and San Leandro Bay. To the
north is Harbor Bay Parkway. To the south is the North Field, which is a designated Area of
Primary Importance (Local Historic District) by the City of Oakland. Immediately to the north of
the Project Area is Doolittle Pond, a designated wildlife sanctuary.
Port of Oakland
78
June 2013
The Quimby Act (California Government Code 66477 (a)(4)) standard is three acres of parkland
per 1,000 residents. The City currently has a population of 390,724.34 Therefore, using this
standard, the City is required to have 1,172 acres of parkland. The City currently owns or
operates more than 112,000 acres of parkland encompassing 65 parks,35 far more than the total
needed. No changes or encroachments on existing parkland are proposed as a part of the
Project.
a, b)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project would include substantial
employment or population growth which could generate an increased demand for
public park facilities that exceeds the capacities of existing parks and causes
premature deterioration of the park facilities. A significant impact may also occur if a
project includes the construction or expansion of park facilities and such construction
would have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The project would not
affect recreational facilities or increase the use of nearby recreational facilities. The
purpose of the project is an interior remodel and a new exterior water cooling system
for the proposed remodeled test stand, consisting of a cooling tower, water piping,
pumps and sumps installed and an oil/water separation system, located on an
expanse of paved, developed ground within a small area of the existing RRESO
facilities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
4.16 Transportation/Traffic
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the
project:
a)
Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance
or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the
circulation system, taking into account all
modes of transportation including mass
transit and non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the circulation
system, including but not limited to
intersections, streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,
and mass transit?
b)
Conflict with an applicable congestion
management program, including, but not
limited to level of service standards and
travel demand measures, or other
standards established by the county
congestion management agency for
designated roads or highways?
c)
Result in a change in air traffic patterns,
including either an increase in traffic levels
34
35
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
1
1
2010 US Census. Available at:
http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_10_DP_DPD
P1. Accessed January 8, 2013.
East Bay Regional Parks District. Available at: http://www.ebparks.org/. Accessed January 8, 2013.
Port of Oakland
79
June 2013
TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — Would the
project:
or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
d)
Substantially increase hazards to a design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,
farm equipment)?
e)
Result in inadequate emergency access?
f)
Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs supporting alternative
transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
1
1
The Proposed Project includes work within the existing Test Cell Facility located at 6701 Old
Earhart Road. O’Connor Street. Doolittle Drive (SR 61) provides regional access to the Project
Area. Hegenberger Road/Expressway runs south to north from Interstate 880 and connects
with Doolittle Drive which provides access to Old Earhart Road through Langley Street.
There are no pedestrian or bicycle facilities in the Project Area. The nearest facilities are
primarily hiking and biking opportunities on developed paths in the Martin Luther King Jr.
Regional Shoreline, approximately 0.30 miles south and east of the Project Area or athletic
events associated with Spunkmeyer Field west of the Project Area.
Regional bicycle access to the Project Area is provided by the Doolittle Drive (proposed).
Doolittle Drive is also proposed to be a Class I Bike Path and a Class II Bike Lane.36 There is
no public on-street parking available along the local roads within the Project Area.
a)
conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of
effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
Construction traffic (equipment and materials transport and daily worker traffic) would
increase traffic on local roads during construction.
Temporary construction traffic would be limited to equipment and material transport
periodically during construction, primarily at the beginning and end of construction,
and a few vehicles daily during construction. The temporary construction-related
traffic would not result in a noticeable increase in traffic on local roads and is not
expected to reduce the levels of service for the roads. Traffic delays are not
anticipated because large vehicles transporting equipment and materials to the
Project Area would not stop and unload equipment or materials outside of the Project
Area. Furthermore, no lane or road closures are expected because staging areas
are located in the Project Area and not on the local roads. With the exception of tank
truck trips required to periodically dispose of contents pumped from the oil/water
36
City
of
Oakland
Bicycle
Master
Plan,
2007.
Available
at
http://www2.oaklandnet.com/Government/o/PWA/o/EC/s/BicycleandPedestrianProgram/OAK024597
#download and accessed January 15, 2013.
Port of Oakland
80
June 2013
separation system, the project would not result in an increase in operational traffic
levels as no new employees would be required. Impacts to traffic in the area would
be less than significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if the adopted
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and Alameda County Congestion
Management Program thresholds for a significant project impact would be exceeded.
To address the increasing public concern that traffic congestion is impacting the
quality of life and economic vitality of the State of California, the Congestion
Management Program (CMP) was enacted by Proposition 111.
The CMP
designated a transportation network including all State highways and some arterials
within the County to be monitored by local jurisdictions. If the Level of Service (LOS)
standard deteriorates on the CMP network, then local jurisdictions must prepare a
deficiency plan to be in conformance with the CMP program.
As discussed above, the Proposed Project would not significantly increase traffic on
local roads or highways to a level that would affect intersection LOS. With the
exception of tank truck trips required to periodically dispose of contents pumped from
the oil/water separation system, the project would not result in an increase in
operational traffic levels as no new employees would be required. Therefore, the
Proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management
program.
c) No Impact. A significant impact would occur if a project were to result in a change in
air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location
that results in substantial safety risks. The Proposed Project would not change air
traffic patterns, increase air traffic levels or result in a change in location that would
result in substantial safety risks.
The project would be constructed to Federal Aviation Administration standards and
therefore, would not be a hazard to air navigation (refer to Section 4.10 Land Use
and Planning).
d)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project were to include a new
roadway design, introduce a new land use or permanent project features into an area
with specific transportation requirements and characteristics that have not been
previously experienced in that area, or if project access or other features were
designed in such a way as to create hazardous conditions. The project would not
involve new road construction or activities that could increase hazards due to a
design feature or incompatible uses. Adequate sight distance would be available for
motorists to access and depart the Project Area.
e)
Less than Significant Impact. A significant impact may occur if a project design
would not provide emergency access meeting the requirements of the Fire
Department or in any other way threaten the ability of emergency vehicles to access
and serve the project site or adjacent uses. Delays for emergency access to the
residences adjacent to the work area are not expected. The Proposed Project would
be staged off of local roads and within RRESO’s Test Cell Facility. RRESO or its
construction contractors will coordinate with law enforcement and emergency service
providers prior to the start of construction to ensure minimal disruption to service
during construction. Impacts relating to emergency access would be less than
significant.
Port of Oakland
81
June 2013
f)
conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities. The project is located in an established urban area, and as stated above,
the planned development would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation. The Proposed Project would not be expected to
generate a substantial number of transit trips, nor would it be expected to generate
many new bicycle or pedestrian trips, given the proposed land use. Furthermore, the
Proposed Project would not result in the obstruction or restriction of access to
existing alternative modes of transportation or facilities therein; nor would the project
result in the decrease in performance of such facilities and users of these modes.
Based on these findings, the project would not conflict with policies, plans, or
programs related to transit, bicycle, or pedestrian travel and impacts would be less
than significant.
4.17 Utilities and Service Systems
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would
the project:
a)
Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board?
b)
Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
c)
Require or result in the construction of new
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects?
d)
Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e)
Result in a determination by the
wastewater treatment provider which
serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s
projected demand in addition to the
provider’s existing commitments?
f)
Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g)
Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Port of Oakland
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
82
June 2013
The Project Area is located in a developed area that provides all utilities and services (e.g.,
water supply and distribution, sewage distribution and treatment, storm drainage facilities, and
solid waste management). Electrical and other utility lines are also located along the roads,
either underground or aboveground. The various utility and service agencies that serve the
Project Area are described below.
Water Service/Wastewater Services
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) supplies water and provides wastewater treatment
for significant parts of Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Based on 2010 census data,
approximately 1.34 million people are served by EBMUD’s water system in a 332-square-mile
area extending from Crockett on the north, southward to San Lorenzo (encompassing the major
cities of Oakland and Berkeley), eastward from San Francisco Bay to Walnut Creek, and south
through the San Ramon Valley. The wastewater system serves approximately 650,000 people
in an 88-square-mile area of Alameda and Contra Costa counties along the Bay’s east shore,
extending from Richmond on the north, southward to San Leandro (EBMUD 2011).
RRESO’s Test Cell Facility is not connected to EBMUD’s wastewater system. Wastewater is
collected in an on-site storage tank and taken to EBMUD’s wastewater treatment plant
approximately three times per month by a septic waste hauler. EBMUD’s main wastewater
treatment plant, which provides primary and secondary wastewater treatment, is located
southwest of the Interstate 580/Interstate 80 interchange in Oakland. Currently, the primary
wastewater treatment can provide for up to 320 million gallons of water per day (mpg), and
secondary treatment can provide up to 168 mgd. With the current average dry-weather flow of
75 mgd, the plant is operating at 23 percent capacity (ESA 2012; EBMUD 2011).
Storm Drainage
According to the RWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Basin, the Project
Area is located in the South Bay Basin. The Test Cell Facility includes an unlined drainage
ditch along the southwestern edge of site which formerly collected storm water and runoff from
operations at Test Cells 1 through 4. Collected storm water flows through the ditch into an
underground pipe, which drains to the south where it is pumped to the muted tidal wetland (Fan
Marsh) and eventually flows to San Leandro Bay (PES 2010).
Solid Waste
The City of Oakland is served by the Altamont Sanitary Landfill, located at 10840 Altamont Pass
Road in Livermore. Solid Waste is delivered to the landfill by Waste Management of Alameda
County (WMAC), the City’s franchise hauler. WMAC collects solid waste from residential,
commercial and industrial customers and delivers it to the landfill. As of August 2005, the
landfill has a remaining capacity of 45.72 million cubic yards, with a cease operation date of
January 2025.37
a, e)
37
exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Facility/Site Summary
Details for Altamont Sanitary Landfill. Available at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/01-AA-0009/Detail/ Accessed January 15, 2013.
Port of Oakland
83
June 2013
Control Board or result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the
project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments. With
the exception of construction, the project would not involve any new employees. The
project would not generate a substantial amount of wastewater during construction
and wastewater generation over the long-term would be similar to existing
conditions. The amount of wastewater that is anticipated by the project is
incremental and would not be expected to exceed the wastewater treatment
requirements of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Furthermore, no additional wastewater treatment facilities would need to be
constructed to accommodate the Proposed Project. For these reasons, impacts
b)
require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects. The Proposed Project would not require or result in the
construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
wastewater facilities. As stated previously, the Test Cell Facility uses a septic waste
hauler to take wastewater to EBMUD’s treatment facility. The Proposed Project does
include a new cooling tower; however, the construction of the cooling tower would be
in a developed area and thus it would not cause significant environmental effects.
Impacts would be less than significant.
c)
No Impact. A significant impact may occur if the volume of storm water runoff
increases to a level exceeding the capacity of the storm drain system serving the
project site or if a project would substantially increase the probability that polluted
runoff would reach the storm drain system. The project does not require or result in
the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities. No impacts would occur.
d)
increase water consumption to such a degree that new water sources would need to
be identified, or that existing resources would be consumed at a pace greater than
planned for by purveyors, distributors, and service providers. The Proposed Project
includes a new water cooling tower which would result in an increase in water
consumption on-site. With the implementation of water conservation and recycling
programs already in place, EBMUD estimates that projected 2015 demand in its
service area would be approximately 223 mgd, and projected 2040 demand would
be approximately 230 mgd (EBMUD, 2011). The Proposed Project’s water demand
would be a small percentage of the City’s total demand; therefore, the project’s
impact would be less than significant.
f, g)
increase solid waste generation to a degree that existing and projected landfill
capacity would be insufficient to accommodate the additional solid waste or generate
solid waste that was not disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations. The
project would generate a small quantity of solid waste during construction, but all
generated waste would be properly disposed or recycled in a nearby landfill or
disposal facility with capacity to receive the waste. Any materials used during
construction would be properly disposed of in accordance with federal, state, and
local regulations. Solid waste generation from the operation of the project would be
Port of Oakland
84
June 2013
similar to existing conditions as no new employees are required. Impacts on solid
waste facilities would be less than significant.
4.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance
MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a)
Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
b)
Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental
effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of
past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c)
Does the project have environmental
effects that will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Source
1
1
1
Discussion
a)
occur if a project degrades the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. The
project would not significantly affect natural habitats or federally or state-listed
species. Impacts on wildlife would be less than significant after implementation of
mitigation measures. The project would not affect known historical resources and
has a very low potential to affect buried cultural deposits or human remains. Impacts
on cultural resources would be less than significant and would be further reduced
with incorporation of mitigation. Also, impacts related to hydrology and water quality,
and hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant with
incorporation of mitigation.
b)
occur if a project, in conjunction with other related projects in the project area, would
result in impacts that are less than significant when viewed separately, but would be
Port of Oakland
85
June 2013
significant when viewed together. The project includes construction measures to
minimize the temporary impacts of construction activities, and no long-term adverse
impacts are anticipated. With these measures, the project would result in individually
minor impacts and would not contribute substantially to cumulative impacts on any
resource.
Section 15130 of the CEQA Guidelines requires an evaluation of potential
environmental impacts when the project’s incremental effect is cumulatively
considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an
individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects. These impacts can result from a combination of the Proposed Project
together with other projects causing related impacts. The cumulative impact from
several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental
impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and
reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.
At the time of preparation of this Initial Study there are six cumulative projects that
are projected to be constructed or implemented within the next year in the vicinity of
the Project Area. These projects include: the Oakland International Airport Runway
Safety Area (RSA) Improvement Project, BART Airport Connector, Pump House 6
Replacement, Airport Perimeter Dike Improvement Project, Bike Path Improvements,
and a Utility Program Upgrade. Each project is detailed below.
Oakland International Airport Runway Safety Area (RSA) Improvement Project
This project includes a combination of runway shifts, resurfacing, and other
improvements for the four Airport runways. This project would not change
operations or increase aircraft activity at the airport.
BART Airport Connector
This project involves the construction of a link from OAK via an automated guideway
transit system from the Coliseum BART Station to a new BART station at the Airport.
The 3.2-mile elevated connector is located primarily within the median of
Hegenberger Road from the Coliseum BART Station to Doolittle Drive, and on
Airport property. The automated guideway transit will be operated in its own
exclusive right-of-way. This project is currently under construction.
Pump House 6 Replacement
The purpose of this project is to reconstruct Pump House 6 within the same forebay
and outfall location. The structure has exceeded its design life: the steel piles
supporting the pump house are corroded and the entire structure needs to be
replaced. Reconstruction of the pump house allows installation of updated materials
and technology. The reconstructed pump house helps to prevent flooding of a
significant portion of OAK.
Airport Perimeter Dike Improvement Project
This project would construct improvements to the perimeter dike that forms the
southwestern shoreline of the Airport property. The perimeter dike serves as the
flood protection system for the Airport and surrounding areas.
Port of Oakland
86
June 2013
Bike Path Improvements
A Class 1 bike trail will be extended along the south side of Ron Cowan Parkway,
connecting Airport Drive to Harbor Bay Parkway.
Utility Program Upgrade
This project includes the replacement of critical and deteriorating utility infrastructure,
a Terminal 1 substation, and a sanitary sewer along Airport Drive.
The Proposed Project is located within the Airport-North Field property but wholly
within the existing RRESO property. Given the Project Area is isolated from the
other cumulative projects and that the project does not result in any significant
impacts that cannot be completely mitigated to less-than-significant levels, the
project would not result in impacts that are cumulative considerable.
8350 Pardee Drive
This project consists of constructing a 374,725-square-foot distribution and storage
facility, composed of an approximate 364,725-square-foot distribution and storage
facility and two 5,000-square-foot offices located in the southeast and southwest
corners of the building. The distribution facility would operate as a conventional
warehouse, with racked products which would be received, repackaged, stored as
inventory, and distributed. Some limited assembly could occur on site such as
product testing and assembly of parts and equipment. This project is currently under
construction.
d)
occur if the project were to have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The project’s
construction would result in potentially significant impacts related to, biological
resources, hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality; however, all
impacts can be mitigated to less-than-significant levels via the mitigation measures
included in this Initial Study. The project would not have environmental effects that
would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly.
Port of Oakland
87
June 2013
5.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT INITIAL
STUDY/PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
5.1 Introduction
On April 18, 2013 the Port (Lead Agency) released for public review a Draft Initial
Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed Project at 6701 Old Earhart
Road in the City of Oakland (SCH# 2013042047). The 30-day public review and comment
period on the Draft Initial Study began on April 18, 2013 and closed at 5:00 p.m. on May 17,
2013.
The Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and the response to comments
on the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are informational documents
prepared by the Lead Agency that must be considered by decision-makers before approving the
proposed project and that must reflect the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis
(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15090).
This section summarizes and responds to the comments and questions on the Draft Initial
Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration circulated by the Port to public agencies and
the public as required by CEQA. As discussed below in Response to Comments, edits to the
Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration have incorporated the comments
where appropriate. With these edits, this Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration does
not describe a project having any new or substantially more severe impacts than those identified
and analyzed in the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. Therefore, in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of a Draft Initial
Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is not required.
This section contains copies of the comment letters submitted during the public review period on
the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the individual responses to
those comments. Each written comment letter is designated with an alphabet letter in the upper
right-hand corner of the letter. Within each written comment letter, individual comments are
labeled with the designated alphabet letter and a number in the margin. Immediately following
each comment letter is an individual response to each numbered comment. Where responses
have resulted in changes to the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration,
these changes are shown in the response and also appear in Section 4 of this document as
underlined or strike-out text.
Port of Oakland
88
June 2013
Comment Letter A
Making ."t<m Frauci.'fC"O Bt1\' Beller
May l, 2013
Colleen Liang
Port of Oakland
530 Water Street
SUBJECT:
BCDC Comments: Draft IS I Proposed MND for Rolls-Royce Engine Services Oakland Inc. Test Cell Upgrade Project (SCH No. 2013042047)
Dear Ms. Liang:
Thank you for sending us a copy of the Draft Initial Study I Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the Rolls-Royce Engine Services - Oakland Inc. Test Cell Upgrade Project at 6701 Old
Earhart Road, in the City of Oakland, Alameda County. The document describes a proposal by the
Rolls-Royce Engine Services - Oakland Inc., to modify its existing Test Cell Facility to accommodate
repair and maintenance of new engines.
The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission ("Commission" or "BCDC")
staff reviews such documents on behalf of its Commission to assess, among other things, the
project's consistency with the McAteer-Petris Act, the Commission's San Francisco Bay Plan, the
Commission's federally-approved management plan for the San Francisco Bay, and the federal
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA), and the project's relationship to the Commission's
jurisdiction.
At this site, the Commission has permit jurisdiction over all tidal areas of the Bay up to the
mean high tide line or to the inland edge of wetland vegetation in marshlands (up to five feet above
Mean Sea Level), all areas formerly subject to tidal action that have been filled since September 17,
1965, and a 100-foot shoreline band extending 100 feet inland from and parallel to the Bay
jurisdiction.
Commission permits are required for placing and grading fill, construction, dredging, dredged
material disposal, and substantial changes in use within the Commission's jurisdiction. Permits are
issued when the Commission finds proposed activities to be consistent with its laws and policies. In
addition to any needed permits under its state authority, federal actions, permits, and grants
affecting the coastal zone are subject to review by the Commission, pursuant to the federal CZMA,
for their consistency with the Commission's federally-approved management program for the Bay.
From reviewing the document, it appears that the proposed project would be located within the
Commission's 100-foot shoreline band jurisdiction and, thus, would require authorization through a
Commission permit. Please visit our website at www.bcdc.ca.gov for the relevant laws and policies
that should be considered when evaluating your project under CEQA, as well as the Commission's
application form. Please feel free to contact us to discuss the type of approval necessary for the
proposed project, the process for obtaining Commission authorization, and whether, as proposed,
the project would be consistent with the Commission's laws and policies. If you have any questions,
please contact me at 415-352-3668 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
~~-<2--
Ellie Knecht
Coastal Analyst
EK
cc: State Clearinghouse
State of Ca/rfornia • SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION • Edmund G. Brown Jr. , Governor
50 California Street, Suite 2600 • San Francisco, California 94111 • (415) 352·3600 • Fax: (415) 352·3606 • [email protected] • www.bcdc.ca.gov
A-1
Response to Comment A-1
This comment is acknowledged. The first full paragraph on page 62 of the Draft Initial
Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration indicates that the Project (Test Cell #1) is
located outside of BCDC’s jurisdiction. This statement was based on a BCDC 100-foot
shoreline band map from the Port’s BCDC Shoreline Maintenance Permit No. M1989.075.09,
which illustrates the Project being outside the 100-foot shoreline band. Based on Comment A-1
and subsequent communication between the Port and BCDC, it is understood that the map is
incorrect and that the Project is indeed located within BCDC’s 100-foot shoreline band. See
Figure 7a (Approximate 100’ BCDC Shoreline Band) which illustrates that approximately onehalf of Test Cell #1 is located within BCDC’s 100-foot shoreline band.
Therefore, the first full paragraph on page 62 of the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been revised to read as follows:
The Proposed Project would not be in an area is located within the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development Commission’s (BCDC) approximate 100-foot shoreline band
and therefore is under the jurisdiction of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC) (Figure 7a). The Proposed Project would therefore
require authorization through the BCDC permit process. BCDC’s jurisdiction generally
extends to all areas of San Francisco Bay that are subject to tidal action, including sloughs
and marshlands, a line 100 feet landward of and parallel with that line surrounding the Bay.
It also includes salt ponds, managed wetlands, and certain designated waterways.
However, neither the muted Fan Marsh nor any portion of the Project Area is mapped as
within the 100-foot shoreline protection band by the agency (BCDC 1997 and 2007) or
otherwise falls within BCDC Jurisdiction. The Project Area is located in an area illustrated in
the San Francisco Bay Plan as part of the Metropolitan Oakland International Airport and
therefore is not subject to BCDC requirements.
Based on a review of the San Francisco Bay Plan as well as the Proposed Project setting
and characteristics, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable policies of
the San Francisco Bay Plan. Specifically, the Proposed Project would not result in any
dredging or fill nor affect navigational safety in San Francisco or San Leandro Bay. No
subtidal areas, tidal marshes or flats would be impacted by the Project. In addition, after
mitigation, the Proposed Project would not result in any significant impacts related to water
quality or biological resources. Also, the Proposed Project would not result in any impacts
to public access given the isolated location of the Proposed Project, and impacts related to
views would be less than significant.
Port of Oakland
90
June 2013
pr
Ap
ox
a
im
te
BC
DC
10
0'
Sh
or
el i
Fan Marsh
ne
Ba
nd
Spunkmeyer
Field
(NPORDS)
Test Cell #1
Ol
a rh
dE
ar t
ad
Ro
Pump House #2
Approximate BCDC 100' Shoreline Band
Indoor Project Area
Figure 7a. Approximate BCDC 100' Shoreline Band
.
Oakland, California
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\23000\23015\GIS\ArcMap\Fig7a_BCDC_20130517.mxd
0
50
100
Feet
200
Date: April 2013
Comment Letter B
From: Alison Kirk [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, May 09, 2013 10:27 AM
To: Colleen Liang
Subject: RRESO Test Cell Upgrade Project - Port of Oakland IS/MND
Hello,
Will this project require any permits from the Air District?
Thank you.
Alison Kirk, AICP Senior Environmental Planner Bay Area Air Quality Management District 939 Ellis Street San Francisco, CA 94109 Tel. 415‐749‐5169 Fax 415‐749‐4741 B-1
Response to Comment B-1
The Project applicant (RRESO) has an existing BAAQMD permit for RRESO’s existing engine
testing operations at the Test Cell Facility. This existing permit and its conditions still apply to
the Proposed Project as RRESO would still be testing turbine engines in Test Cell #1, similar to
existing conditions. Therefore, no new permits would be required from BAAQMD for the
Proposed Project.
Port of Oakland
93
June 2013
Comment Letter C
SHUTE MIHALY
~WEINBERG ER LLP
396 HAYES STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
T: 415 552-7272
F: 415 552-5816
www.smwlaw.com
May 17, 2013
Via Electronic Mail Onlv
Colleen Liang
Port Environmental Scientist
Port of Oakland
Environmental Programs and Planning
Division
530 Water Street
E-Mail: [email protected]
Re:
Rolls-Royce Engine Services-Oakland Inc. Test Cell Upgrade
Project- Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Ms. Liang:
On behalf of the Citizens League for Airport Safety and Serenity
("CLASS"), we have reviewed the Port of Oakland's ("Port's") Initial Study and
Mitigated Negative Declaration ("MND") prepared for the proposed Rolls-Royce Engine
Services-Oakland Inc. Test Cell Upgrade Project ("Project") located at 6701 Old Earhart
Road, Oakland, California, in the North Field of Oakland International Airport ("OAK").
The purpose of this letter is to provide comments to the Port on the MND for the Project
and to express our opinion that the MND does not comply with the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Pub. Res. Code§§ 21000 et seq.) and
the CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15000 et seq.).
As you know, based on previously submitted comments from CLASS, the
group is very concerned about Projects that could result in increased noise to the
surrounding communities. Like all concerned members of the public, CLASS relies
heavily on the environmental document required by CEQA for an honest evaluation of
the environmental impacts that would result from implementation of the proposed
Project.
C-1
Comment Letter C (cont.)
Colleen Liang
May 17, 2013
Page2
Under CEQA, decision-makers and the public are to be given sufficient
information about impacts and mitigation .to come to their own judgments and decisions
about a proposed project. See Pub. Res. Code § 21061. CEQA requires that
environmental documents must be detailed, complete, and reflect a good-faith effort at
full disclosure. Guidelines § 15151. The document should provide a sufficient degree of
analysis to inform the public about a proposed project's adverse environmental impacts
and to allow decision-makers to make intelligent judgments. Id.; Environmental Planning
and Information Council v. County ofEl Dorado (1982) 131 Cal.App.3d 350, 357-58
(finding an EIR for a general plan amendment inadequate where the document did not
make clear the effect on the physical environment).
C-1
The role of the EIR is to make manifest a fundamental goal of CEQA: to
"inform the public and its responsible officials of the environmental consequences of
their decision before they are made." Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of
Univ. of Cal. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 1112, 1123 (citation omitted). To do this, an EIR must
contain facts and analysis, not merely bare conclusions. See Citizens of Goleta Valley v.
Bd. of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 568. Any conclusion regarding the significance
of an environmental impact not based on analysis of the relevant facts fails to achieve
CEQA's informational goal.
Here, the applicant proposes to expand operations of engine tests at the
Rolls Royce facility in the North Field of OAK. The Project as described, would
continue testing operations of the existing test cells and would include additional testing
using the proposed facility. Testing operations will be conducted any time 24 hours a
day and the duration of the tests will double from the existing 1.5 hour tests to 3 hours in
length. The facility is in close proximity to residential areas, recreational areas, and
schools. Therefore, an accurate evaluation of the Project's potential noise impacts and
other impacts is critical.
As detailed below, and in the attached comments prepared by noise
consultant Chris Papadimos (Exhibit A), several inadequacies and omissions in the MND
render it insufficient as an environmental review document. The MND's analysis of the
Project's noise impacts is inadequate because it fails to: (a) evaluate the Project's
consistency with the City of Alameda's Noise Ordinance; and (b) support its conclusions
with the necessary facts and analysis.
I.
The MND Fails to Evaluate the Project's Consistency with the City of
Alameda's Noise Ordinance.
SHUTE1 MIHALY
O'---- w E I N B E RG E R LLP
C-2
Colleen Liang
May 17, 2013
Page 3
The MND evaluates the Project's consistency with the City of Oakland's
noise ordinance. However, despite the potential for noise impacts to Alameda residents,
the MND fails to analyze the Project's consistency with the City of Alameda's noise
ordinance. Given the proximity of the facility to City of Alameda residents, this omission
is unacceptable.
C-2
The City of Alameda's noise ordinance specifies noise level standards of
55 dBA during the day and 50 dBA during the night (10:00 pm to 7:00 am). In addition,
the noise ordinance states that "each of the noise level standards ... shall be reduced by
five (5) dB(A) for simple tone noises ... or for recurring impulsive noises." Alameda
Municipal Code§ 4-10.4. According to the MND, measured nighttime ambient noise
levels along Island Drive range from approximately 42 dBA to 55 dBA. MND at 71. The
analysis of the Project's noise impacts should have considered adjustments for simple
tones and impulsive noise elements. See, id. and Oakland General Plan Noise Element at
20.
In addition, as discussed further below, the MND fails to substantiate the
claim that noise produced by the new test cell would be less than that of the existing test
cells. Therefore, the MND also fails to provide evidence that noise from the new test cell
would not exceed acceptable noise standards for residential and school uses. This
omission renders the MND incomplete and inadequate under CEQA. A revised analysis,
must include a complete listing of all applicable policies and regulations, and an analysis
of the Project consistency with each provision.
II.
The MND's Analysis of the Project's Noise Impacts is Inaccurate and
Incomplete
C-3
The MND's noise analysis is inadequate because it provides an incomplete
analysis of the potential noise impacts from the new facility. First, the MND indicates
that ambient noise measurements were conducted along the shoreline at Lincoln Middle
School (location 1) and along Island Drive (location 2). MND at 66. However, these
noise readings may not be representative of the full range of noise exposure to the nearby
community. Papadimos letter at 1. The noise measurements, particularly at location 2,
were heavily influenced by traffic noise due to the nearby roadway traffic. MND at 67.
For this reason, the analysis should have also measured ambient noise in an interior street
away from Island Drive, which would represent the range of background conditions.
Second, the MND's analysis of the Project's impacts ignores noise impacts
to recreational users of the adjacent golf course. Given that construction will last
SHUTE MIHALY
~ w EI NB ERGER LLP
C-4
Colleen Liang
May 17, 2013
Page4
approximately four months, and that the testing cells may operate round the clock,
impacts to these users should have been included in the noise analysis.
Third, the MND's noise analysis fails to adequately describe the spectral
quality of the noise resulting from the Project (i.e., presence of tones and frequency
content). The MND presents only A-weighted data, which is not appropriate for
evaluating noise sources that have strong low-frequency content or tonal qualities.
Exhibit A at 2. Low-frequency noise is experienced by human listeners as audible noise,
vibration, and/or a sensation of pressure at the eardrums and can travel with relatively
undiminished strength over long distances. Id. The Project has the potential to produce
low frequency sound both during construction (pile driving) and in the long-term when
the proposed test cell is operational. Id. Similarly, the presence of tones needs to be
addressed as per City of Alameda noise ordinance. These types of noise can result in
substantial, periodic increases in noise and annoyance that would be considered
significant under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G, Section XII(d).
Moreover, temperature and wind can affect how noise travels. Papadimos
Letter, at 1. We find no reference in the MND to temperature gradient or wind vectors in
the area. A revised analysis must include these variables in the analysis. The residents
and schoolchildren located within a half a mile of the facility (e.g., Earhart Elementary
School) may be impacted by low frequency noise and a revised environmental document
must analyze the extent and severity of this impact.
Fourth, the MND relies in part on measurements of existing noise levels
produced by the existing test cells to conclude that the new facility will not result in
significant noise impacts to the surrounding community. MND at 67 and 73. The MND
presents ambient noise data that includes two periods of test cell operations to measure
test cell noise levels at residences. However, despite the fact that the MND clearly
indicates that test cells may operate 24 hours a day, seven days a week, the MND
presents noise data measurements of test cell run times conducted only during the
daytime and evening hours. MND at 72 and 7l(Figure 10 indicates that test cell run times
were conducted between approximately 7:00 am and 8:30 am, and 1:00 pm and 3:00 pm.)
This data is misleading because daytime ambient levels are generally higher than
nighttime ambient levels, which masks noise events, such as the test cell run. Noise can
be far more intrusive during nighttime hours when ambient noise levels are at their lowest
and when sensitive receptors are more likely to be sleeping. The MND should have taken
into account this higher sensitivity to noise and evaluated how the increase in noise from
the proposed project would affect receptors during these sensitive time periods. Nighttime ambient noise levels are typically 10 dB lower than daytime ambient levels.
Therefore, test cell runs conducted between the hours of midnight and 6:00 am would
SHUTE MIHALY
6~ w E I N BERG ER LLP
C-4
C-5
C-6
C-7
Colleen Liang
May 17, 2013
Page 5
result in higher noise measurements than presented in the MND. Exhibit A at l; MND at
71. A revised analysis should provide noise levels, for both existing conditions and postproject implementation, that account for nighttime test cell runs.
Fifth, the MND provides no evidence to substantiate its claim that the
proposed Test Cell 7 would be 17 dBA quieter than the existing test cell. MND at 6 and
72. The MND states that "comparative noise measurement data for the proposed new
engine model was not available at the time of this analysis." MND at 73. The MND
provides no data for the outdoor measurements noted in the MND (at page 72). Without
such data or evidence to support the claim that the new test cell would operate more
quietly, it is impossible for the public or decision makers to evaluate if the analysis is
accurate. Moreover, given that the engine is currently manufactured and in use, it is
difficult to understand why noise measurement data cannot be made available. In light of
the fact that the test cell can operate any time round the clock, an accurate description of
the anticipated noise levels and the characteristics of that noise, is a necessary component
of this noise analysis.
In addition, the MND does not address the potential for testing of multiple
cells at one time. The revised analysis should clarify whether the test cells may operate
one at a time or if they may be operated simultaneously. In the latter case, the MND
must include an estimate of noise levels when multiple test cells are operated at once.
C-7
C-8
C-9
The MND's approach violates CEQA's core purpose to protect "the right of
the public to be informed in such a way that it can intelligently weigh the environmental
consequences of a[] contemplated action." Mira Monte Homeowners Assn. v. County of
Ventura (1985) 165 Cal.App.3d 357, 365 (citation omitted). A revised document should
provide a sufficient degree of analysis to inform the public about the proposed project's .
adverse environmental impacts and to allow decision-makers to make intelligent
judgments. See Pub. Res. Code 21061.
In light of existing conditions (i.e., a surrounding community that is already
excessively burdened with aircraft noise), there is no question that any increase in noise
levels has the potential to result in significant noise impacts to neighboring residents.
For all of the foregoing reasons, a fair argument supports the conclusion that the
proposed Project may result in significant noise impacts.
III.
Conclusion
Because the MND fails to adequately analyze the environmental impacts of
the Project, and ~ails to support its conclusion that the Project will have less than
significant impacts related to noise, the MND is· legally deficient. Therefore, CLASS
SHUTE MIHALY
~ w EI N BERGER LLP
C-10
Colleen Liang
May 17, 2013
Page 6
requests that the Port prepare a more thorough analysis in accordance with CEQA prior to
further consideration of this Project.
Thank you for consideration of our views. If you have any questions or
comments, please do not hesitate to contact us or CLASS.
Very truly yours,
St ; J: ~ WEmBERGER LLP
d
Osa L. Wolff
~-J.~_:y
Carmen J. Borg, AICP
Urban Planner
Cc:
Red Wetherill, CLASS President
Joshua Safran, Deputy Port Attorney
480410.3
SHUTE, MIHALY
~WEINBERGERLLP
C-10
300 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 908
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
TEL +1 (415) 986-9100
www.papadimosgroup.com
16 May 2013
Carmen Borg, AICP
Urban Planner
Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger
396 Hayes Street
San Francisco, CA 94102
SUBJECT:
Test Cell Upgrade Project – Oakland, CA
Acoustic Review of Draft Initial Study
Dear Carmen:
As requested, we have reviewed the noise section of the Draft Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants (April 2013).
In summary, there is limited information to allow for a determination that the proposed project under
the full range of operating conditions will comply with the relevant standards and address CEQA
guidelines.
Our review has focused on the noise section of the above referenced document (Chapter 4.12) and our
key comments are as follows:
1. While the nearest residential receptors are located in the City of Alameda, the initial study does
not assess project noise against the noise provisions of the City of Alameda Noise Ordinance
(Chapter IV, Article II, 4.10 Noise Control).
C-11
2. Other land uses such as the Shoreline Park and Golf Course are much closer to the Test Cell
Facility and may also need to be addressed appropriately in terms of project noise.
C-12
3. The noise monitoring carried out as part of this study does not describe weather conditions and
in particular prevailing winds that have pronounced effects on noise propagation.
C-13
4. The noise measurement positions may not be representative of the full range of noise exposure
in the nearby community. At least one position should have been selected away from streets,
perhaps in an interior street with limited traffic or the backyard of a home to cover the entire
range of ambient conditions used in the assessment.
C-14
5. Test Cells were mostly operated during daytime hours; however, the study states test cells
would be allowed to run at any time (bottom of page 72) that would imply also nighttime
hours, weekends and holidays. Measured background levels at night are below 45 dBA
(Location 2) and as such the entire range of background conditions needs to be considered.
C-15
6. The assessment of Test Cell noise (page 67 of the study) is inconclusive and technically lacking
without properly defining method of testing, number of cells running during the test, condition
of testing in terms of load and detailed results of the measurements both in terms of overall
levels and spectral content.
C-16
ACOUSTIC AND VIBRATION CONSULTANTS
Carmen Borg, AICP
16 May 2013
Page 2 of 3
7. We are of the opinion that any test cell measurements need to document noise output both
close-in and at the nearest receptors while defining the full range of operating conditions –
both for existing and proposed operations.
8. The study does not quantify the spectral noise content of the test cell operation in terms of
tonal conditions that often times are associated with triggering complaints. The city of
Alameda Code has provisions for tonal content that warrants proper evaluation by the study
and this may also be the case for the City of Oakland.
9. Low frequency noise should also be addressed as if of sufficient intensity it may induce
vibration into structures including rattling windows. While we do not anticipate such levels to
result in structural damage they could be annoying and result in sleep disturbance depending
on intensity.
10. A reference to consider for low frequency assessment is the ASHRAE 2011 Handbook, (Chapter
48, Table 1) that sets dBC noise limits inside residential dwellings. Another reference is
Appendix B of ANSI Standard B133.8 (Gas Turbine Installation Sound Emissions) that also sets
dBC limits for low frequency noise and this is routinely used for power generation projects.
11. Also no spectral data has been provided for any of the test cell measurements or where such
measurements were taken and how the test cells were operated. This should be fully defined
for both existing and proposed test cell operations to allow for making a determination that the
project will not result in significant noise impacts.
12. The study does not define what constitutes a substantial increase in noise per CEQA guidelines.
Often a noise increase of 3 to 5 dB over existing ambient is used for assessing project specific
noise and such limits should also be considered in this study.
13. The project should include limits in procurement documents for new equipment to ensure that
resulting noise levels in the community comply with relevant codes. This should include new
test engines, cooling towers and any other project equipment and contractor submittals should
be properly reviewed during construction.
14. We recommend against use of pile driving without proper noise analysis. The study makes
reference to using piles to install the cooling tower structure and this should be preferably
done with drilling as opposed to impact or vibratory means of driving the piles.
I trust you will find this information useful but please let me know if you have any questions or require
further assistance.
Sincerely,
THE PAPADIMOS GROUP, INC.
Chris Papadimos
Principal
C-17
C-18
C-19
C-20
C-21
C-22
C-23
C-24
Response to Comment C-1
The commenter contends that the Draft IS/MND noise analysis is inadequate because it fails to:
(a) evaluate the project's consistency with the City of Alameda's Noise Ordinance; and (b)
support its conclusions with the necessary facts and analysis. The following responses address
these issues. In general, Comments C-1 through C-10 are based on the items raised in the
attached Papadimos Group letter (Comments C-11 – C-24). Accordingly, responses to
Comments C-2 through C-10 frequently reference the subsequent responses to the Papadimos
Group comments.
Overall, while Comment Letter C raises a number of questions, it does not provide data,
references offering facts, reasonable assumptions based on facts, or expert opinions supported
by facts. The noise analysis in the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and the
following responses to comments, were prepared with the advice, analysis and assistance of
acoustical and noise expert consultants Rosen, Goldberg, Der & Lewitz, Inc.
The proposed internal modifications to the Test Cell Facility include the conversion of the indoor
propeller test stand, Test Cell #1, into a dynamometer test stand configuration. Externally, the
only visible changes to the site are expected to be the addition of a water cooling system for the
dynamometer, water supply and return piping with associated water pumps from the
dynamometer to the cooling tower system, and an oil/water separation system, similar to ones
that are used for Test Cells #6 and #7. The water cooling system would be comprised of a
cooling tower (14’ by 24’), water piping (8” diameter supply and 14” diameter return), and
associated pumps and sumps. The foundation for the cooling tower will be approximately four
feet below grade, resting on pilings spaced around the perimeter that will be driven
approximately 60 feet through the ground. The final height of the water tower resting on the
mentioned foundation would be approximately 17 feet, compared to the existing building height
of 22 feet (or approximately 5 feet higher). Similarly, the oil/water separation system would
include an above grade separator unit, approximately 4’ by 7’ by 3’ in size along with a 1,500gallon gray water collection tank and a 55-gallon container for collecting the separated waste.
The slab foundation for the separator and pumps will be adjacent to the Test Cell #1 building,
along its north side, and will be supported by an additional two pilings to those mentioned above.
The dynamometer test bed and control systems would be located entirely within the existing
building (Test Cell #1). Internally, there would also be some unique propeller test structures,
such as the propeller ring, propeller test bed and exhaust turning vane that would be removed to
allow for the test bed to be installed. A new engine exhaust system would be installed and
would be contained within the existing building structure. No changes are expected to the
entrances or exits of the building.
Regarding the engine operation, advanced design technology relative to the older engines has
been incorporated in the new model, so that fuel consumption is expected to be lower than it has
been for the engines that have previously been tested in Test Cell #1. Conducting tests with a
dynamometer rig rather than a propeller system would also move much less airflow through the
building, resulting in a reduction in noise levels during operation of Test Cell #1.
Under the Proposed Project, Test Cell #1 would run as frequently as the existing conditions
(approximately 35-50 test cycles per year); however, each test cycle would increase in length
from approximately 1.5 hours to 3 hours with the new engine type. RRESO does not have any
scheduled work shifts prior to 6 AM; normal shifts occur between 6 AM and 2:30 PM. Also,
Port of Oakland
102
June 2013
neither the Port nor RRESO have received any noise complaints related to the existing test cell
facility operations.
To address the potential noise impacts on the nearby recreational land uses the applicable
noise criterion is the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). This noise descriptor is used
by the Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission and is the 24-hour average noise level
with penalties for noise occurring during the evening and nighttime hours.
The Draft IS/MND uses the A-weighted sound level to assess the project generated noise
because that is required by the local standards. A-weighting is a frequency weighting system
that de-emphasizes low-frequency and very high frequency sound in a manner that correlates
with human hearing. Some of the comments suggest the use of C-weighting to address lowfrequency noise and its potential to induce vibration in buildings. C-weighting is essentially “flat”
(or un-weighted) within the range of human hearing.
To provide information on the frequency content of the Test Cell noise and the ambient, spectral
plots are provided in response to some comments. These plots graph the amplitude of the
sound across the audible spectrum of frequencies. This information is useful for assessing the
quality of the sound and the presence of pure tones.
The construction duration of the project is expected to be approximately 3-4 months. During
that time the most common noisy activities will involve diesel equipment (i.e., grading
equipment, cranes, etc.) It is expected that the Project will include installation of about 10 piles.
If these are driven with an impact or vibratory driver, this activity is expected to last
approximately 2-3 days. As explained in the response to comments and the Draft IS/MND, this
daytime activity is expected to comply with the City of Oakland's Noise Ordinance limits.
The City of Oakland’s Noise Ordinance was used as a threshold of significance instead of the
City of Alameda’s Noise Ordinance because the Project is located in the City of Oakland. The
City of Alameda’s Noise Ordinance only regulates noise sources located in the City of Alameda
(Alameda Municipal Code 4-10.4a) and, therefore, is not an appropriate or applicable standard
of significance for evaluation of impacts of the Project on the environment.
See Response to Comment C-14 for a discussion of the noise measurement locations.
See Response to Comment C-12 for a discussion of the less than significant noise impact on
recreational land uses.
See Response to Comment C-16, C-17 and C-19 for a discussion of spectral quality, tones and
the City of Alameda Noise Ordinance.
Weather data during the noise measurement program is provided in Appendix C to the Final
IS/MND. During the acoustical measurements of Test Cell 1 the wind direction was from the
Port of Oakland
103
June 2013
south by southeast. This direction is roughly perpendicular to the direction of sound
propagation between the Project site and the measurement locations near the residences and
schools in the City of Alameda. This perpendicular wind, also known as a “crosswind” would
tend to have a minimal effect on sound propagation. However, during the year, the prevailing
wind direction in the study areas is from west to east and this would tend to reduce the sound
propagation from the Project site to the west, the direction of the nearest residential area and
schools. Therefore, the wind conditions during the measurements of the Test Cell 1 result in a
conservative analysis relative to the typical wind conditions in the study area. . Low-frequency
noise is addressed in Response to Comment C-19.
See Response to Comment C-15 for a discussion of nighttime noise limits. To address
nighttime periods of low background noise, the analysis in the Draft IS/MND subtracts out the
background noise from the measurements and compares the noise of Test Cell 1 with the most
stringent nighttime standard of the Oakland Noise Ordinance (which is more stringent than the
City of Alameda Noise Ordinance).
The Draft IS/MND relies on the observation that the noise from the propeller is the dominant
noise source when engines are being tested with a propeller and, therefore, with the Project the
noise will be decreased because a dynamometer is used in lieu of a propeller. Measurements
and observations of noise from engine testing at Test Cell 7 with a dynamometer compared with
testing at Test Cell 1 of an engine equipped with a propeller validated this observation. The
comparison with the noise from Test Cell 7, which does not use a propeller when testing the
engines, shows a dramatically quieter condition. The measured difference of 17 dBA
corresponds to a sound level from Test Cell 7 that is perceived as approximately 70% quieter
than the sound level from Test Cell 1 (see response to Comment C-16 for more information on
the acoustical measurements). While the exact magnitude of the difference in outdoor sound
levels in the vicinity of the project site associated with the testing of engines on a dynamometer
and on a propeller within the same test cell (Test Cell 1) will be dependent upon several factors
such as the specific structural features of the Test Cell 1 building, and hence cannot be
measured at this time, the noise level will necessarily be reduced during testing because the
engines will be tested on a dynamometer, which is inherently much quieter than testing with a
propeller. Since the sound levels from Test Cell 1 currently comply with the applicable
standards, it is concluded that they will also comply with the standards with the Project. Also,
neither the Port nor RRESO have received any noise complaints related to the existing test cell
facility operations.
The Project involves an upgrade to one of the several test cells at the RRESO facility and
therefore, the quantitative analysis in the Draft IS/MND focuses on the noise level of that test
cell. The Project does not affect the frequency or duration of testing operations at other test
cells. To the extent that the noise from Test Cell 1 does not increase substantially (in fact, it is
expected to decrease) then the noise from the whole facility will not increase significantly.
See Response to Comment C-1. The Draft IS/MND provides an adequate analysis of the
Port of Oakland
104
June 2013
potential noise impacts of the project.
See Response to Comment C-2.
The nearest recreational land uses to the Project are Spunkmeyer Field and the Chuck Corica
Golf Complex. The City of Oakland Noise Ordinance does not include noise standards for
recreational land uses (and neither does the Alameda Noise Ordinance). The Project is within
OAK’s Airport Influence Area (AIA), which is subject to the airport land use commission (ALUC)
review. The Project is located adjacent to the North Field of the OAK, which is regulated by the
Alameda County ALUC. The Alameda County ALUC Noise Compatibility Criteria (Draft IS/MND
Table 7) indicates that regional parks, golf courses and athletic fields are compatible with an
exterior CNEL of up to 70 dBA.
The noise measurement of the existing Test Cell 1 operating with the older engine type (T56)
fitted with a propeller indicates that it generates a steady noise level of 78 dBA at a distance of
255 feet. The closest point of Spunkmeyer Field is 355 feet from Test Cell 1. Using a standard
attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, the calculated steady noise level at
Spunkmeyer field is 75 dBA during operations of Test Cell 1.
To calculate the CNEL for comparison to the compatibility criteria it is necessary to account for
the duration and time of day of the operations. The duration of Test Cell 1 operation with the
Project would be 3 hours per test. Almost all of the testing would be conducted during daytime
hours (7 AM to 7 PM). On the average, 8% of the testing duration would before 7 AM
(considered nighttime) and 2% would be conducted during the evening (7 PM to 10 PM). Using
the appropriate noise level penalties for time of day (10 dBA during the nighttime and 5 dBA
during the evening) this activity would generate a CNEL of 68 dBA at Spunkmeyer Field on an
average day of testing. Since there would be approximately 60 days of testing per year, the
average annual CNEL would be 8 dBA less, or 60 dBA. Both the daily and annual average
CNEL would be considered compatible with respect to the Alameda County ALUC Noise
Compatibility Criteria standard of CNEL 70 dBA.
The nearest point of the Golf Course is 1,100 feet from Test Cell 1 and noise levels would be
10 dBA less than those at those at Spunkmeyer Field and, therefore, also be compatible.
Shoreline Park, located north of the Project site, is even farther from the Project site than the
golf course and, therefore, it would also be exposed to compatible noise levels.
Historical weather data from Oakland Airport during the noise monitoring period is provided in
Appendix C to the Final IS/MND. Further discussion on the effects of weather on the noise
analysis is provided in Response to Comment C-6.
The noise measurement positions were selected to document the existing noise levels at the
nearest residential and school areas to the Project. One of the positions (Location 1) was
selected because it is also distant from major streets. This methodology is consistent with the
Port of Oakland
105
June 2013
opinion expressed in the comment that “At least one position should have been selected away
from streets, perhaps an interior street with limited traffic...”
During the ambient noise monitoring the RRESO test cells were operating during daytime hours
because those are their normal operating times. RRESO does not have any scheduled work
shifts prior to 6 AM; normal shifts occur between 6 AM and 2:30 PM. Measured background
noise levels were, at times, below 45 dBA (see Figure 10, page 71 Draft IS/MND), and
therefore, contrary to the statement in the Comment, the nighttime exterior noise limit of 45 dBA
was considered in the analysis (page 67 Draft IS/MND). This methodology is consistent with
the opinion expressed in the comment that “Measured background levels at night are below 45
dBA (Location 2) and as such the entire range of background conditions needs to be
considered.”
The comment contends that the noise assessment is inconclusive and technically lacking since
it does not describe the testing method, the operation parameters during the measurements and
the spectral content. This technical data was gathered during the noise measurement program,
but, for the sake of conciseness and lay comprehensibility, was not included in the IS/MND.
Because the question has been raised, this data is provided in this response to comments.
Figure R1 provides sound level and spectral information gathered during the short-term
measurements of Test Cell 1 with a propeller both at Location 1 which is 3,600 feet from Test
Cell 1 and at a location Close-In, 255 feet from Test Cell 1.
The spectrum charts in Figure R1 allow the reader to see how the sounds are comprised of
various frequencies, from the very low, 12.5 Hz (Hertz or cycles per second) to the very high,
20,000 Hz. Most of the sound data in the IS MND is expressed in terms of A-weighted Sound
Level (in units of dBA). The A-weighting filter de-emphasizes low- and very high-frequency
sound in a manner that correlates with human hearing. Since A-weighting correlates well with
perceived noisiness, it is used in the standards applicable to this project.
Spectrum measurements were made using a Larson Davis Model 824 Real Time Analyzer
located 5 feet above the ground on a tripod. The analyzer was checked before and after the
measurements with a Larson Davis Model Cal200 acoustical calibrator.
Figure R2 shows a chart of the sound level versus time while Test Cell 1 was running, as well
as before and after. The sound level is charted for both the Close-In measurement location,
255 feet from Test Cell 1and at Locations 1 and 2, both of which are at the nearest residential
areas about 3,600 feet from Test Cell 1. The background sound levels at Location 1 are
highlighted. These background sound levels are used in the analysis to calculate the
contribution of Test Cell 1 in the community. Although Test Cell 1 had no effect at Location 2
due to the presence of nearby traffic, the noise levels at Location 2 (in the absence of traffic) are
expected to be comparable to Location 1 since the distance from the Project is the same.
During these measurements, Test Cell 7 was also operating, but with an engine on a
dynamometer. Since the noise contribution of this operation was significantly quieter than the
noise from Test Cell 1 (which was operating an engine driving a propeller), it did not have an
effect on the analysis of Test Cell 1 noise in the community.
The Close-In measurements were also used to compare the noise from Test Cell 1 testing an
engine fitted with a propeller with the noise from Test Cell 7 testing the same model engine
attached to a dynamometer. The sound level was 78 dBA at the Close-in Location while Test
Port of Oakland
106
June 2013
Cell 1 was operating, and 60 dBA when only Test Cell 7 was operating. After applying a 1 dBA
correction for distance (the Close-In Location was 255 feet from Test Cell 1 and 300 feet from
Test Cell 7) the test cell with the dynamometer was found to be 17 dBA quieter than the test cell
with the propeller.
Close-In measurements were not made of the other Test Cells at the RRESO facility; however,
they did operate during the ambient noise monitoring at the nearest residential areas (Locations
1 and 2). The following is information on the times and conditions that the other test cells
operated.
Table R1: Test Cell Run Times During Noise Monitoring
Date
1/7/13
1/8/13
1/9/13
Time
06:50 - 07:28
11:44 - 12:32
09:00 - 09:33
13:15 - 13:45
07:47 - 08:11
08:45 - 09:28
13:47 - 15:45
09:08 - 09:56
12:28 - 13:15
12:50 - 14:13
13:33 – 14:08
Location
Engine
Conditions
Cell 3
Model 250
on dynamometer
Cell 3
Cell 1
Model 250
Model T56
on dynamometer
leak check no propeller
Cell 7
Model T56
on dynamometer
Cell 3
Model 250
on dynamometer
Cell 7
Cell 1
Model T56
Model T56
on dynamometer
with propeller
Response to Comments C-16 and C-12 provide noise measurement results at the Close-In
position of Test Cell 1 under the full range of operating conditions. The Draft IS/MND includes
noise measurement data at the nearest residential receiver for the existing conditions. As
described in the Draft IS/MND, and in Response to Comment C-8, the noise levels with the
Project are expected to be lower because there will not be a propeller attached to the engine
under testing in Test Cell 1.
Port of Oakland
107
June 2013
Figure R1: Measured Sound Level Spectra, 9 January 2013
100
Close In (255 ft) Test Cell 1 Off
Close In (255 ft) Test Cell 1 Cruise Power
Close In (255 ft) Test Cell 1 Full Power
90
Location 1 Test Cell 1 Off
Location 1 Test Cell 1 Cruise Power
Location 1 Test Cell 1 Full Power
80
Sound Pressure Level, dB
70
60
50
40
30
20
20000 Hz
16000 Hz
12500 Hz
8000 Hz
10000 Hz
6300 Hz
5000 Hz
4000 Hz
3150 Hz
2500 Hz
2000 Hz
1600 Hz
1250 Hz
800 Hz
1000 Hz
630 Hz
500 Hz
400 Hz
315 Hz
250 Hz
200 Hz
160 Hz
125 Hz
100 Hz
80.0 Hz
63.0 Hz
50.0 Hz
40.0 Hz
31.5 Hz
25.0 Hz
20.0 Hz
12.5Hz
16.0 Hz
10
1/3 Octave Band Frequency
Port of Oakland
108
June 2013
Figure R2: Chart of Sound Level versus Time
During Measurements of Test Cell 1
January 9, 2013
100
Close In Location
Location 1 - Washington Ct
Location 2 - Island Drive
90
Cell 1 Full
Cell 1 Cruise
80
Cell 1 Cruise
Cell 1 Off
Cell 7 On
Cell 1 Idle
Cell 1 off
Cell 7 on
70
60
50
Background 46 dBA
Background 47 dBA
Background 46 dBA
14:15
14:10
14:05
14:00
13:55
13:50
13:45
13:40
13:35
13:30
13:25
40
Time of Day
The comment states that the IS/MND does not quantify the spectral noise content of the test cell
operation. This is addressed by the data provided in Response to Comment C-16 which
includes spectral noise measurement data of the existing condition. The commenter further
contends that spectral data can help identify tonal content that can trigger complaints and that
may require special assessment by some noise ordinances. The City of Oakland’s noise
ordinance contains a provision for reducing the allowable exterior noise level standard if the
noise contains a “simple tone such as a whine, screech or hum.” The ordinance does not
provide a useable methodology to determine the presence of a tone. Therefore, the ordinance
does not provide a usable basis for altering the allowable noise level (and hence the applicable
threshold of significance) on account of a tone.
A review of the measured spectra at both the Close-In location and at the nearest residential
receiver (Location 1) using the methodology contained in the State of California Model Noise
Ordinance (Department of Health, 1977) indicates that the spectrum of Test Cell 1 with the
current engine type does not contain a tone. It is possible that the spectrum of Test Cell 1 will
change with the new engine type attached to a dynamometer. However, even if its noise
contains a tone, it is not expected to exceed the nighttime standard even with the adjustment for
a tone, because the measured Test Cell 1 noise level is already 5 dB below the nighttime
standard with a much noisier engine configuration. For example, based on the analysis in the
Draft IS/MND, the current test cell generates a noise level of 40 dBA at the nearest homes and
school. This meets the City of Oakland’s nighttime standard of 45 dBA and would do so even if
it were adjusted downward by 5 dBA to 40 dBA on account of a tone, which, as noted, it does
not contain. Because the noise from the propeller is being eliminated by the Project from Test
Cell 1 operations, the noise level with the Project is expected to be much lower than the existing
Port of Oakland
109
June 2013
level, and hence lower than an adjusted 40 dBA standard even if the post-Project noise from
Test Cell 1 were to contain a tone.
The comment states that low-frequency noise should be addressed because if it is of sufficient
intensity it can induce vibration into structures and cause annoyance and sleep disruption. To
address this concern the spectral measurements are compared to criteria suggested by the
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME). The ASME criteria uses the C-weighted
sound level. C-weighting is essentially “flat” (or un-weighted) within the range of human
hearing. C-weighted sound levels are used primarily when low-frequency sound is of particular
interest, such as when determining the likelihood of a low-frequency sound to induce vibration
into a structure. A-weighting would not be appropriate for this task because it de-emphasizes
low-frequency sound.
The spectrum of the Test Cell 1 noise shows a peak at the 63 Hz 1/3 octave band frequency (63
Hz is considered low-frequency). This frequency band coincides with the propeller blade
passage frequency (1020 RPM with 4 propeller blades). This frequency component of the noise
is expected to be significantly reduced with the Project since the propeller will be eliminated
from Test Cell 1.
Even with the noise from the propeller, the C-weighted noise level at the nearest residences is
72 dBC. According to the Nonmandatory Appendix B of the standard ASME/ANSI B133.82011, Gas Turbine Installation Sound Emissions, the C weighted sound level at the nearest
occupied frame structure should not exceed 75 dBC to 80 dBC to avoid complaints of
building/window vibration cause by low-frequency airborne sound. The existing noise from Test
Cell 1 is within these limits at the nearest residences. The C-weighted noise level is expected to
be even less with the Project due to the absence of the low-frequency propeller sound.
See Response to Comment C-19 for a discussion of low-frequency noise and C-weighting.
See Response to Comment C-16 for spectral data.
An increase of 3 to 5 dBA in long-term average sound levels would be considered a significant
impact. Based on the analysis in the Draft IS/MND the noise exposure will not increase as a
result of the Project (Draft IS/MND 73); rather, implementation of the proposed project is
estimated to result in a 70% noise reduction.
The Draft IS/MND does not identify a significant noise impact associated with the Project and,
therefore, does not include noise mitigation measures such as limits in procurement documents.
The Oakland Municipal Code Noise Ordinance is the applicable regulation that establishes
enforceable limits for noise from the RRESO facility and the Project related test cell upgrade.
Port of Oakland
110
June 2013
According to the Draft IS/MND, daytime construction activities (including pile driving) will not
exceed the Oakland Noise Ordinance standards at the nearest schools and residences. If pile
driving is used then it would likely occur for 2-3 days, with a total of 10 piles. Pile driving noise
levels are expected to be up to 64 dBA at the nearest residences and schools which are 3,600
feet away. This noise level is less than the limit of 65 dBA for long-term construction activities
(17.120.050.G) and therefore less than significant. Even though construction noise will be
below the threshold of significance for noise and thus would not require mitigation to avoid
significant adverse impacts to humans, the Draft IS/MND includes Mitigation Measure BIO-1
which is designed to reduce noise impacts to the California Clapper Rail. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would result in additional reductions of Project construction noise.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires that the Project applicant or contractor shall implement the
following measures during construction:
•
The construction contractor shall implement feasible noise controls to minimize
outdoor equipment noise impacts on nearby sensitive receptors. Feasible noise
controls include improved mufflers, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures,
and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds.
•
Equipment used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered
impact tools (e.g., jack hammers) wherever possible to avoid noise associated with
compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools.
Where use of
pneumatically-powered tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed
air exhaust shall be used. A muffler could lower noise levels from the exhaust by up
to about 10 A-weighted decibels (dB(A)). External jackets on the tools themselves
shall be used where feasible; this could achieve a reduction of five dB(A). Quieter
procedures shall be used (such as drilling rather than impact equipment) wherever
feasible.
•
The construction contractor shall implement appropriate additional noise reduction
measures that include shutting off idling equipment.
•
The construction contractor shall minimize use of vehicle backup alarms. A common
approach to minimizing the use of backup alarms is to design the construction site
with a circular flow pattern that minimizes backing up of trucks and other heavy
equipment. Another approach to reducing the intrusion of backup alarms is to require
all equipment on the site to be equipped with ambient sensitive alarms. With this
type of alarm, the alarm sound is automatically adjusted based on the ambient noise.
•
Construction workers’ radios shall be controlled so as to be inaudible beyond the
limits of the project site boundaries.
•
Heavy equipment, such as paving and grading equipment, shall be stored on-site
whenever possible to minimize the need for extra heavy truck trips on local streets.
Port of Oakland
111
June 2013
6.0 REFERENCES
Checklist Information Sources
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Professional judgment and expertise of the environmental/technical specialists
evaluating the project, based on a review of existing conditions and project details,
including standard construction measures
City of Oakland General Plan
City of Oakland Zoning Map
California Department of Conservation, 2010
California Department of Transportation, 2012
Tamura Environmental, Air Quality Report Data Sheets, 2012
Rolls-Royce Engine Services Building Addition Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration
Association of Bay Area Governments Earthquake and Hazards Program
Final Pardee Drive Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
PES Test Cell Facility Tier I Screening Assessment
Setting References
[ABAG] Association of Bay Area Governments 2013. Earthquake and Hazards Program.
Liquefaction Maps and Information Website: http://quake.abag.ca.gov/liquefaction/.
[CDC] California Department of Conservation. 2008. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program: Alameda County Important Farmland 2010.
Available at: <
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2010/>. Accessed January 16, 2013.
[CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. California Natural Diversity
Database. Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento.
[Caltrans] California Department of Transportation. 2012. Scenic highways: Alameda County.
Available at: < http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/ >. Accessed January
10, 2013.
[City] City of Oakland. 1999. General Plan.
alto.ca.us/planningdiv/. Accessed December 20, 1999
Website:
http://www.ci.east-palo-
[DTSC] Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2011. EnviroStor database: Oakland.
Available at: <http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>. Accessed January 2013.
[EBMUD] East Bay Municipal Utility District. 2011. Urban Water Management Plan 2010.
Available at http://www.ebmud.com/our-water/water-supply/long-term-planning/urban-watermanagement-plan.
ENVIRON, California Emissions Estimator Model™ version 2011.1.1, South Coast Air Quality
Management District, Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Sacramento Metropolitan
Air Quality. 2011.
Port of Oakland
112
June 2013
ESA. 2010. Oakland International Airport - Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. Prepared for
Alameda County ALUC. Adopted December 15, 2010.
ESA. 2012. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 8350 Pardee Drive Project.
Prepared for the Port of Oakland. October 2012.
Holland, RF. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of
California. Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento,
California.
Huffman-Broadway Group, Inc. 2007. USACE Wetlands and Waters prepared for the Oakland
International Airport, Oakland, California. April 2007.
Leidy, RA, GS Becker, and BN Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of
steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary,
California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA.
[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service. 2007. Essential Fish Habitat. Online at:
http://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/index.html; most recently accessed: January
2013.
[NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. Web Soil Survey for Oakland Area.
Available at: <http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm>. Accessed January
2013.
Olofson Environmental Inc. Personal communication between Geoff Reilly and Tyler Barns of
WRA and Ms. Jen McBroom of Olofson Environmental Inc. April 2013.
[PES] PES Environmental, Inc. 2010. Transmittal Letter Tier I Screening Assessment for the
Rolls-Royce Engine Services – Oakland, Inc. Test Cell Facility. Available through
GeoTracker:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/profile_report.asp?global_id=T06019775776.
Port of Oakland. 2000. Rolls-Royce Engine Services Building Addition Project Mitigated
Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Prepared for Rolls-Royce Engine Services and the Port
of Oakland. Prepared by Natural Resources Management.
Port of Oakland. 2006. Oakland International Master Plan. Prepared by the Port of Oakland’s
Aviation Planning and Development staff, with assistance from Port staff in other Aviation
Division departments and the Engineering Division.
State of California Office of Noise Control, April 1977.
Ordinance
Model Community Noise Control
URS. 2012 Habitat Assessment for Federally Listed Wetland Species at Oakland International
Airport. Prepared for Port of Oakland.
[USFWS] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2010a. Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
raviventris) 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. Sacramento, California. 49 pp.
February 16.
Port of Oakland
113
June 2013
USFWS. 2010b. Draft Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Northern and Central
California. Sacramento, California. 636 pp. January.
[USGS] U.S. Geological Survey. 2000 Geologic map and map database of the Oakland
metropolitan area, Alameda, Contra Costa, and San Francisco Counties California. 2000.
Available at http://pubs.usgs.gov/mf/2000/2342/
[WLA] William Lettis & Associates, Inc. 2008. Detailed Mapping of Artificial Fills, San Francisco
Bay Area, California. Final Technical Report. Prepared by Christopher Hitchcock, Robert
Givler, Greg De Pascale, and Ranon Dulberg. Prepared for the U.S. Geological Survey,
National Earthquake Reduction Program. September 2008.
Port of Oakland
114
June 2013
7.0 LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAQS
ABAG
ACEH
AIA
ALUC
AQMP
BAAQMD
BCDC
BMP
CalEEMod
Cal-IPC
CARB
CBR
CCR
CCR
CDC
CDFW
CEQA
CFR
CNDDB
CNEL
CNPS
CO
CO2
Corps
dB(A)
DEIR
DTSC
EBMUD
EFH
EFZs
EPA
ESA
ESU
FEMA
FIRM
GHG
HMMP
Inventory
ISP
MLD
MND
NAAQS
NAHC
Ambient Air Quality Standards
Association of Bay Area Governments
Alameda County Environmental Health
Airport Influence Area
Airport Land Use Commission
Air Quality Management Plan
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
Best Management Practices
California Emissions Estimator Model
California Invasive Plant Council
California Air Resources Board
California Black Rail
California Code of Regulations
California Clapper Rail
California Department of Conservation
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (formerly California Department of Fish
and Game [CDFG])
California Environmental Quality Act
Code of Federal Regulations
California Natural Diversity Database
Community Noise Equivalent Level
California Native Plant Society
Carbon Monoxide
Carbon Dioxide
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
A-Weighted Decibel
Draft Environmental Impact Report
California Department of Toxic Substances Control
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Essential Fish Habitat
Earthquake Fault Zones
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Federal Endangered Species Act
Evolutionarily Significant Unit
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Insurance Rate Maps
Greenhouse Gas
Hazardous Materials Management Plan
CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants
Invasive Spartina Project
Most Likely Descendent
Mitigated Negative Declaration
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
Native American Heritage Commission
Port of Oakland
115
June 2013
NMFS
NOx
NPORDS
NSR
NWI
OAK
OHWM
OSHA
PM
Port
PRC
Rank
ROG
RRESO
RSA
RWQCB
SFBAAB
SIP
SMMH
SPCCP
SWPPP
TPY
USFWS
USGS
UST
WMAC
WRA
National Marine Fisheries Service
Oxides of Nitrogen
North Port of Oakland Refuse Disposal Site
Federal New Source Review
National Wetlands Inventory
Oakland International Airport
Ordinary High Water Mark
U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Particulate Matter
Port of Oakland
Public Resources Code
California Rare Plant Rank
Reactive Organic Gases
Rolls-Royce Engine Services - Oakland
Runway Safety Area
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin
State Implementation Plans
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasures Plan
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
Tons per Year
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
Underground Storage Tanks
Waste Management of Alameda County
WRA, Inc.
Port of Oakland
116
June 2013
APPENDIX A
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species List
Page 1 of 1
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office
2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, California 95825
April 3, 2013
Document Number: 130403080238
Tyler Barns
WRA Inc.
2169-G East Francisco Blvd.
San Rafael, CA 94901
Subject: Species List for RRESO (WRA Project #22245)
Dear: Mr. Barns
We are sending this official species list in response to your April 3, 2013 request for information
about endangered and threatened species. The list covers the California counties and/or U.S.
Geological Survey 7½ minute quad or quads you requested.
Our database was developed primarily to assist Federal agencies that are consulting with us.
Therefore, our lists include all of the sensitive species that have been found in a certain area and
also ones that may be affected by projects in the area. For example, a fish may be on the list for
a quad if it lives somewhere downstream from that quad. Birds are included even if they only
migrate through an area. In other words, we include all of the species we want people to consider
when they do something that affects the environment.
Please read Important Information About Your Species List (below). It explains how we made the
list and describes your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.
Our database is constantly updated as species are proposed, listed and delisted. If you address
proposed and candidate species in your planning, this should not be a problem. However, we
recommend that you get an updated list every 90 days. That would be July 02, 2013.
Please contact us if your project may affect endangered or threatened species or if you have any
questions about the attached list or your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. A list
of Endangered Species Program contacts can be found here.
Endangered Species Division
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists_auto-letter.cfm
4/3/2013
Page 1 of 4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office
Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in
or may be Affected by Projects in the Counties and/or
U.S.G.S. 7 1/2 Minute Quads you requested
Document Number: 130403080238
Database Last Updated: September 18, 2011
Quad Lists
Listed Species
Invertebrates
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp (T)
Fish
Acipenser medirostris
green sturgeon (T) (NMFS)
Eucyclogobius newberryi
tidewater goby (E)
Hypomesus transpacificus
delta smelt (T)
Oncorhynchus kisutch
coho salmon - central CA coast (E) (NMFS)
Oncorhynchus mykiss
Central California Coastal steelhead (T) (NMFS)
Central Valley steelhead (T) (NMFS)
Critical habitat, Central California coastal steelhead (X) (NMFS)
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon (T) (NMFS)
winter-run chinook salmon, Sacramento River (E) (NMFS)
Amphibians
Ambystoma californiense
California tiger salamander, central population (T)
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog (T)
Reptiles
Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus
Alameda whipsnake [=striped racer] (T)
Birds
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus
western snowy plover (T)
Pelecanus occidentalis californicus
California brown pelican (E)
Rallus longirostris obsoletus
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/ES_Species/Lists/es_species_lists.cfm
4/3/2013
Page 2 of 4
California clapper rail (E)
Sternula antillarum (=Sterna, =albifrons) browni
California least tern (E)
Mammals
Reithrodontomys raviventris
salt marsh harvest mouse (E)
Plants
Lasthenia conjugens
Contra Costa goldfields (E)
Suaeda californica
California sea blite (E)
Quads Containing Listed, Proposed or Candidate Species:
SAN LEANDRO (447B)
County Lists
No county species lists requested.
Key:
(E) Endangered - Listed as being in danger of extinction.
(T) Threatened - Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.
(P) Proposed - Officially proposed in the Federal Register for listing as endangered or threatened.
(NMFS) Species under the Jurisdiction of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service.
Consult with them directly about these species.
Critical Habitat - Area essential to the conservation of a species.
(PX) Proposed Critical Habitat - The species is already listed. Critical habitat is being proposed for it.
(C) Candidate - Candidate to become a proposed species.
(V) Vacated by a court order. Not currently in effect. Being reviewed by the Service.
(X) Critical Habitat designated for this species
Important Information About Your Species List
How We Make Species Lists
We store information about endangered and threatened species lists by U.S. Geological
Survey 7½ minute quads. The United States is divided into these quads, which are about the
size of San Francisco.
The animals on your species list are ones that occur within, or may be affected by projects
within, the quads covered by the list.



Fish and other aquatic species appear on your list if they are in the same watershed as your
quad or if water use in your quad might affect them.
Amphibians will be on the list for a quad or county if pesticides applied in that area may be
carried to their habitat by air currents.
Birds are shown regardless of whether they are resident or migratory. Relevant birds on the
county list should be considered regardless of whether they appear on a quad list.
Plants
4/3/2013
Page 3 of 4
Any plants on your list are ones that have actually been observed in the area covered by the
list. Plants may exist in an area without ever having been detected there. You can find out
what's in the surrounding quads through the California Native Plant Society's online
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants.
Surveying
Some of the species on your list may not be affected by your project. A trained biologist
and/or botanist, familiar with the habitat requirements of the species on your list, should
determine whether they or habitats suitable for them may be affected by your project. We
recommend that your surveys include any proposed and candidate species on your list.
See our Protocol and Recovery Permits pages.
For plant surveys, we recommend using the Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting
Botanical Inventories. The results of your surveys should be published in any environmental
documents prepared for your project.
Your Responsibilities Under the Endangered Species Act
All animals identified as listed above are fully protected under the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of
a federally listed wildlife species. Take is defined by the Act as "to harass, harm, pursue,
hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" any such animal.
Take may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or
injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding,
feeding, or shelter (50 CFR §17.3).
Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by one of two
procedures:

If a Federal agency is involved with the permitting, funding, or carrying out of a project that may
result in take, then that agency must engage in a formal consultation with the Service.
During formal consultation, the Federal agency, the applicant and the Service work together to
avoid or minimize the impact on listed species and their habitat. Such consultation would result
in a biological opinion by the Service addressing the anticipated effect of the project on listed and
proposed species. The opinion may authorize a limited level of incidental take.

If no Federal agency is involved with the project, and federally listed species may be taken as
part of the project, then you, the applicant, should apply for an incidental take permit. The
Service may issue such a permit if you submit a satisfactory conservation plan for the species
that would be affected by your project.
Should your survey determine that federally listed or proposed species occur in the area and are
likely to be affected by the project, we recommend that you work with this office and the
California Department of Fish and Game to develop a plan that minimizes the project's direct and
indirect impacts to listed species and compensates for project-related loss of habitat. You should
include the plan in any environmental documents you file.
Critical Habitat
When a species is listed as endangered or threatened, areas of habitat considered essential
to its conservation may be designated as critical habitat. These areas may require special
management considerations or protection. They provide needed space for growth and
normal behavior; food, water, air, light, other nutritional or physiological requirements;
cover or shelter; and sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination or
seed dispersal.
Although critical habitat may be designated on private or State lands, activities on these
4/3/2013
Page 4 of 4
lands are not restricted unless there is Federal involvement in the activities or direct harm to
listed wildlife.
If any species has proposed or designated critical habitat within a quad, there will be a
separate line for this on the species list. Boundary descriptions of the critical habitat may be
found in the Federal Register. The information is also reprinted in the Code of Federal
Regulations (50 CFR 17.95). See our Map Room page.
Candidate Species
We recommend that you address impacts to candidate species. We put plants and animals
on our candidate list when we have enough scientific information to eventually propose them
for listing as threatened or endangered. By considering these species early in your planning
process you may be able to avoid the problems that could develop if one of these candidates
was listed before the end of your project.
Species of Concern
The Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office no longer maintains a list of species of concern.
However, various other agencies and organizations maintain lists of at-risk species. These
lists provide essential information for land management planning and conservation efforts.
More info
Wetlands
If your project will impact wetlands, riparian habitat, or other jurisdictional waters as defined
by section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, you
will need to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Impacts to wetland
habitats require site specific mitigation and monitoring. For questions regarding wetlands,
please contact Mark Littlefield of this office at (916) 414-6520.
Updates
Our database is constantly updated as species are proposed, listed and delisted. If you
address proposed and candidate species in your planning, this should not be a problem.
However, we recommend that you get an updated list every 90 days. That would be July 02,
2013.
4/3/2013
APPENDIX B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Introduction
When approving projects that identify significant impacts, the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to adopt monitoring and reporting programs or conditions
of project approval to mitigate or avoid the identified significant effects (Public Resources Code
Section 21081.6(a)(1)). A public agency adopting measures to mitigate or avoid the significant
impacts of a proposed project is required to ensure that the measures are fully enforceable,
through permit conditions, agreements, or other means (Public Resources Code Section
21081.6(b)). The mitigation measures required by a public agency to reduce or avoid significant
project impacts not incorporated into the design or program for the project may be made
conditions of project approval as set forth in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(MMRP). The program must be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures
during project implementation.
The MMRP includes the mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration for the RRESO Test Cell Upgrade Project which are required to address the
significant impacts associated with the Proposed Project, specifically during construction. This
MMRP also includes mitigation for less-than-significant cultural resources impacts even though
such impacts were not considered significant.
The required mitigation measures are
summarized in this program; the full text of the impact analysis and mitigation measures are
presented in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (June, 2013).
Format
The MMRP is organized in a table format (see Table B-1), keyed to each significant impact and
each Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration mitigation measure. Only mitigation measures
adopted to address significant impacts are included in this program. Each mitigation measure is
set out in full, followed by a tabular summary of monitoring requirements. The column headings
in the tables are defined as follows:

Mitigation Measures adopted as Conditions of Approval: This column presents the
mitigation measure identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Implementation Procedures: This column identifies the procedures associated with
implementation of the migration measure.

Monitoring Responsibility: This column contains an assignment of responsibility for
the monitoring and reporting tasks.
Monitoring and Reporting Action: This column refers the outcome from implementing
the mitigation measure.


Mitigation Schedule: The general schedule for conducting each mitigation task,
identifying where appropriate both the timing and the frequency of the action.

Verification of Compliance: This column will be used by the lead agency to document
the person who verified the implementation of the mitigation measure and the date on
which this verification occurred.
Port of Oakland
1
June 2013
Enforcement
If the proposed project is approved, the MMRP would be incorporated as a condition of such
approval. Therefore, all mitigation measures for significant impacts must be carried out in order
to fulfill the requirements of approval. A number of the mitigation measures would be
implemented during the course of the development review process. These measures would be
checked on plans, in reports, and in the field prior to construction. Most of the remaining
mitigation measures would be implemented during the construction or project implementation
phase.
Reporting
RRESO shall be responsible for reporting and monitoring during construction. RRESO shall
submit a post construction report to the Port within 45 days of completion of construction
activities. The post construction report shall include the following:





Before and after construction photographs;
Photographs illustrating the temporary screening fence (refer to Mitigation Measure BIO2);
As-built drawings;
MMRP Verification of Compliance (Table B-1); and
Any reports or correspondences submitted to regulatory agencies.
Port of Oakland
2
June 2013
TABLE B-1
MITIGATION MEASURES ADOPTED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Mitigation Measures
Adopted as Conditions of
Approval
4.4 Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 –
California
Clapper
Rail
Indirect Impacts from Noise:
The Project applicant or
contractor shall implement the
following measures during
construction
to
minimize
indirect impacts:


Implementation
Procedures
Project sponsor and its
contractor(s) shall
implement measures
described in Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 during
construction to minimize
indirect impacts.
Monitoring and Reporting
Action
Inspect site during construction
to ensure project compliance
with noise reduction
requirements.
Monitoring Schedule
One inspection shall occur during
construction.
Verification of Compliance
Verified by:
Date:
The
construction
contractor
shall
implement
feasible
noise
controls
to
minimize
outside
equipment
noise
impacts on nearby
sensitive
receptors.
Feasible noise controls
include
improved
mufflers, use of intake
silencers,
ducts,
engine
enclosures,
and
acousticallyattenuating shields or
shrouds.
Equipment used for
project
construction
shall be hydraulically
or electrically powered
impact tools (e.g., jack
hammers)
wherever
possible to avoid noise
associated
with
compressed
air
exhaust
from
pneumatically-powered
Port of Oakland
3
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Approval
tools. Where use of
pneumatically-powered
tools is unavoidable,
an exhaust muffler on
the compressed air
exhaust shall be used.
A muffler could lower
noise levels from the
exhaust by up to about
10 A-weighted decibels
(dB(A)).
External
jackets on the tools
themselves shall be
used where feasible;
this could achieve a
reduction of five dB(A).
Quieter
procedures
shall be used (such as
drilling rather than
impact
equipment)
wherever feasible.
 The
construction
contractor
shall
implement appropriate
additional
noise
reduction
measures
that include shutting off
idling equipment.
 The
construction
contractor
shall
minimize use of vehicle
backup alarms.
A
common approach to
minimizing the use of
backup alarms is to
design the construction
site with a circular flow
Port of Oakland
Implementation
Procedures
Action
4
Monitoring Schedule
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Approval
pattern that minimizes
backing up of trucks
and
other
heavy
equipment.
Another
approach to reducing
the intrusion of backup
alarms is to require all
equipment on the site
to be equipped with
ambient
sensitive
alarms. With this type
of alarm, the alarm
sound is automatically
adjusted based on the
ambient noise.
 Construction worker’s
radios
shall
be
controlled so as to be
inaudible beyond the
limits of the project site
boundaries.
 Heavy
equipment,
such as paving and
grading
equipment,
shall be stored on-site
whenever possible to
minimize the need for
extra heavy truck trips
on local streets.
Significance
of
Before Mitigation:
Potentially Significant
Implementation
Procedures
Action
Monitoring Schedule
Impact
Significance of Impact After
Mitigation:
Less than Significant
Port of Oakland
5
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Approval
California Clapper Rail Visual
Impacts:
If
outside
construction work is proposed
during the CCR breeding
season (February 1 to August
31) placement of a temporary
screen along the existing
approximately 10-foot high
fence above the grade of Fan
Marsh at the eastern Project
Area boundary will screen
virtually
all
construction
equipment (with the possible
exception of a pile driver) and
ensure that any potentially
significant visual impacts are
reduced
to
a
less-thansignificant
level.
The
temporary screen shall be
installed from the existing berm
up to the bottom of the barbed
wire portion of the existing
fence.
Implementation
Procedures
contractor(s) shall
implement measures
visual impacts.
Action
Verify inclusion of visual barrier
inapplicable construction plans
and specifications.
Inspect construction site to
verify visual barrier installed.
Monitoring Schedule
Prior to construction.
Verified by:
Date:
Review and approve education
program.
contractor(s) shall prepare
an education program that
adheres to all
specifications in this
measure.
Prior to the investigation, a
construction
employee
education program shall be
conducted to discuss potential
listed species adjacent to the
Project Area. At minimum, the
program shall consist of a brief
presentation
by
persons
knowledgeable
in
listed
species biology and protection
to those personnel working
within
the Project Area.
Port of Oakland
6
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Approval
Contractors, their employees,
and other on-site personnel
shall undergo sensitive species
training prior to involvement
with construction activities in
the Project Area. The program
will include the following:




Implementation
Procedures
Action
Monitoring Schedule
a description of the
species
and
their
habitat needs,
reports of occurrences
in the Project Area,
an explanation of the
status
of
each
endangered
species
and their protection
under the ESA, and
a list of measures
being taken to reduce
potential impacts to the
species during Project
implementation.
Fact sheets conveying this
information shall be prepared
for distribution to investigation
personnel and anyone else
who may enter the Project
Area.
Records of sensitive
species training shall be
retained by the approved
biologist.
Port of Oakland
7
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Approval
Significance
of
Impact
Before Mitigation:
Mitigation:
Pre-Construction Breeding
Bird Surveys: For any outside
construction-related activities
that are proposed to occur
during the avian breeding
season (February 1 through
August 31), breeding bird
surveys
are
required.
Specifically,
pre-construction
breeding bird surveys shall be
conducted within 14 days of
ground disturbance to avoid
disturbance to active nests,
eggs, and/or young of nesting
birds.
A qualified biologist
familiar with nesting birds shall
conduct a pre-construction
survey; if nesting birds are
detected within the test cell
facility near the construction
activity (which is currently
paved in its entirety), the
biologist shall notify the
construction site supervisor so
that nest will be avoided until
the young have fledged or the
nest is no longer active. As
described
in
Mitigation
Measure BIO-2, the qualified
Implementation
Procedures
contractor(s) shall
implement measures
visual impacts.
Port of Oakland
Action
Inspect site during construction
to ensure project compliance
with breeding bird avoidance
requirements.
Monitoring Schedule
One inspection shall occur during
of construction.
Verified by:
Date:
8
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Approval
biologist
will
conduct
construction
employee
education program for all
construction
crews
and
contractors before work on the
Proposed Project is initiated.
The training will include a brief
review of all the special-status
species and other sensitive
communities that may exist in
the Study Area. Training will
be conducted as-needed (i.e.,
for new workers after start of
construction or any updates as
the work progresses).
Significance
of
Before Mitigation:
Implementation
Procedures
Action
Monitoring Schedule
Review and approve extent and
methodology of subsurface
paleontological investigation.
Review extent and methodology
of subsurface investigations prior
to approval of grading permit(s).
Verified by:
If resources are encountered,
verify work is suspended and
review and approve of the
treatment and monitoring plan if
archaeological materials are
discovered.
If resources encountered, review
of treatment and monitoring plan
prior to continuation of
construction.
Date:
Impact
Mitigation:
4.5 Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CULT-1 –
Accidental Discovery: In the
event
of
post-review
discoveries
of
cultural
resources
the
following
requirements apply:
If any archaeological or
paleontological deposits are
encountered, all soil-disturbing
work should be halted at the
location of any discovery until a
qualified
archaeologist
or
contractor(s) shall train
workers and monitor their
activities.
contractor(s) shall halt work
and notify archaeologist if
materials are discovered.
Port of Oakland
9
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Approval
paleontologist evaluates the
significance of the find(s) and
prepares a recommendation for
further action. If the cultural
materials are determined to be
significant,
a
qualified
archaeologist shall develop an
appropriate treatment plan in
consultation with the Port’s
Environmental Programs and
Planning Division and/or their
representative to mitigate the
discovery.
The plan could
include
avoidance
and
preservation
measures
to
preserve the materials in place;
scientific
collection
and
analysis; preparation of a
professional
report
in
accordance
with
current
professional standards; and,
professional museum curation
of collected cultural materials
and resource documentation.
Significance
of
Before Mitigation:
Implementation
Procedures
Action
Monitoring Schedule
Impact
Mitigation:
Mitigation Measure CULT-2 –
Accidental
Discovery
of
Human Remains or Funerary
Objects: In the event of the
accidental
discovery
or
contractor(s) shall train
workers and monitor
their activities.
Port of Oakland
Review and approve extent
and methodology of
subsurface paleontological
investigation.
Review extent and
methodology of subsurface
investigations prior to approval
of grading permit(s).
Verified by:
Date:
10
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Approval
recognition of any human
remains in any location other
than a dedicated cemetery, the
following steps should be
taken:


The
treatment
of
human remains and of
associated
or
unassociated funerary
objects
discovered
during
any
soildisturbing
activity
within the project shall
comply with applicable
State laws. Pursuant
to Section 7050.5 of
the Health and Safety
Code,
and
PRC
Section 5097.94, in the
event of the discovery
of human remains
during
construction,
there shall be no
further excavation or
disturbance of the site
or any nearby area
reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent
remains. The Alameda
County Coroner shall
be immediately notified
and shall make a
determination as to
whether the remains
are Native American.
In the event of the
Implementation
Procedures
Action
contractor(s) shall halt
work and notify
archaeologist if materials
are discovered.
If resources are encountered,
verify work is suspended and
review and approve of the
treatment and monitoring plan
if paleontological materials are
discovered.
Monitoring Schedule
If resources encountered, review
of treatment and monitoring plan
prior to continuation of
construction.
Archaeologist shall conduct
independent review and
prepare treatment plan, if
necessary.
Project sponsor or its
contractor(s) shall
implement treatment plan.
Port of Oakland
11
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Approval
coroner's
determination that the
human remains are
Native
American,
notification
of
the
Native
American
Heritage Commission
(NAHC), is required
who shall appoint a
Most
Likely
Descendant
(MLD)
(PRC
Section
5097.98).
The
archaeological
consultant,
project
sponsor, and MLD
shall
make
all
reasonable efforts to
develop an agreement
for the treatment, with
appropriate dignity, of
human remains and
associated
or
objects
(CEQA
Guidelines
Section
15064.5(d)).
The
agreement should take
into consideration the
appropriate
excavation, removal,
recordation, analysis,
custodianship,
curation,
and
final
disposition
of
the
human remains and
associated
or
Port of Oakland
Implementation
Procedures
Action
12
Monitoring Schedule
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Approval
objects.
 California
Public
Resources
Code
allows 48 hours to
reach agreement on
these matters. If the
MLD and the other
parties do not agree on
the reburial method,
the project will follow
PRC
Section
5097.98(b)
which
states
that
"the
landowner or his or her
authorized
representative
shall
reinter
the
human
remains and items
associated with Native
American burials with
appropriate dignity on
the property in a
location not subject to
further
subsurface
disturbance."
Significance
of
Before Mitigation:
Implementation
Procedures
Action
Monitoring Schedule
Impact
Mitigation:
Port of Oakland
13
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Implementation
Procedures
Approval
4.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 – Project sponsor and its
Excavation, Transportation contractor(s) shall
and Disposal of Potentially incorporate the
specifications of this
Contaminated Soils:
1. Site Specific Health and measure into a site specific
Safety Plan. Develop and Health and Safety Plan.
implement a site specific
Health and Safety Plan for
construction activities to
reduce the potential for
adverse
exposure
of
people
to
hazardous
contamination. The Health
and Safety Plan will
include personal protective
equipment,
a
hazard
assessment, site control,
handling procedures, chain
of
command,
and
emergency
evacuation
plan.
2. Response Measures.
If
potentially
contaminated
soil is encountered during
construction, identify and
implement
response
measures necessary to
comply with all applicable
local, state and Federal
laws and regulations.
3. Handling, Recycling, and
Hauling.
Adhere to all
applicable local, State and
Federal laws, regulations
and standards regarding
the handling (including
Port of Oakland
Action
Review Health and Safety Plan
for inclusion of proper soil
classification, handling, storage
and transportation methods.
Monitoring Schedule
Prior to the start of construction.
Verified by:
Inspection shall occur during
construction.
Date:
Inspect construction site for
proper storage and handling of
hazardous and non- hazardous
soils.
14
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Approval
storing), recycling and
hauling
of
hazardous
materials.
Hazardous
materials will be hauled by
certified hazardous waste
haulers if required by
applicable
law.
All
hazardous materials will be
adequately characterized
and
hazardous
waste
loads, if any, will be
manifested following EPA
procedures.
4. Disposal. The disposal of
contaminated soil and
hazardous materials will
comply with applicable
local, State and Federal
laws
and
regulations.
Hazardous
wastes
generated as part of the
project, if any, will be
properly disposed of in
accordance with applicable
law.
Disposal sites will
provide written acceptance
of
the
characterized
material
before
the
material leaves the site.
Significance
of
Before Mitigation:
Implementation
Procedures
Action
Monitoring Schedule
Impact
Mitigation:
Port of Oakland
15
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Approval
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 –
Dewatering, Water Testing,
Storage and Treatment: For
locations requiring dewatering
where
environmental
contamination
could
be
encountered
during
construction, the Port would
ensure that the contractor prearranges for dewatering, water
testing, storage, and treatment,
in compliance with applicable
NPDES
or
pretreatment
permits, depending on the
discharge point and the nature
of
any
contamination
encountered.
Significance
of
Before Mitigation:
Implementation
Procedures
Action
contractor(s) shall ensure
that dewatering, water
testing, and storage are in
compliance with applicable
NPDES or pretreatment
permits, depending on the
discharge point and the
nature of any
contamination
encountered.
proper dewatering, water
testing, storage, and treatment.
Monitoring Schedule
Prior to start of construction.
Verified by:
construction.
Date:
Impact
Mitigation:
4.9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure HYDRO-1 Project sponsor and its
– Water Quality Standards: contractor(s) shall
The project shall comply with implement measures
terms of the Port’s project level described in Mitigation
Stormwater
Pollution Measure HYDRO-1 during
Prevention Program (SWPPP) construction to minimize
for projects under one acre of water quality impacts.
impact. The project shall also
comply
with
the
Spill
Prevention,
Control
and
Countermeasures
Plan
Port of Oakland
adherence to SWPPP.
Prior start of construction.
Verified by:
construction.
Date:
16
June 2013
TABLE B-1
Mitigation Measures
Approval
(SPCCP),
the
Hazardous
Materials Management Plan
(HMMP), and the Industrial
SWPPP.
Significance
of
Before Mitigation:
Implementation
Procedures
Action
Monitoring Schedule
Impact
Mitigation:
Port of Oakland
17
June 2013
APPENDIX C
HISTORICAL WEATHER DATA FROM OAKLAND AIRPORT DURING NOISE
MONITORING
Weather History for Oakland, CA | Weather Underground
Page 1 of 4
Weather History for Oakland, CA
Monday, January 7, 2013
Monday, January 7, 2013
http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/KOAK/2013/1/7/DailyHistory.html?req_city... 6/1/2013
Page 2 of 4
Hourly Weather History & Observations
Time (PST)
Temp.
Windchill
Dew Point
Humidity
Pressure
Visibility
Wind Dir
Wind Speed
Gust Speed
Precip
Events
Conditions
12:53 AM
39.9 °F
37.8 °F
39.9 °F
100%
30.20 in
10.0 mi
NE
3.5 mph
-
N/A
Clear
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Clear
10.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Partly Cloudy
10.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Partly Cloudy
ENE
4.6 mph
-
N/A
Partly Cloudy
METAR KOAK 070853Z 05003KT 10SM CLR 04/04 A3020 RMK AO2 SLP226 T00440044 58001
1:53 AM
39.0 °F
-
39.0 °F
100%
30.20 in
10.0 mi
METAR KOAK 070953Z 00000KT 10SM CLR 04/04 A3020 RMK AO2 SLP227 T00390039
2:37 AM
39.2 °F
-
39.2 °F
100%
30.21 in
SPECI KOAK 071037Z 00000KT 10SM FEW006 04/04 A3021 RMK AO2
2:53 AM
39.0 °F
-
39.0 °F
100%
30.22 in
METAR KOAK 071053Z 00000KT 10SM FEW006 04/04 A3022 RMK AO2 SLP232 T00390039
3:53 AM
37.0 °F
33.3 °F
37.0 °F
100%
30.22 in
10.0 mi
METAR KOAK 071153Z 07004KT 10SM FEW006 03/03 A3022 RMK AO2 SLP232 70002 T00280028 10061 20028 50006
4:00 AM
35.6 °F
32.8 °F
35.6 °F
100%
30.21 in
10.0 mi
East
3.5 mph
-
N/A
Partly Cloudy
10.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Partly Cloudy
10.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Partly Cloudy
SPECI KOAK 071200Z COR 09003KT 10SM FEW007 02/02 A3021 RMK AO2
4:03 AM
37.4 °F
-
37.4 °F
100%
30.21 in
4:53 AM
37.0 °F
-
37.0 °F
100%
30.22 in
Show Hourly Obs Only | Hide full METARS | METAR FAQ | Comma Delimited File
Page 3 of 4
Time (PST)
Temp.
Windchill
Dew Point
Humidity
Pressure
Visibility
Wind Dir
Wind Speed
Gust Speed
Precip
5:53 AM
39.0 °F
36.8 °F
39.0 °F
100%
30.22 in
10.0 mi
East
3.5 mph
-
N/A
Events
Partly Cloudy
Conditions
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Mostly Cloudy
METAR KOAK 071353Z 08003KT 10SM FEW007 04/04 A3022 RMK AO2 SLP233 T00390039 $
6:53 AM
37.9 °F
-
37.9 °F
100%
30.23 in
10.0 mi
METAR KOAK 071453Z 00000KT 10SM FEW007 BKN200 03/03 A3023 RMK AO2 SLP237 T00330033 53005
7:12 AM
39.2 °F
37.0 °F
39.2 °F
100%
30.24 in
0.1 mi
SSE
3.5 mph
-
N/A
Fog
Fog
0.1 mi
ESE
4.6 mph
-
N/A
Fog
Fog
0.5 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Fog
Fog
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Fog
Fog
-
N/A
Overcast
-
N/A
Overcast
-
N/A
Mostly Cloudy
SPECI KOAK 071512Z 15003KT 1/8SM FG VV002 04/04 A3024 RMK AO2
7:36 AM
39.2 °F
35.9 °F
39.2 °F
100%
30.24 in
SPECI KOAK 071536Z 12004KT 1/8SM FG VV001 04/04 A3024 RMK AO2 $
7:51 AM
39.2 °F
-
39.2 °F
100%
30.25 in
SPECI KOAK 071551Z 00000KT 1/2SM FG SCT001 BKN007 OVC085 04/04 A3025 RMK AO2
7:53 AM
39.9 °F
-
39.9 °F
100%
30.26 in
0.5 mi
METAR KOAK 071553Z 00000KT 1/2SM FG SCT001 BKN007 OVC085 04/04 A3026 RMK AO2 SLP245 T00440044
8:03 AM
41.0 °F
39.0 °F
39.2 °F
93%
30.25 in
3.0 mi
East
3.5 mph
SPECI KOAK 071603Z 10003KT 3SM BR FEW001 SCT007 OVC085 05/04 A3025 RMK AO2 VIS SW - W 1/2SM
8:53 AM
42.1 °F
-
42.1 °F
100%
30.26 in
6.0 mi
Calm
Calm
METAR KOAK 071653Z 00000KT 6SM BR FEW003 BKN085 OVC200 06/06 A3026 RMK AO2 SLP245 T00560056 $
9:53 AM
45.0 °F
43.5 °F
45.0 °F
100%
30.28 in
7.0 mi
South
3.5 mph
METAR KOAK 071753Z 18003KT 7SM FEW003 SCT085 BKN200 07/07 A3028 RMK AO2 SLP253 T00720072 10072 20017 53015 $
10:53 AM
48.9 °F
-
46.0 °F
90%
30.29 in
10.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Mostly Cloudy
5.8 mph
-
N/A
Mostly Cloudy
3.5 mph
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
METAR KOAK 071853Z 00000KT 10SM FEW007 BKN200 09/08 A3029 RMK AO2 SLP256 T00940078 $
11:53 AM
48.9 °F
-
46.9 °F
93%
30.25 in
10.0 mi
SSW
METAR KOAK 071953Z 20005KT 10SM FEW007 BKN200 09/08 A3024 RMK AO2 SLP241 T00940083 $
12:53 PM
53.1 °F
-
46.9 °F
80%
30.22 in
10.0 mi
South
METAR KOAK 072053Z 19003KT 10SM FEW065 SCT200 12/08 A3022 RMK AO2 SLP232 T01170083 58020 $
1:53 PM
53.1 °F
-
48.0 °F
83%
30.20 in
10.0 mi
SSW
5.8 mph
-
N/A
Mostly Cloudy
METAR KOAK 072153Z 21005KT 10SM BKN200 12/09 A3020 RMK AO2 SLP225 T01170089 $
2:53 PM
55.4 °F
-
46.4 °F
72%
30.19 in
10.0 mi
South
4.6 mph
-
N/A
Mostly Cloudy
30.19 in
10.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Mostly Cloudy
METAR KOAK 072253Z 19004KT 10SM BKN220 13/08 A3019
3:53 PM
55.0 °F
-
46.0 °F
72%
METAR KOAK 072353Z 00000KT 10SM BKN220 13/08 A3019 RMK AO2 SLP222 T01280078 10139 20078 56010
4:53 PM
54.0 °F
-
48.9 °F
83%
30.19 in
10.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Mostly Cloudy
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Mostly Cloudy
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Mostly Cloudy
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
METAR KOAK 080053Z 00000KT 10SM BKN220 12/09 A3019 RMK AO2 SLP222 T01220094
5:53 PM
53.1 °F
-
50.0 °F
89%
30.19 in
10.0 mi
6:53 PM
52.0 °F
-
48.9 °F
89%
30.18 in
10.0 mi
METAR KOAK 080253Z 00000KT 10SM BKN220 11/09 A3018 RMK AO2 SLP219 T01110094 58003
7:53 PM
51.1 °F
-
48.0 °F
89%
30.19 in
10.0 mi
METAR KOAK 080353Z 00000KT 10SM SCT220 11/09 A3019 RMK AO2 SLP222 T01060089
8:53 PM
48.0 °F
-
46.9 °F
96%
30.20 in
10.0 mi
9:53 PM
48.9 °F
-
48.0 °F
97%
30.19 in
10.0 mi
Time (PST)
Temp.
Windchill
Dew Point
Humidity
Pressure
Visibility
Wind Dir
Page 4 of 4
Wind Speed
Gust Speed
Precip
Events
Conditions
Scattered
Clouds
METAR KOAK 080553Z 00000KT 10SM SCT220 09/09 A3019 RMK AO2 SLP222 T00940089 10128 20083 50004
10:53 PM
48.0 °F
-
48.0 °F
100%
30.19 in
10.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Clear
11:53 PM
46.9 °F
-
45.0 °F
93%
30.20 in
10.0 mi
Flight from San Francisco
united.com
Great Rates are Still Available from United. Book Now
Page 1 of 4
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Page 2 of 4
Flight from San Francisco
united.com
Great Rates are Still Available from United. Book Now
Time (PST)
Temp.
Windchill
Dew Point
Humidity
Pressure
Visibility
Wind Dir
Wind Speed
Gust Speed
Precip
Events
Conditions
12:53 AM
46.0 °F
-
45.0 °F
96%
30.21 in
9.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Clear
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Clear
NNE
3.5 mph
-
N/A
Clear
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Clear
1:53 AM
46.0 °F
-
46.0 °F
100%
30.21 in
10.0 mi
2:53 AM
42.1 °F
40.2 °F
41.0 °F
96%
30.21 in
9.0 mi
3:53 AM
44.1 °F
-
44.1 °F
100%
30.20 in
10.0 mi
METAR KOAK 081153Z 00000KT 10SM CLR 07/07 A3021 RMK AO2 SLP227 T00670067 10094 20056 58002
4:00 AM
42.8 °F
-
42.8 °F
100%
30.21 in
1.2 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Clear
30.21 in
10.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Clear
30.20 in
8.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Clear
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Partly Cloudy
SPECI KOAK 081200Z 00000KT 1 1/4SM BR CLR 06/06 A3021 RMK AO2
4:11 AM
42.8 °F
-
42.8 °F
100%
SPECI KOAK 081211Z 00000KT 10SM CLR 06/06 A3021 RMK AO2
4:53 AM
45.0 °F
-
44.1 °F
97%
5:43 AM
42.8 °F
-
41.0 °F
93%
30.21 in
8.0 mi
Page 3 of 4
Time (PST)
Temp.
Windchill
Dew Point
Humidity
Pressure
Visibility
Wind Dir
Wind Speed
Gust Speed
Precip
5:53 AM
42.8 °F
-
42.8 °F
100%
30.21 in
8.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Events
Partly Cloudy
Conditions
30.21 in
6.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
-
N/A
3.5 mph
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
5.8 mph
-
N/A
Partly Cloudy
METAR KOAK 081353Z 00000KT 8SM FEW003 06/06 A3021
6:53 AM
45.0 °F
-
45.0 °F
100%
METAR KOAK 081453Z 00000KT 6SM BR FEW003 SCT250 07/07 A3021 RMK AO2 SLP229 T00720072 53002
7:53 AM
43.0 °F
-
43.0 °F
100%
30.23 in
6.0 mi
Calm
Calm
Fog
Shallow Fog
METAR KOAK 081553Z 00000KT 6SM MIFG BR FEW003 SCT250 06/06 A3023 RMK AO2 SLP236 T00610061
8:53 AM
48.0 °F
-
48.0 °F
100%
30.25 in
6.0 mi
SSE
METAR KOAK 081653Z 15003KT 6SM BR FEW003 SCT250 09/09 A3025 RMK AO2 SLP242 T00890089
9:53 AM
50.0 °F
-
46.9 °F
89%
30.26 in
10.0 mi
South
METAR KOAK 081753Z 18005KT 10SM FEW250 10/08 A3026 RMK AO2 SLP247 T01000083 10100 20050 51018
10:53 AM
52.0 °F
-
48.9 °F
89%
30.24 in
7.0 mi
West
4.6 mph
-
N/A
Clear
West
6.9 mph
-
N/A
Clear
WNW
9.2 mph
-
N/A
Partly Cloudy
West
5.8 mph
-
N/A
Partly Cloudy
West
4.6 mph
-
N/A
Haze
West
5.8 mph
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
Calm
-
N/A
Mostly Cloudy
Calm
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
Calm
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
NW
3.5 mph
-
N/A
Partly Cloudy
11:53 AM
54.0 °F
-
50.0 °F
86%
30.21 in
7.0 mi
12:53 PM
57.0 °F
-
46.9 °F
69%
30.19 in
10.0 mi
METAR KOAK 082053Z 30008KT 10SM FEW250 14/08 A3018 RMK AO2 SLP221 T01390083 58026
1:53 PM
57.0 °F
-
48.9 °F
74%
30.17 in
7.0 mi
2:53 PM
55.9 °F
-
48.0 °F
75%
30.17 in
6.0 mi
METAR KOAK 082253Z 26004KT 6SM HZ FEW250 13/09 A3017 RMK AO2 SLP216 T01330089
3:53 PM
55.9 °F
-
48.9 °F
77%
30.17 in
10.0 mi
4:53 PM
54.0 °F
-
50.0 °F
86%
30.15 in
10.0 mi
Calm
METAR KOAK 090053Z 00000KT 10SM FEW150 BKN200 12/10 A3015 RMK AO2 SLP210 T01220100
5:53 PM
53.1 °F
-
48.9 °F
86%
30.16 in
10.0 mi
Calm
METAR KOAK 090153Z 00000KT 10SM FEW150 SCT200 12/09 A3016 RMK AO2 SLP211 T01170094
6:53 PM
50.0 °F
-
46.0 °F
86%
30.16 in
10.0 mi
Calm
METAR KOAK 090253Z 00000KT 10SM SCT200 10/08 A3016 RMK AO2 SLP212 T01000078 55002
7:53 PM
48.9 °F
-
46.9 °F
93%
30.18 in
10.0 mi
8:53 PM
50.0 °F
-
48.2 °F
94%
30.16 in
10.0 mi
NNW
3.5 mph
-
N/A
Clear
30.17 in
10.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Partly Cloudy
METAR KOAK 090453Z 33003KT 10SM CLR 10/09 A3016
9:53 PM
48.0 °F
-
46.9 °F
96%
METAR KOAK 090553Z 00000KT 10SM FEW200 09/08 A3017 RMK AO2 SLP214 T00890083 10139 20083 51002
10:53 PM
48.9 °F
-
48.0 °F
97%
30.17 in
10.0 mi
NNW
3.5 mph
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
11:53 PM
48.0 °F
-
46.9 °F
96%
30.17 in
10.0 mi
METAR KOAK 090753Z 00000KT 10SM SCT200 09/08 A3017 RMK AO2 SLP215 T00890083 401500050
Page 1 of 4
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Page 2 of 4
Vuelo desde San Francisco
United.com
Vuele desde San Francisco. Obtenga Nuestro Precio Más Bajo Garantizado
Time (PST)
Temp.
Windchill
Dew Point
Humidity
Pressure
Visibility
Wind Dir
Wind Speed
Gust Speed
Precip
Events
Conditions
12:53 AM
46.0 °F
-
45.0 °F
96%
30.16 in
8.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Partly
Cloudy
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Mostly
Cloudy
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Partly
Cloudy
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
METAR KOAK 090853Z 00000KT 8SM FEW200 08/07 A3016 RMK AO2 SLP212 T00780072 58002
1:53 AM
45.0 °F
-
44.1 °F
97%
30.16 in
8.0 mi
2:53 AM
45.0 °F
-
44.1 °F
97%
30.15 in
10.0 mi
3:53 AM
44.1 °F
-
43.0 °F
96%
30.14 in
7.0 mi
4:53 AM
42.8 °F
-
42.8 °F
100%
30.14 in
7.0 mi
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
30.12 in
7.0 mi
East
3.5 mph
-
N/A
Clear
Calm
Calm
-
N/A
Mostly
Cloudy
METAR KOAK 091253Z 00000KT 7SM SCT200 06/06 A3014
5:53 AM
43.0 °F
41.3 °F
43.0 °F
100%
6:53 AM
45.0 °F
-
45.0 °F
100%
30.13 in
6.0 mi
Time (PST)
Temp.
Windchill
Dew Point
Humidity
Pressure
Visibility
Wind Dir
Page 3 of 4
Wind Speed
Gust Speed
Precip
Events
Conditions
4.6 mph
-
N/A
Mostly
Cloudy
Calm
-
N/A
Overcast
METAR KOAK 091453Z 00000KT 6SM BR BKN200 07/07 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP201 T00720072 55005
7:53 AM
42.1 °F
39.2 °F
42.1 °F
100%
30.13 in
2.5 mi
NE
METAR KOAK 091553Z 04004KT 2 1/2SM BR BKN009 06/06 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP203 T00560056
8:53 AM
46.9 °F
-
46.9 °F
100%
30.13 in
2.5 mi
Calm
METAR KOAK 091653Z 00000KT 2 1/2SM BR OVC011 08/08 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP202 T00830083
9:20 AM
48.2 °F
-
46.4 °F
93%
30.14 in
3.0 mi
SE
4.6 mph
-
N/A
Overcast
3.0 mi
SE
4.6 mph
-
N/A
Overcast
4.0 mi
SE
3.5 mph
-
N/A
Overcast
SPECI KOAK 091720Z 14004KT 3SM BR OVC011 09/08 A3014 RMK AO2
9:50 AM
50.0 °F
-
48.2 °F
94%
30.13 in
9:53 AM
50.0 °F
-
48.0 °F
93%
30.13 in
METAR KOAK 091753Z 14003KT 4SM BR OVC009 10/09 A3013 RMK AO2 SLP202 T01000089 10100 20056 55000
10:38 AM
51.8 °F
-
48.2 °F
88%
30.12 in
4.0 mi
SSE
4.6 mph
-
N/A
Overcast
4.0 mi
South
5.8 mph
-
N/A
Overcast
4.0 mi
SSE
4.6 mph
-
N/A
Overcast
SPECI KOAK 091838Z 15004KT 4SM BR SCT009 OVC016 11/09 A3012 RMK AO2
10:49 AM
51.8 °F
-
48.2 °F
88%
30.12 in
SPECI KOAK 091849Z 17005KT 4SM BR BKN012 OVC016 11/09 A3012 RMK AO2
10:53 AM
51.1 °F
-
48.0 °F
89%
30.11 in
METAR KOAK 091853Z 16004KT 4SM BR BKN012 OVC016 11/09 A3011 RMK AO2 SLP196 T01060089
11:18 AM
51.8 °F
-
48.2 °F
88%
30.10 in
5.0 mi
SSE
8.1 mph
-
N/A
Overcast
5.0 mi
SSE
6.9 mph
-
N/A
Overcast
4.6 mph
-
N/A
Overcast
SPECI KOAK 091918Z 16007KT 5SM BR SCT010 OVC015 11/09 A3010 RMK AO2
11:53 AM
51.1 °F
-
48.0 °F
89%
30.09 in
METAR KOAK 091953Z 15006KT 5SM BR SCT010 OVC015 11/09 A3009 RMK AO2 SLP187 T01060089
12:53 PM
52.0 °F
-
50.0 °F
93%
30.06 in
3.0 mi
SSE
METAR KOAK 092053Z 15004KT 3SM BR BKN017 OVC022 11/10 A3006 RMK AO2 SLP178 T01110100 58020 $
1:11 PM
51.8 °F
-
50.0 °F
94%
30.05 in
2.0 mi
SSE
8.1 mph
-
N/A
Overcast
SSE
6.9 mph
-
N/A
Overcast
6.0 mi
SSW
6.9 mph
-
N/A
Overcast
2.0 mi
SW
9.2 mph
-
N/A
Overcast
1.0 mi
SW
9.2 mph
-
0.00 in
Rain
Light Rain
-
0.00 in
Rain
Light Rain
-
0.00 in
Rain
Light Rain
-
0.00 in
Mostly
Cloudy
31.1 mph
0.00 in
Mostly
Cloudy
SPECI KOAK 092111Z 16007KT 2SM BR BKN017 OVC022 11/10 A3005 RMK AO2 $
1:53 PM
53.1 °F
-
50.0 °F
89%
30.04 in
3.0 mi
METAR KOAK 092153Z 16006KT 3SM BR OVC017 12/10 A3004 RMK AO2 SLP173 T01170100
2:39 PM
53.6 °F
-
51.8 °F
94%
30.03 in
2:51 PM
53.6 °F
-
51.8 °F
94%
30.03 in
SPECI KOAK 092251Z 22008KT 2SM BR FEW008 OVC013 12/11 A3003 RMK AO2
2:53 PM
54.0 °F
-
53.1 °F
97%
30.03 in
METAR KOAK 092253Z 22008KT 1SM -RA BR FEW008 OVC013 12/12 A3002 RMK AO2 RAB53 SLP167 P0000 T01220117
3:02 PM
53.6 °F
-
53.6 °F
100%
30.03 in
2.0 mi
West
16.1 mph
SPECI KOAK 092302Z 27014KT 2SM -RA BR BKN006 OVC013 12/12 A3003 RMK AO2 CIG 004V011 VIS SE 1 1/2 P0000
3:11 PM
53.6 °F
-
53.6 °F
100%
30.03 in
10.0 mi
West
15.0 mph
SPECI KOAK 092311Z 27013KT 10SM -RA BKN008 OVC015 12/12 A3003 RMK AO2 WSHFT 2257 VIS NE-E 2 P0000
3:19 PM
53.6 °F
-
53.6 °F
100%
30.03 in
10.0 mi
West
17.3 mph
SPECI KOAK 092319Z COR 28015KT 10SM FEW007 BKN017 BKN026 12/12 A3003 RMK AO2 WSHFT 2257 RAE13 P0000
3:53 PM
53.1 °F
-
51.1 °F
93%
30.02 in
10.0 mi
WNW
20.7 mph
Time (PST)
Temp.
Windchill
Dew Point
Humidity
Pressure
Visibility
Wind Dir
Page 4 of 4
Wind Speed
Gust Speed
Precip
Events
Conditions
METAR KOAK 092353Z 29018G27KT 10SM FEW008 BKN017 BKN021 12/11 A3002 RMK AO2 PK WND 29027/2345 WSHFT 2257 RAE13 SLP165 VCSH P0000
60000 T01170106 10122 20100 56013
4:21 PM
53.6 °F
-
46.4 °F
77%
30.03 in
10.0 mi
-
0.00 in
Mostly
Cloudy
-
0.00 in
Mostly
Cloudy
-
N/A
Mostly
Cloudy
-
N/A
Mostly
Cloudy
13.8 mph
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
WNW
13.8 mph
-
N/A
Partly
Cloudy
WNW
15.0 mph
23.0 mph
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
WNW
20.7 mph
SPECI KOAK 100021Z 29018KT 10SM FEW015 SCT027 BKN041 12/08 A3003 RMK AO2 RAB2356E2358 VCSH P0000
4:53 PM
52.0 °F
-
45.0 °F
77%
30.02 in
10.0 mi
WNW
20.7 mph
METAR KOAK 100053Z 29018KT 10SM FEW015 SCT026 BKN047 11/07 A3002 RMK AO2 RAB2356E2358 SLP166 P0000 T01110072
5:53 PM
52.0 °F
-
42.1 °F
69%
30.04 in
10.0 mi
West
15.0 mph
METAR KOAK 100153Z 28013KT 10SM FEW018 BKN065 BKN070 11/06 A3004 RMK AO2 SLP170 T01110056
6:53 PM
51.1 °F
-
43.0 °F
74%
30.05 in
10.0 mi
WNW
11.5 mph
METAR KOAK 100253Z 29010KT 10SM FEW025 BKN080 11/06 A3005 RMK AO2 SLP175 60000 T01060061 53010
7:53 PM
50.0 °F
-
41.0 °F
71%
30.06 in
10.0 mi
West
8:53 PM
50.0 °F
-
39.0 °F
66%
30.07 in
10.0 mi
9:53 PM
50.0 °F
-
37.9 °F
63%
30.09 in
10.0 mi
METAR KOAK 100553Z 29013G20KT 10SM FEW026 SCT150 10/03 A3008 RMK AO2 SLP187 60000 T01000033 10117 20094 53012
10:53 PM
48.9 °F
-
39.0 °F
69%
30.10 in
10.0 mi
WNW
13.8 mph
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
13.8 mph
-
N/A
Scattered
Clouds
11:53 PM
48.0 °F
-
39.0 °F
71%
30.10 in
10.0 mi
WNW
METAR KOAK 100753Z 29012KT 10SM FEW020 SCT200 09/04 A3010 RMK AO2 SLP193 T00890039 401220056

Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Rolls

Transcription

Similar documents

Indian Hills 9th Annual Car Show

Pantallas Acusticas Pared Verde (EN)

Bill Dwyer Event 10 27 Ginopolis Letter

October/November 2006 Oakland Voter

SQUID Sensors

quietzone® noise control solutions

Lâm Thị Diễm Khoa Điện tử - Viễn thông Trường Đại Học Khoa Học

analysis of the background noise at the auxiliary seismic

• Transmit/receive range of up to two miles • Hands

Distortion, 0.01 Full Power Input - Electro