DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Transcription

1 DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROPOSED PROJECTS ON LANDMARK AVIATION LEASEHOLDS OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, NORTH FIELD SEPTEMBER 2014 Prepared for: Landmark Aviation 8433 Earhart Road, North Field, Oakland International Airport, Oakland, CA Lead Agency: Port of Oakland 530 Water Street Oakland, CA Prepared by: 155 Grand Avenue, Suite 800 Oakland, California 94612

2

3 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act PORT PROJECT TRACKING NUMBER: PROJECT PROPONENT: Landmark Aviation 8433 Earhart Road North Field, Oakland International Airport Oakland, CA LEAD AGENCY: PROJECT TITLE: PROJECT LOCATION: Port of Oakland (Port) Attn: Douglas Herman/ Water Street Oakland, California North Field (34.5 acres), Oakland International Airport, Oakland, California BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Landmark Aviation (Landmark), a tenant at Oakland International Airport (OIA), proposes to conduct an apron repair project at its tenant holdings near Hangar 5 and its Fixed Base Operator (FBO) Terminal within the Air Operations Area (AOA) of the North Field. Landmark also proposes to install a street light, and electrical conduit to provide power and security connections to Gate 17A, north of Hangar 9, to allow remote operation from Hangar 9. In addition, Landmark may construct other improvements on its leaseholds that disturb contaminated soil or groundwater. MITIGATION MEASURES: The project includes preparation of a Soil Management Plan to ensure proper handling of potentially contaminated material, and a Health and Safety Plan for worker safety. Landmark will submit a Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program (MMRP) annually to the Port during the course of its lease.. FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENT: On the basis of the Initial Study of possible significant effects of the Proposed Project, it has been determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment. REASONS TO SUPPORT THE FINDING: The Proposed Project is consistent with the Port s mission to provide land and facilities to further aviation and commerce, and would support economic development in an environmentally appropriate manner. The project would have less than significant effects on the environment. Best management practices and the MMRP would be implemented to prevent and minimize potential impacts to air and water quality and other potential construction impacts. Other measures previously adopted for Portend tenant projects continue to apply to demolition and construction activities, and permit approvals would be obtained from the Port and City of Oakland, as necessary. Furthermore, Landmark will notify the Federal Aviation Administration of any proposed construction or alteration that may obstruct or create a hazard to air navigation. iii

4 DECLARATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT: This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the Port of Oakland's Guidelines for the implementation of CEQA. By: Diane Heinze Environmental Assessment Supervisor Date: Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2014 iv

5 INITIAL STUDY GENERAL INFORMATION A. PROJECT NAME: Proposed Projects on Landmark Aviation s Leaseholds B. PROJECT PURPOSE: Pavement repairs and other minor improvements for airside and landside operations. C. PROJECT SPONSOR: Landmark Aviation CONTACT: Josh Lewis (510) D. ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: A portion of (Alameda County) E. EXISTING LAND USE: Industrial/Transportation PROPOSED LAND USE: Industrial/Transportation F. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Proposed Project, in the near term, consists of 1) replacement of ramp pavement at three rectangular areas (identified as Areas 1, 2 and 3) located adjacent to the Landmark FBO Terminal and Hangar 5; and 2) Hangar 9 Gate Project to install a street light, and to provide power and security connections to Gate 17A, north of Hangar 9, to allow remote operation at Hangar 9. An electrical conduit will be installed, and routed underground at the driveway to the DHL parking lot for approximately 40 feet, and underground at the Gate 17A entrance for approximately 20 feet. The Proposed Project also includes other potential minor improvements on Landmark s leased premises that impact contaminated soil or groundwater during the course of the lease. G. LOCATION: City of Oakland, County of Alameda, California. H. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING: See Section 1 of this Initial Study. I. PERMITTING AGENCY: Port of Oakland Board of Port Commissioners J. DATE OF INITIAL STUDY: September 25, 2014 circulated for 30 day review. v

6

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS INITIAL STUDY...v TABLE OF CONTENTS... vii SECTION 1: Project Description Overview Geographic Setting Existing Conditions Proposed Project Site Near Term Projects Hangar 5 Apron Repair Hangar 9 Gate Materials Management and Soil Management Plan Potential Long Term Projects SECTION 2: Environmental Factors/ Determination Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: Determination SECTION 3: Environmental Review Checklist Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance SECTION 4: References SECTION 5: List of Figures and Tables SECTION 6: Acronyms and Abbreviations SECTION 7: List of Preparers Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2014 vii

8

9 SECTION 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1.1 Overview Landmark Aviation ( Landmark ) proposes to implement airport apron 1 demolition and replacement, utility (lighting, water, and sanitary sewer) upgrades, and other pavement repairs at its leased premises at the North Field, Oakland International Airport ( OIA ). The proposed apron demolition and replacement, utility upgrades, and other pavement repairs may disturb contaminated soil and/or groundwater. Because these projects will alter Port of Oakland ( Port ) property, Landmark will be required to obtain a building permit from the Port. The building permit application triggers analysis of the project(s) under the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ). Typically, projects that are relatively minor would be categorically exempt under CEQA, and no further environmental review would be required. However, many of the sites within the Landmark leased premises have undergone regulatory agency oversight due to releases of contamination from previous operations on the North Field. When a site is overseen by a regulatory agency such as the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), or Alameda County Health Care Services Agency they are placed on a State-wide list referred to as the Cortese List (compiled pursuant to Section of the Government Code). If subsurface contamination may be disturbed, CEQA does not allow sites that are on the Cortese List to be categorically exempt, and an Initial Study must be prepared (CEQA Guidelines Section (e)). 1.2 Geographic Setting The Proposed Project is located entirely within OIA property, which is situated in the southwestern portion of the City of Oakland in Alameda County (Figures 1 and 2). The OIA is subdivided into the South Field and North Field. The South Field contains the OIA commercial passenger facilities, the commercial runway (Runway 12/30) and air cargo facilities operated by Federal Express and UPS. The North Field contains three runways (Runways 10L/28R, 10R/28L, and 15/33), general aviation facilities, general aviation maintenance and fueling, aircraft hangars and tie-downs, and fixed-base operators ( FBOs ) 2 ; Landmark and Kaiser Air Existing Conditions Figure 3 depicts the leaseholds of Landmark where future improvements may occur. Landmark currently leases several hangars, aircraft parking and automobile parking and equipment storage areas as well as the Landmark FBO Terminal ( FBO Terminal ) at 8433 Earhart Road. Landmark provides its corporate clients with services such as aircraft maintenance, storage, fueling and aviation operations and support. The closest neighbor to Landmark is Kaiser Air, which occupies Hangar 4 to the east of Hangar 5. To the west of 1 The airport apron is the area of an airport where aircraft are parked, unloaded or loaded, refueled, or boarded. 2 A fixed-base operator (FBO) is a commercial business granted the right by an airport to operate on the airport and provide aeronautical services such as fueling, hangaring, tie-down and parking, aircraft rental, aircraft maintenance, flight instruction, etc. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September

10 BERKELEY SAUSALITO OAKLAND SAN FRANCISCO DALY CITY ALAMEDA PROJECT LOCATION Oakland International Airport SAN LEANDRO HAYWARD SAN MATEO FREMONT REDWOOD CITY PALO ALTO SAN JOSE Aerial from Google Earth Pro Additional information added by CH2M HILL. FIGURE 1 Regional Location ES\_ POAK_OakAirport_LandmarkProjectMaps_v2.indd_092214_lho

11 ALAMEDA San Leandro Bay OAKLAND 880 ALAMEDA EARHART RD RD DOOLITTLE DR Project Locations NORTH FIELD HARBOR BAY PKWY RON COWAN PKWY 61 MMS SITE SOUTH FIELD OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AIR CARGO CARGO WAY WAY HEGENB ERGER RD San Francisco Bay Aerial from Google Earth Pro Additional information added by CH2M HILL. FIGURE 2 Vicinity Map ES\_ POAK_OakAirport_LandmarkProjectMaps.indd_092314_lho

12 EARHART RD Area Hangar 5 3 Hangar 4 Area 2 Area 1 FBO Terminal Aerial from Google Earth Pro Additional information added by CH2M HILL. FIGURE 3 Landmark Aviation Near Term Project Location Hanger 5 ES\_ POAK_OakAirport_LandmarkProjectMaps_v2.indd_092214_lho

13 Hangar 9 Gate Project EARHART RD RD San Leandro Bay Hangar 9 LANGLEY ST Hangar 8 Hangar 7 Hangar 6 Hangar 5 61 PARDEE DR DR SWAN WAY Area 1 Landmark FBO Terminal RUNWAY 10L/28R Area 2 Hangar 4 Hangar 3 Area 3 DOOLITTLE DR Landmark Fuel Farm RUNWAY 10R/28L NORTH FIELD Hangar 2 Hangar 1 Building L-142 Building L-130 Aerial from Google Earth Pro Additional information added by CH2M HILL. Legend Apron FIGURE 4 Landmark Aviation Near Term Improvements at Hangar 5 & 9 ES\_ POAK_OakAirport_LandmarkProjectMaps_v2.indd_092214_lho

14 Landmark are sixty (60) individual T-Hangars currently leased by owners of small propeller aircraft, and to the north is the Port of Oakland s Aviation Facilities Complex Proposed Project Site The development of the North Field (formerly Oakland Municipal Airport) began when the Board of Port Commissioners purchased the first parcel of land on Bay Farm Island, consisting of 600 acres in An additional 225 acres were later purchased to gain control of water frontage on the south shore line of San Leandro Bay for the development of a sea plane facility. Thus, the Proposed Project is on filled land that was reclaimed from the Bay when the North Field was diked and constructed prior to World War II. Subsurface investigations on the North Field have found non-native fill and Bay Mud 3 at approximately 1 to 5 feet below ground surface. Previous activities within the Landmark leased premises included aircraft and vehicle fueling from underground and above ground fuel storage tanks, aircraft and vehicle maintenance, hazardous materials storage, use, and disposal, and aircraft operations. 1.3 Near Term Projects Landmark has applied to the Port of Oakland for development permits for two projects as described below Hangar 5 Apron Repair The proposed near term project consists of demolition and replacement of apron pavement at three rectangular areas (identified as Areas 1, 2 and 3) located adjacent to the FBO Terminal and Hangar 5 as depicted in (see Figures 3 and 4). The total area of these three parcels will be less than one acre and measures approximately 40,000 square feet. Area 1 is located adjacent to the FBO Terminal. This area is used as an airport apron and taxiway, and requires demolition and pavement replacement due to differential settlement, spalling 4 and alligator cracking of the asphalt. Area 2, located adjacent to Hangar 5, currently is used for automobile parking and equipment storage, and also has differential settlement, spalling and cracking. Area 3, at the entrance of Hangar 5 on the east side of the building, is used as an airport apron and allows access to and from the hangar. The asphalt will be replaced with concrete to address differential settlement. The reconstructed aircraft taxiway pavements in Areas 1 and 3 will be designed to accommodate corporate and general aviation aircraft and equipment and will have a 20-year design life. The parking pavement in Area 2 will also be designed for a 20-year service life assuming 2 cars per-day per parking space. The Proposed Project will not involve the construction of new buildings, hangars or other structures, and will not increase the aircraft or vehicle parking capacity of Landmark. Landmark s operations, including its FBO Terminal and hangars, will remain functional throughout the apron demolition and replacement. Some fencing and aircraft detours will be in place temporarily during construction. 3 Bay Mud consists of thick deposits of soft, unconsolidated silty clay, which is saturated with water; these soil layers are situated at the bottom of certain estuaries, which are normally in temperate regions that have experienced cyclical glacial cycles 4 Spalling is characterized as chipping or splitting of the asphalt surface creating small pebbles and rocks. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September

15 Since the Proposed Project consists of only demolition and replacement of the existing apron, taxi and parking areas, and no increase in the capacity of Landmark s operations, the project will not require a revision or update to the OIA Airport Layout Plan (ALP) or extensive environmental analysis. Pavement replacement will improve safety of aircraft taxiing on the apron as well as the entrance to Hangar 5. Upon completion, the repairs will also match the elevation and pavement quality of adjacent concrete apron areas that have been reconstructed within the last 5-10 years. For all three parcels, the existing asphalt will be removed and replaced with 1 foot of aggregate base and 16 of Portland cement 5 (concrete). Concrete has superior performance with heavy aircraft weights and has a longer life compared to traditional asphalt pavement. No utilities will be removed or replaced by this pavement repair project. All storm drain inlets and electrical boxes will be adjusted to match the grade of the new pavement. No pile driving is necessary for this project. Landmark will install temporary security fencing around Areas 1, 2 and 3. The staging of equipment, materials and construction vehicles will be located within the security fence area or Air Operations Area (AOA). Construction equipment will likely include excavators, backhoes and heavy-duty trucks bringing in construction materials, and trucks hauling demolition and excavated materials away from the site. The project is expected to be constructed within days and is estimated to cost $500,000 to $1 million. It is anticipated that up to 20 construction workers will be employed during the construction phase Hangar 9 Gate The proposed near term project for Landmark s tenant at Hangar 9 is to provide power and security connections to Gate 17A, north of Hangar 9 to allow remote operation of the gate at Hangar 9. Landmark also proposes to install a street light at Gate 17A. The gate provides access to the aircraft apron from Earhart Road. The work would include a power connection to gate 17A from Hangar 9 involving approximately 200 feet of electrical conduit, and approximately 450 feet of electrical conduit to the junction box at Gate F adjacent to Building L-812. While most of the conduit would be placed above ground along the fence approximately 40 feet of conduit would be under the driveway at Gate F, and 20 feet of conduit would be under the driveway, at Gate 17A (Figure 4). 1.4 Materials Management and Soil Management Plan The Port operates a Materials Management Site (MMS) on the South Field of the OIA (Figure 2). The Materials Management Program (MMP) was initiated in August 2004, and allows for the transport of clean concrete and asphalt to the MMS where it is stockpiled and crushed to make aggregate base that is reused on Port construction projects (Port of Oakland, 2005). The Port contracts with outside companies to provide on-call crushing services and to manage stockpiles at the MMS. In February 2010, the RWQCB approved a Port-wide Soil Management Protocol. The Soil Management Protocol allows for soil that is non-hazardous, 5 Design consultant, Transystems, overall site plans dated May 1 and 16, 2013 (Port of Oakland, 2013b). Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration September

16 and passes commercial Environmental Screening Levels (cesls) 6 to be transported and stockpiled at the MMS and reused at the OIA. The old pavement consisting of approximately 2,000 cubic-yards of asphalt will be demolished and transported to the MMS, about 1 mile from the project location. Approximately 2-3 feet of soil or about 4,500 cubic yards will be excavated and replaced with aggregate base and new concrete. Based on in-situ testing (Port of Oakland, 2014b; Madison, 2012), the soil does not exceed hazardous materials thresholds but does exceed the petroleum hydrocarbon cesls in the fill of Area 1 and in the fill and Bay Mud at Area 2. All soil in Area 3 passed the cesls. The fill soil in Area 1, and fill soil and Bay Mud in Area 2 will be transported off of the OIA, and disposed at an appropriately permitted landfill. The Port will be responsible for the excavation, transport, and disposal of soil from the project site. A Soil Management Plan ( SMP ) will be developed by Landmark and will address soil removal activities including Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the excavation, loading, and handling of the soil. The SMP will be updated and followed for any future Landmark demolition and reconstruction of aprons and taxiways where the potential for excavation and disturbance of soil is likely. Thus, future apron, taxiway and parking area, utility repairs and other minor improvements are included in this project description for purposes of this environmental analysis. 1.5 Potential Long Term Projects In addition to the near term projects described above, Landmark may construct other minor improvements on its leased premises that encounter subsurface contamination. Table 1 provides a list of Landmark s leased premises that may require apron, taxiway or vehicle parking pavement repairs, utility upgrades or other improvements during the course of the 27 to 47 year lease (depending on whether Landmark exercises various lease option terms). These improvements may require testing, excavation, loading, and proper handling and disposal of contaminated subsurface material. Landmark s leased premises and regulated sites are indicated on Figure 5. Table 1. Potential Projects on Landmark Aviation Leaseholds Building Type of Pavement Square Feet Building L-130 Apron 93,316 Building L-142 Apron 35,600 Paved Parking 7,494 Building L-150 Apron 67,900 Paved Parking 8,743 Building L-156 Storage 320 Building L-210 (Hangar 2 East) Apron 39,926 Building L-310 (Hangar 3 East) Apron 47,336 Building L-610 Apron 142,000 Building L-710, Bay C Apron 32,980 Vehicle Parking 2,100 6 cesls provide conservative screening levels for over 100 chemicals commonly found at commercial sites with contaminated soil and groundwater. They are intended to help expedite the identification and evaluation of potential environmental concerns at contaminated sites. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September

17 Table 1. Potential Projects on Landmark Aviation Leaseholds Building Type of Pavement Square Feet Building L-810, Bay A Apron 8,150 Building L-810, Bay B Apron 100 Building L-820 Apron West 22,500 Building L-820 Apron East 22,500 Building L-510/518/550 Apron 524,576 Vehicle Parking 84,033 Light Poles NA NA Utilities NA 10,000 Other Minor Improvements NA NA Totals Apron 1,036,884 Vehicle Parking/Storage 102,690 Light Poles/Utilities/Other NA Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration September

18

19 Hangar 9 EARHART RD Portion of Former Naval Auxiliary Air Station San Leandro Bay Hangar 8 LANGLEY ST Hangar 7 61 T-Hangars Individually Leased to General Aviation Pilots DOOLITTLE DR Hangar 6 Hangar 5 Landmark FBO Terminal RUNWAY 10L/28R Hangar 4 Kaiser Air Leased Premises SWAN WAY NORTH FIELD Hangar 3 Hangar 2 PARDEE DR DR Hangar 1 RUNWAY 10R/28L Building L-142 Building L-130 HEGENBERGER RD Landmark Fuel Farm Aerial from Google Earth Pro Additional information added by CH2M HILL. Legend Apron Associated with Landmark s Leased Premises Sites on the Cortese List FIGURE 5 Landmark Aviation Potential Long Term Project Locations ES\_ POAK_OakAirport_LandmarkProjectMaps_v2.indd_092314_lho

20

21 SECTION 2: ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS/ DETERMINATION 2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a Potentially or is Potentially Unless Mitigated, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards/Hazardous Materials Hydrology and Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation and Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance 2.2 Determination On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant impact or potentially significant unless mitigated impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Report (EIR) or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature: Date: Diane Heinze Environmental Assessment Supervisor Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September

22

23 SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST 3.1 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 with Mitigation Incorporation No Discussion of s: a-d) No The Proposed Project would have no significant impacts on scenic vistas or resources, or scenic highways in the project area. The project sites are located entirely within the OIA, which is an industrial and transportation land use. The Proposed Project is not expected to affect aesthetics or visual resources because it would not involve any physical changes to the existing landscape. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September

24 3.2 Agricultural Resources In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation Incorporation No a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion of s: a-c) No No land in the proposed project area on OIA is zoned or designated agricultural. No impacts to farmlands are expected to result from the implementation of this action. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September

25 3.3 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 substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially with Mitigation Incorporation No Discussion of s: a-c, e) No The Proposed Project consists of replacement of existing pavement, replacement of utilities or light fixtures or other minor improvements that may encounter subsurface contamination. The Proposed Project would not result in any new stationary sources or new mobile (transportation-related) sources of pollution in the long term. Construction of each project will be short-term (less than 60 days) and will not conflict with Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Air Quality Plan for the Bay Area or violate any air quality standards. The project sites are not located near or adjacent to any sensitive receptors (the nearest residential neighborhood to North Field is more than a mile away). The construction is not anticipated to result in objectionable odors that would affect nearby employees or people traveling to or from North Field. Since the project will not cause any change or increase in airport operations or employment levels, no violation of air quality standards is anticipated. The excavation of soil with petroleum hydrocarbons would not be anticipated to violate any air quality standards, create objectionable odors, or otherwise have an impact on air quality as the soil will be managed in accordance with a SMP. Provisions in the SMP would include measures such as covering soil that emits petroleum odors beyond the work area, limiting the dimensions of the excavation area until odors dissipate and clean backfill is placed, and Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration September

26 limiting excavation work during unfavorable weather conditions (high winds that blow odors beyond the work area or high temperatures that increase transfer of petroleum hydrocarbons from soil to air). d) Less than significant impact The Proposed Project will result in the use of construction equipment and related soil disturbance activities during excavation, demolition, grading and paving phases of the project. In addition, trucks and other equipment will be used to haul soil to the MMS or an offsite landfill as well as bring new materials to the construction site. These activities would result in emissions of fine particulate matter (PM10) and other pollutants. BAAQMD does not require quantification of construction emissions. Rather, it requires implementation of effective and feasible control measures to reduce PM emissions (BAAQMD, 2012). Since the project site is less than an acre, Basic Control Measures will be implemented for all construction activities which will reduce emissions to a less than significant level. Basic Control Measures include the following: 1) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily to control dust 2) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard 3) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites and sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Since construction and haul routes will occur within existing paved areas, control measures for unpaved roads or parking lots will not be required. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September

27 3.4 Biological Resources Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US 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 with Mitigation Incorporation No Discussion of s: a-f) No The Proposed Project is situated in an industrial area that does not contain any biological resources since the construction sites are currently paved and devoid of vegetation. Thus, no impacts to biological resources are anticipated to occur as a result of the Proposed Project. Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration September

28 3.5 Cultural Resources Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ' ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ' ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially with Mitigation Incorporation No Discussion of s: a-d) No The Proposed Project is located on the North Field of OIA, a portion of which is designated as an Oakland Landmark by the City of Oakland by Ordinance 9872 (City of Oakland, 1980). Furthermore, in 1997, the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey (OCHS, 1997) identified a portion of the North Field as a potential historic district and an Area of Primary Importance a distinction based on the North Field s past association with World War II and early civilian and military aviation historical events. (Additionally, the survey found that the former hotel, L-130, a building outside Landmark s leasehold at 9465 Earhart Road, contributes to the historic district and is eligible for listing on its own.) Thus, the operation of North Field and the use of existing structures and infrastructure for general aviation purposes are not inconsistent with the City s landmark designation and its potential eligibility as a historic district. Since the Proposed Project will rehabilitate and replace apron, parking and storage pavement and will not disturb existing buildings, hangars or other structures on the North Field, no impacts to potential historic or architectural resources are anticipated. The Proposed Project is located in an area of Bay fill and since the early 1900s has been subject to extensive development, filling and ground disturbance. Previously, a records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center of the California Archaeological Inventory at Sonoma State University to determine the presence of known cultural resources at the Airport (Port of Oakland, 1997). The records search indicated that no historic archaeological resources are known to exist at OIA. In addition, surveys conducted in 1997 for the Port of Oakland concluded that no archaeological resources, no prehistoric archaeological resources, and no historic archaeological resources Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September

29 were found in the areas examined at OIA. Although the project will include excavation of potentially contaminated material, the depth of the soil disturbance is not to exceed 3 feet. At this depth and given the lack of native soils in this location, a very low potential exists for construction to encounter significant prehistoric or historic archaeological resources, paleontological resources or human remains at project sites. Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration September

30 3.6 Geology and Soils Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Potentially with Mitigation Incorporation No 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 (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? Discussion of s: a-e) No Strong seismic shaking could occur in the Proposed Project area during a major earthquake on the Hayward fault which is located several miles to the east of OIA. The project site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for fault rupture hazard, so the potential for fault rupture or damage to the rehabilitated pavement is considered low. The Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September

31 Proposed Project would not expose people or employees to substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury or death. No impacts to geological resources (from liquefaction, landslides, lateral spreading, and subsidence or soil erosion) are anticipated to occur as a result of the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project site does not contain expansive soils. Construction will be required to conform to the seismic design standards of the most current edition of the Uniform Building Code (UBC) as part of the building permit approval process with the Port Engineering Division and City of Oakland Building Departments. (The City of Oakland issues permits for any project that includes electrical, plumbing, mechanical or structural work, and the Port issues permits for all projects that will alter Port property.) Adherence to the most current building codes would reduce the potential for damage from an earthquake. The OIA has a sewer system for its airport facilities and does not support septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration September

32 3.7 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 an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Potentially with Mitigation Incorporation No Discussion of s: a, b) No The Proposed Project may result in construction-related Green House Gas (GHG) emissions in the short term. Construction equipment used in demolition, grading and paving, and hauling of construction materials will result in the burning of fossil fuels and may result in GHG emissions such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Methane emissions can result during the fueling of heavy equipment. However, the construction period is temporary and of short duration. Basic Control Measures identified in Section 3.3 Air Quality, will also reduce GHG emissions and therefore the Proposed Project will not contribute significant impacts to climate change related to increased GHG emissions on a project or cumulative basis. The Proposed Project will not conflict with applicable plans, policies or BAAQMD regulations adopted for the purposes of reducing GHG emissions. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September

33 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 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? Potentially with Mitigation Incorporation No x Regulatory Setting The California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (SFRWQCB), and Alameda County Health Care Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration September

34 Services Agency (ACHCSA) maintain databases of hazardous substance sites. These databases include sites with leaking underground storage tanks, sites with known releases of petroleum hydrocarbons and other potentially hazardous substances, and landfills with evidence of groundwater contamination. Subsurface Characterization and Agency Oversight at Hangar 5 and FBO Terminal Soil and groundwater investigations were performed for the Hangar 5 area in order to assess whether potentially hazardous substances were released to soil and groundwater from past use and whether past releases pose a significant risk to human health or the environment. These investigations include: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment performed by Madison Environmental Group for Landmark Aviation, August 2011 (Madison Environmental Group, 2011). A Phase II Baseline Environmental Assessment Report performed by Madison Environmental Group for Landmark Aviation, January 2012 (Madison Environmental Group, 2012). A Revised Groundwater Investigation Report, Hangar 5, 8433 Earhart Road, North Field, OIA, performed by Baseline Environmental Consulting (Baseline) for the Port Of Oakland, July 21, 2014 (Port of Oakland, 2014a). A Subsurface Soil Characterization Report for Landmark Aviation Ramp Upgrade Project performed by Weiss Associates for the Port of Oakland, September, 2014 (Port of Oakland, 2014b). As a result of the assessments performed by Madison Environmental Group, the RWQCB was notified of the presence of petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and grab groundwater samples. Subsequently, the RWQCB issued a case number (#01S0751) and global ID number (T ) for their oversight of site investigations and any remedial activities. For the project site, the first step in the process of assessing the impacts of hazardous substance or material releases was to determine whether groundwater was adversely affected by the petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and whether the petroleum hydrocarbons in soil and groundwater beneath the site pose a risk to human health due to vapor intrusion. Based on the results of most recent groundwater investigation, the Port s consultant, Baseline, concluded that the risk to human health from vapor intrusion was within acceptable EPA risk ranges and that petroleum hydrocarbons and associated compounds in groundwater are below RWQCB screening levels for groundwater that is not a drinking water resource (SFRWQCB, December 2013). For compounds above the screening levels there is no significant risk because the screening levels are based on exposure to aquatic receptors and the shallow groundwater at the site does not discharge to surface water, so aquatic receptors are not exposed to contaminants beneath the site. Baseline recommended in their report that the RWQCB consider a No Further Action determination for this site. The RWQCB has agreed with Baseline s conclusions, and the Port is in the process of developing a Case Closure Summary and No Further Action documentation for RWQCB review. Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September

35 Subsurface Characterization and Agency Oversight at the Hangar 9 Area The Hangar 9 area is a 6.7 acre parcel that includes Hangar 9 and former nearby service buildings (L-807, L-808, L-809, and L-811). Hangar 9 and the adjacent structures in the vicinity of Hangar 9 were constructed in 1941 by the U.S. Navy. Historical photos show indications of surface staining related to parked aircraft. The area was used for the staging of fighter aircraft being sent overseas to the Pacific Theatre during World War II. Transamerica Airlines occupied Hangar 9 from 1973 to Based on historical records the ancillary buildings were used for the following activities: Building L-807: Former welding and machine shop, former paint and oil storage area, Building L-808: Former paint shop with associated paint and solvent storage, Building L-809: Former metal cleaning shop, Building L-811: Former vehicle maintenance shop Two former Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) were located on the site; LF-19 was an 8,000 gallon gasoline tank adjacent to Building L-811, and LF-20 was a 1,500 gallon gasoline tank adjacent to Building L-807. Because of the gasoline releases observed during removal of LF-19, the site was overseen by the ACHCSA and placed in the Local Oversight Program. On November 3, 1995 after the demolition of buildings L-807, L-808 and L-809, shallow soil samples were collected beneath these former buildings. These samples, S-1 through S-4 (Alisto Engineering, November 1995) were analyzed for Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH) gasoline, jet fuel, motor oil, and diesel, Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzne, and Xylenes (BTEX) lead and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). S-4, within the former building footprint of L-809, had 700 parts per million (ppm) TPH-g, and 670 ppm TPH-motor oil. In August 1997, the Hangar 9 Area between the Post Office (Building L-812) and L-811 was sampled by ITSI ((ITSI August 1997) to determine the potential contamination that may be encountered during planned repairs. A total of 53 borings at shallow depths (<2.5 feet) were constructed and divided into 13 sets of 4. The cumulative soil results from this sampling effort did not detect significant concentrations of contaminants. Long term monitoring was performed by the Port from 1992 to 1995 in the area of Hangar 9. Though traces of TPH-g, diesel, jet fuel and motor oil have been detected in the subsurface, groundwater contamination has been stabilized and concentrations are decreasing. Consequently, on January 8, 2001, ACHCSA completed a site summary report and issued a No Further Action Letter for Hangar 9. The proposed near term projects will necessitate disturbance and handling of subsurface soil and possibly groundwater that contains petroleum hydrocarbons. As such, measures will be implemented to ensure that risks to workers are acceptable and that there are protections from releases of hazardous materials or substances to the environment. Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration September

36 Subsurface Characterization and Agency Oversight at the Remaining Sites with Agency Oversight As indicated on Figure 5, there are six sites within Landmark s leased premises that have had or currently have regulatory oversight: Building L-130, Hangar 2, Hangar 5, Hangar 6, Hangar 9 and a portion of the Former Naval Auxiliary Air Station. Hangars 5 and 9 are discussed above. The following provides information for the four remaining sites. Building L-130 Building L-130 was the former leased premises of Port tenant Sierra Academy. Sierra Academy operated two underground storage tanks that were removed on December 22, Minor concentrations of TPH, Methyl-tert-Butyl Ether (MTBE), and BTEX compounds were found in soil and groundwater (DPE Companies, Ltd, 1999). Groundwater removal and over excavation were conducted, and site closure was provided by ACHCSA on July 9, 1999 (ACHCSA Case number RO828). Hangar 2 Hangar 2 was the former leased premises of Port tenant Ameriflight. Ameriflight operated two underground storage tanks containing Aviation Gasoline and Jet Fuel The tanks were removed on November 11, Contaminants of concern were TPH-G, TPH-Jet Fuel, BTEX, and Lead (Environmental Profiles, Inc 1999). Groundwater removal and over excavation were conducted, and site closure was provided by ACHCSA on February 2, 2004 (ACHCSA Case number RO465). Hangar 6 Hangar 6 was the former leased premises of Port tenant Alaska Airlines. Alaska conducted aircraft maintenance, and stored large quantities of fuel, hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Between August 2010 and January 2011, Alaska s contractor removed 3,450 tons of soil in two areas containing volatile organic compounds (SLR Global Environmental Solutions, 2011). The two excavation areas were backfilled with clean fill, and the site was repaved with sixteen inches of concrete. Site closure was provided by the RWQCB on August 30, 2011 (RWQCB Case number 01S0635). Former Naval Auxiliary Air Station Studies conducted by the Army Corps of Engineers on behalf of the U.S. Navy have identified 23 Areas of Concern ( AOC ) within the former Naval Auxiliary Air Station. Eight of the AOCs are within the Hangar 9 project area. The results of soil sampling indicate elevated concentrations of TPH-D, TPH-Motor Oil and metals in soil (LFR Dec. 2008). The site is inactive although the Army Corps of Engineers has not received closure from either the RWQCB (Case number SL ) or the DTSC (Case number ). Proposed Project Processes and Control Requirements Soil Management Plan. Excavation, handling and disposal of soil with TPH would be performed in accordance with a Soil Management Plan (SMP) so that construction activities do not create a condition where excavated materials could result in a release of petroleum hydrocarbons that could pose a risk to human health or the environment. On the basis of soil Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September