D INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION · 2016-03-10 · Oakland International Airport,...

DRAFTINITIALSTUDY/MITIGATEDNEGATIVEDECLARATION

PROPOSEDPROJECTSON

LANDMARKAVIATIONLEASEHOLDSOAKLANDINTERNATIONALAIRPORT,NORTHFIELD

SEPTEMBER2014

Preparedfor:

Landmark Aviation

8433 Earhart Road, North Field,

Oakland International Airport, Oakland, CA 94621

Lead Agency:

Port of Oakland

530 Water Street

Oakland, CA 94607

Preparedby:

155GrandAvenue,Suite800

Oakland,California94612

ES081214072330BAO iii

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Prepared in Accordance with the

California Environmental Quality Act

PORT PROJECT TRACKING NUMBER: 2014-011 PROJECT PROPONENT: Landmark Aviation

8433 Earhart Road North Field, Oakland International Airport Oakland, CA 94621

LEAD AGENCY: Port of Oakland (Port) Attn: Douglas Herman/510-627-1184

530 Water Street Oakland, California 94607

PROJECT TITLE: Proposed Projects on Landmark Aviation Leaseholds

PROJECT LOCATION: 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.

Oakland International Airport, North Field Proposed Projects on Landmark Aviation Leaseholds

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2014 iv ES081214072330BAO

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: _________________________________________ Date: ______________________ Diane Heinze Environmental Assessment Supervisor

ES081214072330BAO v

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) 633-1266

D. ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBER: A portion of 042-4404-011-02 (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.


Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2014 vii ES081214072330BAO

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INITIAL STUDY .....................................................................................................................v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................... vii

SECTION 1: Project Description ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Geographic Setting ........................................................................................ 1-1

1.2.1 Existing Conditions ............................................................................ 1-1 1.2.2 Proposed Project Site ......................................................................... 1-6

1.3 Near Term Projects ........................................................................................ 1-6 1.3.1 Hangar 5 Apron Repair ...................................................................... 1-6 1.3.2 Hangar 9 Gate .................................................................................... 1-7

1.4 Materials Management and Soil Management Plan ...................................... 1-7 1.5 Potential Long Term Projects ........................................................................ 1-8

SECTION 2: Environmental Factors/ Determination ..................................................... 2-1 2.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: ................................................ 2-1 2.2 Determination ................................................................................................ 2-1

SECTION 3: Environmental Review Checklist ............................................................... 3-1 3.1 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Agricultural Resources .................................................................................. 3-2 3.3 Air Quality ..................................................................................................... 3-3 3.4 Biological Resources ..................................................................................... 3-5 3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................... 3-6 3.6 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................... 3-8 3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .......................................................................... 3-10 3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................... 3-11 3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...................................................................... 3-18 3.10 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................ 3-20 3.11 Mineral Resources ....................................................................................... 3-21 3.12 Noise ............................................................................................................ 3-22 3.13 Population and Housing ............................................................................... 3-23 3.14 Public Services ............................................................................................. 3-24 3.15 Recreation .................................................................................................... 3-25 3.16 Transportation/Traffic .................................................................................. 3-26 3.17 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................... 3-28 3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ............................................................ 3-30

SECTION 4: References ..................................................................................................... 4-1

SECTION 5: List of Figures and Tables ........................................................................... 5-1

SECTION 6: Acronyms and Abbreviations ..................................................................... 6-1

SECTION 7: List of Preparers .......................................................................................... 7-1


Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2014 1-1 ES081214072330BAO

SECTION 1: PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1.1 Overview

Landmark Aviation (“Landmark”) proposes to implement airport apron1 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 65962.5 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 15300.2 (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.

1.2.1 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.

FIGURE 1Regional LocationProposed Projects on Landmark Aviation Leaseholds

ES\ES081214072330BAO_ POAK_OakAirport_LandmarkProjectMaps_v2.indd_092214_lho

PROJECT

LOCATION

Aerial from Google Earth Pro © 2014. Additional information added by CH2M HILL.

ALAMEDAALAMEDA

SAN LEANDROSAN LEANDRO

Oakland Oakland International International AirportAirport

HAYWARDHAYWARD

FREMONTFREMONT

SAN MATEOSAN MATEO

REDWOOD REDWOOD CITYCITY

PALO PALO ALTOALTO

SAN SAN FRANCISCOFRANCISCO

DALY CITYDALY CITY

SAUSALITOSAUSALITO

BERKELEYBERKELEY

SAN JOSESAN JOSE

OAKLANDOAKLAND

FIGURE 2Vicinity Map Proposed Projects on Landmark Aviation Leaseholds

ES\ES081214072330BAO_ POAK_OakAirport_LandmarkProjectMaps.indd_092314_lho


RON COWAN PKWY

RON COWAN PKWY

HARBOR BAY PKWYHARBOR BAY PKWY

AIR CARGO WAY

AIR CARGO WAY

EARHART RD

EARHART RDDOOLITTLE DR

DOOLITTLE DR

San Leandro Bay

San Francisco Bay

HEGENB ERGER

RDHEGENB ERGE

R RD

880

ALAMEDAALAMEDA

NORTH NORTH FIELDFIELD

SOUTH SOUTH FIELDFIELD

OAKLAND OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL

AIRPORTAIRPORT

ALAMEDAALAMEDAOAKLANDOAKLAND

MMSMMSSITESITE

61

Project Locations

FIGURE 3Landmark Aviation ―Near Term Project Location – Hanger 5Proposed Projects on Landmark Aviation Leaseholds



EARHART RDEARHART RD

Hangar 5Hangar 5 Hangar 4Hangar 4

FBOFBOTerminalTerminal

Area 1Area 1

Area 2Area 2

Area Area 33

FIGURE 4Landmark Aviation ―Near Term Improvements at Hangar 5 & 9 Proposed Projects on Landmark Aviation Leaseholds



SWAN WAY

SWAN WAY

LANGLEY ST

LANGLEY ST

DOOLITTLE DR

DOOLITTLE DR

RUNWAY 10L/28R

RUNWAY 10R/28L

PARDEE DR

PARDEE DR

EARHART RD

EARHART RD

61

San Leandro Bay


Legend

Apron

Hangar 2Hangar 2

Hangar 6Hangar 6 Hangar 5Hangar 5

Hangar 4Hangar 4

Hangar 3Hangar 3

LandmarkLandmark FBO Terminal FBO Terminal

Area 1Area 1

Hangar 9Hangar 9

Gate ProjectGate Project

Area 2Area 2

Area 3Area 3

Hangar 7Hangar 7

Hangar 8Hangar 8

Hangar 9Hangar 9

Hangar 1Hangar 1

Building L-142Building L-142


Landmark Landmark

Fuel FarmFuel Farm



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.

1.2.2 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 1925. 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 Mud3 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.

1.3.1 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, spalling4 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/Negative Declaration September 2014 1-7 ES081214072330BAO

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 cement5 (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 30-60 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.

1.3.2 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).



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


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-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.



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

FIGURE 5Landmark Aviation ―Potential Long Term Project LocationsProposed Projects on Landmark Aviation Leaseholds



SWAN WAYSWAN WAY

HEGENBERGER RD

HEGENBERGER RD

LANGLEY STLANGLEY ST

DOOL

ITTLE

DR

DOOL

ITTLE

DR

RUNWAY 10L/28R

RUNWAY 10R/28L

PARDEE DR

PARDEE DR

EARH

ART

RDEA

RHAR

T RD

61

San

Lean

dro

Bay


Legend

Apron Associated with Landmark’s Leased Premises

Sites on the Cortese List

Hangar 2Hangar 2

Hangar 6Hangar 6

Hangar 5Hangar 5

Hangar 3Hangar 3

Landmark Landmark FBO FBO

TerminalTerminal

Hangar 7Hangar 7

Hangar 8Hangar 8

Hangar 9Hangar 9

Hangar 1Hangar 1



Landmark Fuel FarmLandmark Fuel Farm

Portion of Portion of

Former Naval Former Naval

Auxiliary Auxiliary

Air Station Air Station

Hangar 4Hangar 4Kaiser Air Kaiser Air

Leased Leased Premises Premises

T-Hangars Individually T-Hangars Individually Leased to General Leased to General Aviation PilotsAviation Pilots



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 Significant Impact” or is “Potentially Significant 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 Impact 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



SECTION 3: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST

3.1 Aesthetics

Would the project:

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

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?

Discussion of Impacts:

a-d) No Impact

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.



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:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

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?


a-c) No Impact

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.



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:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation

Less ThanSignificant

Impact

No Impact

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?


a-c, e) No Impact

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



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.



3.4 Biological Resources

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

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?


a-f) No Impact

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.



3.5 Cultural Resources

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in '15064.5?

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to '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?


a-d) No Impact

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



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.



3.6 Geology and Soils

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

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.

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?


a-e) No Impact

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



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.



3.7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

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?


a, b) No Impact

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.



3.8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

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?

x

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?

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



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 (T10000005596) 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.



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 1986. 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.



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, 1998. 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, 1998. 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 SL600186810) or the DTSC (Case number 80000788).

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



sampling and analysis in the project area, the soil is not a hazardous waste but the fill in Area 1 and the Bay Mud in Area 2 are contaminated and do not meet the criteria for disposal at the OIA MMS. Concrete and/or asphalt removed during site preparation are suitable for recycling and reuse at the OIA MMS and will be segregated from the soil. The SMP will also contain provisions for handling, treatment and disposal/discharge of groundwater from construction dewatering, if construction dewatering is necessary.

Health and Safety Plan. The construction contractor would prepare a health and safety plan that includes information on expected contamination, worker protections and monitoring based on the expected contamination, emergency response measures, and reporting.

Discussion of Impacts

a, b) Less than Significant Impact

A significant impact may occur if a Proposed 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. The Proposed Project would be performed in accordance with existing regulations and project process and control requirements described above so that no significant impacts can result from handling of hazardous or potentially hazardous materials.

Small amounts of hazardous materials would be used during construction activities (fuel for construction equipment for example), and their use would comply with applicable local, state, and federal standards. 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/excavation for construction of the new aprons, pavement, light pole and conduits at Hangar 9, and is expected to be of a short duration. Any contaminated materials encountered during the site preparation/excavation would be handled and disposed of in accordance with applicable State and Federal regulations. The transportation and disposal of contaminated materials will be described in the SMP to be prepared by Landmark.

Adherence to existing regulations and the site specific Soil Management and Health and Safety Plans for the Proposed Project will reduce the potential for less than significant impacts to no impacts.

c) No Impact

The Proposed Project is not within a ¼-mile of a school or proposed school. The Port leases Building L-151, 9260 Earhart Road, to the Aviation Institute of Maintenance, which is an adult school that teaches aircraft repair and maintenance. Classes do not currently take place



at 9260 Earhart Road, but may occur in the future. Building L-151 is 0.32 miles from the project site.

d) Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation

A significant impact may occur if a Proposed 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 create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The proposed near term projects at Hangars 5 and 9 are on databases compiled by regulatory agencies.

This project will have short term impacts from disturbance of contaminated soil but will have the potential long-term benefit of removal of contaminated soil from the project site. Accordingly, human and environmental exposure due to the disturbance of soil during excavation activities in connection with project construction will be less than significant with Mitigation Incorporation and compliance with applicable regulations governing the transportation and disposal of contaminated materials and hazardous waste (if encountered).

Mitigation Measures

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Soil Management Plan (SMP)

Testing, excavation, handling and disposal of soil with would be performed in accordance with a SMP so that construction activities throughout the leasehold do not create a condition where excavated materials could pose a risk to human health or the environment. Regarding the planned near term projects at Hangars 5 and 9:

At Hangar 5 the soil is not a hazardous waste but the fill in Area 1 and the Bay Mud and fill in Area 2 are contaminated and do not meet the criteria for disposal at the OIA MMS.

At Hangar 9 less than two cubic yards of soil is expected to be generated from the two underground conduit runs and light pole base excavation. The soil that is excavated in this area will be sampled at the time of construction. Based on the results of the sampling effort, the soil will be disposed at the MMS or off-site at a landfill.

Due to the shallow depths of the excavations, groundwater is not expected to be encountered at either Hangar 5 or 9.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 Health and Safety Plan

Any construction contractor that may encounter contaminated subsurface material will be required to prepare a site-specific Health and Safety Plan. The Health and Safety Plan will include personal protective equipment, a hazard assessment, site control, handling procedures, chain of command, and emergency evacuation plan.

e) No Impact

A significant project-related impact may occur if a Proposed Project were placed within a public airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public airport, and present a safety



hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Proposed projects that are situated within the Airport Influence Area (AIA) boundary for OIA (outside the OIA boundaries) are subject to the Alameda County ALUC review. The proposed apron repair project is located on OIA property, an active aviation facility which complies with all relevant FAA and OIA regulations and therefore will not be subject to ALUC review.

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. The Proposed Project would improve the safety of the existing pavement and aprons and would not add structures or otherwise present a safety hazard (, Landmark Aviation, 2013).

f) No Impact

The Project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The OIA is a publicly operated aviation facility. The Proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people working in the Project vicinity.

g) No Impact

A significant impact may occur if a proposed 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 the proposed site is not located in an area that would block emergency response or evacuation and all equipment would be staged within a confined fenced off area, thus no impacts are anticipated.

h) No Impact

A significant impact may occur if a proposed 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 Proposed Project site is in a developed area in between two surface water bodies (San Francisco Bay and San Leandro Channel) with associated vegetation. The project is not near any wildland areas. However, according to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Threat map, the Project site is located in an area mapped as having a moderate fire threat and adjacent to a fire threatened community (http://quake.abag.ca.gov/wildfires/. Accessed August 27, 2014). Given the project site location, the project description and control measures already existing for the OIA, the project would not increase the risk of exposure to wildland fires near an urban area.



3.9 Hydrology and Water Quality

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

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 off-site?

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 which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater 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?

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 by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?




a-j) No Impact

As described above under Section 3.7, the proposed near term and long term construction projects at the project site will necessitate disturbance and handling of subsurface soil and possibly groundwater that contains petroleum hydrocarbons. As such, there are regulatory requirements and best management practices that will ensure that risks to workers are acceptable and that there are protections from releases of hazardous materials or substances to the environment.

Therefore, since the Proposed Project will adhere to the requirements of the SMP, the project is not anticipated to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The Proposed Project will not deplete groundwater supplies or require the use of groundwater resources. No streams or rivers are located on or adjacent to the site and the project will not alter existing drainage patterns in the Hangar 5 area. The project site is currently paved and will continue to be paved following construction, therefore no increase in impervious surfaces or creation of additional storm water runoff will result from the Proposed Project. The Proposed Project will not include housing or other structures that would be subject to flooding or expose people to flood hazards nor will the Proposed Project increase the risk of potential seiches, tsunamis or mudflows. No impacts to hydrology or water quality are anticipated from the proposed apron repair project.



3.10 Land Use and Planning

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

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 community conservation plan?


a - c) No impact

The Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community (no residential uses occur within OIA) nor would the Proposed Project conflict with any habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans. The Proposed Project would not conflict with the City of Oakland General Plan, the City of Alameda General Plan, the Alameda Airport Land Use Commission Plan, the Alameda County Plan or the FAA Airport Layout Plan (ALP).



3.11 Mineral Resources

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation

Less ThanSignificant

Impact

No Impact

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?


a-b) No Impact

The Proposed Project is located at North Field in an area that has been subject to filling and grading since the early 1900s. The Proposed Project site is currently composed of non-native fill and Bay Mud at approximately 1-5 feet overlain by a thick layer of asphalt pavement. The project area has no known existing mineral resources. Thus, no impacts to mineral resources are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed apron repair project.



3.12 Noise

Would the project result in:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

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?

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 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?


a-f) No Impact

The proposed near term projects would rehabilitate existing apron areas at Hangar 5 and the FBO Terminal that are deteriorating or failing due to pavement cracking and spalling, and would excavate soil at Hangar 9 to install conduits and a street light. No noise impacts will result from the near term projects or potential other minor improvement. Aircraft operations will not increase as a result of the Proposed Project. Some noise may occur from construction activities but it would be de minimus since it would be within an airport environment with (background) noise from aircraft landings and takeoffs on Runway 10L/28R, close to the construction site. The nearest residential areas are located over a half-mile from the proposed construction site and will not be impacted by construction noise.



3.13 Population and Housing

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

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?


a-c) No Impact

The proposed project is anticipated to generate short-term employment in the construction phase (up to 20 construction employees) which would occur over a 30-60 day timeframe. Since the construction period is of limited duration and will employ 20 or less construction workers temporarily, it will not induce population increases in the nearby area or induce new housing development. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not induce or increase population growth in the local area or displace existing housing or people.



3.14 Public Services

a) Would the project 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:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

Fire protection?

Police protection?

Schools?

Parks?

Other public facilities?


a) No Impact

The proposed near term projects would rehabilitate existing apron areas at Hangar 5 and the FBO Terminal that are deteriorating or failing due to pavement cracking and spalling, and would excavate soil at Hangar 9 to install conduits and a street light. The Proposed Project consists of rehabilitation of existing aircraft apron and parking pavement that is structurally inadequate or deteriorating. The rehabilitation of these pavements will increase safety for aircraft using taxiways and also vehicles or equipment using parking and storage lots on the apron. The Proposed Project will not affect (increase) emergency response times for fire or police protection. The Proposed Project will not increase employment levels at OIA and thus no impacts will occur to local schools, parks or other public facilities in the area.



3.15 Recreation


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

a) Would the project 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) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?


a-b) No impact

The Proposed Project will not increase employment levels at OIA and thus no impacts will occur to local parks, recreational or other public facilities in the area. The Proposed Project will not require the construction of recreational facilities. Thus no impacts to recreational facilities are anticipated to occur as a result of the Proposed Project.



3.16 Transportation/Traffic

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)?

b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard 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 or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

d) Substantially increase hazards due 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) Result in inadequate parking capacity?

g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?


a-g) No impact

The proposed near term projects would rehabilitate existing apron areas at Hangar 5 and the FBO Terminal that are deteriorating or failing due to pavement cracking and spalling, and would excavate soil at Hangar 9 to install conduits and a street light. The Proposed Project would improve existing apron facilities by rehabilitating pavement that has deteriorated or is inadequate for current aircraft loads. As such, the Proposed Project will not increase the capacity of the airfield or landside facilities. The Proposed Project will not alter air traffic or vehicular traffic patterns at OIA or increase employment levels at the OIA. The Proposed Project will temporarily increase the number of construction workers in the North Field (up to 20 employees) for a limited duration (30-60 days). These employees will not impact the traffic circulation patterns on or off-airport. Designated parking will be supplied to these workers and ample parking exists adjacent to the apron areas. All haul routes for the



excavated material or new materials brought to the project site will use designated routes as specified by the Port of Oakland. The primary haul routes used to access the MMS at South Field would include Earhart Road, Air Cargo Road, Airport Drive and Ron Cowan Parkway, all on-airport roads. Under current waste management practices at the OIA, the construction debris from OIA projects that do not meet MMS disposal criteria are typically transported off-site and disposed of in landfills. Trucks hauling materials off-site would follow the most direct route to Interstate 880, using public roads such as Doolittle Drive, Hegenberger Road, and 98th Avenue. These public roads would also be used by trucks to import construction materials and equipment from off-site. (Port of Oakland, 2005). The number of daily truck trips on and off-airport are anticipated to be minimal (less than 10 round truck trips per day), and would not change existing levels of service at on- or off-airport intersections. During soil hauling operations truck trips could increase to up to 20 per day. Thus, the proposed projects are not anticipated to have any impacts to air or groundside traffic, increase traffic hazards, create parking shortages or conflict with existing transportation plans or policies that govern OIA.



3.17 Utilities and Service Systems

Would the project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

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?


a, b, c, d, e, f, g) No Impact

The proposed near term projects would rehabilitate existing apron areas at Hangar 5 and the FBO Terminal that are deteriorating or failing due to pavement cracking and spalling, and would excavate soil at Hangar 9 to install conduits and a street light. As such, the Proposed Project will not increase the airside or landside capacity of the existing airport. The proposed construction project will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the SFRWQCB. The proposed apron repair project will not result in any changes to existing water service/supplies or wastewater treatment utilities at the North Field, and the new pavement will continue to use existing storm water drainage inlets. No changes in airport operations are to occur as a result of the project. A minimal amount of material will be diverted to a



specified landfill for soil not acceptable for disposal at the MMS. However, the landfill has sufficient capacity to accept this material; likewise, the OIA MMS has the capacity to accept excavated material from the project site for later reuse at OIA construction sites.



3.18 Mandatory Findings of Significance


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporation


Impact

No Impact

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 which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?


a-c) No Impact

The proposed near term projects would rehabilitate existing apron areas at Hangar 5 and the FBO Terminal that are deteriorating or failing due to pavement cracking and spalling, and would excavate soil at Hangar 9 to install conduits and a street light. As such, the Proposed Project will not increase the airside or landside capacity of the existing airport. The Proposed Project will be constructed in an area that is industrial and developed with no biological or known cultural resources. The Proposed Project will not have cumulative impacts. The Proposed Project will not cause substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings either directly or indirectly.



SECTION 4: REFERENCES

ABAG. ABAG Geographical Information Systems – Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) Fire Threat. Available at: http://quake.abag.ca.gov/wildfires/. Accessed August 27, 2014)

Alisto Engineering 1995. Site Investigation Report, Hangar 9, Oakland International Airport, November

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2012. BAAQMD CEQA Air Quality Guidelines. San Francisco, CA, May.

City of Oakland, 1980. Ordinance Number 9872: An Ordinance Designating the North Field, Oakland Airport, Earhart Road, Exclusive of the Facilities Thereon, as an Oakland Landmark.

DPE Companies Ltd., 1999. Closure Report Sierra Academy of Aeronautics, Oakland Intenational Airport 9465 Earhart Road, Oakladn 94621, March.

Environmental Profiles, Ic., 1999. Underground Storage Tank Closure, Tanks LF 5/6, Ameriflight Inc. 9171 Earhart Road, Oakland CA 94621, August

Landmark Aviation, 2013. Landmark Aviation Pavement Repair, 8433 Earhart Road, Overall Site Plan. Prepared by TranSystems, May

LFR Environmental Management and Consulting Engineering 2008. Final Site Inspection Summary Report, Former Naval Auxiliary Air Station Oakland, December

Madison Environmental Group, 2011. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for Hangar 5 Facility, 8433 Earhart Road, Oakland International Airport. Prepared for Landmark Aviation. August

Madison Environmental Group, 2012. Phase II Environmental Site Assessment for Hangar 5 Facility, 8433 Earhart Road, Oakland International Airport. Prepared for Landmark Aviation. January

Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, 1997, Oakland General Plan Historic Preservation Element, Appendix C,

Office of Planning and Research 2014 CEQA Guidelines

Port of Oakland, 2014a. Revised Groundwater Investigation Report, Hangar 5, 8433 Earhart Road. Prepared by Baseline Environmental Consulting. July

Port of Oakland, 2014b. Subsurface Soil Characterization Report for Landmark Aviation Ramp Upgrade Project. Prepared by Weiss Associates. September (Final)

Port of Oakland, 2008. Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration, Oakland International Airport Business Jet Center Expansion. Prepared by SAIC. October

Port of Oakland, 2005. Final Subsequent Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Oakland International Airport, Materials Management Program, March.



Port of Oakland, 1997. Final Environmental Impact Report, Proposed Airport Development Program, Metropolitan Oakland International Airport. Volume 1, Documentation December

Rolls Royce Engine Services, 2013. Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, Oakland International Airport, Rolls-Royce Engine Services-Oakland Inc. Test Cell Upgrade Project. Prepared by WRA Environmental Consultants. June.

SFRWQCB, 2013. Update to Environmental Screening Levels, December

SLR Global Environmental Solutions, 2011 Remedial Action Implementation Report, Former Alaska Airlines Maintenance Hangar 6, Oakland International Airport, Augsut



SECTION 5: LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES Page

Table

Table 1. Potential Projects on Landmark Aviation Leaseholds ....................................... 1-8

Figures

Figure 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................. 1-2

Figure 2 Vicinity Map ...................................................................................................... 1-3

Figure 3 Landmark Aviation – Near Term Project Location at Hangar 5 ...................... 1-4

Figure 4 Landmark Aviation – Near Term Improvements at Hangars 5 & 9 .................. 1-5

Figure 5 Landmark Aviation – Potential Long Term Apron Project Locations ............ 1-11



SECTION 6: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ACHCSA – Alameda County Health Care Services Agency

ADP – Airport Development Plan

ALUC – Alameda County Airport Land Use Commission

ALP – Airport Layout Plan

AIA – Airport Influence Area

AOA – Aircraft Operations Area

BAAQMD – Bay Area Air Quality Management District

BMPs – Best Management Practices

BCM – Basic Control Measures

CALSITE – California DTSC list of site which includes any business or property that may use hazardous chemicals.

CEQA – California Environmental Quality Act

CESL – Commercial Environmental Screening Level

cf – cubic feet

cy – cubic yard

DTSC – California Department of Toxic Substances Control

EIR – Environmental Impact Report

EIS – Environmental Impact Statement

EPA – U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

EPD – Port of Oakland’s Environmental Planning Department

FAA – Federal Aviation Administration

FAR – Federal Aviation Regulation

FBO – Fixed Base Operator

FEIR – Final Environmental Impact Report

GHGs – greenhouse gases

H2O – water vapor

HFCs – hydrofluorocarbons

IS/ND – Initial Study / Negative Declaration

IS/MND – Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration



Landmark –Landmark Aviation

MMP – Materials Management Program

MMS – Materials Management Site

N2O – nitrous oxide

NEPA – National Environmental Policy Act

OCHS – Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey

OIA – Oakland International Airport

OPR – Governor’s Office of Planning and Research

OSHA – U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PFC – perfluorocarbons

PM– particulate matter

PM10 – fine particulate matter (under 10 microns in diameter)

Port – Port of Oakland

PPE – personal protective equipment

PPM- Parts Per Million

RWQCB – San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board

sf – square feet

SMP – Soil Management Plan

SVE – soil-vapor extraction

SWPPP – Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

SWRCB – State Water Resources Control Board

TPH – total petroleum hydrocarbons

UBC – Uniform Building Code

VOCs – volatile organic compounds

WQS – water quality standards

WDRs – waste discharge requirements



SECTION 7: LIST OF PREPARERS

The Initial Study Checklist was prepared in consultation with the Port of Oakland by CH2M HILL staff:

Douglas Herman/Port of Oakland, Environmental Scientist

Loretta Meyer/CH2M HILL, AICP, Project Manager

Diane Sarmiento/CH2M HILL, Environmental/Civil Engineer

Dave Lundgren/CH2M HILL, Senior Reviewer

Lisa Ho/CH2M HILL, Graphics Designer

D INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION · 2016-03-10 · Oakland International Airport,...

Documents

Transcript of D INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION · 2016-03-10 · Oakland International Airport,...