I ,: ,:,:,..,,.i E 1,'; _..r "/lj_ i,l/1,., I I CharlesP. Howard I TerminalExtensron ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT t Port of Oakland I I rll I Draft EIR I I JUNE 1994 I I I PREPAREDBY BRADY AND ASSOCIATES,INC. I PLANNERSAND T-ANDSCAPEARCHITECTS IN ASSOCIATIONW]TH DONALD BALLANTI DOWLING ASSOCIAIES I ENTRIX ILLINGWORTH AND RODKIN MOFFATANDNICHOL TJRIBEAND ASSOCIATES I wooDRurrMmoR I I l ! t t I I I I I I I I I T I I l I I I I I Charles P. Howard Terminal Extension t Environmental Impact Report TABLE OF CONTENTS I I INTRODUCTION A Preface B. ProposedAction I C. use of the EIR D. EIR Scope:Sigrificant Issues and Concerns E. .ReportOrganization I F. OtherReports G. RelatedActions Assessed in Other I EnvironmentalDocuments II. SI,JMMARY OF FINDINGS I PROJECTDESCRIPTION A. Location 23 B. Purposeof the Report 23 I C. ProposedProject /,1 I D. Background 39 IV. CONTEXT OF LOCAL AND REGIONAL PI-ANS AND POLICIES 4l I A. Backgmund 4l B, Localand Regional Planning Documents 4l t C. Summaryand Conclusions of Plansand Policies 56 V. SETTINGS,IMPACTS AND MMGATION MEASURES 6t A. HistoricResources 6l I B. Socio-Economics 83 C. Land Use 9l D. Transponation 99 I E, Noise 129 F. Air Quality 145 I G. Geologr,Seismicity and Soils 157 I I C}TARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL E iTENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I TABLE OF CONTENIS H. HazardousMaterials 165 I I, SedimentQuality t't9 J. Water Quality 189 I K. Biologic Resources 2Al L. PublicServices and Utilities 215 M. Public Access and Recreation 221 I N. Visual Resources 233 PROJECTALTERNATIVES u9 l A AltemativesConsidered but Eliminated 249 B. No Project Altemative 251 C. Pile SupportedWharf Altemative 256 I D. Comparisonof Altemativeswith the ProposedProject 261 E EnvironmentallySuperiorAltemative zil I CEQA-REQUIREDOVERVIEW 265 A Introduction 265 B. Effects Not Found to be Significant 265 I C. Short-TermlJses Versus I-ong-Term ProductMty 266 D. SigttificantIrreversible and UnavoidableChanges 268 E. Growth-Inducinglmpacts 269 t F, CumulativeImpacts '249 ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONSCONSULTED 111 I A- Consultation 271 B. ReportPreparers 273 I REFERENCESAND LTTERATURECITED 275 I APPENDICES A. PermittedBerth MaintenanceDepths B. Initial Study T C. Transportation D. Air Quality E. HazardousMaterials T F. SedimentCharacterization. Port of Oakland 1994 I I l I I JUNE T994 CTIARLESP. HOWARD TERMINAL D(TENSION I DRAFT EN!'I RONMENTAL TMPACTREPORT TABLE OF CONIENTS t List of Figures I 1. Regional Ircation u 2. Projeci Vicinity 25 I 3. Existing Conditions at Howard Terminal 29 4. ProposedProject 31 5. ProposedFill and Dredging JJ t 6. Proposed Upland Handling Facility for Dewatering DredgedSediments 38 '7. City of OaklandGeneral Plan Designations 45 I 8. QuayWall, 1911and 1918 63 9. MunicipalPort Facilities,1910-1950s 65 10. FourteenthStreet Unit, Outer HarborTerminal, 1967 and 1981 67 t 11. GroveStreet Pier (HowardTerminal), En-D28 69 12. GroveSt. Pier and HowardTerminal, 1930s-1982 70 13. HowardTerminal Transir Shed 1994 7I I 14. OtherExtant Bay Area Port Buildingsfiom the 1920s 79 15. ExistingI-and Use 93 16. AM PeakHour Traffic Counts 102 T 17. ExistingDaily Traffic Volumes 106 18. Area setting - Highwaysand Rail Yards lZ0 19. I-andfill Sites 134 I 20, NoiseGuidelines 136 21. Noise SensitiveReceptors 142 I 22. Locatlon of Former Gas ManufacturingPlant Near Howard Terminal 169 23. I-ocationof SamplingStations at Befth 69 185 I U. CrossSections of ProposedRehandling Facility t92 '25. PublicAccess and Recreationin the Vicinity 223 26. ProposedPublic Access - ConceptualPlan and SectionA: I Shenanigan'sRestaurant )t< 27. ProposedPublic Access Section B: InfrastructurePark and View ftom Alice Street 22:t t ,9. ProposedPublic Access Section C: ConcreteLanding ))A 29. ProposedPublic Access Section D: BoulderBenches 229 30. PhotographI-ocations ?15 I 31. Viewsof the Site 237 JZ, Viewsof the Site 239 JJ. VisualSimulation of the ProposedProject u5 t 34. Pilo SupportedWharf Altemative 257 I I lll I CIIARLES P, HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables T 1. Permitand Review Requirements 2. Summaryof Impactsand Mitigation Measures 10 I 3. Volumeof DredgingFill and Pile Removal 36 4. Area of DredgingFill andWharf Removal 36 I 5. EconomicImpacts of Pon of OaklandMaritime Operations,1993 84 5. OaHandLiner ForeignTrade, July 1992- June 1993 85 7. I-evelof ServiceDefinitions, Unsignalized Intersections I (One or Two-WayStop) 104 8. ExistingIntersection l,evels of Service,AM PeakHour 104 9. RegionalHighway Facilities t07 I 10. Annual AverageDaily Truck Percentagesof Total Traffic ttz 11. AdditionalPeak Hour TruckTrips tl4 12. CombinedOrigin/Destination I-ocations of Truck Trips 116 T 13. RoutesUsed by Truck TravellingTo/From the Port of Oakland 116 14. IntersectionLevels of Service 117 15. Year 2000Cumulative Traffic Levelof ServiceAt I NearbyIntersections, Without Mitigations 126 16. Definitionsof AmusticalTerms r30 17. TypicalSound Levels Measured in the Environmentand Industry t3l t 18. City of AlamedaNoise kvels for CommercialProperties t37 19. AmbientNoise Measurement Dat4 January4, 1993 t37 20. EstimatedRange of ConstructionNoise Lwels t4l I 21. ArnbientAir QualityStandards 146 22. Exceedancesof Air PollutantStandards at Oaklan4 1988-1992 148 t 23. Construction-RelatedRegionalEmissions 151 U. PredictedWorst-Case Carbon Monoxide Concentrations 154 25. Project-RelatedRegionalEmissionIncreases 155 I 26. GeneralizedDescriptions And SomeEngineering Characteristics of GeologicMap Units in the Port of Oakland 158 27. Resultsof PaintChip Sampling 16 I 28. Asbestos-ContainingMaterials at Transi,Shed (Building E407A) 168 29. Speciesof CommonOrganisms in the OaklandInner Harbor 202 30. CumulativeImpact Analysis - Year 2000With and WithoutProject 253 I 31. CumulativeLevel of Serviceon Freeways- Year 2000With and WithoutProject 1<t 32. Comparisonof Alternarives 262 I I I T iv I I I I Chapter I t INTRODUCTION I lt! I A. Prefacr This report describes the environmental consequencesof approving the proposedwharf extensionat the Port of Oakland'sCharles P. Howard l Terminal. This assessmentis desigredto fully inform the Port decision makers,responsible agencies, and the generalpublig of the proposedaction and possible effects of its approval. This assessmentalso examines various I alternativesto the proposedproject and recommendsa set of mitigation measuresto reduceor avoid potentially significantimpacts, This is a project EnvironmentalImpact Report (EIR) prepared in compliancewith the I California EnvironmentalQuality Act (CEOA) GuidelinesSection 15161. This EIR will be rwiewed by Port staff plannen and consideredfor certification by Port officials prior to any approvalsbeing made on the I HowardTerminal wharf extension. I B. ProposedAction I The Port of Oakland proposesto extendthe length of Berths 67 and 68 from 7,ilZlineal feet to 1,948feet to accommodatetwo large container ships simultaneously.The project would increasethe area of the Howard Terminal I wharf and yard by 48,240square feet. Berth 69, which is 558 feet long, would ceaseto function as a useableberth. The terminal storageyard would also be enlargedas part of the wharf extension,thus increasingthe yard area for I stackingand storing cargo containen, and improving truck circulation. A transit shed built in 1929would be demolishedin order to expandthe container storageyard and the berth area adjacentto the wharf would be I dredgedto 42 feel (13,600cubic yards) to create the new berth area and accommodatethe larger ships. Solid fill placedin the Inner Harbor would cover 46,500square feet of bottom. Much of this fill would derive from I deepeningberths alreadyat 42 feet to provide a neededsafety factor for the I deeper draft shipscalling on the Port. T t C}IARIES P, HOWARD TERMINAL E(TENSION JUNE 1994 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT I INTRODUCTION The project site is locatedwithin a developedmaritime industrial area and just T west of the Jack l-ondon Squarecommercial and office center. Vehicular accessto the site is from Market Street and Ma in Luther King Jr. Way, off I the Embarcadero. Ship accessfrom the SanFrancisco Bay is via the Oakland Estuary,which mnsistsof the Oakland Middle and Inner Harbor. I Severalmmponents of the project would take place off-site. The Port would build a rehandlingfacility on Berth 10 in which to dewater dredgematerials before disposingof them in landfills. Wharf and piling would be removedat I the Sherexand Pacific Drydock sites to meet permit requirementsregarding Bay fill. Public accesswould be improved along a portion ofthe shoreline at Jack London Square. Outer and inner harbor berths (22, 23, ?14,30,67 and t 68) would be deepenedto provide suitablefill for the wharf and yard extension, t C, Useof the EIR This assessmentis designed to fully inform the Port Boardof Commissioners, I responsibleagencies, and the publicat largeof the proposedactions and possibleeffects of their approval.This assessmentalso examines two altemativesto the proposedproject and recommendsa setof mitigation I measuresto reduceor avoidpotentially sigrificant impacts. This documentis a ProjectEIR for the proposedHoward Terminal Extension, consistent with I CEQAGuidelines Section 15161. Table 1 showspermit requirements. The Boardof Port Commissionerswill usethis reportas part of its reviewand I approvalof the project. Other affecteddepartments and agencies,such as the SanFrancism Bay Consewation and Development Commission (BCDC), San FranciscoBay Regional Water QualityControl Board (RWOCB), the