CHAPTER 6

SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION

6.1 INTRODUCTION

6.1.1 Section 4(f)

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in Federal law at 49 U.S.C. §303, declares that "[i]t is the policy of the United States Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites."

Section 4(f) specifies that "[t]he Secretary [of Transportation] may approve a transportation program or project…requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, State, or local significance, or land of a historic site of national, State, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, refuge, or site) only if ­

1) there is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and
2) the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use."

Section 4(f) further requires consultation with the Department of the Interior and, as appropriate, the involved offices of the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in developing transportation projects and programs which use lands protected by Section 4(f).

In general, a Section 4(f) "use" occurs with a Department of Transportation-approved project or program when: 1) Section 4(f) land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; 2) there is a temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) land that is adverse in terms of the Section 4(f) preservationist purposes as determined by specified criteria (23 CFR §771.135[p][7]); and 3) Section 4(f) land is not incorporated into the transportation project, but the project’s proximity impacts are so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired (constructive use). 23 CFR §§771.135(p)(1) and (2).

Consultation with the Department of Agriculture (USDA) would occur whenever a project uses Section 4(f) land from the National Forest System. Consultation with HUD would occur whenever a project uses Section 4(f) land for/on which certain HUD funding had been utilized. Since neither of these conditions applies to the proposed project, consultation with USDA and HUD is not required.

6.1.2 Final Section 4(f) Evaluation

A draft Section 4(f) evaluation was circulated with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge East Span Seismic Safety Project on September 24, 1998. After circulation of the DEIS, Section 4(f) was found to apply to two additional properties. Pursuant to CFR 771.135(m)(2), a separate and supplemental Section 4(f) evaluation was prepared to address these properties:

The supplemental draft Section 4(f) evaluation also documented that Radio Beach, owned by the Port of Oakland (Port), is not a Section 4(f) resource and is not protected by the provisions of Section 4(f). The supplemental draft Section 4(f) evaluation was sent to the Department of the Interior and the following interested agencies and organizations on June 29, 1999:

Comments received on the draft Section 4(f) evaluation are included with the letters commenting on the DEIS; responses to these comments are in Volume II, Section 1, of the FEIS. Comments on the supplemental draft Section 4(f) evaluation are in Volume II, Section 3, of the FEIS. Refer to the Section 4(f) correspondence index at the end of this final Section 4(f) evaluation.

6.1.3 Section 4(f) and Section 106 ("Use" versus "Adverse Effect")

One of the issues addressed in this evaluation concerns the application of Section 4(f) to historic resources. The consideration of historic resources under Section 4(f) differs from their consideration under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Section 4(f) applies only to programs and projects undertaken by the U.S. Department of Transportation and only to publicly owned public parks, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges, and to historic sites on or eligible for the NRHP. For protected historic sites, Section 4(f) is triggered by the "use" or occupancy of a historic site by a proposed project. There is also the situation, though rare, in which a project does not actually permanently incorporate land from a historic site, but because of its proximity impacts to the historic site, is determined by the U.S. Department of Transportation to substantially impair the qualities that made the historic site eligible for the NRHP. This is referred to as a "constructive use." In addition, when a temporary occupancy of Section 4(f) land meets specified conditions (23 CFR 771.135[p][7]), the occupancy is considered so minimal that it does not constitute a "use" within the meaning of Section 4(f).

Section 106 is a different requirement that applies to any Federal agency and addresses direct and indirect "effects" of an action on historic properties. Section 106 evaluates "effects" on a historic site, while Section 4(f) protects a historic site from "use" by a project. Therefore, even though there may be an "adverse effect" under Section 106 because of the effects upon the site, the provisions of Section 4(f) are not triggered if the project would not result in an "actual use" (permanent or certain temporary occupancy of land) or a "constructive use" (substantial impairment of the features or attributes which qualified the site for the NRHP).

With regard to archaeological sites, Section 4(f) applies to all archaeological sites on or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, except those that are important chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and have minimal value for preservation in place (23 CFR §771.135[g][2]).

6.2 PROPOSED ACTION — PROJECT NEED AND DESCRIPTION

The proposed project is in San Francisco and Alameda Counties, California (see Figure 2-1 in Appendix A). The project would improve the seismic performance of the East Span of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (SFOBB) by retrofitting the existing span or by replacing it with a new structure. The proposed project is limited to the East Span of the SFOBB, between Oakland and Yerba Buena Island (YBI) (see Figure 2-2 in Appendix A); the West Span, between YBI and San Francisco, is already being retrofitted (see Section 1.3.5 — Other SFOBB Seismic Safety Projects for additional information). The following discussion presents the need for the project and the project description.

6.2.1 Need for Project

The existing East Span of the SFOBB must be replaced or retrofitted because:

Each of these needs is described in greater detail in Chapter 1 of this FEIS.

6.2.2 Description of the East Span Seismic Safety Project

The proposed seismic safety project includes full consideration of five alternatives briefly described below. The alternatives include a No-Build Alternative, a Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative, and three replacement alternatives. (Figure 2-3 in Appendix A shows all the alignments for the replacement alternatives; the No-Build Alternative and the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would both be on the alignment of the existing bridge.)

No-Build
This alternative would retain the existing SFOBB East Span. It would retain the existing bridge alignment. Under this alternative, the East Span would not withstand an MCE. As a result, this alternative would not provide a lifeline connection to carry emergency relief access after an MCE. The No-Build Alternative provides a baseline for comparison with the other alternatives. The No-Build Alternative includes the East Span Interim Seismic Retrofit Project as a completed project (see Section 1.3.6 of the FEIS for additional information).

Replacement Alternative N-6 (Preferred Alternative)
Replacement Alternative N-6 is the Preferred Alternative, as set forth in Section 6.2.3, below. It would construct a new bridge north of the existing East Span and dismantle the existing structure. The new structure would withstand an MCE and provide a lifeline connection. The new structure would also meet current roadway and design standards for operations and safety. A new transition structure would separate the double-decked lanes entering and exiting the YBI Tunnel into two parallel structures. The twin structures would follow an alignment to the north of the existing East Span. The structures would reach the Oakland shore along the northern edge of the Oakland Touchdown, where they would conform to the existing traffic lanes to the west of the Toll Plaza. The northerly limit of this alignment has been set to minimize intrusion into portions of the Bay where geologic conditions increase the complexity and cost of constructing bridge columns.

Replacement Alternative N-2
Replacement Alternative N-2 would construct a new bridge north of the existing East Span and dismantle the existing structure. The new structure would withstand an MCE and provide a lifeline connection. The new structure would also meet current roadway and design standards for operations and safety. A new transition structure would separate the double-decked lanes entering and exiting the YBI Tunnel into two parallel structures. The twin structures would closely parallel the existing bridge alignment and reach the Oakland shore along the northern edge of the Oakland Touchdown, where they would conform to the existing traffic lanes to the west of the toll plaza.

Replacement Alternative S-4
Replacement Alternative S-4 would construct a new bridge south of the existing East Span and dismantle the existing structure. The new structure would withstand an MCE and provide a lifeline connection. The new structure would also meet current roadway and design standards for operations and safety. A new transition structure would separate the double-decked lanes entering and exiting the YBI Tunnel into two parallel structures that would turn to the south and then back to the Oakland shore in an alignment to the south of the EBMUD sewer outfall. The parallel structures would reach the Oakland shore to the south of the existing East Span and would conform to the existing traffic lanes to the west of the toll plaza. The alignment would avoid crossing the underground EBMUD sewer outfall within the Bay, but it would cross the outfall on land after reaching the Oakland Touchdown area.

Retrofit Existing Structure
The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would also retain the alignment of the existing bridge. Each deck section would also remain the same: five lanes, each about 3.5 meters (11.7 feet) wide, with no roadway shoulders. This cross-section does not meet current roadway standards. This alternative would retrofit the existing SFOBB East Span to prevent collapse following an MCE; however, the bridge would sustain such damage that it would not provide a lifeline route for post-earthquake recovery and it would not reopen shortly after an MCE for car, bus, and truck traffic. Although substantial modifications to the cantilever section are proposed as part of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative, it is, nevertheless, anticipated that the cantilever section would experience substantial damage and require extensive reconstruction or replacement following an MCE. If damage is such that reconstruction of the cantilever section is feasible, this may require complete closure of the East Span for six months to one year. If, however, damage were sufficiently severe that replacement becomes necessary, the East Span would be completely closed for a substantially longer period of time.

Temporary Detours on Yerba Buena Island
Temporary detours would be required on YBI to carry traffic during construction of any of the replacement alternatives. The temporary detours would be operational for approximately 2 years. The period from the beginning of construction to the end of dismantling would be approximately 4 years. Their purpose would be to reroute traffic around a portion of the existing bridge on YBI to minimize traffic impacts while allowing dismantling of that portion of the existing bridge on YBI to allow construction and tie-in of a new permanent structure.

Configurations and locations of the temporary detours were evaluated in an effort to avoid or minimize impacts to U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) facilities. Configurations were analyzed for construction feasibility, impacts to resources on YBI, and traffic operational impacts. Only one temporary detour remains under consideration; it is referred to as the north-south option. The north-south option would build a westbound temporary structure to the north and an eastbound temporary structure to the south of the existing bridge; this option would be used for all three replacement alternatives. (The foundations of this temporary detour are shown schematically in Figures 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 while photo simulations of the detour structures are shown in Figures 6-13 and 6-14 in Appendix A.)

Temporary Detours No Longer Under Consideration. Two other temporary detours were previously considered and are no longer under consideration. They include constructing eastbound and westbound temporary detours to the north of the existing bridge (north-only option); and constructing eastbound and westbound temporary detours to the south of the existing bridge (south-only option). The north-only temporary detours would result in traffic safety concerns and additional uses of historic resources. The south-only temporary detours for Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6 would result in access concerns as a result of bridge closure for a few weeks. The south-only temporary detour for Replacement Alternative S-4 would result in traffic safety concerns. For these reasons, the north-only and south-only temporary detours are no longer being considered.

6.2.3 Preferred Alternative

Replacement Alternative N-6, described above, is the Preferred Alternative for a number of reasons, including avoidance of Section 4(f) resources. Reasons not related to Section 4(f) resources are listed immediately below. The ways in which Replacement Alternative N-6 avoids Section 4(f) resources are discussed in Sections 6.4 and 6.5 of this final Section 4(f) evaluation.

Replacement Alternative N-6:

6.3 DESCRIPTION OF SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES USED BY PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

Three Section 4(f) resources would be used by alternatives of the proposed project: the SFOBB and its contributing components; the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District on YBI; and the proposed Gateway Park at the Oakland Touchdown.

6.3.1 The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

The East Span of the SFOBB and some of its contributing components would be used by the retrofit alternative and all replacement alternatives of the proposed project.

The Entire San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge

The entire SFOBB, both East and West Spans, is 13.2 kilometers (8.2 miles) long from Fifth Street in downtown San Francisco to the SFOBB Toll Plaza in Oakland. It includes various bridge structures and ancillary buildings in San Francisco, on YBI and at the Oakland Touchdown, and it includes a double-deck tunnel on YBI. (Figure 1-1 in Appendix A shows a schematic layout of the entire bridge.) The entire SFOBB was determined eligible for listing on the NRHP in 1983, and as such, it is a historic property protected by the provisions of Section 4(f). It is a toll bridge owned and operated by Caltrans. It crosses San Francisco Bay and links the East Bay with the City and County of San Francisco (CCSF) and the San Francisco Peninsula. The double-deck roadway is a designated Interstate Freeway (Interstate 80) with five vehicle lanes on each deck which together carry 272,000 vehicles per day.

In 1931 the State of California established by law the California Toll Bridge Authority, with power to buy or build bridges and borrow money against their prospective tolls. The SFOBB was designed and constructed for the California Toll Bridge Authority by the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge Division, California Department of Public Works. It opened to traffic in November of 1936 as a primary state highway, maintained by the Division of Highways (which later became Caltrans). The SFOBB is significant as a major work of civil engineering for its role in shaping Bay Area transportation patterns and for its association with the important engineers and architects who designed it.

Historic resources that are listed on the NRHP and resources that are eligible for it are viewed similarly under the provisions of Section 4(f) in that all such resources are protected by Section 4(f). Listing on the NRHP, while conferring a certain distinction, does not result in additional protections to historic resources under the provisions of Section 4(f).

At the time the SFOBB was first opened in 1936, it held many world records. It was the greatest bridge in the world for its cost, length, quantities of steel and concrete, weight, depth, and number of columns, the size of the bore of its tunnel on YBI, and the versatility of its engineering. Seven of its columns were deeper than any others in the world. New technologies were developed to construct the foundations. The submarine work was the greatest underwater engineering task ever undertaken. The steel for the superstructure was said to constitute the largest steel order ever placed.

The West Span and the East Span of the SFOBB are distinctly different bridge structures linked by the tunnel on YBI. The West Span consists of two double-deck suspension bridges joined to a common central anchorage in the Bay between San Francisco and YBI. The anchorages of one suspension bridge are in San Francisco and at the Center Anchorage (Column W4), while the anchorages for the other suspension bridge are at the Center Anchorage (Column W4) and on YBI. In contrast, the East Span consists of trusses, as discussed below.

The East Span of the SFOBB

The East Bay truss/cantilever span (East Span) of the SFOBB connects YBI to the Toll Plaza area on the Oakland shore (see Figure 2-2 in Appendix A). The East Span and the contributing components adjacent to it comprise a substantial part of the SFOBB historic resource. The East Span consists of a series of steel trusses with a cantilever truss system spanning the main navigation opening near YBI. The east viaduct on YBI is a bridge structure that connects the East Span to the tunnel through the island. The east viaduct and the tunnel are contributing components to the historic resource.

Contributing Components Associated with the East Span

Four buildings associated with the East Span are contributing components of the SFOBB.

On YBI, just east of the tunnel, a small garage and electrical substation are immediately adjacent to the bridge on the north side. The buildings are utilitarian concrete structures. They were built in the late 1930s. They are shown in relation to the replacement alternatives on Figures 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 in Appendix A.

At the Oakland Touchdown, there are two electrical substations adjacent to the eastern end of the bridge (see Figures 6-7 and 6-8 in Appendix A). They are eligible for the NRHP as contributing components of the SFOBB. One of these, the Caltrans Substation, is a utilitarian concrete structure built in the late 1930s, similar to the substation on YBI. The other structure, the Key Pier Substation, was constructed in 1925-26 as part of the Key System Railway. It is a tall concrete building with a pyramidal roof and skylight. It is associated with the bridge as the substation that provided power to the rail lines that were carried on the lower deck of the bridge until the rail lines were removed in the 1950s. It is also individually eligible for the NRHP at the local level of significance under Criterion A as a rare surviving component of the historically significant Key System railway, which was an important East Bay transit system in the early 20th century.

6.3.2 The Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District

The Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District would be permanently used by the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative and temporarily used by all replacement alternatives of the proposed project.

The Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District was identified as a property eligible for the NRHP in a historic architecture survey of YBI and Treasure Island, carried out by the Navy in 1997. The Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C, in the areas of military history and architecture. These criteria may be applied to historic districts as well as individual historic properties; in general terms, a historic district contains a number of historic buildings, structures, or sites that are united historically, culturally, or architecturally, and that as an assemblage meet the NRHP criteria of significance.

The Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District is comprised of Quarters 1 through 7 and three associated garages (Buildings 83, 205, and 230) (see Figures 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 in Appendix A). The boundary of the District is depicted in Figure 6-12 in Appendix A. The seven residences are all of wood frame construction, with two full floors and dormered attic stories. They were constructed between 1900 and 1903 in the Classical Revival style. Quarters 1, the largest and most elaborate of these, was listed on the NRHP in 1991. Buildings 83 and 230 are garages with second floor living quarters, constructed in 1918 and 1944, respectively. Building 205 is a single-story garage constructed in 1936. The district is significant for its association with the Naval Training Station on YBI and as a distinctive ensemble of Classical Revival residences.

The District Record prepared by the U.S. Navy for the historic district states that "[b]oundaries were determined to include the historic buildings of the area, and the landscape elements that tie them together." The boundaries of this roughly triangular historic district are the road to the west of Quarters 5 and 6, the lower edge of the lawn area to the east, and a line up the hill behind Quarters 1 that encompasses the formal gardens between Quarters 1 and Building 230.

6.3.3 Gateway Park

The Gateway Park would be permanently used by Replacement Alternative S-4.

The proposed Gateway Park is located at the Oakland Touchdown (see Figure 6-9 in Appendix A). It would be developed on land that is part of the former OARB, which is currently involved in the base closure process. The OBRA is the designated local redevelopment authority for the base. OBRA’s Reuse Plan designates 5.9 hectares (14.7 acres) at the westernmost portion of the Army Base on the Oakland Touchdown as the site of a proposed public access shoreline park. It further designates the EBRPD as the agency that would develop the park. EBRPD proposes generally passive recreational activities to be developed in the park, including but not limited to viewing the Bay, picnicking, and bicycling.

In a letter commenting on the project Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Department of the Interior found that "the S-4 Alternative Alignment impacts the envisioned park, and other prudent and feasible alternatives exist to this alternative." Department of the Interior recommended that the matter be pursued in consultation with authorities that may be concerned about potential project impacts to park and recreation resources (see correspondence from the Department of the Interior, December 18, 1998, in Appendix G of the FEIS).

In a meeting held March 11, 1999, the FHWA and Caltrans solicited the views on this proposed park from staff of the EBRPD, the Port, the City of Oakland and the National Park Service (NPS). Each agency described the importance of the proposed Gateway Park as a regionally significant recreational facility, providing a gateway to the East Bay.

In early 1999, the MTC committed to allocate $120,000 to the EBRPD for fiscal year 1999-2000. The purpose of the allocation was for Gateway Park project planning. MTC has stated that the Gateway Park is envisioned as a lush greenway that would anchor the Oakland Touchdown of the SFOBB and transform the nondescript Bay frontage at that location into a natural haven.

The proposed public park is on publicly owned land that has been designated for park development by the OBRA, the designated local redevelopment authority for the OARB. The proposed park has received the support of the local community as well as interested local, regional, state, and federal agencies. EBRPD has taken the responsibility for being the lead agency to further develop and manage the park. The proposed Gateway Park is a Section 4(f) resource.

6.4 USE OF SECTION 4(f) RESOURCES BY PROJECT ALTERNATIVES

6.4.1 East Span of the SFOBB and Its Contributing Components

Potential Section 4(f) uses by the project are discussed below as they relate to the East Span of the SFOBB and its contributing structures. The No-Build Alternative would not use this Section 4(f) resource.

Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative

This alternative would retrofit the existing East Span of the bridge from Oakland to the east tunnel portal on YBI. The work would include the addition of new piles and pile caps at many columns, construction of two new columns at the main span of the cantilever truss, and concrete encasement of several of the existing steel piers. A new edge truss would also be added to the cantilever section, from the base of the lower deck to the bottom of the upper deck. This alternative would not alter the garage and substation on YBI or the substations in Oakland that are contributing components of the bridge. (Figures 6-10 and 6-11 in Appendix A show before and after simulations of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative looking at the cantilever section.)

Evaluation of Section 4(f) Use by the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would result in a Section 4(f) use of this historic bridge, because it would adversely affect the historical integrity of the bridge by altering elements of the bridge’s design and materials, both of which contribute to the bridge’s status as a NRHP eligible property. For more information about "use" under Section 4(f) and "adverse effect" under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, see Section 6.1.3.

Replacement Alternatives

All of the replacement alternatives include dismantling of the existing East Span as well as removal of the two contributing buildings (the garage and electrical substation) on YBI. The replacement alternatives would not alter or demolish the Key Pier Substation or the other contributing substation at the Oakland Touchdown.

Evaluation of Section 4(f) Use by the Replacement Alternatives. Dismantling of the existing East Span and removal of two contributing buildings would result in a Section 4(f) use of the historic resource.

6.4.2 Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District

The project’s Section 4(f) use of the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District is discussed below. The No-Build Alternative would not use this Section 4(f) property.

Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative

The Retrofit Existing Alternative would expand the concrete column footings and encase Columns YB2 through YB4 on YBI (in Appendix A, see Figure 6-16; Figure 6-15 shows the existing bridge for comparison). The existing columns are outside the historic district boundary. The concrete blocks of the existing column footings extend above the ground level; the part above ground level is about 2.4 meters (8 feet) wide and about 2.7 meters (9 feet) long; the tops of the column footings vary in height above ground level. At Column YB2, the column footing extends about 3 meters (10 feet) above the ground level. Expanding the footing of Column YB2 would incorporate land from the historic district into the transportation facility by extending the concrete block of the footing into the historic district boundary. The above-ground portion of the expanded portion of the column footing would be 6.1 meters (20 feet) wide, 8.5 meters (28 feet) long, and about 2.1 meters (7 feet) high. The above-ground portion of the expanded column footing that would extend into the historic district boundary would measure 6.1 meters (20 feet) wide by 1.5 meters (5 feet) long, and it would be about 2.1 meters (7 feet) high. This would incorporate about 9.3 square meters (100 square feet) of the historic district into the transportation facility. The work would remove adjacent vegetation consisting chiefly of naturalized berry vines; it would also relocate part of a staircase next to the column. The staircase is not itself historic and is not a contributing element to the historic district; it leads from the Parade Grounds up the hill to Macalla Road, and for most of its length it is outside the historic district and beneath the existing bridge. It provides access for USCG personnel between their facility at the shoreline and buildings and a bus stop at higher elevations on the island.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not alter the alignment of the structure as a whole. At its closest point as measured in plan view, the structure for the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would still be the same horizontal distance from Quarters 1 as the existing structure, or 48 meters (157 feet). The bridge deck would remain about 36 meters (120 feet) above the level of the historic district.

Evaluation of Section 4(f) Use by the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative. The expanded footing of Column YB2 would cause a Section 4(f) use, since land from the historic district would be permanently incorporated into the transportation facility.

Temporary Detours for Replacement Alternatives

All of the replacement alternatives require the use of temporary detours to temporarily carry traffic during construction on YBI. The only temporary detour still being considered is the north-south temporary detour. The temporary detours and their support columns would pass to the south of the boundary of Quarters 1, the nearest historic building in the historic district, but some support columns would be within the historic district boundaries. For all replacement alternatives, the supports for the temporary detours would be in the near viewshed of Quarters 1 for the length of time the temporary detours would be in place.

The north-south temporary detour for Replacement Alternative N-2 would result in a temporary detour passing above a portion of the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District. At its closest point, the structure would be about 36 meters (120 feet) above the historic district, and about 2 meters (7 feet) horizontally to the south of Quarters 1, the nearest historic building in the historic district (see Figures 6-1 [plan view] and 6-13 [simulation] in Appendix A). The temporary detours would not remove any historic buildings. Approximately four column footings would be constructed within the grounds of the historic district in the lawn and vegetation downhill from Quarters 1, as shown in Figure 6-1 in Appendix A. Footing locations shown in Figure 6-1 are schematic; the locations would be refined during final design. The temporary detours would not restrict access to the historic district or Quarters 1.

The north-south temporary detour for Replacement Alternative N-6 would result in a temporary detour temporarily passing above a portion of the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District. At its closest point, the structure would be about 36 meters (120 feet) above the historic district and about 2 meters (7 feet) horizontally to the south of Quarters 1, the nearest historic building in the historic district (see Figures 6-2 [plan view] and 6-13 [simulation] in Appendix A). The temporary detour would not remove any historic buildings. Approximately six column footings would be constructed in the lawn and vegetation downhill from Quarters 1, as shown in Figure 6-2 in Appendix A. Footing locations shown in Figure 6-2 in Appendix A are schematic; the locations would be refined during final design. The temporary detour would not restrict access to the historic district or Quarters 1.

The north-south temporary detour for Replacement Alternative S-4 would result in a temporary detour passing above the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District. At its closest point, the structure would be about 36 meters (120 feet) above the historic district and about 5 meters (16 feet) horizontally to the south of Quarters 1, the nearest historic building in the historic district (see Figures 6-3 [plan view] and 6-14 [simulation] in Appendix A). The temporary detour would not remove any historic buildings. Approximately four column footings would be constructed in the lawn and vegetation downhill from Quarters 1, as shown in Figure 6-3 in Appendix A. One other column, on the walkway to the east of Quarters 1, would also be partially within the historic district; although this column would be partially within the historic district, it would be outside the boundary of Quarters 1 itself. Footing locations are schematic; the locations would be refined during final design. The temporary detour would not restrict access to the historic district or Quarters 1.

Evaluation of Section 4(f) Use by Temporary Detours. Temporary detours would be required to build any of the replacement alternatives. The potential Section 4(f) use of the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District by the temporary detours was evaluated. Section 4(f) use by permanent structures is discussed below. As outlined in 23 CFR §771.135(p)(7), when the following conditions are satisfied, a temporary occupancy of land is so minimal that it does not constitute a Section 4(f) use within the meaning of Section 4(f):

  1. Duration must be temporary, i.e., less than the time needed for construction of the project, and there should be no change in ownership of the land;
  2. Scope of the work must be minor, i.e., both the nature and the magnitude of the changes to the Section 4(f) resource are minimal;
  3. There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts, nor would there be interference with the activities or purposes of the resource, on either a temporary or permanent basis;
  4. The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the resource must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that which existed prior to the project; and
  5. There must be documented agreement of the appropriate federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the resource regarding the above conditions.

Pursuant to 23 CFR §771.135(p)(7), the temporary detours for any of the replacement alternatives would be in place for up to 45 months; this is less than the time needed for construction of the project, which would be approximately five years. The scope of work involves the placement of columns and footings in landscaped or paved areas of the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District. The columns would support five-lane wide temporary structures overhead.

Placement of the columns would involve some excavation within landscaped areas of the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District, consisting of lawn and shrubbery. The excavation would result in minimal changes to the historic resource. The architecture of this historic district and its association with military history, the attributes that qualify it for the NRHP, would remain unchanged. There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts from the temporary placement of columns and footings within the grounds of the historic district. The land temporarily occupied by these columns and footings within the historic district would be fully restored as part of the project, including replacement planting and restoring the ground to its original condition. The temporary detours required for the replacement alternatives appear to meet the first four conditions outlined in 23 CFR §771.135(p)(7) for minimal occupancy of land.

In the draft Section 4(f) evaluation circulated with the DEIS, it had been assumed that the SHPO, the official having jurisdiction over historic resources, would agree with the first four criteria for minimal occupancy of land. Based on this assumption, it was determined that the temporary detours would not result in a Section 4(f) use. It was acknowledged, however, that consultation with the SHPO could result in a different outcome, requiring that this issue be revisited. Caltrans and the FHWA consulted with the SHPO to seek its agreement with the first four conditions for minimal occupancy pursuant to 23 CFR §771.135(p)(7)(v). The SHPO declined to agree or disagree regarding these conditions. Absent the agreement of the officials having jurisdiction regarding the first four criteria for minimal occupancy, FHWA has determined that the temporary detours for all replacement alternatives would result in a Section 4(f) use of the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District. A supplemental draft Section 4(f) evaluation was prepared and circulated for review to address this Section 4(f) resource, as discussed in Section 6.1.2 of this final Section 4(f) evaluation. Comments were received on the supplemental draft Section 4(f) evaluation. Comments and responses are in Volume II, Section 3 of this FEIS.

Permanent Structures of Replacement Alternatives

The permanent structures for Replacement Alternative N-2 would be about 8 meters (26 feet) northwest of the existing bridge in the area of the historic district (in Appendix A, see Figure 6-17; Figures 6-15 and 6-16 show the existing bridge and a simulation of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative for comparison). The permanent structure for Replacement Alternative N-2 would extend above the southeast corner of the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District. The bridge structure of Replacement Alternative N-2 would be built at the same elevation as the existing structure, a minimum of about 36 meters (120 feet) above the historic district. Replacement Alternative N-2 would span lawn and shrubbery, supported by bridge columns outside of the historic district. At its closest point, the new bridge structure of Replacement Alternative N-2 would be 40 meters (131 feet) horizontally from Quarters 1, the nearest historic building in the historic district. The existing bridge is 48 meters (157 feet) horizontally from Quarters 1 at the closest point, so this alternative would be 8 meters (26 feet) horizontally closer to Quarters 1 than the existing bridge.

The permanent structures for Replacement Alternative N-6 would be about 12 meters (39 feet) northwest of the existing bridge in the area of the historic district (in Appendix A, see Figure 6-17; Figures 6-15 and 6-16 show the existing bridge and a simulation of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative for comparison). As in the discussion of Replacement Alternative N-2 above, the permanent structure for Replacement Alternative N-6 would be about 36 meters (120 feet) above the southeast corner of the historic district, spanning lawn and shrubbery, and supported by bridge columns outside of the historic district. At its closest point, the new bridge structure would be 36 meters (118 feet) horizontally from Quarters 1, the nearest historic building in the historic district. Therefore, this alternative would be 12 meters (39 feet) closer to Quarters 1 than the existing bridge.

The permanent structures for Replacement Alternative S-4 would be slightly farther away from the historic district than the existing bridge (in Appendix A, see Figure 6-18; Figures 6-15 and 6-16 show the existing bridge and a simulation of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative and northern replacement alternatives for comparison). The permanent structures would not span the historic district. At its closest point, the new bridge structure would be 54 meters (177 feet) horizontally from Quarters 1, the nearest historic building in the historic district. Therefore, this alternative would be 6 meters (20 feet) farther away from Quarters 1 than the existing bridge.

Summary of Distances from Project Alternatives to Quarters 1. Below is a table summarizing the horizontal and vertical distances from the bridge to Naval Quarters 1 (the Nimitz House) at the closest point for each alternative. Of the historic buildings in the Senior Officers' Quarters Historic District, Naval Quarters 1 is the closest one to the project alternatives. The vertical distances are measured from the bridge to the ground directly beneath the bridge at the closest horizontal distance to Quarters 1; none of the temporary or permanent structures for any build alternative actually span Quarters 1. The table is provided to assist in understanding the locations of the project alternatives in relation to Quarters 1.

Alternative

Approximate Horizontal Distance to Quarters 1 at the Closest Point

Approximate Vertical Distance to the Closest Point on the Ground Near Quarters 1

Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative

48 meters (157 feet)

37 meters (120 feet)

Replacement Alternative N-2

40 meters (131 feet)

37 meters (120 feet)

Replacement Alternative N-6

36 meters (118 feet)

37 meters (120 feet)

Replacement Alternative S-4

54 meters (177 feet)

37 meters (120 feet)

Temporary detours for any replacement alternative

2 meters (7 feet)

37 meters (120 feet)

Source: Caltrans, November 2000.

Evaluation of Section 4(f) Use by Permanent Structures of Replacement Alternatives. An "actual" Section 4(f) use would not occur as a result of the permanent structures because land from the historic district would not be permanently incorporated into the new bridge facility. Future maintenance activities on the portion of the bridge spanning the historic district by Replacement Alternative N-2 or N-6 would be addressed in a new construction and maintenance agreement executed with the property owner (currently the Navy) for the portion of the bridge traversing the historic district. The design of the permanent replacement structure (including the location of the bridge columns and footings outside of the historic district) and the required bridge maintenance activities to be addressed in the new construction and maintenance agreement would not result in a permanent loss of use of property within the historic district.

The proximity impacts of the replacement alternatives were evaluated to determine whether they were so severe that the protected attributes that qualify the historic district for the NRHP are substantially impaired, i.e., to determine whether there would be a "constructive" Section 4(f) use. Based on this evaluation, it was determined that there would be no "constructive" Section 4(f) uses under the following potential proximity impacts: noise, views, access, and vibration. Therefore, the attributes that qualify the historic district for the NRHP, its association with military history and the architecture of its historic buildings, would not be substantially impaired by proximity impacts of any of the replacement alternatives.

6.4.3 Gateway Park

OARB is currently involved in the base closure process. The OBRA’s Draft Final Reuse Plan designates 5.9 hectares (14.7 acres) at the westernmost end of the former OARB for a Public Benefit Conveyance to the EBRPD for a future park (see Figure 6-9 in Appendix A).

Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would be built within existing State right-of-way. It would not incorporate any land from the 5.9-hectare (14.7-acre) proposed park into the transportation project (see Figure 6-19 in Appendix A). It would not result in an actual Section 4(f) use of the proposed Gateway Park. At its closest point, the transportation facility would be 28 meters (92 feet) from the boundary of the proposed park property.

Proximity Impacts. The projected traffic noise levels at the park resulting from the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would be the same as for the No-Build Alternative, since the roadway location and configuration would remain the same. Projected noise levels from both the No-Build Alternative and the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would be the same as existing noise levels. Since the existing condition and the No-Build Alternative result in the same noise levels as the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative in the area proposed for park use, no noise impacts to the proposed park are attributable to the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative. There would be no constructive use of the proposed park from the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative as a result of noise.

The proposed park would be implemented following construction of the East Span Project. A transportation facility exists at the Oakland Touchdown now, and when the park is implemented, its setting would include the transportation facility. The park planning that has taken place to date includes interagency coordination regarding ways to enhance the relationship of the transportation facility to the proposed park. The transportation facility would not substantially impair important aesthetic features or attributes of the proposed park. The operation of the transportation facility under the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not restrict access to the proposed park.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in an actual or a constructive use of the proposed Gateway Park.

Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6

Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6 have the same location and configuration at the Oakland Touchdown. They would be built within existing State right-of-way and right-of-way from the Port of Oakland. These alternatives would not incorporate any land from the 5.9-hectare (14.7-acre) proposed park into the transportation project (see Figure 6-19 in Appendix A). At the closest point, the transportation facility would be 46 meters (151 feet) from the boundary of the proposed park property for both of these alternatives.

Proximity Impacts. Existing noise levels range from 65 dBA at the eastern end of the proposed park land to 74 dBA near the western end. The projected traffic noise levels at the park resulting from Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6 would range from 67 dBA at the eastern end of the proposed park land to 70 dBA near the western end. The FHWA noise abatement criteria define 67 dBA as the threshold for traffic noise abatement consideration for parks.

At the eastern end of the proposed park, there would be a 2 dBA increase in noise levels over the existing condition. The projected noise level of 67 dBA is equal to the noise abatement threshold of 67 dBA established for parks. Since the federal noise abatement criteria are not exceeded, changes in noise levels at the eastern end of the proposed park would not result in a constructive use of the park. Near the western end of the proposed park, projected noise levels of 70 dBA for Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6 would exceed the threshold by 3 dBA; however, noise levels would also be reduced by 3 to 6 dBA from existing noise levels for the No-Build Alternative. Since Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6 would result in noise levels 3 to 6 dBA lower than they would be if the project were not implemented, changes in noise levels near the western end of the proposed park would not result in a constructive use of the future park.

The proposed park would be implemented following construction of the East Span Project. A transportation facility exists at the Oakland Touchdown now, and when the park is implemented, its setting would include the transportation facility. The park planning that has taken place to date includes interagency coordination regarding ways to enhance the relationship of the transportation facility to the proposed park. The transportation facility would therefore not substantially impair important aesthetic features or attributes of the proposed park. The operation of the transportation facility under either Replacement Alternative N-2 or N-6 would also not restrict access to the proposed park.

Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6 would not result in an actual or a constructive use of the proposed Gateway Park.

Replacement Alternative S-4

Replacement Alternative S-4 would be built within existing State right-of-way and right-of-way from the OARB. It would incorporate approximately 3 hectares (7.4 acres) of the 5.9-hectare (14.7-acre) proposed park into the transportation project (see Figure 6-19 in Appendix A). This would reduce the size of the proposed park by one-half. The remaining area would accommodate the generally passive recreational activities proposed for the park, including but not limited to viewing the Bay, picnicking, and bicycling. However, the remaining land designated for park purposes would be at the greatest distance from the western end of the Oakland Touchdown. Replacement Alternative S-4 would incorporate much of the westernmost end of the park property, where views of the Bay to the south and west are the most dramatic, and where the presence of a park would most effectively enhance the experience of landfall for bridge users and for park visitors. The park’s reduced size and location as a result of Replacement Alternative S-4 would therefore limit its intended function as a regionally significant recreational area and a gateway to the East Bay. Replacement Alternative S-4 would also place the transportation facility immediately adjacent to the remaining park land, thereby increasing expected noise levels in the park. For this alternative, views of the Bay from the park would be primarily to the south; views to the west would be partially obstructed by the bridge structure in the foreground. This alternative would not restrict access to the remaining park land.

Replacement Alternative S-4 would result in a Section 4(f) use of the proposed park.

6.4.4 Summary of Project Uses of Section 4(f) Resources, by Alternative

Every build alternative would result in a Section 4(f) use, though the build alternatives would not all result in the use of the same Section 4(f) resources. The matrix below summarizes the Section 4(f) resources that would be used by the project build alternatives. The No-Build Alternative would not use any Section 4(f) resources; it is not included in the matrix. Examining the Section 4(f) uses in combination demonstrates the extent of Section 4(f) uses for each build alternative.

 

Retrofit Existing Structure

Replacement Alternative
N-2

Replacement Alternative
N-6

Replacement Alternative
S-4

Existing SFOBB East Span

P

P

P

P

Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District

P

T

T

T

Proposed Gateway Park

-

-

-

P

P = Permanent Section 4(f) use;
T = Temporary occupancy resulting in a Section 4(f) use;
- = No Section 4(f) use.

All of the build alternatives would result in a permanent Section 4(f) use of the historic bridge, as a result of substantial alteration or removal of the East Span. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would permanently incorporate about 9.3 square meters (100 square feet) of the grounds of the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District, as a result of enlarging a column footing at the historic district boundary. The temporary detours for all of the replacement alternatives would temporarily use the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District, as a result of placing about four to six temporary detour columns within the grounds of the historic district for up to 45 months during construction of the replacement bridge structure. Replacement Alternative S-4 would result in the Section 4(f) use of the proposed Gateway Park by permanently incorporating about 3 hectares (7.4 acres) of the proposed park into the bridge facility at the Oakland Touchdown.

6.5 AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVES

Every build alternative results in a Section 4(f) use. Potential alternatives that avoid all Section 4(f) uses are addressed below, followed by a discussion of possible ways to avoid uses of individual Section 4(f) resources.

6.5.1 Build Alternatives that Avoid All Section 4(f) Uses

This section considers the potential for build alternatives that would avoid a Section 4(f) use of the existing East Span of the SFOBB and all other Section 4(f) resources.

Any build alternative that avoids all Section 4(f) uses would require construction of a new bridge, since a retrofit cannot be accomplished without causing a Section 4(f) use. All build alternatives would have one of two possible outcomes: either the existing East Span would be retained for transportation purposes or the existing East Span would no longer be used for transportation purposes.

If the existing East Span were retained for transportation purposes, it would still require extensive seismic retrofit to survive an MCE, in accordance with the project's purpose and need. The Interim Retrofit of the existing East Span adds some earthquake protection, but it will not enable the existing East Span to survive an MCE. Extensive seismic retrofit would result in modifications to the existing East Span of comparable magnitude to what is already proposed by the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative. Extensive modification of the existing East Span would not avoid a Section 4(f) use of the East Span.

If the existing East Span were no longer used for transportation purposes and Caltrans were to propose leaving it in place, this would not meet USCG requirements. USCG has stated that, pursuant to the USCG Bridge Administration Manual, it would require that the existing East Span be removed if a new bridge were constructed (see correspondence from USCG, August 12, 1998, in Appendix G). Removal of the existing East Span pursuant to USCG’s requirement would result in a Section 4(f) use of the historic resource.

All potential build alternatives would result in the need to either extensively retrofit or remove the existing East Span. Either of these actions would result in a Section 4(f) use of the historic bridge. Therefore, there is no build alternative that avoids all Section 4(f) uses.

6.5.2 Alternatives that Avoid Individual Section 4(f) Uses

There is no build alternative that avoids use of all Section 4(f) resources. The discussion below evaluates potential avoidance alternatives to avoid Section 4(f) use of individual Section 4(f) resources.

East Span of the SFOBB

Rehabilitate the Existing East Span without Affecting Its Historic Integrity. As discussed previously, the existing East Span is vulnerable to earthquake forces generated by an MCE. A retrofit strategy that would rehabilitate the East Span to withstand an MCE would require substantial alterations to the existing bridge elements. These alterations, as discussed above under the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative, would result in a Section 4(f) use. There is no way to avoid a Section 4(f) use of the SFOBB and still rehabilitate the East Span in a manner that would enable it to withstand substantial earthquake forces. This does not constitute a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative.

Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District

Avoid Use by Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative. If bridge Column YB2 were enlarged on three sides only and not enlarged on the side nearest the historic district, this would possibly avoid a Section 4(f) use of the historic district and, as such, would constitute an avoidance of the use of the historic district. However, this is not an ideal engineering solution. It would require more piles or tie-downs underground to balance the load carried on the column foundation. It would be an "unbalanced" engineering design. Unbalanced engineering designs do not perform as well as balanced designs in a seismic event. Furthermore, tie-downs are not desirable structural elements for permanent structures, because not much is known about their long-term performance and because any below-ground failures over time would be difficult to identify, inspect, or repair. This design is not a feasible and prudent alternative to avoid use of the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District by the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative.

Avoid Use by Replacement Alternative Temporary Detours. Use of the historic district by the temporary detours for the replacement alternatives could be avoided by alternatives that would not make use of temporary detours to the north of the existing bridge. These alternatives include building temporary detours only to the south of the existing bridge or closing the bridge for the period it takes to construct the transition on YBI.

1. Building temporary detours to the south (the south-only temporary detour) was one of the temporary detours previously considered but no longer under consideration. The south-only temporary detour would be a double-deck structure located south of the existing transition structure. Westbound traffic would travel on the upper deck of the existing bridge to the upper deck of the temporary detour, then to the YBI Tunnel. Eastbound traffic would exit the tunnel onto the lower deck of the temporary detour, then onto the lower deck of the existing bridge. Construction of this temporary detour would require that an 88-meter (288-foot) section of the existing bridge be cut away, removed, and replaced with a temporary detour. The replacement section would be lifted in place. It has been estimated that this operation would require complete closure of the East Span for two to four weeks, with diversion of 272,000 vehicles per day to other routes and/or transportation modes. Based on the complexity of construction and the requirement for complete closure of the East Span for over a week, the south-only temporary detour is not a feasible and prudent avoidance alternative, as it results in impacts of extraordinary magnitude.

2. The existing East Span could be closed for the period necessary to connect new structures to the existing tunnel and tunnel approach. This would eliminate the need for temporary detours, thereby avoiding a Section 4(f) use by temporary detours. The East Span would be closed for approximately 15 months in order to complete the necessary construction work. This would require diverting 272,000 vehicles per day to other routes and/or other transportation modes. The West Span would remain open to provide vehicle access to YBI and Treasure Island from San Francisco. Closing the bridge for such a length of time would result in substantial changes to regional transportation, along with economic impacts and political opposition. This construction alternative results in impacts of extraordinary magnitude, and it is not a prudent avoidance alternative.

Gateway Park

Replacement Alternative S-4 results in a Section 4(f) use of the proposed Gateway Park. The No-Build Alternative, Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative, and Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6 would not. The use of the proposed Gateway Park by Replacement Alternative S-4 could be avoided by selecting the No-Build Alternative, the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative, or Replacement Alternatives N-2 or N-6. A realignment of Replacement Alternative S-4 that would reduce the use of the proposed Gateway Park and achieve a similar tie-in point with existing travel lanes would conflict with the in-Bay portion of the EBMUD outfall. See Section 2.7.5 — Replacement Alternative S-1, Further Study of Relocating or Straddling the Outfall for a discussion of risks associated with the EBMUD outfall.

6.6 MEASURES TO MINIMIZE HARM

6.6.1 Historic Resources

Memorandum of Agreement

Mitigation measures were developed through consultation with the SHPO, the ACHP, the USCG, the FHWA, and Caltrans, and with input from the Navy, CCSF, City of Oakland, historic preservation organizations, and Native Americans. These mitigation measures were incorporated into an MOA for this undertaking. The MOA was signed by FHWA, SHPO, ACHP and the USCG. Caltrans and various Native American individuals and groups are concurring parties. The executed MOA stipulates the commitments that Caltrans and FHWA have made to mitigate the project's potential effects on historic properties. This MOA is alternative-neutral; that is, it outlines commitments that would be made for each project alternative. The commitments that apply to the alternative to be selected in the Record of Decision will be the ones that will be implemented. A copy of the executed MOA is in Appendix O of this Final Environmental Impact Statement.

East Span of the SFOBB

Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative, Replacement Alternative N-6, would remove the existing East Span of the SFOBB, resulting in a Section 4(f) use of this resource. Measures to minimize harm as a result of this Section 4(f) use include (see Stipulation III, A through F, in Appendix O):

As a related activity, Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation for the entire SFOBB has been completed. It provides extensive graphic, photographic, and text recordation of the entire bridge, including the East Span. HAER recordation has been carried out as mitigation for the other seismic retrofit projects on the entire bridge from Fifth Street in San Francisco to the Oakland Touchdown.

Other Alternatives. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would alter rather than remove the existing East Span. As a result, not all measures to minimize harm that are appropriate for the Preferred Alternative would apply to the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative. Measures to minimize harm as a result of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative include (see Stipulations E and F, Appendix O):

The same measures to minimize harm that apply to the Preferred Alternative, Replacement Alternative N-6, also apply to Replacement Alternatives N-2 and S-4.

Measures to Minimize Harm to the SFOBB Considered and Withdrawn

Rehabilitate the Cantilever Truss and Replace the Remaining Portions. As another project alternative, in order to minimize harm, it has been suggested that rehabilitating the cantilever truss of the East Span and constructing an improved viaduct leading up to it would be preservation-sensitive. The cantilever section was suggested for preservation efforts because particular engineering significance is attributed to this section of the East Span.

Retrofit of the cantilever truss would involve extensive work. This work was briefly cited in the description of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative above. More specifically, calculations have indicated that major structural members of the cantilever truss would need to be replaced if they are not structurally isolated in terms of their response to earthquake forces. In order to avoid the tremendous traffic disruption and cost associated with major replacement tasks, external strengthening would be proposed to retrofit this section. This strengthening would be accomplished by constructing additional trusses to surround, stiffen, and confine the existing cantilever truss system. The existing tower legs would require substantial widening or the addition of supplemental tower legs to support the weight of this massive new truss. The column foundations would need substantial retrofitting to withstand the additional loads. Retrofit of the cantilever truss to withstand an MCE would result in substantial changes to that section of the East Span. This alternative does minimize harm to the bridge when compared to complete dismantling. However, the cantilever would not be retrofitted to lifeline criteria, and this measure to minimize harm would not meet the project purpose and need; further, it would still substantially impair the historic engineering characteristics of the structure.

Market the Bridge in Order to Preserve It in a New Location. Marketing the bridge itself has been suggested as a measure to minimize harm. Marketing of a bridge is often pursued when a historic bridge is replaced. This is not expected to be an effective preservation measure for the East Span of the SFOBB. Because of the sheer size of the bridge span (double deck, 3.9 kilometers [2.4 miles] long) and the multiple components that comprise it (cantilever truss and multiple other trusses of varying lengths), the East Span would be extremely difficult to transfer in its entirety to a single responsible party. It is only slightly more possible that the bridge could be broken into separate trusses for relocation to multiple locations with multiple owners. It is unlikely that a party could be found who would accept the bridge either in its entirety or in segments with preservation covenants and who would be willing to have the bridge or components open to the public. If moved to a seismically active region, it would still require retrofit, at great cost. Moving costs are also likely to be prohibitive.

Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District

Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative, Replacement Alternative N-6, would not result in a permanent Section 4(f) use of the Senior Officers' Quarters Historic District. It would place temporary columns and temporary support structures within and above open and landscaped areas of the historic district. FHWA determined that this activity results in a Section 4(f) use. Measures to minimize harm include (see Stipulations V and VI, Appendix O):

Other Alternatives. Enlarging Column YB2 as part of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would incorporate approximately 9.3 square meters (100 square feet) from the historic district. Columns YB2 and YB3 would be encased in concrete, obstructing views from the Senior Officers' Quarters. As a measure to minimize harm, screen planting would be provided to screen views of YB2 and YB3 from the Senior Officers' Quarters.

The measures to minimize harm to the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District as a result of the Preferred Alternative would be the same for Replacement Alternatives N-2 and S-4.

6.6.2 Gateway Park

Preferred Alternative. Replacement Alternative N-6 would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the proposed Gateway Park, so no measures to minimize harm are proposed.

Other Alternatives. Replacement Alternative N-2 and the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the proposed Gateway Park, so no measures to minimize harm are proposed for these alternatives.

Measures to minimize harm to the proposed Gateway Park as a result of Replacement Alternative S-4 include replacing the land required for Replacement Alternative S-4 so that there would be no-net-loss of public shoreline access. This could be accomplished by acquiring land nearby to contribute toward another smaller park in the general area. Alternatively, the City of Oakland has suggested that Bay fill be added to the south of the existing shoreline to extend the park southward and retain the same acreage. BCDC staff has indicated that the outline of the Oakland Touchdown could be modified as part of the park development. Toward this end, BCDC staff has indicated that a permit for new Bay fill may be granted if an equal or greater amount of existing Bay fill were removed from other parts of the Oakland Touchdown.

6.7 OTHER PARK, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES, WILDLIFE REFUGES, AND HISTORIC PROPERTIES EVALUATED RELATIVE TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 4(f)

6.7.1 Introduction

The purpose of this discussion is to address Section 4(f) requirements relative to other publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, and wildlife refuges, and other historic properties in the project vicinity. There are no wildlife refuges in the vicinity. The following resources discussed below were identified in the project vicinity:

Other Existing or Proposed Park and Recreational Facilities Evaluated

Other Historic Sites Evaluated

The discussion of each resource either documents:

- permanently incorporating land into the project,
- temporary occupancy of land that is adverse to the preservationist purposes of Section 4(f), or
- constructive use of land from the resource.

6.7.2 Other Public Park and Recreational Facilities Within the Project Area

Near the project, three other existing or proposed park or recreational facilities were evaluated. These are Radio Beach, a proposed transbay segment of the San Francisco Bay Trail, and the proposed public access at the Oakland Touchdown as conditions on the BCDC’s permit for the I-880/Cypress Freeway Replacement Project.

Radio Beach

Radio Beach is on the north side of the Oakland Touchdown, about midway between the western end and the Emeryville Crescent (see Figure 6-21 in Appendix A). It is near a radio station and radio transmission tower from which it derives its name. Radio Beach is owned by the Port. Some land in the area of Radio Beach is leased by the Port to a private leaseholder; this includes a portion of the beach itself, as well as the radio station building and the transmission tower adjacent to it (see Figure 6-21 in Appendix A).

Radio Beach has no defined boundary, no property description, and is not parceled. It has not been developed as a park, and it is not identified as a specific facility in any agency’s inventory of parks. It is not considered a recreation area by the Port and, due to its small size, proximity to bridge traffic, and poor access, the Port does not consider the site to be significant for recreational purposes. Radio Beach is not protected by Section 4(f).

In spring of 2000, it appeared that EBRPD would enter into a long-term lease with the Port, to lease portions of Radio Beach not already leased to others. Caltrans initiated a meeting on March 3, 2000, with the Port, EBRPD, and FHWA to discuss land-use planning in the area. As a result of the meeting, FHWA determined that EBRPD's pending lease of Radio Beach for park purposes would make the Radio Beach area a Section 4(f) resource; FHWA further determined that a Section 4(f) use of this resource could be avoided through joint planning. Subsequently, other changes in proposed land use planning have occurred at the Oakland Touchdown. The BCDC found that OBRA's proposals for certain inland portions of the former OARB would not accommodate the Port's future needs and would not be consistent with the Seaport Plan and the San Francisco Bay Plan. As a result, OBRA has altered the proposed land uses for these portions of the base. OBRA has agreed with the Port to trade various Army Base parcels to arrive at a better overall reuse plan. In January 2001, BCDC’s commission approved an application to revise the Bay Plan and the Seaport Plan based on these new reuse proposals. However, the designation of land for a future park at the western end of the base is not being revisited; OBRA remains committed to this land use proposal. As OBRA is reconsidering base reuse proposals, the Port is also reconsidering decisions regarding its property, including Radio Beach. The long-term lease of Radio Beach by EBRPD has been deferred and remains in question. EBRPD and the Port have elected to await the outcome of other land use decisions before they reaffirm an interest in entering into a lease agreement regarding Radio Beach. EBRPD's potential leasehold of Radio Beach is therefore more tenuous than it appeared to be in spring of 2000. The Port will retain ownership without leasing Radio Beach. FHWA has therefore determined that Radio Beach is not a Section 4(f) protected resource on the basis of consultation with the Port as the officials having jurisdiction (see correspondence from Port, April 1, 1999, in Appendix G).

Proposed Transbay Segment of the Bay Trail

In 1989, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) prepared the Bay Trail Plan. This plan established policies and proposed alignments for a bicycle and pedestrian trail system around the perimeter of San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. It provides a recommended route for a continuous trail and policies to guide the selection of alignments and trail design and implementation. ABAG provides planning input but does not fund Bay Trail segments. Individual projects to implement segments of the Bay Trail are funded by other agencies and organizations. Such projects are subject to independent environmental review as well as applicable permitting from BCDC or other agencies that may have jurisdiction. The Bay Trail Plan designated many existing trails as segments of the Bay Trail, and it proposed new trail segments that would make the Bay Trail continuous. It did not specify the exact locations, features, and connections of future trail segments. Existing segments of the Bay Trail, as recreational trails on publicly owned land or easements, are Section 4(f) resources.

ABAG’s Bay Trail Plan proposed that segments of the Bay Trail cross San Francisco Bay via all transbay bridges, including the SFOBB. There is currently no Bay Trail crossing of the Bay via the SFOBB. East Span Project replacement alternatives each include a bicycle/pedestrian path. ABAG supports construction of such a path as part of this project. The transbay route of the bicycle path is currently designated as "Bay Trail, proposed" by ABAG (see Figure 6-20 in Appendix A).

On June 24, 1998, the MTC voted to fund a bicycle/pedestrian path as part of a replacement structure. Therefore, the locally preferred design, as expressed by MTC, would include a bicycle/pedestrian path. The No-Build and Retrofit Existing Structure Alternatives would not include a bicycle/pedestrian path; the replacement alternatives would include a bicycle/pedestrian path. If constructed, the path may ultimately be designated as part of the Bay Trail; such a designation would extend the Bay Trail from the east shore to YBI. Caltrans is conducting a feasibility study for placing a bicycle/pedestrian path on the West Span of the SFOBB, including how to connect a path on the East Span to a potential path on the West Span. This study is still under way.

This segment of the Bay Trail does not currently exist. It is not expected to be implemented by any agency as a separate project. Although funding has been identified for a facility on the East Span that would become part of the Bay Trail, it would only be constructed as part of a replacement alternative for the East Span Project. The No-Build and Retrofit Existing Structure Alternatives would not implement this segment of the Bay Trail, and any of the replacement alternatives would implement it. The proposed Bay Trail is not protected by Section 4(f).

Proposed Public Access to the Bay at the Oakland Touchdown

As part of the I-880/Cypress Freeway Replacement Project (on I-880 in Oakland, Alameda County), Caltrans obtained a permit from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The permit (number 11-93, as amended) included conditions to provide public access improvements to San Francisco Bay at the Oakland Touchdown. These include a bicycle path out to the western end of the Oakland Touchdown, where viewing areas would be provided, along with benches and limited parking. These public access improvements are described in concept in the permit granted by BCDC for the I-880/Cypress Freeway Replacement Project. The permit stipulates that these public access improvements are conditioned on the feasibility of construction; should construction prove infeasible, the permit provides that financial compensation would be accepted in lieu of constructing these improvements.

The public access improvements are conditions on the BCDC permit for a previous project. The permit conditions were developed prior to OBRA’s designation of part of the former OARB as a future park. Pursuant to the amended BCDC permit, the final location of the public access improvements will be coordinated with the location of the East Span Project. The public access improvements will be implemented in compliance with BCDC permit conditions regardless of which alternative is selected for the East Span Seismic Safety Project. They will undergo separate environmental review, and they will be subject to review and approval by BCDC in order to demonstrate fulfillment of the permit conditions. Some of these public access improvements, such as the bicycle path, may be within the boundary of the proposed Gateway Park. Any such public access improvements will be jointly planned with EBRPD.

The public access improvements have not yet been constructed or developed beyond the original concept. The bicycle path out to the Oakland Touchdown is consistent with the San Francisco Bay Trail (discussed in greater detail above). Once implemented, the bicycle path would become part of the San Francisco Bay Trail. The route of the bicycle path out to the Oakland Touchdown is currently designated as "Bay Trail, proposed" by ABAG (see Figure 6-20 in Appendix A).

When replacement of the East Span became one of the retrofit strategies being considered for the East Span Project, concepts had not yet been developed for these public access improvements and both Caltrans and BCDC recognized the need for coordination between the two undertakings. Both agencies acknowledge the need for joint planning of the public access improvements and the East Span Project. In 1998, BCDC amended the permit for the I-880/Cypress Freeway Replacement Project to establish a schedule that would provide a joint planning process for these two projects and allow the public access improvements to be implemented after the East Span Project. The amended permit stipulates that "[t]he planning and final location and design of all public access areas and improvements required by this amended permit shall be coordinated with the location and design of the Bay Bridge Seismic Retrofit Project."

Pursuant to the amended permit, the final location and design of these public access improvements is subject to coordination with the East Span Project, and financial compensation may be made in place of any public access improvements for which construction proves to be infeasible. The East Span Project and the public access improvements are being jointly planned to be compatible with each other, so that there will not be a Section 4(f) use.

6.7.3 Other Historic Sites Evaluated

In addition to the bridge and its contributing elements and the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District, there are six historic properties within the Area of Potential Effect as defined by the implementing regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.

On YBI, the historic properties include Quarters 1, Quarters 8, Quarters 9, Quarters 10, and Building 262 (see Figures 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 in Appendix A). All of these historic properties are eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and/or C. Criterion A applies to historic properties associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history. Criterion C applies to historic properties that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

At the Oakland Touchdown, the historic property is the Key Pier Substation (see Figures 6-7 and 6-8 in Appendix A). This property is individually eligible for NRHP listing under Criterion A at the local level of significance, as a rare surviving component of the historically significant Key System railway.

There is also one prehistoric archaeological site on YBI within the Area of Potential Effect, and there is the potential for historic archaeological resources. All of these resources are discussed below.

Quarters 1

Quarters 1 is listed as an individual property on the NRHP under Criteria A and C, for its association with military history and its architecture. It is also a contributor to the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District, which is eligible for the NRHP under Criteria A and C, for the historic district’s association with military history and the architecture of its contributing buildings. Quarters 1 is of wood frame construction, with two full floors and dormered attic stories. It was constructed in 1899-1900 in the Classical Revival style. The largest and most elaborate of the buildings in the historic district, Quarters 1 was individually listed on the NRHP in 1991. Section 6.4.2 of this final Section 4(f) evaluation, which discusses the Senior Officers' Quarters Historic District, also contains discussion of Quarters 1 in its context as a contributor to the District.

The property associated with Quarters 1 is bounded by the drive in front of the house (Whiting Way), the near edge of the lawn area below Quarters 1, brick retaining walls at the edge of the paved area behind the house, and the driveway between Quarters 1 and Quarters 2.

Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not incorporate any land from Quarters 1 into the transportation facility, nor would it temporarily occupy any land from Quarters 1.

The potential for constructive use was also evaluated. Quarters 1 was listed on the NRHP with the existing bridge in place; the existing noise from the bridge did not affect its listing. The attributes that qualify Quarters 1 for the NRHP are its architecture and its association with military history. There are no noise-sensitive activities associated with these attributes.

The primary views of Quarters 1 are from the flat, paved area below it, referred to as the Parade Grounds. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would modify the existing bridge, which is to the left of a viewer on the Parade Grounds; this alternative would not obstruct the primary views. Based on the 1991 National Register Registration Form prepared by the Navy for Quarters 1, with which SHPO concurred, this historic resource does not derive its value in substantial part from its setting. Vegetation removal outside the historic district as a result of construction would alter the appearance of the setting; however, it would not substantially impair the attributes that qualify this resource for the NRHP.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in any permanent change in access to Quarters 1. During construction, some delays and/or closures would occur on the East Span itself, and some temporary detours and/or traffic controls would occur on YBI, which could temporarily delay persons heading toward Quarters 1 or cause them to use an alternate route. However, access to Quarters 1 itself would be maintained.

Vibration levels from impact-related construction activities, such as pile driving, have the potential to cause building damage. There are no federal or state standards for vibration levels. However, Caltrans has measured the vibrations generated during various construction activities. Pile driving has frequently been done at distances of about 7.5 to 15 meters (25 to 50 feet) from buildings without causing damage. Generally speaking, a building that is more than 15 to 30 meters (50 to 100 feet) from pile driving would not be damaged. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would drive piles about 55 meters (180 feet) from Quarters 1. (It should be noted that humans perceive vibration levels that are well below the architectural damage risk level; human perception of vibration is therefore not a measure of the potential for architectural damage.) Construction-period impacts would also be documented and monitored (see Stipulation V of the MOA in Appendix O of this FEIS). As a result, vibration levels from construction of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not substantially impair Quarters 1. Vibration from construction of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in proximity impacts.

The attributes that qualify Quarters 1 for the NRHP, its association with military history and its architecture, would not be substantially impaired by proximity impacts of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Quarters 1.

Replacement Alternatives. None of the replacement alternatives would incorporate any land from Quarters 1 into the transportation facility, nor would it temporarily occupy any land from Quarters 1.

The potential for constructive use was also evaluated. As noted above, the NRHP listing of Quarters 1 is not based on any noise-sensitive attributes. There are no noise-sensitive activities associated with the attributes that qualify Quarters 1 for the NRHP, its architecture and its association with military history.

The primary views of Quarters 1 are from the flat, paved area below it, called the Parade Grounds. Although the alignments of Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6 would be closer to the historic district than the existing bridge, they would still be to the left of Quarters 1 from the perspective of a viewer on the Parade Grounds; they would not obstruct these views. The alignment of Replacement Alternative S-4 would be farther from the historic district than the existing bridge; it would not obstruct the primary views.

As noted above, this historic resource does not derive its value in substantial part from its setting. During construction, vegetation would be removed outside the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District, which includes Quarters 1; this would alter the appearance of the setting. However, it would not substantially impair the attributes that qualify this resource for the NRHP, its architecture and its association with military history.

The replacement alternatives would not result in any permanent change in access to Quarters 1. As with the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative, construction activities for any of the replacement alternatives could temporarily delay or reroute persons heading toward Quarters 1. However, access to Quarters 1 would be maintained.

Under the replacement alternatives, the closest pile driving would be about 90 meters (295 feet) from Quarters 1, and the closest foundation dismantling would be about 55 meters (180 feet) away. Construction-related vibration levels at Quarters 1 are therefore expected to be below the architectural damage risk level. Construction-period impacts would also be documented and monitored (see Stipulation V of the MOA in Appendix O of this FEIS). As a result, vibration levels from construction of the replacement alternatives would not substantially impair Quarters 1. Vibration from construction of the replacement alternatives would not result in proximity impacts to this Section 4(f) resource.

The attributes that qualify Quarters 1 for the NRHP, its association with military history and its architecture, would not be substantially impaired by proximity impacts of the replacement alternatives.

The replacement alternatives would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Quarters 1.

Quarters 8

Quarters 8 is a three-story residence of Mediterranean design, built of wood with a stucco exterior on the first two floors (see Figures 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 in Appendix A.) It was constructed in 1905 as the home of the commander of the Marine Corps detachment assigned to YBI. The property is eligible for the NRHP at the local level of significance under Criteria A and C, in the areas of military history and architecture. The house is historically significant as one of the few extant buildings from the early 20th century associated with the Naval Station on YBI and the last remaining building associated with the Marine Corps presence on the island. It is also architecturally significant as the work of the prominent San Francisco architects James and Merritt Reid.

Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not incorporate any land from Quarters 8 into the transportation facility, nor would it temporarily occupy any land from Quarters 8.

The potential for constructive use was also evaluated. Quarters 8 was determined to be eligible for the NRHP with the existing bridge in place; the existing noise from the bridge did not affect its eligibility. Its eligibility is not based on any noise-sensitive attributes. The attributes that qualify Quarters 8 for the NRHP are in the areas of military history and architecture. There are no noise-sensitive activities associated with these attributes.

The primary views of Quarters 8 are from the roadway approaching and in front of it; the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not obstruct the primary views. Based on the 1997 Primary Record Form prepared by Caltrans for Quarters 8, with which SHPO concurred, this historic resource does not derive its value in substantial part from its setting. Vegetation removal nearby as a result of construction would alter the appearance of the setting; however, it would not substantially impair the attributes that qualify this resource for the NRHP.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in any permanent change in access to Quarters 8, though construction activities could delay or reroute persons heading toward Quarters 8. However, access to Quarters 8 would be maintained.

Under the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative, the closest foundation work would be about 70 meters (230 feet) from Quarters 8. Construction-related vibration levels at Quarters 8 are therefore expected to be below the architectural damage risk level. Construction-period impacts would also be documented and monitored (see Stipulation V of the MOA in Appendix O of this FEIS). As a result, vibration levels from construction of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not substantially impair Quarters 8. Vibration from construction of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in proximity impacts to this Section 4(f) resource.

The attributes that qualify Quarters 8 for the NRHP, its association with military history and its architecture, would not be substantially impaired by proximity impacts of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Quarters 8.

Replacement Alternatives. None of the replacement alternatives would incorporate any land from Quarters 8 into the transportation facility, nor would they temporarily occupy any land from Quarters 8.

The potential for constructive use was also evaluated. The replacement alternatives would reduce noise levels at Quarters 8. The replacement alternatives would not obstruct the primary view of Quarters 8, which is from the roadway approaching and in front of the building. Removal of vegetation near Quarters 8 during construction would alter the appearance of the setting of this historic building. This change in the setting as a result of replacement alternatives would not alter the historic building’s association with military history or its architecture, the attributes that qualify it for the NRHP. The replacement alternatives would not result in any permanent change in access to Quarters 8.

Under the replacement alternatives, the closest pile driving would be about 80 meters (260 feet) from Quarters 8, and the closest foundation dismantling would be about 70 meters (230 feet) away. Pavement work to alter the roadways near Quarters 8 is typical local street roadwork, and it would not generate architecturally damaging vibration levels. Construction-related vibration levels at Quarters 8 are therefore expected to be below the architectural damage risk level. Construction-period impacts would also be documented and monitored (see Stipulation V of the MOA in Appendix O of this FEIS). As a result, vibration levels from construction of the replacement alternatives would not substantially impair Quarters 8. Vibration from construction of the replacement alternatives would not result in proximity impacts to this Section 4(f) resource.

The attributes that qualify Quarters 8 for the NRHP (its association with military history and its architecture) would not be substantially impaired by proximity impacts of the replacement alternatives.

The replacement alternatives would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Quarters 8.

Quarters 9

Quarters 9 is a 1-1/2-story residence of wood-frame construction. (See Figures 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 in Appendix A.) The property is eligible for the NRHP at the local level of significance under Criteria A and C, in the areas of military history and architecture. It was built ca. 1916 as the residence for the civilian "master of tugs" and is the only extant building on YBI constructed for a civilian employee of the Navy. It is also one of the few surviving buildings on the island from the period of extensive growth of the Naval Station in the years before and during U.S. involvement in World War I.

Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not incorporate any land from Quarters 9 into the transportation facility, nor would it temporarily occupy any land from Quarters 9.

The potential for constructive use was also evaluated. Noise from the existing bridge did not affect the eligibility of Quarters 9 for the NRHP. The attributes that qualify Quarters 9 for the NRHP are in the areas of military history and architecture, which are not noise-sensitive attributes. There are no noise-sensitive activities associated with these attributes.

The primary views of Quarters 9 are from the approach to the building. Trees currently screen views of Quarters 9 from most directions; these trees would not be removed by the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not obstruct the primary views.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in any permanent change in access to Quarters 9, though construction activities could delay or reroute persons heading toward it. Access to Quarters 9 would be maintained during construction.

Under the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative, the closest foundation work would be about 140 meters (455 feet) from Quarters 9. Construction-related vibration levels at Quarters 9 are therefore expected to be below the architectural damage risk level. Construction-period impacts would also be documented and monitored (see Stipulation V of the MOA in Appendix O of this FEIS). As a result, vibration levels from construction of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not substantially impair Quarters 9. Vibration from construction of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in proximity impacts to this Section 4(f) resource.

The attributes that qualify Quarters 9 for the NRHP, its association with military history and its architecture, would not be substantially impaired by proximity impacts of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Quarters 9.

Replacement Alternatives. None of the replacement alternatives would incorporate any land from Quarters 9 into the transportation facility, nor would they temporarily occupy any land from Quarters 9.

The potential for constructive use was also evaluated. The attributes that qualify Quarters 9 for the NRHP are in the areas of military history and architecture, which are not noise-sensitive attributes. There are no noise-sensitive activities associated with these attributes.

The primary views of Quarters 9 are from the approach to the building. Trees currently screen views from most directions; these trees would not be removed by any of the build alternatives for the East Span Project. The replacement alternatives would not obstruct the primary views.

The replacement alternatives would not result in any permanent change in access to Quarters 9, though construction activities could delay or reroute persons heading toward it. Access to Quarters 9 would be maintained during construction.

Under the replacement alternatives, the closest pile driving would be about 125 meters (410 feet) from Quarters 9, and the closest foundation dismantling would be about 140 meters (460 feet) away. Construction-related vibration levels at Quarters 9 are therefore expected to be below the architectural damage risk level. Construction-period impacts would also be documented and monitored (see Stipulation V of the MOA in Appendix O of this FEIS). As a result, vibration levels from construction of the replacement alternatives would not substantially impair Quarters 9. Vibration from construction of the replacement alternatives would not result in proximity impacts to this Section 4(f) resource.

The attributes that qualify Quarters 9 for the NRHP, its association with military history and its architecture, would not be substantially impaired by proximity impacts of the replacement alternatives.

The replacement alternatives would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Quarters 9.

Quarters 10

Quarters 10 is a two-story wood-frame residence constructed in 1948 (see Figures 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 in Appendix A). The property is eligible for the NRHP at the local level of significance under Criterion C, for its architecture. It is architecturally significant as a distinctive example of Bay Area modernism. The historic property includes the house and its immediate grounds, including adjacent lawn and garden areas, the garage (Building 267) and driveway, and the retaining wall along the north side of the property. Quarters 10 is next to Macalla Road, which is not historic.

Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not incorporate any land from Quarters 10 into the transportation facility, nor would it temporarily occupy any land from Quarters 10.

The potential for constructive use was also evaluated. Noise from the existing bridge did not affect its eligibility. The attribute that qualifies Quarters 10 for the NRHP is its architecture, which is not a noise-sensitive attribute. There are no noise-sensitive activities associated with this attribute.

The primary views of Quarters 10 are from Macalla Road, which bends in a hairpin turn around the property. Nearby trees screen views of Quarters 10 from most other directions. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not obstruct the primary views. Based on the 1998 Primary Record Form prepared by Caltrans for Quarters 10, with which SHPO concurred, this historic resource does not derive its value in substantial part from its setting. Vegetation removal nearby as a result of construction would alter the appearance of the setting; however, vegetation removal would not substantially impair the attributes that qualify this resource for the NRHP.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in any permanent change in access to Quarters 10, though construction activities could delay or reroute persons heading toward it.

Under the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative, the closest foundation work would be about 60 meters (195 feet) from Quarters 10. Construction-related vibration levels at Quarters 10 are therefore expected to be below the architectural damage risk level. Construction-period impacts would also be documented and monitored (see Stipulation V of the MOA in Appendix O of this FEIS). As a result, vibration levels from construction of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not substantially impair Quarters 10. Vibration from construction of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in proximity impacts to this Section 4(f) resource.

The attribute that qualifies Quarters 10 for the NRHP, its architecture, would not be substantially impaired by proximity impacts of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Quarters 10.

Replacement Alternatives. None of the replacement alternatives would incorporate any land from Quarters 10 into the transportation facility, nor would they temporarily occupy any land from Quarters 10.

The potential for constructive use was also evaluated. The attribute that qualifies Quarters 10 for the NRHP is its architecture, which is not a noise-sensitive attribute. There are no noise-sensitive activities associated with this attribute.

The primary views of Quarters 10 are from Macalla Road, which bends in a hairpin turn around the property. Nearby trees screen views of Quarters 10 from most other directions. The replacement alternatives would not obstruct the primary views. A number of trees downslope of Quarters 10 would be removed by the replacement alternatives; this would remove some of the existing screening and may increase the views of Quarters 10. Based on the information in Caltrans’ 1998 Primary Record Form for Quarters 10, with which SHPO concurred, this historic property does not derive its value in substantial part from its setting. Although nearby vegetation removal during construction would alter the appearance of the setting, vegetation removal would not substantially impair the architecture of Quarters 10, which is the attribute that qualifies it for the NRHP.

The replacement alternatives would not result in any permanent change in access to Quarters 10. Activities during construction could delay or reroute persons heading toward Quarters 10. During construction, regrading of Macalla Road at the hairpin turn below Quarters 10 would restrict vehicle access to Quarters 10 for about one to three days, though the historic property would remain accessible on foot.

Under the replacement alternatives, the closest pile driving would be about 110 meters (360 feet) from Quarters 10, and the closest foundation dismantling would be about 60 meters (195 feet) away. Pavement breaking to alter the grade of Macalla Road by Quarters 10 is typical local street roadwork, and it would not generate architecturally damaging vibration levels. Construction-related vibration levels at Quarters 10 are therefore expected to be below the architectural damage risk level. Construction-period impacts would also be documented and monitored (see Stipulation V of the MOA in Appendix O of this FEIS). As a result, vibration levels from construction of the replacement alternatives would not substantially impair Quarters 10. Vibration from construction of the replacement alternatives would not result in proximity impacts to this Section 4(f) resource.

The attribute that qualifies Quarters 10 for the NRHP, its architecture, would not be substantially impaired by proximity impacts of the replacement alternatives.

The replacement alternatives would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Quarters 10.

Building 262

Building 262, at the eastern end of YBI, is a reinforced concrete building with a corrugated tin gable roof (see Figures 6-4, 6-5, and 6-6 in Appendix A). The property is eligible for the NRHP at the state level of significance under Criteria A and C, in the areas of military history and architecture. It was constructed for the U.S. Army in 1891 for the manufacture and storage of mines to be used in coastal defense. The building is historically significant as the only extant building associated with the 19th century Army presence on YBI. It is also significant architecturally, as a pioneering example of reinforced concrete construction, a building technique that was still in its infancy in 1891. The boundary of the historic resource, as described in the evaluation form prepared by the Navy, includes only the building itself.

Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would modify the existing bridge. The existing bridge passes approximately 28 meters (90 feet) to the southeast of Building 262, and is about 53 meters (175 feet) above the ground in this area. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not incorporate any land from Building 262 into the transportation facility, nor would it temporarily occupy any land from Building 262.

The potential for constructive use was also evaluated. Noise from the existing bridge did not affect the eligibility of Building 262 for the NRHP. The attributes that qualify it for the NRHP are in the areas of military history and architecture, which are not noise-sensitive attributes. There are no noise-sensitive activities associated with these attributes.

The primary views of Building 262 are from the unpaved access road leading to the building and from boats on the Bay near the eastern end of the island. Under the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative, existing columns would be enlarged and two additional columns would be added in the main navigation opening between Columns E2 and E3. This would not obstruct primary views of Building 262. Based on the 1997 Primary Record Form prepared by the Navy, with which SHPO concurred, Building 262 does not derive its value in substantial part from its setting. The addition and enlargement of bridge columns would alter the appearance of the setting; however, these changes would not substantially impair the attributes that qualify this resource for the NRHP.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in any permanent change in access to Building 262, though construction activities could delay or reroute persons heading toward it.

Under the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative, the closest foundation work would be about 45 meters (150 feet) from Building 262. Construction-related vibration levels at Building 262 are therefore expected to be below the architectural damage risk level. Construction-period impacts would also be documented and monitored (see Stipulation V of the MOA in Appendix O of this FEIS). As a result, vibration levels from construction of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not substantially impair Building 262. Vibration from construction of the Retrofit Structure Alternative would not result in proximity impacts to this Section 4(f) resource.

The attributes that qualify Building 262 for the NRHP, its association with military history and its architecture, would not be substantially impaired by proximity impacts of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Building 262.

Replacement Alternatives. Under Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6, the new bridge would pass directly above Building 262 at approximately the same height as the existing bridge, or about 53 meters (175 feet) above the ground. Replacement Alternative S-4 would pass to the southeast of Building 262 rather than directly above it, and would be farther away from Building 262 than the existing bridge. None of the replacement alternatives would incorporate any land from Building 262 into the transportation facility, nor would they temporarily occupy any land from Building 262.

The potential for constructive use was also evaluated. Noise from the existing bridge did not affect the eligibility of Building 262 for the NRHP. The attributes that qualify it for the NRHP are in the areas of military history and architecture, which are not noise-sensitive attributes. There are no noise-sensitive activities associated with these attributes.

The primary views of Building 262 are from the access road leading to the building and from boats on the Bay near the eastern end of the island. Under Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6, a new structure would be built that would span Building 262, and the existing bridge would be dismantled; under Replacement Alternative S-4, a new structure would be built to the south of the existing bridge, and the existing bridge would be dismantled. None of the replacement alternatives obstructs the primary views of Building 262. Building 262 does not derive its value in substantial part from its setting; changing the location of the bridge structure would alter the appearance of the setting, but it would not substantially impair the attributes that qualify this resource for the NRHP.

The replacement alternatives would not result in any permanent change in access to Building 262, though construction activities could delay or reroute persons heading toward it.

Under the replacement alternatives, the closest pile driving would be about 60 meters (195 feet) from Building 262, and the closest foundation dismantling would be about 45 meters (150 feet) away. Construction-related vibration levels at Building 262 are therefore expected to be below the architectural damage risk level. Construction-period impacts would also be documented and monitored (see Stipulation V of the MOA in Appendix O of this FEIS). As a result, vibration levels from construction of the replacement alternatives would not substantially impair Building 262. Vibration from construction of the replacement alternatives would not result in proximity impacts to this Section 4(f) resource.

The attributes that qualify Building 262 for the NRHP, in the areas of military history and architecture, would not be substantially impaired by proximity impacts of the replacement alternatives.

The replacement alternatives would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Building 262.

Summary of Distances from Project Alternatives to Building 262. Below is a table summarizing the horizontal and vertical distances from the bridge to Building 262 (the Torpedo Building) at the closest point for each alternative. The table is provided to assist in understanding the locations of the project alternatives in relation to this historic property. For Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6, the horizontal distance is zero; this is because these two alternatives would be constructed to span Building 262 while leaving it in place. Vertical distances are measured from the bridge to the ground directly beneath the bridge at the closest horizontal distance to the building. The building is about 12 meters (40 feet) tall at the top of its gable; Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6 would be built about 41 meters (135 feet) above the rooftop of Building 262. Building 262 is not within the area where the temporary detours for the replacement alternatives would be constructed, so horizontal and vertical distances for the temporary detours have been omitted from this table.

Alternative

Approximate Horizontal Distance to Building 262 at the Closest Point

Approximate Vertical Distance to the Closest Point on the Ground Near Building 262

Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative

28 meters (90 feet)

53 meters (175 feet)

Replacement Alternative N-2

0 meter (0 foot)

53 meters (175 feet)

Replacement Alternative N-6

0 meter (0 foot)

53 meters (175 feet)

Replacement Alternative S-4

59 meters (194 feet)

53 meters (175 feet)

Source: Caltrans, November 2000.

While FHWA determined that the project would not result in a Section 4(f) use of Building 262, the building is within the construction zone for the Preferred Alternative, Replacement Alternative N-6, as well as Replacement Alternative N-2. These two replacement alternatives would be constructed over the top of Building 262. In the MOA for the protection of historic properties, Caltrans and FHWA have made commitments to minimize potential harm to Building 262 as a result of all project alternatives, including these two alternatives that would be constructed over the building. The commitments include development and implementation of protective measures, repair of inadvertent damage, and preparation of a historic structure report (see Stipulation IV of the MOA, Appendix O of this FEIS).

Key Pier Substation

The Key Pier Substation is historically significant under Criterion A at the local level. It is a contributor to the SFOBB, and it is also individually eligible as one of the few surviving buildings associated with the Key System (see Figures 6-7 and 6-8 in Appendix A). The boundary of the property includes only the building itself.

Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not incorporate any land from the Key Pier Substation into the transportation facility, nor would it temporarily occupy any land from the Key Pier Substation.

The potential for constructive use was also evaluated. Noise from the existing bridge did not affect the eligibility of the Key Pier Substation for the NRHP. The attributes that qualify it for the NRHP, being a contributor to the SFOBB as well as a rare surviving building associated with the Key System, are not noise-sensitive attributes. There are no noise-sensitive activities associated with these attributes.

The primary views of the Key Pier Substation are from the roadway in front of it. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not obstruct its primary views. Based on the 1998 evaluation prepared by Caltrans, with which SHPO concurred, the Key Pier Substation does not derive its value in substantial part from its setting. Although the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would alter the appearance of the bridge, thereby changing the setting, this change in the setting would not substantially impair the attributes that qualify the Key Pier Substation for the NRHP.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in any permanent change in access to this historic building, though access may be restricted during construction. This temporary change in access does not constitute a constructive use; access to the Key Pier Substation is not relevant to its being a contributor to the SFOBB and a surviving building associated with the Key System, which are the attributes that qualify it for the NRHP.

Under the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative, the closest foundation work would be about 45 meters (150 feet) from the Key Pier Substation. Construction-related vibration levels at the Key Pier Substation are therefore expected to be below the architectural damage risk level. Construction-period impacts would also be documented and monitored (see Stipulation V of the MOA in Appendix O of this FEIS). As a result, vibration levels from construction of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not substantially impair the Key Pier Substation. Vibration from construction of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in proximity impacts to this Section 4(f) resource.

The attributes that qualify it for the NRHP, its association with the SFOBB and the Key System, would not be substantially impaired by proximity impacts of the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the Key Pier Substation.

Replacement Alternatives. None of the replacement alternatives would incorporate any land from the Key Pier Substation into the transportation facility, nor would they temporarily occupy any land from the Key Pier Substation.

The potential for constructive use was also evaluated. The attributes that qualify the Key Pier Substation for the NRHP, as a contributor to the SFOBB and a surviving building associated with the Key System, are not noise-sensitive attributes. There are no noise-sensitive activities associated with these attributes.

The primary views of the Key Pier Substation are from the roadway in front of it. Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6 would construct a structure farther away from the Key Pier Substation than the existing bridge; Replacement Alternative S-4 would construct a structure near the Key Pier Substation but in the opposite direction of the primary views. The replacement alternatives would not obstruct the primary views of this historic property. The Key Pier Substation does not derive its value in substantial part from its setting. Although any of the replacement alternatives would alter the location and appearance of the bridge, this would not substantially impair the attributes that qualify the Key Pier Substation for the NRHP, as a contributor to the SFOBB and a surviving building associated with the Key System.

The replacement alternatives would not result in any permanent change in access to this historic building, though access may be restricted during construction.

Under the replacement alternatives, the closest pile driving would be about 110 meters (360 feet) from the Key Pier Substation, and the closest foundation dismantling would be about 45 meters (150 feet) away. Construction-related vibration levels at the Key Pier Substation are therefore expected to be below the architectural damage risk level. Construction-period impacts would also be documented and monitored (see Stipulation V of the MOA in Appendix O of this FEIS). As a result, vibration levels from construction of the replacement alternatives would not substantially impair the Key Pier Substation. Vibration from construction of the replacement alternatives would not result in proximity impacts to this Section 4(f) resource.

The attributes that qualify the Key Pier Substation for the NRHP would not be substantially impaired by proximity impacts of the replacement alternatives.

The replacement alternatives would not result in a Section 4(f) use of the Key Pier Substation.

Archaeological Site

Section 4(f) applies to all archaeological sites on or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP, except when the archeological resource is important chiefly because of what can be learned by data recovery and it has minimal value for preservation in place (23 CFR §771.135[g][2]). The archaeological site on YBI, CA-SFr-04/H, is potentially eligible for the NRHP listing under Criterion D, and since this site has yielded and may again yield human remains, the SHPO concluded that its potential significance may extend beyond Criterion D. Evaluation of the site has resulted in the conclusion that the site is important chiefly for the information it contains. It does not warrant preservation in place. Accordingly, Section 4(f) does not apply to this archaeological site.

6.8 COORDINATION

6.8.1 Historic Resources

Memorandum of Agreement. Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and its implementing regulations has been achieved through coordination among Caltrans, the FHWA, the SHPO, and the ACHP.

FHWA, SHPO, ACHP, and the USCG executed an MOA pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act on May 26, 2000 (see Appendix O). Caltrans and various Native American individuals and groups are concurring parties. Other Native American individuals and groups, the Navy, the City of Oakland, and the City and County of San Francisco were invited to sign as concurring parties but did not respond. The MOA describes measures to reduce and mitigate adverse effects to historic properties and the archaeological site.

Historic Preservation Community

In April of 1997, letters were sent to the following organizations inviting their comments on this undertaking:

In July of 1997, representatives of Caltrans attended a meeting of the Oakland LPAB and gave a brief presentation on the undertaking. This meeting was also attended by representatives from the Oakland Heritage Alliance, the California Preservation Foundation, and staff to the San Francisco LPAB.

The Oakland LPAB responded by letter on January 14, 1998, advocating that consideration be given to retrofit of the existing bridge rather than replacement and suggesting several mitigation measures if a replacement alternative is selected and the existing East Span is dismantled (see Appendix G). No other organizations responded to Caltrans' April 1997 invitation for comments on the undertaking. The San Francisco LPAB placed the project on the agenda of its January 2000 meeting; however, the item was deferred prior to the meeting, and it has not been taken up subsequently. Caltrans continues to coordinate with the Oakland LPAB regarding potential mitigation measures and other historic preservation issues associated with the East Span Project.

Staff and members of the Oakland LPAB and the CCSF have also attended and offered public comment at meetings of the MTC and MTC’s Engineering and Design Advisory Panel regarding this project. They have also attended special focused meetings and project development team meetings.

Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. The draft Section 4(f) evaluation was circulated to the public on September 23, 1998 together with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Many of the above agencies submitted written comments on the draft Section 4(f) evaluation and the DEIS. Comments received on the draft Section 4(f) evaluation are included with the letters commenting on the DEIS; responses to these comments are in Volume II, Section 1 of the FEIS. There is also an index of Section 4(f)-related correspondence at the end of this final Section 4(f) evaluation.

The following DEIS comment letters contain comments about the draft Section 4(f) evaluation:

Department of the Interior December 18,1998
City of Oakland, Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board November 23, 1998
California Preservation Foundation November 23, 1998
National Trust for Historic Preservation November 23, 1998

The following additional DEIS comment letters comment on historic resources protected by Section 4(f) but do not refer to the draft Section 4(f) evaluation:

City of Oakland Planning Department November 20, 1998
U.S. Navy November 23, 1998
City and County of San Francisco Planning Department November 23, 1998

Supplemental Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation. The supplemental draft Section 4(f) evaluation was sent to the Department of the Interior and the following agencies and organizations on June 29, 1999:

The following letters commented on the supplemental draft Section 4(f) evaluation (see Volume II, Section 3, of the FEIS and the index of Section 4(f)-related correspondence at the end of this final Section 4(f) evaluation):

Department of the Interior September 2, 1999
City of Oakland Planning Department August 18, 1999
City and County of San Francisco, Treasure Island Project August 24, 1999
Comments received on the draft Section 4(f) and the supplemental draft Section 4(f) were considered and, if appropriate, changes were made to this final Section 4(f) evaluation.

6.8.2 Gateway Park

Caltrans initiated coordination meetings with the EBRPD and the Port to discuss the East Span Project, land use issues, and Gateway Park development possibilities. The City of Oakland, the Army, the NPS, BCDC, and ABAG have also participated. Meetings to discuss the proposed park were held on October 7, 1997; November 18, 1997; February 18, 1998; May 20, 1998; July 22, 1998; December 2, 1998; February 10, 1999; and August 11, 1999. EBRPD has held other meetings since then regarding park planning; these have not included Caltrans or FHWA. Future interagency meetings are anticipated.

On October 29, 1998, EBRPD commented on the project DEIS in its relation to the proposed park (see Volume II, Section 1, of the FEIS). In addition, many interested agencies attended a meeting on March 11, 1999, to discuss each agency’s perspective on the status of the Gateway Park.

EBRPD also commented on the supplemental draft Section 4(f) evaluation in a letter received September 15, 1999. Comments on the supplemental draft Section 4(f) evaluation are in Volume II, Section 3, of the FEIS. There is an index of Section 4(f)-related correspondence at the end of this final Section 4(f) evaluation.

6.8.3 Radio Beach

Caltrans consulted with the Port, owner and official having jurisdiction over Radio Beach, regarding the significance of Radio Beach as a publicly owned park or recreation facility. The Port provided written correspondence about Radio Beach on April 1, 1999 (see Appendix G of the FEIS). Caltrans also met on March 3, 2000, with the Port, EBRPD, and FHWA to discuss the disposition of Radio Beach (see section 6.7.2 of this final Section 4(f) evaluation for information about this meeting).

6.8.4 Summary of Formal Coordination with the Department of the Interior

The draft Section 4(f) evaluation was sent to the Department of the Interior in the DEIS on September 24, 1998. The Department of the Interior commented on the draft Section 4(f) evaluation in a letter dated December 18, 1998. This letter may be found in Volume II, Section 1, of the FEIS, along with responses to the comments.

A supplemental draft Section 4(f) evaluation was sent to the Department of the Interior on June 29, 1999. The Department of the Interior commented on the supplemental draft Section 4(f) evaluation in a letter dated September 2, 1998. This letter may be found in Volume II, Section 3, of the FEIS, along with responses to the comments.

Additional Participation by the National Park Service

The NPS participated in activities associated with the proposed Gateway Park in coordination with the East Span Project. NPS attended the following meetings and sent the following correspondence:

6.9 CONCLUSIONS

6.9.1 Basis for Concluding That There Are No Prudent and Feasible Alternatives to the Use of Section 4(f) Land

There are unique problems involved in the use of alternatives that avoid the use of the SFOBB. All potential build alternatives would result in the need to either extensively retrofit or remove the existing East Span. Either of these actions would result in a Section 4(f) use of the historic bridge. There is no build alternative that avoids all Section 4(f) uses.

The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would not require removal of the existing East Span. As such, it could be considered a means of minimizing harm to the SFOBB, a Section 4(f) resource, as compared to the replacement alternatives. However, the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative should not be considered as a means of minimizing harm to the SFOBB. Under the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative, the East Span would incur moderate to major damage in an MCE; it would not be open to emergency traffic shortly after an MCE, and normal traffic might never be allowed back on the bridge. This means that it would not meet lifeline criteria for providing post-earthquake relief access for emergency vehicles. As such, it does not fully meet purpose and need. In addition, the damage to this heavily used facility in an MCE would close the East Span for a period of months or years to conduct repairs or replacement. Furthermore, it does not avoid future harm to the SFOBB, since the bridge would require extensive repairs or replacement following an MCE. Therefore, its ability to minimize harm to the SFOBB would only be in effect until the bridge experiences an MCE. Since the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative does not fully meet the project's purpose and need, it would lead to economic losses of extraordinary magnitude following an MCE, and it does not avoid future harm to the SFOBB, the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative is not a prudent alternative.

The project alternatives evaluated, and the project alternatives considered and withdrawn, are discussed in Chapter 2 of the FEIS. Alternatives that avoid Section 4(f) uses are discussed in Section 5 of this final Section 4(f) evaluation.

6.9.2 Basis for Concluding That the Proposed Action Includes All Possible Planning to Minimize Harm to Section 4(f) Properties

As discussed previously, there is no build alternative that avoids a Section 4(f) use of the SFOBB. Other Section 4(f) uses must therefore be considered in order to establish which alternative results in the least harm to Section 4(f) resources.

None of the replacement alternatives avoids a Section 4(f) use of the Senior Officers' Quarters Historic District, because they all require the placement of columns within the district to support temporary detours. Of the replacement alternatives, only Replacement Alternative S-4 results in a Section 4(f) use of the proposed Gateway Park. This alternative would incorporate about 3 hectares (7.4 acres) of the proposed park land, constituting about half of the park; the land would be incorporated into the transportation facility and would not be restored to park use following the project.

The Preferred Alternative (Replacement Alternative N-6), Replacement Alternative N-2, and the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative avoid the Section 4(f) use of the proposed Gateway Park. The Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would permanently incorporate about 9.3 square meters (100 square feet) of the grounds of the Senior Officers’ Quarters Historic District as a result of enlarging a column footing at the historic district boundary.

The permanent use of the historic district by the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative may be avoided by selecting a replacement alternative. While there is a Section 4(f) use of the historic district by the replacement alternatives, it is temporary in nature, involving the placement of about six columns for temporary detours within vegetated areas of the district for a period of up to four years. Furthermore, Caltrans and FHWA have committed to restoring affected areas following project construction. As a result, the Section 4(f) use of the historic district by the replacement alternatives would not be readily apparent following implementation of the project and restoration measures. In contrast, the Retrofit Existing Structure Alternative would result in a permanent use of land from the district.

The signed MOA pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act documents the commitments made by Caltrans and FHWA to minimize harm to the historic resources affected by each alternative for the project. The MOA is in Appendix O. The commitments made in the MOA constitute the means of minimizing harm to historic resources for each project alternative. These measures include, but are not limited to, monitoring of historic structures during construction; restoration of historic grounds after construction; restoration of any inadvertent damage to historic structures to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards; and various historical preservation measures for the SFOBB itself. See the MOA itself for a complete listing of the documented commitments.

6.9.3 Feasible and Prudent Alternative with the Least Net Harm to Section 4(f) Resources after Considering Mitigation

Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6 are the feasible and prudent alternatives with the least net harm to Section 4(f) resources after considering mitigation. On the basis of the previous consideration of the various Section 4(f) uses resulting from each project alternative and the measures to minimize harm, the FHWA concludes that Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6 result in the least harm to Section 4(f) resources. There is no difference between Replacement Alternatives N-2 and N-6 in terms of the application of Section 4(f). Replacement Alternative N-6 has been chosen as the Preferred Alternative over Replacement Alternative N-2 on the basis of other factors, including ease of construction of the main tower based on geologic conditions, aesthetic benefits such as enhanced drivers' views, and consistency with the regionally preferred alignment and design features as expressed by the MTC. See Chapter 2 of the FEIS for further discussion of the alternative selection process.

6.9.4 Concluding Statement

Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of land from the East Span of the SFOBB and the Senior Officers' Quarters Historic District, and the proposed action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the East Span of the SFOBB and the Senior Officers' Quarters Historic District resulting from such use.

6.10 INDEX OF SECTION 4(f) CORRESPONDENCE

DEIS comment letters that addressed the draft Section 4(f) evaluation (see Volume II, Section 1, of the FEIS)

  • Department of the Interior, December 18, 1998
  • City of Oakland Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, November 23, 1998
  • California Preservation Foundation, November 23, 1998
  • National Trust for Historic Preservation, November 23, 1998

Other DEIS comment letters that discuss park resources or historic resources (see Volume II, Section 1, of the FEIS)

  • East Bay Regional Park District, October 29, 1998
  • City of Oakland Planning Department, November 20, 1998
  • U.S. Navy, November 23, 1998
  • City and County of San Francisco Planning Department, November 23, 1999

Comment letters on the supplemental draft Section 4(f) evaluation
(see Volume II, Section 3, of the FEIS)

  • Department of the Interior, September 2, 1999
  • City of Oakland Planning Department, August 18, 1999
  • City and County of San Francisco, Treasure Island Project, August 24, 1999
  • East Bay Regional Park District, received September 15, 1999

Other Section 4(f) correspondence (see Appendix G of the FEIS)

  • U.S. Coast Guard, August 12, 1998
  • East Bay Regional Park District, October 29, 1998
  • Port of Oakland, April 1, 1999