| SECTION 4.0 | ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION |
| PROPOSED PROJECT |
Detailed discussions on the archaeological, ethnographical, and historical setting of the TBC Project area are presented in the technical reports on which this section is based. The reader is referred to Appendix G (Cultural Resources) of this EIR for this information.
4.7.1.2 Affected Environment
As a means to determine the potential effects of the proposed Project on cultural resources, a number of tasks were completed, including archival research, Native American consultation, and both architectural and archaeological field inventory efforts. Archival research consisted of a literature review and record search of ethnographic and historic literature and maps, federal, state, and local inventories of historic properties, archaeological base maps and site records, and survey reports on file at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) at Sonoma State University. The purpose of the record search was to ascertain whether any cultural resources had been previously identified within or adjacent to the Project area as well as to identify previous cultural resources investigations. In addition, archival research was also conducted in various repositories and online resources, including the Contra Costa County property records; City of Pittsburg; San Francisco Planning Department; the San Francisco Public Library; the California State Library in Sacramento; Shields Library at the University of California, Davis; and Bancroft Library at the University of California, Berkeley. Lastly, given the extent of the Project to be constructed beneath the waters of San Francisco Bay and the adjoining waters of the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta, the shipwreck database maintained by the California State Lands Commission (SLC) was utilized to augment the data obtained for these unique resources.
The record search revealed that the terrestrial (onshore) Project components have been previously inventoried for cultural resources on a number of occasions and that a number of cultural resources (archaeological and historic architectural) have been identified within and adjacent to the Project area. These previously identified resources and potential effects to these resources from Project implementation are discussed below.
To assist in securing information regarding potential important resources to the local Native American community, a request for a review of the Sacred Lands File was submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). In addition, the NAHC provided a list of contacts, all of whom were notified about the Project and questioned about their concerns and/or knowledge of resources in the area.
A review of the Sacred Lands File by the staff of the NAHC failed to identify specific information concerning lands on which the proposed Project is to be constructed. A single response was received from the Native American community concerning the applicability of Senate Bill 18 to the proposed Project. As the Project under consideration neither proposes new specific or general plans nor requires changes to existing specific and/or general plans, Senate Bill 18 does not apply. No responses have been received from the Native American community concerning cultural resources within the Project area or Project alternatives.
Finally, both an archaeological pedestrian reconnaissance and a historic architectural survey of the terrestrial portions of the proposed Project and alternatives were completed.
The archaeological reconnaissance included the visual inspection of exposed ground surfaces of the various Project components in both San Francisco and Pittsburg. The study areas were confined to those areas where ground-disturbing (e.g., trenching, grading) activities are proposed. In nearly all instances, the lands on which the proposed Project is to be constructed are either highly disturbed by past industrial development or covered by asphalt and/or concrete. No new archaeological resources were identified during these efforts.
A geophysical inventory of the underwater portion of the project has yet to be conducted. A hazard/archaeological survey incorporating the use of both a magnetometer and side-scan sonar shall be completed as engineering plans move beyond the conceptual phase. The results of this geophysical survey shall be incorporated as an addendum to the Cultural Resources Technical Report (Appendix G of this EIR).
The historic architectural inventory included Project sites in San Francisco and Pittsburg. For the purposes of defining the study areas for historic architectural resources, the inventory included the legal parcels where construction of aboveground facilities would take place and where potential historic architectural resources existed. Vacant land along the onshore cable routes, or parcels containing non-historic architectural resources did not require further investigation for historic architectural resources and were not studied. No additional historic architectural resources were identified (beyond those identified in the archival phase of the investigation).
4.7.1.2.1 San Francisco HWC Converter Station. The following is an overview of the archaeological resources and historic architectural resources for the proposed San Francisco HWC Converter Station site.
Archaeological Resources. Archival research revealed that Wirth Associates conducted an archaeological investigation of the Mirant Potrero Power Plant site for an earlier expansion of the facility (1979a, 1979b). Within a trench excavated in the central portion of the facility, remnants of a mid-nineteenth century powder magazine were exposed. No site number was ever assigned to these materials. No other archaeological resources have been identified within the San Francisco HWC Converter Station, onshore cable routes, or the proposed and alternative construction laydown areas.Historic Architectural Resources. Two former sugar warehouses at 435 23rd Street (HWC site), San Francisco, on parcel 4232-10, are located on the proposed San Francisco HWC Converter Station site. As part of the Application for Certification (AFC) process for the Potrero Unit 7 power plant the HWC warehouses were found to be potentially eligible under Criterion 1, at the local level of significance for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). During the 2001 evidentiary hearing before the California Energy Commission as a part of the AFC process, representatives and expert witnesses from the City and County of San Francisco testified that the warehouses were eligible for listing on the CRHR. While these structures are not currently listed on the CRHR, or other local, state or federal listings, they are considered to be historical resources under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the purposes of analysis in this EIR. The warehouses are the last remaining structures of the Western Sugar Refinery complex on 23rd Street, along the waterfront. These two warehouses are representative of the historically important sugar industry in San Francisco and the only sugar company with San Francisco refinery operations.
The proposed period of significance for the warehouses begins with their respective dates of construction (1923 and 1929) and runs through 1948 when the Western Sugar Refinery ceased its operations in San Francisco. The sugar company complex once consisted of numerous nineteenth- and twentieth-century buildings located on more than 4 blocks east to west on either side of 23rd Street. The complex included at least 16 buildings, two water tanks, a fuel tank, wharves, railroad spurs, and roadways. The buildings of the refinery were connected by abutting walls, passages, overhead bridges and conveyors. Before 1914 the complex included a nine-story brick structure, a seven-story brick melt wash house (for melting unrefined sugar "bricks"), a five-story brick melt filter house, seven large one-story wood raw sugar warehouses, the covered East Wharf and Raw Sugar Dock, and a two-story brick warehouse for refined sugar. Later additions included a 10-story reinforced-concrete building (1915), and the two steel- and concrete-warehouses built in 1923 and 1929 which remain. The warehouses are located on the proposed San Francisco HWC Converter Station site, but nearly all of the other sugar refinery buildings were demolished in 1950.
The warehouses at 435 23rd Street were evaluated in 2001 by a qualified architectural historian who concluded that they were eligible for the California Register as the last remaining structures associated with the Western Sugar Refinery (Criterion 1). The historical setting, feeling and association of the buildings have been substantially changed since the end of their period of significance, but the buildings themselves retain integrity of materials, design, workmanship, and location. The warehouses did not appear in the California Historic Records Information System (CHRIS) Historic Property Datafile for San Francisco as of August 2005; however, as noted above the warehouses are considered to be historical resources by the City and County of San Francisco, and they are, therefore, considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.
The former power plant complex, also known as Station A, is located on parcel 4232-06 and 4175-06 at 1201 Illinois Street, San Francisco. The complex is north of 23rd Street, immediately adjacent to and north of the proposed San Francisco HWC Converter Station site. Four buildings of the Station A complex are considered to be historical resources for the purposes of CEQA. The Meter House and Compressor House are considered historical resources because they meet at least one of the criteria for listing in the CRHR. The Station A building and Gate House are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA because they are treated as historical resources by the City and County of San Francisco as set forth in the evidentiary hearings for the aforementioned AFC. It should be noted that Mirant in accordance with an unreinforced masonry ordinance is seeking a demolition permit in order to remove the structures associated with the Station A complex. For the purposes of this EIR, it is assumed that the Trans Bay Cable Project would potentially need to demolish these same structures in the event that this site was approved and selected and Mirant did not proceed with the demolition activities.
San Francisco Gas and Electric Company built the first
component of the Station A building in 1901 and it was remodeled in 1930. The
Station A building consists of a 65-foot-tall turbine room that is 121-feet
wide and 435-feet long. A large boiler room with roughly the same dimensions as
the turbine room and located along the turbine room east wall, was demolished
in 1983. The Station A turbine room was connected via underground conduits to
the Pump House (built in 1930 and demolished about 2004) which pumped water
from the Bay for use in the power plant condensers. Sea water was discharged
after use into Warm Water Cove via a tunnel, which was probably installed to
replace an earlier discharge pipe as part of the 1930 remodeling project. The
Gate House (1901) is a small brick building with a rectangular plan and modest
classical details at the façade. The Meter House and Compressor House are the last
examples of facilities used in the gas manufacturing process in San Francisco
dating to before 1930. The Meter House (1914) has load-bearing brick walls,
segmental-arch windows, and steel roof trusses and the Compressor House (1924)
is
L-shaped in plan, with a steel frame, brick exterior walls with
Renaissance/Baroque details, and a gable roof with a ridge monitor.
The Station A complex has undergone numerous changes that have diminished the historic integrity of the resources within the complex that date to the historic period. About half of the Station A building itself, the boiler room, was demolished for the construction of a modern switchyard in 1983. This demolition substantially reduced the historic integrity of Station A by removing at least 50 percent of the building. The integrity of the complex as a whole was further compromised by the demolition of a row of shop buildings that extended all along the east side of the boiler room, including the Boiler Shop, Pattern Shop, Pipe Shop, Tin and Copper Shop, and storage buildings. The Pump House was demolished in about 2004. The late-nineteenth century and early-twentieth century setting of the Station A complex has also changed dramatically over the last several decades. The large gas tanks west of Station A built in the early 1900s have been removed and the area is now occupied by an electrical switchyard. Various steam plant and gas manufacturing support buildings located near the Station A complex were also demolished in the decades between the 1950s and 1980s. PG&E built a 305-foot-tall stack and a multi-story generation unit east of Station A in the 1960s. These changes have compromised the integrity of setting, feeling, and association of the remaining buildings.
As part of the environmental review of the Potrero Power Plant Unit 7 project by the California Energy Commission (CEC Docket #00-AFC-4), qualified architectural historians evaluated the buildings of the Station A complex between 1999 and 2003. The evaluation of the buildings concluded that the main Station A building (turbine hall) had undergone substantial changes and the resulting loss of integrity rendered it ineligible for the CRHR. This evaluation found that the Pump House (since demolished) and Gate House were not architecturally or historically significant. The evaluation concluded that the Meter House and Compressor House met Criterion 1 (significance for association with important trends or patterns in history) of the CRHR.
In 2002 cultural resources staff and consulting experts for the City of San Francisco testifying in hearings related to the Potrero Power Plant Unit 7 project stated that the historic era buildings of the Station A complex appeared eligible for the CRHR and that the City and County of San Francisco treated the complex as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. These experts were also of the opinion that the Station A complex could contribute to a larger, potential historic district known as the Union Iron Works/Pier 70 historic district. This district has not been formally listed on the CRHR. The CHRIS Historic Property Datafile for San Francisco currently lists the remaining extant buildings of the Station A complex (Station A building, the Meter House, the Compressor House, and the Gate House) as status "7." This status indicates that the Office of Historic Preservation has received information on the resources, but has not made a determination.
Because the City of San Francisco considers the Station A building (turbine hall), the Meter House, the Compressor House, and the Gate House to be historically significant – either as a separate resource complex, or as a contributor to a potential district – these resources are considered historical resources for the purposes of CEQA.
4.7.1.2.2 Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station. The following is an overview of the archaeological resources and historic architectural resources for the proposed Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station site.
Archaeological Resources. No archaeological resources were identified within the Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station site, onshore AC/DC cable routes, proposed and alternative construction laydown areas, or proposed and alternative access roads during any phase of the investigation.
Historic Architectural Resources. The Standard Oil site consists of a single parcel, 073-230-007, east of Loveridge Road and north of the Pittsburg-Antioch Highway. The west boundary of the site is adjacent to spur lines of the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad and the alignment of the former Pittsburg Railroad. Buildings and structures on this parcel include tanks that once served as part of the sewage treatment plant for Camp Stoneman, as well as more modern buildings that date to the decades after World War II. The modern buildings were probably constructed during the period when this site was used as an automotive salvage yard. The remains of the sewage treatment facility do not appear to be significant within the context of the development of military infrastructure during World War II, nor does the facility retain historic integrity. The former Pittsburg Railroad line is inactive (it once ran north to Pittsburg Landing) and the BNSF railroad spur is an active line that has been extensively refurbished and upgraded since the alignment was originally established. Neither railroad retains historic integrity adjacent to the Project site.
This inventory and evaluation determined that no historic architectural resources are present within this portion of the Project.
4.7.1.2.3 Offshore DC Cable Route. The following is an overview of the archaeological resources and historic architectural resources for the proposed offshore DC cable route between the proposed Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station site and the landfall near Potrero in San Francisco.
Archaeological Resources. As discussed previously, the cultural resources inventory for the offshore DC (and AC) cable routes was limited to a record search. In addition to materials on file at the NWIC, the record search for the offshore segment also included a review of shipwreck data compiled by the SLC.
The online SLC Shipwreck Database
(http://shipwrecks.slc.ca.gov/ShipwrecksDatabase/
Shipwrecks_Database.asp) lists shipwrecks by county and is based primarily on
historical accounts of these incidents. It should be noted that most of the
location data thus refer to where the ship went down as opposed to where it
came to rest. As such, a ship may have gone down well beyond the Project
corridor but ultimately have come to rest within or immediately adjacent to the
proposed cable route. Given the uncertainty of where a potential shipwreck may
be located, the cultural resources study corridor for the offshore segment was
expanded an additional 250 meters either side of centerline (1,000 meters
total width). At the crossing of the BART Transbay Tube, the Project study area
was expanded westward to allow for design flexibility in this crossing area. As
such, the 1,000-meter-wide shipwreck study area was correspondingly widened in
this particular location (see Figure 4.7-1,
Sheet 1).
In addition to the records of the NWIC and the SLC, shipwreck locations taken directly from the applicable topographic maps were utilized. These unnamed and undated wrecks are mapped along many of the region's waterways. It is unknown whether any of these mapped wrecks correspond to those listed in the SLC database. Figure 4.7-1, sheets 1 and 2, depict the geographic relationship between the proposed AC and DC cable routes and the various reported shipwrecks. Table 4.7-1 below lists the potential and known shipwrecks within the Project study area and indicates the geographic relationship between each and the proposed AC and DC cable routes.
Sagamore. The files of the NWIC included one archaeologically identified shipwreck within the Project study corridor. Listed in Table 4.7-1 as the "Baldwin Channel Wreck," these remains were discovered during a geophysical survey of the Pinole Shoal Channel (Sullivan and Allan, 1996). The identified remains consist of seven acoustic targets that have been interpreted to be various-sized portions of the cargo and ballast of the schooner Sagamore. The Sagamore was lost off Point Pinole, San Pablo Bay during a storm in 1864. The schooner was transporting a load of granite for Grant & Co., a San Francisco stone cutting firm. One of the crew drowned during the gale; the remaining crew clung to the rigging until rescued by the Julia out of Stockton.
It is worth noting that this wreck, if it indeed is the remains of the Sagamore, is situated more than 7.5 miles downstream from its reported wreck location as listed in the SLC shipwreck database. This is thus a clear example of the discrepancy between where a wreck reportedly went down (as listed on the SLC database) and where the vessel rests today.
Historic Architectural Resources. Given the submarine nature of this segment of the proposed Project, impacts to historic architectural resources are not anticipated.
Cultural
resources are defined as buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of
which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or
scientific importance. Numerous
TABLE 4.7-1
SHIPWRECK DATA FOR OFFSHORE DC AND AC CABLE ROUTES
Ship's Name (Year of Wreck) |
Latitude |
Longitude |
Descriptive Location from the Cable Route Centerline |
DC Cable Milepost1 |
Data Source |
Alice Garrett (1888)2 |
37° 47' 50" |
122° 23' 30" |
860 meters WSW of DC cable |
3.5 |
SLC |
Amelia (1889) |
38° 02' 54" |
122° 10' 50" |
52 meters SW of DC cable |
33.4 |
SLC |
Armenia (1899) |
38° 02' 54" |
122° 10' 50" |
52 meters SW of DC cable |
33.4 |
SLC |
Baldwin Channel Wreck (1864)3 |
37° 59' 54" |
122° 25' 13" |
41 meters SE of DC cable |
18.8 |
NWIC |
Baldwin Channel Wreck (1864)3 |
37° 59' 48" |
122° 25' 04" |
320 meters SE of DC cable |
18.8 |
NWIC |
Goddess (1865) |
37° 49' 01" |
122° 24' 01" |
484 meters WSW of DC cable |
4.9 |
SLC |
Harry (1904) |
38° 03' 20" |
122° 15' 20" |
435 meters SSE of DC cable |
29.0 |
SLC |
Helen Hensley (1854)* |
37° 47' 56" |
122° 23' 30" |
777 meters WSW of DC cable |
3.6 |
SLC |
Honauwar (1889) |
38° 02' 54" |
122° 10' 50" |
52 meters SW of DC cable |
33.49 |
SLC |
Monarch (1915) |
38° 03' 30" |
122° 14' 36" |
322 meters S of DC cable |
29.8 |
SLC |
Ringleader (1869) |
38° 01' 30" |
122° 21' 54" |
365 meters SE of DC cable |
22.5 |
SLC |
San Carlos (1797)2 |
37° 48' 10" |
122° 23' 40" |
752 meters WSW of DC cable |
3.9 |
SLC |
West Wind (1876)2 |
37° 47' 40" |
122° 23' 30" |
995 meters WSW of DC cable |
3.4 |
SLC |
Wreck #1 (no date) |
38° 01' 43" |
122° 09' 58" |
348 meters SW of DC cable |
34.9 |
USGS |
Wreck #2 (no date)4 |
38° 02' 31" |
121° 53' 44" |
148 meters S of DC cable |
52.1 |
USGS |
Wreck #2 (no date)4 |
38° 02' 31" |
121° 53' 44" |
17 meters SE of AC Cable |
0.5 |
USGS |
1 Refer to Map A.2-1 in Appendix A for milepost locations.
2 Wrecks beyond 500 m of centerline but within vicinity of expanded study area at BART crossing.
3 Two sets of coordinates were provided by the NWIC for this archaeologically identified wreck believed to be the Sagamore.
4 This particular wreck falls within the study areas of both the DC and AC cable routes near Pittsburg.
laws, regulations, and statutes, on both the federal and state levels, seek to protect and manage cultural resources. These include:
4.7.2.1 Federal Regulations
Collectively, these regulations and guidelines establish a comprehensive program for the identification, evaluation, and treatment of cultural resources.
This Draft EIR affords notice to the State Historic Preservation Officer, pursuant to California Public Resources Code 5024.5(a), of a project potentially affecting resources listed in, or eligible for, the California Register of Historic Resources.
4.7.3.1 Thresholds of Significance
4.7.3.1.1 Federal Significance Criteria. The four evaluation criteria to determine a resource's eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), in accordance with the regulations outlined in 36 CFR 800, are identified at 36 CFR 60.4. These evaluation criteria, listed below, are used to help determine what properties should be considered for protection from destruction or impairment resulting from project-related activities (36 CFR 60.2).
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and:
4.7.3.1.2 State Significance Criteria. In considering impact significance under CEQA, the significance of the resource itself must first be determined. At the state level, consideration of significance as an "important archaeological resource" is measured by cultural resource provisions considered under CEQA Sections 15064.5 and 15126.4, and the draft criteria regarding resource eligibility to the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR).
Generally under CEQA, a historical resource (these include built-environment historic and prehistoric archaeological resources) is considered significant if it meets the criteria for listing on the CRHR. These criteria are set forth in CEQA Section 15064.5 and defined as any resource that:
Section 15064.5 of CEQA also assigns special importance to human remains and specifies procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. These procedures are detailed under California PRC Section 5097.98.
Impacts to "unique archaeological resources" are also considered under CEQA, as described under PRC 21083.2. A unique archaeological resource implies an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that - without merely adding to the current body of knowledge - there is a high probability that it meets one of the following criteria:
A non-unique archaeological resource indicates an archaeological artifact, object, or site that does not meet the above criteria. Impacts to non-unique archaeological resources and resources which do not qualify for listing on the CRHR receive no further consideration under CEQA.
Under CEQA Section 15064.5, a project potentially would have significant impacts if it would cause substantial adverse change in the significance of one of the following:
A non-unique archaeological or paleontological resource is given no further consideration, other than the simple recording of its existence, by the lead agency.
4.7.3.1.3 Conformity of Federal and State Evaluation Criteria The criteria for eligibility for the CRHR are very similar to those that qualify a property for the NRHP, which is the significance assessment tool used under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The criteria of the NRHP apply when a project has federal involvement. State cultural resources significance criteria apply when resources fall under the jurisdiction of a state and/or local agency.
A property that is eligible for the NRHP is also eligible to the CRHR. All potential impacts to significant resources under a federal agency must be assessed and addressed under the procedures of Section 106 of the NHPA, set forth at 36 CFR 800. All resources encountered during the Project, with the exception of isolate artifacts and isolate features that appear to lack integrity or data potential, will be evaluated for significance vis-à-vis Section 106.
4.7.3.2 San Francisco HWC Converter Station
4.7.3.2.1 Construction-related Impacts.
Mitigation Measure CUL-1a: Archaeological Resource Testing. Due to the potential for buried cultural resources within the Mirant Potrero Power Plant portion of the Project area, it is recommended that subsurface survey (i.e., testing) of the cable route across the plant utilizing mechanical exploratory borings be initiated prior to construction activities. The subsurface survey should be implemented as a means to determine the presence and extent of buried archaeological resources within the plant area as well as to evaluate the potential significance of any resources encountered. Identified remains would be evaluated against the NRHP/CRHR significance criteria. If the resources are not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR, then no further consideration of these resources would be required. If the resources are eligible for the NRHP/CRHR, additional mitigation measures may be required.
The testing program would be documented within a technical report. The report would include the aforementioned resource evaluations, if any, and provide recommendations for the further management of cultural resources. Such recommendations could include data recovery excavations as well as the monitoring of all ground-disturbing activities associated with the project.
Implementation Responsibility: Project proponent
Requirements and Timing: A professional archaeologist, in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), shall conduct testing prior to project implementation
Monitoring Requirements: The City of Pittsburg, in consultation with the City and County of San Francisco and SHPO, to monitor and ensure compliance
Mitigation Measure CUL-1b: Archaeological Resource Data Recovery. Based upon the results of the testing program, it may be necessary that a data recovery excavation be implemented. CEQA stipulates that if avoidance of the important archaeological resource is not feasible, a data recovery excavation may be warranted. When data recovery through excavation is the only feasible mitigation, a data recovery plan, which makes provisions for adequately recovering the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, shall be prepared and adopted prior to any excavation being undertaken. The development of this plan as well as the implementation of field work, would be conducted in consultation with the SHPO, and, if the site is of aboriginal association, with the NAHC and local Native American community as well.
Implementation Responsibility: Project proponent will engage the services of a qualified professional archaeologist to implement, as necessary, this mitigation measure
Requirements and Timing: A professional archaeologist, in consultation with SHPO shall conduct data recovery as applicable prior to Project implementation
Monitoring Requirements: The City of Pittsburg, in consultation with the City and County of San Francisco and SHPO, to monitor and ensure compliance
Mitigation Measure CUL-1c: Archaeological Resource Construction Monitoring. Following completion of the archaeological testing efforts, it may be determined that construction monitoring is necessary to prevent significant impacts to important cultural resources. In the event monitoring is warranted, a qualified professional archaeologist shall be retained to observe all ground-disturbing activities associated with the Project. If archaeological materials are observed by the monitoring archaeologist, he/she would have the authority to halt all ground-disturbing activities within the vicinity of the exposed materials until the nature and significance of the find could be evaluated and mitigation measures implemented, if needed. The development of mitigation measures would be conducted in consultation with SHPO and, if the site is of aboriginal association, with the NAHC and local Native American community as well.
Implementation Responsibility: Project proponent/construction contractor
Requirements and Timing: A professional archaeologist shall conduct monitoring, if necessary, during ground disturbing phases of the specific area of concern
Monitoring Requirements: City of Pittsburg, in consultation with the City and County of San Francisco, to monitor and ensure compliance
Resulting Level of Significance. Mitigation Measures CUL-1a through CUL-1c would reduce Impact CUL-1 to a less-than-significant level.
Historical Architectural Resources. The construction of the San Francisco HWC Converter Station would require demolition of historical resources. This action would cause a significant adverse change to these historical resources under CEQA.
Impact CUL-2: Disturbance of Historical Architectural Resources. The construction of the converter station would require demolition of historical resources. This action would cause a significant adverse change to these historical resources under CEQA. This is considered a significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUL-2a: Recording Architectural Resources. Recording would ensure a permanent record of the present appearance and context of the historical resources. Under this mitigation proposal, the Project proponent would ensure that the historical resources to be demolished would be recorded to Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) standards prior to any construction activities. The HABS/HAER documentation would be filed with the SHPO, the HABS/HAER collection in the Library of Congress, the University of California Bancroft Library, the San Francisco Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board files at the San Francisco Planning Department, the Foundation for San Francisco's Architectural Heritage (FSFAH), and the San Francisco Public Library.
It is possible the discharge tunnel associated with Station A would be exposed during construction activities. If the tunnel were sufficiently exposed during such activity, work would be halted until a qualified architectural historian could record a representative cross section of the tunnel to HAER standards. Recordation would include appropriate photographs and drawings as well as archival documentation, if available. Although recording eliminates one adverse impact of demolition (the loss of historical information) it does not prevent the physical loss of historically significant resources.
Implementation Responsibility: Project proponent
Requirements and Timing: Recording shall be completed prior to the issuance of a demolition permit
Monitoring Requirements: City of Pittsburg, in consultation with the City and County of San Francisco, to monitor and ensure compliance
Mitigation Measure CUL-2b: Architectural Resource Interpretive Display and/or Interpretive Material. The Project proponent would develop a display or interpretive material for public exhibition and dispersal. The display or interpretive material, such as a printed brochure, could be based on the photographs produced in the HABS/HAER documentation, and the historic archival research previously prepared for the resources in and near the project. This display and/or interpretive material would be provided to the City of San Francisco.
Implementation Responsibility: Project proponent
Requirements and Timing: Prior to operation of proposed Project
Monitoring Requirements: City of Pittsburg, in consultation with the City and County of San Francisco, to monitor and ensure compliance
Mitigation Measure CUL-2c: Architectural Resource Salvage Opportunities. After recording and at least 30 days prior to demolition, the interested parties would have the opportunity to salvage architectural elements for re-use or curation. Items selected would be removed in a manner that minimizes damage to those items.
Implementation Responsibility: Project proponent
Requirements and Timing: Prior to demolition of architectural resources
Monitoring Requirements: City of Pittsburg, in consultation with City and County of San Francisco, to monitor and ensure compliance
Resulting Level of Significance. Mitigation Measures CUL-2a through 2c are intended to be part of the overall consideration of impacts to historical resources as part of this Project. While implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-2a through CUL-2cd would lessen project impacts, demolition of historical resources is a significant adverse impact that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level.
4.7.3.2.2 Operations-related Impacts. Lacking additional ground-disturbing activities, demolition, and/or the construction of new structures, the operation of the proposed Project would not result in impacts to cultural resources.
4.7.3.3 Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station
4.7.3.3.1 Construction-related Impacts.
Archaeological Resources. No archaeological resources have been identified within the Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station site, onshore AC/DC cable route, proposed and alternative construction laydown areas, or proposed and alternative access roads. As such, significant impacts to archaeological resources would not be expected with implementation of this proposed Project component.
Historic Architectural Resources. No historic architectural resources have been identified within the Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station site, onshore AC/DC cable route, proposed and alternative construction laydown areas, or proposed and alternative access roads. As such, significant impacts to historic architectural resources would not occur with implementation of this Project component.
4.7.3.3.2 Operations-related Impacts. Lacking additional ground-disturbing activities, demolition, and/or the construction of new structures, the operation of the proposed Project would not result in impacts to cultural resources.
4.7.3.4 Offshore Cable Routes
This section pertains to both the offshore DC and AC cable routes.
4.7.3.4.1 Construction-related Impacts.
Impact CUL-3: Offshore Cable Route Archaeological Resources. Submerged and buried archaeological resources have been identified along the offshore AC cable route associated with the Pittsburg Standard Oil Converter Station and the entire offshore DC cable route. Disturbance of these historical resources is considered a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure CUL-3a: Archaeological Resources Geophysical Survey. A geophysical remote-sensing survey shall be conducted along the offshore cable route to detect any potential submerged or sub-bottom archaeological resources. Depending on the geographic or bathymetric setting, an appropriate remote-sensing field survey could include deployment of a side scan sonar, sub-bottom profiler, and magnetometer to help detect these resources. The results of the geophysical survey will be reviewed by a qualified marine archaeologist and a report documenting these efforts and interpreting the results shall be produced.
Implementation Responsibility: The Project proponent shall engage the services of a qualified professional marine archaeologist to implement this mitigation measure
Requirements and Timing: A qualified professional marine archaeologist, in consultation with SHPO, shall review the results of a marine geophysical survey prior to project construction
Monitoring Requirements: City of Pittsburg to monitor and ensure compliance
Mitigation Measure CUL-3b: Archaeological Resources Avoidance. Potential submerged and/or buried archaeological resources detected through the geophysical survey shall be avoided unless they can satisfactorily be determined to not represent archaeological resources (e.g., modern debris, existing infrastructure) as documented in the technical report.
Implementation Responsibility: Project proponent/construction contractor
Requirements and Timing: The final alignment including the avoidance of potential submerged and sub-bottom archaeological resources shall be determined prior to project implementation
Monitoring Requirements: City of Pittsburg to monitor and ensure compliance
Mitigation Measure CUL-3c: Archaeological Resources Supplemental Underwater Investigation. If it is infeasible to avoid potential submerged and/or buried archaeological resources, follow-up diver survey or Remote Operated Vehicle investigations might be required to positively identify the targets. If targets are determined to be archaeological resources, they should be evaluated against the NRHP/CRHR significance criteria. If the resources are not eligible for the NRHP/CRHR, then no further consideration of these resources is required. If the resources are eligible for the NRHP/CRHR, Data Recovery (Mitigation Measure CUL-1b) may be required.
Implementation Responsibility: Project proponent shall engage the services of a qualified professional marine archaeologist to implement, as necessary, this mitigation measure
Requirements and Timing: A qualified marine archaeologist, in consultation with SHPO, shall review the results of any supplemental archaeological resources underwater investigation to determine what route would avoid any submerged archaeological resources prior to Project construction
Monitoring Requirements: The City of Pittsburg, in consultation with SHPO to monitor and ensure compliance
Resulting Level of Significance. Mitigation Measures CUL-3a through 3c would reduce Impact CUL-3 to a less-than-significant level.
Historic Architectural Resources. No known historic architectural resources occur within the routes of the offshore AC and DC Cables. As such, significant impacts to historic architectural resources would not be expected to occur with implementation of this Project component.
4.7.3.4.2 Operations-related Impacts. Lacking additional ground-disturbing activities, demolition, and/or the construction of new structures, the operation of the proposed offshore cable Project would not result in impacts to cultural resources.
Atwater, B. F. 1980. Attempts to correlate Late Quaternary climatic records between San Francisco Bay, the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and the Mokelumne River, California. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Delaware, Newark.
Beardsley, Richard K. 1954. Temporal and areal relationships in Central California archaeology. 2 Pts. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports 24-25. Berkeley.
Beck, W. A. and Y. D. Haase. 1974. Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman.
Bennyhoff, James A. 1977. Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication 5.
Bethel, John P. (General Editor). 1969. Webster's Geographical Dictionary. G. & C. Merriam Co. The Collegiate Press. Menasha, Wisconsin.
Bolton, Herbert E., ed. 1930. Anza's California Expeditions. 5 volumes. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Cook, Sherburne F. 1943a. The Conflict between the California Indian and White Civilization, I: The Indian Versus the Spanish Mission. Ibero-Americana 21. Berkeley.
1955. The epidemic of 1830-1833 in California and Oregon. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. 43(3): 303-326. Berkeley.
1960. Colonial Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley, 1800-1820. University of California Anthropological Records 16(6):239-292. Berkeley.
1962. Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley, 1820-1840. University of California Anthropological Records 20(5):151-213. Berkeley.
CLSC
(California State Lands Commission. Shipwreck Database). 2006.
http://shipwrecks.
slc.ca.gov/ShipwrecksDatabase/Shipwrecks_Database.asp.
Davis, James T. 1961. Trade Routes and Economic Exchange among the Indians of California. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports No. 54. Berkeley.
Donley, Michael W., Stuart Allan, Patricia Caro, and Clyde P. Patton. 1979. Atlas of California. Pacific Book Center, Culver City, California.
Environmental Science Associates. 1998. Draft Environmental Impact Report. Pacific Gas and Electric Company's Application for Authorization to Sell Certain Generating Plants and Related Assets Application No. 98‑01‑008. Prepared for the California Public Utilities Commission. San Francisco.
Fredrickson, David A. 1973. Early cultures of the North Coast Ranges, California. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of California, Davis; Department of Anthropology.
Gerow, Bert A. and Roland W. Force 1968. An Analysis of the University Village Complex with a Reappraisal of Central California Archaeology. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Gifford, E. W. 1926. Miwok lineages and the political unit in California. American Anthropologist 28:389-401.
Gudde, Erwin G. 1969. California Place Names. 3rd. edition. University of California Press. Berkeley.
Hart, J. D. 1978. A Companion to California. New York: Oxford University Press.
Herbold, Bruce, and Peter B. Moyle. 1989. The ecology of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta: A community profile. U.S.D.I. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 85(7.22), Washington, D.C.
Hill, Ward, and Laurence H. Shoup. 1999. "Draft Historic Architecture Report, Station A, Potrero Power Plant in the City and County of San Francisco." Prepared for Dames & Moore.
Hoover, Mildred B., Hero E. Rensch, Ethel G. Rensch, and William N. Abeloe. 1990. Historic Spots of California. Revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press. Stanford, California.
Hupman, J. M. and D. Chavez. 1995. Archaeological Resources Setting, Caltrain Station Relocation Project, San Francisco, California. David Chavez Associates. Report submitted to DeLeuw, Cather and Co., San Francisco and ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc., Oakland.
Kemble, John Haskell. 1957. San Francisco Bay, A Pictorial Maritime History. Bonanza Books, New York.
King, Thomas F. 1977. The Archaeological Survey: Methods and Uses. USDI, Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service, Washington D.C.
Kroeber, Alfred L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 78. Washington, D.C. [Reprinted by Dover Publications, New York, 1976].
Levy, Richard. 1978a. Costanoan. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 485-495. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
1978b. Eastern Miwok. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 398-413. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Lillard, J. B., R. F. Heizer, and F. Fenenga. 1939. An Introduction to the Archaeology of Central California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento.
Lillard, J. B., and W. K. Purves. 1936. The Archaeology of the Deer Creek-Cosumnes Area, Sacramento County, California. Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology Bulletin 1. Sacramento.
Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.
Nelson, N.C. 1909. Shellmounds of the San Francisco Bay Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 7(4) 310-357. Berkeley.
Nichols, F. H., J. E. Cloern, S. N. Luoma, and D. H. Peterson. 1986. The modification of an estuary. Science 231:567-573.
Owens, Kenneth N. 1991. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California Historical Resources Overview. Report submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District.
Palou, Francisco. 1924. Description of the Indians in the Vicinity of Mission San Francisco, 1976. San Francisco or Mission Dolores, by Zephyrin Engelhardt. Franciscan Herald Press, Chicago, Illinois.
Powers, Stephen. 1877. Tribes of California. Contributions to North American Ethnology Volume III. U.S. Department of the Interior, Geographical and Geological Survey of the Rocky Mountain Region, Washington, D.C. [Reprinted by University of California Press, Berkeley, 1976].
Rollins, G. L. 1977. The Peripheral Canal Wildlife Inventory. California Department of Fish and Game, Report 106. Sacramento.
Schenk, W. Egbert. 1926. Historic aboriginal groups of the California Delta Region. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. 23: 123-146. Berkeley.
Schenk, W. E. and E. J. Dawson. 1929. Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology. 25: 289-413. Berkeley.
Schuyler, Robert L. 1978. Indian-Euro-American interaction: Archaeological evidence from non-indian sites. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 69-79. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Shipley, William F. 1978. Native languages of California. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 80-90. Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Shlemon, R. J. and E. L. Begg. 1975. Late Quaternary evolution of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. In Quaternary Studies, edited by R. P. Suggate and M. Cresswell, pp. 259-266. The Royal Society of New Zealand, Wellington.
Strand, R. G. and J. B. Koenig. 1965. Sacramento. Geologic Map of California, California Division of Mines and Geology.
Sullivan, Steve and James Allan. 1996. Report on A National Archaeological Survey of Four Areas in the John F. Baldwin Ship Channel. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District.
Thompson, John. 1982. Discovering and Rediscovering the Fragility of Levees and Land in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, 1870-1879 and Today. Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, California.
Wirth Associates, Inc. 1979a. Potrero 7: Phase I Cultural Resources Overview and Inventory. Submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco.
1979b. Potrero 7: Phase II Archaeological Test Excavations. Submitted to Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Francisco.
| Return to the Table of Contents. | On to the next section. |