Resolution 14048CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO 14048
MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES, MAKING FINDINGS CONCERNING
ALTERNATIVES, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE ALAMEDA LANDING MIXED
USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2006012091)
WHEREAS, on July 24, 2006, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda
recommended that the City Council certify that the Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Report ( "FSEIR ") for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use
Development, Project (the "Project") was completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") and state and local 'guidelines;
and
WHEREAS, the proposal to make findings regarding environmental
impacts and mitigation measures, make findings concerning alternatives, adopt
a Mitigation Monitoring and Report ting Program and adopt a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is part of an application; that also includes a General
Plan Amendment, a Master Plan Amendment, amendment of a Development
Agreement and adoption of two new Development Agreements and amendment
of a Disposition and Development Agreement and adoption of a new
Disposition and Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, prior to approving this Resolution and acting on the required
City approvals, the City Council certified the FSEIR.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the
Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for
the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project (Attachment A), the
Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives (Attachment B), the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment C) and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations (Attachment D), all of which are attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE ALAMEDA LANDING MIXED USE
DEVELOPMENT
ATTACHMENT A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The approved Catellus Mixed Use Development included plans for 485 single - family homes
(commonly referred to as the Bayport project) and 101 multi - family residential units, some of
which are currently under construction; a seven -acre site dedicated to the Alameda Unified
School District for a 600- student Kindergarten - through- eighth -grade school; 15 acres of public
open space, neighborhood parks, mini- parks, and waterfront promenades; and approximately 1.3
million square feet of commercial office /research and development (R &D) space, including
supporting ground floor retail space. The approved project included construction of portions of
5th Street, the Mitchell Avenue Extension, and Tinker Avenue to serve the site. The approved
project was analyzed in the 2000 Catellus Mixed Use Development Project Environmental
Impact Report (" 2000 EIR ") certified by the City on May 31, 2000, as well as in a 2001
addendum to the 2000 EIR for the construction of approximately 60 additional residential units,
a 2004 addendum to the 2000 EIR for the construction of a stormwater treatment plant and
detention pond, pump station, force main and outfall, and a 2006 addendum to the 2000 EIR for
the construction of 39 affordable apartments.
The 2006 proposed revisions to the Catellus Mixed Use Development (as revised, the "Project ")
would allow the project sponsor to retain entitlements for 400,000 square feet of planned
commercial office space and to replace the remaining 900,000 square feet of planned commercial
office/R &D space with approximately 300,000 feet of retail space (Variant A) or approximately
50,000 square feet of retail space and 370,000 square feet of research and development space
(Variant B), a 20,000 - square -foot health club, and 300 housing units (25 percent affordable).
The revised Project would not change the entitlements for the 485 single family homes and 101
multi- family residential units and the school. The Project is more fully described in the Draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "DSEIR ") prepared for the Project.
I. THE FINAL SEIR: The Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report ( "FSEIR ")
consists of the Draft SEIR ( "DSEIR "), Responses to Comments Addendum and Text Revisions
document.
II. THE RECORD: The following information is incorporated by reference and made
part of the record ( "Record ") supporting these findings:
a. The 2000 EIR.
b. The 2001 EIR addendum.
c. The 2004 EIR addendum.
50L.
d. The 2006 EIR addendum.
e. The 2000 Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Measures, Findings of Fact Regarding Alternatives and Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
The 2000 Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program
The DSEIR, Responses to Comments Addendum and Text Revisions document
and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference.
h. The 2006 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to o
delivered to the City of Alameda ( "City ") or the Alameda Community
Improvement Commission ( "CIC ") in, connection with the Planning Board public
hearing of May 22, 2006 on the DSEIR.
All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or
delivered to the City or the CIC in connection with the Planning Board and City
Council meetings associated with the certification of the FSEIR.
k. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of public meetings and
other documents relied upon or prepared by City staff or consultants relating to
the Project.
f.
j•
1 These Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in
connection with the Project.
III. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS
The FSEIR for the Project, prepared in with the California Environmental Quality
Act, evaluates the potentially significant and significant adverse environmental impacts which
could result from adoption of the Project. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations ( "CEQA
Guidelines ") Section 15091, the City is required to make certain findings with respect to these
impacts. The required findings appear in the following sections of this document. These
Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ( "Findings ") list all
identified potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project, as well as mitigation
measures for those impacts where possible. All mitigation measures will be enforced through
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ( "MMRP "), as incorporated as a condition of
approval. With regard to impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the
City nevertheless finds acceptable based on a determination that the benefits of the Project (listed
in these Findings and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations) outweigh the risks of the
potentially significant environmental effects of the Project.
2
A. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE
AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required
in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impacts listed below, as identified in the FSEIR.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the City
as stated below. Each significant impact which can be reduced to a less than significant level is
discussed below, and the appropriate mitigation measure stated, and adopted for implementation
by approval of these Findings of Fact. Revisions to the significant impacts and mitigation
measures identified in the 2000 EIR to reflect impacts of the revised Project are, indicated by
str=ikethr-otIgh text for removed language and underlined text for new language. Mitigation
measures from the 2000 EIR that have been completed and/or implemented are indicated by
italicized text. Impacts and mitigation measures that are newly identified in the FSEIR are not
marked with special text, but are identified in the FSEIR. Additional factual information
supporting these Findings of Fact is set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program.
1. HYDROLOGY AND STORM DRAINAGE
1.1 Flooding Hazards (HYD -1)
1.1.1 Significant Effect. Improvements on the site and future site users may be exposed to
flooding hazards.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
D -1 (revised): Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, a detailed
floodplain delineation shall be prepared by the applicant for the project site in
accordance with FEMA standards (as has been completed for the rest of Alameda
County) and submitted to the City. The floodplain delineation shall be completed for
proposed conditions. The engineer preparing the floodplain delineation shall consider
sea level rise a potential cause of increased base flood elevations with time and if
feasible, include appropriate recommendations for safety factors such as increased
freeboard for fnished floor elevations. (A detailed flood lain p delineation has been
completed and approved.)
The grading and drainage plans shall be designed to ensure that building sites (finished
floor elevations) are above the 100 -year base flood elevation and that other improvements
potentially susceptible to flood damage are sufficiently protected in accordance with the
City of Alameda Municipal Code (section 20 -4). Roadways and landscaped areas would
not be subject to this requirement. Infrequent inundation of these features would be
considered a less- than - significant impact. The floodplain delineation and gGrading and
drainage plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and
3
approval. Upon approval of the., floodplain delineation by the City, the project proponent
should initiate the "Letter of Map Revision" or "Physical Map Revision" process (to be
determined by FEMA) to include the delineation on the existing Flood Insurance Rate
Map (FIRM) for the City. Delineation of flood hazard areas and Implementation of City
ordinances for development within floodplains would mitigate potential impacts
associated with construction in flood -prone areas to a less- than - significant level.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. Th fo
reduced to a less than significan
The owing facts indicate the identified ii
evel.
pact will be
As part of Mitigation Measure HYD -1 identified in the 2000 EIR a detailed floodplain
delineation (in accordance with FEMA standards)has been completed and approved, and
the Project proponent has initiated the "Letter of Map Revision" or "Physical Map
Revision" process. As identified by the 2000 EIR, Mitigation Measure HYD -1 requires
that grading and drainage plans be designed to ensure that building sites (finished floor
elevations) are above the 100 -year base flood elevations and that other improvements
potentially susceptible to flood damage are sufficiently protected in accordance with the
City of Alameda Municipal Code (Section 20 -4). Implementation of Mitigation Measure
HYD -1, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or
substantially lessen any significant environmental effects caused by the exposure of
improvements and future site users to flooding hazards. These facts support the City's
findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.D.12 -13.)
1.2 Degradation of Water Quality (HYD -2)
1.2.1 Significant Effect. Construction activities and post- construction site uses could result in
degradation of water quality in the Oakland Estuary and the San Francisco Bay by
reducing the quality of storm water runoff.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
IIYD -2 (revised): A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to
reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction and life of the
project shall be prepared for each development project (e.g., single - family residential,
business park, etc.) that is constructed as part of this Project and involves construction
activity (including clearing, grading, or excavations). As required by Phase II NPDES
Permit requirementsµ a SWPPP is required for
the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project.
The SWPP shall include a site ma s which shows the construction site nerimeter(s),
existing and proposed buildings lots, roadways storm water collection and discharge
oints, general tono graph before and after construction and draina• e patterns across the
4
Project site. The SWPPP must list the specific erosion control and storm water quality
BMPs that will be em lo ed to .rotect storm water runoff the 'ro.er methods of
installation and the placement I erosion control BMPs the
SWPPP shall include BMPs for . reventrn . the dischar ' e of other NPDES . ollutants
besides sediment e. .aint solvents concrete aetroleum aroducts to downstream
waters. The SWPPP shall include measures to educate onsite construction and
maintenance supervisors and workers about the importance of storm water quality
protection. Such measures shall include re. lar tailgate meetings to discuss pollution
. revention and the re• uirement that all . ersonnel attend. The SWPPP shall contain a
visual m. itorin ro ram• a chemical monitoring . ro ram for "non - visible
of those BMPs
n addition to
. ollutants
to o e im a lemented if there is a failure of BMPs • and a sediment monitorin • lan if the
site dischar'es direct l to. a waterbod listed on the 303 d list for sediment as is the case
with the proposed Project. The SWPPP would act as the overall program document
designed to provide measures to mitigate potential water quality impacts associated with
implementation of the proposed Project. Preparers of the SWPPP should review the
Conditions of Approval (including General Conditions for Construction, Residential
Development /Construction Conditions, and Commercial /Industrial Conditions)
established by the City.
The SWPPP shall include the following three elements to address construction, post
construction and pest management issues:
(1) Specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to
mitigate construction - related pollutants. These controls shall include practices
to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance
supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, and adhesives) with storm water.
The SWPPP shall specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep
these materials out of the rain. The contractor(s) shall submit details, design, and
procedures for compliance with storage area requirements.
An important component of the storm water quality protection effort is knowledge
on the part of on -site construction and maintenance supervisors, and workers. To
educate on -site personnel and maintain awareness of the importance of storm
water quality protection, site supervisors shall conduct regular tailgate meetings to
discuss pollution prevention. The SWPPP shall establish a frequency for meetings
and require all personnel to attend.
The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the
construction site supervisor, and must include both dry and wet weather
inspections. City of Alameda shall conduct regular inspections to ensure
compliance with the SWPPP. (Site._specific SWPPPO for General
Cons ru i t n ti i ie ill . I r• 1. r. n ii i r r • P o'
ne are c i ns ruc ed.
BMPs desi
o reduce erosion of ex . o ed soil ma
include but are not limited
to: soil stabilization controls, waterin • for dust control, . erimeter silt fences
placement of hay bales and sediment basins If Grading must be conducted during
5
the rain season the rimar B s selected shall focus on erosion control i.e.
keeaina sediment on the site). End-of- pipe sediment control measures (e basins
and tra es) shall be used only as secondary measures. If hydroseedin • is selected
as the primary soil stabilization method these areas shall' be seeded by
entember
1 and irri • ated to ensure that ade • uate root develo . ment has occurred 'rim' to
October 1 Entry and e ress from the construction site shall be carefcarefully
controlled to minimize off -site trackin • of sediment. Vehicle and es ui ement
wash -down facilities shall be desi • ned to be accessible and functional both during
dry and wet conditions.
(2) Measures Designed to Mitigate Post-construction-Related Pollutants. The
SWPPP shall include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality
degradation of runoff from all portions of the completed development. It is
important that post construction storm water quality controls are required in the
initial design phase of redevelopment projects and not simply added after the site
layout and building footprints have been established The specific BMPs that
would be required of a project can be found in SF Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for
Storm Water Programs. In addition, the design team should include design
principles contained in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
Association's manual, Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for
Stormwater Quality Protection. The selection of BMPs required for a specific
project is based on the size of the development and the sensitivity of the area. U.
rm a er aster Plan to address tin at r quality issues
has been completed.)
The Estuary is considered a sensitive area by the RWQCB. In general, passive,
low maintenance BMPs (e.g., grassy swales, porous pavements) are preferred. If
the SWPPP includes higher maintenance BMPs (e.g., sedimentation basins, fossil
filters), then funding for long term maintenance needs must be specified in the
SWPPP as a condition of approval of the grading, excavation, or building
permits, as appropriate (the City will not assume maintenance responsibilities for
these features).
(3)
Integrated Pest Management Plan. An Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
shall be prepared and implemented by the Project for all common landscaped
areas. Each IPM shall be prepared by a qualified professional. The IPMs shall
address and recommend methods of pest prevention and turf grass management
that use pesticides as a last resort in pest control. Types and rates of fertilizer and
pesticide application shall be specified. Special attention in the IPMs shall be
directed toward avoiding runoff of pesticides and nitrates into sensitive drainages
or leaching into the shallow groundwater table. Pesticides shall be used only in
response to a persistent pest problem. Preventative chemical use shall not be
employed. Cultural and biological approaches to pest control shall be fully
integrated into the IPMs, with an emphasis toward reducing pesticide application.
The City of Alameda Department of Public Works shall review and approve the
SWPPP prior to the approval of the development plan for each Project phase to
ensure that the selected BMPs would adequately protect water quality. The City
and the RWQCB are empowered to levy considerable fines for non- compliance
with the SWPPP. Compliance with the approved SWPPP would mitigate the
ipact to a less than significant level.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
As part of Mitigation Measure HYD -2, a SWPPP will be prepared for each type or
category of development within the Project. That SWPPP will include measures and
practices designed to reduce erosion and protect storm water quality during construction,
and substantially limit the degradation of runoff from all portions of the, completed
development. Compliance with the SWPPP will be ensured through regular inspections
conducted by City of Alameda personnel, and through review and approval of the
SWPPP prior to the approval of the Development Plan for each Project construction
phase. The portion of Mitigation Measure HYD -2 identified in the 2000 EIR requiring
the preparation of a Storm Water Management Plan to address water quality issues
associated with post-development land use has been completed. A SWMP prepared in
2005 complies with NPDES Municipal Storm water permit requirements and the
ACCWP. Water quality BMPs prescribed in the SWMP are currently being implemented
at the Bayport development. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD -2, enforced
through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen
the potential for degradation of water quality resulting from construction activities and
post - construction site uses. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR,
IV.D.14 -15.)
1.3 Dewatering Discharge (HYD -3)
1.3.1 Significant Effect. Dewatering activities during construction could result in the discharge
of contaminated groundwater to the Oakland Inner Harbor and San Francisco Bay.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
HYD-3: This mitigation measures applies to all portions of the Project site. Dewatering
activities conducted within 100 feet of the benzene /naphthalene plume, at areas IR02
through IR07, or in areas where apparent contamination has been encountered shall be
conducted by OSHA- certified personnel according to the dewatering management
protocols delineated in the Site Management Plan prepared by Environmental Resources
7
Management (2002) for the proposed Project. Dewatering management protocols
described in the Site Management Plan are as follows:
(1) The dewatering system shall be monitored on a continuous, 24 -hour basis during
dewatering, or be designed with dual redundancy to prevent the possibility of an
overflow of contaminated water from detention structures. For example,
fractionation tanks shall be equipped with both a high -level and an ultrahigh -level
sensor, both of which will shut off influent pumps if tripped.
(2) All applicable discharge permits shall be obtained and observed.
(3)
Dewatering and treatment residuals, such as tank bottoms and spent granular
activated carbon, shall be disposed of in an appropriate manner at the direction of
the contractor's environmental professional.
(4) Dewatering performed in the vicinity of IR04 /IR06 should be coordinated with
the environmental professional responsible for remediation in this area, and
should be conducted in such a way that nonaqueous phase liquid or contaminated
groundwater migration is not induced by dewatering activities.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact HYD -3 is a new impact that applies to all portions of the project site under both
Variant A and Variant B. Certain types of construction may require pumping of
groundwater to dewater excavations. Based on the presence of a benzene and
naphthalene groundwater plume in the south - central portion of the project site, as well as
contamination issues associated with historical uses of the property, the discharge of
dewatering effluents to the local storm drain network could adversely affect the water
quality of receiving waters. Any potentially significant impact caused by such activities
will be reduced to a less than significant level by requiring any dewatering activities
conducted near such sites to be conducted by OSHA - certified personnel according to the
dewatering management protocols delineated in the Site Management Plan prepared in
2002 for the proposed project. These facts support the City's findings. (See also
DSEIR, IV.D.17 -18.)
1.4 Boating Discharge (HYD -4)
1.4.1 Significant Effect. The operation of boating activities (water shuttle) at the project site
could result in the inadvertent discharge of hazardous materials that could impair water
quality in the Inner Harbor and San Francisco Bay.
8
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project
HYD -4: Prior to initiating water shuttle operations from the project site, the Project
sponsor shall ensure that water shuttle landing operations implement (as a part of the
project) BMPs that shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Prohibit any refueling, maintenance or cleaning activities on site such as oil
changes and engine cleaning;
(2) Prohibit pouring of wastes into drains, into surface water, or onto the ground;
(3) Prohibit hosing down discharged spills with water;
(4) Use only biodegradable, low- phosphate content, water -based cleaners, whenever
necessary; avoid the use of halogenated compounds, aromatic hydrocarbons,
chlorinated hydrocarbons, petroleum -based cleaners or phenolics. (The presence
of these substances can be checked in the material safety data sheet sheets for
each cleaning agent.).
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact HYD -4 is a new impact that only applies to the operation of the water shuttle. No
refueling station or marina activities or facilities are proposed by the Project, however,
the landing would facilitate water shuttle operations at the Project site, which would
increase the potential for the inadvertent discharge of petroleum, and oils that would result
in a significant water quality impact. The Project would be required to incorporate post
construction BMPs consistent with Mitigation Measure HYD -2 (Revised) to reduce the
potential for violating water quality or waste discharge standards and waste discharge
requirements. Implementation of these measures would control the potential for the flow
of chemicals into the estuary and reduce the water quality impacts to the estuary to a less -
than- significant level. (See also DSEIR, IV.D.18 -19.)
2. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
2.1 Seismic Hazards (GEO -1)
2.1.1 Significant Effect. Occupants of development constructed under the proposed Project
would be subject to seismic hazards.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
9
GE0 -1: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, a detailed geotechnical
and soils report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Alameda Public Works
Department and the California State Geologist for review and approval. The report shall
determine the site's surface geotechnical conditions and address potential seismic
hazards, including liquefaction and associated ground failure, and the stability of the
bulkhead. The report shall identify building techniques appropriate to minimize seismic
damage, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) Buildings and other structures shall be designed to meet the requirements of the
most recently adopted Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4.
(2) Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall conform with the California
Division of Mines and Geology recommendations presented in the "Guidelines
for Evaluating Seismic Hazards in California."
All mitigation measures, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the geotechnical
and soils report shall be followed in order to reduce impacts associated with seismic
hazards to a less than significant level.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially; lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
As part of Mitigation Measure GEO -1 identified in the 2000 EIR, no grading or building
permits will be issued until a detailed geotechnical and soils report is prepared and
submitted to the Public Works Department for, approval. Since the 2000 EIR, a seismic
hazard zone map was produced that locates the Project site within a Seismic Hazard Zone
for liquefaction. Therefore, the geotechnical report also must be submitted to the State
Geologist. Mitigation Measure GEO -1 is therefore revised to include this new regulatory
requirement. The report will determine the seismic hazards and establish that all the
buildings in the development will be designed to meet the appropriate Uniform Building
Code standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1, enforced through the
MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the
potential exposure of site occupants to seismic hazards. These facts support the City's
findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.E -7.)
2.2 Consolidation and Land Surface Subsidence (GEO -2)
2.2.1 Significant Effect. Expected continuing consolidation and land surface subsidence at the
Project site could result in damage to Project improvements.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
10
GEO -2a: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a site - specific geotechnical report that
provides analysis of consolidation potential shall be prepared and submitted to the City
Department of Public Works for approval. The report shall specify all measures
necessary to limit consolidation including minimization of structural fills and use (when
necessary) of lightweight and low plasticity fill materials to reduce the potential for
excessive loading caused by fill placement. The placement of artificial fill should be
limited to reduce the potential for increased loading and associated settlement in areas
underlain by thick young bay muds. Increased area settlement could have implications
for flooding potential as well as foundation design. Reconditioning (compaction) of
existing subgrade materials would be preferable to placement of fill. The report shall
present recommendations for specific foundation designs which minimize the potential
for damage related to settlement. The design of utilities shall consider differential
settlements along utility alignments constructed in filled areas of the Project site. The
geotechnical report shall provide recommended design elements to minimize the potential
for damage or leakage.
The geotechnical report shall specify foundation designs for the proposed structures.
Multi -story frame residential buildings could be adequately supported on appropriately
designed structural or post- tension slab foundations underlain by engineered fill. Larger
buildings, heavy structures or equipment, and multi -story commercial or industrial
buildings would require pile foundations to minimize settlement of these structures. The
piles would need to be driven into a suitably strong bearing unit (possibly old bay mud or
Merritt sands) to have adequate skin friction, and to account for "downdrag" on piles
related to consolidation of underlying young bay muds if present.
GEO -2b: Mat or slab foundations constructed in areas of expected areal settlement (i.e.,
areas underlain by thick young bay muds) shall be designed to minimize the potential for
soil erosion under the perimeter of the foundation. The perimeter of the slabs could be
thickened and established sufficiently below existing grade to minimize the potential for
exposure of the bottom of the foundation. Alternatively, other forms of erosion
protection could be recommended by site - specific geotechnical reports.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
As stated in the 2000 EIR, portions of the Project site have experienced significant
ground surface settlement caused by sediment consolidation. As part of Mitigation
Measure GEO -2, no grading permit will be issued until a detailed, site- specific
geotechnical report analyzing consolidation potential is prepared and submitted to the
City Department of Public Works for approval. The report will specify all measures
necessary to limit consolidation and will present recommendations for specific
foundation designs which minimize the potential for damage related to settlement. The
measures specified and the recommendations presented will adhere to the standards
11
identified in Mitigation Measures GEO -2a and GEO -2b, set forth in DSEIR, IV.E -2.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO -2a and GEO -2b, enforced through the
MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the
potential for damage to Project improvements as a result of continuing consolidation and
land surface subsidence at the Project site These facts support the City's findings. (See
also DSEIR,
2.3 Shrink -Swell Potential of Project Soils (GEO -3)
2.3.1 Significant Effect. Damage to s
Project soils could occur.
ctures or property related to shrink -s
ell potential of
Mitigation. ` This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
GEO -3: On expansive soils with moderate to high shrink - swell potential, proposed
building foundations and improvements shall consider these conditions; foundation
design may include drilled pier and grade beams, deepened footings (extending below
expansive soil), or post- tensioned slabs. Alternatively, expansive soil shall be removed
and replaced with compacted non - expansive soil prior to foundation construction. The
geotechnical report for each phase of the Project shall require that subgrade soils for
pavements consist of moisture - conditioned, lime- treated, or non - expansive soil, and that
surface (including roof drainage) and subsurface water be directed away from foundation
elements to minimize variations in soil moisture.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
As discussed in the 2000 EIR, portions of the project site contain Bay mud deposits with
moderate to high shrink/swell potential. As part of Mitigation Measure GEO -2, no
grading permit will be issued until a detailed, site-specific geotechnical report for each
phase of the Project is prepared and submitted to the City Department of Public Works
for approval. That report, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO -3, shall require that
foundations and improvements are designed to reduce impacts from expansive soils, and
that variations in soil moisture under and around building foundation elements are
minimized by incorporating foundation designs and standards identified in Mitigation
Measure GEO -3, set forth in DSEIR, IV.E -9. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
GEO -3, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or
substantially lessen the potential for damage to structures or property related to shrink -
swell potential of Project soils. These facts support the City's findings. (See also
DSEIR, IV.E -9.)
12
3. HAZARDS
3.1
Hazardous Materials in Groundwater
(HAZ -1)
3.1.1 Significant Effect. Construction activities could potentially expose persons at and near
the Project site to hazardous materials in the marsh crust and groundwater.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
HAZ -1 a: The City shall implement an excavation ordinance, and/or similar regulatory
measures or condition or approval, requiring a permit or prior approval to excavate to
the depth of the marsh crust at the Project site. The permit or approval shall require that
appropriate health and safety and disposal procedures be followed during excavation
activities, as required based on the presence or suspected presence of hazardous
materials in the marsh crust, including, but not limited to:
(1) Restrictions on materials stockpiling.
(2) Disposal of excavated materials at an appropriate landfill.
(3) Disposal of extracted groundwater at a wastewater treatment plant or in
accordance with RWQCB requirements.
(4) Implementation of a site- specific site management plan for construction activities.
HAZ-lb: If the US Navy does not record a restrictive covenant prohibiting the
installation of drinking water wells into the shallow groundwater at the Project site, the
City shall record such a covenant prior to transfer of the property. The City shall also
record a covenant, prior to transfer of the property, prohibiting excavation into the
marsh crust without a permit or prior approval where required under the City excavation
ordinance and/or similar regulatory measures or Project condition adopted pursuant to
Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 a.
HAZ -1 c: Preparation by a qualified registered professional of a Site Management Plan
(SMP) for the Project site shall be a condition of approval for the first subdivision map
for the Project site The SMP would provide site- specific information for contractors
(and others) developing the Project site that would improve their management of
environmental and health and safety contingencies. Topics covered by the SMP shall
include, but not be limited to:
(1) Land use history, including known hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and
spillage, for specific areas within the Project site.
(2) The nature and extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at
the Project site.
13
(3) The nature and extent of ongoing remedial activities and the nature and extent of
unremediated areas of the Project site, including the nature and occurrence of
marsh crust and hazardous materials associated with the dredge material used as
fill at the Project site
(4) A listing and description of institutional controls, such as the City's excavation
ordinance and other local, State, and federal laws and regulations, that will apply
to development of the Project site.
Requirements for site - specific' Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by
all contractors at the Project site The HASPs should be prepared by a Certified
Industrial Hygienist and would protect construction workers and interim site users
adjacent to construction activities by including engineering controls, monitoring,
and security measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction site and to
reduce hazards outside the construction site The HASPs would address the
possibility of encountering subsurface hazards and include procedures to protect
workers and the public. If prescribed exposure levels were exceeded, personal
protective equipment would be required for workers in accordance with DOSH
regulations.
(5)
(6) A description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously
unidentified hazardous materials that may potentially be encountered during
Project development, including engineering controls that may be required to
reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the Project site
Requirements for site- specific construction techniques at the site, based on
proposed development, such as minimizing the transport of contaminated
materials to the surface during construction activities by employing pile driving
techniques that consist of driving the piles directly without boring, where
practical.
The SMP shall be distributed to all contractors at the Project site; implementation of the
SMP shall be a condition of approval for excavation, building, and grading permits at the
Project site.
(7)
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures HAZ -1 a and HAZ - l b have been completed through amendment of
the Alameda Municipal Code to include the Marsh Crust Ordinance and approval of the
March Crust RAP /ROD and Covenant to Restrict Use of Property at FISCO Alameda
Facilities /Alameda Annex. An SMP fulfilling the requirements of HAZ -1c has been
completed, and will be updated to reflect the revisions to the Project. The SMP will be
distributed to all Project contractors, and implemented through the MMRP as a condition
14
of approval for excavation, building and grading permits. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures HAZ - l a, lb, and lc, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval,
will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for construction activities to expose
persons at or near the Project site to hazardous material in the marsh crust and
groundwater. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.F.10 -11.)
3.2 Potential for Contaminated Subsurface Materials (HAZ -2)
3.2.1 Significant Effect. There may be a potential for contaminated subsurface materials to be
discovered during development of the Project site These materials could potentially
present a health risk to construction workers and /or future workers and residents at the
Project site.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
HAZ -2 An SMP for Project site construction (see Mitigation Mean
shall be prepared and implemented.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
An SMP has been completed for the Bayport portion of the Project, but a similar plan
would be needed for the revised portion of the Project. As part of Mitigation Measure
HAZ -2, as indicated in the 2000 EIR, a SMP as identified in Mitigation Measure
HAZ -lc, will be prepared and implemented for Project construction that will specify
techniques and procedures for avoiding or substantially lessening the health risk to
construction workers and /or future workers and residents at the Project site from
exposure to contaminated subsurface materials. The SMP will be implemented through
the MMRP as a condition of approval for excavation, grading and building permits.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.F -18.)
itigation measure
e HAZ -1 c, above)
3.3 Potentially Hazardous Materials Present at School Site (HAZ -4)
3.3.1 Significant Effect. Construction of a school at the Project site could potentially expose
students and school workers to health risks from hazardous materials present at or near
the Project site.
Mitigation. Mitigation complete
HAZ -4: In accordance with state law, permits for construction of anew school at the site
should not be approved unless all of the following occur:
15
(1)
Environmental analysis documentation for approval of the school site includes
information which is needed to determine if the property proposed to be
dedicated, purchased, or constructed on, is any of the following:
(a) The site of a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid
waste disposal site and if so, whether the wastes have been removed.
(b) A hazardous substance release site identified by the State Department of
Health Services in a current list adopted pursuant to Section 25356 for
removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 68 (commencing with
Section 25300) or Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code.
(c) A site which contains one or more pipelines, situated underground or
aboveground which carries hazardous substances, acutely hazardous
materials, or hazardous wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line
which is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood.
(2) The Project developer or developers notes in writing and consult with BAAQMD
and ACDEHto identify facilities within '/z mile of the proposed school site which
might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The notification by the
Project developer or developers should include a list of the locations for which
information is sought.
(3) The governing board of the Alameda Unified School District makes one of the
following written findings:
(a) Consultation with BAAQMD and ACDEH identified no such facilities
specified in paragraph 2.
(b) The facilities specified in paragraph 2, above, are present, but one of the
following conditions applies:
(i)
The health risks from the facilities do not and will not constitute an
actual or potential endangerment of public health to persons who
would attend or be employed at the proposed school
(ii) Corrective measures required under an existing order by another
agency having jurisdiction over the facilities will, before the school
is occupied result in the mitigation of all chronic or accidental
hazardous air emissions to levels that do not constitute an actual
or potential endangerment of public health to persons who would
attend or be employed at the proposed school. If the governing
board makes such a finding, it should also make a subsequent
finding, prior to occupancy of the school, that the emissions have
been so mitigated.
16
(4) The governing board of the AUSD complies with Education Code
Section 17213.1, which requires, among other provisions, preparation of a
Phase I site assessment and DTSC oversight over proposed school sites.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in and incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)The
City Council hereby finds mitigation of the impact to be complete.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact has been
mitigated to a less than significant level.
The Project site is within one - fourth mile of an elementary school that is under
construction as part of the Bayport project. The 2000 EIR indicates that land uses within
1/4 mile of the school site that are associated with hazardous materials could potentially
affect the school site It is likely that potentially hazardous materials will be handled at
the Project site during project construction. Furthermore, it is possible that
redevelopment will involve the removal of lead -based paint and/or asbestos- containing
building materials. The SMP prepared by ERM in accordance with Mitigation Measure
HAZ -1c contains site - specific risk management information and measures for contractors
(and others) developing the Project site As specified in Mitigation Measure HAZ -3, the
demolition of any existing structures containing lead and/or asbestos will be conducted in
accordance with existing regulations associated with lead and asbestos abatement.
Implementation of the SMP and Mitigation Measure HAZ -3 would reduce potential
construction - related hazardous material exposure impacts to the existing and future
elementary schools to less than significant levels. Once Project construction is complete,
future residential land uses at the Project site would not emit hazardous emissions and are
not expected to handle acutely hazardous materials. However, hazardous materials could
be used in connection with office/R &D uses proposed by the Project. Office /R &D uses
would be located more than one - fourth of a mile from the school sites. Furthermore, as
specified in Mitigation Measure HAZ-5, future occupants and users of the site would be
required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations associated with the proper
transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes. No significant
impacts related to the transport, use, or storage of hazardous materials are anticipated.
This impact and mitigation measure applies only to the school within the Bayport
development and has been implemented. These facts support the City's findings. (See
also DSEIR, IV.F)
3.4 Use Storage, Transportation, and Generation of Hazardous Materials (HAZ -5)
3.4.1 Significant Effect. Future land uses at the Project site could include the use, storage,
transportation, or generation of hazardous materials. If these materials were improperly
used, stored, transported, or generated, human health and/or the environment could be
affected.
17
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
HAZ -5: If future land uses at the Project site involve the use, storage, transport,
treatment, or generation of hazardous materials, the site operator shall be required to
comply with federal, state, and local requirements for managing hazardous materials.
Depending on the type and quantity of hazardous materials, these requirements could
include the preparation of, implementation of, and training in the following plans,
programs, and permits:
(1)
Hazardous Materials Business Plan (Business Plan). Facilities that use, store, or
handle hazardous materials in quantities greater than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or
200 cubic feet are required to prepare a Business Plan. The Business Plan shall
contain facility maps, up -to -date inventories of all hazardous materials for each
shop /area, emergency response procedures, equipment, and employee training.
(2) Hazardous Waste Generator Requirements. Facilities that generate more than 100
kilograms per month of hazardous waste, or more than 1 kilogram per month of
acutely hazardous waste, must be registered under RCRA. DTSC administers
hazardous waste generator registration in California.
Contingency Plan. All facilities that generate hazardous waste must prepare a
Contingency Plan. The Contingency Plan identifies the duties of the facility
Emergency Coordinator and identifies and gives the location of emergency
equipment. It also includes reporting procedures for the facility Emergency
Coordinator to follow after an incident.
(4) California Accidental Release Prevention Program.` Facilities that use significant
quantities of acutely hazardous materials must prepare an Accidental Release
Prevention Program if there is a significant likelihood that this use may pose an
accident risk. The Program must include a description of acutely hazardous
material accidents occurring at the facility within the past three years, and a
description of equipment, procedures, and training to reduce the risk of acutely
hazardous materials accidents.
(3)
(5)
Injury and Illness Prevention Plan. ` The California General Industry Safety Order
requires that all employers in California prepare and implement an Injury and
Illness Prevention Plan which shall contain a code of safe practice for each job
category, methods for informing workers of hazards, and procedures for
correcting identified hazards.
(6) Emergency Action Plan. The California General Industry Safety Order requires
that all employers in California prepare and implement an Emergency Action
Plan. The Emergency Action Plan designates employee responsibilities,
evacuation procedures and routes, alarm systems, and training procedures.
Fire Prevention Plan. The California General Industry Safety Order requires that
all employers in California prepare and implement a Fire Prevention Plan. The
(7)
18
(8)
(9)
Fire Prevention Plan specifies areas of potential hazard, persons responsible for
maintenance of fire prevention equipment or systems, fire prevention
housekeeping procedures, and fire hazard training procedures.
Hazard Communication Plan. Facilities involved in the use, storage, and handling
of hazardous materials are required to prepare a Hazard Communication program.
The purpose of the Hazard Communication program is to ensure safe handling
practices for hazardous materials, proper labeling of hazardous materials
containers, and employee access to Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs).
Aboveground and Underground Storage Tank Permits. Facilities with
aboveground or underground storage tanks must be permitted. Other plans, such
as a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Program, may be required
depending on the size, location, and contents of the tank.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Like the project discussed in the 2000 EIR, the proposed commercial and/or research and
development uses of the Project site could generate hazardous materials. A variety of
measures, plans, requirements, programs, and permits are required, by federal, state, or
local law. These requirements, listed in Mitigation Measure HAZ -5, are designed not
only to substantially reduce the probability of a release of hazardous material but also to
minimize the quantity and duration of exposure from such a release, were it to happen.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -5, enforced through the MMRP as a
condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for
impacts to human health and/or the environment from the improper use, storage,
transportation or generation of hazardous materials. These facts support the City's
findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.F.19 -21.)
3.5 Potential Exposure to Subsurface Soil Gases (HAZ -6)
3.5.1 Significant Effect.' Routine site use and development could potentially result in exposure
of Project site users to hazardous concentrations of subsurface soil gases.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
HAZ- 6(revised):
The
City shall require that all buildings constructed on the Project site be designed and
constructed to prevent unacceptable exposures to soil gases in exposed building spaces,
using techniques such as limiting building slab joints and installing foundation vapor
19
barriers and passive venting systems. All such City requirements shall be in accordance
with any remedy (which e shall include institutional controls) established by DTSC
as part of a Remedial Action Plan for the benzene plume.
Institutional controls shall be implemented for all structures within the footprint of the
1 -micro ram -.er -liter benzene isoconcentration line. In addition to vapor barriers and
- assive ventin' s stems a..ro •r I rols that could be used a
on s stems and 2 indoor . d /or c
fate insti
ressuriza
monitorin• for selected .roes of existin•, homes and buildings as proposed Burin_, the
tutiona
nclude:
1
sub -slab de
con
aw
s
he site
ace air
remedial design. Both the .ro.osed ' emediation Action Plan and Record of Decision
must Include these institutional controls as 'arts of the reined for the
benzene /naphthalene plume.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level:
Impact HAZ -6 would be applicable to proposed land uses in the vicinity of the
benzene /naphthalene plume. The proposed Project would not worsen this impact as
compared to the 2000 EIR discussion. A human health risk assessment conducted in
1996 found no unacceptable health risks from a previously identified benzene plume.
Since the 2000 EIR, naphthalene has been identified as another primary contaminant at
the plume. Mitigation Measure HAZ -6 has been revised to incorporate this requirement.
As part of Mitigation Measure HAZ -6, developed through consultation with DTSC and
enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, the City's implementation of
building design and construction requirements as part of the building permit approval
process will provide adequate vapor barriers, venting and appropriate institutional
controls, thereby avoiding or substantially lessening the potential for exposure of Project
site users to hazardous concentrations of subsurface soil gases. These facts support the
City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.F.21 -22.)
3.6 Exposure of Construction Workers and Nearby Site Users (HAZ -7)
3.6.1 Significant Effect. Construction workers and nearby site users could be exposed to
hazardous materials prior to complete remediation of the Project site.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
HAZ -7: Remediation workers who could directly contact contaminated dust, soil,
or groundwater must perform all remediation activities in accordance with a site - specific
Health and Safety Plai (HASP) developed for the specific contaminants of concern
(petroleum, volatile organic compounds [VOCs], metals, radium, etc.) on -site. The
HASP would protect those workers as well as site users and occupants adjacent to
20
remediation activities by requiring engineering controls, monitoring, and security
measures as needed to prevent unauthorized entry to remediation sites and to reduce
hazards outside the investigation/remediation area. The HASP would address the
possibility of encountering unknown buried hazards and include procedures to protect
workers and the public. If prescribed exposure levels were exceeded, personal protective
equipment would be required for workers in accordance with California Occupational
Safety and Health Act (CAL OSHA) regulations. While the primary intent of CAL
OSHA requirements is to protect workers, compliance with these regulations also reduces
potential hazards to other Project site occupants (tenants and visitors) and ecological
receptors because of required site monitoring, reporting, and other controls. ' Potential site
access controls implemented during remediation could include:
(1) Securing the site with fencing or other barriers of sufficient height and structural
integrity to prevent unauthorized pedestrian/vehicular entry.
(2) Posting "no trespassing signs.
(3)
Providing on -site meetings with construction workers to inform them about
security measures and reporting /contingency procedures.
The HASP shall include effective dust control measures, which may include wetting soil
materials and placing covers on trucks to reduce the potential for generating airborne
dust. The HASP shall also provide measures to control site runoff and manage soil
stockpiles to prevent erosion.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The 2000 EIR states that remediation activities could potentially expose workers, tenants,
occupants, and visitors at the project site to hazardous materials during remediation
activities. This would be potentially significant. The proposed Project would not worsen
this impact. As part of Mitigation Measure HAZ -7, safety measures will be implemented
for all remediation activities that will include measures, as identified in Mitigation
Measure HAZ -7, that will prevent nearby workers and site users from entering
remediation areas and will reduce hazards outside the remediation areas. Implementation
of these measures, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or
substantially lessen the potential for exposure of construction workers and nearby site
users to hazardous materials prior to complete remediation of the Project site. These
facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.F.22 -23.)
21
3.7 Exposure of Ecological Receptors (HAZ -8)
3.71 Significant Effect. Ecological receptors in the Project vicinity could be affected by
hazardous materials during remediation of the Project site.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project
HAZ -8: Implementing required laws, regulations, an SWPPP (see Mitigation Measure
HYD -2) and a HASP (see Mitigation Measure HAZ -7) would be adequate to ensure that
potential impacts on ecological receptors near remediation activities would be less than
significant. No further mitigation is required.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
This impact and the mitigation measure from the 2000 EIR continue to be applicable to
the Project site. The proposed Project would not worsen this impact. As part of
Mitigation Measure HAZ -8, implementation of a SWPPP (see Mitigation
Measure HYD -2), as approved by the City Department of Public Works, will prevent
surface water runoff from contacting contaminants at the Project site generated from
construction or remediation efforts. Contaminated groundwater discharge will be
prevented or substantially lessened through a required RWQCB or EBMUD pewit that
would specify discharge requirements that would protect ecological receptors.
Ecological receptors will also be protected from contaminated or dangerous air emissions
related to remediation through implementation of the HASP (see Mitigation Measure
HAZ -7), and through adherence to US EPA and BAAQMD abatement and emission
reduction requirements regarding asbestos and lead-contaminated dust generated during
demolition. Implementation of these measures will be enforced through the MMRP as a
condition of approval, and will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for ecological
receptors in the Project vicinity to be affected by hazardous materials during remediation
of the Project site These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.D.23-
24.)
3.8 Residential Land Use Restrictive Covenant (HAZ -9)
3.8.1 Significant Effect. Environmental restrictions currently prohibit residential and uses on
the project site for all lands north of the Tinker Site
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
22
HAZ -9: Upon completion of remediation activities at the project site, the City of
Alameda shall enter an agreement with the DTSC to remove this interim covenant and
allow residential land uses at the project site With the removal of this environmental
restriction, project impacts associated with restriction violations would be considered less
than significant.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact' will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The Interim Covenant to Restrict Use or Property (Environmental Restrictions) for
FISCO Alameda Facilities /Alameda Annex, finalized in July 20, 2000, is a binding
covenant between the Navy and the DTSC that places interim restrictions on residential
land uses on the project site and construction activities until remediation activities are
completed to the satisfaction of the DISC. Compliance with this restrictive covenant
prevents a significant impact. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR,
IV.D.26.)
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.1 Cooper's Hawks (BIO -I)
4.1.1 Significant Effect. The proposed Project could impact Cooper's hawks that may be
nesting in the large trees on-site in the East Housing area
Mitigation. , Mitigation complete.
BIO -1.: Prior to construction in the East Housing area, a qualified biologist familiar
with Cooper's hawks shall conduct a survey to determine whether Cooper's hawks are
nesting in the East Housing area At least two surveys should be conducted during the
period of March through June. If Cooper's hawks are found nesting the nest tree(s)
shall be protected from disturbance during the nesting season. A temporary fence shall
be placed around each active nest tree, at a minimum of 200 feet from the dripline of the
tree(s), and all construction activities shall be excluded from the fenced area. The trees
shall not be removed until after the young hawks have fledged and are independent of the
nest.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.) The
City Council hereby finds mitigation of the impact to be complete.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact has been
mitigated to a less than significant level.
23
This impact applied to the Bayport Residential area, and Mitigation Measure BIO -1 was
completed as required. As a result, the 2000 Mitigation Measure BIO -1 would not be
required for the proposed Project because it specifically addresses a potential impact that
has already been mitigated. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR,
IV. G -13.)
4.2 Pallid and Western Mastiff Bats (BIO -2)
4.2.1 Significant Effect. The proposed Project could impact pallid bats and western mastiff
bats that may roost in the abandoned buildings on- site.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
BIO -2: Within a 6 -month period prior to any demolition of abandoned buildings, a
qualified biologist familiar with bats shall conduct a survey to determine the status of
these bat species on, the Project site. If special - status bat species are found, a biologist
familiar with relocating bats shall be consulted regarding the best methods to remove bats
from the buildings, and such methods shall be implemented. This could include
removing sections of the walls and roofs, which would discourage bats from continuing
to roost in the buildings. If a maternity colony of these species is' found, the building and
the bats shall not be disturbed until the young have dispersed.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
This impact and the analysis from the 2000 EIR still apply to the remaining buildings on
the Project site. Therefore Mitigation Measure BIO -2 as indicated in the 2000 EIR still
applies to the Project. As part of Mitigation Measure BIO -2, demolition of abandoned
buildings, which could disturb roosting special - status bats, if they are in abandoned
buildings on the Project site, will not be permitted until a survey is conducted to
determine the presence of bats. If special- status bats are found, they will be relocated in
accordance with best methods determined by an experienced biologist. If a maternity
colony of special- status bats is found, the building and the bats will not be disturbed until
the young have dispersed. Implementation of this mitigation measure, enforced through
the MMRP as 'a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the
potential for pallid bats or western mastiff bats to be impacted by the Project. These facts
support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.G.l0 -11.)
24
4.3 California Least Tern, California Brown Pelican, Pacific Herring and Chinook Salmon:
(BIO -3)
4.3.1 Significant Effect. Construction of a new outfall structure and any improvements to
existing outfalls within the Lagoon storm drain outfall structure and /or in the Oakland
Inner Harbor that are necessary to serve the project could adversely impact California
least tern and California brown pelican foraging habitat, Pacific herring spawning habitat,
Chinook salmon, and /or open waters that are subject to US Army Corps of Engineers
jurisdiction.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
1 c i le to All A iv' ies . n
The Project shall:
(1) Implement Best Management Practices as identified b the Rep Tonal Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to minimize water Quality impacts (see also
Mitigation Measure HYD -2) (CSWQA 2003).
(2) Determine whether in -water activities includin ' dred in will re • uire Cor. s
authorization in coin.liance with Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act or
Section 404 (Clean Water Act) and a Section 401 (Clean Water Act water uality
certification. The a..licant shall obtain such a. •royals if re uired before
25
(3)
activities .roceed within Co is`iurisdictional waters and shall co sly with all
mitigation measures required b those mammals.
If the Pro'ect will cause unavoidable direct or indirect effects to submer•ed or
emer en t a. uatic ye etat'on .rovide corn.ensator miti'•ation at a 3 :1 ratio for
lost functions and values. Other aroaosed ratios require consultation with USFWS
and CDFG.
BI 0 3b: iti ations Applicable by Snecj
(4) During the Pacific herring spawning period (December 1 February 28) dredging
is restricted. If dred in must be conducted during this oe iod CDFG must be
contacted and the o ermittee' must . rovide an observer to identif herrin .-
s . awning activit . Dred in! must sto • immediatel if herrin •, are within
200 meters of the work site and ma not continue unt'l hatch -out is com.lete
�approximatel 10 -14 daysl
(5) No dred in ' within 300 feet of the brown . elican ni ' httime communal roost site
located at Alameda Breakwater will occur during the eriod between one hour
before sunset to sunrise and from July 1 to September 30
(6) Durin. the California least tern breeding season March 15 — Jul 31 Bred' ing is
restricted within 3 miles of active nesting areas.
(7) Durin the period of December 1 — Mav 3 dredging will be restricted to 3rotect
adult and juvenile salmonids occurring in the a
Summary of Seasonal restrictions: Consultation with the Corns.`NFMS. USFWS, and
CDFG durin• permit applications for the .roiect may result in chan',es to the restrictions
be . w. For exam a le underwater construction e. .ile drivin' ma be se ed sub'ect
o maximum sound .ressure levels SPLs . For CE A .0 .oses these restrictions wil
result in less than significant impacts.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant, environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The anticipated new outfall structure in the Lagoon has not been constructed. If this
outfall were to be constructed and maintained, the potential impact would remain and
Mitigation Measure BIO -3, identified in the 2000 EIR, as revised, would apply to the
proposed project. The anticipated new outfall structure in the Inner Harbor has been
constructed, but still may require maintenance. In addition, the Project may require in-
water activities in the Estuary related to the structural upgrade and maintenance of the
Wharf and the construction of the water shuttle landing and associated improvements. As
part of Mitigation Measure BIO -3, the Project will implement practices, obtain permits
26
and schedule construction activity that will minimize the release of concrete, petroleum
products, or other contaminants into the Lagoon and Estuary which could contaminate
fish species consumed by least terns and brown pelicans. The same practices, permits
and schedules will also minimize disturbances and possible dispersal of contaminated
sediments that might have temporary adverse impacts on spawning Pacific herring or
Chinook Salmon. Stormwater management and monitoring plans will also protect open
water foraging areas for least terns and brown pelicans. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO -3, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore
avoid or substantially lessen the potential for adverse effects on California least terns and
California brown pelican foraging habitat, Pacific herring spawning habitat, Chinook
Salmon and open waters that are subject to US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction
caused by construction of a new outfall structure and maintenance of and improvements
to existing outfalls within the Lagoon storm drain outfall structure and upgrade and
maintenance of the wharf and construction and maintenance of the water shuttle landing
and associated improvements. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR,
IV.G.11 -12.)
4.4 Nesting Birds (BIO -5)
4.4.1 Significant Effect. Construction activities could adversely affect non - listed special status
nesting raptors and other nesting birds.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
BIO -5: To the extent practicable, construction activities should be performed or
vegetation removed from September through February to avoid the general nesting period
for birds. If construction or vegetation removal cannot be performed during this period,
pre- construction surveys should be performed by a qualified biologist no more than 14
days prior to construction activities to locate any active nests on site or within 250 feet
from proposed construction activities prior to the start of construction and prior to the
removal of any tree. If active nests are located, a 250 -foot buffer zone will be established
around any active nest which is not a raptor species; active raptor nests will require a 500
foot buffer zone. However, buffer zones can be reduced or modified on a case -by -case
basis with consultation with CDFG. Construction activities shall avoid buffer zones and
no tree with an active nest will be removed until the young have fledged or the nest is
otherwise abandoned.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Project disturbances from construction activities could cause nest abandonment and death
of young or loss of reproductive potential at active nests located on or near the Project
27
site in trees and shrubs in the Project area Although there are few remaining trees and
shrubs in the Project area, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -5, enforced
through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore substantially avoid or lessen
any potential impacts to nesting birds by preventing construction activities from
interfering with bird nesting periods. These facts support the City's findings. (See also
DSEIR, IV. G-14.)
5. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
5.1 Impacts During Construction Period (T /C -1)'
5.1.1 Significant Effect. The generation of additional trips and the temporary closure of lanes
during the construction period could cause circulation impacts on local roadways.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C-1: The construction - period impacts of the proposed Project would be
addressed by implementing the following measures.
(1) The Project shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) to address the impacts of
construction vehicles on the regional and local roadways. The TCP shall address
construction truck routes and access to the Project site; lane closures including
those that may require coordination with and/or approval from the City of
Oakland and CalTrans; and shall provide for coordination with closure of
Webster Street and the Tubes as they are scheduled for closure for seismic safety
repairs being completed independent of this Project. The TCP shall be submitted
to the City of Alameda Public Works Department for review and approval prior to
the issuance of any building or grading permits.
(2) In addition, the Project shall be responsible for restoring affected street surfaces to
pre - construction conditions on roadways affected by construction vehicles
consistent with the City's Pavement Management Program.
(3) Construction traffic shall be restricted to designated truck routes within the Cities
of Alameda and Oakland.
(4) Construction traffic shall be restricted from using Mariner Square Drive for
access to and from Constitution Way unless this route is determined by the Public
Works Director to be the only feasible access.' Where possible, trucks should
access the site from Tinker Avenue (which may require construction of a
temporary truck access) and along Atlantic Avenue.
(5)
The TCP shall include a signage program for all truck routes serving the site
during construction.
28
(6) Construction traffic shall be restricted to daytime hours and, to the extent feasible,
shall be minimized during the AM and PM peak hours.
With these measures, this construction period impact would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
As discussed in the 2000 EIR, the Project is likely to generate additional trips and traffic
congestion during construction. This impact would remain the same as discussed in the
2000 EIR. As part of Mitigation Measure T /C -1, no building or grading permits will be
issued until a TCP is prepared, in accordance with the guidance set forth in Mitigation
Measure T /C -1, and submitted to the City Public Works Department for review and
approval. The TCP will address construction access, lane closures and hours of
construction traffic. In addition, the Project will be responsible for restoring affected
street surfaces to pre - construction conditions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
T /C -1, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or
substantially lessen the potential for circulation impacts on local roadways as a result of
the generation of additional trips and temporary closure of lanes during the construction
period. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H.45 -46.)
5.2 School Site (T /C -2)
5.2.1 Significant Effect. The location of the school site at the intersection of Fifth Street and
Tinker Avenue could create safety hazards for pedestrians, bicycles or automobiles.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated by the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project.
TIC -2: Site planning for the school should pay close attention to safety, pedestrian
activity, bicycle movements, and vehicle circulation issues related to its location.
Orientation of school access points shall be designed to discourage jay walking and
encourage use of controlled intersections. Vehicle queuing for student pick -up and drop-
off should be discouraged near the intersection of Fifth Street and Tinker Avenue. The
City shall consider implementation of this mitigation as part of its review of the -
encroachment permits that will be required as part of the school project.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
29
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The school project will require encroachment permits issued by the City. Pursuant to
Mitigation Measure T /C -2, as part of the review process for those permits, the City will
ensure that mitigation, as set forth in Mitigation Measure T /C -2 (including site planning
that encourages use of controlled intersections and discourages street pick -up and drop -
off near the intersection of Fifth Street and tinker Avenue), is imposed on the school
project, which will avoid or substantially lessen the potential creation of safety hazards
for pedestrians, bicycles, or automobiles as a result of locating the school site at the
intersection of Fifth Street and Tinker Avenue. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
T /C -2 will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts
support the City's findings.
5.3 Pairing of Signals on Atlantic Avenue (T /C -3)
5.3.1 Significant Effect. The pairing of signals on Atlantic Avenue at Fifth Street and
West Campus Drive could create an operational hazard for automobiles.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
Upon full buildout of the nro'ect, coordinate
the signalized intersection of West Campus Drive and Atlantic Avenue, and the sghgmet
=new signal at Fifth Street and Atlantic Avenue. Coordinate both signals with the signals
at Atlantic Avenue /Webster Street by interconnecting all three signals. 411=cicdeme=paeltie
The implementation of T /C -3 would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant
level.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
30
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Since the 2000 EIR, the decision has been made not to abandon West Campus Drive, and
the Bayport project has constructed a signalized intersection at Atlantic Avenue and 5th
Street instead. As a result of these actions, Mitigation Measure T /C -3a no longer applies,
but the uncompleted portion of Mitigation Measure T /C -3b remains applicable. This
potential impact would result from two independent signals on Atlantic Avenue at
Fifth Street and on West Campus Drive. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -3,
enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, would synchronize the traffic
signals. Measure TIC -3 will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the creation of
operational safety hazards for automobiles that could result from the pairing of traffic
signals on Atlantic Avenue at Fifth Street and West Campus Drive. These facts support
the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H -47.)
5.4 Third Street/Atlantic Avenue Intersection (T /C -4)
5.4.1 Significant Effect. The introduction of additional traffic to the intersection of
Third Street and Atlantic Avenue, a location where higher than average accident rates
have been experienced, would represent a significant adverse impact.
Mitigation. Mitigation complete.
T /G4.. Undertake the planned median improvements from 5th Street to Main Street on
Atlantic Avenue and install the signal poles at the intersection of Third Street and
Atlantic Avenue. The Project shall pay its fair share toward the construction of these
improvements.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.) The
City Council hereby finds mitigation of this impact to be complete.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact has been
mitigated to a less than significant level.
Since the 2000 EIR, new signal poles at Third Street and Atlantic Avenue have been
installed as required by Mitigation Measure T /C -4 and striped median improvements
have been implemented. Since the mitigation measure has been implemented, the
location has experienced lower than average accident rates. These facts support the
City's findings.
5.5 Mariner Square Drive /Constitution Way Intersection (T /C -5)
5.5.1 Significant Effect. The 2000 EIR found that the addition of Project traffic to the future
baseline condition would result in an impact at the intersection of Mariner Square Drive
31
and Constitution Way, which would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak
hours The current anal ses confirms this intersection would continue to operate at an
unacce'table level of service with the proposed 'roiect durin• the weekend leak hour as
well).
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
TIC -5a:
Tinker Extension Projec
Construct the approved Tinker Extension
ro
sect to
extend Tinker Avenue from 5th Street to Webster Street, to provide a new connection
from the . ro: ect site Webster Street and a new si • nalized intersection at Tinker
Avenue and Webster Street.
TIC -5b: Si • nalize the intersection of Mariner S • uare` Drive and Constitution Wa .
Miti • ation Measure T /C -5b would not be needed to miti • ate .ro'►ect im.acts in 2010 if
Mitigation Measure T /C -5a were implemented prior to project buildout
_ -: -- - - & ... - _ -...
32
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Although the impact would remain significant with the proposed project, the 2000
mitigation measure is amended to reflect the new project and new conditions in the area
The revised mitigation provides two alternative options` (T /C -5a) construction of the
Tinker Extension project, or (T /C -5b) signalization of the intersection. Implementation
of either of the two mitigation options would improve the level of service at Mariner
Square, Drive and Constitution Way to LOS C during the PM peak hour and LOS D or
better during the PM and weekend peak hours: The Tinker Extension is the preferred
mitigation, but given that the Tinker Extension requires Caltrans approval and land
acquisition, alternate Mitigation Measure T /C -5b is provided. Implementation of either
of the two mitigation options, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval,
would reduce impacts at this intersection to a less than significant level. These facts
support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H- 49 -50.)
5.6 2010 Project- Specific Traffic Impacts (T /C -20
5.6.1 Significant Effect. Traffic generated by the Project would affect traffic levels of service
at local intersections in the Project vicinity in 2010 during the weekday AM and PM peak
hours and weekend. (Significant Impact at the intersections described below under
Impacts T /C -20b and TIC -20d through TIC -20f).
5.7 Marina Village Parkway and Constitution Way: Year 2010 (T /C -20b)
5.73 Significant Effect. Traffic generated by the Project would cause the signalized
intersection of Marina Village Parkway and Constitution Way ( #10) to degrade to LOS E
during both the AM and PM peak weekday hours.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
TIC -20b: Modify the signal phasing at this location to allow traffic turning right off
Marina Village Parkway onto Constitution Way to overlap with traffic turning left from
Constitution Way to Marina Village Parkway
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1; Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
33
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The 2000 EIR did not find an impact at this location. The changes in findings are due to
a substantially different level of service between the 2000 EIR and present conditions
(See DSEIR, IV.H -13). Modifying signal phasing at Marina Village Parkway and
Constitution Way would result in LOS D conditions in both the AM and PM peak hours
without implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -5a, or LOS D in the AM and LOS C
in the PM with implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -5a, each being an acceptable
level of service. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TIC -20b, enforced through the
MMRP as a condition of approval, will reduce impacts to a less than significant impact.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H- 63 -64)
5.8 Mitchell Avenue and 5th Street: Year 2010 (T /C -20d)
5.8.1 Significant Effect. The unsignalized intersection of Mitchell Avenue and 5th Street
( #13), which would be constructed by the Project, would operate at LOS F in the PM
peak hour.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
TIC -20d: Install traffic signals at the intersection of Mitchell Avenue and 5th Street.
Traffic signal equipment shall include pedestrian signal heads (with adequate time for
pedestrians to cross the streets).1
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
After implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -20d, this intersection would operate at
LOS B or better during both AM and PM peak hours. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure T /C -20d, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, would reduce
traffic impacts to a less than significant level. These facts support the City's findings.
(See also DSEIR, IV.H -65.)
1 The intersection would meet peak -hour warrants for signalization. Prior to the
installation of this traffic signal, a complete traffic signal warrant analysis shall be conducted at
this location to verify that this location meets Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices
(MUTCD) signal warrants. Installation of traffic signal shall meet the City of Alameda's design
standards and, as appropriate, make provisions for actuation and coordination. Coordination may
require installation of interconnects to adjacent signals.
34
5.9 Marina Village Parkway and Mariner Square Loop: Year 2010 (T /C -20e)
5.9.1 Significant Effect. Traffic generated by the Project would cause the unsignalized
intersection of Marina Village Parkway and Mariner Square Loop (#14) to degrade from
LOS B to LOS F in both the AM and PM peak hours.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -20e: Install traffic signals at the intersection of Marina Village Parkway and Mariner
Square Loop. 2 Traffic signal equipment shall include pedestrian signal heads (with
adequate time for pedestrians to cross the streets).
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
This intersection was not evaluated in the 2000 EIR. After implementation of Mitigation
Measure T /C -20e, this intersection would operate at LOS B or better during both AM and
PM peak hours. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -20e, enforced through the
MMRP as a condition of approval, would reduce traffic impacts to a less than significant
level. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H -65.)
5.10 Tinker Avenue and 5th Street: Year 2010 (T /C -20f)
5.10.1 Significant Effect. Traffic generated by the Project would cause conditions at the
unsignalized intersection of Tinker Avenue and 5th Street (# 17) to degrade from LOS B
to LOS F during the PM peak hour ( and under Variant B only, from LOS B to LOS F
during the AM peak hour).
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation' measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project
T /C -20f: Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Tinker Avenue and 5th Street.
Traffic signal equipment shall include pedestrian signal heads (with adequate time for
pedestrians to cross the streets).
2 Prior to the installation of this traffic signal, a complete traffic signal warrant analysis
shall be conducted at this location to verify that this location meets Manual of Uniform Traffic
Control Devices (MUTCD) signal warrants. Installation of traffic signal shall meet the City of
Alameda's design standards and, as appropriate, make provisions for actuation and coordination.
Coordination may require installation of interconnects to adjacent signals.
35
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
After implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -21 g, this intersection would operate at
LOS B or better during both AM and PM peak hours. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure T /C -20e, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, would reduce
traffic impacts to a less than significant level. These facts support the City's findings.
(See also DSEIR, IV.H -65.)
5.11 2025 Project - Specific Traffic Impacts (T /C -21)
5.11.1 Significant Effect. Traffic generated by buildout of the Project would contribute to
cumulatively significant impacts at local intersections in the Project vicinity in 2025.
(Significant Impact at the intersections described below under Impacts T/C-2 1 c, T /C -21 f,
and T/C-21j).
5.12 Marina Village Parkway and Constitution Way: Year 2025 (T /C -21 c)
5.12.1 Significant Effect. The signalized intersection of Marina Village Parkway and
Constitution Way ( #10) would operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak
weekday hours. Traffic generated by buildout of the Project would contribute at least
three percent of the cumulative traffic increases during the PM peak hour, as measured by
the difference between existing and cumulative (with project) conditions.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -21c: The project applicant shall pay its fair share to modify the signal phasing at this
location to allow traffic turning right off Marina Village Parkway onto Constitution Way
to overlap with traffic turning left from Constitution Way to Marina Village Parkway.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Modifying the signal phasing of the intersection of Marina Village Parkway and
Constitution Way to increase the number of vehicles turning right onto Constitution Way
will allow the intersection to operate at an acceptable level of service during both the AM
and PM peak weekday hours. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T/C-21e would
36
reduce this impact to a less than significant level. The Project will contribute its fair
share toward this mitigation measure, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval. CEQA Guidelines § 15130(a)(3) states that a project's contribution is less than
cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of
a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. These
facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H -65.)
5.13 Mitchell Avenue and 5th Street: Year 2025 (T /C -21 f)
5.13.1 Significant Effect. The unsignalized intersection of Mitchell Avenue and 5th Street ( #13),
which would be constructed by the Project, would operate at LOS F in both the AM and
PM peak hours in 2025. Traffic generated by buildout of the Project would contribute at
least three percent of the cumulative traffic increases during the AM and PM peak hours,
as measured by the difference between existing and cumulative (with project) conditions.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -21f: Implement Mitigation Measure T /C -20d.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a Less than significant level.
After implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -20d, as required in 2010, this
intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS B during both AM and PM peak hour in
the 2025 cumulative condition. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -20d,
enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, would reduce this impact to a
less than significant level. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR,
IV.H -69.)
5.14 Tinker Avenue and Main Street: Year 2025 (T /C -21 i)
5.14.1 Significant Effect. The signalized intersection of Tinker Avenue and Main Street (# 16)
would operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours in 2025.' Traffic
generated by buildout of the Project would contribute at least three percent of the
cumulative traffic increases during the AM and PM peak hours, as measured by the
difference between existing and cumulative (with project) conditions.
Mitigation. No mitigation required. The SEIR inaccurately stated that the Project would
contribute to a cumulative impact at the intersection of Tinker Avenue and Main Street in
2025. Further examination of the traffic calculations included in the appendices
determined that the Project's contribution to cumulative traffic volumes at this
37
intersection was less than 3 percent (approximately 1 percent). A 1 percent contribution
is not considered significant under the City's significance criteria, and therefore, this
impact will not occur and the associated mitigation measure is not required and is not
included in the MMRP. (A 1 percent variation is unnoticeable; the standard variation in
traffic flow during weekday peak periods at a given location is generally 5 percent or
more.) These facts support the City's findings.
5.15 Tinker Avenue and 5th Street: Year 2025 (T /C -21j),
5.15.1 Significant Effect. The unsignalized intersection of Tinker Avenue and 5th Street (# 17
would operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours in 2025. Traffic )
generated by buildout of the Project would contribute at least three percent of the
cumulative traffic increases during the AM and PM peak hours, as measured by the
difference between existing and cumulative (with project) conditions.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -21j: The Project applicant shall pay its fair share contribution to install a signal at
the intersection of Tinker Avenue and 5th Street prior to Project buildout as required by
Mitigation Measure T /C -20f. The Project applicant shall also pay a fair share contribution
to the cost of expanding the intersection to include two lanes in either direction on Tinker.
This Mitigation Measure is not required if the cost of this improvement is included in the
Tinker Extension Costs per the Alameda Landing Disposition and Development
Agreement.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Construction of a signal at this intersection is required by Mitigation Measure T /C -20f.
Mitigation Measure T /C -2 l j additionally requires a fair share contribution to expand the
intersection to include two lanes in either direction on Tinker Avenue in the 2025
cumulative condition. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -20f, enforced through
the MMRP as a condition of approval, and Mitigation Measure T /C -21 j will reduce 2025
cumulative peak -hour conditions to an acceptable LOS B during AM and LOS D during
PM peak hour, thereby reducing this impact to a less than significant level. The Project
will contribute its fair share toward Mitigation Measure T /C -21 j, enforced through the
MMRP as a condition of approval unless the cost of this improvement is completed in
connection with the Tinker Extension project or otherwise completed by the City. CEQA
Guidelines § 15130(a)(3) states that a project's contribution is less than cumulatively
considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation
measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. These facts support the
City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H -71.)
38
6. AIR QUALITY
6.1 Construction Impacts (AQ -1)
61.1 Significant Effect. Construction- period activities such as demolition, excavation and
grading operations, construction vehicle traffic, utility extensions and improvements, and
roadway reconstruction would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter
emissions that would affect local air quality.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
AQ -la: Consistent with the BAAQMD's preferred approach, the Project
developer shall ensure that the following measures are included in construction contracts
and specifications to control fugitive dust emissions.
(1) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during
windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all
times, or shall be treated with non -toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives;
(2) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all'trucks
to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard;
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply ( non - toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites;
(4) Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking
areas, and staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up
excess water to avoid runoff - related impacts to water quality;
Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is
carried onto adjacent public streets;
(6) Hydroseed or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas;
(7) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non - toxic soil binders to exposed
stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph;
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways; and
(10) Suspend excavation and grading activity whenever the wind is so high that it
results visible dust plumes despite control efforts.
(3)
(5)
39
AQ -1 b: The Project developer shall ensure that emissions from construction
equipment exhaust, and from workers commuting to the site, are reduced through
implementation of the following measures:
(1) Store construction tools and equipment on -site in secure facilities to encourage
commuting by transit;
(2) Use alternative fueled construction equipment to the fullest extent possible;
(3)
Minimize idling time (e.g., 5- minute maximum);
(4) Maintain properly tuned equipment according to equipment manufacturer's
guidelines; and
Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment to the hours between 7:00
AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and between 8 :00 AM and 5 :00 PM on
Saturday, as specified in Section J, Noise, of this chapter and in City of Alameda
Community Noise Ordinance.
AQ -lc: To minimize air quality impacts to the lowest practicable levels, BAAQMD
Regulation 11, Rule 2: Hazardous Materials; Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and
Manufacturing shall be adhered to during the demolition/construction process.
Mitigation Measures AQ-la through AQ-lc would reduce impacts associated with
Impact AQ -1 to a less than significant level.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The extent of construction - related air quality impacts identified in the 2000 EIR`would
still occur under the Project as proposed in the SEIR for either Variant A or Variant B.
While some land uses are changed under the proposed Project, the same major dust (PM-
10) generating activities would still occur. The BAAQMD has identified a set of
effective and comprehensive control measures for fine particulate matter and asbestos
that might be generated from construction activity. Adherence to these measures, as
adopted by the BAAQMD, constitute mitigation of construction - related air quality
particulate matter and asbestos impacts to a less than significant level. Measures also
exist that will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts from
construction- related exhaust emissions. These measures, as specifically identified in
Mitigation Measure AQ -1, will be imposed on the Project through the MMRP as a
condition of approval. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1 will therefore avoid
or substantially lessen the impact of Project construction - period activities on local
air quality. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.I- 12 -13.)
(5)
40
7. NOISE
7.1 Traffic Noise (NOI -1)
7.1.1 Significant Effect. On -site residential uses and the school site may be exposed to levels
of traffic noise from Atlantic Avenue that would exceed the acceptable outdoor noise
levels.
Mitigation. Mitigation complete.
NOI -1: Detailed noise studies that consider the specific design of the residential areas
proposed adjacent to Atlantic Avenue and Tinker Avenue and determine what the
minimum height of the sound walls) will need to be to achieve an acceptable exterior
noise level shall be prepared by a qualified noise consultant. The studies shall be
submitted to the City for review and the recommendations shall be incorporated into the
Development Plan and the Project improvement plans (see Mitigation Measure AES -3).
Design measures such as the following could also be required (by the City's Noise
Element Policy 8.7.J , depending on the specific findings of the detailed noise study:
double paned glass for windows facing the direction of traffic; weather -tight seals for
doors and windows; or mechanical ventilation such as an air conditioning system.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (l). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the. Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental' effect as identified in the FSEIR.) The
City Council hereby finds mitigation of the impact to be complete.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact has been
mitigated to a less than significant level.
Impact NOI -1 and Mitigation Measure NOI -1 from the 2000 EIR would not apply to the
Alameda Landing project. This impact and mitigation measure applied only to the
residential portion of the approved project, which is currently under construction. The
noise studies required by Mitigation Measure NOI -1 have been completed. The studies
resulted in the recommendation for a sound wall adjacent to the residential development
along Atlantic Avenue, which has been constructed. Mitigation Measure NOI -1 from the
2000 FSEIR identified a noise wall as potential mitigation for residences along Tinker
Avenue, pending the outcome of an acoustical study required by General Plan Policy.
This subsequent study resulted in the use of rubberized asphalt to mitigate noise impacts
to these residences in lieu of a s ound wall. These facts support the City's findings. (See
also DESIR, IV.N -9.)
7.2 Off -Site Noise (NOI -2)
7.2.1 Significant Effect. The proposed project could result in exposure of on -site residents to
unacceptable noise levels from off -site noise sources.
41
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
NOI -2: The residential developer(s) shall submit a detailed noise study, prepared by a
qualified noise consultant, to determine design measures necessary to achieve acceptable
exterior and interior noise levels at the proposed new residences. If possible, this study
should be conducted after existing on -site tenants have vacated the site, as their activities
may affect the degree of design measures required. The study shall be submitted to the
City for review and the recommendations shall be incorporated into the Planned
Development permit plan and the project improvement plans. Design measures such as
the following could be required, depending on the specific findings of the noise study:
orienting new homes to face Tinker Avenue, the 5th Street Extension and the Mitchell
Avenue Extension to ensure that rear yard open space is buffered from the street; double -
paned glass windows facing the noise source; weather -tight seals for doors and windows;
or mechanical ventilation such as an air conditioning system.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The noise analysis in the 2000 EIR identified no noise impacts to proposed onsite uses.
Updated long -term noise monitoring of proposed residential areas not included in the
2000 EIR indicate fluctuating noise levels on a day -to -day basis, in some cases reaching
levels that would be "normally unacceptable" for residential land uses. Consequently, the
location of proposed residences in areas identified by the City of Alameda General Plan
as noise impacted would be considered a significant noise impact requiring mitigation not
identified in the 2000 EIR due to changes in the proposed Project from commercial and
R &D land uses to residential land uses. This mitigation measure would satisfy the
requirements of Policy 8.7e of the City of Alameda General Plan, which requires
acoustical analysis of new dwellings within the 60 dB contour. As stated in Policy 8.7f
of the General Plan an interior CNEL standard of 45 DBA can be achieved with the
identified construction measures for noise environments of up to 75 CNEL. Assuming a
worst -case noise environment of 71 dBA, CNEL, the above construction techniques
would be considered sufficient to reduce noise impacts to proposed residences to a less
than significant level. Implementation of this mitigation measure, enforced through the
MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for
exposure of on -site residential uses to exterior noise levels that exceed acceptable levels.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.J- 12 -13.)
42
7.3 Off -Site Traffic Noise (NOI -3)
73.1 Significant Effect. Onsite residential uses may be exposed to levels of traffic noise from
the 5th Street Extension and the Mitchell Avenue Extension that would exceed City
standards for exterior noise levels.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
NOI.3: Implement Mitigation Measure NOI -2.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Table IV.J -6 of the DSEIR shows modeling results used to determine vehicle noise
impacts to proposed residences not considered in the 2000 EIR and impacts to existing
residences from vehicle traffic on proposed new roadways not considered in the 2000
EIR. As indicated by the data in Table'IV.J -6, predicted CNEL noise levels would
exceed the 60 CNEL standard at residences proposed along the roadway segments of the
Mitchell Avenue Extension, and along 5th Street Extension between Tinker Avenue and
the Mitchell Avenue Extension. Variant B would generate smaller resultant noise levels
than Variant A due to reduced vehicle trip generation under Variant B during the PM
peak hour, as shown in Table IV.J -7 of the DSEIR. Consequently, location of proposed
residences adjacent to the 5th Street Extension and the Mitchell Avenue Extension, where
traffic noise is predicted to exceed a CNEL of 60 dBA, would be considered a significant
noise impact requiring mitigation not identified in the 2000 EIR due to the addition of
new residential land uses and the results of the updated traffic analysis. Table IV.J -6 of
the DSEIR also shows noise level increases that would occur at onsite roadways due to
the Tinker Extension.` Under this mitigated condition, a significant noise impact is still
predicted to occur along 5th Street and the Mitchell Avenue Extension as exterior noise
levels exceed 60 CNEL for residences nearest these roadways. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure NOI -2 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level
by enabling the City of Alameda to include design measures to reduce noise impacts
identified in the noise study required by Mitigation Measure NOI -2. These facts support
the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.J- 14 -15.)
7.4 Generation Solid Waste from Structure Demolition (PUB -2)
7.4.1 Significant Effect. Demolition of the existing structures on the Project site would result
in the generation of large quantities of solid waste, which would include large quantities
of potentially recyclable materials.
43
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
PUB -2 (revised) a: As cart of the required Waste Management Plan for the .ro'ect,
"....c* the project sponsor _ _ - - _ _ _
- -:- shall work with
organizations able to provide funding and technical assistance for managing and
financing the demolition, recycling and reuse project.
4215113-4194.-The Waste Mana• ement Plan include plans for managing the
construction debris sitart1=lae=i3leNzelefeekhat promotes separation of waste types and
recycling, and provides for reuse of materials onsite for reconstructing infrastructure.
This plan shall be prepared in coordination with City staff, the Project sponsor, the
demolition subcontractor and any involved organizations per Mitigation Measure PUB -
2, and shall be approved by City staff prior to issuance of a demolition permit as
required by Chanter 21 of the Municipal Cde.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Since the 2000 EIR the City has adopted a comprehensive Solid Waste and Recycling
ordinance that requires the proposed Project submit a Waste Management Plan that
ensures that at least fifty (50 percent) of all construction and demolition debris will be
diverted from disposal sites. As described in the 2000 EIR, the majority of materials
demolished or deconstructed by the project can be diverted from the waste stream.
Pursuant to the required Waste Management Plan, the Project sponsor would ensure the
maximum amount and recycling feasible. Given the change in the regulatory setting and
the adoption of the Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance, Mitigation Measure PUB -2,
which was included in the 2000 EIR, would be applicable to this project, as revised, and
would further reduce the amount of solid waste that would require landfill disposal.
Implementation of this mitigation measure, enforced through the MMRP as a condition
of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the impacts from the generation of
recyclable and reusable solid waste from demolition, by ensuring that such waste is
recycled or reused if feasible. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR,
IV.K- 14 -15.)
8. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
8.1 Wasteful Water Use (UTL -1)
8.1.1 Significant Effect. The Project could result in wasteful water use if appropriate measures
are not implemented.
44
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
UTL -1: The Project shall incorporate the following water conservation measures to help
minimize any increase in EBMUD's system -wide water consumption: (a) The use of
potable water for irrigation shall be minimized by encouraging homeowners to utilize
drought - tolerant plant materials and gardening techniques in the design of landscaped
areas, and by requiring commercial properties to install and maintain drought- resistant
landscaping with limited areas of turf, in accordance with the City's water conservation
landscaping design standards; (b) The use of water conserving fixtures, such as low -flow
toilets and shower heads, flow reducing aerators on sinks, and automatic shut -off faucets
in commercial buildings, in accordance with the Uniform Plumbing Code.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The proposed Project would result in a change in the land uses anticipated in the 2000
EIR, and accordingly, a resultant change in estimated project water demand. The
proposed Project would be anticipated to generate a total demand for approximately
198,200 gpd of water under Variant A or approximately 265,700 gpd of water under
Variant B. At the time of the 2000 EIR, EBMUD concluded it had sufficient water supply
to serve the Master Plan development. However, no formal water supply assessment was
prepared at that time, because the project predated the requirements of SB 610. A formal
Water Supply Assessment for the revised Project, dated April 12, 2006, was prepared by
EBMUD and was approved by the Board of Directors on April 11, 2006. The WSA
concludes that because the Project area's water demand is accounted for in the EBMUD's
water demand projections (as published in the EBMUD's 2005 Urban Water
Management Plan), meeting the Project's water demand would not require EMBUD to
build new facilities or expand existing facilities. Because the proposed Project would
provide adequate new water distribution facilities to serve the Project, the Project would
not result in any significant impacts related to the water distribution system. As described
in the 2000 EIR, to help minimize the effect of additional water demands on EBMUD's
finite water supply, the incorporation of water conservation measures for both internal
and external use into the design and construction of the Project are recommended.`'
Mitigation Measure UTL -1, identified in the 2000 EIR, would apply to the proposed
Project. Implementation of this Mitigation Measure would ensure that potential impacts
of the proposed Project on wasteful water use would remain less than significant by
incorporating water conservation and recycling measures into the Project implementation.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.L- 10 -12.)
45
8.2 Capacity of Mitchell Sewer Line (UTL -2)
8.2.1 Significant Effect. If wastewater from the Project areas that now drain to sub -basin 64 -5-
2 are rerouted into sub -basin LA2 (under Option A), the resulting peak flow rates could
exceed the capacity of the existing Mitchell sewer line.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
UTL -2 (revised):
n tr
1r1
n w� 1
ne
*de clm',in•dca c
•
Ilea
h
•
, The Project sponsor shall
B D u i 'h 1 line
1
n
n r t e
Furthermore, if needed, additional gravity flow capacity shall be installed as part of the
Project improvements and shall be extended to the Alameda interceptor or to the point at
which gravity flow capacity becomes available.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1; Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact -will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The proposed Project would result in a change in the land uses anticipated in the 2000
EIR, and a resultant change in estimated Project wastewater generation. The capacity
analysis for the Mitchell sewer line has been completed. Although the proposed Project
would generate less wastewater than the approved project, the conclusion is that the
Mitchell line does have sufficient capacity to serve existing development with the
addition of Bayport, but does not have adequate capacity to serve the projected additional
flow from Alameda Landing. Therefore, the Alameda Landing Project will be required
to construct a new parallel line that will supplement the EBMUD Mitchell line to provide
combined capacity required to the siphon junction structure. This measure will be
enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval and will therefore avoid or
substantially lessen the potential under for peak flow rates to exceed the capacity of the
Mitchell sewer line. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.L -12-
14.)
8.3 Asbestos (UTL -3)
8.3.1 Significant Effect. If existing asbestos cement pipe is either removed during Project
construction or crushed in place with insufficient cover, asbestos dust could be released
into the air and hazardous materials could contaminate pipe disposal sites.
46
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
UTL -3: Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -3 as stated below would reduce this
impact to a less than significant level:
(1) HAZ -3: Adherence by the Project sponsors and the City to existing regulations
requiring abatement of lead and asbestos hazards and worker health and safety
procedures during demolition and renovation activities would reduce this impact
to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant leve'
Impact UTL -3, identified in the 2000 EIR, would apply to the proposed Project if
asbestos dust could potentially be released in the air as a result of removal or crushing of
the existing asbestos pipe. As part of Mitigation Measure UTL -3, the Project sponsor
will be required, through the MMRP as a condition of approval, to adhere to existing
regulations regarding abatement of lead asbestos hazards and worker health and safety
procedures. Adherence to these standards will avoid or substantially lessen the potential
for asbestos dust to be released into the air or for hazardous materials to contaminate pipe
disposal sites if existing asbestos cement pipe is either removed or crushed in place.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.L -14.)
8.3A Cumulative Wastewater Flows (UTL -4)
8.3A.1 Significant Effect. Under the cumulative condition, the proposed Project would
contribute to wastewater flows expected to exceed the capacity of existing estuary
transport facilities and exceed the NAS Alameda's allocation at the EBMUD Water
Pollution Control Plant.
Mitigation. None required. Since the publication of the SEIR, further analysis has
determined that the Project will result in a net decrease in overall peak flows to EBMUD
sewer treatment facilities. The decrease is attributable to the complete replacement of all
sewer lines within the Project area Replacement of the old lines results in a significant
reduction in infiltration into the system from wet weather, groundwater, and the estuary.
Elimination of this existing infiltration results in an overall benefit to the sewer system.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure UTL -4 is not required and is not included in the MMRP.
These facts support the City's findings.
47
8.4 Gas Distribution Lines (UTL -5)
8.4.1 Significant Effect. Phased abandonment of the existing gas distribution lines on the
Project site may leave some facilities in place that present unsafe hazardous conditions.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
UTL -5: A gas line abandonment plan shall be prepared by the Project or other
responsible entity for approval. At a minimum, it is recommended that the plan address
the following issues:
(1) Scheduling for service disconnection at buildings to be demolished;
(2) Completion of mapping, leak detection and repairs on all portions of the existing
system that may be impacted by Project construction, and that are planned to
remain in service during Project construction, and
(3) Compliance with all other California Public Utility' Commission provisions
relating to system abandonment.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Impact UTL -5, identified in the 2000 EIR, would apply to the proposed Project if the
phased abandonment of the existing gas distribution lines on the Project site leaves some
facilities in place that present unsafe hazardous conditions.` The site's existing gas lines
could become a source of leaks that would potentially endanger Project improvements
and/or utility company workers constructing or servicing needed new facilities. As noted
in the 2000 EIR, all gas mains and distribution lines would be replaced throughout the
Project area. A gas line abandonment plan shall be prepared by the Project or other
responsible entity for approval by the City in accordance with the standards set forth in
Mitigation Measure UTL -5. Timely preparation and approval of this plan will be
enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. The plan shall comply with the
standards as set forth in this mitigation measure. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
UTL -5 will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for phased abandonment of existing
gas distribution lines to present unsafe hazardous conditions. These facts support the
City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.L-15-16.)
48
9. CULTURAL RESOURCES
9.1 Undiscovered Cultural Resources (CUL -1)
9.1.1 Significant Effect. If previously undiscovered cultural resources are unearthed during
construction on the Project, a significant impact would result.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
CUL -1: In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during
site preparation or construction, the Project sponsor shall cease work in the immediate
area until such time as a qualified archaeologist and City of Alameda personnel can
assess the significance of the find. The following mitigation measures shall be
implemented at the time of the find:
(1)
If archaeological resources are discovered, and the City and the cultural resource
consultant find that the resource is unique based on the criteria provided in the
CEQA Guidelines and criteria listed above, the City and the project developer, in
consultation with a cultural resource expert, shall seek to avoid damaging effects
on the resources wherever feasible.
(2) If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified cultural resource
consultant shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the Project
on the qualities that make the resource unique. The mitigation plan shall be
prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines and shall be submitted to the City
for review and approval.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1 Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure CUL -1, identified in the 2000 EIR, would apply to the revised
Project, including both Variant A and Variant B.
No cultural resources have been identified on the Project site that might be impacted by
the Project. As part of Mitigation Measure CUL -1, however, if previously undiscovered
cultural resources are unearthed during construction of the Project, work shall cease until
the significance of the find is determined. Appropriate measures will then be taken, in
accordance with the standards set forth in Mitigation Measure CUL -1, and as approved
by the City, that will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for impacts to previously
undiscovered subsurface cultural resources. This measure will be enforced through the
MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also
DSEIR, IV.M -5 -6.)
49
9.2 Buried Paleontological Resources Might Be Unearthed (CUL -2)
9.2.1 Significant Effect. If buried paleontological resources are discovered on the Project site,
a significant impact would result.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
CUL -2: If paleontological resources are encountered during Project site preparation or
construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
(1)
Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resource(s) shall be immediately
suspended, and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified paleontological
resource consultant shall be contacted to evaluate the find. Project personnel shall
not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context.
(2) If paleontological resources are discovered and the City and the paleontological
resource consultant find that the resource is significant based on the criteria
provided in the CEQA Guidelines and criteria listed above, the City and Project
developer, in consultation with a paleontological resource expert, shall seek to
avoid damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible.
If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified paleontological
resource consultant shall prepare a salvage plan for mitigating the effect of the
Project on the qualities which make the resource unique. The Project applicant, in
consultation with a qualified paleontologist, shall complete a paleontological
resource inventory, declaration, and mitigation plan in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines and submit it to the City for review and approval.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Because the Catellus Alameda Master Plan has not been implemented, Mitigation
Measure CUL -2 would still apply to the proposed Project. No paleontological resources
have been identified on the Project site that might be impacted by the Project. As part of
Mitigation Measure CUL -2, however, if previously undiscovered paleontological
resources are unearthed during construction of the Project, work shall cease until the
significance of the find is determined. Appropriate measures will then be taken, in
accordance with the standards set forth in Mitigation Measure CUL -2, and as approved
by the City, that will avoid or substantially lessen any potentially significant impact to
previously undiscovered paleontological resources. This measure will be enforced
through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings.
(See also DSEIR, IV.M -8.)
(3)
50
10. AESTHETICS
10.1 Visual Impacts of Sound Wall (AES -3),
10.1.1 Significant Effect. The sound wall required along the southern edge of the proposed
Project may adversely affect the visual character and quality of the Project's frontage
along Atlantic Avenue.
Mitigation. Mitigation complete.
AES -3: A final design plan for the sound wall and a landscape plan for the
Atlantic Avenue frontage shall be submitted to the City for review and approval
subsequent to the detailed noise study required by Mitigation Measure NOI - -1, but prior
to the City's approval of a Development Plan for any residential lots adjacent to
Atlantic Avenue. The City shall only approve the wall design and landscape plan if it
finds that it will not adversely affect the visual character of the Atlantic Avenue
The height and length of the wall should be minimized to the extent feasthle while
maintaining adequate mitigation of levels. A height of 10 feet shall only be
permitted adjacent to those lots where the rear yards or side yards are perpendicular to
Atlantic Avenue if the final noise study deems the wall necessary to achieve acceptable
outdoor noise levels. The detailed noise study specified in Mitigation Measure NOI 1
shall determine the minimum height necessary for walls located along the side yards of
the residences that would be sited to Atlantic Avenue.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.) The
City Council hereby finds mitigation of the impact to be complete.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact has been
mitigated to a less than significant level.
Both this impact and mitigation measure pertain to the East Housing area. The mitigation
measure has been completed. These facts support the City's findings. (See also, DSEIR
IV.N. -9.).
10.2 Building and Promenade Lighting (AES -4)
10.2.1 Significant Effect. The proposed Project could generate light and glare which would be
visible primarily from the northern shore of the Oakland Estuary at Jack London Square,
as well as from existing and proposed circulation corridors and residential areas within
the City of Alameda.
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
51
AES -4a: The specific reflective properties of Project building materials should be
assessed by the City during Design Review as part of the Development Plan approval
process. Design Review shall ensure that the use of reflective exterior materials is
minimized.
AES -4b: Specific lighting proposals shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to
installation. This review shall ensure that any outdoor night lighting for the proposed
waterfront promenade would be downshielded and would not create additional nighttime
glare.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
The Project would construct planned office uses as well as proposed retail uses within the
waterfront area, to the south of the waterfront promenade. As described in the 2000 EIR
for the waterfront office buildings, if reflective materials are used for the waterfront
office or retail building exteriors, the Project could generate a substantial amount of glare
as sunlight is reflected. Additionally, light and glare could be generated by interior or
exterior building lighting, or outdoor lighting along the waterfront promenade. As such,
the potential light and glare impacts of the proposed Project are the same as those
contemplated by the 2000 EIR.
As part of Mitigation Measure AES -4, as identified in the 2000 EIR, building materials
and lighting proposals will be reviewed and approved by the City before installation, as
part of Design Review, to ensure that use of reflective materials and creation of
additional nighttime glare is minimized. Implementation of this mitigation measure,
enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or
substantially lessen the potential for the Project to generate light or glare which would be
visible from the northern shore of the Oakland Estuary at Jack London Square or from
existing and proposed circulation corridors and residential areas within the City of
Alameda. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.N -7 -8.)
10.3 Light and Glare: Impacts on Housing (AES -5)
10.3.1 Significant Effect. The proposed project retail ariant A and office/R &D Variant B)
development - = _ = -- • - could generate light and glare which would be visible
primarily from the existing USCG Housing, and the proposed multi - family housing, and
the proposed new housing west of 5th Street
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
52
AES -5: Specific lighting proposals for the proposed "� office /R &D and
retail parking lot areas shall be reviewed and approved by the City during Design Review
for .:, dont office/R &D and retail structures. This review shall ensure that any outdoor
night lighting for the proposed ropid tint= fge&,ffice/R &D and retail parking lot areas is
wo downshielded and would not create nighttime glare for surrounding residential
areas.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or
alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure AES -5, as indicated in the 2000 EIR, is revised to address the
potential impacts of both Variant A and Variant B. New retail (Variant A) and
office/R &D (Variant B) development proposed as part of the Project would occur near
existing and proposed housing, but would not result in the generation of substantial
amounts of new light and glare. Outdoor lighting would be consistent with typical
single - family development.
As part of Mitigation Measure AES -5, lighting proposals will be reviewed and approved
by the City before installation, as part of Design Review, to ensure that outdoor night
lighting for the proposed office/R &D structures is downshielded and would not create
nighttime glare for surrounding residential areas. Implementation of this mitigation
measure, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or
substantially lessen the potential for light and glare from the Project office /R &D parking
lots to be visible from housing areas. These facts support the City's findings. (See also
DSEIR, IV.N-8.)
B. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT
BE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR
that would avoid the following significant impacts, and that specific economic, social or
other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support
approval of the Project despite these significant impacts.
These findings are supported by substantial, evidence in the record of proceedings `before
the City.
53
1. HAZARDS
2. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
2.1 Jackson and 6th (T /C -8)
2.1.1 Significant Effect. The 2000 EIR found that the addition of Project traffic to the future
baseline condition would result in a significant traffic impact at the intersection of
Jackson Street and 6th Street in the City of Oakland, which would deteriorate from LOS
D to LOS F during the AM peak hour and exacerbate LOS F conditions during the PM
peak hour. This analysis finds that the traffic generated by the Project would cause
conditions at the signalized intersection of 6th and Jackson Streets at the 1-880
Northbound On -Rama to de rade from LOS E to LOS F Burin' the PM . eak hour and
would add more than four seconds of dela which is a si icant`jm . ac
Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated with the following required mitigation
measure identified in the FSEIR:
T /C -8a (Jackson and 6ths
Unless already comnle ed b the City of Oakland prior to
issuance of the buildin • permits for the first chase of the Catellus Project the Project
rononents shall fund optimization of the traffic si nal timin • at the si • nalized
intersection of 6th and Jackson Streets at the I -880 Northbound On-Ram 0 stimization
of traffic &
na
tim
n
sha
inc
tide de
ermination of allocation o
intersection a_ r tune with the relative traffic volumes on those `a
coordination with si. al sha and timin
een time for each
•1
oach in
of ad acent intersections.
1.r•
aches and
T /C -4-9a8b: Trans' ortation Demand Manag ment `TD11 ). To reduce the peak -hour
traffic along local roadway segments to levels below those forecast in this analysis
(which does not assume any reduction in trip generation rates to account for TDM
programs, B -- - - • • • , the Project shall implement a
comprehensive set of TSM TDM programs for each of the residential, retail and office
components of the Project. The TDM Plan should meet the re uirements of the Cit _
Alameda's 2001 Trans . ortation Ca . acit Mana ement Procedure TCMP and be
com atible with the Alameda Point Trans. ortation Strate • and des
ex . anded to serve Alameda P . int'and be co- funded b the future developments at
Alameda Point. The existing City of Alameda ordinance for trip reduction programs
identifies measures to increase the awareness and use of alternative modes of
transportation. The Project shall develop a TiS.ITDM plan, which would be approved
and operational before the site is occupied. The plan shall include trip reduction
strategies, site specific requirements, a schedule of implementation and funding
ned to be easil
54
mechanisms, and an evaluation of effectiveness that demonstrates compliance with the
TCMP requirements.
include the following components:
(1) Create a position of Transportation Systems Manager. The manager would
coordinate, monitor and implement the Project components' ride sharing
programs, preferential parking plans, car and van pooling programs, bicycle and
pedestrian programs, .- promotion and marketing activities and BART shuttle
water shuttle, and /or AC Transit services.
(2) Develop parking management strategies for the site. Most parking management
plans are directed at the employment end of the trip. Elements such as car pools
and van pools, preferential parking and transit incentives should be used to reduce
parking demand. The Transportation Systems Manager would need to work with
all employer groups to develop the parking management strategies. To the degree
that on- site home -to -work opportunities may exist, internal shuttle systems could
be provided which would reduce parking on -site. As a parking management
strategy, the plan may require that parking in employment/commercial sites be
leased independently from buildings to allow for parking cash out. Such a strategy
should be detailed in the'TTDM plan as one measure to achieve a reduction in
trips. Other "Transit First" design measures (as outlined in guidelines prepared by
the ACCMA) could be incorporated into the specific site design.
Implement a shuttle bus system that inter - connects on -site developments and the
internal transit centers. Implement shuttle services and/or contribute to the
expansion of AC Transit service to provide linkages between the site and off-site
ferry and BART terminals. The 4 M=TDM plan would include details for the
internal shuttle, including funding and operations.
(4) For office and R &D uses, rRequire implementing one or more peak -hour trip
reduction and/or trip elimination programs. These components would include:
compressed work weeks, telecomrnuting, staggered hours, flex -time and other trip
reduction activities.
The Project =TD program could
(3)
As a condition of approval, the City of Alameda could require contributions to fund the
various trip reduction programs developed by the Transportation Systems Manager.
Contributions could be based on the number of employees. Funding of the trip reduction
program should be detailed and tied to site assessments and CC &Rs or the municipal
services district. A per - employee and per - residential -unit rate could be included. Funding
could be developed on the amount of trip reduction required and the types of strategies
recommended in the TTDM plan.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or
alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant
55
environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted by
that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified
in the FSEiR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social
or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support
approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will be lessened to a
less than significant level if the Oak to Ninth Project implements Mitigation Measure
T /C -8(a), or if the City of Oakland approves the implementation of Mitigation Measure
T /C -8(a) by the Project, but will remain significant and unavoidable if Mitigation
Measure T /C -8 is not implemented.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact could be
reduced to a less than significant level, but the changes or alterations necessary to reduce
the impact to a less than significant level are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the City; and the impact therefore remains significant and
unavoidable.
Although the Project continues to cause an impact at this location, a revised mitigation is
recommended to reflect the City of Oakland's preferred improvement at this intersection.
Since publication of the 2000 EIR, the City of Oakland has studied the intersection
extensively and required a signal timing improvement to mitigate significant impacts at
this location. The Mitigation Measure T /C -8a is required to be funded and implemented
by the City of Oakland's Oak to Ninth Project. If it is completed by the Oak to Ninth
Project, then the impact of this project would be less than significant. However, in the
event that the mitigation has not been implemented by Oakland because the Oak to Ninth
Project has been delayed, then the Project would be required to fund the improvement to
mitigate its impact at the location. With implementation of the Mitigation Measure T /C-
8(a), the intersection would operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak
hours. Because implementation of the recommended mitigation requires City of Oakland
and Caltrans approval and cannot be guaranteed by the Project proponents or the City, the
impact is found to be significant and unavoidable. Given the finding of significant and
unavoidable, a second mitigation designed to reduce project` vehicle trips is also
recommended. The recommended TDM Mitigation Measure T /C -8b reflects a revised
version of the TDM Mitigation Measure T /C -19 adopted in 2000. Although
implementation of the TDM programs would reduce the volume of traffic, the reduction
in traffic may not be enough to reduce the impact to a less- than- significant level;
therefore the impact would continue to be significant and unavoidable. The No Project /
Approved Master Plan Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative,
as described in DSEIR, Section V, would have a significant and unavoidable impact on
this intersection, as well, although the impacts of the latter alternative have a lesser
significant impact. The No Project / Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this
significant and unavoidable impact. However, specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning
Alternatives, make these Project alternatives infeasible. These facts support the City's
findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
56
2.2 Atlantic Avenue /Webster Street Intersection: Year 2025 (T /C -11)
2.2.1 Significant Effect. The 2000 analysis found that under year 2020 cumulative conditions,
a significant impact would result at the intersection of Atlantic Avenue at Webster Street,
which would deteriorate to LOS F during the AM peak hour and, LOS E during the PM
peak hour. Although the current analysis uses a different cumulative ear of 2025, this
analysis confirms that the intersection will overate at unacceptable levels of service in the
cumulative condition. The signalized intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street
would o Berate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours in 2025. Traffic
generated by buildout of the nroiect would contribute at least three percent of the
cumulative traffic increases durin the AM and PM . eak hours as measured b the
difference between existing and cumulative with .ro'ect) conditions. This represents a
significant cumulative impact
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following required mitigation
measure identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -11: Implement the followin three -part mitigation:
TIC -11a: Implement Mitigation Measure T /C -5a Tinker Extension Project
T /C -11b: Mitchell Avenue Extension. Construct the Mitchell Avenue Extension from the
western nroiect boundary <to a new signalized intersection at Main Street The project
as.licant shall .a a fair share contribution toward the construction of the extension of
Mitchell Avenue from Marine 'Suare Loo. to Main S
eet
ne
udin
Street, taking into account that the fro'ect nro loses to fund 100 sercent of the cost of the
construction of Mitchell Avenue from Mariner S. uare Loo to the western .roject
boundary.
the s
nal a
ain
TIC -11c: Atlantic and Webster Intersection Im ro ements. Modify the intersection
follows: a) Webster Street (Northbound) — add one dedicated Left-turn lane convert the
current Throu h/Ri . ht -tun lane to a dedicated Throu ' lane and add a dedicated
Right -turn lane: (b) Atlantic Avenue (Westbound — convert the existing Through/Rieht-
turn lane to a dedicated Throu l h lane and add one dedicated Ri • ht turn lane- and
c
Atl
an
c Avenue Eastbound
- convert
he Thou
turn lane and add a T
h/Left- turn
ane
ou
h lane. The Pro
ect
sha
1 contribu
e its fa
o a dedicated Left-
share toward the
construction of this im.rovement other than the Tinker Extension which is a Cit. -
funded :ro'ect to which on the residential com.onent north of Tinker will contribute.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or
alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted by
that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
57
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified
in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social
or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support
approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will remain
significant and unavoidable if the Tinker Extension is not implemented.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact could be
reduced to a less than significant level, but some of the changes or alterations necessary
to reduce the impact to a less than significant level are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City, and some of the changes or
alterations necessary to reduce the impact to a' less than significant level may be
infeasible; and the impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable.
The revised three -part mitigation is designed to redistribute traffic to alternate routes and
to increase the capacity of the intersection at Atlantic` Avenue and Webster Street.
Completing Mitigation Measure T/C-1 1 a and Mitigation Measure T/C-1 1 b would
provide two alternative routes to connect western Alameda to Webster Street and the
Webster and Posey Tubes. Mitigation Measure T /C -1 1c increases the capacity of the
intersection at Atlantic and Webster. With implementation of the recommended three -
part mitigation, the intersection should operate at an acceptable level of service. Full
implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C- 11 would maintain LOS D or better
conditions at this intersection, thereby reducing impacts to a less than significant level.
The Project would contribute its fair share toward this mitigation measure. CEQA
Guidelines § 15130(a)(3) states that a project's contribution is less than cumulatively
considerable if the project is required to implement or its fair share of a mitigation
measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. However, all three
parts of the mitigation require property acquisition. In addition, the Tinker Extension
project requires Caltrans approval. Because the right of way may not be acquired and
because Caltrans approval is not within the control of the Project proponent or the City,
the impact will remain significant and unavoidable. The No Project / Approved Master
Plan Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as described in
DSEIR, Section V, would each have a significant and unavoidable impact, as well,
although the latter alternative will have a lesser significant and unavoidable impact. The
No Project / Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and unavoidable
impact. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations,
as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these Project
alternatives infeasible. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
2.3 Central Avenue /Eighth Street Intersection: Year 2025 (T /C -12)
2.3.1 Significant Effect. The 2000 EIR found that 14under year 2020 cumulative conditions, a
significant impact would result at the intersection of Central Avenue at Eighth Street,
which would deteriorate to LOS E during the PM peak hour. The current analysis
confirms that the intersection will be adversel affected in e cumulative condition but
finds that the intersection will o s era at LOS F in 2025 durin . both the AM and Phi
eak hours. Traffic venerated by buildout of the project would contribute at least three
58
percent of the cumulativ- traffic increases durin•, the AM and PM p ak hours as
measured b the difference between existing and cumulative with fro'ect conditions.
This represents a significant impact
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following required mitigation
measure identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C- 12: Implement TDM'Mitigation Measure T /C -8b
toward the construction of this improvement
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.) This impact will be lessened trough the implementation of
Mitigation Measure T /C -8b, but will still remain significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
The intersection of Central Avenue and 8th Street provides important access between the
north side of Alameda and the tubes and south side neighborhoods and destinations,
include Southshore and Bay Farm Island. Addition of trips to and from the proposed
project would cause the intersection to operate at an unacceptable level of service.
Opportunities to enlarge the intersection to improve the level of service are extremely
limited. Installing an additional lane on southbound 8th Street would mitigate the impact
and provide acceptable levels of service. However, this mitigation would require removal
of on- street parking, roadway widening, and potentially the need to remove significant
trees. Given that this improvement is unlikely to be supported by the local community,
the reconfiguration of the intersection as a mitigation is not recommended and the City
finds it to be infeasible. An alternative would be to divert traffic to alternative routes.
However, routing traffic through the neighborhood at Central and Grand is unlikely to
gain neighborhood support and the City finds it infeasible. Implementation of the
comprehensive TDM program required by Mitigation Measure TIC -8(b) will reduce the
severity of the impact at the intersection of Central and 8th, but the impact will still
remain significant and unavoidable. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative
and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as described in DSEIR, Section V,
would each have a significant and unavoidable impact on this intersection, as well,
although the latter alternative would cause a lesser significant and unavoidable impact.
The No Project / Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and
unavoidable impact. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these
Project alternatives infeasible. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR,
IV.H)
59
2.4 Jackson Street /6th Street Intersection in Oakland: ` Year 2025 (TIC -15)
2.4.1 Significant Effect. The 2000 EIR found that under year 2020 cumulative conditions, a
significant impact would result at the signalized intersection of Jackson Street and
6th Street in the City of Oakland, which would deteriorate to LOS F during the PM peak
hour. The current anal sis finds that in 2025 the intersection would o.erate at LOS F
durin. both the AM and PM •eak hours. Traffic ' enerated b buildout of the Project
would contribute at least three .ercent o the cumulative traffic increases durinr.eak
hours as measured b the difference between existin ' and cumulative with ' ro'ect)
conditions. This re presents a siunificant impact.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -15: Implement TDM Mitigation Measure T/C-8b
easure
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact) This impact will be lessened through the implementation of
Mitigation Measure T /C -8b, but will still remain significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Findings.
significant and unavoidable.
The following
acts indicate the identified impact is
The revised mitigation measure reflects the City of Oakland's findings in the EIR for the
City of Oakland's Oak to Ninth Project that that no feasible mitigations are available to
mitigate the cumulative condition at this intersection. The 2000 EIR concluded that
impacts could be mitigated through signal timing improvements. However, with the
additional growth in background traffic, the retiming could not fully mitigate impacts to
this intersection. In addition, the constrained right of way at this intersection makes the
addition of turn lanes or other similar improvements infeasible. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure T /C -8b could reduce the impact, but not to a less than significant
level. The impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. The No Project /
Approved Master Plan Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative,
as described in DSEIR, Section V, would each have a significant and unavoidable impact,
as well, although the latter alternative would have a lesser significant and unavoidable
impact. The No Project / Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and
unavoidable impact. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these
60
Project alternatives infeasible. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR,
IV.H)
2.5 Broadway /5th Street Intersection in Oakland: Year 2025 (T /C -17)
2.5.1 Significant Effect. The 2000 EIR found that in the twtelff year 2020 cumulative
conditions, a significant impact would result at the intersection of Broadway and
5th Street in the City of Oakland, which would deteriorate to LOS F during both the AM
and PM peak hours. The current analysis finds that the signalized intersection of 5th
Street and Broadwa would overate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours in
2025. Traffic • enerated by buildout of the Pro'ect would contribute at least three percent
of the cumulative traffic increases durin• the AM and PM peak hours as measured b the
difference between existin• and cumulative (with 'ro'ect conditions. This re. resents a
significant impact.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -17; Imnlement'TDM`Mitmation Measure T /C -8b Ono ofthe t lio
gignifivaig=leve,b
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.) This impact will be lessened through the implementation of
mitigation measure T /c -8b, but will remain significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
61
The revised mitigation measure reflects the City of Oakland's findings that no feasible
mitigations are available to mitigate the cumulative condition at this intersection. The
2000 EIR concluded that impacts could be mitigated through implementation of the I -880
Corridor B program improvements or, as an interim alternative, through the addition of
lanes. The City of Oakland, however, has found that mitigation is infeasible. The impact
therefore remains significant and unavoidable. The No Project / Approved Master Plan
Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as described in DSEIR,
Section V,, would each have a significant and unavoidable impact, as well, although the
latter alternative would have a lesser significant and unavoidable impact. The No Project
/ Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and unavoidable impact.
However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set
forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these Project alternatives
infeasible. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H),
2.6 Regional Roadway Segments: Year 2010 (T /C -18).
2.6.1 Significant Effect. The 2000 EIR found that Tthe Catellus Mixed Use Project would
imawitiee have a significant tfaffie impact on one regional roadway segment min 2005
ei: 7th Street in Oakland. The current analysis examines the impact of the project
in 2010 and finds that the addition of Project- enerated traffic to the re ' Tonal and local
roadwa s would adversely affect six roadway segments.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -18: To reduce congestion local and regional roadways the project shall include a
com•rehensive t in reduction stratee as reciuired by TDM Mitigation Measure T /C -8b.
°
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3 Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.) This impact could be reduced through implem Mitigation
Measure T /C -8b, but will still remain significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
In contrast to the 2000 EIR, which found impacts to only one regional roadway segment,
the current analysis for the DSEIR finds that the addition of Project-generated traffic to
regional and local roadways would adversely affect the following six roadway segments:
62
Constitution Way, south of Atlantic Avenue - northbound direction (AM and PM Peak);
Atlantic Avenue, west of Webster Street westbound direction (AM and PM Peak);
Posey Tube, south of 5th Street - northbound direction (AM and PM Peak); Webster
Tube, south of 5th Street - southbound direction (AM and PM Peak); Webster Street
(Oakland), north of 5th Street - southbound direction (AM and PM Peak); and Park
Street/29th Avenue, north of Blanding Avenue - northbound direction (PM Peak). The
2000 EIR identified the proposed Route 260 Deficiency Plan to mitigate impacts to
regional roadway segments. As of this date, however, neither the City of Oakland nor
Caltrans have approved any of the Phase II improvements. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure T /C -8b, enforced by the MMRP as a condition of approval, will reduce the
impact, but not to a less than significant level. There are no additional feasible mitigation
measures that the City of Alameda could adopt at this time that would reduce this impact
to a less than significant level. This impact therefore remains significant and
unavoidable. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative and the Reduced
Development Mitigated Alternative, as described in DSEIR, Section V, would each have
a significant and unavoidable impact, as well, although the latter alternative would have a
slightly lesser significant and unavoidable impact. The No Project / Existing Conditions
alternative would avoid this significant and unavoidable impact. However, specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set forth in the Findings
of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these Project alternatives infeasible. These facts
support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
2.7 Regional Roadway Segments: Year 2025 (T /C -19)
2.7.1 Significant Effect. The 2000 EIR found that the Catellus Mixed Use Project would
eefitpi.14144,94e,have a significant tra impact on five
year 2029 e.atadition regional roadways in 2020 :: the Webster Tube 7th Street (Harrison to
Jackson _ Atlantic Avenue Main Street to Webster Street Park Street and • h Street.
The current anal sis examines the impact of the Project in 2025 and finds that the
addition of Project enerated traffic to the re Tonal and local'roadwa s would adversel
affect eight roadway segments
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project.
T /C -19: Implement revised Mitigation Measure T/C —18.
63
taafketift.aetiNitie&
._ _1 ..4:
64
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
65
significant impact.) This impact would be reduced through implementation of Mitigation
Measure T /C -18, but will still remain significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
The current analysis finds that the addition of Project - generated traffic to the regional and
local roadways would adversely affect the following eight roadway segments: Atlantic
Avenue, west of Webster Street (AM and PM Peak); Harrison Street (Oakland), north of
6th Street (AM and PM Peak); High Street (Oakland), south of Tidewater Avenue —
southbound direction (AM and PM Peak); Posey Tube, south of 5th Street - (AM and PM
Peak); Webster Tube, (AM Peak); Webster Street (Oakland) (AM and PM Peak);
Constitution Way, south of Atlantic Avenue - southbound direction (PM Peak); Park
Street /29th Avenue, north of Blanding Avenue - northbound direction (PM Peak). The
2000 EIR identified significant impacts to five regional roadways in 2010: Webster Street
from Central Avenue to 7th Street (AM Peak), 7th Street from Harrison Street to Jackson
Street (PM Peak); Atlantic Avenue from Main to Webster (AM and PM Peak), Park
Street from Oakland City Limits to State Route 61 (AM and PM Peak); and High Street
from I -880 to State Route 61 (PM Peak). The 2000 EIR determined that project impacts
to regional and local roadways could be mitigated to a less than significant level through
implementation of a "traffic cap" that would cap traffic generated by future development
at levels such that traffic from those developments together with cumulative traffic
growth would not exceed the capacity of the Webster /Posey tubes. Since 2000, the City
has adopted the Transportation Capacity Management Program (TCMP). Since 2000, the
city has determined that due to regional growth and State of California's housing needs
determination requirements of the City of Alameda render the "traffic cap" mitigation
unworkable and insufficient to avoid traffic congestion on regional roadways.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TIC -18, enforced by the MMRP as a condition of
approval, will reduce the impact, but not to a less than significant level There are no
additional feasible mitigation measures that the City could adopt at this time that would
reduce this impact to a less than significant level. This impact therefore remains
significant and unavoidable. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative and the
Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as described in DSEIR, Section V, would
each have a significant and unavoidable impact, as well, although the latter alternative
would have a lesser significant and unavoidable impact. The No Project / Existing
Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and unavoidable impact. However,
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set forth in the
Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these Project alternatives infeasible.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
2.8 2010 Project- Specific Traffic Im acts T /C -20)
Significant Effect. Traffic generated by the Project would affect traffic levels of service
at local intersections in the Project vicinity in 2010 during the weekday AM and PM peak
hours and weekend. (Significant Impact at the intersections described below under
Impacts T /C -20a, T /C -20c, and T /C -20g).
66
2.9 Central Avenue and 8th Street: Year 2010 (T /C -20a),
2.9.1 Significant Effect. Traffic generated by the Project would cause the signalized
intersection of Central Avenue and 8th Street ( #9) to degrade from LOS D to LOS F PM peak hour.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -20a Implement TDM Mitigation Measure T /C -8b.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this - significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.) ` This impact will be reduced through implementation of Mitigation
Measure T /C -8b, but will remain significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will
remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
The current analysis indicates that Project buildout in 2010 would have a significant
impact in the PM peak hour. Due to the constrained configuration of the intersection of
Central Avenue and 8th Street and its location adjacent to residential and public park
uses, the opportunities to enlarge the intersection to improve the level of service are
extremely limited. Such mitigation would require removal of on- street parking, roadway
widening, and potentially the need to remove significant trees, which makes the
mitigation infeasible and not recommended. An alternative that diverts traffic through
adjacent neighborhoods is unlikely to gain neighborhood support. As such, the only
feasible mitigation is to reduce the number of vehicle trips generated by the Project
through implementation of the comprehensive TDM program required by Mitigation
Measure T /C -8b. However, implementation of a TDM program alone will not reduce
this impact to a less than significant level. This impact therefore remains significant and
unavoidable. The No Project /Approved Master Plan Alternative and the Reduced
Development Mitigated Alternative, as described in DSEIR, Section V, would each have
a significant and unavoidable impact, as well, although the latter alternative would have a
lesser significant and unavoidable impact. The No Project / Existing Conditions
alternative would avoid this significant and unavoidable impact. However, specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set forth in the Findings
of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these Project alternatives infeasible. These facts
support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
67
2.10 Tinker Avenue and Mariner Square Loop: Year 2010 (T /C -20c)
2.10.1 Significant Effect. Traffic generated by the Project would cause the unsignalized
intersection of Tinker Avenue and Mariner Square Loop ( #11) to degrade to LOS F
during both the AM and PM peak weekday hours, and during the weekend peak hour.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -20c: Implement Mitigation T /C -5a Tinker Extension and TDM Mitigation
Measure T /C -8b.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or
alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted by
that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified
in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social
or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support
approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will remain
significant and unavoidable if the Tinker Extension is not completed.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact could be
reduced to a less than significant level, but the changes or alterations necessary to reduce
the impact to a less than significant level are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the City and may be infeasible; and the impact therefore
remains significant and unavoidable.
Once the currently constructed portion of the Tinker Extension from Mariner Square
Loop to Main Street is opened to traffic, the Mariner, Square Loop exit will be the
primary access point for westbound vehicles from Oakland with destinations at or near
the Project site Although this new route will reduce congestion at Atlantic Avenue and
Webster Street, drivers accessing Tinker Avenue from Mariner Square Loop will be
delayed at the intersection. The intersection cannot be signalized due to the short
distance between the intersection and Webster Street, which could cause traffic to back-
up onto Webster Street. The most effective mitigation is to construct the approved
Tinker Extension to Webster Street. This extension would replace the intersection of
Mariner Square Loop and Tinker Avenue with a new, signalized intersection at Tinker
Avenue and Webster Street, which would operate at an acceptable level of service:
However, implementation of the Tinker Extension project requires land acquisition and
Caltrans approval, which is not within the control of the Project proponent or the City.
While trip reduction through TDM will be required as a mitigation measure, it is unlikely
to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Because mitigation to a less than
significant level requires implementation of the Tinker Extension project, which is not
within the control of the Project proponent or the City, this impact will remain significant
and unavoidable. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative and the Reduced
68
Development Mitigated Alternative, as described in DSEIR, Section V, would each have
a significant and unavoidable impact, as well, although the latter alternative would have a
lesser significant and unavoidable impact. The No Project / Existing Conditions
alternative would avoid this significant and unavoidable impact. However, specific
economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set forth in the Findings
of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these Project alternatives infeasible. These facts
support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
2.11 5th Street and Broadway: Year 2010 (T /C -20g)
2.11.1 Significant Effect. The LOS F conditions at the signalized intersection of 5th Street and
Broadway ( #30), which would prevail during the PM peak hour under 2010 baseline
conditions, would worsen with the addition of traffic generated by the Project. The
Project- generated increases in vehicle delay on a critical movement would exceed the
four - second threshold of significance.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -20g: Implement TDM Mitigation Measure T /C -8b.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project' alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact) This impact will remain significant and unavoidable due to the lack
of a multi jurisdictional determination to increase traffic capacity.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will
remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
Based on field observations of existing intersection operations, the intersection of 5th
Street and Broadway is judged to operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour due to
backups along 5th Street. The 2000 EIR projected a baseline level of service of LOS C.
Therefore the 2000 EIR did not find a project impact at this location. As described above
(Impact T /C -17), the City of Oakland has found that no feasible measures are available
that would mitigate the Project impact at the intersection of 5th Street and Broadway.
The current analysis finds that short-term Project impacts could be mitigated by changing
the sequencing and timing of the signal at Broadway and 5th Street. The constrained
capacity of this intersection is an issue of multi - jurisdictional concern (solutions are being
explored by the cities of Oakland and Alameda, Caltrans, and the Alameda County
Congestion Management Agency), and no feasible measures to increase the tube's
capacity have been identified to date. While trip reduction through TDM will be required
as a mitigation measure, it is unlikely to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. The No Project / Approved
Master Plan Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as
69
described in DSEIR, Section V, would each have a significant and unavoidable impact, as
well, although the latter alternative would have a lesser significant and unavoidable
impact. The No Project / Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and
unavoidable impact. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these
Project alternatives infeasible. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
2.12 2025 Cumulative Traffic Impacts tT /C -21)
Significant Effect. Traffic generated by buildout of the Project would contribute to
cumulatively significant impacts at local intersections in the Project vicinity in 2025.
(Significant Impact at the intersections described below under Impacts T /C -21 a, T/C-2 1 b,
T/C-21d, T/C-21e, T /C -21 f through T/C-21h and T/C-21k through T/C-21m).
2.13 Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way: Year 2025 (T /C -21 a)
2.13.1 Significant Effect. The signalized intersection of Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way
( #4) would operate at LOS >F during both the AM and PM peak hours in 2025. Traffic
generated by buildout of the Project would contribute at least three percent of the
cumulative traffic increases during the AM and PM peak hours, as measured by the
difference between existing and cumulative (with project) conditions.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -21a: Implement TDM Mitigation Measure T /C -8b.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.) This impact will be reduced through implementation of Mitigation
Measure T /C -8b, but will remain significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
Adding two eastbound right -turn lanes to Atlantic Avenue, eliminating east -west split
signal phasing, and providing protected left turns would mitigate this impact in the
cumulative condition. However, such mitigation would require substantial roadway
widening, property acquisition, and impacts to adjacent property owners. For these
reasons, widening the intersection is not a feasible mitigation measure. Trip reduction
resulting from the implementation of the TDM Mitigation Measure T /C -8b would reduce
the severity of the impact. If other future developments, such as Alameda Point also
include a major TDM trip reduction strategy, the severity of the impacts at this
70
intersection would be further reduced. However, no feasible mitigation measures are
available to mitigate this impact to a less than significant level. The impact therefore
remains significant and unavoidable. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative
and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as described in DSEIR, Section V,
would each have a significant and unavoidable impact, as well, although the latter
alternative would have a lesser significant and unavoidable impact. The No 'Project /
Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and unavoidable impact.
However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set
forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these Project alternatives
infeasible. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
2.14 Lincoln Avenue and Constitution Way: Year 2025 (T /C -21 b)
2.14.1 Significant Effect. The signalized intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Constitution Way
( #7) would operate at LOS D during the AM peak hour and at LOS F during PM peak
hour in 2025. Traffic generated by buildout of the Project would contribute at least three
percent of the cumulative traffic increases during the PM peak hour, as measured by the
difference between existing and cumulative (with project) conditions, and buildout under
Variant B only would cause the service' level to degrade to LOS F during the AM peak
hour.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
17C-21b: Implement TDM Mitigation Measure T /C -8b.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.) This impact will be reduced through implementation of Mitigation
Measure T /C -8b, but will remain significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
Adding a southbound through lane to Constitution Way would mitigate the impact.
However, adding a southbound lane would require roadway widening, property
acquisition, and impacts to adjacent property owners. For these reasons, widening the
intersection is infeasible. Trip reduction resulting from the implementation of TDM
Mitigation Measure T /C -8b would reduce the severity of the impact, but would not
reduce it to a less than significant level. If other future developments, such as Alameda
Point also include a major TDM trip reduction strategy, the severity of the impacts at this
intersection would be further reduced, but a significant impact would still remain. The
impact is therefore significant and unavoidable because no feasible mitigation measures
are available to mitigate it to a less than significant level. The No Project / Approved
71
Master Plan Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as
described in DSEIR, Section V, would each have a significant and unavoidable impact, as
well, although the latter alternative would have a lesser significant and unavoidable
impact. The No Project / Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and
unavoidable impact. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these
Project alternatives infeasible. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR,
IV.H)
2.15 Tinker Avenue and Mariner Square Loop: Year 2025 (T /C -21d)
2.15.1 Significant Effect. The unsignalized intersection of Tinker Avenue and Mariner Square
Loop ( #11) would to operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak weekday hours.
Traffic generated by buildout of the Project would contribute at least three percent of the
cumulative traffic increases during the PM peak hour, as measured by the difference
between existing and cumulative (with project) conditions.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
17C-21d: Implement Mitigation T /C -5a Tinker Extension and TDM Mitigation
Measure T /C -8b.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or
alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted by
that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified
in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social
or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support
approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact could be reduced to a
less than significant level if the Tinker Extension project is implemented; otherwise this
impact will remain significant and unavoidable after implementation of Mitigation
Measure T /C -8b.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact could be
reduced to a less than significant level, but the changes or alterations necessary to reduce
the impact to a less than significant level are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the City and may infeasible; and the impact therefore
remains significant and unavoidable.
Once the currently constructed portion of the Tinker Extension from Mariner Square
Loop to Main Street is opened to traffic, the Mariner Square Loop exit will be the
primary access point for westbound vehicles from Oakland with destinations at or near
the Project site. Although this new route will reduce congestion at Atlantic Avenue and
Webster Street, drivers accessing Tinker Avenue from Mariner Square Loop will be
72
delayed at the intersection. The intersection cannot be signalized due to the short
distance between the intersection of Webster Street, as a result of which a signal could
cause traffic to back up onto Webster Street. The most effective mitigation is to construct
the approved Tinker Extension to Webster Street. This extension would replace the
intersection of Mariner Square Loop and Tinker Avenue with a new, signalized
intersection at Tinker Avenue and Webster Street, which would operate at an acceptable
level of service. However, implementation of the Tinker Extension project requires land
acquisition and Caltrans approval, which is not within the control of the project
proponent or the City. While trip reduction through TDM will be required as a mitigation
measure, it is unlikely to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. Because
mitigation to a less than significant level requires implementation of the Tinker Extension
project, which is not within the control of the Project proponent or the City, this impact
will remain significant and unavoidable. The No Project / Approved Master Plan
Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as described in DSEIR,
Section V, would each have a significant and unavoidable impact, as well, although the
latter alternative would have a lesser significant and unavoidable impact. The No Project
/ Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and unavoidable impact.
However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set
forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these Project alternatives
infeasible. These facts support the City's findings. ` (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
2.16 Mariner Square Drive and Constitution Way: Year 2025 (T /C -21 e)
2.16.1 Significant Effect. The unsignalized intersection of Mariner Square Drive and
Constitution Way (#12) would operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours
in 2025. Traffic generated by buildout of the Project would contribute at least three
percent of the cumulative traffic increases during the AM and PM peak hours, as
measured by the difference between existing and cumulative (with Project) conditions.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -21e: Implement TDM Mitigation Measure T /C -8b.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other Considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.) Because this impact could be reduced by Mitigation Measure T /C-
8b, but not to a less than significant level, it remains significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
There are no feasible improvements that would mitigate this impact to a less -than
significant level, although trip reduction resulting from the implementation of TDM
73
Mitigation Measure T /C -8b would reduce the severity of the impact. If other future
developments, such as Alameda Point also include a major TDM trip reduction strategy,
the severity of the impacts at this intersection would be further reduced. However, no
feasible mitigation measures are available to mitigate this impact to a less than significant
level This impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. The No Project /
Approved Master Plan Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative,
as described in DSEIR, Section V, would each have a significant and unavoidable impact,
as well, although the latter alternative would have a lesser significant and unavoidable
impact. The No Project / Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and
unavoidable impact. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these
Project alternatives infeasible. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR,
IV.H)
2.17 Mariner Square Loop and Marina Village Parkway: Year 2025 (T /C -21 g)
2.17.1 Significant Effect. The unsignalized intersection of Marina Village Parkway and Mariner
Square Loop ( #15) would operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours in
2025. Traffic generated by buildout of the Project would contribute at least three percent
of the cumulative traffic increases during the AM and PM peak hours, as measured by the
difference between existing and cumulative (with Project) conditions.
Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR:
T /C -21g: Implement Mitigation Measure T /C -5a (Tinker Extension Project)
Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or
alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted by
that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives` identified
in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social
or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support
approval of the ProJect despite this significant impact.) This impact could be reduced to a
less than significant level if Caltrans approved the Tinker Extension project; otherwise
this impact will remain significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact could be
reduced to a less than significant level, but the changes or alterations necessary to reduce
the impact to a less than significant level are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the City and may be infeasible; and the impact therefore
remains significant and unavoidable.
As described under Impact T /C -20e, project buildout in 2010 would have a significant
impact at this intersection. That impact would be mitigated with installation of a signal.
74
By 2025 and with full buildout of the Alameda Point, the signal is no longer adequate to
maintain an acceptable level of service. To maintain an acceptable level of service at this
intersection in the cumulative condition, the Tinker Extension project must be completed.
With the Tinker Extension, the intersection of Marina Village Parkway and Mariner
Square Loop would operate at an acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM
peak hours. As described above, the Tinker Extension project requires Caltrans approval
and property acquisition, which is outside the control of the City and the project
proponent. Therefore the impact is determined to be significant and unavoidable in the
event that the Tinker Extension project is not implemented as planned. The No Project /
Approved Master Plan Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative,
as described in DSEIR, Section V, would each have a significant and unavoidable impact,
as well, although the latter alternative would have a lesser significant and unavoidable
impact. The No Project / Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and
unavoidable impact. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these
Project alternatives infeasible. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
2.18 Marina Village Parkway and Mariner Square Drive: Year 2025 (T /C -21h)
2.18.1 Significant Effect. The unsignalized intersection of Marina Village Parkway and Mariner
Square Drive ( #15) would operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours in
2025. Traffic generated by buildout of the Project would contribute at least three, percent
of the cumulative traffic increases during the AM and PM peak hours, as measured by the
difference between existing and cumulative (with Project) conditions.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
TIC -21h: (a) The Project applicant shall pay its fair share contribution to signalization of
the intersection at Marina Village Parkway and Mariner Square Drive. (b) Implement
T /C -5a (Tinker Extension Project)
Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or
alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted by
that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified
in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social
or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support
approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact could be reduced to a
less than significant level if Caltrans approved the Tinker Extension project, otherwise
the impact remains significant and unavoidable.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact could be
reduced to a less than significant level, but the changes or alterations necessary to reduce
75
the impact to a less than significant level are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the City and may be infeasible; and the impact therefore
remains significant and unavoidable.
Construction of the Tinker Extension project will mitigate the cumulative condition
impacts at this intersection. In addition, a signal is needed at this location in the 2025
cumulative condition. If the Tinker Extension were constructed and the signal is installed,
the intersection of Marina Village Parkway and Mariner Square Drive would operate at
an acceptable LOS B or better during the AM and PM peak hours. As described above,
the Tinker Extension project requires Caltrans approval and property acquisition, which
is outside the control of the City and the project proponent. Therefore the impact is
determined to be significant and unavoidable in the event that the Tinker Extension
project is not implemented as planned. The No Project / Approved Master Plan
Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as described in DSEIR,
Section V, would each have a significant and unavoidable impact, as well, although the
latter alternative would have a lesser significant and unavoidable impact. The No Project
/ Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and unavoidable impact.
However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set
forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these Project alternatives
infeasible. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
2.19 Atlantic Avenue and 5th Street: Year 2025 (T /C -21k)
2.19.1 Significant Effect. The signalized intersection Atlantic Avenue and 5th Street ( #20)
would operate at LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours in 2025. Traffic
generated by buildout of the Project would contribute at least three percent of the
cumulative traffic increases during both the AM and PM peak hours, as measured by the
difference between existing and cumulative (with Project) conditions.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEiR and incorporated into the Project:
TIC -21k: Implement (a) Mitigation Measure T /C -5a (Tinker Extension); and (b) TDM
Mitigation Measure T /C -8b.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or
alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR'are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted by
that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified
in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social
or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support
approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact could be reduced to a
less than significant level if the Tinker Extension project is implemented, otherwise the
76
impact remains significant and unavoidable. This impact could be reduced by Mitigation
Measure T /C -8b, but not to a less than significant level.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact could be
reduced to a less than significant level, but the changes or alterations necessary to reduce
the impact to a less than significant level are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of
another public agency and not the City and may be infeasible; and the impact therefore
remains significant and unavoidable.
Construction of the Tinker Extension project will mitigate the cumulative condition
impacts at this intersection. If the Tinker Extension were constructed, the intersection of
Atlantic Avenue and 5th Street would operate at an acceptable LOS D or better during
the AM and PM peak hours. As described above, the Tinker Extension project requires
Caltrans approval and property acquisition, which is outside the control of the City and
the Project proponent. Therefore the impact is determined to be significant and
unavoidable in the event that the Tinker Extension project is not implemented as planned.
While trip reduction through TDM would be required as a mitigation measure, it is
unlikely to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The No Project / Approved
Master Plan Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as
described in DSEIR, Section V, would each have a significant and unavoidable impact, as
well, although the latter alternative would have a lesser significant and unavoidable
impact. The No Project / Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and
unavoidable impact. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these
Project alternatives infeasible. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
2.20 7th Street and Jackson Street: Year 2025 (T /C -21 L)
2.20.1 Significant Effect. The signalized intersection of 7th Street and Jackson Street ( #23)
would operate at LOS E and LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively, in
2025. Traffic generated by buildout of the Project would contribute at least three percent
of the cumulative traffic increases during both the AM and PM peak hours, as measured
by the difference between existing and cumulative (with Project) conditions.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T/C -211: Implement TDM Mitigation Measure T /C -8b.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact,' and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.) This impact could not be reduced to a less than significant level
without City of Oakland approval, and will remain significant and unavoidable after
implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -8b.
77
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will
remain significant and unavoidable.
No feasible measures are available that could mitigate the significant cumulative impact
at the intersection of 7th and Jackson Streets. Additionally, as Lead Agency, the City
could not implement improvements at this intersection without approval of the City of
Oakland. This impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. While trip
reduction through TDM will be required as a mitigation measure, it is unlikely to reduce
impacts to a less than significant level. The No Project / Approved Master Plan
Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as described in DSEIR,
Section V, would each have a significant and unavoidable impact, as well, although the
latter alternative would have a lesser significant and unavoidable impact. The No Project
/ Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and, unavoidable impact.
However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set
forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these Project alternatives
infeasible. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
2.21 7th Street and Harrison Street: Year 2025 (T /C -21m)
2.21.1 Significant Effect. The signalized intersection of 7th Street and Harrison Street ( #27)
would operate at LOS E during the PM peak hour in 2025. Traffic generated by buildout
of the Project would contribute at least three percent of the cumulative traffic increases
during the PM peak hour, as measured by the difference between existing and cumulative
(with Project) conditions.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
TIC -21m: Implement TDM Mitigation Measure T /C -8b.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.) This impact will remain significant and unavoidable after
implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C =8b.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will
remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
No feasible measures are available that could mitigate the significant cumulative impact
at the intersection of 7th and Harrison Streets. Additionally, as Lead Agency, the City of
Alameda could not implement improvements at this intersection without approval of the
City of Oakland. While trip reduction through TDM will be required as a mitigation
measure, it is unlikely to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. This impact
therefore remains significant and unavoidable. The No Project / Approved Master Plan
78
Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as described in DSEIR,
Section V, would each have a significant and unavoidable impact, as well, although the
latter alternative would have a lesser significant and unavoidable impact. The No Project
/ Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and unavoidable impact.
However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set
forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these Project alternatives
infeasible. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
2.22 12th Street and Brush Street/I -980 Southbound Off -Ramp: Year 2025 (T /C -21 n)
2.22.1 Significant Effect. The signalized intersection 12th Street and Brush Street/I -980
Southbound Off -Ramp ( #31) would operate at LOS F during the AM peak hour in 2025.
Traffic generated by buildout of the Project would contribute at least three percent of the
cumulative traffic increases during the AM peak hour, as measured by the difference
between existing and cumulative (with Project) conditions.
Mitigation. This impact would be mitigated with the following mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
T /C -21n: Implement TDM Mitigation Measure T /C -8b.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact) This impact will remain significant and unavoidable after
implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -8b.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will
remain significant and unavoidable after mitigation.
No feasible measures are available that could mitigate the significant cumulative impact
at the intersection of 12th Street and Brush Street/I -980 Southbound Off -Ramp.
Additionally, as Lead Agency, the City could not implement improvements at this
intersection without approval of the City of Oakland and Caltrans. This impact therefore
remains significant and unavoidable. While trip reduction through TDM will be required
as a mitigation measure, it is unlikely to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative and the Reduced Development
Mitigated Alternative, as described in DSEIR, Section V, would each have a significant
and unavoidable impact, as well, although the latter alternative would have a lesser
significant and unavoidable impact. The No Project / Existing Conditions alternative
would avoid this significant and unavoidable impact. However, specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact
Concerning Alternatives, make these Project alternatives infeasible. These facts support
the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
79
3. AIR QUALITY
3.1 New Traffic and Stationary Source Emissions (AQ -2
3.1.1 Significant Effect. New traffic generated by the Project and new stationary source
emissions would increase regional emissions beyond the BAAQMD significance
standards,
Mitigation. This impact has been mitigated with the following required mitigation
measure identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
AQ -2: The following measures, if applied to office cow and R &D areas
and uses in the proposed Project, would reduce this impact. These measures represent a
menu of options for reducing the intensity of long -term air quality impacts. However, this
air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Construct transit facilities such as bus turnouts/bus
Provide shuttle service to the BART station to
daily commute;
bulbs, benches, shelters, etc;
encourage employee use for their
Implement carpool /vanpool program, e.g., carpool ridematching for employees,
assistance with vanpool formation, provision of vanpool vehicles, etc;
Provide preferential parking for carpool and vanpool vehicles;
Provide a convenient location for electric vehicle (EV) outlets for employee
vehicles and maintenance;
(6) Provide on -site shops and services for employees, such as cafeteria, bank/ATM,
dry cleaners, convenience market, etc., or provide mid -day shuttle service from
work site to food service' establishments /commercial areas;
(7) Provide on -site child care, or contribute to off -site child care within walking
distance;
(8) Provide secure, weather - protected bicycle parking for employees;
(9) Provide safe, direct access for bicyclists to adjacent bicycle routes;
(10) Provide showers and lockers for employees bicycling or walking to work,
(11) Provide secure short-term bicycle parking for retail customers and other non-
commute trips; and
(12) Obtain the required permit to burn wastes that result from "Land Development
Clearing" through the BAAQMD and/or the local fire agency, depending on the
time of year the burning is to take place. Only vegetative waste materials may be
disposed of using an open outdoor fire.
80
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: _ Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
Like the 2000 project, the proposed project would also result in a significant air quality
impact as a result of long -term emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of
nitrogen (NOx) and particulate matter (PM -10). As indicated in Table IV.1 -5 of the
DSEIR, these project emissions of ROG, NOx and PM -10 would all exceed the
BAAQMD established significance threshold of 80 pounds per day. For the purposes of
comparison to the analysis provided in the 2000 EIR, emission estimates for the 2000
project were also recalculated using an updated model following BAAQMD guidance.
These recalculated emissions are also presented in Table IV.I -5 of the DSEIR. These
exceedances would be considered significant long -terra air quality impacts. The revised
Mitigation Measure AQ -2 would still apply to the proposed project to reduce the intensity
of long -term impacts to air quality. However, there are no additional feasible mitigation
measures that the City of Alameda could adopt at this time that would reduce this impact
to a less than significant level. Because these mitigation measures would not reduce
emissions to less than 80 pounds per day, the impact to air quality would remain
significant and unavoidable, as in the 2000 EIR. This impact therefore remains
significant and unavoidable. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative and the
Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as described in DSEIR, Section V, would
each have a lesser significant and unavoidable impact. The No Project / Existing
Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and unavoidable impact. However,
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set forth in the
Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these Project alternatives infeasible.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, IV.H)
4. PUBLIC SERVICES
4.1 Generation of Non - Recyclable Solid Waste from Structure Demolition (PUB -3)
4.1.1 Significant Effect. Demolition of existing structures on the Project site would result in
the generation of large quantities of solid waste which are not reusable or recyclable,
including hazardous waste.
Mitigation.
PUB -3: There is no mitigation available to reduce the amount of hazardous waste
generated during Project demolition.
81
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.)
Facts in Support of Findings The following:facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
Many of the buildings identified for demolition in the 2000 EIR still need to be
demolished. As stated in the 2000 EIR, project construction and demolition would result
in a yield of up to 87 percent reusable materials. However, some of the solid waste
generated is likely to be toxic or otherwise non - recyclable.' The proposed amendments to
the project would not have any affect on this adverse impact and it would continue to
constitute a significant impact. As was reported in the 2000 EIR, there is no mitigation
available to reduce the amount of hazardous waste generated during project demolition.
This impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. The No Project / Approved
Master Plan Alternative and the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative, as
described in DSEIR, Section V, would each have a significant and unavoidable impact, as
well The No Project / Existing Conditions alternative would avoid this significant and
unavoidable impact. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make these
Project alternatives infeasible. These facts support the City's findings. (Se DSEIR,
IV.H)
C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The impacts listed below are less than significant impacts, even without the
implementation of mitigation measures. Mitigation measures for these impacts, though
not required, will nevertheless be incorporated as part of the Project.
1.1
POPULATION AND HOUSING
Demolition of Vacant Military Housing (POP -1)
1.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Construction of the proposed project would require the
demolition of 590 units of vacant military multi- family residential housing and proposes
construction of 886 replacement units.
Mitigation.
POP -1:
® As part of the project, the City of Alameda General Plan Housing Element would
be amended to expand Housing Inventory Site #1 to include a location of the former NAS
Alameda. In addition, the Reuse Plan contemplates development of additional housing
units at the NAS and FISC facility. (Completed)
82
• The City shall use accumulated funds in the Alameda Affordable Housing Unit
Fee Program and the 20 percent affordable housing tax increment set -aside funds from
the Alameda Point Improvement Project area to subsidize the construction of at least 51
new housing units at Alameda Point.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the demolition of vacant military
housing is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Nevertheless, the Project
includes the above mitigation measure.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The original EIR identified a significant unavoidable impact as a result of the net loss of
51 units of former military housing as a result of the demolition of 590 units and the
construction of 539 units (500 units at the Bayport project + 39 units of Housing,
Authority units). As revised, the Project authorizes the construction of 886 units (485
units at the Bayport project + 39 units of Housing Authority units + 62 units of additional
affordable housing south of Tinker Avenue +`300 units at Alameda Landing). As a
result, there will be no net loss of housing units. Nonetheless, as an accommodation to a
commenter on the EIR, Mitigation Measure POP -1 from the 2000 EIR will be retained.
2. HAZARDS
2.1 Asbestos (HAZ -3)
2.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Demolition or renovation of existing buildings or, removal
of asbestos cement pipe could release lead dust and asbestos fibers, potentially affecting
construction workers.
Mitigation.
HAZ -3: Adherence by the Project sponsors and the City to existing regulations requiring
abatement of lead and asbestos hazards and worker health and safety procedures during
demolition and renovation activities would further minimize this less than significant
impact. No additional mitigation is required.
Finding. The environmental impact with respect to release of lead dust and asbestos
fibers is less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. Nevertheless, the
Project includes the above mitigation measure.
D. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093, the City finds that changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
cumulative significant environmental impacts to hydrology and water quality, geology
soils and seismicity, biological resources, utilities and cultural resources, as identified in
83
the FSEIR. Each significant impact which can be reduced to a less than significant level
is discussed below, and the appropriate mitigation measure is stated and adopted for
implementation by approval of these Findings of Fac
For cumulative impacts to population and housing, traffic and circulation, air quality, and
public services — the cumulative significant environmental impacts which cannot be
avoided or substantially lessened — the City finds that specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid these cumulative significant
impacts, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite these
cumulative significant impacts.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before
the City. Additional factual information supporting these Findings of Fact is set forth in
the Mitigation and Monitoring Reporting Program.
I. POPULATION AND HOUSING
1.1 Significant Effect. The Project would incrementally contribute to the regional demand
for affordable housing.
1.1.1 Mitigation. No mitigation is available to reduce the proposed Projects' cumulative
impact on the area's regional housing supply.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The foil that the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
owing facts indicate
As described in Chapter IV.B of the DEIR, the revised land use mix results in slightly
different population and housing projection numbers than those described in the 2000
EIR. The revised Plan improves the City's contributions to ABAG's Regional Housing
Needs Determination. The Project's residential development and job creation are
consistent with the General Plan, and would not result in substantial, unanticipated
cumulative population, housing or employment growth. There would be no new or
substantially more severe cumulative population and housing impacts than described in
the 2000 EIR. The significant and unavoidable impact identified in the 2000 EIR related
to housing to be demolished as part of the project is no longer an impact due to
development of the Bayport housing.
84
However, while the revised Project will not create new or substantially more severe
impacts, as identified in the 2000 EIR, no mitigation is available to reduce the proposed
Project's incremental contribution to the regional demand for affordable housing.
Chapter IV.C. of the 2000 EIR and the DSEIR, Population and Housing, discusses the
potential for the proposed Project to increase demand for affordable rental housing in
nearby communities and concludes that any such effects would be too widely dispersed
to be accurately predicted. Furthermore, economic development of the type represented
by the job- generating portions of the proposed Project (e.g., office /R &D and retail) is
occurring in many communities comprising the housing market of which Alameda is a
part. New jobs in Oakland, Berkeley, or Emeryville lead to demand for affordable rental
housing in Alameda and vice versa. While the direct effect of the proposed Project on
affordable rental housing in nearby communities was not identified as a significant
impact for the Project, the Project's incremental contribution to this demand would
represent a significant adverse impact when considered in combination with other
cumulative development. This would be true, even considering the affordable housing
component of the Project and the 20 percent set -aside tax increment monies that would be
generated by the proposed Project. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures
that the City of Alameda could adopt at this time to reduce this cumulative impact to a
less than significant level. This cumulative impact therefore remains significant and
unavoidable. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, VI -C.)
2. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
2.1 Significant Effect. The Project, in combination with the other cumulative projects could
add to both the volume of storm runoff carried by local drainage systems and to the
contaminants carried in the runoff, adversely affecting water quality in the receiving
waters of the Oakland Estuary and San Francisco Bay.
2.1.1 Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD -2 to the Project (which
involves preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP)), as identified in these Findings, as well as similar implementations for other
cumulative projects, in combination with the ongoing regulatory program of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board, would reduce any potential cumulative hydrology and
storm drainage impacts to less than significant levels.
Finding. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Finding. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Like the project described in the 2000 EIR, the proposed project would not lead to any
unmitigable cumulative impacts related to hydrology or storm drainage. Although
construction and operation of the proposed Project and other cumulative projects could
add to both the volume of storm water runoff and the contaminants carried in that runoff,
85
Project specific mitigation measures would be incorporated into these projects to reduce
impacts to a less than significant level. There would be no new or substantially more
severe cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts than described in the 2000 EIR.
As set forth in these Findings, implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD -2 to the
Project will reduce Project- specific impacts to water quality to a less than significant
level, which, in conjunction with similar mitigation implemented in other cumulative
projects, will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative impacts of the Project to water
quality. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DESEIR, VI -D.)_
3. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
3.1 Significant Effect. The Project, in combination with other cumulative development,
would increase the number of residents and employees exposed to regional seismic risks
in the seismically active San Francisco Bay Area
3.1.1 Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 to the Project (which involves
preparation of a detailed geotechnical and soils report then subsequent implementation of
building design techniques recommended by the report), as identified in these Findings,
as well as similar implementations for other cumulative projects, would reduce any
potential regional seismic risks to less than significant levels.
Finding. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1 Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Finding. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Like the project described in the 2000 EIR, the proposed project would not lead to any
unmitigable cumulative impacts related to geology, soils and seismicity. Implementation
of the Project in combination with other cumulative development would increase the
number of people exposed to regional seismic risks in the seismically active San
Francisco Bay region. There would be no new or substantially more severe cumulative
geology, soils and seismicity impacts than described in the 2000 EIR. As set forth in
these Findings, implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1 to the Project will reduce
Project- specific impacts to geology, soils, and seismicity to a less than significant level,
which, in conjunction with similar mitigation implemented in other cumulative projects,
will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative impacts of the Project to geology, soils,
and seismicity. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DESEIR, VI -E.)
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
4.1 Significant Effect. The construction of the new storm drain outfalls within the Seaplane
Lagoon and the Oakland Estuary, in combination with other cumulative projects that may
include construction activity in these water bodies, may increase the level of impact on
the California least tern and California brown pelican foraging habitat, Pacific herring
86
spawning habitat, Chinook salmon and open waters that are subject to US Army Corps of
Engineers jurisdiction.
4. 1.1 Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -3 to the Project (which involves
implementing practices, obtaining permits, and scheduling construction in ways that will
minimize impacts to least tern and brown pelican foraging habitat, and Pacific herring
spawning habitat and Chinook salmon), as identified in these Findings, as well as similar
implementations for other cumulative projects and the on-going consultation and
permitting processes overseen by the California Department of Fish and Game, the US
Fish and Wildlife Service, and the US Army Corps of Engineers, would reduce any
potential cumulative impacts to the habitat for these species to less than significant levels.
Finding. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Finding. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Like the project described in the 2000 EIR, the proposed Project would not lead to any
unmitigable cumulative impacts related to biological resources. Construction activities in
the water, along with other cumulative developments that include construction in the
water, could increase the level of impact to the California least tern and California brown
pelican foraging habitat, Pacific herring spawning habitat, Chinook salmon and open
waters subject to US Army Corps jurisdiction. There would be no new or substantially
more severe cumulative biological impacts than described in the 2000 EIR. As set forth
in these Findings, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -3 to the Project will reduce
Project- specific impacts to habitat for these species to a less than significant level which,
in conjunction with similar mitigation implemented in other cumulative projects, will
avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative impacts of the Project to habitat for these
species to a less than significant level. These facts support the City's findings. (See also
DSEIR, VI -G.)
5. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
5.1 Significant Effect. The Project would add traffic that, when considered cumulatively
with other foreseeable projects, would have significant cumulative (year 2025 conditions)
effects on traffic and circulation at 17 intersections (Impacts T/C-11, T /C -12, T /C -15,
T /C -17, and Impacts T/C-21a through T/C-21h and T/C-21j through T/C-21n) and on
eight roadway segments (all listed in T /C -19). Detailed analysis of these potential
cumulative traffic and circulation impacts is presented in the Project - specific analysis of
traffic and circulation impacts in Section IV.H of the DSEIR.
5.1.1 Mitigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures T /C- 21c,f, and j, to the Project, as
identified in these Findings, would reduce any potential cumulative traffic impacts to
these intersections to less than significant levels. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
T /C -1.1 and T /C- 21d,g,h and k to the Project, as identified in these Findings, could also
87
reduce any potential cumulative traffic impacts to these intersections to less than
significant levels if the Tinker Extension discussed in Mitigation Measure T /C -5 is
implemented, otherwise such impacts shall remain significant and unavoidable. Impacts
T /C -12 , T /C -15, T /C -17, T /C -19, and T /C -21 a,b,e,l,m and n, however, cannot be
mitigated and are significant and unavoidable.'
Finding. The City Council hereby makes finding (1) for Impacts T /C- 21,c,f, and j. The
City Council hereby makes findings (2) and (3) for Impacts T /C -11, T /C -21 d,g,h, and k.
The City Council hereby makes finding 3 for Impacts T /C -12, T /C -15, T /C -17, T /C -19
and TIC -21 a,b, e, 1, m and n. (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in,
or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR. Finding 2: Such changes or alterations
are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City
and can and should be adopted by that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.)
Facts in Support of Finding. The following facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
As set forth in these Findings: Implementation of Mitigation Measures T/C-21c,f, and j,
to the Project, as identified in these Findings, would reduce any potential cumulative
traffic impacts to these intersections to less than significant levels, and the Project's fair
share contribution toward these improvements will be enforced through the MMRP,
incorporated as a condition of approval. Implementation of Mitigation Measures, T /C-
11, T /C- 21d,g,h, and k to the Project could also reduce any potential cumulative traffic
impacts to these intersections to less than significant Levels, but these improvements are
within the jurisdiction of the City of Oakland and/or Caltrans and accordingly cannot be
implemented by the City of Alameda. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or
other considerations make infeasible the mitigation of Impacts TIC -11, T /C -12, T /C -15,
TIC -17, TIC -19, T /C -21 a,b,d,e,g,h,k,l,m and n. There are no additional feasible
mitigation measures that the City of Alameda could adopt at this time to reduce these
cumulative impacts to less than significant levels. These cumulative impacts therefore
remain significant and unavoidable. These facts support the City's findings. (See also
DSEIR, VI -H.)
6. AIR QUALITY
6.1 Significant Effect. The Project, in combination with other cumulative development,
would be considered a significant contributor to cumulative air quality impacts.
6.1.1 Mitigation Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -2 to the Project, as identified in
these Findings, will reduce the projected amount of long -term criteria pollutant emissions
88
but will not do so enough to render the cumulative air quality impacts from the Project
less than significant. No additional mitigation measures, beyond those identified for the
proposed Project would be available.
Finding. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.)
Facts in Support of Finding. The following facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
There would be no new or substantially more severe cumulative air quality impacts than
described in the 2000 EIR. Other than Mitigation Measure AQ -2, no additional feasible
mitigation measures were identified. Mitigation Measure AQ -2 will be implemented
through the MMRP as a condition of approval but will not reduce the cumulative
air quality impacts of the Project to a less than significant level. There are no additional
feasible mitigation measures that the City of Alameda could adopt at this time to reduce
this cumulative impact to a less than significant level. This cumulative impact therefore
remains significant and unavoidable. These facts support the City's findings. (See also
DSEIR, VI -I.)
7. PUBLIC SERVICES
7.1 Significant Effect. The Project in combination with other cumulative projects would
generate solid waste and recyclable materials during both the construction and operation
phase. Adequate capacity for all cumulative projects is available at the landfill.
However, some of the solid waste generated is likely to be toxic or non- recyclable.
7.1.1 Mitigation. No mitigation is available to reduce the amount of hazardous and non -
recyclable solid waste generated by the Project that would reduce the Project's
incremental contribution to the cumulative generation of hazardous and non - recyclable
solid waste.
Finding. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic,
legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation
measures or Project alternatives identified in the FSEIR that would avoid this significant
impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the
Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this
significant impact.)
Facts in Support of Finding. The following facts indicate the identified impact is
significant and unavoidable.
89
As described in the 2000 EIR, demand for public services would increase with the
implementation of cumulative projects. There would be no new or substantially more
severe cumulative public services impacts than described in the 2000 EIR. No feasible
mitigation measures were identified (see DSEIR Chapter IV.K) that would reduce the
Project's incremental contribution to the cumulative generation of hazardous and non-
recyclable solid waste to a less than significant level. There are no additional feasible
mitigation measures that the City of Alameda could adopt at this time to reduce this
cumulative impact to a less than significant level. This cumulative impact therefore
remains significant and unavoidable. These facts support the City's findings. (See also
DSEIR, VI -K.)
8. UTILITIES
8.1 Significant Effect. The Project will potentially significantly contribute to the cumulative
demand for wastewater carrying capacity as well as to wastewater flows expected to
exceed the capacity of existing estuary transport facilities and exceed the NAS Alameda's
allocation at the EBMUD Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP).
8.1.1 Mitigation. Mitigation Measure UTL -2, as described in Part IILA of these Findings,
would reduce the Project's contribution to cumulative wastewater impacts to a less than
cumulatively considerable level. As described in Part IILE of these Findings, Mitigation
Measure UTL -4 is no longer required.
Finding. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Finding. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Since the publication of the SEIR, further analysis has detei uiined that the Project will
result in a net decrease in overall peak flows to EBMUD sewer treatment facilities. The
decrease is attributable to the complete replacement of all sewer lines within the Project
area, including lines replaced through implementation of Mitigation Measure UTL -2.
Replacement of the old lines results in a significant reduction in infiltration into the
system from wet weather, groundwater, and the estuary. Elimination of this existing
infiltration results in an overall benefit to the sewer system. As a result, the Project will
not cause a cumulatively considerable contribution to cumulative wastewater impacts.
Therefore, Mitigation Measure UTL -4 is not required and is not included in the MMRP.
These facts support the City's findings.
9. CULTURAL RESOURCES
9.1 Significant Effect. The potential for the Project to unearth previously undiscovered
archaeological or paleontological resources during site preparation or construction could,
90
when considered with other cumulative projects, have a significant c
those resources in the area
ulative effect on
9.1.1 Mitigation. Mitigation Measure CUL -2, as described in Section IV.A.10 of these
Findings, would reduce all cumulative impacts to archaeological and paleontological
resources to a less than significant level.
Finding. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental effect as identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Finding. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
Like the Project described in the 2000 EIR, the proposed Project would not result in any
significant impact on cultural resources that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant
level. The only potential Project impacts relate to discovery of previously undiscovered
archeological or paleontological resources. As set forth in these Findings,
implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -2 to the Project, enforced through the
MMRP as a condition of approval, will reduce Project - specific impacts to archaeological
and paleontological resources to a less than significant level which will render, in
conjunction with similar mitigation implemented in other cumulative projects, the
cumulative impacts of the Project to these resources less than significant: As such, there
would be no new or substantially more severe cumulative cultural resource impacts than
described in the 2000 EIR. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR,
VI -M.)
E. IMPACTS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PROJECT THAT WERE IDENTIFIED
IN THE 2000 EIR AS SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT
IMPACTS
1. BIOLOGICAL` RESOURCES
1.1 Pacific Herring: Oakland Inner Harbor (BIO -4)
1.1.1
Significant Effect. Construction of a new outfall structure and any improvements to
existing outfalls in the Oakland Inner Harbor that are necessary to serve the Project could
adversely impact open waters that provide potential Pacific herring spawning habitat and
are subject to Corps jurisdiction.
Mitigation. 2000 EIR Impact BIO -4 is consolidated with FSEIR Impact BIO -3 and
Mitigation Measure BIO -3.
-'' -- I -' - - ' - -- c -_. --
91
J: ____.__. _ _ - -
2. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
2.1 Atlantic Avenue /Webster Street Intersect ion (T /C -6)
Significant Effect. The 2000 EIR analysis found that addition of Project traffic to the
future baseline condition would result in an impact at Atlantic Avenue and Webster
Street, which would deteriorate from LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM
peak hour to LOS F during both the AM and PM peak hours. The current analysis finds
that with project traffic, the intersection would operate at LOS D in the AM, PM, and
weekend peak hours in 2010.
2.1.1 Mitigation. None needed.
92
ac
nt a-Pt n
_ ._.I�.•e...
" -
Findings. The City Council hereby finds this significant impact does not apply to the
Project.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following' facts ind .
apply to the Project.
Impact T /C -6 does not apply to the proposed project because the 2000 analysis did not
anticipate the opening of Tinker Avenue from Main Street to Mariner Square Loop which
provides an alternative route to the Posey Tube via the intersection of Mariner Square
Drive and Constitution Way. In addition, the 2000 analysis did not anticipate the interim
improvements at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street, which includes construction of a
new eastbound left -turn lane onto Webster Street. Both improvements, which are being
constructed by the City with funds from the Bayport portion of the originally approved
Catellus Master Plan project, expand the capacity of the intersection and provide an
alternate route for additional traffic, thereby avoiding project impacts at this section in
2010. As described under Impact T /C -11, the Project would contribute to a cumulative
condition impact in 2025, but the project would not cause a 2010 or project impact at this
location. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DSEIR, TV.H- 60 -61.)
cate the identified impact does not
Atlantic Avenue /Constitution Way Intersection (T /C -7)
Significant Effect. The 2000 EIR found that addition of Project traffic to the future
baseline condition would result in an impact at Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way,
which would deteriorate from LOS C to E during the AM peak hour. The current
93
analysis finds that with project traffic the intersection would operate at LOS C in the AM,
PM, and weekend peak hours in 2010.
2.2.1 Mitigation. None needed.
GL
Findings. The City Council hereby finds this significant impact does not apply to the
Project.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact does not
apply to the Project.
Impact T /C -7 does not apply to the proposed project because of the change in land use.
The previous project included 1.3 million square feet of employment uses. These
employment uses would have generated a large amount of employees coming from
Alameda's residential neighborhoods on the eastern end of the island through this
intersection to work at the site The proposed mixed use plan has considerably fewer jobs
and considerably fewer AM peak hour trips. With the new land uses, the intersection
would operate at an acceptable LOS C in all study hours. These facts support the City's
findings. (See also, DSEIR IV.H -61.)
2.3 Harrison Street/7th Street Intersection in Oakland (T /C -9)
Significant Effect. The 2000 EIR found that the addition of Project traffic to the future
baseline condition would result in a significant traffic impact at the intersection of
Harrison Street and 7th Street in the City of Oakland, which would deteriorate from LOS
C to LOS F during the PM peak hour. The current SEIR finds that the Project would not
have an impact at this location due to the two free right -turn lanes and three through lanes
at this intersection, which provides adequate capacity for the two lanes of traffic exiting
tube and the one way flow of traffic through the intersection' from 7th Street.
2.3.1 Mitigation. None needed.
94
Findings. The City Council hereby finds this significant impact does not apply to the
Project.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact does not
apply to the Project.
Impact T /C -9 does not apply to the project because of the following facts. The 2000 EIR
found that the addition of Project traffic to the future baseline condition would result in a
significant traffic impact at the intersection of Harrison Street and 7th Street in the City
of Oakland, which would deteriorate from LOS C to LOS F during the PM peak hour.
The current SEIR finds that the project would not have an impact at this location due to
the two free right -turn lanes and three through lanes at this intersection, which provides
adequate capacity for the two lanes of traffic exiting tube and the one way flow of traffic
through the intersection from 7th Street. These facts support the City's findings. (See
also, DSEIR IV. H -61.)
2.4 Jackson Street/5th Street Intersection in Oakland (T /C -10)
Significant Effect. The 2000 EIR found that the addition of any Project traffic to the
future baseline condition would result in a significant traffic impact at the intersection of
Jackson Street and 5th Street in the City of Oakland, which would exacerbate LOS F
conditions during the PM peak hour. There have been substantial geometric changes at
this intersection since the 2000 EIR analysis was conducted. These geometric
enhancements greatly reduced the average delay experienced at this intersection, not only
under existing conditions, but in 2010 as well
2.4.1 Mitigation. None needed.
95
eigisi-ierieavit4eveh
Findings. The City Council hereby finds this significant impact does not apply to the
Project.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact does not
apply to the Project.
Impact T /C -10 does not apply to the Project because of the following facts. The 2000
EIR found that the addition of any Project traffic to the future baseline condition would
result in a significant traffic impact at the intersection of Jackson Street and 5th Street in
the City of Oakland, which would exacerbate LOS F conditions during the PM peak hour.
There have been substantial geometric changes at this intersection since the 2000 EIR
analysis was conducted. These geometric enhancements greatly reduced the average
delay experienced at this intersection, not only under existing conditions, but in 2010 as
well These facts support the City's findings. (See also, DSEIR IV. H -61.)
2.5 Pacific Avenue /Main Street Intersection: Year 2025 (T /C -13)
Significant Effect. The 2000 EIR found that under year 2020 cumulative conditions, a
significant impact would result at the intersection of Pacific Avenue at Main Street,
which would deteriorate to LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. The current
analysis finds that a very small number of trips generated by the project would use this
intersection.
2.5.1 Mitigation. - None needed.
Findings. The City Council hereby finds this significant impact does not apply to the
Project.
96
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the iden
apply to the Project.
ified impact does not
Impact T /C -10 does not apply to the Project because people in the neighborhoods
adjacent to the intersection of Pacific and Main in the southwest area of Alameda would
travel to and from the Project site employment and service uses, but the trips attributable
to Alameda Landing in the cumulative condition at this location would be less than three
percent (the standard used to determine a significant traffic impact). These facts support
the City's findings. (See also, DSEIR IV.H -62.)
2.6 Tinker Avenue/Webster Street Intersection: Year 2025 (T /C -14)
Significant Effect. The 2000 analysis found that under year 2020 cumulative conditions,
a significant impact would result at the intersection of the Tinker Avenue extension and
Webster Street, which would deteriorate to LOS F during the PM peak hour. The 2000
EIR recommended that the design of the proposed Tinker, Avenue and Webster Street
intersection be modified to include an extra turn lane from Webster Street. Since 2000,
the Tinker Extension Project has undergone a substantial amount of design work and is
currently being reviewed by Caltrans. The current geometry of the intersection' is
designed to accommodate all of the cumulative condition traffic and to operate at an
acceptable level of service.
2.6.1 Mitigation. None needed.
Findings. The City Council hereby finds this significant impact does not apply to the
Project.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact does not
apply to the Project.
Impact T /C -14 does not apply to the Project because, since the 2000 EIR, the Tinker
Extension Project has undergone a substantial amount of design work and is currently
being reviewed by Caltrans. The current geometry of the intersection is designed to
accommodate all of the cumulative condition traffic and to operate at an acceptable level
of service. These facts support the City's findings. (See also, DSEIR IVH -62.)
2.7 Oak Street/5th Street Intersection: Year 2025 (T /C -16)
Significant Effect. The 2000 EIR found that under year 2020 cumulative conditions, a
significant impact would result at the intersection of Oak Street and 5th Street in the City
of Oakland, which would deteriorate to LOS E during the PM peak hour. Current analysis
97
shows that this intersection would operate at an acceptable LOS A in the AM and LOS D
in the PM under 2025 cumulative conditions.
2.7.1 Mitigation. None needed.
Findings. The City Council hereby finds this significant impact does not apply to the
Project.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact does not
apply to the Project.
Impact T /C -16 does not apply to the Project because, because there have been substantial
geometric changes at this intersection since the 2000 EIR analysis was conducted. These
changes include the addition of a dedicated eastbound through lane, as well as the
addition of a dedicated northbound right -turn lane which the 2000 EIR identified as the
mitigation for 2020 impacts. The current analysis shows that, with these improvements,
the intersection would operate at acceptable LOS under 2025 cumulative conditions.
These facts support the City's findings. (See also, DSEIR
3. PUBLIC SERVICES
3.1 Interference with Fire Department Response Plan (PUB -1)
3.1.1 Significant Effect. Development of the proposed Project would interfere with the City of
Alameda Fire Department's Disaster, Response Plan.
Mitigation. None needed.
. 1 .
fote€PKtetallsalpip
Findings. The City Council hereby
Project.
nds this significant impact does not app
98
y to the
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact does not
apply to the Project.
The Alameda Fire Department has determined that the project as currently designed
would not interfere with the City of Alameda Fire Department's Disaster Response Plan,
would not compromise fire safety and the fixed pumping facility is not needed and is not
consistent with their long -term plans for fire prevention in West Alameda.
Solid Waste Generation (PUB -4)
3.1.2 Less Than Significant Effect. Operations of the completed Project would result in an
increase in solid waste generated in the City of Alameda.
Mitigation. None needed.
Findings. The City Council hereby finds this significant impact does not apply to the
Project.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact does not
apply to the Project
Impact PUB -4 does not apply to the Project because of the following facts. By increasing
the residential population at the Project site by 720 residents and decreasing the daytime
population by 2,360 employees (Variant A) or by 1,780 employees (Variant B) as .
compared to the approved project, the Project would change the amount of solid waste
generated on site Specifically, the amount of solid waste generated by residential uses
would increase by approximately 720 pounds per day or approximately 119 metric tons
per year, under either Variant A or B. As for retail, commercial, and health club uses,
under Variant A, the amount of solid waste generated by site employees would decrease
by 12,508 pounds per day, or approximately 2,071 metric tons per year, compared to the
project described in the 2000 EIR. Under Variant B, the amount of solid waste
attributable to retail, commercial, R &D and health club uses would decrease by 9,434
pounds per day or approximately 1,562 metric tons per year, compared to the project
described in the 2000 EIR. The net change pertaining to the amount of solid waste
99
generated by the proposed Project would be a decrease of approximately 11,788 pounds
of solid waste per day, or 1,952 metric tons per year (Variant A), or a decrease of
approximately 8,714 pounds of solid waste per day, or 1,443 metric tons per year
(Variant B). Therefore, the proposed Project would have less impact on the solid waste
flows as compared to the project described by the 2000 EIR. As stated in the 2000 EIR,
the solid waste generated by the proposed Project would be accommodated by the
expanded Altamont landfill and would comply with all federal, state and local regulations
related to solid waste and recycling. Mitigation Measure PUB -4 was required in the 2000
EIR to ensure that no significant impact on solid waste and recycling services results
from the proposed Project, although the impact with respect to the generation of solid
waste from project operation was identified as less than significant. Furthermore, the
mitigation measure was designed to ensure that the Project does not interfere with the
accomplishment of waste diversion goals mandated by the California Waste Management
Act. Since the 2000 EIR, the City adopted the Solid Waste and Recycling Ordinance that
requires that all customers receiving solid waste collection must also have recyclable
materials collected. Therefore, Mitigation Measures PUB -4a and 4b are no longer
needed because the requirements of the mitigation are required by ordinance. These facts
support the City's findings. (See also, DSEIR IV.K- 12 -13.)
3.2 Cumulative Wastewater Flows (UTL -4)
3.2.1 Significant Effect. Under the cumulative condition, the proposed Project would
contribute to wastewater flows expected to exceed the capacity of existing estuary
transport facilities and exceed the NAS Alameda's allocation at the EBMUD Water
Pollution Control Plant (WPCP).
Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure
identified in the FSEIR and incorporated into the Project:
UTL -4: Should the City determine that it needs to further reduce its overall peak flows
into the WPCP, the proposed Project should contribute its fair share of the costs
associated with the design and development of a sewer retention facility or an enhanced
West Alameda Infiltration & Inflow Program.
Findings. The City Council hereby finds that the potential impact of the project on
overall peak flows is no longer potentially significant. Recently completed studies show
that the replacement of all existing on -site sewer facilities will result in an overall
reduction in peak flows due to the fact that the new facilities and the new development
will generate less peak flow than the existing land uses that are utilizing the old sewer
lines, which are experiencing extensive infiltration and inflow. Based upon these studies
the City Council finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the FSEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be
reduced to a less than significant level.
100
The Project is expected to generate substantially less wastewater than the site is currently
generating and substantially less than what was analyzed in the 2000`EIR for the
currently entitled project. The project will result in a reduction in peak flows.
101
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
ATTACHMENT B
i INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") Guideline
Section 15126.6, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project,
but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate
the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable
alternative to a project. Rather is must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible
alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. If a project
alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project,
the decision maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific
economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the project alternative
infeasible. (See CEQA §21002, CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3)). The findings with respect to
the three project alternatives identified in the Supplemental EIR are described in this section.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES AND FINDINGS
A. NO PROJECT /EXISTING CONDITIONS ALTERNATIVE
1. Brief Description
The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative assumes that the proposed Project site would
remain in its existing condition, with continuation of the existing FISC Interim Leasing Program
on a long -term basis. This alternative assumes all other development of the original Master Plan
site (outside the proposed project site) would be developed, or continue to develop, as approved.
This includes 485 single - family homes and 101 multi - family residential units, a 7.0 -acre site
dedicated to the Alameda Unified School District for a 600- student Kindergarten- through - eighth -
grade school, and 15 acres of public open space and neighborhood mini - parks. Approximately
735,000 square feet of existing warehouse and supporting interior space on the proposed project
site could be made available for lease, together with approximately 15 acres of outdoor storage
area ` Existing buildings would be upgraded only as necessary to meet special code requirements
developed for the site by the City of Alameda Building Services and Fire Departments. Existing
vehicular site access and internal circulation would remain and would not be substantially
upgraded. Utilities would remain in place and be repaired and /or upgraded as necessary to serve
the uses that would occur.
2. Comparison to Project
A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and less
than significant impacts of Project is described below.
a. Land Use. The proposed Project's beneficial impact of creating less
intensive uses, eliminating open expanses of pavement, creating a greater
continuity of land use within the project site and surrounding areas, providing
public amenities and a water shuttle landing on the waterfront, and improving the
appearance of the project site would not occur with the No Project / Existing
Conditions Alternative.
b. Public Policy. No direct policy conflicts would result from this
alternative; however, it would fail to achieve many of the goals and objectives of
the local plans applicable to the proposed Project site, including the City's
General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and BWIP Plan, increased housing supply,
improved circulation, improved bicycle facilities; and the San Francisco Bay Plan
objectives for increased public access to the waterfront.
c. Population and Housing. The No Project/ Existing Conditions
Alternative would not develop any of the 300 units of new housing proposed by
the Project. The net loss of vacant housing units as a result of the implementation
of the Bayport portion of the approved Master Plan, which the 2000 EIR indicated
would represent a significant and unavoidable impact, would not be offset by the
new housing proposed as part of the project. Existing employment on the project
site would continue and would be substantially less than would result with the
proposed project.
d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. The No Project / Existing Conditions
Alternative would not include the proposed project provisions for infrastructure
improvements /replacement, site improvements (pervious surfaces), and
implementation of mitigation measures pursuant to new storm water regulations.
Thus, flooding, storm drainage, and water quality problems would continue and
be worse under this Alternative than with the proposed project. Construction-
related water quahty impacts may be reduced compared to the proposed project,
but both the proposed project would be subject to current National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for preparing and
implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize the
discharge of pollutants from the site during construction.
e. Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Occupants of existing buildings would
be subject to seismic hazards, consolidated soils and subsidence, and shrink -swell
potential of soils to a greater degree than would occupants in new buildings
constructed under the proposed Project.
f Hazards. The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative would
result in similar hazards- related impacts as identified for the proposed Project.
While this alternative would not involve the construction of new buildings,
rehabilitation of existing buildings could include demolition and subsurface
activities that could result in hazards from lead - based paint, asbestos- containing
materials, and existing subsurface contaminants.
50120168176v6 2
g. Biology. The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative would
avoid the proposed project's biological resources impacts related to construction
of new storm drainage outfalls and construction activities along the shoreline.
However, the less - than - significant impacts associated with effects on pallid bats,
western mastiff bats, and non - listed special- status nesting raptors and other
nesting birds would occur as existing buildings are reoccupied, reused, and /or
rehabilitated.
h. Traffic and Circulation. The No Project / Existing Conditions
Alternative would avoid proposed Project traffic impacts. As compared to the
proposed project, this alternative would create less demand for alternative
transportation service and bicycle parking, but would not provide a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program, the Bay Trail, the pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, 5th Street, the Mitchell Avenue Extension, or any of the transportation
facilities provided by the proposed project.
i. Air Quality. This alternative would not result in the construction- or
operation - period impacts to air quality the proposed Project would generate.
Transportation conditions would exist primarily as they do today with traffic from
industrial and heavy trucking uses on the site, and therefore traffic- related air
quality emissions within the proposed project site would not change from existing
conditions.
j. Noise. Under this alternative, no construction or demolition would
occur, and no additional vehicular traffic would be introduced in the vicinity.
Accordingly, the related noise impacts would also not be generated.
Transportation conditions would exist primarily as they do today from industrial
and trucking uses on the site, and therefore traffic - generated noise within the
proposed project site would not change from existing conditions.
k. Public Services. The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative
would result in the same or less severe impacts on public services. This alternative
would result in the same or less severe impacts on fire protection and emergency
services, emergency response, and police services. This alternative, however,
would not create a Municipal Services District to fund City services to the site.
This alternative would avoid impacts on schools and recreation. The impacts
associated with the generation of solid waste during operations would remain
significant, as with the proposed Project. Construction- related solid waste,
including solid waste that may be toxic or otherwise non-recyclable, would be
reduced because existing buildings would not be demolished.
1 Utilities. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project / Existing
Conditions Alternative would result in similar impacts related to public utilities,
except for those related to exceedance of wastewater flow allocations.
Improvements proposed by the proposed project to upgrade the wastewater
system and re- direct wastewater flows to avoid exceeding existing sub -basin
allocations in the project area would not occur under this alternative.
50120 \68176v6 3
Additionally, the proposed project proposes to replace existing water distribution
facilities and install new underground electrical and gas systems, and these
provements would not occur under this alternative.
m. Cultural Resources. The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative
would not require extensive demolition or construction. However, utility repairs
and rehabilitation of existing buildings could involve demolition and subsurface
activities that, while minimal, could affect cultural resources. Impacts on cultural
and paleontological resources would be similar to those of the proposed project,
but reduced given the limited construction work anticipated
n. Aesthetics. The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative would
not result in the beneficial aesthetics impact that would occur with the proposed
project. Unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not improve the
continuity between on -site land uses and adjacent new residential and commercial
use. Light and glare would still occur and be visible to existing and adjacent
residential uses.
3. Findings
This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons:
a. The No Project/Existing Conditions Alternative would fail to satisfy
the following objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project
Description, as they pertain to the portions of the existing Master Plan area other than the
Bayport project, the 39 unit affordable rental housing project, and the 62 unit affordable housing
project (which are already under construction):
Eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies in the
Project area, including, but not limited to, abandoned buildings, incompatible land uses,
depreciated or stagnant property values, contamination, and inadequate or deteriorated
public improvements, facilities, and utilities.
Replanning, redesigning, and developing undeveloped and underdeveloped areas
that are improperly utilized to achieve a balanced mix of land uses and create a vibrant
new neighborhood in Alameda.
Expanding and improving the community's supply of housing through the
installation of needed site improvements and the construction of housing, consistent with
the existing density and residential character of Alameda and with existing City of
Alameda policies and standards, including Measure A.
Increasing the City of Alameda's supply of land available for residential
development and increasing the supply of affordable housing in Alameda.
Providing diversity in housing opportunities through compliance with CIC
inclusionary housing policy (i.e., a 25 percent inclusionary housing requirement for the
300 -unit residential development).
50120 \68176v6
Strengthening and diversifying the economic base of the Project area and the
community by adding business park uses and retail uses that will provide new amenities
for Alameda residents, including new shops, restaurants and services.
Achieving job creation and economic development.
Actively seeking and promoting business by providing new retail land uses that
will complement and provide synergies with existing retail development at Webster
Street, the Alameda Towne Centre and other locations within Alameda, in accordance
with the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy.
Facilitating the emergence of commercial - industrial sectors, through improvement
of transportation access to commercial and industrial areas, improvement of safety within
the Project area, and the installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new
commercial and industrial expansion, employment, and economic growth.
Maximizing tax increment, new sales tax, and developing a municipal services
district and other funding mechanisms in order to pay for the public investment in
infrastructure required for economic development in the Project area, and ensuring
compliance with the City's fiscal neutrality policy for the redevelopment and reuse of
former federal facilities.
Emphasizing employment and a mix of economic development opportunities that
complement economic development strategies in other parts of Alameda; and promoting
a jobs - housing balance to the extent practicable.
Seamlessly integrating the Project site into the City of Alameda by: emphasizing
Mixed Use development; ensuring land use compatibility within and surrounding the
Project site; creating the same "small town" character on the Project site which is highly
valued by the existing community; achieving the same human- scale, tree -lined character
of neighborhood walkable streets found throughout the existing City; reflecting the grid
street pattern that is characteristic of the existing City of Alameda; and minimizing
through - traffic on minor residential streets.
Reducing the impact of the automobile and energy consumption by facilitating
public transit opportunities to and within the Project area to the extent feasible; providing
a system of bikeways, parks and pedestrian paths to facilitate access to parks, recreational
areas and the waterfront from all parts of western Alameda, and implementing a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program that will reduce project - related
traffic and associated noise and air quality impacts.
Protecting and improving the waterfront by enhancing views of water and public
access to the waterfront in all development and creatively encouraging the usage of the
waterfront by providing a Waterfront promenade, public art, open space, and other public
amenities.
Providing adequate vehicular access to and within the project site without
impeding access to existing areas of the City.
50120 \68176v6 5
Establishing a comprehensive framework and hierarchy for the overall site to
ensure that basic infrastructure elements will be functionally and aesthetically integrated
throughout the development.
Ensuring that the Project site design is in concert with the established goals,
policies, and objectives of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan.
Integrating the planned community into the existing west Alameda neighborhood
fabric, while at the same time creating a unique setting within the City that has a strong
and unique sense of place.
b. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will
substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental
effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible,
thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this
alternative.
c. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions, the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project would not
be obtained if this alternative were adopted.
d. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the No Project Alternative /
Existing Conditions is not feasible.
B. NO PROJECT / APPROVED MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVE
1. Brief Description
The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative assumes the proposed Project site would
develop as approved under the approved Master Plan and analyzed in the 2000 Catellus Mixed
Use Development EIR. All existing buildings on the proposed project site would be demolished,
and approximately 1.3 million square feet of commercial office / R &D space and supporting
ground -floor retail, along with a waterfront promenade, would be developed. This alternative
assumes all other development in the original Master Plan area (outside the proposed project site)
would be developed, or continue to develop, as approved. This includes 485 single - family
homes and 101 multi- family residential units, a 7.0 -acre site dedicated to the Alameda Unified
School' District for a 600- student kindergarten- through- eighth - grade school, and 15 acres of
public open space and neighborhood mini - parks. Vehicular site access and internal circulation
within the proposed Project site (north of Tinker Avenue) would remain as described in the 2000
EIR and approved by the Master Plan. All infrastructure utility improvements described in the
2000 EIR and included in the Master Plan are assumed to occur under this alternative.
2. Comparison to Project
A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and less
than significant impacts of Project is described below.
50120168176v6 6
a. Land Use The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would
result in a similar beneficial land use impact as identified for the proposed project
by creating less intensive uses, eliminating open expanses of pavement, and
creating greater continuity of land use within the project site and surrounding
areas, compared to existing conditions.
b. Public Policy. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative,
like the proposed Project, would not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with
existing plans and policies. By not providing for residential uses north of Tinker
Avenue, however, this alternative would not fulfill various goals and objectives
for new housing development to the same extent as the proposed project, which
proposes 300 additional housing units.
c. Population and Housing. As discussed under the No Project / Existing
Conditions Alternative, the No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would
not offset the net loss of vacant housing units that would occur overall in the
Master Plan are, which was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in
the 2000 EIR. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would induce
greater housing demand than the proposed Project because it would not provide
the 300 additional housing units proposed by the Project and would create twice
as much job - related housing demand as the proposed Project.
d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. As with the proposed project, the No
Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would implement infrastructure
improvements and replacement, site improvements (impervious surfaces), and
mitigation measures pursuant to new storm water regulations. This alternative
would not include a water shuttle landing and resulting water quality impacts
associated with the potential for the inadvertent discharge of chemicals. As with
the proposed project, impacts related to flooding, storm drainage (construction
period and operations), and water quality would be less than significant with
implementation of identified mitigation measures.
e. Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Potential impacts due to seismic
hazards, consolidated soils and subsidence, and shrink -swell potential of soils
would be the same as the proposed Project.
f. Hazards. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would
result in the same hazards - related impacts as identified for the proposed Project.
g. Biology. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would
have the same biological resources impacts as the proposed project, including
those associated with the construction of new storm drainage outfalls and
construction activities along the shoreline, effects on pallid bats and western
mastiff bats, and effects on non- listed special- status nesting raptors and other
nesting birds.
50120168176v6
h. Traffic and Circulation. The No Project / Approved Master Plan
Alternative, would result in less traffic than the proposed project in the PM peak
hour and the weekend peak hour.
1. Air Quality. The construction activity that would occur under the No
Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would be similar to that of the
proposed Project and would have the same less- than - significant air quality
impact. With less PM and weekend peak traffic resulting from the uses proposed
under this alternative, traffic - related air quality emissions would be reduced but
would remain significant and unavoidable.
j. Noise. Construction activity under the No Project / Approved Master
Plan Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed Project and would have
the same less- than - significant noise impact. With less PM and weekend peak
traffic resulting from the uses proposed under this alternative, less traffic- related
noise would also result compared to the proposed Project.
k. Public Services. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative
generally would have the same impacts related to fire protection and emergency
services, emergency response, solid waste, and police services.
1. Utilities. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would
result in similar utility impacts to the proposed project, although its additional
population would increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, and phone /cable
service: The alternative would also produce more water and wastewater demand,
compared to the proposed Project. With the proposed re- routing of wastewater
that would occur under this alternative, peak wastewater flows may, exceed the
capacity of the existing Mitchell sewer line, as would occur with the proposed
project
m. Cultural Resources. The No Project / Approved Master Plan
Alternative impact on cultural resources would be the same as that identified for
the proposed Project.
n. Aesthetics. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would
result in the same beneficial aesthetics impacts that would occur with the
proposed Project as well as the same light and glare impacts.
3. Findings
This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons:
a. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would satisfy
some of the objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project
Description, but would fail to satisfy the following objectives to the same extent as would the
proposed Project, as they pertain to the portions of the existing Master Plan area other than the
Bayport project and the 62 unit affordable housing project (which are already under
construction):
50120\681'76v6 8
Expanding and improving the community's supply of housing through the
installation of needed site improvements and the construction of housing, consistent with
the existing density and residential character of Alameda and with existing City of
Alameda policies and standards, including Measure A.
Increasing the City of Alameda's supply of land available for residential
development and increasing the supply of affordable housing in Alameda.
Providing diversity in housing opportunities through compliance with CIC
inclusionary housing policy (i.e., a 25 percent inclusionary housing requirement for the
3 00-unit residential development).
Strengthening and diversifying the economic base of the Project area and the
community by adding retail uses that will provide new amenities for Alameda residents,
including new shops, restaurants and services.
Actively seeking and promoting business by providing new retail land uses that
will complement and provide synergies with existing retail development at Webster
Street, the Alameda Towne Centre and other locations within Alameda, in accordance
with the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy.
Maximizing tax increment, new sales tax, and developing a municipal services
district and other funding mechanisms in order to pay for the public investment in
infrastructure required for economic development in the Project area, and ensuring
compliance with the City's fiscal neutrality policy for the redevelopment and reuse of
former federal facilities.
Protecting and improving the waterfront by enhancing views of water and public
access to the waterfront in all development and creatively encouraging the usage of the
waterfront by providing a Waterfront promenade, public art, open space, and other public
amenities.
b. This alternative would have similar impacts to the Project in the areas
of land use, hydrology and water quality, geology, soils and seismicity, hazards and hazardous
materials, biology, public services, utilities, cultural resources and aesthetics and more severe
impacts than the Project in the area of population and housing. In addition, this alternative
would have fewer beneficial impacts than the Project in the area of public policy.
c. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will
substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental
effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible,
thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this
alternative.
d. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions, many of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project
would not be obtained if this alternative were adopted.
50120 \68176v6
e. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the No Project / Approved
Master Plan Alternative is not feasible.
C. REDUCED DEVELOPMENT MITIGATED ALTERNATIVE
1. Brief Description
The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative generally assumes an approximately
66- percent reduction in the amount of development proposed by Variant A of the proposed
Project. Specifically, this alternative would provide for approximately 136,000 square feet of
office space, 102,000 square feet of retail space and approximately 102 housing units. The
alternative would include the 20,000 square feet of health club facilities and the water shuttle
landing platform proposed by the proposed project. As with the proposed Project, this
alternative assumes all other development in the original Master Plan area would be developed,
or continue to develop, as allowed by the 2000 Master Plan.
2. Comparison to Project
A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and
insignificant and insignificant impacts of Project is described below.
a. Land Use. The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative would
produce the same land use changes as described for the proposed project, but with
a reduced amount of development. The alternative would result in the same
beneficial land use impact as identified for the proposed project.
b. Public Policy. The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative
would involve the same types of land uses as the proposed Project; therefore, even
with the reduced overall amount of the development proposed, this alternative
would not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with existing plans and policies
applicable to the proposed Project site.
c. Population and Housing. This alternative would provide fewer
housing units, affordable units, and commercial uses than the Proposed project.'
As a result, the number of housing units, residents, and employees and the amount
of job - related housing demand would be reduced.
d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. As with the proposed project,
impacts related to flooding, storm drainage (construction period and operations),
and water quality would be less than significant with implementation of identified
mitigation measures.
e. Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Although less overall development
would occur under the alternative, potential impacts due to seismic hazards,
consolidated soils and subsidence, and shrink -swell potential of soils would be
similar to those of the proposed Project.
50120 \68176v6 10
f Hazards. Although less development would occur with the Reduced
Development Mitigated Alternative compared to the proposed project, the
alternative would produce the same less - than - significant hazards- related impacts
after implementation of identified mitigation
measures.
g. Biology. Although the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative
would result in less development than the proposed Project, the alternative would
still alter the proposed Project site, including areas along the shoreline. The
alternative would therefore have the same less- than - significant biological
resources impacts as the proposed Project, including those resulting from
construction of new storm drainage outfalls and construction activities along the
shoreline, effects on pallid bats and western mastiff bats, and effects on non - listed
special- status nesting raptors and other nesting birds.
h. Traffic and Circulation. The Reduced Development Mitigated
Alternative would generate less traffic than the proposed Project. The alternative
would avoid the significant impacts of the proposed Project at study intersections
in 2010 and under 2025 cumulative impacts.
i. Air Quality. The construction activity that would occur under the
Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative would be similar to that of the
proposed Project and would have a similar air quality impact. Traffic- related air
quality emissions would be reduced but would represent a significant and
unavoidable impact, as they would with the proposed Project.
J. Noise. The construction activity that would occur under the Reduced
Development Mitigated Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed
Project and would have a similar noise impact. Less traffic- related noise would
result compared to the proposed Project.
k. Public Services. The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative
would have similar impacts related to fire protection and emergency services,
emergency response, solid waste, and police services, because the City's Fiscal
Neutrality Policy would require a Municipal Services District. The reduction in
development would also reduce impacts on solid waste services.
1. Utilities. The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative would
produce less overall development and on -site population and therefore less
demand for water, wastewater electricity, natural gas, and phone /cable service.
Under the alternative, wastewater flow would not exceed the capacity of the
existing Mitchell sewer line, as it would with the proposed project.
m. Cultural Resources. The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative
would involve demolition of existing buildings and typical construction activities,
including subsurface excavation and grading. Impacts on cultural resources
would therefore be similar to those described for the proposed project.
50120 \68176v6
n. Aesthetics. Although the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative
would provide for less overall development than the proposed project, it would
result in the same beneficial aesthetics impact. The same light and glare impacts
would occur with this alternative; however, but would be less severe because the
alternative provides for less overall building area.
3. Findings
This alternative is hereby rejected fo
the following reasons:
a. The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative would satisfy some
of the objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project
Description, but would fail to satisfy the following objectives to the same extent as would the
proposed Project, as they pertain to the portions of the existing Master Plan area other than the
Bayport project, the 39 unit affordable rental housing project, and the 62 unit affordable housing
project (which are already under construction):
Expanding and improving the community's supply of housing through the
installation of needed site improvements and the construction of housing, consistent with
the existing density and residential character of Alameda and with existing City of
Alameda policies and standards, including Measure A.
Increasing the City of Alameda's supply of land available for residential
development and increasing the supply of affordable housing in Alameda.
Providing diversity in housing opportunities through compliance with CIC
inclusionary housing policy (i.e., a 25 percent inclusionary housing requirement for the
300 -unit residential development).
Strengthening and diversifying the economic base of the Project area and the
community by adding business park uses and retail uses that will provide new amenities
for Alameda residents, including new shops, restaurants and services.
Achieving job creation and economic development.
Actively seeking and promoting business by providing new retail land uses that
will complement and provide synergies with existing retail development at Webster
Street, the Alameda Towne Centre and other locations within Alameda, in accordance
with the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy.
Maximizing tax increment, new sales tax, and developing a municipal services
district and other funding mechanisms in order to pay for the public investment in
infrastructure required for economic development in the Project area, and ensuring
compliance with the City's fiscal neutrality policy for the redevelopment and reuse of
former federal facilities.
50120168176v6 12
Emphasizing employment and a mix of economic development opportunities that
complement economic development strategies in other parts of Alameda; and promoting
a jobs- housing balance to the extent practicable.
b. This alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed Project in
the areas of land use, public policy, population and housing, hydrology and water quality,
geology, soils and seismicity, hazards, biology, and cultural resources.
c. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will
substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental
effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible,
thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this
alternative.
d. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions, many of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project
would not be obtained if this alternative were adopted.
e. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the Reduced Development
Mitigated Alternative is not feasible.
50120 \68176v6 13
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
ATTACHMENT B
I INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") Guideline
Section 15126.6, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project,
but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate
the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable
alternative to a project. Rather is must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible
alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. If a project
alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project,
the decision maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific
economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the project alternative
infeasible. (See CEQA §21002, CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3)). The findings with respect to
the three project alternatives identified in the Supplemental EIR are described in this section.
II. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES AND FINDINGS
A. NO PROJECT /EXISTING CONDITIONS ALTERNATIVE
1. Brief Description
The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative assumes that the proposed Project site would
remain in its existing condition, with continuation of the existing FISC Interim Leasing Program
on a long -term basis. This alternative assumes all other development of the original Master Plan
site (outside the proposed project site) would be developed, or continue to develop, as approved.
This includes 485 single - family homes and 101 multi - family residential units, a 7.0 -acre site
dedicated to the Alameda Unified School District for a 600 - student Kindergarten- through - eighth-
grade school, and 15 acres of public open space and neighborhood mini - parks. Approximately
735,000 square feet of existing warehouse and supporting interior space on the proposed project
site could be made available for lease, together with approximately 15 acres of outdoor storage
area. Existing buildings would be upgraded only as necessary to meet special code requirements
developed for the site by the City of Alameda Building Services and Fire Departments. Existing
vehicular site access and internal circulation would remain and would not be substantially
upgraded. Utilities would remain in place and be repaired and /or upgraded as necessary to serve
the uses that would occur.
2. Comparison to Project
A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and less
than significant impacts of Project is described below.
a. Land Use. The proposed Project's beneficial impact of creating less
intensive uses, eliminating open expanses of pavement, creating a greater
continuity of land use within the project site and surrounding areas, providing
public amenities and a water shuttle landing on the waterfront, and improving the
appearance of the project site would not occur with the No Project / Existing
Conditions Alternative.
b. Public Policy. No direct policy conflicts would result from this
alternative; however, it would fail to achieve many of the goals and objectives of
the local plans applicable to the proposed Project site, including the City's
General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, and BWIP Plan, increased housing supply,
improved circulation, improved bicycle facilities; and the San Francisco Bay Plan
objectives for increased public access to the waterfront.
c. Population and Housing. The No Project / Existing Conditions
Alternative would not develop any of the 300 units of new housing proposed by
the Project. The net loss of vacant housing units as a result of the implementation
of the Bayport portion of the approved Master Plan, which the 2000 EIR indicated
would represent a significant and unavoidable impact, would not be offset by the
new housing proposed as part of the project. Existing employment on the project
site would continue and would be substantially less than would result with the
proposed project.
d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. The No Project / Existing Conditions
Alternative would not include the proposed project provisions for infrastructure
improvements /replacement, site improvements (pervious surfaces), and
implementation of mitigation measures pursuant to new storm water regulations.
Thus, flooding, storm drainage, and water quality problems would continue and
be worse under this Alternative than with the proposed project. Construction..
related water quality impacts may be reduced compared to the proposed project,
but both the proposed project would be subject to current National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for preparing and
implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize the
discharge of pollutants from the site during construction.
e. _ Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Occupants of existing buildings would
be subject to seismic hazards, consolidated soils and subsidence, and shrink -swell
potential of soils to a greater degree than would occupants in new buildings
constructed under the proposed Project.
f. Hazards. The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative would
result in similar hazards - related impacts as identified for the proposed Project.
While this alternative would not involve the construction of new buildings,
rehabilitation of existing buildings could include demolition and subsurface
activities that could result in hazards from lead -based paint, asbestos - containing
materials, and existing subsurface contaminants.
50120 \68176v6 2
g. Biology. The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative would
avoid the proposed project's biological resources impacts related to construction
of new storm drainage outfalls and construction activities along the shoreline.
However, the less - than - significant impacts associated with effects on pallid bats,
western mastiff bats, and non - listed special- status nesting raptors and other
nesting birds would occur as existing buildings are reoccupied, reused, and /or
rehabilitated.
h. Traffic and Circulation. The No Project / Existing Conditions
Alternative would avoid proposed Project traffic impacts. As compared to the
proposed project, this alternative would create less demand for alternative
transportation service and bicycle parking, but would not provide a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) program, the Bay Trail, the pedestrian and bicycle
facilities, 5th Street, the Mitchell Avenue Extension, or any of the transportation
facilities provided by the proposed project.
i. Air Quality. This alternative would not result in the construction- or
operation- period impacts to air, quality the proposed Project would generate.
Transportation conditions would exist primarily as they do today with traffic from
industrial and heavy trucking uses on the site, and therefore traffic- related air
quality emissions within the proposed project site would not change from existing
conditions.
j. Noise. Under this alternative, no construction or demolition would
occur, and no additional vehicular traffic would be introduced in the vicinity.
Accordingly, the related noise impacts, would also not be generated.
Transportation conditions would exist primarily as they do today from industrial
and trucking uses on the site, and therefore traffic - generated noise within the
proposed project site would not change from existing conditions.
k. Public Services. The No Project/ Existing Conditions Alternative
would result in the same or less severe impacts on public services. This alternative
would result in the same or less severe impacts on fire protection and emergency
services, emergency response, and police services. This alternative, however,
would not create a Municipal Services District to fund City services to the site.
This alternative would avoid impacts on schools and recreation. The impacts
associated with the generation of solid waste during operations would remain
significant, as with the proposed Project. Construction - related solid waste,
including solid waste that may be toxic or otherwise non - recyclable, would be
reduced because existing buildings would not be demolished.
1. Utilities. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project / Existing
Conditions Alternative would result in similar impacts related to public utilities,
except for those related to exceedance of wastewater flow allocations.
Improvements proposed by the proposed project to upgrade the wastewater
system and re- direct wastewater flows to avoid exceeding existing sub -basin
allocations in the project area would not occur under this alternative.
50120 \68176v6 3
Additionally, the proposed project proposes to replace existing water distribution
facilities and install new underground electrical and gas systems, and these
improvements would not occur under this alternative.
m. Cultural Resources. The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative
would not require extensive demolition or construction. However, utility repairs
and rehabilitation of existing buildings could involve demolition and subsurface
activities that, while minimal, could affect cultural resources. Impacts on cultural
and paleontological resources would be similar to those of the proposed project,
but reduced given the limited construction work anticipated
n. Aesthetics. The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative would
not result in the beneficial aesthetics impact that would occur with the proposed
project. Unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not improve the
continuity between on -site land uses and adjacent new residential and commercial
use. Light and glare would still occur and be visible to existing and adjacent
residential uses.
3. Findings
This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons:
a The No Project/Existing Conditions Alternative would fail to satisfy
the following objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project
Description, as they pertain to the portions of the existing Master Plan area other than the
Bayport project, the 39 unit affordable rental housing project, and the 62 unit affordable housing
project (which are already under construction):`
Eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies in the
Project area, including, but not limited to, abandoned buildings, incompatible land uses,
depreciated or stagnant property values, contamination, and inadequate or deteriorated
public improvements, facilities, and utilities.
Replanning, redesigning, and developing undeveloped and underdeveloped areas
that are improperly utilized to achieve a balanced mix of land uses and create a vibrant
new neighborhood in Alameda.
Expanding and improving the community's supply of housing through the
installation of needed site improvements and the construction of housing, consistent with
the existing density and residential character of Alameda and with existing City of
Alameda policies and standards. including Measure A.
Increasing the City of Alameda's supply of land available for residential
development and increasing the supply of affordable housing in Alameda.
Providing diversity in housing opportunities through compliance with CIC
inclusionary housing policy (i.e., a 25 percent inclusionary housing requirement for the
300 -unit residential development).
50120 \68176v6 4
Strengthening and diversifying the economic base of the Project area and the
community by adding business park uses and retail uses that will provide new amenities
for Alameda residents, including new shops, restaurants and services.
Achieving job creation and economic development.
Actively seeking and promoting business by providing new retail land uses that
will complement and provide synergies with existing retail development at Webster
Street, the Alameda Towne Centre and other locations within Alameda, in accordance
with the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy.
Facilitating the emergence of commercial - industrial sectors, through improvement
of transportation access to commercial and industrial areas, improvement of safety within
the Project area, and the installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new
commercial and industrial expansion, employment, and economic growth.
Maximizing tax increment, new sales tax, and developing a municipal services
district and other funding mechanisms in order to pay for the public investment in
infrastructure required for economic development in the Project, area, and ensuring
compliance with the City's fiscal neutrality policy for the redevelopment and reuse of
former federal facilities.
Emphasizing employment and a mix of economic development opportunities that
complement economic development strategies in other parts of Alameda; and promoting
a jobs - housing balance to the extent practicable.
Seamlessly integrating the Project site into the City of Alameda, by emphasizing
Mixed Use development; ensuring land use compatibility within and surrounding the
Project site; creating the same "small town" character on the Project site which is highly
valued by the existing community; achieving the same human- scale, tree -lined character
of neighborhood walkable streets found throughout the existing City; reflecting the grid
street pattern that is characteristic of the existing City of Alameda; and minimizing
through - traffic on minor residential streets.
Reducing the impact of the automobile and energy consumption by facilitating
public transit opportunities to and within the Project area to the extent feasible; providing
a system of bikeways, parks and pedestrian paths to facilitate access to parks, recreational
areas and the waterfront from all parts of western Alameda, and implementing a
Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program that will reduce project- related
traffic and associated noise and air quality impacts.
Protecting and improving the waterfront by enhancing views of water and public
access to the waterfront in all development and creatively encouraging the usage of the
waterfront by providing a Waterfront promenade, public art, open space, and other public
amenities.
Providing adequate vehicular access to and within the project site without
mpeding access to existing areas of the City.
50120 \68176v6 5
Establishing a comprehensive framework and hierarchy for the overall site to
ensure that basic infrastructure elements will be functionally and aesthetically integrated
throughout the development.
Ensuring that the Project site design is in concert with the established goals,
policies, and objectives of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan.
Integrating the planned community into the existing west Alameda neighborhood
fabric, while at the same time creating a unique setting within the City that has a strong
and unique sense of place.
b. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will
substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental
effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible,
thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this
alternative.
c. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions, the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project would not
be obtained if this alternative were adopted.
d. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the No Project Alternative /
Existing Conditions is not feasible.
. B.
NO PROJECT / APPROVED MASTER PLAN ALTERNATIVE
.Brief Description
The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative assumes the proposed Project site would
develop as approved under the approved Master Plan and analyzed in the 2000 Catellus Mixed
Use Development EIR. All existing buildings on the proposed project site would be demolished,
and approximately 1.3 million square feet of commercial office / R &D space and supporting
ground -floor retail, along with a waterfront promenade, would be developed. This alternative
assumes all other development in the original Master Plan area (outside the proposed project site)
would be developed, or continue to develop, as approved. This includes 485 single - family
homes and 101 multi - family residential units, a 7.0 -acre site dedicated to the Alameda Unified
School District for a 600- student kindergarten- through- eighth -grade school, and 15 acres of
public open space and neighborhood mini - parks. Vehicular site access and internal circulation
within the proposed Project site (north of Tinker Avenue) would remain as described in the 2000
EIR and approved by the Master Plan. All infrastructure utility improvements described in the
2000 EIR and included in the Master Plan are assumed to occur under this alternative.
2. Comparison to Project
A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and less
than significant impacts of Project is described below.
50120 \68176v6 6
a. Land Use. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would
result in a similar beneficial land use impact as identified for the proposed project
by creating less intensive uses, eliminating open expanses of pavement, and
creating greater continuity of land use within the project site and surrounding
areas, compared to existing conditions.
b. Public Policy. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative,
like the proposed Project, would not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with
existing plans and policies. By not providing for residential uses north of Tinker
Avenue, however, this alternative would not fulfill various goals and objectives
for new housing development to the same extent as the proposed project, which
proposes 300 additional housing units.`
c. Population and Housing. As discussed under the No Project / Existing
Conditions Alternative, the No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would
not offset the net loss of vacant housing units that would occur overall in the
Master Plan are, which was identified as a significant and unavoidable impact in
the 2000 EIR. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would induce
greater housing demand than the proposed Project because it would not provide
the 300 additional housing units proposed by the Project and would create twice
as much job - related housing demand as the proposed Project.
d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. As with the proposed project, the No
Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would implement infrastructure
improvements and replacement, site improvements (impervious surfaces), and
mitigation measures pursuant to new storm water regulations. This alternative
would not include a water shuttle landing and resulting water quality impacts
associated with the potential for the inadvertent discharge of chemicals. As with
the proposed project, impacts related to flooding, storm drainage (construction
period and operations), and water quality would be less than significant with
implementation of identified mitigation measures.
e. Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Potential impacts due to seismic
hazards, consolidated soils and subsidence, and shrink -swell potential of soils
would be the same as the proposed Project.
f. ' Hazards. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would
result in the same hazards-related impacts as identified for the proposed Project.
g. Biology. The No Project /Approved Master Plan Alternative would
have the same biological resources impacts as the proposed project, including
those associated with the construction of new storm drainage outfalls and
construction activities along the shoreline, effects on pallid bats and western
mastiff bats, and effects on non - listed special - status nesting raptors and other
nesting birds.
50120168176v6 7
h. Traffic and Circulation. The No Project / Approved Master Plan
Alternative, would result in less traffic than the proposed project in the PM peak
hour and the weekend peak hour.
i. Air Quality. The construction activity that would occur under the No
Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would be similar to that of the
proposed Project and would have the same less - than - significant' air quality
impact. With less PM and weekend peak traffic resulting from the uses proposed
under this alternative, traffic- related air quality emissions would be reduced but
would remain significant and unavoidable.
j. Noise. Construction activity under the No Project / Approved Master
Plan Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed Project and would have
the same less - than - significant noise impact. With less PM and weekend peak
traffic resulting from the uses proposed under this alternative, less traffic- related
noise would also result compared to the proposed Project.
k. Public Services. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative
generally would have the same impacts related to fire protection and emergency
services, emergency response, solid waste, and police services.
1. Utilities.` The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would
result in similar utility impacts to the proposed project, although its additional
population would increase the demand for electricity, natural gas, and phone /cable
service. The alternative would also produce more water and wastewater demand,
compared to the proposed Project. With the proposed re- routing of wastewater
that would occur under this alternative, peak wastewater flows may exceed the
capacity of the existing Mitchell sewer line, as would occur with the proposed
project
m. Cultural Resources. The No Project / Approved Master Plan
Alternative impact on cultural resources would be the same as that identified for
the proposed Project.
n. Aesthetics. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would
result in the same beneficial aesthetics impacts that would occur with the
proposed Project as well as the same light and glare impacts.
3. Findings
This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons:
a. The No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative would satisfy
some of the objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project
Description, but would fail to satisfy the following objectives to the same extent as would the
proposed Project, as they pertain to the portions of the existing Master Plan area other than the
Bayport project and the 62 unit affordable housing project (which are already under
construction):
50120 \68176v6
Expanding and improving the community's supply of housing through the
installation of needed site improvements and the construction of housing, consistent with
the existing density and residential character of Alameda and with existing City of
Alameda policies and standards, including Measure A.
Increasing the City of Alameda's supply of land available for residential
development and increasing the supply of affordable housing in Alameda.
Providing diversity in housing opportunities through compliance with CIC
inclusionary housing policy (i.e., a 25 percent inclusionary housing requirement for the
300 -unit residential development).
Strengthening and diversifying the economic base of the Project area and the
community by adding retail uses that will provide new amenities! for Alameda residents,
including new shops, restaurants and services.
Actively seeking and promoting business by providing new retail land uses that
will complement and provide synergies with existing retail development at Webster
Street, the Alameda Towne Centre and other locations within Alameda, in, accordance
with the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy.
Maximizing tax increment, new sales tax, and developing a municipal services
district and other funding mechanisms in order to pay for the public investment in
infrastructure required for economic development in the Project area, and ensuring
compliance with the City's fiscal neutrality policy for the redevelopment and reuse of
former federal facilities.
Protecting and improving the waterfront by enhancing views of water and public
access to the waterfront in all development and creatively encouraging the usage of the
waterfront by providing a Waterfront promenade, public art, open space, and other public
amenities.
b. This alternative would have similar impacts to the Project in the areas
of land use, hydrology and water quality, geology, soils and seismicity, hazards and hazardous
materials, biology, public services, utilities, cultural resources and aesthetics and more severe
impacts than the Project in the area of population and housing. In addition, this alternative
would have fewer beneficial impacts than the Project in the area of public policy.
c. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will
substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental
effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible,
thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this
alternative.
d. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions, many of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project
would not be obtained if this alternative were adopted.
50120 \68176v6 9
e. Based an the foregoing, the City finds that the No Project / Approved
Master Plan Alternative is not feasible.
C. REDUCED DEVELOPMENT MITIGATED ALTERNATIVE
1. Brief Description
The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative generally assumes an approximately
66- percent reduction in the amount of development proposed by Variant A of the proposed
Project. Specifically, this alternative would provide for approximately 136,000 square feet of
office space, 102,000 square feet of retail space and approximately 102 housing units. The
alternative would include the 20,000 square feet of health club facilities and the water shuttle
landing platform proposed by the proposed project. As with the proposed Project, this
alternative assumes all other development in the original Master Plan area would be developed,
or continue to develop, as allowed by the 2000 Master Plan.
2. Comparison to Project
A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and
insignificant and insignificant impacts of Project is described below.
a. Land Use The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative would
produce the same land use changes as described for the proposed project, but with
a reduced amount of development. The alternative would result in the same
beneficial land use impact as identified for the proposed project.
b. Public Policy. _ The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative
would involve the same types of land uses as the proposed Project; therefore, even
with the reduced overall amount of the development proposed, this alternative
would not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with existing plans and policies
applicable to the proposed Project site.
c. Population and Housing. This alternative would provide fewer
housing units, affordable units, and commercial uses than the Proposed project.
As a result, the number of housing units, residents, and employees and the amount
of job - related housing demand would be reduced.
d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. As with the proposed project,
impacts related to flooding, storm drainage (construction period and operations),
and water quality would be less than significant with implementation of identified
mitigation measures.
50120 \68176v6
e. Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Although less overall development
would occur under the alternative, potential impacts due to seismic hazards,
consolidated soils and subsidence, and shrink -swell potential of soils would be
similar to those of the proposed Project.
10
50120 \68176v6
f. Hazards. Although less development would occur with the Reduced
Development Mitigated Alternative compared to the proposed project, the
alternative would produce the same less- than - significant hazards - related impacts
after implementation of identified mitigation measures.
g. Biology. Although the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative
would result in less development than the proposed Project, the alternative would
still alter the proposed Project site, including areas along the shoreline. The
alternative would therefore have the same less - than - significant biological
resources impacts as the proposed Project, including those resulting from
construction of new storm drainage outfalls and construction activities along the
shoreline, effects on pallid bats and western mastiff bats, and effects on non- listed
special- status nesting raptors and other nesting birds.
h. Traffic and Circulation. The Reduced Development Mitigated
Alternative would generate less traffic than the proposed Project. The alternative
would avoid the significant impacts of the proposed Project at study intersections
in 2010 and under 2025 cumulative impacts.
Air Quality. The construction activity that would occur under the
Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative would be similar to that of the
proposed Project and would have a similar air quality impact. Traffic- related air
quality` emissions would be reduced but would represent a significant and
unavoidable impact, as they would with the proposed Project.
j. Noise. The construction activity that would occur under the Reduced
Development Mitigated Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed
Project and would have a similar noise impact. Less traffic - related noise would
result compared to the proposed Project.
k. Public Services. The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative
would have similar impacts related to fire protection and emergency services,
emergency response, solid waste, and police services, because the City's Fiscal
Neutrality Policy would require a Municipal Services District. The reduction in
development would also reduce impacts on solid waste services.
1. Utilities. The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative would
produce less overall development and on -site population and therefore less
demand for water, wastewater electricity, natural gas, and phone /cable service.
Under the alternative, wastewater flow would not exceed the capacity of the
existing Mitchell sewer line, as it would with the proposed project.
m. Cultural Resources. The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative
would involve demolition` of existing buildings and typical construction activities,
including subsurface excavation and grading. Impacts on cultural resources
would therefore be similar to those described for the proposed project.
11
n. Aesthetics. Although the Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative
would provide for less overall development than the proposed project, it would
result in the same beneficial aesthetics impact. The same light and glare impacts
would occur with this alternative; however, but would be less severe because the
alternative provides for less overall building area
3. Findings
This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons:
a. The Reduced Development Mitigated Alternative would satisfy some
of the objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project
Description, but would fail to satisfy the following objectives to the same extent as would the
proposed Project, as they pertain to the portions of the existing Master Plan area other than the
Bayport project, the 39 unit affordable rental housing project, and the 62 unit affordable housing
project (which are already under construction):
Expanding and improving the community's supply of housing through the
installation of needed site improvements and the construction of housing, consistent with
the existing density and residential character of Alameda and with existing City of
Alameda policies and standards, including Measure A.
Increasing the City of Alameda's supply of land available for residential
development and increasing the supply of affordable housing in Alameda.
Providing diversity in housing opportunities through compliance with CIC
inclusionary housing policy (i.e., a 25 percent inclusionary housing requirement for the
300 -unit residential development).
Strengthening and diversifying the economic base of the Project area and the
community by adding business park uses and retail uses that will provide new amenities
for Alameda residents, including new shops, restaurants and services.
Achieving job creation and economic development.
Actively seeking and promoting business by providing new retail land uses that
will complement and provide synergies with existing retail development at Webster
Street, the Alameda Towne Centre and other locations within Alameda, in accordance
with the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy.
Maximizing tax increment, new sales tax, and developing a municipal services
district and other funding mechanisms in order to pay for the public investment in
infrastructure required for economic development in the Project area, and ensuring
compliance with the City's fiscal neutrality policy for the redevelopment and reuse of
former federal facilities.
50120 \68176v6 12
Emphasizing employment and a mix of economic development opportunities that
complement economic development strategies in other parts of Alameda; and promoting
a j obs- housing balance to the extent practicable.
b. This alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed Project in
the areas of land use, public policy, population and housing, hydrology and water quality,
geology, soils and seismicity, hazards, biology, and cultural resources.
c. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will
substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental
effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible,
thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this
alternative.
d. As more fully discussed, in the Statement of Overriding Considera-
tions, many of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project
would not be obtained if this alternative were adopted.
e. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the Reduced Development
Mitigated Alternative is not feasible.
50120168176v6
13
ATTACHMENT C
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM
Bayport /Alameda Landing Mixed Use
Development Project
Introduction
The California Environmental Quality Act, in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code,
requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring or reporting program when it approves or carries
out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified that identifies
one or more significant effects on the environment. The purpose of a mitigation monitoring
program is to ensure that measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant environmental
impacts are implemented. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been
prepared to comply with the requirements of Section 21081.6, and describes the mitigation
monitoring and reporting process for the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project, as modified
for the Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project. The City of Alameda views the
monitoring program as a working guide to facilitate the implementation of mitigation measures.
Table 1 presents the mitigation measures identified for the revised project. Mitigation measures
are numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which the mitigation measures
pertain, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, NOI -1 is the first mitigation measure
identified in the noise analysis.
AES = Aesthetics
AQ = Air Quality
BIO = Biological Resources
CUL = Cultural Resources
GEO = Geology, Soils and Seismicity
HAZ = Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HYD = Hydrology and Storm Drainage
NOI = Noise
PUB = Public Services
T/C = Traffic, Circulation and Parking
UTL = Utilities and Service Systems
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project
Roles and Responsibilities
As the lead agency under CEQA, the City of Alameda is required to monitor the proposed project
to ensure that the adopted mitigation measures are implemented effectively. The City will be
responsible for ensuring full compliance with the provisions of this monitoring program and has
primary responsibility for implementation of the monitoring program, although it is permitted to
delegate this responsibility to other public agencies and private entities. The purpose of this
monitoring program is to document that the mitigation measures adopted by the City of Alameda
are implemented by the responsible parties, which include:
City
CIC
B
ALC developer
ALR developer
AUSD
City of Alameda
Coin
unity Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda
Developer of Bayport
Developer of Alameda Landing Mixed Use Commercial Project on
Master Plan Sub -Areas 1, 2 and 3
Developer of Alameda Landing Mixed Use Residential Project on
Master Plan Sub -Areas 4a and b
Alameda Unified School District
This MMRP identifies variety of mitigation measures for which ALC developer and /or ALR
developer are identified as the "Party Responsible for Funding" The CIC is required to
reimburse ALC developer for some of these expenditures on the terms and conditions established
in the AL DDA. Nothing in this MMRP shall alter the obligations of the parties as set forth in the
AL DDA.
Additional definitions:
Affordable Housing The completed 62 -unit affordable housing site adjacen
Site Bayport site
AL Backbone
Infrastructure
AL DDA
AL Development
Agreements
ALC site
to the
Backbone Infrastructure for ALC site and ALR site (as defined in
the AL DDA)
Disposition and Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed
Use Project)
Development Agreement (Alameda Landing Mixed Use
Commercial Project) and Development Agreement (Alameda
Landing Mixed Use Residential Project)
Master Plan Sub -Areas 1, 2 and 3 (Alameda Landing Mixed Use
Commercial Project site)
AL MSD
ALR site
Bayport Backbone
Infrastructure
Bayport DDA
Bayport site
Future Housing
Authority Sites
Master Plan
Multifamily
Housing Site
Multifamily Sites
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Alameda Landing Mixed Use Development Project
Alameda Landing Municipal Services District (as defined in the AL
DDA)
Master Plan Sub -Area 4a and b (Alameda Landing Mixed Use
Residential Project site)
Backbone Infrastructure for Bayport site as defined in Bayport
DDA
Disposition and Development Agreement for the Sale and
Development of the FISC and East Housing Sites, dated June 16,
2000, as amended
Bayport Alameda residential project site (described in the Bayport
DDA)
Future Alameda Landing residential sites developed with
multifamily housing consistent with the Clayton Guyton Settlement
Agreement
Bayport/Alameda Landing Project Master Plan
The 39 -unit affordable housing site located at 401 Stargell Avenue
The Affordable Housing Site, the Future Housing Authority Sites
and the Multifamily Housing Site
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Table 1 presents a compilation of the Mitigation Measures in the certified SEIR. The purpose of
the table is to provide a single comprehensive list of mitigation measures, implementation and
oversight responsibility, and timing.
Because the SEIR is a Supplemental EIR for an ongoing project, some of the identified
Mitigation Measures already have been fully or partially implemented. Mitigation measures, or
portions thereof, which already have been implemented are indicated in italics.
Because the Bayport residential project component of the Catellus Mixed Use Development
Project is not proposed to be amended and is the subject of a Development Agreement, mitigation
measures from the 2000 MMRP that are being revised with respect to the Alameda Landing
project are not being revised with respect to the Bayport project. Instead, in the case of new or
revised mitigation measures, the Bayport project remains subject to the mitigation measures
contained in the 2000 MMRP, which are attached to this MMRP as Table 2. Mitigation measures
in Table 2 that have been completed are identified as completed.
3
E
0)
2
a)
0.
*-E
0
c
0
0
0)
Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing
0
C
< Ow
E
CD .c
0 E
8
. rai
0
o w
Q_ E
CL 0 0
0.
ZL-a *C>.. E
Ca <
Z
o :a
0 o.
tn
c
0
.at o.
i=
Mitigation Measures
4 - .
0
t
a)
E ..-•
Q. C
o .z5
1:3 a) CL
w >
a) a) (a
0. , a)
E 5 2
o a a)
(...) n <
o
a)
a) 0
o.. 0
o
0 0
-o
0
E
0
0) 0) 13
(7) Z .0(0 a)
a) at =
a)
o °
c ) C '`E'
al .c ic ca < 4:2 c
as g t ;‘ al as V 2
-5 'ti
o"a co > ---•
cior,° xcLa9 z<,.. ;t1) (Ito° < '2 lig g
........ o o
a) tp, 2 0
1 a) ...., ...a
c o.
o--. •••••• •
Pco :3 ._ ..•••
......,,o 0,0a)0c
..... „. ..i.t, ,, . _ :•,., ,
.Z., E 0 *-• 0 .2 0 ca ° E
o .z al 0 -o o co
-- ca
0 0 8 a)-04-om Easa<
• l .. 0 2 03 0
-t-•;.0.....21:1-g 80:2.-a)
a) il) a) at
c .--, 0 0 o) 0, .. , •..- g
't7) 2 o
= ca. 0.:%'
u...
o , e
s
c
° = 2
0
D1 aP
c ,
.... )
0. 0. •
0 0
CL
E
2
c
0
•0
0)
c
0
5
c
0
5
-13"
0
0
0
z
0
611 a.
uj
03Q
0
I--
ye
0
2
0
1"—:
0
2
a)
Reporting or Monitoring Method and
c
0
tr,
a- C '0
OW a)
a) E 0
.c 0 0.
E a E
0
F.: 0
Mitigation Measur
0.
E
0
C.)
z Qj ct)
(75
0. ca c
8v.EQE
tp) to 4:3
03 -C3 .0
-, to z .to
• „ 0 c6.,
z e E c
0 E tz). Is" 0 0 o
E 0 4..
e
*t1 •cZ 0 -0 w CII
a) uj 0 .4-, 0 a) ,ca
472 ccs
4...St_s to ca. Al)
-C las E 0.e e
u 0
0 47)
fa) la) E e CO 0 ..43
CI)
'cc CO
E
§ 0
" (,)
'2) CD .513. SD. 0.
o
W e
0 0 r
CO
(I) 1.. iz'r ,••• +%.• 0 (A CC to
(4 '1:7
(-) ^
'os ea
• • -o 4, as co.v) z 4. .0 a)
.0)
° vc>iE
2
o 81)
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
00.
,
8..
0)
cc
.0
0
0
2 0
0
ca
IE
'EP
2
0
z
0
U.J
-3 ILI
aa
1-0 z
0
z
0
1-
z
0
z
0
2
2
Reporting or Monitoring Me
0 0)
0
8 is
0 =
as
XI
00 .€2 0 II.
tnE o g
0
. a)
'c Ea) g
0- a) a
W
MO
Ci-
CL
IC
• "
a)
• at
W>01
-02v
c 0» c
co a
w ore
• -01
CCU'
• E
• > .0
>
20SC
C 0
Cl< 0 b-
(t/
2 0 E 2
c
.,•▪ coo
o 0.0))
0-
ar..6 0
tg(C (.9
-W
0 0 . 5 E m
45
= 0
F.;
4.. a ) 02 C ...... 0 0 03 0 • ... ... C . . -
. G (1 / 0 =C0(13(SC>g 0 ti 2 o t 2
02 L..tu. U. E.2 rg ,s-C •C‘, C t Ca g
ael.0.-.06›,..00-5280m8
cLa.mwiica2m 00,00.
6. F.g,ca -a2 a ta1t52ia2. af. 000 t a u_ co 050 . E 3 t
-1 0.
4) <
a.-0
c
Zacut
> c
CD 0 a-
-a w 17)
<
0 C.) o
-J
g<mEo
-J
_J
0
< . L. 0
Z
.6 '4.5
0
I--
t..
CI 4-
• CICD ,...
0 0
L. 0
8 6
4...._1 cL
8
C,co c C
c
)
8 ma) . .y g0 •
a
,E >c 0 0a 3
,0 , <
-gO. -C°
�0)
■a c.0'00 0 o o>, --.> 0 .,
1:t
•8a CC 100'6 3 t 0 ,EI f2 -) 8 v< a n 1c;_-44 , . 3 w 0.0)D aC 0 a0 1-5 0 et> ac > 0 ° ,a -3 °E 4 > a 4gc w o L. 4) 40) L. 0 2 c o c2g 2 0 , -2a 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 n to 8 2 com co °„.0-' IL ) 0 < ° S -I Ca _, -. 4- 0 -J - ci ,,, t aw = .. (1 A . -2 - ta.? <<ME0 << ) .
<-02 <<m_So << mcm=m020.1
w a)
co
0 a ,? = o w 0
co=
t ca .1-,' 5 .0 .......0 ,_ .c co
u) c ct.- co a) °
ci .0 .-, 0 a) as a) Eoo ai "0 0 y _-
a) :c g°0 SIF=t0 CIE=
2.7 -cw
=cm-2 cum_04_0gl,c;
..,,c_ 0,=-0-cc
.0
> co cgsgelaZ§02g6.0.1
E?'FcLtw.J-13:0a1-1"--Em ,..5- 0p762..,2-2013(g2.5.50-E22.52g=
c .
ti)'..?.".,V1v3)low43:,141),1811.-NO
..E eL ‘iti .c 'ff 0. 4:-; .2 ci. oor., :)-_.• et; t.7) g
oc ‘ta tw 46 com rip' E. '„, i 2 .., t5= 8.-. fk E :80 It E 2
o .aw To co.c9.5 c -K .00--0 0 o .o _, as c :a w a) co
0=17imo.-0-017-_,=75.0
.12).0 0. ta 4-- 0 ., 0 L- 0 4! 0 4... 4: 6- CU .E
....0-- e.,E coa ,,,c' 013 -.0 2 o 0_ _ co
(0 ..-L-.c.utt -wacca z,-E).-.,w
wco• 4F8'.cs213-12-59.0
eta'"..2'520=Mbc_c-65-0-0.20.0
000130.30 -02 20°T) ai Eat .1.1 t S ID i cli i ,&31-- 2.! c7:/co .211 -,,..2
thg *60 0° ,c -5 -43> -50 52- g. 4.4° 7- ECL -CO = i-; 4-.."8 0 ">. -4:' ,:cf?' 6. 72 0 'al o 8 .R „, t
-0-fs C > 01 2).-■ al . 0 e 'Z -'" C &') 42 0 (..5-0.6"(122'20.15Vuiill2=.C278
- •- - CD • LL., -0 0 a) ,.., _ .1.1
'2 .1-,51 a2", Q.2 ,---(1) 2 *ea -ccl-ts."' ac:L.-au3 :oCi () Lif) 0u) '.7ii- co -.2ga=a5....c.0..2>=E2.-b-s't
0>E>,00.49..0(Bmopc)°w2
-0
t 2). C "w---°Fir)2ra".(7)g"900-2egt..glic
0• 0 e a .0 „_ 8 2 ET928-.g'Vflg2Z0--Eigg8ILLICE
a)
0=1.,50.(1--50,401a.A.....*0-1Sma 2.92'AwmgliTai-ct20-5.--211-6
- .0 :0- . to 0 8 et; 0 0 0 (1. il • .,,_ „. z
C 0 C • 0
•it" . 6 1 ) ..., 2 g .2 0.03 -fu .LL-..ens..-.) ...,-0 •,...0 4...0 E8 > - t -0 a 0 c -6 0 v.,
<1' .°Tj'r-li.,%.20°-08w082
.-L:', 0 -0 0
01102 -E -`--- • • 0 (I) .c - > > c o 0 c
.00000m-0 00 cc
cSatavecZ0-0(1)E"o0F
co00aw 0) ,,,,C C Et 4.-1 C
0)0.1.7.:EE'0:74M>:.°4.42.Q° .0 '0, 0,, 00cX(0.-. ao ..4 .-- =
y) 0 , ,... .0 - o .., 2 0 0 ci.) 0
-0 o).,4- all 0 > ., 0 ^ as 0
aC-C (-).g. 0 COD. V) " - ,-. C ■- 2 ...... 6-
O 0) „„ 0 0 0-- - .,..,-..„ 0 ...- .....,..., >13 o.9. -0 Zu g a)
a) .t u
.0 • E - 2 . 0 to....... 0, 0) 0 >, ra - •E'
° .---- ''' -6 C °
""'Cl.'"'Ectmeomcvio!S0-0250
o 0 cr, c ca ,.c .... a) -o co
,..co04-o com>oc"Vt 00-,- .00,.
2 1,-00.0=-.-->.....-00 r.,00, c.-0 .....c __
i-s 2 = ..a"_ c •-" a 2 ,.. .....0 Lu „.0 g 0 0 c.).-1E1.71VP722"0°'-;"82mEaomo
1- m 44 0 0 a 1E ig -0 ae ..c1 Lc CC Lc ._ a= 0 - ., - - m• CI "c .0 az) a w ..E 0 -a 0
o
i5
..... a) cL '-E -c
8 Zca' 02212
CL V 03 2 < 6 a)
o o c- 0 0 C'40
0
>w
>-, a 0 ....
° 0 o
Q Q w
-J -I "- C CU 4-• Ca 0
< < MMM.E.0002C\i
7C-5
tigation Measure
City /CIC for Tinker
-C)
C 0
co 9--
0-a
a
0,2
0 0_
01- t
_J 4-•-• c
<op
0.
2
0
6
uj
rog
CC
coE
0
0.
C
B
2
0
C
0
2
'Fs
a)
C
tia
0
0
0
0
z
a.
Ce
e- 0
LU
123
0
0
2
0
.11t
2
en
C
- o
C
Reporting or Monitoring Method
C
C
o
E
C
E
Mitigation Measures
C 0
,_, t-
a)
o 0 -
'0 **
0 M C g 6% rta. al .o
"t5-- OrD a .-c mc CLIC 0 a) ocn 3tu 1,3 cc:;') -.8 :tgr'" IL' .9.2 c -c • 0 o -5 n'... 0 .0
= 0 F.L2
i4 -a
w
6
.9). o c 15. c 0 8 0 a)
a) .2 4., 0 03 . ,r_s, 8 > „, co fp . ....c a,. .... . • co
re ..-. 0 ' , n 412 ,0 , • 49 1:3cD -.-s
-g o a 0 .5)- 0 a 0 0 '5 2 c
0 Cl..)
a. l cam --„ 0 '- ti a) cr 0 .0 0-= tc 22 .92 oi 8
0 = - a. 03 ''' CD 0 ".". TA E 0 0 s" „0 , -0 as c 0 E 0 c -a ca c
'5 u) c0_ c a 0..-; env., c - a) E 0 .- -a -c - ED_ 'ID' Q • - .0 0 C
(DO 0 .00*°°03'-C 0° WO,
*-' M (343 E0(1) c NE03 =
RI -0 a) trz 4.. •:- L) a) = V) ,_ 0 c) 0 0 E
..= .- E 0 E ^ a) a) 3 le - •-• .-
'cri. O. t 0
a) 7D *0.- „a° 'N'' *-C L12 s2'- 13C .0`.• E a) '"co :c- .cc
a 0 0
(a 0 a) a) -C :u w a) a) a= o ' c = 0 .2 t15 8 Z -2 °
,0,....1._ 0) ()) = ._ .. W , - > ta ..., 0 0 ,.... , .. ...4 ,
$2 "C E a- "rti .--o="0° ca cnC0.8-cowEcn 1"44-00.'2E ccoo
0 aliov0 .c 0 C . •*§ 0 0 .,.. 0 .14 .0 0 0 0= cf)-aoc.0.c c„,.,,) a- 2 .0 0 ._ 0 E 0 = = ...5, 0 t 0) 0 0 ,..0. 0 .0 g.„
= ,...
2 ....5 a) E .-,.. „,_ 15 9- 0 E •o 1-' = 2 c co 5 a) 5 ,,..as It, 0 -s ..F., aca ... a a. 0 c t a •
„• .- 0. ,..° 0,
0 - V) ''' (t% .c - c ...a. .0 a. o a 4- c ,- 47: = Z - . - ■ -ea- a) 0 .4 :w
0 ° -C3 o E cola 0:=C1.0 0° a) ''"'"(7') 0 cr* .c(-) .,,_., ,_ E a ,,,-° .••"IS ▪ °-
(7) (1)-
.- 5
.-°4+-m0Lz°•010 0•0 ,-0>, 0 c.) in us• ,-. 7,-').- c c .2 as 2 -a c a. ° L-
.0 2 .0 „., 7,- .,., as -_-15. 0 o .6 zu ,... cr . 0 a) 12 a)
a) 0
-a 0 05 E its • 'c a) i_c 0-•rt'l ,-.° ,,,,' '5 *0 = 1-4 a) Z1:3., •._- ,,,r cf) a) ti E co. 0 0 .,1; 0 4--). ID 12 - .c 0 5
0 0 111 CI) 0 au o .c ,-, 0 •- z.-, - = a) r) c -- 0 - a) a 0) t 0 E 0) a i= ..., 0 - . .... ty)
0 0. 0' :0 ci. 8).0 .- • •-■ 8 ,. (.9 ,...c va az td . w El 4„ 0 e, a c 2 as co u „a >, E
.c g ,,,c* o - 8.0 g g 'W.) 12 w ° corn .22 •__ ;5, '•'. 5.. E .o ..}.F.. 0 4r, 8 a s2 a) .c, o. c oc 0 0 .a .,
e -= - • 0 c 4- '5' a) c Z, 15 .g-) o a. -0 = tifs
-_c
c, .c0 13001C o
, cus14.4.0ow
uscmc.c T.-. cu 0 en t as --,, w co -0 M tu 70- 03 M w ,_ 'C 4e 0
0 0-T...- •-•04-0.--aa) a.-c a.d• >KI 0 0 C
0.. C t.. 0 t = 2 E -„„ a) -a 0 ED. .2 c) --0-- a„ 0 ,L2 2 .5_. p „?.. p. z- E. .0 a..in.. a)
13- Z) 41.2 CD 0 C -6 '5 T. 8 4- cf`ta. E c CL tu '8 co 2 '•° - g e r- 8 .E v 0
a.a0EE8a. cu o a. g .E "iii a. o a) -&-) t.. 2 6 c 'E C 0 a -6
.tu. a) 2.) -(1) °I ja 2 E Z' 'd 8 9- 4:•"'
1- co ....- , > › 7) CT 0..4„ 1-1
_ ,..., c.) I_ 0
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
E
E
0)
C
a
taC
0)
C
ft
'C
L.C.;!
0
C
0
2
0
c2
(.9
0
Le
a.
CD
z
I'- 0
111 0.
e4
(.7
2
0
0
0
Reporting or Monitoring Me
0
ow
E
CC)
E
Mitigation Measures
ir)
c • ai c >' -o .'"' o .c-Ti -6 ai a) c
r)
lo
"t ;"..): D) " 2 0
• "
° t3
O 0 L. 2 a) t .F) ru 'LI -F) (7) -o o .Z co .4 co , lir, a -•-• 0 rif .z,.... ,42
- 7 1 3 za g 72. a. 0 -t'r , 1 ra :2, c S..g ss z o 0 .....
-O- L'" (13 V) (II CO .52 0 t 4) 'L." 'CS -4% ID 0
v)
8 • Ez ..E i C/3(0 ,...1
0 .0 -0 0 9 cl.- - 4) 0 0 co oh a. ol (17
° 0 P CL er*- 0_ -- ."' .-- '- ° t°
"0 C 0 0 4:t 0 0 el ,... 0 C) ,.„
• RI ts 1,2 (0 a) 0 C ....' ED. a) ca -. 0 - n el, 0 0 0 C ‘:C CO •-• (_) •C 0
-0 0 0 0 0 8 -g_s w g t> e '8 •., z ,t c° (L) .6) t T'as CD '-'0 2 „...;, :45:4,..,°;
( .945 7A4 ) 0_6° 0C' . . . . ,C) C $ : -a--) c;(nIC 172 Zip Wc Ot5 a) :C.0 MO 9 .g al 0 .1-,:j') Cqe 0:9 .1.4_," "C)C3 0° ..9.ct -049 caw 2 7. . 9 .2 - -' -Li ' 1 '1-5.) 01 -Q2 --`"lb•----:4-`"
> x (., . ›-„, .... 0 -t, ,c a) .0 n3 a) 1!-..,) .N 0 0. C
- 0 .C1 -, ...,
L , , 0 o .o ._ .c 0 +, - • -o c o E to ... - ••••• .- :...-.. > a ) .. -.. E ......, . ;C:(„1.-. 03...(1)041)
17 M .g M CL C ''"' 0 •C Z M a a . ' 0 .... M
‘f- L. .0- o E a, .,,., .c as , -a a) O .c , c (.) ... a) o .0 •-• tr co -t, .- .0 k o "ig 13 N Mt ru c -,5.
7') o ..`-' 0 _c) ffi -'-' -0 u) 15 ra .- 0 , o).,... wo a `-' o a - , , a) •-• !....-_ ...... as
.......-
0- '0 '...." .2 .ti La 40 0 Ith ... •••• V a) 0 0
„L.
•-'` a) c 9 8 43) 0 E a 4) ° ° ° ° -C) CI) -" ° 43 u -- Crj s' ° L ‘-' 0
9
5 " 0
, o. o .9, 4.2,oca>c15.Et-°---fgagauo Q, E e • G) z
2 p Ea.
..- ca .a o ts- E .,.., 8 - -, L5. ai.
:6- 13 ,&') 2 Y.) 0 .2 0 ••;,... 0 E e 8 EcLo it 2 tz•E s% , 4.0 8-21 p, .1-.? 7.5.4:‘, El: ,S 9
0 z: a) E a) 2. -.. a) ..... L., a. E .a .- i"--) .c X?) .0 0 0 0. g) .) -- a.
.t- 4 c .- E a) 0--5e a , a .-, (;) ,La I-5 '63 a) -E , ...- a al as 'a ta. z ¢ a g)
o) .(2)-- a (u a) - 8 ca (u CI) °" E c .0 q) i-.. a) ''' a o cii a) .4 '63 E - . Q-.
- , 0 0 1:-') a) -a ..c ai ,....E ›...2. 0 0 Q ..-, c ea -o ..., c co a) o)(1.•
o: °) c is c a t - k7-t. "E rri-Qg'..00ru 0$2:215:2.2',7,R-z-oz<u2gs00,10 tu.(02.z
0. E 0 g..., •••6: wczo, -ow, .L1-5,E, e z 0 0, Qw.,1) 2, k'13,,,(7 c.ca.P. cl-awt-5
0.>12-
... c CL ...• .- CO .... .- "0 .0 'CI as . - -c V. ,.. .... as ,.. Z ... .., E ,....a). o) a 4.-....9 4-. L. ,Z., *ea 'ea'
-5 2 .5. c '0 a) C 17 a) -.- a) ti. c c taTi E iii a or:: , .t....» L. 0) t) 0 E s, cu .a) 0 o e .- to t• z .......... 0
u) < o m .o iin) 2 8 2 'A 2 ?A 2 8 a a e.-
8 8 E .
-a
00
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
E
C
cci
C
2 C
0
0)
c
a) c 1.12 0
= 0 co as
C re
"4 2 a>
.0 .-
40 0 a) C))*
C - C
1 E 1• 2.
P E
..
0 0 8
..- _a a 4-
O ▪ E C 5 < 8 ,_ 0
z 0 4) CL '0 112 0.
▪ us
O CD 0 C z 0
0 0 0.) t 0 a) ca>"
... CL rt LI. CD> 4 g 2 0> :?-_.4) 22'
ti al < Cd X .° 2 4-U °
Ct3 O.
- 0
W a .t..g .0 0.01-4 VU)
--I W 0 " .1 -J C0 41 C.) ..J -.1
CO it 0..9. 0. 0
<< <73 2 z
I- 0
-J
• a < -0 s-
O :12
E ...• _, ai
0 •. .
0 .0
Ct. c as as
Fe' 0 0,
8- 2 § O. si..5 .--..,„
o . - 0
EC c a) 0 a) ti T) 0 0_ CD ).-..... >,
i- CI) V
ci) -..12 g 2 > 0 > :5 0 E
z = V (n .0 Is B Cl) -8 t--,,- ,cr, sit, a,
O '''LL
m ( 2 _ t) -.1 _l ...H:c ...irc ...J° z-= ‘1.1.2.
Z <<mErn << <o.- <.,„
0
0 ' 0 o a) a)
< >, c
• 1?
O 0 _
11-3
0 4- .5 •Et,., <13 C13 8 4)
2 .Z,
,--0 a -0
.0 CD •-• o.- c .. 0 133 0 ---. r-'
0 0 0-0--cNo
6- 1,-; ,._ a. as 0 2 0 0 a)._ • .t_., cp _
-0.-000000
a. c ., ooccamEcv-o
.1' ,c.43. „ E 2 .2 co.- ti--4. ,,-..3 2 If .102- .6 >,-, -,-,02,orE•75
14) .0Wot.(204) L-a):`cisi lica)800200
t ill I! g 6 2 v- ii tilf.. `'),, ..t;-..".-s; a) la 0 E 0
'.e., 0) ma. -4-.-,-,,.,a_.Q.-... 0).=c22g2.
oca....R c ac ) -acP0 . cl I- -a- o (a 0 ca 1p1l3 i .c cw o ,as °0 - in - .0 0 0 7
0 § al VLI) 0 al .E .e. -
..
E.) Et _, C co Tr-, 2 Ets. 1,-, .0 75
ca Q,
0 .-.....- a. as 8 0 8 0 2.... t' -0 15 .,.- Es Evu)-c0:500o
ccasccc80) =
(°:.11 maIten).0<ta)clocga)c(-90
..c.o, Ta- 0 0 • c as .- m o 00-wip(400:g
'''• 0
0 0. .2 .0 C 0
0,-." g2 E .015 at-V2 To 2 c .2.c to t E ..E. ie 74-, Iii 'a c
m a = ,..t ,,, w a
..g t)._), sc 15,0 -043, so .1.82 '44- ,0)-2.a...e,6 8. ....0, Ea9 ":Dco a;
"S cl 2 as = 0 -c ra ra 15 .-S 1:12 0 ca c
o .20'218800
,...,L) i7oa-mtrz-,e8t0c.cem :c al a, al ------• • E
o ,c cLa) -s-d ,2 >,,co ..,„ ...d ,_as 0. co ._.c 2., 0° 0.a.1.-_,' a." c> ta law
e P .t.; .0 ..a. . , (.0 e a) c .? a 3 • ;,,„.„,:n ..c a iii ....„..,- r„3
o c -8 cuE 0' .0 CD E c .0. a)" .c_ 0 tii T, ,- oc ,.' 8. e J:)>''g ›., ku g
t E as as 0 .0 1:3 .--• 0 c. :C. 0 0
> 0 :3 Er' .... .- 0) 0 E g. 0 a) c.- z (.4 c , C a) v c .,
03 0 MC2CE§2°0°431°C)017(2-7...k.'51 '-...1.1(/)!c.F.6)Ct.?.2,7)
C.) 0 0 m 0._ -6 ....
H
0
o co
›-E.'.-FDEIgIII22°
Mitigation Measures
(N /A to Bayport)
C
U) Q)
g -ELT)
• E
c ta
o c
0)4_
8 0 :E
cci
E u..
.c
C C >
O 2 o 0 0 Cl)
=
V C .-
2 mit-
2
w15 2 § -8
V
0 - c -
E .0O
• E) 's °
To. Lis 0. 0 0 V
.0 rts 0 .0 0 .0
E "1"1
-. 0
E -8 0 -4-3
E ..0 C
0) 11)• (0
C > "
›"--c 2 Cl) 0
p.m C. C >0
•-G.02-62 E.
‘45 >,
2 co
.. E CO 0E.-DEC120
0 0 c 0 2 .9.. 0.
-q E
.c oasc=
cv o 4: as a.
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
E
2
c,o
0
C
0
0
Ca
2
E
0
15 .0
3 0
co 0
o
Fs to.
c
0 4) c CL •-••
0 CD
E
c 0
_
E 1c2- .2
Mitigation Measure
(N/A to Bayport)
(N/A to Bayport)
-ti 4) ....) o
- a)
0 -0 2 g a) t1:1 CI) g 0
a) ca
c
a) _2 03
.-• a) c 6'
0) 0 C .0 0 „c .,0, E a_ 0 CU '-• 4-,.. .0
CU) 0
o E ° -a w 0 03 w jitc8.....°)
7., = • 0
o 0 c - c c
0 0 0 15 4--
2 .2 2 0 4):
0 0 e•-• 0 .,'-' & 2 8 cu
--,, 0 -0 c 0
.. 3
co • .cz o
.0 .4-• 0 4,, t ° 0 •-
C ■. 0 .... (°'n 2 1-417) g) cei E 'Er 0) sc rn a 0 a) 0.42
-0 .s a) 0 • - 3 , .0 0 ,
0 ,,,c cn E3_ •47, a a) a) 8 43
lyc) 76 - m, 0 0 ... ... = _ 0 ..... 03
C .) :6-* a. _60 a- a .E 0 3 •-• ° V4 1:1) w
'co- a c
8 ,.- 0 .4- •,„- c*-- to' .> 0 a--) a) ,c 0 _ .c 0 0 •c I__ To
a) 0 0 .=
0 ott) n,C) W a t 0 e -F, 1., ,4, rt
.,- 0
= .0 - ...-.9.0gal =.21). ... > a) .c .-C- • a)
- P- ( D ( ' 3 C "r ' - C 2 - . 2 0 0
0 - .-- .9. , C.) 8 Ca
id -:
c c ° .. 0, , cw _fia) a -E•50-52
co Ca U)0 0 : • .. Ti .-t-' 8 'cii ai = 0..c g 0 56 0 a> Ca)
U) :0 C cd riC '6C1) 2 8 - ta; 1 i 0w .2- 2 s' 4c3:, '1' ' eL
-..,., .), 0 o .2 .2 .c --;
=
0 °2 .,h> E "' -0 .cr; c, ,6 tz.c, -..-:
171 2) SI 13 L_ .g. 2
0. c c
• 112 fi_ "3,1) • - c -2 ' >, e 0 -8 .:12
w
.'-'2 a' .7 .° ti g (/) -. E y 11 (L). 0- c, >, 0 0 o)
ca > ._ co
a)
2' 0 Ts .-. o ..= ..c ci 0 -0 lc a. ,..2, , _ c 0.)
.g, 4-`,) r..) .2 11 4) -) ``' 8 .c 0 -- ci) o) o ,5
Lo
a) tu 0 ,
O .,..:-, -5 c 2 0 .t :c 0 . t-:, 2 0 c a. r, -0 111) 0 0 jij c ..,
CC C a 4--
E .c°) 0" fa.-2 .r, .52,.g.t. -.0 2., .8
0 CD .- 0 4.-
0 L.C4 > E me 1 -0 r. )
3 ...0-. .0 0. 0 ..• 4) E 0)
-co 5,...01- 0
0 0 al 2 ....(4 c:70-rt, c CI) ,) .. .00 4-0-1
.0
t5.0 *ii" t7)0.,_- 43 0 c
•tsc 0 --- o 0 .- - " • ■
.... v .;:i C . 0 •■•• ja (13 .0 ...' XI A al 0 W al 0
es > 0 0. 5 2 0 2 0
CI .111, '5 To a_ 8 a. c cr.
>. ,2 c = (n (f)
< 0 cn as a)
o 0 0 X Cl. 2 0 • • • •
0
0
a.
CD
z
0
IJJ
- J uj
o4
I0
4r
CD
0
0
2
0
CI
a)
E
C
Cu
0
2
a)
0
2
a.
Ca Ca
CC
Cu .0
r,
-
0
0 0
CCCa
(1.1
_ E 2.)
E
o
> °
222
a• >
as 2.2 0
13 -0
at
• c 2 °
Cu
o `4.'
a) a 05-
'5 a) 8
fit 7E, 'E
••••• ..c
-
'E a)
0 a) 2 a)
ti
.c
c02 o
4.- ...I
(T) < a-
a-o
o c
a) Cu a) -8
cte'Lii, 5 2
13
Ca .0 1-4
0 0 ti
.-I Cu 4= 0
«�l.Ea
_.,
O < ,.
.t
O 8 8 o ta w -o t..
Fr) 4- ,..., a 4- A .1., t E 5fi 0 4-
= 0
I Cu Cu a2c)511 ,_
o • 0, aa 2 a a.)1:3 8 Cl)
't co E < 8 w 0. c
0
sa c o c = o .9.2 -i7)-0
o 0 a) t5 a) a.6 a 0 cv a)
t5 0 c a. al _?....•
V4 c 0 n-..... o ,... a.) :•_-_ `.- ,C1) Z a o(1)
m 0 8 2 .0 '-' •
15 0 .0 11) '0 cn CO " - - 1] .... 0 0 Cl•
0 0 6 Lo. < Ce Ce
0 -a ,.... >,.0
0-2
ea .- -.1 ....I CO 4- 0 .-..1 I 4-
o (11 4-• CO o •,•••• LI) P .16 -ff. I: 4;1.
«m .Ea << ca as co -E 03 0 2 c\i <01- <-a
.0
0
a E -0
*(7) c
"cm 2<80
a 8 cv
0 to 0 co
0 cS
co F740 1%
a. 15
AG 0 r‘
2 A 2 4.2. >%:s72
so caME03 o2c.i
City/CIC for Tinker
Mitigation Measur
T3
co .0 C
• Cu
-a"- a.° .0"
E 121.01- .Ls-1
.0 L.. a, c . E
a 0 CU0 -o
o c •E
0) .0 (I) • 0 .0
.2.9
• 2
.t .
o)0 a 8 c a)
>, 0 - •Cr-
c c
6
0,0
,_ E
0 o)
3 :••••• M 0
a. a).2-:5u):=
C U) ••0 0
VI •z•CD 0 CC) CO 0.) E
V) CO CuWE0
E 812-c c
082 owagE 2 CO ccii, .0
.0, 0 .0 0 0,
0000 00;
.0 .0 .s2 ;Lc
E 0-5600E=.='0
._
co '0 0- ia 0
Cl)
.a
co
13 E E o
co'5 gas : :10 .c,0 Ioa- ...10 :c; 72
cm a g C.) - 0 0 E
o -a 0 TO 23 0 0..0
o c ..c CD
O o. co 4,S co ra cu
a)
a
,..-- 0 c "ta
0
o
§ C.- o
a) 0) o
0 CD -C
-5
Iii )2 44 1? II
a) 5' 0 a) o
E co 8 E i 2' .> (b9
130 ,2 .CU) 8O.9 g tsg) M1:24., OM
0 ,42 13 .8 --
CC
CD 0 CV
0 > 0,) a •-"-- "2
00 -00 a_ a) to 42 0
-a ..-, 2 '5 ..5
a) 8- ca as a9 .,,, .c0)
-0 13 .51 CD .. = „
= CO E a g. 0 .c E
ca
.0 k.‘ -E, g in
(0-W 15' a) 4-3 :L(.) Yi .06
0 V a) 0 ■-•
Ei..) g o .. 0 = (T..
...,0.. wo),...2 .2 cn ,- :A
Tfi 0
0 733
so.=s2
... N •.2 (3 p.....; 2 :(:"1
0 CO CV
13 0 'Ts'
(7,-5, - 4).-0 .s E.5115
w L.. `a ". *0 •
.2 .,..,a) C (.) >
.6." a --"
c 2 -. 0 a) a ..- ta ° E C
Z
:8 - 0 W ••-• 0
en 0 V) = • - CI) 0 0
CQ L.. •,....f, < •C a 0 C _o = c
• 0
CU)
CU .°
1.-L. CV 13
a a)
En
--WE2
TO E
a) To' 8 Pa
2 2 2
a." 0 Cu
a> •-•
Cu 2 .2
T3 .0
at
c c 2 °
CD CU a
0
a2
cv
*>, o 6,
a.c
L. 4) C
••■ ••••■ .c
- o
o
co
0 a) 2 a)
o :2
.Ca)
co .P., o
-J
0
4-•
o
a-a 2
o c
(Ti o
> c
o o
a u .0 to'
0 0 -)6
...J .-I Cu 4- 0
< < 0
-J
tis <
as 2
o c
w Cu
> c
o
(0.0 TO'
00 ca<c
CV 4: C]
<-203 .2 CI
U-
2
2
c'r2
C
LI-
Lii
6
0
0
E
a.
a)
C
a
re0
2 a
a)
2
a)
a
42
0
CD
2
0
0.
CD
0
Lu
t-
0
0
2
0
17:
2
0)
Reporting or Monitoring Method and
C
Oa)
CIE
E
a)
..- 0 8 ai ....
co 4-
c o
u)
7) a an
c (i) 'Fa - Eii '0 '42 IR
0 a) a -C a 22 < a c ----4.0
a c o o >, =0 o E 0
0 a) n. CU 0 .6.4 0
42 (..) t 0 ,_., it-
.....) c
0..• 2 << mEicci_Em < E5 i= < -a
City /CIC for Tinker
-o
La .. ,..
5
4- o .iii
hi
' < a 5 -c
a
c)
o
a-o 2 a -c E a <
QC . 0>. a
a)
- 0 • 0 .o . 7 5 i o a n 0 3 .o •-• o
•.- 0 0.
-J --1 CU 4-0 -.1 -I 42 - MI •.- al
<<03-5•0 << 03043-C-03
.J
<
1... ,.... s..
.2 ..., a) 2 hi 6
a
= .c a
43 ''t 43 ' o
az, 0 a t a ‘0. <
o a o >, 5 0
iii
(T) A
S2
0 (0.o - VU)
Ce
42
-1 ...I al - CI -.1 .../ - CCS 4- co
<<1:0-G0 << co0a3-C.co
c ,..
o o a) a >,
a.) 5 a,
..c .-- >, -5 .c _a .4 0. .0 -0 -C
CL)
o -.0 - o :-6" co
,... 0 0 ,... c NI = 0 0 8 ,_ 0) t .-.. 0 0 0
.0 0 CD 0
.....• 0 .0 ti0 .•••• • 0 •- •'-' ° -5 a c -0 O, c
cp -a 1-0030C E ' "' Al. a) 0 aa 0 -a .ca 0
o -a
5 _t.00407.'n' . .5_4. • - c "E • - - c o 8 ._ v.-) 0 a -.- 0 >9:13 ...
0) -5 '5 42 E
-tir ,- '-.._ F, op 46 42
4.1 al 11) c.w. C >, m = .., -5 _ =
.1.4 a 5 E a) m -0 t1-.) 0 •.° .-Ca E 8 - - 0- - M" . oi L .' ,C .32 91. g .,
C-- ,5 .5 - 0 5-,
._° ° 05 .5 ° 0) -
8 .-- E L- - z' •- 0 ....' '‘".527,----.a)3oow ° CD -71- (7)4- - •
• 0 4-- 0 -0 4:1 1.-- C0 0, I- .0 .•-• _.
° iL• l fi a 0 2 -4.a..)2
a .o TA - L--, ,e__,
v -67 15 c 191- u) -?'-a) c 0 5 0 11) E 8 0
)... ir._-* m c a) 0 co .c g - -c 'P
3. E - 13 m t c v W u) If" :‘ a' w o 72 2 :,-, . a. 7, al 46
c 1° ° E 0 g :a c c -S. >, ci) c .x cl_
(,) O.0 0 C2 0 _o -C m a) ,,, di 1-)
oo ...,2. ,.-Fi3 .„,"-' Ea> vi, 2 0= a'a E c- V, c
as - •.- .- E o .-• co •=-.-; ..*c I-- m."
0 4-. Zr-, >. 0 -
; .; 4)0°)..en-CD ....ri ,..-7."). F."61) 4_,‘C: 91.2 mr(1)) ..) i 'a(5)" -<-6'; 0°
ca .,.., ,_ ,_ 0- 0 C C 4, - .0
/0 0 0
c w_ 470 (1) fn - ,.,i) c a) a 5 0) ,_ o z --413 1-; •,,,- 0 ED_ -0 c c .1, • :1-_, t Ill „s>,-. c tii .0 :F., 2 c
o c 1.„-. S..7 ••••• 0 '... Q) (I) •C .0 "" U .." >I° Cri ) -0> s > 'C D ( DE Ca "3 3 5 . ' c - 3.1 2 ( nc c t ).°) •E- -?., 4-0 a feu
ov)cEvoac .- 5-
0 0 iv 0 tr., 0 *5 0 __0 0
)*.").;. ti 0- II° CY/ ..v-- 0 8 0 ca. 8 t 2
c .....
1--- c o E) ,6- -0 s-' c .- c .0 ,-, c 0 c u, T--- El 0 ,- .2 8
01-'0 c-cclit31,-crio--.' E ft -a ...;
-o - ° "- '' ' (r) c .L- °
aa'acucra"*alw°
c rz) 0 ...° 'm ° c ..CT)0•50 .-Coi_ ... 4_, o
- 11° 2. 'E-3 a ) 11 = 4 -' ra ° N (7)
E.,-- c ° ° n 0 4)2.°E-1-zai 0 ''.0 2 ii 03 •••, .-.. C '"" 0 10) CY'10 .0 0 •,- 5 5 5
, -c,„ m°
5 a a tu 0 m0 m -rn mg) "' "" - c ,,, cr. .c 2 .0
Z, 0).oa ta 1-4 a - a) as E ih- 5).'' 6 8 .- 't •q--- a a 0 W." •-• as - ,2 ni •,,
c.L5 , w 2 SI _ 2 "Cui 13 E 8 2 E iD,.. ca c „a 2
cp 0 al .. 4) ma ui 0 4) > v) ' -0
cri -6 .0 a) E• 0) 2 0 c,) O. 0 -0 0 :0 0 =" ..- 0 13 0 .0 0 a) -0 2 71 a.1....0 42 ‘4 8 o ,,.,
.e . c E o 'Ex -•J .- ..-, a, a) ij) "6 f, .o
•0,7) °,..7)C=.00.0.0
.0 c • 46 4-•• 4-, CO .0 42 .0 4) ft 4- 6- ° L.. .0 C 2 0° 4- inal 8 v ''' "(,)"' o 0 Vs E .c.:-') 0 j, 0
co 0 75 0 0 cr) 0 0 .71 13 To -0 -0. a ,.,)- •C -•-• .0 - - 0 0 '0 4) 2 o) 46 0 ., - -0
t w.,- :Z. 47.-, .... c C 0 0 0 40 ' - 0 -0 " m° 0 >•al -C 0 0 0 C '0f) " 9- 4) 0 C
0 0 0 C -0 0 ....7.7 L.. a) 0 t ,.E 4"* MI 0 -0 an" .,..b. a, '-'5 a al a et.. = 1:1 ‘431.'„, .?: cp
col, 0 .....„,-. 0 E 0 -(T) rt 8 8 lit ct ,K1 • - V) .0 2. F,. i,D, a) z
2 -6 col 6 , . . ,E 49 >1 i .9 Cs . 4 -,2 2 0 8 ...e" -c 'c .0
°°°22CPC0- ' ECDEEE
0 2 8 °- '2 • 1 e = 8aaa=ooaa
c.
W 0 c •- ..G . a o a Lu E.D. 2 g .2 .5. .... 0
I- 0 ..G Ce la El.) 2. 8. g ti.' 1.3 a 2) 8 E I" E
ALC developer and City /CIC for Tinker
E
0)
a
0
C
0
0
(U o)
*:e
E
eporting or Monitoring Method and
(I) C 0
0 8
O 0 •. 4)
.0 O.
4-. c
ii..0
(.1
O dl C -I
r)
ui .0
(D c , - 0
z 0 0 a < a 43 .- t
.2 g
• FA- E a) If >,
'au) o c c
a-o il)
o
C.
't a a) <
- 4... :4.
0 4)
(T) 413. g 2 sa. (a = =I
CC ce° L ) al a) .5 •
.0 2 44 "0 u) 4:1 to ›. ci, .1 ,..0 t 0
'1- 0 il LE
LLI n. 4t. g o 0 f.) 4.-". rnUi L- 0- 2 t iil LE
j Le v 0 •••-• 0 .0 ... 0
.. 4- < v .1, U) a 0 o 03
Ca re . S. < < CO -E 0 < o 0 0 Eo. >,
a
< 2 <
1- CI al0C10.5.03 < "0
Z
< 0
(../ t 4-
8
a
frc o 0,
O o. c
tn
Ce c 17
4...
=
40 ■_ >,
.22
0 Cr) c'--° ,2
•:LI o
o c ,
,_ - 0.
00 C‘3 4) tc
0 <
Ow e._.1 :::
ir)
a -e
o 5
o. c
a) 17
C 0
t- 0
0 CD
Z C 0) 1- V)
Z 0 .f6 1,I : (ow .0° --.." 0
› 0
in 0
0 •t1.1- co 1:1)- v en co ,, o
4se• ,e.5:1 15 a *I:, co 4.3 o.9 co
-Fi t! < -o 2 < < 03 -2 CI :rtit ctiW 01 0-C) 0:1P11 -i 03(1' (CC-3 gig .:( c I. c
Z
0
I-
0
. ' a..
? 11
0
17: - . c CU .- C 0 = 0
V) 07 OS °
.0 0 .0
X W C ,. 0
.5 E 5 3 (fl fj) g c7) .a....-e
5
:5 0 _2 1.1 g). a) E 0 en
In > c a) . .- ,... 4,) 0 -.- c
.c 2 ->..0 pd- 2 42 ?) > 33 0
g m0- CV 0) co 41 .c a a m Tel
...0 c E .2. 0. >a- 0 L.. 60 0 ...=
.0 X
2 17,_ rmC C (1) (P a) 4- X .t >
a) .- •.. 0 1". C •- 0 0 a a)
..... 41 0 - 0 -„, c.-- 0 N
0
LtS0000Ci30.0*,
U)
V 0 C UT 15 0 E 0
0 0) c t "0 17 *c
E 17 . 0 (00P. -cc
) cc., t,-o en 0
.....o., c 0 u C) . cg 0) ,
0 . 0 L_ al
A Ft ... v I C °
(n a9 41 := 1
0 :5 c a
,a .0 .- a
2 '0 Va V... 0C .5 cr ua; ,2 2
° 8
(Ts .
a o
.,.,X ci. 0 0 4) ..... C
‘v o ea a) , 1:3 0 ..c 17 5
•-cov)c-o
C
0 4-
O i)cc
= v a-a o - ._
- .5 a) Et ._ cp tra .0 L1,) '-' Ei, pi
. 5 :2 0 > Er = R 4_, c
i u . . . G ' : ::, :=2) , . .E ! . . . , • E- to : E
o 0 0 ^ 0 V 0, to' iii )..,..
o a 8'.6(Do.E°=0
2
0
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
E
2
rn
a
c
c
rn
c
r
0
to
c
�E 0
a c
c a=
m O
o
a
f 7558N
a a
f •a
Q
CS) of
o 0
Y •c N.
C 0 ,
O ' c
c
L 0 ° Q.
o cO2
c 8 go)
o `°tea
N Q 0 N •
re Z Q .. '.0 7
Z Uoro
w
�c0 •a
'O a. t.- 1,...!„...., �c
N • C 7 �:6, O -° 0
L w. C -p A G p +L+ c 0 U
O o N N o a as— L c 1:9, s Nw.
U_ 0) E a) N Nm,� o rn °Q
2 E a. E a C ill) 0),c � 7.11> 42.- 'N
Tit
g j: E U °w? c�a x�.° c E io �
U"
0 O'wm°c.0 E•a2' Uc°avJi<
X 01
O. a Q E ai Z p d = o g'81-9 mQ °
▪ W E a 0-'0 N a y 0 C°caNOw.V
v °or W• O a N c N t m a � m $ v c
a.
m w W `
0 o Sv)1 1Q �; E �° c m c� a ' a 0 QQ Umm oo v F 0 « al
Z
Q a'
• C• .5 Q
L
Z.
1'2
p Q O =ONO v c
O y c -0 oac E a ocasemot°ev
t- �_ m mvN o°�aJ ° °ooN
> N 0 > N N N Cl V ':0
2 • 111..21- ° E UU Z5 c< ar E �T fir vO. E `n
� "
Z U U QQCa 50 Q�Q � Unmcp as=. .°._n gmc°0
O
m w L ..
n Uo to C
C'
c a a c o c +-. oD o
Q o, o o2m8 _ c °oQ .as D N 3 ,,_m ...,...2
• a C N m Q
co to e a.G L. Q O r. � C as ` i.i �
CU '0 V O QN v E ChuE'vo n o o-aC'O� 08om ao, c3 • a v o v. N al 03 . a NN ( Q3C c uo as •pa Q °a)0 eEl-
� mv, 8 2
°mvmn? • �
m W ` `° m E m y?c �eo : astyZ y o. aioo �Ny
o y > °oEC
k 0 a'p. y
O C c1 U V 2.y U e— N c'' O °-.'8
a) 1� 0 N�OV N ° ° i y .y '.' + c Cb Q p 3;G`N � :w-
.c - •
wc?�v E� ea �� mm c .ero2, �a.Emoa.Q s
N U Q Q� N N a U y Q . a € r o
Qhai (_ °o.oE D E�,e ", a �aw « o o c o`° ,@yo `uccz O : ro, m. =C w
a o 5 o@
E ,y e c
•0 a0 T. ° ° a E ,CO m >,aa! 'Cw ai
t o.a `°°.c c o o 9'aci :9 E cu'iv•P ° `0 ctp N a� d
- EPvmm` °Taippsaa9E acih ZWQQ��a o.- ,ya�.0
U O 2 ,Lb y N y CO d a V S C d,O E i Lta N.0 y. cc6r
a
-c�•c0 010E Kvap � E ro' €oo ycvwcy
~ a°i 4z c o c • o • a,c' o Q.c m - ft E'° o c Ng
id - 0 • , 0 p C .3 vo to o • c • • a3 Q- - E co
Ni � Q� v at a � � c 3a o `� = o a°i .° t
Q E v 0 aroi k CON
0 - O U N a O d c >,
= y Qw c u c = 400$ 3 c 2� 45 3a '
Mitigation Measures
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
E
a
C
a
C
C
C
0
C
0
TB'
2
;Ef
C
C
0
cc
CD
0
a.
CD
cc
0,
Lu
03 ft
F-
E2
2
0
2
od and Timing
Reporting or Monitoring Me
0
C
O 0
E
.E
E
E
Mitigation Measures
City/CIC for Tinker
42 AI
-co
0 s
CD >"
CD
0 CO
>."-
C)0.E
"0 cc) Z-6 ,2 0 ;El
o °
< <v
o .0
U)
co >, c
.423 .- cu
c -a c.) N.
0 0 a, g.), 0
^ Q./ F.: 0 QC
CD 0 .....,".. •"-" ...-' .-• -
0 -,-, ..,, .te en
t.ej
To :c
U) ° y, to- ,q), .c cD •
15 C : ; 0, (DE:2 150E .
0 -- .-.--,, c.
0 C 0
0 C II
0 " a) ‘-'45-c'D
00 - 73 0 . C .-
'5 ,,,o, E a) o to *6
0 a)
a) - .....c co
NU) >
E 2 °
co c-
g 8 .0 0 LI?, 'CI
0 b 5 -2 17i 2 "Cl
.... o
o)=
.= .i.5. a ai 0 E 8 ',a 0 .0 >9
,._ _ - 2 ,1
.0 o .....,o 0.” .....0 g 7.c 09 C c c-
o ° 0-
c -o C, c ‘. E. 8
c 0
. c ...z.
0 (,,
6 Td a) o e' 2 L- 0 c ..-.
Q) •-• al
2. co: '1(U 15*-9 a) :: 42)° 2:112; ai .o 0
1 2 ...',-) -- S = 0 0 0-
2 '0 EQ. 'V ..., (U 0
0 0 C
a) -° c 0 c C o) z
co - 2 c , m4,1 .2
co -
0) c
1:3 CO c M Ca tii :1/1 8 0
x 0)
a5 8 12 1? 12 15 12 til .=
--
_J 0 F- co F- c .:: .1: 4= < a) ii2
o „ , 0
t
CO o 2 a) o 0 (,) .c..,
,.*-' a) a)
i o co w ct)
i .C-. N .0 :Es il2 CD S.
co CL 0 (-L •-- M Cr
Laer t .t..• ..... 2 0 CD M „,
C Ci) ° '.-. ° 2 W c% .0 [12 2
0. 8 ,T, s
,°' 0. Q-13
,n ..7--, 0 m C
.046 1.-: 7 : :. : -.N„.. ,....., „:„....4) 4:7 to cga
(/) 6 •(7) 0 'l 0 cu ° 0 a) .-
0 _ ....
0 0 0) 0 .c ,.. co .0 c c 0
co w >, 0 0, o...o .
= co -1:1
a) c 0 8 c a) cx 0
-.- - ,.... 0 •"•"' TS 0
Ca ro 471,3- 0 0, 0 0 -5 0. 5 i
0 ... 0 i...u...o 0 co ,...
! ! :-:: cam= I.! : i! ..g. .c(!) C)
0 ...., '0 0 = 0 0 en ,,,, .- , (..a
c 'a (f) .o • c t -c
a) .... v • .- E
0 .... 0 -, :LI a)..
rj 0.0 =v..- C
: ,.."U ) . cja S ' LI( 6 4 ) 1 Oa ) OC I - -.. : - 61) C
19 C 11 P.a 3
rte-3ee8
,,,
c - .t, c c
CDCDCD000)00.c0 -,
.112 0. c
.0 0- 3 2 .8,
E ED. 03 t t c o
a) fl2 iJi-
7cca:sc0-50-
0009.00c,_x5_:.,
cc s2 0
00
E ..... 0 a) a. o s
0
E
0
a.
tion Monitoring a
tc,
C
C
0
2
a.
0
ILI
.J ui
52
‘3
0
0
2
0
2
C)
co ea 0(11 g
C
'0 .0
(ci
e
o .c 2 0 0 0
0 0
0 a) cr 0
'a 2
2 D0
.2 ,
0 ca .....
C) 'c) 0 0 0
C 0 .0 .C)
a t
'a 1:7 (19 0
.2
= .. ._EL...) ..a, 2
t 2
c
c c a a) D E
o
o 8
0 scf, g 8
,..
o
tn
a (n ETco 8 ca Z.,T5
8 g
o 0 gsE
0.
0 .c ...
a)
.c c .-
I- as 03 CO
C
a)
-..c
o
o
o
C
ea .0
-
C a> (1)
,u)
.2 ro,.gt
2 8 .0
x 2.
O. a) a) a.
See Mitigation Measure HAZ -1.c above
0.
E
0
0
C7) OC 0) >'
0 .1.-1.
•0 .75 -72
o
ci-a' ,,cm
. c9
1:' co c
.c
0 c.) -0 ..... (1,-.----ocum>-.
- - .. 0 0 0
0 --
a-I <- 1 09 <= 0 0 < co i co 0
0 6 To C.
3 CC 0
.I.., 0 C0 Ca
i.7, _c „., P. (r) 2
,... -6 .i<-
ru w 0 a) ID a
(I .c g) R . p. • ti
0 .s. ...-• c +32 w iii v .7)
e o 0- o c 0 nt
a eL a) 1 u) 'c -,== 0
2 0 CU CO 0
.--. 0 Lc 0 '''''
-- - w - .c al 2
o -a o a) -- 0 .> _a
CU) COD _ ,,; c 2 ..--, a)
0.-- -a0 ma ...-oc- co•- -
C -.- 'D E ' '- °
sp> (.'0"...0 0a)
.c - s-. 0 - a
0 c 0 .- 0 a 't -c ca
a 0) = c _, .... t
, .c .0 _c , o. 0.
a Ri 0 a) -
E o :,0,
s.- :c:nm t. 19E: . cP,. 0:1 /- :60, , 9 . 0:0c : a : . . ,-c02
W0 -0 -0 -0 0
:+7., 0 0
c .c
o ie - a , TS CT) 0
0c 2 '0 S -6 -0 a
.0 a) . CC
e g 0) t 41 8.2
,g 20. ca-a.E
w 8 a) o 0 ,-.
4_, .a) ._ .>_, _ a) .-. g
cp ,en 0) 13) Q c 1... >, It .-- .0 '''.
CD ED. CD 0 0, A . 8
,... -a t >-, a 0 E as ca- 5 t.--
0 r1.1 1 " C
._ .0 .....L-
:,.-.,.-F, <-5. 0 0
u_) al ,,,- ..... -a a. a) 13 >., (11 a) 0- 0) t ° a) w °*•.°
> .
.....
.92
e,.. `-' - 2
o':E80,0 arTEle•-.2 (A2 - CL.C1 -0 07 01
Ct•-• ."' s- v s... or > 0,
. ,,„C .0 .4-■ -c 0 0) .1... .- "0 ..., 0) t... 0 c CO 0
0
6". 4_0 :r5u, /2 g 3 .....0 ao § to, ..5C 0) 4-"- •C
s..-g-5 2 r■J „," 07.c t
- -0 co a ...c. ,- 1--• 0
Ec-ete) 0.9e c= v2(alc
.F., 2 8 r; 2 g. 1) 8..P., 0- c7 .9 < 13) < 0 .0 •C2
0 w .2 a a Tx = 0 0 co w 2 E" is.i 0 ici 'Va''
a) 0 >
40
03 10 0) c 0 0 0 03 0 0 0 -a 8
,,s (i/t) i„..., -4?-„,„, (2 a
o o fE. .2 g '4A) leip...E
11, 0
0 o
..._
o o 713 a)
0
en Qs
.2 4.... •G 0
.... Q.
ti 0 0)
13
.*.,-.0 1-0 -8 t b 0
0 ,
8 .$1...) E' gi 03 .c
6
0) ,..
.2
ID co o e 8 3
1.. Z
•••• >, 4.. .52
CO 0
2 0- ii, N !.
0 •Z n, CO
o 0_ :Jz, S-) -z .o
.o eu k
as s._ 0
0 3 s$:.' o a) 0
3. 0
0 .0 ' z '2 -
0 15 g 4.21" ft, ‘2 ',7)
0 0 03 0
ra lc
2' 0 .....
0 33 Fa c -0
o (4) ,,
01
■Z • . 73 ' El t' L IS . 3 a)
..... as c
tii} .L•oo
)?0 L.• .04)
°3 Z) g ...... t•-, 03 0 0
..... .. 0)
1.1.4 o ..2. o c.) co
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
E
a.
E
C
8
cc
co
C
C
C
2
Co
2
0
C
C
0
CD
0
OL
a.
CD
0
w
...I al
123
(.5
E 2
0
0
0
2
0)
C
E
C
Co
Reporting or Monitoring Me
E
aE
c
E
E
e..
Mitigation Measi
>,
cu g c,
a) c)
,,, 0 f., P- ,03.-, -
s 0
0
,(1 ri) -' .,,' b,, 0
. :,,, ,.6
, cx —e„cb s„.47-: ..._ ...L....?,
,.. 0
-0 .... -
,„`"
,1..) 2 '-',- ...(1) -.1.■
0 4
..0 A a co 03 cc k co ccl .... co . e .0 2g
iS .-- 0 N N ..- 0', CD 0 7, ,t5 i''' CD C% )
...., ct., .75 .0 --, 1-,(1)
. S., ''.
,r....• V) Z
.2 L. C k ..... 0 'es.) .4
0 0 .E k 0 .c Q :C3 o i4 (Ts (‘5 (,°.
• '. FS t, V 8 ... E co- a 2 4%) ,..sz co _, b 13 4,z13 ,(1) -0
't-SQ. 8 .2 ''-• ..,..03 .,,•••","-•:.; HI
•••• .... NA
0 , E z co e ..z E 2 ..c..., ' :,-.. z• -15 ,.. co .,, (\i ei_ 0, „„ --s
0. 0) 5 *e—a
,Igc)2 e Lb -0 c:n :2, "-- t, 0 s ch 0 ts- f, 0 8;•,?,) 4:: '17.>
%- '-. E is co c° io' ck 03 t cu °- E2 ''.6 A' 4 g.z .4 t, .-. -.-. rz. ca Z •14.)
.Eca L.zo---0, o:P. 0 (t ... a E % S
..) ? 8 1 ')a' to ce) .,.§ Et.
a) ci) co co cu g CD c o ..• "-• 1,4 ) Z 'seri 13 (II 0 i:i C Y CO .7,• Z:4 ' . • - 0 .,-..- c . ) 0 •. IS co 4:1 ,-,cfs co S..
c.) Lc) • z — a) .a Q. (0 — li.1 .2 .cf, ,.. =• ..c., z 4 - .... co t5 z c) 0 z v) 0 > to ,
4-1. cp "4) 2 ca
.S. 2 -?..', , ,...* Z o .2 e 1;3 s' Ens., ,._03 0 1:3 -c, En n, .....
a 0 .8..) .0 CX 0 cC .... E „,- , .z -2 o -z, ,r, 0 -6 0 0 0 ,... ifj ... 0 0 .■
0 ,.... 0 •-• CX 0. 0 0 •-..., 0. . 4.... Ca_ .4- -.., 0 Ct. 8 co ,) e , cb 0
0 0 S •-.. V) --.. .... ]. ,.... 0 0 0 •.... 0 ...Y a
0 4.. 0 .0 0 0 0 0 .0 ••••.. 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 CD 03 ''''' ''
° C° ° C:) ° .U3 0 (1) 0 cu --al •— 4..) a a e
0 0..
C0. 0 s9 ...., 0) 0 0
.- ... i.-.... ° 0 .." r...1...' C))...-- ^ a) co a)
:.s.'05 cc?) a cc7Q) coN c,) •-•c.) ‘20 (DE I 1 i U }-... 8 ..4' •••-• ()° '"t'..- '''''' (1) 4° 2 ''''' ...e° ''''
.2 N (ti • ,C,O 0 co .... 10 "Z ...., 0 h•-: 0
Ca. e e C!S ..6') 13 .4 2 a) ..1=°. 0 u .'s. ......, :-...
¢ c) a_ 1:-.1. o •t co Z
0 0 0 t.. 0 0 .., 0 0
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
N.
0
0
CD
0
ILI a.
-I al
M
2 0
0
0
0
2
co
Reporting or Monitoring Method and
2E42,
E 6
> a) as 3 a)
2 0 < aS '5
a a- c
a. 0 50 0
co a) E co
> c
c
Sc3- g cmt
CL
2 (1)
c (11
'5
aci) .8'
E L co o
an (CV
0 a) .c V .2
a)
.CU) cv a).0.
>
EL1 0
0 0 0
c
o L_
0 ) _a a= c o
w (11
0 = 0 40 .0 liD3
0 .0 •-",•E) a >
-cc -FA o 0
c - co Eu
8 03
E0.2 E
o CC
- c c c
< o co
w
- o
•z0- s
c
O
4,
v9- E
a) 0
C4 a.
t
a_
Mitigation Measures
.92 a)
,
04- 0
E 4` D -T
=0-2EtA
2
uo s)
ascaaoEcia.
>N0-007-01-
0 00 c 5 5
o rsi
>.0 31:S us
0= p. EA 6.4 oc
fs E.rn-C 0)
"ffc o >,aa
a &ID E
a) 00
° El.) 5 Fs
.c
c
0&)202-g.g
0c0E010
S' ?a' 0 -o
-0 c
c _.c
1,2 =
2 .42 880-C
a 4,
° E .c
cig.wm2,4212.
0 2. at
(N /A to Bayport)
(N /A to Bayport)
o ›...
0 0
0 . 0
ED:
'c 0
VS
co P. E to CO - COM al '-':-• 2= 4c'c 10.'""(4.4
co c a) .
0- c .2 ti .0°N44.2 g,z5.v>, tEEc4z-BE
,...:06ci , i )01,1 , , ,, a;-0-1-Eu , pi,N2), - 0,1 0'9'7' ° 6:049° EDEn°
00.0cE
i:, 0 „ ...... •-•
0 w
-C , 0 CO .0 C >Ali
.41.>N0 EtiEOWEM
efiC0/0 2 C 0 C.• 0...N80.0-„so.t4
.E-0
.co, 20. 02>60.8.5.c
,..„,_ ,
E ag 0 c a) C. O.-) 410 . .2 _>'‘. Et; .0 -cs 0) a) Tii
..cs .
06%) , (1)
c c IS •c 0 ca •c' °- ,_ 0 Vs °) I-- 2 0 .E a 0 .5. cl) *-' 13 t 0 =
_ a
'a .2 0 o ct 1:' .- 0 •C ..Y
• „,-Ca ) . t: Dr-C t5 "0" 1.% C . C>a ) 2 I't I 9 ' '0" *Pt; 72, 0Cn" . .! .2" . . ;1'1. 52 E> . ` "ma 1 ' :9 LIC ,.. Dal FC-W° ) Iii. ■ ,c8 E 4;9 an° .64
.0 ,c-
ME2•21-elEo c0,_ CD a) `'-, 000 fr CO .0 0, 8 0 -
6 , 00- i? 0 „. 8 ,,-t- ....., "c3 ..F., e - ?„ 0 ::: P. o v 8
.,„0.„, 2, oca.-c=
a, c - co ,
.... 0 as as E ..„ 0 as 5.:!> a) • o a) 0 _ c ..,-• < as CO CO
.0 ci) 0 . (,12 CD 4_4; .c .0 It, 0.) C () - > 0-5 0 (.6 Li o •,-_- -0
.4'. .•-• Ni -... -'-' 4-, 11.0 '5 - 2 4_ .., 0 c !c .c 0 0: 2
* EL> 12 .1:,' 2 a. al .0 °'.5., 0 (u
o .,,,- = „, E .c _cp o 2 o E c3 ,,,0) ,(2 8 „,u) 6 g .,- 0 IP. u, 1= a 2 c_ •-•,-
T2 Es _,- .. -C3 m-
at cc a. to .r..,. to a co iy ou s.) k, .c.,,., ..., .,.., 'o 102 ,o a) .0 .-, 4.-, .6
N .c,,04=-4.)'s raccou)N ccncc.2o “=--......00•-,,,,-...,„.._•-
co as 0 co o 0 0 0 as o 0 0 -60=081.ard‘6 „0
1 o to 0.42 42 cp I o) 3 3 .o 0E72:2.20 U:SE-c co.c aco CB
C') .,-- i,i 'Cr'
...-
CO
a.
DC
6
0
0
I0
2
C
Reporting or Monitoring Me
c
o
C CD
E
:12
C
0)
a ,
.-
IX C
co "
a. .2
Mitigation Measures
C
CO
a- -0
C C
0 0 0
.-,
0 p.
> co 0
2 N
sa- o
,n0 o
a (.z?
_,.
• 1- 01 s.
C 0.
c co!=
• c
c
c a) 0
Co
8 .."
O 000
'1,,
'a v 0
CI. 0 (...)
E 0,C -=
0 0 so-
a = E
O al
c4 00
2
a 3 o
0)
C
al )0
Jo V o
.5"
a) p
d
< E
▪ .5.4) E Eu3
• „, E v3 a)
a) 8 2 -di .n
E fp. 10 •C
LV: TFJ 8C
al I- ELI 2
• 0 a)
0 8o .t
g). ..E
o
E E
8.
:r.,• 1.4. a- 0 E
60 ) 1
0)
C
0 a
0 0
. ++-
8
C 0- 2
5
C1)
U)a)C
.0 0.8
0
:5
0 -
CL .0 0.
v
C • N
: :15 L-
0 o 03 0
.2 &a. I E -9,
4- 4-
ta Zr) co c 0 112 0 12:
C. 0- t M < 8 a)
o o R -8
a)
a) 74- cu "8 0 o (/) o
.0
v o 13 0)
.0
00 ft cc 0 , 0 .._ >...1T.s 0.
-1 -1 .-1 -I 4-- c co 4- co 0 CL
<< << 03 003-S03 02 <
-a C N
C. 8 0 8 0
a) a 8 E 33
8 8
o_ o. 't al
o o 0.-
.0 0 a CI 0.1 111.)
a) a) :4- w Z CI o co o
> w > w 03 0 cS 2 *t +I ,...
CD It-.: .0
RS
'0 0 0 0 CO .0 ...., 0 0 Q. .0
a
00 w w 412 -0 o 2 >,:rem
-J -. -J -J c CO 4- CO 0 0.
<< « CORSCOSC00M <
ui w 0 0 a) lo ..,
--
42 a EI2 (.6
t oi )20 -To.
ca o 0 •.' Ea. 0 , 2 Z, A) 1&' ...C.
0 C a... ...' 0- ° ..-- 0 ,
- o 0
a) '0 t :°a) ° .(03 t2 cq.
L, a < o
lg 'u 8" 2 .1, -ct; g. F, -2 72 Iii 8 i8 (•' c °' "-- -<t- :c 'c
TA 03 •,,c, 10 CL
w11).-'01 ,c,cC,:n .6... [12 c = 45 0 g = 0 a > .- a cd .-• a
.0 ,... CD C11 C 2 ,..t E a
..c, en 0 0 , •G 0 a 9q2 co l'a
it> 3...-
-•-• CL 4) 0 C ....
(r) ma .7,, 0 ,S;-. E. 2 '1) 0 1--- (Do o ..-2.8 '8.2.0E0E• 0
c ..,=. LU a) ''' d, .- - ,- - -- . .o .-, c as o Ts •
.0 .,.., a, ..9,
"1:3 0 5 El2 2 .0 g.;•,I.EF,22 co > ii> ._ ,...
o ,..g .0 cl; .,T, (7) ,f2 ir. 0 t,7, .0 0 2 a '0- 8 1,-- _a F.2 ._,- I is' .1.1 0 1.1 0) >,C)
-MS 'a f.7'-'- tn- 0 Tx's 0 e tst co co 51) 0 a c.) „am° 0L..ca",:a-°- Ei..)cr- ..,c.• „s""as .,(79- _,Dxa--:;..-.4; .ccoc .0.0>`..„..E
E (.) a ..13 E co 0 .c a 2 .g2 E L-'. Si, 2 as
o .2 .- 0 - , I- _ ,,..:4 a) CL 0, o. o
'. -g. E.- .v2 -rim a.- - , , ,:g. 4 ( 4 B 12 2 g.r,:ct.§.2 .fl)
0 0 c 0 ... ' 0 W >•• _c(D .5
0 413 0 0-
.ac),••••,-7_-, woc.aa) aN.-.,.. co=
1-71'<coco a,00 To - IC% 2g.-0a'a' (Dm •-• camoi__0.• o Ea).0
,... _ • = RI 0 - -C
0 _ „ .2 co • _ > o „, a o 0 ‘4, •-•• U. 0 0 C >, , ••••• co ca 0
- 0.) 0 Tz" iD 0 .1:, '.1 0 0 4 0 - ° C a- C '•-• 0 *--.1 Iti) 0) co E 4.7 8
c c t . 8 0 ._ c ) c t , - 0 e 0 ) = 0 _ E l l 0. 0 b 0 )
CV()2 lis 1:1- ,.- o . "▪ 5 0 . 'cis 4) 9 "a 't, 0-01:3 oco8-8E0 8 c
0 .0 0 . 1:1-.c 20.,.....- tc.....SN.F.-,
. w 12 a 0 it 0 2 (O,9g2..,03E
<21c00 .2 S2 2 le s - 13 i d C u) 'I3
g g C ,..) 2 A .- •• :. )9- tn sci 2g,
•=0a0 t'•-al.-.- EciE8 8 - ) 0 .2
>acEl). 0 ,...• 0 4.. 0 • ,.• ••••* 0 1.1 ,„ = ,•• .5. ••=.,
ccroza.' o., 00 cp 0 w 2 8 13 8
0 2 ° a) = 2 g ai 0 v 23 as 'c 014:1 cl) 0 0 .- •-•-a = c ." <
ca 2-0 10 n E 0 'E' 0) ,- a- ._ •c Cr) 0 0 Z 4-. .- 0 2 0 .coa)2-
!•,-; '45 (1.1 !It - co a) 0 0 co co _al al •s; (I) 0 > P C .,
"'"- = N.-s-,-Ns..4-, 0.CM341
2. 0 (11 ,c., P2 c Ei a) ti .0 ,..= a 0 t1
LLI 0 .b.-- CL a. ii-. 0 ._ o .c i a= a. E a < a.0
i-.-c-, R co
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
(3)
E
2
2
C
a
V
to
C
C
0
a)
C
C
0
2
0
0.
(9
0
Ili G.
ui
CD re
I0
0
2
Co
C
Reporting or Monitoring Method and
C
0
C
ow
c
E
E
Mitigation Measures
8
C
.as
(1) 0.
g
°
0 0
cu)
U
'El 0
0
'C C
o
ra.t
t 2
(')
C C
o 8
o 0:
to
u)
o
• -c
•-
15 8
tu t if
t .... 0 0 m c a)
o .....,. c 15, iD. .6 15V
ci. 0 ._ 0 13
>,
0 0 4= a ••-• B- 8..0 La CL -J "" 0 --.
a .... .0 0
..5 0 .5 .a k 0 w 1--
a CO a) 0 0 17)
.... a 4.- C ..... -c-o ..- .32 ,,,le Li
0 *" 0 - ' '"'"
, co .7L 92.o al - E.<- E •-•1 re *Z.,
(S W 2 r< ,„E 0 .0
.c 0 9_ o w.
(.) '10 c
-J
a)<
0.-c 0)
0 .c
0 4)15.
> 0
0 o-
13 CO 13 1-4
0 0 ti <
_J Ca 9-
< < to
8
o.-o 2
CC
Ca cu
> c
o
-0 0 .0
00-6 f?<
-J as
< < E
City /CIC for Tinker
a. tn
tu 8
Ca)
,_ 07 -0
OW 0
4 0 W 41 a)
-ca ..--•..
4) ' 0 1
-a at as a tp
0
fli VE
.0oal 0.00
E vona)
Ell .5.E
0 0. w = 0 a CO 4- - ......
4 V
<V 2 c...) 03 03 E .2 -o o
9-
ti
7a3 d .0 0
C ....
c
2 z . c 0 tn, ,D .. A *E) F) 7...5,- 92 to 8
to .0z .04) a r.:- c oc 12: -cd .0 2
a" E :''' 0 0 c - ,,,'-
,,, cn a u) 0 0 .-- �C 013)<i". a ) (11 :.---.,;c"" W, a I (1) 8
< 2 0 a) as .- 1 c .c •- i ..... t3 u, -0 .4
, , ... ,„ -0 o o >,
14 -y2---ssNmcno0.c).-'2
.5 g. >, .0 .- a .•.•. .0 11 'Um ilic
ti t`3 ' rn R.t-ii iii g 'E t TS "-- c- 't7) .0 (.0 as cd c2ecgzt-'<cos2, ED. 1-5 1.3
fi) ; -'d 11 0 4_ to "6 8 € 2 i lg g 18 ,T, 1.13. .1 e 0
,8i3-,....-EAmS-Kttib''-",-9 -5 t E- 8 .°
C3- a) C it - 0 C 0 0. a t ,...• 0) a 4- .... 0
TO. (7, > = u, (,)° ") -F.,.. -C
0" aN >0 .0° E SI-1:1'513' /..)0 4-0 4) 1."1.• e.'-- 8 ..- (i) -2 Az = •0_ c=i, ...., . . .
4... 0 ._ 01 0U) 4- -(15. C I ) a) 0 .- a) •c -5 13 .-- .0 < -)
10 .0 12 3:-' w .-ECL-e .c ..-• .-00 13 ..., 0 '0 -,-, 0 0 0 0 0 0
a)=.0 goa)asta 8111,,,a3 --EcacEI.D. 8 a x e t .c .6 '@
E■Lciii.-t5,-E,w _5.5.7,-,ccoco 0 da o
4 0.0 CU C 1.4 2 c) al --° .2 rpc ° E (-) § .2 af) `" --c a) ,n a) .-- CU a §- t E L..° E
EEC E (n` Ln 41.61 I) *F- 1:1-- ..-2 03 Pct% 0w ?..° 011A :(13 .oE 2L'.1‘1°);° .134j 1 13470 . . au° 'ID pa° . e.: DID
000,.... .,_
0 c., .5 0 .0 .- c r- co 8 - ( I ) ..0 ' • . • - ..-c' • - - e i, W ...= CO E .911 -- ,.." .E
o
g E •0 ° (7) 0 > Err
w>0'..005
-cE-,..0o0cow •-- 5' 0-.-,o coo°
•S0 L 0c> t , 0_c .- •_. .aal co oo.- . t;o al -1= 1) ° 000 cE0- 0-4- - 0- . ° -0 c 41 a 0 0 ‘- c .o --- -.o ) - 6' -''a
.2 0 0 0. 2 ° s° .0- c' )
ee0ot c
2 .2 0 17) E a "E5 V) a; to- g .> ID 0 2' *-2 -,e- En
t ,.. 4-, ((;' --F,, ict -0 b --,
8"esoc,=.(t)043 0 a ? 13 03 ::1)" •C -- TIP '-' C 0 2„,..„:0,.,0 .ow.,, ... Q.
..,, 'e-----' a) 0) ce ta (1) 2 c 4- (ai) ° 0) %-, o 2 c di s
-6 ,-..-.N. 0 . 2 c 2 al .o -0 ,_ ,„a. . 0 .E t 0 a, 0 .as g t CU .0 •
oc Ei. --, ...a; 'el' IP", .., a u- ...q. -rei ,.,°3 0 _.....'i c a cl) 0 a V) .0 a° La ----”,
a ... • • .....--= ...• c •• a .- •-- 0 -... 03 a > .0 -0 '- c .-' ..., E.: •-• 0
.00-cs N
,.,_ 0 c
-&- ; a) ,..6 ....°-13 E 2 2 1-5 w
c -c .- - c a. c _a 2 c.) es -a > I- o a) ...• .c ..c a. a) ._ ... a. > a
C
a)
En. '111
CD N
•E
°
C6
a CU
o ▪ 0
>
c co
• CL
C0
•-•
E
(f1
a 2 0-
2 -
0)15(0
C2 •C
2
c 4) 0
(0 co 0.
.c
8
C
0
C
2
a°
a.
c4
2
C
0.
0
0
En
:rs
o
2
o
0
E
tr.
a
0
.0
2
0
tU)
0)
-a
0
E
0)0
CD 1-
0 V,
.0-
..Cg W
a) 2 c
C
:P. E
2 103 2
(/) 0)0
C C C
`1) E .0
'la- 2 15
.c
1° E
0
ca 0
0c
CD C
0
C 0 C.
I-
2
• > 2
2 A"
5
2 0
4'Z 2
g
42. 0.
.2 0 0 2
0 0
6 °
U)
.F2 0 2
E 2 E
.a
wo 2
a) CU.
.o
§'
V 8
co
C
>, TO 8 .2
0.) >,
-6 E
-c o
a 0
cti
Fe-
c > 9.-.
o
.0 tu 0u
fli c0
a. c § E
co a)
o ti 0 0 0.
c w -a
o .o-C!>‘---
.5 E
o 0
N- 2 m
5 Z
4-.8 :t."11'coEn (C)
-0 0.-0.c
2
. 0 c = 0.-,- -.._. a)
a a) 0 < >,--- = ,t.., VI ce .0 C,f,
CNC > 0 a) M 02C/) 'CI
CD 0
c,-, ..-i 4- ,.„,-,
a) ea c 133 B -o 0)
-VJ -3.° -02 4-J CI CU C C CD
>- 0 Ce 2 ....., ca.,.
< 8 0 rg Li CD < i.D. (i) 17 1-1.•
< < = 03 E .1:' COIL. 8 a. o
U) Z :1:1 0 o
2 --<(.0 1 0 LI, (), -o .2 E
-- - c a o CO
= < < 0 < 0 m
u)
cu
a) -o
2 ,..
o
..«- c
as -.
.,._:).-_. v.)
C 43 0) 0)
(L) 6 0.)) .R) -6
ca
o cp°- o :w o
..-
g.),..co
cu Cl) ix a cc)
.-. v.,
-0 0- = a) 0
P"-% 0 _.,.--1 ,,, ,„: 4- ,.
2
'0 0) -0 li) --k t' ..' *0:.--.:
a) a.
a) () c) oc oc <c le ° C 7 ':-.7. 0 'C
E 1:3 al u. o a o
(/) -I --I -1 - --- 7
< < < < Z 2 0 oo-D E>..
0 ..J ....1 , = 0 CO
< < al < 0 03
>, 0
E- 8 0
. ,..:, 2) c cot ... .4- o3 --0
cu 2 0 •. co a, 0 CD
.c 2 o 6. a a -.2 '
--, -o -a to- o a) 13 ., 0, c =
to -NG cb .0 as
a 2 0 0 `.(1 2 8 0 2 :s 8 76 2 0.-000c„ CO „, ----c 00-ed
0 in _ 2, EL 0 y 2 -r- z 0 0 0 ... ,
C - .)G cy, CO n_ 2 -5 4-■
0) 0) co a O� .0 ul 0 0 C 2 b' '':' 2 g ti t4 0 (1) CO ct
0) co c.) ..a (1..c0° mcE-
:a a -•-• (),. 5 tt,-:: .g. g Ea) wE _E c> 0 o lu .... 2 .ze.b., .(00- 5,
C V) C co W - 7)V; C3 *... 0 0 ° .0 cl. 2 OD .- o
c t- s... co
0 0 o _.. co 0 0)76 o .? 0 .ii2 0 0 ° c 0 a 0 0 c.).„ c
.,,° cu '2 .c c
`‘ VI m CO .7 .t 0
-.. F--,- u-- r) ` :u 0 - - 0 s, ..„. 2
cc2..Et;
4-. 4.-. 0 2 2
:c T. 8 is. •0 cc TO ..-
t ° -0 ig ,.... ... .-
•- a Ziiiccuncufi,2.. c oc,-a- e -5
-0 I% ccl() .0 7
e.
0 0 -a 8 '-
> C .0 2
- 01 u-. 1:': 0cu ) ' i ui . ocw 4 c° - I 37tu ) >49 sa 'Ll 1' . auTc ;II ,, co co .. .....a ,..., 2
Ca ,... Cu .e Q..z 0 4.. o 'o).,2
16- to' ?) 5 "
-0 a c , ,Y) i c .,,,,- ,... F.' id cc E cu 12
-‹ e 8 Fa*
o
0 = - a) c
"! ' : a . c1 ' 1 )' : : 2 .7(' ' :-.1 . i ' 2 0L. ..r C $ toj . o.
0
: c c c 42 0E )Q a .0 ._., ) - - . C 0 , 0 o o 3 , . o E 672 ,E 1.)$ . 2 ,•,'E ,„ -
-.'1.s 02:) . 12..a.0.., ..
a Rt0 .2 0 0
c E 0 0)m2.6 E 0 0 .i u 2 2 0 -
0 6 '0 0 0 ,....0 0 215-'6 o° § ,...,..a)L- 0'4 g e e E -41.-2 ''''a) 2 es) o •5(11...-g "a, .c.52
L.
o t!.." c 4 B i-t, as (Ts = ..9, i&-: z .0 0 P- 0 -Q E 0 --'
, .., -CC4-00
-,-. ,
.0 m a. a) uu 0 ..., 0-2=2Z '''..2111-8. g , ,.. 2 t,-, org ,--: ....c- 0 t5 0. , 5 4 ca 5 0
0
0 -0
ca 0).ec E c '3 -g t) a) .(1) ;12 .,L) e , 0 0 „ CO ° --......P., ,...- cb .- ...0 . - - 2 ••
1).(;) 72,...,._% .e...0-0 a) ce 'o ,,- 0 a E 0 c .c..) -. -t, -c -0 co . _c -
0._ ...., 2 ......0 .o c co ...., -cri 2. - , a ... o 0
. 4" ."64 , • :. : . it, ,'C 9. * C C . z' . ' . . - ,, , cS 1 . i g° - F„ e 0c ta i Z . ! d
1 g 1 08 7/9)C i‘14 .8.6 01-*(/) 1 17.21 -5° 0 6 s 2, 1), O 2 s:- co 0 v, 0 <11413 a t .0 0 O.
Of
0 -
ko
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
C
F
117
C
cu
C
'8
*c
L.
a)
0
a.
ca
o
t.3
° 2 "
> E
2 c °
ca
C
co
8 as 3
0.0)
2 -c .c c
>,.CC)
cri c
E
(I)
:C 8
n
01 0
E 0°
/-` c
j5 Ca
O 00
A
t
0 .o rx co
> 0
al 0 3
0
E o
„• 9 U) 71
• - E
g 8
o
D. 0 c
2 a) .as
am' E
k)- 0
U)
EL, o
60)
(1:1 >
.0 C a) as 0
a c
pW '5' 2
E E
Z" -
a .8 8 *-=
t c.
.2 c cl)
W 0 it:: w-
E ..?: o r)
c tt, c
= • 0 a) 0 a) 03 C
C = E o 2 c ,-. •
tr. • 2 E ° 0 0 ::-) 0 •.--
0
• t0 E o it' a
o a) 0 A 2 g g
o 1 c a) ..c..
a o c c a 11)
ct '6 `6
a 7 7-6- 0c> 'cl • t-u- I . E-
0
c 0) -1 "E' 0) C csj
a 2
ix -- • 0 0
ii B -0 -5
c
a. :0 4T,
,.„ , ..b: -8 sk) 8 8 -.E
c c
-o i5 o al a)
A ;1-st 8 E B.
o C c •......• 01 0 .43 0. cr) 2 "- ■-• -,-.
4 0 .„:, tC:t1 7) Ow -gy) m7- ;<2 °8 '-.cu 8 a °) v 2
OS ,.... a a) 0 .c a ..., c 0 , __,
• o 0 .o 0 i _ - .= (a .... ca a... ,
(0 >,
(9- 2 2 ..c.C. 2 -a
c > „ = 0 CD 0
0 .0 .O. -- )- 0 ca 0 2 0 E ).. .c .-,-, 0 a
Ct et 0. 0,--E-
° .c cm >,"- 0 0 o 0)
0 ° 0 5 2 t .... , • 0 -0 -5 '-' '- 0
uj a. t. E < -(-- LE 77 CO '',5 • c
CD g. al a)
0. cn ..,- o o E
*- ..--
6 c:0 )o .......•
0 < a 0 =c 5 m ..13 6.- B g.) 2 0 c t .0 t g. 9;1+5
< < ..:CEOcum I-- 3 0 o 0 < C3 3E cocam_Sc102
CNI
< • ti) .. C)
CO C .c c-si
C ... < -C 0 a) a) c -.1 't ^
..„.. al
in „, '2 ....9 ,2 :.1) , ...zj .o _c ,... .., o a) U) -.....c o
s g. t E I2 'e,
C 4.' at .- 0. o) V., 2 . -c 0 42
) .,, 8 45 4- 8 '.-12 t-
o 0I a 0 v) as o. 12 o al
a)
0. „..0 La _.-c .5 -'-'0 ce = to E fo.`" -1 .-- ...- -,-, C7)
F2 0 0) -0 0 i
"C CO 2 cp 1- .-- a. co = =
G 0 5 c N 0 c --1 2 c at -9-' -:..zt o ■-. a) , 0 -
w () E (/) '0 °
8 'Ei f0 1-4
CL 0 = CI C \ I 0 0 = .., C
2 12 c% g >,.-oomoco a) n "-• .z.-- L- 0
Z
0
• o_ ....
'u-
=
• o < z 42
co S E 0 _90 _Imo as 8 .00c ; oc 0c- : '-- .20 : Tal >c• 112E as ; ; i 0 12rt▪ a:
-0 0 TA c....- , 0 ... SI 0. .J 0
-13o00ao.0a)
(..) fa, 0
wo• 2ct 0)
- Ce c 8) c
0
iz' e 0
a) c
< _
c 4)
to .0 > a) Fy-:- ir 0 .?_• 2 .c .c
a) 0)
2 -a- -c _ 0 N •-• ..._. -C t >,
.c • CV p- CO -0 a.
1-: cti
c,42 0
, 0
9, g g .74- >...E.
-0:00,E1- ..ag.7.5,....ctsoc.012,768E 6 t,a, 1 ,._,.c:
O o a) -o al a) _
7cs
. 0 . 0,
0 ,.. ....,
. 1 . ,,,,,
.
-o
as 0.
.... 2 ■ .... a) a.„ al 0. t a (/)
a) s-_- .... ,.. Cl) 17 ., 15
,.., = -t-, a) t F: c c 2 MI t) c
), = ..., ..-
.0
0 • o. o a. „,>, 0“,5A":„(t0 0 -0• .
E ' 0. .
CU o).0 .---
'1 g '2 8 ra 2 2 0 t .2 ,- c '0 in .... E
• 0 4) 0 ••••
"--',,,, c o _ ..., o
0.........c, .._cco!.c 0 4) 2 2 o
8... i..). .- a) 0 .f., *0 6) 2 2 0.
E.
b • E 9 $) A>
.0 > 0• - to • 0 L-
0.:.....- 4,-
0 >, '-' 01 A- :0 8 .4. 3 2 c -a, •0 0 ,-- 0 07
0) c w a) -- 3.3_ 6 e o 0.,0 0 :2. = 6-1 .-
COO .0 m ..E. ...., ,g2 as .c vt .-6 a .8 .L.... o al o tc, =. .: 0 co
0 , t 0
= nc) 15 c 6 < a) .- 6 > 6 al o 0 a) ...., . .0
Oa, ID c 0 iu cr co cr..- v.-.
o - C E 0 a) cp c o o cu cm a 2 •=, o
0 >, 2 0 CD CO ..0. t 0 0 c. , c 0 ,..
Ei. E 2 a w 03 • . .N. 0) .." 0) 0) •-• a) :N. ....-
ca.) Z: - 0 a) ea co= .° 0 0 t o '17 • c
0) "-
(act 0oe... ..- „„ 0 °-.6D
1-1-) Q) .5. ■.. >. c 0 ,...
8 E as . 4) o- --:, .= g ^ 2 5 e ,'-' 0 E t= o
0 0 ,F2, g o 2 cj as a) cf) - 0„
a, _o ..L., a. .. ir, 43 E co tcat5-°'-'' -E" c
.(9,... 0 17 CO - 0 ..., - 0 .c o <0=c2 -§',..›,c- 0 ,▪ (4 -a
:E .., .F, fa"1:1 .c a3 0 :.' CC?I 2: 2 Z°66- o
r:h 1:3 ' g u) - - o o o a 0 0 U)cUQ .., .c •
. c
• t 0 Ti 0 6 .GoEvt ICI .6 o) 0 5 u.. ..c a.,
CL)
• 0 cv 10 ).-.
0 E = cr E 0 al ° o 721 0) " - c 110 C
... .... i 0 0 - c- a) 0 0 -
o o
c-
9 -E C2 'w3c41 ....-°°) 0.5 7:15 co'D ma o.2 111 :L- -rico' (SE -6: 09
F...-13)(5 GI' 14.."PD 0g apt
a .
cct -5 .1:1 CO 4C I--
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
Reporting or Monitoring Met
C) 0
0
C u-C
o ••• o 0
C.) DIE
CC)
.... -
2 E 12*
0
0 0 c 01
IX ■ 0 C
.7) a -1c i3
c c
IL .0 c,-
0.9 't a t e,
,.. 0 (1)
(..9 C C 0 0
Z
1":. gap- E _c = c
E ' 0 ral
2 g
a 0 - .
o a) CD
IX C2. 2 2
8 24.---t EmcN
tu''''. 2 z, E .... .... 4,
CD C .• ad „.9 0.a1 Ca 'D
-1w t 16.
al ce 0_ 4.) o E Z.3 gin '4.6 0 2 RI iLa
<
1- 0
Z
O o
O :13
.2 c
w ... a)
F e
00, 0- .0. .cm a) 1 Y8- g▪ ..c"< 172 7
Z c
0. c (0 =.. -ii 0 >,
O in -
- 0 V
CC M -I (0 C p
Z = .. 1= IN ,'' ‘.., _a -.-,,,, ..c.. - ,„
O -' Li- '.- -■G n,"' 0. 0 c, •-i,
csr "
• a. 2 o co E
Z Z.3 CI : I - F - 03 ED. C• I I-
z
0
-0
c a)
o
, ,... a) a
c h c
c 0 8 di- I p c 'c -c c c
(..7 0
a
--
11 2 Ew j,...; 11 4/ " 0 cp 1, o .. 15
.., y . .a
P ..E.......,
,c'.- ig "a- E 0 c 0 2
= '*- cn o
2
al C -0 Cr) .1-• cr
2 , o 0 0
.9 .,.., a)
DIG) C •-'03 'wo t CO
.-- 10 -C fi,
as D) U)
E. al -e a 0 „_ 0
0 'a' 2 el 0 0 0 2c .- .-
-a 0
i2 w sq ca Cli .." 4-) g g,'
E oa rt: 0 (11
c) .9 try,
E-a ,- .,.,-0
c ,
.E 0 CM tj ttl 4) E -0
c,_
- - , F, cs a)
0 4 z, 1-6
1102 al3a)6 'fl'c 8 - - c"c11 2 u- .8)
, ▪ c o" 1 .0 mai ..-0 CD .-g,
E 2 C:1 0
E > R c a) cu .2 0 4- -, „c
.... c = .C1 ....,., C .- 0 L) ... 0 •CD a.
..-..• om ..S....,,,,” 0 .... --o> .....
.`.. ... a • - co 0 0) .z.: 0 0 0 ;.---. .- >' °
CD 10 .=
"0 0 E• 0 .C17) 0 10 ° 1::" c Oal ii E 0 (I)
2 °2
C ° 115 -057 Ttd (1) >, .1) ID !lc) -a
• v c - c - -- - c 2 al 2 5 ED_ c
2 2 cu -) IC f7 6
t? OD 8 1:3° g .1 g i -5->" g.. i ..- ri.
cacv..2 Z 0-04 ia n CO 0 aT CO 0 a-2
• • • 0
Mitigation Measur
w
8
8 0) 0)
c
co g
2 43 0.4)
0 Ey;
0
.-0 E
a: 0) 2
-J
City /CIC for Tinker
(N /A to Bayport)
-J
< L_ tic.
.. 0 „„
a- ... a) 1- w•
a)
a-0 2 a. a a
o c c ........v) 0.
2> a) >° ‘.. sal'' ..'„,. E> >.
> cu c = CD 0 J0' hi co
0t 0 I.- (4 - _ 0
0 1.0 ...0 15 '0 0 '0 co hi .c..) ...,, !).! ...,
(..)0 o DI< CG cc o z,-,e
. 0 0 ..1 ._, 4:-. -I -I -J a)
C 0. ° z
•,:t < a) .2 cn
« .tt .4( F.3 1= ‹c -0 :S ....-
,.. 1.... =
0 IR JP S2 1! ..0
;-,s„,'41:- 0 -0 .-...° .0':"*" ,--(19- .0>s• 0° 0>a) PL,
0) , 0i E" B 2 .2 .e, (17 6 (I) ..2 E a
w i-D- c
A -,,. a • , . ,- . . . , - , c .= 0 . . , , • . -, a N 6 = c
o o
>2"-->.52E411)0 0a)ca
Ii a) 8 .8 .0 lu 0. ca tiQ - if) 0 0 .0 .o
al
a-4- g -r) 0 E c 'a g a 7": al
C a) '0 w o 0 .2 .0 .52 § a)
o (I) a o p c 2 -t- ..0 .o .6 ..., .sa_
B E .(7) `c) 8 ..8.)'-- 2 2 ID). 4 I--) 2 il 3
220-a`t1).-1.44-. -0 'tt) C 0.)
... 4._ 0) d, 0 1... y- vd+-iwoo,0-c
<c4' 1? ii 2 ct.g5:3 8 t 53 E 3; ::,5
dE =s0.-.cmc .2 6 LI- c as
rifi IP. T.,3 8 0 5 RI U) „ 0 0 CI .IU C
8 = E To' • g .,-c'j . '`Ill E) WI ir -2 C) :5 .2
'.8 .2 C)> a 2 ..,.,. 2E § .-
:0 . E: 00, _ 5, 1 ..c;) 2, - , . . il..._ . ....:..::: 7, ; E;
tre:s'-gRvg.P...`-= Cu g .%
wogtioc.,..,
>,0 ce>=03EN00.a.
.:-.. a.) ,.,.. ,- c.) 0 a ,„ t c > ,.. c
F.c:3: :ocs' :0,...cp
2 i b:c 7,- >4).111- °) '": N: c:
a-- - . - as -
c ,o c , >,.2 > a
„0.....c ...,„n,.° g)
. cc0o0.-‘,0,-a)owo,_
002c'c2 uccciD0 m>.5
a 1- fr ) - c. . . 8 ma 4 z' c- ? oa 2 2 53-z 0i) c
0
Zr) <
-o
O C
° a)
>dJC
o
23 CO .0
00
-I -.I 01
«CE
a)
02
c\1
E
Q.
C
2.
C
C
0
C
0
re
0
0
0
ce
CD
0
o_
CD
z
111
mz
CD
z
t-
<c
E2
0
1-
z
0
0
0
C
Reporting or Monitoring Method and
7-0
>, 2
c) a
c a
as 0
Z. "0
• 4-0
t 2
0 -
.- a)
'.1. • • =
(6
0 ct? g
C
0
TS> g a)
',0
o 0 ta.
0
C
0
Jab 0
o
al o E
C
C.0
.5
0
as 2 as
< 2
2
› -
C
0
Ce CO 0
0
13 4-
ca
o 0
=
ce
"6
','
H
40
a) c ..8
cu
E E c 8 0-
a)
as • a)
0) E
a E
.2.2 :=
o as -C
E
'co) 29
E '2- 5 =0)
P.2 a
2<
0.
.c .E..
0a)
0 C < a) E
.-
'-.
IC +71 a3 5 hi
a)
a s a. 4- ,W t a
c c
ki v -t a ' o 2 < ,_ 0 >
c 0 0
0 0 Et2 a i_
0
(act E = 0 o >... =c 0. 0 4., I-., 0 4-° 0 4'1'2- >t at
as a) o a) >,03 c ,-,
CZ 0. 0 > a)
ID :V ° .- 0 E c c.) -FT, LE E -92
t ''-) 13 0
4- .SC • V,'
CO 0 .0 - 0 5 o .2 as
0 0
.... al
OS L• 4- 0
Et_, a ct cc 8 ( j 0 Ex!, >, .,.. 0. > -5
-I -.1 t.- as t... iti '5 .2
cr 75. to
a. o c 0 << 03 F.5 m E. ca o ..t -8 2 e (9-
a ,_ <
)
.c a
'6 a
o <
• ki -o .- •La 0°
6'
o_ ill tr) c o
VI' 4_
a.-., o
.) "c _ 0
c o ill
0 0 -0 .._ , • - • 1 : 2 OC
0 C n
2 o_ -c a 2< a 0 --co
o .° o o 0>. 0 cz) o 4._ I? 13
0 0 ti a) >,co c Z a
a_ as 0 o_ -2 '.-: 2 2
W c 2 8 :111 0 0 2 .c > xi a) -E*
co 1E .9„a a) 1-:. as 0-
c li) 13 (/)
0 a
t Li" tu < 0 zs-Nd a. j.) -÷2 ..- 0 0)
17 01 )- .0 .12 4P, -J
a. 2
nt 4: o _I _Icc .C2 /13 CU _1 c 0. w m c, m
.50 « <C co t) co .E co ‹c Ei 1= .4( 13 :E u_ cc
<
u) >,
t
-o E *0 o o
-o as -0 a) ui
a) 0
o E .2)
5 _, 0
f.12 c E a) .,.. 0 L... 8 a
4., ..c. c . r0 0 cu
0
V 0 0 tu 'F. -0 0 0 0 a., 2 cr o 7) Ey.
cc) •-• E 0 0 CU L-
ai 0 w .0 4... •'' 0 •-• -cs a a)
L.. E). p o o = -o- (:)-
-5 c 0) as >,-.,--
0) as
.= mc 2 g 0 2)
, 2 ir, z,.:-.,. 0 a) Ca c C 0 c c ••-• .?_-. as es
CD :0 o
a-
6 t- .... 2
- 0
0a , .0 .0
0 0 0, F) ,..'ai 2 }-..L.. ci 0
. . 5' 5 ,2 g ", I Iv ) .,E 2
u) >, "(,)°) -6 - as SE
0 o 0 .c°0 ..saf .20 .5 : _0 4.-c: c 4-:2 .1.09E :: .c=p-al: owa9wm• c-7;0) .0)i
c c .7)
:139.7.1 ; o° cm 02- ±-7 O. ; V'0 cp".%3) 2m 0° 1: 0 > d a)
3
0 0 c 4.4 0 4. ...- 4-1 1:1 a - ._ .,... c "I3 E 0-
ILI o u) 2 0.g t-to
s? 2 -r) - - -= c/. 0 0 46 ,..
e t ' ° Lz' 2 ... 112 -c o a) cr .6 as 2
.c - .c c 0 .,.-... a) ..- .c a)
112s li 1:I g) 11 '6 IL! ,_° : (3v) ; c: cc71.2 li ill I! f)L P." §
--- - o
$2U g., tr. 2 1,,� -04' 2 .",- ..--2 c>1)"<"--1 'acn 064 W. '0L4 i
■_. ....• ,,,, ..11., .... NA. 0 --, „ to 8 O. .....z Ti,... E -7.6 4-., . O' E 0) as 0 -To a)
.c ,......-* ..-.
fa. - -- .c as _, .o .c ,c a) a) ..c
2 ra Q _ t,„ C raC C° E 'S1 0 .(ll,„ 2 t E co < 0 0 .c7) -=,„ 1,..., _ (4 = 6 .?. 2 0
et c 0 .,,, .0 tz ;33 .0 .iI2 , .0 Dacca 0,_ oas Ch'Z' ts• ••••%- 00
us :" 8 1-- EFi3 24 0 -s i3 Fp iE 0 E .,: J12 Et 12 l'. 43
al 0
F. .c 4- 0 C. ‘.., o 13
as a. „... v) ..... ..- 0 .. .., .....• -. __
C ■••• U)
O • 0 0 4) 'F2 -0 a; 0 0 a) „,o 4,5 mc 4.,- 0 ,,, „,o , 2) a) 0 _,-.. La 2 d .e- 1 ,.j...0 8
-..g.002 c:...e co-002 (-7) A 0 c ,so
as -u 0 I-
c- g 4:>1.,.4, 0 0 9 ((I; 10; LE a) cn °W
a) 0 .L.a 15 e, 0
20 .,-, co >,- 0 •as 0 c c < 6 t 0 t CL) 5 > 8 a. -= tfo °. 0 .0 ''''
0
c 0-eto.=---0020.02
a)
as • -c) 8 c _sa a) o a) z, 0. .3I ...0 Vat_ E 2 -- .- 4- (4 t- as -• a) ...,, ..., .
.° z c7) TO, ...2 iii 05 : 0. <a) .5,0 ;..s...c. (,)2 ‘...., E (f);11), 12c c?
42 1303 00 VD >a)
,.. as o :c o .r-- a) L.- o ..c 0 0 'V 0 t■i .:L' 1-1 (ft
.0 01 (17 0 t7 al 0 ■-• 'V . - 0. c :E. c > ....,o § .he_ 0 0 c 0 =
O 1- • c 2 as :1-) 0 o 49. -5. C) as , a) = 0
tm 1E 15 0 cl. t) c) c) -0 ca I= 1c 1.- 0 0 o_c 0 4_ o .-
F: .
O 0 ... to ....- o
e e a I. 0 Ei a
0
2
g
0
0.
oe
0 z
re
Lu
i--
0 z
z
a-
z
0
z
2
0
2
0
0
44. C C0 C
E 8 miza
0,4
C
2 E
0
> :=
6 Z'69.-q1
c c
o
0
4e.
0 8 -yr= =
1- .E. ccil 4- 0 •a,
o
0
cn •,= .c o ,- 0
C o .-, 0 c -
0 0422>8
CC C.5 a. 7.E gt z
itigation Measure
C)
15
•••••
a. o
et)
o-L..
c ..c _ p_ iv, j:, o ..• ..-, - - 6
0- T g a) ra o " = 2 e cr0 2 ) 0".) 4t ." z ) W
.' , .() 1S-
c E „g ...E., e.) 1,.) .° P
o IR t•
a) c 0.
0C
...,
co el) .2 c
.. -0 CD `C,I) ...=; 0 ° 77) -W .-
g<1.11C C6) ti)
4: 42.) CU (...1
a)C0CD > .... c E
mo . g . . . ,, _ . . . . .8 ... pc • c :27 . ".1. :a) i.
. A 9 . <..> ° .) . - °3 -) . ac F
as -,z) ..",- .....
4 -,46, Eol (. 4) ...0 ..ci.0 .,0 .s..,9 c...1
> MC) w 0.) 0 (...) CD < uj CO S 0 ."•• 0
o
u; , e_••• ,,,>. „-S, •- 0 „tz Of CO E l 0) Z 0 0
C P" "=. 4-- .c.a .....° CO en 0..,°. .--
90 co ° - S .c ra .- Z., 4.0.,
*.0 v. ai::-- 't :4- .... ic o ° a) al .s..) e
0 131 ■+- CO
0 a) a ° 0- C C W
8 -° g! t 0 00
S- -`• 0- D 0 as •-• - 1.-, ..- ...--•
• z ,- ti 0 c id c 0 c g
13 o co (a Ei..) • • E cn-E, o -bc 0 1--- e
. „ a, .... .7::-. ._ •- o) .... al ,
0 c c c (I) 4) 0 0 0 't •t r41 ..
O 5. u) t a,.`) .
t 0 o - > 0 00.2 1° .4.e ... 2 z .=8icoa E° 0 E :5 -1 0
e .,e . -..-. 15 4-? .
a) a
13 v 15 E 17 au 75 i3 0 0 c.) if as e a.....
(0 C .4.1 .- 0 4.. .,., C ••••4 rs .4. as
a) -o ,..3) 0 (.7 Th13 •5 ° lg
0 CO (C) :E., 3 i- co CO .0 .5. 0- 4:0 .t.- CI,
CO
o
c
t'
2 ET.,
c
8o
o
0)
°
C
.0 C 4?-
4.-
0
C C 4
4)
>
o
81"
C) co ea
-°
CU)
a
o avc
t: t
ot, .4)
'F.
or)
o 1 a
a) Fa (7)
0.
o
sLE
id
0
.g 8 P.
t 0 45
Fi5" 8 0 2 8
> (at
° !E- t
-c c
o g 8 8 (8
s >,
in 0
co c
o c
o
C.)
0 w -cu °
Cu 0 E
o`actL2
0
0'' 0 3.2 C
• co 0. ,2
0 0 >, 2 c)
C s.
8 a Ca 2 )
'a 0 Ter
t
0. ■-
>,
CU 0.
03 E
46 c
t
0 0 2t
0..c) 0
„,-
0.
004->,
- ea
0a).Eto
>,
o
0
.0) (a 0.
Cf)
.2U) r) ( (L)
"
00 -I °
>C < c -
a) a moc-a
cL.a o
_ a. c).= ai 0.
r: .;;; () (‘I 4= CU
CO 2 F.)" m o:1
tr-) 03
CU
E
0 a) a
.0 0 41 -;
cD
..-, 30 :--,
(41C
0
0 =
Ea) •ta (0 i--.-._
( E . 8 2 e >0
C
2 < g .s
Ell
... c7)
th' ;al t 1:3,„ (t) •= 0
c c .-
,....... c ,_, .a 0
c) i- c 'Fa cf) c
6 '6 -2 .._8 °)
,- a) a) , 0 .F. 6 a -6,
° 2 4) 5 '1:'.' '1" °
c't n 0 c 0 2 2 P.
03
,..,° 0`.•=lcoo . tz.--o
,- .o.u10.,,*0 c ot
5 ..ii CD > C
tj -,•,.z m2 cL: C .7):. to ! C. ‘ Is 't.l."6.
F., y...T 2o,,,0
- .. 0 . ....
> ._ 0 ,_ a) a> :•,... E ci.
.1..)--
a)
= •f-4-. C (I) -.SI 2 = t--). E
cr
I., - 0 0 (/) < . • 0 0 0.
,
0 0 > - t ,_ .ga : O.F.
O 0
Lo4)04) 1.00:' a,
'-' o
C.) -
-se ' a E .-
co
f• o a...-oa S,), a)
2 i:"-- as v) tii= 1- 0 .F2
hP
o
ra
LL
CO CU
4) L-
E
-
CD LL
.44 >
8 C3 C:t
4...
0
a)
.2.g22i15.
IV N 0 C
N•-
6=15 4a 5
C (1) CCD E
1.1■ a 0 0
0300C
0 a) -o 6'.13
C. = o
4.11 2 11
E 1:5 ° oat
8
_52 8. of)
= 41.0 0
al 0 °
(1)
CL
u) a co
,c(cgm
CU
s E
vott ° E
•-•
.0 0 C 4.11
as o - • c
C 0 rg 0)
C? "
•
- R1
-7
to
E
a.
0)
2.
Cu
•0
2
2
C
0
CD
0
CD
z
e4
cc
e" 0
ct.
-1 ui
013
1-
0
0
-o
_se
co
0 0
>,
O 0
Cu
Cu 0 Cu
>
2. Cu CU 0. • 0
• E
s...) 0 0.0
0
C
ct
E _J
<
0
41) 0
a) 0
'a-
t(U
.0 C 0
(U
Cu
0
M
(1) .=."I
f < • E
- a CD 0
°Ec-•-,c
0
0)=.• a) a)
> >
2 a. a) 0)2 c.
< WOE. co 04 0..2
Cu.
o za
a 0)
>,
ca >.
mE
0(0
Z 2
0)
o
CU .0
•
0.
0 76
-0 0
.0
.0
a) =
o
.c 8
o a a
al • Cu o
a 0 • a)
Cri• _C
al 0
C Cu-
9 0.5
t mt.
12 al 0
O 0 to
4-■
.0 • C°
4-t
• 0
CU 0)
0
:5 0
E
o
E )7-.) c
• > co
,..
-17-; 0 E -oi in E ° e g
12 z.• 0 .... , , . „, 0, 0, ,„ Evi2 cac, R
a) E Es ,._ a) 1.12 _,.- 4-, i•
> c as 0 2 0 8 .t a) 0 2 -a 0.- ,g '5 ti 0 "EC-'=' -ci) 0 ..-' 0 -" *0 0
) a "CI w ..0 -0 C M • - ..c 0 C ,_
CD 0 -" " 4S ° ° E E b c -°- 2 CC 5 -c `- 0- o 0 ',7) 0 li- j 03 0 .
........ 2 0 0 0 *a. 0- = 0 - 1- (i. 0) ,- . 0.) a. 0 0 a)
a.
'7 o.) : ga) -s1 , E°
p • 0
8
a) c „, -- a) f,
L- a)0 ° - 03 u? °
g .CID ),(1/ la & t"," (S g
E 2 ..?...•.• o 0.3 0 '5 0 (UT) a. 8 a) .2, ID 0 B' 0 2 .c 0 EE 2,‹ 0 .,„,,,,.01,-,,,.,)
a) '-' 8 .- ° crm -2 .(6) 0 c :..S 2 0. -Z a E a) F- ,,,S 4.) • ,a? c m ' ra c c c .0 >,
0,30)8... 2 8 2 z,E 0 .0. 8.0 a) > 0.
> C V , a) t,j ■-
c2 ..?..., ---• ... ••••• a
,(CS Olg of) 06 al< x *0 .6 Ell F.c_ al fit.o..E 4.) g 8
▪ 2: : 4 , sa ) g - c3( 74 . g 8c L . c° _ ?, . c° , , -c51 • 3 0ca : :0 . . ." ), 1 ..,_ 2) ..,..?,g ...cc2 (3 :0") .T.u5. n i .:6c L1 2= -fida ! "gi
EV> = 0 ..r. 0 •C "0 2,-, s" • ',. '. 0 Leh - - ''s a) u) ' -,-, a) as
0 • (_, ..., a 0 =,,,, c •C 0 4- E 2 rti ,.,'-• 0 0 C 5 ,-,> V E 0 aVi '..).. t td Ca V) W ..0 E
E .c o „ .).:) 1...? .2 •-5, 0 (1) 0 0 -t a- f, -r., V .2 33%z-- a ,. ). L..- 0 I,) a) a) 0 a o. - 0
a) E •f,' Ea. c ''5 o 2 0 ca .c '.A) .... 0 u) a) ill 0 ..., E 2 ° > .2 c 152 -
a - v L. "c' 0 „, - = a. ' = ri g 0) 0) F> 0 0 f, E iii 2 .-G
c)5- 8 2 ,...0 Ta 00.114o.00mc.a5 Ta 0 0 2 2 2 s „ 2 .s c g) a.
O 0 0 cD „9 "a• a *a • (15 0 c -5, o > 0 -,-• I- .12 co 1; 2 ..-. 0 ,...0 0 '- 2 0
za ...a 5 a).•& 0 as a a 0 .2 ....-= E 1 a) t; a -c a)1 5
▪ ‘.-0).cc" ECL:rn CI' }-E .9 -, 1 48 a9 a) :3° as. 80°E.go
a 0 us ..-- • 0 2 0 ,7, - , • 0 0 0 a 0 .„ „s, T.-.) 0 , 73 2 < cn a) ,- a
cel-o)- .E0),7,21-(t)c)E
0 0 -c • (15 a) 1.- c) .0) '0 0 .0 "E' 13 •- -c 112 al e---. 17 0 0'0 0-9 - `°--
c c .0 = 0 .0 c 1.- > 0 .....• C CO -a C 111 0
,_a.)
„9 -0 •I2 0 V .al Cr E 0 8 0 )6 a) > 5 co - t IL 0 ..c E
I-. 8 , o 1.... - 0 .0 CD
• • 0 ..„ --, • .-.. .-
w , 0- w w iii, 0 ,, z..- . O.
_ - •..-
.... o c ... ,...
I- I- .112 ca .2 CL •::C.-- C-L- CO.."' CL° 0.° 0.• "-Irlo F-1:1 .0 <CM R E 8 a.'- .
CO
0.
cc
2
Cu
U.
a
w
Cu
/
E
cL
8.
1:3
c
C
0
0
tra
c
4:3
C
0
0
2
0
0
z
rz.
0
Ill Q.
CO ce
2 Cl
0
0
0
2
E
z
2
a)
C
-a
.2
C
2
a.
Mitigation Measure
0
.__ 0
tn02'073V 04E
E -5 g .' '"- -° 0 ' -
.c ....,2 0
aa a
E
*?- .....cr w
P. i5
.E.- ..:cc: ...,..-wa .7.5-a)• sl.' -:,;; 1
0- o .,.
c-
L'EU09)0a5-5.a. g ,DE 2 a) 8 2 co- 4.,,. LI? E°3 cs cno ..v,...c .0130 .i.D..0-5 c. .2
E 'a
al a. -a 11.2 0 o
O. .8
,-, 2
4-,,,, as
Cu CL c IL CO t..2 C) ,..
• -..1:.: di 0 CO co 0 c '‘,-; .- a g . -2 1:1 c as - 1:01 0 -0 .0 1- ....
o ... Fs
.a." c -6 0 -.6' ...a o ta S_) 4 ) (51 0
a) al 3 o E b 0, 0 ., Tti -5 .0 0
tocccua
.,57,). v -0 c4 cq -2 vo ....,,,E cctU .0: O' ai .R. 8 2' 7a
o) .=". 2 S' c,3 E (3 - e- fg ° 13 °
,_ 0.(... (n A ..I■ tt: ...,-- CL • = Cll ,,.. _ .-.. ir,
s >, ai o 0 - TO 0 R- 0 --.. it Eogin . wE...00...0
,, Eco E ts ,._.._, .._alc ,„.... :LI.) ct.) 0),_ ....) .0. cl. = .."*C=C1(.0>' :12 41',3! g :::.,".
0.-- o o ,,...... 6
0 E.,..,0 c 0 c a; "0 .c "c 'E co .0 0 .-- of co E La. t
-6. cm a) 8 ° v .6.) ,E, -..' .° ' so to L. .s so . . .2 . F, , ea . c, ,i, . oo 00 • , -,,:i . , o• c 00 g 2
ca...
a- .0
all0.0a1 -al
11)050."..0 0 00=1"-- 0 a .;.-. ow 4...• 0
-_ca .aa)....) c
.0:1) E ocu :00 jo• ._c ; *.:5 oc .52 ca' •P c .a cu ;5* C ta a) ''s 8.
.0 0 c (1) 0 'V u) r,.,,, ......
00E0 CE2o.)00E0.2))1) j.,'I
t; „, o a 2 0. -6 IP_
w 6 ..c. a) c "L. 5: co ' e.0
> c a tti 'ffi .= :0 0 1
2 ct; act (I; ' v ° 8 2 6 „,°) t:P5 Z g-8
a. E a) .0 -o . on ..c '.- -o i(1)) ° (1) 'F) in 0 o o o 0 (.0 o ., W .,
u_ a. o - ,... < o 1.3 o .._ ca a) o ..... (A,
O 0 e o
-0
7 •ti
4) 0 c
.0 .0 a/ '0
c Zs
Co 1-1" a)
.2 0)' E 6
a) •
a ..c ,...; CD 0) ,- .CC
o o o ..c 2 °)
Of
• Di-
:;j
0 0
;; 11_9' 84' 2% 7a 1: i= -°c‘43
8..0 a) 0
o) .... CL as .0 •1 1 42 2 ! 6-s"-(9 cc,,a) il
• -.
a
0 .... .0 .... C •C
a) I:. CU- 0 Cl' =
-§ 8
..- 0 ,_ 0 _ _
..2.'' = EaSc' .56" ••1).:
0. 0 u?..,
ECU
CD C (I) 0)- t •-C
G 4-' • 'C W '5 o o .8
0:10• 0)."'Ea'- 2 - 0
-- a
cD•t • C as • Cum = w °
.2 .(d IS 1---c -8
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
E
a.
C)
C
C)
0
C
C)
C
2 C
ca
C
C
0
C
C
0
2
a CD E
a 3 a< or
4-C
O
a) E
C
E
Mitigation Measure
a)
LLa)4 - 10
z o
E c
w 2, o _ o
-.8 6 ra E
al 2 f) °
15. rt
2 , .E
cc•'-14)
o 8 b •
C 6.3
0 0 o
o
CD '0 0 n
-2-gE7)9ga
0 C '-
0 >,
C0t)CCTT3
CI (I)
"r),
>, 2 2 P.
w mg a) 7., -0
,C) a) E 8 .2 *0.'
E °
0c.i20030E
ca
.c
0 .5 a) 4. (,)
cp)- fp -p; 104
.2 a„,1 " 2 r)
0 CO C).
1:) c CL •-•
..• -S44 r)
50000.,.„C°
0- 7,1 „(7)
• >‘-a.
.0 • 0 lo c1) _L-
t 158-E L:g
< • > .-
0 c
o 0 0
-:.--.
a a)
'il)
(.) 0
,.. _ .c
C 4- c
.2 -II it. _c .0 gi -J -
ei) g 2 2 t
a) •a-; 0 2. v a V
'0 TI "2 a (V) . c :).--
a 0 0) 0 •-
ce -8 E
0 .„ > 2 2 >,
-1 cr, as
0 2 o ° c
0 ,..., ,_ o , OEEc<0.a. 0 4) >,
> 0 '''' -I 0 2 0. ° = C 0 , 0 E
co -,42 ,..c S' Eq, -fg a < 1 .6 2 -6 42 2 -----
< ?.....1:3 Vi)/
..... .2 g
19 - a CU .... C
0 :C 0 0 0 = 5-.15 c> a 0 tit ti..) - >,
0
z 0 2 r-
kj (7)* (1) 2 'c'-'3 ') -8 .g. '' 2 '6 ...... 0
P)..
6
ii) c
-r3 ,---
.a)
O c 0
0
2 • .g iii li 43 .c 0 2 -0 il)) .... ap
0. >,
_ ..0 0 t 0 as .1-, 0 4,7 CD 0) cl) c) 0 .C5 .-
0.= c 0. --, o a 1,--.
c cu o -'-` w
a c w a c) a ap C. 2 < o E
0 17 1D 15 gg E o •
c 0 4) ,= 0 0 t-.:w >, 0 N 0 (V >, 0 0 .0 0
o
tc
0 o >^ a) ---- o
a) 0 2 Lc5 o° 2 alEE00
> 2 >
a)
a) 0 2 v o o
:= "- -.1 0 (a o. ° 0 -9 .''
ID 00 as <ocat0 2'5° 0 to Iii -0° La -
-a • .._
>a ) :0 . - - so .
r-'..- ).- EL
-a ) -0 .c....). -al
2 ,.., N 0 ix 41 a
'zz- .±-; ,-, _..1 4_ 0 ■I 4... 0 •••• CO 4;4. ai
C _ id 0
C -2 ri, .c
_ .c (Ts ..,
o Lt Tp- 4) co 2 C o
.4(3 a)
C-
C) • -c 9 ..5 (1) o F) a) 0-
.)
E .4)- .e ..--. -- 4... 0 al ‘1.• -.1
0
-C .1C 0 3
cu .= E. CV 03 0 _
9- 1:: -t -2 t t t(1' 8 3.
0 ct, 2 9 •-°- 2 = 9 a) 0
2 tr?
0 (/) -0 a. (I) (I) (13 -•-• a)
■ gta)cS)-- "5.9
0/ 1-
G
2 ,-• 2 1-- 4) ..0 El.). 8 2
.. ,.., • ..c a; ....
o ,, 0 --*-• -.- (/)L. E
7-4 ca
.-. a-) (7) E-2. CO
. E ° 2 °
c a)
'3)
.c c
-4-. 0 .,-
C .- 'cc a CD ti ..c, g
4) c-ti (t) )3) 2 o 7„-
Ig) -2
a.
E.E.
..S.. E(1) .i, .g (D511) v5F_)() 2:(',5.'''c 22-.--20 .ti
U) a) a) 4) 0 0)
.o o a :b.: c .c 0- c
E
- , _c t °L'
it; . 0 co
)r-
ii - = 4- 0 4-T., c (T)
C c ca C a ....
1-2 6
>., 0 0 4)
zr'
See Mitigation Measure T /C -8b
CO
.0 CD a
rCi 0) 0 0 0
c 0 C
. 7 al "0,,,
42 2 .13 1 gE -= ig 4,.. a) .6
C- .c 0 ..... 0 (3 - -C... CO
OV -0.°134-:. '5 ° ' (2)
1 ..cliz
E° cc2c(up4' 1=-
2
6. cac 00 .1 :3• 0 s- - . . . a an)) . - . . - )0
a)
a
U)
a)
0
.
..
zr, ,,.. > I-- • > - 1.4 ) I- .•-• as
--L,D2; '---(.. u'S i ; C a) °- - ;• 38 112 . . . . C0)..2
xi - cc12°g ) 'Ci 20: . 4. :°c'. c. 51-c 2
O a.
a)
2
a) 2
E
C • CU g .V - 't 2) -C ': 0.
c
o
li -
ii
C10- ID*0 C
E r„
-"• wEnc C -0 0 c7)
i-
0 0 0 .4. 1:3
..w..
. 0) U.
• I
t e-
t!) 13 1 1":2- t g 1 63 li 42 112 a) E
6 r
a)
B
0 IZ: -5
<
E
2
0)
0
a.
a)
C
C
'C
0
0
0
2
..., es, c 8
E C
0 0 0 = c f-
a)
= o
C
C lo.. c o t < „ •8
ur. 2
c
0 15 fi
.0 0 c -5 C ......-• 0
0 co E as
c to o 0
g r..- E
2
E ca.
a. 0 42
8 -c <
Dc '`.°° LI 1 5 .1 1 <5 <1
0
O a) o
a.
:° +7, co 0
..ig W ...-.
CD 0 o 0
2
I"--- m• a E Ci 0 cr) o .-
co OL ce -6 E
....1 >, c
133
• r‘ ca.
a) 0
0
ta 04 ..t.g. .ca
Co .o
co
. .2 o al 9
--I La co '-
0
- 1---:
0
a
.-,
......• CO ..
Z a/ .Z
<> •••=1 0
I:••• 0<
0
a)
...,•••
° 0 ,-...
t o
I-- C) 2 2 2
Z
U)
< a) • co F)
as as c'. -0 ca 0,-•":
(9 ;a
a a)
2 a) .1- .'Ss c
Z c c c
,... ,_ • a) co --,--,-
cv <Y,
2 a) co 0 --7f o
Fe' 0 0,
0. 0 .
0
.2 a a 0. 0) .2 g2:92
O co co • as 2- a a 5 (71
'5 •
OL
Z
:CZ
O ''t ?I- • 13 13 .-. 15 42
E ar I- 0 w :T.. .;!.;:, a) 0 CC < ° IE.;
a)
a) a)a)
CL 42 a)
a) ...I -1
tO -I -.I •C
< < Z m a)
Z « •.- g
0
P-
CD
r-
- a
O c
8 8
CO
0 • 0
(nU)
0
8 -0
a 0
a.
o
>• <
-a • 2,
O <
a
-J
>, ca
as asc cri 2
0 a)
.6 .6 .th .ci 42 c .E ... al E
Co Co co 'T .o 0
5 .2 ca c
C) 0 0 • 0
i--- i---' Di
c 2 isi 2 2 g.
. .6 . zi35
• CS 2 ° 1-7' 9-
. c >, a)
1 "6 ° .2
.2 'V)
2 2 2 2 i= .0o c 0 o c c
Fa co co (n 2 o 0 .2 '-,--,., 0
c c
tt") 10
al co cu as c 2 o , -Sd *t .0 4.1 <4 t '
4) • 0 4) 4) o. .....
4) 11) U3 0 C 0 C 0 0
co
. . . . 2
0 o
o ▪ . o
0 Eng 6 ..:o) ) • a)
IOE-
S •
.. .. 8
co o a) 0- CU 0 ..,44 ca
c
c 0 2 ED' c cc 15 -I
2 2 2 E co Tti = (I) c/) 2
o o
.2 O. 0) 0 .1- o-, 0 C 4130
CI a)
O 0 0 0 2 t1.7 76 =2 A-.‘ co c .0) 43
I- I- I- I-- 0 g)> :-IrI No. 8)c9i .S) ou' 13. at c =
c o) or-
-,-.
a ET *E- F- o 'ir) 20 ch 0 ()
a) a>- a) c4 4) t e CD •,•-..• ° 0
• E
o a) CY 4) (.1 4)
EaEo2 w5.,..,s0E -1
0 Li..) E 1... -- -5.. 0 .c
E. 0. E 0 ,...2 c 2 E 0 ''-' ..: ') 0
E "E- .1.-F
a) .. C7) .... >•• (0 • -_ 2 , _ co - a_
c c 03
03 0 p 0 0 0.) J., '3d. CO -R - - t
4) • 6 0 0 0
. . a) Z I C .....,° ti-
l.§ ,_,- 0 it 0 -o 0 •
2 P.o>,0 o omc-c.-
L as i. --„, ..., --,. 2 ....1 5 ....- E a cis .2
0 C oo Lo .g )--, g Co 0,9 CO -E.
..... - ....... ••••• .-. ....
0 03 0 .... 0
11. 0 =...„....) :_Lo = o9 a9 -u-'),D
a.. 0 •- - V •C.. 0 if
o 2 0 o S) .--, 2
1
.0) 0 tS 2 (5 al) 6 IP t."?. a; () , 0 1, . 12 If [i li c(!)r cbc ig !I
'c 4 (a
,..ID 0 a)
44 c■I .I <II 0 gi 0, 0
, 4 is-: co i---: et r--. ce 1- e i-'-" 2 P ° ° 57 I= P. t- 2 P .= azE al V. =
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
5:7
0
CD
a.
CD
z
0
LIJ
-.I La
z
OCI
CI
(.9
0
z
0
z
0
0
C
C
0 w
E
c
2
E
:12'4=
in" 4
C C
0 cp
E
a) a
LY
0, .-
o.2
Mitigation Measur
id re
-
c a)
o E
a)
E o .
EcceoEc
itr,
.gcj LC; :S
E
CO • CD c
0 o
E a)
8 >
c >
E c 2
o.C<.cL <
5 77D" o
I oc2cLoc ca-
.> .9 0 .0 -
at- a' t's
o 2 g 8-12 2 s
5 8 < (..) 8 •,'"
V
C
09
c
2 2 a)
>
2 a) <
c <
o c
E
o
ALC developer 85%
See Mitigation Measure T /C -8b
See Mitigation Measure T /C -8b
.c
0
a)
0
C)
a)
See Mitigation Measures T /C -5a and T /C -8b
See Mitigation Measure TIC-8b
co
0
2 1-
an
,.y
c 0 0 cd)' ,_
i-z 13 to
112 .F. clik E. a)
c -6
C.) c. 0 .)
r--
2 i I) -- .
a) EL) 2 a Lt! 0 '5 to
0) cm
a) 0 c. o 0 0 0 04 a
cq
, • to
0
zu ig 42 a.)
CC a,
C) a)
co >,..c2 .r.- co I: E■
.E E 0 2 2 2 iti co -,,, 0 2 .09
N O. '"' C M 0 2 0
a) .0- E c c c 0 = a .....
o o o oi -,7, P- -9 o u) -- Lo c
co 1._ ,,,,, co
zo c a a) 0 .0 0 fl
1:i3 ii (%, (4 ti ill cd
0) .0) • 0) 0 Z =
iii to = e---, -, :--z, ti-; 'a' al 2 -6.- o) C Cr
c c cr ,... . CO to c :-.2.
c).cn 0 2 2 2 a co 0 o
a)
ln 0 Tg 2 2 2 ),:'
g : OC '•••• om g ...
Z, :E.
2 cn c
S2 0 0 0...0 ....
ec.it z 0 -u to co 0 - , }- 2 to
>. a ..- -.4
04
C11 2) 0
=
a Ta"i,
E E - E 1'1 1.-5 0 I) itli.1:7) fir), '
Ti .0
w = a) c --
0 • 0
li o. 0 2
O. 0 0.2 r..
• .c c
.... a. "
T t t ."i... lid t• 5, .:-:-.2,c ,........ca 17, t-'.i.;:;
1- ...4. -..-•
.0
(,) . icao a.) o a aa a)05.E'r G)c
in 'E. g g i E. 0 ..E.. o c
..... = tll --. ca C M
--.c 2 E 2 - = (0 .5., so 4_-'-
r.. 8 &) :§ E a a) Z co c .0
g CI .,C 0 iti 122 a (5 Cil s (1. c °4 .g'as . 4"; 4". (1) W Cl
a/2 8 .6- , - ,,,, 4x1 4-1 ''''' - .. ....„ .0 2 1.. „.•• ...... „..,.
In P= :i = :3 = ig l' i; 11 X c'14. ii ji ::: ::
I- I": < 0- 4C-• .. 0 - 0 C (-) •C N .0 N C
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
E
0.
Ca)
a)
0)
2
a)
0
2
0
"r. 0
LLI
uj
�0
z
F-.
0
0
z
2
0
C.9
Reporting or Monitoring Method and
c
-o
CC
:0 4-
(7) B
O a,
9-
a) a)
O 1-
o_
See Mitigation Measure T /C -5a
a.)
a. <
2 .2 15 g .'
„„-." •<€, t
- = 0 c.... a,
w., CO g ''C 0 0 `C-5.871WE
CD
0 ,, .
. a _
. ca c -, • 79.. o 0
o .2 cu _c
E-
-
a) c 0 coct, .•
ii-
crti 0 0 .0
"
CD
1 0 0 0 0
:15 0 0 0
C') 8
cn
:, al 2. •-• 8
fn co (11 0 Ca, - E > o 0
0 co ral (pc o :,,2
i r >> ' .--( I) E EE 8 b> ro 0., co co ,, „„
>,- u) E > .-
u) o a)
n3 E
.- r....; = (..) co ,.....,
SI
.c°) coL- E al B g
• >, `.. . 9 0 . ; ( ..4
co 0
2 - . .8 75- cu 0 = 0 ••••• CD 0 .-
:0 <- -C
.2 13 8 2 E > 2 a) cu . r) >
• 0 S2 0 a 0
CD 0 • a. C.. so, ,,I' 1... 0
al E.' 0 0
I 1:' a) co - a)
cz. 0.
ca ff
O • ,i, .... .., a. ...,-
;,, • '.'
..G100tZ 0 FE
>
E t Zri 0 co3 - ' -2 a
0, > (2 . =
O ,:n -0 t•D = 0) , - • 0
C 4•EccE c c0 -5 W sa
E > > < o .,.9
w 2 • ce 6- ; '
.. 0°- ..J
E r,
- • 0 .._, ..,. < , .. ' 2 < (1)
0 as 0 .2 ..a (8 2
a.)
....
0 •o
....s
re .5 E
0 t .2 01
>-, < 1/ 1 '9
m.-... (..)
0
•••••-• 03 CD CO
2
c. 6ri- co
(0 (0 e CO as
0
‘NQ t a .e
O 1:7 2 2
0.- c
O. 0 c =
> a) > O. 0 O -0
0 9 o o >
a o o > r
°
C) co dr.' = ,
a) in a) a-
-CI 1.0 -0(0
o v) E u---
co 4-, T5 412
° te IX fac`) < 2 :.1.--2 .
....1 ,... -1
< 0 < 15 z . 4 .
- .... co
C 17
O C
cu
3 .1.--..
E c 0 0
co -
....
-a,
tr)
$
0 N U) =
i:-- 4) ici 5
2 > V- co
•C Cn C
i .- •C
(3 CD >v tU
03 2
C c. Tii c
o 0) 5 o
"als '6
0) tD ca,
...e •C al °
• 'C
t ", ula-r.7)
E
o ta. . ,..
1. •
0
O _a.- 2, L1- w ..
.,9
0 I-I
CO .0 co EU.
(19
e a) EL ea
• -- a ....- as c c:r
C cn .0 ..-- '.--• 0) (.0
40
0 03 e- it;
(17 cs g .2 Cz1 7 a
47)
ca
a) )
In- 8 0 8 p
iii o 048
.
45
.S .r.
..)c
c C J p
ir-
.92 (5 CT W P.- C?
E tii i:-...- r° 0 a.)
iz. 0
as ra i-----
Lc, +2 ..= .2) 8 sp. ..e, c
c c ,-.., , u?
0 'N 45 0 o co i= 5)-
il= o -10 to
o c Ca 2 - a) al
m ill .c a) s..). .,-,
OS 0 0 i.D.. 0
o
o
o
- > 0
2. < ,o)
..c c
0 o
1.- •,,, 4-=
=
4•-• a 0 0
.'.2.. = 0
r? ''' 6
0 • 2 -0
al "i3 ca -0
o c 1672: c0.2 :c
g P a .0
rt
o)
as 0 0 -40 c c 0 2
co = E
- 2 2 .5
2 _a)
_ 4- -0
..a c .- -5 0 .,E, a }- C.
0) o Fr .c -.6 se - c
o ..= g n . a
E 6 ',q 2 .-, a) 1- <4
,Ei -E" co 8 t; t: (>)
c .c E a a) to' E
a p) a) a)
o.
E
131. (1) al ti .0 -V 2 -I cr7 ro-
- g- E
a.)
..Nc)
.c .0 10
'V .2 :75-3
• o ...-, 0 44. 0 , - ..c
0 0. ,-,- u) o•
'mu Je .--‘2 ...Q
... ....
" ° -°.
°I (7) 12 (11
N.-
.." .5'''al -°
ra. a, _. -6. a) a .-,a a)
,_ 4- ,,_ o.
a) x - 's= .-
-0- & 2 e. ) .7.: E
- . m
0.0:5 0 0,
.,,-
F w 1- P 1.-- 0. '15
o 0 o
1-oi500 as
C
0
0)
a)
a)
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
E
2
a.
a.
0
1)
C
0
iE
a)
0
2
0
0
a.
CD
0
LLI
uj
CO it
a- 0
CD
z
z0
0
0
CD
r..
C
0 0 8 8 0)
c
0. a en 'c
lv
CL M
0 CO '0 '0
0)
a
‘...o .. •c
a,1
0 o
2 c g >
O• w .u) a. co
tn E
Ca, ° 2 8)
6 0.0
-9 a co a)
__,
e g a
s..
0 0 ss-
8
A-2
0- 43
75 ▪ co ".- --1 a
c c a) ° E 0.
,_
2 a -e o 2 -:c
09. E 0 c v 0 0 >,
0 ..... 0
0 •
> a) c 0 > a)
-0 .8, -0 0
_Id
,...„ x ce
as
(...) 0 <
-I -1 42 i.0 4-- (')'
0 "
a. .9. -J -J (54-0 I...3
<<COECI << 035.M.E03
Mitigation Measures
See Mitigation Mea:
City /CIC for Tinker
-1
10 ,.
O-
,...
' -I a
it.)-
0 •-• ,,2 ;42,
2 a •c a. 9< O.
o >,
0 C = 0
CL 0 cc, ..... ,-, ..
0 CO 0 -6 13 Q.
> _
) f- .o (I)
t ;•gg.2 ct4-1,..) °°,...o2v <1 co CL c E
-o 0 ra 1,-, -ts u) 02 ,,_0 .1e.cc -r,•,_ 0.0
CL
-J -I 0 4- 0 --I .j 4- 0 e- CO J .- .0 0. a, 0
<4 000..90 <0i- <-02
a)
•c 112 "6
O. 4,
E co •• ma' t
o
c a 0
as it- „, 0
IX 0 o
4 i--, ,_ ca 0
0- co ."
O i..-. 0. w 0
CO C
'0 a E o
ic •-
C al
O 0 ta2-' 2)137)
.o
..c c
.2 a 0 Q.
0
s.... 0
00
Cli 2 ..c ..-•
cl 2
5 0 ..., 0
0) }-
O . 0 4E.
13 ,.., C .2 2
(I) a.) a)
0
• s ta _2. c
0
> .c .0 o
2
E.
in a t u) 2 0
w 8 8 .JD
-a! .:•-' t. in 0. c E
C
-„, si• o o
c c a,0 ..-••
4-, c o > c
o ..--
2
0 6
....w
R, S)
m 1-- 6. < cL•E 42
-o
2 c o 8 •-0
o So- c
cau) a)
*--5 ao
E .c an
.0 .c er... , al
C Ig 0
r • ar co co .g.
s P• •-t-') c E) 3 "6
Ts o al o o a) en in. g
0 -a' 09 00) N -
.2 8 2 0 ,c c c 0 c,
0 c >
>,:8
•
0 t o
a > ....
09 it, w ,_
9. 0 8 ._ 4-- 0- 0.1,-,', 0
5 c`i 8 1:,
.,..- co - c
r a 8
ca 0 al co ,...- o
0 0) - 0 .c-• 0- iii
v) ....... V)
i 1 ; acc ....0 .0.i" al cpw
(C5 (I5 . 8 (0
c 0 Ta Fs . , a) o c cs al o
a) 2) x
a) CD
bc: 1:30.: .00.03 „lila. ..50),cg ..._(c; ...c=a) _00.4) :20 0,3 B...,
1.4- .09 mE tn. ._c Eau ...v.) r, .:5,
m 0 C 0 (1) 8 =
0 ›..,- ,.. - - ,.. c u .c c, co cr
o 'a „9- o ..c a)
0 • -C . 32. e f
>
.40 0 tl) 0 c a 0 '-' 0 03 0
o cam .1.11 2 ,-•
>,0 ,.„as ,....>, -2
T _ . - __ •-a. ,„ i..-.,
- 'a 1-a -0
a c .c Ss..
,_ -0 co 0
0. U) 0 .- En ....t
0 0 .5 0-- .- co
0 0 0 .R 8 cr cc co ciT t Cl-
2,./
. . • .
(NI
co
C.
0
a)
C
b_
a
LU
(1.)
Ca
••E
E
0
o.
C
0
a
Co
C
0
2
-Es
(1)
C
0
2
cc
a.
CD
z
17-
eZ
sr. 0
am
--I Ili
mCD
z
1--
52
0
z
0
z
CD
r-
a)
C
I-
C
a)
2 C)
C
.c
.2
C
t
0
a.
4)
et
(0
C
O 0)
a.
am:
c
a
ta a-
n. .2
ui
a) • • P
• po
:ra §
a. 00
• 0
C X . v
0 = it'
Z d)
o
o. 0 c -
E • E al a) D-
_c cf)
o c '42 E . -8
° 1).... :g'a
N
a. ... > a)
V as .6) a tu g
Co
,....-A c.0 0
0 . 0 0
• >,-,5 o m...,
o .- -0 0 0 V)
i3"
.0 -0
o
C kutl I* h42)>: V)
o
C _ m RS cu;
9.— 1). ti 8 0 .g ..
O 0 0 .- 0 0.
R2 s .... . ., 0
-0 m 00 ....-4)
Co... ,.:12- o mo >c
,_ as o 0_ CU = Co (0
O c 9 V) .0 0 . 0 0
0 a x "
-Do mv
= 0 -0 ......
2.g iv m ,no cm
81) l'' =It 0=
-0 .
Z5° '... 0 0 0 .0
O.
D'',0 cp. E ma am
mo wo n E2 co:c
• e V • •
C
0
U
.0
cn
C
0
0
a.
0
C
O 0
0 t
O 0
mo
ao
c
a.
a) 2
.2 2
0
0
L.
........j
o 41 t d ki
C. .0 ...., < r O.
8 ) . t
0.-0 Q. -. 0. fy. . 0›, ad <
0. = c p
0 a)
'00-0t -om c08m.mo
Obta< WX 000e›..,
Co - a
....I ....1 Co 41, 0 -J -J • - .. ... Co
< < CO ...E C3 < < CO 0 co -E Ca
-J
.../
<
"V,...
.2 0 ki 00
,,........, .... .,
0. vi t Q- t, .2 8 0
tis < cli
22 0. -g. ''..,a. 2 < 0.. ....„)
0 . c 0 9.2 0
D3 0 t 0 4) 0_ -0- ‘5:-..‘
mw-f:
.9.5..
-00.015 -00 —0muo -pot p‘e421
......- -a
0 0 *6 2 < W ct o 0 o 2 >, 0 z....be '-O: ;L-7
J ...I 0 4 0 ....i ...J 4- co ..- Co ...1 C O. 0 0
<4m-qo « mamEm <UP <732
0
m in
a 2
P E°
in a to
MEa
ggg
ri co
00
C
(1)E.c
0 V c
Co a)
20c
0=0
."
-axo
Op.
.50 V .2
2EE
Co
0
-a 5
.te
a 2
e0
58,6
E
,..,
2 4
✓
a) a)
m
(U a)
a
o
o o w
C E
O 'C
O 4) 0
.0 0'
0 o
7-1 • E • • o
4 o E c
E 'R
o
c c E
o cr oc)
o o a) as
m c a V
e•-• a ▪ '11 a=
0
wo
w
co o -0 o
00 .(0.9 15.)
ID
co
2 t 1 E a ...o
c a 0 ta
= >,5
p,_ ,...
gi 1 "g WV)
it. i
i ...ii=
,...E o ._
C/)8 fliS. i 22
O 6 0 0
(Y)
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
'ET
a)
C
C
0
0
z
a.
0
ILI
-J
GO it
C)
• <
(.9
0
0
0
a)
C
E
C
Reporting or Monitoring Method
C
tg;
C
o w
• E
CC)
PE
M • CU .0
0- at CO
u_ • 0 CO
. . .,.: 2'10
, . _
2 .2
E .` D I t .: t
. a ›... Q)
at 0 0$
z, 0 CC)
0 , •
..o c
2 2 2
_a o c) eL ai
0 1-,.: id 0 co
c =
2 0 c :CT 'ET)
fn
0 15 8 8 2 z
0
0
ns
• oc=""c
C ....wasbcsE
4= E.AE
0
C4 :2 JE JR (!8 8
at
F--.
0
2
a) .
U)
a)
.c
C)
C
.c o
a)
g
>, w
.t) o a
0 as a) -5:
./.
5
>, ...-d
..
.o cp .0 ea
O E V 0 2
c
o .„1.
.„. .... f.,) _a
b a) ra co 2 0?
a)
a
0 ..r.-,
o a) > as
o 0 )-- .c (0 , ca
2
'5
o_• 8
R22°0
‘--. a) E 8 2
a)
• C
O 0
a.
C)2
C
a
• o
C
0 0
.2
(I; < a.
as 0
0
C
> c
• 0 2
0O- ca <
-J _J 0 4= 0
<<03.E0
-J
•
8
• <
a 4)
-9. a
Cl)
Ca
< c
41) 4-..t 0 2
0 0 .0
00 -6 <
at 0
< < GO
a)
fa in: a)
ra • 2
0.2 u5
14 g
'C
00
2 _ 2 t
a) al a
N C
4-, at M
r Ca
• 2 2
O a V
• C C
• - o
7" 12
• C >
• a 0 0
E
CC • -a
0,)
4) c
,N
E 0
E0
O 0 0
I-
is M.,
-0-) a)
,g..)
< <
0.
0
<
a
>,co t 0
Co2 =
g
o
.20 2 0 >,
03 5 18 lE
City /CIC for Tinker
C
0
o) co
0 0 45
E 8 0.
a 0 0
.9 -
cm
>
u)
, cp 2
C)
a.
cn
C C.
.52
a.
C
CC
o
au)
Co .-
2
42 4'2
. o t
O at C 0.-0
° . . -6 Ea ) • -E asc in
_o
o n.. (,,, A., -)E,
" 01
. 0 O• C D : C- 51 :7' c° -5
.0
0
f)
-8. 8- 2 I.-. -
at 0. Ell p , M
......4)C •Ea,- E
=
U) 2 5 -0
CO a) w -- • )
cn
=
-0
CO3gE462) (0
a) 0.3
c = c al 0
0
g (DM 1-4.; ' C.) ,ECL 0
CD
ii
a ,..
ill al 86 : D-
. a ai a a)
••■• ..0
'"' Cf)
,
5: , = I... .. •••••
'5' vi.
...... a) ... 0 .... :0
.... a)
u) 0
o 0
‘48(i.gg o .0
•
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
o.
a
Ca
0
2
C
0
Fr)
2
a)
2
z
o
..E
».-.: a) a) .2 oa v) y)
) cb
0 C c
Ca V C
0
<
C - . 0 C ze o ts (..)
c - 4... •
0 : a)
Cl) 6 8 2.) 0>, -.52 g 0 ED 8
co ..J gr. 0
. _. .,_■4 4- Z 13 Lb L 4Z, 4:1) ,i,
F- a) as > o as a) *2
o
as a- -9-0
E >, 3 E as 0
o
(.) -6 .0 .0 ^ w
0 0 0
,.. E 8
1:3)
as
...
c
0 iti V °
t..- 0-
c
as o
8 -o
tn
:2
a
o c
o) tu
4- .., C
o 0)
■- .0
-
°
Q. -..... 0 -0 0
z:Ea) E00)•--
0 ,,_, "6 (0 o.
0 2- E 42. a) c u .i."5 Q -0 Ja k, 0 ""r3 • .2
c o > c 2 o -a- -0
°E cp E
EL 0 0 r.1. 8 .2
0 ...E. .° ..41 .,.., 1,- a.. a)
8 o -o 0..(1) - o
o
aos 6,
a)
4(2 c co a ›,,,
8 = > 0 c 0 .0 ,.. coco..o
0 c E 2 (n o w c, v) 0 2 -
-c
co o c>
0 0 r.) 0 >,
E Iii .1 ogl ili 1O3 "E' o
c) 0 c
..$) -;., -t
w a) la C
E- cL
as
5 LJJ •31) a03 ) .0 -
c 6
`e0 , o 90
"0 .o 0E 3 'c-C
45
4w E D _, •lC 8 o" .iC0 0fa 3 f ..1.s--,..' .. ...6 Q.90 .3 3 ,'.19C3 2 I .. c' e\$b - .. .0 > C0 I) ..',9 .c .. 50, rs .
)
a
, c„ :,... , . 2 ..... ..,.., . ... c., as ,
15. cal o ...
1.-).
-=
'-) 8 8 E iii g 45- „c 3
0.- . a 03 .... 0 ca
......;,-.. o a) ..-.c a)
0 . =
8 'd g 8
a) 0.°1 ..°a, (aa .- a) E v ..ct ° 7, -.-. o_ o o >
L. 0
:0 ....... a
> 0-
a) t g 0 0 .0 'C 0) 4,-'7,
to
0 m co
.o
-T. y
o 8
a.-..
,"
_ 7:-,,.§.. .! i-) fla,Q) ,,,, :,,..›,00
o
2 " c .0 .:.-... , c u,
tp 'a 0 as ..,41:' a-) (f' .1(u o 4- 0 0 a '" a) 9- >,*9 Q-1' La. RI o
0 - a) 0...,..-- P.. -..
10 0 r'r
c u.
a
-,"
..c
0 0 o c .c c 2) gl, c .... = .0) 'a,„
0 a) 2 0 > 0 o .13 0 (II .az
a) 0- 4- of .c
° ° o E " ci)
20 0. EL -r5ca u po: :0: .i.): 2: .4)49 :0>6 -.15: :00>a) 1 3, ;o5 os) ;o5; -20 :5.1:2
:o> o
LU
to 2 E
c
2 -,7, 2 4--m . th' ,_ cis a_ ... 01
a: fa. > a. (3 0. a) O. a. a. f.3. in.` 2 0. .r:, 0c2 04) ca6"-'6_m alc -,,..,. '----5.ti 9.2
.2) 0. (1) - RS a)
0 0 . e 0 0 0 . 0 ig Zt i; I-- 8 .92 1t: 1%) §. E
Z E
t
‹
-a
0.
E
0
-0
E
0
-a
a.
E
0
E
2
C.
C)
*-2
a)
C)
C
C
fa
2
0
0
0
re
o_
0
LU
uj
w
1- 0
0
1-
Z
0
z
0
CD
C
I-
.0
•-•
4-
• f,, !
o
c E 'al 2 8
CU -a a w CO 0 C Ca
0,.c,J(00
V) 2 2 0
2 • E 8 c 6 c■ I' 2 -0
0 .... -,-,
C 73 c o al L. p.
co a) 8 •
-0 .0 a
2 C co
al 2o .6 o c CL *c 0
, 0.• 0. a-
c It
>, al ..-• _
o L-
2
a) 0 C >
15 in Tif
..c
: 3 =
E
0
C
co
a) ')
2,2Vm
°- S- :
. 2:
c ... a, -o 0 !
.01 a
co - a
o> €
re
a.
0
C
o w
C• a)
E
a)
C
•
0°)
co
0.0
c
as L-
0. :2
0)
0. 0 •c
0 0
I2(')
. a a)
,_
-a ch '6
DO
-J 0.
< < <OLL<
See Mitigation Measure NOI -2
(CO CC
C).
,
2 0
o
5
o E
.c
a. -a
0 <
ca
Q.j fx _c ca
(7, a) a) 2
0 0 °
< r/3
.0 0
•- o
00 ' i3 CO 2
C)
>s
-(7) E
411..
o o
c
• -• p,
o
E 0
O 0 At 0
0 <
ci) c
--S. a) Lc 3
c F„ a) , c .0
„, .., "Ci as ,
0)13 4 (6 ,D a) 0 Z C 0 ) 0) 0 .0 Ci. v) l'a
' 2 (13 E > v 0)
4- CD .- .0 0 •-• .., ,.., )
C ..):: c 'CI
... Ct)
Z C'' 19 S 0 00030•_4"0,cr2-oo.c 6
o _c (..) •E-• 0 , 0 .- ca ti .6% CD Ca
0 0 -,... ••••• :1-_• ..-, .t.. . , .41_-. .-• fp. a) -0 2 0 0 (7, 43. .(,) 0 E N a)
-C 0
C
0) a, •
0 al 0 fli 0- 0 CD .- > .- .2 0 ° • -
(-3 ''• 0 0 -0 t w 6 E 5-0 o c° 0) E En' 8 11)
„so 3 c
,4,0 .....• __ 0 a) V .... , a -0 0 a 0 oi
CO ti ) M C W 0 E . - 10_ 13 7) 0 > • C I. •
y 0 _ ...... _ 0 6 C 6 ta, 0 -2, -0 al 2 -3" " -' 2 .c 4- ,a)
CQ o
a u) 0 CL
••••. L., m., z v. - _a ...
4-•W0.--.° X >,•- --C ca 0 :.-. a)
.c • co 0 .1.3* _c 0 0•72 c ... • 0 2 on a) tii ,_ 3 -8 = z .21 § 8 E 0.
coo8co .o200.c.g2 my, o , c 0, L.. 4-
0,-0 ,9 8 L.._ o cc°1 :
*5 0 ill 0 w al FE El2 ca - as 0
O 0) L ^ 0 0 .-• 0 a) , a) L- a) .0 o -rt, ca , 0 -0
•Z 0 0 t_ 2,_) 2 > 0 .S >9 o - -0 0 .c (.0 .c o 0
.,- ca III T3
0 - I'S tij ••C
0,
0 0 0 cli 0 C in (1/ .0 Ti"- 1:7'02 0
Z'770 -17:c1:7"›<E---ccu(D'6-cp 2 - -
to .- co 0 al 5 -0 - c
cy 07 CU a, •TCB a E La'
CO 0 C
E--. c‘ 0 lij ,c
0 -,,. ii 0 .- - u) a 0) 0 0).c 0 , 0 ,,, 0 (v... 00 ..cc c
g g
•-c..- a>")
oo_00- *-r-)
os :,,..S .d5 0 >,(QA,t),... CO g 000 0 gy= ...0 2 v0z012 E) a) E 2 • 2
-0 0 „, .2 ..o sc,? .... ',6 0 ,.. CL 8 .r€ > .- • - .P. ). •-• ••••• CL ,_ , +-
- 0 cl.) 2
0 ..... k ..c„) (0 0 6 a) 'CI ..., I- E C .5" CO ,_ „, 4) 42-2 ..F5
, „:„
0 fa, • ., '- C Si , Q) ....: 0 co a cu "' ... Z' .2 E <v) Q.)- .0.c ,.....:-.. ii
)......- v) ..., c 0
0) r:.-.... a) . o, 6 m c) as c .., ,- a)
O • .0. '2- .. t, ■-•*c L-CD L...4) 2> j%) 11.. 2 S.2°- E(D ..m --.5 0 §C a -- - °- . 0 C ° a),0 > US
0 .- 0
P'
co t E as
- - . 0 -. .s > -6,- g ow 2 E >°' -- . fg .8-117D
0. z .- ,. a) 0 ..., c 0 .- o 4.
§ 2 8 c 0 0 ---
c -0 ti c s
0
oc il a. - i .nk 2 F, w, va 0 2 ) 0 < - • 5 8 0 - 0 0 - n If la P <
LL.
▪ 4,, (1) • •-• • v U) a , ) Fp cu C) :6 *-.. = -o o 2 c
w
0 j., xis= >,1-4 0 0 c ,,i 0 .. ,... ... ,,,,, a) 04 , 0 -.. 14 Z 03 2 0
... cv 0 o = 6000ca
Z E 4 s) -9 -a gi E e Y. 2 .8 g Z' 71 8 4 E.
„9 2 .. V
2 c 0- 4- OS Cr. I-- 1• :3 : ;
E
c, 0 ,,, e cp 13z3C11,_acCD , 0 a) a) 0 , co . ..c .... o
a. -5
B
E
0
0
C)
2
CD
0
CD
z
CD
re
17.
CC
0
11.1
W
co re
0
}-
"±"
0
2
z
0
CD
S
0)
C
E
I=
C
o c
73 1
C
CU .6 t
"g w
E (I)
f . .
O c
o 0
2 a 0
o Ea
2
c CU a
o -0 co
0
2
I-
c
CU
a)
o 3 a
a)
c -5 (4
o o g g)
c2.
0 a -rn
C
c
o
E
c
Mitigation Measur
.1
<
5 47) 8 its' 8
0`-
-sc ,. 0
t < co, '(-7) C 0-
.E o 0
9-'9 El) 2 0. 't 0, <
0 . . . 0>, 0
Q., 0 a, t 0 0- al 0 *., ,..,
'-' ".
er,"' .- 0 fo' LE
-0 0 aa 16 'a in - 3:2 tn. 0
0015 al< CCC 80.15(1) rg: a
-I -I 0 '■ez' 0 -J --I 4- - co 4.-:. 0 I"' 7.93:
<<COE0 << 03(..)03-FC13 e,..3 ‘t .6' 2
-J
8 a5 'Cr) -0 ....
U) < L-
0-
ci)
:7) '0
0-0 ,U) c. Q. t 0. 0 <
O C = CI. C
0 , =0 .9.2
ce/ al a) t -41 0 > ao0,0
(I; g 2 (I) te. CD L., 0 2 t
>
0
•
-0 co ct
. . . . _1(") . . a° 6e a . . -E C: 1 C caw
-J ..! 0 (.) 0 4..:.. >, 0>,-S'
ct<Cal ..E C3 et (c cai.....5,13 .g3 <o-
(I)
.e.5 iFf-..
CO 13 1.E 13
C 0
U) C3
c .c o
D
Q.
>, 8 -0 4- c ,to f,-, ,;
O A.,E,,
PC00 CO
U.1 -a '5 -a 0 C4 co
CD as C - CO (,) 00
,_ c .N - 41 To 0 en
e.e.- .., e- (Ti 8
0 2) A-6 4) .- 0 0
0 c
CU
'0 :LI „_ .;-:1.•
CU 4) .-c0c.00
2 2 Irs• al 2 .°
...., ..- .- .=
s"'
a) 2
CD 0 ..., .a
.... -cs .t c
o sp >,-0 4 iTs .ciii En= Le an) >,- co,, ..c.,0 is C.
c • a
ca. tg .a 2
.0 N .°) 2 s E cc n wo 1 cc27 ;
o o
.,_- I a ....0 6- , F.
t ' I; g 711 zi . ED- 2 7-1
*:(2)." Lt1) 5.' ta e.E. .):... f-2 •-' = 12 "5
•r_ ..7..S.T. w ° 0 -g 0 ..o
E E
0 13 0 le al
EL o. o
0)
8 -,T.) .t. .... 0 4-. a
. c .c E .... 2 - 8 b
ttcril E ._2 a .2 0 g c„1.0 0 w E ai
c Ea .,-
0 CU 0 0
-5 .1) 8
t
73 E el, 0 al 0 0 0 c0 L. -C Ili CD .0 F
f C9 c;i. /3 ai .ca.' 'ffl
co 0 .s ._ o 0
-W8C °'41g
= " 0 -4' ci 0 9
C• C=Ct- 4U ;4: to E w 8.S) 03.G. 0.- ....4:2
0 ...0p20(08 2_0.2.-a-
0 -
0.130(nc = i_ao I-a)EraE.S13 F-Zran
o >,
MO .J. 4 - - ,4 •••• C.) 01 •
-g 0
C-9 0 to
3
,0 2.
Z -a 4- (7,
9- o
0 n, E
CU 00
0.'0
CL
0.0. E
< CO
-J
L- <
0 t- 0 0
4.- a) L_
2 °- ..- ,
0
.c
0
c- 0 43 0- 2 < •-• •
2 .o c >. 0 cro 0-
0.t ca a cc
> • 0-, 03a 02
O ci c !,-. o
'0 CO tf) c../ .0 4-• 0 .0 - -
4- 0
00 e ct ,, ic ,t, CL CI CD SP
-.1 _J 9-0 S..' a 4= t E 5; la
‹c < 1E CI 5 op c co 2 z,I 1::
• <
0
• o_
c
o T.
2.0
t
> o
o al 2
0 03 t
00 <
J -J 4= 0
1; C)
00
CD 4-•
0 > C
LO CD
2 as 0)E'3
CL
LUZF2CP.(13
0 a) -5 2 a.-.2
E o E o
o (!)..
00. t
-
a. o '0 o
C)) o
o 0-
ET: a _LI' c, c:na EDI) -Eau
8 2 -0
(/) c CU
o
2 0 E
.2 0
U'<
.t < a)
,a,o (tic 0> o .0
Li.= =s _c
Lel
CL 0 0
-
- MI
IL-4), 82 .12F *:;.
8 - To 03
0.0T,Tutc2
C °
4) o w
21 M
(4 a 91 .c
M '
le al °
N-
Attachment C— CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
F-
Ca
S
0
S
'6"
0
0_
c
U) . a)
c
as E t .tti
0. (1) 0 ....c 0
....
Z
-53-6 la ‘,.,
a)
E
.6
1 . g 0 co
a
0
as a) ti t cn E 2 Et1
co
c).05
a) '''' *5 2 -
Eli 0 " 73
8 Er/
2-
c ..c
0 oz„cE,0 0.
C0 ■C
138 ___
co _
2 ro 4-3 c .2 8 cy, 0 ,.. .2
o8
wo C
E c
0
c =
-a 0
o 0)
F.
0 c
c 0 c c, as c
as a c
c 47: .0 co
1.13 a
cu ra
a, 2
o 0 cu ..c .F.,
0 co E o u u) c
c as
•-. ...... ,.... c c 0
2 E 0- Oct
.c ,..
a_ 0
ce o (a
0 0 c -0 -4
-4
<
- 0
8 r, '6 '6 ki 8
g B as (.1.
--I 0. co -0 E tr) 4- ... j a.
0 e c . F) 44 tis a ,_ (1) L. C . 0 Ct. 'C
Z 0 0 0, 0)
>, 0. Ts 2 c :(7,) 4203 "< (1)" < iti ■-- 0
0 C = a.
>-, 9C
= 0
a 4.. 0 >.,
o
a
o 0.-0 2
cv 02 ;'' Icii ill' 83 i; 8
03 c
co 0
0 M CO •-• 0 ,u 0 t
' 0 ...,.... 4...0 0.-) .f:13 e=o) 02 J T:i .0 0 15 0 .8 ,5 .E 1-1,'- a) :.... ..., L. ..... 0
Ill a. .t-',P- 00f)i.5.<
-I, to .0 15
= lg 7.; E a CL m CL /D 0 0., 0 0.0
-I tu e 1.-, < t-, cr re a > - c >, >, ,_ >, c.) 0 f) rii < rt IX .2
ce 0..2 z = _J -1 ca ...-__ 0 -.I -1 ca. 0 .„.0 0 as al 4E. Ca -I -4 ca 4- 0 -I ....1 0 c) -(-) 09
< < CO .4-- 0 < < < 23 a 00303;_03 <<03-q0 << •Om Om
1.1)
Z 0
< as -to
c 0 < 0 ,._ <
0 :a
c 0 2
a)
4- -4 a)
'6 ....
4-
'6 C
rs) as cli,
4- ..1 ca. 4-
8
a) 1:, o cl o 8
Z c _-_, c iti < a" - ,.. a> c .0 CI L. -C
0 „,.. 6 a, -)c co ..,t to" <
ii- o
o
o (1) 0
-0 D_
D. 4-
ca.-0 IL)
o c c Q.
0 0 *- coascot v At >,
0.
0 cp
t- Le c
.61) ±1(,) 2 t -o w o _2 4P. 0. a a 1-; a -0 U).) 15 v co 0.0 0.0
Z M 2 ,4 2 ..- o
0 ''I'l- <C--g o) 0 0 "(5 ;Y. .....,< tx cc ti. c; E. E >, ),,2>, 00'62_<
2 ta c_) 0
0. 2 z 2 a)
0) ..4 ...4 CU ‘..- L4 -.I -.I O. 0 c o as ca 4e- 03 -4 -4 al 4-' 1.4 ..J -4 o a
< < aa_qo << <132 omm_ce al
<<ce-q0 << oca 5ca
z
0
U)
P:
0
‹C 0 c
0 0
c
'8 2 Em --
3') ) 2' 2 ; ..
0
0 0 0
-0 . - -2 °
E E-
CD = f 0) E
a .5
:
>
0 ;... ....
1:3> cNO.c
>„ M 00....malED. COMcco
0
2 0 -- tn .c t 4, -a E 0 - .m c 0 z,g 0 • . -
=,--, 0 o
0 as a) o (T) 0 .ci -E 5
C)43 o f ., 0 2
ni c Z., S2 0 ) 2 .5 E.0
0( C0 .- 0 c 0. m c m
CI. 0 .0 0
03
0 'Fa 0
En. a.
0 .° -
C 3 8 0 0_
PT 0)
T.;
as
c -o
o
= ...., 9_ ..., E c ,:s. 0 - 0 _ _
-Fa F, a)
c'59 2 :6 =g° :8 02 6cD ( I'm T''. cg3 ij-Li i 1 1 . P76
u :0 > Tts. al
0 5 X 0 0 '0 a ,ci; .0
0.::4 g c 0. >, c ui 0 . 12 's = _,.,0 .c 4D.
1 .‘-'.3 u m 'S- t5 ED- 0 -: -§ ...i.,- .0 .c
0 -0 - '2 to 0
, > -o al cc as o 0 - 0 ,..
CD ,M .8 '2 -0 a 0 ..0 (t1
> 0 ._
m 23 0 0 w
c -J *O.'
al au t - a)
al ° E 'c .0 as' -8 E • 1- -
-is-3
(1) -'-' 73 1, ED. . 0 .= O. 4- til . a p..) :6 .- '"c 8 0 .8 E
0 ch 0 ca c sq -
H 0 rts a) lc ..= lb'
z a e ... E 1.7; 2) ° -
.7 8 co t
c CL 0
RS .0 0
C 0 E c,
b .0 -0 a. ,cci c
> ,2 8
2 c FL-. g g Ea ) . : . 7ca 0§- V ic in.- 2 ...c.4, ...,- ,8 0.
a) ,_ 0 0 0,
P ° e E .c PP> Z a) cl)
0 ca ,-. ,- c E
- 0 c c 0.
c al 0 0 0 0 ,= _ 4_ -
a Z' ii_)(9 a) .t.T., 431 a) 0 , 2)
o)>" fl.3 E 4---4' -.6- 4"-w ".." -0 c vc 0-' L-9
c -0 (., 8 = 2 °
III - 73 To t 4= -a =c 'a al u)
0 C -0 0 IF L, cu a- c c9 0 0. 0 .Z., a) >, 2 „,°
F. 0 0 a) 41.l. Iss 0
E 0 as 0 „,ca ,,_, a 0 o ,c . a) ..= .- c 4- '-' -so
> ,. •-• c„,) c .- • - 0
c a) c „at a, a, ,... tr.; ....,
,.., ,_ -o 0 al m EL) a c m 8aS>02"
0 B, as b 0)... al C .c CM 0
"0 v) a. 8 .c 2 ti m 15 •-• 2
g ... 0., ,...) co o 0 = . w ,n5- 0 .c e -- 2 0
_ -
0 c ..c ..2-,- Z .c) 0..,..,
al 0 =
ar. •••• •••-• 0 ..- ...* .0 ,.., rii a) 0 'n 0 .D. eic ° g
.... ....., ... ...0 El) (..) L. , ,t‘ Le
E >., .0 'II .., (I)
2 0 .c = -r,„ >, . ai 0 4-,
0 ccoc,c, :,.., c.t .8 -2 CD 8)E '''' .2 6 .c
C 0 '''' tr 01 ..., -a-) 0 2 2 . 0 8 ,-. '8 tii .-* 8 E.0 0
8 45 cl m " t .2 (u ' > ic 8 --• .- - - m °
a) a) 0 0 -0 0) c co -ri
a) -23 >. a) = 0 > .p. ,_ ...,
E 2 'a " n3 (I) --0) .ca) "E)) cr) v c to 0 c 6, e- .., E a.. a) II.) = .0 a ,
d' V; ,, „„ tea 0. 0 1, CU U a) 0 0 .0 n2 M 0
C a) 0 .0 .- 0 a ■-• C . 0 ..E., 03 0 ret 0 a) Tr) • -- 0)
..0 X t 0 co c 0 T d 0 cD 3 M ,..,c
. . . . .E ;, op2 ,‘'.) tj 1 ei 3 < i .e: 5 - Ec {7, s..2 -2-1 : ...,2 to ) 7 , - .- - ,° ag . . . 2 2 . E. . 8° . ; F, si . g 2-
L.• = o c (1) c E .-- E c - a)
Iii ‘-,E .c.,..._ ,..,...,c0 „„ 03 CL ...4 •c".. .0 0. E
a) , ,-, 0 •-• ..,- 0 ,.- ,-, .0 E° ' - , .: 0 c ,-.. 0 E 0 < a0 t• 0 0 00 0 0. 0aa
,,s.cg,D0
n ,C1 0 M 0- 0 0 • 0 1-;. 0 Zii 0) tr *.F. .0 .
0
00
Cc)
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
Monitoring and Reporting Program
2
I-
Reporting or Monitoring Meth
I=TS .CD 8
a)
g •c c 8 0)
"0 c
U> "
„,„
-
0) 8 -
.E
(7, a)
.G b >
• 2 73 LE "11 )) 7-
(1)" t
0 c
o
ED C a
:te.
c' 0 E
as
c
0 a co -0 a
1-0 t .2 8 a) 2 .2
8 2 tu: t.6 0 E
ma? 8 5
sic
c:), 0 x - x
Z
9
a c
.
9
at
CD
c
ED 0 o
c
-J
co g <
a) ifi
• ..se ,.... 0 a-
a
a ..., . r)
5
4-
, a
..LL) t < ).. V' a
0 0 2 < F- - - - - i / ) a 0 ct 112 <
-
urt 0 C-1 8 tD 4.-1. >, 0 C = 0 0 >. = (:)
'0 :).• CO 0 .t-E ,-, CO °)
a) t C) a) cu 0 t a) CD ,.. >) V
re Ca. 2 0 -P, LE > 0 a 0 > 0 4) 0 CO c .‘..1 '-' a)
ED ,..g 0 ,., .C1 4.) 'E"
..- o i.,5 O.2 g -0 a _a -.8 .0 a a° o .0 I% o
E „9 a
a.
ca °- cD
tO co 4- CU 00te, al< WM ES.L, 00E>, li. §.):-2 E
Ef > a . Za 79.- > 5 4- .....y ..., 0.
a. 4.. a co 5 < :13 2 -J -I CO a -I ..J 0 CD - 41 ..... 03 a cp = o
<<03.90 << 00 0m.E 0 < v 2 0
-.1
CO -0 t- <
R . t t c 0
MS 4-• 8 t t) "o )-
4... ti-) c o
,... a) ,... 0 9.-. -J a co a as '''-'
CD 'Z' 49- 42 '6. < 0 - ,_ 0 (U v 42.2
O a L.. ca ,.. (1)
o 22 < a c -• 0 at) D) ‘,0 a 2 < a a
Ta c a 0 o. 4,1 0 0 ..„---, s; >, 0 0 0 a 17)-- 63
F7 t CI cp a „, i'-: 0.) a:, 0 •t a) a) •La- .....,(0 a) -t ca 0 .
- .70" 'E > 0 c ..., al .---.. .... c -, > a)
E
a 0 I- co0- 4)=-0C Cint-t CDC a-OCV 01= ED a 0
Li" 1-4 a -o 0 ib- .c.) .2 t.Lu ID 0 Jo 1-4 -o 0 a 0 4c2 Ira s -a co tis 0 .2 4.11 a_
Es >, 0 >, -d 13. g -=' 0 0 te) 9 < ce cc E>.
19 " 4- 93 -I ezt C CI. 0 J J ca 4-- 0 -.1 -J 0 CO ° 2 srr. (,,' 5.3 z-= a ? :=-2 E
a. .2 a 4.) = o
c01 <0i= <an <<a)-c-0 « OM 0 ca .E ea < -6 F-7 < la 2 0
0
CD ..- 0
..
co .1,13 .,,a ..s.:
1:10
a) o C co (2 c
2 t a) -0 0 • a) !,c 0 0 ,.., .512 0 0 . Z 0
c:fa" a) c (11 = ca • a) ca - co 0) '•• c )- > 0
43 _- CD c 0 > f R. ., Z C3 8 M • v)
ID c.-e -1:1
= CD C a) cc:IT _a fif 0C 0 0 TD Ct.= tc1 0 CO 15 0 - a) .-
= ;"' s) 73 o as co 0-2) .c :«.-: co c.) L..
-GI 0 0 _
E ..g E c _a a) ..e- 0 2, = > ..5 fc 9I '4' ....- C CI)
.0 0 0 cv , '''
c -c cm (I) o- = DI ..c 13 .e. aj. ct, 0 c .62 z,
0 0 E 'TT,' ai
-0 .c ..-... 0 a) zi :47. 2 0
..., ‘`a, a t ..› - E- "= 0 '-' ° 0
o
a 7-6 (U-
CI)
= 3:1 CU co
= 4- •ty C 0
C L5
=
0
al C , = Li.' w x Ell. c/) ca tv () c
'0'. al CT - -C
C 2 0 TO 0 0 0 ED CD CD 0 .7 0 W i?) CD- 21- 8
1-,‘ , ._ 0 .0 4- 0 •g - ,-• '''' 2 •-. ..9, ' 5 'E. (I)
E 3 0 0....c le. a , ...,
2 :2 0 E a = 2 2 :F.- o 5 0 c = al 0 0 "ts
0 2 c .2 w a. 42 I:1 i ...i.'"*-63
. 0
02 ED. c a as
a. 0 al to 2 (1) -c0 0.6W). -6-.2.g
CU i.2 "6 "6 Tu "ra 11 c :"." ..E3 z gti2 ., all
"P
0 -- do an CO CO 0
t _ cm co co CO O L. O
.. 0 0 •-- ....
0 .0 •,,t, 0 7D' WO 0. L-00 a) "5 2 .- a) " :12 m Q. 0 id ;.e. o
2 CO ,..6 ao8e. .- co 0_ 0 0 11) 0 0 , ••,,,
›. 19 1-_' 47. .0 •
0 •,•-■ 0. 91 .- -id 0 c CD c° 1r3 0 CD ..- ,,sca ,,G, 0 $7.:j :F.• > 0C 93 C --
10 t C C ca ■-. ..c
o o ... 0 c o 0. Es - - .c`s c cli 0- -. -.c -0 (7)
it) .9 61) :"-". C9 o
• „ ,. . c ( no . . .. . . ' E 5 a." " 8 rx ,tli 0 in .0 z F...thr (7 C et..g "-0. "3 -0
8°6-20 r) 5 a> 0 c .g
D ca) ..., - t ...., .2 .2 `,. 0- .0 Tu.
0 o t -0 III
co c o 0 LI g,-
•-ca ,cc,c,.,_ m o
"6 12) . _8 0- 0 6- w . .1:7)- g 23c •SP. vg. CD 4-.1 0 .Z"' co
cr) 8 c (1) c-, cu c al = al al •c g)3 o Tit ca .0)Q. za) -2 : . .9,E es, ,,,z,
g 8 6 .a (71
0
o .- -6 o. - .......c -a W C ._ a) .2"...., 0
C C aj ;14) •-• C
O s.- 0 - --, 0 -8 .....- 0- 0 =- .0) 0= __, .r_ 00 00 _a)
•0> u9 ac3 == 0 •F3-) .0 "SI .0, al A tn. 2 ,,(1)) -di 1.6 10 `,L -3 .c) ,..,Q) c ',
a
0) .2 2 al _c
o • a = = >, -- a) E o .5, co
c *0 c -•-• = 6 >
c (.0
0„ 70.
c ._ 93 0
• t• ...3 Tri = ,... -a ,._ a as z.,:c, 4) -,-- o _ 00 =0 '50 _ "0 0 *".0 ,w-- 19 0 ...,0 ....• C. CI 4.2 4! .11.:..- 4:CS.(t) O.Q.
O .0 at: Ft ED 0 .•-•
0 0 C1) 0 0 ..._ - gx ED. fl fl
cal > i0cr e,:ta ooEL)!Gcaca n ,c-it,e(0.-
to . :-..- , 4.) - (.4,. LD. „,. ..u- r.E 74 >al §
t .... CU 0 ,.95cCO> To" `- 0 = > lit c ''P '••fiEt,eCw
C)
10
• 0 C a
'-' MI < = Er a) = - a. c as (.) ca :■.-- o.,12 :F. ar.c 0 as g LI t.. a a a...,,,,2. .2
.
<
0)
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - MMRP
E
0.
a
Cu
Cu
0
cc
.2
'E
2
IP
a)
C
0
2
0
ts.
z
LLI
-1 ui
CC1z
CD
z
I- 0
Ere
0
0
z
2
0
2
C)
C
•to
C
Cu
Reporting or Monitoring Me
ow
E
Ca)
E
• g
7) .0
CC
0
CL
r4 • 0.
t
Cu L.
a .2
o.
o
a) 0
U)0
4.. ‘-
0 0 0.2
'5 l
0 0) t-3 0 C
o -c
eC
3 3
3
-5 0
CZ 0
CC
CZ
C c
.0) c
.0 )
0 0
a) 0)
a) *to
0 cn a an 0
a0
ea
a a)
an n,to 0, m
= 2
0 a 2
0 a
C3 a
,_
.- 8 8 5 ca.
o o
,... cc) 4- .2
8 8
_8 .2 :1) ,..-D
ci) o 4)
8 4-
0. 0.
0
-0 ,,,.,
- 0
to m 0 ,.....3, . -0 e., ti--- >-, 0 0
> a) > a) 0 co -di r., ._ --I s.-
.0
V 0 '0 0 a 0 8 8(0
- a) ---
,.. .,... ... V 0 v co CI 2 .0 .2,2 .. ..,
00 W W E 0 0 ao E >'- '-a. ie- g,) - 0
-a
..J ..J -.1 ..J 0 cu Q. 0 7 ..J -I -.I ..J 0 Cu CI. 0
<< << 000 <vE << << Om r<-0 < ,,,,.. a:, co
t
4- 4...
o.... CO
co
8 r) 8 0 4) L-
0 8 O" 0 4)
‘,._ e,... ,... .... ▪ ...
ca. ca 4- o. -.co
O 0 13 A 1%) .. 0' 0 4.- 0 0 8- ce-
5 CD 2- .--, 0 -0 .t.-J
a) a) to a -- >s 0 ...1 ......
> a) > a) . . o a ) > a) > a) ...., .t'.3 a)
as a- 0 1-.,. al 17. > <
'0 u) 10 co o. 0 .0 2 41 -o o .00 0.0 .0003 a) 0 =
V ...., 2 .i..Q.,
o 0 w w E 9, a c.) = 0 0 w cc E '1'., -6. g.) E-:
...10 - 9
...! ....1 -..1 ..J 0 0 0. Cu 7 ..J -I J ..J 0 Cu 0. 0 =
< < < < 0 03 <D 2 < < < < 01) < -1:3 2 <
0) , a)
4--0 ....z .04' 0 0 ,.'4) ".S .0
t"
C3).0‘ZR.g))01.-dCS(11 C >
0 -
0 .... 0 .0 ..... .0 .... ..- '5 ce
0 0 R I .:(
.t:3 (DE 20 . L , - - , '..6- 0 ) _• ; . ..,.. C 3, , , 0 .5 & •
c
'5 0 c° w
.0) a, """ a s .fe.) e co ta .■_6" a) a •C
as
a) 0 o a ) a s la a) . $ . 1 , ) 2 ' 2 8 E
0 43 •-
4., 0) 0 0 - 0 4.1 .1-• = t... 0
ai n9 er) . •C Cb 2 s •CI 4.) ..' 7, V
r 3) 47-1 "s• ,''''' .0 4-, RI .0
0 4) CB 0 II g 2 8
,R g i2; 1 2 • .- 2 .... og..a) a." c1)
. -6 (17 ri.)
o 1:3 a> ---' c.) co 0) 0 t gi .!...; s.-
.9.) 1.. 'ZS 0
o •E .5 -t-t' ° (D 5 e.
4)
0, e -0
= 0 0
0 - 00-4.000... 0 tt3 a =
U) .S..I3 E a 4-- 0 -■-• E ca F:-. 0 2 cl)
4.... r., 4.. 4-, ,..,.. -0 -- fi, -6
il.) c a) .:-..,. 0 L. L-, .,...,
• .0 > 4.,
O a -0 0 lif
O • :2 -5 :...., ..... ECI. 2 ii) , „a) ,...6 4 - a) o 0 -.-•
2 • ..., .0 ..... W 0 (1) 0 1.... (j) 4-o .- •
c g)‘• 0 ) . $ .,) ID Lb .,... ..,
--... *-- 0 a) ...;-:.--. ..... ..- w RI 0 N
4, • 0 see".$ 0 .... 0 CD a.) E 13, c -, - 't 0 .
c (41 k 0- 0. 3 .- `-, c _-:....E
o 0 co 0, U) ... a
DI 2 _r.c1) itzl) ti) _,..°) 'id *0 2 .,--G
M
a) • -0
>
°
a. C 3 co
o.
CO 0
17 _c
C
CO a)
E
a) 0 2 .0)
= a CO
cu 0 a
L. .2
0(0
.0 1:13
to 3 cu
(,) tn
ag e
c L
.0 0 -a
a ft' -c
4-, 0
.c a)
g
-
0) a)
u,9
CL .0
L.
o 3
Iwo°
>, C1)
<.0 0.0
CO
e E• ') s
:0
-0 -c 5
"c 2): o
11.0(71013:ct;`n 0'5
e w ...
o
> o
>...0
0 To c
.0 o c'ts
0 > 0 c
C2C 12C 1. 154 11 70).69 ): Ccu9:: :47:C I
F Cu CO °
_
ccooc
.c o
a. .D
ra.= _0
0.)
iTo -0" co CO "8 Cu
C c Ca .„ 112
CO 0
a. -0
4) a 6 2
0 0
> mc
u) 0.2 ,f,_
e a. o °
< 0 CO o 22
Attachment C — CEQA Findings Reso - M
E 0
g 1--
O Ul
O ...-1
W 03
CL <
Z
(D 0 0 -1
0- ( 2 8
•8 • . w 0
4-_, ..- 0 a) 0 CO
ta 0 t
LL. ▪ IL 4-
a 2 0) u) 8 :1 co :2 0)
O CL 8. CI) 2 g z 2 0) a :
:0
C. CI) al ..e.. 47, i,).-
LL1 < &)- g
F2 a) (I) ss tn. ...
c-
o 4-
.0 ..0 ..... C ▪ -C' 8 o
.4, ...a 4,
(11
.... .-•
g 46 -6 0- : o 5 .-oa.-ETri .2 c ast
c co -E-22.11- gc,,_ .2 a. > t s r i C 0 C 2
Eootio2n) .-.......o -cno ...,
(D 0 C V/ •- (// c • 0
-6> aa ET W ° 11 112 •C C
0 .1-• Ol. 0 8 .1-. C ..C. 0 0 > L- > a.a) 0 0- •-Ea2=02°
E ° 2 CO 0:1 0 > Ct. a CL
CI (n 0- CI' '1-1 M i13 (n ra 2 ° 2 a. o ° a) - - a) 11 *-'
c .c coo _......a. 2 c _ -
0 2 .r. E 4) 0. S 0 ill 0 .c ,-,a n ) e nc ,v1
Li. .s io o 2 E 0 a... a._ 8. as c c) E a- 5
Ce
N j ..,
( cD.SEcaa wai-eco a)
o..c
Ci ...I u)
I"
<
z., ct-cs 8 3 L1.
0 Via) 6- 2 2 O'.-0)C_
co ti.E 2 gq,
I- z to 11. .E..
w ILI
O Ce a)
1.2- m 1.0 ro- (6. 8 -T) (1) . 0)
co a ••••• • „,--■ = =, ai 0 -a.,
O C
O 0 0. c - 0. 0 0 .- ••-• c
a) E 0 = al 0
2 < ta. 773 E
z ill a) -c) a) re co g 2 8. a)
co -
O 2 re c 4_)- o :0 (,) -0 -6. - 8
a
17: • Z
or L-
LL.
O 0 °- a
P 1=
E <
0
P:
2
o
cl,
4:::)
css
Mitigation
"0 i e) :a'' CD
ID C 0 0- 5 - a)
H
°E a 5 2 - a "s" .2 c 3 0
_c U)0 0 2 0 ° .2 ti *>. c..) ts 72 iii (7,,..g (.5
0 0, 0 (,) ,._ c.-, co .2 g (NI cp 0... si, 0 0 co = w
11'...9)..ww<L,,toto-0 c.6.
a. o •c > a (1) al ID C ‘-
= .., 0. CD
,, a co L_ ::-_,
ma -43 42 6- b - .f.-) m 11 -E0°
154 0 s...0 iii g .g
-gt224, 1,1 .,Y, .ii,) 2 E c ° •-• =
us .6..42 ___,--- ._ 6 o a: o a, Q..0 ,:, :-.e.,-.q. a) 4) •-• 0 15. "1:3 .- c
2. 23, LI.) 2 co 3 e e, "_4' it a) •c fi. c 0 „, a) 0 E a. a) 0 3 7s,
a) 0
.0 4--, .......... 4.1 E
0,._°-1 ,a)(° ,vo )0.0., EE)
o)
- r.-, ..,... , c_i_.
CI
., .E ....._= .--.
a a co c ro g o a) 6 -o ci) = C
.
co
'a
-0 (0 , 0
CL o .c Y 4- IL: . Fs 4- • C .e/j. - 0 '-' ° C - tb= _ 1=, _ 0 ...s 13 0 Ill ,.,, tiS ,,- 'Ca) ‘,,
:,
2 t -- ,- ..g.
n.- 0 +, 0)-e • ,7, - c „pc' .0- m a) -g- Z o c
-,-,.. a).- a c ,_ (n o (3 as = .- ic
,- .-
0 0 2 E 5 >, ° 8 2) l .(7) 8.2 g- 0
2 „., .c.7, 0 .r .,,., (:)-..., .0 (a Ct. TS 92 .0 15 "8 'Da) 2 4,- .s 75 ID 0 46 6 ,D- eu) .4"...0 "0:
roma) c■-.-oa20c8 (a
CL > 1.. = iti.
a. =--' 8-0 -0 •-• Ca 0 1.4. co t 't *.F. (4,,) j.) 43 !.4.'
C( u, EWE- . 1-,- -- o 0 8- to 2
„R ,...o) Ts O. 0. 4 0.- _ cp al 0 ■.- .- 0 0 o
,L) 5 0 11( a) 7,-, c , 'di g, c (a._ o a- r0 a
as • .,...8 F. 0 as 8 o. 0 1,5 F..) 0 .= a
7-0 o .0 2 'o .6,.6.• o .g = .!.1.-.) 0.0 .i).
.-..
ra"......°
.c ▪ •
0 0 0 ,o ,. .-- ,- 0 as a) ,...=.E. 0 '"` '-. C C-- CO 0-C '-' - c•-• 0- (s)
rILI-
n
ED.
>- 2t0g‘-i-ic";.-PitifpgS0 .Eg agigEs&) 15 g ti2
1
g E a_ -le E , 50ta).92S (0
i 2 o a:F., 0 -..- 0 F- o
x O. 'al 0 '0 Cr a)
o 0 I... a)
0
C)
a
C
C)
'C
0
C
0
2
0
CU
)0
2
a)
C
C
2
g
0 0
0 0-
Ct >-
LL <
03
0
Z 0
P i- ....
.2
ce Ili
03
Ili <C rh °
, 0
0 ti?
N :—., o..i.a
0 CL. w c
_ILLI Z CL 0 0
re E
03 < <
ft (.7 -1 -tt".'
Fc i---
o co G.,
I-. co ,r,
E I" 173
0 Cr c
0
E D
CO o. cn
u) c
Z < ci) Ti
0 III re C
42 z a) '-
0 0 a..9..
P P
2 .cc
a)
-a t "5 a)
(.?
C= -0 '1' ,
-0 -- a) 4-■ xi {n •
03 1:3 15-`-•, ‘-
c
— 0 C - -43 rir:71)
CD- — . 0. 0) 0 .0 0 ... C
,C _ 2 Mtp.,30c 0)00kal
co o .c o 0 z.....- 0 as o VI' 0 ,-- 0 CD
N /a u) 0_ 03 >,... 8 a) a, >
>'- E 4.„
- > ar) 0 c 0 E as •E 0
0
aco cca) la _.-. -,, ,..., _ ,.,. 0 . _
Ca) „-..., - 0 . c ,.-_, L-,::-_ .,.., 0 .0 -e ..„, vi
1, 0 .c 0 0 0 -.E. 0 .0 c c .,_ c
.E 2 ° 0 >••-c ° a '0 2cuamEco
.,.., co _a -a as c c..) c 0 .,_ I:, .= .- .co...-.
0 0,..- •
a) ...c cl, cn 13 ih- :5
fn 0) 'ac0"5.-L0wa
E g . . 0 _a) 0 :. 0 -0 0
-,-., 0 2 X•CC.00=COCEOcr)(1)
0_ 1... C aa 0 4.. ,
CE CO W CD °O Cr)Mtl5
0 -0 C
nI 0 .— 4-aEwo >„20.abc..as.
.-<'"- cc2.300(DCELO.E2t.0 '0
vi a - o 0 a -a
ot.i.3 a 0 fit a) 0 .
0 c CD = V, 4.) ... .0 LLI .... 0 a) 03 ..." 0 ... C
-r-, — 9... 0 — .t.., 0
Ts ,...„2 o • 8 'E.. a 4.0 ....: as t, a E it!i) '§
c 0
._ c) CD
a "5 St '2 Oa5c° (7). -ou'E.c2
-0 ,.., ...4 .— 0 0 0_0 CO ,_ .— .„
CO 2 •S c0 "0 C1) -2 0 M 03 a) ti.), E al -
C
a) a. o) CU
(1) "(7). `0-; a. '6)2
c ..a
. co 0 a) cr c
C C CD 0
z
a 1-,
sz. 0 a)
4, 4., -0, c = (" e--a • 1 1) Ea) . .c 0 .(.c/.) . a 5
E
o 0;
s- t2) f0 0 8-ra a4o.ae--.-o
.0 4- ' g as t g a)
0 .1) -g .° 0 0- u) (7) C CL a)
(i)v) 2-0 16..0 .1,30 g
2 0 -0 - 0
*a 0 _ .0 a.)
=4-•-c-0.a co c 1-*c .E E 4:9 LE; al
to tn y2 al E cn
c c 8 0
o 4) cf) srustv)
E a .
= -0 •■-•
„, 0 CU
° ■-°- -04) 2 at %-° -(7) a S.4i .a .3 g
c2-ra e; '6 0 a) °- o co .0 2 Cl) \-2 a) 0 13 47" 142 E
oc0-0°>acto < 0,00.2=o;10
tc:0 -00 coo c ac% at) ,0ta oxi3
co(i),,%,...• • a.
Ea. -0 0U)'C'9Q E 0 0- c
2 - tr) a) a (7) e
ca g 2 2 a) • c 0,- ° a) a. 6 2
5 EQ. § 1F-oz .0 .2- L .0a) c 0 .- intl.
.(3
(1) To 8 E . . (1, -0 c f a) a)
'0 . 411.-Scosa3goa)80zrrt
. 0 4, M CC 1= < M 1, 0 .2
ot 0Oc r CU0U) rsq) E 2 c '8 CU> (t5
rn 0 CO C pi" a_ •- 4- a) c 0 17.
CO 0 o) tt--s `-d to `) ) L
c a) a co - E .
e:5 o 43 a) >,2 o) 4- g c).
2 ca. E 0 -o a) < o o o E as
E
8'
a
a,
C
CU
0)
0)
0
2
C) Cu
11 6
ea
0 • -
a. c
a) 0
0
+0
0 • •
2 .0
< 4- '8 f)
et DC co E
CD 0 .E
o E0.
E
Ca
z 0
OC
0
a, ea r°
< g
D4 g
04..
co 4( „4( Cd E
0 co
U)
Z
0
o. c
Z
0 MI
< Z o
CD 0 3- 4-
• t
o
as c CIS 0 CV
4-• OS
.0
Ca .13(50-06wo,c>,,500-
o (1) E Till 21.
a 0 a)
▪ cy 1.1 EU. g2 •S
E 1)812
CU. CU
,t g is; 41 0-1S
• C 0 .0
a; 0_ -0 0 a) a-. cr)- > o
V CU -- C 0.0 Cu CU
c al tr, 3 .0 o
cc 0, a c al 0 (Ts CO
C o .c ° a) 0 a)
(a a Pa- C1) .o2 E
a. a) 0.2 (I') 0 0 a) c Ir)
.0 0 •,•5 0 Ca M V) 0
a. p2 .2 '0 c a_ )-
O -E). a) fg 13-
2 'O r?) 0-1:2 : Cu
• ,
E' 0 CL .-40 0 0 8' :8
CV E 13 0 - • c e
C CO 0 V) 0 (4 46 0
OCI-EFE-o - .°2 '4:,
F, as _8 _co coca r, 0.2 LI '‘,(7
(T. Cr) CI
co 7" E 0
....rocEaga30-0
-00*-,.4>crgomcc 2
,2E0-0o0t13'cl20,0-0.07
CI
) 0 E o 0 c
a)co.o09.-= 0=
4.. VI 0 111.) 03 •••• S CV C CU
-00.2-ctfa 8 0
a) -c
0 o
0
't c)..t
C >, o
2 al 0E
-2 2
-,,° o 01 .FD g
03
0 0 761.1)
E 0 E
(U CU o-0
v) 2 0 a.
LE 0- 15 u,
c
,0 °
,” 4., -2 -t5 waE
w.08
0 ,E ,c 2 2-, Om.
>..
-0 a
.., a)
c a) 3 :F..." , .0
.0 0 -0 0 0 :..-
0 *>. 0 ..... • a 3
- as
0 a) la 0 E ° °
L.. 0 .- -c
AD- 0 3 co "01 0 0 0 op z ... g g *
0
N •C 0 0 15 a) 0 :::: .0
,tal .D.-' ... 0 0 €5C 9-, 0 ...
Tel 712) 1 ..,... C 0/•0 ••-• .0
0 a -.- E ,-, 'V VS
6 c N
0 V .c 72 al E M E - XI '''''' in
C ° 0 C
••C > co ... t. • s.- 0 CO , e CI) CU
s gt-t 0 . ED_ - di -0 c To E
W a) -0 CD E
.0 o to _o O 0 cr) c o t .2, E.°
- o E0.0."-0--C!.0 Co
1-0- 15 0 0
C C
.0).t0
C L'; ; ..* Cu ) 1::D 0: 10 0 .6 0) aj 0 .0
2 f, 0 a 2 0 .8 -El 7,„ o 42)
... o) o. cn-;-, 0) a.
>,-,g, -. (7, 4,s id 4„ 2 0,2
0 a.= f- C c 0..... NY V) CI) 1:, .... = ;7 -,
in 4,17
o T3 ..._03
' 1
:j CV W
tocc.... '0
O ' as 2 a/ 2 0 E a) w .6
0 8 ...
CD o
• 8 5 0 c (4*E 0 -0,_ as v .D. t o 4).2 u)
) a) .0 -
(I) .... .o.■ 0 0 • 0 a 2 6 0 '0 0 o c
,,, o 0 c 0 0 5 0
C .f.n 0.cat■-•
_ 0 op
0 r.l. 2 0 cc ._ c
0 8 ,oco.F. 4) E 0 10 a 32
"cia""'"6"‘ 0 a . `.6 a)Fe.0-c c .0 N (DP
O. 0, .... .._, 6
S2 lc 1"-- ..e. 0.09
C c-ri 0
0 0 .0 .'" 1,_ C • ,...- ..... ip • > .
-.- 0 c. '0 ••-• • 0 0 0 --m 0 .-, 0 To- ci ca "."
0. .t ::!. h)-4) OM cl...L: 6D 5 o> .i3. LI§ .-.4) .-° On V Cs) 0 •E
- > o 01 a. "5 ...T.2O.Atc0.20 ..C.Et °073
0 0 co 0
.- w CS 0. a. - - CU 0 '0 0 CD .- '••• ..... 0 0
co 0 co < 0 gi
0 '0 E Fa 21.a 46 faL g= 2
■-■ -
E
o,
C
a
a)
V
C
a)
0
fa
a)
3.3
C
C
0
g re• l- • z 5
0) E
c ix
O a- E0-
a.. • <
ea
o
0 I. c)
I."= I- o
c
'5
CC tti 4..
c
a) c
a • co J.2
O • 0 0 7-7 cc, 0
Csi
CI 2 c..B
cr, 42
u) C
LIJ -,.. ca co
D
1 ..- ix ca a)
55 < < re E CD 0
E 0-
- a. ai w
E2 l=
O co (1) -6
I- co 42 0 0 ,_ co
Z L11 iii Ca) 0 CD 0 LD,
O C4 c
E
4-4 - w • -
U) n.E 0 0 1:1) Ts 0 1... • - 8 ._
Z < ° .0 = 0_ 03 a.....• C7).- D. CL c
O III re C
•:( ▪ Z 03 1.- CO .0 a) as .c < o -o 2
P P
E < ..c t =
CD
< u)
0
E al EDE u; cu
0
"C C
I: `2
) r°0) gt 40 ,4)0 as E 1:3>)(i)(-)
woi c-0=0$2.al--
co -
c) • l . u) >1 0
0 C 0 ,
0 0 , -)C E -0 2
csa . : r a - -v 5
r-: airs
a) 0 ti c
,
1) c "
E 4)
X ( C
8 ID 0) a) g CO =
g .c c .c
. 0
4- 0
-0 4) N
C .0 0
(4 ..... .0
ar "ia 2
.c
.0 E
a) cr)
t. 'tcLo 'ma)
0,
'0) tft
vi-o ▪ 15
2 c 0
= co o
U)- 0
,0 ci 0
,..1) .0 03
Ef ..... 0
O 0 ft), ()
O 0 a -
C ..g) 10)(1) .m-
a
li) - •-• -0 0)
C.)
=03
cI (1)
- E .
c
:c 2 CL.0 :CCU >4) 0_
m ^'
0 0
-6 < N
O (1)"'°00C
N E .0 0 CD
:13 c 40
o a) 2 u, a) 7, 0 o
E
CD = 0 4- 0 "0
0. 0 el 0
8 >, '6 == E 2 8 'a
E c E c
o 0 a) ti 8 0 E
0 0> .g E
-5 -0 8
2 E. 13
-0 ,
Tis '10 Fs -a 2 2 =
< f, w o < „0
0 - 2 8 E.2 a c
4,1) O..' 0 ° `2 .1:11
- 0. - - r. 0•
.c m gio = E
o
C°
>, er >., ,c
_le 042 S o W
V CO ---,cm .0 0.V 0 4.-a
C
a) 0 2
ta
its c C
.c o
C E
c
:5 ri 0
>0 0
C CO 0)
-E 23 a)
E > c c/)
Cll •-
E
C) V. tif
ct)
o
o
° c
_
00-0o0
•- 0 t
c
E
- 0.c.0 00
C.) (cc n
in-
A 0 =
CC 4,
8 •E cci g 't ..-E
0 0 (..) C w 0 `,...
no.,070 2C 0
t c's E E :V" cow 8
Mitigation Measu
. co cN . - "F 'co- 11 ,>. ;6: .....fj cip
C 0 -5 0 0 (7) c a) a)
al -° .D 3 "a 2 ca Q) V
E 2 2
- •i .0 03.0
.0 ,-) 0
-a E .-6 a) 0 E 0 c .c
.:02 0 .01:1 coo : con, (13 rtic! :
as 4- .,
a. ,.,0 (3 E. .c E ..° c c
= .- m :.- ' Z U CO 0 R$
C of •C 0 0 ( 0 ''' 0- n",
2 - A-.! u g" w ° Z 4-5, C 111
Iii -le .0,Dwa tno 0
.c 0 i-fi• c al •0 c t•-• ce
•-• o 'c ,k- fp o- > -E .- 0
1(9
(0 0 CD +-• a) 0 .... r) '0 Ct
1) V) .0 c V '0 C Cl) ...I
CIS 112 ° El g Cr MC. E -rz
--,
c.-a)a)0-- ..... '"" CC CD
-- tn -at = = 0).- 8 („, o
(0. • -.1) 8 2 .2 0.S C3 .c ).- 8
1
8 0 ti). &.) 8 ts .c = ° -
'€5 2 5 io. 2. ch '2 i cto °3
cu▪ " c 0)
cc) co
ci > o : To
C ..-
0 .9 0 (ch' 9 - Z./
1=1‘- 0. w (C) 0)-2 >
-o lit 8 •••• 0 cm*g >
01 wgi .2 t si
- (fl o -- 0)Q 1.3
13) -9 a) :Lr'.
-rtc CO v - 131 0 g
.c m t k'• >) -cc CD .2 0
In 1E't 0L1D- 0E <, E = - a)°
4.• 0 0 .c 0 (..) >
4_, .= c , co > >, .
Pt, 0 cu as co c
"aal 13 > a) a. o
` . a 0 gi
0. g C ki cc (u ca 8
E 0 11) e- (,) 0 z. = co 2
co ( i) 2' 0 8:5;-_--c)0
-
c o
, cn cu co LI o..0
e-<(
" al as cu 0 •-• 0)-0
>,SCD o > -C 0
a) .o .c O0 DC ir) 'W)
o a) 3 )5 El..) C° o).0 .c a
. o ta c E 0 -se
ocn, 1• :003 ocurn .=0 0,00 7,132a) 4.9a) tic 4.,(1)
:0 E cci $c"; t.) E g 13 cv
0)
.0 0) a)
c
CciE
C
'--
E
c
E 0
2
1), al
0 >
- (lc
• 0CJ
o
o
c 4-
(ts o
• C/)
°
C C 0.
O U)0
2
i;e ra.
C CCI
0 41
.0 N
.2 E
=
C <
E .
(7) o g
V co LE,
a)C2
o c
0
'DO
/-• -0 0
E
ta:
E
8
0
0
07
E
z
c
al
ao
0
Z
o
L. a
to
to .
.0 .e
.0 .2
0 -
ca. =
0 o
IX 2 a)
lc >
w o
_o
CU
c
c 0 0
0 tia co
2 ° 5
1 Ire 0 C
07 E a
0
al
0 0 .= 0 0
0 0- E0 2
......
0 u.1 0
0)
cc - 0 -0
C
o -1
03 .0
0. , ca
cil
IAA ...• am U) C 1
[12
Oe E
CO < < a
(1)
2 :- C
0 1 ''''• 7 (1) 0
0
Z LLI rn cn
"..---.
0 .....ce c
00)
ic .o
(1) .
co .0 t.0
Z < 41) ID 07
0
W W C
0
E
a z ,a
co 0 fa. a
0 0
'1 .0 10 C ca .o
0
4-0 En 16.0 0 0 • c-
s.... CD .- >, 0i a7 CD tr,. 0
P .0 al ,-- a) ..o
'''' 01 2 -c ... -a 0 8 _0...., >0 8
6. .0 us us 0)
° Ca- 4"-- 0) 0
...-. o. .c ..... ,... b 0 c c --s; > F-1 22 (-1 g .s g ,"5 1:3 .0go., ow=
o c .
. 0 . 0 :(-.,.. 0( .-
ui -- - E 3 3 cr= 2.8E2 ' 0, f, c_ S - t 2 -T-; ..= , c 2 0 .c g
..
e
fl DH .0 ■-• "(:) c c 0
c 0. a a, 0 8 . oil, 0.-0 - nra .5.g c0.5.1,), 0 :5
E. ra 0- 0 .0_,t- a. 0 t E o .2 c% 0 Z'.... c ,,,w Lth. f.2 Ek2 0 0 ig 2 0 0 ,,„W
m_TIM=y:-(0,-60...-1-s_t,-s-U--...,
C*4 al-e0C00'
E = 2.2 -.E, 2 0 0 0 g .8 ..,..= 0 "CS
Li f3: ,..° °- a) ,..- t 6' o .- 0 >., 0-5 L.. .c _ 0,, 0, LI E o ., 0 2,
c 0 a 2 E c
go,,„c,i3 g a.= . as c g ...,0 ,..0 ccr _,..,.-- .., ,._ .0 •-„,, 0 as '2*.c .= .c
0)76 as c 81- ... cr 2 o 0.-0 2 ii C' O -•-• g =
tm° , as 0).--- co u) cr, c - u) c 03 - E E
o• a)a)cc0a. 0 "E; 0 LI) ..--. 0 C .:-..- .-C XI E ct- 0 .c E g c a
0 TS Ill .0 07 ' •■••• , 0 tg t 0 .0 V., t - 0 0 CM E 0) .N4 = cti co .„--. R 8
2 2 E 9 E T13 .‘ f,"1 0 .a 0 0 0 •E "
co ,9 '5" .2 t4 ° -` o .-Y 2 2 ci 0 t ,c -0
... 2.
o acE"'p0a)ca8e0
0 0 „,.. o -a (a. Ca 0
0 0 RI C.0 0 CD Ct-
r0
0 a 0 a • 0 = .-
0 . rtS eu a) eg = co c) it u i :-.--',.=c c lii 10 co ..g _c ti °- .... 0.0 a>0. 4)
^M >„:-........,-
'''' cu rt ' -)2 ' C 0 LI- co .... wC0.-E.>0....--v3CL0)-0-
(D en 0 .03 0 0 03 0: .. co- (0 o - :. :c :,.-, e ._ ......, ...-0 _ . .. 2
.., a ..-- ca iti2c00:,...alcCE a),,, .2 J_D 0 o ..
-=01D.c t E 0 a)
,- 0 c 0 •-• 0 S..) s- .E.7 t 0 C •-• (15 V - •-9? 0 gc -2 ;5 • iNi 0 t, .8 1,4. 2
oX'-' =2c7u- b0:-.-0E4-.
.- = a) CLOcal• ("10E=
c..0
V CL OL II.- Cf) 07
...C.E.-E a- 2 2 2 .0 ›. 2 0 „q2 ,E 8.0 *E fi)
-.-, 0 o ..- a) 0 10 2 -a Cl- 4-, a) 0 = iX a) t. 0 0 -1-4 t2 0 0 .,. E .-4. _ ..x., E• (7,
0 ,.... o -0
0 00 c....„ ,„ 0 >,2 co§ '-'14 ca 2.c c a w c 0 '‹ 'C' .2 '
2 b 22t==i; .0 0 = 0 c„ AI 0_,0 0 ._ -8 t 0 - -
0 - = = 0 Vd`o ct
4) .2 0 ca a) ..„.....3...- 0,c = 0 0_0 >..1-4 0 0 0.-4-80 0
-0 0. , .0 -Do. . 0 03
0 0 0 .i.5, cT, .1- 0 a
C C a• :- w CY 2
.o 0 co o c (1) ‘-. c 0 0, :e• 0 `-' .5 0 - E 0 OS > ''''' 17) ar -.-• „, > =
v) 0 o o 0.D LE LIJ
Mitigation Measure
L. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
c
o
C) 43
2 0))
co I-
ta.i 0
-o
.2
CU
CC
a> U)
E E
as 0
0. 0
(1) 1:3
o c
■-•
o 30.
(U'?
o -a co
c7, 0.
E
4)
>
0 e2 .2
0
0
,._ _ a
.0 - • s..) 0) •c...3.
oo'UT3 0 Z. 07 C
WV WCCI.C• .0 ° 5
fs.,?.425m-g008
...,...-. 8 ..m 0. ca...5 0 ,..
.-Iziol_u• : ; 28
E0 :5 8:: :
1.) LLI
.-- 0. t ..s -2
a ,....... .
4:1
L0' 0.• C ii.) 5 2 •5'.
. g2 C 03 0 0 .... S "T
w E.a. X cod
X .0, .? t
: li
...E, I
t .- 2 tr.- 2 ..E 5 .a -
. ... s .4
C
.., ,o .- 0 s.. a a 0
-.E ci g ti 0 kr: g), Zi .0 1-4
ci: 0 r= g0,g..,
4.) 4... 0.. 11) O. a: A E
0 :ts as - •• '
7:1 , s 0 :2 = a a
32....cat.,..,2•Ea4, e, 0
C0 0. a) a) a. ci) > E ,s
a
g ca) c L1) = .0- g
0 a) 0 = 0 = tt o
:''= ° = t - ° $-.
`') f)
0 i 8 2 a.- .2 :t iis (V 8
0 . t0 . CD o i
*-• a) .g):
8 0 a..SIV
Lt .c) - a ..•5 0.0 0) .5
'.CC OM= c
... jc`i, -LI .rtial .1g , < 1 ) . tg 2 zo 3
}....., .. i.-.5 .... c a.
1
E
a
a`
a
C
'E
a
a
C
C
c
m
C)
c
0
i E
c ~
o b
ro C
rn 7,
;a
2 o`
t
m
0 c
a1
c0
t o
'o
�g
0
m
c
C c
O
0
U .r- 0
DC ( O E
a Q
E
i= E
m
z O
ec w
O J a)
m ;o
W < Ho
JZ a y c
q re m < a
1-Z aE
H
O 0 m
1- to a
OZ re c
a0, 0 i3
z O W C°
0 0 n.0 ..2 '
h H
2 Q
O
2
0
0
0
c
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
ATTACHMENT D
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091
et seq., the City Council of the City of Alameda adopts and makes the following statement of
overriding considerations regarding the remaining unavoidable impacts of the Project and the
anticipated economic, social, and other benefits of the Project.
SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts which are
included in the record, the City has determined that the Project would cause significant
unavoidable impacts to traffic and circulation, air quality, public services, and cumulative
impacts to population and housing, traffic and circulation, air quality and public services, as
disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FSEIR ") prepared for the Project. These
impacts cannot be feasibly fully mitigated by changes in or alternatives to the Project.
II. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding
Considerations that, as part of the approval provisions, the Project has avoided or substantially
lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible, and finds that the remaining
unavoidable impacts of the Project are acceptable in light of specific economic, legal, social,
technological, and other benefits of the Project because those benefits outweigh the significant
unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project. The Council finds that each of the
overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for
finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project's significant adverse environmental
impacts and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. These matters are
supported by evidence in the record that includes, but is not limited to, the documents referenced
below.
III. BENEFITS OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The City Council has considered the proposed Development Agreement ( "Commercial
DA ") by and between the City of Alameda ( "City ") and Palmtree Acquisition Corporation
( "Developer "), the proposed Development Agreement ( "Residential DA ") by and between the
City of Alameda ( "City ") and the Developer, the proposed Disposition and Development
Agreement ( "DDA ") by and between the CIC and Developer, the Reuse Plan, the Master Plan,
the public record of proceedings on the proposed Project and other written materials presented to
the City as well as oral and written testimony at all public hearings related to the Project, and
does determine that implementation of the Project as specifically provided in the Project
documents would result in the following substantial public benefits by:
1. Ensuring the productive use of underdeveloped, former military base property and
fostering orderly growth and quality development in the City.
Z Proceeding in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan,
thereby implementing the City's stated General Plan policies.
3. Providing substantially increased property tax and sales tax revenues to the City.
4. Providing increased employment opportunities for residents of the City.
5. Eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies in the
Project area, including, but not limited to, abandoned buildings, incompatible land
uses, depreciated or stagnant property values, and inadequate or deteriorated
public improvements, facilities, and utilities.
6. Replanning, redesigning, and developing undeveloped and underdeveloped areas
that are improperly utilized to achieve a balanced mix of land uses and create a
vibrant new neighborhood in City.
7 Expanding and improving the community's supply of housing through the
installation of needed site improvements and the construction housing, consistent
with the existing density and single - family residential character of City and with
existing City policies and standards, including Measure A.
8. Increasing the City's supply of land available for residential development and
increasing the supply of affordable housing in City.
9. Providing diversity in housing opportunities through compliance with Community
Improvement Commission inclusionary housing policy (i.e., providing on -site
moderate income housing, and a 25 percent inclusionary requirement for the 300-
unit residential development).
10. Strengthening and diversifying the economic base of the Project area and the
community by adding business park uses and retail uses that will provide new
amenities for City residents, including new shops, restaurants and services.
11. Achieving job creation and economic development.
12. Actively seeking and promoting business by providing new retail land uses that
will complement and provide synergies with existing retail development at
Webster Street, the Alameda Towne Centre and other locations within City, in
accordance with the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy.
13. Facilitating the emergence of commercial sectors through improvement of
transportation access to commercial areas, improvement of safety within the
Project area, and the installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new
commercial expansion, employment, and economic growth.
50120 \69028v4 2
14. Maximizing tax increment, new sales tax, and developing a municipal services
district and other funding mechanisms in order to pay for the public investment in
infrastructure required for economic development in the Project area, and
ensuring compliance with the City's fiscal neutrality policy for the redevelopment
and reuse of former federal facilities.
15. Emphasizing employment and a mix of economic development opportunities that
complement economic development strategies in other parts of City and
promoting a jobs- housing balance to the extent practicable.
16. Seamlessly integrating the Project site into City by emphasizing Mixed Use
development; ensuring land use compatibility within and surrounding the Project
site; creating the same "small town" character on the Project site which is highly
valued by the existing community; achieving the same human- scale, tree -lined
character of neighborhood walkable streets found throughout the existing City;
reflecting the grid street pattern that is characteristic of the existing City;
minimizing through - traffic on minor residential streets.
17. Reducing the impact of the automobile and energy consumption by: facilitating
public transit opportunities to and within the Project area to the extent feasible;
providing a system of bikeways, parks, and pedestrian paths to facilitate access to
parks, recreational areas and the waterfront from all parts of western Alameda;
and implementing a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program that
will reduce Project - related traffic and associated noise and air quality impacts.
18. Protecting and improving the waterfront by enhancing views of water and public
access to the waterfront in all development and creatively encouraging the usage
of the waterfront, by providing a Waterfront Promenade, public art, open space
and other amenities.
19. Providing adequate vehicular access to and within the Project site without
impeding access to existing areas of City.
20. Providing parks within the Project site to service the needs of the Project site and
surrounding neighborhoods.
21. Promoting energy efficiency in facility development, utilizing recycled materials
to the extent feasible, and applying low water demand techniques in all new
development, including all landscape development.
22. Ensuring that each portion of the Project area, as developed, is suitable for the
intended use and consistent with protection of human health and the environment
prior to occupancy.
23. Establishing a comprehensive framework and hierarchy for the overall site to
ensure that the basic infrastructure elements will be functionally and aesthetically
integrated throughout the development.
50120 \69028v4 3
24. Ensuring that the Project site design is in concert with the established goals,
policies and objectives of the NASAlameda Community Reuse Plan and the City
General Plan.
25. Integrating the planned community into the existing west Alameda neighborhood
fabric, while at the same time creating a unique setting within City that has a
strong and unique sense of place.
The City Council has weighed the above benefits of the proposed Project against its
unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the FSEIR and
hereby determines that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental effects and,
therefore, further determines that these risks and adverse environmental effects are acceptable.
50120 \69028v4 4
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda during the Special
Joint Meeting of the City Council, Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority and
Community Improvement Commission on the 5th day of December 2006, by the
following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese,
and Mayor Johnson - 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
said City this 6th day of December, 2006.
Lara Weisiger, City perk
City of, Alameda