Loading...
Resolution 14299to Ni CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 14299 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 PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2007072075) WHEREAS, on November 24, 2008, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda recommended that the City Council certify that the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") for the Proposed Transportation Element General Plan Amendment (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 Reporting Program and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations is part of an application that includes a General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, prior to approving this Resolution and acting on the General Plan Amendment, the City Council certified the FEIR. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (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. ATTACHMENT A ' FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE TRANSPORATION ELEMENT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Transportation Element is a comprehensive update of the1991 Transportation Element policies, priority projects, and implementation actions to maintain and enhance the City of Alameda's transportation network, facilities, and services I. THE FINAL EIR: The Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") consists of the Draft EIR ( "DEIR "), 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: (1) The Transportation Element recommended by the Transportation Commission and the Planning Board. (2) The Draft EIR. (3) The FEIR including the Responses to Comments Addendum and Text Revisions document and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference. (4) The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. (5) All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered to the City of Alameda ( "City ") in connection with the Planning Board public hearing of August 25, 2008 on the DEIR. (6) All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered to the City in connection with the Planning Board and City Council meetings associated with the certification of the FEIR. (7) (8) 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. These Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in connection with the Project. III. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS The FEIR for the Project, prepared in compliance 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. 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, 1 5092, 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 FEIR. 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. Air Quality Construction Related Air Quality Impacts Significant Effect. Construction activities may generate significant temporary air quality impacts. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: The City shall require the following dust emission control measures be applied to transportation projects as appropriate and feasible. These measures are consistent with those recommended for use by BAAQMD. 1) For all construction and similar earth- disturbing activities: • Apply water on all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often when conditions warrant. • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two 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 daily as needed to control dust. • Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites and sweep streets daily if visible soil materials are carried onto adjacent public streets. 2) For sites greater than 4 acres in size: • Hydroseed or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). 2 • 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 miles per hour. • Install appropriate erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways. • Replant soil stabilizing vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. 3) For sites that are located adjacent to sensitive receptors or warrant additional controls: Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Suspend grading activities when winds exceed 25 miles per hour and visible dust clouds cannot be prevented from extending beyond active construction areas. • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activities at any one time. Require transportation projects to implement construction emission control measures recommended by BAAQMD as appropriate, taking into account length of time of construction and distance from sensitive receptors. This may include the utilization of low - emission construction equipment, restrictions on the length of time of use of certain heavy - duty construction equipment, and utilization of methods to reduce emissions from construction equipment (alternative fuels, particulate matter traps, and diesel particulate filters) as feasible. Limit the idling of diesel equipment, particularly when parked near sensitive receptors or in other conditions as appropriate, for the construction and operation aspects of transportation projects consistent with applicable regional, state and federal standards. 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 FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. 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, will be imposed on the Project through the MMRP as a condition of approval. Implementation of Mitigation Measures will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the impact of Project construction - period activities on local air quality. These facts support the City's findings. NOISE Impacts During Demolition and Construction, Significant Effect. Buildout of the transportation improvements could result in demolition and construction activities which could generate excessive noise or groundborne vibrations at neighboring land uses. 3 Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: The following requirements shall be imposed on all transportation construction projects) to reduce construction noise impacts to residential uses and other sensitive receptors. s Provision of noise - reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds on construction equipment, in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. Construction of temporary barriers sufficient to the extent feasible to interrupt line of sight between onsite construction areas and the nearest noise - sensitive use(s). 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 FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. Construction activities associated with transportation improvements could involve demolition, road construction, and utility and roadway reconstruction, which would create noise and vibration. Noise from construction activities would be intermittent during construction and would gradually occur over an extended period of time, driven by market conditions. In order to ensure that demolition construction do not create excessive noise or vibrations, implementation of Mitigation Measures enforced through the MMRP as conditions of approval, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. 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 FEIR 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. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION Park and Clement Street Intersection Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that may result from anticipated future development. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening. 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 FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific 4 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. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to the automobile. Street widening facilitate automobile use and can degrade the level of service for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of Park and Clement is determined to be significant and unavoidable. Eight Street and Central Avenue Intersection Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that may result from anticipated future development. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening. 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 FEIR 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. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to the automobile. Street widening facilitate automobile use and can degrade the level of service for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of Park and Clement is determined to be significant and unavoidable. Eight Street and Central Avenue Intersection Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that may result from anticipated future development. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening. 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 FEIR 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. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to the automobile. Street widening facilitate automobile use and can degrade the level of service 5 for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of Central and Eighth is determined to be significant and unavoidable. Broadway /Tilden /Eagle Intersection Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that may result from anticipated future development. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening. 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 FEIR 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. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to the automobile. Street widening facilitate automobile use and can degrade the level of service for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of Broadway/Tilden /Eagle is determined to be significant and unavoidable. Broadway /Otis Intersection Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that may result from anticipated future development. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening. 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 FEIR 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. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to the automobile. Street widening facilitates automobile use and can degrade the level of service for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of Broadway /Otis is determined to be significant and unavoidable. 6 Tilden /Blanding /Fernside Intersection Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that may result from anticipated future development. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening. 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 FEIR 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. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to the automobile. Street widening facilitates automobile use and can degrade the level of service for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of Tilden /Blanding /Fernside is determined to be significant and unavoidable. High Street/Fernside Intersection Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that may result from anticipated future development. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening. 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 FEIR 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. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to the automobile. Street widening facilitates automobile use and can degrade the level of service for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of High Street /Fernside is determined to be significant and unavoidable. High Street/Otis Intersection Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that may result from anticipated future development. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening. 7 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 FEIR 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. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to the automobile. Street widening facilitates automobile use and can degrade the level of service for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of High Street /Otis is determined to be significant and unavoidable. Island Drive /Doolittle Drive Intersection Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that may result from anticipated future development. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening. 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 FEIR 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. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to the automobile. Street widening facilitates automobile use and can degrade the level of service for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of Island Drive /Doolittle Drive is determined to be significant and unavoidable. Park St. /Blanding Intersection Significant Effect. The GPA includes policies that would prohibit mitigations imposed on future projects to widen this intersection to mitigate future projected unacceptable traffic conditions that may result from anticipated future development. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated by eliminating the policies prohibiting street widening. 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 FEIR 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.) 8 Facts in Support of Findings. Removal of the policies would encourage and facilitate growth in automobile traffic. General Plan policy is to minimize automobile traffic to maintain a high quality of life in Alameda, minimize green house gas emissions, and encourage alternatives to the automobile. Street widening facilitates automobile use and can degrade the level of service for bicyclists and pedestrian modes of transit. Therefore, the impact at the intersection of Park Street/Blanding Avenue is determined to be significant and unavoidable. C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The impacts listed below are less than significant impacts, even without the implementation of mitigation measures. Land Use Less Than Significant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant impact on Land Use. Mitigation. None required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to land use is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation of the Transportation Element would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the established community. The Transportation Element does not establish new land uses. It supports land uses proposed by the General Plan. Public Policy. Less Than Significant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant impact on Public Policy. Mitigation. None required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to public policy is than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Adoption of the Transportation Element would result in new policies, but the new policies are consistent with the intent of the General Plan as well as other local and regional Transportation Plans Population and Housing Less Than Significant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant impact on Population and Housing. 9 Mitigation. None required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to population and housing is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential or commercial development. Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Less Than Significant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant impact on Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Mitigation. None required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to geology, soils, and seismicity is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential or commercial development. Hydrology and Water Quality Less Than Significant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality. Mitigation. None required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to hydrology and water quality is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential or commercial development. All transportation improvement projects would be subject to standard permitting and regulatory procedures designed, to protect water quality and each of these projects would be subject to a project level environmental review. Hazards. Less Than Significant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant impact on hazards. Mitigation. None required. 10 Finding: The environmental impact with respect to hazards is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential or commercial development. All transportation improvement projects would be subject to standard permitting and regulatory procedures designed to minimize hazards and each of these projects would be subject to a project level environmental review. Biology. Less Than Significant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant impact on biological resources. Mitigation. None required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to hazards is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential or commercial development. All transportation improvement projects would be subject to standard permitting and regulatory procedures designed to protect biological resources and each of these projects would be subject to a project level environmental review. Public Services. Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in an increased demand for municipal services. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to municipal services is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not result in residential or commercial growth that would then result in a demand for additional municipal services, schools, water supply, Sanitary Sewer Sub basin Capacity. Storm Drainage., Solid Waste, Electricity. Natural Gas and Telecommunications. Utilities. Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in an increased demand for utilities. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to utilities is less than significant and no mitigation is required. 11 Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not result in residential or commercial growth that would then result in a demand for additional utilities. Cultural Resources. Less Than Significant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant impact on cultural resources. Mitigation. None required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to cultural resources is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential or commercial development. All transportation improvement projects would be subject to standard permitting and regulatory procedures designed to protect cultural and archeological resources and each of these projects would be subject to a project level environmental review. Aesthetics. Less Than Significant Effect. The Transportation Element would have a less than significant impact on Aesthetics. Mitigation. None required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to aesthetics is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not create new land uses and would support existing or planned land uses as articulated in the General Plan. Implementation of the Transportation Element would not result in new residential or commercial development. All transportation improvement projects would be subject to standard permitting and regulatory procedures designed to protect aesthetic environment and each of these projects would be subject to a project level environmental review. Transportation and Circulation Consistency with Existing or Planned Transit Services and Facilities. Less Than Significant Effect. Adoption and implementation of the Transportation Element GPA would not be expected to result in a significant impact on existing or planned transit services. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to consistency with existing or planned transit services and facilities is less than significant and no mitigation is required. 12 Facts in Support of Findings. The transit and transportation policies in the Transportation Element GPA serve and support existing and planned transit services and facilities. Emergency Access. Less Than Significant Effect. The Transportation Element GPA is consistent with the City of Alameda Emergency Access plans. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to emergency access is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element GPA is consistent with the City of Alameda Emergency Access plans Pedestrian /Bicycle Circulation. Less Than Significant Effect. Adoption and implementation of the Transportation Element GPA will improve pedestrian and bicycle access and safety in the planning area and result in less than significant impacts. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to pedestrian /bicycle circulation is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. Public improvements proposed by the Transportation Element GPA will add and improve bicycle and pedestrian paths. All intersections will be designed to meet current pedestrian and bicycle safety standards. Air Quality Odor and Air Toxics. Less Than Significant Effect. Transportation Improvements could produce short -term objectionable odors and toxic air contaminants. However, these impacts would be subject to BAAQMD regulations and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to odors and toxic air contaminants is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The Transportation Element would not generate development of any long term uses that would generate objectionable odors or toxic air contaminants. While the GPA would encourage the establishment of transit facilities and services that may generate some odors, any such uses would need to comply with the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations on odors and toxic air contaminants and in so doing, would not result in any significant impacts. 13 Therefore, no odor or air toxics impacts would occur as a result of the proposed GPA. These facts support the City's findings. Accidental Release /Acutely Hazardous Air Emissions. Less Than Significant Effect. Any transit facility or service proposed in the future that would have the potential to generate hazardous air emissions would need to comply with the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations, reducing potential impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to accidental release of acutely hazardous air emissions is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. There is no information available at this time on any potential hazardous air emissions related to the adoption and implementation of the GPA. Any use proposed in the future that would have the potential to generate hazardous air emissions would need to comply with the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations. Any accidental release of acutely hazardous air emission would be reported to and handled by the Alameda County Health Department staff in charge of such issues. Therefore, no significant impact due to accidental release and acutely hazardous air emissions would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed GPA. These facts support the City's findings. Total Emissions. Less Than Significant Effect. The would be considered consistent with the growth projections of the current (2000) Clean Air Plan, and adopting the GPA would not result in any significant changes in the total emission assumptions already incorporated within the Clean Air Plan. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to an increase in total emissions is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. Long -term air quality impacts from the three primary criteria air pollutants (ROG, NOx and PM10) are those that would result from the changes in permitted land uses within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Mobile source emissions are those that result from vehicle trips; stationary source emissions are those that would result from energy consumption and the use of wood stove /fireplace and consumer products. As transporation improvements are proposed, analysis of the long -term air quality impacts associated with the operation of each of these projects will be required during the environmental review process. These facts support the City's findings. Local Carbon Monoxide Concentrations. Less Than Significant Effect. CO emissions levels would be less than significant at the GPA area. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to local carbon monoxide concentrations is less than significant and no mitigation is required. 14 Facts in Support of Findings. The proposed GPA should result in a decrease in CO emissions levels as a result in the GPA emphasis on reducing automobile trips. These facts support the City's findings. . Regional Emissions Less Than Significant Effect. As indicated above, the evaluation of environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the GPA is being done at a "program" level of analysis. Therefore, all future projects will be subject to project -level review. This impact would be considered less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to regional emissions is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The evaluation of environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the GPA is being done at a "program" level of analysis. These facts support the City's findings. 15 ATTACHMENT B FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES 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 EIR are described in this section. II. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES AND FINDINGS A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 1. Brief Description The No Project alternative assumes that the Transportation Element GPA is not adopted and that existing 1991 Transportation Element remains in effect. 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. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to land use. b. Public Policy. No direct policy conflicts would result from this alternative; however, it would fail to achieve many of the transportation goals and objectives articulated by the Citizens of the City of Alameda and regional transportation plans. c. Population and Housing. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to population. d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to hydrology and storm drainage. e. Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to geology, soils, and seismicity. f. Hazards. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to hazards. g. Biology. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to biology. h. Traffic and Circulation. The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative would avoid proposed Project traffic impacts. As compared to the proposed project, this alternative may result in fewer significant impacts to automobile travel due to policies in the Project alternative that limit street widening to accommodate additional traffic volume. The No Project alternative could result in more impacts to bicycle, pedestrian and transit because the existing Transportation Element includes fewer policies to protect alternative modes of travel and would allow street widening, which might impact pedestrian or bicycle modes. i. Air Quality. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts related to air quality. j. Noise. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts related to noise. k. Public Services. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts related to public services. I. Utilities. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to utilities. m. Cultural Resources. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to cultural resources. n. Aesthetics. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts related to Aesthetics. 3. Findings This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons: a. The No Project/Existing Conditions Alternative would fail to satisfy the objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project Description to maintain an up -to -date Transportation Element of the General Plan and ensure that City decision making related to transportation facilities and improvements is consistent with the community's vision for transportation in Alameda. 2 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 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. is not feasible. d. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the No Project Alternative B. ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE 1. Brief Description Under the Environmentally Superior Alternative the proposed Transportation Element would be modified to allow for street widening to accommodate additional traffic generated by new development. 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 Environmentally Superior Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts on land use. b. Public Policy. The Environmentally Superior Alternative, like the proposed Project, would not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with existing plans and policies. c. Population and Housing. This alternative would have similar less than significant impacts on population and housing. d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. This alternative would have similar less than significant impacts on population and housing. 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 Environmentally Superior Alternative would result in similar less than significant hazards - related impacts as identified for the proposed Project. g. Biology. The Environmentally Superior Alternative would result in similar less than significant biology - related impacts as identified for the proposed Project. 3 h. Traffic and Circulation. The Environmentally Superior Alternative, would result in less automobile level of service impacts because street widening would be allowed to accommodate more vehicles, but the alternative may result in more pedestrian and bicycle impacts that may occur as a result of street widening. i. Air Quality. The construction activity that would occur under the Environmentally Superior Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed Project and would have the same less- than - significant air quality impact. Traffic - related air quality emissions would be similar compared to the proposed Project. j. Noise. Construction activity under the Environmentally Superior Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed Project and would have the same less -than- significant noise impact. k. Public Services. The Environmentally Superior Alternative generally would have the same impacts related to fire protection and emergency services, emergency response, solid waste, and police services. I. Utilities. The Environmentally Superior Alternative would result in similar less than significant impacts to utilities. m. Cultural Resources. The Environmentally Superior Alternative impact on cultural resources would be the same less than significant impact as that identified for the proposed Project. n. Aesthetics. The Environmentally Superior Alternative would result in the same less than significant aesthetics impacts that would occur with the proposed Project. 3. Findings This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons: a. The Environmentally Superior 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 objectives to the same extent as would the proposed Project because the environmentally superior alternative would fail to protect bicycle, pedestrian and transit modes of travel to the extent that they are protected under the Project Alternative. The Environmentally Superior Alternative may also result in additional traffic on Alameda streets because there would be less emphasis on TDM and trip reduction in new projects. 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, population and housing, biology, public services, utilities, and cultural resources. c. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project and changes made by the Planning Board and City Council 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. 4 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 Environmentally Superior Alternative is not feasible. 5 ATTACHMENT C: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM 1 INTRODUCTION This document is the Final Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Transportation Element Update Environmental Impact Report. This MMRP has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code, which requires public agencies to "adopt a reporting and monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment." An MMRP is required for the proposed project because the EIR has identified significant adverse impacts, and measures have been identified to mitigate those impacts. The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence as found in the EIR. 2 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM The MMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in this Final EIR. The City of Alameda (City) will be the primary agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures that are required to be implemented during the operation of the project. The MMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the FMMRP are described briefly below: • Mitigation Measures: The mitigation measures are taken from the Draft EIR, in the same order that they appear in the Draft EIR. No revisions were necessary to the mitigation measures included in the Draft EIR. • Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed. • Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the party that is responsible for mitigation monitoring. • Compliance Verification Responsibility: Identifies the party that is responsible for verifying compliance with the mitigation. In some cases, verification will include contact with responsible state and federal agencies. City of Alameda Transportation Element Update Exhibit C Final Environmental Impact Report 5.0 -1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM City of Alameda b' O O C N U C CCS CD o5 o4 C0 u) Be'0 a ':± CU` L N T L C � n zt o a N 0 CZ o co L N a O o 0 0 °m_ w Oo o co 82 al0c C �.� a @.� c.0 O 2 us O CO 3 C O ' N C p 'Fs v O c C > O C N U O c @ t>co cU 'C N E a V) 3 n a'2 Cc �' 0 0 �n `n c0 C (0 •p ,O OU a) pU 3 o U N d7 c N co N.0 0 N > N O) N C .0 p U .CU 2 d al 0 CN .., eC N o 0 a m � '—j L U o E ca ' o O O m O i C O L Q) c 0 y N .O U= C E O .`. OS T 0 0' -2 0 = O 70 4 C ..c O co -O C p c U 2 ° O o O > o� E u)L m 2 f0 to °) � . Q. CZ . a 0 •° N O O U- : >, 0 O E. 0— c N .._ o 2 a. ° co C C al .4- ,..6-., Ls L O. N -p e w O N r a Q), u) a o . X C N Q U o O N ro • `B 3 m 0)0)r0g _� < 0Ew doa-to cncn -a a .-'_' E m E o Uvc)42 Eu- . . s CD c ° . 1—EmL MM 4.3.1a For sites greater than 4 acres in size: O 6 i N N p O 2 C) — T y O ,U N O 0.-• rn C co E L CU L T O Qe� (9 ® (0 O r/) C N oo O o ..? > LO U T co (O _ .c .c U ' X O_ O C°•' U 0 a> E c u� .Cl) 0 CU •C 0 •° CU >, O Y O O t6 _U 0 C Cl) C L V C a? 0 N N CL > O O a> C CU v) C o 0 0 E o w cn J s measures to CU I- CU a) N .Q n o 0 C O 3 c O U -C CZ P OC O C) 'V) .0 a) O > C a a> O O ,N O OS N C O co O O C L E —Cl) u) y C C O _ a) m > a C. o. f m 0 a) ca C4 V C, d E e v~ LUd o E C .a o W Tit 5.0 FINAL MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM As a condition of project approval; Prior to and during any improvement projects/construction activities. L�ugr r � yf4. City of Alameda Sumary cif Measure m or warrant additional controls: • Install wheel washers for all exiting trucks or wash off all trucks and equipment leaving the site. • Suspend grading activities when winds exceed 25 miles per hour and visible dust clouds cannot be prevented from extending beyond active construction areas. • Limit the area subject to excavation, grading, and other construction activities at any one time. Require transportation projects to implement construction emission control measures recommended by BAAQMD as appropriate, taking into account length of time of construction and distance from sensitive receptors. This may include the utilization of low- emission construction equipment, restrictions on the length of time of use of certain heavy -duty construction equipment, and utilization of methods to reduce emissions from construction equipment (alternative fuels, particulate matter traps, and diesel particulate filters) as feasible. Limit the idling of diesel equipment, particularly when parked near sensitive receptors or in other conditions as appropriate, for the construction and operation aspects of transportation projects consistent with applicable regional, state and federal standards. The following requirements shall be imposed on all transportation construction projects) to reduce construction noise impacts to residential uses and other sensitive receptors. • Provision of noise- reduction intake and exhaust mufflers and engine shrouds on construction equipment, in accordance with manufacturers' recommendations. • Construction of temporary barriers sufficient to the extent feasible to interrupt line of sight between onsite construction areas and the nearest noise - sensitive use(s). Proposed`; Mitigation of et 2 2 ATTACHMENT D STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS 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. I. 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 as disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") 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 Transportation Element General Plan Amendment, 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 adoption and implementation of the proposed Transportation Element as amended would result in the following substantial public benefits by: 1. Providing the Alameda community and decision makers with an updated Transportation Element that reflects current 2009 community priorities regarding mobility, the environment, green house gas emissions, transit oriented design, urban design, and neighborhood preservation to replace the 17 year old 1991 Transportation Element. 2. Establishing new policies to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and transit modes of transportation for the Alameda community. 3. Establishing polices to ensure that the livability and unique character of Alameda neighborhoods is not impacted by additional automobile traffic. 4. Establishing transportation improvement priorities, which will enable the community to focus its limited transportation improvement resources on the improvements that are most needed and important to the community. 5. Establishing a comprehensive framework and hierarchy for the citywide transportation network to ensure that the basic transportation infrastructure elements will be functionally and aesthetically integrated throughout the city. The City Council has weighed the above benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the FEIR and hereby determine that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental effects and, therefore, further determine that these risks and adverse environmental effects are acceptable. 2 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 Regular Meeting of the City Council on the 20th day of January, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam — 4. NOES: None. ABSENT: Mayor Johnson - 1. ABSTENTIONS: None. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 21st day of January, 2009. Lara Weisiger, City erk City of Alameda