Resolution 12014CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12014
DENYING APPEAL OF PLANNING BOARD RESOLUTION NOS. 2064, 2065, 2066,
2067, AND APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IS -90 -2, USE PERMIT, UP-
90-7, USE PERMIT, UP -90 -8, AND FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FDP -90 -1,
FOR THE PROPOSED HARBOR BAY FERRY TERMINAL AT MECARTNEY ROAD ON THE
WESTERN SHORELINE OF BAY FARM ISLAND
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda has reviewed
Resolution No. 2064 passed by the Planning Board of the City of
Alameda adopting Negative Declaration IS -90 -2 for the Western
Shoreline of Bay Farm Island; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the appeal of the
Planning Board's decision by the Golden Gate Audubon Society; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public rehearing of this
appeal and has examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents;
and
WHEREAS, the project applicant Doric Development, Inc. and the
appellant Golden Gate Audubon Society as part of a mutual
settlement agreed upon certain revisions in the mitigation measures
adopted by the Planning Board as conditions of the Negative
Declaration, which revisions are acceptable to the City Council;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and adopted as its own
the following 12 findings originally made by the Planning` Board and
has added the 13th finding below:
1. The City Council has reviewed and considered the project
applicant's Project Description and applications for Use Permits
and a Final Development Plan, the proposed Negative Declaration IS-
90-2, the Staff Reports prepared for the Planning Board meetings
of March 26, 1990, April 22, 1990, and May 14, 1990, the LSA
Biological Report with its Appendices, the Abrams and Associates
Traffic Impacts Study, written comments received, testimony
received at the Public Hearings, and the written responses to
comments received.
2. The Initial Study identified potentially significant effects,
but revisions in the project plans or proposals made by or agreed
to by the project applicant before the Negative Declaration was
released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the,
effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would--
occur, and there is no substantial evidence before the City Council
that the project as revised may have a significant effect on th
environment.
3. In adopting this Negative Declaration, the City Council haste`,'
relied on the analysis of the biological consulting firm LSA
Associates, Inc. and its sub - consultants in concluding that no
further biological study is required at this time to finalize the
environmental assessment and that no significant adverse
environmental impacts are expected to result from the proposed
project as mitigated with respect to biological values, with
special attention to the eelgrass beds in the project site's
vicinity and the species that live and feed there, the foraging of
the California Least Tern, and the herring spawning near the
project area. The City Council has given due attention to the
biological issues raised by the Golden Gate Audubon Society and
Professor Kitting and has included some of their suggestions in the
revised mitigation measures which will be incorporated as
conditions of project approval.
4. In adopting this Negative Declaration, the City Council has
relied on the traffic study by Abrams and Associates and the
recommendations of the City's Transportation Planner in formulating
a set of mitigating measures to reduce traffic impacts which will
be incorporated as conditions of project approval.
5. The project may have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below
self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory. As mitigated,
however, the project should have no significant effect on the
quality of the environment, and will not cause any of the events
described above to occur. In making this mandatory finding of
significance, the City Council has carefully considered the
project's potential impacts on the eelgrass beds, the foraging
habitat for the California Least Tern, and the herring spawning
area.
6. The project may have the potential to achieve short -term
environmental goals to the disadvantage of long -term environmental
goals. With the proposed mitigations, including an effective
monitoring program, long -term environmental goals will be
protected. In making this mandatory finding of significance, the
City Council has carefully considered a broad range of long -term
environmental goals, including reducing reliance on single occupant
vehicles, reducing air pollution, protecting water quality in the
Bay, promoting public access to and use of the Bay, and protecting
the high habitat value of the vicinity of the project area,
including the eelgrass beds, the foraging habitat of the California
Least Tern, and the herring spawning area.
7. The project does not have possible environmental effects which
are individually limited but cumulatively considerable. In making
this mandatory finding of significance, the City Council has
carefully considered the traffic trips for the ferry terminal in
connection with the trips generated by other projects in the
vicinity, and has further determined that this project will not
2
have incremental adverse effects on the foraging habitat of the
California Least Tern which would require that such effects be
viewed in connection with the effects on the foraging habitat of
the California Least Tern of past projects, the effects thereon of
other current projects, and the effects thereon of probable future
projects.
8. The project does not have environmental impacts which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly
or indirectly. In making this mandatory finding of significance,
the City Council carefully considered the potential of safety
hazards for ferry patrons and persons using the pedestrian and
bicycle paths through the Shoreline Park.
9. The proposed project is itself a mitigation measure for
traffic impacts required by the City as a condition of approval for
the development of Village V of Harbor Bay and is part of a
comprehensive traffic trips reduction plan required by the City for
the Harbor Bay development.
10. The proposed ferry service will result in a reduction of
vehicular congestion on the streets of Alameda and Oakland, on the
Bay Bridge, and in downtown San Francisco and as such will reduce
air pollution in the region. These public benefits outweigh and
override the limited environmental effects of the ferry operation.
11. There is no other available project site on Bay Farm Island
which would allow the Project's objective of mitigating traffic
impacts of the Harbor Bay development through ferry service to
downtown San Francisco.
12. The City Council has reviewed a Mitigations Monitoring Program
for the proposed project, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", which is
hereby adopted as part of this Resolution.
13. The City Council has imposed a condition of project approval
that if the project were to result in unanticipated significant
adverse environmental impact, the project would be promptly changed
to eliminate or reduce said impacts to the level of significance
or the ferry operations would be suspended pending redesign of the
project and appropriate further environmental review.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ALAMEDA that said Council hereby denies the appeal and approves
Negative Declaration IS -90 -2, subject to the following mitigation
measures adopted as conditions:
1. The recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation for Village V, as they relate to the ferry terminal
site, shall be adhered to in construction of the project.
3
2. During construction, all soil shall be kept within the project
site and shall not be eroded or carried onto other private or
public property. Any soil which is deposited on public streets as
a result of project construction activity shall be removed promptly
and returned to the project site.
3. Project construction shall be designed for Seismic Zone 4 of
the Uniform Building Code.
4. Construction dust shall be controlled through frequent
watering and /or other dust control measures. In warm, dry weather,
this shall mean twice daily. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever
practicable. Soil which is transported in trucks shall be covered
to prevent dust from being released.
5. Construction equipment and schedules which will minimize the
generation of dust and particulate emissions shall be used.
6. Landscaping of the site and adjoining Shoreline Park shall be
completed at the earliest possible date to further control dust.
7. A minimum of 60 percent of all painted surfaces shall be
painted with water -based or latex paints and finishes to reduce
hydrocarbon emissions.
8. A drainage plan shall be submitted to and approved by the
Public Works Director prior to issuance of building and related
City permits for the project. Best management practices shall be
incorporated into the design, construction, and operatibn of the
parking lot to minimize direct run -off into the Bay. These
management practices will include regular sweeping of the ferry
terminal parking lot and regular surveillance and monitoring of the
parking lot to insure that there will be no emptying of motor fuel
or oil onto the parking lot surface. Tank trucks or similar fuel
delivery trucks will be prohibited from entering the ferry terminal
parking lot.
9. The northerly limit of the large offshore eelgrass bed shall
be marked with two markers, in accordance with accepted buoyage
practice, as recommended in Appendix C (p.2) of the LSA Report.
This will enable ferry skippers to maintain the required distance
from the eelgrass bed. Additional markers shall be placed to mark
any potential shoals or shallow points in the vicinity of the ferry
approach route to the dock.
10. Removal and installation of piles in connection with
installing a larger float and possible future activities in the Bay
such as maintenance dredging shall be timed to avoid the herring
spawning season, which ordinarily occurs variably from December to
March.
4
11. Best management practices shall be followed in all soil -
disturbing activities on adjacent upland sites, in order to
minimize sedimentation in the Bay.
12. Construction activities shall comply with applicable City of
Alameda Noise Ordinance standards.
13. Glare shall be minimized through the use of appropriate
lighting fixtures that are shielded or that direct lighting
downward and away from project boundaries.
14. Design of the site shall minimize potential conflicts between
motor vehicles, bicyclists and pedestrians, and minimize hazards
resulting from poor visibility and excessive speed in the vicinity.
Where appropriate, warning or caution signs shall be installed.
15. Waste receptacles shall be provided in accordance with the
specifications of the City.
16. Bicycle lockers or racks shall be provided at the terminal.
17. Prior to construction, the project applicant shall furnish the
Planning Director with documentation that the project applicant has
obtained all necessary clearances and permits from BCDC and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Prior to commencement of operation,
the project applicant shall furnish the Planning Director with
documentation that all necessary approvals from the U.S. Coast
Guard and the California Public Utilities Commission have been
obtained.
18. The ferry shall reduce speeds when approaching and leaving the
shoreline. Speeds shall not exceed 7 -8 knots within 1000 feet
(perpendicular distance) from the shoreline.
19. The route of the ferry shall, subject to ensuring navigational
safety, be designed to minimize impacts on eelgrass and disturbance
of sediments while approaching the terminal. The operational route
shall approximate the trial run route illustrated in Figure 11
(Trial Run #3 -6) of the LSA Report. This route would keep the ferry
over the deeper waters of the borrow pit (a less environmentally
sensitive area than the mudflats which support the eelgrass beds)
for about two miles approaching the shore, and subject to
operational safety considerations, maintain the maximum distance
from the major off -shore eelgrass bed. The operational route may
vary somewhat from the trial run route in Figure 11, if necessary
to ensure navigational safety. Deviations from the operational
route may be permitted on individual runs if necessary for safety
reasons.
20. Except in emergencies, propeller thrust shall be kept to a
minimum in the area within 900 feet of the shore. This will
minimize disturbance of the shallows at the ferry landing.
5
21. The ferry shall be homeported, fueled, maintained, and
repaired off of Bay Farm Island, so that the dock facilities at Bay
Farm Island and the duration of the ferry's presence at the project
site are minimized. Fuel and water for the ferry shall not be
stored at the Harbor Bay terminal.
22. The applicant shall contract with a qualified biologist for
biological monitoring of the eelgrass beds during the first three
years of operations and for an additional period if the Mitigations
Monitoring Program is extended. The biological monitoring program
shall use the transects installed by LSA as described in the LSA
Report and obtain samples twice annually during the early and late
growing season for eelgrass, with annual reports as recommended by
LSA.
As part of the biological monitoring program, the applicant
shall contract with a qualified biologist to obtain samples by
appropriate netting procedures in the area of the eelgrass beds of
fish species known to be important to the California Least Tern,
twice annually, one of which shall be during the foraging season
of the California Least Tern, with annual reports to the City. The
details of the sampling procedures and the analysis for the annual
reports shall be finalized by the City's Planning Director through
consultation with qualified biologists from the Fish and Wildlife
Service of the United States Department of the Interior and the
State of California Department of Fish and Game.
23. The ferry shall maintain mufflers and other noise reduction
equipment in good working order, and shall operate in cbnformance
with applicable City of Alameda Noise Ordinance standards.
24. Bilge wastes shall not be released into the Bay, but shall be
pumped out and deposited at an appropriate waste station away from
Bay Farm Island.
25. Shuttle bus service shall be available to and from the
business park at the start of ferry service, and shall continue as
long as such service remains in operation.
26. The project applicant shall demonstrate a good faith effort
to work with AC Transit or other appropriate public transit
operators and public agencies to establish a free intermodal
transfer privilege for bus -ferry patrons.
27. The project applicant shall work with the Community of Harbor
Bay Isle Owners Association, the Harbor Bay Business Park
Associations and the Public Works Department to establish a shuttle
bus service between the residential villages and the ferry
terminal.
28. To encourage use of bicycles, public transit and multiple
occupancy vehicles, the project applicant shall either charge for
6
parking or provide within Alameda free AC Transit connections to
and from the Harbor Bay ferry terminal for ferry patrons.
29. The developer shall provide 125 to 150 parking spaces
initially, and increase the number up to a total capacity of 250
spaces should demand warrant. The lot shall be designed to maintain
the ability to charge for parking. Parking lot design shall also
provide for priority transit access through the Mecartney Road
entrance.
30. Parking spaces on Mecartney Road and Adelphian Way in the
vicinity of the ferry terminal shall be limited to and signed for
2 hour parking between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays. Should
conditions warrant, 2 hour parking limitations may be imposed on
weekends.
31. Preferred parking spaces for vanpools shall be provided in the
ferry terminal parking lot as demand warrants.
32. Prior to beginning service, a detailed analysis of patronage
levels by area of residence, and an analysis of the impact of the
Harbor Bay ferry service to Alameda /Oakland ferry patronage shall
be provided.
33. A three year financial analysis which identifies the amount
of subsidy required per year and possible funding sources for that
subsidy shall be provided. This analysis shall be updated annually
and include any new subsidy projections developed.
34. Design of the dock and loading facilities shall incorporate
safety measures to minimize concerns for patron safety associated
with the effects of unfavorable weather conditions. Project
applicant shall provide City with a Contingency Operating Plan
which addresses how service will be accommodated in high wind
conditions.
35. The Mitigations Monitoring Program, attached hereto as Exhibit
"A ", shall be fully implemented.
36. If the project were to result in unanticipated significant
adverse environmental impacts, appropriate changes in operations
for the purpose of avoiding any continuing significant adverse
environmental impacts shall be initiated immediately by the
Proponent, with written permission from the City's Public Works
Director. The modified operations shall be monitored by City
staff or the expert biological consultant as appropriate. If the
installed improvements need to be altered to mitigate the
environmental impacts, the Proponent shall promptly apply for
amended permits from the City or other agencies as appropriate and
shall proceed promptly with the needed alterations. If operational
changes or alterations to the installed improvements do not
eliminate or reduce the adverse environmental impacts to a level
7
or insignificance, the ferry operations shall be suspended, pending
redesign of the project and appropriate environmental review.
Termination of the ferry operations (as distinct from temporary
suspension) prior to the end of the license period granted by the
California Public Utilities Commission would require approval by
the Commission.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA
that said Council hereby denies the appeal with respect to the Use
Permits and the Final Development Plan and approves Use Permit, UP-
90-7, Use Permit, UP -90 -8, and Final Development Plan, FDP -90 -1,
by adopting the findings and conditions set forth in Planning Board
Resolution Nos. 2065, 2066, and 2067.
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the
City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 4th day of
September, 1990, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: (5) Councilmembers Arnerich, Camicia, Thomas,
Withrow and President Corica.
NOES: (0) None.
ABSENT: (0) None.
ABSTENTIONS: (0) None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 5th day of September, 1990.
Diane Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda
8
EXHIBIT "A"
HARBOR BAY FERRY TERMINAL
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
The Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Harbor Bay Ferry
Terminal Project is composed of monitoring performed in three
categories: (1) a self- monitoring reporting system to be
implemented by the project Proponent /operator; (2) review by City
staff of Proponent's performance; and (3) for the technical
biological issues, monitoring reports will be prepared by qualified
experts and filed with the City.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program is divided into two
sections: Construction Phase and Operations Phase. The respective
sections are organized by the order of mitigation measures listed
as conditions in the Resolution adopting the Negative Declaration.
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
1. Adherence to Recommendations of the Geotechnical
Engineering Investigation:
Proponent: At completion of construction, Proponent will
file with City a statement by the project's general contractor
certifying that the recommendations of the Geotechnical Engineering
Investigation for Village V were adhered to in the project
construction.
City: At the plan check and field check stages, City
inspectors will verify that the recommendations were being
followed.
2. Soil Erosion Control:
Proponent: At completion of construction, Proponent will
file with City a statement by the project's general contractor
certifying that the soil erosion control measures specified in
Condition No. 2 were adhered to in the project construction.
City: Through spot field checks, City Staff will verify
that the soil erosion control measures specified in Condition No.
2 were being followed.
1
3. Seismic Requirements:
Proponent: Proponent will submit plans for the ferry
terminal shelter permit which meet the design standards for Seismic
Zone 4 of the Uniform Building Code.
City: At the plan check stage, the Building Inspector
will review the project plans and document that the design of the
ferry terminal shelter meets the U.B.C. standards for Seismic Zone
4.
4, 5, and 6. Dust Control:
Proponent: At completion of construction, Proponent will
file with City a statement by the project's general contractor
certifying that the dust control measures specified in Condition
Nos. 4, 5 and 6 were adhered to in the project construction.
City: Through spot field checks, City Staff will verify
that the dust control measures specified in Condition Nos. 4, 5 and
6 were being followed.
7. ''linimize Oil -Based Paint:
Proponent: Upon completion of painting of the ferry
terminal and related improvements, Proponent will file with City
a statement by the painting contractor that at least 60 percent of
all painted services were painted with water -based or latex paints
and finishes.
City: At the plan check stage, the City inspector will
confirm that the painting specifications require at least 60
percent water -based or latex paints. City inspectors will confirm
by field checks that the painting contractor was using water -based
or latex paints in the required proportions.
8. Control of Run -off into Bay:
Proponent: Prior to construction, Proponent will submit
a drainage plan to the Public Works Department which will
incorporate measures to minimize direct run -off into the Bay during
the construction phase. At completion of construction, Proponent
will file with City a statement by the project's general contractor
certifying that run -off minimization measures specified in
Condition No. 8 were adhered to in the project construction. (For
control of run -off during operations, see Section 8A under
Operations Phase.)
2
City: Through spot field checks, City Staff will verify
that the run -off minimization measures specified in the City -
approved drainage plan were being followed.
9. Iarker Buoys:
Proponent: Upon installation of the marker buoys
recommended in the LSA and Kirkland Reports, the Proponent will
file with the City an "as- built" plan of the marker locations
indicating their placement with respect to the eelgrass beds.
10. Timing of Construction in Bay:
Proponent: Prior to construction activities in the Bay,
Proponent shall file with City a statement by a qualified biologist
that the proposed construction will not adversely interfere with
the herring spawning season.
11. Soil-disturbing Activities on Adiacent Upland Sites:
Proponent: Prior to start of clearing and grubbing
activities in project areas adjacent to the Bay, the Proponent will
submit to City a plan describing the management practices to be
followed by the grading contractor to minimize sedimentation in the
Bay.
City: Through spot field checks, City Staff will verify
that the sedimentation control measures contained in the plan
approved by the City pursuant to Condition No. 11 were being
followed.
12. Construction Noise:
Proponent: Prior to start of construction, Proponent
will submit to City a plan proposing the hours of operation and the
equipment to be used during construction to minimize construction
noise. At completion of construction, Proponent will file with
City a statement by the project's general contractor certifying
that the noise control measures specified in the City- approved
noise control plan were adhered to in the project construction.
City: Through spot field checks, City Staff will verify
that the noise control measures specified in the City- approved
noise control plan were being followed and that construction
activities were in compliance with applicable Alameda Noise
Ordinance standards.
3
13. Glare:
proponent: Prior to construction, Proponent shall
present improvement plans for the building permit which provide
lighting fixtures which are shielded or that direct lighting
downward and away from the project boundaries.
City: At the plan check stage, City Staff shall review
the lighting fixtures and document their approval. City Staff
shall verify that the lighting fixtures were installed per the
approved plans.
14. Traffic Hazards:
Proponent: Prior to construction, Proponent shall submit
a plan detailing the warning and caution signs and other measures
to be used to minimize conflicts or collisions involving Shoreline
Park users and ferry patrons crossing the Shoreline Park or
pedestrian and bicyclists crossing the ferry terminal parking lot
or entrance.
City: At the plan check stage, City Staff shall review
the warning signs and other safety measures and document their
approval. City Staff shall verify that the warning signs and other
safety measures were installed per the approved plans.
15. Waste Receptacles:
Proponent: Prior to construction of the ferry terminal
building, Proponent shall include details of waste receptacles to
be provided.
City: At the plan check stage, City Staff shall review
and approve the type and number of waste receptacles to be provided
for the project. City Staff shall verify that the waste
receptacles were installed per the approved plans.
16. Bicycle Lockers or Racks:
Proponent: Prior to construction of the ferry terminal
building, Proponent shall include details of bike lockers or racks
to be provided.
City: At the plan check stage, City Staff shall review
and approve the type and number of bike lockers or racks to be
provided for the project. City Staff shall verify that the bike
lockers or racks were installed per the approved plans.
4
17. Permits By Other Agencies.
Proponent: Prior to construction, Proponent shall
furnish to City documentation that the Proponent has obtained all
necessary clearances and permits from BCDC and the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. Prior to commencement of operation, Proponent shall
furnish to City documentation that the Proponent has obtained all
necessary approvals from the U.S. Coast Guard and the California
Public Utilities Commission.
City: Planning Staff shall document receipt of these
permits.
OPERATIONS PHASE
8A. Control of Runoff into Bay:
Proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due annually
for three years after the commencement of operations, Proponent
will file with City a self- monitoring operations report certifying
that regular sweeping of the parking lot was conducted and regular
surveillance to insure that there would be no emptying of motor
fuel or oil onto the parking lot surface. If Proponent in its
management of the ferry terminal parking lot becomes aware of any
pollutant spills on the parking lot, the Monitoring Report will
describe the circumstances of the spill and the response taken to
control runoff into the Bay.
The Proponent will arrange that the parking lot will be swept at
least once a month on a regular basis, and more often if so
directed by City Staff upon spot field checks of the site.
The ferry terminal parking lot will have a sign forbidding non -
emergency vehicle repair activities and any emptying of motor fuel
or oil onto the parking lot surface.
The Proponent's security services contract with the Harbor Bay
Business Park will provide that if the security staff in their
daily patrols through the ferry terminal parking lot should observe
any emptying of motor fuel or oil onto the parking lot surface, an
incident report will be issued and filed promptly with the
Proponent and the City. The security services contract will also
include provision for a weekly visual survey of the ferry terminal
parking lot with a written report of any evidence of pollutant
spills, which will be filed promptly with the Proponent and the
City.
Upon receipt of reports of any pollutant spills, the Proponent will
promptly take appropriate remedial steps to control runoff into the
bay and file a written report on the response action with the City.
5
City: Through spot field checks, City Staff will verify
that the best management practices specified in Condition No. 8 are
being followed. If appropriate, City Staff will direct Proponent
to modify its management practices to more adequately control
runoff into the bay.
The City will arrange for random checks by the Alameda Police by
radar gun of vessel speeds within the area where speeds are to be
limited, to be documented with written reports. City staff will
check on the consistency of the vessel log notations with the
police reports.
18. Vessel Speeds:
Proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due annually
for three years after the commencement of operations, Proponent
will file with City a self- monitoring operations report stating the
maximum speeds observed within the near -shore distances specified
in Condition No. 18 and explaining the circumstances of any
exceedances.
The Proponent will arrange that the vessel operator will note in
the vessel log the speeds of each approach and departure from the
dock within the area where speeds are to be limited and will file
a copy of the vessel log entries with the City on a monthly basis.
City: City Staff will review Proponent's self- monitoring
reports and note any exceedances in the annual Planning Department
Summary Staff Report to the Planning Board. City Staff will
periodically monitor vessel speeds, either by timing the vessel
between the shore and the marker buoys, or by direct observation
while traveling on the vessel. Any exceedances will be noted in the
annual report to the Planning Board.
19. Distance From Eelgrass Beds:
Proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due annually
for three years after the commencement of operations, Proponent
will file with City a self - monitoring operations report stating the
project's degree of conformance with the required distances from
the major eelgrass bed and explaining the circumstances of any
straying from the approved approach zone.
City: City Staff will review Proponent's self - monitoring
reports and note any exceedances in the annual Planning Department
Summary Staff Report to the Planning Board. City Staff will also
periodically monitor the route of the vessel and note any
substantial variations from the required distance between the
vessel and the eelgrass beds in the annual report to the Planning
Board.
6
20. Propeller Thrust Near Shore:
proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due annually
for three years after the commencement of operations, Proponent
will file with City a self - monitoring operations report stating the
maximum propeller thrust used within 900 feet of shore and
explaining the circumstances of any exceedances.
City: City Staff will review Proponent's self- monitoring
reports and note any exceedances in the annual Planning Department
Summary Staff Report to the Planning Board.
21. Off -Site Fueling and Repairs:
Proponent: Prior to commencement of operations,
Proponent will file with City a statement of where the vessel will
be fueled and repaired. If the fueling or repair site is moved,
Proponent will file prior notice thereof with City. As part of the
Monitoring Report due annually for three years after the
commencement of operations, Proponent will file with City a
statement certifying conformance to the requirements for off -site
fueling and repairs.
22. Monitoring the Eelgrass Beds and Fish Species:
Proponent: Proponent shall contract with a qualified
biologist for biological monitoring of the eelgrass beds during the
first three years of operations and for an additional period if the
Mitigations Monitoring Program is extended. The biological
monitoring program shall use the transects installed by LSA as
described in the LSA Report and obtain samples twice annually
during the early and late growing season for eelgrass, with annual
reports as recommended by LSA.
As part of the biological monitoring program, Proponent
shall contract with a qualified biologist to obtain samples by
appropriate netting procedures in the area of the eelgrass beds of
fish species known to be important to the California Least Tern,
twice annually, one of which shall be during the foraging season
of the California Least Tern, with annual reports to the City. The
details of the sampling procedures and the analysis for the annual
reports shall be finalized by the City's Planning Director through
consultation with qualified biologists from the Fish and Wildlife
Service of the United States Department of the Interior and the
State of California Department of Fish and Game.
Proponent shall promptly file copies of the biological
monitoring reports with the Golden Gate Audubon Society, Fish and
Wildlife Service of the United States Department of the Interior,
and the State of California Department of Fish and Game.
7
City: City Staff will review the biologist's reports and
provide a summary report to the Planning Board on an annual, or a
more frequently if needed, basis. City will direct Proponent to
implement the recommendations if warranted.
23. Noise of Vessel Operations:
Proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due
annually for three years after the commencement of operations,
Proponent will file with City a self - monitoring operations report
detailing the mufflers and other noise reduction equipment used on
the vessel and steps taken to maintain them in good working order.
24. Bilge Wastes:
Proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due annually
for three years after the commencement of operations, Proponent
will file with City a self - monitoring operations report detailing
the degree of conformance with the prohibition of releasing any
bilge wastes into the Bay, with an explanation of any such
releases.
25. Business Park Shuttle Service:
Proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due annually
for three years after the commencement of operations, 'Proponent
will file with City a self - monitoring operations report including
a statement describing the shuttle service provided from the Harbor
Bay Business Park, including the number of passengers using the
shuttle, the number of operations and the frequency of service.
26. Public Transit Inter -Modal Transfer:
Proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due annually
for three years after the commencement of operations, Proponent
will file with City a self- monitoring operations report including
a statement describing the bus services implemented to serve the
ferry terminal including bus schedules and routing information, and
the status and levels of utilization of free intermodal transfer
priveleges.
27. Possible Shuttle Service to Residential Villaues:
Proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due annually
for three years after the commencement of operations, Proponent
will file with City a self- monitoring operations report including
a statement describing the efforts made by the Proponent to
8
establish a shuttle bus service between the residential villages
and the ferry terminal.
28. Either Charge for Parking or Free Transit:
Proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due annually
for three years after the commencement of operations, Proponent
will file with City a self- monitoring operations report including
a statement explaining how Proponent either charged for parking in
the ferry terminal parking lot or provided within Alameda free AC
Transit connection to and from the Harbor Bay ferry terminal for
ferry patrons, with a report on the amount of usage.
29. Ferry Terminal Parking:
Proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due annually
for three years after the commencement of operations, Proponent
will file with City a self - monitoring operations report including
statements describing the amount of parking spaces provided, counts
of parking lot space and bicycle usage at least once per month, any
expansion of the parking lot during the year, how the electronic
card system functioned, and a current traffic count for Mecartney
Road.
30. Vicinity Street Parking:
Note: On installation of the required parking signs, no
additional monitoring will be necessary.
31. Van Pool Parking:
Proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due annually
for three years after the commencement of operations, Proponent
will file with City a self - monitoring operations report including
a review of the demand for van pool parking and the steps taken to
accommodate such demand.
32. Patron Surveys:
Proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due annually
for three years after the commencement of operations, Proponent
will file with City a self- monitoring operations report including
a survey of patronage by areas of residence.
9
33. Financial Analysis:
Proponent: As part of the Monitoring Report due annually
for three years after the commencement of operations, Proponent
will file with City a self- monitoring operations report including
a financial analysis which identifies the amount of subsidy
required and funding sources for subsidies.
34. Safety in Hiah Wind Conditions:
Proponent: Prior to commencement of operations,
Proponent will provide City with a Contingency Operating Plan which
identifies how patrons will be served when high wind conditions
interfere with vessel use. As part of the Monitoring Report due
annually for three years after the commencement of operations,
Proponent will file with City a self - monitoring operations report
including a statement of safety measures used for patron safety
during high wind conditions, a report on utilization of the
Contingency Operating Plan, and a description of any accidents on
the dock, gangway, or vessel in which any persons were injured.
ANNUAL REVIEW
At the end of each year for the first three years of
operations, Proponent will file with City a self- monitoring report
including the information and statements of conformance detailed
above, and the required eelgrass and fish species fonitoring
reports by a qualified biologist. City staff will review its files
to check the Proponent's statements filed during the Construction
Phase and the documentation of City approvals, field checks, and
confirmations. The City Planning Department will prepare a Summary
Staff Report of the Mitigation Monitoring Report for a Planning
Board Hearing, at which time the Planning Board will give direction
as to any modifications in the Mitigation Monitoring Program which
the Planning Board determined to be necessary to achieve the
purposes of the monitoring program, including consideration of
Condition No. 36. At the third annual review, the Planning Board
will give direction as to whether an extension of the Mitigation
Monitoring Program is warranted, and if so, which elements should
be extended or modified.
RESPONSIBILITY FOR MONITORING COSTS
Proponent shall be responsible for the costs associated with
the monitoring requirements specified in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program. A deposit of $600.00 shall be paid annually to the City
Planning Department to cover the costs of the City's monitoring
efforts during the construction phase and the initial three years
of operations. The initial deposit shall be paid prior to the
10
issuance of building permits for the project. In the event that the
monitoring program is extended beyond the initial three years of
operations, or should the Planning Board require that the scope or
intensity of City monitoring efforts be increased because of a
documented need for additional review, the amount of deposit shall
be renegotiated by Proponent and City. City Staff will record the
time spent in monitoring the development and operation of the ferry
service, and deduct said expenditures from the balance. Upon
expiration of the monitoring program, the outstanding balance shall
be refunded to Proponent.
In exception to this provision, City Staff time devoted to
plan check and construction phase inspections that are ordinarily
associated with construction projects in the City of Alameda will
not be billed to the Proponent under the Mitigation Monitoring
Program. Instead, City plan check and building permit fees will be
collected as per City policy to address these costs.
FILING OF SELF - MONITORING REPORTS AND PROPONENT'S STATEMENTS
Proponent shall provide to City Planning Director two copies
of all self- monitoring reports, proponent's statements of
compliance, and other documentation required by City under the
Mitigation Monitoring Program. The Planning Director will provide
copies of these documents to appropriate City Departments as
warranted.
11