Resolution 13227CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13 2 2 7
ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE CONVEYANCE OF THE FLEET AND
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER, ALAMEDA ANNEX AND FACILITY
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda ( "City ") has requested conveyance from the United States
Navy ( "Navy ") of approximately one hundred forty -seven (147) acres of property comprising the
Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility ( "FISC Alameda "), which the Navy
has determined is no longer required for military purposes; and
WHEREAS, FISC Alameda may be conveyed to the City for nominal consideration under
authority of the section 2834(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY 1993 (Public Law
102 -484), as amended; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act,
the Navy has prepared an Environmental impact Statement ( "EIS ") for the disposal of FISC
Alameda. A Record of Decision regarding the disposal of FISC Alameda was issued by the Navy
on February 29, 2000; and
WHEREAS, thf:;City has requested early transfer of FISC Alameda, as authorized under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act ( "CERCLA "), 42
U.S.C.§ 9620(h)(3)(C); and
WHEREAS, the City and the Navy, as applicable, agree to provide the assurances required
by CERCLA, 42 U.S.C.§ 9620(h)3)(C), and to comply with other statutory conditions precedent
to the early transfer of real property; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement Between the United
States of America Acting By and Through the Secretary of the Navy United States Department of
the Navy and the City of Alameda for Conveyance of the Fleet Industrial Supply Center Located in
the City of Alameda; California; and
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2000; the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact
Report (`BIR ") for the Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and the Fleet and Industrial Supply
Center, Alameda Annex and Facility (State Clearinghouse 4/96022105), consisting of the Draft EIR
and EIR Response to Comments Addendum, and adopted Findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, adopted and incorporated into the project all of the mitigation measures within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the City, and adopted a Mitigation Monitoring Program.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda having
independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR for the Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and
the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility, and having certified the Final
EIR, the City Council hereby:
1. Adopts the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as
Exhibit "A ", for the Project, and
2. Readopts and reincorporates into the Project all of the mitigation measures within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Alameda which are identified in the
Findings, and
3. Readopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached hereto as Exhibit "B," for the
Project.
C: \WPDOCS \DATA\EJG028A. WPD
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF CONVEYANCE OF THE FLEET AND
INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CENTER, ALAMEDA ANNEX AND FACILITY
. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
A. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
Pursuant to title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 15090, on March
21, 2000 the City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") certified that the program
level Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #96022105) ( "Final EIR ")
for the Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center,
Alameda Annex and Facility ("Project") was completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ( "CEQA "). The
City Council further certified that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the
City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, and that
the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Alameda ( "City").
B. THE BASE CLOSURE AND DISPOSAL PROCESS
The United States Navy ( "Navy ") began construction of Naval Air Station
Alameda ( "NAS Alameda ") in 1938. Between that time and its closure in 1997, NAS
Alameda became one of the largest and most diversified naval facilities on the West Coast.
The Navy began construction of the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and
Facility ( "FISC Alameda ") in 1945 and acquired the remainder of the FISC property in
1951.
Pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act, Part A of Title
XXIX of Pub. L. No. 101 -510, codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 2687 note, and the
specific base closure decisions approved by Congress in September 1993, NAS Alameda
closed on April 30, 1997. In early 1996, the Congress passed special legislation to give the
Navy the discretionary authority to convey the FISC Alameda property to the City of
Alameda. Pub. L. No. 102 -84, § 2834(b), as amended by Pub. L. No. 104 -106, § 2867.
FISC Alameda was closed on September 30, 1998.
Some of the property and facilities at NAS Alameda will be transferred by the
Navy to other federal agencies, and some land previously leased by the Navy from the City
will revert to City control. The United States Coast Guard, which had originally requested
69 acres at NAS Alameda, has subsequently indicated that it is interested in pursuing a
leaseback of the property in lieu of transfer. The United States Fish and Wildlife Services
( "USFWS ") has requested transfcr of approximately 565 to 571 acres of dry land and 375
acres of submerged lands to establish a wildlife refuge. The remaining excess federal
property at NAS Alameda FISC Alameda will be conveyed by the Navy to the City.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The Project analyzed in the Final EIR consists of the reuse of NAS Alameda
and FISC Alameda in accordance with the general description in the NAS Alameda
Community Reuse Plan (January 1996), as amended ( "Community Reuse Plan "). The EIR
may be used by the City to accept conveyance of FISC Alameda from the Navy for reuse.
The proposed Project, known as the "the Reuse Plan Alternative," is fully described at a
programmatic level in Section 2.2.1 (including Table 2-3 and Figure 2 -4) of the May 1999
Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.
The Project involves: (1) development of a mixed -use, transit- oriented
development that includes a mix of community, industrial, residential, and commercial uses;
(2) community uses that include parks, schools, a links -style golf course, a sports complex,
public open space, and a recreational vehicle ( "RV ") park; (3) industrial uses that include
mixed -use office, maritime - related light industry, marina - related light industry, and research
and development businesses; (4) residential housing that includes new housing consistent
with local standards, live- aboard boat slips, and the reuse of existing multifamily housing,
apartments, and group quarters; (5) commercial uses that include neighborhood shopping
districts,; office space, hotels, visitor- serving commercial facilities, and a conference facility;
and (6) accommodations for public transit, including strategic transit nodes throughout the
site that will allow residents and employees to interchange between private and public
transportation, and that will include bus shelters, bicycle lockers, and transit - oriented street
design. All components of the Project will be designed, developed and operated in
accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements.
. PREPARATION OF THE EIR
On February 28, 1996, the City and the Navy issued a Notice of Preparation
( "NOP ") and a Notice of Intention, respectively, indicating that a joint Environmental Impact
Study/Environmental Impact Report ( "EIS/EIR ") would be prepared pursuant to CEQA and
the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. The City conducted an EIR
scoping process to identify potential environmental issues and concerns that would be raised
by disposal and reuse, and to identify a range of reasonable reuse alternatives. The City
received 45 letters from members of the public, interested groups, and federal, state, and
local agencies during the scoping process, which ended March 29, 1996, and 24 people
provided oral comments, written comments, or both at the public scoping meeting on March
13, 1996. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.8.1(c), a public hearing was
held on August 11, 1998, to identify the selection of the baseline conditions for the
environmental analysis.
2
While progressing a long way towards creating a joint document, the City and
Navy determined that it would reduce delay and expedite productive reuse of NAS
Alameda!FISC Alameda to release separate environmental documents. The City circulated
an Amended NOP on March 2, 1999, to reflect the splitting of the EIS and EIR and to clarify
the project description. The public comment period for the amended NOP was open for 30
days, from March 5 through April 4, 1999. During that period, the City received 19
comment letters from interested public agencies, organizations and individuals.
A Draft EIR for the Project was published in May 1999, and made available
to government agencies, interested individuals and organizations, and members of the public.
The 45 -day period for public comment on the Draft EIR ended on July 6, 1999. Twenty -five
comment letters were received during that period. In addition, members of the public were
invited by formal public notice to submit oral and written comments on the Draft EIR in
testimony at a public hearing held on June 28, 1999. Twenty -five members of the public
provided comments at the public hearing.
The Final EIR was made available to the public on March 3, 2000. The Final
ElR includes, among other components, the Draft EIR, supplemental materials that amplify
and clarify the analyses in the Draft EIR, the City's Response to Comments Addendum, and
the Findings set forth herein. The analysis and conclusions contained in the Final EIR reflect
the independent judgment of the City. The Final EIR was certified by the City Council on
March 21, 2000. At that time, the City Council adopted findings and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, adopted and incorporated into the Project all of the mitigation
measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City, and adopted a Mitigation
Monitoring Program.
E. NAVY EIS
The Navy released its separate EIS on April 16, 1999, which underwent a
separate public review process. The 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIS ended on
June 1, 1999. The Navy's Final EIS was issued on October 29, 1999, with the 30-day public
review period prior to issuance of the Record of Decision ( "ROD ") ending on November 29,
1999. The ROD was issued by the Navy on February 29, 2000.
II. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AND MITIGATION
MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
The Final EIR identifies the following significant impacts associated with the
Project. These impacts are reduced to "less - than- significant" (or "not significant ") by
mitigation measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project, except that
certain of the mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and will be reduced to less - than- significant only if adopted by that other
agency as well. It is hereby determined that the significant environmental impacts which
3
these mitigation measures address will be mitigated to a less - than - significant level or avoided
by incorporation of the mitigation measures into the Project. To the extent these mitigation
measures will not mitigate or avoid all significant effects on the environment, or the
responsible agency does not adopt the mitigation measures within its responsibility and
jurisdiction, it is hereby determined that any remaining significant unavoidable adverse
impacts are acceptable for the reasons specified in Part IV, below.
The mitigation measures identified below are presented in summary form.
For a detailed description of these mitigation measures, please see the appropriate text in the
Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR.
A. Consistency with Public Trust
As more fully described on page 4 -6 of the Draft EIR, certain land uses
allowable under the Project would be inconsistent with the public trust in the Civic Core,
Main Street Neighborhoods, Marina and Northwest Territories planning areas. Mitigation
1, Draft EIR Section 4.1, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will
mitigate this impact to a less- than- significant level by requiring either the exchange of lands
currently in the public trust for land outside of the public trust, through agreement with the
State Lands Commission, or contributions to the Kapiloff Land Bank Fund. In the unlikely
event that agreement cannot be reached regarding an exchange of lands or in- lieu
contributions, then no development that is inconsistent with the public trust will be permitted
on public trust lands at NAS Alameda.
B. Conflict Between Recreational Vehicle Park and Surrounding Land Uses
The land uses associated with the proposed development of an RV park in the
Marina planning area would conflict with the existing residential uses in the West End
Neighborhood immediately east of Main Street. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.1, which
is hereby adopted and incorporated` into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -than-
significant level through measures such as site design, placement of facilities, noise
and lighting restrictions, and designation of RV routes.
Views of Northwest Territories from Oakland and Alameda Viewing
Locations
Light industrial development in the Northwest Territories planning area would
decrease the visual quality of the Project site from viewing locations in Oakland and
Alameda. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4.2, which is hereby adopted and incorporated
into the, Project, will mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level through use of
appropriate design elements, landscaping, and screening of parking areas.
D. Blocked Views Due to New Development in the Northwest Territories
4
Light industrial facilities in the Northwest Territories planning area would
block views to the south and southwest from portions of the shoreline park near the light
industrial development. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.2, which is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than- significant level by
locating new buildings associated with maritime- related light industry in places that preserve
and emphasize views of the bay and of more distant visual landmarks.
E. Views of a Recreational Vehicle Park from Existing Residential
Neighborhoods
The development of an RV park in the Inner Harbor planning area would
create visual contrasts with views from nearby residential neighborhoods and public streets.
Mitigation 3, Draft EIR Section 4.2, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the
Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level by adding developing site
layout and design guidelines for the RV park.
. Police Protection
Expansion of the geographic jurisdiction of the Police Department beyond its
capability would result in an inadequate level of police protection. This does not constitute
a significant effect on the environment under CEQA because it would not result in physical
impacts associated with construction of new or physically altered governmental facilities.
CEQA Guidelines, App. G, § XIII(a).
G. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services
The expansion of the geographic jurisdiction of the City of Alameda Fire
Department beyond its capability would result in an inadequate level of fire protection and
emergency medical services. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.4, which is hereby adopted
and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than- significant level by
providing service to the FISC Annex and East Housing by either: (1) constructing a new fire
station; or (2) staffing and equipping the existing on -base fire stations to ensure adequate
response times to emergency incidents.
H. Schools (K -12)
The creation of housing and jobs from the Project would result in about 1,103
additional students attending Alameda Unified School District schools at build -out.' While
Mitigation 3, Draft EIR Section 4:4, states that eight high school classrooms and two high
school labs are required to mitigate this impact, SB 50 (1997) limits mitigation of impacts
on schools to a statutorily established fee. (See Gov't Code §§ 65995 -6). Collection of
statutorily authorized fees, as a condition of approval of specific development projects, is
5
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, and as a matter of la
impact to a less- than - significant level.
Noncompliance with Solid Waste Diversion Requirements
igate this
The demolition and construction required by the Project, as well as the
employee and resident population associated with the Project, will increase the generation
of solid waste, jeopardizing the City's compliance with state and county waste diversion
requirements. This would be a significant project impact and a significant cumulative impact
associated with development and population increase in the region. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR
Section 4.5, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate these
impacts to a less- than- significant level by requiring that, prior to major demolition, a solid
waste management plan containing programs and procedures to meet the requirements of the
California Integrated Waste Management Act and Alameda County Measure D shall be
prepared and implemented by the City, and individual solid waste management plans shall
be prepared by construction and demolition contractors.
Demolition of Buildings in Historic District
The demolition of certain NAS Alameda buildings listed in Table 4 -13 on
page 4 -62 of the Draft EIR, including some in the historic district not covered by the 1996
demolition MOA, constitutes a significant impact. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4.6,
which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -
than- significant level by requiring the City's Historic Advisory Board d( "HAB" ) ' to perform
design review such that the Historic District as a whole will not be modified to the extent that
it would no longer be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR. Ordinance No 2808
was adopted by the City on September 22, 1999 establishing this HAB design review
function.
Deterioration of Historical Buildings
Because reuse will occur over a projected 20 -year period and some buildings
will remain in layaway for some time and may not be properly maintained, some of the
contributing buildings in the Historical District will deteriorate. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR
Section 4.6, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this
impact to a less- than- significant level by providing for the use of appropriate standards for
the care and custody of historic` properties as described in the National Park Service
Preservation Brief 31, Mothballing Historic Buildings (1993).
. Reuse and Rehabilitation of Historical Properties
The reuse and rehabilitation of historic buildings, structures and landscapes
'thin the NAS Alameda Historic District could alter the characteristics of these properties
6
such that they would no longer be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR. Mitigation
3, Draft EIR Section 4.6, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would
mitigate this impact to a less - than- significant level by providing for the use of the Secretary
of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings in ensuring that the Project's
reuse and rehabilitation activities will not modify the contributing buildings and site plan
elements of the Historic District such that the Historic District would no longer be eligible
for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR.
Construction of Buildings in the Historic District
Construction of new buildings within the NAS Alameda Historic District
could have a significant impact on individual buildings within the construction area and on
the general character of the Historic District. Mitigation 4, Draft EIR Section 4.6, which is
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -than-
significant level by providing for the use of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings in the design of new buildings in the vicinity of historic
buildings to ensure that the Historic District will not be modified to such an extent that it no
longer meets the criteria for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR.
Increased Predation of the California Least Tern
New development located adjacent to the wildlife refuge in the Northwest
Territories, Civic Core and Marina planning areas would cause increased predation of the
California least tern by providing nesting and foraging areas and other attractions for
predators of California least tern adults, chicks, and eggs. Increased': night lighting associated
with light industrial development and the sports complex would also enhance the ability of
nocturnal predators to prey on the terns. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4.7, which is
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -than-
significant level. Outside of the wildlife refuge, the City of Alameda will be responsible for
implementing the nondiscretionary terms And conditions of the Biological Opinion issued.
by USFWS on March 22, 1999 (Draft EIR, App. D -3). In addition, all development
approvals in the Northwest Territories, Civic Core and Marina planning areas shall require
that all garbage cans and large open trash containers be tightly closed to eliminate potential
food sources for predators.
Inside the wildlife refuge, the USFWS will be responsible for managing
predator control activities and protecting the least tern nesting site USFWS has prepared
a draft conservation plan specifying the predator control activities it will perform, including
constructing and maintaining the boundary barrier it has constructed. Draft Comprehensive
Conservation Plan, Alameda National Wildlife Refuge ( USFWS, December 1998)
( "Conservation Plan"), pp. 33 -45. There is every reason to expect that the USFWS will
adopt the draft Conservation Plan containing these provisions, in which case the impact will
be reduced to a less- than- significant level. Furthermore, USFWS has issued a non- jeopardy
7
Biological Opinion for the Project. If the USFWS does not adopt the draft Conservation
Plan, the City finds that this portion of the mitigation measure is within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of the USFWS, that this portion of the mitigation measure can and should be
adopted by that agency, and that until such time as the mitigation measure is adopted by the
USFWS the impact would be considered significant and, unavoidable.
Human Activity in the Northwest Territories, Civic Core and Marina
Areas
The increased presence of people and domestic animals in the Northwest
Territories, Civic Core and Marina planning areas would constitute a significant impact to
the California least tern and brown pelican through the disruption of their breeding and the
loss of individual birds. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.7, which is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level by
requiring City implementation of the nondiscretionary terms and conditions of the Biological
Opinion.
. Increased Boat Traffic
Increased boat traffic from the proposed marina in the Seaplane Lagoon could
create a significant impact by disrupting least tern foraging, California brown pelican
roosting, western gull nesting, and the haul -out site for harbor seals near Breakwater Island.
This would also be a significant cumulative impact associated with increased development
in the region. Mitigation 3, Draft EIR Section 4.7, which is hereby adopted and incorporated
into the Project, will mitigate these impacts to a less- than- significant level by requiring the
education of boat owners and others who use the marina concerning access restrictions to
Breakwater Island and its immediate vicinity; by providing for the posting of signs warning
boaters about the sensitivity of the wildlife at the site and about prohibitions on disturbing
protected bird and mammal species; and by providing for the retention of existing access
restrictions to Breakwater Island and their enforcement by the USFWS.
USFWS has prepared a draft Conservation Plan specifying that the access
restrictions to Breakwater Island will be retained and enforced. Conservation Plan, pp. 40
and 43. There is every reason to expect that the USFWS will adopt the draft Conservation
Plan containing these provisions, in which case the impact will be reduced to a less -than-
significant level. Furthermore, USFWS has issued a non jeopardy Biological Opinion for
the Project. If the USFWS does not adopt the draft Conservation Plan, the City finds that
this portion of the mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the
USFWS, that this portion of the mitigation measure can and should be adopted by that
agency, and that until such time as the mitigation measure is adopted by the USFWS these
impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable.
Q.
Dredging and In -water Construction
8
Berthfront sediment dredging and in -water construction activities in the
Marina planning area would have a significant impact on fish and other aquatic organisms,
including mammals and birds that feed on fish, such as the California least tern. Mitigation
4, Draft EIR Section 4.7, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will
mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level by prohibiting dredging in heavily used
least tem foraging areas during the period from March 15 to September 30, and by requiring
issuance of a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers ( "COE ") prior to the
undertaking of any dredging.
Pollutants in Stormwater Runoff
Stormwater runoff that includes pollutants from the golf course and paved
areas, especially in the Northwest Territories,' Civic Core and Marina planning areas, would
cause a significant impact by introducing pollutants through the runoff into the least tern
colony nesting area, as well as into nearby wetlands and surrounding water bodies.
Construction- related spills and emissions in the Northwest Territories, Marina and Civic
Core planning areas, as well as marina use and maintenance and repair of boats and spills
from boat fueling and waste disposal, also could affect water quality in the adjacent water
bodies.
Mitigation 5, Draft EIR Section 4.7, which is hereby adopted and incorporated
into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a >less- than - significant level by providing for the
development and implementation of stormwater management and monitoring plans, as well
as planting and herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer application plans, including a pesticide
drift control plan for the golf course and public open space areas. Future developments in
the Northwest Territories planning area will be required to meet Regional Water Quality
Control Board ( "RWQCB ") stormwater management programs and requirements. In
addition, to the extent possible, all stormwater drainage from new development in the
Northwest Territories, Marina and Civic Core planning areas will be directed away from the
adjacent USFWS wildlife refuge, and a plan will be developed for managing the discharge
of pollutants from boats using the marina.
Increasing the number of people and structures exposed to seismic shaking
on the site could increase the number of injuries and loss of life and could cause moderate
to extreme levels of damage to structures. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4`8, which is
hereby adopted and incorporated' into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -than-
significant level by providing for seismic upgrades of existing structures designated for
reuse; demolition of structures that cannot be upgraded; retrofit, replacement or construction
of back -up essential utilities; and design of public buildings to accommodate seismic forces.
9
T. Liquefaction
Liquefaction could occur during a strong earthquake throughout the filled
portion of NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda and along the historic shoreline of the Bay where
the site is underlain by a shallow water table and loose, sandy sediments. This is a significant
impact, the severity of which would vary depending on the nature of the structure and on
site - specific geologic conditions. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.8, which is hereby
adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than- significant
level by requiring soil studies and geologic reports for each new building site, with future
building design incorporating the recommendations of the engineering geologist. In
addition, new utility infrastructure shall be fitted with flexible joints, where appropriate, to
accommodate lateral stresses, and existing, critical utility infrastructure shall be retrofitted
or replaced, as necessary, with flexible joints. Sensitive structures may need to be supported
by pile systems founded in the dense Merritt Sand or Yerba Buena Mud. Past geotechnical
studies performed by the Navy and the condition of foundations will be reevaluated to
determine if retrofitting is necessary or appropriate to strengthen existing structures proposed
for reuse.
U. Settlement
Settlement could occur as fill materials and Bay Mud underlying building
sites adjust to new loading from buildings and fill, potentially causing ponding, increased
flooding, or waterlogging of soils in severely affected areas. In addition to Mitigation 2,
Draft EIR Section 4.8, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, Mitigation 3,
Draft EIR Section 4.8, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will further
mitigate this impact to a less- than- significant level by providing that excess fill be placed in
anticipation of settlement to raise the ground surface elevation above the predicted final
elevation, and by installing capillary barriers beneath low -lying slab -on -grade foundations
to prevent capillary_ rise into the slabs. In addition, the City will implement the
recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer.
V. Differential Settlement
Differential settlement, which can damage foundations, tilt or buckle
structural supports, and misalign horizontal features, constitutes an economically significant
impact of the Project that is unlikely to affect life safety. In addition to Mitigation 2, Draft
EIR Section 4.8, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, Mitigation 4, Draft
EIR Section 4.8, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will further
mitigate this impact to a less - than- significant level by providing that design plans and details
and other improvement plans be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer to determine whether
they are compatible with the geotechnical conditions of site A geotechnical engineer and
engineering geologist will also inspect site grading and document the placement of
10
engineered fills and subdrains, as well as the stability of cut and fill slopes. In addition, large
structures should be constructed on pile foundations, and mat foundations may be required
for smaller structures.
W. Dike Failure
Flooding of the interior of NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda, as a result of
seismic shaking or erosion during large storms, could occur if the perimeter dikes were
breached. Mitigation 5, Draft EIR Section 4.8, which is hereby adopted and incorporated
into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level by requiring owners
of shoreline properties to inspect, maintain, and repair the perimeter dikes as needed to
comply with applicable standards. In addition, because the Civic Core and Marina planning
areas may be vulnerable to flooding caused by catastrophic failure of one of the western
dikes, the feasibility of constructing flood- control levees along the inland boundaries of the
Civic Core and Marina planning areas will be studied as an alternative to dependence on the
western exterior dikes.
X. Lateral Spreading
Lateral spreading of the land upslope of a dike failure could cause a
significant impact. While the probability of this occurring is relatively low, it would
constitute a potentially significant impact in the shoreline areas. Mitigation 6, Draft EIR
Section 4.8, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this
impact to a less- than - significant level by providing that before shoreline construction designs
are completed, studies will be conducted to determine the seismic stability of perimeter dikes
in developed shoreline areas, and by requiring the strengthening of unstable dikes according
to the recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer. Alternatively, structures in
areas near unstable dikes may be designed to withstand lateral spreading. In addition, the
mitigation measure intended to mitigate liquefaction, Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.8,
previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, will further mitigate the impact of
lateral spreading.
Y. Surface Water Quality
Site preparation, surface grading, new construction, and increased use of the
site may disturb soil and increase erosion/sedimentation into the Oakland Inner Harbor, NAS
Alameda Inner Harbor, Seaplane Lagoon, and San Francisco Bay. Construction equipment
and operations may result in spills and other accidental emissions of pollutants, which could
enter and contaminate the surrounding water bodies. The resulting effects on surface water
quality would cause a significant impact. Mitigations l a -f, Draft EIR Section 49, which are
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will reduce this impact to a non - significant
level. Mitigation la requires the City to adopt and implement its best management practices
(`BMPs ")'and stormwater management and discharge control program for both construction
11
and post - construction stormwater runoff consistent with the City's stormwater management
and discharge control program. Mitigation lb requires the City to develop and implement
planting and herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer application plans, including a pesticide drift
control plan, for the golf course and public open space areas. Mitigation lc requires the City
to ensure that the RV park and all parking lots will drain to oil and grease traps, or
alternately, biological filters or similar approaches will be used as specified in the City's
standard conditions of approval. Permeable pavement will be used to the maximum extent
practicable, and impervious surfaces will be minimized. In addition, BMPs should include
specific restrictions on vehicle maintenance. Mitigation ld requires the City to adopt
stormwater management conditions of approval for redeveloping the site that will include
requirements for a spill control and countermeasure plan to mitigate the potential impacts of
construction- related and industrial and commercial spills on water quality. Mitigation 1 e
requires the City to ensure that runoff from proposed maritime light industry in the Marina
planning area is directed to structural and nonstructural stormwater contaminant control
facilities, as determined to be appropriate by the City's stormwater management staff and in
compliance with adopted BMPs. Mitigation l f requires all marina uses to include structural
controls and BMPs.
Z. Flood Hazards
Development and reuse of low -lying areas of the site near Bay and channel
frontages would subject residents, workers, and other occupants of those areas to flood
hazards in the event of the 100 -year high tide, backed up stormwater runoff, or the unlikely
combination of these events with a major tsunami. Mitigations 2a -c, Draft EIR Section 4.9,
which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a
less - than- significant level. Mitigation•2a requires the City to conduct a study to establish a
base flood level through the FEMA FIRM process for purposes of determining development
site elevations, or else requiring new development at sites below 10 feet (3 m) MSL to be
protected by raising the base level of the site to a minimum of 10 feet (3 m) MSL. This
elevation may be revised, as appropriate, based on revised estimates of sea level rise and
based on expected rates of surface subsidence. New and existing levees will be regularly
maintained. Mitigation 2b provides that the City will regularly inspect and maintain all
seawalls surrounding the property to assure their continued integrity, and will require any
development along the site's waterfront areas to include an adequate setback to allow for
future enlargement of the seawall and thereby to protect the area in the event of a substantial
rise in sea level. Mitigation 2c requires any new development to comply fully with the City's
General Plan policy 8.3b, which states that all new development for sites located on
floodplains should be provided adequate protection from floods.
AA. Dredging and Marina Operations
Dredging the Seaplane Lagoon would disperse contaminants by increasing
turbidity in the water. Mitigations 3a and b, Draft EIR Section 4.9, which are hereby adopted
12
and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation 3a limits the depths and areas of dredging to minimize disturbance of
contaminated sediments, and requires that, prior to dredging, all materials proposed for
excavation and dredging must be tested for all contaminants of concern to the RWQCB. In
addition, careful delineation and segregation of contaminated material prior to, during, and
after dredging will minimize the volume of contaminated sediments generated and the
dispersion of potential contaminants into the water column. Mitigation 3b requires the use
of a clamshell dredge or another appropriate dredging method that minimizes the disturbance
of surrounding sediments and release of contaminants into the water column.
BB. Dredge Disposal
Disposal of contaminated dredged sediments could contaminate receiving
waters and could increase turbidity at aquatic disposal sites. Mitigation 4, Draft EIR Section
4.9, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to
a less- than - significant level by requiring that all dredge materials be disposed of at approved
sites in compliance with state and federal regulations, and by requiring that sediment disposal
shall comply with federal and state Long Term Management Strategy sediment disposal
priorities. In addition, all dredge materials will be tested prior to disposal, and any
contaminated sediments will be disposed of in approved upland facilities.
CC. Peak -Hour Traffic 'Impacts Levels of Service ( "LOS ") at Local
Intersections
Significant impacts would result from AM and PM peak -hour traffic
congestion at the following five Alameda and three Oakland intersections:
City of Alameda Intersections --
Atlantic Avenue at Main Street
Atlantic Avenue at, West, Campus
Atlantic Avenue at Webster Street
Central Avenue at Webster Street
Tinker Avenue at Webster Street
City of Oakland Intersections
Harrison Street at 7th Street
Webster Street at 8th Street
Broadway at 5th Street.
As shown in Figure 4 -4 of the Draft EIR, Mitigations la -g, Draft EIR Section
4.10, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact
13
to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation :l a provides that at the Atlantic Avenue at Main
Street intersection the City of Alameda will reconstruct the existing free right -turn lane on
the westbound approach of Atlantic Avenue to ensure smooth traffic flows and merging for
entering and exiting vehicle movements. Mitigation lb provides that at the Atlantic Avenue
at West Campus intersection the City will construct a free right -turn lane on the westbound
approach to Atlantic Avenue and provide two westbound through lanes. Mitigation lc
provides that at the Atlantic Avenue at Webster Street intersection the City will construct a
second left -turn lane on the eastbound Atlantic Avenue and a free right -turn lane on the
southbound approach of Webster Street. Mitigation ld provides that at the intersection of
Central Avenue at Webster Street the City will construct a left -turn lane on both approaches
of Central Avenue and Webster Street to maintain adequate peak -hour levels of service.
Mitigation le provides that at the intersection of Tinker Avenue at Webster Street the City
will construct a separate free right -turn lane to the southbound approach of Webster Street.
Mitigation l f provides that the I -880 Corridor — Broadway/Jackson Interchange program,
jointly developed by the cities of Oakland and Alameda to mitigate unacceptable traffic
conditions at the intersections of Harrison Street at 7th Street and Broadway at 5th Street,
will be implemented; the City will require development in Alameda to contribute its fair
share toward these intersection improvements or alternate improvements of equal
effectiveness acceptable to both the City of Alameda and the City of Oakland, such as a
direct northbound connection to 1 -980/1 -880 from Webster Street. Mitigation lg provides
that at the intersection of Webster Street at 8th Street the City of Oakland will convert one
of the westbound through lanes to a left -turn lane. If the City of Oakland does not implement
Mitigations 1 f and lg, the City finds that these mitigation measures are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oakland, that these mitigation measures can and
should be adopted by that agency, and that until such time as these mitigation measures are
approved by the City of Oakland these impacts would be considered significant and
unavoidable.
DD. Peak -Hour Traffic Impacts
System
OS on Regiona
Access Circulation
The addition of traffic generated by the Project, in combination with
cumulative traffic, would cause a significant impact on the following freeway segments and
local arterial streets serving the site:
I -80, I -580 to north of Berkeley
I -880, I -980 to south of 98th Avenue
SR 61, Doolittle Drive (Oakland city limits to Otis Drive)
Atlantic Avenue, Main to Webster
Park Street, Oakland city limits to SR 61
High Street, I -880 to SR 61.
14
Mitigations 2a and b, Draft EIR Section 4.10, which are hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation 2a provides that the City will implement; a comprehensive set of transportation
system management ("TSM") programs, described in detail on pages 4 -136 to 4 -137 of the
Draft EIR. Mitigation 2b requires the Transportation System Manager for the site to
participate in all of the areawide or regional transportation planning studies that relate to the
access routes leading to the site, and to revise the site's TSM program appropriately.
EE. Peak- Hour Traffic on State Route 260 (Webster /Posey Tubes)
Traffic generated by the Project, in combination with cumulative traffic,
would create congestion on State Route 260 (Webster/Posey Tubes), thereby causing a
significant impact by increasing traffic through the tubes during the AM and PM peak hours.
Mitigations 3a and b, Draft EIR Section 4.10, which are hereby adopted and incorporated
into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than- significant level. Mitigation 3a
provides that the City will work cooperatively with Caltrans, the City of Oakland, the Port
of Oakland, BCDC, and COE to obtain approval of and funding for a new crossing between
Alameda and Oakland. Mitigation 3b provides that traffic generated by the Project will be
limited to levels such that traffic from the Project, together with cumulative traffic growth,
will not cause traffic in the Webster/Posey Tubes to exceed LOS E, and will be monitored
by the City pursuant to procedures to be adopted in City plans and ordinances.
FF. Increased On -Site Traffic Volumes
Increased traffic congestion on NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda would cause
a significant impact. Mitigation 4, Draft EIR Section 4.10, which is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level by
implementing the following traffic improvements: providing traffic circles at
Central/Lincoln /Avenue M and Atlantic/Ninth; extending Mitchell and Mosley Avenues;
extending Tinker Avenue to Webster and Constitution Way; and upgrading all local streets
to meet City capacity and roadway design criteria.
GG. Increased On -Site Parking Demand
A significant impact would be created by increased parking demand that
would exceed the existing supply. Mitigation 5, Draft EIR Section 4.10, which is hereby
adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than- significant
level by requiring development projects to provide adequate off - street and curbside parking
consistent with City ordinances and requirements.
15
HH. Increased Potential for Accidents
Increased use of NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda by a variety of transportation
modes would create a significant impact by increasing the potential for traffic-related
accidents at NAS AlamedafFISC Alameda. Mitigation 6, Draft EIR Section 4.10, which is
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less-than-
significant level by requiring adherence to existing City ordinances and plans that specify
standards for all city roadways.
II. Construction and Demolition
A significant impact would result from temporary generation of fugitive dust
during demolition, construction, and remodeling activities. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section
4.11, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to
a less-than-significant level by adopting and implementing standard dust control measures
such as those described in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA
Guidelines (1996), which are set forth in more detail on pages 4-165 to 4-166 of the Draft
EIR.
JJ. Carbon Monoxide Concentrations
Carbon monoxide concentrations at two intersections, Tinker Avenue at
Webster Street in Alameda, and Harrison at 7th Street in Oakland, would exceed federal and
state air quality standards, creating a significant impact. Mitigations 2a and b, Draft EIR
Section 4.11, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this
impact to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation 2a finds that carbon monoxide
exceedences at the affected intersections will be reduced but not eliminated by roadway and
intersection design Mitigations 1 and 4, Section 4.10, previously adopted and incorporated
into the Project. Mitigation 2b finds that the implementation of Mitigation 3b, Draft EIR
Section 4.10, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, will have the incidental
effect of lowering traffic-related carbon monoxide emissions to a less-than-significant level.
ICK. Traffic-related Ozone Precursor Emissions
Increased emissions of ozone precursors generated by vehicle traffic would
create a significant impact. Mitigations 3a and b, Draft EIR Section 4.11, which are hereby
adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant
level. Mitigation 3a finds that implementation of the TSM program in Mitigation 2a, Draft
EIR Section 4.10, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, will lessen, but not
reduce to less than 15 tons per year, the net increase in ozone precursor emissions related to
traffic. Mitigation 3b finds that Mitigation 3b, Draft EIR Section 4.10, previously adopted
and incorporated into the Project, will further reduce traffic and have the incidental effect of
lowering traffic-related ozone precursor emissions to a less-than-significant level.
16
LL. Traffic- Related PM,0 Emissions
Increased emissions of PM,, by vehicle traffic would cause a significant
impact. Mitigations 4a and b, Draft EIR Section 4.11, which are hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level.
Mitigation 4a finds that the TSM program, previously adopted and incorporated into the
Project as Mitigation 2a, Draft EIR Section 4.10, will lessen, but not reduce to below 15 tons
per year, the net increase in vehicle emissions. Mitigation 4b, Draft EIR Section 4.11, which
is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, finds that implementation of Mitigation
3b, Draft EIR Section 4.10, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, will reduce
traffic and have the incidental effect of lowering traffic- related PM., emissions to a less -than-
significant level.
. Construction and Demolition:
Noise and Vibration
A temporary significant impact would result from Project-related demolition,
construction, utility extension and improvements, and remodeling activities, which will cause
temporary noise and vibration disturbance to adjacent land uses, and especially to those
existing buildings that are reused initially. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4.12, which is
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -than-
significant level by restricting most construction activity to normal daytime periods. Where
it is necessary to use extensive heavy equipment close to residential, educational, or medical
land uses, temporary construction -site noise shielding, such as heavy plywood fencing, will
be used to minimize noise impacts on adjacent areas. Carefully phasing demolition,
construction, and remodeling activities will also minimize the extent to which occupied areas
are exposed to construction noise and vibration.
NN. Off -site Noise Generated by Traffic Associated with Reuse
A significant impact from traffic noise would occur along Main Street and
Atlantic Avenue, where traffic noise levels will increase by about 4 dB along Main Street
and by about 6 dB along Atlantic Avenue because of increased traffic volume. Mitigation
2, Draft EIR Section 4.12, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will
mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant impact by implementing and enforcing proper
site planning and building design measures.
00. Human Exposure to Unre
Complete Remediation
ediated Areas During Site Use Prior to
A significant impact would result from human exposure to unremediated areas
during routine site use while remediation is being conducted. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR
Section 4.13, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this
17
impact to a less- than - significant level through implementation of notifications, conditions
and restrictions in areas that are leased or transferred by the City prior to completion of
remediation. The primary notifications, conditions, and restrictions will include prohibiting
lessees from digging, excavating, or otherwise disturbing flooring, soil, sediment, or
pavement, without prior approval from the Navy or City, as appropriate, and coordination
with federal and state regulatory agencies, and are set forth in more detail on pages 4 -199
through 4 -201 of the Draft EIR.
PP. Human and Ecological Exposure to Residual Contamination During
Construction Activities
A significant impact would result from human and ecological exposure to
residual contamination during construction activities. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4..13,
which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -
than- significant level by requiring developers and their contractors to implement, as
appropriate, some or all of the measures that are set forth in more detail on pages 4 -202
through 4 -203 of the Draft EIR.
QQ.
Human Exposure to Residual Contamination During Routine Use
The potential for long -term exposure of NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda
workers, tenants, residents, and visitors to residual contamination in soil or ground water
could create a significant impact. Mitigation 3, Draft EIR Section 4.13, which is hereby
adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than- significant
level by adopting, implementing, and enforcing restrictive measures such as deed restrictions
or other institutional controls, a City land use permitting program, and tracking of site
remediation status. Some or all of these measures, described in more detail on pages 4 -204
through 4 -205 of the Draft EIR, may required to protect future site users and occupants
from unacceptable exposures to contaminants of concern.
RR. Human Exposure to Surface Emissions of Subsurface Gases During
Routine Use
A significant impact could result from routine use of, and development in,
areas where surface emissions of hazardous soil gas could expose site users to risks
associated with such gases. Mitigation 4, Draft EIR Section 4.13, which is hereby adopted
and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level by
requiring the City's adoption of procedures in its plans and ordinances that provide for
adequate control measures, such as vapor barriers and venting, for all buildings constructed
on or near areas where surface emissions of hazardous soil gases may occur.
SS. Cumulative Impacts on Land Use
18
Development of the Project, in combination with the Port of Oakland's
Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement project, would result in a significant cumulative
impact due to loss of 1.29 acres of land in the North Waterfront planning area and relocation
of existing docks and piers for construction of a new turning basin. The City and the Port
of Oakland will enter into an agreement for the conveyance of real property and other
considerations that will mitigate this impact to a less- than- significant level. Execution of this
agreement by the City and the Port of Oakland is anticipated to occur prior to approval of the
Project.
TT. Cumulative Impacts on Cultural Resources
Cumulative development in the Bay Area associated with reuse of military
facilities could result in demolition of buildings and structures designated as historic
resources. Because no measures have been identified to mitigate impacts due to demolition
of historic resources, this cumulative impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
UU. Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality
Inasmuch as the Project does not involve any dredging in the Oakland Inner
Harbor, notwithstanding Section 5.1.9 of the Draft EIR, there would be no significant
cumulative impact on water quality due to dredging.
Development of the Project, in combination with cumulative development in
the Bay Area, would contribute to increased stormwater contaminant discharges that may
adversely affect water quality in the Oakland Inner Harbor and San Francisco Bay.
Mitigations la -f, Draft EIR Section 4.9, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project,
will substantially lessen this significant cumulative impact and reduce the magnitude of the
Project's contribution to the extent feasible. Similar mitigation measures can and should be
implemented by the City of Oakland and other public agencies, but because implementation
of these measures cannot be guaranteed by the City, this cumulative impact is considered
significant and unavoidable.
VV. Cumulative Impacts on Air Quality
Development of the Project, in combination with cumulative development in
the Bay Area, would contribute to increases in emissions of criteria air pollutants.
Mitigations 1, 2a -b, 3a -b and 4a -b, Draft EIR Section 4.11, previously adopted and
incorporated into the Project, will substantially lessen this significant cumulative impact, but
not to a less- than - significant level due to the nonattainrnent status of the Bay Area under
federal and state standards with respect to certain pollutants. Adoption of these mitigation
measures will reduce the magnitude of the Project's contribution to this cumulative impact
to the extent feasible. While various mitigation measures to reduce air pollution can and
should be implemented by other public agencies in the Bay Area, it is unlikely that any such
19
measures will reduce the level of this impact to less - than - significant in the foreseeable future,
and thus this cumulative impact is likely to remain significant and unavoidable.
III. ALTERNATIVES
The Final EIR eva
each is determined below.
uated four alte
atives to the Project. The feasibility of
A. Alternative 1: No Project Alte
Under the No Project Alternative, which is more fully described in the Draft
EIR at pages 2 -40 to 2 -45, the property available for conveyance would remain in federal
ownership in caretaker status. Properties proposed for transfer to other federal agencies
would be transferred. Under this alternative, limited interim leasing would occur, but would
be phased out as individual lease teiuis expire. This alternative evaluates the facility as
closed with no reuse and no development.
Because Alternative 1 does not include reuse or development of the NAS
Alameda /FISC Alameda, it would not have certain project - specific environmental impacts
associated with the Reuse Project, such as impacts to biological and water resources, air
quality, traffic circulation and congestion, and increased noise. However, the No Project
Alterative is infeasible because it would not allow the City to generate the jobs, taxes, and
other benefits provided as part of the Project that are central to the Reuse Project's goals and
objectives. (See Community Reuse Plan, pp. 1 -8 through 1-17) Specifically, the No Project
Alternative would fail to achieve the balanced mix of land uses that the Project offers; it
would fail to create the opportunities to emphasize, seek, and promote a balanced mix of
businesses and light industry that are sustainable and forward - looking; it would fail to meet
the current and future housing needs of the community; would fail to achieve job creation
and economic development to provide the employment and economic benefits historically
associated with NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda; would fail to enhance reemployment
opportunities; and it would fail to achieve a complete integration of the former NAS
Alameda/FISC Alameda with the rest of the island of Alameda and to achieve human-scale
transit- oriented development.
Alternative 2: Seaport Alternative
The main distinctive feature of this alternative, more fully described in the
Draft EIR at pages 2 -28 to 2 -33, would be development of a 220 -acre port facility with five
containerized shipping berths instead of a golf course and maritime - related light industry.
Other land uses would be similar to the Project, except that there would be a higher
component of single - family residential uses and a corresponding decrease in
office /workspace uses. This alternative would include a college -level campus and a new
20
transportation connection between Alameda and Oakland to accommodate the cargo volume
generated by the port. This connection could be a bridge structure or possibly a tunnel.
This alternative is not a feasible alternative to the Project. Alternative 2
would result in significant and not mitigable impacts to visual, cultural, and biological
resources that the Project does not create. Specifically, as noted in the Draft EIR at pages
4 -19 to 4 -20, 4 -64, and 4 -81, it would not be possible to screen the port facilities from public
view, and new development in the Northwest Territories would block views from the
shoreline park; the Seaport Alternative would require demolition of some or all of the
National Register- eligible Training Wall; and port development located adjacent to the
USFWS wildlife refuge would increase predation of the California least tern to an extent that
is not mitigable because antiperching devices for the port's cranes are not feasible.
Moreover, developing a container terminal port facility in Alameda would be
economically infeasible because of the added costs of access infrastructure to move cargo
across the Estuary. The capital costs to develop a bridge, tunnel under the channel, or
specialized high -rise crane/bridge for moving containerized cargo are too high to be
supported by revenues derived solely from container terminal operations on NAS Alameda
under current competitive market conditions. (See Feasibility Study of Container` Port on
Island' of Alameda (EBCRC 1997), p. 0.4.)
Furthermore, the Seaport Alternative would fail to meet the goals and
objectives of the Reuse Plan. (See Community Reuse Plan pp. 1 -8 through 1 -17. )
Specifically, by relying on the development of a large -scale seaport and de- emphasizing
residential and office /workspace uses, the Seaport Alternative would fail to achieve the
balanced mix of land uses that the Project offers; it would fail to create the opportunities to
emphasize, seek, and promote a balanced mix of businesses and light industry that are
sustainable and forward- looking; it would fail to meet the current and future housing needs
of the community; and it would fail to achieve a complete integration of the former NAS
Alameda!FISC Alameda with the rest of the island of Alameda and to achieve human-scale
transit- oriented development.
C. Alternative 3: Residential Alternative
This alternative, more fully described in the Draft EIR at pages 2 -33 to 2 -38,
would have a greater emphasis on residential development. Overall, it would contain a
substantially higher number of housing units than the Project, although additional housing
would not be included in every planning area Some areas would contain additional light
industrial and office /workspace uses to balance the number of residents and jobs. " It also
would include a college -level campus.
This alternative is not a feasible alternative to the Project because it would
cause significant and not mitigable impacts to biological resources. As described in the Draft
21
EIR at pages 4 -85 to 4 -87, residential development located adjacent to the USFWS wildlife
refuge would increase predation of the California least tern, an effect that could not be
mitigated. In addition, the increased presence of people and domestic animals in the
Northwest Territories would also create a significant and not mitigable impact on the
California least tern.
Furthermore, the Residential Alternative would fail to meet the goals and
objectives of the Reuse Plan to the same extent that the Project will meet these goals and
objectives. (See Community Reuse Plan, pp. 1 -8 through 1 -17.) Specifically, in comparison
to the Project, the Residential Alternative would fail to achieve an equally balanced mix of
land uses, would fail to achieve job creation and economic development to provide the
employment and economic benefits historically associated with NAS Alameda/FISC
Alameda, and would fail to enhance reemployment opportunities.
D. Alternative 4: Reduced Density Alternative
Under this alternative, land uses would be similar to the Project, but would
be developed at reduced densities in many (but not all) of the planning areas. CEQA
Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that an "environmentally superior" alternative
other than the No Project Alternative be identified. The Reduced Density Alternative is the
environmentally superior because the significant impacts that would occur under this
alternative, although similar to the Reuse Plan Alternative, would be lesser in severity prior
to mitigation. A primary goal of this alternative would be to reduce traffic generation
compared to the other reuse alternatives.
This alternative is not a feasible alternative to the Project because it fails to
meet the goals and objectives of the Reuse Plan to the extent that the Project does.
(Community Reuse Plan, pp. 1 -8 through 1 -17.) Specifically, in comparison to the Project,
the Reduced Density Alternative would fail to achieve similar levels of job creation and
economic development; would fail to enhance reemployment opportunities to the same
degree as the Project; and would fail to ensure that both existing and new housing resources
at the former NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda meet current and future housing needs of the
community to same extent as the Project.
IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its potential
unavoidable adverse environmental effects in determining whether to approve the Project,
and has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable
adverse environmental effects. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final EIR and
other information in the record, including, but not limited to, the Community Reuse Plan and
the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Air Station
Alameda and the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility (Navy,
22
October 1999). In the event that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment
that is not reduced to a level of less- than- significant, the City makes the following Findings
supporting approval of the Project despite the significant unavoidable adverse environmental
effects that may occur:
NAS Alameda has been a closed military facility with only interim reuse
since April 30, 1997. FISC Alameda has been a closed military facility with
minimal reuse since September 30, 1998. The reuse project will create a
balanced mix of land uses; create opportunities to emphasize, seek, and
promote a balanced mix of businesses and light industry that are sustainable
and forward- looking; meet the current and future housing needs of the
community; achieve job creation and economic development to provide the
employment and economic benefits historically associated with NAS
Alameda/FISC Alameda; enhance reemployment opportunities; encourage
uses that provide employment for displaced workers; integrate the former
NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda into the rest of the island of Alameda; provide
educational and training facilities and opportunities; and achieve human-scale
transit- oriented development.
Under the reuse project, employment generating land uses, at NAS Alameda/
FISC Alameda would create the potential for new employment.
Approximately 18,978 jobs could be created by the reuse project.
3. The reuse project will facilitate and accelerate the economic recovery from
the economic impact associated with the closure of NAS Alameda by
attracting private investment and creating job opportunities for displaced,
dislocated and eligible participants directly or indirectly affected by base
closure.
4. The reuse project will create an increase in housing opportunity in Alameda.
At buildout, the reuse project will provide as many as 2,378 homes, which is
a substantial addition to the available housing stock of the City of Alameda.
5. During Navy operations, minimal public access was allowed to NAS
Alameda/FISC Alameda. Implementation of the reuse project will create
approximately 345 acres of public parks and open space, and optimize visual
and physical access to the water.
6. The reuse project will:
a Stimulate commercial and residential revitalization resulting in
increased employment options for Alameda residents.
23
b. Prevent economic blighting conditions causing stagnant property
values and impaired investments from occurring following base
closure and transition to private ownership.
Help to eliminate physical blighting conditions which prevent the
effective use of buildings or lots.
d. Upgrade buildings and infrastructure to enhance the health, safety and
welfare of the community.
g.
Provide a suitable environment for economic growth and improve the
well- being of citizens and businesses.
Preserve the historic value and character of the area, including its
residential and nonresidential structures.
Expand the supply of affordable housing for qualifying households
and families.
7. The tax increment projections created during the Alameda Point
Improvement Plan ( "APIP ") adoption process anticipate that the NAS portion
of the reuse project will generate a total of $35 million present value, or $127
million future value, hi funds specifically earmarked for housing over the 45-
year life of the project. Similar housing funds would be generated by the
Business and Waterfront Improvement Project area, which includes portions
of FISC Alameda. In addition to this set aside for very low, low and
moderate income housing, the reuse project will include inclusionary and
production housing requirements related to affordability.
The tax increment projections created during the APIP plan adoption process
anticipate that monies will be available to correct deficiencies in
infrastructure, public facilities, parks, recreation and open space, and provide
monies for building rehabilitation and building demolition.
V. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The Final EIR is hereby incorporated into these Findings in its entirety.
Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of
mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative
analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of the potential for
associated significant unavoidable adverse impacts.
24
VI. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings
upon which the City Council bases its findings and decisions contained herein. The record
of proceedings is located at the Planning Department, City of Alameda, 2263 Santa Clara
Avenue, Room 120, Alameda, California 94501. The custodian for the record of proceedings
is the Planning Department of the City of Alameda.
VII. SUMMARY
A. Based on the foregoing Findings and the infoli►iation contained in the record,
the City Council has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each of the
significant effects of the Project:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that
other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for
highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in
the environmental impact report.
B. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record,
it is determined that:
1. All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the
Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
2. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be
unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations in Part N, above.
C:\WPDOCS\DATA\EJG028.WPD
25
EXHIBIT "B"
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared to comply with the
requirements of State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). State law requires the
adoption of a mitigation monitoring program when mitigation measures are required to
avoid significant impacts. The monitoring program is intended to ensure compliance
during implementation of the project.
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been formulated based upon the
findings of the Draft EIR and Final EIR /Response to Comments Addendum for The Reuse of
Naval Air Statio Alameda and the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and
Facility, Alameda, California related to the Reuse Plan Alternative. The program identifies
mitigation measures recommended to avoid or reduce identified impacts associated with the
Reuse Plan Alternative, and specifies the agencies responsible for implementation and
monitoring.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
U
0 a
G
Q.
o v O
• ay
0 o 0
0
°-b 0-0
O U
>.4 • v
0 ••-.H
a0.
0
v a3
0
V N q y
5 0 o
-o w E j
° a. q E-+
6, o ° 0 0. 0
2 -0
a 0 0
o
o
0
° -o Z
, v a ' 3 _n 5 tEj-o
0U � �y'v .� 0 gl .0 H •
gavo. .
0 o0�oy 00 •E o a 0 2
;b ca ° wa cS El N a. 0..5 "74
40 CA „- brae•" ›Van`s 'd d
r too xZi� 0 -15 z
.s1 4. • won' H ..a a '0 _n -� ' y 0 q Q.) 0 b
Q 0 0 �-o g 0„ 0° d
k H oo q, j 0 cl A" h
P
U 0 .v a =cd v 0 a1 p ti
U o � b'� ti Ua
"0
ld
0
<Ls + 0..) -0 O O -o
0q -0
°U q
Ca, co q tz
vs B o
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
0
0
0'0 as
• y �
a'v v v*
5ao
El
o bA-
q•'C�.�
-0'� a v
-0 a 0
y. 9•� -
.5 o a
U
P44) :.Eq
0
a 4,3 ,o
0.0 c
0 +-'
. ° V, cl
En 0. 0 o
� crt .-. o
4 Ed
40
0
0
a v • °
0
y U
P. ° a
•0 0.
eb 03
04 0 0
v q "
.5 o E. ya
A a8-0
-0 0
a •1
w
o
444 4.40 041,1.4
- v , «s cu
4 -'
" t
E'S o
v
v �
0 0 bA 0 0.
m.a,-5 ca. 0
a,
-n ° °'
0. 0
< - 54 2
0
0
8
0
U
0
0
Q
Q
u
dA
N v
o1 b 8
ka-
o R, a,
q.
ob
a•�1
2 '—
at vs
•a g
0
8
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
U a
0
0 • •
• "
• o
o 4,,
o 0 ao
0.�
cd -o bA
o b
O • 0 0
04 •a
a
0
o 74 0
> 4)
4-, 0 Q
ab
Cd
'...,1 N tr
▪ w ° 0
U ..
U
• PC
0 a 0 o ,0
O � O G 4
O
a,-o.0
b v
q
'- -a Z -o
O a � O 4. v
0-
0o ;o 004) 9
• N Bo 0 o
aw o0- 0 a pb at o a u b .M a ti p a • va ..a v M ' O0
a
O 0 0 - o >,
00480 -0 0 c.
N 0., 8 O 8 8 <C 2 H u -o 5
<4
44
b
g.
.- 0-o- -[0
•.0 p Y 9
ab 0,ycd N v
s pi" v
°• .� �� ovnb
5 u v v
7
O p
O b.0 0
U a -0 a 4'a
U O - b
• N W 4
O -c v 4' v .•a
• 0
0 .v .�
�^� a v t4
x.48.288
0
O
0
o
• c
v a 0 al
o a,•p
O 4.1 o
•
H 8)
0 -4'0.b
-u
v
8
cd
0
O
U
u
44
v O 4+ on
° :
sa• y.� p a o a -ti v
O.p+.�cd.. -b ppq� �...cHe s,...
to t N - 0 cd Cj a� V
ca r tipv�
¢� ca -9 O .-. ,..d nt
o• - a�aho aa"�B
."
v O aO .b
• a •O 20 -0 u�� ..o aH4.
V
F.. 0 'i � -1:1 - • �� c0no <O
w;
ca q O q -9 - H 0 "0 .?4, yt'd„ ••� 8 0
bt c O U O
a0.,� .1 4)
. ° 8 v r, 8.8 4,5�o vab7oa. Ut�'-0 9;
ca (V ,00
'ar3
ooh�! 0,0
O G al
N PI) 0
a
o00
Z
0 011
v 0..0.•.
CI
a-0 a
rn
O °; '0 4,
O 00
� 00 0ava0O o
s; • 5 I -h c •
VV,..q -5, 4v, v� p•0 0� O O
, -F.; a..a4 Barn �A
O. O CAN 0: 4a .2 v 0
0.. 4-j l -b' -a a o � -
H
W v N t C q v > -a - ^ -p w
0 ,.. -a.� Q h u v O v v Vv m-O v to a ,.
«c
5 a y u.5. E'tif I %
:.° A°
..2..a
ring and I-eporting
2
• I.
,....
1-1
0
4
=
0
Following City acceptance
of conveyance of historic
properties; at the time of
sale of such properties by
the City.
,..•
0
0
0 ,.. • •-■
ni fa, ,-■
,-■-■ '0 t",
0 0 7:, • --■
n a ...
> Cl■ CU 0
0 0 f,
,-, > ,., • -• .
''' "j ribn Z-1, • P,
0 0 . :,-; • ...., 1-,
,-, • ,.-. y: • .-.4 ,-,
1-4 1.-. .--■ „In U
0 U 0 VI 0-■
• •-• a.) > -s1 0
Prior to approval of each
specific development project
involving new construction
within the Historic District.
Action :by Monitor
Implement mothballing
procedures. Require
transferees to adhere to
mothballing procedures, as
appropriate, as a condition of
sale.
0
-0 4-■ -0 a) , •
0 -LI 1-, •,-,:i 'Cl 70'
v - ,.'7,' 0 0 • -.', .'2.4p
a
E -a .:.-., 0 c..)
=, .., -- 0 cs,
— — 0 • - -
6. 0 icti cd ...... -0 ,.., _,!..:1:, V 0 ti •
biD2 ,)
0 2
' 5 0
i'" ' c5d .`,`-' -0 cv < tj _Li •-ri U
ft 4-, • •-1 .--1 • .-■ v ,-,
. 21). .-8 ..0 t) • ..' CI, V) b
v a, ,-,t ■-> 0 ‘.
g 1.7, VI %-■ rt U cn f-I I-4 1-, V 4-1
.
,,,,
,,,,,,
0
Review proposed
development plans and
standards to ensure that any
new construction within the
Historic District will not
modify the District to such
an extent that it no longer
meets the criteria for
inclusion in the NRHP or
CRHP.
:44,0:t1:,
City of Alameda Planning
Department
b.0
SZ1
• •-•
E 1-,
ft 0
.-1-1
ft
City of Alameda Planning
Department
Following City acceptance
of conveyance properties
located within the NAS
Historic District, and prior
to the approval of any
specific development project
or the City's subsequent
conveyance of the
properties to third parties.
,... cu
ka-■ 0 cn 0
cn 0 0 „C4
■11 0 0 . S. 4
(-) CI 4.4-1 ill 0
0 0 v 0 '"' • ".
C:LjT) 0 0 V 0
0 L"'"' o • •-'
CI . u, c ) ;1.4 • • . a ..1 1..-:
V,
• - , 0 0 0
i 1
V a.) Cl. vs ..0 .. 1■..1
City permitting process for
each specific development
project that includes
properties located within
the NAS Historic District.
City of Alameda
ft
..v.
.r4
,1--1
0
....
• .-1
C.3
City of Alameda
:,M
,....:0'
4...0
Al
. .
provide for the use of appropriate
standards for the care and custody of
historic properties as presented in the
National Park Service Preservation Brief
31, Mothballing Historic Buildings
(National Park Service 1993).
in considering rehabilitation plans as
published in the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation Historic
Buildings.
in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards
for Rehabilitation Historic Buildings or
similarstandards, concerning the design
of new buildings in the vicinity of
historic buildings.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Monitoring Timing
a o .4
o .
0 U -d
i% r
h.V by • > O. a > 0 "' cn
a,L.
E, 0 .?: by o
a q
oyzo0 oz��
o� �� v) o- �
a.°•. w °aB
See Biological Resources Mitigation 1, above.
Condition the approval of Prior to approval of each
each specific development specific development project
project that includes a that includes a marina or
marina or maritime maritime development.
I development on
implementation of education
program and installation of
signage.
USFWS shall ensure that Ongoing.
access restrictions are
maintained.
All dredging will require a Prior to conducting any
COE permit, which dredging operations.
permitting process will
include a Section 7
consultation with USFWS.
Action:by Monitor
BIOi<7C7ICAt iZSC2IIitC',
0 q)
N •4 y by - — ' u -6
C U q '' o 0
a,•-. ti's o 5 •�
a
q
b V.bQa0 by. �,
0 q 0 o v) '''
• • >a0::m0a•a�:�w0a
0 0 S. P4.°ZU�°OO °w �.°
'fl
a>
0
PI
cC
a
' U�
Q n
o
a, w
0 ^0 •
0
0 0
�a 0
d a vi
o
>. a, w
0
cc: CJ
`4 Q
••.
o
, ‘,
.�,
•-s. .a
N U 4+ (d
N U
U a, a. 4,
� 0 o
N
tu . v� 4,
a
a 0 .
tai �
U a aB dZ a3
N
vs at
'413 •
oE N
a, I. a
� �°
a n° 0(
Q.,
�
°' . N° 4.
v
a. N 0 y.,
• ac°, o.o dZ a�
a .
U
o q
�`O Pi
lmplementatton
E
0
U
. a
a-
0:.4
C0 <0 0.
'o
a, w
U
o
uk
0<
Nh.1?
"
....._
refuge, the City of Alameda will be
reponsible for implementing the
nondiscretionary terms and conditions of
the Biological Opinion issued by USFWS
on March 22, 1999, and will require that
garbage cans and trash containers are
kept tightly closed.
The USFWS will be responsible for
managing predator control activities and
protecting the least tern nesting site
within the wildlife refuge.
Mitigation 2: Same as 1, above.
.d
'0
O..0
a,-0
,y
•
cy
"
N . Y b
0 O ti, b (a
0" .. a 0v5
N 4, N vi .. .4
y 4 4) :.a 0 .d
• • 0
R U 'C1 N U b 'td t. ti L,
1:4 -xi
a q °'
q b by O .d cn q
O'4 -0
. y N.
••° 4 ,.+ • ,. 0 U cv e
a . � 'by 00s.
• 1' "' u E tj • 'd •
'.� a y' -
• ''' N 0 b y
U G N .-, ,, ad
Uq • p
� -c:1 . -, " Qj .d NU •
CJ Pa J N N ce Cl. W F.. .A
0
.q
y
F'
.d
_
• •.
0
0
-q a,
•�
N
.'U
bs.p.
by
.
bp'bp
b (-,
-0 4O
a
o
2
M ca
L
v
,-0
,..4
d
.8 •a
Ubl
W-.
yy b
0
-0 U
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
•'5 R v v , b EI w
5 O ea cd O v .-., O
ed
N
a bA ;o 4., v ►�
' a5 0 I - h >-. . 41 aq-0•. � Y
O-aa 'E
. 0 Y c . .1, �
. 0 cv o a Ere
c . a O a a en 0 , 0 .a o. 0 -0 v -0 0.) v
0. N 'J ,•. 3y '.Ll 9 'may 0 .5,,,j•� OAb..a {ma{yy VI
Tu. 0y 7i.'C V .a a N:
'b v cv-1 o v 0.41 «s m ta)
P. bbn q. o 4 "U N N u ON ay -U E-i H v caa o ad en
� :15 q v O O 0 � .0 0 v g v , ..,
O 0 U h v E, O `" O
6,
° . , -° 4
a b 0.0 0 H o . h -0 y
g bEl -d .5 JE-■ a" "6 P a
cd F j a _ a •0 o f y El ;_No o 0 a 2,
N aU.-6 I • N >v O
& o.. o o.. 5 . o .o a
8 ti —o . -c °n,
0-b
0 0
ct
pp .94
0 0
b cad o
o0d
U(SQ,
V
v ._ v 44
Vr
N 4 v U. .0 O 14 •S'..°
te a
p,�„'.0r �'a• 0 ti .a., y�
m 0 "U a ,.. ,-4 o .- f.+ a V v U
vi 0 �N. ..N 5 O v v a v N 5 � q ti fl 0 El m .Ou
.
v a^ N
• 0.)
4 b • . r.0H v Cr' y U GJ N O
111 a .bA L H �vP'N V. a 0o • .
• :-bn.2�..0 ou oa
oo�0Q�o.y �0 I
0
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing _
��o
0a
v >
o 0 o
> a •
0 0
o°"
N
o v
ice.. 0 -
.._,o a" ,ti mo
0ad
v
o a a
s
y a
a o
i'aa, o o
0 0 a •
w
• ,-a
• '
4, a .1 ••
„
v 0 cd 0
�! a v q
a°
a 0 y
0 �
B .-• • v_ -0
r.44"a°0c
'
14 a "la
v 9, a
00 a v
0
o
�
.:
• ° °a
gb° 0
an "d
0 0 c•S 1,
q q jai
City of Alameda Public
Works Department,
Building Division, and
Alameda Power and
Telecomm.
4A
a>`
s..
N v❑
0 01
s, 1-4 0
on v
'a cs a 1
.., a 0
a 0
�� •o a
Ua`"i a.. M
City permitting process for
each specific development
project and public
improvements.
Implementation ....
u+
4)
v
'o
..
P
-a
v
v
o
a
CUB
City of Alameda, Project
Applicant(s)
....:
ti
...
v
(t
a
la
•"
y
P4
•
.,
�v
4"t a . 6j ° y Ai VS � •.l 0 b v O
.11- Y 4.4... ' a+ a N N Y .
°'N � . a„, = � o a •o t..w •q ..0 •� 43 a
�.oi -uadt,� ∎ tntnNa...yv"va.ao�bp .4.ri
�yy1�°ov5v�oy- {ojb°�'on�aaa�2 oz c„4
:a 41 N „” . p sn ..y 4. h ... •� .V .y y .o, •"d ° cC cd y •t v = ,
° ° h 00n , 5 0 0 v c .., an .- to v v u, CU 1.
.4. °'°a-ci•H,V°00 o�o.b0- - 0y, o'a`o
aaM a a • o a:�Q a°° • t a a ° a''b •N
v o to Zr emu., 0 8 5 . m . ° 'b t «`4.43 ct " . v
t o ag g 0 a .x-074 ,, 0. 5 av% -.a -a �.. a
a N u„ a v V 3•i 0 5 .� o a ate ," .., -0 a,• co
°' o o 0 a 1• • tear, 2 {,7 ' Ft+ N a, v° �y �{ °j] H
.s7 N [7 rN, 01 Y'U N 0 :N a", 1, 7 • •.0G : . Y ° v: ii3 ..N
• -00 y ... • CI 4 v 0 't,. 0 .+ a, v '" a, ° v v o 'b -o
pu.t0,0sm."5anti°1'''v ��n0— a"a40a N
v‘+ .ad aaav•. a
�`°aCU�`oa'.05q y0,n,vh - oZBooL .0
settlement would be the same as those
for liquefaction (see Geology and Soils
Mitigation 2). In addition, excess fill
may be placed in anticipation of
settlement to raise the ground surface
elevation above the predicted final
elevation. A capillary barrier shall be
installed beneath low -lying slab -on -grade
foundations to prevent capillary rise into
the slab.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Action. by Monitor Monitoring Timing
Condition the approval of Prior to approval of each
each specific development specific development project
project. Design new utilities and /or utility improvement
to meet standards. plans.
Require geotechnical Prior to occupancy or
certification. completion.
Require studies be conducted Ongoing, as specified in
on feasibility of constructing CC &Rs.
flood - control levees; record
CC &Rs requiring submittal
of documentation from
property owners that
perimeter dikes are being
inspected, maintained, etc., as
required.
Condition the approval of Prior to approval of each
each specific development specific development project
project for shoreline on shoreline properties .
properties on completion of
seismic stability studies of
perimeter dikes and either (1)
strengthening of unstable
dikes, or (2) design of
structures to withstand
lateral spreading.
zr, ;: ;.
o
:
-0 0
p
p
' o '
��'o� -
UcodF -1
City of Alameda Public
Works Department
G • -,
al 0
"Li at
0
'46' 0 Z
•
,.,-...o"" a
"
U a Q
r<,>
> >
H
0 444
44 0
v Q,
a, a N
a H U p
10 6.4
Uva•0
Upon the sale or transfer of
any shoreline property, the
City shall require that an
inland levee study be
conducted and if necessary
for each transfer shall
record CC &Rs to address
this mitigation.
City permitting process for
each specific development
project.
wea:;
PA
or
NNV �
p
O�
City of Alameda, future
owners of shoreline
property
City of Alameda, Project
Applicant(s)
..
I.
v�
U
a.�
• 0
• �
er
~
u p N
bA 0 O ., 0
y f{(' N of -
v p-C 4U u 'vac 14' q 0 IV
U u .O v P. P.~ •t — a, -T V ,O "ybj y'4
o-D'•J a a, U ,", o-0 0 Sd a, -0' aa '4 a,
0 A 0 '--1 y
a . 'iO .s O ° .-
ii U d • 0 bA ti p v -- t4 ''
ci El O ptd , -5 ''' se-}.) ❑ 'd Hi �y
a4,, U H ' a 'n . ^ .4 U • a y a X 'vii 0 .� aa)i t:1 43
h .� a, a°) a p -0 .� ^ 0 p O .; U
-4 O . ti � ?� H t7 8 a w - u G � � tso b.0 `. c7 4.
a cn 0 y co a..g , b v P -d
4 U il
c naa °ov-a- dpaa�° u:800
• 4-4
properties shall inspect, maintain, and
repair perimeter dikes as needed to
comply with applicable standards. The
feasibility of constructing flood - control
levees along the inland boundaries of the
Civic Core and Marina planning areas
shall be studied as an alternative to
dependence on the western exterior
dikes.
to determine the seismic stability of
perimeter dikes in developed shoreline
areas before shoreline construction
designs are completed. Unstable dikes
shall be strengthened according to the
recommendations of a qualified
geotechnical engineer. Alternatively,
structures in areas near unstable dikes
shall be designed to withstand lateral
spreading. (See Geology and Soils
Mitigation 2.)
cn
0
.0
Monitoring Timing
Ct
'a'
0 4L)
d 0
a
0 0
t-1 ••-'
u
c:. „,
d ..„1
C u •
...• ...., ..,
4-1 •-•
4 • •-■ 4,
C 0 • ^"`
.E: 2
C,A
(.) 0
ra cl
,-,-, a) cd
0 ,.., ,
-,)
ca
U
..... a. , a
4-1
• •-1
4, 1-1 •^•"• ›••■
,, a "" -• •--
cu >.., ci, > .(3 p4
o ,-,
-, - ."0 o
0 ,-/ 2).• 0 .-; -
, „, ■•._0 C-.)
4
2 0 o' • u- -`4 0
• ,.. u • - ,,, 0 0,,
P-4 C '-' a ,-■ u
P., 0 a, 1-.
cri •-4-■
v .-1 •
41 m ,-. ,-,,
CU 1-' >. '-• 0
rt
u 0
a cL, 0
<„, c:4. •.,
. •-■
". 0 ("J -0 4'
•z,1 • - u 2,-; 1,-.5 .....
. -0 • —
b„ 0 a 0
0 CU ‘. S.1 •...• 01..,
1:2, -,9, ..-' ''-' - U
(3
1.4
4.4
C4
0
....
4.4
0 ••-'
7,71 'L•
t. 0
E17,
" ' '.
° • ,1
. 0. ,,-
t'4 04 ..;
'0'' E
SA -0 • ,...•-•
0 0 u
0 ?•:,.,
o
U
0 .
00
V 4,
`,0 ,d
0 0
.._, 41,)
" E
ki u
,a,.-el,
v,
,..9 .0
u
,...., „ 0
0 ;4 CI
cd
at V
,,
o o-, 44, cd
1.-. 0 cd
o-,-T.; blb 11
CI' >.
a) • •-•
a) •
V .-0 "10 V.,
4-0 0 0 0
4, ■-• '
• •-. u aJ bA
0 1-t-'-• 0 0 0
0 U • •-• • .
• •-■ V V S.
4, 0, 44." 0
• - LI 0 0 a •-.
' cu 0 • t
ci .4 •....,-- ,,.. P
0 U `, • "" 0
o g 'cl,"5 5
I
,
0
,-.
•--4 t CI
an , o
,_., si ..--., • -,
0 U • -
,-4 rd t'l .-- rd °
° 5.-. 4, °
0-I h'
OJ ,01 0 00 "
. -15 . . .% Tu' v, 4, '71
I-. b• ..,V 0..76'
0 cd g.) ,y, E 4::
0 4:14.-0 '-'
.... T'..) • '-' -0
•-■ 4.-- ... ;41 ,..,
• 0 e
•- p4 ;l • •-■ , 0
0 U ...• ti, 0
0 V 0 bd 0 IA
C.) " 9'7
Ageoy Responsible
for Monitoring
...I
1-0-,
os cl
a) d
rd ..0 ti
*r ,9 cg
›, $-■ ca.,
4, 0 0-,
CZ
0
4 ..4
78
0 tf)
0-1 ..
cd 0
-r) a
a) cd
0 P-1 4
gt -1:1 cl
a)
g E
'4-8 .4' Vd
1-+ 0,
4, 0
C5 4
:: Xrnpletrtentattotf
Tttntng
•141
0 0
04 V
bA >
0 •-0
....
4., .„
U
V
›-....10 • •-•
C5 .7.1
V 0
0 0
04 V
, 4.1
.... •-0
....
... • ...
U
V
›.-...31 • -,
•,,..4 „ ,
.
...s
U
V p:1
o
. .) (..
a (Y
-0 _.
V FX4
E ..=.
ad
0
4..■ d
... a
0
0
&.,
a
'10
V
0 ..--..
ad
'•' 0
•-s-. d
' cl.
.. CL■
management practices (BMPs)'for both
construction and post- construction
stormwater runoff consistent with the
City's stormwater management and
discharge control program. This
includes applying the City's standard
stormwater conditions of approval as
applicable to all proposed redevelopment
at the site.
0
a.J
la
a.)
04.60-4t
E-,0
no
0
CI
V
r",t)
■••••(
-
•
."-.
cd 9 2
-0 bi, 0 . .0 ••
o ...§ bn 0 u bn
a a • a ,) Ki" .8 .. :8 .5
4..1 V
— ,, 1-• V '10 ...0 0
.- ,..) ,..., vs al 0 a; r,
.L.• •-• ,...) a.) ., V t
,,, ,o,r pr l. d t..1 . a i
70 ci -8 a, Fi. t . . 9,
_o*"" ....9 '-'0 (..) 1L1 C1"...001 ° 011 0.
1.. vs 0 = " C . . ) "1:7 0
V c..) C.S ..0 t., V • *
. Ei
.0 :0 ,_ 0 -.1,:,,1 a; 0 ,..0 .j., t
-c.1 0-,-. a, „, 4 ...,,, .
m C 0 ' 1 00 t qi , .0 . • -d tl'' '
OA '''' U ct "---• al ...0 - •-• • ....
. s.
• -. ... .0 t.), 4) ,...,, ..0 o
t.: •-• .-. ,..., o ,-,
" .1-1 . 0 ° P-4 .-0 -V.
LI .7; o 0 .4,, F.,,t) fl fl o o
C:).-,-, ta, L, E—• ..) -il - ..) u m
"0-d
a
rd
•-•
1:4
•-L-42
I- I
• •
0
vs
co <0 ou > 7:1 ,_,•
V 0 <0
$-■ .8 0 o . 1,4 ;14 ao
bA m 0 . vs . 0 0 . ,,, '10 4.,
0..0 •-° 8 4 ,,, -..1 0 .,- g .,.-
g ,-. ,1_,.,3 z,4 El .- 0, 0 .' 0.. ,,, .... w
a.—, e-i • 00 to v) ..0 .4 .4
' " cct 0 I., .-1:1 41) V ° ''' d 4,
0 ,... , •Ti , y, ca... .C11 VI
• u 0 ° 0 ,•1-1u
_,.jci
- ct . v
...., • .) 0 al
• „9 —, — s. . o .„..,
.--i 4, T l ..., ••-....,0 * „0 us ,a) • -I .4 0 „
.-...-CI '--.10V 4-' i ,,tr-.1-' 41.) qr ..04.) .-P•-• -0 . 705 0 cu
ctl cd 01 .0 En P• bA sn " U.'
. 0
r.,, ,.., VA-Al ,..... --a 8 -.- cl j -s4 - . -,=1
, . 0 ,_, ,,,i•- 0. ,...0 . 4,
. . . . .0 ''''tt . . , • 0' 4 , C 0 " C1,4 0 LI " .k
1... .-0 .7;) 0 0 1. ci 2 po. V r 0 ,0
0 <0 v, -.- ,-,°) ' 2 o 'u v -iJ '
,t z4. .4- 04 4-> u ..... o . 4,
• ,.4.' • ...8 Al ct 4-+ • -. U .0-4.
0+-18 1'' :-8 '
0 > .J1 g CI
s.., 0 0, 0 ,d -10 eu v
0.., 4, ,., ., u 0.., ct s.
ring and Reporting
Mitigation Mon
Action, by Monitor Monitoring Timing
Condition the approval of Prior to approval of each
each specific development specific development
project. project.
Condition the approval of Prior to approval of each
each specific development specific development
project for proposed project.
maritime light industrial use
in the Marina planning area.
Add to existing City Ongoing
industrial inspection
program.
—
Condition the approval of Prior to approval of each
each specific development specific development
project that includes a project.
marina.
Add to existing City public Ongoing
education program.
:....,t,p.::
..-
0 ca
City of Alameda Public
Works and Planning
Departments
City of Alameda Public
Works and Planning
Departments
iitu:::::::::
.:4-k,....,..,,,...
City permitting process for
each specific development
project.
City permitting process for
each specific development
project.
City permitting process for
each specific development
project.
v.,..::
o
,
• - - - —
(5'
4
"0
V k
VI
o =4")
.r .,•s, _....,(4
City of Alameda, Project
Applicant(s) for proposed
light industrial projects
City of Alameda, Project
Applicant(s) for proposed
marina projects
............
- -.......
. . ........
---.......•
.... .......
. . ......
--" • - -
. .. ......
.... .......
. .. ......
...1
• :.:;'' .• 'Alf)
,-.....,■.:
''.
I management conditions of approval for
redeveloping the site shall include
requirements for a spill control and
countermeasure plan to mitigate the
potential impacts of construction- related
and industrial and commercial spills on
water quality. The plan shall address
vehicle fueling, storage, and handling of
quantities of fuels, lubricants, solvents,
paints, and other materials as
appropriate.
proposed maritime light industry use
areas in the Marina planning area shall be
directed to structural (e.g., oil and grease
traps and sand filters) and nonstructural
(e.g., grassy swales) stormwater
containment control facilities, as
determined to be appropriate by the City
of Alameda's'stormwater management
staff and in compliance with adopted
BMPs. Runoff from maritime and
equipment maintenance operations that
may generate substantial pollutant loads
shall be directed to contained areas where
spills can be controlled prior to entering
receiving waters.
BMPs and structural controls shall
include adequate budget and conditions
to assure development and
implementation of specific monitoring,
maintenance,' and inspection programs.
include structural controls and BMPs. In
addition, signs, pamphlets, and other
public education and outreach activities
advising users to eliminate any discharges
of pollutants to receiving waters shall be
provided by marina operators to
private /recreation boat owners /users at
the marina.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing
Conduct 100 -year flood map Prior to first final or parcel
study and submit to COE for map approval allowing new
certification. development.
Condition the approval of Prior to approval of each
each specific development specific development
project in FEMA 100 -year project.
floodplain or below 10 feet
(3M) MSL, whichever is best
suited.
Regularly inspect seawalls Ongoing
and other waterfront
development areas to ensure
adequacy of seawall integrity.
Develop a funding Prior to first land sale
mechanism such as an involving seawall area.
assessment district for
maintenance.
Condition the approval of Prior to approval of each
each specific development specific development
project. project.
Condition the approval of Prior to approval of each
each specific development specific development
project. project.
q4 :
5 G
an ®
0�
� c
q
t
\4
§a/ ..
/ e ?
0--
•
w03
\ \/
City of Alameda Public
Works Department
/
. .
\
3
g±
o
( 2
k / §
0 t
/�v
.(3
City of Alameda Planning
and Public Works
Departments and Building
Division
City of Alameda, Project City permitting process for
Applicant(s) 1 each specific development
project.
City of Alameda Ongoing, until property
sold to third parties.
City of Alameda, Project City permitting process for
Applicant(s) leach specific development
project.
•
City of Alameda, Project ! City permitting process for
Applicant(s) each specific development
project.
�e«
� $
��:
Mitigation Measure ,
Mitigation 2a: Map all 100 -year
floodplains on the site by FEMA as part
of the FIRM process. Protect any new
development at sites below 10 feet (3m)
MSL from flooding by raising base level
of the site to a minimum of 10 feet (3m)
MSL. This elevation be revised, as
appropriate, based on the revised
estimates of sea level rise and based on
expected rates of surface subsidence.
Include provisions in the project for
ongoing regular maintenance of new and
existing levees. (See Geology and Soils
Mitigation 5).
the property should be regularly
inspected and maintained by the City to
assure their continued integrity.
Any development along the site's
waterfront areas shall include an
adequate setback to allow for future
enlargement of the seawall to protect the
area in the event of a substantial rise in
sea level. Rights -of -way for levees
protecting inland areas from tidal
flooding shall be sufficiently wide on the
upland side to allow for future levee
widening to support additional height so
that no fill for levee widening is placed in
the Bay.
shall comply fully with the City's
General Plan policy 8.3b which stipulates
that all new development for sites locate.
in floodplains should be provided
adequate protection from floods.
C
0
O
Mitigation Monitoring an
Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing
All dredging will require a Prior to conducting any
COE permit, which dredging operations.
permitting process will
include consultation with the
RWQCB.
All dredging will require a Prior to conducting any
COE permit, which dredging operations.
permitting process will
include consultation with the
RWQCB.
w
a
75
U
a q
g Vd
v
City of Alameda Public
Works Department
-
..
M o
ca ,
G
0 en
4.
O to
a U
Prior to proceeding to
conduct any dredging.
O
O t
O q
UO
4''W
ii
o d
c.)
Uda+
City of Alameda, Project
Applicant(s), COE
0
L
E
wU
_4'
Mitigation 3a: Limit the depths and
areas of dredging in the Seaplane Lagoon
to minimize disturbance of contaminated
sediments. All materials proposed for
excavation and dredging shall be tested
for heavy metals, hydrocarbons, PCBs,
tributyltin, and pesticides, as well as any,
other contaminants of concern to the
RWQCB prior to dredging. Careful
delineation and segregation of the
contaminated material prior to, during,
and after dredging would minimise the
volume of contaminated sediments
generated and the dispersion of potential
contaminants into the water column.'
Mitigation 3b: Use clamshell dredge or
other appropriate dredging method that
minimizes the disturbance of
surrounding sediments and release of
contaminants into the water column.
be disposed of at approved sites in
compliance with State and Federal
regulations. All dredge materials shall be
tested prior to disposal, and any
contaminated sediments shall be disposed
of in approved upland facilities. All
sediment disposal programs and methods
shall comply with applicable BCDC/
COE /USEPA /RWQCB Long Term
Management Strategy sediment disposal
priorities, which favor reusing sediments
as feasible for construction fill, habitat
enhancement projects, and similar
environmentally beneficial disposal
strategies over bay and ocean disposal.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
OA
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
;w>
U
4)
Q3 �
0 aq,
a
0
0 0
a°'
0 U ,.;
N
U
•� 0 O
a °"a
U ,N, N N 6U5
< O -, 4) •o a� q O q
U Q. v aJ q 2 w: iy '1 a FL. •� 73
id 8 ri v .F.0 a u> .a O> h) N a6' ,, 4) °'
q° CU 0= a,,oa,goa•:,0o > 0na
�cV ao y.
44 0 1-4 o �� b . a °7° � g q
-dE . "o' ?; o0oo u. • w a g ' °g8
8 - w u q � mti o 0 0 • ' N ' v o v w N a 4• •
N
•� v.. Ln> u... v 0 U a, . . a.., y q
O s. U � a , .q • ; 0N p Y,.p O • 00 -d a y •., 0 ai
U
N4A V• I-4 B <..., �54„0 a,. 6,•5 0 ,'-4.-F.1.1
See Traffic and Circulation Mitigation la above.
.i .Sj •O
it 41 0-
0
0 04
.5 aEl.
.o 00
0 L.5 El
taz
o� w"
a o�1:1�
o
b m v
-0 �oa
0 ••O 0 ^0
tdi
77y
0 bA
g 0 ' a
oQ
U «S U 0 N ,j � 0
a an" " v
o
sy
o t; -0 0
-n -4 -0
a�a5 zt-
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
•ii;
0
•
•
0
ti
6
1
v
"
O rb
id G
O 0
O, v
0, ,,
Ob bA
u • U a' 0 •
•° ▪ • 0 a
a°a, 0
0
0
0
0
o • 5
•
•
d v
U
v+'
p �'o ° W
cn a q eh' A
•° a° i. U
4.4 41) 0�
o 0 0 c' � Y
• a0 C.21 V)
• ,• "°•O0 0 oCn
tl•V rd
� Q N N "f 442 � "cl 0 0 ■-1
CZ4 R D 0
�- bd°�'w"
bA
0
0
0
cn
^0
cd q
E
'0 .70
cad
Ua3A
L9.aA N
N V �t
y 1. 4" ti .F 0° a 0°' a,H q bn a aa� a°°wU0 V, .° a N.�..a ,a) d u E a a. a u bn. • o s a,
,c,:,,, O . v ..0 pp 0 a , . N
wa N ''•ti bAcd 6oA1:o d
,, 00 td 41 4r Q,, td .:-i -, . N.. v. v. bp,
fihtill U N Col 11Hh1
Uvi �
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
°'
a`'v
0 131
0.013 b1)
•
t a 2 a) b H
0 R. a) ° 4) ca 11 L 'y OA b .2
(•,(•,.0 • b a ° °,b 'ti ° H u � o Cl. 'A -o F CI
O111 fA OA O ca -2 01 19 '71 Cr) • "a y ° a ° 11
—0._, a al OA g H 0 y ti
.Y o y
H cu
ate° a a a a� n o v a :� H� -2:�
D •-, ) p p 0° .q a0., ° v O.
,� a
0
C) v/14 > N `w'H a'aE -a o-a 3 o
•
0
-o a " a
'4
. w U
v, °
El
4) u .° tf 6.0-0 a H si o , -y 4- N
aa � �H a � o ff o. >o�n
4,3 .te
c, 1.0 � 1 a� a :v y . � -0 o -
N v d) • .-4-I � 1 CI ttl ° O OA t, �+ bA • C � g aNa��' aq'o'v •
q
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
0
q
0
CIA
0
City of Alameda
0
0
o
cQi
•
q 5 s
CIS
0
• css 4:14-, c °
�
H
O .a q o
a.15
4-> El U
4.J 0sue.
v .2• °m
1 H 0
0
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
•0
biJ
0 0
o o,
i"
Q
• Q.)
.2 y
a aw
N
IX)
CL) 0 .X1 U . -u 61)17,1 a ° L`/' a b. A
g. a °• � B
O
•0 0 ct '" U.�,- Z
C:4 a v > a0 o .tt ° w O a� q s r9 � Tj
,.o21.o .O .opnO O „ N „ n t • _aaal v o” O. '' w a„ " g O v vo ,
� 0 . a 11 @ v
h ¢ ca -cs -d 4 a„4 V 0 .0 0 u a.) • O O .,2 N 0 a m N v ,cl 1 <17 > ,
•Li cn a O O a u ,,,-lzi - v-U O cy a� .0-4 y � p p,
m u 4, a O a v O -, —- 0 u bn 0 C sy .s w. . ,
.+
= a Z p'b 2 O .- O a s ° u ' o a ,, "a O y 0 • a.a „ " u + c1 0 ou p a y 002 .r..1 6
a a ” u .5 a O , a a'4, a y o •5 cs
, N ..a te a c.a „, ' g a0
2-y o 4, s a
• �. u u " a '5 O y, O 0 0 0 a,' O -E H • u A' 8 E v v a a � H” a o
"d - q a a.a y a p ". v '' .'�v, . 5 u t R,�a . - c 4- g .-0 ^U Z u u a 6-51 u u en u d ce N u , a, 4-
d a
a OA' H . Q, F, ' 'v' • �• y aa " 0 �+ 47, a1 u .0 N O a v ca 0 0. o ..- . � y ba u 0 ...0 > ', U ��..
ie.,
O ', '5 v 0. -0 .0 a q .o a o o -a 0 0 0 0 N `' H n o 0 0 H ' b s ao'4
> ., 0 0 -0 0 .. 0,� v 0 c ,-, -' .a O .a +.' 4 ca O o a o a
aoN .aB5a:- aaBo- t, .58 V858at a -8-8°..0.5f' -8u
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
a' a ',--1
,- ,L, ,... ,.. •-. /) Q
0 E 0 E 0 E -,
•, a 7, a
> o
0,
1, > ,4 ,,,. 0 Q.
0. t
as • .-■
0 ' ,-., •
t-J 0 , 0
0 ,.,'-' ' 0 ° • 2 ..-
1-• 0..3 ,.■ q) ,..1 <1.) , 0
0 .-C • '-'. 0 -0 • ,-,-^ 0 ...1 . •-• 0 • -+
o., C 1 L ■ p . . ,• , . ,..- ■ cd 0 . . 2 .i: 1,, , k,
i.
0
0
0
0
Ei
00
<4 a
0
o
o
0
id I:44.
,.d E 0
u)a .4 v .....
4.0 la.,
›.. V ,.>"` . 9. 4-' ,..0 ---,, tift ./C9 I
...0 '.' 0 a-, " ›,,, • T.),
CI 0 ‘ns„. 0 dat 4., , V, . 4,1 <4 V.,(3 13
V 4, -s-• r, iiii El 4.1 ...0 -o = ,.., •-.
,-roorl..100 4,0
40 - :1 -•• ; a-1 b
0 0
. te, . = ,-, IN,
d•1 • 3.3 0 i" 4-) id ti r:•,,' 034 cd 3-I-3 4-3' ° ...„, 0 4-3 .1)
4.4 „Ca
,._, ,.._, .,.-, ; 0 Q.) Y. ■••4 z.,. a 0 - ri ›.
0 ,.., ..ta
,-. b
--,„ 0 17. 0 . • ."" u, , "-....... ,...,C1 4.) .... (..) ''' .-0
a) M d.) px ''', 1 , • T 0 se, '74 m
c", o ›, ..a -4f- a • v 'lc
c v t. '' :"4"i4 1-4) "le ›, a _0 .-, . -4 Z > $-■ = a
OD . _ .s VI (0) 0 U• 0 0 • Sl
• Y-...-0 -1,.) .-'
Y., Qd 0 ••• Q.. ,4
1 c. , " •, 0 • o 8 0 -,....1 4 t.f, a,
:1_, )
4-1 -cl 4u a '47; 4-, —....• x
U -41... ..4 2 o
0
0
0.1
o 0
sm
toring and Reporting Plan
0
0
0)
E
on
0
0'.
Please refer to Traffic and Circulation Mitigations 1(e) and 1(f) above.
C
N
C
C
C
v H N
b ' °aaon b � � 4
- 0 o O t o.ni, at. 4,. • ,„„.. O Li ° o"n OA t ..D o aai ^v
' o b n a ` „ y a •
b° d 0 7„
wEn n a ! � a ` .c:s . : 4 ! . , • .Ez,1 : �n -.-0N . , Y 4) cu ° u a Y N U U .:12.,:
•
= a = t = PI u '' 'W a H a d _a ' Q 0 < 8 L a -0 , < Ei y 44 b ' Is o 0 2 (n . Y v
4.
° O a
H U • 4' H a .r
�a o A v
NO 1.-
b � ua o
y N
Lyb i-
0 ' 0
N'y ..o a d p, h � 6
td 44 W a M
-9 y o.h°'°a oa°
N .
• ,+ U
• • • 0
•
XI
aV H1
0
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
V
v
-0
0u
a
Ud
v
.- V V 4.8 . ..,
O td �• O y0'C.N.00' vi cd 0 0
u cL'Oq 9Iao40o'
t . v'U 0 U a-b rr., v v "� p
c7 q a, E 5 v p
H NO ." • O q-0 010 tVa •- v N
0 `b .Y, v• fd O to i.i 0 bC-0 v v H
.. r -0. .� t-_,3 . 1 0 aU 0
O g ..b a O cd a, O• d .O
4 4) td 5 a 0 spin y� J -a U
•� V b y V 5 bA .4 .V,
- 0o'av" .4v,,,4, 0a4, •.. i, v "d ,,, .v v •� u 0 0 U a cn
v ti q •O H
..aa wP Os./ t..)
ivy O -Fs' v V ycy v
�o��'Loo. �a.5 a ' • a v ..0 td b.,0 y, O cn WI' O v
.c: V .b OA H N H t� M OU e
�b v,.4 o'- 2 a v , u,
0 0 '-0 ,. E v, v .= ' 8 a 0
Q+. a b dA 0 - .4.
c'3 "UO R7 p'' CA
> 0 ta"C tl.b H E^b�.�.-
y. 3w Q N.y a yy V N�.
0 51. oao ouo0 • 0 LI 'b ..d t: T -0 cd -0 `_
¢ah�.�a2.E aEr
N
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
bA
•
0
44
0
G
1
4.4
0
w o
Ca
L+ „
o••a
✓ N
c"a -
Ca
° e
o
0 .o
a a 4-,
City of Alameda, US Navy
N
4 o 4 b45 bA U bA
Nz o " o U o b , y :o .4 A
,o
o „ o c B Ca4 Vi "Q,v ° N Cb -da
N �a °paaow c..0-s,5a- 51 bA'%:�•5gbt •0 vH
o
N v m ti • " ,AOw4qi. El 0' 0' nci4,
a . ) b 4
o teOV' ° - ° q •a : a) . , : d° I �.8 4 o . 0 w ..... ^C
v v co 0 N
V3 , O " N •" ca vH a bA "6:-.1.0:1... a .° :• , .d a i
� ° "� - " O • • Z a N TS " an N b y
0 '. ..
•
• H aN • 4 ' "'.a > "7 s C 7 I+ Oy W cd . N b 4 1 0 � z ,a O 0 • N 4-,,,, cct
y q _ pV, • � 73 cn . y 0 O b�A U .o y 4 o q
o O -v (.9 W °. 0 8 N.. -d 4 o °:v 8 4a-4 ,.4 0 8 E ti . '
a .N
p, •
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing
:A::.' yam.:;
o
1.9!Ai
Mitigation Measure
0
4. u "CS ,
cn
b.0 O a N
° t> -� ° 0 .,:, 4, a 41 b ` 4+ h E -a .".r 0 b N_ „ ^ t v V 1-1 a N di El . y N L■ • b /\fi o � oO U a v td a V o � • . x cv; a".yaO U.N a oyy^, ,u , id Obp4, a•� to O CI ;1' )
O Oa u O O . d b u . bN A U
'n v �. •4.1 d N cd 0 q c U = n H "4.:T U ..a d v o 3N, .- a 0 " 4U o r/j
v •� a N a y Q a QA tV . bp LO OA ' .. A y '
v • -bN a r1 ".0 � cd .a° ✓ 0 ry f4
v a, • . f t..4 I. H , . ,, u ... - a . %. G • •n Y cd g V . .11 ���• v0 4,4 -. °�. w ,�u.2 • "1i2aa)a011 0...uN0 cd•v au
a Qa°cr.; ' U ° b N . a o 0 H a i N o Y s, .,L . ~ . a ,.O N .b Q I.
v ta 0, „v .2 a 0 ya N . d V O a G U. 'W U• /-o^' v a y ^b h QI. .
U a O M 4 ki. U =i•-q v ."q H • Va a O M P.1 V d :.
U 0 " 0 .tn w v. I. cd 0.a•O tiO v El o O . i N v •
i /N � al .--7) . 'Qy... QI O al •i. a `� Q ..-cn O A " y4 CU a ..- o bA °' , v . 4.+ :+ H o .cn
-0 0 q d° a •� g o -b " v ataa O "v g Ts i •� H . 49 -c •H b V U a a vad05
O°v n u a�� v a .y ti v ` u ° ° td
cd CU V j.--. '4 aU N u .: s • O bn a 0 a� bp m 0
o N CI v �0� 0-. V u . � '' 0 a az H u u 0 v v • H. " ° a°' " q a
G a ai 0 ' .L t "c V td .-i n u E0 H , 0 ,••• ' a .Z U •_• N � 4� o a'. . . ■
a °g�N • C a .° g °vo� oa wa.,en � V ooro ; 1-'z .sa ■
• .• �u gg cd 0 a 0 u u � 0 u S. C4 4, u 4'°s' p y 0 H W ° tto�.1 V a 0 a �_ vas
VV`0.a ct a a. W td r U td y-0 y w .9 °I. , q O d .a � a 0.n
• .
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
^0
" b° q -a a y v 'L7 w ° q teo �° u o o • y.,
o •
+, a X^' �•a ,b
y y . ki -4; v)
•Qi j ) a o . . . „�., , " S • N au • ,t b�,,, •I y �
cy0 t� 'o-1
Up
Z �0 -«a a 71 0 5 v v > t .� N a' u y C Y
ccd i
.ty v b c u
G • ' q U H .0 d a N "
g U (/! N y. y G Q a cd a N F.1 "0 y ', ti a s .a
p O N a a «_v, 2 .a ti a y a ,
'El, A N y < L a � VII y N < O ?. L) td 4 8 td U d
.a) i w a cu
4., B N O •5 o Np d y p • O a y
ct au «, .4, oai O'U(U 4) m � N � \ "d y
Cn y W w
CI a.) U a y Ud : y C bn n 8 . ay -C
`,2 .2 H v a '�`4�^P al o G U i-O N L > 4 E yp�
N . 1,4) b 'b a bA 1 ., li .� a u " .N -'v b4")
N a'y ..C1'-' N O � y yy a y .b "tai El c"'I bn ,� 0 . , ... ` C CI
a � n '�' O in . . b . D u O 0
Oz , y y,t y y ue .� - o a •0 P n' 1+ � ` y
o a, Z 8 v. Z . O ¢ 1 a .a d a 4 s,. `H °' N 01 0 .0 ° �'.� ca Z a, d
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
4
bn
•E • ti a a
b °b N
U
U O o
v.
•
$: a Cl.
•.3:1 a -a 0 G O
t 0 2
0 -0 4
a. a cV >
fl
0
q 0 o 0 •^. q •
•
q' .
o q _0 • ^,-i :C ca t.
0
0 0 a4 i. by 1y CL
v a C{{ • bn . ° -C = • a a� - °y ..a v am a �• a/ ° �q y s N y. n ° .. w0 O E O p . 1O .7 1.. a N H .N1 .. v . N N .� L. N .p a 4 • .., b. . V, ( - `aU yy �.� U N y ,L .6j) bLct
o
^q "d y b o ° ^ d
w • - . v. ea O ri O
° Qa . rd q o N a
ai O I� •-c) ,, , ti - a as
'" a w O ° b • ; °'3'3 v
� . N ^ ^a �o a v .0 A i bA � �°• � N O q � 'p '�. Y
a . 11 sf g • y O • 0 1-. 8 • V - "
N 5 ., ca 5
av 0, , �aa �� • o-2, '0 �, • O a 0 �.-d w.prA
a O N � a. O a 1, N. v 2,-40 O N ^ty •b . w.+ 0• N • O N a O 'p++ y • -r1 w. o• 14g p u a d q y q w a ca 8 .0 ••p 1. N v .� � N. .. ai 'bn ° ° ° ° bn o N ou a . a O a CI 00 0 a 5 H o N . •v ' y ax � a .4, .5 � -a 10-.c1 .y o o v 5 o 0 v N v ..b q y -e °.:qb 0..q V 0 ., 4 c. a 0 a a a a� '''i. a a
bA a. • o b on b b v d U a oo y a o o , ) o a o
o . bn 5 a. 0 a-0 o 0 ••- , a ° N ." 0 u--,� N ( v • m• U o o,q ° o x o n0 q -.G . ' 0 aN i ,0 O N0-O v v b q 4 ,, N = V 6- - bc 0 0
O 'in O 1 .', O 6. a, s7 °a. 0 'U O . «t c> 11 0 y a•+ n 1. 0 E O a
= 0 a - 1 U bo •-• ...4 •.• 6.0 y E - ! 2 : a v ti Q a - , 5 , 1 ` , . . 4 , 2 bA O -q w 0
.q 0 a, H -';'$ °�'
o °U '
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
•
:CU
a c ° q N = cd y N V q bA q
V • N q R, •Z ^q .14 :'n �V V y o Q t; Q q vi L TH u O vi y •O N `: by .0
�• �U H o ° a a .. ..u2,0 �y
o
a
s.000 -v O O • ..+ cv Q .. H • 0 b . w -8 N -o N q ,n =
at e, • a `" n a . Q',� 5- U w by 0 c° P,„ a .-.. .Q.8 • 0 . o c, o p b�0•l �, p ='osy �.
a°a.�-°
'. q - °ob.° ,�
.0O ip -O gp _o ^.+ v „" . ,, , q u ."pt. . a+ . . a, , o v .d :4, y 0, „) .� D bn o.. $ a, � v ° � .5 v E
,oN ci ,.,'0 . 0:1 , $c-+ y H v c9.� � ,a,
v
�y ' ow . p. ,� Gc�a -cl ib.0 a a+0. ""O-.'G
a >. O. E z 4 v N 0 . 0 O. O 2 L, 1, -o t a; 0 o” N .' v. O
60 ...• .4 id '+
•� � :'t' : C) ...N ^c� bA v to .) 4.) n .fl :. 2 .' �
- g `� � � � `° y y.4'
o • ��U- b ca o U c d a y 4 °.
a 0
a 04, a
Mitigation Monitoring ana Keporting Plan
Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing
Amend General Plan to Review deed restrictions
provide for tracking of deed and other institutional
restrictions and other controls applicable to each
institutional controls, property at time of sale or
enforce City ordinances, e.g., lease to third parties and
Ordinance No. 2824 during review of
regarding excavation into the development applications.
marsh crust /subtidal zone),
as appropriate.
for Monitoring
City of Alameda Planning
Department
General Plan amendments
and implementing
ordinances for reuse project.
i�arty �esp�nsib�e �qr
City of Alameda
Mitigation Measure':
rzt 4-I
"Ci ob a ,v. .°i.8 a a . ao v
c b O U N? ig 0 U VI Qi bA "C7 Cy„
.� u ." a bA
, bf) a v) '.i, bA 0 : u O . -b: b, .� 0 p 0
da.5.9. 8'Eom 4!t .�.�3
".0 b0-+ M -aJ • "'a37
a R b• (� 2. ¢: a.:u q . D, a . � 0 o
4! N
-0 5 pi :� ti "F., N y d yQ .2 ..a •a �". O
v u a ,, „., U .� 0 bz p o„ p ,.av .d
Q 88() °,-2 �w ow-2 . o w..a.E 3
protect future site users and occupants
from unacceptable exposures to
contaminants of concern may, be
required. Such restrictive measures could
include the following:
• Deed restrictions or other institutiona
controls that restrict uses that are
inconsistent with land use exposure
assumptions.
igation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Action by Monitor Monitoring Timing
Ageney Responsible
;for Monitori g.
Party Responsible; for
I nplementatiori:::::.:::.:
Mitigation Measure
W
y ° •v y v
o . S � .5
• 5 _ - a- t, u 0 V � •� 9
y P.( r v � a✓ 1-i CI, g i S. 0 .r i
� • • 9 iv 0 V ° .. N QV a N v . > a N y
:� ° i o ff a -o . y-° v 0 a ' o v
o :1 a •" u v " cy v 0 aJ am H, a vi a. 9 'O w H v
CI
° cco v v w °'U + >zy.. v•u v v bA, 0� ' vo . bA Qv
0 .-a N
u4 v> to') b U rn a ° B ..o o v 0 0a 4-4 ..Cf "ba H a � V., ....9
1.4 0.) O bq- 004al�y a i
pp V .0 V v
' ° _ a i� V4 d• o,.0 ..q . � •~ _a qv H
a v N a° v •Es 6 a v to v >.t Lv J y ..c . a
v y
b bA v L v a o .0 cv v O c v a a
0 v at • v q 0. y bb1-0 O R 9 O o O •:0
v q " U . m O q 'v 0 P, . , v a pi a+
pil
Q. u" O v C • i q d a tt ad " O 0 v u «V t O
y •a bA o u -Li , v a+ �a�' O o - v .q a � om o t,6 cd a. B
U O v v v t. �to , O ...t 4-, - 9 u to • •
b ti ' o ff o -v o. ° Y o V a' ° 0 a 4 -d w
. v• V o a� S. ° c • • v
� j „I 1 o aN v0 .• y a q O v' v N s q O
O N q ti tC 1-i `" q q a L. a v . 0 a •
ws&B�a• a.z,v ..,0,ttvata, touti° U°O.
.
o
� �-d •b c v
(.
. a
V 2
y v
v ' O
o O
., �J ry
� •- .-
" �?;• ti p.
u O ,V
J v ° a a
Lt QUl ° ° •N
N v --1 H tn a c6 �
61 • ,0
0tn v 0 H p q
O � • v q •' 0 v
O ••-1•■ q o •.0 a> t1. •O
to O o v C4 o o it, to .O . C
s
N a .q O ...
'8 ° V) a `a w a N p
� N L -0 Q E° a � N[.,
, po v
!,) d ,9, m + a W V
• ,
C: \WPDOCS \DATA \M
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting P
b�oy.y
1Y
Ct
o
Cy
V
p o
a -0 CI
bA-0
✓ O
ccl y 4.1
O b.°.a v
LA 5 N N
U
I-4
o
• ., o
PA ta,
City of Alameda
O OO O 0 bA 0
v td
p uO u O y
d • O OA
• ...4 V ":"-c' o p
. o v U o vi
v
O
- .t d a
a O ' 0
.0 s at b 0 2 v
m -0 ao '0 . 5 v ai- v
Cr al � b 0W V . bA. o N ,
t.. U a › Oy o o fl,
H .4 bv`
O O v H ...
vi w o y y C
° cd 0 '
d � .O u p"
f• V N v (I U
v ct a-a
0'' 0O VU .Q
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 6th day of June , 2000, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson; Kerr and
Mayor Appezzato - 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City
this 7th day of June , 2000.
ane Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda