Resolution 13283CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13,2 8 3
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING
FINDINGS CONCERNING MITIGATION MEASURES, ADOPTING A MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING
ALTERNATIVES AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY ACT FOR THE SHIPWAYS OFFICE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE #2000022074)
WHEREAS, an application was made on March 24, 2000 by Alameda Real Estate
Investments, requesting approval of General Plan and, Housing Element Amendment, GPA- 99 -09,
Master Plan Amendment, MPA- 99 -04, Development Plan, PD- 99 -03, and Design Review, DR -99-
121, to permit the construction of a four -story, 143,000 square foot office building, provide 1.36
acres of public open space and shoreline access, 702 parking spaces and other landscaping
improvements, and retain the existing Shipway office buildings which contain 55, 600 square feet
of office use, on the 12.3 -acre area encompassing Parcel B of the Marina Village Master Plan
(MVMP); and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on May 5, 2000; and
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the Marina Village Office Development on February 17, 2000; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (June 2000) was circulated for public
comment between June 30, 2000 and August 14, 2000; and written and oral comments were
received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing to accept comments on the Draft EIR
on July 17, 2000; and
WHEREAS, written responses were prepared addressing all significant environmental issues
raised by commentors during the public review period and published as the Final EIR (September
2000), incorporated by reference into this document; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, consisting of the Draft EIR and the Final EIR, was made
available to the public on September 22, 2000 for a fifteen -day public review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this Final Environmental Impact
Report on October 10, 2000, examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony and
written comments received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board recommended that the City Council certify the Final
Environmental Impact Report and make Findings Concerning Mitigation Measures, Adopt a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, make Findings Regarding Alternatives and adopt
a Statement of Overriding Considerations in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act for the Shipways Office Development Project; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this Final Environmental` Impact
Report on October 17, 2000, examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony and
written comments received; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings:
1. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been independently reviewed and considered
by the City Council.
2. The Final Environmental Impact Report reflects the independent judgment of the City of
Alameda and has been circulated for public review.
3. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, and all applicable state and local guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council certifies the Final
Environmental Impact Report for Shipways Office Development Project.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Findings of Fact
Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Shipway Office
Development Project (Attachment A), the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives (Attachment
B), the Mitigation and Monitoring Program (Attachment C), and the Statement of Overriding,
Considerations (Attachment D), all of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE SHIPWAYS OFFICE
PROJECT
ATTACHMENT A
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Alameda Real Estate Associates, has proposed
to develop the Alameda Shipways structure with the following features:
® A new four - story office building containing an estimated 143,000 gross square feet
of floor area, generally in a T- shaped form centered on the welding slab, and
extending east and west over portions of Shipways 2 and 3, and northwards towards
the Estuary, on the welding slab;
• Continued use of the existing Shipway offices, which contain an estimated 56,500
gross square feet, and preservation and enhancement of the `existing public open
space located towards Marina Village Parkway between each Shipway;
® A total of 702 parking spaces to serve both the existing Shipway offices and the new
office building, as well as parking requirements for public shoreline access and the
Pier 11 marina west of the Shipways, to be located on the Shipway decks, on a large
portion of the welding slab, and on the supplemental lots located near Marina Village
Parkway;
® Construction of concrete slab platforms on two of the former craneways, between
Shipways 1 and 2, and between Shipways 3 and 4, to join each pair of decks as a
combined surface for parking;
Improvements to the 2.36 -acre City -owned property to provide public open space
and shoreline access, with new seating, paving, landscaping, and a pedestrian and
bicycle path connecting to existing pathways on both the east and west of the site;
Construction of new bulkheads across Shipways 2 and 3, about 30 feet inward from
the outermost edge of the craneways, behind which fill would be added to create two
plazas on each side of the northern wing of the office building, containing large paved
areas and stepped landscape planters, covering a combined area of 16,735 square feet;
and
Construction of two steel towers at the northern end of two craneways (at the
northeast and northwest corners), approximately 30 feet in height, intended to partly
replicate the historic ship- building cranes used when the site was part of the
Bethlehem Steel Shipyards, each of which would contain plaza -level displays on the
history of the Shipways, and potentially, topped by an unspecified commissioned art
piece.
The office project is intended to meet the continuing demand for Class A office space in the Marina
Village area. The roughly 4 -acre office building site represents the only remaining undeveloped
portion of the Marina Village Master Plan. The Project is more fully' defined in the Draft
Environmental Impact Report ("DER") prepared for the Project.
G:\SPECPROJ \SHIP WAYS \FINDINGS. WPD
1.1.9 THE FINAL EIR: The Final Environmental Impact Report ( "Final EIR ") consists
of the Draft EIR, and the Responses to Comments.
1.1.10 THE RECORD: The following information is incorporated by reference and made
part of the record (Record ") supporting these findings:
a. The Draft EIR, and Responses to Comments and all documents relied upon
or incorporated by reference.
b. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
c. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or
delivered to the City of Alameda in connection with the Planning Board
public hearing of July 17, 2000 on the Draft EIR.
All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or
delivered to the City of Alameda in connection with the Planning Board
hearing associated with the certification of the Final EIR.
All staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of public meetings
and their documents relied upon or prepared by City staff or consultants
relating to the Project.
These findings: and Statement of Overriding, Considerations adopted in
connection with the Project.
II FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS
The Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") for the Shipway Office Development Project,
prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, evaluates the potentially
significant and significant adverse environmental impacts which could result from construction of
the Project. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations ( "CEQA Guidelines ") Section 15091, the
City is required to make certain findings with respect to these impacts. The required `findings appear
in the following sections of this document. These Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental
Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Shipways Office Development Project ( "Findings ") list all
identified potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project, as well as mitigation measures
for those impacts where possible. All mitigation measures will be enforced.through the Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Plan ( "MMRP "), as incorporated as a condition of approval. Impacts that
cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City of Alameda ( "City ") nevertheless fords
acceptable based on a determination that the benefits of the Project (listed in these Findings and in
the Statement of Overriding Considerations) outweigh ` the risks of the potential significant
environmental effects of the Project
SIGNIFICANT` OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE
AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091,
15092, and 15093, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated
G:\SPECPROJ\SHIPWAYS\FINDINGS.WPD
2
into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts listed
below, as identified in the FEIR.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record or proceedings before the City as
stated below. Each significant impact which can be reduced to a less than significant level is
discussed below, and the appropriate mitigation measure stated, and adopted for implementation by
approval of these Findings of Fact. Additional factual information supporting these Findings of Fact
is set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
1. TRAFFIC
1.1 PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.
Significant Effect. The traffic study estimated that the Project could generate 20 to 30
pedestrian trips in the Shipways area, by commuters (both walkers and transit users), shoppers
and recreational users of the shoreline walkway, and could result in increased pedestrian travel
across Marina Village Parkway at the main Project entry, where there currently are no
pedestrian crosswalks.
Mitigation. A requirement for Marina Village Parkway Crosswalks, consisting of new painted
crosswalks across Marina Village Parkway at the main Project driveway, completed to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director and adequate painted crosswalks within the Shipway
parking areas, would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced
to a less than significant level. The proposed mitigation measure would provide new
crosswalks and would mitigate any potential impact from increased pedestrian activity crossing
Marina Village Parkway.
2. NOISE
2.1. CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Significant Effect. Development of the proposed Project would result in short-term, temporary
noise increases due to construction, such as from heavy equipment. On weekdays, construction
noise levels at nearby residential and office receptors would be potentially significant.
Mitigation. The Project sponsor shall be required to implement Construction Noise Controls
and techniques to minimize disturbance to noise receptors during Project construction.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced
to a less than significant level. Specific measures shall include: best available noise control
techniques for equipment and trucks used for project construction; hydraulically- or
electrically- powered impact tools and equipment (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, etc.);
and adoption of procedures for informing affected persons about noise - generating activities.
G:\SPECPROJ\SHIP WAYS\FINDINGS. WPD
3
3. SEISMIC HAZARDS.
3.1. Significant Effect. ` Development of the office building on the site could expose people and
property to strong seismic ground shaking, due to subsurface soil and geological conditions
beneath the site (Bay Mud) which would be potentially significant in the event of a major
earthquake on the Hayward, Calaveras or other regional earthquake faults.
Mitigation. Geotechnical Site Preparation is required to address the higher "live loading"
required for the fire access road on the craneways, the piles in those areas shall be inspected
as part of the final structural report required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR).
Facts in Support of Findings. <The following facts indicate the, identified impact will be reduced
to a less than significant level in addition, an appropriate number of the existing piles that
support both the existing structure and the proposed live load, shall be verified, and repaired
if necessary, to the satisfaction of the City's Building Official. Also; because there were holes
cut in the Shipway decks in the recent past, the holes should be repaired by casting new
concrete plugs in them. To address the potential for seismic shaking, the office building
foundation shall be constructed on a foundation of deep piles in the Bay Clay, with appropriate
lateral bracing and ties of the foundation system, consistent with the recommendations of the
final geotechnical report.
4. WATER QUALITY CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS.
Significant Effect. During construction, materials may be stored on the site, which could be
washed into the Estuary, which would be a potentially significant impact on water quality.
Mitigation. A Surface Water Construction Management Plan shall be incorporated into the
Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) adopted for Marina Village, and require the
developer to minimize runoff of urban pollutants to surface waters during construction and
operation.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced
to a less than significant level. As part of this mitigation a site - specific plan, such as a Surface
Water Construction Management Plan or equivalent, to control runoff of construction materials
during construction, shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit application, and
shall be subject to approval by the City Public Works Director. The Public Works Director or
their representative, shall provide for inspection of the urban runoff control measures during
construction.
5. LONG TERM IMPACTS ON WATER QUALITY.
Significant Effect. Runoff from the parking lots, which would be typical of urban runoff, with
a mixture of oils, heavy metals, bacteria, litter and other contaminants that could have
potentially significant impacts on water quality. The Project applicant has proposed oil -water
G:\SPECP ROJ\S HIP WAYS\EINDINGS. W P D
separators or similar "fossil filter" systems for the Shipway deck parking areas, to collect storm
water runoff and filter out the majority of these pollutants. Pavement sweeping programs have
also been proposed by the applicant; however, the proposals are subject to inspection and
approval by the City.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations
have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially Lessen the
significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced
to a less than significant level. The Marina Village SWPPP shall be amended to incorporate
a Surface Water Management Plan for the Project, including the proposed oil -water separator
units, and the pavement- sweeping and spill- containment programs. The oil -water separator
units shall be maintained privately but its installation and operation will be subject to
inspection by the City Engineer, or their representative. The operation of the pavement
sweeping and spill containment programs shall also be subject to the approval of and
inspection by the City Engineer, or their representative.
B. SIGNIFICANT CUMULATIVE EFFECTS OF THE SHIPWAYS OFFICE PROJECT
AND OTHER PROJECTS
1. LONG -TERM CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC IMPACTS.
1.1 Significant Effect. The Project would increase traffic volumes at seven intersections which
are projected to operate at unacceptable levels of service (LOS E or F) under year 2020
conditions. Affected Alameda intersections include three intersections and two ramp
connectors serving the Webster and Posey Tubes, and in Oakland, the intersections nearest
the Tube portals would be affected. In addition to these intersections, the Project would
increase the volume -to- capacity ratio on the Tube roadway segments. The increase in traffic
volumes represents a potentially significant cumulative impact on these intersections and
roadway segments.
Mitigation. Payment of Traffic Impact Fees and adoption of a Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) Program are required to provide for, respectively, off -site improvements
to address long -term deficiencies in the approaches and ramps connecting area streets to the
Tube roadways, and reducing the Project's share of traffic anticipated through the year 2020.
The TSM Program will also avoid the potential of the Project to exceed the standards of the
Alameda County Congestion Management Agency, and the potential for conflict with
Alameda's policies on alternative transportation. These measures would reduce the impact
to a less than significant level; however, if Oakland does not agree to construct roadway
improvements within its jurisdiction, the impacts on the Oakland intersections would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes finding (2). (Finding 2: The Project will result
in a significant unavoidable cumulative impact on traffic. Mitigating this impact is
economically infeasible for one project to implement (see explanation above). See Statement
of Overriding Considerations below.
Facts in Support of Findings. The CEQA Guidelines state that the "only feasible mitigation
G:\ SPECPROJ \SHIPR'AYS\FINDINGS.u'PD 5
for cumulative impacts may involve the adoption of ordinances or regulations" rather than
the imposition of conditions on a project -by- project basis. This responds to the problem that
arises when the scope or scale of cumulative impacts is beyond the ability of a single
development to mitigate. The cumulative traffic impacts are beyond the scope of a single
project to mitigate, and are also beyond the authority of a single jurisdiction to control.
Therefore, a City ordinance or regulation alone would also not be effective mitigation.
G:\SPECPROJ\SHIPWAYS\FINDINGS. WPD
6
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
I. INTRODUCTION
ATTACHMENT B
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") Guideline
Section 15126.6, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which would feasiblely attain most of the basic objectives of the project,
but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate
the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable
alterative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible
alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. If a project
alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects ofa proposed project,
the decisionmaker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific
economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the project alternative
infeasible. (See CEQA Section 21002, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3)).
II DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES AND FINDINGS
A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
1. Brief Description
The No Project alternative assumes the continuation of the existing condition on
the site, and would not involve any improvements. The shipways would continue to deteriorate
and no improvement would be made to existing vehicle or pedestrian circulations systems
,utilities or other features of the Project site
2. Comparison to Project Without Mitigation
A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and
less than significant impacts of the Project, without mitigation, is described below:
a. Land Use. The continuation of the existing land use would not have any
new significant land use impacts or conflicts with nearby land uses. The
beneficial land use changes of the proposed Project that would eliminate
the deteriorated character of the shipways thus generally improving the
community would not occur under this alterative, however.
b. Public Policy. Although no direct policy conflicts would result under this
alternative, it would not achieve many of the goals and objectives of local
plans applicable to the Project site that the proposed Project would
achieve, such as providing public access to the waterfront and full
G: SPECPROJ\SHIPWAYS\ALTERN -LWPD 1
implementation of the Marina Village Master Plan, and the BLIP Plan.
c. Traffic and Circulation. The No Project Alternative would result in no
impact on local or regional transportation routes, congestion management
agency standards, alternative transportation or other traffic- related
consideration.
d. Air Quality and Noise. The No Project Alternative would not result in any
construction activity or generate any traffic and as a result would have no
impact on air quality and noise.
e.
Visual Considerations. The No Project Alternative would not result in any
new structures, but would continue the underutilization of the Project site,
in a deteriorated and unenhanced condition.
Historic Resources. The No Project Alternative, would not result in any
changes to the Shipway structures, craneways, or central pier, and
therefore would not affect the appearance or historic character of the
Shipways.
7. Findings
This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons:
a. The No Project Alternative would fail to satisfy the following objectives
of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter 1 of the Draft EIR:
To meet the demand for Class A office space to serve Alameda's <,
growing software and high - technology business section, which has
been especially prominent in the Marina Village vicinity.
Completion of the buildout of the Marina Village Master Plan.
A re -use of an underutilized site on Alameda's Northern
Waterfront.
The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will substantially
mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant
environmental effects of the Project, except those effects which are
described as unavoidable or irreversible, thereby diminishing or obviating
the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this alternative.
As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations,
the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the
G:\SPECPROJ\SHIP WAYS\ALTERN41. WPD
g.
Project
ould not be ob
ained if this alternative were adopted.
Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the No Project Alternative is
not feasible.
RESIDENTIAL ALTERNATIVE
1. Brief Description
Under this Alternative, a 4.7 acre portion of the site would be developed with residential
development. The General Plan permits 156 units on the site.
3. Comparison to Project Without Mitigation
A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and less
than significant impacts of the Project, without mitigation, is described below.
a. Land Use. The Residential Alternative would comply and would
not result in any new significant land use impacts or conflicts with
nearby land uses.
b. Public Policy. The Residential Alternative would comply with
many of the goals and objectives of local plans applicable to the
Project site However, the applicant has indicated that this
alternative is infeasible due to the construction costs associated
with the project.
c. Traffic and Circulation. The Residential Alternative would result
in less than significant impacts on local or regional transportation
routes, congestion management agency standards, alternative
transportation or other traffic- related considerations.
d. Air Quality and Noise. The Residential would generate lower
traffic levels than the proposed Project and like the Project, would
have no impact on air quality. The Residential Alternative would
ha a potentially significant impact on noise and would require a
similar mitigation program as the Project proposed.
Visual Considerations. The Residential Alternative would have a
less than significant impact on the existing visual character of the
site. It would have no impact on any view or vista from Alameda
and in this respect would be similar to the proposed Project.
Geology and Hydrology. The Residential Alternative would result
G:\SPECPROJ\SHIPWAYS\ALTERN -1. WPD
g.
in an increased human presence on the site, and thus would have
similar, potentially significant impact with regard to exposure to
geological hazards. There would be a potentially significant
impact on the characteristics of drainage.
Historic Resources. The Residential Alternative would result in
less than significant impacts to the Shipway structures, craneways,
or central pier, and in this respect would be similar to the proposed
Project..
3. Findings
This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons:
a. The Residential Alternative would not satisfy the objectives of the
proposed Project, as identified in Chapter I of the EIR, Project
Description:
— To meet the demand for Class A office space to serve
Alameda's growing software and high - technology business
section, which has been especially prominent in the Marina
Village vicinity.
Completion of the buildout of the Marina Village Master
Plan.
c.
A re -use of an underutilized site on Alameda's Northern
Waterfront.
This alternative would have similar impacts to the Project in the
areas of geology and hydrology. In addition, this alternative would
have fewer beneficial impacts than the Project in the areas of land
use, public policy and aesthetics.
The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will
substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially
significant environmental effects of the Project, except those
effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible, thereby
diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding
benefits of approving this alterative.
As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations, many of the environmental, social, economic and
other benefits derived from the Project would not be obtained if
G:\SPECPROJ\SHIPWAYSIALTERN -1. WPD
this alternative were adopted.
e. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the Residential
Alternative is not feasible.
G:\SPECPROJ\SHIPWAYSIALTERN -I . WPD
SHIPWAYS OFFICE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT C
• •
This Mitigation Monitoring 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 Program has been formulated based upon the findings of the Shipways Office
Development Project Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Response to Comments (Final EIR).
The program lists mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR for the proposed Project. Mitigation
monitoring requirements are provided only for mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce significant
impacts of the Project. The mitigation monitoring table specifies the agencies responsible for
implementation and monitoring.
Table 1 presents the mitigation measures identified for the proposed Project. Mitigation measures are
numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which the mitigation measures pertains, a hyphen,
and the impact number. For example, 2 -1 is the first significant impact identified in the Traffic and
Circulation analysis (Mitigations recommended to further minimize less - than - significant impacts are not
included in Table 1).
P C O n „trj n
O 0 >✓ 0 N O
cio
'ri . �r N n
O .— p) cD - ,-Cr - a
CD P 0- CD p,, p p O 0
n
co c7; cn
o co co 0
CD co en O�� n O .1- Q.
CP 1
C 1-h
0
TJ w p v co - 0
0 `C cco i cD O „0
"
Y
O ` CD ..011
n
Cf, ° O o .-r
x' �. 0 0 CA O Q O O
CD
co
0
'CS
0
'-t
co
0
't1
co
euuojut atjgnd
on on transit and ferry schedules; and
y
0
co
fD
co
et
H
0 0
c< < o 0
.0 ...o
co co
- -t
d
0
0
'C3
0
co co
eG
= .O. 0 e O
c) LI M
0
o
0 < co
b
0•• 'ty C
CD o
cv
cn
°( 4o
co
d 0 o.04
o
o °'
a
O
p
oe
panurauoa 't ajqui
CD
CD
co
cn
qs.
CD
-o
0
0
co
0
CD
cn
cn
0
co
7-;
c0
,.**,•. • — 0
01- 0 too (IQ ,..,"-•
-*
Coq 0 - •
0 „-,
0 -
0 •
,-41 ,-,• 0-'
, 0 :=
I .--• CD 0''' CD
CD CA
' 0
• Do '..'
1 -, co '0 c/a
1 C cn q
cs- 0
co • co
,-.1 .--• to
■ CD 1
■ ty PS' CD
LA 1...3
1 0 0 or'
I pp c,, co
I
i.tj 0 0 6 . CD
8 5 6 o n
0
cP
D) c Ei•
.1.
I 5/1 5 ,
■ - o c
CS'
En
pZ$ (4, 8 (9. g- k-,-)
*-6. "ncl, ** < FD* •-trD < ET1
o -I 1-0 co o n 0-3
CNO
,--,
CD n el 0 0 n
cy. AD
CD
CD
I < <ID c)
-
n crq 8 pi
VD cr ;c1
co fID `-1 0 ,t1
0 r.
0 0
P
.c2,
tn ° H S.
O „cp F13
lc 0• (J..) I ti .1
5- °
• 0 cn
0
(-0
"I"' CCD
O `CS 113 ° Cf3 .+) et I.*
■-t co 0 cn CD
0 '-' • r
CD 0 -, ,_, 0-3
o o
co CI)
crj CD
cf o crq 0 al
,....
o o
trq
• 0 5 (IQ 0
CO c 0 cr. oo?
."4- '-'• c on
Co
.tcl ro g 0,- 0
(rq 0.1 03 6:13
Etz -cs 5
5 5), 0 ca. r.
P
0 CD
113 a, can CD 01., C/ 0
CD
<
CD
0
CD
aansralkJ ao!ial1IW
0 •
0
tj
C 0
co 0.
co
co
CD P 'Tj
.1
• <
"54 "
5 a. 6
CD CD 0.4.
P.,. 2+
cn
G'A
0
CD 0
< cr
cn
Co
Co
0
0
0
SIC1
fD
—
o
0. cm
ra
a.
0
OND
7 -2. Surface Water Management Plan. The Marina
Village Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be amended to incorporate the Shipways Office
Development Project, including the proposed oil-water
separator units, and the pavement-sweeping and spill -
containment programs. The oil -water separator units shall
be maintained privately but its installation and operation
will be subject to inspection by the City Engineer, or
their representative. The operation ` of the ''pavement
sweeping and spill containment programs shall also be
subject to the approval of and inspection by the City
Engineer, or their representative.
7.1 Surface Water Construction Management Plan,
continued:
representative, shall provide for inspection of the urban
runoff control measures during construction.
Mitigation Measure
1J
co
<
CD
0
CD
""t
Developer
Party
Responsible for.
Fundin:
ti
CD
CD
0
CD
.'t
Developer
Party Responsible
for Im • lementatiou
to ...< 0 •
Q., „S
aQ 0
CD 0 co
a �.
VI ac P
0
CD
cD
0 0
Prior to the issuance of
any building or
grading permits
Timing of
Implementation
The City Public Works Department
shall review and approve the
SWPPP
The City Public Works Departmen
shall review and approve the
Surface Water Construction
Management Plan
Reporting or
Monitoring Method and Timing
panurtuoo `1 awl
8' A A C 0
ai. p Fri rl, �d▪ .n cco p W�
C� 0
CAD 0 .' , p C n 0 p,. �' O vii
1. < fil n Iii»
> CD a n 0' O
I0 ° � � r -t. CD "
0+ Q. CD CD n < N a Wg ' O R
O R.
oa "
I CA ! a- ' .5. . g 12 E o 0 .°o ry �'
iCD 0 mm 6 a y cD < Q D . . ( N 0 .4
! c4 ' G F' co • 5 o
Cr 0 cc
O
0 —
oq
O
" n•
a
0
d
• co • CD
co
0
0
: 7:: N -4 ' i P� C�"{D 4:::;W: 0°Q:6:: O" y
O -- O Q' �. o-, c n• e
D O q' O = coo • 0 L3 p O r''' • M
"-h CD i?
o(4 n 0 44 O'"•• 0 O� iv, t
a' E• C''• ' cn O N BD, _ ,iii
0 ▪ (D "d co ems.+ CAD co �- fro O
a' O P ° CD a g'®
._,, Z.) G1. G. Al (D t!2
0 0 0 n n( �C Q. = a O rfl g-
O to cn p cm "t3 R .0 O
d E. Zy
co • r rp o
O o o`m
CAD 0• •
■-t O.
GM 0
panuiJuoa `1 aiq J
a a
o t'
z
O n
• to
O trl
z m
c C^
O
E
ro
O
n
H
m
7 -2. Surface Water Management Plan. The Marina
Village Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
shall be amended to incorporate the Shipways Office
Development Project, including the proposed oil -water
separator units, and the pavement - sweeping and spill -
containment programs. The oil -water separator units shall
be maintained privately but its installation and operation
will be subject to inspection by the City Engineer, or
their representative. The operation of the pavement
sweeping and spill containment programs shall also be
subject to the approval of and inspection by the City
Engineer, or their representative.
7.1 Surface Water Construction Management Plan,
continued:
representative, shall provide for inspection of the urban
runoff control measures during construction.
Mitigation Measure
c
co
O
co
Developer
Party
Responsible for
Fundin:
co
<'
co
0
co
Developer
Party Responsible
for Im • lementation
H =
to ,..< 0.
G. 0
Qq O
cp O a
C Erg 135
O
0
co
00
Prior to the issuance of
any building or
grading permits
Timing of
Implementation
The City Public Works Department
shall review and approve the
SWPPP
The City Public Works Departmen
shall review and approve the
Surface Water Construction
Management Plan
Reporting or
Monitoring Method and Timing
panurtuoo `1 aiqu1,
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
ATTACHMENT D
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091
et. Seq. The City Council of the city of Alameda adopts and makes the following statement of
ovemding considerations regarding the remaining unavoidable impacts of the Project and the
anticipated economic, social, and other benefits of the Project.
I. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts which are
included in the record, the City has determined that the Project would cause significant
unavoidable impacts to cumulative traffic conditions as disclosed in the Final Environmental
Impact Report ( "Final EIR ") prepared for the Project. This impact cannot be feasiblely fully
mitigated by changes in or alternatives to the Project.
II OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The Planning Board specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding
Considerations that, as part of the approval provisions, the Project has avoided or substantially
lessened significant effects on the environment where feasible, and finds that the remaining
unavoidable impacts of the Project are acceptable in light of specific economic, legal, social,
technological and other benefits of the Project because those benefits outweigh the significant
unavoidable adverse cumulative traffic impacts of the Project. The council finds that each of the
ovemding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for
finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project's significant adverse environmental
impacts and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. These matters are
supported by evidence in the record that includes, but is not limited to, the documents referenced
below.
III BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The Planning Commission has considered the proposed General Plan amendment, the
Master Plan Amendment, the Development Plan and Design Review, the public record of
proceedings on the proposed Project and other written materials presented to the City as well as
oral and written testimony at all public hearings related to the Project, and does determine that
implementation of the Project as specifically provided in the Project documents would result in
the following substantial public benefits by
Ensuring the productive reuse of the abandoned shipways and fostering orderly
growth and quality development in the City.
2. Proceeding in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan
GASPECPROJ\SHIPWAYS\OVERRIDE WPD
as amended, thereby implementing the City's stated General Plan policies.
3. Providing substantially increased property tax and sales tax revenues to the City.
4. Providing increased employment opportunities for residents of the City.
5. Eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies at the
project site, including, but not limited to abandoned shipways structures,
depreciated property values and deteriorated public improvements, facilities and
utilities.
6. Replanning, redesigning and developing an underdeveloped site to achieve a
balanced mix of land uses and complete the Marina Village Project.
7. Strengthening the economic base of the Project area and the community by
addition approximately 143,000 gross square feet of office use.
8. Achieving job creation and economic development.
9. Maximizing tax increment in order to pay for public investment in infrastructure
required for economic development n the Marina Village area.
10. Seamlessly integrating the Project site into the Marina Village development by the
design of the new building and adjacent open space.
11. Protecting and improving the waterfront by providing public access around the
site and linking to the existing shoreline trail that continues throughout Marina
Village.
12. Providing adequate vehicular access to and within the Project site without
significant adverse effects on access to existing areas of the City.
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 17th day of October , 2000, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog,DeWitt, Johnson, and
Mayor Appezzato - 4.
NOES: Councilmember Kerr -
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
18th day of October , 2000.
Diane Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda