Resolution 13591CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.13591
MAKING FINDINGS CONCERNING MITIGATION MEASURES, MAKING FINDINGS
CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM, ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALIFY ACT AND CERTIBYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE ALALMEDA POINT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (STATE
CLEARINGHOUSE #2001012057)
WHEREAS, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental Impact
Report (ER) for the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment in January 2001; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (November 2001) was circulated for
public comment between November 13, 2001 and January 18, 2002; and written and oral comments
were received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing to accept comments on the Draft EIR
on November 26, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City decided to revise the project description; and
WHEREAS, the City issued an amended Notice of Preparation (NOP) of an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) for the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment on March 20, 2002; and
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report (December 2002) was circulated for
public comment between December 10, 2002 and January 31, 2003; and written and oral comments
were received; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing to accept comments on the Draft EIR
on January 27, 2003; and
WHEREAS, written responses were prepared addressing all significant environmental issues
raised by the public during the public review period and published as the EIR Response to
Comments Addendum (March 2003), incorporated by reference into this document; and
WHEREAS, the Final ER, consisting of the Draft EIR and EIR Response to Comments
Addendum, was made available to the public on March 28, 2003 for a fifteen -day public review; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this Final Environmental Impact
Report on April 14, 2003, examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony and
written comments received; and
1
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2003 the Planning Board unanimously approved a resolution
recommending that the City Council make the necessary findings to certify the Final Environmental
impact Report; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings:
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, and
3. The Final Environmental Impact Report has been completed in compliance with the
California Environmental Quality Act, and all applicable state and local guidelines.
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the additional findings, described in Attachment "A ",
regarding significant impacts of the project and mitigation measures incorporated into the project,
alternatives, and a statement of overriding considerations; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE 11' RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda
hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Alameda Point General Plan
Amendment with four modifications:
1. Draft EIR Page 117. Add the following sentence: The district wide "projected percent of capacity" shown
in Table IV.D -5 may increase to 105.4% if additional schools such as the school planned for the Catellus
site are not constructed to accommodate an additional 419 students projected by AUSD from other
residential projects throughout the City.
2. Draft EIR Page 117. Revise the following sentence: Due to the recent transition of 150 K -8 students from
Washington Elementary to Chipman Middle, this would bring the AUSD - defined use for Miller to 134
percent of capacity, Woodstock Elementary to 160 percent of capacity, Chipman Middle School 100 119
percent of capacity, and Encinal High School 121 percent of capacity.
3. Response to Comments, Page 100, Response C5 -10 (Response to Oakland Chinatown Coalition) delete
paragraph number (1) regarding Oakland Pedestrian Master Plan classification of top 10 most dangerous
intersections.
4. Draft EIR Page 2, third paragraph. Add the following sentence: The City of Oakland has identified itself as
a responsible agency.
THEREFORE BE 11' FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts the
Statement of Overriding Considerations described in Exhibit "A ".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council hereby adopts
the Mitigation Monitoring Program described in Exhibit "B ".
G: \PLANNING\ALAMEDPT\General Plan Amendments \CC GPA EIR adoption.doc
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE
ALAMEDA POINT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
I. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
A. CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR
Pursuant to title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 15090, the Planning
Board recommended and City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") certified that
the program level Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #2001012057)
( "Final EIR ") for the Alameda Point General Plan Amendment ( "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. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
The Project analyzed in the Final EIR consists of a General Plan Amendment
( "GPA ") for the former Naval Air Station Alameda now known as "Alameda Point ". The
current General Plan land use designation for Alameda Point is Federal Facilities. The GPA
is intended to allow reuse of Alameda Point 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 adopt a new Alameda Point element to the City
of Alameda General Plan, revisions to the General Plan Diagram, miscellaneous General
Plan revisions, and an amendment to the Business and Waterfront Improvement Plan
(`BWIP ") to ensure land use designation consistency. The EIR also may be used for
rezoning Alameda Point or other project specific approvals that are consistent with and in
furtherance of the GPA.
The Project involves redesignation from the existing Federal Facilities to the
following land use designations: (1) Low- Density Residential (21 acres); (2) Medium -
Density Residential (108 acres); (3) Alameda Point Mixed Use (432 acres); (4)
Neighborhood Business (4 acres): (5) Industrial (6 acres); (6) Public/Institutional (24 acres);
(7) Parks & Open Space (340 acres); and (8) Wildlife Habitat (515 acres). Maximum
permitted buildout in the year 2020 consists of: (i) 2,316,750 square feet ( "sf') of non-
residential land uses (including a maximum 600 -room, 312,000 sf hotel); (ii) 1,928 dwelling
units; (iii) 530 marina slips with 53 live - aboard units; (iv) a 57 -acre sports complex: (v) a
golf course; (vi) 69 acres of parks and open space; and (vii) a wildlife refuge.
1
C. PREPARATION OF THE EIR
Prior to preparation of the EIR, the City conducted a visioning workshop in
September 2000 for the Citywide General Plan Update that included visions for Alameda
Point provided by civic and other interested groups. In November 2000, the City held a
public workshop to present and take comments on the draft Alameda Point Element. City
staff worked with the Alameda Point Advisory Committee ( "APAC ") to modify and refine
the Alameda Point Element during April and May 2001. On May 31, 2001, the Planning
Board held a workshop to take comments on the draft Alameda Point Element, including
changes recommended by the APAC.
On January 17, 2001, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") indicating that
an EIR would be prepared pursuant to CEQA . The City received eight letters from members
of the public, interested groups, and federal, state, and local agencies during the scoping
process, which ended February 20, 2001.
A Draft EIR (the "2001 EIR ") for the Project was published in November 2001, and
made available to government agencies, interested individuals and organizations, and
members of the public. The period for public comment on the 2001 EIR was extended from
45 days to 60 days and ended on January 18, 2002. Twenty -two 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 2001 EIR in testimony at a public .
hearing held on November 26, 2001.
After circulation of the 2001 EIR for public comment, and upon consideration by the
City of the comments received from Alameda's residents, neighboring jurisdictions and
regional transportation agencies, the City decided to revise the project description by
reducing the development intensity in the Project in response to concerns about capacity of
the existing roadway network and estuary crossings. Consequently, on March 20, 2002, the
City issued a new NOP with a new project description that corresponds to the
Environmentally Superior Alternative identified in the 2001 EIR as the "Mitigated Reuse
alternative (Phase I)." The public comment period for the NOP was open for over 30 days,
from March 20, 2002 through June 20, 2002. During that period, the City received seven
comment letters from interested public agencies, organizations and individuals. Accordingly,
a new Draft EIR was circulated for public comment for a 45 -day period ending on January
31, 2002. Twenty comment letters were received during that period. A public hearing was
formally noticed and held on January 27, 2003. Seven members of the public provided
comments at the public hearing.
2
The Final ER was made available to the public on March 28, 2003. The Final EIR
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, 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. 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. The City Council
hereby finds that it has considered the environmental effects of the Project as shown in the
EIR.
II. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AND MITIGATION
MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT
The Final ElRidentifies 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 ER 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 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 seethe appropriate text in the Draft
ER, as amended by the Final EIR.
A. Storm Runoff Water Quality Impacts
Construction activities and post- construction site uses could result in degradation of
water quality in the Oakland Estuary and the San Francisco Bay by reducing the quality of
storm water runoff. Mitigation Measure WATER -3, Draft ER Section IV.E, which is hereby
adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant
level by requiring all development projects to submit and comply with an operations and
maintenance plan. These plans shall include storm water treatment controls to manage the
quantity and quality of storm water runoff.
3
Groundwater Impacts
Existing wells at Alameda Point could potentially become conduits for surface and
groundwater contaminants to affect deeper aquifers. Mitigation Measure WATER -4, Draft
EIR Section IV.E, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate
this impact to a less- than - significant level by requiring all water supply wells that are not pro-
posed for future use shall be properly abandoned in accordance with the California
Department of Water Resources Well Standards (Bulletin 74 -90).
C. Impacts on Pallid and Western Mastiff Bats
Development that may occur under buildout of the GPA could impact pallid bats and
western mastiff bats that may roost in the abandoned buildings on site. Mitigation Measure
BIO -6, Draft EIR Section IV.G, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project,
will mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level by requiring that within a 6 -month
period prior to any demolition of abandoned buildings, a qualified biologist familiar with
bats shall conduct a survey to determine the status of these bat species on the project site If
special - status bat species are found, a biologist familiar with relocating bats shall be
consulted regarding the best methods to remove bats from the buildings, and such methods
shall be implemented. All relocation plans would be subject to review and approval by the
California Department of Fish and Game ( "CDFG "). If suitable roost sites are not present in
the area after demolition of the existing roost, a plan to construct artificial roost sites would
be developed and submitted to CDFG for approval. Artificial roosts should be constructed at
least 6 months prior to demolition of the existing roosts. This could include removing
sections of the walls and roofs, which would discourage bats from continuing to roost in the
buildings. If a maternity colony of any bats is found, the building and the bats shall not be
disturbed until the young have dispersed.
D. Impacts on Sewage Transport Facilities
Buildout of the GPA would contribute to peak wastewater flows that could exceed the
capacity of existing sewage transport facilities. Mitigation Measure UTIL -2, Draft EIR
Section IV.I, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this
impact to a less- than - significant level by requiring that if it is determined that it is necessary
to further reduce overall peak flows into the wastewater treatment plant, each future specific
development project shall either provide facilities to reduce peak flows or contribute its fair
share of the costs associated with the design and development of a sewer retention facility or
an enhanced West Alameda I &I Program.
4
E. Solid Waste Impacts
Increased generation of solid waste as a result of buildout of the GPA could jeopardize
the City's compliance with state and county waste diversion requirements. Mitigation
Measure UTTT , -3, Draft EIR Section IV.I, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the
Project, will mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring that the City
adopt a solid waste management plan consistent with NAS Reuse EIR Mitigation UTIL -1.
Plans for managing construction debris from subsequent specific projects shall be developed
that promote separation of waste types and recycling, and provide for reuse of materials on-
site for reconstructing infrastructure. This plan shall be prepared in coordination with City
staff, the specific project's sponsor(s), and demolition subcontractors, and shall be approved
by City staff prior to issuance of a demolition permit. The City and sponsors of projects shall
work with organizations able to provide funding and technical assistance for managing and
financing deconstruction, demolition, and recycling and reuse programs, :should those
programs exist at the time of site clearance.
F. Construction Related Traffic Impacts
Development allowed by the GPA could generate additional truck traffic and
temporarily close lanes during construction periods, which could impede local circulation.
Mitigation Measure TRANS -la, Draft DR ' Section IV.J, which is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level by
requiring that each development project shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan ( "TCP ") to
address the impacts of construction vehicles on regional and local roadways. The TCP shall
address construction truck routes and access as well as needed local lane closures. Where bus
routes, bike routes, sidewalks or emergency routes are affected, appropriate signage to
indicate detour routes should be provided. Bus stops that must be temporarily relocated shall
also be identified and presented in the TCP. The TCP may recommend installation of
directional signs for trucks and designate time periods -when construction truck traffic would
be allowed. The TCP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Alameda Public Works
Department after consultation with the City of Oakland prior to issuance of any building or
grading permits. Construction truck traffic shall be restricted to designated truck routes
within the cities of Alameda and Oakland.
. Impacts on Oakland Intersections
Buildout under the GPA, in combination with cumulative development in the Bay
Area, would contribute to significant traffic impacts at the intersections of Jackson Street/6t
Street and Brush Street/12`h Street in Oakland. Mitigation Measures TRANS- 2a (requiring
that the City of Alameda work with the City of Oakland, the CMA, and Caltrans to consider
5
various improvement options, which could include signal timing improvements or additional
lanes on the ramp leading to the intersection of Brush Street/12th Street), TRANS -2b
(requiring that the City work with Caltrans, the CMA and the City of Oakland to consider
various improvement options, which could include signal timing improvements, dedicated
lanes, or additional lanes to relieve congestion at 6th Street/Jackson Street; and requiring that
the City also will take the lead responsibility for managing completion of the
Broadway /Jackson Phase II study identified in the Countywide Long Range Transportation
Plan as SR260 to I -880 Connection Improvements to determine mutually acceptable,
technically feasible means to relieve congestion resulting from peak hour traffic entering and
exiting the Posey Tube, as those improvements would benefit conditions at 6th Street/Jackson
Street), TRANS -2c (requiring that the City amend the City of Alameda Guidelines for the
Preparation of Traffic Studies to ensure that all future major project development proposals
within Alameda Point GPA planning area and other areas of the City prepare a traffic
analysis that includes an assessment of the proposed project's contribution to anticipated
unacceptable levels of service at Brush Street/12`h Street, and Jackson Street/6th Street; and
that based upon this assessment, the City shall require each future development to fund, on a
fair -share basis, any improvements to these two intersections that have been mutually agreed
to by the cities of Alameda and Oakland pursuant to Mitigation Measures TRANS -2a or
TRANS -2b), TRANS -2d (requiring that prior to approval of development entitlements
implementing the GPA for Alameda Point, the City shall create and maintain a
Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM Plan) for Western Alameda, designed to
reduce demand for single- occupant, peak hour trips, and to increase access to transit
opportunities utilizing the strategies forth on page 260 of the Draft EIR; and funded by major
project area developers on a fair share basis at a level that would enable the goal of a 30
percent reduction in single- occupancy, peak hour ridership for commercial uses and 10
percent for residential uses), TRANS -2e (requiring that proposed GPA Policy 9.2.j shall be
amended to read as follows: "Maintain overall development in Alameda Point in accordance
with Table 2 -7 while permitting flexibility in the location and mix of development types in
the three mixed use areas. Establish zoning regulations for Alameda Point that regulate
future development consistent with the development intensity and density assumed in
Alameda Point G PA EIR ")(See Table 2 -7.), and TRANS -2f (requiring that the City shall
work with the City of Oakland, BART, AC Transit, and other local and regional agencies to
complete feasibility studies for a new alternative transportation corridor between Alameda
and Oakland, such as a gondola between Alameda Point and West Oakland BART or other
acceptable terminus), Draft EIR Section IV.J, which are hereby 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. The City finds that Mitigations
TRANS -2a, TRANS -2b, and TRANS -2f are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the
City of Oakland, Caltrans and the CMA, and that these mitigation measures can and should
be adopted by those agencies. Because implementation of improvements within the City of
6
Oakland cannot be guaranteed by the City of Alameda, this cumulative impact is considered
significant and unavoidable.
H. Posey Tube Congestion Impacts
Buildout under the GPA, in combination with cumulative development in the Bay
Area, would contribute to an unacceptable level of service (LOS F) within the Posey Tube in
2020. Mitigation Measures TRANS -3a (requiring that the City Adopt Mitigation Measure
TRANS -2c (1'DM Plan)), TRANS -3b (requiring that the City work with Caltrans, the CMA
and the City of Oakland to consider various improvement options, which could include
signal timing improvements, dedicated lanes, or additional lanes to relieve congestion at the
Posey Tube; and by requiring the City will also take the lead responsibility for managing
completion of the Broadway /Jackson Phase II study identified in the Countywide Long
Range Transportation Plan as ASR260 to I -880 Connection Improvements to determine
mutually acceptable, technically feasible means to relieve congestion resulting from peak
hour traffic entering and exiting the Posey Tube), TRANS-3c (requiring that the City amend
the City of Alameda Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Studies to ensure that all major
project development proposals within the Alameda Point GPA planning area and other areas
of the City include a traffic analysis in accordance with the City's Traffic Capacity Manage-
ment Procedure (Resolution 13345) and, based upon that assessment, the City shall require
that each future development reduce peak hour trips through the tubes by, at least 10 percent
for residential and 30 percent for non - residential development. The City will require each
future development to fund appropriate trip reduction measures to reduce the project's traffic
impact on the Posey Tube (consistent with Mitigation Measure TRANS -3a) and fund, on a
fair -share basis, any mutually- agreed -to improvements to the Posey Tube/I -880 connection
that have been established through Mitigation Measures TRANS -3b), TRANS-3d (requiring
that the City adopt Mitigation Measure TRANS -2e (Intensity -Based Development
Regulations)), and TRANS -3e (requiring that the City adopt Mitigation Measure TRANS -2f
(Gondola/Alternative Transit Corridor Feasibility Studies), Draft EIR Section IV.J, which are
hereby 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. The City finds that;Mitigation'Measures TRANS -3b and TRANS-3e are within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oakland, Caltrans and the CMA, and that these
mitigation measures can and should be adopted by those agencies. Because implementation
of improvements within the City of Oakland and improvements to the Posey Tube (a State
Highway facility that is partially within the City of Oakland) cannot be guaranteed by the
City of Alameda, this cumulative impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
7
Regional Roadway Impacts
Buildout under the GPA, in combination with cumulative development in the Bay Area,
would contribute to cumulative impacts on regional roadways. Mitigation Measures TRANS -
4a (requiring that the City of adopt Mitigation Measure TRANS -2c (TDM)), TRANS -4b
(requiring that City work with Caltrans, the CMA, and the City of Oakland to consider
various improvement options, which might include signal timing improvements, dedicated
lanes, or additional lanes to relieve congestion within the Posey Tube and on Alameda
Avenue and High Street in Oakland), TRANS -4c (requiring that City of Alameda amend the
City of Alameda Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Studies to ensure that all future
major project development proposals within the Alameda Point GPA Planning Area and
other areas of the City prepare a traffic analysis that incorporates an assessment of the
proposed project's contribution to the anticipated unacceptable Levels of Service at the Posey
Tube, High Street, and Alameda Avenue; and, based upon that assessment, the City shall
require that each future development fund appropriate trip reduction or other measures to
reduce the project's impact on the MTS segments), TRANS -4d (requiring that the City adopt
Mitigation Measure TRANS -2e (Intensity -Based Devdlopment Regulations)), and TRANS -
4e (requiring that City adopt Mitigation Measure TRANS -2f (Gondola/Alternative Transit
Corridor Feasibility Studies), Draft BW Section IV.J, which are hereby 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. The City finds that
Mitigations TRANS -4b and TRANS -4e are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the
City of Oakland, Caltrans and the CMA, and that these mitigation measures can and should
be adopted by those agencies. Because implementation of improvements within the City of
Oakland cannot be guaranteed by the City of Alameda, this cumulative impact is considered
significant and unavoidable.
J. Transit Impacts
Buildout of the GPA could significantly impact the existing regional transit system.
Mitigation Measures TRANS -5a (requiring the City to work with AC Transit, BART, and the
Blue and Gold Fleet to monitor ridership levels and develop mutually - beneficial route and
service changes when necessary to maintain adequate service levels), TRANS -5b (requiring
the City to work with AC Transit, BART, the Blue and Gold Fleet, and the Water Transit
Authority to advocate for additional County, State, and federal funding to support increased
services), and TRANS -5c (requiring that all future project development proposals within the
Alameda Point GPA planning area prepare a transportation analysis that includes an
assessment of the proposed project's impact on transit services and supplemental services, as
set forth in on page 274 of the Draft EIR, necessary to ensure that transit service capacity is
not exceeded by new ridership. Based upon that assessment, the City will require that each
8
future development fund, on a fair -share basis, supplemental service required to support the
proposed development), Draft EIR Section IV.J, which are hereby adopted and incorporated
into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level.
K. Construction Related Air Impacts
Construction and demolition activities associated with new development under the
GPA would generate short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and
inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. Mitigation Measure AIR -1
Draft EIR Section IV.K, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will
mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level by requiring that contractors shall
implement all BAAQMD dust control measures included in Appendix G of the Draft EIR.
Traffic Related Air Quality Impacts
Development of the Project, in combination with cumulative development in the Bay
Area, would contribute to increases in emissions of criteria air pollutants. Mitigation
Measure AIR -2 (requiring major developers to fund on a fair share basis BAAQMD-
recommended feasible transportation control measures ( "TCMs ") for reducing vehicle
emissions from commercial, institutional, and industrial operations, as well as all CAP
TCMs the BAAQMD has identified as appropriate for local implementation, as set forth on
pages 294 -96 of the Draft EIR, with each major development under the GPA funding its fair
share toward some or all of the TCMs), Draft EIR Section IV.K, which is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, will substantially lessen this significant cumulative impact but
not to a less- than - significant level due to the non - attainment status of the Bay Area under
federal and state standards with respect to certain pollutants. Adoption of this mitigation
measure 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
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.
M. Air Quality Plan Impacts
Adoption of the GPA would result in a General Plan that is not consistent with the
population assumptions used in the Bay Area 2000 Clean Air Plan (CAP). Because no
measures have been identified to mitigate the inconsistency with the Clean Air Plan, this
impact is considered a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact.
9
N. Construction Related Noise Impacts
Buildout of the GPA could result in demolition, construction, and remodeling
activities which could impact neighboring land uses. Mitigation Measure NOISE -1, Draft
EIR Section IV.L, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate
this impact to a less- than - significant level by requiring that developers and/or contractors
develop and implement development- specific noise reduction plans. This measure shall be
enforced via contract specifications. Each developer and/or contractor should be
contractually required to demonstrate' knowledge of the Alameda Noise Ordinance, and to
perform construction activities in a manner such that noise levels do not exceed Alameda
Noise Ordinance criteria. Contractors may elect any combination of legal, non- polluting
methods to maintain or reduce noise to thresholds levels or lower, as long as those methods
do not result in other significant environmental impacts or create a substantial public
nuisance. The developer and/or contractor shall perform a site- specific acoustical analysis,
and, if necessary, shall develop and implement a noise reduction plan subject to review and
approval by the City. The plan for attenuating construction- related noises shall be
implemented prior to the initiation of any work that triggers the need for such a plan.
0. Traffic- Related Noise Impacts Along Tinker Extension
Buildout of the GPA could result in traffic- related noise impacts along the Tinker
Extension through western Alameda. Mitigation Measure NOISE -2, Draft ElR Section IV.L,
which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less-
than-significant level by requiring that, prior to the roadway's operation, noise attenuation
measures which reduce the operational noise of Tinker Avenue (such as vegetation, a noise
wall, glazing and supplemental mechanical ventilation, as described on pages 312 -13 of the
Draft EIR) should be provided for U.S. Coast Guard units and planned residential and school
uses with frontage along Tinker Avenue.
. Hazardous Material Impacts
Construction workers, future site users, and/or ecological receptors could potentially
be exposed to residual contamination in soils and groundwater. Mitigation Measure HAZ -6,
Draft EIR Section IV.L, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will
mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level by requiring that following implementing
Policy be added to the Environmental Cleanup section of the GPA: "At the time of property
transfer from the Navy to the City, the City shall ensure that environmental restrictions (i.e.,
deed restrictions) regarding Marsh Crust/subtidal zone excavation and shallow groundwater
use are recorded."
10
III. ALTERNATIVES
In evaluating the feasibility of the Project alternatives, pursuant to Public Resources
Code section 21081, CEQA requires that economic, legal, social, or technological factors be
taken into account. The City's objectives for the Project are a reflection of these
considerations as well as the social and economic values of the Alameda community and its
intention to create a new neighborhood for the City of Alameda. (Draft EIR, page 35.) The
Project's objectives are (1) seamlessly integrating Alameda Point with the rest of the City;
(2) fostering a vibrant new neighborhood; (3) maximizing waterfront accessibility; (4)
discouraging automobile use and creating new developments that are compatible with
transportation capacity; (5) ensuring economic development; (6) creating a mixed -use
environment;, (7) establishing neighborhood centers; (8) attaining land use buildout; (9)
providing housing opportunities consistent with the City's Housing Element; and (10)
facilitating a no -cost economic development conveyance.
The Draft EIR evaluated four alternatives to the Project. The feasibility of each is
discussed below.
A. Alternative 1: Preservation Alternative
Under the Preservation Alternative, which is more fully described in the Draft EIR on
page 345, a GPA would be adopted primarily to preserve the environmental conditions at
Alameda Point. The 268 residential units presently occupied would continue to be occupied,
but no new housing would be built. Existing building leases would continue with new leases
executed only to replace existing business. Employment would remain at approximately
1,000 employees. Facilities at Alameda Point would remain the same, and no major
improvement or development would occur during the General Plan planning period.
The Preservation alternative would allow for the lowest number of jobs (1,000) and
households (268) of all the alternatives. The Preservation alternative has 1,660 fewer
housing units and 5,126 fewer jobs than proposed by the Project.
Because Alternative 1 does not include further development of Alameda Point, it
would not have certain environmental impacts associated with the Project, such as impacts to
biological resources, air quality, traffic circulation, and increased noise. However, the
Preservation Alterative is infeasible because it would not allow the City to generate the jobs,
housing and other benefits that are central to the Project's objectives. (Draft EIR, pages 34-
35.) Specifically, as described below, the Preservation Alternative would not integrate
Alameda Point with the rest of the City; would fail to foster a vibrant new neighborhood;
would fail to create economic development; would fail to create a mixed -use environment;
would fail to establish neighborhood centers; would fail to attain land use buildout; would
fail to provide housing opportunities; and would fail to facilitate a no -cost economic
development conveyance.
11
Because the Preservation Alternative does not call for further development, additional
revenue would not be generated. As described in the EIR, due to deteriorating and old
infrastructure, Alameda Point requires major public improvements to the existing
infrastructure and buildings. (Draft EIR, pages 346 -47.) Hence, adoption of the
Preservation Alternative would further frustrate the City's goals for Alameda Point because it
would require the City to identify major new funding sources for the improvement and
maintenance of Alameda Point facilities. Under the Preservation Alternative, the condition
of buildings would remain the same or deteriorate, resulting in blighted conditions and land
use impacts on adjacent neighborhoods.
The risk of geology and soil impacts would also increase. Because existing vacant
buildings are required to remain vacant under the Preservation Alternative and would not be
seismically upgraded, they would be subject to damage from liquefaction, differential
settlement, lateral spreading, or other seismic hazards. Moreover, flooding has historically
occurred at Alameda Point due to poor drainage conditions. Alameda Point's infrastructure
requires a major upgrade, including complete replacement of most of the existing drainage
system. Under the Preservation Alternative, outside funding would have to be identified for
a drainage system upgrade.
Furthermore, because no additional housing would be built under the Preservation
Alternative, the Project would fail to create a mixed -use environment or provide housing
opportunities consistent with the City's Housing Element. This alternative would result in
415 fewer affordable housing units in Alameda, and would likely prevent the City from
meeting its regional housing needs obligation. Alameda Point is one of the few remaining
areas within the City that would allow the development of housing to fulfill ABAG's
Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
Although the Preservation Alternative would avoid most of the construction- related -
traffic and transit system impacts of the Project, the Preservation Alternative would not avoid
unacceptable roadway and intersection operations in Oakland and the Posey Tube due to
regional growth. Because merely reducing the amount of infill-mixed use development in
Alameda will have little to no effect on larger regional traffic problems, the marginal traffic
benefits derived from preserving Alameda Point in its current condition do not compensate
for the Preservation's Alternative's failure to fulfill the City and community goals for the
GPA.
B. Alternative 2: No Project Alternat
The No Project Alternative, which is more fully described in the Draft EIR on pages
345 -46, assumes that the GPA is not adopted and that Alameda Point would remain in its
current physical condition. Existing regulations would continue to govern land use activities.
Existing buildings would continue to be leased under the Interim Leasing Program and the
1997 Master Use Permit, which establishes a cap of 5,420 employees and 268 residential
units. Due to the limitations of the existing General Plan designation and the interim lease
12
program, no new housing would be built. Some limited maintenance and upgrade of existing
facilities would occur under new leases, but no significant improvements would be made to
existing buildings within the GPA Planning Area.
The No Project Alternative would allow 1,660 fewer households and 706 fewer jobs
than proposed in the GPA.
The No Project Alternative is not a feasible alternative to the Project. The No Project
Alternative fails to fulfill the Project's objectives. As described below, the No Project
Alternative would not integrate Alameda Point with the rest of the city; would fail to foster a
new neighborhood; would fail to discourage automobile use; would fail to create a mixed -use
environment or neighborhood center; would fail to attain land use buildout; and it would fail
to provide housing opportunities.
The No Project Alterative does not create mixed -uses, but rather emphasizes jobs
over housing. Although housing would remain the same, the level of employment would
increase, creating the highest jobs/housing ratio of all the proposed alternatives. This effect
could be considered significant. Since the number of jobs at Alameda would be expected to
increase under the Interim Leasing Program without a corresponding increase in transit
services, impacts resulting from increased transit demand would not be avoided.
Because the No Project Alterative would not create new funding sources, existing
structures would continue to deteriorate and funding sources for needed drainage
improvements would have to be identified. The risk of geology and soil impacts would also
increase. Any upgrades to buildings would not necessarily include the seismic upgrades
necessary to protect against damage from liquefaction, differential settlement, lateral
spreading, or other seismic hazards.
Furtheiiuore, like the Preservation Alternative, the No Project Alternative would
result in 415 fewer affordable housing units in Alameda, and would likely prevent the City
from meeting its regional housing needs obligation. Alameda Point is one of the few
remaining areas within the City that would allow the development of housing to fulfill
ABAG' s Regional Housing Needs Allocation.
C. Alternative 3: Mixed Use Alternative
The Mixed Use Alternative, which is described in the Draft EIR on page 346, is
provided in response to public comments made by AC Transit and other interested parties
requesting that the EIR consider a "Transit Oriented" or "Smart Growth" alternative with
higher densities and land uses that would support greater transit use. The proposed GPA
land use designations would be adopted, but the number of housing units and amount of
commercial development would be increased to establish an urban mixed -use community
with a residential population of approximately 11,898. This alternative proposes
approximately 1,544 more households and 5,772 more jobs than the GPA. All other
13
proposed land uses and improvements would occur. Investment in public improvements,
such as transit improvements, would be higher than under the GPA.
The Mixed Use Alternative is not feasible due to the additional impacts resulting
from the increase in population and employment. The proposed increase in jobs and housing
would contribute to significant traffic impacts at the intersections of Jackson Street/6th Street
and Brush Street/12`h Street in Oakland. The Mixed -Use Alternative would also contribute
to an unacceptable level of service within the Posey Tube.
Additional impacts also would result from increased demand for water, higher solid
waste generation, and increased wastewater flows that could exceed the capacity of existing
sewage transport facilities.
D. Alternative 4: Reuse Full Buildout Alternative
The Reuse Full Buildout Alternative, which is described in the Draft EIR on page
346, is based on the adopted Community Reuse Plan for NAS Alameda. The Reuse Full
Buildout Alternative is provided to compare the significant environmental effects of the fully
built -out Community Reuse Plan to the effects of a fully built out GPA. The Reuse Full
Buildout assumes that the GPA is adopted, but that the intensity and density of non-
residential develop is increased. Similar to the Mixed Use Alternative and the currently
proposed GPA, the Reuse Full Buildout Alternative proposes a mixed -use neighborhood
containing light industry, office space, and residential uses. Under this alternative, fewer
housing units are proposed, but approximately 10,500 more jobs would be created than under
the GPA. All public improvements envisioned in the GPA would be implemented.
The Reuse Full Buildout Alternative would result in a larger number of significant
environmental effects than the GPA. Specifically, the increased development under this
Alternative would cause more traffic congestion at more locations and result in greater transit
demand than the GPA. The Reuse Full Buildout Alternative would contribute` more traffic
to significant traffic impacts at the intersections of Jackson Street/6th Street, and Brush
Street/12th Street in Oakland. Increased traffic resulting from the Reuse Full' Buildout
Alternative would also contribute to an unacceptable level of service within the Posey Tube.
Because the Reuse Full Buildout Alternative creates many more jobs than housing, it would
adversely impact the City's ratio of jobs to employed residents. The disproportionate
increase in jobs in relation to housing would encourage automobile use and result in an
increased housing demand. The Reuse Full Buildout Alternative is not a feasible alternative
to the GPA because it would require significant public transportation improvements that are
not currently designed, approved, or funded.
Like the Mixed Use Alternative, the Reuse Full Buildout Alternative would result in
increased demand for water, higher solid waste generation, and increased wastewater flows
that could exceed the capacity of existing sewage transport facilities.
14
IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City 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, 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, October
1999), the NAS Reuse EIR, and the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations
adopted by the City and ARRA on March 21, 2000 for acceptance of conveyance of Alameda
Point. 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 to that may occur:
A. Conversion to Civilian Use. Adoption of the GPA will facilitate the City's efforts to
implement the community's vision for the conversion of NAS Alameda to civilian use
as articulated in the Community Reuse Plan. NAS Alameda has been a closed military
facility with only interim reuse since April 30, 1997. The GPA will establish policies
and land use designations to guide development, public and private investment, and
long -term improvements consistent with the Community Reuse Plan.
B. Economic Development and Employment Opportunities. The GPA 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. Adoption of the GPA will establish policies and land use designations to allow
economic development and private investment that will replace jobs lost to residents of
Alameda and adjacent jurisdiction due to the closure of NAS Alameda. The GPA
includes policies and land use designations to allow improvement and reuse of the
former Naval facilities and development of new facilities and buildings for a mix of
businesses, light industry, and commercial uses that will achieve job creation and
economic development to provide the employment and economic benefits historically
associated with NAS Alameda; enhance reemployment opportunities; and encourage
uses that provide employment for displaced workers for residents of Alameda and
nearby cities in the region. Approximately 6,126 jobs could be created by land uses
developed under the GPA.
C. Housing for Families in all Income Groups As currently designated in the General Plan,
housing cannot be built at Alameda Point. Adoption of the GPA will make a substantial
amount of land at Alameda Point available for housing production. The GPA land use
designations and policies would allow for and encourage as many as 1,981 housing
units. One in every four new housing units built (25%) will be an "affordable" housing
15
unit restricted to households which qualify as moderate, low, or very low income
households.
D. Public Access and Public Open Space Benefits The operations at NAS Alameda
severely limited public access to waterfront areas, major open spaces, and recreational
facilities at the Base. Implementation of the GPA will create approximately 340 acres
of public recreational open space, up to 600 hotel rooms, 530 marina slips, a golf
course, and 515 acres of wildlife refuge. The GPA will optimize visual and physical
access to the water through policies that call for development of a perimeter bicycle
and pedestrian trail, creation of a public parkin the Northwest Territories, establishing
a public plaza at the marina, and creation of access to and educational programs in the
wildlife refuge.
E. Preventing Further Deterioration of Facilities and Blight Buildings, infrastructure, and
grounds at NAS Alameda are in need of major investment and improvements. If the
conditions are allowed to continue, blighted conditions will increase and critical
infrastructure necessary to maintain the public health and welfare, such as sewer
systems, water systems, and drainage systems will continue to deteriorate. Adoption of
the GPA will stimulate private reinvestment in the facilities and grounds and halt
economic blighting conditions causing stagnant property values and impaired
investments from occurring following base closure and transition to private ownership.
The GPA establishes land use designation and policies to allow private development
that will finance needed infrastructure and public service improvements. These
developments will eliminate physical blighting conditions, which in turn prevent the
effective use of buildings or underutilized land at Alameda Point. Improvements to
buildings and infrastructure will enhance the health, safety and welfare of the
community. The GPA policies will also facilitate re- investment in buildings and
grounds within the NAS Historic District, which is essential to the long -term
preservation and maintenance of these historic resources.
F. Public Investment in Public Facilities and Infrastructure The GPA will also stimulate
public investment in infrastructure and public improvements needed at Alameda Point.
The GPA will facilitate conveyance of Alameda Point from the Navy to the ARRA
pursuant to the agreed No Cost Economic Development Conveyance in order to
achieve economic redgvelopmentof the property. The GPA will facilitate development
that will generate fax increment to fund rehabilitation of facilities.` The tax increment
projections created during the Alameda Point Improvement Plan ( "APIP ") adoption
process anticipate that the reuse of Alameda Point will generate a total of $35 million
present value, or $127 million future value, in funds specifically earmarked for housing
over the 45 -year life of the project. 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
16
correct deficiencies in infrastructure, public facilities, parks, recreation and open space,
and provide monies for building rehabilitation and building demolition.
G. Create a new Alameda Neighborhood Adoption of the GPA will facilitate the
community's vision as articulated in the Community Reuse Plan to seamlessly integrate
the former Naval facility into the existing urban fabric of the City of Alameda. GPA
policies will facilitate and encourage future development and public improvements at
and adjacent to Alameda Point which will convert the former military facility into a
vibrant new Alameda neighborhood in keeping with Alameda's scale and character.
GPA policies will provide for a suitable environment for new residents, economic
growth and improve the well being of existing and future citizens and businesses.
H. Facilitate improvements to transportation facilities and transit oriented development
patterns. Alameda Point is currently an auto - oriented site with minimal and
underutilized transit service. Adoption of the GPA will facilitate conversion of
Alameda Point to a pedestrian friendly, transit oriented, mixed -use community. GPA
policies discourage automobile use and encourage new transit- oriented development.
GPA policies encourage establishment of neighborhood centers that are distributed so
that residents can walk to accomplish multiple purposes and have access to transit.
GPA policies will also facilitate development of additional transit services and an
increase in alternative modes of transportation to the automobile.
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.
VI. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon
which the City bases its findings and decisions contained herein. The record of proceedings
is located at the Planning and Building Department, City of Alameda, 2263 Santa Clara
Avenue, Room 120, Alameda, California 94501. The custodian for the record of proceedings
is the Planning and Building Department of the City of Alameda.
VII. SUMMARY FINDINGS
A. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record,
the City has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each of the
significant effects of the Project:
17
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 IV, above.
G :\PLANNING\PB\RESO\2003\Alameda Pt GPA Findings.doc
18
Exhibit B
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROG
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to comply with the
requirements of California State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). State law requires
the adoption of an MMRP when mitigation measures are required to avoid significant impacts. The
monitoring program is intended to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during imple-
mentation of the project.
This MMRP has been formulated based upon the findings of the Alameda Point General Plan
Amendment (GPA) Final EIR (Final EIR). The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the
Final EIR for the proposed project. Mitigation monitoring requirements are provided for mitigation
measures that would avoid or reduce significant impacts of the project. The mitigation monitoring
table specifies the agencies responsible for funding, implementation, and monitoring.
Table 1 presents the mitigation measures identified for the proposed project that are necessary to
mitigate potentially significant impacts to a less- than- significant level. 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, WA1ER -3 is the first significant impact identified as
part of the Water Resources analysis. Mitigation measures recommended to further minimize less -
than- significant impacts are not included in Table 1.
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
I E. WATER RESOURCES
The City Public Works Department shall
review the operations and maintenance plan to
verify the inclusion of stormwater treatment
controls. The City Public Works Department
shall conduct a site inspection to verify
compliance with the plan.
The City Public Works Department shall
conduct a site inspection to verify that water
supply wells that are not proposed for future
use are properly abandoned in accordance with
the California Department of Water Resources
Well Standards (Bulletin 74 -90).
I G. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The City Planning Department shall review the
findings of the completed bat survey. If special
status bat species are identified, the Planning
Department shall make the preparation and
implementation of a bat relocation plan or a bat
protection plan a condition of the demolition
permit.
The City Public Works Department shall moni-
tor peak flows to the WWTP. The City Public
Works Department shall review grading
permits for specific development projects to
ensure that projects provide facilities to reduce
peak wastewater flows, or make fair share con-
tributions to the upgrading of City wastewater
facilities.
Timing of
Implementation
Prior to issuance of
grading permits.
Prior to issuance of
grading permits.
o •
C Q)
=o
o
0
2E
4b
I. UTILITIES
Prior to issuance of
grading permit for
specific development
projects.
Prior to issuance of
demolition permits.
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Project Developers
Project Developers
b
ct_ o
E
w
m w
U 0
o -
Project Developers
Party
Responsible for
Funding
Project Developers
Project Developers
0.
0
a)
'ET
Project Developers
City of Alameda and.°
Project Developers
Mitigation Measure
comply with an operations and maintenance plan to minimize surface
runoff. These plans shall include stormwater treatment controls to
manage the quantity and quality of stormwater runoff.
shall be properly abandoned in accordance with the California
Department of Water Resources Well Standards (Bulletin 74 -90).
buildings, a qualified biologist familiar with bats shall conduct a survey
to determine the status of any bat species on the project site. If special -
status bat species are found, a biologist familiar with relocating bats shall
be consulted regarding the best methods to remove bats from the build-
ings, and such methods shall be implemented. All relocation plans
would be subject to review and approval by the California Department of
Fish and Game. If suitable roost sites are not present in the area after
demolition of the existing roost, a plan to construct artificial roost sites
would be developed and submitted to CDFG for approval. Artificial
roosts should be constructed at least 6 months prior to demolition of the
existing roosts. This could include removing sections of the walls and
roofs, which would discourage bats from continuing to roost in the
buildings. If a maternity colony of any bats is found, the building and
the bats shall not be disturbed until the young have dispersed.
overall peak flows into the WWTP, each future specific development
project shall either provide facilities to reduce peak flows or contribute
its fair share of the costs associated with the design and development of
a sewer retention facility or an enhanced West Alameda I &I Program.
Reuse E!R Mitigation UTIL -I. Plans for managing construction debris
from subsequent specific projects shall be developed that promote
separation of waste types and recycling, and provide for reuse of
materials on -site for reconstructtng infrastructure. This plan shall be
prepared in coordination with City staff, the specific Projects'
sponsor(s), and demolition subcontractors, and shall be approved by City
staff prior to issuance of a demolition permit. The City and sponsors of
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
The City Public Works Department shall
review the TCP to ensure that it meets the
requirements outlined in Mitigation Measure
TRANS -la. Approval of the TCP shall only be
granted after consultation with the City of
Oakland.
The City shall review the TCP to ensure the
inclusion of designated roads for truck
traffic.
The City Public Works Department shall work
with the appropriate transportation departments
and agencies to design improvements to the
intersection of Brush Street/12th Street.
The City Public Works Department shall work
with the appropriate transportation departments
and agencies to design improvements to relieve
congestion at 6'h Street/Jackson Street.
In addition, the Public Works Department will
ensure the completion of the Broadway /Jackson
Phase
II study identified in the Countywide Long
Range Transportation Plan as "SR260 to 1 -880
Connection Improvements."
The City Public Works department shall verify
that the Alameda Guidelines for the Prepara-
tion of Traffic Studies require that major project
development proposals include an assessment
of the proposed project's contribution to antici-
pated unacceptable levels of service at Brush
Street/12`h Street, and Jackson Street/6t Street.
The City Building Services Department shall
ensure that individual projects make
appropriate fair share contributions to roadway
improvements that benefit traffic levels at these
intersections.
Timing of
Implementation
%2
)�
/
§.
2 j \
\ /\
/ <E
Prior to issuance of
building or grading
permits.
Ongoing. (Timing
determined by the City
of Oakland.)
i
j.2
\ /\
/](
2\ §. .
7 )
/\k a\\ cl j //
\ IE
f e >2m-
= � - moo »
-o a.) \° =
)\So m =be &
at
/
_
%�
k
)o V
j\
® &
$
)
\ ..
\/\
\
esi
em
° . .
�
n(
W
C
Mi
&7x
(
awu
u2
. .
.. .
^
a..
, CL
2 2
±
/ «?
O/6
O6
En
o
/
#
rt
sit
di
✓el
Mt
E
\
/
§
2
<
J
t
0
/ \ 2.
/
/
Mitigation Measure
projects shall work with organizations able to provide funding and
technical assistance for managing and financing deconstruction,
demolition, and recycling and reuse programs, should those programs
exist at the time of site clearance.
Plan (TCP) to address the impacts of construction vehicles on regional
and local roadways. The TCP shall address construction truck routes
and access as well as needed local lane closures. Where bus routes, bike
routes, sidewalks or emergency routes are affected, appropriate signage
to indicate detour routes should be provided. Bus stops that must be
temporarily relocated shall also be identified and presented in the TCP.
The TCP may recommend installation of directional signs for trucks and
designate time periods when construction truck traffic would be allowed.
The TCP shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Alameda Public
Works Department after consultation with the City of Oakland prior to
issuance of any building or grading permits."
Itruck routes within the cities of Alameda and Oakland.
Ithe CMA, and Caltrans to consider various improvement options, which
could include signal timing improvements or additional lanes on the
ramp leading to the intersection of Brush Street/12th Street
and the City, of Oakland to consider various improvement options, which
could include signal timing improvements, dedicated lanes, or additional
lanes to relieve congestion at 6th Street/Jackson Street The City of
Alameda will also take the lead responsibility for managing completion
of the Broadway /Jackson Phase H study identified in the Countywide
Long Range Transportation Plan as "SR260 to I-880 Connection
Improvements" to determine mutually acceptable, technically feasible
means to relieve congestion resulting from peak hour traffic entering and
exiting the Posey Tube, as those improvements would benefit conditions
at 6th Street/Jackson Street.
Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Studies to ensure that all future
major project development proposals within Alameda Point GPA
planning area and other areas of the City prepare a traffic analysis that
includes an assessment of the proposed project's contribution to
anticipated unacceptable levels of service at Brush Street/12t Street, and
Jackson Street/6th Street. Based upon this assessment, the City shall
require each future development to fund, on a fair -share basis, any
improvements to these two intersections
that have been mutually agreed to by the cities of Alameda and
Oakland pursuant to Mitigation Measures TRANS -2a or TRANS -2b.
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
C C
ro O
= C
m O8 W}
C 4,
a t) �N�
A'�
o
�n .r C
O CC A
G. 8.
» oz
C 1
3 Fr
0
The City Planning Department shall verify that
the GPA has been amended, as detailed in
Mitigation Measure TRANS -2e.
The City Public Works Department shall verify
that a feasibility study is completed that
evaluates an alternative transportation corridor
between Alameda and Oakland.
See Mitigation Measure TRANS -2c.
Timing of
Implementation
ti
w
O «+
C
ca
vi C
a CO
o N
O
rt
GPA approval.
Prior to issuance of first
entitlement permit.
See Mitigation Measure
TRANS -2c.
Ongoing.
Broadway /Jackson
Phase II study RFQ for
project manager to be
issued by May 1, 2003.
RFP for project technical
consultants to be issued
by May 15, 2003.
Party Responsible
for Implementation
e
x
b.
0
a c a�
0
U Q
City Planning Department
City Public Works
Department, BART, AC
Transit, other transit -
related local/regional
agencies
See Mitigation Measure
TRANS -2c.
Party
Responsible for
Funding
8
g
Q
0
"
U
eM
Q
o
U
City of Alameda
See Mitigation
Measure TRANS -2c.
City of Alameda
Mitigation Measure
implementing the GPA for Alameda Point, the City shall create and
maintain a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM Plan)
for Western Alameda, designed to reduce demand for single- occupant,
peak hour trips, and to increase access to transit opportunities. The plan
shall differentiate between commuter (both work and school) and
recreational/shopping trips and provide for strategies focused on both
types of users. The plan shall identify funding needs and sources
associated with the cost of implementing strategies. The plan should
provide a variety of strategies that address all available transportation
alternatives. These strategies may include financial incentives for
alternative mode use preferential car /van pool parking; parking charges
for SOVs; ridematching services; flexible scheduling; telecommuting
and improvements to public transit such as queue jump lanes for
transit/HOV at the tube entrance; provision of Transit Signal
Prioritization; subsidized shuttles to/from BART and/or increased AC
Transit service; and subsidies for enhanced transit-connections between
ferries and major destinations. Major project area developers shall fund
the TDM Plan on a fair share basis. The TDM Plan shall be funded at a
level that would enable the goal of a 30 percent reduction insingle-
occupancy, peak hour ridership for commercial uses and 10 percent for
residential uses.
traffic, air quality, and noise impacts identified in this EIR, it is
recommended that the proposed GPA Policy 9.2.j shall be amended as
follows:
9.2.j Maintain overall development in Alameda Point in accordance
with Table 2 -7 while permitting flexibility in the location and
mix of development types in the three mixed use areas.
Establish zoning regulations for Alameda Point that regulate
I TRANS -3a: Adopt Mitigation Measure TRANS -2c (TDM Plan).
CMA and the City of Oakland to consider various improvement options,
which could include signal timing improvements, dedicated lanes, or
additional lanes to relieve congestion at the Posey Tube. The City of
Alameda will also take the lead responsibility for managing completion
of the Broadway /Jackson Phase II study identified in the Countywide
Long Range Transportation Plan as ``5R260 to 1 -880 Connection
Improvements" to determine mutually acceptable, technically feasible
means to relieve congestion resulting from peak hour traffic entering and
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
has been completed.
The City Public Works Department shall verify
that the City of Alameda Guidelines for the
Preparation of Traffic Studies include the
conditions outlined in Mitigation Measure
TRANS -3c. The City Public Works Depart-
ment shall also verify that the development
plans for specific projects would reduce peak
hour trips by the volumes discussed in Miti-
gation Measure TRANS -3c. The City Building
Services Department shall verify that the
project developers fund trip - reducing measures
and agreed -to improvements to the Posey
Tube/I -880 connection.
See Mitigation Measure TRANS -2e.
See Mitigation Measure TRANS -2f. 1
See Mitigation Measure TRANS -2c.
The City Public Works Department shall work
with the appropriate transportation agencies
and departments to evaluate improvement
options to relieve congestion within the Posey
Tube and on Alameda Avenue and High Street
in Oakland.
The City Public Works Department shall verify
that the Alameda Guidelines for the
Preparation of Traffic Studies include the
conditions outlined in Mitigation Measure
TRANS -4c. In addition, the City Building
Services Department shall ensure that the
project developers fund appropriate trip
reduction or other measures to reduce the
project's impact on the MTS segments.
See Mitigation Measure TRANS -2e.
Sec Mitigation Measure TRANS 2f.
Timing of
Implementation
I-
o ;-
c C
m.'
o E
v
0
0
See Mitigation Measure
TRANS -2e.
See Mitigation Measure
TRANS -2f.
See Mitigation Measure
TRANS -2c.
Ongoing.
Prior to issuance of first
entitlement permit.
See Mitigation Measure
TRANS -2e.
Party Responsible
for Implementation
N
X
O
o
Ii
See Mitigation Measure
TRANS -2e.
See Mitigation Measure
TRANS -2f.
See Mitigation Measure
TRANS -2c.
City Public Works
Department, Caltrans, the
CMA, City of Oakland
City Public Works
Department
See Mitigation Measure
TRANS -2e.
See Mitigation Measure
TRANS -2f.
Party
Responsible for
Funding
ct
Q
""
o
U
See Mitigation
Measure TRANS -2e.
See Mitigation
Measure TRANS -2f.
See Mitigation
Measure TRANS -2c.
City of Alameda
Q
o
0
U
See Mitigation
Measure TRANS -2e.
See Mitigation
Measure TRANS -2f.
Mitigation Measure
lexiting the Posey Tube.
Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Studies to ensure that all major
project development proposals within the Alameda Point GPA planning
area and other areas of the City include a traffic analysis in accordance
with the City's Traffic Capacity Management Procedure (Resolution
13345) that incorporates an assessment of the proposed project's
contribution to the anticipated unacceptable levels of
service at the Webster and Posey Tubes. Based upon that
assessment, the City shall require that each future development reduce
peak hour trips through the tubes by at least 10 percent for residential
and 30 percent for non - residential development. (The TCMP ordinance
is designed to allow the City to monitor Tube capacity and limit future
development based upon remaining available capacity.) The City will
require each future development to fund appropriate trip reduction
measures to reduce the project's traffic impact on,the Posey Tube
(consistent with Mitigation Measure TRANS -3a) acrid fund, on a fair -
share basis, any mutually- agreed -to improvements to the Posey Tube11-
880 connection that have been established through Mitigation Measures
TRANS -3b.
(Intensity- Based Development Regulations).
I TRANS-3e: The City shall adopt Mitigation Measure TRANS -2f
I TRANS -4a: The City shall adopt Mitigation Measure TRANS -2c
and the City of Oakland to consider various improvement options, which
might include signal timing improvements, dedicated lanes, or additional
lanes to relieve congestion within the Posey Tube and on Alameda
Avenue and High Street in Oakland.
Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Studies to ensure that all future
major project development proposals within the Alameda
Point GPA Planning Area and other areas of the City prepare a traffic,
analysis that incorporates an assessment of the proposed project's
contribution to the anticipated unacceptable Levels of Service at the
Posey Tube, High Street, and Alameda Avenue. Based upon that
assessment, the City shall require that each future development fund
appropriate trip reduction or other measures to reduce the project's
impact on the MTS segments.
I TRANS -4d: The City shall adopt Mitigation Measure TRANS -2e
I(Gondola/Alternative Transit Corridor Feasibility Studies).
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
The City Public Works Department shall
review ridership level studies and work with the
appropriate agencies to develop route and
service changes to maintain adequate service.
The City Public Works department shall work
with other transportation agencies to advocate
for increased funding.
The City Public Works department shall review
each transportation analysis to ensure that it
contains the analysis components
listed in Mitigation Measure TRANS -5c. In
addition, the City Building Services
Department shall ensure that project developers
make a fair share contribution to transit
services.
K. AIR QUALITY
The City Planning Department shall conduct
field inspections during the project construction
period to verify that BAAQMD dust control
measures are being implemented.
The City Building Services Department shall
ensure that developers fund, on a fair share
basis, BAAQMD - recommended TCMs as
described in Mitigation Measure AIR -2.
Tilning of
Implementation
Ongoing.
Ongoing.
o ..4
z
o 0
Prior to issuance of
grading or building
permit
000
b
7 A
A OA
E
Party Responsible
for Implementation
City Public Works
Department, AC Transit,
Blue and Gold Fleet
City Public Works
Department, AC Transit,
Blue and Gold Fleet,
Water Transit Authority
w
C
g
UA
Project Developers
.
O
v
t�
Party
Responsible for
Funding
City of Alameda
City of Alameda
d
o
U
Project Developers
ti
a
o
•o
r�
Mitigation Measure
TRANS -5a: The City will work with AC Transit, BART, and the Blue
and Gold Fleet to monitor ridership levels and develop mutually -
beneficial route and service changes when necessary to maintain
adequate service levels.
Gold Fleet, and the Water Transit Authority to advocate for additional
County, State, and federal funding to support increased services.
development proposals within the Alameda Point GPA planning area
prepare a transportation analysis that includes an assessment of the
proposed project's impact on transit services and supplemental services
necessary to ensure that transit service capacity is not exceeded by new
ridership. Supplemental transit services may include financial support
for additional AC Transit service or options for innovative alternative
transit modes including but not limited to a gondola., amphibious buses,
bus barges, water taxis, group rapid transit and/or light rail. Based upon
that assessment, the City will require that each future development fund,
on a fair -share basis, supplemental service required to support the
proposed development.
measures included in Appendix G of this EIR.
recommended feasible TCMs for reducing vehicle emissions from
commercial, institutional, and industrial operations, as well as all CAP
TCMs the BAAQMD has identified as appropriate for local
implementation. Each major developer of development under the GPA
shall fund its fair share toward some or all of the following TCMs:
• Rideshare Measures: Implement carpool/vanpool program (e.g.,
carpool ride matching for employees, assistance with vanpool
formation, provision of vanpool vehicles, etc.) (Effectiveness 1
percent - 4 percent of work trips, BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines).
• Transit Measures: (i) Construct transit facilities such as bus
turnouts/bus bulbs, benches, shelters, etc. (Effectiveness 0.5 percent
— 2 percent of all trips); (ii) Design and locate buildings to facilitate
transit access (e.g., locate building entrances near transit stops,
eliminate building setbacks, etc.) (Effectiveness 0.1 percent - 0.5
percent of all trips).
• Services Measures: (i) ovide on -site shops and services for
employees, such as cafeteria, bank/ATM, dry cleaners, convenience
market, etc. (Effectiveness 0.5 percent - 5 percent of work trips); (ii)
Provide on -site child care, or contribute to off -site child care within
walking distance. (Effectiveness 0.1 percent - 1 percent of work
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
oi
0
0
w 6.=
o
to q
g
rr
I L. NOISE
Prior to issuance of
grading or building
permit.
Party Responsible
for Implementation
Party
Responsible for
Funding
V
a
0
0` -o 0
A > u
0.1 UU
Mitigation Measure
N 0 ` U
O N U I 0 as
> N R. a a u a 0 0 w- c 18 v O 8 E q
ti
a3�> a °. � ° � `ww o 3 ^ Na tin a�� a 0 ti.V%h O y 'h0 8C y a.. .•> ..... z e2
0 .-.
a vp w ° .peal , � v,fl V �E N �v oN w ti e:,0 v w C . a ti y v b aa Ao > > o ,G v. � 0 a a a • . w w p �ID'JJ h • O Ifififi ooa,a c ^> 9 aE . n � G m G ue y: .'t ) -4 ' c 6 cm m o o o o oy ^ o N :N'o ` >w 6 E G i a •a S w- o coo o :.CB> .. ° ° > ci °o 0 O g o a, 0 3 v o a a^ Q= c E om � N ChN ny° at.0 . o E '3 � E oa' u E a • 5 NN ', . a nC. 2 0,� . E >5 , cd
5, w U 'O I a W 'Z1 w >, Z:5' .F. X Q a. ca W 0 c-4-, W y a k ° > y G
''L) i ` . . y O"O G G o XbG ti U ,n Eo-c 4) N U A •.>N U N v •
L 5� o•U a.y ti'8 v 3° 8° an g a o o X � • 3 E
5 N �x " E C) c >N 4, >,c) C) E O w 'T 4] w ' y 5 d O w 0 •
5 1 O w a x ca. o ¢' W • a 3 ato 0 3 a b a >, b t,c .� N y �, W c >
X 3 c 4 N. = v !UP;hl 0 w w '<d t G w 1!U
•zo wW E� ° p y b l� b o m.ti •�� • `u o .6 . a , ., oo �E -TvCbI ��a ag=aE�"X u ~ ° >o 5 °� c . i a
a ti 5: .a4 p- W o 2 4 CV o 8 o a3 „ r, N w N C� '4 .^. ' c ai E O° as ot4 o .5 n, a.n >�2a.>omo.a I Euj°`" Uo r
development - specific noise reduction plans. This
measure shall be enforced via contract specifications. Each
developer and/or contractor should be contractually required to
demonstrate knowledge of the Alameda Noise Ordinance, and to
perform construction activities in a manner such that noise levels do not
exceed Alameda Noise Ordinance criteria. Contractors may elect any
combination of legal, non - polluting methods to maintain or reduce noise
to thresholds levels or lower, as long as those methods do not result in
other significant environmental impacts or create a substantial public
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
reduction measures have been implemented.
c
0
a) .5
71 E ma
a-
C
0 u.
u h N
y4. 0a,
Q El
cn > 00
.0.04 VI 0
0 =
0 b
0... ..0�. 0
y o•O
U 0 a) a
cu ,a H°0o
Timing of
Implementation
C
a)
O OA
c h
O
y5 =
0
a >
O Q
o L
O C
4E-
Party Responsible
for Implementation
U,
?C
0
0 q
a)
4
U
Party
Responsible for
Funding
c
c
d
w
O
U
Mitigation Measure
nuisance. The developer and/or contractor shall perform a site - specific
acoustical analysis, and, if necessary, shall develop and implement a
noise reduction plan subject to review and approval by the City. The
plan for attenuating construction - related noises shall be implemented
prior to the initiation of any work that triggers the need for such a plan.
a)
e
w o
8
0
C
C-41
N�°
b
c
w.=
a)
g
N
(W/)
O>
z
°
cn
.N
a0..
)
,
,„
y
>.0
h
a
v
8
C
�
y A
.b
E
�%p^
-
C G
<a
0 cn m =
).c a. a 3 -15,..;.=
E , °
cu "' a) 't ,o 0) .L
p c
yU 1,4 5Q 0 o to a) ' «Z
0 o
'O E 5 .o, o 0 0 •U � 0
— O cz b T d
c )., p N 7 •a
p: gip p > n c O
C w w
.a w�.,../' 3 cna0o ° Q'
, 0¢ > 0 ' 11 o o
L 7 , o. >
C >
. a, ) n O O w ca �S -O
0 . p a) O da) .0 0 • 0
E 8 P u L .y :b U a) 7 l cC)
; C ° . -�
0 ) .0 •) 3 . _0
•
° 0 040 0 N
0 4 p 0
Q 0 , o . 0 a0. a) a
" , v a) ,.. c o .c
° °c°0 � ~�0O
�ai �� 4
° a g o ° °b o b a a° O ob
M E-, ' 0O N 3 0 N
^ u 0E a O 0 0 a •f
•
c O 5 a) ^O . C0
� cin
0 0 ❑. 0 0 O 4) 0 c Q
a) > a a.)) •O o o. o .° N PC
u C a a A w N p„ ++ , U b
o.2 o E o,n ,� ai a.v -�
,. ro .y ; 0 �. "d — 70 0 ., C i0. ,.
O R. "may Q) p G C ) P•— co
a o ti c. o 0 o
•
p G
� 3 j �°o O °?y • g w
0 cd O 144" '8 , > C 8
a,o c y 4) O 'S •
o•. 5 m c. 5y g .P w g
0o ,o 3 0 U ?
N > 7 0 O . . v "0 :0 • T w0
4) .E. '8 O ..
.. > O m 0 0 ° '.4
C a N p., en 0 b � q .0 aO
¢ _ >3= 8 ,s y
..
U ai ) N m
.E 0
8xv)- o6Q $ ) C c o,=
w H i Q.) •= . ... ,) a) a Z c
o o 5 a; ° `� i 3
ga C s"
-N4 o O T
� i .5.' ❑ O aC ai p N 0 . 0
Eo O O E '0 °4„ y 0 4 a) 6 C 0
ta.o o f > v += <.8 3•° o
�N E .0 o -0 � G
a y 4 ° 'J 00
� a� C a^ C� 0
, O ab C O n O o ° '
A N ; C - b
y _ao EH 0 xE> a >
°ca� o� o 3� a
oy �°
� . m 0 0 to' ca.U'a ov C >
00 . 0 c 3 ��
O 0.0 at +-' :w ,p
0"- G '.' w y ^q 3 .4 m
o a �
3 W O •0 00 0 'O 'b o , 3 O. v.
0 z sa - c 3 >, : 0 3 0 0, '0 c Q E
p (.% 3 0 ~0 > > .,, p ca i. > 6 o
o¢' ° �4y' a1.) CI 0 44,1 3 0 °'gyp¢' -
P:1 b 0 cC cd 0 0 3 '0 , '0 = 0 c ,.. - 3 N
'- v ,� . a. a0i w p G C � ca w C '�.., a)
ad _ >. o f =w . o o aF-0 >
vii S O
ob
a J 0
a) ,PL-)
E H
(,
oA -�
a N
a wa
=
U
° A
�
o
go
""
�
'..O c 3
)
3 v m
y =
O
3
g a L
c. ii
o `C
ro
°0' a �>,�
° F
r0. > .O
'tip �o
= c a
`0° c O
ahU
•
Reporting or
Monitoring Method
M. HAZARDS I
The City Planning Department shall review the
GPA to ensure the inclusion of the language in
Mitigation Measure HAZ -6.
Timing of
Implementation
Approval of GPA.
Party Responsible
for Implementation
-
City Planning Department
Party
Responsible for
Funding
...........__
City of Alameda
HAZ -6: The following implementing Policy shall be added to the
Environmental Cleanup section of the GPA: "At the time of property
transfer from the Navy to the City, the City shall ensure that
environmental restrictions (i.e., deed restrictions) regarding Marsh
Crust/subtidal zone excavation and shallow groundwater use are
recorded." Implementation of the existing and proposed policies and the
mitigation measure described in Chapter IV (for this impact) will ensure
that no significant impact results.
Mitigation Measure
he exposed to higher noise levels (due to smaller setbacks), noise
attenuation measures will need to be incorporated into their design to
ensure that City standards are met.
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 a regular meeting assembled on the 20th
day of May, 2003, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, and Mayor Johnson - 4.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Councilmember Matarrese - 1.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
215 day of May, 2003.
Lara Weisiger, City Clek
City of Alameda