Resolution 14494CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.
4
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
BOATWORKS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE BOATWORKS
RESIDENTIAL PROJECT REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
WHEREAS, on October 12, 2009, the City issued a Notice of Preparation
('NOP") of the Draft Environmental impact Report ( "DEIR ") for the Boatworks
Residential Project (State Clearinghouse No. 2009102040); and
WHEREAS, the NOP was circulated for comment by responsible and
trustee agencies and the public for a total of 127 days from October 12, 2009
through February 16, 2010, during which time the City held a public scoping
meeting on January 26, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the DEIR, consisting of a one volume plus the DEIR
Appendices, was issued on March 12, 2010, and was circulated for public review
through April 28, 2010, for a total of 46 days, during which time the City held a
public hearing on the DEIR on April 26, 2010; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the public review period, the Final
Environmental Impact Report ( "Final EIR ") was prepared, which responds to the
written and oral comments received during the public review period; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, which consists of the DEIR and DEIR
Appendices, published on March 12, 2010, as well as comments on the DEIR,
responses to those comments, and revisions to the DEIR contained in the Final
EIR volume published on June 9, 2010 was made available to the public for
review on June 9, 2010; . and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing on the
Final EIR on June 21, 2010, and examined pertinent maps and documents,
considered the testimony and written comments received; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR was presented to and independently reviewed
and considered by the Planning Board; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the Final EIR and oral and written public
testimony, the Planning Board unanimously recommended that the City Council
certify the Final EIR for the reduced density alternative; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 7, 2010
and considered the Final EIR and oral and written public testimony;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council:
1. Certifies that the Final El R for the Boatworks Residential Project has
Page 1 of 2
been completed in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21 000 et seq., the State
CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, section
15000 et seq., and all applicable state and local guidelines, and
reflects the independent judgment of the City.
2. Finds that the Reduced Density Alternative, which is described in
detail on pages 5 -9 to 5 -12 of the DF I R (as amended by text
changes shown on Final EIR page), and in the June 21, 2010 staff
report and materials presented to the Planning Board is a feasible,
environmentally superior alternative to the proposed project and is
consistent with the project objectives identified in the EIR.
3. Adopts the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations for
the Boatworks Residential Project Reduced Density Alternative,
attached hereto as Exhibit A.
Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
BOATWORKS RESIDENTIAL PROJECT REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
1. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
The Final Environmental Impact Report on the Boatworks Residential Project (State
Clearinghouse No. 2009102040) ( "Final EIR" or "EIR "), prepared by the City of Alameda
( "City ") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), Public Resources
Code Section 2 1000 et seq. , analyzes the potential environmental impacts of implementing and
constructing the Boatworks Residential Project ( "Proposed Project ") and alternatives, including a
Reduced Density Alternative. The Final EIR. considers the environmental effects of all aspects of
the project from construction through full occupancy, including work to prepare the property for
redevelopment and environmental remediation activities. Mitigation measures are included to
address the impacts of site preparation, remediation, construction, and full occupancy. The
Final EIR consists of the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") and DEIR Appendices,
published on March 12, 2010, as well as comments on the DEIR, responses to those comments,
and revisions to the DEIR contained in the Final EIR volume published on June 9, 2010. The
EIR is a project -level EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the State "CEQA Guidelines" (California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. ).
On October 12, 2009, the City issued a Notice of Preparation (NOP) indicating that an
EIR would be prepared for the Proposed Project. The NOP was filed with the State
Clearinghouse and circulated to governmental agencies and the public for 30 days for review and
comment. Comment letters were received. The DEIR was published on March 1 2, 2010, for a
46-day public review period that ended on April 26, 2010. During that time, the DEIR was
reviewed by various governmental agencies, as well as by interested individuals and
organizations. In addition, members of the public were invited by formal public notice to submit
comments on the DEIR in testimony at a public hearing held for that purpose on April 26, 2010.
Additional public comments were received at this hearing.
On June 21, 2010, the Planning Board endorsed the Reduced Density Alternative, which
is described in detail on pages 5 -9 to 5 -12 of the DEIR, and in the staff report and materials
presented to the Planning Board on May 24th, and June 21st, 2010. On Jul 15, 2010, the
P July
Planning Board denied the applications for the proposed project to build 242 units on the
property.
The Reduced Density Alternative would require demolition of the existing buildings and
removal of the existing hardscape and parking areas, like the Proposed Project. New
construction would consist of 180 housing units, internal circulation roadways and pedestrian
paths, and a wider waterfront esplanade than the Proposed Project. The waterfront land between
the project site and the Oakland Estuary would be rehabilitated, similar to the Proposed Project,
but the Reduced Density Alternative would create a larger area of publicly accessible waterfront
open space.
The objectives for the project and the alternatives, which are listed on pages 5 -3 through
5-16 of the Draft EIR, are as follows:
• Eliminate blighting influences and correct environmental deficiencies in the area
including, but not limited to, abandoned buildings, incompatible land uses, depreciated or
stagnant land values, contamination, inadequate public improvements, facilities and
utilities.
• Plan, redesign, and develop an underutilized site approximately 9.5 acres in size to
complement the surrounding residential neighborhoods.
• Provide a variety of housing types consistent with City of Alameda General Plan Housing
Element goals and objectives.
• Increase the supply of affordable housing in the City of Alameda.
• Reduce the impact of automobile use and energy consumption through site design and by
facilitating public transit opportunities, and providing bicycle paths and pedestrian paths
through the site and along the waterfront.
• Improve public access to and views of the waterfront by providing a waterfront
promenade and allowing views to and through the site to the waterfront from Clement
Avenue.
The Final EIR was presented to the City Council, and the Council reviewed the Final
EIR. The analysis and conclusions contained in the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment
of the City. Based on all of the information and evidence in the record, the City hereby makes
the following Findings with respect to the Boatworks Project Reduced Density Alternative.
11. SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACTS AND
DISPOSITION OF RELATED MITIGATION MEASURES
The Final EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable adverse impacts and
related mitigation measures associated with the Boatworks Project Reduced Density Alternative.
Some of the significant and unavoidable traffic impacts identified for the Proposed Project would
not occur under the Reduced Density Alternative, as described below. For the remaining
significant and unavoidable impacts that would occur, the severity of the impacts would be
lessened under the Reduced Density Alternative compared to the Proposed Project. It is hereby
determined that these significant and unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable for the reasons
specified in Section V, below.
Impact 4.B -4: Traffic at Intersection of Park Street and Blanding Avenue
The addition of project-generated traffic would cause the level of service at the signalized
intersection of Park Street and Blanding Avenue to degrade from LOS E to LOS F during the
a.m. peak hour, and from LOS D to LOS E during the p.m. peak hour.
2
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the number of units on the project site,
thereby decreasing trip generation associated with residential units. Although the increased park
space could draw some additional visitors to the site, the Reduced Project Alternative would
generate fewer vehicle and transit trips than the Proposed Project. Under the Reduced Density
Alternative, this significant and unavoidable traffic impact would still occur, but the severity of
the impact would be lessened compared to the Proposed Project.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.B-4, set forth below, which is hereby
incorporated and shall be made a condition of the approval of the Reduced Density Alternative
Development Plan, would improve vehicular operating conditions at the intersection of Park
Street and Blanding Avenue by reducing average delay at the intersection by about 28 percent in
the a.m. peak hour and by about 45 percent in the p.m. peak hour (improving the service level in
each case from LOS F to LOS E).
Mitigation Measure 4.B -4:
The project shall provide full funding to restripe the Blanding Avenue approaches (eastbound
and westbound) at Park Street to provide left turn pockets, modify the traffic signal to be fully
actuated, provide protected left -turn phasing, modify the traffic control at the private driveway
of the Waters Edge Nursing Home to stop -sign control, include audible pedestrian push buttons
and pedestrian count down heads, and optimize the signal timing to improve the flow of traffic
without causing a significant impact to pedestrian or transit level of service. The restriping
would require the removal of 12 on- street parking spaces.
Impact 4.13 -17: Traffic on Park Street at the Park Street Bridge
With the addition of traffic from the Proposed Project, most of the MTS roadways would
experience increases in volume from baseline conditions but no changes in the level of service.
Significant impacts would occur at the following MTS roadways:
• At the Park Street bridge, the a.m. peak -hour service level in northbound direction would
be LOS F under Baseline No- Project conditions, and the project-generated increase in
traffic volume would be about 3.6 percent. This would be considered a significant impact.
• At the Park Street bridge, the p.rn. peak -hour service level in southbound direction would
be LOS F under Baseline No- Project conditions, and the project-generated increase in
traffic volume would be about 4.2 percent. This would be considered a significant impact.
Under the Reduced Density Alternative, this significant and unavoidable traffic impacts
would still occur, but the severity of the impact would be lessened compared to the Proposed
Project. Potential Mitigation Measure 4.B -17a, which would require widening the Park Street
bridge, is not feasible due to cost and because it is inconsistent with the General Plan, and is
hereby rejected. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.B -17b, set forth below, which is
hereby adopted and shall be made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density , would reduce
the number of vehicle trips generated, but the level of reduction cannot be guaranteed.
Therefore, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
3
Mitigation Measure 4.B -17b:
Prior to project occupancy, the project applicant shall put into place a City-approved TDM
program with the goal of reducing the number of peak hour trips by 10 percent. This will include
the following measures:
• Establish a Boatworks Home Owners Association (HOA) and CCRs for the project;
• Assess the HOA an annual fee in an amount necessary to provide the following ongoing
programs:
• .EasyPass program (unlimited transit pass, usable on AC Transit buses), two
passes per unit, additional passes per unit for residents may be purchased at cost;
• .bicycle facilities in each unit;
®
One car -share membership per residential unit; and
Provide annual funding for transportation coordination services including, but not
limited to, promotional information packages and planning services regarding available
transportation options, and annual monitoring reports to City regarding effectiveness of
programs and recommended enhancements to meet 10% reduction goal.
Impact 4.0 -1: Inconsistency with ABAG Clean Air Plan
For a local plan to be consistent with the regional air quality plan, it must be consistent
with the most recently adopted CAP. While BAAQMD is in the process of preparing its 2009
CAP, the existing CAP is the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. General Plans of cities and
counties must show consistency with regional plans and policies affecting air quality to support a
determination of a less than significant impact on air quality. BAAQMD identifies three criteria
for CAP consistency determinations: (1) population growth for the _jurisdiction under the
proposed local plan will not exceed the values included in the current CAP; (2) rate of increase
in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the jurisdiction under the proposed local plan will not
exceed the rate of increase in population; and (3) transportation control measures (TCM' s)
identified in the CAP for implementation by the local jurisdiction are included in the project
design. The Proposed Project and the Reduced Density Alternative are consistent with criteria
(1) and (3), but not with criterion (2).
As discussed in DEIR Section 4.B, Transportation, the proposed development would
result in a net new vehicle trip generation of approximately 2,316 daily trips. Using the
URBEMIS2007 default trip length assumption of 9.5 miles for year 2011 for Alameda County,
the resulting increase in VMT would be 19,800 miles. The Reduced Density Alternative would
reduce the number of units on the project site, thereby decreasing total trip generation and
associated air quality emissions. Although recreation use would draw some additional visitors to
the site, this alternative would generate fewer mobile air quality emissions and have fewer air
quality impacts than the Proposed Project.
4
For year 2007, MTC data shows VMT for Alameda County of 36,402,500 miles. The
Proposed Project VMT of 19,800 miles represents a rate of increase of VMT of 0.050 percent
compared to a base year of 2007. MTC's population estimates for Alameda County are
1,558,600 in 2007. The Proposed Project population increase of 581 represents a rate of increase
of population of 0.035 percent compared to a base year of 2007. Consequently, the rate of
increase in VMT (0.050 %) would be greater than the rate of increase in population (0.035 %) and
the project would be considered not to be consistent with the CAP.
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the number of units on the project site,
thereby decreasing total trip generation and associated air quality emissions. Although
recreation use would draw some additional visitors to the site, this alternative would generate
fewer mobile air quality emissions and have fewer air quality impacts than the Proposed Project.
In order to reduce the percentage growth of VMT to that of the population, it would be
necessary to reduce project-related VMT by 7,059 miles, or about 36 percent. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 4.C-1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and made a condition of
approval of the Reduced Density Alternative , would reduce VMT, but not likely by the amount
needed to reduce the impact to a less- than - significant level. Therefore, the impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure 4.0 -1:
Prior to project occupancy, the project applicant shall put into place a City-approved
Transportation Demand Management program with the goal of reducing the number of peak
hour trips by 10 percent. This will include the following measures:
• Establish a Boatworks Home Owners Association (HOA) and CCR.r for the project;
• Assess the HOA an annual fee in an amount necessary to provide the following ongoing
programs:
EasyFass program (unlimited transit pass, usable on AC Transit buses), two
passes per unit, additional passes per unit for residents may be purchased at cost;
Bicycle facilities in each unit;
One car -share membership per residential unit; and
• Provide annual funding for transportation coordination services including, but
not limited to, promotional information packages and planning services regarding
available transportation options, and annual monitoring reports to City
regarding effectiveness of programs and recommended enhancements to meet
10% reduction goal.
5
Impact 4.C-6: Cumulative Contribution to Global Climate Change.
Operation of the Proposed Project would result in emissions of greenhouse gases that
contribute to global climate change. Greenhouse gas emissions would result from increases in
motor vehicle trips, as well as from natural gas combustion, landscape maintenance activities,
and other sources. The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the number of units on the
project site, thereby decreasing total trip generation and associated air quality emissions.
Although recreation use would draw some additional visitors to the site, this alternative would
generate fewer mobile air quality emissions and have fewer air quality impacts than the Proposed
Project.
The GI IG emissions resulting from this project do not represent a significant contribution
to global climate change based on any existing, adopted significance threshold. First, project
emissions do not exceed any established air quality significance thresholds that apply to the
construction or operation of the project. With respect to construction, GHG emissions are minor
(only 145.2 total metric tons of CO2e) and of temporary duration. While operational emissions
would exceed both the proposed 1,100 metric ton per year threshold and the proposed 4.6 metric
ton per year per service population threshold of the BAAQMD, these thresholds are currently in
draft form at the time of this analysis. Although these thresholds are only proposals at the time
of this analysis, they are relevant to this analysis because they are the only quantitative
thresholds currently in existence proposed by a regulatory agency with jurisdiction over the
Proposed Project. In light of the foregoing, and given that total operational GHG emissions from
the project are 4,774 metric tons of CO2e per year, this analysis finds there are significant
impacts with respect to quantifiable GHG emissions resulting from the project.
Mitigation Measures 4.C-1, 4.C-6a, 4.C-6b, and 4.C-6c, set forth below, which are
hereby adopted and shall be made conditions of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative,
would reduce GHG emissions associated with energy use of the Proposed Project. However,
mobile GI-IG emissions alone represent approximately 72 percent of the total project emissions
and would, alone, exceed the proposed BAAQMD GHG significance thresholds. For project
emissions to fall below the less stringent service population threshold of 4.6 MT /year /service
population, it would be necessary to reduce mobile emissions by approximately 59 percent. This
level of trip reduction would be unlikely to be achieved even with the most aggressive
transportation demand management measures. Consequently, while Reduced Density
Alternative vehicle emissions would be reduced compared to the Proposed Project, the Reduced
Density Alternative would still have a significant and unavoidable impact with regard to
emission of GHG emissions that would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global
climate change.
Mitigation Measure 4.0 -1: (See discussion of Impact 4.0 -1, above).
Mitigation Measure 4.C-6a:
In order to reduce GHG emissions from energy consumption and to maintain project
operations consistent with the initiatives of the LAPCP, the project applicant shall pursue energy
conserving building design and alternative energy conservation strategies to meet or exceed the
most current Uniform Building Code requirements and State energy criteria.
6
Mitigation Measure 4.0 -6b:
In order to maintain project operations consistent with Energy Initiative 6 of the LAPCP,
no fireplaces or stoves installed as part of the proposed project may be wood - burning.
Mitigation Measure 4.0 -6c:
In order to maintain project operations consistent with Waste and Recycling Initiative 1
of the LAPCP, demolition and construction wastes shall be sorted and recycled to the extent
feasible. A demolition recycling plan shall be developed prior to issuance of demolition permits
and approved by City Building Department staff.
Impact 4.E -1: Impact on Significant Historic Resources
Both the Proposed Project and the Reduced Density Alternative would demolish all buildings on
the project site, including the circa 1910 Steel Fabrication Shop /Warehouse and Compressor
Room /Storage Building which have sufficient physical integrity to be considered historical
resources for CEQA purposes. These two buildings appear to be contributors to a potential
historic industrial district that is eligible for local listing. Demolition of these structures would
materially alter in an adverse manner those characteristics which would qualify them for listing.
Therefore, the Proposed Project would have a significant impact on historical resources
because it would require demolition of the Steel Fabrication Shop /Warehouse and Compressor
Room /Storage Building. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.E -1, set forth below, which is
hereby adopted and shall be made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative,
would reduce this impact; however, the impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure 4.E -1
The project applicant shall document the circa 1910 Steel Fabrication Shop /Warehouse
and Compressor Room /Storage Building in accordance with the Historic American Building
Survey (HABS) Level II documentation standards of the National Park Service. Level II
standards include the following:
1. Photographs. Large -format (4 x 5-inch negatives or greater), black and white
photographs should be taken of all elevations of the two buildings, plus limited
context and detail shots. A limited number of historical photos of the project site
buildings, if available, should also be photographically reproduced. All
photographs should be printed on acid free archival bond paper.
2. Written History. Prepare a written history of the project site and buildings using
the HABS standard outline, format.
3 Drawings. If available, reproduce original building drawings on mylar or
through photographic means.
4. Archiving. The completed HABS documentation package (photos, report, and
drawings) shall be archived at the City of Alameda, the City ofAlameda Public
Library, and the Northwest Information Center of Sonoma State University.
The project applicant shall also provide an interpretive history exhibit in the form of a
plaque or panel to describe the historical importance of the former Dow Company buildings to
the general public. Information generated from the documentation effort, such as photographs
and historical text, described above, can be utilized. for this effort as well. The interpretive
exhibit can either be placed along the proposed waterfront trail /openspace, or at the corner of
Clement Avenue and Oak Street. The interpretive exhibit should be designed by a professional
architectural historian meeting the qualifications of the Secretary of the Interior 's Standards.
Impact 4.E -5: Adverse Effect on Historic Resources in the Project Vicinity.
The larger Northern Waterfront area contains numerous examples of primarily
commercial and maritime - industrial uses which date to the late 1800s and early 1900s. While
some buildings in these areas have been previously surveyed and evaluated for their potential
historical significance, comprehensive surveys have not been completed for the entire area.
Hence, it is unknown whether historically significant resources would be threatened by the
proposed reuse efforts in these areas.
Because both the Proposed Project and the Reduced Density Alternative could also
substantially damage or destroy historically significant resources, this significant and
unavoidable impact could combine with potentially significant and unavoidable impacts resulting
from redevelopment elsewhere in the Northern Waterfront area to contribute to a significant
cumulative impact to historic resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.E -I, 4.E -2,
4.E -3 and 4.E -4, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and shall be made conditions of
approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, would reduce the contribution of the Reduced
Density Alternative to cumulative impacts on historical resources, but not to a less -than-
cumulatively considerable level. Therefore, the contributions of the Reduced Density
Alternative to this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure 4.E -1: (See discussion of Impact 4.E -1, above).
Mitigation Measure 4.E-2:
If cultural resources are encountered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall tease
until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American representative.
Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked -stone tools (e.g.,
projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil ("midden ")
containing heat- affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g.,
mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones
and pitted stones. Historic -era materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and
walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the
archaeologist and Native American representative determine that the resources may be
significant, they shall notify the project applicant and the City of Alameda and shall develop an
appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The archaeologist shall consult with Native
8
American monitors or other appropriate Native American representatives in determining
appropriate treatment for unearthed cultural resources ifthe resources are prehistoric or Native
American in nature.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the archaeologist and Native
American representative in order to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the project applicant
shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature
of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other
appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts
of the project site while mitigation for cultural resources is being carried out.
Mitigation Measure 4.E-3:
If paleontological resources, such as• fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts,
molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing construction activities, all such
activities within 100 feet of the find shall be halted until a qualified paleontologist can assess the
significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate salvage measures in consultation
with the City ofAlameda and in conformance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
Guidelines (SVP, 1995; SVP, 1996).
Mitigation Measure 4.E -4:
If human skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, the project
applicant shall immediately halt work, contact the Alameda County coroner to evaluate the
remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the
CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the
project applicant shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as
amended by AB 2641). Per Public Resources Code 5097.98, the landowner shall ensure that the
immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or
practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed
by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed
in this section (PRC 5097.98), with the most likely descendents regarding their
recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains.
III. SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE FEIR THAT ARE
REDUCED TO A LESS - THAN - SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BY MITIGATION
MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE REDUCED DENSITY
ALTERNATIVE
The Final EIR identifies the following significant impacts associated with the Boatworks
Project Reduced Density Alternative. These impacts are reduced to a less -- than - significant level
by mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the Reduced Density
Alternative. It is hereby determined that the impacts addressed by these mitigation measures will
be mitigated to a less-than-significant level or avoided by incorporation of these mitigation
measures into the Reduced Density Alternative. To the extent that these mitigation measures
will not mitigate or avoid all significant effects on the environment, it is hereby determined that
9
any remaining significant and unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable for the reasons
specified in Section V, below.
Impact 4.B -3: Traffic on Park Street Between Buena Vista and Blanding Avenues
The addition of project- generated traffic would cause the p.m. peak -hour arterial speed on
northbound Park Street between Buena Vista Avenue and Blanding Avenue to degrade by about
1.2 mph, a 14 percent decrease, from Baseline conditions.
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the number of units on the project site,
thereby decreasing trip generation associated with residential units. Although the increased park
space could draw some additional visitors to the site, the Reduced Project Alternative would
generate fewer vehicle and transit trips than the Proposed Project. Under the Reduced Density
Alternative, this significant and unavoidable traffic impact would still occur, but the severity of
the impact would be lessened compared to the Proposed Project. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures 4.B -3a and 4.B -3b, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and shall be made
conditions of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative development plan, would reduce the
impact on transit (the highest priority transportation mode) to a less - than - significant level by
implementing a City- approved Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program
(Mitigation Measure 4.B-3a).
Mitigation Measure 4.B -3a
Prior to project occupancy, the project applicant shall put into place a City-approved TDM
program with the goal of reducing the number of peak hour trips by 10 percent. This will include
the following measures:
• Establish a Boatworks Horne Owners Association (HOA) and CCRs for the project;
• Assess the HOA an annual fee in an amount necessary to provide the following ongoing
programs:
EasyPass program (unlimited transit pass, usable on AC Transit buses), two
passes per unit, additional passes per unit for residents may be purchased at cost;
• Bicycle facilities in each unit;
• One car -share membership per residential unit; and
Provide annual funding, for transportation coordination services including, but not
limited to, promotional information packages and planning services regarding available
transportation options, and annual monitoring reports to City regarding effectiveness of
programs and recommended enhancements to meet 10% reduction goal.
10
Impact 4.I3 --5: Temporary .Increases in Traffic Volumes Due to Project
Construction.
Construction - generated traffic would create a temporary and intermittent lessening of the
capacities of streets in the project site vicinity because of the slower movements and larger
turning radii of construction trucks compared to passenger vehicles, but would not cause any
long term degradation of the operating conditions of the roadways in the vicinity of the project
site. Although the impact would be temporary, truck movements could have an adverse effect on
traffic flow in the project site vicinity; therefore, the impact is considered to be potentially
significant.
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the number of units on the project site,
thereby decreasing trip generation associated with construction of residential units, but adverse
effects on traffic flow during the construction period would still occur. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure 4.B -5, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and shall be made a
condition of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, will reduce this impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.B -5:
The project applicant and construction contractor(s) shall develop a construction
management plan for review and approval by the Public Works .Department prior to issuance of
any permits. The plan shall include at least the following items and requirements to reduce
traffic congestion during construction:
1. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures shall be developed, including
scheduling of major truck tips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour
signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and
designated construction access routes.
2. The Construction Management Plan shall identify haul routes for movement of
construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on motor vehicle, bicycle, and
pedestrian traffic, circulation, and safer, and specifically to minimize impacts to
the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area. The haul routes shall be
approved by the City.
3 The Construction Management Plan shall provide for notification procedures for
adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major
deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur.
4. The Construction Management Plan shall provide for monitoring surface streets
used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the hazel trucks
can be identified and corrected by the project applicant.
11
Impact 4.B -8: Addition of Project Generated Traffic.
The addition of project-generated traffic would cause the p.m. peak -hour arterial speed on
northbound Park Street between Buena Vista Avenue and Blanding Avenue to degrade by about
0.3 mph, which is a 14 percent decrease from Cumulative Baseline conditions. The Reduced
Density Alternative would reduce the number of residential units on the project site, thereby
decreasing trip generation associated with residential units. Although the increased park space
could draw some additional visitors to the site, the Reduced Project Alternative would generate
fewer vehicle and transit trips than the Proposed Project. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures 4.B -8a and 4.B -8b, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and shall be made
conditions of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, will reduce this impacts to a less -
than- significant.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.B -3b would have a less- than - significant
secondary impact on bicycle travel LOS, but would have a significant secondary impact on
pedestrian travel LOS on the south and north crosswalks (carrying east -west pedestrian flow)
across Park Street at the intersections of Blanding, Clement, and Buena Vista Avenues. Because
Mitigation Measure 4.B -3b would mitigate the highest priority mode (transit), its implementation
would outrank the pedestrian travel mode, and therefore the transit impact would be mitigated to
a less- than - significant level, but the secondary pedestrian impact would be significant and
unavoidable. The proposed signal timing and transit priority signals would also increase
congestion for automobiles traveling on the cross streets
Mitigation Measure 4.B -8a: Irnplernent Mitigation Measure 4.B -3a (see discussion of Impact
4.B -3 in Section II, above).
Mitigation Measure 4.B -8b:
The Project shall pay a fair share contribution to restriping the Park Street intersection
approaches between Buena Vista Avenue and Blanding Avenue to provide transit queue jump
lanes during the p. m. peak period (southbound) and a.m. peak period (northbound). Regardless
of the feasibility of queue jump lanes, modify the traffic signals, controllers, signage, and signal
timing at the Park Street intersections at Blanding, Clement, and Buena Vista Avenues to allow
for transit signal priority to improve transit flow. Restriping would require the prohibition of
on-street parking on the northbound side of the street during the a.m. peak period, and on the
southbound side during the p. m. peak period to accommodate the transit queue jump lanes
Impact 4.B -9: Traffic at Park Street and Blanding Avenue
The signalized intersection of Park Street and Blanding Avenue would operate at an
unacceptable LOS F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under Cumulative Baseline
conditions. Project-generated traffic would contribute more than three percent to the growth of
intersection traffic volume from Existing to Cumulative Plus Project conditions during both peak
hours.
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the number of units on the project site,
thereby decreasing trip generation associated with residential units. Although the increased park
space could draw some additional visitors to the site, the Reduced Project Alternative would
12
generate fewer vehicle and transit trips than the Proposed Project. Thus, the severity of the
impact would be lessened compared to the Proposed Project.
While the transportation impacts for all transportation modes at the intersection of Park
Street and Blanding Avenue would be lessened (in priority order), they might not all be reduced
to a less - than -- significant level. Transportation Policy 4.4.2.g recognizes this possibility and
states, "some congestion may be identified in an EIR process as not possible to mitigate."
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.B -4, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the
Reduced Density Alternative, would improve vehicular operating conditions at the intersection
of Park Street and Blanding Avenue under cumulative conditions by reducing average delay at
the intersection by about 21 percent in the a.m. peak hour and by about 46 percent in the p.m.
peak hour (improving the service level in each case from LOS F to LOS E). Therefore, impacts
to vehicular, pedestrian, transit, and bicycle travel would be reduced to a less- than - significant
level.
Mitigation Measure 4.B -9: Implement Mitigation Measure 4.B-4 (see discussion of Impact 4.B-
4 in Section II, above).
Impact 4.B -10: Traffic at Park Street and Clement Avenue under Cumulative Baseline
Conditions.
The project-generated traffic would contribute more than three percent to the growth of
intersection traffic volume from Existing to Cumulative Plus Project conditions during the p.m.
peak hour.
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the number of units on the project site,
thereby decreasing trip generation associated with residential units. Although the increased park
space could draw some additional visitors to the site, the Reduced Project Alternative would
generate fewer vehicle and transit trips than the Proposed Project.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4 -10, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, will reduce this impacts to
a less - than - significant.
Mitigation Measure 4.10:
The project applicant shall fund a fair share contribution to reconfigure and restripe the
intersection of Park Street and Clement Avenue to add dedicated left turn lanes on the eastbound
and westbound approaches of Clement Avenue, and a northbound dedicated left turn lane on
Park Street, and to modify the traffic signals to include protected left turn phasing for all
approaches, fully actuated traffic signal, and audible pedestrian push buttons and pedestrian
count down heads. The reconfiguration would require acquisition of property from the northeast
and southwest corners and the removal of approximately eight parking spaces.
13
Impact 4.13-11: Traffic at Oak Street and Clement Avenue under Cumulative Baseline
Conditions.
Project-generated traffic would contribute more than three percent to the growth of
intersection traffic volume from Existing to Cumulative Plus Project conditions during both peak
hours. The intersection would satisfy the Caltrans peak -hour signal warrants under Cumulative
conditions without and with the Proposed Project. The Reduced Density Alternative would
reduce the number of units on the project site, thereby decreasing trip generation associated with
residential units. Although the increased park space could draw some additional visitors to the
site, the Reduced Project Alternative would generate fewer vehicle and transit trips than the
Proposed Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.B-11, set forth below, which is
hereby adopted and shall be made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.B-11:
The project applicant shall fund a fair share contribution to the installation of traffic
signals at the intersection of Oak Street and Clement Avenue, and the restriping of the eastbound
Clement Avenue approach to provide an exclusive left -turn lane and a shared through/right-turn
lane. Because ofpotential safety concerns with vehicles and bicyclists in the left turn lane
driving /riding parallel to the existing railroad tracks, this mitigation also would require that the
railroad tracks within the left -turn lane be removed. This mitigation also would require
acquisition of the necessary right -of -way from the project at the northwest corner of Park Street
and Clement Avenue to install the traffic signal poles, while maintaining ADA access.
Impact 4.13 -12: Increased Traffic Due to the Clement Avenue Project Driveway (Elm Street
Extension)
As described on pages 4.B- -3 and 4.B -29 of the DBIR, the City plans to extend Clement
Avenue from Sherman Street to Tilden Way. The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce
the number of units on the project site, thereby decreasing trip generation associated with
residential units. Although the increased park space could draw some additional visitors to the
site, the Reduced Project Alternative would generate fewer vehicle and transit trips than the
Proposed Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.B-12, set forth below, which is
hereby adopted and made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, would
reduce this impact to a Tess- than - significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.B-12:
The project applicant shall fifnd a fair share contribution to the reconfiguration and
restriping of Clement Avenue in front of the project site at Elm Street to include an eastbound
left turn lane (into the project) and an eastbound center refuge /merge lane (/br traffic exiting the
project).
14
Impact 4.0 -2: Short -term Emissions of Criteria Pollutants.
Construction of the Proposed Project would have the potential to create air quality
impacts through the use of heavy -duty construction equipment, haul truck trips, and vehicle trips
generated from construction workers traveling to and from the site. In addition, fugitive dust or
PVI K o emissions would result from excavation, trenching, and other construction activities.
Mobile source emissions would result from the use of construction equipment such as bulldozers,
graders, and excavators.
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the number of units on the project site,
thereby decreasing total trip generation and associated air quality emissions. Although
recreation use would draw some additional visitors to the site, the Reduced Density Alternative
would generate fewer mobile air quality emissions and have fewer air quality impacts than the
Proposed Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.C-1, set forth below, which is
hereby adopted and shall be made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.0 -2:
During construction, the project applicant shall implement both BAAQMD 's basic and
enhanced dust control procedures listed below (BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, 1999). The
"basic" dust control program shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Watering should be sufficient to
prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be
necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. _Reclaimed water should be
used whenever possible.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top
of the load and the top of the trailer).
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each
day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging
areas at construction sites.
The "enhanced" dust control measures shall include the following:
• Hydroseed or apply non - toxic soil stabilizers to construction areas and previously
graded areas inactive for ten days or more
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non - toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles of
dirt, sand, etc.
15
• Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph)
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways
• Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible
Impact 4.0 -5: Cumulative Air Quality Impacts
For projects that individually have a less- than - significant impact on regional air quality,
the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines state that the cumulative impact should be determined based
on the project's consistency with the applicable local Clean Air Plan, in this case, the 2005 Bay
Area Ozone Strategy and with the local general plan. As describe above in the discussion of
Impact 4.C-1, both the Proposed Project and the Reduced Density Alternative were determined
to be inconsistent with the 2005 plan due to a disproportionate increase in vehicle miles traveled
compared to population growth. Consequently, while the Proposed Project and the Reduced
Density Alternative would be considered to have a less- than - significant impact with regard to air
quality and criteria air pollutants, would be considered to have a significant and unavoidable
cumulative air quality impact.
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the number of units on the project site,
thereby decreasing total trip generation and associated air quality emissions. Although
recreation use would draw some additional visitors to the site, the Reduced Density Alternative
would generate fewer mobile air quality emissions and have fewer air quality impacts than the
Proposed Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.C-5, set forth below, which shall be
made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, would reduce this impact to a
less - than - significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.0 -5: Trip Reduction I TDM: (See discussion of Impact 4.C-1, above).
Impact 4.D -1: Construction Noise Levels in Excess of the City Noise Standards.
Construction noise levels related to materials hauling would raise ambient noise levels
along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made and types of vehicles used.
The Reduced Density Alternative would reduce the number of units on the project site,
thereby decreasing total construction trips and associated noise. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 4.D -1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and shall be made a condition of
approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant
level.
Mitigation Measure 4.D -1:
The project applicant shall incorporate the following requirements into the construction contract
specifications:
• Construction activities will be limited to the hours between of 7:00 am and 7:00 pm
Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays
16
• Equipment and trucks used for construction will use the industry standard noise control
techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts,
engine enclosures, and acoustically - attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible).
• Stationary noise sources will be located as far from adjacent receptors, whenever
feasible, and they will be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds. Insulation
barriers and other measures will be used to the extent feasible.
Impact 4.D -4: Indoor Noise Exposure.
The area surrounding the project site has a greater than 60 dBA Leg noise level, which
would exceed the City's goal for indoor noise exposure. Any residences, including those
constructed as part of the Reduced Density Alternative, would be subject to Title 24 of the
California Code of Regulations, which requires an interior noise standard of DNL 45 dBA in any
habitable room and requires an acoustical analysis demonstrating how dwelling units have been
designed to meet this interior standard.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.D -4, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and shall be made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, would reduce this
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.D -4:
If necessary to comply with the interior noise requirements of the State and achieve an
acceptable interior noise level, noise reduction in the form of sound -rated assemblies (i.e.,
windows, exterior doors, and walls) shall be incorporated into project building design, based
upon recommendations of a qualified acoustical engineer. Final recommendations for sound-
rated assemblies will depend on the specific building designs and layout of buildings on the site
and shall be determined by the acoustical engineer during the design phase. Specific
consideration shall be given to window size: degree of sound insulation of exterior walls, which
can be increased through staggered- or double - studs; multiple layers of gypsum board; and
incorporation of resilient channels.
Impact 4.E -2: Possible Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources During
Construction
No archaeological resources have been recorded in the project site, and the project site
has a low to moderate potential to contain buried prehistoric or historic -era sites. The possibility
of encountering archaeological resources cannot be entirely discounted, however.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.E-2, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and shall
be made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, would reduce this impact to
a Tess- than - significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.E -2:
If cultural resources are encountered, all activity in the vicinity of the find shall cease
until it can be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and a Native American representative.
Prehistoric archaeological materials might include obsidian and chert flaked -stone tools (e.g.,
17
projectile points, knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil. ("rnidden ")
containing heat - affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g.,
mortars, pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones
and pitted stones. Historic-era materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and
walls; filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the
archaeologist and Native American representative determine that the resources may be
significant, they shall notify the project applicant and the City of Alameda and shall develop an
appropriate treatment plan for the resources. The archaeologist shall consult with Native
American monitors or other appropriate Native American representatives in determining
appropriate treatment for unearthed cultural resources ifthe resources are prehistoric or Native
American in nature.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the archaeologist and Native
American representative in order to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the project applicant
shall determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature
of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other
appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts
of the project site while mitigation for cultural resources is being carried out.
Impact 4.E -3: Possible Discovery of Unidentified Paleontological Resources During
Construction
There are no known fossil sites in the project site, and the geologic units underlying the
site have very low potential to yield significant paleontological resources. Excavation activities
for the project may excavate or otherwise disturb previous fills, relict dune sands, and Bay Mud
deposits. Although these excavations are unlikely to yield fossil resources„ because it has not
been proven that fossil resources do not occur within the subsurface geology of the site,
disturbance or destruction of a paleontological resource is a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.E-3, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and shall
be made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, would reduce this impact to
a less- than- significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.E -3:
If paleontological resources, such as fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts,
molds, or impressions are discovered during ground-disturbing construction activities, all such
activities within 100 feet of the find shall be halted until a qualified paleontologist can assess the
significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate salvage measures in consultation
with the City of Alameda and in conformance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
Guidelines (SVP, 1995; SVP, 1996).
Impact 4.E -4: Possible Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains During Construction
There is no indication at the project site that the location has been used for burial
purposes in the recent or distant past. Although it is unlikely that human remains would be
encountered in the project site, in the event of the discovery of any human remains during project
construction activities work would be halted. Damage to human remains would be a significant
18
impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.E -4, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and shall be made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, would reduce this
impact to a less- than - significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.E-4:
If human skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, the project
applicant shall immediately halt work, contact the Alameda County coroner to evaluate the
remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(I) of the
CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the
project applicant shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission, in accordance with
Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as
amended by AB 2641). Per Public Resources Code 5097.98, the landowner shall ensure that the
immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or
practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed
by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed
in this section (PRC 5097.98), with the most likely descendents regarding their
recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains
Impact 4.F -1: Possible Take of Protected Birds or their Nests.
Noise and activity resulting from construction activities, were it to exceed ambient levels,
could cause nest abandonment and death of young birds or Toss of reproductive potential at
active nests of special - status bird species located within the project site. In addition, grading and
removal of vegetation and building structures could result in direct losses of nests, eggs, or
nestlings. Like the Proposed Project, the Reduced Density Alternative also would involve
redevelopment of the entire site. Because the Reduced Density Alternative would have an
increased in the amount of open space area adjacent to the Estuary, development- related impacts
on birds and operational water quality impacts on aquatic species may be slightly reduced
compared to the Proposed Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.F -1, set forth below,
which is hereby adopted and shall be made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density
Alternative, would reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.F-1:
No more than two weeks in advance of any tree or shrub removal, or alteration to
structures that would commence during the breeding season (February 1 through August 31), a
qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct pre- construction surveys of all potential special-status
bird nesting habitat in the vicinity of the planned activity. Pre -- construction surveys are not
required for construction activities scheduled to occur during the non - breeding season (August
31 through January 31). Construction activities commencing during the non - breeding season
and continuing into the breeding season do not require surveys (as it is assumed that any
breeding birds taking up nests would be acclimated to project - related activities already under
way). Nests initiated during construction activities would be presumed to be unaffected by
project activities, and a buffer zone around such nests would not be necessary. However, a nest
initiated during construction cannot be moved or altered.
19
If no active nests are found during pre- construction avian surveys, then no further
mitigation is required. If active nests are found during pre - construction avian surveys, the
results of the surveys shall be discussed with the appropriate resource agency and avoidance
procedures shall be adopted, if necessary, on a case -by -case basis. Avoidance measures would
most likely include a no- disturbance buffer around the nest, which will be maintained until a
qualified biologist determines that the young have ,fledged or otherwise abandoned the nest. The
size of the buffer zones and types of construction activities restricted within them shall be
determined through consultation with resource agencies, taking into account factors such as: (1)
noise and human disturbance levels at the project site and the nesting site at the time of the
survey and the noise and disturbance expected during the construction activity; (2) distance and
amount of vegetation or other screening between the project site and the nest; and (3) sensitivity
of individual nesting species and behaviors of the nesting birds.
Impact 4.F -2: Impacts to Migratory or Breeding Birds and Other Special - Status Species.
Like the Proposed Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would involve
redevelopment of the entire site.. Thus, both the Proposed Project and the Reduced Density
Alternative would increase the potential for birds to be killed due to collision with window glass
and artificial night lighting associated with the redevelopment of the project site. With an
increase of open space area adjacent to the Estuary, development- related impacts on birds and
operational water quality impacts on aquatic species may be slightly reduced in comparison to
the Proposed Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.F -2, set forth below, which is
hereby adopted and shall be made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.F -2:
The applicant and project designer shall reduce building lighting from exterior sources by the
following measures:
Minimize amount and visual impact of perimeter lighting, through measures such
as downward pointing lights, side shields, visors, and motion-sensor lighting.
Utilize minimum wattage fixtures to achieve required lighting levels.
3 Use minimum wattage fixtures to achieve required lighting levels.
Avoid placing water features in close proximity to glazed facades.
5. Design to avoid monolithic, undistinguishable expanses of glazing by maximizing
"visual noise" both on the building scale and individual glass units.
20
Impact 4.F -3: Possible Take of Special -- Status Bat Species.
Bats have the potential to roost in existing man -made structures and trees within or near
the project site. Direct disturbance may occur due to tree removal, building removal, or roost
destruction by any other means. Indirect disturbance to bat species may be caused by noise or
increased human activity in area. The Proposed Project would involve tree removal and building
removal through demolition of existing structures and site grading prior to construction.
Like the Proposed Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would involve
redevelopment of the entire site. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.F -3a, 4.F -3b, and
4.F -3c, set forth below, which shall be made conditions of approval of the Reduced Density
Alternative, would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.F -3a:
Potential direct and indirect disturbances to bats shall be identified by locating colonies,
and instituting protective measures prior to construction. No more than two weeks in advance of
tree removal or demolition of buildings onsite, a qualified bat biologist (e.g., a biologist holding
a CDFG collection permit and a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFG allowing the
biologist to handle and collect bats) shall conduct pre - construction surveys for bat roosts. No
activities that could disturb active roosts shall proceed prior to the completed surveys.
Mitigation Measure 4.F -3b:
If a bat colony is located within the project site during preconstruction surveys, the
project shall be redesigned to avoid impacts, and a no- disturbance buffer acceptable in size to
the CDFG shall be created around any roosts in the project vicinity, ifpossible. Bat roosts
initiated during construction are presumed to be unaffected, and no buffer is necessary.
However, the "take" of individuals is prohibited
If there is a maternity colony present and the project cannot be redesigned to avoid
removal of the tree or structure inhabited by the bats, demolition of that tree or structure shall
not commence until after young are flying (i.e., after July 31, confirmed by a qualified bat
biologist) or before maternity colonies form the following year (Le. prior to March 1). If a non-
maternity roost must be removed as part of the project, the non - maternity roost shall be evicted
prior to building /tree removal by a qualified biologist, using methods such as making holes in
the roost to alter the air flow, or creating one-way funnel exits for the bats.
Mitigation Measure 4.F -3c:
If known bat roosting habitat is destroyed during building /tree removal, artificial bat
roosts shall be constructed in an undisturbed area in the project site vicinity away from human
activity and at least 200 feet from project demolition/construction activities. The design and
location of the artificial bat roost(s) shall be determined by a qualified bat biologist.
21
Impact 4.F -4: Impact Special-Status Fish Species
Project activities that occur in the Oakland Estuary, such as removing the existing boat
ramps, pier, or sunken tugboat, or constructing a marina, could adversely affect Pacific herring
spawning habitat, and special - status fish such as Pacific herring or salmonid species could be
directly impacted by construction equipment. Indirect impacts on these species could occur if
increased sedimentation or pollutants reduce water quality. In addition, development often
increases the load of pollutants of concern associated with activities accompanying development,
such as pesticides associated with home maintenance and lawn care, oil associated with vehicle
usage and maintenance, and bacteria associated with municipal sewage and pet waste. Discharge
of these pollutants would adversely affect fisheries and other aquatic biota.
Like the Proposed Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would involve
redevelopment of the entire site,. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.F -4, set forth below,
which is hereby adopted and shall be made a condition of approval of the Reduced Density
Alternative, would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.F -4:
If dredging or pile- driving occurs as part of the project, the project applicant shall
implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) for protection of salmonids and Pacific herring,
that are identified in the Long -Term Management Strategy, for the Placement of Dredged
Material in the San Francisco Bay Region (LTMS) (Corps, 2001).9 BMPs listed in the LTMS
include the following:
• installation of silt curtains and gunderbooms for filtering sediment;
• mechanical dredge operations controls, including increased cycle time, elimination of
multiple bucket bites, and elimination of bottom stockpiling;
• hydraulic dredge operations controls, including reduction of cutterhead rotation speed,
reduction of swing speed, and elimination of bank undercutting;
• hopper dredges and barges operational controls, including reduction of hopper overflow,
lower hopper fill levels, and use of a water recirculation system; an
• use of specialty equipment, including pneuma pumps, closed or environmental buckets,
large - capacity dredges, and specialized tools for precision dredging.
In addition, dredging or pile-driving in the Oakland Estuary shall minimize impacts on
special - status fish through one or more of the following methods: (1) dredging or piledriving
shall only be conducted within work windows designated to cause the least impact on Pacific
herring and salmonids (i.e., June through November, see Table 4.F -1); (2) dredging or pile-
driving shall only produce noise levels below 150 decibels at 30 feetl D; and /or (3) dredging or
pile - driving shall only be conducted in accordance with NMFS directives and Corps permits to
reduce potential impacts on. fish species.
22
Impact 4.F -5: Possible Adverse Effect on Federally Protected Wetlands.
The Oakland Estuary is a "navigable water" that is under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act and Section
404 of the Clean Water Act. The Proposed Project includes several components that would
impact the Oakland Estuary or its shoreline: creating a publicly accessible waterfront esplanade
along the length of the shoreline; creating passive recreational access to the Oakland Estuary
through concrete piers, a boardwalk, and viewing areas; removing a derelict dock and boat ramps
that extend into the Estuary; removing a sunken boat; and /or seawall along the shoreline.
Like the Proposed Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would involve
redevelopment of the entire site,. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.F -5a and 4.F-5b, set
forth below, which are hereby adopted and shall be made conditions of approval of the Reduced
Density Alternative, would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4. F-5 a:
The project applicant shall implement the following Best Management Practices (BMPs)
during construction:
(I)
Install silt fencing, straw wattles or other appropriate erosion and sediment
control methods or devices to prevent sediment from the upland portion of the site
from entering the Estuary as a result of project activities.
(2) Operate equipment (e.g., back-hoes and cranes) that is used for removal or
installation of fill and rip -rap along the Estuary shoreline from dry land, where
possible. Construction operations within the Oakland Estuary can also be barge-
mounted or utilize other water-based equipment such as scows, derrick barges
and tugs.
(3)
Prevent any fueling activity from occurring within 50 feet of the Oakland Estuary.
(4) Where applicable, implement BMPs listed under Mitigation Measure 4.F -4 to
avoid impacts to water quality resulting from dredging or other activities within
open waters, as identified in the Long -term Management Strategy for the
Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region (LTMS) (Corps,
2001).
(5)
Test all materials proposed for excavation and dredging for the possible
presence of contaminants. Construction practices shall be designed in
coordination with the Corps, RWQCB, and other applicable agencies, to minimize
the dispersion of contaminants into the water column and ensure proper disposal
of contaminated materials.
23
Mitigation Measure 4.F-5b:
The project applicant shall provide compensatory mitigation (i. e., "no net loss') for any
temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act,
as required by regulatory permits issued by the Corps, RWQCB, and BCDC. Measures may
include but would not be limited to (1) onsite or offsite mitigation through wetland creation or
restoration; and (2) development of a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
Onsite or offsite Wetland Creation or Restoration. To the extent practicable, the project
applicant shall restore the tidal marsh to the Oakland Estuary shoreline at a minimum 1:1
impact -to- restoration ratio, through activities such as removal of debris and concrete riprap,
and revegetating with native tidal marsh species.
If onsite restoration is not feasible, the project applicant shall negotiate compensatory
offsite mitigation for wetland losses with applicable regulatory agencies, at a 3:1 impact -to-
restoration ratio, or other ratio determined by the agencies.
Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Prior to the start of construction or in coordination
with regulatory permit conditions, the project applicant shall prepare and submit for approval to
the Corps, R WQCB, and BCDC a mitigation and monitoring program that outlines the
mitigation obligations for temporary and permanent impacts to waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. The program shall include baseline information from existing conditions, anticipated
habitat to be enhanced, thresholds of success, monitoring and reporting requirements, and site-
specific plans to compensate for wetland losses resulting from the project. The Boatworks
Residential Project Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the
following:
• Clearly stated objectives and goals consistent with regional habitat goals.
• Location, size, and type of mitigation wetlands proposed.
• A functional assessment of affected jurisdictional waters to ensure that the EPA's "no net
loss of wetland value " standard is net. The functional assessment shall also ensure that
the mitigation provided is commensurate with the adverse impacts on Bay resources in
accordance with BCDC mitigation policies. The assessment shall provide sufficient
technical detail in the project design including, at a minimum, an engineered grading
plan and water control structures, methods fog• conserving or stockpiling topsoil, a
planting program including removal of exotic species, a list of all species to be planted,
sources of seeds and /or plants, timing of planting, plant locations and elevations on the
mitigation site base map, and maintenance techniques.
• Docurnentation of performance, monitoring, and adaptive management standards that
provide a mechanism for making adjustments to the mitigation site. Performance and
monitoring standards shall indicate success criteria to be met within 5 years for
vegetation, animal use, removal of exotic species, and hydrology. Adaptive management
standards shall include contingency measures that outline clear steps to be taken if and
24
when it is determined, through monitoring or other means, that the enhancement or
restoration techniques are not meeting success criteria.
Impact 4.G -1: Potential Seismic Impacts to Proposed Structures and 1 or Retaining Walls.
Due to the location of the project site in an area of high seismic risk, people could be
harmed and structures may be damaged from strong ground - shaking; thus, Impact 4.G-1. is
considered potentially significant.
Similar to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would involve
redevelopment of the entire site. The buildings constructed under the Reduced Density
Alternative would be required to meet the sane California Building Code requirements as the
units that would be constructed under the Proposed Project. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures 4.G-la and 4.G-1b, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and shall be made
conditions of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, would reduce this impact to a less -
than- significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.G-la:
Asite - specific, design -level geotechnical investigation for the project shall be conducted
as a condition of building permit. The investigation shall include detailed characterization of the
distribution and compositions of subsurface materials and an assessment of their behavior
during violent seismic ground - shaking. The analysis shall recommend design parameters that
would be necessary to avoid or substantially reduce structural damage under peak ground
accelerations of no less than 0.655g. The investigation and recommendations shall be in
conformance with all applicable city ordinances and policies and consistent with the design
requirements of Seismic Design Category E/F (very high vulnerability) of the California
Building Code. The geotechnical report shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer
and approved by the City, and all recommendations shall be included in the final design of the
project.
Mitigation Measure 4.G -lb:
Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the project applicant shall prepare an
earthquake hazards information document to the satisfaction of City staff This document shall
be made available to any potential occupant prior to purchase or rental of the housing units. The
document shall describe the potential for strong ground-shaking at the site, potential effects of
f'
ground shaking, and earthquake preparedness procedures.
Impact 4.G -2: Potential Seismically - Induced Ground Failure.
The California Geological Survey has designated the project and the entirety of Alameda
Island as a Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction due to historic occurrences, the presence of
unfavorable soils and shallow groundwater. Due to the location of the project site in an area of
high liquefaction potential, people could be harmed and structures may be damaged from
earthquake- induced liquefaction, rapid settlement or other earthquake- induced ground failures.
25
Similar to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would involve
redevelopment of the entire site. The project site is subject to the requirement of the Seismic
Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 to prepare a geotechnical report. The buildings constructed under
the Reduced Density Alternative would be required to meet the same California Building Code
requirements as the units that would be constructed under the Proposed Project. Implementation
of Mitigation Measure 4. G -2, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and shall be made a
condition of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, would reduce this impact to a less -
than- significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.G-2:
Earthwork, foundation and structural design for the project shall be conducted in
accordance with all recommendations contained in the required geotechnical investigation
(Mitigation Measure 4.G-1 a). The investigation must include an assessment of all potentially
foreseeable seismically- induced ground failures, including liquefaction, sand boils, lateral
spreading and rapid settlement. Mitigation strategies must be designed, far the site-specific
conditions of the project and must be reviewed for compliance with the guidelines of CGS
Special Publication 117 prior to incorporation into the project. Examples of possible strategies
include edge containment structures (berms, diked sea walls, retaining structures, compacted
soil zones), removal or treatment of liquefiable soils, soil modification, modification of site
geometry, lowering the groundwater table, in -situ ground densification, deep foundations,
reinforced shallow foundations, and structural design that can accommodate predicted
displacements.
Impact 4.G -3: Consolidation and Land Subsidence.
The project site, especially the northern portion that is underlain by artificial fill and Bay
Mud, is susceptible to settlement. Construction of new shallow foundations and /or placement of
new fill at the site would begin a new cycle of consolidation settlement in the Bay Mud. Buried
foundations or foundation elements may also act as "hard points" beneath new roads or utilities,
resulting in the potential for abrupt differential settlement. Soil consolidation and differential
settlement presents a potentially significant impact to the Proposed Project.
Similar to the Proposed Project, the Reduced Density Alternative would involve
redevelopment of the entire site. The buildings constructed under the Reduced Density
Alternative would be required to meet the same California Building Code requirements as the
units that would be constructed under the Proposed Project. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure 4.0 -3, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and shall be made a condition of
approval of the Reduced Density Alternative, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant
level.
Mitigation Measure 4.G -3:
The required geotechnical report for the project (Mitigation Measure 4. G -1 a) shall
determine the susceptibility of the project site to settlement and prescribe appropriate
engineering techniques for reducing its effects. Where settlement and /or differential settlement
is predicted, mitigation measures such as lightweight fill, geofoam, surcharging, wick drains,
26
deep foundations, structural slabs, hinged slabs, flexible utility connections, and utility
hangers could be used. These measures shall be evaluated and the most effective, feasible, and
economical measures shall be recommended. Engineering recommendations shall be included
in the project engineering and design plans, and be reviewed and approved by a registered
geotechnical engineer. All construction activities and design criteria shall comply with
applicable codes and requirements of the most recent California Building Code, and applicable
City construction and grading ordinances.
Impact 4.1-1-3: Water Quality Impacts from Fertilizer and Pesticide Use.
The Proposed Project would redevelop an underutilized industrial area into a residential
development that includes a shoreline park and landscaped areas surrounding the development.
New pervious areas would replace areas that are currently impervious. The increase in pervious
areas on the project site could increase the amount of pollutants in runoff associated with
maintenance of landscaped areas, particularly nutrients from pesticides and fertilizers typically
used in parks.
In addition to complying with the existing water quality protection requirements and
ordinances implemented through the City, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and
Alameda County, implementation of Mitigation Measure fI -1, set forth below, which shall be
required as a condition of approval for a Reduced Density Alternative plan, would reduce this
impact to a less- than - significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.1I -3:
An Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM) shall be prepared and implemented by the
project applicant for all common landscaped areas. The IPM .shall be prepared by a qualified
professional and shall recommend methods of pest prevention and turf grass management that
use pesticides as a last resort in pest control. Types and rates of fertilizer and pesticide
application shall be specified. The IPM shall specify methods of avoiding runoff of pesticides
and nitrates into receiving storm drains and surface waters or leaching into the shallow
groundwater table. Pesticides shall be used only in response to a persistent pest problem that
cannot be resolved by non pesticide measures. Preventative chemical use shall not be employed.
Cultural and biological approaches to pest control shall be fully integrated into the IPMs, with
an emphasis toward reducing pesticide application.
Impact 4.1 -1: Hazardous Material Exposure Due to Demolition.
Demolition of existing structures on the project site may expose construction workers, the
public, or the environment to hazardous materials such as lead-based paint, asbestos containing
materials, and PCBs. Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.I-1a through 4.1 -1 e, set forth
below, which are hereby adopted and shall be made conditions of approval of the Reduced
Density Alternative, would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
27
Mitigation Measure 4J-la:
Each structure proposed for demolition shall be assessed by qualified licensed
contractors for the potential presence of lead -based paint or coatings, asbestos containing
materials, and PCB - containing equipment prior to issuance of a demolition permit.
Mitigation Measure 4.I -1b:
If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure 41-la finds presence of lead -based
paint, asbestos, and/or PCBs, the project applicant shall create and implement a health and
safety plan to protect workers from risks associated with hazardous materials during demolition
or renovation of affected structures.
Mitigation Measure 4.1-le:
If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure 4I -1 a finds presence of lead -based
paint, the project applicant shall develop and implement a lead-based paint removal plan. The
plan shall specify, but not be limited to, the following elements for implementation:
• Develop a removal .specification approved by a Certified Lead Project Designer.
• Ensure that all removal workers are properly trained.
• Contain all work areas to prohibit off-site migration of paint chip debris.
• Remove all peeling and stratified lead -based paint on building and non- building surfaces
to the degree necessary to safely and properly complete demolition activities according
to recommendations of the survey. The demolition contractor shall be responsible for the
proper containment and disposal of intact lead -based paint on all equipment to be cut
and /or removed during the demolition.
• Provide on -site personnel and area air monitoring during all removal activities to ensure
that workers and the environment are adequately protected by the control measures used.
• Clean up and /or vacuum paint chips with a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter.
• Collect, segregate, and profile waste for disposal determination.
• Properly dispose of all waste.
28
Mitigation Measure 4.1-1d:
If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure 4.I -a finds asbestos, the project
applicant shall ensure that asbestos abatement shall be conducted by a licensed contractor prior
to building demolition. Abatement of known or suspected ACMs shall occur prior to demolition
or construction activities that would disturb those materials. Pursuant to an asbestos abatement
plan developed by a state-certified asbestos consultant and approved by the City, all ACMs shall
be removed and appropriately disposed of by a state certified asbestos contractor.
Mitigation Measure 4.I --le:
If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure 4I -1 a finds PCBs, the project applicant
shall ensure that PCB abatement shall be conducted prior to building demolition or renovation.
PCBs shall be removed by a qualified contractor and transported in accordance with Caltrans
requirements.
Impact 4.1 -2: Hazardous Material Exposure from Soil and Groundwater Disturbance.
Soil and groundwater at the project site has been contaminated from historical industrial
uses. While the contamination discovered at 2235 and 2241 Clement Avenue was remediated,
and DTSC has certified the site for residential use, areas that may previously have been
inaccessible due to the presence of existing structures could potentially contain pockets of
previously unidentified contamination that may be disturbed due to demolition buildings,
excavation, grading, and trenching activities, causing exposure to construction workers, the
public or the environment.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.I-2a through 4.I-2c, set forth below, which are
hereby adopted and shall be made a conditions of approval of the Reduced Density Alternative,
would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level.
Mitigation Measure 4.I -2a:
The project applicant shall prepare a health and safety plan, based on the site conditions
and past contaminant release history and remediation, by a licensed industrial hygienist. The
health and safety plan shall identify potential contaminants that may be encountered,
appropriate personal protective equipment, and worker safety procedures for spills and
accidents.
Mitigation Measure 4.I-2b:
To reduce environmental risks associated with encountering contaminated soil
discovered during grading and construction, the project applicant shall ensure that any
suspected contaminated soil is stockpiled separately, sampled for hazardous material content,
and disposed of in accordance with all applicable state, federal, and local laws and regulations.
All contaminated soil determined to be hazardous or non- hazardous waste shall have received
29
all laboratory analyses for acceptable disposal as required by the receiving facility before it can
be removed from the site.
Mitigation Measure 4.I -2c
Prior to issuance of any building or grading permits, any areas of identified
contamination shall have completed all measures required by ACDEH, DTSC or RWQCB for
site closure, and shall be certified for residential use. Where necessary, additional remediation
to permit residential use and occupancy of the project shall be accomplished by the project
applicant prior to issuance of any building or grading plans.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. No Project Alternative
Consideration of a No Project Alternative is required under CEQA. This Alternative is
analyzed consistent with the requirements of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e) (3)(A),
which states that when the project under evaluation is the revision of an existing land use or
regulatory plan, the "no project" alternative will be the continuation of the existing plan. The No
Project Alternative, described in more detail in the DEIR, pages 5 -4 — 5-6, assumes no changes
in the existing environment, and assumes continuation of the existing conditions on the site for
an unknown period of time. The existing buildings would not be demolished, and the hardscape
and parking areas would remain. Access to the site would continue to be controlled with a chain -
link fence and gate. This alternative would not include a rezoning or General Plan amendment.
The waterfront land between the project site and the Oakland Estuary could be rehabilitated in
the future with a waterfront park, running from the Estuary in the north 300 feet southward
across the project site.
Although it is reasonable to assume that the project site would eventually be developed,
no other plans for the project site are currently under consideration. None of the mitigation
measures identified for the Proposed Project would be applicable to the No Project Alternative.
The No Project Alternative would eliminate or substantially reduce all proj ect- related
impacts. No change in land use would occur, and there would be no significant impact to
cultural resources, although the existing buildings would continue to deteriorate over time. The
strip of land between the project site and the waterfront would continue to have dilapidated and
deteriorating piers, as there are no proposals to remove them.
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the objectives of the Proposed Project
or Reduced Density Alternative, in particular to eliminate blighting influences and correct
environmental deficiencies in the area. Furthermore, the No Project Alternative would not
support the City's affordable housing goals.
The No Project Alternative would fail to meet all of the basic objectives; therefore, the
No-Action Alternative is hereby rejected as infeasible.
30
B. Preservation Alternative
The Preservation Alternative, described in more detail in the DEIR, pp. 5 -6 — 5 -9, would
retain and rehabilitate the circa 1910 Steel Fabrication Shop and Warehouse, and the circa 1910
Compressor Room/Storage Building. This alternative would construct new in -fill residential
uses elsewhere on the project site in a manner similar to the Proposed Project, yet at a reduced
size and density; approximately 171 residential units would be developed, compared to 242 units
with the Proposed Project. The circulation pattern would also be revised to accommodate the
existing historic buildings.
It is assumed that the Steel Fabrication Shop /Warehouse and Compressor Room /Storage
Building would be upgraded for ADA and seismic code compliance, and all rehabilitation efforts
would be consistent with the guidance provided by the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for
Rehabilitation ( "Secretary's Standards "). The Secretary of the Interior defines rehabilitation as
"the process of returning a property to a state of utility, through repair or alteration, which makes
possible an efficient contemporary use while preserving those portions and features of the
property which are significant to its historic, architectural, and cultural values."
The Compressor Room /Storage Building, specifically, would be retained and
rehabilitated for use as a community center. The Steel Fabrication Shop and Warehouse would
be retained and rehabilitated for use as a recreation center or commercial space that is compatible
with the proposed residential uses immediately adjacent to this building. While not all of the
large interior spaces of the industrial building must be retained to comply with the Secretary's
Standards, at least some portions of the interior, high -bay form and exposed wood roof trusses
and posts would be retained to convey the building's former industrial use.
The Preservation Alternative would meet the basic objectives of the Proposed Project, in
particular to eliminate blighting influences and correct environmental deficiencies in the area and
redeveloping the underutilized site. In addition, the Preservation Alternative would support the
City's affordable housing goals; however, the if the housing is built and the buildings are
preserved the community's desire for two acres of open space could not be accommodated.
Therefore the preservation alternative would need to either provide the open space or meet the
housing objectives, but it could not meet both objectives completely. .
•
The Preservation Alternative is determined to be infeasible for the following reasons:
The existing structures are in a sever state of disrepair. Most of the buildings have been
determined to be unsafe to enter. To rehabilitate and reuse the buildings would require
that the building be completely deconstructed and rebuilt from the ground up. This is the
most expensive type of construction process and exceeds the cost of simply building a
new building.
2. If the buildings were re -built to recreate the original industrial buildings constructed on
the site in 1910, these new buildings would be extremely difficult to re- tenant and
reoccupy. The economic conditions in the bay area and the location of the buildings
make it infeasible to get construction loans to build new buildings for office or even light
manufacturing use on a speculative basis. The Oakland Alameda market area is currently
31
experiencing very high vacancy rates in existing office and light industrial office centers.
It has also been suggested that the buildings might be reoccupied by a large scale retailer
such as Barnes and Noble. Barnes and Noble recently vacated a similar building in Jack
London Square due to the current economic conditions.
In conclusion, a commercial lending institution will not provide construction loans for a very
expensive reconstruction proposal to create new _large scale warehouses on the speculation that
that the new buildings could be leased to an office, retail or light manufacturing use at a lease
rate that would be adequate to cover the costs of the project. .
C. City Park Alternative
Under the City Park Alternative, described in more detail in the DEIR, pp. 5-13 -- 5-16,
the City would purchase approximately 4.5 acres of the property adjacent to the
Oakland /Alameda Estuary for the proposed 10 acre Estuary Park, and the remaining 5.5 acres
would be purchased by the City as adjacent properties were redeveloped. As described in the
General Plan, the City would purchase the 4.5 acres, make the improvements to the property for
a public park, and maintain the park in perpetuity. The City -owned waterfront land between the
project site and the Oakland Estuary would be rehabilitated, improved, and maintained by the
City for a city park. A waterfront esplanade would be located within the waterfront park,
running from the Estuary for a distance of 300 feet southward across the project site.
The remaining five acres of the property between the City Park and Clement Street would
be redeveloped by the property owner with residential units consistent with the General Plan and
zoning for that portion of the site. The existing buildings would be demolished, and the
hardscape and parking areas would be removed. The alternative would include approximately
125 housing units, internal circulation roadways and pedestrian paths.
The City Park Alternative would meet the basic objectives of the Proposed Project, in
particular to eliminate blighting influences and correct environmental deficiencies in the area and
redeveloping the underutilized site. In addition, the City Park Alternative would support the
City's affordable housing goals, but to a lesser extent than the Preservation and Reduced Density
Alternatives. However, the City Park Alternative would provide a more opportunities for public
access to and views of the waterfront.
The City Park Alternative would fail to meet in a timely fashion, the objectives of
eliminating blighting influences and correct environmental deficiencies in the area including, but
not limited to, abandoned buildings, incompatible land uses, depreciated or stagnant land values,
contamination, inadequate public improvements, facilities and utilities. It also would fail to meet
the objective of increasing the supply of affordable housing in the City of Alameda..
Furthermore, as stated on page 4.A -9 of the DEIR, the General Plan polices calling for creation
of a park on the project site were adopted in 1991, and the City has been unsuccessful in raising
funds to acquire land for the 10 -acre park despite many attempts over the years. Given the
City's current financial conditions and for the foregoing reasons, the City Park Alternative is
hereby rejected as infeasible.
32
D. Environmentally Superior Alternative
Based on the evaluation described in this section, the No Project Alternative, the
Preservation Alternative, the Reduced Density Alternative, and the City Park Alternative would
all be environmentally superior to the proposed project
The "No Project" alternative would be as the most environmentally superior alternative
with the fewest environmental impacts. However, the No Project Alternative does not meet some
of the key objectives and goals of the project, namely eliminating blight and improving public
access to the waterfront.
As explained on page 5--16 of the DEIR, the Preservation Alternative would be the
"environmentally superior alternative" as defined in CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2).
The Preservation Alterative would meet the project objectives while eliminating the significant
and unavoidable effect of the Proposed Project on cultural resources. The Reduced Density and
City Park Alternatives would have less severe traffic and transit impacts than either the proposed
project or the Preservation Alternative, because both the Reduced Density and City Park
Alternatives would generate fewer peak hour trips than both the Preservation Alternative and the
Proposed Project.
V. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15093, the City Council has balanced the benefits
of the Reduced Density Alternative against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining
whether to approve the Alternative, and has determined that the benefits of the Reduced Density
Alternative outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The reasons set forth
below are based on the Final EIR. and other information in the record.
The City Council hereby finds that the following specific economic, legal, social,
technological, or other benefits of the Reduced Density Alternative will outweigh the
unavoidable adverse environmental effects of it for the following overriding considerations:
The Reduced Density Alternative will:
1. Eliminate blight and address a hazardous condition in the area, including
but not limited to, remediation of contamination on the site and removal of
abandoned and dilapidated buildings that pose a safety concern.
2. Provide new and improved infrastructure, such as streets and landscaping
and a public park, without generating new costs to the General Fund.
3. Result in 180 new residential units for the city and the region to help
address the regional housing need and increase the supply of affordable
housing in the City of Alameda
4. Improve public access to and views of the waterfront by providing two
acres of public waterfront open space.
J3
5. Generate new revenue for the General Fund by redeveloping the site and
provide jobs during the construction process.
VI. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
The Final EIS. is hereby incorporated into these Findings in its entirety. Without
limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of the mitigation
measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of
alternatives, and the reasons for approving the Boatworks Residential Project Reduced Density
Alternative in spite of the potential for associated significant and unavoidable adverse impacts.
VII. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
No significant new information was added to the DEIR as a result of the public comment
process. The Final EIR responds to comments, and clarifies, amplifies and makes insignificant
modifications to the DEIR. The Final EIR does not identify any new significant effects on the
environment or a substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact requiring major
revisions to the DEIR. Therefore, recirculation of the DEIR is not required.
VIII. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which
the Board bases its findings contained herein. The record of proceedings is located in the offices
of the City of Alameda Community Development Department.
Ix. SUMMARY
A. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the
City Council has made one or more of the following Findings with respect to
each of the significant environmental effects of the Boatworks Residential
Project Reduced Density Alternative:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Reduced Density Alternative that avoid or substantially lessen the
significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. To the extent that such changes or alterations are within the responsibility
and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City of Alameda,
those changes or alterations 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 other
alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
34
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
Boatworks Residential Project Reduced Density Alternative 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 Section V, above.
35
Reduced Density A ternative a MRP
EXHIBIT 7: MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM (MMRP)
m p ementat on
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions of Procedures
Approval
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
and Monitoring
Reporting schedule
Action
B. Transportation and Circulation
MM B 3a: Prior to project occupancy, the project
applicant shall put into place a City- approved
Transportation Demand Management program with the
goal of reducing the number of peak hour trips by
10 percent. This will include the following measures:
Establish a Boatworks Home Owners Association
(HOA) and CCRs for the project;
Assess the HOA an annual fee in an amount
necessary to provide the following strategies:
EasyPass program (unlimited transit pass,
usable on AC Transit buses), two passes per
unit, additional passes per unit for residents may
be purchased at cost;
— Bicycle facilities in each unit;
- One car -share membership per residential unit;
and
— Provide annual funding for transportation
coordination services including, but not limited
to, promotional information packages and
planning services regarding available
transportation options, and annual monitoring
reports to City regarding effectiveness of
programs and recommended enhancements to
meet o% reduction goal.
Applicant will dra
Transportation
Demand
Management
program that
adhere s to all
specifications in
this measure
Department of
Public Works
(DPW) will
approve TDM
program.
Applicant will
establish a
Boatworks Home
Owners
Association (HCA)
and CCRs.
City of Alameda HOA will Prior to
Department of provide occupancy of first
Public Works I annual unit, TDM
monitoring program must be
reports to the approved by the
City City.
Annually
thereafter, the
HOA must
provide
monitoring
reports with any
recommendations
to revise program
to improve trip
reductions.
MM B-4: The project applicant shall restripe the
Blanding Avenue approaches (eastbound and
westbound) at Park Street to provide left turn pockets,
modify the traffic signal to be fully actuated, provide
protected left -turn phasing, modify the traffic control at
the private driveway of the Waters Edge Nursing Home
to stop -sign control, include audible pedestrian push
buttons and pedestrian count down heads, and
optimize the signal timing to improve the flow of traffic
without causing a significant impact to pedestrian or
transit level of service.
Applicant shall
provide
improvement plan
for DPW review
and approval and
complete the
Improvement prior
to occupancy. of
the final loo
housing unit.
1 City of Alameda
Public Works
Department
100th 1 Prior to 100th
Building 1 Building Permit
1 Permit
MMRP 1
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMRP
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions o
Approval
mplementation
Procedures
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
and Monitoring
Reporting Schedule
Action
MM B -5: The project applicant and construction
contractor(s) shall develop a construction managemen
plan for review and approval by the Public Works
Department prior to issuance of any permits. The plan
shall include at least the following items and
requirements to reduce traffic congestion during
construction:
1 „ A set of comprehensive traffic control measures
shall be developed, including scheduling of major
truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours,
detour signs if required, lane closure procedures,
signs, cones for drivers, and designated
construction access routes.
2. The Construction Management Plan shall identify
haul routes for movement of construction vehicles
that would minimize impacts on motor vehicle,
bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, circulation, and
safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the
greatest extent possible on streets in the project
area. The haul routes shall be approved by the City.
3-0 The Construction Management Plan shall provide
for notification procedures for adjacent property
owners and public safety personnel regarding when
major deliveries, detours, and lane closures would
occur.
The Construction Management Plan shall provide for
monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that
any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks
can be identified and corrected by the project applicant
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) obtain
approval of
construction
management plan
and implement the
plan during
construction
City of Alameda
Public Works
Department
MM B -Bb: Fund a fair share contribution to restriping
Park Street between Buena Vista and Blanding
Avenues to accommodate transit queue jump lanes,
and modify the traffic signals and signal timing at the
Park Street intersections at Blanding, Clement, and
Buena Vista Avenues).
Applicant to
provide a fair share
payment in an
amount of$1 ,300.
MM B -10: Fund a fair share contribution to reconfigure - D- PW prepares
and restripe the intersection of Park Street and
Clement Avenue to add dedicated left turn lanes on the
eastbound and westbound approaches of Clement
Avenue, and a northbound dedicated left turn lane on
Park Street, and to modify the traffic signals to include
protected left turn phasing for all approaches, fully
actuated traffic signal, and audible pedestrian push
buttons and pedestrian count down heads. The
reconfiguration would require acquisition of property
from the northeast and southwest corners and the
removal of approximately eight parking spaces.
MM B-11: Fund a fair share contribution to the
installation of traffic signals at the intersection of Oak
Street and Clement Avenue, and the restriping of the
eastbound Clement Avenue approach to provide an
construction
specifications of
required
intersection
improvements,
including cost
estimate.
DPW
CIC will pay fair
share contribution
of the cost
estimate for
improvements.
DPW prepares
construction
specifications of
required
(DPW
DPW
City of = Prior to issuance
Alameda = of building or
Public Works grading permit(s)
Department
must review
prior to
issuance of
permits.
DPW 1 Prior to approval
of final map.
Boatworks Residential Project 2
Mitigation Monitoring Program
DPW
Prior to
occupancy of
1 final unit.
DPW
Improvement to
be completed as
part of Clement
Extension from
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions o
Approval
MMRP
n' ple en tatiori
Procedures
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Action
Monitoring
Schedule
exclusive left--turn lane and a shared through /right -turn
lane. This mitigation also would require acquisition of the
necessary right -of -way from the project at the northwest
corner of Park Street and Clement Avenue to install the
traffic signal poles, while maintaining ADA access.
MM B -12: The Site Development Plan will include a
circulation and access analysis prepared by a
registered traffic engineer to ensure that the planned
internal circulation system adequately provides for
automobile queuing, distances between intersections,
commercial vehical access, and pedestrian and bicycle
visibility and access.
Fund a fair share contribution to the reconfiguration
and restriping of Clement Avenue in front of the projec
site to include an eastbound left turn lane (into the
project) and an eastbound center refuge /merge lane
(for traffic exiting the project) if recommended by the
analysis, and fund 100% of all on site improvements
recommended by the circulation analysis.
C. Air Quality and Climate Change
intersection
improvements,
including cost
estimate.
CIC will pay fair
share contribution
of the cost
estimate for
improvements.
Sherman to
Grand and
Broadway to
Tilden.
Applicant to fund
analysis and any
on -site
improvements.
Department of
Public Works
prepares
preliminary design
cost estimate for
of site
improvements.
CIC will pay fair
share contribution
of the cost
estimate for off site
improvements
IDPW
DPW
mprovement to
be completed as
part of Clement
Extension from
Sherman to
Grand and
Broadway to
Tilden..
MM C-1: Prior to project occupancy, the project applicant
shall implement MM B -3a (TDM).
MM C -2: During construction, the project applicant
shall require the construction contractor to implement
BAAQMD's basic and enhanced dust control
procedures required for sites larger than four acres,
such as the project site, to maintain project
construction - related impacts at acceptable levels; this
mitigates the potential impact to less than significant.
The "basic" dust control program shall include, but not
necessarily be limited to, the following:
Water all active construction areas at least twice
daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased
watering frequency may be necessary whenever
wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed
water should be used whenever possible.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two
feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space
between the top of the load and the top of the
trailer).
See B -3a above.
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) sham
prepare a
Construction Air
Pollutant Control
Plan that adhere s.
to all specifications
in this measure.
See B -3a above.
11 See B -3a
above.
I See B -3a above.
City of Alameda
Public Works
Department
Verify
inclusion of
dust control
measures in
applicable
construction
plans and
specifications
;field
inspections
Prior to issuance
of grading
building permit(s);
inspect during
construction
Boatworks Reduced Density Alternative (182) Residential Project
3
6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMRP
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions o
Approval
mplementation
Procedures
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
and Monitoring
Reporting Schedule
Action
e Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-
toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,
parking areas and staging areas at construction
sites.
Sweep streets (with water sweepers using
reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day if
visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved
roads.
Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access
roads, parking areas and staging areas at
construction sites.
The "enhanced" dust control measures shall include
the following:
Hydroseed or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers to
construction areas and previously graded areas
inactive for ten days or more
Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non -toxic
soil binders to exposed stockpiles of dirt, sand, etc.
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles
per hour (mph)
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures
to prevent silt runoff to public roadways
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as
possible
MM C -6a: In order to reduce GHG emissions from
energy consumption and to maintain project operations
consistent with the initiatives of the LAPCP, the project
applicant shall pursue energy conserving building
design and alternative energy conservation strategies
to meet or exceed the most current Uniform Building
Code requirements and State energy criteria.
MM C -6b: In order to maintain project operations
consistent with Energy Initiative 6 of the LAPCP, no
fireplaces or stoves installed as part of the proposed
project may be wood- burning.
Project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
prepare site plans
that incorporate
energy
conservation
design measures
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
Verify Prior to issuance
inclusion of a of building or
energy building permit(s)
conservation
design
measures in
3 construction
plans and
specifications
Project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
prepare site plans
that exclude wood-
! burning fireplaces
or stoves
City of Alameda Verify
Community exclusion o
Development } wood -
Department burning
fireplaces
and stoves in
construction
plans and
specifications
Prior to issuance
of building or
building permit(s)
MM C -6c: In order to maintain project operations
consistent with Waste and Recycling Initiative 1 of the
LAPCP, demolition and construction wastes shall be
sorted and 50% recycled to the extent feasible. A
demolition recycling plan shall be developed prior to
issuance of demolition permits and approved by DPW.
Project applicant
shall prepare a
demolition
recycling plan and
construction plans
shall specify
sorting and
recycling of
DP
DPV to Prior to issuance
approve of demolition
demolition ermi
p is
recycling
plan; veri
inclusion of
sorting and
recycling in
Boatworks Residential Project 4
Mitigation Monitoring Program
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions o
Approval
MMRP
m piemer tation
Procedures
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
and ( Monitoring
Reporting t schedule
Action
D. Noise
materials
construction
plans
MM D -1: The project applicant will incorporate the
following requirements into the construction contract
specifications:
G Construction activities will be limited to between the
hours of 7 :00 am and 7 :00 pm Monday through
Friday and 8 :00 am to 5 :00 pm on Saturdays.
Equipment and trucks used for construction will use
the industry standard noise control techniques (e.g.,
improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of
intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and
acoustically- attenuating shields or shrouds,
wherever feasible).
Stationary noise sources will be located as far from
adjacent receptors, whenever feasible, and they will be
muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds,
incorporate insulation barriers, or other measures to
the extent feasible.
MM D -4: If necessary to comply with the interior noise
requirements of the State and achieve an acceptable
interior noise level, noise reduction in the form of
sound -rated assemblies (i.e., windows, exterior doors,
and walls) shall be incorporated into project building
design, based upon recommendations of a qualified
acoustical engineer. Final recommendations for sound -
rated assemblies will depend on the specific building
designs and layout of buildings on the site and shall be
determined during the design phase. Specific
consideration shall be given to window size, degree of
sound insulation of exterior walls, which can be
increased through staggered- or double - studs, multiple
layers of gypsum board, and incorporation of resilient
channels.
E. Cultural Resources
i
Project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
prepare
construction
contract
specifications and
construction plans
that adhere to all
specifications in
this measure
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
prepare site plans
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department; City
Building
Department staff.
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department; City
that incorporate the I Building
described noise- Department staff.
controlling design
measures
Approve
construction
contract
specification
and
construction
plan
Verify that sit
plans
incorporate
noise-
controlling
features
Prior to issuance
of building or
building permit(s)
Prior to issuance
of building or
building permit(s)
MM E-1: The project applicants shall document the
circa 1910 Steel Fabrication Shop/Warehouse and
Compressor Room /Storage Building in accordance
with the Historic American Building Survey (HABS)
Level 11 documentation standards of the National Park
Service. Level H standards include the following:
1. Photographs. Large - format (4 x 5-inch negatives or
greater), black and white photographs should be
taken of all elevations of the two buildings, plus
limited context and detail shots. A limited number o
historical photos of the project area buildings, if
available, should also be photographically
reproduced. All photographs should be printed on
acid -free archival bond paper.
Boatworks Reduced Density Alternative (182) Residential Project
Project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
prepare HABS
} Level 11
documentation.
Project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
retain a
professional
architectural
historian to design
an interpretive
history exhibit that
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
Verify that Verify that HABS
HABS documentation
documentatio has been
n has been completed prior
completed. to issuance of
demolition permit.
Verify that an
appropriate Verify that an
interpretive appropriate
history interpretive
exhibit has history exhibit
been has been
installed. installed prior to
occupancy..
5
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMRP
mp emer tation
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions of 3 Procedures
Approval
Monitoring
Responsibility
2, Written History. Prepare a written history of the ' adheres to all
specrfcations in
project area and buildings using the HABS standard this measure.
outline format.
3. Drawings. If available, reproduce original building
drawings on mylar or through photographic means.
4. Archiving. The completed HABS documentation
package (photos, report, and drawings) shall be
archived at the City of Alameda, the City of
Alameda Public Library, and the Northwest
Information Center of Sonoma State University.
The project applicant shall also provide an interpretive
history exhibit in the form of a plaque or panel to
describe the historical importance of the former Dow
Company buildings to the general public. Information
generated from the documentation effort, such as
photographs and historical text, described above, can
be utilized for this effort as well. The interpretive exhibit
can either be placed along the proposed waterfront
trail /open space, or at the corner of Clement Avenue
and Oak Street. The interpretive exhibit should be
designed by a professional architectural historian
meeting the qualifications of the Secretary of the
Interior's Standards,
MM 2: If cultural resources are encountered, all
activity in the vicinity of the find shall cease until it can
be evaluated by a qualified archaeologist and a Native
American representative. Prehistoric archaeological
materials might include obsidian and chert flaked -
stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or
toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil (midden ")
containing heat - affected rocks, artifacts, or shellfish
remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars,
pestles, handstones, or milling slabs); and battered
stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted stones.
Historic -era materials might include stone, concrete, or
adobe footings and walls; filled wells or privies; and
deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse. If the
archaeologist and Native American representative
determine that the resources may be significant, they
will notify the project applicant or contractor(s) and the
City of Alameda and will develop an appropriate
treatment plan for the resources. The archaeologist
shall consult with Native American monitors or other
appropriate Native American representatives in
determining appropriate treatment for unearthed
cultural resources if the resources are prehistoric or
Native American in nature.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by
the archaeologist and Native American representative
in order to mitigate impacts to cultural resources, the
project proponent will determine whether avoidance is
necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the
Monitoring
and Monitoring
Reporting Schedule
Action
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
retain
archaeologist
Archaeologist shall
conduct
subsurface
archaeological
investigation
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
train workers and
monitor their
activities
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
halt work and
notify qualified
archaeologist and
a Native American
representative if
materials are
discovered
Archaeologist, in
consultation with
Native American
representatives
shall conduct
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
Boatworks Residential Project 6
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Review and Review extent
approve and methodology
extent and of subsurface
methodology investigations
of subsurface prior to approval
paleontologic of grading
al permit(s)
investigation
If resources
If resources
are
encountered,
verify work is
suspended
and review
and approve
of the
treatment
and
monitoring
plan if
paleontologic
al materials
are
discovered
encountered,
review of
treatment and
monitoring plan
prior to
continuation of
construction
MMRP
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions o
Approval
6, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
rr plementatiori
Procedures
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
and Monitoring
Reporting s Schedule
Action
nature of the find, project design, costs, and other
considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other
appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) will be
instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the
project area while mitigation for cultural resources is
being carried out.
independent
review and
prepare treatment
plan, if necessary
Project Applicant
or its contractor(s)
shall implement
treatment plan
and/or implement
other measures
such as data
recovery
MM E-3: If paleontological resources, such as Project Applicant
fossilized bone, teeth, shell, tracks, trails, casts, molds, and its
or impressions are discovered during ground - disturbing contractor(s) shal
construction activities, all such activities within 100 feet retain
of the find shall be halted until a qualified paleontologist paleontologist
can assess the significance of the find and, if
necessary, develop appropriate salvage measures in
consultation with the City of Alameda and in
conformance with Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
Guidelines.
Paleontologist
shall conduct
subsurface
archaeological
investigation
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
train workers and
monitor their
activities
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
halt work and
notify
paleontologist if
materials are
discovered
Paleontologist
shall conduct
independent
review and
develop salvage
measures, if
necessary
Project Applicant
or its contractor(s)
shall salvage
measures
MM E-4: If human skeletal remains are uncovered
during project construction, the project proponent
(depending upon the project component) will
immediately halt work, contact the Alameda County
coroner to evaluate the remains, and follow the
procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5
(e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner
determines that the remains are Native American, the
project proponent will contact the Native American
Heritage Commission, in accordance with Health and
Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivisioc), and
Boat corks Reduced Density Alternative (182) Residential Project
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
train workers and
monitor their
activities
If remains are
discovered, project
Applicant and its
contractor(s) shall
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
I City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
Review and
approve
extent and
methodology
of subsurface
paleontologic
al
investigation
If resources
are
encountered,
verify work is
suspended.
Review and
approve of
the
paleontologic
al materials
salvage
g
measures.
Review extent
and methodology
of subsurface
investigations
prior to approval
of grading
permit(s)
If resources
encountered,
review of salvage
measure plan
prior to
continuation of
construction
Review and Prior to approval
approval of
the
construction
plan that
includes
standard
procedures if
human
remains are
of the
construction
plans
6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions o
Approval
MMRP
mpiernentatior Monitoring
Procedures Responsibility
Monitoring
and Monitoring
Reporting Schedule
Action
Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB
2641). Per Public Resources Code 5097.98, the
landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity,
according to generally accepted cultural or
archaeological standards or practices, where the
Native American human remains are located, is not
damaged or disturbed by further development activity
until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as
prescribed in this section (PRC 509798), with the most
likely descendents regarding their recommendations, if
applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple
human remains.
F. Biological Resources
halt work and
notify the Alameda
County coroner.
If the remains are
determined to be
Native American,
the project
proponent shall
contact the Native
American Heritage
Commission.
Project Applicant
or its contractor(s)
and/or the
landowner shall
halt further
development
activity and confer
with the most likely
descendants.
MM F -1: No more than two weeks in advance of any = Project applicant
tree or shrub removal, or alteration to structures that and its contractor(s)
would commence during the breeding season (February e ensure sure t that
sha
t
1 through August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist shall construction
conduct pre - construction surveys of all potential special- plan(s) that adhere
status bird nesting habitat in the vicinity of the planned i to this measure to
activity. Pre - construction surveys are not required for reduce impacts to
construction activities scheduled to occur during the birds and their
non - breeding season (August 31 through January 31).
Construction activities commencing during the non -
breeding season and continuing into the breeding
season do not require surveys (as it is assumed that any
breeding birds taking up nests would be acclimated to
project - related activities already under way). Nests
initiated during construction activities would be
presumed to be unaffected by project activities, and a
buffer zone around such nests would not be necessary.
However, a nest initiated during construction cannot be
moved or altered.
If no active nests are found during pre - construction
avian surveys, then no further mitigation is required.
If active nests are found during pre - construction avian
surveys, the results of the surveys shall be discussed
with the appropriate resource agency and avoidance
procedures shall be adopted, if necessary, on a case -
by -case basis. Avoidance measures would most likely
include a no- disturbance buffer around the nest, which
will be maintained until a qualified biologist determines
that the young have fledged or otherwise abandoned
the nest. The size of the buffer zones and types of
construction activities restricted within them shall be
determined through consultation with resource
agencies, taking into account factors such as: 1) noise
nests /eggs
If construction will
take place
between February
1 and August 31,
project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
retain a qualified
wildlife biologist to
complete the
actions in this
measure.
Boatworks Residential Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
encountered
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department;
appropriate
resource agency
(i.e. California
Department of
Fish and Game)
8
Review the
construction
plan(s) for
the project to
ensure that
nesting
season is
avoided or
that activities
minimize
effects on
nests.
If active
nests are
found during
pre-
construction
avian
surveys, the
results of the
surveys shall
be discussed
with the
appropriate
resource
agency (i.e.
CDFG), and
avoidance
procedures
shall be
adopted, if
necessary.
Prior to approval
of the
construction
plans and prior to
start of applicable
phase of
construction.
6, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMRP
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions o
Approval
mplementation
Procedures
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Action
Monitoring
Schedule
and human disturbance levels at the project site and
the nesting site at the time of the survey and the noise
and disturbance expected during the construction
activity; (2) distance and amount of vegetation or other
screening between the project site and the nest; and
(3) sensitivity of individual nesting species and
behaviors of the nesting birds.
MM F -2: The applicant and project designer shall
reduce building lighting from exterior sources by the
following measures:
e Minimize amount and visual impact of perimeter
lighting, through measures such as downward -
pointing lights, side shields, visors, and motion -
sensor lighting.
Utilize minimum wattage fixtures to achieve required
lighting levels.
Use minimum wattage fixtures to achieve required
lighting levels.
Avoid placing water features in dose proximity to
glazed facades.
Design to avoid monolithic, undistinguishable expanses
of glazing by maximizing "visual noise" both on the
building scale and individual glass units.
Project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
prepare site plans
that incorporate
building design
features that
adhere to this
measure
MM F3a: Potential direct and indirect disturbances to
bats shall be identified by locating colonies, and
instituting protective measures prior to construction. No
more than two weeks in advance of tree removal or
demolition of buildings onsite, a qualified bat biologist
(e.g., a biologist holding a CDFG collection permit and
a Memorandum of Understanding with CDFG allowing
the biologist to handle and collect bats) shall conduct
pre - construction surveys for bat roosts. No activities
that could disturb active roosts shall proceed prior to
the completed surveys.
MM F -3b: If a bat colony is located within the project
site during pre - construction surveys, the project shall
be redesigned to avoid impacts, and a no- disturbance
buffer acceptable in size to the CDFG shall be created
around any roosts in the project vicinity, if possible. Bat
roosts initiated during construction are presumed to be conduct pre-
unaffected, and no buffer is necessary. However, the construction
"take" of individuals is prohibited. surveys.
Project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
retain a qualified
bat biologist to
locate colonies,
institute protective
measures, and
conduct pre -
construction
surveys.
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
Verify ' Prior to issuance
inclusion of a of building or
bird -safe building permit(s)
design
measures in
construction
plans and
specifications
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
Project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shat
retain a qualified
bat biologist to
If there is a maternity colony present and the project
cannot be redesigned to avoid removal of the tree or
structure inhabited by the bats, demolition of that tree
or structure shall not commence until after young are
flying (i.e., after July 31, confirmed by a qualified bat
biologist) or before maternity colonies form the
following year (i.e. prior to March 1).
If surreys 'dent!fy
bat colonies within
the site, project
applicant and its
contractor(s) shall
prepare
construction and
site plans with
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
Tree removal
permits(s)
and
demolition
permit(s)
shall be
conditioned
upon
approval of
bat protective
measures.
Approval of bat
protective
measures shall
take place prior to
issuance of tree
removal permit(s)
and demolition
permit(s).
Pre - construction
surveys shall be
conducted no
more than two
weeks prior tree
removal or
demolition.
Review pre-
construction
survey
reports.
Review
construction
and site
plans for
proper
incorporation
of buffers.
Boatworks Reduced Density Alternative (182) Residential Project 9
Approval of bat
protective
measures shall
take place prior to
issuance of tree
removal permit(s)
and demolition
permits).
Pre - construction
surveys shall be
conducted no
more than two
weeks prior tree
removal or
demolition.
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMRP
mplementation
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions of Procedures
Approval
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
and Monitoring
Reporting Schedule
Action
If a non - maternity roost must be removed as part of the buffers that adhere
to this measured
project, the non - maternity roost shall be evicted prior to
buildingltree removal by a qualified biologist, using Project applicant
methods such as making holes in the roost to alter the i and its
air - flow, or creating one -way funnel exits for the bats. contractor(s) shall
train construction
workers to avoid
"take" of bats,
MM F 3c: if known bat roosting habitat is destroyed
during building /tree removal, artificial bat roosts shall
be constructed in an undisturbed area in the project
site vicinity away from human activity and at feast 200
feet from project demolition /construction activities. The
design and location of the artificial bat roost(s) shall be
determined by a qualified bat biologist.
Maternity colonies
shall be avoided
and non - maternity
colonies shall be
evicted in
accordance with
this measure.
if known bat City of Alameda
roosting habitat is Community
destroyed during Development
building or tree Department
removal, artificial
bat roosts shall be
constructed in
accordance with
this measure.
MM F-4: if dredging or pile - driving occurs as part of the
project, the project applicant shall implement Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for protection of
salmonids and Pacific herring, that are identified in the
Lang -Term Management Strategy for the Placement of
Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region
(LTMS) (Corps, 200 1), BMPs listed in the LTMS
include the following:
installation of silt curtains and gunderbooms for
filtering sediment;
mechanical dredge operations controls, including
increased cycle time, elimination of multiple bucket
bites, and elimination of bottom stockpiling;
e hydraulic dredge operations controls, including
reduction of cutterhead rotation speed, reduction of
swing speed, and elimination of bank undercutting;
hopper dredges and barges operational controls,
including reduction of hopper overflow, lower
hopper fill levels, and use of a water recirculation
system; and
use of specialy equipment, including pneuma
Boat works Residential Project
Mitigation Mori tori ng Program
Project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shat
incorporate into
construction
plans).
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
Review pre -
construction
survey
reports.
Review
construction
and site
plans for
proper
incorporation
of artificial
roosts.
Review of
construction and
site plans shall be
conducted prior
to issuance of
tree removal
permit(s) and
demolition
permits.
Artificial roosts
shall be
constructed prior
to destruction of
roosting habitat,
orbyadate
recommended by
a qualified bat
biologist.
!Review Prior to approval
construction of the
plan(s) for construction
incorporation plans
of BMPs.
10
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
MMRP
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions o
Approval
pumps, closed or environmental buckets, large-
capacity dredges, and specialized tools for
precision dredging.
In addition, dredging or pile - driving in the Oakland
Estuary shall minimize impacts on special - status fish
through one or more of the following methods: (1)
dredging or pile - driving shall only be conducted within
work windows designated to cause the least impact on
Pacific herring and salmonids i.e., June through
November, see Table 4.F-1); (2) dredging or pile -
driving shall only produce noise levels below 150
decibels at 30 feet; and/or (3) dredging or pile- driving
shall only be conducted in accordance with NMFS
directives and Corps permits to reduce potential
impacts on fish species.
m pleri entation
Procedures
MM F -5a: The project applicant shall implement the
following Best Management Practices (BMPs) during
construction:
1. Install silt fencing, straw wattles or other appropriate
erosion and sediment control methods or devices to
prevent sediment from the upland portion of the site
from entering the Estuary as a result of project
activities.
2. Operate equipment e.g., backhoes and cranes)
that is used for removal or installation of fill and rip -
rap along the Estuary shoreline from dry land,
where possible. Construction operations within the
Oakland Estuary can also be barge - mounted or
utilize other water-based equipment such as scows,
derrick barges and tugs.
3. Prevent any fueling activity from occurring within 50
feet of the Oakland Estuary.
4. Where applicable, implement BMPs listed under
Mitigation Measure 4.F -4 to avoid impacts to water
quality resulting from dredging or other activities
within open waters, as identified in the Long-term
Management Strategy for the Placement of
Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region
(LTMS) (Corps, 2001).
Test all materials proposed for excavation and
dredging for the possible presence of contaminants.
Construction practices shall be designed in
coordination with the Corps, RWQCB, and other
applicable agencies, to minimize the dispersion of
contaminants into the water column and ensure proper
disposal of contaminated materials.
Monitoring
Responsibility
Project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shat
incorporate into
construction
plan(s).
DP
MM F -5b: The project applicant shall provide
compensatory mitigation (Le., no net loss" ) for any
temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands as
defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, as
required by regulatory permits issued by the Corps,
RWQCB, and BCDC. Measures may include but would
not be limited to ( ) onsite or offsite mitigation through
wetland creation or restoration; and (2) development of
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
provide
compensatory
mitigation for
wetlands impacts
as specified in this
measure.
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department; DP
Army Corps of
Engineers,
RWQCB, and
BCDC.
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Action
Monitoring
Schedule
Review
construction
plan(s) for
incorporation
of BMPs and
conduct
regular
inspections.
Prior to approval
of the subdivision
improvement
plans
Review e Prior to approval
project of the
plan(s) for construction
incorporation plans
of
compensator
y wetlands
mitigation.
Boatworks Reduced Density Alternative (182) Residential Project
6, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions o
Approval
MMRP
mplementation
Procedures
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Action
Monitoring
Schedule
a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan.
• Onsite or Offsite Wetland Creation or Restoration. To
the extent practicable, the project applicant shall
restore the tidal marsh to the Oakland Estuary
shoreline at.a minimum :1 impact -to- restoration
ratio, through activities such as removal of debris and
concrete riprap, and revegetating with native tidal
marsh species.
O If onsite restoration is not feasible, the project
applicant shall negotiate compensatory offsite
mitigation for wetland losses with applicable
regulatory agencies, at a 3:1 impact -to- restoration
ratio, or other ratio determined by the agencies.
Mitigation and Monitoring Program. Prior to the start
of construction or in coordination with regulatory
permit conditions, the project applicant shall prepare
and submit for approval to the Corps, RWQCB, and
BCDC a mitigation and monitoring program that
outlines the mitigation obligations for temporary and
permanent impacts to waters of the U.S., including
wetlands. The program shall include baseline
information from existing conditions, anticipated
habitat to be enhanced, thresholds of success,
monitoring and reporting requirements, and site-
specific plans to compensate for wetland losses
resulting from the project. The Boatworks Residential
Project Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
• Clearly stated objectives and goals consistent with
regional habitat goals.
Location, size, and type of mitigation wetlands
proposed.
A functional assessment of affected jurisdictional
waters to ensure that the EPA's "no net loss of
wetland value" standard is met. The functional
assessment shall also ensure that the mitigation
provided is commensurate with the adverse
impacts on Bay resources in accordance with
BCDC mitigation policies. The assessment shall
provide sufficient technical detail in the project
design including, at a minimum, an engineered
grading plan and water control structures, methods
for conserving or stockpiling topsoil, a planting
program including removal of exotic species, a list
of all species to be planted, sources of seeds
andfor plants, timing of planting, plant locations and
elevations on the mitigation site base map, and
maintenance techniques.
Documentation of performance, monitoring, and
adaptive management standards that provide a
mechanism for making adjustments to the
mitigation site. Performance and monitoring
standards shall indicate success criteria to be met
within 5 years for vegetation, animal use, removal
of exotic s #ecies, and h drology. Adaptive
Boatworks Residential Project
full ti ga ti o n Monitoring Program
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
create and adhere
to a Wetlands
Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan.
12
Review
Boatworks
Wetlands
Mitigation
and
Monitoring
I Plan,
6. Mitigation Monit
ng and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions o
Approval
management standards shall include contingency
measures that outline clear steps to be taken if and
when it is determined, through monitoring or other
means, that the enhancement or restoration
techniques are not meeting success criteria.
MMRP
G. Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
MM G- a: A site- specific, design -level geotechnical
investigation for the project shall be conducted as a
condition of building permit. The investigation shall
include detailed characterization of the distribution and
compositions of subsurface materials and an
assessment of their behavior during violent seismic
ground - shaking. The analysis shall recommend design
parameters that would be necessary to avoid or
substantially reduce structural damage under peak
ground accelerations of no less than 0.655g. The
investigation and recommendations shall be in
conformance with all applicable city ordinances and
policies and consistent with the design requirements of
Seismic Design Category EIF (very high vulnerability) of
the California Building Code. The geotechnical report
shall be prepared by a registered geotechnical engineer
and approved by the City, and all recommendations
shall be included in the final design of the project.
mplemer at on
Procedures
Monitoring
and
Reporting
Action
MM G- b: Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, the
project applicant shall prepare an earthquake hazards
information document to the satisfaction of City staff.
This document shall be made available to any potentia
occupant prior to purchase or rental of the housing
units. The document shall describe the potential for
strong ground - shaking at the site, potential effects of
ground shaking, and earthquake preparedness
procedures.
MM G -2: Earthwork, foundation and structural design
for the proposed project shall be conducted in
accordance with all recommendations contained in the
required geotechnical investigation (Mitigation Measure
4.G-1a). The investigation must include an assessment
of all potentially foreseeable seismically - induced
ground failures, including liquefaction, sand boils,
lateral spreading and rapid settlement. Mitigation
strategies must be designed for the site- specific
conditions of the project and must be reviewed for
compliance with the guidelines of CGS Special
Publication 117 prior to incorporation into the project.
Examples of possible strategies include edge
containment structures (berms, diked sea walls,
retaining structures, compacted soil zones), removal or
treatment of liquefiable soils, soil modification,
modification of site geometry, lowering the groundwater
table, in -situ ground densification, deep foundations,
reinforced shallow foundations, and structural design
that can accommodate predicted displacements.
Project Applicant i City of Alameda
and its Community
contractor(s) shall 3 Development
retain a registered Department
geotechnical
engineer to
conduct a
geotechnical
investigation.
Investigation
results and
recommendations
shall be included
in the final design
of the project and
shall be including
in grading and
building permit
applications).
Project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shat
prepare an
earthquake
hazards
information
document.
Project applicant
and its contractors
shall incorporate
recommendations
from the
geotechnical
investigation (see
MM G-la, above)
into project design
and construction
plans.
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
Cit y of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
Review
geotechnical
investigation
for the
project as a
condition of
building
permit.
Inspect final
buildings to
ensure they
were
constructed
according to
specifications
MM G -3: The required geotechnical report for the
project (Mitigation Measure 4.G-1a) shall determine the
susceptibility of the project site to settlement and
prescribe appropriate engineering techniques for
reducing its effects. Where settlement andlor
Project Applicant City of Alameda
and its I Community
contractor(s) shall Development
retain a registered Department
geotechnical
engineer to
Monitoring
Schedule
Prior to issuance
of building permit,
review
geotechnical
investigation.
Prior to
occupancy
certificate,
inspect final
buildings.
Review and
approve
earthquake
hazards
information
document..
Review and
approve
project
design and
construction
plans.
Prior to
occupancy
certificate.
Prior to approval
of planning
entitlements for
the project or
issuance of
building permi(s)
Review and
approve
project
design and
construction
Boatworks Reduced Density Alternative (182) Residential Project
13
Prior to approval
of planning
i entitlements for
!the project or
issuance of
Mitigatior Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions o
Approval
MMRP
mp ementatioC
Procedures
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
and Monitoring
Reporting Schedule
Action
differential settlement is predicted, mitigation
measures —such as lightweight fill, geofoam,
surcharging, wick drains, deep foundations, structural
slabs, hinged slabs, flexible utility connections, and
utility hangers —could be used. These measures shall
be evaluated and the most effective, feasible, and
economical measures shall be recommended.
Engineering recommendations shall be included in the
project engineering and design plans, and be reviewed
and approved by a registered geotechnical engineer,
All construction activities and design criteria shall
comply with applicable codes and requirements of the
most recent California Building Code, and applicable
City construction and grading ordinances.
H. Hydrology and water Quality
prescribe
mitigation
measures based
on the
geotechnical
investigation.
Such measures
shall be included
in the project
engineering and
design plans, and
be reviewed and
approved by a
registered
geotechnical
engineer.
MM H -3: An Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
shall be prepared and implemented by the project
applicant for all common landscaped areas. The l PM
shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall
recommend methods of pest prevention and turf grass
management that use pesticides as a last resort in pest
control. Types and rates of fertilizer and pesticide
application shall be specified. The IPM shall specify
methods of avoiding runoff of pesticides and nitrates
into receiving storm drains and surface watersor
leaching into the shallow groundwater table. Pesticides
shall be used only in response to a persistent pest
problem that cannot be resolved by non - pesticide
measures. Preventative chemical use shall not be
employed. Cultural and biological approaches to pest
control shall be fully integrated into the IPMs, with an
emphasis toward reducing pesticide application.
MM H-4: The project applicant shall design and
construct the proposed seawall such that future adaptive
management measures can be implemented to further
protect upland areas from potential rising sea levels.
Prior to construction, the final seawall design shall be
reviewed by BCDC and in accordance with current
guidelines regarding protection against sea level rise.
L Hazards and hazardous Materials
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
retain a qualified
professional to
prepare and
implement an
} Integrated Pest
Management Plan
(IPM) that adheres
to the
specifications in
this measure.
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) shal
design and
construct seawall
IPDW
City of Alameda
PDW; San
Francisco Bay
i Conservation and
Development
Commission
p
ans.
building perrnit(s)
MM I -la: Each structure proposed for demolition shal
be assessed by qualified licensed contractors for the
potential presence of lead -based paint or coatings,
asbestos containing materials, and PCB - containing
equipment prior to issuance of a demolition permit.
[- b: If the assessment required by Mitigation
Boatworks Residential Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
retain qualified
licensed
contractors to
assess structures
for the potential
1 presence of lead-
based paint or
coatings, asbestos
containing
materials, and
PCB - containing
equipment.
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
Review and
approve IPM.
Prior to approval
of open space
maintaince
agreement or
subdivision
improvement
agreement.
BCDC shall Prior to issuance
review final 1 of construction
seawall permit.
design.
Review and
i approve
assessment.
Project Applicant 3 City of Alameda Review and
4
Prior to approval
of improvement
plan,
Prior to issuance
6. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions o
Approval
MMRP
mplementation
Procedures
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
and Monitoring
Reporting Schedule
Action
Measure 41 -1 a finds presence of lead -based paint,
asbestos, and/or PCBs, the project applicant shall
create and implement a health and safety plan to
protect workers from risks associated with hazardous
materials during demolition or renovation of affected
structures.
and its
contractor(s) shall
create and
implement a health
and safety plan
Community
Development
Department
MM 1-1c: If the assessment required by Mitigation
Measure 41-1a finds presence of lead-based paint, the
project applicant shall develop and implement a lead -
based paint removal plan. The plan shall specify, but
not be limited to, the following elements for
implementation:
Develop a removal specification approved by a
Certified Lead Project Designer.
Ensure that all removal workers are properly
trained.
Contain all work areas to prohibit off -site migration
of paint chip debris.
e Remove all peeling and stratified lead -based paint
on building and non - building surfaces to the degree
necessary to safely and properly complete
demolition activities according to recommendations
of the survey. The demolition contractor shall be
responsible for the proper containment and disposal
of intact lead -based paint on all equipment to be cut
and/or removed during the demolition.
Provide on -site personnel and area air monitoring
during all removal activities to ensure that workers
and the environment are adequately protected by
the control measures used.
Clean up and /or vacuum paint chips with a high
efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter.
Collect, segregate, and profile waste for disposal
determination.
Properly dispose of all waste.
Project Applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
develop and
implement a lead -
based paint
removal plan that
adheres to the
specifications of
this measure
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
MM 1-1d: If the assessment required by Mitigation
Measure 4.1 -a finds asbestos, the project applicant
shall ensure that asbestos abatement shall be
conducted by a licensed contractor prior to building
demolition. Abatement of known or suspected ACMs
shall occur prior to demolition or construction activities
that would disturb those materials. Pursuant to an
asbestos abatement plan developed by a state - certified
asbestos consultant and approved by the City, all
ACMs shall be removed and appropriately disposed of
by a state certified asbestos contractor.
Project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
retain a state-
certified asbestos
to develop and
implement an
asbestos
abatement plan
that adheres to the
specifications of
this measure
Mil 1-le: If the assessment required by Mitigation
Measure 41-1 a finds PCBs, the project applicant shall
ensure that PCB abatement shall be conducted prior to
building demolition or renovation. PCBs shall be
removed by a qualified contractor and transported in
Boatworks Reduced density Alternative (182) Residential Project
Project applicant
and its
contractor(s) shall
retain a qualified
contractor to
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
City of Alameda
Community
Development
Department
approve ' of demolition or
health and i renovation
safety plan 3 permit.
Review and ' Prior to issuance
approve of demolition or
lead -based renovation
paint removal permit.
plan
Review and
approve
asbestos
abatement
plan
Review
demolition
1 plans for
inclusion of
proper PCB
15
Prior to issuance
of demolition or
renovation
permit.
Prior to issuance
of demolition or
renovation
permit.
6, M tiga tion Mon tort �g and Re am g Program
MMRP
mplemer tation
Mitigation Measures Adopted as Conditions of 3 Procedures
Approval
Monitoring
Responsibility
Monitoring
and Monitoring
Reporting - Schedule
Action
accordance with Caltrans requirements.
remove and
transport PCBs in
accordance with
this measure and
Caltrans
requirements.
removal
MM -2a: The project applicant shall prepare a health € Project applicant = City of Alameda
and safety plan, based on the site conditions and past and its 1 Community
contaminant release history and remediation, by a contractor(s) shall i Development
licensed industrial hygienist. The health and safety plan I retain a licensed = Department
shall identify potential contaminants that may be 1 industrial hygienist
encountered, appropriate personal protective to prepare a health
equipment, and worker safety procedures for spills and and safety plan
accidents. _ that adheres to all
specifications in
this measure.
MM -2b: To reduce environmental risks associated
with encountering contaminated soil discovered during
grading and construction, the project applicant shall
ensure that any suspected contaminated soil is
stockpiled separately, sampled for hazardous material
content, and disposed of in accordance with all
applicable state, federal, and local laws and
regulations. All contaminated soil determined to be
hazardous or non- hazardous waste shall have received
all laboratory analyses for acceptable disposal as
required by the receiving facility before it can be
removed from the site.
Project applicant City of Alameda
and its Community
contractor(s) shall Development
handle and test Department
any suspected
contaminated soi
in full adherence to
the specifications
of this measure
and in accordance
with all applicable
state, federal, and
local laws and
regulations
Review and Prior to issuance
approve of demolition or
health and renovation
safety plan permit,
Review
grading,
demolition
and
construction
plans for
inclusion of
contaminated
soil
guidelines
Prior to issuance
of grading and
demolition
permits.
MM 1-2c: Prior to issuance of any building or grading Project applicant City of Alameda
permits, any areas of identified contamination shall
have completed all measures required by ACDEH,
DTSC or RWQCB for site closure, and shall be certified
for residential use. Where necessary, additional
remediation to permit residential use and occupancy of
the project shall be accomplished by the project
applicant prior to issuance of any budding or grading
plans,
and its Community
contractor(s) shall 1 Development
complete all Department
measures required
by ACDEH, DTSC
or RWQCB for site
closure, and the
site shall be
certified for
residential use
Boatvvorks Residential Project
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Review
report of
measures
completed
and
certification
for residential
use.
Prior to issuance
of building or
grading permits
16
1, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda during the Regular
Meeting of the City Council on the 5th day of October, 2010, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson - 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
said City this 6th day of October, 2010.
Lara Weisiger, City
City of Alameda