Loading...
Resolution 14135CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 14135 MAKING FINDINGS REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, MAKING FINDINGS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES, ADOPTING A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE NORTHERN WATERFRONT AND CHILD CARE POLICY GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE #2002102118) CD N, . c > WHEREAS, on March 26, 2006, the Planning Board of the City of Alameda recommended that the City Council certify that the Final Cl. Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") for the Northern Waterfront and Child Care Policies General Plan Amendment (the "Project ") was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") and state and local guidelines; and WHEREAS, the proposal to make findings regarding environmental impacts and mitigation measures, make findings concerning alternatives, adopt a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations is part of an application that includes a General Plan Amendment; and WHEREAS, prior to approving this Resolution and acting on the General Plan Amendment, the City Council certified the FEIR. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Northern Waterfront and Child Care Policies General Plan Amendment (Attachment A), the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives (Attachment B), the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment C) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment D), all of which are attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE NORTHERN WATERFRONT GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT ATTACHMENT A PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Northern Waterfront General Plan amendment and Citywide Childcare policies amend the General Plan to: 1) designate approximately 110 acres of northern waterfront industrially designated properties to a specified mixed -use designation. 2) adopt a set of guiding policies to guide future development within the Northern Waterfront Specified Mixed Use Area, and 3) adopt certain policies that would apply citywide that resulted from the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee or the Social Services Human Relations Board. The Northern Waterfront project area is generally bounded by Sherman Street on the west, Buena Vista Avenue on the south, and Grand Street on the east, and the Oakland/Alameda Estuary on the north. The area is within several zoning districts; including R -2 (Two Family Residence District), R -3 (Garden Residential District), R -4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential District, Special Planned Development District), M -1 (Intermediate Industrial), M -2 (General Industrial), C -M (Commercial- Manufacturing District), and M -1 -PD (Intermediate Industrial, Special Planned Development District). I. THE FINAL EIR: The Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") consists of the Draft EIR ( "DEIR "), Responses to Comments Addendum and Text Revisions document. II. THE RECORD: The following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record ( "Record ") supporting these findings: a. The Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee's recommended General Plan Amendment. b. Additional General Plan Amendments recommended by the Social Service Human Relations Board and the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee. c. The 2006 Draft EIR. d. The 2007 FEIR including the 2006 DEIR, Responses to Comments Addendum and Text Revisions document and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference. e. The 2007 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. f. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered to the City of Alameda ( "City ") in connection with the Planning Board public hearing of February 27, 2006 on the DEIR. 50120 \68263v4 g. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered to the City in connection with the Planning Board and City Council meetings associated with the certification of the FEIR. h. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of public meetings and other documents relied upon or prepared by City staff or consultants relating to the Project. i. These Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in connection with the Project. III. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS The FEIR for the Project, prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, evaluates the potentially significant and significant adverse environmental impacts which could result from adoption of the Project. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations ( "CEQA Guidelines ") Section 15091, the City is required to make certain findings with respect to these impacts. The required findings appear in the following sections of this document. These Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures ( "Findings ") list all identified potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project, as well as mitigation measures for those impacts where possible. All mitigation measures will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ( "MMRP "), as incorporated as a condition of approval. With regard to impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the City nevertheless finds acceptable based on a determination that the benefits of the Project (listed in these Findings and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations) outweigh the risks of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. A. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093, the City finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts listed below, as identified in the FEIR. These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the City as stated below. Each significant impact which can be reduced to a less than significant level is discussed below, and the appropriate mitigation measure stated, and adopted for implementation by approval of these Findings of Fact. 2 1. UTILITIES 1.1 Sewer System Impacts (UTIL -1) 1.1.1 Significant Effect. Use of existing substandard storm sewer or sanitary sewer on -site transport facilities could contribute to peak wastewater or storm water flows that could exceed capacity of the existing sewage transport facilities. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: UTIL -1: Project sponsors shall remove or reconstruct all existing sewer and storm drain laterals that serve the site of the proposed development project to comply with City, EBMUD, and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards. This measure would reduce the level of impact to less than significant. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Reuse of existing on -site laterals and other components of the antiquated system that serve sites proposed for development under the Northern Waterfront GPA would exacerbate existing conditions. Construction of a new laterals system to replace the existing storm drain and sewer systems would avoid significant impacts associated with the deteriorated condition of the existing laterals. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D -9). 2. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 2.1 Construction Related Traffic Impacts (TRN -1) 2.1.1 Significant Effect. During construction, lane closures within the Northern Waterfront GPA area may result in rerouting of autos, buses, bicycle and/or emergency vehicles. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: TRN -1: Proponents for each project in the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) to address the impacts of construction vehicles on regional and local roadways and restrict truck traffic to designated truck routes within the City. The TCP should address construction truck routes and access, as well as needed local lane closures. Where bus routes or emergency routes are affected, appropriate signage to indicate detour routes should be provided. Bus stops that must be temporarily relocated 3 should also be identified and presented in the TCP. The TCP may recommend installation of directional signs for trucks and designate time periods when construction truck traffic would be allowed. The TCP must be reviewed and approved by the City's Public Works Department prior to issuance of any building or grading permits. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. During construction, trucks might utilize Atlantic Avenue, Clement, the Webster and Posey Tubes, Park Street Bridge, and the Fruitvale Bridge. Some temporary lane closures on Atlantic Avenue and other local streets could be required during construction. Lane closures could require rerouting of autos, buses, bicycles, and /or emergency vehicles. Some equipment and /or materials may not be transportable through the tubes. These special occurrences may require use of other bridge crossings or delivery by ferry. The TCP required by Mitigation Measure TRN -1 would address potential traffic issues caused by construction related activities to a less than significant level. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E -22). 2.2 Clement Street Intersection Impacts (TRN -2) 2.2.1 Significant Effect. Full buildout and extension of Clement Street through the Northern Waterfront GPA area would result in a significant increase in traffic volumes on Clement Street through Alameda. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: TRN -2: To ensure effective and safe traffic flow through the area on the Clement Street extension, provide for the following or equivalent traffic improvements: To ensure effective and safe traffic flow through the area on the new Clement Street extension, the Clement extension should be signalized as follows: o Install a traffic signal at the new intersection of Atlantic /Sherman/Clement and a new signal at the intersection of Buena Vista and Entrance when Clement Avenue is extended from Sherman to Entrance Drive. o Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Grand and Clement when Clement Street is extended through the Pennzoil site. o Install a traffic signal at the intersections of Entrance and Clement when the Encinal Terminal Site is redeveloped. 4 Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As presented in Table IV.E -6 of the DEIR, several Clement Street intersections would be operating at unacceptable levels of service at buildout in 2025. Mitigation Measure TRN -2 is designed to ensure that the necessary signalization is phased in with the completion of the roadway improvements to maintain an acceptable level of service and reduce the impact to less than significant. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E -25 to 27). 2.3 2010 LOS at Park and Clement Street Intersection (TRN -3a) 2.3.1 Significant Effect. Full implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA and extension of Clement Avenue through the Northern Waterfront GPA area would result in a significant impact to the level of service at the intersection of Park and Clement in 2010. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: TRN 3a: Modify the signal timing at Park and Clement to provide full actuation and enhance signal phase sequence to allow for the Clement Avenue East -West split phase. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Providing the Clement Extension will cause an increase in traffic volumes on Clement Avenue, as a result of cross town traffic shifting from Buena Vista and Lincoln to Clement. In the future years, the intersection of Park and Clement will operate at an unacceptable LOS F, because the current intersection configuration does not provide a left turn pocket on Clement in the eastbound direction. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRN -3a would improve the LOS at the intersection of Park and Clement to an acceptable level by modifying the signal timing and phasing. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E -27 and 28). 5 3. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 3.1 Loss of Bat Roost Sites (BIO -1) 3.1.1 Significant Effect. Renovation and demolition of buildings within the Northern Waterfront GPA area may result in the loss of bat roost sites on the project site. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: BIO -1: Proponents of each project in the Northern waterfront GPA area shall prepare a preconstruction survey of all buildings scheduled for demolition or renovation shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of demolition or renovation activities. Special attention shall be given to buildings where pallid bats were observed during the earlier survey or where measures to discourage roosting were implemented. If no bats or signs of an active roost are found, no additional measures are required. If a bat roost site is found, then measures shall be implemented to discourage roosting at the site. If a maternity colony of bats is found, the building and the bats shall not be disturbed until the young have dispersed, as determined by a qualified biologist. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Bats potentially roost in vacant buildings such as the warehouses found within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Implementation Mitigation Measure BIO -1 would reduce potential impacts to the bats identified in Table IV.F -1 of the DEIR to a less -than- significant level. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.F -13). 3.2 Dredging Impacts (BIO -2) 3.2.1 Significant Effect. Sediment dredging and in -water construction activities in Alaska Basin could impact fish, aquatic bird species, and other aquatic organisms. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: BIO -2: All dredging activities shall be consistent with the standards and procedures set forth in the Long -Term Management Strategy, a program developed by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other agencies, to guide dredging and the disposal of dredge materials in an environmentally sound manner. 6 Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Increased turbidity from dredging and in -water construction activities would be localized and of limited duration. The magnitude of the turbidity would depend in part on the number and type of dredges working at a given time, their locations, and measures implemented to reduce turbidity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -2 would limit impacts of dredging and in -water construction activities by requiring that all such activities be consistent with the standards of the Long -Term Management Strategy developed by the BCDC, RWQCB, and the EPA. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.F -13 and 14). 4. CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.1 Archaeological Resources (CULT -1) 4.1.1 Significant Effect. Excavation activities associated with implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA could adversely impact unidentified archaeological resources. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: CULT -1: In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during site preparation or construction, work shall cease in the immediate area until such time as a qualified archaeologist and City of Alameda personnel can assess the significance of the find. The following measures shall be implemented at the time of the find: o Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resources shall be immediately suspended and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the find. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context. o If archeological resources are discovered, the City and the cultural resource consultant shall determine whether the resource is unique based on the criteria provided in the CEQA Guidelines and the criteria listed above. The City and developer, in consultation with a cultural resource expert, shall seek to avoid damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible. o If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified cultural resource consultant shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the impact on the qualities that make the resource unique. The mitigation plan shall be prepared in 7 accordance with CEQA Guidelines and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Due to the location of the Northern Waterfront GPA area adjacent to the Oakland Estuary and in the vicinity of historical springs, the Northern Waterfront GPA area has a moderate potential of containing unidentified cultural resources. Impacts to such resources could be considered significant under CEQA. Implementation of mitigation Measure CULT -1 would reduce the Northern Waterfront GPA's potential impact to unidentified cultural resources to a less- than - significant level in the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during site preparation or construction activities. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.G -11 and 12). 4.2 Human Remains (CULT -2) 4.2.1 Significant Effect. Ground - disturbing activities associated with implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA could unearth human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: CULT -2: If human remains are encountered, work shall halt within 50 feet of the find and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. A qualified archaeologist shall also be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of this identification. Pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code, the Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner's authority. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) 8 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. The potential to uncover human remains exists at locations throughout the Bay Area. Prehistoric resources are more likely to occur in areas near bodies of water, such as the Northern Waterfront GPA area, where there were high levels of Native American activity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT -2 would reduce this potential impact to a less- than - significant level in the event that human remains are discovered during site preparation or construction activities. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.G.10 and 11). 4.3 Paleontological Resources (CULT -3) 4.3.1 Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA could adversely impact unidentified paleontological resources. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: CULT -3: If paleontological resources are encountered during site preparation or construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: o Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resource(s) shall be immediately suspended, and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified paleontological resource consultant shall be contacted to evaluate the find. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context. o If paleontological resources are discovered and the City and the paleontological resource consultant found that the resource is significant based on the criteria provided in the CEQA Guidelines and criteria listed above, the City and project developer, in consultation with a paleontological resource expert, shall seek to avoid damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible. o If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified paleontological resource consultant shall prepare a salvage plan for mitigating the effect of the Project on the qualities which make the resource unique. The project developer, in consultation with a qualified paleontologist, shall complete a paleontological resource inventory, declaration, and mitigation plan in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and submit it to the City for review and approval. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. 9 The potential to uncover paleontological resources exists at locations throughout the Bay Area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT -3 would reduce this potential impact to a less- than - significant level in the event that paleontological resources are discovered during site preparation or construction activities. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.G.11 and 12.) 5. NOISE 5.1 Impacts During Demolition, Construction, and Remodeling (NOISE -1) 5.1.1 Significant Effect. Buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA could result in demolition, construction, and remodeling activities which could generate excessive noise or groundborne vibrations at neighboring land uses. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: NOISE -la: Developers and/or contractors shall create and implement development - specific noise reduction plans, which shall be enforced via contract specifications. Each developer and/or contractor shall be contractually required to demonstrate knowledge of the Alameda Noise Ordinance. Contractors may elect any combination of legal, non- polluting methods to maintain or reduce noise to thresholds levels or lower, as long as those methods do not result in other significant environmental impacts or create a substantial public nuisance. The plan for attenuating construction- related noises shall be implemented prior to the initiation of any work that triggers the need for such a plan. NOISE -lb: To reduce pile driving noise, "vibratory" pile driving should be used wherever feasible. The vibratory pile driving technique, despite its name, does not generate vibration levels higher than the standard pile driving technique. It does, however, generate lower, less - intrusive noise levels. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Construction activities associated with buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA would involve building demolition, building construction, and utility and roadway reconstruction, which would create noise and vibration. Noise from construction activities would be intermittent during construction and would gradually occur over an extended period of time, driven by market conditions. Groundborne vibration from construction within the Northern Waterfront GPA area could result from truck traffic to and from the site, but would primarily result from pile driving 10 where needed. The location of the potential pile driving would probably be sufficiently distant from nearby receptors that any perceived groundborne vibration would not constitute a significant impact. Vibration due to pile driving would also be constrained to established time -of -day limits. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that demolition construction and remodeling activities do not create excessive noise or vibrations, implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-la and 1 b, enforced through the MMRP as conditions of approval, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.8 to 10). 5.2 Stationary Source Impacts to New and Existing Residences (NOISE -2) 5.2.1 Significant Effect. New development associated with implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA could expose existing and/or new residences to noise from stationary sources that exceed levels deemed acceptable for residential and commercial uses. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated by the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project. NOISE -2a: Acoustical studies, describing how the exterior and interior noise standards will be met, should be required for all new residential or noise - sensitive developments exposed to environmental noise greater than CNEL 60 dBA, or one - family dwellings not constructed as part of a subdivision requiring a final map exposed to environmental noise greater than CNEL 65 dBA. The studies should also satisfy the requirements set forth in Title 24, part 2, of the California Administrative Code, Noise Insulation Standards, for multiple - family attached, hotels, motels, etc., regulated by Title 24. NOISE -2b: All new projects shall show that they comply with maximum noise levels outlined in the City's Noise Ordinance and the average sound level goals outlined in the City's General Plan Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. New projects developed under the Northern Waterfront GPA would be subject to the City's Noise Ordinance and the policies included in the General Plan. The City's Noise Ordinance outlines maximum noise levels allowed for stationary noise sources. Policy 8.7.e of the City's General Plan requires acoustical analysis for new or replacement dwellings, hotels, and schools within the projected CNEL 60 dBA contour, or one - family dwellings not constructed as part of a subdivision requiring a final map within the projected CNEL 65 dBA contour. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE -2a and 2b, enforced through the MMRP as conditions of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for stationary noise sources to impact new and existing residences. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.11 and 12). 11 5.3 Noise Levels on Clement Avenue and Grand Street (NOISE -3) 5.3.1 Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would significantly increase noise levels along Clement Avenue and Grand Street. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: NOISE -3: New projects in the Northern Waterfront GPA should require acoustical studies, describing how the exterior and interior noise level standards will be met for the Project as well as any impacts on adjacent projects. Studies shall also satisfy the acoustical requirements of Title 24, of the Uniform Building Code. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. New commercial, office, or other non - residential development could produce stationary - source noise that could affect existing residences or noise - sensitive land uses. In addition, new office and residential uses may establish themselves in areas where the proposed land use designation would prohibit new industrial uses, but will allow existing industrial uses to remain until the use terminates or the site is redeveloped. New projects developed under the Northern Waterfront GPA would be subject to the City's Noise Ordinance and the policies included in the General Plan. The City's Noise Ordinance outlines maximum noise levels allowed for stationary noise sources. Policy 8.7.e of the City's General Plan requires acoustical analysis for new or replacement dwellings, hotels, and schools within the projected CNEL 60 dBA contour, or one - family dwellings not constructed as part of a subdivision requiring a final map within the projected CNEL 65 dBA contour. Implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE -3, enforced through the MMRP as conditions of approval, would ensure the appropriate noise mitigation measures are incorporated into each individual development. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H -10 and 11). 6. GEOLOGY, SOILS & SEISMICITY 6.1 Seismic Induced Ground Shaking (GEO -1) 6.1.1 Significant Effect. Occupants of future development within the Northern Waterfront GPA area would be subject to seismic - induced ground shaking. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: 12 GEO -1: While the potential impacts of strong seismic ground shaking cannot be eliminated in the Northern Waterfront GPA area, the following steps shall be implemented to reduce the impacts related to expected strong ground shaking: o Grading, foundation, and structural design should be based on the anticipated strong seismic shaking associated with a future major earthquake on the Hayward fault. The Hayward fault is considered to be a Type A seismic source (with active slip and capable of a magnitude 7.0 or greater earthquake) under the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) near - source factors. All structures shall be designed in accordance with the most recent edition of the UBC and California Building Code for soft soil in Seismic Zone 4. o The applicant shall prepare an earthquake preparedness and emergency response plan for all public use facilities. The plan should be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Building and/or Public Works Department, prior to occupancy of the structures. o Prior to marketing residential or commercial units for sale, the developer shall prepare an earthquake hazards information document. This document should be made available to any potential occupant prior to purchase or rental of the housing units or commercial spaces. The document should describe the potential for strong ground shaking at the site, potential effects of such shaking, and earthquake preparedness procedures. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure GEO -1 requires that all structures be constructed in accordance with the most recent edition of the UBC and California Building Code for soft soil in Seismic Zone 4. The applicant shall also prepare an earthquake preparedness and emergency response plan for all public use facilities. Prior to marketing residential or commercial units for sale, the developer shall prepare an earthquake hazards information document to disclose the potential for seismic events. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential exposure of site occupants to hazards associated with seismic induced ground shaking. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I -9 and 10.) 6.2 Seismic Induced Ground Failure (GEO -2) 6.2.1 Significant Effect. Seismic - induced Ground Failure, including Liquefaction, Lurch - Cracking and Lateral Spreading may occur in the Northern Waterfront GPA. 13 Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: GEO -2: The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce the potential impact of seismic - induced ground failure. o Earthworks and foundation design shall be conducted in accordance with all recommendations contained in the Weyerhaeuser /Chipman Parcels geotechnical report by Lowney Associates (December 1998) for that parcel. Additional liquefaction potential analyses shall be conducted and a liquefaction mitigation program developed for each development within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. All structures proposed for the project area shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most recently adopted version of the City of Alameda Building Code, and the seismic design considerations of the Uniform Building Code (1997) and the most recent California Building Code (currently 2001) as published by the ICBO. o Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, geotechnical investigations shall be conducted for the Del Monte Warehouse (URS Corporation report, 2002), Encinal Terminal, or Fortmann Marina sub -areas of the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Reports for these studies shall evaluate the liquefaction potential for each site in accordance with the Standard of Practice for Geotechnical Engineering and shall provide recommendations for stabilization or resistance of structures from the potential affect of liquefaction of sediments. The potential for lurch cracking and lateral spreading shall also be evaluated. Stability of the bulkhead for projects adjacent to bulkheads shall also be evaluated. Reports shall be submitted to the City of Alameda Public Works Department for review and approval. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure GEO -1 requires that all earthwork and foundations be conducted in accordance with all recommendations contained in the Weyerhaeuser /Chipman Parcels geotechnical report by Lowney Associates (December 1998) for the parcel to be developed. Additional liquefaction potential analyses shall be conducted and a liquefaction mitigation program developed for each development within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. It also requires that all structures be constructed in accordance with the most recent edition of the UBC and California Building Code. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, geotechnical investigations shall be conducted for the Del Monte Warehouse (URS Corporation report, 2002), Encinal Terminal, or Fortmann Marina sub -areas of the Northern Waterfront GPA area. These 14 geotechnical investigations would produce site specific recommendations for stabilization or resistance of structures from the potential affect of liquefaction of sediments. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -2, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for damage to Project improvements as a result of liquefaction. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I -10.) 6.3 Consolidation and Land Subsidence (GEO -3) 6.2.1 Significant Effect. Expected continuing consolidation and land subsidence in the Northern Waterfront GPA area could result in damage to structures, utilities and pavements. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: GEO -3: Proponents for all projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall be required to prepare a geotechnical report for review and approval by the City of Alameda that specifies all measures necessary to limit consolidation including minimization of structural fills and use (when necessary) of lightweight and low plasticity fill materials to reduce the potential for excessive loading caused by fill placement. The placement of artificial fill should be limited to reduce the potential for increased loading and associated settlement in areas underlain by thick younger Bay Mud. Increased area settlement could have implications for flooding potential as well as foundation design. Reconditioning (compaction) of existing subgrade materials would be preferable to placement of fill. The report shall present recommendations for specific foundation designs, which minimize the potential for damage related to settlement. The design of utilities shall consider differential settlements along utility alignments constructed in filled areas of the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure GEO -3, no grading permit will be issued until a detailed, site - specific geotechnical report analyzing consolidation potential is prepared and submitted to the City Department of Public Works for approval. The report will specify all measures necessary to limit consolidation and will present recommendations for specific foundation designs which minimize the potential for damage related to settlement. The measures specified and the recommendations presented will adhere to the standards identified in Mitigation Measures GEO -2 and GEO -3. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -3, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for damage to Project improvements 15 as a result of continuing consolidation and land surface subsidence at the Project site. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I -11.) 6.4 Shrink Swell Impacts (GEO -4) 6.2.1 Significant Effect. Damage to structures or property related to shrink -swell potential of Northern Waterfront GPA area soils could occur. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: GEO -4: The required geotechnical report shall require that subgrade soils for pavements consist of moisture - conditioned, lime- treated, or non - expansive soil, and that surface (including roof drainage) and subsurface water be directed away from foundation elements and into storm drains to minimize variations in soil moisture. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As discussed in the 2006 DEIR, portions of the project site contain Bay mud deposits with moderate to high shrink/swell potential. As part of Mitigation Measure GEO -3, no grading permit will be issued until a detailed, site - specific geotechnical report for each phase of the Project is prepared and submitted to the City Department of Public Works for approval. That report, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO -4, shall require that foundations and improvements are designed to reduce impacts from expansive soils, and that variation in soil moisture under and around building foundation elements are minimized by incorporating foundation designs and standards identified in Mitigation Measure GEO -3. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -4, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for damage to structures or property related to shrink -swell potential of Project soils. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I -11.) 7. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 7.1 Degradation of Water Quality (HYD -1) 7.1.1 Significant Effect. Construction activities and post - construction site uses could result in degradation of water quality in the Oakland Estuary and the San Francisco Bay by reducing the quality of storm water runoff Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: 16 HYD -1: All specific development projects approved pursuant to the Northern Waterfront GPA, that involve site clearing, grading or excavation as part of the proposed construction activity and that result in soil disturbances of 1 or more acres, (and for projects of less than 1 acre if the construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development), shall be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). To avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, the SWPPP prepared for the first site or development project within the Northern Waterfront GPA area may be used as the basis for a SWPPP required for subsequent projects, provided that each version of the SWPPP is modified as necessary to maintain compliance with the qualitative standards set forth in this EIR and with applicable regulations and standards of the RWQCB. Each SWPPP shall be designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction and life of the Project for which it is prepared. The SWPPP shall conform to the requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water Program which set new standards effective February 2003, and to the standards set forth herein. The SWPPP would act as the overall program document designed to provide measures to mitigate potential water quality impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Preparers of the SWPPP should review the Conditions of Approval (including General Conditions for Construction, Residential Development /Construction Conditions, and Commercial /Industrial Conditions) established by the City. The SWPPP shall include the following three elements to address construction, post - construction and pest management issues: o Specific and Detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) Designed to Mitigate Construction- related Pollutants. These controls shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water. The SWPPP shall specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain. The contractor(s) shall submit details, design and procedures for compliance with storage area requirements. An important component of the storm water quality protection effort is knowledge on the part of on -site construction and maintenance supervisors and workers. To educate on -site personnel and maintain awareness of the importance of storm water quality protection, site supervisors shall conduct regular meetings to discuss pollution prevention. The SWPPP shall establish a frequency for meetings and require all personnel to attend. The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor, and must include both dry and wet weather inspections. City of Alameda personnel shall conduct regular inspections to ensure compliance with the SWPPP. BMPs designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to: soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales and sediment basins. If grading must be conducted during the rainy season, the primary BMPs selected shall focus on erosion control (i.e., keeping sediment on the site). End of pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and traps) shall be used only as secondary measures. If hydroseeding is selected as the primary soil stabilization method, these areas shall be seeded by September 1 and irrigated to 17 ensure that adequate root development has occurred prior to October 1. Entry and egress from the construction site shall be carefully controlled to minimize off -site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash -down facilities shall be designed to be accessible and functional both during dry and wet conditions. o Measures Designed to Mitigate Post - construction - Related Pollutants. The SWPPP shall include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality degradation of runoff from all portions of the completed development. It is important that post construction storm water quality controls are required in the initial design phase of redevelopment projects and not simply added after the site layout and building footprints have been established. The specific BMPs that would be required of a project can be found in SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. In addition, the design team should include design principles contained in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association's manual, Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection. The selection of BMPs required for a specific project is based on the size of the development and the sensitivity of the area. The Estuary is considered a sensitive area by the RWQCB. In general, passive, low maintenance BMPs (e.g., grassy swales, porous pavements) are preferred. If the SWPPP includes higher maintenance BMPs (e.g., sedimentation basins, fossil filters), then funding for long term maintenance needs must be specified in the SWPPP as a condition of approval of the grading, excavation, or building permits, as appropriate (the City will not assume maintenance responsibilities for these features). o Integrated Pest Management Plan. An Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM) shall be prepared and implemented by the Project for all common landscaped areas. Each IPM shall be prepared by a qualified professional. The IPMs shall address and 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. Special attention in the IPMs shall be directed toward avoiding runoff of pesticides and nitrates into sensitive drainages or leaching into the shallow groundwater table. Pesticides shall be used only in response to a persistent pest problem. 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. The City of Alameda Department of Public Works shall review and approve the SWPPP prior to the approval of the Development Plan for each Project phase to ensure that the selected BMPs would adequately protect water quality. The City and the RWQCB are empowered to levy considerable fines for non - compliance with the SWPPP. Compliance with the approved SWPPP would mitigate the impact to a less - than - significant level. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or 18 substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) The City Council hereby finds mitigation of the impact to be complete. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact has been mitigated to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure HYD -1, a SWPPP will be prepared for each type or category of development within the Project area. The SWPPPs will include measures and practices designed to reduce erosion and protect storm water quality during construction, and substantially limit the degradation of runoff from all portions of the completed development. Compliance with the SWPPP will be ensured through regular inspections conducted by City of Alameda personnel, and through review and approval of the SWPPP prior to the approval of the Development Plan for each Project construction phase. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD -1, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for degradation of water quality resulting from construction activities and post - construction site uses. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.N -10 and 11). 7.2 Dredging Impacts (HYD -2) 7.2.1 Significant Effect. Dredging that may be undertaken to develop a marina in Alaska Basin or be associated with maintenance of existing marinas, or reconstruction of bulkheads and infrastructure in the Northern Waterfront GPA area may cause impacts to water quality at the dredging and disposal sites. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: HYD -2: All dredging and in -water construction activities shall be consistent with the standards and procedures set forth in the Long -Term Management Strategy, a program developed by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other agencies, to guide dredging and the disposal of dredge materials in an environmentally sound manner. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Increased turbidity from dredging and in -water construction activities would be localized and of limited duration. The magnitude of the turbidity would depend in part on the number and type of dredges working at a given time, their locations, and measures implemented to reduce turbidity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD -2 would limit impacts of dredging and in -water construction activities by requiring that all such 19 activities be consistent with the standards of the Long -Term Management Strategy developed by the BCDC, RWQCB, and the EPA. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.J -11 and 12). 8. AIR QUALITY 8.1 Construction Related Impacts (AIR -1) 8.1.1 Significant Effect. Construction period activities such as demolition, excavation and grading operations, use of diesel powered equipment, construction vehicle traffic, utility extensions and improvements, and roadway reconstruction would generate diesel and gasoline exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: AIR -la: Implementation of Dust Abatement Programs. Proponents of development projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable City regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of building or grading permits, including standard dust control measures. The effective implementation of dust abatement programs, incorporating all of the following dust control measures, would reduce the temporary air quality impact associated with construction dust. o All active construction areas shall be watered using equipment and staff provided by the project applicant or prime contractor, as needed, to avoid visible dust plumes. Appropriate non -toxic dust palliative or suppressant, added to water before application, may be used. o All trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. o All unpaved access roads, parking areas and construction staging areas shall be either paved, watered as necessary to avoid visible dust plumes, or subject to the application of (non- toxic) soil stabilizers. o All paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept daily with water sweepers. o If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, these streets shall be swept daily with water sweepers. o All stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind shall either be covered or watered as necessary to avoid visible dust plumes. 20 o An off - pavement speed limit of 15 miles per hour for all construction vehicles shall be incorporated into the construction contract and enforced by the prime contractor. o All inactive portions of the project site (those areas which have been previously graded, but inactive for a period of ten days or more) shall be watered with an appropriate dust suppressant, covered or seeded. o All earth - moving or other dust - producing activities shall be suspended when the above dust control measures prove ineffective in avoiding visible dust plumes during periods of high winds. The wind speed at which this suspension of activity will be required may vary, depending on the moisture conditions at the project site, but suspension of such activities shall be required in any case when the wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour. AIR lb: Implementation of Diesel Reduction Programs. Proponents of development projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable City regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of building or grading permits, including standard diesel reduction efforts, including the following: o Diesel powered equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with manufacturer - recommended mufflers, filters, and other equipment. o Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than ten minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules. o Use alternative fueled construction equipment. o Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and/or the amount of equipment in use. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. The BAAQMD has identified a set of effective and comprehensive control measures for fine particulate matter and asbestos that might be generated from construction activity. Adherence to these measures, as adopted by the BAAQMD, constitute mitigation of construction- related air quality particulate matter and asbestos impacts to a less than significant level. Measures also exist that will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts from construction- related exhaust emissions. These measures, as specifically identified in Mitigation Measures AQ -la and lb, will be imposed on the Project through the MMRP as a condition of approval. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ -la and lb will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the 21 impact of Project construction- period activities on local air quality. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L -14 to 16). 9. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 9.1 Contaminated Soils and Groundwater (HAZ -1) 9.1.1 Significant Effect. Contaminated soils and groundwater have the potential to exist on many parcels located within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. These materials could present a health risk to construction workers and /or future workers and residents of the Northern Waterfront GPA area. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: HAZ -1: Prior to the approval of any site specific development projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA area, documentation from a qualified professional shall be provided to the City of Alameda stating that adequate soils and ground water investigations and, where warranted, remediation, have been conducted to ensure that there will be no significant hazard related risks to future site users. If the soil and groundwater investigations indicate that hazardous materials are present and pose a risk to construction workers and future site users, the following additional mitigation measures shall be implemented and the City of Alameda will refer the site to the appropriate State and County agencies (such as Alameda County Environmental Health, the State Department of Toxic Substances Control and/or the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board) for oversight of the project. HAZ -la: If required as a result of the information obtained from Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 GPA, the City shall condition the subject Project to record a restrictive covenant prohibiting the installation of drinking water wells into the shallow groundwater at the Project site prior to transfer of the property. HAZ -lb: If required as a result of the information obtained from Mitigation Measure HAZ -1, the City shall condition the subject Project to require preparation by a qualified registered professional of a Site Management Plan (SMP) for the subject Project site as a condition of its approval as a specific development project. The SMP would provide site specific information for contractors (and others) developing the Project site that would improve their management of environmental and health and safety contingencies. Topics covered by the SMP shall include, but not be limited to: o Land use history, including known hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and spillage, for specific areas within the Project site. o The nature and extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the Project site. 22 o The nature and extent of ongoing remedial activities and the nature and extent of unremediated areas of the Project site, including the nature and occurrence of marsh crust and hazardous materials associated with the dredge material used as fill at the Project site. o A listing and description of institutional controls, such as the City's excavation ordinance and other local, State, and federal laws and regulations, that will apply to development of the Project site. o Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the Project site. The HASPs should be prepared by a Certified Industrial Hygienist and would protect construction workers and interim site users adjacent to construction activities by including engineering controls, monitoring, and security measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction site and to reduce hazards outside the construction site. The HASPs would address the possibility of encountering subsurface hazards and include procedures to protect workers and the public. If prescribed exposure levels were exceeded, personal protective equipment would be required for workers in accordance with DOSH regulations. o A description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that may potentially be encountered during Project development, including engineering controls that may be required to reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the Project site. o Requirements for site specific construction techniques at the site, based on proposed development, such as minimizing the transport of contaminated materials to the surface during construction activities by employing pile driving techniques that consist of driving the piles directly without boring, where practical. The SMP shall be distributed to all contractors at the Project site; implementation of the SMP shall be a condition of approval for excavation, building, and grading permits at the Project site. The contractors will be required to hold a daily safety meeting with all construction workers and subcontractors on lands identified with Hazardous Material risks. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 requires site specific investigations to determine if hazardous conditions exist in the groundwater or soils on any project site to be developed. If hazardous conditions do exist, Mitigation Measure HAZ -la allows the City to condition the subject project to record a restrictive covenant prohibiting installation of drinking 23 water well at the subject site prior to any transfer of property. This measure would protect future occupants from hazards associated with contaminated groundwater at the Project site. If the hazardous conditions outlined under Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 exist, an SMP shall be required. The SMP, prepared by a qualified registered professional would provide site specific information for contractors (and others) developing the Project site that would improve their management of environmental and health and safety contingencies. The SMP will be implemented through the MMRP as a condition of approval for excavation, grading and building permits and would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.M -5 -6). B. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid the following significant impacts, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite these significant impacts. These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the City. 1.1 2025 LOS at Park and Clement Street Intersection (TRN -3b) 1.1.1 Significant Effect. Full implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA and extension of Clement Avenue through the Northern Waterfront GPA area would result in a significant impact to the level of service at the intersection of Park and Clement in 2025. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: TRN 3b: Restripe the Park Street and Clement Avenue Intersection to provide a left turn pocket on eastbound Clement Avenue. Restrict truck - turning movements at this intersection. Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will be lessened trough the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRN -3b, but will still remain significant and unavoidable. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is significant and unavoidable. 24 Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRN -3b would require subsequent discretionary actions, property acquisition, and financial commitments by the City. It is not possible at this time to determine whether this improvement is financially feasible and will be implemented. Therefore, the impact of the Clement Street extension on the intersection of Park and Clement is determined to be significant and unavoidable. (See also DEIR, IV.E -28). 1.2 LOS at the intersections of Broadway and 5th Street and Jackson and 6th Street (TRN -4) 1.2.1 Significant Effect. New project related traffic would contribute to unacceptable Levels of Service at the intersection of Broadway and 5th Street and the intersection of Jackson and 6th Street. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: TRN 4a: All new projects in the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall pay a fair share contribution to improvements at Broadway and 5th Street and Jackson and 6th Street intersections through payment of the City's Citywide Development Impact Fee. TRN 4b: All new projects in the Northern Waterfront area that generate traffic equivalent to 1% of the annually estimated reserve capacity shall include Transportation Demand Management measures designed to reduce automobile trips in the Tubes and in Oakland. All projects in the Northern Waterfront Area shall be subject to the City's existing Traffic Capacity Management Procedure (TCMP). The TCMP requires any development west of Grand Street (all projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA area) that is projected to generate peak hour trips through the Tubes in excess of 1% of the current estimated reserve capacity to determine the number of project generated peak hour trips projected to pass through the tubes in each direction during the AM and PM peak hours and identify how the project will reduce the number of peak hour trips generated by at least 10% for residential development and 30% for non - residential development. The City has also developed a Transportation Systems Management/Transportation Demand Management (TSM /TDM) plan for the entire west end of the City. The TSM /TDM plan includes a menu of primary and supporting strategies to be utilized in order to reduce the number of peak hour trips through the Tubes. All new projects in the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall pay a fair share contribution to improvements at Broadway and 5th Street and Jackson and 6th Street intersections through payment of the City's Citywide Development Impact Fee. Findings. The City Council hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR are within the responsibility and 25 jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted by that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will be lessened trough the implementation of Mitigation Measures TRN -4a and 4b, but will still remain significant and unavoidable. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is significant and unavoidable. This cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable, because any improvements to the intersections in Oakland or the access to I -880 could not be approved without the approval of the City of Oakland and in some cases Caltrans as lead agency. The City of Alameda has worked closely with Oakland and Caltrans through the Broadway Jackson Improvement Study to identify feasible improvements, but no specific improvements have been approved by the City of Oakland or Caltrans at this time. The City of Alameda will continue to work with the other agencies to identify potentially feasible improvements, but because these improvements are outside the control of the City of Alameda, the impact is considered significant and unavoidable. (See also DEIR, IV.E -29 and 30). C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS The impacts listed below are less than significant impacts, even without the implementation of mitigation measures. 1. LAND USE 1.1 Compatible Land Uses with the Established Communities. 1.1 1 Less Than Significant Effect. The land uses proposed under the General Plan Amendment would be compatible with established communities. Mitigation. None required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the compatibility of proposed land uses with established communities is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the established community. The Northern Waterfront GPA would change 26 the land use designation of several properties and would facilitate redevelopment of existing developed sites. The proposed changes would support the transition of the area from industrial to a mix of commercial, marine, residential and open space and recreation uses. The redevelopment of the Northern Waterfront GPA area would result in the development of uses that are more compatible with the adjacent residential and commercial and recreational uses that exist in the vicinity of the area. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.A -11 and 12). 1.2 Compatibility with the Alameda General Plan. 1.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would be compatible with the existing General Plan. Mitigation. None required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the compatibility with the Alameda General Plan is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Although the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA is a general plan amendment, the proposed amendment would be consistent with the General Plan's policies for Waterfront Sites, for Mixed Use Housing Development, policies for Shoreline Access, and policies regarding Reducing Through Traffic in Residential Areas. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.A -12 to 14). 1.3 Compatibility with the BCDC Plan. 1.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would be compatible with the existing BCDC San Francisco Bay Plan. Mitigation. None required. Finding: The.environmental impact with respect to the compatibility with the BCDC San Francisco Bay Plan is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The proposed Northern Waterfront GPA would have no adverse impacts on the shoreline vis -a -vis the policies of BCDC's San Francisco Bay Plan. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would actually allow better and easier public access to the shoreline, through the transformation of current industrial land uses that limit recreational uses along the shore, to land uses that would facilitate and encourage public access to the shoreline. Therefore, implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would be 27 consistent with the BCDC Plan and policies and would generate beneficial land use impacts. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.A -14). 1.4 Compatibility with State Lands. 1.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would be compatible with the State owned lands. Mitigation. None required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the compatibility with the State lands is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The Northern Waterfront GPA would have no adverse impacts on Tidelands Trust lands. The Northern Waterfront GPA does not necessitate relocation of any existing Tidelands Trust lands, nor does it propose any specific uses on Tidelands Trust encumbered properties that are not in compliance with Tidelands restrictions. The Northern Waterfront GPA does not propose any specific uses on specific properties that are encumbered by the Trust that would be inconsistent with the Tidelands Trust limitations. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.A -14). 2. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING 2.1 Induce Substantial or Unanticipated Population or Housing Growth. 2.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not induce substantial or unanticipated population or housing growth. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the induced substantial or unanticipated population or housing growth is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA over its planning horizon would result in the addition of approximately 389 households, including 60 work/live studios. Based on an average projected household size in 2025 of 2.40 persons per single - family household, the additional households would increase the City's population by approximately 933 persons. In addition, the Northern Waterfront GPA would result in employment related population growth. The potential office and commercial 28 development that could be approved under the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA would increase the City's population by approximately 320 persons based upon the assumption that 20% of the employees will live in Alameda. This population growth is well within the growth rate established by ABAG for the City over the next 20 years. Therefore, the Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in substantial direct population or housing growth. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.B -5). 2.2 Displace Population or Housing. 2.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not displace persons or displace or destroy existing housing. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to displaced population or housing is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Implementation of the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA would not displace persons or displace or destroy housing located within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would result in the construction of approximately 389 residential units (not including the proposed 60 work/live units), of which 25 percent would be priced at affordable levels. These facts support the City's findings. 2.3 Jobs/Housing Balance. 2.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not contribute to a future jobs/housing imbalance. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the jobs/housing balance is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The jobs/housing balance in the City is trending towards a ratio that is weighted towards jobs. By 2015, ABAG projects that there will be more jobs than housing in Alameda. Because the General Plan would result in greater housing- related population growth than job- related population growth, the General Plan would not contribute to the future projected jobs/housing imbalance. The General Plan would result in the construction of housing in a region that continues to experience a substantial housing shortage, and 29 would not adversely impact the future projected jobs/housing imbalance. These facts support the City's findings. 2.4 Potential Effect on the Affordability of Housing. 2.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in a less than significant effect on the affordability of housing. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to affordable housing is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The number and type of housing units proposed as part of the Northern Waterfront GPA is well within ABAG's 1999 to 2006 RHND for the City, which calls for the construction of 843 residential units priced at "above moderate" levels (this would include market -rate housing), and 511 residential units priced at "moderate" affordability levels. In a tight local housing market, the General Plan would provide needed residential development in an infill setting. Approximately 25 percent of proposed residential units would be affordable, resulting in a substantial increase in the City's total affordable housing stock. These facts support the City's findings. 3. MUNICIPAL SERVICES 3.1 Police Services. 3.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in an increased demand for police services. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to police services is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. It is not anticipated that residential growth or commercial and office activity would result in an increase in calls to such an extent that new police facilities or alterations to existing facilities would be needed. This increase in demand could be covered by a slight increase in the size of the existing police force. As a result, there would be no significant impacts related to police services from the Northern Waterfront GPA. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.0 -3). 30 3.2 Fire and Emergency Services. 3.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in an increased demand for fire and emergency services. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to fire and emergency services is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Anticipated response times to the Northern Waterfront GPA area would be in conformance with response times to the rest of the City. Although the Fire Department has adequate equipment to provide emergency response to the area, much of the fleet is aging and in need of replacement. Development of the Northern Waterfront GPA would increase the volume of emergency calls for first -in response apparatus. This could result in a need for additional equipment and traffic light control devices. The acquisition of new fire fighting equipment and the installation of traffic light control devices would not result in environmental impacts, and are themselves not considered to be significant environmental impacts. No mitigation would be required. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.0 -4 and 5). 3.3 Schools. 3.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result in an increased demand for school services. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to school services is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The Northern Waterfront GPA would generate new students for the schools serving the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Payment of the School Facilities Mitigation Fee has been deemed by the State legislature to be full and complete mitigation for the impacts of a development project on the provision of adequate school facilities. The assessment of the adopted School Facilities Mitigation Fee ensures that the project would not result in a significant impact under CEQA, in accordance with Senate Bill 50, which became effective in 1998. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.0 -5). 31 4. UTILITIES 4.1 Water Supply. 4.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in an increased demand for potable water. However, EBMUD has sufficient capacity to serve the area. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to water supply is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Buildout of the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA area would lead to an increased demand for potable water in the area, due to the intensification of land uses in the area. However, EBMUD has sufficient capacity to serve the area in normal rainfall years, especially since the area is not a new user of EBMUD water service. Should a drought occur, the area would experience the same deficiencies as other existing and new EBMUD customers. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D -7). 4.2 Sanitary Sewer Subbasin Capacity. 4.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in an increased sanitary sewer flow. However, EBMUD has sufficient capacity to serve the area. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to sanitary sewer subbasin capacity is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The additional sanitary sewage flows from Northern Waterfront GPA area development will not exceed the EBMUD peak design treatment allotments. The EBMUD sanitary sewer flow allotments for sub - basins in Alameda were presented in a letter dated February 5, 2004. The estimated peak design flows, including those from the Northern Waterfront GPA area development and all flows upstream from manhole FM -6 is less than the cumulative EBMUD treatment allotments. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D -7 and 8). 32 4.3 Storm Drainage. 4.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in a reduction of stormwater flow rather than an increase in runoff. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to storm drainage capacity is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Redevelopment of the existing industrial or warehouse sites within the Northern Waterfront GPA area will generally result in a reduction of storm run -off rather than an increase in runoff. Existing NPDES permit requirements will ensure that the water quality impacts of the reduced runoff will be minimized to a less then significant impact. Finally, if the capacity of the Arbor Street pump station needs to be increased, this work would be subject to existing rules and permit requirements, which prevent environmental impacts. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D -8). 4.4 Solid Waste. 4.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Solid waste generated by the buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA area (from building demolition and generation of associated debris) could jeopardize Alameda's solid waste diversion goals. However, all existing regulations would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to solid waste generation is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Solid waste generated by the buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA area (from building demolition and generation of associated debris) could jeopardize Alameda's solid waste diversion goals. Section 21 of the City of Alameda Municipal Code requires the project proponents to submit plans for managing construction debris from specific projects in the Northern Waterfront GPA area to promote 'separation of waste types and recycling, and to provide for reuse of materials on -site for reconstructing infrastructure. These plans must be prepared in coordination with City staff, the specific Projects' sponsor(s), and demolition subcontractors, and shall be approved by City staff prior to issuance of a demolition permit. This existing regulation reduces this impact to a level of less than significant. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D -8 and 9). 33 4.5 Electricity. 4.5.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in a demand for electricity. However, this demand would not require development of new sources of energy or construction of new electrical generation or transmission facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to electricity service is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. AP &T does not anticipate any problems accommodating projected increases in electricity demand. Buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA area would not require development of new sources of energy or construction of new electrical generation or transmission facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts. The proposed Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in significant impacts related to electrical service. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D -9). 4.6 Natural Gas. 4.6.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in a demand for natural gas services. However, buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA area would not require development of new sources of energy or construction of new natural gas transmission facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to natural gas service is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. PG &E does not anticipate any problems accommodating projected increases in demand for natural gas. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D -9). 34 4.7 Telecommunications. 4.7.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in a demand for telecommunication services. However, buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA area would not require development of new sources of telecommunications facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to telecommunication services is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA area would not require the development of new major telecommunications facilities, or expansion of existing facilities to serve the new development, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. The proposed Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in significant impacts related to telecommunications services. These facts support the City's findings. 5. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 5.1 Consistency with Existing or Planned Transit Services and Facilities. 5.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Adoption and implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would not be expected to result in a significant impact on existing or planned transit services. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to consistency with existing or planned transit services and facilities is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The transit and transportation policies in the Northern Waterfront GPA serve to mitigate the potential significant impacts of the land use and development policies within the Northern Waterfront GPA. Therefore, the adoption and implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA in combination with the City's existing TCMP and TDM requirements would not be expected to result in a in a significant impact on existing or planned transit services. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E -18). 35 5.2 Emergency Access. 5.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The Northern Waterfront GPA provides for an orderly pattern of development and improvements to a number of existing, substandard roads and sites with limited access. Therefore, impacts to emergency access would be less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to emergency access is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA will increase and improve emergency access in the area. Extension of Clement Street, improvement of Entrance Road, extension of Paru, extension of Hibbard, and provision of public access into and around the Encinal Terminal site will all improve emergency access in and through the area. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E -19). 5.3 On -Site Circulation and Access. 5.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA is not expected to result in any significant on -site circulation or access impacts. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to on -site circulation and access is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. As with emergency access, on -site circulation and access would be expanded and improved with adoption and implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA. Extension of Clement Avenue, improvement of Entrance Road, extension of Paru, extension of Hibbard, and provision of public access into and around the Encinal Terminal site will all improve circulation and access in and through the Northern Waterfront GPA area. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E -19). 5.4 Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation. 5.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Adoption and implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA will improve pedestrian and bicycle access and safety in the planning area and result in less than significant impacts. 36 Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to pedestrian/bicycle circulation is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Public improvements proposed by the Northern Waterfront GPA will add bicycle and pedestrian paths along the entire waterfront and along Clement Avenue. All intersections will be designed to meet current pedestrian and bicycle safety standards. Currently commuters who access Atlantic via Entrance Road and the Wind River parking lot use portions of the Clement Right of Way as an informal bypass. Construction of Clement Avenue with bicycle lanes and sidewalks will dramatically increase pedestrian and bicycle safety in the area. Removal of the Truck Route from Buena Vista will improve bicycle and pedestrian safety on Buena Vista. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E -19 to 21). 6. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 6.1 Special Status Species. 6.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. No special- status plant species are expected to occur within the Northern Waterfront GPA area, due to disturbed site conditions and lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, no special status species would be impacted. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to special status species is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Out of the 27 special- status animal species listed by the CNDDB as potentially occurring within or in the vicinity of the Northern Waterfront GPA area, 19 species are considered unlikely to occur or nest within the Northern Waterfront GPA area due to extensive site disturbance and the lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, it is not anticipated that these species would be adversely affected by implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA. An additional seven special- status species (double- crested cormorant, Caspian tern, merlin, peregrine falcon, and loggerhead shrike, California least tern, California brown pelican) may occur within the Northern Waterfront GPA area or the vicinity. Although these species may forage within or adjacent to the Northern Waterfront GPA area, they would be expected to avoid developed sites and would not be adversely affected by the redevelopment of existing developed sites in the Northern Waterfront GPA area. These facts support the City's findings. 37 6.2 Riparian Habitat. 6.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. No riparian habitat exists within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Therefore, implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would not adversely impact protected riparian habitat. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to special status species is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. No riparian habitat exists within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. These facts support the City's findings. 6.3 Habitat Conservation Plan. 6.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to special status species is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Biological resources within the Northern Waterfront GPA area are not regulated by a local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or the San Francisco Bay Plan. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.F -12). 7. CULTURAL REOSURCES 7.1 Historic Integrity of a Historic District. 7.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in the loss of the historical integrity of these buildings to such an extent that they would no longer be eligible for National or State Register listing as well as local recognition. Therefore, a less than significant impact to the integrity of the historic district would result from the project. 38 Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to historic integrity of a historic district is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The City of Alameda previously identified the Encinal Terminals site as a National Register eligible Historic District. However, due to widespread demolition of historic buildings within the site, Encinal Terminals no longer appears eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. Therefore, implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would not adversely affect the historic integrity of an historic district. In addition, 15 of the buildings identified in the Report are not eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, or official local listings, due to architectural modifications, or lack of State -wide or national historical significance. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.G- 1 0 and 11). 8. NOISE 8.1 Long Term Aircraft Noise Impacts. 8.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Standard design characteristics for commercial /office buildings would reduce the aircraft noise to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to long term aircraft noise impacts is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The Northern Waterfront GPA area experiences aircraft overflights from the nearby Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (MOIA) and San Francisco .International Airport (SFO). Although distinguishable, aircraft overflights generate lower noise levels than other major sources discussed above. Standard design characteristics for commercial /office buildings would reduce the aircraft noise to a less- than - significant level. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H -8). 39 9. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY 9.1 Surface Fault Rupture. 9.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The potential for surface fault rupture at the site is very low, because no active faults are known to be located in the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Therefore, impacts resulting from surface fault rupture would be less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to surface fault rupture is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less than significant. The potential for surface fault rupture at the site is very low, because no active faults are known to be located in the Northern Waterfront GPA area. The closest active fault, the Hayward fault, is located approximately 4 miles to the northeast. This fact supports the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I -9). 9.2 Slope Instability. 9.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The potential for slope instability at the site is limited due to the absence of steep, high slopes, with the exception of the marina and channel bulkheads. Therefore, impacts resulting from slope instability would be less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to surface fault rupture is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less than significant. The potential for slope instability at the site is limited due to the absence of steep, high slopes, with the exception of the marina and channel bulkheads. This fact supports the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I -9). 9.3 Erosion. 9.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The potential for soil erosion at the site is limited due to the relatively flat terrain. Therefore, soil erosion impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. 40 Finding: The environmental impact with respect to soil erosion is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less than significant. The potential for soil erosion at the site is limited due to the relatively flat terrain. This fact supports the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I -9). 9.4 Expansive Soils. 9.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The potential for impacts resulting from expansive soils is limited because the near - surface soils at the site (predominantly sandy fill deposits) have a low potential for shrink- swell. Therefore, impacts resulting from expansive soils would be less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact resulting from expansive soils is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less than significant. The potential for impacts resulting from expansive soils is limited because the near- surface soils at the site (predominantly sandy fill deposits) have a low potential for shrink- swell. This fact supports the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.I -9). 10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 10.1 Water Quality and Discharge Standards. 10.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The uses proposed as part of the Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in any industrial -type discharges that would lead to the imposition of specific waste discharge requirements (which, when required, are set by the RWQCB), and, therefore, would not be expected to exceed waste discharge standards for point sources. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to water quality and discharge standards is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. 41 The uses proposed as part of the Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in any industrial -type discharges that would lead to the imposition of specific waste discharge requirements (which, when required, are set by the RWQCB), and, therefore, would not be expected to exceed waste discharge standards for point sources. Development under the Northern Waterfront GPA would be subject to the RWQCB requirements of non- point- source regulations. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.J- 7). 10.2 Groundwater. 10.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in any significant adverse effects related to the groundwater supply. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to groundwater is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Construction of specific types of buildings or utilities may require excavation below the groundwater level, which may require pumping of groundwater to dewater excavations. Groundwater within the Northern Waterfront GPA area is generally quite shallow, ranging in depth from approximately 2 to 6 feet below the surface. Existing groundwater quality data indicate that the shallow groundwater in some areas contains contaminants, which if improperly handled and discharged, could result in significant impacts to the health and safety of the public or site workers that may come into contact with dewatering effluent. Depending on the level of contamination (if any), the dewatering effluent may be acceptable for discharge to the storm drainage system or the municipal sanitary sewer system. Either discharge would require proper permitting from the regulating agencies; the RWQCB for discharges to the storm drain system or surface waters and /or EBMUD for discharges to the sanitary sewer. These permitting programs are existing programs that would be expected to adequately mitigate potential impacts to water quality to a less - than- significant level. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.J -7 and 8). 10.3 Water Movements and Flood Waters. 10.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. No significant changes to the currents or course of water movements, or alteration of course or flow of floodwaters, would occur. Therefore, impacts to water movements and flood waters would be less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. 42 Finding: The environmental impact with respect to xxx is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The Northern Waterfront GPA area is relatively flat and, although the drainage patterns may be altered by the installation of storm drainage infrastructure, no significant changes to the currents or course of water movements, or alteration of course or flow of floodwaters, would occur. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.J- 8). 10.4 Water- Related Hazards. 10.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Impacts resulting form water - related hazards would be less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to water - related hazards is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The Northern Waterfront GPA area does not include any areas subject to regional flood hazards, according to FEMA. The area is relatively flat and would not be expected to be affected by mudflows or other types of landslides. A damaging seiche or tsunami in the Bay is a low probability event even for unprotected sites on the Bay. The Northern Waterfront GPA area is partially protected from seiches by the constriction at the mouth of the Oakland Estuary, and, therefore, inundation from seiches would represent a less - than- significant impact. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.J -8). 11. AIR QUALITY 11.1 Odor and Air Toxics. 11.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Land uses within the Northern Waterfront GPA area could produce short-term objectionable odors and toxic air contaminants. However, these impacts would be subject to BAAQMD regulations and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to odors and toxic air contaminants is less than significant and no mitigation is required. 43 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The Northern Waterfront GPA would not permit the development of any long term uses that would generate objectionable odors or toxic air contaminants. While the Northern Waterfront GPA would permit the establishment of research and development (R &D), marine - related uses and restaurants that may generate some odors, any such uses proposed in the future would need to comply with the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations on odors and toxic air contaminants as described in Section IV.L, Hazardous Materials, and in so doing, would not result in any significant impacts. Each business or tenant using materials known to generate odors or toxic air contaminants would be required to obtain the appropriate operation permits from the BAAQMD. Therefore, no odor or air toxics impacts would occur as a result of the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.K -12). 11.2 Accidental Release /Acutely Hazardous Air Emissions. 11.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Any use proposed in the future that would have the potential to generate hazardous air emissions would need to comply with the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations, reducing potential impacts to a less than significant level. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to accidental release of acutely hazardous air emmissions is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. There is no information available at this time on any potential hazardous air emissions related to the adoption and implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA. Any use proposed in the future that would have the potential to generate hazardous air emissions would need to comply with the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations. Any accidental release of acutely hazardous air emission would be reported to and handled by the Alameda County Health Department staff in charge of such issues. Therefore, no significant impact due to accidental release and acutely hazardous air emissions would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA. These facts support the City's findings. 11.3 Total Emissions. 11.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The Northern Waterfront GPA would be considered consistent with the growth projections of the current (2000) Clean Air Plan, and adopting the Northern Waterfront GPA would not result in any significant changes in the total emission assumptions already incorporated within the Clean Air Plan. Mitigation. None Required. 44 Finding: The environmental impact with respect to an increase in total emissions is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Long -term air quality impacts from the three primary criteria air pollutants (ROG, NOx and PM10) are those that would result from the changes in permitted land uses within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Mobile source emissions are those that result from vehicle trips; stationary source emissions are those that would result from energy consumption and the use of wood stove /fireplace and consumer products. As individual development projects are proposed within the Northern Waterfront GPA area, analysis of the long-term air quality impacts associated with the operation of each of these projects will be required during the environmental review process. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.K -12). 11.4 Local Carbon Monoxide Concentrations. 11.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. CO emissions levels would be less than significant at the northern waterfront GPA area. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to local carbon monoxide concentrations is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Several of the intersections analyzed in the Alameda Point GPA EIR are in close proximity to the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Therefore, the results of the CALINE4 analysis for the Alameda Point GPA EIR are applicable in terms of what CO emissions levels would be at the Northern Waterfront GPA area. CO emissions levels would also be less than significant at the Northern Waterfront GPA area. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.K -12 and 13). 11.5 Regional Emissions 11.5.1 Less Than Significant Effect. As indicated above, the evaluation of environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA is being done at a "program" level of analysis. Therefore, all future projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA are will be subject to project -level review. This impact would be considered less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to regional emissions is less than significant and no mitigation is required. 45 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The evaluation of environmental impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA is being done at a "program" level of analysis. While it is likely that some individual projects that may ultimately be proposed within the Northern Waterfront GPA area may exceed the significance criteria for regional emissions, each individual project proposed within the Northern Waterfront GPA area will be subject to a project -level review for air quality impacts, as required by CEQA and the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.K -13). 12. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 12.1 Airport- Related Safety Hazards. 12.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The Northern Waterfront GPA would not create any airport related safety hazards for people residing or working in the area. This impact is less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to airport- related safety hazards is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less than significant. No airports are located within two miles of the area. This fact supports the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L -14). 12.2 Wildland Fire Hazards. 12.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The Northern Waterfront GPA would not create any wildland fire hazards for people residing or working in the area. This impact is less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to wildland fire hazards is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. No wildlands are present at, or adjacent to, the Northern Waterfront GPA area, and no new wildlands are to be created as part of implementation of the Northern Waterfront 46 GPA. Therefore, no people or structures would be subjected to wildland fire hazards as a result of its implementation. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L -14). 12.3 Use, Storage, Transportation, or Generation of Hazardous Materials. 12.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Due to existing rules, regulations, and permit requirements, the future use, storage, transportation, or generation of hazardous materials in the Northern Waterfront GPA area represents a less - than - significant impact. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the use, storage, transportation, or generation of hazardous materials is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The Northern Waterfront GPA land use designations would permit R &D and Marine uses, which could include facilities that may use significant quantities of hazardous materials. However, any future land uses within the Northern Waterfront GPA area that involve the use, storage, transport, treatment, or generation of hazardous materials shall be required to comply with federal, state, and local requirements for managing hazardous materials. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L -14 to 16). 12.4 Lead Based Paint. 12.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Adherence by future developers within the Northern Waterfront GPA area and by the City to existing regulations requiring abatement of lead hazards and institution of standard worker health and safety procedures during demolition and renovation activities would reduce this impact to a less than - significant level. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to presence of lead based paint in buildings to be demolished or renovated is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. Loose and peeling lead -based paints would require removal prior to renovation/demolition activities. Paints that are adhering to their surfaces do not require abatement and can be disposed of as regular construction debris regardless of their lead content. State regulations require that air monitoring be performed during and following renovation or demolition activities at sites containing lead -based paint (Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1). These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L -14 to 16). 47 12.5 Asbestos. 12.5.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Adherence by future developers within the Northern Waterfront GPA area and by the City to existing regulations requiring abatement of asbestos hazards and institution of standard worker health and safety procedures during demolition and renovation activities would reduce this impact to a less than - significant level. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to presence of asbestos in buildings to be demolished or renovated is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. State and federal regulations require the abatement of all asbestos - containing materials prior to demolition or renovation activities that would disturb them. State regulations (Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1529) protect construction worker safety where asbestos - containing materials are present. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L -16 and 17). 13. VISUAL RESOURCES 13.1 Policy Consistency. 13.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would improve the visual quality of the Northern Waterfront GPA area, and there would be no impacts as a result of conflicts with existing policies related to visual resources. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to consistency with policies related to visual resource is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The Northern Waterfront GPA includes policies that would protect important viewsheds and architectural landmarks, and that enhance physical and visual access to the Bay shoreline. The Northern Waterfront GPA policies would be consistent with the visual resources policies in the City's General Plan which seek to preserve and enhance views of the waterfront. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.M -14 and 15). 48 13.2 Scenic Vistas and Visual Character. 13.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The Northern Waterfront GPA would cluster development, where possible, to preserve and expand existing view corridors within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to scenic vistas and visual character is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The Northern Waterfront GPA would cluster development, where possible, to preserve and expand existing view corridors within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. Implementing Policy 10.8.c of the Northern Waterfront GPA would require that all waterfront development maintain view corridors from inland neighborhoods to the waterfront. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would generally have a beneficial effect on scenic vistas and visual quality by preserving view corridors, renovating important architectural landmarks, creating continuity between surrounding neighborhoods and the waterfront, and eliminating underutilized or deteriorating structures. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.M -14). 13.3 Light and Glare. 13.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA could result in an intensification of light and glare within the Northern Waterfront GPA area associated with the potential use of reflective building materials, street light fixtures, nighttime lighting of commercial identification signs and logos, and increased vehicle and transit use. However, this impact would be less than significant due to standard design review procedures and design related policies of the Northern Waterfront GPA. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to light and glare is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. It is likely that street lighting would be enhanced along all collector and local streets, and installed along all pedestrian and bike through -ways. However, the consistent use of a standard design review process for all proposed developments within the Northern Waterfront GPA area, and the enforcement of Implementing Policy 10.8.f , Urban Design and Aesthetics, of the proposed Northern Waterfront GPA, would ensure that new development does not create unnecessary glare or lighting impacts on adjacent land uses through design standards such as downcasting lighting, limited night lighting, and the 49 imposition of limits on the use of reflective building materials. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.M -14). 14. PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE 14.1 Bay Trail Improvements. 14.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the Northern Waterfront GPA would increase opportunities to improve portions of the Bay Trail within the Northern Waterfront GPA area and would provide additional shoreline access and park areas. Mitigation. None Required. Finding: The environmental impact with respect to Bay Trail improvements is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less than significant. The Northern Waterfront GPA proposes to extend Clement Avenue from Grand Street to Sherman Street and Atlantic Avenue. The right -of -way for this extension will include adequate area to connect the Bay Trail from Grand Street to Atlantic Avenue, which would be closer to the shoreline of the Estuary than an alignment that has been shown along Buena Vista Avenue. The Northern Waterfront GPA also proposes public open space along the western, northern, and eastern edges of the Encinal Terminal site adjacent to Alaska Basin in front of the Del Monte building and connecting to the Wind River and Marina Cove Shoreline parks. Completion of the Del Monte and Encinal Shoreline access will represent completion of a continuous shoreline plan from Marina Village to Grand Street, a distance of about one mile. This would allow a trail along the entire shoreline edge rather than just the eastern side as indicated in the Bay Trail Plan. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.N -5 and 6). 50 FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES ATTACHMENT B I. INTRODUCTION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") Guideline Section 15126.6, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather is must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. If a project alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the decision maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the project alternative infeasible. (See CEQA §21002, CEQA Guidelines § 15091(a)(3)). The findings with respect to the three project alternatives identified in the EIR are described in this section. II. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES AND FINDINGS A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 1. Brief Description The No Project alternative assumes that the Northern Waterfront GPA is not adopted and that existing land uses remain the same. Development in the Northern Waterfront GPA area would occur as allowed by the existing General Plan, and land use designations would not change from those that exist today. Development of this alternative would result in increases in population, housing, or jobs which would occur under existing land use policies. 2. Comparison to Project A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and less than significant impacts of Project is described below. a. Land Use. The proposed Project's beneficial impact of creating a greater continuity of land use within the project site and surrounding areas, providing public amenities and improving the appearance of the project site would not occur with the No Project Alternative. b. Public Policy. No direct policy conflicts would result from this alternative; however, it would fail to achieve many of the goals and objectives of the local plans applicable to the proposed Project area, including the City's General Plan, Bicycle Master Plan, increased housing supply, improved circulation, improved bicycle facilities; and the San Francisco Bay Plan objectives for increased public access to the waterfront. c. Population and Housing. The No Project Alternative would not develop any of the new housing proposed by the Project. Existing employment in the project area would continue and would be substantially less than would result with the proposed project. d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. The No Project Alternative would not include the proposed project provisions for infrastructure improvements /replacement, site improvements (pervious surfaces), arid implementation of mitigation measures pursuant to new storm water regulations. Thus, flooding, storm drainage, and water quality problems would continue and be worse under this Alternative than with the proposed project. Construction - related water quality impacts may be reduced compared to the proposed project, but both the proposed project would be subject to current National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for preparing and implementing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to minimize the discharge of pollutants from the site during construction. e. Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Occupants of existing buildings would be subject to seismic hazards, consolidated soils and subsidence, and shrink -swell potential of soils to a greater degree than would occupants in new buildings constructed under the proposed Project. f. Hazards. The No Project Alternative would result in similar hazards - related impacts as identified for the proposed Project. While this alternative would not involve the construction of new buildings, rehabilitation of existing buildings could include demolition and subsurface activities that could result in hazards from lead -based paint, asbestos - containing materials, and existing subsurface contaminants. g. Biology. The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative would avoid the proposed project's biological resources impacts related to construction of new storm drainage outfalls and construction activities along the shoreline. However, the less- than - significant impacts associated with effects on bats, and non - listed special- status nesting raptors and other nesting birds would occur as existing buildings are reoccupied, reused, and/or rehabilitated. h. Traffic and Circulation. The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative would avoid proposed Project traffic impacts. As compared to the proposed project, this alternative would create less demand for alternative transportation service and bicycle parking, but would not provide a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, the Bay Trail, the pedestrian and bicycle facilities, or any of the transportation facilities provided by the proposed project. i. Air Quality. This alternative would not result in the construction- or operation - period impacts to air quality the proposed Project would generate. Transportation conditions would exist primarily as they do today with traffic from the existing uses in the area, and therefore traffic- related air quality emissions within the proposed project site would not change from existing conditions. j. Noise. Under this alternative, no construction or demolition would occur, and no additional vehicular traffic would be introduced in the vicinity. Accordingly, the related noise impacts would also not be generated. Transportation conditions would exist primarily as they do today from existing uses in the area, and therefore traffic- generated noise within the proposed project site would not change from existing conditions. k. Public Services. The No Project Alternative would result in the same or less severe impacts on public services. This alternative would result in the same or less severe impacts on fire protection and emergency services, emergency response, and police services. This alternative would avoid impacts on schools and recreation. The impacts associated with the generation of solid waste during operations would remain the same. Construction- related solid waste, including solid waste that may be toxic or otherwise non - recyclable, would be reduced because existing buildings would not be demolished. 1. Utilities. Compared to the proposed project, the No Project Alternative would result in similar impacts related to public utilities, except for those related to exceedance of wastewater flow allocations. Improvements proposed by the proposed project to upgrade the wastewater system and re- direct wastewater flows to avoid exceeding existing sub -basin allocations in the project area would not occur under this alternative. Additionally, the proposed project proposes to replace existing water distribution facilities and install new underground electrical and gas systems, and these improvements would not occur under this alternative. m. Cultural Resources. The No Project Alternative would not require extensive demolition or construction. However, utility repairs and rehabilitation of existing buildings could involve demolition and subsurface activities that, while minimal, could affect cultural resources. Impacts on cultural and paleontological resources would be similar to those of the proposed project, but reduced given the limited construction work anticipated n. Aesthetics. The No Project / Existing Conditions Alternative would not result in the beneficial aesthetics impact that would occur with the proposed project. Unlike the proposed project, this alternative would not improve the continuity between on -site land uses and adjacent new residential and commercial use. Light and glare would still occur and be visible to existing and adjacent residential uses. 3. Findings This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons: a. The No Project/Existing Conditions Alternative would fail to satisfy the following objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project Description: Adopt General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policy, standards and requirements to guide future development consistent with the community's vision as articulated by the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee's recommended objectives, policies and land use concepts. Encourage economically viable redevelopment that is sensitive to existing neighborhoods and the historic character of the area. Promote redevelopment that includes a mix of uses. Manage the redevelopment of private sites so as to create an active and publicly accessible waterfront environment. Create safe circulation and transportation systems that support and balance the needs of transit riders, pedestrians and bicyclists, commercial traffic, and Alameda residents and businesses. Encourage uses that will expand the amount, availability and quality of open space and public recreational facilities while protecting sensitive natural resources. Implement the Clement Avenue extension to facilitate traffic circulation. b. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible, thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this alternative. c. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considera- tions, the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project would not be obtained if this alternative were adopted. is not feasible. d. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the No Project Alternative B. REDUCED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE 1. Brief Description 4 Partial buildout of the Northern Waterfront GPA area under the Reduced Development Intensity alternative would result in buildout equivalent to GPA buildout for the Grand Marina area and the Del Monte sites. Current uses on all other sites in the Northern Waterfront GPA area would remain. Under this alternative, the Clement Street extension would not be completed as proposed under the Northern Waterfront GPA. For the purposes of this alternative, buildout of the Grand Marina area would involve replacing the City's Animal Shelter or Corporation Yard, existing boat storage and maintenance yard and the Pennzoil facility with up to 180 residential units (25 percent would qualify as affordable housing units). The marina and the Alaska Packers Building would remain, but the parking for these uses would be reconfigured. Public access to the waterfront would be improved. In addition, the 265,000 square foot Del Monte building would be reoccupied with office and retail uses. The Encinal Terminal site, the storage site and all other small sites within the Plan area would remain in their current trucking and warehouse uses. 2. Comparison to Project A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and less than significant impacts of Project is described below. a. Land Use. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would produce the same land use changes as described for the proposed project, but with a reduced amount of development. b. Public Policy. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, like the proposed Project, would not result in conflicts or inconsistencies with existing plans and policies. c. Population and Housing. This alternative would provide fewer housing units, affordable units, and commercial uses than the proposed project. As a result, the number of housing units, residents, and employees and the amount of job - related housing demand would be reduced. d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. As with the proposed project, the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would implement infrastructure improvements and replacement, site improvements (impervious surfaces), and mitigation measures pursuant to new storm water regulations. As with the proposed project, impacts related to flooding, storm drainage (construction period and operations), and water quality would be less than significant with implementation of identified mitigation measures. e. Geology, Soils and Seismicity. Potential impacts due to seismic hazards, consolidated soils and subsidence, and shrink -swell potential of soils would be the same as the proposed Project. f. Hazards. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in similar hazards- related impacts as identified for the proposed Project. g. Biology. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would have the same biological resources impacts as the proposed project, including those 5 associated with the construction of new storm drainage outfalls and construction activities along the shoreline, effects bats, and effects on non - listed aquatic bird species. h. Traffic and Circulation. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative, would result in less traffic than the proposed project in the PM peak hour and the weekend peak hour. i. Air Quality. The construction activity that would occur under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed Project and would have the same less- than - significant air quality impact. With less PM and weekend peak traffic resulting from the uses proposed under this alternative, less traffic- related air quality emissions would result compared to the proposed Project. j. Noise. Construction activity under the Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would be similar to that of the proposed Project and would have the same less- than - significant noise impact. With less PM and weekend peak traffic resulting from the uses proposed under this alternative, less traffic - related noise would also result compared to the proposed Project. k. Public Services. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative generally would have the same impacts related to fire protection and emergency services, emergency response, solid waste, and police services. 1. Utilities. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in similar utility impacts to the proposed project, although its reduced population would decrease the demand for electricity, natural gas, and phone /cable service. The alternative would also produce less water and wastewater demand, compared to the proposed Project. m. Cultural Resources. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative impact on cultural resources would be the same as that identified for the proposed Project. n. Aesthetics. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would result in the same beneficial aesthetics impacts that would occur with the proposed Project as well as the same light and glare impacts. 3. Findings This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons: a. The Reduced Development Intensity Alternative would satisfy some of the objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project Description, but would fail to satisfy the following objectives to the same extent as would the proposed Project: 6 Adopt General Plan and Zoning Ordinance policy, standards and requirements to guide future development consistent with the community's vision as articulated by the Northern Waterfront Advisory Committee's recommended objectives, policies and land use concepts. Encourage economically viable redevelopment that is sensitive to existing neighborhoods and the historic character of the area. Promote redevelopment that includes a mix of uses. Manage the redevelopment of private sites so as to create an active and publicly accessible waterfront environment. Create safe circulation and transportation systems that support and balance the needs of transit riders, pedestrians and bicyclists, commercial traffic, and Alameda residents and businesses. Encourage uses that will expand the amount, availability and quality of open space and public recreational facilities while protecting sensitive natural resources. Implement the Clement Avenue extension to facilitate traffic circulation. b. This alternative would have similar impacts to the Project in the areas of land use, hydrology and water quality, geology, soils and seismicity, hazards and hazardous materials, population and housing, biology, public services, utilities, and cultural resources. c. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible, thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this alternative. d. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considera- tions, many of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project would not be obtained if this alternative were adopted. e. Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the No Project / Approved Master Plan Alternative is not feasible. 7 , Attachment C Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Northern Waterfront and Child Care General Plan Amendment INTRODUCTION The California Environmental Quality Act, in Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code, requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring or reporting program when it approves or carries out a project for which an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) has been certified that identifies one or more significant effects on the environment. The purpose of a mitigation monitoring program is to ensure that measures adopted to mitigate or avoid significant environmental impacts are implemented. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared to comply with the requirements of Section 21081.6, and describes the mitigation monitoring and reporting process for the Northern Waterfront and Child Care Policies General Plan Amendments. Table 1 presents the mitigation measures identified for the revised project. Mitigation measures are numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which the mitigation measures pertain, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, NOI -1 is the first mitigation measure identified in the noise analysis. AES = AQ = BIO = CUL = GEO = HAZ = Materials Aesthetics Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology, Soils and Seismicity Hazards and Hazardous HYD = NOI = PUB = T/C = UTL = Hydrology and Storm Drainage Noise Public Services Traffic, Circulation and Parking Utilities and Service Systems The MMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the MMRP are described briefly below: • Mitigation Measures: The mitigation that they appear in the Draft EIR. measures are taken from the Draft EIR, in the same order • Mitigation Timing: Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed. • Monitoring Responsibility: Identifies the department within the City, project applicant, or consultant responsible for mitigation monitoring. • Compliance Verification Responsibility: Identifies the department of the City or other agency responsible for verifying compliance with the mitigation. CITY OP ALAMEDA MARCH 2007 NORTHERN WATERPRI MITIGATION v '4O y., u T, O 0 a7bN • `U tdn= cud o O o—° 0 • to • .w O Ul a 72• '4,2, A~ O ca v ia U N a l -0 to b N v o u o V Id • uv 4" 0, W 0 v C7 v " 5o " i `o o c A o 0 o b 0 LP a• V w y "O 4-t cd ^o p CU 'D �c h '" 8., 0' •i t" cwd 0 b 2 -sa pug • O ,, Cp� u o f cd g 0 v to 0 ' C ✓ j GA � •€ � " C� uO u b • 0 w a ai '1) i '+ .5 o 0gol0, v o a'd p Fri • o •h 0 '. 0p w 0 0 v u 0. b V O O O o v �aN b b o 3 v , u o v 5 n N 3 .0 Cw yw b "1b'ti a 1 a v °v w • H 'b � b b N a.F Q p o a; '5 N ,0 • cl � - w v tut/pi v p v w U 47 1-1 Ip� O O a C ,-. C cd � a) uq TJ t O Ou u - Ea u bA •V, uv = o o ° • � p 2 0. 5 o H 3 P F? v 4 P.o signal at the new intersection of a X w • F Z w u X AH za • w za < ▪ z a < a � < z m w H • z z° o o w H < a 0 z Z oa viI..- ' � H WQ, Z k C W A o p 49 ' + u C ' a0 pp . Ci O W v 2 ill v ` i v 0� C O ` U w U r) u • h— b N A p. cl o .+ o C oi ,h) U �4, H C C v a. P. w +a al 0 Z•J Hp Z O m W ce u C y P. �Q N ° 0 � C u p y P. �Q.ao N 0 0 � U [ ch) 4 o 00 t. .b V bAC • v 0. �Q - =C o 0 o b tU � • .3 g U SUMMARYOF MEASURE Atlantic /Sherman/Clement and a new signal at the intersection of Buena Vista and Entrance when Clement Street is extended from Sherman to Entrance Drive. o Install a traffic signal at the intersection of Grand and Clement when Clement Street is extended Modify the signal timing at Park and Clement to provide full actuation and enhance signal phase sequence to allow for the Clement Avenue East -West split phase. Restripe the Park Street and Clement Avenue Intersection to provide a left turn pocket on eastbound Clement Avenue. Restrict truck - turning movements at this intersection. All new projects in the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall pay a fair share contribution to improvements at Broadway and 5th Street and Jackson and 6th Street intersections through payment of the City's Citywide Development Impact Fee. All new projects in the Northern Waterfront area that generate traffic equivalent to 1% of the annually estimated reserve capacity shall include Transportation Demand Management measures designed to reduce automobile trips in the Tubes and in Oakland. All projects in the Northern Waterfront Area shall be subject to the City's existing Traffic Capacity Management Procedure (TCMP). The TCMP re • uires an develo . ment west of Grand Street all . ro'ects PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE'. et H .n a H et a H I 'd' g (� |; §\ !| Z• )7 j§ zo zo §| \} | 0 z 0 o/ (\ VERIFICATION DATEIINITIALS. • TIMING 2 : . 0 ) Gƒ 2 ± \ \§ £I 0 / \ MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY «« • 1 :Id E a .} � / g %m e'0 O .S SUMMARY OF MEASURE within the Northern Waterfront GPA area) that is projected to generate peak hour trips through the Tubes in excess of 1% of the current estimated reserve capacity to determine the number of project generated peak hour trips projected to pass through the tubes in each direction during the AM and PM peak hours and identify how the project will reduce the number of peak hour trips generated by at least 10% for residential development and 30% for non - residential development. The City has also developed a Transportation Systems Management /Transportation Demand Management (TSM /TDM) plan for the entire west end of the City. The TSM /TDM plan includes a menu of primary and supporting strategies to be utilized in order to reduce the number of peak hour trips through the Tubes. Proponents of each project in the Northern waterfront GPA area shall prepare a preconstruction survey of all buildings scheduled for demolition or renovation shall be conducted no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of demolition or renovation activities. Special attention shall be given to buildings where pallid bats were observed during the earlier survey or where measures to discourage roosting were implemented. If no bats or signs of an active roost are found, no additional measures are required. If a bat roost site is found, then measures shall be implemented to discourage roosting at the site. If a maternity colony of bats is found, the building and the bats shall not be disturbed until the young have dispersed, as determined by a qualified biologist. P QPOSED MITIGATION' ,MEASURE • � } � \ r } oz \ TIMING- Demonstrate compliance prior to approval of any dredging activities. \ / \}5 cn k k k /ƒL ) a§ \N k/ » I / 3 / S & \ g 8 H• f2ƒ} . ®A�,r \S \2 MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY City of Alameda Planning and Building Department BCDC RWQCB EPA \`•~ ) $ ) iQ « 2 g %m � / SUMMARY OF MEASURE All dredging activities shall be consistent with the standards and procedures set forth in the Long -Term Management Strategy, a program developed by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other agencies, to guide dredging and the disposal of dredge materials in an environmentally sound manner. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during site preparation or construction, work shall cease in the immediate area until such time as a qualified archaeologist and City of Alameda personnel can assess the significance of the find. The following measures shall be implemented at the time of the find: • Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resources shall be immediately suspended and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the find. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context. • If archeological resources are discovered, the City and the cultural resource consultant shall determine whether the resource is unique based on the criteria provided in the CEQA Guidelines and the criteria listed above. The City and developer, in consultation with a cultural resource expert, shall seek to avoid damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible. • If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified cultural resource consultant shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the impact on the qualities that make the resource uni. ue. The miti • ation elan shall be •RROPOSED, M�IGATION MEASURE � \ } � .. . }i N TIMING 0 "Cl N 0 4., • � 5 I . � U •5 ctl dC o .N 1-24 C w 0 o°wz ° � eV) G vN 'jy m 0 +, . o'i1 � cd v � O Z o • ,N p G°� P. o°wz MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY ii° F, 21, CI 0 '0 Q w O pa "b City of Alameda Planning and Building Department SUMMARY OF MEASURE prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. within Z hours of this identification. Pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code, the Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner's authority. If paleontological resources are encountered during site preparation or construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: • Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resource(s) shall be immediately suspended, and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified paleontological resource consultant shall be contacted to evaluate the find. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context. • If paleontological resources are discovered and the City and the . aleontolo • 'cal resource consultant found that the PROP ;OSED MITIGATION • • NfEASURE N H a U N C w z w z z a° .4z a „ w a Z o V • y Z o o y o N e B N Z a � x N 0 z REPORTING PRG RAM 00 TIMING w to 0 0.) lil .q dpp Prior to issuance of Building permits. .MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY bA � G1 a. ca v 'v La 1 1 w O pG 0 V c City of Alameda Planning and Building Department SUMMARY OF MEASURE resource is significant based on the criteria provided in the CEQA Guidelines and criteria listed above, the City and project developer, in consultation with a paleontological resource expert, shall seek to avoid damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified paleontological resource consultant shall prepare a salvage plan for mitigating the effect of the Project on the qualities which make the resource unique. The project developer, in consultation with a qualified paleontologist, shall complete a paleontological resource inventory, declaration, and mitigation plan in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and submit it to the City for review and approval. Developers and /or contractors shall create and implement development- specific noise reduction plans, which shall be enforced via contract specifications. Each developer and /or contractor shall be contractually required to demonstrate knowledge of the Alameda Noise Ordinance. Contractors may elect any combination of legal, non - polluting methods to maintain or reduce noise to thresholds levels or lower, as long as those methods do not result in other significant environmental impacts or create a substantial public nuisance. The plan for attenuating construction - related noises shall be implemented prior to the initiation of any work that triggers the need for such a plan. To reduce pile driving noise, "vibratory" pile driving should be used wherever feasible. The vibratory pile driving technique, despite its name, does not generate vibration levels higher than the standard pile driving technique. It does, however, generate lower, less - intrusive noise levels. PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE 00 ' 2a am i k /§\ 0 . . ( «u \e.\ 1 \ \ v1 ƒ 0 :7$qi $§o 0 $ ƒ±/./-0 Prior to entitlement permits. Prior to entitlement permits. Incorporate Seismic Zone 4 requirements into plans prior to submittal for building permits. Prepare earthquake preparedness plans and emergency response .lans for all . ublic MONITORING' RESPONSIBILITY City of Alameda Planning and Building Department City of Alameda Planning and Building Department City of Alameda Planning and Building Department 3c Seismicity City of Alameda Planning and Building Department SUMMARY OF MEASURE Acoustical studies, describing how the exterior and interior noise standards will be met, should be required for all new residential or noise - sensitive developments exposed to environmental noise greater than CNEL 60 dBA, or one - family dwellings not constructed as part of a subdivision requiring a final map exposed to environmental noise greater than CNEL 65 dBA. The studies should also satisfy the requirements set forth in Title 24, part 2, of the California Administrative Code, Noise Insulation Standards, or multiple - family attached, hotels, motels. etc.. regulated by Title 24 All new projects shall show that they comply with maximum noise levels outlined in the City's Noise Ordinance and the average sound level goals outlined in the City's General Plan. New projects in the Northern Waterfront GPA should require acoustical studies, describing how the exterior and interior noise level standards will be met for the Project as well as any impacts on adjacent projects. Studies shall also satisfy the acoustical requirements of Title 24, of the Uniform Building Code. While the potential impacts of strong seismic ground shaking cannot be eliminated in the Northern Waterfront GPA area, the following steps shall be implemented to reduce the impacts related to expected strong ground shaking • Grading, foundation, and structural design should be based on the anticipated strong seismic shaking associated with a future major earthquake on the Hayward fault. The Hayward fault is considered to be a Type A seismic source (with active slip and capable of a magnitude 7.0 or greater earthquake) under the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) near - source PROPOSED MITIGATION , MEASURE m \ 0 z XI \ 0 z \ 0 z cn : > MITIGATION ?VERIFIGATI�ON- T•ElINIT1AL-S TIMING O.) �\� yo0 \ ] \ a / ° � \ /2 ƒ) \ \/ ƒ\ 2??�\ = e a§22�i28 § 2 7 ƒ § \ \ 2 § © $ 2 2 & f ®§ d $ + p �• P • \$ . ) 7 ° \. «yƒ ° « / § a \ / f MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY \ � \ \ ?G m �\ %m 0\ SUMMARY OF MEASURE .. emergency response plan for all public use facilities. The plan should be submitted for review and approval by the Planning and Building and /or Public Works Department, prior to occupancy of the structures. • Prior to marketing residential or commercial units for sale, the developer shall prepare an earthquake hazards information document. This document should be made available to any potential occupant prior to purchase or rental of the housing units or commercial spaces. The document should describe the potential for strong ground shaking at the site, potential effects of such shaking, and earthquake preparedness procedures. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to reduce the potential impact of seismic - induced ground failure. • Earthworks and foundation design shall be conducted in accordance with all recommendations contained in the Weyerhaeuser /Chipman Parcels geotechnical report by Lowney Associates (December 1998) for that parcel. Additional liquefaction potential analyses shall be conducted and a liquefaction mitigation program developed for each development within the Northern Waterfront GPA area. All structures proposed for the project area shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most recently adopted version of the City of Alameda Building Code, and the seismic design considerations of the Uniform Building Code (1997) and the most recent California Building Code (currently 2001) as published by the ICBO. PRO #O0'SED MITtGATION MEASURE a � w < ID z w u a z o X a < Z < z a < a v w z Z o H H z z° o z • z o w H t B H Z .. a z 14 a 0 z TIMING `" bA o 8 i 0 .4 0 N N bA O {�yI a, 0 0 p id MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY bA +' a ct a, -oq a) bo o as U ct SUMMARY OF MEASURE • Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, geotechnical investigations shall be conducted for the Del Monte Warehouse (URS Corporation report, 2002), Encinal Terminal, or Fortmann Marina sub -areas of the Northern Waterfront GPI, area. Reports for these studies shall evaluate the liquefaction potential for each site in accordance with the Standard of Practice for Geotechnical Engineering and shall provide recommendations for stabilization or resistance of structures from the potential affect of liquefaction of sediments. The potential for lurch cracking and lateral spreading shall also be evaluated. Stability of the bulkhead for projects adjacent to bulkheads shall also be evaluated. Reports shall be submitted to the City of Alameda Public Works Department for review and approval. Proponents for all projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall be required to prepare a geotechnical report for review and approval by the City of Alameda that specifies all measures necessary to limit consolidation including minimization of structural fills and use (when necessary) of lightweight and low plasticity fill materials to reduce the potential for excessive loading caused by fill placement. The placement of artificial fill should be limited to reduce the potential for increased loading and associated settlement in areas underlain by thick younger Bay Mud. Increased area settlement could have implications for flooding potential as well as foundation design. Reconditioning (compaction) of existing subgrade materials would be preferable to placement of fill. The report shall present recommendations for specific foundation designs, which minimize the potential for damage related to settlement. The design of utilities shall consider differential settlements along utility alignments constructed in filled areas of the Northern Waterfront GPA area. PROPOSED' MITIGATION . MEASURE` - \ :. w _ir a » \2\> o :\< . : TIMING Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. Water uali, ' % bp )7/ ` ._ 0 § cu to d& { \ / / MONITORING'. RESPONSIBILITY City of Alameda Planning and Building Department h11 m �5w « � \ / o= / v\ SUMMARY OF MEASURE The required geotechnical report shall require that subgrade soils for pavements consist of moisture - conditioned, lime- treated, or non - expansive soil, and that surface (including roof drainage) and subsurface water be directed away from foundation elements and into storm drains to minimize variations in soil moisture. All specific development projects approved pursuant to the Northern Waterfront GPA, that involve site clearing, grading or excavation as part of the proposed construction activity and that result in soil disturbances of 1 or more acres, (and for projects of less than 1 acre if the construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development), shall be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan ( SWPPP). To avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, the SWPPP prepared for the first site or development project within the Northern Waterfront GPA area may be used as the basis for a SWPPP required for subsequent projects, provided that each version of the SWPPP is modified as necessary to maintain compliance with the qualitative standards set forth in this EIR and with applicable regulations and standards of the RWQCB. Each SWPPP shall be designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction and life of the Project for which it is prepared. The SWPPP shall conform to the requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water Program which set new standards effective February 2003, and to the standards set forth herein. The SWPPP would act as the overall program document designed to provide measures to mitigate potential water quality impacts associated with implementation of the .ro.osed Project. Pre .arers of the SWPPP should review the PROPOSED' MITIGATION MEASURE 0 W « 0 e e o x > X TIMING MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY LU W 2 LL } Qq .2 cu . c : ' V o Ab x " .v A 'b v N O cu 'U N a. u v a o 0 v o ° ..O v 'U • b o o y J a v ° � ', � v -0 4 bra • . O •4 F 0'0. N no Z a y v G cv .. C .5 a. g's C Y O p N N N w .O ° °° ' p y V p v p O q h j . p. , .� V v . w C � v n • b y d O v v o b , o v o. 0 v Q v E m • C ca w 'd b Qa v C v o .0 ,„`j u C v C C TJ u - w W N h N cv [-I 0 a fi w 0 . 4 ' q p m 0. �n w cd b � y v bA J H ,O ti g O v c Po Z • 00 4.3 R -0 O C cu 0 ' O v 0 ' p O p h cti .d .- ° _ v v v • cG t E B a) v O 5 Enu b v 75 'y v '' 'O y b C Lo b 4) ,, ° fn t •o o cd a v Y-1 � E y • g C "' N N ct •R C � 4) to t, u p u Q$� a -d—a , • 5 y 0 a t N° o.0 4 t, ai om` a u - sq O . c • y •� O N u C "' °Q ro� " a ww .ti A C,.w W� . E b ° 11 V w ° 'Ur y C . ti 5 v l7 C . - O .d H v ° v - • v O a b v pip v°0� V N �v cu ■ ❑❑ " j Q j V i° O 0 0 v 4l 5 h p v _ ✓, f a 6,3 n o o,, 'p b P-1 p A a v 'b . v d . .0, C c,„ v o . 0 ca o v v �'' v � v h „ f'y ' , v n 's ' O ` v) y •'V C q g s ° O a 1U y -e w v G ~ Z ,13 +p Q M d' O p, �vi . Ot N w M 4, �' o '- v ct t • "0 `', y R, 2 2 v C o +r } ' v 0 5 5 ++ u v O q. CI w 0 6 , Fo �.0 c1 06.0 a' Q • ca y 5u p .o ,3 4 'C X) id ' 'V •y 2 c LL v y m a o. v 0 g oq'C v v v v • v i+ a 'd .fl R, .° .7. R - ,s s q A.' 's ,n E ca Pa w • z x z z z• 0 0. 0 z 0 0 z 0 z w a z o W F., V .+ • z Z o o X • z '" 0 H t < F. Z i F 0 z •IVERIFIGATION :: DATEIINITIALS TIMING Prior to the approval of any dredging activities. MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY City of Alameda Planning and Building Department BCDC SUMMARY OF MEASURE 0 u ° U a+ a, C ,5 u 0 ° t o• Ca a. ' �° vi C,� 0 aU. c,, a+ u PA'.,rd �; "n . P3 v, "p5 N b ^� �c Tway `, G .0 0 a� d a� • yj , N a, Ld 1--1 Y c ° 5 -, Lam+ 'O Id fd N .4-Ir' CPU--, N C 'b a) q ., u w `o W y ° y ,I a t40 a fin, 0 0 -0 a.N , gv.E. v ,1 o a1 o N.H „So „2 o. - 'au. � o'w.0 uu C—d o o t p-0 N o u °, q 4 U b v v0., ° ,n v b -v 'ti D, O acv .� 6, '0-, a� w 0 y 01 'b q .� '- . 'd m 0 - flii- po' U u etS � y `� � u b � P; o v tAb.ouan w oa .2,-) .0 ao -o -d w r� -cl h C� a, a �d q� �, � g 4 ..nNb18g :.a.aiPo • The City of Alameda Department of Public Works shall review and approve the SWPPP prior to the approval of the Development Plan for each Project phase to ensure that the selected BMPs would adequately protect water quality. The City and the RWQCB are empowered to levy considerable fines for non - compliance with the SWPPP. Compliance with the approved SWPPP would mitigate the impact to a less - than-si• "ficant level. All dredging and in -water construction activities shall be consistent with the standards and procedures set forth in the Long -Term Management Strategy, a program developed by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Re• "onal Water Quali Control Board • WQCB , the U.S. PROPOSED MITIGATION„ . • MEA$fJRE, . a X w F Z" • w Z z H z w o i w < z < <z w m Z O W p., F z z° O X • z "' o F 8 Z • i F 0 z - VERIFICATION - DATE/INITIAL''S TIMING: w bA O 0 u N N bA 4 v O °" i .0 ri MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY RWQCB EPA bA , •� aCi c P. (I a "Cl bA 4 w 1 O pq ts no U SUMM ARY OF MEASURE Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other agencies, to guide dredging and the disposal of dredge materials in an environmentally sound manner. Implementation of Dust Abatement Programs. Proponents of development projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable City regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of building or grading permits, including standard dust control measures. The effective implementation of dust abatement programs, incorporating all of the following dust control measures, would reduce the temporary air quality impact associated with construction dust. • .All active construction areas shall be watered using equipment and staff provided by the project applicant or prime contractor, as needed, to avoid visible dust plumes. Appropriate non -toxic dust palliative or suppressant, added to water before application, may be used. • All trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials shall be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard. • All unpaved access roads, parking areas and construction staging areas shall be either paved, watered as necessary to avoid visible dust plumes, or subject to the application of (non - toxic) soil stabilizers. • All paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept daily with water sweepers. • If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, these streets shall be swept daily with water sweepers. • All stock.iles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can • PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURE t. a w z z < az a � x w m z o w v H Z z° o X • x w ° a • H H C y B H Z X H 0 z REPORTING PRGRAM VERIFICATION `-DATE/INITIALS' TIMING w o 4) IDA U, 6, a) .V bA N A O' . G MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY bA C Ei a ca v "o Q 1 ri o in 4-•b U SUMMARY OF MEASURE be blown by the wind shall either be covered or watered as necessary to avoid visible dust plumes. • An off - pavement speed limit of 15 miles per hour for all construction vehicles shall be incorporated into the construction contract and enforced by the prime contractor. • All inactive portions of the project site (those areas which have been previously graded, but inactive for a period of ten days or more) shall be watered with an appropriate dust suppressant, covered or seeded. • All earth - moving or other dust - producing activities shall be suspended when the above dust control measures prove ineffective in avoiding visible dust plumes during periods of high winds. The wind speed at which this suspension of activity will be required may vary, depending on the moisture conditions at the project site, but suspension of such activities shall be required in any case when the wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour. Implementation of Diesel Reduction Programs. Proponents of development projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA area shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable City regulations and operating procedures prior to issuance of building or grading permits, including standard diesel reduction efforts, including the following: • Diesel powered equipment shall be maintained in good working condition, with manufacturer- recommended mufflers, filters, and other equipment. • Diesel powered equipment shall not be left inactive and idling for more than ten minutes, and shall comply with applicable BAAQMD rules. PROPOSED MITIG,� }TION MEASURE , • Z ▪ < a F a w • (� zz Z z IQ 0 X < Z e q z w zo H F z z o o z • Z 0 w F B • F a � F 0 TIMING erials w o a A y O jr. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits. Prior to the issuance of building or grading permits. 'MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY 1E b v c 4 o pa U City of Alameda Planning and Building Department City of Alameda Planning and Building Department SUMMARY OF MEASURE • Use alternative fueled construction equipment. • Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment and /or the amount of equipment in use. Prior to the approval of any site specific development projects within the Northern Waterfront GPA area, documentation from a qualified professional shall be provided to the City of Alameda stating that adequate soils and ground water investigations and, where warranted, remediation, have been conducted to ensure that there will be no significant hazard related risks to future site users. If the soil and groundwater investigations indicate that hazardous materials are present and pose a risk to construction workers and future site users, the following additional mitigation measures shall be implemented and the City of Alameda will refer the site to the appropriate State and County agencies (such as Alameda County Environmental Health, the State Department of Toxic Substances Control and /or the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board) for oversight of the project. If required as a result of the information obtained from Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 GPA, the City shall condition the subject Project to record a restrictive covenant prohibiting the installation of drinking water wells into the shallow groundwater at the Project site prior to transfer of the property. If required as a result of the information obtained from Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 GPA, the City shall condition the subject Project to require preparation by a qualified registered professional of a Site Management Plan (SMP) for the subject Project site as a t � PROPOSED, MITIGATION MEASURE • 1 a X w < a • 0 F Z W U z z 41 0 a X < w Z a ! ▪ z z w z o W p., F z z° o z ° w F ! < q' 8 F_ z a 0 z ;VERIFICATION DATEIINIT.IALS z_ MONITORING RESPONSIBILITY SUMMARY OF MEASURE condition of its approval as a specific development project. The SMP would provide site specific information for contractors (and others) developing the Project site that would improve their management of environmental and health and safety contingencies. Topics covered by the SMP shall include, but not be limited to: • Land use history, including known hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and spillage, for specific areas within the Project site. • The nature and extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the Project site. • The nature and extent of ongoing remedial activities and the nature and extent of unremediated areas of the Project site, including the nature and occurrence of marsh crust and hazardous materials associated with the dredge material used as fill at the Project site. • A listing and description of institutional controls, such as the City's excavation ordinance and other local, State, and federal laws and regulations that will apply to development of the Project site. • Requirements for site specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the Project site. The HASPs should be prepared by a Certified Industrial Hygienist and would protect construction workers and interim site users adjacent to construction activities by including engineering controls, monitoring, and security measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction site and to reduce hazards outside the construction site. The HASPS would address the possibility of encountering subsurface hazards and include procedures to protect workers and the public. If prescribed exposure levels were exceeded, personal protective e.ui.ment would be re. uired for workers a PROPOSED, MITIGATION MEASURE "b Vi a, v v v v b') a 'a, v •7,'C1 . G "y w +ov ' by O" O 0 "o te 0 O L, O d .4 ij "p ^-I .. cd 4", O c% VO m N vay 'b v u 6.0 v :5 a "d N " • ' 4 0 cd a) vN w aO -. v o 6 imy' 0 u 00 03 4 wo " y N. a " 0 u 0 h ao.o N . 4 ° ,-i TO v vca C ^ o h o G " 's'i bA �+d N N ' O N 'd'., y o b• C ti q b9 u u mo v O p v - v ,0 m 'd v W -o cd y ` la 03 b.75 O w O u' ,2 . Ca.) $ an 0 u o aA ov��v 0 0-0 „0w0 y"o v a v.r o ad v (/D o y O o • 0 a b I n ,„ va O a . a V 0 u ti "d a ..9 o 0 - 'b u N• v bp N .n q g ao o 5 .5 0 .5 v v •0 0 u y p" u w v a) O cd 4+ cti ai .49 0 0 O O O d a' 0 v y) "a O c0 v U o O a+ v bA v 'm v N p a cd .g+ q al 40 ''' ca a y ; g' v 3'7'3'7'3 v iv a• .? w .o .� .5 -C t) 5 .5 r134 a w' N °-s a P• N ,9-44 h N• U STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ATTACHMENT D Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 et seq., the City Council of the City of Alameda adopts and makes the following statement of overriding considerations regarding the remaining unavoidable impacts of the Project and the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits of the Project. I. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts which are included in the record, the City has determined that the Project would cause significant unavoidable impacts to traffic and circulation as disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") prepared for the Project. These impacts cannot be feasibly fully mitigated by changes in or alternatives to the Project. II. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations that, as part of the approval provisions, the Project has avoided or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible, and finds that the remaining unavoidable impacts of the Project are acceptable in light of specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project because those benefits outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project. The Council finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project's significant adverse environmental impacts and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. These matters are supported by evidence in the record that includes, but is not limited to, the documents referenced below. III. BENEFITS OF PROPOSED PROJECT The City Council has considered the proposed Northern Waterfront General Plan Amendment, the public record of proceedings on the proposed Project and other written materials presented to the City as well as oral and written testimony at all public hearings related to the Project, and does determine that implementation of the Project as specifically provided in the Project documents would result in the following substantial public benefits by: 1. Ensuring the productive use of underdeveloped area and fostering orderly growth and quality development in the City. 2. Proceeding in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan, thereby implementing the City's stated General Plan policies. 3. Providing substantially increased property tax and sales tax revenues to the City. 4. Providing increased employment opportunities for residents of the City. 5. Eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies in the Project area, including, but not limited to, abandoned buildings, incompatible land uses, depreciated or stagnant property values, and inadequate or deteriorated public improvements, facilities, and utilities. 6. Replanning and redesigning underdeveloped areas that are improperly utilized to achieve a balanced mix of land uses and create a vibrant new neighborhood in City. 7. Expanding and improving the community's supply of housing through the installation of needed site improvements and the construction housing, consistent with the existing density and single - family residential character of City and with existing City policies and standards, including Measure A. 8. Increasing the City's supply of land available for residential development and increasing the supply of affordable housing in City. 9. Providing diversity in housing opportunities through compliance with Community Improvement Commission inclusionary housing policy (i.e., providing on -site moderate income housing, and a 25 percent inclusionary requirement). 10. Strengthening and diversifying the economic base of the Project area and the community by adding commercial uses that will provide new amenities for City residents, including new shops, restaurants and services. 11. Achieving job creation and economic development. 12. Actively seeking and promoting business by providing new retail land uses that will complement and provide synergies with existing retail development at Webster Street, the Alameda Towne Centre and other locations within City, in accordance with the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy. 13. Facilitating the emergence of commercial sectors through improvement of transportation access to commercial areas, improvement of safety within the Project area, and the installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new commercial expansion, employment, and economic growth. 14. Maximizing tax increment, new sales tax, and other funding mechanisms in order to pay for the public investment in infrastructure required for economic development in the Project area. 15. Emphasizing employment and a mix of economic development opportunities that complement economic development strategies in other parts of City and promoting a jobs- housing balance to the extent practicable. 2 16. Seamlessly integrating the Project site into City by: emphasizing Mixed Use development; ensuring land use compatibility within and surrounding the Project site; minimizing through - traffic on minor residential streets. 17. Reducing the impact of the automobile and energy consumption by: facilitating public transit opportunities to and within the Project area to the extent feasible; providing a system of bikeways, parks, and pedestrian paths to facilitate access to parks, recreational areas and the waterfront from all parts of Alameda. 18. Protecting and improving the waterfront by enhancing views of water and public access to the waterfront in all development and creatively encouraging the usage of the waterfront, by providing open space and other amenities. 19. Providing adequate vehicular access to and within the Project area without impeding access to existing areas of City. 20. Providing parks within the Project site to service the needs of the Project site and surrounding neighborhoods. 21. Promoting energy efficiency in facility development, utilizing recycled materials to the extent feasible, and applying low water demand techniques in all new development, including all landscape development. 22. Ensuring that each portion of the Project area, as developed, is suitable for the intended use and consistent with protection of human health and the environment prior to occupancy. 23. Establishing a comprehensive framework and hierarchy for the overall site to ensure that the basic infrastructure elements will be functionally and aesthetically integrated throughout the development. The City Council has weighed the above benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the FEIR and hereby determines that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental effects and, therefore, further determines that these risks and adverse environmental effects are acceptable. 3 I, 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 17th day of July 2007, 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, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 18th day of July, 2007. {� A Lara Weisiger, City City of Alameda