Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Resolution 13199
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 1319 9 ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND A MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE ALAMEDA POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the State of California passed legislation commencing with Health & Safety Code Section 33492 (of the Community Redevelopment Act), to enable redevelopment agencies to place in a project area portions of a military base that were previously developed but that cannot be utilized in their present condition because of, in whole or in part, substandard infrastructure and buildings that do not meet state building standards; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33492.18, a redevelopment agency may delay the application of the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act to an action to adopt a redevelopment plan if the agency determines at a noticed public hearing that there is a need to adopt the redevelopment plan at the soonest possible time; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Community Improvement Commission ( "CIC ") held a joint public hearing on February 17, 1998, to consider adoption of the Community Improvement Plan ( "the Plan") for the Alameda Point Improvement Project ( "the Project ") and the CIC, by Resolution No. 98 -75, determined that the need to adopt the Plan at the soonest possible time required the delay of the application of the California Environmental Quality Act to the adoption of the Plan; and WHEREAS, on March 3, 1998, the City Council adopted Ordinance 2754 N.S. approving and adopting the Plan for the Alameda Point Improvement Project area; and WHEREAS, at the March 21, 2000, the City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility (State Clearinghouse #96022105), consisting of the Draft EIR and EIR Response to Comments Addendum; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies certain significant, significant and unavoidable, and less - than- significant (not significant) effects on the environment that would result from implementing the adoption of the Plan; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR identifies mitigation measures which, when implemented and incorporated into the Plan, will substantially lessen or avoid the significant effects on the environment caused by the adoption of the Plan; and WHEREAS, certain of the mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and will be reduced to less- than- significant only if adopted by that other agency; and WHEREAS, to the extent these mitigation measures will not mitigate or avoid all significant effects on the environment, or the responsible agency does not adopt the mitigation measures within its responsibility and jurisdiction, it is hereby determined that any remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable; and WHEREAS, the City Council must make a Statement of Overriding Considerations in order to balance its March 3, 1998 approval of the Plan against any unavoidable environmental risks; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing with the CIC on this Final EIR on March 21, 2000 examined pertinent documents, considered the testimony and written comments received. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda having independently reviewed and analyzed the Final ElR for the Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility, and having certified. the Final EIR, the City Council hereby: 1 Adopts the Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit "A ", for the Project, and 2. Adopts and incorporates into the Project all of the mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Alameda which are identified in the Findings, and 3. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program, attached hereto as Exhibit `B," for the Project. EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS FOR THE ALAMEDA POINT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT . ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS CERTIFICATION OF THE FINAL EIR Pursuant to title 14, California Code of Regulations, section 15090, the City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") has certified that the program level Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse #96022105) ( "Final EIR ") for the Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility ( "Project ") was completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000 et seq. ( "CEQA "). The City Council has further certified that the Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to approving the Project, and that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Alameda ("City"). B. THE BASE CLOSURE AND DISPOSAL PROCESS The United States Navy ("Navy") began construction of Naval Air Station Alameda ( "NAS Alameda ") in 1938. Between that time and its closure in 1997, NAS Alameda became one of the largest and most diversified naval facilities on the West Coast. The Navy began construction of the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility ( "FISC Alameda ") in 1945 and acquired the remainder of the FISC property in 1951. Pursuant to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act, Part A of Title XXIX of Pub. L. No. 101- 510, codified as amended at 10 U.S.C. § 2687 note, and the specific base closure decisions approved by Congress in September 1993, NAS Alameda closed on April 30, 1997. In early 1996, the Congress passed special legislation to give the Navy the discretionary authority to convey the FISC Alameda property to the City of Alameda. Pub. L. No. 102 -84, § 2834(b), as amended by Pub. L. No. 104 -106, § 2867. FISC Alameda was closed on September 30, 1998. Some of the property and facilities at NAS Alameda will be transferred by the Navy to other federal agencies, and some land previously leased by the Navy from the City will revert to City control. The United States Coast Guard, which had originally requested 69 acres at NAS Alameda, has subsequently indicated that it is interested in pursuing a leaseback of the property in lieu of transfer. The United States Fish and Wildlife Services ( "USFWS ") has requested transfer of approximately 565 to 571 acres of dry land and 375 acres of submerged lands to establish a wildlife refuge. The remaining excess federal property at NAS Alameda/ FISC Alameda will be conveyed by the Navy to the City. C. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The Project analyzed in the Final EIR consists of the reuse of NAS Alameda and FISC Alameda in accordance with the general description in the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan (January 1996), as amended ( "Community Reuse Plan "). The EIR may be used to approve any necessary amendments to the City's General Plan to incorporate the approved reuse project, and to implement the Alameda Point Improvement Project ( "APIP "), and the projects to be undertaken as part of the APIP plan, pursuant to special legislation allowing the lead agency to defer environmental review of an adopted redevelopment plan for a closing military base: Health & Safety Code § 33492.18. The EIR also will be used to approve designation of NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda as a Local Agency Military Base Recovery Area ( "LAMBRA ") pursuant to the Local Agency Military Base Recovery Act. The proposed Project, known as the "the Reuse Plan Alternative," is fully described at a programmatic level in Section 2.2.1 (including Table 2 -3 and Figure 2 -4) of the May 1999 Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR. The Project involves: (1) development of a mixed -use, transit- oriented development that includes a mix of community, industrial, residential, and commercial uses; (2) community uses that include parks, schools, a links - style' golf course, a sports complex, public open space, and a recreational vehicle ( "RV ") park; (3) industrial uses that include mixed -use office, maritime- related light industry, marina- related light industry, and research and development businesses; (4) residential housing that includes new housing consistent with local standards, live-aboard boat slips, and the reuse of existing multifamily housing, apartments, and group quarters; (5) commercial uses that include neighborhood shopping districts, office space, hotels, visitor - serving commercial facilities, and a conference facility; and (6) accommodations for public transit, including strategic transit nodes throughout the site that will allow residents and employees to interchange between private and public transportation, and that will include bus shelters, bicycle lockers, and transit- oriented street design. All components of the Project will be designed, developed and operated in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements. D. PREPARATION' OF THE EIR On February 28, 1996, the City and the Navy issued a Notice of Preparation ( "NOP ") and a Notice of Intention, respectively, indicating that a joint Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report ( "EIS /EIR ") would be prepared pursuant to CEQA and the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq. The City conducted an EIR scoping process to identify potential environmental issues and concerns that would be raised by disposal and reuse, and to identify a range of reasonable reuse alternatives. The City 2 received 45 letters from members of the public, interested groups, and federal, state, and local agencies during the scoping process, which ended March 29, 1996, and 24 people provided oral comments, written comments, or both at the public scoping meeting on March 13, 1996. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21083.8.1(c), a public hearing was held on August 11, 1998, to identify the selection of the baseline conditions for the environmental analysis. While progressing a long way towards creating a joint document, the City and Navy determined that it would reduce delay and expedite productive reuse of NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda to release separate environmental documents. The City circulated an Amended NOP on March 2, 1999, to reflect the splitting of the EIS and EIR and to clarify the project description. The public comment period for the amended NOP was open for 30 days, from March 5 through April 4, 1999. During that period, the City received 19 comment letters from interested public agencies, organizations and individuals. A Draft EIR for the Project was published in May 1999, and made available to government agencies, interested individuals and organizations, and members of the public. The 45 -day period for public comment on the Draft EIR ended on July 6, 1999. Twenty -five comment letters were received during that period. In addition, members of the public were invited by formal public notice to submit oral and written comments on the Draft EIR in testimony at a public hearing held on June 28, 1999. Twenty -five members of the public provided comments at the public hearing The Final EIR was made available to the public on March 2000. The Final EIR includes, among other components, the Draft EIR, supplemental materials that amplify and clarify the analyses in the Draft EIR, the City's Response to Comments Addendum, and the Findings set forth herein. The analysis and conclusions contained in the Final EIR reflect the independent judgment of the City. NAVY EIS The Navy released its separate EIS on April 16, 1999, which underwent a separate public review process. The 45 -day public review period for the Draft EIS ended on June 1, 1999. The Navy's Final EIS was issued on October 29, 1999, with the 30 -day public review period prior to issuance of the Record of Decision ( "ROD ") ending on November 29, 1999. The ROD was issued by the Navy on February 29,'2000. II. SIGNIFICANT' IMPACTS IDENTIFIED IN THE EIR AND MITIGATION MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT The Final EIR identifies the following significant impacts associated with the Project. These impacts are reduced to " less - than- significant (or not significant") by mitigation measures identified in the EIR and incorporated into the Project, except that 3 certain of the mitigation measures are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and will be reduced to less- than - significant only if adopted by that other agency as well It is hereby determined that the significant environmental impacts which these mitigation measures address will be mitigated to a less- than- significant level or avoided by incorporation of the mitigation measures into the Project. To the extent these mitigation measures will not mitigate or avoid all significant effects on the environment, or the responsible agency does not adopt the mitigation measures within its responsibility and jurisdiction, it is hereby determined that any remaining significant unavoidable adverse impacts are acceptable for the reasons specified in Part IV, below. The mitigation measures identified below are presented in summary form. For a detailed description of these mitigation measures, please see the appropriate text in the Draft EIR, as amended by the Final EIR. A. Consistency with Public Trust As more fully described on page 4 -6 of the Draft EIR, certain land uses allowable under the Project would be inconsistent with the public trust in the Civic Core, Main Street Neighborhoods, Marina and Northwest Territories planning areas. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4.1, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than- significant level by requiring either the exchange of lands currently in the public trust for land outside of the public trust, through agreement with the State Lands Commission, or contributions to the Kapiloff Land Bank Fund. In the unlikely event that agreement cannot be reached regarding an exchange of lands or in- lieu contributions, then no development that is inconsistent with the public trust will be permitted on public trust lands at NAS Alameda. B. Conflict Between Recreational Vehicle Park and Surrounding Land Uses The land uses associated with the proposed development of an RV park in the Marina planning area would conflict with the existing residential uses in the West End Neighborhood immediately east of Main Street. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.1, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -than- significant level through measures such as site design, placement of RV park facilities, noise and lighting restrictions, and designation of RV routes. C. Views of Northwest Territories from Oakland and Alameda Viewing Locations Light industrial development in the Northwest Territories planning area would decrease the visual quality of the Project site from viewing locations in Oakland and Alameda. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4.2, which is hereby adopted and incorporated 4 into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level through use of appropriate design elements, landscaping, and screening of parking areas. D. Blocked Views Due to New Development in the Northwest Territories Light industrial facilities in the Northwest Territories planning area would block views to the south and southwest from portions of the shoreline park near the light industrial development. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.2, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than- significant level by locating new buildings associated with maritime- related light industry in places that preserve and emphasize views of the bay and of more distant visual landmarks. Views of a Recreational Vehicle Park from Existing Residential Neighborhoods The development of an RV park in the Inner Harbor planning area would create visual contrasts with views from nearby residential neighborhoods and public streets. Mitigation 3, Draft EIR Section 4.2, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level by adding developing site layout and design guidelines for the RV park. Police Protection Expansion of the geographic jurisdiction of the Police Department beyond its capability would result in an inadequate level of police protection. This does not constitute a significant effect on the environment under CEQA because it would not result in physical impacts associated with construction of new or physically altered governmental facilities. CEQA Guidelines, App. G, § XIII(a). G. Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services The expansion of the geographic jurisdiction of the City of Alameda Fire Department beyond its capability would result in an inadequate level of fire protection and emergency medical services. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.4, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than- significant level by providing service to the FISC Annex and East Housing by either: (1) constructing a new fire station; or (2) staffing and equipping the existing on -base fire stations to ensure adequate response times to emergency incidents. 5 H. Schools (K -12) The creation of housing and jobs from the Project would result in about 1,103 additional students attending Alameda Unified School District schools at build -out. While Mitigation 3, Draft EIR Section 4.4, states that eight high school classrooms and two high school labs are required to mitigate this impact, SB 50 (1997) limits mitigation of impacts on schools to a statutorily established fee. (See Gov't Code §§ 65995 -6). Collection of statutorily authorized fees, as a condition of approval of specific development projects, is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, and as a matter of law, will mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level. L Noncompliance with Solid Waste Diversion Requirements The demolition and construction required by the Project, as well as the employee and resident population associated with the Project, will increase the generation of solid waste, jeopardizing the City's compliance with state and county waste diversion requirements. This would be a significant project impact and a significant cumulative impact associated with development and population increase in the region. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4.5, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate these impacts to a less -than- significant level by requiring that, prior to major demolition, a solid waste management plan containing programs and procedures to meet the requirements of the California Integrated Waste Management Act and Alameda County Measure D shall be prepared and implemented by the City, and individual solid waste management plans shall be prepared by construction and demolition contractors. J. Demolition of Buildings in Historic Dist The demolition of certain NAS Alameda buildings listed in Table 4 -13 on page 4 -62 of the Draft EIR, including some in the historic district not covered by the 1996 demolition MOA, constitutes a significant impact. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4.6, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than-significant level by requiring the City's Historic Advisory Board ( "HAB ") to perform design review such that the Historic District as a whole will not be modified to the extent that it would no longer be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR. Ordinance No 2808 was adopted by the City on September 22, 1999 establishing this HAB design review function. K. Deterioration of Historical Buildings Because reuse will occur over a projected 20 -year period and some buildings will remain in layaway for some time and may not be properly maintained, some of the contributing buildings in the Historical District will deteriorate. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR 6 Section 4.6, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level by providing for the use of appropriate standards for the care and custody of historic properties as described in the National Park Service Preservation Brief 31, Mothballing Historic Buildings (1993). Reuse and Rehabilitation of Historical Properties The reuse and rehabilitation of historic buildings, structures and landscapes within the NAS Alameda Historic District could alter the characteristics of these properties such that they would no longer be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP and CRHR. Mitigation 3, Draft EIR Section 4.6, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would mitigate this impact to a less- than- significant level by providing for the use of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings in ensuring that the Project's reuse and rehabilitation activities will not modify the contributing buildings and site plan elements of the Historic District such that the Historic District would no longer be eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR. Construction of Buildings in the Historic District Construction of new buildings within the NAS Alameda Historic District could have a significant impact on individual buildings within the construction area and on the general character of the Historic District. Mitigation 4, Draft EIR Section 4.6, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -than- significant level by providing for the use of the Secretary of Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings in the design of new buildings in the vicinity of historic buildings to ensure that the Historic District will not be modified to such an extent that it no longer meets the criteria for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR. N. Increased Predation of the California Least Tern New development located adjacent to the wildlife refuge in the Northwest Territories, Civic Core and Marina planning areas would cause increased predation of the California least tern by providing nesting and foraging areas and other attractions for predators of California least tern adults, chicks, and eggs. Increased night lighting associated with light industrial development and the sports complex would also enhance the ability of nocturnal predators to prey on the terns. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4.7, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level. Outside of the wildlife refuge, the City of Alameda will be responsible for implementing the nondiscretionary terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion issued by USFWS on March 22, 1999 (Draft EIR, App. D-3). In addition, all development approvals in the Northwest Territories, Civic Core and Marina planning areas shall require 7 that all garbage cans and large open food sources for predators. ash containers be tightly closed o eliminate potential Inside the wildlife refuge, the USFWS will be responsible for managing predator control activities and protecting the least tern nesting site. USFWS has prepared a draft conservation plan specifying the predator control activities it will perform, including constructing and maintaining the boundary barrier it has constructed. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, Alameda National Wildlife Refuge (USFWS, December 1998) ( "Conservation Plan "), pp. 33 -45. There is every reason to expect that the USFWS will adopt the draft Conservation Plan containing these provisions, in which case the impact will be reduced to a less - than- significant level. Furthermore, USFWS has issued a non jeopardy Biological Opinion for the Project. If the USFWS does not adopt the draft Conservation Plan, the City finds that this portion of the mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the USFWS, that this portion of the mitigation measure can and should be adopted by that agency, and that until such time as the mitigation measure is adopted by the USFWS the impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. 0. Human Activity in the Northwest Territories, Civic Core and Marina Areas The increased presence of people and domestic animals in the Northwest Territories, Civic Core and Marina planning areas would constitute a significant impact to the California least tern and brown pelican through the disruption of their breeding and the loss of individual birds. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.7, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than- significant level by requiring City implementation of the nondiscretionary terms and conditions of the Biological Opinion. P. Increased Boat Traffic Increased boat traffic from the proposed marina in the Seaplane Lagoon could create a significant impact by disrupting least tern foraging, California brown pelican roosting, western gull nesting, and the haul -out site for harbor seals near Breakwater Island. This would also be a significant cumulative impact associated with increased development in the region. Mitigation 3, Draft EIR Section 4.7, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate these impacts to a less - than - significant level by requiring the education of boat owners and others who use the marina concerning access restrictions to Breakwater Island and its immediate vicinity; by providing for the posting of signs warning boaters about the sensitivity of the wildlife at the site and about prohibitions on disturbing protected bird and mammal species; and by providing for the retention of existing access restrictions to Breakwater Island and their enforcement by the USFWS. 8 USFWS has prepared a draft Conservation Plan specifying that the access restrictions to Breakwater Island will be retained and enforced. Conservation Plan, pp. 40 and 43. There is every reason to expect that the USFWS will adopt the draft Conservation Plan containing these provisions, in which case the impact will be reduced to a less -than- significant level. Furthermore, USFWS has issued a non jeopardy Biological Opinion for the Project. If the USFWS does not adopt the draft Conservation Plan, the City finds that this portion of the mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the USFWS, that this portion of the mitigation measure can and should be adopted by that agency, and that until such time as the mitigation measure is adopted by the USFWS these impacts would be considered significant and unavoidable. Q. Dredging and In- water Construction Berthfront sediment dredging and in -water construction activities in the Marina planning area would have a significant impact on fish and other aquatic organisms, including mammals and birds that feed on fish, such as the California least tern. Mitigation 4, Draft EIR Section 4.7, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level by prohibiting dredging in heavily used least tern foraging areas during the period from March 15 to September 30, and by requiring issuance of a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers ( "COE ") prior to the undertaking of any dredging. Pollutants in Stormwater Runof Stormwater runoff that includes pollutants from the golf course and paved areas, especially in the Northwest Territories, Civic Core and Marina planning areas, would cause a significant impact by introducing pollutants through the runoff into the least tern colony nesting area, as well as into nearby wetlands and surrounding water bodies. Construction - related spills and emissions in the Northwest Territories, Marina and Civic Core planning areas, as well as marina use and maintenance and repair of boats and spills from boat fueling and waste disposal, also could affect water quality in the adjacent water bodies. Mitigation 5, Draft EIR Section 4.7, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level by providing for the development and implementation of stormwater management and monitoring plans; as well as planting and herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer application plans, including a pesticide drift control plan for the golf course and public open space areas. Future developments in the Northwest Territories planning area will be required to meet Regional Water Quality Control Board ( "RWQCB ") stormwater management programs and requirements. In addition, to the extent possible, all stormwater drainage from new development in the Northwest Territories, Marina and Civic Core planning areas will be directed away from the 9 adjacent USFWS wildlife refuge, and a plan will be developed for managing the discharge of pollutants from boats using the marina. Seismic Shaking Increasing the number of people and structures exposed to seismic shaking on the site could increase the number of injuries and loss of life and could cause moderate to extreme levels of damage to structures. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4.8, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -than- significant level by providing for seismic upgrades of existing structures designated for reuse; demolition of structures that cannot be upgraded; retrofit, replacement or construction of back -up essential utilities; and design of public buildings to accommodate seismic forces. Liquefaction Liquefaction could occur during a strong earthquake throughout the filled portion of NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda and along the historic shoreline of the Bay where the site is underlain by a shallow water table and loose, sandy sediments. This is a significant impact, the severity of which would vary depending on the nature of the structure and on site - specific geologic conditions. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.8, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level by requiring soil studies and geologic reports for each new building site, with future building design incorporating the recommendations of the engineering geologist. In addition, new utility infrastructure shall be fitted with flexible joints, where appropriate, to accommodate lateral stresses, and existing, critical utility infrastructure shall be retrofitted or replaced, as necessary, with flexible joints. Sensitive structures may need to be supported by pile systems founded in the dense Merritt Sand or Yerba Buena Mud. Past geotechnical studies performed by the Navy and the condition of foundations will be reevaluated to determine if retrofitting is necessary or appropriate to strengthen existing structures proposed for reuse. U. Settlement Settlement could occur as fill materials and Bay Mud underlying building sites adjust to new loading from buildings and fill, potentially causing ponding, increased flooding, or waterlogging of soils in severely affected areas. In addition to Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.8, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, Mitigation 3, Draft EIR Section 4.8, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will further mitigate this impact to a less - than- significant level by providing that excess fill' be placed in anticipation of settlement to raise the ground surface elevation above the predicted final elevation, and by installing capillary barriers beneath low -lying slab-on-grade foundations 10 to prevent capillary rise into the slabs. In addition, the City will implement the recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer. V. Differential Settlement Differential settlement, which can damage foundations, tilt or buckle structural supports, and misalign horizontal features, constitutes an economically significant impact of the Project that is unlikely to affect life safety. In addition to Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.8, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, Mitigation 4, Draft EIR Section 4.8, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will further mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level by providing that design plans and details and other improvement plans be reviewed by a geotechnical engineer to determine whether they are compatible with the geotechnical conditions of the site A geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist will also inspect site grading and document the placement of engineered fills and subdrains, as well as the stability of cut and fill slopes. In addition, large structures should be constructed on pile foundations, and mat foundations may be required for smaller structures. W. Dike Failure Flooding of the interior of NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda, as a result of seismic shaking or erosion during large storms, could occur if the perimeter dikes were breached. Mitigation 5, Draft EIR Section 4.8, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring owners of shoreline properties to inspect, maintain, and repair the perimeter dikes as needed to comply with applicable standards. In addition, because the Civic Core and Marina planning areas may be vulnerable to flooding caused by catastrophic failure of one of the western dikes, the feasibility of constructing flood-control levees along the inland boundaries of the Civic Core and Marina planning areas will be studied as an alternative to dependence on the western exterior dikes. X. Lateral Spreading Lateral spreading of the land upslope of a dike failure could cause a significant impact. While the probability of this occurring is relatively low, it would constitute a potentially significant impact in the shoreline areas. Mitigation 6, Draft EIR Section 4.8, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less-than-significant level by providing that before shoreline construction designs are completed, studies will be conducted to determine the seismic stability of perimeter dikes in developed shoreline areas, and by requiring the strengthening of unstable dikes according to the recommendations of a qualified geotechnical engineer. Alternatively, structures in areas near unstable dikes may be designed to withstand lateral spreading. In addition, the 11 mitigation measure intended to mitigate liquefaction, Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.8, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, will further mitigate the impact of lateral spreading. Surface Water Quality Site preparation, surface grading, new construction, and increased use of the site may disturb soil and increase erosion/sedimentation into the Oakland Inner Harbor, NAS Alameda Inner Harbor, Seaplane Lagoon, and San Francisco Bay. Construction equipment and operations may result in spills and other accidental emissions of pollutants, which could enter and contaminate the surrounding water bodies. The resulting effects on surface water quality would cause a significant impact. Mitigations la-f, Draft EIR Section 4.9, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will reduce this impact to a non- significant level Mitigation la requires the City to adopt and implement its best management practices ("BMPs") and stormwater management and discharge control program for both construction and post - construction stormwater runoff consistent with the City's stormwater management and discharge control program. Mitigation lb requires the City to develop and implement planting and herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer application plans, including a pesticide drift control plan, for the golf course and public open space areas. Mitigation 1 c requires the City to ensure that the RV park and all parking lots will drain to oil and grease traps, or alternately, biological filters or similar approaches will be used as specified in the City's standard conditions of approval. Permeable pavement will be used to the maximum extent practicable, and impervious surfaces will be minimized. In addition, BMPs should include specific restrictions on vehicle maintenance. Mitigation 1 d requires the City to adopt stormwater management conditions of approval for redeveloping the site that will include requirements for a spill control and countermeasure plan to mitigate the potential impacts of construction- related and industrial and commercial spills on water quality. Mitigation 1 e requires the City to ensure that runoff from proposed maritime light industry in the Marina planning area is directed to structural and nonstructural stormwater contaminant control facilities, as determined to be appropriate by the City's stormwater management staff and in compliance with adopted BMPs. Mitigation l f requires all marina uses to include structural controls and BMPs. Flood Hazards Development and reuse of low -lying areas of the site near Bay and channel frontages would subject residents, workers, and other occupants of those areas to flood hazards in the event of the 100 -year high tide, backed up stormwater runoff, or the unlikely combination of these events with a major tsunami. Mitigations 2a -c, Draft EIR Section 4.9, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -than- significant level. Mitigation 2a requires the City to conduct a study to establish a base flood level through the FEMA FIRM process for purposes of determining development 12 site elevations, or else requiring new development at sites below 10 feet (3 m) MSL to be protected by raising the base level of the site to a minimum of 10 feet (3 m) MSL. This elevation may be revised, as appropriate, based on revised estimates of sea level rise and based on expected rates of surface subsidence. New and existing levees will be regularly maintained. Mitigation 2b provides that the City will regularly inspect and maintain all seawalls surrounding the property to assure their continued integrity, and will require any development along the site's waterfront areas to include an adequate setback to allow for future enlargement of the seawall and thereby to protect the area in the event of a substantial rise in sea level. Mitigation 2c requires any new development to comply fully with the City's General Plan policy 8.3b, which states that all new development for sites located on floodplains should be provided adequate protection from floods. AA. Dredging and Marina Operations Dredging the Seaplane Lagoon would disperse contaminants by increasing turbidity in the water. Mitigations 3a and b, Draft EIR Section 49, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation ' 3a limits the depths and areas of dredging to minimize disturbance of contaminated sediments, and requires that, prior to dredging, all materials proposed for excavation and dredging must be tested for all contaminants of concern to the RWQCB. In addition, careful delineation and segregation of contaminated material prior to, during, and after dredging will minimize the volume of contaminated sediments generated and the dispersion of potential contaminants into the water column: Mitigation 3b requires the use of a clamshell dredge or another appropriate dredging method that minimizes the disturbance of surrounding sediments and release of contaminants into the water column. BB. Dredge Disposal Disposal of contaminated dredged sediments could contaminate receiving waters and could increase turbidity at aquatic disposal sites. Mitigation 4, Draft EIR Section 4.9, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level by requiring that all dredge materials be disposed of at approved sites incompliance with state and federal regulations, and by requiring that sediment disposal shall comply with federal and state Long Term Management Strategy sediment disposal priorities. In addition, all dredge materials will be tested prior to disposal, and any contaminated' sediments will be disposed of in approved upland facilities. CC. Peak -Hour Traffic Impacts — Levels of Service ( "LOS ") at Local Intersections Significant impacts would result from AM and PM peak -hour traffic congestion at the following five Alameda and three Oakland intersections: 13 City of Alameda Intersections -- Atlantic Avenue at Main Street Atlantic Avenue at West Campus Atlantic Avenue at Webster Street Central Avenue at Webster Street Tinker Avenue at Webster Street City of Oakland Intersections -- Harrison Street at 7th Street Webster Street at 8th Street Broadway at 5th Street. As shown in Figure 4 -4 of the Draft EIR, Mitigations la-g, Draft EIR Section 4.10, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level. Mitigation 1 a provides that at the Atlantic Avenue at Main Street intersection the City of Alameda will reconstruct the existing free right -turn lane on the westbound approach of Atlantic Avenue to ensure smooth traffic flows and merging for entering and exiting vehicle movements. Mitigation 1 b provides that at the Atlantic Avenue at West Campus intersection the City will construct a free right -turn lane on the westbound approach to Atlantic Avenue and provide two westbound through lanes. Mitigation lc provides that at the Atlantic Avenue at Webster Street intersection the City will construct a second left -turn lane on the eastbound Atlantic Avenue and a free right -turn lane on the southbound approach of Webster Street. Mitigation 1 d provides that at the intersection of Central Avenue at Webster Street the City will construct a left -turn lane on both approaches of. Central Avenue and Webster Street to maintain adequate peak -hour levels of service. Mitigation 1 e provides that at the intersection of Tinker Avenue at Webster Street the City will construct a separate free right -turn lane to the southbound approach of Webster Street. Mitigation 1 f provides that the I -880 Corridor - Broadway /Jackson Interchange program, jointly developed by the cities of Oakland and Alameda to mitigate unacceptable traffic conditions at the intersections of Harrison Street at 7th Street and Broadway at 5th Street, will be implemented; the City will require development in Alameda to contribute its fair share toward these intersection improvements. Mitigation l g provides that at the intersection of Webster Street at 8th Street the City will convert one of the westbound through lanes to a left-turn lane. 14 DD. Peak -Hour Traffic Impacts — LOS on Regional Access Circulation System The addition of traffic generated by the Project, in combination with cumulative traffic, would cause a significant impact on the following freeway segments and local arterial streets serving the site: I -80, I -580 to north of Berkeley I -880, I -980 to south of 98th Avenue SR 61, Doolittle Drive (Oakland city limits to Otis Drive) Atlantic Avenue, Main to Webster Park Street, Oakland city limits to SR 61 High Street, I -880 to SR 61. Mitigations 2a and b, Draft EIR Section 4.10, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than- significant level. Mitigation 2a provides that the City will implement a comprehensive set of transportation system management ( "TSM ") programs, described in detail on pages 4 -136 to 4 -137 of the Draft EIR. Mitigation 2b requires the Transportation System Manager for the site to participate in all of the areawide or regional transportation planning studies that relate to the access routes leading to the site, and to revise the site's TSM program appropriately. EE. Peak -Hour Traffic on State Route 260`(Webster/Posey Tubes) Traffic generated by the Project, in 'combination with cumulative traffic, would create congestion on State Route 260 ( Webster /Posey Tubes), thereby causing a significant impact by increasing traffic through the tubes during the AM and PM peak hours. Mitigations 3a and b, Draft EIR` Section 4.10, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level. Mitigation 3a provides that the City will work cooperatively with Caltrans, the City of Oakland, the Port of Oakland, BCDC, and COE to obtain approval of and funding for a new crossing between Alameda and Oakland. Mitigation 3b provides that traffic generated by the Project will be limited to levels such that traffic from the Project, together with cumulative traffic growth, will not cause traffic in the Webster/Posey Tubes to exceed LOS E, and will be monitored by the City pursuant to procedures to be adopted in City plans and ordinances. FF. Increased On -Site Traffic Volumes ncreased traffic congestion on NAS AlamedaIFISC Alameda would cause a significant impact. Mitigation 4, Draft EIR Section 4.10, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level by implementing the following traffic improvements: providing traffic circles at 15 Central /Lincoln/Avenue M and Atlantic/Ninth; extending Mitchell and Mosley Avenues; extending Tinker Avenue to Webster and Constitution Way; and upgrading all local streets to meet City capacity and roadway design criteria. GG. Increased On -Site Parking Demand A significant impact would be created by increased parking demand that would exceed the existing supply. Mitigation 5, Draft EIR Section 4.10, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than- significant level by requiring development projects to provide adequate off - street and curbside parking consistent with City ordinances and requirements. HH. Increased Potential for Accidents Increased use of NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda by a variety of transportation modes would create a significant impact by increasing the potential for traffic - related accidents at NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda. Mitigation 6, Draft EIR Section 4.10, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -than- significant level by requiring adherence to existing City ordinances and plans that specify standards for all city roadways. II. Construction and Demolition A significant impact would result from temporary generation of fugitive dust during demolition, construction, and remodeling activities. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4.11, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level by adopting and implementing standard dust control measures such as those described in the Bay Area Air Quality Management District's CEQA Guidelines (1996), which are set forth in more detail on pages 4.165 to 4 -166 of the Draft EIR J. Carbon Monoxide Concentrations Carbon monoxide concentrations at two intersections, Tinker Avenue at Webster Street in Alameda, and Harrison at 7th Street in Oakland, would exceed federal and state air quality standards, creating a significant impact. Mitigations 2a and b, Draft EIR Section 4.11, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than - significant level. Mitigation 2a finds that carbon monoxide exceedences at the affected intersections will be reduced but not eliminated by roadway and intersection design Mitigations 1 and 4, Section 4.10, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project. Mitigation 2b finds that the implementation of Mitigation 3b, Draft EIR 16 Section 4.10, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, will have the incidental effect of lowering traffic- related carbon monoxide emissions to a less- than- significant level. KK. Traffic- related Ozone Precursor E issions Increased emissions of ozone precursors generated by vehicle traffic would create a significant impact. Mitigations 3a and b, Draft EIR Section 4.11, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -than- significant level. Mitigation 3a finds that implementation of the TSM program in Mitigation 2a, Draft EIR Section 4.10, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, will lessen, but not reduce to less than 15 tons per year, the net increase in ozone precursor emissions related to traffic. Mitigation 3b finds that Mitigation 3b, Draft EIR Section 4.10, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, will further reduce traffic and have the incidental effect of lowering traffic - related ozone precursor emissions to a less - than - significant level. Traffic - Related PM ,o Emil' ss Increased emissions of PM,, by vehicle traffic would cause a significant impact. Mitigations 4a and b, Draft EIR Section 4.11, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation 4a finds that the TSM program, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project as Mitigation 2a, Draft EIR Section 4.10, will lessen, but not reduce to below 15 tons per year, the net increase in vehicle emissions. Mitigation 4b, Draft EIR Section 4.11, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, finds that implementation of Mitigation 3b, Draft EIR Section 4.10, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, will reduce traffic and have the incidental effect of lowering traffic- related PM,, emissions to a less -than- significant level. MM. Construction and Demolition: Noise and Vibration A temporary significant impact would result from Project - related demolition, construction, utility extension and improvements, and remodeling activities, which will cause temporary noise and vibration disturbance to adjacent land uses, and especially to those existing buildings that are reused initially. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4.12, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -than- significant level by restricting most construction activity to normal daytime periods. Where it is necessary to use extensive heavy equipment close to residential, educational, or medical land uses, temporary construction -site noise shielding, such as heavy plywood fencing, will be used to minimize noise impacts on adjacent areas. Carefully phasing demolition, construction, and remodeling activities will also minimize the extent to which occupied areas are exposed to construction noise and vibration. 17 NN. Off -site Noise Generated by Traffic Associated with Reuse A significant impact from traffic noise would occur along Main Street and Atlantic Avenue, where traffic noise levels will increase by about 4 dB along Main Street and by about 6 dB along Atlantic Avenue because of increased traffic volume. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.12, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than- significant impact by implementing and enforcing proper site planning and building design measures. 00. Human Exposure to Unremediated Areas During Site Use Prior to Complete Remediation A significant impact would result from human exposure to unremediated areas during routine site use while remediation is being conducted. Mitigation 1, Draft EIR Section 4.13, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level through implementation of notifications, conditions and restrictions in areas that are leased or transferred by the City prior to completion of remediation. The primary notifications, conditions, and restrictions will include prohibiting lessees from digging, excavating, or otherwise disturbing flooring, soil, sediment, or pavement, without prior approval from the Navy or City, as appropriate, and coordination with federal and state regulatory agencies, and are set forth in more detail on pages 4 -199 through 4 -201 of the Draft EIR. PP. Human and Ecological Exposure to Residual Contamination During Construction Activities A significant impact would result from human and ecological exposure to residual contamination during construction activities. Mitigation 2, Draft EIR Section 4.13, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less - than- significant level by requiring developers and their contractors to implement, as appropriate, some or all of the measures that are set forth in more detail on pages 4 -202 through 4 -203 of the Draft EIR. QQ. Human Exposure to Residual Contamination During Routine Use The potential for long -term exposure of NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda workers, tenants, residents, and visitors to residual contamination in soil or ground water could create a significant impact. Mitigation 3, Draft EIR Section 4.13, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less -than- significant level by adopting, implementing, and enforcing restrictive measures such as deed restrictions or other institutional controls, a City land use permitting program, and tracking of site remediation status. Some or all of these measures, described in more detail on pages 4 -204 18 through 4 -205 of the Draft EIR, may be required to protect future site users and occupants from unacceptable exposures to contaminants of concern. RR. Human Exposure to Surface Emissions of Subsurface Gases During Routine Use A significant impact could result from routine use of, and development in, areas where surface emissions of hazardous soil gas could expose site users to risks associated with such gases. Mitigation 4, Draft EIR Section 4.13, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, will mitigate this impact to a less- than - significant level by requiring the City's adoption of procedures in its plans and ordinances that provide for adequate control measures, such as vapor barriers and venting, for all buildings constructed on or near areas where surface emissions of hazardous soil gases may occur. SS. Cumulative Impacts on Land Use Development of the Project, in combination with the Port of Oakland's Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement project, would result in a significant cumulative impact due to loss of 1.29 acres of land in the North Waterfront planning area and relocation of existing docks and piers for construction of a new turning basin. The City and the Port of Oakland will enter into an agreement for the conveyance of real property and other considerations that will mitigate this impact to a`less- than - significant level. Execution of this agreement by the City and the Port of Oakland is anticipated to occur prior to approval of the Project. TT. Cumulative Impacts on Cultural Resources Cumulative development in the Bay Area associated with reuse of military facilities could result in demolition of buildings and structures designated as historic resources. Because no measures have been identified to mitigate impacts due to demolition of historic resources, this cumulative impact is considered significant and unavoidable. UU. Cumulative Impacts on Water Quality Inasmuch as the Project does not involve any dredging in the Oakland Inner Harbor, notwithstanding Section 5.1.9 of the Draft EIR, there would be no significant cumulative impact on water quality due to dredging. Development of the Project, in combination with cumulative development in the Bay Area, would contribute to increased stormwater contaminant discharges that may adversely affect water quality in the Oakland Inner Harbor and San Francisco Bay. Mitigations la -f, Draft EIR Section 4.9, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, will substantially lessen this significant cumulative impact and reduce the magnitude of the 19 Project's contribution to the extent feasible. Similar mitigation measures can and should be implemented by the City of Oakland and other public agencies, but because implementation of these measures cannot be guaranteed by the City, this cumulative impact is considered significant and unavoidable. VV. Cumulative Impacts on Air Quality Development of the Project, in combination with cumulative development in the Bay Area, would contribute to increases in emissions of criteria air pollutants. Mitigations 1, 2a-b, 3a-b and 4a-b, Draft EIR Section 4.11, previously adopted and incorporated into the Project, will substantially lessen this significant cumulative impact, but not to a less-than-significant level due to the nonattainment status of the Bay Area under federal and state standards with respect to certain pollutants. Adoption of these mitigation measures will reduce the magnitude of the Project's contribution to this cumulative impact to the extent feasible. While various mitigation measures to reduce air pollution can and should be implemented by other public agencies in the Bay Area, it is unlikely that any such measures will reduce the level of this impact to less-than-significant in the foreseeable future, and thus this cumulative impact is likely to remain significant and unavoidable. III. ALTERNATIVES The Final EIR evaluated four alternatives to the Project. The feasibility of each is determined below. A. Alternative 1: No Project Alternative Under the No Project Alternative, which is more fully described in the Draft EIR at pages 2-40 to 2-45, the property available for conveyance would remain in federal ownership in caretaker status. Properties proposed for transfer to other federal agencies would be transferred. Under this alternative, limited interim leasing would occur, but would be phased out as individual lease terms expire. This alternative evaluates the facility as closed with no reuse and no development. Because Alternative 1 does not include reuse or development of the NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda, it would not have certain project-specific environmental impacts associated with the Reuse Project, such as impacts to biological and water resources, air quality, traffic circulation and congestion, and increased noise. However, the No Project Alterative is infeasible because it would not allow the City to generate the jobs, taxes, and other benefits provided as part of the Project that are central to the Reuse Project's goals and objectives. (See Community Reuse Plan, pp. 1-8 through 1-17.) Specifically, the No Project Alternative would fail to achieve the balanced mix of land uses that the Project offers; it would fail to create the opportunities to emphasize, seek, and promote a balanced mix of businesses and light industry that are sustainable and forward-looking; it would fail to meet 20 the current and future housing needs of the community; would fail to achieve job creation and economic development to provide the employment and economic benefits historically associated with NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda; would fail to enhance reemployment opportunities; and it would fail to achieve a complete integration of the former NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda with the rest of the island of Alameda and to achieve human -scale transit - oriented development. Alternative 2: Seaport Alternative The main distinctive feature of this alternative, more fully described in the Draft EIR at pages 2 -28 to 2 -33, would be development of a 220 -acre port facility with five containerized shipping berths instead of a golf course and maritime - related light industry. Other land uses would be similar to the Project, except that there would be a higher component of single - family residential uses and a corresponding decrease in office /workspace uses. This alternative would include a college -level campus and a new transportation connection between Alameda and Oakland to accommodate the cargo volume generated by the port. This connection could be a bridge structure or possibly a tunnel. This alternative is not a feasible alternative to the Project. Alternative 2 would result in significant and not mitigable impacts to visual, cultural, and biological resources that the Project does not create. Specifically, as noted in the Draft EIR at pages 4 -19 to 4 -20, 4 -64, and 4 -81, it would not be possible to screen the port facilities from public view, and new development in the Northwest Territories would block views from the shoreline park; the Seaport Alternative would require demolition of some or all of the National Register-eligible Training Wall; and port development located adjacent to the USFWS wildlife refuge would increase predation of the California least tern to an extent that is not mitigable because antiperching devices for the port's cranes are not feasible. Moreover, developing a container terminal port facility in Alameda would be economically infeasible because of the added costs of access infrastructure to move cargo across the Estuary. The capital costs to develop a bridge, tunnel under the channel, or specialized high -rise crane/bridge for moving containerized cargo are too high to be supported by revenues derived solely from container terminal operations on NAS Alameda under current competitive market conditions. (See Feasibility Study of Container Port on Island of Alameda (EBCRC 1997), p. 0.4.) Furthermore, the Seaport Alternative would fail to meet the goals and objectives of the Reuse Plan. (See Community Reuse Plan pp. 1 -8 through 1 -17. ) Specifically, by relying on the development of a large -scale seaport and de- emphasizing residential and office /workspace uses, the Seaport Alternative would' fail to achieve the balanced mix of land uses that the Project offers; it would fail to create the opportunities to emphasize, seek, and promote a balanced mix of businesses and light industry that are sustainable and forward - looking; it would fail to meet the current and future housing needs 21 of the community; and it would fail to achieve a complete integration of the former NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda with the rest of the island of Alameda and to achieve human -scale transit- oriented development. Alternative 3: Residential Alternative This alternative, more fully described in the Draft EIR at pages 2 -33 to 2 -38, would have a greater emphasis on residential development. Overall, it would contain a substantially higher number of housing units than the Project, although additional housing would not be included in every planning area Some areas would contain additional light industrial and office /workspace uses to balance the number of residents and jobs. It also would include a college -level campus. This alternative is not a feasible alternative to the Project because it would cause significant and not mitigable impacts to biological resources. As described in the Draft EIR at pages 4 -85 to 4 -87, residential development located adjacent to the USFWS wildlife refuge would increase predation of the California least tem, an effect that could not be mitigated. In addition, the increased presence of people and domestic animals in the Northwest Territories would also create a significant and not mitigable impact on the California least tern. Furthermore, the Residential Alternative would fail to meet the goals and objectives of the Reuse Plan to the same extent that the Project will meet these goals and objectives. (See Community Reuse Plan, pp. 1 -8 through 1 -17.) Specifically, in comparison to the Project, the Residential Alternative would fail to achieve an equally balanced mix of land uses, would fail to achieve job creation and economic development to provide the employment and economic benefits historically associated with NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda, and would fail to enhance reemployment opportunities. Alternative 4: Reduced Density Alternative Under this alternative, land uses would be similar to the Project, but would be developed at reduced densities in many (but not all) of the planning 'areas. CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e)(2) requires that an "environmentally superior" alternative other than the No Project Alternative be identified. The Reduced Density Alternative is the environmentally superior because the significant impacts that would occur under this alternative, although similar to the Reuse Plan Alternative, would be lesser in severity prior to mitigation. A primary goal of this alternative would be to reduce traffic generation compared to the other reuse alternatives. This alternative is not a feasible alternative to the Project because it fails to meet the goals and objectives of the Reuse Plan to the extent that the Project does. (Community Reuse Plan, pp. 1 -8 through 1 -17.) Specifically, in comparison to the Project, 22 the Reduced Density Alternative would fail to achieve similar levels of job creation and economic development; would fail to enhance reemployment opportunities to the same degree as the Project; and would fail to ensure that both existing and new housing resources at the former NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda meet current and future housing needs of the community to same extent as the Project. IV. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The City Council has balanced the benefits of the Project against its potential unavoidable adverse environmental effects in determining whether to approve the Project, and has determined that the benefits of the Project outweigh the potential unavoidable adverse environmental effects. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final EIR and other information in the record, including, but not limited to, the Community Reuse Plan and the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Disposal and Reuse of Naval Air Station Alameda and the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility (Navy, October 1999). In the event that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment that is not reduced to a level of less- than- significant, the City makes the following Findings supporting approval of the Project despite the significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects that may occur: NAS Alameda has been a closed military facility with only interim reuse since April 30, 1997. FISC Alameda has been a closed military facility with minimal reuse since September 30, 1998.' The Project will create a balanced mix of land uses; create opportunities to emphasize, seek, and promote a balanced mix of businesses and light industry that are sustainable and forward - looking; meet the current and future housing needs of the community; achieve job creation and economic development to provide the employment and economic benefits historically associated with NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda; enhance reemployment opportunities; integrate the former NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda into the rest of the island of Alameda; and achieve human -scale transit - oriented development. Under the Project, employment generating land uses at NAS Alameda would create the potential for new employment. As many as 18,978 jobs could be created on site by the Project. The Project will creta an increase in housing opportunity in Alameda. At buildout, the Project could provide as many as 2,378 homes, which is a substantial addition to the available housing stock of the City of Alameda. 4. During Navy operations, minimal public access was allowed to NAS Alameda/FISC Alameda. Implementation of the Project will create 23 approximately 345 acres of public parks and open space, and optimize visual and physical access to the water. 5. The APIP Community Improvement Plan will: • Stimulate commercial and residential revitalization resulting in increased employment options for Alameda residents. Prevent economic blighting conditions causing stagnant property values and impaired investments from occurring following base closure and transition to private ownership. ♦ Help to eliminate physical blighting conditions which prevent the effective use of buildings or lots. • Upgrade buildings and infrastructurre to enhance the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Provide a suitable environment for economic growth and improve the welll -being of citizens and businesses. Preserve the historic value and character of the area, including its residential and nonresidential structures. • Expand the supply of affordable housing for qualifying households and families. 6. The tax increment projections created during the APIP plan adoption process anticipate that the NAS portion of the Project willl generate a total of $35 million present value, or $127 million future value, in funds specifically earmarked for housing over the 45 -year life of the project. Similar housing funds would be generated by the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project area, which includes portions of FISC Alameda. In addition to this set aside for very low, low and moderate income housing, the Project will include inclusionary and production housing requirements related to affordability. 7. The tax increment projections created during the APIP plan adoption process anticipate that monies will be available to correct deficinece in infrastructure, public facilities, parks, recreation and open space and provide monies for building rehabilitation and building demolition. 24 V. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE The Final EIR is hereby incorporated into these Findings in its entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparative analysis of alternatives, and the reasons for approving the Project in spite of the potential for associated significant unavoidable adverse impacts. VI. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council bases its findings and decisions contained herein. The record of proceedings is located at the Planning Department, City of Alameda, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 120, Alameda, California` 94501. The custodian for the record of proceedings is the Planning Department of the City of Alameda. VII. SUMMARY A. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, the City Council has made one or more of the following findings with respect to each of the significant effects of the Project: 1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment. 2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency. 3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental impact report. B. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the record, it is determined that: 1. All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the Project have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible. 2. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations in Part IV, above. 25 EXHIBIT "B" MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been prepared to comply with the requirements of State law (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). State law, requires the adoption of a mitigation monitoring program when mitigation measures are required to avoid significant impacts. The monitoring program is intended to ensure compliance during implementation of the project. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program has been formulated based upon the findings of the Draft EIR and Final EIR /Response to Comments Addendum for The Reuse of Naval Air Statio Alameda and the Fleet and Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility, Alameda, California related to the Reuse Plan Alternative. The program identifies mitigation measures recommended to avoid or reduce identified impacts associated with the Reuse Plan Alternative, and specifies the agencies responsible for implementation and monitoring. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan a17 0 0 bC O 4A 0 0 E w o v o .• 0 ° • 0 a� 00 • 0 0 4 o v _N a • o.,�> .2U 0 on 0 LAND USE v U � 0 o v • v 0 b al • a� 0 o , o-0N P., 0 0 v a ca x v a a o o o °.' • CI) 4, '0w O • U - @ q 6) �" 5 11 i v tC la 0- ' i .0 O V ` ti 0 ...ti .' v U. b w. ti N p ' 8 U p. '' •y , -o N i. s, O , C +, y ` ' o ,v a' O v o b a O Y . 5 - dO . n0 . OA w n ALS w 1„ 4_, C O O } , ,n i a o NI 0 U, p " 4-4 Cd pUA'� bA 0O ct • .n. 0 to • V ° .y+ Z at .0 I-4 •- • SPA' -, . p "+- -0 v e v � -0 (Jog w v O pp v W y s. O 2 v. -8 cd O. vii o, ,U, H O __, 0 ti e, 2 -0 , -o a u � cd • a- C v oai ^NC O. • n OU , R.cv Laa.s L) • 5 o R .8 V o ' Y.. o°o�, ° -o ' .T' 'H • . "F.,) H o b b Ov o>, „o , .. b.° ° o n y p H d ° 1 a oy ” 0 a > ° 0 n,, ra . m . cn • . .[ `. v. o 0.,',_, 0 QY •o > , , � U 0 ' � 4- q o v — G \S P EG P ROJ\NAS \EI R- EIS \MIT Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 0 0 O a 0 <' P4 0 ppw a 0 0 O. ›. cas oD 0 0 0 b 5 al 0 00 o c.) .2 0 cn 0 o. o a) o o 504 C tan 0 2 • ■ 0 O 0 00 Q� u A tu 0 d aat� O a. 0 5 Li dQ 0 0 1 -0 0-p �.� } f'iS • 0 > (tt b Q) •'� 0 A ti, .G a a G• ^� a N N w °' a. ° a N 0 v a"i y 0 6. „ a -0^O 0 N� � o N u a 0 opn0 �.� a'i o d c7 O N x a+ 0 y s. a '- .a �; N as O -tS s. u .., 0 c.) U 0 4+ a ,., a., ti s.. ca 0 0 a, 0 • v G w I U .., a' U C'TS p N m ca +- .� 0 a. 0'C .0 01 a.).t'.. `a 0 O ^`-a v a, V ■ Vii 'k 4 Cr 0 •0 u'� `d.0 +0, a .1.p O p N I +� %...0 a, iv 'N , L�1 y 0 '0 0 i, 0 ..., a a� 0 O: 00 •-' a' '” o 0 0 a, 04 0 y 0 1 r-1 /0�-o s, o a t c3F3 0,5 0 5 O y . OVA . O a,' a "N-+ ..ti 9, U 0 yam, V -r I ✓ I . '' 0 0D k , , 0) 0 y0„ Q' N � "0 0 tn Q cal 0 Qc:j' a, '� fn O aQ . :WW1jN v., g 0 ” O p EH- ti,- Cd O'CONau q'dGNI,� 0,�a��O _(100�•�>>.•9..NOV'' OLd „ 'u • N� Np cDN pa o a „ 0404 -d_� m ti o ZI c .0 1.• 4.. xw ' > ° G '4, o o q.5 5 .5 -5 d_,1, G:\SPECPROJ \N Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan • • .5 • • 0 . . U 0 0 0 U,, • •-■ u o O 0 . - • -4 ...... 1, .b 0 • , 0 4-■ E OA ,....• . - ,, ....• 0, 0 •- u 0U .2 5 > > • - u > • - u 4.4" 24.5 4 0 . 43' .E v ., o ‘,"1 o • r. cz) bA '' '',._; ' .—■ • , U . 0 a..1 Z •-ct _c_.,,s • ., tV) '14° a u Q., o 0 ,, •,,,, ,, (4, , u . „..• - u ,,..., • ....1 ■••••• , E -5 -a, TD -45. g, 4 .2 ''ca) j ' ---• a 0 , . v 5 0 ct .... ‘, - .., • .. ' • '-' 5 a 't-1.-- S''-5 ('74 ,$,' 7:, q , u 0 --. ..2^ tt,,, n ;-a o t o 0 P. 0 -o • t „ , 0 , „ 0 0 -o 0 1 0 0 col U 6:: •■''' Va) ..a'' 71:)., , 44 . .. . 45., . - ■ • iv: ; • :° '-: ..V,0 ini?. Lu.," -st -a' 1 - t-,' ',-..1 -0 v t, ce ,., „ .._, '') :,1, I LI) 0 t .40, .-F.., El 0 .1:j 0 •5 "E") ',CZ 2 0,., .,.,-, '" P.* - .51.4 :I+ ,.. 0 0 .0 ° E ON r) " 1 4) 0 ;-• • -. ' ,, L' „C) t', ., 0 0 • o OD 4-' 0 4.. ... 0 T-' -0 0 ct ‘. ,-, 1-; ,.. g.t-..,..-0 0, tti , 1 - ,-, ,,, .4. •-■ ..... ,., -C3 0 • t 1 .t..:0 .1:1 ,,u cit:40,,_, ct4q) ..0!)., ...op.,. ., ,,,., ....car.7.. ...00 ...., 1.6, : mo 13-0.... -B" ^........ ,..1 72). 0 0:, -4=30 •-■ .,.., s.. < '' .' o 9, .4 '-' d'u ,,, u ,<,.' . 5 <4 ,...0 •,,..1 .4 C:,-,-,5, u -a. cu .-T-1 O'd..... -73 " ''' •t-..-.; 't *" ° ›-,4 -8 8 b) !,-) -t y, -54 8 E. 01 E .4 ' .-E3 .1 0 1 :— < 4.) o -.° 0 E ,-. . ....m EL' 4 0 v a.) ,,,, ' ' tn 1 -° Tu'' • -, l'''' ' ti ^d _d bn ›, .; ca, 0.0 pY ' 1 .44 II %..--2. , : ° •=1", VC 'f'cu ,1-..dri •-■`'..i,__ 4,3' i.1 .5.1 t2) '-' • .c... 0 cA ',E3 7:L.c,8^ 2' g' :,1 _v 2-', '5 72, -eu .4 _,° :78 p4 ,.., bt) , 7:14' ;13 0 *c 0 -f3 1.7> ct, ' .7i o v 64, ' ,...1 . 't-, tYd -° .t; '''' tl • OI)L) b' r, .... u. 0 - .., -„ ti . E .'1 -,5, E r_.- .--; ,.. bn- 0 :-- ... - - • ._.. 0 0 0 0 • (-- .0t; 2 55C.3 (9 u 2..5 ,c3,Ec:)E 0Z-5-2-d-5 1 E u 11 ;-...'" "'d al E t.) t 0 ,., t7., cz 5 .:4 0 •.-. 0 ,- - (, -,,-, 0 R 0 I. 0 cv u 0 0..., ••ti ° •,-; 0, ct 0 o ‘-', •,, 0 0 o .:.), 0 .-.A t.) -0 v 0 • - 't-4 I .2 2,.), P. (-) 1,-)g. 5 5 `,1 `).-':,--, ‘eg t H '0" 0 I- . ° CH-2 8 .2 • `,4 ■*:: <,11 ,t' -° E -0 , a4_,,, 9 v . , 1-, ■-4 , .-, 0 o «.1 ,-, t') 1:1 '1:1 of:, _, ._• .-,--' t u 2 (.5, ^c3 ■-.- ;:-'d 0 0. ,..°L' t'I '21 • -. '6 ..5., .4-, -0 G' \SPECPROJ \NAS\EIR- EIS \MITMN2.WPD (3/14/00) n Monitoring and Reporting Plan au v 0 • ° • C > • a„ o ° :2. 0 C ° > ;:.o as - •� 44i b • � • o U > 0.4 l: a u y a ° . -c7 C 1-• .. > �Qx a v, C654 0 b u 2,i 7:3„ Rs CN ._0 . k --. 'C ct : C C 0. O +�C ti °a N O " d Q aJ a. 1 ,,, V • 5 ✓ O a t. .g, "0 ti• - ■-0 ..0 -.0 p O :C U N Y 0 � O U y �. - G N C . C Z — , ._ baG Q�.O a� ya O O C bn v ti NO 0 9 0 ai-° u yO. O y � " Q'' - C O O w �MMwI amcu -0 0 .Ok,j . v ai_ U >> C O N N I t.0 0'a� C <.4 i 0 t. H U u O. oA C o: sn o 5 b 0 bA .) 0.) ¢ U 0 bL 0 9 00 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan a) • - air 0 D p E a O o H a G G • U u a w p. G aQ -o o v an 0 0 >0.- v A NN o a 0 o 4d -,> Vi 0 O O t.-.3 � . u v O O (a ay s. -ro v ! a 0•2 'O lt 0 0 ' a m -0 O ° ' 0 0 U O (d u V U v • � 0 o �. v o Z ov � o ,. -. it v ( O o o vs. oA o� v 0 0 O 0 al al a°'":3. '"0 c-! • U • 0 140 O u .N 0 v (°oo v•Oo o U 0 a 5 0 0 v d � o � > a U Q 0 0 o • O • 0 Y O O C O 0. 0 RI 0 • 2 ai >•••••' .0 0 v • •C ' a N OA (0 v ,, v co `p C• y v U v ca U a a -5 °O 5a-a op aA t. 4.., S n H . O v O y, a. Q' v "v -, II... 44, CU v 00• 0aB <ZaB v • 0 0 0 0 cLs 0 0 0 ' 0 w+ I 0^,A' v,:....: o o o v Ovi u y a a v y bn V IL) .� 0 •� p v.s:1 Hti, -0.0 v, 0. •-j *G o. �o�o v� -d▪ 'a) a,oa au• ppN -b 4 0 - o -d,a -' C0 y V a O • C G E ° a cti cci s, v bA L'• bA by 4.43 f:14 C r vG 'k. �. O ,.. y v > c W ,-`2, .o -o (..c.), U G. \SPECPROJWAS \EIR- EIS\MITMN2.WPD (3 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan o U u o c t o -a, 0 u X 0 0 -0 • - • E-4 0 a. 0 0 21 P4 0 • 0 0 0 • 0 0.0 0 bA 4S 0 0.) 4.44-1 '... ..,., 0 Z 0 0 d ,...) - .1) •-' " .1-' ^ tV) • "2 't-1 44 5 ad ' <:,) • E0.0E. .t,a,„.9.0 44,0 . m.a .4,3_6 -••••tA .1 zsc,. _6.1 cd a, 5 -0 •-0 ..., ,- 0 -0 •-, . . ., -. cd :-. „,, v ., ,.., :. t • . Cd 'a' a. ,',Q 0 ‘"' -d . cA : 15 - 0 - . 2 2 i E 0 5 b.: ,__ ,° 5 ' - '"4 cd t i . g "0_, -C, • .Y. 0 . 2 2 um., 0 0 4..,°' '4.) ,,, ' 5 2 0 4- v . oi-, v -0 ' X 0 t 0 1.) t4) CA ,•es 4.14.■ " Lr-I a Q 41.4 . " 8 • z, 7, pp ., 0-4 co .' `'‘' $-■ 0 . ' ,+-■ v.., --, 04.?.. . - c- .5 0 5 -,?:1-,1 t ,,, t,*- "0 - ,o.,•t'":3d IL.) ", -H ,„< 4,, tst 0 ...A-4 • 4:-. 0, tn 0 0 AO •.-■ Cri 1..4 4,5 . 0' P4 ,..4 0 43 444 r) 5-1 r.1 a 020 --(u. a.) 7c' on _--, - r. -0 0 a) -0 (t w n 0 >-, . a 1 %).0 `,--3' :i3 , 4 - , c : 1, ›, (.),-- v ,.. -- 0 •-' ... ,-, -o i•-■ 'F'a' ' - 't 0 t' 2 -5 ,.. N '5 0 o - • •- ...4-. • •-■ 7.3 V., LI .,g a-, 1::■ c5d ';..-) ,',..." t) 0 ,---. 4.4 u -0 4 '1:3 •4 ,- E 5 ..t o-iu ..r.'„' .--;" '6' 5u -°('' '-'0 ,S3 -zi 74 4-'8, ..'-'2,0! ''‘uva t° 3 . 0 0 A " t . ; 1 0 ti: ■ ' 1 :.,' . .' , ' -10 i . 5 aHl . © - ,... _-_,-• cl, V, --' 4-' 5 . U 4, > 7= 1 44 . :. tC,i) i 4; 0 <1'4 . 8 .-8 7-a' -`6 -S -8 all c) au' m *'>-1< . N a° u L' :-.°- (4 'tlu Is' ,. .- .5 0 4)) Ti 4,1 t. g vog o a 4N2.WPD (3/14/00) G. \SPECPROJ \NA` Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan bA O O • 0 0 • C.) o E a y C O o „ 0 0 y, °y) 0 0 U 4-1 O • o • ?) 73 a a a U N .0 O . U b a o E co 0 0 0 � o 0 a v Z-• tu C b G• ',�¢ 5 j41 c bA`� ‘..5,< 'o cd v cd UCaQa° `° 0 CA UU�++ U a O — U ca, 0 G " .71 N y a.. N tl N .4 • •p a rte, t, 0 bA U ! N O A p 110 E pttd C U C c d .. 0 . ,•,,, c ..7., 0cd '0 a ti . y N o r ` : .4 t (ti-6 .O '.ZY 2N , O 0 '5` b . t . ,5 •?y y t ,,., '0 • - , „s V. a� 2 - d ., U 0 6 Yocd •^ ti tQ d CI O � 0 a E �..�omcnw vb N �, � Iii v . - A p ti d0 l u - b p ,-.s +. y ' 5 H u , 0 v "-wi. aoq 0, G .0 p .41 " l 'C y w y p.. 0O q s. U u s. ...., , 013 u " nO :g Po "a H h y 44 y k 0 0 -0 s¢, 2 :, N -0 O pp L '' H t .+. s b . s y ' v .. 0 v �aq) , y ' s g `0 C ' p» p • W 0 0 N O p C a ,N V �5 y �., Z 0 "o °•O•5 °'e1-° ? �U a H , 0 v °- u v -� O .b at .. , p+ of . ! ate' U o n . U t b y " ' u 0 U y sa C ,.0 cy Q Q O aC o C . t � 0 " s, 4.4 °° v 0 -0 - ct 0 a "O U 'c3 . - '"d N y, ; • cu cl G I . omi a ' .-pp • y • C ' y° u u , .5 :2 0 : b .H. „ •N U � tcl, 0 0-0 �b � -o i. - P% *C O c=1 .,. a g O b , . ,,, 0 O 4 m u aUi ,„,- � • r , p O a' a N, y "C ” , ue c , ,4; .-: p O �C C •a O. • ' P�'1� . C a aC� �A, .O �O 0O C :a'• Q"� m v U vi ."d s, :.+ ' ] 0 C `, O a C 0 1 p -, , N ., .. N E _, E v . s ,, c v = y "9 " • - .,.t7,4 bA � . . C • k 0 cu 0 c.X .■ y t 0 4 0 v 4, 0 - U °. one 0 0 O 0 O -fl . 'b � •~ ` � +'� '� v O t., m u , C..., o y oU 0'O <°a�1:.. :>`i+ � y > u C N • � ,0 0 y Q. a-, rd •-• on ■, u w � C p y aC a . cC C1, 0 t, v °' O C, C p. a ' s, N 4 p cik 4 p ,.. E Ep,4 N °' C Z o O o v a uu ” o 4., v C c, w a4 0 N U 4-, 1.) N s. ,� o Nv . G w G.\SPECPROJ\NAS \EIR- EIS \MITMN2.WPD (3/14/00) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan O p N u • 0 • >_0 bA v b Q. • .11 4 0 0 v ° u -v • p C1, Uga•o E a 0 -0 v 0 a a • o x bn� C J 0U v C.O 0.� O i u > C O lilfl 0.3 70 • (5') u 03-°0 v U c4 o U o 0 v oA C 1 .... - 0 C.; w " " C 0 o ° U, � v a 0 . C C x " v y �G o q C aG .ca a a> _ ° abA -C a C v • �i o '- ° 'i • ..x ca ..0 ;0 � 0 ":3 u ° I C u p LI I 71 ,, v ru v ;.5 • 0'°' 0 o. o.•- ,. 0 a E., aH a ,- o 4-5 T.1 0 " v ' "0 a 0Jv cn U< o cd y w ..- u C " E- 0 b v i v + C o E " 1 4 o a. C "i .) : '- p "o v v.'. .' • A v. v O -0 v y 73 0 m v ti" p C 0 . u..y u.0 , 4C b V) N 'b v 71 'd '0 'y. " v .5 .0 ,4•:4 - ' 9 •0 C " r. . p bA v C 0• $... ^C m ti.. .":C 0 ° -° ' v 7.4 C v 49 v O v ° C a v .O -Fa -6- y -d • ,. v +- � ..--. -o - ov vo4 <..• u - v , yj o l ° ` 4,,,,-, >w n° a y ono C a v o o o Q o i y " a v O a v.o 331 y. v v a .0 C O . y • N ":0< 0 w O a • Q N • co . bA ° , • , .5,,, 78 ,� H ..n v O..x cd B ° ^-� s.. .� u p • C v ,„ v v O "i H � C v 5 v ..d '- a � - . o ai " +' v "C C v ' ,� y w " by • •, "C v b v? C ti C H 2 •" • " vbn �C y 0 l'-' v "3 � U C ° k � . �� C v y p� v C' pq v ^d '�A 'H a 44 .4 i o C " . �,b.0 n 4 bnv y • .x O • C ..s bA V7 v ^, C b co w ° b oGw ° U wO .5 . - H 5°' v u 5, -0 v v vC ' k C ' so O v " o " 0 u O o OA ?o < ' r4 ' . eo 'U � v C O ; •� ,'-4 H V..„-o B' p III i ' -C/ 7:3 O t Q 4) D ai -° ,- gib . . " R. , � p 0 a- . o '� 4., C u V - v ...■ O I v . ' N + v 4.4 a . � , ; a..a H ..o 0 ua N^fl bA`� v y O• .0 " a , v.:C.Y, bb� v ,,,,..:3 cd.a i„ a° . v •, b " 0 O vv: V "4) .) O.:.8 . . - O C • 0 if, sv 0. 1 q iC R,S 0 .t v . 4.4) . s„ • . _ w , ^O p 0 0 0/....- v ° cT O VI -0 c.), O 0 i o� > ' H . c5 "-8 p" m o ° 8 5 Qy w v'd w ,v+ , w � U 'd ^O cd on a a a - N . s. • a, cc - i $-1 t%0 U., i Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Monitoring Timing Action by Monitor 0 o 0 • o •-4-1 • 4, a. u a. t L.) U 00 • 0 1-4 • -4 V ET. 0 c0 o • L. U f4.5 74 --0 I. 0 0 0 n• v-1 ...<9 ct 0 .-'' -7"'' •- t.' •-• ':' v0 15 •...-4 0 • n . • •-' ■-.. 0 '• t • U `‘'.. -7j 9-' 6 ' a..) .., ,.■ 0, 0 4- a 0 0 • - o 0 0 U ..- '', • . U • . 0.) 0 0ti 0 0 0 O 0 " 0 5 0 o 0 ctl S-■ 0 cd o • 9, o -o -0 -0 • - u 0 &A 2 0.• '3 • 0 • a. o • 7.1 0 .-0 • •-• 0 • ••"' 0 - c.4 4-, U ,....4 , 0 a- o . VS 0., 4:40 0 g ._. ,., 0 ...., ..0 o • - ,._• E .t) 5 •• u 0 15- 1... P-1 4.F -0 as '7' ....-- ■..... 0 .9 ..... p„, (5 o cn 4..4 V,) ...cl bi5 tg) . 0 5 u to 'DM .e., --: 9 E ..0 +44 ...d - 4 ,.. -,,_.8 0 -,..,-p., (u.4... ..., ,.5. . .4 .....a. .5 -. l, _o g .2 d •-b.ou, 0. . :t...,-,:.t.1.,-t t "II -13 0 ° .-H ,4‘ a, ,..4,-4-E12•E.,i & ELE ‘T.P., i t:), 0 in - 4.4 V r--. ‘4, sa.-0 • . L.e, . 5 ...6-4 a) ''' „-.5 o., tu. ,.. ro a- 5 as , ...0 , . 444 42 ,c, 0 til -.otoE .‘a (..,1-, .,) t „ ,, t,,, „;- $4 0 ,.. .4 "td ts .44 ci,.ti , 0 ,.. 4-■ cl) 0 '•' s• g g 0 „ Cf) 0 a 0 • 4 cl • •-• 0 0 0„ ct. N. -,-,,, - ...., .5 ›. 4" -45, r., i-A - 4 • .- o ok7.1 4 "Fui 4 4 ° g t, I) ( . •.) ,b Z-.; o or _. V, -2.. -.), .5 o g74 .5 o '-' • y -TA p.. .5 Q> -,-; vs 5 o , o 0 ,-,0 a. -713 72 0 a. 5 t,-', .c.1 0 2 E.' ..;.4.--,.' ,.,.-. t• ;' R. a.- ,.. ›,.V. g4 ..1.), u o 1-,... -5 .....-1 2 ct .0 2 t..., o u 4A% 0 '' -a , ..< -,3,_t.0 ....., ,... „, ,6 „ ..5, _,•,o, .,.1 .- 0 ,,,-; @ 0., t-3 04.-..,-. .., ,,,,•,:i3 „„ c) 4:,.... -tt, 0 .5 __., ,, 8 ,,o o t4, E_, ,...-, t-,d ••- (...) 2,-....o z t„,-9, C) ■ - @ , E i 1 8 + 4 ;i.). .5 o . 0 2 u .7) 1 E -0 N ki.p... ,t .-= 6 -c1 4 0 5 `r) `) 41:1 10-14 u ,,,111 tj 0 .-' `48 ...o ..71 ° ° -0 •.,1 -.,, `O' ' ." t0 2 4 '.'g 'b5' D .tati9l, -.T,°il 4 ',m`X ' ' 'Z"0I' .•:-=■°-"1 ' .7-`,.,-1 ' 'c0u .8 ' ''-.E. ''• ,'1.13 1 a`'..' c-)" - r'i ' g - ..0:1 u -5 - - 2 i 4 . 0 4u 1 l E 5' `,.•?d•zi.NT-'' -' -4 `'l I--, ,,s --- 5 -y,..o o 5 - ..`' ..-. .a' '74 .0' " Z.3 ° -8 9' '-' :-,':3 ....1 •-', ca.-0 0 -0i ; . ,-,-. :-Ell ,, ._-0 ,-,-, g 'a' 0 U. ,...-.; ‘9, 71 8 -5-,n •,,,t: cl t r, g ..0 ,.„. t ,....i 8 01..1 ,„ E,., ,-) °,:,,, 0 m ;-<.' ‘..-,,, 0 . ,,,, ,... 0 0 8 .,-,1 c...) ..E .5. t•I 47 Vs ,. f,a.-`,-,u 0. u E-.I -0 .:'.. u cz ,•4 C1. ,-+ 9 ,,, 0 fa, 4.) v, m s. ›. a, 0 0 0 G\SPECPROJ \NAS \EIR- EIS \MITMN2 WPD 0 ring and Reporting P 0 0 2 0 0 0 v ,..., ,... 0 O v 74 O • 0 ,.. .—I m -0 on 0.0 O 0 .; 0 9 u ,-; . - 0 — u 0 0 — , ,-, • - 40 4-4 • -4 C1.7 • )..., 0 -2 K. ).-, z 0 p. 4.4.4 0. 0 ._. ------ ______---- , 00 0 7,1 • t>.0 o a-to 0 0 0., o ✓ 2 J5 0 a 1:,.0 O • .2 -'-' • 4A. 14.4 O 0 at 0 -00 • . • 8 0, s, • o • " a .5 (s) 0 a 4 -to 0 (• 0, `g o r". itigation Measu 4.9 0 `4E, ..— 0 g 4.) SIS) u 5 4' 0 O' 9 •.•.. bn„• .0 .9 4, a 0 o at • 0 at -5 a -0 H v 0 0 • • t.) 4-■ ^ . 0.0 ' 0.4*-8 • 0 a' c'd • tel :=1 - 0 0 • ...... 0 .-8 41.4 -0 C CS‘' 0 4-4 0 '-a •-■ - 0 • - • cct , te, ;2 0 O 0 o 0 • 0 • 1.1 1.4 0 • • 7-.1 Cr 0 771 't • .7 °71 P. PA 0 0 0 `>' 0 <9-1 O o 0 • 00 4:1,-4 -0 0.4 ^zi U • -4 -° '0 • -4 41., 4• .0 • 0 ° C•3 o8 8. 5 0 E b.0 .9 X • 0 0 0 • 41S ° 7.4 4) - - 4, 70 • V • • 0 0 a, " 0 0.1 44 4 a' O u 9 0 u Z.- 0 9 < • te, 0, 0<8 4.-= ut)"0 4,0r , zi V 4., .... ..4_,....0 .r...2 ,1 - * . . . 0,7 , 4, 44; . . 6' . 1:.:;, -- .-. : : . i' ' ' v U "o ..- .) , ...0vs .... .-,:,. , ,.., %. o);) 01 v ,..o 1.., n 61) 3, • fd _ft„ . ,.. 5-°"°o•-• t4 e .- 'ci,-(1'0 o-ta 8 o' 8 (1 2 -- - a 0 .- -0 .'-) .- o - ,A- ,.. .., al .-.0 •.-1-4 0041, -5 ° • ." b:o "0 E r0 ley, s. s. 071 0., 0 5 „, o or. 0 ,.,--. _0 0 N 0 ,-.. 0 5 0 --8.- o -0 0 4.) 0 .5 .o 0., -„,, 4., o • - L.), ,, " 0 , t) '.-4 /23 0 4.444 4., 0 e„, ■ r-■ 4-.. 0 0 '4.0 .-64,....4 ..--...„, 4,, ._., 0, ,.._k 0 1 0 @ ,t0 0 „_,...._, 71 .-0b: ;1.1 . mr:, ...y>. 0,,,, ..,..0.., O 0 t ...--- '',,i?...: 5 el ZS ,9 t-,,, 0 2 „.....,„, E , , •._, q, „, 0 ,.., •. ,.> •._... 0 v -, .. f"4 •..--1 • ." u `41 7.'t 8 -"a 2 d t4,74'.." . „ „8 . s° ' 7 10 0 , or 2 ' "A rt . - ,° ca <9 ' , ' '. " , .,' " v,- .5.9 2 2 g . 5" " •,_,-48-000-' 0 ,, t u ,, t. 0 ° • `-, ••• i ....;-: , 0 4a, t,.' , u •?, a, "', -0 _,-3 -,`O u o 5 0 u cd t 24 ' . . . - ' 44 . tap u u M ..o ...0 o Q. ,,., c) 0 -0 . o .,-. v .'-. .-0 P' .7:1 -0 0 17.4' 0 1. 0 • .-4 -0 4-4 •-• 70 `,',24 8 0 v.-,IP4 ,..9-8 0 bz 0 rd v 4"; ,g' 2 ' ° ° -to t..., ..., Fs 0 1:1 ,,,.,,- 0 d- 4,,-. 0 al 5 o 5 - •, 4:4-0 0 Q., ••■.., ,.., ft , En .-4.-) U U 0, -1 -- .-0,_, o •-■ ,-) ---,.;' , ,,, VI 0 40 , ,',..,' ‘,0, r,-■ ,t; ..7d ,_,_, 0-, . E.i. ›...,.= (.., • ,a., 0.4. ...5, u, .-..,. 2 , . . Tj "El .-0 CZ 0 . a, 0 <4., cl" b.° 0 ,..4 '- 0 a 0 I7-4' u '5 .. 4-4''''' at' • ." ° . ' * . C.' ° > '''' ° .. 0 .7° 4 0 -0 ,-..-, %-■ ,, ...0 8 174 P-0' acr ",, 9. E a'70' .5 2 . •..- 0 7:1 5 5 . o Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan C _0 cct OA 0 C a 0 0 ° 0 0 4-4 Et w O O O w o ay o u•5 • �• 0 -0 a-• a • 6_ O O O w 71ro Q a a� 1.1 Ct N'aZ. • v v w ! , ;;c..,•4 u � . ti o �� '• a ~ '4 u V 6n °' a�i au� H . ca v o c4 ,b -Pt a) 5 ; 5 C.) 2 o. 0 AO [ "c v • y MY0 5 W -o �`x'- C N a / 0 b ,, 0 5 d�SG a '''5' 4 c5,.o o. �va; ' U ,9 6 C> 'o b ' o.� City of Alameda M , O i O „ o ., O H db U y, „ a • a N , H & ,v U , d ,+ -- w ai ca 5. 0 - W y w °� ayi 'C -Q O p, w O H ' y-° aC Nom' ▪ •b •ti 4° oLo5 vv.a a° o •” 0 a a_ ' a° a 'w„ aw y� o C c,-; a d cs:n �� I ' •s bs. U N o o � x:bA •m a � tan a a• . .'00 Q,y = o -0 o ° m.5, o f j -5 .5 N 0 v o5 vb �" :5 y 0 cu bon • j aaw o •C , O • 0 " G.., 0-g'" c..:,1 •NV �0 . *• .. g bA • °V' Q2• o o - o a • �x: wo a� w o 0 dv u>�o0�a v 1 w t 0,> • t; - .1-1 �N a.~ 0 •3 N 5 U. o a. o 0U. E c• G' `g ...0 g -•~onw o°� rd ate+ is C y u ,u -0 g q p ° u p da° `° �co -a i y G _ ,4,L, i a o ao CI -a�� .y a a -5�� x .� 5- • MN2WPD (3/14/00) 0 •H 0 0 0 0 G O 5, O •5 O • V V X3-5 U 5-5 bA bn On o o o q O C 1.., ' bn .. bn i, bn p'd O'd 2. 'd y 0 0 o cn • • •_, U YE 3 p .4 a bn d a upc) uU -Iw' ;01 O 7-0 U o.•Cw' 0 5 co t _Qq O o U 0 v 0 a' a+ W 0 U 0' g hi)N • •O Y y b N R 0 V aOo a,-, o 5r. p '-te w :0 � i . o "y -5 a `) y n p .r 8 • • en•-i a -b a i. 0 • •; . Y o „ e., o , any ` "- 0 c �� . 0 4.: -CO"o b o ,-i Ib o 0 . -o 5 .. -d ' en *•■ . o C m^dw tl O a) ji b Y O a c U N 2 «i 5 -d ' 2 °N' t.1 w0 0' o W' 'd 8 > bn 8 o.0 V b 0 H b y O w y w .. xbno� b a. 0 "- 0 a 0 -°I n�� o N 2 v :5 0 o 5 o N . , „: - r, 5 i -, : -tz: 74: .. et5, , P- )08 i . _:.' . 1-:: .2 k - :!,,, .!;10 4'; 'r: . 1, • :Q N 00 -e 2 v bn'- 0 -d o 71, C-.) ,; o 0 H pu 'ti 0.0' a C ° Q -0 "ti . -,� -0 o �.a, �� -d v N �1 o W ;--4,i -Eer ''' o n v. 8 o ti U i V, ,1.) N U T_ 0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Monitoring Timing o o o 0 0 -0 o U N • - e ° a U ,d bA u N U ° B . o ° °� o "'° 2 -o' O p.d'Ci a) -0 N s, .fl yR"' V, .o iai 2 y a �( - .n ti a 2. ti U -y5 O , N b v L, N U p }J ti ( O a ��, a Q'' v .O . 0 -8 • p � y ic ^S I a ° "a.g. 'HB <L;-52 U8a+. ax-5.5! on 0 1"' u o U not not 0 • n 0 0 ot C:3 is v7 p oi . .n ca b,5 QO i., '4b'' y u O g & ct C . (s, N g E p i7 v Q U° 4 p .o v ," �, p 0ue o 2 • �� m on e o,+.nWi vnoU y p v 0 b ap �' � o? e .� n p ac4 ws, 1` -s V '0 aa ° 0 � N "'I:), 4 °°� I .4 4., r' ( v i s o U'o -i-5 g°,5.)' , "�a va5-2- TJ { ITMN2. WPD (3/14/00) igation Monitoring and Reporting Plan U (tl U 0 O > o, 0 0 a °' Q y o U .j .. • i 0 • 0 0 bA 0 O 0 0 ti 0 0 0 -,5) 0 O M 8 4)—. d V 0 El 0'y U a -d o. 8 o o 04 00 0 'b 0 cV) -d U \ (y 0 O y ca a� u •( aV odd • U L4 4tiZ< bA tion la above. •0 d • (4 o.94 • a Ud tLv uv�Q. " a ca., v p. o Mcn v 0 oNa0 0qs (TS •40 `% '4 0 OA U OA i"..› Er m.0 "09'x,.• -1.-1 Ct a: o 0 O O 0 cn I Zi �". Oa, A.� -.� - G o s. d- + � ,..-5 o , o 0 ° o pa tea"p H 1- o0- °°' 0 c a1 w 0 0 d o CC (i i �H-"bU cd N2 WPD (3/14/00) \SPECPROJ /NA Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 0 Q. a) r.4 cd - -- 7) 11 171 4A • 0 a. g o o o 1,44- :1), c r), "" -0 u A ° Q+ • ° .r1 at a) 1+-1 "11 4.) ° pt4 tu'u • tjte; • 0.,773> 1-41° 0 pi) 04 4: trj• V %-■ k 04 cu V ".0 ...-7, - ,-- cd ..-..4 o t,' .-.. bo ;..).. -'' (-4 --•-▪ • 60 . R. -0 c,,,, e. z.3 -ti c') . - 0 zi "d " c-, '7" 1:4 •-• . 55 04 , • ; ' - " -2- 0 ,„ 0 o 0 v, 0., a.,-, 4,-,, „,-.4,i), i_, a) *;.1 )• °-i '''' .4 *V-. ,--1 OU ilt 4-,' '1.; . .'2' XIV • E OV 77) .5 14 0 :"..., C.-4'.4 ' ts' • -4° ■,..,° c„,4-.4 44.4 41.4 u 4-■ t v 44, • •-. c', 0 4-, • c ; 4 _ i I - , -, .. ; t -3 0 , IR ,., •,) o ... ' -' . ,,. 3. - 1 -6'. oc t .. i ....,' o., a , tt a .v, c .-. , • • 01, .„ , t.-.;.•,,.....= 00 - . c - 0 a) ' ^ ''''' ,.,°-' cz le, E 0 . -. o -.2 • •-• ca.,• -. u . „, , = ,z_u ,,,, -13 ,13 o m cd „,.. o _c ,__, .... ,..., -o ,_ 0 • : C: t 5 ti tia . :..~, P. E--, 0 GI "•-■ 0 "VI CI' E ''' ° "'l ILI 4,-,-' 4",° . -' 8 f.., -.:, ,,e, 8 ;.,, H U o ..•- . (.) ,._. „ID ,....., ,....., 714) 0 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 0 • E;.., bA 0 0 bA O UG o ` 5 • u cS 4.4 b Oi bA G 0 • O • h 0 ;1) CA U U U `,"' H P4 0 aA 0 .0 C ( x v8 Q :72 5 o cd bA 0 0 aG 0 O b V 0 0 F,'-,,' H H ..fllN 0 0 0 0 2 0 U °0N -b 'g .2 u on Z, ,5 H >Q i -ri ,, 0 ,x „0 4 . � bE,-,1 a -0 o � ' an n °"R oI-, °:am`-'8 -.0.w ti raw E-0`' ag og a, ,.„ 0 00 tb ~n ��0 0 v as X °' 'Z'• oo" ti 0. o o cd U�„ �. Y .�'t -0 H• -' o > Orman o .1C/ • 0-0 O� U BP. -p � a ..,-0 tan 2a !, o' w �! o. ti 000 0o;�;;�0"O 50Nm, Mitigation- Monitoring and Reporting Plan OL .5 •— bt 0 • 0 0 4-4 • 0 O 0 O ▪ 04 O 0 0.4) O u ••-u O U • cu 0 0 0 0 u •! 0 0 • as "1:3 O {24 < • L) /') v C4 ( 9 4) to_d v brA %4•1 C14 0 ••■ • ••-• rddLi ••••■ 4, • cd 4 4, 0 0 0 .4 0 t .7.-815V 1-> (4 0 (u) ""0 o 0 o 0 0 4) ()X 0 CLI nia4 0 CL) 4) 4.4 „.0 0 0 d 0 „4 0 4-, 0 4) 0 0 0 t; u „..• cct 4, CU ›.• c4 4. a o 4, 7:i at 10-Li. U.. • ?4. 0 .° >4 C5 t Q CI) CU u o 4-) 4) "1:i 4"' (.4 " 4.) • 0 0 ..C) 4(4), 0„, o 0.4 CL.:=1 "7"j 0 • 0 17+ 1D, ° V) 0 E CE CL. U 730 7.1 gq C4 •=qctty.,O.,..,o4.4,0 444:j Q0 •^0•0- 04).a - 4.)R4.)81.05,!,''d 0Z 0.nj, 0 • CI ° 0 444 -0 0 -4544 **-• 444 -g• e7- 62-v--9 . E 0 o.o 751. o 4 "" cl.,1-1 E .0 ?, 5r) •-• „, a) 0 6', -0 0 -15 • on a ° 0 •• -o <4, . •-• .4 (41 r, _o -0 0 0 •° o • -4 (...) .-4 cz b,0 C4 "' S' (CS bP • 4"' 0 0 ° Co cd bi) v, - v v > u § . -5 -o • -. • -5 <1.) 0 <u 4) '2.-2 0 b.0 > u `r,'s " 0 0 ._, 0 > ...., -.0 ,••• ° . 4`1) -° > o - z 4 .4 , . a. G:\SPECPROJ \NAS \EIR- EIS \MITMN2.WPD (3/14/00) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan on or, 0 .) yJ 0 0 d 0 O U 0 C 0 yr y W N O E O 8 O O O y . O „ 0 O o 0.a a 0 w -d F.. U 5, 0 N O a u b4 O — L Q O -0 •0 0 ,r1 0 H w 0 a, N 0 -d 'o o �.ay N 0 • D 5 i .,� b C >o o O U 4) , N y y m Y 4., f, ¢ Q) -2 b U H �O ti "0 0 8 CI. 0.0'' U c�d,.r;�P:a8i u yw'� 1 O �� 1, 1, ..+ .-, O ' U U .+' , 'C 'i C ,,,< S 0 O � D'i ti Q U i 'C S .5 TA o oa > .itw .a > � oa�GcNNa z • a •*" 't) O' ti cd a 4b • C cc v y ( a y a H .• y .., ' a a ' N 0 0�W s. s, cd ai a¢ ..d O U¢ 2 5 FL' a U O O oA 0, .0 0 s, b 1 .0 E - -0 ca i-. H U s. a, a¢ -0 O q iC 0 0 0 0 7:1 U o ~ a U • • O O U 0 a. cn a 00 -C 0 0 o •. UQ 4-' O 0 o o a, o� CI, • o 0 8 -.0 O v 20 0 . N 0 g�I w5 o 7.4 -0 CL OI ..Y361_40: • It: a N -;:U1 o ..N, 0 4) 8 - 9 c .. 5 pc "b•� o Y t3 aai .4 N( ,a O _ 0-. yr OI ,4•b • V2 WPD (3/14/00) G /SPECPR Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan A bA ,�, ,� -ts C ' u^d y . s.. '° g 4) 4, C u C O C ca Q ' H � C ' b 5 n Cy a`" i v a w. v o r "H O o -' c u • -" �: . E.-.. ' tFp :2 "t$ a ti a '. ° > 'N O A O "° s' N O U H .LV N : bn cd T' q 'O � 8 ^� tt a' C 'C ° o ^C , h C y M•� do• ,' r! °. •.I 2' r. O i O 'C.a V , o a' u 'V.,, . „, . O Cory y O '3 . •,. 3:.-4 t N - . ~ . .y - w C , " ,' Q..-i y vi ` ;.� a O ° :+ Nv O � .�, 4.1 U O `N v aH+ C ` H o ” u ° ti a, 'c _e' ~ ' 5d3 R� pn `O a° O • N • " • . r bn i u O ''C. a> 0 U w ,,. �,q b.43 bp 0 c `E N -0 y 0 'N-0 n. N U 0 5 G „ . , id 3 C > .- .. -v o .� '' T 3 3 a v > „C -0—m ._.1) ' t > -n O V N o `+, o I q 2. 6 N z • o ct N • � .ty > v p o v-' l . _° 0 -' n 2 v ° . a u N . cc C N. °v° ° '-?'n "' H O a hq "� � mow`, s-« `„ x_ c, 0 w ,^ ,, _ - o ° Q '2 H w p' Q O ca Q u i..° a+ Q `.' E �., - y a� O O-2 ,Y).N ‘e..+.� s� t 0 • SPECPROJ\NAS \EIR- EIS \MITMN2. WPD (3/14/00) Monitoring Ti 0 ion 3b above. ase refer to Traffic and -d o_s . a., . --.. '''' tarti .-■ ■-■-■ > 0 cu 1 o 43 0 0 4) ' '•• E ' r,, • L'.• 74 E ..:2;6 1-, ' m -0 0 t•., c.4 ct 70 , • , . ,.. 0 -0 s--• z • . as • 1 s. c,., 0 „ s. 0_, • ' P. . 0 ,-.) i-i 04 ,/, 4.3 1-■ 0.) 73 4--, V-■ " V ,..) . C VI . '''.) "6 '2 " "1:3 0 V, • v. u . CT ...9 > ...5 • tl .Y. .E.-:. r., Q., 5 5 .. t-•, 5 -,9 ,0 N v v `t:' . 5 'a. -,t4 o V, 73, 5 ,, 4-.. 6, -5 •z,-; -6 'd di at o 0 t' ,,, ,..t. U. a.) ••• 0 ti L."-i5 E 0 •k 4,, 1 ,,,, _.0 ,.._ v q tt ••• , ■ .. • . I ....% 0 ...... 0 4•J 1.1 0 ..., ...,, .,... .,,, .... ...ss i•A ay O.) 0 ...' Q.,'":"1 4-` • - 4, t-? 0 'CI...-. .0 C--"k 11 ej, b.0-F-J 4-' CI 4U0 V) ° '-'-''' 0° 'al • '''.. 79'cn 75> 1 ,,cul 'a' .,•9•.-.'2 "4.S1:gl Q9-o'' `'" 2,..°4°_2 8 1°•'-' 0 U 0 v • ^4 1E(`' i, ••••, , 0 o 0 ,;:,, - ,,.. 6 ,-) o 5 Q., 64 1 -4 :_=.. 6.0-0 ,.., .5 o -5, ,..2 'I-, 5 ,b u u -- Q., .-.. ,,,•QQ ,-.-, ..'..1 ' ' ▪ • *i. t' ' i "',',g.,. ..,. "cu -'-, ..t4 -,‘) , o "Er ton-L" 7 :;•.: , -8o 0 ! , 6.01 ...., ?!0, S • ?..P, 0 q.) U 't ,1 n6 .5 •,...1 co 8 i ., . 2, m , • , - -; .> .0 0 -‘1..i . ft ":i .-Ci 0 . 4 I ,,,, ,t/ ;4.-1 . .`,.. ..,.:1 ` .4-1 1 -, ..--.1 1 .,..' v., '".■ v., .4 - .., cn o us, 0 1 0 b.0 0 ,..0 1.) v -,,,j 0 . 0 1. . , ,9 ' " '° . . . : . . ,78. ., a ,°1 7 14 b . I 3.%)°, : 00- ''' ''' ) :MU' -;:, , ,C: L '''S • , , , ,!" : alb. ' . . . 06:' . 4!" 7:1! - 7 : : ob . oc '11 7.: 1:z ° ' ''d ' ''' ' ' '°,%; • - • . 48° k. '" ' - 6. ' :4: ' ' : ' 4' 5u 1 ■ 5 3' , ' -.1 -:'''' .bn: ?:-;''''''l ..--■ i . 2 '.r.'.., ' . .9, U o o tt ■ ..$ ,▪ ..3 :"... 1 . 0 s' 1 . kJ 1-1 __, 0 0 -0 4-' ° ,,„ .__. . ,_, 15 11_ V. j .4-.+,4 U 5+ ,,, . ... (_-') '. 2 :;'-' -1 • ..,,u' ',u. ' ,..r-' ,N -,..,. `-`' ,f....,' ' c'''o 6. 8- 08 g 1 :.4-1 '''' '::- ' -a . .' 1 il .5! ' . < ' ' ., ' ' L5 .2'7' • .aE-aC...,'N . .-.9 ! . tiV `$';', -cif' ?LI' Fs-s ts G:\SPECPROJ WPD (3/14/00) Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting P onitoring Timing 0 O � a v t .. 0 � �pp On Z ,+.Uc " �.0.5.5�H� .5 o y r �,✓ " I C'i � 0 x w11 dtd) 5 c iar iUHv1fl1ft 1UU UI H #. �-s .s ^L co v H • s i ° I•. (I ° ' v A. a O ".w a' tiv uePs."gpv ,. . � O w• ,., 1 1 O c 0 U W . e a iflflF!lii c0 O.O \N � • u N ". o .y .'1:1 , V ca ° >0 -1^p s. Q. • b . A o cd . � O cv . " ^0 ' '7 H o .cct '0 .� 1 0 .° D 5-b u 0 .0O ' 'z cr v ao ..^y a- p Le) CI, .- C p--- f,, pp ° p ai ci `aF0 „ acto p +' ( C C l o ff ° O p .v �. 5 a N ar 0 o s O . 5 b ., v k o o "Ti..-. ,- 0. u a iam p a. ° o t N .., ... L. 0 C P R O J \NA S \E I R -EIS \ M I TM N Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Monitoring Timing Action by Monitor eu o 0 ¢. P4 0 CU .t.13 2 0 bfi i-1 N o o N U 3 '� .'w p b � :I) 4., �' ' � i y Oy y cc, cn ' w O O O 7 0.1 s. 'LSN d .a O '' 9 -0 N .0 yO �O ' v, U N p � v. mar! N •pa sp � U 'u t '3 4-' ¢ S CU ' �- w ; tes., a . 0 O U p v " o U O O .. O t 5 c5 U' 0 O . P aN > r-, .p O O' cU °8) 1. ai 7$ . . ! N , 0 . �o v' ba 3 U ?O> .'-' bA . E y ▪ N , ; U v •H N ) . 0"�. ^ i p II,' a s ca • - o . . . . L' .—I N ... y 0 N Y p v 5P,. ...q 3 v. s.. ' b o G o s. .. g 0 y .a . •c a i O p" b a, a p b . O 4H 0, b •-. y b .v O 0 at a , aH . t p '. p p.;., i _ O O •. y ' r-y N .p. 5 +y N U O O N O g £ „, e O w p• H d u 2 ,, ^ i Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Monitoring Timing ction by Monitor v o a° c an E .' v 0 RS • • .� -t as • c as u as � b a� as O o o� on t1-1 • v yy y E o a v C4 E� • ..o < -0 cn - a, �Z • v .0 0 v � O o q ' at a a pl RS U 1111 2 [: u. N ,p _• p y as p cd • ' O cd 'd . N 8 > - . ,... "' y y co 0 cs c-, "d I , • • V o O g ca s v y p u o �n h ': a' •Y .O'; • .0 � "� a ,d w .-0 N . bw ,-, m 1, „ , • . v .-d ' ., ' ca ° Ca) O Q y � .0. ,a,' ` t onb < . a � - v , s. on $. -0 +, p as g a v �0 ; as U w 'aq I N p ' d ti y P” -8 . GO O 5 r9 "6 ,-, _.� V h a, • c ,+ w y, o y o E 0 ti a o > a� o 4- W, .o v. cv 1. v as cuasC o °'vs Z Oo d 0 u Z ., O Q ,-1 . d -0 P.. $-■ n 0-' a as . ~ ". , V n bo v G a, y,., a, p vw v b - Btkh O v ,.)o d • 0 N2.WPD (3114/00) G. \S P EC P R OJ \NAS\EI R -EIS Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan 1.7 0 • 0 Q O u o w C 2 U a O 0 a4. -0 44) • U 5' G 4.4 a V) (4., 0 a • a• -a) d 0 0 mt b�+� o,, ff �� - • ' R, a 0 b bA • a Z1.5 8 + ca a.)j • - O C v C _ O O .O .p . .0 o . ' O 0 ^� . E Jn .N., CA -' G'�ti i Na U �0 0 : w ?) au i O vi ^Q .,1 , p.- O ,., � • �y o., " -d v 5 O v -o «V c p :C -0 O ON v 0 0 C q H 'd Q'y ++ .YH , .O •0 • 3�: m C H om s' ° n .tC d H p **°• ›N H y ¢, , y A e, a C O •: .� tW � C - -c C : -1 U 0 0C ti cd • ..0 a O J 0 M. v, i A.G.-' O G- 'I'D N C 'p n •-1 .y . a O 0 o 0 0 v 'n v) ct Q u O Y '� • o� a. v o° o p, on ap bGG ' y C a'" u rd 0 O v e, r, Q, s bA • N b v O O a • ivi d • p" «s y 0 oA+, . "' •� a . N P" O � y " C � A C C • .., Q, C O ca O C• ■N a C O C + _o N L .� m• fy G5 p O �H cd y .b' . v y O q u r 0 0 m 0 H 0^d •.0 q0 -. z 2 " o 0 c•:,1 -b C C C O v. rO VV ~ �N fib .�o." o , ti d/) aO � o• C u oa� "b - a te N OA V 0 g N ' ai �., Cr) 'G n " 2a o4.0 .., a.0o I .-1 c p a b O „ "d • U 02-, G-',,, 4d y O u j C v (n O C a O yO u •0 'n -' d O s••• v b O s. p., -PH ,,,0 U u C Y U 0 a.) O //a 2- U O ” 5 O• 0 w C i + (A N j y a U OA N 1-+ OA N H i N 03 w OA 1.-.1 U 4+ O J a N O C w O U •--■ a O o .WPD (3114/00) G. \SPECPROJ \N ring and Reporting Plan c 0 c 0 :4_12 Monitoring Timing • 0.41 •••6.. • El 2 . _LI, LI: tU l4 0 0 r 1 • t 0 0 • 1+ 7-0 _....c.11) bz• o -71 u ca'433 VI 0 ene. oz f"2-1 -v., 2 • cd ‘,11 Ef,°) 8 -79; ;1 :04" F' 8 '-`0?) • o .a" o 0 0_, tr4 a.) • . 4-; ,,, 0 ca., o r.:1 • -o 4-) c," . •. ‘7, ..0. . 0 • -rs "12 . ij R. -0 t■ " a ) • u 0 0 •-„-! ca., n Monitoring and Reporting Plan itoring Timing 0 0 a • a ▪ o tu 0 0 U _ v ' i. �� b 0F.o �a- ��op � a a � � CU ' ~ ., .O Y ▪ a Y t',1 • a .Y N .t- . . c.) 'd a) .0 bp .M . O y u v H a3 v O H b y a ct ccz a v 0 te, N on0vi•gbno•vo. .5 '' ,. 'p a 00 a L. �, .. d ° ▪ ca, v ti ■ U U u 0, ..5. >. u O Y -o .v ."0 a .-q o v+ ry z "o a N oa u,�a CL, ca P, b Y U 0 Ti 0 ,,. ' r rn ` -d -b o V 7 u i y a o E • ~ vQ o � •�.e:: da Q i pp�' V • NI 3• "Q.O O•C .Y C "' .y ,,,.' 0 V � 3' S - a «i �U U ca O , .� " O O ' q .o s p P'p 4,1 pL a� ; 0''b � • 0 l -� 0 b 0 o F: -� • � g Y o v ▪ b -b " a U bC 214 O O a a' . a) () .0p. O CA °q "U °V °° 5a o4-H wO 4, • Y .- g1:� " o g Jo .�k- ' , q °•5 ao ° C .. ' • - MN2WPD (3/14/00) igation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Monitoring Timing Action by Monitor v en a 0 w •7) w y o v 4. t4 0 H "" s ,, —4 o on O ° „"S.. �'+ ' . O pp u y p• ^' p O w s :.N . „p o ' vs O p d m 0 0 to y N m..”' 0 004 .., H 0 • v . ti 4., O 0 e,V O ' 'I' a� p, O `. '•� a� : .O •p Z3 8 m -. p °O p v ❑ O U 0 0 � • ' y 41' 5 -� o ' S 1 s mom . " . � cl ...,e1 5 0 u c o ,..M u 'O i p„ � > a . 7. , c- CC O•y u ca ,.� . ¢3 O g a 0 , p .5 0.2 O •o o• cd , p� � ° ° . • o ,. Qt " a> y a 0 0 0 a. bA-b q m ,,s .. d H O o. a y a u A • 'b O H O ti "' . s " w 0 uo v 1..) i u O � N O . ., H A O O a ' o a> b y U • •: , c ., '' 'C C 'i. ' O° � a) .0 H o '''a p H aO O -' Y _in a "y,7 0 0 p o aN „ o a u E u. - p'' u. „„ k> .� o f U " O p H 0 u N° i O 0 b C E a, N N � -u p 9 v aN �u i y ' y y . a p 5 ` o. ° . i. �z v w p° =� v ++ G aw ao p m s..o p> . u q O q p C ,.2 O �N .a b • . 0 • ,. o.,-.... 0 G \SPECPROJ \NAS\EIR -EIS MITMN2. 5 o 0 0 8 oz -Si p o .N-I Vs Sn .• N G • N V Sr y, a) O 0 O o • U 0 b c+ U A U at •- G SSPECPROJ \N I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 21st day of March , 2000, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTENTIONS: None. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 22nd day of March , 2000, D. e Felsch, City Clerk City of Alameda