Loading...
CIC Resolution 00-87COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 0 0 - 8 7 ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES, THE MITIGATION AND MONITORIING PROGRAM AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS; IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, as the Lead Agency, the City Council of the City of Alameda (the "City Council ") has prepared an Environmental Impact Report (the "EIR ") on the proposed Amendment (the "Amendment ") to the Community Development Plan (the "Plan ") for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (the "Project ") pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as "CEQA "), the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq., hereinafter referred to as the "State CEQA Guidelines "), and procedures adopted by the City Council relating to environmental evaluation; and WHEREAS, the City Council transmitted for filing a Notice of Completion of the Draft EIR and thereafter in accordance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines forwarded the Draft EIR to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to those state agencies which have discretionary approval or jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the Amendment, to the affected taxing agencies, and to other interested persons and agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and WHEREAS, notice to all interested persons and agencies inviting comments on the Draft EIR was published in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was thereafter revised and supplemented to adopt changes suggested, to incorporate comments received during the public review period pursuant to CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, and to incorporate the City's responses to said comments, and as so revised and supplemented, a Final EIR was prepared by the City; and WHEREAS, a joint public hearing was held by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda (the "CIC ") and the City Council on May 31, 2000, on the Amendment, following notice duly and regularly given as required by law, and all interested persons expressing a desire to comment thereon or object thereto have been heard, and the Final EIR and all comments and responses thereto have been considered; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, as revised and supplemented to incorporate all comments received and the responses of the City thereto, and is part of the CIC's Report to the City Council on the Amendment; and WHEREAS, the CIC is a Responsible Agency, as defined in Section 21069 of the Public Resources Code, with respect to the Amendment; Page 1 of 2 NOW, THEREFORE, THE COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The CIC has evaluated all comments, written and oral, received from persons who have reviewed the Final EIR and has duly reviewed and considered the Final EIR prepared and certified by the City Council prior to adopting this resolution and acting on the Amendment. Section 2. The CIC hereby adopts the same Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Amendment as adopted by the City Council, as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3. The CIC has evaluated the proposed alternatives and hereby adopts the same Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives as adopted by the City Council, as set forth in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. The CIC hereby adopts the same Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program as adopted by the City Council, as set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 5. Based upon the foregoing, the CIC finds and determines that the Amendment will have a significant effect upon the environment but that the benefits of the Amendment outweigh the unavoidable adverse impacts for the same reasons as those adopted by the City Council, as set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 6. Upon approval and adoption of the Amendment by the City Council, the Secretary is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of Alameda pursuant to the provisions of Section 21152 of CEQA and Section 15096(i) of the State CEQA Guidelines. Page 2 of 2 FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT PROJECT ATTACHMENT A I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The Catellus Mixed Use Development Project ( "Project ") proposes to reuse the former Fleet Industrial Supply Center Alameda Annex and Facility ( "FISC Facility "), the East Housing area of the former Alameda Naval Air Station ( "NAS Alameda ") and a former railroad right of way ( "Railroad Right of Way "). The total site of approximately 220 acres includes approximately 146 acres at the FISC Facility, 72 acres in the East Housing area and 2 acres in the Railroad Right of Way (collectively referred to as the "Project site "). Catellus prepared a Master Plan for reuse of the Project site that proposes a mixed use development consisting of up to 1.3 million square feet of commercial office and research & development facilities, up to 500 single - family homes, including detached or a combination of detached and attached (duplex) units, four one -half acre mini -parks and associated infrastructure ( "Project "). The Master Plan also provides for up to 39 multi - family residential units, an 8 -acre school site to accommodate the future development of a 600 - student elementary school by the Alameda Unified School District ( "AUSD ") and 16 acres of public open space. The Project is more fully defined in the Draft Environmental Impact Report ( "DEIR ") prepared for the Project. THE FINAL EIR: The Final Environmental Impact Report ( "Final EIR ") consists of the Draft EIR, Responses to Comments Addendum and Text Revisions document. III. THE RECORD: The following information is incorporated by reference and made part of the record ( "Record ") supporting these findings: a. The Draft EIR, Responses to Comments Addendum and Text Revisions document and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference. b. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. c. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered to the City of Alameda or the Alameda Community Improvement Commission ( "CIC ") in connection with the Planning Board public hearings of January 29, 2000 on the Draft EIR. d. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or delivered to the City of Alameda or the CIC in connection with the Planning Board and City Council meetings associated with the certification of the Final EIR. e. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of public meetings and other documents relied upon or prepared by City staff or consultants relating to the Project. These Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in connection with the Project. IV. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS The Final Environmental Impact Report ( "FEIR ") for the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project, prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, evaluates the potentially significant and significant adverse environmental impacts which could result from adoption of the Project. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations ( "CEQA Guidelines ") Section 15091, the CIC is required to make certain findings with respect to these impacts. The required findings appear in the following sections of this document. These Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the Catellus Mixed Use Development ( "Findings ") list all identified potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project, as well as mitigation measures for those impacts where possible. All mitigation measures will be enforced through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ( "MMRP "), as incorporated as a condition of approval. Impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the CIC of Alameda ( "City ") nevertheless finds acceptable based on a determination that the benefits of the Project (listed in these Findings and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations) outweigh the risks of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project. A. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093, the CIC finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts listed below, as identified in the FEIR. These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the CIC as stated below. Each significant impact which can be reduced to a less than significant level is discussed below, and the appropriate mitigation measure stated, and adopted for implementation by approval of these Findings of Fact. Additional factual information supporting these Findings of Fact is set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 1. HYDROLOGY AND STORM DRAINAGE 1.1 Flooding Hazards (HYD -1) 1.1.1 Significant Effect. Improvements on the site and future site users may be exposed to flooding hazards. 2 Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: HYD -1: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, a detailed floodplain delineation shall be prepared by the applicant for the Project site in accordance with FEMA standards (as has been completed for the rest of Alameda) and submitted to the City. The floodplain delineation shall be completed for proposed conditions. The engineer preparing the floodplain delineation shall consider sea level rise as a potential cause of increased baseflood elevations with time and, if feasible, include appropriate recommendations for safety factors such as increased freeboard for finished floor elevations. The grading and drainage plans shall be designed to ensure that building sites (finished floor elevations) are above the 100 -year flood elevation and that other improvements potentially susceptible to flood damage are sufficiently protected in accordance with the City of Alameda Municipal Code (Section 20 -4). Roadways and landscaped areas would not be subject to this requirement. Infrequent inundation of these features would be considered a less than significant impact. The floodplain delineation and the grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Upon approval of the floodplain delineation by the City, the Project proponent should initiate the "Letter of Map Revision" or "Physical Map Revision" process (to be determined by FEMA) to include the delineation on the existing Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City. Delineation of flood hazard areas and implementation of City ordinances for development within floodplains would mitigate potential impacts associated with construction in flood -prone areas to a less than significant level. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure HYD -1, no building or grading permits will be issued until a detailed floodplain delineation (in accordance with FEMA standards) is prepared. That delineation will be approved by the Public Works Department then used by the Public Works Department to ensure that all drainage and grading plans are designed to ensure building sites are above the 100 -year floodplain. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD -1, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen any significant environmental effects caused by the exposure of improvements and future site users to flooding hazards. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D.2.) 1.2 Degradation of Water Ouality (HYD -2) 1.2.1 Significant Effect. Construction activities and post - construction site uses could result in 3 degradation of water quality in the Oakland Estuary and the San Francisco Bay by reducing the quality of stoi«i water runoff. Mitiation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: HYD -2: A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction and life of the Project shall be prepared for each development project (e.g., single - family residential, business park, etc.) that is constructed as part of this Project and involves construction activity (including clearing, grading or excavations). A SWPPP is required for projects that result in soil disturbances of 5 or more acres, and for projects of less than 5 acres if the construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development (i.e., the Catellus Mixed Use Development Project). The SWPPP would act as the overall program document designed to provide measures to mitigate potential water quality impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Preparers of the SWPPP should review the Conditions of Approval (including General Conditions for Construction, Residential Development/Construction Conditions, and Commercial/Industrial Conditions) established by the City. The SWPPP shall include the following three elements to address construction, post - construction and pest management issues: (1) Specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction - related pollutants. These controls shall include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water. The SWPPP shall specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain. The contractor(s) shall submit details, design and procedures for compliance with storage area requirements. An important component of the storm water quality protection effort is knowledge on the part of on -site construction and maintenance supervisors and workers. To educate on -site personnel and maintain awareness of the importance of storm water quality protection, site supervisors shall conduct regular tailgate meetings to discuss pollution prevention. The SWPPP shall establish a frequency for meetings and require all personnel to attend. The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor, and must include both dry and wet weather inspections. City of Alameda personnel shall conduct regular inspections to ensure compliance with the SWPPP. BMPs designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to: soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, 4 placement of hay bales and sediment basins. If grading must be conducted during the rainy season, the primary BMPs selected shall focus on erosion control (i.e., keeping sediment on the site). End -of -pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and traps) shall be used only as secondary measures. If hydroseeding is selected as the primary soil stabilization method, these areas shall be seeded by September 1 and irrigated to ensure that adequate root development has occurred prior to October 1. Entry and egress from the construction site shall be carefully controlled to minimize off -site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash -down facilities shall be designed to be accessible and functional both during dry and wet conditions. (2) Measures designed to mitigate post construction- related pollutants. The SWPPP shall include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality degradation of runoff from all portions of the completed development. It is important that post construction stormwater quality controls are included in the initial design phase of the Project and not simply added after the site layout and building footprints have been established. The specific BMPs that would be required of a project can be found in SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. In addition, the design team should include in the Project design principles contained in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association's manual, Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection. The selection of BMPs required for a specific project is based on the size of the development and the sensitivity of the area. The Estuary is considered a sensitive area by the RWQCB. In general, passive, low - maintenance BMPs (e.g., grassy swales, porous pavements) are preferred. If the SWPPP includes higher maintenance BMPs (e.g., sedimentation basins, fossil filters), then funding for long -term maintenance needs must be specified in the SWPPP as a condition of approval of the grading, excavation, or building permits, as appropriate (the City will not assume maintenance responsibilities for these features). Integrated Pest Management Plan. An Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM) shall be prepared and implemented by the developer for all common landscaped areas. Each IPM shall be prepared by a qualified professional. The IPMs shall address and recommend methods of pest prevention and turf grass management that use pesticides as a last resort in pest control. Types and rates of fertilizer and pesticide application shall be specified. Special attention in the IPMs shall be directed toward avoiding runoff of pesticides and nitrates into sensitive drainages or leaching into the shallow groundwater table. Pesticides shall be used only in response to a persistent pest problem. Preventative chemical use shall not be employed. Cultural and biological approaches to pest control shall be fully integrated into the IPMs, with an emphasis toward reducing pesticide application. Additionally, the City of Alameda Department of Public Works shall review and approve (3) 5 the SWPPP prior to the approval of the development plan for each Project phase to ensure that the selected BMPs would adequately protect water quality. The City and the RWQCB are empowered to levy considerable fines for non - compliance with the SWPPP. Compliance with the approved SWPPP would mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Sunnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure HYD -2, a SWPPP will be prepared for each type or category of development within the Project. That SWPPP will include measures and practices designed to reduce erosion and protect storm water quality during construction, and substantially limit the degradation of runoff from all portions of the completed development. Compliance with the SWPPP will be ensured through regular inspections conducted by City of Alameda personnel, and through review and approval of the SWPPP prior to the approval of the Development Plan for each Project construction phase. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD -2, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for degradation of water quality resulting from construction activities and post - construction site uses. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.D.2.) 2. GEOLOGY. SOILS. AND SEISMICITY 2.1 Seismic Hazards (GEO -1) 2.1.1 Significant Effect. Occupants of development constructed under the proposed Project would be subject to seismic hazards. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: GEO -1: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, a detailed geotechnical and soils report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Alameda Public Works Department for review and approval. The report shall determine the site's surface geotechnical conditions and address potential seismic hazards, including liquefaction and associated ground failure, and the stability of the bulkhead. The report shall identify building techniques appropriate to minimize seismic damage, including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Buildings and other structures shall be designed to meet the requirements of the most recently adopted Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4. 6 (2) Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall conform with the California Division of Mines and Geology recommendations presented in the "Guidelines for Evaluating Seismic Hazards in California." All mitigation measures, design criteria, and specifications set forth in the geotechnical and soils report shall be followed in order to reduce impacts associated with seismic hazards to a less than significant level. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings.. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure GEO -1, no grading or building permits will be issued until a detailed geotechnical and soils report is prepared and submitted to the Public Works Department for approval. That report will deteimine the seismic hazards and establish that all the buildings in the development will be designed to meet the appropriate Uniform Building Code standards. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -1, enforced through the MIvIRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential exposure of site occupants to seismic hazards. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E.2.) 2.2 Consolidation and Land Surface Subsidence (GEO -2) 2.2.1 Sienificant Effect. Expected continuing consolidation and land surface subsidence at the Project site could result in damage to Project improvements. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: GEO -2a: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a site - specific geotechnical report that provides analysis of consolidation potential shall be prepared and submitted to the City Department of Public Works for approval. The report shall specify all measures necessary to limit consolidation including minimization of structural fills and use (when necessary) of lightweight and low plasticity fill materials to reduce the potential for excessive loading caused by fill placement. The placement of artificial fill should be limited to reduce the potential for increased loading and associated settlement in areas underlain by thick young bay muds. Increased area settlement could have implications for flooding potential as well as foundation design. Reconditioning (compaction) of existing subgrade materials would be preferable to placement of fill. The report shall present recommendations for specific foundation designs which minimize the potential for damage related to settlement. The design of utilities shall consider differential settlements along utility alignments constructed in filled areas of the Project site. The 7 geotechnical report shall provide recommended design elements to minimize the potential for damage or leakage. The geotechnical report shall specify foundation designs for the proposed structures. Multi -story frame residential buildings could be adequately supported on appropriately designed structural or post- tension slab foundations underlain by engineered fill. Larger buildings, heavy structures or equipment, and multi -story commercial or industrial buildings would require pile foundations to minimize settlement of these structures. The piles would need to be driven into a suitably strong bearing unit (possibly old bay mud or Merritt sands) to have adequate skin friction, and to account for "downdrag" on piles related to consolidation of underlying young bay muds if present. GEO -2b: Mat or slab foundations constructed in areas of expected areal settlement (i.e., areas underlain by thick young bay muds) shall be designed to minimize the potential for soil erosion under the perimeter of the foundation. The perimeter of the slabs could be thickened and established sufficiently below existing grade to minimize the potential for exposure of the bottom of the foundation. Alternatively, other forms of erosion protection could be recommended by site - specific geotechnical reports. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Supnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure GEO -2, no grading permit will be issued until a detailed, site - specific geotechnical report analyzing consolidation potential is prepared and submitted to the City Department of Public Works for approval. The report will specify all measures necessary to limit consolidation and will present recommendations for specific foundation designs which minimize the potential for damage related to settlement. The measures specified and the recommendations presented will adhere to the standards identified in Mitigation Measures GEO -2a and GEO -2b, set forth in DEIR, IV.E.2. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO -2a and GEO -2b, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for damage to Project improvements as a result of continuing consolidation and land surface subsidence at the Project site. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E.2.) 2.3 Shrink -Swell Potential of Proiect Soils (GEO -3) 2.3.1 Significant Effect. Damage to structures or property related to shrink -swell potential of Project soils could occur. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure 8 identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: GEO -3: On expansive soils with moderate to high shrink -swell potential, proposed building foundations and improvements shall consider these conditions; foundation design may include drilled pier and grade beams, deepened footings (extending below expansive soil), or post- tensioned slabs. Alternatively, expansive soil shall be removed and replaced with compacted non - expansive soil prior to foundation construction. The geotechnical report for each phase of the Project shall require that subgrade soils for pavements consist of moisture - conditioned, lime - treated, or non - expansive soil, and that surface (including roof drainage) and subsurface water be directed away from foundation elements to minimize variations in soil moisture. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Sunnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure GEO -2, no grading permit will be issued until a detailed, site - specific geotechnical report for each phase of the Project is prepared and submitted to the City Department of Public Works for approval. That report, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO -3, shall require that foundations and improvements are designed to reduce impacts from expansive soils, and that variations in soil moisture under and around building foundation elements are minimized by incorporating foundation designs and standards identified in Mitigation Measure GEO -3, set forth in DEIR, IV.E.2. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO -3, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for damage to structures or property related to shrink -swell potential of Project soils. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E.2.) 3. HAZARDS 3.1 Hazardous Materials in Groundwater (HAZ -1) 3.1.1 Significant Effect. Construction activities could potentially expose persons at and near the Project site to hazardous materials in the marsh crust and groundwater. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: HAZ-la: The City shall implement an excavation ordinance, and/or similar regulatory measures or condition or approval, requiring a permit or prior approval to excavate to the depth of the marsh crust at the Project site. The pelinit or approval shall require that appropriate health and safety and disposal procedures be followed during excavation 9 activities, as required based on the presence or suspected presence of hazardous materials in the marsh crust, including, but not limited to: (1) Restrictions on materials stockpiling. (2) Disposal of excavated materials at an appropriate landfill. (3) Disposal of extracted groundwater at a wastewater treatment plant or in accordance with RWQCB requirements. (4) Implementation of a site - specific site management plan for construction activities. HAZ -1 b: If the US Navy does not record a restrictive covenant prohibiting the installation of drinking water wells into the shallow groundwater at the Project site, the City shall record such a covenant prior to transfer of the property. The City shall also record a covenant, prior to transfer of the property, prohibiting excavation into the marsh crust without a permit or prior approval where required under the City excavation ordinance and/or similar regulatory measures or Project condition adopted pursuant to Mitigation Measure HAZ -la. HAZ-lc: Preparation by a qualified registered professional of a Site Management Plan (SMP) for the Project site shall be a condition of approval for the first subdivision map for the Project site. The SMP would provide site - specific information for contractors (and others) developing the Project site that would improve their management of environmental and health and safety contingencies. Topics covered by the SMP shall include, but not be limited to: (1) Land use history, including known hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and spillage, for specific areas within the Project site. (2) The nature and extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the Project site. (3) The nature and extent of ongoing remedial activities and the nature and extent of unremediated areas of the Project site, including the nature and occurrence of marsh crust and hazardous materials associated with the dredge material used as fill at the Project site. (4) A listing and description of institutional controls, such as the City's excavation ordinance and other local, State, and federal laws and regulations, that will apply to development of the Project site. (5) Requirements for site - specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the Project site. The HASPs should be prepared by a Certified Industrial Hygienist and would protect construction workers and interim site users adjacent to construction activities by including engineering controls, monitoring, 10 and security measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction site and to reduce hazards outside the construction site. The HASPs would address the possibility of encountering subsurface hazards and include procedures to protect workers and the public. If prescribed exposure levels were exceeded, personal protective equipment would be required for workers in accordance with DOSH regulations. (6) A description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that may potentially be encountered during Project development, including engineering controls that may be required to reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the Project site. Requirements for site - specific construction techniques at the site, based on proposed development, such as minimizing the transport of contaminated materials to the surface during construction activities by employing pile driving techniques that consist of driving the piles directly without boring, where practical. (7) The SMP shall be distributed to all contractors at the Project site; implementation of the SMP shall be a condition of approval for excavation, building, and grading permits at the Project site. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure HAZ -1, excavation to the depth of the marsh crust at the Project site will require prior approval or permit pursuant to City ordinance (adopted in February, 2000). That permit or approval shall require that appropriate health, safety and disposal procedures, as identified in Mitigation Measure HAZ -la, be followed during excavation. Prior to transfer of the property, restrictive covenants will be recorded prohibiting installation of drinking water wells at the Project site and prohibiting excavation into the marsh crust without a permit. A SMP will be prepared covering topics identified in Mitigation Measure HAZ -lc and will be distributed to all Project contractors, and implemented through the MMRP as a condition of approval for excavation, building and grading permits. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ -la, lb, and lc, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for construction activities to expose persons at or near the Project site to hazardous material in the marsh crust and groundwater. These facts support the City's findings. (See also.DEIR, IV.F.2.) 11 3.2 Potential for Contaminated Subsurface Materials (HAZ -2) 3.2.1 Significant Effect. There may be a potential for contaminated subsurface materials to be discovered during development of the Project site. These materials could potentially present a health risk to construction workers and/or future workers and residents at the Project site. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: HAZ -2: An SMP for Project site construction (see Mitigation Measure HAZ -lc, above) shall be prepared and implemented. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure HAZ -2, a SMP as identified in Mitigation Measure HAZ -lc, will be prepared and implemented for Project construction that will specify techniques and procedures for avoiding or substantially lessening the health risk to construction workers and/or future workers and residents at the Project site from exposure to contaminated subsurface materials. The SMP will be implemented through the MMRP as a condition of approval for excavation, grading and building permits. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.F.2.) 3.3 Use. Storage. Transnortation. and Generation of Hazardous Materials (HAZ -5) 3.3.1 Significant Effect. Future land uses at the Project site could include the use, storage, transportation, or generation of hazardous materials. If these materials were improperly used, stored, transported, or generated, human health and/or the environment could be affected. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: HAZ-5: If future land uses at the Project site involve the use, storage, transport, treatment, or generation of hazardous materials, the site operator shall be required to comply with federal, state, and local requirements for managing hazardous materials. Depending on the type and quantity of hazardous materials, these requirements could include the preparation of, implementation of, and training in the following plans, programs, and permits: 12 (11 Hazardous Materials Business Plan (Business Plan). Facilities that use, store, or handle hazardous materials in quantities greater than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200 cubic feet are required to prepare a Business Plan. The Business Plan shall contain facility maps, up -to -date inventories of all hazardous materials for each shop /area, emergency response procedures, equipment, and employee training. (21 Hazardous Waste Generator Requirements. Facilities that generate more than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous waste, or more than 1 kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste, must be registered under RCRA. DTSC administers hazardous waste generator registration in California. (3) Contingency Plan. All facilities that generate hazardous waste must prepare a Contingency Plan. The Contingency Plan identifies the duties of the facility Emergency Coordinator and identifies and gives the location of emergency equipment. It also includes reporting procedures for the facility Emergency Coordinator to follow after an incident. (4) California Accidental Release Prevention Program. Facilities that use significant quantities of acutely hazardous materials must prepare an Accidental Release Prevention Program if there is a significant likelihood that this use may pose an accident risk. The Program must include a description of acutely hazardous material accidents occurring at the facility within the past three years, and a description of equipment, procedures, and training to reduce the risk of acutely hazardous materials accidents. (5) Iniury and Illness Prevention Plan„ The California General Industry Safety Order requires that all employers in California prepare and implement an Injury and Illness Prevention Plan which shall contain a code of safe practice for each job category, methods for informing workers of hazards, and procedures for correcting identified hazards. (6) Emergency Action Plan. The California General Industry Safety Order requires that all employers in California prepare and implement an Emergency Action Plan. The Emergency Action Plan designates employee responsibilities, evacuation procedures and routes, alarm systems, and training procedures. (7) Fire Prevention Plan. The California General Industry Safety Order requires that all employers in California prepare and implement a Fire Prevention Plan. The Fire Prevention Plan specifies areas of potential hazard, persons responsible for maintenance of fire prevention equipment or systems, fire prevention housekeeping procedures, and fire hazard training procedures. (8) Hazard Communication Plan. Facilities involved in the use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials are required to prepare a Hazard Communication program. The purpose of the Hazard Communication program is to ensure safe handling practices for hazardous materials, proper labeling of hazardous materials 13 containers, and employee access to Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). (9) Aboveground and Underground Storage Tank Permits. Facilities with aboveground or underground storage tanks must be permitted. Other plans, such as a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Program, may be required depending on the size, location, and contents of the tank. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. A variety of measures, plans, requirements, programs, and permits are required by federal, state, or local law. These requirements, listed in Mitigation Measure HAZ -5 and as implemented through the MItvIRP as a condition of approval, are designed not only to substantially reduce the probability of a release of hazardous material but also to minimize the quantity and duration of exposure from such a release, were it to happen. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -5 will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for impacts to human health and/or the environment from the improper use, storage, transportation or generation of hazardous materials. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.F.2.) 3.4 Potential Exposure to Subsurface Soil Gases (HAZ -6) 3.4.1 Significant Effect. Routine site use and development could potentially result in exposure of Project site users to hazardous concentrations of subsurface soil gases. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: HAZ -6: In the event that an updated human health risk assessment indicates that soil gas emissions from the benzene plume pose an unacceptable health risk, the City shall require that all buildings constructed on the Project site be designed and constructed to prevent unacceptable exposures to soil gases in exposed building spaces, using techniques such as limiting building slab joints and installing foundation vapor barriers and passive venting systems. All such City requirements shall be in accordance with any remedy (which could include institutional controls) established by DTSC as part of a Remedial Action Plan for the benzene plume. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) 14 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. A human health risk assessment conducted in 1996 found no unacceptable health risks from a previously identified benzene plume. As part of Mitigation Measure HAZ -6, developed through consultation with DTSC and enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, if updated assessments indicate that health risks from the plume are unacceptable, the City's implementation as part of building permit approvals of building design and construction requirements that will provide adequate vapor barriers and venting, as identified in Mitigation Measure HAZ -6, will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for exposure of Project site users to hazardous concentrations of subsurface soil gases. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.F.2.) 3.5 Exposure of Construction Workers and Nearby Site Users (HAZ -7) 3.5.1 Significant Effect. Construction workers and nearby site users could be exposed to hazardous materials prior to complete remediation of the Project site. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: HAZ -7: Remediation workers who could directly contact contaminated dust, soil, or groundwater must perform all remediation activities in accordance with a site - specific Health and Safety Plan (HASP) developed for the specific contaminants of concern (petroleum, volatile organic compounds [VOCs], metals, radium, etc.) on -site. The HASP would protect those workers as well as site users and occupants adjacent to remediation activities by requiring engineering controls, monitoring, and security measures as needed to prevent unauthorized entry to remediation sites and to reduce hazards outside the investigation/remediation area. The HASP would address the possibility of encountering unknown buried hazards and include procedures to protect workers and the public. If prescribed exposure levels were exceeded, personal protective equipment would be required for workers in accordance with California Occupational Safety and Health Act (CAL OSHA) regulations. While the primary intent of CAL OSHA requirements is to protect workers, compliance with these regulations also reduces potential hazards to other Project site occupants (tenants and visitors) and ecological receptors because of required site monitoring, reporting, and other controls. Potential site access controls implemented during remediation could include: (1) Securing the site with fencing or other barriers of sufficient height and structural integrity to prevent unauthorized pedestrian/vehicular entry. (2) Posting "no trespassing" signs. (3) Providing on -site meetings with construction workers to infolin them about security measures and reporting/contingency procedures. 15 The HASP shall include effective dust control measures, which may include wetting soil materials and placing covers on trucks to reduce the potential for generating airborne dust. The HASP shall also provide measures to control site runoff and manage soil stockpiles to prevent erosion. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure HAZ -7, safety measures will be implemented for all rcmediation activities that will include measures, as identified in Mitigation Measure HAZ -7, that will prevent nearby workers and site users from entering remediation areas and will reduce hazards outside the remediation areas. Implementation of these measures, enforced through the MIMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for exposure of construction workers and nearby site users to hazardous materials prior to complete remediation of the Project site. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.F.2.) 3.6 Exposure of Ecological Receptors (HAZ -8) 3.6.1 Significant Effect. Ecological receptors in the Project vicinity could be affected by hazardous materials during remediation of the Project site. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: HAZ -8: Implementing required laws, regulations, an SWPPP (see Mitigation Measure HYD -2) and a HASP (see Mitigation Measure HAZ -7) would be adequate to ensure that potential impacts on ecological receptors near remediation activities would be less than significant. No further mitigation is required. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure HAZ -8, implementation of a SWPPP (see Mitigation Measure HYD -2), as approved by the City Department of Public Works, will prevent surface water runoff from contacting contaminants at the Project site generated from construction or remediation efforts. Contaminated groundwater discharge will be 16 prevented or substantially lessened through a required RWQCB or EBMUD permit that would specify discharge requirements that would protect ecological receptors. Ecological receptors will also be protected from contaminated or dangerous air emissions related to remediation through implementation of the HASP as identified in Mitigation Measure HAZ -7, and through adherence to US EPA and BAAQMD abatement and emission reduction requirements regarding asbestos and lead - contaminated dust generated during demolition. Implementation of these measures will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, and will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for ecological receptors in the Project vicinity to be affected by hazardous materials during remediation of the Project site. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.F.2. and IV.D.2.) 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 4.1 Cooner's Hawks (BIO -1) 4.1.1 Significant Effect. The proposed Project could impact Cooper's hawks that may be nesting in the large trees on -site in the East Housing area. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: BIO -1: Prior to construction in the East Housing area, a qualified biologist familiar with Cooper's hawks shall conduct a survey to determine whether Cooper's hawks are nesting in the East Housing area. At least two surveys should be conducted during the period of March through June. If Cooper's hawks are found nesting, the nest tree(s) shall be protected from disturbance during the nesting season. A temporary fence shall be placed around each active nest tree, at a minimum of 200 feet from the dripline of the tree(s), and all construction activities shall be excluded from the fenced area. The trees shall not be removed until after the young hawks have fledged and are independent of the nest. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure BIO -1, construction and therefore Project- related disturbance will not occur in the East Housing area, where Cooper's hawks may be nesting, until a survey is conducted to determine the actual presence of nesting Cooper's hawks. If nesting hawks are found, the areas around each active nest tree will be fenced and buffered, until the young hawks have fledged and are independent of the nest. Implementation of this measure will be required before permits authorizing construction in the East Housing area are issued. Implementation of this mitigation measure, enforced 17 through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen any adverse effect on Cooper's hawks, if they are nesting in the large trees on -site in the East Housing area. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.G.2.) 4.2 Pallid and Western Mastiff Bats (BIO -2) 4.2.1 Significant Effect. The proposed Project could impact pallid bats and western mastiff bats that may roost in the abandoned buildings on -site. Mitiation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: BIO -2: Within a 6 -month period prior to any demolition of abandoned buildings, a qualified biologist familiar with bats shall conduct a survey to determine the status of these bat species on the Project site. If special - status bat species are found, a biologist familiar with relocating bats shall be consulted regarding the best methods to remove bats from the buildings, and such methods shall be implemented. This could include removing sections of the walls and roofs, which would discourage bats from continuing to roost in the buildings. If a maternity colony of these species is found, the building and the bats shall not be disturbed until the young have dispersed. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Sunnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure BIO -2, demolition of abandoned buildings, which could disturb roosting special - status bats, if they are in abandoned buildings on the Project site, will not be permitted until a survey is conducted to determine the presence of bats. If special - status bats are found, they will be relocated in accordance with best methods determined by an experienced biologist. If a maternity colony of special - status bats is found, the building and the bats will not be disturbed until the young have dispersed. Implementation of this mitigation measure, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for pallid bats or western mastiff bats to be impacted by the Project. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.G.2.) 4.3 California Least Tern. California Brown Pelican, and Pacific Herring: Lagoon (BIO -3) 4.3.1 Significant Effect. Construction of a new outfall structure and any improvements to existing outfalls within the Lagoon storm drain outfall structure could adversely impact California least tern and California brown pelican foraging habitat, Pacific herring 18 spawning habitat, and open waters that are subject to US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: BIO -3: The Project shall implement Best Management Practices, as identified by the RWQCB, to minimize water quality impacts (see Mitigation Measure HYD -2). The Project shall also determine whether in -water activities (including dredging) will require a Corps authorization in compliance with Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) or Section 404 (Clean Water Act) and a Section 401 (Clean Water Act) water quality certification. The applicant shall obtain such approvals (if required) before activities proceed within Corps jurisdictional waters, and shall comply with all mitigation measures required by those approvals. Any dredging (if needed) and/or in -water construction activity shall occur only during the period from October 1 to March 14, to avoid the least tern breeding season and the brown pelican peak non - breeding season. No dredging shall occur during the Pacific herring spawning season (December 1 to March 1) unless a qualified observer first verifies that no herring spawning activities have occurred in the vicinity for a 2 -week period prior to construction. To the extent feasible, the storm drain outfall structure shall be designed to minimize disturbance to bottom sediments during construction. All materials proposed for excavation and dredging shall be tested for the possible presence of contaminants. Construction practices shall be designed in coordination with the USFWS, Corps, and RWQCB to minimize the dispersion of contaminants into the water column and ensure proper disposal of contaminated materials. Stormwater management and monitoring plans for the Project shall be developed in coordination with the USFWS and implemented in perpetuity to protect open water foraging areas for least terns and brown pelicans, as required by the Endangered Species Formal Consultation. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Sunnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure BIO -3, the Project will implement practices, obtain permits and schedule construction activity that will minimize the release of concrete, petroleum products, or other contaminants into the Lagoon which could contaminate fish species consumed by least terns and brown pelicans. The same practices, permits and schedules will also minimize disturbances and possible dispersal of contaminated sediments that might have temporary adverse impacts on spawning Pacific herring. Stormwater management and monitoring plans will also protect open water foraging areas for least terns and brown pelicans. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -3, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or 19 substantially lessen the potential for adverse effects on California least terns and California brown pelican foraging habitat, Pacific herring spawning habitat and open waters that are subject to US Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction caused by constitution of a new outfall structure and improvements to existing outfalls within the Lagoon storm drain outfall structure. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.G.2.) 4.4 Pacific Herring: Oakland Inner Harbor (BIO -4) 4.4.1 SiOnificant Effect. Construction of a new outfall structure and any improvements to existing outfalls in the Oakland Inner Harbor that are necessary to serve the Project could adversely impact open waters that provide potential Pacific herring spawning habitat and are subject to Corps jurisdiction. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: BIO -4: The Project shall implement Best Management Practices, as identified by the RWQCB, to minimize water quality impacts (see Mitigation Measure HYD -2). The Project shall also determine whether ongoing in -water activities (including any maintenance dredging) will require a Corps authorization in compliance with Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) or Section 404 (Clean Water Act) and a Section 401 (Clean Water Act) water quality certification. The applicant shall obtain such approvals (if required) before activities proceed within Corps jurisdictional waters, and shall comply with all mitigation measures required by those approvals. No post - construction maintenance dredging shall occur during the Pacific herring spawning season (December 1 to March 1) unless a qualified observer first verifies that no herring spawning activities have occurred in the vicinity for a 2 -week period prior to dredging. To the extent feasible, the storm drain outfall structure shall be designed to minimize disturbance to bottom sediments during operation. All materials proposed for maintenance dredging shall be tested for the possible presence of contaminants. Dredging practices shall be designed in coordination with the Corps and RWQCB to minimize the dispersion of contaminants into the water column and ensure proper disposal of contaminated sediments. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Sunnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure BIO -4, the Project will implement practices, obtain permits, and schedule construction activity that will minimize the disturbance of sediments on the Inner Harbor channel bottom that could result in temporary increases in turbidity and cause contaminated sediments to reenter the water column which could have 20 temporary adverse impacts on open waters that provide potential spawning habitat for Pacific herring. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -4, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen any adverse effect that construction of a new outfall structure or any improvements to existing outfalls in the Oakland Inner Harbor could have on open waters that provide potential spawning habitat for Pacific herring. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.G.2.) 5. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION Traffic and circulation impacts of the Project are examined using a variety of analysis tools, all as explained in detail in, among other places in the Record, DEIR, IV.H and Appendix D. For impacts causing deterioration of Levels of Service (LOS) to unacceptable levels (Impacts T /C -5 through T /C -17), facts in support of findings that mitigation measures, if imposed, will avoid or substantially lessen each impact can be found, among other places, in Section N.H. of the DEIR, and Appendix D of the DEIR (collectively, "Traffic and Circulation Documents "). These traffic and circulation impacts to LOS are classified as significant or not by comparing the magnitude of the impact, as analyzed in the Traffic and Circulation Documents, to specific numerical standards established by the City of Alameda (see DEIR; IV.H.2(a -b)). Where the impact would result in a violation of the standard, the impact was classified as significant. Mitigation measures were then designed and analyzed, as set forth in the Traffic and Circulation Documents, to determine whether each measure would reduce the impact to such a level where it would not violate the established standards. 5.1 Impacts During Construction Period (T /C -1) 5.1.1 Significant Effect. The generation of additional trips and the temporary closure of lanes during the construction period could cause circulation impacts on local roadways. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: T /C -1: The construction -period impacts of the proposed Project would be addressed by implementing the following measures. (1) The Project shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) to address the impacts of construction vehicles on the regional and local roadways. The TCP shall address construction truck routes and access to the Project site; lane closures including those that may require coordination with and/or approval from the City of Oakland and CalTrans; and shall provide for coordination with closure of Webster Street and the Tubes as they are scheduled for closure for seismic safety repairs being completed independent of this Project. The TCP shall be submitted to the City of Alameda Public Works Department for review and approval prior to 21 the issuance of any building or grading permits. (2) In addition, the Project shall be responsible for restoring affected street surfaces to pre - construction conditions on roadways affected by construction vehicles consistent with the City's Pavement Management Program. (3) Construction traffic shall be restricted to designated truck routes within the Cities of Alameda and Oakland. (4) Construction traffic shall be restricted from using Mariner Square Drive for access to and from Constitution Way unless this route is determined by the Public Works Director to be the only feasible access. Where possible, trucks should access the site from Tinker Avenue (which may require construction of a temporary truck access) and along Atlantic Avenue. (5) The TCP shall include a signage program for all truck routes serving the site during construction. (6) Construction traffic shall be restricted to daytime hours and, to the extent feasible, shall be minimized during the AM and PM peak hours. With these measures, this construction period impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure T /C -1, no building or grading permits will be issued until a TCP is prepared, in accordance with the guidance set forth in Mitigation Measure T /C -1, and submitted to the City Public Works Department for review and approval. The TCP will address construction access, lane closures and hours of construction traffic. In addition, the Project will be responsible for restoring affected street surfaces to pre - construction conditions. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -1, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for circulation impacts on local roadways as a result of the generation of additional trips and temporary closure of lanes during the construction period. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 5.2 School Site (T /C -2) 5.2.1 Significant Effect. The location of the school site at the intersection of Fifth Street and 22 Tinker Avenue could create safety hazards for pedestrians, bicycles or automobiles. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: T /C -2: Site planning for the school should pay close attention to safety, pedestrian activity, bicycle movements, and vehicle circulation issues related to its location. Orientation of school access points shall be designed to discourage jay walking and encourage use of controlled intersections. Vehicle queuing for student pick -up and drop - off should be discouraged near the intersection of Fifth Street and Tinker Avenue. The City shall consider implementation of this mitigation as part of its review of the encroachment permits that will be required as part of the school project. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) tigation measure Facts in Support of Findines. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. The school project will require encroachment permits issued by the City. Pursuant to Mitigation Measure T /C -2, as part of the review process for those permits, the City will ensure that mitigation, as set forth in Mitigation Measure T /C -2 (including site planning that encourages use of controlled intersections and discourages street pick -up and drop -off near the intersection of Fifth Street and Tinker Avenue), is imposed on the school project, which will avoid or substantially lessen the potential creation of safety hazards for pedestrians, bicycles, or automobiles as a result of locating the school site at the intersection of Fifth Street and Tinker Avenue. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -2 will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DER, IV.H.2.) 5.3 Pairine of Signals on Atlantic Avenue (T /C -3) 5.3.1 Significant Effect. The pairing of signals on Atlantic Avenue at Fifth Street and West Campus Drive could create an operational hazard for automobiles. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: T /C -3: One of the two following mitigation measures (T /C -3a or T /C -3b) shall be implemented in order to reduce the potential for hazardous traffic conditions. Measure T /C -3a is the slightly preferred measure from a circulation point of view. T /C -3a: Access from Fifth Street to Atlantic Avenue could be coordinated with the College of Alameda access at West Campus Drive and Atlantic Avenue. This could be 23 accomplished by the abandonment of West Campus and the creation of a single access at Fifth Street and Atlantic Avenue, and the construction of a new signal at Fifth Street and Atlantic Avenue. The southbound approach of Fifth Street in this case should provide for two lanes. Such a redesign would result in LOS D or better conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. T /C -3b: In the event that either the City of Alameda or the College of Alameda were to decide not to pursue Mitigation Measure T /C -3a, the following alternative measure would be equally effective. Maintain the existing signalized intersection of West Campus Drive and Atlantic Avenue, and construct a new signal at Fifth Street and Atlantic Avenue. Coordinate both signals with the signals at Atlantic Avenue/Webster Street by interconnecting all three signals. In order to reduce vehicle queues, allow right turn on red on the westbound approach of Atlantic Avenue. The implementation of either T /C -3a or T /C -3b would reduce this potential impact to a less than significant level. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Sunnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. This potential impact would result from two independent signals on Atlantic Avenue at Fifth Street and on West Campus Drive. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -3, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, would either eliminate the West Campus Drive signalized intersection with Atlantic Avenue (T /C -3a), or synchronize the traffic signals (T /C -3b). Measure T /C -3 will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the creation of operational safety hazards for automobiles that could result from the pairing of traffic signals on Atlantic Avenue at Fifth Street and West Campus Drive. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 5.4 Third Street/Atlantic Avenue Intersection (TIC -4) 5.4.1 Significant Effect. The introduction of additional traffic to the intersection of Third Street and Atlantic Avenue, a location where higher than average accident rates have been experienced, would represent a significant adverse impact. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure . identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: T /C -4: Undertake the planned median improvements and install the signal poles at the intersection of Third Street and Atlantic Avenue. The Project shall pay its fair share toward the construction of these improvements. 24 Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. While improvements to the intersection of Third Street and Atlantic Avenue have been undertaken since the last data on accidents were compiled, additional traffic at this intersection would still require, to mitigate safety impacts, that a physical barrier be constructed within the median to channelize through traffic and the existing outdated signal poles be replaced with new poles. The barrier and signal poles will be constructed as part of Mitigation Measure T /C -4. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -4, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's contribution to the existing automobile safety concern at the intersection of Third Street and Atlantic Avenue. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 5.5 Mariner Square Drive /Constitution Wav Intersection (T /C -5) 5.5.1 Significant Effect. The addition of Project traffic to the future baseline condition would result in an impact at the intersection of Mariner Square Drive and Constitution Way, which would operate at LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: T /C -5: A three -part mitigation measure is recommended below. The first element (T /C -5a) is needed before any office/R &D uses are occupied. The second and third elements would be needed after the construction of 360,000 square feet of office/R &D. T /C -5a: Prior to any of the Project office/R &D space being occupied, a signal shall be installed at the intersection of Mariner Square Drive and Constitution Way. This improvement is shown in Figure IV.H -5 of the DEIR. The Project shall provide for the construction of the signal. T /C -5b: Prior to more than 360,000 square feet of office/R &D space being occupied on the Project site, either T /C -5b(i) or T /C- 5b(ii) shall be implemented. (i) The following improvements shall be constructed: (1) All intersection improvements identified for the Webster Street/Atlantic Avenue intersection in the Reuse EIR shall be constructed as stated in Mitigation Measures T /C -6a and T /C -6b (shown in DEIR Figure IV.H -7). 25 (2) The signal phasing at Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way shall be changed from permitted to protected- peiniitted. (ii) Alternatively to Mitigation Measure T /C- 5b(i), the Tinker Avenue extension could be constructed. If the Tinker Avenue Extension were constructed, T /C -5b(i) would not be necessary. However, if the Tinker Avenue extension were to be constructed (independent of the proposed Project) and Mitigation Measure T /C -5b(i) was not implemented, a fully functional independently controlled southbound right -turn lane shall be constructed on Webster Street at Atlantic Avenue (also required to Mitigate Impact T /C -6, see Mitigation Measure T /C -6a). Implementation of this improvement in combination with the Tinker Avenue extension would result in LOS D conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. The Project shall contribute its fair share towards the construction of these improvements. The implementation of T /C -5a would reduce this impact to a less -than significant level for the construction of up to 360,000 square feet of office/R &D space. The implementation of either T /C -5b(i) or (ii) would reduce the impacts that would occur after more than 360,000 square feet of office/R &D space is occupied to a less than significant level. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure TIC -5a will be implemented prior to any Project office/R &D space being occupied. The Tinker Avenue extension is a City project proposed independently of the Project. If the City constructs the Tinker Avenue extension prior to occupancy of 360,000 square feet of Project office/R &D space, the Project would pay its fair share of the improvements identified in Mitigation Measure T /C- 5b(ii). If the City has not constructed the Tinker Avenue extension, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure T /C- 5(b)(i). Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -5 (and as explained in the paragraph under Section IV.A.5, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, of these Findings), enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will maintain LOS D or better conditions at this intersection. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 5.6 Atlantic Avenue/Webster Street Intersection (T /C -6) 5.6.1 Significant Effect. The addition of Project traffic to the future baseline condition would result in an impact at Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street, which would deteriorate from LOS D in the AM peak hour and LOS C in the PM peak hour to LOS F during both the 26 AM and PM peak hours. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: tigation measure T /C -6: The Project shall provide for the construction of the following three improvements, which would result in LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours: T /C -6a: Provide a fully functional independently controlled southbound right -turn lane on Webster Street at Atlantic Avenue at the time that 360,000 square feet of office R &D space is constructed and occupied. Adequate vehicle storage exists on southbound Webster Street within the curb right -turn lane. However, the merging lane on Atlantic Avenue adjacent to the College would then be inadequate to handle the increased turning volumes. Additional length would have to be added to the merging lane on Atlantic Avenue to eliminate potential conflicts between westbound Atlantic Avenue traffic and vehicles turning right from Webster Street into Atlantic Avenue. T /C -6b: Construct a second left -turn lane and maintain two through lanes and a separate right -turn lane on the eastbound approach of Atlantic Avenue. T /C -6c: Construct a second left -turn lane on the northbound approach of Webster Street at Atlantic Avenue. The implementation of T /C -6b and T /C -6c would reduce this impact to a less than significant level for construction of up to 360,000 square feet of office/R &D space. T /C -6a would also be necessary to reduce impacts to a less than significant level once more than 360,000 square feet of office/R &D space is occupied. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -6 (and as explained in the paragraph under Section IV.A.5, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, of these Findings), enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will maintain LOS D or better conditions at this intersection. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 5.7 Atlantic Avenue /Constitution Wav Intersection (T /C -7) 5.7.1 Significant Effect. The addition of Project traffic to the future baseline condition would result in an impact at Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way, which would deteriorate from LOS C to E during the AM peak hour. 27 Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: T /C -7: Modify the existing signal phasing on Atlantic Avenue at Constitution Way from "permitted" to "protected- permitted" at the time that 360,000 square feet of office/R &D space is constructed and occupied. The Project shall provide for this improvement. This change in signal timing would result in LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -7 (and as explained in the paragraph under Section IV.A.5, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, of these Findings), enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will maintain LOS D or better conditions at this intersection. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 5.8 Atlantic Avenue/Webster Street Intersection: Year 2020 (T /C -11) 5.8.1 Significant Effect. Under year 2020 cumulative conditions, a significant impact would result at the intersection of Atlantic Avenue at Webster Street, which would deteriorate to LOS F during the AM peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: T /C -11: Modify the existing signal timing by maintaining the current minimum green times but increasing the cycle length to 130 seconds. This improvement would result in LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of this improvement. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -11 (and as explained in the paragraph under Section IV.A.5, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, of these Findings), enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will maintain LOS D or better conditions at this intersection. The Project will contribute its fair share toward this mitigation measure. 28 CEQA Guidelines §15130(a)(3) states that a project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 5.9 Central Avenue /Eighth Street Intersection: Year 2020 (T /C -12) 5.9.1 Significant Effect. Under year 2020 cumulative conditions, a significant impact would result at the intersection of Central Avenue at Eighth Street, which would deteriorate to LOS E during the PM peak hour. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: T /C -12: Add a separate through lane on the northbound approach of Eighth Street at Central Avenue. This improvement would result in LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of this improvement. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -12 (and as explained in the paragraph under Section IV.A.5, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, of these Findings), enforced through the MIviRP as a condition of approval, will maintain LOS D or better conditions at this intersection. The Project will contribute its fair share toward this mitigation measure. CEQA Guidelines §15130(a)(3) states that a project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 5.10 Pacific Avenue/Main Street Intersection: Year 2020, (T /C -13) 5.10.1 Signjficant Effect. Under year 2020 cumulative conditions, a significant impact would result at the intersection of Pacific Avenue at Main Street, which would deteriorate to LOS F during the AM and PM peak hours. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: T /C -13: Provide a separate through- and right -turn lane on the eastbound approach of 29 Main Street at Pacific Avenue. In addition, provide a separate left- and right -turn lane on northbound Main Street at Pacific Avenue. These improvements would result in LOS D during the AM peak hour. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of Mitigation Measure T /C -13 as well as the other Capital Improvements Plan (described in Section IV, H(1)(h), of the DEIR, page 258) improvements. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -13 (and as explained in the paragraph under Section IV.A.5, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, of these Findings), enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will maintain LOS D or better conditions at this intersection. The Project will contribute its fair share toward this Mitigation Measure as well as the other Capital Improvements Plan improvements. CEQA Guidelines §15130(a)(3) states that a project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 5.11 Tinker Avenue/Webster Street Intersection: Year 2020. (T /C -14) 5.11.1 Significant Effect. Under year 2020 cumulative conditions, a significant impact would result at the intersection of the Tinker Avenue extension and Webster Street, which would deteriorate to LOS F during the PM peak hour. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: T /C -14: Provide a second left -turn lane on the eastbound approach of the Tinker Avenue extension at Webster Street. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of this improvement. This measure would result in LOS C during the PM peak hour. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -14 (and as explained in the paragraph under 30 Section IV.A.5, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, of these Findings), enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will maintain LOS D or better conditions at this intersection. The Project will contribute its fair share toward this mitigation measure. CEQA Guidelines §15130(a)(3) states that a project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 5.12 Local Roadway Segments: Year 2020 (T /C -19) 5.12.1 Significant Effect. The Project would contribute to a significant traffic impact on five local roadway segments under the year 2020 condition. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: T /C -19: The following mitigation measures would reduce the potential impacts to local roadway segments: T /C -19a: To reduce the peak -hour traffic along local roadway segments to levels below those forecast in this analysis (which does not assume any reduction in trip generation rates to account for TSM programs, beyond those naturally occurring), the Project shall implement a comprehensive set of TSM programs. The existing City of Alameda ordinance for trip reduction programs identifies measures to increase the awareness and use of alternative modes of transportation. The Project shall develop a TSM plan, which would be approved and operational before the site is occupied. The plan shall include trip reduction strategies, site specific requirements, a schedule of implementation and funding mechanisms, and an evaluation of effectiveness that demonstrates that a minimum of 290 trips at the Webster Tube and 125 trips at Park Street would be diverted. The Project TSM program should be consistent with the TSM program recommended for the Reuse EIR. Its goal should be the reduction of these LOS impacts back to less than significant levels. The Project TSM program could include the following components: (1) Create a position of Transportation System Manager. The manager would coordinate, monitor and implement the site's ride sharing programs, preferential parking plans, car and van pooling programs, bicycle and pedestrian programs, and promotion and marketing activities. (2) Develop parking management strategies for the site. Most parking management plans are directed at the employment end of the trip. Elements such as car pools and van pools, preferential parking and transit incentives should be used to reduce parking demand. The Transportation System Manager would need to work with all employer groups to develop the parking management strategies. To the degree that on -site home -to -work opportunities may exist, internal shuttle systems could 31 (3) be provided which would reduce parking on -site. As a parking management strategy, the plan may require that parking in employment/commercial sites be leased independently from buildings to allow for parking cash out. Such a strategy should be detailed in the TSM plan as one measure to achieve a reduction in trips. Other "Transit First" design measures (as outlined in guidelines prepared by the ACCMA) could be incorporated into the specific site design. Implement a shuttle bus system that interconnects on -site developments and the internal transit centers. Implement shuttle services and/or contribute to the expansion of AC Transit service to provide linkages between the site and off -site ferry and BART terminals. The TSM plan would include details for the internal shuttle, including funding and operations. (4) Require implementing one or more peak -hour trip reduction and/or trip elimination programs. These components would include: compressed work weeks, telecommuting, staggered hours, flex -time and other trip reduction activities. (5) As a condition of approval, the City of Alameda could require contributions to fund the various trip reduction programs developed by the Transportation System Manager. Contributions could be based on the number of employees. Funding of the trip reduction program should be detailed and tied to site assessments and CC &Rs. A per - employee and per- residential -unit rate could be included. Funding could be developed on the amount of trip reduction required and the types of strategies recommended in the TSM plan. (6) Employers could be encouraged to hire local residents and create incentive programs to attract local residents. (7) The Transportation System Manager for the site should participate in all of the area -wide or regional transportation planning studies that relate to the access routes leading to the site. To the degree possible, the TSM program for the site should be augmented to incorporate the portions of these regional and local studies that would enhance the site's TSM program and reduce regional traffic during the peak hours. Although implementation of the TSM programs described above would reduce the volume of traffic on SR 260, the reduction in traffic may not be enough to reduce the impact to a less than significant level. It is anticipated that the TSM programs would be effective enough to reduce the impacts on the four other roadway segments to a less than significant level. T /C -19b: The cumulative impacts may be further mitigated by capping traffic generated by other future development at levels such that traffic from these developments together with cumulative traffic growth, would not cause traffic in the Webster/Posey Tubes to exceed LOS E. This mitigation measure would require that the pattern and 32 phasing of development at NAS Alameda and in the western portion of Alameda be monitored to ensure that the traffic generated does not exceed the capacity of the Tubes. It is recommended that the monitoring of the traffic cap be measured using the Countywide Model forecasts. The traffic generated would be monitored by the City as follows, pursuant to procedures to be adopted in City plans and ordinances. (1) Applications for future projects (not including the Project) involving significant new development or changes in use at the NAS Alameda, the FISC Facility, and in the western portion of Alameda would be accompanied by a traffic study that indicates, at a minimum, the number of additional peak hour trips that the proposed project would contribute to traffic through the Tubes. The City shall not approve the proposed future development or change in land use if it would cause the cumulative traffic produced by the future project, in combination with other cumulative development in the area, to exceed the then - current capacity of the Webster/Posey Tubes. (2) The City shall evaluate each proposed new project, taking into account additional information that could alter assumptions about the amount of traffic that can be generated without exceeding the capacity of the Tubes (such as technological improvements that increase the capacity of the Tubes, changes in origin/destination patterns, changes in mode of travel, changes in citywide development patterns, changes in land use patterns that reduce the number of trips through the Tubes, and fundamental changes in commuting habits, perhaps encouraged by government sponsored live /work incentives) to determine if approval of future projects (other than the project) is appropriate in light of the then- current constraints on the traffic capacity of the Tubes. (3) Every three years, or more frequently as the capacity of the Tubes is close to being reached, the City would conduct a study of traffic conditions on key roadways affecting the capacity of the Tubes to revise, based on actual traffic conditions and already permitted development, the estimated number of trips that may be produced by new development or redevelopment without exceeding the capacity of the Tubes. Limiting traffic generated by development of NAS Alameda and FISC Facility through the implementation of TSM measures and the implementation of the cap on development until such time as a new estuary crossing is constructed, would mitigate this cumulative impact to a less than significant level. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. 33 As part of Mitigation Measure T /C -19, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) plan for the Project, in accordance with the specific components set forth in Mitigation Measure T /C -19a, will be developed and submitted to the City for review and approval before the Project site could be occupied. Other site - specific TSMs, such as the one to be developed for the Project, have produced recorded reductions in peak hour travel of 4.4 to 6.2 percent. Implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -19a, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially reduce the significant impacts the Project will have on local roadway segments under the year 2020 conditions, except State Route 260. For impacts to State Route 260, the City adopted (as a mitigation measure in the EIR for the Reuse of the Naval Air Station Alameda and the Fleet Industrial Supply Center, Alameda Annex and Facility) a cap on future development in substantially similar foil," to Mitigation Measure T /C -19b, which limits the amount of future traffic generated on Alameda. Mitigation Measure T /C -19, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the significant impacts the Project would have on State Route 260 under the year 2020 cumulative conditions. These facts support the City's Findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 6. AIR OUALITY 6.1 Construction Impacts (AQ -1) 6.1.1 Significant Effect. Construction -period activities such as demolition, excavation and grading operations, construction vehicle traffic, utility extensions and improvements, and roadway reconstruction would generate exhaust emissions and fugitive particulate matter emissions that would affect local air quality. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: AQ -la: Consistent with the BAAQMD's preferred approach, the Project developer shall ensure that the following measures are included in construction contracts and specifications to control fugitive dust emissions. (1) Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with non -toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives; (2) Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard; (3) Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; (4) Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking 34 (5) areas, and staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up excess water to avoid runoff - related impacts to water quality; Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; (6) Hydroseed or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas; (7) Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non -toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); (8) (9) Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and (10) Suspend excavation and grading activity whenever the wind is so high that it results visible dust plumes despite control efforts. AQ -Jb: The Project developer shall ensure that emissions from construction equipment exhaust, and from workers commuting to the site, are reduced through implementation of the following measures: (1) Store construction tools and equipment on -site in secure facilities to encourage commuting by transit; (2) Use alternative fueled construction equipment to the fullest extent possible; (3) Minimize idling time (e.g., 5- minute maximum); (4) Maintain properly tuned equipment according to equipment manufacturer's guidelines; and (5) Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturday, as specified in Section J, Noise, of this chapter and in City of Alameda Community Noise Ordinance. AQ -1 c: To minimize air quality impacts to the lowest practicable levels, BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2: Hazardous Materials; Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing shall be adhered to during the demolition/construction process. Mitigation Measures AQ -la through AQ -lc would reduce impacts associated with Impact AQ -1 to a less than significant level. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the 35 significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a Less than significant level. The BAAQMD has identified a set of effective and comprehensive control measures for fine particulate matter and asbestos that might be generated from construction activity. Adherence to these measures, as adopted by the BAAQMD, constitute mitigation of construction- related air quality particulate matter and asbestos impacts to a less than significant level. Measures also exist that will avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental impacts from construction- related exhaust emissions. These measures, as specifically identified in Mitigation Measure AQ -1, will be imposed on the Project through the MMRP as a condition of approval. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ -1 will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the impact of Project construction -period activities on local air quality. These facts support the City's findings (See also DEIR, IV.I.2.) 7. NOISE 7.1 Traffic Noise (NOI -1) 7.1.1 Sienificant Effect. On -site residential uses and the school site may be exposed to levels of traffic noise from Atlantic Avenue that would exceed the acceptable outdoor noise levels. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: NOI -1: Detailed noise studies that consider the specific design of the residential areas proposed adjacent to Atlantic Avenue and Tinker Avenue and determine what the minimum height of the sound wall(s) will need to be to achieve an acceptable exterior noise level shall be prepared by a qualified noise consultant. The studies shall be submitted to the City for review and the recommendations shall be incorporated into the Development Plan and the Project improvement plans (see Mitigation Measure AES -3). Design measures such as the following could also be required (by the City's Noise Element Policy 8.7.f), depending on the specific findings of the detailed noise study: double -paned glass for windows facing the direction of traffic; weather -tight seals for doors and windows; or mechanical ventilation such as an air conditioning system. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. 36 As part of Mitigation Measure NOI -1, detailed noise studies will be conducted then submitted to the City for review that will determine the appropriate height of the sound wall(s) that will achieve an acceptable exterior noise level standard. That standard is set forth in the City of Alameda Health and Safety (Noise) Element of the General Plan. The study might also require incorporation of building design measures for residential structures, as specifically listed in Mitigation Measure NOI -1, as mitigation for impacts to interior noise levels created by the impacts to nearby exterior noise levels. Implementation of this mitigation measure, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for exposure of on -site residential uses and the school site to exterior noise levels that exceed the acceptable outdoor noise levels. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.J.2.) 8. PUBLIC SERVICES 8.1 Interference with Fire Department Response Plan (PUB -1) 8.1.1 Significant Effect. Development of the proposed Project would interfere with the City of Alameda Fire Department's Disaster Response Plan. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: PUB -la: The City of Alameda Planning Department shall work with the Fire Department to provide for the installation of a fixed, swing -arm vacuum pipe and hose connection, which would allow emergency pumping of saltwater by the City of Alameda Fire Department in a seismic event. PUB-lb: As part of the Project's Improvement Plans for the wharf area, the City of Alameda shall work with the Fire Department to ensure that adequate access for pumping vehicles operated by City of Alameda Fire Department is provided within 40 feet of the fixed vacuum pipe. PUB-lc: The City of Alameda shall construct the vacuum pipe and hose connection structure during construction of the waterfront promenade. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. The Project is located at one of the Fire Department's target locations for providing access to emergency water (seawater) in a seismic event. Implementation of Mitigation Measure PUB -1 will ensure that adequate wateifiont or pier access for pumping vehicles 37 operated by the Fire Department is provided. Mitigation Measure PUB -1, as enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the impact of the Project on the City of Alameda's Fire Department Disaster Response Plan. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.K.2.) 8.2 Generation Solid Waste from Structure Demolition (PUB -2) 8.2.1 Significant Effect. Demolition of the existing structures on the Project site would result in the generation of large quantities of solid waste, which would include large quantities of potentially recyclable materials. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: PUB -2a: The City of Alameda, the Project sponsor and the demolition subcontractor shall work with organizations able to provide funding and technical assistance for managing and financing the demolition, recycling and reuse project. PUB -2b: A plan for managing the construction debris shall be developed that promotes separation of waste types and recycling, and provides for reuse of materials on -site for reconstructing infrastructure. This plan shall be prepared in coordination with City staff, the Project sponsor, the demolition subcontractor and any involved organizations per Mitigation Measure PUB -2a, and shall be approved by City staff prior to issuance of a demolition pennit. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Sutrnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure PUB -2, prior to issuance of a demolition permit, a plan that promotes recycling and reuse of construction and demolition debris will be developed according to the standards set forth in Mitigation Measure PUB -2b and approved by City staff. Implementation of this mitigation measure, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the impacts from the generation of recyclable and reusable solid waste from demolition, by ensuring that such waste is recycled or reused if feasible. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.K.5.) 38 9. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS 9.1 Capacity of Mitchell Sewer Line (UTL -2) 9.1.1 Significant Effect. If wastewater from the Project areas that now drain to sub -basin 64 -5- 2 are rerouted into sub -basin LA2 (under Option A), the resulting peak flow rates could exceed the capacity of the existing Mitchell sewer line. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: UTL -2: Excess capacity available within the existing Mitchell sewer line shall be determined as part of Project design. The Project shall obtain an Interceptor Connection Permit from EBMUD if connection to the EBMUD Mitchell Street Interceptor (Interceptor) is planned. In this event, the Project shall provide documentation to EBMUD verifying that there is sufficient capacity in the Interceptor at the desired connection location. In the event that sufficient capacity is not available, additional gravity flow capacity shall be installed as part of the Project improvements, and shall be extended to the Alameda interceptor or to the point at which gravity flow capacity becomes available. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect.as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Sunnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. The existing Mitchell sewer line has recently been sliplined to improve its flow characteristics and reduce leakage. However, the sliplining also reduced the pipe's diameter, so it may not have sufficient capacity to accommodate peak flows from all contributing areas. Excess capacity available within the existing Mitchell sewer line shall be determined as part of Project design. If the available capacity is determined to be insufficient, Mitigation Measure UTL -2 will increase the wastewater collection capacity available to handle the Project's needs. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval and will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential under Option A for peak flow rates to exceed the capacity of the Mitchell sewer line. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L.2.) 9.2 Asbestos (UTL -3) 9.2.1 Significant Effect. If existing asbestos cement pipe is either removed during Project construction or crushed in place with insufficient cover, asbestos dust could be released into the air and hazardous materials could contaminate pipe disposal sites. 39 Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: UTL -3: Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -3 as stated below would reduce this impact to a less than significant level: (1) HAZ -3: Adherence by the Project sponsors and the City to existing regulations requiring abatement of lead and asbestos hazards and worker health and safety procedures during demolition and renovation activities would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. No additional mitigation is required. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure UTL -3, the Project sponsor will be required, through the MMRP as a condition of approval, to adhere to existing regulations regarding abatement of lead asbestos hazards and worker health and safety procedures. Adherence to these standards will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for asbestos dust to be released into the air or for hazardous materials to contaminate pipe disposal sites if existing asbestos cement pipe is either removed or crushed in place. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L.2.) 9.3 Cumulative Wastewater Flows (UTL -4) 9.3.1 Significant Effect. Under the cumulative condition, the proposed Project would contribute to wastewater flows expected to exceed the capacity of existing estuary transport facilities and exceed the NAS Alameda's allocation at the EBMUD Water Pollution Control Plant (WPCP). Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: UTL -4: Should the City determine that it needs to further reduce its overall peak flows into the WPCP, the proposed Project should contribute its fair share of the costs associated with. the design and development of a sewer retention facility or an enhanced West Alameda Infiltration & Inflow Program. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) 40 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. The City recognizes that potential capacity shortfalls may exist under the cumulative condition within the NAS Alameda and FISC Facility reuse planning area, and has begun to evaluate options by which additional capacity could be provided. The City may decide to proportionately distribute the cost of additional facilities among properties. The mechanism by which such charges would be levied (and whether they would be needed at all) has not yet been formulated. The City may determine in the future that additional wastewater transport facilities are needed to accommodate the cumulative wastewater requirements within the NAS Alameda and FISC Facility reuse planning areas. Should the City make this determination, the Project may be required, as enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, to contribute its fair share of the costs of the new facilities. CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(3) states that a project's contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure or measures designed to alleviate the cumulative impact. Implementation of this measure will avoid or substantially lessen the Project's contribution to the potential for cumulative wastewater flows to exceed capacity of existing estuary transport facilities and to exceed NAS Alameda's allocation at the EBMUD WPCP. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L.2.) 9.4 Gas Distribution Lines (UTL -5) 9.4.1 Significant Effect. Phased abandonment of the existing gas distribution lines on the Project site may leave some facilities in place that present unsafe hazardous conditions. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: UTL-5: A gas line abandonment plan shall be prepared by the Project or other responsible entity for approval. At a minimum, it is recommended that the plan address the following issues: (1) Scheduling for service disconnection at buildings to be demolished; (2) Completion of mapping, leak detection and repairs on all portions of the existing system that may be impacted by Project construction, and that are planned to remain in service during Project construction; and (3) Compliance with all other California Public Utility Commission provisions relating to system abandonment. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the 41 significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. The site's existing gas lines could become a source of leaks that would potentially endanger Project improvements and/or utility company workers constructing or servicing needed new facilities. A gas line abandonment plan shall be prepared by the Project or other responsible entity for approval by the City in accordance with the standards set forth in Mitigation Measure UTL -5. Timely preparation and approval of this plan will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. The plan shall comply with the standards as set forth in this mitigation measure. Implementation of Mitigation Measure UTL -5 will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for phased abandonment of existing gas distribution lines to present unsafe hazardous conditions. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L.3.) 10. CULTURAL RESOURCES 10.1 Undiscovered Cultural Resources (CUL -1) 10.1.1 Significant Effect. If previously undiscovered cultural resources are unearthed during construction on the Project, a significant impact would result. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: CUL -1: In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during site preparation or construction, the Project sponsor shall cease work in the immediate area until such time as a qualified archaeologist and City of Alameda personnel can assess the significance of the find. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented at the time of the find: (1) Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resources shall be immediately suspended and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the find. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context. (2) If a human burial or disassociated human bone is encountered, current State law requires that the County Coroner be called immediately. All work must be curtailed in the vicinity of the discovery until the Coroner's approval to continue has been received. (3) If archeological resources are discovered, and the City and the cultural resource consultant find that the resource is unique based on the criteria provided in the CEQA Guidelines and criteria listed above, the City and Project developer, in 42 consultation with a cultural resource expert, shall seek to avoid damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible. (4) If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified cultural resource consultant shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the Project on the qualities that make the resource unique. The mitigation plan shall be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings,. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. No cultural resources have been identified on the Project site that might be impacted by the Project. As part of Mitigation Measure CUL -1, however, if previously undiscovered cultural resources are unearthed during construction of the Project, work shall cease until the significance of the find is determined. Appropriate measures will then be taken, in accordance with the standards set forth in Mitigation Measure CUL -1, and as approved by the City, that will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for impacts to previously undiscovered subsurface cultural resources. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.M.2.) 10.2 Buried Paleontological Resources Might Be Unearthed. (CUL -2) 10.2.1 Significant Effect. If buried paleontological resources are discovered on the Project site, a significant impact would result. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: CUL -2: If paleontological resources are encountered during Project site preparation or construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: (1) Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resource(s) shall be immediately suspended, and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified paleontological resource consultant shall be contacted to evaluate the find. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context. (2) If paleontological resources are discovered and the City and the paleontological resource consultant find that the resource is significant based on the criteria provided in the CEQA Guidelines and criteria listed above, the City and Project 43 (3) developer, in consultation with a paleontological resource expert, shall seek to avoid damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible. If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified paleontological resource consultant shall prepare a salvage plan for mitigating the effect of the Project on the qualities which make the resource unique. The Project applicant, in consultation with a qualified paleontologist, shall complete a paleontological resource inventory, declaration, and mitigation plan in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and submit it to the City for review and approval. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. No paleontological resources have been identified on the Project site that might be impacted by the Project. As part of Mitigation Measure CUL -2, however, if previously undiscovered paleontological resources are unearthed during construction of the Project, work shall cease until the significance of the find is determined. Appropriate measures will then be taken, in accordance with the standards set forth in Mitigation Measure CUL -2, and as approved by the City, that will avoid or substantially lessen any potentially significant impact to previously undiscovered paleontological resources. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEER, IV.M.2.) 11. AESTHETICS 11.1 Visual Impacts of Sound Wall (AES -3) 11.1.1 Significant Effect. The sound wall required along the southern edge of the proposed Project may adversely affect the visual character and quality of the Project's frontage along Atlantic Avenue. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: AES 3: A final design plan for the sound wall and a landscape plan for the Atlantic Avenue frontage shall be submitted to the City of Alameda for review and approval subsequent to the detailed noise study required by Mitigation Measure NOI -1, but prior to the City's approval of a Development Plan for any residential lots adjacent to Atlantic Avenue. The City shall only approve the wall design and landscape plan if it finds that it will not adversely affect the visual character of the Atlantic Avenue frontage. The height and length of the wall should be minimized to the extent feasible while 44 maintaining adequate mitigation of noise levels. A height of 10 feet shall only be permitted adjacent to those lots where the rear yards or side yards are perpendicular to Atlantic Avenue if the final noise study deems the wall necessary to achieve acceptable outdoor noise levels. The detailed noise study specified in Mitigation Measure NOI -1 shall determine the minimum height necessary for walls located along the side yards of the residences that would be sited parallel to Atlantic Avenue. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Sunnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure AES -3, no Development Plan for any residential lot adjacent to Atlantic Avenue will be approved unless the City finds, in accordance with criteria set forth in Mitigation Measure AES -3, that the sound wall necessary along the southern edge of the proposed Project will not adversely affect the visual character of the Atlantic Avenue frontage. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AES -3, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen any adverse effect on the visual character or quality of the Project site frontage along Atlantic Avenue. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.N.2.) 11.2 Building and Promenade Lighting (AES -4) 11.2.1 Significant Effect. The proposed Project could generate light and glare which would be visible primarily from the northern shore of the Oakland Estuary at Jack London Square, as well as from existing and proposed circulation corridors and residential areas within the City of Alameda. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: AES -4a: The specific reflective properties of Project building materials should be assessed by the City during Design Review as part of the Development Plan approval process. Design Review shall ensure that the use of reflective exterior materials is minimized. AES -4b: Specific lighting proposals shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to installation. This review shall ensure that any outdoor night lighting for the proposed waterfront promenade would be downshielded and would not create additional nighttime glare. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the 45 significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure AES -4, building materials and lighting proposals will be reviewed and approved by the City before installation, as part of Design Review, to ensure that use of reflective materials and creation of additional nighttime glare is minimized. Implementation of this mitigation measure, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for the Project to generate light or glare which would be visible from the northern shore of the Oakland Estuary at Jack London Square or from existing and proposed circulation corridors and residential areas within the City of Alameda. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.N.2.) 11.3 Light and Glare: Impacts on Housing (AES -5) 11.3.1 Significant Effect. The proposed Project office/R &D parking lot lighting could generate light and glare which would be visible primarily from the existing USCG Housing and the proposed multi - family housing. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: AES -5: Specific lighting proposals for proposed office/R &D parking lot areas shall be reviewed and approved by the City during Design Review for office/R &D structures. This review shall ensure that any outdoor night lighting for the proposed office/R &D parking lot areas is downshielded and would not create nighttime glare for surrounding residential areas. Findings. The CIC hereby makes finding (1). (Finding 1: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR.) Facts in Sunnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure AES -5, lighting proposals will be reviewed and approved by the City before installation as part of Design Review to ensure that outdoor night lighting for the proposed office/R &D structures is downshielded and would not create nighttime glare for surrounding residential areas. Implementation of this mitigation measure, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for light and glare from the Project office/R &D parking lots to be visible from USCG Housing or the proposed multi - family housing. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.N.2.) 46 B. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid the following significant impacts, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite these significant impacts. These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the City. 1. POPULATION AND HOUSING 1.1 Loss of Housing Units (POP -1) 1.1.1 Significant Effect. Construction of the proposed Project would require the demolition of 590 units of vacant military multi - family residential housing and construction of up to 539 replacement units resulting in a net loss of at least 51 vacant units. Mitigation. This impact will be mitigated with the following required mitigation measure identified in the FEIR and incorporated into the Project: POP -1: The following mitigation measures would likely reduce the loss of 51 vacant units to a less than significant level. However, since it is not possible to precisely quantify the effect that the mitigations may have on this loss, the loss of these 51 units would remain significant and unavoidable. (1) As part of the Project, the City of Alameda General Plan Housing Element is proposed to be amended to expand Housing Inventory Site #1 to include a location of the former NAS Alameda (see Appendix B of the DEIR). In addition, the Reuse Plan contemplates the development of additional housing units at the NAS and FISC Facility. (2) The City shall use accumulated funds in the Alameda Affordable Housing Unit Fee program and the 20 percent affordable housing tax increment set -aside funds from the Alameda Point Improvement Project area to subsidize the construction of at least 51 new housing units at Alameda Point. Findings. The CIC hereby makes fording (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) 47 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is significant and unavoidable. The proposed Project would not result in the displacement of any people, but would require the demolition of the vacant military multi - family housing that is located in the East Housing area. The East Housing area has been vacant since 1996 and does not currently meet modern building access and safety codes. This housing was never made available to the general public and, as a result, does not constitute a loss of publicly - available housing stock. Mitigation Measure POP -1, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, would likely reduce the loss of 51 vacant units to a less than significant level. However, since it is not possible to precisely quantify the effect that the mitigations may have on this loss, the loss of these 51 units would remain significant and unavoidable. City Charter provisions in Chapter 26 generally preclude construction of new multi - family housing in Alameda. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that the City of Alameda could adopt at this time that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. This impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. The two alternatives identified in the DEIR that would avoid this significant impact, the Reoccupation Alternative and the Increased Housing Alternative, are likewise infeasible for reasons set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.C.2.) 2. HAZARDS 2.1 Potentially Hazardous Materials Present at School Site (HAZ -4) 2.1.1 Significant Effect. Construction of a school at the Project site could potentially expose students and school workers to health risks from hazardous materials present at or near the Project site. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated with the following mitigation measure identified in the FEIR: HAZ -4: In accordance with state law, permits for construction of a new school at the site should not be approved unless all of the following occur: (1) Environmental analysis documentation for approval of the school site includes information which is needed to determine if the property proposed to be dedicated, purchased, or constructed on, is any of the following: (a) The site of a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site and, if so, whether the wastes have been removed. (b) A hazardous substance release site identified by the State Department of Health Services in a current list adopted pursuant to Section 25356 for removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8 (commencing with 48 (c) Section 25300) or Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. A site which contains one or more pipelines, situated underground or aboveground, which carries hazardous substances, acutely hazardous materials, or hazardous wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line which is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood. (2) The Project developer or developers notify in writing and consult with BAAQMD and ACDEH to identify facilities within 1/4 mile of the proposed school site which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The notification by the Project developer or developers should include a list of the locations for which information is sought. (3) The governing board of the Alameda Unified School District makes one of the following written findings: (a) Consultation with BAAQMD and ACDEH identified no such facilities specified in paragraph 2. (b) The facilities specified in paragraph 2, above, are present, but one of the following conditions applies: (i) The health risks from the facilities do not and will not constitute an actual or potential endangeiment of public health to persons who would attend or be employed at the proposed school. (ii) Corrective measures required under an existing order by another agency having jurisdiction over the facilities will, before the school is occupied, result in the mitigation of all chronic or accidental hazardous air emissions to levels that do not constitute an actual or potential endangerment of public health to persons who would attend or be employed at the proposed school. If the governing board makes such a finding, it should also make a subsequent finding, prior to occupancy of the school, that the emissions have been so mitigated. (4) The governing board of the AUSD complies with Education Code Section 17213.1, which requires, among other provisions, preparation of a Phase I site assessment and DTSC oversight over proposed school sites. Findinus. The CIC hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted by that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other 49 considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will be lessened to a less than significant level if AUSD approves, funds, and implements Mitigation Measure HAZ -4, but will remain significant and unavoidable if the AUSD does not approve, fund, and implement HAZ -4. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact could be reduced to a less than significant level, but the changes or alterations necessary to reduce the impact to a less than significant level are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City; and the impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. As part of Mitigation Measure HAZ -4, a permit for construction of the school should not be issued until environmental research, analysis, and documentation, as specifically set forth in Mitigation Measure HAZ -4(1), for the school site is conducted to determine whether conditions on the site itself or on properties within' /4 -mile of the school site might result in the emission or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste. For properties located within' /4 -mile of the proposed school site, in accordance with California Education Code Section 17213, the AUSD should make findings that either no such properties or facilities are located within' /4 -mile, or that the health risks from such properties or facilities where they do exist will not endanger public health or will be corrected or mitigated such that they will not endanger public health. For each proposed school site itself, AUSD must determine, in accordance with California Education Code Section 17213, that the site is not the site of a current or former hazardous or solid waste disposal site, or if it was a former solid waste disposal site, that the wastes have been removed. Mitigation Measure HAZ -4, if implemented by the AUSD, would ensure that construction of the school or the Project site would not expose students or school workers to risks from hazardous materials present at or near the Project site. Because AUSD is an independent jurisdiction, the City of Alameda does not have authority to impose this measure on AUSD. If AUSD does not implement Mitigation Measure HAZ -4, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that the City of Alameda could adopt at this time that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. This impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. (See also DEIR, IV.F.2.) 3. TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION 3.1 Jackson Street/6th Street Intersection in Oakland: (T /C -8) 3.1.1 Sianificant Effect. The addition of Project traffic to the future baseline condition would result in a significant traffic impact at the intersection of Jackson Street and 6th Street in the City of Oakland, which would deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F during the AM peak 50 hour and exacerbate LOS F conditions during the PM peak hour. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated with the following mitigation measure identified in the FEIR: T /C -8: Provide a separate left and through lane on the northbound approach of Jackson Street at 6th Street. The construction of a separate northbound left-turn lane at Jackson Street and 6th Street would be required before any of the office/R &D development is occupied as the Project exacerbates an existing deficiency condition. The Route 260 Deficiency Plan (a multi jurisdictional plan, described in Section IV, H(1)(h), of the DEIR, page 258) also includes this improvement. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of this improvement. With this improvement (shown in Figure IV.H -6 of the FEIR), the intersection would operate at LOS B and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. Findings. The CIC hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted by that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will be lessened to a less than significant level if the City of Oakland approves, funds, and implements Mitigation Measure T /C -8, but will remain significant and unavoidable if the City of Oakland does not approve, fund and implement T /C -8. Facts in Sunnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact could be reduced to a less than significant level, but the changes or alterations necessary to reduce the impact to a less than significant level are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City; and the impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure T /C -8 (and as explained in the paragraph under Section IV.A.5, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, of these Findings), if approved, funded and implemented by the City of Oakland, will maintain LOS D or better conditions at this intersection, and will receive a fair share contribution from the Project. This mitigation measure, however, is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oakland and not the City of Alameda. Also, it has not been approved or fully funded. Accordingly, implementation by the City of Alameda of this mitigation measure is infeasible. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that the City of Alameda could adopt at this time that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. This impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. The Reoccupation Alternative and the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative, as described in DEIR, Section V, would each 51 have a less severe, although still significant, impact on this intersection than would the proposed Project. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make infeasible those two Project alternatives. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 3.2 Harrison Street/7th Street Intersection in Oakland (T /C -9) 3.2.1 Significant Effect. The addition of Project traffic to the future baseline condition would result in a significant traffic impact at the intersection of Harrison Street and 7th Street in the City of Oakland, which would deteriorate from LOS C to LOS F during the PM peak hour. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated with the following mitigation measure identified in the FEIR. T /C -9: The following two mitigation measures shall be implemented: 9a: Provide a grade- separated free right -turn movement on the northbound approach of Harrison Street at 7th Street, which would result in LOS B conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. The grade separation of the northbound right -turn lane on Harrison Street at 7th Street would be required once 360,000 square feet of office/R &D space is constructed and occupied. 9b: The list of planned improvements included in the SR 260 Deficiency Plan (see Mitigation T /C -8) includes constructing a direct connection from the Posey Tube to 5th Street in Oakland and operating Jackson Street one -way northbound from 5th Street to the I -880 northbound on -ramp at 6th Street. The traffic studies conducted as part of the development of the Deficiency Plan suggest that as many as 1,000 vehicles per hour could be diverted from the Harrison Street/7th Street intersection to 5th Street. If these improvements are built, Harrison Street and 7th Street would operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. The construction of a new exit portal from the Posey Tube to southbound 5th Street would require construction of a new ramp. The ramp would need to include adequate deceleration capacity so that vehicles exiting from the Posey Tube onto southbound 5th Street would not impact northbound vehicles exiting the Posey Tube at Harrison Street. This may require reconstruction of the portal structure. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the accomplishment of these measures. Implementation of both of T /C -9a and T /C -9b would be required to mitigate this potential impact to a less than significant level. Findings. The CIC hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FUR are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted by 52 that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will be lessened to a less than significant level if the City of Oakland approves, funds, and implements Mitigation Measures T /C -9a and b, but will remain significant and unavoidable if the City of Oakland does not approve, fund and implement T /C -9a and b. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact could be reduced to a less than significant level, but the changes or alterations necessary to reduce the impact to a less than significant level are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City; and the impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure T /C -9 (and as explained in the paragraph under Section IV.A.5, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, of these Findings), if approved, funded and implemented by the City of Oakland, will maintain LOS D or better conditions at this intersection, and will receive a fair share contribution from the Project. This mitigation measure, however, is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oakland and not the City of Alameda. Also, it has not been approved or fully funded. Accordingly, implementation by the City of Alameda of this mitigation measure is infeasible. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that the City of Alameda could adopt at this time that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. This impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. The Reoccupation Alternative and the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative, as described in DEIR, Section V, would each have a less severe, although still significant, impact on this intersection than would the proposed Project. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make infeasible those two Project alternatives. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 3.3 Jackson Street/5th Street Intersection in Oakland (T /C -10) 3.3.1 Sienificant Effect. The addition of any Project traffic to the future baseline condition would result in a significant traffic impact at the intersection of Jackson Street at 5th Street in the City of Oakland, which would exacerbate LOS F conditions during the PM peak hour. Mitigation„ This impact can be mitigated with the following mitigation measure identified in the FEIR: T /C -10: The following two mitigation measures shall be implemented: T /C -10a: Provide a separate left and through lane on the southbound approach of 53 Jackson Street at 5th Street which would result in LOS B and C conditions during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. T /C -10b: The SR 260 Deficiency Plan (see Mitigation T /C -8) also includes measures to divert I -880 southbound traffic to Madison Street from Jackson Street. The implementation of Mitigation Measure T /C -10a should therefore be supplemented by signage that redirects southbound Jackson Street traffic to southbound Madison. The Project shall contribute its fair share towards the construction of these improvements. The implementation of both T /C -10a and T /C -10b would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. Findings. The CIC hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted by that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will be lessened to a less than significant level if the City of Oakland approves, funds, and implements Mitigation Measures T /C -10a and b, but will remain significant and unavoidable if the City of Oakland does not approve, fund and implement T /C -10a and b. Facts in Sunnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact could be reduced to a less than significant level, but the changes or alterations necessary to reduce the impact to a less than significant level are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City; and the impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure T /C -10 (and as explained in the paragraph under Section IV.A.5, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, of these Findings), if approved, funded and implemented, will maintain LOS D or better conditions at this intersection, and will receive a fair share contribution from the Project. This mitigation measure, however, is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oakland and not the City of Alameda. Also, it has not been approved or fully funded. Accordingly, implementation by the City of Alameda of this mitigation measure is infeasible. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that the City of Alameda could adopt at this time that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. This impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. The Reoccupation Alternative and the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative, as described in DEER, Section V, would each have a less severe, although still significant, impact on this intersection than would the proposed Project. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make infeasible those two Project 54 alternatives. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 3.4 Jackson Street/6th Street Intersection in Oakland: Year 2020. (T /C -15) 3.4.1 Sianificant Effect. Under year 2020 cumulative conditions, a significant impact would result at the intersection of Jackson Street at 6th Street in the City of Oakland, which would deteriorate to LOS F during the PM peak hour. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated with the following mitigation measure identified in the FEIR: T /C -15: Add a separate northbound left -turn lane on the northbound approach of Jackson Street at 6th Street. This improvement would result in LOS B conditions during the PM peak hour. (This mitigation measure is also included in the long -term strategies discussed in the Route 260 Deficiency Plan Traffic Analysis). The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of this improvement. Findings. The CIC hereby makes findings (2) and (3). (Finding 2: Changes or alterations to the Project which would avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the FEIR are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City and can and should be adopted by that other agency. Finding 3: Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will be lessened to a less than significant level if the City of Oakland approves, funds, and implements Mitigation Measure T /C -15, but will remain significant and unavoidable if the City of Oakland does not approve, fund and implement T /C -15. Facts in Sunnort of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact could be reduced to a less than significant level, but the changes or alterations necessary to reduce the impact to a less than significant level are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the City; and the impact therefore remains significant and unavoidable. Mitigation Measure T /C -15 (and as explained in the paragraph under Section IV.A.5, TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION, of these Findings), if approved, funded and implemented by the City of Oakland, will maintain LOS D or better conditions at this intersection, and will receive a fair share contribution from the Project. This mitigation measure, however, is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of Oakland and not the City of Alameda. Also, it has not been approved or fully funded. Accordingly, implementation by the City of Alameda of this mitigation measure is infeasible. There are no additional feasible mitigation measures that the City of Alameda could adopt at this time that would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. This impact 55 therefore remains significant and unavoidable. The Reoccupation Alternative and the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative, as described in DEIR, Section V, would each have a less severe, although still significant, impact on this intersection than would the proposed Project. However, specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, as set forth in the Findings of Fact Concerning Alternatives, make infeasible those two Project alternatives. These facts support the City's findings. (See also DEIR, IV.H.2.) 3.5 Oak Street/5th Street Intersection in Oakland: Year 2020 (T /C -16) 3.5.1 Significant Effect. Under year 2020 cumulative conditions, a significant impact would result at the intersection of Oak Street at 5th Street in the City of Oakland, which would deteriorate to LOS E during the PM peak hour. Mitigation. This impact could be mitigated with the following mitigation measure identified in the FEIR: T/C-16: Provide a separate right -turn lane on the northbound approach of Oak Street at 5th Street. This improvement would result in LOS B conditions during the PM peak hour. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward t 56 FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES ATTACHMENT B INTRODUCTION In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA ") Guideline Section 15126.6, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather is must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation. If a project alternative will substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the decisionmaker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make the project alternative infeasible. (See CEQA §21002, CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3)). The findings with respect to the four project alternatives identified in the EIR are described in this section. II. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES AND FINDINGS A. NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 1. Brief Description The No Project alternative assumes the continuation of the existing conditions on the site, and would not involve any improvements to the FISC Facility or East Housing area. Existing buildings are assumed to be vacant in this alternative. Interim leases that exist now would be allowed to expire and would not be renewed. The condition of the buildings on the Project site would continue to decline, and no improvements would be made to existing vehicle or pedestrian circulation systems, utilities or other features of the Project site. Under this alternative the FISC Facility and East Housing area would remain under City ownership with on -site activities limited to security and minimal maintenance. 2. Comparison to Project Without Mitigation A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and less than significant impacts of Project, without mitigation, is described below. a. Land Use. The beneficial land use changes of the proposed Project that would eliminate open expanses of pavement and deteriorated buildings thus generally improving the community would not occur under this alternative. b. Public Policy. Although no direct policy conflicts would result under this alternative, it would not achieve many of the goals and objectives of the local plans applicable to the Project site that the proposed Project would achieve, such as improving the community's housing supply. c. Population and Housing. This alternative would not result in the net loss of at least 51 housing units the proposed Project would cause, but would not result in the replacement of the large number of presently vacant and uninhabitable housing units on the Project site. d. Hvdrolo2v and Storm Drainage. Under this alternative, existing drainage patterns, runoff volumes, and runoff velocities would remain unchanged. Similarly, water quality of runoff would not be altered by increased on -site uses. These characteristics of the No Project alternative would reduce the hydrology and water quality impact relative to the proposed Project. e. Geology. Soils. and Seismicity. Potential impacts of the proposed Project associated with seismic shaking would be minimized as compared to the proposed Project because people eventually (after current interim leases expire) would not live or work at the site. f. Hazards. Hazard impacts that would occur with the proposed Project related to workers (during and after construction), potential residents, and students being exposed to hazards such as contaminated subsurface materials, gases, and asbestos would not occur under the No Project alternative. Impacts caused by remediation of contamination on the site would still occur under this alternative. g. Biology. The No Project alternative would not result in any of the significant impacts on biological resources that have been forecast to occur with the proposed Project, because existing structures and vegetation would not be removed and no new storm drain outfalls would be constructed. h. Traffic and Circulation. For this alternative, the construction- and operation -period traffic impacts of the Project would not be generated. Traffic conditions would be the same as for the existing conditions at the site. i. Air Oualitv. This alternative would not result in the construction - or operation -period impacts to air quality the Project would generate. i. Noise. Under the No Project alternative, no construction or demolition would occur, and no additional vehicular traffic would be introduced in the vicinity. Accordingly, the related noise impacts would also not be generated. k. Public Services. Under the No Project alternative, the City of Alameda would still assume the responsibility for providing adequate levels of public services to the Project site. Demand for police and fire services would be less than that expected with the proposed Project, but could increase from current levels if vacant buildings became a nuisance. This alternative would also not interfere with the Fire Department's Disaster Response Plan, as the proposed Project would, nor would it increase the demand on Alameda Unified School District (AUSD) facilities and services, as would the proposed Project. It would not, however, provide the school site for AUSD to use to serve students living outside the Project site. Lastly, this alternative would not create the significant impact associated with generation of solid waste from building construction and demolition that the proposed Project would cause. 1. Utilities. The No Project alternative would avoid the significant utilities impacts related to water and wastewater that would occur with the proposed Project, and would also avoid impacts related to potential hazards from asbestos pipes during construction. m. Cultural Resources. This alternative would not involve demolition or construction and therefore would not disturb any existing structures or subsurface soils at the Project site or in the vicinity. Cultural resources would also not be impacted. n. Aesthetics. This alternative would not result in the beneficial aesthetic impacts that would result from the proposed Project, but would not cause light and glare impacts. Deteriorating buildings would not be removed and the open expanses of pavement would not be eliminated under this alternative. 3. Findings This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons: a. The No Project Alternative would fail to satisfy the following objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project Description: Eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies in the Project area, including, but not limited to, abandoned buildings, incompatible land uses, depreciated or stagnant property values, contamination, and inadequate or deteriorated public improvements, facilities, and utilities. Replanning, redesigning, and developing undeveloped and underdeveloped areas that are improperly utilized to achieve a balanced mix of land uses and create a vibrant new neighborhood in Alameda. 3 Expanding and improving the community's supply of housing through the installation of needed site improvements and the construction of housing, consistent with the existing density and residential character of Alameda and with existing City of Alameda policies and standards, including Measure A. Providing diversity in housing opportunities through compliance with CIC inclusionary housing policy (i.e., providing on -site moderate income housing and contributing land and funds toward the development of 39 units of very-low income housing). Strengthening the economic base of the Project area and the community by adding approximately 1.3 million gross square feet of business park and supporting retail space. Achieving job creation and economic development. Actively seeking and promoting business and light industries that provide significant sustainable employment, including a mix of light industries emphasizing opportunities for technology research and development (R &D) and technology transfer. Facilitating the emergence of commercial - industrial sectors, including those expected to emerge or expand due to their proximity to the new business park site, through improvement of transportation access to commercial and industrial areas, improvement of safety within the Project area, and the installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new commercial and industrial expansion, employment, and economic growth. Emphasizing employment and a mix of economic development opportunities that complement economic development strategies in other parts of Alameda; and promoting a jobs- housing balance to the extent practicable. Seamlessly integrating the Project site into the City of Alameda by: emphasizing Mixed Use development; ensuring land use compatibility within and surrounding the Project site; creating the same "small town" character on the Project site which is highly valued by the existing community; achieving the same human- scale, tree -lined character of neighborhood walkable streets found throughout the existing City; reflecting the grid street pattern that is characteristic of the existing City of Alameda; and minimizing through -traffic on minor residential streets. Protecting and improving the waterfront by enhancing views of water and public access to the waterfront in all development and creatively encouraging the usage of the waterfront. Providing a school site to further educational opportunities at the Project sites and in surrounding neighborhoods. 4 Providing parks within the Project site to service the needs of the residents of the Project site and surrounding neighborhoods. Ensuring that the Project site design is in concert with the established goals, policies, and objectives of the NAS Alameda Community Reuse Plan. b. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible, thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this alternative. c. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considera- tions, the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project would not be obtained if this alternative were adopted. d. Based on the foregoing, the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) finds that the No Project Alternative is not feasible. B. REOCCUPATION ALTERNATIVE 1. Brief Description This alternative would include the continued reoccupation of the existing buildings on the Project site, including the vacant buildings on the FISC Facility site and the vacant military housing located on the East Housing area. The FISC Facility and East Housing area would remain under City ownership. Reoccupation of the FISC Facility buildings would be based on a program similar to the current Interim Lease Program being administered by the Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority (ARRA), but on a long -term basis. Under this program, buildings would be used for low hazard uses and would be upgraded only as necessary to meet special Code requirements developed for the site by the City of Alameda Building Services and Fire Departments. Provisions for reoccupation of the now vacant military residential units by civilians would also be made. These units would require considerable rehabilitation and maintenance as well as health and safety upgrades to allow for their reuse. The school site and the open space and recreation amenities (e.g., neighborhood park, waterfront promenade) proposed as part of the Project would not be developed under the Reoccupation Alternative. 2. Comparison to Project Without Mitigation A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and less than significant impacts of Project, without mitigation, is described below. a. Land Use. The continuation of existing land uses and reinstatement of previously existing land uses and building rehabilitation would not result in any new significant land use impacts or conflicts with nearby land 5 uses. The beneficial land use changes of the proposed Project that would eliminate open expanses of pavement and deteriorated buildings thus generally improving the community would not occur under this alternative, however. b. Public Policy. Although no direct policy conflicts would result under this alternative, it would not achieve many of the goals and objectives of the local plans applicable to the Project site that the proposed Project would achieve, such as providing public access to the waterfront and full implementation of the Reuse Plan, APIP Plan, and BWIP Plan. c. Population and Housing. This alternative would not result in the net loss of at least 51 housing units the proposed Project would cause, but would not result in the replacement of existing housing by newer and affordable housing, as would the proposed Project. d. Hydrology Storm Drainage. Storm drainage conveyance system improvements to the site would not occur under this alternative. Construction- related water quality impacts to the Bay would be reduced as compared to the proposed Project because only rehabilitative construction would occur and would not involve as much grading and site preparation as the proposed Project. Deterioration of existing buildings, many of which contain asbestos and lead -based paint, could degrade Bay water quality, although it is assumed that these materials would be abated as part of the rehabilitation of the residential structures. e. Geology. Soils. and Seismicity. Potential impacts of the proposed Project associated with seismic shaking and land subsidence would be the same as the proposed Project. f. Hazards. Except for hazards related to construction of a school site (no school would be constructed under this altemative), hazards - related impacts from this altemative would be similar to those identified for the proposed Project, including exposure of persons at or near the Project site to hazardous materials in the march crust and groundwater; use, storage, transport, or generation of hazardous materials; and release of lead dust and asbestos fibers during building renovation. e. Biology. The Reoccupation Alternative could have significant impacts on Cooper's hawks, pallid bats and western mastiff bats, similar to the proposed Project. Potential impacts identified for the proposed Project related to the California least tern and Pacific herring would not occur with the Reoccupation Alternative if the new storm drainage outfalls are not constructed. h. Traffic and Circulation. Development of this alternative would result in the same significant traffic and circulation impacts as the proposed Project, except for one impact identified related to circulation near the school site, which would not occur since no school site would be developed as part of this alternative. The intersections impacted by this alternative would be the same as the proposed Project. The level of service impacts of the Reoccupation Alternative are slightly lower than those associated with the proposed Project, although the mitigation measures would be the same. i. Air Quality. The overall construction level would be much lower than for the proposed Project, and would have less than significant and lower air quality impacts on nearby sensitive uses. The lower traffic volumes associated with this alternative, as compared to the proposed Project, would consequently generate lower air pollutant emissions associated with traffic than the proposed Project. However, such emission levels would still be considered significant and unavoidable. i. Noise. The overall construction level would be much lower than for the proposed Project, and would have less of an effect on nearby sensitive uses from noise. Because the Reoccupation Alternative would generate lower traffic volumes than the proposed Project, traffic noise on off -site roadways in the Project vicinity would be slightly lower than that of the proposed Project, but would still exceed acceptable outdoor noise levels along Atlantic Avenue. k. Public Services. Under the Reoccupation Alternative, the City of Alameda would still assume the responsibility for providing adequate levels of services to the Project site, as would be the case with the proposed Project. Because of a greater on -site population than the proposed Project, the Reoccupation Alternative would result in impacts to fire services, schools, and recreation that would not occur with the proposed Project. The anticipated law enforcement issues associated with the buildout of the Reoccupation Alternative would be similar to the proposed Project. This alternative would not result in a significant increase in the demand for fire protection services, nor would it interfere with the City's Disaster Response Plan. The impact on schools under the Reoccupation Alternative would be very similar to the proposed Project. However, development of this alternative would not be subject to the school mitigation fee that is mandated by SB50, since no new construction is proposed. In addition, this alternative would not provide a school site. The increased population and employment associated with this alternative would increase demand for recreational facilities in the Project vicinity, but would not provide additional facilities to meet this demand. As a result, the development of this alternative would result in a significant recreation impact that was not identified for the proposed Project. Impacts associated with the generation of solid waste during Project operation would be similar to those described for the proposed Project. However, construction period impacts would be greater with the proposed Project than for this alternative. 1. Utilities. This alternative would leave in- service water lines and distribution facilities that may not meet current design criteria or comply with all health and safety codes. The proposed Project, however, would replace the existing water distribution system. Most existing sewer mains and structures on the site are constructed of nonconfoiming materials and/or insufficient cover and may require undetermined repairs to prevent leaks and minimize future operation and maintenance. The proposed Project would replace most existing sewer mains and structures on the site. The Reoccupation Alternative would not. This alternative would also exceed wastewater flow capacities without providing system upgrades to handle the increased flows. The proposed Project would have similar impacts to wastewater flows but would provide system upgrades to handle those increased flows. As a result, the development of this alternative would result in a significant wastewater impact that was not identified for the proposed Project. m. Cultural Resources. The Reoccupation Alternative would not require extensive demolition or construction, as the existing structures on the Project site would be reused. However, utility repairs would impact cultural resources. The significant impacts to cultural resources identified for the proposed Project would occur with this alternative, but would be reduced. n. Aesthetics„ The Reoccupation Alternative would not result in the beneficial aesthetic impacts that would result from the proposed Project. 3. Findings This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons: a. The Reoccupation Alternative would satisfy some of the objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project Description, but would fail to satisfy the following objectives to the same extent as would the proposed Project: Eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies in the Project area, including, but not limited to, abandoned buildings, incompatible land uses, depreciated or stagnant property values, contamination, and inadequate or deteriorated public improvements, facilities, and utilities. Replanning, redesigning, and developing undeveloped and underdeveloped areas that are improperly utilized to achieve a balanced mix of land uses and create a vibrant new neighborhood in Alameda. Strengthening the economic base of the Project area and the community by adding 8 approximately 1.3 million gross square feet of business park and supporting retail space. Achieving job creation and economic development. Actively seeking and promoting business and light industries that provide significant sustainable employment, including a mix of light industries emphasizing opportunities for technology research and development (R &D) and technology transfer. Facilitating the emergence of commercial- industrial sectors, including those expected to emerge or expand due to their proximity to the new business park site, through improvement of transportation access to commercial and industrial areas, improvement of safety within the Project area, and the installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new commercial and industrial expansion, employment, and economic growth. Emphasizing employment and a mix of economic development opportunities that complement economic development strategies in other parts of Alameda; and promoting a jobs- housing balance to the extent practicable. Seamlessly integrating the Project site into the City of Alameda by: emphasizing Mixed Use development; ensuring land use compatibility within and surrounding the Project site; creating the same "small town" character on the Project site which is highly valued by the existing community; achieving the same human- scale, tree -lined character of neighborhood walkable streets found throughout the existing City; reflecting the grid street pattern that is characteristic of the existing City of Alameda; and minimizing through- traffic on minor residential streets. Reducing the impact of the automobile and energy consumption by: facilitating public transit opportunities to and within the Project area to the extent feasible; and providing a system of bikeways, parks, and pedestrian paths to facilitate access to parks, recreational areas and the waterfront from all parts of western Alameda. Protecting and improving the waterfront by enhancing views of water and public access to the waterfront in all development and creatively encouraging the usage of the waterfront. Providing a school site to further educational opportunities at the Project sites and in surrounding neighborhoods. Providing parks within the Project site to service the needs of the residents of the Project site and surrounding neighborhoods. Integrating the planned community into the existing west Alameda neighborhood fabric, while at the same time creating a unique setting within the City that has a strong and unique sense of place. 9 b. This alternative would have similar impacts to the Project in the areas of geology, soils and seismology, hazards, public services (law enforcement, solid waste) and biology (Cooper's hawks and special- status bats) and more severe impacts than the Project in the areas of public services (fire services, schools, recreation, construction and solid waste) and utilities. In addition, this alternative would have fewer beneficial impacts than the Project in the areas of land use, public policy and aesthetics. c. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible, thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this alternative. d. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considera- tions, many of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project would not be obtained if this alternative were adopted. e. Based on the foregoing, the CIC finds that the Reoccupation Alternative is not feasible. C. INCREASED HOUSING ALTERNATIVE 1. Brief Description This alternative involves the reuse and rehabilitation of the vacant military multi - family residential housing that exists in the East Housing area and the construction of new housing on that portion of the Project site located south of Tinker Avenue and occupied by the FISC Facility. This alternative includes two variants: (1) School Site Included. Includes an 8.0 -acre school site, 590 rehabilitated housing units in the East Housing area, and 420 new medium - density units developed in accordance with Alameda's Measure A, and (2) No School Site. Includes 590 rehabilitated housing units in the East Housing area and 560 new medium - density units developed in accordance with Alameda's Measure A. In both variants, the FISC Facility north of Tinker Avenue would include the same facilities as proposed as part of the Project: 1.3 million square feet of office/R &D, the waterfront promenade, and a site for 39 units of multi - family housing. Demolition would be required for the FISC Facility but would not be required for the East Housing area. The single - family units proposed as part of the Project on the East Housing site would not be constructed under the Increased Housing Alternative. 2. Comparison to Project Without Mitigation A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and less than significant impacts of Project, without mitigation, is described below. a. Land Use. As with the proposed Project, no significant adverse 10 land use impacts are anticipated. The configuration of this alternative would be similar to the proposed Project, with the exception that this alternative would introduce up to 560 additional units of medium - density residential housing. b. Public Policy. The overall plan and policy consistency of the Increased Housing Alternative would be the same as for the proposed Project. c. Population and Housing. The Increased Housing Alternative would avoid the significant impact that would occur with the implementation of the proposed Project and its net loss of 51 housing units. d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. As with the proposed Project, both variants of the Increased Housing Alternative would replace the entire on -site storm drainage system and the old system abandoned in place (by backfilling with earth and materials and/or cement). Hydrology impacts related to flooding hazards and water quality runoff for both variants would be similar to the proposed Project. e. Geoloay. Soils. and Seismicity,. Potential impacts of the proposed Project associated with seismic shaking and land subsidence would be the same as the proposed Project. f. Hazards. Because the same portion of the FISC Facility and East Housing area would be developed under this alternative as under the proposed Project, the hazards impacts for both variants of this alternative, including hazardous materials in the marsh crust and groundwater, and asbestos and lead dust during renovation, would be similar to those for the proposed Project. g. Biology. The Increased Housing Alternative could have significant impacts on Cooper's hawks, pallid bats, and western mastiff bats of a similar nature to those for the Reoccupation Alternative and the proposed Project. Potential impacts identified for the proposed Project related to the California least tern and Pacific herring would occur with both variants of the Increased Housing Alternative. h. Traffic and Circulation.. While the intersections that would experience unacceptable levels of service would be the same as the proposed Project, the level of impacts would be slightly worse with the Increased Housing Alternative. All of the recommended mitigation measures would be the same as for the proposed Project. Overall, based on trip generation estimates for this alternative, the impacts of this alternative on the regional and local roadways would be slightly worse than those identified for the proposed Project. Air Oualitv. Construction- related air quality impacts under this 11 alternative would be similar to those under the proposed Project. Because the total vehicular trips associated with this alternative would be higher than those of the proposed Project, the emissions associated with vehicular traffic along roadways in the Project vicinity would be slightly higher than for the proposed Project. i. Noise. Construction noise impacts of this alternative would be slightly greater than the proposed Project's, but still less than significant. Noise associated with traffic impacts would be slightly greater under this alternative than the proposed Project, but also still less than significant. k. Public Services. The Increased Housing Alternative would increase demands on local police, fire, recreational services, and solid waste disposal facilities beyond those demands of the proposed Project. Under the No- School -Site variant of this alternative, impacts to schools would be worse than with the proposed Project because no school site would be provided. 1. Utilities. Demands on utilities under this alternative would be greater for all categories of utility services than for the proposed Project. The estimated increases, however, are not expected to introduce any significant impacts beyond those identified for the proposed Project except related to wastewater. The increased wastewater flows of this alternative, resulting from the net increase of up to 650 residential units as compared to the proposed Project, would be a significant impact of this alternative. m. Cultural Resources. Cultural resource impacts for the Increased Housing Alternative would be the same as those for the proposed Project. n. Aesthetics. The aesthetic impacts of this alternative would be similar to those of the proposed Project. However, the rehabilitation of the East Housing units and the construction of the higher density residential units may not be as aesthetically pleasing or cohesive as the mixture of new uses included in the proposed Project. 3. Findings This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons: a. The Increased Housing Alternative would satisfy some of the objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project Description, but would fail to satisfy the following objectives to the same extent as would the proposed Project: Replanning, redesigning, and developing undeveloped and underdeveloped areas 12 that are improperly utilized to achieve a balanced mix of land uses and create a vibrant new neighborhood in Alameda. Seamlessly integrating the Project site into the City of Alameda by: emphasizing Mixed Use development; ensuring land use compartibility within the surrounding the Project site; creating the same "small town" character on the Project site which is highly valued by the existing community; achieving the same human - scale, tree -lined character of neighborhood walkable streets found throughout the existing City; reflecting the grid street pattern that is characteristic of the existing City of Alameda; and minimizing through - traffic on minor residential streets. Establishing a comprehensive framework and hierarchy for the overall site to ensure that basic infrastructure elements will be functionally and aesthetically integrated throughout the development. Eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies in the Project area, including, but not limited to, abandoned buildings, incompatible land uses, depreciated or stagnant property values, contamination, and inadequate or deteriorated public improvements, facilities, and utilities. Providing parks within the Project site to service the needs of the residents of the Project site and surrounding neighborhoods. Integrating the planned community into the existing west Alameda neighborhood fabric, while at the same time creating a unique setting within the City that has a strong and unique sense of place. Providing a school site to further educational opportunities at the Project sites and in surrounding neighborhoods. b. This alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed Project in the areas of land use, public policy, hydrology and storm water, geology, soils and seismicity, hazards, biology and cultural resources, and would have worse impacts than traffic and circulation (more traffic created); air quality (more air pollution); noise (more noise); public services (more solid waste generated); and public utilities (more water use and wastewater generation). This alternative is only superior to the proposed Project for one impact: population, employment, and housing (no loss of 51 housing units). In addition, this alternative would have less beneficial aesthetic impacts than the Project. (See DEIR, Table H-3, page 35). c. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible, thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this alternative. 13 d. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, many of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project would not be obtained if this alternative were adopted. e. Based on the foregoing, the CIC finds that the Increased Housing Alternative is not feasible. D. REDUCED DENSITY MITIGATED ALTERNATIVE 1. Brief Description This alternative involves a development program that reduces the overall density of the commercial office/R &D component of the proposed Project from 935,000 square feet to 365,000 square feet. This reduction would eliminate several of the potentially significant traffic impacts identified for the proposed Project. The area south of Tinker Avenue would remain the same as in the proposed Project except for the school site which would be excluded. The amount of housing proposed as part of the Reduced Density Mitigated alternative would remain the same as the proposed Project. Demolition under this alternative would be the same as for the proposed Project. 2. Comparison to Project Without Mitigation A comparison of the impacts of this alternative with the potentially significant and insignificant and insignificant impacts of Project, without mitigation, is described below. a. Land Use. The land use impacts associated with the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative would be the same as those identified for the proposed Project. b. Public Policy. Development of this alternative would not result in any direct conflicts with relevant plans and policies. However, development of this alternative would not achieve the goals and objectives of the Reuse Plan and the APIP and BWIP Plans that are applicable to the Project site to the same extent that the proposed Project would. c. Population and Housing. Development of this alternative would still result in a net loss of at least 51 vacant units and would result in generation of fewer tax dollars that could be used to develop affordable housing as compared to the proposed Project. d. Hydrology and Storm Drainage. The Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative would result in the same significant impacts identified for the proposed Project related to flooding hazards and water quality degradation. e. Geology. Soils. and Seismicity. Relative to the proposed Project, 14 the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative would not specifically reduce or eliminate any geological or seismic impacts. f. Hazards. As the same portion of the FISC Facility and East Housing area would be developed under the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative as the proposed Project, the impacts for this alternative would be similar to those for the proposed Project. The only significant hazards impact that would be eliminated under this alternative is Impact HAZ -4 (which is related to the construction of a school) because no school site would be provided. Bioloay. The Reduced Density Mitigated Altemative would result in the same impact as the proposed Project. The development of this alternative would not eliminate or minimize potential impacts to Cooper's hawks, pallid bats or western mastiff bats. The biological impacts of the proposed Project related to the new outfall structure would also result under this alternative. h. Traffic and Circulation. The construction period traffic impacts would be similar but may be incrementally less than those identified for the proposed Project since buildout of this alternative would likely occur over a shorter period of time. The overall reduction in traffic that would result from the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative would eliminate some of the significant traffic impacts identified for the proposed Project at intersections located within the City of Alameda. It would also eliminate one of the significant traffic impacts identified for the proposed Project at an intersection located within the City of Oakland. Overall, the impact of the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative on the regional and local roadway network would be significantly reduced compared to those identified for the proposed Project. i. Air Oualitv. Construction- related and operational emission air quality impacts, although less under this alternative than under the proposed Project, would still not be reduced to less than significant levels. Noise. Traffic - related noise along Atlantic Avenue would be less under the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative than under the proposed Project. This impact, however, would still be significant. k, Public $ervjces. Demand under the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative for local police and fire services and solid waste disposal services would be slightly reduced as compared with the proposed Project. The demand for recreation would be the same as for the proposed Project, while the demand for schools would be increased since this alternative does not provide a school site. 1. Utilities. The same significant adverse impacts identified for the 15 proposed Project related to water, wastewater and the phased abandonment of existing utility lines would occur under the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative as would occur under the proposed Project. This alternative would still require the redirection of wastewater flows; however, it is unlikely that the revenue generated by this alternative would be sufficient to pay for the cost of the infrastructure improvements required under this alternative. m. Cultural Resources. Cultural resources impacts for the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative would be the same as those for the proposed Project. Constructing office buildings with fewer floors above grade would not change the Project's effects on subsurface resources. n. Aesthetics. Each of the aesthetic impacts identified for the proposed Project would also occur if the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative were to be developed. 3. Findings This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons: a. The Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative would satisfy some of the objectives of the proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project Description, but would fail to satisfy the following objectives to the same extent as would the proposed Project: Strengthening the economic base of the Project area and the community by adding approximately 1.3 million gross square feet of business park and supporting retail space. Achieving job creation and economic development. Actively seeking and promoting business and light industries that provide significant sustainable employment, including a mix of light industries emphasizing opportunities for technology research and development (R &D) and technology transfer. Facilitating the emergence of commercial - industrial sectors, including those expected to emerge or expand due to their proximity to the new business park site, through improvement of transportation access to commercial and industrial areas, improvement of safety within the Project area, and the installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new commercial and industrial expansion, employment, and economic growth. Maximizing tax increment and developing other funding mechanisms in order to pay for the public investment in infrastructure required for economic development in the Project area. 16 Emphasizing employment and a mix of economic development opportunities that complement economic development strategies in other parts of Alameda; and promoting a jobs- housing balance to the extent practicable. Providing a school site to further educational opportunities at the Project sites and in surrounding neighborhoods. b. This alternative would have similar impacts to the proposed Project in the areas of land use, hydrology and stoim water, geology, soils and seismicity, biology and natural resources, and worse impacts in the areas of population and housing (because fewer tax dollars for affordable housing would be generated), public services (because no school site would be provided), and utilities (because the revenue generated would be insufficient to pay for the cost of required infrastructure improvements). In addition, this alternative would have less beneficial public policy impacts than the Project. c. The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will substantially mitigate or avoid most of the significant or potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, except those effects which are described as unavoidable or irreversible, thereby diminishing or obviating the perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this alternative. d. As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considera- tions, many of the environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project would not be obtained if this alternative were adopted. e. Based on the foregoing, the CIC finds that the Reduced Density Mitigated Alternative is not feasible. C: \WPDOCS\DATA\B.WPD May 18, 2000 (8:34am) 17 Catellus Mixed Use Development MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ATTACIIMENT C • • • This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) 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 MMRP has been formulated based upon the findings of the Catellus Mixed Use Development Draft Environmental Impact Report and the Response to Comments Addendum (Final EIR). The MMRP lists mitigation measures recommended in the Final EIR for the proposed Project. Mitigation monitoring requirements are provided only for mitigation measures that would avoid or reduce significant impacts of the Project. The mitigation monitoring table specifies the agencies responsible for implementation and monitoring. Table 1 presents the mitigation measures identified for the proposed Project. Mitigation measures are numbered with a symbol indicating the topical section to which the mitigation measures pertains, a hyphen, and the impact number. For example, UTL -2 is the first significant impact identified in the Public Utilities and Service Systems analysis (Mitigations recommended to further minimized less -than- significant impacts are not included in Table 1). POP = Population and Housing HYD = Hydrology and Storm Drainage GEO = Geology, Soils and Seismicity HAZ = Hazards BIO = Biological Resources T/C = Traffic and Circulation AQ = Air Quality NOI = Noise PUB = Public Services UTL = Public Utilities and Service Systems CUL = Cultural Resources AES = Aesthetics CATELLU......,..... JSE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Dias' Mifigafiopl ................... POP -1: The following mitigation measures would likely reduce the loss of 51 vacant units to a less - than- significant level. However, since it is not possible to precisely quantify the effect that the mitigations may have on this loss, the loss of these 51 units would remain signifi- cant and unavoidable. • As part of the Project, the City of Alameda General Plan Hous- ing Element is proposed to be amended to expand Housing In- ventory Site #1 to include a location of the former NAS Alameda (see Appendix B). In addition, the Reuse Plan con- templates the development of additional housing units at the NAS and FISC Facility. • The City shall use accumulated funds in the Alameda Affordable Housing Unit Fee program and the 20 percent affordable hous- ing tax increment set -aside funds from the Alameda Point Im- provement Project area to subsidize the construction of at least 51 new housing units at Alameda Point. City City City &CIC City &CIC 2 sOYILSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing Prior to the granting of any City staff to ensure that Housing Element Project entitlements amendment is approved by HCD and adopted by City Council prior to the ap- proval of the Master Plan During the plan life of the APIP Redevelopment Plan City staff shall document the use of fees in its Annual Report on the Affordable Unit Fee Program and the tax increment in its Five Year Implementation Plan and Inclusionary Housing Compliance Plan CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued ib. tigat on lCastir i ptemeatatiion,;, BRADYILSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing HYD -1: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, a detailed floodplain delineation shall be prepared by the applicant for the Project site in accordance with FEMA standards (as has been com- pleted for the rest of Alameda) and submitted to the City. The flood- plain delineation shall be completed for proposed conditions. The engineer preparing the floodplain delineation shall consider sea level rise as a potential cause of increased baseflood elevations with time and, if feasible, include appropriate recommendations for safety factors such as increased freeboard for finished floor elevations. The grading and drainage plans shall be designed to ensure that building sites (fin- ished floor elevations) are above the 100 -year flood elevation and that other improvements potentially susceptible to flood damage are suffi- ciently protected in accordance with the City of Alameda Municipal Code (Section 20-4). Roadways and landscaped areas would not be subject to this requirement. Infrequent inundation of these features would be considered a less- than- significant impact. The floodplain delineation and the grading and drainage plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Upon approval of the floodplain delineation by the City, the Project propo- nent should initiate the "Letter of Map Revision" or "Physical Map Revision" process (to be determined by FEMA) to include the delinea- tion on the existing Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the City. Delineation of flood hazard areas and implementation of City ordi- nances for development within floodplains would mitigate potential impacts associated with construction in flood -prone areas to a less - than- significant level. Developer Developer 3 Prior to issuance of grading or building permit(s) City Public Works Department to review floodplain delineation and grading and drainage plans; and conduct periodic field inspections during construction CATELLUS .. .,SE DEVELOPMENT EIR MMGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued gation'Measurc:'. )- TYD -2: A Storm Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the con- struction and life of the Project shall be prepared for each development project (e.g., single - family residential, business park, etc.) that is con- structed as part of this Project and involves constniction activity (in- cluding clearing, grading or excavations). A SWPPP is required for projects that result in soil disturbances of 5 or more acres, and for pro- jects of less than 5 acres if the construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development (i.e., the Catellus Mixed Use Develop- ment Project). The SWPPP would act as the overall program docu- ment designed to provide measures to mitigate potential water quality impacts associated with implementation of the proposed Project. Preparers of the SWPPP should review the Conditions of Approval (including General Conditions for Construction, Residential Development/Construction Conditions, and Commercial/Industrial Conditions) established by the City. The SWPPP shall include the following three elements to address con- struction, post - construction and pest management issues: • Specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to mitigate construction- related pollutants. These controls shall include practices to minimize the contact of con- struction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water. The SWPPP shall specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain. The contractor(s) shall submit details, design and procedures for compliance with storage area requirements. CIC for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other back- bone infrastruc- ture; Developer for all private improvements e ton, City will be responsible for pre- paring a SWPPP and implementing its recommenda- tions for all public infrastructure and improvements; Developers will be responsible for pre- paring and imple- menting its recom- mendations as part of each individual development Pro- ject 4 X0000006119 For public infrastructure, the SWPPP is a component of the Master Demolition Infrastructure and Phasing Plan (MDIPP). For private improvements, preparation of and approval of a SWPPP prior to the Devel- opment Plan approval for each Project phase; imple- mentation of BMP, post - construction measures, and IPM during construction and post - construction ,.,Y/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or ni o in Method N�o t r g Meth and Timing DPW to approve MUP and SWPPP prior to Development Plan approval. On -going monitoring by City inspectors or RWQCB during and after construction CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued iynsibIi�::: Reporting or BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 Mitigation. c as ienlentation onitoring Metho d and Timing An important component of the storm water quality protection effort is knowledge on the part of on -site construction and main- tenance supervisors and workers. To educate on -site personnel and maintain awareness of the importance of storm water quality protection, site supervisors shall conduct regular tailgate meet- ings to discuss pollution prevention. The SWPPP shall establish a frequency for meetings and require all personnel to attend. The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be imple- mented by the construction site supervisor, and must include both dry and wet weather inspections. City of Alameda person- nel shall conduct regular inspections to ensure compliance with the SWPPP. BMPs designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to: soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement of hay bales and sediment basins. If grading must be conducted during the rainy season, the primary BMPs selected shall focus on erosion con- trol (i.e., keeping sediment on the site). End -of -pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and traps) shall be used only as secondary measures. If hydroseeding is selected as the primary soil stabilization method, these areas shall be seeded by Septem- ber 1 and irrigated to ensure that adequate root development has occurred prior to October 1. Entry and egress from the construc- tion site shall be carefully controlled to minimize off -site track- ing of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash -down facilities shall be designed to be accessible and functional both during dry and wet conditions. 5 CATELLUS ..__ __ 3E DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued !g: • Measures designed to mitigate post construction- related pol- lutants. The SWPPP shall include measures designed to miti- gate potential water quality degradation of runoff from all por- tions of the completed development. It is important that post construction stormwater quality controls are included in the ini- tial design phase of the Project and not simply added after the site layout and building footprints have been established. The specific BMPs that would be required of a project can be found in SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff Recom- mendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs. In addition, the design team should include in the Project design principles contained in the Bay Area Storm - water Management Agencies Association's manual, Start at the Source, Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Pro- tection. The selection of BMPs required for a specific project is based on the size of the development and the sensitivity of the area. The Estuary is considered a sensitive area by the RWQCB. In general, passive, low- maintenance BMPs (e.g., grassy swales, porous pavements) are preferred. If the SWPPP includes higher maintenance BMPs (e.g., sedimentation basins, fossil filters), then funding for long -term maintenance needs must be specified in the SWPPP as a condition of approval of the grading, excava- tion, or building permits, as appropriate (the City will not as- sume maintenance responsibilities for these features). 6 ptelletitition '''> Y/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring: Method and Timing CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table I continued Responl Mitigation Tvlfea5l • Integrated Pest Management Plan. An Integrated Pest Man- agement Plan (IPM) shall be prepared and implemented by the developer for all common landscaped areas. Each IPM shall be prepared by a qualified professional. The IPMs shall address and recommend methods of pest prevention and turf grass management that use pesticides as a last resort in pest control. Types and rates of fertilizer and pesticide application shall be specified. Special attention in the IPMs shall be directed toward avoiding runoff of pesticides and nitrates into sensitive drainages or leaching into the shallow groundwater table. Pesticides shall be used only in response to a persistent pest problem. Preventative chemical use shall not be employed. Cultural and biological approaches to pest control shall be fully integrated into the IPMs, with an emphasis toward reducing pesticide application. The City of Alameda Department of Public Works shall review and approve the SWPPP prior to the approval of the development plan for each Project phase to ensure that the selected BMPs would adequately protect water quality. The City and the RWQCB are empowered to levy considerable fines for non - compliance with the SWPPP. E• EOI O. SOI AN L EIS GEO -1: Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits, a detailed geotechnical and soils report shall be prepared and submitted to the City of Alameda Public Works Department for review and approval. The report shall determine the site's surface geotechnical conditions and address potential seismic hazards, including liquefaction and associated ground failure, and the stability of the bulkhead. The report shall identify building techniques appropriate to minimize seismic damage, including, but not limited to, the following: • Buildings and other structures shall be designed to meet the requirements of the most recently adopted Uniform Building Code (UBC) for Seismic Zone 4. • Analysis presented in the geotechnical report shall conform with ui± CIC for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements Same as party responsible for funding 7 iClit P. ;o tmipleme tatloti: The soils report shall be an element of the MDIPP and must be approved prior to issuance of any grading or building permits BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing The City Public Works Department shall review and approve all geotechnical reports and review all permit plans to ensure that the appropriate recommendations of the geotechnical report(s) are addressed CATELLUS ,... , ,. vSE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued Resptins ili Mitigation GEO -24: Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a site - specific geotechnical report that provides analysis of consolidation potential shall be prepared and submitted to the City Department of Public Works for approval. The report shall specify all measures necessary to limit consolidation including minimization of structural fills and use (when necessary) of lightweight and low plasticity fill materials to reduce the potential for excessive loading caused by fill placement. The placement of artificial fill should be limited to reduce the potential for increased loading and associated settlement in areas underlain by thick young bay muds. Increased area settlement could have implications for flooding potential as well as foundation design. Reconditioning (compaction) of existing subgrade materials would be preferable to placement of fill. The report shall present recommendations for specific foundation designs which minimize the potential for damage related to settlement. The design of utilities shall consider differential settlements along utility alignments constructed in filled areas of the Project site. The geotechnical report shall provide recommended design elements to minimize the potential for damage or leakage. The geotechnical report shall specify foundation designs for the proposed structures. Multi-story frame residential buildings could be adequately supported on appropriately designed structural or post - tension slab foundations underlain by engineered fill. Larger buildings, heavy structures or equipment, and multi-story commercial or industrial buildings would require pile foundations to minimize settlement of these structures. The piles would need to be driven into a suitably strong bearing unit (possibly old bay mud or Merritt sands) to have adequate skin friction, and to account for "downdrag" on piles related to consolidation of underlying young bay muds if present. CIC for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements Same as party responsible for funding 8 0.I.$001#40On Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits lir.-wYfLSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing The City Public Works Depaitment shall review and approve all geotechnical reports and review all permit plans to ensure that the appropriate recommendations of the geotechnical report(s) are addressed CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table t continued Mitigatioix Me %0: GE0 -2b: Mat or slab foundations constructed in areas of expected areal settlement (i.e., areas underlain by thick young bay muds) shall be designed to minimize the potential for soil erosion undCr the perimeter of the foundation. The perimeter of the slabs could be thickened and established sufficiently below existing grade to minimize the potential for exposure of the bottom of the foundation. Alternatively, other forms of erosion protection could be recommended by site - specific geotechnical reports. GEO-3: On expansive soils with moderate to high shrink -swell potential, proposed building foundations and improvements shall consider these conditions; foundation design may include drilled pier and grade beams, deepened footings (extending below expansive soil), or post- tensioned slabs. Alternatively, expansive soil shall be removed and replaced with compacted non - expansive soil prior to foundation construction. The geotechnical report for each phase of the Project shall require that subgrade soils for pavements consist of moisture - conditioned, lime - treated, or non - expansive soil, and that surface (including roof drainage) and subsurface water be directed away from foundation elements to minimize variations in soil moisture. CIC for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements CIC for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements ntatio City for all public improvements; Developer for all private improvements City for all public improvements; Developer for all private improvements 9 it l+eme taiion i:.: Prior to issuance of a building permit(s) - Prior to issuance of a building permit(s) Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing The City Public Works Department shall review the building permit plans BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 The City Public Works Department shall review the building permit plans CATELLUS u3E DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued flAZ -1 a: The City shall implement the requirements of an excavation ordinance, and/or similar regulatory measures or condition of approval, requiring a permit or prior approval to excavate to the depth of the marsh crust at the Project site. The permit or approval shall require that approp- riate health and safety and disposal procedures be followed during excavation activities, as required based on the presence or suspected presence of hazardous materials in the marsh crust, including, but not limited to: • Restrictions on materials stockpiling. • Disposal of excavated materials at an appropriate landfill. • Disposal of extracted groundwater at a wastewater treatment plant or in accordance with RWQCB requirements. • Implementation of a site - specific site management plan for construction activities. The City adopted an excavation ordinance, Ordinance No. 2824, on February 15, 2000. HAZ -1 b: If the US Navy does not record a restrictive covenant prohibiting the installation of drinking water wells into the shallow groundwater at the Project site, the City shall record such a covenant prior to transfer of the property. The City shall also record a covenant, prior to transfer of the property, prohibiting excavation into the marsh crust without a permit or prior approval where required under the City excavation ordinance and/or similar regulatory measures or Project condition adopted pursuant to Mitigation Measure HAZ -la. CIC for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements City City for all public improvements; Developer for all private improvements City 10 Require an excavation permit prior to commencement of any grading or building activities involving excavation below the "threshold depth" during such activities Prior to transfer of the property v MALI Y/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing The City Building Services Department shall review all plans to ensure that the plans include measures necessary to comply with the City's excavation ordinance and shall conduct periodic inspections during all grading and excavation activities to ensure compliance with the excavation ordinance requirements City shall record convenants CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued MitigatkI H AZ -1 c: Preparation by a qualified registered professional of a Site Management Plan (SMP) for the Project site shall be a condition of approval for the first subdivision map for the Project site. The SMP would provide site - specific information for contractors (and others) developing the Project site that would improve their management of environmental and health and safety contingencies. Topics covered by the SMP shall include, but not be limited to: • Land use history, including known hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and spillage, for specific areas within the Project site. • The nature and extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at the Project site. • The nature and extent of ongoing remedial activities and the nature and extent of unremediated areas of the Project site, including the nature and occurrence of marsh crust and hazardous materials associated with the dredge material used as fill at the Project site. • A listing and description of institutional controls, such as the City's excavation ordinance and other local, State, and federal laws and regulations, that will apply to development of the Project site. CIC for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements ....:..... mple nen fafton xmplementaiion City The SMP shall be a component of the MDIPP, and shall be available during plan review for excavation, building and grading permits and monitored during Project construction 11 BRADYILSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing City Planning Department shall condition each Tentative Map approval; City Planning and Public Works Departments shall require submittal and approval of an SMP prior to issuance of a building or grading permit; City Planning and Public Works Departments shall conduct periodic inspections during Project construction to ensure compliance with the SMP. CATELLUS ...a . USE DEVELOPMENT EIR • MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued itigat1o1l • Requirements for site - specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared by all contractors at the Project site. The HASPs should be prepared by a Certified Industrial Hygienist and would protect construction workers and interim site users adjacent to construction activities by including engineering controls, monitoring, and security measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction site and to reduce hazards outside the construction site. The HASPs would address the possibility of encountering subsurface hazards and include procedures to protect workers and the public. If prescribed exposure levels were exceeded, personal protective equipment would be required for workers in accordance with DOSH regulations. A description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that may potentially be encountered during Project development, including engineering controls that may be required to reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the Project site. • Requirements for site - specific construction techniques at the site, based on proposed development, such as minimizing the transport of contaminated materials to the surface during construction activities by employing pile driving techniques that consist of driving the piles directly without boring, where practical. The SMP shall be distributed to all contractors at the Project site; imple- mentation of the SMP shall be a condition of approval for excavation, building, and grading permits at the Project site. HAZ -2: An SMP for Project site construction (see Mitigation Measure HAZ -1 c, above) shall be prepared and implemented. Same as Mitigation Measure HAZ -1c above 12 tirwilY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing CATELLUS MDGrD USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table I continued ttgatto Measa I IAZ-4: In accordance with state law, permits for construction of a new school at the site should not be approved unless all of the following occur. L Environmental analysis documentation for approval of the school site includes information which is needed to determine if the property proposed to be dedicated, purchased, or constructed on, is any of the following: (a) The site of a current or former hazardous waste disposal site or solid waste disposal site and, if so, whether the wastes have been removed. (b) A hazardous substance release site identified by the State Department of Health Services in a current list adopted pursuant to Section 25356 for removal or remedial action pursuant to Chapter 6.8 (commencing with Section 25300) or Division 20 of the Health and Safety Code. (c) A site which contains one or more pipelines, situated under- ground or aboveground, which carries hazardous substances, acutely hazardous materials, or hazardous wastes, unless the pipeline is a natural gas line which is used only to supply natural gas to that school or neighborhood. 2. The Lead Agency notify in writing and consult with BAAQMD and ACDEH to identify facilities within' /. mile of the proposed school site which might reasonably be anticipated to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. The notification by the Project developer or developers should include a list of the locations for which information is sought. 3. The governing board of the Alameda Unified School District makes one of the following written findings: (a) Consultation with BAAQMD and ACDEH identified no such facilities specified in paragraph 2. etatatat ........... Alameda Unified AUSD School District (AUSD) 13 10400.0*: Prior to issuance of any approvals by AUSD that would allow construction a school B RADY[LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring'Method and Timing Goveming board of the AUSD should ensure compliance with this measure prior of to authorizing construction of a new school CATELLUS ..SE DEVELOPMENT MR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table I continued Mitigation 2l9Cen (b) The facilities specified in paragraph 2, above, are present, but one of the following conditions applies: (i) The health risks from the facilities do not and will not constitute an actual or potential endangerment of public health to persons who would attend or be employed at the proposed school. (ii) Corrective measures required under an existing order by another agency having jurisdiction over the facilities will, before the school is occupied, result in the mitigation of all chronic or accidental hazardous air emissions to levels that do not constitute an actual or potential endangerment of public health to persons who would attend or be employed at the proposed school. If the governing board makes such a finding, it should also make a subsequent finding, prior to occupancy of the school, that the emissions have been so mitigated. 4. The governing board of the AUSD is required to comply with Education Code Section 17213.1, which requires, among other provisions, preparation of a Phase I site assessment and DTSC oversight over proposed school sites. HAZ -5: If future land uses at the Project site involve the use, storage, Developer transport, treatment, or generation of hazardous materials, the site operator shall be required to comply with federal, state, and local requirements for managing hazardous materials. Depending on the type and quantity of hazardous materials, these requirements could include the preparation of, implementation of, and training in the following plans, programs, and permits: trita ti t Developer 14 atioii;;:: Prior to the issuance of any building occupancy permits for any uses that will generate, use, store, or handle hazardous materials or waste uxrwYfLSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing As a condition of Development Plan approval, the City shall require the Project developer(s) to submit to the appropriate agencies (i.e., ACDEH and DTSC) applicable plans, programs, permits and/or registrations with documentation that the information being submitted as been reviewed and approved or accepted by such agencies. CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued 'Mitigation;lVXeasuri • hazardous Materials Business Plan (Business Plan). Facilities that use, store, or handle hazardous materials in quantities greater than 500 pounds, 55 gallons, or 200 cubic feet are required to prepare a Business Plan. The Business Plan shall contain facility maps, up- to -date inventories of all hazardous materials for each shop /area, emergency response procedures, equipment, and employee training. Hazardous Waste Generator Requirements. Facilities that generate more than 100 kilograms per month of hazardous waste, or more than 1 kilogram per month of acutely hazardous waste, must be registered under RCRA. DTSC administers hazardous waste generator registration in California Contingency Plan. All facilities that generate hazardous waste must prepare a Contingency Plan. The Contingency Plan identifies the duties of the facility Emergency Coordinator and identifies and gives the location of emergency equipment. It also includes reporting procedures for the facility Emergency Coordinator to follow after an incident. California Accidental Release Prevention Program. Facilities that use significant quantities of acutely hazardous materials must prepare an Accidental Release Prevention Program if there is a significant likelihood that this use may pose an accident risk. The Program must include a description of acutely hazardous material accidents occurring at the facility within the past three years, and a description of equipment, procedures, and training to reduce the risk of acutely hazardous materials accidents. Injury and Illness Prevention Plan. The California General Industry Safety Order requires that all employers in Califomia prepare and implement an Injury and Illness Prevention Plan which shall contain a code of safe practice for each job category, methods for informing workers of hazards, and procedures for correcting identified hazards. 15 emeiiitatio BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 .Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing CATELLUS ,.., .. L uSE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued it Mitigation trio • Emergency Action Plan. The California General Industry Safety Order requires that all employers in California prepare and implement an Emergency Action Plan. The Emergency Action Plan designates employee responsibilities, evacuation procedures and routes, alarm systems, and training procedures. • Fire Prevention Plan. The California General Industry Safety Order requires that all employers in California prepare and implement a Fire Prevention Plan. The Fire Prevention Plan specifies areas of potential hazard, persons responsible for maintenance of fire prevention equipment or systems, fire prevention housekeeping procedures, and fire hazard training procedures. • LTazard Communication Platt. Facilities involved in the use, storage, and handling of hazardous materials are required to prepare a Hazard Communication program The purpose of the Hazard Communication program is to ensure safe handling practices for hazardous materials, proper labeling of hazardous materials containers, and employee access to Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs). • Aboveground and Underground Storage Tank Permits. Facilities with aboveground or underground storage tanks must be permitted. Other plans, such as a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Program, may be required depending on the size, location, and contents of the tank. 'undirtg Tiiiplerrieritatiori ' : ''':: ': g npiernentatiorl 16 u «.,.iY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing CATELLUS MDCED USE DEVELOPMENT ER MrrIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued esp'orisil;le`< Mitigation llieasitre ................. HAZ -6: In the event that an updated human health risk assessment indicates that soil gas emissions from the benzene plume pose an unacceptable health risk, the City shall require that all buildings constructed on the Project site be designed and constructed to prevent unacceptable exposures to soil gases in exposed building spaces, using techniques such as limiting building slab joints and installing foundation vapor barriers and passive venting systems. All such City requirements shall be in accordance with any remedy (which could include institutional controls) established by DTSC as part of a Remedial Action Plan for the benzene plume. EAZ -7: Remediation workers who could directly contact contaminated dust, soil, or groundwater must perform all remediation activities in accordance with a site - specific HASP developed for the specific contaminants of concern (petroleum, volatile organic compounds [VOCs], metals, radium, etc.) on -site. The HASP would protect those workers as well as site users and occupants adjacent to remediation activities by requiring engineering controls, monitoring, and security measures as needed to prevent unauthorized entry to remediation sites and to reduce hazards outside the investigation/remediation area. The HASP would address the possibility of encountering unknown buried hazards and include procedures to protect workers and the public. If prescribed exposure levels were exceeded, personal protective equipment would be required for workers in accordance with California Occupational Safety and Health Act (CAL OSHA) regulations. While the primary intent of CAL OSHA requirements is to protect workers, compliance with these regulations also reduces potential hazards to other Project site occupants (tenants and visitors) and ecological receptors because of required site monitoring, reporting, and other controls. Potential site access controls implemented during remediation could include: Developer for all sites within Project boundaries except the school and affordable housing sites; AUSD for school site; City for affordable housing site Same as party responsible for funding CIC for all public City improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements 17 nptententation;:;;; Prior to issuance of building permits; during Project construction. The HASP shall be a component of the MDIPP, and shall be available during plan review for excavation, building and grading permit and monitored during Project construction BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing City or State Architect's Office (for school site), as appropriate, shall review any Remedial Action Plan (RAP) approved by DTSC for the benzene plume to ensure that building permit plans for each building located in the vicinity of the benzene plume incorporate all recommended measures; City or State Architect's Office (for school site) shall conduct inspections during construction to verify that all measures recommended in the RAP are being implemented City Planning Department shall condition each Tentative Map approval; City Planning and Public Works Departments shall require submittal and approval of a HASP prior to issuance of a building or grading permit; City Planning and Public Works Departments shall conduct periodic inspections during Project construction to ensure compliance with the HASP. CATELLUS ,.. ..., v.iE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued onsib: Mitigafiorll • Securing the site with fencing or other barriers of sufficient height and structural integrity to prevent unauthorized pedestrian/vehicular entry. • Posting "no trespassing" signs. • Providing on -site meetings with construction workers to inform them about security measures and reporting/contingency procedures. The HASP shall include effective dust control measures, which may include wetting soil materials and placing covers on trucks to reduce the potential for generating airborne dust. The HASP shall also provide measures to control site runoff and manage soil stockpiles to prevent erosion (see also Mitigation Measure HA.Z -1 c regarding HASP portion of SMP). HAZ -8: Implementing required laws, regulations, a SWPPP (see Miti- gation Measure HYD -2) and a HASP (see Mitigation Measure HAZ -7) would be adequate to ensure that potential impacts on ecological receptors near remediation activities would be less than significant. No further mitigation is required. ....................................................................................................... ............................... Gs >I3 ......................................................................................................... ............................... HIO-1: Prior to construction in the East Housing area, a qualified biologist familiar with Cooper's hawks shall conduct a survey to determine whether Cooper's hawks are nesting in the East Housing area. At least two surveys should be conducted during the period of March through June. If Cooper's hawks are found nesting, the nest tree(s) shall be protected from disturbance during the nesting season. A temporary fence shall be placed around each active nest tree, at a minimum of 200 feet from the dripline of the tree(s), and all construction activities shall be excluded from the fenced area. The trees shall not be removed until after the young hawks have fledged and are independent of the nest. irieritat Plepi entatio See Mitigation Measures HYD -2 and HAZ -7 above Developer Developer 18 Prior to the removal of any trees and/or the issuance of any building or grading permits for the East Housing Area 1u11) Y/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing Surveys shall be submitted to City Planning Department for review; if any nesting Cooper's Hawks are found, the City shall condition the Project permits to ensure protection of any nesting Cooper's Hawks CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table I continued Mitigation $IO-2: Within a 6 -month period prior to any demolition of abandoned buildings, a qualified biologist familiar with bats shall conduct a survey to determine the status of these bat species on the Project site. If special - status bat species are found, a biologist familiar with relocating bats shall be consulted regarding the best methods to remove bats from the buildings, and such methods shall be implemented. This could include removing sections of the walls and roofs, which would discourage bats from continuing to roost in the buildings. If a matemity colony of these species is found, the building and the bats shall not be disturbed until the young have dispersed. )3IO -3: The Project shall implement Best Management Practices, as CIC identified by the RWQCB, to minimize water quality impacts (see Mitigation Measure HYD -2). The Project shall also determine whether in -water activities (including dredging) associated will require a Corps authorization in compliance with Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) or Section 404 (Clean Water Act) and a Section 401 (Clean Water Act) water quality certification. The applicant shall obtain such approvals (if required) before activities proceed within Corps jurisdictional waters, and shall comply with all mitigation measures required by those approvals. Any dredging (if needed) and/or in -water construction activity shall occur only during the period from October 1 to March 14, to avoid the least tern breeding season and the brown pelican peak non - breeding season. No dredging shall occur during the Pacific herring spawning season (Decem- ber 1 to March 1) unless a qualified observer first verifies that no herring spawning activities have occurred in the vicinity for a 2 -week period prior to construction. Developer ��SiT;dX1S1)),� riiingof? Reporting or emetttatiori ;: i ; ,; >lf#fiptementatiori ''`.'> Monitoring: Method and Timing Developer Prior to any demolition of Surveys shall be submitted to the City any abandoned building Planning Department for review; if any special- status bats are found, the City shall condition the demolition permit to ensure compliance with this measure BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 City 19 Prior to issuance of any City permits for improvements that may be constructed within the Seaplane Lagoon City Public Works Department to verify that the appropriate approvals have been obtained; USFWS, the Corps, and RWQCB will monitor any construction activity within the lagoon to ensure compliance with this measure CATELLUS mute USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued Mitigation easar To the extent feasible, the storm drain outfall structure shall be designed to minimize disturbance to bottom sediments during construction. All materials proposed for excavation and dredging shall be tested for the possible presence of contaminants. Construction practices shall be designed in coordination with the USFWS, Corps, and RWQCB to minimize the dispersion of contaminants into the water column and ensure proper disposal of contaminated materials. Stormwater management and monitoring plans for the Project shall be developed in coordination with the USFWS and implemented in perpetuity to protect open water foraging areas for least terns and brown pelicans, as required by the Endangered Species Formal Consultation. 13IQ-4: The Project shall implement Best Management Practices, as identified by the RWQCB, to minimize water quality impacts (see Mitigation Measure HYD -2). The Project shall also determine whether ongoing in -water activities (including any maintenance dredging) will require a Corps authorization in compliance with Section 10 (Rivers and Harbors Act) or Section 404 (Clean Water Act) and a Section 401 (Clean Water Act) water quality certification. The applicant shall obtain such approvals (if required) before activities proceed within Corps jurisdictional waters, and shall comply with all mitigation measures required by those approvals. No post- construction maintenance dredging shall occur during the Pacific herring spawning season (December 1 to March 1) unless a qualified observer first verifies that no herring spawning activities have occurred in the vicinity for a 2 -week period prior to dredging. To the extent feasible, the storm drain outfall structure shall be designed to minimize disturbance to bottom sediments during operation. All materials proposed for maintenance dredging shall be tested for the possible presence of contaminants. Dredging practices shall be designed in coordination with the Corps and RWQCB to minimize the dispersion of contaminants into the water column and ensure proper disposal of contaminated sediments. e pl#0 nrit» > >foi' °tetr enfxtlorr Same as Mitigation Measure HYD -2 and Mitigation Measure BI0 -3 above 20 1KAUY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring,Method and Timing CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued fi igation %4easare < ` >f < > ' T /C -l: The construction - period impacts of the proposed Project would be addressed by implementing the following measures. The Project shall prepare a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) to address the impacts of construction vehicles on the regional and local roadways. The TCP shall address construction truck routes and access to the Project site; lane closures including those that may require coordination with and/or approval from the City of Oakland and Caltrans; and shall provide for coordination with closure of Webster Street and the Tubes as they are scheduled for closure for seismic safety repairs being completed independent of this Project. The TCP shall be submitted to the City of Alameda Public Works Department for review and approval prior to the issuance of any building or grading permits. • In addition, the Project shall be responsible for restoring affected street surfaces to pre -construction conditions on roadways affected by construction vehicles consistent with the City's Pavement Management Program. • Construction traffic shall be restricted to designated truck routes within the Cities of Alameda and Oakland. • Construction traffic shall be restricted from using Mariner Square Drive for access to and from Constitution Way unless this route is determined by the Public Works Director to be the only feasible access. Where possible, trucks should access the site from Tinker Avenue (which may require construction of a temporary truck access) and along Atlantic Avenue. • The TCP shall include a signage program for all truck routes serving the site during construction. • Construction traffic shall be restricted to daytime hours and, to the extent feasible, shall be minimized during the AM and PM peak hours. CIC for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements City for all public improvements; Developer for all private improvements 21 temeniatiori'' Prior to issuance of any permits and after construction for street restoration BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting, or Monitoring g Method and Timing The City Public Works Department shall review and approve the TCP and ensure that street restoration meets pre - construction conditions. CATELLUS Mugu USE DEVELOPMENT EiR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued r LV1ltigntion'1Vicam T /C -Z: Site planning for the school should pay close attention to safety, pedestrian activity, bicycle movements, and vehicle circulation issues related to its location. Orientation of school access points shall be designed to discourage jay walking and encourage use of controlled intersections. Vehicle queuing for student pick -up and drop -off should be discouraged near the intersection of Fifth Street and Tinker Avenue. The City shall consider implementation of this mitigation as part of its review of the encroachment permits that will be required as part of the school project. T /C-3: One of the two following mitigation measures (T /C -3a and T /C- CIC/Developer City 3b) shall be implemented in order to reduce the potential for hazardous traffic conditions. Measure T /C -3a is the slightly preferred measure from a circulation point of view. 31: Access from Fifth Street to Atlantic Avenue could be coordinated with the College of Alameda access at West Campus Drive and Atlantic Avenue. This could be accomplished by the abandonment of West Campus and the creation of a single access at Fifth Street and Atlantic Avenue, and the construction of a new signal at Fifth Street and Atlantic Avenue. The southbound approach of Fifth Street in this case should provide for two lanes. Such a redesign would result in LOS D or better conditions during the AM and PM peak hours. a: In the event that either the City of Alameda or the College of Alameda were to decide not to pursue Mitigation Measure T /C -3a, the following alternative measure would be equally effective. Maintain the existing signalized intersection of West Campus Drive and Atlantic Avenue, and construct a new signal at Fifth Street and Atlantic Avenue. Coordinate both signals with the signals at Atlantic Avenue/Webster Street by interconnecting all three signals. In order to reduce vehicle queues, allow right turn on red on the westbound approach of Atlantic Avenue. AUSD eri%eritattir AUSD/City 22 u L Y/LSA MAY 2000 . Reporting or anon 1vlonitoring :Method ,and Timing Prior to building permit approval; prior to issuance of any encroachment permits for the school site Review and approval of Project site plan by State Architect's Office; review of and approval of encroachment permits by City Public Works Department Prior to the issuance of any Review and approval of Final Improvement construction permits for Plans by the City Public Works Depat tit lent Fifth Street and the College of Alameda CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT Ent MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table I continued �.5 nsl on, eat& T1C4: Undertake the planned median improvements and install the signal poles at the intersection of Third Street and Atlantic Avenue. The Project shall pay its fair share toward the construction of these improvements. CIC/Developer enentation.` ity Prior to occupancy ty ofany Project development T /C -5: A three -part mitigation measure is recommended below. The first CIC/Developer City element (T /C -5a) is needed before any office/R &D uses are occupied. The second and third elements would be needed after the construction of 360,000 square feet of office/R &D. 51: Prior to any of the Project office/R &D space being occupied, a signal shall be installed at the intersection of Mariner Square Drive and Constitution Way. This improvement is shown in Figure IV.H -5. The Project shall provide for the construction of the signal. 22: Prior to more than 360,000 square feet of office/R &D space being occupied on the Project site, either T /C -5b(i) or T /C- 5b(ii) shall be implemented. (i) The following improvements shall be constructed: • All intersection improvements identified for the Webster Street/Atlantic Avenue intersection in the Reuse EIR shall be constructed as stated in Mitigation Measures T /C -6a and T /C -6b (shown in Figure IV.H -7). • The signal phasing at Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way shall be changed from permitted to protected - pennitted. CIC/Developer City 23 Prior to occupancy of any office/R &D space Prior to occupancy of morc than 360,000 square feet of office/R &D BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing City Public Works Department to verify that improvements have been installed before occupancy is approved for any on- site structures; City Building Services Department to ensure that fair share contribution is paid. City Public Works Department to verify that signal has been installed and is operating before occupancy is approved for any on -site office/R &D space; City Building Services Department to ensure that fees have been paid by Developer. City Public Works Department to verify that the required improvements have been constructed before occupancy is approved for any office/R &D space that would exceed a total of 360,000 square feet CATELLU:, -- JSE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table I continued Mitigation oat& (ii) Alternatively to Mitigation Measure T /C- 5b(i), the Tinker Avenue extension could be constructed. If the Tinker Avenue Extension were constructed, TIC -5b(i) would not be necessary. However, if the Tinker Avenue extension were to be constructed (independent of the proposed Project) and Mitigation Measure T /C -5b(i) was not implemented, a fully functional independently controlled southbound right -turn lane shall be constructed on Webster Street at Atlantic Avenue (also required to Mitigate Impact T /C -6, see Mitigation Measure T /C -6a). Implementation of this improvement in combination with the Tinker Avenue extension would result in LOS D conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. The Project shall contribute its fair share towards the construction of these improvements. 1'/C -6: The Project shall provide for the construction of the following three improvements, which would result in LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours: ¢2: Provide a fully functional independently controlled CIC/Developer City southbound right -turn lane on Webster Street at Atlantic Avenue at the time that 360,000 square feet of office R &D space is constructed and occupied. Adequate vehicle storage exists on southbound Webster Street within the curb right -turn lane. How- ever, the merging lane on Atlantic Avenue adjacent to the College would then be inadequate to handle the increased tuming volumes. Additional length would have to be added to the merging lane on Atlantic Avenue to eliminate potential conflicts between westbound Atlantic Avenue traffic and vehicles tuming right from Webster Street into Atlantic Avenue. ¢b: Construct a second left-ttmt lane and maintain two through CIC/Developer City lanes and a separate right -turn lane on the eastbound approach of Atlantic Avenue. 24 ousth emerttatl'o og of t 0 e entaition Prior to more than 360,000 square feet of office/R &D space being occupied Prior to more than 360,000 square feet of office/R &D space being occupied u.v JYfLSA MAY 2000 Reporting, or Monitoring. Method and Timing City Public Works Department to verify that the required improvements have been constructed before occupancy is approved for any office/R &D space that would exceed a total of 360,000 square feet for this Project City Public Works Department to verify that improvements have been constructed CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued CSThns MitigatiO l g: Construct a second left-tum lane on the northbound approach of Webster Street at Atlantic Avenue. T /C -7: Modify the existing signal phasing on Atlantic Avenue at Constitution Way from "permitted" to "protected- permitted" at the time that 360,000 square feet of office/R &D space is constructed and occu- pied. The Project shall provide for this improvement. This change in signal timing would result in LOS C during both the AM and PM peak hours. T /C -8: Provide a separate left and through lane on the northbound approach of Jackson Street at 6th Street. The construction of a separate northbound left-turn lane at Jackson Street and 6th Street would be required before any of the office/R &D development is occupied as the Project exacerbates an existing deficiency condition. The Route 260 Deficiency Plan also includes this improvement. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of this improvement. With this improvement (shown in Figure IV.H -6), the intersection would operate at LOS B and C during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. T /C -9: The following two mitigation measures shall be implemented: 2a: Provide a grade - separated free right -turn movement on the northbound approach of Harrison Street at 7" Street, which would result in LOS B conditions during both the AM and PM peak hours. The grade separation of the northbound right -tum lane on Harrison Street at 7th Street would be required once 360,000 square feet of office/R&D space is constructed and occupied. CIC/Developer City CIC/Developer City CIC/Developer City of Oakland CIC/Developer City of Oakland 25 triplementatlott Prior to more than 360,000 square feet of office/R &D space being occupied Prior to occupancy of more than 360,000 square feet of office/R &D space Payment of fair share contribution prior to occupancy of any buildings BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing City Public Works Department to verify that improvements have been constructed City Public Works Departwent to verify that the required signal phasing changes have been implemented before occupancy is approved for any office/R &D space that would exceed a total of 360,000 square feet City to ensure that fair share contribution is paid` Payment of fair share City to ensure that fair share contribution is contribution prior to paid` occupancy of any buildings CATELLUS mutu USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued tlgatig eftsai 212: The list of planned improvements included in the SR 260 Deficiency Plan includes constructing a direct connection from the Posey Tube to 5" Street in Oakland and operating Jackson Street one -way northbound from 5th Street to the I -880 northbound on- ramp at 6d' Street. The traflie studies conducted as part of the development of the Deficiency Plan suggest that as many as 1,000 vehicles per hour could be diverted from the Harrison Street/7d' Street intersection to 5°i Street. If these improvements are built, Harrison Street and 7d' Street would operate at LOS D or better during the AM and PM peak hours. The construction of a new exit portal from the Posey Tube to southbound 5th Street would require construction of a new ramp. The ramp would need to include adequate deceleration capacity so that vehicles exiting from the Posey Tube onto southbound 5th Street would not impact northbound vehicles exiting the Posey Tube at Harrison Street. This may require reconstruction of the portal structure. tw ALYfLSA MAY 2000 ,Reporting or pleinentd #iori' ;;; : i:?:' ;Monitoring.lt ethod and Timing The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the accomplishment of these measures. Implementation of both of T /C -9a and T /C -9b would be required to mitigate this potential impact to a less- than- significant level. T /C -10: The following two mitigation measures shall be implemented: CIC/Developer City of Oakland Payment of fair share City Building Services Department to 10a: Provide a separate left and through lane on the southbound contribution prior to ensure that fair share contribution is paid` approach of Jackson Street at 5' Street which would result in LOS occupancy of any buildings B and C conditions during the AM and PM peak hours, respectively. 10b: The SR 260 Deficiency Plan also includes measures to divert I -880 southbound traffic to Madison Street from Jackson Street. The implementation of mitigation measure T /C-10a should be supplemented by signage that redirects southbound Jackson Street traffic to southbound Madison. 26 CATELLUS MDCED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table I continued Mitigation T /C -11: Modify the existing signal timing by maintaining the current minimum green times but increasing the cycle length to 130 seconds. This improvement would result in LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of this improvement. T /C -12: Add a separate through lane on the northbound approach of CIC/Developer City Eighth Street at Central Avenue. This improvement would result in LOS D during the AM and PM peak hours. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of this improvement. T /C- 13: Provide a separate through- and right -turn lane on the eastbound CIC/Developer City approach of Main Street at Pacific Avenue. In addition, provide a separate left- and right -tum lane on northbound Main Street at Pacific Avenue. These improvements would result in LOS D during the AM peak hour. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of Mitigation Measure T /C -13 as well as the other C.I.P. improvements. T /C- 14: Provide a second left-turn lane on the eastbound approach of the CIC/.Developer City Tinker Avenue extension at Webster Street. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of this improvement. This measure would result in LOS C during the PM peak hour. T /C -15: Add a separate northbound left-turn lane on the northbound CIC/Developer approach of Jackson Street at 6th Street. This improvement would result in LOS B conditions during the PM peak hour. (This mitigation measure is also included in the long -term strategies discussed in the Route 260 Deficiency Plan Traffic Analysis). The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of this improvement. T /C -16: Provide a separate right -turn lane on the northbound approach of CIC/Developer Oak Street at 5th Street. This iiupiovement would result in LOS B conditions during the PM peak hour. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of this improvement. CIC/Developer City (inslb entatiri:;::' >imp, Prior to occupancy of any Project development Prior to occupancy of any Project development Prior to occupancy of any Project development Prior to occupancy of any Project development City of Oakland Payment of fair share contribution prior to occupancy of any buildings Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing City Building Services Depai intent to ensure that fair share contribution is paid BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 City Building Services Department to ensure that fair share contribution is paid City Building Services Department to ensure that fair share contribution is paid City Building Services Department to ensure that fair share contribution is paid City Building Services Department to ensure that fair share contribution is paid` City of Oakland Payment of fair share City Building Services Depai to tent to contribution prior to ensure that fair share contribution is paid` occupancy of any buildings 27 CATELLU1, ..,SE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued Mitigation 1C easu T /C -17: One of the two following mitigation measures could be implemented to reduce this impact: 17a: The implementation of the I -880 Corridor B program improvements would mitigate the cumulative traffic impacts at the intersection of Broadway at 5th Street to a less - than - significant level. After mitigation, the AM and PM peak hour level of service is B (13.7 sec/veh) and C (22.0 sec/veh), respectively. 17b: As an interim alternative to Mitigation Measure T /C -17a, additional turn lanes could be added to the Broadway /5th Street intersection. Construct a second southbound left-tum lane on Broadway, plus change the eastbound approach of 5th Street to provide two left -turn lanes, one through and one through -right- turn lane. With implementation of these improvements, the AM and PM peak hour levels of service are D (34.6 sec/veh) and C (16.6 sec/veh), respectively. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the construction of these improvements. Implementation of either mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level. T /C -18: To reduce congestion along 7th Street, Jackson Street, and on the CIC/Developer I -880 northbound on -ramp, the Cities of Alameda and Oakland and the Alameda County Congestion Management Agency are jointly developing a Route 260 Deficiency Plan to mitigate this segment. The Project shall contribute its fair share toward the implementation of mitigation measures included in the Route 260 Deficiency Plan and relevant to mitigation of Project impacts. CIC/Developer iei i itatt ................. City of Oakland lenentattnn >; Payment of fair share contribution prior to occupancy of any buildings City of Oakland Payment of fair share contribution prior to occupancy of any buildings 28 .,, LIYILSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing City Building Services Department to ensure that fair share contribution is paid` City Building Services Depal[went to ensure that fair share contribution is paid` CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued TRCSp;011;S1i)�t Mitigation :2l easurj T /C -19: The following mitigation measures would reduce the potential Developer impacts to local roadway segments: T /C -19a: To reduce the peak -hour traffic along local roadway segments to levels below those forecast in this analysis (which does not assume any reduction in trip generation rates to account for TSM programs, beyond those naturally occurring), the Project shall implement a comprehensive set of TSM programs. The existing City of Alameda ordinance for trip reduction programs identifies measures to increase the awareness and use of alternative modes of transportation. The Project shall develop a TSM plan, which would be approved and operational before the site is occu- pied. The plan shall include trip reduction strategies, site specific requirements, a schedule of implementation and funding mechanisms, and an evaluation of effectiveness that demonstrates that a minimum of 290 trips at the Webster Tube and 125 trips at Park Street would be diverted. The Project TSM program should be consistent with the TSM program recommended for the Reuse EIR. Its goal should be the reduction of these LOS impacts back to less - than- significant levels. The Project TSM program could include the following components: Create a position of Transportation System Manager. The manager would coordinate, monitor and implement the site's ride sharing programs, preferential parking plans, car and van pooling programs, bicycle and pedestrian programs, and promotion and marketing activities. Developer 29 pl a rienta tion:;::;. Prior to occupancy of any office/R &D development BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing City Public Works and Planning Departments to review and approve a TSM program prior to building occupancy CATELLUS Muuru uSE DEVELOPMENT ERR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued Mitl atlnn Mea ure >::> ::::: >: >; : >::::::: >:::::: >:<: >::::<:> :>:<:: ::: >: >:: » > <:< >::: >::::::;:: >;:> ::: ' :::: >:: >:;:..::: .....: .. e ;at: _.. 5 ......::::.::::::::::::::::::::; o-;: o>::•:;: �;; o-;:.:;:.:;.;::•;»:<::•::::::.>:•> :•::•;:o-::;r ::.:;:._:;;.:;. >.;: <:::;:::::: %�'uttditt .::::.::::.:.::im lemelntat • Develop parking management strategies for the site. Most parking management plans are directed at the employment end of the trip. Elements such as car pools and van pools, preferential parking and transit incentives should be used to reduce parking demand. The Transportation System Manager would need to work with all employer groups to develop the parking management strategies. To the degree that on -site home -to -work opportunities may exist, intemal shuttle systems could be provided which would reduce parking on -site. As a parking management strategy, the plan may require that parking in employment/commercial sites be leased independently from buildings to allow for parking cash out. Such a strategy should be detailed in the TSM plan as one measure to achieve a reduction in trips. Other "Transit First" design measures (as outlined in guidelines prepared by the ACCMA) could be incorporated into the specific site design. • Implement a shuttle bus system that inter - connects on -site developments and the internal transit centers. Implement shuttle services and/or contribute to the expansion of AC Transit service to provide linkages between the site and off- site ferry and BART terminals. The TSM plan would include details for the internal shuttle, including funding and operations. • Require implementing one or more peak -hour trip reduction and/or trip elimination programs. These components would include: compressed work weeks, telecommuting, staggered hours, flex -time and other trip reduction activities. 30 bicAvY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting P g or Monitoring Method and Timing CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued sponsible Respattsible'? t atlan:;tneasnre • As a condition of approval, the City of Alameda could require contributions to fund the various trip reduction programs developed by the Transportation System Manager. Contributions could be based on the number of employees. Funding of the trip reduction program should be detailed and tied to site assessments and CC&Rs. A per- employee and per- residential -unit rate could be included. Funding could be developed on the amount of trip reduction required and the types of strategies recommended in the TSM plan. • Employers could be encouraged to hire local residents and create incentive programs to attract local residents. • The Transportation System Manager for the site should participate in all of the area -wide or regional transportation planning studies that relate to the access routes leading to the site. To the degree possible, the TSM program for the site should be augmented to incorporate the portions of these regional and local studies that would enhance the site's TSM program and reduce regional traffic during the peak hours. Implementation of the TSM programs described above would be effective enough to reduce the impacts on the five other roadway segments to a less - than- significant level. 19b: The cumulative impacts will be further mitigated by capping traffic generated by other future development at levels such that traffic from these developments together with cumulative traffic growth, would not cause traffic in the Webster/Posey Tubes to exceed LOS E. This mitigation measure will require that the pat- tern and phasing of development at NAS Alameda and in the western portion of Alameda be monitored to ensure that the traffic generated does not exceed the capacity of the Tubes. It is recom- mended that the monitoring of the traffic cap be measured using the Countywide Model forecasts. The traffic generated would be monitored by the City as follows, pursuant to procedures to be adopted in City plans and ordinances. City City 31 in ot:: rriplemeri aitiari';;::> BRADYILSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing Prior to City's acceptance/ City to ensure that development cap is approval of any applications implemented. for additional development which would impact the Tubes. CATELLUS MIADL USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued • Applications for future projects (not including the Project) involving significant new development or changes in use at the NAS Alameda, the FISC Facility, and in the western portion of Alameda would be accompanied by a traffic study that indicates, at a minimum, the number of additional peak hour trips that the proposed project would contribute to traffic through the Tubes. The City shall not approve the proposed future development or change in land use if it would cause the cumulative traffic produced by the future project, in combination with other cumulative development in the area, to exceed the then- current capacity of the Webster/Posey Tubes. • The City shall evaluate each proposed new project, taking into account additional information that could alter assumptions about the amount of traffic that can be generated without exceeding the capacity of the Tubes (such as technological improvements that increase the capacity of the Tubes, changes in origin/destination patterns, changes in mode of travel, changes in citywide development patterns, changes in land use patterns that reduce the number of trips through the Tubes, and fundamental changes in commuting habits, perhaps encouraged by government sponsored live/work incentives) to determine if approval of future projects (other than the project) is appropriate in light of the then - current constraints on the traffic capacity of the Tubes. • Every three years, or more frequently as the capacity of the Tubes is close to being reached, the City would conduct a study of traffic conditions on key roadways affecting the capacity of the Tubes to revise, based on actual traffic conditions and already permitted development, the estimated number of trips that may be produced by new development or redevelopment without exceeding the capacity of the Tubes. Limiting traffic generated by development of NAS Alameda and FISC Facility through the implementation of TSM measures and the imposition of the cap on development until such time as a new estuary crossing is constructed, would mitigate this cumulative impact to a less- than- significant level. 32 p10*.ifation City to conduct study and monitor BRADYtLSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued Mitigation: 1 AIR Q 3: ..:.:.::....:......:. AQ-la: Consistent with the BAAQMD's preferred approach, the Project developer shall ensure that the following measures are included in construction contracts and specifications to control fugitive dust emissions. • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily and more often during windy periods; active areas adjacent to existing land uses shall be kept damp at all times, or shall be treated with non- toxic stabilizers or dust palliatives; • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard; • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites; water sweepers shall vacuum up excess water to avoid runoff- related impacts to water quality; • Sweep streets daily (preferably with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; • Hydroseed or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas; • Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non -toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph; • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; and • Suspend excavation and grading activity whenever the wind is so high that it results visible dust plumes despite control efforts. CIC for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements airfy es vz Bible %mplementat ..................... . City for all public improvements; Developer for all private improvements 33 Timtpg'of, iii le a entatlnri :. ........................ Prior to issuance of a grading permit; during grading activity BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Tlming City Public Works to review construction contracts and approve language relative to requirements for dust control; City Public Works and Building Division to conduct periodic inspections during Project grading CATELLUS MIA L1) uSE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued TSitigaititrri119Ce0.0 r AO-lb: The Project developer shall ensure that emissions from construction equipment exhaust, and from workers commuting to the site, are reduced through implementation of the following measures: Store construction tools and equipment on -site in secure facilities to encourage commuting by transit; Use alternative fueled construction equipment to the fullest extent possible; Minimize idling time (e.g., 5- minute maximum); Maintain properly tuned equipment according to equipment manu- facturer's guidelines; and • Limit the hours of operation of heavy duty equipment to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM Monday through Friday, and between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Saturday, as specified in Section J, Noise, of this chapter and in City of Alameda Community Noise Ordinance. AQ-1 c: To minimize air quality impacts to the lowest practicable levels, BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2: Hazardous Materials; Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing shall be adhered to during the demolition/construction process. CIC for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements CIC for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements atip, City for all public improvements; Developer for all private improvements imittg;;of::.:: trip eri entadon:' BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing During Project construction Periodic site inspections by City Building Department and/or Public Works Department staff during construction City for all public During Project construction improvements; Developer for all private improvements 34 Periodic site inspections by City Building Department and/or Public Works Depai tnient staff during construction CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 fiflgatlon 113emu AO-2: The following measures, if applied to office and R &D areas and uses in the proposed Project, would reduce this impact. These measures represent a menu of options for reducing the intensity of long -term air quality impacts. However, this air quality impact would remain significant and unavoidable. • Construct transit facilities such as bus tumouts/bus bulbs, benches, shelters, etc; • Provide shuttle service to the BART station to encourage employee use for their daily commute; • Implement carpool/vanpool program, e.g., carpool ridematching for employees, assistance with vanpool formation, provision of vanpool vehicles, etc; • Provide preferential parking for carpool and vanpool vehicles; • Provide a convenient location for electric vehicle (EV) outlets for employee vehicles and maintenance; • Provide on -site shops and services for employees, such as cafeteria, bank/ATM, dry cleaners, convenience market, etc., or provide mid -day shuttle service from work site to food service establishments/commercial areas; • Provide on -site child care, or contribute to off -site child care within walking distance; • Provide secure, weather - protected bicycle parking for employees; • Provide safe, direct access for bicyclists to adjacent bicycle routes; • Provide showers and lockers for employees bicycling or walking to work; • Provide secure short-term bicycle parking for retail customers and other non - commute trips; and Developer e teritat Developer 35 llatg!;of ementatio, During Development Plan review process; during Project operation Reporting or Monitoring :Method and Timing City staff to review development plans and encourage the incorporation of as many of these measures as possible; also should be coordinated with the TSM programs (see Mitigation Measure T /C -19a) CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ELR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued 1Viitigatlon;llletisttr Obtain the required permit to bum wastes that result from "Land Development Clearing" through the BAAQMD and/or the local fire agency, depending on the time of year the burning is to take place. Only vegetative waste materials may be disposed of using an open outdoor fire. ..... ........... .................... :NOISE::: ......................... ....................... raids run aisllz ettnentat NOI -1: Detailed noise studies that consider the specific design of the Developer residential areas proposed adjacent to Atlantic Avenue and Tinker Avenue, and determine what the minimum height of the sound wall(s) will need to be to achieve an acceptable exterior noise level shall be prepared by a qualified noise consultant. The studies shall be submitted to the City for review and the recommendations shall be incorporated into the Development Plan and the Project improvement plans (see Mitigation Measure AES -3). Design measures such as the following could also be required (by the City's Noise Element Policy 8.7.0, depending on the specific findings of the detailed noise study: double -paned glass for windows facing the direction of traffic; weather -tight seals for doors and windows; or mechanical ventilation such as an air conditioning system. Developer plementation; Prior to Development Plan approval K:<:P,L3B ............................................................................................ ............................... PUB -1 4: The City of Alameda Planning Department shall work with the Fire Department to provide for the installation of a fixed, swing -arm vacuum pipe and hose connection, which would allow emergency pumping of saltwater by the City of Alameda Fire Department in a seismic event. City PUB-lb: As part of the Project's Improvement Plans for the wharf area, CIC the City of Alameda shall work with the Fire Department to ensure that adequate access for pumping vehicles operated by City of Alameda Fire Department is provided within 40 feet of the fixed vacuum pipe. PUB -1 c: The City of Alameda shall construct the vacuum pipe and hose CIC connection structure during construction of the waterfront promenade. City City 36 During the Development Plan review process for the waterfront promenade; prior to the completion of the waterfront promenade improvements During the Development Plan review process for the waterfront promenade During construction of the waterfront promenade improvements BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or onitoring Method and Timing City Planning Department to review study and ensure that recommendations are incorporated into the Project plans prior to Development Plan approval City Planning Department to coordinate with the Fire Department to ensure installation City Planning Department to coordinate with the Fire Department to ensure installation City Public Works Department to ensure that construction of improvements are completed CATELLUS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued Mifigatioii 21easa PUB -24: The City of Alameda, the Project sponsor and the demolition subcontractor shall work with organizations able to provide funding and technical assistance for managing and financing the demolition, recycling and reuse project. CIC PUB -2b: A plan for managing the construction debris shall be developed CIC that promotes separation of waste types and recycling, and provides for reuse of materials on -site for reconstructing infrastructure. This plan shall be prepared in coordination with City staff, the Project sponsor, the demolition subcontractor and any involved organizations per Mitigation Measure PUB -2a, and shall be approved by City staff prior to issuance of a demolition permit. P[1BLi±C>(Jl1 1L'lt`IESAVI�!:SERiVI±I ESYS ';E UTL -2: Excess capacity available within the existing Mitchell sewer line CIC shall be determined as part of Project design. The Project shall obtain an Interceptor Connection Permit from EBMUD if connection to the EBMUD Mitchell Street Interceptor (Interceptor) is planned. In this event, the Project shall provide documentation to EBMUD verifying that there is sufficient capacity in the Interceptor at the desired connection location. In the event that sufficient capacity is not available, additional gravity flow capacity shall be installed as part of the Project improvements, and shall be extended to the Alameda interceptor or to the point at which gravity flow capacity becomes available. UTL -3: Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ -3 as stated below Developer would reduce this impact to a less - than- significant level: Adherence by the Project sponsors and the City to existing regulations requiring abatement of lead and asbestos hazards and worker health and safety procedures during demolition and renovation activities would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. No additional mitigation is required. UTL-4: Should the City determine that it needs to further reduce its CIC/Developer City overall peak flows into the WPCP, the proposed Project should contribute its fair share of the costs associated with the design and development of a sewer retention facility or an enhanced West Alameda I &I Program. ei:nentatl Developer; City for demolition of stormwater system Developer; City for demolition of stormwater system Developer Developer 37 mpCeimentation .: Prior to and during Project demolition Prior to issuance of a demolition permit BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or MonitoringSMethod.and Timing City Public Works Department to participate in the recycling and reuse program to ensure that the appropriate organizations are being consulted; documentation of the organizations consulted shall be placed in the City's files City Public Works Department staff to review and approve plan and conduct periodic inspections during demolition to ensure compliance with approved Plan As part of the MDIPP and prior to approval of final improvement plans City Public Works Department and EBMUD to review and approve documcntation or sewer line improvement plans During project demolition City Building Services Department shall conduct inspections during demolition to ensure that contractors are complying with applicable regulations. As part of MDIPP and verified prior to Project completion City Public Works Department shall monitor peak flows throughout Project buildout; City Building Services Department to ensure that fair share contribution is paid. CATELLUS Menu USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued Miti*It i I east UTL -5: A gas line abandonment plan shall be prepared by the Project or other responsible entity for approval. At a minimum, it is recommended that the plan address the following issues: • Scheduling for service disconnection at buildings to be demolished; Completion of mapping, leak detection and repairs on all portions of the existing system that may be impacted by Project construction , and that are planned to remain in service during Project construction; and • Compliance with all other CPUC provisions relating to system abandonment. ......... ............................... M :;iCtIti ZAZ R1"SO CUL -1 : In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during site preparation or construction, the Project sponsor shall cease work in the immediate area until such time as a qualified archaeologist and City of Alameda personnel can assess the significance of the find. The following mitigation measures shall be implemented at the time of the find: Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resources shall be immediately suspended and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the find. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context. • If a human burial or disassociated human bone is encountered, current State law requires that the County Coroner be called immediately. All work must be curtailed in the vicinity of the discovery until the Coroner's approval to continue has been received. • If archeological resources are discovered, and the City and the cultural resource consultant find that the resource is unique based on the criteria provided in the CEQA Guidelines and criteria listed above, the City and Project developer, in consultation with a cultural resource expert, shall seek to avoid damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible. City for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements City for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements eriaeritatl Same as party responsible for funding Same as party responsible for funding 38 filling of Imptementatioi ii: Prior to the abandonment of any existing gas lines During site preparation and construction bKADY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing City Public Works Department to review and approve abandonment plan in consultation with PG &E Project developer to include specified terms in all construction contracts that will involve excavation; City grading inspectors to periodically monitor site during grading activity; City Planning Department to ensure the Project's compliance with these measures in the event that resources are discovered as part of Project grading or excavation CATELLUS MDOD USE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued igat If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified cultural resource consultant shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the effect of the Project on the qualities that make the resource unique. The mitigation plan shall be prepared in accordance with CEQA Guidelines and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. CUL -2: If paleontological resources are encountered during Project site preparation or construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: • Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resource(s) shall be immediately suspended, and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified paleontological resource consultant shall be contacted to evaluate the find. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context. • If paleontological resources are discovered and the City and the paleontological resource consultant find that the resource is significant based on the criteria provided in the CEQA Guidelines and criteria listed above, the City and Project developer, in consultation with a paleontological resource expert, shall seek to avoid damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible. • If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified paleontological resource consultant shall prepare a salvage plan for mitigating the effect of the Project on the qualities which make the resource unique. The Project applicant, in consultation with a qualified paleontologist, shall complete a paleontological resource inventory, declaration, and mitigation plan in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines and submit it to the City for review and approval. City for all public improvements, including major roadways, public open space areas and other backbone infrastructure; Developer for all private improvements Same as party responsible for funding 39 During site preparation and construction BRADY/LSA MAY 2000 Reporting or Monitoring Method and Timing Project developer to include terms in all construction contracts that will involve excavation; City grading inspectors to periodically monitor site during grading activity; City Planning Department to ensure the Project's compliance with these measures in the event that resources are discovered as part of Project grading or excavation CATELLU. ........, JSE DEVELOPMENT EIR MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Table 1 continued Nt100.0on 111eas >l!I;eIESTHET:Ii ............................. . ............................ AES -3: A final design plan for the sound wall and a landscape plan for Developer Developer the Atlantic Avenue frontage shall be submitted to the City of Alameda for review and approval subsequent to the detailed noise study required by Mitigation Measure NOI -1, but prior to the City's approval of a Development Plan for any residential lots adjacent to Atlantic Avenue. The City shall only approve the wall design and landscape plan if it finds that it will not adversely affect the visual character of the Atlantic Avenue frontage. The height and length of the wall should be minimized to the extent feasible while maintaining adequate mitigation of noise levels. A height of 10 feet shall only be permitted adjacent to those lots where the rear yards or side yards are perpendicular to Atlantic Avenue if the final noise study deems the wall necessary to achieve acceptable outdoor noise levels. The detailed noise study specified in Mitigation Measure NOI -1 shall detennine the minimum height necessary for walls located along the side yards of the residences that would be sited.parallel to Atlantic Avenue. Reporting or Moriitoriing method and Timing U DYfLSA MAY 2000 Prior to Development Plan City Planning Depattnient and Planning approval for residential units Board to review site plans, landscape plans adjacent to Atlantic Avenue and soundwall details to ensure compliance with the Noise Study recommendations AES -5: Specific lighting . proposals for proposed office/R&D parking lot Developer Developer During design review areas shall be reviewed and approved by the City during Design Review process for office/R&D structures. This review shall ensure that any outdoor night lighting for the proposed office/R&D parking lot areas is downshielded and would not create nighttime glare for surrounding residential areas. Review of proposed lighting plans for all office/R &D projects by City Planning Depai tt vent staff a All references to "City" refer to the City of Alameda unless otherwise stated. t City of Alameda Community Improvement Commission (CIC) Since the implementation of these measures is outside the City's jurisdiction and the EIR stated that the impacts to Oakland intersections would be reduced to a less - than -s only if the City of Oakland approves and implements the recommended measures, no additional reporting or monitoring provisions are provided. C:\WPDOCS\DATA \C. WPD May 18, 2000 (9:23am) 40 gnificant level STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS ATTACHMENT D Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 et seq., the Community Improvement Commission (CIC) of the City of Alameda adopts and makes the following statement of overriding considerations regarding the remaining unavoidable impacts of the Project and the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits of the Project. I. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts which are included in the record, the City has determined that the Project would cause significant unavoidable impacts to population and housing, traffic and circulation, air quality, public services, and cumulative impacts to regional housing, traffic and circulation, air quality, and public services, as disclosed in the Final Environmental Impact Report ( "Final EIR ") prepared for the Project. These impacts cannot be feasibly fully mitigated by changes in or alternatives to the Project. II. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The CIC specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding Considerations that, as part of the approval provisions, the Project has avoided or substantially lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible, and finds that the remaining unavoidable impacts of the Project are acceptable in light of specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the Project because those benefits outweigh the significant unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project. The Council finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project's significant adverse environmental impacts and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. These matters are supported by evidence in the record that includes, but is not limited to, the documents referenced below. III. BENEFITS OF PROPOSED PROJECT The CIC has considered the proposed Development Agreement ( "DA ") by and between the City of Alameda ( "City ") and Catellus Development Corporation ("Developer"), the Disposition and Development Agreement ( "DDA ") by and between the Community Improvement Commission of Alameda ( "CIC ") and Developer, the Joint Implementation Agreement by and between the City and CIC, the Reuse Plan, the Master Plan, the public record of proceedings on the proposed Project and other written materials presented to the City as well as oral and written testimony at all public hearings related to the Project, and does determine that implementation of the Project as specifically provided in the Project documents would result in the following substantial public benefits by: Ensuring the productive use of underdeveloped, former military base property and fostering orderly growth and quality development in the City. Proceeding in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the General Plan, thereby implementing the City's stated General Plan policies. Providing substantially increased property tax and sales tax revenues to the City. Providing increased employment opportunities for residents of the City. Eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies in the Project area, including, but not limited to, abandoned buildings, incompatible land uses, depreciated or stagnant property values, and inadequate or deteriorated public improvements, facilities, and utilities. Replanning, redesigning, and developing undeveloped and underdeveloped areas that are improperly utilized to achieve a balanced mix of land uses and create a vibrant new neighborhood in City. Expanding and improving the community's supply of housing through the installation of needed site improvements and the construction of up to 500 market -rate units, with inclusionary housing, consistent with the existing density and single - family residential character of City and with existing City policies and standards, including Measure A. Providing diversity in housing opportunities through compliance with Community Improvement Commission inclusionary housing policy (i.e., providing on -site moderate income housing and land for 39 units of very-low income housing, and contributing funds toward the development of the 39 -unit project). Strengthening the economic base of the Project area and the community by adding approximately 1.3 million gross square feet of business park and supporting retail space. Achieving job creation and economic development. Actively seeking and promoting business and light industries that provide significant sustainable employment, including a mix of light industries emphasizing opportunities for technology research and development (R &D) and technology transfer. Facilitating the emergence of commercial - industrial sectors, including those expected to emerge or expand due to their proximity to the new business park site, through 2 improvement of transportation access to commercial and industrial areas, improvement of safety within the Project area, and the installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new commercial and industrial expansion, employment, and economic growth. Maximizing tax increment and developing other funding mechanisms in order to pay for the public investment in infrastructure required for economic development in the Project area. Emphasizing employment and a mix of economic development opportunities that complement economic development strategies in other parts of City and promoting a jobs- housing balance to the extent practicable. Seamlessly integrating the Project site into City by: emphasizing Mixed Use development; ensuring land use compatibility within and surrounding the Project site; creating the same "small town" character on the Project site which is highly valued by the existing community; achieving the same human- scale, tree -lined character of neighborhood walkable streets found throughout the existing City; reflecting the grid street pattern that is characteristic of the existing City; minimizing through - traffic on minor residential streets. Reducing the impact of the automobile and energy consumption by: (1) facilitating public transit opportunities to and within the Project area to the extent feasible; and (2) providing a system of bikeways, parks, and pedestrian paths to facilitate access to parks, recreational areas and the waterfront from all parts of western Alameda. Protecting and improving the waterfront by enhancing views of water and public access to the waterfront in all development and creatively encouraging the usage of the waterfront. Providing adequate vehicular access to and within the Project site without significant adverse effects on access to existing areas of City. Providing a school site to further educational opportunities in the former NAS Alameda site and coordinating educational plans and development with existing educational organizations including the College of Alameda and the Alameda Unified School District. Providing parks within the Project site to service the needs of the residents of this primarily residential district. Promoting energy efficiency in facility development, utilizing recycled materials to the extent feasible, and applying low water demand techniques in all new development, including all landscape development. 3 The CIC has weighed the above benefits of the proposed Project against its unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the FEIR and hereby determines that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental effects and, therefore, further determines that these risks and adverse environmental effects are acceptable. C:\WPDOCS\DATA\D.WPD May 18, 2000 (8:38am) 4 I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda in special meeting assembled on the 31st day of May , 2000, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Commissioners Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Chair Appezzato - 5. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTENTIONS: None. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said Commission this 1st day of June , 2000. Diane Felsch, Secretary Community Improvement Commission Co y mprovement Commission