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