Resolution 15413CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 15413
CERTIFYING THE ALAMEDA MARINA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT, ADOPTING FINDINGS AND A STATEMENT OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, MITIGATION MEASURES, AND
A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR
THE ALAMEDA MARINA PROJECT
WHEREAS, Pacific Shops, Inc. (Developer) owns approximately 27.08 acres of
land and water and leases an additional 17.06 acres of land and water from the City at a
property located at 1815 Clement Avenue and commonly known as Alameda Marina;
and
WHEREAS, the Developer proposes to redevelop the Alameda Marina site and
construct several new structures on the site; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project would include a combination of residential,
maritime and commercial uses that would be housed in existing structures to be
rehabilitated or new structures to be built on the site, including up to 760 housing units,
up to 250,000 square feet of maritime and commercial space, approximately 3.59 acres
of open space, and up to 530 marina berths (collectively, the Project); and
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) evaluating
the potential effects of the proposed development of the Alameda Marina Project; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for comment on January 1, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing to receive
public testimony on the Draft EIR on February 12, 2018, examined pertinent maps and
documents, and considered the testimony and written comments received; and
WHEREAS, following the close of the public review period, the final FEIR (Final
EIR) was prepared, which responds to the written and oral comments received during
the public review period and makes revisions to the EIR; and
WHEREAS, the Final EIR, which consists of the Draft EIR and the EIR
Appendices, and a Responses to Comments on the EIR volume that contains comments
on the Draft EIR, responses to those comments, and revisions to the Draft EIR, was
published on May 10, 2018; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a duly noticed public hearing to receive
public testimony on the Final EIR on May 29, 2018, examined pertinent maps and
documents, and considered the testimony and written comments received. After closing
the public hearing, the Planning Board recommended that the City Council (a) certify the
Final EIR, (b) adopt the required CEQA findings for the Project, including a Statement of
Overriding Considerations, and adopt and incorporate into the Project all of the
mitigation measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project;
and
WHEREAS, on May 29, 2018, the Planning Board unanimously recommended
that the City Council certify the Final EIR for Alameda Marina as amended by Exhibit C;
and
WHEREAS, on July 10, 2018, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing
on the Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, all interested parties were given the opportunity to participate in the
public hearing by submittal of oral and -written comments; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing was closed by the City Council on July 10, 2018;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council, as the final decision-making body for the lead
agency, has independently reviewed, considered, and analyzed the Final EIR, the
required CEQA findings for the Project, including a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, mitigation measures, and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting
Program for the Project.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby:
1. Certifies that the Final EIR for the Alameda Marina Project has been completed in
compliance with CEQA, Public Resources Code sections 21000 et seq., the
State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, sections
15000 et seq., and all applicable state and local guidelines, and reflects. the
independent judgment of the City.
2. Adopts Findings for the Project, including a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, attached hereto as Exhibit A and hereby incorporated
by reference, and adopts and incorporates into the Project all of the
mitigation measures within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the City of
Alameda which are identified in the Findings.
3. Adopts the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Project,
attached hereto as Exhibit B and hereby incorporated by reference.
4. Directs the Environmental Review Officer or designee to cause to be filed a
Notice of Determination with the appropriate agencies.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FINDINGS
AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE
ALAMEDA MARINA PROJECT
I. INTRODUCTION
The City of Alameda ("City"), as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq., has prepared the Final
Environmental Impact report for the Alameda Marina Project (State Clearinghouse No.
2016102064) ("Final EIR"). The Final EIR is a project -level EIR pursuant to Section 15161 of the
Guidelines for implementation of CEQA ("State CEQA Guidelines").' The Final EIR consists of
the January 2018 Public Review Draft Alameda Marina Master Plan Environmental Impact
Report ("EIR"), the May 2018 Response to Comments on the EIR ("Response to Comments
document"), and revisions to the EIR contained in the Response to Comments document.
In determining to approve the Alameda Marina Master Plan ("Project"), which is
described in more detail in Section II, below, the City makes and adopts the following findings of
fact and statement of overriding considerations, and adopts and incorporates into the Project all
of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, all based on substantial evidence in the
whole record of this proceeding ("administrative record"). Pursuant to Section 15090(a) of the
State CEQA Guidelines, the Final EIR was presented to the City, and the City reviewed and
considered the information contained in the Final EIR prior to making the findings in Sections IV
through XIV, below. The conclusions presented in these findings are based on the Final EIR
and other evidence in the administrative record.
11. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project, as fully described in Chapter 3 of the EIR, involves the redevelopment of
approximately 44 acres of land and water located at 1815 Clement Avenue in the north -central
portion of the City of Alameda. The project site encompasses approximately 27.08 acres of
private land, including privately -owned submerged land, and 17.06 acres of State tidelands that
are held in trust by the City of Alameda and leased to Pacific Shops, Inc. The proposed Project
would demolish most existing structures on the Project site and allow for development of up to
779 new housing units, a marina with up to 530 boat slips and a harbormaster's office,
approximately 250,000 square feet of maritime and commercial uses, and about 3.59 acres of
waterfront -related public open space and parks.
The residential unit types proposed include: townhomes, three to four story multifamily
stacked flat buildings, and four to five story wrap buildings. A range of commercial and maritime
uses are permitted and could include a maritime workplace with maritime and craftsman work
spaces, business and professional offices, work/live studios, and kayak and bicycle rental shops.
Other proposed improvements include establishing locations for launching kayaks and other
small watercraft, provisions for a future public water taxi/water shuttle, a new internal roadway
system and utility infrastructure, and parking throughout the site. A shoreline public promenade,
offering views of the Oakland skyline and hills, the Oakland Estuary and Coast Guard Island
would encircle the proposed residential mixed-use community. The shoreline infrastructure will
I The State CEQA Guidelines are found at California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Sections 15000 et seq.
also be repaired or replaced, and will include the repair and replacement of approximately 4,000
linear feet of seawalls and bulkheads, upgrades for utilities to support the existing marina, marina
dredging associated with the seawall construction and operation of the marina, sub surface debris
removal associated with the prior history of the Project site, and repair of the graving dock.
As set forth in Chapter 3 of the Draft EIR, the project objectives are as follows:
Improve and Enhance the Maritime Commercial Marina
• Maintain Alameda Marina as a working waterfront and retain and/or promote Alameda
Marina's maritime uses by creating a Maritime Commercial Core that utilizes the maritime
footprint more efficiently.
• Encourage the retention and development of waterfront and maritime -related job and
business opportunities that relate to the area's waterfront location.
• Upgrade and rehabilitate facilities, unique buildings, as feasible, and provide land for
existing maritime businesses, boat berthing and maintenance, boat storage, and
waterfront commercial recreation businesses.
• Provide sea level rise protection and other infrastructure upgrades to bring Alameda
Marina up to date to make it a safe and accessible place.
Activate and Reconnect the Community to the Waterfront
• Reconnect the community to the waterfront by extending the existing city grid into the site
to allow for additional view corridors and access points through the site to the shoreline
edge.
• Create public amenities and opportunities for gathering spaces for existing and future
community members by developing new open space areas within and along the shoreline
edge with a Bay Trail component.
Create a Dynamic New Neighborhood for Everyone
• Provide housing of various types to fulfill the goals of the City's Housing Element and help
meet the City's Regional Housing Need Allocation.
• Provide options for housing that meet the need of a wide demographic that includes
universally designed units, affordable, rental, work force market -rate and market -rate
units.
• Integrate Alameda Marina's core maritime uses, including those governed by the
Tidelands Lease, with renovated and new compatible uses, including various types of
housing.
• Develop a mixed-use project that allows for a mix of compatible uses at the site.
• Provide opportunities for the improvement of the existing boat Marina and shoreline
infrastructure; maintain and generate new jobs; and create better and new open space
and recreational areas.
Provide Financially Sound Development
Develop an economically sustainable and financially sound new development that can
fund the construction of the public facilities and services that are needed to serve the plan
area and achieve General Plan objectives, while avoiding any financial impact on the
City's ability to provide services to the rest of the City.
Fulfill the project sponsor's obligations under the Tidelands and Marina Lease.
Ill. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
On October 27, 2016, the City issued a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of the EIR. The
NOP requested that agencies with regulatory authority over any aspect of the project describe
that authority and identify the relevant environmental issues that should be addressed in the
EIR. Interested members of the public were also invited to comment. The NOP was
circulated for comment by responsible and trustee agencies and the public for a total of 34
days from October 27, 2016, through November 30, 2016, during which time the City held a
public scoping meeting on November 14, 2016. Based on input from the public, and following
further consultation with the City, a revised Master Plan was submitted in May 2017, and a
revised NOP was released on July 13, 2017. Comments on the NOP and the revised NOP
were received by the City and considered during preparation of the EIR.
The EIR was made available for public review on January 1, 2018, and distributed to
responsible and trustee agencies and the public. It was circulated for public review through
February 15, 2018, for a total of 45 days, during which time the City held a public hearing on
the EIR on February 12, 2018.
The Response to Comments document was issued on May 17, 2018. On May 29, 2018,
at a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning Board recommended that the City Council certify
the Final EIR.
The Planning Board recommended that the findings, recommendations, and statement
of overriding considerations set forth below (the "Findings") be made and adopted by the City
Council regarding the Project's significant environmental effects ("significant impacts"),
mitigation measures, alternatives to the Project, and the overriding considerations that
support approval of the Project despite any remaining significant impacts it may have.
IV. FINDINGS
These findings summarize the environmental determinations of the Final EIR about
project impacts before and after mitigation, and do not attempt to repeat the full analysis of each
significant impact contained in the Final EIR. Instead, these findings provide a summary
description of and basis for each impact conclusion identified in the Final EIR, describe the
applicable mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, and state the City's findings and
rationale about the significance of each significant impact following the adoption and incorporation
of mitigation measures into the Project. A full explanation of these environmental findings and
conclusions can be found in the Final EIR, and these findings hereby incorporate by reference
the discussion and analysis in the Final EIR supporting the Final EIR's determinations
regarding mitigation measures and the Project's impacts.
In adopting mitigation measures below, the City intends to adopt each of the mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR. Accordingly, in the event a mitigation measure identified in
the Final EIR has been inadvertently omitted from these findings, such mitigation measure is
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project in the findings below by reference. In
addition, in the event the language of a mitigation measure set forth below fails to accurately
reflect the mitigation measure in the Final EIR due to a clerical error, the language of the
mitigation measure as set forth in the Final EIR shall control unless the language of the
mitigation measure has been specifically and expressly modified by these findings.
Sections V through VIII, below, provide brief descriptions of the impacts that the Final
EIR identifies as either significant and unavoidable, less than significant with adopted
mitigation, or less than significant without mitigation. These descriptions also reproduce the full
text of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR for each significant impact.
V. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE
AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The Final EIR identifies the following significant and unavoidable adverse impacts
associated with the approval of the Project, some of which can be reduced, although not to a
less -than -significant level, through implementation of mitigation measures identified in the
Final EIR. In addition, the City cannot require adoption or implementation of mitigation measures
for some impacts because they are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public
agencies. Pub. Resources Code § 21081(a)(2). Therefore, as explained below, some impacts
will remain significant and unavoidable notwithstanding adoption of feasible mitigation
measures. To the extent that these mitigation measures will not mitigate or avoid all significant
effects on the environment, and because the City cannot require mitigation measures that are
within the responsibility and jurisdiction of other public agencies to be adopted or implemented
by those agencies, it is hereby determined that any remaining significant and unavoidable
adverse impacts are acceptable for the reasons specified in Section XIII, below. Pub.
Resources Code § 21081(a)(3). As explained in Section X, below, the findings in this Section
V are based on the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in
full by this reference.
A. Impact CUL -1: Project implementation would cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined,
in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5.
The Alameda Marina Project, as proposed, would include the demolition of 26 of
the 37 buildings in the Project area. Of the 17 contributing buildings and one structure in
the Alameda Marina Historic District, 11 would be demolished (Buildings 1, 4, 6, 12, 22,
28, 29, 31, 32, 33, and 34). Buildings 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 25, 26, and 27 would
remain. All three buildings deemed individually eligible for the National Register (16, 19,
and 27) would be retained. The demolition of many of the District's contributing buildings,
which have been determined to be historical resources, is considered a significant impact
under CEQA.
This impact cannot be reduced to a less -than -significant level; however,
implementation of the Mitigation Measure CUL -la (Treatment of Historic Properties),
Mitigation Measure CUL -lb (Documentation), and Mitigation Measure CUL -1c
(Interpretive Display) set forth below, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the
Project, would reduce impacts, to the extent feasible, to historical resources by
documenting the resource and preserving the history of the site and buildings. Overall,
the proposed Project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource, and this impact would be significant and unavoidable with mitigation.
Mitigation Measure CUL -1a: Treatment of Historic Properties (Buildings 16 19 and
27). Alterations, to the exteriors of Buildings 16, 19 and 27, shall conform to the Secretary
of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, if feasible
(NPS, 1995) and PRC 5024.5.
Mitigation Measure CUL -1b: Documentation. The project proponent shall prepare a
treatment plan including but not limited to photo documentation and public interpretation
of the Alameda Marina Historic District (Buildings 1, 4, 6, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27,
28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, and the graving dock). Photo documentation will be overseen by a
Secretary of the Interior—qualified architectural historian, documenting the affected
historical resource in accordance with the National Park Service's Historic American
Buildings Survey (NABS) and/or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER)
standards. Such standards typically include large -format photography using (4x5)
negatives, written data, and copies of original plans if available. The HABS/HAER
documentation packages will be archived at local libraries and historical repositories, as
well as the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources
Information System.
Mitigation Measure CUL -1c: Interpretive Display. Public interpretation of historical
resources shall be provided and could include a plaque, kiosk, or other method of
describing the Alameda Marina Historic District's historic or architectural importance to
the general public. The design and placement of the display(s) shall be reviewed and
approved by the City of Alameda Historic Advisory Board.
B. Impact CUL -4: Project construction could cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a Tribal Cultural Resource as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 21074.
Based on background research, there is an extensive prehistoric archaeological
site with human burials (CA -ALA -11) present in a portion of the Project area. The site is
recommended as eligible for listing in the California Register and for the purposes of
CEQA is considered a tribal cultural resource. In the event that construction activities
disturb archaeological sites that are considered tribal cultural resources, damage would
be considered a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -2a (Archaeological Research Design
and Treatment Plan) and Mitigation Measure CUL -4 (Tribal Cultural Resources
Interpretive Program) set forth below, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the
Project, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less -than -significant level.
Mitigation Measure CUL -2a: Archaeological Resources Management Plan. During the
preliminary design for development within the project area, and prior to submittal of a
building permit or grading application to the City of Alameda, the project applicant shall
undertake the following:
Preservation in Place. A qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the City of
Alameda, the project applicant, and the appropriate Native American
representative (s) shall determine whether preservation in place of site CA -ALA -11
is feasible. Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(b)(3), this may be
accomplished through planning construction to avoid the resource; incorporating
the resource within open space; capping and covering the resource; or deeding the
site into a permanent conservation easement.
If it is determined that preservation in place is not feasible for the resource and another
type of mitigation would better serve the interests protected by CEQA, mitigation shall
include testing and data recovery through archaeological investigations and the project
applicant shall undertake the following:
• Archaeological Resources Management Plan. Because a significant
archaeological resource (CA -ALA -11) has been previously identified in the project
area, the project proponent shall retain a Secretary of the Interior -qualified
archaeologist, in consultation with a Native American representative(s), to prepare
and implement an Archaeological Resources Management Plan (ARMP). The
ARMP shall include a preliminary testing program to identify the types of expected
archaeological materials, the testing methods to be used to define site boundaries
and constituents, and the locations recommended for testing. The purpose of the
testing program will be to determine to the extent possible the presence or
absence of archaeological materials in the proposed areas of disturbance for the
project and to determine whether those materials contribute to the significance of
site CA -ALA -11. If a significant contributing element to the site is in the project
area, the project proponent shall conduct a data recovery program as outlined in
the ARMP. The ARMP will include how the data recovery program would preserve
the significant information the archaeological resource is expected to contain.
Treatment would consist of (but would not be not limited to) sample excavation,
artifact collection, site documentation, and historical research, with the aim of
targeting the recovery of important scientific data contained in the portion(s) of the
significant resource to be impacted by the project. The ARMP shall include
provisions for analysis of data in a regional context; reporting of results within a
timely manner and subject to review and comments by the appropriate Native
American representative, before being finalized; curation of artifacts and data at a
local facility acceptable to the City and appropriate Native American
representative; and dissemination of final confidential reports to the appropriate
Native American representative, the Northwest Information Center of the California
Historical Resources Information System and the City.
Mitigation Measure CUL -4: Tribal Cultural Resources Interpretive Program. In
consultation with the affiliated Native American tribal representatives, the proposed
project shall be redesigned so as to avoid any adverse effect on the significant tribal
cultural resource, if feasible. If preservation in place of the tribal cultural resource is not a
sufficient or feasible option, the project applicant shall implement an interpretive program
of the tribal cultural resource in consultation with affiliated tribal representatives. The plan
shall identify, as appropriate, proposed locations for installations or displays, the
proposed content and materials of those displays or installation, the producers or artists
of the displays or installation, and a long term maintenance program. The interpretive
program may include artist installations, preferably by local Native American artists, oral
histories with local Native Americans, artifacts displays and interpretation, and
educational panels or other informational displays.
C. Impact C -CUL -1: The project, in combination with past, present, and
probable future projects, would substantially contribute to cumulative
adverse historic architectural resources impacts.
The potential impacts of the Project when considered together with similar impacts
from other probable future projects in the vicinity could result in a significant cumulative
impact on historic architectural resources. The proposed Project's contribution. to this
impact could be cumulatively considerable, as documented above under Impact CUL -1,
especially due to the unique nature of the site and its ties to both World War I and World
War II. Many World War II -era shipyards in the Bay Area were demolished in the 1950s or
1960s, but, so far, the Alameda Marina has remained, albeit with a substantial loss of
integrity as all water -side elements of the former shipyard were removed several decades
ago.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL -1a, CUL -lb, and CUL -1c, set forth above,
would reduce these impacts, but not to a less -than -significant level.
D. Impact C -CUL -3: The project, in combination with past, present, and
probable future projects, could result in cumulative adverse impacts
on tribal cultural resources.
The geographic scope for cumulative effects on tribal cultural resources includes
projects in Alameda that would also involve disturbance in locations with tribal cultural
resources, as defined by PRC Section 21074. Cumulative projects that would potentially
impact tribal cultural resources would be a potentially significant impact. Unless a tribal
cultural resource can be avoided and preserved in place according to the provisions set
forth by PRC Section 21084.3, impacts to tribal cultural resources would not be reduced
to a less -than -significant level, even with implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -4 set
forth above, and the cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable.
E. Impact TRA -2: The proposed project would increase traffic volumes
such that traffic conditions at the Park Street/Blanding Avenue and
Park Street/Clement Avenue intersections would either deteriorate
from LOS D to LOS F or the proposed project would increase traffic
volumes by three percent or more.
The proposed Project would cause a significant impact at the following
intersections:
• Park Street/Blanding Avenue (#7) intersection under Existing Plus Project
conditions — The proposed Project would increase traffic volumes such that the
intersection would deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F in the PM peak hour.
Park Street/Blanding Avenue (#7) intersection under Cumulative (2040) Plus
Project conditions - The proposed Project would increase traffic volumes by three
percent or more at the intersection which would operate at LOS F during the AM
peak hour, and increase traffic volumes such that the intersection would
deteriorate from LOS D to LOS F during the PM peak hour.
• Park Street/Clement Avenue (#8) intersection under Cumulative (2040) Plus
Project conditions - The proposed Project would increase traffic volumes by three
percent or more at the intersection which would operate at LOS F during both AM
and PM peak hours regardless of the Project.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -2, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and incorporated into the Project, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure TRA -2: Implement Mitigation Measure TRA -1, which would consist
of implementing a TDM program at the project site.
Mitigation Measure TRA -1: To reduce the amount of VMT generated by the project, as
well as the number of automobile trips generated by the project and to reduce automobile
LOS impacts, the project shall prepare a Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
Plan and funding program for Planning Board review and approval. The TDM plan shall
include the following measures to reduce VMT and vehicle trips, particularly
single -occupant vehicle trips, by project residents, workers, and visitors:
All residents and employers at Alameda Marina will pay annual fees to support
supplemental transit services and trip reduction services for the residents and
employees.
• All residents and employees will be provided with AC Transit Easy Passes, which
will provide access to all of AC Transit's services including the San Francisco
express commuter buses. The cost of the passes will be included in the mandatory
assessments on each unit, which dis-incentives future residents who prefer to
drive alone and do not want to use transit.
Residents of the non-townhome units, who wish to have cars, will be required to
lease parking spaces on a monthly basis in a shared parking lot or structure. The
cost of the parking will be "unbundled" from the cost of the residential unit, which
provides a financial incentive for residents to reduce car ownership and take
advantage of the AC Transit passes, which are "bundled" into the cost of their
residential units. (The 162 townhomes will have private parking.)
The project residents will be members of the Alameda Transportation Management
Agency, which will provide transportation information services to all of the
residents through a TMA website and through annual surveys of resident
transportation needs.
The project will provide access to car share and guaranteed ride home services to
make it easier for residents and employees to reduce their dependence on a
private automobile and increase use of project -provided transit services.
Resident annual assessments in the Northern Waterfront area currently fund
supplemental commute hour service on the AC Transit Line 19, which provides
direct service to Fruitvale and 12th Street BART stations. Future assessments
received from project residents and employers will allow for additional transit
services and future water shuttle services designed to serve the waterfront
developments along the Estuary in Alameda and Oakland and connect the project
sites to the regional ferry services provided from Jack London Square in Oakland
and the Main Street Terminal in Alameda.
F. Impact TRA -3: In the event that the planned Clement Avenue extension
is not completed prior to project opening, the proposed project could
increase traffic volumes at intersections on Buena Vista Avenue such
that traffic operations could deteriorate to substandard conditions.
Clement Avenue is an east/west Regional Arterial along the northern Alameda
waterfront between Grand Street in the west and Broadway in the east. The roadway
currently terminates at Grand Street and the Shell Oil Facility, but then begins again to
the west of the Shell Oil Facility, where it provides an important means of access and
circulation to the recently -completed Marina Cove and Marina Shores residential
developments west of the Alameda Marina Project site. Improvement to Clement Avenue
was a required mitigation for both of those projects, and those improvements have been
completed between Hibbard Street and Entrance Road. The future extension of Clement
Avenue westwards from Entrance Road to Atlantic Avenue is also a required mitigation
for the approved Del Monte Warehouse project, and is also a conditional mitigation
requirement for the proposed Encinal Terminals project in the event that the Del Monte
project's contribution does not materialize prior to the Encinal Terminals project coming
online.
The timeline for the completion of the Clement Avenue extension is uncertain, and
it is possible that if the Alameda Marina Master Plan Project is approved and constructed,
it could come online before the extension is completed. In that event, significant traffic
impacts could occur at locations along Buena Vista Avenue, specifically at its intersection
with Entrance Road.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -3, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and incorporated into the Project, would reduce these impacts, but not to a less -than -
significant level.
Mitigation Measure TRA -3 (revised): The project shall pay a fair share
contribution to the cost of the Clement Avenue extension from Atlantic Avenue to Grand
Street. The fair share contribution shall be calculated based upon a traffic study to
calculate the fair share contribution of each Northern Waterfront development project
including the Del Monte Warehouse Project, the Encinal Terminals Project, the Windriver
fifth building project, and Alameda Marina, which will contribute traffic trips to the Clement
Avenue Extension. The City shall require all developers to contribute their fair share as
determined by the traffic study. The Alameda Marina fair share contribution shall be paid
on a pro -rata basis for each residential phase of the Alameda Marina project (number of
units in phase divided by total number of units in project multiplied by the fair share
contribution). Each portion of the fair share contribution shall be paid prior to issuance of
the first building permit for the current residential phase if work on the Clement Avenue
extension has been initiated by another developer of a Northern Waterfront development
project. If the work has not been initiated by another developer prior to issuance of the
first building permit for Alameda Marina, the contribution shall be made prior to issuance
of the first residential Certificate of Occupancy on the property.
VI. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE
AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS -THAN -SIGNIFICANT LEVEL BY MITIGATION
MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT.
The Final EIR identifies the following significant or potentially significant impacts associated
with the Project. These impacts are eliminated or reduced to a less -than -significant level by
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR. It is hereby determined that the impacts
addressed by these mitigation measures will be mitigated to a less -than -significant level or
avoided by incorporation of these mitigation measures into the Project. Pub. Resources Code §
21081(a)(1). As explained in Section X, below, the findings in this Section are based on the
Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this reference.
A. Impact AQ/CC-1: The proposed project would not result in localized
construction dust -related air quality impacts; generate construction
emissions that would result in a substantial increase of criteria pollutants
and precursors for which the air basin is in nonattainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard; or expose sensitive
receptors to substantial concentrations of toxic air contaminants or
respirable particulate matter (PM2.5).
The Final EIR finds that Project related demolition; soil transport, remediation, grading
and other construction activities at the Project site may cause wind-blown dust that could
release particulate matter into the atmosphere. Project -related construction would generate air
emissions through the use of heavy-duty construction equipment, from vehicle trips hauling
materials, and from construction workers traveling to and from the Project site. These
emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate area surrounding the
construction site. Based on default assumptions from CaIEEMod, construction emissions
associated with the Project would be less than significant. The BAAQMD requires
implementation of Best Management Practices to reduce construction dust impacts to a less
than -significant level. Mitigation Measure AQ/CC-1, set forth below, which is hereby adopted
and incorporated into the Project, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure AQ/CC-1: Implementation of Dust Abatement Programs. The project
applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all applicable City regulations and
operating procedures prior to issuance of building or grading permits, including standard dust
control measures. The effective implementation of dust abatement programs, incorporating all of
the following dust control measures, would reduce the temporary air quality impact associated
with construction dust.
• All active construction areas shall be watered two times daily using equipment and staff
provided by the project applicant or prime contractor, as needed, to avoid visible dust
plumes. Appropriate non-toxic dust palliative or suppressant, added to water before
application, may be used.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose materials shall be covered.
• All unpaved access roads, parking areas and construction staging areas shall be either
paved, watered as necessary to avoid visible dust plumes, or subject to the application of
(non-toxic) soil stabilizers.
• All paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at the construction site shall be
swept daily with water sweepers. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, these streets shall be swept
daily with water sweepers. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited.
• All stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind shall
either be covered or watered as necessary to avoid visible dust plumes.
• An off -pavement speed limit of 15 miles per hour for all construction vehicles shall be
incorporated into the construction contract and enforced by the prime contractor.
• All inactive portions of the project site (those areas which have been previously graded,
but inactive for a period of ten days or more) shall be watered with an appropriate dust
suppressant, covered or seeded.
• All earth -moving or other dust -producing activities shall be suspended when the above
dust control measures prove ineffective in avoiding visible dust plumes during periods of
high winds. The wind speed at which this suspension of activity will be required may vary,
depending on the moisture conditions at the project site, but suspension of such activities
shall be required in any case when the wind speed exceeds 25 miles per hour.
• All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or
reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne
toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]).
Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points.
• All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with
manufacturer's specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and
determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the City of
Alameda regarding dust complaints. The Air District's phone number shall also be visible
to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
B. Impact AQ/CC-5: The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct
the implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
The Final EIR finds that the Project could result in an increase in emissions of criteria
pollutants during operations. Therefore, the Project could potentially conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the most recently adopted air quality plan, which is BAAQMD's 2017 Clean Air
Plan. Consistency with the Clean Air Plan can be determined if the Project meets the following
criteria: 1) supports the goals of the Clean Air Plan; 2) includes applicable control measures
from the Clean Air Plan; and 3) would not disrupt or hinder implementation of any control
measures from the Clean Air Plan.
The Project would not exceed the BAAQMD's significance criteria for air pollutant
emissions and would, therefore, be consistent with the first of the criteria for consistency with
the Clean Air Plan. The Final EIR finds that with elements identified as part of the proposed
Project and with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ/CC-3, the proposed Project would
be consistent with applicable control measures of the Clean Air Plan. The proposed Project
meets the third criteria for consistency with the Clean Air Plan by incorporating applicable
control measures, including a TDM program, creation of new bicycle and pedestrian facilities
that connect to the City's existing network, and implementation of Mitigation Measure
AQ/CC-3.
With Mitigation Measure AQ/CC-3, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, the Project would not substantially conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the 2017 Clean Air Plan, and the impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measure AQ/CC-3: The City shall require that the following measures be
implemented, either by the City or the project applicant, or both in combination, to encourage
the use of low- and zero -emission vehicles in travel to and from the project site and construction
meeting LEED Silver or equivalent sustainable design standards:
• Promote use of clean fuel-efficient vehicles through preferential parking and/or
installation of charging stations.
• Require LEED Silver certification or equivalent for all new residential structures.
• Promote zero -emission vehicles by providing a neighborhood electric vehicle program to
reduce the need to have a car or second car as an element of the TDM program.
C. Impact C-AQ/CC-2: The proposed project would not generate greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a
significant impact on the environment.
The Final EIR finds that construction activities would produce combustion emissions
from various sources, but that implementation of the construction emission control measures in
Mitigation Measure AQ/CC-1, set forth above, would further reduce GHG emissions during
Project construction.
During operations, the Final EIR also finds that the proposed Project would generate
5,783 metric tons of CO2e per year, which is above the BAAQMD's screening threshold of 1,100
metric tons of CO2e per year. The Project would develop up to 779 residential units which would
accommodate a service population of 1,932 people. Therefore, the Project's GHG emissions
would result in a GHG efficiency of 2.9 metric tons per service population per year which is
below the BAAQMD's threshold of 4.6 metric tons per service population per year for year 2020.
According to the BAAQMD, a project would have less -than -significant GHG emissions if it would
meet one or more of the criteria. Therefore, because the Project results in emissions below the
4.6 metric tons CO2e per service, the Project would not have a significant effect on the
environment related to greenhouse gas emissions with respect to the GHG reduction goals for
year 2020.
For year 2030, a new interim goal of a further 40 percent reduction below 1990 levels
has been adopted by CARB pursuant to Senate Bill 32. Applying these further needed
reductions to the service population threshold results in an operational -related greenhouse gas
emissions threshold of 2.8 metric tons of CO2e per service population as sufficient to achieve
the goals for year 2030 (Vintze, 2016). As currently proposed, the Project would just exceed this
year 2030 threshold by 0.1 metric ton of CO2e per year. However, implementation of Mitigation
Measure AQ/CC-3 identified above, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project,
for consistency with the 2017 Clean Air Plan would require the applicant to obtain LEED silver
certification or its equivalent for proposed residential structures as well as other measures that
would reduce Project -related GHG emissions.
D. Impact 13I0-1: The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse
effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on species identified
as candidate, sensitive, or special -status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Final EIR finds that sensitive aquatic communities, special -status fish, and marine
mammals that occur in Alaska Basin and the Oakland -Alameda Estuary could be adversely
impacted by Project activities requiring in -water work associated with rehabilitation of pilings and
docks in the marina. Special -status and migratory bird species have the potential to be at or in
the vicinity of the Project site and could be adversely impacted by construction activities
associated with the demolition of existing buildings which could disrupt occupied avian nests. The
Oakland -Alameda Estuary and Alaska Basin waters could be used by harbor seals and sea
lions for foraging and thus, there is a potential for noise from proposed pile driving activities to
significantly affect these marine mammals.
Implementation of noise reduction measures to protect fish and marine mammals in
Mitigation Measure BIO -1a, BIO -1b, and BIO- 1c, set forth below, which are hereby adopted
and incorporated into the Project, would reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
Increased artificial illumination of Bay waters at night can alter normal swimming and
foraging behavior of fish, marine mammals, and seabirds. The potential for impacts on special -
status species from artificial night lighting on marina and future water shuttle facilities would be
potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -1d, as set forth below, is hereby
adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Construction disturbance from building demolition or vegetation and tree removal during
breeding bird season in support of the proposed Project could result in incidental loss of fertile
eggs or nestlings, or otherwise lead to nest abandonment of active nests within Project structures
or in trees or buildings in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. Equipment staging and
construction activities may result in indirect impacts to protected breeding birds resulting from
construction noise and activity, even when the physical nest is unaffected. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure BIO -le, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the
Project, would reduce impacts on breeding birds from Project activities to less than significant.
Dredging operations can directly impact birds during foraging in several ways. Noise
caused by dredging can cause partial or complete avoidance of usual foraging locations,
requiring birds to expend more energy finding new foraging locations. Dredging operations can
increase normally occurring anthropogenic and natural levels of turbidity in the Bay. Increased
turbidity may decrease foraging success by decreasing prey abundance or making it more
difficult for piscivorous birds to detect prey. According to the 2001 Long -Term Management
(LTMS) Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region
Management Plan, the LTMS specifies that dredging activities within this potential impact area
within the one mile coastline from Berkeley Marina south through San Lorenzo Creek should not
occur during the period in which (and just prior to which) least terns might be nesting in the San
Francisco Bay area (March 16—July 31). Because the proposed Project and associated in -water
components are located within this area where potential foraging effects may occur, the project
applicant would be required by Section 10 and/or Section 404 permitting conditions to limit
dredging to occur outside of this sensitive period. With respect to pile driving activities
associated with in -water work, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 a, BIO -1 b, BIO -1 c
and BIO -1d, as set forth below, would minimize potential impacts on fish and, consequently, the
foraging birds that depend on them.
Mitigation Measure 13I0 -1a: Prior to the start of in -water construction and maintenance that
would require pile driving, the project applicant shall prepare a NMFS-approved sound
attenuation monitoring plan to protect fish and marine mammals, if impact pile driving is required
for project implementation. This plan shall provide detail on the sound attenuation system, detail
methods used to monitor and verify sound levels during pile driving activities, and describe
management practices to be taken to reduce impact hammer pile -driving sound in the marine
environment to an intensity level of less than 183 dB. The sound monitoring results shall be
made available to the NMFS. The plan shall incorporate, but not be limited to, the following best
management practices (BMPs) to meet the 183 dB performance standard:
To the extent feasible, all pilings shall be installed and removed with vibratory pile
drivers only. If feasible, vibratory pile driving will be conducted following the Corps'
"Proposed Procedures for Permitting Projects that will Not Adversely Affect Selected
Listed Species in California". USFWS and NOAA completed Section 7 consultation
on this document, which establishes general procedures for minimizing impacts to
natural resources associated with projects in or adjacent to jurisdictional waters.
• An impact pile driver may only be used where necessary to complete installation of
larger steel pilings in accordance with seismic safety or other engineering criteria.
• If necessary, the hammer shall be cushioned using a 12 -inch thick wood cushion
block during all impact hammer pile driving operations.
• All piling installation using impact hammers shall be conducted between June 1 and
November 30, when the likelihood of sensitive fish species being present in the work
area is minimal.
• If pile installation using impact hammers must occur at times other than the approved
work window, the project applicant shall obtain incidental take authorization from
NMFS and CDFW, as necessary, to address potential impacts on steelhead trout,
chinook salmon, and Pacific herring and implement all requested actions to avoid
impacts.
• The project applicant shall monitor and verify sound levels during pile driving
activities. The sound monitoring results will be made available to NMFS and the City.
• In the event that exceedance of noise thresholds established and approved by
NMFS occurs, a contingency plan involving the use of bubble curtains or air barrier
shall be implemented to attenuate sound levels to below thresholds.
Mitigation Measure BIO -1b: During the project permitting phase, any activities requiring in -
water work will either proceed under one of the programmatic consultations for federally listed
species described above or a project -level BO would be required. Alternatively, the project will
obtain Incidental Harassment Authorization for marine mammals for dredging or pile driving
activities. The project applicant shall also consult with CDFW regarding project impacts on State
listed special -status fish species and the potential need for an incidental take permit (ITP). The
project applicant shall submit to the City copies of any IHA and/or ITP received or,
alternatively, copies of correspondence confirming that an IHA and/or ITP is not required for the
project in question.
Mitigation Measure BIO -1c: As part of the NMFS-approved sound attenuation monitoring plan
required for pile driving in Mitigation Measure BIO -1a, the City shall ensure that the project
applicant implements these additional actions to reduce the effect of underwater noise
transmission on marine mammals. These actions shall include at a minimum:
• Establishment of a 1,600 -foot (500 -meter) safety zone that shall be maintained
around the sound source, for the protection of marine mammals in the event that
sound levels are unknown or cannot be adequately predicted.
• Work activities shall be halted when.. a marine mammal enters the 1,600 -feet
(500 -meter) safety zone and resume only after the animal has been gone from the
area for a minimum of 15 minutes.
• A "soft start' technique shall be employed in all pile driving to give marine mammals
an opportunity to vacate the area.
• Maintain in -air sound levels at the noise source below 90 dBA when pinnipeds (seals
and sea lions) are present.
• A NMFS-approved biological monitor will conduct daily surveys before and during
impact hammer pile driving to inspect the work zone and adjacent Bay waters for
marine mammals. The monitor will be present as specified by NMFS during the
impact pile -driving phases of construction.
Mitigation Measure BIO -1d: Through the Design Review application process, the City shall
ensure that the project applicant installs dock lighting on all floating docks and adjacent areas
that minimizes artificial lighting of Bay waters by using shielded, low -mounted, and low light -
intensity fixtures and bulbs.
Mitigation Measure 13I0 -1e: To the extent practicable, construction activities including building
renovation, demolition, vegetation and tree . removal, and new site construction shall be
performed between September 1 and January 31 in order to avoid breeding and nesting season
for birds. If these activities cannot be performed during this period, a preconstruction survey for
nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.
In coordination with the City, surveys shall be performed during breeding bird season (February
1 — August 31) no more than 14 days prior to construction activities listed above in order to
locate any active passerine nests within 250 feet of the project site and any active raptor nests
within 500 feet of the project site. Building renovation, demolition, tree and vegetation removal,
and new construction activities performed between September 1 and January 31 avoid the
general nesting period for birds and therefore would not require pre -construction surveys.
If active nests are found on either the proposed construction site or within the 500 -foot survey
buffer surrounding the proposed construction site, no -work buffer zones shall be established
around the nests in coordination with CDFW. No renovation, demolition, vegetation removal, or
ground -disturbing activities shall occur within a buffer zone until young have fledged or the nest
is otherwise abandoned as determined by the qualified biologist. If work during the nesting
season stops for 14 days or more and then resumes, then nesting bird surveys shall be
repeated, to ensure that no new birds have begun nesting in the area.
E. Impact BIO -2: Development facilitated by the proposed project would not
have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies,
regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service.
There is no riparian habitat located within the Alameda Marina Project area; however,
sensitive natural communities are present in the vicinity of the proposed Project that could be
adversely impacted by Project development. Dredging and pile removal associated with
rehabilitation or replacement of deteriorated wharf pilings could potentially affect submerged
aquatic vegetation on the Bay floor or attached to wharf pilings, as well as affect native oysters
or mussels. The greatest potential threat to the sensitive aquatic communities off Alameda could
be from boaters unfamiliar with San Francisco Bay's sensitive habitats, their locations, and the
importance of protecting these habitats. In addition, in -water work and increases in recreational
boaters could result in the introduction and/or spread of invasive marine species. Potentially
significant adverse impacts on these sensitive aquatic communities resulting from in -water work
and recreational boaters would be reduced to less -than -significant levels through implementation
of Mitigation Measures BIO -2a, BIO -2b, and BIO -2c, set forth below, which are hereby adopted
and incorporated into the Project.
Mitigation Measure 13I0 -2a: Prior to in -water work, the City shall ensure that the project
applicant conducts a pre -construction survey to determine if native oysters, mussels, and
eelgrass are present in the Oakland/Alameda Estuary to be affected by the project.
• The eelgrass survey shall be conducted according to the methods contained in the
California Eelgrass Mitigation Policy and Implementing Guidelines (NMFS, 2014), with
the exception that the survey shall be conducted within 120 days (rather than 60 days,
as recommended in the CDEMP) prior to the desired construction start date, to allow
sufficient time for modification of project plans (if feasible) and agency consultation.
If eelgrass beds or native oysters are found within or immediately adjacent to the
construction footprint, the project applicant shall first determine whether avoidance of the
beds is feasible. If feasible, impacts to the oyster or eelgrass bed shall be avoided. If
complete avoidance is not feasible, the applicant shall request guidance from the
National Marine Fisheries Service (or other applicable agency) as to the need and/or
feasibility to move affected beds. Any translocation of eelgrass beds shall be conducted
consistent with the methods described in the CDEMP and/or those described in Eelgrass
Conservation in San Francisco Bay: Opportunities and Constraints (Boyer and Wyllie-
Echeverria, 2010). Translocation of oyster beds shall be consistent with methods and
recommendations presented in Shellfish Conservation and Restoration in San Francisco
Bay: Opportunities and Constraints (Zabin et al., 2010).
• If it is not possible to translocate oyster or eelgrass beds, then the City shall ensure that
the project applicant provides compensatory mitigation consistent with the CDEMP for
eelgrass (a ratio of 3.01:1 [transplant area to impact area]) and a minimum 1:1 ratio for
oyster beds.
• The relocation or compensatory mitigation site for eelgrass or oyster beds shall be within
San Francisco Bay.
Mitigation Measure BI0-2b: The Marina operators shall prepare educational information
regarding sensitive biological resources in the project vicinity and within Bay waters. This
information shall be disseminated to all boaters using the marina and shall include, but not be
limited to, information educating boat owner/operators about sensitive habitats and species in
the Bay and actions they are required to implement to avoid impacts to marine resources.
The educational information will be disseminated to visiting boaters through multiple methods
including, but not limited to, brochures or pamphlets; marina and/or City websites; boating,
cruising, and newspaper periodicals; and social media. The information shall be prepared
soliciting input from, and in cooperation with, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), California State Lands Commission, National Park Service (NPS),
California Department of Parks and Recreation (CDPR), Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC), and local organizations active in protecting Bay marine resources, as
appropriate.
Mitigation Measure 13I0 -2c: The City shall require that the project applicant develop and
implement a Marine Invasive Species Control Plan prior to commencement of any in -water work
including, but not limited to, construction of wharves and seawalls, dredging, pile driving, and
construction of new stormwater outfalls. The plan shall be prepared in consultation with the
United States Coast Guard (USCG), RWQCB, and other relevant state agencies. Provisions of
the plan shall include but not be limited to the following:
• Environmental training of construction personnel involved in in -water work.
• Actions to be taken to prevent the release and spread of marine invasive species,
especially algal species such as Undaria and Sargasso.
• Procedures for the safe removal and disposal of any invasive taxa observed on the
removed structures prior to disposal or reuse of pilings, docks, wave attenuators, and
other features.
• The onsite presence of qualified marine biologists to assist the contractor in the
identification and proper handling of any invasive species on removed equipment or
materials.
• A post -construction report identifying which, if any, invasive species were discovered
attached to equipment and materials following removal from the water, and describing
the treatment/handling of identified invasive species. Reports shall be submitted to the
City, as well as the USCG and the RWQCB if requested by the agencies.
F. Impact 13I0-3: Development facilitated by the proposed project would have
a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, `other waters',
and navigable waters as defined by Sections 404 and 10 of the Clean Water
Act and waters of the State through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means.
The Final EIR finds that a number of activities associated with development of the
Project could result in substantial adverse effects on waters of the United States, waters of the
State, and waters and land under BCDC jurisdiction. Temporary disturbance of jurisdictional
waters, degradation of water quality and aquatic habitat, degradation of tidal marsh habitat, and
accidental discharge or site runoff of sediment or toxic materials into jurisdictional waters would
be potentially significant impacts. Mitigation Measures 13I0 -3a and BIO -3b, set forth below,
which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce impacts to a less -
than -significant level.
Mitigation Measure 13I0 -3a: All dredging and in -water construction activities shall be consistent
with the standards and procedures set forth in the Long Term Management Strategy for
dredging in the San Francisco Bay waters, a program developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
(EPA), and other agencies, to guide the disposal of dredge materials in an environmentally
sound manner.
Mitigation Measure 13I0 -3b: During project construction, best management practices (BMPs)
would be applied to prevent potential pollutants from entering the storm drain system directly,
reducing sediment or potentially hazardous runoff from entering receiving waters. Examples of
these measures include covering trash receptacles and car wash areas, regular sweeping of
paved surfaces, stenciling of storm drain inlets, and installation of full trash capture devices.
G. Impact 1310-4: Development facilitated by the proposed project would not
interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,
or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
The Final EIR finds that development facilitated by the Project has the potential to
interfere with the movement or migratory corridors of native resident or migratory avian species,
and could adversely impact the movement of fish and marine mammals within Project area
waters. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -le, as described above, in addition to
Mitigation Measure BIO -3, described below, would reduce these potential Project -related
impacts to a less -than -significant level.
Project activities would potentially expose special -status and sensitive fish and marine
mammals moving through the Golden Gate to and from the Central Bay and South Bay to the
following types of impacts: increased noise from in -water pile driving and increased vessel traffic;
increased resuspension of sediments from dredging, pile removal, anchor placement and
removal; and increased potential for collisions and harassment of marine mammals through
increased vessel traffic locally. Potential increases in noise and marine mammal collisions from
vessel traffic would be minimized by implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1 a, BIO -1 b, and
BIO -1c, as described above.
Development facilitated by the Project has the potential to impact migratory and resident
birds through new building construction and increases in night lighting, which could lead to
increases in bird strikes and potential disorientation of night migrating birds. Implementation
of Mitigation Measure BIO -4, set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into
the Project, would reduce these impacts to less -than -significant levels.
Implement Mitigation Measures BIO -1 a, BIO -1b, and BIO -1c.
Mitigation Measure BIO -4: The City shall require that the project applicant retain a qualified
biologist experienced with bird strike issues to review and approve the design of the building to
ensure that it sufficiently minimizes the potential for bird strikes. The City may also consult with
resource agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, or others, as it determines to be appropriate during this review.
The project applicant shall provide to the City a written description of the measures and features
of the building design that are intended to address potential impacts on birds. The design shall
include some of the following measures or measures that are equivalent to, but not necessarily
identical to, but not necessarily identical to, those listed below, as new, more effective
technology for addressing bird strikes may become available in the future:
• Employ design techniques that create "visual noise" via cladding or other design features
that make it easy for birds to identify buildings as such and not mistake buildings for
open sky or trees;
• Decrease continuity of reflective surfaces using "visual marker" design techniques, which
techniques may include:
— Patterned or fritted glass, with patterns at most 28 centimeters apart,
— One-way films installed on glass, with any picture or pattern or arrangement that
can be seen from the outside by birds but appear transparent from the inside,
— Geometric fenestration patterns that effectively divide a window into smaller
panes of at most 28 centimeters, and/or '
— Decals with patterned or abstract designs, with the maximum clear spaces at
most 28 centimeters square.
• Up to 60 feet high on building facades facing the shoreline, decrease reflectivity of glass,
using design techniques such as plastic or metal screens, light-colored blinds or
curtains, frosting of glass, angling glass towards the ground, UV -A glass, or awnings and
overhangs;
• Eliminate the use of clear glass on opposing or immediately adjacent faces of the
building without intervening interior obstacles such that a bird could perceive its flight
path through the glass to be unobstructed;
• Mute reflections in glass using strategies such as angled glass, shades, internal
screens, and overhangs; and
• Place new vegetation sufficiently away from glazed building facades so that no reflection
occurs. Alternatively, if planting of landscapes near a glazed building fagade is desirable,
situate trees and shrubs immediately adjacent to the exterior glass walls, at a distance of
less than three feet from the glass. Such close proximity will obscure habitat reflections
and will minimize fatal collisions by reducing birds' flight momentum.
Lighting. The project applicant shall ensure that the design and specifications for buildings
implement design elements to reduce lighting usage, change light direction, and contain light.
These include, but are not limited to, the following general considerations that should be applied
wherever feasible throughout the proposed project to reduce night lighting impacts on avian
species:
• Avoid installation of lighting in areas where not required for public safety.
• Examine and adopt alternatives to bright, all-night, floor -wide lighting when interior lights
would be visible from the exterior or exterior lights must be left on at night, including:
— Installing motion -sensitive lighting
— Installing task lighting
— Installing programmable timers
— Installing fixtures that use lower -wattage, sodium, and yellow -red spectrum
lighting.
• Install strobe or flashing lights in place of continuously burning lights for any obstruction
lighting.
• Where exterior lights are to be left on at night, install fully shielded lights to contain and
direct light away from the sky.
Antennae, Monopole Structures, and Rooftop Elements. The City shall ensure, as a
condition of approval for every building permit, that buildings minimize the number of and co -
locate rooftop -antennas and other rooftop equipment, and that monopole structures or antennas
on buildings, in open areas, and at sports and playing fields and facilities do not include guy
wires.
Educating Residents and Occupants. The City shall ensure, as a condition of approval for
every building permit, that the project applicant agrees to provide educational materials to
building tenants, occupants, and residents encouraging them to minimize light transmission
from windows, especially during peak spring and fall migratory periods, by turning off
unnecessary lighting and/or closing window coverings at night. The City shall review and
approve the educational materials prior to building occupancy.
Documentation. The project applicant and/or City shall document undertaking the activities
described in this mitigation measure and maintain records that include, among others, the
written descriptions provided by the building developer of the measures and features of the
design for each building that are intended to address potential impacts on birds, and the
recommendations and memoranda prepared by the qualified biologist experienced with bird
strikes who reviews and approves the design of any proposed projects to ensure that they
sufficiently minimize the potential for bird strikes.
H. Impact 13I0-5: Development facilitated by the proposed project would not
conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance.
The Final EIR finds that development facilitated by the Project would not result in
potentially significant impacts on biological resources due, in part, to the implementation of
mitigation measures that avoid conflict with . applicable local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources as summarized in Section 4.3.3 of the EIR. Development
facilitated by the Project would be implemented in a manner intended to:
• Maintain and improve the quality of the bay, ocean, and shoreline areas;
• Promote the use and development of shoreline areas consistent with the City of Alameda
General Plan and the San Francisco Bay Plan;
• Cooperate with and otherwise support regulatory programs of existing regional, state,
and federal agencies concerned with San Francisco Bay Area biological resources; and
• Protect rare and endangered species as well as the habitats of known plant and
animal species that require a relatively natural environment.
Therefore, with implementation of the measures described above, the potential for the Project to
conflict with applicable local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources in the Project
area is low and would represent a less -than -significant impact.
Implement Mitigation Measures as described in Section 4.3.3 for biological resources.
1. Impact BIO -6: Development facilitated by the proposed project would not
conflict with an adopted local, regional, or State Habitat Conservation Plan.
The Final EIR finds that development facilitated by the Project could result in potentially
significant impacts on biological resources, which could conflict with applicable policies of
the CCMP and the Goals Project. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures 1310-1a
through BIO -1e, BIO -2a through BIO -2c, and BIO -3, described above, would reduce potentially
significant impacts on biological resources to ensure that the Project does not conflict with
habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans, resulting in a less -than -
significant impact.
Implement Mitigation Measures 13I0 -1a through 13I0 -1e, 13I0 -2a through 13I0 -2c, and 13I0-
3.
J. Impact 13I0-7: The proposed project, in conjunction with other past,
current, or foreseeable development in Alameda, could result in cumulative
impacts on biological resources.
The Final EIR finds the geographic scope of potential cumulative impacts on biological
resources encompasses the Project site as well as biologically linked areas sharing the
Oakland -Alameda Estuary and greater San Francisco Bay. Past projects within this context,
including the development of civic facilities, residences, commercial and industrial areas, and
infrastructure, have already caused substantial adverse cumulative changes to biological
resources in the Project area. Therefore, due to past projects, there has already been an
adverse significant cumulative effect on biological resources. With the addition of current and
other proposed projects, there is an existing significant cumulative impact without the Project.
While there is no sensitive habitat located on land within the Project site, the Project
could disturb aquatic habitat in the Oakland -Alameda Estuary. Other potential projects are
located along Alameda's waterfront, and some will involve in -water work, such as Encinal
Terminals and Shipways at Marina Village, although all of these areas have limited habitat
value for wildlife as they are already primarily or fully developed. However, the proximity of
some projects to the waters of San Francisco Bay and the Oakland -Alameda Estuary could
lead to potential cumulatively significant impacts on waterbirds and marine life and demolition
of existing buildings or removal of existing vegetation could lead to significant cumulative
impacts on nesting birds.
However, with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO -1a through BIO -1e (avoid
and minimize impacts on special -status wildlife), Mitigation Measures BIO -2a through 13I0 -2c
(avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive natural communities), and Mitigation Measure BIO -3
(avoid and minimize impacts to migratory and breeding wildlife) the Project would result in less -
than -significant impacts on biological resources within and in the vicinity of the Project site.
When considered within the existing condition of biological resources in the Project area and
the greater Bay Area in the context of past, present and reasonably foreseeable similar
projects, the Project would add only a minor, incremental contribution to habitat loss,
degradation, and direct and indirect impacts to special -status species. The Project's
contribution would not be considered cumulatively considerable; therefore, in combination with
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed Project's cumulative
effects on biological resources would be less than significant.
Implement Mitigation Measures BIO -1a through BIO -1e, BIO -2a through 13I0 -2c, and 1310-
3.
K. Impact CUL -2: Project construction could cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of an archaeological resource, including
those determined to be a historical resource defined in Section 15064.5
or a unique archaeological resource defined in PRC 21083.2.
The Final EIR finds that records at the NWIC indicate that an extensive
archaeological site with human burials (CA -ALA -11) is located in a portion of the Project
area. The site is recommended eligible for listing in the California Register. The disturbance
of this resource would be a potentially significant impact. The significant impact could be an
adverse effect to the scientific significance of the resource and/or an adverse effect to its
significance to associated Native American tribal groups. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure CUL -2a (Archaeological Resources Management Plan), set forth above, which is
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce potential impacts to the
scientific significance of the' resource to a less -than -significant level by requiring an
archaeological testing and data recovery program (as well as archaeological monitoring, if
warranted) consistent with a professionally developed Archaeological Resources
Management Plan.
In addition, during ground disturbance outside of the known site boundaries within
the Project area, there is the potential to uncover previously unidentified archaeological
resources. The disturbance of unknown archaeological resources would be a potentially
significant impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -2b (Inadvertent Discovery of
Archaeological Resources), set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into
the Project, would reduce potential impacts to a less -than -significant level by ensuring that
work would halt in the vicinity of an unanticipated find so that a qualified archaeologist and
Native American representative can make additional recommendations, if required.
Mitigation Measure CUL -2a: see discussion above.
Mitigation Measure CUL -2b: Inadvertent Discovery of Archaeological Resources.
During construction outside of known archaeological site boundaries, if prehistoric or
historic -era cultural materials are encountered, all construction activities within 100 feet
shall halt and the City shall be notified. Prehistoric archaeological materials might include
obsidian and chert flaked -stone tools (e.g., projectile points, knives, scrapers) or
toolmaking debris; culturally darkened soil ("midden") containing heat -affected rocks,
artifacts, or shellfish remains; and stone milling equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles,
handstones, or milling slabs); and battered stone tools, such as hammerstones and pitted
stones. Historic -period materials might include stone, concrete, or adobe footings and
Walls; artifact filled wells or privies; and deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic refuse.
The project applicant shall ensure that a Secretary of the Interior -qualified archaeologist
inspect the find within 24 hours of discovery. If the find is determined to be potentially
significant, the archaeologist, shall follow the guidelines provided in Mitigation Measure
CUL -2a above.
L. Impact CUL -3: Project construction could disturb human remains,
including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.
The Final EIR finds that based on known conditions and previous archaeological
research, human burials occur within and in the vicinity of the Project area and there is a
high potential for the discovery of human remains during construction activities that involve
ground disturbance. Disturbance of human remains would be a significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL -3 (Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains),
set forth below, which is hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would ensure
that impacts to human remains would be less -than -significant.
Mitigation Measure CUL -3: Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains. Pursuant to
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and Section 5097.94 of the Public
Resources Code of the State of California, the project applicant shall ensure the following:
• Project construction personnel shall be informed of the potential of encountering
human remains during construction, and the proper procedures to follow in the event
of the discovery of human remains during construction.
In the event of the discovery of human remains during construction, work shall stop
in that area and within 100 feet of the find. The Alameda County Coroner shall be
notified and shall make a determination as to whether the remains are Native
American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to their
authority, they shall notify the Native American Heritage .Commission who shall
identify descendants of the deceased Native American. If no satisfactory agreement
can be reached as to the disposition of the remains pursuant to this State law, then
the project applicant shall re -inter the human remains and items associated with
Native American burials on the property in a location not subject to further ground
disturbance.
M. Impact C -CUL -2: The project, in combination with past, present, and
probable future projects, could result in cumulative adverse impacts on
archaeological resources and human remains.
The Final EIR finds that the geographic scope for cumulative effects on
archaeological resources in Alameda includes projects in Alameda that would also involve
excavation or similar ground disturbance in locations with previously recorded or as yet
unknown archaeological resources, potentially with human remains. Cumulative projects in
the Project's vicinity could have a significant impact on both recorded and unrecorded
archaeological resources (including CA -ALA -11), including human remains interred outside
of formal cemeteries, given the amount of construction -related ground disturbance that
could occur for many of the cumulative projects. The potential impacts of the Project when
considered together with similar impacts from other probable future projects in the vicinity
could result in a significant cumulative impact on archaeological resources and human
remains. The proposed Project's contribution to this impact could be cumulatively
considerable, as documented above under Impacts CUL -2 and CUL -3. With implementation
of Mitigation Measures CUL -2a, CUL -2b, and CUL -3, as set forth above, which are hereby
adopted and incorporated into the Project, the proposed Project's contribution to
cumulative impacts to archaeological resources and human remains would not be
considerable, and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Implement Mitigation Measures CUL -2a, CUL -2b, and CUL -3.
N. Impact HAZA: Demolition of the existing structures on the project site
which likely contain hazardous building materials—such as lead-based
paint, asbestos, and PCBs—could potentially expose workers, the
public, or the environment to hazardous materials from the transport,
use, or disposal of these hazardous materials and waste.
The Final EIR finds that demolition of existing structures on the Project site may
expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to hazardous materials such
as LBP, ACMs, and PCBs. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1a through HAZ-
1 e, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would
reduce construction period impacts to less -than -significant levels.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a: Prior to issuance of any demolition permit, the project
applicant shall submit to the Alameda County Department of Environmental Health a
hazardous building material assessment prepared by qualified licensed contractors for any
structure intended for demolition indicating whether ACMs, LBP or lead-based coatings,
and/or PCB -containing equipment, are present.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1b: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a
indicates the presence of ACMs, LBP, and/or PCBs, the project applicant shall create and
implement a health and safety plan in accordance with local, state, and federal
requirements to protect demolition and construction workers and the public from risks
associated with such hazardous materials during demolition or renovation of affected
structures.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 c: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 a
finds asbestos, the project applicant shall prepare an asbestos abatement plan and shall
ensure that asbestos abatement is conducted by a licensed contractor prior to building
demolition. Abatement of known or suspected ACMs shall occur prior to demolition or
construction activities that would disturb those materials. Pursuant to an asbestos
abatement plan developed by a state -certified asbestos consultant and approved by the
City, all ACMs shall be removed and appropriately disposed of by a state certified asbestos
contractor.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1d: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a
finds presence of LBP, the project applicant shall develop and implement a LBP removal
plan. The plan shall specify, but not be limited to, the following elements for
implementation:
1. Develop a removal specification approved by a Certified Lead Project Designer.
2. Ensure that all removal workers are properly trained.
3. Contain all work areas to prohibit off-site migration of paint chip debris.
4. Remove all peeling and stratified LBP on building and non -building surfaces to the
degree necessary to safely and properly complete demolition activities according to
recommendations of the survey. The demolition contractor shall be responsible for
the proper containment and/or disposal of intact LBP on all materials to be cut
and/or removed during the demolition.
5. Provide on-site personnel and area air monitoring during all removal activities to
ensure that workers and the environment are adequately protected by the control
measures used.
6. Clean up and/or vacuum paint chips with a high efficiency particulate air (NEPA)
filter.
7. Collect, segregate, and profile waste for disposal determination.
8. Properly dispose of all waste.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1e: If the assessment required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a
finds presence of PCBs, the project applicant shall ensure that PCB abatement in
compliance with applicable regulations is conducted prior to building demolition or
renovation. PCBs shall be removed by a qualified contractor and transported in accordance
with Caltrans requirements.
O. Impact HAZ-2: Construction at the project site could potentially disturb soil
and groundwater impacted by historical hazardous material use, which
could expose construction workers, the public, or the environment to
adverse conditions related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials and waste.
The Final EIR finds that construction activities would include demolition of some existing
buildings, excavation and trenching, which could potentially intercept and/or disturb or uncover
impacted soil and/or groundwater. To reduce worker health risks associated with potentially
contaminated soil, a detailed Site -Specific Environmental Health and Safety Plan (HASP) would
be prepared by the selected site contractor as required by Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a. To
reduce environmental risks associated with encountering contaminated soil discovered during
grading and construction, the Site Management Plan (SMP), as required by Mitigation Measure
HAZ-2b, would include protocols to isolate any suspected contaminated soil, notify the
appropriate regulatory overseeing agency, sample for hazardous material content, and manage
it in accordance with all applicable state, federal, and local laws and regulations. Implementation
of Mitigation Measures HAZ-2a and HAZ-2b, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a: Prior to issuance of any demolition permit, the project applicant
shall submit to the City a Site -Specific Environmental Health and Safety Plan (HASP). The
HASP shall be consistent with State and federal OSHA standards for hazardous waste
operations (California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Section 5192 and 29 Code of Federal
Regulations 1910.120, respectively) and any other applicable health and safety standards. The
HASP shall include descriptions of health and safety training requirements for onsite personnel
and levels of personal protective equipment to be used, and any other applicable precautions to
be undertaken to minimize direct contact with soil and to a lesser degree, groundwater if is
encountered. The HASP shall be adhered to during construction and excavation activities. All
workers onsite should read and understand the HASP and copies shall be maintained onsite
during construction and excavation at all times.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit for any ground
breaking activities within the Project site, the project applicant shall prepare a Site Management
Plan (SMP) consistent with US EPA, DTSC, and Water Board standards for incorporation into
construction specifications. The SMP shall be present on site at all times and readily available to
site workers. The SMP shall specify protocols and requirements for excavation, stockpiling, and
transport of soil and for disturbance of groundwater. At a minimum the SMP shall include the
following components:
1. Dust control measures: Dust generation shall be minimized by any or all appropriate
measures. These measures may include:
a. Misting or spraying water while performing excavation activities and loading
transportation vehicles;
b. Limiting vehicle speeds onsite to 5 miles per hour;
c. Controlling excavation activities to minimize the generation of dust;
d. Minimizing drop heights while loading transportation vehicles; and
e. Covering any soil stockpiles generated as a result of excavating soil potentially
impacted by contaminants of concern with plastic sheeting or tarps.
2. Decontamination measures: Decontamination methods shall include scraping,
brushing, and/or vacuuming to remove dirt on vehicle exteriors and wheels. In the event
that these dry decontamination methods are not adequate, methods such as steam
cleaning, high-pressure washing, and cleaning solutions shall be used, as necessary, to
thoroughly remove accumulated dirt and other materials. Wash water resulting from
decontamination activities shall be collected and managed in accordance with all
applicable laws and regulations.
3. Stormwater pollution control measures: Should rainfall occur during construction on
exposed soils at the site stormwater pollution controls shall be implemented to minimize
stormwater runoff from exposed soil containing contaminants of concern at the site and
to prevent sediment from leaving the site, in accordance with all laws and regulations.
Stormwater pollution controls shall be based on BMPs to comply with State and local
regulations. Sediment and erosion protection controls may include but are not limited to:
a. Constructing berms or erecting silt fences at entrances to the project site;
b. Placing straw bale barriers around catch basins and other entrances to the storm
drains;
c. During significant rainfall events, covering with plastic sheeting or tarps any soil
stockpiles generated as a result of excavating soil potentially impacted by
contaminants of concern.
4. Field screening of potential contaminated soil and suspect contamination
discovery: Potentially contaminated soil shall be either direct loaded using the profile
data associated with Stellar Environmental Solutions' October 2015 report or stockpiled
for additional sampling and analyses to define the contamination fate after the
excavation stage. If more the one year elapses between the soil profiling and the
excavation stage stockpiling, sampling may be required by a regulated landfill. Trained
(with 40 -hour hazwopper and associated updates) environmental personnel shall be
onsite to do the stockpile sampling and be on-call to deal with any suspect
contamination discovery. Personnel will monitor for potentially contaminated soils by
visual screening, noting any contaminant odors, and utilizing a photoionization detector
(PID) to field measure any VOCs during the excavation activity. Monitoring parameters
shall be recorded at intervals of approximately 1 hour or less.
P. Impact HAZ-5: Development of the project would be located on a site
that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and could result in a safety hazard
to the public or environment through exposure to previous
contamination of soil or groundwater.
The Final EIR finds that the Project site has a history of maritime industrial use, and
that releases of hazardous materials at the site have been well documented. Contamination
of subsurface soils and groundwater can potentially expose workers, the public, or future
occupants to legacy contaminants through direct exposure, from contact with contaminated
soils through excavation or other ground disturbing activities. With implementation of
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 (Remedial Risk Management Plan), set forth below, which is
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, the potential impact would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3: Prior to issuance of a building or grading permit for any
ground breaking activities within the project site, the project applicant shall prepare a
Remedial Risk Management Plan (RRMP). The RRMP shall be developed and followed by
current and future owners, tenants, and operators. The RRMP shall include the
implementation of any needed corrective action remedies and engineering design.
Q. Impact HYD -4: Development of the proposed project would not
substantially contribute to runoff water that would exceed the capacity
of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.
The Final EIR finds that the proposed Project would include new landscaping as part
of the 4.25 acres of parks and open space, which maintenance would require the use of
fertilizers and pesticides. The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (ACCWP NPDES) permit will require the City of
Alameda as a permittee, to address pesticides, which have been found by the RWQCB to
have a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to exceedances of water quality
standards. Application of such chemicals as pesticides and fertilizers would require a
management approach outlined in Mitigation Measure HYD -1, set forth below, which is
hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, which would reduce the impact to a less
than significant level.
The proposed Project would install a newly designed stormwater system, which
incorporates water treatment measures throughout the Project site. Compliance with the
existing water quality protection requirements of the RWQCB and Alameda County, in
addition to implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD -1, set forth below, which is hereby
adopted and incorporated into the Project, would effectively reduce surface water pollutants
and the potential water quality impact to a less -than -significant level.
Mitigation Measure HYD -1: The City shall ensure that future project applicants implement
Integrated Pest Management measures to reduce fertilizer and pesticide contamination of
receiving waters, as follows:
• Prepare and Implement an Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM) for all common
landscaped areas. The IPM shall be prepared by a qualified professional and shall
recommend methods of pest prevention and turf grass management that use
pesticides as a last resort in pest control. Types and rates of fertilizer and pesticide
application shall be specified.
• The IPM shall specify methods of avoiding runoff of pesticides and nitrates into
receiving storm drains and surface waters or leaching into the shallow groundwater
table. Pesticides shall be used only in response to a persistent pest problem that
cannot be resolved by non -pesticide measures. Preventative chemical use shall not
be employed.
• The IPM shall fully integrate considerations for cultural and biological resources into
the IPM with an emphasis toward reducing pesticide application.
R. Impact N0I-1: Construction of proposed project elements could expose
persons to or generate noise levels in excess of the City noise standards or
result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.
The Final EIR finds that construction noise would be temporarily elevate ambient noise
levels in and around the Project area. The loudest source of noise during Project construction
would be generated through use of an impact pile driver, which could be required for
foundations proposed in the northern portion of the site based on a preliminary geotechnical
investigation. In addition, the Project would result in a violation of the City's noise standards if
construction activity would occur outside of the allowable daytime hours specified by the City noise
ordinance. Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE -1a and NOISE -1b, set forth below,
which are hereby adopted and incorporated into the Project, would reduce these impacts to
less -than -significant levels.
Mitigation Measure NOISE -1 a: The applicant shall create and implement development -specific
noise and vibration reduction plans, which shall be enforced via contract specifications.
Contractors may elect any combination of legal, non-polluting methods to maintain or reduce
noise and vibration to threshold levels or lower, as long as those methods do not result in other
significant environmental impacts or create a substantial public nuisance. In addition, the
applicant shall require contractors to limit construction activities to daytime hours between 7:00
am and 7:00 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays. The plan for
attenuating construction -related noises shall be implemented prior to the initiation of any work
that triggers the need for such a plan.
Mitigation Measure NOISE -1 b: To reduce pile driving noise, "vibratory" pile driving or drilled and
cast -in-place piles should be used wherever feasible. The vibratory pile driving technique, despite
its name, does not generate vibration levels higher than the standard pile driving technique. It
does, however, generate lower, less -intrusive noise levels.
S. Impact N0I-3: Traffic and equipment operations facilitated by the proposed
project could result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise
levels in the vicinity or above levels existing without the project.
The Final EIR finds that non -transportation noise associated with the Project operations
would include stationary sources (such as HVAC units), loading docks, etc. Implementation of
Mitigation Measures NOISE -2a and NOISE -2b, set forth below, which are hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, would reduce the impact to a less -than -significant level and
would ensure that Project -related non -transportation sources of noise would comply with the City
of Alameda Noise Ordinance and General Plan standards.
Most of the noise generated by the development facilitated by the proposed Project
would be traffic -generated noise. All roadways analyzed are predicted to experience a traffic
noise increase of less than 4 dBA. Therefore, the Project -level increase in traffic would be a less
than significant impact.
The southern portion of the Project site area has an existing ambient noise environment
greater than 60 dBA CNE. Furthermore, traffic generated by the proposed Project on adjacent
streets would result in greater noise exposure in the future than traffic under existing conditions,
potentially exacerbating this existing condition. An exterior noise exposure of 60 dBA or greater is
designated as "conditionally acceptable" for residential land uses and could result in potentially
incompatible interior noise for new residential land uses. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
NOISE -2a, NOISE -2b, and NOISE -3 would ensure compliance with the applicable noise
insulation standards for residential uses and would reduce this impact to less than significant.
Mitigation Measure NOISE -2a: Acoustical studies, describing how the exterior and interior
noise standards will be met, shall be required for all new residential or noise sensitive
developments exposed to environmental noise greater than CNEL 60 dBA, or one -family
dwellings not constructed as part of a subdivision requiring a final map exposed to
environmental noise greater than CNEL 65 dBA. The studies should also satisfy the
requirements set forth in Title 24, part 2, of the California Administrative Code, Noise Insulation
Standards, for multiple -family uses, regulated by Title 24.
Mitigation Measure NOISE -2b: The applicant shall demonstrate through its acoustical studies
that the proposed project will comply with maximum noise levels outlined in the City's Noise
Ordinance and the average sound level goals outlined in the City's General Plan.
T. Impact C-NOI-1: The proposed project would result in exposure of people
to cumulative increases in construction noise levels.
The Final EIR finds that the proposed Project may be constructed during the same time
and duration as other cumulative projects that could contribute to construction noise levels in
the Project's vicinity. However, with implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE -1a and
NOISE -lb, noise levels generated during the construction would be reduced by requiring the
applicant to adhere to the City's allowed construction hours and create and implement a
development -specific noise reduction plan.
Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE -1a and -1 b.
U. Impact C-NOI-2: The proposed project would contribute to cumulative
construction that could expose buildings and persons within the project
vicinity to significant vibration impacts.
The Final EIR finds that if Project -related activities were to coincide with another
development in close physical proximity, the combined effect could result in the exposure of
sensitive land uses or buildings to higher vibration levels than what was predicted for the
proposed Project due to the use of impact pile drivers. However, with implementation of
Mitigation Measures NOISE -la and NOISE -lb, noise levels generated during the construction
would be reduced by requiring the applicant to create and implement a development -specific
noise and vibration reduction plan.
Implement Mitigation Measures NOISE -1 a and -1 b.
V. Impact TRA -1: The proposed project would not exceed the regional VMT
per capita minus 15 percent.
The Final EIR finds that the VMT per capita for the Project is estimated to be less than
the region and citywide average VMT. However, the VMT per capita for the Project would
exceed both the citywide VMT per capita minus 15 percent and the regional VMT per capita
minus 15 percent. Therefore, the Project would have a significant impact on VMT.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure TRA -1, set forth above, is hereby adopted and
incorporated into the Project, and would reduce the impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure TRA -1: see discussion above.
W. Impact TRA -10: Development facilitated by the proposed project could
potentially be inconsistent with adopted polices, plans, and programs
supporting alternative transportation.
The Final EIR finds that the proposed Project would not modify existing pedestrian
or bicycle facilities in the surrounding areas and would not adversely affect installation of
most future facilities. However, the proposed Project does not include implementation of
the Class I path along the Alameda Estuary waterfront and connections to the existing
segments of the path, consistent with the City's Bicycle Master Plan. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure TRA -4, set forth below, is hereby adopted and incorporated into the
Project.
Mitigation Measure TRA -4: The project shall, consistent with the City of Alameda Bicycle
Master Plan, provide a Class I bicycle path along the northern waterfront of the project site
and ensure that the path would connect to adjacent future bicycle facilities.
VII. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FOR WHICH MITIGATION MEASURES, THOUGH
NOT REQUIRED, WILL BE INCORPORATED AS PART OF THE PROJECT
NONE.
VIII. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS
The CEQA Guidelines require that an EIR evaluate the growth -inducing impacts of a
proposed action (Section 15126.2[d]). A growth -inducing impact is defined by CEQA
Guidelines Section 15126.2(d) as:
[T]he ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, or the
construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding
environment. Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population
growth.... It must not be assumed that growth in any area is necessarily beneficial,
detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.
A project can have direct and/or indirect growth -inducement potential. Direct growth
inducement would result if a project involved construction of new housing that would result in
new residents moving to the area. A project can have indirect growth -inducement potential if it
would establish substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial,
industrial or governmental enterprises) or if it would involve a substantial construction effort
with substantial short-term employment opportunities and indirectly stimulate the need for
additional housing and services to support the new employment demand. Similarly, under CEQA,
a project would indirectly induce growth if it would remove an obstacle to additional growth and
development, such as removing a constraint on a required public service. Increases in
population could tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new
facilities that could cause significant environmental effects. The CEQA Guidelines also require
analysis of the characteristics of projects that may encourage and facilitate other activities
that could significantly affect the environment, either individually or cumulatively.
The timing, magnitude, and location of land development and population growth are
based on various interrelated land use and economic variables. Key variables include
regional economic trends, market demand for residential and non-residential uses, land
availability and cost, the availability and quality of transportation facilities and public services,
proximity to employment centers, the supply and cost of housing, and regulatory policies or
conditions. Because city and county general plans define the location, type and intensity of
growth, they are the primary means of regulating development and growth in California.
Both the Alameda General Plan and the Bay Area's Sustainable Communities
Strategies (Plan Bay Area), anticipate growth at Alameda Marina of essentially the same
nature and density as the Project. Hence, the development of the Project has been anticipated
by the City in its long-range planning as well as in the regionally forecast growth of the Bay
Area. Thus, while the Project would not result in unplanned growth, it would accommodate an
increase in both population and employment growth in Alameda as compared to the existing
condition.
Under CEQA, a project is generally considered to be growth -inducing if it results in any
one of the following:
1. Extension of urban services or infrastructure into a previously unserved area.
Although onsite infrastructure improvements would occur as part of the proposed Project,
the site is within an urban setting, and the Project infrastructure would connect to existing City
infrastructure and not require any major expansions of infrastructure other than on the site itself.
The Project would not extend infrastructure to any other undeveloped areas. The Project would
be infill and redevelopment of the site rather than a growth -inducing development.
2. Extension of a transportation corridor into an area that may be subsequently
developed.
The proposed Project is surrounded by urban development and an adjacent street system.
As an infill development, the Project would not extend transportation corridors into undeveloped
areas resulting in growth inducing impacts.
3. Removal of obstacles to population growth (such as provision of major new public
services to an area where those services are not currently available).
The Project involves the approval of a Master Plan, and other development approvals, for
the Project site to accommodate the proposed development. These approvals would remove
"obstacles to population growth" only for the Project site. The approvals would not facilitate
population growth on any other property in the City or surrounding area.
While the proposed Project would improve infrastructure that serves the site, these
improvements would allow for growth to occur only on the Project site and would not facilitate
population growth on any other property.
The proposed Project would result in the development of up to 779 residential dwelling units,
which could result in an increase in residential population of about 1,932 people. The population
growth resulting from the proposed Project is generally consistent with the population growth
projections in the City's General Plan Housing Element, which are based on estimates provided
by the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)'s Regional Housing Needs Assessment.
Therefore, the growth in housing units proposed by the Project, and thus population growth
generated by the proposed Project, would be within the ABAG projections for the City of Alameda.
Further, because the Project site is included in Plan Bay Area within the Northern Waterfront
Priority Development Area (PDA), from a regional standpoint, the Project is part of a coordinated
strategy for managing land use patterns and transportation investments to accommodate
projected population growth while also reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, consistent with
the direction in SB 375. As Plan Bay Area's transportation projects are tied to the proposed land
use development pattern and the region's population projections, they are inherently designed to
focus growth primarily in PDAs, as opposed to other locations in the region. That is, the
transportation projects in Plan Bay Area were selected to complement a certain type of land
development (balanced and compact) and discourage imbalanced, sprawling, and greenfield
development. As such, by specifically being included in the Plan Bay Area, the proposed Project
is promoting focused infill growth rather than growth beyond targeted areas. By accommodating
growth in a targeted urban area, the proposed Project would regionally contribute to reduced
vehicle miles travels and greenhouse gas emissions, as required by SB 375 (see the Land Use
discussion in Section 4.8 of the Draft EIR for further discussion of SB 375 and Plan Bay Area).
IX. ALTERNATIVES
The Final EIR analyzed four alternatives to the Project, examining the environmental
impacts and feasibility of each alternative, as well as the ability of the alternatives to meet
project objectives. The Project and the project objectives are described in detail in the Final
EIR Chapter 3, Project Description, and the potential environmental effects of implementing the
Project are analyzed in Chapter 4, Environmental Setting, Impacts, and Mitigation Measures,
including discussion of significant impacts resulting from the Project and mitigation measures
recommended to avoid these impacts.
Brief summaries of the alternatives, including the Environmentally Superior Alternative,
are provided below. As explained in Section X, below, the findings in this Section are based on
the Final EIR, the discussion and analysis in which is hereby incorporated in full by this
reference. The City further finds that each of the reasons given for rejecting an alternative
discussed below is a separate and independent basis for rejecting that alternative.
A. Preservation Alternative
Under this alternative, the Project site would be developed in such a manner as to
not impact existing structures on the site that have been determined by the City's Historic
Advisory Board (HAB) to be contributing elements to the HAB-designated Alameda Marina
Historic District. As the HAB also designated a cultural landscape boundary for the district,
the alternative assumes that any new development would occur at both ends of the Project
site, generally in the U-shaped area around the graving dock in the eastern quarter of the
Project site, and in the existing parking/dry storage area in the western quarter. The central
half of the Project site, as well as much of the frontage on Clement Avenue, would
generally remain in its current state. Approximately 475 housing units would be built under
the Preservation Alternative, and the commercial/industrial square -footage on the site
would remain roughly the same.
The Preservation Alternative would result in less -than -significant aesthetics impacts
similar to the proposed Project, but would not realize all of the aesthetic enhancements as
the proposed Project. The Preservation Alternative would also have less -than -significant
construction and operational impacts for air quality (with mitigation); biological resources
impacts (with mitigation); geology, soils, and paleontological impacts (no mitigation
required); hazards and hazardous materials impacts (with mitigation); hydrology and water
quality impacts (with mitigation); land use and planning impacts (no mitigation required);
construction and operational noise impacts (with mitigation); population, housing and
employment (no mitigation required); public services and recreation (no mitigation
required); utilities and service systems (with mitigation); all of which would be similar or the
same as the proposed Project.
While the Preservation Alternative would also result in significant and unavoidable
impacts to cultural resources, those impacts would be less severe than the proposed
Project because the Preservation Alternative would retain all of the contributing buildings
within the designated Alameda Marina Historic District and impacts to those structures
would be fully avoided. However, impacts within the larger City -designated cultural
landscape would still occur, as development would still be allowed to occur within the
defined landscape boundaries. As with the proposed Project, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable.
Similar to the proposed Project, the Preservation Alternative would also result in
significant and unavoidable impacts for transportation and traffic impacts, although the
Preservation Alternative would have less development. [VMT per capita under both
scenarios would still be estimated to be less than the region and citywide average VMT;
VMT; however, the VMT per capita under both scenarios would exceed both the citywide
VMT per capita minus 15 percent and the regional VMT per capita minus 15 percent
thresholds. Therefore, the Preservation Alternative would have a significant and
unavoidable impact on per capita VMT.] Impacts to area intersections identified for the
proposed Project would be less severe under the Preservation Alternative, but would not
result in a change to the significant and unavoidable impacts at the Park Street/Blanding
Avenue intersection (both peak hours) nor the Park Street/Clement Avenue intersection
(PM peak hour). With respect to Impact TRA -3, the uncertainty concerning the ultimate
extension of Clement Avenue would remain regardless of which alternative was selected,
and would remain significant and unavoidable.
Although the Preservation Alternative would achieve more of the project objectives
than the No Project Alternative, it would not achieve the project objectives as well as the
proposed Project because it would not generate as many housing opportunities and would
be less effective than the proposed Project with regard to fulfilling the goals of the City's
Housing Element and helping to meet the City's Regional Housing Needs Allocation
(RHNA). The State's Housing Accountability Act (HAA) applies to the Alameda Marina
Master Plan and restricts the City's ability to deny, reduce the density of, or make infeasible
the project when it is consistent with objective development standards, putting the burden
of proof on the City to justify any action to deny, reduce the density of, or make such a
housing project infeasible. Government Code § 65589.5(j)(1). From a regional perspective,
limiting development of the property to 475 new housing units would increase pressures to
allow future development to locate further from the urban centers, which would result in
longer Bay Area commutes and increased greenhouse emissions from vehicles. The
Preservation Alternative also would limit private reinvestment and redevelopment, and is
less likely to attract sufficient private capital to fund the necessary public infrastructure
improvements, build the planned open spaces, and rehabilitate the shoreline and marina
infrastructure.
The Preservation Alternative would also prohibit the development of an aesthetically
pleasing, cohesive and pedestrian -oriented development that would activate and reconnect
the community to the waterfront because more than half the Project site would have to
retain its historic commercial and industrial configuration. Existing spacing between the
buildings, the size of the streets, and the orientation of the buildings do not allow the
opportunity to create public amenities and opportunities for gathering spaces, or allow for
the development of new open space areas for the public to access the shoreline edge. The
Preservation Alternative would therefore be unable to meet the project objective of fulfilling
the project sponsor's obligations under the Tidelands Lease, which requires the
development of a new higher -value project, and expressly allows for the demolition of
potentially all existing improvements on the project site. The City finds that the proposed
Project would not result in a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that
cannot be mitigated in any other way.
B. Extensive Adapted Reuse Alternative
The Extensive Adapted Reuse Alternative would provide for retention of some of the
existing contributing structures of the Alameda Marina Historic District, and new
development within the eastern and western quarters of the Project site, similar to that of
the Preservation Alternative. The Extensive Adapted Reuse Alternative differs from the
Preservation Alternative because it would allow for adaptive reuse of the existing historic
structures on the site instead of utilizing them solely in their current commercial/industrial
use. Under the Extensive Adapted Reuse Alternative, about 40 percent (100,000 square
feet) of the existing structures in the central half of the site would be converted to
residential uses, with about 60 percent (150,000 square feet) being retained in their
existing commercial/industrial configuration. Such an alternative would provide a similar
quantity of commercial/industrial uses as that provided under the proposed Project, while
also providing for some expansion of residential uses within the historic core of the site,
allowing for the construction of approximately 550 total residential units.
The Extensive Adapted Reuse Alternative would result in less -than -significant
aesthetics impacts similar to the proposed Project, but would not realize all of the aesthetic
enhancements as the proposed Project. The Extensive Adaptive Reuse Alternative would
also have less -than -significant construction and operational impacts for air quality (with
mitigation); biological resources impacts (with mitigation); geology, soils, and
paleontological impacts (no mitigation required); hazards and hazardous materials impacts
(with mitigation); hydrology and water quality impacts (with mitigation); land use and
planning impacts (no mitigation required); construction and operational noise impacts (with
mitigation); population, housing and employment (no mitigation required); public services
and recreation (no mitigation required); utilities and service systems (with mitigation); all of
which would be similar or the same as the proposed Project.
The Extensive Adapted Reuse Alternative would also result in fewer or less severe
significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources than the proposed Project. The
Extensive Adapted Reuse Alternative would demolish some of the contributing buildings
within the designated Alameda Marina Historic District, and impacts within the larger City -
designated cultural landscape would still occur, as development would still be allowed to
occur within the defined landscape boundaries. As with the proposed Project, this impact
would remain significant and unavoidable.
Similar to the proposed Project, the Extensive Adapted Reuse Alternative would
also result in significant and unavoidable impacts for transportation and traffic impacts,
although the alternative would have less development. VMT per capita under both
scenarios would still be estimated to be less than the region and citywide average VMT;
VMT; however, the VMT per capita under both scenarios would exceed both the citywide
VMT per capita minus 15 percent and the regional VMT per capita minus 15 percent
thresholds. Therefore, the Extensive Adapted Reuse Alternative would have a significant
and unavoidable impact on per capita VMT. Impacts to area intersections identified for the
proposed Project would be less severe under the Extensive Adapted Reuse Alternative, but
would not result in a change to the significant and unavoidable impacts at the Park
Street/Blanding Avenue intersection (both peak hours) nor the Park Street/Clement Avenue
intersection (PM peak hour). With respect to Impact TRA -3, the uncertainty concerning the
ultimate extension of Clement Avenue would remain regardless of which alternative was
selected, and would remain significant and unavoidable.
Similar to the Preservation Alternative, the Extensive Adapted Reuse Alternative
would be able to achieve more of the project objectives than the No Project Alternative, but
it would not achieve the project objectives as well as the proposed Project. The Extensive
Adapted Reuse Alternative would still not generate as many housing opportunities as the
proposed Project and would be less effective than the proposed Project in fulfilling the
goals of the City's Housing Element and helping to meet the City's RHNA. The State's HAA
applies to the Alameda Marina Master Plan and restricts the City's ability to deny, reduce
the density of, or make infeasible the project when it is consistent with objective
development standards, putting the burden of proof on the City to justify any action to deny,
reduce the density of, or make such a housing project infeasible. Government Code §
65589.50)(1). One of .the principal constraints associated with the Extensive Adapted
Reuse Alternative is the lack of suitability of many of the existing historic structures for
adaptive reuse, most of which are at the end of their useable lives. Rehabilitation of these
structures would be cost prohibitive, as these additional costs would curtail the amount of
private capital available to fund the necessary public infrastructure improvements, build the
planned open spaces, and rehabilitate the deteriorated shoreline and marina infrastructure.
It would also curtail the project sponsor's ability to meet its obligations under the Tidelands
and Marina Lease to develop a higher and better use for the Project site. The City finds that
the proposed Project would not result in a specific, adverse impact on public health and
safety that cannot be mitigated in any other way.
C. Reduced Project Alternative
The Reduced Project Alternative assumes a mix of development across the Project
site at a lower density than that of the proposed Project. Rather than a mix of multi -family
structures and townhomes, this alternative would include a mix of townhomes and
detached, single-family residences. The development of new residential uses could occur
throughout the site, and would not necessarily preclude the demolition of existing historic
structures to make room for new residential uses. Approximately 100 townhomes would be
constructed, and 80 detached single-family residences. Approximately 150,000 square feet
of commercial and industrial uses would remain at the site.
The Reduced Project Alternative would result in less -than -significant aesthetics
impacts (no mitigation required); construction and operational impacts for air quality (with
mitigation); biological resources impacts (with mitigation); geology, soils, and
paleontological impacts (no mitigation required); hazards and hazardous materials impacts
(with mitigation); hydrology and water quality impacts (with mitigation); land use and
planning impacts (no mitigation required); construction and operational noise impacts (with
mitigation); population, housing and employment (no mitigation required); public services
and recreation (no mitigation required); utilities and service systems (with mitigation); all of
which would be similar or the same as the proposed Project.
Similar to the proposed Project, the Reduced Project Alternative would also result in
significant and unavoidable impacts to cultural resources. The Reduced Project Alternative
would demolish most of the contributing buildings within the designated Alameda Marina
Historic District, and impacts within the larger City -designated cultural landscape would still
occur, as development would still be allowed to occur within the defined landscape
boundaries. As with the proposed Project, this impact would remain significant and
unavoidable.
The Reduced Project Alternative would result in a significant and unavoidable (with
mitigation) transportation and traffic impacts, but with fewer impacts than identified with the
proposed Project. Since the alternative would have less development, it would generate
fewer trips and therefore not result in significant impacts at two intersections. However, the
Reduced Project Alternative would have a significant and unavoidable impact on per capita
VMT. With respect to Impact TRA -3, the uncertainty concerning the ultimate extension of
Clement Avenue would remain regardless of which alternative was selected, and would
remain significant and unavoidable.
The Reduced Project Alternative would not meet the project's objective to fulfill the
goals of the City's Housing Element and meet the City's RHNA for the site. The State's
HAA applies to the Alameda Marina Master Plan and restricts the City's ability to deny,
reduce the density of, or make infeasible the project when it is consistent with objective
development standards, putting the burden of proof on the City to justify any action to deny,
reduce the density of, or make such a housing project infeasible. Government Code §
65589.50)(1). The project sponsor has proposed to include the maximum residential
density allowed by the City's zoning ordinance and the General Plan in order to comply with
the stated policies and goals of the HAA, and to address the social factors relating to
California's housing crisis. The City finds that the proposed Project would not result in a
specific, adverse impact on public health and safety that cannot be mitigated in any other
way.
D. No Project/No Development Alternative
CEQA requires consideration of a no project alternative. Consistent with State CEQA
Guideline Section 15126.6(e), the No Project/No New Development Alternative assumes that the
site would generally remain in its existing condition. Under the No Project/No Development
Alternative, the Project would not be constructed, and the site would remain in the same state
as its current condition, with the existing structures, parking areas, and existing marina and
shoreline infrastructure remaining in place. Residential units would not be constructed at the
site, the commercial core element would not be constructed, the proposed open space would
not be developed, and the new portion of the Bay Trail would not be constructed.
The No Project/No Development Alternative would not meet any of the objectives of
the proposed Project: it would not transform the site into a new waterfront residential
community with open space and public access improvements, nor would it help fulfill the
City's planning goals and vision for the site. The site would not contribute to fulfilling the goals
of the City's Housing Element or help meet the City's RHNA. This alternative also would not
generate any capital investment in the aging marina and shoreline infrastructure; those
facilities would continue to deteriorate, and without the injection of substantial funds from
some other source, those facilities would eventually become unsafe and unusable. This
alternative would, however, avoid all of the Project's impacts as identified in Chapter 4 of the
EIR.
Under the No Project Alternative, there would no impacts to aesthetics, air quality and
greenhouse gas emissions, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards
and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, population and housing, public
services and recreation, transportation and traffic, and utilities and services. The No Project
Alternative would also have no impact to land use, but it would not support the City's Regional
Housing Needs Allocation or the City of Alameda's General Plan Housing Element goals and
policies.
The Final EIR found that the environmentally superior alternative would be the No
Project Alternative. The No Project Alternative would avoid most of the environmental impacts
associated with the proposed Project, but would not meet any of the project objectives. As
required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2), because the environmentally superior
alternative is the No Project Alternative, this EIR identifies an environmentally superior
alternative from among the other alternatives. Therefore, the Preservation Alternative would be
the Environmentally Superior Alternative for the purpose of this analysis; even though it would
still result in some of the significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the proposed
Project.
X. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE
These findings incorporate the text of the Final EIR for the Project, the Mitigation Monitoring
and Reporting Program, City Staff Reports relating to the Project, and other documents relating to
public hearing on the Project, by reference, in their entirety. Without limitation, this incorporation
is intended to elaborate on the scope and nature of mitigation measures, Project and cumulative
impacts, the basis for determining the significance of impacts, the comparison of the
alternatives to the Project, the determination of the environmentally superior alternative, and the
reasons for approving the Project.
XI. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Various documents and other materials constitute the record of proceedings upon which
the City bases its findings contained herein. The record of proceedings is located in the offices of
the custodian for these documents and materials, which is the Office of the City Clerk of the City of
Alameda, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 380, Alameda, CA, 94501
XII. RECIRCULATION NOT REQUIRED
State CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for
further review and comment when "significant new information" is added to the EIR after public
notice is given of the availability of the Draft EIR but before certification. Recirculation of the EIR is
not required because no significant new information has been received which disclosed that a
new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation
measure proposed to be implemented, that a substantial increase in the severity of an
environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the
impact to a level of insignificance, that a feasible mitigation measure or alternative considerably
different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental
impacts of the Project but the City declines to adopt it, or that the Draft EIR was so
fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review
and comment were precluded.
XIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15093, the City has balanced the economic,
legal, social, technological or other benefits of the Project, including region -wide or statewide
environmental benefits, against its significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. The
City finds that the Project's benefits outweigh its unavoidable adverse environmental effects,
and that the adverse environmental effects are therefore acceptable.
The following statement identifies the reasons why, in the City's judgment, specific
benefits of the Project outweigh the significant and unavoidable effects. The substantial
evidence supporting the benefits of the Project can be found in the preceding sections of
these Findings, in the Project itself, and in the record of proceedings as defined in Section XI,
above. The City further finds that each of the Project benefits discussed below is a separate
and independent basis for these findings. The reasons set forth below are based on the Final
EIR and other information in the administrative record.
A. Strengthen and Reconnect the Community to the Waterfront: The Project
will reconnect the community to the waterfront by extending the existing city grid
into the Project site, and allow the public to. access the shoreline edge by
developing new open space areas and the Bay Trail.
B. Improve and Enhance the Maritime Commercial Marina: The Project will
maintain Alameda Marina as a working waterfront and create a maritime and
commercial use of approximately 250,000 square feet, which will help retain
existing jobs and generate new jobs on the Project site. The Project will upgrade
and rehabilitate existing facilities and some of the unique historic buildings to
provide square footage for existing maritime businesses, boat berthing and
maintenance, and other waterfront commercial recreational activities. Additional
dry boat storage will also be provided on the Project site. The Project will also
provide sea level rise protection and other infrastructure upgrades to the site.
C. Reinvest in Infrastructure: The Project will reinvest funds into improving the
shoreline infrastructure, which includes upgrading utilities to support the existing
marina, marina dredging with the seawall construction and operation of the
marina, sub surface debris removal associated with the prior history of the site,
and repairs to the graving dock. The Project will also provide additional horizontal
off-site and on-site infrastructure improvements that includes improvements to
Clement Avenue, and upgrades to utility connections between Clement Avenue
and the water's edge. The Project site will be developed into an integrated, mixed-
use community with an integrated network of public open spaces and streets.
D. Increase Supply of a Range of Housing Types: The Project will increase the
City's housing supply, including affordable housing, for Alameda and the region. It
will construct up to 779 residential units, including a mix of townhomes, stacked
flats and low and midrise multifamily housing for a mix of household types and
incomes. The Project will provide a diversity of housing types and pricing that
attract the market segments most likely to use alternatives to the automobile,
such as self -selective transit commuters and households with zero to low -
automobile ownership.
E. Promote Sustainable Development: The Project will protect the local, regional,
and global environment and facilitate sustainable reuse and redevelopment of
Alameda Marina by creating opportunities for transit -oriented development
consistent with SB 375 and the regional Sustainable Communities Strategy: Plan
Bay Area. The Project will invest in improvements to adapt to sea -level rise and
climate change over time, and the replacement and rehabilitation of
substandard infrastructure systems that may contribute to regional water quality
impacts. It will apply sustainability principles in the design and development of
open spaces, recreation facilities, buildings, and infrastructure, including
wastewater, storm water, electrical and transportation systems.
F. Provide Transit -Oriented, Mixed -Use Development Opportunities: The
Project will provide transit -oriented, mixed-use development opportunities by
ensuring that the site design reflects the established transit -oriented and mixed-
use goals, policies, and objectives of the City of Alameda General Plan, as a
whole. It will provide for mixed-use development within close proximity to
existing and planned transit services and encourage the types of non-residential
uses that serve the everyday needs of future Alameda Marina and existing
nearby residents and employees and reduce the need to use an automobile to
obtain goods and services. The Project will promote use of alternative modes of
transportation through preparation and implementation of a Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) Program.
G. Provide Open Space and Other Community Benefits: The Project will produce
tangible community benefits for the Alameda community as a whole by creating
new waterfront amenities, including a promenade, plazas and parks, that will offer
both passive and active recreational uses. The Project will enhance views of
water and public access to the waterfront and creatively encourage the usage of
the waterfront by providing a waterfront promenade, open space, and other
public amenities, including an extension of the Bay Trail and the redevelopment
of the graving dock as a public access amenity. It will create human -scale, tree -
lined walkable streets and bicycle routes around the Project site and extend the
street grid street pattern that is characteristic of the existing city neighborhoods.
H. Ensure Predictable and Fiscally Sound Development Process: The Project will
provide for clear and orderly phasing, sizing, and financing of site infrastructure for
both the circulation and utility network and provide for a predictable development
process. It will address the impact of the site development on the City's
operating budget to comply with City Council Policies adopted by Resolution
13643 related to fiscal neutrality.
I. Provision of Jobs: The Project will create thousands of hours of construction
work and accommodate hundreds of permanent full-time jobs on completion.
Based on the entire record, including the Final EIR, the specific economic, social, and
environmental benefits of the Project, as stated above, outweigh and override any significant
unavoidable environmental effects that would result from future Project implementation. The
Council has determined that any significant environmental effects caused by the Alameda Marina
Project have been mitigated to the extent feasible through the mitigation measures identified
herein and adopted and incorporated into the Project, and, where mitigation is not feasible, have
been outweighed and counterbalanced by the economic, legal, social, technological and other
benefits of the Project, including region -wide or statewide environmental benefits.
XIV. SUMMARY
A. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the
record, the City has made one or more of the following Findings with respect
to each of the significant environmental effects of the Project:
Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effects identified in the Final EIR.
2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should
be, adopted by that other agency.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other
considerations, including considerations for the provision of
employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible
the alternatives identified in the environmental impact report.
B. Based on the foregoing Findings and the information contained in the
record, it is determined that:
All significant effects on the environment due to the approval of the Project
have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible.
2. Any remaining significant effects on the environment found to be
unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations in Section XIII, above.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
r• •
Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines requires public
agencies to establish monitoring or reporting programs for projects approved by a public agency
whenever approval involves the adoption of either a "mitigated negative declaration" or specified
environmental findings related to environmental impact reports.
The following is the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Alameda
Marina Master Plan project. The intent of the MMRP is to prescribe and enforce a means for
properly and successfully implementing the mitigation measures identified within the Draft
Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for this project.
Mitigation Measures
The table below lists all mitigation measures for the project. The MMRP describes the actions
that must take place to implement each mitigation measure, the timing of those actions, and the
entities responsible for implementing and monitoring the actions.
MMRP Components
The components of the attached table, which contains applicable mitigation measures, are
addressed briefly, below.
Impact: This column summarizes the impact stated in the Draft EIR.
Mitigation Measure: All mitigation measures that were identified in the Draft EIR are presented,
and numbered accordingly.
Action: For every mitigation measure, one or more actions are described. The actions delineate
the means by which the mitigation measures will be implemented, and, in some instances, the
criteria for determining whether a measure has been successfully implemented. Where mitigation
measures are particularly detailed, the action may refer back to the measure.
Implementing Party: This item identifies the entity that will undertake the required action,
typically the project applicant or its designee.
Alameda Marina Master Plan 43 ESA 1 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
4. Mitieation Monitorin¢ Plan
Timing: Implementation of the action must occur prior to or during some part of project
approval, project design or construction or on an ongoing basis. The timing for each measure is
identified.
Monitoring Party: The City of Alameda is primarily responsible for ensuring that mitigation
measures are successfully implemented. Within the City, a number of departments and divisions
would have responsibility for monitoring some aspect of the overall project.
Sacramento Entertainment and Sports Center & 4-44
Related Development March 2014
Final Environmental Impact Report
ESA / 130423
4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan
Timing: Implementation of the action must occur prior to or during some part of project
approval, project design or construction or on an ongoing basis. The timing for each measure is
identified.
Monitoring Party: The City of Alameda is primarily responsible for ensuring that mitigation
measures are successfully implemented. Within the City, a number of departments and divisions
would have responsibility for monitoring some aspect of the overall project.
Sacramento Entertainment and Sports Center & 4-44 ESA / 130423
Related Development March 2014
Final Environmental Impact Report
TABLE 4-1
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementin Timing Monitorin
g Party g Party
Air Quality and Climate Change
Impact AQ/CC-1:
Mitigation Measure AQ/CC-1:
Provide Dust
Project
Prior to
City of
The proposed
Implementation of Dust Abatement
Abatement Plan that
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
project would not
Programs. The project applicant shall be
meets the
designee
demolition
result in localized
required to demonstrate compliance with
requirements of the
and/or
construction dust-
all applicable City regulations and
mitigation measure to
building
related air quality
operating procedures prior to issuance of
the City Building
permits.
impacts; generate
building or grading permits, including
Division for review
construction
standard dust control measures. The
and approval.
emissions that
effective implementation of dust
would result in a
abatement programs, incorporating all of
substantial increase
the following dust control measures,
of criteria pollutants
would reduce the temporary air quality
and precursors for
impact associated with construction dust.
which the air basin
All active construction areas shall be
is in nonattainment
watered two times daily using
under an applicable
equipment and staff provided by the
federal or state
project applicant or prime contractor,
ambient air quality
as needed, to avoid visible dust
standard; or expose
plumes. Appropriate non-toxic dust
sensitive receptors
palliative or suppressant, added to
to substantial
water before application, may be
concentrations of
used.
toxic air
contaminants or
All trucks hauling soil, sand and
respirable
other loose materials shall be
particulate matter
covered.
(PM2.5).
All unpaved access roads, parking
areas and construction staging
areas shall be either paved, watered
as necessary to avoid visible dust
plumes, or subject to the application
of (non-toxic) soil stabilizers.
• All paved access roads, parking
areas and staging areas at the
construction site shall be swept daily
with water sweepers. The use of dry
power sweeping is prohibited.
• If visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent public streets, these streets
shall be swept daily with water
sweepers. The use of dry power
sweeping is prohibited.
• All stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or
other materials that can be blown by
the wind shall either be covered or
watered as necessary to avoid
visible dust plumes.
• An off -pavement speed limit of 15
miles per hour for all construction
vehicles shall be incorporated into
the construction contract and
enforced by the prime contractor.
• All inactive portions of the project
site (those areas which have been
previously graded, but inactive for a
period of ten days or more) shall be
watered with an appropriate dust
suppressant, covered or seeded.
• All earth -moving or other dust -
producing activities shall be
Alameda Marina Master Plan 45 ESA / 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
suspended when the above dust
control measures prove ineffective
in avoiding visible dust plumes
during periods of high winds. The
wind speed at which this suspension
of activity will be required may vary,
depending on the moisture
conditions at the project site, but
suspension of such activities shall
be required in any case when the
wind speed exceeds 25 miles per
hour.
• All roadways, driveways, and
sidewalks to be paved shall be
completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon
as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
• Idling times shall be minimized
either by shutting equipment off
when not in use or reducing the
maximum idling time to 5 minutes
(as required by the California
airborne toxics control measure
Title 13, Section 2485 of California
Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear
signage shall be provided for
construction workers at all access
points.
• All construction equipment shall be
maintained and properly tuned in
accordance with manufacturer's
specifications. All equipment shall
be checked by a certified mechanic
and determined to be running in
proper condition prior to operation.
• Post a publicly visible sign with the
telephone number and person to
contact at the City of Alameda
regarding dust complaints. The Air
District's phone number shall also
be visible to ensure compliance with
applicable regulations.
Mitigation Measure AQ/CC-2:
Provide construction
Project
Prior to
City of
The project applicant shall ensure that
specifications to City
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
construction contract specifications
Building Division for
designee
construction
include a requirement that all off-road
review and approval.
contracts
diesel -powered construction equipment
and/or
used for project improvements shall be
construction
equipped with a Level 3 Verified Diesel
bid materials.
Emissions Control (VDEC), which would
reduce diesel particulate emissions by at
least 85 percent.
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact Mitigation Measure ActionImplementin Monitorin s) g Party Timing g Party
Alameda Marina Master Plan 46 ESA/ 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
Impact AQ/CC-5:
Mitigation Measure AQ/CC-3:
Provide design and
Project
Prior to
City of
The proposed
The City shall require that the following
construction
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
project would not
measures be implemented, either by the
specifications to City
designee
construction
conflict with or
City or the project applicant, or both in
Building Division for
contracts
obstruct the
combination, to encourage the use of low-
review and approval.
and/or
implementation of
and zero -emission vehicles in travel to
Division. During
construction
the applicable air
and from the project site and construction
construction:
bid materials.
quality plan.
meeting LEED Silver or equivalent
Provide monitoring
During
or special -status
sustainable design standards:
reports as specified
construction
species in local or
• Promote use of clean fuel-efficient
in agreement with
: Ongoing per
regional plans,
vehicles through preferential parking
NMFS.
terms of
policies, or
and/or installation of charging
agreement
regulations, or by
stations.
with NMFS.
the California
• Require LEED Silver certification or
Department of Fish
equivalent for all new residential
and Wildlife or the
structures.
United States Fish
• Promote zero -emission vehicles by
and Wildlife Service.
providing a neighborhood electric
vehicle program to reduce the need
to have a car or second car as an
element of the TDM program.
Biological Resources
Impact BIO -1: The
Mitigation Measure BIO -1a:
Pre -construction:
Project
Pre-
City of
proposed project
Prior to the start of in -water construction
Provide NMFS-
applicant or
construction
Alameda
would not have a
and maintenance that would require pile
approved sound
designee
: Prior to
substantial adverse
driving, the project applicant shall
attenuation and
issuance of
effect, either directly
prepare a NMFS-approved sound
monitoring plan to
demolition/bui
or through habitat
attenuation monitoring plan to protect
the City Planning
Iding permits
modifications, on
fish and marine mammals, if impact pile
Division. During
in affected
species identified as
driving is required for project
construction:
areas.
candidate, sensitive,
implementation. This plan shall provide
Provide monitoring
During
or special -status
detail on the sound attenuation system,
reports as specified
construction
species in local or
detail methods used to monitor and
in agreement with
: Ongoing per
regional plans,
verify sound levels during pile driving
NMFS.
terms of
policies, or
activities, and describe management
agreement
regulations, or by
practices to be taken to reduce impact
with NMFS.
the California
hammer pile -driving sound in the marine
Department of Fish
environment to an intensity level of less
and Wildlife or the
than 183 dB. The sound monitoring
United States Fish
results shall be made available to the
and Wildlife Service.
NMFS. The plan shall incorporate one or
more of the following best management
practices (BMPs) to meet the 183 dB
performance standard):
• To the extent feasible, all pilings
shall be installed and removed with
vibratory pile drivers only. If feasible,
vibratory pile driving shall be
conducted following the Corps'
"Proposed Procedures for Permitting
Projects that will Not Adversely
Affect Selected Listed Species in
California". USFWS and NOAA
completed Section 7 consultation on
this document, which establishes
general procedures for minimizing
impacts to natural resources
associated with projects in or
adjacent to jurisdictional waters.
• An impact pile driver may only be
Alameda Marina Master Plan 47 ESA / 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
g Party
used where necessary to complete
installation of larger steel pilings in
accordance with seismic safety or
other engineering criteria
• If necessary, the hammer shall be
cushioned using a 12 -inch thick
wood cushion block during all
impact hammer pile driving
operations.
• All piling installation using impact
hammers shall be conducted
between June 1 and November 30,
when the likelihood of sensitive fish
species being present in the work
area is minimal.
• If pile installation using impact
hammers must occur at times other
than the approved work window, the
project applicant shall obtain
incidental take authorization from
NMFS and CDFW, as necessary, to
address potential impacts on
steelhead trout, chinook salmon,
and Pacific herring and implement
all requested actions to avoid
impacts.
• The project applicant shall monitor
and verify sound levels during pile
driving activities. The sound
monitoring results will be made
available to NMFS and the City.
i
• In the event that exceedance of
noise thresholds established and
approved by NMFS occurs, a
contingency plan involving the use
of bubble curtains or air barrier shall
be implemented to attenuate sound
levels to below threshold levels.
Mitigation Measure B10 -1b:
Provide evidence of
Project
Prior to
City of
During the project permitting phase, any
regulatory
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
activities requiring in -water work will either
compliance to the
designee
demolition/bui
proceed under one of the programmatic
City Building Division
Iding permits
consultations for federally listed species
and/or the City
in affected
described above or a project -level BO
Planning Division as
areas.
would be required. Alternatively, the
specified in the
project will obtain Incidental Harassment
measure.
Authorization (IHA) for marine mammals
for dredging or pile driving activities. The
project applicant shall also consult with
CDFW regarding project impacts on State
listed special -status fish species and the
potential need for an incidental take permit
(ITP). The project applicant shall submit to
the City copies of any IHA and/or ITP
received or, alternatively, copies of
correspondence confirming that an IHA
and/or ITP is not required for the project in
question.
Mitigation Measure BIO -1c:
Pre -construction:
Project
Prior to
City of
As part of the NMFS-approved sound
Provide NMFS-
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
attenuation monitoring Ian required for I
approved sound
demolition/bui
Alameda Marina Master Plan 46 ESA / 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1. (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
pile driving in Mitigation Measure BI0-1 a,
attenuation and
designee
Iding permits
the City shall ensure that the project
monitoring plan to
in affected
applicant implements these additional
the City Planning
areas.
actions to reduce the effect of underwater
Division. During
noise transmission on marine mammals.
construction:
These actions shall include at a minimum:
Provide monitoring
• Establishment of a 1,600 -foot (500-
reports as specked
meter) safety zone that shall be
in agreement with
maintained around the sound
NMFS.
source, for the protection of marine
mammals in the event that sound
levels are unknown or cannot be
adequately predicted.
• Work activities shall be halted when
a marine mammal enters the 1,600 -
feet (500 -meter) safety zone and
resume only after the animal has
been gone from the area for a
minimum of 15 minutes.
• A "soft start" technique shall be
employed in all pile driving to give
marine mammals an opportunity to
vacate the area.
• Maintain in -air sound levels at the
noise source below 90 dBA when
pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) are
present.
• A NMFS-approved biological
monitor will conduct daily surveys
before and during impact hammer
pile driving to inspect the work zone
and adjacent Bay waters for marine
mammals. The monitor will be
present as specified by NMFS
during the impact pile -driving
phases of construction.
Mitigation Measure 13I0 -1d:
Pre -construction:
Project
Pre-
City of
Through the Design Review application
Provide lighting plans
applicant or
construction
Alameda
process, the City shall ensure that the
to City Building
designee
: Prior to
project applicant installs dock lighting on
Division for review
issuance of
all floating docks and adjacent areas that
and approval
building
minimizes artificial lighting of Bay waters
showing compliance
permits for
by using shielded, low -mounted, and low
with measure. Post-
affected
light -intensity fixtures and bulbs.
construction:
water -side
Demonstrate
areas. Post -
compliance with
construction
measure to
: Prior to
satisfaction of the
issuance of
City Building
occupancy
Division.
permits.
Mitigation Measure BIO -1e:
Conduct pre-
Project
Prior to
City of
To the extent practicable, construction
construction surveys
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
activities including building renovation,
for nesting birds if
designee
demolition/bui
demolition, vegetation and tree removal,
construction is
Iding permits.
and new site construction shall be
proposed during
performed between September 1 and
specified times;
January 31 in order to avoid breeding and
provide results of
nesting season for birds. If these activities
surveys to City
cannot be performed during this period, a
Building Division
preconstruction survey for nesting birds
and/or City Planning
Division; conduct
Alameda Marina Master Plan 4y ESA / 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
shall be conducted by a qualified biologist.
construction activities
In coordination with the City, surveys shall
according to the
be performed during breeding bird season
Protocol described in
(February 1 —August 31) no more than
the mitigation
14 days prior to construction activities
measure.
listed above in order to locate any active
passerine nests within 250 feet of the
project site and any active raptor nests
within 500 feet of the project site. Building
renovation, demolition, tree and
vegetation removal, and new construction
activities performed between September 1
and January 31 avoid the general nesting
period for birds and therefore would not
require pre -construction surreys.
If active nests are found on either the
proposed construction site or within the
500 -foot survey buffer surrounding the
proposed construction site, no -work buffer
zones shall be established around the
nests in coordination with CDFW. No
renovation, demolition, vegetation
removal, or ground -disturbing activities
shall occur within a buffer zone until
young have fledged or the nest is
otherwise abandoned as determined by
the qualified biologist. If work during the
nesting season stops for 14 days or more
and then resumes, then nesting bird
surveys shall be repeated, to ensure that
no new birds have begun nesting in the
area.
Impact BIO -2:
Mitigation Measure BIO -2a:
Conduct
Project
Prior to
City of
Development
Prior to in -water work, the City shall
preconstruction
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
facilitated by the
ensure that the project applicant conducts
surveys for native
designee
building
proposed project
a pre -construction survey to determine if
oysters, mussels,
permits for
would not have a
native oysters, mussels, and eelgrass are
and eelgrass as
the affected
substantial adverse
present in the Oakland -Alameda Estuary
specified in the
in -water
effect on riparian
to be affected by the project.
mitigation measure;
areas.
habitat or other
The eelgrass survey shall be
provide results of
sensitive natural
conducted according to the methods
surveys to City
communities
contained in the California Eelnting
Building Division
identified in local or
Mitigation Policy and Implementing
and/or City Planning
regional plans,
Guidelines 2014), with the
Division; follow
policies, regulations,
exception that the survey shall
at the
avoidance and
or by the California
conducted within 120 days (rather
a
monitoring protocols
Department of Fish
than days, as recommended in
as directed by NMFS
and Wildlife or U.S.
the CDEMP) prior to the desired
and ass specified in
Fish and Wildlife
construction start date, to allow
the mitigation
g
Service.
sufficient time for modification of
measure; provide
project plans (if feasible) and
compensatory
agency consultation.
mitigation if required.
• If eelgrass beds or native oysters
are found within or immediately
adjacent to the construction
footprint, the project applicant shall
first determine whether avoidance of
the beds is feasible. If feasible,
impacts to the oyster or eelgrass
bed shall be avoided. If complete
avoidance is not feasible, the
applicant shall request guidance
Alameda Marina Master Plan DU ESA/ 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
from the National Marine Fisheries
Service (or other applicable agency)
as to the need and/or feasibility to
move affected beds. Any
translocation of eelgrass beds shall
be conducted consistent with the
methods described in the CDEMP
and/or those described in Eelgrass
Conservation in San Francisco Bay:
Opportunities and Constraints
(Boyer and Wyllie-Echeverria,
2010). Translocation of oyster beds
shall be consistent with methods
and recommendations presented in
Shellfish Conservation and
Restoration in San Francisco Bay:
Opportunities and Constraints
(Zabin et al., 2010).
• If it is not possible to translocate
oyster or eelgrass beds, then the
City shall ensure that the project
applicant provides compensatory
mitigation consistent with the
CDEMP for eelgrass (a ratio of
3.01:1 [transplant area to impact
area]) and a minimum 1:1 ratio for
oyster beds.
• The relocation or compensatory
mitigation site for eelgrass or oyster
beds shall be within San Francisco
Bay.
Mitigation Measure BIO -2b:
Prepare educational
Project
Prior to
City of
The Marina operators shall prepare
materials as
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
educational information regarding
specified in the
designee
occupancy
sensitive biological resources in the
mitigation measure;
permits.
project vicinity and within Bay waters.
present materials to
This information shall be disseminated to
the City and
all boaters using the marina and shall
cooperating agencies
include, but not be limited to, information
for review and
educating boat owner/operators about
approval.
sensitive habitats and species in the Bay
and actions they are required to
implement to avoid impacts to marine
resources.
The educational information will be
disseminated to visiting boaters through
multiple methods including, but not
limited to, brochures or pamphlets;
marina and/or City websites; boating,
cruising, and newspaper periodicals; and
social media. The information shall be
prepared soliciting input from, and in
cooperation with, the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Coast
Guard (USCG), California State Lands
Commission, National Park Service
(NPS), California Department of Parks
and Recreation (CDPR), Bay
Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC), and local
organizations active in protecting Bay
marine resources, as appropriate.
Alameda Marina Master Plan 51 ESA / 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-9 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
Mitigation Measure 13I0 -2c:
Prepare Marine
Project
Pre-
City of
The City shall require that the project
Invasive Species
applicant or
construction
Alameda
applicant develop and implement a
Control Plan with
designee
: Prior to
Marine Invasive Species Control Plan
cooperation and
issuance of
prior to commencement of any in -water
oversight from
demolition/bui
work including, but not limited to,
relevant agencies as
Iding permits
construction of wharves and seawalls,
specified in the
within the
dredging, pile driving, and construction of
mitigation measure;
affected in -
new stormwater outfalls. The plan shall be
implement the plan
water areas.
prepared in consultation with the United
as specified in the
Post -
States Coast Guard (USCG), RWQCB,
mitigation measure;
construction
and other relevant state agencies.
conduct technical
: Prior to final
Provisions of the plan shall include but not
assistance activities
inspection of
be limited to the following:
as specified in the
completed in -
Environmental training of
mitigation measure;
water
construction personnel involved in
prepare and submit a
structures
in -water work.
post -construction
within the
• Actions to be taken to prevent the
report to the City of
Alameda and
affected
area(s).
release and spread of marine
applicable agencies.
invasive species, especially algal
species such as Undaria and
Sargasso.
• Procedures for the safe removal and
disposal of any invasive taxa
observed on the removed structures
prior to disposal or reuse of pilings,
docks, wave attenuators, and other
features.
• The onsite presence of a qualified
marine biologist to assist the
contractor in the identification and
proper handling of any invasive
species on removed equipment or
materials.
• A post -construction report identifying
which, if any, invasive species were
discovered attached to equipment
and materials following removal
from the water, and describing the
treatment/handling of identified
invasive species. Reports shall be
submitted to the City, as well as the
USCG and the RWQCB if requested
by the agencies.
Impact 13I0-3:
Mitigation Measure BI0-3a:
Submit to the City an
Project
Prior to
City of
Development
All dredging and in -water construction
approved plan and/or
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
facilitated by the
activities shall be consistent with the
required regulatory
designee
dredging and
proposed project
standards and procedures set forth in the
Permits showing
construction
would not have a
Long Term Management Strategy for
compliance with
permits within
substantial adverse
dredging in the San Francisco Bay
applicable
the affected
effect on federally
waters, a program developed by the
requirements as
in -water
protected wetlands,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE),
specked in the
areas.
'other waters', and
the Bay Conservation and Development
mitigation measure.
navigable waters as
Commission (BCDC), the Regional Water
defined by Sections
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the U.S.
404 and 10 of the
Environmental Protection Agency, (EPA),
Clean Water Act and
and other agencies, to guide the disposal
waters of the State
of dredge materials in an environmentally
through direct
sound manner.
removal, filling,
hydrological
Alameda Marina Master Plan -*)2 ESA/ 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action
plem
g Ps) artyentin
g Party
Timing
orin
Maty
P
g Party
interruption, or other
means.
Mitigation Measure 13I0 -3b:
Provide construction
Project
Prior to
City of
During project construction, best
specifications to City
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
management practices (BMPs) would be
Building Division for
designee
construction
applied to prevent potential pollutants
review and approval.
contracts
from entering the storm drain system
and/or
directly, reducing sediment or potentially
construction
hazardous runoff from entering receiving
bid materials.
waters. Examples of these measures
include covering trash receptacles and
car wash areas, regular sweeping of
paved surfaces, stenciling of storm drain
inlets, and installation of full trash
capture devices.
Alameda Marina Master Plan SJ ESA / 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
I
Monitorin
g Party
Impact BIO -4:
Mitigation Measure BI04:
Submittal of building,
Project
Pre-
City of
Development
The City shall require that the project
lighting, and
applicant or
construction
Alameda
facilitated by the
applicant retain a qualified biologist
structural plans to the
designee
: Prior to
proposed project
experienced with bird strike issues to
City Building Division
issuance of
would not interfere
review and approve the design of the
that meet the
building
with the movement
building to ensure that it sufficiently
requirements of the
permits for
of native resident or
minimizes the potential for bird strikes.
bird -strike avoidance
each project
migratory fish or
The City may also consult with resource
specifications as
phase. Post -
wildlife species or
agencies such as the California
specified in the
construction
with established
Department of Fish and Wildlife, U.S.
mitigation measure;
documentati
native resident or
Fish and Wildlife Service, or others, as it
preparation of
on: Prior to
migratory wildlife
determines to be appropriate during this
education materials
issuance of
corridors, or impede
review.
for future building
building
the use of native
The project applicant shall provide to the
occupants; peer
permits for
wildlife nursery sites.
City a written description of the
review and approval
each project
measures and features of the building
of all of the above by
phase.
design that are intended to address
a qualified biologist
potential impacts on birds. The design
with appropriate
shall include some of the following
expertise, with
measures or measures that are
oversight by City
equivalent to, but not necessarily
staff; documentation
identical to, those listed below, as new,
of all of the above as
more effective technology for addressing
specified in the
bird strikes may become available in the
mitigation measure.
future:
• Employ design techniques that
create "visual noise" via cladding or
other design features that make it
easy for birds to identify buildings as
such and not mistake buildings for
open sky or trees;
• Decrease continuity of reflective
surfaces using "visual marker"
design techniques, which
techniques may include:
— Patterned or fritted glass, with
patterns at most 28
centimeters apart,
— One-way films installed on
glass, with any picture or
pattern or arrangement that
can be seen from the outside
by birds but appear
transparent from the inside,
— Geometric fenestration
patterns that effectively divide
a window into smaller panes
of at most 28 centimeters,
and/or
— Decals with patterned or
abstract designs, with the
maximum clear spaces at
most 28 centimeters square.
• Up to 60 feet high on building
facades facing the shoreline,
decrease reflectivity of glass, using
design techniques such as plastic or
metal screens, light-colored blinds
or curtains, frosting of glass, angling
glass towards the ground, UV -A
glass, or awnings and overhangs;
Alameda Marina Master Plan 54 ESA/ 16004401
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
• Eliminate the use of clear glass on
opposing or immediately adjacent
faces of the building without
intervening interior obstacles such
that a bird could perceive its flight
path through the glass to be
unobstructed;
• Mute reflections in glass using
strategies such as angled glass,
shades, internal screens, and
overhangs; and
• Place new vegetation sufficiently
away from glazed building facades
so that no reflection occurs.
Alternatively, if planting of
landscapes near a glazed building
facade is desirable, situate trees
and shrubs immediately adjacent to
the exterior glass walls, at a
distance of less than three feet from
the glass. Such close proximity will
obscure habitat reflections and will
minimize fatal collisions by reducing
birds' flight momentum.
Lighting. The project applicant shall
ensure that the design and specifications
for buildings implement design elements
to reduce lighting usage, change light
direction, and contain light. These
include, but are not limited to, the
following general considerations that
should be applied wherever feasible
throughout the proposed project to
reduce night lighting impacts on avian
species:
• Avoid installation of lighting in areas
where not required for public safety
• Examine and adopt alternatives to
bright, all-night, floor -wide lighting
when interior lights would be visible
from the exterior or exterior lights
must be left on at night, including:
— Installing motion -sensitive
lighting
— Installing task lighting
— Installing programmable timers
— Installing fixtures that use
lower -wattage, sodium, and
yellow -red spectrum lighting.
• Install strobe or flashing lights in
place of continuously burning lights
for any obstruction lighting.
• Where exterior lights are to be left
on at night, install fully shielded
lights to contain and direct light
away from the sky.
Antennae, Monopole Structures, and
Rooftop Elements. The City shall
ensure, as a condition of approval for
every building permit, that buildings
minimize the number of and co -locate
Alameda Marina Master Plan 55 ESA 1160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2019
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
ProjectTreatment
rooftop -antennas and other rooftop
I
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
implementation
equipment, and that monopole structures
requirements within
designee
construction
would cause a
or antennas on buildings, in open areas,
the project plans for
contracts
substantial adverse
and at sports and playing fields and
each phase of project
and/or
change in the
facilities do not include guy wires.
development; provide
construction
significance of a
Educating Residents and Occupants.
construction
bid
historical resource
The City shall ensure, as a condition of
specifications to City
solicitation.
as defined in CEQA
approval for every building permit, that
Building Division for
Guidelines Section
the project applicant agrees to provide
review prior to
15064.5.
educational materials to building tenants,
construction bid
occupants, and residents encouraging
solicitation and/or
them to minimize light transmission from
contract finalization.
windows, especially during peak spring
Submit to the City a
Project
Prior to
City of
and fall migratory periods, by turning off
treatment plan for
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
unnecessary lighting and/or closing
approval that meets
designee
demolition
window coverings at night. The City shall
the requirements of
permits for
review and approve the educational
the mitigation; carry
affected
materials prior to building occupancy.
out the requirements
areas.
Documentation. The project applicant
of the approved plan;
and/or City shall document undertaking
provide evidence of
the activities described in this mitigation
completion.
measure and maintain records that
include, among others, the written
descriptions provided by the building
developer of the measures and features
of the design for each building that are
intended to address potential impacts on
birds, and the recommendations and
memoranda prepared by the qualified
biologist experienced with bird strikes
who reviews and approves the design of
any proposed projects to ensure that
they sufficiently minimize the potential for
bird strikes.
Cultural Resources
Impact CUL -1:
Mitigation Measure CUL -1a:
Placement of
Project
Prior to
City of
ProjectTreatment
of Historic Properties
specified mitigation
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
implementation
(Buildings 16 19 and 27). Alterations, to
requirements within
designee
construction
would cause a
the exteriors of Buildings 16, 19 and 27,
the project plans for
contracts
substantial adverse
shall conform to the Secretary of the
each phase of project
and/or
change in the
Interior's Standards for the Treatment of
development; provide
construction
significance of a
Historic Properties and Guidelines for
construction
bid
historical resource
Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring,
specifications to City
solicitation.
as defined in CEQA
and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, if
Building Division for
Guidelines Section
feasible (NPS, 1995) and PRC 5024.5.
review prior to
15064.5.
construction bid
solicitation and/or
contract finalization.
Mitigation Measure CUL -1b:
Submit to the City a
Project
Prior to
City of
Documentation. The project proponent
treatment plan for
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
shall prepare a treatment plan including
approval that meets
designee
demolition
but not limited to photo documentation
the requirements of
permits for
and public interpretation of the Alameda
the mitigation; carry
affected
Marina Historic District (Buildings 1, 4, 6,
out the requirements
areas.
12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 27, 28, 29, 31,
of the approved plan;
32, 33, 34, and the graving dock). Photo
provide evidence of
documentation will be overseen by a
completion.
Secretary of the Interior—qualified
architectural historian, documenting the
affected historical resource. in
Alameda Marina Master Plan ESA / 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action
plem
g Ps) artyentin
g Party
Timing
orin
Monity
g Party
accordance with the National Park
Service's Historic American Buildings
Survey (NABS) and/or Historic American
Engineering Record (HAER) standards.
Such standards typically include large -
format photography using (4x5)
negatives, written data, and copies of
original plans if available. The
HABS/HAER documentation packages
will be archived at local libraries and
historical repositories, as well as the
Northwest Information Center of the
California Historical Resources
Information System.
Mitigation Measure CUL -1c:
Submit to the City for
Project
Pre-
City of
Interpretive Display. Public
approval an
applicant or
construction
Alameda
interpretation of historical resources shall
interpretive plan that
designee
: Prior to
be provided and could include a plaque,
meets the
issuance of
kiosk, or other method of describing the
requirements of the
building
Alameda Marina Historic District's
mitigation; submit
permits for
historic or architectural importance to the
designs for
each project
general public. The design and
interpretive displays
phase. Post-
placement of the display(s) shall be
for approval; provide
construction
reviewed and approved by the City of
evidence of
documentati
Alameda Historic Advisory Board.
completion.
on: Prior to
issuance of
building
permits for
each project
phase.
Alameda Marina Master Plan J7 ESA/ 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
Impact CUL -2:
Mitigation Measure CUL -2a:
Submit plan for
Project
Prior toCity
of
Project construction
Archaeological Resources
approval that meets
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
could cause a
Management Plan. During the
the requirements of
designee
construction
substantial adverse
preliminary design for development
the mitigation
contracts
change in the
within the project area, and prior to
measure.
and/or
significance of an
submittal of a building permit or grading
construction
archaeological
application to the City of Alameda, the
bid
resource, including
project applicant shall undertake the
solicitation.
those determined to
following:
be a historical
resource defined in
0Preservation in Place. A qualified
Section 15064.5 or a
archaeologist, in consultation with
unique
the City of Alameda, the project
archaeological
applicant, and the appropriate
resource defined in
Native American representative(s)
PRC 21083.2.
shall determine whether
preservation in place of site CA -
ALA -11 is feasible. Consistent with
CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.4(b)(3), this may be
accomplished through planning
construction to avoid the resource;
incorporating the resource within
open space; capping and covering
the resource; or deeding the site
into a permanent conservation
easement.
If it is determined that preservation in
place is not feasible for the resource and
another type of mitigation would better
serve the interests protected by CEQA,
mitigation shall include testing and data
recovery through archaeological
investigations and the project applicant
shall undertake the following:
• Archaeological Resources
Management Plan. Because a
significant archaeological resource
(CA -ALA -11) has been previously
identified in the project area, the
project proponent shall retain a
Secretary of the Interior -qualified
archaeologist, in consultation with a
Native American representative(s),
to prepare and implement an
Archaeological Resources
Management Plan (ARMP). The
ARMP shall include a preliminary
testing program to identify the
types of expected archaeological
materials, the testing methods to
be used to define site boundaries
and constituents, and the locations
recommended for testing. The
purpose of the testing program will
be to determine to the extent
possible the presence or absence
of archaeological materials in the
proposed areas of disturbance for
the project and to determine
whether those materials contribute
to the significance of site CA -ALA -
11. If a significant contributing
element to the site is in the project
area, the project proponent shall
conduct a data recovery program
as outlined in the ARMP. The
Alameda Marina Master Plan
ARMP will include how the data 59
E
A( 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Reprt
recovery program would preservd4ar 2018
the significant information the
arrhaaninnir:al rasnurra is
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
Mitigation Measure CUL -2b:
Submit for approval a
Project
Prior to
City of
Inadvertent Discovery of
plan for inadvertent
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
Archaeological Resources. During
discovery;
designee
construction
construction outside of known
incorporate
contracts
archaeological site boundaries, if
requirements into the
and/or
prehistoric or historic -era cultural
design and
construction
materials are encountered, all
construction
bid materials.
construction activities within 100 feet
specifications;
shall halt and the City shall be notified.
demonstrate
Prehistoric archaeological materials
retainment of
might include obsidian and chert flaked-
qualified
stone tools (e.g., projectile points,
archaeologist to be
knives, scrapers) or toolmaking debris;
available in the event
culturally darkened soil ("midden")
of an inadvertent
containing heat -affected rocks, artifacts,
discovery; comply
or shellfish remains; and stone milling
with terms of
equipment (e.g., mortars, pestles,
Mitigation Measure
handstones, or milling slabs); and
CUL -2a if a discovery
battered stone tools, such as
is found to be
hammerstones and pitted stones.
potentially significant.
Historic -period materials might include
stone, concrete, or adobe footings and
walls; artifact filled wells or privies; and
deposits of metal, glass, and/or ceramic
refuse.
The project applicant shall ensure that a
Secretary of the Interior -qualified
archaeologist inspect the find within 24
hours of discovery. If the find is
determined to be potentially significant,
the archaeologist, shall follow the
guidelines provided in Mitigation
Measure CUL -2a above.
Alameda Marina Master Plan �9 ESA / 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
Impact CUL -3:
Mitigation Measure CUL -3:
Incorporate
Project
Prior to
I City of
Project construction
Inadvertent Discovery of Human
requirements into the
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
could disturb human
Remains. Pursuant to Section 7050.5 of
design and
designee
construction
remains, includingconstruction
the Health and Safety Code, and Section
contracts
those interred
5097.94 of the Public Resources Code of
specifications;
and/or
outside of formal
the State of California, the project
comply with
construction
cemeteries.
applicant shall ensure the following:
mitigation if remains
bid materials.
• Project construction personnel shall
are found.
be informed of the potential of
encountering human remains
during construction, and the proper
procedures to follow in the event of
the discovery of human remains
during construction.
• in the event of the discovery of
human remains during
construction, work shall stop in that
area and within 100 feet of the find.
The Alameda County Coroner shall
be notified and shall make a
determination as to whether the
remains are Native American. If the
Coroner determines that the
remains are not subject to their
authority, they shall notify the
Native American Heritage
Commission who shall identify
descendants of the deceased
Native American. If no satisfactory
agreement can be reached as to
the disposition of the remains
pursuant to this State law, then the
project applicant shall re -inter the
human remains and items
associated with Native American
burials on the property in a location
not subject to further ground
disturbance.
Alameda Marina Master Plan W ESA! 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
Impact CUL -4:
Mitigation Measure CUL -4:
Submit to the City for
Project
Pre-
City of
Project construction
Tribal Cultural Resources Interpretive
approval an
applicant or
construction
Alameda
could cause a
program. In consultation with the
interpretive plan that
designee
: Prior to
substantial adversemeets
affiliated Native American tribal
the
issuance of
change in the
representatives, the proposed project
requirements of the
building
significance of a
shall be redesigned so as to avoid any
mitigation; submit
permits for
Tribal Culturaldesigns
adverse effect on the significant tribal
for
each project
Resource as definedcultural
resource, if feasible. If
interpretive displays
phase. Post -
in Public Resourcesfor
preservation in place of the tribal cultural
approval; provide
construction
Code Section
resource is not a sufficient or feasible
evidence of
documentati
21074.
option, the project applicant shall
completion.
on: Prior to
or the environment
implement an interpretive program of the
issuance of
to hazardous
tribal cultural resource in consultation
building
materials from the
with affiliated tribal representatives. The
permits for
transport, use, or
plan shall identify, as appropriate,
each project
disposal of these
proposed locations for installations or
phase.
hazardous materials
displays, the proposed content and
and waste.
materials of those displays or installation,
the producers or artists of the displays or
Submit health and
Project
Prior to
City of
installation, and a long term maintenance
safety plan meeting
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
program. The interpretive program may
the requirements of
designee
building
include artist installations, preferably by
the mitigation
permits.
local Native American artists, oral
measure for review
histories with local Native Americans,
and approval by the
artifacts displays and interpretation, and
City Building
educational panels or other informational
Division.
displays.
Hazards and
Hazardous
Materials
Impact HAZA:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a:
Submit appropriate
Project
Prior to
City of
Demolition of the
Prior to issuance of any demolition
assessment, disposal
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
existing structures
permit, the project applicant shall submit
plans and/or permits
designee
demolition
on the project site
to the Alameda County Department of
to the City Building
permits.
which likely contain
Environmental Health a hazardous
Division.
hazardous building
building material assessment prepared
materials—such as
by qualified licensed contractors for any
lead-based paint,
structure intended for demolition
asbestos, and
indicating whether ACMs, LBP or lead-
PCBs—could
based coatings, and/or PCB -containing
potentially expose
equipment, are present.
workers, the public,
or the environment
to hazardous
materials from the
transport, use, or
disposal of these
hazardous materials
and waste.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1b:
Submit health and
Project
Prior to
City of
If the assessment required by Mitigation
safety plan meeting
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
Measure HAZAa indicates the presence
the requirements of
designee
building
of ACMs, LBP, and/or PCBs, the project
the mitigation
permits.
applicant shall create and implement a
measure for review
health and safety plan in accordance
and approval by the
with local, state, and federal
City Building
requirements to protect demolition and
Division.
construction workers and the public from
risks associated with such hazardous
materials during demolition or renovation
Alameda Marina Master Plan b 1 ESA 1160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure Action(s) Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
of affected structures.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1c: Submit appropriate Project
Pre-
City of
If the assessment required by Mitigation disposal plans and/or applicant or
demolition:
Alameda
Measure HAZ-1 a finds asbestos, the permits to the designee
Prior to
project applicant shall prepare an satisfaction of the
issuance of
asbestos abatement plan and shall City Building
demolition
ensure that asbestos abatement is Division. Submit
permits.
conducted by a licensed contractor prior remediation
Post -
to building demolition. Abatement of verification to the
demolition:
known or suspected ACMs shall occur satisfaction of the
Prior to
prior to demolition or construction City Building
issuance of
activities that would disturb those Division, in
building
materials. Pursuant to an asbestos compliance with
permits.
abatement plan developed by a state- applicable laws and
certified asbestos consultant and regulations.
approved by the City, all ACMs shall be
removed and appropriately disposed of
by a state certified asbestos contractor.
Alameda Marina Master Plan 62 ESA/ 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1d:
Submit appropriate
Project
Pre-
City of
If the assessment required by Mitigation
disposal plans and/or
applicant or
demolition:
Alameda
Measure HAZ-1 a finds presence of LBP,
permits to the
designee
Prior to
the project applicant shall develop and
satisfaction of the
issuance of
implement a LBP removal plan. The plan
City Building
demolition
shall specify, but not be limited to, the
Division. Submit
permits.
following elements for implementation:
remediation
Post -
1. Develop a removal
verification to the
demolition:
specification approved by a
satisfaction of the
City Building
Prior to
issuance of
Certified Lead Project
Division, in
building
Designer.
compliance with
permits.
2. Ensure that all removal
applicable laws and
workers are properly trained.
regulations.
3. Contain all work areas to
prohibit off-site migration of
paint chip debris.
4. Remove all peeling and
stratified LBP on building and
non -building surfaces to the
degree necessary to safely
and properly complete
demolition activities according
to recommendations of the
survey. The demolition
contractor shall be responsible
for the proper containment
and/or disposal of intact LBP
on all materials to be cut
and/or removed during the
demolition.
5. Provide on-site personnel and
area air monitoring during all
removal activities to ensure
that workers and the
environment are adequately
protected by the control
measures used.
6. Clean up and/or vacuum paint
chips with a high efficiency
particulate air (NEPA) filter.
7. Collect, segregate, and profile
waste for disposal
determination.
8. Properly dispose of all waste.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1e:
Submit appropriate
Project
Pre-
City of
If the assessment required by Mitigation
disposal plans and/or
applicant or _
demolition:
Alameda
Measure HAZAa finds presence of
permits to the
designee
Prior to
PCBs, the project applicant shall ensure
satisfaction of the
issuance of
that PCB abatement in compliance with
City Building
demolition
applicable regulations is conducted prior
Division. Submit
permits.
to building demolition or renovation.
remediation
Post -
PCBs shall be removed by a qualified
verification to the
demolition:
contractor and transported in accordance
satisfaction of the
Prior to
with Caltrans requirements.
City Building
issuance of
Division, in
building
compliance with
permits.
applicable laws and
regulations.
Impact HAZ-2:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2a:
Submit health and
Project
Prior to
City of
Alameda Marina Master Plan 63 ESA 1160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
Construction at the
Prior to issuance of any demolition
safety plan meeting
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
project site could
permit, the project applicant shall submit
the requirements of
designee
demolition
potentially disturb
to the City a Site -Specific Environmental
the mitigation
permits.
soil and
Health and Safety Plan (HASP). The
measure for review
groundwater
HASP shall be consistent with State and
and approval by the
impacted by
federal OSHA standards for hazardous
City Building
historical hazardous
waste operations (California Code of
Division.
material use, which
Regulations, Title 8, Section 5192 and
could expose
29 Code of Federal Regulations
construction
1910.120, respectively) and any other
workers, the public,
applicable health and safety standards.
or the environment
The HASP shall include descriptions of
to adverse
health and safety training requirements
conditions related to
for onsite personnel and levels of
the transport, use, or
personal protective equipment to be
disposal of
used, and any other applicable
hazardous materials
Precautions to be undertaken to
and waste.
minimize direct contact with soil and to a
lesser degree, groundwater if is
encountered. The HASP shall be
adhered to during construction and
excavation activities. All workers onsite
should read and understand the HASP
and copies shall be maintained onsite
during construction and excavation at all
times.
Alameda Marina Master Plan 64 ESA/ 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2b:
Submit appropriate
Project
Pre-
City of
Prior to issuance of a building or grading
plans to the
applicant or
demolition:
Alameda
permit for any ground breaking activities
satisfaction of the
designee
Prior to
within the project site, the project
City Building
issuance of
applicant shall prepare a Site
Division. Submit
demolition
Management Plan (SMP) consistent with
remediation
permits.
US EPA, DTSC, and Water Board
verification to the
Post -
standards for incorporation into
satisfaction of the
demolition:
construction specifications. The SMP
City Building
Prior to
shall be present on site at all times and
Division, in
issuance of
readily available to site workers. The
compliance with
building
SMP shall specify protocols and
applicable laws and
permits.
requirements for excavation, stockpiling,
regulations.
and transport of soil and for disturbance
of groundwater. At a minimum the SMP
shall include the following components:
1. Dust control measures: Dust
generation shall be minimized by
any or all appropriate measures.
These measures may include:
a. Misting or spraying water
while performing
excavation activities and
loading transportation
vehicles;
b. Limiting vehicle speeds
onsite to 5 miles per
hour;
C. Controlling excavation
activities to minimize the
generation of dust;
d. Minimizing drop heights
while loading
transportation vehicles;
and
e. Covering any soil
stockpiles generated as a
result of excavating soil
potentially impacted by
contaminants of concern
with plastic sheeting or
tarps.
2. Decontamination measures:
Decontamination methods shall
include scraping, brushing, and/or
vacuuming to remove dirt on
vehicle exteriors and wheels. In the
event that these dry
decontamination methods are not
adequate, methods such as steam
cleaning, high-pressure washing,
and cleaning solutions shall be
used, as necessary, to thoroughly
remove accumulated dirt and other
materials. Wash water resulting
from decontamination activities
shall be collected and managed in
accordance with all applicable laws
and regulations.
3. Stormwater pollution control
measures: Should rainfall occur
Alameda Marina Master Plan 67 ESA / 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
I plementin
g Party
Timing
g Pairin
rty
during construction on exposed
soils at the site stormwater pollution
controls shall be implemented to
minimize stormwater runoff from
exposed soil containing
contaminants of concern at the site
and to prevent sediment from
leaving the site, in accordance with
all laws and regulations.
Storrnwater pollution controls shall
be based on BMPs to comply with
State and local regulations.
Sediment and erosion protection
controls may include but are not
limited to:
a. Constructing berms or
erecting silt fences at
entrances to the project
site;
b. Placing straw bale
barriers around catch
basins and other
entrances to the storm
drains;
c. During significant rainfall
events, covering with
plastic sheeting or tarps
any soil stockpiles
generated as a result of
excavating soil potentially
impacted by
contaminants of concern.
4. Field screening of potential
contaminated soil and suspect
contamination discovery.-
iscovery.Potentially
Potentiallycontaminated soil shall
be either direct loaded using the
profile data associated with Stellar
Environmental Solutions' October
2015 report or stockpiled for
additional sampling and analyses to
define the contamination fate after
the excavation stage. If more the
one year elapses between the soil
profiling and the excavation stage
stockpiling, sampling may be
required by a regulated landfill.
Trained (with 40 -hour hazwopper
and associated updates)
environmental personnel shall be
onsite to do the stockpile sampling
and be on-call to deal with any
suspect contamination discovery.
Personnel will monitor for
potentially contaminated soils by
visual screening, noting any
contaminant odors, and utilizing a
photoionization detector (PID) to
field measure any VOCs during the
excavation activity. Monitoring
parameters shall be recorded at
intervals of approximately 1 hour or
less.
Alameda Marina Master Plan 66 ESA! 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Partyentin
g Party
g
Timing
Monit orin
g Party
y
Impact HAZ-5:
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3:
Submit appropriate
Project
Pre-
City of
Development of the
Prior to issuance of a building or grading
plans to the
applicant or
demolition:
Alameda
project would be
permit for any ground breaking activities
satisfaction of the
designee
Prior to
located on a site that
within the project site, the project
City Building
issuance of
is included on a list
applicant shall prepare a Remedial Risk
Division. Submit
demolition
of hazardous
Management Plan (RRMP). The RRMP
remediation
permits.
materials sites
shall be developed and followed by
verification to the
Post -
compiled pursuant
current and future owners, tenants, and
satisfaction of the
demolition:
to Government
operators. The RRMP shall include the
City Building
Prior to
Code
implementation of any needed corrective
Division, in
issuance of
Section 65962.5 and
action remedies and engineering design.
compliance with
building
could result in a
prevention and turf grass
applicable laws and
permits.
safety hazard to the
management that use pesticides as
regulations.
public or
a last resort in pest control. Types
environment through
and rates of fertilizer and pesticide
exposure to
application shall be specified.
previous
• The IPM shall specify methods of
contamination of soil
avoiding runoff of pesticides and
or groundwater.
nitrates into receiving storm drains
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD -4:
Mitigation Measure HYD -1:
Submit appropriate
Project
Prior to
City of
Development of the
The City shall ensure that future project
plan meeting the
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
proposed project
applicants implement Integrated Pest
requirements of the
designee
building
would not
Management measures to reduce
mitigation measure
permits.
substantially
fertilizer and pesticide contamination of
for review and
and/or
contribute to runoff
receiving waters, as follows:
approval by the City
water that would
Prepare and Implement an
Building Division.
exceed the capacity
Integrated Pest Management Plan
of existing or
(IPM) for all common landscaped
planned stormwater
areas. The IPM shall be prepared
drainage systems or
by a qualified professional and
provide substantial
shall recommend methods of pest
additional sources of
prevention and turf grass
polluted runoff.
management that use pesticides as
a last resort in pest control. Types
and rates of fertilizer and pesticide
application shall be specified.
• The IPM shall specify methods of
avoiding runoff of pesticides and
nitrates into receiving storm drains
and surface waters or leaching into
the shallow groundwater table.
Pesticides shall be used only in
response to a persistent pest
problem that cannot be resolved by
non -pesticide measures.
Preventative chemical use shall not
be employed.
• The IPM shall fully integrate
considerations for cultural and
biological resources into the IPM
with an emphasis toward reducing
pesticide application.
Noise
Impact N0I-1:
Mitigation Measure NOISE -1a:
Submit construction
Project
Prior to
City of
Construction of
The applicant shall create and implement
noise and vibration
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
proposed project
development -specific noise and vibration
management plan
designee
construction
elements could
reduction plans, which shall be enforced
meeting the
contracts
expose persons to
via contractspecifications. Contractors
requirements of the
and/or
Alameda Marina Master Plan . 67 ESA / 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
Timing
Monitorin
proposed project
To reduce the amount of VMT generated
Transportation
g Party
submittal of
g Party
or generate noise
may elect any combination of legal, non-
! mitigation measure to
designee
construction
levels in excess of
polluting methods to maintain or reduce
the City Building
bid
the City noise
noise and vibration to threshold levels or
Division for review
solicitation
standards or result
lower, as long as those methods do not
and approval;
j materials.
in a substantial
result in other significant environmental
incorporate
each project
temporary or
impacts or create a substantial public
requirements thereof
phase.
periodic increase in
nuisance. In addition, the applicant shall
into the project plans,
Submittal of
ambient noise levels
require contractors to limit construction
to the satisfaction of
in the project vicinity
activities to daytime hours between 7:00
the City Building
above levels existing
am and 7:00 pm Monday through Friday
Division.
without the project.
and 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturdays.
The plan for attenuating construction -
related noises shall be implemented prior
to the initiation of any work that triggers
the need for such a plan.
Mitigation Measure NOISE -1b:
Indicate specified
Project
Prior to
City of
To reduce pile driving noise, "vibratory"
requirements on
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
pile driving or drilled and cast -in-place
project plans and
designee
construction
piles shall be used wherever feasible.
requests for bids of
contracts
The vibratory pile driving technique,
preference for
and/or
despite its name, does not generate
vibratory pile driving
construction
vibration levels higher than the standard
techniques, subject
bid
pile driving technique. It does, however,
to review and
solicitation
generate lower, less -intrusive noise
approval by the City
materials.
levels.
Building Division.
Impact NOI-3:
Mitigation Measure NOISE -2a:
Submit indicated
Project
Prior to
City of
Traffic and
Acoustical studies, describing how the
acoustical studies to
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
equipment
exterior and interior noise standards will
City Building Division
designee
building
operations
be met, shall be required for all new
for review and
permits.
associated with the
residential or noise sensitive
approval, and
proposed project
developments exposed to environmental
demonstrated
could result in a
noise greater than CNEL 60 dBA, or
compliance with
substantial
one -family dwellings not constructed as
recommendations
permanent increase
part of a subdivision requiring a final map
therein required to
in ambient noise
exposed to environmental noise greater
meet the
levels in the vicinity
than CNEL 65 dBA. The studies should
specifications of the
or above levels
also satisfy the requirements set forth in
mitigation measure.
existing without the
Title 24, Section 1207, of the California
project.
Building Code, Noise Insulation
Standards, for multiple -family uses,
regulated by Title 24.
Mitigation Measure NOISE -2b:
Submittal of
Project
Prior to
City of
The applicant shall demonstrate through
acoustical studies to
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
its acoustical studies that the proposed
City Building Division
designee
building
project will comply with maximum noise
for review and
permits.
levels outlined in the City's Noise
approval, wherein
Ordinance and the average sound level
compliance with
goals outlined in the City's General Plan.
City's General Plan
can be verified.
Transportation and Traffic
Impact TRA -1: The
Mitigation Measure TRA -1:
Submit
Project
Initial
City of
proposed project
To reduce the amount of VMT generated
Transportation
applicant or
submittal of
Alameda
would not exceed
by the project, as well as the number of
Demand
designee
TDM(s): Prior
the regional VMT
automobile trips generated by the project
Management (TDM)
to issuance of
per capita minus 15
and to reduce automobile LOS impacts,
Plan for review and
building
percent.
the project shall prepare a
approval by the City
permits for
Transportation Demand Management
of Alameda; submit
each project
(TDM) Plan and funding program for
annual TDM
phase.
Planning Board review and approval.
monitoring plan for
Submittal of
Alameda Marina Master Plan 66 ESA/ 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
g Party
Timing
Monitorin
g Party
The TDM plan shall include the following
review and approval
TDM
measures to reduce VMT and vehicle
by the City of
monitoring
trips, particularly single -occupant vehicle
Alameda.
reports: On
trips, by project residents, workers, and
an annual
visitors.:
basis.
• All residents and employers at
Alameda Marina will pay annual
fees to support supplemental
transit services and trip reduction
services for the residents and
employees.
• All residents and employees will be
provided with AC Transit Easy
Passes, which will provide access
to all of AC Transit's services
including the San Francisco
express commuter buses. The cost
of the passes will be included in the
mandatory assessments on each
unit, which dis-incentives future
residents who prefer to drive alone
and do not want to use transit.
• Residents of the non-townhome
units, who wish to have cars, will
be required to lease parking
spaces on a monthly basis in a
shared parking lot or structure. The
cost of the parking will be
"unbundled" from the cost of the
residential unit, which provides a
financial incentive for residents to
reduce car ownership and take
advantage of the AC Transit
passes, which are "bundled" into
the cost of their residential units.
(The 162 townhomes will have
private parking.)
• The project residents will be
members of the Alameda
Transportation Management
Agency, which will provide
transportation information services
to all of the residents through a
TMA website and through annual
surveys of resident transportation
needs.
• The project will provide access to
car share and guaranteed ride
home services to make it easier for
residents and employees to reduce
their dependence on a private
automobile and increase use of
project -provided transit services.
• Resident annual assessments in
the Northern Waterfront area
currently fund supplemental
commute hour service on the AC
Transit Line 19, which provides
direct service to Fruitvale and 12th
Street BART stations. Future
assessments received from project
residents and employers will allow
for additional transit services and
Alameda Marina Master Plan 69 ESA 1 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Implementin
Timing
Monitorin
proposed project
Sewer Design. The project sponsors
the mitigation
g Party
issuance of
g Party
would not haveshall:
future water shuttle services
measure to the
designee
first
wastewater service
designed to serve the waterfront
satisfaction of the
occupancy
demands that would
developments along the Estuary in
City Department of
permit.
Alameda and Oakland and connect
the project sites to the regional
ferry services provided from Jack
London Square in Oakland and the
Main Street Terminal in Alameda.
Impact TRA -3: In
Mitigation Measure TRA -3:
Pay fees per the
Traffic
Per the terms
City of
the event that the
The project shall pay a fair share
requirements of the
study: City's
of the
Alameda
planned Clement
contribution to the cost of the Clement
mitigation.
traffic
mitigation.
Avenue extension is
Avenue extension from Atlantic Avenue
consultant.
not completed prior
to Grand Street. The fair share
Payment of
to project opening,
contribution shall be calculated based
fees: Project
the proposed project
upon a traffic study to calculate the fair
applicant or
could increase traffic
share contribution of each Northern
designee
volumes at
Waterfront development project including
intersections on
the Del Monte Warehouse Project, the
Buena Vista Avenue
Encinal Terminals Project, the Wind
such that traffic
River fifth building project, and Alameda
operations could
Marina, which will contribute traffic trips
deteriorate to
to the Clement Avenue Extension. The
substandard
City shall require all developers to
conditions.
contribute their fair share as determined
by the traffic study. The Alameda Marina
fair share contribution shall be paid on a
pro -rata basis for each residential phase
of the Alameda Marina project (number
of units in phase divided by total number
of units in project multiplied by the fair
share contribution). Each portion of the
fair share contribution shall be paid prior
to issuance of the first building permit for
the current residential phase if work on
the Clement Avenue extension has been
initiated by another developer of a
Northern Waterfront development
project. If the work has not been initiated
by another developer prior to issuance of
the first building permit for Alameda
Marina, the contribution shall be made
prior to issuance of the first residential
Certificate of Occupancy on the property.
Impact TRA -10:
Mitigation Measure TRA -4:
Submit design and
Project
Prior to
City of
Development
The project shall, consistent with the City
construction
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
facilitated by the
of Alameda Bicycle Master Plan, provide
specifications for
designee
construction
proposed project
a Class I bicycle path along the northern
pathway; incorporate
contracts
could potentially be
waterfront of the project site and ensure
pathway into the
and/or
inconsistent with
that the path would connect to adjacent
project plans, to the
construction
adopted polices,
future bicycle facilities.
satisfaction of the
bid
plans, and programs
City Building
solicitation
supporting
Division.
materials.
alternative
transportation.
Utilities and Service Systems
Impact UTL-2: The
Mitigation Measure UTL-2:
Comply with terms of
Project
Prior to
City of
proposed project
Sewer Design. The project sponsors
the mitigation
applicant or
issuance of
Alameda
would not haveshall:
1) Replace or rehabilitate any
measure to the
designee
first
wastewater service
existing sanitary sewer collection
satisfaction of the
occupancy
demands that would
systems, including sewer lateral lines, to
City Department of
permit.
Alameda Marina Master Plan 70 ESA / 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
TABLE 4-1 (CONTINUED)
ALAMEDA MARINA MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Impact
Mitigation Measure
Action(s)
Partyentin
g Party
9
Timing
Monit
orin g Party
y
result in a
ensure that such systems and lines are
Public Works and
determination by the
free from defects or, alternatively,
applicable utility
service provider that
disconnected from the sanitary sewer
providers.
it does not have
system; and 2) Ensure any new
adequate capacity to
wastewater collection systems, including
serve projected
new lateral lines, for the project are
demand,
constructed to prevent infiltration and
necessitating the
inflow (I&I) to the maximum extent
construction of new
feasible while meeting all requirements
or expanded
contained in the Regional Private Sewer
wastewater
Lateral Ordinance and applicable
treatment facilities.
municipal codes or City ordinances.
Alameda Marina Master Plan 7 I ESA! 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
Exhibit C
Planning Board Supplemental Information
Public Safety: The proposed project will not result in a public safety impact as the result
of additional congestion caused by the additional automobile trips added to the local and
regional transportation network.
An analysis of fire and police response times in Alameda over the last six years found
that although the City of Alameda has added additional housing units each year since
2012, there is no evidence of a correlation between housing production and emergency
response times in Alameda. Between 2012 and 2016, the average response times for
Priority 1 calls by the Police Department have varied annually by less than 60 seconds
and averaged around 2 minute and 30 seconds. Priority 2 calls varied annually by about
48 seconds and averaged around six minutes and 30 seconds. The response times vary
by year (i.e., some later years are lower than earlier years), but the response times do
not increase sequentially. Therefore there is no evidence that the variation in response
times is correlated to housing production or worsening traffic congestion.
During the same period (2012 to 2016), Fire Department response times also varied year
by year, but with no correlation to housing production. The Fire Department maintains a
response time target for all fire calls. The Department achieved its target 89.5% of the
time in 2012, 87.1 % in 2013, 91.8% in 2014, 87% of the time in 2015, and 89.9% of the
time in 2016. Emergency Medical Service calls showed a similar variability with no
correlation to housing projection. The Alameda Fire Department achieved its emergency
response goal 65.7% of the time in 2012, 67.6% in 2013 and 2014, 69.4% in 2015, and
66.9% in 2016. Finally, a comparison of 2016 Fire Department response times to 2017
Fire Department response times, shows that average response times decreased from
2016 to 2017, even though traffic got worse and the number of responses went up
between 2016 and 2017
An analysis of one year response times for the Fire Department in 2017 finds that
average response times do vary by time of day, but that there is not a clear correlation
between longer response times and commute hour traffic. The shortest average
response times (4 minutes and 36 seconds) occurred during the evening commute hours
between 5 pm and 7 pm. Response times during the non -commute period during middle
of the day (10 am to 5 pm) and during the nighttime hours (7:00 pm to 7:00 am) response
times were longer than during the evening commute hours. During the morning commute
hours (7 am to 9 am) the average response time was only 6 seconds longer than during
the evening hours (7 pm to 7 am).
The analysis also found that Alameda's emergency response time are faster than the
three other cities that were considered: Berkeley, San Francisco, and San Jose, and that
when cities wish to reduce response times they increase the budget for fire or police
departments.
In conclusion, although the City of Alameda has added additional housing units each year
since 2012 (see Annual Housing Report), there is no evidence of a correlation between
housing production and slower emergency response times in Alameda. Finally, it should
Alameda Marina Master Plan 12 ESA/ 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
be noted that each new housing unit in Alameda pays Development Impact Fees to fund
additional public safety facilities necessary to accommodate anticipated growth and
additional calls for service in Alameda.
Bay Farm Bridge: The project will not result in significant impacts to the Bay Farm
Island Bridge. The DER evaluated the additional automobile trips generated by the
project at all five access points to/from Alameda Island including the Bay Farm Bridge.
Figure 4.12-4 in the Draft EIR shows the project's trip distribution, and it shows the small
percentage of additional trips that would be generated by the project that would be using
the Bay Farm Island Bridge. The analysis findings were based upon the findings of the
Alameda County Transportation Commission Transportation Assessment Model.
Alternatives. As explained in Section 5.2.2 of the Draft EIR, the principal purpose of a
CEQA alternatives analysis is to "focus on alternatives to the project or its location which
are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the [proposed]
project." CEQA Guidelines 15126.6(b). Therefore, the alternatives selected for analysis
for this project were chosen based on their ability to avoid or minimize the identified
significant and unavoidable (SU) environmental impacts of the proposed project. Those
identified SU impacts included impacts to archaeological, historic, and tribal resources,
as well as to traffic. Avoiding or lessening those specific impacts was the basis for
deciding which alternatives to evaluate.
High School Enrollment: In 2016/17, Encinal High School had an enrollment of
approximately 1,050 students, which is less than the capacity of the high school.
Alameda Marina Master Plan 73 ESA! 160044.01
Final Environmental Impact Report May 2018
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular
meeting assembled on the 10th day of July 2018, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie, Vella
and Mayor Spencer — 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this 11th day of July 2018.
Lara Weisiger, Ci Jerk
City of Alameda
Approved as to Form:
JanOft. Kern, City Attorney
Citof Alameda