Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Final
195 HEGENBERGER ROAD HOTEL Focused Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for September 2014 Port of Oakland
Final
195 HEGENBERGER ROAD HOTEL Focused Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for September 2014Port of Oakland
350 Frank Ogawa Plaza Suite 300 Oakland, CA 94612 415.896.5900 www.esassoc.com
Los Angeles
Oakland
Olympia
Petaluma
Portland
Sacramento
San Diego
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
130713
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel i ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. Introduction 1-1 A. CEQA Process 1-1 B. Method of Organization 1-2
2. Agencies and Persons Commenting on the Draft EIR 2-1 A. Agencies and Persons Commenting in Writing 2-1
3. Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments 3-1 Letter 1: Unitehere! 3-2 Letter 2: Allen Matkins 3-8 Letter 3: State Clearinghouse 3-25
4. Revisions to the Draft EIR 4-1 A. Staff-Initiated Changes to the Draft EIR 4-1 B. Changes to the Draft EIR in Response to Comments 4-6
5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5-1 A. Introduction 5-1 B. Format 5-1 C. Enforcement 5-2
List of Tables 5-1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program 5-3
Table of Contents
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel ii ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
This page intentionally left blank
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 1-1 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
CHAPTER 1
A. CEQA Process On June 18, 2014 the Port of Oakland (Lead Agency) released for public review a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the proposed hotel at 195 Hegenberger Road (SCH# 2014031004). The minimum 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR began on June 18, 2014, and closed on August 4, 2014.
The Draft EIR for the proposed hotel at 195 Hegenberger Road (proposed project) together with this Response to Comments Document constitutes the Final EIR for the proposed project. The Final EIR is an informational document prepared by the Lead Agency that must be considered by decision-makers before approving the proposed project and that must reflect the Lead Agency’s independent judgment and analysis of the anticipated physical impacts of proposed project on the environment (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15090). California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines (Section 15132) specify the following:
The Final EIR shall consist of:
(a) The Draft EIR or a revision of that draft.
(b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR either verbatim or in a summary.
(c) A list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR.
(d) The responses of the Lead Agency to significant environmental points raised in the review and consultation process.
(e) Any other information added by the Lead Agency.
This document has been prepared pursuant to CEQA and in conformance with the CEQA Guidelines. This Response to Comments Document incorporates comments from public agencies and the general public, and contains appropriate responses by the Lead Agency to those comments. The Final EIR reflects the Port’s independent judgment and analysis.
1. Introduction
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 1-2 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
B. Method of Organization This EIR Response to Comments Document for the proposed project contains information in response to comments raised during the public comment period (June 18, 2014 through August 4, 2014).
This chapter, Introduction, describes the CEQA process and the organization of this Response to Comments Document.
Chapter 2, Agencies and Persons Commenting on the Draft EIR, lists all agencies, organizations, and persons that submitted written comments on the Draft EIR during the public review and comment period. The list also indicates the receipt date of each written correspondence.
Chapter 3, Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments, contains comment letters received during the review and comment period. The responses to the comments are provided following each letter. Numbering is used for each comment letter and the corresponding response.
Chapter 4, Revisions to the Draft EIR, contains text changes to the Draft EIR. Some changes were initiated by the Port; others were made in response to comments received on the Draft EIR.
Chapter 5, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, describes the identified mitigation measures and the responsible parties, tasks, and schedule for monitoring mitigation compliance.
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 2-1 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
CHAPTER 2
A. Agencies and Persons Commenting in Writing The following agencies, organizations and individuals submitted written comments on the Draft EIR during the public review period, or shortly thereafter. The minimum 45-day public review and comment period on the Draft EIR began on June 18, 2014, and closed at 5:00 p.m. on August 4, 2014. As noted in Letter 3, no letters were received from federal or State agencies.
Letter Person/Agency and Signatory Date
1 UNITEHERE!Taylor Hudson, Reach Analyst August 1, 2014
2 Allen Matkins David H. Blackwell August 4, 2014
3 Office of Planning and Research Scott Morgan, State Clearinghouse Director August 4, 2014
2. Agencies and Persons Commenting on the Draft EIR
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 2-2 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
This page intentionally left blank
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 3-1 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
CHAPTER 3
This chapter contains copies of the comment letters received during the public review period on the Draft EIR and the individual responses to those comments. Each written comment letter is designated with a number (1, 2, and 3) in the upper right-hand corner of the letter.
Within each written comment letter, individual comments are labeled with a number in the margin. Immediately following each comment letter is an individual response to each numbered comment. Where responses have resulted in changes to the Draft EIR, these changes also appear in Chapter 4 of this Response to Comments Document.
Comment Letter 1
1-1
1-2
Comment Letter 1
1-2cont.
1-3
1-4
Comment Letter 1
1-4cont.
3. Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 3-5 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
Letter 1: UNITEHERE! Taylor Hudson, Research Analyst
1-1 The comment suggests that the Draft EIR inadequately analyzes and discloses the potential impacts of the project related to greenhouse gases (GHG). The comments points out that the threshold of significance for GHG emissions is 1,100 metric tons of CO2e per year, and that the proposed project narrowly avoid reaching this threshold, at 1,073 metric tons per year. The GHG threshold was identified by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) as a numeric emissions level below which a project’s contribution to global climate change would be less than “cumulatively considerable”.1Consequently, projects that are below that threshold are considered to have a less-than-significant impact on the environment.
1-2 The comment notes that the breakdown of sources of GHG emissions as presented in the Draft EIR Appendix D indicates that the project would meet these levels with mitigation. Specifically, the proposed project would be required to “install high efficiency light” and “install high efficiency appliances,” and that mitigation is not presented in the impact discussion of the Draft EIR itself.
“Mitigated” emissions in the Appendix D report are the result of three considerations. The first element is the implementation of 2013 Title 24 building requirements. The CalEEMod model used to estimate project-related GHG emissions assumes that a project will meet the building code requirements of the 2008 Title 24 building requirements which were in effect at the time of the latest model release. Consequently, a required mitigation element was added to the air quality model to reflect the increased GHG savings associated with the implementation of 2013 Title 24 requirements as estimated by the California Department of Energy. Compliance with the 2013 Building Code (Title 24) will be required of the project by code and does not represent mitigation with respect to CEQA.
The other two mitigation elements of the model run (installation of high efficiency light and installation of high efficiency appliances) are not required of the project to achieve a GHG emission rate below the 1,100 metric ton per year of CO2e threshold. The CalEEMod model was rerun without these measures. Using these new parameters to reflect the current regulatory requirements, project-related GHG emissions increased from 1,073 metric tons per year to 1,079 metric tons per year. Consequently, the proposed project’s GHG emissions would still be less than significant without incorporation of these two originally modeled mitigation elements. A text revision is included herein to identify these updated emissions.
1 Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), 2009. Revised Draft Options and Justification Report,
CEQA Thresholds of Significance Air Quality Guidelines, October 2009. Available at www.baaqmd.gov.
3. Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 3-6 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
Table 4.B-3 of the Draft EIR is revised as indicated below:
TABLE 4.B-3 INCREMENT OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Total Emissions (MT)/Year
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
Area Sources <1 <0.01 <0.011 <1
Energy Sources 284291 0.01 <0.01 286293
Mobile Sources 745 0.03 <0.01 746
Solid Waste 15.6 0.92 <0.01 34.9
Water and Wastewater 4.71 <0.01 <0.01 5.67
Total 1,049 1,056 0.960.97 <0.01 1,0731,079 Threshold 1,100 Significant? No
Columns may not total precisely due to rounding. Rows do not total because last column (CO2e) accounts for global warming potential ofCH4 and N2O.
The last paragraph of Impact 4.B-1 is revised as indicated below:
As shown in Table 4.B-2, the sum of both direct and indirect GHG emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project would result in an estimated 1,073 1,079 metric tons per year of CO2e.2 This is less than the 1,100 metric ton per year threshold established by the BAAQMD. Operational GHG emissions would therefore be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.B-1 would ensure that the applicant employs feasible, effective measures to reduce GHG emissions during project construction.
1-3 The comment notes that the single largest source of the project’s operational GHG emission is mobile sources, or automobile trips. The comment questions the home-work trips for employees of 9.5 miles, and suggests that employees would come from as far away as Tracy, California.
The proposed project would have approximately 15 employees, and the Port of Oakland strongly encourages all businesses in their jurisdiction to employ residents of Oakland. However, as part of the analysis, assumptions had to be made, as the point of origin of potential future employees is indeterminate. Consequently, the CalEEMod model uses a regional commercial worker trip length for Alameda County specified by BAAQMD. The model assumes that 19 percent of project trips are commercial worker trips with an average trip length of 9.5 miles. This represents an average trip length.
Similarly, the model assumes that 62 percent of project trips are commercial customer trips with an average trip length of 7.3 miles. As a practical matter, a large number of
2 CO2e in all calculations of project impact include CO2, CH4 and N2O.
3. Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 3-7 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
customer trips will be from the adjacent airport rental car facilities less than one mile from the project site. Because a precise accounting of trip lengths associated with a hotel use is not a practical undertaking due to variables associated with myriad destinations of guests and points of origin of workers, the analysis uses the default regional trip lengths vetted by both the BAAQMD and the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. This approach is consistent with the standard and accepted methodology to analysis of GHG emissions, and is therefore appropriate and adequate under CEQA.
1-4 The comment suggests that the apparent parking shortage would increase GHG emissions by increasing vehicles miles travelled (i.e., cars that can’t find a parking space would continue to circulate). As presented in Chapter 4 of this Final EIR, Figure 4-1, the site plan has been revised to address the parking shortfall, and now a total of 151 parking spaces are allocated for the proposed project.
Comment Letter 2
2-1
Comment Letter 2
2-1cont.
2-2
2-3
Comment Letter 2
2-4
Comment Letter 2
2-4cont.
2-5
2-6
Comment Letter 2
2-6cont.
2-7
2-8
2-9
2-10
Comment Letter 2
2-11
2-12
2-13
Comment Letter 2
2-14
2-15
2-16
2-17
Comment Letter 2
2-18
2-19
2-20
2-21
2-22
Comment Letter 2
2-22cont.
2-23
2-24
3. Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 3-17 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
Letter 2: Allen Matkins David H. Blackwell
2-1 The comment referred to, and summarizes, Comments 2-4 through 2-24 in the letter attached to the commenter’s letter. See responses to Comments 2-4 through 2-24, below.
2-2 The comment suggests that GHG emissions which were calculated based on an estimated project-related daily vehicle trip generation rate of 880 vehicles would exceed 1,100 metric tons per year and represent a significant impact if daily vehicle trips were adjusted as reflected within the comment letter.
Neither the comment letter nor the supporting letter from the traffic engineering consultant (Richard Haygood of Boster, Kobayashi & Associates) identify any specific issues or shortcomings with regard to the vehicle trip generation estimates of the Draft EIR. Trip generation was estimated using ITE, Trip Generation Manual, 9th edition, 2012. This is an updated version of the default trip generation source used in the CalEEMod model which has been vetted by the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association. Consequently, no changes to the operational GHG estimates of the Draft EIR are warranted.
2-3 The comment states that the Draft EIR only evaluated two project alternatives and questions if a “reasonable range” was considered. Pursuant to CEQA GuidelinesSection 15126.6 the Draft EIR evaluated an alternative that could avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and feasibly attain most of its basic objectives. As described throughout Chapter 4 of the Draft EIR, there are no significant impacts that could not be mitigated to a less than significant level. As such, Alternative 2, the reduced site plan, was evaluated as it reduced the potential circulation and safety conflict between the proposed hotel and adjacent Harley Davidson building. No other impacts were identified that could be reduced by altering the site plan. Further, as described on page 5-9 of the Draft EIR, the project applicant explored multiple land use alternatives that were rejected because they did not meet project objectives. The project applicant does not own other land in the project vicinity that could accommodate a hotel development.
2-4 The comment describes the commenter’s interpretation of discrepancies among Figures 3-2, 3-3, and 3-4 of the location of the southeasterly property line and the northeasterly wall of the Harley Davidson building, and then claims that those discrepancies (1) make it difficult to determine the width of the access easement driveway, and (2) possibly cause the project’s impact on traffic flow and safety in the shared easement to be underestimated.
Figure 3-2 is presented in the Draft EIR to show the project site in relation to surrounding property, and is not meant to show engineering level detail. Figure 3-3 is revised as part of this Final EIR. As illustrated in the revised figure, the proposed driveway along the Harley Davidson easement at the southwestern corner of the hotel is removed and is
EXIS
TIN
G P
ARKI
NG
FO
R C
ARPE
NTE
RS’ U
NIO
N B
UIL
DIN
G
EXIS
TIN
G P
ARKI
NG
FO
R FR
ANC
ESC
O’S
RES
TAU
RAN
T
TO H
EGEN
BERG
ER R
D
EXIS
TIN
GH
ARLE
YDA
VIDS
ON
DEAL
ERSH
IP
EXISTING PARKINGFOR COMCAST
TO PARDEE DR
SO
UR
CE
: Lee
Gag
e &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc
.19
5 H
egen
berg
er R
oad
. 130
713
Figu
re 3
-3Pr
ojec
t Site
Pla
n
3. Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 3-19 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
replaced with additional parking. As such, Mitigation Measure 4.C-3 is no longer required to reduce circulation impacts. Further, the site plan now presents the dimensions of the shared driveway easement with Harley Davidson (27 feet by 230 feet).
Figure 3-4 is the landscaping plan, and is not revised as part of this Final EIR.
2-5 The comment describes the commenter’s interpretation of the discrepancy among Figures 3-3, 3-4, and 4.C-4 of the number of parking stalls along the southeasterly side of the project (across from the Harley Davidson building), and then claims that the two-stall discrepancy means that the project parking supply needs to be revised from 141 spaces (stated in the Draft EIR) to 139 spaces.
See revised Figure 3-3. As shown, reconfiguration of the circulation aisles and parking areas would result in a total of 151 parking space, 23 parking spaces along the shared access easement with Harley Davidson. Further, as illustrated in Figure 4-1 of this Final EIR, the proposed project would accommodate 33 of their required parking spaces along the project’s access easement from Pardee Drive. The alleged inconvenience of these spaces is not a CEQA issue: the parking spaces in question are within a reasonable walking distance of the hotel and are adequate to serve the project. Information about these parking spaces will be provided to customers as part of project operations.
2-6 The comment expresses an opinion that traffic analyses in EIRs for commercial development projects typically include level of service analysis of project site access driveway intersections, and that such analyses is necessary and essential for the subject EIR.
While a detailed analysis of site access driveway intersections can be conducted for an EIR analysis, it is not a requirement to provide a thorough analysis of potential project impacts, and in this case, the Port of Oakland (as Lead Agency) and its EIR/traffic consultant deems the level of detail presented in Section 4.C, Transportation and Circulation to be sufficient to identify all potential traffic impacts.
2-7 The comment expresses an opinion that Section 4.C, Transportation and Circulation of the Draft EIR requires more information to be presented about the project site access driveways, such as access restrictions, turning movement volumes, and levels of service.
In response to this comment, the first sentence of the third full paragraph on page 4.C-15 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:
Site access for to the proposed project would be made at from existing driveways on Hegenberger Road (all turning movements except left turns from Hegenberger Road, which are prohibited) and Pardee Drive.
See response to Comment 2-6 regarding the commenter’s request for level of service analysis of project site access driveways.
3. Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 3-20 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
2-8 The comment requests more information in Section 4.C, Transportation and Circulationof the Draft EIR to substantiate the statement on page 4.C-15 that the available sight distance for drivers exiting onto Hegenberger Road from project’s access driveway is acceptable.
In response to this comment, the second sentence of the third full paragraph on page 4.C-15 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:
Although pillars for the BART Airport Connector have been added in the median of Hegenberger Road, the available sight distance for drivers exiting from the project, field measured for this analysis, remains acceptable (i.e., no less than 315 feet, which is greater than the stopping sight distance standard (250 feet for the 35 miles per hour posted speed limit) set in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2014).
2-9 The comment requests more information in Section 4.C, Transportation and Circulationof the Draft EIR about potentially safety issues related to the project’s access driveway on Pardee Drive and the adjacent driveway exit for the Francesco Restaurant parking lot. The comment also requests evaluation of potential safety issues related to delivery trucks using the project’s Pardee Drive driveway.
The project’s access driveway on Pardee Drive would not be a new driveway, and as such interactions between vehicles using this driveway and the adjacent Francesco Restaurant driveway occur now, and it is reasonable to expect that the proposed project’s less-than-substantial trip generation would not cause increased traffic hazards at these driveways. The use of the existing 24-foot-wide driveway by delivery trucks (on average nine feet wide) also would not cause increased traffic hazards because two 12-foot lanes are standard and sufficient for two-way traffic flow.
2-10 The comment expresses an opinion about required analyses related to on-site circulation, with reference to detailed comments presented next in the comment letter.
See responses to Comments 2-11 through 2-16.
2-11 The comment expresses an opinion that traffic conflicts would occur at on-site intersections of circulation aisles and driveway approaches, and requests that those potential conflicts be assessed.
The series of on-site circulation aisles and driveway approaches that project-generated traffic would interact with are all existing circulation features used by traffic generated by the Harley Davidson, Carpenters’ Union, and Comcast buildings. The circulation aisles are wide enough, and sight lines are clear enough, to safely accommodate traffic flow, and the proposed project’s less-than-substantial trip generation would not cause increased traffic hazards.
3. Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 3-21 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
2-12 The comment refers back to Comment 2-4 (about the access easement shared by the proposed project and Harley Davidson), and questions whether there would be sufficient width to allow vehicles parked in the easement to safely maneuver out of the parking spaces.
See response to Comment 2-4 about revised project site plans, which clear up the seeming discrepancies, stated by the commenter, among the figures in the Draft EIR. As shown revised Figure 3-3, the existing driveway within the access/parking easement is 27 feet wide. That width, not including the added width between the easement and the wall of the Harley Davidson building is clearly enough to accommodate parking maneuvers (usually 26 feet drive aisles for perpendicular parking).
2-13 The comment expresses opinions about the Draft EIR analysis (Impact 4.C-3) of the potential increased hazards related to the project’s proposed circulation between on-site parking areas and the access/parking easement area.
See response to Comment 2-4 regarding revisions to Figure 3-3 in the Draft EIR, and how, as illustrated in the revised figure, the proposed driveway along the Harley Davidson easement at the southwestern corner of the hotel is removed, and circulation impacts are reduced to less than significant. As such, Mitigation Measure 4.C-3 is no longer required to reduce circulation impacts.
2-14 The comment expresses an opinion that project-generated traffic during off-peak hours would be similar to the project’s a.m. and p.m. peak traffic hours, and requests that project impacts to on-site circulation driveways during hours of the day other than the peak hours be assessed.
See responses to Comments 2-9 and 2-11 regarding project effects to on-site circulation driveways, and the proposed project’s less-than-substantial trip generation. Absent site-specific information to the contrary, peak-hour traffic conditions are typically analyzed in traffic studies because that is when a project’s traffic will normally have the greatest effect on the environment, given that the peak hours are when traffic volumes are typically greatest on surrounding streets. No data or other facts or information is provided by the comment that indicates that Project-generated traffic during off-peak hours would be greater than the peak-hour traffic used in the Draft EIR analysis, and no further assessment is warranted.
2-15 The comment states the site plans fail to identify loading zones for delivery vehicles. Like similar hotel developments, the operator only expects delivery trucks such as parcel delivery trucks (i.e., FedEx and UPS) and other comparably sized vehicles once the hotel is operational. There would be no need for large (e.g., semi-trailer) truck deliveries to the hotel. As such, the delivery trucks, whose frequency would not be substantial for hotel operations, are expected to load and unload in the porte-cochere and bring deliveries to the front desk.
3. Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 3-22 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
2-16 The comment states that Mitigation Measure 4.C-3 would prevent access to the rear of the hotel for delivery vehicles. See response to Comment 2-4.
2-17 The comment expresses an opinion that the Draft EIR analysis of potential impacts for emergency vehicle access is insufficient, given the height of the proposed hotel, the proposed on-site circulation, and project-generated traffic.
There are other buildings in the project area of similar heights (e.g., the six-story Red Lion Hotel and the four-story Holiday Inn), and there is no reason why the fire department’s response to a fire at the proposed hotel would be any different than its response to a fire that those similarly-height buildings. Moreover, the Oakland Fire Department would review the project plans during the plan check process to ensure compliance with Fire Code provisions for access and life safety. See also responses to Comments 2-9 and 2-11 regarding project effects to on-site circulation driveways, and the proposed project’s less-than-substantial trip generation.
2-18 The comment expresses opinions about the Draft EIR analysis (Impact 4.C-1) of the potential impacts associated with project construction.
There is no inconsistency between the two cited statements. As stated on page 4.C-11 of the Draft EIR, no soil would be imported to or exported from the site; all excavated material would be utilized onsite. As also stated on page 4.C-11 of the Draft EIR, there would be delivery of materials, and removal of construction debris (non-soil), throughout the construction period. These truck movements, temporary, intermittent, and spread over the course of those days when those activities occur, are included in the Draft EIR analysis of potential impacts and identification of appropriate mitigation measures.
As stated on page 4.C-11 of the Draft EIR, parking for construction workers would be located onsite or in immediately adjacent parking areas (i.e., in the shared access/parking easements).
To provide clarity for the commenter, the second full paragraph on page 4.C-11 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:
Construction-generated traffic would be temporary, and therefore, would not result in any long-term degradation in operating conditions on any project roadways (including on-site circulation paths/driveways). The impact of construction-related traffic would be a temporary and intermittent lessening of the capacities of project area streets (and on-site circulation paths/driveways) because of the slower movements and larger turning radii of construction trucks compared to passenger vehicles. However, given the location of the project site on a major arterial (Hegenberger Road), and proximity to I-880, construction trucks would have relatively easy and direct routes. Most construction traffic would be dispersed throughout the day. Thus, the temporary increase would not
3. Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 3-23 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
significantly disrupt traffic flow on any of the study area roadways (and on-site circulation paths/driveways).
2-19 The comment requests that adjacent property owners be included in the development of the project’s construction management plan required as part of Mitigation Measure 4.C-1.
The Port has jurisdiction over project approval, including review and approval of the project’s construction management plan, and may not delegate this authority to others. However, Port staff may consult with other parties as necessary, including nearby property owners and occupants. By virtue of its comments on the Draft EIR, the commenter has made its concerns known to Port staff.
2-20 The comment requests an additional item be part of the project’s construction management plan, as part of Mitigation Measure 4.C-1.
In response to the comment, the following additional bullet is added to the items and requirements list in Mitigation Measure 4.C-1:
Identification of parking areas for construction workers, and staging areas for construction vehicles, equipment and materials;
2-21 The comment requests revision to the last bullet listed for the construction management plan required as part of Mitigation Measure 4.C-1.
In response to the comment, the last bullet of the items and requirements list in Mitigation Measure 4.C-1 is revised as follows:
Provisions for monitoring surface streets, including driveway aprons and on-site circulation driveways, used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant.
2-22 The comment expresses an opinion that the proposed supply of parking for the project is insufficient. See response to Comment 2-5 about the revised site plan (Figure 3-3). The revised plan provides sufficient parking for the project per the LUDC parking requirements.
2-23 The comment requests clarification of the “13 reciprocal spaces adjacent to the driveway easement from Hegenberger Road” (as described on page 3-7 of the Draft EIR).
The 13 reciprocal parking spaces in question are not along the western side of the commenter’s building. Rather, these spaces are part of a recorded title report easement with the Harley Davidson property. As shown in Figure 4-1, these spaces are along the north side of the Harley Davidson building, and are accessed from the driveway that is perpendicular to Hegenberger Road. Because the peak parking demand for the hotel is at night, and the peak parking demand for motorcycle sales is during the day, a shared parking configuration is acceptable to the Port and meets the LUDC requirements.
3. Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 3-24 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
Further, the 13 spaces represent less than 12 percent of the total required spaces, and thus would not be expected to cause secondary impacts if they were unavailable to either party.
2-24 The comment expresses an opinion that the estimated parking demand (page 4.C-20 of the Draft EIR) should be rounded up from the calculated demand regardless of whether the calculated demand (taken out to the tenth place) is less than or greater than 0.5 space. The comment also revisits the issue of the “13 reciprocal spaces” raised in Comment 2-23.
The Port of Oakland, and its EIR/traffic consultant, respectfully disagree that parking demand should be rounded up if the calculated demand (taken to the tenth place) is less than 0.5 space. See response to Comments 2-5 and 2-23 about the revised parking supply and the “13 reciprocal spaces”.
Comment Letter 3
3-1
Comment Letter 3
3. Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 3-27 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
Letter 3: State Clearinghouse Scott Morgan, Director
3-1 The comment states that the review period for the state agencies closed on August 1, 2014 and no state agencies submitted comments by that date. The comment is noted.
3. Written Comments on the Draft EIR and Responses to Comments
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 3-28 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
This page intentionally left blank
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 4-1 ESA / 130714 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
CHAPTER 4
The following revisions are made to the Draft EIR and incorporated as part of the Final EIR. Revised or new language is underlined. Deleted language is indicated by strikethrough text.
The revisions in this chapter do not identify any new significant impacts other than those already identified in the Draft EIR, nor do they reveal any substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact in comparison to the analyses contained in the Draft EIR. The revisions also do not describe any project impact or mitigation measure that is considerably different from those identified in the Draft EIR. Accordingly, the revisions in this chapter do not constitute “significant new information” and it is therefore not necessary for the Lead Agency to recirculate the EIR for public comment prior to certification of the Final EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5).
Section A, below, identifies staff-initiated changes made to the Draft EIR. Section B identifies changes made to the EIR in response to comments received.
A. Staff-Initiated Changes to the Draft EIR The text changes presented in this section were initiated by Lead Agency staff. None of the revisions results in fundamental alterations of the conclusions of the Draft EIR. The following text changes have been made:
The following text is the second to the last paragraph on page 3-4 of the Draft EIR to reflect changes to the site plan:
The project sponsor proposes to construct a five-story, 140-room hotel on an approximately 1.95 acre (84,953 sq. ft.) parcel at 195 Hegenberger Road. The proposed hotel would be a free-standing 65-foot tall structure and would include parking for 141 151 vehicles (Figure 3-3).
Figure 3-3 on page 3-6 of the Project Description is replaced to address the parking shortfall. Figure 4-1 is included herein to future illustrate changes to the site plan.
EXIS
TIN
G P
ARKI
NG
FO
R C
ARPE
NTE
RS’ U
NIO
N B
UIL
DIN
G
EXIS
TIN
G P
ARKI
NG
FO
R FR
ANC
ESC
O’S
RES
TAU
RAN
T
TO H
EGEN
BERG
ER R
D
EXIS
TIN
GH
ARLE
YDA
VIDS
ON
DEAL
ERSH
IP
EXISTING PARKINGFOR COMCAST
TO PARDEE DR
SO
UR
CE
: Lee
Gag
e &
Ass
ocia
tes,
Inc
.19
5 H
egen
berg
er R
oad
. 130
713
Figu
re 3
-3Pr
ojec
t Site
Pla
n
EXISTING PARKING FOR CARPENTERS’ UNION BUILDING
EXISTING PARKING FOR FRANCESCO’S RESTAURANT
TO HEGENBERGER RD
EXISTINGHARLEY
DAVIDSONDEALERSHIP
EXIS
TIN
G P
ARKI
NG
FOR
CO
MC
AST
TO P
ARDE
E DR
SOURCE: Lee Gage & Associates, Inc.195 Hegenberger Road . 130713
Figure 4-1Revised Site Plan
4. Revisions to the Draft EIR
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 4-4 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
The first paragraph on page 3-7 has been edited to reflect changes to the site plan (also see revisions in Figure 4-2):
The ground floor of the hotel would include a public lobby, 16 guest rooms, a 69-seat meeting room (1035 sq. ft.) an 80-seat meeting room (1,938 sq. ft.), a lounge and bar, restaurant and buffet area, exercise room, an outdoor swimming pool, and an outside patio. The building would also provide an employee break room, laundry, food preparation area, offices, miscellaneous work areas, electrical and mechanical rooms, and various storage rooms. Access to the upper stories would be provided by two centrally–located elevators and stairways at the east and south ends of the L–shaped building.
The last paragraph on page 3-7 has been edited to reflect changes to the site plan:
Parking would be located on all four sides of the building. A total of 151 141 off-street parking spaces would be provided, including 97 89 full–size spaces, 36 34 compact spaces, 5 handicap spaces, and 13 reciprocal spaces adjacent to the driveway easement from Hegenberger Road, to be shared with the business located immediately east of the project site. A porte-cochere1 would cover the primary building entrance on the north side of the building. An enclosed trash and recyclables collection area would be located in the southeast corner of the site. Vehicular access to the proposed hotel from Hegenberger Road and Pardee Drive would be via access easements shared between the project site and neighboring parcels.
The following text has been altered starting with the last paragraph on page 4.C-14, and again on page 4.C-15 of the Draft EIR to reflect changes to the site plan:
Onsite circulation in the parking easement between the existing Harley Davidson dealership located at 151 Hegenberger Road and the proposed hotel would be altered with the addition of the proposed project. Under existing conditions the area is used by Harley Davidson for employee parking, delivery truck access and as a practice area for motorcycle customers. The proposed project would alter the parking along the shared easement to accommodate hotel guest parking, introducing additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic to the area. This is a less than significant impact, as only vehicles parked in the parking spaces along the shared easement, would be using the shared easement. The circulation, as shown on the site plan (see Figure 3-3 in Chapter 3, Project Description), would allow vehicles at the rear of the hotel to enter and exit the parking area through the easement area between the two properties, and hotel guest to park along the south side of the hotel, between the hotel itself and the Harley Davidson dealership. This would allow hotel patrons parking at the rear of the hotel (and, potentially, trucks and other vehicles making deliveries and service calls to
1 A covered main entrance to the building for vehicles to pass through.
SO
UR
CE
: Lee
Gag
e A
ssoc
iate
s, I
nc.
195
Heg
enbe
rger
Roa
d . 1
3071
3
Figu
re 4
-2R
evis
ed F
loor
Pla
n
4. Revisions to the Draft EIR
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 4-6 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
the hotel) to exit the site and turn left in to the service area behind (north of) the Harley Davidson building. In addition, hotel guests parked along the south side of the hotel would also travel in this access easement between the two buildings. Because of the potential conflicts that could develop between hotel traffic and Harley Davidson traffic in this relatively confined area, this is considered a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.C-3 would reduce the amount of vehicular traffic that would use the shared easement to the parking along the easement on the south side of the hotel. Reducing the potential number of conflicts would reduce the impact to less-than-significant levels. The mitigation measure is illustrated in Figure 4.C-4.
Mitigation Measure 4.C-3: The proposed project site plan will be altered to include removable bollards, a gate, or similar traffic control device for the driveway at the rear of the hotel (southwest corner of the property) which would eliminate hotel traffic exiting or entering hotel parking through the shared Harley Davidson easement. The traffic control device will be designed to maintain emergency access.
If the traffic control device will be removed in the future, the project applicant will submit a technical memorandum prepared by a licensed traffic engineer or certified transportation planner that documents that the circulation impact no longer exists.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than Significant None required.
B. Changes to the Draft EIR in Response to Comments The text changes presented in this section were initiated by comments on the Draft EIR. None of the revisions results in fundamental alterations of the conclusions of the Draft EIR. The following text changes have been made:
The following edits have been made to Table 4.B-3 of the Draft EIR:
TABLE 4.B-3 INCREMENT OPERATIONAL GHG EMISSIONS
Emission Source
Total Emissions (MT)/Year
CO2 CH4 N2O Total CO2e
Area Sources <1 <0.01 <0.011 <1Energy Sources 284291 0.01 <0.01 286293 Mobile Sources 745 0.03 <0.01 746Solid Waste 15.6 0.92 <0.01 34.9 Water and Wastewater 4.71 <0.01 <0.01 5.67Total 1,049 1,056 0.960.97 <0.01 1,0731,079Threshold 1,100Significant? No
Columns may not total precisely due to rounding. Rows do not total because last column (CO2e) accounts for global warming potential of CH4 and N2O.
4. Revisions to the Draft EIR
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 4-7 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
The last paragraph of Impact 4.B-1 is revised as indicated below:
As shown in Table 4.B-2, the sum of both direct and indirect GHG emissions resulting from operation of the proposed project would result in an estimated 1,073 1,079 metric tons per year of CO2e.2 This is less than the 1,100 metric ton per year threshold established by the BAAQMD. Operational GHG emissions would therefore be less than significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.B-1 would ensure that the applicant employs feasible, effective measures to reduce GHG emissions during project construction.
[Comment 1-2]
The first sentence of the third full paragraph on page 4.C-15 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:
Site access for to the proposed project would be made at from existing driveways on Hegenberger Road (all turning movements except left turns from Hegenberger Road, which are prohibited) and Pardee Drive.
[Comment 2-4]
The second sentence of the third full paragraph on page 4.C-15 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:
Although pillars for the BART Airport Connector have been added in the median of Hegenberger Road, the available sight distance for drivers exiting from the project, field measured for this analysis, remains acceptable (i.e., no less than 315 feet, which is greater than the stopping sight distance standard (250 feet for the 35 miles per hour posted speed limit) set in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Caltrans, 2014).
[Comment 2-8]
The second full paragraph on page 4.C-11 of the Draft EIR is revised as follows:
Construction-generated traffic would be temporary, and therefore, would not result in any long-term degradation in operating conditions on any project roadways (including on-site circulation paths/driveways). The impact of construction-related traffic would be a temporary and intermittent lessening of the capacities of project area streets (and on-site
2 CO2e in all calculations of Project impact include CO2, CH4 and N2O.
4. Revisions to the Draft EIR
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 4-8 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
circulation paths/driveways) because of the slower movements and larger turning radii of construction trucks compared to passenger vehicles. However, given the location of the project site on a major arterial (Hegenberger Road), and proximity to I-880, construction trucks would have relatively easy and direct routes. Most construction traffic would be dispersed throughout the day. Thus, the temporary increase would not significantly disrupt traffic flow on any of the study area roadways (and on-site circulation paths/driveways).
[Comment 2-18]
The last bullet of the items and requirements list in Mitigation Measure 4.C-1 is revised as follows:
Provisions for monitoring surface streets, including driveway aprons and on-site circulation driveways, used for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project applicant.
[Comment 2-21]
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 5-1 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
CHAPTER 5 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
A. Introduction When approving projects with Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) that identify significant impacts, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to adopt monitoring and reporting programs or conditions of project approval to mitigate or avoid the identified significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1)). A public agency is required to ensure that the measures are fully enforceable, through permit conditions, agreements, or other means (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(b)). The mitigation measures required by a public agency to reduce or avoid significant project impacts not incorporated into the design or program for the project may be made conditions of project approval as set forth in a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The program must be designed to ensure project compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation.
The MMRP includes the mitigation measures identified in the EIR required to address the significant impacts associated with the proposed project. The required mitigation measures are summarized in this program; the full text of the impact analysis and mitigation measures is presented in the Draft EIR in Chapter 2, Summary, except as revised in this Final EIR. No mitigation measures were revised as part of the Final EIR; however, Mitigation Measure 4.C-3, was deleted as it was no longer needed to reduce circulation impacts due to the changes to the site plan (see Figure 3-3, in Chapter 3 of this Final EIR).
B. Format The MMRP is organized in a table format (see Table 5-1), keyed to each significant impact and each EIR mitigation measure. Only mitigation measures adopted to address significant impacts are included in this program. Each mitigation measure is set out in full, followed by a tabular summary of monitoring requirements. The column headings in the tables are defined as follows:
Mitigation Measures: This column presents the mitigation measure identified in the EIR.
Implementation Responsibility: This column identifies the person/group responsible for implementation of the migration measure.
Monitoring Responsibility: This column contains an assignment of responsibility for the monitoring and reporting tasks.
5. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
195 Hegenberger Road Hotel 5-2 ESA / 130713 Final Environmental Impact Report September 2014
Monitoring and Reporting Action: This column refers the outcome from implementing the mitigation measure.
Mitigation Schedule: The general schedule for conducting each mitigation task, identifying where appropriate both the timing and the frequency of the action.
Verification of Compliance: This column may be used by the lead agency to document the person who verified the implementation of the mitigation measure and the date on which this verification occurred.
C. Enforcement If the proposed project is approved, the MMRP would be incorporated as a condition of such approval. Therefore, all mitigation measures for significant impacts must be carried out in order to fulfill the requirements of approval. A number of the mitigation measures would be implemented during the course of the development review process. These measures would be checked on plans, in reports, and in the field prior to construction. Most of the remaining mitigation measures would be implemented during the construction or project implementation phase and verified within a quarterly monitoring report.
5. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Pro
gram
195
Heg
enbe
rger
Roa
d H
otel
5-3
ES
A /
1307
13
Fina
l Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Sep
tem
ber 2
014
TAB
LE 5
-1
MIT
IGA
TIO
N M
ON
ITO
RIN
G A
ND
REP
OR
TIN
G P
RO
GR
AM
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Impl
emen
tatio
n R
espo
nsib
ility
M
onito
ring
Res
pons
ibili
ty
Mon
itorin
g an
d
Rep
ortin
g A
ctio
n M
onito
ring
Sche
dule
Ve
rific
atio
n of
C
ompl
ianc
e
A. A
ir Qu
ality
M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
4.A
-1: T
he fo
llow
ing
BA
AQ
MD
Bes
t M
anag
emen
t Pra
ctic
es fo
r par
ticul
ate
cont
rol w
ill b
e re
quire
d fo
r all
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
with
in th
e pr
ojec
t site
. The
se m
easu
res
will
re
duce
par
ticul
ate
emis
sion
s pr
imar
ily d
urin
g so
il m
ovem
ent,
grad
ing
and
dem
oliti
on a
ctiv
ities
by
also
dur
ing
vehi
cle
and
equi
pmen
t mov
emen
t on
unpa
ved
proj
ect s
ites:
1. A
ll ex
pose
d su
rface
s (e
.g.,
park
ing
area
s, s
tagi
ng a
reas
, soi
l pi
les,
gra
ded
area
s, a
nd u
npav
ed a
cces
s ro
ads)
sha
ll be
w
ater
ed tw
o tim
es p
er d
ay.
2. A
ll ha
ul tr
ucks
tran
spor
ting
soil,
san
d, o
r oth
er lo
ose
mat
eria
l off-
site
sha
ll be
cov
ered
. 3.
All
visi
ble
mud
or d
irt tr
ack-
out o
nto
adja
cent
pub
lic ro
ads
shal
l be
rem
oved
usi
ng w
et p
ower
vac
uum
stre
et s
wee
pers
at l
east
on
ce p
er d
ay. T
he u
se o
f dry
pow
er s
wee
ping
is p
rohi
bite
d.
4. A
ll ve
hicl
e sp
eeds
on
unpa
ved
road
s sh
all b
e lim
ited
to 1
5 m
ph.
5. A
ll ro
adw
ays,
driv
eway
s, a
nd s
idew
alks
to b
e pa
ved
shal
l be
com
plet
ed a
s so
on a
s po
ssib
le. B
uild
ing
pads
sha
ll be
laid
as
soon
as
poss
ible
afte
r gra
ding
unl
ess
seed
ing
or s
oil b
inde
rs a
re
used
.6.
Idl
ing
times
sha
ll be
min
imiz
ed e
ither
by
shut
ting
equi
pmen
t off
whe
n no
t in
use
or re
duci
ng th
e m
axim
um id
ling
time
to 5
min
utes
(a
s re
quire
d by
the
Cal
iforn
ia a
irbor
ne to
xics
con
trol m
easu
re
Title
13,
§ 2
485
of C
alifo
rnia
Cod
e of
Reg
ulat
ions
[CC
R]).
Cle
ar
sign
age
shal
l be
prov
ided
for c
onst
ruct
ion
wor
kers
at a
ll ac
cess
po
ints
. 7.
All
cons
truct
ion
equi
pmen
t sha
ll be
mai
ntai
ned
and
prop
erly
tu
ned
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith m
anuf
actu
rer’s
spe
cific
atio
ns. A
ll eq
uipm
ent s
hall
be c
heck
ed b
y a
certi
fied
mec
hani
c an
d de
term
ined
to b
e ru
nnin
g in
pro
per c
ondi
tion
prio
r to
oper
atio
n.
Pro
ject
spo
nsor
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) w
ill p
repa
re a
Con
stru
ctio
n A
ir P
ollu
tant
co
ntro
l Pla
n th
at a
dher
es to
all
spec
ifica
tions
in th
is m
easu
re
BA
AQ
MD
; Mon
arch
E
quity
Inve
stm
ents
, In
c.
Ver
ify in
clus
ion
of d
ust
cont
rol m
easu
res
in
appl
icab
le c
onst
ruct
ion
plan
s an
d sp
ecifi
catio
ns;
field
insp
ectio
ns
Ver
ify d
esig
natio
n of
a
dust
con
trol p
rogr
am
mon
itor a
s sp
ecifi
ed in
m
easu
re
Insp
ect c
onst
ruct
ion
site
to
verif
y du
st c
ontro
l pro
gram
m
easu
res
are
enac
ted.
Incl
ude
verif
icat
ion
in
quar
terly
mon
itorin
g re
port.
Prio
r to
issu
ance
of
grad
ing
build
ing
perm
it(s)
; ins
pect
du
ring
cons
truct
ion.
B. C
limat
e Cha
nge a
nd G
reen
hous
e Gas
Em
issio
ns
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.B-1
: The
follo
win
g B
AA
QM
D-s
ugge
sted
m
easu
res
shal
l be
impl
emen
ted
durin
g pr
ojec
t con
stru
ctio
n:
U
se a
ltern
ativ
e fu
eled
(e.g
., bi
odie
sel,
elec
tric)
con
stru
ctio
n ve
hicl
es/e
quip
men
t of a
t lea
st 1
5% o
f the
flee
t;
U
se lo
cally
sou
rced
bui
ldin
g m
ater
ials
for a
t lea
st 1
0% o
f ove
rall
mat
eria
ls b
roug
ht to
site
; and
Con
tract
or
BA
AQ
MD
; Mon
arch
E
quity
Inve
stm
ents
, In
c.
Verif
y in
clus
ion
of
alte
rnat
ive
fuel
use
m
onito
ring
as s
peci
fied
in
mea
sure
.
Verif
y in
clus
ion
of lo
cally
so
urce
d bu
ildin
g m
ater
ials
m
onito
ring
as s
peci
fied
in
mea
sure
.
Prio
r to
issu
ance
of
grad
ing
build
ing
perm
it(s)
; ins
pect
du
ring
cons
truct
ion
5. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 5
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
AN
D R
EPO
RTI
NG
PR
OG
RA
M
195
Heg
enbe
rger
Roa
d H
otel
5-4
ES
A /
1307
13
Fina
l Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Sep
tem
ber 2
014
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Impl
emen
tatio
n R
espo
nsib
ility
M
onito
ring
Res
pons
ibili
ty
Mon
itorin
g an
d
Rep
ortin
g A
ctio
n M
onito
ring
Sche
dule
Ve
rific
atio
n of
C
ompl
ianc
e
B. C
limat
e Cha
nge a
nd G
reen
hous
e Gas
Em
issio
ns (c
ont.)
Rec
yclin
g or
reus
ing
at le
ast 5
0 pe
rcen
t of c
onst
ruct
ion
was
te o
r de
mol
ition
mat
eria
ls.
Verif
y re
cycl
ing/
reus
e of
co
nstru
ctio
n w
aste
m
onito
ring
as s
peci
fied
in
mea
sure
Incl
ude
verif
icat
ion
in
quar
terly
mon
itorin
g re
port.
C. T
rans
porta
tion
and
Circ
ulat
ion
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.C-1
: The
pro
ject
app
lican
t and
its
cons
truct
ion
cont
ract
or(s
) will
dev
elop
a c
onst
ruct
ion
man
agem
ent
plan
for r
evie
w a
nd a
ppro
val b
y th
e P
ort o
f Oak
land
prio
r to
the
star
t of c
onst
ruct
ion.
The
pla
n w
ill in
clud
e at
leas
t the
follo
win
g ite
ms
and
requ
irem
ents
to re
duce
, to
the
max
imum
ext
ent f
easi
ble
and
traffi
c co
nges
tion
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n:
A
set
of c
ompr
ehen
sive
traf
fic c
ontro
l mea
sure
s, in
clud
ing
sche
dulin
g of
maj
or tr
uck
trips
and
del
iver
ies
to a
void
pea
k tra
ffic
hour
s, d
etou
r sig
ns if
requ
ired,
lane
clo
sure
pro
cedu
res,
sig
ns,
cone
s fo
r driv
ers,
and
des
igna
ted
cons
truct
ion
acce
ss ro
utes
;
Iden
tific
atio
n of
hau
l rou
tes
for m
ovem
ent o
f con
stru
ctio
n ve
hicl
es th
at w
ould
min
imiz
e im
pact
s on
mot
or v
ehic
ular
, bic
ycle
an
d pe
dest
rian
traffi
c, c
ircul
atio
n an
d sa
fety
, and
spe
cific
ally
to
min
imiz
e im
pact
s to
the
grea
test
ext
ent p
ossi
ble
on s
treet
s in
the
proj
ect a
rea;
Not
ifica
tion
proc
edur
es fo
r adj
acen
t pro
perty
ow
ners
and
pub
lic
safe
ty p
erso
nnel
rega
rdin
g w
hen
maj
or d
eliv
erie
s, d
etou
rs, a
nd
lane
clo
sure
s w
ould
occ
ur; a
nd
P
rovi
sion
s fo
r mon
itorin
g su
rface
stre
ets
used
for h
aul r
oute
s so
th
at a
ny d
amag
e an
d de
bris
attr
ibut
able
to th
e ha
ul tr
ucks
can
be
iden
tifie
d an
d co
rrec
ted
by th
e pr
ojec
t app
lican
t
Proj
ect s
pons
or a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
(s)
shal
l dev
elop
and
obt
ain
appr
oval
of
cons
truct
ion
man
agem
ent p
lan
and
impl
emen
t the
pla
n du
ring
cons
truct
ion
City
of O
akla
nd; P
ort
of O
akla
nd
Ver
ify re
view
and
app
rove
co
nstru
ctio
n m
anag
emen
t pl
an; C
ity o
f Oak
land
B
uild
ing
Dep
artm
ent m
ust
rece
ive
the
appr
oval
s
Incl
ude
verif
icat
ion
in
quar
terly
mon
itorin
g re
port.
Prio
r to
issu
ance
of
build
ing
or g
radi
ng
perm
it(s)
D. H
azar
ds an
d Ha
zard
ous M
ater
ials
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.D-1
a: P
rior t
o is
suan
ce o
f bui
ldin
g pe
rmit,
th
e pr
ojec
t app
lican
t sha
ll no
tify
the
San
Fra
ncis
co R
egio
nal W
ater
Q
ualit
y C
ontro
l Boa
rd (R
WQ
CB
) of p
lann
ed c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
. Th
e ap
plic
ant s
hall
reta
in a
qua
lifie
d en
viro
nmen
tal c
onsu
ltant
to
prep
are
a S
oil M
anag
emen
t Pla
n to
pro
tect
site
wor
kers
and
the
envi
ronm
ent.
The
Soi
l Man
agem
ent P
lan
shou
ld in
clud
e pr
e-co
nstru
ctio
n an
d pr
e-de
velo
pmen
t con
trols
, con
stru
ctio
n co
ntro
ls,
and
post
con
stru
ctio
n co
ntro
ls a
long
with
any
mod
ifica
tions
or
Proj
ect s
pons
or a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
(s)
shal
l ret
ain
a qu
alifi
ed e
nviro
nmen
tal
prof
essi
onal
to p
repa
re a
Soi
l Man
age-
men
t Pla
n an
d a
Hea
lth a
nd S
afet
y Pl
an.
Proj
ect s
pons
or a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
(s)
shal
l inc
orpo
rate
the
Soil
Man
agem
ent
Plan
into
pro
ject
spe
cific
atio
ns. P
roje
ct
cons
truct
ion
and
build
ing
plan
s sh
all
Mon
arch
Equ
ity
Inve
stm
ents
, Inc
. R
evie
w c
onst
ruct
ion
plan
s fo
r inc
lusi
on o
f Soi
l M
anag
emen
t Pla
n.
Incl
ude
verif
icat
ion
in
quar
terly
mon
itorin
g re
port.
Prio
r to
issu
ance
of
cons
truct
ion
and
grad
ing
perm
it(s)
.
5. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 5
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
AN
D R
EPO
RTI
NG
PR
OG
RA
M
195
Heg
enbe
rger
Roa
d H
otel
5-5
ES
A /
1307
13
Fina
l Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Sep
tem
ber 2
014
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Impl
emen
tatio
n R
espo
nsib
ility
M
onito
ring
Res
pons
ibili
ty
Mon
itorin
g an
d
Rep
ortin
g A
ctio
n M
onito
ring
Sche
dule
Ve
rific
atio
n of
C
ompl
ianc
e
requ
ests
mad
e by
the
RW
QC
B o
r DTS
C (o
vers
eein
g ag
ency
) int
o pr
ojec
t spe
cific
atio
ns. C
onst
ruct
ion
cont
rols
sha
ll in
clud
e th
ead
here
to a
ll sp
ecifi
catio
ns in
this
m
easu
re.
D. H
azar
ds an
d Ha
zard
ous M
ater
ials (
cont
.) pr
epar
atio
n of
a h
ealth
and
saf
ety
plan
alo
ng w
ith th
e re
quire
men
t th
at a
ll w
orke
rs in
clud
ing
subc
ontra
ctor
s ha
ve O
SH
A 4
0-ho
ur
heal
th a
nd s
afet
y tra
inin
g. T
he h
ealth
and
saf
ety
plan
sha
ll in
clud
e at
a m
inim
um, a
sum
mar
y of
the
know
n co
ntam
inan
ts a
t the
site
, a
copy
of t
he M
ater
ial D
ata
Saf
ety
She
ets
for e
ach
cont
amin
ant,
a de
scrip
tion
of re
quire
d pe
rson
al p
rote
ctiv
e eq
uipm
ent t
o be
wor
n by
si
te w
orke
rs, p
roto
col f
or th
e di
scov
ery
of a
ny s
uspe
cted
co
ntam
inat
ed m
ater
ials
dur
ing
exca
vatio
n, a
map
of t
he n
eare
st
emer
genc
y m
edic
al fa
cilit
y, a
nd e
mer
genc
y co
ntac
t inf
orm
atio
n.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.D-1
b: D
urin
g co
nstru
ctio
n an
d gr
adin
g ac
tiviti
es, t
he p
roje
ct a
pplic
ant s
hall
adeq
uate
ly p
rofil
e an
y ex
cava
ted
soils
to e
stab
lish
the
prop
er c
lass
ifica
tion
of th
e so
ils fo
r eith
er
haza
rdou
s or
non
-haz
ardo
us w
aste
dis
posa
l. Th
e so
ils s
hall
be
hand
led,
sto
red
and
trans
porte
d ac
cord
ing
to a
ll ap
plic
able
re
gula
tions
for t
he a
ppro
pria
te c
lass
ifica
tion.
Sam
plin
g an
d an
alys
is
of s
oils
sha
ll be
acc
ompl
ishe
d in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
requ
irem
ents
of
the
disp
osal
faci
lity.
Any
reus
e of
soi
ls s
hall
be c
ondu
cted
onl
y w
ith
prio
r app
rova
l fro
m th
e ap
prop
riate
ove
rsig
ht a
genc
y w
hich
cou
ld
incl
ude
eith
er th
e R
WQ
CB
or th
e D
TSC
.
Proj
ect s
pons
or a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
(s)
shal
l inc
orpo
rate
the
spec
ifica
tions
of
this
mea
sure
into
exc
avat
ion,
gra
ding
an
d co
nstru
ctio
n pl
ans.
Mon
arch
Equ
ity
Inve
stm
ents
, Inc
. R
evie
w e
xcav
atio
n,
grad
ing
and
cons
truct
ion
plan
s fo
r inc
lusi
on o
f pr
oper
soi
l cla
ssifi
catio
n,
hand
ling,
sto
rage
and
tra
nspo
rtatio
n m
etho
ds.
Insp
ect c
onst
ruct
ion
site
fo
r pro
per s
tora
ge a
nd
hand
ling
of h
azar
dous
and
no
n-ha
zard
ous
soils
.
Incl
ude
verif
icat
ion
in
quar
terly
mon
itorin
g re
port.
Prio
r to
issu
ance
of
cons
truct
ion
and
grad
ing
perm
it(s)
.
One
insp
ectio
n sh
all o
ccur
dur
ing
each
pha
se o
f co
nstru
ctio
n.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re 4
.D-2
: Haz
ardo
us m
ater
ials
and
spi
ll pr
even
tion
mea
sure
s sh
all b
e in
corp
orat
ed in
to th
e SW
PPP
for p
roje
ct
cons
truct
ion.
Thi
s po
rtion
of t
he p
lan
shal
l inc
lude
, but
is n
ot li
mite
d to
: (1)
mea
sure
s fo
r con
tain
ing
haza
rdou
s m
ater
ials
suc
h as
fuel
s ac
cord
ing
to m
anuf
actu
rers
’ rec
omm
enda
tions
that
incl
ude
stor
age
in
fire
proo
f con
tain
ers
and
visi
ble
labe
ling
with
haz
ard
plac
ards
; (2)
pr
otoc
ol fo
r acc
iden
tal f
uel s
pills
incl
udin
g th
e st
orag
e an
d us
e of
ab
sorb
ent m
ater
ials
and
not
ifica
tion
requ
irem
ents
; (3)
the
desi
gnat
ion
of a
con
trolle
d ar
ea fo
r all
refu
elin
g an
d/or
mai
nten
ance
of h
eavy
eq
uipm
ent;
(4) a
requ
irem
ent f
or m
aint
aini
ng a
bsor
bent
mat
eria
ls a
t lo
catio
ns w
here
haz
ardo
us m
ater
ials
are
use
d or
sto
red
to c
aptu
re
spille
d m
ater
ials
in th
e ev
ent o
f an
acci
dent
al re
leas
e; a
nd (5
) An
emer
genc
y re
spon
se p
lan
incl
udin
g tra
inin
g re
quire
men
ts,
emer
genc
y co
ntac
t num
bers
, and
rout
es to
nea
rest
med
ical
em
erge
ncy
faci
lity,
for a
ll jo
bsite
em
ploy
ees.
Proj
ect s
pons
or a
nd it
s co
ntra
ctor
(s)
shal
l inc
orpo
rate
haz
ardo
us m
ater
ials
an
d sp
ill pr
even
tion
mea
sure
s in
to th
e SW
PPP
for p
roje
ct c
onst
ruct
ion.
Mon
arch
Equ
ity
Inve
stm
ents
, Inc
. R
evie
w S
WP
PP
for
incl
usio
n of
haz
ardo
us
mat
eria
ls a
nd s
pill
prev
entio
n m
easu
res.
At t
ime
of
spec
ifica
tions
be
ing
prov
ided
to
cont
ract
or a
nd
ongo
ing
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n.
5. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 5
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
AN
D R
EPO
RTI
NG
PR
OG
RA
M
195
Heg
enbe
rger
Roa
d H
otel
5-6
ES
A /
1307
13
Fina
l Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Sep
tem
ber 2
014
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Impl
emen
tatio
n R
espo
nsib
ility
M
onito
ring
Res
pons
ibili
ty
Mon
itorin
g an
d
Rep
ortin
g A
ctio
n M
onito
ring
Sche
dule
Ve
rific
atio
n of
C
ompl
ianc
e
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Req
uire
d by
the
Initi
al S
tudy
Aest
hetic
s M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
AES
-1: A
ll lig
htin
g in
stal
latio
ns s
hall
be
desi
gned
and
inst
alle
d to
be
fully
shi
elde
d (fu
ll cu
toff)
and
to
min
imiz
e gl
are
and
obtru
sive
ligh
t by
limiti
ng o
utdo
or li
ghtin
g th
at is
m
isdi
rect
ed, e
xces
sive
, or u
nnec
essa
ry, e
xcep
t as
in th
e ex
cept
ions
bel
ow, a
nd s
hall
have
a m
axim
um la
mp
wat
tage
of
250
wat
ts fo
r com
mer
cial
ligh
ting,
or 1
00 w
atts
inca
ndes
cent
. The
lo
catio
n an
d de
sign
of a
ll ex
terio
r lig
htin
g sh
all b
e sh
own
on th
e si
te
plan
sub
mitt
ed to
and
app
rove
d by
the
Por
t dur
ing
the
Des
ign
Rev
iew
. Lig
htin
g th
at is
exe
mpt
incl
udes
:
Li
ghtin
g in
sw
imm
ing
pool
s an
d ot
her w
ater
feat
ures
.
E
xit s
igns
and
oth
er il
lum
inat
ion
requ
ired
by b
uild
ing
code
s.
Li
ghtin
g fo
r sta
irs a
nd ra
mps
, as
requ
ired
by th
e bu
ildin
g co
de.
S
igns
that
are
regu
late
d by
the
sign
cod
e.
H
olid
ay a
nd te
mpo
rary
ligh
ting
(less
than
thirt
y da
ys u
se in
any
1
year
).
Lo
w-v
olta
ge la
ndsc
ape
light
ing,
but
suc
h lig
htin
g sh
ould
be
shie
lded
in s
uch
a w
ay a
s to
elim
inat
e gl
are
and
light
tres
pass
.
Pro
ject
spo
nsor
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sh
all p
repa
re c
onst
ruct
ion
plan
s th
at
adhe
re to
ligh
ting
spec
ifica
tions
.
Mon
arch
Equ
ity
Inve
stm
ents
, Inc
. V
erify
dur
ing
Des
ign
Rev
iew
Dur
ing
Des
ign
Rev
iew
Biol
ogica
l Res
ourc
es
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re B
IO-1
: Pre
cons
truct
ion
Nes
ting
Bird
Sur
veys
. To
the
exte
nt p
ract
icab
le, c
onst
ruct
ion
activ
ities
incl
udin
g ve
geta
tion
and
tree
rem
oval
sha
ll be
per
form
ed b
etw
een
Sep
tem
ber 1
and
Jan
uary
31
in o
rder
to a
void
bre
edin
g an
d ne
stin
g se
ason
for b
irds.
If th
ese
activ
ities
can
not b
e pe
rform
ed d
urin
g th
is
perio
d, p
re-c
onst
ruct
ion
surv
eys
for n
estin
g bi
rds
shal
l be
cond
ucte
d by
a q
ualif
ied
biol
ogis
t.
Sur
veys
sha
ll be
per
form
ed n
o m
ore
than
14
days
prio
r to
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
list
ed a
bove
in o
rder
to lo
cate
any
act
ive
pass
erin
e ne
sts
with
in 2
50 fe
et o
f the
pro
ject
site
and
any
act
ive
rapt
or n
ests
with
in 5
00 fe
et o
f the
pro
ject
site
. Veg
etat
ion
rem
oval
an
d co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es p
erfo
rmed
bet
wee
n S
epte
mbe
r 1 a
nd
Janu
ary
31 a
void
the
gene
ral n
estin
g pe
riod
for b
irds
and
ther
efor
e w
ould
not
requ
ire p
reco
nstru
ctio
n su
rvey
s.
Pro
ject
Spo
nsor
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sh
all p
repa
re c
onst
ruct
ion
plan
s th
at
inco
rpor
ate
pre-
cons
truct
ion
surv
eys
and
buffe
r zon
es.
Pro
ject
Spo
nsor
and
Por
t of O
akla
nd
shal
l ide
ntify
a q
ualif
ied
biol
ogis
t and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sha
ll en
gage
the
qual
ified
bi
olog
ist t
o co
nduc
t pre
-con
stru
ctio
n su
rvey
s.
Mon
arch
Equ
ity
Inve
stm
ents
, Inc
. S
elec
t qua
lifie
d bi
olog
ist.
Rev
iew
pre
-con
stru
ctio
n su
rvey
repo
rts.
If an
act
ive
nest
is fo
und,
in
spec
t con
stru
ctio
n si
te to
co
nfirm
buf
fer z
ones
.
Incl
ude
surv
ey re
sults
and
ac
tions
in q
uarte
rly
mon
itorin
g re
port.
No
mor
e th
an 1
4 da
ys b
efor
e st
art o
r re
star
t of
cons
truct
ion
durin
g th
e m
onth
s of
S
epte
mbe
r to
Janu
ary
5. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 5
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
AN
D R
EPO
RTI
NG
PR
OG
RA
M
195
Heg
enbe
rger
Roa
d H
otel
5-7
ES
A /
1307
13
Fina
l Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Sep
tem
ber 2
014
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Impl
emen
tatio
n R
espo
nsib
ility
M
onito
ring
Res
pons
ibili
ty
Mon
itorin
g an
d
Rep
ortin
g A
ctio
n M
onito
ring
Sche
dule
Ve
rific
atio
n of
C
ompl
ianc
e
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Req
uire
d by
the
Initi
al S
tudy
(con
t.)
Biol
ogica
l Res
ourc
es (c
ont.)
If
activ
e ne
sts
are
foun
d on
eith
er th
e pr
ojec
t site
or w
ithin
the
500-
foot
sur
vey
buffe
r sur
roun
ding
the
proj
ect s
ite, n
o-w
ork
buffe
r zon
es
shal
l be
esta
blis
hed
arou
nd th
e ne
sts
in c
oord
inat
ion
with
Cal
iforn
ia
Dep
artm
ent o
f Fis
h an
d W
ildlif
e (C
DFW
). In
gen
eral
, CD
FW
reco
mm
ends
a 2
50-fo
ot c
onst
ruct
ion
excl
usio
n zo
ne a
roun
d th
e ne
sts
of a
ctiv
e pa
sser
ine
song
bird
s du
ring
the
bree
ding
sea
son,
an
d a
500-
foot
buf
fer f
or n
estin
g ra
ptor
s. T
hese
buf
fer d
ista
nces
are
co
nsid
ered
initi
al s
tarti
ng d
ista
nces
onc
e a
nest
has
bee
n id
entif
ied,
an
d ar
e so
met
imes
revi
sed
dow
nwar
d to
100
feet
and
250
feet
, re
spec
tivel
y, b
ased
on
site
con
ditio
ns a
nd th
e na
ture
of t
he w
ork
bein
g pe
rform
ed. T
hese
buf
fer d
ista
nces
may
als
o be
mod
ified
if
obst
acle
s su
ch a
s bu
ildin
gs o
r tre
es o
bscu
re th
e co
nstru
ctio
n ar
ea
from
act
ive
bird
nes
ts, o
r exi
stin
g di
stur
banc
es c
reat
e an
am
bien
t ba
ckgr
ound
dis
turb
ance
sim
ilar t
o th
e pr
opos
ed d
istu
rban
ce.
No
dem
oliti
on, v
eget
atio
n re
mov
al, o
r gro
und-
dist
urbi
ng a
ctiv
ities
sh
all o
ccur
with
in a
buf
fer z
one
until
you
ng h
ave
fledg
ed o
r the
nes
t is
oth
erw
ise
aban
done
d as
det
erm
ined
by
the
qual
ified
bio
logi
st. I
f w
ork
durin
g th
e ne
stin
g se
ason
sto
ps fo
r 14
days
or m
ore
and
then
re
sum
es, t
hen
nest
ing
bird
sur
veys
sha
ll be
repe
ated
, to
ensu
re
that
no
new
bird
s ha
ve b
egun
nes
ting
in th
e ar
ea w
hile
wor
k w
as
stop
ped.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re B
IO-2
: Par
ticul
ar a
ttent
ion
shou
ld b
e pa
id to
th
e gr
ound
leve
l gla
zing
whe
re o
nsite
land
scap
ing
coul
d at
tract
bi
rds
to th
e bu
ildin
g. B
ird s
trike
s as
soci
ated
with
bui
ldin
g ni
ght
light
ing
shal
l be
min
imiz
ed b
y:
D
imm
ing
light
s in
lobb
ies,
per
imet
er c
ircul
atio
n ar
eas,
and
atri
a;
Tu
rnin
g of
f all
unne
cess
ary
light
ing
by 1
1:00
p.m
. thr
ough
su
nris
e, e
spec
ially
dur
ing
peak
mig
ratio
n pe
riods
(mid
-Mar
ch to
ea
rly J
une
and
late
Aug
ust t
hrou
gh la
te O
ctob
er);
In
corp
orat
ing
light
-col
ored
sol
ar re
flect
ive
win
dow
trea
tmen
ts
into
the
hote
l déc
or to
redu
ce g
lass
tran
spar
ency
;
A
void
ing
use
of fl
ood
light
ing;
E
duca
ting
build
ing
man
agem
ent a
bout
the
dang
ers
of n
ight
lig
htin
g to
bird
s.
Pro
ject
Spo
nsor
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sh
all p
repa
re c
onst
ruct
ion
plan
s an
d de
sign
s th
at a
dher
e to
all
spec
ifica
tions
in
this
mea
sure
.
Mon
arch
Equ
ity
Inve
stm
ents
, Inc
. V
erify
dur
ing
Des
ign
Rev
iew
Dur
ing
Des
ign
Rev
iew
5. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 5
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
AN
D R
EPO
RTI
NG
PR
OG
RA
M
195
Heg
enbe
rger
Roa
d H
otel
5-8
ES
A /
1307
13
Fina
l Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Sep
tem
ber 2
014
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Impl
emen
tatio
n R
espo
nsib
ility
M
onito
ring
Res
pons
ibili
ty
Mon
itorin
g an
d
Rep
ortin
g A
ctio
n M
onito
ring
Sche
dule
Ve
rific
atio
n of
C
ompl
ianc
e
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Req
uire
d by
the
Initi
al S
tudy
(con
t.)
Cultu
ral R
efer
ence
s M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
CU
L-1:
If p
rehi
stor
ic o
r his
toric
-per
iod
arch
aeol
ogic
al re
sour
ces
are
enco
unte
red,
all
cons
truct
ion
activ
ities
w
ithin
100
feet
wou
ld h
alt a
nd th
e P
ort o
f Oak
land
wou
ld b
e no
tifie
d. P
rehi
stor
ic a
rcha
eolo
gica
l mat
eria
ls m
ight
incl
ude
obsi
dian
an
d ch
ert f
lake
d-st
one
tool
s (e
.g.,
proj
ectil
e po
ints
, kni
ves,
sc
rape
rs) o
r too
lmak
ing
debr
is; c
ultu
rally
dar
kene
d so
il (“
mid
den”
) co
ntai
ning
hea
t-affe
cted
rock
s, a
rtifa
cts,
or s
hellf
ish
rem
ains
; and
st
one
mill
ing
equi
pmen
t (e.
g., m
orta
rs, p
estle
s, h
ands
tone
s, o
r m
illin
g sl
abs)
; and
bat
tere
d st
one
tool
s, s
uch
as h
amm
erst
ones
and
pi
tted
ston
es. H
isto
ric-p
erio
d m
ater
ials
mig
ht in
clud
e st
one,
co
ncre
te, o
r ado
be fo
otin
gs a
nd w
alls
; fill
ed w
ells
or p
rivie
s; a
nd
depo
sits
of m
etal
, gla
ss, a
nd/o
r cer
amic
refu
se. A
Sec
reta
ry o
f the
In
terio
r-qu
alifi
ed a
rcha
eolo
gist
wou
ld in
spec
t the
find
ings
with
in
24 h
ours
of d
isco
very
. If i
t is
dete
rmin
ed th
at th
e pr
ojec
t cou
ld
dam
age
a hi
stor
ical
reso
urce
or a
uni
que
arch
aeol
ogic
al re
sour
ce
(as
defin
ed p
ursu
ant t
o th
e C
EQ
A G
uide
lines
), m
itiga
tion
wou
ld b
e im
plem
ente
d in
acc
orda
nce
with
PR
C S
ectio
n 21
083.
2 an
d S
ectio
n 15
126.
4 of
the
CE
QA
Gui
delin
es, w
ith a
pre
fere
nce
for
pres
erva
tion
in p
lace
. Con
sist
ent w
ith S
ectio
n 15
126.
4(b)
(3),
this
m
ay b
e ac
com
plis
hed
thro
ugh
plan
ning
con
stru
ctio
n to
avo
id th
e re
sour
ce; i
ncor
pora
ting
the
reso
urce
with
in o
pen
spac
e; c
appi
ng
and
cove
ring
the
reso
urce
; or d
eedi
ng th
e si
te in
to a
per
man
ent
cons
erva
tion
ease
men
t. If
avoi
danc
e is
not
feas
ible
, a q
ualif
ied
arch
aeol
ogis
t wou
ld p
repa
re a
nd im
plem
ent a
det
aile
d tre
atm
ent
plan
in c
onsu
ltatio
n w
ith th
e P
ort o
f Oak
land
. Tre
atm
ent o
f uni
que
arch
aeol
ogic
al re
sour
ces
wou
ld fo
llow
the
appl
icab
le re
quire
men
ts
of P
RC
Sec
tion
2108
3.2.
Tre
atm
ent f
or m
ost r
esou
rces
wou
ld
cons
ist o
f (bu
t wou
ld n
ot b
e no
t lim
ited
to) s
ampl
e ex
cava
tion,
ar
tifac
t col
lect
ion,
site
doc
umen
tatio
n, a
nd h
isto
rical
rese
arch
, with
th
e ai
m to
targ
et th
e re
cove
ry o
f im
porta
nt s
cien
tific
dat
a co
ntai
ned
in th
e po
rtion
(s) o
f the
sig
nific
ant r
esou
rce
to b
e im
pact
ed b
y th
e pr
ojec
t. Th
e tre
atm
ent p
lan
wou
ld in
clud
e pr
ovis
ions
for a
naly
sis
of
data
in a
regi
onal
con
text
, rep
ortin
g of
resu
lts w
ithin
a ti
mel
y m
anne
r, cu
ratio
n of
arti
fact
s an
d da
ta a
t an
appr
oved
faci
lity,
and
di
ssem
inat
ion
of re
ports
to lo
cal a
nd s
tate
repo
sito
ries,
libr
arie
s,
and
inte
rest
ed p
rofe
ssio
nals
.
Pro
ject
spo
nsor
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sh
all t
rain
wor
kers
and
mon
itor t
heir
activ
ities
A S
ecre
tary
of t
he In
terio
r-qu
alifi
ed
arch
aeol
ogis
t sha
ll in
spec
t the
find
ings
w
ithin
24
hour
s of
dis
cove
ry.
Arc
haeo
logi
st s
hall
cond
uct
inde
pend
ent r
evie
w a
nd p
repa
re
treat
men
t pla
n, if
nec
essa
ry
Pro
ject
spo
nsor
or i
ts c
ontra
ctor
(s) s
hall
impl
emen
t tre
atm
ent p
lan
Mon
arch
Equ
ity
Inve
stm
ents
, Inc
. Th
is m
easu
re s
hall
be
prin
ted
on a
ll co
nstru
ctio
n do
cum
ents
, con
tract
s, a
nd
proj
ect p
lans
prio
r to
issu
ance
of b
uild
ing
perm
its.
Rev
iew
and
app
rove
ex
tent
and
met
hodo
logy
of
subs
urfa
ce p
aleo
ntol
ogic
al
inve
stig
atio
n
If re
sour
ces
are
enco
unte
red,
ver
ify w
ork
is
susp
ende
d an
d re
view
and
ap
prov
e of
the
treat
men
t an
d m
onito
ring
plan
if
pale
onto
logi
cal m
ater
ials
ar
e di
scov
ered
Incl
ude
any
findi
ngs
in th
e qu
arte
rly m
onito
ring
repo
rt.
The
proj
ect
prop
onen
t sha
ll be
re
spon
sibl
e fo
r en
surin
g th
at
cont
ract
ors
are
impl
emen
ting
thes
e m
easu
res
durin
g gr
ound
-di
stur
bing
dem
oliti
on a
nd
cons
truct
ion
phas
es.
If re
sour
ces
enco
unte
red,
revi
ew o
f tre
atm
ent
and
mon
itorin
g pl
an p
rior t
o co
ntin
uatio
n of
co
nstru
ctio
n
5. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 5
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
AN
D R
EPO
RTI
NG
PR
OG
RA
M
195
Heg
enbe
rger
Roa
d H
otel
5-9
ES
A /
1307
13
Fina
l Env
ironm
enta
l Im
pact
Rep
ort
Sep
tem
ber 2
014
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Impl
emen
tatio
n R
espo
nsib
ility
M
onito
ring
Res
pons
ibili
ty
Mon
itorin
g an
d
Rep
ortin
g A
ctio
n M
onito
ring
Sche
dule
Ve
rific
atio
n of
C
ompl
ianc
e
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Req
uire
d by
the
Initi
al S
tudy
(con
t.)
Cultu
ral R
efer
ence
s (co
nt.)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re C
UL-
2: T
o fu
rther
ens
ure
prot
ectio
n of
cul
tura
l re
sour
ces
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n, th
e P
ort o
f Oak
land
’s E
mer
genc
y P
lan
of A
ctio
n fo
r Dis
cove
ries
of U
nkno
wn
His
toric
or
Arc
haeo
logi
cal R
esou
rces
sha
ll be
pro
vide
d to
the
Con
stru
ctio
n C
ontra
ctor
and
sha
ll be
impl
emen
ted
durin
g co
nstru
ctio
n.
Con
tract
or(s
) sha
ll m
onito
r wor
ker
activ
ities
City
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sha
ll ha
lt w
ork
and
notif
y th
e C
ount
y C
oron
er, i
f ne
cess
ary.
If a
ppro
pria
te, C
oron
er s
hall
notif
y N
AH
C. N
AH
C s
hall
notif
y M
ost
Like
ly D
esce
ndan
t.
Mon
arch
Equ
ity
Inve
stm
ents
, Inc
. Th
is m
easu
re s
hall
be
prin
ted
on a
ll co
nstru
ctio
n do
cum
ents
, con
tract
s, a
nd
proj
ect p
lans
prio
r to
issu
ance
of b
uild
ing
perm
its.
If re
sour
ces
enco
unte
red,
revi
ew o
f E
mer
genc
y P
lan
of
Act
ion
prio
r to
cont
inua
tion
of
cons
truct
ion
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re C
UL-
3: In
the
even
t of d
isco
very
or r
ecog
nitio
n of
any
hum
an re
mai
ns d
urin
g co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es, s
uch
activ
ities
w
ithin
100
feet
of t
he fi
nd w
ould
cea
se u
ntil
the
Alam
eda
Cou
nty
Cor
oner
has
bee
n co
ntac
ted
to d
eter
min
e th
at n
o in
vest
igat
ion
of th
e ca
use
of d
eath
is re
quire
d. T
he N
ativ
e Am
eric
an H
erita
ge
Com
mis
sion
(NAH
C) w
ould
be
cont
acte
d w
ithin
24
hour
s if
it is
de
term
ined
that
the
rem
ains
are
Nat
ive
Amer
ican
. The
NAH
C w
ould
th
en id
entif
y th
e pe
rson
or p
erso
ns it
bel
ieve
s to
be
the
mos
t lik
ely
desc
enda
nt fr
om th
e de
ceas
ed N
ativ
e Am
eric
an, w
ho in
turn
wou
ld
mak
e re
com
men
datio
ns to
the
Port
of O
akla
nd fo
r the
app
ropr
iate
m
eans
of t
reat
ing
the
hum
an re
mai
ns a
nd a
ny g
rave
goo
ds.
Con
tract
or(s
) sha
ll m
onito
r wor
ker
activ
ities
City
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sha
ll ha
lt w
ork
and
notif
y th
e C
ount
y C
oron
er, i
f ne
cess
ary.
If a
ppro
pria
te, C
oron
er s
hall
notif
y N
AH
C. N
AH
C s
hall
notif
y M
ost
Like
ly D
esce
ndan
t.
Mon
arch
Equ
ity
Inve
stm
ents
, Inc
. Th
is m
easu
re s
hall
be
prin
ted
on a
ll co
nstru
ctio
n do
cum
ents
, con
tract
s, a
nd
proj
ect p
lans
prio
r to
issu
ance
of b
uild
ing
perm
its.
Incl
ude
any
findi
ngs
in th
e qu
arte
rly m
onito
ring
repo
rt.
If hu
man
rem
ains
ar
e en
coun
tere
d,
revi
ew o
f tre
atm
ent
and
rem
oval
prio
r to
con
tinua
tion
of
cons
truct
ion
Hydr
olog
y and
Wat
er Q
ualit
y M
itiga
tion
Mea
sure
HYD
-1: T
he p
roje
ct s
pons
or w
ould
pre
pare
an
d im
plem
ent a
SW
PP
P fo
r con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es. A
t a m
inim
um,
the
SW
PP
P w
ould
incl
ude
the
follo
win
g:
A
cons
truct
ion
sche
dule
whe
re e
xcav
atio
n an
d gr
adin
g ac
tiviti
es
occu
r in
the
dry
seas
on (g
ener
ally
Apr
il 15
to O
ctob
er 1
5) to
re
duce
ero
sion
ass
ocia
ted
inte
nse
rain
fall
and
surfa
ce ru
noff
unle
ss a
dditi
onal
ero
sion
con
trol B
MPs
are
add
ed to
the
SWPP
P th
at e
nsur
e pr
otec
tion
agai
nst s
edim
enta
tion
in o
ffsite
runo
ff.
Reg
ardl
ess,
the
cons
truct
ion
sche
dule
wou
ld in
dica
te a
tim
elin
e fo
r ear
thm
ovin
g ac
tiviti
es, h
ydro
seed
ing,
and
sta
biliz
atio
n of
soi
ls;
S
oil s
tabi
lizat
ion
tech
niqu
es s
uch
as h
ydro
seed
ing
and
shor
t-te
rm b
iode
grad
able
ero
sion
con
trol b
lank
ets;
St
orm
dra
in in
let p
rote
ctio
n at
dow
nstre
am s
torm
dra
in in
lets
; and
In
spec
tion
of a
ll dr
aina
ge fa
cilit
ies
and
clea
ring
of d
rain
age
stru
ctur
es o
f deb
ris a
nd s
edim
ent d
urin
g th
e co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es a
nd a
fter p
roje
ct c
ompl
etio
n.
Pro
ject
spo
nsor
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sh
all p
repa
re a
SW
PP
P th
at a
dher
es to
al
l spe
cific
atio
ns o
f thi
s m
easu
re.
City
of O
akla
nd;
Mon
arch
Equ
ity
Inve
stm
ents
, Inc
.; R
WQ
CB
Rev
iew
and
app
rove
S
WP
PP
.
Insp
ect c
onst
ruct
ion
site
fo
r adh
eren
ce to
SW
PP
P.
Incl
ude
any
findi
ngs
in th
e qu
arte
rly m
onito
ring
repo
rt
Prio
r to
issu
ance
of
cons
truct
ion
and
grad
ing
perm
it(s)
.
One
insp
ectio
n sh
all o
ccur
dur
ing
each
pha
se o
f co
nstru
ctio
n.
Follo
win
g th
e co
mpl
etio
n of
co
nstru
ctio
n, a
n in
spec
tion
for p
ost-
cons
truct
ion
mai
nten
ance
of
drai
nage
faci
litie
s an
d bi
ofilt
ratio
n sw
ales
sha
ll oc
cur.
5. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 5
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
AN
D R
EPO
RTI
NG
PR
OG
RA
M
195
Heg
enbe
rger
Roa
d H
otel
5-10
E
SA
/ 13
0713
Fi
nal E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t S
epte
mbe
r 201
4
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Impl
emen
tatio
n R
espo
nsib
ility
M
onito
ring
Res
pons
ibili
ty
Mon
itorin
g an
d
Rep
ortin
g A
ctio
n M
onito
ring
Sche
dule
Ve
rific
atio
n of
C
ompl
ianc
e
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Req
uire
d by
the
Initi
al S
tudy
(con
t.)
Hydr
olog
y and
Wat
er Q
ualit
y (co
nt.)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re H
YD-2
: Prio
r to
final
app
rova
l of t
he p
roje
ct,
the
proj
ect s
pons
or w
ould
sub
mit
final
hyd
rolo
gy/h
ydra
ulic
s ca
lcul
atio
ns fo
r the
pro
ject
bas
ed o
n fin
al d
esig
n pl
ans.
The
se
calc
ulat
ions
wou
ld b
e re
view
ed a
nd a
ppro
ved
by a
Por
t of O
akla
nd
and
the
City
of O
akla
nd. T
he c
alcu
latio
ns w
ould
dem
onst
rate
that
th
e ex
istin
g dr
aina
ge in
frast
ruct
ure
surr
ound
ing
the
proj
ect s
ite is
ca
pabl
e of
han
dlin
g po
st-p
roje
ct fl
ows
from
the
site
. If
impr
ovem
ents
to th
e dr
aina
ge in
frast
ruct
ure
are
nece
ssar
y to
ac
com
mod
ate
the
proj
ect a
nd c
alcu
late
d flo
ws
from
the
10-y
ear
and
100-
year
sto
rm e
vent
s, th
e pr
ojec
t spo
nsor
wou
ld b
e re
spon
sibl
e fo
r all
of th
e in
frast
ruct
ure
impr
ovem
ents
suc
h as
the
inst
alla
tion
of d
eten
tion
basi
ns o
r lar
ger c
onve
yanc
es, i
f req
uire
d.
All
drai
nage
impr
ovem
ents
mus
t be
revi
ewed
and
app
rove
d by
a
Por
t of O
akla
nd to
con
firm
that
they
wou
ld m
eet A
lam
eda
Cou
nty
Floo
d C
ontro
l Dis
trict
requ
irem
ents
.
Pro
ject
spo
nsor
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sh
all s
ubm
it fin
al h
ydro
logy
/hyd
raul
ics
calc
ulat
ions
.
Pro
ject
spo
nsor
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sh
all m
ake
any
infra
stru
ctur
e im
prov
emen
ts re
quire
d.
City
of O
akla
nd
Bui
ldin
gD
epar
tmen
t, P
ort o
f O
akla
nd
Rev
iew
fina
l hyd
rolo
gy/
hydr
aulic
s ca
lcul
atio
ns.
Iden
tify
any
infra
stru
ctur
e im
prov
emen
ts n
eces
sary
to
acc
omm
odat
e th
e pr
ojec
t and
cal
cula
ted
flow
s fro
m th
e 10
-yea
r and
10
0-ye
ar s
torm
eve
nts.
Rev
iew
revi
sed
proj
ect a
nd
cons
truct
ion
plan
s; v
erify
in
clus
ion
of in
frast
ruct
ure
impr
ovem
ents
reco
mm
ende
d by
Por
t of
Oak
land
Eng
inee
r.
Prio
r to
proj
ect
appr
oval
.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re H
YD-3
: The
pro
ject
spo
nsor
, prio
r to
appr
oval
of
bui
ldin
g pe
rmits
, wou
ld p
repa
re a
pro
ject
dra
inag
e pl
an in
clud
ing
exis
ting
and
final
dra
inag
e fa
cilit
ies
cons
iste
nt w
ith e
rosi
on a
nd
sedi
men
t mea
sure
s re
quire
d by
the
City
of O
akla
nd’s
Gra
ding
O
rdin
ance
, the
Sed
imen
tatio
n an
d Er
osio
n C
ontro
l Ord
inan
ce a
nd
NPD
ES re
quire
men
ts fo
r pos
t-pro
ject
trea
tmen
t of s
torm
wat
er ru
noff
from
the
site
. Pos
t-pro
ject
trea
tmen
t mea
sure
s m
ust b
e hy
drau
lical
ly
size
d to
trea
t the
RW
QC
B-sp
ecifi
ed a
mou
nt o
f run
off.
As re
quire
d by
th
e R
WQ
CB,
the
treat
men
t sys
tem
wou
ld b
e de
sign
ed to
pro
vide
tre
atm
ent f
or th
e flo
w ra
te p
rodu
ced
by a
rain
eve
nt e
qual
to o
r at
leas
t the
85t
h pe
rcen
tile
hour
ly ra
infa
ll in
tens
ity fo
r the
pro
ject
site
, ba
sed
on h
isto
rical
reco
rds
of h
ourly
rain
fall
dept
hs. T
he p
roje
ct
spon
sor w
ould
inco
rpor
ate
all C
ity o
f Oak
land
, Por
t, an
d R
WQ
CB
com
men
ts in
to th
e pr
ojec
t spe
cific
atio
ns fo
r the
pro
pose
d pr
ojec
t.
Pro
ject
spo
nsor
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sh
all p
repa
re a
pro
ject
dra
inag
e pl
an
that
adh
eres
to a
ll sp
ecifi
catio
ns o
f thi
s m
easu
re.
City
of O
akla
nd
Bui
ldin
gD
epar
tmen
t, P
ort o
f O
akla
nd
Rev
iew
and
app
rove
pr
ojec
t dra
inag
e pl
an.
Insp
ect s
ite d
urin
g an
d af
ter c
onst
ruct
ion
to
ensu
re c
ompl
ianc
e w
ith
proj
ect d
rain
age
plan
and
co
mpl
ianc
e w
ith p
ost-
proj
ect s
torm
wat
er
requ
irem
ents
.
Prio
r to
appr
oval
of
build
ing
perm
its
Noise
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re N
OI-1
a: T
he p
roje
ct s
pons
or s
hall
requ
ire
cons
truct
ion
cont
ract
ors
to li
mit
stan
dard
con
stru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es a
s re
quire
d by
the
City
Bui
ldin
g D
epar
tmen
t. S
uch
activ
ities
are
ge
nera
lly li
mite
d to
bet
wee
n 7:
00 a
.m. a
nd 7
:00
p.m
. Mon
day
thro
ugh
Frid
ay, w
ith e
xtre
me
nois
e ge
nera
ting
activ
ities
gre
ater
th
an 9
0 dB
A li
mite
d to
bet
wee
n 8:
00 a
.m. a
nd 4
:00
p.m
., M
onda
y
Pro
ject
spo
nsor
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sh
all i
nclu
de a
llow
able
con
stru
ctio
n ho
urs
in e
xcav
atio
n, g
radi
ng a
nd
cons
truct
ion
plan
s.
City
of O
akla
nd;
Mon
arch
Equ
ity
Inve
stm
ents
, Inc
.
Rev
iew
con
stru
ctio
n pl
ans
for i
nclu
sion
of a
llow
able
co
nstru
ctio
n ho
urs;
City
of
Oak
land
Bui
ldin
g D
epar
tmen
t mus
t rec
eive
th
e ap
prov
als
Prio
r to
issu
ance
of
build
ing
or g
radi
ng
perm
it(s)
5. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 5
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
AN
D R
EPO
RTI
NG
PR
OG
RA
M
195
Heg
enbe
rger
Roa
d H
otel
5-11
E
SA
/ 13
0713
Fi
nal E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t S
epte
mbe
r 201
4
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Impl
emen
tatio
n R
espo
nsib
ility
M
onito
ring
Res
pons
ibili
ty
Mon
itorin
g an
d
Rep
ortin
g A
ctio
n M
onito
ring
Sche
dule
Ve
rific
atio
n of
C
ompl
ianc
e
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Req
uire
d by
the
Initi
al S
tudy
(con
t.)
Noise
(con
t.)
thro
ugh
Frid
ay, w
ith n
o ex
trem
e no
ise
gene
ratin
g ac
tivity
per
mitt
ed
betw
een
12:3
0 an
d 1:
30 p
.m. N
o co
nstru
ctio
n ac
tiviti
es s
hall
be
allo
wed
on
wee
kend
s un
til a
fter t
he b
uild
ing
is e
nclo
sed,
with
out
prio
r aut
horiz
atio
n of
the
Por
t of O
akla
nd, a
nd n
o ex
trem
e no
ise
gene
ratin
g ac
tiviti
es s
hall
be a
llow
ed o
n w
eeke
nds
and
holid
ays.
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re N
OI-1
b: T
o re
duce
day
time
nois
e im
pact
s du
e to
con
stru
ctio
n, th
e pr
ojec
t spo
nsor
sha
ll re
quire
con
stru
ctio
n co
ntra
ctor
s to
impl
emen
t the
follo
win
g m
easu
res:
E
quip
men
t and
truc
ks u
sed
for p
roje
ct c
onst
ruct
ion
shal
l use
the
best
ava
ilabl
e no
ise
cont
rol t
echn
ique
s (e
.g.,
impr
oved
muf
flers
, eq
uipm
ent r
edes
ign,
use
of i
ntak
e si
lenc
ers,
duc
ts, e
ngin
e en
clos
ures
, and
aco
ustic
ally
-atte
nuat
ing
shie
lds
or s
hrou
ds,
whe
reve
r fea
sibl
e).
Im
pact
tool
s (e
.g.,
jack
ham
mer
s, p
avem
ent b
reak
ers,
and
rock
dr
ills)
use
d fo
r pro
ject
con
stru
ctio
n sh
all b
e hy
drau
lical
ly o
r el
ectri
cally
pow
ered
whe
reve
r pos
sibl
e to
avo
id n
oise
ass
ocia
ted
with
com
pres
sed
air e
xhau
st fr
om p
neum
atic
ally
pow
ered
tool
s.
Whe
re u
se o
f pne
umat
ic to
ols
is u
navo
idab
le, a
n ex
haus
t muf
fler
on th
e co
mpr
esse
d ai
r exh
aust
sha
ll be
use
d; th
is m
uffle
r can
lo
wer
noi
se le
vels
from
the
exha
ust b
y up
to a
bout
10
dBA
. E
xter
nal j
acke
ts o
n th
e to
ols
them
selv
es s
hall
be u
sed
whe
re
feas
ible
; thi
s co
uld
achi
eve
a re
duct
ion
of 5
dB
A. Q
uiet
er
proc
edur
es, s
uch
as u
se o
f dril
ls ra
ther
than
impa
ct to
ols,
sha
ll be
use
d w
hene
ver f
easi
ble.
S
tatio
nary
noi
se s
ourc
es s
hall
be lo
cate
d as
far f
rom
adj
acen
t re
cept
ors
as p
ossi
ble,
and
they
sha
ll be
muf
fled
and
encl
osed
w
ithin
tem
pora
ry s
heds
, inc
orpo
rate
insu
latio
n ba
rrie
rs, o
r oth
er
mea
sure
s to
the
exte
nt fe
asib
le.
Pro
ject
spo
nsor
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sh
all t
rain
wor
kers
and
mon
itor t
heir
activ
ities
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e sp
ecifi
catio
ns in
this
mea
sure
.
City
of O
akla
nd;
Mon
arch
Equ
ity
Inve
stm
ents
, Inc
.
Rev
iew
con
stru
ctio
n pl
ans
for i
nclu
sion
of n
oise
re
duct
ion
mea
sure
s; C
ity
of O
akla
nd m
ust r
ecei
ve
the
appr
oval
s
Prio
r to
issu
ance
of
build
ing
or g
radi
ng
perm
it(s)
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
re N
OI-1
c: T
o fu
rther
miti
gate
ext
rem
e no
ise
gene
ratin
g co
nstru
ctio
n im
pact
s, a
set
of s
ite-s
peci
fic n
oise
at
tenu
atio
n m
easu
res
shal
l be
com
plet
ed u
nder
the
supe
rvis
ion
of a
qu
alifi
ed a
cous
tical
con
sulta
nt. P
rior t
o co
mm
enci
ng c
onst
ruct
ion,
a
plan
for i
mpl
emen
tatio
n of
suc
h m
easu
res
shal
l be
subm
itted
for
revi
ew a
nd a
ppro
val b
y th
e C
ity to
ens
ure
that
max
imum
feas
ible
no
ise
atte
nuat
ion
wou
ld b
e ac
hiev
ed. T
hese
atte
nuat
ion
mea
sure
s sh
all i
nclu
de a
s m
any
of th
e fo
llow
ing
cont
rol s
trate
gies
as
feas
ible
:
Pro
ject
spo
nsor
and
its
cont
ract
or(s
) sh
all i
mpl
emen
t a n
oise
redu
ctio
n pl
an
City
of O
akla
nd;
Mon
arch
Equ
ity
Inve
stm
ents
, Inc
.
Ver
ify, a
ppro
ve a
nd
mon
itor t
he n
oise
re
duct
ion
plan
; City
of
Oak
land
mus
t rec
eive
the
appr
oval
s
Prio
r to
issu
ance
of
build
ing
or g
radi
ng
perm
it(s)
5. M
itiga
tion
Mon
itorin
g an
d R
epor
ting
Pro
gram
TAB
LE 5
-1 (C
ontin
ued)
M
ITIG
ATI
ON
MO
NIT
OR
ING
AN
D R
EPO
RTI
NG
PR
OG
RA
M
195
Heg
enbe
rger
Roa
d H
otel
5-12
E
SA
/ 13
0713
Fi
nal E
nviro
nmen
tal I
mpa
ct R
epor
t S
epte
mbe
r 201
4
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Impl
emen
tatio
n R
espo
nsib
ility
M
onito
ring
Res
pons
ibili
ty
Mon
itorin
g an
d
Rep
ortin
g A
ctio
n M
onito
ring
Sche
dule
Ve
rific
atio
n of
C
ompl
ianc
e
Miti
gatio
n M
easu
res
Req
uire
d by
the
Initi
al S
tudy
(con
t.)
Noise
(con
t.)
E
rect
tem
pora
ry p
lyw
ood
nois
e ba
rrie
rs a
roun
d th
e co
nstru
ctio
n si
te, p
artic
ular
ly a
long
the
east
ern
boun
dary
of t
he s
ite to
shi
eld
the
adja
cent
bui
ldin
gs a
nd o
ther
sen
sitiv
e re
cept
ors;
U
tiliz
e no
ise
cont
rol b
lank
ets
on th
e bu
ildin
g st
ruct
ure
as th
e bu
ildin
g is
ere
cted
to re
duce
noi
se e
mis
sion
from
the
site
; and
M
onito
r the
effe
ctiv
enes
s of
noi
se a
ttenu
atio
n m
easu
res
by
taki
ng n
oise
mea
sure
men
ts o
n a
regu
lar b
asis
and
repo
rting
th
ose
mea
sure
men
ts to
the
Por
t of O
akla
nd, w
hich
wou
ld th
en
eval
uate
the
need
for f
urth
er m
easu
res,
if n
eces
sary
, to
atte
nuat
e no
ise.