195 Hegenberger FEIR - Port of Oakland...Final 195 HEGENBERGER ROAD HOTEL Focused Environmental...

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


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.


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




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


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.



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.



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



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



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.



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.



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.



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



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.



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



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.


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


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



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.



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.



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]


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


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.

195 Hegenberger FEIR - Port of Oakland...Final 195 HEGENBERGER ROAD HOTEL Focused Environmental...

Documents

Transcript of 195 Hegenberger FEIR - Port of Oakland...Final 195 HEGENBERGER ROAD HOTEL Focused Environmental...