Resolution 12968CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12 9 6 8
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IS -96 -9, FOR A GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION OF 900 OTIS DRIVE FROM
NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS TO LOW - DENSITY RESIDENTIAL AND FOR
A REZONING OF THE PARCEL FROM C -1 (NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS
DISTRICT) TO R -1 -PD (ONE - FAMILY RESIDENCE, PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT).
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda Planning Board has initiated an amendment to the General
Plan, which would provide for changing the designation of 900 Otis Drive from Neighborhood
Business to Low-Density Residential, Medium - Density Residential, or Office; and
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda Planning Board has also initiated a rezoning of 900 Otis
Drive, which would allow a redesignation from C -1 (Neighborhood Business District) to R -1 (One -
Family Residence District), R -2 (Two - Family Residence District), R -3 (Garden Residential District),
R-4 (Neighborhood Residential District), R -5 (Garden Residential District), R -6 (Hotel Residential
Z District) or a PD (Planned Development Combining District) in combination with any of these
residential districts, or A -P (Administrative Professional District); and
WHEREAS, a proposed Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment between
June 3 and July 3, 1997, and no comments were received; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a public hearing on this Negative Declaration on July 14, 1997,
d continued the item for six months to allow the property owner to develop a land use proposal
or the Board's consideration; and
WHEREAS, the Board held a second public hearing on this Negative Declaration on January
12, 1998, examined pertinent maps and documents, including the proposal of the property owner,
considered the testimony and written comments received during the public hearing, and
recommended to the City Council the adoption of the Negative Declaration (Attachment "A "); and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this Negative Declaration on February
17, 1998, examined pertinent maps and documents, including the proposal of the property owner,
considered the testimony and written comments received during the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings:
The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
and wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory, because there are no known significant biological or
historic resources on the site, and the proposed changes in the land use designation
on the site would permit less intensive development of a character more consistent
with existing uses in the immediate vicinity.
2. The project does not have the potential to achieve short teiiii, to the disadvantage of
long term, environmental goals, because it would provide for residential or office
development that is harmonious with the character of the surrounding area.
The project does not have possible environmental effects which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable, because there are no additional General Plan
or zoning changes that could logically result from these amendments.
4. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantially
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because environmental
remediation and cleanup of toxic materials for commercial use of the site has been
completed, and a Human Health Risk Assessment would have to be approved by the
County as part of completing the cleanup for residential use.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda hereby
adopts Negative Declaration, IS -96 -9, finding that the project will be no significant impacts on the
environment.
g: \cc\reso\10is969
PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECEARATION
Circulation Date: June 3, 1997
APPLICATION: Proposed Negative Declaration (IS-96-9) for an amendment
to the General Plan diagram to change the designation of
900 Otis Drive from Neighborhood Business to Low-Density
Residential, Medium-Density Residential, or Office and
a Rezoning of the parcel from C-1 (Neighborhood Business
District) to R-1 (One-Family Residence District), R-2
(Two-Family Residence District) , R-3 (Garden Residential
District), R-4 (Neighborhood Residential District), R-5
(General Residential District), R-6 (Hotel Residential
District), or a P-D (Planned Development Combining
District) in combination with any of these residential
districts, or A-P (Administrative Professional
District).
The site adjoins areas designated in the General Plan as
Parks & Public Open Space, Low-Density Residential,
Office, and Medium-Density Residential.
LOCATION: 900 Otis Drive, on the southeast corner of the
intersection with Westline Drive.
APPLICANT: City of Alameda
DETAILS OF PROPOSAL:
The City of Alameda Planning Board has initiated a General Plan
amendment and rezoning for 900 Otis Drive, to change its designation
from neighborhood business to residential or office. The site is
vacant; the service station formerly on the property has been removed,
and toxics have been removed from the soil. The change is necessary in
order to provide for the appropriate development of land in the area
and to carry out other policies of the General Plan.
Redesignating the site to residential would allow the development of
between three and nine dwelling units. Redesignating Lhe site to
Administrative/Professional would allow the development of
approximately 7,200 square feet of commercial office space.
PLANNING DIRECTOR DECISION:
After due consideration, the Planning Director of the City of Alameda
found that this project will not have a significant effect on the
environment, and therefore will not require the preparation of an EIR.
This decision is supported by the following findings:
a. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
Attachment A
below sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the
major periods of California history or prehistory because there
are no known significant biological or historic resources on the
site, and the proposed changes in the land use designation on the
site would permit less intensive development of a character more
consistent with existing uses in the immediate vicinity.
b. The project does not have the potential to achieve short -term, to
the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals because it
would provide for residential or office development that is
harmonious with the character of the surrounding area.
c. The project does not involve impacts which are individual7,.
limited but cumulatively considerable because there are no
additional General Plan or zoning changes that could logically
result from these amendments.
d. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly because environmental remediation and cleanup of toxic
materials for commercial use of the site has been completed, and
a Human Health Risk Assessment would have to be approved by the
County as part of completing the cleanup for residential use.'
Public Review. The Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration will circulate °for a 30 -day Clearinghouse and public review
period. The City Planning Board will hold a Public Hearing on the
Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration on Monday, July 14, 1997 at
7 :00 p.m. at 2200 Central Avenue, Alameda A written response will be
prepared to all written comments received during the public review
period., Approval of the environmental document does not co "stitute
approval of the project itself.
1JeSci Agency. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by
the City of Alameda Planning Department, Room 160, East Wing, Historic
Alameda High School, 2250 Central Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501. Writt'L
comments should be received in this office no later t 5 D. M.,
Inumpary, JuW 3, 1997. Contact Person: Marjorie Macris, Consulting
Planner, (510) 748-4554.
INITIAL STUDY
CITY OF ALAMEDA
Planning Department
Historic Alameda High School
2250 Central Avenue
Room 160
Alameda, CA 94501
TION
A. Initial Study Number: 96-9
B. Applicant: City of Alameda
II. PROJECT
FINDING:
Negative De-laration
Mitigated Impacts/
Negative Declaration
EIR Required
X
The City of Alameda Planning Board has initiated a General Plan
Amendment to change the designation of 900 Otis Drive from
Neighborhood Business to Low-Density Residential, Medium-Density
Residential, or Office and a Rezoning of the parcel fre-,m C-1
(Neighborhood Business District) to R-1 (One-Family Residence
District), R-2 (Two-Family Residence District), R-3 (Garden
Residential District), R-4 (Neighborhood Residential District), R-5
(General Residential District), R-6 (Hotel Residential District),
or a PD (Planned Development Combining District) in combination
with any of these residential categories, or A-P (Administrative-
Professional District).
The parcel is on the southeast corner of the intersection of Otis
Drive and Westline Drive. The site is 134 feet by 135 feet and
contains approximately 18,000 square feet. The parcel is now
vacant. The Chevron station on the site was demolished in 1993,
and environmental remediation and cleanup for reuseof the site for
commercial purposes has been completed; residential use would
require County approval of a Human Health Risk Assessment.
Harsch Investment Corp., owners of the property, proposed a 6,000
square foot neighborhood shopping center on the site in 1996, but
withdrew the application. Several neighbors have expressed interest
in having the site designated for residential purposes.
Adjacent uses are Crown Beach State Park to the west, single-family
residential to the north and east, and an office building and
convalescent home to. the south.
At present, a range of retail and business uses are allowed on the
site; new buildings that are exclusively residential are not
permitted. Under a rezoning to R-1, up to three single-family
residences could be built; accessory second units may be permitted
subject to a use permit. Under a rezoning to R-2, R-3, R-4, R-5,
or R-6, a maximum of nine one or two-family residences could be
30
built. If the rezoning included a PD combining district this would
allow flexibility in siting up to nine units. The purpose of the
flexibility would be to create a better quality development than
could be achieved by the conventional development standards. Other
uses such as hospitals and offices would be allowed under R-5 (with
a Use Permit) and by right in the R-6 district. The A-P district
would allow offices and medical facilities in a one or two-story
building that could cover up to 40 percent of the site (7,200
square feet); residential uses would not be permitted.
Under residential development of between three and nine units,
estimated traffic generation would be between 30 and 90 vehicle
trips per day, about 10 percent of which would occur during the
p.m. peak hour. A commercial office building of 7,200 square feet
'would generate an estimated 177 vehicle trips per weekday, 25
during the p.m. peak hour.
The Alameda General Plan contains several policies that support the
preservation of residential areas, and where feasible the
redesignation of parcels from commercial to residential use. The
Areawide Strategy Report (1993) found that there is a significant
demand for housing and a limited demand for retail expansion in
Alameda.
There are several characteristics of the parcel at 900 Otis Drive
that weigh in favor of its designation as residential rather than
business. The configuration of the parcel is such that commercial
development would probably result in a parking lot intruding into
an existing residential area, where residential development would
be harmonious with the character of the neighborhood. The
co..ercial uses near the Otis/Westline intersection have no clear
relationship to the surrounding residential area. Demand for
co,..ercial use in the area appears to be limited, or possibly
affected by poor management, as indicated by vacancies in existing
buildings in the vicinity.
Other Agencies' Regulations
If the property were to be used for residential purposes, approval
of a Human Health Risk Assessment by the Alameda County
Environmental Health Services would be required.
Location and Setting
The parcel is at 900 Otis Drive, on the southeast corner of the
intersection of Otis Drive and Westline Drive. To the west is
Crown Beach State Park. To the north and east are low-density
single-family residences. To the south is an office building and
convalescent home.
Project Site
A vacant parcel of approximately 18,000 square feet, with frontages
of approximately 135 feet on both Otis Drive and Westline Drive.
A service station formerly on the site has been removed, and toxics
have been removed from the soil.
Checklist
Explanations of answers on the Initial Study checklist follow.
Where the response is "no impact," this is due to the nature of the
project; for instance, no grading impacts because the site is flat.
Attached maps and exhibits depict the vicinity around the property.
5
CHECKLIST
USE P ING. Would the propoaal:
Conflict with general
plan designation or
zoning?
No. The proposal would amend the General Plan designation for
the parcel from Neighborhood Business to Low- Density
Residential, Medium - Density Residential, or Office and revise
the Zoning designation from C -1 (Neighborhood Business
District) to R -1 (One Family Residence District), R -2 (Two
Family Residence District), R-3 (Garden Residential District),
R -4 (Neighborhood Residential District), R -5 (General
Residential District), R -6 (Hotel Residential District), or PD
{Planned Development Combining District) in combination with
any one of these residential categories, or A -P
(Administrative - Professional District). Amendment of the
General Plan would resolve the conflict with the present land
use designation on the parcel. There are other policies in the
Alameda General Plan which support redesignating the parcel to
residential:
"2.4.1 Schedule hearings to consider amendments to the Zoning
Map that would reclassify predominantly residential a- as zoned
for nonresidential use to bring the Zoning Map into consistency
with the General Plan diagram."
"2.5.f Maintain neighborhood business districts for small
stores that attract mainly pedestrian traffic and can be
acceptable neighbors for nearby residents
"2.5.j Reduce the extent of Neighborhood Business Districts by
re- designating residential parcels zoned for commercial use to
residential use wherever detailed study of each district
demonstrates that an acceptable residential environment can be
maintained or created.
"The General Plan Diagram indicates the proposed extent of each
business district. Detailed study and public hearings on
Zoning Map amendments are likely to result in similar but not
identical changes. Re- drawing is simple where commercial
development is tightly bunched, but in several districts
decisions must be made about the best future for housing
surrounded by commercial uses.
The Housing Element, adopted in 1990 and amended in 1991, also
contains supporting policies:
6
"C -5. Encourage development of residential uses in existing
commercial areas where the viability of the area -and the
housing will not be adversely affected.
"C -6. Evaluate existing school, utility, - commercial, and
industrial sites for their potential to accommodate housing,
should these sites be surpluses or become available."
The Alameda Area -Wide Strategy Report, accepted by the City
Council in 1993, found that in the City "There is a significant
demand for residential and employment- generating uses and
limited demand for retail expansion (p. 18) Among its
recommendations is "Rezone to residential those areas that are
predominantly residential in character." (p..12)
The subject parcel is the only one in the Otis /Westline 'rea
zoned C -1. The fact that the Chevron station has been remc:-ed
constitutes a changed circumstance that could lead to re-
evaluation of the site's designation, to achieve the intent of
the General Plan. The commercial uses near the Otis /Westline
intersection are not a compact district, but a collection of
incidental uses with no clear relationship to the surrounding
residential area. A field check in September 1996 revealed
vacancies in existing commercial buildings. The subject parcel
adjoins single - family residential to the north and east.
Redesignation of the site for residential would allow the
development of between three and nine housing units.
Designation for Administrative - Professional use would allow the
development of an estimated 7,200 square feet of office space
Either of these designations would permit less intense
development than now allowed, of a character more consistent
with existing uses in the immediate vicinity.
b) Conflict with
applicable
environmental plans or
policies adopted by
agencies with
jurisdiction over the.
Project?
No. There are no government agencies other than the
Alameda with jurisdiction over the site.
Be incompatible with
existing land use in
the vicinity?
No. Areas to the north and east are single - family residential.
Crown Beach State Park is to the west, and an office building
and convalescent home are to the south.
7
lutes mai Stippcfl Waring' Sautes
Sams
Pot
Pctertialy
Lass Thmi
No
Sigificant
SOiftcwit
S . . utt
impact
Isms
Uth El
MttWW
d) Affect agricultural
resources or operations
(e.g. impact to soils
or farmlands, or
impacts from
incompatible land
uses)?
(1)
No, there are no agricultural operations.
e) Disrupt or divide the
physical arrangement of
an established
community (including a
low-income or minority
community)?
No. Residential use of the parcel would be compatible with an
existing residential neighborhood. Development of the site with
an office or medical facility would be similar in character to
the office use south of the site.
2. POP 1 TION HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed
official regional or
local population
projections?
2
X
No. Residential development of the parcel with a maximum of
nine units would be consistent with the Housing Element of the
General Plan and would increase the City's population by an
estimated maximum of twenty-two persons, based on the 1990
average household size of 2.4 persons in Alameda.
b) Induce substantial
growth in an area
either directly or
indirectly (e.g. (1)
through projects in an
undeveloped area or
major infrastructure?)
No. The parcel is surrounded by land that is already developed.
c) Displace existing
housing, especially
affordable housing?
, there is no existing housing to be displaced.
X
8
Issues ktf t' Sources
es
Potemialr
Signrficmt
Potentials
Sinifcilt
L
SrQrficani
No
u t
ISUES
Unless
t
Mitigated
Incorporated
GEOLOGIC PROBL
eople to potentia
Would the proposal result in or expose
impacts involving:
a}
Fault
rupture?
(4)
X
including liquefaction?
See 3b.
b) Seismic ground shaking?
(4)
(4)
X
X
including liquefaction?
The subject parcel is in an area subject to earthquakes;
however, it is not subject to special hazards. New construction
would comply with the Uniform Building Code, which contains
requirements for seismic strengthening, which is equivalent to
regulations required elsewhere in the community. Therefore,
development on the site will not have an impact on seismic
events, because all structures will be required to meet building
standards.
c) Seismic ground failure,
(4)
(4)
X
including liquefaction?
3b.
d)
Seiche, tsunami, or
volcanic hazard?
(4)
No. The parcel is not on any body of water, and there are no
active volcanic sources for over 150 miles radius.
Landslides or mudflows?
No There are no steep slopes for landslides or mudflows.
f) Erosion, changes in
topography, or unstable
soil conditions from
excavation, grading or
fill?
4
X
No. The parcel is flat, and construction would involve
excavation, grading, or fill.
g) Subsidence of the land? (4)
See 3b.
h) Expansive soils?
(4)
e
No. There is no indication that the parcel, which was
previously developed, contains expansive soils.
9
:sues and Information Source,
Potentiatfy
t
Unless
ed
Incorporated
Unique geologic or
physical features?
No. There axe no unique geologic or physical features .
4. TER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption
rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface
runoff?
5
No. Any development of the site will be required to comply with
the City's Urban Runoff Ordinance.
b) Exposure of people or
property to water
related hazards such as
flooding?
(5)
X
No. The site is shown on the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) map. community panel #060020010 B. as Zone X.
Zone X is defined as areas determined to be outside the 500 -year
flood plain, and property owners are not required by lenders to
acquire flood insurance as part of financing of home purchase.
c) Discharge into surface
waters or other
alteration of surface
water quality (e.g._
temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
No. See 4a.
d) Changes in the amount
of surface water in any
water body?
No. See 4a.
(5)
Changes in currents, or
the course or direction
of water movements?
(5)
No. See 4a.
10
my Information es
BIS
ant
M
Impact
!E
ad
t
Change in the quantity
of ground waters,
either through direct
additions or
withdrawals, or through
interception of an
aquifer by cuts or
excavations or through
substantial loss of
groundwater recharge
capability?
(5)
No. See
g) Altered direction or
rate of flow of
groundwater?
No. See 4a.
(5)
No. See 4
i) Substantial reduction
in the amount of
groundwater otherwise
available for public
water supplies?
No. See 4a.
AIR Q• =.- Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality
standard or contribute
to an existing or
projected air quality
violation?
No. Development of the site with between three and nine
residential or an estimated 7,200 square feet of office use
would not have significant adverse air quality impacts.
b) Expose sensitive
receptors to
pollutants?
11
No. The site adjoins two heavily used streets. If the site is
developed with housing or office use, residents and employees
could be exposed to air pollution generated by motor vehicles.
However, the area is already developed with housing and office
use, and the existing levels are not considered significant.
c) Alter air movement,
moisture, or
temperature, or
climate?
(5)
X
X
. See Sa.
d) Create objectionable
odors?
(5)
X
X
No, See 5a.
6. SPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips
or traffic congestion?
(5)
X
No. Development of the site with between three and nine
residential units would generate between 30 and 90 vehicle trips
per day, approximately 10 percent of which would be during the
peak p.m. hour. Development of the site with a 7,200 square
foot office building would generate an estimated 177 vehicle
trips per day, 25 of which would be during the p.m. peak hour,
based on Trip Generation, Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1991.
These increases in vehicle trips would not have a significant
adverse impact on traffic congestion.
b) Hazards to safety from
design features (e.g.
sharp curves or
dangerous
intersections) or
incompatible uses)?
(5)
No. In review of development plans for the site, the City -0111
require driveway placement and design to minimize possible
hazards resulting from proximity tc the intersection
Inadequate emergency
access or access to
nearby uses?
12
sues mi Spoftig fcrnt Scwtu
Stce3
Potentidy
Patent"
Lou Thn
X
Sipificatt
Sigafcmt
Issues
Wins
.
Mitigated
Incorporated
No. Emergency access for the site and nearby areas would be
unchanged.
d) Insufficient parking
capacity on-site or
off-site?
(6)
(7)
X
No. Residential or office development on .the site would be
required to comply with the City's parking requirements.
e)
Hazards or barriers for
pedestrians or
bicyclists?
(7)
No. New development on the site would be required to comply
with policies of the Transportation Element of the General
Plan, including pedestrian and bicycle circulation.
f) Conflicts with adopted
policies supporting
alternative
transportation (e.g.
bus turnouts, bicycle
racks)?
7
See 6e.
g) Rail, waterborne or air (7)
traffic impacts?
SOURCES. Would the proposal result
a) Endangered, threatened
or rare species or (5)
their habitats?
No. There are no known endangered, threatened or rare species
or habitats located within the proposed project area.
1111111111111111111111
No. There are no known locally designated species located at
the site.
c) Locally designated
natural communities
(e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
13
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
toss Than
No
Significant
Siwifita i
Significant
Impact
Issues
Unless
Mitigated
tncorparated
No. The site is not part of a natural community.
d) Wetland habitat (e.g.
marsh, riparian and
vernal pool?
5
X
No. There are no we
ands on this previous
y developed site.
e) Wildlife dispersal or
wildlife migration
corridors ?'
(5)
X
No. The
its' does no
contain a wildlife migration corridor.
8.
R
MI
RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted
energy conservation
plans?
(5)
X
No. The project would not consume significant amounts of
energy.
b) Use non- renewable
resources in a wasteful
and inefficient manner?
(5)
X
No. The project would not use significant amount_ of non-
renewable resources.
Result in the loss of
availability of a known
mineral resource that
would be of future
value to the region and
the residents of the
State?
(5)
No. The site does not contain a known mineral site.
9. *S. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental
explosion or release of
hazardous substances
(including, but not
limited to: oil,
pesticides, chemicals
or radiation)?
8
14
jg ion
Potentially
Pot
Less Than
No
Si¢rficmt
S' ' an
Impact
Issues
Unless
Mitigated
Incorporated
No. The toxics in the soil produced by the previous service
station use have been removed. The Alameda County Environmental
Health Services office reports that the site is close to having
its remediation accepted for commercial use. If the site were
to be reused for residential purposes, a Human Health Risk
Assessment would have to be submitted to the County. The
current level of benzene is above the allowed threshold for
residential. This level will decline over time and does not
represent a significant expense to complete cleanup for
residential use The site was excavated extensively as part of
the cleanup, and therefore much of the site is clean fill.
There are monitoring wells on the site which must remain
accessible. Development with residential or office use would
not result in significant production of additional toxic
ubstances.
b)
Possible interference
with an emergency
response plan or
emergency evacuation
plan?
X
No. There would be no significant change in emergency response.
The creation of any
health hazard or
potential health
hazard?
(8)
No. See 9a.
d) Exposure of people to
existing sources of
potential health
hazards?
(8)
No. See 9a.
Increased fire hazard
in areas with flammable
brush trees?
X
No. There are no significant numbers of flammable brush trees
in the vicinity.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal. result
15
Issues Sources
Potentials
Sigrrificarrt
Issues
Potentially
S' ant
Unless
Mitigated
krcorporated
Lau Than
Siwifstiant
Impact
Impact
a) Increase in existing i (4)
noise levels?
No. Noise impacts generated by up to nine residential units or
7,200 square feet of office space would not be significant.
b) Exposure of people to
severe noise levels?
(4)
No. See 10a.
11. P'=LIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have effect, upon,
or reault in a need for n or altered government services in
y of the following areas
a)
Fire protection?
g
No. There is adequate capacity in public services, including
fire protection, to accommodate the development of up to nine
residential units or 7,200 square feet of office space.
b) Police protection?
No. See lla.
c) Schools?
No. If the parcel is designated for residential use, the
development of a maximum of nine additional, dwelling units would
result in an estimated four additional children residing in the
neighborhood, based on the multiplier of .33 students per unit
used by the Alameda Unified School District This increase would
not have a significant impact upon local schools.
d) Maintenance of public
facilities, including
roads?
No. See lla.
e) Other governmental
services?
No. See lla.
12. UTILITIES SER C SYS ould the proposal result
in a need for n eyst or supplie , or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
X
16
is s ion Sources
Sources
Potentiator
Potentially
less Than
No
Sicrificam
Issues
Significant
Unless
Siprificm
t
Impact
Mitigated
Incorporated
No. Residential or office re -use of this
have significant impacts upon utilities
including power and natural gas.
infill site would not
and service syc°ams,
b) Communications systems?
No. See 12a.
c)
Local or regional water
treatment or
distribution
facilities?
No. Residential use would re
uses now permitted, except for restaurant use, but this increase
would not be significant.
re more water than the commercial
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
No. See
2a.
e) Storm water drainage?
No. See 12a.
Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or
supplies?
No See 12c Any landscaped area will be required to be
landscaped with plant materials which meet the City of Alameda
Water Conservation Ordinance. The landscaped areas can
adequately be supplied with present local resources.
13. S'' •- "' ICS. Would the proposal
a) Affect a scenic vista 4 (9)
or scenic highway?
No. Any development on the site would be subject to the City of
Alameda's Design Review procedures, to assure protection of
views to Crown Beach State Park, across Westline Drive.
b)
Have a demonstrable
negative aesthetic
effect?
(9)
X
17
Issues and W es
es
Po tentials
Signdicant
Pot F
t
Less
Impact
Issues
s
itted
bu ted
-t
No. Any development on the project would be subject to Design
Review, to assure compliance with City standards for aesthetics.
Create
light or glare?
X
Light and glare impacts unde
not be significant.
residential or office re -use would
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological
resources?
No. There are no known paleontological resources in the
vicinity.
b) Disturb archaeological
resources?
No. There are no known archaeological resources.
Affect historical
resources?
No. There are no known historical resources on the site.
d) Have the potential to
cause a physical change
which would affect
unique ethnic cultural
values?
5
X
No. No known unique cultural value on the property is reported.
Restrict existing
religious or sacred
uses within the
potential impact area? (5)
No. No known sacred use of the property is reported.
15. C ATION. Would the proposal:
Increase the demand for
neighborhood or
regional parks or other
recreational
facilities?
(10)
18
188 ar,• ^ t e
Po t '
S'
Hated
i
S. '
S. • t
Issues
ILulpoIated
No. The site is across the street from Crown Beach State Park,
a major recreational resource. If the site is developed with
housing, residents would have ready access to the park. The
addition of up to nine units would not have a significant impact
on park demand.
Affect existing
recreational opportunities?
No. See 15a.
10)
16. ATORY S OF S2h FICi C$.
Does the project have the
potential to degrade the
quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a
fish or wildlife population
to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten
to eliminate any plant or
animal community, reduce the
number or restrict the range
of a rare or endangered
plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the
major periods of California
history or prehistory?
(5)
No, because the parcel is in an urbanized area and contai no
habitat for rare or endangered species. Redesignation would
allow development of the site with between three and nine
residential or approximately 7,200 square feet of office space,
which would not have significant adverse traffic generating or
air pollution impacts.
b) Does the project have
the potential to achieve
short -term, to the
disadvantage of long-
term, environmental
goals?
(5)
X
19
Issues and Supporting Information Souses
Source'
Potentials
ant
No
No, because the proposal would either increase the amount of
land available for housing, which is a long -term goal of the
Alameda General Plan. or for office use, which would generate
employment to strengthen the City's economy.
Does the project have
impacts that are
individually limited,,
but cumulatively
cons i d e r a b l e?
" C u m u l a t i v e l y y
considerable" means that
the incremental effects
of a project are
considerable when viewed
in connection with the
effects of the past
projects, the effects of
other current projects,
and effects of future
projects)?
(5)
No, because this is an isolated parcel, and changing its
designation the proposal would not lead to any other land use
changes or affect any other projects.
d) Does the project have
environmental effects
which will cause
substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or
indirectly?
5J
No, because the project would allow residential or office
development, which would not have significant adverse air
quality, toxics, noise or lighting effects on human beings.
Toxics in the soil have been removed, and remediation to allow
commercial reuse has been completed. Residential reuse would
require approval of a Human Health Risk Assessment by the
County.
20
Information Sources
Sources
Pot u t'
' m
Patentia y
vm
less
P4o
! t
Mit�ated
r'atad
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to
program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR
Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In
discussion should identify the following items:
the tiering,
effects have
or Negative
this' case a
Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state
where they are available for review.
(See bibliography sources, which are on file with the Planning
Department, 2250 Central Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501). This
environmental analysis is not part of a tiering, process, and
bibliographic sources are solely authorities for statements
made in this Initial Study.
b) -acts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from
the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis.
None.
Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than
'Significant with Mitigation. Incorporated," describe the
mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from
the earlier document and the extent to which they address
site - specific conditions of the project.
None.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Refere, ces Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c) , 21080.1,
21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151
Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988);
Leonoff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 .Cal., App. 3d
1337 (1990).
21
SOURCE REFE =.4a:, C
2
4
City of Alameda General Plan Diagram, February 1991.
City of Alameda General Plan, Chapter 2, Land Use
Element, 1991, and Housing Element, 1990, revised
1991.
City of Alameda Zoning Map.
City of Alameda General Plan, Chapter 8, Health and
Safety Element, 1991.
Environmental Impact Report, Alameda General Plan,
1991.
7
8
City of Alameda Zoning Ordinance, Section 30 -7, Off -
Street Parking and Loading Space Regulations.
City of Alameda General Plan, Chapter 4,
Transportation Element, 1991.
Information provided by owner.
f 90`0 ``Otis Drive.
City of Alameda General Plan, Chapter 3, City Design
Element, 1991.
10 City of Alameda General Plan, Chapter 5, Open Space
and Conservation Element, 199
22
IV. DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency)
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DEC - TION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will not ide a
significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to
the project. A NE T:1' DEC - TION will be prepared.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect
on the environment, and an RO AL • -ACT REPORT is
required.
Date
Attachment:
A
Sign-ture ca.
Planning Director
Title
(510) 748-4554
1 SZ4
Phone
1. Map of Site and Vicinity
g:\nvirrev\i\is,00oti
revised 5/V97
23
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council
of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 3rd
day of March , 1998, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Kerr, Lucas
and President. Appezzato - 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 4th day of March , 1998.
Diane Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda