Loading...
Resolution 13128CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 1312 8 ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IS -99 -01 AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM, FOR MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT, MPA -99 -01 WHEREAS, an application was made on January 11, 1999 by Extended Stay America, Inc., and Alameda Real Estate Investments, requesting approval of Master Plan Amendment, MPA- 99 -01, Development Plan, DP- 99 -01, and Design Review, DR- 99 -24, to permit the construction of a four - story, 121 -room extended- occupancy hotel and associated parking and landscaping on a 2.87 -acre portion of Parcel C of the Marina Village Master Plan (MVMP). Hotel rooms would consist of efficiency studios with small kitchens, arranged along an interior corridor. The hotel site is currently designated for parking as part of the previously proposed 180,000 square feet of office development on the southern portion of Parcel B, which was approved under MPA -92 -1. Under the proposed MPA- 99 -01, the hotel construction would displace this office parking, and the existing Shipway office buildings which contain 55,600 square feet of office uses would be retained. The development would provide for improvement of an adjacent 0.8 -acre shoreline parcel for public access to the Alameda waterfront. The site is located within the Marina Village Master Plan, with a MX (Mixed Use Planned Development District), and is also within the Business and Waterfront Improvement Plan (BWIP) area, administered by the Alameda Community Improvement Commission (CIC); and WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on April 22, 1999; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Business Park and Parks and Public Open Space on the General Plan Diagram; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located in a M -X (Mixed Use Planned Development) Zoning District; and WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the boundaries of the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project area administered by the Community Improvement Commission; and WHEREAS, a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment between May 7, 1999 and June 7, 1999; and written comments were received from the following public agencies, organizations and individuals: 1. California Department of Fish & Game, dated May 27, 1999, which indicated their support of the project as proposed, and 2. City of Oakland, dated June 2, 1999, which addressed concerns related to the Traffic Impact Study and traffic mitigations; and WHEREAS, written comments were received from Eve Bach of Arc Ecology during the public hearing on June 14, 1999, which addressed concerns related to traffic and Hazardous Materials; and WHEREAS, a written response was prepared addressing the stated concerns and is incorporated by reference into this document; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this Mitigated Negative Declaration on June 14, 1999, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents related to the application and considered all testimony, found that the environmental impacts, including traffic generation and Hazardous Waste management, were adequately addressed, and recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negavite Declaration; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this Negative Declaration on July 6, 1999, examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony and written comments received during the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings: 1. The project does not 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 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 the site is along a portion of the shoreline of the Oakland - Alameda Estuary which has existed as an commercial marina for over fifty years; therefore, there is no identified area which is habitat for rare or endangered species; and the project does not have any significant, unavoidable adverse impacts. 2. As conditioned by required mitigation measures, the project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. The project will incorporate mitigation measures to avoid any significant adverse impacts in the context of continued growth and development along Alameda's northern waterfront. The project's cumulative traffic contribution to anticipated traffic congestion in western Alameda and at intersections in Oakland associated with the interconnection between the Webster - Posey tubes and I -880 would be reduced to a less than significant level as a result of its fair share contributions to local and regional transportation improvement projects. 3. The project would not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, because the project does not affect existing residential settlement, and the proposed land use is consistent with and compatible with the surroundings. 4. The applicant has agreed to incorporate all the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration into the project. These mitigations would either avoid adverse impacts or lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels. There is no substantial evidence that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, City Council has made findings, described in Attachment "A ", that all significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the project can be reduced to a level of insignificance. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda hereby adopts Negative Declaration, IS -99 -01 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Attachment "B ". G: \CC \RESO\22I S9901.2 ATTACHMENT A FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE AND LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS FOR WHICH MITIGATION IS RECOMMENDED The following sets forth all significant effects of the project, all of which can be reduced to a level of insignificance, and less than significant impacts for which mitigation is recommended, and with respect to each effect, makes one or more of the findings set forth in Resolution PB -99 -51 states facts in support of such findings. 1.1 Views from Marina Village Parkway. 1.1.2 Less than Significant Effect. The project would provide a new shoreline access walkway from which visitors would have excellent views of the Estuary, the Oakland skyline and the East Bay hills. The four -story hotel structure would be located on the western portion of the site, thus providing views across the parking lot from Marina Village Parkway. The placement of numerous trees within the parking lot, especially lower- crowned trees along the shoreline, could obscure the view of the Estuary from Marina Village Parkway. However, because the trees within the parking lot are required to meet design objectives for a canopy of trees within unenclosed parking areas, the impact is considered to be less -than- significant. Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 4: Changes or alterations have been recommended, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially reduce an environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) Vista - Preserving Landscape Design. The Landscape Plan should be revised to maintain view corridors and aspects of the vista across the southern parking area This could be achieved by reducing the number of ornamental pear trees along the shoreline path by half or two - thirds, and making all other trees high - crowned. In addition, the trees should be located to provide some wide views from two or three points along Marina Village Parkway. A few small ornamental trees could be scattered within this parking area, but should primarily consist of hedges and other shrubs and flowering ground -cover not to exceed a height of three or four feet. About 25 of the trees proposed by the Landscape Plan within this parking lot could be removed without substantially reducing the parking lot landscaping. This mitigation would allow the parking area landscaping to remain consistent with the ratio of one tree per four parking spaces (only 40 trees are required to meet the standard for the 161 proposed parking spaces). However, the impact would be less - than- significant with or without the change in the landscape plan. 1.2 Construction Dust 1.2.1 Significant Effect. The construction of the hotel would require a substantial degree of grading, which could have significant short-term impacts due to the generation of fine particulate matter (PMIO) from disturbed soil, construction vehicles traveling on unpaved roads, and tracking site soils onto paved roads. The failure to implement appropriate dust control measures would be a potentially significant impact. Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 4: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) Dust Control Measures. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a construction dust mitigation plan. An appropriate dust mitigation plan shall, at a minimum, include the following: • Provision of equipment and staff for watering of all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces, as well as parking and staging areas, at least twice daily, with an appropriate non -toxic dust palliative or suppressant added to the water before application; Covering of all soil, sand, debris or other loose material being transported in trucks; • Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind; • Suspension of dust - generating activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph); • Completion of landscaping at the earliest possible date; and Regular sweeping of paved construction area of all mud and debris, and on adjacent streets if visible. The implementation of these Mitigation Measures would reduce the impact of dust from construction of the project to a less- than - significant level. 1.3 Cumulative Air Quality Impacts 1.3.1 Significant Effect. The project would have no significant direct air quality impacts, but would result in vehicle trips that would contribute to the existing violation of state and national air quality standards within the Bay Area. To the extent that the project is located in a jurisdiction with a General Plan that conforms to the regional air quality plan, and that jurisdiction promotes Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), the cumulative impacts of the project would be avoided. Similarly, the absence of appropriate TCMs would have a potentially significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 4: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) Transportation Systems Management. As required by the Alameda Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program to mitigate the air quality impacts of development within the Marina Village area (as a major employment center), the hotel operator will be encouraged to promote a voluntary program for employees to commute by alternatives to single- occupant vehicles such as transit, car- or vanpooling, etc. with the objective of at least 35 percent of employees commuting in non- single- occupant vehicles or by other modes (walking and bicycling). For the hotel clientele, a large proportion of which are assumed to be making regular daytime trips to close -by business destinations within Marina Village, businesses which may sponsor guests at the hotel for training, business meetings or other purposes, and which already participate in van - pooling programs, should be encouraged to provide van - pooling services for their destinations. In addition, the hotel shall provide and maintain a kiosk or other display of information on public transit, BART shuttles, local bike rental services, and bicycle and pedestrian routes within Alameda. Consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires one bicycle parking space per ten passenger vehicle parking spaces (Zoning Ordinance, Section 30- 7.15), bicycle racks or storage lockers will also be required for 16 bikes (based on the provision of 161 parking spaces). Lastly, consistent with the anticipated increase in use of electric vehicles in Alameda, such as those manufactured at Alameda Point, two vehicle spaces in the parking lot should be provided with charging stations for hotel guest use. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 3 would reduce the potential cumulative air quality impact of the project to a less - than - significant level. 1.4 Seismic Safety and Differential Settlement 1.4.1 Significant Effect. Underlying soil and geological conditions could contribute to potentially significant seismic impacts, including liquefaction and other hazards on parts of the site in the event of a major earthquake on the Hayward, Calaveras or other faults. Development of the hotel on the site would result in exposure of people and property to potentially significant strong seismic ground shaking. In addition, potentially significant differential settlement could occur as a result of the project construction. Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (2). (Finding 4: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) Pile- Driven Foundation. The geotechnical consultant recommends 14 -inch square, precast, prestressed concrete piles as the most suitable type of foundation pile for this project, with design capacities as set forth in Table 1, and shall be driven according to the requirements set forth in the geotechnical investigation (Source: Raney Geotechnical, Geotechnical Investigation) or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant or other approved geotechnical engineer. The allowable capacities shown in Table 1 represent the net building load that is available to be carried by each pile. Table 1 includes provisions for " downdrag" resulting from ongoing settlement of the Bay Mud over time, which gradually increases the actual load carried by each pile. Table 1 FOUNDATION PILE DESIGN CAPACITY LOAD ALLOWABLE FACTOR TYPE CAPACITY OF (TONS) SAFETY Axial Downward: Dead 20 3 Dead plus live 30 2 Total (including Seismic or wind) 40 1.5 Uplift Lateral 30 2 3 1.5 Source: Raney Geotechnical, Geotechnical Investigation, Alameda Extended Stay America No. 8621, October 1, 1998, p. 8. (2) Earthwork. To prepare the site for construction, the site should be cleared of surface vegetation, unwanted trees, stumps and root systems, soil stockpiles, unwanted pavements, slabs, rubble exceeding six inches in maximum dimension, rubbish, exposed wood fragments, and any other debris or remnants of previous construction, including underground utilities and pipes. It is assumed that the old building foundation slab will be demolished; the existing foundation piles should be cut off at least eight inches below the surrounding soil level. Soils that have sloughed and eroded into the void beneath the old foundation slab should be excavated out to form a firm level surface. The soil beneath the old foundation will require stabilization treatment consisting of either: a) working coarse, granular material such as gravel or cobbles into the subgrade until rolling and displacement under the weight of grading equipment ceases; or b) spreading geotextile fabric directly upon the excavated subgrade, and placing 12 to 18 inches of imported, granular material over the fabric. Deep excavations required for the removal of the old foundation slab and underlying soft soil materials should be sloped back to a dish - shaped configuration allowing through passage of compaction equipment, and backfilled with engineered fill placed in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant or other approved geotechnical engineer (see Technical Appendix, Geotechnical Investigation). Implementation of the above Mitigation Measures (pile -driven foundations and earthwork - Mitigation Measures 4 and 5 in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration), consistent with the guidelines set forth in the geotechnical investigation for the pile-driven foundation and earthwork, would reduce the impact of strong seismic shaking, liquefaction and of differential settlement on property and persons to a less than significant level. 1.5 Soil Erosion, Potential Release of Hazardous M ironment, and Water Quality. 1.5.1 Significant Effect. The project site would be substantially graded, and on -site soils, including emergent topsoil on the fill mound, would be excavated. Because of the grading activity, wind and water erosion of on -site soils could occur, and the impact of construction would be potentially significant. Because the soils on the site contain high- boiling petroleum hydrocarbons, which are likely to contain polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PNAs), classified as probable human carcinogens, substantial emissions of windblown dust or sediment -laden stormwater runoff from the soils on the site would be a potentially significant impact on the environment. During construction, there is a potential for runoff of exposed soil during rainstorms, which would have a potentially significant impact on water quality and could violate water quality standards. aterials into the Env Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 4: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) adopted for Marina Village requires the developer to provide erosion and dust control measures to reduce wind and water erosion from the site during construction. A site - specific plan to control erosion shall be provided in conjunction with the building permit application, and shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. The City Engineer, or their representative, shall provide for inspection of the erosion - control measures during construction. The SWPPP shall be consistent with the Soil and Surface Water Management Plan adopted for the project (see item 6.1 below). Implementation of this measure would reduce the potential for soil erosion, the risk of release of hazardous materials into the environment, and adverse water quality impacts to a level that is less than significant. 1.6 Construction Worker, Public and Environmental Exposure to Hazardous Materials. 1.6.1 Significant Effect. A Phase I Site Assessment of the site was prepared by Raney Geotechnical, dated August 17, 1998, which indicated that the site contains contaminants from past industrial and dredging activities, and from the stockpile of fill material stored on the site, including surface sediments commonly referred to as "marsh crust" which originated from an unknown spillage around 1900. As a result of contaminated fill materials placed on the site, and other prior contamination of the site soils, there are hazardous materials on the site which construction workers could encounter, resulting in potentially significant health effects. In addition, members of the public could be exposed to harmful contaminants if they were to stray onto the site during construction, thus requiring that access to the site be carefully restricted when the soil is exposed. Substantial emissions of windblown dust or sediment -laden stoiuiwater runoff from the soils on the site could result in potentially significant impacts on the environment in the absence of commonly accepted and available means of avoiding such releases into the environment. Following completion of the hotel construction, landscape maintenance workers, specifically working in tree maintenance, may be required to excavate on -site soils or engage in other close soil contact and could be exposed to harmful contaminants, which would be a potentially significant impact (maintenance of lawn areas, ground cover and shrubs are not expected to require any deep soil contact) (Source: Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines, Soil and Surface Water Management Plan, Other Construction Considerations, Nov. 3, 1998). Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (3). (Finding 4: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines for Construction Workers. Guidelines for the protection of construction workers against potential exposure to hazardous materials have been developed for the site by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., with emphasis on preventing skin contact of workers to petroleum- contaminated soils. The Guidelines include: Hazard Communication Training for overall site safety; implementation of Health and Safety Plans for each contractor; designation of a site safety officer for worker safety and controlling off -site migration of soil materials; tailgate health and safety meetings; dust and erosion control measures; and restricting public access to excavated and/or exposed areas during construction. Personal protective measures are not required for potential exposure to lead, because measured lead levels did not exceed 600 mg/kg, which is the threshold used by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA). However, pursuant to Proposition 65 (the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act of 1986) and potential intrusion onto the construction site by the public, certain procedures are recommended to avoid lead exposure. Additional guidelines for preventing worker exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons include use of personal protective equipment (disposable coveralls, nitrile rubber gloves, rubber boots and as needed during pile driving, face and eye protection, collectively referred to as PPE), personal decontamination, checking for combustible gases prior to performing "hot work" (i.e., welding), and air quality sampling if strong odors are detected. The specific requirements are set forth in the Health and Safety Guidelines prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (Source: Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines, Soil and Surface Water Management Plan, Other Construction Considerations, Nov. 3, 1998). Implementation of the above measures (Mitigation Measure 7 in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) will reduce the potential impact of contact between construction workers and residual petroleum hydrocarbons to a less than significant level. (2) Soil and Surface Water Management Plan. As part of the Site Management Plan (SMP) approved by the Alameda County Environmental Health Services Agency (ACEHS), specific procedures for managing and handling exposed soil during construction are required. The site - specific Soil and Surface Water Management Plan shall include the following elements: Dust control. Measures could include water spraying or application of dust suppressants, and gravel covering of high - traffic areas; • Temporary storage of excavated soil material. Fill and other materials excavated during utility trenching, pre - drilling for pile- driving, surface clearing and preparation should be stockpiled and covered with 10- millimeter plastic sheeting to prevent runoff or discharge of affected soil, water or dust. Depending on weather conditions, containment structures or devices may be required. • Guidelines for re -use of excavated fill materials. Re -used fill materials should be fully covered with buildings, paving or landscaping. Where re- used fill materials are covered with landscaping, a one -foot minimum thick layer of clean imported fill shall be provided, and all existing fill material shall be covered in a manner to prevent human exposure from casual contact with landscaping or other surfaces. • Off -site disposal of excavated materials. In the event that off-site disposal of excavated fill materials is required due to geotechnical or other construction considerations, the material should be tested to determine appropriate means of disposal • Surface water runoff controls. No water runoff discharges to the Estuary are permitted, and runoff to the storm drain system shall meet water quality criteria set by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). If water discharged to the storm drain system could exceed 3 mg/liter, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit could be required (or a NPDES waiver, if greater than 0.5 mg /liter). • Dewatering. Groundwater generated from dewatering activities should be handled in the same manner as other site runoff. • Equipment Decontamination. Trucks and large equipment should be washed down before leaving the site to avoid inadvertent, cumulative off -site transport of affected soil. Wash -down water should be handled in the same manner as other site runoff. Implementation of the Soil and Surface Water Management Plan will reduce the potential impact of substantial emissions of windblown dust or sediment -laden stormwater runoff from the soils on the site to a less than significant impact. 3. Special Tree - Planting Standards. The Site Management Plan (SMP) approved by the ACEHS did not allow trees to be planted due to the possibility that future maintenance workers could be required to dig below the one -foot thick layer of clean fill, and could be exposed to the contaminated soil. Because of the need to plant trees to meet aesthetic goals for the project, such as screening the view of the Barnhill grain silo and the Rigging International equipment storage yards, and meeting landscape requirements for the parking lot, the SMP needs to be amended. To avoid potential contact of maintenance workers with contaminated soil, the hazardous materials consulting fiiui (Geomatrix Consultants, Inc.) recommends installing trees with an excavated hole for each tree which is large enough to contain the root ball when the tree is fully grown, up to a maximum of five feet in diameter and five feet deep, backfilling the hole with clean soil over the tree's root ball, and appropriate handling of the excavated soil consistent with the Soil and Surface Water Management Plan. Implementation of the Special Tree- Planting Standards (Mitigation Measure 9 in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) would reduce the potential for unhealthful contact of future landscape maintenance workers with petroleum- contaminated soil to a less than significant impact. 1.7 Construction Noise 1.7.1 Significant Effect. During construction there would be a short term increase in noise levels within the immediate area due primarily to pile- driving activities, and secondarily to operation of other equipment such as trucks, backhoes, graders, cranes, concrete mixers, jackhammers and saws. The site is located adjacent to the Barnhill houseboat marina, and to the general marina on Parcel C which contains some liveaboard boats. Together, these uses represent sensitive receptors which could be adversely affected by construction noise, especially the pile- driving, which could result in severe noise exposure up to a distance of 450 feet, which would be potentially significant. Other construction equipment could have significant adverse effects on houseboats or liveaboard boats within 300 feet of the activity. Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 4: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) Pile Driving Shielding and Community Notification. To reduce noise emissions from pile driving, the applicant shall either: a) surround the area with a pile driver shield, or b) require the use of hydraulic or vibratory pile drivers. In addition, prior to construction the applicant contractors should meet with the Barnhill and general marina Harbormasters, and other representatives or residents of the Barnhill or general marina adjacent to the site to discuss noise- related issues. Topics to address include: The process of informing interested persons of the schedule for severe noise - generating construction activities. A process for interested persons to provide feedback as to the effectiveness of noise mitigation measures. In addition, either the applicant or the general contractor should designate a disturbance response coordinator. This person should be familiar with the project and construction schedule, including attending weekly construction meetings, and play an active role in monitoring project complaints with respect to noise. This responsibility may include communications with neighbors of the project and being available to respond to comments and complaints. The applicant should also consider, for the duration of the project construction, relocating any liveaboard boats in the general marina within 200 to 300 feet of the site to more distant berths, such as those directly adjacent to the Shipways. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 10 would reduce the noise impact of project construction to a level that is less- than- significant. 1.8 Cumulative Traffic Congestion 1.8.1 Significant Effect. Although the project would not result in any direct impacts with regard to Level of Service (LOS) at any of the study intersections, it would contribute a small increment towards the worsening of traffic by 2005 at the intersection of Harrison and 7th Streets, and in the longer teiili, by 2020, also at Broadway and 5th Streets, Marina Village Parkway and Constitution Way, Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street, and at Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way. The threshold of significance for cumulative project impacts is based on the project's contribution to traffic congestion (i.e., where the LOS at a given intersection has deteriorated to below LOS D), as a percentage of total anticipated traffic growth, and its proportional participation in mitigation measures and programs aimed at reducing the traffic effects of cumulative development. The amount of traffic expected to be contributed by the project in the future, both in the short- and long- teitn, represents a potentially significant cumulative increase in traffic in relation to existing and projected traffic congestion. Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (1). (Finding 4: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study). Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (1) The applicant shall contribute funds in the amount of $54,964 to offset improvement costs, as identified by the City of Alameda Public Works Department and indicated in Table 2 on the ` following page. These fees shall be collected at the time of submittal for the Building Permit of the hotel structure. The fair share contribution of the project towards the implementation of the improvements would reduce the project's cumulative impacts to a less - than - significant level. Table 2 Traffic Mitigation Fees Extended Stay America, Marina Village, Alameda Improvement Project Cost Estimate Local Share of Projects' Project's % Share of Traffic Growth (2010) Peak Hour Project's % Share of Improvement Cost Tinker /Tynan Avenue Extension $3,700,000 100% 0.20% $7,400 Atlantic Avenue Corridor Project $250,000 100% 0.20% $500 980 SB Jackson Street Slip -Ramp $9,800,000 20% 0.40% $7,840 880 NB Webster Street Slip -Ramp $7,940,000 20% 0.40% $6,352 880 SB Jackson Street On -Ramp $860,000 20% 0.40% $688 Posey Tube /980 NB On -Ramp $4,970,000 20% 0.40% $3,976 880 SB MLKing Off -Ramp $17,110,000 20% 0.40% $13,688 Mitchell/Mosely Extension $7,260,000 100% 0.20% $14,520 Clement Street Extension $8,780,000 100% 0.20% $002 TOTAL $51,665,000 $54,964 ' Regional projects assume 80% State/Federal Match 2 Due to Marina Village Associate's previous contribution of 100% of cost of Atlantic Avenue construction within Marina Village, with benefits for non - Marina Village development, Extended Stay America's share of Clement Street Extension project is recommended to be waived. ATTACHMENT B EXTENDED STAY AMERICA, ALAMEDA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM . Impact: Scenic Vistas. The project would provide a new shoreline access walkway from which visitors would have excellent views of the Estuary, the Oakland skyline and the East Bay hills. The four -story hotel structure would be located on the western portion of the site, thus providing views across the parking lot from Marina Village Parkway. The placement of numerous trees within the parking lot, especially lower - crowned trees along the shoreline, could obscure the view of the Estuary from Marina Village Parkway. However, because the trees within the parking lot are required to meet design objectives for a canopy of trees within unenclosed parking areas, the impact is considered to be less - than - significant. Mitigation Measure: Vista - Preserving Landscape Design. The Landscape Plan should be revised to maintain view corridors and aspects of the vista across the southern parking area. This could be achieved by reducing the number of ornamental pear trees along the shoreline path by half or two- thirds, and making all other trees high- crowned. In addition, the trees should be located to provide some wide views from two or three points along Marina Village Parkway. A few small ornamental trees could be scattered within this parking area, but should primarily consist of hedges and other shrubs and flowering ground -cover not to exceed a height of three or four feet. About 25 of the trees proposed by the Landscape Plan within this parking lot could be removed without substantially reducing the parking lot landscaping. This mitigation would allow the parking area landscaping to remain consistent with the ratio of one tree per four parking spaces (only 40 trees are required to meet the standard for the 161 proposed parking spaces). However, the impact would be less - than - significant with or without the change in the landscape plan. Responsibility: Applicant, Planning Department Action: 1. Applicant to submit Final Landscape Plan to the Planning Depai tnient for approval. 2. Planning staff to determine compliance with the mitigation measure. II. Impact: Construction Dust. The construction of the hotel would require a substantial degree of grading, which could have significant short-term Mitigation Measure: impacts due to the generation of fine particulate matter (PM10) from disturbed soil, construction vehicles traveling on unpaved roads, and tracking site soils onto paved roads. The failure to implement appropriate dust control measures would be a potentially significant impact. Dust Control Measures. The project applicant shall prepare and implement a construction dust mitigation plan. An appropriate dust mitigation plan shall, at a minimum, include the following: • Provision of equipment and staff for watering of all exposed or disturbed soil surfaces, as well as parking and staging areas, at least twice daily, with an appropriate non -toxic dust palliative or suppressant added to the water before application; • Covering of all soil, sand, debris or other loose material being transported in trucks; • Watering or covering of stockpiles of debris, soil, sand or other materials that can be blown by the wind; • Suspension of dust- generating activities during periods of high wind (over 15 mph); • Completion of landscaping at the earliest possible date; and • Regular sweeping of paved construction area of all mud and debris, and on adjacent streets if visible. The implementation of these Mitigation Measures would reduce the impact of dust from construction of the project to a less - than - significant level. Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer and Public Works Department Action: 1. Applicant shall provide the outline of a dust - control program. III. Impact: Cumulative Air Quality Deterioration. The project would have no significant direct air quality impacts, but would result in vehicle trips that would contribute to the existing violation of state and national air quality standards within the Bay Area. To the extent that the project is located in a jurisdiction with a General Plan that conforms to the regional air quality plan, and that jurisdiction promotes Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), the cumulative impacts of the project would be avoided. Similarly, the absence of appropriate TCMs would have a potentially significant cumulative impact on regional air quality. Mitigation Measure: Transportation Systems Management. As required by the Alameda Transportation Systems Management (TSM) program to mitigate the air quality impacts of development within the Marina Village area (as a major employment center), the hotel operator will be encouraged to promote a voluntary program for employees to commute by alternatives to single- occupant vehicles such as transit, car- or vanpooling, etc. with the objective of at least 35 percent of employees commuting in non - single - occupant vehicles or by other modes (walking and bicycling). For the hotel clientele, a large proportion of which are assumed to be making regular daytime trips to close -by business destinations within Marina Village, businesses which may sponsor guests at the hotel for training, business meetings or other purposes, and which already participate in van - pooling programs, should be encouraged to provide van - pooling services for their destinations. In addition, the hotel shall provide and maintain a kiosk or other display of information on public transit, BART shuttles, local bike rental services, and bicycle and pedestrian routes within Alameda. Consistent with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, which requires one bicycle parking space per ten passenger vehicle parking spaces (Zoning Ordinance, Section 30- 7.15), bicycle racks or storage lockers will also be required for 16 bikes (based 011 the provision of 161 parking spaces). Lastly, consistent with the anticipated increase in use of electric vehicles in Alameda, such as those manufactured at Alameda Point, two vehicle spaces in the parking lot should be provided with charging stations for hotel guest use. Implementation of this mitigation would reduce the potential cumulative air quality impact of the project to a less - than- significant level. Responsibility: Applicant, City Planning Department Action: IV. Impact: 1. Applicant to submit Final Development Plans showing placement of transit kiosk in hotel lobby, exterior bicycle racks with a capacity for 16 bikes, and two electric vehicle charging stations. 2. Public Works staff shall inspect work for each building phase to deteiiine compliance with approved plans. Seismic Ground Shaking. Underlying soil and geological conditions could contribute to potentially significant seismic impacts, including liquefaction and other hazards on parts of the site in the event of a major earthquake on the Hayward, Calaveras or other faults. Development of the Mitigation Measure: hotel on the site would result in exposure of people and property to potentially significant strong seismic ground shaking. Pile -Driven Foundation. The geotechnical consultant recommends 14 -inch square, precast, prestressed concrete piles as the most suitable type of foundation pile for this project, with design capacities as set forth in Table 1, and shall be driven according to the requirements set forth in the geotechnical investigation (Source: Raney Geotechnical, Geotechnical Investigation) or as otherwise recommended by the geotechnical consultant or other approved geotechnical engineer. The allowable capacities shown in Table 1 represent the net building load that is available to be carried by each pile. Table 1 includes provisions for "downdrag" resulting from ongoing settlement of the Bay Mud over time, which gradually increases the actual load carried by each pile. Table 1 FOUNDATION PILE DESIGN CAPACITY LOAD ALLOWABLE FACTOR TYPE CAPACITY OF (TONS) SAFETY Axial Downward: Dead 20 3 Dead plus live 30 2 Total (including Seismic or wind) 40 1.5 Uplift 30 2 Lateral 3 1.5 Source: Raney Geotechnical, Geotechnical Investigation, Alameda Extended Stay America No. 8621, October 1, 1998, p. 8. Implementation of the above Mitigation Measure (Mitigation Measure 4 in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration), consistent with the guidelines set forth in the geotechnical investigation for the pile -driven foundation, and together with Mitigation Measure 5, described below, would reduce the impact of strong seismic shaking, liquefaction and differential settlement on property and persons to a less than significant level. Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer and Public Works Department Action: 1 Applicant to submit Final Geotechnical Report to City Engineer for approval. 2. Applicant to submit grading and structural plans for review of compliance with approved Final Geotechnical Report. 3. Public Works staff shall inspect work for each building phase to determine compliance with approved plans. V. Impact: Ground Failure and Liquefaction. Underlying soil and geological conditions could contribute to potentially significant differential settlement and other hazards and property damage as a result of the project construction. Mitigation Measure: Site Excavation and Replacement Fill. The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Raney Geotechnical Consultants regarding site preparation measures to avoid ground failure and liquefaction. To prepare the site for construction, the site should be cleared of surface vegetation, unwanted trees, stumps and root systems, soil stockpiles, unwanted pavements, slabs, rubble exceeding six inches in maximum dimension, rubbish, exposed wood fragments, and any other debris or remnants of previous construction, including underground utilities and pipes. It is assumed that the old building foundation slab will be demolished; the existing foundation piles should be cut off at least eight inches below the surrounding soil level. Soils that have sloughed and eroded into the void beneath the old foundation slab should be excavated out to form a firm level surface. The soil beneath the old foundation will require stabilization treatment consisting of either: a) working coarse, granular material such as gravel or cobbles into the subgrade until rolling and displacement under the weight of grading equipment ceases; or b) spreading geotextile fabric directly upon the excavated subgrade, and placing 12 to 18 inches of imported, granular material over the fabric. Deep excavations required for the removal of the old foundation slab and underlying soft soil materials should be sloped back to a dish - shaped configuration allowing through passage of compaction equipment, and backfilled with engineered fill placed in a manner consistent with the recommendations of the geotechnical consultant or other approved geotechnical engineer (see Technical Appendix, Geotechnical Investigation). Implementation of the above Mitigation Measures (pile -driven foundations and earthwork - Mitigation Measures 4 and 5 in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration), consistent with the guidelines set forth in the geotechnical investigation for the pile -driven foundation and earthwork, would reduce the impact of strong seismic shaking, liquefaction and of differential settlement on property and persons to a less than significant level. Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer and Public Works Department Action: 1. Applicant to submit Final Geotechnical Report to City Engineer for approval. 2. Applicant to submit grading and structural plans for review of compliance with approved Final Geotechnical Report. 3. Public Works staff shall inspect work for each building phase to determine compliance with approved plans. VI. Impact: Soil Erosion. As a result of the substantial grading of the site, potentially significant wind and water erosion of site soils could occur, and the impact of construction would be potentially significant. Mitigation Measure: Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. The applicant will be required to adopt site- specific measures for controlling erosion and runoff during construction, consistent with the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) adopted for Marina Village, and with the Soil and Surface Water Management Plan adopted for the project (see Mitigation Measure 8). Responsibility: Applicant, Prime Contractor, City Engineer and Public Works Department Action: 1. The Applicant shall submit a plan to control erosion in conjunction with the building permit application, 2 The erosion - and runoff - control plan shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. 3. The Prime Contractor shall implement erosion- and runoff - control measures during construction consistent with best management practices and any special requirements of the City Engineer. 4 The City Engineer, or their representative, shall provide for inspection of the erosion- and runoff- control measures during construction. VII.A Impact: Construction Worker Exposure to Hazardous Materials. A Phase I Site Assessment of the site was prepared by Raney Geotechnical, dated August 17, 1998, which indicated that the site contains contaminants from past industrial and dredging activities, and from the stockpile of fill material stored on the site, including surface sediments commonly referred to as "marsh crust" which originated from an unknown spillage around 1900. As a result of contaminated fill materials placed on the site, and other prior contamination of the site soils, there are hazardous materials on the site which construction workers could encounter, resulting in potentially significant health effects. VII.B Impact: Public Exposure to Hazardous Materials. Due to the on -site contamination, members of the public could be exposed to harmful contaminants if they were to stray onto the site during construction, which would be a potentially significant adverse impact. Mitigation Measure: Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines for Construction Workers. Guidelines for the protection of construction workers against have been developed for the site by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., with emphasis on preventing skin contact of workers to petroleum- contaminated soils. The Guidelines include: Hazard Communication Training for overall site safety; implementation of Health and Safety Plans for each contractor; designation of a site safety officer for worker safety and controlling off -site migration of soil materials; tailgate health and safety meetings; dust and erosion control measures; and restricting public access to excavated and/or exposed areas during construction. Personal protective measures are not required for potential exposure to lead, because measured lead levels did not exceed 600 mg/kg, which is the threshold used by the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal /OSHA). However, pursuant to Proposition 65 (the California Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act of 1986) and potential intrusion onto the construction site by the public, certain procedures are recommended to avoid lead exposure, including advisory warnings at tailgate health and safety meetings, dust and erosion control measures, and project area fencing. Additional guidelines for preventing worker exposure to petroleum hydrocarbons include use of personal protective equipment (disposable coveralls, nitrile rubber gloves, rubber boots and as needed during pile driving, face and eye protection, collectively referred to as PPE), personal decontamination, checking for combustible gases prior to performing "hot work" (i.e., welding), and air quality sampling if strong odors are detected. The specific requirements are set forth in the Health and Safety Guidelines prepared by Geomatrix Consultants, Inc. (Source: Geomatrix Consultants, Inc., Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines, Soil and Surface Water Management Plan, Other Construction Considerations, Nov. 3, 1998). Implementation of the above measures (Mitigation Measure 7 in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) will reduce the potential impact of contact between construction workers and residual petroleum hydrocarbons to a less than significant level. Responsibility: Applicant, Prime Contractor, City Engineer and Public Works Department Action: 1. Applicant to require Health and Safety Plans for each contractor, to include Hazard Communication Training, Tailgate health and safety meetings, and coordination with dust- and erosion - control plans. 2. Prime contractor to install and maintain fencing around project site during project construction. 3. Prime contractor to provide PPE materials and decontamination facilities for construction workers, and establish procedures for checking air for combustible gases or unhealthful odors. 4. City Engineer and Public Works staff to periodically inspect construction site for compliance with procedures and precautions. VIII. Impact: Substantial emissions of windblown dust or sediment -laden stormwater runoff from the soils on the site could result in potentially significant impacts on the environment in the absence of commonly accepted and available means of avoiding such releases into the environment. Mitigation Measure: Soil and Surface Water Management Plan. As part of the Site Management Plan (SMP) approved by the Alameda County Environmental Health Services Department (ACEHS) for the site, specific procedures for managing and handling exposed soil during construction are required. The site- specific Soil and Surface Water Management Plan shall include the following elements: Dust control. Measures could include water spraying or application of dust suppressants, and gravel covering of high - traffic areas; Temporary storage ` of excavated soil material. Fill and other materials excavated during utility trenching, pre - drilling for pile - driving, surface clearing and preparation should be stockpiled and covered with 10- millimeter plastic sheeting to prevent runoff or discharge of affected soil, water or dust. Depending on weather conditions, containment structures or devices may be required. Guidelines for re -use of excavated fill materials. Re -used fill materials should be fully covered with buildings, paving or 0 0 landscaping. Where re -used fill materials are covered with landscaping, a one -foot minimum thick layer of clean imported fill shall be provided, and all existing fill material shall be covered in a manner to prevent human exposure from casual contact with landscaping or other surfaces. Off-site disposal of excavated materials. In the event that off -site disposal of excavated fill materials is required due to geotechnical or other construction considerations, the material should be tested to determine appropriate means of disposal. Surface water runoff controls. No water runoff discharges to the Estuary are permitted, and runoff to the storm drain system shall meet water quality criteria set by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board (SFRWQCB). If water discharged to the storm drain system could exceed 3 mg /liter, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) permit could be required (or a NPDES waiver, if greater than 0.5 mg /liter). Dewatering. Groundwater generated from dewatering activities should be handled in the same manner as other site runoff. Equipment Decontamination. Trucks and large equipment should be washed down before leaving the site to avoid inadvertent, cumulative off -site transport of affected soil. Wash -down water should be handled in the same manner as other site runoff. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 8 will reduce the potential impact of substantial emissions of windblown dust or sediment -laden stoimwater runoff from the soils on the site to a less than significant impact. Responsibility: Applicant, Prime Contractor, City Engineer and Public Works Department Action: X. Impact: 1. Applicant and/or prime contractor to implement the Site Management Plan as approved by the Alameda County Environmental Health Services Department, including dust control measures, procedures for storage, handling and disposal of excavated materials, surface water runoff controls, dewatering and decontamination of equipment. 2. City Engineer and Public Works Department to provide for inspection of construction site to assess compliance with Soil and Surface Water Management Plan procedures and precautions by the Applicant. Following completion of the hotel construction, landscape maintenance workers, specifically working in tree maintenance, may be required to excavate on -site soils or engage in other close soil contact, beneath the planned one -foot thick layer of clean fill, and could be exposed to harmful contaminants, which would be a potentially significant impact. dig and could be exposed to the contaminated soil. Mitigation Measure: Special Tree - Planting Standards. The Site Management Plan (SMP) approved by the ACEHS may be amended to permit the planting of trees to meet aesthetic goals for the project, such as screening the view of the Barnhill grain silo and the Rigging International equipment storage yards, and meeting landscape requirements for the parking lot. This amendment is contingent upon installing trees with an excavated hole for each tree which is large enough to contain the root ball when the tree is fully grown, up to a maximum of five feet in diameter and five feet deep, backfilling the hole with clean soil over the tree's root ball, and appropriate handling of the excavated soil consistent with the Soil and Surface Water Management Plan. Implementation of this measure (Mitigation Measure 9) would reduce the potential for unhealthful contact of future landscape maintenance workers with petroleum - contaminated soil to a less than significant impact. Responsibility: Applicant, Landscaping Contractor and Public Works Department Action: 1. Applicant to establish procedures for Landscaping Contractor for installation of trees. 2. Landscaping Contractor to comply with required procedure. 3. Public Works staff to verify compliance with procedure. X. Impact Construction Noise. During construction there would be a short term increase in noise levels within the immediate area due primarily to pile - driving activities, and secondarily to operation of other equipment such as trucks, backhoes, graders, cranes, concrete mixers, jackhammers and saws. The site is located adjacent to the Barnhill houseboat marina and a general marina on Parcel C which contains some liveaboard boats. Together, these uses represent sensitive receptors which could be adversely affected by construction noise, especially the pile - driving, which could result in severe noise exposure up to a distance of 450 feet, which would be potentially significant. Other construction equipment could have significant adverse effects on houseboats or liveaboard boats within 300 feet of the activity. Mitigation Measure: Pile Driving Shielding and Community Notification. To reduce noise emissions from pile driving, the applicant shall either: a) surround the area with a piledriver shield, or b) require the use of hydraulic or vibratory pile drivers. In addition, prior to construction the applicant contractors should meet with the Barnhill and general marina Harbormasters, and other representatives or residents of the Barnhill or general marina adjacent to the site to discuss noise - related issues. Topics to address include: • The process of informing interested persons of the schedule for severe noise- generating construction activities. • A process for interested persons to provide feedback as to the effectiveness of noise- mitigation measures. In addition, either the applicant or the general contractor should designate a disturbance response coordinator. This person should be familiar with the project and construction schedule, including attending weekly construction meetings, and play an active role in monitoring project complaints with respect to noise. This responsibility may include communications with neighbors of the project and being available to respond to comments and complaints. The applicant should also consider, for the duration of the project construction, relocating any liveaboard boats in the general marina within 200 to 300 feet of the site to more distant berths, such as those directly adjacent to the Shipways. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 10 would reduce the noise impact of project construction to a level that is less - than- significant. Responsibility Applicant, Planning Director, City Engineer and Public Works Department Action: XI. Impact: 1. Applicant to submit Final Improvement Plans to City Engineer for approval, including plans for noise insulation for 2 Public Works staff shall inspect noise insulation. Cumulative Traffic Congestion. The established threshold of significance for cumulative project impacts is based on the project's contribution to existing or anticipated traffic congestion (i.e., where the Level of Service or LOS at a given intersection has or is expected to deteriorate to below LOS D), as a percentage of total anticipated traffic growth, together with its proportional participation in mitigation measures and programs aimed at reducing the traffic effects of cumulative development. Although the project would not result in any direct impacts with regard to LOS at any of the study intersections, it would contribute a small increment towards the worsening of traffic by 2005 at the intersection of Harrison and 7th Streets, and in the longer term (2020), also at Broadway and 5th Street, Marina Village Parkway and Constitution Way, Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street, and Atlantic Avenue and Constitution Way. The amount of traffic expected to be contributed by the project in the future, both in the short- and long -term, represents a potentially significant cumulative increase in traffic in relation to existing and projected traffic congestion. Mitigation Measure: The applicant shall contribute funds in the amount of $54,964 to offset improvement costs, as identified by the City of Alameda Public Works Department and indicated in Table 2. These fees shall be collected at the time of submittal for the Building Permit of the hotel structure. The fair share contribution of the project towards the implementation of the improvements would reduce the project's cumulative impacts to a less -than- significant level. Table 2 Traffic Mitigation Fees Extended Stay America, Marina Village, Alameda Improvement Project Cost Estimate Local Share of Projects' Project's % Share of Traffic Growth (2010) Peak Hour Project's % Share of Improvement Cost Tinker /Tynan Avenue Extension $3,700,000 100% 0.20% $7,400 Atlantic Avenue Corridor Project $250,000 100% 0.20% $500 980 SB Jackson Street Slip -Ramp $9,800,000 20% 0.40% $7,840 880 NB Webster Street Slip -Ramp $7,940,000 20% 0.40% $6,352 880 SB Jackson Street On -Ramp $860,000 20% 0.40% $688 Posey Tube /980 NB On -Ramp $4,970,000 20% 0.40% $3,976 880 SB MLKing Off-Ramp $17,1 10,000 20% 0.40% $13,688 Mitchell/Mosely Extension $7,260,000 100% 0.20% $14,520 Clement Street Extension $8,780,000 100% 0.20% $002 TOTAL $51,665,000 $54,964 1 Regional projects assune.80% State/Federal Match 2 Due to Marina Village Associate's previous contribution of 100% of cost of Atlantic Avenue construction within Marina Village, with benefits for nail-Marina Village development, Extended Stay America's share of Clement Street Extension project is recommended to be waived. Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer and Public Works Department Action: Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the site, the Applicant shall pay to the City $54,964 as a full payment to offset anticipated costs of transportation system improvements which have been programmed by the City Engineer and Public Works Department. 2. Public Works staff shall permit the Applicant to arrange a payment schedule acceptable to the City Engineer, which if delayed by more than one year from the date of the Planning Board approval, may be adjusted according to the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco/Bay Area. 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 6th day of July 1999, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5 NOES: None. AB SENT: None. ABSTENTIONS: None. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 7th day of July , 1999. Diane Felsch, City Cler City of Alameda