Loading...
Resolution 13268CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13 2 6 8 ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IS- 99 -02, AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT GPA- 99 -01; AN AMENDMENT TO THE BUSINESS AND WATERFRONT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, REZONING R- 99 -01; PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD- 99 -01; AND TENTATIVE MAP 7170, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A 151 UNIT DEVELOPMENT. WHEREAS, an application was made on February 25, 1999 by Kaufman and Broad, South Bay, Inc. for an Initial Study IS 99 -02, a General Plan Amendment GPA 99 -1, an Amendment to the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project, Rezoning R 99 -1, and Planned Development PD 99 -1, to allow residential use in a General Industrial use area of the General Plan. The Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (Initial Study 99 -02) and Finding of No Significant Impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for a proposed development consisting of 127 detached homes and 24 attached homes on 151 lots, for a total of 151 homes and related utilities streets, open space and visitor parking on 20.52 acres. The site is located north of Buena Vista Avenue between Entrance Road and Hibbard Street and currently contains an industrial building foinierly occupied by Weyerhaeuser, the Chipman Moving Warehouse and food storage tanks along the edge of the Estuary. The subject property is 23.82 acres so there will be a 3.3 -acre remainder parcel following a former rail corridor, north of the Del Monte warehouse along Buena Vista Avenue between Entrance Road and Sherman Street, and a 2.1 -acre park parcel adjacent to the waterfront; and WHEREAS, the application was revised on September 21, 1999 to include a Tentative Map TM 7470 and Design Review DR 99 -89 Applications; and WHEREAS, all but the Design Review application were accepted as complete on January 7, 2000; and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated General Industry on the General Plan Diagram, and the applicant proposes to change the General Plan land use designation to Medium Density Residential; and WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned M -2 (General Industrial /Manufacturing District), and the applicant proposes to change the zoning designation to R -4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential, Planned Development Overlay); and WHEREAS, the subject property is designated General Industry in the Community Improvement Plan (CIP) for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (BWIP), and the applicant requests a change in the land use designation to Medium Density Residential; and WHEREAS, a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study was circulated for public comment between June 23, 2000 and July 24, 2000, and the following comments have been received; a. E -mail from David Landau (Undated) b. July 3, 2000 Letter from Steven Gerstle c. July 17, 2000 Letter from the Department of Toxic Substances Control d. July 18, 2000 E -mail from Neighborhood Coalition e. July 19, 2000 E -mail from Linda de Moreta f. July 19, 2000 Letter from Caltrans g. July 20, 2000 Letter from BVAN h. July 20, 2000 Letter from Robert Doud i. July 21, 2000 Letter from Renewed HOPE Housing Advocates j. July 21, 2000 Letter from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board k. July 21, 2000 Letter from Jeff Georgevich L July 22, 2000 Petition of opposition from the 1500 Block of Pacific Avenue m. July 22, 2000 Letter from Anne B. McDonald & John F. Thorsberg n. July 24, 2000 Letter from W. J. Smith o. July 24, 2000 Letter from Stuart Rickard p. July 31, 2000 Letter from the Governor's Office of Planning and Research WHEREAS, staff has prepared a written response to the comments which was included as an attachment to the staff report, and the written response is incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, based on the written response to comments, there are no identified significant impacts which have not been addressed by the Mitigated Negative Declaration and there was no information which demonstrated that the mitigations were not feasible or adequate to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on July 24, 2000 and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents, and identified no potentially significant environmental impacts that could not be mitigated but recommended that the Negative Declaration not be approved because the project should not be approved prior to the completion of the Northern Waterfront Specific Plan. WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on September 5, 2000 and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents, and made the following findings: 1. 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 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 California history because a) the site is an established industrial facility that is covered with a combination of pavement, concrete and structures; b) no biological, archaeological, or historic resources have been identified on site, and c) the project does not result in any significant, unavoidable adverse 2 impacts, and d) implementation of specified mitigation measures will avoid or reduce the effects of the Project on undetected archaeological resources or the environment and thereby avoid any significant impacts. 2. The project does not involve impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable, meaning that the incremental effects of the project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects, because the project will a) promote long -teiul goals of the General Plan for environmental enhancement and public shoreline access; b) not result in any significant unavoidable adverse impacts, and will c) incorporate mitigation measures to avoid significant adverse impacts on the environment in the context of continued growth and development along Alameda's northern waterfront. In particular, the project would have a less- than - significant cumulative traffic impact on anticipated traffic congestion in western Alameda and at intersections in Oakland associated with the interconnection between the Webster -Posey Tubes and Interstate 880, because the number of vehicle trips generated would be reduced compared to the trips generated by existing and recently terminated uses on the site 3. The project does not have any 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 because the project a) represents all intended changes to the site and is not a part of a larger action; b) will incorporate both project- specific mitigation measures and participation of area -wide mitigation measures to avoid significant impacts within the context of continued growth and development in Alameda. 4. The applicant has agreed to incorporate the mitigation measures into, the project as identified in the Initial Study and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment A). The mitigations would either avoid adverse impacts or lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS- 99 -02) with findings and a Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment A). NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following the date of final decision or any final action on any appeal, plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. ATTACHMENT A MARINA COVE SUBDIVISION MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM The following sets forth all significant effects of the 151 -unit residential development proposed by Kaufman and Broad, South Bay, Inca and all approvals required therefor, including the proposed Amendment to the Community Improvement Plan for the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project (the "Project "). Community Character Significant Effect. Duplex units proposed adjacent to Entrance Road would have placed homes within approximately 20 feet of a roadway that carries truck traffic. There are potential noise impacts due to the close proximity of homes to the roadway. Findings. The City Council makes Finding 1 • 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 the identified mpact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation Measures A.1.1 The Project sponsor will revise the Tentative Map and Development Plan to increase the separation between entrance road and the proposed duplex units as generally depicted in Initial Study Figure 2. Responsibility. Applicant, Planning Director Action. Prior to approval of the Tentative Map the Project sponsor shall submit a revised Tentative Map for review and approval that demonstrates compliance with this mitigation measure. 2. Geotechnical Significant Effect. The Project site is situated within a seismically active region with earthquakes generated on many nearby faults that traverse the region. The northwest portion of the site is underlain by relatively weak and potentially compressible Bay Mud. Ground water was measured at a depth of approximately 2 to 4 feet below existing grade. Such shallow ground water could significantly impact development by creating potentially wet and unstable pavement subgrades, difficulty achieving compaction, and difficulty with underground utility installation. Given these geologic conditions, there is the potential for liquefaction total and differential settlement, liquefaction induced lateral spreading adjacent to the marina, the presence of shallow ground water, and long -term settlement of highly compressible Bay Mud on the northern portion of the site. Findings. The City Council makes Finding 1: 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 the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation Measures C.1.1 A Registered Civil Engineer with soils engineering expertise or a Registered Geotechnical Engineer should perform a final, detailed geotechnical investigation of the site before completion of the final building design. At a minimum, the geotechnical investigation should include the following tasks: . Structures located on or adjacent to slopes where soil creep would be expected should be designed to resist lateral loads resulting from slow moving soil mass, or such slopes should be rebuilt to eliminate the risk of soil creep or landslides; Additional subsurface investigation and laboratory testing after demolition of existing improvements for the portion of the site adjacent to the Marina; Develop recommendations related to site clearing, site preparation, compaction, subgrade stabilization, surface drainage, and utility installation, foundation design, and construction observation to address anticipated settlement and groundwater influences, d. The location and quality of existing fill material on the Project site should be evaluated for stability, settlement potential, suitability for foundation support, and possible need for excavation and recompaction. C.1.2 All subsequent construction plans should incorporate the recommendations of the final geotechnical investigation, as approved by the Alameda Public Works Director. The final Project design should conform also to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code. C.1.3 A Registered Civil Engineer should design the grading and foundation plans. A Registered Soils Engineer should stamp and sign the grading and foundation plans certifying that they conform to the recommendations of the final geotechnical investigation. C.1.4 All buildings and other improvements should be designed by a Registered Structural Engineer to meet earthquake design standards contained in the Uniform Building Code. Responsibility. Applicant and Public Works Director. Action. Prior to the issuance of any site development or building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan showing how the above identified mitigations have been addressed. Erosion Significant Effect. The Project could result in potentially significant wind or water erosion impacts and attendant siltation problems during demolition of the existing industrial complex and subsequent site grading. Findings. The City Council makes Finding 1: 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 the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance Mitigation Measures C.2.1 The Project sponsor should submit with improvement plans an Erosion Control Plan that complies with construction guidelines of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program, which may include but are not limited to: restrictions on grading during wet weather, siltation fencing, hay bales and other drainage erosion control measures; stabilization of graded soils; hydroseeding; protection of graded soils from precipitation and runoff; and limiting construction equipment access. Responsibility. Applicant, Public Works Director, Action. Prior to issuance of any demolition or site development permit, the applicant shall submit an Erosion Control Plan for review and approval by the Public Works Director, that demonstrates compliance with the above - identified mitigation. 4.Water Quality Significant Effect. The demolition of existing industrial buildings and grading activities could also release pollutants into the surface waters on the Project site and into the Oakland - Alameda Estuary. 6 Findings. The City Council makes Finding 1: 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 the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation Measures D.3.1 As part of the site Improvement Plan, the Project sponsor should submit a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (as a component of an Erosion Control Plan) which complies with the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program. Such a plan provides both interim (during construction) and long -term (post construction) stormwater pollution control measures. Best Management Practices should be incorporated into the long -term site management program to ensure the removal of non -point source pollutants in stormwater runoff. A long -teem maintenance program for the long -term water quality control facilities should be developed. Responsibility. Applicant and Public Works Director. Action. Prior to the issuance of a demolition or site development permit the applicant shall submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (as a component of the Erosion Control Plan) for review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Public Works Director demonstrating the above identified mitigation has been implemented. Air Quality Significant Effect. Persons living or working in the area surrounding the Project site may be exposed to air pollutants in the form of dust from demolition of the existing industrial complex and grading activities for the proposed development, or noxious fumes from operating large construction vehicles and equipment. Findings. The City Council makes Finding 1: 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 the identified mpact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: 7 Mitigation Measures E.2.1 All active construction areas should be watered at least twice daily and more often during windy periods. E.2.2 All hauling trucks should be covered hen transporting excavated materials for off site disposal. E.2.3 All staging areas, roadways, and parking areas should be paved temporarily, watered at least twice daily, or stabilized by application of non -toxic soil stabilizers. E.2.4 All excavated material stockpiles should be enclosed, covered, watered at least twice daily, or stabilized by application of non -toxic soil stabilizers. E.2.5 Construction vehicles should be limited to speeds of 15 miles per hour or less on unpaved roadways and disturbed or graded construction areas. E.2.6 All construction equipment using fossil fuel should have installed required emission control devices that are in proper operational condition. E.2.7 All construction equipment should be turned off when it is not in use. Responsibility. Applicant, Planning Director and Public Works Director Action: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan for approval by the Planning Director in consultation with Public Works Director that demonstrates the above mitigations have been adequately addressed. 6. Traffic Significant Effect. Under cumulative conditions, the addition of cumulative buildout traffic to the current conditions would deteriorate the level of service for several intersections during either the A.M. or the P.M. peak periods, to below a level of service D. During the P.M. peak hour, the Project would increase inbound traffic by 43 vehicles over the existing conditions and would contribute to traffic impacts. Findings. The City Council makes Finding 1: 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 the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation Measures F.1.1 The Project sponsor will install fiber - optic, twisted pair, and other appropriate telecommunication wiring to homes within the Project area that would support future residents in "telecommuting" to work, thereby reducing Project generated traffic. F.1.2 The Project sponsor will develop a marketing program that solicits interest from employees of Alameda based businesses and Alameda residents and that identifies the potential telecommuting advantages of moving into a unit that contains fiber - optic, twisted pair, and other similar amenities. F.1.3 The Project sponsor will develop a program for enhancing transit improvements and amenities through the Project area (e.g. bus shelters). F.1.3 The Project sponsor will be required to deposit $75,000 with the City of Alameda to support and encourage transit use. The Project sponsor will use these funds to develop an enhanced transit marketing program for bus services to the Project residents. The transit - marketing program will include bus and ferry schedules and route information, as well as other appropriate transit information, and will include contingencies for adjusting schedules. This marketing program will be delivered in electronic and/or reproducible form to the City. Any funds remaining after the marketing program has been developed may be used by the City to continuing marketing transit service in the Project area or to market transit services to other areas of Alameda. F.1.4 The Project sponsor will pay their pro -rata share of the costs associated with contemplated capital improvements at impacted intersections. Presently, the pro -rata share is estimated to be $3,296 per unit for medium density residential units and $2,855 per unit for duplex units. The per unit impact fees will be adjusted to account for inflation based on an appropriate index such as the Consumer Price Index or other construction indices. The Project sponsor will deposit 115% of the estimated impact fee with the City. In the event that the Citywide Development Fee is enacted, and the adopted fee is less than the Projected impact fee, the City would refund the difference to the Project sponsor. (Note: Traffic /Transportation Impact mitigation fees are approximately 83% of the projected facility impact fees for Medium Density residential and Duplex housing.) Responsibility. Applicant, Planning Director, Public Works Director. Action. The applicant shall submit the following information to the satisfaction of the Planning and Public Works Directors to demonstrate that the above - identified mitigations have been adequately addressed: Prior to approval of subdivision improvement plans or issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall: 9 Submit construction drawings, for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments, that demonstrate that site infrastructure and building designs have incorporated necessary improvements to facilitate telecommuting; and Submit a marketing program that targets employees of Alameda based businesses and Alameda residents and that identifies the potential telecommuting advantages of moving into a unit that contains fiber - optic, twisted pair, and other similar amenities. Prior to recordation of the Final Map or issuance of any construction permit, the applicant shall: Submit Plans for review and approval of the Public Works Department that demonstrate that the Project has incorporated adequate transit amenities to support transit use; Deposit $75,000 with the City of Alameda to support and encourage transit use. The Project sponsor will use these funds to develop an enhanced transit marketing program for bus services to the Project residents; and Pay their pro -rata share of the costs associated with contemplated capital improvements at impacted intersections. Presently, the pro -rata share is estimated to be $3,296 per unit for medium density residential units and $2,855 per unit for duplex units. 7. Construction Traffic Significant Effect. During construction, the Project has the potential to create traffic conflicts between construction traffic and trucks delivering equipment and construction materials. Findings. The City Council makes Finding 1: 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 the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation Measures F.2.1 The Project sponsor will prepare a Traffic Control Plan (TCP) to address potential impacts from construction vehicles on the local roadways. The TCP will include: A description of truck routes and access points to the site and traffic control measures that would be employed during construction (e.g. traffic control personnel, construction signing, striping, etc.). The TCP will be subject to approval by the City Engineer; 10 Provisions for restoring any streets that are impacted due to construction traffic to their pre- construction conditions; Limitations on construction traffic to daytime hours and to minimize construction traffic during the AM and PM peak hours. Responsibility: Applicant, Public Works Director. Action. Prior to issuance of any demolition or site development permit, the applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan for review and approval by the Public Works Director to demonstrate that the above - identified mitigations have been adequately addressed. 8. Hazardous Materials Significant Effect. The Project site has historically been used for industrial uses. The structures located at this site are approximately 45 to 55 years old. Consequently, there have been petroleum products and other hazardous materials stored on- site, and the buildings are likely to contain asbestos and have likely been painted with lead -based paint. Findings. The City Council makes Finding 1: 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 the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation Measures I.1.1 Prior to recordation of the Final Map or issuance of any grading, construction, or demolition permits, the Project sponsor shall submit a Site Management Plan (SMP), prepared by a qualified professional, that would be distributed to all contractors working at the Project site. The SMP would provide site- specific information for contractors (and others) working on the Project that would manage environmental health and safety contingencies. The SMP shall include, but not be limited to Identification of any known hazardous materials that have historically been used, stored or spilled at the Project site; A description of the nature and extent of previous environmental assessments and remediation at the Project site; A description of the nature and extent of any on -going remedial activities and of any unremediated areas; 11 A list and description of institutional controls (e.g. local, State and federal laws) that apply to the use, handling, and disposal of hazardous materials. Requirements for Health and Safety Plans (HASPs), prepared by a Certified Industrial Hygienist, for all contractors working at the Project site; A description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously unidentified hazardous materials that may potentially be encountered during Project development; and Requirements for construction techniques to minimize the risk of exposing people working on or near the Project site and residing in the area to hazardous substances. I.1.2 Prior to recordation of the Final Map or issuance of any grading, construction, or demolition permits, the Project sponsor shall complete the following: Conduct further groundwater analyses in consultation with ACHCSA and RWQCB in the vicinity of known hazardous material sites; A health and safety plan and cleanup plan for chipping, peeling or chalking Lead Based Paint surfaces; A business plan, that would be filed with the Alameda County Office of Waste Management, that meets the State and County requirements for storage, disposal, and notification standards for hazardous materials; A transportation plan that demonstrates that the Project would comply with State of California regulations for the safe intrastate transport of hazardous materials and U.S. Department of Transportation requirements for the safe transport of hazardous materials between states and foreign countries; and A remediation plan for the clean -up, removal and disposal of any hazardous materials located at the Project site, consistent with applicable County, State and federal requirements. Specifically, the remediation plan shall demonstrate compliance with Bay Area Air Quality Management District standards for removal and disposal of asbestos construction materials. Responsibility. Applicant, Planning Director, Regional Water Quality Control Board, Alameda County Health Department. 12 Action. Prior to recordation of the Final Map or issuance of any grading, construction, or demolition permits, the Project sponsor shall submit a Site Management Plan (SMP), a site testing and monitoring plan, and a transportation plan, for review and approval by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the Alameda County Health Department, and the Alameda Planning Director to demonstrate that the above identified mitigations have been adequately addressed. 9. Noise Significant Effect. Noise measurements indicate that the existing average day /night noise levels along major roads in the Project vicinity, Buena Vista Avenue and Entrance Road, exceed the General Plan Noise Element guideline. Findings. The City Council makes Finding 1: 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 the identified mpact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation Measures J.2.1 The Project sponsor should construct an 8 foot tall fence or wall between the outdoor living area for units that are adjacent to Buena Vista Avenue, Entrance Road, and Clement Avenue (Lots 1 through 12, 17 through 20, 27, 28, 35, 36, 45, 46, 47, 57, 58, 68, 69, 79, 80, 92, 93, 107, 121 through 127, 143, 144, and 145), or site the homes to provide similar acoustic buffering. These units shall also be designed to include double glazed themial insulation windows to achieve interior noise levels to no more than 45 dBA. These buildings should also have mechanical ventilation to allow residents to keep the windows closed at their option. J.2.2 The Project sponsor shall submit a Construction Management Plan specifying that: Powered construction equipment should be properly muffled and turned off when not in use; and b. All noise - generating construction and demolition activities should be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8:00 a.m. through 5:00 p.m. on Saturday in accordance with Alameda Municipal Code Section 4 -10.5. No construction should be permitted on Sundays or State and Federal holidays. Responsibility: Applicant, Planning Director, Public Works Director. 13 Action: Prior to issuance of building permits or approval of the Subdivision Improvement Plans, the applicant shall submit a revised site plans and a Construction Management Plan, for review and approval by the Planning Department, to demonstrate that the above identified mitigations have been adequately addressed. 10. Public Facilities Significant Effect. To ensure adequate maintenance of these facilities, the Project will have to provide an on -going revenue stream that could be used to maintain roads, public landscaping and the public parks. Findings. The City Council makes Finding 1: 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 the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation Measures K.4.1 The Project sponsor should create a funding mechanism, such as an assessment district or a Landscape and Lighting District, to provide funding for the maintenance of Entrance Road, E. F. G. and H. Streets, the Clement Street Extension, and the Hibbard Street Extension, including landscaping within the right -of -way. K.4.2 The Project sponsor should create a funding mechanism, such as an assessment district, to provide funding for the maintenance of private roads, courtyards and common areas located within the Subdivision. K.4.3 The Project sponsor should create a funding mechanism, such as an assessment district or a Landscape and Lighting District, to provide funding for the maintenance of the proposed park. Responsibility: Applicant, Planning Director, Public Works Director, and the Recreation and Parks Director. Action: Prior to recordation of the Final Map, the applicant shall develop and implement a funding mechanism acceptable to the Planning and Public Works Director to ensure adequate revenue to support maintenance of public facilities created by the Project. 11. Community Compatibility 14 Significant Effect. The construction of acoustical buffers at the perimeter of the Project site has the potential to create the appearance of a "walled in" community and would not result in a Project that is integrated with the surrounding neighborhood. Findings. The City Council makes Finding 1: 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 the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation Measures M1.1 Design all fencing and or sound walls adjacent to public roads so that they: Are not located at the property line but provide connections between buildings; and Are staggered to avoid the appearance of a walled in community; and Employ landscaping, including planter boxes, to screen an 8 -foot wall. Responsibility. Applicant, Planning Director, Public Works Director. Action. Prior to approval of the Subdivision Improvement Plans or issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a landscape plan for review and approval by the Planning and Public Works Departments that demonstrates that the above identified mitigations have been adequately addressed. 12. Cultural Resources Significant Effect. Historic cultural resources may exist as subsurface deposits within the Project area. Findings. The City Council makes Finding 1: 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 the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: 15 Mitigation Measures N.1.1 The Project sponsor shall submit an archaeological resources monitoring plan. The monitoring plan shall include provisions that an archaeologist will periodically monitor site grading and trenching activities during the site preparation and rough grading stages of the Project in order to detect historic or prehistoric resources before they are disturbed. N.1.2 In the event that any prehistoric or historic resources of importance are found during demolition, site preparation, or construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall cease and the City shall be immediately notified. Work shall not resume until and a qualified archaeologist or historian shall be consulted to evaluate, document, and protect by either removal, capping with a layer of soil, or other technique found to be appropriate. Responsibility. Applicant, Planning Director. Action. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit, and site improvement permit, or any building permit, the applicant shall submit a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Planning Department that demonstrates that the above identified mitigations have been adequately addressed. G:\ CURRCORR \33 \KANDB \CC \8- 23nmd.doc 16 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 special joint meeting assembled on the 5th day of September , 2000, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 4. NOES: Councilmember Kerr - 1. ABSENT: None. ABSTENTIONS: None. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 6th day of September , 2000. ne Felsch, City Clerk City of Alameda