Resolution 13310CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13 310
ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE GRANTING OF AN
EASEMENT RELATED TO THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE
TO COAST GUARD ISLAND
WHEREAS, the City of Alameda wishes to grant an easement to _ the United States of
America, acting through the United States Coast Guard, Commander, Maintenance & Logistics
Command Pacific, for the purposes of constructing, using, operating, maintaining, repairing,
replacing, restoring, and reconstructing a causeway for access to Coast Guard Island; and
WHEREAS, the United States Coast Guard has an existing causeway connecting Coast
Guard Island with the Oakland mainland over submerged lands owned by the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, the existing 762 -foot timber causeway is rapidly deteriorating and requires
replacement; and
WHEREAS, replacement of the existing causeway requires construction of a new reinforced
concrete bridge approximately 38 feet wide by 857 feet long to be constructed in a new alignment
with subsequent demolition of the existing deteriorated causeway; and
WHEREAS, construction of the new causeway in a new alignment will require the grant of
a permanent, non - exclusive easement from the City of Alameda; and
WHEREAS, there is no cost nor revenue to the General Fund for the easement on City owned
or administered land or water; and
WHEREAS, the Unites States Coast Guard prepared an Environmental Assessment in
October 1996 for the Coast Guard Island Bridge Replacement Project to comply with the National
Environmental Policy Act; and
WHEREAS, the United States Coast Guard adopted a Finding of No Significant Impact for
the Coast Guard Island Bridge Replacement Project on February 14, 1997 and determined that the
Replacement Project will have no significant effect on the human environment; and
WHEREAS, a draft Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment between
December 11, 2000 and January 2, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this Negative Declaration on January
16, 2001, examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony and written comments
received; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings:
1 Granting the proposed easement 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 the major periods of California history or prehistory
because:
O
The project involves replacement of an existing use that is currently compatible with
its surrounding environment.
Wetland impacts of about 1,465 square feet will be mitigated by re- establishment of
1,780 square feet of new wetland area.
Potential disturbance of Pacific herring spawning grounds will be avoided by
prohibiting in -water construction during December, January, and February.
No impacts will occur to habitat that supports special- status species.
There are no known threatened or endangered plant or animal species in the project
area.
A record search did not identify any known cultural or historic resources in the
project area, and the existing bridge itself has been determined to have little historic
value.
2. Granting the proposed easement does not have the potential to achieve short-term objectives
to the disadvantage of long -term environmental goals because the project will replace an
existing use that is currently compatible with its surrounding environment.
3. Granting the proposed easement does not involve impacts that are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable because the project is not related to any other actions that could
have a cumulatively significant impact on the environment.
4. Granting the proposed easement does not have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on? human beings, either directly or indirectly because the project
will improve current traffic circulation and parking on Coast Guard Island and a new
structurally safe bridge will ensure greater protection of life and property.
WHEREAS, City Council has made findings that the granting the proposed easement could
not have a significant effect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda hereby
adopts a Negative Declaration, Attachment "A ".
C: \WPDOCS\DATA \6CGBRIDG. WPD
CITY OF ALAMEDA
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Circulation Date: December 11, 2000
APPLICATION: IS -00 -06
LOCATION: Bridge crossing between the west end of Dennison Street in Oakland and Coast
Guard Island in Alameda
APPLICANT: United States Coast Guard, Commander, Maintenance and Logistics Command
Pacific
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The proposed project is for granting an easement related to the replacement of the existing bridge
to Coast Guard Island. The proposed easement would be between the United States of America,
acting through the United States Coast Guard, Commander, Maintenance & Logistics Command
Pacific, as Grantee, and the City of Alameda, as Grantor for the purposes of constructing, using,
operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, restoring, and reconstructing a causeway for access to
Coast Guard Island. The replacement bridge would include demolition of the existing bridge and
construction of a new reinforced concrete bridge approximately 38 feet wide by 853 feet long. The
replacement bridge would consist of a single sweeping; curve section connecting Dennison Street in
Oakland with Campbell Boulevard on Coast Guard Island. The bridge will be constructed of
prestressed, precast concrete piles and a superstructure consisting of two 11.5 -foot wide vehicle
traffic lanes, two four -foot wide bicycle lanes and one five -foot wide sidewalk on the south side of
the bridge.
The City of Alameda is the Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
for granting the easement. The City's proposed action under CEQA is to adopt the U.S. Coast
Guard's Environmental Assessment for the Coast Guard Island Bridge Replacement Project, which
was prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and for which a
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was issued.
PLANNING DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION:
After due consideration including review of the U.S. Coast Guard's Environmental Assessment, the
Planning Director of the City of Alameda found that granting the proposed easement will not have
a significant effect on the environment, and therefore will not require the preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report. This decision is supported by the following findings:
Attachment A
a. Granting the proposed easement 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 the major periods of California history or prehistory
because:
O
0
The project involves replacement of an existing use that is currently compatible with
its surrounding environment.
Wetland impacts of about 1,465 square feet will be mitigated by re- establishment of
1,780 square feet of new wetland area.
Potential disturbance of Pacific herring spawning grounds will be avoided by
prohibiting in -water construction during December, January, and February.
No impacts will occur to habitat that supports special - status species.
There are no known threatened or endangered plant or animal species in the project
area.
A record search did not identify any known cultural or historic resources in the
project area, and the existing bridge itself has been determined to have little historic
value.
The mitigations noted above have been adopted by the United States Coast Guard through
the adoption of the Environmental Assessment. No further mitigations are required.
b. Granting the proposed easement does not have the potential to achieve short-term objectives
to the disadvantage of long - term environmental goals because the project will replace an
existing use that is currently compatible with its surrounding environment.
c. Granting the proposed easement does not involve impacts that are individually limited but
cumulatively considerable because the project' is not related to any other actions that could
have a cumulatively significant impact on the environment.
d. Granting the proposed easement does not have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly' because the project
will improve current traffic circulation and parking on Coast Guard Island and a new
structurally safe bridge will ensure greater protection of life and property.
Public Review. The Proposed Negative Declaration will circulate for a 20 -day public review period.
The City of Alameda City Council is tentatively scheduled to hold a Public Hearing on the Proposed
Negative Declaration on January 16, 2001, 7:30 p.m. at City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue,
Alameda. A written response will be prepared to all written comments received during the public
review period. Approval of the environmental document does not constitute approval of the project
itself.
2
Lead Agency. This Proposed Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Alameda
Planning Department, Room 120, City Hall, 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Alameda, CA 94501.
Written comments should be received in this office by 5:00 p.m. on Tuesday, January 2, 2001.
Contact Person: Kevin Bryant, Planner II, (510) 748 -4554.
Attachment: Coast Guard Island Bridge Replacement Project Environmental Assessment.
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be 'a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but
at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on
the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially
Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant ' Unless Mitigated." An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable
standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including
revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Colette Meunier. Planning Director
(Signature
3
December 11, 2000
(Date)
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 16th day of January 2001, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson and Kerr - 4.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Mayor Appezzato -1
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
17th day of January , 2001.
Di ne Felsch, City Clerk
City of Alameda