Resolution 13439CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO.13439
DENYING THE APPEAL OF ED MURPHY AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING BOARD'S
ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS01 -07 AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM FOR A HOTEL AT 1628 WEBSTER STREET FOR ALAMEDA
HOSPITALITY LLC
WHEREAS, on July 11, 2001, Sandip Jariwala of Alameda Hospitality LLC filed an
application for Initial Study IS01 -07, Use Permit UP01 -025 and Preliminary Design Review
DR01 -092, and a Variance V01 -14, for a 50 -room hotel with 64 parking spaces and approximately
1,200 square feet of retail area on a 0.7 acre site located at 1628 Webster Street at Pacific
Avenue; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2001, the Planning and Building Department found that the
application was Incomplete for processing pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act; ` and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2001 the application was Complete for processing; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Community Commercial and Medium
Density Residential on the General Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is in the C -C Community Commercial Zoning District
which relates well to the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is within the Business and Waterfront Improvement Project
(BWIP) area of the Community Improvement Commission (CIC); and
WHEREAS, the Board and subsequently, the City Council, made the following finding that
subject to meeting City standards and requirements, the proposed Use Permit and Major Design
Review would be consistent with the Plan for the Business and Waterfiont Improvement Project
(BWIP); and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (State Clearinghouse Number 200 1122 2079) and was found to be complete; and was
circulated for public comment from December 20, 2001 to January 24, 2002; and
WHEREAS, one comment was received regarding the Initial Study, from the California
Department of Toxic Substance Control, which the Planning Board determined did not raise new
environmental issues or impacts which were not addressed by the Initial Study; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on the Initial Study and determined
that the document was complete and correct; and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2002, the Planning Board adopted a Mitigated Negative
Declaration with Mitigation Monitoring Program pursuant to CEQA by Resolution PB02 -012, and
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2002, the Planning Board also approved the Use Permit UP01-
25, Major Design Review DR01 -92 and accepted in -lieu parking fees rather than 3 parking spaces,
and denied the Variance V01 -14; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2002 Ed Murphy timely filed an appeal, stating the bases of
appeal as required in the Alameda Municipal Code, primarily that the application violated
"Measure A," being Chapter 26 -1 and 26 -3 of the City Charter, and that the hotel rooms were
dwelling units and did not provide 2,000 square feet of land area per room; and
WHEREAS, on March 5, 2002 the City Council considered the appeal and examined
pertinent maps, drawings, documents and testimony and after finding no merit to the bases of
appeal, upheld the Planning Board's determination; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Alameda makes the following findings:
1. The appellant's basis of appeal was as follows: The proposed project violates Section 26 -1
of the Alameda City Charter, passed by the people as "Measure A," in 1973. The
proposed project also violates Section 26 -3 of the Alameda City Charter, passed by the
people to strengthen the 1973 version of Measure A in 1991. The claim of the City
Attorney that the proposed project does not violate either Sec. 26 -1 or Sec. 26-3 of the
Alameda City Charter is legally incorrect, and appears to be in service of an attempt by
city politicians to circumvent the will of the people. The intent of Article 26 was to avoid
congestion, gridlock, etc.
2. The City Council finds and responds to the basis of appeal, regarding environmental
review pursuant to CEQA, that Measure "A" is not an environmental issue, that hotel
rooms are not housing and that the appellant did not raise this issue during the review
period for the Initial Study.
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings regarding the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS01 -07) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; and
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 there is no significant wildlife habitat on
the site and there are no special- status plant communities. There is a possibility, albeit
remote, for encountering buried historic /prehistoric cultural resources on the site, but
mitigation measures have been identified to minimize potential impacts in the event such
resources are encountered during project construction.
2. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term to the disadvantage of long-
term environmental goals because the project will promote the long -term economic
development of the site, and is consistent' with the long -term goals of the General Plan to
provide business uses at the site.
3. The project does not involve impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable because project - generated traffic, in combination with existing traffic and other
approved/anticipated projects in the area, would result in significant cumulative impacts at
several intersections along Webster Street. Mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to
less - than - significant levels are identified in the Traffic and Transportation section of the
Initial Study.
4. The project does not have any environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly because a potential impact on
construction workers and members of the public has been identified in discussion of hazards
however, a mitigation measure has been identified therein that would reduce the potential
impact to a less- than - significant level.
5. The applicant has agreed to incorporate all the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration into the project (Attachment "A"). These mitigations would either
avoid adverse impacts or lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts to less than
significant levels. On the basis of the whole record before the Planning Board and upon
appeal, the City Council, and all comments received upon it, there is no substantial evidence
that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and the Planning Board
and, upon appeal, the City Council finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects its
independent judgement and analysis.
WHEREAS, the City Council has heard appeal testimony and reviewed the record and
determines that there is insufficient evidence in the appeal and the record to justify overturning the
Planning Board approval.
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda hereby
denies the appeal of Ed Murphy and upholds Planning Board adoption of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS01 -07) with findings and Mitigation Monitoring Program (Attachment "A ").
NOTICE. Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21167, a judicial challenge to the
City's Council's action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration must be brought within thirty (30) days
after the filing of a Notice of Determination. G : \PLANNINGICCIRESO1200215HAWTND
3
ATTACHMENT A
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS01 -07)
1628 WEBSTER STREET, ALAMEDA -- ALAMEDA HOSPITALITY LLC
1.1 AIR QUALITY
1.1.1. Significant Effect: Construction of the project may raise dust from the ground which
may be breathed by passers -by or neighbors, a potentially cumulative significant impact.
1.2.1. Mitigation Measure 1: The project applicant shall reduce the severity of the project
construction period dust impact by complying with the following measures:
i Water all active construction areas at least twice daily.
® Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials, or require all trucks to
maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard.
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site
® Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas at the construction site.
® Sweep adjacent public streets daily (with wate
carried onto the streets.
® Hydroseed or apply non -toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously
graded areas inactive for ten days or more).
® Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply non -toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles
(dirt, sand, etc.).
m Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
A Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible.
1.3.1 Actions. Public Works staff and Building Inspection will monitor provision of the plan and
implementation.
sweepers)
any visible soil material is
1.4.1. Finding. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 1, the impact on passers -by and
neighbors of grading dust will be reduced to a less than significant level.
2.1 CULTURAL RESOURCES
2.1.1 Significant Effect. Construction on the site may expose or damage archaeological or
historical artifacts which exceed the level of due diligence archaeological /historical
consulting reporting in the Initial Study, a potentially significant impact.
2.2.1 Mitigation Measure 2: If any cultural artifacts are encountered during site grading or
other construction activities, all ground disturbance shall be halted until the services of a
qualified archeologist can be retained to identify and evaluate the resource(s) and, if
necessary, recommend mitigation measures to document and prevent any significant
adverse effects on the resource(s). The applicant shall fund and implement the mitigation
in accordance with Section 10564.5(c) -(f) of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources
Code Section 21083.2.
2.3.1. Actions. Public Works and Building Inspection staff will monitor the applicant's
contractor during the construction process for implementation.
2.4.1. Finding. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 2, the impact on potential
archaeological or historical resources would be reduced to a less than significant level.
3.1 NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE
3.1.1. Significant Effect. Construction grading may reveal human remains which may include
Native American remains suitable for reburial consistent with practices of Native
American heritage, a potentially significant impact.
3.2.1 Mitigation Measure 3: In the event that any human remains are encountered during site
disturbance, all ground- disturbing work shall cease immediately and the County coroner
must be notified immediately. If the coroner determined the remains to be Native
American, the Native American Heritage Commission must be contacted within 24 hours.
A qualified archaeologist, in consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission,
shall recommend subsequent measures for disposition of the remains.
3.3.1 Actions. During construction, Public Works and Building Inspection staff will monitor
excavations and implement if human remains are found.
3.4.1. Finding. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 3, the potential impact on Native
American Heritage and proper burial of human remains would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
4.1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
4.1.1. Significant Effect. Construction of the building on mud and sand soils could result in
subsidence or other structural failure, unless properly engineered and built, which would
be a potentially significant impact.
4.2.1 Mitigation Measure 4: The proposed project design and construction shall incorporate
all of the recommendations presented in the geotechnical investigation performed for the
project, unless modified during construction, based on field conditions, by a qualified
5
registered geotechnical or soils engineer. These measures include, but are not limited to,
the following:
• The project site shall be cleared and stripped of all surface and subsurface obstructions,
including debris, trees, shrubs, roots, and any other obstructions. Vegetated areas shall
be stripped to sufficient depth to remove topsoil containing greater than 3 percent organic
matter by volume.
• All subgrade surfaces to receive fill, slab -on- grade, or pavements shall be scarified to
a depth of 12 inches, moisture conditioned, and compacted to at least 90 percent relative
compaction, as determined by American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) D1557
compaction test. The upper 6 inches-shall be compacted to 95 percent density. Fill and
backfill shall be places in thin lifts of 6 to 8 inches thickness.
• During construction, cut slopes shall have a maximum inclinationf 1: 1 (horizontal:
vertical) during the dry season (April 15- October 15) and 1.5: 1 during the wet season
(October 15 -April 15). Fill slopes shall have a maximum inclination of 1.5: 1 during the
dry season and (October 15 -April 15). Fill slopes shall have a maximum inclination of
1.5: 1 during the dry season and 1.7: 1 during the wet season. Any slopes steeper than
those specified shall be shored or inspected and approved by the geotechnical consultant.
Permanent cut fill slopes shall have a maximum inclination of 2 1.
• The proposed hotel building shall be constructed on drilled piers and grade -beam
foundations or on continuous (T or deep -beam) footing foundations. Drilled cast -in place
piers with steel reinforcement shall have a minimum diameter of 12 inches, shall be spaced
at least 36 inches apart (center to center), and shall extend at least 12 feet deep or at least
5 feet into the hard sediments underlying the site Continuous "T" footings with a
minimum height of 24 inches, a minimum width of 14 inches, and extending at least 24
inches below grade may be used on level cuts. The footing shall be interconnected in a
continuous grid with reinforcing steel, and shall be spaced a maximum of 20 feet between
footing grid lines. • Slabs -on -grade shall be at least 5 inches thick and shall be steel
reinforced with 6x6 wire mech or with a grid of rebar spaced 16 inches in each direction.
The slabs shall be supported on 4 to 6 inches of free - draining gravel.
• Pavements, consisting of 2 inches of asphalt concrete over 8 inches of Caltrans Class 2
aggregate base, shall be designed for a Resistance (R) value of 14 and a Traffic Index of
3 to 4. Where garbage trucks and other heavy trucks are expected, the pavements shall
consist of 3 inches of asphalt concrete over 10 inches of aggregate base (Traffic Index: 5
to 7). Pavements shall be constructed during the dry season to avoid saturation of the
subgrade and base materials.
• Where new pavement will abut landscaped areas, a "redwood header- board," concrete
curb and gutter, or a thickened asphalt section shall extend at least 2 inches below the
bottom of the pavement baserock layer to protect the baserock and subgrade soils.
• The final design plans and specifications shall be reviewed by the geotechnical consultant
to verify conformance with design and construction requirements. All grading and
earthwork on the site shall be performed under the observation of the geotechnical
6
consultant in order to ensure that all recommendations pertaining to site preparation and
the selection, placement, and compaction of fill materials are properly implemented.
4.3.1 Actions. Building and grading permit application plans will be reviewed, and construction
monitored, to assure that this Mitigation Measure is implemented.
4.4.1. Finding. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4, the impact on geotechnical safety
would be reduced to a less than significant level.
5.1. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
5.1.1. Significant Effect. Although due diligence has been taken by the applicant and the City
in Phases of soils monitoring and remediation reporting with the County of Alameda,
subsoil hazards and hazardous materials could conceivably remain and be exposed to
breathing or contact as a result of construction or occupation on the site, a potentially
significant impact.
5.2.1. Mitigation Measure 5 Prior to the initiation of project construction, the project sponsor
shall prepare a Site Safety Plan to identify appropriate
measures to protect construction worker and public health and safety during any excavation
activities in the vicinity of the residual soil contamination along the west side of the site
The Plan shall require measures such as sheeting up hydrocarbon- impacted soil adjacent
to excavations and sampling of hydrocarbon - impacted soil prior to disposal. The Site
Safety Plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Alameda County Environmental Health
Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit for the project.
5.3.1 Actions. The applicant shall submit, and the City and the County shall approve and
monitor, the Site Safety Plan.
5.4.1. Finding. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 5, the impact of construction on
hazardous materials in the soils would be reduced to a less than significant level.
6.1 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY.
6.1.1. Significant Effect: Construction on the site could cause alterations in water runoff flow
volumes and directions and water runoff quality, and erosion, which might extend onto
neighboring properties or into waterways, a potentially significant impact.
6.2.1. Mitigation Measure 6 Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall
prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), to be reviewed and approved
by the Alameda Public Works Department. The SWPPP shall identify construction and
post-construction ( i.e., operational) measures to control erosion and sedimentation on and
off the project site. Such measures shall include but not be limited to:
7
® The SWPPP shall identify construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) to limit to
the maximum extent practicable the entry of pollutants into stormwater discharge.
® The SWPPP shall identify erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from
entering the storm drain system, in accordance with the practices outlined in the
Association of Bay Area Government's Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook,
California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks, and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board's Erosion and Sediment Controlfield Manual.
In order to retain any debris or dirt flowing into the City storm drain system, filter
materials (such as sandbags, filter fabric, etc.) Shall be installed at the storm drain inlets
surrounding the project site Filter materials shall be maintained and /or replaced as
necessary and shall be disposed of in the trash.
® The construction contractor shall provide back -up sediment control measures, such as
fiber rolls, silt fencing, gravel inlet filters, and /or sediment traps of basins. Provisions
of sedimentation controls, including inlet protection, shall be secondary to effective erosion
control measures.
® All construction debris shall be gathered on a regular basis and placed in a dumpster or
other container which is emptied or removed on a weekly basis. When appropriate, tarps
shall be placed on the ground to collect fallen debris or splatters that could contribute to
stormwater pollution.
® The construction contractor shall create a contained and covered area on the site for the
storage of cement bags, paints, flammable, oils, fertilizers, pesticides, or any other
materials used on the project site that have the potential for being discharged to the storm
drain system by wind or in the event of a material spill.
® The construction contractor shall broom sweep the sidewalk and public street pavement
adjoining the project site on a daily basis. Caked -on mud or dirt shall be scraped from
these areas before sweeping.
• Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface
infiltration, and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to
stormwater pollution. Where feasible, landscaping should be designed and operated to
treat stormwater runoff.
•A11 on -site storm drains shall be cleaned at least once a year immediately prior tot he
rainy season. Additional cleaning may be required by the City or County Engineer.
• No site grading shall occur between October 1st and April 15th unless approved erosion
and sedimentation control measures are in place.
6.3.1. Actions. The applicant shall obtain permits which include the applicant's plan for
protection of hydrology and runoff to City standards, and the permit implementation shall
be monitored by City staff.
6.4.1 Finding. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 6, the impact of the project on
nearby properties by hydrology and water quality would be reduced to a less than
significant level.
7.1. HYDROLOGICAL ENGINEERING
7.1.1. Significant Effect. Construction of the project on vacant land would increase urban runoff
and potentially add to demands on public drainage infrastructure, a potentially significant
effect.
7.2.1. Mitigation Measure 7: The applicant shall prepare a hydrological analysis that includes
calculations of existing stormwater runoff from the project site The increase in
stormwater runoff from the site that would occur with implementation of the project during
10 -year and 100 -year storms, and the capacity of downstream receiving facilities to receive
increased flows. The projected increase in post - project storm runoff must be approved by
the City Engineer, who may require the applicant to implement measures to reduce or
retard peak storm flows. If warranted.
7.3.1 Actions. Public Works staff will review a hydrological analysis prepared by the
applicant's engineer and assure through implementation during construction that drainage
improvements offset increases in urban runoff to the degree that existing systems would
not handle the capacity.
7.4.1. Finding. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 7, the impact on existing public
hydrological facilities would be reduced to a less than significant level
8.1. OPERATIONAL NOISE
8.1.1 Significant Effect: Operation of the hotel, including air conditioning units fronting on
Webster Street, has the potential to exceed noise comfort levels of nearby neighbors, and
traffic noise on Webster Street has the potential to impact hotel residents, particularly at
night during sleeping hours, a potentially significant effect.
8.2.1 Mitigation Measure 8: An acoustical analysis shall be prepared by a qualified
professional
to calculate projected interior noise levels in the project hotel rooms following completion
of the project and in 2010. If interior noise levels would exceed 45 dBA Lan, the acoustical
consultant shall identify design features that would reduce interior noise to 45 dBA Lin or
less. All design features recommended in the acoustical analysis shall be incorporated into
final project design.
8.3.1. Actions. The applicant's building permit application shall be reviewed by the Planning/
Building Department to assure that noise protection features are built into the structure
pursuant to the acoustical analysis, and during building inspection of improvements the
building inspectors shall affirm compliance with the permit.
9
8.4.1 Finding. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 8, the impact of Webster Street
traffic noise on the hotel residents, and the impact of building features including air
conditioners, would be reduced to a less than significant level.
9/101. CONSTRUCTION NOISE
9/10.1 Significant Effect. Construction of the hotel could cause noise impacts on neighboring
properties and residents, a potentially significant impact.
9/10.2 Mitigation Measure 9: Noise - generating construction activities, including truck traffic,
shall occur only between the hairs of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday,
and between 8:00 a.m. and 5 :00 p.m. Saturdays, excluding holidays.
9/10.3 Mitigation Measure 10: All project construction equipment powered by internal
combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained. All impact tools shall be
shielded in accordance with the manufacturers' recommendations.
9/10.4 Actions. Planning /Building Department staff will review on -site construction and Public
Works Department staff will review in- street and on -site construction to assure that
standard City measures are taken by the applicant. Violations may be enforced with
standard City penalties and procedures.
9/10.5 Finding. With implementation of Mitigation Measures 9 and 10, the impact of
construction noise on nearby properties would be reduced to a less than significant
impact.
11.1 PUBLIC SERVICES- POLICE
11.1.1 Significant Effect: Design of the hotel could result in excessive calls for City police
response or lowered security, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
11.2.1 Mitigation Measure 11: Following operation of the proposed hotel for 3 to 12 months,
if requested by the Community - Oriented Policing and Preventive Services (COPPS) arm
of the Alameda Police Department due to excessive calls for police response, the project
sponsor shall implement additional measures to enhance site security. Such measures, to
be recommended by COPPS, may include enhanced security lighting, video surveillance,
employment of security guard, etc.
11.3.1 Actions: The applicant shall submit for Planning /Building and Police approval measure
recommended by COPPS and shall implement such measures in construction and operation
of the hotel, to be monitored by City staff.
10
11.4.1. Finding. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 11, excessive police calls
and reduced security impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
12.1 TRAFFIC
12.1.1 Significant Effect. The addition of this project's peak hour traffic to an already- loaded
Webster /Atlantic Avenue intersection and Webster Posey Tubes would be a potentially
cumulative significant impact on the scenic vista.
12.2.1 Mitigation Measure 12: The applicant shall pay the Citywide Development Fee as a fair
share contribution toward funding the anticipated improvements to the intersection of
Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue.
The project also incorporates a feature that the project sponsor shall actively promote the
use of existing shuttle services to hotel guests traveling to and from regional airports, to the
extent feasible. At a minimum, the project sponsor shall notify all guests making room
of the availability of the shuttles, shall provide information including hours of operation and
phone numbers about the various shuttle services in all hotel promotional literature, and
shall information about the shuttles and /or shuttle business cards at the hotel's front desk. All
promotional materials related to shuttles shall be approved by the Planning and Building
prior to distribution.
12.3.1 Actions: Public Works staff shall monitor payment of City development fees by the
applicant: Planning' staff shall monitor performance by the applicants in using shuttle
services for hotel guests and shall file enforcement actions, including actions through the
City Office, if needed to achieve compliance.
12.4.1 Finding. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 12, the impact on peak hour travel
through the Webster /Atlantic intersection and to the Webster and Posey Tubes would be
reduced to a less than significant level.
13.1 WEBSTER STREET /EAGLE AVENUE
13.1.1 Significant Effect. The project would replace a vacant lot which does not generate traffic
with a 50 room hotel which generates traffic to Webster Street at Eagle Avenue, which
presently has limited capacity for additional traffic, resulting in a potentially cumulative
impact.
13.2.1 Mitigation Measure 13: The applicant shall make a fair share contribution, equivalent to
17.1 percent of the total cost toward funding improvements at the intersection of Webster
Street and Eagle Avenue.
11
13.3.1 Actions. Prior to issuance of a Building Permit for the hotel, the applicant shall provide
a fair share (17.1 %) of the cost of a street median, signal or other method needed to reduce
traffic impact at Webster /Eagle as required by the Public Works Director.
13.4.1 Finding. The implementation of Mitigation Measure 13 to the satisfaction of the Alameda
Planning /Building and Public Works Directors would reduce the impact to a less than
significant level.
14.1 WEBSTER STREET /PACIFIC AVENUE
14.1.1 Significant Impact. The project would result in additional traffic generated through the
Webster Street /Pacific Avenue intersection, which has a limited ability to absorb the
additional traffic, which could have a potentially cumulative significant impact.
14.2.1 Mitigation measure 14: The applicant shall make a fair share contribution, equivalent to
9.2 percent of the total cost, toward funding the signalization of the intersection of Webster
Street and Pacific Avenue.
14.3.1 Actions. Prior to issuance of building permits for the hotel, the applicants will provide the
fair share contribution, which may be a portion of the cost of a new traffic signal, to the
satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
14.4.1 Finding. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 14 would reduce the potential impacts in
the Webster /Pacific area to a less than significant level.
15. PARKING
15.1.1 Significant Effect. Allowing a hotel which would otherwise require 67 parking spaces to
be developed with 64 parking spaces would require a Variance, which has not been granted,
or payment of an in -lieu parking fee, without which the project could have a potentially
significant icant effect on on- street parking in the northerly Webster Street area.
15.2.1 Mitigation Measure 15: The applicant shall pay an in -lieu fee, to be determined bu the
Public Works Department, for the three required parking spaces not provided by the
project.
15.3.1 Actions. Prior to issuance of building permits, or at occupancy if approved by the
Planning /Building Director, the applicant shall purchase three (3) in -lieu parking credits
to the Alameda Municipal Code and the City shall place the credits in the fund for
development of parking supply.
15.4.1 Finding. Implementation of the mitigation measure should reduce the impact on parking
to a less than significant level.
12
16.1 WASTEWATER
16.1.1 Significant Impact. Construction of the hotel with existing off -site wastewater facilities
may result in flows in excess of capacity, a potentially cumulative significant impact.
16.2.1 Mitigation Measure 16: The hydrological analysis required by the Mitigation Measure
7 shall include calculation of the project's anticipated wastewater flows and an analysis of
the capacity of the City's wastewater collection facilities to accommodate the increased
flow from the project site. This analysis shall be subject to review and approval by the city
Engineer. If the existing facilities are unable to receive the project's wastewater flow, an
upgrade from an 8 -inch line to a 10 -inch line would be required in-approximately 300 feet
of the Webster Street sewer. The project sponsor would be required to bear a portion of
this cost, to be determined by the City.
16.3.1 Actions. The applicant shall submit for City permit review and Planning /Building
and Public Works Department and EBMUD approvals, the hydrology and capacity
studies for waste water, and shall construct facilities as required by these agencies
to provide waste water capacities.
16.4.1. Finding. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 16, the potential cumulative
impact of waste water flow resulting from the hotel project would be reduced to a
less than significant level.
G: \PLANNING\ CC \RESO \2002 \5HAWTND
13
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 a regular meeting assembled on the
19th day of March, 2002, by the following vote to wit:
AYES:
Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr, and Mayor
Appezzato - 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this
20th day of March, 2002.
Lara Weisiger, City € lerk
City of Alameda