Resolution 14788
CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 14788
CERTIFING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
NORTH PARK STREET REGULATING CODE (STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
#2011052058)
WHEREAS, on March 16, 2011, the City of Alameda issued a Notice of Preparation
notifying the public and relevant public agencies that the City of Alameda would be preparing a
draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the proposed North Park Street Regulating Code
(the “Code”); and
WHEREAS, on January 3, 2012, the City of Alameda circulated for public review a Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the
proposed Code; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIR was circulated for a 45 -day public review period ending on
February 22, 2012; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing to accept comments on the Draft
EIR on February 13, 2012 and January 15, 2013; and
WHEREAS, written responses were prepared addressing all significant environmental
issues raised by commenters during the public review period and published as the EIR
Response to Comments Addendum (Final EIR); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this Final EIR on January 15,
2013, examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony and written
comments received; and adopted a resolution recommending that the City Council certify the
Final EIR; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings:
1. The Final EIR has been presented to and independently reviewed and considered
by the City Council,
2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City of
Alameda, and
3. The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, and all applicable state and local guidelines; and
WHEREAS, the certain findings regarding environmental impacts and mitigation
measures, alternatives, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and the Statement of
Overriding Considerations are necessary prior to adoption of the Park Street Regulating Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Alameda
hereby certifies the Final Environmental Impact Report for the North Park Street Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council adopts the
Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures for the North Park
Street Code And Associated Amendments (Attachment A), including the Findings of Fact
Concerning Alternatives (Appendix B), the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
(Appendix C) and the Statement of Overriding Considerations (Appendix D), all of which are
attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
* * * * * * *
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES FOR THE NORTH PARK STREET CODE AND ASSOCIATED AMENDMENTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The North Park Street regulating code is a revision to the Alameda Municipal Code and Zoning
Ordinance to bring the zoning code for the plan area into conformance with the City of Alameda
General Plan. The proposed North Park Street Regulating Code would implement the City of
Alameda General Plan, the principal policy document for guiding future development of the City,
to better guide future development in the area consistent with land use policies for this area
other elements of the City's General Plan. The Draft North Park Street Regulation Code is
designed to implement the policies of the City of Alameda General Plan and the vision for
development and reuse of the area established by the 2009 “Gateway District Strategic Plan” .
The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance represents a comprehensive zoning update for the
area bounded by the Oakland Alameda Estuary, Lincoln Ave. /Tilden Way, and Oak Street.
The area currently provides lands zoned for industrial uses (M-1 and M-2 industrial lands),
commercial and automobile related uses (CM and C-2 lands) and a limited number of blocks for
residential uses (R4 and R-5 areas.).
I. THE FINAL EIR: The Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) consists of the
Draft EIR (“DEIR”), Responses to Comments Addendum and Text Revisions document.
II. THE RECORD: The following information is incorporated by reference and made
part of the record (“Record”) supporting these findings:
a. The North Park Street Ordinance Amendments
b. Associated citywide Zoning Amedments.
c. The Design Manual Amendments.
d. The Draft EIR.
e. The FEIR including the DEIR, Responses to Comments Addendum and Text
Revisions document and all documents relied upon or incorporated by reference.
f. The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
g. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or
delivered to the City of Alameda (“City”) in connection with the Planning Board
public hearings 2012 and January 15, 2013 on the FEIR and DEIR.
h. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence submitted to or
delivered to the City in connection with the Planning Board and City Council
meetings associated with the certification of the FEIR.
i. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of public meetings
and other documents relied upon or prepared by City staff or consultants relating
to the Project.
j. These Findings and the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in
connection with the Project.
III. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS
The FEIR for the Project, prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act,
evaluates the potentially significant and significant adverse environmental impacts which could
result from adoption of the Project. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations (“CEQA
Guidelines”) Section 15091, the City is required to make certain findings with respect to these
impacts. The required findings appear in the following sections of this document. These
Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation Measures (“Findings”) list all
identified potentially significant and significant impacts of the Project, as well as mitigation
measures for those impacts where possible. All mitigation measures will be enforced through
the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (“MMRP”), as incorporated as a condition of
approval. With regard to impacts that cannot be mitigated to a less than significant level, the
City nevertheless finds acceptable based on a determination that the benefits of the Project
(listed in these Findings and in the Statement of Overriding Considerations) outweigh the risks
of the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project.
A. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE
AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
As authorized by Public Resources Code Section 21081 and the CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093, the City finds that changes or alterations have been
required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant
environmental impacts listed below, as identified in the FEIR.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the
City as stated below. Each significant impact which can be reduced to a less than significant
level is discussed below, and the appropriate mitigation measure stated, and adopted for
implementation by approval of these Findings of Fact.
Utilities:
Impact UTIL-1: Use of existing substandard storm sewer or sanitary sewer transport facilities
could contribute to peak wastewater or storm water flows that could exceed capacity of the
existing sewage or storm drain transport and/or lift station facilities.
Mitigation UTIL-1: Project sponsors for new construction projects or major renovations shall
remove or reconstruct existing sewer and storm drain laterals that serve the site of the proposed
development project to comply with City, EBMUD, and Regional Water Quality Control Board
standards and to prevent infiltration/inflow to the maximum extent feasible. This measure would
reduce the level of impact to less than significant.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. Reuse of existing on-site laterals and other components of the
antiquated system that serve sites proposed for development under the North Park Street
Zoning Ordinance Amendments would exacerbate existing conditions. Construction of a new
laterals system to replace the existing storm drain and sewer systems would avoid significant
impacts associated with the deteriorated condition of the existing laterals. This measure will be
enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City’s findings.
Impact UTIL-2: Development proposals that exceed the General Plan development
assumptions for the North Park Street plan area could cause an increase to peak wastewater or
storm water flows that could exceed capacity of the existing sewage or storm drain transport
and/or lift station facilities.
Mitigation UTIL-2a: Prior to approval of a discretionary permit for a new construction or major
renovations, City staff will confirm that the development proposal is consistent with the
development projections for the area. If the proposed development exceeds the General Plan
and Park Street development assumptions for the plan area, the project applicant shall be
required to complete a wastewater and storm water capacity analysis to ensure that the
development will not result in the need to upgrade or replace any off-site wastewater or storm
water facilities. If the study indicates that off-site improvements are required, those
improvements, or a fair share contribution to those facilities, shall be required of the project.
Mitigation UTIL-2b: Project sponsors for new construction projects or major renovations shall
provide drought tolerant landscape materials consistent with the California Model Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance or Bay Friendly Landscape Guidelines to reduce water use and storm
water runoff.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. Existing waste and storm water systems are designed and
maintained to accommodate redevelopment of existing commercial areas consistent with the
General Plan. The zoning ordinance amendments are designed to implement and be consistent
with the General Plan. The mitigations measures will ensure that any new development that
exceed these projections will address and provide for any additional improvements necessary to
accommodate the additional needs. Furthermore, use of Bay Friendly Drought Tolorant
materials will reduce waste and storm water capacity needs.
Transportation:
Impact TRANS- 1: New construction in the plan area could generate temporary traffic impacts
on area roadways. (Potentially Significant)
Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: All project applicants and construction contractors shall develop
a construction management plan for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior
to issuance of any permits. The plan shall include at least the following items and requirements
to reduce traffic congestion during construction:
A set of comprehensive traffic control measures shall be developed, including
scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if
required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction
access routes.
The Construction Management Plan shall identify haul routes for movement of
construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on motor vehicle, bicycle, and
pedestrian traffic, circulation, and safety, and specifically to minimize impacts to the
greatest extent possible on streets in the project area. The City shall approve the haul
routes.
The Construction Management Plan shall provide for notification procedures for
adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries,
detours, and lane closures would occur.
The Construction Management Plan shall provide for monitoring surface streets used for
haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be
identified and corrected by the project applicant.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. During construction, trucks might utilize Park Street, Atlantic
Avenue, Clement, the Webster and Posey Tubes, Park Street Bridge, and the Fruitvale Bridge.
Some temporary lane closures on local streets could be required during construction. Lane
closures could require rerouting of autos, buses, bicycles, and/or emergency vehicles. Some
equipment and/or materials may not be transportable through the tubes. These special
occurrences may require use of other bridge crossings or delivery by ferry. The construction
management plan required by Mitigation Measure TRN-1 would address potential traffic issues
caused by construction related activities to a less than significant level. This measure will be
enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City’s findings.
Biological Resources:
Impact BIO-1: Renovation and demolition of buildings within the North Park Street Code area
may result in the loss of bat roost sites. Implementation of the following mitigation measure
would reduce potential impacts to bats to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Proponents of each project in the North Park Street Code area shall
prepare a preconstruction survey of all buildings scheduled for demolition or renovation shall be
conducted no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of demolition or renovation activities.
Special attention shall be given to buildings where pallid bats were observed during the earlier
survey or where measures to discourage roosting were implemented. If no bats or signs of an
active roost are found, no additional measures are required. If a bat roost site is found, then
measures shall be implemented to discourage roosting at the site. If a maternity colony of bats
is found, the building and the bats shall not be disturbed until the young have dispersed, as
determined by a qualified biologist.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. Bats potentially roost in vacant buildings. Implementation Mitigation
Measure BIO-1 would reduce potential impacts to the bats to a less-than-significant level. This
measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support
the City’s findings.
Impact BIO-2: Sediment dredging and in-water construction activities in the Estuary could
impact fish, aquatic bird species, and other aquatic organisms.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: All dredging and in-water construction activities shall be consistent
with the standards and procedures set forth in the Long Term Management Strategy, a program
developed by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
other agencies, to guide dredging and the disposal of dredge materials in an environmentally
sound manner.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. Increased turbidity from dredging and in-water construction
activities would be localized and of limited duration. The magnitude of the turbidity would
depend in part on the number and type of dredges working at a given time, their locations, and
measures implemented to reduce turbidity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 would
limit impacts of dredging and in-water construction activities by requiring that all such activities
be consistent with the standards of the Long-Term Management Strategy developed by the
BCDC, RWQCB, and the EPA. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a
condition of approval. These facts support the City’s findings.
Cultural Resources:
Impact CULT-1: Excavation activities associated with implementation of the North Park Street
Code could adversely impact unidentified archaeological resources.
Mitigation Measure CULT-1: In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources
are discovered during site preparation or construction, work shall cease in the immediate
area until such time as a qualified archaeologist and City of Alameda personnel can
assess the significance of the find. The following measures shall be implemented at the
time of the find:
Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resources shall be immediately suspended
and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the find.
Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context.
If archeological resources are discovered, the City and the cultural resource
consultant shall determine whether the resource is unique based on the criteria
provided in the CEQA Guidelines and the criteria listed above. The City and
developer, in consultation with a cultural resource expert, shall seek to avoid
damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible.
If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified cultural resource
consultant shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the impact on the qualities
that make the resource unique. The mitigation plan shall be prepared in accordance
with CEQA Guidelines and shall be submitted to the City for review and approval.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. Due to the location of the North Park Street area adjacent to the
Oakland Estuary and in the vicinity of historical springs, the area has a moderate potential of
containing unidentified cultural resources. Impacts to such resources could be considered
significant under CEQA. Implementation of mitigation Measure CULT-1 would reduce the
potential impact to unidentified cultural resources to a less-than-significant level in the event that
previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during site preparation or construction
activities. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These
facts support the City’s findings.
Impact CULT-2: Ground-disturbing activities associated with implementation of the North Park
Street Code could unearth human remains interred outside of formal cemeteries.
Mitigation Measure CULT-2: If human remains are encountered, work shall halt within 50
feet of the find and the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. A qualified
archaeologist shall also be contacted to evaluate the situation. If the human remains are
of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage
Commission within 24 hours of this identification. Pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the
Public Resources Code, the Native American Heritage Commission will identify a Native
American Most Likely Descendent to inspect the site and provide recommendations for
the proper treatment of the remains and associated grave goods. Section 7050.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code states that in the event of discovery or recognition of
any human remains in any location other than a ,;"c dedicated cemetery, there shall be
no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected
to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains
are discovered has determined whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s
authority.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. The potential to uncover human remains exists at locations
throughout the Bay Area. Prehistoric resources are more likely to occur in areas near bodies of
water, such as the Oakland estuary, where there were high levels of Native American activity.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-2 would reduce this potential impact to a less-than-
significant level in the event that human remains are discovered during site preparation or
construction activities. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval. These facts support the City’s findings.
Impact CULT-3: Implementation of the North Park Street Code could adversely impact
unidentified paleontological resources.
Mitigation Measure CULT-3: If paleontological resources are encountered during site
preparation or construction activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resource(s) shall be immediately suspended,
and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified paleontological resource consultant
shall be contacted to evaluate the find. Project personnel shall not alter any of the
uncovered materials or their context.
If paleontological resources are discovered and the City and the paleontological
resource consultant found that the resource is significant based on the criteria
provided in the CEQA Guidelines and criteria listed above, the City and project
developer, in consultation with a paleontological resource expert, shall seek to avoid
damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible.
If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified paleontological
resource consultant shall prepare a salvage plan for mitigating the effect of the
project on the qualities which make the resource unique. The project developer, in
consultation with a qualified paleontologist, shall complete a paleontological resource
inventory, declaration, and mitigation plan in accordance with the CEQA Guidelines
and submit it to the City for review and approval.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. The potential to uncover paleontological resources exists at
locations throughout the Bay Area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CULT-3 would reduce
this potential impact to a less-than-significant level in the event that paleontological resources
are discovered during site preparation or construction activities. This measure will be enforced
through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support the City’s findings.
Noise:
Impact NOISE-1: Buildout of the North Park Street Code could result in demolition,
construction, and remodeling activities which could generate annoying noise or groundborne
vibrations at neighboring land uses.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Developers and/or contractors shall create and implement
development-specific noise reduction plans, which shall be enforced via contract specifications.
The plan for attenuating construction-related noises shall be implemented prior to the initiation
of any work that triggers the need for such a plan. If pile driving is required, “vibratory” pile
driving should be used wherever feasible. The vibratory pile driving technique, despite its
name, does not generate vibration levels higher than the standard pile driving technique. It
does, however, generate lower, less-intrusive noise levels.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. Construction activities associated with buildout of the North Park
Street Area would involve building demolition, building construction, and utility and roadway
reconstruction, which would create noise and vibration. Noise from construction activities would
be intermittent during construction and would gradually occur over an extended period of time,
driven by market conditions.
Groundborne vibration from construction within the area could result from truck traffic to and
from the site, but would primarily result from pile driving where needed. The location of the
potential pile driving would probably be sufficiently distant from nearby receptors that any
perceived groundborne vibration would not constitute a significant impact. Vibration due to pile
driving would also be constrained to established time-of-day limits. Nevertheless, in order to
ensure that demolition construction and remodeling activities do not create excessive noise or
vibrations, implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-1a and 1b, enforced through the
MMRP as conditions of approval, would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
These facts support the City’s findings.
Impact NOISE-2: New development associated with implementation of the North Park Street
Code could expose existing and/or new residences or other sensitive receptors to noise from
stationary sources and traffic related noise that may exceed levels deemed acceptable.
Mitigation Measure NOISE-2: New residential or noise-sensitive developments in the North
Park Street Code shall be required to conduct acoustical studies, describing how the exterior
and interior noise level standards will be met for the Project as well as any impacts on adjacent
projects. Studies shall satisfy the acoustical requirements of Title 24, part 2, of the California
Administrative Code, Noise Insulation Standards, for single family, multiple-family attached,
hotels, motels, etc., regulated by Title 24. of the Uniform Building Code. All new projects shall
show that they comply with maximum noise levels outlined in the City’s Noise Ordinance and
the average sound level goals outlined in the City’s General Plan.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. New projects developed under the area would be subject to the
City’s Noise Ordinance and the policies included in the General Plan. The City’s Noise
Ordinance outlines maximum noise levels allowed for stationary noise sources. Policy 8.7.e of
the City’s General Plan requires acoustical analysis for new or replacement dwellings, hotels,
and schools within the projected CNEL 60 dBA contour, or one-family dwellings not constructed
as part of a subdivision requiring a final map within the projected CNEL 65 dBA contour.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures NOISE-2a and 2b, enforced through the MMRP as
conditions of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the potential for stationary noise
sources to impact new and existing residences. These facts support the City’s findings.
Geology and Seismicity:
Impact GEO-1: Occupants of future development within the North Park Street Code area would
be subject to seismic-induced ground shaking.
Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Grading, foundation, and structural design should be based on the
anticipated strong seismic shaking associated with a future major earthquake on the Hayward
fault. The Hayward fault is considered to be a Type A seismic source (with active slip and
capable of a magnitude 7.0 or greater earthquake) under the 1997 Uniform Building Code
(UBC) near-source factors. All structures shall be designed in accordance with the most recent
edition of the City of Alameda Building Code.
The applicant shall prepare an earthquake preparedness and emergency response plan
for all public use facilities. The plan should be submitted for review and approval by the
Planning and Building and/or Public Works Department, prior to occupancy of the
structures.
Prior to marketing residential or commercial units for sale, the developer shall prepare
an earthquake hazards information document. This document should be made available
to any potential occupant prior to purchase or rental of the housing units or commercial
spaces. The document should describe the potential for strong ground shaking at the
site, potential effects of such shaking, and earthquake preparedness procedures.
Implementation of these measures would reduce the impact of seismic-induced ground
shaking to less than significant levels.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires that all structures be
constructed in accordance with the most recent edition of the UBC and California Building Code
for soft soil in Seismic Zone 4. The applicant shall also prepare an earthquake preparedness
and emergency response plan for all public use facilities. Prior to marketing residential or
commercial units for sale, the developer shall prepare an earthquake hazards information
document to disclose the potential for seismic events. Implementation of Mitigation Measure
GEO-1, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or
substantially lessen the potential exposure of site occupants to hazards associated with seismic
induced ground shaking. These facts support the City’s findings.
Impact GEO-2: Seismic-induced Ground Failure, including Liquefaction, Lurch-Cracking and
Lateral Spreading may occur in the North Park Street Code area.
Mitigation Measure GEO-2: Earthwork, foundation and structural design for proposed projects
shall be conducted in accordance with all recommendations contained in a Geotechnical
Investigation to be completed for each development site. Liquefaction potential analyses shall
be conducted and a liquefaction mitigation program developed for each development within the
North Park Street Code area. All structures proposed within the North Park Street Code area
shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the most recently adopted version of the
City of Alameda Building Code. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for new
buildings, geotechnical investigations shall be conducted for projects within the North Park
Street Code area. Reports for these studies shall evaluate the liquefaction potential for each
site in accordance with the Standard of Practice for Geotechnical Engineering and shall provide
recommendations for stabilization or resistance of structures from the potential affect of
liquefaction of sediments. The potential for lurch cracking and lateral spreading shall also be
evaluated. Stability of the bulkhead for projects adjacent to bulkheads shall also be evaluated.
Reports shall be submitted to the City of Alameda for review and approval. Implementation of
these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of seismic-induced ground failure to less
than significant levels.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure GEO-1 requires that prior to the issuance of
any grading or building permits, geotechnical investigations shall be conducted for the site.
These geotechnical investigations would produce site specific recommendations for stabilization
or resistance of structures from the potential affect of liquefaction of sediments. Implementation
of Mitigation Measure GEO-2, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will
therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for damage to Project improvements as a
result of liquefaction. These facts support the City’s findings.
Impact GEO-3: Expected continuing consolidation and land subsidence in the North Park
Street Code area could result in damage to structures, utilities and pavements.
Mitigation Measure GEO-3: Proponents for all projects within the North Park Street Code area
shall be required to prepare a geotechnical report for review and approval by the City of
Alameda that specifies all measures necessary to limit consolidation including minimization of
structural fills and use (when necessary) of lightweight and low plasticity fill materials to reduce
the potential for excessive loading caused by fill placement. The report shall present
recommendations for specific foundation designs, which minimize the potential for damage
related to settlement. The design of utilities shall consider differential settlements along utility
alignments constructed in filled areas of the North Park Street Code area. Implementation of
this mitigation measure would reduce the impact of continuing consolidation and land
subsidence to less than significant levels.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure GEO-3, no grading permit will be
issued until a detailed, site-specific geotechnical report analyzing consolidation potential is
prepared and submitted to the City Department of Public Works for approval. The report will
specify all measures necessary to limit consolidation and will present recommendations for
specific foundation designs which minimize the potential for damage related to settlement. The
measures specified and the recommendations presented will adhere to the standards identified
in Mitigation Measures GEO-2 and GEO-3. Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-3,
enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will therefore avoid or substantially
lessen the potential for damage to Project improvements as a result of continuing consolidation
and land surface subsidence at the Project site. These facts support the City’s findings.
Impact GEO-4: Damage to structures or property related to shrink-swell potential of North Park
Street Code area soils could occur.
Mitigation Measure GEO-4: The required geotechnical report shall require that subgrade soils
for pavements consist of moisture-conditioned, lime-treated, or non-expansive soil, and that
surface (including roof drainage) and subsurface water be directed away from foundation
elements and into storm drains to minimize variations in soil moisture. Implementation of this
mitigation measure would reduce the impact of expansive soils to less than significant levels.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. As discussed in the DEIR, portions of the project site contain Bay
mud deposits with moderate to high shrink/swell potential. As part of Mitigation Measure GEO-
3, no grading permit will be issued until a detailed, site-specific geotechnical report for each
phase of the Project is prepared and submitted to the City Department of Public Works for
approval. That report, as required by Mitigation Measure GEO-4, shall require that foundations
and improvements are designed to reduce impacts from expansive soils, and that variation in
soil moisture under and around building foundation elements are minimized by incorporating
foundation designs and standards identified in Mitigation Measure GEO-3. Implementation of
Mitigation Measure GEO-4, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will
therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for damage to structures or property related
to shrink-swell potential of Project soils. These facts support the City’s findings.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Impact HYD-1: Construction activities and post-construction site uses within the North Park
Street Code area could result in degradation of water quality in the Oakland Estuary and the
San Francisco Bay by reducing the quality of storm water runoff.
Mitigation Measure HYD-1: All specific development projects approved pursuant to the North
Park Street Code, and that involves site clearing, grading or excavation as part of the proposed
construction activity and that result in soil disturbances of 1 or more acres, (and for projects of
less than 1 acre if the construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development),
shall be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). To avoid
unnecessary duplication of effort, the SWPPP prepared for the first site or development project
within the North Park Street Code area may be used as the basis for a SWPPP required for
subsequent projects, provided that each version of the SWPPP is modified as necessary to
maintain compliance with the qualitative standards set forth in this EIR and with applicable
regulations and standards of the RWQCB. Each SWPPP shall be designed to reduce potential
impacts to surface water quality through the construction and life of the Project for which it is
prepared. Each SWPPP shall conform to the requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water
Program which set new standards effective February 2003, and to the standards set forth
herein. Each SWPPP would act as the overall program document designed to provide
measures to mitigate potential water quality impacts associated with implementation each
proposed project. Preparers of each SWPPP should review the Conditions of Approval
(including General Conditions for Construction, Residential Development/Construction
Conditions, and Commercial/Industrial Conditions) established by the City. Each SWPPP shall
include the following three elements to address construction, post-construction and pest
management issues:
Specific and Detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) Designed to Mitigate
Construction-related Pollutants. These controls shall include practices to minimize
the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g.,
fuels, lubricants, paints, solvents, adhesives) with storm water. The SWPPP shall
specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of
the rain. The contractor(s) shall submit details, design and procedures for
compliance with storage area requirements.
An important component of the storm water quality protection effort is knowledge on
the part of on-site construction and maintenance supervisors and workers. To
educate on-site personnel and maintain awareness of the importance of storm water
quality protection, site supervisors shall conduct regular meetings to discuss pollution
prevention. The SWPPP shall establish a frequency for meetings and require all
personnel to attend.
The SWPPP shall specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the con-
struction site supervisor, and must include both dry and wet weather inspections.
City of Alameda personnel shall conduct regular inspections to ensure compliance
with the SWPPP.
BMPs designed to reduce erosion of exposed soil may include, but are not limited to:
soil stabilization controls, watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement
of hay bales and sediment basins. If grading must be conducted during the rainy
season, the primary BMPs selected shall focus on erosion control (i.e., keeping
sediment on the site). End of pipe sediment control measures (e.g., basins and
traps) shall be used only as secondary measures. If hydroseeding is selected as the
primary soil stabilization method, these areas shall be seeded by September 1 and
irrigated to ensure that adequate root development has occurred prior to October 1.
Entry and egress from the construction site shall be carefully controlled to minimize
off-site tracking of sediment. Vehicle and equipment wash-down facilities shall be
designed to be accessible and functional both during dry and wet conditions.
Measures Designed to Mitigate Post-construction-Related Pollutants. The SWPPP
shall include measures designed to mitigate potential water quality degradation of
runoff from all portions of the completed development. It is important that post
construction storm water quality controls are required in the initial design phase of
redevelopment projects and not simply added after the site layout and building
footprints have been established. The specific BMPs that would be required of a
project can be found in SF Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board Staff
Recommendations for New and Redevelopment Controls for Storm Water Programs.
In addition, the design team should include design principles contained in the Bay
Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association’s manual, Start at the Source,
Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection. The selection of BMPs
required for a specific project is based on the size of the development and the sensi-
tivity of the area. The Estuary is considered a sensitive area by the RWQCB. In
general, passive, low maintenance BMPs (e.g., grassy swales, porous pavements)
are preferred. If the SWPPP includes higher maintenance BMPs (e.g., sedimen-
tation basins, fossil filters), then funding for long term maintenance needs must be
specified in the SWPPP as a condition of approval of the grading, excavation, or
building permits, as appropriate (the City will not assume maintenance
responsibilities for these features).
Integrated Pest Management Plan. An Integrated Pest Management Plan (IPM)
shall be prepared and implemented by the Project for all common landscaped areas.
Each IPM shall be prepared by a qualified professional. The IPMs shall address and
recommend methods of pest prevention and turf grass management that use
pesticides as a last resort in pest control. Types and rates of fertilizer and pesticide
application shall be specified. Special attention in the IPMs shall be directed toward
avoiding runoff of pesticides and nitrates into sensitive drainages or leaching into the
shallow groundwater table. Pesticides shall be used only in response to a persistent
pest problem. Preventative chemical use shall not be employed. Cultural and
biological approaches to pest control shall be fully integrated into the IPMs, with an
emphasis toward reducing pesticide application.
The City of Alameda Department of Public Works shall review and approve each
SWPPP prior to the approval of the Development Plan for each project phase to
ensure that the selected BMPs would adequately protect water quality. The City and
the RWQCB are empowered to levy considerable fines for non-compliance with the
SWPPP. Compliance with the approved SWPPP would mitigate the impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.) The City Council hereby finds
mitigation of the impact to be complete.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact has been
mitigated to a less than significant level. As part of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, a SWPPP will be
prepared for each type or category of development within the Project area. The SWPPPs will
include measures and practices designed to reduce erosion and protect storm water quality
during construction, and substantially limit the degradation of runoff from all portions of the
completed development. Compliance with the SWPPP will be ensured through regular
inspections conducted by City of Alameda personnel, and through review and approval of the
SWPPP prior to the approval of the Development Plan for each Project construction phase.
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval, will therefore avoid or substantially lessen the potential for degradation of water
quality resulting from construction activities and post-construction site uses. These facts
support the City’s findings.
Impact HYD-2: Dredging that may be undertaken to develop a marina or be associated with
maintenance of existing marinas, or reconstruction of bulkheads and infrastructure in the North
Park Street Code area may cause impacts to water quality at the dredging and disposal sites.
Mitigation Measure HYD-2: All dredging and in-water construction activities shall be consistent
with the standards and procedures set forth in the Long Term Management Strategy, a program
developed by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
other agencies, to guide dredging and the disposal of dredge materials in an environmentally
sound manner.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. Increased turbidity from dredging and in-water construction
activities would be localized and of limited duration. The magnitude of the turbidity would
depend in part on the number and type of dredges working at a given time, their locations, and
measures implemented to reduce turbidity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-2 would
limit impacts of dredging and in-water construction activities by requiring that all such activities
be consistent with the standards of the Long-Term Management Strategy developed by the
BCDC, RWQCB, and the EPA. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a
condition of approval. These facts support the City’s findings.
Impact HYD-3: Site development under the proposed project could be subjected
to flooding as a result of sea level rise. (Less than Significant)
Mitigation Measure HYD-3: The project applicant shall design and construct the proposed
seawall such that future adaptive management measures can be implemented to further protect
upland areas from potential rising sea levels. Prior to construction, the [mal seawall design shall
be reviewed by BCDC and in accordance with current guidelines regarding protection against
sea level rise.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. Each project shall be reviewed to ensure appropriate design is
incorporated into the project to adapt to expected sea-level rise. Implementation of Mitigation
Measure HYD-3 would establish the necessary protections to minimize potential impacts. This
measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval. These facts support
the City’s findings.
Hazardous Materials:
Impact HAZ-1: Contaminated soils and groundwater have the potential to exist on many parcels
located within the North Park Street Code area. These materials could present a health risk to
construction workers and/or future workers and residents of the North Park Street Code area.
This is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to the approval of any specific development projects within the
North Park Street Code area, documentation from a qualified professional shall be provided to
the City of Alameda stating that adequate soils and ground water investigations and, where
warranted, remediation, have been conducted to ensure that there will be no significant hazard
related risks to future site users. If the soil and groundwater investigations indicate that
hazardous materials are present and pose a risk to construction workers and future site users,
the following additional mitigation measures shall be implemented, and the City of Alameda will
refer the site to the appropriate State and County agencies (such as Alameda County
Environmental Health, the State Department of Toxic Substances Control and/or the San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board) for oversight of the specific development
project.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a: If required as a result of the information obtained from Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1, the City shall condition the subject development project to record a restrictive
covenant prohibiting the installation or use of water wells into the shallow groundwater at the
site for drinking water prior to transfer of the property.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1b: If required as a result of the information obtained from Mitigation
Measure HAZ-1, the City shall condition the subject development project to require preparation
by a qualified registered professional of a Site Management Plan (SMP) for the subject site as a
condition of its approval as a specific development project. The SMP would provide site specific
information for contractors (and others) developing the site that would improve their
management of environmental and health and safety contingencies. Topics covered by the
SMP shall include, but not be limited to:
Land use history, including known hazardous material use, storage, disposal,
and spillage, for specific areas within the site.
The nature and extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at
the site.
The nature and extent of ongoing remedial activities and the nature and extent of
unremediated areas of the project site, including the nature and occurrence of
marsh crust and hazardous materials associated with the dredge material used
as fill at the site.
A listing and description of institutional controls, such as the City's excavation
ordinance and other local, State, and federal laws and regulations that will apply
to development of the site.
Requirements for site-specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared
by all contractors at the site. The HASPs should be prepared by a Certified
Industrial Hygienist and would protect construction workers and interim site users
adjacent to construction activities by including engineering controls, monitoring,
and security measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction site and
to reduce hazards outside the construction site. The HASPs would address the
possibility of encountering subsurface hazards and include procedures to protect
workers and the public. If prescribed exposure levels were exceeded, personal
protective equipment would be required for workers in accordance with DOSH
regulations.
A description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously
unidentified hazardous materials that may potentially be encountered during
project development, including engineering controls that may be required to
reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the site.
Requirements for site specific construction techniques at the site, based on
proposed development, such as minimizing the transport of contaminated
materials to the surface during construction activities by employing pile driving
techniques that consist of driving the piles directly without boring, where
practical.
The SMP shall be distributed to all contractors at the development site; implementation of the
SMP shall be a condition of approval for excavation, building, and grading permits at the site.
The contractors will be required to hold a daily safety meeting with all construction workers and
subcontractors on lands identified with Hazardous Material risks. Implementation of these
mitigation measures would reduce the impact of contaminated soil and ground water to less
than significant levels.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (1). (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 FEIR.)
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact will be reduced to
a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 requires site specific investigations to
determine if hazardous conditions exist in the groundwater or soils on any project site to be
developed. If hazardous conditions do exist, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1a allows the City to
condition the subject project to record a restrictive covenant prohibiting installation of drinking
water well at the subject site prior to any transfer of property. This measure would protect future
occupants from hazards associated with contaminated groundwater at the Project site. If the
hazardous conditions outlined under Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 exist, an SMP shall be required.
The SMP, prepared by a qualified registered professional would provide site specific information
for contractors (and others) developing the Project site that would improve their management of
environmental and health and safety contingencies. The SMP will be implemented through the
MMRP as a condition of approval for excavation, grading and building permits and would reduce
this impact to a less than significant level. These facts support the City’s findings.
B. SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE
AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
The City finds that specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations make
infeasible the mitigation measures or Project alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid
the following significant impacts, and that specific economic, social or other considerations
identified in the Statement of Overriding Considerations support approval of the Project despite
these significant impacts.
These findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record of proceedings before the
City.
Impact TRANS-2: Redevelopment of North Park Street consistent with the North Park Street
Code will result in an increase in vehicle trips, which will contribute to reduced levels of service
for transit vehicles, automobiles, and bicyclists. Improvements to increase travel speed for
transit and/or automobiles could result in secondary impacts on pedestrian levels of service.
(Significant and Unavoidable)
Mitigation TRANS-2: To ensure that new development in the Plan area mitigates its potential
significant impacts to transit, automobile, bicycle and pedestrian levels of service, all new
development requiring discretionary actions by the City shall be:
1. Conditioned by the City to ensure that new driveway locations, parking areas, building
locations, the adjacent public right of way and adjacent intersections are configured to
minimize impacts to transit, automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian service.
2. Conditioned to close any sidewalk gaps that may exist along the project frontage, add street
trees to any sidewalk frontage that does not currently include street trees, and close any
unnecessary curb cuts on the project frontage to improve pedestrian safety and comfort and
reduce pedestrian impacts.
3. Shall be reviewed to determine if the project traffic would constitute a considerable
contribution (3% or more) to one or more of the impacted intersections (Park
Street/Blanding Ave, Park Street/Clement Avenue, Clement/Oak, and Tilden/Blanding at
Fernside Blvd. High Street/Fernside Blvd., High Street/Otis Drive, Island Drive/Doolittle
Drive, Eighth Street/Central Avenue, Broadway/Otis Drive, Broadway/Tilden/Eagle, and
Park/Pacific.). If the project does contribute 3% or more to any individual intersection, then
the project shall be conditioned to:
TDM: Implement a City-approved Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program with the goal of reducing the number of peak hour trips generated by the
project at the impacted intersections to less than 3%. The TDM program may
include a variety of strategies to reduce vehicular traffic including, but not limited to:
participation in a shuttle program or carpool program, park and ride facilities,
purchase of AC Transit passes for residents or employees, and/or improvements at
or adjacent to the site to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit travel modes.
The City of Alameda Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan also identify a number of
improvements that are needed in the area, which might help decrease automobile
trips in the area by improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities. If the City determines
that the TDM Program is not sufficient to reduce the trips to a less than significant
level, then the project shall also be conditioned to pay a fair share contribution to the
improvement plan for the intersections at which the project would contribute 3% or
more to the total traffic volume at the intersection. The fair share contribution shall
be determined by the Public Works Director.
Bicycle Route: The project shall also be reviewed to determine if the project traffic
would constitute a considerable contribution (3% or more) in traffic volume on Oak
Street. If the project does contribute 3% or more on Oak Street, then the project shall
be conditioned to implement a City-approved Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program. If the TDM Program is not sufficient to minimize the trips to a less
than significant level, then the project shall also be conditioned to pay a fair share
contribution to a bicycle improvement plan for the Oak Street, Tilden Way, and
Clement Street Bicycle routes and/or iimproved bicyclist access to/from Park Street
bridge per the Bicycle Mater Plan. The improvement plan and fair share contribution
shall be determined by the Public Works Director.
In accordance with the General Plan Transportation Element Street Classification
System, the improvements at the locations described above should be designed to
improve transit service as a first priority, pedestrians service as a second priority,
and bicycles service as a third priority.
Impact Fees. To ensure that all new development within the plan area contributes a
fair share to improvements in the area to support all modes of transportation, the
City of Alameda should prepare and consider a transportation impact fee on all new
construction in the plan area.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will
be lessened trough the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRN-2, but will still remain
significant and unavoidable. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is significant and
unavoidable. The existing roadway system and surrounding private development and private
property ownership make widening of streets and roadways financially, practically, and
politically infeasible. The historic pattern of streets and buildings in the area is integral to the
success of Park Street and the ability to maintain a pedestrian friendly environment. Widening
streets to increase capacity for automobiles is not supported by General Plan policy nor is it
financially feasible.
Impact TRANS-3: Implementation of the proposed North Park Street Coe would result in
cumulative transportation impacts. These impacts would remain cumulatively considerable and
a significant and unavoidable impact.
Mitigation Measure TRANS-3: Implement Mitigation Measures TRANS-2.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will
be lessened trough the implementation of Mitigation Measure TRN-2, but will still remain
significant and unavoidable. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is significant and
unavoidable. The existing roadway system and surrounding private development and private
property ownership make widening of streets and roadways financially, practically, and
politically infeasible. The historic pattern of streets and buildings in the area is integral to the
success of Park Street and the ability to maintain a pedestrian friendly environment. Widening
streets to increase capacity for automobiles is not supported by General Plan policy nor is it
financially feasible.
Green House Gases and Air Quality
Impact GHG/Air-1: Adoption of the North Park Street Code and redevelopment of the plan area
would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Mitigation Measure GHG/Air-1a: Mobile Emissions: Implement Mitigation Measure TRANS-2
and TRANS-3 to improve bicycle, pedestrian, and transit travel modes and reduce greenhouse
gas from mobile emissions.
Mitigation Measure GHG/Air-1b: Mobile Emissions: Consider amendments to the North Park
Street Code to:
Require new businesses with 10 or more employees to provide: 1) secure employee
bicycle parking, 2) transit pass for each employee, 3) Guaranteed Ride Home
services, 4) Transportation Services information, and/or 5) preferred carpool parking.
Require new residential projects with 10 or more units to provide: 1) an on-site car-
share program, 2) transit passes for each unit, 3) secure bicycle parking space for
each unit either in each unit or in a single “bicycle cage”.
Mitigation Measure GHG/Air-1c: Indirect Emissions: Consider amendments to the North Park
Street Code to:
Allow for work/live units in new and rehabilitated buildings in the North Park Street
Code planning area.
Require sustainable design and green building standards for all new, substantially
expanded, and remodeled buildings to exceed the most current Uniform Building
Code requirements and State energy criteria by 10%.
Prohibit wood-burning stoves and fireplaces in all new residential construction.
Require drought tolerant landscape materials consistent with the California Model
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance or Bay Friendly Landscape Guidelines.
Require “cool roof” design, and/or
Require rainwater collection systems.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will
be lessened trough the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG/Air-1, but will still remain
significant and unavoidable. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval.
Facts in Support of Findings The following facts indicate the identified impact is significant and
unavoidable. State and regional policies encourage and require the intensification of land uses
within the urban core areas, such as Alameda and Oakland. Studies conducted by State
agencies in support of these state policies and legislation show that concentration of
development within the urban core will reduce greenhouse gas and air quality impacts statewide
and regionally, but will increase greenhouse gas and air quality impacts at the local level within
the urban core areas designated for intensification of use. Mitigation Measure GHG/AIR 1 will
reduce these impacts, but the implementation of these measures to the maximum extent would
not necessarily eliminate the significant increase in greenhouse gas and automobile emissions
caused by intensification of use in the area.
Impact GHG/Air-2: Construction activities within the North Park Street Plan Area would generate
short-term emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and inhalable particulate matter
and equipment exhaust emissions and potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Mitigation Measure GHG/Air-2: During construction, all projects shall implement both
BAAQMD’s basic and enhanced dust control procedures including the “basic” dust control
program the following:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Watering should be sufficient
to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be
necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water
should be used whenever possible.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the
top of the load and the top of the trailer).
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of
each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
o Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas
and staging areas at construction sites.
o The “enhanced” dust control measures shall include the following:
Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to construction areas and previously
graded areas inactive for ten days or more
Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed
stockpiles of dirt, sand, etc.
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph)
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will
be lessened trough the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG/Air-1, but will still remain
significant and unavoidable. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval.
Facts in Support of Findings The following facts indicate the identified impact is significant and
unavoidable. State and regional policies encourage and require the intensification of land uses
within the urban core areas, such as Alameda and Oakland. Studies conducted by State
agencies in support of these state policies and legislation show that concentration of
development within the urban core will reduce greenhouse gas and air quality impacts statewide
and regionally, but will increase greenhouse gas and air quality impacts at the local level within
the urban core areas designated for intensification of use. Mitigation Measure GHG/AIR 1 will
reduce these impacts, but the implementation of these measures to the maximum extent would
not necessarily eliminate the significant increase in greenhouse gas and automobile emissions
caused by intensification of use in the area.
Impact GHG/Air-3: Redevelopment of the North Park Street Area would result in an increase in
operational emissions of criteria air pollutants from on-road motor vehicle traffic traveling to and
from site and onsite area sources and potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations. (Significant and Unavoidable)
Mitigation GHG/Air-3: Implement Mitigations 1a, b, and c, and Mitigation -2.
Findings. The City Council hereby makes finding (3). (Finding 3: Specific economic, legal,
social, technological, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or Project
alternatives identified in the FEIR that would avoid this significant impact, and that specific
economic, social or other considerations identified in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations support approval of the Project despite this significant impact.) This impact will
be lessened trough the implementation of Mitigation Measure GHG/Air-1, but will still remain
significant and unavoidable. This measure will be enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval.
Facts in Support of Findings The following facts indicate the identified impact is significant and
unavoidable. State and regional policies encourage and require the intensification of land uses
within the urban core areas, such as Alameda and Oakland. Studies conducted by State
agencies in support of these state policies and legislation show that concentration of
development within the urban core will reduce greenhouse gas and air quality impacts statewide
and regionally, but will increase greenhouse gas and air quality impacts at the local level within
the urban core areas designated for intensification of use. Mitigation Measure GHG/AIR 1 will
reduce these impacts, but the implementation of these measures to the maximum extent would
not necessarily eliminate the significant increase in greenhouse gas and automobile emissions
caused by intensification of use in the area.
C. LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The impacts listed below are less than significant impacts, even without the
implementation of mitigation measures.
1. LAND USE
1.1 Compatible Land Uses with the Established Communities.
1.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The land uses proposed under the General Plan
Amendment would be compatible with established communities.
Mitigation. None required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the compatibility of proposed land
uses with established communities is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments would not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the established
community. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments would change the
land use designation of several properties and would facilitate redevelopment of existing
developed sites. The proposed changes would support the transition of the area from
industrial to a mix of commercial, marine, residential and open space and recreation
uses. The redevelopment of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area
would result in the development of uses that are more compatible with the adjacent
residential and commercial and recreational uses that exist in the vicinity of the area.
These facts support the City’s findings.
Compatibility with the Alameda General Plan.
1.1.2 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed Amendment would be compatible with the
existing General Plan.
Mitigation. None required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the compatibility with the Alameda
General Plan is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The proposed amendment would be consistent with the General Plan’s
policies for Waterfront Sites, for Mixed Use Housing Development, policies for Shoreline
Access, and policies regarding Reducing through Traffic in Residential Areas. These
facts support the City’s findings.
1.2 Compatibility with the BCDC Plan.
1.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would be
compatible with the existing BCDC San Francisco Bay Plan.
Mitigation. None required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the compatibility with the BCDC San
Francisco Bay Plan is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The proposed North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments would
have no adverse impacts on the shoreline vis-à-vis the policies of BCDC’s San
Francisco Bay Plan. Implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments would actually allow better and easier public access to the shoreline,
through the transformation of current industrial land uses that limit recreational uses
along the shore, to land uses that would facilitate and encourage public access to the
shoreline. Therefore, implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments would be consistent with the BCDC Plan and policies and would generate
beneficial land use impacts. These facts support the City’s findings.
Compatibility with State Lands.
1.2.2 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed Amendment would be compatible with the
State owned lands.
Mitigation. None required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the compatibility with the State lands
is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments would have no
adverse impacts on Tidelands Trust lands. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments does not necessitate relocation of any existing Tidelands Trust lands, nor
does it propose any specific uses on Tidelands Trust encumbered properties that are not
in compliance with Tidelands restrictions. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments does not propose any specific uses on specific properties that are
encumbered by the Trust that would be inconsistent with the Tidelands Trust limitations.
These facts support the City’s findings.
2. POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING
2.1 Induce Substantial or Unanticipated Population or Housing Growth.
2.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed Amendment would not induce substantial or
unanticipated population or housing growth.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the induced substantial or
unanticipated population or housing growth is less than significant and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments over its planning horizon would result in population growth and
employment growth that is well within the growth rate established by ABAG for the City
over the next 20 years. Therefore, the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments
would not result in substantial direct population or housing growth. These facts support
the City’s findings.
2.2 Displace Population or Housing.
2.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed Amendment would not displace persons or
displace or destroy existing housing.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to displaced population or housing is
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Implementation of the proposed North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments would not displace persons or displace or destroy housing
located within the North Park Street Amendments area.
2.3 Jobs/Housing Balance.
2.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not
contribute to a future jobs/housing imbalance.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the jobs/housing balance is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The zoning proposes a mix of housing and jobs which will contribute to
a jobs/housing balance.
2.4 Potential Effect on the Affordability of Housing.
2.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in a
less than significant effect on the affordability of housing.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to affordable housing is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The number and type of housing units proposed as part of the
North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments is well within ABAG’s RHND for the
City. These facts support the City’s findings.
3. MUNICIPAL SERVICES
3.1 Police Services.
3.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed Amendment would not result in an
increased demand for police services.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to police services is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. It is not anticipated that residential growth or commercial and
office activity would result in an increase in calls to such an extent that new police
facilities or alterations to existing facilities would be needed. This increase in demand
could be covered by a slight increase in the size of the existing police force. As a result,
there would be no significant impacts related to police services from the North Park
Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments. These facts support the City’s findings.
3.2 Fire and Emergency Services.
3.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed Plan Amendment would not result in an
increased demand for fire and emergency services.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to fire and emergency services is less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Anticipated response times to the North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments area would be in conformance with response times to the rest
of the City. Although the Fire Department has adequate equipment to provide
emergency response to the area, much of the fleet is aging and in need of replacement.
Development of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments would increase
the volume of emergency calls for first-in response apparatus. This could result in a
need for additional equipment and traffic light control devices. The acquisition of new fire
fighting equipment and the installation of traffic light control devices would not result in
environmental impacts, and are themselves not considered to be significant
environmental impacts. No mitigation would be required. These facts support the City’s
findings.
3.3 Schools.
3.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would not result
in an increased demand for school services.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to school services is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments would
generate new students for the schools serving the area. Payment of the School Facilities
Mitigation Fee has been deemed by the State legislature to be full and complete
mitigation for the impacts of a development project on the provision of adequate school
facilities. The assessment of the adopted School Facilities Mitigation Fee ensures that
the project would not result in a significant impact under CEQA, in accordance with
Senate Bill 50, which became effective in 1998. These facts support the City’s findings.
4. UTILITIES
4.1 Water Supply.
4.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed General Plan Amendment would result in an
increased demand for potable water. However, EBMUD has sufficient capacity to serve
the area.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to water supply is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Buildout of the proposed North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments area would lead to an increased demand for potable water in the area, due
to the intensification of land uses in the area. However, EBMUD has sufficient capacity
to serve the area in normal rainfall years, especially since the area is not a new user of
EBMUD water service. Should a drought occur, the area would experience the same
deficiencies as other existing and new EBMUD customers. These facts support the
City’s findings.
4.2 Sanitary Sewer Subbasin Capacity.
4.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed Amendment would result in an increased
sanitary sewer flow. However, EBMUD has sufficient capacity to serve the area.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to sanitary sewer subbasin capacity is
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The additional sanitary sewage flows from North Park Street
Zoning Ordinance Amendments area development will not exceed the EBMUD peak
design treatment allotments. The EBMUD sanitary sewer flow allotments for sub-basins
in Alameda were presented in a letter dated February 5, 2004. The estimated peak
design flows, including those from the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments
area development and all flows upstream from manhole FM-6 is less than the cumulative
EBMUD treatment allotments. These facts support the City’s findings.
4.3 Storm Drainage.
4.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed Amendment would result in a reduction of
stormwater flow rather than an increase in runoff.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to storm drainage capacity is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Redevelopment of the existing industrial or warehouse sites within the
area will generally result in a reduction of storm run-off rather than an increase in runoff.
Existing NPDES permit requirements will ensure that the water quality impacts of the
reduced runoff will be minimized to a less then significant impact. Finally, if the capacity
of the Arbor Street pump station needs to be increased, this work would be subject to
existing rules and permit requirements, which prevent environmental impacts. These
facts support the City’s findings.
4.4 Solid Waste.
4.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Solid waste generated by the buildout of the North Park
Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area (from building demolition and generation of
associated debris) could jeopardize Alameda’s solid waste diversion goals. However, all
existing regulations would reduce this impact to a level of less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to solid waste generation is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Solid waste generated by the buildout of the North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments area (from building demolition and generation of associated
debris) could jeopardize Alameda’s solid waste diversion goals. Section 21 of the City of
Alameda Municipal Code requires the project proponents to submit plans for managing
construction debris from specific projects in the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments area to promote separation of waste types and recycling, and to provide
for reuse of materials on-site for reconstructing infrastructure. These plans must be
prepared in coordination with City staff, the specific Projects’ sponsor(s), and demolition
subcontractors, and shall be approved by City staff prior to issuance of a demolition
permit. This existing regulation reduces this impact to a level of less than significant.
These facts support the City’s findings.
4.5 Electricity.
4.5.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed Amendment would result in a demand for
electricity. However, this demand would not require development of new sources of
energy or construction of new electrical generation or transmission facilities, the
construction of which would cause significant environmental impacts.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to electricity service is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. AMP does not anticipate any problems accommodating projected
increases in electricity demand. Buildout of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments area would not require development of new sources of energy or
construction of new electrical generation or transmission facilities, the construction of
which would cause significant environmental impacts. The proposed North Park Street
Zoning Ordinance Amendments would not result in significant impacts related to
electrical service. These facts support the City’s findings.
4.6 Natural Gas.
4.6.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed Amendment would result in a demand for
natural gas services. However, buildout of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments area would not require development of new sources of energy or
construction of new natural gas transmission facilities, the construction of which would
cause significant environmental impacts.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to natural gas service is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. PG&E does not anticipate any problems accommodating
projected increases in demand for natural gas. These facts support the City’s findings.
(See also DEIR, IV.D-9).
4.7 Telecommunications.
4.7.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The proposed Amendment would result in a demand for
telecommunication services. However, buildout of the North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments area would not require development of new sources of
telecommunications facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which
would cause significant environmental impacts.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to telecommunication services is less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Buildout of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area
would not require the development of new major telecommunications facilities, or
expansion of existing facilities to serve the new development, the construction of which
would cause significant environmental effects. The proposed North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments would not result in significant impacts related to
telecommunications services. These facts support the City’s findings.
5. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
5.1 Consistency with Existing or Planned Transit Services and Facilities.
5.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Adoption and implementation of the North Park Street
Zoning Ordinance Amendments would not be expected to result in a significant impact
on existing or planned transit services.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to consistency with existing or planned
transit services and facilities is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
The transit and transportation policies in the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments serve to mitigate the potential significant impacts of the land use and
development policies within the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
Therefore, the adoption and implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments in combination with the City’s existing TCMP and TDM requirements would
not be expected to result in a in a significant impact on existing or planned transit
services. These facts support the City’s findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E-18).
5.2 Emergency Access.
5.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments
provides for an orderly pattern of development and improvements to a number of
existing, substandard roads and sites with limited access. Therefore, impacts to
emergency access would be less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to emergency access is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments will increase and improve emergency access in the area. Extension of
Clement Street, improvement of Entrance Road, extension of Paru, extension of
Hibbard, and provision of public access into and around the Encinal Terminal site will all
improve emergency access in and through the area. These facts support the City’s
findings. (See also DEIR, IV.E-19).
5.3 On-Site Circulation and Access.
5.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments is not expected to result in any significant on-site circulation or access
impacts.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to on-site circulation and access is less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. As with emergency access, on-site circulation and access would
be expanded and improved with adoption and implementation of the North Park Street
Zoning Ordinance Amendments. These facts support the City’s findings. (See also
DEIR, IV.E-19).
5.4 Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation.
5.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Adoption and implementation of the North Park Street
Zoning Ordinance Amendments will improve pedestrian and bicycle access and safety in
the planning area and result in less than significant impacts.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to pedestrian/bicycle circulation is less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Public improvements proposed by the North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments will add bicycle and pedestrian paths along the entire waterfront
and along Park Street. All intersections will be designed to meet current pedestrian and
bicycle safety standards.
6. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
6.1 Special Status Species.
6.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. No special-status plant species are expected to occur
within the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area, due to disturbed site
conditions and lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, no special status species would be
impacted.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to special status species is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Out of the 27 special-status animal species listed by the CNDDB
as potentially occurring within or in the vicinity of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments area, 19 species are considered unlikely to occur or nest within the North
Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area due to extensive site disturbance and
the lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, it is not anticipated that these species would be
adversely affected by implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments. These facts support the City’s findings.
6.2 Riparian Habitat.
6.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. No riparian habitat exists within the North Park Street
Zoning Ordinance Amendments area. Therefore, implementation of the North Park
Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments would not adversely impact protected riparian
habitat.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to special status species is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. No riparian habitat exists within the North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments area. These facts support the City’s findings.
6.3 Habitat Conservation Plan.
6.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to special status species is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Biological resources within the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments area are not regulated by a local, regional, or State habitat
conservation plan. Therefore, implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments would not conflict with an adopted habitat conservation plan or the
San Francisco Bay Plan. These facts support the City’s findings.
7. CULTURAL REOSURCES
7.1 Historic Integrity of a Historic District.
7.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments would not result in the loss of the historical integrity of these buildings to
such an extent that they would no longer be eligible for National or State Register listing
as well as local recognition. Therefore, a less than significant impact to the integrity of
the historic district would result from the project.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to historic integrity of a historic district is
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The area is protected by the Historic Preservation Ordinance. These
facts support the City’s findings.
8. NOISE
8.1 Long Term Aircraft Noise Impacts.
8.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Standard design characteristics for commercial/office
buildings would reduce the aircraft noise to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to long term aircraft noise impacts is
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area
experiences aircraft overflights from the nearby Metropolitan Oakland International
Airport (MOIA) and San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Although distinguishable,
aircraft overflights generate lower noise levels than other major sources discussed
above. Standard design characteristics for commercial/office buildings would reduce the
aircraft noise to a less-than-significant level. These facts support the City’s findings.
9. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY
9.1 Surface Fault Rupture.
9.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The potential for surface fault rupture at the site is very
low, because no active faults are known to be located in the North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments area. Therefore, impacts resulting from surface fault rupture
would be less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to surface fault rupture is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less
than significant. The potential for surface fault rupture at the site is very low,
because no active faults are known to be located in the North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments area. The closest active fault, the Hayward fault, is located
approximately 4 miles to the northeast. This fact supports the City’s findings.
9.2 Slope Instability.
9.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The potential for slope instability at the site is limited due
to the absence of steep, high slopes, with the exception of the marina and channel
bulkheads. Therefore, impacts resulting from slope instability would be less than
significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to surface fault rupture is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less
than significant. The potential for slope instability at the site is limited due to the
absence of steep, high slopes, with the exception of the marina and channel bulkheads.
This fact supports the City’s findings.
9.3 Erosion.
9.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The potential for soil erosion at the site is limited due to
the relatively flat terrain. Therefore, soil erosion impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to soil erosion is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less
than significant. The potential for soil erosion at the site is limited due to the
relatively flat terrain. This fact supports the City’s findings.
9.4 Expansive Soils.
9.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The potential for impacts resulting from expansive soils is
limited because the near-surface soils at the site (predominantly sandy fill deposits) have
a low potential for shrink-swell. Therefore, impacts resulting from expansive soils would
be less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact resulting from expansive soils is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less
than significant. The potential for impacts resulting from expansive soils is limited
because the near-surface soils at the site (predominantly sandy fill deposits) have a low
potential for shrink-swell. This fact supports the City’s findings.
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
10.1 Water Quality and Discharge Standards.
10.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The uses proposed as part of the North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments would not result in any industrial-type discharges that would
lead to the imposition of specific waste discharge requirements (which, when required,
are set by the RWQCB), and, therefore, would not be expected to exceed waste
discharge standards for point sources.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to water quality and discharge
standards is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The uses proposed as part of the North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments would not result in any industrial-type discharges that would
lead to the imposition of specific waste discharge requirements (which, when required,
are set by the RWQCB), and, therefore, would not be expected to exceed waste
discharge standards for point sources. Development under the North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments would be subject to the RWQCB requirements of non-point-
source regulations. These facts support the City’s findings.
10.2 Groundwater.
10.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments
would not result in any significant adverse effects related to the groundwater supply.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to groundwater is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Construction of specific types of buildings or utilities may require
excavation below the groundwater level, which may require pumping of groundwater to
dewater excavations. Groundwater within the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments area is generally quite shallow, ranging in depth from approximately 2 to 6
feet below the surface. Existing groundwater quality data indicate that the shallow
groundwater in some areas contains contaminants, which if improperly handled and
discharged, could result in significant impacts to the health and safety of the public or
site workers that may come into contact with dewatering effluent.
Depending on the level of contamination (if any), the dewatering effluent may be
acceptable for discharge to the storm drainage system or the municipal sanitary sewer
system. Either discharge would require proper permitting from the regulating agencies;
the RWQCB for discharges to the storm drain system or surface waters and/or EBMUD
for discharges to the sanitary sewer. These permitting programs are existing programs
that would be expected to adequately mitigate potential impacts to water quality to a
less- than-significant level. These facts support the City’s findings.
Water Movements and Flood Waters.
10.2.2 Less Than Significant Effect. No significant changes to the currents or course of water
movements, or alteration of course or flow of floodwaters, would occur. Therefore,
impacts to water movements and flood waters would be less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to xxx is less than significant and no
mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area is
relatively flat and, although the drainage patterns may be altered by the installation of
storm drainage infrastructure, no significant changes to the currents or course of water
movements, or alteration of course or flow of floodwaters, would occur. These facts
support the City’s findings.
10.3 Water-Related Hazards.
10.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Impacts resulting form water-related hazards would be
less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to water-related hazards is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area does not
include any areas subject to regional flood hazards, according to FEMA. The area is
relatively flat and would not be expected to be affected by mudflows or other types of
landslides. A damaging seiche or tsunami in the Bay is a low probability event even for
unprotected sites on the Bay. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments
area is partially protected from seiches by the constriction at the mouth of the Oakland
Estuary, and, therefore, inundation from seiches would represent a less-than-significant
impact. These facts support the City’s findings.
11. AIR QUALITY
11.1 Odor and Air Toxics.
11.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Land uses within the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments area could produce short-term objectionable odors and toxic air
contaminants. However, these impacts would be subject to BAAQMD regulations and
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to odors and toxic air contaminants is
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments would not permit
the development of any long term uses that would generate objectionable odors or toxic
air contaminants. While the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments would
permit the establishment of research and development (R&D), marine-related uses and
restaurants that may generate some odors, any such uses proposed in the future would
need to comply with the BAAQMD Rules and Regulations on odors and toxic air
contaminants as described in Section IV.L, Hazardous Materials, and in so doing, would
not result in any significant impacts. Each business or tenant using materials known to
generate odors or toxic air contaminants would be required to obtain the appropriate
operation permits from the BAAQMD. Therefore, no odor or air toxics impacts would
occur as a result of the proposed North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
These facts support the City’s findings.
11.2 Accidental Release/Acutely Hazardous Air Emissions.
11.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Any use proposed in the future that would have the
potential to generate hazardous air emissions would need to comply with the BAAQMD
Rules and Regulations, reducing potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to accidental release of acutely
hazardous air emmissions is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. There is no information available at this time on any potential hazardous
air emissions related to the adoption and implementation of the North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments. Any use proposed in the future that would have the potential to
generate hazardous air emissions would need to comply with the BAAQMD Rules and
Regulations. Any accidental release of acutely hazardous air emission would be
reported to and handled by the Alameda County Health Department staff in charge of
such issues. Therefore, no significant impact due to accidental release and acutely
hazardous air emissions would be expected to occur as a result of the proposed North
Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments. These facts support the City’s findings.
11.3 Total Emissions.
11.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments
would be considered consistent with the growth projections of the current (2000) Clean
Air Plan, and adopting the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments would not
result in any significant changes in the total emission assumptions already incorporated
within the Clean Air Plan.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to an increase in total emissions is less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Long-term air quality impacts from the three primary criteria air
pollutants (ROG, NOx and PM10) are those that would result from the changes in
permitted land uses within the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area.
Mobile source emissions are those that result from vehicle trips; stationary source
emissions are those that would result from energy consumption and the use of wood
stove/fireplace and consumer products. As individual development projects are
proposed within the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area, analysis of
the long-term air quality impacts associated with the operation of each of these projects
will be required during the environmental review process. These facts support the City’s
findings.
11.4 Regional Emissions
11.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. As indicated above, the evaluation of environmental
impacts associated with the adoption and implementation of the North Park Street
Zoning Ordinance Amendments is being done at a “program” level of analysis.
Therefore, all future projects within the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments are will be subject to project-level review. This impact would be
considered less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to regional emissions is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The evaluation of environmental impacts associated with the
adoption and implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments is
being done at a “program” level of analysis. While it is likely that some individual projects
that may ultimately be proposed within the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments area may exceed the significance criteria for regional emissions, each
individual project proposed within the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments
area will be subject to a project-level review for air quality impacts, as required by CEQA
and the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. These facts support the City’s findings.
12. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
12.1 Airport-Related Safety Hazards.
12.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments
would not create any airport related safety hazards for people residing or working in the
area. This impact is less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to airport-related safety hazards is less
than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following fact indicates the identified impact is less
than significant.
No airports are located within two miles of the area. This fact supports the City’s
findings.
12.2 Wildland Fire Hazards.
12.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments
would not create any wildland fire hazards for people residing or working in the area.
This impact is less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to wildland fire hazards is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. No wildlands are present at, or adjacent to, the North Park Street
Zoning Ordinance Amendments area, and no new wildlands are to be created as part of
implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments. Therefore, no
people or structures would be subjected to wildland fire hazards as a result of its
implementation. These facts support the City’s findings. (See also DEIR, IV.L-14).
12.3 Use, Storage, Transportation, or Generation of Hazardous Materials.
12.3.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Due to existing rules, regulations, and permit
requirements, the future use, storage, transportation, or generation of hazardous
materials in the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area represents a
less-than-significant impact.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to the use, storage, transportation, or
generation of hazardous materials is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments land use
designations would permit R&D and Marine uses, which could include facilities that may
use significant quantities of hazardous materials. However, any future land uses within
the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area that involve the use, storage,
transport, treatment, or generation of hazardous materials shall be required to comply
with federal, state, and local requirements for managing hazardous materials. These
facts support the City’s findings.
Lead Based Paint.
12.3.2 Less Than Significant Effect. Adherence by future developers within the North Park
Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area and by the City to existing regulations
requiring abatement of lead hazards and institution of standard worker health and safety
procedures during demolition and renovation activities would reduce this impact to a less
than-significant level.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to presence of lead based paint in
buildings to be demolished or renovated is less than significant and no mitigation is
required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Loose and peeling lead-based paints would require removal prior to
renovation/demolition activities. Paints that are adhering to their surfaces do not require
abatement and can be disposed of as regular construction debris regardless of their lead
content. State regulations require that air monitoring be performed during and following
renovation or demolition activities at sites containing lead-based paint (Title 8, California
Code of Regulations, Section 1532.1). These facts support the City’s findings.
12.4 Asbestos.
12.4.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Adherence by future developers within the North Park
Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area and by the City to existing regulations
requiring abatement of asbestos hazards and institution of standard worker health and
safety procedures during demolition and renovation activities would reduce this impact to
a less than-significant level.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to presence of asbestos in buildings to
be demolished or renovated is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant.
State and federal regulations require the abatement of all asbestos-containing materials
prior to demolition or renovation activities that would disturb them. State regulations
(Title 8, California Code of Regulations, Section 1529) protect construction worker safety
where asbestos-containing materials are present. These facts support the City’s
findings.
13. VISUAL RESOURCES
13.1 Policy Consistency.
13.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments would improve the visual quality of the North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments area, and there would be no impacts as a result of conflicts with
existing policies related to visual resources.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to consistency with policies related to
visual resource is less than significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments includes
policies that would protect important viewsheds and architectural landmarks, and that
enhance physical and visual access to the Bay shoreline. The North Park Street Zoning
Ordinance Amendments policies would be consistent with the visual resources policies
in the City’s General Plan which seek to preserve and enhance views of the waterfront.
These facts support the City’s findings. (See also DEIR, IV.M-14 and 15).
13.2 Scenic Vistas and Visual Character.
13.2.1 Less Than Significant Effect. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments
would place development in a pattern that is consistent with the historic pattern of
development in the area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to scenic vistas and visual character is
less than significant and no mitigation is required.
13.2.2 Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. The North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments would
would place development in a pattern that is consistent with the historic pattern of
development in the area. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Light and Glare.
13.2.3 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments could result in an intensification of light and glare within the North Park
Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area associated with the potential use of
reflective building materials, street light fixtures, nighttime lighting of commercial
identification signs and logos, and increased vehicle and transit use. However, this
impact would be less than significant due to standard design review procedures and
design related policies of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to light and glare is less than significant
and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments could result in an intensification of light and glare within the North Park
Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area associated with the potential use of
reflective building materials, street light fixtures, nighttime lighting of commercial
identification signs and logos, and increased vehicle and transit use. However, this
impact would be less than significant due to standard design review procedures and
design related policies of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments
14. PARKS, RECREATION, AND OPEN SPACE
14.1 Bay Trail Improvements.
14.1.1 Less Than Significant Effect. Implementation of the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance
Amendments would increase opportunities to improve portions of the Bay Trail within the
North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments area and would provide additional
shoreline access and park areas.
Mitigation. None Required.
Finding: The environmental impact with respect to Bay Trail improvements is less than
significant and no mitigation is required.
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts indicate the identified impact is less
than significant. Development standards within the ordinance and the design manual
require waterfront open space and trail access.
APPENDIX B
FINDINGS OF FACT CONCERNING ALTERNATIVES
IV. Introduction
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guideline Section
15126.6, an EIR must describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the
location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but
would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the
comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative
to a project. Rather is must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that
will foster informed decision making and public participation. If a project alternative will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project, the decision
maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines that specific economic,
legal, social, technological or other considerations make the project alternative infeasible. (See
CEQA §21002, CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3)). The findings with respect to the three project
alternatives identified in the EIR are described in this section.
V. Description of Alternatives and Findings
ANALYSIS OF NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Description:
The No Project alternative assumes that the North Park Street Code is not adopted and that
existing zoning designations stay in place. Development in the North Park Street area would
occur as allowed by the existing General Plan and the existing zoning districts which are
currently in place in the area. The existing zoning is described in Chapter 4 -A Land Use.
Feasibility:
The No Project Alternative is a feasible alternative. To accomplish this alternative, the City of
Alameda Planning Board and City Council would simply not take action to adopt the Park Street
Code. Future development would continue in the area as permitted by the existing zoning and
existing General Plan.
The major differences between the type and intensity of development that would occur under
this alternative as compared to the North Park Street Code would include the following:
The existing CM (Commercial Manufacturing), M-1 (Intermediate Industrial) and M-2
(General Industrial) zoning districts allow by right a wide variety of uses including but not
limited to: auto repair, canneries, battery manufacturing, machine shops, plastic, rubber, and
synthetic rubber manufacturing, truck repair and overhauling, freighting and motor truck
terminals, heavy equipment storage yards, die casting, enameling works, foundries, and
“poultry and rabbit killing and dressing”. None of these types of uses are permitted by right
by the North Park Street Code.
Existing Zoning Map
Many existing residential properties are currently zoned for manufacturing use (M-2 Zoning).
As legal non-conforming uses, these homes may remain but cannot be expanded or
replaced if destroyed by fire or other natural disaster, pursuant to the existing zoning. The
North Park Street code rezones these properties such that they would no longer be non-
conforming uses under the Alameda Municipal Code.
The existing zoning allows much taller buildings. Much of the North Park Street area is
currently zoned CM Commercial Manufacturing or M-2 Manufacturing. The height limits in
these districts is 100 feet. The height limit in the North Park Street Code is 50 feet on Park
Street and 30 feet in the neighborhood areas.
The existing zoning does not include the design standards for new development that are
included in the “form-based” North Park Street Code. The existing zoning relies on the
Design Review Ordinance for control over design. Currently the City of Alameda has design
guidelines for residential development, but very few guidelines or requirements for non-
residential development.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives:
The No Project Alternative would not meet many of the Project Objectives described in Chapter
2 Project Description. The objectives are listed below:
To update the zoning code for the plan area to conform with General Plan objectives, goals,
and policies.
Maintaining the existing zoning for the area would not achieve this objective. Under the No
Project Alternative the zoning code would not be updated and conflicts between the existing
zoning and General Plan would remain.
Adopt Zoning Ordinance amendments, standards and requirements to guide future
development consistent with the community’s vision as articulated by the General Plan and
Gateway Strategic Plan.
Maintaining the existing zoning for the area would not achieve this objective. Under the No
Project Alternative the zoning code would not be updated to implement the General Plan
and Gateway Strategic Plan.
Manage the redevelopment of private sites to create an active, pedestrian-friendly, transit-
oriented mixed-use environment.
This objective would not be fully realized under the No Project Alternative. The existing
zoning does not include the clear and specific requirements that are included in the North
Park Street code to ensure that new developments support an active, pedestrian friendly,
mixed use transit oriented environment.
Provide certainty for the community, property owners and future investors in the area by
providing clear, form based regulations for the plan area.
This objective would not be achieved as well as under the North Park Street Code due to
the conflicts between the existing zoning in the area and the General Plan and Gateway
Plan community goals and objectives for the area. The differences between the older
zoning and the newer policy documents results in confusion regarding the City’s
requirements and standards for new development.
Encourage economically viable redevelopment that is sensitive to existing neighborhoods
and the historic character of the area.
This objective would not achieved as well under the No Project Alternative. The existing
zoning allows a number of uses and development types that are not sensitive to existing
neighborhoods or the historic character of the area.
Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts
Less Than Significant Impacts:
As described in Chapter 4, the North Park Street Code would not result in any significant
impacts in the following environmental areas:
Land use
Population, employment, and housing
Municipal Services and Open Space
The No Project alternative would have similar less than significant impacts. Since actions to
approve or disapprove projects under the existing zoning standards would continue to be
governed by the General Plan and the other provisions of the Alameda Municipal Codes, such
as the Citywide Development Impact Fee ordinance, there is no basis to expect that land use;
population, employment or housing; or municipal service impacts would be less or more severe
than under the North Park Street Code.
Significant Impacts Requiring Mitigation: As described in Chapter 4, the North Park Street Code
does require mitigation to maintain a less than significant impact in the areas of:
Utilities,
Biology,
Cultural Resources,
Noise,
Geology,
Hydrology, and
Hazardous materials.
The potential for impacts in these environmental areas would also occur with the No Project
Alternative. The type and intensity of potential developments that might occur under the
existing zoning, and the physical form that the development might exhibit, may in fact, result in
more significant impacts in these areas. Under the existing zoning and design review
ordinances, the City, in most cases, will have the ability to subject most new developments to
environmental review, which would provide the opportunity to impose mitigation measures on
new development that might occur under the existing zoning. Assuming that the City could
impose similar mitigations, then it may be assumed that the impact in these environmental
areas would be no worse or better under the No Project Alternative. However, there may be
some circumstances where a new use that is permitted under the existing zoning (such as truck
repair and overhauling, freighting and motor truck terminals, heavy equipment storage yards,
die casting, enameling works, foundries, and “poultry and rabbit killing and dressing”) might
occur in an existing building. If the use does not require a discretionary use permit or a
discretionary design review permit, the City would not have the ability to impose mitigation
measures to protect these environmental areas. In these cases, the impacts under the No
Project Alternative could be more severe than under the North Park Street Code.
Significant Unavoidable Impacts: As described in Chapter 4, the North Park Street Code does
result in significant, unavoidable impacts even with mitigation in the following areas:
Transportation and Circulation, and
Greenhouse Gas and Air Quality.
The North Park Street Code standards and requirements and additional mitigation imposed on
future development by adoption of the recommended Mitigation Measures in this EIR are
designed to reduce greenhouse gas, air quality, and traffic impacts to less than that which would
occur under a continuation of development under the existing zoning ordinance.
The No Project Alternative could be expected to result in the same or more significant impacts
in these areas, largely due to the fact that the amount of development anticipated under the No
Project Alternative is not less than under the North Park Street Code. As with the other
environmental areas, new development that is subject to environmental review could be
mitigated to reduce these impacts under the No Project Alternative. In these cases the severity
of the impacts in the area of traffic, greenhouse gas and air quality could be expected to be
similar. However, in cases were a new use might occur without requiring discretionary review
and approval, the City would not have the ability to impose mitigations to reduce the severity of
the impact. In these cases, the impacts under the No Project alternative could be more severe.
The No Project alternative assumes that the North Park Street Zoning Ordinance Amendments
is not adopted and that existing land uses remain the same. Development in the area would
occur as allowed by the existing zoning land use designations. Development of this alternative
would result in increases in population, housing, or jobs which would occur under existing land
use policies.
Findings
This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons:
The No Project/Existing Conditions Alternative would fail to satisfy the following objectives of the
proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project Description:
To update the zoning code for the plan area to conform with General Plan objectives, goals,
and policies.
Maintaining the existing zoning for the area would not achieve this objective. Under the No
Project Alternative the zoning code would not be updated and conflicts between the existing
zoning and General Plan would remain.
Adopt Zoning Ordinance amendments, standards and requirements to guide future
development consistent with the community’s vision as articulated by the General Plan and
Gateway Strategic Plan.
Maintaining the existing zoning for the area would not achieve this objective. Under the No
Project Alternative the zoning code would not be updated to implement the General Plan
and Gateway Strategic Plan.
Manage the redevelopment of private sites to create an active, pedestrian-friendly, transit-
oriented mixed-use environment.
This objective would not be fully realized under the No Project Alternative. The existing
zoning does not include the clear and specific requirements that are included in the North
Park Street code to ensure that new developments support an active, pedestrian friendly,
mixed use transit oriented environment.
Provide certainty for the community, property owners and future investors in the area by
providing clear, form based regulations for the plan area.
This objective would not be achieved as well as under the North Park Street Code due to
the conflicts between the existing zoning in the area and the General Plan and Gateway
Plan community goals and objectives for the area. The differences between the older
zoning and the newer policy documents results in confusion regarding the City’s
requirements and standards for new development.
Encourage economically viable redevelopment that is sensitive to existing neighborhoods
and the historic character of the area.
This objective would not be achieved as well under the No Project Alternative. The existing
zoning allows a number of uses and development types that are not sensitive to existing
neighborhoods or the historic character of the area.
The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will substantially mitigate or avoid most of
the significant or potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, except those effects
which are described as unavoidable or irreversible, thereby diminishing or obviating the
perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this alternative.
As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, the environmental,
social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project would not be obtained if this
alternative were adopted.
Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the No Project Alternative is not feasible.
Analysis of Environmentally Superior Alternative
Description:
For the purposes of this analysis, an “environmentally superior” alternative considers an
alternative that includes potential changes to the North Park Street Code to reduce or eliminate
environmental impacts associated with the North Park Street Code.
Feasibility:
The Environmentally Superior Alternative is a feasible alternative. To accomplish this
alternative, the City of Alameda Planning Board and City Council would consider and adopt the
Park Street Code with a series of potential amendments to reduce the environmental impact of
future development.
Ability to Meet Project Objectives:
The Environmentally Superior Alternative could meet many of the Project Objectives described
in Chapter 2 Project Description. The objectives are listed below:
To update the zoning code for the plan area to conform with General Plan objectives, goals,
and policies.
An amended “environmentally superior” North Park Street Code could achieve this
objective provided that the changes to the Code to reduce environmental impacts (a
General Plan Objective) does not overly restrict or inhibit the community from achieving
other General Plan objectives such as objectives to facilitate the redevelopment of the
area or to support and encourage a range of new services and businesses that are not
currently available in Alameda (also General Plan objectives).
Adopt Zoning Ordinance amendments, standards and requirements to guide future
development consistent with the community’s vision as articulated by the General Plan and
Gateway Strategic Plan.
An amended “environmentally superior” North Park Street Code could achieve this
objective. As with the prior objective, a balance would need to be struck between the
environmental benefits that might be achieved by the changes to the Code and the effect of
those changes on the ability of property owners and new businesses to comply with those
new requirements or standards. If the standards are set too high and redevelopment of the
area does not occur as a result, then the environmentally superior alternative might not
achieve this objective as well as the North Park Street Code.
Manage the redevelopment of private sites to create an active, pedestrian-friendly, transit-
oriented mixed-use environment.
This objective could be achieved under the environmentally superior alternative provided
that the changes to the Code for the environmentally superior alternative does not result in a
condition where existing conditions are maintained because the standards and requirements
on new development are prohibitive to financially viable redevelopment.
Provide certainty for the community, property owners and future investors in the area by
providing clear, form based regulations for the plan area.
This objective could be achieved under the environmentally superior alternative.
Encourage economically viable redevelopment that is sensitive to existing neighborhoods
and the historic character of the area.
This objective may not be achieved as well under the environmentally superior alternative if
the changes to the Code make redevelopment and reinvestment in the area financially
infeasible.
Ability to Reduce Environmental Impacts
Less Than Significant Impacts:
As described in Chapter 4, the North Park Street Code would not result in any significant
impacts in the following environmental areas:
Land use
Population, employment, and housing
Municipal Services and Open Space
The Environmentally Superior alternative would have similar less than significant impacts.
Significant Impacts Requiring Mitigation: As described in Chapter 4, the North Park Street Code
does require mitigation to maintain a less than significant impact in the areas of:
Utilities,
Biology,
Cultural Resources,
Noise,
Geology,
Hydrology, and
Hazardous materials.
The potential for impacts in these environmental areas would also occur with the
Environmentally Superior Alternative. As described in Chapter 4, the potential impacts in these
areas are impacts that might occur as the result of discovering unknown resources during
construction (bats, archeological resources) or as the result of inadequate precautions against
known hazards (noise from traffic, seismic hazards, or hazardous materials), or as the result of
project specific characteristics that would need to be addressed in the project review process
(waste water capacity). Provided that the Planning Board and City Council adopt the
recommended mitigation measures described in Chapter 4 when they adopt the
Environmentally Superior Alternative, the environmental impacts in these areas would be similar
to the North Park Street Code.
Significant Unavoidable Impacts: As described in Chapter 4, the North Park Street Code does
result in significant, unavoidable impacts even with mitigation in the following areas:
Transportation and Circulation, and
Greenhouse Gas and Air Quality.
The Environmentally Superior Alternative could include requirements and standards to further
reduce the impacts in these areas. Specifically, changes to the North Park Street Code to
reduce environmental impacts in these areas could include:
Transportation Impacts: The City of Alameda Transportation Element and Local Climate Action
Plan identifies a number of initiatives to that could be implemented to decrease automobile trips
citywide. These initiatives could be considered as possible amendments to the North Park
Street Code to create an “environmentally superior” code. They include:
Requiring that all new major developments’ short and long-term transportation
emissions be reduced by 10 percent. Examples of strategies to achieve this reduction
include transportation demand management strategies and implementation of a Bike
Plan, or bicycle facilities.
Providing transit and shuttles with signal priority lanes and queue jumpers to make
transit a more attractive alternative to the automobile.
Encouraging Alameda employers to provide opportunities for “flex hours,” compressed
workweek and telecommuting schedules to reduce vehicle miles traveled, and
reintroduce transportation reduction programs.
Expanding the geographic area of the Work/Live ordinance to provide greater
opportunities for reduced work-related commutes.
Encouraging alternative fuel “Car Share” programs.
The Environmentally Superior Alternative might require that all development in the area achieve
a predetermined trip reduction goal, such as a 10% reduction for development. To achieve
these goals, all new development might be required to contribute to an area-wide shuttle system
that provides direct service to Fruitvale or Lake Merritt BART Stations. Alternatively, the
Environmentally Superior Alternative might require that all future developments be required to
purchase AC Transit passes for all employees and residents. In addition, the Code could be
amended to require that a every project provide additional bicycle facilities to encourage non-
automobile trips, or the code could be amended to further reduce or eliminate off-street parking
requirements to discourage the use of the automobile.
The City has imposed similar requirements on large-scale projects elsewhere in the City, but to
impose these types of requirements in the North Park Street area would require that a number
of difficult policy issues be addressed. The first issue to be addressed would be whether the
requirement should apply to all properties in the area, even single family home properties, or
whether the requirement should apply only to larger properties. A threshold for “large” would
need to be established, which would determine which projects would be subject to the higher
standards and requirements. The second issue to be addressed is whether the requirement
should be imposed on all existing properties or just on new development proposals. A
requirement that all property owners contribute to a transit fund could be expected to result in a
significant increase in funds available to provide transit and a corresponding significant increase
in transit use in the area. However, a district wide requirement would require establishment of
an assessment district with the support of 51% of the existing property owners, which might be
difficult to achieve. If the requirement is imposed only on new development and only on “large”
projects, establishment of a district would not be necessary, but the environmental benefits of
the “Environmentally Superior Alternative” over the Mitigated North Park Street Code would be
only marginally better.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Air Quality Impacts.
As described in Chapter 4, the primary and most significant way to reduce greenhouse gas and
air quality impacts is to reduce automobile trips. Over half (54%) of the City’s emissions are
from transportation (cars, buses, and trucks). Changes to the North Park Street Code to reduce
automobile trips are discussed above.
The second most significant way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Alameda is to reduce
the amount of gases produced by commercial and residential buildings. Twenty nine percent
(29%) of Alameda’s green house gas emissions are from energy and heating demands of
residential uses (homes) and 17 percent (17%) is from commercial uses (businesses). Under
the “environmentally superior” North Park Street Code, new development could be required to
exceed the standards required by the new California Building Code Green Building Standards to
further reduce green house gas emissions. For example, the Code could establish a Green
Point rating standard for new residential development and a LEED standard for new commercial
development that would result in a less greenhouse gas emissions under the Environmentally
Superior Alternative.
The City of Alameda Climate Action Plan recommends a citywide amendment to the Alameda
Municipal Code to include sustainable design and green building standards for all new,
substantially expanded, and remodeled buildings. Although an amendment to the North Park
Street Code to increase sustainable building standards would be consistent with this
recommendation, the Planning Board and City Council should consider whether a citywide
requirement would not be preferable. From a environmental and economic development
perspective, it may be preferable to establish these new standards citywide as opposed to area
by area. To impose the more stringent requirements on the North Park Street area, but not the
rest of the City would have less environmental benefit than a citywide amendment. From a
citywide policy perspective, it may not be advisable to impose more restrictive or expensive
requirements on one area of the City and require residents, businesses, and property owners in
the North Park Street area to meet a higher standard than residents, businesses and property
owners in the rest of the City.
Findings
This alternative is hereby rejected for the following reasons:
The Environmentally Superior Alternative would fail to satisfy the following objectives of the
proposed Project, as identified in Chapter III of the EIR, Project Description: Encourage
economically viable redevelopment that is sensitive to existing neighborhoods and the historic
character of the area. This objective may not be achieved as well under the environmentally
superior alternative if the changes to the Code make redevelopment and reinvestment in the
area financially infeasible.
This alternative would have similar impacts to the Project in the areas of land use, hydrology
and water quality, geology, soils and seismicity, hazards and hazardous materials, population
and housing, biology, public services, utilities, and cultural resources.
The mitigation measures incorporated into the Project will substantially mitigate or avoid most of
the significant or potentially significant environmental effects of the Project, except those effects
which are described as unavoidable or irreversible, thereby diminishing or obviating the
perceived mitigating or avoiding benefits of approving this alternative.
As more fully discussed in the Statement of Overriding Considerations, many of the
environmental, social, economic and other benefits derived from the Project would not be
obtained if this alternative were adopted.
Based on the foregoing, the City finds that the Environmentally Superior Alternative is not
feasible.
APPENDIX C
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
When approving projects with Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) that identify significant
impacts, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires public agencies to adopt
monitoring and reporting programs or conditions of project approval to mitigate or avoid the
identified significant effects (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(a)(1)). A public agency
adopting measures to mitigate or avoid the significant impacts of a proposed project is required
to ensure that the measures are fully enforceable, through permit conditions, agreements, or
other means (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6(b)). The mitigation measures required by
a public agency to reduce or avoid significant project impacts not incorporated into the design or
program for the project, may be made conditions of project approval as set forth in a Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The program must be designed to ensure project
compliance with mitigation measures during project implementation.
The MMRP includes the mitigation measures identified in the EIR required to address only the
significant impacts associated with the project being approved. The required mitigation
measures are summarized in this program; the full text of the impact analysis and mitigation
measures is presented in the Draft EIR.
Mitigation Monitoring Program
The following Mitigation Monitoring shall be imposed on all new development in the North Park
Street Code as conditions of approval. Compliance with conditions of approval shall be enforced
through the discretionary review process (i.e. Design Review or Use Permit application) and the
building permit review, approval, and inspection process.
1. Utilities:
a. New construction projects and major renovations shall remove or reconstruct existing
sewer and storm drain laterals that serve the site of the proposed development project to
comply with City, EBMUD, and Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and to
prevent infiltration/inflow to the maximum extent feasible. This measure would reduce
the level of impact to less than significant.
b. Prior to approval of a discretionary permit for a new construction or major renovations,
City staff will confirm that the development proposal is consistent with the development
projections for the area. If the proposed development exceeds the General Plan and
Park Street development assumptions for the plan area, the project applicant shall be
required to complete a wastewater and storm water capacity analysis to ensure that the
development will not result in the need to upgrade or replace any off-site wastewater or
storm water facilities. If the study indicates that off-site improvements are required,
those improvements, or a fair share contribution to those facilities, shall be required of
the project.
c. New construction projects and major renovations shall provide drought tolerant
landscape materials consistent with the California Model Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance or Bay Friendly Landscape Guidelines to reduce water use and storm water
runoff.
2. Transportation:
a. New construction and major renovation projects shall provide a construction
management plan for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to
issuance of building permits. The plan shall include at least the following items and
requirements to reduce traffic congestion during construction:
A set of comprehensive traffic control measures shall be developed, including
scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs
if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated
construction access routes.
The Construction Management Plan shall identify haul routes for movement of
construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on motor vehicle, disabled access
in the area, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic, circulation, and safety, and specifically to
minimize impacts to the greatest extent possible on streets in the project area. The
City shall approve the haul routes.
The Construction Management Plan shall provide for notification procedures for
adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major
deliveries, detours, and lane closures would occur.
The Construction Management Plan shall provide for monitoring surface streets used
for haul routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be
identified and corrected by the project applicant.
b. To ensure that new development in the Plan area mitigates its potential significant
impacts to transit, automobile, bicycle and pedestrian levels of service, new
development requiring discretionary actions by the City shall be:
4. Conditioned by the City to ensure that new driveway locations, parking areas,
building locations, the adjacent public right of way and adjacent intersections are
configured to minimize impacts to transit, automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian
service.
5. Conditioned to close any sidewalk gaps that may exist along the project frontage,
add street trees to any sidewalk frontage that does not currently include street trees,
and close any unnecessary curb cuts on the project frontage to improve pedestrian
safety and comfort and reduce pedestrian impacts.
c. All new development requiring discretionary actions by the City shall be reviewed to
determine if the project traffic would constitute a considerable contribution (3% or more)
to one or more of the impacted intersections (Park Street/Blanding Ave, Park
Street/Clement Avenue, Clement/Oak, and Tilden/Blanding at Fernside Blvd. High
Street/Fernside Blvd., High Street/Otis Drive, Island Drive/Doolittle Drive, Eighth
Street/Central Avenue, Broadway/Otis Drive, Broadway/Tilden/Eagle, and Park/Pacific.).
If the project does contribute 3% or more to any individual intersection, then the project
shall be conditioned to:
TDM: Implement a City-approved Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
program with the goal of reducing the number of peak hour trips generated by the
project at the impacted intersections to less than 3%. The TDM program may
include a variety of strategies to reduce vehicular traffic including, but not limited to:
participation in a shuttle program or carpool program, park and ride facilities,
purchase of AC Transit passes for residents or employees, and/or improvements at
or adjacent to the site to improve pedestrian, bicycle, and/or transit travel modes.
The City of Alameda Bicycle Plan and Pedestrian Plan also identify a number of
improvements that are needed in the area, which might help decrease automobile
trips in the area by improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities. If the City determines
that the TDM Program is not sufficient to reduce the trips to a less than significant
level, then the project shall also be conditioned to pay a fair share contribution to the
improvement plan for the intersections at which the project would contribute 3% or
more to the total traffic volume at the intersection. The fair share contribution shall
be determined by the Public Works Director.
Bicycle Route: The project shall also be reviewed to determine if the project traffic
would constitute a considerable contribution (3% or more) in traffic volume on Oak
Street. If the project does contribute 3% or more on Oak Street, then the project shall
be conditioned to implement a City-approved Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) program. If the TDM Program is not sufficient to minimize the trips to a less
than significant level, then the project shall also be conditioned to pay a fair share
contribution to a bicyle improvement plan for the Oak Street, Tilden Way, and
Clement Street Bicycle routes and/or iimproved bicyclist access to/from Park Street
bridge per the Bicycle Mater Plan. The improvement plan and fair share contribution
shall be determined by the Public Works Director.
In accordance with the General Plan Transportation Element Street Classification
System, the improvements at the locations described above should be designed to
improve transit service as a first priority, pedestrians service as a second priority,
and bicycles service as a third priority.
d. Impact Fees. To ensure that all new development within the plan area contributes a fair
share to improvements in the area to support all modes of transportation, the City of
Alameda should prepare and consider a transportation impact fee on all new
construction in the plan area.
3. Green House Gases and Air Quality
To reduce green house gas emissions and air quality contaminates, new businesses
with 10 or more employees shall provide: 1) secure employee bicycle parking, 2)
transit pass for each employee, 3) Guaranteed Ride Home services, 4)
Transportation Services information, and/or 5) preferred carpool parking. New
residential projects with 10 or more units to provide: 1) an on-site car-share
program, 2) transit passes for each unit, 3) secure bicycle parking space for each
unit either in each unit or in a single “bicycle cage”.
Require sustainable design and green building standards for all new, substantially
expanded, and remodeled buildings to meet or exceed the most current Uniform
Building Code requirements and State energy criteria.
The North Park Street Code should be amended to allow for work/live units in new
and rehabilitated buildings in the North Park Street Code planning area, and wood-
burning stoves and fireplaces in all new residential construction should be prohibited.
New Construction project and major renovation projects shall implement both
BAAQMD’s basic and enhanced dust control procedures including the “basic” dust
control program the following:
Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Watering should be
sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering
frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour.
Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks
to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space
between the top of the load and the top of the trailer).
Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all
unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end
of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and
staging areas at construction sites.
The “enhanced” dust control measures shall include the following:
Hydroseed or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers to construction areas and previously
graded areas inactive for ten days or more
Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed
stockpiles of dirt, sand, etc.
Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph)
Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways
Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible
4. Biological Resources:
a. Proponents of each project in the North Park Street Code area shall prepare a
preconstruction survey of all buildings scheduled for demolition or renovation shall be
conducted no more than 30 days prior to the initiation of demolition or renovation
activities. Special attention shall be given to buildings where pallid bats were observed
during the earlier survey or where measures to discourage roosting were implemented.
If no bats or signs of an active roost are found, no additional measures are required. If a
bat roost site is found, then measures shall be implemented to discourage roosting at
the site. If a maternity colony of bats is found, the building and the bats shall not be
disturbed until the young have dispersed, as determined by a qualified biologist.
b. All dredging and in-water construction activities shall be consistent with the standards
and procedures set forth in the Long Term Management Strategy, a program developed
by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
other agencies, to guide dredging and the disposal of dredge materials in an
environmentally sound manner.
5. Cultural Resources:
a. In the event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered during site
preparation or construction, work shall cease in the immediate area until such time as a
qualified archaeologist and City of Alameda personnel can assess the significance of
the find. The following measures shall be implemented at the time of the find:
Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resources shall be immediately suspended
and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified archaeologist shall evaluate the
find. Project personnel shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their
context.
If archeological resources are discovered, the City and the cultural resource
consultant shall determine whether the resource is unique based on the criteria
provided in the CEQA Guidelines and the criteria listed above. The City and
developer, in consultation with a cultural resource expert, shall seek to avoid
damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible.
If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified cultural resource
consultant shall prepare an excavation plan for mitigating the impact on the
qualities that make the resource unique. The mitigation plan shall be prepared in
accordance with CEQA Guidelines and shall be submitted to the City for review
and approval.
b. If human remains are encountered, work shall halt within 50 feet of the find and the
County Coroner shall be notified immediately. A qualified archaeologist shall also be
contacted to evaluate the situation. If the human remains are of Native American origin,
the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours of
this identification. Pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code, the Native
American Heritage Commission will identify a Native American Most Likely Descendent
to inspect the site and provide recommendations for the proper treatment of the remains
and associated grave goods. Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code
states that in the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location
other than a ,;"c dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance
of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the
coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined
whether or not the remains are subject to the coroner’s authority.
c. If paleontological resources are encountered during site preparation or construction
activities, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented:
Activity in the vicinity of the suspected resource(s) shall be immediately
suspended, and City of Alameda personnel and a qualified paleontological
resource consultant shall be contacted to evaluate the find. Project personnel
shall not alter any of the uncovered materials or their context.
If paleontological resources are discovered and the City and the paleontological
resource consultant found that the resource is significant based on the criteria
provided in the CEQA Guidelines and criteria listed above, the City and project
developer, in consultation with a paleontological resource expert, shall seek to
avoid damaging effects on the resource wherever feasible.
If the City determines that avoidance is not feasible, a qualified paleontological
resource consultant shall prepare a salvage plan for mitigating the effect of the
project on the qualities which make the resource unique. The project developer,
in consultation with a qualified paleontologist, shall complete a paleontological
resource inventory, declaration, and mitigation plan in accordance with the CEQA
Guidelines and submit it to the City for review and approval.
1. Noise:
a. Implement development-specific construction noise reduction plans, which shall be
enforced via contract specifications. If pile driving is required, “vibratory” pile driving
should be used wherever feasible. The vibratory pile driving technique, despite its
name, does not generate vibration levels higher than the standard pile driving technique.
It does, however, generate lower, less-intrusive noise levels.
b. New residential or noise-sensitive developments shall satisfy the acoustical
requirements of Title 24, part 2, of the California Administrative Code, Noise Insulation
Standards, for single family, multiple-family attached, hotels, motels, etc., regulated by
Title 24. of the Uniform Building Code. All new projects shall show that they comply with
maximum noise levels outlined in the City’s Noise Ordinance and the average sound
level goals outlined in the City’s General Plan.
6. Geology and Seismicity:
a. Grading, foundation, and structural design should be based on the anticipated strong
seismic shaking associated with a future major earthquake on the Hayward fault. All
structures shall be designed in accordance with the most recent edition of the City of
Alameda Building Code.
b. Proponents shall prepare a geotechnical report for review and approval by the City of
Alameda that specifies all measures necessary to limit consolidation including
minimization of structural fills and use (when necessary) of lightweight and low plasticity
fill materials to reduce the potential for excessive loading caused by fill placement. The
report shall present recommendations for specific foundation designs, which minimize
the potential for damage related to settlement. The design of utilities shall consider
differential settlements along utility alignments constructed in filled areas. Earthwork,
foundation and structural design for proposed projects shall be conducted in accordance
with all recommendations contained in a Geotechnical Investigation to be completed for
each development site. Liquefaction potential analyses shall be conducted and a
liquefaction mitigation program developed for each development. All structures shall be
designed and constructed in accordance with the most recently adopted version of the
City of Alameda Building Code. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits
for new buildings, geotechnical investigations shall be conducted for projects within the
North Park Street Code area. Reports for these studies shall evaluate the liquefaction
potential for each site in accordance with the Standard of Practice for Geotechnical
Engineering and shall provide recommendations for stabilization or resistance of
structures from the potential affect of liquefaction of sediments. The potential for lurch
cracking and lateral spreading shall also be evaluated. Stability of the bulkhead for
projects adjacent to bulkheads shall also be evaluated. Reports shall be submitted to the
City of Alameda for review and approval. Implementation of these mitigation measures
would reduce the impact of seismic-induced ground failure to less than significant levels.
c. The required geotechnical report shall require that subgrade soils for pavements consist
of moisture-conditioned, lime-treated, or non-expansive soil, and that surface (including
roof drainage) and subsurface water be directed away from foundation elements and
into storm drains to minimize variations in soil moisture. Implementation of this
mitigation measure would reduce the impact of expansive soils to less than significant
levels.
d. The applicant shall prepare an earthquake preparedness and emergency response plan
for all public use facilities. The plan should be submitted for review and approval by the
Planning and Building and/or Public Works Department, prior to occupancy of the
structures.
e. Prior to marketing residential or commercial units for sale, the developer shall prepare
an earthquake hazards information document. This document should be made available
to any potential occupant prior to purchase or rental of the housing units or commercial
spaces. The document should describe the potential for strong ground shaking at the
site, potential effects of such shaking, and earthquake preparedness procedures.
7. Hydrology and Water Quality
a. All specific development projects that involve site clearing, grading or excavation that
result in soil disturbances of 1 or more acres, (and for projects of less than 1 acre if the
construction activity is part of a larger common plan of development), shall be required
to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Each SWPPP shall
conform to the requirements of the Alameda County Clean Water Program and to the
standards set forth herein. Each SWPPP shall include: 1) Specific and Detailed Best
Management Practices (BMPs) Designed to Mitigate Construction-related Pollutants. , 2)
Measures Designed to Mitigate Post-construction-Related Pollutants and 3) Integrated
Pest Management Plan.
b. All dredging and in-water construction activities shall be consistent with the standards
and procedures set forth in the Long Term Management Strategy, a program developed
by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC), the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and
other agencies, to guide dredging and the disposal of dredge materials in an
environmentally sound manner.
c. Projects with frontage on the estuary shall design and construct sealevel rise mearuse
that allow future adaptive management measures to be implemented to further protect
upland areas from potential rising sea levels. Prior to construction, the design shall be
reviewed by BCDC and in accordance with current guidelines regarding protection
against sea level rise.
8. Hazardous Materials:
a. Documentation from a qualified professional shall be provided to the City of Alameda
stating that adequate soils and ground water investigations and, where warranted,
remediation, have been conducted to ensure that there will be no significant hazard
related risks to future site users. If the soil and groundwater investigations indicate that
hazardous materials are present and pose a risk to construction workers and future site
users, the following additional mitigation measures shall be implemented, and the City of
Alameda will refer the site to the appropriate State and County agencies (such as
Alameda County Environmental Health, the State Department of Toxic Substances
Control and/or the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board) for
oversight of the specific development project.
b. If required, the City shall require preparation of a Site Management Plan (SMP) for the
subject site as a condition of its approval. The SMP would provide site specific
information for contractors (and others) developing the site that would improve their
management of environmental and health and safety contingencies. Topics covered by
the SMP shall include, but not be limited to:
Land use history, including known hazardous material use, storage, disposal, and
spillage, for specific areas within the site.
The nature and extent of previous environmental investigation and remediation at
the site.
The nature and extent of ongoing remedial activities and the nature and extent of
unremediated areas of the project site, including the nature and occurrence of
marsh crust and hazardous materials associated with the dredge material used
as fill at the site.
A listing and description of institutional controls, such as the City's excavation
ordinance and other local, State, and federal laws and regulations, that will apply
to development of the site.
Requirements for site-specific Health and Safety Plans (HASPs) to be prepared
by all contractors at the site. The HASPs should be prepared by a Certified
Industrial Hygienist and would protect construction workers and interim site users
adjacent to construction activities by including engineering controls, monitoring,
and security measures to prevent unauthorized entry to the construction site and
to reduce hazards outside the construction site. The HASPs would address the
possibility of encountering subsurface hazards and include procedures to protect
workers and the public. If prescribed exposure levels were exceeded, personal
protective equipment would be required for workers in accordance with DOSH
regulations.
A description of protocols for the investigation and evaluation of previously
unidentified hazardous materials that may potentially be encountered during
project development, including engineering controls that may be required to
reduce exposure to construction workers and future users of the site.
Requirements for site specific construction techniques at the site, based on
proposed development, such as minimizing the transport of contaminated
materials to the surface during construction activities by employing pile driving
techniques that consist of driving the piles directly without boring, where practical.
c. The SMP shall be distributed to all contractors at the development site; implementation
of the SMP shall be a condition of approval for excavation, building, and grading permits
at the site. The contractors will be required to hold a daily safety meeting with all
construction workers and subcontractors on lands identified with Hazardous Material
risks. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impact of
contaminated soil and ground water to less than significant levels.
APPENDIX D
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081 and CEQA Guidelines sections
15091 et seq., the City Council of the City of Alameda adopts and makes the following
statement of overriding considerations regarding the remaining unavoidable impacts of the
Project and the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits of the Project.
I. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE IMPACTS
With respect to the foregoing findings and in recognition of those facts which are
included in the record, the City has determined that the Project would cause significant
unavoidable impacts to traffic and circulation and green house gas and air quality as disclosed
in the Final Environmental Impact Report (“FEIR”) prepared for the Project. These impacts
cannot be feasibly fully mitigated by changes in or alternatives to the Project.
II. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City Council specifically adopts and makes this Statement of Overriding
Considerations that, as part of the approval provisions, the Project has avoided or substantially
lessened all significant effects on the environment where feasible, and finds that the remaining
unavoidable impacts of the Project are acceptable in light of specific economic, legal, social,
technological, and other benefits of the Project because those benefits outweigh the significant
unavoidable adverse environmental effects of the Project. The Council finds that each of the
overriding considerations set forth below constitutes a separate and independent ground for
finding that the benefits of the Project outweigh the Project’s significant adverse environmental
impacts and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. These matters
are supported by evidence in the record that includes, but is not limited to, the documents
referenced below.
III. BENEFITS OF PROPOSED PROJECT
The City Council has considered the proposed North Park Street Zoning Amendments,
the public record of proceedings on the proposed Project and other written materials presented
to the City as well as oral and written testimony at all public hearings related to the Project, and
does determine that implementation of the Project as specifically provided in the Project
documents would result in the following substantial public benefits by:
1. Ensuring the productive use of underdeveloped area and fostering orderly growth
and quality development in the City.
2. Proceeding in accordance with the goals and policies set forth in the General
Plan, thereby implementing the City’s stated General Plan policies.
3. Providing substantially increased property tax and sales tax revenues to the City.
4. Providing increased employment opportunities for residents of the City.
5. Eliminating blighting influences and correcting environmental deficiencies in the
Project area, including, but not limited to, underutilized buildings, incompatible
land uses, depreciated or stagnant property values, and inadequate or
deteriorated public improvements, facilities, and utilities.
6. Replanning and redesigning underdeveloped areas that are improperly utilized to
achieve a balanced mix of land uses and create a vibrant new neighborhood in
City.
7. Expanding and improving the community’s supply of housing through the
installation of needed site improvements and the construction housing, consistent
with existing City policies and standards.
8. Increasing the City’s supply of land available for residential development and
increasing the supply of affordable housing in City.
9. Providing diversity in housing opportunities through compliance with Community
Improvement Commission inclusionary housing policy (i.e., providing on-site
moderate income housing, and a 15 percent inclusionary requirement).
10. Strengthening and diversifying the economic base of the Project area and the
community by adding commercial uses that will provide new amenities for City
residents, including new shops, restaurants and services.
11. Achieving job creation and economic development.
12. Actively seeking and promoting business by providing new retail land uses that
will complement and provide synergies with existing retail development on Park
Street, , the Southshore Center and other locations within City, in accordance
with the Alameda Citywide Retail Policy.
13. Facilitating the emergence of commercial sectors through improvement of
transportation access to commercial areas, improvement of safety within the
Project area, and the installation of needed site improvements to stimulate new
commercial expansion, employment, and economic growth.
14. Maximizing new sales tax, and other funding mechanisms in order to pay for the
public investment in infrastructure required for economic development in the
Project area.
15. Emphasizing employment and a mix of economic development opportunities that
complement economic development strategies in other parts of City and
promoting a jobs-housing balance to the extent practicable.
16. Seamlessly integrating the Project site into City by: emphasizing Mixed Use
development; ensuring land use compatibility within and surrounding the Project
site; minimizing through-traffic on minor residential streets.
17. Reducing the impact of the automobile and energy consumption by: facilitating
public transit opportunities to and within the Project area to the extent feasible;
providing a system of bikeways, parks, and pedestrian paths to facilitate access
to parks, recreational areas and the waterfront from all parts of Alameda.
18. Protecting and improving the waterfront by enhancing views of water and public
access to the waterfront in all development and creatively encouraging the usage
of the waterfront, by providing open space and other amenities.
19. Providing adequate vehicular access to and within the Project area without
impeding access to existing areas of City.
20. Providing parks within the Project site to service the needs of the Project site and
surrounding neighborhoods.
21. Promoting energy efficiency in facility development, utilizing recycled materials to
the extent feasible, and applying low water demand techniques in all new
development, including all landscape development.
22. Ensuring that each portion of the Project area, as developed, is suitable for the
intended use and consistent with protection of human health and the
environment prior to occupancy.
23. Establishing a comprehensive framework and hierarchy for the overall site to
ensure that the basic infrastructure elements will be functionally and aesthetically
integrated throughout the development.
The City Council has weighed the above benefits of the proposed Project against its
unavoidable environmental risks and adverse environmental effects identified in the FEIR and
hereby determines that those benefits outweigh the risks and adverse environmental effects
and, therefore, further determines that these risks and adverse environmental effects are
acceptable.
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 meeting assembled on the 2nd
day of April, 2013, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Chen, Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Tam and
Mayor Gilmore – 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 3rd day of April, 2013.
Lara Weisiger, City Clerk
City of Alameda