Resolution 12975CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 12 9 7 5
ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS -97 -5, AND
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WITH MITIGATIONS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA, ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
FOR A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTING OF 83
DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS, PRIVATE "MINI PARK ",
OTHER OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING, INTERNAL PRIVATE STREETS
AND VISITOR PARKING ON AN 8.9 ACRE SITE
WHEREAS, an application was made on October 24, 1997 by Aidan Barry on behalf of the
DeSilva Group, requesting approval of Planned Development PD -97 -4, to permit the construction
of 83 single family dwellings and a Tentative Map 6969 to subdivide four existing parcels totaling
8.9 acres, into 83 single family residential lots, access roads and a mini -park parcel; and
WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on December 2, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is designated Medium Density Residential on the General
Plan Diagram; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is zoned R -4 -PD, Neighborhood Residential /Planned
Development Combining District; and
WHEREAS, the subject property is located within the boundaries of the Business and rmn
Waterfront Improvement Project area administered by the Community Improvement Commission; <
and
WHEREAS, a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment
between January 30, 1998 and February 19, 1998; and written and oral comments were received
from the following public agency and individual:
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Region, Keith H.
Lichten, Water Resource Control Engineer, dated February 9, 1998, reiterating that
the project must include a proposal and implementation of control measures which
are consistent with the recommendations and policies of local agency and the
Regional Water Quality Control Board.
2. Patrick Lynch, Alameda resident, raising concerns regarding the adequacy of the
Traffic Study.
WHEREAS, staff found that the comments did not identify new potential significant impacts
associated with this project which were not identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, and that the comments did not challenge the adequacy of the proposed mitigation
measures; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this Mitigated Negative
Declaration on March 2, 1998, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents related to
the application and considered all testimony, found that the environmental impacts, including traffic
generation, were adequately addressed, and recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board approved Planned Development, PD -97 -4 on March 2,
1998; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this Negative Declaration on March
17, 1998, examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony and written comments
received during the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings:
The project does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
and wildlife population to drop below self - sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a
plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory. The site is in an urbanized area. No habitat for
threatened plant or animal communities exist at the site.
2. The project does not have the potential to achieve short term, to the disadvantage of
long term, environmental goals. The project will help implement the housing goals
of the General Plan and the Housing Element.
The project does not have possible environmental effects which are individually
limited but cumulatively considerable. All potentially significant effects associated
with this project which have been identified will be mitigated.
4. The project does not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The proposal is for the
construction of 83 single family homes. All significant impacts associated with this
project will be mitigated to a less - than- significant level.
5. The applicant has agreed to incorporate all the mitigation measures set forth in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration into the project. These mitigation would either avoid
adverse impacts or lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts to less
than significant levels. There is not substantial evidence that the project as revised
may have a significant effect on the environment.
WHEREAS, the City Council made findings, described in Attachment "A ", that all
significant and potentially significant environmental impacts of the project can be reduced to a level
of insignificance;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda hereby
adopts Negative Declaration, IS -97 -5, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Attachment "B ".
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
The following sets forth all significant effects of the project, all of which can be reduced to a
level of insignificance, and with respect to each effect, makes one or more of the findings set
forth in Resolution PB-98- , states facts in support of such findings.
1.1 Seismic Ground Shaking
1.1.1 Significant Effect. Specific investigations of the site by Berlogar Geotechnical
Consultants (Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants, Supplemental Geotechnical
Investigation, Proposed Residential Development, Bruzzone Property, Buena Vista
Avenue and Webster Street, Alameda, California, July 11, 1997 ) determined that
in the northern two-thirds of the U-shaped site, the upper layer of 3 to 5.5 feet is
underlain by 3 to 5 feet of loose to medium dense silty sands, in turn underlain by
medium dense to dense silty sands; and in the southern one-third of the site, the upper
layer of sandy clay and silty sand fill is underlain by dense silty sand to the limits of the
investigation (about 30 feet below ground surface). These conditions would contribute
to potentially significant seismic impacts on parts of the site in the event of a major
earthquake on the Hayward, Calaveras or other faults, although the structural integrity
of buildings on the site would be the primary determining factor in the potential for
seismic damage, rather than the subsurface soil itself.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration/Initial Study).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that
the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
( 1)
The project shall incorporate the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Investigation prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants for construction
on the site, particularly for conformance to the current Uniform Building Code,
which designates the site as a Zone 4 area, which requires some special
construction methods. Compliance with the site preparation and grading
recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation would reduce the potential
impact to a level of insignificance.
1.2 Ground Failure and Liquefaction
1.2.1 Significant Effect. The 3 to 5 feet of relatively loose sands (the loose to medium dense
silty sands within the northern two - thirds of the site) encountered at depths of about
4 to 10 feet have very high potential for liquefaction, which may lead to adverse
settlement and ground failure, which would be potentially significant (Source:
Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, p. 4).
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration /Initial Study).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that
the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
The applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Investigation prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants regarding site
preparation measures to avoid seismic ground failure and liquefaction, including
the construction of an engineered fill cap with a fabric filter on the areas subject
to liquefaction. ' Compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Investigation for site preparation and grading would reduce the potential impact
of liquefaction or other ground failure to a level of insignificance.
1.3 Unstable Soil Conditions
Significant Effect. The perimeter of the site borders on existing buildings and
pavements, which, due to extensive excavation requirements, could settle without
proper support and stabilization at the edge of the excavated areas, which is a
potentially significant impact.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration /Initial Study).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measu
the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
es indicate
a
During construction the applicant shall be, required to provide a sufficient
setback of the excavated area from existing structures and pavement which may
be subject to instability due to excavation, or to use appropriate support
structures or stabilization methods. Provision of setbacks or support structures
would reduce the potential impact to a level of insignificance.
2
1.4 Differential Settlement
1.4.1 Significant Effect. The 3 to 5 feet of loose to medium dense silty sands within the
northern two - thirds of the site, at depths of about 4 to 10 feet, which have very high
liquefaction potential, may also lead to adverse settlement, or land subsidence, and
differential settlement (irregular settlement). Potential settlement in the areas with
liquefiable soils, although estimated to be relatively uniform, from 2 to 3 inches, is a
potentially significant impact.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration /Initial Study).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that
the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
(1) The site shall be graded as recommended in the Supplemental Geotechnical
Investigation prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants. Foundations shall
be constructed of structural slab on the engineered fill cap, to accommodate
total and differential settlement according to the recommendations in the
Geotechnical investigation. Compliance with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation for grading and foundation standards would reduce
the potential impact of differential settlement to a level of insignificance.
1.5 Surface Water Discharges
1.5.1 Significant Effect. The site is subject to the requirements of the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit regulations (final rule, November
1990) for a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which must be
approved by the City, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Control District
(ACFCWCD), and the $tate Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). To obtain
approval of the SWPPP, the applicant must submit a Notice of Intent (N01) to the
SWRCB. The SWPPP must include measures to control the outflow of contaminants.
The construction of the project, including building demolition, removal of existing
paving and grading for site preparation and paving of the site must also adhere to the
SWPPP. Approval of the project without an adequate SWPPP is a potentially
significant impact.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration /Initial Study).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that
the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
(1) The project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan
and obtain approval by the City of Alameda, the ACFCWCD and the SWRCB.
The drainage plan for the project must also meet the City's Urban Runoff
Guidelines. Measures in the SWPPP may include storm drain filters (sometimes
referred to as "fossil filters" in reference to the fossil fuels oil and grease —
which may be absorbed by fabric components of the filters), screens for larger
debris, and other techniques recommended by the City of Alameda in its Urban
Runoff Guidelines. During construction, the SWPPP shall provide controls on
the storage and handling of toxic and hazardous materials, detention basins, and
similar measures. Compliance with the requirements of the Urban Runoff
Guidelines and the SWPPP would reduce the potential impacts on surface water
quality to a level of insignificance.
1.6 Air Quality Construction Impacts
1.6.1 Significant Effect. ` The project would generate particulate ' matter `(dust) during
construction, which may be disturbing or harmful to residents, and could be potentially
significant, if inadequate measures are not taken.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration /Initial Study).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that
the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
(1) The project applicant shall be required to regularly water the site to control dust
and to cover all materials in trucks entering and leaving the site which have the
potential to contribute to dust emissions. These measures would reduce the
impact to a level of insignificance.
1.7 Traffic Congestion
1.7.1 Significant Effect. At the intersection of Webster Street and Atlantic Avenue, which
is projected to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS E conditions, the project would
contribute traffic and increase the average vehicle delay, which represents a potentially
significant cumulative impact of the project. In addition, at the intersections of
Atlantic Avenue and Challenger Drive, and Marina Village Parkway and Challenger
Drive, which would operate at LOS F during the p.m. peak hour without the
signalization which is being a proposed at each of these intersections, the project would
4
contribute to the eventual need for signalization at these intersections, and the
increased traffic volume represents a potentially significant cumulative impact of the
project. With signalization, both intersections would operate at LOS B during both
peak hours.
In Oakland, the intersections of Broadway and 5th Street, and Harrison and 7th Streets
are anticipated to operate at LOS F during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under
future cumulative conditions. The project would contribute a potentially significant
cumulative portion of traffic at these intersections.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration /Initial Study).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that
the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
(1)
The project applicant shall be required to contribute their fair share of the costs
of specific projects to which the project contributes cumulative traffic increases.
The fair share contribution shall be based on the project traffic as a percentage
of the total growth between 1997 and project 2010 conditions at the
intersection which is adversely impacted by cumulative development including
the project. The projects to which the subdivider shall contribute a pro rata
share shall include:
a. The Tinker/Tynan Roadway Extension, for which the subdivider's share
has been determined to be 1.7% of the cost of these projects, based on
projected traffic increases at the intersection of Atlantic Avenue and
Webster Street. A portion of the contribution may be expended on the
Mitchell Mosely Roadway project.
b. The needed traffic controls at the intersections of Atlantic Avenue and
Challenger Drive, and of Marina Village Parkway and Challenger Drive,
for which the subdivider's share has been determined to be 1.2% and
2.0% respectively of the cost of these projects, based on projected
traffic increases at these specific intersections.
c. A program of improvements within the city limits of Oakland to vehicle
access between Interstate- 880 /the Nimitz Freeway and the Webster and
Posey Tubes, for which the subdivider's share has been determined to be
as follows:
1. The off -ramp to Martin Luther King Jr. Way, from southbound
5
1 -880 (Cypress structure), based on a 0.7 percent increase in
traffic on the Jackson Street Off -Ramp, and generally on local
Oakland streets;
The slip off ramp to the Webster Tube, from the Jackson Street
off -ramp from southbound 1 -980, based on a 2.9 percent
increase in traffic on the intersection of Broadway and 5th Street;
3. The on -ramp from south of Jackson Street to southbound 1 -880,
based on a 2.2 percent increase in traffic on the intersection of
Harrison and 7th Streets;
The on -ramp from the Posey tube exit to northbound 1 -880,
based on a 2.2 percent increase in traffic on the intersection of
Harrison and 7th Streets; and
The slip off- ramp to Webster Street, from northbound 1 -880,
based on a 1.3 percent increase in traffic at the intersection of
Broadway and 6th Street.
1.8 Noise
1.8.1 Significant Effect. The environmental noise letter report, prepared by Iliingworth 8t
Rodkin, Inc., dated October 27, 1997, determined that under projected traffic
conditions, future residents could potentially be exposed to noise from traffic on Buena
Vista and Atlantic Avenues which would exceed 60 dBA Ldn, the maximum acceptable
exterior noise level defined for residential areas in the General Plan Noise Element,
which would be potentially significant, unless noise reduction or insulation techniques
are incorporated into the design. The affected homes, as identified in the Tentative
Map, include lot numbers 1, 8, 9, 10, 29 through 37, and 77 through 83.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration /Initial Study).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that
the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
(1) Acoustical treatments shall be provided by the applicant to minimize the noise
levels for homes which back up to or otherwise border Buena Vista and Atlantic
Avenues. The treatments shall include a solid wood fence, without any gaps,
of at least 5 feet in height along Buena Vista Avenue, and an 8 -foot high
masonry wall along the northern property lines of the lots which are adjacent
6
to Atlantic Avenue (lot numbers 30 through 37). In addition, in order to
deflect noise transmitted through the open fence proposed along the Atlantic
Avenue side of the mini-park, solid wood fences are required along the property
line between the mini-park and the adjoining homes, and along the rear
property line of the two homes closest to Atlantic Avenue within Parcel 2. The
Noise Study identifies the location of recommended sound walls and solid fences
(Source: Noise Study, pages 2-3). As an alternative to the fences between the
adjoining homes and the mini-park, the masonry wall could be extended
approximately 100 feet along the northern edge of the mini-park, from each
end of the sound walls.
1.8.2 Significant Effect. With open windows, the upper stories of homes with rear property
lines adjacent to Atlantic Avenue would experience noise levels which would exceed
the City's interior noise standard of 45 dBA Ldn for new construction, and result in a
potentially significant noise impact.
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration/Initial Study).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that
the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
(1) The upper stories of homes whose yards closely border Buena Vista and Atlantic
Avenues (lot numbers 1, 8, 9, 10, 29 through 37, and 77 through 83), shall
be equipped with forced-air mechanical ventilation, to allow residents to control
the noise by closing the windows. Furnaces equipped with "summer switches"
are typically an acceptable form of such ventilation. These measures will reduce
the potential impacts of noise exposure of project residents to a level that is
insignificant.
1.9 Roadway Maintenance
1.9.1 Significant Effect. Construction vehicles traveling repeatedly to and from the site for
excavation of soils on the site could result in deterioration of the roadway surface on
Buena Vista Avenue, which is a potentially significant impact
Findings. The Planning Board hereby makes findings (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 Mitigated
Negative Declaration/Initial Study).
Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate that
7
the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance.
(1) The project applicant shall be required to survey conditions on Buena Vista
Avenue, Webster Street and other streets specified by the City Engineer before
and after the primary soil excavation activity to identify locations where repairs
are required to Buena Vista Avenue and other roadways adversely impacted by
excavation trucks, and provide necessary a financial guarantee if required.
Repairs or maintenance shall be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
8
. Impact:
ATTACHMENT B
BRUZZONE ALAMEDA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAR
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
T ON
Seismic Ground Shaking. Specific investigations of the site by Berlogar
Geotechnical Consultants (Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants,
Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation, Proposed Residential
Development, Bruzzone Property, Buena Vista Avenue and Webster
Street, Alameda, California, July 11, 1997 ) determined that in the
northern two-thirds of the U-shaped site, the upper layer of 3 to 5.5
feet is underlain by 3 to 5 feet of loose to medium dense silty sands,
in turn underlain by medium dense to dense silty sands; and in the
southern one-third of the site, the upper layer of sandy clay and silty
sand fill is underlain by dense silty sand to the limits of the investigation
(about 30 feet below ground surface). These conditions would
contribute to potentially significant seismic impacts on parts of the site
in the event of a major earthquake on the Hayward, Calaveras or other
faults, although the structural integrity of buildings on the site would
be the primary determining factor in the potential for seismic damage,
rather than the subsurface soil itself.
Mitigation Measure: Site Preparation and Grading. The subdivider shall incorporate the
recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by
Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants for construction on the site,
particularly for conformance to the current Uniform Building Code,
which designates the site as a Zone 4 area, which requires some special
construction methods. Compliance with the site preparation and
grading recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation would
reduce the potential impact to a level of insignificance.
Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer and Public Works Department
Action: 1. Applicant to submit Final Geotechnical Report to City Engineer
for approval prior to the approval of the Final Map..
2. Applicant to submit grading and structural plans for review of
compliance with approved Final Geotechnical Report.
3, Public Works staff shall review grading an structural plans, and
inspect work for each building phase to determine compliance
with approved plans.
II. Impact: Ground Failure and Liquefaction. The 3 to 5 feet of relatively loose
sands (the loose to medium dense silty sands within the northern two-
thirds of the site) encountered at depths of about 4 to 10 feet have
very high potential for liquefaction, which may lead to adverse
settlement and ground failure, which would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measure: Site Excavation and Replacement Fill. The applicant shall incorporate
the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation prepared by
Berlogar Geotechnical Consultants regarding site preparation measures
to avoid seismic ground failure and liquefaction, including the
construction of an engineered fill cap with a fabric filter on the areas
subject to liquefaction. Compliance with the recommendations of the
Geotechnical Investigation for site preparation and grading would
reduce the potential impact of liquefaction or other ground failure to
a level of insignificance.
Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer and Public Works Department
Action: 1. Applicant to submit Final Geotechnical Report to City Engineer
for approval prior to the approval of the Final Map.
2. Applicant to submit grading and structural plans for review of
compliance with approved Final Geotechnical Report.
3. Public Works staff shall review grading and structural plans and
inspect work for each building phase to determine compliance
with approved plans.
Unstable Soil Conditions. The perimeter of the site borders on
existing buildings and pavements, which, due to extensive excavation
requirements, could settle without proper support and stabilization at
the edge of the excavated areas, which is a potentially significant
impact.
Mitigation Measure: During construction the applicant shall be required to provide a
sufficient setback of the excavated area from existing structures and
pavement which may be subject to instability due to excavation, or to
use appropriate support structures or stabilization methods. Provision
of setbacks or support structures would reduce the potential impact to
a level of insignificance.
III. Impact:
Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer and Public Works Department
Action:
1. Applicant to submit Final Geotechnical Report to City Engineer
for approval, prior to the approval of the Final Map, which shall
include means of avoiding structural and pavement instability of
adjacent structures.
2. Public Works staff shall inspect work for each grading phase to
2
determine compliance with plans for avoiding structural and
pavement instability of adjacent structures.
IV. Impact: Differential Settlement. The 3 to 5 feet of loose to medium dense
silty sands within the northern two-thirds of the site, at depths of about
4 to 10 feet, which have very high liquefaction potential, may also
lead to adverse settlement, or land subsidence, and differential
settlement (irregular settlement). Potential settlement in the areas with
liquefiable soils, although estimated to be relatively uniform, from 2 to
3 inches, is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure: The site shall be graded as recommended in the Supplemental
Geotechnical Investigation prepared by Berlogar Geotechnical
Consultants. Foundations shall be constructed of structural slab on the
engineered fill cap, to accommodate total and differential settlement
according to the recommendations in the Geotechnical Investigation.
Compliance with the recommendations of the Geotechnical
Investigation for grading and foundation standards would reduce the
potential impact of differential settlement to a level of insignificance.
Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer and Public Works Department
Action:
V. Impact:
1. Applicant to submit Final Geotechnical Report to City Engineer
for approval prior to the approval of the Final Map..
2. Applicant to submit grading and structural plans for review of
compliance with approved Final Geotechnical Report.
. Public Works staff shall review grading and structural plans and
inspect work for each building phase to determine compliance
with approved plans.
Surface Water Discharges. The site is subject to the requirements of
the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
regulations (final rule, November 1990) for a Storm Water Pollution
and Prevention Plan (SWPPP), which must be approved by the City,
the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Control District
(ACFCWCD), and the State Water Resources Control Board
(SWRCB). To obtain approval of the SWPPP, the applicant must
submit a Notice of Intent (N01) to the SWRCB. The SWPPP must
include measures to control the outflow of contaminants. The
construction of the project, including building demolition, removal of
existing paving and grading for site preparation and paving of the site
must also adhere to the SWPPP. Approval of the project without an
adequate SWPPP is a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure: The project applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution and
Prevention Plan and obtain approval by the City of Alameda, the
ACFCWCD and the SWRCB. The drainage plan for the project must
also meet the City's Urban Runoff Guidelines. During construction,
the SWPPP shall provide controls on the storage and handling of toxic
and hazardous materials, detention basins, and similar measures.
Compliance with the requirements of the Urban Runoff Guidelines and
the SWPPP would reduce the potential impacts on surface water quality
to a level of insignificance.
Responsibility: Applicant, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Control District,
State Water Resources Control Board, City Engineer and Public Works
Department
Action: 1. Applicant to submit Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan
to City Engineer, Alameda County Flood Control and Water
Control District, and State Water Resources Control Board for
approval prior to issuance of grading permit or approval of
Improvement Plan.
2. Public Works staff shall inspect work for each building phase to
determine compliance with the Final SWPPP.
VI. Impact: Air Quality Construction Impacts. The project would generate
particulate matter (dust) during construction, which may be disturbing
or harmful to residents, and could be potentially significant, if
inadequate measures are not taken.
Mitigation Measure: The project applicant shall be required to regularly water the site to
control dust and to cover all materials in trucks entering and leaving
the site which have the potential to contribute to dust emissions.
These measures would reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer and Public Works Department
Action: 1. Public Works staff shall inspect work for each building phase to
determine compliance with dust control measures.
VII.A. Impact: Traffic Congestion. At the intersection of Webster Street and Atlantic
Avenue, which is projected to deteriorate to unacceptable LOS E
conditions, the project would contribute traffic and increase the
average vehicle delay, which represents a potentially significant
cumulative impact of the project.
VII.B Impact: At the intersections of Atlantic Avenue and Challenger Drive, and
Marina Village Parkway and Challenger Drive, which would operate at
4
LOS F during the p.m. peak hour without the signalization which is
being a proposed at each of these intersections, the project would
contribute to the eventual need for signalization at these intersections,
and the increased traffic volume represents a potentially significant
cumulative impact of the project. With signalization, both
intersections would operate at LOS B during both peak hours.
VII.0 Impact: In Oakland, the intersections of Broadway and 5th Street, and
Harrison and 7th Streets are anticipated to operate at LOS F during
both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours under future cumulative conditions.
The project would contribute a potentially significant cumulative
portion of traffic at these intersections.
Mitigation Measure: The project applicant shall be required to contribute their fair share of
the costs of specific projects to which the project contributes
cumulative traffic increases. The fair share contribution shall be based
on the project traffic as a percentage of the total growth between
1997 and project 2010 conditions at the intersection which is
adversely impacted by cumulative development including the project.
The projects to which the subdivider shall contribute a pro rata share
shall include:
a. The Tinker/Tynan Roadway Extension, for which the subdivider's
share has been determined to be 1.7% of the cost of these
projects, based on projected traffic increases at the intersection
of Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street. A portion of the
contribution may be expended on the Mitchell Mose ly Roadway
project.
b. The needed traffic controls at the intersections of Atlantic
Avenue and Challenger Drive, and of Marina Village Parkway and
Challenger Drive, for which the subdivider's share has been
determined to be 1.2% and 2.0% respectively of the cost of
these projects, based on projected traffic increases at these
specific intersections.
c. A program of improvements within the city limits of Oakland to
vehicle access between Interstate-880/the Nimitz Freeway and
the Webster and Posey Tubes, for which the subdivider's share
has been determined to be as follows:
1. The off-ramp to Martin Luther King Jr. Way, from
southbound 1-880 (Cypress structure), based on a 0.7 percent
increase in traffic on the Jackson Street Off-Ramp, and generally
on local Oakland streets;
5
2. The slip off -ramp to the Webster Tube, from the Jackson
Street off -ramp from southbound 1 -980, based on a 2.9 percent
increase in traffic on the intersection of Broadway and 5th Street;
3. The on -ramp from south of Jackson Street to southbound I-
880, based on a 2.2 percent increase in traffic on the
intersection of Harrison and 7th Streets;
4. The on -ramp from the Posey Tube exit to northbound 1 -880,
based on a 2.2 percent increase in traffic on the intersection of
Harrison and 7th Streets; and
5. The slip off -ramp to Webster Street, from northbound 1 -880,
based on a 1.3 percent increase in traffic at the intersection of
Broadway and 6th Street.
Responsibility. Applicant, City Engineer, Public Works Department
Action:
Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the site, the
applicant ` shall pay a pro rata share of the cost of the
Tinker /Tynan Roadway Extension. The proportionate share shall
be calculated by using the project's average peak hour traffic
contribution to the cumulative traffic increase projected to occur
between February 29, 1`996 and 2010 by the applicant's traffic
consultant, TJKM Transportation Consultants, at the intersection
of Atlantic Avenue and Webster Street. A portion of the share
may be expended on the proposed Mitchell Mosely Roadway.
The share shall be adjusted from September 1996 (date of
provision of improvement project cost estimate from City
Engineer) to the date of payment by the Engineering News
Record Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco /Bay Area
Alternatively, the subdivider may work with the Public Works
staff to arrange a payment schedule acceptable to the City
Engineer
o the issuance of any building permit for the site, the
applicant shall contribute a traffic impact fee to the Marina
Village Assessment District for needed traffic controls at Atlantic
Avenue/ Challenger Drive and at Marina Village
Parkway /Challenger Drive, to be based on the project's average
peak hour traffic contribution to the cumulative traffic increase
projected to occur between February 29, 1996 and 2010 by
the applicant's ` traffic consultant, TJKM Transportation
Consultants, respectively, at the intersections of Atlantic Avenue
6
VIII.A. Impact:
Mitigation Measu
and Challenger Drive, and at Marina Village Parkway/ Challenger
Drive.
3. Prior to the issuance of any building permit for the site, the
applicant shall contribute on a pro rata basis to the cost of the
programmed improvements to access between Interstate 880/
Nirnitz Freeway and the Webster and Posey Tubes, to be based
on the project's average peak hour traffic contribution to the
cumulative traffic increase projected to occur between February
29, 1996 and 2010 by the applicant's traffic consultant, TJKM
Transportation Consultants, at the intersections of Broadway and
5th Street, and Harrison and 7th Street.
Exterior Noise. The environmental noise letter report, prepared by
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc., dated October 27, 1997, determined that
under projected traffic conditions, future residents could potentially be
exposed to noise from traffic on Buena Vista and Atlantic Avenues
which would exceed 60 dBA Ldr,, the maximum acceptable exterior
noise level defined for residential areas in the General Plan Noise
Element, which would be potentially significant, unless noise reduction
or insulation techniques are incorporated into the design. The affected
homes, as identified in the Tentative Map, include lot numbers 1, 8,
9, 10, 29 through 37, and 77 through 83.
Acoustical treatments shall be provided by the applicant to minimize
the noise levels for homes which back up to or otherwise border Buena
Vista and Atlantic Avenues. The treatments shall include a solid wood
fence, without any gaps, of at least 5 feet in height along Buena Vista
Avenue, and an 8-foot high masonry wall, or other wall designed to
mitigate the identified impact, along the northern property lines of the
lots which are adjacent to Atlantic Avenue (lot numbers 30
through 37). In addition, in order to deflect noise transmitted
through the open fence proposed along the Atlantic Avenue side of
the mini-park, solid wood fences are required along the property line
between the mini-park and the adjoining homes, and along the rear
property line of the two homes closest to Atlantic Avenue within
Parcel 2. The Noise Study identifies the location of recommended
sound walls and solid fences (Source: Noise Study, pages 2-3). As an
alternative to the fences between the adjoining homes and the mini-
park, the masonry wall could be extended approximately 100 feet
along the northern edge of the mini-park, from each end of the sound
walls.
Responsibility: Applicant, Planning Director, City Engineer and Public Works
Department
7
Action:
Applicant to submit Final Improvement Plans to City Engineer for
approval, including plans for noise insulation fences and masonry
walls.
2. Public Works staff shall inspect work for each building phase to
determine compliance with approved plans for external noise
insulation.
Impact VIIIB. Interior Noise. With open windows, the upper stories of homes with
rear property lines adjacent to Atlantic Avenue would experience noise
levels which would exceed the City's interior noise standard of 45 dBA
Ldn for new construction, and result in a potentially significant noise
impact.
(1) The upper stories of homes whose yards closely border Buena
Vista and Atlantic Avenues (lot numbers 1, 8, 9, 10, 29
through 37, and 77 through 83), shall be equipped with forced-
air mechanical ventilation, to allow residents to control the noise
by closing the windows. Furnaces equipped with "summer
switches" are typically an acceptable form of such ventilation.
These measures will reduce the potential impacts of noise
exposure of project residents to a level that is insignificant.
Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer and Public Works Department
Action: 1. Applicant to submit building plans for approval, including plans
for noise insulation.
Public Works staff shall review building plans and inspect
construction to determine compliance with approved plans for
internal noise insulation.
Impact: Roadway Maintenance. Construction vehicles traveling repeatedly to
and from the site for excavation of soils on the site could result in
deterioration of the roadway surface on Buena Vista Avenue, which is
a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure: The project applicant shall be required to survey conditions on Buena
Vista Avenue, Webster Street and other streets specified by the City
Engineer before and after the primary soil excavation activity to
identify locations where repairs are required to Buena Vista Avenue
and other roadways adversely impacted by excavation trucks, and
provide necessary a financial guarantee if required.
Responsibility: Applicant, City Engineer and Public Works Department
Action:
Applicant shall conduct survey of roadway conditions on
specified roads, and submit soil excavation and transportation
plans to the City Engineer for approval prior to issuance of
Grading Pernik or the approval of the Improvement Plan.
2. Public Works staff shall determine if a financial guarantee is
required.
3 Repairs or maintenance shall be to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to acceptance of subdivision improvements.
9
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council
of the City of Alameda in regular meeting assembled on the 17th
day of March , 1998, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, Lucas and Acting
President DeWitt - 3.
NOES: Councilmember Kerr - 1.
ABSENT: Mayor Appezzato - 1.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
official seal of said City this 18th day of March , 1998.
Diane elsch, City Cle
City of Alameda