Resolution 15204CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 15204
APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE MAP #8337
FOR A 99 LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED ALONG THE OAKLAND
INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL FROM APPROXIMATELY 1,800 FEET
NORTHWEST OF THE PARK STREET BRIDGE TO APPROXIMATELY
2,300 FEET SOUTH OF HIGH STREET
WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the "Army Corps") excavated,
dredged, and created the Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal (the "Tidal Canal") between
1882-1905, which is a waterway approximately 1.8 miles long and 400 feet wide and
connects the Oakland Estuary with the San Leandro Bay from approximately 1,800 feet
northwest of the Park Street Bridge to approximately 2,300 feet south of High Street
Bridge. The Army Corps has retained fee title ownership of the Tidal Canal since its
creation. The southern edge of the Alameda side of the Tidal Canal now includes uplands
and bulkheads that have been utilized to varying degrees by adjacent private property
owners; and
WHEREAS, in 1990, the U.S. Congress authorized the Army Corps to transfer the
Tidal Canal at no cost to the cities of Alameda and Oakland through the Water Resources
Development Act ("WRDA") of 1990, as amended by WRDA 1996, 2007, and 2014; and
WHEREAS, starting in 2000, the Army Corps instituted a moratorium on issuing
regulatory permits or real estate licenses for any repairs, upgrades, improvements or new
construction along the Tidal Canal, with the exception of emergency repairs, (the
"Permitting Moratorium") to encourage the City of Alameda (the "City") to accept the
Alameda side of the Tidal Canal. The Permitting Moratorium has prevented repairs and
improvements to existing structures along the waterfront, which has negatively affected
adjacent property owners and has limited the City's ability to enforce code requirements
along the Tidal Canal; and
WHEREAS, the Army Corps has agreed to take all reasonable steps necessary to
effectuate the transfer, including filing a tentative map application under the Subdivision
Map Act (CA Gov. Code §§66410-66413.5) to divide the Tidal Canal into approximately 99
individual parcels to facilitate the transfer to the City and the immediate subsequent sale of
portions of the Alameda side of the Tidal Canal to private purchasers. The Army Corps
also has agreed to lift the Permitting Moratorium on the Alameda side of the Tidal Canal
once the property is transferred out of federal ownership; and
WHEREAS, an application was made on June 1, 2016, by City staff on behalf of the
Army Corps requesting approval to subdivide 99 lots out of the approximately 85-acre Tidal
Canal; and
WHEREAS, out of the 99 lots, the Army Corps desires to transfer Parcels 2 and 4
through 96 to the City (the "Subject Property") and to reserve and retain ownership of
Unsurveyed Remainder (Area 1) (Oakland side of the Tidal Canal), 3 (property adjacent to
the federally -owned Navy Operational Support Center), and 97 through 99 (footings for the
High Street Bridge, the Miller- Sweeney Bridge and the Fruitvale Rail Bridge and the Park
Street Bridge) as depicted in the Tentative Map included as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, on June 1, 2016, the City published a Draft Initial Study /Negative
Declaration ( "IS /ND ") for the OIHTC Project in accordance with the California
Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "), which addresses all potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed transfer and subsequent transfers into private ownership;
amendments to the E, Estuary District; and the proposed subdivision map application. The
Negative Declaration is provided as Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this application on July 11,
2016 and unanimously recommended that the City Council approve the Tentative Map.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Alameda City Council hereby
makes the following findings concerning the Negative Declaration:
1. A Draft Negative Declaration for the OIHTC Project has been prepared and
circulated for public review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
2. The Draft Negative Declaration addresses all potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed zoning amendment, tentative map approval and
proposed transfer and subsequent transfers into private ownership.
3. The City Council has reviewed the Draft Negative Declaration and finds that the
proposed project will not result in any significant impacts on the physical
environment.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda hereby makes the following findings concerning the proposed subdivision map:
1. The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the General Plan and
Zoning for this site. The proposed subdivision does not include any proposed
construction or development. Future uses of the Subject Property would be
consistent with the designated uses identified in the E, Estuary District and would be
restricted to water - dependent uses, subject to future discretionary review and
approval by the City.
2. Subdividing the property will facilitate subsequent transfer allowing proper
City code enforcement. The property is being subdivided into 99 parcels to
facilitate future sales to private purchasers to clear title issues and to allow City
code enforcement, which is currently prevented under the Permitting Moratorium.
3. There will be no development of the site. The proposed project does not involve
any construction or development. Any future improvements proposed by the
subsequent owners of the property will require a future discretionary approval from
the City and will be subject to separate CEQA review.
4. The proposed subdivision will not cause environmental damage or
substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project
does not involve any ground disturbance and will not cause any potentially
significant environmental impacts as confirmed in the IS /ND, published by the City
on June 1, 2016. The public comment period for the IS /ND closed on June 30,
2016, and there were no public comments challenging the conclusions reached in
the IS /ND.
5. The proposed subdivision will not conflict with easements acquired by the
public at large for access through or use of property within the subdivisions.
All existing public access easements are to be retained.
6. The design of the subdivision will not cause serious public health problems.
The project does not involve any ground disturbance and will not cause any
potentially significant environmental impacts as confirmed in the IS /ND.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City of Alameda City
Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration and approves Tentative Map #8337 which
would establish 99 lots subject to compliance with the following condition:
1. The Final Map shall show all existing and proposed easement locations, uses and
recording information. The Owner's Statement shall list all easements to be dedicated
and the Certificate of City Clerk shall list all public easements to be abandoned, if any,
with recording information as part of the Final Map.
NOTICE: No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days following
the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure
Section 1094.6.
NOTICE: The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge to
any quasi - adjudicative decision made by the City of Alameda is governed by Section
1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitation period is specified by any
other provision, including without limitation Government Code section 65009 applicable to
many land use and zoning decisions, Government Code section 66499.37 applicable to the
Subdivision Map Act, and Public Resources Code section 21167 applicable to the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal
challenge to any quasi- adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than
the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal
challenge, which is not filed within that 90 -day period, will be barred. Government Code
section 65009 and 66499.37, and Public Resources Code section 21167, impose shorter
limitations periods and requirements, including timely service in addition to filing. If a
person wishes to challenge the above actions in court, they may be limited to raising only
those issues they or someone else raised at the meeting described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the City of Alameda, at or prior to the meeting. In
addition, judicial challenge may be limited or barred where the interested party has not
sought and exhausted all available administrative remedies.
rr.
0
co
QQ
r
0
cr LL
i
Q- z 0
W-C
< Z >:
— Z.
00
W Z 45
> < al
Jgo
o
1 wo
W
LL
cr) U.
cr) 0
0
I
ls�
"HIV- -
Mg
R I
CO
W
0
z
a: ah
H9199999
5:1 g ;isq 392-92
m
Lvdis po�
Nz
UZ)
w
00
it
'R
'IP
Lvdis po�
cc
Z
Z
a.
z
ail'
44 J
as
Cl)
co
Lvdis po�
a
o� n
�a
d• 1 rah W ..�.
LU
m
.oeorA$KSarts Q�,atStr �.11i<r �
e i
N (
sp>p00" oa ^ 1
yZ4 GIs
� PPaCC
to i�
i
i�
1
1 �
1 �rr
QNrrm d0 .lifo i W I.L
Mt3Nt?r d0 /lA ; T o
co go
1 g
1 �
h
} �1 ttii /c 7¢
1- �' e }} f f: W 9
LA z
e 1 ,
�"'�
�$O �o4Q Ya M a
m m" CO
�a
e >.e
_ _ v
Q.
-WW3AV .'1,WMV78 cc
h;
LUYIG 1N3?Mlo _.... _.
S
9 19$H9 338
w
I
___ }VIXi(M GY�83 9t _
hOL1ro>3l Y+6ipbdlY — ---------------
--
M1
r - --
--
i i h ji t {fiaTs Nxrd
ME-
i
yj i
cc
cc
} T SZO-06a0-fLO NdV 4 2
'Ile s s G
y s L99Y8( -LPPa 'C 'pd
K
, � w
00
saaaza -+LO 'Hdv �. i r..-'; `- -"j9arar�Laoz s ix
1 Ll /' imru w3a F
, LEt)al YJ3s y - L -�. -. I � 133N1S k70
_ — V
eUD'O6Z0-(l0 HdV
(7SE8Z�2JOa 7 7Jd
t W �sibt x�3e
a 133HS ass
� b
0 !I
i'�i
d
i I
' �M1
. ' 3q
cc
zz
a
J
F
r {
t4
• .t `'i CO
f .L?3d'1S JWVA?
_._ � 69V7 a3t]JY
113X3l.3 <r�r�
rartaro -rYO wr
sre � av s rr:
i � 4 as auo� azrtr
f � � _ 6 � � u � b �'�+jLd Na ai➢ '4 77d
�Q4 0 � j'o� axn aarrrq
y y tf
i
97 q
rc
< z
III
i i---+ f68) ?YP66( (TJd
I i, 1 f �APi Yrf'J
133HO 339
L 133HO 339
9 133HS 33
M.
z U111
2z!
<
z k§
0
Z
F_ 0
0
Cf)
CFJ
.
� /(
)\ �
\/
8 138H8 938
�i
i+ 852 ^LT,'ra -69O ttdl^
?
B4 S73't-3/ttt /X3LYa8 �
-' X AtC£60-2t02
86 ? y � 892➢4Z -2102
sr o0a
�� Z .
W '
R Ui4 - OCt0-64II Ndr
jar me M49x
_Vc5
�,
60 nuY r
95a -alo 69a WY
+�.s' 75831( E102 i
d , 3NaA_
Y "� 152 GCIO -68a Ndp
89t212 ftGt
iaam k
z
8�> 01 ss26iodY
}CJO 680 ' 3 NQ
q---'
_W3 dt-. QBVA
Amy
a
Y.
3/29aE -
Q
{
b ... t3 A kt $, '�yt31�7A'1715iM
x X� �. 9tY'Q63fY630''4dY +
t
d
ta; NY1NYlr .�
Q K�
0
8 tfe ,
Hilt
t0-5Q0
m
O
�riV
9 13ffi78 338
e 133H8 338
--1.1
rarceao-r 'f1 I
i `�7a1 mwaas
j { si aYbOtQ- 690rhiv � r^ __ Z
h
i 45 ssr5prp- 6yp�fdP` " -. _ �'� W
6rJ 1And
} i lsaxt r+dxnre
S51- SOr0-63D
I16BLl�Z1
va �� > t lvsaar rroa
�7y
.-tvla
O"216-D, 1
'.4
15, " "` �a
f f l K \
OCR 019 i., \ /•
eis- `1 t
AW
v e v �w s eta stO003 ( / x�
� \ � Y`�er '� ,n�.,, t tbi65` ti •��
I.L. Amy.
A
r,.
cc
V J t >�
c
eo
d
a�ytas rfi� ; s�i\
g�
e �
t9'S Eta
? o
c
133H8 338
N. a
Ot 133M 3"
�Iic+ j_at� t
-
Nm , �x
1
All rota -eya- I( y i m
q 1(016!70 -0102 : t
tp Q M L L WfCd ¢ '' ! cr
• i
C'
PA. T`•'..r m° {{ t i J
t3
Y
/ ( 11
�� m t $ •..�. \-;S9,f70"d?;17iJY • lea ...
? 1 t7 � 4l00s1 LYX7„ • � ;
i
a ¢ C70Z kN111, �—
�.ty,J�',,i' 7t7sae -ed1� ^ „— y' ? { Q
& Qtsaza =yam y. I
K artsrdalrs
COa'llsp §f i� fAE9Z7Y402 'I'
t
e a33Ha 336
ffl
R
I
zs
H5
Mu
cc
W
z
2z
CL 9.1
<
0
z
<
00
o
Ico
co
.
Oakland Inner Harbor
Tidal Canal Transfer
INITIAL STUDY &
■ ■ ; r
Douglas Herring & Associates
Environmental, Policy, can Planning Services
Initial Study/ N - Declaration
Summary|oformaGou— ................ —.......................... ....... .................... ............... ....... l
Description of the Project ................ .................... ... .... ................................ ................ 2
Site Description and Surrounding Uses ....................... ........... .... ........................... ..... 6
EnpironmentaFacbzraPuLenba|tvAf6eckyd----------------------.39
Determination.......... ....... ......... ............... ..... --- ................. —........... ............. ....... ... 4O
Evaluation uf Environmental Impacts .... ........ — ........ ......... --... — .... .......... — ... ...
4l
LAesthetics
.... ............................................ ............. ......................... ......... .....
4l
IL
Agricultural Resources .............. .......... —......................... ......... ............ ...
4@
UO.
Air Qua|dy ... ............. ..................... ......... .................. .... ....... ............ ......
45
PY
Resources ...... —....... ................ ......... ................ ...... .... ........... �48
Y.
Cultural Resources --.............. ...... ...... ....... .................... ...... ...... --......
5l
VI.
Geology and Soils ...................... ......... ...... ----.............. ........... ---..55
VU.
Greerdioose Gases ........................................... ........ ............ ... ...... ........ ....
58
VIII.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials ................. .......... .................. ---....
59
[X.
Hydrology and Water [ualiLv ...................... ............. ................ --......... �66
X.
Land Use and ..........
71
X].
MinernRcsourcee-------'--------------------
72
XU.Noise
.... ...... — .... .......... —........... ......... --- ........... .......... .............. ..........
73
XIDL
Population and Housing --------------------------75
XIY.
Public Services .... ........ — ....................... --- ................ ----......................
76
XY.
Recreation —.-----------------_-- --- ---------___
78
%V1.
Transportation/ Traffic ..... ............ ............... ...... ............ — ........... ..........
79
XVD.
Utilities and Service Systems .................. .... .......... --- .......................... ....
0I
Mandatory Findings of Significance ................... .......... --............... ............. ............
S3
ReportPreparation
.................... .......... ...... ............. .................................. —......... ... ....
04
Initial -Studv/Negative Declaration
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Figure Project Site Location ......... — ........ ............ .............. —................ 3
Figure Aerial Overview of Project Site ..................... ............... ...... ...... ........ .............. —.4
FbzureS Project Overview and Key to Section Sheets ............. ---- ................................... 9
Figure Enlarged Aerial Section View: S6eetI— ................. —........ .--....... ...........
—1l
Figure Enlarged Aerial Section View: Sheet 2 ......................... .......................... .............. l3
Figure Enlarged Aerial Section View: Sheet 3 ...... .............. .... _ ... . .... _ ........ ....... ..... I5
Figure Enlarged Aerial Section View: Sheet 5 ............... ...................... ......................... l9
Figure Aerial Section View: Sheet 6 ........ ............. .............. ....—.--............ 22
Figure 10 Enlarged Aerial Section View: Sheet 7. .......... —................................................ .23
Figure 12 Aerial Section View: Sheet 9 ....................... ............... ............... .......... 27
Figure 13 Enlarged Aerial Section View: Sheet lO ................................... .—................... 2A
Figure 14 Existing Conditions bothe Project Arem_.. ... .......... ........... ....... .................. —3J
Figure 15 Existing Conditions bzthe Project Area ..................... .............. ...... ................. —32
Figure 17 £ Conditions inthe Project Area .................. .......... ....... .... — ................. 34
Figure IS Existing Conditions inthe Project Area ................... ... .... ................... ...—_ ... 35
Figure 19 Existing Conditions bnthe Project Area .... ....... ............. ............................. .... 3b
Eage
Initial Study/ Negative De6nmhoo
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL. CANAL TRANSFER
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal Transfer
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of Alameda
Office of the City Attorney
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 280
Alameda, CA 94501-4477
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Andrico Q. Penick, Assistant City Attorney
747-4763
z lleri'ckI
4. Project Location:
Oakland Inner Harbor Tidal Canal, extending from approximately 1,800 feet northwest of the
Park Street Bridge to approximately 2,300 feet south of High Street Bridge, a distance of about
1.8 miles. The canal separates the island City of Alameda from the mainland City of Oakland;
the jurisdictional boundary separating the two cities runs generally down the center of the
canal. The proposed project encompasses only the Alameda side of the canal. The project area is
about 2,000 feet southeast of Coast Guard Island and about 1,500 feet south of Interstate 880.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of Alameda
Office of the City Attorney
2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 280
Alameda, CA 94501-4477
Contact: Andrico Q. Penick., Assistant City Attorney
(510) 747-4763
MY11 P
6. General Plan Designation:
Tidal Canal: [None]
Adjacent Properties: PUblic/lnstitutional/School (P/I/S), Federal Facilities (FF), Mixed-Use
Northern Waterfront (Willow Street to Oak Street) (MU-5), Parks & Public Open Space
(P&POS), Community Commercial (CC), Office (0), General Industry (GI), Low-Densitv
Residential (LDR), Neighborhood Business (NB), and Medium-Density Residential (.MDR).
7. Zoning:
Tidal Canal: E (Estuary)
Adjacent properties: M-2 (General Industrial), 0 (Open Space), NP-W (North Park Street
District—Workplace), NP-M (North Park Street District—Maritime), C-2-PD (Central Business—
Planned Development Overlay), R-1, (One Family Residential), R-2 (Two Family Residential), R-
4 (Neighborhood Residential).
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Background /Need for the Project
In 1884, the U.S. Arn-ty Corps of Engineers (Corps) began dredging the inland area connecting
the cities of Oakland and Alameda to create a tidal canal. With a length of 1.8 miles and a width
of about 400 feet, the canal occupies an area of approximately 85 acres of submerged, semi -
submerged lands and uplands. Known as the Oakland Irmer Harbor Tidal Canal (Canal), the
waterway is owned and maintained by the Corps, which now proposes to divest itself of the
canal, as directed by Congress in the Water Resources Development Act of 1,990 (W DA)
('ub.L.1.01 -640). The location of the Canal is shown on Figure 1. An overview of the project area
is shown on Figure 2 and Figures 3 through 12 present enlamod aerial views of successive
sections of the Canal.'
The purpose of the canal was to provide a means for tidal flux between. San Leandro Bay and
Oakland Harbor, but it has also functioned as a navigable waterway, being used primarily by
small }Measure craft, with occasional commercial use by barges supporting shoreline operations.
The Corps' ownership encompasses all property within the boundaries of the Canal, which
includes private structures, docks, boathouses, and portions of housing structures authorized
by the Corps in various ways over the past century. The Corps has been trying — unsuccessfully
to date —to relieve itself of ownership of the Canal for the past 25 years, in accordance with the
WRDA, which directed the Corps to give half the Canal to the City of Oakland and half to the
City of Alameda.
To encourage transfer, the Corps instituted a permitting moratorium in 2000, which has
prohibited any construction, maintenance, repair, or improvement of structures along the
Canal, except for emergency repairs. This moratorium has prevented regulating agencies with
jurisdiction over the area — including both cities, the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission (BCDC), and the Sart Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) —from approving waterfront improvements or enforcing regulations
pertaining to development standards and /or health and safety. As a result, adjacent property
owners have been unable to legally make repairs to their docks and housing structures where
they extend into the Canal property. In addition, the Corps' ownership and moratorium have
created a cloud on title for the adjacent property owners who legally constructed docks or other
structures within the Canal. The Corps will not lift the permitting moratorium until the
property has been transferred. Residential owners on the Alameda side have formed a
voluntary homeowners' association to lobby the City of Alameda and the Carps to complete the
transfer in order to remove the permitting; moratorium. Approximately 93 residential and 11
commercial properties on the Alameda side of the Canal are directly affected by the
moratorium.
The City of Alameda is now moving forward to facilitate the transfer of the Alameda side of the
Canal property from Corps ownership. As discussed in more detail below, the City will
function as a broker, and once ownership of the Canal has been transferred to the City, it
intends to immediately convey the outer edges of the Canal to the existing adjacent residential
and commercial property, owners, which will provide many with necessary access to their
existing structures along the Tidal Canal.
i Figures 3 through 13 are presented at the end of the Project Description.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
� \\ \ . CIL
J� �j
tie
ell 4
co
uj
� ° °`~ �\ .������ �� �
ul
0
z CL
< > Is ULwjGLIs
M
>
<
2
c
c
m
co
c
C-)
0
t5
lz CL-
0
Q
a)
4-J
Ltl�5
INEEMINE-74
The project evaluated in this Initial Study affects only the Alameda side of the Canal, In 2013,
the East Bay Regional Park District (EBRPD) expressed an interest in accepting the Oakland side
of the Canal in order to construct a segment of the Bay Trail along the Oakland shoreline, and
since then with the Corps on the transfer of the Oakland side, That potential
2
has been working g
property transfer is a separate action that will require a separate environmental review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) by the applicable lead agency.
Proposed Project
The City currently proposes to accept the Alameda side of the Canal. from the Corps and then
transfer the small area between the existing federal property line (the upland property
boundary marked in red on the overview map on Figure 2) and the proposed property line (the
pier line marked in blue on the overview map) to the adjacent owners along the canal (with a
few exceptions), wliich will allow property owners to own their existing docks and housing
structures. The City will maintain ownership of the open water area between the proposed
property line and the centerline of the canal for public navigation.
As part of the project and prior to the actual transfer of Canal ownership from the Corps to
Alameda, the City intends to approve a subdivision map application proposed by the Corps to
subdivide the property into approximately 104 separate serni-submerged and submerged
parcels. These parcels would correspond generally to the property lines of the adjacent upland
parcels. Approximately 100 of the parcels Would subsequently be transferred to the City of
Alameda, with the Corps retaining ownership of four parcels, which contain the Alameda -side
bridge abutments and supports for the Park Street, Fruitvale, and High Street bridges, as well as
a triangular Navy parcel.
Immediately following the proposed property transfer, the City will sell approximately 98 of the
newly created parcels generally to the adjacent landside property owners (or another interested
purchase, as applicable). The City would retain ownership of two parcels comprising the central
open water area of the canal waterward from the proposed property line to the centerline,
which the Corps would still be responsible for dredging; as necessary, or other actions to
maintain a navigable waterway. Such maintenance Could. consist of enforcement actions to
remove floating debris- and abandoned boats that are considered to be a threat to navigation.
However, with respect to dredging since its construction, tidal movement through
the Canal
has generally been sufficient to maintain its original 18-foot depth and prevent shallowing
within the central portion of the canal.
The Corps would retain its jurisdictional authority over the canal under the Rivers and Harbors
Act (33 USC §401 ef. seq.) and the Clean Water Act (33 USC §1251 (..!t. seq), which authority
includes regulating any structures in and over the canal and dredge or fill proposed in waters of
the United States.
The proposed project also includes an extension and amendment of the City's existing Estuary
District Zoning and the City's Zoning Map to cover all of the parcels within the Alameda side of
the Tidal Canal and amendments to the development standards for the Estuary Zoning District.
The amendments would limit and clarify the types of structures and uses that may be allowed
on the new parcels. New structures would be limited to new docks, piers, boathouses, and other
water-dependent uses, subject to review and approval by the City. All future proposed uses in
the Estuary District would require approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and would therefore
be subject to discretionary review by the City, and would also require separate environmental
review pursuant to CEQA, as applicable.
The Water Resources Development Act was amended in 2007 to allow for transfer to a public agency yin addition to
the cities of Alameda and Oakland.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Future development also would require discretionary review by other regional and State
agencies with jurisdiction. This would include review by BCDC of new development within, the
coastal zone and review by the Corps and RWQCB for proposed work below the high tide line.
In addition, future in-water work would be subject to review by the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
The proposed project would not entail any new development or movement of dirt, and would
not authorize new uses in the Estuary Zoning District. Consequently, the proposed transfer
would not charige or affect existing coastal resources. Because the proposed project involves
discretionary action by a federal agency, the Corps has prepared an Environmental Assessment
(EA) for the proposed transfer (including the transfer of the Oakland side of the Canal),
pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This Initial Studv draws on and
references environmental analysis presented in the EA.'
Completion of the proposed transfer will allow the Corps to lift the permitting moratorium,
enabling the City of Alameda, BCDC, the Corps, the RWQCB, and any other applicable agencies
to enforce regulations when future improvements are proposed by property owners. This
change is expected to improve coastal resources over the long term through permit review of
individual projects along the waterfront.
Planning Approvals
Tentative Subdivision Map, The project would require approval of a Vesting Tentative
Subdivision Map and recording of a Final Subdivision. Map, in accordance with the Subdivision
Map Act California Government Code Sections 66410 et. seq,
I
Zoning Amendments* The j proect would require an amendment to the Estuary District Zoning
project
map to cover the newly created parcels, and zoning text amendments limiting the types and
locations of permitted uses within the Estuary District.
Other Approvals
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, (Corps}: The project will require transfer of title to the Alameda
side of the Canal to the City of Alameda.
9. Site Description and Surrounding Land Uses:
The Tidal Canal is an approximately 400-foot-wide navigable channel. separating the cities of
Oakland and Alameda, subject to tidal inflow and outflow from San Francisco Bay. It extends
from approximately 1,800 feet northwest of the Park Street Bridge to approximately 2,300 feet
south of High, Street Bridge, a distance of about 1.8 miles, and covers an area of approximately
85 acres. The central channel has an average depth of approximately 18 feet.
The Canal property includes submerged, semi-submerg0 ed lands within the Canal proper as
well as some uplands. In total, the Canal property under Corps ownership has a width of
approximately 400 feet.
The Canal is spanned by four bridges: the Park Street Bridge, Miller-Sweeney Bridge and the
Fruitvale Rail Bridge (two adjacent bridges), and the High Street Bridge. The Fruitvale Rail
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Sciences Section, San Francisco District, Eurinnintental Assesstnenl,
Oakland tarter (traitor "Tidal Canal Stirphis Property Divestiture, June 2014.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Bridge, currently inactive, is a vertical -lift railroad bridge located immediately adjacent to the
Miller - Sweeney Bridge, while the other three bridges are vehicle draw bridges used for vehicle
traffic. The Canal is defined on the Alameda side by edges .ranging from concrete or steel
bulkheads to rip -rap embankments to naturalized, sloping, earthen embankments. Some
shoreline development is supported on cement or wood piers or pilings. In addition to Clocks,
such development also includes decks, wharves, boathouses, and other buildings.
The current and the historical use of the property consists primarily of small boat traffic such as
privately owned pleasure craft. Northwest of the Miller-Sweeney Bridge, there is some
commercial barge traffic from the sand and gravel companies along the Canal. The existing
upland portion of the Carnal is developed with a variety of waterfront improverents, described
in more detail below, while the semi - submerged portions are developed with a variety of docks,
boat slips, and other water- related improvements. Most of the existing improvements on the
Alameda side of the Canal were reviewed and approved either through lease or license
agreements with the Corps and /or through a blanket license issued in 1913 by the Assistant
Secretary of War to all owners of property adjacent to the Tidal Canal.
A wide range of structures and uses lines the Alameda side of the Canal. (The Oakland side of
the Canal is not part of the project evaluated in this Initial Study, and is not described herein.)
In general, the upland areas west/ north of the Fruitvale Bridge are developed with commercial
and industrial uses, while east /south of the Fruitvale Bridge the adjoining land uses are
primarily residential. Examples of existing development located adjacent to the Canal are
shown on Figures 14 through 20.
At tine northwestern end of tlnc Canal, the upland area is occupied by the Navy Operational
Support Center (NOSC) Alameda. 'ro the east of the NOSC Alameda is a construction company
and a self - storage facility. A large (approximately 9 acres) vacant parcel lies between the storage
facility and Oak Street. Between Oak Street and Park Street, the properties adjoining the Canal
include a can- rental business, a small retail shopping center, and a shoreline restaurant.
Approximately two dozen small boat slips line the Canal at this location.
A nursing home is located just to the east of Park Street, followed by a manufacturing facility,
auto body shop, photography studio, and theater /cultural. center. East of these uses is a boat
yard. Two docks extend from this property, running parallel to the shoreline; one of the docks
extends eastward for approximately 600 feet. The area between the boat yard and Tilden Way is
occupied by the large Bridgeside Shopping Center comprised of multiple buildings containing a
variety of retail uses, including a large grocery store, LIPS store, and some smaller restaurants.
Ali optometrist office and U.S. Air Force and U.S. Army recruiting stations are also located in
this development, which includes a large surface parking lot.
East /south of the Fruitvale Bridge, mostly small one- and two -story single- family homes line
the Canal, with frontages oil Marina Drive. Nearly all of these properties have small boat docks
extending into the Carnal. Many of the properties also have one or more secondary structures oil
the rear Canal -side portion of the lots.
East of the High Street Bridge, the Canal heads in a more southerly direction. Some residential
apartments or condominiums are located immediately south of the bridge, followed by a
nursing home. Homogenous residential development resumes south of here, with single - family
homes fronting on Fernside Boulevard. Similar to the residential properties north /west of the
High Street Bridge, a majority of these properties are developed with more than one structure.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
(This page intentionally left blank.)
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL, CANAL TRANSFER
GU
iJt
O
CSt
CSl
Ms Wsm
a m
FIS
HE
CL
81.
�
'� �
€ f � jam¢
i�+�a�p'. yr
�
GU
iJt
O
CSt
CSl
QF
N
.0
Sf'1
6J
C
O
Q3
ctt
6F
to
i51 jL4 tt,t
t £i
.....__..........e.. CL C
G 2 O tJ
Lvac
LS ��t
4
s
QF
N
.0
Sf'1
6J
C
O
Q3
ctt
6F
to
i51 jL4 tt,t
W,
cu
LU
CL
i
z 9
Z 4)
Gm-
0 a.
6f
LZ
tz
to
W,
cu
LU
"I
cu
sft
csr
srt
tD i7
ii w
21
------- -------- ----
IFP
irs
QJ
AJ
LIS
Cl
Ln
V,
§i
co
0
21
Im —E
ir LAJ
uj
ILI
0 T4�t i � 1� j °� 'v hLi^ '� '� u¢�t't'
a, N ,z. o O u1 y of
WE
o.+
a
s
c
0
w
Q
tT -rs
uj
9, Sp
ui,U> v m
cp
0 M
a z
zn
N. I flM
u
0
S
42w
ar
ns
ar
0 <
ii uj
I-A
Ln
10
tv
10
\
�
}
/� \ \ \
� �
/ \
I-A
Ln
10
tv
10
0)
T
78
m -a
ir w
O
Qd
Vt
C
tFt
76
w
<
in
o 0)
0
'i
0- G
cl CL 2 2
0 e. a.
LZ
s
O
Qd
Vt
C
tFt
76
w
<
a - Existing shoreline conditions at northwest end of project area, in the vicinity of Walnut Street.
b - Existing shoreline conditions near northwest end of project area, in the vicinity of Oak Street.
TIMI
Existing Conditions in the Project Area Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
a - Collapsed dock at Nelson's Marine property, currently undergoing remediation. Abandoned ship (Elizabeth A.) in
foreground has since been removed by the U.S. Coast Guard.
b - Aroma Restaurant, located just west of the Park Street Bridge.
Figure 15
Existing Conditions in the Project Area Source: U.S, Army Corps of Engineers
a - Manufacturing plant located east of the Park Street Bridge,
b - Small boat maintenance and repair facility located about 750 feet east of the Park Street Bridge.
Existing Conditions in the Project Area Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
a - Bridgeside Shopping Center, located just west of the Fruitvale Bridge.
b - Abandoned boat near base of the Fruit Tale Bridge.
Existing Conditions in the Project Area Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
b - Typical residential and shoreline development east of the Fruilvale Bridge.
a - Typical residential and shoreline development east of the Fruilvale Bridge.
I=
Existing Conditions in the Project.Area Source: U.5. Army Corps of Engineers
a - Closed accessory structures encroaching into current Corps of Engineers property line, located on residential
properties east of the Fruitvale Bridge in the vicinity of Harvard Drive.
b - Apartment or condominium complex located just east of the High Street Bridge.
Existing Conditions in the Project Area Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
a - Residential properties east of the High Street Bridge, in the vicinity of Monte Vista Avenue.
b - Residential properties east of the High Street Bridge, including dilapidated dock, in the vicinity of FairviewAvenue.
is i M
Existing Conditions in the Project Area Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by ��
i ot least one innpact that iaa~Po�oha||v5ignl�cuntknpec(,usindira�dby the checklist on
the following
F--1
Aesthetics F--1 ^^u^^~' h/m|Reanuoes
�—1 Resources | |CJ�m}Ken��
~~~~o^~~ ``~ L> -
F—� n6cmae(�usGoi��n» | | Haza,da�Baz�I�u�dn|s
Greenhouse
L� L�
F--1
Land Use/ Planning [--1 Mineral Resources
F—�Bmu�Ucm/Rou�n� F—����6er�m�
' L_�
Transportation /Traffic | | Utilities /Service Systems
| |
Mandatory Findings mfSi-oi6couce
friffial Study
OAK[8ND INNER HABBUR TIDAL, CANAL TRANSFER
Air QUalitV
F--1
Geology /soils
F—� 8rdm��/VVa�rQuali�
~'
F---]Noise
Recreation
39
On the basis of the initial evaluation:
Fx-1 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the
project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent, A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARAT16N will be prepared.
n I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and
an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards', and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described oil the attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
n I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been v
adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable
standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
[signature on filed document]
Signature
Andrico Q. Penick, Assistant City Attorney
Printed name
_M t1, 2016
Date
City of Alameda
For
Initial Study
40 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANALTRANSFER
1. AESTHETICS — IlVoidd the Ilro.iect:
Ex2la : Although the Oakland side of the Canal is developed with industrial uses that
include large warehouse buildings and manufacturing plants with stacks, towers, silos,
conveyors, and other large industrial equipment, many viewers may nonetheless find that the
open water of the Canal provides an ii-therently scenic view. Some viewers likely consider views
along the Canal scenic by virtue of the expansiveness of the vista that the open waterway
provides. Althougl-t aesthetic concerns are inherently subjective, many people find open water
vistas to be scenic and desirable, even with extensive shoreline development. Therefore, for
purposes of this discussion, views of and from the Canal are considered to constitute a scenic
vista.
The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on this scenic vista because no
new development would be authorized by the proposed property transfer. While the transfer
and associated lifting of the Corps' permitting moratorium is expected to lead to future
proposals for improvements within the affected properties, there are no current plans for
development at specific properties along the Canal. Any future development proposals will be
subject to discretionary review by the City and pertinent regulatory agencies such as the
RWQCB and BCDC, and will also require separate compliance with CEQA.
Less Than
I
Significant
Potentially With Than
fic'n
Significant Mitigation S!, 9 n "I ot No
Impact Incorporated Impact impact
J') Stibstivitiolly daiiiage scenic 1-esources, inchidin�g Init
11()t liijiit(t(l to, trecs, rock o0croppi119s, and hi,-toric
1711ildings within a state scenic highway?
Explanation: There are no State- designated scenic highways in the vicinity o f the project site.
California Department of Transportation, OfficialIN, Designated State Scenic Highways, accessed April 13, 2016 at:
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 41
Than
Significant
Potentialty with
Less Than
Significant l Mitigation
Significant NO
Impact incorporated
Impact Impact
e
a) HaVe ii S1I17St(1IIti(11 adz,?erse e ct oil it sccilic viSt17?
ff
1 0 0
—1
FX
Ex2la : Although the Oakland side of the Canal is developed with industrial uses that
include large warehouse buildings and manufacturing plants with stacks, towers, silos,
conveyors, and other large industrial equipment, many viewers may nonetheless find that the
open water of the Canal provides an ii-therently scenic view. Some viewers likely consider views
along the Canal scenic by virtue of the expansiveness of the vista that the open waterway
provides. Althougl-t aesthetic concerns are inherently subjective, many people find open water
vistas to be scenic and desirable, even with extensive shoreline development. Therefore, for
purposes of this discussion, views of and from the Canal are considered to constitute a scenic
vista.
The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on this scenic vista because no
new development would be authorized by the proposed property transfer. While the transfer
and associated lifting of the Corps' permitting moratorium is expected to lead to future
proposals for improvements within the affected properties, there are no current plans for
development at specific properties along the Canal. Any future development proposals will be
subject to discretionary review by the City and pertinent regulatory agencies such as the
RWQCB and BCDC, and will also require separate compliance with CEQA.
Less Than
I
Significant
Potentially With Than
fic'n
Significant Mitigation S!, 9 n "I ot No
Impact Incorporated Impact impact
J') Stibstivitiolly daiiiage scenic 1-esources, inchidin�g Init
11()t liijiit(t(l to, trecs, rock o0croppi119s, and hi,-toric
1711ildings within a state scenic highway?
Explanation: There are no State- designated scenic highways in the vicinity o f the project site.
California Department of Transportation, OfficialIN, Designated State Scenic Highways, accessed April 13, 2016 at:
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 41
Explanation: The proposed project would not authorize new development, and therefore would
not have potential to substantially degrade the visual character of the Canal. The only
reasonably anticipated visual changes that could occur following implementation of the project
would be potential future improvements to dilapidated shoreline structures such as docks and
piers, which would have a beneficial effect on shoreline aesthetics in the immediate vicinity. It
would be speculative to identify any other potential changes, which, in any event, would be
subject to separate discretionary approval and environmental review pursuant to CEQA..
Less data
Poten ally Signet
Slm i t with Less Than
i W i atlon 4 Significant
Impact t Incorporated Impact j Impact
d) Crenate ra 7aeav sot -irce of saatastraratial light or glaare ai)lticla
I r o'uld adversely gffect daatr or niglatffin e irewc rr the
rare a a
Explanation, No new sources of lighting or glare are expected to result from approval of the
project.
Initial Study
42 OAKLAND INNER HAltl3Ul: TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Ii. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES — In determining zvhether impacts to agrictfIfitral resoiirces
are significant environmental effects, lead agencies )nai './ refer 10 the California Laild Evaluation and Site
Assessment Model (1997) prepared bil the California be[7t. Of COIISerVO1i`0JI as 011 Oit)HO11171 Model to list, in
assessing impacts on agrictilttire and farnila;id. III deterinining whether impacts to ' forest resotirces,
in chiding timberland, are significant eiivironniciital effects, lead agencies inay ruler to information
compiled by [lie California Del)ai . -Nnmf of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the State's inventory of
forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Pro - ject and the Forestry Legacy Assessinent
Project, and ' forest carbon MeaStireinent methodology provided in Forest Protocols at"10I)ted by the
California Air Resotirces Board. Woiihl the project:
Less Tian
Significant
Potentially with Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant 'I No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
a) Convert Prhne Farrnlaiid, Llniiiiie Farmland, or
Farinland of State-alide Importance (Farmland), as
shou7n on the reaps prepared plirsilant to the ED
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the 1
Califcrrn.ia Resources Agency, to non-agrictilitiral
ifse.2
Explanation: The Canal is designated as Water and all surrounding lands are designated
"Urban and Built—Up Land" on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program (FMJv1P) by the Department of Conservation (DOC), a department of the
California Resources Agency," The DOC updates the maps every two years; the most recent
map was prepared in 2012 and published in 2014. Since the project site does not contain any
Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, there is no potential
for conversion of these types of farmlands.
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant
Frith Less Than
Mitigation significant No
Impact Incorporated I Impact Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agrictiltia-al Ilse, or
El 0 0 Fx
a Willianison Act contract?
Explanation: The project property is not zoned for agricultural use or under a Williamson Act
contract.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program, "Alameda County Important Farmland 2012" (map), April 2014.
Initial Shady
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 43
I
Less Than
Less Than
I
Potent-ally
Significant
With
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Significant
Impact
Mft4ation
Significant NO
impact
Incorporated
Impact impact
c) Conflict ivith existing Zoning Jbr, or cause rezoning
Incotporated
impact impact
of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Cocte
Result in the loss of forcst band orconversion (00rest
1:1
0
Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined III Atblic
land to a non-
,forest use?
Fx
Resources Code Section 4526), or fitliberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by Government
Code Section 51104(g))?
Explanation: The project site is not zoned as forest land and there is no forest land on the site.
The proposed project would therefore have no impact on forest or timber land.
Explanation: Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) defines forest land as land that can
support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, tinder natural
conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber,
aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
There is no forest land on the project site as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g).
--Cess Tfum
Potentially Significant
Significant with Less Than
Impact Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Involve other chanQes in the existing enVironinent
Which, due to thclr)ocation or nature, cotild result III
conversion of Farmland to non-aQricultural use or Mx
conversion of forest land to non - forest use?
Explanation: The project site does not contain, farmland or forest land, and implementation of
the proposed project would therefore have no potential to convert such lands to other uses,
Initial Study
44 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Less Than
I
IF
Potentially
Significant
Significant
With
Mitigation
l Less Than
Sigmficant No
impact
Incotporated
impact impact
d)
Result in the loss of forcst band orconversion (00rest
1:1
0
MX
land to a non-
,forest use?
i
Explanation: Public Resources Code Section 12220(g) defines forest land as land that can
support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, tinder natural
conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber,
aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
There is no forest land on the project site as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g).
--Cess Tfum
Potentially Significant
Significant with Less Than
Impact Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Involve other chanQes in the existing enVironinent
Which, due to thclr)ocation or nature, cotild result III
conversion of Farmland to non-aQricultural use or Mx
conversion of forest land to non - forest use?
Explanation: The project site does not contain, farmland or forest land, and implementation of
the proposed project would therefore have no potential to convert such lands to other uses,
Initial Study
44 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
III. AIR QUALITY — Where az,ailablel the 1 iun ifica n ce criteria establislied by the applicable air
0 - -
quality inanagetneni or air P01111tioll Control district array be relied tipon to inakc the 'following
detenninations, Wotild the project:
Explanation: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted its 2010 Bay
Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act
(CCAA) to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to
reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a single,
integrated plan; and establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the
2010 through 2012 timeframe. The BAAQMD is currently in the process of updating the CAP,
but has not yet released a draft for public review. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area CAP
are to:
• Attain air quality standards;
• Reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and
• Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.
When a public agency contemplates approving a project where an air quality plan consistency
determination is required, BAAQMD recommends that the agency analyze the project with
respect to the following questions: (1) Does the project support the primary goals of the air
quality plan; (2) Does the project include applicable control measures from the air quality plan;
and (3) Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any 2010 CAP control measures? If
the first two questions are concluded in the affirmative and the third question concluded in the
negative, the BAAQMD considers the project consistent with air quality plans prepared for the
Bay Area.
Any project that would not support the 2010 CAP goals Would not be considered consistent
with the 2010 CAP. The recommended measure for determining project support of these goals
is consistency with BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance. If a proposed project would not
exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds, it is considered to support the, 0 primary goals of
'
the 2010 CAP. As discussed in more detail in Section. 111(b), the Tidal Canal transfer would not
exceed the BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance.
The proposed project would not interfere with the primary goals of the 201.0 CAP and none of
the adopted 2016 CAP control measures, which generally pertain to stationary sources of
pollutants and transportation control measures, would not be applicable to the project.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 CAP.
Initial surd}.
OAKLAND INNER HARHORTIDAL CANAL TRANSFEIR 45
Less Than
I
Significant
Potentially With
Less Than
Significant Mitigation
Significant 1 No
Impact 1 Incorporated
Impact 1 impact
a) Conflict zvitil or obstruct initilenrentation of file
C1 0
0 rx-1
applicable air i,111171i(Il P11711?
Explanation: The Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) adopted its 2010 Bay
Area Clean Air Plan (CAP) in accordance with the requirements of the California Clean Air Act
(CCAA) to implement all feasible measures to reduce ozone; provide a control strategy to
reduce ozone, particulate matter, air toxics, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in a single,
integrated plan; and establish emission control measures to be adopted or implemented in the
2010 through 2012 timeframe. The BAAQMD is currently in the process of updating the CAP,
but has not yet released a draft for public review. The primary goals of the 2010 Bay Area CAP
are to:
• Attain air quality standards;
• Reduce population exposure and protect public health in the Bay Area; and
• Reduce GHG emissions and protect the climate.
When a public agency contemplates approving a project where an air quality plan consistency
determination is required, BAAQMD recommends that the agency analyze the project with
respect to the following questions: (1) Does the project support the primary goals of the air
quality plan; (2) Does the project include applicable control measures from the air quality plan;
and (3) Does the project disrupt or hinder implementation of any 2010 CAP control measures? If
the first two questions are concluded in the affirmative and the third question concluded in the
negative, the BAAQMD considers the project consistent with air quality plans prepared for the
Bay Area.
Any project that would not support the 2010 CAP goals Would not be considered consistent
with the 2010 CAP. The recommended measure for determining project support of these goals
is consistency with BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance. If a proposed project would not
exceed the BAAQMD significance thresholds, it is considered to support the, 0 primary goals of
'
the 2010 CAP. As discussed in more detail in Section. 111(b), the Tidal Canal transfer would not
exceed the BAAQMD CEQA thresholds of significance.
The proposed project would not interfere with the primary goals of the 201.0 CAP and none of
the adopted 2016 CAP control measures, which generally pertain to stationary sources of
pollutants and transportation control measures, would not be applicable to the project.
Therefore, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the 2010 CAP.
Initial surd}.
OAKLAND INNER HARHORTIDAL CANAL TRANSFEIR 45
Explanation: The project would be located in a region that experiences occasional violations of
standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (.EPA) for ozone (0), respirable
particulate platter equal to or less than 10 microns (PM1, ), and fine particulate matter equal. to or
less than 2.5 microns (PM, 5). However, the project would, not authorize or result in construction
or operation of new development, and therefore would not have the potential to contribute
substantially to these violations.
Although it is reasonable foreseeable that future proposals would be made to improve existing
deteriorated docks, piers, and other shoreline structures once the Corps' permitting moratorium
is removed following project implementation, such work would be limited in scope and would
be subject to subsequent discretionary review.
BAA MD`s June 2010 CE QA guidelines include= screening criteria that are indicative of a
project's potential to exceed the thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. The
screening criteria are not in themselves thresholds of significance. Consequently, projects
exceeding the screening criteria lay not have significant air quality impacts, but quantified.
modeling of air emissions is recommended for such projects so that an accurate assessment of
potential impacts can be made.
The screening criteria are keyed to different kinds of land use development projects that entail
the construction and operation of buildings. The construction criteria are based on the potential
area of land disturbance, because it is during site grading and paving activities that the majority
of construction emissions are generated. For most of the land use types for which BAAQMD has
established screening criteria based on area of disturbance, the threshold for potential
construction - related impacts is 277,000 square feet. By comparison, any repairs of docks or ether
shoreline improvements that could occur following transfer of the Canal property would be
expected to be limited to a disturbance area of a few hundred square feet, though in most cases
it would be far less. Therefore, any short -term emissions that could result from dock repairs
would be fair below the threshold at which a quantified analysis is recommended, and would
not have any potential to violate air quality standards. No operational emissions would result
from implementation of the project.
As noted above, the BAAQMD screening criteria for construction impacts are based on
potential emissions of criteria air pollutants, and projects that do not exceed the thresholds are
deemed to have a less- than - significant impact on air quality. However, even for project -, that are
below the screening criteria, BAAQMD recommends implementation of its Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures to control fugitive dust emissions, which also contribute to reduced air
quality.
Initial Study
46 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Less Than
PPotentially
ote
i�nT� can# ;
with Less Than
(cant
ItTtpact'
Ml ation Si��ra� rat � € #
Incorporated Impact I rt
17) Violate any lair g1-117likil standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or pro- jected air riittilit2y
El
11 Et'_`I L
violation.?
i
.i
Explanation: The project would be located in a region that experiences occasional violations of
standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (.EPA) for ozone (0), respirable
particulate platter equal to or less than 10 microns (PM1, ), and fine particulate matter equal. to or
less than 2.5 microns (PM, 5). However, the project would, not authorize or result in construction
or operation of new development, and therefore would not have the potential to contribute
substantially to these violations.
Although it is reasonable foreseeable that future proposals would be made to improve existing
deteriorated docks, piers, and other shoreline structures once the Corps' permitting moratorium
is removed following project implementation, such work would be limited in scope and would
be subject to subsequent discretionary review.
BAA MD`s June 2010 CE QA guidelines include= screening criteria that are indicative of a
project's potential to exceed the thresholds of significance for criteria air pollutants. The
screening criteria are not in themselves thresholds of significance. Consequently, projects
exceeding the screening criteria lay not have significant air quality impacts, but quantified.
modeling of air emissions is recommended for such projects so that an accurate assessment of
potential impacts can be made.
The screening criteria are keyed to different kinds of land use development projects that entail
the construction and operation of buildings. The construction criteria are based on the potential
area of land disturbance, because it is during site grading and paving activities that the majority
of construction emissions are generated. For most of the land use types for which BAAQMD has
established screening criteria based on area of disturbance, the threshold for potential
construction - related impacts is 277,000 square feet. By comparison, any repairs of docks or ether
shoreline improvements that could occur following transfer of the Canal property would be
expected to be limited to a disturbance area of a few hundred square feet, though in most cases
it would be far less. Therefore, any short -term emissions that could result from dock repairs
would be fair below the threshold at which a quantified analysis is recommended, and would
not have any potential to violate air quality standards. No operational emissions would result
from implementation of the project.
As noted above, the BAAQMD screening criteria for construction impacts are based on
potential emissions of criteria air pollutants, and projects that do not exceed the thresholds are
deemed to have a less- than - significant impact on air quality. However, even for project -, that are
below the screening criteria, BAAQMD recommends implementation of its Basic Construction
Mitigation Measures to control fugitive dust emissions, which also contribute to reduced air
quality.
Initial Study
46 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
The project does not propose or auti-torize any construction. Reasonably foreseeable
construction associated with clock repair would be subject to separate discretionary review and
any potentially significant impacts associated with construction of future repairs Would be
addressed in subsequent CEQA review for those repairs. No long-term operational traffic
would be generated by the project. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less -than-
significant impact on air quality due to long-term operational CO exhaust emissions.
Less Than
Potentially Significam
Pith 1 Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
Impact
Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Result in a ctantilatively considerable net increase of
any criteria poll it tant for which the project region is
non-attainment under an applicable ' federal or state ED 0
ambient air i1nality standard (including releasing
emissions iohich exceed iltiantitative thresholds for
ozone precti rsors) ?
Explanation: As discussed in Section 111(b), the proposed project would not result in the
generation of long-term operational emissions of criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the project
Would not contribute to cumulative air quality effects, Furthermore, BAAQMD's thresholds of
significance were developed to identify a cumulatively considerable contribution to a
significant regional air quality impact, and the 13AAQMD CEQA Air Qtiality Guidelines state that
projects that would have a less-than-significant project-level impact on air quality would also
have a less - than - significant cumulative impact.
lass Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated impact impact
d) Expose sensitive receptors to sribstantial polltitant
concentrations?
_11X
Explanation: According to BAAQMD's CEQA Air Quali(y Guidelines and Air Toxics Nezv Source
Revieiv Program I'len1th Risk Screening Analysis Giiidelines, health effects from carcinogenic air
toxics are usually described in terms of individual cancer risk. Individual cancer risk is the
likelihood that a person exposed to concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TACs) such as
diesel particulate matter (DPM) over a 70-year lifetime will contract cancer, based on the use of
standard risk-assessment methodology.'' The maximally exposed individual represents the
worst-case risk estimate, based on a theoretical person continuously exposed for 30 years at the
point of highest compound concentration in the air. This is a highly conservative assumption,
since most people do not remain at home all clay and on average residents change residences
every 11, to 12 years. In addition, this assumption assumes that residents are experiencing
outdoor concentrations for the entire exposure period. While the project could enable future
proposals for shoreline repair that could generate short-term emissions from diesel-fueled
equipment, the exact emission levels are speculative at this time and likely would be limited in
Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Air'roxics New Source Review Program Health Risk Screening
Analysis Guidelines. January 2010.
ir, , 20 i oxic-'
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TR ANSFER 47
both volume and duration, and would. be reviewed as part of a separate discretionarNT review
process.
Explanation. Though offensive odors from stationary and mobile sources rarely cause any
physical harm, they still remain unpleasant and can lead to public distress, generating citizen
complaints to local governments. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on the
nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of
receptors. Geiierally, odor emissions are highly dispersive, especially in areas with higher
average wind speeds. However, odors disperse less quickly during inversions or during calm,
conditions, which hamper vertical mixing and dispersion.
The proposed project does not include any construction or development. Accordingly, there
would be no objectionable odors associated with the project. It is possible that future
improvements may be proposed as a result Of this project that would involve diesel - fueled
equipment generating exhaust. The extent of such construction and associated equipment and
exhaust is speculative at this time and would be subject to subsequent discretionary review,
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES — Wotild the project:
Explanation: The Tidal Canal is hydrologically connected to the Central Bay of San Francisco
Bay, which is a highly dynamic marine region due to strong tidal currents. The benthic
substrate in the Central Bay is comprised of course to fine sediments and rocky otitcrops.The
dominant benthic species in the Central Bay is the clam Macorna balthica, particularly in the
intertidal areas. Common sub-tidal species include the Mollusks Mya arenan . a, Geninia,
Mitscidista senhot-isia, and Venerlipis ph illipilla I'll 111; the amphipods Ainpelisca abdita, Grarldierella
.japonica, and Corophiton sp.; and the polychaetes Streblospio benedicti, Glilcinde sp., and Poly(iora
sp. In its Environmental Assessment prepared by the Corps for the proposed transfer of the
Tidal Canal (which included transfer of the Oakland side of the Canal, which is a larger project
Initial Study
48 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Les s Than
Potentiaq
Significant
With
Less Than
Signiftant
Impact
Mitigation
Significant
140
Incorporated
Impact
impact
17) Have a sid7stantial adverse t ect, either or
y
throtWh habitat irtod flcations, on any species
ident�fled as a candidate, sensitive, at- special status
species in local or regional plans, policies, or
regidations, or by the Califivnin Departiptent of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Explanation: The Tidal Canal is hydrologically connected to the Central Bay of San Francisco
Bay, which is a highly dynamic marine region due to strong tidal currents. The benthic
substrate in the Central Bay is comprised of course to fine sediments and rocky otitcrops.The
dominant benthic species in the Central Bay is the clam Macorna balthica, particularly in the
intertidal areas. Common sub-tidal species include the Mollusks Mya arenan . a, Geninia,
Mitscidista senhot-isia, and Venerlipis ph illipilla I'll 111; the amphipods Ainpelisca abdita, Grarldierella
.japonica, and Corophiton sp.; and the polychaetes Streblospio benedicti, Glilcinde sp., and Poly(iora
sp. In its Environmental Assessment prepared by the Corps for the proposed transfer of the
Tidal Canal (which included transfer of the Oakland side of the Canal, which is a larger project
Initial Study
48 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
not addressed in this Initial Study), the Corps concluded that the project would have almost no
long-term effects on benthic species.'
The Oakland 1--larbor is designated as Essential Fish Habitat by the National Marine Fisheries
Service for five Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU) of salmonids: the endangered Sacramento
winter-run chinook salmon ESU (Oncorhynclais tshaw'Iftsclia), the threatened Central Valley
spring-run chinook salmon ESU (Oncorhyncluis tshawiltscha), the threatened Central California
Coast steelhead ESU (Oncorhynchus in kiss), the threatened Central Valley steelhead ESU
(Oncorhipiclitis inykiss), and the Central Valley fall/late fall-run chinook salmon ESU
(011corhylichus tshawytscha), a candidate species. While these species are reported as possibly
occurring in small numbers in the Oakland Harbor during their migration seasons, they are not
found in the Canal.' The proposed project does not involve any construction and would not
affect sensitive fish species or other biological resources in the area. , The level of impacts
associated with subsequent repairs proposed along the waterfront is speculative at this time
and Would be analyzed (and mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent CEQA review
process.
Based on the above information., the proposed project would have no impact on special-status
species.
Explanation: Being a marine environment, there is no riparian habitat present on or in
proximity to the project site. The shoreline of the Canal is largely comprised of hardened
bulkheads, rip-rap, or pilings and docks above sloped earthen banks. As noted in Section IV(a),
above, the Oakland Harbor is designated as Essential Fish Habitat for five salmon species, but
they have not been found in the Canal. The proposed project does not involve any construction
and will not affect any riparian or other sensitive natural community. The extent of impacts
associated with future repairs of shoreline docks and other shoreline improvements are
speculative at this time and, while not expected to adversely affect any sensitive natural
Community, would be analyzed (and mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent discretionary
review process.
US. Army Corps of Engineers, Dra mno en
' I't Enz,iroital Assessment: Oakland hmer Harbor Tidal Canal Sm-phis Prol.,;erfy
Di-vestiture, Alametta Coim y, Fis(-al Year 2014, June 2014(a).
Jbid.
Initial -Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 49
Less Than
III
Potentially
significant
With Less Than
Significanl
Impact
Mitigation Significant
No
Inc omorated Impact
Impact
b) Have 11 stibstantial adverse c cl on a riparian
.ffe any
habitat or other sensitive nahlral C01711711111ity
identified in local or 1 -e Tonal plans, policies,
FX_1 I
regtilations, or by the California Departinent of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish arni Wildlife Service?
Explanation: Being a marine environment, there is no riparian habitat present on or in
proximity to the project site. The shoreline of the Canal is largely comprised of hardened
bulkheads, rip-rap, or pilings and docks above sloped earthen banks. As noted in Section IV(a),
above, the Oakland Harbor is designated as Essential Fish Habitat for five salmon species, but
they have not been found in the Canal. The proposed project does not involve any construction
and will not affect any riparian or other sensitive natural community. The extent of impacts
associated with future repairs of shoreline docks and other shoreline improvements are
speculative at this time and, while not expected to adversely affect any sensitive natural
Community, would be analyzed (and mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent discretionary
review process.
US. Army Corps of Engineers, Dra mno en
' I't Enz,iroital Assessment: Oakland hmer Harbor Tidal Canal Sm-phis Prol.,;erfy
Di-vestiture, Alametta Coim y, Fis(-al Year 2014, June 2014(a).
Jbid.
Initial -Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 49
Explanation: The proposed Canal transfer would not authorize any removal or filling of
wetlands or other waters subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Regional
Water Quality Control Board under Section 4014 of the Clean Water Act. Ally such actions would
require separate review and approval by these agencies, the City of Alameda, and the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
Le;& Than
Significant
S Potentially
i
I 'With
Less Than i
Sggnifficant
1014th
Significant Mitigation
Impact
� Significant NO
Impact
Incorporated
impact Impact,
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
lr=rWalad '
protectetl u>etlan-ds 173 defined by Section 404 of the
d) Interfere stibstantialh'l with fire 1novellie tt of any
r
Cleary Water Act (including, but not limited to,
0 MX
marsh, Vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
r emoval, Elting, hydrological interruption, or other
Q
0
means?
wildlife Corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
Explanation: The proposed Canal transfer would not authorize any removal or filling of
wetlands or other waters subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or Regional
Water Quality Control Board under Section 4014 of the Clean Water Act. Ally such actions would
require separate review and approval by these agencies, the City of Alameda, and the San
Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission.
Explanation: See Section lV(a) regarding migratory salmon species. There is no other suitable
habitat on or in the vicinity of the project site with the potential to function as a n- migratory
wildlife corridor.
Less Than
Potentially 1 Significant
€
Significant Less Than,
Impact Mitigation Significant No
i Incorporated Impact impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances -
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
i preservation policy or ordinance?
Explanation: The proposed project would not entail or authorize the removal of any trees and
would not have any adverse effects on biological resources. Therefore, the project Would not
conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Initial Study
50 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL, CANAL TRANSFER
Leas Than
Potentially
Significant
Sggnifficant
1014th
Less Then
Impact
Mitigaiian
Significant NO
lr=rWalad '
Impact Impact
d) Interfere stibstantialh'l with fire 1novellie tt of any
r
native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or
i with any established native resident or nir gratvey
Q
0
El n
wildlife Corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites?
Explanation: See Section lV(a) regarding migratory salmon species. There is no other suitable
habitat on or in the vicinity of the project site with the potential to function as a n- migratory
wildlife corridor.
Less Than
Potentially 1 Significant
€
Significant Less Than,
Impact Mitigation Significant No
i Incorporated Impact impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances -
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
i preservation policy or ordinance?
Explanation: The proposed project would not entail or authorize the removal of any trees and
would not have any adverse effects on biological resources. Therefore, the project Would not
conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.
Initial Study
50 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL, CANAL TRANSFER
Less Tnan I
Less Than
Potentially 3
Significant i
Impact
Significant
With I Less Than
Mitigation 1 Significant
Incoiporated 1 impact
NO
Impact
f) CollfliCt 70it/I f1le p�-OZ,jSjo)IS Of 011 adopted PlaNtat
Potentially
Conservation Plan, Natural Coliplintinity
,1
Coarser oration Plan, or other approved local, regional, I
or state habitat conservation t1lau? I
Significant
Explanation: There is no adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP) applicable to the City of
Alameda.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES — Would the protect;
Explanation: In order to be considered a significant historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, a building must be at least 50 years old. In addition, Section
15064.5 defines an historical resource as, "... a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for
listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources," properties included in. a local register
of historical resources, or properties deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public
Resources Code Section 5024,1(g). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3), a lead,
agency can determine that a resource is significant in the architectural, 1, engineering, scientific,
economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or Cultural annals of California,
provided that the determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole
record.
In order to be 0
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, a property
must meet at least one of the following criteria:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution, to the broad
patterns of California's history and Cultural heritage;
• Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values;
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.'
4 California Resources Agency, CEQA Giddelines, Section 15064.5(a)(3), as amended October 23, 2009.
Initial StLidy
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
51
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With Less Than
Significant
Mitigation Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated Impact
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse cliange in tiie
sigiirflcance of a Historical resource as defined in
0
Mx
§15064,5?
Explanation: In order to be considered a significant historical resource as defined in Section
15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines, a building must be at least 50 years old. In addition, Section
15064.5 defines an historical resource as, "... a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for
listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources," properties included in. a local register
of historical resources, or properties deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public
Resources Code Section 5024,1(g). According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(a)(3), a lead,
agency can determine that a resource is significant in the architectural, 1, engineering, scientific,
economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or Cultural annals of California,
provided that the determination is supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole
record.
In order to be 0
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, a property
must meet at least one of the following criteria:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution, to the broad
patterns of California's history and Cultural heritage;
• Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of
construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses
high artistic values;
• Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history.'
4 California Resources Agency, CEQA Giddelines, Section 15064.5(a)(3), as amended October 23, 2009.
Initial StLidy
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
51
The following evaluation of historic resources within and adjacent to the Tidal Canal is
excerpted, with minor edits, from an Environmental Assessment (EA) prepared for the
proposed project by the Corps, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). "
The Corps' EA covers a larger project than the project evaluated in this Initial Study; it includes
transfer of the Oakland side of the Tidal Canal to the City of Oakland or another public agency
(currently anticipated to be the East Bay Regional Parks District). Insofar as the Corps' findings
apply to the proposed Canal (Alameda side) transfer to the City of Alameda, those findings
remain valid for this environmental review conducted in accordance with the requirements of
CEQA and are included below.
The Corps is required to comply with the historic preservation laces and regulations when an
undertaking is proposed for a federally authorized project. It is the Corps' responsibility to
make a reasonable and good- faith effort to identify historic properties (properties eligible for, or
listed in the National. Register of Historic Places), within an Area of Potential Effects (APE) that
may be affected by the proposed project. historic properties include, for example,
archaeological sites, historic structures, submerged shipwrecks and traditional cultural
properties that are determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP). An APE is a geographical area in which a project may cause (directly or indirectly)
changes in the character or use of a historic property.
A review of project documents, and consideration of any previously identified historic
properties as well as those cultural resources not yet evaluated for the NRI1P, will generally be
sufficient to determine whether there are potential project effects to such resources. The Corps
provides a determination to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with
36 CFR Part 800, the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National 1- listoric Preservation
Act, as amended (NJ-IPA). Section 106 provides the guidelines by which federal agencies meet
statutory responsibilities for historic preservation. concerns and the needs of federal
undertakings.
Because the Oakland Inner Harbor has not been repeatedly been dredged, and no new channel
or ground- disturbing; activities are proposed, the Corps believes it is reasonable not to conduct
aquatic or terrestrial surveys for these previously disturbed parts of the APE. In keeping with
Corps planning guidance for projects that do not involve new work, the Corps relied on existing
information in the project and cultural resources files. The files revealed that from the 1970's
through the 1990's the Corps funded archaeological surveys designed to inventory historic
resources for their operating projects in the Oakland Inner Harbor for navigation, maintenance
dredging, dredged- material disposal, and for construction.
Dredging in the Federal channel (Canal) is an ongoing aquatic maintenance activity. No known
historic properties are located within the Federal channel. Historic research indicates that the
Oakland Estuary was the location of mangy= historic shipwrecks dating from the 19`}' Century.
Many ships were abandoned, at the end of the Inner Harbor, following the Gold Rush when the
maritime trade significantly declined (Corps 1984). During the 1930's a Works Progress
Administration (WPA)- sponsored project removed obstacles to navigation and cleaned
navigable graters of visible obstacles. As discussed in Section VIII(b), a geophysical bathymetric
survey of the Canal conducted by the Corps in 2014 identified approximately 30 sunken boats
were located on the Canal floor, ranging from wooden rowboats to metal tugboats, and
additional decayed remains of other beats are scattered throughout the Canal. In the last five
years, the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) promptly marked the sunken Tug Respect with buoys,
which is located just west of Park. Street Bridge. Its location is also marked on the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NC >AA) navigation chart of that area. There is also
to anthropological literature, the C:ostamans are often referred to as the Ohlone.
Initial Study
52 OAKLAND INNER HA[ BOR TIDAL CANAL TRAWER
the Tug Captain Al, one other Sunken vessel, and two barges sunk in the same area not marked.
The Corps removed two vessels, the M / V Elizabeth A and the Submarine Chaser Hooker.
The Corps conducted an updated records search and survey for historic resources in February
2003 and in September 2006. No historic properties listed in the NRHP were identified within
the project APE. Previous environmental documents (Corps 1980, 1988; Corps and Port of
Oakland 1999) identified no Native American resources in or near the OIHTC and did not find
any sites, areas, or materials important to Native Americans for religious, spiritual, economic or
traditional uses. No areas within the Ol1-fTC are known to be used for gathering, collecting, or
conducting ceremonies by either groups or individuals on land within or adjacent to the APE
appear to be pre-sent.
There are two historic properties adjacent to the project APE. The Park Street Bridge and the
High Street Bridge are eligible for the NRHP. The bridges are currently owned by Alameda
County and within the jurisdiction of the local authorities. The Fruitvale Avenue Railroad
Bridge is currently owned by the Corps. These bridges will not be affected by the federal
action..
The Fruitvale Avenue Railroad Bridge is being evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP. Federal
criteria are used for evaluating the significance of cultural resources. The federal significance
criteria for defining cultural resource significance and eligibility for listing on the NRHP are
established by the National Park Service (36 C.F.R. § 60.4), These criteria pertain to projects with
federal funding and or jurisdiction. For the purposes of this project the Fruitvale Avenue
Railroad Bridge is considered eligible under Criterion C.
The Cities of Oakland and Alameda are Certified Local Agencies with approved City
Development Plans that include historic preservation. The cities are responsible for the CEQX-
level environmental compliance for projects prior to making discretionary approvals on
projects,
'Me proposed project would not directly impact or adversely affect any potential prehistoric or
historical resources within the APE. Based on the current project description, the proposed
project would not result in adverse effects or significant impacts to any of the resources located
in the project -area; therefore, no further investigation or treatment of these resources is
recommended.
Explanation: The San Francisco Bay area was occupied by Native Americans as far back as 3,000
to 4,000 years ago. Prior to European contact, the project area was inhabited by the Penutian-
speaking Bay Miwok (referred to as "Costanoans" by Spanish) tribe of Native Annericans.11
By the 19"' century, forced missionization and the epidemic spread of western diseases had
reduced the Bay Miwok population significantly, resulting in the disappearance of local
tribelets, such as the Chochenyo, who inhabited the area now comprising the Alameda
Northern Waterfront. Buried Native American artifacts, including remnants of former
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 53
Less Than
Potentially Significant
with
Significant 9itk3ation
Impact Incorporated
is Than
Significant NG
Impact Impact
17) Caitse a stibstantial adverse change ill the
, gnificance of an archaeological resource pursnallt to
ST
FX-1
§15664.5?
Explanation: The San Francisco Bay area was occupied by Native Americans as far back as 3,000
to 4,000 years ago. Prior to European contact, the project area was inhabited by the Penutian-
speaking Bay Miwok (referred to as "Costanoans" by Spanish) tribe of Native Annericans.11
By the 19"' century, forced missionization and the epidemic spread of western diseases had
reduced the Bay Miwok population significantly, resulting in the disappearance of local
tribelets, such as the Chochenyo, who inhabited the area now comprising the Alameda
Northern Waterfront. Buried Native American artifacts, including remnants of former
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 53
settlements, have been encountered throughout the Bay Area, particularly adjacent or in
proximity to water sources, and could potentially be present at the project site.
In compliance with Assembly Bill (AB) 52, approved by the State Legislature in 2014, the City
contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to identify Native
American tribes that may have tribal cultural resources in the project area. The NAHC
responded, identifying the following tribal groups is having traditional lands or cultural places
within Alameda County: the An-yah Mutsun Tribal Band of Mission San Juan Bautista, Indian
Canyon Mutsun Band of Coastanoan, Muwekma Ohlone Indian Tribe of the SF Bay Area, the
Ohlone Indian Tribe, and the Coastanoan Rurnsen Carmel Tribe. Letters were sent to the
designated representatives of these tribes seeking their input regarding tribal cultural resources
that may be located in or adjacent to the Canal. At the time of publication of this Initial Studv
no responses from the contacted tribes had been received by the City. [CONFIRM]
While it is possible that buried prehistoric cultural materials may be present in the project area,
the potential to adversely affect any such resources, were they to exist, would be nonexistent
because the project does not involve any ground-disturbing o activities. Any subsequent
improvements proposed along the waterfront involving subsurface disturbance'likelv would
occur within, areas of prior disturbance. The level of impacts associated with subsequent repairs
proposed along d-te waterfront is speculative at this time and would be analyzed (and
mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent CEQA. review process.
necessary) -
Explanation: Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of vertebrate or invertebrate
organisms from prehistoric environments found. in geologic strata. They are valued for the
information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. They are
most typically embedded in sedimentary rock foundations, and may be encountered in surface
rock outcroppings or in the subsurface during site grading. The project area is underlain by
latest Pleistocene to Holocene dune sand, a form of alluvium.' Pleistocene alluvium is ranked
as highly sensitive for significant paleontological resources (the Pleistocene is the first epoch of
the Quaternary period) "" The project does not involve any subsurface disturbance and
accordingly, there is no potential for encountering paleontological resources in connection with
this project. Any subsequent improvements proposed along the waterfront involving
subsurface disturbance likely- would occur within areas of prior disturbance. Tile level of
impacts associated with subsequent repairs proposed along the waterfront is speculative at this
time and would be analyzed (and mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent discretionary
review process,
12 U.S. Geological Survey, Preliminary Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility, Nine-County
San Francisco Bay Region, California fmapl, 2000.
13 Kenneth L. Finger Ph.D., Consulting Paleontologist, Letter report to Michelle Touton, Archeo—Ter. Re:
Paleontological Records Search: Masonic Homes Flatlands Project, Union City, Alameda County, November 21,
2009,
Initial Study
54 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL, TRANSFER
Less Than
I
l' ten tt
Significant
With
Less Than
'ant
Impad
W"ation
1
Significant No
lr=rpmted
JmOaci Impact
0 Directly or indirectly destroy it 111i1que
I i
paleontological resource or site or unique geologic
0
0
0 FX-1
Explanation: Paleontological resources are the fossilized remains of vertebrate or invertebrate
organisms from prehistoric environments found. in geologic strata. They are valued for the
information they yield about the history of the earth and its past ecological settings. They are
most typically embedded in sedimentary rock foundations, and may be encountered in surface
rock outcroppings or in the subsurface during site grading. The project area is underlain by
latest Pleistocene to Holocene dune sand, a form of alluvium.' Pleistocene alluvium is ranked
as highly sensitive for significant paleontological resources (the Pleistocene is the first epoch of
the Quaternary period) "" The project does not involve any subsurface disturbance and
accordingly, there is no potential for encountering paleontological resources in connection with
this project. Any subsequent improvements proposed along the waterfront involving
subsurface disturbance likely- would occur within areas of prior disturbance. Tile level of
impacts associated with subsequent repairs proposed along the waterfront is speculative at this
time and would be analyzed (and mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent discretionary
review process,
12 U.S. Geological Survey, Preliminary Maps of Quaternary Deposits and Liquefaction Susceptibility, Nine-County
San Francisco Bay Region, California fmapl, 2000.
13 Kenneth L. Finger Ph.D., Consulting Paleontologist, Letter report to Michelle Touton, Archeo—Ter. Re:
Paleontological Records Search: Masonic Homes Flatlands Project, Union City, Alameda County, November 21,
2009,
Initial Study
54 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL, TRANSFER
Explanation: See Section V(b), above.
V1. -GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Wotild the project:
Less Than
F
Potentially
Significant
'With
Less Than
With Less Than
Significant
ICI igation
Significant 1 No
Impact
Incorporated I
Impact Impact
d) Disturb any litilijan reinabis, inclialing those
.
i
0
0
13 FE
interred olits ide of forinal ccincteries?
Explanation: See Section V(b), above.
V1. -GEOLOGY AND SOILS — Wotild the project:
a) aposc people or stnicttires to potential stilistaiitial
adverse effiects, hichiding the risk of loss, hi tiny, or
death itivolving:
i) Ruptiire of a known earthiltiake (atilt, as
delineated on the inost recent Altptist-Priolo
Earthquake Faidt Zoiihig Map isstied by the FX1
State Geologist - for the area or based on other
sitlistaritial evidence of a known faidt? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Exl2lanation: There is no known active earthquake fault located on or near the project site. The
nearest seismically active fault is the Hayward fault, located more than 3 miles east of the
project area, while the San Andreas fault lies about 17 miles to the west," There is therefore no
potential for fault rupture at the project site.
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Signi nt
with Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
incorporated Impact Impact
a) aposc people or stnicttires to potential stilistaiitial
adverse effiects, hichiding the risk of loss, hi tiny, or
death itivolving:
i) Ruptiire of a known earthiltiake (atilt, as
delineated on the inost recent Altptist-Priolo
Earthquake Faidt Zoiihig Map isstied by the FX1
State Geologist - for the area or based on other
sitlistaritial evidence of a known faidt? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.
Exl2lanation: There is no known active earthquake fault located on or near the project site. The
nearest seismically active fault is the Hayward fault, located more than 3 miles east of the
project area, while the San Andreas fault lies about 17 miles to the west," There is therefore no
potential for fault rupture at the project site.
Explanation: The San Francisco Bay Area is recognized by geologists and seismologists as one of
the most seismically active region in the United States. Similar to most urban locations
throughout the Bay Area, the project site is potentially subject to moderate to high seismic
ground shaking during an earthquake on one of the major active earthquake faults that transect
the region. Major earthquakes have occurred on the Hayward, Calaveras, and San Andreas
III U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquakes and Faults in the San Francisco Bay Area (1970-2003) [niap], August 2004.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
55
Less Than
Significant
Potentially
With Less Than
Significant
Mitigation Significant t No
Impact
Incorporated Impact Impact
ii) Strong seisitiicgi-t)iiiitishi7kiitg?
0
Ex-1
Explanation: The San Francisco Bay Area is recognized by geologists and seismologists as one of
the most seismically active region in the United States. Similar to most urban locations
throughout the Bay Area, the project site is potentially subject to moderate to high seismic
ground shaking during an earthquake on one of the major active earthquake faults that transect
the region. Major earthquakes have occurred on the Hayward, Calaveras, and San Andreas
III U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquakes and Faults in the San Francisco Bay Area (1970-2003) [niap], August 2004.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
55
faults dUring the past 200 years, and numerous rninor earthquakes occur along these faults
every year, At least five known earthquakes of Richter magnitude (RM) 6.5, four of them greater
than RM 7.0, have occurred within the San Francisco Bay Area within the last 150 years. This
includes the great 1908 San Francisco earthquake (moment magnitude 7.8) and the 1989 Lonia
Prieta earthquake (RIVI 6.9).
According to a 2014 analysis by the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities
(WGCEP), an expert panel co-chaired by U.S. Geological Society seismologists, there is a 72
percent probability that an earthquake of magnitude 6.7 or g'reater will occur in the San
Francisco Bay Area in the next 30 years and a 20 percent probability that all RM 7.5 earthquake
will occur (starting from 2014).' The WGCEP estimates there is a 14.3-percent chance of all RM
6.7 quake occurring on the Hayward fault in the next 30 years, It is therefore likely that a major
earthquake will be experienced in the region during the life of the project that could produce
strong seismic ground shaking at the project site, However, this is an existing risk to all
structures in the San Francisco Bay Area, which would not be exacerbated by the proposed
project. The project would not authorize construction of new structures or increase the
population of people in the project area, and would therefore not result in a new or increase
significant risk to people or structures from exposure to seismic ground shaking. Although
repairs to existing docks and other shoreline improvements; may be undertaken by some
property owners along the Canal following approval of the project, this work would be
analvzed under a separate discretionary review, would not generally increase the risk frorn
seismic shaking, and could improve the ability of repaired structures to withstand such
Exl2lanation: Liquefaction occurs when clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grained
soils are exposed to strong seismic ground shaking. The soils temporarily lose strength and
cohesion clue to buildup of excess pore water pressure during earthqUake-induced cyclic
loading, resulting in a loss of ground stability that can cause building foundation,-, to fail. Soil
liquefaction may also damage roads, pavements, pipelixtes, and underground cables. Soils
susceptible to liquefaction include saturated, loose to medium dense sand, and gravel, low-
plasticity silt, and some low-plasticity clay deposits.
The Alaniecla uplands flanking the Tidal Canal are mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey -is
having a moderate potential for liquefaction,." However, this is a pre-existing condition at the
project site that die proposed project would not alter. No new construction is proposed that
could be adversely affected by soil liquefaction or failure of other soils susceptible to seismic
failure. The Canal itself is not identified as a liquefaction zone. Therefore, the project Would not
increase the hazard related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
sEdward fl Field and Members oF the ZDI4Working Group *oCalifornia Earthquake Probabilities, O.S. Geological
Survev, California Geological Survey, OC2RP3/ A New Earthquake Forecast for [nlifi"/ia's [bmy&x Fault Sys/c",
USGS0pcn g}c Report 2015-3009, 2015.
/^
U,6. Dcyurtmeo/ of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 9,e|imionzy 8dapn of0uaue,nary Deposit, and Liquefaction
5uscepbbiUty, Nine'Co"n,ySun Francisco Day Region, California, Open File Report 00-444' 2000,
Initial Studii
56 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL. TQANGFEk
Less Than
Potentially With
Less Than
Significant hilifigation
Signiftant NO
Impact mwWated impact Impact
Exl2lanation: Liquefaction occurs when clean, loose, saturated, uniformly graded, fine-grained
soils are exposed to strong seismic ground shaking. The soils temporarily lose strength and
cohesion clue to buildup of excess pore water pressure during earthqUake-induced cyclic
loading, resulting in a loss of ground stability that can cause building foundation,-, to fail. Soil
liquefaction may also damage roads, pavements, pipelixtes, and underground cables. Soils
susceptible to liquefaction include saturated, loose to medium dense sand, and gravel, low-
plasticity silt, and some low-plasticity clay deposits.
The Alaniecla uplands flanking the Tidal Canal are mapped by the U.S. Geological Survey -is
having a moderate potential for liquefaction,." However, this is a pre-existing condition at the
project site that die proposed project would not alter. No new construction is proposed that
could be adversely affected by soil liquefaction or failure of other soils susceptible to seismic
failure. The Canal itself is not identified as a liquefaction zone. Therefore, the project Would not
increase the hazard related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
sEdward fl Field and Members oF the ZDI4Working Group *oCalifornia Earthquake Probabilities, O.S. Geological
Survev, California Geological Survey, OC2RP3/ A New Earthquake Forecast for [nlifi"/ia's [bmy&x Fault Sys/c",
USGS0pcn g}c Report 2015-3009, 2015.
/^
U,6. Dcyurtmeo/ of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 9,e|imionzy 8dapn of0uaue,nary Deposit, and Liquefaction
5uscepbbiUty, Nine'Co"n,ySun Francisco Day Region, California, Open File Report 00-444' 2000,
Initial Studii
56 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL. TQANGFEk
Explanation: The area surrounding the Canal is generally level, with minor variations in
elevations. There are no significant slopes in the project vicinity that Could be subject to
landslides. Furthermore, the project would not authorize construction of new structures or
increase the population, of people in the project area, and would therefore not result in a new or
increase significant risk to people or structures from exposure to landslides.
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
Signiffcant
Potentially with
Less Than
With
Significant Nlifigation
Significant No
Significant
Impact Incorporated
Impact i Impact
iv) Landslides?
Impact
rx- 1
Explanation: The area surrounding the Canal is generally level, with minor variations in
elevations. There are no significant slopes in the project vicinity that Could be subject to
landslides. Furthermore, the project would not authorize construction of new structures or
increase the population, of people in the project area, and would therefore not result in a new or
increase significant risk to people or structures from exposure to landslides.
Exl2tanation: The project does not involve any subsurface disturbance and accordingly, there is
no potential for substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil associated with the project. Once the
Corps' permitting moratorium is removed following project implementation, repair of existing
deteriorated docks, piers, and other shoreline structures may be proposed that could disturb
upland soils and cause erosion. The level of impacts associated with subsequent repairs
proposed along the waterfront likely would be limited in nature and would be analyzed (and
mitigated, as necessary} during a subsequent discretionary review process.
Less Than
Less Than
Potentially
Signiffcant
Significant
Potentilally
With
Less Than
Incorporated Impact Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
1i1 Result in stibstantial soil erosion or the loss of
landslide, lateral spreadiiig, st&sideiice, liqitiqfaction,
FX
El
topsoil?
Exl2tanation: The project does not involve any subsurface disturbance and accordingly, there is
no potential for substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil associated with the project. Once the
Corps' permitting moratorium is removed following project implementation, repair of existing
deteriorated docks, piers, and other shoreline structures may be proposed that could disturb
upland soils and cause erosion. The level of impacts associated with subsequent repairs
proposed along the waterfront likely would be limited in nature and would be analyzed (and
mitigated, as necessary} during a subsequent discretionary review process.
Explanation: The proposed project would not authorize construction of new Structures; any
future construction of new structures would be subject to separate environmental review. The
project therefore has no potential to increase the hazard related to unstable subsurface
conditions.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL, CANAL TRANSFER 57
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
with Less T han
Significant
N
Mitigation Significant o
impact
Incorporated Impact Impact
c) Be located on a geologic unit or sail that is tinstable..
or that zvould become WIStable as a restilt of the
project, and potentially result in on- or 4-site
0
11 11 0
landslide, lateral spreadiiig, st&sideiice, liqitiqfaction,
or collapse?
Explanation: The proposed project would not authorize construction of new Structures; any
future construction of new structures would be subject to separate environmental review. The
project therefore has no potential to increase the hazard related to unstable subsurface
conditions.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL, CANAL TRANSFER 57
witty Les, 'Than
iF significe nyt lt4aton signjkant No
i "Pae" Incorporated Impact impact
I
d) Be located on cwpansive soil, as defined in Table
18-1-B of fire Uniforin Building' Code (1994), 13 MX
creating substantial risks to life or properttl?
Explanation: The proposed project would not authorize Construction of new structures; any
future construction of neNv structures would be subject to separate environmental review. The
project therefore has no potential to increase the hazard related to expansive soils.
Less Than
Signicant
Potentially fi'J With Less Than
'
1 Significa I nt Mitigation Significant rq0
Impacl
1 incorporated Impact Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use
of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal
[3
systems where servers are not available ft-ir the 1 0 El FX_1
disposal of wastewater?
Explanation: The project area is served by a municipal sewer system, and the proposed project
would not require the use of a septic or alternative wastewater disposal system.
VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS — Would the project:
Less Than
Significant
Poterifially,
Significant wiffi Less Than
Impact Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
I a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a significant impact on fire [EX]
environinent?
Explanation: GHGs refer to gases that trap heat in the atmosphere and contribute to global
warming. The primary GHGs are carbon. dioxide (COO, methane (CH.,), nitrous oxide (NOJ,
sulfur hexafluoride (SEA), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs), and water
vapor (HO). The majority of GHG emissions in the Bay Area come from transportation (397
percent), -followed by industrial/ commercial sources (35.7 percent) and electricity generation
(14.0 percent). Construction equipment and other off-road equipment contribute 1.5 percent of
the total GHG emissions. 17
17 l3av Area Air Quality Managelflent, District, Bay Area Emissit)ns Inventory, Summary Report: Greenhotise Gases, Base
Year 201 ],Table F: 2011 Bay Area GHG ELmissions by Sector, updatedjanuary 2015.
Initial Study
58 OAKLAND INNER HAR130R TIDAL, CANAL TRANSFER
As discussed in Section 0(b), no operational air emissions, including emissions o[GBGs,
vou(dbe -euecatedby the ' Vthereareooeytxbbshedtkresbnldso[significance for
bur d emissions fG i the with criteria uUubznb�the groa�stputende|
construction emissions of GHGs is during grading and paving activities and, consequently, the
larger the area of disturbance, the greater the emissions of GHGs. Due to the very limited areas
of disturbance that are anticipated during shoreline repairs that could occur following project
approval, a quantified analysis of construction emissions of GHGs was deemed unwarranted. A
quantified analysis would also be impractical, due to the lack of specific information about tile
locations and nature of repairs that may be made. The specific level of GHG impacts associated
with the construction of subsequent repairs proposed along the waterfront witli potentially
significant impacts would. be analyzed (and mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent
CEQA review process.
Exl2lanation: In 2008 the City of Alameda adopted the Cit��l of Alaineda Local Action Plan for
Climate Protection, which provides a strategy for reducing emissions of GHGs in the city."' the
Local Action Plan establishes an overall goal of reducing community-wide GHG emissions by
25 percent below 2005 levels, by 2020 and sets forth specific in-itiatives for achieving this goal
that are organized into the following four categories: 1) transportation and land use; 2) energ
oy
3) waste and recycling; and 4) community outreach and education.
None oftile Local Action Plan initiatives would apply directly to the proposed project, u66uh
would not entail or authorize new uses or construction of new structures. Therefore, the project
would not conflict with the Local Action Plan.
V111. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — VVotdd the proliect:
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
potentially with
Less Than
Stgnificant Mitioation
Significant No
Less Than 1
Impact Incorp-orated
Impact Impact
Significant Mitigation
Significant I No
1?) Conflict -ivith arl applicable plan, policy, or regulation
adoptcrifior tile purpose of reducing the einissions of
0
FX-1
greenhouse g(7ses?
or the
use, or
Exl2lanation: In 2008 the City of Alameda adopted the Cit��l of Alaineda Local Action Plan for
Climate Protection, which provides a strategy for reducing emissions of GHGs in the city."' the
Local Action Plan establishes an overall goal of reducing community-wide GHG emissions by
25 percent below 2005 levels, by 2020 and sets forth specific in-itiatives for achieving this goal
that are organized into the following four categories: 1) transportation and land use; 2) energ
oy
3) waste and recycling; and 4) community outreach and education.
None oftile Local Action Plan initiatives would apply directly to the proposed project, u66uh
would not entail or authorize new uses or construction of new structures. Therefore, the project
would not conflict with the Local Action Plan.
V111. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS — VVotdd the proliect:
Explanation: The proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials. The project would not authorize any new development or expansion of
existing uses, any of which would be subject t&separate discretionary review and corripliance
'n(]/yo[4|mnoda' City ^f Alameda Local AuiiinPlvn.fov Climate Protection, adopted Februa,y53008.
Initial Study
OAKI,AND INNER HA880Q TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 59
Less Than
Significant
PotentiaRy With
Less Than 1
Significant Mitigation
Significant I No
impact Incorporated
Impact Impact
a)
Create it Sigll�fiCj?jlt ha7ard to the I (171iC
environnietit through tile routine traiisport,
or the
use, or
FRI 13
disposal qf hazardous Inaterials?
Explanation: The proposed project would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials. The project would not authorize any new development or expansion of
existing uses, any of which would be subject t&separate discretionary review and corripliance
'n(]/yo[4|mnoda' City ^f Alameda Local AuiiinPlvn.fov Climate Protection, adopted Februa,y53008.
Initial Study
OAKI,AND INNER HA880Q TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 59
with CEQA. The level of impacts associated with the construction of subsequent repairs
proposed along the waterfront is speculative at this time and would be analyzed (and
mitigated, as necessary) duririg a subsequent discretionary review process. It is anticipated that
while small, containerized q-Ltantities of hazardous materials such as solvents, cleaners,
architectural coatings, and similar substances could be used by property owners maldng repairs
to docks or other shoreline facilities, this would not be routine use and the small quantities
involved would be far below reporting thresholds; such use would not pose a significant flireat
to the environment.
Ex�)lanation: The Corps conducted a variety of geophysical and environmental investigations of
the Canal in preparation for divesting the property from federal Ownership, including a draft
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA.), - a draft Environmental Assessment in
compliance with NEPA 2" and a Phase I and 11 Baseline Study,2' The results of these
investigations are summarized below.
As noted dm the proposed Canal transfer would not involve use or transport.of significant
quantities of hazardous materials. The primary potential for release of hazardous materials into
the environment would therefore come from. potential disturbance, of hazardous materials that
may already be pre-sent in the water, bottom sediments, or shoreline soils of the Canal. Daily
tidal flushing within the Canal eliminates the potential for material buildup of locally sourced
contaminants in Canal water. Accordingly, the water medium was not sampled during the
Corps' investigations. The scouring action from the regular tidal flushing also prevents the
substantial accumulation of sediment on the Canal bottom. Therefore, soil samples were
collected using a Ponar grab sampler in areas where there was sufficient sediment
Shoreline soil could be influenced by contaminant deposition from both Canal water and
onshore activities. Because of tidal. flushing, the
contamination would be limited to immediately after an aquatic spill, especially of petroleum
nHzec Doetab|e substances. Onshore activities can affect the contaminant status n{ shoreline soil
through several mechanisms: accidental oz intentional releases (dumping), runoff from the land
Surface, and discharges from storm drains and other pipelines,
The Canal is a public waterway and is subject to potential contamination from passing vessel,-;
and from potential spills resulting from the refueling of craft from privately owned docks that
extend into the canal. A refueling station (Park Street Landing) exists oil adjacent property,
wU,S. Army Corps of Engineers, DvyY Oakland /vm, Harbor Tidal Cmod(70f7l] Silt, /"oes/igotioo,8uo( June 2N40,.
�U� Army Corps d Engineers, op, otJUop204a).
-'U£Aony Corps o[ Engineers, P6^sc/ mid DDne//,mS/xdy:Ov0o//J/m^r8m6m,lido[xnnt,Ruxl, July 2Ol4,
�Russell Resources, |nc, Summary Xqm,/oxOvk-lond bitter 8odm, Tidal [vmilEoahm/mmr6d[m/mmhmu/lssucs,May
12,2015,
Initial
bO OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Less Then
F
potentially
Significant
Less Than I
Significaht
Impact
Miligation
SigniticaWt NO
Incorporated
Impact Impact
b) Create a sigti�ficant hazard to the public or the,
environmeilt through reasonably foreseeable up et
S
0
0
13
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environntent?
Ex�)lanation: The Corps conducted a variety of geophysical and environmental investigations of
the Canal in preparation for divesting the property from federal Ownership, including a draft
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA.), - a draft Environmental Assessment in
compliance with NEPA 2" and a Phase I and 11 Baseline Study,2' The results of these
investigations are summarized below.
As noted dm the proposed Canal transfer would not involve use or transport.of significant
quantities of hazardous materials. The primary potential for release of hazardous materials into
the environment would therefore come from. potential disturbance, of hazardous materials that
may already be pre-sent in the water, bottom sediments, or shoreline soils of the Canal. Daily
tidal flushing within the Canal eliminates the potential for material buildup of locally sourced
contaminants in Canal water. Accordingly, the water medium was not sampled during the
Corps' investigations. The scouring action from the regular tidal flushing also prevents the
substantial accumulation of sediment on the Canal bottom. Therefore, soil samples were
collected using a Ponar grab sampler in areas where there was sufficient sediment
Shoreline soil could be influenced by contaminant deposition from both Canal water and
onshore activities. Because of tidal. flushing, the
contamination would be limited to immediately after an aquatic spill, especially of petroleum
nHzec Doetab|e substances. Onshore activities can affect the contaminant status n{ shoreline soil
through several mechanisms: accidental oz intentional releases (dumping), runoff from the land
Surface, and discharges from storm drains and other pipelines,
The Canal is a public waterway and is subject to potential contamination from passing vessel,-;
and from potential spills resulting from the refueling of craft from privately owned docks that
extend into the canal. A refueling station (Park Street Landing) exists oil adjacent property,
wU,S. Army Corps of Engineers, DvyY Oakland /vm, Harbor Tidal Cmod(70f7l] Silt, /"oes/igotioo,8uo( June 2N40,.
�U� Army Corps d Engineers, op, otJUop204a).
-'U£Aony Corps o[ Engineers, P6^sc/ mid DDne//,mS/xdy:Ov0o//J/m^r8m6m,lido[xnnt,Ruxl, July 2Ol4,
�Russell Resources, |nc, Summary Xqm,/oxOvk-lond bitter 8odm, Tidal [vmilEoahm/mmr6d[m/mmhmu/lssucs,May
12,2015,
Initial
bO OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
There is also potential for contamination of the Canal from spills and discharges that occur
outside the Canal boundaries that can be introduced into the Canal through tidal action, and
from adjacent properties via storinwater discharge.
Onshore activities on the Oakland shoreline are highly Unlikely to affect Alameda's shoreline.
The greatest potential for shoreline contamination along the Alameda side of the Canal is in the
area northwest of the FrUitvale Bridge, which is developed with con-u-nercial and industrial
uses. The shoreline southeast of this bridge is developed exclusively with residential land uses.
Because of the importance of onshore activities to the contaminant status of shoreline soil, the
residential shoreline is expected to be relatively less contaminated than the
commercial/industrial portion and, consequently, the collection of soil samples was more
focused on the commercial/ industrial shoreline.
Phase I Environmental Site Assessnient
The Phase I ESA included a review of publicly available local, State, and federal environmental
databases that identified the history of industrial activity along the Alameda side of the Canal
shoreline west of the Fruitvale Bridge. Table HM-1 provides a representative but non-
exhaustive list of parcels and addresses with historical industrial activity in the at-ea. The types
of industrial activities listed in the table are often associated with residual environmental
contamination.
Table HM-1
Historical Industrial Activity in the Project Area
Industrial Activity
Potential Contaminants
Address
Parcel No,
Ship building
Anti-corrosion coatings, anti-
fouling coatings, paints,
lubricants, fuels
2033 Clement Ave.
71-257-3-1
2199 Clement Ave.
71-289-6-1
2229 Clement Ave.
71-289-5
2235 Clement Ave,
111-290-1
2517 Blanding Ave.
70-196-24
Creosote piles
manufacturing
Creosote
2199 Clement Ave.
71-289-6-1
Bulk fuel storage
Petroleum
2301 Blanding Ave.
-71-290-29-1
Metal plating
Metals, acids, cyanide
1829 Blanding Ave.
71-288-1-2
Drum Disposal
fundeterminedl
2425 Blanding Ave.
-70-195-16
Lumber yard
Wood preservatives
2517 Blanding Ave.
70-196-24
2631 Blanding Ave.
-70-196-45
26139 Blanding Ave.
-70-196-45
2691 Blanding Ave.
-70-196-27-2
hlit4ll Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 61
Pliasu11 Environmental Site, Assessment
The Phase D ESA reports on the Corps' investigation o1 the Canal, which had three principal
components: bacnvrnetsediment, aecUesediment, and shoreline soil, each of which is discussed below.
Sediment and soil collection was conducted by Corps personnel. Bat6yrnmtry and sample
analysis was conducted bT third-party cmnLrachara or' the Corps.
Bathymetry
\ geophysical buthvzoebic survey ufthe Canal was conducted to map the `contours o[ the Canal
floor, to determine the depth of sediment that has a«cuoulabe
since the Canal's initial
construction, and to locate the position of buried pipelines and anomalies such as amukeo
vessels and/or debris. The survey consisted of side-scan sonar, which was used to produce n
mosaic of acoustic images of canal-floor b survey to produce locations
and contour rnopa of buried ferrous b and sub-bottom profifing to determine the
sediment thickness and the �eolo 'c)ayersbeneathtbe<�mmalbottnrn.
The geophysical survey found that the Canal bottom is hard and well scoured, with little
sediment. fhe bathyrnetry octoeLmnaikuack dbtUehnnmvvheoit was
in the late 1800s. Tidal scour prevents appreciable accumulation ofsedio�eo originally ' Canal's
bottom.
The side-scan sonar and magnetometer Surveys located acoustic images of sunken boats, fallen
pilings, abandoned tires, and seafloor debris along the Canal bottom. Approximately 30 sunken
boats were located on the Canal floor, ranging frozo»voodeuzowboatebomeb]bu - The
remains of many more sunken boats are aceLbaoed throughout the Canal, but are difficult to
identify because of their varying stages of decay. Of particular note isaooppzoxizoete|v1OU-6noL
by 700'foot rectangular area of sunken tires immediatelimmediately offshore of the n -o Wharf
(approximately near parcels 7l'28g-6-I and 7I-289-5).
None of the anomalies pose u hazard to navigation, and there is little likelihood that ally
contaminants associated with theco vvnold impact environmental receptors after extended
residence on the Canal bottom, However, if anomalies were retrieved from the Canal hoLhoru,
special measures may be needed for proper disposal, due to asbestos or lead-based paints, for
exwzuple.
Sediment Characterization
Sediment samples were collected from about two dozen locations along the bmdaro of Canal.
None of the locations were near the City's shoreline, except one (near parcel 70-196-23).
Sediments samples were analyzed for t | metals, and various other classes of organic
cooLaohnonty, including polychlorinated bipheoyls(PCBa), semi-volatile organic compounds,
and chlorinated herbicides, The analytical results of the sediment that could he sampled from
locations near the centerline of the Canal do not indicate material levels of contamination.
Shoreline Soil Characterization
Soil samples were collected from nine }ocmdooa along the City's shoreline: six from the
commercial/ industrial area northwest of the Fruitvale Bridge (ne,�r parcels 7/1-289-1, 71-289-5,
70-195-16, 70-196-23 (two samples), and 70-196-45), and three from the residential area,
southeast of the bridge (near parcel,-; 69-1.30-222, 69-130-230, and 69-109-186). The soil analyses
were similar to those for the sediment samples. Unlike the sediment samples, the shoreline soil
samples were also analyzed for volatile organic compounds but, inexplicably, neither
chlorinated herbicides nor PCBs,
initialStuJ
62
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
T'he Corps based the soil sample locations on prevIOUS and current land usage of adjacent
properties. However, many of the areas of historical industrial activity listed in Table HM-1,
above, do not have associated sarnples. Additionally, due to the lack of accumulated sediment
on the Canal bottom, the sediment sample results do not provide useful inferences regarding
shoreline conditions.
Comparison of Soil in Comn-tercial / Industrial and Residential Areas
Although t�y6a�k ESA m/���t���|�mp�s6nmt���/�i�oh�h�do� not �
represent `au�b�otcoodibou�theyozeuaebdaaacontzastboareasodkoovvnbzduabba activity.
Soil samples bono the six locations in the commercial /industrial area northwest of the Fruitva)e
Bridge were markedly more contaminated than those from. the three locations ia the residential
areaaou6heayioftheridge.ConbozoinantdiffenenceavvezecnosLaypareuLvriHzheavycnetals:
• Antimony: samples les horn all six conzozercioi/;ndosbia) area locations had higher
concentrations than the highest level seen mt arty o[6t-ie residential area locations.
• C6rozuinnn' nickel, and selenium: five o( the six commercial /iodustrial area locations
had higher concentrations dzen the highest level seen at any of the residential area
locations.
• four otthe six conun�*rdal/bxdumb�J area locations had
higher molybdenum:
than the highest level seen at any of the residential area
• Cobalt, lead, and zinc: three of the six commercial /industrial area locations had
higher concentrations than the highest level seen at any of dhe residential area
locations.
A similar, but less ced,, relationship occurred for petroleum contamination
in soil
samples. Four u/the
ix commercial/ industrial area locations for diesel and three locations for
cnoLoc oil had higher concentrations -nnx Uzao ��e highest level seen at any of the residential area
locations, The observed soil contamination by pbnleoro and heavy metals is consistent with
industrial wastes from these types of operations.
Comparison of Soil wi.th RegElator)� Benchmarks
The Phase D ESA compared soil sample analytical results with federal Preliminary Renzedladon
Goals (PRGs) established in 2004 by the US. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), which
revealed the following:
• [bzuzniuoo: two of the six uorthvvenheoT industrialized locations exceeded the
induebio|PRG.
• Arsenic and lead: one of the six northwestern locations exceeded the industrial PRGs.
No southeastern, residential soil samples had concentrations higher than industrial PRGs, but
one sample location exceeded the residendalPRG for lead,
The soil samples were taken prior to new regulatory benchmarks, which are now applicable to
the Canal. In addition to iP\'a
newer 2014 Regional Screening Levels replacing the 2004
PR(�s at the federal level, 000restdngeotCalifornia - 2013 Environmental Screening Levels (ESL*)
would be applicable to any proposed 8r000d-disturbing activities. Soil cnntarnivarL levels
compare less favorably (othe new ESL benchmarks than tnthe 2O04PD[s. Unlike federal PDGs,
BBLa are established
for petroleum products, too. Comparison ho the applicable ESLs revealed
the b»Dow/in��
*
Nickel: four of the six northwestern, industrialized locations exceeded industrial ESL.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL. CANAL TRANSFER 63
Copper-, lead, zinc, and diesel: three northwestern locations exceeded the industrial
ESLs.
• Motor oil: two northwestern locations exceeded the industrial ESLs.
• Arsenic, chromium,. cobalt, and molybdenum: one northwestern location (each)
exceeded the industrial ESLs.
No southeastern, residential soil samples exceeded industrial ESLs, but one sample location
exceeded the residential ESLs for lead and motor oil, although relatively low levels were
observed.
Contaminants (petroleum and heavy metals) in soil samples from multiple locations along the
City's commercial/ industrial shoreline northwest of the Fruitvale Bridge are at higher
concentrations than screening levels for industrial land use. The shoreline soil contamination is
presumed to be due to historical industrial activities at onshore properties, Soil samples from
along the residential shoreline (southeast of the Fruitvale Bridge) are much cleaner, with only
one location having residential screening levels exceeded by relatively low levels of lead and
motor oil.
Due to the large project area and the limited amount of soil and sediment sampling, the
sampling results do not rule out the presence of contamination in areas not sampled. The Corps'
investigation reports do not include analytical results for PCBs in shoreline soil.
The Phase 11 ESA concluded the soil sample results did not indicate an imminent threat to
human health or the environment and that the current federal property adjacent to the Canal
could be transferred without further characterization. However, if contaminated soil was
disturbed in the future and excavated for disposal elsewhere, regulatory constraints Would
restrict disposal options.
The results of the Corps investigations indicated that low levels of metals or petroleum
hydrocarbon contamination were present in soils at some locations, predominantly in the
northwest commercial/ industrial shoreline area. Because there is currently no indication that
substantial pollutant concentrations are present in the project area, and because shoreline
disturbance is not planned at this time, the proposed Canal transfer should not result in
exposure of people to substantial concentrations of hazardous materials. Once the Corps'
permitting moratorium is removed following project implementation, repair of existing
deteriorated docks, piers, and other shoreline structures may be proposed that could disturb
contaminated soils, The level of impacts associated with subsequent repairs proposed along the
waterfront likely would be limited in nature and any potentially significant impacts would be
analyzed (and mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent CEQA review process.
I
Less Than
Potentlafty Significant
Significant With Less Than
Impact Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
C) Enfit ha zardotts eirlissions or handle hawrdous oi-
acutely haZardotis inaterials, substances, or wa-t'
'� ' 0 0 0 rX
within oiie-qt.wrte• inile Of W1 CXiStil7g or t7l•OpOs5ed
school?
Explanation: The proposed project would not emit hazardous erhissions, handle hazardous
materials, or generate hazardous waste. There would be no project impact on schools related to
generate
Study
64 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL, CANAL TRANSFER
hazardous materials. Furthermore, although there is a school approximately 03 mile from the
project site (Edison Elementary School, 2700 Buena Vista Avenue), there are no schools within
one - quarter mile of the project site.
Explanation: As discussed in more detail in Section VIII(b), above, the Phase I ESA performed
for the project included a search of multiple federal and State agency databases for hazardous,
materials release sites, hazardous materials use and storage sites, or hazardous waste
generation, including those compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Although
there are properties within the project area that are listed on regulatory databases due to
historical storage or use of hazardous materials, presence of underground storage tanks, etc.,
the Phase 11 ESA did not identify current hazards in the project are related to hazardous
materials. Please see Section VIII(b) for additional information.
Less Then
Significant
Significant
Poteratralf With
Potentially
With Less Than
Significant
Mitigation Significant Mo
No
Impact
Incorporated Impact Impact
d) Be Wated on a site which is inchided on It list of
Impact
e) For a project withiIi all airport land iise plait of',
haZardoiis inaterialS sites compiled ptirsilant to
Governnient Code Section 65962,15 and, (is a resltlt,
0
FX-1 El
7voidd it create a sislil ficanf hazard to the ptiblic or
miles of a pidtlic airport or ptiblic use airport, would
0 0
the envh-ontlient?
0
the project result ill a sqfietI1 hazard Jbr people
Explanation: As discussed in more detail in Section VIII(b), above, the Phase I ESA performed
for the project included a search of multiple federal and State agency databases for hazardous,
materials release sites, hazardous materials use and storage sites, or hazardous waste
generation, including those compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Although
there are properties within the project area that are listed on regulatory databases due to
historical storage or use of hazardous materials, presence of underground storage tanks, etc.,
the Phase 11 ESA did not identify current hazards in the project are related to hazardous
materials. Please see Section VIII(b) for additional information.
Exglanation: Although Oakland International Airport is located less than I mile South of the
Canal, the proposed property transfer would not expose people living and working in the area
to a new hazard from airport operations.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact impact
J) For a project within the vicinity Of a private airstrip,
would the project residt ill a sa-fe(y hazard for people El FX
residing or working ill the project area?
Exl2lanation: There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site.
Initial Studv
OAKLAND INNER FIAR13OR TIDAL CANAL TRAWER 65
Less Than
Significant
Poteratralf With
& Less Than
Significant Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact Incorporated
Impact
Impact
e) For a project withiIi all airport land iise plait of',
where such a plait has riot been adopted, within trvo
miles of a pidtlic airport or ptiblic use airport, would
0 0
0
the project result ill a sqfietI1 hazard Jbr people
residing or working ill the project area?
Exglanation: Although Oakland International Airport is located less than I mile South of the
Canal, the proposed property transfer would not expose people living and working in the area
to a new hazard from airport operations.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact impact
J) For a project within the vicinity Of a private airstrip,
would the project residt ill a sa-fe(y hazard for people El FX
residing or working ill the project area?
Exl2lanation: There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site.
Initial Studv
OAKLAND INNER FIAR13OR TIDAL CANAL TRAWER 65
Explanation.: The proposed property transfer does not have the potential to impair
implementation of emergency evacuation or emergency response plan.
n
j Potentially
ilricant
Ignff ant
With
LessTan
, h
Significant
Wes,
I
l " fan€ NO
; mpact t
I
Mitigation
Igni ant NO
Impact i trrtpw.
It) Expose people or strtactttres to significant risk of toss,
Inco rat
impact
g) Impair implementation (?f or physically interfere wit11
injtarrl, or death involving wile hind fires, inchifling
—Impact
an adopted erneiXency response plan or emeryengil
0
l
El M
e vactaatioo plan?
where residences are interinixed with wildlands?
k
Explanation.: The proposed property transfer does not have the potential to impair
implementation of emergency evacuation or emergency response plan.
Explanation: The project is located in a fully built -out area with industrial, commercial, and
residential development in the vicinity of the site. There are no wildlands in the project area,
and therefore there is no potential for the proposed project to result in the exposure of people or
structures to wildland fires.
IX HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Wotald the project.
I
n
potentially
Ignff ant
With
LessTan
, h
ig s
Impact t
06gation
l " fan€ NO
Impa
Impact
Incorporated
Impact i trrtpw.
It) Expose people or strtactttres to significant risk of toss,
�. i
injtarrl, or death involving wile hind fires, inchifling
where, wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are interinixed with wildlands?
k
Explanation: The project is located in a fully built -out area with industrial, commercial, and
residential development in the vicinity of the site. There are no wildlands in the project area,
and therefore there is no potential for the proposed project to result in the exposure of people or
structures to wildland fires.
IX HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY — Wotald the project.
I
Explanation: While urban development has a high. potential to adversely affect water duality in
surface beater bodies, due to the concentration and characteristics of water pollution sources in
the urban environment, the proposed project would not include or authorize new development.
Therefore, for the most part, the project would have no effect on water quality and would have
no potential to violate eater duality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Protection of Surface water duality is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), which prohibits certain discharges of
stormwater containing pollutants except in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In California, the EPA has authorized the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to administer the NPDES stormwater permitting program,
Initial Study
66 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Significant
�
Potentially 1
Significant
t
Mitigation
Significant ifi ant tics
Impa
Impact
In=porat d
Impact Impact
a) Violate any ivater titsalitly standards or waste
�. i
discharye retiiiirenients'
Explanation: While urban development has a high. potential to adversely affect water duality in
surface beater bodies, due to the concentration and characteristics of water pollution sources in
the urban environment, the proposed project would not include or authorize new development.
Therefore, for the most part, the project would have no effect on water quality and would have
no potential to violate eater duality standards or waste discharge requirements.
Protection of Surface water duality is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), which prohibits certain discharges of
stormwater containing pollutants except in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit. In California, the EPA has authorized the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to administer the NPDES stormwater permitting program,
Initial Study
66 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Water quality is regulated by two categories of NPDES permits addressing two types of
storrnwater discharges: operational and construction. For operational discharges, the SWRCB
has established two permitting programs, one for industrial dischargers, and the other is a,
general storn-twater discharge permit issued to municipalities, generally referred to as a
Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP), Cities and counties in the San Francisco Bay
Area are covered Linder a sin-le MRP, NPDES Permit No. CAS612008 issued, to Bay Area
jurisdictions by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control. Board (RWQCB)
(NPDES Order No. R2-2009-0074). This revised MR11 was issued on October 14, 2009 and
replaced the previous permit originally issued in February 2003 with substantial new
requirements for development and redevelopment projects. Because the proposed project
would not include new development, it Would not require coverage under the MRP, and
requirements of the MRP are not discussed further here.
However, approval of the proposed Tidal Canal transfer is likely to lead. to sorne shoreline
property owners adjacent to the Canal to initiate repairs to docks and other shoreline facilities.
Some repairs could potentially involve some disturbance to the banks of the Canal, which could
lead to erosion of soils, which could adversely affect water quality in the Canal. Potential
impacts to water quality from construction activities are regulated by the NPDES Construction.
General Permit (CGP) Order 2009-0009-DWQ, administered by the kWQCB. Order 2009-0009-
DWQ requires project sponsors to implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs)
at the project site and comply with numeric action levels (NALs) in order to achieve minin-turn
federal water quality standards. The CGP requires control of non-stormwater discharges as well
as stormwater discharges. Measures to control non-stormwater discharges such as spills,
Leakage, and dumping must be addressed ti-irough structural as well as non-structural BMPs.
I
Coverage Linder the CGP is required for projects that would disturb 1 acre or more of land. Any
future potential construction/ repair activities that involved the disturbance of greater than I
acre of land would require coverage under the CGP, Future projects entailing new construction
or disturbance of a large area of land would require separate discretionary review by the City
and would require separate environmental review pursuant to CEOA. The level of impacts
associated with subsequent repairs proposed along the waterfront likely would be limited in
nature and any potentially significant impacts would be analyzed (and mitigated, as necessary)
during a subsequent CEQA review process.
Exl2lanation: The proposed Tidal Canal transfer Would have no effect on groundwater recharge
or groundwater supplies.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 67
Potentially
Significant
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
b) Slib$talltiallif deplete groand7vater siipplies or
ittlerfere substaritially with groundwater recharge
sitch' that there wotifil be a net di;flcit in aqiiifer
voittine or a lowering of the local gIVIOUIR717tel' table
C"
0
rx
level (e.g., the proditction rate of pre-existing Itearby
Wells 7110tild drop to 17 level that would not support
existing land uses or planned uses fin- -which perinits
have been grantedI?
-
Exl2lanation: The proposed Tidal Canal transfer Would have no effect on groundwater recharge
or groundwater supplies.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 67
Less Than
PolentfaHy
sjgnificant With Less Than
Impact Mitigation Significant NO
tricorpoirated Impact Impact
1 0 Substantial�ll alter the existing drainage pattern of
file site or area, including thr�t-)ugh the alterati011 'If
the course of a streani or river, iii a inanner which
zVolild WSIdt III SU17SMIltial erosion or siltation oil- or
'
Ex�)lanation: The proposed, project would not create any new imper0ous surfaces in the project
area or otherwise alter the existin- drainage patterns on the project site. The potential for
erosion to adversely affect water quality during shoreline repairs is discussed in Section lX(a),
^
d) Substantially alter the existhig drainage pattern Of
[lie site or area, including through I-lie alteration of
the ^°~'°^ of " =^""' or river, or s°°="'="jil
increase the rate mumouot of sulface rmll'off iltu
nmmnmr which mmuN/ rmsx8 in flooding on- or off-
Thc project would not alter the Course ofa stream or river and would not alter the
existing drainage pattern mf the site. There is therefore no potential for the project to increase the
risk of on- or off-site flooding.
Less Than
Potentially Significant
F Significant With Less Than
Impact Witigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed
sources o
.f polluted runof
The proposed project would not create any new impervious surfaces in the project
area and, therefore, would not increase the volume or rate otstorinmater runoff in the area.
Although there is a potential for minor amounts of pollutants (c.8, fuel, paint, architectural
coatings, solvents, etc.) to be spilled during the repair ofdocks and other shoreline facilities,
which could be washed into the Canal, this would not be a substantial source of polluted runoff.
Initial Study
68 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Explanation: The project's potential to degrade water quality is discussed in Sections IX(a) and
IX(e). The project would not otherwise have the potential to substantially degrade water
quality.
Less Than
Significant
f Less Than
Potentially
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
P Otherwise substantially degrade water (Palil`Y?
0
Fx- 1
El FE
Explanation: The project's potential to degrade water quality is discussed in Sections IX(a) and
IX(e). The project would not otherwise have the potential to substantially degrade water
quality.
Explanation: While the Tidal Canal itself lies within the 100-year flood zone, the upland
properties adjacent to the Canal are mapped as Zone X by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), which is the designation assigned to areas that have been determined to be
outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood plain (i.e., the 500-year flood plain), 21 In any
event, the project would not create new housing.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with I Less Than
Significant Mitigation I Significant No
Impact I I Incorporated J Impact Impact
li) Place within a 100-yea• flood hazard area structures rx--1
0iicli zvould inipede or redirect flood flOWS?
Explanation: As discussed in Section IX(g), above, the project site is not located within a "100 -
year or 500-year flood hazard area. In addition, the project would not create new structures.
2'3 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rite Nlap, Alameda County, California and
Incorporated Areas, Community Panel Number 06001CO088G, effective August 3, 20W
Initial study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 69
Less Than
Significant
ignificant with
f Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
I
Incorporated 1 Impact Impact
g) Place 11otising ztiffiiij a 100-year flood /UlZal-d 171-C(I as
Inapped oil afederal Flood H(?Zfftl Boundory or Flood 1
L-J
Fx- 1
Insio-ance Rate M(7p or other flood liazzard delineation
inap?
Explanation: While the Tidal Canal itself lies within the 100-year flood zone, the upland
properties adjacent to the Canal are mapped as Zone X by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), which is the designation assigned to areas that have been determined to be
outside of the 0.2 percent annual chance flood plain (i.e., the 500-year flood plain), 21 In any
event, the project would not create new housing.
Less Than
Significant
Potentially with I Less Than
Significant Mitigation I Significant No
Impact I I Incorporated J Impact Impact
li) Place within a 100-yea• flood hazard area structures rx--1
0iicli zvould inipede or redirect flood flOWS?
Explanation: As discussed in Section IX(g), above, the project site is not located within a "100 -
year or 500-year flood hazard area. In addition, the project would not create new structures.
2'3 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Flood Insurance Rite Nlap, Alameda County, California and
Incorporated Areas, Community Panel Number 06001CO088G, effective August 3, 20W
Initial study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 69
Exl2lanation: The proposed project would not develop new Structures or increase the resident or
worker Population in the project area. It would therefore have no potential to expose people or
structures to risks associate with inundation from a dant failure.
Explanation: Tsunami,,, (seism.ic sea waves) are long-period waves that are typically caused by
underwater dist-Lirbances (landslides), volcanic eruptions, or seismic events. Areas that are
highly susceptible to tsunami inundation tend to be located in. low-lying coastal areas such as
tidal flats, marshlands, and former bay margins that have been artificially filled but are still at
or near sea level. While the Tidal Canal itself is within a tsunami inundation area, the adjacent
uplands are not located within a tsunami inundation area, as mapped by the 'Cali fornia
Emergency Management Agency," Furthermore, there are no aspects of the project that would
increase the risk Of inundation by tsunami.
A seiche is a free or standing wave oscillation(s) of the surface of water in an enclosed or semi-
enclosed basin that may be initiated by an earthquake. Given its location adjacent to San
Francisco Bay, the potential for a seiche run-up at the project site would not be greater than the
potential for inundation by tsunami. In addition, there are no aspects of the project that would
increase the risk of inundation by seiche in the project area.
Debris flows, n-tudslicles, and mudflows begin during intense rainfall as shallow landslides on
steep slopes. The rapid movement and sudden arrival of debris flows can pose a hazard to life
and property during and immediately following a triggering rainfall. The project area is
essentially flat, as is the surrounding area. There is therefore no potential for mudslides or
debris flows.
21 California Emergency Nlanagernent Agency, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of
California, Sin Francisco Bay Area, December 9, 2009.
Initial Study
70 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Less Than
Pof tiall g
Significant
With
Less Than
Significant
Impact
miligation
significant NO
Incotporated
Impact Impact
j) Intindation by seiche, tsintanti, oi- 1111.1(iflo7v?
l
0
0 1
0 Q
Explanation: Tsunami,,, (seism.ic sea waves) are long-period waves that are typically caused by
underwater dist-Lirbances (landslides), volcanic eruptions, or seismic events. Areas that are
highly susceptible to tsunami inundation tend to be located in. low-lying coastal areas such as
tidal flats, marshlands, and former bay margins that have been artificially filled but are still at
or near sea level. While the Tidal Canal itself is within a tsunami inundation area, the adjacent
uplands are not located within a tsunami inundation area, as mapped by the 'Cali fornia
Emergency Management Agency," Furthermore, there are no aspects of the project that would
increase the risk Of inundation by tsunami.
A seiche is a free or standing wave oscillation(s) of the surface of water in an enclosed or semi-
enclosed basin that may be initiated by an earthquake. Given its location adjacent to San
Francisco Bay, the potential for a seiche run-up at the project site would not be greater than the
potential for inundation by tsunami. In addition, there are no aspects of the project that would
increase the risk of inundation by seiche in the project area.
Debris flows, n-tudslicles, and mudflows begin during intense rainfall as shallow landslides on
steep slopes. The rapid movement and sudden arrival of debris flows can pose a hazard to life
and property during and immediately following a triggering rainfall. The project area is
essentially flat, as is the surrounding area. There is therefore no potential for mudslides or
debris flows.
21 California Emergency Nlanagernent Agency, Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning, State of
California, Sin Francisco Bay Area, December 9, 2009.
Initial Study
70 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
X. LAND USE AND PLANNING — i•Votald the prajcct:
Less Than R €
Significant
Potentially with Less Than #
Significant tiigaation Sicirtifrcant NO
Impact Incorporated impact Impact
17) Phlisicratly dividc nn c:staillished LOataat1ta?tity? j 0 0
Explanation: The project area is currently fully developed with a variety of commercial,
industrial, and residential uses. Although there is one large vacant parcel within the project
area, the proposed project would not develop this site and would not authorize any new
development elsewhere in the project area. The project would not include any new construction
such as new off -site roadways that could physically divide an existing neighborhood, nor
would it otherwise create any barriers to existing circulation within the comnrtunity. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community.
—_
Less Than
f�tafaaatialf igni�nt
with '
LmThan
Signlficarrt t Mitigation�
Impact
Significant
NO
I
Incorporated orporated
impact
Impact
!a) Conflict with any applicable lraiid trse plan, 1p0licy, 0r
regulation of an tig(nicy utrth jurisdiction over the
project (hichidin , but not lb0ted to, the geiteral
pr-� �
i1
MX
171c711, specific pla?i, local coastal progrntra, 01' Z0ttttIg
ordinance) adopted for the purposed of avoiding 0r
911itigotilIg an einfirf)Par ientCal effect?
Explanation: Existing Alameda properties bordering the Tidal Carnal are within a wide variety
of zoning districts and General Plan land use designations (see Sections 6 and 7 on page 1),
including residential, commercial, industrial, and open space designations. The Canal itself is
located within two zoning districts: west of the Fruitvale Bridge, it is within the E (Estuary)
zoning district, east of the bridge it is assigned the O (Open Space) district. The Canal does not
have a General Plan land use designation. Because the proposed project 'would not authorize
any new uses or new development, there is no potential for the project to conflict with the
General Plan or Zoning Ordinance, and a detailed review of these documents was not
performed as part of this environmental review.
The proposed project would include extension of the E (Estuary) zoning district to the portion
of the Canal east of the Fruitvale Bridge, to cover all of the parcels within the Alameda side of
the Tidal Canal. In addition, the project would amend the development standards for the
Estuary zoning district to allow only docks, piers, boathouses, and other water - dependent uses
as new uses, subject to subsequent discretionary review by the City. All future proposed uses in
the Estuary District would require approval of a Conditional Use Permit, and would therefore
be subject to discretionary review by the City, and would also require separate environmental
review pursuant to CEQ .
Initial Studv
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 71
Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or
regulation of all agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purposed of avoiding
or mitigating an environmental effect,
Explanation: There is no adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP) applicable to the City of
Alameda.
X1. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the proliect:
Less Than
significant
Potentiatly
Significant
Potentiallil
Wdh Less Than
Sficalit mitgation I
Imp act NO
1-WOW(ated_ Impact Impact
0 Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation
0 C1 FX1
plan or natia-al cowintinity conservation plan?
___I
Explanation: There is no adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP) applicable to the City of
Alameda.
X1. MINERAL RESOURCES — Would the proliect:
Explanation; No regionally significant mineral deposits have been mapped on or in the vicinity
of the project site. the site is within a large area classified as Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1 by
the California Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology (DM G). "' The
!RZ-1 designation is assigned to areas where sufficient data exists for a determination that no
significant mineral deposits exist, or where it is judged that there is little likelihood for their.
presence. Furthermore, the site is in a fully developed, urbanized area where mineral extraction
would not be practical. Therefore, the project would not have all effect on the availability of
mineral resources.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Generalized Mineral Land Classification
Map of the South San Francisco Bav Prodticti(.)ii-Cc)nstiii-iptioii Region (Plate I of 29),1996,
Initial Stttdv
72 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL -rRANSI-Ek
Less Than
Significant
Potentiallil
With Less Than
S190mcant,
Mjti ion Significant
Impact
tb
1r or Impact
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a knouln inineral
resource that would be of value to the region and the
FX-1
residents qf the state?
Explanation; No regionally significant mineral deposits have been mapped on or in the vicinity
of the project site. the site is within a large area classified as Mineral Resource Zone MRZ-1 by
the California Department of Conservation's Division of Mines and Geology (DM G). "' The
!RZ-1 designation is assigned to areas where sufficient data exists for a determination that no
significant mineral deposits exist, or where it is judged that there is little likelihood for their.
presence. Furthermore, the site is in a fully developed, urbanized area where mineral extraction
would not be practical. Therefore, the project would not have all effect on the availability of
mineral resources.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Generalized Mineral Land Classification
Map of the South San Francisco Bav Prodticti(.)ii-Cc)nstiii-iptioii Region (Plate I of 29),1996,
Initial Stttdv
72 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL -rRANSI-Ek
Less Than
P Significant
otentially
With Less Than
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Impact,
incorporated Impact Impact
Result in the loss of iwailability of a 100711111-
I intportant inhieral resource recovery site clelineatei-I
on 17 local general ltilan, specific plan, or other land El 11 0 Ex
use plan?
Explanation: The Alameda General Plan does not identify any local mineral resources within
the City. In any event, the project site area is developed with residential, commercial, and
industrial uses, where extraction of mineral resources, were they to exist, would not be feasible.
There is no potential for the project to have an adverse effect on the availability of significant
mineral resources.
XII. NOISE — Woulil the project result in:
Explanation: Noise standards in the City of Alameda are established in the Health and Safety
Element to the City of Alaineda General Plait as well as the Alameda Municipal Code. The Health
and Safety Element sets the most stringent standards for residential uses, where noise
environments of 60 decibels (dB) CNEL2(orless are considered "normally acceptable" and noise
environments of between 60 dB and 70 dB CNEL are considered "conditionally acceptable,"
requiring noise insulation features for new development. The standards also include thresholds
for "normally unacceptable" and "clearly unacceptable" noise levels, and provide less stringent
noise thresholds for various non-residential land use,-,.
Chapter 4-10, "Noise Control," of the Alameda Municipal Code also regulates noise in the
community. Section 440.4 (Exterior Noise Standards) lists exterior noise standards for various
noise-sensitive receiving land uses (single- or multi. - family residential, schools, hospitals,
churches, public libraries, and commercial uses) as measured at the receiving land use. Section
4-10.7 includes exceptions to these noise standards, including, "noise sources associated with
construction provided the activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Mondav through Friday or 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays."
26The Community Noise Equivalent Level KNEW is a descriptor of environmental noise based on the 24 -hour
average sound level, with additional weighting of sound levels during the more sensitive evening and nighttime
periods.
Initial StUdy
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 73
Less Than
PotentialN,
Significant
With Less Than I
significant
Impact
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise 1MVIS
in excess of standards estaNisheii in the local general
0
FX-1
plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other a4,encies?
Explanation: Noise standards in the City of Alameda are established in the Health and Safety
Element to the City of Alaineda General Plait as well as the Alameda Municipal Code. The Health
and Safety Element sets the most stringent standards for residential uses, where noise
environments of 60 decibels (dB) CNEL2(orless are considered "normally acceptable" and noise
environments of between 60 dB and 70 dB CNEL are considered "conditionally acceptable,"
requiring noise insulation features for new development. The standards also include thresholds
for "normally unacceptable" and "clearly unacceptable" noise levels, and provide less stringent
noise thresholds for various non-residential land use,-,.
Chapter 4-10, "Noise Control," of the Alameda Municipal Code also regulates noise in the
community. Section 440.4 (Exterior Noise Standards) lists exterior noise standards for various
noise-sensitive receiving land uses (single- or multi. - family residential, schools, hospitals,
churches, public libraries, and commercial uses) as measured at the receiving land use. Section
4-10.7 includes exceptions to these noise standards, including, "noise sources associated with
construction provided the activities take place between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
Mondav through Friday or 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays."
26The Community Noise Equivalent Level KNEW is a descriptor of environmental noise based on the 24 -hour
average sound level, with additional weighting of sound levels during the more sensitive evening and nighttime
periods.
Initial StUdy
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 73
The project does not involve any subsurface disturbance or other construction or demolition
activity, and does not involve any new operational activities and, accordingly, there is no
potential for construction or operational noise impacts associated with the project.
Dock repairs and other shoreline facility repairs that could occur following project approval
would be Subject to separate discretionary review and approval and subject to the restrictions
on construction hours. Noise from cotstruction activities that occur within the allowed
construction hours is considered to comply with the City's noise ordinance. Based on the above
considerations, the project would not result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise
levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance.
Explanation: The proposed project would not generate perceptible amounts of groundborne
vibration.
Explanation: No permanent noise would be generated by the proposed project. Please See
Section X11(a), above, for potential impacts associated with future repairs proposed along the
waterfront.
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
With
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Significant No
Less Than
Significant No
IncoWraied
Impact Impact
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of exceSSIvc
d) A substantial kinporary or periodic increase in
El
FRI
g•oundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels-,'
[3
0
FRI
Explanation: The proposed project would not generate perceptible amounts of groundborne
vibration.
Explanation: No permanent noise would be generated by the proposed project. Please See
Section X11(a), above, for potential impacts associated with future repairs proposed along the
waterfront.
Explanation: The project's potential noise impacts are addressed in Sections X11(a) and (c),
above. ive. The project would not require or authorize major new construction or other potential
sources of substantial temporary noise,
Initial Study
74 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
Significant
Impact
With
Mitigation
Less Than
Significant No
Incorporated
Impact Impact
d) A substantial kinporary or periodic increase in
ambient nolse levels in the project vicinitil above
levels existing without the
[3
0
FRI
project?
Explanation: The project's potential noise impacts are addressed in Sections X11(a) and (c),
above. ive. The project would not require or authorize major new construction or other potential
sources of substantial temporary noise,
Initial Study
74 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Explanation: Although Oakland International Airport is located less than 2 mile south of the
Canal, the proposed property transfer would not introduce new residents or workers to the
area, and therefore would not expose people living and working in the area to excessive noise
levels from airport operations.
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
Less Than
Significant
with Less Than
Polentialty With
Significant Mitigation
Less Than
Significant No
Significant
Impact Incorporated
Impact Impact
e) For a project locateti 114thin all airport ItVlti Use phIll
Impact
Incorporated Impact
or, 70iere sucli a plan lias not been atiopteti, witlibi
❑ ❑
❑ FX_1
tzoo ritiles of 17 ptiblic ail-port Or public liSe (?il-11011,
either directly (for example, by proposing nezv liollies
7voidd the project expose people resitting or zvorking,
❑ ❑
CEO
ill the project area to excessive noise levels?
Explanation: Although Oakland International Airport is located less than 2 mile south of the
Canal, the proposed property transfer would not introduce new residents or workers to the
area, and therefore would not expose people living and working in the area to excessive noise
levels from airport operations.
Explanation: "There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project.
X111. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would tile project:
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
Potenbaffy With
Less Than
Significant
with Less Than
Significant Mitigation
Significant No
Significant
impact Incorporated
impact Impact
J) For a project zoithin the z,icii!ity of"a private airstrip,
Impact
Incorporated Impact
ivould the project expose people resitting or tvorking
❑ ❑
❑ FX_1
in the project area to excessive noise levels?
either directly (for example, by proposing nezv liollies
Explanation: "There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project.
X111. POPULATION AND HOUSING — Would tile project:
Explanation: The proposed project Would not create new housing and would not construct new
infrastructure. Therefore, it Would have no potential to induce population growth.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR "f CANAL TRANSFER 75
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
with Less Than
Significant
Mitigation Significant
No
Impact
Incorporated Impact
Impact
a) induce substantial population groulli in all area,,
either directly (for example, by proposing nezv liollies
❑
❑ ❑
CEO
and businesses) or indirectly (for example, Hirotigit
extension of roads or other iirftastrilcttire)?
l —
I
Explanation: The proposed project Would not create new housing and would not construct new
infrastructure. Therefore, it Would have no potential to induce population growth.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR "f CANAL TRANSFER 75
Explanation: The project would not displace any existing housing; the project would have no
effect on housing.
Explanation: See Section XIII(b), above,
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with [lie provision cif nezv or physically altered governinental -facilities, need for new or
physically altered goverrunental facilities, the construction of which cotild cause sign flcant
enviromnental irnpacts, in order to inaintain acceptable service ratios, response tunes, or other
performance objectives for ally of the following public services:
Less Titan
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
With Less T hart
Potentially
Significant
WM
Less Than
Incorporated Impact impact
Significant
Impact
Wigation
Significant No
Incorporated
Impact Impact
17) Displace substantial nuinbers of
existinq housing,
necessitating they construction
of replacement
I
I E]
MX
housing clsewhere?
Explanation: The project would not displace any existing housing; the project would have no
effect on housing.
Explanation: See Section XIII(b), above,
XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES - Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts
associated with [lie provision cif nezv or physically altered governinental -facilities, need for new or
physically altered goverrunental facilities, the construction of which cotild cause sign flcant
enviromnental irnpacts, in order to inaintain acceptable service ratios, response tunes, or other
performance objectives for ally of the following public services:
Explanation: Fire response to the project site would be provided by the Alameda Fire
Department (AFD), which operates four stations located throughout the City fifth station was
closed in 2009). The AFD responds to approximately 14,000 alarms each year, about 71 percent
of them for emergency medical service.`'` 7 In 2015'the Department had a Citywide average
response time 4 minutes and 20 seconds. First response in the event of a fire or medical
emergency would be provided by Fire Station No. 1, located at 2401 Encinal Avenue.
The proposed project would not cause a substantial increase in demand for fire protection or
emergency medical response services. It would not authorize construction of new structures,
27 Alameda Fire Department, Response Data, accessed April 20, 2016 at i
Initial Study
76 OAKLAND INNER HARBORTIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Less Titan
Potentially
Significant
With Less T hart
Significant
Impact
Mitigation significant No
Incorporated Impact impact
a) Fire protection?
0 El nx
Explanation: Fire response to the project site would be provided by the Alameda Fire
Department (AFD), which operates four stations located throughout the City fifth station was
closed in 2009). The AFD responds to approximately 14,000 alarms each year, about 71 percent
of them for emergency medical service.`'` 7 In 2015'the Department had a Citywide average
response time 4 minutes and 20 seconds. First response in the event of a fire or medical
emergency would be provided by Fire Station No. 1, located at 2401 Encinal Avenue.
The proposed project would not cause a substantial increase in demand for fire protection or
emergency medical response services. It would not authorize construction of new structures,
27 Alameda Fire Department, Response Data, accessed April 20, 2016 at i
Initial Study
76 OAKLAND INNER HARBORTIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
and would therefore have no effect on fire protection services, and it would not increase the
population of the project area.
Explanation: Police protection would be provided to the project by the Alameda Police
Department (APD), which operates out of a central station at 1555 Oak Street. The APD has a
force of 88 sworn officers and 32 non-sworn full-time personnel.2' The APD's service area is
divided into five patrol sectors; the project area is located. in Sector 3.
The proposed project would not increase the population of Alameda, would not develop any
new land uses, and would not generate new employees. Therefore, the proposed project would
be expected to have no effect on demand for police protection services.
Less Than
i Potentially
Significant
'rhan
Significant
With Less
Mitigation Significant No
Impact
lh;rporated Impact Impact
19 Police protectlort? ❑
El 0
Explanation: Police protection would be provided to the project by the Alameda Police
Department (APD), which operates out of a central station at 1555 Oak Street. The APD has a
force of 88 sworn officers and 32 non-sworn full-time personnel.2' The APD's service area is
divided into five patrol sectors; the project area is located. in Sector 3.
The proposed project would not increase the population of Alameda, would not develop any
new land uses, and would not generate new employees. Therefore, the proposed project would
be expected to have no effect on demand for police protection services.
Explanation: The project would not create new housing and would not increase the population
of the City of Alameda. There is therefore no potential for the project to adversely affect schools.
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
Significant
With
Less Than
Potentially
with
Less Than
Impact
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
11
Impact
incorporated
Impact Impact
c) Schools?
0
0
❑ rX_1
Explanation: The project would not create new housing and would not increase the population
of the City of Alameda. There is therefore no potential for the project to adversely affect schools.
Explanation: As noted in Section IX(c), above, the project would not increase the population of
Alameda, and therefore the project would have no effect on the demand for park services.
City of Alarnecla Police Department, About the Alameda Police Department, accessed April 22, 2016 at:
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR'FIDAL CANAL. TRANSFER 77
Less Than
Significant
etially
Pot n
With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
d) Parks? I El
11
E]
Explanation: As noted in Section IX(c), above, the project would not increase the population of
Alameda, and therefore the project would have no effect on the demand for park services.
City of Alarnecla Police Department, About the Alameda Police Department, accessed April 22, 2016 at:
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR'FIDAL CANAL. TRANSFER 77
e) Other public facilities? j El I El 0 ®R
Explanation: As noted in Section IX(c), above, the project Would not increase the population of
Alameda, and therefore the project would have no effect on the demand for other public
facilities such as libraries,
LM Than
Significant
Significani 001 Less Than
Mitigation Significant NO
Impact Incorporated Impact impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks Or other recreational
-facilities such that substantial physical deterioration 0 0 Fx_1
of thefacility would occur or be accelerated?
Explanation- As discussed in Section IX(c), above, the project would not increase the population
of Alameda, and therefore it would have no effect on existing parks or other recreational
facilities.
Less Than
Potentially Significant
Significant With Less Then
Impact hNfigation Significant No
I Incorporated j Impact Impact
b) Does the project include recreational facilities Or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities ulhich ini,
ght have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
Explanation: The proposed project does not include construction of any recreational facilities,
Initial Studer
7 8 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
XV1. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC — VVoulti the project:
Explanation: The proposed project would not increase the Population of Alameda, would not
develop any new land uses, and would not generate new employees. 'Therefore, the project
would generate no operational traffic and would have no long-term effect on the existing
circulation system in the City of Alameda or in the greater Bay Area. While some short-term
traffic Could be generated by property owners making future repairs to their shoreline facilities,
the level of traffic impacts likely would be limited both in magnitude and duration, and would
not be expected to have a noticeable effect on the y
existing g circulation system or conflict with the
City's traffic standard,;. The exact level of impacts associated with future improvements along
fl-te waterfront is speculative and would be analyzed as part of a separate discretionary review
process.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Witt,
Mitigation
Incorporated
1
Less Than
Significant
Impact
T
I
NO
Impact
111) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance, or policy
Significant With
Less Than
Significant
establishing measures of e ffectiveness for the
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
performance of the circulation system, taking into
1)) ColifliCt lVitil (PI appliCalde congestion inatiagement
account all modes of transportation, including 1111ISS
standards and travel demand mea,,;ures, or other
transit and tioii-motorized travel and relevant
El
D
FX_1
11
com Vollents of the circulation systein, inclutling but
management agency for desigitateil roads or
'
not limited to intersections, streets, ltighzvays and
highways?
freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, acrd mass
transit?
Explanation: The proposed project would not increase the Population of Alameda, would not
develop any new land uses, and would not generate new employees. 'Therefore, the project
would generate no operational traffic and would have no long-term effect on the existing
circulation system in the City of Alameda or in the greater Bay Area. While some short-term
traffic Could be generated by property owners making future repairs to their shoreline facilities,
the level of traffic impacts likely would be limited both in magnitude and duration, and would
not be expected to have a noticeable effect on the y
existing g circulation system or conflict with the
City's traffic standard,;. The exact level of impacts associated with future improvements along
fl-te waterfront is speculative and would be analyzed as part of a separate discretionary review
process.
Explanation: The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) is responsible for
ensuring local government conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP)
applicable to the City of Alameda. The threshold for CMP analysis in Alameda County is 100
peak -hour trips. There is no potential for the limited amount of short-term, repair-related traffic
that could result from project approval to generate 1.00 peak-hour trips, Therefore, the project
would not conflict with the Alameda County CMP.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 79
Less Than
Potentially
Significant With
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact
Incorporated
Impact Impact
1)) ColifliCt lVitil (PI appliCalde congestion inatiagement
program, inchuffit& but riot hinited to level of service
standards and travel demand mea,,;ures, or other
CK
standards estol7lishell lit! the countly coiigestioll
management agency for desigitateil roads or
highways?
Explanation: The Alameda County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) is responsible for
ensuring local government conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP)
applicable to the City of Alameda. The threshold for CMP analysis in Alameda County is 100
peak -hour trips. There is no potential for the limited amount of short-term, repair-related traffic
that could result from project approval to generate 1.00 peak-hour trips, Therefore, the project
would not conflict with the Alameda County CMP.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 79
Explanation: The proposed project would have no effect on air traffic patterns.
Less Than
Significant
Potentialty With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
Impact IncoWated Impact Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a destgn
feature (e.�., sharp cut-ves or dangerous intersections)
El 11 El MR
or incoinpatible uses (e.g.,fiv-m equipment)? I I I I
E tanation: The proposed project would not create new offsite roads or intersections or alter
existing offsite roadways. Any dock or other shoreline facility repairs that would be made
following project implementation would occur entirely within existing properties, requiring o no
modifications to existing access to the properties or internal circulation within the properties.
There is no potential for the project to create new traffic hazards or increase existing traffic
hazards.
Less Than
Less Than
Potential V
Significant
I With
Less Than
Less Than
Significa I
Impact
Mitigation
Significant
No
Incorporated
Impact
Impact
0 Result in a Change in air traffic Patterns, illcludill�
0
0 rx-1
either an increase in, traffic levels or a change ill El
El
1:1
nX
location that result,-; in substantial safety risks?
Explanation: The proposed project would have no effect on air traffic patterns.
Less Than
Significant
Potentialty With Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
Impact IncoWated Impact Impact
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a destgn
feature (e.�., sharp cut-ves or dangerous intersections)
El 11 El MR
or incoinpatible uses (e.g.,fiv-m equipment)? I I I I
E tanation: The proposed project would not create new offsite roads or intersections or alter
existing offsite roadways. Any dock or other shoreline facility repairs that would be made
following project implementation would occur entirely within existing properties, requiring o no
modifications to existing access to the properties or internal circulation within the properties.
There is no potential for the project to create new traffic hazards or increase existing traffic
hazards.
Explanation: For the reasons discussed in Section XVI(d), above, the project would have no
effect on emergency access.
Less Than
Potentially
ftan
Signi t ith
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Significant No
Incorporated
Impact Impact
e) Result in inadequate e7nergency access?
0
0 rx-1
Explanation: For the reasons discussed in Section XVI(d), above, the project would have no
effect on emergency access.
Explanation: As discussed in Section XVI(a), above, the project would generate no operational
traffic. The amount of short-term construction traffic that could be generated by property
Initial Study
80 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
With
Less Than
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Significant No
Incorporated
Impact Impact
J) Coitflict ivith adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrlau
X,
facilities, or otherwise decrease the perfornlance or
safe(tl to suchfilcilities?
Explanation: As discussed in Section XVI(a), above, the project would generate no operational
traffic. The amount of short-term construction traffic that could be generated by property
Initial Study
80 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
owners and/or their contractors likely would be limited and would be analyzed during a
separate discretionary review process. There are no aspects to the proposed project with the
potential to conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs pertaining to public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities,, or to decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.
XVIL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — IVoidd the project.-
Explanation: The proposed project would generate no wastewater, and therefore would have
not potential to exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements.
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
Potentially With Less Than
Potentially ii
Significant Mitigation Significant NO
s
Sigirtficant
Impact Incorporated I Impact impact
a) Excced wastewater treatinent reii0reineiits of the
applicable Regioiial Walcr Qiialiql Control Board?
0 rx-�
Explanation: The proposed project would generate no wastewater, and therefore would have
not potential to exceed applicable wastewater treatment requirements.
Explanation: The proposed project would not consume water, other than a negligible amount,
potentially, associated with future temporary repairs to shoreline improverrients such as docks
and piers. This use of water would be for clean-tip of construction /repair work, and would not
be an ongoing or recurring demand. Such consumption -would represent an infinitesimally
small percentage of existing water consumption in the City; there Would be no potential for this
incremental, short-term demand to require construction of new or expanded water or
wastewater treatment facilities.
Less Than
Potentially ii
Significant with i Less Than
Sigirtficant
Significant
Mitigation Significant '140
Potentially
With Less Than
incorporated f Impact Impact
c) Reqiiire or result in the colistniction of new
Significant
Mitigation Signifi carit
NO
El
Impact
Incorporated Impact
Impact
b) Reqiiire or restilt in the coiistriictioii of iiezo water or
callse si�gniflcant ewnroninental effects?
Wastewater treablicilt facilities or expansion of
FX__1
existing facilities, the construction Of Which COldii
caitse sign> flcaiit environmental effects?
Explanation: The proposed project would not consume water, other than a negligible amount,
potentially, associated with future temporary repairs to shoreline improverrients such as docks
and piers. This use of water would be for clean-tip of construction /repair work, and would not
be an ongoing or recurring demand. Such consumption -would represent an infinitesimally
small percentage of existing water consumption in the City; there Would be no potential for this
incremental, short-term demand to require construction of new or expanded water or
wastewater treatment facilities.
Explanation: The proposed project Would not affect existing stormwater drainage facilities. It
would not create new impervious surfaces or otherwise affect long-established drainage
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL, TRANSFER 81
Less Than
Potentially ii
Significant with i Less Than
Significant
Mitigation Significant '140
Impact
incorporated f Impact Impact
c) Reqiiire or result in the colistniction of new
Stol-1117i7afel- ciraiijage facilities or expansi011 of
El
0 11 FX_1
existin,, facilities, the construction of which could
callse si�gniflcant ewnroninental effects?
Explanation: The proposed project Would not affect existing stormwater drainage facilities. It
would not create new impervious surfaces or otherwise affect long-established drainage
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL, TRANSFER 81
patterns within the project area. The project would not cause any increase in the generation of
stormwater. It Would therefore have no effect on stormwater drainage facilities,
Explanation: As discussed in Section XVII(b), above, the project would have no effect on water
demand and, therefore, the project would have no effect on water supplies.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatinent provider which serves or may serve tile
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the El El FX-1
project's ' projected i demand in addition to the
provider's existing connuitnients?
Explanation; See Section XVII(b), above.
Less Than
Potentialty Significant
Significant With Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorpomted Impact Impact
f) Be served by a landfill with sitfflcient permitted
capacity to accoinntodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
Explanation: The project would not authorize any new development or new solid waste
disposal. There is no potential for the proposed Canal transfer to generate solid waste that
would exceed the existing permitted capacity of Altamont Landfill. The level of solid waste
impacts associated with the construction of subsequent repairs proposed along the waterfront is
speculative at this time and any potentially significant impacts would be analyzed (and
mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent CEQA review process. However, it is anticipated
that the majority of waste generated by subsequent repairs along the waterfront would most
likely consist of wood and/or concrete debris that could be recycled or composted.
Initial Study
82 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
-----------
Less Than
Potentiatly
Sipiftcant
Significant
With
Less Than
Impact
W-Jugaftn
Significant No
Incorporated
Impact Impact
d) Have stiff cient water supplies available to serve the
project from existing entitlements and resources., or
I
E] MR
tire neiv or expanded entitlements needed?
Explanation: As discussed in Section XVII(b), above, the project would have no effect on water
demand and, therefore, the project would have no effect on water supplies.
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater
treatinent provider which serves or may serve tile
project that it has adequate capacity to serve the El El FX-1
project's ' projected i demand in addition to the
provider's existing connuitnients?
Explanation; See Section XVII(b), above.
Less Than
Potentialty Significant
Significant With Less Than
Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorpomted Impact Impact
f) Be served by a landfill with sitfflcient permitted
capacity to accoinntodate the project's solid waste
disposal needs?
Explanation: The project would not authorize any new development or new solid waste
disposal. There is no potential for the proposed Canal transfer to generate solid waste that
would exceed the existing permitted capacity of Altamont Landfill. The level of solid waste
impacts associated with the construction of subsequent repairs proposed along the waterfront is
speculative at this time and any potentially significant impacts would be analyzed (and
mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent CEQA review process. However, it is anticipated
that the majority of waste generated by subsequent repairs along the waterfront would most
likely consist of wood and/or concrete debris that could be recycled or composted.
Initial Study
82 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER
Explanation: Projects that would cost $100,000 or more to construct must divert at least 50
percent of all construction and demolition (C&D) debris generated by the project, as set forth in
the City's Waste Management Plan Cirdinance.2" Applicants for permits for construction,
demolition, and renovation projects that will cost less than $100,000 will be encouraged to
divert at least 50 percent of all construction and demolition (C&D) debris generated by the
project, and will be required to make a good-faith effort toward this goal. Applicants for repairs
or renovations to docks and other shoreline facilities will be subject to this ordinance, and while
such repairs are expected to be well below the threshold requiring 50-percent diversion. of C&D
waste, they will be required to make a good-faith effort to achieve this level of diversion. Permit
applicants will be expected to comply with applicable State and federal regulations pertaining
to solid waste, and there is no reason to expect that approval of the proposed Canal transfer will
result in any conflicts with applicable regulations.
Poten Bally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degratle the
Signi icant
with
Less Than
Significant
Mitigation
Significant No
Impact,
Incorporated
J Impact Impact
g) Coinply with fietieral, state, and local statoles (111(i
El
FX-1 11
rcgi,ilations relatetf to solid wiiste?
levels , threaten to elintinate a plant . or aniinal
El
11
Explanation: Projects that would cost $100,000 or more to construct must divert at least 50
percent of all construction and demolition (C&D) debris generated by the project, as set forth in
the City's Waste Management Plan Cirdinance.2" Applicants for permits for construction,
demolition, and renovation projects that will cost less than $100,000 will be encouraged to
divert at least 50 percent of all construction and demolition (C&D) debris generated by the
project, and will be required to make a good-faith effort toward this goal. Applicants for repairs
or renovations to docks and other shoreline facilities will be subject to this ordinance, and while
such repairs are expected to be well below the threshold requiring 50-percent diversion. of C&D
waste, they will be required to make a good-faith effort to achieve this level of diversion. Permit
applicants will be expected to comply with applicable State and federal regulations pertaining
to solid waste, and there is no reason to expect that approval of the proposed Canal transfer will
result in any conflicts with applicable regulations.
Explanation: The project would not authorize any new development or ground- disturbing
activities. The level of impacts associated with the construction of subsequent repairs proposed
along the waterfront is speculative at this time and any potentially significant impacts would be
analyzed (and mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent CEQA review process.
Accordingly, the project would not adversely affect biological resources, including fish habitat
or fish Populations. The possibility for damage to historic or prehistoric cultural resources
associated with subsequent improvements along the waterfront is remote and would be
21) City of Alameda, MUIIiCipill Code, Chapter XXI, Article VI, Section 21-24.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 83
Poten Bally
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
NO
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degratle the
qnality of the enviromnent, stibstantially reduce the
habitat Of (7 fi-511 or wildlife species, cause to fish or
wildlife poptilation to drop below self-stistaining
levels , threaten to elintinate a plant . or aniinal
El
11
FX-1
0
coin tit ti nity, retince the wanber or restrict the range
of a rare or Fend artgerect plant or annnal or ehininate
intportant examples of the inajor periods of California
history or prehistoily?
Explanation: The project would not authorize any new development or ground- disturbing
activities. The level of impacts associated with the construction of subsequent repairs proposed
along the waterfront is speculative at this time and any potentially significant impacts would be
analyzed (and mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent CEQA review process.
Accordingly, the project would not adversely affect biological resources, including fish habitat
or fish Populations. The possibility for damage to historic or prehistoric cultural resources
associated with subsequent improvements along the waterfront is remote and would be
21) City of Alameda, MUIIiCipill Code, Chapter XXI, Article VI, Section 21-24.
Initial Study
OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANSFER 83
analyzed during a subsequent discretionary review process. Potential impacts to such resources
associated with the project would be less tl- an significant.
Explanation: No significant cumulative impacts were identified for the proposed project. As
indicated above, once the Corps` permitting moratorium is removed following project
implementation., repair of existing deteriorated docks, piers, and other shoreline structures my
be proposed that could disturb cause potentially significant impacts. The level of impacts
associated with Subsequent repairs proposed along the waterfront likely would be limited u1
nature and any potentially significant impacts would be analyzed (and nraitigated, as necessary)
during a subsequent CEQA review process.
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
i
a36aft
with Less ate
mitigation I Significant NO
Impact, I
IncoWraied I Impact Impact -,
b) Does the project have impacts that are individ ualty �
Significant
Impact
limited htrt cumulatively considerable?
Significant No
("Cumulatively considerable" xieans that the
i
increriaetttal effects of a project are cmisiderrable when 0
El El 11
vieweii Xti connectiol? With the Gfkcts of past projects,
[lac: effects of other current projects, and the effects cif
iW
probal7lefuture projects.)
Explanation: No significant cumulative impacts were identified for the proposed project. As
indicated above, once the Corps` permitting moratorium is removed following project
implementation., repair of existing deteriorated docks, piers, and other shoreline structures my
be proposed that could disturb cause potentially significant impacts. The level of impacts
associated with Subsequent repairs proposed along the waterfront likely would be limited u1
nature and any potentially significant impacts would be analyzed (and nraitigated, as necessary)
during a subsequent CEQA review process.
Explanation: The project does not authorize any ground disturbance that would cause a
substantial adverse effect on human beings. The level of impacts associated with subsequent
repairs proposed along the waterfront is speculative at this time and any potentially significant
impacts would be analyzed (anti mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent CEQA review
process.
This Initial. Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by Douglas Herring &
Associates, with assistance from the City of Alameda.
Initial study
84 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANsil"ER
Less Than
Potentially
Significant
with
t ,
Less Than
€
Significant
Impact
Mitigation
Significant No
i
in Wated'
impact Impact
0 Does the project have environmental effia:~ts that will
iW
ci ?irSe ScaltStnXX[7t ?t adverse ces n ft oZ ,
either directly or indirectly?
i
�
Explanation: The project does not authorize any ground disturbance that would cause a
substantial adverse effect on human beings. The level of impacts associated with subsequent
repairs proposed along the waterfront is speculative at this time and any potentially significant
impacts would be analyzed (anti mitigated, as necessary) during a subsequent CEQA review
process.
This Initial. Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared by Douglas Herring &
Associates, with assistance from the City of Alameda.
Initial study
84 OAKLAND INNER HARBOR TIDAL CANAL TRANsil"ER
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in a regular
meeting assembled on the 20th day of September, 2016, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, Ezzy Ashcraft, Matarrese, Oddie
and Mayor Spencer — 5.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of
said City this 21 st day of September, 2016.
Clerk
(�
Lara Weisiger, !ty'
City of Alameda
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
--Jane. 13. Kern, City Attorney
tA
City of Alameda