Title
Subject: Development of Infiniti Automobile Dealership
From: Community and Economic Development Agency
Recommendation: Adopt the following legislation:
(1) Agency Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration and authorizing the sale of approximately 4.35 acres of real property located on Oakport Street near Hassler Way for $3,318,047 to, and authorizing the negotiation and execution of, a Disposition and Development Agreement with Hendrick Automotive Group for the development of an Infiniti automobile dealership; and
Body
(1) AN AGENCY RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF +41.35 ACRES OF
AGENCY AND CITY REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON OAKPORT
STREET NEAR HASSLER WAY FOR $3,318,047, AND AUTHORIZING THE
NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF A DISPOSITION AND
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE
GROUP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN INFINITI AUTOMOBILE
DEALERSHIP; AND
(2) A CITY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF.93 ACRES OF CITY
LAND TO THE AGENCY FOR SALE TO HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE
GROUP FOR THE INFINITI DEALERSHIP
SUNTMARY
This report summarizes the proposal to construct and operate a new Infiniti auto dealership along
Oakport Street near Hassler Way. Under the proposal, Hendrick Automotive Group ("HAG")
would purchase 4.35 acres of Agency and City land for $3,318,047 under the terms of a
Disposition and Development Agreement. The sale price is based on the Agency fair market
value appraisal confirmed in 2003. The land sale provides substantial public benefits for the
City,including: I)thecreationofabout47newjobsmarketedto0aklandresidents;2)
increased general fund revenues through increased property, sales and business license taxes; and
3) employment of an underused property.
Staff is recommending approval of the Agency and City actions to establish the Infiniti brand in
Oakland and to capture sales tax revenues not currently available to the City. The land sale and
development of the new auto dealership will augment general fund revenues, enhance economic
development in an underutilized area, and will create new jobs for Oakland residents.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff has estimated that the net present value of all one time, and annual revenues over a ten-year
period accruing to the Agency and City, is equivalent to about $7 million at a 5% discount rate.
Item. (01
CED Committee
September 23, 2003
Deborah Edgerly
September 23, 2003 Page No. 2
Anticipated One Time Revenues
• Agency Land Sales Proceeds: The anticipated total land sales proceeds would equal
$3,318,047 less closing costs. The Agency parcel (3.42 acres) proceeds would bring
additional revenue of S3,277,454 to the Agency while the additional City parcel (.93
acre) proceeds would amount to S40,593. The sales price is based on the Agency's fair
market value appraisal of $22 per square foot dated January 2001 and the price of $1 per
square foot for the former City and Port rail parcel. The combined market value of the
two parcels is $17.50 per square foot based on the appraisal confirmations performed in
2003 by staff.
• City Real Estate Transfer Tax: Real estate transfer tax revenue of $49,770 is figured on a
tax rate of 1.5 percent applied to the proposed sales price of $3,318,047.
• City Building Perinit Fees: Building permit fees are estimated by Building Services to be
about $60,000 based on total construction costs of $4,181,953.
Anfic@pated Annual Revenues
• Agency Properi@r Tax Increment: The dealership construction is projected to increase the
property tax increment revenue and increase the Agency's bonding capacity for
affordable housing and project area capital improvements. The net present value of
property tax increment revenue over a ten-year period accruing to the Agency, based on a
5 % discount rate, is estimated to be $257,500.
• Cit'v Sales Tax: The net present value of sales tax revenue over a ten-year period
accruing to the City is estimated to be $2,930,000 based on a 5% discount rate. To
achieve this level of projected sales tax revenue, staff has required under the DDA that
the City of Oakland be the revenue address for both auto sales and leases written from
this location. The City receives 0.95 percent of total gross sales revenue generated by
retailers. It is important to note that approximately 42% of the general-purpose fund
sales tax revenues are generated by Auto & Transportation and Business and Industry,
with Auto & Transportation leading in FY 2002-03.
• Chy Business License Tax: The Business License Tax ("BLT") rate for auto dealers is
$1.20 per $ 1,000 of gross sale receipts. The net present value of business I icense tax
revenue over a ten-year period accruing to the City is estimated to be $370,643 based on
a 5% discount rate and the gross sales assumptions.
Discussion ofDealership Sales Tay Revenue
Sales tax revenue projections by the Hendrick Automotive Group have been reviewed by staff
and the City's consultant, the National Development Council, and determined to be reasonable.
Hendrick Automotive estimates the range of overall sales for new Infiniti autos as about 600 to
Item. (V
CED Committee
September 23, 2003
Deborah Edgerly
September 23, 2003 Page No. 3
1000 cars per year. Previously owned auto sales range from 300 to 600 cars and when combined,
total new and used car sales projections range from 900 to 1600 units per year over the first five
years of operation. Gross sales range from about $26.5 million in year one to about $52 million
in year five.
The upward trend in projected overall sales is driven by a handsome group of cars with
distinctive and award winning designs. Nissan launched the luxury car division, Infiniti, in 1989
with the luxurious flagship Q45 sedan. The Infiniti division of the Japanese automaker currently
markets a 2003 line of eight luxury cars and SUVs. The Infiniti line includes:
-@e The award wining G35 Sedan and Coupe, the Motor Trend 2003 Car of the Year
The Q45 Sedan with V-8 engine
The M45 Sedan with V-8 engine
I The 135 Sedan with V-6 engine
The new FX35 and FX45 Premium Crossover SUV
The QX4 Premium SUV.
The new 2003 Infiniti line is competitive and designed to produce a high sales volume dealership
along 1-880 at the Coliseum Shoreline location. The price range of the Infinti line is from
$27,800 to $61,600. As one of about 150 dealerships nationwide Oakland Infiniti is poised to
achieve over $50 million in gross sales in five years.
BACKGROUND
In November 2002, the Community and Economic Development Agency (CEDA) solicited
proposals and received the best offer from Hendrick Automotive Group to acquire 4.35 acres of
remaining Agency and City Coliseum Shoreline land to construct and operate a new Infiniti
dealership. In April 2003 the proposed terins of the purchase proposal were reviewed with
Council in closed session. Council directed staff to negotiate and work with HAG to complete
due diligence review, design development, and environmental review.
The Environmental Initial Study has concluded that the project as mitigated would not have any
significant adverse impacts on the environment and supported the preparation of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration, which will be filed with the County Recorder once the State comment
period is completed. As a result, the Environmental Review Regulations of the City of Oakland
have been satisfied. A copy of the Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration,
environmental determination and findings, summary of mitigation and monitoring measures, and
conditions of approval for the Infiniti Dealership are attached.
Staff reviewed the Dealer's business financial statements, letter of intent from Infiniti and
financing interest for acquisition, construction, inventory, and term loan from the company
lender, Bank of America. Staff determined that both debt and equity financing are sufficient to
complete the project. Staff assessment is based on the completion of the underwriting by the
Item. (0
CED Committee
September 23, 2003
Deborah Edgerly
September 23, 2003 Page No. 4
bank which has progressed sufficiently for staff to support the approval of the project land sale to
the Hendrick Automotive Group.
KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS
Market Assessment
• Infiniti, a division of Nissan Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc. has concluded that the Oakland
market has the sales demand for the Infiniti product and will benefit from the increased
sales and service established at the location within the market. No Infiniti dealer is
located in Oakland and the closest Infiniti dealer is in Pleasanton.
• Broadway Auto Row was considered but Nissan prefers to have the Infiniti dealership
along the freeway, distinct from the existing Auto Row Nissan dealership.
Agenev Limitations
• UnderprovisionsofAssemblyBiII1290(HealthandSafetyCode,Section33426.5),the
Agency is prohibited from providing direct assistance to automobile dealers on land that
was not previously developed for urban use.
• Asaresult,theAgencywillsellthepropertytotheDealeratamarketrate.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Hendrick Auto Group would construct a 37,000 square-foot, two-story building to serve as a
showroom, offices, and an auto service center for the Infiniti dealership.
2005 Infiniti Facility Requirements Square Feet
Showroom 4,750
Office area on Floors One and Two 12,000
Service (includes 16 service bays and separate car wash structure) 12,456
0 Paris and Service Area 7,544
Total building area: M-M
The proposed project also includes surface parking for up to 372 spaces and a pylon sign for
Infiniti that will be 24 feet in height by 8 feet wide located on Oakport Street. The Oakport
Street fagade would be approximately 26 feet tall and the south building fa@ade for the auto
service center would be similar to the east and west facades with the exception of the three
sectional overhead doors and two main doors. The building would be surrounded by surface
parking along Oakport Street.
Funding for the project is summarized in the sources and uses table shown below.
Item.
CED Committee
September 23, 2003
Deborah Edgerly
September 23, 2003 Page No. 5
Sources and Uses of Funds
Uses
Land Purchase Cost S 3,318,047
Expected Construction Cost $ 4,181,953
Sources
Real Estate Loan - Bank of America $ 6,375,000
Cash in bank - Hendrick Automotive Group S 1,125,000
Total 7,500,000
ENVIRONNEENTAL OPPORTIJNITIES
Economic
The dealership is expected to hire 47 workers in the areas of management, sales, service, parts
and administration. The number of positions may increase as the auto service component
expands. The hourly wage rates for these full-time, permanent, salaried positions will range
fromabout$10.00to$60.00plusbenefits. Employeeswillalsohavetheopportunitytoeam
performance based bonuses and commissions.
Environmental
The City Sustainability coordinator has worked with the architects, Michael Zucker and
Associates, to encourage use of "Green Building" principles in the project design. Sustainability
staff has asked Zucker and Associates to maximize "Green Building" approaches during
structure design and to use City assistance for energy efficient design. The project is required to
comply with the Clean Water Act, hazardous waste disposal regulations, and is required to
submit a plan, and demonstrate a good faith effort to divert 50% of solid waste from landfills.
Social Equi
The construction increases revenue to the City in the form of higher property tax derived from
added improvement values which would increase the tax increment available to the Agency for
affordable housing and other needed capital improvements. The Hendrick Auto Group has
voluntarily agreed to work with the City Workforce staff to increase the job benefits to local
residents. The hiring of local residents will ensure that the project provides both financial and
social benefits to the City of Oakland.
DISABILITY AND SENIOR CITIZEN ACCESS
All construction on site will comply with ADA and Title 24 Accessibility Guidelines.
Item.
CED Committee
September 23, 2003
Deborah Edgerly
September 23, 2003 Page No. 6
RECOMMENDATIONS AND RATIONALE
Staff recommends that the Agency adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA and
approve the sale of the property based on the findings of the Initial Study. The proposed project
is a permitted activity under the existing zoning and land use classification and is consistent with
the goals and objectives of the Coliseum Area Redevelopment Plan. The Infiniti project is also
consistent with the objectives of the Implementation Plan to attract new business to the area and
develop and improve underutilized parcels adjacent to Interstate Highway 880.
Sale of the Agency land at fair market value would enable the Agency to repay a share of the
original $8.5 million obligation owed to the City. This payment will increase City general fund
revenues to support other public services and programs and the sale will provide land that will
attract the Hendrick Auto Group, a viable business that will create new jobs for Oakland
residents and will assist in developing a vacant parcel in the Coliseum Shoreline project.
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the ordinance authorizing the sale of the City
land parcel to the Agency for resale to the Hendrick Automotive Group, and that the Agency
adopt the resolution authorizing the sale of the 4.35 acre parcel to the Hendrick Automotive
Group for construction of a new Infiniti Dealership.
Respectfully Su mitted,
Daniel Vanderpriem
Director of Redevelopment
Prepared by: Jay Musante, UEA III
APPROVED FOR FORWARDING TO THE COMMUNITY
AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
OFFICE OF THE CITYMANAGERIAGErY ADMINISTRATOR
Item:
CED Committee
September 23, 2003
( @ 1@@, @,@
A
F F I C F cr C L E R
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND 2003SEP II PM 2:07
RESOLUTION No. C.M.S.
AN AGENCY RESOLUTION ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF
APPROXIMATELY 4.35 ACRES OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED
ON OAKPORT STREET NEAR HASSLER WAY FOR $3,318,047
TO, AND AUTHORIZING THE NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION
OF, A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH,
HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF
AN INFINITI AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland ("Agency") owns
approximately 3.42 acres of unimproved and vacant real property located along Oakport Street near
Hassler Way, which property is more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and made a
part hereof ("Agency Parcel"); and
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland ("City") owns approximately .93 acres of vacant real
property ("City Parcel") adjacent to the Agency Parcel which property is more particularly described
in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and made a part hereof; and
WHEREAS, concurrently with adoption of this resolution, the City has made certain
findings and has agreed to sell the City Parcel to the Agency for redevelopment; and
WHEREAS, the Agency Parcel and the City Parcel collectively shall be referred to as
the "Property;" and
WHEREAS, the Property is located in the Coliseum Redevelopment Project Area; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 96-53 C.M.S., the Agency purchased the
Agency Parcel from the City using non-tax increment funds, and executed a promissory note to the
City for the $8.5 million purchase price; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 33430 authorizes a redevelopment
agency within a survey (project) area or for purposes of redevelopment to sell real property, Section
33432 requires that any sale of real property by a redevelopment agency in a project area must be
conditioned on redevelopment and use of the property in conformity with the redevelopment plan,
and Section 33439 provides that a redevelopment agency must retain controls and establish
restrictions or covenants running with the land for property sold for private use as provided in the
redevelopment plan; and
ItemALL
CED Committee
September 23, 2003
2
WHEREAS, the Agency has entered into negotiations with Hendrick Automotive
Group, a New York general partnership ("Buyer") to purchase the Property for development of an
approximately 37,000 square-foot, two-story building, and related parking spaces for a new Infiniti
automobile dealership and service facility (the "Project"); and
WHEREAS, the Agency has held a public hearing on this sale, notice of which was
given by publication at least once a week for two weeks in a newspaper of general circulation; and
WHEREAS, the City is the Lead Agency for this Project for purposes of
environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ("ISIMND")
was prepared under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ("CEQA") for the Infiniti
(Oakland) automobile dealership and service facility and for the proposed general advertising sign;
and
WHEREAS, the IS/MND concluded that the Project, as mitigated, will not have any
significant adverse impacts on the environment and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was
prepared and circulated for public comment; and
WHEREAS, the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines as prescribed by the
Secretary for Resources, and the provisions of the Environmental Review Regulations of the City of
Oakland have been satisfied; and
WHEREAS, the Project conforms to the Redevelopment Plan for the Coliseum Area
Redevelopment Project adopted on July 25, 1995, and subsequently amended on July 29, 1997,
as well as the Five Year Implementation Plan for the Coliseum Area (the "Coliseum
Redevelopment Plan"); now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED: That the Agency hereby finds and determines that the sale of the
Property by the Agency to Buyer or a legal entity controlled by Buyer furthers the purposes of the
California Community Redevelopment Law, contributes to the elimination of blight in the Coliseum
Redevelopment Project Area, conforms to the Coliseum Redevelopment Plan, and furthers the
goals and objectives of said Plan in that the Project will: redevelop a vacant and underutilized site;
stimulate industrial, R&D, and commercial development; provide long-term job training and
employment opportunities for Project Area residents; improve transportation, public facilities and
infrastructure in the Project Area; enhance neighboring property values; assist neighborhood
commercial revitalization; and attract new and retain existing businesses in the Project Area; and
be it further
RESOLVED: That the Agency finds and determines that (i) it was presented the
IS/MND and has reviewed and considered the information in the IS/MND prior to taking action on the
Project; (ii) the IS/MND is legally adequate and was completed in compliance with CEQA; (Iii) there is
no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment; and (iv) the
ISIMND identifies all potential significant impacts and feasible mitigation measures that would reduce
these impacts to less than significant levels and such mitigation measures have been incorporated
311490-4
3
into the project, by the City of Oakland, through conditions of approval and adoption of a mitigation
monitoring program; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Agency adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the
proposed project; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Agency hereby authorizes the Agency Administrator or her
designee to sell the Property to Buyer for the fair market value cash price of $3,318,047 with
$3,277,454 paid to the Agency and $40,593 paid to the city for the Fair Market Value of the City
Parcel; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Property shall be transferred to Buyer pursuant to terms of a
Disposition and Development Agreement ("DDA") to be negotiated and executed by Agency and
Buyer; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the transaction shall include the following terms and conditions:
• The price of $3,318,047 to be payable in cash at the close of escrow;
• The Agency to have the option to repurchase all or portions of the Property if
Buyer does not commence construction of the Project within the time frames
specified in the DDA;
• Buyer to comply with provisions of the Coliseum Area Redevelopment Plan and
nondiscrimination provisions of redevelopment law;
• The Buyer to write automobile leases from an Oakland address to assure that
related sales tax accrues to the City of Oakland; and
• Any other appropriate terms and conditions as the Agency Administrator or her
designee may establish in his or her discretion or as the California Community
Redevelopment Law or Redevelopment Plan may require;
and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Agency finds that the above transaction represents a fair
market value sale of the Property at the Property's highest and best use; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Agency Administrator is authorized to negotiate and execute
an amendment to the promissory note to the City; and be it further
RESOLVED: That all documents shall be reviewed and approved by Agency
Counsel prior to execution, and copies will be placed on file with the Agency Secretary; and be it
further
RESOLVED: That the Agency hereby appoints the Agency Administrator or her
designee as agent of the Redevelopment Agency to conduct negotiations, execute documents
with respect to the sale of the Property, including any grant deeds or other documentation as
necessary to effectuate the transaction, exercise any of the repurchase options, pay the purchase
3 11490 4
4
price, and accept property under those options, and take any other action with respect to the
Property and the Project consistent with this Resolution and its basic purpose; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the Agency Administrator or her designee is hereby authorized to
file a notice of determination on this action with the Office of the Alameda County Recorder, and the
Agency Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to retain a copy of the IS/MND in the record of
proceedings for this Project, which shall be maintained by the Agency Secretary; and be it further
RESOLVED: That the custodians and locations of the documents or other materials
which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Agency's decision is based are
respectively: (a) the Community & Economic Development Agency, Projects Division, 250 Frank H.
Ogawa Plaza, 5th floor, Oakland CA; (b) the Community & Economic Development Agency,
Planning Division, 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 3rd floor, Oakland CA; and (c) the Office of the City
Clerk, I Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, I't floor, Oakland, CA.
IN AGENCY, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, 2003
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES- BROOKS, BRUNNER, CHANG, NADEL, QUAN, REID, WAN, AND CHAIRPERSON DE LA
FUENTE,
NOES-
ABSENT-
ABSTENTION-
ATTEST:
CEDA FLOYD
Secretary of the Redevelopment Agency
of the City of Oakland
Item AP-11
CED Committee
311490-4 September 23, 2003
5
EXHIBIT A
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Item @-@
CED Committee
September 23, 2003
3 11490 4
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEI-2
Real property located in the City of Oakland, County of Alameda, State of California,
also being a portion of Lot I as shown on the Parcel Map Waiver and Certificate of
Compliance recorded October 7, 1999 as series 99382176, more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at the most northerly corner of said Lot I as shown on said Parcel Map
Waiver and Certificate of Compliance; thence, along the northeasterly line of said Lot 1,
South 33050'12" East, 289.43 feet; thence, leaving said northeasterly line of Lot 1,
South 56009'36" West, 514.71 feet to a point on the southwesterly line of Lot 1 0 as
shown on said Parcel Map Waiver and Certificate of Compliance; thence, along the
southwesterly line of said Lot I 0, North 33'50'24" West, 289.43 feet to the intersection
with the northwesterly line of Lot 1 extended southwesterly; thence, along said
extension and said northwesterly line of Lot 1, North 56009'36" East, 514.72 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
Containing 3.42 acres, more or less, measured in ground distances.
END OF DESCRIPTION
Bearings and distances described herein are based upon the California Coordinate
System of 1983, Zone 111, 1986 adjustment. All distances described herein are grid
distances. To obtain ground distances, multiply grid distances by 1.0000708.
Surveyor's Statement
This description was prepared pursuant to section 8726 of the Business and Professions
Code of the State of California by or under the supervision of:
. . . . . . . .
7:
kvAi
HIqlssvH
CD p>
o-
z QL
Ld 3:
z @z co 110 z
0 CO (o M LZ
Q@ w
z Z MO
9 t;j 0
0 Q
4-; C:) CL CL
z z ir U <T-
ui --.) D-1 0 0 0 Im V)
z LE CL
C-D
Z F4 C@
CD z
CD
m Ln V
CD CQ
txo
@9 M.9@:,60.99S
C CO
;-4 4i 0
LI) - ct Q)
Er n LA
:2 in
C\2 m
In [L.
L) CC) 0 0
co N
C,2 >
-4. Q) w
73 m '-t
1::@ 0
E" LLJ
cli in co
Z- Ln
co
z w
U-) (D fl)
;o x E cr, z g
m CT
M
co 3,,92,60.99N
Lr,
Ul Ln
CQ Q
2002005766 01/04/20U 03!57 PM
OFFICIAL. RECORDS OF RECORDING rrE: 0 00
RECORDING REQUESTED BY: ALAMEDA COUNTY
PATRICK O'CONNELL
City of Oakland, a Municipal
Corporation
PCs
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: I
Frank Fanelli, ASA
Manager, Real Estate Division
City of Oakland
Community & Economic Development Agency
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
4" floor
Oakland, CA 94612
TAX ROLL PARCEL NUMBER
(ASSESSOR'S REFERENCE NUMBER)
041-3902-013-00
MAP BLOCK PARCEL SUB (Space above for Recorder's use only)
co R-- R--E,., Q--T-11t) N D 0 C U M E N T
To Correct and Amend
The
Certificate of Compliance
Recorded on April 27, 2001 by the City of Oakland, as Document Number 2001141354,
Alameda County Records.
This Correction Document is being recorded for the following reason:
There is an error in the distance label an the northwesterly line The
distance was labeled 414.72 feet, but should have read 514.72 feWetN'-e revised
description and plat are attached.
Owner: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland
Date: j
2--
APPROVED:
Date: -z-
@@`ary
Zoning Administrator
Local Agency Official
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property located in 'the City of Oakland, County of Alameda, State of Cal@@Irimia,
being a portion of Lot 10, as shown on Parcel Map 6003, recorded in Book 205 of Parcel
Maps at pages 94-98, Alameda County Records, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the most westerly corner of Parcel 2 as shown on Certificate of
Compliance, recorded April 27, 2001 as series number 2001141354, Alameda County
Records; thence, along the westerly line of said Lot 10, North 33050'24" West 1282.76
feet to a point on a curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 372-21 feet;
thence northwesterly 26.45 feet along said curve through a central angle of 4004'1 6";
thence North 56009'36" East 20.05 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave to the
southwest having a radius of 392.21 feet to which point a radial line bears North
52017'51 " East, said point also being on the easterly line of said Lot 4, 0; thence
southeasterly 26.44 feet along said curve through a central angle of 03051'45"; thene
continuing along said easterly line of Lot 10 the following 3 courses:
1. South 33050'24" East 253.55 feet;
2. North 56009'36" Past, 14.00 feet;
3. South 33050'24!' East 1029.21 feet to a point on the northwesterly line of said
Parcel 2;
Thence along said nothwesterly line South 56009'36" West 34.00 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Containing 40,593 square feet, more or less, measured in grid distances.
ENE) OF DESCRIPTION
This description is based upon the North American Datum of 1983, (1986 Adjustment)
as shown upon Record of Survey 990, 5led for record in Bock 18 of Record of Surveys,
Pages 50-60, in the Office of the Recorder of Alameda County. All distances called for
by this description are grid distances. To obtain ground distances, multiply distances
called for herein by 1.0000708.
Surieyor's Statement
I hereby state that this description and its accompanying plat were prepared byrre or
under my direction in December 2001.
Zz@
n
ate
2
L5
X N
P4 6@ @
4-) co v o M
Lt v
I:z
00 E b
U C\2
CQ n O
-e Q) =:O-
-0, c m
C\2 co
C)
Zo 41
Ln w
u
0 U V) 0 Ln
L)
0
7)
06
O
E--4
cr) -
0 Lr) 14 LI
06
1:1, c
0 c
El rl- 0LZ
C
E-
LC
CD C
'Lo
LLJ C-@
Nt a
:;t: C14 C14 L)
0 u
Q) c
CL
LO (n
kn
E--4 co
P')
I 0
a) N 0
U)
=0 Ln m >1
LO Q-
1@4 C:
z rl)
-0@ E Z q) (Z
V@
Ln u Q)
C
20
77 'd- CD 0
LC -d- ri
CC n - 'LO CN 7:,
Ln 4- - 0 vi.In rz @@- z
rl) C14 CD C14 U2 w C\j 0-0 z
-d- -q- C@
Ln CD -0
Ln Ln ul Lf)
C,4 Cf) CL.
Z - r
Q) O N.-)
LLJ
C4
C) 0
`51 R@/
'o C'4 C)
o o
rl:INNVT @OXV(, 5
Q) -
RECORDING REOUESTED BY: 2002005767 E/04/2002 03.57 Pil
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RECORDING FEE: 0.00
ALAMEDA COUNTY
City of Oakland, a Municipal PATRICK O'CONNELL
Corporation
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: 4 PGS
Frank Fanelli, ASA
Manager, Real Estate Division
City of Oakland
Community & Economic Development Agency
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
4'h floor
Oakland, CA 94612
TAX ROLL PARCEL NUM13ER
(ASSESSOR'S REFERENCE NUMBER)
04 i -3902-01 3-00
MAP BLOCK PARCEL SUB (Space above for Recorder's use only)
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
For the subdivision of the remainder of Lot 1 0 resulting from the recording of the
Certificate of Compliance filed April 27, 2001 as Series No. 2001141354, Alameda
County Records, and which property is shown in its entirety on Parcel Map 6003 filed
June 2, 1993 in Rook 205 of Parcel Maps at pages 94-98, Alameda County Records.
Pursuant to sections33166.20 1/z and 66499.35 of the Government Code of the State of
California and City of Oakland Municipal Code section 16.24.020, the City of Oakland, a
municipal corporation, hereby records this Certificate of Compliance for the parcels of
land described in the attached Legal Descriptions and accompanying plats, after finding
that the parcels described are in compliance with section 66428 by virtue of a Parcel
Map Waiver attached and hereby made a part of this Certificate of Compliance.
Oviner: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland,
Date:
APPROVED:
4
-Z Date:
Gary Patton
Zoning Administrator
Local Agency Official
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF.93 ACRES OF CITY LAND NEAR
OAKPORT STREET AND HASSLER WAY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE
CITY OF OAKLAND FOR $40, 593, FOR SALE TO HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN INFINITI DEALERSHIP
NOTICE AND DIGEST
This Ordinance authorizes the City to sell .93 acres of City land near Oakport Street and Hassler
Way in the Coliseum Redevelopment Project Area, to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Oakland for $40, 593, in cash, for sale to Hendrick Automotive Group for development of an Infiniti
dealership.
Item 4 too 41
CED Committee
September 23, 2003
3 11497-3
ER@
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL
ORDINANCE No. C.M.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER
A CITY ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING SALE OF.93 ACRES OF CITY LAND NEAR OAKPORT
STREET AND HASSLER WAY TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR $40,593, FOR
SALE TO HENDRICK AUTOMOTIVE GROUP FOR DEVELOPMENT OF AN INFINITI
DEALERSHIP
WHEREAS, the City of Oakland (the "City") owns approximately .93 acres of real property
located near Oakport Street and Hassler Way, as more fully described in Exhibit A attached to this
Ordinance (the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Ordinance Nos. 10142 and 11602 C.M.S., which
establish procedures for the sale and lease of City-owned property; and
WHEREAS, the Property is located within the Coliseum Redevelopment Project Area; and
WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland ("Agency") desires to
purchase the Property from the City for redevelopment purposes; and
WHEREAS, Health and Safety Code Section 33220 authorizes any public body, with or
without consideration, to sell property to a redevelopment agency to promote redevelopment
projects; and
WHEREAS, the City is the Lead Agency for this project for purpose of environmental review
under the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 ("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the requirements of CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines as prescribed by the Secretary
for Resources, and the provisions of the Environmental Review Regulations of the City of Oakland
have been met because this transaction is exempt from CEQA under section 15312 of the CEQA
Guidelines (sale of surplus government property);
NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OAKLAND DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Pursuant to Sections 1 and 8 of Ordinance No. 10142 C.M.S., and Sections 4 and
6 of Ordinance No. 11602 C.M.S., it is determined to be in the best interest of the City to sell the
Property by negotiated sale to the Agency, since the Property is located in a redevelopment project
area and the Agency is the agency responsible for promoting redevelopment in Oakland's project
areas.
3 1 1497 3
Section 2. The City Council hereby authorizes the conveyance of the Property to the
Redevelopment Agency for the price of $40,593 in cash.
Section 3. The City Manager is authorized to negotiate and execute a grant deed or other
agreements as necessary to convey the Property to the Agency upon satisfaction of any
preconveyance conditions imposed by the City Manager or her designee.
Section 4. The City Manager or her designee is authorized to file a notice of exemption for
this action.
IN COUNCIL, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA, 2003
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES- BROOKS, BRUNNER, CHANG, NADEL, QUAN, REID, WAN, AND PRESIDENT DE LA FUENTE
NOES-
ABSENT-
ABSTENTION-
ATTEST:
CEDA FLOYD
City Clerk and Clerk of the Council
of the City of Oakland, California
Item # (P
CED Committee
September 23,2003
3 1 1497-3
5
EXHIBITA
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Item #
CED C
September 23, 20(3
311490-2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property located in the City of Oakland, County of Alameda, State of California,
being a portion of Lot 10, as shown on Parcel Map 6003, recorded in Book 205 of Parcel
Maps at pages 94-98, Alameda County Records, more particularly described as fc1lows:
Beginning at the most westerly corner of Parcel 2 as shown on Certificate of
Compliance, recorded April 27, 2001 as series number 2001141354, Alameda County
Records; thence, along the westerly line of said Lot lb, North 33050'24" West 1282.76
feet to a point on a curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 372.21 feet;
thence northwesterly 26.45 feet along said curve through a central angle of 4004'16";
thence North 56009'36" East 20.05 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave to the
southwest having a radius of 392,21 feet to which point a radial line bears North
52017'51 " East, said point also being on the easterly line of said Lot 1 0; thence
southeasterly 26.44 feet along said curve through a central angle of 03051'45"; thence
continuing along said easterly line of Lot 10 the following 3 courses:
1 .South 33'50'24" East 253.55 feet;
2. North 56009'36" East, 14.00 feet;
3. South 33050'24" East 1 029.21 feet to a point on the northwesterly line of said
Parcel 2;
Thence along said northwesterly line South 56009'36" West 34.00 feet 'O the Point of
Beginning,
Containing 40,593 square feet, more or less, measured in grid distances.
END OF DESCRIPTION
This description is based upon the North American Datum of 1983, (1986 Adjustment)
as shown upon Record of Survey 990, filed for record in Back I 8 of Record of Surveys,
Pages 50-60, in the Office of the Recorder of Alameda County. All distances called for
by this description are grid distances. To obtain ground distances, multiply distances
called for herein by 1.0000708.
Surveyor's Statement
I hereby state that this description and its accompanying plat were prepared by me or
under my direction in December 2001.
i`c Date
2
.-7/0z.@'5
0
Lo
7L
0 C
N -i@-
=44-- -
5.: M:ll C, z
C\2 0 CO (T) w A
m
m ZO
< <
w < @ W
CIUU)O W<M
Cf) M=C)<
Fr.
La 2
00
E-0 (M
;4
I E--4
U K)
0)-
V) C)
CL -
0
E CO
---4 C@'
cn O CT; C: CD
z
C) .13)
0 tw
C
CD
C@
LLJ
:Q G) C@
CN CN cn
;n C(D
0u
U') 0C
Q)
LLJ
N
-Y
CD N 0
P 0 U)
CD C) - U) >1
LO n Q) 'le@
n
z
Ln 0
u - atz
u
CN
C
LU CD r3
Lo rn C,4
N CD Lf@ m W
C)
Ln o L.1 CD -a -0 z r.3
CD
0
Ln CN uC
Ln CL cn Lr)
Z
O
-IC a
z
CD
CD C.)
>
u
rjH.Nj-K -qD \jOW-VQ
<
2002005767 01/04/2002 03:57 PM
RECORDING REQUESTED BY: OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RECORDING FEE 0.00
ALAMEDA COUNTY
City of Oakland, a Municipal jPiATRICK O'CONNELL
Corporation
4 FOS
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Frank Fanelli, ASA
Manager, Real Estate Division
City of Oakland
Community & Economic Development Agency
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
4"' floor
Oakland, CA 94612
TAX ROLL PARCEL NUMBER
(ASSESSOR@S REFERENCE NUMBER)
041-3902-013-00
MAP BLOCK PARCEL SUB (Space above for Recorder's use only)
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
Forthe subdivision of the remainder of Lot 10 resulting from the recording of the
Certificate of Compliance filed April 27, 2001 as Series No. 2001141354, Alameda
County Records, and which property is shown in its entirety on Parcel Map 6003 filed
June 2, 1993 in Book 205 of Parcel Maps at pages 94-98, Alameda County Records.
Pursuant to sections33166.20 1/2 and 66499.35 of the Government Code of the State of
California and City of Oakland Municipal Code section 16.24.020, the City of Oakland, a
municipal corporation, hereby records this Certificate of Compliance for the parcels of
land described in the attached Legal Descriptions and accompanying plats, after finding
that the parcels described are in compliance with section 66428 by virtue of a Parcel
Map'Vaiver attached and hereby made a part of this Certificate of Compliance.
Owner: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland-,
f
Date:
APPROVED:
-4_@ Date:
Gary Patton
Zoning Administrator
Local Agency C1111cial
J
City of Oakland
File No. ER03 0013
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONNMNTAL
REVIEW CHECKLIST
Taliforma Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
1. Project Title: Infiniti Auto Dealership (Oakland)
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Oakland
Community and Economic Development Agency
Planning Division
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 3330
Oakland, CA 94612
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Catherine Payne
(510) 238-6316
4. Project Location: 7201 Oakport Avenue
Parcel 2 of Lot 10, Parcel Map 6003, Bk 205 of
Alameda County Records.
Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Ron Tye
Hendrick Automotive Group
4345 Rosewood Drive
Pleasanton, CA 94588
6. General Plan Designation: Business Mix
7. Zoning: M40 Heavy Industrial Zone
8. Description of Project:
Promect Site. The proposed project is located on an approximately 4.35-acre site generally bordered
by Oakport Street to the northl, a Lexus Dealership to the east, the AMB Distribution site to the
south. and Zhone Technologies to the west (see Figure 1). The 1-880 freeway is locatedjust north
of the project site, and the Network Associates Coliseum and the Coliseum BART Station are
located on the north side of the freeway. The project site is currently vacant.
For purposes of this analysis. Lhe City of Oakland's convention for directions is used. dius placing the Oakland Hills to Lhe
riorth.
ER03 0013 - Lfima D@Merslup L.U.1 SWdv E@SA / 203173
SITE
1@ Le@dro
Bav
VVAXLWD INTE@ATIQXAL@
0 2000
Feet j
\x
SOURCE: E.Y@ud Sm.n. A'@M: C2Jd0 SMW Aulo.obfie Am.mam @@InfinlriDealership,,203173
Figare 1
Site Location Map
RM'IAL STUDY AND ENVFRONNIENTAL REVIEW CBECKLIST
CALIFORNIA FNVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Proiect Description. The proposed project would entail the construction of an approximately
35,000 square-foot, 2-story building with a mezzanine to serve as a showroom, offices, an allto
service center, and a parts department for an Infiniti auto dealership. The proposed project also
includes 42 to 52 parking spaces (22 spaces for customers plus 20 to 30 spaces for employees) on a
parcel located behind Zhone Technologies building. Approximately 305 to 320 parking spaces
would be used for inventory/display purposes (see Figure 2).
Approximately 16,750 square-feet would be dedicated to an auto showroom, employee office area,
and customer reception area and would be located in the northernmost portion of the auto
dealership building, along Oakport Street. The approximately 5,060 square foot auto parts storage
and wholesale parts sales will be located at the east side of the building. An approximately 13,850
square foot accessory auto service center would be located at the southern and western portion of
the building which would include 16 service bays (see Figures 3 and 4). An approximately 1,000
square-foot building, located near the southwest corner of the auto service center, would serve as a
car wash for the Infiniti dealership cars and for cars being serviced in the auto service center.
The Oakport Street building faqade would be approximately 26 to 30 feet tall featuring a synthetic
stucco cube with a protruding triangular aluminum and glass curtain wall (about 18 feet tall) to
highlight the auto showtoom, offices, and customer reception area. The west building faqade
facing the Zhone Technologies building would be about 26 to 30 feet in height incorporating a
parapet. The faqade would have horizontal accent bands in a smooth-face masonry. The east
building fagade would be similar to the west faqade with the exception of two sectional overhead
doors. The south building faqade would be similar to the east and west facades with the exception
of three sectional overhead doors and two hollow metal access/egress man doors (see Figures 5 and
6).
The project would also include two pylon signs that would be 24 feet in height on a raised base of
about 4 feet and would be 8 feet wide (see Figure 7).
A driven pile foundation with reinforced concrete slab would be considered for the project. The
potential need for pile driving would be deterritined by required site-specific engineering studies to
be prepared prior to construction. However, for purposes of this environmental review, it has been
assumed that pile driving will be wfed, as this type of construction will likely result in the most
severe noise impacts.
The proposed project would include installation of one 1,500 gallon underground oil/water
separator storage tank for service drainage, one aboveground 500 gallon anti-freeze storage tank
one aboveground 500 gallon used oil storage tank, and four aboveground 200 gallon new oil
storage tanks, all of which are contained in a spill-proof concrete enclosure.
The proposed project requires action by the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland
(Agency) to sell the Agency-owned site to the project sponsor through a Disposition and
Development Agreement (DDA) or a Purchase and Sale Agreement. This Initial Study is intended
to address potential environmental impacts associated with construction and operation of the
project including construction of the proposed development project and obtainment of all necessary
zoning, grading and building permits. and any other discretionary actions required by the City of
Oakland and other governmental agencies.
ER03 0013 - mfnfi Deal@.Wp Iual SWdy 3 FSA/203171
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONNIENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CFQA)
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The proposed 4.35-acre project site is located in the Central
East Oakland Planning Area of the City of Oakland's General Plan Land Use and Transportation
Element. The project site is within one mile of the Oakland International Airport, the Network
Associates Coliseum, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline, and San Leandro Bay. The
project site is located on a lot generally bordered by Oakport Street to the north, a Lexus
Dealership to the east, AMB Distribution site to the south, and Zhone Technologies building to the
west (see Figures 8 and 9). Land uses within the vicinity of the project site are characteristically
commercial and light industrial business campuses including the Lexus Deal 'ership, and Oakland
Corporate Centre to the east and the Zhone Technologies campus located to the west of the site.
The Airport Business Park which includes warehouse, commercial, office, and light industrial uses
is located immediately south of the project site and extends out towards the San Leandro Bay and
shoreline for approximately 1/4 mile. The project site is located approximately 50 feet south of the
1-880 freeway and is served by public transit including the Coliseum BART station located less
than one mile north of the project site on San Leandro Boulevard. AC Transit routes within the
vicinity of the project site include Line 98 along Oakport Street, and Lines 49, 49M, 49X, 58, and
"A" which are accessible from Hegenberger Road to the east.
10. Actions for Which This Initial Study May Be Applied Include, Without Limitation:
• Disposition and Development Agreement or Purchase and Sale Agreement
• Subdivision of Property
ER03 0013 - 1@fi.u Dniersbup faidal SWdy 4 ESA J Z03 i 73
. ....
I t
is
Im
if
L-4
"16
Ail
tn
CM >
I u
0
HI 1
CO
co
@T,
04
PLI
T-TI
---- - ----- ---
UA
zo
Nomhem view of project site and Oakport ShmeL
Eastem view of project site md Lzxus dealership site.
Infimn DeWership Y 203173 41
SOURCE: E.,imm.W S@m A$@.&= Figure 8
Project Photos
t
Southern view of project site arid AMEB Distribution site.
01
77 @e5 32@6
J.:-
Western view of project site and Zhone Technologies site.
SOURCE: InfimDealersho I ZO3173 0
Figure 9
Project Photos
INITIAL ST`FJDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECYLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the foflowing pages.
F-1 Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources ZAir Quality
Biological Resources Z Cultural Resources F-1 Geology/Soils
Z Hazards/Hazardous Materials Z Hydrology[Water Quality Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources Z Noise Population/Housing
Public Services F@ Recreation F-1 Transportation/Traffic
Z Utifities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
ER03 0013 - Lafiaid Dealenhip bumi Smdy 13 ESA 1 203173
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
DETEIMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. F1
I 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 mitigation measures have been
added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
1 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. An
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects
that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed 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 Date
Claudia Cappio Leslie Gould
Manager of Major Projects Planning Director
ER03 0013 - Lafi= D=1cnWp L,.uai S@dy 1 4 FSA 203173
U41TIAL STUDY AND ENWRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECXJIST
CALIFORNIA ENVrRONMFNTAL QUALMY ACr (CEQA)
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EMPACTS
Potentially
Significant
Potentially unle@ Less Than
significattt Nfifigation Significant NO
Impact Incomorated Impact Impac
1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcioppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? z
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site and its surroundings? r_1 El z F-1
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? El El 1z 7
Comments to La, la, c, and d:
The relatively flat project site is located in a business park/industrial area of Central East Oakland,
just south of the 1-880 freeway and approximately 1/4 mile north of the San Leandro Bay. Several
one- and two-story warehouse and manufacturing buildings are located between the project site
and the shoreline, thus blocking all views of San Leandro Bay and shoreline. The I-880 freeway
and the Network Associates Coliseum are visually prominent features to the north of the project
site, and the Oakland Hills provide a natural contrast to the urban flatlands. Views of the hills are
best seen at the intersection of Oakport Street and Hassler Way and along public right-of-ways
such as Oakport Street; however, all views of the hillside immediately north of the project site are
blocked by the mass and bulk of the Coliseum buildings.
The proposed project would result in a visual change to the project site since it would entail the
construction of an approximately 26 to 30 foot-tall building that would serve as a showroom
offices, and an auto service center, as well as associated surface parking on a currently vacant site.
Additionally. the project would also include pylon signs that would be 24 feet in height on a
raised base of about 4 feet and would be 8 feet wide
The project would be located in an area that is already well developed with existing buildings of
warehouse, manufacturing and other commercial uses. The architectural style and scale of the
proposed building is in keeping with the general character of the area. The view of the Oakland
hills in the, distance to the east of the project site would still be visible frorn numerous locations
within the project site. Proposed signs are in keeping with the character of this section of the I-
880 where signs are designed for freeway visibility. Thus, the proposed project would not result
in significant impacts with respect to scenic vistas nor would it substantially degrade any scenic
resources. The proposed project would also not result in any substantial adverse effect on scenic
resources since the site is not located within or near a state scenic highway. Additionally, while
the project would result in a change to the visual quality of the project site, the proposed building,
parking, and pylon signs would not degrade the visual character or quality of the site or its
surroundings.
ER03 0013 - Latimu DIeniup LMURJ ENO 15 FSA @ 103173
MMAL STUDY AND ENVTRONMNTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALWORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALMY ACT (CEQA)
The proposed project would include fixed exterior lighting typical of auto dealerships to highlight
the showroom and surface parking area. Lighting would also be located at parking entrance
points, to promote safety. The project site is located in a well-developed area that has existing
sources of light and glare associated with nearby land uses. The site is located near the Network
Associates Coliseum and is adjacent to a major freeway (I-880) and local roadways where street
lighting and stadium lighting projects light and glare during evening hours. The applicant would
be required to submit a detailed exterior lighting plan to the City for review and approval prior to
issuance of building pen-nits. The City will review this lighting plan to assure that the exterior
lighting is directed on-site and does not result in excessive glare. Therefore, the project would not
result in adverse light or glare impacts in the area.
Sources:
Project Description and Plans.
Site visit.
1`0=6211Y
Significant
Potentially unims L= Than
significatit Mitigation significant No
[Miiact Eacomorated Imoact Imp
11. AGRICULTURAL RESOf TRCES -- Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use? El F-1 El E
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? El Z
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural use? 71 F@ 7 Z
Comments to 1Ia, b, and c:
The proposed project would not have an impact on agricultural resources as the project site is
located in a developed, industrial area of Central East Oakland that does not include agriultural
Uses.
Sources:
Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element, March 24, 1998.
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
ER03 0013 - main De.lmmp I.U.1 Sti,d@ 16 ESA / Z03173
941TIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ELEVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact bcomonite Impact Imitact
111. AIR QUALITY -- Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable
air quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute Substantially to
an existing or projected air quality violation? El 0
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)? 0
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
cbricentrations? M
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people? M F1 F-1 Z
Comments to M.a
The project site is tocated in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin, a region that is designated as
a "non-attainment" (i.e., currently experiences violations) area with respect to State and federal
ambient air quality standards for ozone and State standards for particulate matter (PM-10). The
2001 Bay Area Ozone Attainment Plan and the 2000 Bay Area Clean Air Plan have been prepared
to address ozone nonartaiarnent issues. No PNI-10 plan has been prepared or is required under
state air quality planning law.
The project would involve construction of an approximately 35,000 square-foot, 2-story building
with a mezzanine to serve as a showroom, offices, an auto service center and a parts department
for an Infiniti auto dealership. The proposed project would also include surface parking on a
parcel located behind Zhone Technologies building and approximately 305 to 320 spaces for
display and service purposes. Project construction would involve use of equipment and materials
that would emit ozone precursor emissions (i.e., reactive organic gases, or ROG, and nitrogen
oxides, or NOd.
The regional agency primarily responsible for developing the regional ozone plans is the Bay
.Ayea Air Quality Management District (BAAQNM). BAAQN1D is also the agency with permit
authority over most types of stationary sources in San Francisco Bay Area. BAAQMD exercises
permit authority through its Rules and geguiations. Both federal and state ozone plans rely
heavily upon stationary source control measures set forth in BAAQNM's Rules and Regulations.
The overall stationary source control program that is embodied by the BAAQNM Rules and
Regulations has been developed such that new stationary sources can be allowed to operate in the
Bay Area without obstructing the goals of the regional air quality plans.
ER03 0023 - fifniti D@.],,MWP Laiuai SWdY 17 ESA I Z03173
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
With respect to the Construction phase of the project, applicable BAAQMD regulations would
relate to portable equipment (e.a., Portland concrete batch plants, and gasoline- or diesel-powered
engines used for power generation, pumps, compressors, pile drivers, and cranes). architectural
coatings, and paving materials. Project construction would be subject to the requirements of
BAAQMD Regulation 2 (Permits), Rule l(General Requirements) with respect to portable
equipment unless exempt under Rule 2-1-105 (Exemption, Registered Statewide Portable
Equipment); BAAQMD Regulation 8 (Organic Compounds), Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings); and
BAAQMD Regulation 8 (Organic Compounds), Rule 15 (Emulsified and Liquid Asphalts).
With respect to the operational-phase of the project, emissions would be generated primarily from
motor vehicle trips to the project site and ernissions from stationary equipment and area sources,
to a lesser extent. For project screening, the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD) generally does not recommend a detailed air quality analysis for projects generating
less than 2,000 trips per day as projects of this size are not expected to generate criteria pollutant
emissions more than the 80 pounds per day significance thresholds recommended by the district.
The proposed development of the Infiniti Dealership would generate an average of 1,340 trips per
day. This means that emissions caused by vehicle trips associated with the project would not
create criteria pollutant emissions greater than the BAAQMD's thresholds of significance.
Therefore, the project would not affect air quality in the region or conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable Air Quality Attainment Plans and thus would be considered a
less than significant impact.
Sources:
Environmental Science Associates, Lexus Dealership Project Air Quality Technical Study, August
2001.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQNM), CEQA Guidelines -Assessing the Air
Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, Revised December 1999.
June 2003.
Comments to U[l.b & III.&
The project would be located in a region that experiences occasional violations of ozone and PM-
10 standards. Though the regional monitoring network no longer records violations of the carbon
monoxide standard, congestion on busy roadways and at intersections could lead to local carbon
monoxide hotWots, particularly during peak traffic hours.
The project would affect- local pollutant concentrations in two ways. First, during project
construction, the project would affect local particulate concentrations by generating dust. Over
the long term, the project would result in an increase in emissions due to related motor vehicle
trips associated with the retail uses proposed by the project, and the increase in motor vehicle trips
would affect carbon monoxide concentrations along the local road network. In addition, any on-
site stationary and area sources associated with the project may also affect local pollutant
concentrations, but since they would likely be subject to BAAQN4D permit requirements. they can
be presumed to have a less-than-significant effect on local pollutant concentrations.
The project would be constructed over a period of approximately 6 to 8 months. Over the first part
of this period, construction activities would generate substantial amounts of dust (including PM-
10) from "fugitive" sources, such as earthmoving activities and vehicle travel over unpaved
surfaces, and lesser amounts of other criteria pollutants from the operation of heavy equipment
construction machinery (primarily diesel operated) and construction worker automobile trips
@primarjly gasoline operated). Construction-related dust emissions would vary from day to day,
ER03 0011 - @C,.u D.[@,shiq LuUak S@dv LS ESAf'03171
UMTAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECXLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the weather. Construction
activities may result in significant quantities of dust, and as a result, local visibility and PM-10
concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary basis during the construction period. In
addition, larger dust particles would settle out of the atmosphere close to the construction site
resulting in a potential soiling nuisance for adjacent uses.
For the evaluation of construction-phase impacts, the City uses the Guidelines established by the
BAAQNM to evaluate the potential for significant effects. The BAAQNM does not require or
recommend a detailed quantification of construction emissions. Instead, it recommends that
evaluation of the significance of impacts be based on a consideration of the control measures to be
implemented (BAAQNM, 1999). Generally, if appropriate measures are implemented to reduce
fugitive dust, then the residual impact can be presumed to be less than significant. Without these
measures, the impact is generally considered to be significant, particularly if sensitive land uses
(e.g., residential) are located in the project vicinity. The proposed project is located in an
industrial area with no residential land uses in the vicinity of the project site. The nearest
sensitive receptor is located several miles east of the project site. However, adjacent businesses
could be affected by PM-10 emissions during construction.
NUtigadon Measure HU: During construction, the project sponsor shall require the
construction contractor to implement BAAQMD's basic dust control procedures required
for sites smaller than four acres, such as the project site, to maintain project construction-
related impacts at acceptable levels; this mitigates the potential impact to a less-than-
significant level.
Elements of the "basic" dust control program for project components that disturb less than four
acres shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following:
a Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Watering should be sufficient to
prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever
possible.
0 Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain
at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load
and the top of the trailer).
0 Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (nori-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
0 Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day
if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
With implementation of these measures, project construction would not be expected to violate any
air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation in the project
vicinity.
Construction activities would also result in the emission of other criteria pollutants from
equipment exhaust, consuraction-related vehicular activity and construction worker automobile
trips. Emission levels 'or construction activities would vary depending on the number and type of
equipment. duration of use, operation schedules. and the number of construction workers. Criteria
pollutant emissions of ROG and NOx from these emission sources would incrementally add to the
regional atmospheric loading of ozone precursors during project construction. BAAQND CEQA
ER030013 - Lhwfi D.alcn@p twul Swdv 19 ESA 1 '03173
INITIAL STUDY A14D ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALrr_Y ACT (CEQA)
Guidelines recognize that construction equipment emit ozone precursors, but indicate that such
emissions are included in the emission inventory that is the basis for regional air quality plans
(BAAQMD, 1999). Therefore construction emissions are not expected to violate any air quality
standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. The impact
would therefore be less than significant.
Over the long-term, the increase in traffic due to the project would also potentially affect carbon
monoxide concentrations at intersections, particularly during peak traffic. The proposed project
would generate about 1,330 daily vehicle trips, with about 80 and 100 vehicle trips during the a.m.
and p.m. peak hour, respectively. The air quality analysis for the Lexus dealership now operating
next to the project site, included an assessment of cumulative impacts assuming development of a
hotel/restaurant on the project site. The trip-generating potential for the hotel/restaurant project
was estimated at 1,680 trips (daily), 102 trips (AM), and 135 trips (PM), or, more vehicle trips
than the current project. The Lexus study concluded that carbon monoxide concentrations at all
analyzed intersections under cumulative conditions would be below the state and national ambient
air quality standards. Given that the cumulative analysis for the Lexus Dealership assumed a
more intensive development than what the project will generate with regards to trip generation,
both the proposed project and cumulative traffic impacts would be a less than significant impact
on local carbon monoxide concentrations.
Sources:
Environmental Science Associates, Lexus Dealership Project Air Quality Technical Study, August
2001.
Bay Area Air Quality ManagementDistrict (BAAQMD), CEQA Guideiines-Assessing theAir
Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, Revised December 1999.
Comments to III.c:
Once occupied, the project would be expected to result in an increase in emissions primarily due
to related motor vehicle traffic. As discussed under M.a, the 1,330 motor vehicle trips generated
by the project would be well below the 2,000 trips necessary to exceed the 80 pounds per day
significance threshold recommended by the BAAQMD. Therefore, while project-related motor
vehicle emissions would contribute incrementally to regional ozone and PM-10 concentrations,
the effect would not be cumulatively considerable, as defined in CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines. Also as discussed under I11b, the air quality analysis for the Lexus dealership now
operating next to the project site, included an assessment of cumulative impacts assuming
development of a hotel/restaurant (with a greater trip generating potential than the proposed
project) on the project site. The Lexus study concluded that carbon monoxide concentrations at
all analyzed intersections under cumulative conditions would be below the state and national
ambient air quality standards. Therefore. the cumulative of the proposed project would also be
less than significant.
Sources:
Environmental Science Associates, Lexus Dealership Project Air QualitY Technical Study, August
2001.
Connuents to III.e:
As a general matter, the types of land use development that pose potential odor problems include
wastewater treatment plants. refineries, landfills, composting facilities and transfer stations. No
such uses would occupy the project site. Therefore the project would not create objectionable
ER03 0013 - W@.U D@-t'SMP @U-l SMdY 0 E.SA "03173
!NrML STUDY AND ENVFRONNMNTAL REVrEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
odors that would affect a substantial number of people. Also, there are no existing odor sources in
the vicinity of the project site that the occupants of the proposed project would be subjected to.
Sources:
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), CEQA Guidelines - Assessing the Air
Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, Revised December 1999.
potenti3fly
significant
potntiwly UnIms L@s Tim
siofi@nt Mitigation Significant No
(mact IncoTorated' _Wmact Irnyac
[V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
o0er sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defiried by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, veinal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means? r_1 F7 r@
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the
use of native wildlife nursery sites? E-1 17
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Nararal Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan? F F@ F1
Comments to IV.a. b, c, d, e. and f:
The project site and vicinity is located in an urban area that has been developed with a variety of
industrial, warehouse, manufacturing and office uses. Me proposed project would entail the
construction of an approximately 35,000 square-foot building and surface parldng on a currently
vacant and underutilized Site. The project site contains no trees or other plants and is not within a
riparian corridor. The site does not provide habitat for any plant or animal species and is not
located within a designated habitat area. Because of the existing urban setting and hio level of
ER03 0013 - Latimu Denlmhip iaal Sn3d, ESA Y 203173
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CFQA)
motor vehicle traffic (including 1-880), the site is unlikely to be part of an established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridor. The project would not conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources. Thus, the proposed project would not result in
significant impacts with respect to biological resources.
Sources:
Oakland General Plan. Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
Site visit.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless L@s Than
Significant Mitiptim Significant No
Impact Incorornated IMDaCt Inavact
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historical resource as defined in 815064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to 615064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature?
d) Disturb any human remairs, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
Comments to Va, b, c, and d:
The proposed project would be located in an urban area and would entail the construction of a
new 35,000 square-foot, two-story building with a showroom, offices, and auto service center as
well as associated surface parking on a currently vacant site. It is not anticipated that any Native
American or archaeological resources would be found on the project site, as the immediate
vicinity has been subject to continuous development over the past century and the project site was
filled substantially in the early 1950's. However, as the proposed project would result in some
grading activities on site, the following mitigation measures are identified to ensure that if any
such archaeological or paleontological resources or human remains are encountered during
excavation or construction activities, such resources would be addressed to lessen any potential
adverse effects.
In addition to the measures identified below, all earthmoving activities shall be undertaken in
accordance with the requirements of the Public Resources Code Section 21083.2.
Mitigation Measure V.I: If archaeological or paleontological resources are accidentally
discovered during the project excavation or construction, the project sponsor shall ensure
that excavation or construction work is halted and a qualified cultural resource consultant
has evaluated the situation. assessed the potential significance and uniqueness of the artifact
under the provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, and provided mitigation
recommendations, if warranted. Cultural resources include, but are not limited to, railroad
ties, foundations, privies, shell and bone artifacts, ash and charcoal. Any identified cultural
resources found shall be recorded on DPR 5Z3 (historic properties) forms.
ER03 0013 - I.C.6 De.i.ftip L.U.1 SWdy 22 ESA / '03173
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVTRONMENTA.L REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACI- (CEQA)
Mitigation Measure V.2: In the event that human skeletal remains are encountered during
demolition or construction activities for the proposed project, the project sponsor shall
immediately notify the County Coroner and stop all work in the immediate vicinity of the
remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the City
shall contact the California Native Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of
Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and all excavation and site preparation
activities shall cease.
Sourcest
Project Description and Plans.
Site visit.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UnIess Less Than
sigaifi@t Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incommic Impact 02-A-Ct
VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or deathinvolving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on
the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map for the area or based on other substaxtrial evidence
of a known fault?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 7
Comments to VLa(i), Vl.a(ii):
The. project site is not located in an Alquist-Pricilo Earthquake Fault Zone2, as defined by the
California State Department of Conservation, Geological Survey (CGS, formerly known as the
California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMGJ), and no active or potentially active faults
exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the site.3 The nearest active faults are the Hayward fault,
located 2 miles northeast of the site; the Caiaveras fault, located I I miles northeast; and the San
Andreas fault, located 16 miles southwest. Because the site is not located an an active or
potentially active fault. the potential for surface fault rupture is low and the impact is considered
less than significant.
The proposed project is located in the San Francisco Bay Area. a region of intense seismic
activity. Recent studies by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) indicate there is a
Alquist-Priolo Zones designate areas most likely to experience fault ruptuire, although surface fault rupture is not necessarily
restricted those specifically zoned areas.
An active Fault is defined by the State of Cahfornia as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene lime
tapproximattly the last 10.000 years). A potentially active fault is defined as a fault that has shown evidence of surface
displacement during the Quaternary (last 1.6 million Years), unless direct geologic evidence demonstrates inactivity for all of
the Holocene or longer. This definition does noL of course. mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement wt
necessarily inactive. Sufficientiv active is also used to describe a fault if there is some evidence that Holocene displacement
occurred on one or more of its segments or branches (Hart. 1997).
ER03 0013 - bin.u LUU.J Smdv 23 ESA i 203173
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVfRONNfENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
62 percent likelihood of a Richter magnitude 6.7 or higher earthquake occurring in the Bay Area
in the next 30 years (USGS, 2003). The project site could experience a range of ground shaking
effects during an earthquake on one of the aforementioned Bay Area faults. This ground shaking
could cause secondary ground failure such as differential settlement that could cause structural
damage to buildings, placing people in risk of injury. Ground shaking intensities from a major
seismic event on the Hayward fault could reach ground movement intensities characterized as
very violent (MMI-X) (ABAG, 2001).4 According to the CGS Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Maps, peak ground accelerations in the Oakland area during an earthquake on one of the active
Bay Area fault could range from 0.6g to 0.7g5.6 (Peterson, et.al, 1999). As a frame of reference,
ground motion detectors placed in bay estuary sediments (similar to the project site) near the San
Francisco International Airport measured peak ground accelerations of 0.33g during the 1989
Loma Prieta earthquake, while ground motion at the Santa Cruz mountain epicenter reached a
0.64 g. It is likely that the most significant ground shaking would be generated by a major
earthquake on the Hayward fault, due to its close proximity to the project site.
Earthquakes and ground shaking in the Bay Area are unavoidable and are expected to occur at
some time during the life of the project. Although some structural damage is typically not
avoidable during an earthquake, building codes and construction ordinances have been established
to protect against building collapse and major injury during a seismic event. In accordance with
the building ordinance set forth by the City of Oakland, the project applicant is required to prepare
a geotechnical report for the project that includes generally accepted and appropriate engineering
techniques for determining the susceptibility of the project site to various geologic and seismic
hazards. The geotechnicai report must include an analysis of ground shaking effects and provide
recommendations to reduce these hn7Arrls. Geotechnical and seismic design criteria must also
conform with engineering recommendations in accordance with the seisniic requirements of Zone
4 of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (Title 24)
additions.
4 While the magnitude is a measure of the energy released in an earthquake, intensity is a measure of the ground shalcing
effects at a particular location. Shaking intensity can vary depending on the overall magnitude, dismnce to the fault, focus of
earthquake energy, and type of geologic material. The Modified Mercalli (MM) intensity scale is commonly used Lo measure
earthquake effects due to ground shaking. The MM values for intensity range from I (earthquake not felt) to X11 (damage
nearly total). MM intensities ranging from FV to X could cause moderate to significant structural damage. Acceleration is
scaled against a value that everyone is familiar with, that is, acceleration due to gravity or the acceleration with which a ball
falls if released at rest in a vacuum (1.0g). Acceleration of 1.0g is equivalent to a car traveling 100 metco (328 feet) from rest
in 4I5 seconds. Acceleration is expressed by a "g" which is gravity = 980 centimeters per second squared.
A probabilistic seismic hazard map is a map that shows the hazard from earthquakes that geologists and seismologists agree
could occur in California. it is probabilistic in the sense that the analysis takes into consideration the uncertainties in the size
and location of earthquakes and the resulting ground motions that can affect a particular site. The maps we typically
expressed in terms of probability of exceeding a certain ground motion. For example, maps illustrating the 10% probability
of exceeciance in 50 years depict an annual probability of I in 475 of being exceeded each year. This level of ground shaking
has been used for designing buildings in high seismic areas. The maps for 10% probability of exceeciance in 50 years show
ground motions that seismologists do not think will be exceeded in the next 50 years. In fact. there is a 90% chance that
these ground motions will NOT be exceeded. This probability level allows engineers Lo design buildings for larger ground
motions than seismologists think will occur during a 50-year interval, which will make buildings safer than if they were only
designed for the ground motions that are expected to occur in the next 50 years. Seismic shaking maps are prepared using
consensus information on historical earthquakes and faults. These levels of ground shaking are used primarily for estimating
potential economic losses and preparing emergency response (Petersen, 1999).
6 Peak acceleration, peak velocity, and peak displacement values were measured by strong-motion detectors during the Lorna
Prieta earthquake in several ground and structure strong-motion stations in the Bay Area. Peak ground acceleration is the
maximum horizontal ground movement expressed as acceleration due to gravity, or approximately 980 centimeters per
second.
FRO3 0013 - Lafimu D.Mersmp imuai Sdv :4 FSA / Z03173
fNrrIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
In addition to compliance with UBC standards, the project applicant would be required to subrnit
an engineering analysis along with detailed engineering drawings to the Oakland Building
Services Division prior to excavation, grading, or construction activities on the site. This is
consistent with standard City of Oakland practices to ensure that all buildings are designed and
built in conformance with the seismic requirements of the City of Oakland Building Code. The
engineering analysis report and drawings, and relevant grading or construction activities on the
project site would be required to address constraints and incorporate recommendations identified
in the geotechnical investigations. The required submittals would ensure that the buildings are
designed and constructed in conformance with the requirements of all applicable building code
regulations, pursuant to standard City procedures. Considering that the proposed project would be
constructed in conformance with the UBC and the City of Oakland Building Code, the risks of
injury and structual damage from a known earthquake fault, or ground shaking would be reduced
and the impacts would be less than significant.
Sources:
Association of Bay Area Governments (AAG), Earthquake Hazards Mapsfor East Oakland,
2003.
California Building Standards Commission, California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2,1995.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Special Publication 78:
Earthquake Planning Scenariofor a Magnitude 7.5 Earthquake on the Hayward Fault, 1997
Hart, E.W., Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Act of 1972 with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones, California Geological Survey (formerly
California Division of Mines and Geology), Special Publication 42, 1990 revised and
updated I 997.
International Conference of Building Officials, Uniform Building Code, ICBO, Whittier,
California, 1997.
Oakland General Plan, Environmental Hazards Element, September 1974.
Oakland Environmental Factors Analysis, Technical Report #6, October 1995.
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
Peterson, M.D., Bryant, W-A., Cramer, C.H., Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessmentfor the
State of California, California Division of Mines and Geology Open-File Report issued
jointly with U.S. Geological Survey, CDMG 96-08 and USGS 96- 706, 1996.
U.S. Geological Society (USGS) Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WG99),
Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Say @egion
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction?
Comments to VIa(iii):
Seismic shaking can trigger ground-failures caused by liquefaction.7 Liquefaction and issociated.
failures could damage foundations, disrupt utility service, and cause damage to roadways.
Liquefaction potential is highest in the areas underlain by Bay fills, Bay mud, and unconsolidated
alluvium with earthquake intensities greater than MM VI or equivalently, peak ground
accelerations of 0.07g or greater. The depth to groundwater also controls the potential for
7 Lictuefactionistheprocessby%yhichsaturatcd.loose,fine-gramed.grmular,soil.likesmdbehaveslikeadensetlwdwhen
subjected to prolonged shaking dtinng an earthquake.
aRO3 0013 - I.U.u Dc.ien@p i.M.ISMdY '5 ESA i'03173
INITIAL STLFDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REvEEW C11ECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
liquefaction in this area; the shallower the groundwater, the higher potential for liquefaction. A
geotechnical investigation conducted at a neighborhood property indicated subsurface soils
consist of sandy and clayey artificial fill overlying Bay mud, with groundwater encountered
approximately 8 feet below grade. Geotechnical analyses performed at the neighboring site
concluded localized liquefaction hazards were present, based upon subsurface materials,
groundwater depth, anticipated ground shaking intensities, and the site's location within a CGS
liquefaction Seismic Hazard Zone (Harza, 2001). Although a geotechnical investigation has not
yet been completed for the project site, subsurface characteristics are believed to be similar to
those discussed above, and similar liquefaction hazards are therefore likely present.
The Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA) was enacted in 1990 to protect the public from the
effects of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure, and from other
hazards caused by earthquakes. This act requires the State Geologist to delineate various seismic
hazard zones and requires cities, counties, and other local permitting agencies to regulate certain
development projects within these zones. Before a development permit is granted for a site within
a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical investigation must be conducted and appropriate mitigation
measures incorporated into the project design. The CGS Special Publication 117, adopted in 1997
by the State Mining and Geology Board in accordance with the SHMS, constitutes guidelines for
evaluating seismic hazards other than surface faulting, and for recominending mitigation measures
as required by Public Resources Code Section 2695(a). As the project site is located within a
liquefaction Seismic Hazard Zone, the project applicant will be required to comply with the
guidelines set by CGS Special Publication 117, and all applicable City of Oakland regulations and
standards to address potential geologic and soils impacts, as required prior to the issuance of
grading or building permits. An adequate seismic evaluation to assess potential seismic hazards
will be conducted in connection with the aeotecilmical investigation, and develop design criteria
necessary for design of structures for this seismic region. Compliance with the requirements of
SHMA and the City of Oakland would reduce the risk of injury and property damage resulting
from potential liquefaction hazards to a less than significant level.
Sources:
California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey (formerly Division of Mines and
Geology), Special Publication 117: Guidelinesfor Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic
Hazards in California, 1997
California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey (Division of Mines and Geology),
Seismic Hazard Zones Map, Parts of San Leandro and Hayward Quadrangles, March 30,
2000
Harza, Georechnical Investigation: Lexus of Oakland Dealership, Oakland, California, July 12,
1.001
Oakland General Plan, Environmental Hazards Element, September 1974.
Oakland Environmental Factors Analysis. Technical Report #6, October 1995.
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
iv) Landslides'? Z
Comments to Vl.a(iv):
The project site is located on relatively level topography in an urbanized area. The potential for
landslides is therefore considered less than significant.
Source:
Project Plans
ER03 0013 - @Umu D@.].M@p L.U.1 Smdy 26 ESA/203173
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONNIENTAL REVEEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL Q1JALrFY ACT @CEQA)
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? F@ El rV1
Comments to V1.b:
In order to minimize wind or water erosion on the site during Construction, the contractor shall be
required to submit a construction period erosion control plan to the Building Services Division for
approval prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, consistent with standard City
practices. The plan shall be in effect for a period of time sufficient to stabilize the construction
site throughout all phases of the project. Long-term erosion potential shall be addressed through
installation of project landscaping and storm drainage facilities, both of which shall be designed to
meet applicable regulations, resulting in a less-than-significant potential impact. These standard
measures typically include the following:
• Construction operations, especially excavation and grading operations, shall be confined as
much as possible to the dry season, in order to avoid erosion of disturbed soils (see identified
measures required during construction in Mitigation Measure Ell.b); and
• Final project landscaping plans shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review and
approval. Landscaping shall be installed concurrent with completion of construction of the
building and the site.
In addition to compliance with City standards, the project applicant will be required to obtain a
National Pollutant Discharge elimination System (NPDES) permit, as discussed in Section VE11,
and implement erosion control measures accordingly. Thus, the proposed project would not result
in significant impacts with respect to erosion or loss of topsoil.
The proposed project site is underlain by fill material placed in this area for bay land reclamation
in the early 1960's and does not support agriculture. The site is not overlain by developed, high
productivity topsoil and therefore, the project would not contribute to a loss of topsoil considered
as significant.
Sources:
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
Project Description and Plans.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable. or
that would become unstable as a result of the project. and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse'?
d) Be located on expansive soil creating substantial risks to life
or property?
Comments to VI.c and VI.d-.
Landsliding (section VI-iv-), liquefaction ground faures including lateral spreading (Section VH
through iii), soil subsidence, and soil collapse have been determined to be less than significant.
The project design would incorporate Coundation recommendations of the project geotechnical
ER03 0013 - Lfi.u Dcale.tup J@V.] SWdV 27 ESA i 201173
11111TIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CUECXLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
evaluation, comply with applicable City replations, be constructed to applicable UBC standards,
adhere to, where appropriate, guidelines of the CGS Special Publications 117, and will
incorporate the proposed mitigation measure to address potential liquefaction hazards.
Soil borings installed during a geotechnical investigation at a neighboring site indicate subsurface
materials exhibit strong expansive (shrink-swell) properties. Similar soil conditions are likely to
be present on the project site, although actual conditions will be verified during the geotechnical
analysis which will be performed for the proposed project. As earlier discussed in Vl.b and VI.c,
the geotechnical report required by the City of Oakland includes an assessment of soil properties
and recommendations to reduce adverse effects associated with expansive soils to a less than
significant level. The geotechnical report will be reviewed by the City of Oakland Engineering
Department, prior to issuance of a building permit, to verify its competency in assessing geologic
site hazards, and to assure that appropriate structural mitigation measures are included. The
potential for risk to life or property due to expansive soils is therefore considered less than
significant.
Sources:
H=a, Geotechnical Investigation: Lexus of Oakland Dealership, Oakland, California, July 12,
2001.
Oakland General Plan, Environmental Hazards Element, September 1974.
Oakland Environmental Factors Analysis, Technical Report #6, October 1995.
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? 0 21
Comments to V1.e:
Because the project site is located in an urban area, the proposed project would be able to connect to
the existing central sewer system, which provides wastewater collection service for the City of
Oakland. Therefore, the project would not result in any significant impacts associated with soils
incapable of adequately supporting septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems since
neither septic tanks nor alternative wastewater disposal are found in this part of Oakland.
Sources:
Oakland General Plan, Environmental Hazards Element, September 1974.
Oakland Environmental Factors Analysis, Technical Report #6, October 1995.
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
ER03 0013 - LWU D@.Iwftp iwdal SWdy FSA/203173
INITIJkL STUDY XNI) ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
pombally
significant
Potentially UnIcss Ltss 'Tban
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incomomied Impact linpac
VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? r_1 Z
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably forseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous
materials into the environment? El
Comments to VII.a and VILb
Hazardous Material Use During Construction
T Construction activities would require the use of certain hazardous materials such as fuels, oils,
solvents and glues. Inadvertent release of large quantities of these materWs into the environment
could adversely impact soil, surface waters, or groundwater quality. On-site storage and/or use of
large quantities of materials capable of impacting soil and groundwater are not typically required
for a project of size and type proposed herein. However, compliance with NPDES permit
requirements, as discussed in Section VM, and implementation of Mitigation Measure VIL I
would reduce any risk associated with hazardous materials used during construction to a less than
significant level.
Mitigation Measure VH.l: The project applicant shall use construction best management
practices (BMPs) typically implemented as part of construction to minimi e the potential
negative effects to groundwater and sods from construction activities. The following shall
be implemented as necessary to avoid any significant effects:
• Follow mianufacturer's recommendations on use, storage and disposal of chemical
products used in construction;
• Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks;
• During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly contain and remove
grease and ofls; and
• Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.
Site Operations
The proposed project would include the installation of one 1,500-gallon underground oil/water
separator storage tank. one aboveground 500-gallon anti-freeze storage tank, one aboveground 500
gallon used oil storage tank, and four aboveground 1-00 gallon new oil storage tanks. Potential
hazards associated with these materials would be reduced through compLiance with existing
federal. state, and local rules and regulations. The City of Oakland Fire Department would
oversee the design. installation, and operation of the underground and aboveground storage tanks
in accordance with state and Cederal rules and regulations within its jurisdiction. The project
applicant is required by the City of Oakland to Cile a Hazardous Materials Business Plan with the
C@tv of Oakland Fire Department detailing all hazardous materials at the site, storage methods.
ER03 0013 - Lnfimu D@.Jenfip ijiiaj SNdv :9 ESA, @03173
INTTIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REYEEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
and spill prevention plans. The project applicant shall also prepare and implement a Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) Plan, as required by the State Water Resources
Control Board. In addition, the proposed project would be required to comply with Chapter 6.95
of the California Health and Safety Code regarding hazardous materials handling, as required by
the City of Oakland Municipal Code.
Compliance with federal, state, and local rules and regulations for hazardous materials-handling,
and underground and aboveground storage tanks would reduce the potential health and safety
issues associated with the storage of hazardous materials to a less-than-significant level.
A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (Phase I) report completed for the project site in 2003
indicates that based on historic Phase I and II investigations on the project site and surrounding
areas which included the collection of soil and groundwater samples, soil underlying the project
site may contain hazardous concentrations of lead. The source of this lead is noted as likely being
associated with fill imported to the site in the 1940's to 1960's that consisted of dredge spoils,
construction debris, asphalt concrete, base rock from road repair, bricks and mortar, and
occasional loads of foundry waste consisting primarily of sand (Baseline, 1991, as cited in Kip
Prahl Associates, 2003). Groundwater samples collected from wells installed in areas bordering
the project site in 1990 did not contain concentrations organic compounds or metals above
California Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). The nearest off-site property of concern is
located 1/8 mile west of the project site in the downgradient direction (groundwater flow is north
to northwest), indicating that groundwater underlying the project site is unlikely to be impacted
by off-site sources of contamination (Kip Praid Associates, 2003).
As noted in the 1.003 Phase I report, past remedial efforts at the project site and surrounding areas
have included the removal of approximately 283 cubic yards of lead-impacted soil; however,
there stifl exists a potential for soil containing hazardous lead levels to underlie the site (Kip Prabl
Associates, 2003). Based on the conclusions of the 2003 Phase I report, implementation of
Nfitigation Measures VH.2 and VII.3 would reduce potential hazards associated with handling,
transport, and disposal of lead-impacted soil at the site to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure V11.2: An environmental site health and safety plan shaH be created and
implemented to address worker safety hazards. This plan shaR be prepared in accordance
with appUcable state and federal worker protection standards to address potential health and
safety issues that may arise during construction activities associated with lead-impacted soils
at the project site. The environmental site health and safety plan shall be incorporated into
construction specifications for the project and subsequently implemented by the site
contractor.
Mitigation Measure VU.3: Excess soil generated by construction activities shaH be sampled
for transport and appropriate disposai. Stockpiled soil shall be appropriately managed to
prevent contarn'Irtntion of stormwater runoff or intermixing with clean ftH imported to the
site. Appropriate management of stockpiled soils shaff be integrated into the site's grading
and drainage plan and Stormwater Poilution Prevention Plan and shaH be implemented in
order to minimi e potential erosion and/or lead poBution of stormwater runoff, as discussed
in Hydrology and Water QuaHty, Section VIH. Transportation and disposal of lead impacted
soil generated from the project site by construction activities under the Plan shall be required
to comply with appropriate state and federal requirements. Areas of the project site which
would be left unpaved for landscaping, or other purposes, shall be underlain by at least 5 feet
of clean fill.
ER03 0013 - (.n D@.]@@Mp Luu.l SWO, 30 ESA i 203173
FNTTIAL STUDY AND ENVERONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALYTY ACT (CEQA)
The proposed project would involve paving the majority of the project site, although landscaping
would be installed in some areas along the perimeter of the site. Potential flItUTe exposure to
landscape workers or the public to lead-impacted soil in these areas would be minimized by
compliance Mitigation Measure VII.3 to less-than-significant levels.
Sources:
City of Oakland, Municipal Code 8.12 Hazardous Materials.
Kip Prahl Associates, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Two Parcels Located Near
Intersection of Oakport Road and Hassler Way in Oakland, California, May 2, 2003.
Project Description and Plans.
c) Emit hazardous ernissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school? F@ El
d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? Z
Comments to Vl1.c and VILd:
The operations at the proposed Infiniti Dealership would use and store petroleum products in a
manner consistent with current federal and state regulations for hazardous materials and
petroleum. Hazardous emissions and release of acutely toxic materials is not anticipated in an
automobile dealership. The potential disturbance and handling of lead-impacted soil associated
with the proposed project would be mitigated to less-than-significant levels through
implementation of Nfitigation Measures VIIA and V11.2, discussed above. Furthermore, the
proposed project site is not located within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.
The project site is not included on the hazardous materials sites list compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 (Cortese List).
Sources:
Califomia Department of Toxic Substances Control, Office of Environmental Information
Management. Hazardous Waste and Substance Sites List, April, 1998.
Kip Prahl Associates, Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Two Parcels Located Near
Intersection of Oakporr Road and Hassler Way in Oakland, California, May 2, 2003.
Thomas Brothers, The Thomas Guide: San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 1999.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport. would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area'?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area? 7
F.RO3 0013 - Ldma Dealm@p Uau.] Smd@ 3 1 ESA, -03173
INMAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVrEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA FNVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Comments to Vl1.e and V11.f:
Oakland International Airport (01A) is located approximately one mile southwest of the project
site. Although the project site is not in the designated takeoff flight track for CIA, it is within the
landing flight track, potentially exposing future employees and customers to hazards associated
with air traffic accidents. However, the likelihood of incidents causing an injury to employees
and customers is so remote, it is considered to be less than significant. The project is consistent
with City of Oakland zoning ordinances, which are intended to reduce land use conflicts and
minimize the risk of accidents associated with OIA operations. In addition, the project is adjacent
to several existing businesses, such as AMB Distributors, Zhone Technologies, and Lexus
Dealership. Because the project is in a developed urbanized area consistent with the City of
Oakland Zoning Ordinance, and considering the low probability of aircraft-related incidences, the
proposed safety hazard associated with its location within the landing flight track for OIA is
considered less than significant.
Sources:
Thomas Brothers, The 77?omas Guide: San Francisco, Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, 1999.
Oakland Zoning Regulations, 1966, as amended through April 2001.
U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, Revised Draft Environmental
Impact Statement Proposed Airport Development Program Oakland International Airport,
Volume 1: Documentation, September 2000.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan'
Comments to VII.g:
Review of the City of Oakland's Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, ("City Emergency Plan")
indicated that the proposed project would not significantly interfere with emergency response
plans or evacuation plans. The proposed project is situated at the comer of two established
thoroughfares and the proposed Iemiti dealership would have two access points to the street. The
proposed project would not impede or require diversion of rescue vehicles or evacuation traffic in
the event of a life-threatening emergency. The City of Oakland Fire Services Agency (Fire
Department) is responsible for first response in an emergency (Bell, 2003). Standard notification
procedures required by the City are designed to ensure that the Fire Department is notified if
construction traffic would block any city streets. Specifically, the job site supervisor is required
to call the Fire Department's dispatch center or Fire Station No. 27 which services the project site
any day construction vehicles would partially or completely block a city street during the
construction process (Bell, 2003). Oakport Avenue is a wide thoroughfare which would provide
sufficient space for emergency response vehicles to pass freely (Abram 2003). Because the
project will be required to comply with the City's notification requirements, project construction
would not significantly interfere with emergency response plans or evacuation plans, nor
adversely affect the City's response and operational procedures in the event of a large scale
disaster or emergency.
Sources:
Bell, Coleen. Emergency Planning Coordinator. Oakland Fire Department Office of Emergency
Services. personal communication, May 28, 2003.
Abram, Captain, Oakland Fire Department. personal communication. May 2003.
Draft Multi-Hazard Functional Plan, Cirv of Oakland, 1993.
Project Description and Plans.
ER03 0013 - 1,dima D@alenlup IMUM Swd@ 31. FSA / 203173
941TIAL STUDY AND E' IfVIRON' KIENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALM ACT (Cr=QA)
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences
are interniixed with wildlands? 0 F-1 21
Comments to VII.h:
The project site is within an urbanized area of Oakland and act located adjacent to forested or
gass-covered wildlands. All new structures built on the site would be required to comply with
applicable Fire Code and fire suppression systems, as routinely required by the -City. Therefore,
the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risks associated with
wildland fires.
Source:
Project Description and Plans
potmtially
sigoificut
Potearially UnIms Lm Thm
significmt Mitigation Sigaifi=t No
Inloact Incoroonted Impact bnpact
VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - - Would
the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements? El
Comments to VIILa:
Construction of the proposed project could involve excavation, soil stockpiling, boring and pile
driving, and grading. As soil erosion can occur on a short-term basis during construction, excess
sediment loads may affect the water quality of the San Francisco Bay. Sediment from project-
induced on-site erosion could accumulate in the downstream drainage facilities, intmfere with
flow, and aggravate downstream flooding conditions. Although the scale of proposed
constniction for this project involves grading and other activities that could result in temporary
erosion and transportation of sediments to storm sewers and other facilities, compliance with
NPDES permit requirements and standard City practices, as discussed below, would reduce this
impact to less than significant levels.
Because the amount of area disturbed in the proposed project is over one acre, the project
applicant is required to obtain a NPDES General Construction Permit from the San Francisco Bay
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) in accordance with the Federal Clem Water
Act. The RWQCB issues NPDES permits under authority of the State WRCB under the umbrella
of the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA). The permitting process requires
the applicant to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to instruct and inform
construction workers of appropriate practices to reduce storinwater runoff, erosion of loose
sediments, and handling of potentially hazardous materials and dewatering effluent.
Implementation of the plan starts with the commencement of construction and continues though
the completion of the project. The project applicant is required to submit a Letter of Intent to the
RWQCB upon commencement of construction activities. The SWPPP must be maintained an site
and be accessible to workers and RWQCB staff. If construction duration exceeds one vear, the
project applicant is required to submit an annual report to the RWQCB to report on the
ER03 0013 - [=.o D,.imhip Ium Sm& 33 FSA 1 203171
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVTEW OffiCKLIST
CALIFORN[A ENWRONKENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
implementation and performance of the SWPPP and Best Management Practices (BMPs)
employed for the project. Upon completion of the project, the sponsor must submit a Notice of
Termination to the RWRCB to indicate that construction is completed. At a minimum, the
SVv`PPP will include the following requirements@
• Excavation and grading activities will be scheduled for the dry season only (April 15 to
October 15), to the extent possible. This will reduce the chance of severe erosion from
intense rainfall and surface runoff, as well as the potential for soil saturation in swale areas.
• If excavation occurs during the rainy season, storinwater runoff from the construction area
will be regulated through a stormwater management/erosion control plan that may include
temporary on-site silt traps and/or basins with multiple discharge points to natural drainages
and energy dissipaters. Stockpiles of loose material will be covered and runoff diverted
away from exposed soil material. If work is stopped due to rain, a positive grading away
from slopes will be provided to carry the surface runoff to areas where flow can be
controlled, such as the temporary silt basins. Sediment basirL/traps will be located nd
operated to minimize the amount of offsite sediment transport. Any trapped sediment will be
removed from the basin or trap and placed at a suiable location on-site, away from
concentrated flows, or removed to ari approved disposal site.
• Temporary erosion control measures will be provided until perennial revegetation or
landscaping is established and can minimize discharge of sediment into nearby waterways.
For construction within 500 feet of a water body, straw bales will be placed upstream
adjacent to the water body.
• After completion of grading, erosion protection will be provided on all cut-and-fill slopes.
Revegetation will be facilitated by mulching, hydroseeding, or other methods and should be
initiated as soon as possible after completion of grading and prior to the onset of the rainy
season (by November 1).
• Permanent revegetatiGnilandscaping will emphasize drought-tGlerant. perennial ground
coverings, shrubs, and trees to improve the probability of slope and soil stabilization without
adverse impacts to slope stability due to irrigation infiltration and long-term root
development.
• BN[Ps selected and implemented for the project will be in place and operational prior to the
onset of major earthwork on the site. The construction phase facilities will be maintained
regularly and cleared of accumulated sediment as necessary.
• Hazardous materials such as fuels and solvents used on the construction sites will he stored
in covered containers and protected from rainfall, runoff, and vandalisrn. A stockpile of spill
cleanup materials will be readily available at all construction sites. Employees win be
trained in spill prevention and cleanup, and individuals will be designated as responsible for
prevention and cleanup activities.
As required by the City of Oakland's Municipal Code Section 15.04.780 and 0.16.100, the
project applicant shall prepare a grading and drainage plan for the proposed project. The grading
plan will include drainage, erosion, and sediment control plans, and incorporate best management
practices to prevent pollutants from entering the city storin sewer to the maximwn extent
practicable. The drainage plan will include existing, temporary, and final drainage facilities
consistent with erosion and sediment control plans, and prescribed procedures to ensure that
erosion and sediment management are maintained on the project site during construction.
ER030013 - Wd L.UMSMd, a FSA 1203173,
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVEEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Compliance with Mitigation Measure VIf.3 and standard city regulations and procedures would
minimize or eliminate potential water quality impacts associated with construction surface water
runoff, resulting in less than significant effects.
Depending on the nature of construction activities, groundwater may flow into excavations that
extend below the groundwater table. Common practices employed to facilitate construction
include either de-watering the excavation (remove groundwater by pumping) or shoring the sides
of the excavation to reduce groundwater inflow. If de-watering methods are used, groundwater
would be pumped out of the excavation to the surface and then discharged, typically to either the
storm drain or sanitary sewer. Water extracted during de-watering may contain chemical
contaminants (either from pre-existing sources or from equipment) or may become sediment-laden
from construction activities.
Groundwater generated during permanent dewatering would be discharged to the sanitary sewer
or storm drain system with authorization of and required permits from East Bay Municipal
Utilities District (EBMUD), or City of Oakland Public Works Department and RWQCB. Thus,
the following mitigation measure will apply:
Mitigation Measure V1H.l: The project applicant shall obtain a discharge permit from East
Bay Municipal UtWties District (EBNHJD) or the City of Oakland Public Works Agency and
RWQCB prior to any discharge.
The proposed project would be required to comply with permit conditions, if any, associated with
treatment of groundwater prior to discharge. Considering the permitting requirements for
treatment and discharge of groundwater generated during temporary or ongoing dewatering, the
project would not violate any water quality or waste discharge standards.
Sources:
Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element, Technical Report #5, October 1995.
Oakland Municipal Code Sections 15.04.780 and 13.16. 1 00
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
Comments to VHI.b:
The East Bay Plain (DWR Groundwater Basin No. 2-9.01) is an important and beneficial
groundwater basin underlying the East Bay, extending from Richmond to Hayward which is
identified for municipal, industrial, and agricultural water supply. However, water supply for the
proposed project area is not provided by groundwater sources, but rather from surface water
sources maintained by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) project area. In
addition, shallow groundwater underlying the project site is of poor quality, and is not considered
part of this regional groundwater basin due to the relatively impermeable Bay mud sediments
which impedes surface water infiltration to the underlying municipal water sources. Therefore,
the project would not cause an impact to groundwater resources considering that EBMUD
supplies water to the project site and that shallow groundwater is not used as a water supply.
ER03 0013 - Lra Dealmmp Imual SWdV 35 FSA / 203173
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVURONMENTAL REVEEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Sources:
California Department of Water Resources, Division of Planning and Local Assistance, Statewide
Planning, Groundwater website.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on- or off-site?
Comments to vul.c:
During construction, the existing site drainage pattern will be temporarily altered due to activity
during excavation and construction. However, in accordance with NPDES permit requirements
and standard City practices, the project applicant shall be required to grade unpaved areas to
control surface drainage and redirect surface water away site is very flat with no surface, water
flow impediments, drainage will be directed to the existing storm drainage facilities. Thus, no
long-term alteration of the existing drainage pattern is expected.
There are no known streams or rivers on the project site; therefore, completion of the proposed
project would not require the alteration of a stream or river course.
Sources:
Oakland Community Services Analysis, Technical Report *5, October 1995.
California Department of Water Resources, Division of Planning and Local Assistance, Statewide
Planning, Groundwater website.
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? z F-1
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 71 7
Comments to VHIA e, and f:
The project site is currently vacant without impervious surfaces such as streets, parking lots, and
rooftops that prevent the natural drainage and infiltration of the storm water through the soil.
Surface water runoff volumes and rates generated from undeveloped, unpaved areas can increase
significantly when that site is paved and the capability of surface water infiltration is reduced or
eliminated. The proposed project will involve paving the entire site, thereby increasing surface
water run-off. Instantaneous flows will increase substantially as a result of paving the project site;
however, as part of standard city development practices, the project sponsor will be required to
identify measures to ensure the project's increase in surface water run-off is minimized.
ER03 0013 - Wj.u DJ@Mp 1.U.1 S.dl 36 F.SA / @03173
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA FNVIRONMENTAL QUAL17Y ACT @CEQA)
A car wash will be constructed as part of the proposed project. TO rninirruZe potential water
quality impacts associated with oils, fluids, and detergents in run-off from car washing activities,
the following mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Mitigation Measure V111.2- Water used for the purposes of vehicle or equipment washing
activities shall be directed to discharge into the sanitary sewer system. Wash areas shall be
designed to prevent the potential discharge of run-off into the City of Oakland storm drain
system. Discharge into the sanitary sewer system associated with the project shall be
subject to the review, approval, and conditions of the East Bay Municipal Utility District.
The proposed project will also include automotive sales and repair, the installation of an
underground 1,500-gallon sand/oil water separator tank, a 500-gallon aboveground anti-freeze
tank, a 500-gallon aboveground used oil tank, and four aboveground 200-gallon new oil tanks.
This proposed use could increase the amount of storm water pollutants generated at the project
site, particularly levels of oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons, and metals. However, the
installation and monitoring of aboveground and underground storage tanks will be overseen by the
City of Oakland Fire Department in accordance with state, federal and local storage tank
guidelines, to reduce the potential for spills or leaks. In addition, the project applicant shall
prepare and implement a Hazardous Materials Business Plan and SPCC plan, as discussed in VU.a
and VII.b, which would reduce the potential for petroleum products or other hazardous materials
stored on the site to adversely impact the water quality of stornawater run-off originating from the
site.
In accordance with standard City practices, and in order to minimize any short-term (construction-
related) or long-term impacts on surface water quantity (i.e. storm water) or quality, the project
applicant shall be required to comply with applicable standards and regulations of the City of
Oakland. For example, the proposed project shall comply with the City of Oakland Storm Water
Management and Controls Ordinance, Creek Protection Ordinance, Public Works standards, and
shall utilize best management practices such as stormwater filtration devices to prevent sediments
or pollutants from entering the storm drain system or water courses. In addition, the following
mitigation measure shall be implemented:
Mitigation Measure VH1.3: The applicant shall be required to pay fees to compensate the
City for the cost of any system upgrades required to accommodate increased runoff from the
proposed project:
With implementation of the mitigation measures above, and compliance with federad, state, and
local hazardous materials and stormwater protection guidelines, the proposed project would not
result in significant impacts with respect to flooding, storrawater drainage capacity, surface water
quality or quantity.
Sources:
Oakland General Plan. Land Use and Transportation Element, Technical Report #5,
October 1995.
Oakland Community Services Anaiysis. Technical Report #5, October 1995.
Project Plans
ER03 0013 - Inowu Dealersmp I.Lal SW, 7 ESA i'03173
rNrrIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVEEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVTRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
significant
Pousnually Unless LessMan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impac
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other Flood hazard delineation map? Z
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
Comments for VIH.g and VIH.h:
The project site does not lie within the 100-year flood plain as determined by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard mapping. Within the City of Oaldaiid, the
FEMA 100-year flood plain establishes the base flood elevation for new construction to avoid
significant risk of flood hazards. The project site is located outside the 100-year flood hazard area
and is therefore considered to have minimal risk for flood hazards.
Sources:
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
Oakland Community Services Analysis, Technical Report #5, October 1995.
Oakland Environmental Factors Analysis, Technical Report #6, October 1995.
Flood Insurance Rate Map, Federal Emergency Management Administration.
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a
result of the failure of a levee or dam? 0
Comments to VTH.I:
The only dam that could affect the project in the event of failure is located at Lake Chabot,
approximately three miles southeast of the project site. Inundation maps prepared for Chabot
Dam by EMBUD indicates that in the event of dam failure, floodwaters could inundate the project
site.8 Chabot Dam is managed by EBMUD and overseen by the California Department of Water
Resources and, Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD), which supervises dam maintenance and
inspections. The dam is required to adhere to rigorous DSOD standards, which includes seismic
analysis of existing dams to assure their integrity and regular inspections. Adherence to DSOD
standards greatly reduces the probability of dam failure and adequately protects public safety. In
addition, the distance from the dam to the project site indicates potential flooding effects would be
minimal. Therefore, although the project site is located in the inundation area, the potential for
injury or structural damage caused by dam failure is unlikely.
This project is located above sea level and is therefore not subject to loss from failure of a levee.
Sources:
State of California Office of Emergency Services Inundation Map for Chabot Darn.
8 The inundauon scenario for this reservoir sunicture assurnes a total collapse dunng a catasuropruc event such as an earthquake.
ER03 0013 - (@fim. [)@.Immp @Ual SMdv '8 ESA 1 203173
U41TUL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
City of Oakland Fire Department, Office of Emergency Services, personal communication.
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? F1 F1 Z El
Comments to VHIJ:
Wave run-up from tsunami in the San Francisco Bay is expected to range between 0 and 20 feet,
and small areas of the Oakland Airport and surrounding vicinity may be affected by tsunamis.
Although the elevation of the project site is approximately 5 feet above mean sea level, inundation
by tsunami is unlikely due to the project site's location in a relatively protective inlet on San
Leandro Bay.
The proposed project site is not located in an area subject to inundation from seiche. The potential
for mudslides to occur is low due the developed urbanized nature of the surrounding area,'flat
topography, and relative lack of exposed slopes.
Source:
Oakland General Plan, Environmental Hazards Element, September 1974.
Potentially
significant
Potentially Unless Less 11un
significant Mifigadon Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impac
IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? Z
Comments to EX-a:
The proposed auto dealership and associated surface parking would be located within the Central
East Oakland Planning Area. Land uses in the vicinity of the project site include business
campuses to the east and west (Oakland Executive Center, Lexus Dealership and the Zhone
Technologies campus), the Airport Business Park with warehouse and industrial uses to the south,
and the 1-990 and Network Associates Coliseum to the north. The proposed project is located in
an industrial area. The proposed project is consistent with land uses within the vicinity of the site
and would not physically divide an established commumity.
Sources:
Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element, March 24, 1998.
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
Project Description and Plans.
b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to. the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program. or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? F7 F7 Z 7
ER03 0011 - @fimu D@.I@mp 1@fi.l 5Wdy 39 ESA
RvITIAL STUDY AND ENIVMONMXNTAL REVEEW CHECKLIST
CxLIFORNIA E".IRONMENTAL QUALM( ACT @CEQA)
Comments to IX.b:
As per the Oakland General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE), the project site
is located in the Central East Oakland Planning Area and within the Colisuem Area Showcase, an
area designated for economic growth and change. The project site is classified by the General
Plan Land Use and Transportation Element as "Business Mix." The Business Mix classification
is "intended to create, preserve and enhance areas of the City that are appropriate for a wide
variety of business and related commercial and industrial establishments" (p. 152). This
classification is a flexible "economic development zone" which strives to accommodate a mix of
business uses such as light industrial, manufacturing, commercial, and office. The maximum
FAR is 4.0 (for non-residential uses) with special consideration provided for the development of
campus-like business settings or in development with higher-impact uses. The proposed project
would result in an FAR of 0.18 9 which is within the allowable FAR for the Business Mix land
use classification. The proposed auto dealership is encouraged by the Business Mix
classification, and would generally conform to policies outlined within the General Plan as the
proposed project provides a new commercial business on an underutilized site in the Coliseum
Area.
The Oakland Bicycle Master Plan is part of the LUTE and contains a series of recommendations
for bicycle parking to be included in new development. The bicycle parking recornmendations for
the proposed project. an Automotive Sales, Rental, and Delivery Use, is 4 long-term (or I per 10
employees) and 2 short-term spaces. The project sponsor intends to provide the recommended
bicycle parking on-site as part of the project.
The proposed project would be consistent with relevant policies in the Open Space, Conservation
and Recreation Element (OSCAR) including the enhancement of city identity through prominent
signage and commercial presence along the 1-880 corridor (Policy OS-9.3). As views of the San
Leandro Bay are not easily discerned from the project vicinity, the proposed project would
generally conform to policies outlined within the General Plan's OSCAR Element.
The project site is located within the M-40 Heavy 1ndustrW Zone per the Oakland Zoning
Regulations. The M-40 Zone is "intended to create, preserve, and enhance areas containing
manufacturing or related establishments which are potentially incompatible with most other
establishments, and is typically appropriate to areas which are distant from residential areas and
which have extensive rail or shipping facilities" ( 17.72.010). The proposed project is classified
as an Automotive Sales, Rental and Delivery Activity ( 17.10.460) which is consistent with
permitted uses in the M-40 Zone. The parking requirement for this project is 35 off-street parking
spaces (I off-street parking space per 1,000 square feet of commercial autornotive sales, rental,
and delivery use) ( 17.116.080). The loading requirement for the project is I off-street loading
berth (1 berth per 10,000-24,999 square feet of cominercial automotive sales, rental and delivery
use) ( L7.116.140). The proposed project would exceed the zoning requirements by providing 42
to 52 parking spaces: (21 spaces for customers and 20 to 30 spaces for employees). An additional
305 to 320 parking spaces would be dedicated for inventory/display and service purposes. Off-
street loading would occur on the project site, near the auto service portion of the site on the
western side of the proposed building.
In accordance with standard practices. a final site plan will need to be subraitted to the City for
review to ensure conformity will all development standards of the Zoning Ordinance. Similarly,
the pylon sign for the Infiniti dealership will need to be submitted to the City for review to ensure
conforritim with Section 17.72.090 regarding signs in the M-40 zone. with Section 17.104,
9'Me caiculauon is as follows; 3-5,000 sq. ft. divided by 189,486 sq. ft. t 4.35-@S) equals 0. 1 8.
ER03 0013 - @.fi.u Deai.,mp L.U@ SMdv 40 FSA / :03173
RUTIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA EWRONMENTAL QUALITY ACr (CEQA)
General Limitations On Signs, and with the Oakland Sign Code. Similarly, the pylon signs for the
Infiniti dealership will need to need to be submitted to the City for review to ensure conforniity
with Section 17.72.090 regarding signs in the M-40 zone, with Section 17.104, General
Limitations on Signs and with the Oakland Sign Code
The Coliseum Area Redevelopment Plan is a redevelopment plan that encompasses a total land
area of approximately 6,500 acres. The project site is located within the Edgewater Industrial
Planning District and the East Bay Municipal Utility District/Edgewater Sites Target Area. The
proposed project would be generally consistent with the goals and objectives of the Plan as it
would develop and improve a vacant and underutilized parcel adjacent to the 1-990. Furthermore,
the project would fulfill the goal of attracting new businesses to the Coliseum Redevelopment
Area; thus, the project would be consistent with the policy objectives as outlined in the Plan.
Sources:
Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element, March 24, 1998.
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
Oakland Zoning Regulations, 1966, as amended through April 200 1.
Oakland Bicycle Master Plan, Part of the Land Use and Transportation Element of the Oakland
General Plan, July 20, 1999.
Oakland Coliseum Area Redevelopment Plan, June 23, 1995, as amended through July 22,1997.
Project Description and Plans.
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan? Z
Comments to IX.c:
The proposed project site is located in an area that is not governed by any habitat conservation
plan or natural community conservation plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict
with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Sources:
Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element, March 24, 1998.
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
Project Description and Plains.
Potentially
signifi=t
Potmtially UUIW3 L@ n1an
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Inootoorated L=act Impac
X. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state? Z
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important
mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general
plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? Z
ER03 0013 - Lnfi.6 rkalmmp @Bal Swdy FSA/2031@3
VaTIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Comments to X.a and X.b:
The proposed project would be located on a currently vacant site in an industrial area and would
entail the construction of an approximately '35,000 square-foot, two-stor-y building with mezzanine
as well as surface parking. The project site has no known existing mineral resources. The project
would not require quarrying, mining, dredging, or extraction of locally important mineral
resources on site, nor would it deplete any nonrenewable natural resource.
Sources:
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
Project Description and Plans.
Site visit.
PotentLatly
significant
Potentially Unless Less 'Mm
Sigaifi=t Mitigation signiftant - No
Impact Incomorated Impact Y-Dact
M. NOISE - Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in
excess of standards established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive
groundbome vibration or groundbome noise levels?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without
the project?
The following analysis is partly based on the Noise Technical Study (200 1) prepared for the Lexus
Dealership currently operating next to the project site.
Comments toG.a, XI.b and MA:
Noise standards are addressed in local General Plan policies and local noise ordinance standards. A
project could expose people to, or generate, noise levels in excess of General Plan standards in two
ways. First, the project could expose sensitive receptors to noise above applicable standards by
introducing land uses that are incompatible with the existing noise environment. Second, the
project itself could lead to an increase in ambient noise levels thereby affecting existing sensitive
receptors in the project vicinity. Since the proposed project would not locate any noise sensitive
uses at the site, compatibility of the site with the existing noise environment is not an issue.
Therefore the focus of the following analysis is on the impacts of the proposed project on existing
ambient noise environment in the vicinity of the project site. These potential impacts are discussed
below.
The City of Oakland regulates short-term noise through enforcement of city ordinances, which
includes a general provision against nuisance noise sources (Plarming Code, Section.17.120). The
factors that are considered when determining whether the ordinance is violated include: a) the
level. intensitv, character, and duration of the noise; b) the level, intensity, and character of the
background noise; and c) the time when, and the place and zoning district where, the noise
occurred. Table I presents the maximum allowable receiving noise standards for commercial and
ER03 0013 - Lnfi.u D@a]@.Ip f.d.1 SWdy .42 ESA/203173
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AC7 iCEQA)
manufacturing land uses during the day. Table 2 presents noise level standards that apply to
temporary exposure to short- and long-term construction noise.
Construction noise levels at and near locations an the project site would fluctuate depending on the
particular type, number, and duration of use of various types of construction equipment. The
effect of construction noise would depend upon how much noise would be generated by
construction. the distance between construction activities and the nearest noise-sensitive uses, and
the existing noise levels at those uses.
Typical noise levels generated during the different stages of construction vary from 78 dBA
(during construction of foundations) to 105 dBA (during pile driving), at 50 feet. At this stage, it is
not clear if pile driving would be required as part of project construction; the potential need for
pile driving will be determined by site-specific engineering studies. Pile-driving would be the
most noise generating activity during construction and can generate noise levels of 90 to 105 dBA
at a distance of 50 feet. Noise levels of 78 to 93 dBA are therefore possible at the AMB
Distribution site located south of the project site. These predicted noise levels would exceed the
standards of the Oakland Noise Ordinance, which states that, for commercial and industrial
receptors, the maximum allowable receiving noise for weekday (Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m.
to 7:00 p.m.) construction activity of greater than 10 days duration is 70 dBA. For construction
activity of 10 days or less the residential receiving standard is 85 dBA. Consequently, the noisiest
phases of construction would have the potential to exceed the construction noise standard of the
City of Oakland's Noise Ordinance. Other noise-sensitive uses located within approximately
1,600 feet of pile-driving activity could also be substantially affected, depending on the presence
of intervening barriers or other insulating materials. At noise levels of 85 dBA, normal
conversation is extremely difficult. Intermittent noises such as pfie-driving noise ar more
disturbing to many people than typical construction noise. Without restrictions on the hours of pile
riving, this impact would be considered significant.
TABLE 1
MAMA" ALLOWABLE RECEIVING NOISE STANDARDS FOR
COMMERCLAL AND MANUFACTURING LAND USES, dBA
Cumulative Number of Minutes in either the Anytime
Daytime or Nighttime one hour period' Commercial Manufacturing
20 65 70
10 70 75
5 75 90
1 80 85
0 85 90
The concept of -20 minutes in an hour" is equivalent to the L33.3 , whichis anoisedescriptor identifying the noise level
exceeded one-Lffird (33.3 percent) of the time. Likewise, '10 minutes in an hour," `5 minutes in an ham," and"I minute in an
hour"ameqLuvalentcotheLI6.-,,Lg.3-andL,.,,respecnvely. L@ax,ormaximmnoiselevei.representsthe5tandard
defined in Lerms of "O minutes in an hour."
SOURCE: Oakland Noise Ordinance No. 11 895, 19%; Environmental Science Associates.
F.1103 0013 - fnfiwd Dcak@hip Inai SWdv 43 FSA i 203173
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALMY ACT (CEQA)
TABLE2
MAXIMLIM ALLOWABLE RECEIVING NOISE STANDARDS FOR
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, dBA
Daily Weekends
Operation/Receiving Land Use 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 9:00 a.m. to 8:00
p.m. p.m.
Short-Term Operation (less than 10 days)
Residential 80 65
Commercial, Industrial 85 70
Long-Tenn Operation (more than 10
days)
Residential 65 55
Commercial, Industrial 70 60
SOURCE: Oakland Noise Ordinance No. 11895, 1996
To reduce the noise impact of construction on nearby businesses, the contractor shall be required to
implement the following measures throughout the duration of construction activity. Compliance
with the Noise Ordinance may be considered achieved if the following mitigation measures are
implemented:
Mitigation Measure 11.1a: Standard construction activities shall be limited to between
7:00 am. and 9:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday.
Mitigation Measure U.1b: To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the City
shall require construction contractors to implement the following measures:
0 Signs. shall be posted at-We construction site that include permitted construction days and
hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a day and evening contact
number for the Contractor in the event of problem .
0 An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be posted to respond to and track
complaints.
0 A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the job inspectors and the general
contractor/ou-site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices are
completed prior to the issuance of a building permit (including construction hours,
neighborhood notification, posted signs, etc.)
a Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise
control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers,
ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever
feasible);
ER03 0013 - @fi.d D@.I@,,Jp Iual SMd, -14 ESA 1203173
INTML STUDY AND ENVTRONNMNTAL PEVTEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (Cr;QA)
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project
construction shall be hydraulicaHy or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid
noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the
compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust
by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where
feasible, and this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used,
such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever feasible; and
• Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and
they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate ibsulation
barriers, or other measures to the extent feasible.
• The noisiest phases of construction shall be limited to less than 10 days to show
compliance with the local noise ordinance.
PUe-Driving Requirements and Conditions
Mitigation Measure X1.1c: Pile-driving and/or other extreme noise generating activities
(greater than 90 dBA) shall be limited to between 7:00 a-m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through
Sunday, with no extreme noise-generating activity permitted between 12:30 and 1:30 p.m.
Nfltigation Measure X1.1d: To further mitigate potential pile-driving and/or other extreme
noise generating construction impacts, a set of site-spedric noise attenuation measures shall
be completed under the supervision of a quallfied acoustical consultant. This plan shall be
submitted for review and approval by the City to ensure that maximum feasible noise
attenuation is achieved. These attenuation measures shaR include as many of the following
control strategies as feasible and shall be implemented prior to any potential pile-driving
activities:
* Implement "quiet" pile-driving technology, where feasible, in consideration of
geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions;
0 Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the entire construction site;
0 Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as the building is erected to reduce
noise emission from the site;
0 Evaluate the feasibility of noise control at the receivers by temporarily improving the
noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings; and
a Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.
Mitigation Measure.Xl.le: A process with the following components shall be estabUshed for
responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to pile-driving construction noise:
a A procedure for notifying City Budding Division staff and Oakland Police Department;
& A plan for posting signs on-site pertaining to permitted construction days and hours and
complaint procedures and who to notify in the event of a problem;
a A listing of telephone numbers (during regular construction hours and off-hours);
@ROI 001 3 - nfi.u D.JemN. L.Ual SW& -i5 FSA / 203173
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
• The designation of a construction complaint manger for the project; and
• Notify property owners of neighboring businesses within 300 feet of the project
construction area at least 30 days in advance of pile-driving activities about the estimated
duration of the activity. Develop a reasonable schedule for the hours of pile driving to
minimize the noise impacts on nearby businesses, to the greatest degree possible, while
still enabling a reasonable construction schedule.
Sources:
City of Oakland, Oakland Noise Ordinance No. 11895, 1996.
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Comments to Xl.c:
The Oakland Comprehensive Plan identifies the noise at the project site as being part of an
"Existing Critical Noise Impact Area". Primary sources of permanent ambient noises that
influence the environment at the project site include: (1) vehicle traffic on I-880 located just 50
feet north of the project site. (2) Aircraft activity associated with Metropolitan Oakland
International Airport and (3) traffic activity along the local roadway network adjacent to the
project site are considered secondary noise sources.
Over the long-term, the impact of the project on the ambient noise environment would be
primarily due to the increase in traffic that would affect roadside noise levels, particularly during
peak traffic. The proposed project would generate about 1,340 daily vehicle trips, with about 80
and 100 vehicle trips during the a.rrL and p.m. peak hour, respectively. The noise analysis for the
Lextis dealership now operating next to the project site included an assessment of cumulative
noise impacts assuming development of a hotel/restaurant on the project site. The trip-generating
potential for the hoteUrestaurant project was estimated at 1,680 trips (daily), 102 trips (AK, and
135 trips (PM), i.e., more vehicle trips than the current project. The Lexus study concluded that
the increase in noise levels along all analyzed roadway segments under cumulative conditions
would be less than significant (i.e. the increase would be less than 3 dBA and hence not
perceivable). If the increase in cumulative noise assuming greater trip-generating development at
the site was found to be less than 3 dBA, the proposed project (with lesser trip generating
potential) would also result in noise increases of less than 3 dBA. Therefore, permanent ambient
noise levels are expected to be a less than significant impact.
Sources:
Environmental Science Associates, Lexus Dealership Project Noise Technical StudY, August 2001.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would
the project expose people residing or working in the project
area to excessive noise levels? 7 z F1
ER03 0013 - Infimn D@.imtdp iwU.i SWdy 46 ESA/'03171
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIERONNIENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Comments to XLe and XI-f:
The project site is located within one mile of the Oakland International Airport. However, it is not
located within the Noise Impact Zones (65-dBA contour) for the Airport, adopted by the Airport
Land Use Commission of Alameda County. Therefore, the project would not expose employees or
patrons to excessive noise levels and the impact would be considered less than significant.
There are no private airstrips located in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the impact of noise
private airstrips on people working at the project site would be considered less than significant.
Sources:
Air port r and Use Commission of Aiameda County, Alameda County Airport Land Use Policy
Plan, July 16, 1986.
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless L@s TInan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
linvact Incorpotated Impact hnvact
MI. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either
directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses)
or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructare)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere? z
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? z
Comments to X[La, b, and c:
As the proposed project would construct an approximately 26 to 30 foot-tall building and on-site
surface parking on a currently vacant lot, it would not displace housing or persons.
The proposed project would provide approximately 35,wo square feet of showroom office, and
auto service space, and about 42 to 52 parking spaces in an urban area of Central East Oakland,
near the 1-880 and the Network Associates Coliseum As the project is not proposing residential
units, it would not induce population growth. The project would result 'in approximately 47
fulltime employees to the area; however, these employees would likely already live and work in
the Bay Area. Hours of operation would be 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 pan. on weekdays, Saturdays 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., and Sundays 11:00 a.m to 5:00 p.m. Weekdays would result in most of the
employees, approximately 35, which would drop to around 15 in the evenings. Saturdays would
result in 25 employees, and Sundays would result in 10 to 15 employees. The total increase in the
daytime population on site and in the surrounding area is expected to be minimal and is consistent
with General Plan land use projections; thus, the project would not result in any significant
impacts related to population and housing.
ER03 0013 - Lnfat D@Mmftp @UUal Study J7 E.SA 1 203173
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA F@ZVIRGNMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA@
Sources:
Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element, March 24, 1998.
Project Description and Plans.
Potentafly
Significant
potcutially Unless Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incon-norated Impact LMM
XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES - - Would the project result in
substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities.
or the need for new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any
of the following public services:
a) Fire protection? z
b) Police protection? z
c) Schools? z
d) Parks? z
e) Other public facilities? F@ z F-1
Comments to XM.a, b, c, d, e:
The proposed project site is located in a developed urban area already served by public services.
Fire protection and emergency medical response services would be provided to the project site by
the Oakland Fire Services Agency. The nearest fire station, Station 27, is located about 2 miles
south of the project site at 8501 Pardee Drive, Oakland. The estimated response time to the
project site is approximately three minutes. In accordance with standard City practices, the
proposed project would be designed in compliance with Oakland's Building Code. The Fire
Services Agency will also review the project plans at the time of building permit issuance to
ensure that adequate fire and life safety measures are designed into the project, in compliance
with all applicable state and city fire safety requirements.
Police protection services would be provided to the project site by the Oakland Police Services
Agency, headquartered in downtown Oakland at 455 Seventh Street, which would serve the
project site and provide first response to priority calls. The project site is located within the
Police Service Agency's Community Policing Area 3, District 5, Beat 31X. A Neighborhood
Services Coordinator is assigned to Beat 3 1X to work with businesses and other institutions to set
priorities and develop strategies to improve public safety and crime.
The Oakland Unified School District (OUSD) operates the public school system in Oakland. The
project site lies within the boundaries serviced by Lockwood Elementary School located north on
East 14'h Street. The project site also lies within the boundaries of Havenscourt Middle/Junior
l1igh School located northwest on 66h Avenue and Castiemont High School located further north
on MacArthur Boulevard. The project would not impact the operations of existing schools as the
ER03 0013 - lfimu Deaienhip Lwaal SdY a8 FSA 1 M3173
INITIAL STTJDY AND ENVURONNUNTAL REVEEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENrAL QUA-Ln-Y AC`r (CEQA)
project would not result in an increase to the residential population (see Section X11, Population
and Housing). In addition, prior to issuance of building permits, the project sponsor would be
required to pay school impact fees of $0.31 per square foot of commercial space to offset any
forseeable impacts to school facilities from the proposed project.
The project site is located in an industrial area of Central East Oakland, northwest of the Oakland
International Airport and just north of the San Leandro Bay and shoreline. The project site is
within 1/z mile of existing parks including the Martin Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline, located
a few blocks to the south and west of the project site, and Curt Flood Field located to the west of
the project site at the end of 66h Avenue. Other open space and parks in the project site vicinity
include the Galbraith Golf Course and Galbraith Field located southeast of the project site on
Doolittle Drive.
Sources:
Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element, March 1998.
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
Oakland Community Services Analysis, Technical Report #5, October 1995.
Official City of Oakland website, Oakland Police Department homepage,
Official City of Oaldand website, Oakland Fire Department homepage,
April 30, 2003.
Willie, Huey, Neighborhood Services Coordinator, Oakland Police Services Agency, telephone
commun 0 cation, May 2, 2003.
Williams, James, Public Information Officer, Oakland Fire Department, telephone
Communication, April 30, 2003.
Project Description and Plans.
Po=dany
signifima
Pountially Ualms Lwslban
signifi@t Wtiptim Signific"t NO
_lW2a,c_r tac@ted Inwact Imp=
)UV. RECREATION - - Would the project:
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? z
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment'? z
Comments 'GV.a and 'KrV.b:
See response to XIIL above. The proposed project is located in an industrial area that has some
existing access to parkland and recreational facilities around San Leandro Bay including Martin
Luther King, Jr. Regional Shoreline. Curt Flood Field, and Galbraith Golf Course. Additional
parks and recreational facilities such as the Coliseum are located across the 1-880. As the
proposed project would not induce significant population growth, it is not anticipated to result in
adverse effects on any of the existing parks or recreational facilities in the area.
FRO3 0013 - Wfimu Deale.hip Lm.] SWdV 49 ESA / Z03173
UNITIAL STUDY AND ENVTRONNTNTAL REVIEW CBECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Sources:
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
Project Description and Plans.
Potentially
signiflaint
Porentially Unless Less Th2a
signifiaint Mitigation Signiflaint No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - - Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to
the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e.,
result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle
trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of
service standard established by the county congestion
management agency for designated roads or highways? 7
Comments XV.a and X-Vb.-
Vehicular access to the project site would be provided from O&kport Street, a two-lane road
(except for a segment south of Hassler Way, which has four lanes) that connects to 66th Avenue
and the 1-880 / 66th Avenue interchange (to the north) and to Edgewater Drive and the I-880 /
Hegenberger Road interchange (to the south). Traffic conditions in the vicinity of the project site
were assessed through the evaluation of a.m. and p.m. peak-hour levels of service (LOS) at the
following four key intersections:
Oakport Street and 66th Avenue
• 66th Avenue and 1-880 Southbound Off-Ramp
• Oakport Street and Hassler Way
• Hegenberger Road and Edgewater Drive
The concept of level of service qualitatively characterizes traffic conditions (i.e., congestion)
associated with varying levels of traffic on a six-level grading system (from LOS A, little or no
delays, to LOS F, excessive delays). The City of Oakland's Level of Service standard for
intersection operations outside of the downtown area is LOS D. Current traffic conditions at the
study intersections are acceptable (LOS D or better). IO
The proposed project would generate about 1,340 daily vehicle trips, with about 80 and
100 vehicle trips during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour, respectively. The traffic study for the Lexus
dealership now operating next to the project site, included assessment of cumulative impacts with
development of a hotel/restaurant on the project site. The trip-generating potential for the
hotel/restaurant project was estimated at 1,680 trips (daily), 102 trips (AM), and 135 trips (PM),
i.e., more vehicle trips than the current project. The Lexus study concluded that traffic conditions
under cumulative conditions would be acceptable. The proposed project therefore would neither
I 0 The inEersections of Oakpon Street / 66th Avenue and 66di Avenue 1 1-880 Southbound Off-ramp wffe recently signalized.
which improved intersection LOS conditions compared to conditions under stop sign control.
ER03 0013 - @fi DeaiersMp Wu.i SWO @O FSA 1 203173
WrIFICAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA FNYTRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of
the street system, nor cause established level Of service standards to be exceeded.
Sources:
Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 6th Edition, 1997.
Korve Engineering, Lexus Dealership Traffic Impact Analysis, October 5, 200 1.
Project Description and Plans.
Field Reconnaissance.
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety fisks?
Comments XV.c-
Although the project site is located within one mile of the Oakland International Airport, the
proposed maximum height of the auto dealership building is 26 to 30 feet, a height similar to the
neighboring business campuses and the Network Associates Coliseum directly across 1-990. The
project would not include transmission towers or flashing lights or any other physical feature or
equipment that could interfere with aircraft operations or transmissions, and therefore the project
effect would be considered less than significant.
Sources:
Project Description and Plans.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature
(e.g sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? El N 11
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? F@ 7
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? El
COM ntS to XV.d, e, f-
Two driveways would provide site access from Oakport Street. Each driveway would consist of
one inbound lane and one outbound lane. In accordance with standard City requirements for
roadway widths and site access design, adequate access would be reviewed by the City prior to
construction, and thus, would ensure adequate emergency access.
As per the City of Oakland's zoning requirements, the proposed project would be required to
provide one parking space per 1,000 square feet of commercial automotive sales, rental, and
delivery use ( 17.116.080). The proposed project would need to provide at least 35 parking
spar-es on-site. The proposed supply of 42 Lo 52 parking spaces (22 spaces for customers, plus
2_0 to 30 spaces for employees) would provide an adequate parking capacity.
Sources:
Project Description and Plans.
ER03 0013 - Ifimu D.Wmh@p Imoal SMd, IFSA/203173
INTrIAL STUDY AND ENVERONMENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs
supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)7
Comments to XV.g:
The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
alternative transportation. The project sponsor intends to provide the recommended amount of
bicycle parking spaces (4 long-term 2 short-term) on-site, as per the Oakland Bicycle Master
Plan.
Sources:
Project Description.
Powntiaily
significant
Polentiady UnIms Lm1ban
signiricant Mitigation signifimat No
rinvact Incoroomted Impact Impact
XVL UTILITIES A-ND SERVICE SYSTEMS - - Would the
project:
I
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board? F7
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects? z
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects? F-1
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitierwrits and resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed? z
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in
addition to the provider's existing cominitments? z
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? z
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? 7 F7 7
FRO' 001 3 - l.fi.u D@SIMIUD Waal Smd, FSAiZO3173
TNYrTAL STUDY AND ENWRON7@ff NTAL REVEEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Comments to XVIa, b, c, d, e, f, and g:
The proposed project site is located in an area already served by utilities and service systems. The
Community Services Analysis prepared for the Land Use and Transportation Element of the
General Plan stated that future in-fill development through the General Plan horizon year of 2015
would not be likely to exceed the capacity of existing utilities and service systems.
As part of standard project review, confirmation of sufficient distribution capacity in existing
water, wastewater, and storm water drainage facilities to serve the proposed project will be
completed. The project sponsor would be required to provide any infrastructure improvements
and pay required installation and hookup fees to the affected service providers to'ensure provision
of adequate service, prior to service connection as part of the building permit. Thus, the proposed
project would not result in significant impacts related to the utilization of water supplies,
wastewater treatment facilities, or storm water drainage facilities.
Assembly Bill 939 required all cities to divert 50 percent of their solid waste from landfills by
December 31, 2000. The current waste diversion rate in the City of Oakland is only 42 percent.
The project sponsor shall be required to comply with the City's construction and demolition
debris recycling ordinance, which requires submittal of a plan to divert at least 50 percent of the
construction waste generated by the project from landfill disposal. Compliance with this
ordinance would result in less-than-significant short-term impacts on solid waste.
In addition, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented to avoid adverse long-term
solid waste disposal impacts:
Mitigation Measure XVIJ: The project sponsor shall submit a plan which demonstrates a
good faith effort to divert at least 50 percent of the solid waste generated by construction
and operation of the project from landrW disposal.
The above measure would reduce the potential long-term impacts of the proposed project on solid
waste disposal to a less than significant level.
Source:
Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element, March 24, 1998.
Oakland Community Services Analysis, Technical Report #5, October 1995.
Pot=tially
sigair1cm
potmitially UnIms Lms Than
Sigaifimot mitigahm Sigafficmr No
Ira-aa Incorvonited I=act Imvact
XVILMANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal. or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
ER03 OU 1 3 - Imma D@.Jcrshjp Imfial Swdy 53 F.SA 1 203171
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVTRONMNTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
prehistory?
Comments to Mandatory Findings of Significance:
The proposed project will not degrade the quality of the environment with respect to
plant or animai habitats as the proposed project site is located in an urban area where no
known significant species or habitats currently exist. No important examples of major
periods of California istory or prehistory exist on the site.
Source:
Oakland Generl Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element, March 1.4, 1998.
Oakland General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1996.
Project Description and Plans.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects.) 7 0 E-1
Comments to Mandatory Findings of Significance:
The proposed project will not result in significant cumulatively considerable effects.
Source:
Project Description and Plans.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? Z
Comments to Mandatory Findings of Significance:
The project will not result in any potential environmental effects that will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, upon implementation of the identified
mitigation measures. The proposed project does not entail the use, storage or handling of
any significant amounts of hazardous substances.
Source:
Oaldand Zoning Regulations. 1966, as amended through April 2001.
Oakland General Plan, Land Use and Transportation Element, March 24, 1998.
Oaidand General Plan, Open Space, Conservation and Recreation Element, June 1.996.
Project Description and Plans.
ER03 0013 - Lfi.u DeaienWp Lwdal SWdy ESA I Z03171
R11ITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONNITNTAL REVrEW CMFCXIIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
APPENDMA
Summary of Mitigation Measures for Infiniti Dealership Project
(ER03 0013)
111. AIR QUALITY
Mitigation Measure IILb: During construction, the project sponsor shall require the construction
contractor to implement BAAQNM's basic dust control procedures required for sites smaller than
four acres, such as the project site, to maintain construction related impacts at acceptable levels;
this mitigates the potential impact to a less-than-ignificant level.
Elements of the "basic" dust control program for project components that disturb less than four
acres shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following:
• Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Watering should be sufficient to
prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever
possible.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain
at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load
and the top of the trailer).
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved
access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day
if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation Measure VA: If archaeological or paleontological resources are accidentally
discovered during the project excavation, or construction, the project sponsor shall ensure that
excavation or construction work is halted and a qualified cultural resource consultant has
evaluated the situation, assessed the potential significance and uniqueness of the artifact under the
provisions of Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, and provided mitigation recommendations,
if warranted. Cultural resources include, but are not limited to, railroad ties, foundations, privies,
shell and bone artifacts. Any identified cultural resources found shall be recorded on DPR 523
(historic properties) forms.
Mitigation Measure V.2: In the event that human skeletal remains are encountered during
demolition or construction activities for the proposed project, the project sponsor shall
immediately notify the County Coroner and stop ail work in the immediate vicinity of the remains.
If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the
California Native Heritage Commission, pursuant to subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the
Health and Safety Code, and all excavation and site preparation activities shall cease.
ER03 0013 - Ldmu Dnimmp L@UU S@l 55 cS#., 203133
U'4TTIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CHFCKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
VIL HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Mitigation Measure VIIJ: The project applicant shall use of construction best management
practices (BMPs) typically implemented as part of construction to minimize the potential negative
effects to groundwater and soils from construction activities. The following shall be implemented
as necessary to avoid any significant effects:
• Follow manufacturer's recommendations on use, storage and disposal of chemical products
used in construction;
• Avoid overtopping construction equipment fuel gas tanks;
• During routine maintenance of construction equipment, properly contain and remove grease
and oils; and
• Properly dispose of discarded containers of fuels and other chemicals.
Mitigation Measure VIL2: An envirommental site health and safety plan shail be created and
implemented to address worker safety hazards. Ms plan shall be prepared in accordance with
applicable state and federal worker protection standards to address potential health and safety
issues that may arise during construction activities associated with lead-impacted soils at the
project site. The environmental site health and safety plan shall be incorporated into construction
specifications for the project and subsequently implemented by the site contractor.
Mitigation Measure VIL3: Excess soil generated by construction activities shall be sampled for
transport and appropriate disposal. Stockpiled soil shall be appropriately managed to prevent
contamination of stormwater runoff or intermixing with clean fill imported to the site. Appropriate
management of stockpiled soils shall be integrated into the site's grading and drainage plan and
Storrawater Pollution Prevention Plan and shall be implemented in order to minimize potential
erosion and/or lead pollution of stornawater runoff, as discussed in Hydrology and Water Quality,
Section VIU. Transportation and disposal of lead impacted soil generated from the project site by
construction activities under the Plan shall be required to comply with appropriate state and federal
requirements. Areas of the project site which Would be left unpaved for landscaping, or other
purposes, shall be underlain by at least 5 feet of clean fill.
VIIL HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Mitigation Measure VHIJ: The project applicant shall obtain a discharge permit from East Bay
Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) or the City of Oakland Public Works Agency and RWQCB
prior to any discharge.
Mitigation Measure VHL2: Water used for the purposes of vehicle or equipment washing
activities shall be directed to discharge into the sanitary sewer system. Wash areas shall be
designed to prevent the potential discharge of run-off into the City of Oakland storm drain system.
Discharge into the sanitary sewer system associated with the project shall be subject to the review,
approval, and conditions of the East Bay Municipal Utility District.
Mitigation Measure VHL3: The applicant shall be required to pay fees to compensate the City
for the cost of any system upgrades required to accommodate increased ninoff from the proposed
project.
ER03 0013 - [wima D@.Jcrs@up iwaal SWdy 56 E.SA / 203173
INMAL STUDY AND EWIRONNEENTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALTY ACr (CEQA)
XI. NOISE
Standard Construction Requirements
Mitigation Measure XI.12: Standard construction activities shall be [imited to between 7:00 a.m.
and 9@00 p.m., Monday through Sunday.
Mitigation Measure XI.lb: To reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction, the City shall
require construction contractors to implement the following measures:
• Signs shall be posted at the construction site that include permitted construction days and
hours, a day and evening contact number for the job site, and a day and evening contact number
for the Contractor in the event of problems.
• An on-site complaint and enforcement manager shall be posted to respond to and track
complaints.
• A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-
site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices are completed prior to the
issuance of a building permit (including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted
signs, etc.)
• Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control
techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine
enclosures and acousticaily-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible);
• A preconstruction meeting shall be held with the job inspectors and the general contractor/on-
site project manager to confirm that noise mitigation and practices are completed prior to the
issuance of a building permit (including construction hours, neighborhood notification, posted
signs, etc.)
• Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control
techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine
enclosures and acousticaUy-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible);
• Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project
construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise
associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. However, where
use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall
be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External
jackets on the tools themselves shall be used where feasible, and this could achieve a reduction
of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment,
whenever feasible; and
• Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they
shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or other
measures to the extent feasible.
• The noisiest phases of construction shall be limited to less than 10 days to show compliance
with the local noise ordinance.
FRO3 0013 - Lfiwu D@.Jem@p J,@Ual SWdV 57 FSA 1 203173
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMFNTAL REVIEW CHECKLIST
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
Pile-Driving Requirements and Conditions
Mitigation Measure XI.1c: Pile-driving and/or other extreme noise generating activities (greater
than 90 dBA) shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday through Sunday, with
no extreme noise-generating activity permitted between 12:30 and 1:30 p.m.
Mitigation Measure XI.Id: To further mitigate potential pile-driving and/or other extreme noise
generating constniction impacts, a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures shall be
completed under the supervision of a qualified acoustical consultant. This plan shall be submitted
for review and approval by the City to ensure that maximum feasible noise attenuation is achieved.
These attenuation measures shall include as many of the following control strategies as feasible
and shall be implemented prior to any potential pile-driving activities:
• Implement "quiet" pile-driving technology, where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical
and structural requirements and conditions;
• Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the entire construction site;
• Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as the building is erected to reduce
noise emission from the site;
0 Evaluate the feasibility of noise control at the receivers by temporarily improving the noise
reduction capability of adjacent buildings; and
• Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.
Mitigation Measure X1.1e: A process with the following components shall be established for
responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to pile-driving construction noise:
0 A procedure for notifying City Building Division staff and Oakland Police Department;
• A plan for posting signs on-site pertaining to permitted construction days and hours and
complaint procedures and who to notify in the event of a problem;
• A listing of telephone numbers (during regular construction hours and off-hours);
• The designation of a construction complaint manger for the project; and
• Notify property owners of neighboring businesses within 300 feet of the project construction
area at least 30 days in advance of pile-driving activities about the estimated duration of the
activity. Develop a reasonable schedule for the hours of pile driving to minimize the noise
impacts on nearby businesses, to the greatest degree possible, while still enabling a reasonable
construction schedule.
XV1. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Nfitigation Measure XVI.l: The project sponsor shall submit a plan which demonstrates a good
faith effort to divert at least 50 percent of the solid waste generated by construction and operation
of the project from landfill disposal.
ER03 0013 - Ltu Dealenlup ima.1 SWdV 59 ESA J 2D3173
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PARCEI-2
Real property located in the City of Oakland, County of Alameda, State of California,
also being a portion of Lot 1 as shown on the Parcel Map Waiver and Certificate of
Compliance recorded October 7, 1999 as series 99382176, more particularly described
as follows:
Beginning at the most northerly corner of said Lot 1 as shown on said Parcel Map
Waiver and Certificate of Compliance; thence, along the northeasterly line of said Lot 1,
South 33050'12" East, 289.43 feet; thence, leaving said northeasterly line of Lot 1,
South 56009'36" West, 514.71 feet to a point on the southwesterly line of Lot 1 0 as
shown on said Parcel Map Waiver and Certificate of Compliance; thence, along the
southwesterly line of said Lot 1 0, North 33050'24" West, 289.43 feet to the intersection
with the northwesterly line of Lot 1 extended southwesterly; thence, along said
extension and said northwesterly line of Lot 1, North 56009'36" East, 514.72 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
Containing 3.42 acres, more or less, measured in ground distances.
END OF DESCRIPTION
Bearings and distances described herein are based upon the California Coordinate
System of 1983, Zone III, 1966 adjustment. All distances described herein are grid
distances. To obtain ground distances, multiply grid distances by 1.0000708.
Surveyor's Statement
This description was prepared pursuant to section 8726 of the Business and Professions
Code of the State of California by or under the supervision of:
4@/
z
D@de
HarissVH O30:
LU
1) Q-
6 0
C-)
A
CD- j
C)
CN 0 Gl
U C:4
U) LAJ (D <
Lu :3 7.) 00 (n a w
z 0- CL
C)
Z C@
o
0 0 6-4
E3 Ln
Cil
Cd
CD m co
E@ 71
M,,92,60.99S 0
(Z co
E--4 C\2 r4 ZE Ln
EL
u m o CO0
C14
00 LQ
cq Q) w
0
04 1340
w CN
CN Cob
b z L4
LO
V) n
CO C\2
0 co
C( ZL-t'l,9 13,,92,60.99N m
Q)
gz Q
z
C) I
-X
m LO
U 0
0 >
0 a)
E-m m
Q)
z
2002005766 01/04/2002 03@57 PM
OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RECORDING PEE@ 0.00
RECORDING REQUESTED BY: ALAMEDA COUNTY
PATRICK O'CONNELL
City of Oakland, a Municipal
Corporation
PGS
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Frank Fanelli, ASA
Manager, Real Estate Division
City of Oakland
Community & Economic Development Agency
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
4'@ floor
Oakland, CA 94612
TAX ROLL PARCEL NUMBER &
(ASSESSOR'S REFERENCE NUMBER) 11-4
041-3902-013-00
MAP BLOCK PARCEL SUB (Space above for Recorder's use only)
GOkRIE&IO01 DOCUMENT
To Correct and Amend
The
Certificate of Compliance
Recorded on Aprit 27, 2001 by the City ci OakIand, as Document Number 20011413S4,
Alameda County Records.
This Correction Document is being recorded for the following reason:
There is an error in the distance label an the northwesterly line The
Mr
distancewaslabeled4l4.72feet,butshouldhaveread5l4.72feetE "Qrevised
description and plat are attached.
Owner: Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland
Date: -IWO -2-
APPROVED:
Date: Z
ary on
Zoning Administrator
Local Agency Official
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Real property located in the City of Oakland, County of Alameda, State of California,
being a portion of Lot IO, as shown on Parcel Map 6003, recorded in Book 205 of Parcel
Maps at pages 94-98, Alameda County Records, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the most westerly corner of Parcel 2 as shown on Certificate of
Compliance, recorded April 27, 2001 as series number 2001141354, Alameda County
Records; thence, along the westerly line of said Lot 1 0, North 33050'24" West 1282.76
feet to a point on a curve concave to the southwest having a radius of 372.21 feet;
thence northwesterly 26.45 feet along said curve through a central angle of 4'04'1 6";
thence North 56009'36" East 20.05 feet to a point on a non-tangent curve concave to the
southwest having a radius of 392.21 feet to which point a radial line bears North
52017'51 " East, said point also being on the easterly line of said Lot IO; thence
southeasterly 26.44 feet along said curve through a central angle of 03051'45"; thence
continuing along said easterly line of Lot 1 0 the following 3 courses:
1. South3305O'24!'East253-55feet;
2. North 56009'36" East, 14.00 feet;
3. South 33050'24" East 1 029.21 feet to a point on the northwesterly line of said
Parcel 2;
Thence along said northwesterly line South 56009'36" West 34.00 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Containing 40,593 square feet, more or less, measured in grid distances.
END OF DESCRIPTION
This description is based upon the North American Datum of 1983, (1986 Adjustment)
as shown upon Record of Survey 990, filed for record in Book I 8 of Record of Surveys,
Pages 50-60, in the Office of the Recorder of Alameda County. All distances called for
by this description are grid distances. To obtain ground distances, multiply distances
called for herein by 1.0000708.
Surveyor's Statement
I hereby state that this description and its accompanying plat were prepared by me or
under my direction in December 2001.
Da(te
W
O
-ld@ co N4
0 0
4-)
CZ
0
0
U CQ
CD :;h
CQ 0
m 11 z
C\2 0 m b) C) A
Q) 0 It a3
0
Y
O
0
LO < IC W<@w
V) XY 3 < :C@@
-et a u 0 0 0 < E:
N
L
co
a) CZ 04
Cf)
't E-4
L) n
V)
LO
U(D'S r
C; U
E--4 0) C: C6
Q) cf)
04 PI'
0
0
E-
Lo
z Q) 0
u) 0
< CL"
co rl
LLI Q) >,
V) L @ _a
It ULJ Q
C4 U)
c Q)
0
0 u
T.1) IL Q) c
LO w
Yl. LLJ V) 0 I-
C14c 0
E-4
ro -0 3:-o
Y 0
cn 0 N O-r 0,
0U)
0 0 0 m >1
@D O- co -
m Lo c 'D C- R!:@
Z UZ
-0c
CD0
-o@ E
z q) S-
V@
0
u
q)= L)
@j 0
CD
CN V
rl)
LC) CN 0
L) F- 0 o Qi A
Lr) q-
"I- C'@ UJ 0-0 -0 z
Ln uj (O
7 -i L) L@ 0
C,4 rl) O- L) E: U2 LO
11 x Z -7 0 0 :3
Cy LLJ O
0)
C)
ID C5 0 0
N 5 2'1 7'5 [LO t
0 0 Q)
>
0
Q) E L)
rl3NNVHD NOWVG CD 0
2002005767 01/04/2002 @3:57 PM
RECORDING REQUESTED BY: OFFICIAL RECORDS OF RECORDING FEE: 0.00
ALAMEDA COUNTY
City of Oakland, a Municipal 1PATRICK O'CONNELL
Corporation
WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: I 4 PCs
Frank Fanelli, ASA
Manager, Real Estate Division
City of Oakland
Community & Economic Development Agency
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
4th floor
Oakland, CA 94612
TAX ROLL PARCEL NUMBER
(ASSESSOR'S REFERENCE NUMBER)
041-3902-013-00
MAP BLOCK PARCEL SUB (Space above for Recorder's use only)
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
For the subdivision of the remainder of Lot IO resulting from the recording of the
Certificate of Compliance filed April 27, 2001 as Series No. 2001141354, Alameda
County Records, and which property is shown in its entirety on Parcel Map 6003 filed
June 2, 1993 in Book 205 of Parcel Maps at pages 94-98, Alameda County Records.
Pursuant to sections33166.20 1/2 and 66499.35 of the Government Code of the State of
California and City of Oakland Municipal Code section 16.24.020, the City of Oakland, a
municipal corporation, hereby records this Certificate of Compliance for the parcels of
land described in the attached Legal Descriptions and accompanying plats, after finding
that the parcels described are in compliance with section 66428 by virtue of a Parcel
Map Waiver attached and hereby made a part of this Certificate of Compliance.
Ownen Redevelopment Agency of the City of Oakland,
Date:
APPROVED:
14@41@ t@ Date:
Gary Patton
Zoning Administrator
Local Agency Official
CITY OF OAKLAND
Community and Economic Development Agency,Planning & Zoning Services Division
2 5 0 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 3330, Oakland, California, 94612-2032
August 21, 2003
Responses to Comments Received on the Infiniti Dealership Mitigated Negative
Declaration (Issued June 12, 2003)
Submitted by: Claudia Cappio, Development Director C
Letter from Reizional Water Quality Control Board (RWOCB) - August 8. 2003
1) The commentor notes that the stormwater runoff discussion of potential impacts is
incomplete, and that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) should include a
further discussion of the most recent Alameda County National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit requirements, information and specifications.
StaffResponse: These comments are noted. During the design development phase of the
project for the site and related infrastructure improvements, the NPDES requirements,
specifications and information will be part of the Public Works and Engineering Services
Division requirements for a grading, drainage and public improvement plan prior to
issuing a building, grading or encroachment permit for the project. Oakland, as part of
the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program, Storm Water Management Plan (SMP),
will fully implement the requirements and specifications for new development.
The following text is hereby added to the discussion of Vill. Hydrology and Water
Quality of the IS/MND@
Page 33 -- Second paragraph: .... The permitting process requires the applicant to
prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) which is prepared to instruct
and inform construction workers of the appropriate practices to reduce stormwater runoff,
erosion of loose sediments and handling of potentially hazardous materials and
dewatering effluent. This plan shall reference, to the extent applicable, the Start at the
Source Report, a design guidance manual for storm water quality protection and storm
water management practice ..... "
Page 34 - Second paragraph: -' The drainage plan would include existing, temporary,
and final drainage facilities consistent -,kith erosion and sediment control plans, and
Response to Comments
Infinity IS/NWD
August 21, 2003
Pagc I
prescribed procedures to ensure that erosion and sediment management are maintained on
the project site during construction and during the operation of the pro*ect. Both
construction and operation measures shall follow the Start at the Source Stormwater
management practices for storm water quality protection.
Letter from East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) - August 14, 2003
1) The commentor notes that there may be existing groundwater contamination and that
EBNfUD workers require health and safety protection plans in order to install waterlines,
etc.
StaffResponse: Mitigation Measure V11.2 requires that an environmental site health and
safety plan be created to address safety hazards. This plan operates on a comprehensive
site basis, and the provisions of the plan apply to any workers involved on the site,
including EBMUD personnel.
2) The commentor requests that information be provided to confirm that the project will
not have an additional impact on stormwater or sewer capacity, particularly adequate wet
weather capacity.
StaffResponse: As part of the final development plans for the project, the applicant must
confirm, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Agency, that sufficient stormwater and
sewer capacity exist in the area, and that the conveyance system is adequate to service the
project. This site is in the center of a intensely developed mixed use area and the amount
of sewer flow and storm water drainage resulting from the 4.35 acre site is considered
deminimus.
3) The commentor requests that all water conservation measures be instituted to comply
with the Oakland Water Efficient Landscape Requirements.
Staff Response: This requirement will be a part of the star,.daTd plan check of site
improvements and landscape plan review prior to the issuance of a building permit for the
project.
Response to Conuncnts
Infinity IS/MND
August 21, 2003
Page 2
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
Winston ckox Internet Address: htrp://@.s,vrcb.ca.gov Gray Davis
Secretaryfor 151 XJlua-SWw-LAQoQe4i4"d,Califomia 94612 Governor
Environmental 510) 622-2460
Protection
Date: August 8, 2003
File No. 2198.09 (BKW)
Catherine Payne
City of Oakland
Community & Economic Development Agency
Planning Division
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 3330
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study for Infiniti of Oakland Auto
Dealership Project, SCH #2003072095
Dear Ms. Payne:
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) staff have reviewed the Mitigated
Negative Declaration & Initial Study (MND&IS) for the Infiniti of Oakland Auto
Dealership Project. The MND&IS will evaluate the potential environmental impacts that
might reasonably be anticipated to result from the proposed actions, which includes
construction of a one-story 35,000 square foot building for use as an auto showroom, auto
sales and service/repair facility as well as construction of a 300-space parking/auto sales
lot and a 35' tall pylon sign for the Infiniti dealership. Regional Board staff have the
following comments on the M],M&IS.
Comment I
Environmental Setting, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, Secdon VIII, Hydrology and
Water Quality, pages 33-35.
The discussion of stormwater impacts in this section is incomplete. Most of the discussion
on page 33 is related to minimizing storrawater impacts related to construction of the
projects. The discussion of potential water quality impacts in the MND&IS should be
expanded to include a discussion of Alameda County's National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit for stonnwater discharges. Under the terms of the
NPDES permit, post-construction best management practices (BNLps) at new development
and significant redevelopment projects are to meet the maximum extant practicable (MEP)
definition of treatment specified in the Clean Water Act (CWA). Alameda County is
implementing the current NDPES permit for discharges of stormwater under the Alameda
Countywide Clean Water Program, Stormwater Management Plan (SMP) (EOA, Inc.,
February 1997). New Development and Construction Goals are discussed in Section 7 of
the SMP. These goals include the following:
Incorporate storrnwater quality controls into the planning and permitting of new
development/significant redevelopment projects;
California Environmental Protection Agency
0 Rencled Paper
Ms. Payne - 2 - Infiniti of Oaklnd Mitigated Neg. Dec.
0 Continue to promote implementation of the Regional Board Staff
Recommendationsfor New and Redevelopment Controlsfor Stormwater
Programs.
Tables 2 and 4 of the Regional Board Staff Reconiniendationsfor New and Redevelopment
Controlsfor Slormwater Programs state that residential and commercial projects with an
acre of impervious surfaces are required to implement Tier I post-construction stormwater
best management practices (BMPs). Tier I BMPs include swales, vegetated filter strips,
and stream erosion control.
The Alameda County NDPES permit was re-issued on February 19, 2003. New
development and significant redevelopment Projects that are constructed after February of
2005 will be required to comply with the numeric standards for post-construction
stormwater BMPs in the re-issued permit. Treatment BWs are to be constructed that
incorporate, at a minimum, the following hydraulic sizing design criteria to treat
stormwater runoff. As appropriate for each criterion, local rainfall data are to be used or
appropriately analyzed for the design of the BMPs.
Volume Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BN[Ps whose primary mode of action
depends on volume capacity, such as detention/retention units or infiltration
structures, shall be designed to treat stormwater runoff equal to:
1 .the maximized stormwater quality capture volume for the area,
based on historical rainfall records, deter-mined using the fortriula
and volume capture coefficients set forth in Urban Runoff Quality
Management, WEF Manual of Practice No. 231 ASCE Manual of
Practice No. 87, (1998), pages 175-178 (e.g., approximately the 85 Ih
percentile 24-hour storm runoff event); or
2. the volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80 percent or more
capture, deterrnined in accordance with the methodology set forth in
Appendix D of the California Stormwater Best Management
Practices Handbook, (1993), using local rainfall data.
Flow Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BN/[Ps whose primary mode of action
depends on flow capacity, such as swales, sand filters, or wetlands, shall be sized to
treat:
California Environmental Protection Agency
&'eled Paper
Ms.Payne - 3 - Infutiti of Oakland Mitigated Neg. Dec.
1. IO% of the 50-year peakflow rate; or
7' theflow of runoffproduced by a rain event equal to at least two
times the 85th percentile hourly rainfall intensityfor the applicable
area, based on historical records of hourl.v rainfall depths; or
3. the flow of runoff resulting fi-om a rain event equal to at least 0.2
inches per hour intensity.
Regional Board staff strongly encourage the use of landscape-based stormwater treatment
measures, such as biofilters and vegetated swales, to manage runoff ftom the project sites.
Since landscape-based stormwater treatment measures require that some of the site surface
area be set aside for their construction, the proper sizing and placement of these features
should be evaluated early in the design process to facilitate incorporation of the features
into the site landscaping. Regional Board staff discourage the use of inlet filter devices for
stormwater management. Filtration systems require a maintenance program that is
adequate to maintain the fanctional integrity of the systems and to ensure that improperly
maintained filtration devices do not themselves become sources of stormwater
contaminants or fail to function. Regional Board staff have observed problems with the
use of inlet filter inserts, since these devices require high levels of maintenance and are
easily clogged by leaves or other commonly occurring debris, rendering them ineffective.
Research conducted by the Califort-da Department of Transportation has demonstrated that
inlet filters can be clogged by a single storm event. The study found that these devices
required maintenance before and after storm events as small as 0. 1 inch of rain. In
addition, trash, debris, and sediment in the catchment had a significant impact on the
fi7equency of maintenance. Therefore, adequate maintenance of inlet filters to provide
MEP water quality treatment would be prohibitively expensive and impractically time
consuming.
Regional Board staff recommend that the City refer to Start at the Source, a design
guidance manual for storm water quality protection, for a fuller discussion of the selection
of stormwater management practices. This manual provides innovative procedures for
designing structures, parking lots, drainage systems, and landscaping to mitigate the
impacts of stormwater runoff on receiving waters. This manual may be obtained from
most cities' planning departments, or from me via email, by sending a request to the email
address given in the last paragraph of this letter.
California Environmental Protection Agency
&C'ed Paper
Ms. Payne - 4 - Infiniti of Oakland Mitigated Neg. Dec.
If you have any questions, please contact me at (510) 622-5680 or by e-mail at
bkwprb2.swrcb.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
Brian Wines
Water Resources Control Engineer
South/East Bay Section
cc State Clearinghouse, Attn: Katie Shulte Joung, P.O. Box 3044, Sacramento, CA
95812-3044
California Environmental Protection Agency
&c1ed Paper
@8/ ! 4 03 13:15 FAX 510 287 0790 EBAWD WDPD [0001
P.O. Box 24055
Oakland, CA W23-1055
Phone: 510 287-1084
F". 510 287-0790
Rmi
To; Catherine Payne Frowc MaHe A. Valmores
Fa3c (510) 238-6538 Date, August 14,2003
Pbons: (510) 238-6316 Pages: 4
Re: NOP IVIND Infinili Auto Dealership cc,
11 Urgent El For RwWww 13 Please Commard 0 Please Reply 0 Please Recycle
- Comments
Ckiginal to follow
From the desk of Sue Baker
Secretary to 0111 I(Irkl3atrick
(510) 287-1104
08/14/03 13:15 FAX 510 287-0790 EBMUD WDPD 10 002
EAST BAY
MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT
August 14,2003
Catherine Payne, Planner IV
City of Oakland
Community and Economic Development Agency
Planning & Zoning Services Division
250 Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 3330
Oakland, CA 94612
Dear Ms. Payne:
Re: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration - Infiniti Auto Dealership
East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Infiniti Auto Dealership in Oakland. EBMUD
has the following comments regarding water service, wastewater, and water conservation.
WATER SERVICE
The proposed project is located within EBMUD's Central (GOA) Pressure Zone that provides
water service to customers within an elevation range of 0 to 100 feet. The project site fronts a
12-inch water main in Oakport Street. The project sponsor should contact EBMUD's New
Business Office and request a water service estimate to determine costs and conditions for
providing water service to the proposed development.
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment referred to in the Initial Study and Environmental
Review Checklist for this project indicates that soil contamination is present within the project
site. EBMUD will not install pipeline in contaminated soil or groundwater (if groundwater is
present at any time during the year at the depth piping is to be installed) that must be handled as
a hazardous waste, or that may be hazardous to the health and safety of construction or
maintenance personnel wearing Level D personal protective equipment. Nor will EBMUD
mstall piping in areas where groundwater contaminant concentrations exceed specified Emits fbr
discharge to sanitary sewer systems or sewage treatment plants.
Applicants for EBMI JD services requiring excavation in contaminated areas must submit copies
of all known, existing information regarding soil and groundwater quality within or Aacent to
the project boundary and a legally sufficient, complete and specific written remedial plan
establishing the methodology, planning and design of all necessary systems for the removal,
treatment, and disposal of all identified contaminated soil and/or groundwater. EBMUD will not
design the installation of pipelines until such time as soil and groundwater quality data and
remediation plans are received and reviewed and will not install pipelines until remediation has
been carried out and documentation of the effectiveness of the remediation has been received and
reviewed. If no soil or groundwater quality data exists or the infbrmation supplied by the project
sponsor is insufficient, EBMUD may require the project sponsor to perform sampling and Of%
4@
375 ELEVENTH STREET . OAKLAND . CA 946074240. (510) M-3WO
08,114/03 13:16 FAX 510 287-0790 EMU WDPD U003
Catherine Payne, Planner TV
August 14, 2003
Page 2
analysis to characterize the soil being excavated and groundwater that may be encountered
during excavation or perform such sampling and analysis itself at the project sponsors expense.
WASTEWATER
EBM`UD's Main Wastewater Treatment Plant is anticipated to have adequate dry weather
capacity to treat the proposed wastewater flow from this project, provided this wastewater meets
the standards of EBMTJD's Environmental Services Division. However, the City of Oakland's
Infiltration4nflow (YI) Correction Program set a maximum aflowable peak wastewater flow
from each subbasin within the City and EBMUD agreed to design and construct wet weather
conveyance and treatment facilities to accommodate these flows. EBNIUD prol-dbits discharge
of wastewater flows above the allocated peak flow for a subbasin because conveyance and
treatment capacity for wet weather flows may be adversely impacted by flows above this agreed
limit. The project sponsor for this project needs to confirm with the City of Oakland Public
Works Department that there is available capacity within the subbasin flow allocation and that it
has not been allocated to other developments. The proj ected peak wet weather wastewater flows
from this project need to be determined to assess the available capacity within the subbasin and
conf=ation included in the MND. Suggested language to include in the MND is as follows:
"The City of Oakland Public Works Department has confirmed that there is available wastewater
capacity within Subbasin (insert subbasinnumber here) for this project."
In general, the project should address the replacement or rehabilitation of the existing sanitary
sewer collection system to prevent an increase in I/I. Please include a provision to control or
reduce the amount of I/f in the environmental documentation for this project The main concern
is the increase in total wet weather flows, which could have an adverse impact if the flows are
greater ffian the maximum allowable flows from this subbasin.
If a groundwater cleanup project is necessary for this site, and the project sponsor proposes
discharge to the sanitary sewer, a Wastewater Discharge Permit fi7om EBMUD will be
required. The permit will require monitoring to document pollutants of concern, and
treatment to achieve compliance with EBMUD's Wastewater Control Ordinance. A
Discharge Permit would be subject to compliance with Permit term and conditions and
payment of appropriate fees.
The project sponsor is required to obtain a Wastewater Discharge Permit from EBMUD for
discharges related to the vehicle or equipment washing activities. 'ne wash area shall be
constructed so as to prevent stormwater from flowing to the sanitary sewer system. The
discharge permit shall be subject to compliance with permit terms and conditions and
payment of appropriate fees.
WATER CONSERVATION
The project presents an opportunity to incorporate water conservation measures. The City
should include in its conditions of approval for the implementation of the project that project
applicants comply with the Oakland Water Efficient Landscape Requirements, Article 10,
Chapter 7, of the Municipal Code and, if not enforced by the City, the project would &Jl under
08,114/03 13:16 FAX 510 287 0790 EMUD WDPD Q004
Catherine Payne, Planner IV
August 14, 2003
Page 3
the jurisdiction of Assembly Bill 325, Statewide Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(Division 2, Title 23, California Code of Regulations, Chapter 2.7, Sections 490-495).
If you have any additional questions, please contact me at (510) 287-1084.
Sincerely,
IIA4&@
MARlE A. VALMORES
Senior Civil Engineer, Water Service Planning
MAV:AMV:sb
sb03-239-doc
item (O
CED Committee
September 23, 2003