Resolution 14274CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 14274
DENYING THE APPEAL OF THE AUGUST 11, 2008, PLANNING BOARD
DECISION TO CERTIFY THE ADEQUACY OF THE ALAMEDA TOWNE
CENTRE EXPANSION PROJECT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT PDA05 -0004 AND MAJOR
DESIGN REVIEW DR05 -0073
WHEREAS, the City prepared an Initial Study that identified potentially
significant environmental impacts associated with the Alameda Towne Centre
Expansion Project; and
WHEREAS, on January 30, 2006, the City issued a Notice of Preparation
( "NOP ") of a Environmental Impact Report (EIR); and
WHEREAS, the City conducted an extensive public input process to
identify potential environmental issues and concerns that should be addressed
in the EIR; and
WHEREAS, a Notice of Availability of the Draft EIR (DEIR) was
published on August 29, 2006 and the DEIR was circulated for public comment
between August 29, 2006, and October 12, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the City held public hearings to accept comments on the
DEIR, before the Planning Board on September 25, 2006, and before the
Transportation Commission on September 27, 2006; and
WHEREAS, written responses were prepared addressing all significant
environmental issues raised by commenters during the public review period and
published in the Final EIR (FEIR); and
WHEREAS, the FEIR, consisting of the DEIR, responds to comments
and evaluation of project revisions, and was made available to the public for
review on June 24, 2008; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Board held public hearings on July 14, 2008,
and August 11, 2008, wherein the Board considered all pertinent information
and then certified the adequacy of the Final EIR on August 11, 2008; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2008, an appeal of the August 11, 2008,
Planning Board decision was filed with the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on this appeal of the
Planning Board decision to certify the adequacy of the Final EIR on October 7,
2008, and examined pertinent maps and documents, considered the testimony
and written comments received; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has made the following findings:
1 The Final EIR has been presented to and independently reviewed and
considered by the City Council,
2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment and analysis of the City
of Alameda, and
3 The Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act, and all applicable state and local guidelines.
4. Project changes were made by the applicant that addressed some of the
comments received on the DEIR and specifically objections to the
proposal for a Target store in the Shopping Center (Building 1000,
former Safeway store); the project changes reduced and/or eliminated
some of the potentially significant impacts relating to noise, visual, light
and glare by reducing the amount of square footage originally requested
for the Shopping Center; the project changes do not increase the size of
Building 1000 substantially as was previously proposed and evaluated,
in 2003 to approximately 66,700 square feet, and to approximately
147,000 square feet in the original 2005 submittal; and
The project changes do not create new significant impacts and do not
increase the severity of an impact identified in the EIR; the Board further
determined that the EIR prepared for the project adequately addressed
all potentially significant environmental impacts as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act and no further environmental
evaluation is required.
WHEREAS, a DEIR, State Clearinghouse Number 2003042073, was
prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and was
circulated for public review between August 29, 2006 and October 12, 2006 and
no comments were received which identified new significant environmental
impacts which were not already analyzed in the DEIR; and
WHEREAS, a final environmental impact report (FEIR) was prepared
responding to the comments received on the DEIR (DEIR and FEIR are
collectively referred to as EIR); and
WHEREAS, on October 7, 2008 the City Council found the EIR
complete and correct, and after considering public testimony and reviewing all
project documents, including the EIR and the Mitigation Monitoring Program,
Exhibit "A" of this resolution, found no significant environmental impacts from
the project as mitigated.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City
of Alameda hereby certifies the EIR and adopts the Mitigation Monitoring
Program, Exhibit "B" of this Resolution, for the Alameda Towne Centre
Expansion and Reconstruction Project.
NOTICE. No judicial proceedings subject to review pursuant to California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be prosecuted more than ninety (90) days
following the date of this decision plus extensions authorized by California Code of
Civil Procedure Section 1094.6
NOTICE. The conditions of project approval set forth herein include certain
fees and other exactions. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 (d) (1),
these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such
fees, and a description of the dedications, reservations and exactions. The
applicant is hereby further notified that the 90-day appeal period in which the
applicant may protest these fees and other exactions, pursuant to Government
Code Section 66020 (a) has begun. If the applicant fails to file a protest within this
90-day period complying with all requirements of Section 66020, the applicant will
be legally barred from later challenging such fees or exactions.
ATTACHMENT 1, EXHIBIT A
FINDINGS OF FACT REGARDING POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
AND MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE
REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION PROJECT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The EIR evaluated the environmental effects of the expansion of the Alameda
Towne Centre by approximately 49,100 sq. ft. of gross leasable area (GLA) over
what had previously been approved by the City. This proposed expansion would
result in a total shopping center GLA of 706,650 sq. ft. and physical re-
arrangement of uses including an approximately 145,000 sq. ft. GLA discount
department store (Target) replacing an existing smaller store. A Target Store is
no longer proposed as part of the redevelopment of the shopping center. After
preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, the renovation plans for
the shopping center were revised and the immediate expansion plans for the
shopping center were reduced by 26,500 square feet to approximately 680,150
sq. ft. of GLA. The revised plans would have the same or reduced impacts in all
topic areas in the Environmental Impact Report.
The Project is defined as the redevelopment of Alameda Towne Centre which
includes an expansion ranging from 22,600 to 49, 650 square feet of additional
floor area resulting in full build-out of up to approximately 706,650 square feet of
GLA, construction of a new parking structure, and pedestrian, bicycle and transit
improvements, new signage and other minor site improvements ("Project"). A
detailed Project description is contained in the DEIR at pages 3-1 through 3-4
and FEIR at pages 15-2 and 15-3.
1. THE EIR: The Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") consists of the
Draft EIR, dated August 2006 ("DEIR"), and the Final EIR which includes
revisions to the DEIR, responses to comments and the mitigation monitoring
reporting program, dated June 2008 ("FEIR").
II. THE RECORD: The following information is incorporated by reference
and made part of the record ("Record") supporting these Findings:
a. The Project application and all studies submitted on the Project.
b. The EIR and its associated reports.
c. All testimony, documentary evidence and all correspondence
submitted to or delivered to the City in connection with the EIR and
Project.
d. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, slides, letters, minutes of public
meetings and other documents relied upon or prepared by City staff or
consultants relating to the Project.
e. All matters of common knowledge to the City Council, including but not
limited to the City's policies, guidelines and regulations
f. These Findings adopted in connection with the EIR and Project.
III. FINDINGS AND STATEMENT OF FACTS SUPPORTING FINDINGS
The EIR for the Project, prepared in compliance with the California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), evaluates the potentially significant and
significant adverse environmental impacts which could result from approval of the
Project. Pursuant to California Code of Regulations ("CEQA Guidelines")
Section 15091, the City is required to make findings with respect to the impacts.
These Findings of Fact Regarding Environmental Impacts and Mitigation
Measures ("Findings") list all identified potentially significant environmental
impacts of the Project, as well as mitigation measures for those impacts. All
mitigation measures are hereby adopted by the City Council and will be enforced
through the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan ("MMRP"), as incorporated
in the conditions of approval. All potentially significant impacts identified in the
EIR will be mitigated to a level of insignificance with the implementation of the
mitigation measures as enforced in the MMRP.
A. POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS WHICH CAN BE AVOIDED OR
MITIGATED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL
1. AESTHETICS
a. Potential Impact re: Nighttime Glare (Impact 4-1). Project
implementation may involve installation of light standards and new signage at
various locations throughout the Project site.
b. Mitigation. Impact 4-1 will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measure:
MM 4-1: Lighting Plan. The Project applicant shall submit a
Lighting Plan for the Project site to the City's Planning and
Building Director. Lighting design shall employ fixtures that
would cast light in a downward direction.
c. Facts. As required by MM 4-1, a Lighting Plan will be
prepared for the Project. The Lighting Plan will be reviewed and approved by the
City's Planning and Building Director to ensure that light fixtures are used and
designed in a way to limit the amount of light and glare emanating by the Project.
Implementation of MM 4-1, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval, will avoid or lessen the potential impact on nighttime glare from the
Project to a level of insignificance.
d. Findings. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 4 -1 will reduce the potential impact of nighttime glare from the Project to a
level of insignificance.
2. AIR QUALITY
a. Potential Impact re: Generation of Particulate Matter (Impact
5 -1). Construction at the Project site could have short -term air quality effects,
primarily due to the generation of particulate matter (PM10). PM10 is normally
generated by diesel construction vehicles and equipment, the disturbance of soils
through excavation and grading, construction vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces
and the tracking of soils onto paved roads.
b. Mitigation. Impact 5 -1 will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measure:
MM 5 -1: Dust Control Measures Construction activities must
comply with the "Basic Control Measures" and "Enhanced
Control Measures" for dust emissions as outlined in the
BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines. These requirements are listed
as follows:
1. Basic Control Measures
• Water all active constructive areas at least twice daily.
• Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose
debris or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of
freeboard.
• Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-
toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking
areas, and staging areas at construction sites.
• Sweep daily (with water sweepers)( all paved access
roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction
sites.
• Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible
soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
2. Enhanced Control Measures
• Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non- toxic)
soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).
• Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to
prevent silt runoff to public roadways.
c. Facts. BAAQMD has identified a set of effective and
comprehensive control measures for particulate matter that can be generated
from construction activity. The applicable measures for the Project identified by
BAAQMD are required by MM 5-1. Implementation of MM 5-1, enforced through
the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the
potential impact that may be caused by Project construction as it relates to the
generation of particulate matters.
d. Finding. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 5-1 will reduce the potential impact relating to the generation of particulate
matter from Project construction to a level of insignificance
3. HYDROLOGY
a. Potential Impact re: Generation of Construction Related
Storm Water Pollutants (Impact 8-1). The Project could potentially generate
temporary increases in sediment loads and associated urban pollutants during its
construction period.
b. Mitigation. Impact 8-1 will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measures:
MM 8-1a: StormWater Pollution Prevention Plan.
Compliance with the region's NPDES Permit, and Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan permitting requirements
would involve implementation of best management practices
for construction activities, precluding increases in sediment
and urban pollutant loading in storm drainage from the
Project site. Implementation of appropriate runoff control
measures shall be incorporated into Project design prior to
approval of final Project plans. The applicant shall file a
Notice of Intent with the Regional Water Quality Control
Board prior to commencement of construction activities.
MM 8-1b: Operations and Maintenance Plan. The Project
also must incorporate permanent post-construction
treatment controls for stormwater, through the use of source
controls, site design, treatment or flow/duration controls.
The Project must issue an Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) plan to assure that treatment measures are
maintained throughout the life of the Project.
c. Facts. As required by MM 8-1 a and 8-1 b, construction of the
Project will comply with the region's NPDES Permit and the SWPPP which
4
include measures and practices designed to reduce erosion and protect storm
water quality during construction and substantially limit the degradation of runoff
from all portions of the completed development. Compliance with these
measures will be ensured through regular inspections conducted by appropriate
City personnel. The Project is also required to incorporate permanent post -
construction treatment controls for storm water and an O &P plan is required to
ensure the measures are maintained throughout the life of the Project.
Implementation of MM 8 -la and 8 -1b, enforced through the MMRP as a condition
of approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the potential impact that may be
caused through Project construction as it relates to storm water pollutants.
d. Findings. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 8 -1 a and 8-1b will reduce the potential impact relating to the generation of
construction related storm water pollutants by the Project to a level of
insignificance.
4. NOISE
a. Potential Impact re: Construction Noise (Impact 9 -1).
Development of the proposed Project would result in an increase of short term
noise levels due to construction activities. Construction noise could adversely
affect sensitive receptors near the Project site.
b. Mitigation. Impact 9 -1 will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measures:
MM 9 -1a: Adherence to Noise Ordinance Restrictions. All
Project construction activities shall be conducted in
accordance with the City of Alameda Noise Ordinance,
which imposes restrictions that protect nearby sensitive
receptors. Outdoor construction activities shall be limitedto
the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. MM 9-1b:
Construction and Demolition Schedule. In order to buffer
adjacent sensitive receptors to the greatest extent practical,
the Applicant or Applicant's Agent shall submit a
construction and demolition schedule, subject to approval by
the Planning and Building Director. The plan shall include
the following:
• Approximate dates and hours (duration) of demolition and
construction activities;
• A table listing the noisiest construction equipment and
activities and hours of operation (e.g., jackhammer);
5
® A provision to restrict the noisiest demolition and
construction activities to the hours between 9 AM and 5 PM.
The Planning and Building Director may modify these hours;
A provision to notify all neighbors within 300 feet of the
construction area one week prior to initiating demolition and
construction activities (including establishing staging area).
Notification of neighbors shall also include construction and
demolition schedule and construction times.
MM 9 -1c: Phased Demolition. In order to buffer adjacent
sensitive receptors to the greatest extent practical,
demolition of the existing Safeway building shall proceed
from the front to the rear of the building. To the extent that
demolition can be phased without endangering public safety,
the rear portion of the building shall remain standing while
the remainder of the building is demolished in order to
provide a sound barrier between the demolition site and the
nearby elderly assisted care facility. Additionally, pile driving
shall be prohibited during demolition and construction of the
proposed Project.
c. Facts. As required by MM 9 -1a, The Project will comply with
the City's Noise Ordinance which includes restrictions on the days and times of
construction activities. As required by MM 9 -1 b, the Project is also required to
prepare and submit a construction and demolition schedule which must be
approved by the City's Planning and Building Director. This schedule will include
notification to the City and neighbors on the timing and duration of the nosiest
construction activities. Also, as required by MM 9 -1c, the Project will phase
certain demolition to allow sound barriers to remain to buffer construction noise.
Construction noise impacts are short-term. Implementation of MM 9-1a, 9-lb
and 9 -1c, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or
substantially lessen the potential impact on noise that will be caused by Project
construction.
d. Findings. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 9-1a, 9-1b and 9-1c will reduce the potential impact relating to construction
noise to a level of insignificance. Minor revisions to the mitigation measures
were made to clarify responsibility for and timing of mitigation implementation.
TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION
a. Potential Impact re: Park/Proiect Access -North Driveway
(Impact 10 -1). With baseline plus project traffic, the outbound (eastbound) left-
6
turn driveway movement would be operating at LOS E (36.8 seconds /vehicle)
during the weekend mid -day peak hour. This impact would be focused on -site.
b. Mitigation. Impact 10 -1 will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measure:
MM 10 -1: Park/Project Access -North Driveway. A two -way-
left -turn lane ( TWLTL) shall be installed on Park Street. The
TWLTL shall function as a refuge /merge lane for outbound
left -turn movements from Whitehall Road (north Park Street
entrance) and to accommodate inbound left -turn movements
for businesses on the east and west sides of Park Street.
This would allow the intersection to operate at LOS C. The
cost of installing the TWLTL shall be the responsibility of the
applicant and another recently approved project applicant
(Safeway Gas station PDA05- 0001). The applicant shall
contribute a proportional share toward the installation of the
TWLTL based on increased trip data contained in the traffic
study prepared for this project. The applicant shall make
said contribution at the time of issuance of the first Phase 3
building permit; or, at an earlier date if the City determines
that installation of the TWLTL is required to maintain
acceptable LOS standards for left turn movements from the
shopping center onto Park Street. Construction of the
TWLTL shall be completed prior to the issuance of final
certificate of occupancy for the first building in Phase 3. If the
City determines that implementation is required during
Phase 2, construction shall be completed prior to the
issuance of the first building permit in Phase 3.
c. Facts. A two -way -left turn lane on Park Street as required by
MM 10 -1 will be installed. The two- way -left- turn -lane will be installed at the
appropriate time (as determined by the City) to ensure that traffic operates at an
acceptable level. This improvement will ensure that the traffic level at the
Park/Project access north driveway will operate at an acceptable level of LOS C.
Implementation of MM 10 -1, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval, will avoid or substantially lessen the potential impact on the
Park/Project access -north driveway.
d. Findings. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 10 -1 will reduce the potential impact on the Park/Project access -north
driveway to a level of insignificance. Minor revisions to the mitigation measures
were made to clarify responsibility for and timing of mitigation implementation.
The City Council further finds that the revision to the original mitigation measure
in the EIR does not change the analysis in the EIR and will not create any new
significant impact on the environment.
7
a. Potential Impact re: Otis /Project Access - Trader Joe's
Driveway (Impact 10 -2). With year 2025 Cumulative plus Project traffic, the
Otis /Project Access - Trader Joe's Driveway outbound (northbound) left -turn
driveway movement would degrade further from LOS E (36.8 seconds /vehicle) to
LOS E (40.2 seconds /vehicle) during the PM peak hour and LOS E (38.4
seconds /vehicle) during the weekend mid -day peak hour, respectively. Per the
significance criteria, intersection volumes would increase by over 1% with
proposed Project traffic at this location.
b. Mitigation. Impact 10 -2 will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measure as revised in the FEIR:
MM 10 -2 (revised): Otis /Project Access - Trader Joe's Driveway. It ft
(16.6 seconds /vehicle) during the weekend mid day peak hour. Other
intersection. The Applicant shall contribute a proportional share toward the
installation of a traffic signal at the intersection of Otis Drive and Trader
Joe's driveway, based on data contained in the project traffic study,
prepared by Omni Means. The Public Works Director shall determine the
final pro -rata share. The cost of installing the traffic signal shall be the
responsibility of the applicant, another recently approved project applicant
(Safeway Gas Station, File No. PDA05- 0001), and the City The applicant
shall make said payment to the City, at the time of Building Permit
issuance for Phase 3 construction: or, at such time that the City
determines that this improvement is required to maintain acceptable LOS
standards for left turn movements from the shopping center onto Otis
Drive. The City shall ensure implementation of this mitigation measure as
soon as reasonably feasible, following receipt of the contribution from the
applicants.
c. Facts. As determined in the traffic study prepared on the
Project, the applicant is required by MM 10 -2 to contribute its fair share toward a
traffic signal to be installed at the intersection of Otis Drive and Trader Joe's
driveway. The signal will be installed at the appropriate time (as determined by
the City) to ensure that traffic operates at an acceptable level. The mitigation
measure was changed from that measure recommended in the DEIR to ensure
consistency with the requirements in the traffic study. The revised measure is
more effective than the measure originally recommended in the DEIR and
consistent with the measures adopted for other projects. Implementation of MM
10 -2, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of approval, will avoid or lessen
the potential impact on the Otis /Project access - Trader Joe's driveway to a level
of insignificance.
d. Findings. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 10 -2 as revised will reduce the potential traffic impact on the Otis /Project
access - Trader Joe's driveway to a level of insignificance. Minor revisions to the
mitigation measures were made to clarify responsibility for and timing of
mitigation implementation. The City Council further finds that the revised MM 10-
2 is equivalent to or more effective than the original mitigation measure identified
in the DEIR. The City Council further find that the revision to the original
measure in the DEIR does not change the analysis in the EIR and will not create
any new significant impact on the environment.
a. Potential Impact re: Shoreline /Project Access -Post Office
(Impact 10 -3). With cumulative year 2025 plus project traffic, the outbound
(southbound) left-turn driveway movement would be operating at LOS E (36.0
seconds /vehicle) during the weekend mid -day peak hour. This impact would be
focused on -site as all other turning movements at this intersection would operate
at LOS B or better.
b. Mitigation. Impact 10 -3 will be mitigated to a level of
insignificance with the following mitigation measure:
MM 10 -3: Shoreline /Project Access -Post Office. The
applicant shall install either a TWLTL on Shoreline Drive or an all -
way -stop- control at the Shoreline Drive /Project Access -Post Office
intersection. Under either scenario, the southbound Project
Access -Post Office driveway shall be re- striped for separate left
and right -turn lanes. The applicant shall implement this mitigation
measure prior to the completion of construction of Phase 3; or, at
such time that the City determines that these improvements are
required to maintain acceptable LOS standards for left turn
movements from the shopping center onto Shoreline Drive.
c. Facts. The traffic improvements identified in MM 10 -3 will be
installed The traffic improvements will be installed at the appropriate time (as
determined by the City) to ensure that traffic operates at an acceptable level.
The type of improvement will be determined prior to the issuance of building
permits and will be based on the information in the traffic study and EIR. The
improvements required in this measure will ensure that traffic will operate at an
acceptable level at the Shoreline Drive /Project access -Post Office intersection.
Implementation of MM 10 -3, enforced through the MMRP as a condition of
approval, will avoid or lessen the potential impact on the Shoreline /Project
access -Post Office intersection to a level of insignificance.
d. Findings. The City Council finds that the implementation of
MM 10 -3 will reduce the potential impact on the Shoreline /Project access -Post
Office intersection to a level of insignificance. Minor revisions to the mitigation
measures were made to clarify responsibility for and timing of mitigation
implementation. The City Council further finds that the revision to the original
9
mitigation measure in the EIR does not change the analysis in the EIR and will
not create any new significant impact on the environment.
B. ALTERNATIVES IN THE EIR
1, Introduction, In accordance with the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") Guideline Section 15126.6, an EIR must describe a range
of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which
would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid
or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate
the comparative merits of the alternatives. If a project alternative will
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of a proposed project,
the decision maker should not approve the proposed project unless it determines
that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations make
the project alternative infeasible. (See CEQA §21002, CEQA Guidelines
§15091(a)(3)).
2. Description of Alternatives. The EIR considered four
alternatives: (1) "No project" alternative (no development), (2) Reduced
Development Alternative No. 1, (3) Reduced Development Alternative No. 2 and
(4) an alternative project site. These alternatives are analyzed in the DEIR at
pages 11-1 through 11-21. The DEIR concludes that the various alternatives
would have similar or greater impacts than the Project,
The purpose in considering alternatives in a DEIR is to allow decision makers the
opportunity to consider if those alternatives may reduce unavoidable impacts that
would be caused by a proposed project. The Project will not result in any
impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Findings rejecting alternatives are required only if one or more significant
environmental effects will not be avoided or substantially lessened by mitigation
measures. The City Council is not required to make findings rejecting
alternatives described in the EIR since all of the Project's significant impacts will
be avoided or substantially lessened by the mitigation measures adopted herein.
The City Council, as it has done in these Findings, is required to make findings
relating to each significant impact. If it makes a mitigation finding for each
significant impact, no further findings are required, including findings on
alternatives. See Pub Res C §21081(a)(1)-(2); 14 Cal Code Regs §15091(a)(1)-
(2).
1 1)
3, Finding. The City Council finds that the Project will not result in
any environmental impact that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
As a result, findings rejecting the alternatives are not required. Nevertheless, the
City Council rejects the alternatives analyzed in the DEIR because 1) the Target
Store was considered in some of the alternatives and that portion of the Project
has been eliminated, 2) the alternatives will not result in a project that has fewer
or les impacts than the Project, and 3) the alternatives fail to meet the objectives
of the Project as outline in the DEIR at page 3-2.
C. CONCLUSION
The City Council finds that all potentially significant environmental impacts
identified in the EIR will be mitigated by the implementation of all the mitigation
measures identified in these Findings. Implementation of the mitigation measures
will be assured through enforcement of the MMRP. The City Council further finds
that the Project will not result in any significant unavoidable environmental impact
with the implementation of the mitigation measures.
11
ATTACHMENT 1 EXHIBIT "B"
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
This Mitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared in compliance with the requirements of
state law (Public Resources Code, Section 21081.6) and CEQA Guidelines, which require
adoption of a mitigation monitoring program when mitigation measures are required to avoid or
reduce significant environmental effects of a proposed project.
This Mitigation Monitoring Program is only applicable if the City of Alameda decides to approve
the proposed Project. The following Mitigation Monitoring /Reporting Program is organized to
correspond ro environmental issues and significant impacts that are discussed in the EIR. The
table is arranged in five columns:
• recommended mitigation measures,
• timing Co r implementation of the mitigation measures,
• Party responsible for implementation,
• monitoring action,
• party or parties responsible for monitoring the implementation of the mitigation
measures, and
• space for entry of completion date as mitigation occurs.
ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE EXPANSION PROJECT
FINAL EIR
PAGE 1 7 -1
CHAPTER 17: MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
PAGE 1 7 -2
This page intentionally felt blank.
ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE EXPANSION PROJECT
FINAL EIR
LJ
- 7: --. ,...■ z.
tz -■
.., . 9 F. 2
c,E ,•-•,/
,Z-- 9 , .=, ;A' "
,..,'
:-/
.../
Applicant
.'
-:....-:
0
2 a.4 L.. )
„
. 0 7.; ,,
:0. ...) il 0/
:: z,-
?., T . „
u .....- - • -
3 u :3
= ..:- -7- 7....
.. .,° 5:—'7 ::,
: .,d
7:.' .f.:
0 0 r.., ..',
E. : .. - %-:
7' L' '',':'
i'''.2. :-.7: -:5;
,
,
,t;
-
-:]
,..
;'..3
-
'
'a
:0
1.1
."0
:. -,-'
'
7,-)
--
0=
:,1
t-k,
..,''.:
....'
--=.
l',.:
, •;-
--,
1F4
''
..
,..
f....--
c
-
?-:
4
.
..:-...., F;
0
. . - t.Z
-6 z ,..:-1
-7., '74
., , a.
---- ', 9 '.
2
- a a; ,-, ■-• ...., , ^
..... ,-, 4 . '-r.J Z-!
9
-:-. • a. ,..1: a 7., ,-...c
.
-c .1, c ,-. t-, ..e
;.-. ,,
;_., ._, , Lo ...,
...: ' . ' 0 -:- , .. - -... .0
..-. 9, "7,.......: M
71 :.-,''7 E: ...1: E
, .., `. :' - .7.: ,
'.4 '>' >2. E. rj
, c.. ..
- ‘...., _.,-, - ,z,,-, ,,-,
• 0
,./
:7-...
„.,
1-..j
::
!--,
-
;-
,,,'"
,.
--c
0
....0
r-1
it
^7
: J
,r,
;I to , .
, ..:
,....._. ,.L.
.. 4 :F.:
7. FY 0
4.3 ° L-
a. .'„
*:7; rJ 5,
3, uL.
'../: F.. .
0
:,
5
___
.3.,,,
c,...,
z
0
.74
,t,..
, -..,2
.
>
N MONITORING PROGRA
ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE EXPANSION PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Verification
Date
Completed
Monitoring I
Responsibility
Monitoring Action I
-7 ■-,-
El-, )J
C •^=" ',C -
..,,.. ' ..... :2_,
,,
U •
... /
'z'
-,-.,
:,'
C
.''
Implementation
Responsibility
. :?.■
3
Timing/ Schedule
-
> < =-
Prior to issuance of
Mitigation Measure
public streets,
2. Enhanced Control Measures
o 1 inciosc, cover, water twice daily or apply
(non - toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles
(dirt, sand, etc.).
o Install sandbags or other erosion control
measures to prevent silt runoff to public
roadways.
MM 8 -1a: Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan. Compliance with the region's NPIIS
Permit, and Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plan permuting requirements would involve
implementation of best management practices for
construction activities, precluding increases iu
sediment and urban pollutant loading nt storm
drainage from the l'roject site. Implementation of
MM 8 -1b: Operations and Maintenance Plan.
The Project also must 'incorporate permanent
post - construction treatment controls for
stormwater, through the use of source controls,
site design, treatment or flow /duration controls.
The Project must issue an Operations and
Maintenance (C) &bl) plan to assure that treatment
measures arc maintained throughout the life of the
ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE EXPANSION PROLE
N
("3
z
LL
ORING PROG
z
7
>4
(.7
0
0
z
Verification
0
0
----
-,..-_, . _
." , z., ,,,-,, 1.; •,;,
: g" 9, -F.-: E, Ti r,' ‘—'
s: 7: , ru
5 _
2; if, .,-,,
< ';"" '7--." ..... C-' E •-•
:.,
,-,
,--.
Timing/ Schedule
g 7.4
2
2;
-74
tt.0
ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE EXPANSION PROJECT
LL
\.
\
z
0
{•
ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE EXPANSION PROJECT
MITIGATION MONPI'ORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Verification
Date
Completed
Monitoring
Responsibility
/ \
\�/
/ \ \
/\/
Monitoring Action
/ \-
2
� \
\\
`
\�
Implementation
Responsibility
Fl
//
Timing/ Schedule
()
V�
//\
-
}.
-
-i
/ \
\\
\
-
@
Mitigation Measure
Notification of neighbors shall also include
construction and demolition schedule and
construction times.
MM 9 -lc: Phased Demolition. In order to
buffer adjacent sensitive receptors to the greatest
extent practical, demolition of the existing Safeway
building shall proceed from the front to the rear of
the building. To the extent that demolinon can be
phased without endangering public safety, the rear
portion of the building shall remain standing while
the remainder of the building is demolished in
order to provide a sound barrier between the
demolition site and the nearby assisted care facility.
Additionally, pile driving shall be prohibited
during demolition and construction of the
proposed Project.
MM 10 -1: Park /Project Access -North
Driveway. A two- way -left -turn lane (1'\Vl ;11,)
shall be installed on Park Street. The mum,
shall function as a refuge /merge lane for
outbound left- -turn movements from Whitehall
Road (north Park St. entrance) and to
accommodate inbound left -turn movements for
businesses on the east and west sides of Park
Street. The cost of installing the ifW1,1'1. shall be
the responsibility of the applicant and another
recently approved project applicant (Safeway Gas
Station_ P1).AON- ■(till). The Applicant shall
contribute a proportional share toward the
installation of the TW1, 1, based on increased trip
data contained in the traffic study prepared for this
MEDA TOWNE CENTRE EXPANSION PROJECT
b
/
U
z
EL;
ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE EXP_ PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Verification
Date
Completed
. .
Monitoring
Responsibility
, ;:.',.: ..,...: ,;,.,.■
JD
:,--: •;:,..;- .:-.
.....; ;,.: ,
Monitoring Action
. ;
, ....
g-
:
. ,
Implementation
Responsibility
,
----
...!.
Timing / Schedule
,
.
,
'
.
,
-
.
.
.
,
.
Mitigation Measure
project. The applicant shall make said
contribunon at the time of the issuance of the tirm
Phase 3 building pernu or, at an earlier date if the
City determines that installation of the 1 \VLI'1, is
required to maintain acceptable LOS standards for
left turn movements from the shopping center
onto Park Street l'onstruenoo of the 'Mil .11.
resnonsihility of the :tnnlit -ant_ another nit-tinily
LL,
cL
ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE EXPANSION PROTECT
C4
0
a_
z
0
GAI ION MON
ALAMEDA TOWNE CENTRE EXPANSION PROJECT
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
C.)
Wr•
'EZ
CJ
Date
Completed
Monitoring
Responsibility
7 7
■t' I''
,,,,,
'•-•
'
L'''
L)
Monitoring Action
= ,..
..c
Implementation
Responsibility
,
3
7,...
.:---.
,
Tinting / Schedule
'',?•C
7', E
2 ,..,;J
Mitigation Measure
Drive, the City shall implement this
improvement as soon astretsonablt_,easible but
no later than ten years from the date of the first
Phase 2 Building Permit application submittal.
MM 10 -3: Shoreline /Project Access -
Post Office. 'Ike applicant shall install either a
two -way left turn lane (I1r/L, LI,) on Shoreline
Drive or an all -way- stop - control at the Shoreline
Drive /Project Access -Post Office intersection.
Under either scenario the southbound Project
Access -Post Office driveway shall be re- striped for
separate left and right -turn lanes. The applicant
shall implement this mitigation measure prior to
the completion of construction of l'Itase 3; or, at
such time that the City determines that these
improvements are required to maintain acceptable
I (.)S standards for left turn movements from the
shopping center onto Shoreline Drive.
0 c`
—
5
Z
ZLU
0
z
L.L.1
z
ce
)"'
z
0
H-
0
LU
I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and
regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda during the Regular
Meeting of the City Council on the 7th day of October, 2008, by the following vote to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers Gilmore, Matarrese, Tam
and Mayor Johnson - 4.
NOES: Councilmember deHaan -
ABSENT: None.
ABSTENTIONS: None.
IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of
said City this 8th day of October, 2008.
Lara Weisiger, City
City of Alameda