Loading...
2007-06-05 SubmittalMay 24, 2007 John M. Doherty 1617 Central Ave Alameda, CA 94501 SERIAL N .JMBER.. 049489 AMOUNT: -- YEAR, MONTH, DAY Y ORDE POST OFFICE U.S. DOLLARS AND CENTS 2007 -06 -05 945010 0 0 (I PAY TO N -'THE 1 . . AND POSSESSIONS EVERSE WARNING 'ADDRESS o o.o. NO. OR USED FOR 17 atikffizAt.--I UIli175 0�.1iV�? 411.rtrEJ! � A. ghat' 0 0 OB. 76..6 000' .4f„ ls'` • • Dear Property Owner/Business Owner: i�fOG 114S-Di On March 15, 2007, a letter showing that you owe a business license tax in the amount of $188.00 for your property or business located at 1617 Central Avenue, Alameda, California, was mailed to you. A public hearing for the consideration of collection of delinquent business license fees via the property tax bills will be held on Ju t5,, 20g. If you disagree with the amount due, please attend the hearing, which will be Ireln ---� conjunction with the regularly scheduled council meeting located at 2263 SanPgart r i Avenue, Council Chambers, Alameda, California. The meeting begins at 7:3grthe 4venin If you wish to address the Council, please complete a speaker's slip and you vfte wed t present your information. After Council's approval, the amount due will be agql. to-Epur < property tax bill for property located at 1617 Central Avenue, Alameda, Calif , fthe I fiscal year 2007-08. c3> n1 ° If you should need additional information, please call Carol Malavazos At (510) 747 -4854. P&M ne PiC15E Cot) pnfiE hc�rnct+FO Hutcr-7004R1 AR Thii out r APimi,i JJvv n-r d 1Pt7 (L)n2kL/b& r1tE'iS&ov covens Fulst nuG-ss Gi cCusc —v7+v Prz 2(c/2LrD 7 ( rivi OUt qu,vrs e I' ir yr Pietan op:pN#pJc:-fl,c o;1)}nthk'TS Ae: I,/5 3cC9q7/b -6, TizAtisca4T o!: Paac-gDovei u4-0 rru,r ore,. gAuci 1)60.4-niter744 or pb,e10,0 • ,e-r IrZ Re61/9/774tni 2O?/2v# hfw n)• rd B6 A1)V r g7,0 soirt�i r n'gc briviviiwacaA-riur�sd2aHnruG �b7�11s It kia a /)i'tr P.im� Ruy�lyd Paper I !N / U,� Very truly yours, Laura Gwynne Supervising Accountant Re: Agenda Item #5 -B 06 -05 -07 c&c e,T/ct1;flL C,ri1 (7)' lL Finance Department 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 220 Alameda, California 94501 -4477 510.747.4881 • Fax 510.747.4890 • TDD 510.522.7538 GX CARTER J. STROUD City Attorney 2 1 City Hall Room 314 11 Santa Clara at Oak Street 3 Alameda, CA 94501 4 (415) 522-4100 5 Attorney 6 lit 7 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 11 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 27 21 for Plaintiff f4D'URSED FILED LUGO8 1985 RUNE C. DAVIDSON. County Clerk By Cathy AIY:so. DEPUTY IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA CITY of ALAMEDA, a municipal corporation, Plaintiff, JOHN M. DOHERTY and DOES I through V, inclusive, Defendants. NO. 594716-6 JUDGMENT This matter came on regularly for trial before the Court without a jury on July 30, 1985 with Ca • Carter J. Stroud appearing for the plaintiff and defendant John J. Doherty apperaring on his own behalf; and the Court having ruled for plaintiff, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED= That defendant is hereby enjoined from maintaining the property at 1617 Central Avenue in the City of Alameda eda with unsprinkled interior stairways to units nits above the second floor unless they are enclosed with a one - -hour fire wall. Defendant is further enjoined froze ze mafritainin said —l- EXthFiT ZB 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 21 property with fire escapes adjacent to unprotected s. o enin P 9 In the alternative to the 'above, defendant may rer' ic■ occupancy of the building to two dwelling units. Dated: AUG 0 8 k91ffON McKjBBQi Robert X. Barber Judge of the Superior Court . -2- f ,,4of - 1 IL THE SUPERIOR COURT OF TAB 6TA ?R OF CALXFORBIli 2 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALA EDA 3 BEFORE THE HONORABLE. ROBERT K. BARBER, JUDGE DEPARTMENT NO. 14 - --o 0 o--. -. 6 CITY. OF ALAM DA ■ 7 Pl tinti ■ 8 VB. : Joitit DOHERTY 0 1 13 14 15 dud!' stration I' dingy Oatlan Defendant � . 5947 6 --6. . 16 •::TO &SDAY■ • ,)*CrIa3r 5 17. 18 19 20 21.. 'or tt a .Plaintiff: . 22 CARER J. STROUD Attorney. •at Law . . 23 24 25 26 27 28 For the - Defendant: .: . In Propria _:Persona • gelfrIA 211 C , 1 12uesda, July 30 , 1985 A.R. Session 3 THE coon The City of Alameda versus John 4 Doherty, 594716. 5 4R. STROUD: Thank you, your Honor. We're ready to proced. maY 1 give just a brief o 7 might save some timer a brief . opening statement. Tas CO T: Very good. . virtue STROUD: ! e3 . :. The_ •. State or: Ca 1 itorni a adopted•_ I'm a ttla:: - 1 : could not find the file : g t=. :: secretary was : one .:.so_ . -- : adopted as pars,. the: B .: :: id afety Code a .rovis on: which r aires etrotitt g o for fire emi ts: and •• ire . safety... Sri i go t 3a =apt = ; Sto.r i e ,• or." higher g ito ter s:. of :, cost s It ! G . a. .�: 1 po 8 ti on an = prO pe :y: ovine r . ozet a 1 19 20 23 22. 23 26. Gne is under 131.3(f) : Interior stairway rw a- � yes ds- a one hour 27 fire protection or sprinkling. believe that's in the ut evv er tr e1 e a s ne ado• t.ed as p it! e st a! 4340:4 _O.r . that ; et.t.o :; e -. 1.97'0 v e rz.ion .- of ie • 4 fiowever t :: e t so .= . n r • � : • .: - - - -. • .: � � .. ::. � � � � �. - .. ,• • � .. •- � . • • :. . � . • � : -_ � .:. • • - . � .: - . -: .. • • . •n� � . - as .. tr a haV e. . stated ire � p aiat,: %he prow si ons of zhe z ... � . . � - • :. - . ,. .. ..: . ..... .79 .akid the 7 9 code. regard t 3 s. 3tr . So•: we • wiUU be g i•v •i g _ you copiers o. the: • .70 code.. • ;Jig. In this particular building, we have a two problems. 28 alternative. Die have mispletJ, 1 discovered this morning, t%e second item.. le pled it as the f it at cause of action, 1313(0-. It's act u4117 1313(h). 3 . fiowever, they're the same subject. They're the -- 4. requiring a second ezit. In this case to second• euit. is 3 there, but there's a open or - unprotected opening wnic i. invalidates. it. So we' fl. -- a should. ire taik u• ajwat cio•s nng up- tat So it's.. 13131'10 instead. di There axe :uo exceptionsair vat's..: ot get jag aroun .= ie•••isLat on. _ Tg : s . • - ; ... � he building i -- .. :. � .• : � .� .. ..� . � . :.' .•wrap• ����.�,: • in 18871 . converte-..3: • .r �� j�+'� +�a6 ' ' r • • . - . t• O r •sire 8 . . 111e•• • �.... • what rt����. • • k1�ti #- • �•'�a��C 3.13. •• ab� ��• . �•�•: •. Wows- .o • -; . ..... z e• , 4 at a ut•lor.rz ;at i o-a .•aas:. • et way trie • . :. n asiy ca, e , it dOe s. rots Apply t o fig: 3 .Du i Ldin :i t: 5 b.e . an a.pa.r. alt o u ue saac .oul ca3.1 'as j . • • i rst;. - w• taessa - Ste : . o Biit i i u s. •s" * • 1 •} 3 ri get a Court• • 24 statement I iaad•e was correct i i n' s. wade 25.'. THE COURT:- . ' 4r. Doherty, die : ou-. Want to say. 25 anything about tea case at znia ' • oi• at o•r y o a � � waist to wait. 27 until he's finished? 28 1R.. lio, your Honor. ,1 sti11 -- 1 like • to petition the Court for a continuance. it woui i be 2 1 think beae iciai to both parties concerned at the time taat tine United Laboratory's final report would be received, I'd be willing to resubmit it to the local building department for their review and it mi g .t mean 5 Z!at we could. cone . to some mutual . 4greement, .. let as get on wita. tai:. It. is U7 = intention to fire sprink1 er the buildin pilderwriter :.r. -. may ina uraxice wide rwriter has encouraged so, . :and . i ben .;iny inter} i a3: one t4 • i s= . iaore . t*...40 .: , g e. a1 . g.4pe • tut4 9. Labor t Qty. r : :a.e:par.t eats .for the : r r.enj. ew..: aad :.1. don-' t-. t i:aLE. you'd :co see (18 a.ga3 n, youx ; •- Oat -STROU0.4 Ueulk••you.- • it`e; To rear.. request was denied :.b dot se.e .aAJ grand= �.or, a coa�ca.naa i a tni t s: poi a s • TB! aa: :. your right • •STEVE11.61CICINXIOTi. . as a w true ss o4: 'behalf 'of • the- ,P! ai ntj.4 Z • after i)einq• • t=sr sti duly sworn,. testiiect as followsz S : CL SE K: Thank you... Could yon state aI lese � your ;lade and spell it ror the record. THE WITNESS: ay naie is Stegall McKinley,: iast name 1 r .. 20� 21. 22. 24 25 26 27 28 •Y• •1 2 3 6 7 M -c, capital K i- n- i -e -y . Wag CLERK: Thank you. DIREpLEXAHINATIQN BY UR.. STROUD: Q. Mr. McKinleyr . wheat is your s i t i c& with the City of Alameda? Preveat,ioix Bureau,' Cit. : ..12# And as...it been your. - duties 4t-4..east.acezitXy to L 1-SpO t:.: bu :1ciin . ...t:o c • wit 'tne . r:et . .. -Heal# 0 :an# *.:. '.as right::. A_e, f O -u.: f am 1 ear witti bu3. :d .u.. at 1617 3.I! the ci,t • o4- JLI:amedea. 23 before. "' came in the bureau. sage been by 24 £row the .. ou aidar and it does m eet the requirements ii �� � tie. 25 code. 26 Q. . YOU have the records --- re you f ami1 ia .r. with tie : owner at i. Is that the de eadant, . Doherty? Yes. s Did you 1napect t i s..:Lfii d n for •. compliance liana with . • retrofitting provisions A. I pie r�sonal iy did " n.s act not 3� P it. It was -.. insPect ed-.� 27 A. Yes, 1 do. 28 Q. --.. Qg previous inspectors? i Now, is tUere & vio3.atjoa of 1313(f) of the 1970 2 Building Code relating to the interior stairways? 3 A. Yes, there is. 4 Q. Woad you describe that to the-Court ire. a little more 5 detail? - A . Yes, • !our Honor, basically the lair requires that any staircase in a three story building with open Open to : all tl oor- a.: be protected by o ne • hour enclosures wilifb means that all•.. • doors � � � � e staircase must be 20 • . minute rated doors and the staircase must : at- :ox f • at • • su - . • : .. • - . • . -::. • - -• . • - ... � . . • - • , . - ��.• ••:� , -- :a - ad • • ,�.- •���� .- ate- :���- :��c��.�r:,•• tixig of tie • Pri ukl•er • . airs •.: 41.a -- fate. on :: �' , eY S Lir ... • • •sir`* • 1 15•: • • e t .re -...s air•ca e . • sue•: that . : + 16 control . 440' 't.40. Qcc pants ciaere -; .an • eKi•t • that staircase. 17.... ..Q. - Doe0ss: tie : •.aw permit - :p. •as' ...pipe- • : t- • • • i • ' y '4 •spr i 1iier:. $y•stG1El :•- 19•• . • A. H•o•-, ..fit -. ••doe .u't:.. . 20 • .... • Ir . - •Doher_ty:a.s ienticned •tint I "•t '" a 'solu.o.. indio4,t1.04 21 e.n•a t• th-er. * y• :44..a ohang s• to i a s i.3 c. 22 c l r.:L st Stn Ca;S.. ar•e.. ,yo•u • awar a o • that.? 23 • A. Yes, : 1 am, tbe : term. 24 . Q. To what would it , apply? 25 A. Basically the tee- " plastic pipe is a little 26 misleading. There's a pipe on the w • � � market t oat. l ed• .r 27 polyburane pi. , wni:ch is a .plastic material developed by Shell Oil_ . It dae s have a C.L.. approval by sprinkler p ink,ier 28 1 systems that are installed under 13(di • 13(d) is a 2 requ±rejaeiit for sprinkler systems in single family dweil,ingsi dupleei 'aad.mobiie homes. At ttze time the CalifdrAid StAte Fire Marl iecqgnizes. 13(d) mith the 5 use oz •olybutane pipe. 6. . a: .WOu141.• 4ot .appit N1F .13:.1570414- 9 • .0.4::t.liOt•••:be•-.Inetai. or copper So.,••e*en:•.&g tne support coiaes out •Afa."VprOXp.: it wiU 12 nave no aring on tA case? T1ts t44# • SLROUD: Now, . the' a6.004d .cause o action, your . 15: • I.Ei:Ou0.t.:1•,:s-,Te :41.daid -ask-the: plOadiags.-:0_e. • ainetided on' the •fit • • I • '• • •••-- • I 17 14 19 i:o 1313114:.::: ::-.They're: 20 • poo.RT.i..: • ..ilay.-.••be .aaw444-od' on its • face:. ••. • Tnank you._ • :; tike•• ct1ier violation, would you ..• . 23 descr.be ' 44e: ottiOr : trio14 tip(' to tne Court, ,,please? 24 A. The otner :#1:01ation i the buijxling baki a:. stair a 25 zire escape aoiiuzig dowa ti4:e other side 't7t • ..the• 26. which was a regained second ezit. underheatil this' code. It 27 passea . in irot of some open windows titat need to be 28 protected. 6 - b1.1.114.4g ia• not 04..atatieci 4s a 64.ngle Liiflj, . . . floC a dtt,LOx 'nor • ThOretorer cause of action --- e-zhouse me. We did the second cause of action first. The first cause of action like to have the I TtlOy. can... eitiker be pr- otected€d -: Piy. a: aprinkier. * .ste* or wire . g1 as- or • c-l.oeed com 1 a te1y • o.ff.- The ideal.. shat of i case would be.. ta' protect - them. by. a prim ier: system :. B.ut _ has: his otiaice. 3l. that •rega,rdZ- • 5€ 'r.e.•-• the only el. atioas=l: tacit : e . . . ... 'ire-,..: br9Ug4t 0. e. the . r. ■.. Dar t=: _ - # :ae =ads ::o • f COURT,.: �' ■ ...maga! o 4. - `B:E - .COU- :; : .rigb.t -Cloaatisx eK n1a Ia. rofe y r r .ng.- • C 12: 13: 14• 15 15 17 18.....- Do you : Have some questions? 19 2O:, 21 22 23� 24 25 wr odu c ..: �:�: ;-=: out . by Sne - 0&1 C • which i a not : the r duc ; taa.t ..: X rm • ere In'. si 3d- -again.; • iapress. a n.•: :the r�art_. 4 a t. Coapn - prodact. :try ia:.c . s iii it at = i- : ct ii aul i e ais. r a c e =teat :t earx . and ::;tea t : tb.e r:e ort: tea . e are c041.44,.. 0 at-::_ w_i: t!',. • - That: 3,. a = y., are .:you .aware: • of .tlie pr.oC et 1040 :.by 8: F •: Goo cir icn? • A, 1 i aware that : is a product being '� e �a'ted that is g� f.Ie. Loge trier but mar Q. Just update, 27 United Labortory' 28 that report so that test 1 ntg -..11a$ . been. - Completed:•. and t ,•e . e fire control people are ..now reviewin g i 1 1 A. okay. DOHERTY: No more questions, your Honor. 3 copy ' of Cflapter 13 which has those provisions. We should have that marked , sorry, our only exhibit. THE COURTS Hay be marked Plaintiff's Sio. 1. MR. STROUD: Yes. will present the Court with a (Copyt . of Chapter 13 was marked as • ?1 aintif Exhibit No. 1, for :.. identi- fication.) ra..4AANMIa. i S• ROD.•:. ...:Do..y00.:.::..r.egiOri4 gi eX3.:11 • .Oirp-� do • You :•r.eitianOe= � '� . -. �•�.�.� =�3� ice.• . er 8 13 20 21 22 2.4 25 26 27 28. ;he ,Beal tb -44'.:.Safety •. e, • ..tote :: =homer• •:of • i t :• a ts'. ,r in•. e ;• Compl.a• 'n = �:. :: i : a:s teat • :.we r a. .- • that makes . .: _• ...:::� �� � -.. •'- • . .. .. ...:. .. ; •mat• ii ixa s t .. r t�, r iue t . of . co•ng o• rm ' pt e t • 43. p• . u voices up so t reporter . cad F • T -..wrrNass s._ • (Lztdi.catzng:, - to counse • K . STR011p • 1 _believe : 4.# it's •. 1.7 , 9.2 :0.7:.: •o t • • •and S :af etj: . 1. o e1 i e 'e .. it's • •led . • i•n .. the .. • • •• • r • • • A. 1 tAi.•ak TSB COURT REPORTER: 1 can't hear you. have a:. complete . :.record. :. Honor. TAE. COURT: • Yes. It's" ref erred to a.t. pages free.. 1R.. STROUD: Tbank. you . We have rya more, your THB COU RT Sir, you may step down. THE W ITN 1;Ss Tbank you. MR. STROUD: And that completes our case.. 1 THE COUaT :. Okay. Hoer, did you want to testify, 2 Ur. Doherty, or call some witnesses? 3 UR. DOHERTY :• 1 dir e't requesi my --- without the your report, Honor, 1 slave no came against the use of the plastic pipe. fJ aT; Well, 1 appreciate your � s tion of 7 i :q that: t 'st.i.flg- ..r.eS.tLlt6 may • c•oE e- • up • with soiethin that : Lei wou d.. be twat : ac abl .. � :.:. �- • , .: � � ... .•- .� •- . ..: �. �'.htzt i� may :... i :uo.t,- : • and•.. iu•: ' any ' 4 e.47c can . c . t ..ca•se• thee••• a . 0 that aow: exist: and: that's. w#iat • they're . see - Ito etifor 0e :. .: 1 : 80 : al tliotagh 1= have soi is s ath f o • • r • ire : wIo 1y: a ympa :t etic : be cause: aver other apparently no uf•doubte.c ly . ar•e .. abate. o :. whfl-. p.ahce ; bu -t ther e : a 4' t: c .::. recto 5 _ 10 enforce tire: provisao.n8 O the • 'code as ?: a r :tour 17 : :-..: you • d. .n't h.a a a� y biag. to pr.ese Qtherwzse . j oe: tip al it as •ttaey. - .ask e:. , • . •olcay? 20- .• STR017134. prepare - an or.r#er' f your. Honor-- . • COURT: . • g further. yo-u: wanted .tc. pr ese•at ? her ev.iaeaca t kat,. 'oil' wai te•i[ • to. 23 the.- .. Co Litt. 24 1 .MR.. DOf 2R f : Jo. r . glit.: TAen judgmert may be 26. entered for • the plaintiff as ra . ed.• 27• MR. S ROUD :' Thank you. • 28 THE COURT: : hank you. i THE CLERK: ti STROUD ;i1.111. � CL 13 RK i (WL ereupon, 1 25 26 27 28 You I fl prepare tae judgment? i 11 pr spar a a) ucdgatent Thank you the proceedings were conclude d; ) • r 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 � appliawa eiolmem, Attorney at Law PO Box 138.1 Alameda, CA 94501 (510) 86� -4555 Attorney for Appellant 1f� ., SBN 104961 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, ALAMEDA COUNTY GEORGE McDONALD COURTHOUSE JOHN M. DOHERTY Appellant, v. CITY OF ALAMEDA, TIM HIGARES, BUILDING & PLANNING DEPARTMENT, JEFF CAMBRA, HEARINGS OFFICER, DOES 1 through 500, Appellee. 1 No. 457843 -9 DECLARATION OF FORMER CITY ATTORNEY CARTER J. STROUD 1, CARTER J. STROUD, do hereby declare the following under penalty of perjury: 1. 1 was the City Attorney for the City of Alameda [hereinafter "CITY1 for over 15 years. As part of my official responsibilities, 1 enforced the Uniform Building and Fire Codes for CITY Building and Fire Departments. In 1985, the CITY instituted complaints against property owners, both in Municipal and Superior Courts of Alameda eda concerning Fire Code amendments to the Uniform Building Code. 2. These specific Code changes required the installation of overhead metal sprinkler systems in residential buildings which had both of the following: (1) more than two residential units and more than (2) stories of livi ng space. ace. 3. in bringing these actions on behalf of the CITY, 1 relied on the business records kept in the normal course of business by the CITY Building y u�ld�ng and Fire Departments. A review of those records at that time, evidenced that the building at 1 JQ4I&T 29 1. 1617 Central Avenue, Alameda, had been converted into ten 1 t ) units in 1945. l 4. On February 7, 1985,1 filed a complaint in Alameda County Superior penor Court 3 Case No. 59471 643. The complaint sought compliance with the Fire Code from John 4 Doherty for property he owned at 1617 Central Avenue Alameda. 5 5. 1 presented the facts to the court that 1 had obtained from the Building 6 Department records, e.g. the building was built in 1887, and converted to a ten unit t 7 apartment house in 1945. 1 introduced oral testimony from Fire Marshall Steve 8 McKinley who stated that although he had not personally inspected the building, that he 9 relied on the inspections done by previous fire department rson pe net, which were 10 maintained as business records by the Fire Department. 11 1 6. The Honorable Robert K Barber rendered a judgement in the case on or after 12 August 8, 1985. This judgement required installation of the metal overhead sprinklers 13 at 1817 Central Avenue; or alternatively, the property could be reduced 14 than two units. 15 1 7. 1 would not have sought nor do! believe the Court would have entered such a 16 judgement. had the CITY's records indicated the property was on . only two units. 17 Executed under penalty of perjury under the laws California R ry of the State of Calrforrrra in 18 f Alameda, California on July 27, 2006. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Carter J. Stroud 10 11 12 13 14 Doherty v. City of Alameda Case # RG07320859 John M. Doherty 1617 Central Ave. Alameda, CA 94501 510-865-6556 In Pro Per IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA John NL Doherty, in Pro Per Plaintiff, vs. City of Alameda and DOES 1 through 500, inclusive, Defendant ) Case No.: RG07320859 ) DECLARATION OF FORMER LIEUTENANT, BUREAU OF FIRE ) ION, FIRE INVESTIGATION ) UNIT, STEVEN McKINLEY ) ) ) I, STEVEN McKINLEY, do hereby declare the following under penalty of 15 I 1 y 1. I was the Lieutenant in the Fire Prevention Bureau with the City of Alameda [hereinafter "CITY"] in 1985. As part of my official responsibilities, I was called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff in City of Alameda v. John M. Doherty (Superior Court Case #594716-6). 2. My DIRECT EXAMINATION was as follows: THE CLERK: Raise your right hand, please. 16 17 22 25 26 27 28 STEVEN MCKINLEY, 24 called as a witness on behalf of the Plaintiff, after being first duly sworn, testified as follows: THE CLERK; Thank you. Could you please state your name and spell it for the record. THE WITNESS: My name is Steven McKinley, Last name Declaration of Steven McKinley - 1 Doherty v. City of Alameda Case # RG07320859 M -c, capital K- i- n-- l -e -y. 2 THE CLERK: Thank you 3 " BY MR. STROUD: Q. Mr. McKinley what is your position with the City of Alameda? A. I'm the lieutenant in Fire Prevention Bureau, City of 6 JlAlameda. 7 + Q. And has it been your duties at least recently to inspect buildings to conform with the retrofit provisions of the Health and 9 Safety Code? 10 A. Yes it has. 11 1 Q. All right. Are you familiar with building at 1617 Central 12 Avenue in the City of Alameda? 13 A. Yes, I am. Q. Are you familiar with the owner at of that building? 15 J A. Yes, I -- 16 1 Q. Is that the defendant Mr. Doherty? 17 1 A. Yes. 18 ! Q. Did you inspect this building for compliance with retrofitting 19 J provisions? 20 1 A. I personally did not inspect it. It was inspected before I 21 came in the bureau. I've been by the building from the outside and it 4 5 8 14 22 does meet the requirements of the code. 23 Q. You have the records -- 24 A. Yes, I do. 25 f l Q. -- of previous inspectors? 26 Now, is there a violation of 1313(f) of the 1970 Buildin g Code 27 relating to the interior stairways? 28 A. Yes, there is. Q. Would you describe that to the Court in a little more detail? Declaration of Steven McKinley - 2 yl Doherty v. City of Alameda Case # RG07320859 A. Yes. Your Honor, basically the law requires that any staircase se in a three story building with open -- that is open to all floors be protected by one hour enclosure, which means that all doors in the staircase must be 20 minute rated doors and the staircase must be cut off at each floor. Therefore, if you had a fire on one floor, it would not go all the way up all three floors. An alternative to cutting off the sprinkler system and doing the one hour enclosure is to sprinkler the entire staircase so that if there is a fire it is under control and the occupants there can exit 10 that staircase. 11 1 Q. Does the law permit plastic pipe for that kind of a sprinkler 12 system? 13 A. No, it doesn't. 14 1 Q. Mr. Doherty's mentioned that there's some indication that 15 there may be a change to plastic pipe and some circumstances. Are you 16 aware of that? 17 i A. Yes, I am, the term. 18 Q. To what would it apply? 19 1 A. Basically the term plastic pipe is a little misleading. 20 There's pipe on the market called polybutane pipe, which P , ch is a plastic 21 material developed by Shell Oil. It does have a U.L. approval by d . 13 22 sprinkler systems that are installed under 13(d). 13(d) is a 23 requirement for sprinkler systems in single family dwellings, y lings, 24 duplexes, and mobile homes. At the time the California s State Fire 25 Marshal recognizes 13(d) with the use of polybutane pipe. pe. 26 Thi 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Doherty v. City of Alameda Case # RG07320859 Q. So even if the support comes out favorable it will have no bearing on this case? A. That's true. Executed under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California in Grass Valley, California on , 2007. ._r Steven McKinley Declaration of Steven McKinley - 4 2007 Business License Attachrrlents License Fee+ 0 L License Fee 03 0 J r 03 0 0 E 10 N a a o0 N 0 0 03 C' 3 0 0 00 co 0 N (0 CO a N a- cv 0 Cv Q Q 03 0 0 0 CV CO (0 r 0 0 03 N Q N m 10 0 Q 00 N Q Q N Q N Q C0 0) a a C0 a 00 Q C3 N CYO N Q Q oo Q Q 1c Q 0 a 0 m 0 Q J a) C0 U W C0 0 N 0_ rf� V ) a J Centre Court 0 CYi C0 N 0] Q 0) 0 Q N 0) Sri 10 a 6i C0 r 0 N N Q 00 0 0 L6 0 0 N 0o 00 Ln a 0 0 Q 0 0 N N CO 0) Q Q Lincoln Ave Q Q L0 10 C0 Co N 0 N rim+ V ) 0 0 CV Tom' 0 T-- Owner's Name 2 0 2 E 0 a 0 0 co 0 0 0 0 0 0 C0 C0 E a) a 0) Zr) 0 0 c0 0) U 0 0) ..0 U 0 0 0 CC 06 0 0 U d _g U a) as U [0 C!) Clinton Ave V ) 0 CD 0) 0 CI) Buena Vista Ave Q Q N Co 0 a v0 0 Cri N. 0 cv 0 0 03 Q 0 00 cv Q a C0 N 0 0 O 0 00 Q Q (13 0) 0 a C0 0 00 N a Q N co a N r d 10 C0 C0 a a D0 C0 C7 a 0 N 0 0 00 CO 0 N 0) CO N a Q L6 C0 a Q co Q Q 0 C0 Q 0 C7 a Q a N N 00 0) 0) C7 CO 00 r Q C1J 0 CY) N� N cv 0 0 00 N a D0 0 0 C0 N a LC? 0) a 0 C0 0) Q 0 C0 0 N 0 0 00 T- 0 0 C0 0 0 03 1 0 d' 0 'd 0 CO 0 00 a D0 0 co d• C0 C0 0 N c0 0 3- a) U as CO co CO 00 r 0) Q 0 N CO Q Co T L0 N 0 .,rte N C0 N L0 L0 1 0- N 00 0) V J C z rte• . J 0) 0 C C3 Santa Clara Ave Santa Clara Ave 0 Q 0 co C0 0 0 00 0) a C0 Q a 0 CC] 0 0 d 0o 0 v co a 0 v 0 Q ti C(0 a 00 0 0 oo 0 0 a 00 0 a a; CO Creedon Circle ri-�+ V ) 3, W 0_ r�� V ) 0 r� V ) as 0 (1) 0 0) 0 LCD J 0 cid 0) U c0 ces E 0 U 0 0 (1) C 0 To 7t 0 oS E z C_ c a L c0 C 0 0 a U 0 0) 3: 0) 0) 0 0 a 0 0 0) 0 C: KJ 0) 0 0 ui 0) �E 0 as as W 0J 4) asE D W 0 C0 00 10 N Q Ln 0 CO a N CO 0 CO N Cv N T 0Q C0 CO 00 0 0) C 0 U 1071- 0245 -030 Q co. Q Q a 0o 0 Q 0 Q 0 0 0 0 074- 1332 -020 071 - 0250 -019 rT� C0 CO Q 0) LO Cg Q Q Q Q a Q 0 C0 N C] r 0 op op Q 074 -1225 -002 072 -0374 -026 -01 073 - 0383 -010 Q N Q 0 co 03 a M Q 072 - 0332 -003 070 -0 181 -050 073 - 0390 -051 073 -0410 -102 a) W 0 0 v) c0 w 0 ,d. N 0 co Q 00 u'ob CO CO a 0 000 Q 0) 0) a 073- 0388 -018 0 Q 11 .5_ 0 0_ 0 ia as 0 CC(1) co c 074 -1350 -058 CO CO 0 CO Q .� as 0 c 070- 0166 -024 C Y 0) 0 C0 CO E t as 0) J a) E 0 as co Cam] ( V+ .J 0) cu J 070 -0 184 -018 072 - 0295 - 012 -01 074 -1225 -117 073 - 0426 -029 'fr ( ) Zr) 0 CI) CY) LCD Buena Vista Ave Fernside Blvd Fernside Blvd ifj 0) as E CI) V 0 i-� C_ C0 CO CO N CO CO CO N CY) C Es LL a EL 1 t� 1C,11 00 Lo ( LCD C3 0 N W 06 0 w a) v CC 071 - 0279 -004 Lo C0 0 0 0 CO N 0 CO L0 r 0 Q 0) CO 0 069 -0109 -156 074 -0443 -036 072 -0365 -003 072 - 0301 -019 a 0 U) [0 Zr) 0 CC 0) 073 - 0411 -009 000 CO 0 0 0 0 CD 0 a T- N Cr] 'cr in C0 f-- cc) a) r N 00 07 Cr) L ) [0 N CY") v. Ln 0 oo Q7 r T T"' T" r T- r r T r N N N N (NJ N N N CO CO cO C'7 cO CY) CO o b • ' 0 () C.) 1c3' (271 • • 0 • N 0 ›, 1 v-) cd o 0a bso 0 •• Attach2007 0 00 OD 0 o0 N 0 0 00 0 00 0 0 0 0 00 Y � N 0) r- ef to ti CV 0 cci {i 0 i:o �+L 0 [0 as a Ili �y� 0 T 0 1— 070 -0175 -033 0) 00 LC) N 0 J070-01 75-033 00 N 0 0o rn Attach2007 6/5/2007 4 :47 PM Date: May 26, 2007 To: The City Council of Alameda City Beverly Johnson, Mayor Lena Tam, Vice Mayor Doug deHaan, Councilperson Marie Gilmore, Councilperson Frank Matarrese, Councilperson Re: Appeal to Review the MND Submission for Safeway Gas Station and Convenience Store Honorable Mayor and Councilpersons: To date the written and oral testimonies regarding the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) being submitted by Safeway to construct and run a fuel station on Otis Drive have focused on CEQA guideline compliance and traffic congestion.1 Regarding the Safeway's fuel station, I fully agree that something is not right in the CEQA guideline compliance and that the traffic congestion will be a problem. Furthermore, I have great concerns about the ramifications of the traffic congestion along with the potential hazards impacting the quality of our air, soils, and waters. Although the planning staff feels the project impacts have been evaluated under the CEQA and are not subject to environmental review, I feel that a structure involving toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes needs a closer look. On April 23, 2007, the planning staff submitted to the Planning Board a list of potentially significant impacts of this project on the air, soil, and water with mitigations. Air Quality: construction—related dust has a potentially significant quality impact. The BAAMQD CEQA Guidelines consider potentially significant construction -- related dust impacts to be adequately mitigated with the implementation of recommended control measures. Geology and Soils: construction related erosion has a potentially significant impact on water quality... the applicant is to submit an erosion and sediment control plan to the City prior to the issuance of Building Permits and the implementation of best management practices during the construction phase. Hydrology and Water Quality: contaminated storm water runoffs can have a potentially significant impact due to the potential for petroleum product spills and other debris. The applicant is to prepare and implement a Strom Water Pollution Prevention Plan. To date there has been no formal study of air quality regarding asbestos, carbon monoxide, and gas emissions along the Otis Dr. corridor as well as soil erosion with stormwater runoffs impacting water quality, particularly that of the lagoon opposite of the proposed fuel station. In fact, the 2006 DEIR does not address these issues because the Safeway fuel station proposal was entered after CEQA testing for the EIR took place.2 Put simply, there are no baseline data to monitor what the Safeway's proposed fuel station will mitigate regarding air, soil and water qualities. Does an MND fling for a potentially climatically and environmentally hazardous structure demonstrate the best planning practice for maintaining the quality of air, land, and water along the Otis Dr. corridor in Alameda City? Respectfully submitted, Debra L. Banks, Ph.D. [taxpayer] St. Francis Condominiums 21 37 Otis Dr. 322 Alameda, CA 94501 510 - 521 -7392 ' Sellers & Yeaton- Risely, April & May, 2007; Banks, April & May, 2007; Dodson, January 2007; Sprogis, April, 2007; White, February 2007. 2 Excerpted from Doug Garrison comments to written responses, April 10, 2007: The FEIR being prepared for the proposed Alameda Towne Center project will reflect the latest project description for the proposed Safeway Gas Station ....project. It is noted that the Safeway Gas Station .....was not assumed to be approved (under baseline conditions) in the DIER for the proposed Alameda Towne Center project Submitted by Debra Banks At the 06 -05 -07 CC Meeting Re: Agenda item #5 -F 1 A PROFE$S!ONAL CORPCRATION CASSIDY SHIMKO DAWSON KAWAKAMI June 1, 2007 Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the Alameda City Council 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 320 Alameda, CA 94501 �`! vvti v I' Sender', mail address DLK @CSDK.AW.COM Re: Propos4fewaye1 Center at Alameda. T wne Centre Dear Mayor Johnson and Members of the Alameda City Council: As you know, on April 23, 2007, the Planning Board adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration C'M:ND") for Safeway's proposed fuel center (the `project ") at the former site of U.S. Bank on Otis Street in Alameda. That action has been called up for review by the City Council., and on June 5, 2007, you are scheduled to consider whether the MND is legally adequate under the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA "). The environmental review for the Project has been quite comprehensive and very conservative, This letter briefly outlines the evolution and current status of the entitlements process for the Project, discusses the key aspects of the MND and then responds to two opposition letters that were recently received by the City; as you will see, the Project will have no significant, unmitigable impacts. We hope that this information will be useful to you as you prepare to consider the MND on June 5. Proocc esiEn, Erntitlenaents and CEOA Process' On February 3, 2005, Safeway submitted an application to the City of Alameda ( "City ") to demolish an existing building located at 2234 Otis Drive in Alameda (the former U.S. Bank building) and construct a fuel center in its place. On September 23, 2005, Safeway resubmitted its application for a slightly different configuration of the fuel center. As of that date, the fuel center plan (the "Original Project ") consisted of nine multi -- product dispensers (providing 18 vehicle fueling positions), with a cashier's kiosk of slightly over 600 square feet located along the western property line of the site. The Original Project was designed to include a single 130 -foot driveway in from the adjacent shopping center to the south, as well as a 30 -foot driveway providing ingress from and egress onto Otis Street. A single, flag- 1 Although the scope of your review on June 5 will be limited to the adequacy of the MND, the details of the Project itself are provided as background information for your reference. 20 CALIFORNIA ST, SUITE 00, SAN PRANCESCO, CA 94 111 TELEPHONE: (415) 786 -2040 FACSIMILE' [0' 5) 738 -2439 Re: Agenda Item #5 -F 06-05-07 ..r •r .,,r I Y V L v V V LX I Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the Alameda City Council June 1, 2007 Page2of9 shaped monument sign was proposed to be located to the east of the driveway onto Otis Street. In December 2006, the City circulated for public review the initial Study for which you will consider adopting the MND on April 23, This document analyzed the environmental impacts of the Original Project. The initial Study was circulated for 30 days, and in the months following that period, the City and its consultants analyzed and prepared responses to the handful of comments that were received (those responses are contained in, or attached to, the staff report regarding the Project). On March 9, 2007, Safeway representatives met separately with Planning Board Member Marilyn Ashcraft and Vice Mayor Lena Tam to discuss the particulars of the proposal. On March 12, 2007, Safeway representatives attended a Planning Board workshop for other changes to Alameda Towne Centre, during which the proposed fuel center was discussed and commented upon by both members of the Planning Board and public attendees. On April 3, 2007, Safeway representatives met with Planning and Building Director Cathy Woodbury and Supervising Planner Douglas Garrison regarding proposed revisions to the Original Project that responded to issues and concerns raised by City staff and members of the public. On April 5, 2007, Safeway representatives held a public meeting to which all community members within 300 feet of the shopping center had been invited — eleven members of the public attended. At that meeting, they presented to the community a revised plan for the fuel center that incorporated the revisions discussed on April 3. On April 13, 2007, Safeway formally amended its application to modify the design of the proposed fuel center. The revised design relocated the kiosk to the south side of the site, and reduced the size of the.structure to approximately 400 square feet. This change eliminated one dispenser beneath the fueling canopy, reducing the total number of dispensers from nine (18 fueling positions) to eight (16 fueling positions). The previously- proposed driveway accessing the shopping center to the south was reconfigured so that instead of one wide driveway, there were two narrower driveways.2 Finally, the monument sign was reduced in size and moved to the west of the driveway onto Otis Street. On April 23, 2007, the Planning Board adopted the MND and then considered whether to approve the Project itself. Ultimately, while Pluming Board members were generally in favor of having a fuel center at the Project site, they requested two changes to the site design: (i) a reduction in the number of dispensers from eight (16 fueling positions) to six (12 fueling 2 This new configuration works much better with the proposed pedestrian path to the south of the site, as will be discussed further below. �u;I1a13 Mayor Beverly Johnson and NMembers of the Alameda City Council June 1, 2007 Page3of9 positions), and a decrease in the width of the driveways accessing the shopping center to the south so that the openings measured no more than 70 feet in total. Safeway is in the process of redesigning its site to meet these requests, and its present plan (shown in ExhibiLA) reconfigures the site layout; the kiosk has been moved to the west side ofthe site and there are three islands with two pumps (four fueling positions) apiece. Safeway hopes to present its revised plan — which essentially constitutes a smaller version of the Original Project - to the Planning Board on June l l . hsj'roksiMND As noted above, the Mi1D for the Original Project was published in December 2006. The MND contains a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the Original Project, The MND concluded that all of the Original Project's environmentally significant environmental impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level through the iinplenientation of mitigation measures. This same conclusion applies to the impacts of the Project as currently proposed. Traffic Analysis One of the main areas studied in the MND is traffic. As noted above, the MND found that the Original Project (arid thus the Project), with mitigation, had no significant impacts. It is important to note that dice traffic study prepared for the MND, like all good traffic studies, is based on certain "wont case" assumptions, which result in a very conservative scenario for analysis: This is an effective method to use in preparing the MIND, as it leads to the comprehensive identification of impacts, but in reality the traffic impacts of the Project would likely be far less. One example of the use of "worst case" assumptions is the omission of ":linked trips" from the analysis in the MND. The peak hour trip generation calculated for the Project only considered new vehicle trips (trips only for the purpose of getting gas at the Project) and pass -by trips (customers already driving on adjacent local roadways who stop for gas on their way to other destinations); it did not consider a reduction in trips based on "linked trips" (Le., those customers already shopping at the Safeway grocery store who decide to by gas station at the Project). Based on Safeway's experience with other fuel centers in similar types of locations, we anticipate at least 39% ofthe peak hour trips would be linked trips. Therefore, the number of trips that the Prc j eet wvo uld actually generate is likely to be approximately 39 °/o lower than the number of trips on which the MND analysis is based, and the actual traffic impacts ofthe Project would be correspondingly reduced. Furtherrnare, the impacts of the traffic to be generated by the Original Project (and • thus.the Project) will be comprehensively mitigated through the measures proposed in the hD, which include installation of a two -way left turn lane on Park Street and contribution toward the construction of a traffic signal at the intersection of Otis Drive and Trader Joe's driveway into the shopping center. Finally, even with this conservative analysis and the imposition of comprehensive mitigation measures, the IVIND includes a mitigation measure v"-If v if c.YY 1 i YU 1 nas 41,1 1 UU UODUln lej YV f V IQ Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the Atarneda City Council June 1, 2007 Page 4 of 9 that permits the City's Department of Public Works to monitor the vehicle circulation and queuing aspects of the Project for five years, and to require certain additional driveway improvements if necessary. Therefore, because of the conservative nature of the analytical approaches selected, the. impacts of the Original Project likely are overstated in the MN'D. 3 Furthermore, even if in reality Project traffic equaled the "worst case" scenario (including eighteen fueling positions), the Project would have no significant, unmrtigable impacts. Other Project Impacts In addition to traffic impacts, the other potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the initial Study were: air quality (during construction activities); cultural resources; geology and soils; and hydrology and water quality. In each case, the Initial Study concluded that with identified mitigation measures, the impact would be reduced to a less than significant level. Safeway has committed to implementing each of the required mitigation measures. Further, all public comments that were received with respect to Project impacts were thoroughly addressed by City staff in the staff repoii for the Planning Board's April 23 hearing on the Project (see pages 5 to 10 of the staff report). Letters Imposition Project iPiecemealirtg " In a letter dated May 25, 2007, Ms. Holly Sellers, Ms. Claire Yeaton- Risley and Mr. David Howard mistakenly suggest that the Project is in fact only one piece of a. larger project — i, e., the overall renovation of the adjacent Alameda Towne Centre — and therefore the MND cannot analyze the environmental impacts of the Project separately from those of the renovation. The commenters are correct that a single project may not be "chopped up" into smaller elements in order to avoid comprehensive review under CE QA; however, under applicable statutes and case law, it is clear that the proposed fuel center does not constitute an improperly segmented portion of a larger project. Section 21 065 of CEQA. defines a project to include "an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which ... involves 3 It shnuld.also be noted that while only the Original Project was studied in the Mme, in reality the revised site design provides multiple additional benefits for vehicle flow to and from the Project. For example, the raised pedestrian path will result in less pedestrian/vehicle conflicts, and will act as a traffic- calming measure for vehicles accessing the site frim the south. In addition, the removal of three fuel pumps (i.e,, six fueling positions) is expected greatly to reduce Project trip generation, which is calculated in part based on a projected number of vehicular trips per fueling position, Meanwhile, the continuing availability of multiple fueling positions (as well as drive aisle apace between fueling positions) will continue to help minimize vehicle queuing as cars wait for pump availability. The revised project would result in the same or lesser impacts as those identified in the lviN1D for the Original Project, and the impacts of the Project as now proposed fall within the range of impacts studied in the MN]i r r • .•r. -r ■ y J S.+V LVL.1 V e Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the Alameda City Council June 1, 2007 Page 5 of 9 tj OQB /O13 the issuance to a. person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies." The CEQA Guidelines clarify what circumstances would constitute ` piecemealing ": `where an individual project is a necesswy precedent for action can ar larger project, or commits the lead agency to a lar er project, with significant environmental effect, an [environmental impact report] must address itself to the scope of the larger project." 14 Cal. Code Begs. § 15165 (emphasis added). In the present case, approval of the Project is neither a necessary precedent for action on the shopping center proj ect, nor would it commit the City to approving the shopping center expansion project, The two projects have been proposed by two different applicants and would be undertaken on parcels which, though adjacent to one another, are owned by different, non-,:affiliated landowners. The first legal case cited by the commenters, Aida Ass'n v. &a and of Supprvi sars 182 Cal.App. 3 d 1145, 1171 (1986), addressed whether the demolition of a building (the "Theatre and Bank Building") and the construction of a new building in its stead constituted a single project under CEQA. The court in that case concluded that because the demolition and construction constituted phases of the same project, and thus a demolition permit could not be issued before the environmental review of the construction was concluded. The court's rationale was based on the fact that the developer "obviously [did] not propose demolition of the Theatre and Bank Building as an end in itself, but as part of its larger proposed [p]rojoct1 Id. at 1172.' By contrast, in the present situation, the Project (i.e,, o afewa Y 's proposed fuel center) Is in fact an "end in itself" -- it is in no way pant of the Alameda Towne Centre development, and it is proposed to go forward regardless of any development plans for the Towne Centre. Therefore, the separation of the Project from the proposed enlargement of the A I aim eda Towne Centre does not constitute improper ' piecem eating." The two projects require separate governmental approvals, and the viability of each one is completely independent of that of the other. The other legal case cited by the commenters, Msociatiori f leaner Environment v. Yosemite Community College District, 116 Cal.Appr4th 629 (2004), also supports the conclusion that the fuel center constitutes a separate project from the shopping center expansions In that case, a community college claimed that its decisions to close a campus shooting range and transfer certain shooting range activities and related classes to another range did not constitute a "project" under CEQA. The court disagreed, finding that the decisions were "interrelated" and "all part of a single, coordinated endeavor," Id. at 639. Clearly, the actions evaluated in Association for ,_Cleaner Environment related to the same goal — relocation of a shooting range — and supply addressed different stew in reaching that single goals thus constituting a single "project" under CEQA. By contrast, in the P resent 4 This section specifically addresses the prepararion of environmental impact reports but may be interpreted to apply equally to negative declarations. The court also noted that separating the demolition project from the construction project for the purposes of CEQA could result in the demolition of an arguably historic resource without any CEQA review at all. In the present situation, however, there is xio such danger; the Project has been subject to rigorous CEQA review, including a cumulative review of the impacts of all proposed development in the area. Ob /Q 1 f QQ ( 1 z : 10 I- A] 415 788 2039 CSU &K t0071013 13 Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the Alameda City Council June 1, 2007 Page6of9 situation, the fuel center and the shopping center expansion represent two distinct, unrelated proposals sponsored by two different entities. The prox imity of one to the other, and the fact that they may be subject to some of the same community concerns, do not change the fact that they constitute two separate projects for the purposes of analysis =der CEQA. Furthermore, contrary to the commenters' contention that the different proposals have never been studied together, the MND for the Project comprehensively studied the environmental impacts of the proposed shopping center proposals as part of its cumulative impacts analysis. For example, on page 2 of the Technical Memorandum prepared for the Project by Omni-Means (see "Appendix B" to the Initial Study), it is noted that the traffic analysis took into account both the previous expansion proposal for the Alameda Towne Centre (i.e., the 112,000 square feet that was approved in 2003) and the current expansion proposal for the Alameda Towne Centre (Le.. the 49,000 square feet currently proposed). With respect to traffic, this means that the vehicle trips generated by CO the 2003 shopping center expansion and (ii) the current proposed shopping center expansion were added to those expected to be generated by the fuel center, and then that total number of trips was analyzed to determine if any significant impacts would occur. The MND concluded that with mitigation, the cumulative impacts of these projects (including the cumulative traffic impacts) would be less than significant, Thus, the environmental impacts of the Project were properly analyzed both individually and cumulatively in conjunction with the shopping center project. This thorough analysis has ensured that no environmental impacts have been overlooked or concealed. The inclusion of a cuniulative analysis makes it unnecessary to evaluate the environmental impacts of the fuel center project and those of the proposed Alameda Tonne Centre expansi an at exactly the same time. Furthermore, the City cannot legally delay its decision on the MND until the environmental review for the proposed Alameda Towne Centre expansion is complete. Under CEQA, a Local agency is required to adopt a negative declaration with respect to a private project within 180 days after the date on which the application for that project was ,accepted as complete. See CEQA § .21151.5; 14 Cal. Code Regs (CEQA Guidelines) § 15 107. As the application for the fuel center project was deemed complete on October 23, 2005, the City was required to have adopted the MND for the -Project by April 21, 2006 — more than a year ago. City staff has been cooperative and has worked diligently to process the Project entitlements as quickly as possible, and Safeway commends staff for its work to date; however, any further delay would be contrary to the spirit of CEQA. Truck Routes Mmes. Sellers and Yeaton- Risley and Mr. Howard also object to the truck routes proposed by the Project, and although this issue is in no way related to the adequacy of the MND under CEQA, we would like to address it. Contrary to the commenters' suggestion that the suggested truck route for the Project would "undermine' or constitute a "defacta • +�+ • w Y .L Y V L' Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the Alameda City Council June I, 2007 Page7of9 gj IO8/Q13 amendment" to Alameda's Local ordinances, Alameda's own rhunicipal code specifically permits deviations from established truck route. Specifically, Section 8-24.1(b) f` the City's �� o y Municipal Code states in part: The Public Works Director shall cause to install and maintain signage designating truck routes and hours of operation. When any such truck route or routes are established and designated by appropriate signs, the operator of any vehicle mentioned in this paragraph shall drive on such route or routes and no other except when it is impractical to do so or. when necessary to traverse another street or streets to a destination for the purpose of loading or unloading, but then only by such deviation from the nearest freight route as reasonably necessary. (emphasis added) As you can sec, Saf eway's proposed, very minor deviation from the truck route is in compliance with the City's own ordinances. Banks Letter Ms. Debra Banks also submitted a letter to the City Council regarding this matter. That letter addresses g sses certain "background" concerns, which are each responded to below: • Trao. As required by City Engineering staff, the analysis included traffic counts taken at the intersections of Otis Drive and (1) the Office Max driveway, the Pro f ect s driveway, (iii) the Trader Joe's driveway and (iv) Park Street. The analysis found that the Project t would inc � tease traffic on �s drive by less than icier percent. in addition, the required a proportionate contribution toward the construction of a two -way left -turn lane at the intersection of Park Street and the shopping center's north driveway, � �l? g r ay, plus a proportionate toward the of a traffic signal at the intersection of Otis Drive and the Trader Joe's driveway. The traffic analysis concluded that with these and certain other mitigation � measures, the Project would have no sisnificant traffic impacts. * Airborne Toxins, The Initial Study concluded that the Project would not exceed State or National standards as a source of carbon monoxide (CO) emissions. In addition it found that the Project would not create a CO "hot spot" because vehicles do not idle at the fuel pumps (indeed, the provision of an ample number of fuel dispensers — eight — would result in short waits for a pump location and thus minimize idling of waiting cars). Thus, the Initial Study concluded that the Project would have no air quality impacts apart from construction- related conditions that would be fully mitigated, • Cite Oeology, The geological analysis in the Initial Study specifically addressed seismic. issues as well as standards for construction ()lithe underground fuel storage Vr f V j 1 L1,ILi r 1:Z . i i ! A A 'T 4009/01-3 01.3 Mayor Beverly Johnson and Member's of the Alameda City Council June 1, 2007 Page 8 of tanks, and the City's expert consultants concluded that the Project would have no significant impacts in these respects. In .addition, enclosed for your review as Dailit B is a s sort letter from Fugro West, Inc., which (a) addresses the purported existence of a "collateral fault' from the Hayward fault line and the safety of the fuel storage tanks, and (b) concludes that the Project would not have any significant geological impacts. Next, Ms. Banks raises five additional questions, each of which is addressed, in turn below: • Letter from EBMUD. The letter to which Ms. Banks refers was addressed in the Staff Report for the Planning Board's April 23 hearing on the Project. With respect to the first issue raised by EBMUD — whether capacity exists within the City's subb asin flow allocation for wastewater flow from the Project — the City's Public Works Department has confirmed that adequate capacity does in fact exist The other issue in EBMUD's letter is possible contamination of the soil; first, as discussed on pages 28-30 ate initial Study, the Project site has no known historical record of the use, processing or storage of hazardous materials; second, as stated in BBMUD's letter, no development can occur on the Project site unless and until EBMUD is satisfied that no contaminated soil or groundwater exceed specified limits, • Proof afAvailable Water Capacity. As noted above, as requested by EBMUD, the Public Works Department has confirmed that capacity exists for the Project site and that it has not been allocated to any other developments, The Public Works Department is required to do the same for the proposed Alameda Towne Centre expansion; therefore, all required capacity for each of the projects (as well as all other projects under consideration within the City) has been accounted for. ▪ Safexy of Underground Fuel Storage Tanks. As discussed above, Fugro West prepared a letter addressing Ms. Banks's concerns in this area. That letter confirmed that the potential for fault rupture occurring through the Project site was judged to be extremely low. Further, the proposed underground storage tanks will be designed to meet all current standards and requirements, which are promulgated by governmental authorities in order to ensure that the tanks will withstand any liquefaction induced settlement and/or groumd shaking that the Project site may experience, • Increase in Tanker Trucks. While Safeway cannot comment on the technical design of the bridges and roads to be accessed by tanker trucks serving the gas station, it should be noted that there previously was a gas station (a Chevron) on the corner of Park and Otis that closed within the last five years, as well as another gas station further west on Otis that closed five to ten years ago. The gas *ruc k s serving Safeway's proposed fuel center likely will travel the same routes as.those serving the prior two gas stations, and the structural design of the affected bridges and roads was adequal a to accommodate the prior trucks. VV1 v I/ LYV I FL . I. F riff ;F IJ 100 4(.1430 R.r V�(ff1 Mayor Beverly Johnson and Members of the Alameda City Council June 1, 2007 Page 9 of 9 0O1O/O13 • 2003 Poll. To our knowledge, Safeway did not participate in this poll and therefore cannot comment on the .methodology used. However, the staff report for the Planning Board hearing on April 23 noted that the public has strongly supported a gas station in or near the Alameda Towne Centre. In any event, the poll is not related to any potenthit, environmental impact of the Project, and therefore should not be considered in connection with CEQA review of the Project. Conclusion We hope that you find this letter to be informative and useful as you consider the Project. As you can see., the Project has undergone thorough CEQA review (both individually and cumulatively with the proposed shopping center expansion), which has concluded that it would have minimal impacts on the environment, The design of the Project has also been scrutinized and refined in response to both environmental review and public input. We are confident that, upon consideration of the thoroughness of the MND, you will uphold the Planning Board's adoption of the MND. . Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any questions regarding any aspect of the Project in advance of the June Shearing, please feel free to contact me or Todd Paradis, the Real Estate Manager in charge of the Project. I can be reached at (415) 788- 2040, and Todd can be reached at (925) 467 -2078. Very truly yours, CASSIDY IIIM ° DAWSON & KAWAKAMI L Deborah L. Marti g aner Attachments cc: Debra Kurita Cathy Woodbury Doug Garrison Steve Couig Steve Berndt Todd Paradis Dan Goalwin Chris Ferko Anna S hirnko 08/01/2007 12:12 FAX 1 415 788 2039 CSD&K 011.401 iwa..0 r.1.+74.3:3241111 iv i lie, i• tGri../11 14e. .P.1111,1 .. ..... irrit., ...... 401. ......- aile'"N 4 , :-% 4" - I ! 1 • . I •,, ito •• 4.1111110111MINNIIIMMIIIMA•6.••••■■••••••••••■••■•■•■■•••••■•••••••■•••••••■•••••••••••••••.....• • • ••■••• ••■•• • • •••■••■• • C - 0.. :014,1,..V.os ~IO VOWT, AIM. ...Wit taK MVCI PLO KV yuksloanvt WEIVirlY *DM 3i10.1.8 ASIMIPM •••••••••• Z011/013 —CrT 0 0 —41 " co (61100 •IMPAIINWIN•111. • .■•••••••• • • •••■••• • ...........•••••■•■•••■•••■••■••••■•••••••■•• 24, EX T • FUGRO WEST, INC. April 23, 2007 project No. 1405.019 Safeway, inc. Northern California Construction & Design 5918 Stoneridge Mali Road Pleasanton, California 94588 -3229 i 012/013 1000 Broadway, Suite 200 ook;erid, Colifurnfs 9407 TO (510) Z88 -0481 Fax: (510) 268 0137 Attention: Mr. Todd Paradis Subject: New Safeway Fuel Center No. 2708, South Shore Center, Alameda, California Dear Mr. Paradis! As requested by Safeway's attorneys, this letter addresses geological concerns expressed by Ms. Debra L. Banks, Ph.D. to the City. of Alameda Planning Board in her letter dated April 20, 2007, pertaining to the New Safeway Fuel Center No, 2708 Project, to be locates at 2234 Otis Drive in Alameda, California. We previous:y performed a geotechnical and geologic stud for the project. the results cif which were presented in our report titled, "Geotechnical Safeway � p p otechnrcal study, ��fe►Na� vivre No. 2708 Fuel Center, Alameda, California." dated September 14, 2005, The Banks letter raised concerns regarding liquefaction in regard to the underlying subsurface soils, included a reference to "collateral faults from the Hayward l' y g yw one,'' and the statement One such collateral is under Alameda City and has the potential of severe crustal failure given recent patterns or earthquake activity have occurred along the Hayward co ! r g Y late ale i,� Piedmont {R =3.21 2005] and Lafayette [R=4,2, 20061," The letter also makes reference to a map and a 'liquefaction index" which indicates the round integrity in and around p � 9 Y a ou d the Alameda Towne Centre site is "ire jeopardy" in the event of "any" earthquake. This map was not provided to us at the time of this letter, and as such, is unidentified. We evaluated and discussed geologic and seismic hazards potentially affecting the site in our September 14, 2005 geotechnical stud report prepared for 9 Y p p re p this development. In our report, we identified strong ground shaking and liquefaction induced settlement as potential geologic hazar d s influencing the site in the event of a strong earthquake. Strong ground shaking would likely result as a result of'a major earthquake occurring on one of the major local active faults such as the Hayward or San Andreas fault, particularly if the epicenter of such an earthquake were tO occur in the fan Francisco Bay Area. This ground shaking would likely be evident in many areas throughout the B Area, and the intensity of such shaking can be influenced by the underlying g Bay y e under yrng soil conditions. The Towne Centre site has been identified in the Seismic Hazard Zone Report for th Oakland East 7.5-Minute Quadran le, Alameda Count Geological �` �, California orr�ia (California ��alifornia �salcgicai purvey, 2003: Seismic Hazard Zone Report 080), as located in are area either of historic occurrence of liquefaction, or local geologikal, geotechnical, and groundwater conditions that indicate a oten p tray for permanent ground displacement during an earthquake event. Based on the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) liquefaction hazard map of 2004, the project site is considered t� have a A member of the Fugra group of companies with offices throughout the world. EXHIBIT 8 Ua1 4, 1/ LVV 1 14 . 14 r A 4 1 ! 00 Zi.I,]a U Ud�h S afewdy', inc. April 23. 2007 (Project No 1405.019) �I Q1:3/0110 moderate to very high susceptibility of liquefaction. These maps do not necessarily indicate that liquefaction and associated settlement will occur throughout the mapped areas, and are intended only to identify areas within which the potential for liquefaction needs to be addressed by a site - speollrc gectechnical and geologic study by a qualified professional (i.e., California- registered Geotechnical Engineer and/or Certified Engineering Geologist. Our 2005 geotechnlcal study satisfied these requirements. The fuel center site is located at the margin of fill materials plated prior to the 14360's for development of the Southshore area, arid is underlain by medium dense to dense, native Merritt Sand at depths of 6 to 10 feet below the site. Based on the results of our study, we concluded that liquefaction and associated settlement could occur in minor portions of the subsurface prof1e shallower than about 13 feet in the event of a design earthquake, and that resulting surface settlement may be on the order of one inch. The United States Geological Survey, California Geological Survey, and other public and private geological investigators have not identified any faults considered to be active as passing through the City of Alameda. Strong ground shaking of a magnitude sufficient to induce liquefaction of subsurface soils at the project site would most likely be a result of a major earthquake occurring on or directly related to a major fault such as Hayward fault, and not from minor earthquakes similar to the examples presented by Banks (i.e., Lafayette and Piedmont earthquakes). Similarly, due to the absence of an identified .active fault passing. through the property, the potential for fault rupture occurring through the property or surrounding area is judged to be extremely low. We understand the proposed underground storage tanks were designed to accornmodate the estimated potential liquefaction - induced settlement, as well as strong groan(' shaking, that would be expected to occur foi alrnost any site within the $en Francisco Bay Area. Our services have been provided in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering principles and practices. Should you have any questions or require additional iriforation, phase do not hesitate to contact us. CTD:rh Copies Submi I ted' (1) Addressee and pdt 'Sincerely, F JGRO WEST, INC. Jar? M. Herbert, P.G., C.E.G. Principal Engineering Geologist Corey T. Dare, P.E., D.E. Principal Geotechnical Engineer (1) Ms. Deborah Kartiganer, CSDK (pdt only) CA.11}eplICS114C1311,Cb 01KV11131t IMPee.:∎141 55%, I11-7 4PFKII 2 View print Version 1 City of Alameda: EFMHome 1111141401 Lif • 1' V 1.1-.ATURL:S1 Page 1 of 2 Welcome, Christina Baines • 1...cyour RCC1 1 ir•c•i eFeedbackManager « Back to Case List HELP Case Details 16183 howard, david external customer 928 taylor ave Alameda CA 94501 tmapj 510-673-0998 mowster@sbcg lobal net Email howard, david customer Mayor/City Council>E- mail the Mayor and Councilmembers change New change edit Complaint Baines, Christina reassign 05/30/2007 16:03 https://clients.comcate.com/reps/caseDetail.php?id=67647 Re: Agenda Item #5-F 06-05-07 :.-mmearzem 6/4/2007 City of Alameda: EFMHome city web site • Comcate Page 2 of 2 , • ' • • '• ' • • IL' • ' ,'" 7." • " • : E. Customer Communications Log Communication Mail Merge • • ;•,, internal Activity Add/Email Notes EO Communication I4 Case Contacts , Attachments Add Attachment r$1, Activity History •https://clients.corncate.corn/reps/caseDetail.php?id=67647 © 2007 Comcate, Inc 6/4/2007 1 View print Version City of Alameda: EFMHome 8 11.11114041 (111.1T0111111. eFeedbackManager FIATUILS! Page 1 of 2 • Welcome, Christina Baines • LOGOUT « Back to Case List HELP Case Details 16183 howard, davld - external customer 928 taylor ave Alameda CA 94501 thiapj 510-673-0998 mowster@sbcglobal.net Email howard, david customer Mayor/City Council>E- mail the Mayor and Councilmembers change --- New change edit Complaint Baines, Christina reassign 05/30/2007 16:03 https://clients.comcate.com/reps/caseDetail.php?id=67647 Re: Agenda Item #5-F 06-05-07 6/4/2007 City of Alameda: EFMHome city w.eb site • Comcate Page 2 of 2 ''? • ' • r.1 Customer Communications Log Communication Send an Email Mail Merge Internal Activity Add/Email Notes New Task N Case Contacts Reassign Primary/Secondary Attachments Add Attachment - Activity History https://clients.comeate.com/repskaseDetail.php?id=67647 © 2007 Comcate, Inc 6/4/2007 TTE June 5, 2007 The Honorable Beverly Johnson, Mayor Members of the Alameda City Council Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, California 95401 Reference: Safeway Safeway Gas Station Proposal— Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Call for Review by Councilmember Doug deHaan Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: Councilmember Doug DeHaan and a group of Alameda citizens asked me to review several documents relevant to the proposed Safeway Gas Station. These documents included: the Traffic Study dated June 28, 2006; the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) dated December 15, 2006; a letter dated May 25, 2007, from Risley, et al; and a letter dated June 1, 2007, from Cassidy et al. Councilmember deHaan and the citizens who joined in this request were motivated by several simple, sensible questions: 1. How can the MND state with any certainty that there would be no significant impacts to the Project Site Design when this design is still pending and has never been approved by the Planning Board? 2. Why weren't the intersections at Trader Joe/East -West Driveway and office Max/East -West Driveway evaluated, when 45 percent of the total Safeway Gas Station traffic entering the site and 55 percent of the total Safeway Gas Station traffic exiting the site (respectively) would use these intersections? 3. Is this Safeway Gas Station project separate from the Towne Center Expansion Projects? 4. How can the Safeway Gas Station MND use the same traffic baseline and cumulative data as the October 2006 Target Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) when the many comments in the public record on this DEIR have not been addressed? 5. How can the Safeway Gas Station MND reasonably conclude that cumulative traffic conditions, with the additional 12,627 vehicle trips per day, would have no significant impact at the study intersections? 6. Because of the inclusion of the Towne Center Expansion Project Traffic Impact analyses in the Safeway Gas Station MND, City Council would also be approving the environmental analysis of the Target project. Is this the Council's intent? C:lTTE\Proposals1268 I Alameda Target\Gas Sta Call for Review June 05 071Ltr to Alameda City Council Gas Stationr MND-- 6- 5- 07.docx Last saved: 6/5/2007 4:56:00 PM Thomson Transportation Engineers, Inc. • 2969 Johnson Ave • Alameda, CA 94501 Telephone (510) 865 -1959 • Fax (866) 302 -6657 • E -Mail: general@TTEalameda.com TTEalameda.com Submitted by Eugenie Thomson at the 06 -05 -07 Council Meeting Re : Agenda Item #5-F June 5, 2007 Neither 1, nor the citizens who asked me to review these documents, are against the Safeway Gas Station proposal. However, approving the MND for this project could cause many future problems because the overall shopping center site plan and the associated traffic impact studies has not been fully vetted and approved. Please be clear on this fact Because the environmental analysis of the Towne Center Expansion Projects (including the proposed Target store) is included in the environmental analysis for the Safeway Gas Station —if you approve the Safeway Gas Station MND tonight, you will also approve its positions on the Target project's environmental impacts. it would be wrong —and a breach of your elective responsibility to the citizens —to approve a project of the magnitude of this Target store with so many public concerns still unanswered. Tonight's Council vote is crucial. You will consider approving a major project that has far- reaching and long - lasting implications for Alameda and its citizens. It is a project that "we the people" feel very strongly about, as evidenced by the inch -thick stack of public comments about the project sitting on my desk at this moment. With local opinions running so deep, delaying approval for a few more weeks is prudent. Moreover, a delay of several weeks should not affect the overall project schedule. Based on a thorough review, 1 strongly recommend that the Alameda City Council: 1. Delay approval of the Safeway Gas Station MND and return it to the Planning Board; 2. Direct the City Staff to evaluate the onsite intersections that were omitted from the MND; 3. Direct the City Staff to hire a California - licensed civil engineer to prepare the gas truck vehicle path and determine the necessary roadway modifications. 4. Obtain a written legal opinion to determine what legal action the City Council should take to avoid adopting the position contained in this MND that the Target project would have no environmental impacts on the streets inside and surrounding the shopping center. Alameda has been a leader among California cities in involving the citizenry in local government decisions that directly impact the communities where they live and work. in the past, we have demonstrated that a collaborative effort is the best course to follow in seeking viable solutions. It is crucial for the City to proceed slowly and cautiously, carefully considering the Tong -term implications of every major project. You are stewards of the taxpayers' money. During the drawing board phase, the problems associated with the proposed Target store will be relatively inexpensive to address; however, once the project is built, mitigating major traffic impacts such as inadequate internal roadways will involve tremendous costs, the burden of which will be borne by the City and its taxpayers. I cannot over- emphasize my point If the City Council approves the Safeway Gas Station MND, you will concurrently approve the environmental traffic effects of the proposed Target Towne Center on the streets inside and surrounding the Shopping Center. With the magnitude of public comments about the Target project submitted last October, this action will be viewed as a closed- government action that turns a blind eye to the people's will —something 1 truly believe you want to avoid. C:1TTE1Proposals1268 I Alameda Target\Gas Sta Call for Review June 05 47\Ltr to Alameda City Council Gas Stationr MND-- 6- 5- 07.docx - 2 - Last saved: 6/5/2007 4:56:00 PM June 5, 2007 The attached comments clearly indicate the need for more study and this minor delay. We look forward to an amended study and further collaboration on these important projects. Respectfully, Eugenie P. Thomson P.E., PTOE Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineer With attachments and October 2006 Eugenie Thomson comment letter to the Target DEIR C :1TTE1Proposals1268 I Alameda Target\Gas Sta Call for Review June 05 071Ltr to Alameda City Council Gas Stationr MND-- 6- 5- 07.docx - 3 - Last saved: 6/5/2007 4 :56:00 PM June 5, 2007 Question 1: How can the MND state with any certainty that there would be no significant impacts to the Project Site Design when this design is still pending and has never been considered by the Planning Board? Facts The Safeway Gas Station MND concludes on page 47 that the project with mitigation of right -in turns and right -out turns at the Otis driveway would have NO significant impacts to the Project Site Design. At the Public Hearing on April 23, 2007, the Planning Board spent no time reviewing this MND, as they were more concerned about the east- west sidewalk and internal layout of the Safeway gas station. The members of the Planning Board had comments to the site design, which was deferred to a future Planning Board hearing for further discussion and possible approval. Recommendation: Because the MND includes the finding of "no significant impact" on the Project Site Design, and this issue is still pending, City Council should refer the Safeway Gas Station MND back to the Planning Board, with specific directions to approve the Project Site Design first, before considering and approving the MND. Question 2: Why weren't the intersections at Trader Joe /East-West Driveway and Office MaxlEast- West Driveway evaluated, when 45 percent of the total Safeway Gas Station traffic entering the site and 55 percent of the total Safeway Gas Station traffic exiting the site (respectively) would use these intersections? Traffic issues inside the shopping center such as queuing back onto Otis Drive can occur as a result of constraints at the downstream intersection of Trader Joe/East -West Driveway and could be an impact associated with the Safeway gas station project. Approximately 45 percent of the total traffic entering the Safeway gas station will use this intersection; however, this and other intersections within the shopping center have not been addressed in this MND, nor in other environmental reports. Both the public and the commissions have raised many issues regarding the internal traffic circulation of the shopping center. These issues include inadequate roadway widths for the buses to turn into the shopping center from the main driveway at Park Street to the need for sidewalks and bicycle facilities. Site planning and design is typically started, first, by performing safety and operation analyses of the internal intersection to determine the lane requirements and appropriate geometry for sight distance and vehicular maneuvering. This is usually evaluated in addition to checking for project impacts, such as the example above for the Trader Joe/East -West Driveway intersection. The following exhibit illustrates the intersections and some of the traffic issues not yet resolved. Recommendation: Direct staff to conduct intersection analyses to determine the Safeway gas station's impacts at the following two intersections: (1) The intersection of Trader Joe driveway /East -West Driveway and the intersection of Office Max driveway /East -West Driveway. For the cumulative conditions of the Towne Center Expansion Projects, operations and safety analyses should be conducted for all of the intersections on site. C:ITTEIProposals1268 I Alameda TargetlGas Sta Call for Review June 05 071Ltr to Alameda City Council Gas Stationr MND-- 6- 5- 07.docx 4 - Last saved: 6/5/2007 4:56:00 PM June 5, 2007 I RI L Lk : [ F - 1+{- }H f1 [d=11.1 I1]I11[ Y t +- -{- 1'1111!}1( •� r w.. R v c 4, a _ g If 3 0 v c � 0 w z w o o aw t.) Z Id N N f 4 1� + L W M � J 0 < ■ C:ITTBProposals1268 I Alameda TargetlGas Sta Call for Review June 05 071Ltr to Alameda City Council Gas Stationr MND-- 6- 5- 07.docx 5 Last saved: 6/5/2007 4:56:00 PM June 5, 2007 Question 3: Is this Safeway Gas Station project separate from the Towne Center Expansion Projects,? We should first start with understanding the Safeway gas station project. We all know that these stations are typically located on corners at intersections. The proposed Safeway gas station would be located between two adjacent properties, not at the corner of an intersection, restricting access to the station. This access would be further restricted to only right -in turns and right -out turns from the only adjacent public street frontage, Otis Drive. As a result of this restricted access and restricted street majority of the vehicles must travel through the shopping center to get to and from the Safeway gas station. The City Staff and applicant have accepted this configuration, however, having done so, the project definition changed to involve the other driveways of the shopping center, such as the Office Max driveway and Trader Joe's driveway. In doing so, the Safeway gas station project on the U.S. Bank parcel cannot exist as an independent project from the shopping center. Furthermore, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Public Resource Code 21 065 includes the definition of "project," which would conclude that the other driveways are part of the project. See the following excerpt from the code : 21065. "Project" means an activity which may cause either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and which is any of the following: (a) An activity directly undertaken by any public agency. (b) An activity undertaken by a person which is supported, in whole or in part, through contracts, grants, subsidies, loans, or other forms of assistance from one or more public agencies. c) An activity that involves the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies. The simple truth is, due to the restricted access to the Safeway gas station, although owned separately, any activity associated with the Safeway gas station involves both the Office Max driveway and the East -West Driveway in the shopping center for access and internal circulation. These also are the only driveways that gasoline tank trucks can use to enter and exit the station. Further, many cars will use the Trader foe's driveway for access to and from the gas station site. Therefore, the project encompasses not just the gas station and its inherent activities, but also the physical changes and circulation at these internal roadways, which are also part of the Towne Center Expansion Projects. Hence the Safeway Gas Station project is not a separate project. C:ITTE\Proposals1268 I Alameda TargetlGas Sta Call for Review June 05 071Ltr to Alameda City Council Gas Stationr MND-- 6- 5- 07.docx 6 - Last saved: 6/512007 4:56:00 PM June 5, 2007 Question 4: How can the Safeway Gas Station MND use the same traffic baseline and cumulative data as the October 2006 Target Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) when the many comments in the public record on this DEIR have not been addressed? The records show the Safeway Gas Station and the other expansion projects for Alameda Towne Center projects have not been evaluated properly. Many comments received in October 2006 on the Target DEIR refer to the original 2003 Towne Center Expansion Projects. Appended to this document are comments from my letter of October 5, 2006, to the Planning Board President. To date, 1 have received no response to any of my comments. In addition, the City has not provided the Traffic Technical appendices to the 2003 and 2006 Traffic Study for the South Shore Expansion Projects 2003 MND and the 2006 Target DEIR. These appendices are typically included or are available for public review at City Hall. For the Safeway Gas Station MND, these Traffic Technical appendices were included and have been available for other Alameda development environmental documents to complete the record. For the South Shore Expansion Projects 2003 MND and 2006 DEIR, however, these appendices were kept at the consultant's offices and, until last Thursday, were not available for public review. 1 asked to review the Traffic Technical appendices in October 2006 (Comment #2) and, again, in a Public Record Request on March 20, 2007. A few weeks ago, when the records were finally made available, I was allowed to review a two -inch thick draft document at the Public Works De ,partment however was told this was not the latest version The omitted Traffic Technical appendices were needed in order to review the technical analyses. Please note that CEQA Public Resource Code 21168.9 states the following. 21168. Any action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul a determination, finding, or decision of a public agency, made as a result of a proceeding in which by law a hearing is required to be given, evidence is required to be taken and discretion in the determination of facts is vested in a public agency, on the grounds of noncompliance with the provisions of this division shall be in accordance with the provisions of Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In any such action, the court shall not exercise its independent judgment on the evidence but shall only determine whether the act or decision is supported by substantial evidence in the light of the whole record. 21168.9. (a) If a court finds, as a result of a trial, hearing, or remand from an appellate court, that any determination, finding, or decision of a public agency has been made without compliance with this division, the court shall enter an order that includes one or more of the following: (1) A mandate that the determination, finding, or decision be voided by the public agency, in whole or in part. (2) If the court finds that a specific project activity or activities will prejudice the consideration or implementation of particular mitigation measures or alternatives to the project, a mandate that the public agency and any real parties in interest suspend any or all specific project activity or activities, pursuant to the determination, finding, or decision, that could result in an adverse change or alteration to the physical environment, until the public agency has taken any actions that may be necessary to bring the determination, finding, or decision into compliance with this division.(3) A mandate that the public agency take specific action as may be necessary C :ITTEIProposals1268 l Alameda TargetlGas Sta Call for Review June 05 071Ltr to Alameda City Council Gas Stationr MND-6-5-07.docx - 7 - Last saved: 6/5/2007 4 :56:00 PM June 5, 2007 Question 5: How can the Safeway Gas Station MND reasonably conclude that cumulative traffic conditions, with the additional 12,627 vehicle trips per day, would have no significant impact at the study intersections? The conclusion that almost 13,000 vehicles per day would have no impact on surrounding roadways is not realistic or accurate, based on current levels of traffic. In my letter of October 2006, I identified many areas of concern and potential incorrect assumptions used. !also made suggestions to correct the underlying assumptions and calculations. The MND should reflect the traffic conditions that exist today, plus the added traffic impacts associated with the Towne Center Expansion Project. By approving this report, the Council would be ignoring the extensive concerns raised by the Alameda citizens in October 2006, as well as my own professional engineering judgment. Question 6: I f Council approves the Gas Station MND, does it also approve the impacts associated with the Town Center Expansion, accepting the contention that there are no significant impacts associated with the Target proposal at the intersections surrounding the shopping center and at the intersections within the shopping center? The answer to this question is "yes" for the intersection within the shopping center and for the intersections surrounding the Shopping Center. Fact Page one of the June 27, 2006, Technical Memorandum from Peter Galloway, of Omni Means and appended to the Gas Station MND, states: "It is noted that this analysis relies on recent transportation work conducted for the proposed Alameda Towne Center Project". (Omni Means Engineers and Planners, Transportation and Circulation Impacts for the Proposed Alameda Towne Center, City of Alameda, Final Draft Report April 26, 2006.) This Omni Means report further states: "This analysis builds on previous transportation work already completed for the previous expansion proposal in 2003." (Omni Means consultants report on Transportation and Parking Impacts for the Proposed South Shore Shopping Center Expansion, City of Alameda, 2003).' The Safeway Gas Station Mitigated Negative Declaration states, on page 45 and page 46, the following (respectively): The Baseline Condition plus Project Intersection Operation: The TIA concludes that all the study intersections operate at Levels of Service D or better during all surveyed time periods, with the exception of Park and North Driveway intersection. The study intersections are the intersections surrounding the site such as 1) OtislPark, 2) Otis/Trader Joe, 3)Otis /Of ficeMax, 4)Park/North Driveway, and 5)Shoreline /Post Once. The old Catellus Development Project is 1 Page 1, first paragraph, Appendix B Traffic Study. C:1TTE\Proposals12681 Alameda Target\Gas Sta CaII for Review June 05 071Ltr to Alameda City Council Gas Stationr MND-- 6- 5- 07.docx - 8 - Last saved: 615/2007 4:56:00 PM June 5, 2007 included in this old baseline and staff assumed that the majority of the Target store was approved in the Traffic Study in the 2003 MND. The Cumulative 2025 No Project Intersection Operation: The TIA (Traffic Impact Assessment) concludes that intersection operation will be acceptable at all five study intersections (Levels of Service D or better) during weekday, am and pm peak hour and weekend mid day peak hour time periods. This conclusion includes the projected traffic from the Alameda Towne Center expansion project. In essence, if Council approves the Gas MND, then it also certifies the environmental analyses for the Target Project based on the inclusion of the Target Project in the baseline conditions and in the Cumulative No Project Conditions at the five intersections surrounding the Towne Center Shopping Center. (Note in the baseline Consultant assumed 90,000 square feet of the Target Store from the 2003 MND and assumed 49000 square feet for the Target Store expansion to 139,000 square foot from the 2006 DEI R ) I spoke with Stu Flashman on Monday, June 4, 2007. Mr. Flashman is an attorney who specializes in CEQA policies and whom, 1 understand, was the lead attorney for the CEQA litigation between Alameda and Oakland Chinatown. Mr. Flashman stated that, when foreseeable projects such as the Towne Center Expansion Project and Target are evaluated for cumulative conditions —or in the baseline for another project's environmental document, such as the Safeway Gas Station MND—if approved, the City Council also approves the environmental analyses of these foreseeable projects for the scenarios evaluated. In the case of the Safeway Gas Station MND, the Council would approve the finding of "no significant traffic impacts" for the Towne Center Expansion Projects, including Target, for the five intersections or roadways surrounding and inside the shopping center. This occurs from the simple inclusion of the baseline and cumulative traffic data that includes these projects. Truck access, as shown in the Wheel Path Plan developed and as shown on Plan TRK -1 Tanker Path and Vehicle Queuing Diagram, does not show any wheel path tolerances for tanker trucks. The consultant failed to use the civil engineering standard of care when developing site plans and determining vehicle wheel path for appropriate clearances, or in determining roadway modifications. The plan illustrates that the consultant draftman used software such as Transoft's software Autoturn . However, the user and the plan checker failed to understand that this tool does NOT include roadway tolerances needed to account for driver variability, roadway conditions, path difficulty or dynamic movement of the vehicles on their suspension systems. As a result, the rubber of the wheel is shown to rub the face of the westerly curb along the Office Max driveway, the tires rub against the face of the islands at the end of the parking aisles, and so forth. (See exhibit below.) C :ITTE1Proposals1268 l Alameda TargetlGas Sta Call for Review June 05 07\Ltr to Alameda City Council Gas Stationr MND-- 6- 5- 07.docx - 9 - Last saved: 6/5/2007 4 :56:00 PM June 5, 2007 ._C No truck wheel path tolerance provided • No truck wheel path tolerance provided Below are excerpts from the Transoft AutoTurn Program Limitations: The user is responsible for applying engineering judgment in interpreting and using program results. Familiarity with the software and its limitations is therefore important to ensure that the results produced by the software are applied appropriately. Use of Design Guidelines AutoTURN is not intended to be a source for design information. The software must be used in conjunction with the most currently available design guidelines for the local jurisdiction. Interpretation of Program Results AutoTURN is primarily a kinematic model, meaning that it does not account for the forces resulting from vehicle inertia or road surface conditions other than dry pavement.AutoTURN produces geometrically idealized results that may be difficult to replicate exactly under actual field driving and road conditions. A successfully run AutoTURN simulation does NOT suggest that all drivers can follow the defined path in real conditions, NOR does it imply that other driveable paths between the desired start and end positions are not possible. For the above reasons, AutoTURN results should be used conservatively, with ample allowances added for clearances between vehicle tire track or swept path envelopes and road edges or obstructions. Both Mr. Stefanick who prepared the plan is a draftman, not an engineer. Mr. Ferko who checked and approved the plan for the consultant firm, is not a licensed in either Washington where he resides and works from and is not licensed in the State of California. Fact The unlicensed consultant engineer and unlicensed public works engineer provided study and recommendations of roadway modifications and developed an engineering site plan. The California Business and Professions Code for Professional Engineers requires that individuals who make recommendations for fixed works within a city's infrastructure must be licensed in civil engineering by the California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, a division of the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Pertinent sections of the code are provided below. California Professional Engineers Act, as amended January 1 2000. Section 6730. states the following: C:1TTE\Proposals1268 I Alameda TargettGas Sta Call for Review June 05 071Ltr to Alameda City Council Gas Stationr MND-- 6- 5- 07.docx - 10 - Last saved: 6/5/2007 4:56:00 PM June 5, 2007 In order to safeguard life, health, property and public welfare, any person, either in a public or private capacity, except as stated in this chapter... who practices, or offers to practice, evil engineering... shall be registered accordingly as a civil engineer... Section 6731 of the Act provides the definition of civil engineering Civil Engineering embraces the following studies or activities in connection with fixed works for irrigation, drainage, waterpower, water supply, flood control... municipal improvements... highways. Section 6731 states. further. Civil engineering also indudes city and regional planning insofar as any of the above features are concerned therein. Section 6787 states the following: Every person is guilty of a misdemeanor... a) Who... practices civil engineering ...without a license (See California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors website.) Correction: All study and recommendations for changes in roadway configurations and traffic control devices must be performed under the responsible charge of a licensed civil engineer with experience in traffic engineering. The engineer(s) in charge must sign all reports. Corrective Action: City Council to direct City Stan to hire a licensed Civil Engineer whose task would be to redo the vehicle path analyses and site plan, and determine other solutions, as necessary. C :1TTE1Proposals12681 Alameda Target\Gas Sta Call for Review June 05 071Ltr to Alameda City Council Gas Stationr MND-- 6- 5.07.dooc - 11 - Last saved: 6/5/2007 4:56:00 PM October 5th, 2006 Mr. Patrick Lynch, President City of Alameda Planning Board Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, California 95401 Reference: Target Store—Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Subject Comments Related to Traffic and Parking Dear President Lynch and Members of the Board: This letter and the comments that follow represent a true grassroots appeal to the City of Alameda Planning Board on two fronts. The first and most immediate appeal is a petition to the Board to undertake a new, reality- based study of the traffic impacts of the proposed Target store at Alameda Towne Centre. The second, underlying appeal is a plea for the Board to adopt an open, transparent process when analyzing proposed developments on Alameda Island —a process that places citizens squarely at the center of every development debate; a process that recognizes that the very purpose of city government is to respond to the concerns of its citizens; a process that emphasizes the '`public" in the term "public servant." Like most people, 1 think you will agree that plain talk is where truth resides. Instinctively, we are wary of what we don't understand. We are cautious about accepting as truth that which we cannot confirm for ourselves. Most of us know that, when the facts are on our side, there is no need to bury them in complexity. The truth can withstand the sunshine of public scrutiny. At the request of a group of Alameda citizens, 1 have just completed an exhaustive review of the Traffic Study embodied in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed Target - Alameda Towne Centre store. Why was I asked to evaluate this document, which supposedly was created for public consumption? Quite simply, 1 was asked because the citizens themselves were stymied by the sheer volume and intricacy of this daunting, two -inch- thick, techno -speak volume. Even as a licensed civil and traffic engineer, understanding the basis for the report's conclusions required three full days of intense scrutiny to fully understand the traffic impacts on neighborhood streets. The citizens who asked me to review the Traffic Study were motivated by one, simple, common -sense question: How can a project of this magnitude have zero impact on traffic in the surrounding area, as the report concludes? H:ITTESerrer\Proposals126$ r Alameda T argecUPackage :o CatylLtr to Alameda Planning Board re Target - -Qct 5. 2006 aoc Last ,ate: 015,2006 3:4 PM October 2, 2006 There is a simple answer to that question: The Traffic Study in the DEIR did not evaluate the traffic impacts of a 1 45,000 square-foot Target store, as proposed by the developers. That's right the DER incorrectly considered only the traffic and parking impacts associated with 49,100 square feet of generic shopping center area, which accounts for only one -third the actual size of the proposed Target store. The report rationalizes using this absurdly low figure by stating that the City already approved an additional 95,900 square feet of shopping area for the center in 2003. The problem with this rationale is that the 2003 Traffic Study did not involve a Target store, which is a major regional draw. In fact, the addition of the Target store would bring the total area of the shopping center to 706,000 square feet. At that size, Alameda Towne Centre would no longer be a neighborhood shopping center, but a regional mall. According to Target's own consultants, nearly two - thirds of the proposed Target store's customer base is located in Oakland, and one -third in Alameda. The fact is that there is no mall comparable within five miles of the proposed Target - Alameda Towne Centre. The Traffic Study included in the 2006 DEIR is not reality - based. In fact, many of the assumptions that were used to form its conclusion of zero traffic impact are flatly wrong. As traffic engineers, we cannot foretell the future with absolute accuracy, so we base our projections on a variety of assumptions about potential traffic impacts. Each of these assumptions involves a range of values that we assign, based on the nature of the project. The vast majority of the time, the values fall in the middle of the range. Time after time, the consultants who conducted the 2006 Traffic Study assigned the lowest possible value to the assumptions used for the proposed Target store project. They did this with respect to defining the project type and size, baseline conditions, traffic counts, trip generation, trip distribution and impact analyses. With respect to trip generation alone, the consultants used the lowest available trip rates, while other rates were 100% higher. For traffic counts, the consultants plugged in numbers taken at a time when the shopping center's sales were down 30 %. Thomson Transportation Engineers (TTE) and Traffic Data Services (TDS) conducted engineering field surveys at the key intersection of Otis Drive and Park Street. These engineering field surveys illustrated an amazing finding. The Traffic Study grossly underestimated the congestion that the proposed Target store would generate in future years. This finding illustrates perfectly how misleading the results can be when minimal assumptions are used One has to wonder. Why were the lowest -range assumptions used repeatedly? Was it simply that neither the consultant engineer who prepared the Traffic Study, nor the engineer from the City, were licensed civil engineers with experience in traffic engineering, as required by California state law? Neither 1, nor the citizens who asked me to review the Traffic Study, are against having a Target store on Alameda Island. A retail store of the magnitude of the proposed Target should not be located on the beach, however, where vehicles must travel through surrounding neighborhoods to get to their destination. Typically, Target stores are located on four- to six -lane arterials near freeways. Preferable locations for a Target store would be nearer the estuary, or closer to either Interstate 880 or Interstate 580 -- --all of which would be more central locations within the Target trade area. The simple truth is that the Target - Alameda Towne Centre project has not been evaluated properly. A new, reality -based Traffic Study is needed in order to give the citizens of Alameda a clear picture of the traffic impacts 2 /�� .-1 `,17 tier \PrcposasS \26$ ! Aiame T rget�.Package L.c CIty1Lu cc Tamed? Planning a0.71-cl ' mar "gci C 5 2� ,aD{ - 1 - .13s Sn.i'd I o ;S,2OO6 3 4 PM October 2, 2006 of the project on our community, particularly those who live along Broadway and in the neighborhoods adjacent to the project. In a larger sense, it simply should not be this difficult for the public to get accurate information and straightforward answers about a proposed development project. The process of evaluating projects such as this one should facilitate public involvement, not obstruct it. Reports like the Traffic Study in the Target - Alameda Towne Centre DEIR breed distrust. The DEIR and other professional reviews need not be convoluted and overwhelming, as the DEIR is at more than 465 pages. They Y should not require an engineering degree to understand. Reports like this one can and should be simple, direct and concise. They should reduce complex technical terms to layman's language. They should be fact -based and reality- based. The citizens of Alameda deserve no less. They believe, and rightfully so, that plain talk is where truth resides. The bottom line is that traffic doesn't impact roadways; it impacts people. It impacts quality of life. The attached comments clearly indicate the need for a new reality based Traffic Study for the entire Target Project. Respectfully, Eugenie P. Thomson P.E., PTOE Consulting Civil and Traffic Engineer eptlept Attachments: Comments to the Traffic Study and Exhibits 1-11 ' I rM 1 T 3 rverlP. Dosaks' }6$ , Alameda � arger`Fac cage cU Crtyu. r co Alameda ?Pa�nntng Board .e Target - -Oa 2006.00c - 3 - .ast ,aver 0/5,2006 3.4. aM October 2, 2006 COMMENTS BY THOMSON TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS (TTE) Traffic Study for Proposed Target Store Alameda Towne Centre (formerly South Shore Shopping Center) 1. A Target store is not evaluated in this DEIR. Factual Data: Although the total area of the proposed Target store would be approximately 145 0 PP Y 00 square feet, the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) considers only traffic and parking impacts associated with 49,100 square feet of shopping center area. The DEIR states that the 49,100 s uare -foot square was used because an additional 95,900 s feet q q e eet � 1 45,000 minus 49, ! 00 — 95,900} of shopping area was already approved by the City in 2003. Also, the new gas station proposed for the site of the now- vacant U.S Bank building, was excluded from the DEIR. The DEIR does not evaluate the environmental impact of the entire . The (emphasis em hasis added P ) required analysis must take into account the entire Target store, the three -story parkin e, two new parking renovation of the "smaller structures," the proposed gas station and any other "reasonably foreseeable future expansion" of the "project." The 2006 DEIR P ! merely looks at the effects of bits and pieces of the "project" The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) regulations define the term "project" roject" to mean "the whole of...the underlying activity being approved." (14 Cal. Code Regs., Sec. 1 5375 (a), (c)- (d)). I understand the courts have interpreted the term "project" broadly in order to maximize protection of the environment I do not believe that CEQA regulations can be avoided by chopping PP g u P proposed projects into bite -sized pieces that, when considered separately, might indicate no significant effect on the environment. Those who prepared the 2006 DEIR attempted to justify the exclusion of 112,000 square feet from their analysis on the basis that this square footage had already been considered and mitigated to a "less than significant level" in the 2003 Mitigated Negative Declaration. This is an attempt at impermissible "tiering" P g or "piggy- backing." When appropriate, tiering allows agencies to analyze broad environmental issues in a "first- tier" environmental impact report (EIR ), followed by a detailed examination of Specific, limited issues in a "second- tier" environmental document. The first-tier document must be an EIR. (Pub. Res., Sec. 21094 (a); 14 Cal. Code Regs., Sec. 15152(d)). In this case, the first document is a Negative Declaration, not an EIR. Further, as shown in the following pages, the 2003 proposal (112,000 square feet of shopping center space) did not use the correct traffic criteria for a Target store and grossly underestimated the base conditions. When the 2003 study is corrected, it reveals an impact at the major intersection of Otis Drive and Park Street that may not be possible to mitigate. Recommended Corrective Action: In order to measure traffic and parking impacts accurately, the DEIR r-I'',TTEServer\Pr oposars∎268, Alarnec3 TargenP3ocige tc Alamec Planning Marn :s;' [ - -O ; 5.2006.ic. - 4 - �,� ;,,,,tom 0/5; 2006 3.4 � ^ October 2, 2006 must evaluate the entire Target store's proposed total area of 1 45,000 square feet, plus parking garage, e, � restaurants, gas station and renovations of smaller structures. 2. The current Traffic Study builds on previous work, however, the DEIR did not include a copy of the previous Traffic Study for public review and comment. Further, the DEIR did not include the traffic intersection levels -of- service analyses for the current Traffic Study. Y Factual Data The Traffic Study in the DEIR's Appendix states, '`This analysis builds on previous transportation work already completed for the previous expansion proposal in 2003." (Omni Means Consultant's Report on the Transportation and Parking Impacts for the Proposed South Shore Shopping Center Expansion, City of Alameda, 2003). Missing Data A DEIR that bases its conclusions primarily on data from a previous study should include those data in the DEIR or make the previous data available to the public, along with the DEIR. Also, the Traffic Study in the April 2006 DEIR excludes both the levels -of- service analyses sheets and the traffic counts. An interested citizen, Dorothy Reid, obtained a copy of the 2003 Draft Traffic Study from the City and provided it to TTE. The pages in the study that should have provided the above data were blank, making it impossible for TTE to perform a review of the traffic volumes associated with the 2003 proposal. The failure to disclose pertinent information in an EIR usually is considered prejudicial.2 Correction of Data The City. (a) failed to include the 2003 Traffic Study in the DEIR; (b) failed to provide a complete copy to the public when it was requested; and (c) failed to include the traffic counts and traffic intersection levels -of- service analyses in the publicly distributed copy of the April 2006 DEIR's Traffic Study. Accordingly, the City should re- circulate the DEIR and re- notice the DEIR for another 45 -day public review period. 3. More Oakland residents than Alameda residents are likely to shop at the proposed Target store. Keyser Marston Associates' Urban Decay Report (Appendix D of the DEIR) states that 18,500 Alameda households and 32,100 Oakland households (with household incomes consistent with Target's customer demographics) are located within the Target trade area of three to five miles from the proposed Target - Alameda Towne Centre. According to those figures, as much as 64% of the new Target store's traffic could come from across the estuary. Page 1. first paragraph. Appendix B Traffic Study. 2 See Protect the Historic Waterways v Amador Water Agency (2004) l 16 Cai. App. 4' 1099, 106. An EIR must include underlying technical data so readers can evacuate the conclusions: technical aata may relegate to appendices. (Guidelines Section 15147; Sorg Franciscans for Reosonobie Growth v City and County of San Francisco [ 1987) 193, App. 3d 1544.): Source: William Kopper, Attorney at Law. letter to Kraig Tambornini of City of Santa Rosa, comments to Draft FIR for Wal -Mart Store, dated February 8. 2006. Copy of letter can be obtained from City of Santa Rosa website. h:,T?E_Srrer'.rnrcoosais 26g: Aiamed2 TargetlPsdrage Crty\Ltr rU Aiarnetizi planning 3azyrm — argot - -O- 5. 20Cfra mix - 5 - ,�sr �.rva� OZ'S 2006 3:4 .Dr'' Number of Households within the Target income range in Oakland and Alameda and within 3 to 5 miles of a Target at Towne Center 32 100 64% 18.200 36% October 2, 2006 ® A lameaa • Oakianc Keyser Marston Associates, which prepared the Urban Decay Report for the DEIR, defined the Target trade area as including Alameda Island and (for areas off of Alameda Island) 1 -980 to the west, 1 -580 toward the hills, and Hegenberger Road to the south. Using MSN Maps software, TTE checked travel times from various locations to both Alameda and Oakland. We found that it would take consistently less time to travel from the Oakland locations to the proposed Target - Alameda Towne Centre, as opposed to the Target store in San Leandro. Thus, it is reasonably foreseeable that the 32,100 households in Oakland account for approximately two - thirds of the customers who will shop at the proposed Target store at Towne Centre. :may ~a oa z Targe;Tr3 -qe af�` 4a dioki= � Ofl ho s.ehblds aSan Loanoro .,'`.77.,Server'?rc*os3Is\268: AlamEM Target•Pcxage t C' y Lu Zc Aiamecz Planning Ruap•a -e target - -Ott S 2006 icc - 6 - 0[5:2006 3 4 �►"' October 2, 2006 Correction of Data The DEIR should address the traffic impacts assuming up that to 67% of the traffic traveling to and from the proposed Target -Towne Centre will originate off - island. 4. The traffic impact assessment is based on existing traffic counts that were obtained at a time when the shopping center's sales were low. Factual Data: The Traffic Study states that 2002 existing traffic counts were used for four intersections, three of which are on Otis Drive and one on Park Street. For the remaining nine intersections selected for the study, traffic counts were taken during 2005. In 2002, the shopping center was not fully occupied due to the anticipated renovation. In 2005, the center was under construction and only partially occupied. City of Alameda sales tax data illustrates clearly that the shopping center's sales were 22% and 31% lower in 2002 and 2005 than durin g the center's peak periods. For example, no gas station was onsite in 2005. (See the table below, which uses City of Alameda data to compare sales tax receipts for South Shore Center over a ten -year P eriod.) SOUTH SHORE CENTER HIGHEST SALES TAX COMPARISON BY ECONOMIC SEGMENTS /SALES TAXES/YEAR Highest Year ECONOMIC SEGMENT Sales Tax Year 2002 DEPARTMENT STORES FOOD MARKETS MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL RESTAURANTS APPAREL STORES DRUG STORES OFFICE EQUIPMENT RECREATION PRODUCTS FURNITURE/APPLIANCE LIQUOR STORES BUSINESS SERVICES AUTO PARTS /REPAIR FLORIST /NURSERY MISCELLANEOUS OTHER BLDG.MATLS -WHSLE LIGHT INDUSTRY MISC. VEHICLE SALES SERVICE STATIONS TOTALS 5300, 562 5204,915 5197.266 5139.570 5159,923 561,065 559.168 S27 142 512.256 55.577 519,044 5950 51,635 557 51.010 5704 50 569.954 1996 2005 2000 2003 1996 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 1998 2002 1997 2000 1996 1997 5235.377 5168, 830 5182, 337 5123.838 5109.377 557,222 554.953 522.678 58.772 55.025 52.033 5950 5684 $42 50 SO 5D 1996 556.428 $1,260,198 $1,028,546 Source City of wameaa Sates Taxes ;10 year comparison; Differences 2002 to Highest Percent Year Change - 565.185 - 536.085 -514.929 - 515.732 - 550.546 - 53.843 -54,215 - 54.464 - 53.484 -5552 -517.011 50 -5951 -515 - 51.010 -5704 50 - 513.526 2005 Differences 2005 to Highest Percent Year Change 5223.614 - 576.948 5204.915 50 5146.576 - 550.690 5121 516 - $18.054 596.243 - 563.680 561.065 50 559 168 50 527 142 50 51 2.256 50 55.577 50 52.303 - 516.741 5719 -5231 5570 - 51.065 535 -522 50 - S1.010 50 -5704 50 50 dhff 50 - $69,954 dhff - $232,252 -22.58 I $961,699 4299,099 - 31.10%, The 2002 traffic volumes used in the study encompassed the following four Intersections: Ot,slOffice Max driveway. Otis/Trader Joe's driveway. Otis Drive/Park Street. Park Street/northern project dnveway. r;',7?Een►er\Proposals1268 Alameda, Targer\Pzci< age to CitygLtr rc Aarne:0;: Planning oar-a ' - ,rger - -3r S. 200& odor - 7 - �s r s wec ' 0/5/2C06 3 arm+ October 2, 2006 5. The existing traffic counts from the year 2002 are more than four years old, and the P eak hour selected may not reflect peak traffic on a typical Saturday. The 2002 traffic count is more than four years old and does not represent the through travel on streets adjacent to the center that occurs today. The counts were obtained for the period between 4:00 P .m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays, and between 11:00 a.m. and 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays, when shopping activities are not always at their peak. Taking traffic counts during the time of the day when shopping typically is slow would produce a very low existing traffic data condition —not a true representation of the existing conditions. The graph from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual clearly illustrates that the Saturday peak occurs mid- to late- afternoon, not between Noon and 1:00 p.m. Unlike many years ago, Saturdays today generate very high traffic conditions. Because of the proliferation of families in which both adults are employed outside of the home, Saturdays have become the primary time when many households run errands and perform day -to -day tasks. As a result, traffic peaking characteristics are different from years past. Whereas Noon to 1:00 p.m. once was the peak, today, the peak occurs later on Saturday afternoon. Shopping Trip distribution throughout a Saturday Percent Exiting Traffic of Total 24 Hour Entering Traffic for S.0 More than 300.000 sf of Gross Leasable Area (Per ITE) `0 2 0 a as ▪ 10 0 Q. a 80 c w ', 4 0 0- 10 00 11 00 12 00 1 00 2 00 3 00 4 00 5 00 6 00 ' 00 8 00 5 00 A M A M PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM PM Hour Beginning Target's own manual ,ndreates that the peak operation on a Saturday is between 3:700 and 4 :_00 p.rn. H. TEtServer +ProposaQ6$ Alameaz Target,Prcxagc to Crtyi_tr rc Aiarnea :: Board r cier -a: :5 2006 act • 8 - .15r s?v &• &S, 200 3.4 °M October 2, 2006 Correction of Data: At minimum, given the size and potential impact of the proposed Target store, new traffic counts must be completed. b. The consultant applied a reduction of 10% in the calculation of vehicle trips for the project. According to the study, this was done to account for "passerby" trips. A "passerby" trip is defined as a vehicle already traveling west on Otis Drive and being diverted to the store by the project. What is misleading is that many, if not a majority, of these "passerby" vehicles actually would add trips to the intersections and would not reduce the number of trips, as stated in the report. Consider the following: Rather than traveling west on Otis Drive, straight through the intersection of the Office Max driveway and Otis Drive, a passerby vehicle stopping at the proposed Target store would make a westbound left turn at the Office Max driveway /Otis Drive intersection and then travel into the Target parking lot or garage. When leaving the store, this vehicle would make a northbound left turn out of the shopping center at the Office Max driveway /Otis Drive intersection and continue traveling westbound on Otis Drive. Thus, in TTE's opinion, the proposed project would add two new left -turn vehicle trips to this intersection that do not occur today, and would eliminate a westbound through trip at the intersection. It should be noted that these left --turn movements are more significant than a through movement due to the limited capacity of left -turn lanes. This project would add these passerby vehicles to the critical volume at these intersections. Therefore. we do not understand how the vehicle trips in the area can be reduced for this project as a result of passerby vehicles going into the new store. Clearly, the passerby reduction should not have been applied to the project driveway or nearby intersections. Two new lefts tstead of single thrcugrr passer by trrp. H ATT= �erver\.Proposals \26$ i Aiamed:- Target',Paocage to City,J- cc Aiarnm:, lrnrn,N Boars _ argot -_Oct 5 2006 (Doc - 9 - �.�s� 5,�ve�c O. 2006 3.4 PM October 2, 2006 Correction of Data: TTE recommends that the consultant modify the traffic generation accordingly for the intersections contiguous to the project site. 7. The Traffic Study grossly underestimates trip rates that were used in the calculations to estimate the traffic to and from the proposed Target store. Factual Data Due to only estimating traffic generation for 49,100 square feet and using very low traffic trip generation rates, the Traffic Study states that 127 vehicle trips per hour would be added midday on a typical Saturday. At the same time, Keyser Marston Associates projects that the proposed Target store would produce a very high level of sales ($45 million per year) and would serve 900,000 customers per year. Clearly, there is a disconnect between the Keyser Marston Associates Urban Decay Report estimates (DEIR Appendix D) and the Traffic Study estimates (DEIR Appendix 3). First, the consulting firm that produced the DER drastically reduced the actual square footage, using only 49,100 square feet of gross leasable area upon which to perform the impact assessment. Second, the firm used an extremely low existing traffic count database. Third, the consultant applied an invalidated, extremely low trip rate to project the total trips to be generated by the proposed Target store. In essence, at each step of the traffic analysis, the consultant used very low values. For example, for the weekday afternoon peak hour, the consulting firm used the lowest trip rate for shopping centers from the 1TE Trip Generation Manual (2.9 vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet of floor area for the 49,100 gross square feet of area, and 2.25 vehicle trip ends per 1,000 square feet for the previous 112,000 gross square feet of area and used in the baseline condition). The study did not indicate that this 1TE rate for shopping centers varies from a low 0.68 to a high of 29.27 vehicle trip ends per weekday afternoon peak hour per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (GFA). Neither did the study indicate that this 1TE vehicle trip rate has a high standard deviation of 2.75. Finally, the study did not consider the 1TE Trip Generation Manual's trip generation rates for discount stores. (Please refer to the graph below for a comparison of Trip generation rates.) The additional 49,100 square feet of retail space would add 67 vehicles entering and 60 vehrcies exiting during the peak our on a Saturday. Source Table 4, page 25, Traffic Study in Appendix 8. 2 See page 4. Urban Decay Study. Appendix D. DEIR. y17- erver:Propcsalsi2b$, Auer d2 '"argetiPscxage tc Crty\L. tc Alam,s. Plann,ng 2,oarc L :,, get - -OLt S. 2006 a x. - I 0 - a S. 2006 3 a . DNA 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 October 2, 2006 Comparison of Trip Rates Target Store- Alameda Towne Center to Free - Standing Discount Stores, Wal -marts and Shoppping Centers (Vehicle Trip ends/ Weekday PM Peak Hour /1000 Square Feet of Gross Floor Area ) Minimum Average Or Used 9.23 Maximum Previous 112.000 Sq Ft of Retail at Town Center Table 2 Estimates for Baseline. DER —IF— Target Store at Alameda Town Center DE1R ---- -- Institute of Transportation Engineers. Freestanding Discount Stores 1Naimarts (2003; institute of Transportation Engineers. Shopping Centers Correction of Data: The standard of care in the traffic engineering industry is to validate the Institute of Transportation Engineers research by factoring local characteristics and specific types of stores into the traffic analysis. For example, a Target store impacts shopping center traffic much differently than does a Macy's store. Moreover, adjustments need to be made for the fact that many of the ITE shopping center rates were collected during the 1960s and 1980s. In addition, ITE's discount store rate should be considered. In order to validate the trip generation rates to be used, the consultant must perform actual field surveys of existing Target stores to determine the vehicle trip generation rate and perform surveys of the existing shopping center. H'`TTE rver'Proposais`,2b$' Afaneda Targer,Pcxage to City'Ur to AIam Ga Planning Bcurc r "e :irge - -O r S. 2006104- - 11 - _u r! 3vpc' D5.20063.4, PM October 2, 2006 8. A comparison of existing traffic counts with future traffic counts illustrates another unusual finding: The existing traffic entering and exiting the shopping center is as much as 30% less than the Traffic Study projects at full build -out of the shopping center. How is that possible? Factual Data Figure 2B illustrates that the total traffic entering and leaving the shopping center at some point between 2002 and 2005 equals 3 936 vehicles per hour on a Saturday midday peak. Table 4 illustrates the total traffic entering and leaving the shopping center at 706,647 square feet (i.e., full build - out with Target) equals 2,77,7 vehicles per hour on a Saturday midday peak. Correction of Data The consultant should re -count all the intersections and verify the rates for the existing shopping center to correct this significant error. (See graph below and Attachment A for figures and tables from the Traffic Study.) Vehicles Per Hour Comparison of Traffic Data in Traffic Study for Saturday Midday Peak hour. Existing Total Traffic Build Out Total Entering and Exiting Traffic Entering and Shopping Center Exiting Shopping derived from 2005 Center With Project aria 2002 counts Towne Center at Figure 2B 706 647 sq ft Taale 4 r i:..TT ver\Proposals1268 Alameda T arger,Padkage tc City\Lcr Aiarneoa Pianong Board r t 'arg [ - -Oa S. 2006.ncr - I 2 - sr s]vc , 0;5.2006 3.4. PM October 2, 2006 9. The report states that vehicle access patterns would not change from the p revious 2003 proposal.' TTE was unable to review this, however, due to the lack of traffic data from the previous Traffic Study in the DEIR. Fact It is likely that traffic patterns will change dramatically with multi -level parking versus a large, one- level parking lot. Also, parking space beneath the proposed Target would increase the entries and exits at the west end of the shopping center significantly. Missing Data The consultant should demonstrate that the new traffic generated by the proposed Target and the new garage across from Office Max, would not dramatically change traffic patterns as stated in the DEIR. 10. The Traffic Study does not consider impacts along Otis Drive, Broadway, Willow Street, Bayview and other residential streets that customers would use to access the shopping center. Fact: The Traffic Study performs levels -of- service or impact analyses at only the intersections contiguous to the shopping center site, plus the four Otis Drive intersections with Broadway, Willow, Grand and High Streets. No impact assessment is included with respect to the difficulties residents could encounter when backing out of their driveways or, for example, waiting for a gap in traffic to make a left turn off of westbound San Jose Avenue onto southbound Broadway (Le., toward Otis Drive). Also, residents living along Otis Drive between Willow Street and High Street could have difficulties backing out of their driveways with the increased traffic. Neither the 2003 Traffic Study nor the 2006 Traffic Study addressed potential impacts to these residents. Missing Data: All streets leading to and from the shopping center need to be considered for potential delays due to the likely increase in traffic volumes. Last paragraph on page 1, Traffic Study. Appendix B .-1'`? ESCNer\Pro7osalski6$ ; Alamect5 Thrgetadage to CICy\Lc. to Aiam6.1:: ;Gard L Target-Oct S 2006 dCk' - I 3 . is[ 5;fveti a S. }006 3-4, r' , October 2, 2006 1 1. The High Street/Otis Drive intersection is excluded from the 2003 Traffic Stud y and Mitigated Negative Declaration. The 2003 Traffic Study does not check for j roect impacts p p at the intersection of High Street and Otis Drive. Neither this omission, nor other impacts and needs, were addressed as part of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. They require a reassessment of the 112,000 gross floor area approved in 2003. Levels of Service Comparison at key Intersections between 2006 and 2003 Traffic Study April 2006 Traffic Study ` Intersection . Willow Otis Drive Broadway Otis Drive High St Otis Drive 22 3/C Saturday Midday Peak Baseline 26 4/C 24.5/C 23 1/C Baseline plus Project Yr 2025 Cumulati ve without Project Yr 2025 Cumulati ve with Project 26 7/C 28.210 128.4/C 35.710 ` 41.6/0 * 43.9/D 24.5/0 430.3/0 30.5/C 23 2/C 25.8/0 26.2/C Existing Base 15.8/B 15.91C 45.9/D -746.0/D Saturday Middax_ Peak Yr 2020 Cumulati Yr 202 Baseline ve Cumin ptus without ve witt Baseline Project Project Proiec 9.8/A n/a 18.6/0 n/a 18 9/B n/a 45/D 48/D 19.2/B n/a n/a n/a not available, intersection not evaluated page 44 of 2003 Traffic Report the mitigation is a dedicated southbound right turn lane 150 feet long Source: Omni Means Traffic Study April 21.2006 and Traffic Study. April 10. 2003 12. The 2003 Traffic Study states, incorrectly, that the intersections of Otis Drive and Willow Street, and Broadway and Otis Drive, would have shorter delays in the year 2020 than today, as determined in the 2006 Traffic Study. Fact According to the current DEIR, the existing delay at the intersection of Otis Drive and Willow Street is 26.1 seconds per vehicle. This is 59% greater than the delay predicted for this intersection for the Year 2020 Cumulative with Project condition in the 2003 Traffic Study. Similarly, according to the current 2006 Traffic Study, the Otis and Broadway intersection has more delay today than the Year 2020 Cumulative scenario in the 2003 Traffic Study. That cannot be correct considering that today, Towne Centre has only 300,000 square feet of shopping area, while it will have 706,000 square feet total at build - out. dearly, this invalidates the previous study. (See table above and Attachment B for tables from both studies.) Correction of Data These errors indicate that the base data on which the project of 112,000 square feet was assessed in 2003 is incorrect. H•''TEr ver!Proposals 268 Aiameia Target i ckage :c C;ty \Lr- to Aiamcy3:, Punning aoa;-r] c T:,rgct - -3 1, 1006.aoc - J O, 5 O4b 3 i aV October 2, 2006 13. TTE field- measured delays at the shopping center today, with only 300,000 square feet of occupied space, reveal congestion at higher levels than those projected by the 2003 and 2006 traffic studies for total build -out of the center. This is the inevitable result of the consultants and city staff having used exclusively lowest -range assumptions in their analyses. Under the City's own CEQA criteria, it is likely that any increase in occupancy will result in significant impact at the intersection of Otis Drive and Park Street. Further, due to the right -of -way constraints and roadway geometry, it is unlikely that any significant impact could be mitigated at the major intersection of Otis Drive and Park Street. Corrective Action: A new Traffic Study must be conducted to correct mistakes in both the 2003 and 2006 studies. 14. The Traffic Study in the DEIR illustrates that the existing shopping center has a parking demand rate of 3.01 parking spaces per 1 ,000 square feet of floor area for one day in December 2002. Fact The parking demand rate of 3.01 parking spaces per 1,000 gsfa for a December peak, is not necessarily reasonable, for high traffic-generating stores such as grocery stores, Trader foes, Targets and Wal- Marts. TTE's surveys of Wal -Mart stores illustrate parking rates of more than four spaces per 1,000 gsfa for non - December peak and supply rates of approximately six parkin spaces per 1,000 gsfa. This is not to say that a Target store's parking demand and parking supply requirements are similar to those of a Wal- Mart store. The point is that existing Wal -Mart stores are experiencing parking demand rates that are significantly higher than four parking spaces per 1,000 gsfa for non - December days. Further, Wal -Marts are providing parking at much higher supply rates to accommodate peaks that occur around holidays such as December. Missing Data The 2006 Traffic Study relies on one survey conducted on one day in December 2002. This is insufficient; multiple surveys should be conducted on multiple days. The industry standard of care is to verify the parking demand and supply rates from research documents via field surveys at several comparable -sized Target stores during both non - December and December periods. In addition. multiple field surveys should be performed at the existing shopping center to verify current peak parking demand rates. Sales records should be checked to determine whether the days selected for the surveys would represent a reasonable activity level for the shopping center. The intent of this assessment is to determine whether any spillover parking or other parking impact would occur in the surrounding neighborhoods during peak traffic times at the shopping center. Currently, the demand at the beach illustrates heavy usage of the curbs along Shoreline Drive and other streets, as well as additional parking burden on Willow and in the neighborhoods to the west. Potential impacts in these areas should be evaluated as part of a comprehensive traffic analysis. TTE_Server\Propos ;i1s \26$ , Alameda Target\Paocage Cr ylLr; :c Alameda planning Boarc re Tar gc - -Oc 2006.dcx - ! 5 - —isc 5 :ived 0/5, 2006 October 2, 2006 15. The roadways to the site and the site plan need review, and modifications need to be made for pedestrian, bicycles, bus and truck access and circulation. Fact Sidewalks and bicycle lanes should be provided within the roadways to the site and on the site. For example, bicycle access via Otis Drive and Park Street is cumbersome due to a lack of bicycle lanes and narrow road widths near the intersection of Park and Otis. As a result, most bicyclists traveling to and from the east via Otis Drive, and north via Park Street, ride their bicycles on the sidewalks where children and senior citizens typically walk_ This could result in potential conflicts and should be resolved. Pedestrian and bicycle access from all directions and on the site should be evaluated and accommodated accordingly. Driveways are too narrow and result in total blockage when a bus or truck turn occurs. For example, at the intersection of the Whitehall driveway and Park Street, neither a bus nor a truck can make a right turn into the shopping center while a car is at the stop bar waiting to exit. Corrective Action: Roadway and site geometry needs to be modified for the implementation of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, and to accommodate the truck/bus turning movements. Decision sight lines should be checked for clear visibility for all pedestrians and bicycle traffic crossings. 16. The consultant who prepared the Traffic Study and the City of Alameda engineer who is referenced in the study do not have civil engineering licenses, as required by state law. Fact The unlicensed consultant engineer and unlicensed public works engineer provided study and recommendations of roadway modifications and performed signal warrant analyses. The California Business and Professions Codes for Professional Engineers requires that individuals who make recommendations for fixed works within a city's infrastructure must be licensed in civil engineering by the California Board of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors, a division of the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Pertinent sections of the code are provided below: California Professional Engineers Act, as amended January i , 2000, Section 6730, states the following: in order to safeguard life, health, property and public welfare, any person, either in a public or private capacity, except as stated in this chapter... who practices, or offers to practice, civil engineering... shall be registered accordingly as a civil engineer... Section 6731 of the Act provides the definition of civil engineering; Civil Engineering embraces the following studies or activities in connection with fixed works for irrigation, drainage, waterpower, water supply, flood control... municipal improvements... highways. Section 6731 states, further Civil engineering also includes city and regional planning insofar as any of the above features are concerned therein. Section 6787 states the following: Every person is guilty of a misdemeanor... a) Who... practices civil engineering ...without a license (See California Board for Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors website.) Correction: All study and recommendations for changes in roadway configurations and traffic control devices must be performed under the responsible charge of a licensed civil engineer with experience in traffic engineering. The engineer(s) in charge must sign all reports. ri:TrEserver}Propcsais`268; Alameda 3rget'.P3c age to City'L::. Alameda Panning c3 &arc' ~e ".- rrger - -0cl 5 2006 co:_- - ; 6 - ;015 2006 3:4. Drf