Loading...
Resolution 13834E 0 L 0 CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13 8 3 4 APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND ALAMEDA ENTERTAINMENT ASSOCIATES, L.P., AND ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM 0 WHEREAS, the Community Improvement Commission of the City of Alameda H ( "Commission ") is carrying out the Community Improvement Plan ( "Plan") for the Business and < Waterfront Improvement Project (the `BWIP "); and T' H WHEREAS, the City of Alameda ( "City") and the Commission wish to further the City's 0.. V downtown redevelopment goals by renovating the existing downtown historic Alameda theater, cariproviding for increased retail space and a new multi -plex cinema, and providing for additional public parking within the BWIP; and WHEREAS, the Commission has received a proposed Disposition and Development Agreement ( "DDA ") from Alameda Entertainment Associates, L.P., a California limited partnership ( "Developer "), providing for the redevelopment of that certain real property located on the northeast corner of Central Avenue and Oak Street within the area of the BWIP (the "Site ") for purposes of renovating the historic Alameda theater, constructing a new Cineplex and other retail space, and constructing a public parking structure (the "Project "); and WHEREAS, a portion of the Site is owned by the Commission ( "Commission Property") and a portion of the Site is proposed to be acquired by the Commission ( "Acquisition Property"); and WHEREAS, the DDA provides for, among other things: (a) the potential acquisition of the Acquisition Property by the Commission; (b) the ground lease of a portion of the Site to Developer for construction of a new Cineplex and other retail uses ( "Cineplex Parcel "); (c) the Commission's renovation and lease to Developer of the existing historic Alameda theater on the Site (the "Theater Property"); and (d) Commission's construction of a public parking garage on a portion of the Site; and WHEREAS, due to the potential use of federal Housing and Urban Development ( "HUD ") funds to assist in redeveloping the Project, the Project is subject to both the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ( "CEQA "), and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91 -190 as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. 4321- 4347 ( "NEPA "); and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA and NEPA, the City, as proponent of the Project and lead agency under CEQA and as the responsible entity under NEPA, prepared a joint environmental document in the form of a CEQA- authorized Mitigated Negative Declaration and a NEPA- authorized Mitigated Finding of No Significant Impact ( "Mitigated FONSI"), supported by a joint Initial Study /Environmental Assessment (collectively, the `Environmental Documents "); and WHEREAS, in accordance with CEQA and NEPA, the City published and distributed a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance with Mitigation Measures, a Notice of Findings of No Significant Impact and Notice of Intent to Request Release of Funds; and has made the Environmental Documents available for public review in accordance with CEQA and NEPA; and WHEREAS, all applicable mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Documents to reduce potential environmental impacts to less than a significant level were conditions of approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigated FONSI and, therefore, have been incorporated into the proposed DDA for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Law of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 33000 et seq.) provides in Section 33431 that any sale or lease of Commission property may be made only after a public hearing of the Commission after publication of notice as provided by law; and WHEREAS, the Community Redevelopment Law provides in Section 33433 that before any property acquired, in whole or in part, with tax increment monies, is sold or leased for development pursuant to a redevelopment plan, such sale or lease shall first be approved by the legislative body after a public hearing, that notice of the time and place of the hearing shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation in the community for at least two (2) successive weeks prior to the hearing, and that the Commission shall make available for public inspection a copy of the proposed sale or lease and a report containing specified information and the financial aspects of the proposal; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 33445 of the Community Redevelopment Law, the Commission is authorized, with the consent of the City Council, to pay all or part of the value of the land for and the cost of the installation and construction of any building, facility, structure or other improvement which is publicly owned either within or without a project area upon a determination by the City Council that such building, facility, structure or other improvement is of benefit to the project area or the immediate area in which the project is located, that no other reasonable means of financing such building, facility, structure or other improvement are available to the community, that the payment of funds for the cost of the building, facility, structure or other improvement will assist in the elimination of one or more blighting conditions inside the project area, and that the provision of the building, facility, structure or other improvement is consistent with the implementation plan adopted by the Commission; and WHEREAS, in accordance with NEPA, the City has submitted the Mitigated FONSI to HUD; and WHEREAS, notice of a joint public hearing on the DDA and Mitigated Negative Declaration of the City Council of the City of Alameda ( "City Council ") and the Commission was published in the Alameda Journal on April 5, 2005, and April 12, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Commission prepared a report pursuant to Section 33433 of the Health and Safety Code containing a copy of the proposed DDA and a summary describing the cost of the DDA to the Commission, the value of the property interest to be conveyed, the value of the lease payments and other information required by said Section 33433 ( "Report"), and said Report was made available to the public for inspection; and WHEREAS, the City Council and the Commission held a joint public hearing on May 3, 2005, in the City Council Chambers to consider and act on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and disposition and development of the Site pursuant to the DDA; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ALAMEDA DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the acquisition of land for and the costs of the public parking garage are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the Plan, and the City Council consents to the Commission providing the public parking garage. The City Council further finds and determines that the public parking garage is of primary benefit to the area of the BWIP ("BWIP Project Area "); that no other means of financing the public parking garage is available to the City; and that the payment of funds by the Commission for such public parking garage will assist in eliminating blight within the BWIP Project Area and is consistent with the Commission's Implementation Plan for the BWIP adopted pursuant to Section 33490 of the Community Redevelopment Law ( "Implementation Plan "). These findings and determinations are based upon the following facts: a. The public parking garage is located within the downtown business district of the BWIP Project Area and will, therefore, provide parking needed to serve the retail and commercial businesses within the BWIP Project Area; b. The City has explored and sought other funding alternatives and is requesting HUD funds to assist in paying some of the costs of the public parking garage, however, additional funds are necessary and the City does not have funds available for the additional costs of the public parking garage; c. The public parking garage will eliminate blight by providing adequate land and facilities for parking and stimulating new commercial expansion, employment and economic growth within the BWIP Project Area; and d. The public parking garage is consistent with the Implementation Plan, as the Implementation Plan's goals include the elimination of inadequate public facilities, the provision of adequate land for parking and the strengthening of the economic base of the BWIP Project Area, and one of the programs of the Implementation Plan is the improvement of public facilities, including the development of more public parking. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the ground lease of the Cineplex Parcel and the lease of the Theater Property to Developer and development of the Project on the Site pursuant to the DDA will assist in the elimination of blight within the BWIP Project Area and is consistent with the Implementation Plan. This finding is based upon the facts and information contained in the Report. Section 3. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the consideration to be paid by Developer for ground lease of the Cineplex Parcel is not less than the fair reuse value of the Cineplex Parcel at the use and with the covenants and conditions and development costs authorized by the DDA. City Council also finds that the consideration to be paid by Developer for lease of the Theater Property is not less than the fair reuse value of the Theater Property at the use and with the covenants and conditions and development costs authorized by the DDA. These findings are based on the facts and information contained in the Report. Section 4. The City Council hereby finds that the Environmental Documents for the Project have been prepared, published, circulated and reviewed in accordance with CEQA and NEPA, and the applicable regulations pertaining thereto, and that the conditions of approval ( "Conditions of Approval "), which were set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporated into the Project before the Environmental Documents were released for public review, reduce all environmental impacts to less than a significant level. Section 5. Comments received during the public review process of the Environmental Documents and responses thereto are contained in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein, and based on such comments and responses, the City Council finds that the comments did not identify new significant impacts associated with the Project, identify new mitigation measures or challenge the adequacy of the mitigation measures contained in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and, therefore, do not include new information or substantial evidence that a potential environmental effect may occur as a result of the Project. Section 6. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Environmental Documents and has evaluated all comments received during the public review process and responses prepared thereto, prior to adopting this resolution and acting on the DDA. Section 7. The City Council hereby finds, on the basis of the whole record before it (including the Environmental Documents, comments received and responses thereto, and the specific findings described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated herein) that there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City Council's independent judgment and analysis. Section 8. The City Planning and Building Department is hereby designated as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration is based. Section 9. The City Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration, including all mitigation measures set forth in the Conditions of Approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, as identified in the Environmental Documents. Section 10. For purposes of reporting on and monitoring the mitigation measures incorporated into the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the City Council hereby adopts the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in Exhibit C attached hereto and incorporated herein. Section 11. The City Council hereby approves the DDA in substantially the form on file with the Secretary of the Commission. Section 12. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the County of Alameda and the Office of Planning and Research following adoption of this resolution by the City Council. EXHIBIT "A" MEMORANDUM DATE: April 19, 2005 TO: Ms. Cynthia Eliason Supervising Planner City of Alameda Planning and Building Department FROM: John Wagstaff PROJECT: Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project SUBJECT: Responses to Public Comments Received on the December 2004 Draft Initial Study /Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure The Draft Initial Study /Environmental Assessment for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Protect (Draft IS /EA), dated December 6, 2004, was released for public review on Thursday, December 9, 2004. Implementation of the project will require local (City and CIC), state (State Office of. Historic Preservation) and federal (HUD) approval actions, and therefore invokes the environmental documentation requirements of both the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Under the CEQA Guidelines (Governor's Office of Planning and Research, California Environmental Quality Act and Guidelines, 2004), the City of Alameda is the "lead agency" having primary responsibility for approving and carrying out the project, and for completing the associated CEQA environmental documentation process. It has also been mutually agreed upon between the City and HUD that the City, as the prospective recipient of HUD assistance for the project, will be the "responsible entity" for the NEPA environmental documentation process- -i.e., will assume NEPA environmental review responsibilities for the proposed HUD assistance action, pursuant to HUD Regulations Governing Environmental Review Procedures for Entities Assuming HUD Environmental Responsibilities.' The CEQA and NEPA laws establish similar environmental documentation processes. For projects which invoke both CEQA and NEPA, "Lead Agencies " / "Responsible Entities" are encouraged to prepare joint CEQA/NEPA documents. The City and HUD have agreed that a joint CEQA/NEPA environmental document is appropriate for the Alameda Theater Rehabilitation /Cineplex/Parking Structure project. It has also been determined by the City that the joint environmental document shall take the form of a CEQA- authorized Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) supported by an Initial Study (IS),2 and a NEPA- authorized Mitigated Finding of No Significant Effect 'Code of Federal Regulations, Title 24, section 58 (24 CFR 58). 2CEQA Guidelines section 15071(d). C: IDOCUME- 11celiason1LOCALS- 11Temp14 -19 -05 responses memo 647.doc Memorandum April 19, 2005 Wagstaff and Associates Page 2 (Mitigated FONSI) supported by an Environmental Assessment3- -i.e., a joint Initial Study/ Environmental Assessment (IS /EA) document. Pursuant to both CEQA4 and HUD5 requirements, copies of the Draft IS /EA document have been made available through State (State Clearinghouse) and local (City of Alameda) libraries. A copy of the Draft IS /EA has also been available on the City's website. Notice of availability of the Draft IS /EA for public review has been published in a local newspaper of general circulation (The Alameda Journal). Copies of the Draft IS /EA have been distributed to all known responsible and interested public agencies and individuals and groups known to be interested in the proposed project activities. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines6 and HUD Environmental Review Procedures for Entities Assuming HUD Environmental Responsibilities' stipulate that the lead agency and responsible entity (the City) must consider the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Finding of No Significant Impact ( FONSI), together with any associated comments received, before approving the project. Under CEQA, the lead agency must provide a public review period of not Tess than 30 days for a proposed mitigated negative declaration (MND) that has been submitted to the State Clearinghouse (SCH) for review by state agencies!' Similarly, under HUD Environmental Review Procedures, if a FONSI has been prepared, the issuing office (i.e., the responsible entity) must provide a 15 -day public comment period for public review of the supporting EA before taking action on a project? In accordance with these requirements, this memorandum includes the following: (1) a list of all comments received during and after the public review period pertaining to the project or the associated Draft IS /EA; (2) the responses of the IS /EA authors to all of the listed comments received pertaining to the content, adequacy, and conclusions of the Draft IS /EA; and a set of revisions (errata) to the Draft IS /MND text (Attachment 1 hereto) made in response to comments received. (3) As the responses which follow explain, none of the comments received or associated revisions (Attachment 1) change the Draft IS /EA (MND /FONSI) report conclusion that, with implementation of the mitigations identified in the report (summarized in section 2 of 340 CFR Section 1508.13. 4CEQA Section 15072. 524 CFR 58.43. 6California Public Resources Code section 21091(f); CEQA Guidelines section 15074(b). 'Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 24 (Housing and Urban Development), Part 58, Section 58.43. 8CEQA Guidelines section 15073. 924 CFR 58.45. C: IDOCUME- 1lceliasonlLOCALS-- 11Templ4 -19-05 responses memo 647.doc Memorandum April 19, 2005 Wagstaff and Associates Page 3 the report), the proposed Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure project will have no significant environmental effects. I. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS A. WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED During the.30 -day public review period, the City received written comments (letters, faxes and e- mails) from the following four agencies and individuals pertaining to the project and/or the Draft IS /EA (MND /FONSI): 1. Monika Slay Pitchford, 1835 Nason Street, Alameda; December 21, 2004 2. David J. Rehnstrom, Senior Civil Engineer, for William R. Kirkpatrick, Manager of Water Distribution Planning, East Bay Municipal Utility District; December 30, 2004 3. Christopher Buckley, Chair, Preservation Action Committee, The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society; January 10, 2005 4. Terry Roberts, Director, State Clearinghouse, State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research; January 10, 2005 After the close of the 30 -day review period (January 7, 2005) the following two additional letters were received by the City pertaining to the project and/or the Draft IS /EA (MND /FONSI): 5. Terry Roberts, Director, State Clearinghouse, State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research; January 20, 2005 (forwarding letter 6) 6. Timothy C. Sable, District Branch Chief, State of California Department of Transportation; January 19, 2005 B. RESPONSES TO WRITTEN COMMENTS Written comments received which pertain to an environmental point and/or to the adequacy of the Draft IS /EA (MND /FONSI) are coded and paraphrased below, followed by the response of the Draft IS /EA authors. The verbatim written comments (letters) with corresponding coding (added to the margins) are also attached hereto (Attachment 2). Letter 1: Monika Slay Pitchford, 1835 Nason Street, Alameda; December 21, 2004 Comment 1.01: Commenter expresses opposition to theater expansion, stating belief that Alameda cannot support a seven -to- eight- screen multiplex. Commenter expresses support for the refurbishing of the theater only, stating that the project should stop there. Response 1.01: These comments include no specific reference to the content or adequacy of the Draft IS /EA (MND /FONSI); rather, the comments pertain to the perceived viability and merits of the project. These comments will be considered by the City in its deliberations on the project. C: IDOCUME- 11celiasonlLOCALS- 11Temp14 -19 -05 responses memo 647.doc Memorandum April 19, 2005 Wagstaff and Associates Page 4 Comment 1.02: Commenter expresses strong opposition to the project design ( "huge blank box "), and suggests that if the theater must be extended, 'Why not mimic the design of the existing theater so that the new building blends with the old one." Response 1.02: These comments include no specific reference to the content or adequacy of the Draft IS /EA (MND /FONSI); rather, the comments pertain to the perceived merits of the project. These comments will be considered by the City in its deliberations on the project, including design review. It should be noted in response to the suggestion regarding mimicking the design of the existing Alameda Theater in the new building (cineplex and parking structure) design, that given the "historic resource" status of the existing theater, the design of the proposed theater rehabilitation and adjacent cineplex and parking structure components will be subject to 'The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation" (see Mitigations AES -1 and HIST -1 and related discussions on Draft IS /EA pages 2 -3, 2 -4, 3 -8, 3 -15, 3 -16, and 3 -17). These standards specifically state that "Each [historic] property shall be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historic development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken." The standards also specifically state that "New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall...be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with the massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historic integrity of the property and its environment." Letter 2: David J. Rehnstrom, Senior Civil Engineer, Water Service Planning, for William R. Kirkpatrick, Manager of Water Distribution Planning, East Bay Municipal Utility District; December 30, 2004 Comment 2.01: The commenter describes existing EBMUD water service provisions to the existing property (EBMUD's Central Pressure Zone) and recommends that, if additional water service is needed to serve the project, including water service for fire sprinkler protection, the project sponsor should contact EBMUD's New Business Office, and associated "substantial lead time" should be provided for in the project development schedule.. Response 2.01: The comments include no specific reference to the content or adequacy of the Draft IS /EA (MND /FONSI); rather, the comments provide helpful guidance to the City and CIC regarding subsequent development design coordination with EBMUD and overall development scheduling. The comments are acknowledged and appreciated by the City. The City of Alameda CIC will conduct the necessary contacts and consultation with EBMUD. Comment 2.02: The commenter describes existing EBMUD wastewater service to the existing property and recommends that the project sponsor (the CIC) should confirm with the City's Public Works Department that there is available treatment capacity within the local subbasin flow allocation to serve the project. The commenter states that it is not possible to make a determination that the increased wastewater treatment demand from the project would be less -than- significant without having this confirmation from the City. The commenter therefore suggests that the MND include the following language: `The City of C: IDOCUME- 1lceliasonlLOCALS- 11Templ4 -19 -05 responses memo 647.doc Memorandum April 19, 2005 Wagstaff and Associates Page 5 Alameda Public Works Department has confirmed that there is available wastewater capacity within subbasin (insert subbasin number here) that is reserved for this project." Response 2.02: In response to this comment, the suggested mitigation language (with the identified subbasin number) has been added to Draft IS /EA pages 3 -44 and 4 -29. See associated errata in Attachment 1 (Revisions to the Draft IS /EA attached hereto). Comment 2.03: The commenter suggests a revision to the wording on Draft IS /EA page 3 -44 regarding possible replacement or rehabilitation of the existing sanitary collection system serving the project site to clarify that such improvements could occur both on -site and off-site. Response 2.03: Comment acknowledged. The suggested revision (removal of the words "off- site ") has been made to Draft IS /EA page 3 -44. See this change to page 3 -44 in Attachment 1 (Revisions to the Draft IS /EA) attached hereto. Letter 3: Christopher Buckley, Chair, Preservation Action Committee, The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society; January 10, 2005 Comment 3.01: Commenter states that the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) believes that it is inappropriate to use visual simulations and elevations, as presented, as the basis for various conclusions made in the Draft IS /MND concerning the aesthetic and cultural resources impact of the proposed new project structures. The commenter states that the simulations and evaluations show a degree of architectural refinement that is premature, given the actual status of the City's design review process for this project ( "not yet started and the garage architect has not even been selected "). The commenter also states that "the facades shown on the simulations and elevations are not the same, so it is not clear which design treatment is being evaluated." Response 3.01: The two visual simulations included in Appendix E of the Draft IS /EA to which the commenter alludes, Figures 9 (Visual Simulation of View from Central Avenue) and 10 (Visual Simulation of View from Oak Street), on pages A -14 and A -15, respectively, have been prepared by an independent visual simulation computer consultant retained by the IS /EA consulting authors. The simulations have been prepared to show the basic massing and component characteristics of the project, and are based on preliminary architectural concept drawings and associated preliminary information on both the proposed cineplex and parking structure components of the project provided in October 2004 by the current planning architects. The Draft IS /EA document also includes one "Proposed Project Conceptual Elevation" exhibit, Figure 8 on page A -13, provided to the Draft IS /EA authors at a later date (November 2004). The project design process is ongoing. These visual simulations and architectural elevations include the level of preliminary conceptual detail available at that time from the CIC and its planning architects. These exhibits are intended to provide preliminary, "conceptual" depictions of the potential basic project appearance- - i.e., building height, building mass, and building finish relationships to the adjacent existing theater and surrounding properties (Le., historic and cultural resource values). The developer will present more specific architectural designs as part of subsequent project approval phases. C: I DOCUME- 1lceliasonl LOCALS- 11 Templ4 -19 -05 responses memo 647. doc Memorandum April 19, 2005 Wagstaff and Associates Page 6 The conceptual elevations included in Figure 8 were prepared at a latter date than the visual simulations on Figures 9 and 10, and are intended to test alternative design concepts for architectural detail and articulation on the northwest (Central Avenue) and northeast (Oak Street), including some preliminary proposals for horizontal banding and a different architectural bay configuration (curved) than depicted on Figures 9 and 10. These differences do not affect the impact conclusions and mitigation recommendations of the Draft IS /EA with regard to project aesthetic and cultural resource impacts- -i.e., Impacts and Mitigations AES -1 (Project Visual Compatibility Impact) on pages 2 -2 and 2 3 and 3 -6 through 3 -9, and HIST -1 (Potential Project Design Effects on Historic Resources) on pages 2 -3 and 2 -4 and 3 -15 through 3 -17. Following normal City . practice, the project design review process is ongoing and such design changes and refinements were anticipated by the Draft IS /EA authors to continue after City adoption of the project CEQA/NEPA documentation. Following normal practice, mitigation recommendations, included in the Draft IS /EA pertaining to the project's potential aesthetic and historic /cultural resource impacts have been formulated in anticipation of future design review and refinement, and are therefore formulated in the form of design guidelines and precautions for consideration in that process. The following key Draft IS /EA impact statements are not affected by current differences in, and will not be affected by future revision to, the project architectural details as the design is refined through the course of the City's normal design review process [bold type added for reemphasis]: Page 3 -8 (Impact AES -1): "It appears that the current conceptual project design would have a positive (beneficial) visual impact in improving the visual compatibility of the project site, and in general, would visually enhance the surrounding Central Avenue and Oak Street streetscapes, as well as the overall Park Street Historic Commercial District east of the project site. The project design appears to be consistent with applicable City of Alameda General Plan policies pertaining to Downtown visual, aesthetic and urban design factors, and with applicable U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration. Specifically, the current conceptual design includes building heights, scales, and setbacks which are compatible with opposite streetscapes and the adjacent Park Street Historic Commercial District, as well as building placement, height, scale, massing, materials and finishes which appear to be visually sensitive and compatible with the Alameda Theater and surrounding historic and potentially historic structures. "Nevertheless, until the project architectural details are finalized, and these preliminary conclusions can be approved by the City of Alameda Historical Advisory Board and City of Alameda Planning Board during the City- required discretionary review process, it is assumed that the project final architectural design may have a potentially significant adverse visual compatibility impact." Page 3 -8 (Mitigation AES -1, as revised for clarification): "Issuance of a Certificate of Approval by the City's Historic Advisory Board for structural alterations to the Alameda Theater with project review and comments to the Alameda Planning Board and design review and approval by the Planning Board would be required to finalize the architectural design of the proposed project. To ensure that the final, more detailed project architectural design remains consistent with pertinent City visual and urban design policies and with state and federal historic preservation standards- -i.e., the U.S. Secretary of the CA DOCUME-- llceliasonlLOCALS- 11Temp14 -19-05 responses memo 647.doc Memorandum April 19, 2005 Wagstaff and Associates Page 7 Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration, retain an independent historic preservation professional to review the project plans and specifications for consistency with these policies and standards. The retained independent professional shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Proposed Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards (1996) for Historic Architecture, Historic Preservation Planning and/or Architectural History. Final Historical Advisory Board certification of the structural alterations to the Alameda Theater and review and Planning Board approval of the project architectural design review shall include consideration of these independent review findings and any associated design refinement recommendations. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would ensure that any adverse project visual incompatibility impacts would be reduced to a less - than - significant level." Page 3 -16 (Impact HIST -1, as revised for clarification): "An independent Section 106 review by Carey & Co., historic preservation architects (Attachment D), concludes that the preliminary theater rehabilitation design plans (October 2004) comply with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and their effects would therefore be less than adverse and in most cases beneficial, with overall positive impacts on the Alameda Theater historic resource. In addition, the Carey & Co. review has determined that the proposed project, including the new cineplex and parking structure components, would not have an adverse effect on the Park Street Historic Commercial District, and would not have an adverse effect on other identified and potential historic resources surrounding the project site. "However, review of final project design details and specifications would be necessary to ensure that the final design of the theater rehabilitation/ restoration and adjacent cineplex and parking structure components continues to comply with the Secretary of the Interior's standards. Therefore, until the project achieves design review approval by the City of Alameda Planning Board, based in part on the review and comment by the Historical Advisory Board and the findings and recommendations of an independent professional engaged in preservation—Le., is determined by the Board to be consistent with City- adopted standards for design review and with applicable Secretary of the Interior Standards for Historic Rehabilitation and Restoration, it is assumed that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the historic Alameda Theater." Page 3 -17 (Mitigation HIST -1, as revised for clarification): `To assure project compliance with City policies and standards and state and federal standards pertaining to the protection of historic resources (i.e., the Secretary of the Interiors Standards), issuance of the required Certificate of Approval for the structural alterations to the Alameda Theater by the City's Historical Advisory Board, and the required final design review and approval of the entire project by the City of Alameda Planning Board, shall include consideration of an independent review of the final project plans and specifications by a professional engaged in historic preservation. The review professional shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Proposed Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards (1996) for Historic Architecture, Historic Preservation Planning, and/or Architectural History. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level." C: I DOCUME- 1lceliasontLOCALS -11 Templ4 -19 -05 responses memo 647.doc Memorandum April 19, 2005 Wagstaff and Associates Page 8 The specific concerns expressed in this comment regarding the "highly Modernistic architecture" depicted in conceptual design materials released to date, and the suggestions regarding a higher degree of articulation on the building surfaces, will be considered by the City in the subsequent design review process mentioned to in the Draft IS /EA mitigation language excerpts above. Additional more detailed architectural exhibits will be provided for City design review as the project advances. The commenter suggests that revisions to the visual simulations be included in the Draft IS /EA, including suggested simplification of the simulations to eliminate implied surface materials and textures. Such revisions would not change the Draft IS /EA impact or mitigation findings. The commenter has also suggested deletions of all Draft IS /EA references to "architectural features," "finishes," "exterior design," "architectural details" and "project design." Such changes would not change any Draft IS /EA impact findings. Nevertheless, some of the commenter's suggested edits represent improvements to the Draft IS /EA and have been incorporated verbatim or in variation by the Draft IS /EA authors and included in Attachment 1 (Revisions to the Draft IS /EA) attached hereto (see revisions to Draft IS /EA pages 3 -6, 3 -7, 3- 8, 3 -16, 4 -6, and 4 -7). In addition, the remaining suggested changes, and the marked up (edited) versions of the Draft IS /EA submitted by the commenter, are attached hereto within Attachment 2 of this response -to- comments memo for consideration by the City in its deliberations on the Draft IS /EA and the project. Letter 4: Terry Roberts, Director, State Clearinghouse, State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research; January 10, 2005 Comment 4.01: Notice provided that City has complied with State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to CEQA. No State agencies submitted comments. Response 4.01: No response necessary. The following two additional letters were received after the close of the 30 -day public review period on the Draft IS/EA: Letter 5: Terry Roberts, Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse, State of California Governor's Office of Planning and Research; January 20, 2005 Comment 5.01: Comment transmits January 19, 2005 letter from Caltrans, and indicates that Caltrans letter was received . after the end of the state review period on the Draft IS /MND, which closed on January 7, 2005. The commenter explains that CEQA does not require lead agencies to respond to late comments, but encourages lead agencies to "incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document." Response 5.02: Comment acknowledged. Please see Letter 6 comments and responses which follow. CA DOCUME- 1lceliasonlLOCALS- 11Temp14 -19 -05 responses memo 647.doc Memorandum April 19, 2005 Wagstaff and Associates Page 9 Letter 6: Timothy C. Sable, District Branch Chief, State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans); January 19, 2005 Comment 6.01: The commenter requests that the lead agency provide the traffic analysis, dated December 2004, mentioned on page 3 -36 of the Draft IS /EA. Response 6.01: In response to this comment, City staff has forwarded a copy of the full December 2004 traffic analysis to the commenter. Comment 6.02: The commenter requests that project effects on intersections along Encinal Street (State Route 61) be evaluated. Response 6.02: Based on the IS /EA initial traffic analysis screening exercise, it was determined that the project would not have a significant impact on these intersections. CA DOCUME- 1lceliason1LOCALS- 11Templ4 -19 -05 responses memo 647.doc ATTACHMENT 1 REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT IS /EA Wagstaff and Associates City 6f Alameda April 6, 2005 Draft MND /MFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project Page 3 -6 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 3.4.1 Aesthetics. Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Answer: LESS - THAN - SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Explanation: The project site and vicinity are designated for relatively intensive urban development in the City of Alameda General Plan and are already substantially urbanized. The project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Other than the surrounding views of the massive, Art Deco, Alameda Theater structure, there are no identified scenic vistas through the project site towards onsite or surrounding visual features. Project impacts on the visual quality of the Alameda Theater and the remainder of the project site and surroundings, are further described under items b, c and d below. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Answer: POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED Impact AES -1: Note: The following impact and mitigation conclusions are excerpted from Attachment C: Aesthetic Impacts Analysis. Project Visual Compatibility Impact. Based on independent review of the project preliminary design package, the environmental consultants, with the assistance of Carey & Co., Inc., historic preservation architects, have determined the following: ■ the historic Alameda Theater structure would be used for its historic purpose with minimal change to its defining characteristics; • the distinctive features and finishes that characterize the theater, including its Art Deco marquees, fluting and bas - relief ornamentation, would be preserved; ■ the deteriorated and modified Art Deco storefronts which flank the theater entrance would be substantially repaired and restored; C:IWDIJOBS16471PRDIMND -EA 647 -sec 3 errata.doc Wagstaff and Associates City of Alameda April 19, 2005 Draft MND /MFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project Page 2 -3 2.2 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (NEPA) FINDINGS The specific findings of the Environmental Assessment component of this joint document are included in chapter 4 and are summarized below. With the inclusion of the mitigation measures specified in this document, the project is anticipated to have no significant impact on the environment. Environmental Factor Project Impact • Conformance with Comprehensive Plans and Zoning • Compatibility and Urban Impact • Employment and Income Patterns • Commercial Facilities • Open Space and Recreation -- Recreation Potentially beneficial • Transportation • Soil Suitability • Hazards and Nuisances including Site Safety • . Noise: Contribution to Community Noise Levels • Air Quality: Contribution to Community Pollution Levels • Environmental Design: Visual Quality -- Coherence, Diversity, Compatible Use and Scale Requires mitigation • • All other environmental factors No impact 2.3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (LIST OF MITIGATIONS) The mitigations listed below represent Conditions for Approval adopted by the City of Alameda (the Lead Agency under CEQA and the Responsible Entity under NEPA) to eliminate or minimize adverse environmental impacts, pursuant to CEQA and NEPA, as amended. These conditions must be included in project contracts and other relevant documents as requirements [CEQA Guidelines section 15070, 24 CFR 58.40(d), and 40 CFR 1505.2(c)]. See chapter 3 (the CEQA Initial Study Evaluation) and chapter 4 (the NEPA Environmental Assessment) of this joint document for a more detailed explanation of these impact and mitigation findings. Mitigation AES -1: Project Visual Compatibility Impact. Issuance of a Certificate of Approval by the City's Historic Advisory Board for structural alterations to the Alameda Theater with project review and comments to the Alameda Planning Board and design review and approval by the Planning Board would be required to finalize the architectural design of the proposed project. To ensure that the final, more detailed project architectural design remains consistent with pertinent City C:ID000ME -11cm userILOCALS-- 1ITempIMND -EA 647 -sec 2 errata pages.doc Wagstaff and Associates ' City of Alameda April 19, 2005 Draft MND /MFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project Page 2 -3 visual and urban design policies and with state and federal historic preservation standards- -i.e., the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration, retain an 1 independent historic preservation professional to review the project plans and specifications for consistency with these policies and standards. The retained independent professional shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Proposed Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards (1996) for Historic Architecture, Historic Preservation Planning and /or Architectural History. Final Historical Advisory Board certification of the structural alterations to the Alameda Theater and Planning Board approval of the project design review shall include consideration of these independent review findings and any associated design refinement recommendations. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would ensure that any adverse project visual incompatibility impacts would be reduced to a less - than - significant level. Mitigation AQ -1: Construction - Period Dust Impacts. Reduce the severity of project demolition and construction period dust impacts by requiring implementation of the following or similar standard, BAAQMD- approved dust control measures (final list shall be determined to City satisfaction): (a) Periodically water all active demolition and construction areas; (b) Pave, periodically water, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all exposed graded areas, unpaved access drives, unpaved parking areas, and /or unpaved staging areas at the construction site; (c) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) adjacent public streets and haul routes, as well as all paved access drives, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site; (d) Periodically sweep (with water sweepers) any visible soil material carried onto adjacent public streets; (e) Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard; (f) Enclose, cover, periodically water, or apply (non- toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); (g) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; (h) During high wind periods, suspend any activities that cause visible dust plumes that cannot be controlled by watering. Project commitment to these or a similar set of City- approved mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level. Note: The project may also result in short -term air quality impacts associated with disturbance of contaminated soils. Mitigation requirements for this potential construction period impact are described in Section 3.4.7 herein under Mitigation HAZ -2. Mitigation HIST -1: Potential Project Design Effects on the Historic Resources. To assure project compliance with City policies and standards and state and federal standards pertaining to the protection of historic resources (i.e., the Secretary of the Interiors Standards), issuance of the required Certificate of Approval for the structural alterations to the Alameda Theater by the City's Historical Advisory Board, and the required final design review and approval of the entire project by the City of Alameda Planning Board, shall include consideration of an independent review of the final project plans and specifications C:ID000ME -11cm userILOCALS- 11TemptMND -EA 647-sec 2 errata pages.doc Wa96taff and Associates City pf Alameda April 6, 2005 Draft MND /MFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Protect Page 3 -7 • the preliminary, conceptual design for the project indicates that the adjacent new cineplex structure would be visually differentiated from the original historic Alameda Theater structure by a lower building height and an exterior wall recess where the two buildings meet, and would feature compatible massing and scale; ■ the preliminary, conceptual design for the project indicates that the new cineplex and parking structure additions would be designed in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the Alameda Theater would be unimpaired; • the preliminary, conceptual design for the project indicates that the new cineplex and parking structures would include building heights, massing, setbacks, and finishes which are reflective and respective of existing historic and architecturally significant structures on the opposite sides of Central Avenue and Oak Street (i.e., the Alameda High SchooVAlameda Adult School building, Twin Towers Methodist Church, and Alameda Free Library); • the preliminary, conceptual design for the project indicates that the architectural features of the new cineplex facade along Central Avenue would have an appropriate zero -lot -line relationship to the sidewalk and street; would respect, maintain and enhance the visual distinctiveness and prominence of the, historic Alameda Theater structure; would effectively enhance the desired pedestrian character of the site's Central Avenue frontage; and would be visually harmonious in height and finish (texture) with the existing, architecturally distinctive Twin Towers Methodist Church on the opposite (northwest) corner of the Oak Street and Central Avenue; • the preliminary, conceptual design for the project indicates that the architectural features of the new parking structure facade along Oak Street would also have an appropriate zero -lot -line relationship to the sidewalk and street and would be visually harmonious in height and finish (brick veneer) with the existing Alameda Free Library structure on the opposite side of the Oak Street; • the preliminary, conceptual design for the project indicates that the intensive zero -lot -line architectural elements of the new cineplex structure and new parking structure, including their ground floor retail storefronts, would serve to balance the affected Central Avenue and Oak Street streetscapes, visually unify the block, create an appropriate sense of place around C :IWDIJOBS16471PRDIMND -EA 647 -sec 3 errata.doc Wagstaff and Associates Draft MND /MFONSI City of Alameda Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project • April 6, 2005 Page 3 -7A the Alameda Theater, and introduce needed visual cohesiveness within the block and between the block and surrounding downtown blocks; • the preliminary, conceptual design for the project indicates that the project exterior design concept appears to be generally consistent with City- adopted visual and urban design policies for the Downtown and Park Street area; and C :IWDIJOBS16471PRDIMND -EA 647 -sec 3 errata.doc Wagstaff and Associates City,of Alameda April 19, 2005 Explanation: Mitigation AES -1: Draft MND /MFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project Page 3 -8 ■ the preliminary, conceptual design for the project indicates that the project preliminary exterior design concept appears to be in compliance with U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration, including standards pertaining to preserving the visual and historic integrity of the onsite Alameda Theater, and standards pertaining to protection of surrounding historic and potentially historic resources. It appears that the current conceptual project design would have a positive (beneficial) visual impact in improving the visual compatibility of the project site, and in general, would visually enhance the surrounding Central Avenue and Oak Street streetscapes, as well as the overall Park Street Historic Commercial District east of the project site. The preliminary design concept appears to be consistent with applicable City of Alameda General Plan policies pertaining to Downtown visual, aesthetic and urban design factors, and with applicable U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration. Specifically, the current conceptual design includes building heights, scales, and setbacks which are compatible with opposite streetscapes and the adjacent Park Street Historic Commercial District, as well as building placement, height, scale, massing, materials and finishes which appear to be visually sensitive and compatible with the Alameda Theater and surrounding historic and potentially historic structures. Nevertheless, until the project architectural details are finalized, and these preliminary conclusions can be verified by the City of Alameda Historical Advisory Board and City of Alameda Planning Board during the City- required discretionary review process, it is assumed that the project final architectural design may have a potentially significant adverse visual compatibility impact. See Attachment C: Aesthetic Impact Analysis, for a more detailed explanation of the Impact AES -1 finding above and Mitigation AES -1 finding below. Issuance of a Certificate of Approval by the City's Historic Advisory Board for structural alterations to the Alameda Theater with project review and comments to the Alameda Planning Board and design review and approval by the Planning Board would be .required to finalize the architectural design of the proposed project. To ensure that the final, more detailed project architectural design remains consistent with pertinent City visual and urban design policies and with state and federal historic preservation standards- -i.e., the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration, retain an independent historic preservation professional to review the project plans and specifications for consistency with these policies and standards. The retained independent professional shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Proposed Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards (1996) for Historic Architecture, Historic Preservation Planning and/or Architectural History. Final Historical Advisory Board certification of the structural alterations to the Alameda Theater and Planning Board approval of the project design review shall C:IDOCUME -11cm user1LOCALS- 11TemplMND -EA 647 -sec 3 errata pages.doc Wagstaff and Associates City Of Alameda April 19, 2005 Draft MND /MFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project Page 3 -16 Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. An independent Section 106 review by Carey & Co., historic preservation architects (Attachment D), concludes that the preliminary theater rehabilitation design plans (October 2004) comply with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and their its effects would therefore be Tess than adverse and in most cases beneficial, with overall positive impacts on the Alameda Theater historic resource. In addition, the Carey & Co. review has determined that the proposed project, including the new cineplex and parking structure components, would not have an adverse effect on the Park Street Historic Commercial District, and would not have an adverse effect on other identified and potential historic resources surrounding the project site. However, review of final project design details and specifications would be necessary to ensure that the final design of the theater rehabilitation /restoration and adjacent cineplex and parking structure components continues to comply with the Secretary of the Interior's standards. Therefore, until the project achieves design review approval by the City of Alameda Planning Board, based in part on review and comment by the Historical Advisory Board and the findings and recommendations of an independent professional engaged in preservation- -i.e., is determined by the Planning Board to be consistent with City- adopted standards for design review and with applicable Secretary of the Interior standards for historic rehabilitation and restoration, it is assumed that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the historic Alameda Theater. Explanation: The proposed project includes the historic rehabilitation of the existing 1932 Art Deco style Alameda Theater structure to create a restored, 500 -seat cinema, and construction of a new cineplex, retail, and parking structure adjacent to the restored theater structure. The Alameda Theater is a locally - listed Alameda Historic Monument (1975) and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a contributing structure within the National- register listed Park Street Historic Commercial District (see Figure 3 in Attachment A). HUD BEDI grant funds and HUD Section 108 loan guarantee funds are being requested by the City to help finance the parking structure component of the project (see page 4 -1 of this document). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to review and consider the impacts of their undertakings, including grants and loans, on historic properties. Pursuant to this requirement, an independent Section 106 review of the potential impacts of the proposed project on the Alameda Theater, other surrounding historic resources, and the Park Street Historic Commercial District, has been completed by Carey & Co., historic preservation architects, under contract to the environmental documentation authors, Wagstaff and Associates. A Draft version of the Carey & Co. Section 106 report is attached to this environmental document as Attachment D. The Impact HIST -1 finding above and Mitigation HIS -1 finding below are C:ID000ME -11cm userILOCALS- 11TempIMND -EA 647 -sec 3 errata pages.doc Wagstaff and Associates City of Alameda April 19, 2005 Mitigation HIST -l: Impact HIST -2: Mitigation HIST -2: Draft MND /MFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project Page 3 -17 derived from Attachment D. Please refer to Attachment D for explanatory details. (In particular, see Attachment D, pages 44 through 50.) To assure project,compliance with City policies and standards and state and federal standards pertaining to the protection of historic resources (i.e., the Secretary of the Interiors Standards), issuance of the required Certificate of Approval for the structural alterations to the Alameda Theater by the City's Historical Advisory Board, and the required final design review and approval of the entire project by the City of Alameda Planning Board, shall include consideration of an independent review of the final project plans and specifications by a professional engaged in historic preservation. The review professional shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Proposed Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards (1996) for Historic Architecture, Historic Preservation Planning, and/or Architectural History. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level. Potential Project Construction Period Effects on the Historic Alameda Theater. Carey & Company has also concluded that construction of the new cineplex and parking structure foundations and walls, and other project construction activities including operation of equipment and storage of materials, could have an adverse effect on the existing historic Alameda Theater resource. In particular, operation of construction equipment and storage of construction materials could potentially damage the west elevation (Central Avenue frontage) of the existing historic theater, representing a potentially significant adverse impact. The Carey & Company review has also concluded that the proposed demolition of the Video Maniacs commercial /retail structure would take place far enough away from the existing historic theater so that this activity would not cause direct effects to the theater. As part of the formal agreement with the project sponsor, the project demolition and construction manager(s) shall include provisions in the project demolition and construction specifications, subject to review and approval by the City, establishing a training program for construction workers emphasizing the importance of protecting historic resources. The provisions shall include directions on being careful when working around and operating equipment near the Alameda Theater; taking reasonable means to minimize vibration from demolition and excavation; and watching, being aware of and reporting to the project sponsor any potential actions or problems that could adversely affect the historic theater or other historic resources in the area. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level. C:ID000ME --11cm userlLOCALS- 11TempIMND -EA 647 -sec 3 errata pages.doc Wagg aff and Associates City of Alameda Aprir6, 2005 Draft MND /MFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project Page 3 -44 (large parking structure). Because this disruption would occur for short durations and only at a few select locations in Downtown, it would not be considered a significant transportation impact. 3.4.16 Utilities and Service Systems. Would the project: a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Answer: Explanation: LESS - THAN - SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Due to the intensification of use at the site, development of the proposed project would incrementally increase the demand for water and sewer service. The City of Alameda Public Works Department has confirmed that there is available wastewater capacity within Subbasin 94E that is reserved for this project. Any necessary local sanitary sewer system improvements would be required to be incorporated into the project design to City and EBMUD satisfaction. The City would require that any existing sanitary sewer pipes not requiring replacement be inspected, and any inflow and infiltration from open joints, broken pipes, etc., be rehabilitated by means acceptable to the City Engineer (e.g., slip lining, pipe bursting, replacement, inversion lining). b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Answer: LESS - THAN - SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Explanation: Existing municipal sewer mains are located under the adjacent roadway system, sized to serve commercial buildout and full occupancy of the project block under current zoning. In accordance with standard City procedure, the project would be required to provide sanitary sewer calculations that compare total projected peak flows with historical (Le., previous full occupancy) peak flows, and to incorporate any necessary local sanitary sewer improvements into the project design to City satisfaction. Although there would be an increase in average daily wastewater flow over the current amount from the project site due to the addition of the cineplex and new retail uses, the project would not be expected to require the construction of new wastewater collection or treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities. CAWDIJOBS16471PRDIMND -EA 647 -sec 3 errata.doc Wagstaff and Associates City tf Alameda April 6, 2005 Draft MND /MFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project Page 4 -6 STATUTORY CHECKLIST (24 CFR 08.5] Record the determinations made regarding each listed statute, executive order or regulation. Provide appropriate source documentation. (Note reviews or consultations completed as well as any applicable permits or approvals obtained or required. Note dates of contact or pages references.] Provide compliance or consistency documentation. Attach additional material as appropriate. Note conditions, attenuation or mitigation measures required. Factors Historic Preservation [36 CFR 800] Determination and Compliance Documentation Compliance steps (Conditions of Approval) have been identified. The proposed project includes the historic rehabilitation of the existing 1932 Art Deco style Alameda Theater structure to create a restored, 500 -seat cinema, plus construction of a new cineplex, retail, and parking structure adjacent to the restored theater structure. The Alameda Theater is a locally - listed Alameda Historic Monument (1975) and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a contributing structure to the adjacent National- register listed Park Street Historic Commercial District (see Figure 3 in Attachment A). HUD Section 108 loan guarantee funds and BEDI grant funds are being requested by the City to help finance the parking structure component of the project. Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), an independent Section 106 review of the potential impacts of the proposed project on the Alameda Theater, other surrounding historic resources, and the Park Street Historic Commercial District, has been completed by Carey & Co., historic preservation architects, under contract to the environmental documentation authors, Wagstaff and Associates. The Carey & Co. Section 106 report is attached to this environmental document as Attachment D. The existing Alameda Theater building would be rehabilitated and returned to its original use as a theater. The proposed rehabilitation is intended to comply with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. The independent Section 106 review by Carey & Co. concluded that the preliminary theater rehabilitation design concept (October 2004), and the preliminary design concept for the adjacent new cineplex and parking structure components, comply with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and their potential effects on the historic Alameda Theater structure are therefore less than adverse and in most cases beneficial, with overall positive impacts on the historic resource. In addition, the Carey & Co. review has determined that the proposed project preliminary design concept, C:IWDIJOBS1647IPRDIMND -EA 647 -sec 4 errata.doc Wagstaff and Associates ' City of Alameda ' ApriT 6, 2005 Draft MND /MFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project Page 4 -7 Floodplain Management [24 CFR 55, Executive Order 11988] including the preliminary design concept for the new cineplex and parking structure components, would not have an adverse effect on the Park Street Historic Commercial District, and would not have an adverse effect on other identified and potential historic resources surrounding the project site. However, review of final project design details and specifications will ultimately be necessary to ensure that the final design of the theater rehabilitation/restoration and adjacent cineplex and parking structure components continues to comply with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and this potential impact would not be significant. With implementation of mitigation HIST -1, project compliance with City policies and standards and state and federal standards pertaining to the protection of historic resources (Le., the Secretary of the Interiors Standards) would be assured and this potential impact would not be significant. For the text of this mitigation measure, see section 2.3, "Conditions of Approval," on page 2 -3 of this document. The independent Section 106 review by Carey & Co. has also concluded that construction of the new cineplex and parking structure foundations and walls, and other project construction activities, including operation of construction equipment and storage of construction materials, could have an adverse effect on the existing historic Alameda Theater resource. In particular, operation of construction equipment and storage of construction materials could potentially damage the west elevation (Central Avenue frontage) of the existing historic theater. With implementation of mitigation measure HIST -2, this potential impact would not be significant. For the text of this mitigation measure, see section 2.4, "Conditions of Approval," on page 2 -4 of this document. The independent Section 106 review by Carey & Co. has also concluded that the proposed demolition of the Video Maniacs commercial /retail structure would take place far enough away from the existing historic theater so that this activity would not cause direct effects to the theater. The mitigation measures described above have been incorporated into the project Conditions of Approval (see section 2.3 herein) to ensure project compliance with 36 CFR 800. Compliance steps are not invoked. The project does not involve property acquisition, land management, construction or improvement within a 100 year floodplain (Zones A or V) or 500 year floodplain (Zone B) identified on a Federal C:IWDLIOBSI647IPRDIMND -EA 647 -sec 4 errata.doc Wagstaff and Associates City,of Alameda April 6, 2005 Draft MND /MFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project Page 4 -29 C:IWDIJOBSI6471PRDIMND -EA 647 -sec 4 errata.doc services in Alameda and would not require additional solid waste management facilities. Project construction has the potential to generate solid waste, especially from demolition of the existing Video Maniacs building and removal of demolition debris associated with the Alameda Theater rehabilitation. However, this increase in solid waste would not be expected t� significantly affect existing landfill capacity. Construction waste would be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of Municipal Code Chapter XXI (Integrated Waste Management System). Therefore, project construction will not significantly impact solid waste management. Waste Water 1 Due to the intensification of use at the site, development of the proposed project would incrementally increase the demand for sewer service. The City of Alameda Public Works Department has confirmed that there is available wastewater capacity within Subbasin 94E that is reserved for this project. Any necessary local sanitary sewer system improvements would be required to be incorporated into project design to City and EBMUD satisfaction. Existing municipal sewer mains are located under the adjacent roadway system, sized to serve commercial buildout and full occupancy of the project block under current zoning. In accordance with standard City procedure, the project would be required to provide sanitary sewer calculations that compare total projected peak flows with historical (i.e., previous full occupancy) peak flows, and to incorporate any necessary local sanitary sewer improvements into project design to City satisfaction. Although the proposed cineplex and retail uses would increase wastewater flows from the site over current flows, the project would not require the construction of new wastewater collection or treatment facilities, or the expansion of existing wastewater treatment facilities. Storm Water 1 Currently, the project site is entirely covered with structures or surface parking (asphalt paving). The project would not substantially change (increase or decrease) the proportion C:IWDIJOBSI6471PRDIMND -EA 647 -sec 4 errata.doc ATTACHMENT 2 VERBATIM LETTERS RECEIVED DURING AND AFTER THE 30 -DAY PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD FOR THE DRAFT IS /EA JAN -05 -1005 06:54PM FROM- PLANNING DEPT +5107484583 T -231 P.001 /003 F -599 MONIKA SLAY PITCHFORD December 21, 2004 To the City of Alameda Planning and Building Department: 1 am writing to share my comments on the proposed expansion of Alameda Theater. do not support the extension because I do not think it is a good use of city funds. I do not believe the island can support a seven or eight screen multiplex. I predict after the initial rush of exdtement for a new project, the theater will stand empty and we will wonder what we were thinking when we spent the money on the extension, l do support refurbisliiri tEe existing Ever, kbiveverTtl;ufat theproject S T tiX stop flier`s.... _. If the extension of the theater does take place, I am horrified by the ugly design of the building. What is the idea behind huge blank box? Is this a serious proposal? It is hideous! If we mast extend the theatei why not mimic the design of the existing theater so that the new building blends in with the old one? This large flat box of a building is one of the ugliest designs I have ever seen and I would be ashamed if our city built it. Please consider finding new architects as the ones you are using now have terrible taste. Monika Slay Pitchford IOU 1 a 330 N rA i DEC 2 7 2604 1 . PER;•. c' - l' : q LAM_' " ':.•C 1 1135 NASON STREET • ALAMEUA, CA • 94501 510.814 -7394 JAN -03 -2006 08:54PM FROM- PLANNING DEPT +6107484663 T -231 P.002/003 F -688 • • 1 F� EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT December 30, 2004 Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner City of Alameda Planning and Building Department 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, CA 94501 Dear Ms. Eliason: JAN Q Re: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration of Environmental Significance with Mitigation Measures for Alameda '[heater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project, Alameda East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBIvMUD) appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alameda Theater., Cineplex and Parking Structure Project located in the City of Alameda (City). EBMUD has the following comments. • WATER SERVICE EBMUD's Central Pressure Zone, with a service elevation range between 0 and 100 feet, provides water service to the existing property, with she elevations ranging between approximately 29 feet and 30 feet. If additional water service is needed, including water service for fire sprinkler protection, the project sponsor should contact EBMUD's New Business Office and request a water service estimate to determine costs and conditions for providing additional water service to the proposed development. Engineering and installation of water services requires substantial lead -time, which should be provided for in the project sponsor's development schedule. WASTEWATER SERVICE RRMT try. Min WostPwarer Trratmrnt Plant i4 antihinnt 1 to have Adelman dry weather capacity to treat the proposed wastewater flow from this project, provided this wastewater meets the standards of EBMUD's Environmental Services Division. However, the City's Infiltration/Inflow OM Correction Program set a maximum allowable peak wastewater flow from each subbasin within the City and EBMUD agreed to design and construct wet weather conveyance and neatment facilities to accommodate these flows. EBI1vfUD prohibits discharge of wastewater flows above the allocated peak flow for a subbasin because conveyance and treatment capacity for wet weather flows may be adversely impacted by flows above this agreed limit. The project sponsor for this project.needs to confirm with the City's Public Works Department that there is available capacity within the subbasin Flow allocation and that it has not been allocated to other 7TS ELEVENTH SMELT . OAKLAND . CA aAC07.uia . TOLL APSE 14U4 .EIMIJO 2 450 egol JAN - 06.2006 06:66PM FROM- PLANNING DEPT +6107464603 T -231 P.003/003 F -600 Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner December 30, 2004 Page 2 developments. It is not possible to make the determination that the increased demand would be less- than - significant without having this confirmation from the City. The projected peak wet weather wastewater flows from this project need to be determined to assess the available capacity within the subbasin and confirmation included in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Suggested language to include in the Mitigated Negative Declaration is as follows: "The City of Alameda Public Works Department has contained that the is available wastewater capacity within Subbasin (insert subbasin number here) that is reserved for this project." On page 3 -44 under Utilities and Service Systems, the Mitigated Negative Declaration states that the project will address the replacement or rehabilitation of thc existing on -site sanitary sewer collection system as directed by the City to prevent an increase in I/I. Please remove the words "on-site", as there may be new or rehabilitated sanitary sewers that are not on site but will still be required.by the City. This approach for I/I correction is acceptable to EBMUD. If you nave any questions concerning this response, please contact David J. Rehnstrom, Senior Civil Engineer, Water Service Planning, at (510) 287 -1365. Sincerely, e=71"-- WILLIAM R. KIRKPATRICK Manager of Water Distribution Planning WRK:ARC:sb sb04_405.doc JAN -ID -2006 08:2TPM FROM - PLANNING DEPT The TR Ali Preservation ' Society .4510(414793 Ms. Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner City of Alameda Planning and Building Department 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA. 94501 1 ■44I 1'.UU4 /UIY h -till RECT.—M-55'1 I JAN zoos PE�r-t•r rWEhfTt Se CA 9: January 10, 2005 Subject: Draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment for Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure. Dear Ms. Eliason: The draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment (IS/EA) makes repeated reference to the visual simulations (Figures 9 and 10 of IS/EA Attachment A and Figures 9 and 10 of Appendix E to Attachment D) and conceptual architectural elevations (Figures 7 and 8 of IS/EA Attachment A) of the new clneplex and parking garage structures and reaches various conclusions concerning the aesthetic and cultural resources impacts of the new structures based on the simulations and elevations. These conclusions are in turn based on conclusions presented in the Aesthetic Impact Analysis and Historic Resources Impact Findings for the project (Attachments C and D to the IS/EA). The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) believes that it is inappropriate to use the visual simulations and elevations, as presented, as the basis for these conclusions. The simulations and elevations show a degree of architectural refinement that is premature given that the actual City review process for these designs has not yet atirtrd snri that the garage nrchitert hrlq not nvnn hen 9PIPGtaii. Mctrt ivet. the A d€S shown on the simulations and the elevations are not the same, so it is not clear which design treatment is being evaluated. While AAPS agrees with the IS/EA's conclusion that the height, massing and setbacks of these structures will not adversely affect surrounding historic properties, we do not agree with this conclusion with respect to "finishes ", detailing (or lack thereof), "architectural features ", "current conceptual project design" and "project exterior design ". More specifically, we are concerned over the highly Modernistic architecture used for the Mottles and the expansive windowless and generally undifferentiated upper wall surfaces of the cineplex's corner block containing Cinema Nos. 4, 7 and 8 and do not agree with the IS /EA' s conclusion that these features are "compatible" with neighboring historic properties. P.O. Box 1677 Alameda, CA 94501 .510 -986 -9231 JAN -IU UA U :4d1M PI M- rLANNIi, wen +oiuraeaov4 r.vvu,us, r -oil While we understand that under the Secretary of the Interior's Standards the new cineplex must be "differentiated" from the existing historical Alameda Theater and not convey an image of "false historicism ", it is not our understanding that the design must be as modernistic as depicted in the simulations and elevations. We also recognize that the upper floor occupancy of the corner block by theaters will not allow windows but believe that there needs to be a higher degree of articulation on these surfaces so they do not present a blank wall. The windowless upper elevation of the Alameda Theater itself is a highly successful example of such articulation.. We are concerned that the inclusion of the simulations and exterior elevations in the IS/EA in effect puts these designs "on the table" for discussion and that they may set the tone for the actual design, even though City staff indicates that this is not intended to be the case and that the Historical Advisory Board and Planning Board will provide input on the overall design approach before actual design work will begin. .AAPS therefore requests: 1. That the visual simulations and elevations be simplified so that they are much more schematic, do not look like actual buildings and show only the proposed structures' height, massing and setbacks and delete fenestration, other openings, detailing and implied surface materials and textures. 2. That the IS/EA text delete all references to "architectural features", "finishes ", "exterior design ", "architectural details" and "project design" with respect to the cineplex and parking structures and that these text changes be as specifically shown in Attachment A (consisting of marked -up IS/EA pages showing specific text changes) to this letter. The Attachment A changes should also probably be reflected in the Aesthetic Impact Analysis and Historic Resources Impact Findings (Attachments C and D to the IS/EA). As an alternative to the above approach, the simulations and elevations and all text referring to them could be deleted entirely and that mitigation of potential aesthetic and cultural resource impacts be as set forth in Mitigations (or Conditions of Approval) AES- 1 and HST -1, which present the process for developing the actual design, including hiring an independent historic preservation professional to review the project plans for consistency with City, State and Federal policies and standards, including the Secretary of the Interior's Standards. Finally, we request that we be given an opportunity to review and comment on the process for hiring the garage architect and the independent historic preservation professional. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 523 -0411 or cbucklev@.alamedanet.net if you would like to discuss these comments, For U.S. mail, 2 JAn- IU -L000 UO:WM FROM - PLANNING DEPT +3107484593 T -241 P.006/019 F -612 please use my address at 1017 San Antonio Avenue, Alameda, CA. 94501, rather than the AAPS post office box. wswg Christophe = uckley, Preservation ction Co Attachment A: Marked -up pages from the Draft IS/EA. cc; AAPS Board and Preservation Action Committee members 3 Jour -IU UUo 06:ZIPM FROM- PLANNING DEPT +6107464603 T -241 P.007/019 F -612 ATTACHMENT A: MARKED -UP PAGES FROM THE DRAFT INITIAL STUDY/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Jnn- iu -cuuo uo:ourM rKUM- rLAIYNI116 UtrT +510T484563 7-241 P.008 /019 F -612 Wagstaff and Associates • Draft MNDMIRONSI Chy ofnhe 04 ameda Theater, Clnsplercand Pe endure rw p 22 72 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (NEPA) FINDINGS The specific findings of the Environmental Assessment component of this joint document are Included In chapter 4 and are summarized below. With the.Inoiusion of the mitigation measures specified In this document, the project Is anticipated to have no Significant impact on the environment Environmental Factor Project Impact • • Conformance with Comprehensive Plans and . Zoning Compatibility and Urban impact Potentially beneficial • Employment and income Patters • Commercial Facilities . • Open Space and Recreation — Recreation • Transportation . Requires mitigation • Soli Suitability • Hazards and Nuisances including Site Safety • Noise: Contribution to Community Noise Levels • Air Qualiity: Contribution to Ccmnwnity Pollution Levels • Environmental Design: Visual Quality -- Coherence, Diversity, Compatble Use and Scale • • = M other environmental factors No impact 2.3 CONDmONS OF APPROVAL (UST OP MMGATIONS) The mitigations listed below represent Conditions for Approval adopted by the City of Alameda (the Lead Agency under CEQA and the Responsible Entity under NEPA) to eliminate or minimize adverse environmental Impacts, pursuant to CEQA and NEPA, as amended. These conditions must be included in project contracts and other relevant documents as requirements (CEQA Guidelines section 18070, 24 CFR 51I1.40(d), and 40 CFR 15052(c)]. See chapter 3 (the CEQA Initial Study Evaluation) and chapter 4 (the NEPA' Environmental Assessment) of this joint document for a more detailed Mitigation AES-1: Project Visual by the City's Historic Advisory Boa Board would be required that th n of these impact and negation findings. patiblhty impact. • Issuanoe of a Cerdfloate of Approval and design review and approval by the Alameda Planning e architectural design of the proposed project To ensure hitectural design remains consistent with pertinent City C iWDUOBSId4APRDIIJNDZA ear- sea Zdoc 1 ■ r ■ M ■ a 11- i'�. IP vm. IV'iVVV VV•.IrM rm M-ri.innimu 'Agri +8107484393 T -241 P.009/019 F -612 wsgataff and Msacletea I ... . _.. _ — ."4 - — .1D MIJD/MFON$I 1 • CIry of Alameda Alarneda Tllaater. Cineplex and Parking Structure Proleat Decembar 8,2004 Pace a„e 3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 3.41 Aesthetics. Would the project: 1 a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 Answer LESS - THAN - SIGNIFICANT IMPACT Explanation: The projeot site and vicinity are designated for relatively intensive urban development in the CitvyfAlameda General Plant and are already substantially urbanized. The protect would not have a substantial adverse effect on a soenlo vista. Other than the surrounding views of the massive, Art Deco, Alameda Theater structure, there are no Identified scenic vistas through the project site towards onsite or surrounding visual features. Project impacts on the usual quality of the Alameda Theater and the remainder of the project site and surroundings, are further described under items b, c and d below. b. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Answer: POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT•IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED f; The fallowing impact and mitigation conclusions are excerpted from Attachment C: Aesthetic Impacts Analysis Impact ABS-1: Project Visual Compatibility Impact. Based on independent review of the project preliminary design package, the environmental consultants, with the assistance of Carey & Co., Inc., historic preservation architects, have determined the following: -P-13 -...A--ewpgcliacto,vetikl-intpaduee-neeskati-quality-erekiteatu. • the historic Alameda Theater structure would be used for its historic purpose with minimal change to its defining ' characteristics; • the distinctive features and finishes that characterize the theater, Including its Art Deco marquees, fluting and bas- relief . ornamentation, would be preserved; • the deteriorated and modified Art Deco storefronts which flank the theater entrance would be substantially repaired and restored; c:1WDWOBS18471PR01MND -EA 847.sec adoo '(stow fla 1,'- 11. 1 Yn” IY -•YV. Ya,i1rM rrtuM- rI,Annina uari Wagstaff O Alaamed Associates December 6, 2004 +6107494093 T -241 P.010/019 F -812 Draft MND /MFONSI Alarnadirtreater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project • Pagel• • the adjacent new Cineplex structure would be visually differentiated from the original historic Alameda Theater ""•' structure by a lower building height and an exterior well recess where the two buildings meet, and would feature compatible ma8ein. Iel , • the new Cineplex and parking structure additions are designed In such a manner that N removed In the future, the essential form and integrity of the Alameda Theater would be unimpaired; • the new Cineplex and parldng . ctures have been designed with building heights, massing, setbacks,.aell finiskes which '1 are reflective and respective of udeting historic and architecturally significant structures on the opposite sides of Central Avenue and Oak Street (i.e., the Alameda High SohooVAlameda Adult School building, Twin Towers Methodist Church, and Alameda Free Library); ew cinepleX ntral Avenue would have an appropriate zero of a line along relationship to the sidewaikand street; would respect, maintain and enhance the visual distinctiveness and prominence of the, historic Alameda Theater •structure; would effectively enhance the desired pedestrian actor of the site's_ Central Avenue frontage; and would b armonious ith the 'dating, architecturaj(y distinctive win Towers Methodist Church on the opposite (northwest) comer of the Oak Street and Central Avenue; • the iireitlieetteal4eatrareereflie ew parking structure facade along Oak Street would also have an appropriate zero -lot line • relationship to the sidewalk and street end would be hanrionious ieigF eRdi{Mielr(bricC-venee4 with the a ng Alameda Free Library structure on the oppos'Te side of the Oak Street • the intensive zero-iot -line architeotural elements of the new Cineplex structure and new parking structure, including their ground floor retail storefronts, would serve to balance the affected Central Avenue and Oak Street streetsoapes, visually unify the block, create an appropriate sense of place around . the Alameda Theater, and introduce needed visual cohesiveness within the block and between the block arid . surrounding downtown blocks; • the ` - . , would be consistent with City - adopted visual and urban design policies for the Downtown and Park Street area; and c lWDV019Si647U'RDU'NNC•E4 d47.sec3.doc am-14 -61NC uu; ru PKUP - 'LANNIfU LF +6107404663 • ` :19/. agate adedas ~174 mbar 0, 2004 T -241 P.011 /019 F -6I2 • Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Pad nirStrl,i idly# '• ■ the � : would be in compliance with U,S. Secretary of the interior's' Standards for Rehabilitation and Resto adon, including standards pertaining to preserving the visual.and historic integrity of the onslte Alameda Theater, and standards perteining•to protection of surrounding historic and ntlally historio resources. It•appears that the ould have a• • positive. (beneficial visual impact In improving the visual compatibility or me urupgnx aim, a.J L, u ...1Aa1, Would L4c11111�r �1hfinnl 1nfl ,�• •r , - Avenue and Oak Street etreetsoapes, ae we11 as the overall Park -"`"=' ' • rki'Commercial District east of the project site. - • - - . • - : tolbe consistent with applicable at of Alameda General Plan :policies pertaining to Downtown visual, ass urban design facaorei end with applicable U.S. for Rehab/tltatlon and Explanation: Mitigation AES -1: vs. opposite streetscapes Commercial Dis$ Alarrfeda Theater and eu • u 1 idgbLstoric and potentially historic stnwtures. • S 4, etti. I t • oti1 J 73"441 -- Nevertheless, until the project and these preliminary conciusions :cars be verified by the City of Alameda Hietorioal Advlsory•Board and City of Alameda Pianning'Board during the Cityrequired.dtacretionary. review.prooess, it le assumed that the project final architec rural design may have a potentlally significant adverse visual compatibility Impact. See Attachment Cr •Aisthetip impact Analysis, for a more detailed • explanation of the Impact AES4 finding above and Mitigation AES -1 finding below. ' • Ise :Approval by the City's Historic Advisory oard and design revi -. approval by the Alameda Planning Board Would be requi _' r - e arc hitectural de sign of the proposed project. To eneurettti architectural design remains, consistent with pertinent City visuai"and urban design policies and vial staie and federal historic preservation • standards- -i.e:, th® U.S. See miry of the Interior's Standards far Rehabilitation and Restora on, t!etain an independent historic preservation'proteselonal tdreview the completed project plans and specifications for•conaisterioy With these policies and standards. The retained Independent professional shall meet the Secretary of the interior's Proposed Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards (1998) for Historic Architecture, Historic Preservation ' . Planning tind/orArchitectural History. Final Historical Advisory Board and Punning Board approval of the project architectural design shall Cv:IWOVOBSIb`4i{PRDVNND -E4 547s003.Coc JAN -10 -2008 06:33PNI FRO•PLANNING DEPT Wagataftand•Assoa1ate8 '._ . .. - . Draft MND/MFONSI oft: "�' GE- Alameda • • ; Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Paddng structure Project December 9.2004 paw include consideration of -these independent review findings and any 4.1•r associated design refinement recommendations. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would ensure that any adverse project visual incompatibility impacts would be reduced to a less-than. significant level. c. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? +6107434693 T -241 P.012/010 F -612 M M1 Answer; • POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED Explanation: Same as 3.4.1.b above. d. Create anew source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Answer. LESS-THAN-SIGN ANT IMPACT Explanation: The at; “Ai DE hrl trA7t err' enoi R proj • meld not Involve use of any highly reflective building surface with potentials to create glare impacts. The project would also eliminate the high exterior luminaires now located within the onsite surface parklng areas. Various Illuminated aspects of the project, including the existing and new cinema marquees and the open parking garage levels, would be viable from surrounding streets. Given the existing highly urbanized, downtown commercial and civic nature of these street frontages, the project - introduced lighting effects would not be conspicuously different than other lighting already existing in the Alameda Downtown. Also, there are no surrounding residential uses, and under its normal Design Review procedures, the City routinely requires that new lighting be shielded to prevent unnecessary glare. As a result, the prdect would have a less -than slgnifcant adverse exterior light or glare impact on existing surrounding activities and uses. I 3x4.2 Agricultural Resources_ (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental efects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of a Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland) Would the project: a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non - agricultural use? C1WDUOBSI6471PADUUND -E4 $- aaa s dog TAUS s'�; -1 JAN -10 -2006 08 :34PM FROM- PLANNING DEPT Wagstaff and Associates . City of Alameda December 8, 2004 +6107484603 T -241 P.013/010 F -812 Draft MNDIMFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Struoture'PtoJvd Page 5.16 Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. An Independent Section 106 review by Carey & Co., historic preservation architects (Attachment D), concludes that the preliminaaty theater rehabilitation design plans (October 2004) comply with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and their effects would therefore be less than adverse and In most cases beneficial, with overall positive impacts on the Alameda Theater historic resource. In addition th = re & Co. review has determined that the proposed project, Including env oineplex and parking etrueture components, would not have•an adverse effect on the Park Street Historic Commercial Dtttrlot, and would not have an adverse effect on other identified and potential historic resources surrounding the-... project site. L k,3Tt -H,., a� Explanation: However, review of final project design details and specffications would be necessary to ensure that the final design of the theater restoration and adjacent clnepplex and parking structure compone �� - - with the Secretary of the Interior's standards. erefore, until thefinal project design achieves design review approval by the City of Alatmeda Historical Advisory Board and Planning Board, based in part on the findings and recommendations of an independent professional engaged in preservation —i.e., is . determined by the two Boards to be consistent with City- adopted standards for design review and with applicable Secretary of the .Interior standards for historic rehabilitation and restoration, it is . umed that the . L may have a significant adverse effect on the historic ameda Theate The proposed project includes the historic rehabilitation of the existing 1932 Art Deco style Alameda Theater structure to create a restored, 300 -seat cinema, and construction of a new Cineplex, retail, and parking'struoture adjacent to the restored theater structure. The Alameda Theater is a locally -Acted Alameda Historic Monument (1976) and is listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NI;HP) as a contributing structure within the National-register listed Park Street Historic Commercial District (see Figure 3 In Attachment A). HUD BEDi grant funds and HUD Section 108 loan guarantee funds are being requested by the City to help finance the parking structure component of the project (see page 4 -1 of this document). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to review and consider the Impacts of their undertakings, including grants and loans, on historic properties. Pursuant to this requirement, an independent Seotion 108 review of the potential impacts of the proposed project on the Alameda Theater, other surrounding historic resources, and the Park Street Historic Commercial District, has been completed by Carey & Co., historic preservation architects, under contract to the environmental documentation authors, Wagstaff and Associates. A Draft version of the Carey & Co. Section 106 report is attached to this environmental document as Attaohment D. The Impaot HIST -1 finding above and Mitigation 1115 -1 finding below are a ::1 WDUO8S16471PAD%MND -Fri 647440 3.doc JAN -10 •2006 06:34PM FROM - PLANNING DEPT • Wa< atsNinCIAssociates :..Ci Alameda :.' • • "• • December 6, 2004 +6107484633 T -241 P.014/010 F -612 Draft MD/WOWS! Alameda Theater. Cineplex and Parldnp Structu e'Piblebt •Pale 48 STATUTORY CHECKLIST • f24 CFR §58:51 Record the determinations made regarding each Usted statute, executive order or regufatiorh:• Provide appropriate source documentation. (Note retdews orconsWtations completed as wen as anyapplloabls permits or apprnovals obtained or required! Note dates of contact or pages references.) Provide compliance or consistency documentation. Attach addtlonal.material as appropriate. Note conaRions, attenuation or mitigation measures required. Factors. Hfstodc •Preservation [38 CFR .50oj Determination and Compliance Documentation Comp! anoe steps • ( Conditions of Appiroval) have been identified. The proposed project includes the historic rehabilitation of the existing 1932 Art Deco style Alameda Theater structure to create'a restored, 500•seat cinema, plue construction of a now cinepleoc, retail, and parking struoture adjacent to the restored theater structure. The Alameda Theater is a locally- listed Alameda Hlstorio Monument (1975) and is Hated in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) as a contributing structure to the adjacent National - register listed Perk Street Historic Commercial District (see Figure 8 in Attachment A). HUD Secction 108 loan guarantee funds and BEDI grant funds are being requested by the City to help finance the parking structure component of the project. Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), an independent Section 106 review of the potential impacts of the proposed•proJect on the Alameda Theater, other surrounding historic resources, and the Park Street Historio Commercial District, has•been oornpleted•by Carey & Co., historic preservation architects, under contract to the environmental documentation authors, Wagstaff and Associates. The Carey & Co. Section 108 report is attached to this environmental document ea Attachment D. The existing Alameda Theater building would be rehabilitated and returned to its original use as a theater. The proposed rehabilitation Is •intended to comply with the U.S. Secretarycf the interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. The independent Section 106 review by Carey & Co. concluded that the preliminary theater rehabiltatlon design plans (October 2004), and the pr.Aminarydga#etJ the adjacent new cinepiex and parking structure • components, oomply with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and their potential effects on the historic Alameda Theater structure are therefore Tess than adverse and in most oases beneficial, with overall positive impacts on the historic resource. in addition. the Carey & Co. review has determined that the • ro • • ed • • eot • rellmina des! • n, C :IWDUQ881647iPRDIMND -5A 64741C 4.d0C M lictot 1'1- 1 1 1 1 t s E 1 r N 1 r JAN -10 -2005 06:35PM FROM- PLANNING DEPT wagvtaff and Associates City ief,Atarbada .December 6, 2004 45107484503 p-e T -241 P.015/019 F -612 Draft MND/MF0N$I Theater, Cineplex ar5d Parking Structure Project Page 4-7 p = m nary - e new c ep - and parking structure components, would not have an adverse effect on the Park Street Historic Commercial Dietrict, and would not have an.adveree effect on other identified and .potential historic resources surrounding the project Bite. However, review �i n4("`7a project design nd specifications will ultimately be necassa to sure that the final design of the theater rehabliitatlon/restoration and djacent dnepiex and parking structure components th the Secretary of the interior's ards and this potential impact would not be significant With implementation of mitigation HIST -1, project compliance with City polides and standards and state and federal standards pertaining to the protection of historic .resources (I.e., the Secretary of The interiors Standards) would be assured and this potential impact would not be significant. For the text of this mitigation measure, see section 2.3, `Conditions of Approval," on page 2-3 of this document. Floodplain Management (24 CFR 55, Executive Order.. 11988] The independent Section 106 review by Carey & Co. has also concluded that construction of the new Cineplex and parking structure foundations and walla, and other project construction ages, including operation of construction equipment and storage of construction materials, could have an adverse effect on the existing historic Alameda Theater resource. In particular, operation of oonstruotion equipment and storage of construction materials could potentially damage the west elevation (Central Avenue frontage) of the existing historic theater. With implementation of mitigation measure HIST-2, this potential impact would not be significant. For the text of this mitigation measure, see section 2.4, "Conditions of Approval," on page 2.4 of this document - The independent Section 106 review by Carey & Co. has also concluded that the proposed demolition of the Video Maniacs corrunerciai/retail structure would take place far enough away from the existing historic theater so that this activity would not cause direct effects to the theater. The mitigation measures described above have been incorporated into the project Conditions of Approval (see section 2.3 herein) to ensure project compliance with 36 CFR 800. Compliance Maps are not Invoked. The project does not Involve property acquisition, land management, construction or imerovement within a 100 year floodplain (Zones A or V) or 500 year floodpiain (Zone B) Identified on a Federal C:NOV06516471PROIMND -EA 647ssoo44oc - JAN -10 -2006 08:38PM FROM- PLANNING DEPT "Dee Osbdr 01.2004 +8107484393 7-241 P.016/019 F -812 Draft MNP/MFONSI Alameda Theater, Oriente* and ParkIng•Stnicate Project Pap 4-0-2 :•preservation architects, hae determined the following: the historic Alameda Theater structure would be used for its historic purpose with minimal change to its defining characteristics; 9 the distinctive features and finishes that characterize the theater, including Its Art Deco marquees, fluting and bas- relief ornamentation, would be preserved; • the deteriorated and modified Art Deco storefronts which flank the theater entrance would be substantially repaired and restored; • the adjacent new oineplex structure would be visually differentiated from the original Alameda Theater structure by a lower building height and an e r wan r ere the two buildings meet, and Id feature compatible massingc • • the new dneplex and parking structure additions are designed in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the Alameda Theater would be unimpaired; • the new oinepiex and park structures have been des • ed with building hel his, mast;( - etbacks, whlcfi are 'reflective and respective of existing historic and architecturally significant structures on the opposite sides of Central Avenue and Oak Street (Le., the Alameda High SchooVAlameda Adult School building, Twin Towers Methodist Church, and Alameda Free Library); CAWOUOestssnPab MALD -E4 647-see 4Aoc j 1 1 JAN -10 -2003 08:37PM FROM- PLANNING DEPT • Wagstaff ant! MN*, : ftrOtAlarFada:: Deoirrrbdr 6',2a04 +3107484303 T -241 P.018/010 F -812 Draft MNP/MFONSI ' Alamo Theater, OInepleic and PN dn9• nPProject 'preservation architects, has determined the following: • the historic Alameda Theater structure would be used far its historic purpose with minimal change to its defining characteristics; • the distinctive features and finishes that characterize the theater, including its Art Deco marquees, fluting and bas- relief ornamentation, would be preserved; • the deteriorated and modified Art Deco storefronts which flank the theater entrance, would be substantially repaired and restored; • the adjacent new oineplex structure would be visually differentiated from the original Alameda Theater structure by a lower building height and an ere the two buildings rneet, and tr Id feature compatible masetngi _ • • the new dneplex and parking structure additions are designed in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the Alameda Theater would be junimpaired; • the new cineplex and park' structures have been des • ed with • building hei hts, nn3S$in attacks, hich are 'reflective and respective a deting historic and architecturally significant structures on the opposite sides of Central Avenue and Oak Street (Le., the Alameda High SchooVAlameda Adult School building, Twin Towers Methodist Church, and Alameda Free Lib •. a lWOL109$164i1PRD1MNa•Eiq 647-sac 4.doc ?64 a) o p. i 1 1 JAN -10 -2000 06:3TPM FROM- PLANNING DEPT ...Wagstaff. and-Associates Dacertber 8, 2004 +6107464063 T -241 P.017/010 F -612 Draft MNONFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure N fact the new cineplex fagade along Cerftral Avenue would have an appropriate zero -lot -line relationship to the sidewalk and street; would respect, maintain and enhance the visual uniqueness and prominence of the historic Alameda Theater structure: would effectively enhance the desired pedestrian charaoter of the site's Ce Av nue frontage; and would bl( 1hamtoniou with the casting, architecturally di native Twin Towers Methodist Church on the oppoette (northwest) comer of the Oak Street and Central Avenue; • the(_ new park7ng structure fagade along ak Street would also have an appropriate zero-lot-line relationship to the sidewalk and street a>nd would be rrnortioue ) with the existing Alameda free Library structure in the opposite side of the Oak Street; • the intensive zero-lot -line architectural elements of the new olneplex structure and new parking structure, inducting their ground floor retail storefronts, would serve to balance the affected Central Avenue and Oak Street streetsoapes, visually unify the block, create an appropriate sense of place around the Alameda Theater, and introduce needed visual cohesiveness within the block and between the block and surrounding downtown blocks; . th :. _ _ , : ould be oon = latent with City -ado= ' - • visual and urban design policies for the Downtown and Park Street area; and th uid be in c piianoe witft U.S. Secretary of the interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration, including standards C tlnrowoeste47%PRDwND•EA 947 -sec 4400 owells Pivot=. ar- )2 JAN -10 -2006 06:38PM FROM- PLANNING DEPT lAssoclaten • p ., • . +5107484503 T -241 P.018 /018 F -812 Draft MND/MFONSI Alanada Thsatar, Clnapkix and Parking 5 uc pre Prafaot 4434 B • - ` p.. --.ire - dtvr••� �. LA- 1 fi.. 1 ,�' 1 w` s., i,, ` _ .4 'Ty�p - -f • ~ • pertaining to preserving the visual and . historic integrity of the ansfte Alameda Theater, and standards pertaining to protection of surrounding historic and poterltiaily•historic resources. It appears that th - • Id ha positive (beneficial) visual impact in improving the visual compatibility of the project site, and In general, would kieually•enhance the surrounding Central A - - . - ? - Street streeteoapes, = s the overall - ark Street Historic • mrtferciai Dist of the project site. - ~- •pearrto be consistent w i t h apjIicable AL •1 - ___ILL.,.,._, c _ 1 - ,_ - _, policies pertaining to Downtown visual, aesthetio and urban design factors. and with . - - -1• e • a Searetay otitis Interior's S Rehabilitation and Restoration, - • are oompatibie with opposite efts the adjacent Park Street iHlataiic _ . ' 'al District, . - _.. . 1 �`'� s �) -0 "' . . :. _,_, _. ; the Alameda Theater and aurroun dg h = • ric and potentially historic structures. • Nevertheless, until the prof ' �l. , and. these preliminary conclusions cart be verified by the City of Alameda' Historical Advisory Commission and City of Alameda Planning Board during the City- required discretionary review prates,, it is assumed that the project final architectural design may have an adverse environmental design impact. With implementation of mitigation measure AES-1, this potential • impact would not be significant. For the text of this mitigation measure, see section 2.3, "Conditions of Approval; on page 2-2 of this docurhent For additional discussion of project environmental design and visual quality implications, including this mitigation finding, please see Attachment 0; Aesthetic I • act Anal aia. ' • s „ • DA-i's y " . ,...,. --' • , C: iWDU08$16471PRDWMND•EA 847-tec 4 co ?4&i 1101 --1 1 1 1 1 JAN -10 -20 05 08:30PM FROM- PLANNING DEPT -wawa arid Atatoalstes . City of Alamella. Doeember B: 2004 +6107484508 T -241 P.019 /010 F -612 Draft MND/MFONSI Alameda Theater, Cineplex end Parking Structure Prolvq Page 01-25 Socioeconomic Code Source of Documentation Demographic Character Changes . • • . • . 1 The proposed project would include no houelng component, The project would continue and expand existing and planned for commercial uses at the Downtown site at a scale which would not be expeoted to induce substantial incremental population growth in • the area, either directly or indirectly. No housing would be displaced with project Implementation. For any existing business displaoement which may result from the project, relocation assistance would be required by state redevelopment law. Seotion 8032 of Title 26 of Calfomia Redevelopment Law (CRL) would require the City's Community improvement Commission (CIC) to develop and Implement a reiooation assistance advisory program to ensure that any persons displaced from their place of business would be assisted in reestablishing a minimum of delay." Required compliance with these CRL provisions would reduce the potential adverse impact of the project resulting from possible business displacementto.a less than elliniflcant level. Displacement ' . • 1 . • . Employment and Income Patterns • • . . , . • • • . 2 In 1996, the City of Alameda's prindpal employer and business generator, the Alameda Naval Air Station (NAS), was closed, with significant adverse economic impacts on the City, including the direct Toss of epprov mataly 10,960 military personnel, 3,230 civilian jobs and at least 1,800 local jobs indirectly related to base activities. As a result of the NAS closure, the City has been compelled to redirect and diversity its boa! economy. Plans and other efforts to establish viable reuse of the NAS are underway. In addition, the City's General Plan, Business and Waterfront Improvement Plan (BWIP), Alameda Downtown Vision Plan and Economic Development Strategic Plan all place. emphasis an the need to revitalize the City's Downtown and National Register listed nark Etroot Wiotorio Commoroial Dittriat at a key means of broadening the City's eoonomic base. The project is a core component of this. redevelopment strategy to Improve the City of Alameda's downtown economic base. The CANDIJO68I6471PRDtMND -EA G47-sec 4.doc, PA6ef:. 12 do -- �-- JAVI -10 -2006 06:28PM FROM- PLANNING DEPT +6107484683 J. -mt Amend nehwaseenegger Governor STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office•of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and planning 'Unit January 10, 2005 • Cynthia 8Uason • City of Abumada 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94577 Subject; Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Struotnre Prgject SCl# 2004122042 T -241 P.002 F -612 (11:01V tilijr90114 Ito Rod Acting Director . Dear Cynthia Sliaion: • • The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Negative Dealaztatioa to selected site agencies for review. The review period closed on Jamsaty 7, 2005, sad no state agencies submitted orsontente by that date, This lever aohnowledges fiat you have complied whit the State Cleeriaghouse review requirements • for dash enviroa>rlannl doeumea1ls, pursuant to the California Environments' Quality Act. Please ea the State Clearinghouse at (916) 45.0613 if you have any questions regsrdiag the environmental review process. If you have a question about the above -oohed protect, please refer to the ten -digit State Cleariaghouie number when convening this office. Sincerely, 4444z--- Terry RobJrts Director, State Clearinghouse • 1400 TEN I SIREET 9.0.310X 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 96612.7044 18L (916)445.0613 FAX (916) 12.3.3015 www.apr.ca.gov 4,0J JAN -10 -2006 06:2TPM FROM•PLANNING DEPT +1107404593 • , State Clearinghouse Data Base seHS 2004122042 ProjectTWe Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project Lead Agency Alameda, City of T -241 P.003/019 F112 Type Nes Negative Declaration Deserfetion The currently proposed project, referred to as "Option A," consists of rehabilitation of a trey opportunity site In Downtown Alameda, including constructon of a new multi -Isval parking structure with 350 spaces; rehabilitation of the existing Art Deco style, Alameda Theater.te erode a restored, 500-Beat cinema: and construction of en *dissent 3,500 SF of ground floor retail epees. A possible future expansion of the proposed parking garage onto the entering adjacent Long's Drug site, referred to as "Option S," would add epproxlmately 138 more parking spaces to the garage, for a total of approximately 508 spaces, end a net increase of another apprmdmately 15,000 9F of retail space on the expanded alte. Lead Agency Contact Name , Cynthia Meson Agency City of Alameda Phone (510) 747.8800 anal! Adams* 2253 Santa Clara Avenue City Alameda Pax state CA Zip 94577 Project Location . County Alameda City Alameda Region Cross Streets Central Avenue !Oak Street 1 Santa Clara Avenue Parcel No. 071. 0203 -014, 015, 018, 017 Tbwnshlp Range Sootion Base Proximity to: lflghweye SR 81 Airports Oakland International Railways N/A - • Waterways SF Say, Oeidand Inner Harbor Schools Land Use Clnopiox ! Cammerclel ! Parking - CC & CtafPD Pro/eat issues AeathetirlViaual; Alt Quality; Archaeologic- Historic: Cumulative Weds; Economies/Jobe; Noise; Other Issues; Toxfc/Haeardoue: TrafAoJClreulatlon Reviewing Resources Agency; Regional Water 'Duality Control Board, Region 2; Department of Peaks and Agencies Racrootion; Native American Heritage Commission; Office of Historic Preservation; Department of Fish and Gana, Region 3; Department of Water Resources; California Highway Patrol; Caitrane, District 4; Caltrans, Division of Aeronautics; San Francisco Say Conservation and Development Commission; • State Lands Commission Date Received* 12109/2004 Start of Review 12/09/2004 End of Review 01/07/2005 Note: Blanks In data fields result from Insufficient Irrformation provided by lead agency. FEB-02 -2006 02:10PM FROM- PLANNING DEPT Arnold Scbwa zenogger Governor January 20, 2005 +6107484683 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Governor's Office of Planning and Research T-259 P.001 /003 F -668 * State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit �` rte, •"' ISetirtg Dir ,W��� \lli r, 1'rMJ•e „. Cynthia Eliason City of Alameda 22G3 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94577 • • Subject: Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parkin; Structure Project SCH#: 2004122042 Dear Cynthia Mason; The enclosed comment (s) on your Negative Declaration was (were) received by the State Clearinghouse after the end of the state review period, which closed on January 7, 2005. We an forwarding these comments to you because they provide information or raise issues that should be addressed in your final environmental document. The California Environmental Quality Act does not require Lead Agencies to respond to late comments. However, we cncoarage you to incorporate these additional comments into your final environmental document and to consider them prior to taking final action on the proposed project. Please contact the State Clearinghouse at (916) 445 -0613 if you have any questions concerning the environmental review process. If you have a question regarding the above -named project, please refer to the ten -digit State Clearinghouse number (2004122042) when contacting this office. Sincerely, 4/44z- Terry Roberts Senior Planner, State Clearinghouse Enclosures cc: Resources Agency 1400 TENTH STREET P.O. SOX 3044 SACRAMENTO, CALIPOttNIA 95812.3044 TEL (916) 445-0613 PAX (916) 323.3018 wwwaprae.gev 5. oI FEB-02 -2006 02:11PM FROM- PLANNING DEPT +6107464603 T -250 P.002/003 F -666 szaanzetiumetaiwidereseeziannemnosammunamm. ________esucluximmanummuwa6 DEPARTMENT .OF TRANSPORTATION 1 1 1 GRAND AVENUE P. 0, BOX 23664 OA1ND, CA 94623.0660 PHONE (510) 246.3505 PAX (510) 216.3513 TTY (000) 735.1929 January 19, 2005 Ms. Cynthi* Mason City of Alameda 2263 Santa Pars Avenue Alameda, CA 94577 DOE Ms. Mason: RECEIVED JAN 1 9 2005 STATE CLEARIN3 HOUSE Clear 1 -1.05 to -e Fitz your power! tle energy iplmnnu ALA - 61.19.84 ALA061086 SON 2004122042 Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Perklu4 Structure Project — bridal Study/ Mitigated Negative Dearlaratlon MND) Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation in the environmental review process for the proposed project, We have reviewed the lvIND and have the following coaunena to offer: Please provide the Alameda Theatre, Cineplex and Parking Structure Transportation nportation biipart Analysis dated December 2004, which is mentioned on page 3 -36 of the MND, for our review. We will not be able to determine if the proposed project will adversely impact State transportation facilities until we have had the opportunity to review this document. In addition, based upon the mitigation measures listed in the MND it does not appear that the intersections along Encinal Street (State Route 61) were studied in the transportation impact analysis. The proposed project site is only one block away from State Route (SR) 61, and therefore impacts to the intersections along SR 61 should be evaluated. Specifically, the analysis needs to evaluate the impacts of the proposed project on the following intersections: SR 61/ Oak Sweet, SR 61/ Park Street, Park Avenue. Measures must be proposed and implemented to mitigate any significant impacts to these State intersections. Please send a copy of the transportation impact analysis and the above•mentioned intersection analyses to the address at the top of this letterhead marked ATTN: Patricia Maurice, Office of Transit and Community Planning: °CaNrone improver efreiilry Penn! C JLfOnb" G�. of 6.02 F68- 74'1[415 02:12PM FROM- PLANNING DEPT ids. C2adla Ilium, City of Alagoas 7aauafr I!, 3006 Pram 2 +6107464603 T-259 P.003/003 F -666 Should you require futther information or have any questions regarding this latter, please call Patricia Maurice of my staff at (S10) 622 -1644, Sincerely, a TIM* . SABLE District B h Chief IDR/CEQA c: State Clearinghouse "Cana *prow maliaftyaribLI Calyirnta" EXHIBIT B FINDINGS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CAN BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE The following sets forth all significant effects of the project, all of which can be reduced to a level of insignificance, and less than significant impacts for which mitigation is recommended. 1. Project Visual Compatibility Impact. Based on independent review of the project preliminary design package, the environmental consultants, with the assistance of Carey & Co., Inc., historic preservation architects, have determined the following: • the project would introduce needed quality architectural elements and improve the visual image of the area; • the historic Alameda Theater structure would be used for its historic purpose with minimal change to its defining characteristics; • the distinctive features and finishes that characterize the theater, including its Art Deco marquees, fluting and bas - relief ornamentation, would be preserved; • the deteriorated and modified Art Deco storefronts which flank the theater entrance would be substantially repaired and restored; • the adjacent new cineplex structure would be visually differentiated from the original historic Alameda Theater structure by a lower building height and an exterior wall recess where the two buildings meet, and would feature compatible massing, scale and architectural features; • the new cineplex and parking structure additions are designed in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the Alameda Theater would be unimpaired; • the new cineplex and parking structures have been designed with building heights, massing, setbacks, and finishes which are reflective and respective of existing historic and architecturally significant structures on the opposite sides of Central Avenue and Oak Street (i.e., the Alameda High School/Alameda Adult School building, Twin Towers Methodist Church, and Alameda Free Library); • the architectural features of the new cineplex facade along Central Avenue would have an appropriate zero -lot -line relationship to the sidewalk and street; would respect, maintain and enhance the visual distinctiveness and prominence of the, historic Alameda Theater structure; would effectively enhance the desired pedestrian character of the site's Central Avenue frontage; and would be visually harmonious in height and finish (texture) with the existing, architecturally distinctive Twin Towers 1 Methodist Church on the opposite (northwest) corner of the Oak Street and Central Avenue; • the architectural features of the new parking structure facade along Oak Street would also have an appropriate zero -lot -line relationship to the sidewalk and street and would be visually harmonious in height and finish (brick veneer) with the existing Alameda Free Library structure on the opposite side of the Oak Street; • the intensive zero -lot -line architectural elements of the new cineplex structure and new parking structure, including their ground floor retail storefronts, would serve to balance the affected Central Avenue and Oak Street streetscapes, visually unify the block, create an appropriate sense of place around the Alameda Theater, and introduce needed visual cohesiveness within the block and between the block and surrounding downtown blocks; • the project exterior design would be consistent with City- adopted visual and urban design policies for the Downtown and Park Street area; and • the project exterior design would be in compliance with U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration, including standards pertaining to preserving the visual and historic integrity of the onsite Alameda Theater, and standards pertaining to protection of surrounding historic and potentially historic resources. It appears that the current conceptual project design would have a positive (beneficial) visual impact in improving the visual compatibility of the project site, and in general, would visually enhance the surrounding Central Avenue and Oak Street streetscapes, as well as the overall Park Street Historic Commercial District east of the project site. The project design appears to be consistent with applicable City of Alameda General Plan policies pertaining to Downtown visual, aesthetic and urban design factors, and with applicable U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration. Specifically, the current conceptual design includes building heights, scales, and setbacks which are compatible with opposite streetscapes and the adjacent Park Street Historic Commercial District, as well as building placement, height, scale, massing, materials and finishes which appear to be visually sensitive and compatible with the Alameda Theater and surrounding historic and potentially historic structures. Nevertheless, until the project architectural details are finalized, and these preliminary conclusions can be verified by the City of Alameda Historical Advisory Board and City of Alameda Planning Board during the City- required discretionary review processes, it is assumed that the project final architectural design may have a potentially significant adverse visual compatibility impact. Finding. The City Council /Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the 2 project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation AES -1: Project Visual Compatibility Impact. Issuance of a Certificate of Approval by the City's Historic Advisory Board for structural alterations to the Alameda theater with project review and comments to the Planning Board would be required. Additionally, design review and approval by the Alameda Planning Board would be required to finalize the architectural design of the proposed project. To ensure that the final, more detailed project architectural design remains consistent with pertinent City visual and urban design policies and with state and federal historic preservation standards- -i.e., the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Restoration, retain an independent historic preservation professional to review the project plans and specifications for consistency with these policies and standards. The retained independent professional shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Proposed Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards (1996) for Historic Architecture, Historic Preservation Planning and/or Architectural History. Final Historical Advisory Board certification of the structural alterations to the Alameda theater and review and Planning Board approval of the project design review shall include consideration of these independent review findings and any associated design refinement recommendations. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would ensure that any adverse project visual incompatibility impacts would be reduced to a less - than - significant level. 2. Construction - Period Dust Impacts. Construction dust and construction equipment exhaust emissions during the project demolition and construction period could result in temporary but significant nuisance and health impacts on on -site workers and on adjacent and nearby retail, service commercial, office, institutional, and civic uses. Finding. The City Council/Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation AQ -1: Construction- Period Dust Impacts. Reduce the severity of project demolition and construction period dust impacts by requiring implementation of the following or similar standard, BAAQMD- approved dust control measures (final list shall be determined to City satisfaction): (a) Periodically water all active demolition and construction areas; 3 (b) Pave, periodically water, or apply (non- toxic) soil stabilizers on all exposed graded areas, unpaved access drives, unpaved parking areas, and/or unpaved staging areas at the construction site; (c) Sweep daily (with water sweepers) adjacent public streets and haul routes, as well as all paved access drives, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site; (d) Periodically sweep (with water sweepers) any visible soil material carried onto adjacent public streets; (e) Cover all hauling trucks or maintain at least two feet of freeboard; (f) Enclose, cover, periodically water, or apply (non- toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); (g) Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; (h) During high wind periods, suspend any activities that cause visible dust plumes that cannot be controlled by watering. Project commitment to these or a similar set of City - approved mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level. 3. Potential Project Design Effects on the Historic Resources. The existing Alameda Theater building would be rehabilitated and returned to its original use as a theater. The proposed rehabilitation is intended to comply with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings. An independent Section 106 review by Carey & Co., historic preservation architects, concludes that the preliminary theater rehabilitation design plans (October 2004) comply with the Secretary of the Interior's standards and their effects would therefore be less than adverse and in most cases beneficial, with overall positive impacts on the Alameda Theater historic resource. In addition, the Carey & Co. review has determined that the proposed project, including the new cineplex and parking structure components, would not have an adverse effect on the Park Street Historic Commercial District, and would not have an adverse effect on other identified and potential historic resources surrounding the project site. However, review of final project design details and specifications would be necessary to ensure that the final design of the theater rehabilitation/restoration and adjacent cineplex and parking structure components continues to comply with the Secretary of the Interior's standards. Therefore, until the project achieves design review approval by the City of Alameda Planning Board, based in part on review and comment by the Historical Advisory Board and the findings and recommendations of an independent professional engaged in preservation- -i.e., is determined by the Planning Board to be consistent with City- adopted standards for design review and with applicable Secretary of the Interior 4 • standards for historic rehabilitation and restoration, it is assumed that the project may have a significant adverse effect on the historic Alameda Theater. Finding. The City Council /Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation HIST -1: Potential Project Design Effects on the Historic Resources. To assure project compliance with City policies and standards and state and federal standards pertaining to the protection of historic resources (i.e., the Secretary of the Interiors Standards), issuance of the required Certificate of Approval for the structural alterations to the Alameda Theater by the City's Historical Advisory Board, and the required final design review and approval of the entire project by the City of Alameda Planning Board, shall include consideration of an independent review of the final project plans and specifications by a professional engaged in historic preservation. The review professional shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Proposed Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards (1996) for Historic Architecture, Historic Preservation Planning, and/or Architectural History. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level. 4. Potential Project Construction Period Effects on the Historic Alameda Theater. Carey & Company has also concluded that construction of the new cineplex and parking structure foundations and walls, and other project construction activities including operation of equipment and storage of materials, could have an adverse effect on the existing historic Alameda Theater resource. In particular, operation of construction equipment and storage of construction materials could potentially damage the west elevation (Central Avenue frontage) of the existing historic theater, representing a potentially significant adverse impact. The Carey & Company review has also concluded that the proposed demolition of the Video Maniacs commercial/retail structure would take place far enough away from the existing historic theater so that this activity would not cause direct effects to the theater. Finding. The City Council /Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation HIST -2: Potential Project Construction Period Effects on the Historic Alameda Theater. As part of the formal agreement with the project sponsor, the project 5 demolition and construction manager(s) shall include provisions in the project demolition and construction specifications, subject to review and approval by the City, establishing a training program for construction workers emphasizing the importance of protecting historic resources. The provisions shall include directions on being careful when working around and operating equipment near the Alameda Theater; taking reasonable means to minimize vibration from demolition and excavation; and watching, being aware of and reporting to the project sponsor any potential actions or problems that could adversely affect the historic theater or other historic resources in the area. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. 5. General Potential for Disturbance of Buried Archaeological Resources. Since the entire project site has been previously graded and developed, the potential for encountering buried archaeological resources is minimal. However, some potential for encountering buried archaeological resources does exist from the proposed new grading and excavation activity within the project site, representing a potentially significant adverse impact. Finding. The City Council /Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation CULT -1: General Potential for Disturbance of Buried Archaeological Resources. In the event that any unrecorded archaeological or historical resource is discovered during project earthmoving activities, all grading activity within 150 feet of the resource shall be halted until an appropriate mitigation program is formulated by a qualified archaeologist to the satisfaction of the City's Planning and Building Department. Any such identified cultural resources shall be recorded on DPR 523 (historic properties) forms. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. 6. Potential Ground Instability. The project site may be underlain by soils which are susceptible to significant shrink -swell or earthquake- induced lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, and lurching, with associated significant damage to project buildings and other improvements, if not properly engineered to account for this condition. This possibility represents a potentially significant adverse impact. Finding. The City Council/Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. 6 Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation GEO -1: Potential Ground Instability. Complete and implement the geotechnical mitigation recommendations identified in a site - specific geotechnical investigation and engineering study prepared to City satisfaction by a state - certified engineering geologist. Project commitment to this mitigation requirement would reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level. 7. Potential Release of Asbestos and Lead -Based Paint. The proposed project would involve demolition of a one single -story commercial /retail building (Video Maniacs structure) and demolition and repair activities involving the Alameda Theater. Both of these structures include components constructed prior to 1979, when federal legislation regarding the use of asbestos containing materials (ACMs) and lead -based paint (LBP) were enacted. As commonly found in building construction completed prior to 1979, surveys conducted by the City indicate that the Alameda Theater building contains potentially friable asbestos, lead -based paint and four types of mold. Similarly, if the project is expanded in the future to include the Long's Drug store property (Option B), the existing one -story retail structure which would be demolished under that scenario to accommodate the expanded parking garage may also contain potentially friable asbestos, lead -based paint and mold. The proposed demolition and potential renovation activities involving on -site structures could therefore result in the release of asbestos fibers, lead - based paint particles, and toxic mold particles into the environment. Construction workers could be exposed to these hazardous materials during building demolition and renovation activities. Over the longer term, project occupants could also be exposed to these materials if the materials are not properly removed or adequately sealed during project construction. This exposure possibility represents a potentially significant impact. Finding. The City Council /Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation HAZ -1: Potential Release of Asbestos and Lead Based Paint. As a condition of future on -site demolition and/or construction permit issuances, a Phase II Environmental Investigation shall be undertaken by the City of Alameda to identify any and all ACM, LBP, and/or mold remediation measures necessary to comply with the building demolition and hazardous materials removal and disposal regulations administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Ca1OSHA, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), and all other regulatory agencies with related jurisdiction. The regulations of these agencies apply to the selection of remediation 7 contractors, the set up of the removal operation, and the actual removal and disposal of these materials. Under these regulations, asbestos related work must be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor if there is more than 100 square feet of asbestos involved. If less than 100 square feet is involved, the contractor is not legally required to have the asbestos licensing. However, the contractor must have proper training and utilize the same engineering controls, protective equipment, exposure monitoring, etc., that are required of a licensed asbestos contractor. For this reason, it is recommended that any asbestos related work be performed by a licensed asbestos contractor regardless of the quantity. (Most contractors without asbestos licensing do not have trained asbestos workers or the specialized tools and equipment required to properly perform asbestos related work.) Lead and asbestos surveys should be reviewed/performed and a Demolition Plan for safe demolition of existing structures at the project site should be prepared. All transportation of hazardous or contaminated materials from the site shall be performed in accordance with an approved Demolition Plan and Removal Action Workplan. The Demolition Plan should address both on -site worker protection and off -site resident protection from both chemical and physical hazards. All contaminated building materials shall be disposed of at appropriate licensed landfill facilities. Prior to whole -scale demolition, hazardous building materials such as mold; peeling, chipping and friable lead -based paint; and asbestos - containing building materials, should be removed in accordance with all applicable guidelines, laws and ordinances. The Demolition Plan should include a program of air monitoring for dust and mold particulates and attached contaminants. Dust control and suspension of work during dry windy days should be addressed in the Demolition Plan. For the impact of flaking and peeling lead paint, the requirements of Title 8, California Code of regulations, Section 15321. (T8 CCR 1532.1) must be followed. Project commitment to this mitigation would reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level. 8. Presence of Registered Underground Storage Tank. The previous presence of registered underground storage tanks (USTs) containing petroleum products associated with the previous Texaco Gas station operation on the project site (parcel #12 on Figure 5) is indicated on a 1998 State Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) manifest in City files. As a result, petroleum and hydrocarbons (i.e., gasoline) could be present in underlying soils and groundwater. Construction workers and members of the public may be exposed to these hazardous materials during project construction activities, representing a potentially significant project impact. Finding. The City Council/Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. 8 Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation HAZ -2: Presence of Registered Underground Storage Tank. As a condition of grading permit approval for the proposed project, a Phase II Environmental Investigation shall be undertaken by the City of Alameda. The Phase II investigation would include actual sampling and laboratory analysis of the soil and groundwater on the project site for hazardous materials to identify the nature and extent of these materials in soil and/or groundwater. The following process shall also be undertaken by the City in order to more fully identify and reduce potential impacts associated with the project: To the extent necessary after identification in the Phase II Investigation, and with consultation with appropriate agencies, any affected soil shall be removed, transported and disposed of in an appropriate manner in accordance with federal, state, and local regulations. Potential health and safety impacts associated with excavation within sites where a chemical release has occurred would be minimized by implementing legally required health and safety precautions. For hazardous waste workers, federal and California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) regulations mandate an initial training course and subsequent annual training. Site - specific training may also be required for some workers. Preparation and implementation of a Site Health and Safety Plan and compliance with applicable federal, state, regional, and local regulations would minimize impacts to public health and the environment. The plan would include identification of chemicals of concern, potential hazards, personal protection clothing and devices, and emergency response procedures, as well as required fencing, dust control or other site control measures needed during demolition and excavation. In protecting the workers who would be closest to potential sources of hazardous materials, these health and safety measures would also serve to protect others who live, work, or visit the area during the temporary demolition and construction period. These measures would serve to protect human health and the environment during site demolition, excavation and grading activities, thus minimizing impacts associated with exposure to hazardous materials. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. 9. Land Use/Noise Compatibility. The projected year 2010 noise environment along Central Avenue and Oak Street (60 to 64 dB Ldn) would make the proposed project along these frontages "Conditionally Acceptable" under the land use /noise compatibility standards of the City of Alameda General Plan Health and Safety Element. The Health and Safety Element indicates that "New construction or development [in such a noise environment] should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise reduction features [are] included in the [project] design." These provisions indicate a potentially significant impact unless an adequate 9 acoustical analysis is conducted and any study - indicated mitigation needs are incorporated into the project design. Finding. The City Council /Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation NOI -1: Land Use/Noise Compatibility. Conduct and submit an acoustical study that identifies to City satisfaction the noise insulation features and other elements to be included in the design of the project theater rehabilitation, retail and cineplex components sufficient to maintain interior noise levels at or below City standards (45 Ldn). This report shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning and Building Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level. 10. Santa Clara Avenue /Oak Street Intersection - -Base Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Structure). During the PM peak hour, levels of service would drop from LOS C to LOS E at the Santa Clara Avenue /Oak Street intersection with the implementation of project Option A (small parking structure), resulting in a significant impact. Finding. The City Council /Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation TRANS -1: Santa Clara Avenue /Oak Street Intersection - -Base Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Structure). Modify the signal timing at this intersection to give the greater percentage of time to the north /south traffic flow rather than the east/west traffic flow. Implementation of this measure would improve intersection operations to LOS D, reducing this impact to a less - than - significant level. 11. Santa Clara/Broadway Intersection - -Base Conditions Plus Project Option B (Large Parking Structure). During the PM peak hour, levels of service at the Santa Clara/Broadway intersection would degrade from LOS D to LOS E with the implementation of project Option B (large parking structure), resulting in a significant impact. 10 1 Finding. The City Council /Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation TRANS -2: Santa Clara/Broadway Intersection - -Base Conditions Plus Project Option B (Large Parking Structure). Modify the signal timing at this intersection to include a north -south split phase. Implementation of this measure would improve PM peak hour intersection operations to LOS C and reduce this impact to a less - than- significant level. 12. Santa Clara Avenue /Oak Street Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Without Project. During the PM peak hour, levels of service would drop from LOS C to LOS E at the Santa Clara Avenue /Oak Street intersection as a result of cumulative growth without or with the project, resulting in a significant impact. Finding. The City Council /Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation TRANS -3: Santa Clara Avenue /Oak Street Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Without Project. Modify the signal timing at this intersection to give the greater percentage of time to the north/south traffic flow rather than the east/west traffic flow (see Mitigation TRANS -1). The Level of Service at this intersection should be monitored and as warranted, add exclusive eastbound and westbound left -turn lanes with exclusive left -turn signal phasing. Implementation of this measure would improve PM peak hour intersection operation to LOS D and reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. 13. Santa Clara/Broadway Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Without Project. In the AM peak hour the Santa Clara Avenue/Broadway intersection would degrade from LOS C to LOS E and in the PM peak hour from LOS D to LOS F, as a result of cumulative growth in Alameda, resulting in a significant impact without or with the project. Finding. The City Council /Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. 11 Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation TRANS -4: Santa Clara/Broadway Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Without Project. Modify the signalization at this intersection by adding exclusive northbound and southbound left -turn lanes through the removal of on- street parking. Implementation of this measure would improve intersection operations to LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hour, reducing this impact to a less - than - significant level. 14. Lincoln Avenue/Tilden Way/Park Street Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Without Project. In the PM peak hour, the Lincoln Avenue /Tilden Way/Park Street intersection would degrade from LOS C to LOS E as a result of cumulative growth in Alameda, resulting in a significant impact without or with the project. Finding. The City Council /Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation TRANS -5: Lincoln Avenue/Tilden Way/Park Street Intersection- - Cumulative Conditions Without Project. Add an exclusive left -turn signal phasing on the eastbound and westbound Lincoln Avenue/Tilden Way approaches to this intersection. Implementation of this measure would reduce average delays at the intersection and improve PM peak hour intersection operations to LOS C, reducing this impact to a less - than - significant level. 15. Santa Clara Avenue/Park Street Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Without Project. In the Saturday mid -day peak hour, the Santa Clara Avenue/Park Street intersection would degrade from LOS C to LOS E as a result of cumulative growth in Alameda, resulting in a significant impact without or with the project. Finding. The City Council/Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. Either one of the following mitigation measures indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation TRANS -6A: Santa Clara Avenue/ Park Street Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Without Project. As weekend traffic increases, there may be a need to restrict left -turn movements at the Santa Clara Avenue/Park Street intersection. This 12 measure would divert traffic away from the intersection and additional traffic would be expected on Oak Street as a result. The level of service at this intersection should be monitored and left turn restrictions put in place as warranted. Such left- turn restrictions have proven effective in limiting significant impacts during the PM peak hour and are projected to reduce this impact during the Saturday mid -day period to a less -than- significant level. Mitigation TRANS -6B: Santa Clara Avenue/ Park Street Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Without Project. As weekend traffic increases, add left -turn lanes and exclusive left -turn signal phasing on the eastbound and westbound Santa Clara Avenue approaches to Oak Street. Implementation of this measure would improve Saturday mid- day peak hour operation to LOS D, reducing this impact to a less - than - significant level. 16. Santa Clara Avenue /Oak Street Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Garage) or Project Option B (Large Parking Garage). Operations at the Santa Clara Avenue /Oak Street intersection would degrade from LOS E to LOS F during the PM peak hour with the implementation of project Option A (small parking structure), resulting in a significant impact. Intersection operations would remain at LOS E in the PM peak hour with implementation of project Option B (large parking structure). Finding. The City Council/Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation TRANS -7: Santa Clara Avenue /Oak Street Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Garage). Implementation of Mitigation TRANS -3 above would improve PM peak hour intersection operation to LOS D, reducing this impact to a less - than - significant level for project Option A (small parking structure). 17. Lincoln Avenue/Tilden Way/Park Street Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Garage) or Project Option B (Large Parking Garage). For project Option A (small parking structure), the Lincoln Avenue/Tilden Way/Park Street intersection would degrade from LOS E to LOS F during the PM peak hour resulting in a significant impact. For project Option B (large parking structure), intersection operation would remain at LOS E in the PM peak hour, but delays would increase. Finding. The City Council /Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the 13 r project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. The following mitigation measure indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. 17. Lincoln Avenue/Tilden Way/Park Street Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Garage) or Project Option B (Large Parking Garage). The adding of exclusive left -turn signal phasing on the eastbound and westbound Lincoln Avenue /Tilden Way approaches to this intersection (Mitigation TRANS -5) would result in LOS C operation in the PM peak hour for both project options, thereby reducing this project - related impact to a less - than - significant level. 18. Santa Clara Avenue/Park Street Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Garage) or Project Option B (Large Parking Garage). The Santa Clara Avenue/Park Street intersection would degrade from LOS E to LOS F during the Saturday mid -day peak hour with the implementation of project Options A or B, representing a significant impact. Finding. The City Council/Community Improvement Commission hereby makes the followings finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Initial Study/Environmental Assessment. Facts in Support of Finding. Either one of the following mitigation measures indicates that the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance. Mitigation TRANS -9A: Santa Clara Avenue/Park Street Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Garage) or Project Option B (Large Parking Garage). As weekend traffic increases, there may be a need to restrict left -turn movements at the Santa Clara Avenue/Park Street intersection (Mitigation TRANS -6A). This measure would divert traffic away from the intersection, resulting in additional traffic on Oak Street. The level of service at this intersection should be monitored and left turn restrictions put in place as warranted. Such left- turn restrictions have proven effective in avoiding significant impacts during the PM peak hour and are projected to reduce this intersection impact during the Saturday mid -day period to a less - than- significant level. Mitigation TRANS -9B: Santa Clara Avenue/Park Street Intersection -- Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Garage) or Project Option B (Large Parking Garage). As weekend traffic increases, add left turn lanes and exclusive left -turn signal phasing in the eastbound and westbound Santa Clara Avenue approaches to Park Street (Mitigation TRANS -6A). Implementation of this measure would improve Saturday mid -day peak hour intersection operation to LOS D, reducing this impact to a less - than - significant level. G:\ PLANNING \SPECPROJ\Alameda Theater \Theater MND Findings (Revised).doc 14 City of Alameda Initial Study/Mitigated ated Ne ative Declaration April 19, 2005 Mitigation Monitoring Program EXHIBIT "V" MITIGATION MONITORING CHECKLIST FOR THE ALAMEDA THEATER, CINEPLEX AND PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT The following mitigation monitoring and reporting checklist has been formulated for implementation of environmental impact mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Proiect document, dated December 6, 2004, and adopted by the City of Alameda in February 2005. A. STATE MITIGATION MONITORING REQUIREMENT Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code requires all public agencies to adopt mitigation monitoring and reporting programs when they approve projects subject to an EIR or mitigated negative declaration. As mandated by this legislation, a mitigation monitoring and reporting program must be implemented by the lead agency (the City of Alameda) for the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project subsequent to City adoption of the mitigated negative declaration for the project. Most of the mitigation measures (conditions for mitigated negative declaration) identified in the Alameda Theater, Cineplex and Parking Structure Project Mitigated Negative Declaration document have been incorporated into the project. As a result, most of the measures are being or will be implemented and monitored through the City's normal development review procedures for future project implementation actions- -e.g., through design review and /or conditions of approval for individual permits, and associated plan check and construction period field inspection activities necessary to carry out the project. B. MATRIX FORMAT The attached monitoring checklist includes spaces for: (1) a summary of each potentially significant impact identified in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration document; (2) a summary of each mitigation measure identified in the Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration document that has been adopted as a condition of project approval by the City; (3) identification of the entity responsible for implementing the mitigation; (4) identification of the entity responsible for verifying that the mitigation has been implemented; (5) identification of the implementation action required and associated timing requirements; and (6) a verification signature and date. C: IDOCUME- 1lceliasonlLOCALS- 11Templmmp.647. doc EXHIBIT "C" •3 8 g) 2 O. 841 <17 O N Ps m O •8 ° ._ d yy `7 0 t S E o•c 1• 8 E ` o a 2• 2 E .) m c E E E 0 7 o E .o >> 0 o E GS 0 m , > • y cc • m c 8" m w a c L t 2 a o• m 8 ▪ c 8 rp a 02 L m a e E c m N 3 g a c o • rn m •E is o m • 8 VI E O m a8 O V c 0 cc 0 Ili 0 C w o C 8 26. a °' c� Z$2 -0.c30aa. g�, H C o._ >.9 01111 0• 0- o•°8°' yy Q g L N N. 7 C 2 t 2 g t E Ol Pav8.(88Eg v MONITORING sa U c a c O my) 0O RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE d- O V C Z H w 0° m L C-.00 X00 -0 m =0c 2 • Q 04)32 m ao,a' ca ,(-B.0 U2��o °ac rnoctmm °OO�o' 0 Eat a -cog.. a0.??. °� 0W 0)aLLm cwE3 0 W 0<w3v>oaa8rna�wi�.Zcmc`c°+m nZ -1_0=m 2-o °° d m °° mvE'N ° °OC 8 a mom Z Q m `� d c c 8 8v ma.,Ea wmwmgZ+ m mmm wQ mmom•-T m m 0• i O •- C •0 ' 'O f., , •° 0 to t0 m •y LJ o •- F m > am°pcavaow0m '5,- m0o> m ca =ic ao E '"Uc003m0mro°EV)av~Oi0m8 mmmrnEN° 0 m >E my E.,c0c6''9 -w €m0 i 'g2mmo °5vErnE3z d . m O C 0 E` maQ�m�� c�0�m�000E hih . mE0` ` � cp0EO1 •m"a�Nmc _ri-0 o o«.E.c•�� mEc� a8iiio80mv6m ,maiom_0N • 0 d° >0m3 E0c'-E • °°moro c om °•mc via m. ma> CQ - 0C C c O O U w H• c ._ .O C C i M Q m •0 > N v-C- d eO m cem°'�i�E'ic v�c0 c•° -"oern- Em°m {,tee O C r� rnW %3v°�trc5.v�C4j O'o�'e'cc °3cmc dad r£025ocaEcE o }g0oaco o0c°2 >'0g EmEu`ai M m EgE m m m am w� E aw m a '4�2al y c� 8 m c IDENTIFIED IMPACT AESTHETICS km 0 as m- �°' �3 m¢. ocm3E°� 2 ▪ ° y o c v aZ i O N z0 m m e 3'0», _8 m m` E° L c m 0 t° m °° F200.20) E c v R • 0+� m m O e N 01 m C ✓ ._ vi6 o c E w am » 8 <0.0 .9 ° c 0 d 6ZE Iflfl flE.h m'`o c c a it d a x° Y 'O m 0 iC -x 'O m Of.O ° Z O O •° .+ O a cg° cm °tw �E mo m 3 mtc 'ail!!! m o. v w • 9 0 0 E a� a�mw o 0 r m a.,0_. r3 v� R.= a > y 8v°F = cv c 0 84 fog .oQE 00m0) ca'maci mo2•� 0-<- nit 0 W m 0 T v t E E am0E >S9 0. �5ETt 850 voml NQm.'"m C m U C m 02 Vg w o o (0 0 > 0 0 7 m..om,•°-% Z03 Z3E0 Z000 ZU3E Z.nZoEE Z EE°>Ue • __aaciom • C :IDOCUME 11cm_userILOCALS -1 Templmmcht647.doc 0 N 0) a a� a O C 0 gC o WO cc MONITORING c E Ww a, e e E 0 2> E � w cc 2 Z O. E 0 5 W cc IDENTIFIED IMPACT •„ m V C c C N Y • o C ��raS N c C m � m C a c m d V O m mZ..2, m m._Z� �- >m� 2 al it ly 7 a O Mg c .c m m m N V C f C m lYC (� N L CD 4 O m .O o corn tY� c,� - o 'g£ S g O L 0)�m vc C C O fa cdV c d me O E> }6 - ca C o N ( t F y U 7 z 7> > y O C m C > ¢ L a) a7 (A > `--"*C1 O � m 0) .2 -0 y 0) °0 ¢ -2:s m c cc ' � 6 o (0 :0 • 0 <I ° c m o= c E y v m m r >,.cE cm. .c m a m o e f m m o m o y_ o c m m t c o> > `x� � cN n ,' dm c t o 5 E ro NV36Nvc C O¢ NE N " to i E O cYasa0 jnil;r U� ai n v ai O.e vC2r om� eyL0m 3 yt4a°3' m E'C�NiZ a a)0m .5i£ ;mm �ad o c c - Y 0°1 -g ,Ea rno m c•p _m mz m N E m E >,Ei St orm 3 m 6 > m =i gm ) •3 e)E m a c - a2 v c > e d ca e cM c c > co m mamc E y a )n 6 c u' ? 0 � m o t "0 <> c• a> >tmoc >a)m NzN�maa- 2 a�a) ELc gc of O C ) y v tm-CaN�� :3 m w 0) ,_i � ¢ ro E o 5 e e V e m m m e in mti m >m .e nF' o m C O X 0 vO m O•- > VLL y O C O CD m v) 0 cm m C W 7 -a 3ai Exca c 'mm�w'om3 P?c vc a f (0 �- cdm > c drov 3)tE¢oo -0 t vT) m�mcmom .c0) mcoom c o ai c ol 2 y83= ro o € mOwc€o via mm ca,C C mco - `° Oyaioaai>ca� §aL CD 'Pei 3c Ea mE37 � oZ ° 3 -2r E m a .EOnH¢ Z'0 m ' >Z a¢t §1- 00) £ a 1 c-¢ o z ac rno0a `m E C :IDOCUME 11cm userILOCALS- 1ITempimmchL647doc C :IDOCUME 11cm use ►1LOCALS- 11Templmmcht.647.doc 1) 0 0 N O) Q Q 0 N O) 0 C:IDOCUME 11cm userILOCALS- 11TemplmmchL647.doc 0 II7^ V/ w Q a) a) co MONITORING ei _ F¢ 3 CD d c rn o > dc°a Monitoring and Verification Entity U Ti. IRELATED MfI1GATION MEASURE Mitigation HIST 1: Potential Project Design Effects on the Historic Resources. To assure project compliance with City policies and standards and state and federal standards pertaining to the protection of historic resources (i.e., the Secretary of the Interiors Standards), issuance of the required Certificate of Approval for the structural alterations to the Alameda Theater by the City's Historical Advisory Board, and the required final design review and approval of the entire project by the City of Alameda Planning Board, shall include consideration of an independent review of the final project plans and specifications by a professional engaged in historic preservation. The review professional shall meet the Secretary of the Interior's Proposed Historic Preservation Professional Qualification Standards (1996) for Historic Architecture, Historic Preservation Planning, and/or Architectural History. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less -than- significant level. IIDENTIFIED IMPACT ICULTURAL RESOURCES C:IDOCUME 11cm userILOCALS- 11TemplmmchL647.doc IREPORTING OR I MONITORING METHOD ,� 0 0 — �2 . Ef 2 @§c @ ACM X2)8 Q = -2 g .g§c E§ 0 48 . 9» e2 3 $Rf §/§ 0 = ) ig A)_= e2ie ■ &«% The City shall require a geotechnical permit as part of building plan review. CI z § o z 0 © $ kE \ • 'g §k@ )oE �§§ ©5 oEP my �k i dal ƒc o >2/ ' Prior to issuance of grading and building permit. 2I mc .a ■t 2% 0 0 A 'A Ew . k k 3 � k co k o 0 3 IRELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Mitigation HIST 2: Potential Protect Construction Period Effects on the Historic Alameda Theater. As part of the formal agreement with the project sponsor, the project demolition and construction manager(s) shall include provisions in the project demolition and construction specifications, subject to review and approval by the City, establishing a training program for construction workers emphasizing the importance of protecting historic resources. The provisions shall include directions on being careful when working around and operating equipment near the Alameda Theater; taking reasonable means to minimize vibration from demolition and excavation; and watching, being aware of and reporting to the project sponsor any potential actions or problems that could adversely affect the historic theater or other historic resources in the area. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant levet Mitigation CULT-1: General Potential for Disturbance of Burled Archaeological Resources. In the event that any unrecorded archaeological or historical resource Is discovered during project earthmoving activities, all grading activity within 150 feet of the resource shall be halted until an appropriate mitigation program is formulated by a qualified archaeologist to the satisfaction of the City's Planning and Building Department. Any such identified cultural resources shall be recorded on DPR 523 (historic properties) forms. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less than si. nificant level. Mitigation GEO-1: Potential Ground Instability. Complete and implement the geotechnical mitigation recommendations identified in a site - specific geotechnical investigation and engineering study prepared to City satisfaction by a state - certified engineering geologist. Project commitment to this mitigation requirement would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level. IDENTIFIED IMPACT on the historic Alameda Theater. Impact HIST -2: Potential Project Construction Period Effects on the Historic Alameda Theater. Carey & Company has also concluded that construction of the new cineplex and parking structure foundations and walls, and other project construction activities including operation of equipment and storage of materials, could have an adverse effect on the existing historic Alameda Theater resource. In particular, operation of construction equipment and storage of construction materials could potentially damage the west elevation (Central Avenue frontage) of the existing historic theater, representing a potentially significant adverse impact The Carey & Company review has also concluded that the proposed demolition of the Video Maniacs commerciaVretail structure would take place far enough away from the existing historic theater so that this activity would not cause direct effects to the theater. Impact CULT-1: General Potential for Disturbance of Buried Archaeological Resources. Since the entire project site has been previously graded and developed, the potential for encountering buried archaeological resources is minimal. However, some potential for encountering buried archaeological resources does exist from the proposed new grading and excavation activity within the project site, representing a potentially significant adverse impact. 1 GEOLOGY AND SOILS C.•IDOCUME -llcm userILOCALS- 11Templmmcht.647.doc IREPORTING OR I MONITORING METHOD - ) m N N o t .0 C i �) V m a1 2 g o.m'W N ` d NSF- G.' fit co ,420b43>• 'm c m 867 _9, . La 2cZar c mUo o ,- E 6a m'� O. g6 fa > c g cL m ca c ac) E c 2 ot. )v ab 2c°° na) °� a"° p�p�pEa C •a° ` �i o Ill!J1 c L 03N = 0 > t b O. O 00.0 ) coccacol-occtivx U0�N°0ED MONITORING 1 p_ 0 m _ ,...2. .6 E O 6 U • C 9), °-0 cn € ar O E O - 0 E a ° E -o U C 0 at O E D° 7 Monitoring and Verification Entity s U Ew o a O 0 o DU RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE c C C j us C 0) W O O O >' O . >` a ° g E as6f .c U c n m ` O co E f0 Z cm O Y mN O . m m. 'o. N. 0 d a y Y a 0 ' U c .0 U d 7 c 0 ° ° 2 E{� � x.01 c°)a m 0 0 '0 ° N � U ° 0. E ° E't m5 "' 55 W. 00.0 2ja °m cb-.0 °ocaromo�y0)000 c U °�U mL d E m O W a) m 7 0)m m> O° > 0 0000..-2.,...0c .0 m 0 m o) CD re 0 C 0- m c- O` d Oz.,0 c• m vmi >O d m$ c N .0r C ED. () N= a m as=. e.00s- 0crbmm"r60Ey�o'N$W2'=0 0vs 0 0 c m m c m c y w. '. cn - v y 0 fi "min ° o v m 64 0°) o 00, c 3 0'- C_ a�i 2 ca 0 o ,, v2 e= —o co Q c, 0= T N m6 E N N� 0 E .0 x 0 2 c °. Ooal°amccom°c�W£pQu.•ppao2a) on ° > >t°.- d(ac mm 0 d c0 .0 as E m W m `-". Q 0 Y 0 nq of C o° ar .c c` m .n. 0 m° C> f. .. � al -a vi (a c'7- 03 >'i6 .- 0 0 CO 0" ° 5 0- o � E E o6- N y c°>•o o J Y m L C 0 0) > C m m c '0 ° O a ` m: COdm W> 0 y,.., 00 0 m C .0 C N 7. 0 a) 'D E 0) m a) c 0 c "- ,t W 0 m m m m 0 O L I CD m 0 C 0 = CO C j O O '0 •= d m a m .0) c W m N (n 2 m- 6 Z N 0' 41 y 2 O N OOoym(0E .0 NmOc..mNW_CarNWarasC 0md .5Nco 0)O r w d .- 0) •0 0c m (o m co Z" m m R) O E °° 7 7 m - > N t T'g .. C d a) CD `aE - °m :°m 06cmm.-m0Cvi(n mr�a)Wb °c ..0 .(/).-. x y .,_ 0) - (a 0 0 .0E E wfd N co p) E a m c ca 8 C a 0 c 0 is glow � m m 2 a o a C Q E 3 E ardCD0b a) o o£ ca_ ,-r21 0 a6o6- o 26 IIDENTIFIED IMPACT HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS w o. A 5 m° m %a. o .6cUcc0'_m m.� (°n°)�c >o��`c� mac (mn>,o v -ar' vQ =05 v mN• „- W Ec mF O o Co._6.3O)cn c.7L°c0g W E.-- 6:Ea; -00'0>+7> O°oc- W O 0 0•a c m W y 0 arm "6..8 N d a� a0ac E 0� O. -0 d'=a O a 0 'm0 ' m 0 6 m o n,001 a...045 '0 .as L j> o 0 t�a7 CO �° N a) coca ��c0E3U�cEa>, pW yy0m.- I- O°NO2 =c 0OC20 0. O y (CO m a) N 0) Q. 0) m 0 X m 0 c> _C 0 m0 ~• c m W ••m•• Q. - ,,CC C 0 Q m 0) c m p Q 0 (0 0 7 C c C0 h a C m ,C 0c m= O 0 7L 0 0 X= O- W e o a) 0 a m N N p 0 E°'0•20Ero•; IREPORTING OR „ I MONITORING METH6I5 a • r 2 m m MONITORING C F� _ o) C O g 2 7 g O C 7 m € 5R E.D. c2.6my C 42 C v6 E r.= € N C o c ° a v 2 g a 8 Monitoring and Verification Entity A" 0 Ew d 0. o m o [RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE ° Vs o as as o o >. o CL a m t ti _c as N y y ~ 7 co a .c o a p V 2 N co a: C Cmc � °� y 'o a co `C O co .0 p y O y O O aE y O �0 a1 m r$ C 7 0 AC '° m N m m yvv c E.c� E m12 a °b c ro 78 O c w U °00 tC0 c V m O a O) C O c0 t c 2 a oEtctscoc (fl ci NE a o m � c F; REPORTING OR MONITORING METHOD ti I z E O . z G a i C Fcc Monitoring and Verification Entity s e Ew IRELATED MITIGA11ON MEASURE m _c il _y CV a, v m•g coc L.. as N o (5 a= m C .N C> m C X- m= gy o c m .c ym m cw O - a 3 )ca0 a pam a = .)0 0 °C O v to 8 c m ccoo N a - - a ° •Urmrn c p Cm m a c .0 0- E0 m ;� a CO m $ �'c C am °O°6 m m ny ca m CO C u) 0 co a o c I!!flll!DHftflU -0 • U� m Cj U m ay Y ..im O mom- o "- E y U C i y C ° 0.° a) a 10 c m° m y y - S- m C c 2.0 m a> C o U U N C O o'( O cD O m r. a, p 0 G 3 ( O c m O ("mEro:?w- cm�d000� ma mEycZo oo f0m Z ° cy d p,.,_ m mm o= `� �� am aCa m o m i m b o- m a'5 mL cn = a = m a£ C .5 E a 0. Oa m co ai E E s co y• mv4 'Q 7 m U wm w o a c 'm 5 > O y V n co p O • ' a -8 U Y 0 N c0 a; 5 o � ca rn0 -Zam my a m ° x .a m 0 m a a aa) co v Cg c nm« m c c E a ` c a E m ` _ ,, a y a o .- - C =• C a ` '5 O _ co O � aU 0 y 0 L � -0 a.) m3mE m°� -ma C oo pO v a'�m.c = co,- .c«.o';33 3_50.N _ 'a rn� m mma U U cc•> - m c c y c ) z o U -LL m N 01 0 U :r- p o0E M m a E a) `6' O m _ C 0 m y to ) m m a mo Uc•cmc> >nm o . >y fi mo a tm > 0f y :PC C a E cc 'C - O.5 - as= 0 E a N 0E2—.10-0-0.2 cL C 0 C a w C E _ 4 c m m m c• m 0 as co mm• 0Q° •0m - meo opa�02 %2E a a x mE S- ca— E o 0a- 3E ca m m( mcaV- c7'5m082.occgc�e$N� Y o E m m E o o 0o� LFa g m at E m ,_ . )v n I-.c cp E E �a m 0 o � C ca i O C 01 m c .h y U m o' E Rl e p y y 2 N C yE ° a�-�„ ocw 0h t.o aO ._rnm f t N � 0 n a r C o E a) eh E y :' Em 9 f 5 Cs) a - co p $ �nnV E omc c7.5 . p °'0 '- .ro a U comm E i Em '= y . 4 0 E o C c O a moa pd o a ` . a�caao a R ` 3 gL a m IIDENTIFIED IMPACT .s U as E 0 a 2 rn h A c v.. O a C:ID000ME 11cn userILOCALS- 11Templmmcht647doc 0 0 N Oi 0. REPORTING OR MONITORING METHOD 2 p cd X86- .yOy lea W al C a) .c, O - Public Works Department to verify that improvements have been installed. Public Works Department to verify that improvements have been installed. Public Works Department to verify that improvements have been installed. Public Works to monitor MONITORING C 7 E ¢ F C 2 O CN V pp V y N U C O _ --y yy a 'C C N . ro a �.o m d $ o 0 Prior to occupancy Prior to occupancy Prior to occupancy. Monitoring to occur annually. Monitoring and Verlflcation Entity 0 0 0 U a E w ai o. 0 0 0 a> o. 0 a n 0 0 Developer RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE Mitigation NOI -1: Land Use/Noise Compatibility. Conduct and submit an acoustical studythat identifies to City satisfaction the noise insulation features and other elements to be included in the design of the project theater rehabilitation, retail and cineplex components sufficient to maintain interior noise levels at or below City standards (45 Ldn). This report shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning and Building Department prior to issuance of a building permit. Project commitment to this mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less- than - significant level. Mitigation TRANS -1: Santa Clara Avenue/Oak Street Intersection —Base Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Structure). Modify the signal timing at this intersection to give the greater percentage of time to the north /south traffic flow rather than the east/west traffic flow. Implementation of this measure would improve intersection operations to LOS D, reducing this impact to a less - than - significant level. Mitigation TRANS -2: Santa Clara/Broadway Intersection —Base Conditions Plus Project Option B (Large Parking Structure). Modify the signal timing at this intersection to include a north- south split phase. Implementation of this measure would improve PM peak hour intersection operations to LOS C and reduce this impact to a less - than - significant level. Mitigation TRANS -3: Santa Clara Avenue/Oak Street Intersection — Cumulative Conditions Without Project. Modify the signal timing at this intersection to give the greater percentage of time to the north /south traffic flow rather than the IIDENTIFIED IMPACT y 2 Safety Element. The Health and Safety Element indicates that "New construction or development [in such a noise environment] should be undertaken only after detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise reduction features [are] included in the [project] design." These provisions indicate a potentially significant noise impact unless an adequate acoustical analysis is conducted and any study- indicated mitigation needs are inco • orated into the • ro'ect desi • n. ITRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Impact TRANS -1: Santa Clara Avenue/Oak Street Intersection —Base Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Structure). During the PM peak hour, levels of service would drop from LOS C to LOS E at the Santa Clara Avenue /Oak Street intersection with the implementation of project Option A (small parking structure), resulting in a significant impact. Impact TRANS -2: Santa Clara/Broadway Intersection —Base Conditions Plus Project Option B (Large Parking Structure). During the PM peak hour, levels of service at the Santa Clara/Broadway intersection would degrade from LOS D to LOS E with the implementation of project Option B (large parking structure), resulting in a significant impact. Impact TRANS -3: Santa Clara Avenue/Oak Street Intersection — Cumulative Conditions Without Project. During the PM peak hour, levels of service would drop from LOS C to LOS E at the Santa Clara Avenue /Oak Street C:ID000ME 1lcm userILOCALS- 11Tempimmcht647doc REPORTING OR MONITORING METHOD RA 26& @2 a 22§ =a okf 2Sc� e2§ a) ev 2«2§ of g© °k f /� X02 ale �f» a;2 Public Works Department to verify that improvements have been installed. MONITORING e2 &I _ 2 8 o a_ Prior to occupancy Monitoring and Vertflcation Entity 0 A Eu . 0 0 0 P RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE east/west traffic flow (see Mitigation TRANS -1). The Level of Service at this intersection should be monitored and as warranted, add exclusive eastbound and westbound left -tum lanes with exclusive left-tum signal phasing. Implementation of this measure would improve PM peak hour intersection operation to LOS D and reduce thls impact to a less-than-significant level. There are presently bus zones In front of the old Library and City Hall; the creation of an eastbound tum lane on Santa Clara Avenue would require the restriping of lanes to avoid temporary blockage of the eastbound through travel lane by buses. The implementation of this tum lane may also require the removal of one or two on- street parking spaces in front of City Hall, depending on the length of the tum lane. Implementation of the westbound left-tum lane would require removal of up to five parking spaces on the north side of Santa Clara Avenue approaching Oak Street. Mitigation TRANS -4: Santa Clara/Broadway Intersection — Cumulative Conditions Without Project. Modify the signallzation at this intersection by adding exclusive northbound and southbound left-tum lanes through the removal of on- street parking. Implementation of this measure would improve intersection operations to LOS D in both the AM and PM peak hour, reducing this impact to a less - than - significant level. These improvements would result in the loss of approximately six on- street parking spaces: two spaces on southbound Broadway and four spaces on northbound Broadway. The southbound Broadway spaces are located in front of commercial establishments. The northbound Broadway spaces are located in front of j residential units. Mitigation TRANS-5: Lincoln Avenue/Tilden Way/Park Street Intersection— Cumulative Conditions Without Project. Add an exclusive left -tum signal phasing on the eastbound and westbound Lincoln Avenue/Tilden Way approaches to this intersection. Implementation of this measure would reduce average delays at the intersection and improve PM peak hour intersection operations to LOS C, reducing this im • act to a less - than -si nificant level. IIDENTIFIED IMPACT intersection as a result of cumulative growth without or with the project, resulting in a significant impact. Impact TRANS: Santa Clara/Broadway Intersection — Cumulative Conditions Without Project. In the AM peak hour the Santa Clara Avenue/Broadway intersection would degrade from LOS C to LOS E and in the PM peak hour from LOS D to LOS F, as a result of cumulative growth in Alameda, resulting in a significant impactwithout or with the project. Impact TRANS -5: Lincoln Avenue/Tilden Way/Park Street Intersection — Cumulative Conditions Without Project. In the PM peak hour, the Lincoln Avenue/Tilden Way/Park Street intersection would degrade from LOS C to LOS E as a result of cumulative growth in Alameda, resulting in a significant impact without or with the project. REPORTING OR I MONITORING METHOD soca BEd o g N E E°o SE .0a o c c.. o c a._coco W00 E . OWE Ec> °'c $Ej o f c gee.gg aSmm3 Z cc 4- CO MONITORING i pp G • C 7 F¢ 7 .2 cm C >, 7 2cco UU O O cn C �' to 20 0. 8 0 .2 a` Monitoring and Verification Entity V 0 0 a� EW n o T.) y o 0. 0 d > 0 0. > 0 im Q a F wo ¢ 0E _ m ye�pp .d+ ..cal 150 U 7 O Y > O m �O! C-0 0 -1:2t. l4 •O D g _O y C 0 0 .Ol a O Y •'_" N j C 0 sc - d U M +�J y W> 0056 -2rc, ELm 0.m y 0> O m Y y N m j l!J r 3 • m 120:00 n0+ 2 c.c V cZe 0 0 E o 0,-..- c m 0 T ac E tn >cgfIlmi°i•° m m 0.,;_- .o m E 3 cc o� c m 0 m 3 oHm `° 015'0 4., yrmE�as v6)a`2t -o Of Y '0 - 0 15 U V 7 0 l0 O EmOZ Ecol=14� mtm GLE 211 oo ai OON `Y' N Of = n. O c o O N •L C' «aM0 ... E C N m O 0 m 0Z 3¢ . 0015 m> in o«� EE oa m"mo.: m O U O II-. co Sin •oD O c 'p O c m m L m O O m m t O 70 O 7 0 .d C O M. 0 "> O f06O`O011a co m m (20.— W E N O 0 "_ a+ c >^a > WUIV �E o c°o cmo0 m �� m aEzmaccoEmO-- 3 cam— oy e o d 0 2'vi c a0i E c e 15Nr-E0o Eoco cf Y '0 O Z 9 E0.0 m 30 3 0 m W. Mitigation TRANS -7: Santa Clara Avenue/Oak Street Intersection — Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Garage) or Project Option B (Large Parking Garage). Implementation of Mitigation TRANS -3 above would improve PM peak hour intersection operation to LOS D, reducing this impact to a less - than - significant level for project Option A (small parking structure). Although project Option B (large parking structure) does not result in a significant impact at this intersection, implementation of this measure would improve PM peak hour intersection operation to LOS D for • ro'ect O •tion B. IIDENTIFIED IMPACT Y m m O co co `o c a Oc• t =c>o15.E o O Al 0 de o °- inc0na' Hilill col e0=1.1 e Q 2 o ro c 5 m .g�°E'�0 fgdcmo'm As .0cC.wEfi Impact TRANS -7: Santa Clara Avenue/Oak Street Intersection — Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Garage) or Project Option B (Large Parking Garage). Operations at the Santa Clara Avenue /Oak Street intersection would degrade from LOS E to LOS F during the PM peak hour with the implementation of project Option A (small parking structure), resulting in a significant impact. Intersection operations would remain at LOS E in the PM peak hour with implementation of project Option B (large parking structure). C:ID000ME -llcm userILOCALS- 11Templmmcht.647.doc IREPORTING OR MONITORING METHOD- 'Fs'. L= a) ... 7 a> Ec F„ C'g N E°>o> X81° -' ft1 as -0 dg. coRII33 o°'`°�3 `0`° g6-Ea, .@ ;E O C 0 E C m 0 E0g> Eaa 3c' 8cN0§ -0 a> fu v a 0- cLnro3 0-cy MONITORING ITiming Requirements 8 0 O a, C m co 8 8 0 0 •0 2 0) 01 • .ice 7 r2 fa 2 fa Monitoring and Verification Entity U V 0 EW `m a. -0 0 a> 43 a. o. c 0 a> 0 aa>> p RELATED MITIGATION MEASURE The Alameda Public Works Department would need to monitor this intersection as development occurs in Alameda to address the cumulative impact associated with general growth in Alameda. Mitigation TRANS -8: Lincoln Avenue/Tliden Way/Park Street Intersection — Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Garage) or Project Option B (Large Parking Garage). The adding of exclusive left- turn signal phasing on the eastbound and westbound Lincoln Avenue/Tilden Way approaches to this intersection (Mitigation TRANS -5) would result In LOS C operation in the PM peak hour for both project options, thereby reducing this project- related impact to a less-than- significant level. This mitigation measure would require elimination of six to eight metered parking spaces. The Alameda Public Works Department would need to monitor this intersection as development occurs in Alameda to address the cumulative Impact associated with • eneral • rowth in Alameda. Mitigation TRANS -9A: Santa Clara Avenue/Park Street Intersection — Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Garage) or Project Option B (Large Parking Garage). As weekend traffic increases, there may be a need to restrict left -turn movements at the Santa Clara Avenue/Park Street intersection (Mitigation TRANS -6A). This measure would divert traffic away from the intersection, resulting in additional traffic on Oak Street. The level of service at this intersection should be monitored and left turn restrictions put in place as warranted. Such left- turn restrictions have proven effective in avoiding significant impacts during the PM peak hour and are projected to reduce this intersection impact during the Saturday mid -day period to a less -than- significant level. OR Mitigation TRANS -9B: Santa Clara Avenue/Park Street Intersection— Cumulative IIDENTIFIED IMPACT Impact TRANS -8: Lincoln Avenue/Tilden Way /Park Street Intersection— Cumulative Conditions Plus Project Option A (Small Parking Garage) or Project Option B (Large Parking Garage). For project Option A (small parking structure), the Lincoln Avenue/Tilden Way/Park Street intersection would degrade from LOS E to LOS F during the PM peak hour resulting in a significant impact. For project Option B (large parking structure), intersection operation would remain at LOS E in the PM peak hour, but delays would increase. C:IDOCUME 11cm userILOCALS- 11Templmmcht647doc C:IDOCUME 1Icm userlLOCALS-1lTemptmmcht647.doc 0 N 0) d additional improvements are warranted. MONITORING liming Requirements Monitoring and Verification Entity E RELATED MMGAT1ON MEASURE Conditions Pius Project Option A (Small Parking Garage) or Project Option B (Large Parking Garage). As weekend traffic increases, add left-turn lanes and exclusive left-turn signal phasing on the eastbound and westbound Clara Avenue approaches to Park Street (Mitigation TRANS -6B). Implementation of this measure would improve Saturday mid -day peak hour intersection operation to LOS D, reducing this, impact to a less - than -si nificant level. IIDENTIFIED IMPACT C:IDOCUME 1Icm userlLOCALS-1lTemptmmcht647.doc 0 N 0) d I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in the regular meeting of the City Council on the 3rd day of May, 2005, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, deHaan, Gilmore, Matarrese and Mayor Johnson — 5. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTENTIONS: None. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of said City this 4t1 day of May, 2005. Lara Weisiger, City Cler City of Alameda