Loading...
2002-04-20 Special CC Minutes (2)MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING SATURDAY- -APRIL 20, 2002- -1:00 P.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 1:06 p.m. Roll Call - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. Absent: None. enda Item (02 -175) Public Hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Board's approval of Final Development Plan (FDP 01 -05) and Major Design Review (DR 01 -108) for construction of a 28,500 square foot church and 150,000 square foot 51- classroom school project on 17 acres, including three major buildings, 430 parking spaces, 9 acres of athletic fields and landscaping. The school would serve kindergarten through high school, with a capacity of approximately 1,200 students. Final Development Plan and Major Design Review are being considered; the school use is a permitted use under City approvals for Harbor Bay Business Park. The site is located at 1801 North Loop Road and is zoned CM -PD Commercial Manufacturing, Planned Development Combining Zoning District. Applicant: Chinese Bible Church. Appellant: Andrea Scarnecchia, Nick Correia, Michelle Stempien, and Richard Davis; and (02 -175A) Resolution No. 13444, "Denying the Appeal of Andrea Scarnecchia, Nick Correia, Michelle Stampien and Richard Davis and Upholding the Planning Board's Approval of a Final Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review with Conditions for School and Church at 1801 North Loop Road." The Development Review Manager gave a brief presentation on the project. Mayor Appezzato opened the Public Hearing. Proponents (In favor of Appeal) Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant; Richard Davis, Appellant; Betty Anderson, Islandia Homeowners Association; Sheila Leonard, Alameda; Nick Correia, Appellant; Roy Greer, Alameda; Proponents (In favor of Appeal) continued Eugenie Thompson, Alameda; Marshall Goldberg, Fernside Homeowners Association; Special Meeting Alameda City Council 1 April 20, 2002 Ken Erdahl, Alameda; Stanley Tang, Alameda; Michelle Stempien, Garden Jimmy Hill, Alameda; Christine Oliver, Alameda; Nita Rosen, Alameda; Robert Berges, Alameda; Sandra Kewitz; Debra Duncanson; Larry Eastridge, Alameda; James Matthews, Alameda. Isle Homeowners Association; and Opponents (Opposed to Appeal) Steve Quen, Applicant; Paul Bunton, Architect for Applicant; Robin Hom, Applicant; Charlie Abrams, Traffic Engineer; Charles Sulter, Noise Engineer; Dan Reidy, Harbor Bay Business Park; Howard Kerr, San Leandro; Reverend Donna Wood, Alameda Ministerial Association; Alex Mak, Alameda; Patrick McCabe, Waters Edge; Dr. William Lee, Alameda; Rosemary Lee, Alameda; Christine Yue, Alameda; Lena Tam, Alameda County Planning Santiago Tula, Alameda; Julie Wong, Alameda; (read letter Janine Wong, Alameda; and Kevin Wong, Alameda (read letter Commission; on behalf of Pastor Greg Thomas) on behalf of John Case). There being no further speakers, Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the Hearing. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether improvements to the intersection [North Loop Road and Harbor Bay Parkway] would be paid for by the Applicant's contribution to the Transportation Improvement Fund (TIF) ; stated an appropriate amount should be put into the TIF; funding for other projects should not be taken away to fund said intersection. The Senior Civil Engineer stated that from a traffic perspective, the project impacts are considered significant at the intersection of North Loop Road and Harbor Bay Parkway; said intersection is not on the TIF project list; the Applicant consented to staff's request that improvements to said intersection be a condition of the project. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 April 20, 2002 Councilmember Johnson inquired whether money for the intersection would come out of TIF. The Senior Civil Engineer responded funding could come out of TIF; however, Public Works was not confident that monies would be available when Phase II of the project would be implemented; therefore, staff insisted that the project be conditioned on the installation of the signal, regardless of the source of the funding; if the City is unable to fund the project through TIF, a signal shall be funded and scheduled prior to implementation of Phase II of the project; at the time building permits are issued, the project will contribute approximately to of valuation to the TIF; a portion of tax increment will go to the TIF, as well; every two years, the City, in consultation with Harbor Bay Isle Associates, updates the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for the TIF; currently, the signal is not in the TIF's CIP. Councilmember Johnson stated staff's idea is good; inquired whether there are two ways the TIF is funded and whether one way is through tax increment funds. The Senior Civil Engineer stated there are two components to funding the TIF: 1) building permits, whereby to of the valuation of construction will go into the TIF, and 2) tax increment. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the project and intersection should have separate Agreements regarding funding. The Senior Civil Engineer stated in order to build the project, the Applicant agreed to pay [for the intersection], if necessary. Councilmember Johnson stated language should be stronger; there should be an Agreement about the contribution amount that the Applicant will make. The Senior Civil Engineer stated the Applicant would not receive a building permit for Phase II of the project without funding and scheduling the intersection. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether there is a system by which the Chinese Christian School documents how many youth take public transit, particularly bus transit and high- occupancy vehicles. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 3 April 20, 2002 Robin Hom, Applicant, responded there is not an ongoing program; last year, the school completed a study as part of an accreditation process; transportation was one of the areas of the accreditation self - study; the study of the student body at said time indicated how many students arrive by car, how many students per car, how many by school bus, and similar things; over 200 students arrive by school bus; there are about 600 families, of which around 75 are staff families; the number of car trips generated coming on or off campus is probably under 400 right now. Councilmember Daysog stated Table 3 [in the Abrams Traffic study] indicates that there are 1,920 daily trips; 587 are in the morning peak hour, of which about 52 are bus trips; inquired whether said interpretation of Table 3 is correct. The Senior Civil Engineer stated that from a transportation planning perspective, staff has presumed that the prior Environmental Impact Report (EIR) traffic study is adequate and that the project will not generate impacts which are significantly different from the EIR projected impacts; the presumption of adequacy is reasonable because the proposed project will generate less than uses assumed in the EIR traffic study; the project list attached to the Settlement Agreement included improvements needed under cumulative conditions; based on the traffic study for the project, the contributions to locations off -site, other than the intersection of North Loop [Road], are considered less than significant; the project cannot be conditioned to mitigate conditions which it will not contribute to significantly. Councilmember Daysog stated the issue is not just the Chinese Christian School, but the cumulative impact of traffic throughout the East End of Alameda; the project should be used as a beginning point to have measurable pro- transit solutions; grounds can be set to allow development to occur, while using measurable pro- transit solutions; if 400 of the youth take buses and staff members double up in cars, the City should ensure traffic solutions are the case; said standards can be used for future development at Harbor Bay Isle; there are several million more square feet of development; the school does have a relatively higher percentage of people taking public transit and the City should build on that by creating a system for documenting [transit users]; said method can be applied to other developments; if the project has good pro- transit outcomes, the next phase can be approved; pro- transit solutions should be documented and monitored over time; problems with Doolittle [Drive] and Island [Drive] are not about just the Chinese School but are about cumulative impacts; there should be a systematic way of measuring progress. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 4 April 20, 2002 The Senior Civil Engineer stated a condition limiting arrival rate involves monitoring the project; staff will follow up on comments regarding traffic. Councilmember Daysog stated a system should be put in place and monitored over time to ensure that one parent drives three kids or four kids. The Senior Civil Engineer staff has some experience with St. Joseph's School; staff will see if the Applicant would be amenable to incorporating monitoring. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether monitoring can be a condition. The Senior Civil Engineer responded in the affirmative; stated a general condition requires the Applicant to incorporate car pooling, shifting class hours and limiting student drivers; the condition is not as specific as Councilmember Daysog requested. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether AC Transit [bus] service has been reviewed to determine whether it meets students' needs; noted there is bus service from BART to the business park; inquired whether adjustments would be required to make it possible for students to take public transit. The Senior Civil Engineer stated staff would review the matter to determine where students reside, where there are pickups, and the cost benefit of adjusting the schedule; adjustment may not serve business customers well. Councilmember Johnson stated the only major public transit would be AC Transit, which could be combined with BART; if AC Transit does not serve the students, then students will not be able to take public transit. Councilmember Daysog stated solid, meaningful [transit] targets should be made, not just considered; the school should commit to parents doubling or tripling up; residents are frustrated with Otis Drive and Fernside Boulevard, or Doolittle [Drive] and Island [Drive]; there is a larger transit plan which Councilmember Johnson and Vice Mayor DeWitt worked on and Council as a whole encouraged; however, there should be a micro plan that fits in with the larger vision of promoting alternative forms of transit; the Chinese Christian School needs to agree to create systems for monitoring and ensure that people take alternate modes of transportation. Robin Hom, Applicant, stated AC Transit runs by the property on Special Meeting Alameda City Council 5 April 20, 2002 North Loop Road and runs to the Fruitvale BART station. Councilmember Johnson noted the times which buses run is not known. Robin Hom, Applicant, stated the verification process is objective and is tied to the existing traffic study; if traffic impacts are above the amount in the study, the school would mitigate impacts down; the traffic study is the maximum impact; the school takes responsibility; parents have been informed; a population coming from Fremont will drive to the San Leandro campus and students will be bussed from San Leandro. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like to hear that if 400 students come from south of San Leandro, the target would be that 70% take some form of alternative transit. Councilmember Kerr stated any reference to night lighting should be eliminated; recreational field use should limit any use, not only school - related events; allowing everybody else in the City to use fields does not mitigate noise for residents. Mayor Appezzato stated the Applicant has agreed to no [field] lights, except for safety lights. Councilmember Kerr stated the Applicant has agreed; however, language [regarding lighting] should be eliminated. Councilmember Johnson stated language should specifically say no lighting and no sound systems; the only lighting allowed would be safety lights; staff can write appropriate language. Councilmember Kerr stated language on the use of the recreational fields should be revised. Councilmember Johnson stated that she is proposing to remove language about school - related events all day and add language about fields not being used for organized events; most fields around town are used by kids to play catch, which language should permit; language should indicate fields are not to be used for organized events, unless there is prior notice and approval. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether language should permit use on either Saturday or Sunday, which puts no limitation on one weekend day; inquired whether language should be amended to limit both Saturday and Sunday. Councilmember Johnson stated the limit should be on weekends. Paul Bunton, Applicant's Architect, noted a condition limits Special Meeting Alameda City Council 6 April 20, 2002 athletic events; it reads: "athletic events in the ball fields shall not be conducted before 8:45 a.m. on school weekdays or before 9:00 a.m. on weekends and National Holidays; all athletic events on the ball fields are to be concluded before sundown;" the Applicant was hoping to avoid restricting operations. Councilmember Kerr stated the Planning and Building Director approval should remain in the condition. Councilmember Johnson stated a time should be set; sundown is a little late. Robin Hom, Applicant, stated the project is for a church and school use; while the school will very rarely have a weekend event, the church does have youth ministries which use the playfields for about an hour on Saturday mornings. Councilmember Johnson stated a plan could be submitted for a number of continuous, organized activities occurring on weekends; for example, if a track league track meets on Saturdays for six weeks, a plan could be submitted for approval of six meets, rather than submitting requests week by week. Robin Hom, Applicant, stated the school is willing to work with the neighbors on an ongoing basis through the community liaison; [field] use should not require the Planning and Building Director to be involved directly in scheduling the operations of the church ministries. Councilmember Kerr stated use of the playing fields on weekends could be eliminated completely if the Applicant is not willing to work with the community. Robin Hom, Applicant, stated that he is willing to work with the community; however, requiring the church operation to get Planning and Building Director approval before using field on the weekend is a little bit difficult; language sets the hours and limitations. Councilmember Johnson stated that she prefers to keep the oversight requirement in place; there should be approval for an ongoing series of events, rather than seeking approval every week; submitting activities for approval to the Planning and Building Director is not too burdensome. Councilmember Kerr stated there should not be free rein on a weekend from 9:00 a.m. in the morning until 9:45 p.m. at night; that she concurs with Councilmember Johnson's proposed language. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 7 April 20, 2002 Mayor Appezzato stated the offer to lend fields to the City was to help out the City's athletic teams; there are not enough fields; the offer was a gesture of good will to the City. Councilmember Johnson stated the offer was very generous; soccer leagues are really short of soccer fields. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the City Council is attempting to rewrite the Planning Board's decision; the Planning Board should do so; Council should give the Board direction; traffic issues have to be addressed; solutions need to be agreed to in the traffic area, as well as building height; residents provided a list of mitigation items which they want to have heard and seen; issues need to be worked out and put in writing; that he recommends that Council allow the matter to go back to the Planning Board to resolve some of the issues; if Council votes to go ahead with something that citizens do not like, a lawsuit might be filed; the school is providing cooperation; some things can be resolved through traffic studies; his recommendation is that the Planning Board should do the detail work; with all the plans to build in the City, something has to be done about traffic and transportation; something can be done if the City studies it and comes up with good solutions. Councilmember Daysog stated Alameda's population decreased from 77,000 to 72,000 in the last ten years, yet traffic problems have increased; solid language can be crafted which allows for managed, sustainable growth; all information is available for Council to make decisions and resolve the matter; the EIR is not satisfactory; the EIR meets the legal test, yet, traffic impacts are obvious at key intersections; a solution should be crafted that is meaningful to the residents and not overly burdensome to the Christian school; 400 of kids take alternative forms of transit; the traffic system plan that the City and Christian School hash out should monitor traffic using 40% as a baseline for alternative transit use; when the project is reviewed in 3 or 4 years, it should be proven that at least 400 of kids are taking alternative transit; a traffic monitoring system should be in place to determine whether the school has exceeded 400, aiming for a target of 500; the goal can be seen and monitored; said goal should be part of condition (c) [under traffic mitigation]. Councilmember Kerr stated that she supports Vice Mayor DeWitt's suggestion; the project needs a Use Permit; the two little schools squeezed by because they have little outside use; the Oakland Raiders should have been required to obtain a Use Permit, because the main activity is playing football outside; the Zoning Code indicates outside uses are counted; any use associated with the activity in particular is covered by the Zoning Code; the EIR is Special Meeting Alameda City Council 8 April 20, 2002 not adequate; airport expansion was not considered; the amount and way traffic has increased in Alameda was not predicted; inherent uses, such as recreation occurring in outside play areas are an inherent part of the project; therefore, the Code should be followed and there should be a Use Permit; another district has activity which should be taking place inside, but it is not being enforced and is making the lives of the people who live next door very uncomfortable; outside use should not be ignored; the Code should be changed or enforced. Councilmember Johnson requested the City Attorney to comment on the Use Permit requirement; stated if Council can get a consensus or agreement on satisfactory use of the fields, the issue of whether it needs a Use Permit or is a permitted use would go away; if a Use Permit is needed, the process should be followed to grant a Use Permit; the important thing is to put restrictions or conditions in place regarding the sports facilities; requested the traffic engineers to comment on peak time traffic; stated intersections at peak time are impacted due to schools starting at the same time; during the summertime or [school] breaks, intersections are not a problem at peak time; schools starting at the same time create an additional traffic burden making intersections horrible; requested comment on having the start time at non -peak; noted that she does not support phased starting, which is hard to manage; inquired whether starting school at non -peak time would solve the problem. Eugenie Thompson, Traffic Engineer, stated staggering of school hours is a great idea and is done at St. Joseph's School; on the East End, peak time is between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.; spreading the time out later is going to be somewhat problematic because some peak periods are close to 8:30 a.m. Councilmember Johnson stated the time should be earlier; people drop their kids off to school and then go to work; 8:30 a.m. or after is probably too late to start school. Eugenie Thompson, Traffic Engineer, stated people stagger times at Amelia Earhart, for example, and people arrive at all different times starting at 7:45 a.m. until school starts at 8:15 a.m. Councilmember Johnson stated if school starts earlier, everybody will have dropped off their kids and be out of there by peak time. Eugenie Thompson, Traffic Engineer, stated with 40% using transit as suggested by Councilmember Daysog, there would still be 660 cars and buses that would go to the site; if one -third comes from Oakland, there will be impacts on Fernside Boulevard; in addition to staggering, mitigations at the intersections at the East End Special Meeting Alameda City Council 9 April 20, 2002 should be reviewed; spreading of the peak is occurring naturally. The Planning and Building Director stated the Applicant's project description currently proposes that the school will not open until after peak hour; the Applicant has committed to having at least 200 of students arrive before peak hour; there are provisions in place; 20% can be set as a target that will be monitored and goals can be set for even higher numbers of students arriving prior to peak hour; concepts are included and staff can craft conditions to address concerns raised tonight. Councilmember Johnson stated conditions need to be tightened up a little bit more; school not starting until after peak hour does not prevent people from coming in during peak hours. The Planning and Building Director stated the key is the 200 commitment to have students arrive prior to peak hour; it is measurable and can be monitored; Council can modify and increase said goal. Councilmember Daysog stated TIF is funded through the building permit and tax increment; confirmed tax increment funding will not apply since the Applicant is a non - profit; stated monitoring and measuring requiring 400 of the kids take alternative transit will have meaning only if there is a penalty for not reaching the target; otherwise, targets are really nothing; since the entity is not paying the second part of the TIF, Council should consider setting a penalty, similar to the value that would be paid to TIF in tax increment. The Planning and Building Director stated said approach can be taken; TIF tax increment funding applies Island -wide; improvements are intended to apply Island -wide; penalties and enforcement in the condition can be improved; the condition is targeted toward encouraging compliance by stating that the goal is to meet the standards in the traffic study; if goals are not met, there are requirements to institute various Transportation System Management (TSM) measures and to trigger another cycle of review to determine whether there is compliance; an option would be to include a permit re- opener provision where, if goals are not met, the permit would be brought back before the Planning Board for review and consideration of potential penalty sanctions, or penalties could be specified now. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated there are three possibilities before Council: 1) vote to allow the process to go forward; 2) vote no on the Planning Board action, or 3) his suggestion, which he would like to put in the form of a motion, to delay the decision until the matter has been taken back and reviewed, including traffic, playing field and height; then, the Special Meeting Alameda City Council 10 April 20, 2002 matter can return to Council or the Planning Board; the matter should be delayed until there are solutions to problems, such as traffic. Councilmember Kerr seconded the motion. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Vice Mayor DeWitt wanted to make a motion. Vice Mayor DeWitt responded in the affirmative; stated that [delaying matter] is his motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Johnson stated Council can overcome and mitigate problems; issues are fairly simple; the Applicant will build the project in a phased approach over twelve years; suggested that Council approve some phases, maybe half of the project in terms of students and facilities; one of the conditions to going on with further phases could be that there be confirmation and verification that the prior conditions have been complied with; the building site plan should have an maximum height of 50 to 55 feet; 80 feet is not needed; the school has already agreed to construct a sound wall; considering landscaping would be good for the school side and on the other side to mitigate the visual impact for the residents; vines can be planted that do not require a lot of maintenance; temporary structures should only be used for a very short period of time; the Fire Department has confirmed that the gate at Island Drive is not needed for access; the gate should be closed off and a fence can be installed to resolve said issue; the Applicant has agreed to relocate the play yard; bleachers will be away from residences and height will be limited to mitigate the sound and visual impact; weekend use of the field has been discussed; weekend use requires approval of the Planning and Building Director and long -term [repetitive use] plans can be submitted; [field] use should end at 7:00 p.m.; if there is an occasional need for additional time, notice and approval of the Planning and Building Director should be required; lighting and sound [amplification] should be clear; there is absolutely no light, sound or amplification other than safety lighting; major event schedules should be similar to St. Joseph's; there should be a schedule and approval of major events; a certain number of events could be pre- authorized per year; that she supports the Community Liaison recommendation; the residents need to feel that they have a real opportunity for meaningful input; possibly a committee of church, school and community members could discuss issues and formulate resolutions to problems which might arise; monitoring the mitigation is necessary. Councilmember Daysog stated that he would like changes to [Condition 6, Traffic] Section C [Verification of Transportation Special Meeting Alameda City Council 1 1 April 20, 2002 Impact Study] to specifically indicate: 1) that the traffic system in place monitors traffic using 40% as the baseline goal for the number of students taking alternative transit; 2) a system be in place for monitoring growth above 40% to at least 500; and 3) there be a penalty, the value of which is related to the value of the TIF payment, for not reaching said goal; there should be rigid monitoring to ensure alternative forms of transit are used; requested the three -year timeline be changed to five years. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether staff could suggest a method other than sending the matter back to the Planning Board; inquired whether consensus could be written up without having to go through the Planning Board and Council again. The Planning and Building Director stated that staff would be happy to work on the language; if a brief recess could be called, language could probably be put together; alternately, if Council has consensus on direction, the matter could be continued and a modified resolution could be brought back at the next Council meeting on the Consent Calendar; a third -party mediation model could be used; or the Planning Board could hash out the issues and the matter might end up before Council again. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated that he would like to hear from the Appellant. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated if the matter goes back to the Planning Board, Council should be very, very specific about direction; months have been spent trying to come up with compromises; inquired how Council feels about the size of the school, which is the core issue. Councilmember Johnson stated there should be phased approval and not automatic approval of the second phase; the entire project will not be approved automatically; there should be a phased means of approval; if conditions are not met or if traffic studies are wrong and things are worse than predicted, then the second phase or the third phase would not be approved; one of the conditions to approving the next part [phase] would be meeting all the requirements of the first phase. Dan Reidy, Applicant's Attorney, stated based on the guidance of the comments made about possible mitigations, the Applicant and staff can work to finalize [conditions]; Council has provided the core, subject to some changes which could be worked with to get the exact wording; concepts and direction being discussed are acceptable; however, only partial approval would be of concern, because financing has to be done with the expectancy of eventually having the full project; the Applicant is willing to work with the Special Meeting Alameda City Council 12 April 20, 2002 issues Council has mentioned. Councilmember Johnson stated the Planning and Building Director's suggestion for a break to work on language was acceptable. Mayor Appezzato stated there was a motion and second [to delay the matter]; that he will not support the motion. Vice Mayor DeWitt stated the public cannot receive justice by making a decision today; that he does not want to make mistakes; the matter should be delayed to provide an opportunity to work on issues; if going to the Planning Board is too cumbersome, something else can be worked out; there should be an intelligent negotiation on each item and issue; that he is suggesting a delay on the matter and Council will make the final decision at another time. Councilmember Johnson stated that there might be a way to get consensus on the language tonight. Councilmember Kerr stated when discussing limitations on playing fields, the Chinese Church indicated that it does not want restrictions; community meetings are not increasing communication between the neighborhood and the Church; vague language cannot resolve everything, because both sides [Applicant and Appellant] have been in the same room several times and things have not been resolved. Councilmember Johnson stated if the school does not agree to conditions, then something else would have to be done. On the call for the question, THE MOTION FAILED by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers DeWitt and Kerr - 2. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 3. Councilmember Johnson moved that Council break to give staff, the Applicant and interested parties the opportunity to work on language. Mayor Appezzato called a recess at 6:29 p.m. and reconvened the Special Meeting at 7:21 p.m. The Development Review Manager stated conditions discussed during the recess were put on a computer. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether both side agree with the conditions. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 13 April 20, 2002 Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated there is a lot of agreement; however, there are some very fundamental pieces that are not [in agreement]. The Development Review Manager stated Item 1 modifies Condition 2 [Approved Use /Phasing] to read that prior to construction of the junior or senior high school building, the Planning Board shall verify compliance with project conditions in a public meeting; prior to such review, enrollment shall be capped at 500 students, which means approval is for 500 students; to go beyond 500 students, there will be a public Planning Board meeting to review thresholds; if thresholds are met, then the junior or senior high school can be approved; a similar approach was used for each of the Wind River project construction phases; Item 2, regarding height, the top spire will be relocated onto the face of the tower; the height of the tower is approximately 65 feet; the roof point is approximately 50 or 55 feet. Mayor Appezzato inquired how many feet would be reduced by removing the cross, to which Project Architect Paul Bunton responded twelve feet. The Development Review Manager stated Item 3, regarding lighting, requires that the Resolution read: "no outdoor recreational field lighting;" Item 4, on noise, requires there be no amplified speakers outdoors for voice or music or any purpose without Planning Board approval; amplification would have to go back to the Planning Board; Item 5, requires that prior to occupancy approval for Phase I, the Applicant shall consult with AC Transit to determine adequacy of transit service and provide documentation of consultation to the Planning and Building Director. Mayor Appezzato suggested that the Applicant consult the Transportation Commission, too. The Development Review Manager stated the matter will be reviewed by the Planning and Building Director after consult with AC Transit and Alameda Transportation Commission; further stated Item 6 requires that the sound wall and landscaping be approved by the Planning and Building Director and that Island Drive access be closed; the gate will be removed, the fence will be lengthened and berming will be improved; Item 7, regarding field use, requires the field to close at 7:00 p.m. or dusk, whichever is earlier; all activity should cease at said time without prior approval by the Planning and Building Director; major events schedules require Planning and Building Director approval with notice to neighbors; the school will provide a schedule to the Planning and Building Special Meeting Alameda City Council 14 April 20, 2002 Director for approval; actions of the Planning and Building Director can be appealed to the Planning Board; Item 8 modifies Condition 2 [Approved Use /Phasing] to drop the portables; no portables are proposed; Item 9, relates to [Condition 6, Traffic] Section C [Verification of Transportation Impact Study] regarding traffic and requires a system be in place for monitoring traffic, using 40% as the baseline for students using alternative modes of transportation, including carpooling and busing; said system will be in place for five years to monitor growth in use of alternative transit to at least 500; the maximum penalty for non - compliance shall be equal to the incremental TIF payment equivalent to the property tax contribution; the penalty amount shall be pro -rated based on the percent of alternative transportation use; the monitoring system shall be approved by the Public Works Director; surpassing the 40% goal shall result in a credit accruing against future penalties. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether Councilmember Daysog concurred with said requirement, to which Councilmember Daysog responded in the affirmative. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Item 7, regarding field use, included weekends, to which the Development Review Manager responded in the affirmative. The Development Review Manager stated Item 10 requires the playground and bleachers be relocated subject to approval of the Planning and Building Director. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the bleachers and playgrounds would be relocated away from houses. Mayor Appezzato suggested the Item read: "...relocated away from housing." Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated there is agreement on Item 3, lighting, Item 5, which is AC Transit, and Item 6, regarding the sound wall; the only issue on Item 6 is 8 feet should be added as the sound wall height; inquired whether the sound wall will be where the current fence line is located; stated if the sound wall is at the bottom of the berm, then it is only like a 3 -foot sound wall; requested to add that the location of the sound wall will be along the current fence line; Item 8, portables, is acceptable. The Development Review Manager inquired whether Ms. Scarnecchia is suggesting that an 8 -foot sound wall be on top of the existing berm, to which Ms. Scarnecchia responded the sound wall should begin at field level; the current fence is at the berm and is where Special Meeting Alameda City Council 15 April 20, 2002 the wall should go. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated Item 9 language is acceptable; however, there is another traffic issue; Item 10 is acceptable, too; the outdoor amplification system [Item 4], should not have Planning and Building Director approval; there should be no outdoor amplification systems at all. Paul Bunton, Applicant's Architect, stated the Applicant would prefer to keep it open and ask for permission to have amplification from time to time, subject to approval of the Planning and Building Director. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated the problem with allowing Planning and Building Director approval is that the Planning and Building Director could permit amplified music or systems every weekend; the same is true for the number of events; again, requests could be approved by the Planning and Building Director; there is no protection for the community; there could be activity on the field 1000 of the time; Planning and Building Director approval is the same as having no protection whatsoever. Councilmember Johnson noted any decision of the Planning and Building Director can be appealed to the Planning Board; if there is an abuse of discretion, there is an automatic right of appeal. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated having to constantly watch every request made for field use puts the community in a bad situation; the community should be protected; suggested language be added to permit amplification one time a quarter, three times a year, or something similar. Councilmember Johnson stated the matter might be able to be resolved by having appeals to Council; if the Council or Planning Board feels that there is an abuse of discretion by the Planning and Building Director, discretion will be taken away. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated language should protect residents from constant [noise]; maybe Council only needs to indicate that a reasonable limit will be included. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether the limit of four times a year is acceptable; stated the matter can be brought back if the Applicant wants changes. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, suggestion. Councilmember Kerr stated the Special Meeting Alameda City Council April 20, 2002 concurred with Mayor Appezzato's suggestion sounds good because 16 involving homeowners in appealing things is a terrible burden. Robin Hom, Applicant, stated the primary use is a church; the school can abide by said [noise] requirement; in San Leandro, the church is required to inform the City about usage; a limit of four events is too restrictive; summer ministries do not bother anybody; the Planning and Building Director should make the decision. Councilmember Johnson stated the suggestion allows four events a year as a matter of right; if more are needed, the Applicant can apply to the Planning and Building Director subject to Appeal. Councilmember Kerr stated the Applicant could Appeal to the Planning Director for as many as times as desired. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether church ministries are outside events. Robin Hom, Applicant, stated an example is a youth club meets on Friday nights and plays softball during the summer. Mayor Appezzato stated sports events cannot have outside amplification. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated events should be limited to four times a year only; the intent to have outdoor amplification differs from the Applicant's agreement to be respectful to the community and from protection requested for the community. Councilmember Johnson stated the limit should be for four times a year. Councilmember Kerr stated Planning and Building Director approval should be removed. Robin Hom, Applicant, stated the Applicant is not planning on using any amplification systems. Councilmember Johnson stated any speakers, any amplification [are prohibited], as Mr. Hom agreed to earlier; no amplification, no speakers, and no lights were presented [by Applicant]; four times a year is being permitted. Robin Hom, Applicant, inquired whether amplified speakers include bullhorns, to which Councilmember Johnson responded in the affirmative. Robin Hom, Applicant stated that he did agree; however, low levels Special Meeting Alameda City Council 17 April 20, 2002 of amplification are something the Planning and Building Director could review to determine whether there is a problem. Councilmember Johnson stated hopefully, said issue can be resolved with the community through the committee [Liaison]. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, noted the Applicant indicated that they would communicate with the children outside via sign language when airplanes go over. Robin Hom, Applicant, stated Condition 15 [Noise], approved by the Planning Board, states that in order to minimize noise, no loud speakers or amplified voice or music shall be used on the site, including the ball fields. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated regarding Item 1, size governs everything; 500 [students] is still a very large school; it should be absolutely capped with no guarantee for a larger school; the cap should be 500 [students]; to go larger, it should be like St. Joseph's wanting to become larger or any other school that wants to grow; there should be a 500 - student school and anything larger would need to go through an entire review process; allowing an 1100- student school as long as all conditions are met does not do any good; residents fear that conditions will not be met and will be hard to measure; that she proposes a cap on the number of students for a certain period of time; in other words, a 500 [students] cap cannot be changed to 1100 [students] in a year; suggested a cap for a period of five years; further stated there should be a cap on the building square footage; if the school is built for 1100 [students], the assumption is that the school is going to be much bigger; larger build out would accommodate a lot of people; there should be a limit on the number of people on the site. Robin Hom, Applicant, inquired whether Item 1 sets the cap at 500 [students] pending passing certain measurable criteria. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, responded the Appellants are requesting size be capped at 500 [students]. Robin Hom, Applicant, inquired whether 1100 students would be allowed. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, responded in the negative; stated if the school does a great job in being consistent with the community by keeping noise levels down and traffic is not a problem, and the impact on the public school system is known, the school could come back and propose an expansion to 1100 [students]; when the school Special Meeting Alameda City Council 18 April 20, 2002 proposes expansion, there would be factual data. Robin Hom, Applicant, stated the project was to have a school where primary school students can grow older and move up to the other [junior high and high school] ; the Planning Board approval was for the 1100- student school; to cut the size down to 500 [students] really cuts what was approved; that he is requesting for the Council's full approval of the 17 -acre project; however, the matter will come back for a public hearing. Mayor Appezzato stated the Appellant wants a cap of 500 [students]; the Applicant wants a cap of 500 [students] temporarily, with ability to go to 1100 [students] after certain criteria are met; Council should address the matter; requested the Applicant to comment on the absolute cap at 500 [students]. Robin Hom, Applicant, responded the Applicant does not agree with said cap and is willing to make the cap subject to approval. Mayor Appezzato inquired whether there was agreement on everything else leaving only said issue [cap]. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated regarding height, that Appellants agree with Councilmember Johnson's suggestion and can live with 55 feet. Councilmember Johnson stated the Applicant had proposed to take the cross off the top and put it on the side [of tower], which would result in a small 65 -foot section. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, inquired the height of the roof next to the tower. Councilmember Johnson stated the Applicant agreed to 50 - 55 feet on all other buildings. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated height is fine; the Appellants can live with the tower in the front with a height of 65 feet if the size issue is resolved; however, size is the big issue; size is a matter of enrollment, square footage, and number of people on the site. Mayor Appezzato stated there is agreement on everything but the cap at 500 [students]. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated the limit on field use until 7:00 p.m. or dusk requires all activities to cease without Planning and Building Director approval; requested use cease at 7:00 p.m. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 19 April 20, 2002 Councilmember Johnson stated the intention is to make it similar to St. Joseph's requirements. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated an end time of 7:00 p.m. is acceptable; there should be an end time which cannot be overridden by somebody [Planning and Building Director]. Councilmember Johnson stated it [end time] is 7:00 o'clock every night, unless the Applicant has special approval. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, suggested that the same thing as the noise limit be followed, which allows use four times a year. Robin Hom, Applicant, inquired whether a softball game going extra innings and finishing at 7:20 p.m. would be held against the school. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated no one would have an issue with exceptions; the Appellants are trying to protect from the Planning and Building Director allowing use every night until 9:00 p.m. Councilmember Johnson stated all the details of the language cannot be included; staff is going to have to put together and finalize language; a lot of progress has been made today; both sides are probably a little unhappy about some of the provisions; concerns of the community are covered. Councilmember Johnson made a motion to adopt this [ten items agreed upon] as a concept and direct staff to finalize the [resolution] language [Denying the Appeal of Andrea Scarnecchia, Nick Correia, Michelle Stampien and Richard Davis and Upholding the Planning Board's Approval of a Final Development Plan and Preliminary Design Review with Conditions for School and Church at 1801 North Loop Road] . Councilmember Johnson further stated there is a cap on the number of students and on facilities construction; Phase I is the elementary school and Phase II is the church, which is all the Applicant can build until they go through the public process to verify compliance with all the requirements; any issues that the community has can be raised at the public hearing; the process is public; there is a cap and a construction limitation; the Applicant does not get automatic approval for the next phases. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, inquired what are conditions for approval [of next phase]; stated there is no standard setting Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 0 April 20, 2002 conditions of approval for 1100 [students]. Councilmember Johnson stated there are standards; the Applicant has to comply with all the requirements which have been imposed; other issues that come up can be addressed at the public hearing, too. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, inquired what the time period is and whether, for example, the Applicant could come back in six months from now and request 1100 [students]. Mayor Appezzato responded in the negative; stated the Applicant cannot make said request until after the project is built. Councilmember Daysog stated the Applicant cannot come back in six months or a year; the Applicant understands that there are some criteria by which their performance will be measured; after the Applicant has 500 [students], the rest [1100 students] can be requested and there will be a hearing; the hearing will review a number of things; the things which are of tremendous concern have been narrowed; for example, traffic will be reviewed to determine how well the Applicant met traffic requirements; information on how the Applicant did can be used for or against going after the next 500 [students]; the Applicant has a right to 1100 [students], but Council is making it conditional. Mayor Appezzato stated the 500 [students] cannot be measured until the facility is built and the students are there, which is probably two, three, four years away; confirmed the Applicant accepted said requirement. Eugenie Thompson, Traffic Engineer, stated going to 1100 [students] should require completion of another traffic study; in addition to conditions stated, a traffic report should be completed. Councilmember Johnson stated the Applicant was assuming they would have to do that [traffic study]; however, Council can specify said requirement. Mayor Appezzato stated the Applicant would do a traffic study; the Cross Airport Roadway, which is a four -lane highway, will be built; the school should use said road as much as possible. Councilmember Daysog inquired whether the traffic study would be at the level of the Abrams Report. Eugenie Thompson, Traffic Engineer, stated to address the impacts, the traffic study should be similar to a study for any expansion of a school up to 1100 [students]; conditions will be changed; the Special Meeting Alameda City Council 21 April 20, 2002 Airport Roadway will be open; the appropriate way to do a traffic report is similar to the Abrams report completed for today. Councilmember Daysog stated one of the aspects of the modification of [Condition 6, Traffic] Section C [Verification of Transportation Impact Study] was to ensure that the baseline of 40% is always met and, hopefully, exceeded on a yearly basis through some kind of method that Public Works will create. Councilmember Daysog requested comment from the Applicant. Robin Hom, Applicant, stated the church and school appreciate all the effort that has been done and will work with conditions to make the project work. Mayor Appezzato requested a motion be made. Councilmember Johnson stated that she made a motion to approve [the project], with the changes (ten items negotiated during break and revisions) . Councilmember Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Vice Mayor DeWitt noted the school would not be in the airport takeoff path; according to Federal Regulations, the school would be located in the noise zone and not the takeoff path; the project must comply with noise regulations, but is not in the safety zone. Councilmember Johnson confirmed that the issue of the gate on Island Drive and Maitland Drive was included; and inquired whether the matter was final or whether there would be a separate session to work on language. Mayor Appezzato stated the matter is final; if someone finds something in the final language that is not what was discussed, they should inform Council. In response to the Appellant's request, Mayor Appezzato requested the height of the building be added to Item 2. Councilmember Johnson stated the height is 55 feet for the main building and 65 feet for the tower. Mayor Appezzato stated the cross would be removed and the [tower] height could be 66 feet or could be lower [than 65 feet]. Councilmember Johnson stated the height 55 feet or under for the Special Meeting Alameda City Council 22 April 20, 2002 main building and 65 feet or under for the tower should be added. Councilmember Daysog stated the motion sets the framework of the elements by which the Chinese Christian School will be measured and allowed to move forward if they pass the criteria. Andrea Scarnecchia, Appellant, stated the Appellants are here because an EIR needs to be done on the site; the EIR is old and outdated; the Appellants are trying to compromise and find a way that the Applicant can build the project; requested that the EIR be redone. Eugenie Thompson, Traffic Engineer, requested that Item 1 be modified to include that in addition to meeting the project conditions, a separate traffic study be required; a new traffic study should be performed because conditions will have changed. Mayor Appezzato stated the language should state: approve a new traffic study. Paul Bunton, Applicant's Architect, stated the Planning Board is going to have to review a sound study and traffic study. Councilmember Kerr stated that she does not see any way around the requirement for a Use Permit; that she is glad to see people agreeing; however, the City should stop sliding around it [Use Permit requirements]. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 4. Noes: Councilmember Kerr - 1. Adjournment There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:07 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Lara Weisiger City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting Alameda City Council 2 3 April 20, 2002