Loading...
2000-03-11 Special CC MinutesMINUTES OF THE SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING SATURDAY- -MARCH 11, 2000- -9:00 A.M. Mayor Appezzato convened the Special Meeting at 9:10 a.m. ROLL CALL - Present: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. Absent: None. AGENDA ITEM (00 -123) Public Hearing to consider adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Initial Study (IS -98 -8) and Mitigation Monitoring Program, a proposed Rezoning, R -98 -1, of the St. Joseph Site, including St. Joseph Basilica, St. Joseph Notre Dame High School, St. Joseph Elementary School and Parish Center, from R -4 (Neighborhood Residential District) to R -4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential, Special Planned Development Combining District), and an Appeal of the Planning Board's approval of a Use Permit, UP -99- 22, to make the existing church and school facility in a residential zoning district a conforming use, and a Planned Development, PD -98 -1, to permit adding 19,191 square feet of building space to the school facilities, demolishing nearly 7,000 square feet of building space, remodeling the existing school facility, providing off - street parking, temporarily closing Chestnut Street during school hour, and limiting the school population to 325 elementary school students and 600 high school students. The site is located at 1109 Chestnut Street. Applicant: St. Joseph Parish. Appellant: Leila Moncharsh, Attorney for Jacob Rosenberg. (00 -124) Resolution Moncharsh, Attorney Board's Approval of UP- 99 -22, for the Adopted. No. 13190, "Denying the Appeal of Leila for Jacob Rosenberg and Upholding the Planning Planned Development, PD- 98 -01, and Use Permit, St. Joseph Site at 1109 Chestnut Street." (00 -125) Resolution No. 13191, "Adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS -98 -8, and Mitigation Monitoring Program for a Rezoning of the St. Joseph Site, Including the St. Joseph Basilica, St. Joseph Notre Dame High School, and St. Joseph Elementary School, 1109 Chestnut Street, from R -4 (Neighborhood Residential District) to R -4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential, Special Planned Development Combining District), a Planned Development Approval for Building Expansion and Improvements, and a Use Permit to Make Conforming the Existing Church and School Facilities in a Residential Zoning District." Adopted. Special Meeting 1 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 (00 -126) Introduction of Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Properties within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.S., for Properties Located at 1001, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1014, 1109, 1111 Chestnut Street; 1119 Lafayette Avenue; 1901, 2004, 2008, 2012 San Antonio Avenue; and 1907, 2005, 2011 San Jose Avenue. Introduced. City Planner Altschuler gave a brief overview of the project. Dr. Jacob Rosenberg, Appellant, stated there are legal issues which can be raised regarding the overlay rezoning, giveaway of a public street, and grandfathering parking while allowing 19,000 square feet of new construction; however, he will address the basic unfairness of the expansion; the proposed expansion is a significant, major intrusion into a neighborhood, which will lower property values and disrupt the tranquility of the old, established neighborhood for six days a week, five months a year for ten years; St. Joseph's has indicated construction will take place during the summer; his six year old son will be sixteen years old when the construction is finished; his backyard will be unusable much of the time; if he tried to sell his house, finding a buyer would be difficult; a gas station four blocks away was not permitted to open an additional hour or two in the evening or on Sundays because the noise would disrupt the neighborhood; said gas station is on a street with commercial use, while St. Joseph's is in the middle of a neighborhood; St. Joseph's Plan has minimal restrictions and does not minimize the impact on the neighborhood; Planning staff has indicated construction issues will be addressed when the phasing plan and construction details are submitted; the proposed process is not designed to enhance neighborhood participation, it is designed to minimize further input; only neighbors within 300 feet of St. Joseph will be notified; following notification, response to phasing plans and construction details will only be permitted for five days; decisions will be made by the Planning staff; there is no objective criteria for reviewing decisions [by Planning staff], no review by elected or appointed officials, and no mechanisms to appeal or hear objections from neighbors; in 1964, City staff indicated construction of the gymnasium on the St. Joseph site might be inappropriate, and that the site was over built; St. Joseph was given a public street; the neighborhood has accommodated St. Joseph's expansion for 40 years; residents purchased houses in an established neighborhood which has not had significant construction for 30 years; St. Joseph should minimize its impact on the neighborhood; the construction project could be indefinite; if the project is not finished in 10 years, extensions will be granted; due to good feelings about St. Joseph, significant restrictions have not been imposed; the neighborhood deserves Special Meeting 2 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 protection; residents are being told: the construction will not last that long or be that noisy, parking will not get worse, and permitting the project will provide control over the situation; City Planning staff has not protected the neighborhood; the rezoning and Use Permit conditions are inadequate; there are requirements, including a Traffic Management System (TMS), to ameliorate the effects of special event parking; St. Joseph is required to report to Planning staff; St. Joseph should not be permitted to: 1) determine which events have sufficient attendance and need to be reported, 2) describe its compliance with the Plan, and 3) choose which TMS needs to be implemented; there are no significant penalties for non - compliance with the Use Permit conditions; construction is not required to begin at any specific time; there are no penalties for not completing construction and no requirements to show adequate funding prior to proceeding with the Plan; the neighborhood has not arrived at a consensus; however, disagreement is only over minor details; the neighborhood needs Use Permit conditions which have some force and assurance that indefinite continued growth will not be permitted; neighbors need to know parking problems will be addressed and construction impacts minimized; if the City Council passes the Use Permit as presented, the message is that requests will be granted regardless of impacts on the neighborhood. Honorable Judge Linda Bytof, Appellant, stated that she opposes the rezoning and the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration; in a letter dated December 10, 1999, Attorney Leila Moncharsh addressed the basis for the Appeal; there are several letters on file dated October 4, 1999 with objections to the Mitigated Negative Declaration; submitted proposed modified Conditions of Approval; stated that she does not oppose modernization of St. Joseph; however, the project must be done in a manner consistent with the law, the City of Alameda's General Plan and zoning regulations; the project should be respectful of surrounding uses; the current proposal does not address concerns or meet standards; outlined her four major points: 1) inadequate analysis of St. Joseph's current status as a legal nonconforming use; 2) inadequate parking plan for both daytime use and special events; 3) inadequate plan and phasing schedule; all [1,2, and 31 lack appropriate analysis and data, and fail to impose conditions that ensure accountability, control, and enforcement of the project; and 4) proposed changes to the conditions of approval. Ms. Bytof further stated others would address the closure of Chestnut Street, which the Appellants also oppose; with respect to the legal non - conforming use, the Zoning Ordinance states: "no non- conforming use shall be enlarged, extended, reconstructed or structurally altered, unless it is changed to conform to the Special Meeting 3 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 regulations specified in this section;" the purpose of said ordinance is to restrict, rather than increase, a non - conforming use, recognizing the detrimental effect of the use on property values in the area, particularly in a residential area; the ordinance was construed to limit expansion or enlargement of use, including volumetrically; St. Joseph has engaged in several activities which have caused loss of legal non - conforming use status, including illegal conversion of San Jose Hall from a convent to business use and fluctuating student population; since St. Joseph has lost its legal non - conforming status, there is no rationale for changing the zoning or approving the Use Permit, which would be a grant of special privilege and constitute spot zoning; parking requirements are inadequate for the use; staff is recommending that the City legalize St. Joseph's non - conforming use by granting both the Use Permit and the zoning change; the parking requirements must be viewed from the perspective of the impacts caused by all St. Joseph's activities, not just the impacts caused by the net 12,000 square foot addition; instead of requiring the parking mandated by the proposal, staff has taken a view that something [some parking] is better than nothing [no parking] because there are no controls over non - conforming use; said reasoning is not a legitimate rationale for establishing a parking requirement; parking requirements must be established on the basis of proper, appropriate standards; [parking] calculations and assumptions are deficient, and the purported controls are nonexistent; e.g., the calculation does not include other daytime use on the site, such as Morning Mass overlapping with school; there is a proposal to close Chestnut Street, however, parking calculations include parking on Chestnut Street which would no longer be available; there are not any provisions for parking mitigations during construction; the Plan does not require parking be built first; modifications to Conditions 9, 10 and 11 address said issues; modifications should be made: 1) in the determination of the appropriate number of spaces required on site, and 2) daytime uses must be made subject to the Traffic Management Plan which has been prepared for special events; staff acknowledged that there was a problem with special events; however, resolution has been deferred to a later, unspecified date using a vague, unspecified process; said process does not: 1) provide for input and set forth standards, 2) provide an appeal process to ensure the Transportation System Management Plan (TSM) is appropriate, or 3) provide the City to take action if the TSM is not completed or implemented; her [proposed] modified Conditions 9, 10, and 11 address said problems; the TSM must be triggered when there is a lower number of attendees; specific standards must be established in the TSM which can be enforced at a later date. In response to Ms. Bytof's request for additional time, Mayor Special Meeting 4 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 Appezzato responded that she may speak for an additional two minutes, and that proponents may have an additional two minutes as well. Ms. Bytof stated the primary disagreement in the neighborhood has to do with the City's resolution of the parking problem; there has been general agreement over everything else; staff has been misleading regarding the [neighbors'] disagreement over the project; the Plan and the phasing are inadequate; Zoning Ordinance [Alameda Municipal Code Section] 30- 4.13(j)4 requires a development schedule which specifically indicates the construction date, the stage in which the project will be built, the approximate dates when each stage will begin and be completed, and the rate of development; the Plan does not require St. Joseph's to meet said standards prior to the approval of the Planned Development; said determination has been left to a later date, which is problematic and irresponsible; the Conditions of Approval do not contain an appropriate mechanism to ensure input by affected residents, accountability or enforceability; surrounding neighbors have the right to have plans specified up- front, filed, commented upon, and approved at a public process with a right to review and appeal; none of which is included in the conditions; the Planning Board inserted the requirement that construction be completed within ten years and limited to forty -eight months; however, said timeframe has no basis and was made up; reasonable limits cannot be set unless there is a phasing plan; requested the phasing plan, which can be modified, be completed now; stated standards, within the phasing plan, should reflect the amount of time and funding for each phase. Mayor Appezzato stated both groups requested that their video be shown last; requested the City Clerk resolve the situation. Fr. Jerry Holland, Applicant, Pastor, St. Joseph Basilica, stated St. Joseph has served Alameda for over 100 years, providing worship, education, and social services for the community; maintenance of the [St. Joseph] complex is his responsibility; while studying repairs, it became apparent that a long -term plan was needed to avoid working in a piecemeal, haphazard fashion; over the last two years, St. Joseph's has had discussions with the neighbors to obtain input; changes and concessions were made to meet neighbors' needs; the Planning Board concurred the Plan is best for St. Joseph and the neighbors; the Plan is about being better, not bigger; as Planning Board Member Rossi stated, renovation will allow St. Joseph "to continue to be an asset and a vibrant institution in the City." Pat McDermott, Muller and Caulfield, Applicant's Architects, stated Special Meeting rj Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 his company was hired to modernize the parish's facilities three years ago; at the beginning, St. Joseph informed him it did not want to grow beyond its historical student populations, rather St. Joseph's goal is to improve services, increase safety, and continue to attract and educate quality students; Muller and Caulfield conducted an extensive study and design effort, working with the parish's building committee, students, teachers, parishioners, City staff and neighbors; neighbors were consulted throughout the process, including three large neighborhood meetings and many smaller meetings; many neighborhood concerns were addressed by significant revisions to the Master Plan over the last three years; his study of the parish identified three crucial issues: 1) facilities shared by the three parish entities are not distinct enough, causing student and parishioner circulation problems; Muller and Caulfield proposes all three entities be gathered around a central area for each; 2 ) St. Joseph's does not have standard facilities expected of a future - looking educational facility, such as speciality classrooms and multipurpose spaces, which are proposed for both the parish and schools; seismic retrofit will be completed and the entire site will be disabled accessible; 3) the elementary school does not have enough play area and having young children cross Lafayette Street is unsafe; the elementary play structure is proposed to move to the main block; to off -set the area lost [by relocating the play structure], a raised area is proposed over the parking and Marianist yard; great care has been taken to concentrate new facilities in areas with the least visual and acoustical effect on the neighbors; e.g., proposed high school improvements face each other, instead of neighbors; the east property line, which is the only area of the high school that directly abuts neighbors, will have classrooms and storage to reduce the acoustical impact of the gym; the elementary school centers around the interior of the site and its east and west play yards face other parish property; parish activities focus on a central gathering space, buffered by parish buildings on all sides; the design provides a superior educational facility, while not increasing historic student population levels; the built area of the facility will increase by only 12 percent; the design will place 67 additional cars on -site during the day, solve existing safety hazards on Lafayette and Chestnut Streets, improve parking, reduce traffic congestion, and integrate the architecture with the historic basilica; urged Council to trust the City's process and support the Conditions written by staff and refined by the Planning Board; stated there is more accountability and monitoring in the PD Plan than any other he has worked on; urged Council to support the Master Plan for the modernization, not growth, of St. Joseph's, including the temporary closure of Chestnut Street. Linda O'Rear, Applicant, Principal, St. Joseph Elementary School, Special Meeting 6 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 stated the project is essential to providing a sound and safe educational environment for students; 300 elementary school children cross Chestnut Street at least twice a day; stated suggestions have been made, from crossing guards to push button signals; there could be tragic results when cars and students use the same space; St. Joseph realizes this [street closure] is an inconvenience for the neighbors; urged the City Council to deny the Appeal, and approve the temporary closure of Chestnut Street between San Antonio Avenue and San Jose Street during school hours; stated experts have contributed hours to the Master Plan. Tony Aiello, Applicant, Principal, St. Joseph Notre Dame High School, stated the Master Plan is the result of three years of planning; the Plan has been revised; St. Joseph has agreed to the following concessions: 1) removal of additional seating in the gymnasium; 2) restoring, not moving, the parish center; and 3) temporarily closing Chestnut Street during school hours, not permanently; St. Joseph has met with neighbors since the Plan was submitted two years ago, including eight times since November, 1999; every reasonable request has been accommodated, e.g., sound walls for the gymnasium and window placement for privacy; St. Joseph does not find it reasonable to limit the number of people attending church services; St. Joseph will continue to meet with the neighborhood during the Design Review process; the Plan improves and updates the facilities for science, technology and fine arts, and dedicates space to utilize parish and school resources more efficaciously; the Plan does not increase student enrollment above its historical levels of 600 for the high school and 325 for the elementary school; the Plan ensures the safety of students and adults, especially with the temporary closure of Chestnut Street during school hours; the Plan provides for more onsite parking during the day: 67 new spaces, for a total of 86 [parking spaces]; the Plan implements a Traffic Management Plan for special events; neighbors were invited to contribute ideas to the development of said Plan; without the approval of the Master Plan, existing conditions would remain, including no caps on student and event populations, no limit on the number of special events, and no additional onsite parking; encouraged the City Council to approve the Plan and deny the Appeal. Mayor Appezzato noted that the appellant would present the first video and be provided an opportunity to comment immediately following the video. Deborah Oliveri, Alameda, presented a video showing morning drop - off, afternoon pick -up, and parking patterns, stated the loading zone has been extended; students use crosswalks; there are no longer jaywalking violations; the drop -off and pick -up process Special Meeting 7 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 lasts 20 to 35 minutes; as long as there are monitors, traffic moves and children use the crosswalks; by 8:20 a.m., the streets are clear [of traffic]; the Marianist Parking Lot fills up for 8:00 a.m. mass; said lot is empty by 1:00 p.m.; at 2:45 p.m., the lot is full of parents picking up elementary school children; at a meeting held on February 28, 2000, neighbors were informed the lot would be dedicated to parking for staff and high school students, which will cause backup of parents picking up elementary students on San Jose and San Antonio Avenues; St. Joseph also stated: "parishioners will have to park somewhere in the neighborhood." Alan Asker, Chestnut - Encinal Neighbors Association, stated remarks were structured to fill three minutes; the two minute time limit would disrupt presentations; requested public speakers be provided three minutes to speak. Mayor Appezzato agreed to provide speakers three minutes. St. Joseph showed a videotape prepared by its Traffic Engineer. Charlie Abrams, Traffic Engineer and Walnut Creek Mayor, stated that his firm has done many traffic studies in Alameda and for schools; after reviewing and analyzing the traffic studies and complaints by opponents, he concluded that the St. Joseph project does not have a significant traffic impact; using normal environmental measurements, the project should be approved; the well- conceived mitigations will operate safely and effectively; the school will cap the number of students; the crosswalks, street closure, parking, car pooling and special events will work effectively; if the project is implemented, conditions will improve; temporary street closure is commonly used at both public and private schools; Chestnut Street carries approximately 100 to 150 cars per hour during peak hours, which is a low amount of traffic; closure will be a small inconvenience; with 900 students, there will be traffic, however, it has been mitigated; a new 20,000 square foot Walnut Creek Middle School Gymnasium faced strong neighborhood opposition, especially with regard to traffic, safety, and security; the project was approved and there has not been community reaction; there will not be traffic problem. Mayor Appezzato recessed the Special Meeting at 10:20 a.m. and reconvened at 10:35 a.m. Ed Cline, Traffic Engineer, stated that he has worked with cities on a regular basis; that he visits schools to address student safety; the mix of children and cars should be eliminated; the Special Meeting 8 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 State Legislature restricts closure of streets; the California Vehicle Code allows a street to be closed when: 1) the street is no longer needed for traffic; 2) there is criminal activity; and 3) if the street bisects school grounds; once children arrive at school, the street should be closed to allow children to migrate across campus in total safety. James Lee, Opponent, Alameda, stated a Councilmember met with a City employee who lives next to St. Joseph and has been a lifelong member of the parish; the employee related views about the Master Plan to the Councilmember; a letter dated December 10, 1999, advised the City Council that no member of the Council shall discuss the evidence of the St. Joseph matter because an Appeal was filed; in response to a letter submitted to Council regarding St. Joseph, the City Attorney wrote a letter dated December 21, 1999, which states: "it would be both inappropriate and unlawful for the City Council to respond because of the Appeal;" a Councilmember's business partner is a member of St. Joseph's Board of Directors; another Councilmember served as a member of St. Joseph's Board of Directors; requested Councilmembers with a conflict of interest, or who have discussed the matter outside the Hearing, to step down to avoid future questions. Carol Asker, Opponent, Alameda, stated that earlier in the week, a letter was submitted to the City Council which included an analysis of how the Master Plan violates many sections of the General Plan; encouraged review of said letter; stated the same analysis was delivered to the Planning Director last October; no response was received; the proposed Master Plan violates the General Plan on many points and should not be considered; the project exceeds the density and massing permitted in the General Plan by almost double, places new offices in a residential zone, which is prohibited by the General Plan, and permits ongoing noise levels, which California Environmental Quality Act and the General Plan identify as significant; the Plan does not mitigate noise impacts and, therefore, requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); the General Plan forbids the addition of new non - conforming uses to existing non - conforming uses in a residential zone; the Planning Department has not protected the citizens and the neighborhood effected by the Plan; the Alameda Municipal Code and General Plan state that all Planned Developments shall be consistent with the General Plan; requested the Plan not be approved, until it is brought into conformance with the General Plan. Jan Alt, Opponent, Alameda, stated the St. Joseph Plan in its present form is unacceptable to the neighbors; displayed a diagram showing residents in the area opposed to the Master Plan; stated St. Joseph has made changes to its original Master Plan; however, Special Meeting 9 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 said changes are not acceptable; most changes have been made because the City would have required more parking and because an EIR would have been required; changes were not made for the neighbors; parishioners were not provided all the details; a private institution should not take over a public street; St. Joseph was granted one public street already; St. Joseph has indicated a desire for permanent street closure; if temporary closure is granted, St. Joseph will request permanent closure in two or three years; the neighbors requested St. Joseph to provide a written statement that enrollment would be capped and permanent closure of Chestnut Street would not be sought; St. Joseph responded only the Bishop could provide said statement; nothing has been put in writing; the Plan is not acceptable to 90 percent of the neighbors. Vice Mayor Daysog stated different groups oppose St. Joseph's Plan; in a communication dated February 28, 2000, Chestnut Street neighbors seemed to come to consensus on numbers, e.g., the neighbors requested 88 permanent parking spaces and there are 86 [parking spaces] in the Plan; inquired whether there are issues which seem to be moving toward consensus. Ms. Alt responded that St. Joseph did not agree to any ideas presented by the neighborhood group. Councilmember Johnson inquired what are the major points of disagreement, to which Ms. Alt responded parking and street closure. Ms. Alt further stated St. Joseph was offered a [parking] plan and refused, St. Joseph indicated it would rather resolve the issue through the City Council. Dang Nguyen, Opponent, Alameda, stated that he provided a parking analysis to the Planning Director in October, 1999; the Planning Director has not responded to said analysis; the Master Plan is deficient of required parking; St. Joseph assumes full -time parking for the 1964 gymnasium is not required, which is not true; the analysis identifies deficiencies in the Applicant's parking assessment; according to City staff, 364 off - street parking spaces would be required if the project was new construction, and expansion would require a total of 462 [parking spaces]; St. Joseph is requesting approval of a Plan which provides only 83 spaces; neighbors presented a parking plan in negotiations, which was rejected by St. Joseph; the neighborhood cannot tolerate the negative impact of parking demands equal to 462 spaces; inquired why an EIR was not warranted; urged Council to examine the parking analysis provided by the neighbors, find that St. Joseph's offer is Special Meeting 10 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 inadequate, and not approve the Master Plan with gross deficiency in parking. Kathy McIntire, Opponent, Alameda, stated the Master Plan does not include 110 off - street parking spaces as required by the 1964 Use Permit to build the high school gym; the neighbors informed City staff of said matter and did not receive a response; City staff scrambled to find a way around requirements of the 1964 Use Permit; St. Joseph spread the untrue story that the [1964] Use Permit parking was only required during evening special events; by October, Planning agreed to said story; submitted a memo from Planner Judith Altschuler to the City Engineer dated June 14, 1999, which states: "we still need to come to terms with the 1964 parking plan; according to the Minutes of the 1964 Meetings, it seems that the parking areas were to be kept open during school hours and when events dictated otherwise; this indicates to me that the parking shown on the 1964 plans represented the required parking for the site; if this is the case, they [St. Joseph] were required to have 110 off - street spaces as shown on the 1964 Plans; it would also mean that the 60 plus spaces required as part of this project would be added to the 110 required before, for a total of 170 on -site spaces; this would change the landscape quite drastically, is there a chance we could talk about this as soon as possible ?" Ms. McIntire further stated the neighborhood association offered an alternative parking plan which would provide all parking required by the 1964 Use Permit, plus the current Plan's parking requirements; if St. Joseph's continues to reject said proposal, the Master Plan should not be approved. Nancy Gordon, Opponent, Alameda, stated temporary street closure is a gross misnomer; closure will continue forever; the City Manager and Planner Judith Altschuler are not in favor of street closure; the proposed Plan diametrically opposes the General Plan adopted by the City in 1991, which emphasizes the maintenance of the residential nature of neighborhoods; urged Council to comply with the General Plan; remodeling is acceptable, however, expansion and street closure are not; there are infractions with past agreement between the City and the St. Joseph, e.g., parking spaces and the illegal, secret conversion of the convent residence into offices; the Chestnut - Encinal Neighborhood Group addressed concerns in its proposal; City staff misrepresented neighborhood disagreement; submitted a petition; urged Council to comply with the General Plan. Alan Asker, Opponent, Co- Founder, Chestnut - Encinal Neighbors Association, stated that in the public records 35 years ago, City staff indicated St. Joseph's school was overexpanded; over a year ago, the Chestnut - Encinal Neighbors Association offered a parking Special Meeting 1 1 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 and traffic plan which would keep the street open and increase both student safety and the number of parking spaces; St. Joseph rejected said plan; in negotiation meetings, St. Joseph would not agree to the Association's request for a binding agreement to never seek permanent closure; the Association also requested the Public Hearing be postponed, St. Joseph stalled and refused to respond until last week, at which time the request was denied; revised Use Permit conditions were offered which did not remove anything except street closure; said conditions added controls to ensure uses would not be exceeded in the future; St. Joseph was informed, if it agreed to revisions, the Association would not object to the Use Permit; last week, St. Joseph informed him that all the revisions were rejected; additionally, an alternative parking plan was offered, which would provide much more parking than the current plan while allowing all development; said plan was rejected because St. Joseph does not want to spend the money; the Master Plan only has about 600 of the parking which St. Joseph's traffic study states should be installed for the project; St. Joseph's traffic study does not take into account parents picking -up elementary school students in the afternoon and people attending Mass every weekday morning who currently use the off - street parking; said individuals will be forced to park on the street because the Master Plan commits parking [currently used] to the High School and staff; the parking plan is so critical that the Plan should require an EIR; the Neighborhood Association would agree to almost anything to mitigate [parking] impacts; if St. Joseph had agreed to the Association's proposed parking plan and Use Permit revisions, the Association would be urging the City Council to approve the Master Plan, except for street closure; said promise was restated in a letter to the City Council dated March 1, 2000; however, once again, St. Joseph rejected the Association's offer in its entirety; it is clear which party negotiated in good faith; St. Joseph is betting it has enough political clout that Council will dismiss impacts; in view of St. Joseph's unreasonable and uncompromising posture, urged the City Council to recognize the serious impacts on the neighborhood, and not approve the Plan in its present form; submitted a copy of his comments for the record. Vice Mayor Daysog stated the morning drop -off of children was characterized as a pretty efficient, smooth - flowing process; inquired whether the afternoon pick -up could be the same; stated parents currently parking in the lot in the afternoon might be able to pick -up children in a fashion as smooth as the morning drop -off. Mr. Asker responded when parents pick -up children in the afternoon, they come several minutes ahead of time because many wish to go into the school to get children, rather than wait at the curb; the Master Plan commits parking used by parents and morning mass Special Meeting 12 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 attendees, forcing them onto the street; the question of reconciling conflicting demands for parking was raised in negotiations; at a February 28, 2000 meeting, St. Joseph advised said people would not be able to park in the lot anymore and would be forced to park in the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether parents could adjust to pick -up children in the same fashion as drop -off. Mr. Asker responded parents using the parking lot choose to stop [park], walk into school and pick -up children; that he assumes the practice will continue; curb pick -up works well and is well managed by the school; the system is efficient; St. Joseph staff also monitors street crossing; elementary students do not cross the street without staff escorts; during High School class changes, staff monitors and acts as crossing guards; said system is a result of Traffic Advisory Committee meetings three years ago. Vice Mayor Daysog stated St. Joseph came up with a plan for 86 off - street parking spaces and 137 off - street parking spaces during special events; inquired whether Mr. Asker challenges said numbers or requests that there be regulatory processes. Mr. Asker responded if St. Joseph had adopted the Neighborhood Association's suggested changes to the Use Permit, the Association would not oppose those [numbers of parking spaces]; 86 [spaces] is not an inadequate number; there is a woefully inadequate supply of onsite parking for the impacts St. Joseph brings to the area; the Association's suggestion would solve said problem; if St. Joseph had agreed [to said suggestion] during negotiations, the Neighborhood Association would have urged adoption. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether the problem is the monitoring and regulatory framework. Mr. Asker responded the [Neighborhood Association's] proposed revisions to the Use Permit are controls and monitoring to ensure that the Use Permit Conditions would not be exceeded in the future; the Association is only concerned about impacts; without revisions, the neighborhood must police the situation and will have to appeal to the Planning Board for relief if St. Joseph does not abide by the Use Permit Conditions; the revised Conditions [proposed by the neighborhood] would motivate St. Joseph to abide by Conditions; the proposed revisions are reasonable and have been rejected; urged Council to consider requesting St. Joseph to adopt the neighborhood proposal which satisfies the 1964 Use Permit and neighborhood parking impacts. Special Meeting 13 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 Councilmember Kerr stated that when the designation of San Jose Hall changed from an auditorium to a classroom, calculations required less parking; inquired whether Mr. Asker recalled the difference in required parking. Mr. Asker responded the San Jose Little Theater will accommodate 200 people; the initial parking assessment assigned 16 parking spaces for said facility because an assembly -type building requires 1 parking space for every 200 square feet; the number of parking spaces was revised to about 10 on the basis that the facility is not assembly, rather it is an instructional institution which requires 1 parking space for every 300 square feet of construction. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether Mr. Asker's group opposes the Master Plan or only opposes the parking issue. Mr. Asker responded there are parts of the Master Plan which are not good for the dense residential neighborhood, including the 200 - seat theater; there is no real control on the use of said facility; there are other similar things which are not good for the neighborhood; however, if the parking impact problem can be solved, the neighbors are willing to let other matters go; the neighborhood is only concerned about impacts and is not opposed to improvement of St. Joseph; the neighborhood presented a plan which addressed impacts and is requesting Council require St. Joseph to follow said plan; if St. Joseph will not agree, the Master Plan should not be approved; if the parking impact problems could be solved, neighbors would live with other areas of the Master Plan. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether the changes proposed to Use Permit Conditions solve the parking problem, to which Mr. Asker responded in the affirmative. Councilmember DeWitt stated during the day, there is not a detrimental parking problem; inquired whether the main problem is control of special event parking in the evening. Mr. Asker responded the parking problem for special events is the most significant aspect of the parking problem; however, it is not the only aspect; as the video showed, parking demands are greater than St. Joseph can satisfy; during the school day, there is a much greater demand for parking than is supplied in the Use Permit; the Use Permit states St. Joseph should provide 135 onsite spaces during the day, the Plan only provides 83 to 86 [spaces], depending on how spaces are counted; parking demands exceed supply during the day and during special events; revised conditions [presented by the Neighborhood Association] for special events ensure: 1) St. Joseph will stay within the outlined numbers, and 2) the majority of Special Meeting 14 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 events would have under 350 attendees; the Use Permit approved by the Planning Board allows St. Joseph to raise the number [of attendees] to 500, which would cause a greater impact. Councilmember DeWitt stated there are parking problems throughout the City during the day; inquired what requirements are proposed to assist with daytime parking, e.g. car pooling. Mr. Asker responded a busing plan was suggested; stated there have been many discussions; St. Joseph does not have any suggestions in its Plan; the neighbors agreed to 28 special events in St. Joseph's Plan adopted by the Planning Board; however, the neighbors would like controls to ensure the number of events does not increase; said controls were proposed in the Association's revised Conditions. Anne Buckhorn, Opponent, Alameda, stated the temporary closure of Chestnut Street directly opposes the City's General Plan, which forbids traffic control measures that divert traffic to other streets; Section 4.1.a. of the General Plan states: "designate a system to minimize intrusion on residential neighbors; there is no justification for traffic control measures that shift traffic from one street to another;" closure of Chestnut Street directly negates Section 4.1.a of the General Plan; the project's financing should be provided up- front; urged the City Council to deny the Master Plan; further stated the speeding cars and noise are problems. Christopher Buckley, Opponent, Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (RAPS), stated AAPS's primary concern is the proposed parking lot on the westside of Lafayette Street adjacent to the Parish Center Building; urged Council to defer action on the Master Plan until alternatives to the parking lot are studied; stated the area west of Lafayette Street is a residential neighborhood, which includes many Victorians and other historic structures; a large parking lot is incompatible with the character of the area and threatens erosion of the neighborhood's integrity; Lafayette Street is a natural boundary between St. Joseph's main campus and the adjacent historic residential neighborhood; a large scale institutional facility, such as a parking lot, should be confined to the eastside of Lafayette Street; there could be additional parking on the main campus, e.g. within the old San Antonio Avenue right of way; urged matter be studied. Paul Breitkopf, Opponent, Alameda, stated that he supports the upgrading of St. Joseph's facilities; however, he is concerned about increased traffic; the Conditions of Approval suggested by Appellant, Linda Bytof, should be considered; St. Joseph was provided a full block of San Antonio Avenue in 1959; in 1964, the gymnasium was built across Chestnut Street creating the street Special Meeting 15 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 crossing hazard; children's safety must be a priority; adding classrooms to the other side of the street increases danger; said matter was a design decision; the burden of safety should not be passed on to the City; City staff did not recommend street closure; there are alternatives to street closure; St. Joseph will probably seek permanent closure. Steve Gerstle, Opponent, Alameda, stated many things can be done to ensure pedestrian safety; e.g., street calming techniques, intersection designs with pedestrians in mind, rather than automobile traffic, and a higher level of enforcement; safety is important; however, street closure is a radical measure. Pat Payne, Opponent, Alameda, stated that she opposes giving away a public street to a private entity, even temporarily; said mistake was made 40 years ago and should not be made again; the problem is growth, not safety; when a private business grows too large, it should move to a larger area, not impact a neighborhood or take public property. Jawad Jaber, Opponent, Alameda, stated the project impacts both sides of his property; the bulk of the 19,000 square foot addition is on his property line; the height, bulk and mass of the Communications Center and classrooms over the gym are of concern; if the project is approved, there should be conditions regarding height; his tenants will be impacted. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether St. Joseph offered a concession regarding the window issue. Mr. Jaber responded there was concession that the eastern side of San Jose Hall would be kept as offices and classes; however, he has concerns about the proposed height of the Communications Center. Councilmember Johnson inquired whether concessions offered satisfy Mr. Jaber's other concerns. Mr. Jaber stated the only concession was eastern San Jose Hall will remain offices; there was no consent regarding the height [of the Communications Center], use of the side yard, and use of Communication Center backside for deliveries. Councilmember DeWitt stated Mr. Jaber's concerns are with Design Review; requested the Planning Director to clarify whether design review issues would be addressed by the Planning Board in the future. The Planning Director responded the issues Mr. Jaber addressed are part of Design Review, which would either be an administrative Special Meeting 16 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 action or scheduled before the Planning Board; the Planning Director's action on Design Review may be appealed to the Planning Board; and the actions of the Planning Board may be appealed to the City Council; further stated the Communications Center needs the full height of 35 feet, which is permitted in the district; if Mr. Jaber's request to restrict height is imposed through the Use Permit, the applicant and staff would have to try to make a theater work [at a lower height]. Laura Wolz, Opponent, Alameda, stated poor planning in 1964 led to children crossing the street; the number of student crossings will increase from 1700 to 3000; a bad situation is being made worse; St. Joseph is expanding; closing Chestnut Street would make it safer for the children; however, traffic probably will be diverted to Lafayette and Union Streets where her children could be in the street; construction will increase heavy vehicle traffic and impact residents; St. Joseph has a history of not following laws; there need to be consequences and penalties for not following laws. Scott Brady, Opponent, Alameda, stated if the Master Plan is approved, including expansion into the neighborhood, creation of a parking lot, and conversion of residential units into commercial use, a precedent will be set; said issues have not been adequately addressed; a private institution's expansion of commercial activities and increasing density will have negative impacts on the neighborhood and should be addressed. Joel McIntire, Opponent, Alameda, was not present. Kathy McIntire, submitted and read a letter by Mr. McIntire. Michelle Morgan, Opponent, Chestnut - Encinal Neighbors, stated that she opposes closing a public street; there is nothing wrong with the students current method of crossing the street; students are escorted, crosswalks are used, and faculty supervises; the street is safe to cross; noise levels at special events are barley tolerable and, at times, louder than her television; that she has requested windows on the east side of the gym be closed; St. Joseph refuses to do so due to ventilation needs; that she cannot support a proposed second level to the gymnasium, when noise levels are already unacceptable; noise levels impact the quality of neighbors' lives, the vacancy rate, and property values; the Use Permit does not mitigate noise impacts. Mayor Appezzato called a recess at 12:00 p.m. and reconvened the Special Meeting at 12:30 p.m. Special Meeting 17 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 Pauline Kelley, Opponent, Alameda, was not present. Kathy McIntire submitted and read Ms. Kelley's letter in opposition to the project. Walt DeCelle, Opponent, Alameda, was not present. Kathy McIntire submitted and read a letter by Mr. DeCelle in opposition to the project. The following speakers, opposed to the project, had to leave the meeting: Marilyn Schumacher, Alameda, and Judy Gerstle, Alameda. Karen Campbell, Alameda, thanked the City Council for listening to the neighbors' concerns; stated parking and traffic are major issues in Alameda. Kay Reed, St. Joseph, Project Staff Person, stated once the Master Plan is enacted, it is planned to bring 67 cars currently parked in the neighborhood onto the property everyday during school hours; people attending Mass between 8:00 and 9:00 a.m. will be able to find one of the 67 parking places in the neighborhood; in the afternoon, parents of kindergarten children will also be able to park in the neighborhood; 500 of the cars that St. Joseph will bring to the neighborhood everyday will be on -site; however, there may be a conflicting activity at times when those vehicles will need to park on the street; in regard to the 1964 Use Permit, planning experts agreed there was no definitive agreement about daytime parking on the site after 1964; a gym was added bringing nighttime events, which brought parking on -site evenings and weekends. In response to Vice Mayor Daysog's inquiry regarding the potential closure of Chestnut Street, Ms. Reed responded that parking would be maintained on Chestnut Street; loading in the morning would remain unchanged; following the [morning] loading process, barriers would be erected on the street; and barriers would be removed shortly before the commencement of afternoon loading, so that the street would be open for circulation. In response to Vice Mayor Daysog's question regarding the nature of the data that supported the contention that children were especially at risk, Ms. Reed responded the State of California recognizes that a street bisecting a school can be dangerous; there are a range of solutions, including staff assisting the children; and that the elimination of conflict between children and cars is imperative. In response to Vice Mayor Daysog's inquiry regarding other street closures, Ms. Reed noted a two -lane street bisecting Mt. Diablo Special Meeting 18 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 High School in Concord, a street in Berkeley outside of an elementary school in the vicinity of Marin Luther King, and Santa Clara University where an entire street was taken and El Camino Real rerouted. In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding the length of time cars are parked to pickup children at 2:50 p.m., Ms. Reed replied approximately 15 to 20 minutes. Eugenie Thomson, Alameda, Traffic Engineer for St. Joseph since 1997, stated it was fair for the neighbors to request driveways remain unblocked, and not fair for St. Joseph to take up all the neighborhood parking; said concerns were raised in 1997, at which time half of the properties around St. Joseph were determined to be multi -unit properties; there is an underlying parking problem in the neighborhood typical of all Alameda; there are only 19 spaces available on -site; the parking demand is 135, leaving roughly over 100 vehicles parking on the street. There are 100 spaces around the block contiguous to the property, which means 119 spaces exist; hence, an insignificant intrusion into the neighborhood; there should be more parking provided on -site. Ms. Thomson further stated that St. Joseph agreed to work with the neighbors regarding the blocking of driveways; students are required to place their drivers' licenses and vehicle types on file so problems can be identified; an in -depth study was performed regarding event parking and expansion; and that she agreed with Charlie Abrams [Traffic Engineer] and Ed Cline [Traffic Engineer] that the project will improve traffic and parking conditions in the area. In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry regarding Ms. Thomson's recommendation for special events parking, Ms. Thomson responded that all special events throughout the year were tabulated; during five percent (50) of the evenings, attendance was above 600 and caused neighborhood intrusion; fourteen (14) street surveys were performed and indicated that even during a non- event evening, curbs were heavily loaded as a result of the multi - units; there was no major parking intrusion during a Mass; the problem was residents need to park in front of someone else's house because of the lack of their own on -site parking; one possible resolution presented by Mr. Alan Asker at a February 28, 2000 meeting, was whether the lot behind the church could be decked; however, it would cost an additional $750,000 for forty ( 40) extra spaces, and play area would be lost during the day; hence, it was deemed better to control the events of a certain size, which is in the Planning Board's Conditions. In response to Councilmember Johnson's inquiry why street closure Special Meeting 19 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 was the best safety measure, Ms. Thomson responded children crossing the street were videotaped, and potential conflicts between children and cars were identified 40 percent of the time; elementary school children were supervised and high school children were not; children crossing the street between classes did not recognize that they were in a public street and did not look for oncoming traffic; children darted across the street; when the Master Plan proposed more crossings, it became apparent that a solution needed to be found; some solutions included traffic signals, crossing guards, or a full [street] closure; traffic signals simply do not work in residential areas; crossing guards are not provided during schools hours; full [street] closure has been done at a lot of other schools -- schools actually buy property from cities; but because crossings are during school hours only, the better solution is street closure during school hours; that she had recommended a temporary closure be considered, and St. Joseph did so. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry whether a pedestrian bridge had been evaluated, Ms. Thomson responded the matter was addressed by the Architect; from her experience, children do not use pedestrian bridges. Councilmember Kerr stated that she was impressed by the degree St. Joseph had been able to make students use the crosswalk. Pat McDermott, Master Plan Architect, stated the use of a pedestrian bridge was considered; many of the classes at St. Joseph were on the first floor; kids would tend to go underneath [pedestrian bridge]; fire engine access was another problem. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether certification is required for crossing guards, to which Ms. Thomson responded crossing guards were hired and trained by the Police Department. Vice Mayor Daysog further inquired whether consideration was given to using high school students as crossing guard volunteers. Ms. Thomson responded in the affirmative; stated high school students would not be available on a regular basis, and that adults typically serve as crossing guards. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether a street bisecting a school was enough to warrant temporary street closure. Ms. Thomson responded the State Vehicle Code allows local jurisdictions to consider said option; and traffic engineering studies illustrate the need for street closure. Special Meeting 2 0 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 Councilmember Johnson inquired about parking following implementation of the Master Plan. Ms. Thomson responded 67 more parking spaces would be available on -site during weekdays, and 67 more parking spaces available on the street [in the neighborhood]; there would be no parking intrusion, e.g. students parked on San Jose or San Antonio Avenues; the Master Plan would implement an internal scheduling system. In response to Vice Mayor Daysog's inquiry concerning Chestnut Street serving as an access route for emergency vehicles to Alameda Hospital, Ms. Thomson stated emergency vehicles typically go down Willow Street or San Jose Avenue; a temporary closure via barricades or a parking gate would allow for emergency trucks. In response to Councilmember DeWitt's inquiry regarding the proposed number of on -site parking spaces, Ms. Thomson responded 67. Councilmember DeWitt stated parking would still be tight; the matter of parking was causing most of the problem; and inquired about the possibility of establishing preferential parking . Ms. Thomson responded that she believed preferential parking would be seriously considered by Alameda in the future; stated preferential parking was around Bishop O'Dowd [High School, Oakland,] Head- Royce [School, Oakland], and Bart Stations; preferential parking was an option for consideration; the idea [of preferential parking] was floated to the neighborhood group, and was not wanted. Councilmember DeWitt inquired whether a traffic control officer in the area would be beneficial, to which Ms. Thomson responded in the affirmative. Ms. Thomson stated there were long blocks, e.g. the block on San Jose Avenue from Willow [Street] to Chestnut [Street], where speeding occurred; some enforcement would help, including [the problem of] double- parking; and in regard to drag racing, speed surveys were conducted and nothing excessive was found. Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the 100 parking spaces in the area, referred to by Ms. Thomson, pertained to street parking. Ms. Thomson responded said street parking was contiguous to St. Joseph's property. George Phillips, Alameda, stated the Master Plan was a good plan; that it reflected the Parish's needs for its education institutions and worshiping environment; St. Joseph failed to communicate that Special Meeting 21 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 it was improving, not growing; getting better, not bigger; St. Joseph's tried to build components and features designed to improve the impact on the neighborhood into the Plan; not one more student would be coming to the School, not one more parent would be driving, and not one more fan would be coming to a basketball game; there would be more places to park; St. Joseph must be participatory with students and parents on how and when they drive to school and behavior in the neighborhood; St. Joseph's worked carefully with its neighbors; that he took some exception to the accusation of less than good faith; encouraged City Council to support the Plan. Jolene Ignacio, San Leandro; and Katie Choy, St. Joseph students, spoke together in support of the Master Plan. Jordan Kees, St. Joseph Elementary School 7th grade student, spoke in support of the Master Plan. Hayley Sullivan, St. Joseph Elementary 8th grade student, spoke in support of the Master Plan. Damian Hall, 5th grade student, spoke in support of the Master Plan. Mary Ann King, San Leandro, spoke in support of the Master Plan. Tom Billings, Alameda, did not address the City Council, however, indicated on a Speaker Slip that he supported the Master Plan. Darrell Hall, Alameda, spoke in support of the Master Plan; noted parking was the most significant issue; stated that he often was not able to park in front of his house because of the multiple units in the neighborhood, and that the Master Plan's parking solution would help. Tim DeGrano, San Leandro, read a letter, in part, from Mr. George Nickelson of Omni Designs: stating that proposed mitigations were stringent and effective; and the TT &E traffic study was comprehensive Mr. DeGrano spoke in support of the Master Plan; stated that he had seen some very serious traffic accidents involving children as a police officer, there was significant potential for danger on Chestnut Street if there were no changes. Leon Aksionczyk, Alameda, spoke in support of the Master Plan; stated it was critical to support the maintenance and modernization of both public and private schools; and the inconvenience caused by Special Meeting 22 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 the street closure was over - exaggerated. Steve Arlett, St. Joseph Notre Dame High School, spoke in support of the Master Plan; suggested a one -year trial period to assess the impact on the neighborhood. Philip Graven, St. Joseph Notre Dame High School, Alameda, spoke in support of the Master Plan. Morris Soublet, Dean of Students, St. Joseph Notre Dame High School, spoke in support of the Master Plan; stated that a major part of his job was traffic and safety; a registration process was instituted to identify student and staff vehicles; some students chose not to register their vehicles; if there should be a problem with a student's vehicle blocking a driveway, neighbors may call his office, or the Police Department, if the vehicle is not registered with the School; and requested Council to support the street closure of Chestnut Street. In response to Councilmember DeWitt's inquiry regarding neighborhood requests for increased security, especially during special events, Mr. Soublet stated an outside security firm monitored traffic during evening events; that said firm may need to expand its duties to times other than outside events. Rich Davis, Volunteer Member, Master Plan Committee; requested Council to approve the Master Plan; stated St. Joseph is willing to control the traffic flow and continue to refine solutions. Frank Skiles, Alameda, spoke in support of the Master Plan and temporary closure of Chestnut Street. Alice Garvin, Alameda , spoke in support of the Master Plan. Nicholas Sammartino, Alameda, spoke in support of the Master Plan. Greg Fonzino, Assistant Principal, St. Joseph Notre Dame High School, spoke in support of the Master Plan; noted temporary closure of Chestnut Street would effect only one block 140 of the time; the Planning Board approved closure for one year, at which time matter must be evaluated. In response to Vice Mayor Daysog's inquiry concerning a one year review of the Chestnut Street closure, Project Planner Altschuler cited Condition No. 13- H. In response to Vice Mayor Daysog's inquiry pertaining to measurements for the one -year review, the Planning Director responded that the Planning Board was unable to provide measurements, staff intends to contact St. Joseph and the Special Meeting 2 3 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 neighborhood to help provide guidance to the School, in terms of what should be evaluated; the Planning Board did not want evaluation to be subjective; diverted traffic volumes would be reviewed, among other things; impact on the character of the community is much more intangible; staff would strategize with the neighbors on measurements. Vice Mayor Daysog inquired whether there had been consideration in regard to measuring safety issues related to children, to which the Planning Director responded student safety was one of the specific items identified. Thomas H. Doctor spoke in support of the Master Plan; reviewed the 1964 records pertaining to said matter; stated 7 members of the Planning Board had unanimously approved [in 1964] a project for construction of a gymnasium; specific parking requirements were not mentioned in the Minutes; a 1963 Master Plan is on file depicting parking use on the play area of the School; St. Joseph's had intended to use said parking at peak periods, when the need arose, and to continue to use the area for play facilities. Mr. Doctor noted St. Joseph desires to examine actual uses of the facilities and learn from other communities, e.g. parking spaces, parking facilities. Bob Lynch, St. Joseph Notre Dame High School Board, Alameda, indicated support for the Master Plan on a Speaker's Slip.. Thomas Sullivan, Alameda, St. Joseph Master Plan Volunteer Committee Member, spoke in support of the Master Plan; stated it was important for Council to closely examine the arguments set forth in the formal written Appeal; staff's rebuttal to the Appeal was concise and conclusive; there are two underlying misconceptions permeating the Appeal: 1) appellants believe St. Joseph was afforded special and favorable treatment by either City staff or the Planning Board; and, 2) appellants believe the numerous conditions of approval imposed on St. Joseph's would either be disregarded by St. Joseph or amended in the future; there were extensive, in good faith, negotiations between St. Joseph and City staff; there were no other assurances St. Joseph could give; and St. Joseph would be subject to the same requirements in the City approval process as everyone else. James Knowles, Alameda, indicated support of the Master Plan on a Speaker Slip. Bill Crittondon, St. Joseph Notre Dame High School Board, spoke in support of the Master Plan; noted Master Plan had been scrutinized very closely; many modifications, concessions and agreements had Special Meeting 24 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 been made; and the Plan was ready for implementation. Ed Grant, Alameda, indicated support for the Master Plan on a Speaker's Slip. Barbara Foster, St. Joseph Notre Dame High School Parent Board President, indicated support for the Master Plan in a letter read to the City Council; the letter listed many social and economic contributions made by the students, parents and parents association to the City, and urged the City Council to allow St. Joseph's to implement Master Plan. Michael Sammartino, Alameda, 3rd grade student, spoke in support of the Master Plan. Paul Canavese, Alameda, spoke in support of the Master Plan. Neil Weiberg, Alameda, indicated support for the Master Plan on a Speaker's Slip. Steve Mullin, St. Joseph, Alameda, spoke in support of the Master Plan; stated the Master Plan had gone through much revision and should be implemented. Marilyn Bowe, Alameda, indicated support for the Master Plan on a Speaker's Slip. Ester Cafe, St. Joseph Elementary School, Alameda, indicated support for the Master Plan on a Speaker's Slip. Stephen MacManus, Alameda, spoke in support of the Master Plan; stated that he was surprised at the amount of focus on closing a single block on a street [Chestnut Street] that led into a deadend. Bill Dow, Co- chair, HIV /AIDS Education & Outreach Ministry of Alameda, spoke in support of the Master Plan and Parking Plan; expressed strong concern about the impacts of leaving the block on Chestnut Street open. Susan Jeffries, St. Joseph Notre Dame High School Board, Alameda, indicated support for the Master Plan on a Speaker's Slip. Tom Caulfield, Berkeley, Master Plan Architect, spoke in support of the Master Plan; noted the 64 - 67 parking spaces were full -time parking spaces and available during the school day; five construction periods would last three- to nine months each; two phases would be near the property line, and three phases would be in the interior of the buildings or the site; stated building Special Meeting 2 rj Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 across Chestnut Street is to avoid a three -story building requiring a Variance; and sound transmission from the gymnasium will be reduced by building new classrooms on the second floor. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry regarding office space in the Convent, Mr. Caulfield stated the majority of offices would remain, and some offices would be moved to the Campus. Robert Pola, Alameda, spoke in support of the Master Plan; stated St. Joseph had a proven track record in serving the community and for excellence in education; it was imperative to improve the physical plant of the school and student safety. Sam & Helen Sause, Alameda, indicated support of the Master Plan on Speakers' Slips and submitted written comments. Mayor Appezzato closed the public portion of the Hearing. Mayor Appezzato stated there were comments made during the Hearing about the matter of [City Council] Conflicts of Interest; a determination from the State Fair Political Practices Commission was available for review. Mayor Appezzato called a recess at 2:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:50 p.m. Vice Mayor Daysog stated St. Joseph should be given the opportunity to move forward with its Master Development Plan; several critical issues came up: parking, street closure, and the safety of children; there seemed to be some baseline [parking] agreements among both sides as to numbers: on site [parking] numbers, or special event numbers of 273 or so parking spaces, meet the parking needs; there may be instances, e.g., basketball games, which will require plans to deal with an attendance of 600 or more people; parking issue was resolved in the proposed Master Plan; the matters raised by Mr. Alan Asker were important ones; however, there was a structure in place, both electoral and Planning Board, to monitor agreements [stipulations]; a responsive process was in place to respond to residents' concerns; the 88 on -site parking spaces and the 273 special event parking [spaces] meet the needs. Vice Mayor Daysog further stated that he was not convinced of the need to close Chestnut Street; the issue of [children's] safety should include all alternatives. Councilmember Kerr inquired why the 2/28/2000 Chestnut - Encinal Neighbors Association's conditions were not acceptable to St. Special Meeting 2 6 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 Joseph. Kay Reed responded that St. Joseph began meeting with the neighbors the week of November 22, 1999, at which time St. Joseph stated they would be meeting with the Association until the City Council Meeting; late January, St. Joseph received a list of about 32 demands from the neighbors, including closing the Gym at 5:00 p.m. on weekends and 8:00 o'clock on weekdays, [clean -up of] litter, and [alleviating] traffic [impacts]; as talks progressed, the facilitator encouraged the neighbors to come back with specific language; on the 28th of February, St. Joseph received the entire resolution back with many small changes; St. Joseph staff are not experts on writing ordinances; there were small language changes, e.g., the word development for construction; St. Joseph did not have the time or the expertise to review said changes; one of the neighborhood's concerns was the definition of a school day; there is a definition for school day in the educational code, and St. Joseph would be happy to implement it. Ms. Reed further stated there were some things in the document St. Joseph could not agree to or have control over; for instance, one condition concerning setting up special -event capping; St. Joseph agreed to hold no more than 28 large events on site; large events start to be counted at 500 [people in attendance]; St. Joseph took "church" out of the definition of a large event; the neighbors wanted St. Joseph to include "church" as a large event and limit [attendance] to only 350 people in a basilica that hold 450 people. In addition, neighbors wanted to limit the number of unscheduled church services that occurred during the school day, such as funerals; that she could not assure the neighbors funerals could be limited. St. Joseph's agreed to the concept of planting trees every 50 feet around the perimeter, however, there were complexities and not enough time to work out details. There were things in the discussions St. Joseph agreed to, such as litter and traffic problems; and St. Joseph agreed to hold regular meetings with the neighbors. Ms. Reed stated that she spent five hours with Mr. Jaber and his architect, and Mr. Jaber's concerns are design questions. Ms. Reed remarked that St. Joseph tried to answer everything in the affirmative without preempting the whole next step; if the Plan goes through, St. Joseph is going to mitigate the sound in the Gym; the neighbors chose to live in the neighborhood, however, St. Joseph can make it better for them; St. Joseph is acutely aware of privacy issues; St. Joseph does not want students distracted in class and desires high windows; when St. Joseph received something solid from the neighbors, it tried to respond in good faith. Special Meeting 27 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 Ms. Reed further stated, in regard to the 11 -page document [conditions] from the neighbors, there were some things St. Joseph had no control over, and there may be Constitutional issues about limiting the number of people who attend church. Other things were little details that are not St. Joseph's expertise, and she trusts City Staff wrote a good ordinance. Unlike what was characterized- - that St. Joseph did not do anything the neighbors said - -St. Joseph actually did quite a bit; and St. Joseph is happy to define school hours. Councilmember Kerr stated that she believed Ms. Reed answered her question: the list [conditions] would not be incorporated. Councilmember Kerr stated the motion should be broken up into three areas: the Master Plan, Parking and Street Closure. She had reservations about street closure; that it was not proper to give Alameda Avenue away to a public school without any compensation; there is no suggestion of compensation for partial use [of Chestnut Street]; and proposed street closure would be 500 of the useful hours of the year. Councilmember Kerr further stated that conditions can be permanently added to a piece of real estate because CC &Rs are in all of the newer neighborhoods; without any permanent conditions or penalties, there is no change with regard to what happened after San Antonio Street was closed; there is no assurance 67 parking spaces will be permanently created in the Marianist lot; by putting classrooms east of Chestnut Street, St. Joseph created more students crossing the street; and it is St. Joseph's responsibility to solve the problem. Councilmember Johnson stated there is not enough room for students in the public schools; portable school structures exist at almost every school in Alameda; every school site, public or private, has issues neighbors and the schools must deal with; traffic is a problem at every school site and City -wide; quality of life in the neighborhood is important to the entire Council; St. Joseph has been a part of the neighborhood for 125 years or more; St. Joseph is not asking for more students, and has agreed to cap the number of students; with this Plan, there is an opportunity to provide stability to the neighborhood; the conditions of approval are in many ways very stringent; there has not been a decrease in value of property around St. Joseph, people are anxious to purchase property there. Councilmember Johnson further stated that she supports the Planning Board. Councilmember Johnson stated parking is the controversy. The Master Plan will allow the School to add 67 more onsite parking Special Meeting 28 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 places. Councilmember Johnson stated that she will support the closure of Chestnut Street; said closure will not create a hardship or a negative effect on the neighborhood; the Planning Board approved street closure for one year; there will be a public hearing after that year; there are no restrictions on the issues to be reviewed with regard to street closure; there will be an increase in student crossings during the school day; and, if the street is not closed, there will be greater danger. Councilmember DeWitt stated the decision before Council is divided into three areas: Master Plan, Parking and Chestnut Street closure. Councilmember DeWitt requested staff to provide a brief response to Mr. DeCelle's letter which accuses the City Council of being unfair if it allows the proposed Master Plan to go into effect. The Planning Director explained that the Permit referred to in Mr. DeCelle's letter was for a proposal to expand the church [Mormon Church] located at the corner of Grand Street and Encinal Avenue; proposal was to demolish an adjacent home in order to provide off street parking for the Mormon Church; the issues considered by the Planning Board in not approving said Use Permit had to do with the compatibility of the expansion with the adjacent neighborhood, as well as the demolition of a historic house; the proposal would have been an encroachment into the community. Councilmember DeWitt noted that the loss of housing under the St. Joseph plan would be for educational purposes, which is different from making room for a parking lot [for the Mormon Church]; stated that he supports the Master Plan; there were parking problems in the area of St. Joseph; the situation could be improved by defining the number of special events that would occur; parking issue should be discussed further and residents given parking preference; requested staff to review preferential parking for residents. Councilmember DeWitt stated St. Joseph is a part of the community and is different from private institutions; St. Joseph is not just a business. Temporary closing of Chestnut Street should be allowed; there will be many, many more Public Hearings on the issue; it is an experiment. The City will not be giving the street away; the proposed closure is a safety measure; he would never vote to give the street away; and he will go along with the Planning Board recommendation. Councilmember Kerr commented that the Hearing spotlighted the City's parking problems; regions of the City that are zoned for Special Meeting 2 9 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 multi - family dwellings are out of street parking; City must take a serious look at its Parking Ordinance; there is a grandfathering deficiency for existing units; the matter of grandfathering needs to be reviewed, e.g. for adding units; St. Joseph must take responsibility for its parking problems in the neighborhood, too; the parking loss in that area is coming from two different sources, as well as for some commercial areas. In response to Councilmember Kerr's inquiry regarding the ability to tow cars away that block residential driveways, the City Attorney responded that if residents post a properly worded sign near their driveways, cars blocking driveways could be towed by calling the Police Department. Mayor Appezzato stated that he understood the challenges faced by the Planning Board; agreed to separate the three recommendations; stated City staff was very thorough in stating the Proposed Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program which adequately addressed environmental impacts of the proposed rezoning; staff did not believe the basis of the Appeal had merit; recommended City Council uphold the Planning Board's approval of the Planned Development and Use Permit; stated rerouting traffic during school hours would have a minimum impact on traffic and increase safety; if street closure did not work, it could be stopped; City Council action would create greater oversight; student population would be capped; the increase in square footage was 12 percent of the existing footprint; if the Master Plan was not adopted, the School could increase its population without City approval, special events could be held without limitation, and parking would not be regulated. Councilmember Johnson moved adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion, which carried by unanimous voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. Councilmember Johnson moved approval to rezone the St. Joseph Site from R -4 to R -4 -PD: "Ordinance Reclassifying and Rezoning Certain Properties within the City of Alameda by Amending Zoning Ordinance No. 1277, N.A. for Properties Located at 1001, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1014, 1109, 1111 Chestnut Street; 1119 Lafayette Avenue; 1901, 2004, 2008, 2012 San Antonio Avenue; and 1907, 2005, 2011 San Jose Avenue." Introduced. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion. Special Meeting 3 0 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr inquired whether the R -4 -PD would include recent designation of the parking area. Councilmember DeWitt stated parking was separate. Councilmember Johnson responded parking could be separated out, if it is the desire of the City Council. The Planning Director stated said action would simply add the zoning designation and does not take action on the planned development. Councilmember Kerr inquired where the appropriate place was to separate out the parking and street closure matters. The Planning Director responded there is a Resolution which contains the Planning Board action; the City Council should consider, discuss and pass motions that specifically address the two issues that Councilmembers have identified: parking and street closure; once those have been voted upon, Council should vote on the Master Plan and incorporate said actions on parking and street closure. The Planning Director further stated Council should discuss and make motions on each of those issues [parking and street closure] separately and first; then take action on the Master Plan; currently before Council is the Ordinance which adds the Planned Development Overlay to the site; the motion before Council is to introduce the Ordinance to rezone the property by adding a Planned Development; the remaining Council action is to decide whether or not to approve a specific planned development under said zoning, and specific conditions; e.g., street closure and special event parking. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Johnson moved adoption of Resolution No. 13190, "Denying the Appeal of Leila Moncharsch, Rosenberg and Upholding the Planning Board's Development, PD- 98 -01 ". Adopted. Attorney for Jacob Approval of Planned Under discussion, Vice Mayor Daysog questioned the possibility of Council voting on PD -99 -22 and whether Council could take two separate votes: agree with every stipulation, one thru forty, except for Condition Numbers 13 [road closure] and 7 [parking]. Special Meeting 31 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 Following direction from the City Attorney, Councilmember Johnson amended her motion to deny the Appeal and uphold the Planning Board's approval of PD -98 -01 with the exception of Condition Numbers 7 and 13. Vice Mayor Daysog second the motion. Under discussion, the Planning Director stated the parking impact that was discussed is controlled by Condition Numbers 10, 11, and 13. Councilmember Kerr stated Condition Number 7 should be separated out. Councilmember DeWitt stated that he had asked for Special Events Parking [Condition Number 13] to be pulled out, however, he will support the Staff recommendation; the issue [Special Events Parking] had been adequately discussed; and withdrew his request for further review. On the call for the question, the motion carried by unanimous voice vote - 5. Councilmember Johnson moved approval to deny the Appeal of Leila Moncharsh, Attorney for Jacob Rosenberg, and uphold the Planning Board's Approval of PD -98 -01 and Condition No. 7. Vice Mayor Daysog seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember Kerr stated that she would like some assurance that what happens to the parking will not be what occurred when San Antonio Avenue was closed in the first place. Councilmember Kerr inquired any way to assure the 67 parking spaces. The Planning Director stated the Planned Development requires the creation of 86 off - street parking spaces - -a condition of the Use Permit, in addition the Planned Development; if spaces are not maintained, St. Joseph would be in violation; there is a procedure to bring the matter before the Planning Board, and then on appeal to the City Council for revocation or additional conditions; other things that could be done would be to require deed restriction, which would provide clear notice to subsequent owners of the property, as well as a public record against the property as to the requirement. Councilmember Kerr stated staff has little time for enforcement; Special Meeting 32 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000 that she would support denial of Condition 7 if a deed restriction were added. 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. Councilmember Johnson moved approval to deny Appeal of Leila Moncharsh, Attorney for Jacob Rosenberg, and uphold the Planning Board's Approval of Planned Development PD -98 -01 and Condition No. 13. Councilmember DeWitt seconded the motion. Under discussion, Councilmember DeWitt noted there were numerous requirements and reviews surrounding the street closure; and requested an off agenda report on the types of privileged parking systems or programs which can be employed in the area; and said report should include financial ramifications and requirements. Vice Mayor Daysog stated one of his proudest accomplishments working with fellow Councilmembers dealt with traffic and schools, particularly with respect to assisting Alameda Unified School District in putting four -way stops at Edison School and Franklin School; and the issue of safety at schools is an ongoing concern. On the call for the question, the motion carried by the following voice vote: Ayes: Councilmembers DeWitt, Johnson and Mayor Appezzato - 3. Noes: Councilmembers Daysog and Kerr - 2. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Appezzato adjourned the Special Meeting at 3:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Diane B. Felsch, CMC City Clerk The agenda for this meeting was posted in accordance with the Brown Act. Special Meeting 33 Alameda City Council March 11, 2000