Loading...
Resolution 13191CITY OF ALAMEDA RESOLUTION NO. 13191 ADOPTING 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 WHEREAS, an application was made on February 25, 1998, by Jerry Holland, Pastor of St. Joseph, requesting a Rezoning (R- 98 -01) to reclassify the St. Joseph site at 1109 Chestnut Street from R -4 (Neighborhood Residential District) to R -4 -PD (Neighborhood Residential, Special Planned Development Combining District); a Planned Development approval (PD- 98 -01), for adding 19,191 square feet of building space, demolishing 6,559 square feet of building space, remodeling existing school and church buildings, providing off - street parking, and temporarily closing Chestnut Street between San Jose Avenue and San Antonio Avenue during school hours; and for a Use Permit (UP- 99 -22) to legalize existing church and school facilities in a residential zoning district, for the St. Joseph site, 1109 Chestnut Street; and WHEREAS, the application was accepted as complete on April 28, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City of Alameda is the lead agency in the preparation of an Initial Study, IS -98 -8, to determine the potential environmental effects that would be associated with the proposal; and WHEREAS, a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated for public comment between September 14, 1999, and October 4, 1999, the following written comments were received: Linda R. Bytof and Mark S. Renner, letter dated October 4, 1999 Leila H. Moncharsh, letter dated October 4, 1999 Frank Skiles, letter dated September 25, 1999 Jeremiah Holland, SS.CC, letter dated September 30, 1999 Kerry S. Kurasaki, letter received October 4, 1999 Paul Breitkopf, letter dated October 4, 1999 Judy Pollard, letter dated October 3, 1999 Bill Long, letter dated October 4, 1999 Carolyn Lie and Alan Mullendore, letter October 4, 1999 Lois Breitkopf, letter dated October 4, 1999 Tom Caulfield, letter dated September 30, 1999; and WHEREAS, staff has provided written responses to these comments contained in Responses to Comments, Initial Study (IS- 98 -08), St. Joseph Community Master Plan dated October 11, 1999, marked Attachment "T ", of the Administrative Record (Attachment #3 of the Staff Report dated March 8, 2000) and incorporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board held a public hearing on this Mitigated Negative Declaration on November 29/30, 1999, and examined pertinent maps, drawings, and documents related to the application and considered all testimony, found that the environmental impacts, were adequately addressed, and recommended that the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the Planning Board approved Planned Development, PD- 98 -01, and Use Permit, UP- 99 -22, and recommeded that the City Council approve Rezoning, R -98 -01 on November 29/30, 1999; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a public hearing on the Mitigated Negative Declaration on March 11, 2000 and has examined pertinent documents and comments; and WHEREAS, the City Council made the following findings: a. The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or pre - history because there is no identified area which is habitat for rare or endangered species, the project is within the scope of use contemplated in the General Plan, and the project does not have any significant adverse impacts. b. The project does not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long- term, environmental goals. The project conforms to the requirements of the R -4 (Neighborhood Residential) Zoning District, and is consistent with the goals of the General Plan because residential areas typically contain such uses as churches, schools, parks and day care centers, and the project will not have any significant adverse impacts. c. The project does not involve impacts which are individually limited or cumulatively considerable because the described project constitutes all intended changes to project area and is not related to any other project or policy change. d. The project does not have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly because the construction of the proposed homes will be compatible with the existing community and land uses within the immediate area. e. The City Council substituted a mitigation measure relating to special events proposed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study because it found that a new mitigation measure proposed by the applicant is equivalent and more effective in mitigating potential impacts relating to parking in the neighborhood. f. The applicant has agreed to incorporate all the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration into the project. These mitigations would either avoid adverse impacts or lessen the potentially significant environmental impacts to less than significant levels. There is not substantial evidence that the project as revised may have a significant effect on the environment. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Council of the City of Alameda hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS- 99 -22, and the Mitigation Monitoring Program, Attachment "A ". g:\cc\reso\2000\3isstjo 3 ATTACHMENT A ST. JOSEPH COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM The following sets forth all significant effects of the project, all of which can be reduced to a level of insignificance, and for each effect makes findings and sets forth facts in support of the findings. 1. Cultural Resources. Significant Effect. The project involves the demolition of a 1936 addition to a 1902 structure that is on the Historic Building Study List. The Historical Advisory Board on December 3, 1998, issued a Certificate of Approval for this demolition, based on findings that the addition does not contribute to the historic or architectural significance of the 1902 house. The City Council sustained this decision on appeal on February 3, 1999. Findings. The Planning Board makes Finding 1: Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation 1. (Conditions of the Certificate of Approval) In order to protect the character and appearance of the 1902 building on the Historic Building Study List, restore the rear elevation and the front steps of the house to their original design. Submit a landscape plan for the parking lot at the rear of 1119 Lafayette Street, including a list of proposed species and plant sizes and showing adequate separation and protection of the historic resource from the parking lot, for review by the Historical Advisory Board. Responsibility. Applicant, Historical Advisory Board, Planning Department Action: Prior to the issuance of the grading permit for the parking lot at the rear of 1119 Lafayette Street, staff for the Historical Advisory Board shall submit the landscape plan to the Board for review to assure compliance with these conditions. 2. Population and Housing Significant Effect. The project would remove two duplex units owned by the parish, in order to develop the Communication Arts and Science Facility. The addition of staff members to the campus would increase the demand for housing. Findings. The Planning Board makes Finding 1: Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation 2. The applicant shall comply with the Alameda Affordable Housing/Fee Ordinance by providing housing units, paying an in lieu fee, or preparing an Affordable Housing Unit/Fee Plan for approval by the City. Responsibility. Applicant and Housing Development office. Action: Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the applicant shall submit a plan showing how the requirements of the Affordable Housing/Fee Ordinance will be met for review and approval by the City's Housing Development Manager. 3. Transportation and Circulation 3.1 Street Closure Significant Effect. The applicant proposes the school hour closure of one block of Chestnut Street, which would affect traffic circulation in the neighborhood and surrounding streets. The school hour street closure was proposed by the applicant to address the increased hazard for pedestrians which would result from adding additional classrooms and other space on the east side of Chestnut. The number of students crossing the 1000 block of Chestnut Street would increase from the current 1,700 crossings per school day to 2,400 crossings. This impacts was identified as less than significant in the Initial Study. Findings. The Planning Board makes Finding 1: Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation 3. Prior to installation of school hour closure of Chestnut Street between San Antonio Avenue and San Jose Avenue, the applicant shall obtain an approved Signing, Striping and Detour Plan acceptable to the City Engineer and CalTrans (if applicable). In addition, the applicant shall enter into a Hold Harmless Agreement with the City in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. The Agreement shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following provisions: times of school hour closure, procedures for school hour closure, type of physical barrier(s) used for school hour closure, responsibilities and procedures for erecting and removing the barrier(s) for the school hour closure, responsibilities of the applicant and responsibilities of the City. School hour closure barriers and procedures shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer in consultation with the Fire and Police Departments. The applicant shall reimburse the City for all Engineering costs of school hour street closure. Mitigation Close one block of Chestnut Street during school hours only as described in Mitigation Measure #3. Responsibility Applicant, Planning Department, Public Works Department, City Attorney, Fire and Police Department. Action. If the proposed school hour street closure is approved, the applicant shall submit plans for review by the Planning Department, Public Works Department, City Attorney, Fire and Police Departments to assure compliance with all conditions, prior to issuance of permits for school hour closure and enter into an acceptable hold harmless agreement. If the applicant proceeds with the recommended alternatives of crossing guards or pedestrian- activated traffic signals, the applicant shall submit plans for review and approval by the Planning Director, Public Works Director, City Attorney, Fire and Police Departments prior to the issuance of any building permits. 3.2 Driveway Significant Effect. The proposed plan would provide a driveway approach on the west side of Chestnut Street for access to the center of the Marianist Parking Lot. The driveway approach is 100 feet south of the intersection of Encinal Avenue at Chestnut Street, with 80 feet of queuing length available for vehicles entering the lot. There is a potential for vehicles queuing into the intersection, causing traffic congestion. Findings. The Planning Board makes Finding 1: Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation 4: To reduce potential safety impacts associated with the driveway approach on the west side of Chestnut Street to access the center of the Marianist Parking Lot, the applicant and Public Works Department shall monitor the operations of the driveway. Should the Public Works Director determine that excessive queuing into Encinal Avenue results from the location of the driveway or traffic flow along Chestnut Street is significantly restricted because of the vehicular activity at the driveway approach, following the determination by the Planning Board, the applicant shall be required to address any impacts to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director after receiving written notification of said determination. Responsibility: Applicant and Public Works Department. Program: Prior to the issuance of an encroachment permit for the driveway, the applicant shall submit a proposal for monitoring of the driveway. The Public Works Department shall report to the Planning Board should the operations of the driveway result in operational problems and recommend either closure of the driveway or other measures to resolve the operational problems. 3.3 Tandem Parking Significant Effect. The plan proposes 32 new tandem parking spaces, which are not permitted for these types of uses. Tandem parking presents management and circulation problems. Findings. The Planning Board makes Finding 1: Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation 5. Tandem parking spaces shall be available for school staff parking only during school hours. The applicant shall establish procedures to ensure that staff use the spaces and to ensure that staff can move their cars if they need to leave on an unscheduled basis. Responsibility. Applicant and Planning Department Action: Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall submit signage and a tandem parking management plan for approval by the Planning Director. 3.4 Parking Demand Significant Effect. Parking demand in excess of parking supply for special events would create significant parking impacts unless mitigated. Findings. The Planning Board makes Finding 1: Changes or alternations have been required in, or incorporated into the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study. Facts in Support of Findings. The following facts or mitigation measures indicate the identified impact will be reduced to a level of insignificance: Mitigation 6: To reduce the parking impacts associated with special events, limit the total attendance at all evening events on the site to 624 persons, the number that can be accommodated by available on -site and on- street parking spaces. For any time at which more than 624 persons are anticipated, the applicant shall implement Transportation Systems Management (TSM) programs, including such measures as valet parking in the Marianist Lot and the Elementary Lot, satellite parking, carpooling incentives, alternative transit, and /or shuttle buses. All TSM programs shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director prior to implementation. The applicant requested, and the Board concurred, an alternative mitigation as follows: Mitigation for Special Event Parking. In order to ensure that the parking impacts related to St. Joseph's are no greater than they are for the current operation, the following requirements shall apply. The total attendance on the St. Joseph's site during special events may not exceed 500 persons, except up to 28 events per year as follows: a. Up to twelve times a year, St. Joseph's may schedule one or more special events which result in a total site population of more than 500 persons but less than 625 persons. b. In addition to events allowed in Condition #1 la, up to eleven times a year, St. Joseph's may schedule one or more special events which result in a total site population of more than 500 persons but less than 826 persons. c. St. Joseph's may schedule up to 4 basketball play -off games per year or games to determine final standing during the school year which result in a total site population of no more than 825 persons. d. Once a year, St. Joseph's may hold a one day event currently known as El Rancho Day provided that the Marianist Parking Lot, the new parking lot behind the Parish Center once it is built and the accessible, paved area adjacent to the High School be made available for parking. Total on site population for this event shall not exceed 700 persons at any one time, in addition to persons attending regular church services. To reduce the parking impacts associated with special events, Transportation System Management (TSM) programs shall be implemented for all special events where the on site population exceeds 500 persons. TSM programs include measures such as valet parking for various on -site parking lots, satellite parking, carpooling incentives, alternative transit, and/or shuttle buses. All TSM programs shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director prior to implementation and shall be submitted at least 60 days prior to the special event. The approved TSM program shall be made available to the public for review in the school's administrative office. The Board found that the new mitigation is equivalent to the original mitigation because it mitigates parking impacts by limiting the number of special events which may take place during the year, setting a maximum population allowed, and requires TSM measures for special events with an on- site population of more than 500 persons. Mitigation 7: St. Joseph shall establish a scheduling system to coordinate evening events among the parish, high school, and elementary school. On a regular basis, such as annually or semiannually, this schedule shall be filed with the Planning Director and made available to the neighbors and the general public at least 30 days prior to the time period covered in the schedule. The schedule shall show the various special events and the estimated attendance at each event. The applicant shall also be responsible for monitoring the actual number of persons attending various events and providing a report semi - annually to the Planning Director to check that attendance estimates are reasonable. Responsibility. Applicant, Planning Department, Public Works Department. I, the undersigned, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly adopted and passed by the Council of the City of Alameda in special meeting assembled on the 1 lth day of March, 2000, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers Daysog, DeWitt, Johnson, Kerr and Mayor Appezzato - 5. NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTENTIONS: None. IN WITNESS, WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City this 13th day of March, 2000. Di B. Felsch, City Clerk City of Alameda