ZAB
Permit Conditions Only (PDF-60K) - ZAB adopted on 3/8, without the resolution and other explanatory text. LOCCNA negotiators are reviewing these conditions to determine which should be changed to protect neighborhood interests. RRC
Whole Notice of Decision -- ZAB Resolution (PDF-100K)
(Findings and Use Permit Conditions of Approval)
HTML version below (except for Mitigation Monitoring Chart -- Exhibit B -- available in PDF only)...
City of Berkeley
Zoning Adjustments Board
NOTICE OF DECISION
Board Decision Date: 03-08-01_______ USE PERMIT: #99-10000079
Project Location: 1301 OXFORD STREET
The Zoning Adjustments Board of the City of Berkeley, after conducting a public hearing, APPROVED the following permits:
Construct and operate a Religious Assembly use as required by Section 23D.16.030 BMC.
Permit an average height up to 35 feet where a maximum average height limit of 28 feet is allowed by Section 23D.16.070.C BMC.
Allow demolition of two non-residential buildings as required by Sections 23C.08.050.A and B BMC.
THE ZONING ADJUSTMENT BOARD'S RESOLUTION CONTAINING THE PROJECT'S FINDINGS, CONDITIONS AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IS ATTACHED
THE APPROVED PLANS ARE ATTACHED
BOARD VOTE: YES: CAPITELLI, ISSEL,MATTHEWS, PIETRAS, WEINBERGER
NO: BLAKE, POSCHMAN, SPRAGUE__________ABSTAIN:_____ ABSENT:_____ RECUSE: ALVIN_______________
_____
_____DATE NOTICE MAILED:_____March 30, 2001
_____APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION:_____April 13, 2001
TO APPEAL THIS MATTER: To appeal the decision of the Board to the City Council you must submit a letter specifying the reasons for the appeal to the City Clerk, prior to 5:00 p.m. of the "APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRATION" date shown on the previous page, with the required fee (The fee for applicants is $530.00; All others $58.00). The City Clerk's Department is located on the first floor at 1900 Addison Street, Berkeley, CA 94704; Phone (510) 644-6480.
NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the Zoning Adjustments Board to approve or deny a Use Permit or Variance for a project, the following requirements and restrictions apply:
You must appeal to the City Council within 14 days after the Notice of Decision of the action of the Zoning Adjustments Board is mailed. It is your obligation to inquire with the Current Planning Division (705-8111) to determine when a Notice of Decision is mailed.
No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. Section 1094.6(b) or approve (Gov. Code Section 65009(c)(5)) a Use Permit or Variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the decision becomes final, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b). Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred.
In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a Use Permit or Variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.
If you believe that this decision or any condition attached to it denies you any reasonable economic use of the subject property, was not sufficiently related to a legitimate public purpose, was not sufficiently proportional to any impact of the project, or for any other reason constitutes a "taking" of property for public use without just compensation under the California or United States Constitutions, the following requirements apply:
A. That this belief is a basis of your appeal.
B. Why you believe that the decision or condition constitutes a "taking" of property as set forth above.
C. All evidence and argument in support of your belief that the decision or condition constitutes a "taking" as set forth above.
If you do not do so, you will waive any legal right to claim that your property has been taken, both before the City Council and in court.
QUESTIONS? For further information contact the Current Planning Division at (510) 705-8111.
cc: City Clerk_______________ ATTEST: _________________
Building and Safety___________ Mark Rhoades, Secretary
Main Library - Reference Desk____ Zoning Adjustments Board
Public Works/Engineering
Zoning Adjustments Board Members
First Source, 1950 Addison, Suite 105, Berkeley, CA 94704
Applicant: Congregation Beth El, c/o Harry Pollack
Address: 2301 Vine St
Berkeley, CA 94708-1899
Staff Planner: Steve Solomon
Notice of Decision -- ZAB Resolution (Findings and Use Permit Conditions of Approval in PDF -- HTML below)
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BERKELEY
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD
CONGREGATION BETH EL PROJECT
AT 1301 OXFORD STREET
WHEREAS,
Congregation Beth El submitted an application for a new synagogue and associated religious school and day care facilities at 1301 Oxford Street (the Project); and
WHEREAS, the application was complete on October 17, 1999; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Project requires the following approvals from the City of Berkeley Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB): a use permit for the demolition of the existing on-site structures (B.M.C. ¤23C.08.050); a use permit for the operation of the synagogue and school (B.M.C.¤23D.16.030); and an administrative use permit for a height adjustment (B.M.C. ¤23D.16.070C). The Project also requires a permit issued by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) (B.M.C. ¤3.24.200); and
WHEREAS, the City determined that an environmental impact report (EIR) was necessary under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, at Public Resources Code section 5100 and following), and retained the firm of Pacific Municipal Consultants (PMC) to prepare the EIR for the Project; and
WHEREAS, the applicant granted a 90-day extension to allow the City to certify the EIR no later than January 15, 2001 (CEQA Guidelines ¤15108; Government Code ¤¤65950(b), 65957.); and
WHEREAS, the ZAB held properly noticed public hearings on whether to certify the EIR on November 9, and 27 and December 14, 2000; and
WHEREAS, on December 14, 2000, the ZAB certified the final environmental impact report (FEIR) for the Congregation Beth El Project as complete (CEQA Guidelines ¤15090); and
WHEREAS, the proposed demolition permit was forward to the Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) for review and comment as required by Section 23C.08.050 "Demolitions of Buildings Used for Commercial, Manufacturing or Community, Institutional or Other Non-residential Uses" Subsection C. Further, to date the LPC has not sent comment to the Zoning Adjustments Board regarding this proposal.
WHEREAS, in response to a revised parking plan, shown on that drawing entitled "SITE PLAN/ ROOF PLAN: Supplement #3 3/1/2001" (Sheet # A2.0) and pursuant to Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, section 15164, the City prepared an addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report, dated March, 2001.
WHEREAS, the project application seeks permission to demolish all the structures remaining on the site, except the "small white shed." The following facts are relevant to this permit's consideration: a) The Zoning Ordinance requires the approval of a Use Permit to demolish any non-residential building over 300-square feet in area. b) Two of the existing structures are of a size to require this Use Permit. c) When, at their November 19, 1990 meeting, the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) moved to reaffirm the subject property's historic significance, their motion cited the remaining resources (including: the trees, open creek bed, and a fence) as examples and remnants of a past era but it did not cite the existing buildings as resources. d). In a report of a 1998 survey of the property's historical elements, prepared by a LPC subcommittee, it cites only one structure that should be "reused, preserved or restored." That structure was the "small white shackÑif documentable as original."
WHEREAS, the City of Berkeley Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), at their meeting of March 5, 2001, denied the requested "Alteration Permit" regarding the construction of the subject project, pursuant to Section 3.24.200 [B.M.C.] Landmarks, historic districts and structures of merit--Construction, alteration or modification--Approval required." It is assumed that this denial contained an implied recommendation to the Zoning Adjustments Board not to permit the demolition of any of the property's buildings. Lastly, the LPC determined that the project EIR was not adequate for their purpose.
WHEREAS, the ZAB held properly noticed public hearings on whether to approve the required use permits on January 11, 25, February 8, 22, and March 8, 2001; and
WHEREAS, the ZAB has considered the Project, the FEIR, the Addendum to the FEIR, and the information submitted in the staff reports and at the public hearings.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that:
1. REAFFIRMING CERTIFICATION AND APPROVING ADDENDUM.
The Zoning Adjustments Board affirms that on December 14, 2000 it certified that the FEIR for the Project had been completed in compliance with CEQA and reflected the ZAB's independent judgment and analysis. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15164, the ZAB also adopts the Addendum to the FEIR, dated March, 2001. The ZAB determined that the Addendum adequately applies to the ZAB's own modifications to the project's parking configuration; that is, replacing the parking as shown on the applicant's most recent Site Plan / Roof Plan with a modified version of "Alternative Parking Scheme I" as reflected in Permit Conditions A.1 and A.5. The ZAB reviewed and considered the information contained in the FEIR and the addendum before approving the Project. (CEQA Guidelines ¤15090.)
On March 5, 2001, the Landmarks Preservation Commission determined that the project's Final Environmental Impact Report is not adequate for their purposes. The ZAB has considered their comments and has rejected them as not providing any new information, and because there is no substantial basis for determining that the document is not adequate. Further, the ZAB is the sole body in the City of Berkeley with responsibility to certify environmental impact reports in cases involving private, discretionary land use permits as is set forth in the City of Berkeley's Environmental Review Procedures. Lastly, it is reaffirmed that the Zoning Adjustments Board finds those aspects of the FEIR dealing with historic resources are adequate and comply with CEQA Guidelines.
2. APPROVAL. The Zoning Adjustments Board hereby approves the following use permits, based upon the affirmations and findings set forth in this resolution and subject to the Use Permit Conditions of Approval set forth in Exhibit A, attached and to the Mitigation Monitoring Program set forth in Exhibit B, attached:
A Use Permit to construct and operate a Religious Assembly use (B.M.C.¤23D.16.030);
A Use Permit to allow the demolition of two non-residential buildings (B.M.C. ¤23C.08.050 A and B);
An administrative use permit for a height adjustment (B.M.C.
¤23D.16.070C).
3. FINDINGS REGARDING POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES UNDER CEQA. Certain significant environmental effects of the Project were identified in the FEIR. The ZAB finds that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid the significant environmental effect and reduce its impact to less than significant, as follows. (Parenthetical references are to the Mitigation Measures set forth in Exhibit A). (CEQA Guidelines ¤15091)
a.
Site access, circulation and parking impact. The proposed Project could result in congestion at the project's entrance and exist during peak dropoff and pickup times. Changes and improvements in the project design, signage, layout and operation have been incorporated into the Project which reduce this impact to less than significant. (MM Ð4.2-3) Rationale: Simple, low-cost improvements and operating requirements can prevent significant adverse effects associated with parking and traffic.
b.
Noise - play area. The predicted noise levels associated with the play area will exceed the City of Berkeley Noise Ordinance daytime noise level standard of 55 dB L50. The use of a barrier wall can reduce noise impacts from the Project's play area to less than significant. (MM 4.3-1) Rationale: Shielding the source of noise from public receptors will minimize adverse noise impacts from the Project.
Noise - parking and circulation. The Project will have on-site parking and circulation noise levels which will exceed the City of Berkeley Noise Ordinance daytime noise level standard of 55 dB L50, at the nearest residences to the north during the operation of Camp Kee Tov staging. The use of a barrier wall of changes or reductions in Camp Kee Tov staging activities can reduce noise impacts from the Project's traffic to less than significant. (MM 4.3-2) Rationale: Shielding the source of noise from public receptors or reducing the amount of noise generated onsite will minimize adverse noise impacts from the Project.
Noise - construction. During the construction phases of the Project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate Project vicinity. This impact is considered potentially significant. Changes and modifications in the Project's construction operations and scheduling can reduce impacts from construction-related noise to less than significant. (MM 4.3-3 a thru g ) Rationale: Restricting the timing of certain noise-generating activities during construction and other measures will minimize adverse noise-related impacts.
c.
Air Quality - fine particulate matter. Emissions of fine particulate matter (PM10) due to construction-related activities could have a potentially significant impact. Standard dust reduction measures will reduce generation of dust during construction of the project to a level that is less than significant. (MM 4.4-1) Rationale: Sound construction management techniques can minimize adverse impacts associated with dust generation during project construction.
Air Quality - asbestos. The demolition and removal of structures on site that may contain asbestos materials, is a potentially significant impact. The release of potentially harmful amounts of asbestos can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant. (MM 4.4-2) Rationale: Compliance with current hazardous materials handling requirements will ensure that adverse impacts of asbestos contamination will be avoided.
d.
Geology and Hydrology - groundshaking. The project site will be subject to moderate groundshaking during earthquakes. The potentially significant impacts caused by groundshaking can be mitigated to a level less than significant through application of existing City codes and requirements. Rationale: The City of Berkeley's building codes are designed to minimize potential harmful effects of groundshaking.
Geology and Hydrology - water runoff. Development of the project site will increase the rate of storm water runoff leaving site. Potentially significant impacts associated with increased storm water run-off can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant through application of well-established design and engineering. (MM 4.5-2 ) Rationale: Project-generated storm water run-off can be minimized with sound design and management of storm water run-off volumes. Further, compliance with City standards and requirements for compliance with NPDES Permit and City Stormwater Ordinance will also substantially reduce potential detrimental effects
Geology and Hydrology - soil saturation. Saturation of soils under the project's parking lot with stormwater runoff could cause soils under the Oxford-to-Spruce access road to become unstable. The potentially significant impacts associated with soil instability can be reduced to a less than significant level with sound engineering and design measures. (MM 4.5-3) Rationale: Drainage improvements to the project site can minimize adverse effects of soil instability.
Geology and Hydrology - on-site erosion. Development of the project site would entail earthwork and grading. Due to the surface soil characteristics and the steep banks of Codornices Creek, the project site is subject to erosion during project construction. Project-related alterations in on-site drainage patterns during construction could compound and increase on-site erosion. (MM 4.5-4) Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce construction-related erosion and sedimentation impacts to less-than-significant levels. Rationale: Compliance with existing requirements for erosion control can minimize erosion impacts.
Geology and Hydrology - drainage. On-site drainage and drainage outfalls to Codornices Creek may be affected by post-development drainage from the project site. (MM 4.5-5) Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce project erosion and sedimentation impacts to less-than-significant levels. Rationale: Sound design and engineering requirements can reduce adverse impacts associated with erosion and drainage at the project site.
Geology and Hydrology - non-point source pollution. The proposed project would increase the amount of suburban non-point source pollutants generated by the site during storm events, impacting the water quality of Codornices Creek, and causing a cumulative water quality impact to San Francisco Bay. (MM 4.5-6) Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce project-generated contamination and run-off impacts to less-than-significant levels. Rationale: Sound design and engineering requirements can reduce adverse impacts associated with run-off and drainage pollutants at the project site.
e.
Biological Resources - wall's effect on trees. Construction of the wall proposed for sound mitigation along the northern property line of Codornices Creek could adversely affect existing mature trees. (MM 4.6-3) Implementation of the mitigation measure would reduce impacts to a level of less than significant. Rationale: Sound construction management and oversight will reduce adverse impacts of construction.
Biological Resources - dripline encroachment on coast live oaks. Construction of the proposed project may result in impacts (i.e. dripline encroachment) to several coast live oaks, a locally protected tree species. In addition, one oak tree would be relocated within the site. Because the City of Berkeley recognizes these trees as a significant biological resource, impacts to coast live oaks would be considered potentially significant and mitigation would be required. (MM 4.6-5) Implementation of the mitigation measures would reduce potential impacts to coast live oaks to less than significant. Rationale: Appropriate site plan design and techniques to protect significant trees during and after construction , can reduce adverse impacts on biological resources.
Biological Resources - work within high water mark of creek. Implementation of the landscape plan and recommendations regarding creekbed stabilization may require work within the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Codornices Creek, a jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. Because work below the OHWM is regulated under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), impacts are considered potentially significant and mitigation would be required. (MM 4.6-7) Implementation of the mitigation measures will reduce impacts of the project to water-based ecosystems to a less than significant level. Rationale: Compliance with existing requirements associated with protection of water resources will reduce adverse impacts.
Biological Resources - rate of stormwater runoff. The proposed project will increase the rate of stormwater runoff leaving the site. This is considered a potentially significant impact. The increased rate of stormwater runoff could result in increased discharge into Codornices Creek. The contaminants (oil, grease, heavy metals, etc.) which would be discharged into Codornices Creek could be stressful to the fishes, particularly trout, and could, thus, result in potentially significant adverse impacts on the fishes of Codornices Creek.
The other potential impact of increased stormwater runoff would be increased durations of flows which would cause, or exacerbate, channel. Channel erosion could increase sediment in the creek and result in potentially significant adverse impacts on trout habitat. In summary, an increase in the rate of stormwater runoff leaving the site could result in a potentially significant adverse impacts on the fishes, particularly trout, of Codornices Creek.
The mitigation measures result in a beneficial impact of the proposed project. The mitigation measures would reduce the proposed project's contribution to pollutant levels in runoff water from the site to a less than significant level. Rationale: A comprehensive approach to run-off, drainage and pollution control can reduce adverse project impacts.
Biological Resources - water quality. The construction-related activities (i.e., erosion as a result of construction and associated with the site drainage system) could result in potentially significant impacts to the water quality of Codornices Creek and San Francisco Bay. Increased turbidity (murkiness) and potential algal blooms would be stressful to trout and could result in potentially significant impacts to fish, particularly trout, in Codornices Creek. The mitigation measures described in the Geology/Hydrology section of this report would reduce construction-related impacts to a level that is less than significant. Hence, the mitigation measures would reduce impacts to fishes, particularly steelhead trout, in Codornices Creek, to less than significant levels, as well. Rationale: A comprehensive approach to storm water run-off, drainage and pollution control can reduce adverse project impacts to local water eco-systems.
Biological Resources - on-site erosion. The proposed project could result in potentially significant erosion caused by on-site drainage and drainage outfalls to Codornices Creek. This impact is considered a potentially significant impact. The mitigation measures described in the Geology/Hydrolongy section above would reduce potentially significant impacts to fishes. With the above mitigation measures in place, the increased project runoff would result in a less than significant impact to fish, including trout, in Codornices Creek. Rationale: A comprehensive approach to storm water run-off, drainage and pollution control can reduce adverse project impacts to local water eco-systems.
Biological Resources - slope stability. The proposed project could result in an increase in the amount of soil infiltration and may contribute to slope stability problems along the north bank of Codornices Creek on the project site (as described in the Geology/Hydrology section of the EIR). This could cause erosion or landsliding, which would release sediments into the creek, causing the water to become murky and unsuitable for fish. The mitigation measures described here and in the "Hydrology and Water Quality" section of the DEIR would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. The mitigation measures would result in a less than significant impact to fish, particularly trout, in Codornices Creek. Rationale: A comprehensive approach to storm water run-off, drainage and pollution control can reduce adverse project impacts to local water eco-systems.
f.
Aesthetics - stucco walls at Oxford and Spruce. The construction of 6-foot high stucco walls along the Oxford Street and Spruce Street frontages would generate potentially significant impacts by creating an institutional appearance inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. (MM 4.8-1) The mitigation will reduce this significant impact to a level that is less than significant. Rationale: Thoughtful design that incorporates recommendations of the Board's Design Review Committee can mitigate adverse aesthetic impacts.
Aesthetics - stucco walls at Berryman Path. The 7-foot high stucco walls proposed to built at the northern property line would eliminate desirable views into the site from Berryman Path, creating an institutional appearance inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. (MM 4.8-2) The mitigation will reduce this significant impact to a level that is less than significant. Rationale: Thoughtful design that incorporates recommendations of the Design Review Committee can mitigate adverse aesthetic impacts.
Aesthetics - lighting. The installation of site lighting as proposed would result in lighting visible to surrounding properties, creating possible spill, and resulting in an institutional appearance, inconsistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood. (MM 4.8-3) The mitigation will reduce this significant impact to a level that is less than significant. Rationale: Changes to the selection and placement of fixtures can mitigate adverse aesthetic impacts.
4. FINDINGS REGARDING RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLY USE, UNDER B.M.C. ¤23D.16.030. In compliance with BMC ¤23B.32.040 regarding findings for issuance of a use permit, the Zoning Adjustments Board finds that the construction, establishment, maintenance and operation of the religious assembly use, under the circumstances of this particular case existing at the time at which the application is granted, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort of general welfare of persons residing or working in the area or neighborhood of the proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City for the following reasons:
a. The proposed project is consistent with applicable purposes of the R-1 (H) Zoning District (Single Family Residential-Hillside District), where the site is located, including the following:
The R-1 District's Purposes:
i) Recognize and protect the existing pattern of development in the low density, single family residential areas of the City in accordance with the Master Plan.
As discussed in Staff's January 11, 2001 report to ZAB, the scale of the development (its floor area compared to its lot area or FAR), by being significantly less than the average of the adjoining neighborhood's FAR, is consistent with the development of this single-family neighborhood.
Further the project is consistent with the policies of the 1977 Berkeley Master plan as discussed in the November 9, 2000 ZAB Staff Report and in the January 11, 2001 and February 8, 2001 Staff Report discussions of the City's implementation of its parking policies and the determination of the parking requirement.
ii) Make available housing for persons who desire detached housing accommodations and a relatively large amount of Usable Open Space,
This purpose, of providing housing, is not applicable to a religious assembly use as it otherwise complies with the below purpose D.
iii) Protect adjacent properties from unreasonable obstruction of light and air;
As is discussed elsewhere in these findings the project does not cause significant impacts due to shadowing of the adjacent residential properties. Further, the project meets or exceeds the minimum zoning district standards including: required yards and is significantly less than the maximum allowed lot coverage.
iv) Permit the construction of community facilities such as places for religious assembly, Schools, parks and libraries which are designed to serve the local population when such will not be detrimental to the immediate neighborhood.
This project is found to serve the local population because the 78% of its congregants live within Berkeley and Albany, the fact the Congregation's existing synagogue has been located approximately two blocks from the project site for over fifty years. This point is addressed in the project's November 9, 2000 Staff Report to the Zoning Adjustments Board. Further, that, based on findings of studies conducted for EIR there are no significant impacts that will not be mitigated to insignificant levels or adverse effects that can not be controlled through the imposition of proposed conditions.
The H District's Purposes:
i) Implement the Master Plan's policies regarding Hillside Development;
ii) Protect the character of Berkeley's hill Districts and their immediate environs;
The project is found to satisfy this purpose because: the project maintains a generally open character with a building that occupies less than 25 percent of the lot area; secondly the project's improvements and landscaping will enhance the existing conditions of Codornices Creek; and lastly, the project is retaining and protecting the native Oak trees along its northern property line.
iii) Give reasonable protection to views yet allow appropriate development of all property;
The project will not significantly affect the existing views across the site from adjoining properties because the existing views are minimal due to the site's existing tree cover and the limited long distance views available to properties in the vicinity due to the area's relatively low elevation.
iv) Allow modifications in standard yard and height requirements when justified because of steep topography, irregular lot pattern, unusual street conditions, or other special aspects of the Hillside District area.
No modification to building standards are proposed through the provisions of the Hillside Overlay District regulations. The sole exception sought by the project is to allow the building's average height to be 35 feet, a standard that can be allowed in other residential districts, not in the hillsides, subject to the approval of a Use Permit.
b.
Beth El's proposed use is compatible with the existing neighborhood. One purpose of the R-1 district in Berkeley is to "[p]ermit the construction of community facilities such as places for religious assembly, schools, parks and libraries which are designed to serve the local population when such will not be detrimental to the immediate neighborhood." 23D.16.020.D BMC. In addition, the 1977 Master Plan seeks to "[p]reserve the character of lower density residential areas. . . and their complementary churches, schools and parks." Policy 1.10 The Applicant's proposed use is consistent with these purposes and goals.
Beth El is a local institution that serves a predominately local population.
The Applicant has been a part of the Berkeley community for more than 50 years. Fully 35% of its member families live within one mile of the 1301 Oxford Street site, 46% live in the 94707 and 94708 zip code areas and 86% live within three miles of the site.
(Congregation Beth El, "Supplemental Submission To Zoning Adjustments Board of the City of Berkeley," Jan. 19, 2001 [hereinafter "Supp. Submission I"], Tab 1; FEIR Summary, pp. 3-4; SR, 1/11/01.)
Beth El's continued presence and operation in the neighborhood will impose no material additional burdens on, and will offer a number of benefits to, the immediate neighborhood, adjacent property and the City of Berkeley at large.
Beth El has been located at Arch and Vine Streets, approximately 1200 feet from 1301 Oxford Street, for more than 50 years. Beth El is, therefore, currently situated in the same neighborhood within which it seeks to relocate. Along with many other Neighborhood Institutional Land Uses, Beth El has been an important part of and has contributed to the rich and varied fabric of this part of Berkeley since the 1940's. Like these Neighborhood Institutional Land Uses, Congregation Beth El contributes to the sense of "place" that is uniquely Berkeley.
(Supp. Submission I, Tab 1; FEIR Summary, p.1; EIR, pp 4.1-2 and 4.1-4.)
Beth El has for many years been an integral part of the Berkeley faith community and provides valuable social and educational services to the entire City. It will be better able to continue these programs at the new site, since it had outgrown its existing facility.
(Congregation Beth El Power Point Presentation, Jan. 25, 2001 and related testimony [hereinafter "Power Point Presentation"].)
Beth El's membership has been stable at about 600 families for at least 10 years. As a result, the neighborhood has been, and is currently, subject to any impacts caused by the anticipated level of Beth El's activities. Considered over the course of the year, these impacts are episodic and the type to be expected of religious assembly uses. Use of the facilities tends to spike at various times during the week and then drop off dramatically. The Beth El facilities have been, and will continued to be, used primarily by children attending the various educational programs provided by the Applicant. Children under the age of 16 do not drive. Excluding staff, on typical weekdays, very few adults utilize the Applicant's facilities. Even on Fridays and Saturdays, the days of heaviest adult usage, there are rarely more than 150 people on site at any one time and the facilities are usually empty by 10 p.m.
(FEIR Summary, p.2; Supp. Submission I, Tab 3; Supplemental Submission, Feb. 8, 2001 [hereinafter "Supp. Submission II"].)
To the extent that the Applicant's activities may combine with the activities of other institutions (such as Live Oak Park or the Berkeley-Richmond JCC) to impose any burden on the surrounding neighborhood, any such burden already exists and Beth El's relocation to 1301 Oxford Street will not materially add to it. In fact, the proposed use at the new site offers advantages over the existing site that should result in net benefits to the surrounding neighborhood. For example, Beth El has agreed to cooperate with Live Oak Park, the Himalayan Fair and the Berkeley Art Center to avoid duplication of major events to the extent possible, so as to minimize the traffic and parking impacts on the neighborhood. In addition, the new site will have as many as 30 more off-street parking spaces than Beth El's existing site only a couple of blocks away and will have an off-street drive for pick-up and drop-off of passengers that will take buses and cars off the streets, thereby improving safety and traffic circulation. Moreover, Beth El has agreed that, in order to minimize the impact of its use on the neighborhood, it will not permit non-congregants to rent or license its facilities and it will place restrictions on the hours of use.
(Supp. Submission I, Tabs 1, 3 and 4; Congregation Beth El, Power Point Presentation, Jan. 25, 2001; FEIR Summary, p. 8; EIR, p.3.0-12; "Memorandum from Congregation Beth El to City of Berkeley," Feb. 22, 2001 [hereinafter "2/22/01 Memo"], p.3.)
c.
The Design of the project is compatible with the residential neighborhood.
The scale (i.e., size and bulk) of the project is compatible with and fits within the surrounding residential neighborhood context. The structure the Applicant proposes to build will cover only 22% of the 1301 Oxford Street site, although the zoning ordinance permits lot coverage of up to forty percent (40%) of the lot area. 23D.16.070E BMC. By contrast, the average lot coverage for homes in the surrounding area is 28%. It is noteworthy that the average lot coverage of 30 religious institutions in Berkeley is 50% and in some cases lot coverage exceeds 90%.
One purpose to be achieved in R-1 Districts is to "recognize and protect the existing pattern of development in the low density, single family residential areas of the City in accordance with the Master Plan." 23D.16.020 BMC. The proposed design of the building is consistent with this purpose. The project's Floor Area Ratio is roughly 37% compared with 46% for the surrounding residential development. The project's street frontage along Oxford Street is only 11.6% and only 45% along Spruce, as compared with 63% for the surrounding residential development. Because the lot slopes to the east and much of the building will be substantially set back along Spruce, the effect will be of even less street frontage.
(Power Point Presentation; Supp. Submission I, Tab 2; 2/22/01 Memo, p.1; SR, 1/11/01.)
The proposed building's design and building materials are consistent with the architectural styles in the neighborhood and the City generally. The design has the effect of minimizing the building mass along both Spruce and Oxford Streets and of increasing the architectural vocabulary to provide the feel of different structures and uses. In addition, the building has a residential appearance, especially on Oxford Street where its profile and bays are consistent with the residential buildings nearby. On Spruce Street, the height of the tallest element, the sanctuary, is similar to that of the closest residence immediately to the south. To the east (uphill) side of Spruce Street, the houses are substantially higher than the portions of the building along Spruce Street, the sanctuary and social hall.
In addition, the palate of materials for the building is wood and stucco which is consistent with those use in the immediate neighborhood and, indeed, throughout the residential neighborhoods in Berkeley. In particular, the eaves on portions of the building is reminiscent of the type of eaves used on homes designed by Berkeley's finest architects. The gable form of roof and the roof ridgeline along the middle of the building gives the impression of a variety of roof forms, a lower roof profile and a residential scale and appearance along the Oxford Street frontage in particular.
Because Beth El proposes to retain most of the existing mature trees and the building's open configuration, the character of the plan is more typical of residential rather than institutional use.
(FEIR Summary, p. 5; Supp. Submission I, Tab 2; 2/22/01 Memo, p.1; SR, 1/11/01; Revised Site/Roof Plan and Floor Plans, submitted Feb. 22, 2001 and March 8, 2001.)
The proposed building will not interfere with light or air on adjacent properties. Another goal of R-1 districts is to "protect adjacent properties from unreasonable obstruction of light and air." 23D.16.020 BMC. The project satisfies this goal. The location on the site will not obstruct light or air to any other property. The buildings closest will be the two residences to the south, neither of which will be shaded. The height of the Sanctuary and the house are comparable in scale. The school wing of the proposed project will be well removed from the nearest property on Oxford Street. The roofline and windows will give the school building a residential feel, no different from the perspective of the adjacent Oxford Street residence than if the school building were actually a residence.
(EIR, pp. 3.0-27 through 3.0-29; Revised Site/Roof Plan and Floor Plans, submitted Feb. 22, 2001 and March 8, 2001.)
(See, e.g., EIR Section 4.2; Supp. Submission I, Tab 4.)
d.
Parking.
Determination of the project's parking requirement. As required by Berkeley Zoning Ordinance Section 23D.16.080 " Parking -- Number of Spaces" of the First Residential Zoning District, provides that the parking requirement for "[o]ther Uses requiring Use Permits, including, but not limited to, Child Care Centers, Clubs, Lodges, and community centers, shall provide the number of Off-street Parking Spaces determined by the Board, based of the amount of traffic generated by the particular Use and comparable with specified standards for other Uses." Therefore, based on the information provided in this project's January 2, 2001 Staff Report, the Zoning Adjustments Board has determined that under the circumstances of this project the parking requirement for this religious assembly use is, one on-site parking space shall be provided for each eight seats in the sanctuary, the building's principal public assembly area. For the proposed sanctuary seating of 250, this ratio generates a requirement of 31 parking spaces.
The project's potential parking impacts will not be detrimental to the adjoining residential properties because:
i) The principal daily use of the property will be a religious day school which has a low demand for parking, and on that can be meet on the site.
ii) The available parking on the site (32 as the project is modified by Condition A.5) and adjacent to the site's frontages (approximately twenty spaces), would meet the facilities typical maximum weekly needs
iii) As conditioned, the project must provide a shuttle service to off-site parking locations in cases of major non-religious events
Potential impacts of the revised parking scheme found to be less than significant. The revised parking scheme, as shown on the revised permit drawing entitled "A2.0 SITE PLAN / ROOF PLAN Supplement #3: 3/1/2001" as revised in the Condition A.5 (Exhibit A), has moved the project's parking, from the location shown on earlier drawings, closer to the residential dwellings just to the north of the project. One effect of this change, according to the Addendum to the FEIR, is to increase the noise levels to the adjacent dwellings. In one case, this increased noise level exceeds the City of Berkeley's noise standards. The Addendum goes on to note that these exceptions would be mitigated by the already proposed mitigations. Other effects of this parking relocation are positive, in that with the revised location of the parking spaces, with one exception , they are no longer beneath the drip lines of the site's oak trees, and the parking and roadway areas are no longer located above the culverted section of Codornices Creek and are 30-feet or more from the Culvert's centerline. Further, this revised location would allow, when or if feasible, the daylighting of the culverted portions of Codornices Creek. Therefore, on balance, these benefits of the revised parking location outweigh the negative impact of a reportedly imperceptible increase in noise levels above City standards or of putting many more of the parking spaces back under the dripline of the site's oak trees.
The Board also finds that the revised parking plan (see condition A.5 of Exhibit A) preserves an option for future daylighting of the culverted portions of Codornices Creek.
e.
Traffic impacts are not significant. The additional traffic potentially generated by the projectÑas mitigatedÑis not, according to the project's Final Environmental Impact Report, anticipated to cause significant congestion at local intersections, at the project's entryways, or along the fronting roadways. (See Impacts 4.2-1 and 4.2-3).
5. FINDINGS REGARDING USE PERMIT FOR DEMOLITION OF NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, UNDER B.M.C. ¤23C.08.050.A and B. The proposal to demolish structures 40 or more years old was forwarded to LPC for review and comment on November 6, 2000 pursuant to requirements of Section 23C.08.050.A and B, B.M.C. As discussed on page one of this resolution, the LPC is presumed to have recommended that the structures not be demolished.
In compliance with B.M.C. ¤¤23B.32.040 regarding findings for issuance of a use permit, the Zoning Adjustments Board finds that the demolition of two non-residential buildings greater than 300 square feet in area, under the circumstances of this particular case existing at the time at which the application is granted, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the area or neighborhood of the proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City for the following reasons:
a. The demolition will not be detrimental to the commercial needs and public interest of the affected neighborhood because the use of the property is not changing. The demolition concerns a main structure and several accessory structures previously used for a religious assembly use; the project would replace those buildings with another building for religious assembly use.
b. The demolition of the two non-residential structures on the project site (that are greater than forty-years old and that subject to approval of a Use Permit), would be consistent with the provisions of the Landmark Commission (LPC) Ordinance, in so far as neither structure would qualify for designation as a landmark. Neither structure would satisfy the criteria for consideration as a landmark that is in the Landmark's Preservation Commission's Ordinance (Chapter 3.24 B.M.C). Those criteria address architectural merit, cultural value, educational value, and historic value. This is based on the following two points:
When, at their November 19, 1990 meeting, the Landmarks Preservation Commission moved to reaffirm the subject site's historic significance their motion cited the remaining resources, including the trees, open creek bed, and a fence as examples and remnants of a past era but it did not cite the existing buildings as resources. Secondly,
The project's FEIR found that this project would not have any adverse effect as far as historic resources are concerned. (see DEIR ¤ 4.7.5)
c. If there were to be potential asbestos in the structures to be demolished, mitigations proposed in the project's Final Environmental Impact Report would reduce the potential threat to human health to less than significant levels; reference Mitigation Measure 4.4-2.
d. Further, the recordÐof the project's environmental review and of the oral and written testimony regarding this permitÐdoes not contain evidence that the requested demolition would cause detriment.
e. Lastly, as required by the Berkeley Zoning Ordinance for the demolition of a non-residential use Building (¤ 23C.08.050 B.M.C.), it is found that the demolition is required to allow a new building of the same use type.
6. FINDINGS REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT TO ALLOW MAIN BUILDINGS TO EXCEED 28 FEET IN AVERAGE HEIGHT, UNDER B.M.C. ¤23D.16.070C. In compliance with B.M.C. ¤¤23B.32.040 regarding findings for issuance of a use permit, the Zoning Adjustments Board finds that the construction, establishment, maintenance and operation of the religious assembly use with portions of its roof being at 35 feet, under the circumstances of this particular case existing at the time at which the application is granted, will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort of general welfare of persons residing or working in the area or neighborhood of the proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City for the following reasons:
a. The additional seven feet of average building-height (that is, above the 28-foot height that is allowed by right) will not cast significant shadows on adjoining properties because the proposed structure would be located to the north of potentially affected adjacent dwellings; significant shadows would only be cast on adjoining streets or the subject property.
b. The additional height will not significantly block the long distance views of nearby residential properties, if such views exist, because such views would now be obstructed by the site's trees.
c. The proposed additional height will not affect the privacy of adjoining properties since the portions of the building with the additional height would not contain habitable areas to provide otherwise unavailable view points; said portions are either architectural features or shield mechanical spaces.
ADOPTED March 8, 2001 by the following vote:
AYES: CAPITELLI, ISSEL,MATTHEWS, PIETRAS,WEINBERGER
NOES: BLAKE, POSCHMAN, SPRAGUE
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: ALVIN
______________________________________
Mark Rhoades, Secretary to the Zoning
Adjustments Board
Attest:
___________________________________
Steve Solomon Senior Planner.
EXHIBITS:
A - CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
B - MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM
Exhibit A.
Congregation Beth El, 1301 Oxford Street
Use Permit Conditions of Approval
Considered with the related Final Environmental Impact Report's (FEIR) Mitigation Measures
A. General Permit Conditions:
A.1. Permit Condition Scope of approval: This project is that as set forth in the applicant's submittal that includes: the September 1999 application, the February 22, 2001 memorandum from Congregation Beth El to the City of Berkeley Zoning Adjustments Board (which included changes to their application) together with all other materials submitted in support of their application and the project's plans. These plans are those described in the following table.
The Zoning Officer authority to approved minor revisions to these plans, as set forth in Administrative Regulations "Compliance with Submitted plans" revised 5-24-78, shall include the discretion to approve or disapprove revisions to the parking, paving, and; landscaping plans where, in the Officer's opinion said revised plan or plans will better preserve the existing and potential creek environment and/or minimize adverse impacts to the neighborhood. Copies of any such approved revised plans shall be sent to the ZAB for their information. [To be permit condition 1.] Comments in square'bracket [ ] in this exhibit-A's FEIR Mitigation Measures are commentary intended to better illustrate or clarify the measure's intent, scope and/or objective.
A.1. Permit Condition All the mitigations in this project's Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (as required by the California Environmental Quality Act and elsewhere approved by the Zoning Adjustments Board) are included by reference as conditions to this Use Permit. [To be permit condition 1.]
A.2. Permit Condition other than certain below described exceptions, the facility's operations may only occur between the following hours:
Monday through Thursday 7 am to 7 pm
Friday 7 am to 11 pm
Saturday 8 am to 11 pm
Sunday 8 am to 7:30 pm
Exceptions: The following activities are exempt from the above hours of operation limitations:
s Religious holidays and observances.
s Religious classes.
s Overnights, for three nights during the summer, for up to 45 children and their caretakers each night, as part of the use's summer camp program (Camp Kee Tov).
s Non-religious activities, such as committee or board meetings, involving a total attendance not to exceed 50 persons at any one time, may extend the above hours until 11 pm Monday through Thursday. [To be permit condition 3.]
A.3. Permit Condition The facility's buildings and grounds may only be rented to congregants of the tenant religious assembly use. [To be permit condition 4.]
A.4. Permit Condition The parking scheme shown in the "SITE PLAN / ROOF PLAN, Supplement #3: 3/1/2001" is replaced with that parking scheme entitled Alternative Parking Scheme I, Dated February 22, 2001. Alternative Parking Scheme I, itself is amended as follows: the parking spaces labeled as 17, 18 and 19 are to be revised to five diagonal parking spaces, secondly, two additional tandem parking spaces shall be added in the area of parking spaces 25c and 26c as shown on the project site plan dated September 1999, lastly, the parking scheme shall include two parking spaces located directly off Spruce Street as shown on the plan entitled "Site Plan / Roof Plan" and dated Supplement #3: 3/1/2001. [To be permit condition 5.]
B. Historic Resource Conditions
B.1. Permit Condition The property owner shall install and maintain public displays illustrating this site's history. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the property, the applicant shall install these displays, which shall have received the prior approval, as to their content and design, from the Zoning Officer, in consultation with the public and Landmarks Preservation Commission. The Park and Recreation Commission's approval is required if said displays are to be located adjacent to and to be viewed from Berryman Path. [Timing: Before Occupancy and Ongoing]. [To be permit condition 6.]
B.2. Permit Condition Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall either revise the project plans to show the revised location of the existing small "office" building on the project site or secure a demolition permit for that building that is supported by all other necessary approvals. [To be permit condition 7.]
C. Site Access, Circulation, and Parking Impact
C.1. FEIR Mitigation Measures: The following management practices shall be implemented to reduce potential congestion/safety impacts within the project site and at the entrance and exit:
C.1.a. Staff parking shall occur on-site within the site in the first row of tandem spaces. No staff parking shall occur off-site [on the public right-of-way in the immediate neighborhood].
C.1.b. A drop-off/pickup plan shall be developed and implemented. This plan shall include the following:
(1) The plan shall describes the procedures parents, service attendees and others are to follow during peak traffic periods, including services, religious school drop off and pick-up, Saturday and Sunday school sessions, and summer camp sessions.
(2) The Plan shall include instructions for queuing on Oxford (should queues develop) in the curb lane, instructions for the use of the west side of Spruce Street as a secondary drop-off and pick-up zone, and specific procedures for parking, waiting and departing during the drop-off and pick-up periods. The plan can also incorporate some flexibility to try alternative approaches, should unexpected conditions develop.
(3) Drop-off/pickup practices which defines how subsets of the religious school students be dropped off/picked up on Spruce Street. The group should be designated, for example surnames from A to E, rather than left to parents' choice. At least 75% of the drop-offs and pick-ups shall be accommodated on site, with the no more than 25% occurring on Spruce Street.
(4) Encourage carpools of three or more children by reserving on-site spaces for them.
(5) Designate specific drop-off / pick-up areas for different groups, and provide staff monitors to smooth traffic flows and minimize drop-off and pick-up parking duration.
(6) Stagger drop-off and pick-up times (i.e. by last name, age, or some other criteria) to avoid highly peaked traffic flows. This would require some children to arrive up to 30 minutes prior to camp start and to leave up to 30 minutes after the buses have dropped them off.
(7) Oxford Street shall not be used for drop-off and pick-up parking, due to the horizontal curve and the red-curb recommendations to improve sight distance at the driveway.
(8) When parking on both sides of the driveway aisle are being used for drop-offs and pick-ups, staff monitors should direct and escort students to their vehicles, to avoid potential conflicts between vehicle and pedestrian movements. [See MM 4.2-3a]
C.2. FEIR Mitigation Measures: The following additional improvements and actions shall be implemented to reduce potential safety impacts to a level of less than significant:
(1) Paint the east side curb on Oxford Street red between the project driveway and the existing red curb to the south. While sight distance for southbound left turners into the new driveway is adequate, about 210 feet, for the estimated prevailing speeds Ñ 20 to 25 mph due to the speed humps - the additional red curb will improve visibility and provide a queuing space for northbound vehicles turning right into the driveway, should occasional queues develop. [Refer to the below permit condition C-3, that modifies this mitigation]
(2) Paint the Spruce Street west side curb red for 50 feet north and south [see Permit Condition C.3] of the exit driveway, to improve visibility for drivers exiting the site. The sight distance is adequate for prevailing speeds (estimated at 35 mph): about 350 feet to the south and well over 500 feet (to the Eunice intersection) to the north.
(3) Restrict parking on the west side of Spruce Street along the project frontage to 10 minute parking for the period 5:30 Ñ 6:30 p.m. weekdays. This will accommodate the pick-up spaces needed for the Religious School dismissal period. For summer camp drop-offs and pick-ups (8:30 Ñ 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 Ñ3:30 p.m. weekdays), either permanent signs or temporary barricades could be used to reserve parking along the project frontage.
(4) Prune and maintain vegetation on either side of both driveways to ensure sight lines are clear to the north and south of each driveway.
(5) Post advanced warning signs on the northbound side of Oxford Street warning of driveway ahead. [See MM 4.2-3b]
C.3. Permit Condition At the project's driveway-exit onto Spruce Street, the applicant shall install and maintain a standard traffic control sign, as used by the City of Berkeley, for "right-turn only" With this condition that portion of the FEIR Mitigation Measure (C-2 (2)) calling for a red curb to the south of this entrance is no longer required and hereby deleted. [To be Permit condition 8.]
C.4. Permit Condition Following the commencement of religious school and other of the use's operations and within five-years from such date, the Director of Public Works may demand the applicant reimburse the City of Berkeley for the cost of painting red curbs along the east side of Oxford Street. The City of Berkeley Traffic Engineer may require, the then current operator, to either perform a study or to fund a study to be prepared for the City, to determine if street improvements, such as the previously mentioned red curbing, may be necessary due to the use's operations (effects such as on-street queuing). [Timing: on-going for the first five years of the use's operation.] [To be Permit condition 9.]
C.5. Permit Condition Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall develop, secure City approval of, and implement a drop-off/pick-up plan. The plan's objectives are to maximize pedestrian and vehicle safety and minimize vehicle congestion, queuing, and parking on public streets by vehicles associated with the day school and summer camp programs. City approval shall be by the Zoning Officer in consultation with the City Traffic Engineer. To achieve the above goals the plan shall develop standards and practices that include but not be limited to the following: [To be Permit condition 10.]
(1) The location of on-street queuing and alternative drop-off locations (should queues develop), and specific procedures for parking, waiting and departing during the drop-off and pick-up periods.
(2) The measures to be taken to minimize queuing. Consideration should be given to scheduling the arrival periods to reduce the peak demands.
(3) The measures taken by the applicant to encourage carpooling of children.
(4) The measures to minimize the length of time that vehicles delivering children remain on site. Consideration should be given to designating specific drop-off/pick-up areas for different groups, the provision of rain shelter near to the on-site pick-up points, and providing staff monitors to smooth traffic and student/camper flows.
(5) The methods the applicant will take to insure compliance of drivers to the plan's provisions. Such methods shall include a requirement that the failure to comply with the Plan's provisions may lead to the suspension of participating students or campers.
Yearly, the applicant shall be provide the approved plan to each person or family wishing to enroll a child(ren) in the religious day school or summer camp. Those persons must be required to agree in writing to follow the plan's provisions as a prerequisite to participate in the programs.
C.6. Permit Condition The project operator shall maintain a practice of transporting by bus the majority of the attendees of its summer day camp program (Camp Kee Tov) to and from the project site, before and after each day's camp activities. These buses shall collect the attendees from assembly points dispersed elsewhere in the community. [Timing: Ongoing] [To be permit condition 11.]
C.7. Permit Condition The applicant shall provide shuttle service for the attendees of any non-religious events whenever the anticipated or actual number of attendees exceeds 200. The shuttle service shall be to and from the site from one or more off-site parking facilities. The number of parking spaces provided at this facility or facilities must be sufficient to accommodate the number of attendees in excess of 200 persons. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit for review and receive the City of Berkeley's Zoning Officer's approval of a plan detailing the nature of the aforementioned shuttle service. This plan shall include the number of off-site parking spaces to be provided, their approximate distance from the project site, the size of the shuttle vehicle(s), the proposed schedule or frequency of trips, and other details the Zoning Officer determines are required. Prior to the occupancy of the project, its sponsor shall provide the Zoning Officer proof, the Officer deems adequate, of the shuttle plan's implementation. [Timing: Before Occupancy, Ongoing] [To be permit condition 12.]
C.8. Permit Condition The on-site parking spaces and circulation shall not used to preclude their use as required parking, or summer camp (Camp Kee Tov) or religious day school passenger loading zones. [Timing: Ongoing] [To be permit condition 13]
C.9. Permit Condition To minimize cumulative demand for on-street parking the applicant shall work collaboratively with the operators of Live Oak Park, the Himalayan Fair and the Berkeley Art Center to coordinate their major events schedules, to avoid, to the greatest extent feasible, overlapping hours and/or dates of events. [Timing: Ongoing] [To be permit condition 14.]
D. Noise
D.1. FEIR Mitigation Measure: Using a barrier performance methodology, a property line barrier 8-feet in height shall be constructed to reduce hourly play area noise levels to less than 55 dB L50. The barrier shall be installed along the south property line from the southwest corner of the site and extending to the east approximately 80 feet (The point where the building fa?ade begins). [See MM 4.3-1]
D.2. FEIR Mitigation Measure: Upon completion of the project and operation of Camp Kee Tov staging, noise levels at the north property line shall be measured by the City of Berkeley to determine whether the City's standard of 55 dB L50 is being exceeded. If noise levels are exceeded, the City shall require one of the following:
D.2.a. Using a barrier performance methodology, a property line barrier 7-feet in height shall be installed to reduce hourly parking lot noise levels to less than [55] dB L50. The barrier shall be constructed along the project site's northern property line. [Or,]
D.2.b. Camp Kee Tov operations shall be reduced, based on consultation with the City and a qualified acoustical engineer, to a level at which the City's standard of 55 dB L50 would not be exceeded. This may be accomplished by reducing the number of buses staged on the project site [at any one time], operational restrictions (such as limits on bus idling), or any other appropriate and enforceable measure or measures. Upon implementation of these measures, noise levels shall be measured again to verify compliance with the City's noise standards. [See MM 4.3-2]
D.3. FEIR Mitigation Measures: Construction activities, including the arrival or departure of trucks, should be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Saturdays. No construction should occur at the project site on Sundays. [See MM 4.3-3a]
D.4. FEIR Mitigation Measures: Construction equipment utilizing internal combustion engines shall be muffled with the equipment manufacturer's muffler or with one providing similar sound suppression. [See MM 4.3-3b]
D.5. FEIR Mitigation Measures: Prior to the start of construction the applicant or his agents shall provide written notification to all the residential neighbors within 500 feet of the property of the limitation of hours set by this mitigation, provide the name and telephone number of an individual who is empowered by the applicant to take corrective measures to reduce the noise complaints. The name and phone number of this individual shall also be posted in on the property in a location where it is easily read by the public, indicating the individual's responsibility and availability. This individual will provide weekly reports to the City of Berkeley's Zoning Officer of all the noise complaints received and all actions taken to prevent any reoccurrences. [See MM 4.3-3c]
D.6. FEIR Mitigation Measures: To ensure compliance with the City's noise control regulations and these mitigations the City of Berkeley Zoning Officer is authorized to place additional limitations on the hours of operation and/or halt construction until corrective measures are taken. [See MM 4.3-3d]
D.7. FEIR Mitigation Measures: Operation of trucks and construction equipment shall be restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays and between 9:00 a.m. and noon Saturdays. No construction related activities shall be allowed on Sundays or holidays. [See MM 4.3-3e]
D.8. FEIR Mitigation Measures: The project contractor shall post signs on-site and visible from Oxford and Spruce streets identifying the contractor's and City's contact persons for noise complaints. Phone numbers for both contact persons shall be shown. [See MM 4.3-3f]
D.9. FEIR Mitigation Measures: In addition, construction activities shall be required to comply with all pertinent requirements of the City of Berkeley Building Department. [See MM 4.3-3g]
D.10. Permit Condition It shall be the operator's ongoing responsibility to insure that all buses (including those used for Camp Kee Tov), service and/or delivery vehicles not idle their engines while waiting on site. Engines of these vehicles shall be turned off after being on-site for more than five minutes. [Timing: Ongoing] [To be permit condition 15.]
D.11. Permit Condition Operation of trucks and construction equipment shall be restricted to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays and between 9:00 a.m. and noon Saturdays. No construction related activities shall be allowed on Sundays. This condition supersedes FEIR mitigation measures D.3 and D.6 to the degree that they are inconsistent. [Timing: During Construction] [To be permit condition 16.]
E. Air Quality
E.1. FEIR Mitigation Measures: The following control measures shall be implemented at the project site [during construction]:
a. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily;
b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, or any loose material;
c. Apply water at least three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all unpaved parking areas, staging areas, or access ways;
d. Sweep all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at least once daily;
e. Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible. [See MM 4.4-1]
E.2. FEIR Mitigation Measure: The project applicant shall comply with all applicable requirements of Regulation 11, Rule 2: Hazardous Materials; Asbestos Demolition, Renovation and Manufacturing, and any other requirements imposed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, including consultation with the Air Quality District prior to commencing demolition of any structure on the project site. . [See MM 4.4-2]
E.3. Permit Condition the applicant shall make all good faith efforts to ensure that any buses used for the use's summer camp program (Camp Kee Tov) be of a low-emission and non-diesel type. Further, the applicant shall annually notify any providers of these vehicles of this condition and request that the provider supply such "environmentally friendly" buses. [To be permit condition 17.]
F. Geology and Hydrology
F.1. FEIR Mitigation Measure: The project will be required to comply with the City of Berkeley's building codes. [See MM 4.5-1]
F.2. FEIR Mitigation Measure: Drainage plans shall be developed for the project. There are two alternatives to mitigate the increase in project site peak discharge drainage impact: (1) increase the size of the 12-inch CMP at Oxford, or (2) direct project site runoff to other (new) creek inlet locations. The applicant may select either alternative, subject to review and approval by the City of Berkeley:
(1) The applicant must prepare hydrology/hydraulics calculations for the project based on final design plans. These calculations shall be reviewed by the City Engineer. If all drainage is directed to the Oxford Street drop inlet, the culvert at this inlet shall be sized adequately to convey the drainage area runoff for at least the 10-year storm. Preliminary engineering calculation indicate that a 24-inch CMP would adequately convey the post-project 10-year flows for the sub-basin.
(2) All project site runoff shall be captured within the project site and directed to inlet locations to Codornices Creek, thereby reducing the drainage impacts to the inlet at Oxford Street. Based on the location of the drainage inlets to Codornices Creek, adequate erosion control features must be implemented. [See MM 4.5-2]
F.3. FEIR Mitigation Measures: In order to reduce potential impacts associated with the saturation of soils under the access driveway, the following design features shall be incorporated in the design of this roadway:
(1) A subsurface drain shall be installed on the downslope side (i.e. southern edge) of the entrance road and parking area to catch water between the surface/fill soils and the clay subsoils. The drain should extend from the eastern-most end of the entrance road to Oxford Street. The drain should be 5-feet deep, 1-foot in width, and filled with a 4-inch perforated drain pipe surrounded by 3/4 inch drain rock and filter fabric.
(2) The pavement section shall be designed in accordance with Caltrans pavement design criteria. A traffic index based on the heaviest anticipated vehicle traffic should be used. The r-value used for calculating the thickness of the pavement shall be determined by site-specific analysis of subgrade soils. The subgrade soils should be recompacted to 90 percent relative compaction at 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content. [See MM 4.5-3]
F.4. FEIR Mitigation Measure: (1) The project shall comply with all Phase II NPDES Storm Water regulations for Small Construction activities. In particular, the project grading plan shall include Drainage and Erosion Control Plans to minimize the impacts from erosion and sedimentation during grading. This plan shall conform to all standards adopted by the City of Berkeley and Alameda County. This plan shall include at least the following procedures: (1) restricting grading to the dry season; (2) protecting all finished graded slopes from erosion using such techniques as erosion control matting and hydroseeding; (3) protecting downstream storm drainage inlets from sedimentation; (4) use of silt fencing and hay bales to retain sediment on the project site; (5) use of temporary water conveyance and water diversion structures to eliminate runoff onto the banks of Codornices Creek; and (5) any other suitable measures outlined in the Association of Bay Area Governments' (ABAG) Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures or the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board's Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual.
After construction is completed, all drainage culverts, including the arch culvert under Oxford Street, shall be inspected for accumulated sediment. If sediment accumulation has occurred, these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. [See MM 4.5-4]
F.5. FEIR Mitigation Measure: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the potential for drainage-related erosion impacts to a level of less than significant:
(1) Appropriate energy dissipaters shall be installed at all drainage outfalls. Rock size for the energy dissipaters shall be determined based on peak discharge rates per standards presented in ABAG Manual of Standards for Erosion and Sediment Control Measures. All designs shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer.
(2) Grassed swales shall be used where possible for runoff conveyance on the project site, and shall be designed according to the following guidelines: (a) swales should not be used from areas where the runoff velocity is expected to exceed 5 feet per second (fps); (b) the longitudinal slope shall not exceed 5 percent; (c) a flow spreader and energy dissipater shall be used be used at the entrance of swales; (d) the swale bottom shall be as level as is reasonable based on sound engineering practices (i.e. V-ditch or steeply concaved ditches are not preferable); (e) turf grass is the preferred vegetation. [See MM 4.5-5]
F.6. FEIR Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the non-point source pollution impacts associated with development of the site to less-than-significant levels:
(1) Pursuant to NPDES requirements, the applicant shall develop a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) for the project site. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall: (a) identify specific types and sources of stormwater pollutants; (b) determine the location and nature of potential impacts; and (c) specify appropriate control measures to eliminate any potentially significant impacts to receiving water quality from stormwater runoff. Control measures should include use of grassed swales or vegetated buffer strips, public education, street sweeping of the entrance driveway during the summer months when traffic is greatest, and other design or source control management practices, as appropriate, to mitigate potential water quality effects.
(2) The design guidelines for grassed swales presented under Mitigation Measure 4.5-3 shall be incorporated, as well as the following guidelines which are relevant to optimizing the pollutant removal mechanisms of grassed swales: (a) a dense, uniform growth of fine-stemmed herbaceous plants shall be installed for filtering pollutants; (b) vegetation that is tolerant to the water, climatological, and soil conditions of North Berkeley shall be utilized; and (c) grassed swales with wetland-type plants within the swale shall be installed.
(3) A catch basin filtration system designed to adsorb oil and grease, petroleum hydrocarbons and heavy metals shall be installed in all storm drainages inlets to capture pollutants before they are carried into Codornices Creek. This filtration system shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Berkeley Public Works Department to comply with the requirements of the City's NPDES Permit. The applicant shall be required to implement a regular maintenance schedule for the catch basin inserts, subject to City review and inspection, or the applicant shall hire a service to carry out such maintenance. [See MM 4.5-6]
F.7. Permit Condition Prior to the issuance of any development permit for this project, the applicant shall submit a revised and detailed site improvement plan. This plan shall be acceptable in form and content to both a) the Department of Public Works regarding City standards, best engineering practices and any other standards employed by that department and also to b) the Zoning Officer with regard to maximizing the use of pervious paving materials in the site's parking and circulation areas. This plan shall provide for the following: [To be permit condition 18.]
(1) The project plans shall identify and show site-specific BMP's appropriate to activities conducted on-site to limit to the maximum extent practicable the discharge of pollutants to the City's storm drainage system, regardless of season or weather conditions.
(2) The project plan shall include erosion control measures to prevent soil, dirt, and debris from entering the storm drain system, in accordance with BMC Chapter 17.20, examples of which are outlined in the ABAG Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks, Regional Water Quality Control Board's Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors are aware of, and implement, all stormwater quality and pollution control measures. Failure to employ appropriate measures to prevent stormwater pollution and protect stormwater quality shall result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or a project stop order.
(3) Trash enclosures and/or recycling area(s) shall be covered; no other area shall drain onto this area. Drains in any wash or process area shall not discharge to the storm drain system; these drains should connect to the sanitary sewer. Applicant shall contact the City of Berkeley and EBMUD for specific connection and discharge requirements. Discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to the review, approval, and conditions of the City of Berkeley and EBMUD.
(4) Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff and promote surface infiltration and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that contribute to stormwater pollution. Where feasible, landscaping should be designed and operated to treat runoff. In areas other than the site's zone of riparian planting along the line of Codornices Creek (as recommended by the Design Review Committee), and when and where possible, incorporate xeriscape and drought tolerant plants into new development plans.
(5) Design, location, and maintenance requirements and schedules for any stormwater quality treatment structural controls shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review with respect to reasonable adequacy of the controls. The review does not relieve the property owner of the responsibility for complying with BMC Chapter 17.20 and future revisions to the City's overall stormwater quality ordinances. This review shall be shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.
(6) All paved outdoor storage areas must be designed to reduce/limit the potential for runoff to contact pollutants.
(7) All on-site storm drain inlets/catch basins must be cleaned at least once a year immediately prior to the rainy season. The property owner shall be responsible for all costs associated with proper operation and maintenance of all storm drainage facilities (pipelines, inlets, catch basins, outlets, etc.) associated with the project, unless such facilities are accepted by the City by Council action. Additional cleaning may be required by City of Berkeley Public Works Engineering Dept. [Timing: Before Permit]
G. Biological Resources
G.1. FEIR Mitigation Measures: The proposed wall [as may be required by a noise mitigation] shall be constructed with a "grade beam" or similar construction technique, or as otherwise recommended by a qualified arborist, in those areas where a typical footing could disturb the root system of existing mature trees. [See MM 4.6-3]
G.2. FEIR Mitigation Measure: To avoid impacts to oak trees, further avoidance is suggested. However, if encroachment into the dripline of oak trees cannot be avoided, the project shall implement the following measures:
(1) Avoid removing more than 15 inches of soil from the existing grade within the dripline of the trees to be preserved.
(2) Avoid using landscaping that would require irrigation in the area between the trunks and pavement. An organic mulch placed on the soil surface would be a suitable ground material.
(3) Minimize compaction of soils in close proximity to the trees. This can be accomplished through the use of "turf block" or similar materials which allow water and air to pass through while support the weight of vehicles and reducing compaction of soils under the trees.
(4) Any pruning (if necessary) and injuries to existing trees should be evaluated by the consulting arborist immediately. Pruning or limbing should be performed by the consulting arborist in accordance with International Society Of Arboriculture (ISA) guidelines.
(5) Do not store any construction equipment, or other sources of hazardous materials within the driplines of any coast live oaks.
(6) Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit the project's grading plan must first be approved by either the City's Forester or, at his discretion, a consulting arborist (to be retained by the City at the applicant's expense) to insure that any grading, filling, paving or other related activities, will not be detrimental to the long term health of the oak trees. [See MM 4.6-5]
G.3. FEIR Mitigation Measures: Prior to the issuance of any City of Berkeley permits involving work with or within the banks of Codornices Creek, the project sponsor shall present to the City adequate documentation from the applicable federal and state agencies that such work has received all necessary permits, or that such work is exempt from permitting requirements. Permits which may be required include:
(1) Prior to any work within jurisdictional waters of the U.S., the appropriate Section 404 permit shall be acquired. Limited bank stabilization work may qualify for authorization under Nationwide Permit 13 (Bank Stabilization). More extensive stream restoration work may qualify for authorization under Nationwide Permit 27 (Stream Restoration). Use of these Nationwide Permits requires compliance with all notification requirements and general conditions associated with these permits. The Corps shall be consulted regarding the appropriate permit authorization.
(2) A Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be obtained from the [Department of Fish and Game] DFG, pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, for any activities affecting the bed, bank, or associated riparian vegetation of the stream. If required, the project applicant shall coordinate with DFG in developing appropriate mitigation, and shall abide by the conditions of any executed permits. [See MM 4.6-7]
G.4. FEIR Mitigation Measures: Construction [in the creek itself] should occur during the summer months when, it is presumed, that fewer fish are present. This will also help reduce adverse impacts on fishery resources. [See MM 4.6-9]
G.5. Permit Condition Prior to the issuance of any construction related permit, the applicant shall submit a tree protection plan, prepared by a qualified arborist, retained by the applicant, subject to the final approval and possible change by the City Forester and the Zoning Officer. This plan shall include any grading plans and other civil engineering improvement plans, that must have been reviewed and approved by the arborist, retained by the applicant, and who must have stipulated in writing that these grading plans and other civil engineering improvements plans have incorporated all necessary measures and are of design to insure the protection and long term health of all the trees to be retained on the project site. These plans shall include but not limited to measure such as, wrapping the tree trunks with heavy boards, fencing the trees at their driplines, standards for the type of equipment and or materials that can work or be stored within the tree's driplines, standards for the extent of cut, fills and paving materials used nearby and within the drip lines of trees, maintenance or the creation of drainage patterns beneficial to the trees, the on-site relocation of one oak as proposed by the applicant and any other measures, standards or requirements determined necessary by the City Forester. During its preparation, there shall be an on-going discussion among the applicant's arborist, the City Forrester and the Zoning Officer (or his representative) of the plan's scope and detail necessary to insure the long-term health of site's trees to be preserved. [Timing: Before permit] [To be permit condition 19.]
G.6. Permit Condition During Construction, the applicant's arborist, the author of the above tree protection plan, shall inspect the site prior to the commencement of grading, prior to the commencement of construction, and prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy to insure that the provisions of the tree protection plan are in place and/or have been properly completed. Prior to the start of above construction or the issuance of a certificate of Occupancy, that arborist shall submit a report to the Zoning Officer, describing compliance with that plan. [Timing: During Construction] [To be permit condition 20.]
H. Aesthetics
H.1. FEIR Mitigation Measures: Walls constructed along the Oxford Street and Spruce Street frontages shall be no higher than 3 feet from [the adjacent sidewalk's] grade. Gates at the vehicle and pedestrian entries shall be constructed of an "open" material, such as wrought iron or tubular steel, which is consistent with the overall architectural character of the proposed buildings. At least 80 percent (80%) of these gates shall be open; a maximum of 20 percent (20%) may be comprised of a solid material. [See MM 4.8-1]
H.2. FEIR Mitigation Measures: The wall [if] required to be built at the northern property line to mitigate noise impacts on adjacent residences shall be moved to the northern property line of Berryman Path, either adjacent to or replacing the existing wooden property line fences. This will require permission from the City of Berkeley to construct the wall on City property, and may require the cooperation of adjacent property owners if removal of the existing wooden fences is proposed. [See MM 4.8-2, also see FEIR Mitigation Measure D.2 (MM 4.3-2) discussing this wall as one of two alternative mitigation implementations.]
H.3. FEIR Mitigation Measure: Lighting installed for illumination of the project site shall be low wattage, downward-directed, and shall avoid spill onto surrounding properties. Bollard-type lighting, at a height of no more than four (4) feet, shall be used to illuminate the vehicle entry driveway and main pedestrian paths. In parking areas, light standards of up to seven (7) feet in height may be used. No lighting, other than accent lighting intended to highlight architectural features, shall be allowed on the exterior of the building. Lighting at the vehicle and pedestrian access points shall be limited to that required for identification of features and safety, and shall avoid spill onto neighboring properties or public ways. [See MM 4.8-3]
H.4. Permit Condition All plans submitted for this project's building permit(s) shall have been determined by the City of Berkeley's Zoning Officer to be consistent with the following objectives (these objectives are based on the Review Committee's recommendations made at its special January 31, 2001 meeting). In making his/her determination of consistency, the Zoning Officer may solicit the comments of the Design Review Committee, a subcommittee of that Committee and/or the Committee's secretary/planning staff member and the public. [To be permit condition 21.]
Perimeter Walls/Fencing/Landscaping
Design the wall along Oxford Street to allow public views of the creek and its environment.
Remove the existing chain link fence along Berryman Path. Any replacement fence shall be of an attractive design, less than six feet in height, and shall generally afford the users of Berryman Path unobstructed views of the project site.
Diminish the appearance of the scale of the parking area by adding new trees within the parking area. Revise parking layout to avoid potential to damage (i.e., spaces within the drip line of the Oaks) the Oaks along Berryman Path.
If gabion walls are used, cor-ten wire, rather than zinc wire, shall be used for the construction of the enclosing cage.
Pursue alternative materials for permeable ground surface areas such as pine resin, grass-crete with decomposed granite or larger rock. Consider larger areas of permeable surfaces, such as decomposed granite, in place of the asphalt parking lot and driveway areas.
Eliminate chain link fence along the south property line and replace with upgrade.
Site Landscaping
The oak trees and the Monkey Puzzle tree shall be saved, but that all others trees should be evaluated as to their viability to contribute to a cohesive design.
Native vegetation shall be the landscape theme.
Continue the riparian landscape character over the culverted portion of the creek. Continue the landscape theme of Live Oak Park.
Limit ornamental planting to garden spaces only.
Building
Break down the massing of the building. Architecturally, consider ways to break up or vary the roof to assist in breaking up the mass of the building.
Vary and increase the architectural vocabulary of portions of the building according to scale and function.
Materials and Colors a. Painted stucco is preferred over integral stucco color. If redwood is used, it shall be stained, rather than painted.
H.5. Permit Condition Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant must submit preliminary landscape plans, acceptable in form and content to the Zoning Officer, which plans present the landscape concepts to be employed in the project and which concepts are to be consistent with the design objectives of Permit Condition 15. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project the applicant must have installed all the landscape elements (including landscape materials and automatic irrigation) based on a final landscape plan previously approved by the Zoning Officer as being consistent with the preliminary landscape plan. [Timing: Before Permit, Before Occupancy] [To be permit condition 22.]
H.6. Permit Condition Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall revise the plans to incorporate the following: a) The building's palette of colors and materials and the project's landscaping and property line fencing plans shall be that subsequently approved by the Design Review Committee. b) The fencing along the northerly property line shall be attractively design and provide for generally unrestricted views from Berryman path into the site. [Timing: Before Permit] [To be permit condition 23.]
H.7. Permit Condition Wherever possible, the applicant shall select and use local, native rock wherever rocks are required in the design of the Creek improvements unless such material is counter indicated by best engineering practices. Such improvement features, where such rock is to be employed, include, gabion walls and rip-rapping. [Timing: Before Permit] [To be permit condition 24.]
I. Standard construction conditions.
I.1. Permit Condition The applicant shall be responsible for identifying and securing all applicable permits from the Building and Safety Division and other affected City Divisions/Departments. [To be permit condition 25]
I.2. Permit Condition The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all the conditions contained in this Use Permit are printed on the plans submitted for building permits. [To be permit condition 26.]
I.3. Permit Condition Any proposed merger of parcels that is associated with the approval of this Use Permit must be completed prior to the issuance of a building permit. [To be permit condition 27.]
I.4. Permit Condition Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall obtain approval of any necessary address changes. [To be permit condition 28.]
I.5. Permit Condition Any new storm drains, manholes, sewer or gas lines shall conform to the specifications of and have appropriate permits from the Public Works Department. [To be permit condition 29.]
I.6. Permit Condition The applicant shall be responsible for developing plans to establish drainage patterns which will not adversely affect adjacent properties. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department at the time of submittal of the building permit application, if required by the Public Works Department. [To be permit condition 30]
I.7. Permit Condition The applicant shall be responsible for repairing any damage that may be done to streets in the project vicinity by construction vehicles and clearing streets of dirt and/or debris that might be deposited by vehicles traveling to or from the construction site. [To be permit condition 31.]
I.8. Permit Condition The applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that all excavation plans take into account surface and subsurface waters and underground streams so as not to adversely affect neighboring properties. [To be permit condition 32.]
I.9. Permit Condition If, during excavations or other construction work, water, sewer, gas or storm drains leading to adjacent properties are uncovered and/or broken, the applicant shall immediately notify the Public Works Department and the Building and Safety Division and any necessary corrective action must be carried out immediately by the applicant to the satisfaction of those City agencies. [To be permit condition 33.]
I.10. Permit Condition The Traffic Engineer shall review and approve, prior to the issuance of a building permit, a parking and access plan for all construction vehicles to ensure traffic safety and minimize parking impacts on adjacent neighbors. [To be permit condition 34.]
I.11. Permit Condition Any exterior lighting shall be directed away from adjacent residential uses. [To be permit condition 35.]
I.12. Permit Condition The applicant is responsible for complying with all the above conditions, including securing and submitting to the project planner signatures for required approvals for those conditions at the times specified. Failure to comply with any condition could result in construction work being stopped, issuance of citation, as well as further review by the Zoning Adjustments Board, which may modify or impose additional conditions, or revoke the Use Permit approval. [To be permit condition 36.]
EXHIBIT B: MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IN PDF ONLY)