response2

LOCCNA Neighborhood Committee Response to CBE Parking Management Plan dated May 10, 2005

June 6, 2005

By E-Mail and U.S. Mail

Wendy Cosin

City of Berkeley

Assistant Planning Director

2180 Milvia Street

Berkeley, California 94704

Re: LOCCNA Neighborhood Committee Response to CBE Parking Management Plan dated May 10, 2005.

Dear Ms. Cosin:

This letter presents the views of the Live Oak Codornices Creek ("LOCCNA") Neighborhood Committee, which was constituted in accordance with the agreement entered into by Congregation Beth El ("CBE") and LOCCNA, as well as other organizations in July 2001("Agreement"), by which LOCCNA withdrew its appeal to the March 2001 decision of the Zoning Appeals Board ("March 2001 ZAB decision") allowing the issuance of a Conditional Use Permit ("CUP") to CBE. We hereby respond to the parking plan recently submitted by CBE to the City of Berkeley ("Parking Plan").

In accordance with the Agreement, the City Council approved a CUP that replaced the requirements for a parking plan as set forth in the March 2001 ZAB decision. The precise wording of the Agreement was incorporated into the CUP; thus, there is no difference in the requirements of the two documents. They require that:

"The Parking Plan shall consist of a range of different parking management techniques for different size events. At a minimum the Plan shall specify such techniques for all events of 150 people or more. The Parking Plan shall employ: (i) on-site valet parking and (ii) satellite parking or other effective techniques Applicant may also use event invitation inserts to inform guests how parking management techniques will be used at such an event." CUP, Exhibit A, Paragraph 13 (emphasis added).

The Parking Plan submitted by CBE does not meet the foregoing conditions. First, the Plan has some provisions for some events, but it excludes all religious services from the events subject to the parking procedures. This is a complete contravention of the CUP and Agreement. Parking Plan, Section IV.

By comparison, the March 2001 ZAB decision required that CBE "shall provide shuttle service for the attendees of any non-religious event 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." March 2001 ZAB decision, Exhibit A., C.7. Thus, the requirements for off-site parking were changed from the March 2001 ZAB decision to the CUP by the removal of the phrase "non-religious" from the CUP and the lowering of the threshold to 150. Also, shuttle service was no longer specifically required although it may be necessary; instead, on-site valet parking and satellite parking were to be required elements of the plan.

In violation of the CUP, CBE has removed religious services from the events for which satellite and valet parking must be provided. The CUP makes no such distinction. Religious services, particularly Bar/Bat Mitzvahs were discussed at length during the negotiations, and the Agreement and CUP apply to them.

Furthermore, the CUP requires the plan to be mandatory and not optional depending on whether one particular off-site parking location is available on the day and time of the event. Yet, the Parking Plan, as it is, is voluntary. Section III, "Parking Procedures for Certain Events" provides that invitations concerning event expected to be attended by more than 150 people will "emphasize neighborhood courtesy, encourage attendees to walk, carpool or be dropped of on site and encourage potential attendees who drive to park at either St. Mary Magdalene Church on Berryman Street or the parking lot for First American Title and Gordon Commercial Real Estate ... to the extent that St. Mary Magdalene Church or the Title Company lot is made available to Beth El." Beth El must make additional plans and arrangements to satisfy this requirement for all events (both religious and non-religious) anticipated to have 150 or more people.

The CUP also requires that valet parking be utilized to increase the number of spaces available on the CBE site. Valet parking was included in the first draft of CBE's Parking Plan, as required, but has been eliminated from the final Plan.

There are many substantive problems with the proposed Plan. It relies heavily on the availability of the Magdalene for substantial parking. Practically, however, the Magdalene is not likely to be of much use. The agreement, such as it is, between CBE and the Magdalene shows no firm commitment regarding the frequency of availability. Common knowledge tells us that it will only be available on some Friday nights and Saturdays because the Magdalene is both a school and a church and used by its members on Sundays and at other times related to the needs of both the school and the church. Catholic weddings are often held on Saturdays. Thus, its availability is very limited. The Magdalene will not be available to CBE on Sundays when several events, such as KeeTov orientation, preschool orientation, the Chanukah Fair, the Purim Carnival, all of which have attendance of over 300 people, are held. The Parking Plan makes absolutely no provision for parking for these very large events. CBE also plans to hold weddings, which are usually held on Sundays, attendance at which will exceed 150. In addition, there will be other events, such as funerals and memorial services, where attendance will exceed the150 person threshold and for which the Plan has not provided. Thus, the Magdalene does not satisfy the requirements for satellite parking set forth in the CUP.

The Parking Plan also makes absolutely no provision for the High Holidays, at which the attendance is highest. These holidays, of course, fall on different days each year. If one of the Holidays is on a Saturday, the other will not be on Saturday. Again, the Magdalene is not likely to be available for High Holidays. And the plan must provide for the inevitable times on which the High Holidays are not on Saturday or Sunday.

The alternatives to the Magdalene set forth in the Parking Plan are inadequate. While the title insurance company provides a few parking spaces, if available, it is not sufficient. The Jewish Community Center as an alternative is meaningless because the JCC, as a similarly functioning institution, is used at the same times as CBE. Rather than reducing the impact of CBE, the combined effect of the two institutions will have a cumulative impact on parking in the neighborhood.

CBE has also failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the CUP. Before submitting the Plan to the City, CBE was required to "develop and complete the plan in consultation with the neighborhood residents and the City's Traffic Engineer" and to "present the plan to a scheduled meeting of the neighborhood residents for review and comment." Comments of the neighbors were to be considered before the submittal of the Plan to the City of Berkeley. CUP, Exhibit A, Paragraph 13.

In July 2004, the CBE Neighborhood Committee sent its first draft to the LOCCNA Neighborhood Committee. A meeting between the two groups was held in August 2004, at which time, the LOCCNA committee presented its concerns about the draft Plan both orally and in writing. CBE did not respond to these concerns until March 28, 2005 when a second draft was presented to the LOCCNA committee. On the afternoon of Friday, April 15, 2005, the CBE committee notified the LOCCNA committee that they had scheduled a meeting for the following Tuesday evening, April 19, at Live Oak Park where neighbors were to be given an opportunity to comment on the draft Plan. The LOCCNA committee responded that the timing was insufficient to properly notify the neighborhood and to provide copies of the draft Plan, so that a meeting of the neighborhood was simply not possible, but that members of the LOCCNA Neighborhood Committee would attend and present their comments. We did. On May 10, 2005, CBE presented us with the final Parking Plan and informed us that it had been submitted to the City for approval. There has never been an opportunity for the neighborhood, in general, to comment on the Plan as required by the CUP, nor has CBE demonstrated its willingness to be responsive or even listen to the concerns of the neighborhood.

The Parking Plan submitted by CBE constitutes a material change from the approved CUP which codifies the Agreement. Parking is one of the most controversial impacts of this project. The City, LOCCNA, and CBE invested significant resources and effort through mediation to develop an Agreement which addressed parking as well as so many other issues. Now, CBE threatens to unravel the commitments it made. The Parking Plan expressly violates the terms and conditions of the CUP, and it is also a breach of trust by CBE. The City must fully enforce the CUP and all of the terms of settlement.

The proposed Parking Plan constitutes an implicit attempt by CBE to amend the CUP. It should be rejected as not properly submitted to the City as an amendment. If CBE continues to pursue this breach, the Parking Plan must be subject to full public review and hearing by the City, to include supplemental environmental review under CEQA because its constitutes a material change which has the potential to cause significant adverse impacts upon the surrounding environment. We feel strongly that CBE should not be permitted to occupy and use the new building until there is a Parking Management Plan in place that meets the terms of the CUP. Should the City not take the necessary steps to ensure full compliance with the CUP, LOCCNA will seek enforcement as required by law.

Sincerely,

LOCCNA Neighborhood Committee

David Dempster

Alan Gould

Nancy Levin

Carole Norris

By: Fred Bauman