body,date,page,text,path
PlanningBoard,2015-06-08,1,"APPROVED MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING OF THE
CITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD
MONDAY, JUNE 8, 2015
1. CONVENE:
7:02 P.M.
2. FLAG SALUTE:
Board member Burton led the flag salute.
3. ROLL CALL:
Present: President Henneberry, Vice President
Alvarez and Board Members Burton, Knox White, and
Zuppan
Absent: Köster and Tang
4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:
Andrew Thomas, City Planner, requested that Item 9-B be moved to the
beginning of the hearing.
5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
Rion Cassidy, resident, reiterated her comments from the last meeting regarding
the Del Monte project. She feels that the project has inadequate parking and that
the 1.6 parking spaces per resident will not be enough and doesn't account for
visitor parking.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
9-B
Presentation on new technologies available on the City website
BuildingEye and Community View GIS
Allen Tai, Planning Services Manager, gave an overview of the two new
interactive systems to help residents with permit and Alameda County
information.
Vice President Alvarez stated that she uses the tools a lot, but asked if older
information was going to be made available.
Mr. Tai stated that the older data needs to be cleaned up before it can be loaded
onto the system.
Vice President Alvarez stated that she has heard complaints about availability of
data.
Mr. Thomas stated that the system has only recently been made public.
Approved Minutes
June 8, 2015
Planning Board Meeting
Page 1 of 9",PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-06-08,2,"7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:
7-A PLN15-0083 -
2615 Buena
Vista
Avenue
-
Applicant:
Michael Hartigan. An appeal of Design Review approval to allow a
second-story addition to a single-family home. The project
consists of an approximately 235 sq. ft. second-story addition
above an existing attached garage. An approximately 81 sq. ft. First-
story addition and second-story deck are also proposed on
the
west elevation. The proposed project is Categorically Exempt
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15301 Existing Facilities.
Henry Dong, Planner, gave a description of the project and read letters received
from neighbors in support of the project.
Board member Zuppan question the lighting and a requirement for motion sensor
so light turns off automatically.
Mr. Thomas stated that it is not standard, but can be conditioned.
Michael Hartigan, Architect, stated that the addition has gone through several
iterations and he said that the appellant's drawings misrepresent the project. He
mentioned that the windows do not line up and the distance between windows is
14.5 feet, and the view from kitchen angled towards the front. The encroachment
is necessary to maintain conditions.
Board member Burton stated that the main concern is privacy over the windows.
He questioned the need for the side windows with the generous bay window in
the front and the existing skylight which should provide ample light, possibly
other options without windows or high windows.
Mr. Hartigan responded that they considered no windows but it does not meet
the aesthetic requirements for historic preservation. He mentioned that art glass
is a possibility. He stated that they tried to minimize the windows as much as
possible and still maintain historical proportions
President Henneberry opened the public comment.
Catherine Johnson, appellant, stated that the privacy is being compromised at
her property 2609 Buena Vista Avenue. She also stated that the shade does
impact her property and the lack of privacy devalues the home. She does not
believe there is enough room for the conditioned landscaping ""to provide
adequate screening.""
Michael Johnson, appellant, stated that everything is small and there is no room
for an addition to the home.
Approved Minutes
June 8, 2015
Planning Board Meeting
Page 2 of 9",PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-06-08,3,"Mark Gillman, neighbor, spoke against the project stating that he has worked on
many homes and does not understand the project.
Dean Millican and Julie Hamilton, neighbors, spoke in support of the project and
stated that they are the owners of a similar home and understand need to
expand the kitchen.
Lisa McDonough, applicant, stated they have owned the home since 2008 and
since then the family has doubled in size and the existing layout is not conducive
to family life. The proposal will make the kitchen whole again
David McDonough, applicant, stated that the existing windows create less
privacy than the proposed addition and said the existing layout is not conducive
to family life. He mentioned that he spoke with rear neighbors and they support
the project and feel that it fits in with the neighborhood.
Stefan Janowski, neighbor, spoke in support of the project and stated that his
purpose for speaking is to uphold property rights. He read a letter in support of
the project.
President Henneberry closed the public comment period.
Board member Burton thanked everyone for their comments. He stated that in
general he is supportive of the addition as it meets the requirements, and there
has been an effort by owners/applicant about mitigation of the impact. Realizes
there will be an impact. Are not building whole length of property line + height is
lowered. Would suggest consider (agrees with MH on reasons for having
window) condition windows obscure view, but allows light and exterior
articulation. In regards to landscaping, similar situation next door, columnar trees
must cast large shadow, possible to do more damage in shading than new
building. Achieve privacy but not shade neighboring house.
Board member Zuppan stated that she went to neighborhood and looked closely
at the property. She acknowledges that the opinions have been sensitive but the
property owners have a right to improve their property and to deny is
encroaching on property rights. She understands the concerns of appellant, but
is not concerned with privacy of windows, other options, pitis forum (silver sheen)
as landscaping to use with proper landscaping. Feel project conforms to
standards. Can make findings needed. Okay if no landscaping. Property owner
is getting their 2 feet back. Lights need to have a motion sensor to turn off at
night.
Board member Knox White questioned the solid screening around the deck.
Approved Minutes
June 8, 2015
Planning Board Meeting
Page 3 of 9",PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-06-08,4,"Mr. Hartigan responded that with lattice on both sides so it could not be seen
through but not a single plane.
Vice President Alvarez thanked everyone for their input. She stated that the
applicant has worked on mitigating the effects, not perfect but a compromise.
She agrees with light issues and the window treatments. She requested staff
recommend a condition of approval.
Mr. Thomas asked for clarification on the new windows.
Vice President Alvarez responded that the bottom of new windows be
translucent.
Board member Zuppan asked Vice President Alvarez if she is okay with art glass
Vice President Alvarez stated that it is not her first option.
Mr. Tai address concerns about requiring an awning window for the breakfast
nook, kitchen sink window stay the same.
Vice President Alvarez stated she would want them to stay same.
Board member Burton also would want to keep them the same.
President Hennenberry does not agree with the need for translucent or privacy
and would approve as is without the conditions.
Board member Zuppan moved for approval with the condition for motion sensor
lights pointed away from the neighbor and clarified she was not including
changes to windows.
Board member Burton seconded the motion.
Motion passed Ayes - 4 - Zuppan, Burton, Henneberry, Alvarez
Noes - 1 - Knox White
7-B
PLN15-0179 - 2437 Eagle Avenue - Applicant: Housing
Authority of the City of Alameda. A request for approval of
Design Review and Density Bonus and Waivers to allow the
construction of one two -story building and two three-story
buildings containing twenty-two residential units located at 2437
Eagle Avenue. The proposed project is exempt from the
California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public
Resource Code 21159.23 Exemption for affordable low-income
housing and CEQA Guidelines 15332 In-fill Development Projects.
Approved Minutes
June 8, 2015
Planning Board Meeting
Page 4 of 9",PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-06-08,5,"Mr. Dong presented the staff report and explained the project.
Zuppan wanted clarification on where the notices are mailed to the owner or
tenant.
Mr. Tai clarified that both the tenant and owner get the notice.
Board member Knox White asked the size of the recreation play area and the
vision for the area.
Mr. Dong responded the size is 15x50.
Ms. Victoria Johnson, Director of Housing and Community Development, stated
that the play area has not been fully designed.
Ms. Johnson gave a presentation of the project.
Ms. Tze-Yan Szeto, Anne Phillips Architecture, Project Architect provided a
presentation explaining the design selection and integrating it into the
surrounding neighborhood. She stated that it is a diverse neighborhood, and she
worked with neighborhood on the design.
Board member Knox White asked why the trash enclosures are in the front.
Ms. Szeto stated that she worked with the Public Works Department and they
wanted the trash enclosures directly accessible from the street.
Board member Knox White stated the need for greenery and open space and
questioned how the trade off between parking and open space made.
Ms. Szeto stated that the full landscaping is not shown in renderings, but is in the
landscape plans.
Board member Zuppan stated that she wanted clarification on landscaping.
Luisa Howard, project landscape architect, described the project landscaping and
stated that she wants to integrate the play areas into other landscape areas.
Ms. Szeto pointed out the storm water management bio-retention areas.
Board member Burton stated that he likes the bike parking, but is unclear on the
nature of bike parking enclosure and wants clarification.
Approved Minutes
June 8, 2015
Planning Board Meeting
Page 5 of 9",PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-06-08,6,"Ms. Szeto stated that they made it central so it's used and convenient. The
enclosure has a translucent screen, and metal mesh to maximize daylight. The
short term bike parking is translucent to provide site lines for residents.
Board member Burton questioned where the means of egress on the second
floor are and thinks that there is a need for a second means of egress for
upstairs units
Mr. Tai stated that the Building Official only sees a need for a second staircase
between buildings B & C but not A.
Ms. Szeto stated that it would sever the stairway.
Board member Zuppan referenced page A2.1 and the back of building C asking
about the closet opening next to electric panel.
Ms. Szeto stated that it is recessed for storage and utilities, and allow workers to
be off driveway, clarified it will be lit.
Open the public comment period
Melanie Wartenberg, neighbor, stated she does not agree that high density
residential is suitable for site, and a better use is green space as the
neighborhood is underserved. She doesn't feel the plan is open to community.
She stated that Edison Elementary School is already full and will only be
burdened by project, senior or disabled housing would be preferred. Measure A
should be enforced. Concurs with Alameda Architectural Preservation Society
(AAPS). City can do better affordable housing elsewhere, disenfranchised
residents are not served by this neighborhood.
Patsy Paul, neighbor, does not agree with the density of the project. Wanted to
know about accounting that says 22 units is needed. Project does not provide
neighborhood green space. Design is too boxy and the light colors do not match
neighborhood
Dick Rutter, AAPS member, stated he understands the intentions of project
architects forced diversity but it weakens the project, articulation and color,
advocates simplification and not using flat roofs. Buildings are uniform, but
porches and stairs are where articulation is.
Shane McKay, neighbor agrees with the previous speakers and feels the wedge
community is cut off by thoroughfares and currently has to leave the area for
activities having to cross dangerous to pedestrian streets. She feels the project
is going to increase potential for accidents. Density should not be approved,
project will overshadow existing neighborhood. Advocates traffic calming
Approved Minutes
June 8, 2015
Planning Board Meeting
Page 6 of 9",PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-06-08,7,"measures in wedge neighborhood (traffic circles, enhanced crosswalks, speed
bumps).
Steve Aced, AAPS, strongly dislikes the architecture of the building, does not feel
the project imitates the surrounding neighborhood.
Nancy Gordon, resident, feels that the project is ugly. Agrees with the need for
housing and affordable housing, but the project does not fit in the historic
neighborhood. It is possible to do affordable housing without high maintenance
costs.
Helen Sause, Alameda Home Team, stated that the old island high site has been
a site for proposed low income housing for a long time. Feels it is a good site
with close proximity to amenities, diverse land uses, unique access to shopping
and services. The site has been vacant for too long and the housing authority
will be good stewards, and the potential to provide housing for 22 of the 1,000+
families on the housing authority waiting list.
Christopher Buckley, AAPS, thanked the design and development teams. He is
concerned with the treatment of elevations, residential infill project incorporate
neighborhood, feels neighborhood is more residential and not like commercial
uses on park street, Feels the building masses needlessly articulates, methods
of breaking up bulk does not match neighborhood. Neighboring buildings are not
attached row housing and project should be broken up. More sloped roofs, not
enough gables, detailing is too rudimentary. Showed photos of an affordable
housing project in Hercules.
Doree Miles, neighbor, is a long time resident of the area and presented photos
of residential the buildings in neighborhood. She stated that parking is an issue
because some houses don't have driveways, also most of the residential
buildings are not flat roofs, would like to see lower density and green open
space, play yard not realistic, parking does not accommodate residents, been
involved in design process and does not feel neighborhood feedback has been
heeded, agrees with previous speakers and endorses Victorian style new homes
at lower density.
Closed the public comment period
Board member Burton stated he is supportive of the concept of the project, he
understands the neighbors call for a closer to parks, and he likes the access to
public transit, Nob Hill grocery store only two blocks away, walkable to Park
Street, to other schools and hopes housing authority would assist, feels it's a
good application with density bonus. Not supportive of current design and layout,
does not like the amount of green space, concerns over the trash enclosure feel
they need to be sensitive of what neighbors across the street are exposed to,
concern with egress and building safety, likes the bike storage material and
Approved Minutes
June 8, 2015
Planning Board Meeting
Page 7 of 9",PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-06-08,8,"concept, possible to do modern design to fit in with neighborhood, feels
architecture is drab and underdeveloped, better proportions or details, breaking
up form with change in colors is not acceptable, feels it needs to be worked on.
Board member Zuppan stated she appreciated the community hearings and
community input. She does not like the back wall and conflict of driveway next to
residential use, she feels the project is too walled in, feels the Everett Street
elevation is not good enough. She raised several issues in the neighborhood
including the towing company noise violations, auto shops and speeding. She
mentioned that the State law does not make density discretionary. Existing
affordable housing projects do not use up all parking, would be on board with
reduction to increase green space, Wanted clarification on what is ADA
accessible, got clarification from Victoria Johnson that only ground floors. In
support of Christopher Buckley's comments that a single architectural style
should be used, particular attention to window recess and massing.
Board member Knox White stated he agrees with fellow board members and is
okay with modern architecture, but if a historic style is needed maybe possible to
have two different styles for individual buildings, he mentioned that the project
site was considered during North Park Street rezoning. Also the Density Bonus
Ordinance is necessary to make projects work. Does not like the extra driveway
for trash enclosure, in commercial projects they are hidden not put in the front of
the street. Agrees with fellow board members about lack of play space, had
hoped open space would have a greater community benefit, feels the current
design is not conducive to use, small but usable places is possible, thinks traffic
circle is possible at sit, and cited past problems in upkeep from neighbors.
Vice President Alvarez stated that she doesn't feel the site is appropriate being
next to two heavily traveled streets but that the space had already been
dedicated for affordable housing, Her only problem is the architecture, does not
care for it and thinks the architecture needs to go back to drawing board. She
does not advocate for a modern look, recommends housing authority work with
AAPS and neighborhood on the design. She stated that she can't approve the
project because of the architecture, does not like trash enclosure and Everett
Street elevations.
President Henneberry stated that he agrees with the other board members, is a
proponent of affordable housing but thinks project needs more work.
Approved Minutes
June 8, 2015
Planning Board Meeting
Page 8 of 9",PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf
PlanningBoard,2015-06-08,9,"7-C
PLN14-0305 - 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway - Applicant: Mina Patel. The
applicant requests approval of Final Development Plan and
Design Review to allow the construction of a 99-room, five-story
hotel. This project is exempt from the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 -
Infill Development Projects. The applicant is requesting a
continuance to the meeting of June 22, 2015
8
MINUTES
9
STAFF COMMUNICATIONS
9-A
Zoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions -
Mr. Thomas provided the report
Board member Zuppan requested clarification on approval of the Use Permit for
the Churchward Bar. Staff reported it was an expansion into the second story
and that the Police requested conditions be placed on the establishment to
address existing nuisance issues.
10
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS-None
11
BOARD COMMUNICATIONS:
Board member Burton stated that he will be out of town for both meetings in July.
12
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:
None
13
ADJOURNMENT
10:24 p.m.
Approved Minutes
June 8, 2015
Planning Board Meeting
Page 9 of 9",PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf