{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-08", "page": 1, "text": "APPROVED MEETING MINUTES\nREGULAR MEETING OF THE\nCITY OF ALAMEDA PLANNING BOARD\nMONDAY, JUNE 8, 2015\n1. CONVENE:\n7:02 P.M.\n2. FLAG SALUTE:\nBoard member Burton led the flag salute.\n3. ROLL CALL:\nPresent: President Henneberry, Vice President\nAlvarez and Board Members Burton, Knox White, and\nZuppan\nAbsent: K\u00f6ster and Tang\n4. AGENDA CHANGES AND DISCUSSION:\nAndrew Thomas, City Planner, requested that Item 9-B be moved to the\nbeginning of the hearing.\n5. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nRion Cassidy, resident, reiterated her comments from the last meeting regarding\nthe Del Monte project. She feels that the project has inadequate parking and that\nthe 1.6 parking spaces per resident will not be enough and doesn't account for\nvisitor parking.\n6. CONSENT CALENDAR: None\n9-B\nPresentation on new technologies available on the City website\nBuildingEye and Community View GIS\nAllen Tai, Planning Services Manager, gave an overview of the two new\ninteractive systems to help residents with permit and Alameda County\ninformation.\nVice President Alvarez stated that she uses the tools a lot, but asked if older\ninformation was going to be made available.\nMr. Tai stated that the older data needs to be cleaned up before it can be loaded\nonto the system.\nVice President Alvarez stated that she has heard complaints about availability of\ndata.\nMr. Thomas stated that the system has only recently been made public.\nApproved Minutes\nJune 8, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 1 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-08", "page": 2, "text": "7. REGULAR AGENDA ITEMS:\n7-A PLN15-0083 -\n2615 Buena\nVista\nAvenue\n-\nApplicant:\nMichael Hartigan. An appeal of Design Review approval to allow a\nsecond-story addition to a single-family home. The project\nconsists of an approximately 235 sq. ft. second-story addition\nabove an existing attached garage. An approximately 81 sq. ft. First-\nstory addition and second-story deck are also proposed on\nthe\nwest elevation. The proposed project is Categorically Exempt\nPursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15301 Existing Facilities.\nHenry Dong, Planner, gave a description of the project and read letters received\nfrom neighbors in support of the project.\nBoard member Zuppan question the lighting and a requirement for motion sensor\nso light turns off automatically.\nMr. Thomas stated that it is not standard, but can be conditioned.\nMichael Hartigan, Architect, stated that the addition has gone through several\niterations and he said that the appellant's drawings misrepresent the project. He\nmentioned that the windows do not line up and the distance between windows is\n14.5 feet, and the view from kitchen angled towards the front. The encroachment\nis necessary to maintain conditions.\nBoard member Burton stated that the main concern is privacy over the windows.\nHe questioned the need for the side windows with the generous bay window in\nthe front and the existing skylight which should provide ample light, possibly\nother options without windows or high windows.\nMr. Hartigan responded that they considered no windows but it does not meet\nthe aesthetic requirements for historic preservation. He mentioned that art glass\nis a possibility. He stated that they tried to minimize the windows as much as\npossible and still maintain historical proportions\nPresident Henneberry opened the public comment.\nCatherine Johnson, appellant, stated that the privacy is being compromised at\nher property 2609 Buena Vista Avenue. She also stated that the shade does\nimpact her property and the lack of privacy devalues the home. She does not\nbelieve there is enough room for the conditioned landscaping \"to provide\nadequate screening.\"\nMichael Johnson, appellant, stated that everything is small and there is no room\nfor an addition to the home.\nApproved Minutes\nJune 8, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 2 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-08", "page": 3, "text": "Mark Gillman, neighbor, spoke against the project stating that he has worked on\nmany homes and does not understand the project.\nDean Millican and Julie Hamilton, neighbors, spoke in support of the project and\nstated that they are the owners of a similar home and understand need to\nexpand the kitchen.\nLisa McDonough, applicant, stated they have owned the home since 2008 and\nsince then the family has doubled in size and the existing layout is not conducive\nto family life. The proposal will make the kitchen whole again\nDavid McDonough, applicant, stated that the existing windows create less\nprivacy than the proposed addition and said the existing layout is not conducive\nto family life. He mentioned that he spoke with rear neighbors and they support\nthe project and feel that it fits in with the neighborhood.\nStefan Janowski, neighbor, spoke in support of the project and stated that his\npurpose for speaking is to uphold property rights. He read a letter in support of\nthe project.\nPresident Henneberry closed the public comment period.\nBoard member Burton thanked everyone for their comments. He stated that in\ngeneral he is supportive of the addition as it meets the requirements, and there\nhas been an effort by owners/applicant about mitigation of the impact. Realizes\nthere will be an impact. Are not building whole length of property line + height is\nlowered. Would suggest consider (agrees with MH on reasons for having\nwindow) condition windows obscure view, but allows light and exterior\narticulation. In regards to landscaping, similar situation next door, columnar trees\nmust cast large shadow, possible to do more damage in shading than new\nbuilding. Achieve privacy but not shade neighboring house.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that she went to neighborhood and looked closely\nat the property. She acknowledges that the opinions have been sensitive but the\nproperty owners have a right to improve their property and to deny is\nencroaching on property rights. She understands the concerns of appellant, but\nis not concerned with privacy of windows, other options, pitis forum (silver sheen)\nas landscaping to use with proper landscaping. Feel project conforms to\nstandards. Can make findings needed. Okay if no landscaping. Property owner\nis getting their 2 feet back. Lights need to have a motion sensor to turn off at\nnight.\nBoard member Knox White questioned the solid screening around the deck.\nApproved Minutes\nJune 8, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 3 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-08", "page": 4, "text": "Mr. Hartigan responded that with lattice on both sides so it could not be seen\nthrough but not a single plane.\nVice President Alvarez thanked everyone for their input. She stated that the\napplicant has worked on mitigating the effects, not perfect but a compromise.\nShe agrees with light issues and the window treatments. She requested staff\nrecommend a condition of approval.\nMr. Thomas asked for clarification on the new windows.\nVice President Alvarez responded that the bottom of new windows be\ntranslucent.\nBoard member Zuppan asked Vice President Alvarez if she is okay with art glass\nVice President Alvarez stated that it is not her first option.\nMr. Tai address concerns about requiring an awning window for the breakfast\nnook, kitchen sink window stay the same.\nVice President Alvarez stated she would want them to stay same.\nBoard member Burton also would want to keep them the same.\nPresident Hennenberry does not agree with the need for translucent or privacy\nand would approve as is without the conditions.\nBoard member Zuppan moved for approval with the condition for motion sensor\nlights pointed away from the neighbor and clarified she was not including\nchanges to windows.\nBoard member Burton seconded the motion.\nMotion passed Ayes - 4 - Zuppan, Burton, Henneberry, Alvarez\nNoes - 1 - Knox White\n7-B\nPLN15-0179 - 2437 Eagle Avenue - Applicant: Housing\nAuthority of the City of Alameda. A request for approval of\nDesign Review and Density Bonus and Waivers to allow the\nconstruction of one two -story building and two three-story\nbuildings containing twenty-two residential units located at 2437\nEagle Avenue. The proposed project is exempt from the\nCalifornia Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Public\nResource Code 21159.23 Exemption for affordable low-income\nhousing and CEQA Guidelines 15332 In-fill Development Projects.\nApproved Minutes\nJune 8, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 4 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-08", "page": 5, "text": "Mr. Dong presented the staff report and explained the project.\nZuppan wanted clarification on where the notices are mailed to the owner or\ntenant.\nMr. Tai clarified that both the tenant and owner get the notice.\nBoard member Knox White asked the size of the recreation play area and the\nvision for the area.\nMr. Dong responded the size is 15x50.\nMs. Victoria Johnson, Director of Housing and Community Development, stated\nthat the play area has not been fully designed.\nMs. Johnson gave a presentation of the project.\nMs. Tze-Yan Szeto, Anne Phillips Architecture, Project Architect provided a\npresentation explaining the design selection and integrating it into the\nsurrounding neighborhood. She stated that it is a diverse neighborhood, and she\nworked with neighborhood on the design.\nBoard member Knox White asked why the trash enclosures are in the front.\nMs. Szeto stated that she worked with the Public Works Department and they\nwanted the trash enclosures directly accessible from the street.\nBoard member Knox White stated the need for greenery and open space and\nquestioned how the trade off between parking and open space made.\nMs. Szeto stated that the full landscaping is not shown in renderings, but is in the\nlandscape plans.\nBoard member Zuppan stated that she wanted clarification on landscaping.\nLuisa Howard, project landscape architect, described the project landscaping and\nstated that she wants to integrate the play areas into other landscape areas.\nMs. Szeto pointed out the storm water management bio-retention areas.\nBoard member Burton stated that he likes the bike parking, but is unclear on the\nnature of bike parking enclosure and wants clarification.\nApproved Minutes\nJune 8, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 5 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-08", "page": 6, "text": "Ms. Szeto stated that they made it central so it's used and convenient. The\nenclosure has a translucent screen, and metal mesh to maximize daylight. The\nshort term bike parking is translucent to provide site lines for residents.\nBoard member Burton questioned where the means of egress on the second\nfloor are and thinks that there is a need for a second means of egress for\nupstairs units\nMr. Tai stated that the Building Official only sees a need for a second staircase\nbetween buildings B & C but not A.\nMs. Szeto stated that it would sever the stairway.\nBoard member Zuppan referenced page A2.1 and the back of building C asking\nabout the closet opening next to electric panel.\nMs. Szeto stated that it is recessed for storage and utilities, and allow workers to\nbe off driveway, clarified it will be lit.\nOpen the public comment period\nMelanie Wartenberg, neighbor, stated she does not agree that high density\nresidential is suitable for site, and a better use is green space as the\nneighborhood is underserved. She doesn't feel the plan is open to community.\nShe stated that Edison Elementary School is already full and will only be\nburdened by project, senior or disabled housing would be preferred. Measure A\nshould be enforced. Concurs with Alameda Architectural Preservation Society\n(AAPS). City can do better affordable housing elsewhere, disenfranchised\nresidents are not served by this neighborhood.\nPatsy Paul, neighbor, does not agree with the density of the project. Wanted to\nknow about accounting that says 22 units is needed. Project does not provide\nneighborhood green space. Design is too boxy and the light colors do not match\nneighborhood\nDick Rutter, AAPS member, stated he understands the intentions of project\narchitects forced diversity but it weakens the project, articulation and color,\nadvocates simplification and not using flat roofs. Buildings are uniform, but\nporches and stairs are where articulation is.\nShane McKay, neighbor agrees with the previous speakers and feels the wedge\ncommunity is cut off by thoroughfares and currently has to leave the area for\nactivities having to cross dangerous to pedestrian streets. She feels the project\nis going to increase potential for accidents. Density should not be approved,\nproject will overshadow existing neighborhood. Advocates traffic calming\nApproved Minutes\nJune 8, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 6 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-08", "page": 7, "text": "measures in wedge neighborhood (traffic circles, enhanced crosswalks, speed\nbumps).\nSteve Aced, AAPS, strongly dislikes the architecture of the building, does not feel\nthe project imitates the surrounding neighborhood.\nNancy Gordon, resident, feels that the project is ugly. Agrees with the need for\nhousing and affordable housing, but the project does not fit in the historic\nneighborhood. It is possible to do affordable housing without high maintenance\ncosts.\nHelen Sause, Alameda Home Team, stated that the old island high site has been\na site for proposed low income housing for a long time. Feels it is a good site\nwith close proximity to amenities, diverse land uses, unique access to shopping\nand services. The site has been vacant for too long and the housing authority\nwill be good stewards, and the potential to provide housing for 22 of the 1,000+\nfamilies on the housing authority waiting list.\nChristopher Buckley, AAPS, thanked the design and development teams. He is\nconcerned with the treatment of elevations, residential infill project incorporate\nneighborhood, feels neighborhood is more residential and not like commercial\nuses on park street, Feels the building masses needlessly articulates, methods\nof breaking up bulk does not match neighborhood. Neighboring buildings are not\nattached row housing and project should be broken up. More sloped roofs, not\nenough gables, detailing is too rudimentary. Showed photos of an affordable\nhousing project in Hercules.\nDoree Miles, neighbor, is a long time resident of the area and presented photos\nof residential the buildings in neighborhood. She stated that parking is an issue\nbecause some houses don't have driveways, also most of the residential\nbuildings are not flat roofs, would like to see lower density and green open\nspace, play yard not realistic, parking does not accommodate residents, been\ninvolved in design process and does not feel neighborhood feedback has been\nheeded, agrees with previous speakers and endorses Victorian style new homes\nat lower density.\nClosed the public comment period\nBoard member Burton stated he is supportive of the concept of the project, he\nunderstands the neighbors call for a closer to parks, and he likes the access to\npublic transit, Nob Hill grocery store only two blocks away, walkable to Park\nStreet, to other schools and hopes housing authority would assist, feels it's a\ngood application with density bonus. Not supportive of current design and layout,\ndoes not like the amount of green space, concerns over the trash enclosure feel\nthey need to be sensitive of what neighbors across the street are exposed to,\nconcern with egress and building safety, likes the bike storage material and\nApproved Minutes\nJune 8, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 7 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-08", "page": 8, "text": "concept, possible to do modern design to fit in with neighborhood, feels\narchitecture is drab and underdeveloped, better proportions or details, breaking\nup form with change in colors is not acceptable, feels it needs to be worked on.\nBoard member Zuppan stated she appreciated the community hearings and\ncommunity input. She does not like the back wall and conflict of driveway next to\nresidential use, she feels the project is too walled in, feels the Everett Street\nelevation is not good enough. She raised several issues in the neighborhood\nincluding the towing company noise violations, auto shops and speeding. She\nmentioned that the State law does not make density discretionary. Existing\naffordable housing projects do not use up all parking, would be on board with\nreduction to increase green space, Wanted clarification on what is ADA\naccessible, got clarification from Victoria Johnson that only ground floors. In\nsupport of Christopher Buckley's comments that a single architectural style\nshould be used, particular attention to window recess and massing.\nBoard member Knox White stated he agrees with fellow board members and is\nokay with modern architecture, but if a historic style is needed maybe possible to\nhave two different styles for individual buildings, he mentioned that the project\nsite was considered during North Park Street rezoning. Also the Density Bonus\nOrdinance is necessary to make projects work. Does not like the extra driveway\nfor trash enclosure, in commercial projects they are hidden not put in the front of\nthe street. Agrees with fellow board members about lack of play space, had\nhoped open space would have a greater community benefit, feels the current\ndesign is not conducive to use, small but usable places is possible, thinks traffic\ncircle is possible at sit, and cited past problems in upkeep from neighbors.\nVice President Alvarez stated that she doesn't feel the site is appropriate being\nnext to two heavily traveled streets but that the space had already been\ndedicated for affordable housing, Her only problem is the architecture, does not\ncare for it and thinks the architecture needs to go back to drawing board. She\ndoes not advocate for a modern look, recommends housing authority work with\nAAPS and neighborhood on the design. She stated that she can't approve the\nproject because of the architecture, does not like trash enclosure and Everett\nStreet elevations.\nPresident Henneberry stated that he agrees with the other board members, is a\nproponent of affordable housing but thinks project needs more work.\nApproved Minutes\nJune 8, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 8 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf"}
{"body": "PlanningBoard", "date": "2015-06-08", "page": 9, "text": "7-C\nPLN14-0305 - 2350 Harbor Bay Parkway - Applicant: Mina Patel. The\napplicant requests approval of Final Development Plan and\nDesign Review to allow the construction of a 99-room, five-story\nhotel. This project is exempt from the California Environmental\nQuality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 -\nInfill Development Projects. The applicant is requesting a\ncontinuance to the meeting of June 22, 2015\n8\nMINUTES\n9\nSTAFF COMMUNICATIONS\n9-A\nZoning Administrator and Design Review Recent Actions and Decisions -\nMr. Thomas provided the report\nBoard member Zuppan requested clarification on approval of the Use Permit for\nthe Churchward Bar. Staff reported it was an expansion into the second story\nand that the Police requested conditions be placed on the establishment to\naddress existing nuisance issues.\n10\nWRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS-None\n11\nBOARD COMMUNICATIONS:\nBoard member Burton stated that he will be out of town for both meetings in July.\n12\nORAL COMMUNICATIONS:\nNone\n13\nADJOURNMENT\n10:24 p.m.\nApproved Minutes\nJune 8, 2015\nPlanning Board Meeting\nPage 9 of 9", "path": "PlanningBoard/2015-06-08.pdf"}