Loading...
2006-09-05 Submittalsr- .L).l.. MUN. MAl I —MLL N 2094185.421 E 6060298.837 MON. "MAIT -FIT - N 2093035.257 E 6061023.021 R= 355.00 L= 53'47'59" L= 209.42 k" 0 CITY OF ALAMEDA P;<5245PG203 N PARC: 11 MAP NAIV F? AND CE.RTIFICATE OF CDi\JIPLLA1\'Cr Di.-3713-.13D4 CITY OF 411 A i1 Al 25,101 sq.ft. 26,907 sq.ft. PARCH ll 3 PM 5504 MB. 34 -51 TP.OB. PARCEL 4 PM 5504 A :34-51 GRAPHIC SCALE 50 100 200 PARCEL 5 PM.4013 Ate. 135-5 300 IN FEET NOTE: 1 INCH = 100 FT. This map is based on NAD 83, C90, which is filed in Book 18 All distances shown hereon are Ground distances. PORT OF OAKLAND CITY OF Al ' MEDA PARCEL i 2 PM 7025 Ate. 932-95 PARCEL 109 -2 1984 adjustment, published in 1986, as shown on Record of Surve of Records of Survey at pages 50 -60. Alameda County Records. grid distances. Multiply grid distances by 1.0000707 to convert t DRAWN BY: OCV 1 CHECKED ]Y: cm 1 AT ACi4MENTS: 1 FILE LOC.> 106305.cic \olct105- 2_Revl !DATE: 4 -24 -00 °OP.T OF OAKLAND LAND SURVEYS AND MAPPLNG 530 Water Streit Oakland, Ccliromia SUPPLEMENT TO APPLICATION Attachment to Ordinance provided - by staff at the 09 -05 -06 Council 7 Meeting - Re: Agenda Item 4 -K Area to be re: CITY OF A: SCALE: 1 -= 100' Wrk. Ord: 605022 The ALAMEDA AR,auTEcIW.L Preservation Society September 4, 2006 (By Electronic Transmission) Mayor and City Council 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, California 94501 Subject: — Certificate of Approval for Partial Demolition of 1530 -32 9th Street — Appeal of Denial by Historical Advisory Board Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers: Although the Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) does not oppose issuance of the Certificate of Approval, we would like to recommend several clarifications and minor revisions for the treatment of the front two buildings: 1. Reconfigure right building's (1530 9th Street) front walkways. As stated in our July 24th, 2006 letter to the Historical Advisory Board (HAB) attached to the staff report, the proposed walkways seem unnecessarily convoluted, resulting in multiple retaining walls, fragmentary and somewhat awkward grade relationships and requiring the base of the main entry stairs to the upper unit to be below surrounding grade and probably not visible from the street. In our July 24th letter, we suggested that a better approach would be to provide a walkway along the south property line (requiring an opening in the existing retaining wall along the front property line) that would be approximately at the same grade as the public sidewalk (i.e. below the raised grade of the front yards) and would lead directly to the lower unit. (See sketch attached to the July 24th letter.) As noted in Item 1, Page 2 of the staff report, Development Services staff considers our July 24th alternative to be less satisfactory because it would "add hardscape and eliminate lawn and planting beds ". As a second alternative, AAPS suggests that the existing front walkway leading from the street to the upper unit's main stairs be retained (with elimination of the step at the front property line to allow wheelchair access), with a side walkway to the right leading from the base of the stairs to the lower unit and following a P.O. Box 1677 Alameda, CA 94501 510 -986 -9232 Re: Agenda Item #5 -A 9 -5 -06 similar path as now proposed by the applicant (see attached "Alternative 2" sketch). This second alternative is very similar to the existing layout. AAPS therefore requests Council to direct staff, as part of staff's Design Review of the proposal, to consider this as well as other alternative walkway layouts that do not visually block the base of the entry stairs with retaining walls or changes of grade. 2. Ensure that any replacement of missing trim on the front elevations is consistent with the "shadows" of the missing trim and the buildings' architectural style. After the existing asbestos shingles are removed, the original siding will probably be revealed with "shadows" or unpainted silhouettes of the missing trim. Since the applicant has decided to remove the shingles and install new trim but without doing a full restoration (note that in our July 24th letter we suggested the alternative of keeping the existing shingles to allow for an accurate restoration at a later time), the project needs to conform with Page 48 of the City's "Guide to Residential Design" which calls for the work to "at least bring the building into closer conformity with its original or historic appearance and involve no further damage to surviving architecturally important elements ". To achieve such closer conformity, the new trim should follow the outlines of the missing trim as indicated by the shadows, e.g. where the shadows indicate a 1"x 6" trim piece, a 1"x 6" should be installed rather than a 1"x 4" trim piece. The shadows will usually indicate only the two "flat" dimensions (length and width) of the missing trim, but usually not the thickness or projecting profile (the third dimension). AAPS expects that the shadow pattern will maintain the trim pattern of the two neighboring residences at 1430 -32 9th Street, which were constructed by the same builder, C.A. Brown, as the subject buildings and which may have been exact duplicates (see photos attached to AAPS's July 24th letter). If the shadow pattern matches the 1430 -32 9th Street pattern, AAPS recommends as a first choice that the projecting. profiles of the missing trim match the corresponding trim of 1430 -32 9t Street. However, if the project budget does not allow reproduction of the 1430 -32 9th Street profiles, the forms and massing of the new trim should at least be similar to the corresponding trim on 1430 -32 9th Street or on other Alameda buildings with the same architectural style. 3. Replicate the side elevation frieze on the front elevation. It is very likely that the frieze under the roof along the unaltered side elevations of the two buildings extended around the front elevation except on the bay window. If the shadows confirm this, the front elevation frieze should match exactly the existing side elevation frieze. 4. Ensure that replacement of any other missing original elements are consistent with the buildings' architectural style. Other missing original 2 elements to be replaced, such as porch columns and the porch railing, should either match the corresponding elements at 1430 -32 9th Street or have form and massing consistent with the 1430 -32 9th Street elements or those of other Alameda buildings with the same architectural style. We have discussed the approach described in Items 2, 3 and 4 with Development Services staff and believe that staff supports this approach. We therefore request that the City Council endorse this approach and direct staff to allow AAPS and other interested parties to review and comment on the design as based on the shadows, including the elevation and section details referred to in Item 4 of the draft City Council resolution, and for any resulting comments to be considered by staff prior to staff's Design Review decision. Note: Item 3 on page 2 of the staff report describes a recommendation in AAPS's July 24th letter as "Retain hardboard (emphasis added) siding whenever possible ", which is incorrect. Our recommendation was to "Retain existing (emphasis added) siding (which is probably old growth clear heart redwood) whenever possible" and to clearly show on the plans where existing siding will be replaced (which the current plans do not show). Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 523 -0411 or cbuckley @alamedanet.net if you have questions or would like to discuss these comments. Si Christoph:i Buckley, Preservatio i Action Co m ee Attachment: "Alternative 2" site plan for 1530 9th Street showing revise. walkway Layout that avoids visually blocking the main entry stairs. (Supplements revised site plan attached to AAPS's 7 -24 -06 letter to the HAB.) cc: AAP S Board and Preservation Action Committee members (By electronic transmission) Cathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director (By electronic transmission) Andrew Thomas, Planning Manager (By electronic transmission) Cynthia Eliason, Supervising Planner (By electronic transmission) Miriam Delagrange, Development Services Department (By electronic transmission) 3 . -. ... .r� 2 µ, .... t4 of 1! • ( , cri 1L-4± a -f 'q i'2 R ties C.(NZEJ W _ <v) DPWS T41 RF.Mbi14 te C.O 4C PRvR , r w S cr U 0 0 a x ce 0 m z 0 a 0 z w 0 cc 0 0 z WINDOWS. NOTICE HOW MANY POINTS LINE UP ALONG THE TIONS OF DOORS AND OF VISUAL AGREEMENT PLEASES THE HUMAN MIND. (J. H. KUNSTLER) 54 a C) O u a a U .s c c , `" a v a -o a a E • o 0 C ac w 0 a v o •: G o v o � -b cu v ,, as 0 Q a 7 a 0, a ' 3 .3a a 6. a 5 p 3 y 3 U R v 1.-.., sn 1.-.., h i 7 O O w c a - on G a m m a 2 O , O i - a p 7 I 4-.1 TS 0 U on `" O F a 0 ,a; ,1.1.9.- 0 0 "C p T J oD "O U uo O O E Li -0 O n � U �"O O a L Cn ^tU .0 .-a U U U a v a (-4 o ,-, a y c U 'Q fs .� 9 a w N ) h tTl � TO t > a ° L 0 u 3 n O 'U !' u p.o ..0 cn .�0 ' u C C 'O : a co .L u a U La. U rn U h .O .1-, a G O I.. 3 „ . N O U p U I-. -[ G L o 3 u v „, In ` H MS . on a a F” ON v -0 � ° w O MI s M 0 O Nv as L O a Q . s . O v c a ?3 g 0 a a oi C 0 u= u >~ o . o- . a h co o • 2 w O 0 = > a , a) T 0 N 1.-2, a) On I." s. O O w U a U O cu r L m a O ' ' m �y t U 0 0 >. E v U Q U _ � ° a)wy , U 0 p ao ti a; 0 u o . a a) on — C •- E L � p ao ca ca C m O u 3 � aW N - v> ro 'b t ° O U (XJ y w a) 4 m G u i a a -• E ) o -C U a u a = a o> o .c - 41 v z 0 a op aai v 0 a 0 a —a O a a rm p 3 a as a, ✓ a) 0 °° ca U U U -� F. a) v ,_, U- O u U UP.. a) °• V c. F. U O 0 ..O U a, a tap ,y' .0 w - Q 'i o ,�. 0, O ." w O w O �. Q u O v> v u .<7,. o a ° o tiuC° 3 x o 3 L POSTWAR HOUSEBURGER, THE INVISIBLE DIAGONALS DO A POOR JOB OF z REGULATING PROPORTIONS. THE MIND IS SUBCONSCIOUSLY DISTURBED BY THE U VISUAL AGREEMENT. (J. H. KUNSTLER) 0 a d —" 1 co H L 5 7 6. 0 I.• a O0 co U -0 r) a) al a anx cu cn 0 7 v pa U 3 U ° a .� o o N h L 0 .-0 a. O co G n '- O " O co f.n CC/ aJ u as 4. U ,� U 0 c.., .,C . U CU L C pn 8. a) L aJ 0 3 x *Beauty: Value of Values, by Frederick Turner. (Charlottesville: University of Virginia N 0 M O • ••w•� . r— j ,.,te e I . 'IL -•;1111 ill ' lel `111•f• a Sri . .._ -. �._ . lb. sr , _- - • 1 111 its 4 Elizabeth Acord; Solar permit fees in Alameda Page 1 From: Kurt Newick <KurtNewick©yahoo.com> To: <Iweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us> Date: 9/5/2006 3:38:02 PM Subject: Solar permit fees in Alameda Good Day: I'd like to express my personal support to Alameda in moving to a fixed solar permit fee for residential applications of solar electric system installations. As I understand, Alameda will be changing the solar permit fee computation method to go to a fixed fee that will be the same no matter what the value or size is for a residential solar electric system. The Sierra Club, (SF Bay and Loma Prieta Chapters) have done a survey of what each city charges and have learned that it takes about 2 to 4 hours to process a permit for cities experienced in this (could be more for cities who have not done a solar electric system before or who are inexperienced with the process). The Sierra Club thus is recommending a fee of no more than $300. Some cities have waived fees for solar permits (Los Altos Hills, San Carlos, so far and others are considering waiving fees this week: Sausalito, Fairfax and now Piedmont for certain systems). I've been told that staff is recommending a fixed fee of $516 for Alameda. Based on the number of installations that Alameda does each year (2 or so), this may be the correct amount at this time to recover costs. I'd like to suggest a $300 fee (or less), since the Sierra Club study recommends this, and this level will not discourage solar. What ever the final fee amount $0, $300 or $516, as long as it is a fixed fee for all sizes it is a step in the right direction and better than the current fee of $735. Thanks for addressing this issue! I look forward to learning what the solar permit fee will be and again I sincerely appreciate all of your efforts to help support solar energy in Alameda! Here is an article I wrote with some details related to this: Permitting Solar in California By Kurt Newick, 8/29/06 One million roofs in California will be put to good use, generating 3,000 MW of solar power over the next decade, thanks to a new solar initiative signed into law in August 2006 by Governor Schwarzenegger. To achieve this goal $3.2 billion in incentives are budgeted to bring solar energy into the mainstream. This solar program is good public policy to help reduce peak electricity demand and usher in a new area of clean renewable energy. Since many locales in California have abundant solar irradiance (peak sun fall averages 5.4 hours a day in many locations), this plentiful solar energy source will be increasingly utilized. Solar energy applications are growing for a variety of additional reasons: escalating electricity prices, dwindling fossil fuel reserves, environmental concerns, long term financial incentives, technology improvements and public awareness. As a result, solar energy installations will flourish into the foreseeable future. Processing a solar permit and doing the inspection takes a couple of Re: Agenda Item #5 -B 9 -5 -06 Elizabeth Acord - Solar permit fees in Alameda hours for Cities experienced in this area. The City of San Jose has developed an over - the - counter process using a permit submittal checklist that streamlines the permit process for flush mounted, roof -top solar electric arrays that works well for professional solar installers and the City itself. There are mechanical and electrical aspects in the solar permitting process. Since photovoltaic (PV) panels are Tight, compared to solar hot water panels, the mechanical part can be treated similar to a re -roof, as residential roofs are designed to hold the weight of a PV array, which is similar to a layer of composite roof shingles (PV arrays usually weigh about 2.8 Ibs /sq. ft.). The electrical portion requires a more in -depth review to insure NEC code compliance. This is where a checklist comes in handy to insure the electrical portion of the plan check and inspection is done quickly and accurately. The City of Rohnert Park has on -line downloadable PDF documents related to solar permits that may be of interest. Available are a PV installer /inspector checklist document (same detail checklist that San Jose uses) and a PV residential system permit submittal sample document: http: / /www.rpcity.org /services /bhandouts.cfm. Cities are prohibited from using permit fees as a source of revenue according to California Government Code section 66005(a) "[development permit] fees or exactions shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service... ". A solar rights act law written by Assemblymember Lois Wolk, took effect January 1, 2005. It prohibits solar energy system plan reviews for aesthetic concerns as well as requiring minimum solar permit fees. Wolk sent an email letter to all California city and county head planners and attorneys on June 7, 2006 to inform permitting agencies of this development (insert hyperlink to Wolk's letter here). Utilizing solar energy is the right thing to do. Building departments can do their part by improving the permitting process and adjusting permit fees accordingly. Solar permit fees of between $200 to $300 seem to be the norm for cities experienced with the solar electric system permitting process. Attached is the most recent solar fee ranking chart for your local area. Warm regards, Kurt Newick Global Warming Committee, Loma Prieta Chapter, Sierra Club 649 Weston Drive Campbell, CA 95008 phone: 408 - 370 -9636 cell: 408 - 761 -2029 CC: Greg McFann <GMCFANN @ci.alameda.ca.us> Page 2 AVERAGE Mill Valley Tiburon Pleasant Hill Walnut Creek Belvedere San Anselmo San Francisco San Pablo Ross Albany Marin County Contra Costa County Oakland Pleasanton Novato Solar Electric Permit Fees for North /East S.F. Bay Area as of 8/30/2006 $3 11 $35 r $55 — $65 MI $73 MIMI $80 MEM $85 MIIM $93 $12 183 $190 $195 $199 $200 $209 Clayton _ $230 Pittsburg _ $250 Orinda_ $250 Moraga $250 Lafayette $250 Brentwood _ $250 Berkeley _ $261 Newark $267 Livermore _ San Ramon Martinez San Rafael San Leandro Alameda County Piedmont Pinole Sausalito Concord Oakley Corte Madera Emeryville Antioch City of Alameda Richmond Dublin Fairfax Larkspur El Ceritto Danville Fremont Hercules Hayward Union City $280 $285 1 $303 I $419 I x$386 I $430 1 $458 I $5 I$5 1$5 /$0 -300 08301-500 O $501-700 ® $701-900 18901+ 2* fees likely $600 I $650 I $660 I $674 1 $690 1 $690* $73 $74 be 0$ 776* fees likely to be $0 $813 $840* $850* $850* $894 $0 $200 * Under Review $400 $600 $800 $1,000* $1,074* $1,200 $1,000