Loading...
2007-01-02 SubmittalsThe 1(k A Pi-Fi s���rr fa lti�y, {may HI TT; Gil < 1\L Preservation Society January 2, 2007 (13y Electronic Transmission) Mayor and City Council 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, California 94501 Subject: — Proposed Reuse of Carnegie Library Building as One- -Stop Permit Center Honorable Mayor and Councilmernhers: r The Carnegie Library Building is one of Alameda "s most important architectural assets. The Alameda Architectural Preservation Society (AAPS) would therefore like to submit the following comments on the proposed reuse: (1) It is good that the Planning and Building Department is seeking ways to obtain space to adequately accommodate its functions as well as those of'relatcd departments. This will facilitate the permit process and improve customer service. (2) The Carnegie Building should contain uses that allow ongoing availability to the general public so that its architecturally distinguished interior can be widely enjoyed. The proposed use falls within this parameter. (3) \Vliatever uses are installed in the Carnegie, the exterior and interior integrity of the building must be preserved and, where possible, previous insensitive alterations should be reversed. A very good Historic Structures Report was prepared several years ago for the building's seismic retrofit by the historic preservation architecture firm Carey Co. The report identified altered elements of the Carnegie and recommended restoration strategies. (4) Furnishings to be used within the building should reflect its architecture and previous use as a library. in addition, furnishings that were in the building historically should be considered for reuse as part of the project. Staff has advised that they are reviewing these furnishings, which are now in storage, and has suggested using book cases as cubicle partitions. (5) We would like to thank staff for proposing to include AAPS in the identification of previously altered architectural elements that should be considered for restoration. P_ O. 7. 13().): 16'7 . -f lamc(IU. 94 S00 I 516-M6-9232 However. AAPS would also like to be able to review and comment on other design aspects of the reuse proposal that would affect Historic fabric, such its handicapped access. We would also like the opportunity to review and comment on any Request for Proposals (RFP) prior to distribution of the RFP to prospective design firms and to review they proposals and submit comments to staff prior to selection of a firm. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please contact me at 523 -0411 or chucklevPalamedanet.n:t if you have questions or would like to discuss these comments. (://1( C hiistoph i l3i.ickIc, President \\ Chair, Preservation Action. Committee cc: AAPS Board and Preservation Action Committee members (By electronic transmission) Cathy Woodbury_ Planning and Building, Director (By electronic. transmission) Greg ivIcFann, Building Official (By electronic transmission) historical Advisory Board (By electronic transmission) 7 Holly C. Sellers 1624 San Antonio Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 51 0/521 -2299 December 28, 2006 Ms Cathy Woodbury, Planning & Building Director Planning & Building Department 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, CA 94501 Re: Claire Risley 1101 Grand Street Alameda, CA 94501 510/864-1103 7CEIVE DEC 2 8 2006 OF ALAMEDA LERK'S OFFICE City Council Meeting January 2, 2007 Major Design Review File No. DRO6 -0096 (Old RosslPetco Building 500) Major Design Review File No. DRO6.0081 (Old Walgreen Building 300) Dear Ms Woodbury: You need to know that Planning Department staff reports presented to the Planning Board are missing documents. Whether intentional or the result of carelessness, the failure to include these documents could affect the City Council's and Planning Board's decisions on the above referenced items and other matters. Specifically, our written comments dated November 4, 2006 (received by City staff on November 6, 2006) as well as other documents that were specifically referenced at both the November 13 and December 11, 2006 Planning Board meetings, were not included in the staff report nor planning department files. Omission of these documents has deprived us and others of our right to review and evaluate all arguments presented by the public, the developer, and planning staff We ask that you work with us to remedy the situation and to ensure that all staff reports and planning department files are complete and available to the public. Here is a summary of events that lead up to this request. On November 6, 2006, we delivered a three page letter dated November 4 addressed to Mr. Doug Garrison, to the front desk of the planning/building department. A stamped, conformed copy of that letter, excluding attachments, is appended. That letter contained our written comments to Planning Board hearing notice dated October 24, 2006 regarding the above referenced design reviews. At the same time, we delivered copies addressed to each Planning Board member out of concern that the letter delivered to Mr. Garrison might not be included in the staff report. It turns out that our concern was justified. Our letter was not included in the star report prepared for the November 13, 2006 Planning Board hearing. It also was not included in the staff report prepared for the December 11th continuation of the hearing of these matters. Re: Agenda Item #5 -B 1 -2 -07 On December 11 t', Ms. Sellers spoke with Mr. Garrison at the Planning Department. At that time he characterized his failure to include our written comments as an "oversight ". Mr. Garrison did not directly respond to Ms. Seller's question about why he failed to attempt to rectify this oversight by including our letter in the staff report for the December 11 to Planning Board meeting, other than to state that "it's in the file" for anybody to see. Yesterday morning, Ms. Risley reviewed both of the above referenced files. Our November 4th letter was not in either file. A subsequent search by planning department members Douglas Vu and Laura Aiello failed to locate our letter. We believe that other key documents are missing. Specifically, at both the November 13th and December 11th meetings, a letter from legal counsel for the developer was referred to. We understand that it may have been written in response to our November 4th letter and that it sets forth the legal reasoning underpinning the developer's position that a mere design review, and not a Planned Development Amendment, is all that is needed. We want to review and possibly respond to that document as well as all other documents in the file that are missing. Other interested parties should also have an opportunity to review all the relevant documents and submit comments. We can arrange to meet with you tomorrow to discuss possible remedies for this problem. In the meanwhile we urge you to recommend that the City Council postpone its January 2, 2007 hearing on this matter until everybody has had a chance to review and respond to all documents submitted. Yours truly, Holly G. Sellers C/c Theresa L. Highsmith, Esq., City Attorney Beverly Johnson, Mayor Lena Tam, Vice Mayor Doug deHaan, Councilmember Marie Gilmore, Councilmember Frank Matarresse, Councilmember Patrick Lynch, President, Planning Board Anne Cook, Vice President, Planning Board Andrew Cunningham Marilyn Ashcroft Rebecca Parsons Gina Marian Margaret McNamara Douglas Garrison 417 Claire Risley November 4, 2006 Mr. Patrick Lynch President Alameda Planning Board 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Room 190 Alameda, CA 94501 RECETVED NOV _szoos� PERMIT CENTER AL_AM EDA, CA 94S01 1 Re: Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0096 (Old Ross/Petco Building 500) Major Design Review File No. DR06 -0081 (Old Walgreen Building 300) Dear Mr. Lynch: Here are our written comments to Planning Board Hearing notice dated October 24, 2006, regarding the above referenced design reviews. We would like to raise the following three points. The RosslPetco Building (Building 500 — Phase IV -b) cannot receive approval without a Planned Development Amendment (PDA) and environmental review. The Planning Department takes the position that this building was approved within Planning Board resolution PB-03-40 dated July 28, 2003, appended hereto. However, the RosslPetco building #500 is part of Alameda Towne Centre (ATC) Phase IV -b and was clearly denied approval in that resolution. PB -03 -40 states at the bottom of page 2: "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Board of the City of Alameda approves Planned Development Amendment PDA02 -003 and Major Design Review DR02 -095, phases II -a, II -b and IV -a only, subject to the following conditions: 1, APPROVED PLAN. The project shall be constructed in substantial compliance with: a. the plans consisting of 30 sheets dated May 31, 2002 through July 21 (site Plan) and March 11, 2003 by Field Paoli Architects, et al. including Buildings 100 and 600 (DRO3 -0038) and excluding phases III, IV -b and later phases except pedestrian malls; ..." (Emphasis added.) Additionally, the resolution states on page 3, paragraph e): 1 e) Phase III, IV -b and later phases are specifically not approved, except that pedestrian mail areas are included in the approved phases. Building 1800 along Shoreline Drive, originally shown in Phase II -a, is specifically not approved. However, the denial is without prejudice to a later resubmittal of a new environmental review with traffic study, conforming to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines: and a new Planned Development Amendment and Major Design Review. No additional Planned Development Amendments (PDA) have been processed for these buildings. Furthermore, this resolution states that a new environmental review must take place for these buildings, however they were not included in the DEIR currently being finalized. The proposed designs are not in substantial compliance with the Field Paoli plans which are part of PB -03 -40 dated July 28, 2003. The approvals that were granted in PB-03-40 were conditioned upon the buildings being constructed in "substantial compliance" with the 30 Field Paoli plans which are part of the resolution. Attached are the relevant plans for Buildings 300 (Old Walgreens) and 500 (RossfPetco) which clearly show low profile views. These views are in keeping with PB -03-40 finding that (page 2, second paragraph): The project will have no significant adverse impacts on persons or property in the vicinity because the design of the stores is of a similar horizontal low - profile nature to structures in the area and have a unified style and theme fitting to the 1950's- 1970's period in which South Shore developed as a neighborhood. (Emphasis added.) The designs before you today include a new two -story 21,700 square foot building to be constructed to the north of the old Walgreen's with roof parapet heights reaching thirty seven (37) feet and decorative towers reaching up to forty eight and a quarter (48.25) feet! This is hardly consistent with the Board's findings regarding low profile and the already approved Field Paoli Plans. Giving Design Review approval for the construction of the new Building 300 (old Walgreen's) could eliminate mitigation measures proposed for inclusion in the ATC Final EIR. The Park Street north drive needs to be reconfigured which may result in a larger set back for building 300. At a minimum a bus pull out must be built and the bus stop moved in accordance with Field Paoli drawings. (See copy attached.) Giving approval now eliminates the possibility of an enlarged drive and/or an expansion of Safeway's loading dock that were proposed as mitigation measures under the EIR currently being processed. 2 We ask that the Planning Board table all ATC requests until the Final EIR has been accepted, which should include these buildings as discussed earlier in this letter. In closing we note that the public comments due date was set forth in the Notice of Public Hearing as April 3, 2006 which is over 6 months prior to the October 24, 2006 notice date. (See copy attached.) In addition, we hereby incorporate by reference all of the comments of other individuals and agencies who comment on the matters considered at the November 13, 2006 hearing. Sincerely, )11-ef41 Holly C. Sellers 1624 San Antonio Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 510/521 -2299 Claire Risley 1101 Grand Street Alameda, CA 94501 510-864-1103 Attachments: Resolution PB03 -40 Field Paoli Drawings Building 300 North Elevation Field Paoli Drawings Building 500 South Elevation Field Paoli Drawing showing Bus Pull Out and Bus Stop Planning Board Notice of Public Hearing dated October 24, 2006 cc: Douglas Garrison, Alameda Planner Board Member Cook Board Member Cunningham Board Member Ashcroft Board Member Parsons Board Member Marian Board Member McNamara 3 Jars 02 07 04:41p City of Alameda 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, Ca, 94501 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council l am writing to you in support of the proposal to study the feasibility of a "one - op" permit meter in the Carnegie Building. a memo of the City of lam 's Customer Improvement Committee, l have participated in numerous discussions on this topic. l concur that there are numerous benefits that would result from the completion of such a project The plannin and being departments need more space to accommodatv the volume of activity that they deal with. The consolidation of other related departments would greatly aline the process for applicants. Last, but certainly not lam, the public use once again of this architectural gem would be a gift to the people of Alamo. merely. Q enise Brady Memo Customer ervice Improvement Committee eA,t11/44. Re: Agenda Item 5-C 1-2-07 P.1 1JLti! W TW 1 I VV Morgan Miller Blair A LAW CORPORATION VIA FACSIMILE Honorable Mayor Johnson and Councxlmembers City of Alameda Alameda City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue Alameda, CA 94501 PI tr. I 1 P} J. j. I IJ J. CA 1 1 VV4 fVV{S 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD, SUITE 200 A Ntfl GREEK. CALIFORNIA 9159.4544 925 9373&01 925.943.T 106 :A% www m nbiew rim December 29, 2006 BRYAN W WarrER (925) 979-3315 bwaiter&nrobiaw.com Re: City Council Meeting - January 2, 2007 Agenda Item 5-B --- Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal for Major Desk Review (Alameda Towne Centre r- Buildings 300 and 500) Dear Mayor Johnson and uncilmemb : This firm represents March Inv estment }Properties, LLC, owner of the Alameda Towne Centre (formally South Shore Center), with respect to the Centre's phased redevelopment. your meeting this evening, you will consider Harsch's appeal of the Phi Board's denial of the Design Review applications to allow remodeling of Buildings 300 and 500 in the Cent& The proposed designs are consists with City Code, the City Design Review Manual, and previous entitlements for the Centre. We reviewed and are in agreement with the Staff Report prepared on this item. Consistent with the recommendation of planning stag we the City Council to approve these urge y r and approve Major Design Review No. DR0 -o0ll for Building 300, and Major Design Review No. DRO6 -0096 ibr Building 500. Huh has been revitalizing the for the last several years. Und • 4 y Under the phased redevelopment, Building 300 will replace the old W 's and extend the building with 1 � ulld�ng northward consistent with the new Safeway tentage. Building 500 will replace the old Rom building � �T'�� and will occupy the same general location as the existing build! ng and reault decrease � floor zn. a net ,. The Design Review applications for Buildings 300 and 500 were denied MEW 1 Budding 400, which waa approved by the t' • Y �g Ord on 1o• 1 3, 2006, not part of this aat. Re: Agenda Item #5 -B 1 -2 -07 10 VV : f VV Honorable Mayor Johnson and Councilmembers December 29, 2006 Page for lack of a majority vote at the Planning Board's December 11, 200 6 meeting. Hach submitted an awl of the Planning Board's decision on leer 13, 2006. Ping staff extensively review the proposed designs for.consisten.cy with the City Design Review Manual and existing Centre entitlements, and determined that the location and design of the proposed projects Satisfy City requirements. t{arsch has modified its project proposals respond to Planning Board and public comments regarding building design. 'fit conelud consistent � , ed that the proposed architecture is with the design and scale of adjacent buildings and includes enhanced landscaping and pedestrian amenities. In addition, the public art send for Building 500 - 11� � the ��tys requirement. Based on its careful review o f H�h's Major Design Review a iieations for Buildings y y 500, planning staffrecornrnends that the City Council uphold its appeal approve �r Review '� � e .l Design Review No, DRo&-0081 and No. DRO6 -0096. We respectfuIly request the City Council to support the commendation of planning staff approve the Design Review m ew applications for Buildings 300 and 500. Thank you fic ur your time and consideration, BWW•Img cc: Teresa L Highsmith, City Attorney Douglass Gaiirison,, Supervising Planner Clients Mna :1.0303-001.126883 1 Very truly yon, MORGAN MILLER BLAIR YAN W. WENTER By Hand Delivery The Honorable Mayor, Beverly Johnson, and Council members, Tam, deHaan, Gilmore and Matarresse City Clerk's Office City of Alameda, City Hall 2263 Santa Clara Avenue, Rm.380 Alameda, CA 94501 Re: City Council Meeting January 2, 2007, Item 5(b) Major Design Review File No. DRO6 -0096 (Old RosslPetco Building 500 Major Design Review File No. DRO6 -008 1 (Old Walgreen Building 300) Claire Risley 1101 Grand Street Alameda, CA 94501 January 2, 2007 JAN - 2006 CITY OF ALAMEDA CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Dear Mayor Johnson and City Council Members: I ask you to postpone the hearing on Agenda item 5(b) until your next meeting to allow the general public and myself time to review, evaluate and file additional comments. This is necessary because relevant documents, including those of Patricia Curtin, legal counsel for Harsch Development, and those submitted by myself and my neighbor, Holly Sellers, were not included in the above referenced file folders until last Friday, December 29, 2006. Consequently they were not available to me or the general public for review and evaluation and could not be taken into account in formulating oral or written comments with respect to this agenda item. These documents were also not included in either of the staff reports prepared for the November 13th or the December 1 l th Planning Board meetings. As of 1:00 p.m today, they are also not included in the online staff report for this agenda item for this evening. The public's right to inspect the above referenced files in preparation for this meeting has been compromised by these omissions. Likewise my desire to evaluate, research and respond to Ms.Curtin's letter has been severely compromised by the fact that it only became available to me on the eve of a three day weekend, during which Planning Department files and Law libraries were closed. I ask that you renotice item 5(b) and to include in your notice the notation that additional documents are now included in the above referenced file folders In the event that you chose to proceed with item 5(b), I submit the following comments, without prejudice to any rights that may accrue from your decision. I note that these comments are limited by my inability to prepare and research the issues because of the last minute availability of Ms. Curtin's November 13th letter. What you are being asked to do tonight is overturn a well thought out decision of the Planning Board without an ample opportunity to understand all of the issues and appreciate their ramifications. You are also being asked to approve an end run around the provisions of Planning Board Resolution No. 03 -40 which requires a Planned Re: Agenda Item #5 -B 1 -2 -07 Development amendment for changes to Building 500 (Ross/Petco). It also conditions changes to Building 300(old Walgreen's) on the building being constructed in "substantial compliance" with the Field Paoli plans which are part of the resolution. In essence, what the developer is doing here is taking advantage of all of the entitlements created by PB Resolution 03 -40 while totally ignoring the restrictions imposed by it. In 2003, the Planning Board partially approved a proposed Planned Development Amendment that covered changes to these and several other buildings. The proposed changes for building 500 were "specifically not approved ". See, Planning Board Resolution No. PB- 03 -40, page 3, paragraph (e). The resolution further states that only the areas shown as approved (then phases II -a, II -b and IV -a) may be constructed. See, PB Resolution No. 03 -40, page 4, 2nd paragraph. Moreover, the resolution says that plans for buildings that were not approved may resubmitted later with " a new environmental review with traffic study, conforming to California Environmental Quality Act guidelines; and a new Planned Development Amendment and Major Design review ". Changes to Building 300 were conditioned upon substantial compliance with the plans submitted at that time. Numerous other building changes were approved, apparently including an additional 112,000 square feet of floor area. Harsch Development has taken advantage of all of these approvals, including even using the additional 112,000 square feet in its' calculations to justify its proposed changes to Buildings 300 and 500. However, it contends that it is not bound by the part of PB Resolution that limits its options with respect to Buildings 300 and 500. Harsch Development can't have it both ways. It must be bound by the entire resolution. The Alameda Municipal Code, Development Regulations § 30- 4.13(c) (1) states that: All areas of the City zoned Planned Development shall be developed or redeveloped under the Planned Development process. Harsch Development must work within the planned development process, not revert to the more general provisions of the Zoning Ordinance when it finds that convenient. I ask you to deny this appeal. Respectfully submitted, 1 Claire Risley C/c Theresa L. Highsmith, Esq., City Attorney Cathy Woodbury, Planning and Building Director Patrick Lynch, President, Planning Board, by mail Anne Cook, Vice President, Planning Board, by mail Andrew Cunningham, by mail Marilyn Ashcroft, by mail Rebecca Parsons, by mail Gina Mariani, by mail Margaret McNamara, by mail City of Alameda: EFMHome Case Details Print Close Case Number: Customer: http s : / /clients . c omc ate. c omlrep s/c aseDetail. php 15802 Status: Resolved Hong, Jeffrey external customer 127 Tynebourne Place Alameda CA 94502 (map) Jeff. hong @a la meda net, net Preferred Contact Method: Email Submitted By: Hong, Jeffrey Location of Request: Request Type: Suggestion Primary Owner: Baines, customer Christina Topic: Mayor/City Date/Time Created: 01/02/2007 Council >E -mail the Mayor 14:07 and Councilmembers Date/Time Closed: 01/02/2007 14:18 Original Request I cannot attend the Carnegie facility appropriations discussion this evening, and I am surprised by the high amount being requested simply to study the possibility of conversion to a permit center. Before such a large appropriation is allocated, I think the city council needs a breakdown on the cost of such a 'study'. Customer Communications Date From Text 01/02/2007 Acord, Details » Mr. Hong, Your message has been provided to Council. Let 14:18 Liz me know if there is anything else we can do for you. Thanks, Liz Acord City Clerk's Office 510.747.4803 internal Activity Internal Notes No records for internal activities found Tasks Complete Due Subject Assigned By Assigned To Status Case Contacts Role Primary Owner Secondary Owner Attachments No attachments found 1of2 Name Email Baines, Christina cbaines©ci.alameda.ca.us Phone 510-747-4701 Weisiger, Lara Iweisige @ci.alameda.ca.us 747 -4801 Re: Agenda Item #5 -C 1 -2 -07