Chair Clark arrived at 1:35 p.m. The gavel was then passed to Chair Clark.

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF MEETING SEPTEMBER 28, 2011 (APPROVED OCTOBER 26, 2011) The Regular Meeting was held at the hour of 1:30 p.m. in the Alameda County Building, 224 West Winton Avenue, Hayward, California, REGULAR MEETING: 1:30 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair, Dawn Clark-Montenegro; Vice Chair, Kathy Gil; Members, Jewell Spalding, Frank Peixoto, and Jeff Moore. MEMBERS EXCUSED: None. However The Chair arrived at 1:35 p.m. and Member Spalding arrived at 1:33 p.m. OTHERS PRESENT: Senior Planner, Phil Sawrey-Kubicek,; County Counsel, William Fleishhacker; Code Enforcement staff; and Yvonne Bea Grundy, Recording Secretary. There were approximately 5 people in the audience. CALL TO ORDER: The Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE CHAIR: The Vice Chair announced that Item #3 under the Regular Calendar, PLN , Ardus Holcombe would be moved to Item #4. Saint John s Catholic Church, PLN would be heard first. Neighborhood Preservation Ordinance Abatement Hearing: 1. Nancy V Ankrun & Michael Jacob, Meekland Ave., Hayward CA In violation of Alameda County Ordinances A (10) and B (6). 1. Weeds throughout the property. Member Peixoto motioned to uphold the staff recommendation, declare the property a public nuisance and require abatement in 10 days. Member Moore seconded the motion. The motion carried 3/0/1. Member Spalding abstained. 2. Judy A Carney Trust, Francis Street, Castro Valley CA In violation of Alameda County Ordinance A (8, 9, 10) & B (6). 1. Overgrown vegetation & weeds throughout the property. Member Moore motioned to uphold the staff recommendation, declare the property a public nuisance and require abatement in 10 days. Member Peixoto seconded the motion. The motion carried 4/0/1. The Chair abstained. Chair Clark arrived at 1:35 p.m. The gavel was then passed to Chair Clark. 3. Darrshan Singh Brar, Karina Street, Hayward CA In violation of Alameda County Ordinance A (8, 9, 10) and B(6) 1. Overgrown vegetation & weeds throughout the property.

2 PAGE 2 The Vice Chair motioned to uphold the staff recommendation, declare the property a public nuisance and require abatement in 10 days. Member Spalding seconded the motion. The motion carried 5/0. Alcoholic Beverage Sale Regulations Administrative Hearings: There were no Agenda items scheduled for the Alcoholic Beverage Sale Regulations Administrative Hearing Calendar. OPEN FORUM: Open forum is provided for any members of the public wishing to speak on an item not listed on the agenda. Each speaker is limited to three (3) minutes. No one requested to be heard under open forum. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. THARCO CONTAINER / EDDIE TOOKER, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLN Application to allow continued operation of a corrugated box manufacturing and recycling / processing plant that exceeds or may exceed noise performance standards in the M-2 (Heavy Industrial) District, located at 2222 Grant Avenue, southeast side southeast of the corner of Grant Avenue, in the unincorporated San Lorenzo area of Alameda County, designated Assessor s Parcel Number: (Continued from March 23, July 13 and August 24, 2011; to be continued to October 26, 2011). Staff Planner: Andy Young. 2. AT&T MOBILITY / CREEKSIDE CENTER PK II, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLN Application to allow a telecommunications facility, in a FA (Freeway Access corridor within the Ashland Cherryland Business Specific) District, located at Mission Boulevard, north east of Mattox Road, unincorporated Cherryland area of Alameda County, designated Assessor s Parcel Number: (To be continued to October 26, 2011). Staff Planner: Richard Tarbell. Member Spalding motioned to accept the Consent Calendar, as presented. The Vice Chair seconded the motion. The motion carried 5/0. REGULAR CALENDAR 3. MIKE LACEY / ST. JOHN S CATHOLIC CHURCH, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PLN Application to allow expansion of a church with new bathrooms within the sanctuary building, additional exterior structures, and to allow a fence height in excess of that allowed, per Section B, in a CF (Community Facility) District according to the Ashland Cherryland Business Specific Plan, located at 264 East Lewelling Boulevard, at the intersection of East Lewelling Boulevard and Ashland Avenue, in the unincorporated Ashland area of Alameda County, designated Assessor s Parcel Numbers: , , , , and Staff Planner: Richard Tarbell. Staff recommended approval of the application. The following correction shall be noted for the staff report. Page #8, Condition #4 should list the minimum number of parking spaces to be provided as 172,

3 PAGE 3 as opposed to 129. Initial Board questions were as follows: When was the church built Did Land Development respond as to the possibility of roadway encroachment permits, fence line improvements to accommodate the County road, and compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance How will unknown Land Development requirements affect Condition #5 Does the facility currently meet parking requirements What aspect of the parking lot will be modified Staff confirmed the church was built in The staff report in error states, the church building was erected in At this juncture Public Works is unsure of how road widening will affect the site. The church has the required number of parking spaces. The lot will be re-stripped during the expansion. Based on the review, the proposed landscaping and impervious surface area will not trigger Storm Water Treatment Solutions Plan or Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requirements. Public testimony was opened. Project Architect, Mr. John Seals was present. He has been working on the project for some time. Mr. Seals is familiar with the implications of Conditions, including the Storm Water requirements. He has reviewed the Conditions of Approval with the property owners. The proposed Conditions are considered, standard practice. The church would like to place the plaza on the west side of the sanctuary. As a result this will require, approximately 4,700 square feet of grading. This is minor. Board questions for Mr. Seals were as follows: How will gate access be monitored during and after church events, to control traffic Where will access gates be located Will the existing fence be retained Is the owner amenable to adding a Condition requiring the site remain debris, and graffiti free Mr. Seals explained the new design reduces the number of gates on the property, to a maximum of two. One will be controlled electronically. This will allow better control over vehicular and pedestrian traffic. There will be a gate for each section. One between the rectory and the sanctuary, a second gate will be between the sanctuary and Ashland Avenue. The gate on the north of the convent will remain. There are always staff persons on-site, due to the rectory. They can operate the gate, after hours, if necessary. The original six foot fence along a portion of Ashland Avenue and East Lewelling Boulevard will be replaced with one, the same size. The fence along the north side of the property will remain. The landscaping in front of the site will remain unchanged. Mr. Seals did not think the church would object to a Condition requiring graffiti and debris free, maintenance. After exhaustive conversations between St. John s and the Traffic Division in 2008, traffic issues were resolved. The following was determined. Ingress to the church from Lewelling Boulevard will have a break between the median for traffic heading up Lewelling Boulevard. This will be between the rectory and the sanctuary, for traffic heading east. Traffic will not be able to enter from the west. Egress will be right hand only, from the westerly direction. Staff further explained, the remaining area before the entry steps after sidewalk installation will be limited to approximately 18 inches. Board Members acknowledged the site was well maintained.

4 PAGE 4 The present landscaping and trees provide a woodsy feel. However Mr. Seals should re-confirm a Storm Water plan, is not required. Public testimony was closed. Board Members discussed modifying proposed Conditions to clarify the site is to remain in good condition, including landscaping. Gate opening and closure should be also be clarified. Staff explained the Condition regarding the gate was to address access during church services. It did not apply 24 hours, a day. The height of landscaping will be determined in the Landscape Plan. Member Spalding recommended Condition #8 strike the last sentence. Language can be added requiring the gate remain open during church events, subject to Fire Department, and emergency requirements. Public testimony was re-opened to obtain more details regarding landscaping. Mr. Seals told the Board the only area to be obscured by landscaping is at the corner of Ashland Avenue, and East Lewelling Boulevard. This will hide utility boxes on both sides of the fence. The boxes range in size from approximately six to eight feet tall. The balance of landscaping will be kept low. There is approximately four feet between the fence and the corner sign. This area will be beautified with taller landscaping. This will create a green backdrop that will not interfere with signage. Public testimony was closed. Member Peixoto proposed language clarify landscaping obscure utility boxes, not the fence. Landscaping shall also remain well maintained. Member Spalding motioned to uphold the staff recommendation of approval with the following corrections, and modifications: The staff report shall now state for the record, on page #5 the church building was erected in 1955, as opposed to Condition #4 shall now state, a minimum of 172 on-site parking spaces shall be provided Condition #5, shall insert the words in the last sentence, in the event, an overall Storm Water Treatment Plan and Drainage Plan is required.. Condition #7 shall insert the words, all exterior improvements, shall be maintained in good condition, and remain trash, and graffiti free. The portion of the Condition requiring the site be maintained to the satisfaction of the Planning Director shall be stricken. Condition #8 shall add language to the first bullet point. Subject to Fire Department and emergency requirements. The second bullet point shall add language that states, the fence, and gate are to remain free of graffiti, at all times. The third bullet point shall add language that states, the landscaping shall be maintained to obscure any utility boxes for aesthetic purposes. Member Peixoto seconded the motion. The motion to uphold the staff recommendation of approval with modifications, of Conditional Use Permit, PLN , Saint John s Church, passed 5/0.

5 PAGE 5 4. ARDUS HOLCOMBE, VARIANCE, PLN Application to allow an 832 square foot secondary unit where 640 square feet is the maximum permitted, in an R-1-BE-SU-RV (Single Family Residential, 10,000 Minimum Building Site Area, Secondary Unit, Recreational Vehicle Parking Regulations) District, located at 4821 Proctor Road, south side, approximately 400 feet east of Larson Road, in the unincorporated Castro Valley area of Alameda County, designated Assessor s Parcel Number: 084D Staff Planner: Christine Greene. Staff reviewed the application. The recommendation was denial. The Chair asked for clarification of the Zoning Ordinance regarding attached and detached secondary units. Staff explained the Ordinance allows detached secondary units in some Districts, if they remain single story. A two story secondary unit attached to a main dwelling is permitted, in some Districts. However the unit must still meet the maximum square footage allowance of 640 square feet. Public testimony was opened. Architect, Phillip Moss was present representing the property owners. He stated, at first glance the application may appear to be a straight forward variance request, that warrants denial. However he believed issues in this case, needed closer inspection. He raised three points. Variance findings required for secondary residences are not the same as the three findings required, for a primary residence. California State Law states, cities are allowed to have their own laws regarding second units, as long as these laws are not more burdensome. He believes the County s findings were more burdensome, regarding this case. Lastly, he pointed out a variance was already granted in the same neighborhood for a unit larger than the Applicant s proposal. Staff may be limited to their Ordinances. However when something is not covered, you must then refer to California Law. The County Housing Element encourages secondary units in this area. The SU (Secondary Unit), Zoning supports that. Mr. Moss did not believe the Applicant should undergo the hearing process. State Law requires variances and secondary units to be handled administratively. He then read Section It does authorize, counties, cities etc. to allow secondary units. It does not discuss unit size. Units cannot exceed more than 30% of the main dwelling living area. Local jurisdictions cannot be more restrictive. Section, explains what was allowed for areas, prior to establishing Zoning Ordinances. The 30% threshold was in effect, not to exceed 1,200 square feet, parking requirements etc. State Law does not allow another Ordinance or Law to be the basis of denial of a use permit, or variance. The structure is in existence. It was created in 1990 as a workshop. The property owners are looking at the unit to provide space for grown children that may move home. It may also provide income, in this tough economy. The only entity opposed to approval is the Castro Valley Municipal Advisory Committee. Another home on Proctor Road already has a larger secondary unit. The parking arrangement prevents use of the garage. Mr. Moss believed Finding #1 can be supported based on California State Law. The Law came into effect because some jurisdictions rules were over burdensome. Regarding Finding #2, granting the variance would not constitute special privilege. The neighbor has a secondary unit. Regarding Finding #3, the application would not be detrimental. The lot is over 10,000 square feet. The residence is setback from the street. Parking is provided. The setbacks are in compliance. The available space is in existence within the residence. The exterior of the building will not be changed. The only proposed change is to turn the interior stairway, 90 degrees. The existing rumpus room and workshop would become the secondary unit. The proposal is to split the area into 2 bedrooms. This could be made into a large single bedroom, instead. The 832 square foot area for the secondary unit is a portion of the total 4,427 square footage currently in use. This includes an 800 square foot garage. Member Spalding pointed out even using Mr. Moss s calculation. The square footage of the secondary unit would exceed a 30% threshold. The Chair asked it work had already begun. Mr. Moss confirmed work had not commenced. The Applicants are awaiting the outcome of the hearing process. Public testimony was closed.

6 PAGE 6 Board questions for staff were as follows: What rules and policies are in effect for unincorporated County regarding secondary units Is the County subject to California State Law, regarding secondary units Has the BZA granted variances for secondary units that exceed 640 square feet Staff said the Board of Supervisor s established policy guidelines in the 1990 s for secondary units on Agricultural, and Rural Residential zoned properties. Lot size determines allowable second unit size. For example, a parcel less than 25 acres would allow a secondary unit up to 1,200 square feet. A parcel 25 to 50/100 acres, would allow a secondary unit to 1,600 square feet. A parcel over 100 acres would allow a secondary unit to 1,800 square feet. In Rural zoned areas a re-zoning process to a PD (Planned Development) District is required to allow secondary units. In the urban areas where secondary units are allowed per zoning, square footage is limited to 640 square feet. This Ordinance has been in effect since Staff did not have data present, regarding variances for secondary units. County Counsel did not have a copy of the California Law present. However he was somewhat familiar with it. State Law does require some jurisdictions allow secondary units. However it does not prohibit entities from establishing their own rules, and ordinances. State Law can be referenced if an area does not have a policy. The County is not contrary to State Law in that its Policy is not burdensome to the creation of secondary units. It does encourage secondary units. The County has set restrictions, for example a maximum of 640 square feet. To support a proposition the County is over burdensome. It must be shown, County Policy not solely in this case, but overall creates a burden on the ability of people to create secondary units. The County has an Ordinance in effect, regarding secondary units. Board Members Spalding and Peixoto said it did not appear the Applicant could make Findings #1, and possibly Finding #2. Perhaps the Applicant would like to entertain a continuance to reconfirm the size of the dwelling. Plan revisions, may be possible. Member Moore said the options appeared to be strait forward, regarding the existing dwelling. Plans could be revised to reduce the size of the proposed secondary unit. This would eliminate the need for a variance. Counsel added, the Applicant also has the right to appeal any BZA decision, to the Board of Supervisor s. The Chair re-opened Public testimony to speak with the Applicant. Mr. Moss said he respectfully disagreed with staff s position. The Applicants have never had an opportunity to have an open air discussion regarding the issues, with staff. The property owners have decided they would like to move forward with a vote. The Applicant s disagree with staff Findings. They would not like to reduce the proposed secondary unit to 640 square feet. They were told by staff when the project was first proposed to limit the accessory structure then add bedrooms later. The Applicants chose not to do that. They wanted to pursue the process legally. In addition, the neighbor has already added a secondary unit. Public testimony was closed. Member Moore said he appreciated the arguments posed. Also the integrity exercised by the property owners, and Mr. Moss. However in fairness to everyone, as a Board Member he has to apply the Ordinance rules that are in effect. The staff recommendation of denial should be upheld. Member Moore motioned to uphold the staff recommendation of denial, regarding, Ardus Holcombe, Variance, PLN Member Peixoto seconded the motion. The motion to deny Variance, PLN , ARDUS HOLCOMBE passed 4/0. Member Spalding abstained. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: The Vice Chair motioned to accept the Minutes of September 14, 2011 as presented. Member Moore seconded the motion. The motion to accept the Minutes of September 14, 2011 carried 4/0/1. Member Spalding abstained.

7 PAGE 7 STAFF COMMENTS & CORRESPONDENCE: Staff reported there were no recent appeals to the Board of Supervisor s regarding BZA decisions. The appeal of the BZA decision to uphold the staff recommendation of denial regarding, Conditional Use Permit, PLN , West A Street Limited Partnership / El Indio will be heard next month at the Board of Supervisor s. BOARD S ANNOUNCEMENTS, COMMENTS AND REPORTS: Board Members asked staff why a recent crematorium application was heard by the Planning Commission, as opposed to the BZA. Staff explained the hearing body is dictated in the Zoning Ordinance. Crematoriums are a use heard by the Planning Commission. Adult Entertainment use permits in the M-I District are another example of applications heard by the Planning Commission. Staff will review recent updates, and report back. Member Spalding asked if comments were being accepted for the Alameda County Historic Preservation Ordinance. Staff responded that comments can be forwarded to Liz Mc Elligott. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business, the hearing adjourned at 3:30 p.m. ALBERT LOPEZ - SECRETARY