Here’s a little background on what I believe to be a pattern of anti-neighborhood bias that has crept into the Public Hearing process for the “Almond Bungalows” project.  Neighborhood concerns have been dismissed based, in part upon misrepresentations, and City staff has done nothing to investigate alternatives proposed by the public or to draft conditions of approval that might address some of the neighborhood's concerns.  City staff has asked for, and received positive recommendations on this project from both the Design Review and Planning Commissions. But in advocating for the project, have they created an environment where the interests of the developer and the interests of the neighborhood can both be weighed impartially?

You decide ...

On-site Parking
The proposed Almond Bungalows project covers two adjacent lots and consists of nine tightly-packed single family residences - a higher density than permitted by the zoning in our Almond/Shuey neighborhood. Each of these infill homes would feature a double master bedroom design. The developer has stated that one target market he has identified for the homes is young professionals who need to take in a roommate to afford their first home. Since it is reasonable to assume that a number of these homes will be occupied by unrelated adults, each of whom is likely to own a car - the neighbors believe that at least two parking spaces should be provided per unit.  Throughout the hearings, staff has indicated that only 1.5 spaces per unit are called for, per the BART Proximate Parking Ordinance.  The neighbors parking concerns were simply dismissed.

At the 09/02/09 DRC hearing, Commissioner Gorny announced:

At the 09/24/09 Planning Commission hearing, Commissioner Lawson had asked staff to point out the differences between the proposed project and the current zoning.  As he ticked off the points, Planner Bindernagel responded:

After the last public hearing, I looked at the Municipal Code.  Per section 10-2.3.206, footnote 24, the BART Proximate Parking Ordinance applies to "residential structures with five or more residential units".  The Almond Bungalows project is made up of duplexes and detached single-family residences. There is no residental structure of five or more units, so how can the provisions of the BART Proximate Parking Ordinance apply? The existing M-1 and D-3 zoning calls for 2 spaces per unit. There is no justification for dismissing the neighbor's concerns out- of-hand, or for the staff misleading the Commissions about what the ordinance actually says.

Parking Permits
Because the Almond/Shuey is subject to intrusion by BART commuters and downtown shoppers looking for a place to park, our neighborhood has controlled parking – you need a parking sticker to park here.  The neighbors feel that since this is a higher density project than permitted under our zoning, and since the onsite parking currently proposed for this project is likely to be inadequate, the number of infill homes eligible for permits should be limited, to keep the overflow of parked cars from clogging of our streets.  The developer has stated that he is willing to have only the two units closest to Almond Avenue eligible for permits, but we have nothing to enforce that agreement once the homes are sold and the developer leaves the scene.  City staff hasn't drafted any conditions of approval to address the situation, and have been less that forthright in their explanation of how Preferential Parking is assigned …

At the 09/02/09 Design Review hearing, City Traffic Engineer Rafat Raie told us that the new infill units would not automatically be eligible for permits …

Planner Bindernagel followed up on this point at the 09/24 Planning Commission hearing:

Although none of the Commissioners asked, it seemed odd to me that the Transportation Commission, much less the City Council, would pass an ordinance for a Preferential Parking Area based on a long list of street address numbers.  I finally got a copy of City Council Resolution No 4948, establishing Preferential Parking Area "A". The resolution includes a map which clearly shows the lot on the corner of Almond Avenue and Oakland Boulevard as being included in Area "A". Thus, without any “expansion” of the area, or any public hearing, at least six of the nine new infill units (the units located on the corner lot) are apparently entitled to parking permits.  That’s up to 30 extra cars parked on Almond Avenue.

Driveway
The project driveway on Almond Avenue is also something that the neighbors would like to have changed.  The stated rationale for increasing density at this location is that the site has frontages on both Almond Avenue and on Oakland Boulevard. Oakland Boulevard is a more highly traveled street and lacks the Almond/Shuey's neighborhood charm. Since the Oakland Boulevard side of the project is the area where higher density is deemed appropriate, the neighbors believe that the driveway to service this higher density should also be on Oakland Boulevard - not on our neighborhood street.  The neighbors have been essentially stonewalled on even getting a fair consideration of an alternate site plan that would move the driveway.

The developer has always wanted the project driveway on Almond Avenue.  It probably allows him to fit more units on the lot (although we don’t know – we haven’t seen an alternate site plan), and any addresses he can get on Almond Avenue will have more status, from a marketing standpoint, than addresses on Oakland Boulevard.   All through the early public hearings, Planner Bindernagel provided “cover” for the developer by stating that the Traffic Engineering Department had insisted that the driveway be on Almond Avenue:

No one from Traffic Engineering was present at the 05/14/09 Planning Commission meeting – we only had the word of the Planner.

City Traffic Engineer Rafat Raie finally made an appearance at the 09/02/09 DRC hearing, and when asked, gave a much more nuanced answer to the question of driveway placement:

After that disclosure, City staff still didn’t request the developer to produce an alternate site plan with the driveway access moved to Oakland Boulevard so that the Commissions, City Council, and the public could objectively compare the two alternatives.  The only site plan option ever offered to the Commissions by the staff turns the Almond/Shuey (one of only two neighborhoods cited in the City’s General Plan for its unique character) into the backside/garage entrance for this higher density Oakland Boulevard infill development.

At the DRC and Planning Commission hearings, the staff allowed the developer to display an “Almond Avenue Streetscape” that showed two homes surrounded by landscaping and blue skies.  In reality, the driveway space between those two Almond Avenue homes will be a view down the throat of a box canyon of 30 foot tall vertical walls and garage doors. All those other homes, which will be visible from our street, weren't depicted.  

What is unique about the Almond/Shuey is its collection of small-scale 1920’s-1940’s bungalows.  Oakland Boulevard infill is fine for Oakland Boulevard – but it doesn’t belong on our street.  The neighborhood's “strong preference” is that the driveway be moved – but staff has refused to even explore that option.

Garbage Cans
Another consequence of having the driveway for 8 of the 9 infill units on Almond Avenue is that Almond Avenue becomes the likely place for up to 24 garbage cans to be rolled out on Wednesday morning.  The developer has stated that maintenance of the common area will be handled by a service hired by the Homeowner’s Association, and therefore there will be no need for green waste cans - so maybe the number is 16 cans. But the project is divided into individual, optionally fenced, lots.  Will a garden maintenance service be coming into homeowners’ fenced yards, or will some of those homeowners want to be doing their own gardening?  City staff hasn’t nailed down the developer on this.

The issue of garbage cans was discussed, without resolution, at the Planning Commission.  Commissioner Lawson finally concluded:

The neighbors aren’t planners or land use attorneys.  Shouldn’t it be up to the City staff to be drafting conditions of approval?  Isn’t that supposed to be their job?  The word from the City to the neighbors is clearly … “you’re on your own!”

Update 10/03/09
One of my neighbors sent an email to Interim Planning Manager Victoria Walker raising some of the concerns outlined above. In her response, Ms. Walker pointed out that the proposed project will be a Planned Development ("PD" zoning) and with that type of zoning the City can set any parking standards they want:

As a practical matter, an applicant for a Planned Development rezoning is allowed to propose a specific project with setbacks, commercial or residential density (within the General Plan range), parking program, etc. that may differ from the existing zoning regulations. As you can read in the attached PD district description, the Planning Commission and City Council must compare the “anticipated differences between existing zoning ordinance standards and the proposed plan”.

(Email to Frank Pappas dated 10/01/09)

The fairness issue remains. I have been through the staff reports and attended the Public Hearings, and I have been unable to find any instance when the staff revealed to either of the Commissions that the current zoning standard for parking is 2 spaces per unit. All they ever referred to was the BART Proximate Parking Ordinance, which allows only 1.5 spaces. How can the Commisions compare "anticipated differences between the existing zoning ordinance standards and the proposed plan" if staff never tells them what the existing zoning ordinance standard is?

Ms. Walker went on to defend the staff's position on the reduced parking requirement for this project:

In the Almond Bungalow project, staff (Planning and Traffic Divisions) has recommended to the Planning Commission that the BART proximate parking standard is appropriate for this project – that is 14 stalls on-site for 9 units. This recommendation is based on the outcome of the BART proximate studies that were by the City, the location of this particular site in relation to BART, the preferential parking program on Almond Avenue, the specific design of the bungalows project, and the over-all goal of supporting non-automobile travel in the city where alternate travel modes are viable. I understand that you and others disagree with this recommendation and believe that more on-site parking would result in a better development. I would disagree with your assertion that staff made a “faulty and/or incomplete interpretation” of the Zoning Code.

(Email to Frank Pappas dated 10/01/09)

The "specific design of the bungalows project" is double master bedrooms which the developer hopes will be attractive to unrelated young professional roommates. The corner lot (proposed site of 6 new infill units) was clearly included in the Almond/Shuey Preferential Parking Area, so as many as 30 additional cars could be issued if this project is approved. Encouraging public transit by flooding neighborhood streets with parked cars is a City policy I must have missed when I last read the General Plan.

The BART Proximate Studies conducted by the City included site parking surveys at multi-family residences both near the BART stations and elsewhere in the City. The smallest complex studied had 84 units, and one complex of almost 900 units was included in the survey. No site surveys were conducted at any complex even close to the size of the proposed Almond Bungalows. The study did, however look at census data and found that single family detached housing had a much higher rate of vehicle ownership:

Multifamily developments of five-or-more units own from 1.07 to 1.17 vehicles per household regardless of their proximity to BART. As can be seen, vehicle ownership for multi-family units is substantially lower than (almost half of) that for single-family units.

Staff report to City Council for BART Proximate Parking hearing dated 10/19/04

The reason the BART Proximate Parking Ordinance applies only to "residential structures with five or more residential units" is that the studies undertaken by the City didn't provide any data to support reducing the parking requirements for single family detached houses, duplexes, or small multi-family complexes.

Update 11/04/09
After hearing public comments made by myself and another neighbor, the Design Review Commission asked staff to present them with a refresher on the BART Proximate Parking Ordinance. Andrew Smith was sent to deliver the report at the 11/04/09 DRC meeting. Once again, staff misrepresented the BART Proximate Parking Ordinance as applying to any multi-family residential project of 5 or more units. The wording in the Municipal Code is clear - it says "structure" not "project". Why staff continues to misrepresent the ordinance is a mystery.

Update 11/13/09
The staff report for the upcoming City Council hearing has been published. A few concessions have been made to the neighborhood. Staff lists (but doesn't explain the reason for) some of our concerns, and the Almond Avenue Streetscape now shows the clutter of unit backsides that will be viewed from Almond Avenue if the project is built. Inexplicably the report still claims that the BART Proximate Parking Ordinance applies, and they're still stonewalling us on the driveway placement - refusing to even consider a project driveway on Oakland Boulevard even though they are recommending to neck-down Oakland Boulevard at the Almond intersection, which will help calm traffic past the project site and make an Oakland Boulevard driveway safer. Staff is still clearly on the side of the developer.

Tom O’Brien
Almond/Shuey neighbor