Title
PLN17-0140 - 1100-1250 Marina Village Parkway - Applicant: Steelwave, Acquisitions, LLC - Public Hearing to consider a preservation feasibility analysis for the Shipways Residential Project. The environmental impacts of the proposed project were considered in the Alameda Shipways Residential Project Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2017042021).
Body
To: Honorable Chair and
Members of the Historical Advisory Board
From: Linda Barrera
Planner II
BACKGROUND
On December 6, 2018, the Historical Advisory Board held a public hearing to consider the design features incorporated into the project design for the Shipways residential project to pay tribute to the site’s history. At the meeting, the Board expressed support for the design features, but asked staff and the applicant to further analyze the feasibility of preserving one or more of the existing four “head houses.”
DISCUSSION
Since the December meeting, the consultant team prepared four (4) alternative designs, which preserve one or more of the existing head houses, without a reduction in residential units.
The site is a designated housing opportunity site in the City of Alameda Housing Element and zoned for multifamily housing in the City of Alameda Municipal Code. The City cannot require a reduction in units to preserve one or more head houses. Further, under California Government Code Section 65915 the City is limited in its ability to impose conditions that impact the development costs of affordable housing units. The Government Code provides a means for applicants to enforce this limitation through civil proceedings.
The applicant has informed the City that Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 described in this analysis significantly increase the construction costs for the project and would impact the development costs of the affordable housing units. The applicant is able to implement project design changes to reflect Alternative #4.
The four alternatives are depicted in Exhibit 1 and may be summarized as follows:
Alternative 1 partially preserves one head house, and the residential project is extended via a 24’ high raised concrete deck with large concrete columns to support the new structure over the top of the partially preserved head house. The existing head house would require substantial retrofit at both its roof and foundation in order to accommodate the new structure. Access to the waterfront park is relocated to a breezeway underneath the new raised residential structure. In order to maintain the parking count, the parking garage requires a partial second floor, and two buildings fronting Marina Village Parkway would increase in height from 4 stories to 5 stories.
Alternative 2 preserves one head house. Access to the park is relocated to an open air breezeway or alley between the head house and the residential project. In this alternative, the parking garage requires a second floor and two buildings increase from 4 to 5/6 stories and Buildings 1 & 2 increase from 4 to 6 stories.
Alternative 3 is similar alternative 2, except that alternative 3 preserves two head houses to maintain the symmetry that is a defining characteristic of the existing shipways structure. Access to the park is provided through two open air breezeways. Buildings 3 & 4 increase from 4 to 8 stories and Buildings 1 & 2 change from a few loft units above the 5th story to a full 6th story.
Alternative 4 preserves two partial head house facades to the “Preferred Project” plan. In this alternative, the basic design and configuration of the parking garage and residential units remains unchanged. The facades of the two head houses would be preserved in several sections and applied to the wall of the parking structure. Park access is preserved and building heights remain unchanged.
EVALUATION:
Land Area, Building Heights, and Residential Construction Costs: Preserving a head house reduces the 8.1 acres of land zoned for residential use by approximately ¾ of an acre. Preserving two head houses requires approximately 1 ½ acres. With the reduced land area, the buildings get taller and the parking garage needs to be increased to two floors. These changes increase the construction costs for the project. An extension over the head house, as shown in Alternative 1, significantly increases the cost to build the residential units above the head house. If one head house is retained as shown in Alternative 2, the construction type of a substantial portion of the project site would change from Type V (wood frame construction) to Type III (partially non-combustible construction), which substantially increases project costs. If two head houses are retained as shown in Alternative 3, a substantial portion of the project site would need to be Type 1 (steel frame, high-rise construction), the most expensive construction type. In Alternative 4, the facades of the two head houses are preserved and applied to the new building, as originally designed. The only additional costs are the cost to preserve the facade of the original head house and then reconstruct and lift it into position against the existing garage wall.
Head House Construction and Rehabilitation Costs. The structural integrity of the site, including the head houses, is unsound due to the deteriorated condition of the grade beams and timber piles that support the existing structures, including the head houses. Preservation and rehabilitation of the existing structure to accommodate a future office uses will add to the project construction costs.
Public Waterfront Park Access: Due to the location of the existing structures, preserving one or more head houses reduces the visual access to the park and waterfront for the public. The project includes a 2.79 acre public waterfront park, with seating areas, children’s play areas, public piers over the water, and public kayak launching facilities and water shuttle dock. To provide maximum feasible public access and views to the waterfront with clear and visible public access to the park, two large 40 to 60 foot wide park “extensions” are provided on either side of the building connecting the waterfront park to the public right of way on Marina Village Parkway.
In Alternatives 1 and 2, the public view on the east side of the building is partially blocked by the head house. In Alternative 3 both park extension view corridors are blocked. In alternative 1, the eastern park extension is replaced with a “dog leg” public breezeway between the head house and the side of the parking structure which would not provide a visual connection to the park. In Alternative 1, the new building is extended over the breezeway. In Alternative 3, which preserves the symmetry of the site by preserving two head houses, the access to the park on both sides of the building are provided by the breezeway. Alternative 4 would not alter or degrade the access to the waterfront park, because the facades are relocated to the edges of the new building, which preserves the planned two straight park extensions and view corridors.
Flood Plain and Sea Level Rise: The site and the existing head house structures are in the existing 100-year flood plain. The new residential project is designed to raise the improvements above the flood plain and accommodate an additional three feet of sea level rise. Any head house preserved as shown in Alternative 1, 2 and 3 would be preserved at existing grade within the flood plain. The new residential building first floor will be approximately 9 feet higher than the floor of the head house. The head house would not be protected from sea-level rise and would have a different useable life than the remainder of the project site. If the head house site were to be redeveloped in the future, substantial site preparation costs including rehabilitation or demolition, removal of existing piles, sea-level rise surcharging, and new pile supported foundation could make the project financially infeasible due to the relatively small size of the head house and accompanying land.
Applicant’s Analysis and Conclusions: The applicant has informed the City that Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 described in this analysis significantly increase the construction costs for the project and would impact the development costs of the affordable housing.
The applicant is able to implement project design changes to reflect Alternative #4.
CONCLUSIONS
Staff concludes that preserving one or more of the head houses will significantly increase construction costs for the project and that these additional costs could jeopardize the financing for the project. For these reasons, staff cannot recommend that the City of Alameda require the project applicant to preserve one or more of the head houses as shown in Alternative 1, 2 or 3.
Staff believes that the Historic Advisory Board could recommend design changes to integrate the portions of the facades into the design (as shown in Alternative 4) and adjust the heights of the buildings (as requested by Board member Sanchez) without significantly increasing construction costs.
Therefore, the Historical Advisory Board could recommend that the Planning Board’s Design Review approval and Historical Advisory Board’s future conditions of approval for a project Certificate of Approval include the following two conditions of approval:
1. Head House Facades. The applicant shall amend the building plans to incorporate the design changes shown as Alternative 4 in the attached Preservation Alternative Plans reviewed by the Historical Advisory Board on January 10, 2019.
2. Building Heights. To minimize shading impacts on the waterfront park, the applicant shall amend the building permit plans to ensure that the two tallest buildings (six stories) are located on the south side of the property (street facing) and the two shorter buildings (four stories) are located on the north side of the property (park facing) to reduce shade impacts from the taller buildings on the waterfront park. Alternatively, the applicant may amend the plans to ensure that all four buildings are of equal height (five stories).
Exhibits:
1. Preservation Alternative Plans