Oakland City Planning Commission - DOC by 5zA94m

VIEWS: 32 PAGES: 16

									Oakland City Planning Commission                                                            STAFF REPORT
Case File Number CMDV02-086                                                                          June 19, 2002

                                         2885-2895 Hannah Street and 1551 32nd Street (See map on
                           Location:
                                         reverse)
         Assessors Parcel Numbers: 007-0588-002-00, 007-0588-003-00, 007-0588-004-00, 007-0588-005-00,
                                    007-0588-006-00
                                    To construct two new structures each containing seven loft style residential
                          Proposal:
                                    units.

                 Owner/Applicant: Andrew Detsch
       Planning Permits Required: Interim Conditional Use Permit for density greater than allowed by the R-36
                                     Zoning Designation but within the density allowed by the General Plan and
                                     for residential construction within the M-30 Zone but allowed by the General
                                     Plan. Major Conditional Use Permit for more than three units in the R-36
                                     Zone and more than six units in the R-50 “best fit” Zone. Minor Variance for
                                     front setback (20 feet required in R-36 Zone, 15 feet for the R-50 “Best Fit”
                                     Zone; no setback provided), left side setback (five feet required for the R-36
                                     Zone and four feet required for the R-50 “best fit” Zone; no setback
                                     provided), and height (30 feet required for the R-36 and R-50 (“best fit”
                                     Zone, 45’4” proposed). Design Review for new construction in the R-36
                                     Zone.
                     General Plan: Housing and Business Mix
                           Zoning: R-36 Small Lot Residential Zone; M-30 General Industrial Zone; R-50 “best
                                     fit” Zone.
     Environmental Determination: Exempt, Section 15332, State CEQA Guidelines; Infill development
                   Historic Status: Potentially Designated Historic Property (PDHP); two homes exist on the site,
                                     both have a survey rating of Dc3
          Service Delivery District: I – West Oakland
             City Council District: 3

            Staff recommendation: Approve with attached findings and conditions
           For further information: Contact case planner Neil Gray at 510-238-3878 or ngray@oaklandnet.com.


     SUMMARY

     The applicant proposes to construct two matching buildings, one at the eastern half of the site, the other
     at the western half. Each building would contain seven loft style residential units. The industrial design,
     height, and scale of the buildings are appropriate for the context of the neighborhood and the Housing
     and Business Mix designation of the site without creating substantial impacts on the residential
     properties across 32nd Street. The proposed site plan creates functional and attractive open spaces and
     parking. Proposed on-site landscaping and new curbs, sidewalks (with a landscaping strip and street
     trees), and gutters would provide important amenities to the neighborhood. Finally, the proposal is
     consistent with Staff’s preliminary recommendations for development standards in the Housing and
     Business Mix General Plan Designation previously presented to the Design Review Committee.

     Therefore, Staff recommends approval of CMDV02-86 to construct two buildings and 14 loft style
     residential units at the subject site.



                                                                                                                   #2
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                          June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                           Page 3

      PROJECT DESCRIPTION

      The applicant proposes to construct two matching buildings, one at the eastern half of the site, the other
      at the western half. Each building would contain seven loft style residential units. The buildings would
      be located on adjacent 7,900 square foot lots that the applicant would create by merging and adjusting the
      property lines of five existing parcels. A courtyard shared by the two properties between the two
      buildings would accommodate fourteen parking spaces, two walkways, entrances to the bottom floor
      units, and significant landscaping to buffer the street from the parking area. This area would be partly
      covered by a canopy created by eight camphor trees. The parking area’s entrance and exit would be on
      32nd Street; a hammerhead turnaround at the end of the maneuvering aisle would accommodate cars
      turning around to leave the parking lot. The courtyard would lead to an open space at the south end of
      the property containing paths, extensive landscaping, and benches.

      Each building would have two stories with four 1,250 square foot units occupying the bottom level and
      three 1,000 square foot units on an upper level. The units would have open floor plans to accommodate
      home occupations, artists, and professionals. The buildings would reach a height of 45’-4” to
      accommodate mezzanine space above each unit. Each upper unit would be accessed through an outdoor
      balcony area facing the courtyard and have a 160 square foot deck at the rear. The bottom units of the
      western building would each have a 200 square foot private yard area. Residents of each unit would have
      access to roof open space above the first 20 feet of each building’s bottom floor. The buildings would
      only be 29’-5” high at the peak of the parapet at the north end of the buildings to relate to the scale and
      mitigate sunlight impacts on the residential properties across 32 nd Street. The buildings would be 7,941
      square feet each and cover approximately 40 percent of the site. The floor area ratio (the total floor area
      divided by the lot area) of the proposal would be approximately 1.0.

      The proposed structures’ corrugated metal siding, relatively flat façade, basic massing and shapes, and
      metal divided light windows give the design an overall industrial appearance. A 34’-10” flat façade
      consistent with this industrial style would face Hannah Street. The applicant’s proposals to provide
      visual interest and a pedestrian scale to this façade are described in the “Key Issues and Impacts” section
      of this report.

      Finally, the applicant proposes to install full curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements to the currently
      unimproved public right of way adjacent to the site. The applicant proposes ten London Plane street trees
      planted on a landscape strip on the sidewalk adjacent to the street. The applicant further proposes
      significant trees and shrubs on the right of way adjacent to the buildings, particularly along Hannah
      Street. All landscaping on the site and the public right of way would be maintained using a computerized
      irrigation system.


      NEIHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION

      The site is in a key location on the southwest corner of 32nd and Hannah Streets that serves as a transition
      between the heavy industrial uses to the south and the "Dogtown" residential neighborhood to the north.
      "Dogtown", an area roughly bounded by the future I-580 on ramp extension of Mandela Parkway and
      32nd, Hollis, and 34th Streets, is a mix of mostly older single-family and two-family Victorian homes
      along with some industrial uses, industrial buildings converted to live-work units, and neighborhood
      serving retail stores. The site is within a neighborhood surrounding Dogtown that is predominantly
      industrial but has a significant residential component.

      Victorian style homes and a multi-unit industrial style condominium development are located across 32nd
      Street. The adjacent property on Hannah Street is a contractor’s yard. A vacant brick industrial building
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                           June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                            Page 4

      directly across Hannah Street, the former foundry for the Precision Caste Products Company, has
      recently been approved by the Planning Commission to be converted into 17 live-work quarters. The
      Planning Commission has also recently approved a new structure containing 20 live-work quarters
      adjacent to and in conjunction with the Precision Cast conversion. Light and general industrial buildings,
      including a stucco manufacturing facility, are located across Hannah Street and to the south.

      BACKGROUND

      This project is the eighth residential or live/work project to be proposed in the Housing and Business Mix
      General Plan designation in the Dogtown area over the past three years. Many of these developments
      have been close to the density permitted by the General Plan (one unit per 1,089 square feet of lot area)
      and have been industrial style lofts with reduced setbacks, increased height, and greater bulk that relate to
      the industrial and urban context of the neighborhood.

      Staff has been unable to rely on the existing zoning in the area for development standards because the
      underlying zoning is typically industrial (M-20 or M-30) that does not allow residential development or a
      residential designation (R-36) that has a lower density than intended by the General Plan. The designated
      “best fit” zone is R-50 (see Zoning Analysis, below, for an explanation of best fit zones) but this zoning
      district is not particularly well suited to the intent of the Housing and Business Mix Land Use
      Classification or the conditions of the neighborhood.

      Staff has been in discussions with developers in the neighborhood to draft more appropriate standards for
      residential development in the Housing and Business Mix designation. Staff presented some preliminary
      recommendations for development standards and a comparison of development requirements for
      previously approved projects in the area to the Design Review Committee at their May 30, 2002 meeting.
      The “Key Issues and Impacts” section of this report shows how the subject project compares with the
      information presented to the Design Review Committee.

      PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

      The flat site is 15,800 square feet and 158 feet deep by 100 feet wide. After a merging and lot line
      adjustment, the site would contain two lots, each 7,900 square feet and 100 feet deep by 79 feet wide.
      Two blighted and vacant residential structures exist on the site. These Victorian homes have been
      designated to be of minor historical importance by the Planning Department’s Office of Cultural Heritage
      Survey. The applicant is working with the Survey office to determine whether these structures can be
      moved and rehabilitated or should be demolished.

      GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS

      The site is within an area with a Housing and Business Mix General Plan classification that surrounds the
      residentially designated Dogtown neighborhood. The Housing and Business Mix classification is
      intended to "guide a transition from heavy industry to low impact light industrial and other businesses
      that can co-exist compatibly with residential development” and to “recognize the equal importance of
      both housing and business”. This designation allows a maximum residential density of one unit per
      1,089 square feet of lot area. At approximately one unit per 1,129 of lot area, the proposal is within this
      maximum.
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                         June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                         Page 5

      ZONING ANALYSIS

      The property spans over two Zoning designations. Four of the five existing parcels are in the R-36, Small
      Lot Residential Zone. This zone conditionally permits one unit per 2,500 square feet of lot area, or only
      six units for the project site. At one unit per 1,129 per square foot, the density of the proposal exceeds
      what is allowed in the R-36 zone. As mentioned, the project is within the maximum density allowed by
      the General Plan land use designation of one unit per 1,089 square of site area. The westernmost parcel
      is within an M-30, General Industrial Zone, a designation that, unlike the site’s General Plan
      Designation, does not allow residential construction. When conflicts such as these arise between the
      General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance, Section 17.01.100 of the Zoning Ordinance (Proposals Clearly
      in Conformance with General Plan) states that a project may be approved upon the granting of an interim
      conditional use permit. The Zoning Ordinance also states that the Director of City Planning shall
      determine a "best fit" zoning designation from a list of allowable choices to provide the appropriate
      development standards for the project. The Director has determined R-50 as the best fit zone for this
      project because it contains development standards for residential development of one unit per 1,500
      square feet of site area, similar to that proposed by the applicant. The following reviews the project's
      conformance with relevant sections of the R-50 zoning designation and other parts of the Zoning
      Ordinance.

      Maximum Height

      At 45’-4”, the proposal exceeds the maximum height of 30 feet in the R-50 Zone. This issue is further
      discussed in the “Key Issues and Impacts” section of this report.

      Setbacks

      The following table lists the required setbacks in the R-50 “best fit” Zone and the proposed setbacks for
      both buildings:

                                                        Required         Proposed
                                Eastern Building
                                     Front              15’-0”           0’-0”
                                     Right Side         4’-0”            40’-6”
                                     Left Side          4’-0”            0’-0”
                                     Rear               15’-0”           15’-0”

                                Western Building
                                    Front               15’-0”           0’-0”
                                    Right Side          4’-0”            10’-0”
                                    Left Side           4’-0”            30’-6”
                                    Rear                15’-0”           15’-0”

      This table shows that both buildings require a variance for reduced front setbacks and the eastern
      building requires a variance for a reduced left side setback. This issue is further discussed in the “Key
      Issues and Impacts” section of this report.
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                        June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                         Page 6

      Open Space

      The R-50 “best fit” zone requires 200 square feet of open space per unit but allows one foot of private
      open space to substitute for two feet of required public open space. The Zoning Ordinance also requires
      that a minimum of 75 square feet of public open space be preserved for each unit regardless of the
      provision of private open space. The applicant proposes a 160 square foot deck for each of the three
      upper units of the eastern building. Given this amount of private open space, the eastern parcel requires
      1,025 square feet of public open space. The applicant proposes a 750 square foot rooftop public open
      space above the first 20 feet of the bottom story of the eastern structure and approximately 735 square
      feet of public open space at the rear of the property. This 1,485 square feet of open space exceeds the
      eastern parcel’s requirement for public open space.

      The western site would also have a 160 square foot deck for each upper unit but would also contain a 200
      square foot yard for each of the four lower units. Given this amount of private open space, the western
      parcel requires 525 square feet of public open space. The 750 square foot roof open space and the 990
      square foot rear open space exceed this requirement.

      Parking

      The R-50 “best fit” Zone requires one parking space per unit. The proposal meets this requirement by
      providing seven parking spaces per parcel. However, given the size of the proposed units, staff is
      concerned that seven parking spaces may not be sufficient to satisfy the parking demanded by the
      development. This issue is further discussed in the “Key Issues and Impacts” Section of this report.


      ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

      The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines lists projects that qualify as categorical
      exemptions from environmental review. The project falls under the category exemption listed in Section
      15332, which states that projects characterized as in-fill development meeting certain conditions are
      exempt from environmental review. These conditions are listed below. The type in bold is how the
      project meets these conditions.

          1. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general
             plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. The application is
             consistent with all General Plan Policies and the General Plan Designation. Although the
             application requires variances from the Zoning Ordinance, the General Plan significantly
             altered the allowed uses and intent of the site and there are no Zoning Designations that
             have development regulations to implement the intent of the General Plan.

          2. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres
             substantially surrounded by urban uses. The project covers less than an acre of land.

          3. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species. The project
             is located in a highly urbanized area that contains no known endangered, rare, or
             threatened species.

          4. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air
             quality, or water quality. The addition of 14 new residential units would result in an
             insignificant traffic increase in an urban area that has more than adequate road capacity.
             The project would also fall far below the level that the Bay Area Air Quality Management
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                           June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                            Page 7

               District (BAAQMD) considers the normal minimum traffic volume that should require a
               detailed air quality analysis. The project would result in short-term localized impacts to air
               quality due to emissions from excavation and construction equipment and grading and
               construction activities. No significant decrease in air quality beyond that anticipated for the
               area under the Open Space, Conservation, and Recreation (OSCAR) Element of the
               Oakland General Plan is expected as a direct result of the proposal. Regardless, the
               applicant would be required to comply with all applicable City regulations and operating
               procedures prior to issuance of building or grading permits, including standard dust
               control measures.

          5. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The site is
             located in an urbanized area that is well served by utilities and public services.


      KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS

      Setbacks

      As mentioned, the applicant proposes no front setback for either building and the western building has no
      street side setback. Staff believes that this is appropriate for the site because the historically industrial
      nature of the neighborhood has created a strong pattern of structures with no setbacks along the street.
      For instance, the building at the corner of Ettie and 32nd Streets covers its entire property and the artist
      live/work units on the northwestern corner of Ettie and 32nd Streets also contain no street side or front
      setbacks. The Precision Cast Products structure, across Hannah from the proposed site, also has no street
      side setback. At their November 7, 2001 meeting the Planning Commission approved new live/work units
      adjacent to the Precision Dye Products structure with no street side setback.

      No streetside setback is also appropriate for the site because the General Plan has designated the area
      appropriate for commercial and light industrial activities; reduced setbacks in commercial neighborhoods
      are a common development pattern. The zero streetside setbacks are also appropriate for the urban and
      industrial context of the neighborhood. The applicant mitigates the light and air impact of the reduced
      front yard setback on the residential neighborhood across 32nd Street by providing a twenty foot second
      story setback, reducing the height of the front of the buildings to only 29’-5” to the top of the parapet
      (24’-4” to the bottom of the parapet). This second story setback also relates the proposed buildings to the
      scale of these homes. The applicant also proposes street trees, street improvements (curb, gutter, and
      sidewalks), and extensive landscaping in front of the buildings, mitigating the affects of the reduced
      setbacks and contributing significant amenities to the residents of the neighborhood.

      The zero lot line proposal is consistent with the preliminary recommendations staff presented to the
      Design Review Committee on May 30, 2002. In that presentation, staff recommended 15 foot front yard
      setback, but with a more flexible policy to allow exceptions for front yard and street side setbacks in
      neighborhoods where there is an existing pattern of reduced setbacks.

      Height

      As mentioned, the proposed 45’-4” height is greater than the 30 foot height allowed in the R-50 “best fit”
      Zone. Staff believes that this increased height is appropriate given the urban and industrial context of the
      neighborhood. However, this height is comparable to the height permitted for the Precision Caste
      Building across the street (46’-6”) and residential lofts approved in a Housing and Business Mix
      designation one block from the project site at the corner of Helen and 34 th Streets. Like these previously
      approved plans, the height of the buildings are significantly lower at the area adjacent to residentially
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                         June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                          Page 8

      designated neighborhoods. As mentioned, the first 20 feet of the proposed structures are less than 30 feet
      high. This significant second story setback relates to the scale of and mitigates the sunlight impacts on
      the residential properties across 32nd Street.

      This second story setback is consistent with the Housing and Business Mix development standards
      preliminarily recommended to the Design Review Committee on May 30, 2002. At that meeting, staff
      recommended a height limit of 30 feet at any property line adjacent, abutting, or across from a residence
      or residential building, with an upper story setback of one foot for every addition foot of height up to a
      maximum of 45 feet.

      The buildings also significantly step back from the side property lines. The structures are only 34”-10’ at
      their sides and only gradually reach their maximum height of 45’-4”.

      Design

      Staff believes that the designs of the buildings are appropriate for the neighborhood. As mentioned, the
      industrial style and material relate to the context of the neighborhood and are consistent with other
      residential developments approved in this Housing and Business Mix area. The proposal would also have
      several residential design elements such as the extensive use of landscaping, highly functional public
      open spaces, and roof decks. The metal siding is also horizontal to relate to the wood horizontal siding
      found on the Victorian homes located across the 32nd Street.

      Staff has concerns that the industrial style of the building resulted in an unarticulated Hannah Street
      elevation that would lack the visual interest and pedestrian scale appropriate for a residential structure.
      In response, the applicant proposes dense landscaping and hedges on the bottom third of the Hannah
      Street façade. and articulated and visually interesting drainage pipe elements down the side of the
      building. Staff recommends conditions of approval that the applicant submits for review and approval of
      the Zoning Administrator details of the landscape plan and the drainage pipes to assure they achieve the
      intended visual interest.

      Staff also has concerns that the material proposed for the buildings may create glare that would become a
      disturbance to neighboring properties and that the landscaping along Hannah Street would be unable to
      survive the heat created by the corrugated metal material. In response, the applicant has proposed a
      textured non-reflective corrugated metal siding (the proposed materials will be presented to the Planning
      Commission at the June 19, 2002 meeting) and a heat resistant plant. Staff recommends that the Planning
      Commission explore this issue further in their discussion of the application because these issues remain a
      concern.


      Floor Area Ratio and Lot Coverage

      The proposed Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is approximately 1.0, within the maximum FAR of 2.0 (3.0 with a
      Conditional Use Permit) preliminarily recommended to the Design Review Committee for residential
      development in the Housing and Business Mix designation. The proposed 40 percent lot coverage is also
      within Staff’s preliminarily recommended lot coverage of 60 percent. Both the lot coverage and FAR are
      consistent with other developments approved for the area.

      Parking

      The proposed parking ratio of one space per unit is consistent with R-50 “Best Fit” Zone and other the
      other Housing and Business Mix developments approved in the area. Staff is concerned, however, that
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                      June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                       Page 9

      the size of these units (and other units approved in the area) may require more parking than provided on
      site and that available on-street parking will become increasingly scarce in the neighborhood. Among the
      alternative parking schemes discussed with the applicant were providing additional parking in the
      proposed rear open space, reducing landscaping in the courtyard parking area, and extending the length
      of the proposed parking aisles. None of these alternative schemes were acceptable to staff. Reducing
      landscaping in the parking area or using the rear open space for parking would result in additional
      parking spaces but would deprive the development and neighborhood critical amenities. Adding two
      additional parking spaces at the end of the parking aisles would reduce the usability of the rear open
      space by cutting it off from the courtyard and make the hammerhead turnaround too shallow to
      accommodate the turning around of cars.

      Parking impacts are mitigated by two factors. First, the site plan preserves on-street parking by only
      requiring two curb cuts, one at the entrance of the development and another to accommodate garbage
      truck access from Hannah Street at the rear of the development. Second, the neighboring industrial sites
      on Hannah Street only require limited on-street parking. The area’s development community has been in
      discussion with the operators of “Emery-Go-Round” to eventually establish a stop as the Dogtown Area
      continues to develop. A shuttle to the West Oakland BART station a mile away from the site has been
      another option discussed. Staff encourages the community to work with the City to pursue these transit
      options before parking becomes an issue in the area.

      Given these mitigating factors, the design compromises required to provide additional parking, and the
      parking’s compliance with the R-50 “Best Fit” Zone, staff recommends approval of the proposed parking
      scheme.

      Conclusion

      The industrial design, height, and scale of the buildings are appropriate for the context of the
      neighborhood and the Housing and Business Mix designation of the site without creating substantial
      impacts on the residential properties across 32nd Street. The proposed site plan creates functional and
      attractive open spaces and parking. Proposed on-site landscaping and new curbs, sidewalks (with a
      landscaping strip and street trees), and gutters would provide important amenities to the neighborhood.
      Finally, the proposal is consistent with Staff’s preliminary recommendations for development standards
      in the Housing and Business Mix General Plan Designation previously presented to the Design Review
      Committee.

      Therefore, Staff recommends approval of CMDV02-86 to construct two buildings and 14 loft style
      residential units at the subject site.

      RECOMMENDATIONS:                1. Affirm staff’s environmental determination.

                                      2. Approve the Interim Conditional Use Permit, Variance, and Design
                                         Review applications subject to the attached findings and conditions.


                                                              Prepared by:



                                                              NEIL GRAY
                                                              Planner II
Oakland City Planning Commission               June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                           Page 10



      Approved by:




      GARY V. PATTON
      Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning


      Approved for forwarding to the
      City Planning Commission:




      LESLIE GOULD
      Director of Planning and Zoning


      ATTACHMENTS:

      A. Plans and Elevations
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                           June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                        Page 11

      FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:

      This proposal meets the required findings under Sections 17.148.070 (Variance Criteria), 17.136.070.A
      (Residential Design Review Criteria), 17.34.050 (General Conditional Use Permit Criteria), and
      17.01.100B (Interim Conditional Use Permit Criteria).

      Section 17.148.070 (Variance Criteria):

      A. Strict compliance with the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or
         unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning regulations, due to unique
         physical or topographic circumstances or conditions of design; or, as an alternative in the case
         of a minor variance, that such strict compliance would preclude an effective design solution
         improving livability, operational efficiency, or appearance.

         The applicant proposes no front setback for either building and the western building has no street
         side setback. This is an effective design solution for the site because the historically industrial nature
         of the neighborhood has created a strong pattern of structures with no lot line on the street. No
         streetside setback is also appropriate for the site because the General Plan has designated the area
         appropriate for commercial and light industrial activities; reduced setbacks in commercial
         neighborhoods are a common development pattern. The zero streetside setbacks are also appropriate
         for the urban and industrial context of the neighborhood. The applicant mitigates the light and air
         impact of the reduced front yard setback on the residential neighborhood across 32 nd Street by
         providing a twenty foot second story setback, reducing the height of the front of the buildings to only
         29’-5” to the top of the parapet (24’-4” to the bottom of the parapet).

         The proposed height is consistent with other applications approved in the neighborhood and is
         appropriate for the urban and industrial context of the neighborhood. The applicant mitigates the
         effect of the height on the residential buildings across 32 nd Street by providing significant second
         story setbacks.

      B. Strict compliance with the regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
         owners of similarly zoned property; or, as an alternative in the case of a minor variance, that
         such strict compliance would preclude an effective design solution fulfilling the basic intent of
         the applicable regulation.

         Similar height and setback variances have been approved for other Housing and Business Mix
         projects in the neighborhood.

      C. The variance, if granted, will not adversely affect the character, livability, or appropriate
         development of abutting properties or the surrounding area, and will not be detrimental to the
         public welfare or contrary to adopted plans or development policy;

         See Answer A.

      D. The variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations
         imposed on similarly zoned properties or inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning
         regulations.

         See answer B.


                                                                                                      FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                          June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                           Page 12

      17.136.070.A (Residential Design Review Criteria):

      A. The proposed design will create a building or set of buildings that are well related to the
         surrounding area in their setting, scale, bulk, height, materials, and textures.

          The industrial style and material relate to the context of the neighborhood and are consistent with
          other residential developments approved in this Housing and Business Mix area. The proposal would
          also have several residential design elements such as the extensive use of landscaping, highly
          functional public open spaces, and roof decks. The applicant proposes dense landscaping and vines
          on the bottom third of the Hannah Street façade and articulated and visually interesting drainage pipe
          elements down the side of the building to create visual interest on Hannah Street. The second story
          setback of the buildings relate to the scale of the homes across 32nd Street.

      B. The proposed design will protect, preserve, or enhance desirable neighborhood characteristics.

          The proposed street improvements and landscaping will be important amenities for the
          neighborhood. The industrial loft style development will enhance the interesting mix of industrial
          and residential uses found in the neighborhood.

      C. The proposed design will be sensitive to the topography and landscape.

          The site is flat and without significant landscape.

      D. If situated on a hill, the design and massing of the proposed building relates to the grade of the
         hill.

          The proposal is not situated on a hill.

      E. The proposed design conforms in all significant respects with the Oakland Comprehensive
         Plan and with any applicable district plan or development control map which has been adopted
         by the City Council.

          The site is within an area with a Housing and Business Mix General Plan classification that
          surrounds the residentially designated Dogtown neighborhood. The Housing and Business Mix
          classification is intended to "guide a transition from heavy industry to low impact light industrial and
          other businesses that can co-exist compatibly with residential development” and to “recognize the
          equal importance of both housing and business”. This designation allows a maximum residential
          density of one unit per 1,089 square feet of lot area. At approximately one unit per 1,129 of lot area,
          the proposal is within this maximum.

      Section 17.134.050 (General Use Permit Criteria):

      A. That the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development will
         be compatible with and will not adversely affect the livability or appropriate development of
         abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood, with consideration to be given to
         harmony in scale, bulk, coverage, and density; to the availability of civic facilities and utilities;
         to harmful effect, if any, upon desirable neighborhood character; to the generation of traffic
         and the capacity of surrounding streets; and to any other relevant impact of the development.



                                                                                                      FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                           June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                           Page 13

         The proposed scale is consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood. Further, The second story
         setback of the buildings relate to the scale of the homes across 32 nd Street. The building covers
         approximately 40 percent of the site area, consistent with existing structures and other applications
         approved in the neighborhood. The FAR proposed by the applicant of approximately 1.0 is less than
         or similar to other projects approved in the neighborhood and would fit into the context of the
         existing neighborhood pattern. The proposed landscaping and street improvements would be
         important amenities to the neighborhood. The surrounding streets and civic facilities have ample
         capacity to serve the proposal.

      B. That the location, design, and site planning of the proposed development will provide a
         convenient and functional living, working, shopping, or civic environment, and will be as
         attractive as the nature of the use and its location and setting warrant.

         The parking and open space would be functional and attractive. The industrial style of the lofts
         would fit into the industrial context of the neighborhood. The open floor plans of the units are
         appropriate for the loft style development and would provide convenient space for home occupations.

      C. That the proposed development will enhance the successful operation of the surrounding area
         in its basic community functions, or will provide an essential service to the community or
         region.

         The proposal would provide high quality residential opportunities to the community and region.

      D. That the proposal conforms to all applicable design review criteria set forth in the design
         review procedure at Section 17.136.070.

         See design review findings, above.

      E. That the proposal conforms in all significant respects with the Oakland Comprehensive Plan
         and with any other applicable plan or development control map which has been adopted by the
         City Council.

         The site is within an area with a Housing and Business Mix General Plan classification that
         surrounds the residentially designated Dogtown neighborhood. The Housing and Business Mix
         classification is intended to "guide a transition from heavy industry to low impact light industrial and
         other businesses that can co-exist compatibly with residential development” and to “recognize the
         equal importance of both housing and business”. This designation allows a maximum residential
         density of one unit per 1,089 square feet of lot area. At approximately one unit per 1,129 of lot area,
         the proposal is within this maximum.

      Section 17.01.100B (Criteria for Interim Conditional Use Permits):

      A. That the proposal is clearly appropriate in consideration of the characteristics of the proposal
         and the surrounding area;

         The proposal is consistent with the neighborhood in terms of style, site design, and density. The
         industrial loft style development is consistent with the mix of industrial and residential activities and
         architectural style in the neighborhood.



                                                                                                      FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                      June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                       Page 14

      B. That the proposal is clearly consistent with the intent and desired character of the relevant
         land use classification or classifications of the General Plan and any associated policies;

         The General Plan states that the Housing and Business Mix classification is intended to recognize the
         equal importance of housing and business. The industrial style of the development is a recognition
         of the non-residential character of much of the neighborhood. Further, the open floor plan of the
         units provides convenient space for home occupations, artists, and professionals.

      C. That the proposal will clearly promote implementation of the General Plan.

         See Finding B.




                                                                                                  FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                        June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                     Page 15

                                    CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
      STANDARD CONDITIONS:

      1. Approved Use.
         a. Ongoing.
            The project shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the authorized use as described
            in this staff report and the plans submitted on June 10, 2002 and as amended by the following
            conditions. Any additional uses other than those approved with this permit, as described in the
            project description, will require a separate application and approval

      2. Effective Date, Expiration, and Extensions
         a. Ongoing.
             This permit shall become effective upon satisfactory compliance with these conditions. This
             permit shall expire on June 19, 2003, unless actual construction or alteration, or actual
             commencement of the authorized activities in the case of a permit not involving construction or
             alteration, has begun for both subject principal buildings under necessary permits by this date.
             Upon written request and payment of appropriate fees, the Zoning Administrator may grant a
             one-year extension of this date, with additional extensions subject to approval by the City
             Planning Commission.

      3. Scope of This Approval; Major and Minor Changes
         a. Ongoing.
            The project is approved pursuant to the Planning Code only and shall comply with all other
            applicable codes and requirements imposed by other affected departments, including but not
            limited to the Building Services Division and the Fire Marshal. Minor changes to approved plans
            may be approved administratively by the Zoning Administrator; major changes shall be subject
            to review and approval by the City Planning Commission.

      4. Modification of Conditions or Revocation
         a. Ongoing.
            The City Planning Commission reserves the right, after notice and public hearing, to alter
            Conditions of Approval or revoke this conditional use permit if it is found that the approved
            facility is violating any of the Conditions of Approval or the provisions of the Zoning
            Regulations.

      5. Recording of Conditions of Approval
         a. Prior to issuance of building permit or commencement of activity.
            The applicant shall execute and record with the Alameda County Recorder’s Office a copy of these
            conditions of approval on a form approved by the Zoning Administrator. Proof of recordation shall be
            provided to the Zoning Administrator.

      6. Reproduction of Conditions on Building Plans
         a. Prior to issuance of building permit.
            These conditions of approval shall be reproduced on page one of any plans submitted for a
            building permit for this project.

      7. Indemnification
         a. Ongoing.


                                                                 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                           June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                        Page 16

              The applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Oakland, its agents,
              officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding (including legal costs and
              attorney’s fees) against the City of Oakland, its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside,
              void or annul, an approval by the City of Oakland, the Office of Planning and Building, Planning
              Commission, or City Council. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action
              or proceeding and the City shall cooperate fully in such defense. The City may elect, in its sole
              discretion, to participate in the defense of said claim, action, or proceeding.

      STANDARD CONDITIONS FOR MULTI UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS

      8. Waste Reduction and Recycling
         a. Prior to issuance of a building or demolition permit for either site.
            The applicant may be required to complete and submit a “Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan,”
            and a plan to divert 50 percent of the solid waste generated by the operation of the project, to the
            Public Works Agency for review and approval, pursuant to City of Oakland Ordinance No.
            12253. Contact the City of Oakland Environmental Services Division of Public Works at (510)
            238-7073 for information.

      9. Recycling Space Allocation Requirements
         a. Prior to issuance of any building permit
            The design, location and maintenance of recycling collection and storage areas must substantially
            comply with the provision of the Oakland City Planning Commission “Guidelines for the
            Development and Evaluation of Recycling Collection and Storage Areas”, Policy 100-28. A
            minimum of two cubic feet of storage and collection area shall be provided for each dwelling
            unit and for each 1,000 square feet of commercial space.

      10. Refuse Collection
          a. Prior to issuance of any building permit
             The applicant shall submit for review and approval of the Zoning Administrator plans that show
             all refuse collection cans shall be stored in enclosed shelters.

      11. Lighting Plan
          a. Prior to issuance of any building permit
             A lighting plan for the project shall be submitted to and be approved by the Zoning
             Administrator with referral to other departments or divisions as appropriate, and shall include the
             design and location of all lighting fixtures or standards; and said lighting shall be installed such
             that it is adequately shielded and does not cast glare onto adjacent properties.

      12. Meter shielding.
          a. Prior to issuance of any building permit
             The applicant shall submit to for review and approval plans that show any and all utility meters,
             transformers, and the like screened from view.

      13. Final Design Specifications
          a. Prior to issuance of any building permit
             The final design, including all exterior design details, materials, and textures shall be submitted
             to and approved by the director of City Planning. This shall include details and cross sections of
             the windows. Windows shall have a thick mullion and have a significant recess of at least three
             inches. All divided light style windows shall have the characteristics and elements of true
             divided light windows.
                                                                   CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                      June 19, 2002
Case File Number CMDV02-86                                                                                    Page 17


        14. Fence Plan.
         a. Prior to issuance of any building permit
            The applicant shall submit for review and approval plans that show the details and locations of
            all fences on the site.

         15. Sign Plan.
         a. Prior to issuance of any building permit
             The applicant shall submit for review and approval plans that show the details and location signs
             of all signs proposed for the development.

      OTHER CONDITIONS

        16. Drainage Pipes.
         a. Prior to issuance of any building permit
            The applicant shall submit for review and approval plans that show the details of the drainage
            pipes and scuppers on the façade of the eastern building facing Hannah Street. The drainage
            pipes and scuppers shall have significant articulation from the building and have a design and
            material that provide visual interest to the facade.

        17. Landscaping.
         a. Prior to issuance of any building permit
            The applicant shall submit for review and approval plans that show the details of the landscape
            plan shown on Sheet 4 of the approved plans. Landscaping along the Hannah Street façade shall
            be dense, include vines, and be approximately 8’-0” to 10’-0” tall.

        18. Parcel Merging and Lot Line Adjustment.
         a. Prior to issuance of any building permit
            The applicant shall merge and adjust the existing parcels to create lots with the same
            configuration as shown on Sheet #1 of the approved plans. The resultant site shall have two
            adjacent lots, both 79’-0” wide by 100’-0” long. The shorter side of both lots shall front on 32nd
            Street. The lots shall share a 100’-0”property line.

        19. Environmental Review
         a. Prior to issuance of any building permit
            Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide an updated review of the
            existing Phase 1 Environmental Site assessment for approval by planning staff based upon the
            approved residential use of the project site. A qualified environmental consultant shall prepare
            the review. The consultant shall be funded at the developer’s expense.


      APPROVED BY: City Planning Commission:                         (date)                          (vote)
                                 City Council:                       (date)                          (vote)




                                                                CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

								
To top