Oakland City Planning Commission

Document Sample
Oakland City Planning Commission Powered By Docstoc
					Oakland City Planning Commission        STAFF REPORT
Case File Number CM02-516 and TTM7419      March 5, 2003




                                                    #2
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                  December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                     Page 2

                                    1165 and 1249 67th Street (Located within the City of Oakland and
                           Location:
                                    the City of Emeryville)
          Assessors Parcel Numbers: 049-1507-004-00; 016-1507-008-03 and 016-1507-009-02

                                        Demolition of existing industrial structures and construction of 92
                            Proposal:
                                        condominium residential dwellings

                         Applicant: Pulte Home Corporation
                            Owner: FABCO Automotive Corporation
        Planning Permits Required: Interim Conditional Use Permit for residential dwellings in the M-30
                                      zoning district, with Design Review, and a Tract Map.
                      General Plan: Housing and Business Mix
                            Zoning: M-30 General Industrial/S-18 Mediated Design Review Overlay
                                      (Best Fit Zoning per General Plan Guidelines is S-13, Mixed-Use
                                      Combining Zone)
      Environmental Determination: Exempt; CEQA Guidelines 15332 (Infill Exemption)
                    Historic Status: 1165 67th Street: Non-Historic Property; D3 Rating – OCHS; 1249
                                      67th Street: Potential Designated Historic Property (PDHP); C3 Rating
                                      – OCHS;
           Service Delivery District: II
              City Council District: 1
                         Date Filed: November 1, 2002

             Staff recommendation: Decision based on staff report
            For further information: Contact case planner Scott Miller at (510) 238-2235 or by e-mail at
                                     smiller@oaklandnet.com


      SUMMARY

      The project proposal under Case CMD02-516 is to demolish several industrial buildings (and
      partially demolish one building) and construct 92 condominium residential units on a 2.85 acre
      site. The project also includes a subdivision to create new parcels and condominium ownership.
      The subdivision application is Tract Map Case TTM7401. The project site is located between
      66th and 67th Streets west of San Pablo Avenue. The proposed development is located partially
      in the City of Emeryville and partially in Oakland, near the Berkeley border. The proposed 3-
      level buildings are contemporary in character, with stucco walls, flat roofs, projecting overhangs
      and balconies, projecting windows, and simple geometric shapes. The project is laid out in
      clusters of attached townhouse-style units, each with a garage facing an internal driveway. The
      project proposes 2 vehicular access points, one on 66th Street and one on 67th Street. The site
      abuts the planned Emeryville greenway on the west side (within the City of Emeryville), which is
      a planned linear open space corridor utilizing an abandoned railway route. The project will
      provide 2 pedestrian links to the greenway, as well as an internal pedestrian open space network
      between building clusters and connecting to the public sidewalks along 66th and 67th Streets. The
      City of Emeryville will require development of the adjacent portion of greenway as part of their
      review and approval of this project.



                                                                                                    FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                              December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                      Page 3

      The project includes the complete demolition of one existing industrial building that has a D3
      rating from the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey (OCHS) and the partial demolition of one
      existing industrial building that has a C3 rating from OCHS. The front facade of the existing
      brick building along 66th Street (which has the C3 rating) will be preserved and incorporated into
      the project as the first and second level building façade (see elevations, sheets A3.1.16 and
      A3.1.17).

      Staff has worked with the project applicant during the past several months in conjunction with
      the City of Emeryville staff. Much of this work has focused on the site plan and unit layout in
      relation to creating higher quality open space and improving pedestrian access to the site from
      surrounding streets. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is being finalized and will be
      executed between the cities of Emeryville and Oakland to formalize review responsibilities, since
      the boundary line between the cities runs through the subject property. Both cities will be
      reviewing and issuing planning permits pursuant to local zoning requirements and the City of
      Oakland will be responsible for the building permit process for the entire project. The MOU is
      similar to those executed for similar recent projects split by the Oakland and Emeryville
      boundary.

      Nearby, there are several new and under construction residential projects within the City of
      Emeryville, as well as a recently approved 24-unit mixed use project at 65th Street and San Pablo,
      within the City of Oakland (CMD02-341). The majority of the 2.85 acre site (approx. 65%) is
      within the City of Oakland, and hence Oakland is the Lead Agency for CEQA purposes. An
      infill exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines 15332 has been determined to be appropriate,
      pursuant to the analysis summarized in the ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION section,
      below.

       The project requires an Interim Conditional Use Permit for residential units in the M-30 zone,
      along with Design Review, and a Tract Map for the subdivision of lots, as described in more
      detail below.

      Staff believes that the project achieves the goals of providing additional housing in this mixed-
      use area, cleaning up a contaminated site, and furthering the revitalization of this neighborhood
      between San Pablo Avenue and Hollis Street. Staff recommends approval subject to conditions.


      PROJECT DESCRIPTION

      The project involves the demolition of several industrial buildings (and partial demolition of one
      building) on the site and the construction of 92 residential condominium dwelling units in
      eighteen (18) buildings. The project will provide vehicle access from two locations, one on 66th
      Street and one on 67th Street, with a private driveway system providing access to a vehicle garage
      for each of the units. The units all offer 2-or 3-levels of living area and all have ground level door
      access in addition to the garages for vehicle access. The front door access is on the opposite side
      from the garages, up a half-level, except for many of the corner units, which have front doors and
      small living spaces at the garage level. Front doors line the facades along 66th and 67th Streets,
      and along the Emeryville greenway. The internal units (those not facing the exterior property

                                                                                                FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                             December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                     Page 4

      boundary) face a landscaped “paseo” or linear court which provides access to individual units
      and to a series of interconnected open spaces which lead to the streets and to the greenway.

      The height to the roofline is approximately thirty-two (32) feet for all of the buildings except for
      building 16, which fronts on 66th Street and utilizes the front façade wall of the existing building.
      Building 16 is approximately 35.5 feet to the roofline from the elevation along 66th Street. The
      upper 2 floors are set back a minimum of five (5) feet from the existing brick façade which is to
      be retained.

      60 of the 92 units (65%) will have 2-car garages (51 of which are side by side and 9 of which are
      tandem) and 32 of the units have a 1-car garage. All units have 2 bedrooms and 2.5 bathrooms,
      and range in size from approximately 1,200 to 1,500 square feet, not including the garages.

      Attachment A provides the site plan, floor plans, and building elevations for the project.



      PROPERTY DESCRIPTION

      Physical Characteristics

      The immediately surrounding development includes light industrial uses to the east, the vacant
      Myers Drum property and Oliver’s Lofts (Live/Work) to the south, across 66th Street, the Liquid
      Sugar residential development to the southwest, across 66th Street and the planned greenway,
      commercial development west of the site, across the greenway, and the UC Berkeley warehouse
      to the north, across 67th Street. Within Emeryville, the North Hollis Urban Design Program calls
      for “infill residential that compliments the existing neighborhood and activates the greenway.”
      Within Oakland, the area is Housing and Business Mix in the General Plan (as described in more
      detail below), which anticipates transition to more residential uses that can co-exist with light
      industrial and business uses.

      The project site currently supports two main buildings and several small portable buildings
      making up the FABCO Automotive facility, totaling approximately 65,000 square feet of light
      manufacturing and warehousing space. The structure at 1165 67th Street has a D3 rating from the
      Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey (OCHS) and is not considered a Potential Designated Historic
      Property (PDHP). The larger building at 1249 67th Street that extends through to 66th Street has a
      C3 rating from OCHS, and as such is a PDHP. A PDHP is the broadest definition of “historic”
      under the Historic Preservation Element. PDHP is a description based on OCHS survey ratings.
      The “C” rating of one of the existing buildings indicates they are of “secondary importance”, as
      compared to an “A” rating, which is of “highest importance”, or “E”, which is “of no particular
      interest”. The project has incorporated the existing 66th Street brick building façade into the
      project. For any demolition or alteration to a C rated building, findings must be made pursuant to
      the City’s Historic Preservation Element, Policy 3.5. These findings have been included in the
      Findings section of this report.



                                                                                               FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                            December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                  Page 5

      Additional historical information will follow below in the GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS,
      ZONING ANALYSIS, and ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION sections.

      Site Contamination

      The subject site has been used for automotive parts manufacturing for more than 80 years.
      Through initial environmental analysis, some contamination of the soils and groundwater is
      likely. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment has been completed and a Phase II
      assessment is underway. To date, all analysis completed has demonstrated that the site
      contamination can be remediated and is appropriate for residential use. Any corrective action
      plan necessary to clean up the site will be reviewed and monitored by the California Regional
      Water Quality Control Board (CRWQCB). The CRWQCB and the Alameda County Department
      of Environmental Health (ACDEH) have regulatory oversight for any cleanup. Proposed
      condition No. 24 addresses the environmental cleanup of the project site.


      GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS

      Housing and Business Mix Land Use Designation

      The General Plan designation of the project site is Housing and Business Mix. This designation
      states its intent is to “…address areas of the City where a complex mix of residences and
      businesses has evolved due to converging historic development patterns. The classification
      recognizes the equal importance of both housing and business. This classification is intended to
      guide the transition from heavy industry to low impact light industrial and other businesses that
      can co-exist compatibly with residential development. Respect for environmental quality,
      coupled with opportunities for additional housing and neighborhood-friendly businesses is
      desired, as well as the transition from industry that generates impacts detrimental to residences.
      This classification allows mixed housing type density, “live-work”, low impact light industrial,
      commercial, and service businesses, and compatible facilities. These areas may require
      additional attention to buffer the impacts of incompatible adjacencies, and the careful
      development and enforcement of performance standards to insure compatible co-existence.”

      The maximum residential intensity is 40 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed 92 units on
      the 2.85 acre site is approximately 32 dwelling units to the acre. The current M-30 zoning
      potentially conflicts with the Housing and Business Mix land use designation in that the M-30
      zone does not permit residential uses. In these situations, the General Plan governs, and
      residential development is permitted with an Interim Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to the
      General Plan Guidelines (as amended Dec. 2001).

      The Guidelines for General Plan Conformity also specifies a number of Best Fit Zones that may
      be applied in Housing and Business Mix areas. The S-13 (Mixed-Use Development Combining
      Zone Regulations) is identified as the best fit zone, with R-50 (and others) identified as a
      potential best fit zone.



                                                                                              FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                        December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                          Page 6

      In conjunction with the Citywide zoning rewrite process, the Housing and Business Mix land use
      category is currently being studied and development standards drafted for proposed new zoning
      districts appropriate to this land use category. The proposed zoning standards for the Housing
      and Business Mix land use areas as currently drafted include 2 districts, BHX-1 and BHX-21.
      While the proposed zoning regulations being drafted are not adopted, they have been specifically
      targeted for this area, given the private sector redevelopment efforts planned and underway
      during the past few years. These standards are outlined, along with the existing zoning and R-50
      potential best fit zone standards, in the ZONING ANALYSIS section of this report, below.

      Historic Resource Issues

      The City’s Historic Preservation Element (HPE) contains policy 3.5 that is applicable to the
      subject project, due to the proposed partial demolition of 1249 67th Street, which is a PDHP with
      a C3 rating.

      The Historic Preservation Element Policy 3.5 states that projects that may affect a PDHP and
      already require a discretionary permit are subject to specific design review findings. For
      additions or alterations to a PDHP, the City must make one or more of the following findings: 1)
      The design matches or is compatible with, but not necessarily identical to, the property’s existing
      or historical design; or 2) the proposed design comprehensively modifies and is at least equal in
      quality to the existing design and is compatible with character of the neighborhood; or 3) the
      existing design is undistinguished and does not warrant retention and the proposed design is
      compatible with the character of the neighborhood. Staff believes that one or more of these
      criteria can be satisfied with the project. The evaluation of this criteria is included in the Findings
      section of this report.


      ZONING ANALYSIS

      The site is located in the M-30, General Industrial zoning district. As explained above, the Best
      Fit zone is S-13, but the S-13 does not have development standards other than design and use
      permit criteria, since it is an overlay zone meant to be combined with a base district. R-50 is also
      a potential best fit zone. The newly proposed BHX-2 standards are most appropriate to use as a
      guide as they have been specifically drafted for this area and for this type of development. The
      following table depicts the project’s comparison among R-50 (a potential best fit zone), M-30,
      and the proposed BHX-2 standards.


           Criteria             Requirement                Proposed                 Comment
                             R-50 M-30 BHX




      1
        Recently the numbering of the proposed BHX districts was reversed – the formerly proposed BHX-1 District
      standards are now the proposed BHX-2 standards, and vice versa.
                                                                                                          FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                              December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                                        Page 7

      Yard – Front             15’      0*      10’**             Satisfies
                                                            Ranges from         M-30     and
                                                              0’ to 5’
                                                                  proposed          BHX-2,
                                                                  subject      to     design
                                                                  considerations/CUP
      Yard – Side               4’     0*      4’      5’-20’+    Meets      or     Exceeds
                                                    (west); 5’-7’ requirements for BHX
                                                        (east)
      Yard – Rear              15’     0*     15’        N/A      Exceeds requirements
      Height                   30’     N/A 30’ up 32’ up to Generally meets intent
                                             to     35.5’ to roof of BHX for most units;
                                             50’***               ****
      Open Space              200sf/unit= 150sf/     24,000+ sf   Exceeds requirements
                              18,400 sf      unit =
                                             13,800
      Parking                  1 space per unit=92   142 spaces Exceeds requirements –
                                      spaces          (garages)   see     Design      Issues
                                                                  regarding visitor parking
      Density                   1 unit/     1unit/    92 units      The maximum units is
                                1,500     1,100 sf                  114 based on the land
                              sf=82 (R-      =112                         use density
                                  50)     (BHX-2)

      Table Notes:

      *Except when adjacent to a Residential Zoning District, which is not the case for the subject site.

      **The proposed BHX-2 front setback is 10’, with the ability to reduce it to 0’ with a CUP, based on development
      patterns, residential design to insure privacy, and sidewalk-streetscape elements, including landscape area and street
      trees.

      ***Proposed height limitation of the BHX-2 is 30’ at the setback line, stepping up to a maximum of 50’ on a 45
      degree angle.

      ****The proposed buildings would not comply with the R-50 zone 30’ limitation or with the proposed BHX-2 zone
      30’ limitation at the setback lines but would comply with the maximum 50’ height limit of the proposed BHX-2.
      Some units are approx. 32’ in height at the setback line, including those with a 0’ setback along 67 th Street. Units
      along 66th Street include a setback in the 2nd and 3rd floor or are otherwise set back from the property line at least 5
      feet which generally meets the intent of the height limit at the setback line, with upper stories set back.
      _____________________________________________________________________________

      As shown in the above table, the project generally complies with most R-50 development
      standards, but it does not comply with R-50 density, building height, and minimum front
      setbacks. The project generally complies with the proposed BHX-2 regulations, except for the
      30’ height limitation at the setback line (as summarized above).

      The criteria for review and approval of this facility at this location includes the following: The
      general use permit criteria in Section 17.134.050, the interim conditional use permit criteria in
      Section 17.01.100, the design review criteria in Section 17.136.070, as well as the criteria for

                                                                                                                FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                             December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                    Page 8

      Tentative Tract Maps (Section 16.08.030). Findings for each of the applicable criteria are
      provided in the Findings section of this report. In addition, findings have been made for the
      applicable historic resource criteria of HPE Policy 3.5.


      TENTATIVE TRACT MAP

      The project seeks approval of a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) to create a total of approximately 30
      parcels, 1 for each of the building clusters and separate parcels for various open space and
      driveway segments. The TTM includes a private driveway providing access to the individual
      condominium units. The Engineering Services Division reviewed the TTM for compliance with
      the Oakland Subdivision Regulations and for sanitary sewer, water and drainage requirements.
      Based on comments received from Engineering Services and the Fire Prevention Bureau, staff
      believes the proposed Tentative Tract Map is suitable for the site characteristics and the available
      public services and utilities, and Findings for approval of the proposed map are included in the
      Findings section of this report, and several conditions pertaining to the TTM have been
      recommended in the Conditions section. In particular, conditions have been included regarding
      the need for a construction phasing plan, the review and content of the Covenants, Conditions
      and Restrictions for the project, and required engineering plans related to street improvements
      and maintenance of improvements. Staff is reviewing the proposed number and delineation of
      lots on the Tract Map and will provide a verbal report of any issues at the March 5th meeting,
      along with possible new conditions related to the Tract Map.

      Attachment B provides the proposed Tentative Tract Map.


      ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

      The project satisfies the in-fill exemption of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
      Section 15332. The 5 criteria for such categorical exemption follows, with a brief summary of
      staff’s analysis in bold print:

             a) 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 proposed project is consistent with the General Plan (EPP)
                designation of Housing and Business Mix, as well as the applicable zoning
                requirements. See also the General Plan Analysis, Zoning Analysis, and
                “Findings for Approval” sections of this report.
             b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than
                five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses; The project site encompasses
                2.85 acres and is surrounded by urban uses.
             c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species;
                The project is located in a highly urbanized area, and has been in industrial use
                for the past 80+ years. No known endangered, rare, or threatened species have
                been documented on the site or in the immediate area.


                                                                                               FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                            December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                   Page 9

             d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic,
                noise, air quality, or water quality; The construction of 92 residential units would
                not result in a significant traffic increase in an urban area with adequate road
                capacity. The net increase in traffic between the current industrial use to the
                proposed residential use is not substantial, and can be accommodated on
                surrounding streets without degradation to the level of service. The traffic
                report completed for the project indicates that approximately 180 additional
                daily vehicle trips are anticipated from the project, with 5 fewer AM peak hour
                trips and no change in PM peak hour trips. The project is anticipated to
                generate 48 AM peak hour trips and 57 PM peak hour trips. The project would
                fall below the level that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
                (BAAQMD) considers the normal minimum traffic volume that should require a
                detailed air quality analysis. There may be minimal localized impacts to air
                quality during demolition and construction, as well as temporary noise impacts.
                The applicant is required to comply with all applicable City regulation and
                operation procedures as part of the issuance of building or grading permits,
                including standard dust control measures. Recommended conditions (Nos. 21,
                22, and 23) specify the required construction period management procedures to
                minimize noise, traffic problems, and air quality problems.
             e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. The site
                is located in an urbanized area and the project is of such size that is can be
                served by utility and public services. In addition, the site has been previously
                served by such services.



      KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS

      Staff has identified the following issues during review of this proposal:

      Proposed Public Street Improvements and Encroachments

      Improvements to 66th and 67th Streets are necessary, due to its lack of consistent sidewalk
      treatment or curb and gutter, and lack of landscaping. Street improvements will provide an
      upgraded urban edge and will allow for on street parking along the curb. Subject to Public
      Works Agency review and approval, it is anticipated that from 20 to 25 additional on street
      parking spaces can be provided along the street frontages if angled parking is provided. Portions
      of the existing building wall along 66th Street that will be preserved and incorporated into the
      development encroach slightly on the public right of way (much of it within the City of
      Emeryville). While staff agrees that the benefits of preservation of the existing brick building
      wall outweigh the minor encroachment of the wall itself, there are proposed entry stairs and
      balconies further encroaching on the public right of way. These proposed encroachments are
      subject to a Major Encroachment permit, pursuant to Oakland Municipal Code Section 12.08.030
      (Requiring City Council Approval). There are also more minor front step and small 2nd floor
      balcony encroachments proposed along 67th Street, most or all of which may be allowable under
      California Building Code provisions for projections into public rights of way. If these do not
                                                                                             FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                               December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                   Page 10

      meet all of the criteria for allowed projections, these too will be subject to a Major Encroachment
      permit.

      Both the 66th and 67th Street rights of way are 80 feet in dimension, which may be sufficient to
      support the proposed encroachments. The degree to which these encroach and the nature of the
      improvements are subject to additional Public Works Agency and Building Services review,
      through the Encroachment Permit process. If these encroachments are not supported by Public
      Works and Building Services staff (and approved by City Council), significant redesign of the
      front entryways and front façade along 66th Street and 67th Street will be required. Staff notes
      that the overall width of the 66th and 67th Street rights of way will accommodate sidewalk,
      landscaping, and travel lanes with the proposed encroachments. The Major Encroachment
      review process will require the submittal of complete full street sections and plans for review and
      approval by Public Works and Planning, including improvement plans detailing sidewalk widths,
      location of curb and gutter, location and specifications for street tree and other landscaping, and
      clearances and detailed sections of specific proposed encroachments into the right of way.
      Proposed condition No. 20 addresses the encroachments.

      The public street improvements provide the opportunity to create a new neighborhood character
      with new curb and gutter (particularly on 66th Street), street trees, and diagonal parking that
      slows traffic. The design of the streets is very important. Condition No. 19 requires Planning,
      Public Works Agency, and Engineering Services to review and approve the final design.


      Design Issues

      The project is a medium density residential project that is striving to create an urban, townhouse-
      like setting on a former industrial site. The area around the site is currently predominantly light
      industrial and business in character, although the General Plan encourages introduction of
      additional residential uses and there has recently been much interest in residential development in
      the area (both in Oakland and most notably in Emeryville). Although the area will undoubtedly
      continue to transition into a more residential and mixed-use neighborhood (as supported by the
      General Plan), it is staff’s opinion that the character of future development should maintain a
      significant industrial quality with regard to overall building form and design character. In
      addition, as the area is redeveloped, staff believes it is particularly important to demand high
      design quality and connections to surrounding streets, so that a project preserves its quality over
      time, thereby creating a stable and desirable neighborhood.

      The subject proposal has been revised through the pre-application process to address some site
      layout issues, including dimension between buildings and amount of open space on site. The
      current design provides a good modulation of units so that overall building walls are generally
      interesting and not flat. There has been provided a good continuity of pedestrian connections
      through the site. The site layout also provides a good relationship to the greenway and to 66th
      and 67th Streets as well as a positive re-use of part of the existing brick building along 66th Street.
      The interior courtyards are a nice feature and the half-level up elevation provides a good
      relationship of the units to the open space while still providing privacy. In addition, much of the
      3rd level is stepped back from the lower floors which will improve the character of the courtyard

                                                                                                 FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                              December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                  Page 11

      open space. Also, the ground floor office/extra room is a nice interior feature of many of the
      floor plans.

      From an architectural standpoint, staff has identified design issues related to facades, articulation,
      and window design, in addition to a few comments relating to site layout and setbacks. These are
      listed in the following section, and recommendations have been included in the conditions of
      approval.


      Planning Commission Design Review Committee (DRC) Comments

      The Design Review Committee (DRC) reviewed the project at its meeting of December 18,
      2002. Consensus from the DRC was that generally the use of the site and the design was good,
      with recommendation given to add some diversity to the garage door color and detailing in order
      to break up the relative monotony of the garage doors along the internal driveway. There was
      some discussion regarding the lack of ground level open space directly accessible to those units
      fronting on 66th and 67th Streets. After considering the improved streetscape, the individual
      balconies for those units, the common open space paseos between other buildings, as well as the
      Emeryville Greenway open space, it was felt that this issue did not warrant redesign. Some
      concern was expressed by staff for the lack of on-site guest parking. This issue is discussed in
      more detail in the Outstanding Design Issues section, below. Other issues as identified by staff
      and additional information related to the garage door monotony are discussed below.

      Outstanding Design Issues

      Staff believes the project is in scale with the surrounding industrial and residential development,
      and has been designed at an appropriate density and with a balance of industrial and
      contemporary residential character. However, staff has identified design issues that warrant
      further design study and potential revision, and requests the Planning Commission provide
      comments and direction, as well as any other issues the Commission believes are important to the
      project:

      Site Plan Layout/Setbacks

         Building 18 East Setback - The site plan and floor plans have recently been revised to
          indicate a stepping back of Building 18 from the eastern property line, based on concerns of
          staff regarding whether sufficient light and air would be provided, especially if the adjacent
          property redevelops with a large building near the property line (perhaps as close as 4 feet).
          Building 18 is the only building with units directly backing up to a neighboring property.
          Sheet A3.1.18 indicates the north and south elevations, which show the 1st level with a 7 foot
          setback, the 2nd level with a setback ranging from 10 to 13.5 feet, and the 3rd level with a 15
          foot setback. The 2nd level has also been provided with a larger deck area of approximately
          90 square feet. The deck overhangs the 1st level by 1 foot, and has a 6 foot setback from the
          eastern property line. Staff acknowledges the medium density, urban character of this project,
          and is relatively satisfied with the revisions to Building 18, as described above and indicated


                                                                                                FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                             December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                Page 12

          on Attachment A. Staff requests that the Commission confirm staff’s determination on this
          issue.

         Pedestrian Access – Buildings 10, 11, and 18 and internal crosswalks – Pedestrian access for
          these buildings along the east side of the site must co-exist with vehicular access, due to the
          layout. While the traffic volumes anticipated along these drives will not necessarily pose a
          risk to pedestrian safety, in order to provide a safer, more pleasant pedestrian experience, the
          vehicular drive shall be either stamped concrete or brick pavers. In addition, the internal
          pedestrian crosswalks across the private drive shall also be stamped concrete or brick pavers,
          to highlight the existence of the crossing and to make a safer and more pleasant pedestrian
          experience. Condition No. 15 addresses this requirement.


      Building Design/Elevations

         Fenestration, window design and window quality needs to be more specifically identified and
          may need to be redesigned. The window design and level of quality is critical, given the
          modern, simple architecture, to the overall success of the design. Staff is continuing review of
          the window sizes and proportions, with special interest in those on the building ends and
          along the front facades of the interior units. Staff has included condition No. 15 addressing
          the need for more administrative review on this issue and others.

         Roof forms – The proposed rooflines for those units facing the streets and greenway have
          been revised by adding raised parapets at the ends of the buildings. This was done at the
          request of staff to address concerns with the flat rooflines. Internal building masses remain
          with a consistent parapet level because the unit clusters are smaller and due to decreased
          internal sightlines may not benefit from raised parapets at the ends. On all elevations, the
          parapet edge has a trim added that defines the roofline but does not overpower the simple,
          minimalist character of the building form. Staff requests that the Commission confirms the
          staff determination on this issue.

         Garage door domination and monotony – variation is needed in design, color, articulation,
          etc. The private driveways providing vehicular access to the residences are dominated by
          rows of garage doors, which tend to create a monotonous internal streetscape. While there is
          some articulation of the units at the garage doors, further improvement is necessary. The
          applicant has indicated plans to vary the color of garage doors to help distinguish them, and
          will present a solution at the March 5th meeting.

         Color variation for front of units – the front facades of most of the units (the garage
          elevations) are relatively flat, except for a few of the units with balconies wrapping the front
          façade and a few building facades have some articulation between units. Therefore, some
          color variation should be provided that will add interest along the front facades.

         Solid wall at entryway stairs along 66th Street (Buildings 16 and 17) – the low entry walls
          proposed within the right-of-way along 66th Street are solid masonry walls, and staff is
          concerned that the solid (opaque) material will detract from the pedestrian experience within
                                                                                              FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                                December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                    Page 13

          the adjacent sidewalk. The walls, while only approximately 36 to 42 inches high from the
          stairs and entryway, are 6 to 7 feet high from the sidewalk, due to the elevational difference
          between the sidewalk elevation and the unit elevation. Staff recommends that a significant
          portion of these walls (at least 75%) be revised to an open material such as metal railing to
          allow for better visual interaction between the entryways and the street and a more pleasant
          pedestrian experience along the sidewalk.

      Other Issues

         Convenient Guest Parking – The project exceeds the City’s code required parking by
          providing garages for each unit (152 spaces provided; 92 spaces required by code). There is
          no on-site parking available for visitors. The internal driveway is of limited width and must
          remain clear for a fire lane. While many of the units (65%) have a 2-car garage, 32 of the
          units have only a 1-car garage which means that residents of those units that may have 2 cars
          will be parking in the public street. In addition, all guests visiting will also need to park in the
          street. The public on-street parking is currently well-used during the daytime by area
          businesses. With approval of angled parking in the street, an additional 20 +/- spaces can be
          accommodated in the right of way beyond the spaces available today, which alleviates any
          parking concern to a great degree. In addition, the differing peak hour characteristics of the
          daytime business use and the nighttime and weekend residential use should avoid most
          parking conflicts within the public rights of way. However, based on concern about
          maintaining all garage space for parking, staff has included a condition (as recommended by
          the Transportation Consultant for the project) related to the Condominium documents (C,C &
          Rs) which prohibits use of the garage spaces for anything but vehicle parking. Oakland staff
          believes guest parking can be easily accommodated on-street, and requests that the
          Commission confirm staff’s determination on this issue.


      City of Emeryville Coordination

      As mentioned earlier, the project is within both the City of Oakland and the City of Emeryville.
      Both cities are processing planning permits for the project as if the project was wholly within one
      jurisdiction. Staff of both cities have been coordinating the review and handling of issues and
      will continue to do so. The City of Emeryville Planning Commission is scheduled to address this
      project at a meeting following Oakland’s review. Specific issues identified have been relatively
      consistent between the respective Cities, including concerns over building design, window
      placement, style, and quality, and pedestrian connections. With some issues, however, the permit
      requirements are different. For instance, the guest parking issue discussed above necessitates a
      variance from the City of Emeryville because guest parking is a requirement of the Emeryville
      zoning ordinance, while it is not in Oakland’s zoning ordinance. A Memorandum of
      Understanding between the Cities formalizes the process and understanding between the Cities in
      order to complete this project. Proposed condition No. 25 addresses this coordination.




                                                                                                  FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                           December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                              Page 14


      CONCLUSION

      The project seeks to develop a residential development along the Oakland-Emeryville border.
      The project meets the primary goal of providing new housing units. Another major goal that is
      affected by the project includes site contamination cleanup. This project provides for significant
      housing production and cleans up contamination on the site, while partially preserving a potential
      historic resource. The proposed plan provides an attractive design and layout that allows for
      good access and appearance from the streets and the planned Emeryville greenway.



      RECOMMENDATIONS:              1. Affirm staff’s environmental determination for Infill Exemption.

                                    2. Approve the Conditional Use Permit, Design Review, and
                                       Tentative Tract Map subject to the attached findings and
                                       conditions.

                                                          Prepared by:



                                                          Scott Miller
                                                          Planner IV


      Approved by:



      Claudia Cappio
      Manager, Major Projects


      Approved for forwarding to the
      City Planning Commission:



      LESLIE GOULD
      Director of Planning and Zoning

      ATTACHMENTS:

      A. Plans and Elevations (CMD02-516)
      B. Tentative Tract Map (TTM7419)

                                                                                             FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                              December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                  Page 15




      FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL:

      This proposal meets the required findings under Sections 17.134.050, (General Use Permit
      Criteria) and 17.01.100.B as set forth below. Additional findings for Design Review criteria
      (17.136.070.A), Historic Preservation Element Policy 3.5, and Tentative Tract Map (16.08.030)
      are provided as well. Required findings are shown in bold type; explanations as to why these
      findings can be made are in normal type.


      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.

         The proposed 92-unit residential project on the 2.85 acre site will fit in with the scale and
         character of the neighborhood. The 3 level buildings are consistent or compatible in scale,
         bulk, and coverage to other neighborhood buildings, many of which are 30 to 40 feet or more
         in height. The introduction of this project, the first larger scale residential project within the
         City of Oakland in this mixed-use industrial neighborhood, will be compatible with existing
         and future development of neighboring properties. The project’s 92 units can be supported
         by existing utilities, modified as necessary to serve the site, and existing area civic facilities.
         The traffic from the development can be adequately accommodated on the existing street
         network. The existing streets are relatively wide and have capacity to accommodate the
         expected traffic related to the project.

      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 proposed residential project with landscaping, sidewalks, and street improvements
         including curbing and additional street trees will improve the attractiveness and functionality
         of the neighborhood. The site layout provides a functional residential environment while
         providing substantial improvements to the streetscape and development of a segment of the
         Emeryville greenway. The architecture has been designed to complement the surrounding
         eclectic mix of industrial and residential buildings.

      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.

                                                                                                FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                              December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                    Page 16


           The residential project will help to revitalize the neighborhood and bring additional
           opportunity for housing into the community. The facility will enhance the vitality of the area
           and bring people and activity to this neighborhood, and will complete and activate a portion
           of the Emeryville greenway, which will be an asset for the use of the entire neighborhood.

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

           The residential project conforms to the applicable design review criteria of Section
           17.136.070A (Residential Design Review Criteria). See design review findings, below.

      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 Housing and Business Mix land use designation is intended to guide the transition from
           heavy industry to low impact light industrial and other business uses while recognizing the
           potential for protecting and possibly increasing residential development. This classification
           allows housing, live/work, low impact light industrial, commercial, and service businesses,
           and compatible community facilities. This medium density residential project is consistent
           with the General Plan, by virtue of the residential use and its design and density. The
           Historic Preservation Element Policy 3.5 provides direction for additions or alterations to, or
           demolition of, a PDHP. Findings for this specific policy are provided below.



      Findings Pursuant to Section 17.01.100.B

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

           The proposal to construct a 92-unit residential project is appropriate for this area. As
           discussed in the staff report and other Findings, the project is supported by the General Plan,
           and provides a design that is compatible with and complementary to the predominantly
           industrial character of the area.

      2.    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 project is consistent with the intent and character of the Housing and Business Mix land
           use classification, which states its Intent is to “recognize the equal importance of both
           housing and business”. The 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. The Desired Character and Uses allows mixed housing type

                                                                                                FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                              December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                 Page 17

           destiny housing, live/work, low impact light industrial, commercial, and service businesses,
           and compatible community facilities. The project is clearly consistent with the above stated
           intent and desired character.

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

           The proposal will promote implementation of the General Plan. It provides 92 needed
           housing units, and it cleans up a contaminated site, while partially preserving a potential
           historic resource, all of which are promoted by General Plan policies and provisions. As
           discussed in the staff report and other Findings, the project advances and conforms in all
           significant respects with the General Plan goals, policies, and objectives for the site.


       Section 17.136.070A (Residential Design Review Findings)

      1.      That 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 proposed scale, bulk, height, materials, and textures of the building are well related
              to the surrounding area. Buildings in the area are of a variety of heights and have simple
              massing with minimal setbacks. The project successfully integrates and references the
              primary architectural elements, materials, and textures found in the area including the use
              of relatively simple building forms, industrial style windows, and use of metal consistent
              with or compatible to the industrial appearance of nearby buildings.

      2.      That the proposed design will protect, preserve, or enhance desirable neighborhood
              characteristics.

              The proposed project will preserve and enhance the industrial and mixed-use character of
              the area and will add residential units to provide a significant 24-hour presence to the
              area. The residential density of the project will help sustain commercial and light
              industrial activities in the area. In addition, the design of the project complements the
              prevalent architectural styles found in the area.

      3.      That the proposed design will be sensitive to the topography and landscape.

              The site is flat and contains very little landscaping. Any existing vegetation does not
              warrant preservation. The project will provide significant landscaping adjacent to the
              buildings and within the public streets and along the greenway.

      4.      That if situated on a hill, the design and massing of the proposed building relates to
              the grade of the hill.

              As described above, the site is flat.


                                                                                                FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                             December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                   Page 18

      5.      That 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.

              See response E, Conditional Use Permit Findings, above.


      Findings for Historic Preservation Element Policy 3.5 (Historic Preservation and
      Discretionary Permit Approvals)

      As previously stated in the Historic Resource Issues section of this staff report, for additions or
      alterations to a PDHP, the City must make a finding that 1) The design matches or is compatible
      with, but not necessarily identical to, the property’s existing or historical design; or 2) the
      proposed design comprehensively modifies and is at least equal in quality to the existing design
      and is compatible with character of the neighborhood; or 3) the existing design is undistinguished
      and does not warrant retention and the proposed design is compatible with the character of the
      neighborhood.

      1249 67th Street – Rated C3 by OCHS)

      This is an early 20th century utilitarian factory building, with brick walls and metal sash
      windows. The preliminary survey sheet for the property states that this does not appear eligible
      for National Register or Local listing. The project proposes to demolish the majority of this
      structure, retaining the exterior wall facing 66th Street, which is the most interesting and
      prominently-scaled façade of the building. Staff has determined that criteria 2 and 3 for
      alterations to a PDHP are applicable in support of this partial demolition. The proposed design
      comprehensively modifies the existing building, preserving the 66th Street façade and
      incorporating it into the new project, and is equal in quality to the existing design and is
      compatible with the character of the neighborhood. In addition, while the existing building is an
      attractive old brick building, its design is relatively undistinguished and does not warrant
      complete retention.


      Section 16.08.030 (Tentative Tract Map Findings)

      The Commission shall deny the application if it makes any of the following findings:

      A. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans.

           The proposed map is consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan as discussed
           throughout this report, including above in E of the Conditional Use Findings. It also includes
           all information required by the regulations for subdivision. The map indicates a layout of
           parcels, driveways, and sidewalks and other pedestrian access to allow the effective operation
           of the proposed project and access to the Emeryville greenway. Therefore, the proposed map
           is consistent with applicable general and specific plans.


                                                                                              FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                               December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                    Page 19

      B. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with
         applicable general and specific plans.

         Similarly to response A, above, the proposed design of the subdivision is consistent with the
         goals and policies of the General Plan and the Zoning Regulations.

      C. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

         The project site is flat and is suitable for this type of development, specifically a residential
         project.

      D. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

         The Tract Map encompasses 2.85 acres of land. The development of 92 residential dwelling
         units equates to approximately 32 units to the acre, which is below the maximum 40 dwelling
         units per net acre allowed by the General Plan. This density can be suitably accommodated
         on the site.

      E. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
         substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
         or their habitat.

         The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to damage any
         aspect of the environment, including fish and wildlife or their habitats. To the contrary, this
         project will improve the environment through cleanup of a contaminated site. There have
         been determined to be no significant impacts related to traffic, noise, air or water quality.
         Therefore, the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not
         substantially damage any aspect of the environment.

      F. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious
         public health or safety problems.

         The environmental cleanup of the site necessitated by local, regional, and state agencies will
         eliminate any serious public health or safety problem or risk with the new residential use.

      G. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
         easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within
         the proposed subdivision.

         The proposed subdivision design will not conflict with any existing public easements for
         access or use of the property. The project will increase use of, and access to, the planned
         Emeryville greenway.

      H. That the design of the subdivision does not provide, to the extent feasible, for future
         passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision. Examples of
         passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities include subdivision design which

                                                                                                 FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                         December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                Page 20

         permits orientation of a structure in an east-west alignment for southern exposure and
         subdivision design which permits orientation of a structure to take advantage of shade
         and prevailing breezes.

         The proposed subdivision provides for openings along the streets and greenway frontage that
         will allow penetration of prevailing breezes into the interior of the project. The site’s
         relatively narrow street to street configuration and orientation to the greenway limits the
         flexibility in siting to some degree. The design of the proposed subdivision layout and units
         provides opportunities for passive and natural heating and cooling.




                                                                                           FINDINGS
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                         December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                            Page 21


                                    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 dated February 25, 2003 and as amended by the
            following conditions. Any additional uses or facilities other than those approved with
            this permit, as described in the project description and approved plans, 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 March 5, 2005, 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 under necessary permits by this date. Upon written
            request and payment of appropriate fees submitted no later than the expiration date, 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, requirements, regulations, and guidelines 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 use or facility is violating any of the Conditions of Approval, any applicable
            codes, requirements, regulation, guideline or causing a public nuisance.

      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.


                                                            CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                             December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                Page 22

      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.
            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
            Zoning Division, Planning Commission, or City Council relating to this project. 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.

      8. Waste Reduction and Recycling
         a. Prior to issuance of a building or demolition permit.
            Prior to issuance of any building permits including the grading and/or demolition permit
            the project applicant will submit a demolition/construction waste diversion plan and
            operational waste reduction plan for review and approval by the Public Works Agency.
            The plan will specify the methods by which the development will make a good faith
            effort to divert 50% of the demolition/construction waste generated by the proposed
            project from landfill disposal. After approval of the plan, the project applicant will
            implement the plan. The operational diversion plan will specify the methods by which the
            development will make a good faith effort to divert 50% of the solid waste generated by
            operation of the proposed project from landfill disposal. After approval of the plan, the
            project applicant will implement the plan.



      CONDITIONS FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP:

      9. Phasing of Development
         a. Prior to submittal of Final Map
            A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to the City of Oakland and reviewed and
            approved by the Planning and Zoning Division, Building Division, and Engineering
            Divisions prior to issuance of the Final Map.

      10. Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions & Homeowner’s Association
         a. Prior to submittal of Final Map.
            The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for the units shall be submitted to
            the Planning and Zoning Division for review. The CC&Rs shall provide for the
            establishment of a single non-profit homeowners association covering the entire project
            regarding the maintainance and operation of all on-site sidewalks, pathways, and
            overlooks, common open space and all common landscaping, driveways, and other

                                                              CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                             December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                 Page 23

              facilities, in accordance with approved plans. Membership in the association shall be
              made a condition of ownership. The developer shall be a member of such association
              until all units are sold. The CC&Rs shall include a prohibition on use of the garage
              parking spaces for anything but vehicle parking.

      11. Street Identification for Units
         a. 45-days Prior to recording of Final Map
            At least 45 days prior to recording the Final Map, plans shall be submitted to the Building
            Services Division to obtain addresses and for street name identification and approval. The
            Final Map(s) shall not be certified as ready for approval without approved street names.

      12. Compliance with Associated Approval
          a. On-going.
             This approval shall be subject to the conditions of approval contained in Conditional Use
             Permit CMD02-516 and Tract Map TTM7419.

       13. Submittal of Final Map
          a. Ongoing
             A Final Map shall be submitted to the Planning Division within 2 years of the approval of
             this permit.

       14. Engineering Services and Fire Marshall Requirements
          a. Prior to issuance of a building or demolition permit
             Improvement plans shall be submitted for the site and adjacent public rights-of-way
             showing all proposed improvements and compliance with conditions of approval,
             including but not limited to curbs, gutters, private streets, pedestrian ways, sewer laterals,
             storm drains, street trees, paving details, locations of transformers and other above-
             ground utility structures, the design, specifications locations of facilities required by the
             East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD), street lighting, on-street parking and
             accessibility improvements compliant with applicable standards, and any other
             improvements or requirements for the project as provided for in this approval.
             Engineering plans shall indicate internal driveway widths of a minimum of 20 feet. All
             on site internal driveways, sidewalks and other pedestrian improvements, and landscaping
             shall be maintained at all times by the developer and/or homeowner’s association.
             Access points from 66th and 67th Streets into the private drive system shall be clearly
             marked as private drives and shall be delineated from the public street with special paving
             material and signage. The private streets are subject to City Council approval in
             conjunction with the review of the Final Map.

          b. Prior to issuance of a building permit and Ongoing
             Engineering plans shall indicate no parking signs and/or red curb markings along all
             internal driveways providing access to units. No parking along internal driveways shall
             be permitted unless widths are increased to accommodate parking, pursuant to
             Engineering and Fire Marshall approval. The responsibility to enforce fire lanes shall be
             with the Homeowner’s Association, though the City reserves the right to enforce.


                                                               CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                             December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                Page 24




      PROJECT DESIGN CONDITIONS:

      15. Final Design Details
          a. Prior to submittal of building permit application.
             The applicant shall provide a final color and materials board to the Director of Planning
             and Zoning which includes samples of railings, windows (framing material and glass),
             stucco finish, and any other prominent materials utilized on the building, as well as
             details as required pertaining to window sections, application of materials, etc. Only high
             quality materials compatible with the industrial character of the area will be approved.
             Window mullions shall be a minimum of 2” thick and the window surfaces shall be
             recessed a minimum of 3” from the building façade, except for approved industrial
             windows. Internal private driveway material shall be either stamped concrete or brick
             pavers adjacent to Buildings 10, 11, and 18. The internal pedestrian crosswalks across the
             private roadway shall also be stamped concrete or brick pavers. Roof parapet detailing
             shall be provided and shall be consistent with treatment shown on plans, with raised
             parapets at building ends where facing streets and greenway and parapet trim molding for
             all other units. Color variation for the front facades (including garage doors) of the units
             and open railings for the 66th Street façade shall be provided as well, as identified in the
             Outstanding Design Issues section of the staff report, starting on page 11. These design
             details shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning prior to
             the submittal of a building permit application.


      16. Lighting Plan
         a. Prior to issuance of building permit
            A lighting plan for the project shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of
            Planning and Zoning, 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, while providing sufficient lighting for security purposes.

      17. Review of Utility Meter Design
          a. Prior to submittal of Final Map
             Plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning and Zoning Director showing the
             location and architectural treatment of all utility meters which effect the exterior
             appearance of the buildings

      18. Landscape Plan, Irrigation Plan and landscape maintenance
          a. Prior to issuance of building permit
             Alandscape plan and an irrigation plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect
             or other qualified person and submitted in conjunction with the building permit submittal.
             All landscape and irrigation shall be installed prior to final building permit inspection.
             The landscape plan shall be consistent with that shown on Sheet L1.0 with regard to
             planting areas (including adjacent to garages) and amount of landscape materials. The

                                                              CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                             December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                Page 25

               applicant shall work with the Planning staff and Fire Prevention staff to determine if
               additional landscape material (such as low ground cover) can be provided within the areas
               designated as fire truck turning radii on Sheet L1.0.
            b. Ongoing
               All landscaping shall be permanently maintained in a neat, safe, and healthy condition.

      19. Improvements within Rights-of-Way
          a. Prior to issuance of building permit
             The applicant shall secure the necessary review and approvals from the Traffic
             Engineering division for all improvements within the rights-of-way as shown on the
             project plans or as proposed in conjunction with the development, including but not
             limited to sidewalks, curbing, parking, and landscaping and irrigation. Plans shall indicate
             conformance with appropriate engineering standards. Sidewalks along 66th Street and
             67th Street shall be a minimum of ten (10) feet in width (minimum of 6 feet clear of street
             tree cutouts, street signage, and other obstructions.) Plans shall be modified as necessary
             to reflect consistency with Engineering Services and Traffic Engineering approval, and
             shall be coordinated with the plans submitted in conjunction with the encroachment
             permit pursuant to condition No. 20, below.

      20. Encroachment Permits
          a. Prior to issuance of a building permit
             The applicant shall process an encroachment permit through the City of Oakland pursuant
             to Oakland Municipal Code Section 12.08.030 as required for those proposed
             encroachments along 66th and 67th Street within the City of Oakland. No building permit
             shall be issued until such necessary encroachment permits are granted, or alternatively,
             the project plans are revised to eliminate encroachments. The applicant and homeowner’s
             association shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Oakland, its agents,
             officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Oakland
             related to any approved encroachments into rights of way.


      CONSTRUCTION PERIOD MANAGEMENT

      21.      Construction Period Parking and Traffic
            a. Prior to issuance of a demolition permit
               The project sponsor and construction contractor shall meet with the Traffic Engineering
               and Parking Division of the Oakland Public Works Agency (PWA) and other appropriate
               City of Oakland agencies to determine traffic management strategies to reduce traffic
               congestion and the effects of parking demand, to the maximum feasible extent, by
               construction workers during construction of this project and other nearby projects that
               could be simultaneously under construction.

               The project sponsor shall submit a construction management and staging plan to the
               Building Services Division with the application for the first building permit for the


                                                               CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                              December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                     Page 26

             project for review and approval. The plan shall include at least the following items and
             requirements:

      1. A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips
         and deliveries to avoid peak traffic hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures,
         signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. In addition, the
         information shall include a construction staging plan for any right-of-way used on 66th and
         67th Streets.

      2. Provision for parking management and spaces for all construction workers to ensure that
         construction workers do not park in on-street spaces.

      3. Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding
         when major deliveries, detours and lane closures will occur.

      4. Provision for accommodation of pedestrian flow.

      5. Location of construction staging areas.

      6. Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any damage and debris
         attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected.

      7. A temporary construction fence to contain debris and material and to secure the site.

      8. Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity.

      9. Dust control measures as set forth in Condition No. 22, below.

      10. Noise control measures as set forth in Condition No. 23, below.

      11. A process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activity,
          including the identification of an on-site complaint manager.


      22. Air Quality
          a. Prior to and during all construction activities, including demolition
             Construction contractors shall implement a dust abatement program to reduce the
             contribution of project construction to local respirable particulate matter concentrations.
             Elements of this program shall include the following:

                  Watering of all active construction areas at least twice daily.

                  Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials, or require all trucks to
                   maintain at least two feet of freeboard.
                                                              CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                               December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                    Page 27


                    Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply non-toxic soil stabilizers on all
                     unpaved access roads, parking areas, and construction staging areas.

                    Sweep daily with water sweepers all paved access roads, parking areas, and staging
                     areas at construction sites.

                    Sweep streets daily with water sweepers if visible soil material is carried onto
                     adjacent public streets.

      23.     Noise
            a. During construction
               Standard construction activities shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.
               Monday through Friday. No construction activities shall be allowed on Saturdays until
               after the building is enclosed and without prior authorization of the Building Services and
               Planning Divisions of the Community and Economic Development Agency, and then
               only within the interior of the building with the doors and windows closed. No
               construction activity shall take place on Sundays and holidays.


      ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION:

      24. State, Federal, or County Authority Environmental Approval
          a. Prior to issuance of building permit
             The applicant shall demonstrate, through written verification, that required clearances
             have been granted and any applicable conditions have been met for previous
             contamination at the site from the appropriate State, Federal or County authorities,
             including but not limited to the CRWQCB.


      OTHER CONDITIONS

      25. Notice to Tenants and Future Owners.
          a. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
             The applicant shall provide to the City of Oakland Planning and Zoning Director and the
             City of Emeryville Planning Director a notice in all lease and sales documents to all
             prospective tenants and future purchasers of the property on the site, in a form acceptable
             to the Oakland City Attorney and Emeryville City Attorney, addressing: 1) the existence
             of nearby industrial uses which have the potential to emit noise at levels and during hours
             of the day that persons may find disturbing; 2) nearby manufacturing/industrial uses
             which may generate odors; 3) the existence of truck traffic; and 4) that the site has
             contained hazardous materials and that measures have been undertaken to remediate any
             potential health risks associated with the hazardous materials and documents related to
             this effort are on file with the property owner and the appropriate regulatory agency.

      26. Fees
          a. Prior to issuance of a building permit.

                                                                CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Oakland City Planning Commission                                                            December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                                                  Page 28

             The applicant shall demonstrate that it has made arrangements to pay all fees, including
             as follows:

                    School Facilities Fees. For those units in Oakland (or with a majority of square
                    footage within Oakland), a school facilities fee shall be collected by the City of
                    Oakland and remitted to the Oakland Unified School District. For those units
                    within Emeryville (or with a majority of square footage within Emeryville), a
                    school facilities fee shall be imposed by the Emery Unified School District,
                    collected by the City of Emeryville and remitted to the Emery Unified School
                    District.

                    Traffic Impact Fee. The Applicant shall be responsible to Emeryville for a Traffic
                    Impact Fee for those units within Emeryville (or with a majority of square footage
                    within Emeryville).

                    Public Improvement Fees. The Applicant shall be responsible for paying any
                    public improvement fees required for the Project in Emeryville, including sewer
                    connection fees and sewer user fees. The Applicant shall be responsible for
                    paying sewer connection fees to the City of Emeryville for all the units in the
                    Project. The City of Emeryville sewer user fees shall also be collected for all
                    units in the Project. The sewer user fees are collected by East Bay Municipal
                    Utility District as a part of monthly water bills.

                    The Applicant shall be responsible for paying any fees required by Emeryville for
                    staff review of encroachment permits, building permit plans, public improvement
                    plans (including the Greenway), and subdivision maps for consistency with
                    Project approvals and city design standards.

                    This section is not intended to serve as a comprehensive list of applicable fees
                    from either jurisdiction. Applicant will be required to pay any fees in place at the
                    time of project approval.


      27. City of Emeryville Approvals and Coordination
          a. Prior to issuance of building permit
             The applicant shall secure the necessary planning approvals from the City of Emeryville,
             and upon preparation and submittal to the City of Oakland, shall provide to the City of
             Emeryville duplicate building permit plan sets. All plans submitted shall indicate
             compliance with all conditions from the City of Emeryville, as well as conditions from
             the City of Oakland. The Cities of Oakland and Emeryville acknowledge the need to
             process the review and approval of necessary plans pursuant to the provisions of the
             Memorandum of Understanding executed between the Cities. The City of Oakland will
             coordinate review of all plans and documents, including but not limited to public

             improvement plans, CC&Rs, and design details with the City of Emeryville staff to
             provide opportunity for comment and maintain consistency of plans and approvals.

                                                             CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Oakland City Planning Commission                            December 15, 1999
Case File Number CM99-307                                                Page 29




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




                                               CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:7
posted:3/25/2010
language:English
pages:29