Title
Subject: 1725-12th Avenue
From: City Planning Commission
Recommendation: Conduct a Public Hearing and upon conclusion Adopt a Resolution to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of adding two-units at the site of an existing single-family residence at 1725-12th Avenue
Body
r i I .@
CITY OF OAKLAND (FFICE C T' T'H_E_C_1 T Y CLER K,
CO UNCIL A GEND 4 REPOR T i .' @ 1. @1.1 I-
2003 JUL -2 PM 4: 52
TO: Office of the City Manager
ATTN: Robert C. Bobb
FROM: Community & Economic Development Agency
DATE: July 15, 2003
RE: PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION ON THE APPEAL OF PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A THREE UNIT RESIDENTIAL PROJECT AT
1725 12 T'AVENUE.
SUMMARY
This project was originally approved by the City Planning Commission on August 7, 2002. The
project was appealed and was scheduled for a City Council hearing date in February. Prior to
this hearing, a meeting was held with Council Member Wan, the applicant, the appellant, and
City staff. After much discussion, a design compromise was discussed and the appellant
withdrew their appeal while the applicant agreed to modify the design. The project was returned
to the Planning Commission to review the modified project. On May 7, 2003 the Planning
Commission approved the modified project. On May 19, 2003, Sam Moorman filed an appeal of
the Planning Commission's approval (Attachment A). See Key Issues and Impacts, below, for
an analysis of the appeal.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project involves a private development, does not request or require public funds and has no
fiscal impact on the City of Oakland. The appellant submitted the required appeal fees.
BACKGROUND
The project proposes raising an existing single family dwelling to add a unit below and a one-
unit, two-story detached residential structure at the rear for a total of three units on the lot.
Exterior materials and architectural features on the new ground level unit would match the
character of the existing dwelling. The project proposes new paved areas on the lot and provides
for five parking spaces in the rear, consistent with the R-40 zoning requirements.
item:
City Council
July 15, 2003
KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS
The following is an analysis of the basis for which the project approval was appealed. The
appellant's letter is attached (Exhibit A). The basis of the appeal as contained in the appeal letter
is shown in bold text. A staff response follows each point.
1. The unit to the rear is two stories in height and will substantially block light and views.
This unit should be reduced to one story in height.
Stalff Response: The project, as approved, conforms to all of the zoning standards of the R-40
zoning district, including building setbacks and height. Many of the surrounding properties are
two-stories in height as well, including the property directly to the west and a multi-family
property whose rear yard abuts this parcel's side (to the east). The appellant failed to submit any
analysis regarding the potential shadowing of other properties. It is reasonable to assume that the
property most likely to be affected would be the multi-unit building to the east of the project
during the late afternoon and evening hours. However, these impacts are similar to adjacent
property impacts both in this neighborhood and throughout the City of Oakland. Furthermore,
the rear building is proposed to be 26'6" tall, which conforms to the height limit of 30' (to the
peak of the roof) in the R-40 Zoning District. The building would be setback approximately 10'
from the eastern side property line and 15' from the western side property line, where only 5' is
required. Finally, at two stories the building would not be exceptionally tall for this
neighborhood which is a mixture of single family homes to apartment buildings ranging from
one to two stories in height.
The additional setbacks provide several benefits. First, on the western side it allows a parking
space to be accommodated, thus reducing garage spaces in the front of the property and
improving the overall visual appearance of the project firom the street: this was an earlier design
compromise agreed to by the applicant. Second, the greater setbacks will provide for a larger
yard and more total useable open space for residents of the property. Again, this was an earlier
point of contention by the neighbors that was addressed by the modified project. Finally, the
additional setback will help mitigate any potential for light or view blockages to adjacent
properties. The zoning code allows a structure of this height to be built to the setback lines (5' to
the sides, 15' to the rear) without any special use permits or variances.
2. The path along the eastern property line should be eliminated in favor of encouraging
pedestrian access to the driveway.
Staff Response: The project proposes a pathway alongside the eastern side property line. The
pathway would be approximately 3' in width and approximately V from the neighboring
property line. This pathway leads from the street to the rear unit. The appellants contend that
this footpath will needlessly impact the adjoining neighbors with noise and privacy issues. They
also contend that there will be safety issues in this area as it will be poorly lit. The appellants
item: N
City Council
July 15, 2003
state that the pathway should be eliminated and landscaped and that the driveway should be
retextured to simulate a pathway for foot traffic leading to the rear residence.
Staff is concerned with the elimination of the footpath and the concept of utilizing the driveway
as pedestrian access. The existing driveway is fairly narrow, 8'10" in width and could present a
potential danger for pedestrians if it was the only pedestrian access to the unit. Furthermore, as
the project has been modified, this driveway now serves all 5 parking spaces (the original
approval had it serving only 3), thus increasing the amount of vehicular traffic using the
driveway and the potential risk for pedestrians.
As for the potential darkness of the pathway and any relevant safety issues connected to that,
staff has discussed with the applicant the possibility of placing ground mounted lights along the
pathway. They could be placed in such a way so as to prevent unnecessary glare for the
neighboring properties while still providing an attractively lit and safe pathway for people to use.
Details would be submitted in a final landscape plan to be submitted prior to building permits.
A chain link fence currently surrounds the property. A condition of approval in the Planning
Commission report stipulated that the applicant would provide a fencing detail for review and
approval by zoning staff prior to applying for a building permit. Staff will review such a detail
to ensure the fence is both attractive and functional at protecting privacy and acting as a buffer
between this property and its neighbors.
SUSTA,INA,BLE OPPORTUNITIES
This section describes the sustainable opportunities that are being addressed or will be
implemented as part of the item, such as:
Economic: The project will expand the housing inventory in the City of Oakland.
Environmental-. The project has been found to be exempt under Section 15303 "New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures" of the State of
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Furthermore, the permit
has been conditioned to require the applicant to use Best Management
Practices (BMPs) during construction, divert 50% of the waste generated
by construction to recycling, and provide for erosion control on the site
during construction to prevent runoff.
Social EQuity: The project benefits the community and improves social equity by
providing additional housing to the City of Oakland as well as additional
jobs during the construction of the project.
DISABILITY AND SENIOR CITIZEN ACCESS
The Building Division of the Community and Economic Development Agency will require the
project to conform to the Americans with Disabilities Act in all provisions to ensure equal access
to this facility.
item:
City Council
July 15, 2003
RECOMMENDATION AND RATIONALE
Staff recommends that the City Council uphold the Planning Commission approval and deny the
appeal.
ACTION REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL
I . Affirm staffs envirom-nental determination.
2. Uphold the Planning Commission approval and deny the appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
Rq&ERY C/BOBB
Chy Manager for the
Community & Economic Development Agency
Approved and Forwarded to the City Council:
Prepared by:
LESLIE GOULD
Director of Planning & Zoning
Robert D. Merkamp, Planner 11
Planning & Zoning
ATTAC14MENTS:
A. Appellant's letter of May 19, 2003
B. Planning Commission Staff Report of May 7, 2003
C. Project Plans
item:
City Council
July 15, 2003
CITY OF OAKLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
x
500 0 500 1000 Feet
mwmmmwm@
N
Case File: CMDOO-192
Applicant: Lun Ko
Address: 1725 12th Ave. w E
Zone: R-40 71T
S
0 F@ ICE
RX
Y@
OAKLAND CITY COUNCIL GWUL -2 PM 4: 52
RESOLUTION No. CM.S.
INTRODUCED BY COUNCILMEMBER
RESOLUTtON DENYING THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINING THE
DECISION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION IN
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR A NIAJOR CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A THREE UNIT RES11I)ENTIAL
BUILDING LOCATED AT 172512 In AVE, OAKLAND
WHEREAS, the property owner, Ben Phan, filed an application on June 5, 2000
to add two units to the property at 1725 12'h Avenue; and
WHEREAS, The City Planning Commission took testimony and considered the matter at
its meeting held March 19, 2003. Action on the matter was continued until May 7, 2003. At
the conclusion of the public hearing held for the matter, the commission deliberated the matter,
and voted. The project was approved, 6- 1; and
WHEREAS on May 19, 2003, an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval and a
statement setting forth the basis of the appeal was received; and
WHEREAS, after giving due notice to the Appellant, the Applicant, all interested parties
and the public, the Appeal came before the City Council for a public hearing on July 15, 2003;
and
WHEREAS, the Appellant, the Applicant, supporters of the application, those opposed
to the application and interested neutral parties were given ample opportunity to participate in the
public hearing by submittal of oral and/or written comments; and
WHEREAS, the public hearing on the Appeal was closed by the City Council on July 15,
2003;
Now, Therefore, Be It
RESOLVED: The requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of
1970, as prescribed by the Secretary of Resources, and the City of Oakland's environmental
review requirements, have been satisfied, and, in accordance the adoption of this resolution is
exempt from CEQA tinder Section 15.3 )03 "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures"
of the State CEQA Guidelines. / y
ORAICOUNCIL
JUL 1 6 2003
FURTHER RESOLVED: That, the City Council, having heard, considered and
weighed all the evidence in the record presented on behalf of all parties and being fully informed
of the Application, the City Planning Commission's decision, and the Appeal, finds that tire
Appellant has not shown, by reliance on evidence already contained in the record before the City
Planning Commission that the City Planning Commission's decision was made in error, that
there was an abuse of discretion by the Commission or that the Commission's decision was not
supported by substantial evidence in the record based on the May 7, 2003 Staff Report to the
City Plarmirlu Commission (attached as Exhibit "A") and the July 15, 2003, City Council Agenda
Report (attached as Exhibit "B") hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
Accordingly, the Appeal is denied, the Planning Commission's CEQA findings and decision are
upheld, and the Project is approved (the Major Conditional Use Permit), subject to the findings
and conditions of approval contained in Exhibits "B" in the Staff Report for this item prepared
for the City Council meeting of July 15, 2003.
FURTHERRESOLVED: That,insupportoftlieCityCouncit'sdecisiontoapprove
the Project, the City Council affirms and adopts the May 7, 2003 Staff Report to the City
Planning Commission (including without limitation the discussion, findings, conclusions and
conditions of approval) all attached as Exhibit "A", as well as the July 15, 2003, City Council
Agenda Report, attached hereto as Exhibit "B," (including without limitation the discussion,
findings, and conclusions) except where otherwise expressly stated in this Resolution.
FURTHER RESOLVED: That, the Citv Council finds and determines that this
Resolution complies with CEQA and the Environmental Review Officer is directed to cause to
be filed a Notice of Exemption with the appropriate agencies.
FURTHER RESOLVED: That, the record before this Council relating to this
application and appeal includes, without limitation, the following:
1. the application, including all accompanying maps and papers;
2. all plans submitted by the Applicant and his representatives;
3. the notice of appeal and all accompanying statements and materials;
4. all final staff reports, final decision letters and other final documentation and
information produced by or on behalf of the City, including without limitation and all
related/supporting final materials, and all final notices relating to the application and attendant
hearings;
5. all oral and written evidence received by the City Planning Commission and City
Council during the public hearings on the application and appeal; and all written evidence
received by relevant City Staff before and during the public hearings on the application and
appeal;
6. all matters of common knowledge and all official enactments and acts of the City,
including, without limitation (a) the General Plan; (b) Oakland Municipal Code (c) Oakland
Planning Code; (d) other applicable City policies and regulations; and, (e) all applicable state and
federal laws, rules and regulations.
FURTHER RESOLVED: That, the custodians and locations of the documents or
other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the City Council's
decision is based are respectively: (a) Community & Economic Development Agency, Planning
& Zoning Division, 250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 3dFloor, Oakland CA.; and (b) Office of the
City Clerk, I Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, I" floor, Oakland, CA.
FURTHER RESOLVED: That, the recitals contained in this Resolution are true and
correct and are an integral part of the City Council's decision.
In Council, Oakland, California, 21003
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES- BROOKS, BRUNNER, CHANG, NADEL, QUAN, REID, WAN, AND
PRESIDENT DE LA FUENTE
NOES-
ABSENT-
ABSTENTION-
ATTEST:
CEDA FLOYD
City Clerk and Clerk of the
Council of the City of
Oakland, Califomia
OFWCOUNCIL
3 JUL I 5 2003
OF OAY@, CITY OF OAKLAND
Cornnamay and
Economic REQUEST FOR APPEAL OF DECISION
De@eloprnenl Agency
PROJECT INFORMATION
Case No. of Appealed Project: 6, ,'II 0 0 1 'I L
Appealed Project Address: 17-2- 5- Z- Iq VF- 0,q,',@4-AIV6
APPELLANT INFORN11ATION:
PrintedName: PhoneNumber:
Mailing Address: 1720 12- Ac- @AA,&4,141,5A) Alternate Contact Number:
City/ZipCode o4AL,4,,v,61c,4 qV6o,1--
I
An appeal is hereby submitted on:
LI AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION
LI Approving an application for an Administrative Project
0 Denying an application for an Administrative Project
L3 Administrative Determination or Interpretation by the Zoning Administrator
Pursuant to the Zoning Regulations listed below:
U Administrative Determination or Interpretation (Sec. 17.132.020)
LI Design Review (Sec. 17.136.080)
C3 Minor Conditional Use Permit (Sec. 17.134.060)
Cl Minor Variance (Sec. 17.148.060)
U Tentative Parcel Map (Section 16.304. 1 00)
411' A DECISION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
M Granting an application to: OR C] Denying an application to:
(Describepwject) cF-(72S t-2-4v--0,
4-v x
Pursuant to the Zoning Regulations listed below:
lt@ Major Conditional Use Permit (Sec. 17.134.050)
Q Major Variance (Sec. 17.148.060)
V Design Review (Sec. 17.136.050)
U Tentative Map (Sec. 16.32.090)
El Planned Unit Development (Sec. 17.140.070)
0 Environmental Impact Report
13 Rezoning, Landmark Designation, Development Control Map, Law Change (Sec. 17.144.060)
CITY OF OAKLAND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL APPLICATION (CONT.)
An appeal in accordance with the sections of the Zoning Regulations listed above shall state specifically
wherein it is claimed there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Zoning Administrator or
Commission (Advisory Agency) or wherein its decision is not supported by the evidence in the record, or
in the case of Rezoning, Landmark Designation, Development Control Map, or Law Change by the
Commission, shall state specifically wherein it is claimed the Commission erred in its decision.
The appeal is based on the following: (Attach addilionalsheets as needed.)
Se e- 3 '0 L-af@--
13 Supporting Evidence or Documents Attached. (The appellant shall submit all supporting
evidence within ten (10) calendar days following the end of the appeal date.)
Respectfully Submitted,
Signature ofAppellant or Representative Of Date
Appealing Organization
FOR STAFF USE ONLY
Appeal Case Number (if applicable):
Date Appeal Received:
Filing Fee Amount Paid: Cashier's Receipt Stamp Maw:
ATTACHMENT TO APPEALED PROJECT
CASE 4CMDOO-192
Apartment Building at 1725 12'h Avenue OAKLAND
May 14, 2003
As neighbors of this property at 1725 12 1h Avenue, we appeal to the City Council to correct this unfair
decision by the Planning Commission.
The project would convert an existing single family dwelling at 1725 12th Avenue into a 3 unit apartment
building.
The Staff Report, Case File #CMDOO-I 92 and its Findings For Approval and Conditions Of Approval, is
mistaken. Neighbors will testify that this project WILL adversely impact our light, views and use of our
properties. Most importantly, neighbors, owners and their architect were able to resolve most of the
neighbors' concerns over this project. Only two problems remain.
First, owners insist that the third unit must be a two storey house located in the rear yard. Neighbors
would accept a third unit but only if it were one storey in height. Owners have never argued that this
could not be done. They simply refuse.
The enclosed photos show the impact of a two-storey structure on the common area deck and outdoor
space for the neighboring apartment building. Forty-four families use this area for sun, barbecues,
reading. and outdoor quiet recreation. As you can see, a two storey structure would put this area in
permanentshadow,makingitcoldandwindyandlargelyunusable. WeasktheCounciltosendtheplan
back for redesign as a one storey building, as Planning Commissioner Lighty recommended.
Second, the current design shows a driveway along the south side of the lot and the walkway to the rear
house along the north side wedged between the property line fence and the now-two-storey main house.
This is a had design for several reasons. Any sensible person will choose to walk to the back on the wide.
safe driveway and not the dark, narrow walkway. The neighbor to the north will suffer the noise of this
foot traffic needlessly. The driveway could easily be improved with a quality paving material such as
interlocking blocks that 'read' as a formal entry path. The north side setback should remain planted and
quietasabuffertotheneighbors. Whydisturbneighborsonbothsideswhenyoucanlimitittoonlyone
side and improve the whole design in the process?
Thank you for carefully considering this appeal.
Zch;rd Ph il s, Property Supervisor, Palm Crest Apartments, 1125 East 18'h Street
Sam Moorman, Cambridge Terrace Apartments, 1720 12'@ Avenue 9,34 05 S8)
A +4r, c ( : 7 pq s pi, 0 40
A-Ppe@ c,%kbootq I
4"
44rkct,
cmN oo t el
'Al @-@AP
Oakland City Planning Commission STAFF REPORT
Case File Number CMDOO-192 May 7, 2003
Location: 1725 12' Avenue (See map on reverse)
Assessors Parcel Numbers: 020 -0215-007-00
Proposal: Consideration of a modified site plan for a previously approved
project.
Applicant: Bill Wong
Ovvner: Ben Phan
Planning Permits Required: Major Conditional Use Permit for 3 or more units in the R-40 Zone
and Regular Design Review
General Plan: Mixed Housing Type Residential
Zoning: R-40 Garden Apartment Residential Zone
Environmental Determination: Exempt, Section 15303, State CEQ Guidelines, Construction of Six or
fewer multi-family dwelling units
vHistoric Status: Potentially Designated Historic Property (PDHP); survey rating: C2 +
Service Delivery District: HI - San Antonio
City Council District: 2
Staff recommendation: Decision on application based on staff report
For further information: Contact case planner Robert D. Merkamp at 510-238-6283 or
Rmerkarripg&oaklandnet.com
SUMNI[ARY
This is a project to add two units to an existing residential lot in the R-40 Garden Apartment Zoning
District. The applicant applied for a Major Conditional Use Permit and Design Review in the year
2000 for this project. This project went through several design changes and public hearings before
appearing before the Planning Commission on August 7, 2002, where it was approved. The project
was appealed to the City Council by a neighbor. Prior to the City Council meeting, the appellant,
applicant, planning staff, and Council office met to try and resolve pertinent issues. As a result of that
meeting, the plan was modified. The appellant subsequently withdrew the appeal and the project has
been returned to the Planning Commission for further consideration of the design changes. The project
appeared before the Planning Commission initially on March 19', but was continued from that meeting
to clarify several outstanding issues. The property owner, architect, and the neighbors met with staff
on April 9, 2003 to discuss those issues and the neighbors raised several concerns (see artachment Q.
To address the neighbors' concerns raised at the various meetings, the project has been modified in the
following ways:
• Originally, the two new units were to be added to the rear of the property in a duplex-style
structure. This has been changed to adding one of the new units under the existing single family
residence. The new unit to the rear has been reduced in size and is now a stand-alone single family
dwelling.
• The parking has been shifted. Originally, two parking spaces were placed under the existing
residence, with three open spaces to the rear. The new proposal deletes one of these spaces from
under the unit (reducing the amount of garage facing on this unit and reducing the amount of front
yard paving) and places it between the new structure to the rear and the western property line.
#7
CITY OF OAKLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
long FB
Case File: CMDOO-192
Applicant: Lun Ko
Address: 1725 12th Ave.
Zone: R-40
Oakland QU Planning Commission Mav 7. 2003
Case File Number CMDOO-192 Page 3
• With the deletion of one of the front parking spaces, additional room has been created for a front
pedestrian entry for the new unit added beneath the existing house.
• The front steps have been stepped back and to the side of the existing front porch to enable them to
conform to the zoning code for the distance they can encroach into the front setback.
• To address neighborhood concerns, the applicant have redesigned the front entrance farther to
move the front garage space to the back of the unit. This has the effect of reducing the driveway
width and allowing for more on-streeL parking, which is already impacted in this neighborhood.
Staff received the revisions to the proposed design on March 4, 2003 and is satisfied with the design
modifications. Staff therefore recommends that Planning Commission approve the modified project.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
The subject property is a flat residential lot of 7,500 sq. ft. located midblock on the north side of 12'
Avenue, between East 17'b and East l8t' Streets. The surrounding properties are all residential
consisting of detached single-family dwellings, duplexes, and multi-family buildings. Surrounding the
property, there are several apartment buildings that were constructed when the neighborhood had the
R-70 High Density Residential designation and various civic facilities, such as churches.
IIISTORIC STATUS
The existing residential building is a potential designated historic property (PDHP) rated C2+. The
rating represents either secondary importance or superior example. The proposed alterations to the
structure will preserve the historic characteristics of the building. All existing elements, such as the
existing porch and exterior materials, will remain.
GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS
The project site is designated as Mixed Housing Type Residential under the General Plan Land Use
Classifications. The Mixed Housing Type Residential Classification is typically located near the City's
major arterials and characterized by a mix of single family homes, townhouses, small multi-unit
buildings, and neighborhood businesses. The proposal conforms to the Mixed Housing Type
Residential designation.
Policy N7.1 of the General Plan requires that new residential development in Mixed Housing Type
areas should be compatible with the density, scale, design, and existing or desired character of
surrounding development (page 109). The project proposes adding two units to a site with an existing
single family dwelling, one unit being added beneath the existing residence and the other being placed
on the rear of the property. The proposed expansion would be located among existing detached single-
family dwellings, duplexes, and multi-family buildings also within the same General Plan designation.
The project fits into its context in that the building would be located near like buildings in terms of
bulk, height, and density, and the 12' Avenue streetscape would be maintained with the proposed front
building remodeling.
The project is also consistent with General Plan Policy N3.2, which requires that "infill development
that is consistent with the General Plan should take place throughout the City of Oakland" (page 106).
Oakland G@q Planning Commission Mav 7, 2003
Case File Number CM1300-192 Page 4
ZONING ANALYSIS
The site is located in the R-40 Garden Apartment Residential Zone. As per Section 17.22. I 10(B), if
more than two dwelling units are proposed on a site larger than 4,000 sq. ft. in area, then a Conditional
Use Permit is required to increase the number of units, with a maximum allowable density of one unit
for every 2,500 square feet of lot area. Based on the allowed density, the 7,500 sq. ft. subject lot could
accommodate up to a maximum of 3 dwelling units. As per Section 17.134.020 (Definition of a Major
and Minor Conditional Use Permit), a Major Conditional Use Permit is required. Findings must be
made under Section 17.134.050 (General Use permit Findings) and Section 17.22.120 (Use Permit
Findings for More than Two Dwelling Units in an R-40 Zone). Also, Design Review Findings as per
Section 17.136.070(A) must be made because the project involves three residential units.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERNffNATION
This project has been determined to be exempt from environmental review under Section 15303 of the
State of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, as new construction of six or fewer
multi-family dwelling units.
KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS
Building Design
Existinp Structur - The proposal is to lift the building approximately 5 feet, thereby extending the
lower walls, adding new windows, and one garage door at the ground level on the rear. A new
residential unit (originally located separately to the rear of the property) will be added beneath the
existing residece. A front entry feature has been added between the stairs from the porch and the
garage to serve as the main access point for this lower unit. The porch and all existing architectural
elements will be preserved in most details, but the stairs leading from the porch will be move to the
side of the porch to prevent the stairs from encroaching too deeply into the front yard. The redesign
will allow these stairs to encroach a maximum of four feet into the required front yard. The new
location of the stairs is consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern of porches with entries located
to one comer of the front elevation. Matching shingle siding material will be provided at the new wall
areas. 'Me garage door proposed for the front of the structure has been shifted to the rear of the
building. Vehicles will access this space from the driveway by backing into it, there is adequate space
to maneuver an automobile safely into and out of this space. All new windows will be double-hung to
blend with existing conditions.
Proposed New Structure - The redesigned rear building is a two-story single family design with the
bedrooms located upstairs and the living areas (kitchen, dining and living rooms) located downstairs.
The structure is proposed to have a footprint of approximately 850 square feet and a total square
footage of less than 1,700 square feet. This represents a reduction of the bulk and massing of the rear
unit as opposed to the original proposal for a two-unit structure by just over 1,000 square feet. This
will help reduce impacts on the neighboring properties. Another factor is that the previous proposal
was built right up to the side setbacks in the R-40 zone, 5 feet. The new, smaller building is setback
further from the property lines, sitting 15 feet from the western property line and 10 feet from the
eastern boundary. This additional setback is a significant improvement as it adds more open space to
the project site as well as decreases the impact that new construction at this point of the lot will have on
the neighbors. The proposed revisions more closely resemble the architectural detailing of the existing
front building and provide more visual interest. A front entry feature similar to the one on the main
Oakland City Planning Commission Mav 7, 2003
Case File Number CMDOO-192 Page 5
building helps tie the two structures together. The reduced unit square footage allows for adequate
separation in the parking area. Pedestrian accessibility and landscaping around the building is improved
in this redesign.
CONCLUSION
Staff believes that the proposed project meets all the required standards for development and that the
revisions to the project are in substantial conformance to the discussions held between the interested
parties. The project maintains the total number units originally approved and successfully addresses
community concerns related to design, setbacks, massing, and open space. Staff find that this proposal
will compliment and enhance the use of the property and surrounding uses and recommends that it be
approved.
RECONEVIENDATIONS: 1. Affirm staffs environmental determination.
2. Approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to the attached findings
and conditions.
Prepared by:
Robert 1). Merkarnp
Planner 11
Approve by:
GARY V. PATTON
Deputy Director of Planning and Zoning
Approved for forwarding to the
City Planning Commission:
-LLIE GOULD
Director of Planning and Zoning
ATTACHMENTS:
Oakland GLq Planninz Commission Mav 7, 2003
Case Me Number CMDOO-192 Page 6
A. Plans and Elevations
B. Planning Commission Staff Report of August 7, 2002
C. Summary of Neighborhood Concerns
D. Photographs
Oakland City Planninz Commission Mav 7, 2003
Case File Number CNMOO-192 Page 7
FrNDINGS FOR APPROVAL
'Me required findings for multi-family units, as listed in Section 17.22.120 (Use Pernut Findings for
More than Two Dwelling Units in an R-40 Zone), Section 17.134.050 (General Use Perinit Findings),
and 17.136.070(A) (Design Review Findings for Residential Facilities), are set forth below. All
required findings are shown in normal type; explanations as to why these findings can be made are in
bold type.
Section 17.22.120, Use Permit Findings for More than Two Dwelling Units in an R40 Zone:
1. That the proposed development will not adversely affect adjoining property, nor the surrounding
neighborhood, with consideration to be given to density; to the availability of neighborhood facilities
and play space; to the generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets; and to all other
similar, relevant factors. The location, size, and operating characteristics of the new structure and
the addition of a further unit under the existing unit located in front of the property will be
compatible with the existing neighborhood pattern. A total of five on-site parking spaces and
adequate open space for aH resulting units are provided. In addition, utilities and civic services
are existing and sufficient to serve the new facility. Therefore, the proposal will not adversely
affect the livabUity of the property or the surrounding neighborhood.
2. That the site design and landscaping and the scale, height, length and width, bulk, coverage, and
exterior treatment of structures are in harmony with neighborhood character and with facilities on
nearby lots. The design of the proposed structure has been improved to provide adequate and
desirable site design, landscaping, bulk, differentiation of facade and roof planes, and use of
quality materials. The proposed structure will be similar in architectural characteristics as the
existing structure. The new lower floor of the existing structure will match the materials and
design of the rest of the existing structure. The new structure has been redesigned and scaled
back considerably to reduce it's bulk and massing and it's overall impact on the neighboring
properties.
3. That the shape and siting of the facilities, and especially of any portions thereof which exceed one-
story in height, are such as to minimize blocking of views and direct sunlight from nearby lots and
from other residential facilities in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed structure will not
block views and/or sunlight to the surrounding structures. An apartment building that exceeds
two-stories is located in close proximity to the proposed structure.
4. That the design and site planning of the buildings, open areas, parking and service areas, and other
facilities provide a convenient, attractive, and functional living environment; and that paths, stairways,
access-ways, and corridors are so designed as to ensure privacy. The proposed structure is a
townhouse design, so that sleeping areas are located upstairs, and living areas are located
downstairs. This aflows for more privacy to surrounding parcels, since sleeping areas are used
mainly at night. The building is located so as to provide maximum open space, access paths, and
parking/maneuvering areas. The pedestrian access to the rear building allows for privacy to the
front residence as well as to neighboring parcels. The proposed design wW provide convenient,
attractive, and functional living environment for the residents of the subject parcel and for
neighboring parcels. The number of garage doors visible from the street on the front building
has been reduced from two to zero, eliminating the potential impact of flat garage surfaces on
public views, reducing the amount of front vard paving, and retaining the narrow driveway of the
existing residence.
FINDINGS
Oakland City Planninz Commission May 7, 2003
Case File Number CMDOO-192 Page 8
5. That lot shape, size, and dimensions allow a development which will provide satisfactory internal
living conditions without adversely affecting the privacy, safety, or residential amenity of adjacent
residences. The subject property is 7,500 sq. ft. in area, which allows ample space to provide a
satisfactory internal living condition without adversely affecting the adjacent residences.
Section 17.134.050, General Use Permit Findings:
1. 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. See finding #1 above under Use Permit
Findings for More than Two Dwelling Units.
2. 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 structure wW provide attractive,
convenient, and functional living units within an existing residential neighborhood. See finding #4
above under Use Permit Criteria for More than Two Dwelling Units.
3. 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
proposed units provide new quality housing with adequate living accommodations, faffidling a
basic community and regional need.
4. That the proposal conforms to all applicable design review criteria set forth in the design review
procedure at Section 17.136.070. See the Design Review Findings below.
5. That the proposal conforms in all significant respects with the Oakland General Plan and with any
other applicable plan or development control map which has been adopted by the City Council. The
proposal conforms to the Mixed Housing Type Residenthd land use classification. The maximum
allowable density for this classification is one dwelling unit for every 1,089 sq. ft. of lot area.
Based on this density ratio, a 7,500 sq. ft. site could support up to 6 dwelling units. Also, the
development would be consistent with General Plan Policies N3.2 and N7.1. These policies are
described in the "General Plan Analysis" section of this report. As per page 146 of the General
Plan, Neighborhood Objectives N3, N6 and N7, and related policies are among the objectives that
are the basis for the policy framework for the Mixed Housing Type land use classification.
17.136.070(A), Design Review Findings for Residential FacUities:
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 design of
the existing and proposed structures will be compatible and consistent with the existing size, scale,
and architectural character of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed improvements to the
residential unit in front of the property will enhance the streetscape along 12' Avenue.
FINDINGS
Oaldand City Planniniz Commission May 7, 2003
Case File Number CMDOO-192 Page 9
2. That the proposed design will protect, preserve, or enhance desirable neighborhood characteristics.
The proposed building design will enhance the neighborhood character by providing attractive
development.
3. 'Mat the proposed design will be sensitive to the topography and landscape. Since the site is a flat
lot, this finding does not apply.
4. That, if situated on a hill, the design and massing of the proposed building relates to the grade of
the hill. The site is a relatively flat lot so that this finding is not applicable.
5. That the proposed design conforms in all significant respects with the Oakland General Plan and
with any applicable district plan or development control map which has been adopted by the City
Council. See flittling #5 above under General Use Permit Findings.
FINDINGS
Oakland Qy Planning Commission Mai, 7. 2003
Case File Number CMDOO-192 Page 10
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 April 22, 2003, and as amended by the
following conditions of approval. 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 Ex-tensions
a. Ongoing.
This permit shall become effective upon satisfactory compliance with these conditions. This
permit shall expire on May 7, 20 , 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, the Planning Director 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 Cbauges
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. Priortoissuanceofbuildingper7niforcommencementofactivity.
The applicant shall execute and record with the Alameda County Recorder' s Office a copy of these
conditions of approval on a fonn 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 buiWing permit.
These conditions of approval shall be reproduced on page one of any plans submitted for a
building permit for this project.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Oakland CfU Planning Commission May 7, 2003
Case File Number CAMOO-192 Page 11
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. Notice of Exemption
a. Ongoing.
Recordation of the Notice of Exemption (NOE) is optional pursuant to Section 15062(c)(4) of
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Recordation of the NOE reduces
the statute of limitations on challenges to your project, based on environmental issues, to 35
days after the approval date. In the absence of a recorded NOE, the statute of limitations for
challenges extends to 180 days. A signed Notice of Exemption (NOE) is enclosed certifying
that the project has been found to be exempt from CEQA review. You may record the NOE at
the Alameda County Clerk's office at 1106 Madison Street, Oakland, CA 94612, at a cost of
$25.00 made payable to the Alameda County Clerk. Please take the original NOE and three
copies to the Alameda County Clerk. and return one date-stamped copy to the Zoning Division,
attention to Robert Merkamp so that the City of Oakland has a file copy of this document.
PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:
9. Landscaping and Elevations
a. Prior to issuance of Grading or Building Permits.
Submit the followiniz for review and aT)l)roval bv the Director of Planning and Zoning.
i. Detailed Landscaping Plans to show all proposed vegetation, exterior lighting, paving,
and exterior architectural features. The Landscaping Plans shall include staking details,
mechanical irrigation layout, and common and botanical names-of all proposed species.
The use of drought-tolerant, fire-resistant vegetation is encouraged
ii. Detailed Site Plans to show all differentiation of materials between landscaped areas,
driveway, maneuvering and parking area, and pedestrian access to each structure. The
driveway will be paved with permeable surfaces to provide increased on-site
stormwater percolation and to provide visual interest along the streetscape. The Site
Plans shall include section details of all the different paving surfaces used and shall
identify each paving surface.
iii. Detailed Elevation Drawings of all structures, and Cross Section Details of all proposed
windows at the main building, to show window recess of at least 2 inches from the
exterior siding, and to show full implementation of all details as shown in the drawings
submitted on April 22, 2003, including brackets, railings, window trim, light dividers,
and other detailing.
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Oakland QU Planning Commission Mav 7, 2003
Case File Number CMDOO-192 Page 12
10. Parking
a. Ongoing
The proposed five (5) on-site parking spaces shall be accessible and maintained free and
clear for vehicular parking. 'ne proposed one-car garage space on the rear of the front unit
shall be made permanently available for parking two cars inside the facility.
11. Fence Design
a. Prior to issuance of Budding or Grading Permits.
A detailed Site Plan and Elevation Drawings showing the proposed fence design and
treatment shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Director.
12. Street Trees
a. Ongoing
Street trees shall be provided to the satisfaction of the Director of Parks and Recreation and
shall be maintained in healthy condition.
13. Development Related Procedures
a. Prior to issuance of Grading or BuMng Permits.
i. Any Encroachment Permits, Privately Constructed Public Improvements, Waiver of
Damages or other approvals required by the Engineering Services Division shall be
obtained prior to Building Permit issuance.
ii. Prior to issuance of a Grading Permit, a CDMG Soils Report shall be submitted to the
satisfaction of the Engineering Services Division.
iii. Pursuant to the City of Oakland Ordinance No. 12253, at the discretion of the
Environmental Services Division of the Public Works Agency, complete and submit,
prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, a "Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan" and
a plan to divert 50% of the solid waste generated by the operation of the project, to the
Public Works Agency for review and approval. Contact the Environmental Services
Division at (510) 238-7073 for information.
14. Construction Practices and Requirements
i. Construction shall only take place between 7:30 am and 7:30 pm daily except that no
construction shall take place on Sundays.
ii. While this project is under construction, the above referenced plans, along with this
Approval Certificate and conditions of approval, shall be at the job site at all times.
iii. Construction vehicles, materials, and other equipment shall not block the road so that
neighbors would not be adversely affected in accessing their properties.
iv. AU erosion and sediment control measures, as well as construction site and materials
management, shall be in strict accordance with the control standards listed in the latest
edition of the Erosion and Sediment Control Field Manual published by the State of
California Regional Water Quality Board, San Francisco Bay Region.
APPROVF-D BY: City Planning Commission: (date) (vote)
City Council: .(date) (vote)
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
F-41
RECEIVED
2003
CITY
'FLANNIN MISSION
ZONING VISION
f
4@Z
-4f
DRIIE
WA, =H
SIDE W,AL9
ATTACHMENT I 2 TH AVENUE
SITE & LANDSCAPING Pt-AN
LIY.
PAL, HALL
5x 1 6-f
F,
PA
LR
12
BASEMENT ALwNx
LI
it
If
J-1
tl
ri
cr
7I li
Aj I -1 @i@
IF
L f
I N7 I
-I 11.4 t t V'/ "I 1 I
nE7
r 17
Ell
T.
7'
XT
PNO UNITS ADDITION & HOUSE E IENSION
1725 12TH AVENUE
OAKLAND, CA.
1 P'-4" 6@
L I.
m
6a,
z
C-1 )@ @
41.
co
Cm
'ji
00
aco,
Fri
rq
Ea
ul tz
41
T T117
51
T77'4-=-- 110@
rn
IF-
-771
T
OF?AICOUNCIL
JUL I 5 2003