2031 sixth street - berkeley, california · 2009. 12. 10. · avenue. uses to the east and south,...

Z O N I N G

A D J U S T M E N T S

B O A R D

S t a f f R e p o r t

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420

E-mail: [email protected]

FOR BOARD ACTION DECEMBER 10, 2009

2031 Sixth Street

Variance/Use Permit #09-10000056 to construct 3-story addition (about 7,400 sq. ft.) to existing community health center, without providing required rear setback or off-street parking (R-4, Multi-Family Residential; AS)

I. Application Basics

A. Zoning Permits Required: Use Permit Modification to enlarge existing health center (approved under Use

Permit #9077), under BMC Section 23B.56.020.A Variance from off-street parking requirement (25 spaces required, 2 proposed),

under BMC Section 23B.44.010 Variance to allow reduced rear setback on north side (5 feet existing/proposed,

15 required), under BMC Section 23B.44.010 Use Permit to allow addition to exceed 35 feet in average height (41 feet, 7.5

inches proposed for main building, 3 feet taller for stair tower and mechanical screen), under BMC Section 23D.40.070.C

Administrative Use Permit to create new parking space within required yard abutting Addison Street, under BMC Section 23D.12.080.B

B. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301(e)(2) of the

CEQA Guidelines (“Existing Facilities”). C. Parties Involved:

Applicant Barbara Winslow, JSW/D Architects, 3106 Shattuck Ave., Berkeley, 94705

Property Owner LifeLong Medical Care, P.O. Box 11247, Berkeley, 94712

2031 SIXTH STREET ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD of 17 December 10, 2009

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Sixth\2031\VAR 09-10000056\Document Finals\ZAB 2009-12-10\2009-12-10_ZAB_SR_2031 Sixth.docx

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

NORTH

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2031 SIXTH STREET December 10, 2009 of 17


Figure 2: Site Plan



Table 1: Land Use Information

Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation

Subject Property Community health center R-4 High Density Residential

Surrounding Properties

North K-8 school R-4 (C-W beyond)

High Density Residential (Avenue Commercial beyond)

South Single-family residences R-1A (Limited Two-Family Residential)

Low Medium Density Residential

East K-8 school, single-family residences

R-4 High Density Residential

West Single-family residences MU-R (Mixed Use-Residential)

Manufacturing Mixed Use

Table 2: Special Characteristics

Characteristic Applies to

Project?

Explanation

Creeks N No creeks within 30 feet of site.

Historic Resources Y LPC has approved project.

Oak Trees N None in area of proposed work.

Seismic Hazards Y Site is located in potential liquefaction area; geotechnical report has demonstrated low risk of liquefaction.

Soil/Groundwater Contamination

N No history of hazardous materials/contamination at site.

Green Building Consultation

Y Green building checklist not required for this project; however, several “green goals” were identified during green building consultation, including employee bus passes, a cool roof for the addition, and dual flush toilets.

Housing/Child Care Mitigation Fees

N Project does not create 7,500 square feet of new floor area and is exempt from this requirement.



Table 3: Project Chronology

Date

Action

July 9, 2009 Application submitted

October 1, 2009 LPC approves landmark alterations

October 28, 2009 Application deemed complete

November 25, 2009 Public hearing notices mailed/posted

December 10, 2009 ZAB hearing

January 26, 2010 PSA deadline

Table 4: Development Standards

Standard BMC Sections 23D.40.070-080

Existing Addition/ (Reduction)

Proposed Total

Permitted/ Required

Lot Area (sq. ft.) 26,400 -- 26,400 5,000

Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) 11,737 7,402 19,139 N/A

Floor Area Ratio 0.44 0.28 0.72 N/A

Building Height

Average (ft.) 23’-6” 18’-1.5” 41’-7.5” (plus 3 ft. for stair tower and

mech. screen)*

35’ (65’ w/Use

Permit)

Stories 2 1 3 3 (6 w/Use Permit)

Building Setbacks (ft.)

Front (Addison)

15’-7” -- 15’-7” 15

Rear (North) 5 -- 5* 15

Left Side (Sixth)

1st story: ~15’

2nd

story: 24’ -- 1

st story: ~15’

2nd

story: 24’ 1

st story: 6’

2nd

story: 8’

Right Side (East)

5’ (1) 1st-2

nd story: 4’

3rd

story: 6’ 1

st-2

nd story: 4’

3rd

story: 6’

Lot Coverage (%) 37 4 41 45

Parking Automobile 14 2 16* Total: 64 Addition: 25

Bicycle 0 16 16 N/A

* – Use Permit/Variances requested for these components.



II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood/Area Description:

The site is located in West Berkeley, at the northeast corner of Sixth and Addison Streets, one block south of University Avenue and five blocks east of San Pablo Avenue. Uses to the east and south, and across Sixth Street to the west, are primarily residential. Black Pine Circle School, a private K-8 school, abuts the site to the north, and the City’s public health clinic is located north of the school at Sixth and University. Commercial and industrial uses are located one block to the west (west of Fifth Street), and commercial uses are located along University Avenue.

B. Site Conditions:

The site has an area of 26,400 square feet and is developed with a two-story community health center called West Berkeley Family Practice. The health center is owned and operated by LifeLong Medical Care, a non-profit health provider with locations in Berkeley, Oakland and Marin County. The original portion of the existing building was built in 1927 as a children’s nursery, based on a design by Walter H. Ratcliff, Jr. In 1980, the ZAB approved a Use Permit to authorize the existing health center, and in 1984, the ZAB approved a Use Permit and Variance to expand the center by constructing a single-story addition at the northeast corner of the site. The building is a City Landmark and is also listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The 1984 addition has not been deemed to contribute to the building’s historic significance. The applicants have already obtained a separate permit to renovate and remodel the Landmark portion of the building, as a first phase of improvements at the site. The southeast portion of the site contains a surface parking lot with 14 spaces. There are several large trees adjacent to the parking lot, and there are also large street trees along Sixth Street.

III. Project Description The project is a second phase of improvements at the site that would remove and rebuild the 1984 portion of the building at the northeast corner of the site to the rear of the existing historic structure, and add two stories above that single-story area, and construct a two-story addition along the eastern property line adjacent to the other new work and the existing historic building. The project would expand the building’s floor area by about 63 percent, from 11,737 to 19,139 square feet. As described in the attached applicant statement (Attachment 4), the main purpose of the expansion is to modernize the existing clinic space (located in the 1984 addition) and provide additional clinic space to serve the center’s growing number of clients.



The addition will have cement stucco finish, metal windows, and steel sunshades. The two-story portion of the addition will have a gable roof with standing seam metal, and the three-story portion will have a flat roof, with stairway and elevator penthouses projecting above the main volume up to six feet (three feet above the main parapet). The project would create two new parking spaces at the south end of the existing parking lot, one of which will be partially located within the required yard abutting Addison Street. In addition, the owner has negotiated a lease for 15 off-site parking spaces at a vacant lot adjacent to 824 University Avenue, approximately 230 feet to the north. Because these spaces do not meet the minimum number required for the addition, or certain other requirements for off-site parking (such as a deed restriction), a Variance is still required due to the project’s shortfall of 23 spaces. See under “Key Issues” for further discussion.

IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Concerns:

As discussed in Attachment 4, the applicant has conducted several meetings to solicit community input on the project. On June 17, 2009, the applicant and owner met with the director and three board members of the adjacent school, and on June 24, 2009, the applicant and owner held a meeting for other neighbors. The most common issue raised was parking. At this writing, staff has received one e-mail from a parent of a child at the adjacent school, expressing concerns regarding possible noise and dust during construction (see Attachment 8). Staff has informed this person of the attached conditions of approval addressing these issues (see Attachment 1, Conditions 17-23 and 27-30).

B. Committee Review:

Due to the existing Landmark building, the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC), rather than the Design Review Committee, has design review authority for this project. As indicated above in Table 3, the LPC has granted a structural alteration permit for the project. This occurred after an LPC subcommittee had met with the applicant to work out several changes to the design, include colors and the orientation and height of the stair and elevator penthouses. The LPC also recommended to the State Office of Historic Preservation that the proposed project has “no adverse effect” on the historic property under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.



V. Issues and Analysis A. Key Issues:

1. Relationship to Historic Resource: As stated above, the LPC has reviewed and approved the project, after making all required findings under the City’s Landmarks Preservation Ordinance. The LPC’s findings include the following:

The proposed addition is consistent with the [City’s Landmark] criteria primarily because it would be located at the northeast corner of the site, above an earlier (1984) addition at the rear of the original (1927) portion of the building and substantially out of view from Sixth and Addison Streets. This location minimizes the need to make further changes to the existing historic building: direct impacts on the exterior will be limited to modifications to the glazing on the east end of the waiting room. This façade is not considered a principal façade, as it is not substantially visible from the public right-of-way and has already undergone significant changes.

The height and bulk of the addition will not adversely impact the historic building due to the above location. The steeply sloping roofs of the historic building serve to diminish the overall scale of the addition as well as provide intermediate “step-ups” to the overall height. In addition, the existing street trees along Sixth Street, and the trees at the south end of the on-site parking area, are very large and will largely block views of the addition from the adjacent streets, thus minimizing the change in public views of the site.

Aesthetically, the addition defers to the historic building, with design references including a smooth stucco finish, multi-lite windows, and a steeply pitched gable at the south end of the two-story portion. However, the addition is also clearly distinguishable as an additive element of its own time, with a parapet roof over the three-story portion, standing seam metal on the pitched two-story portion, and distinctive elements such as redwood and steel sunshades.

Based on these findings, the project would not adversely impact the existing historic resource on the property.

2. Height: The project requires a Use Permit to exceed 35 feet in height. The

proposed height of 41 feet, 7.5 inches, plus the stair tower and mechanical equipment screen, is appropriate because, as noted above, the addition will not be substantially visible from the public right-of-way due to the steeply sloping



roofs of the historic building and the large street trees along Sixth Street and at the south end of the on-site parking area.

3. Parking Variance: As noted in Table 4, the Zoning Ordinance requires 25 parking

spaces for the proposed addition, at one space per 300 square feet of gross floor area. Since the project provides two additional spaces on site, a shortfall of 23 spaces would remain. According to a parking demand study submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the City’s Transportation Division (see Attachment 5), the actual parking demand from the addition will be 19 spaces, six less than the Ordinance requires. This estimate is based on a survey of the clinic’s patients and staff. The parking study also documents that on-street parking in the immediate vicinity is highly congested, with an occupancy rate of 90 percent for unrestricted spaces (without time or disability restrictions). Based on this occupancy rate, staff expects the project to make parking in the vicinity even more difficult to find unless adequate off-street parking is provided, or the parking demand is reduced through transit subsidies, bicycle parking, or other measures that reduce automobile trips. Because the Ordinance allows parking reductions in commercial districts but not in residential districts, the project must either provide the required number of spaces (either on-site or off), or obtain a Variance. The applicants investigated the feasibility of providing additional on-site parking through the use of vehicle lifts, but determined that this would not be feasible due to the cost and potential adverse impacts on the Landmark building (see Attachment 4). The applicants have focused instead on leasing parking in the vicinity, and have signed a 10-year lease to use the 15-space parking lot adjacent to the Indian restaurant at 824 University Avenue, which is located about 230 feet north of the project site. The applicants intend to use the lot for employee parking until 6 p.m. on weekdays, and sublet the lot to the restaurant on evenings and weekends. Although this lot would help meet the project’s parking demand and reduce its impacts on street parking in the vicinity, at least until 2019, the off-site parking would not fully meet the project’s increased parking demand, nor would it meet the following Ordinance requirements:

Section 23D.12.030.A requires that off-site parking that “is not located in a joint use of parking arrangement, must be located on land under the same ownership as the land on which the structure or use is located.” Thus, the only leased parking that satisfies the parking requirements for uses in R districts is a joint use parking agreement (JUPA).

Section 23D.12.060.C requires that for JUPAs, the owner must record a deed restriction on the property, which would reserve the lot for the applicants’ use for as long as necessary to provide the required parking. The owner of the parking lot will not accept this restriction, therefore the applicants cannot sign a JUPA that would satisfy the Ordinance.



Due to these requirements, the applicants still need a Variance for 23 parking spaces. The required findings for the parking Variance, along with the applicant’s arguments (see Attachment 4 for further details) and staff’s analysis, are as follows (Section 23B.44.030.A): 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applying

to the land, building or use referred to in the application, which circumstances or conditions do not apply generally to land, buildings and/or uses in the same District. Applicant’s Argument: According to the applicant, “the dimensions, location and size of the existing historic structure on the site present an extraordinary circumstance, which … limits options for providing sufficient on-site parking to meet COB requirements.” The applicant states that sub-grade parking would only create 6 or 7 spaces and would eliminate needed space in the east wing for an access drive, and lift parking would only yield 20 spaces at a cost of $957,000 plus $3.85 million over 30 years for an attendant (required for customer parking lifts). Staff Analysis: Staff agrees with the applicant. Clearly, landmarks do not occur generally in the R-4 District, because less than 1.5 percent of the City’s roughly 29,000 parcels contain a landmark building, and a minority of these parcels are located in the R-4 District. The Landmark designation severely limits the applicant’s options for providing the required parking on the site. In order to provide 23 additional spaces on site, some kind of multi-level parking structure, or parking lifts, would be required, and these would have to be located at the south end of the lot, where they would likely detract from the visual quality of the site and adversely impact the historic significance of the existing building.

2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights of the subject property's owner. Applicant’s Argument: According to the applicant, the existing health center “provides easy access to primary care for the low income neighborhoods of south and west Berkeley…and is a critical component of the safety net. The practice has grown an average of 10% annually for the last 3 years in order to meet the needs of neighborhood residents. Space originally built to accommodate 80 patients per day is being used for 118.” The applicant states that in order to address the existing and future demand for health care at the site, preserve the historic building, and meet various needs and requirements such as ADA, seismic safety, energy efficiency, and upgrade of mechanical, plumbing and electrical systems, an addition of the size proposed is necessary. As stated above, the required parking cannot be provided on the site due to the existing building, and the applicant has not been able to secure off-site parking that complies with the Zoning Ordinance. The applicant also



states that “if we build a site to meet community standards and to address current demand only, we will sustain an annual operating loss of $2m. The additional patient volume that will be accommodated in the building as submitted will permit the site to operate at break-even or better.” Staff Analysis: Given that a health center already exists on the property, granting a Variance so that the center can be expanded is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights.

3. The establishment, maintenance or operation of the use or the construction of a building, structure or addition thereof, to be approved will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, materially affect adversely the health or safety of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of the property of the applicant and will not, under the circumstances of the particular case, be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in said neighborhood; and that the granting of the Variance will promote the municipal health, welfare and safety and benefit the City as a whole. Applicant’s Argument: According to the applicant, the parking Variance will not be detrimental for the following reasons:

The applicant will provide approximately 15 parking spaces at the parking lot adjacent to 824 University for at least 10 years. One of the spaces will be reserved for a vanpool vehicle, and a second space will be reserved for a fuel-efficient vehicle.

The applicant is providing bicycle parking, showers, and transit subsidies for employees.

The applicant has commitments from the owner of the Spenger’s parking lot (1900 Fourth Street, about 800 feet north of the subject property) to lease additional spaces as needed through 2012.

The applicant is prepared to sub-lease the lot adjacent to 824 University back to the Indian restaurant during the evening, in order to help meet the restaurant’s parking demand.

Although a survey conducted by the applicant indicates little employee interest in a BART shuttle, the applicant has initiated discussion with the Berkeley Gateway Transportation Management Association to explore the possibility of employees using the existing BART shuttle service operated by that entity.



The Variance will allow a LEED silver rated building to be built, which will have numerous benefits.

Staff Analysis: Although the proposed off-site parking and transit subsidies will address most of the addition’s parking demand, the applicant has no way of assuring that this parking will be available for the life of the addition. It is therefore possible that in the future, additional employees and customers may park in the surrounding neighborhood, which already has very little available street parking. Staff believes this finding would be difficult to make.

4. Any other variance findings required by the Section of the Ordinance applicable to that particular Variance. Staff Analysis: There are no other required findings for the requested Variance.

Staff does not believe the second and third Variance findings can be made; therefore, staff recommends that the ZAB deny the project. However, if the ZAB concurs with the applicant’s arguments, the ZAB may wish to approve the Variance using the applicant’s arguments as a basis for its findings. If the ZAB grants the Variance, staff recommends a condition of approval requiring that the applicant provide employee transit subsidies (e.g., TransLink) in order to further reduce parking demand, as the applicant has already committed to do.

4. Rear Setback Variance: In 1982, the ZAB approved Variance #947 to construct the single-story addition on the northeast portion of the site with a zero setback, where 15 feet were (and still are) required. The addition was built with the existing 5-foot setback rather than zero, most likely to satisfy building code requirements for windows which were added to the north wall after the Variance was granted. Because the existing setback was not built prior to the effective date of the current setback requirement, it does not meet the Zoning Ordinance definition of “non-conforming” and cannot be extended with an AUP under Section 23C.04.070.B.1 Instead, a new Variance is required to vertically extend the setback as proposed for the 3-story addition. Staff’s analysis of the required findings and the applicant’s suggested findings for this Variance is as follows: Finding 1 (“exceptional or extraordinary circumstances”): Applicant’s Argument: For the same reasons given above for the parking Variance, the applicant states that the Landmark building on the site is an exceptional circumstance that severely limits options for building the addition elsewhere on the site and meeting the setback requirement. While the addition

1 The definition of “Non-conforming Use or Building” reads, in part: A Use or building which is not consistent with

a provision or provisions of Title 23, but which was lawfully established or constructed prior to the effective date of the provision(s) with which it is inconsistent.



could be located above the existing parking lot, this would block views of the Landmark building from Addison Street, adversely impacting its historic significance and detracting from the visual quality of the site. Staff Analysis: Staff agrees that the Landmark building is an exceptional circumstance, for the same reasons discussed in the analysis for the parking Variance. Finding 2 (“substantial property rights”): Applicant’s Argument: The applicant’s arguments for this finding are the same as for the Finding 2 of the parking Variance. See above. Staff Analysis: As stated above in staff’s analysis of the parking Variance, because a health center already exists on the property, granting a Variance so that the center can be expanded is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights. Finding 3 (“not materially detrimental”): Applicant’s Argument: The applicant argues that the reduced setback will not be detrimental because (1) the project has strong neighborhood support, including from the adjacent school, (2) a large tree already shades the adjacent school courtyard, (3) the applicant has agreed to grant the school access to the five-foot setback along the north side of the addition, in order to increase the size of the courtyard, and (4) the applicant will create a “green wall” on the north side of the addition. Staff Analysis: The main potential detriment from the reduced setback is increased shading on the school to the north, particularly during the winter months. The main classroom areas are located northwest and northeast of the addition, rather than directly to the north. Therefore, the building to the northwest will be shaded during the morning hours, but will continue to receive direct sunlight after noon. Conversely, the building to the northeast will receive direct sunlight until noon or slightly after, but will be shaded during the afternoon hours. There is also a single-story “staff resource” building directly to the north, which will be shaded throughout the day, but this building is small, it is not used for instruction or full-time office staff, and it has no windows facing south. Although the additional shading on the courtyard will make this area cooler, particularly during the winter months, the school has two other outdoor areas which will not be substantially shaded by the project. Staff does not consider the additional shading to be detrimental given the remaining morning and afternoon sunlight to classroom spaces, the remaining outdoor areas on the site, the difficulty in locating the proposed addition on any other portion of the site without impacting historic resources or residential properties, and the public benefits the project provides such as expanded affordable health care.



Finding 4 (other required findings): There are no other required findings for the requested Variance. As an alternative to the proposed Variance, the applicant could increase the setback by 5 feet to match the non-conforming 10-foot setback of the Landmark building. This setback was created prior to the current setback requirement and could therefore be extended with an AUP under Section 23C.04.070.B. This would also reduce shadows on the school. Staff does not believe the second Variance finding can be made; therefore, staff recommends that the ZAB deny the project or direct that the project be redesigned to conform to a 10-foot setback that could be approved with an AUP (after distribution of a revised hearing notice). However, if the ZAB concurs with the applicant’s arguments, the ZAB may wish to approve the Variance using the applicant’s arguments as a basis for its findings.

5. Traffic: According to a traffic impact analysis submitted by the applicant and reviewed by the City’s Transportation Division (see Attachment 5), the project would not generate traffic exceeding the City’s thresholds for significant impacts. Although the intersection of University Avenue and Sixth Street is already operating at Level of Service F during peak hours, the project adds relatively few trips in relation to the existing traffic volumes, and therefore does not exceed the threshold for a significant impact.

6. Parking Space in Required Yard: As noted earlier, one of the two proposed

parking spaces on the project site is located within the required front yard abutting Addison Street, which requires an AUP under Section 23D.12.080.B. This space is about 8 feet from the Addison frontage, and will be largely screened from public view by the existing fence along Addison, which is approximately six feet tall. The applicant proposes to grow a vine on the open top portion of the fence in order to provide screening as required under Section 23D.12.080.F. Staff has included a condition of approval requiring this to be shown on the plans submitted for a building permit (see Attachment 1, Condition 10).

B. General and Area Plan Consistency:

General Plan Policy Analysis: The 2002 General Plan contains several policies applicable to the project, including the following: 1. Policy LU-3–Infill Development: Encourage infill development that is

architecturally and environmentally sensitive, embodies principles of sustainable planning and construction, and is compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale.



2. Policy LU-7–Neighborhood Quality of Life, Action A: Require that new development be consistent with zoning standards and compatible with the scale, historic character, and surrounding uses in the area.

3. Policy UD-16–Context: The design and scale of new or remodeled buildings should respect the built environment in the area, particularly where the character of the built environment is largely defined by an aggregation of historically and architecturally significant buildings.

4. Policy UD-24–Area Character: Regulate new construction and alterations to ensure that they are truly compatible with and, where feasible, reinforce the desirable design characteristics of the particular area they are in. Staff Analysis: As discussed above in “Key Issues,” Items 1 and 2, the LPC found the project would not adversely impact the existing historic building on the site. The addition will not be substantially visible from the public right-of-way due to the steeply sloping roofs of the historic building and the large street trees along Sixth Street and at the south end of the on-site parking area.

5. Policy UD-32–Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows. Staff Analysis: As discussed above in “Key Issues” Item 3, shadows on the school to the north will not be detrimental given the preservation of sunlight to classroom spaces, and the difficulty in locating this addition on any other portion of the site without impacting historic resources or residential properties.

6. Policy EM-5–“Green” Buildings: Promote and encourage compliance with “green” building standards. (Also see Policies EM-8, EM-26, EM-35, EM-36, and UD-6.)

7. Policy UD-33–Sustainable Design: Promote environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in new buildings. Staff Analysis: The project intensifies the use of an existing urbanized site with good transit and pedestrian accessibility. In addition, the applicants intend to investigate several green building measures suggested during the City’s required green building consultation, including employee bus passes, a cool roof for the addition, and dual flush toilets. These measures are not mandatory under City regulations.

8. Policy LU-10–Parking: Protect residential areas from institutional and commercial parking impacts by encouraging use of alternative modes of transportation and strictly enforcing residential parking permit regulations.

9. Policy T-3–Eco-Pass City Program, Action 7: Encourage other employers to

maintain and increase existing transit subsidies.



10. Policy T-10–Trip Reduction: To reduce automobile traffic and congestion and

increase transit use and alternative modes in Berkeley, support, and when appropriate require, programs to encourage Berkeley citizens and commuters to reduce automobile trips, such as (1) Participation in a citywide Eco-Pass Program.

11. Policy T-14–Private Employers: Encourage private employers to reduce the

demand for automobile travel through transportation demand management programs that include elements such as (1) Trip reduction incentives such as Commuter Check and Eco-Pass; (2) Provision of mass transit pass/credit instead of free employee parking (parking “cash-out” programs); (5) Providing bicycle facilities. Staff Analysis: The site and the surrounding area are not located in a Residential Preferential Parking (RPP) area, and therefore the project may result in an increase in the number of employees parking in the adjacent neighborhood. However, as noted above, the applicants are proposing to provide 15 off-site parking spaces for at least 10 years, and have committed to providing employee transit subsidies (e.g., TransLink) in order to further reduce parking demand. In addition, the applicant proposes to provide increased bicycle parking and a staff shower, which will help reduce automobile trips.

12. Policy T-32–Shared Parking: Encourage Berkeley businesses and institutions to establish shared parking agreements, which would make the most efficient use of existing and new parking areas. Staff Analysis: As noted above, the applicants intend to sublet the off-site parking to the Indian restaurant at 824 University Avenue during the hours when the medical offices are not in use.

West Berkeley Plan Policy Analysis: The West Berkeley Plan, adopted in 1993, also contains several policies applicable to the project, including the following: 1. Land Use Element, Goal 1: Over the economically active area of West Berkeley,

provide for a continued economic and land use mix, incorporating manufacturing, other industrial, retail and office/laboratory uses, to benefit Berkeley residents and businesses economically, benefit the City government fiscally, and promotes the varied and interest character of the area. Staff Analysis: The proposed addition will be consistent with this goal by increasing the provision of affordable health care services in West Berkeley.

2. Land Use Element, Goal 3, Policy B: Protect the residential core neighborhoods from parking spill-over generated by nearby office and residential uses.



Staff Analysis: See above under General Plan Policy Analysis, Item 11.

3. Land Use Element, Goal 4: Assure that new development in any sector is of a scale and design that is appropriate to its surroundings, while respecting the genuine economic and physical needs of the development. Staff Analysis: See above in “Key Issues,” Items 1 and 2.

VI. Recommendation

Because the required Variance findings cannot be made, staff recommends that the Zoning Adjustments Board DENY Variance/Use Permit #09-10000056. However, if the ZAB concurs with the applicant’s arguments, the ZAB may wish to approve the Variance using the applicant’s arguments as a basis for its findings, and approve the Use Permit. Draft Findings for denial are presented in Attachment 1. Optional Findings and Conditions for all project elements except the Variances are also provided in the event the ZAB chooses to approve the project, in which case modified Variance Findings would be required.

Attachments:

1. Draft Findings and Conditions 2. Project Plans, received November 10, 2009 3. Photos 4. Applicant Statement 5. Applicant’s Variance Arguments 6. Traffic and Parking Study 7. Notice of Public Hearing 8. Correspondence Received Staff Planner: Aaron Sage, AICP, [email protected], (510) 981-7410

2031 sixth street - berkeley, california · 2009. 12. 10. · avenue. uses to the east and south,...

Documents