2700 Ninth Street East Bay Humane Society

Transcription

1 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 FOR BOARD ACTION MAY 14, Ninth Street East Bay Humane Society Use Permit #UP to allow the demolition of the existing two-story, 16,538 square-foot animal shelter building and the construction of a twostory, 13,211 square-foot replacement building, and temporary use of the existing adjacent warehouse building for animal shelter operations during construction of the proposed project. I. Background A. Land Use Designations: General Plan: Manufacturing Mixed-Use West Berkeley Plan: Mixed Use/Residential Zoning: MU-R, Mixed Use-Residential B. Zoning Permits Required: Use Permit to demolish a non-residential building, per Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 23C ; Use Permit to construct a new animal shelter, per BMC Section 23E ; Use Permit to create more than 10,000 square feet of floor area, per BMC Section 23E B; and Administrative Use Permit for temporary use of the existing adjacent warehouse building, per BMC Chapter 23B C. CEQA Determination: The City prepared an Infill Environmental Checklist pursuant to Section and appendices M and N of the CEQA Guidelines. As discussed in the Infill Environmental Checklist (attached), the proposed project qualifies as an infill project under CEQA Guidelines Section D. Parties Involved: Applicant: Bright Street, Inc., Contact: Aran Kaufer, 1410 Fairview Street Berkeley Property Owner: Berkeley Humane Society, 2700 Ninth Street, Berkeley Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us

2 Page 2 of 11 May 14, 2015 Figure 1: Vicinity Map Figure 2: Proposed Lot Line Adjustment (Processed Separately)

3 Page 3 of 11 May 14, 2015 Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan/First Floor Plan

4 Page 4 of 11 May 14, 2015 Figure 4: Project Renderings

5 Page 5 of 11 May 14, 2015 Table 1: Land Use Information Location Existing Use Zoning General Plan Designation District Project Site Animal Shelter MU-R MU Surrounding North Restaurant, small brewery MU-LI M Properties South Live/Work East Industrial/light manufacturing MU-R MU West Animal shelter, warehouse, light manufacturing Table 2: Special Characteristics Characteristic Historic Resources Applies to Project? No Explanation Because the building does not appear to meet historical resource criteria, on February 6, 2014, the LPC took no action regarding the referral that was made pursuant to Section 23C C of the Zoning Ordinance. Mitigation Fees No The City s Affordable Housing and Affordable Childcare Mitigation Fees only apply to net new floor area of more than 7,500 SF. The project would reduce the floor area on the subject parcel. Liquefaction (Seismic Hazards Mapping Act) Soil/Groundwater Contamination Green Building Score Yes Yes Table 3: Project Chronology Date November 26, 2013 February 6, 2014 February 20, 2014 May 6, 2014 April 9, 2015 The project site is located within an area susceptible to liquefaction as shown on the State Seismic Hazard Zones map. The site-specific geotechnical investigation for the project determined that the potential for liquefaction on the site is low. The investigation did note that the final design would need to 1) provide adequate vertical and lateral support for foundation elements and 2) design for potential seasonal foundation movement due to shrink and swell of the highly expansive near-surface clay. The investigation includes recommendations to address foundational support and to avoid risks associated with expansive material. The project site is located in the City s Hazards Management Area. Four underground storage tanks were located within the public right-of-way beneath the Carleton Street sidewalk north of the Berkeley-East Bay Humane Society building. These tanks were removed in 1991, and as of July of 1994 all site investigations and remedial actions were complete. The State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board issued a closure letter dated July 25, While the site is on a list complied pursuant to Section of the Government Code, the reason for this listing is that tanks were adjacent to this property, and this address was used to identify the rough location of the tanks. Risk of exposure of contaminated soil is therefore low, and would be further limited by adherence to standard conditions required in the Hazards Management Area. The proposed slab-on-grade or spread-footing foundation would not require excavation to depths over approximately two to six feet, so would not encounter groundwater, which is at a minimum of approximately nine feet below grade. The applicant submitted a LEED New Construction checklist that indicated the potential for LEED Silver certification for the project as proposed. Action Application submitted LPC: Demolition Referral DRC: Preliminary Design Review and recommendation for ZAB Application deemed complete Public hearing notices mailed/posted

6 Page 6 of 11 May 14, 2015 May 14, 2015 ZAB hearing Table 4: Development Standards (Proposed New Building) Standard BMC Sections 23E Existing Addition/ (Reduction) Proposed Total Permitted/ Required Lot Area (square feet) 13,467* 0 13,467* N/A Gross Floor Area (square feet) 16,538 (3,327)* 13,211 13,467* Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.23* (.25)* 0.98* 1 Building Maximum Height Stories Building Setbacks Front (Carleton Street) Rear (southern property line) Left Side (western property line) Street Side (Ninth Street) Parking Automobile ** Bicycle * Based on the reconfigured lot as proposed in the lot line adjustment (described below under Project Description). ** Pursuant to a site- and project-specific determination from the City s Traffic Engineer II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood/Area Description: The immediate area includes a restaurant directly to the north across Carleton Street; a warehouse building housing additional Humane Society operations to the west; a live-work building to the south; and automotive, warehouse and industrial uses to the east. The broader area comprises a mix of land uses and development including industrial/light manufacturing and warehouse buildings, commercial uses and residences. The adjacent live-work building does not have windows facing the project site. B. Site Conditions: The parcels involved in the proposed project are Assessor s Parcel , a 7,695 square-foot parcel at the southwest corner of Ninth and Carleton streets, and Assessor s Parcel , an adjacent, L-shaped, 15,183 square-foot parcel with frontage on Ninth and Carleton streets. These parcels occupy the corner of Ninth and Carleton Streets and are in the MU-R (Mixed Use- Residential) zoning district. The project site itself is a 13,467 square-foot proposed parcel that would be the result of a requested lot line adjustment currently in process, discussed further in Section III, Project Description) The project site is fully developed with the existing animal shelter building and a small surface parking lot with seven parking spaces. According to organizational history, the Berkeley-East Bay Humane Society (EBHS) was founded in 1927 by three individuals, including George Denny. In 1935 EBHS is listed near the corner at 940 Carlton Street, with permits indicating a serious of changes between 1943 and Berkeley Historical Society photos of Denny with a EBHS truck at the corner of Ninth and Carleton Streets clearly show a EBHS sign on what appears to be a one-story woodframed building. In 1966 the small cottage at 2706 Ninth Street was demolished and the building was expanded to include second floor living space. In the 1970s tenant improvements for a veterinary hospital with parking upgrades were completed, and EBHS was granted permits to establish living quarters for veterinary sciences students, later converted to lecture room. In 1980, dog kennels were added, and in May of 2010, a fire destroyed most of the building. Currently, EBHS operates out of just a portion of the 16,538 square-foot, two-story building.

7 Page 7 of 11 May 14, 2015 The site of the proposed temporary use is the L-shaped parcel, which has frontage on both Ninth and Carleton streets. This parcel is developed with an approximately 10,000 square-foot warehouse housing some EBHS operations; EBHS s dog kennels; and the existing surface parking lot. The warehouse building is a steel structure with brick infill walls around the perimeter. Current uses include storage, laundry for the shelter, and some auxiliary shelter uses. III. Project Description The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing building on the corner of Ninth and Carleton streets and construction of a new two-story, 13,211 square-foot animal shelter and hospital with dog kennels, reception and hospital proposed on the first floor, and cat housing and administrative offices proposed on the second floor. Public entry would be from Ninth Street, and additional staff access would be provided from Carleton Street. Parking would be provided in a new seven parking-space (including one ADA van-accessible space) landscaped parking lot accessed via a 20- foot wide driveway from Ninth Street. Table 5 summarizes the basic project components. Table 5: Project Overview Square Feet of major program areas: Animal Housing: 1,439 EBHS Operations (animal care, adoption, support): 10,029 Conference and Break Rooms: 561 Storage: 433 Total including non-program space: 13,211 The existing ornamental trees directly adjacent to the building s foundation would be removed as part of demolition activities. Approximately 2,000 square feet of new landscaping would be installed within the five-foot setbacks along Ninth and Carleton streets and in adjacent planters in the sidewalk area, as well as along the southern property line adjacent to the parking lot. Landscaped areas would include shrubs and ground cover and several small trees. Nine new street trees are also proposed: Chinese flame trees on Carleton Street and frontier elm trees on Ninth Street. In order to allow Humane Society services to continue during the planning and fundraising for, and construction of, the new building, the applicant has also requested an Administrative Use Permit for temporary use of the adjacent 10,000 square-foot warehouse building that is owned and used by the Humane Society. The temporary use would begin at issuance of a demolition permit for the existing building (if the project is approved), and would cease no later than 30 days after a certificate of occupancy is issued for the existing Humane Society building, per proposed Condition of Approval 37. Improvements to the warehouse for the temporary use would include adding a bathroom and staff kitchen; accessibility upgrades; fire/life safety upgrades; adding heat; adding a sewer line; and installing some partition walls for offices and dog training. These would be proposed under a separate, subsequent building permit.

8 Page 8 of 11 May 14, 2015 The applicant is also requesting a lot line adjustment, sketched in Figure 2, under a separate application. The adjustment would allow for the project to be located within one parcel and would also allow the proposed new building to conform to the MU-R District s 1:1 maximum FAR. The adjustment would reconfigure the existing corner parcel (currently 7,695 square feet) and the L-shaped parcel around it (currently 15,183 square feet) into two rectangular parcels of 13,467 and 9,925 square feet, respectively. Proposed Condition of Approval 10 requires that the lot line adjustment be approved and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. Construction would take approximately 15 to 18 months. The foundation would be a spread-footing design and would extend to approximately two feet below grade. The maximum depth of excavation would be six feet (five feet plus an allowance of an additional foot for over-excavation) at the elevator pit. Material import and export would be limited, as no subsurface space is proposed and the building would be slightly elevated to provide positive drainage. IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: Prior to submitting the application to the City, a pre-application poster was erected by the applicant in November of On April 29, 2015, the City mailed 183 notices to adjoining property owners and occupants, and to interested neighborhood organizations, and posted the site in three locations. B. Landmarks Preservation Commission Review: Since it is a non-residential structure more than 40 years old, the proposed demolition required a referral to the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). This referral was made on February 6, 2014, and on this date the LPC took no action. C. Design Review Committee Review: On February 20, 2014, the Design Review Committee considered the project and voted unanimously to forward a favorable recommendation to the ZAB. V. Issues and Analysis A. CEQA Determination: The City prepared an Infill Environmental Checklist pursuant to Section and appendices M and N of the CEQA Guidelines. As discussed in the Infill Environmental Checklist (attached), the proposed project qualifies as an infill project under CEQA Guidelines Section It is located in an urban area on a site that has been previously developed. In order to be eligible for streamlined review under Section , a project must meet performance standards contained in Appendix M of the CEQA Guidelines. The information demonstrating that the infill project satisfies the Appendix M performance standards is provided in the Infill Environmental Checklist in a section titled Satisfaction of Appendix M Performance Standards. The project is consistent with the general use designation, density, building intensity and applicable policies specified for the project area in the City s West Berkeley Project EIR. As documented in the Infill Environmental Checklist, development on the

9 Page 9 of 11 May 14, 2015 project site was within the West Berkeley Project vision and is included in all aspects of the West Berkeley Project EIR. For eligible infill projects, CEQA does not apply to the effects of the project in the following ways, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section (c): If a significant environmental effect was analyzed in a prior EIR for a planning level decision, then, with some exceptions, that effect need not be analyzed again for an individual infill project even when that effect was not reduced to a less than significant level in the prior EIR. An effect need not be analyzed, even if it was not analyzed in a prior EIR or is more significant than previously analyzed, if the lead agency makes a finding that uniformly applicable development policies or standards, adopted by the lead agency or a city or county, apply to the infill project and would substantially mitigate that effect. If the infill project would result in new project-specific effects or more significant effects, and uniformly applicable development policies or standards would not substantially mitigate such effects, those effects are subject to CEQA pursuant to Guidelines Section (d)(2)(C). Because the City determined through the Infill Environmental Checklist that the project would not have any significant effects on the environment that either have not already been analyzed in the prior EIR, or that are more significant than previously analyzed, or that uniformly applicable development policies would not substantially mitigate, no further CEQA review is required and the City need only file a Notice of Determination if the project is approved. B. Demolition: The demolition of the existing building requires that the ZAB find that the demolition will not be materially detrimental to the commercial needs and public interest of any affected neighborhood or the City, and at least one of the following: a) Is required to allow a proposed new building or other proposed new Use; b) Will remove a building which is unusable for activities which are compatible with the purposes of the District in which it is located or which is infeasible to modify for such uses; c) Will remove a structure which represents an unabatable attractive nuisance to the public; or d) Is required for the furtherance of specific plans or projects sponsored by the City or other local district or authority. In such cases, it shall be demonstrated that it is infeasible to obtain prior or concurrent approval for the new construction or new use which is contemplated by such specific plans or projects and that adhering to such a requirement would threaten the viability of the plan or project. The existing building has been damaged by fire and is only partially usable. In addition, the existing building and use would be replaced with a smaller building housing the same use. Thus staff believes that the ZAB can make the findings that the demolition will not be materially detrimental and that the demolition is required to allow the new building and use (Finding a, above).

10 Page 10 of 11 May 14, 2015 C. Parking: The EBHS facility has historically had seven automobile parking spaces for staff located in a lot accessed from Ninth Street. The project includes replacing the seven spaces in a new lot located at the south end of our property, while the overall size of the facility would decrease (from pre-fire levels). The new parking area provides landscaping and better access than the existing parking area and has the approval of the City s Traffic Engineer. The BMC requires one bicycle space for each 2,000 square feet of non-residential development in the MU-R District. Proposed Condition of Approval 11 requires that seven spaces be provided per City specifications. Because floor area would be less, and the number of parking spaces would remain the same, staff believes that the project would not have detrimental effects in regards to parking. D. New Building with more than 10,000 Square Feet of Floor Area: The construction of the new building requires that the ZAB find that the use or structure: a) Is consistent with the purposes of the District; b) Would be consistent with the normal use and operation of surrounding uses and buildings, including residential and industrial buildings; c) Would be consistent with the adopted West Berkeley Plan; d) Would not be likely, under reasonably foreseeable circumstances, to either induce or contribute to a cumulative change of use in buildings away from residential; live/work; light industrial, or arts and crafts uses; e) Would be designed in such a manner to be supportive of the character and purposes of the District; and f) Would be able to meet any applicable performance standards as described in Section 23E H. The project would be located within an existing built area, and involves replacing an existing building with a new building of reduced size. The existing and proposed use as an animal shelter is consistent with the MU-R District s purpose to allow a range of commercial and service uses that are compatible with a mixed use-residential district. Veterinary uses and kennels, pet boarding and other services for pets are allowed in the MU-R District with a Use Permit. The proposed reconfiguring of the parking area and landscaping of the new street-side setbacks would introduce visual relief and increased storm water infiltration. Unlike the existing building, the new building would comply with District setback and FAR limits, to better fit within the existing development pattern. The project footprint and building scale would be similar in height and mass to the surrounding buildings and the project design was reviewed and recommended for approval by the DRC. Thus staff believes that these findings can be made, in addition to the general finding of non-detriment for the proposed use and building. Because the project would continue the existing, long-standing use in a new building that is smaller than what exists today, that meets modern life/safety standards and current zoning standards, would be more energy efficient than the existing building and would allow more efficient functions for the EBHS, staff believes that the ZAB can make the findings that approval of this project be consistent with the above and not

11 Page 11 of 11 May 14, 2015 detrimental to the local population, neighborhood, or City as a whole. This recommendation is supported by the following General Plan Policies: 1. 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.) 2. 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. 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. 5. Policy UD-33 Sustainable Design: Promote environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in new buildings. VI. Recommendation Because of the project s consistency with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, and minimal impact on surrounding properties, staff recommends that the Zoning Adjustments Board: A. APPROVE #UP pursuant to Section 23B and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1). Attachments: 1. Findings and Conditions & Infill Environmental Checklist 2. Project Plans, received May 6, 2015 & Applicant Statement 3. Notice of Public Hearing, posted April 29, 2015 Staff Planner: Greg Powell, Gpowell@ci.berkeley.ca.us, (510)