View Attachment B — Oakland City Council, July 16, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

#1
Oakland City Planning Commission STAFF REPORT
Case File Number PLN22189-A01 February 21, 2024
Location: 5315 College Avenue
Assessor’s Parcel Number: 014 124901103
Proposal: Appeal of an administrative approval of an addition and alteration to an existing commercial structure for a childcare (Community Education Civic) activity for 48 students.

Applicant: Mehdi Shafiei
Phone Number: 510-926-7745
Owner: Mahta Marashi and Mehdi Shafiei
Appellant Jake Allen
Case File Number: PLN22189
Planning Permits Required: Minor Conditional Use Permit for a Community Education Civic Activity. Regular Design Review for alterations to an existing facility.

General Plan: Neighborhood Center Mixed Use
Zoning: Neighborhood Center Mixed Use – 1 (CN-1)
Environmental Determination: 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines: Minor alterations to existing facilities; and 15183 – Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning.

Historic Status: Potential Designated Historic Property (PDHP): OCHS Survey rating: C3 City Council district: 1
Status: Approved by the Zoning Manager
Staff Recommendation: Deny appeal
Finality of Decision: Final
For further information: Contact Case Planner Neil Gray at (510) 238-3878 or by email at [email protected]

SUMMARY
This item is an appeal of an administratively approved proposal to: 1) lift an existing 2,429 square-foot historic building with a main floor and a basement 8’-3” to create two stories over a basement; 2) build a 2,270 square-foot rear addition; 3) rotate the building to be perpendicular to College Avenue, and 4) establish a childcare center with no more than 48 students and ten employees. The childcare center would operate from 8:00am to 6:00pm, Monday through Friday, and the enrollees would age from one to five years old.

Among other issues, the appellant has expressed concerns that there is insufficient play area for the students; noise would disturb the mental health therapy offices on the property surrounding the site; the City applied inappropriate California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemptions; and there will be harmful effects related to noise, traffic, and student pick-up and drop off.

Staff recommends denial of the appeal. Noise and traffic studies indicate, as conditioned, the childcare center and the office tenants in the adjacent lot should be able to successfully coexist. The studies show that the noise created by the childcare center would be inaudible within the therapy offices, and a plan requiring staggered drop-off times, a crossing guard, a carpool program, and two drop off spaces in front of the site would avoid negative effects on College Avenue traffic flow. Finally, the CEQA exemptions applied by staff are consistent with State law.

ATTACHMENT B
RM-4
CN-1
RM-4
RD
RU-2

MANILA AV
BROADW
AY

COLLEGE AV

CLIFTON ST

BRYANT AV
JAM
ES AV

GLENDALE AV

BROADWAY TER
DESM
OND ST
THOM
ASAV
Case File:

Applicant:

Address:

Base Zone:

Combining Zones:

CITY OF OAKLAND PLANNING COMMISSION
0 200 400 600 800100
Feet
Z
PLN22189
Mehdi Shaffiei
5315 College Avenue
CN-1
S-13
S-13 Combining Zone
Site Boundary
Oakland City Planning Commission February 21, 2024
Case File Number PLN22189-A01 Page 3

BACKGROUND

The applicant applied for Minor Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and Regular Design Review approval for the proposed childcare center and addition to an existing building on November 18, 2022. On October 12, 2023, after several discussions with Historic Preservation staff that resulted in the approved design (see Attachment A for plans) and preparation of a traffic study (see Attachment D), staff approved the proposal with project specific conditions requiring a pick-up/drop-off transportation plan and window details.

The decision letter approving the project is contained in Attachment B.

Jake Allen, the owner of the property surrounding the site, submitted a timely appeal on October 20, 2023 (see Attachment C for the appeal), which was based on alleged “Erroneous Determinations and Findings of City Staff”.

Staff describes and responds to the appellant’s claims in the “Response to Appeal” section of this report.

PROPERTY AND NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION

The site is a 3,733 square-foot flat lot fronting College Avenue in the vibrant Rockridge Commercial District in North Oakland. A building on the site was originally constructed in the 1890’s as a home, last used as a law office, and is a Potentially Designated Historic Property (PDHP) with a “C” historic rating by the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey.

The building is an ornate and intact Queen Anne cottage, which is one story over a basement that is partially underground. The L-shaped building has a hip-roofed main body and a gable-roofed wing at the left front and has a porch, front door, and a window recessed under the hip roof. The front façade of the building contains horizontal wood siding, with woodwork details, including spindles over the porch, an assortment of applied diamond-shaped blocks and bullseyes, egg and dart moldings, corner boards and friezes, and scrolled corner brackets and pendants. Other than a missing finial at the top of the gable end facing the street, the only noticeable alteration is the porch railings, which were originally wood and have been replaced with wrought iron.

The property is surrounded by 5295 College Avenue, which is owned by the appellant and contains a clothing store and restaurant facing College Avenue, and several offices for mental health professionals. An existing building on this neighboring site is also a PDHP and has a “Dc” historic rating by the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The proposal would: 1) lift the existing 2,429 square-foot building with a main floor and a basement 8’-3” to create two stories over a basement; 2) build a 2,270 square-foot rear addition; 3) rotate the building to be perpendicular to College Avenue, and 4) establish a childcare center with no more than 48 students and ten employees.

The daycare would operate from 8:00am to 6:00pm, Monday through Friday, and the enrollees would age from one to five years old. As conditioned, the applicant will submit for review and approval of the Bureau of Planning and the Department of Transportation a plan to limit traffic disruption on College Avenue and assure the safety of students. The plan will include:

1. Two passenger loading areas in front of the parcel for the use of dropping off and pickup up students during peak hours;

2. A plan to stagger drop off times during morning peak hours to reduce congestion in front of the site;

3. An advertised carpool program to be included in literature for parent and guardians; Oakland City Planning Commission February 21, 2024
Case File Number PLN22189-A01 Page 4

4. A crossing guard at the intersection of College and Bryant Avenues during peak hours to assist in street crossing and assure that drop off is not creating double parking on College Avenue; and

5. A requirement for a review and inspection by the Bureau of Planning and the Department of Transportation after six and twelve months of operation to assure the center is adhering to the transportation plan.

With the exception of the wrought iron porch railing, the front façade of the new ground floor would contain a porch, bay window, materials and detailing that match the existing described in the “Property and Neighborhood Description” section, above. The lifted ground floor porch would be converted to a second-floor balcony with wood railing. The rear addition would be two-stories above a partially underground basement, have a flat roof, and cover the rear 24-feet of the site. The applicant proposes to install horizontal wood siding on the exterior of the building to match the existing building.

The application also includes a 1,336 square foot landscaped yard at the southern side and a 446 square foot landscaped yard at the northern side of the parcel, respectively.

GENERAL PLAN ANALYSIS

The site is in the Neighborhood Center Mixed Use area under the General Plan’s Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE). The intent of the LUTE’s Neighborhood Center Mixed Use land use classification is: “to identify, create, maintain and enhance mixed use neighborhood commercial centers. These centers are typically characterized by smaller scale pedestrian-oriented, continuous street frontage with a mix of retail, housing, office, active open space, eating and drinking place, personal and business services, and small scale educational, cultural, or entertainment uses.” The LUTE contains the following Neighborhood Objective: “Provide for healthy, vital, and accessible commercial areas that help meet local consumer needs in the neighborhoods.” The proposal is consistent with the following LUTE Policies:

• Objective N2: Encourage adequate civic, institutional, and educational facilities located within Oakland, appropriately designed and sited to serve the community. • Policy N12.3 Making Day Care Available. High quality day care should be available throughout Oakland, appropriately sited and designed based on its capacity and attributes. The City should, when appropriate and feasible, require major development projects to provide on and off -site facilities or other means to address potential childcare inadequa cies and encourage the inclusion of childcare centers in major residential and commercial developments near transit centers, community centers, and schools. • Policy T2.2 Guiding Transit-Oriented Development. Transit-oriented developments should be pedestrian oriented, encourage night and daytime use, provide the neighborhood with needed goods and services, contain a mix of land uses, and be designed to be compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods.
• Policy N1.8 Making Compatible Development: The height and bulk of commercial development in "Neighborhood Mixed-Use Center" and "Community Commercial" areas should be compatible with that which is allowed for residential development.
• Policy N9.9 Respecting Architectural Integrity: The City encourages rehabilitation efforts which respects the architectural integrity of a building's original style. (see the Historic Preservation Element for more information).

Oakland City Planning Commission February 21, 2024
Case File Number PLN22189-A01 Page 5

ZONING ANALYSIS

Intent

The proposal is in the Neighborhood Commercial – 1 (CN-1) Zone. The intent of the CN-1 Zone is to maintain and enhance vibrant commercial districts with a wide range of retail establishments serving both short and long term needs in attractive settings oriented to pedestrian comparison shopping. The existing building was originally constructed as a single-family home and is not suitable for retail use, and a childcare facility will bring customers to the restaurants and stores in the Rockridge Commercial District. Therefore, the proposal is consistent with the intent of the District.

Activity

A childcare center falls under the Community Education Civic Activity use classification in Chapter 17.10 of the Planning Code. Per Section 17.33.030 of the Planning Code, the establishment of this activity requires the granting of a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and meeting the following special findings:

1. That the proposal will not detract from the character desired for the area;

2. That the proposal will not impair a generally continuous wall of building facades;

3. That the proposal will not weaken the concentration and continuity of retail facilities at ground level, and will not impair the retention or creation of an important shopping frontage;

4. That the proposal will not interfere with the movement of people along an important pedestrian street; and

5. That the proposal will conform in all significant respects with any applicable district plan which has been adopted by the City Council.

The proposal must also meet the following General Use Permit Criteria, which is contain in Section 17.134.050 of the Planning Code:

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 the generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets; and to any other relevant impact of the development;

2. That the location, design, and site planning of the proposed development will provide a convenient and functional living, working, shopping, or civic environment;

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;

4. That the proposal conforms to all applicable Regular Design Review criteria set forth in the Regular Design Review procedure at Section 17.136.050;

5. That the proposal conforms in all significant respects with the Oakland General Plan and with any other applicable guidelines or criteria, district plan or development control map which has been adopted by the Planning Commission or City Council.

As described in the decision letter for this project (see Attachment B), the project meets these required findings.

Oakland City Planning Commission February 21, 2024
Case File Number PLN22189-A01 Page 6

Development Standards

The following table describes the applicable and relevant development standards for the CN-1 Zone and how the proposal complies with these standards.

Proposed Required Compliance Status
Minimum/Maximum Setbacks
Minimum Front Setback 6’4” 0 ft. Complies
Maximum Front Setback 6’4” 10 ft. Complies
Minimum Side Setback 0 ft. 0 ft. Complies
Minimum Rear Setback 0 ft. 0 ft. Complies
Minimum Facade Transparency for
Ground Floor Nonresidential Facilities
40% 65% with an exception
for unique facilities
such as convention
centers, gymnasiums,
parks, gas stations,
theaters and other
similar facilities.

Complies (see Note, below)
Minimum Parking 0 spaces 0 spaces Complies
Minimum Play Area N/A N/A Not regulated in Oakland
Planning Code. Determined
and enforced by State of
California.

Note: The existing and proposed building qualifies as a “unique facility” because it is a historic building originally designed as a home. The requirement is intended to provide sufficient transparency for storefronts, not a converted Queen Anne home.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION

The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality under two independent sections of the State CEQA Guidelines: 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines: Minor alterations to existing facilities; and 15183 – Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning. Staff’s response to Appellant Issue #2, below, provides more detail on how these exemptions apply to the proposal.

APPELLANT ISSUES AND STAFF RESPONSES

As mentioned, Jake Allen submitted a timely appeal on October 20, 2023 (see Attachment C). The following lists the issues highlighted in the appeal (in bold) and staff responses (in italic).

Issue #1: Non-Compliance with state laws and regulations, in violation of Paragraph 3 of Conditions of Approval. A childcare center of the character and size proposed is required to be licensed under California law, and meet regulations specified in Title 22 of the California Administrative Code. The proposed childcare center cannot comply with the Cal. Code Regs. Title 22 Sections 101238.2 and 101238.3, which require that licensed childcare must have at least 35 square feet of indoor space and 75 square feet of outdoor activity per child, based on total licensed capacity. For 48 children, the total outdoor square footage required would be 3600, which covers nearly the entire square footage of the proposed property.

Issue #1a: In finding 2 under Section 17.134.050 – General Use Permit Criteria the city states “The development will have ample room at the site for playground space…” without citation to Oakland City Planning Commission February 21, 2024
Case File Number PLN22189-A01 Page 7

how ample outdoor space is determined. The City states there is ample playground space with no justification for doing so.

Staff Response: The Planning Code does not regulate the amount of play space required for a childcare center, and is, therefore, out of the jurisdiction of the City. The regulation cited is enforced by the State of California Community Care Licensing Division during the licensing process. In the making of this finding, staff assessed the general sufficiency of play space at the facility, but the determination of compliance of the play area is the responsibility of the State. The State may also limit the number of students to fewer than 48 based on application of State licensing requirements. This would further lessen the potential for noise and/or traffic impacts that concern the appellant.

Issue #2: Environmental Determination – State code sections allowing for CEQA exemption do not apply to this project. An EIR must be performed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project.

Staff Response: The proposal is exempted from CEQA per Section 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines: Minor alterations to existing facilities; and Section 15183 – Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning. Therefore, an environmental impact report is not required for approval of the proposal.

The CEQA Guidelines lay out a three-tiered review process to ensure that cities take environmental considerations into account as part of the decisionmaking process. Under the first tier, the City determines whether an activity is a “project” under CEQA, which generally includes permitting actions by the City. Under the second tier, the city looks at whether a project is exempt from CEQA. This takes place prior to any formal environmental evaluation. Categorical exemptions are established for classes of projects that the Secretary of the California Natural Resources Agency has found not to have a significant effect on the environment. If a project is categorically exempt, it is not subject to CEQA requirements. The City does not proceed to the third tier of preparing an environmental review document such as an initial study, negative declaration or environmental impact report. No further environmental review is necessary.

Issue #2a: Section 15301 allows for a CEQA exemption for minor alterations to existing facilities.

Staff Response: Section 15301 of The State CEQA Guidelines states that Section 15301 “consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing public or private structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.” This section provides examples of the types of projects that fall under this exemption.

Subsection (e) includes: Additions to existing structures provided that the addition will not result in an increase of more than 10,000 square feet if the project is in an area where all public services and facilities are available to allow for maximum development permissible in the General Plan and the area in which the project is located is not environmentally sensitive.

The proposed addition is 2,270 square feet - far below the 10,000 square foot threshold Oakland City Planning Commission February 21, 2024
Case File Number PLN22189-A01 Page 8

described in the Guidelines; and the site is in a highly urbanized area where all public services and facilities are available for the maximum development permissible under the General Plan and is not at an environmentally sensitive location. Therefore, the Section 15301 exemption is appropriate for this project.

Additionally, staff notes that a separate categorical exemption, Class 3, exempts new construction of up to four commercial buildings not exceeding 10,000 square feet on sites zoned for such uses if not involving the use of significant amounts of hazardous substances where all necessary public services and facilities are available, and the surrounding area is not environmentally sensitive. Staff have concluded that Class 1 more appropriately applies in this circumstance where the proposal does not demolish the existing building; nonetheless, the Class 3 exemption provides context to show that construction of the size and nature proposed here is well within categorical exemptions that the state has found to not have a significant effect on the environment.

Further, there is substantial evidence that there is no unusual circumstance related to the proposal that would preclude a Categorical Exemption under CEQA. The site is not on the Cortese List of contaminated sites and does not contain any endangered or rare species. It is not unusual to site a moderately-sized childcare center in a Commercial Zone and, as described in staff’s response to Issue #2b, the proposal will not create significant noise, traffic, or other impacts.

Issue #2b: Section 15183 allows a CEQA Exemption for Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning. However, the exemption specifically applies to projects “for which an EIR was certified that do not require additional environmental review.” Based on information presented, we have not received materials that would suggest that an EIR was certified for this project. This CEQA exemption seeks to avoid repetitive environmental reviews. However, no formal environmental review was conducted for major alterations and a novel use of a buildings in the neighborhood in which this project is located. An EIR is critical to understand the effects of the project on noise, traffic, and parking in the neighborhood.

Staff Response: The City certified an EIR for its General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE) in 1998. The LUTE identifies policies for utilizing Oakland’s land as changes occur and sets forth an action program to implement the land use policy through development controls and other strategies. As described in the “General Plan Analysis” section of this report, the proposal is consistent with the LUTE, including several of the LUTE objectives and policies. Among those is Policy N12.3, stating that high quality day care should be available throughout Oakland, appropriately sites, and designed based on its capacity and attributes.

The LUTE EIR analyzed the environmental impacts of implementation of the LUTE, including issues pertaining to noise and transportation. Among other things, the EIR identified that proposed general plan map changes would allow a mix of commercial and residential uses that could pose noise compatibility problems. The EIR found this to be a less than significant impact due to proposed policies in place as part of the LUTE as well as additional measures identified in the EIR. The mitigation measures identified in the Environmental Impact Report for the 1998 LUTE that would apply to the environmental effects of the proposed project are implemented through Oakland’s Standard Conditions of Approval. These uniformly applied development standards substantially mitigate environmental effects under CEQA and were included in the approval letter for this project.

Standard Conditions of Approval #24 and #25 in the approval letter reduce the effects of construction-related noise to less than significant. Staff further recommends the following additional Standard Condition of Approval be added to the decision:

Oakland City Planning Commission February 21, 2024
Case File Number PLN22189-A01 Page 9

#. Project-Specific Construction Noise Reduction Measures Requirement: The project applicant shall submit a Construction Noise Management Plan prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for City review and approval that contains a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures to further reduce construction noise impacts on mental health therapy offices. The project applicant shall implement the approved Plan during construction.

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Bureau of Building
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building
This condition was not in the original approval because it is only applied in projects for which a noise study was prepared during the project review process, and no noise study was prepared prior to approval of the project.

The noise study that was prepared for the operation of the childcare center (see Attachment E) indicates that the proposal will fulfill Condition of Approval #26, which requires that the activity comply with the performance standards contained in Chapter 17.120 of the Oakland Planning Code and Chapter 8.18 of the Oakland Municipal Code. Condition of Approval #26 states:

26. Operational Noise
Requirement: Noise levels from the project site after completion of the project (i.e., during project operation) shall comply with the performance standards of chapter

17.120 of the Oakland Planning Code and chapter 8.18 of the Oakland Municipal Code. If noise levels exceed these standards, the activity causing the noise shall be abated until appropriate noise reduction measures have been installed and compliance verified by the City.

When Required: Ongoing
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building
Approval of the project is conditioned, through the Oakland standard conditions of approval, upon the applicant’s adherence to the City’s interior and exterior noise limits. In other words, the project is prohibited from operating above noise performance standards and if exceedances are identified must alter operations until noise reduction measures have been installed. The use of categorical exemptions with conditions requiring compliance with noise performance standards have been upheld in court. See Walter v. City of Redondo Beach (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 809, where neighbors unsuccessfully challenged the City’s reliance on categorical exemption under CEQA for the issuance of a conditional use permit for a carwash adjacent to residential uses. The challengers in that case similarly argued that a condition of approval requiring adherence to City noise limits violated CEQA’s requirement that environmental impacts, if any, be reviewed and mitigated before approval of the land use project. The court rejected the argument, finding that the imposition of the condition was appropriate to ensure that any violation of the noise ordinance would be corrected.

The noise study does show that a small area behind the neighboring retail building at the southern property line at the edge of the playground may reach a noise level of 66 dB when the maximum allowable receiving sound level limit over 20 cumulative minutes in a 1-hour time period is 65 dB in a commercial zone and 60 dB in a commercial zone for simple tone noises, including noise primarily consisting of speech (see Figure 10 of the noise study in Attachment E). Note that the receiving noise level at the office buildings is well below the maximum. Staff has informed the applicant that the City’s Code Compliance Division will monitor this area to assure the noise does not exceed noise standards. Alternatively, the applicant can install an Oakland City Planning Commission February 21, 2024
Case File Number PLN22189-A01 Page 10

eight-foot tall, approximately 25-foot-long wall at the location with the design described in the noise study. Discussions with the applicant indicate that they are amenable to the latter option.

Figure 11 of the study indicates that installation of the wall will bring the noise well below the maximum.

The potential for noise exceedances identified in the noise study is not of a significant degree, or of a certain level of certainty, to conclude that the project will have a significant environmental effect such that a categorical exemption does not apply. The majority of receiver locations shown in the noise study showed that sound levels were predicted to be between 42 and 50 dB, well below Oakland’s noise performance standards. The locations showing potential for noise exceedances are not areas where it is anticipated persons would be exposed to excess noise such that a significant impact is identified as a certainty. Again, the City’s existing conditions of approval prohibit such exceedances from occurring and it is the applicant’s obligation to ensure compliance for the life of the project
Traffic impacts for the project are analyzed in Attachment D, which shows that there are no CEQA-related impacts anticipated related to traffic during operation of the facility. Established California case law states that parking is not considered an impact under CEQA.

Issue 2c: Cal. Public Resources Code Section 21151(a) specifically requires an EIR when a proposed project “may have a significant effect on the environment.” Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. Stanislaus County (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 144, 151 states that where substantial evidence in the record supports a “fair argument” the project may have significant environmental effect, an EIR is required even if other substantial evidence indicates there will not be such an effect.

Issue 2d: Cal. Code Regs Title 14 Section 15382 defines a “significant effect” under CEQA as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project,” which includes a project’s effects on… ambient noise.

The Appellant cites to the wrong standard. The Public Resources Code section appellant cites provides the standard for when an Environmental Impact Report must be prepared, absent the availability of an applicable categorical or statutory exemption. Section 21151(a) provides that where a project may have a significant effect on the environment, it is not appropriate to prepare a negative declaration. Similarly, Appellant cites to a case that pertains to a local agency decision to prepare and certify a negative declaration. Neither the cited code provision nor the case analyzes the standard appropriate for a local agency to determine whether a categorical exemption to CEQA applies or the appropriateness of tiering off of a previously prepared EIR.

In contrast, as stated by the California Supreme Court, where a project meets a categorical exemption, the potential for a significant environmental effect is not alone sufficient to trigger the unusual circumstances exception and thus require further environmental review. (See Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1097-98.) “[A]ny project that comes within a class 1 categorical exemption has been inherently determined by the Secretary of Natural Resources Agency not to have significant environmental impacts.” (Arcadians for Environmental Protection v. City of Arcadia (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 418, 432.) If an agency properly determines that an exemption applies, the project is excused from environmental review. (Guidelines Sec. 15002(k)(1).)
A city can rely on a CEQA exemption where substantial evidence supports the application of the exemption, and substantial evidence supports that an exception to the exemption does not apply.

Oakland City Planning Commission February 21, 2024
Case File Number PLN22189-A01 Page 11

As discussed above, substantial evidence supports application of the class 1 categorical exemption since the project consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, permitting, leasing, licensing, or minor alteration of existing private structures involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former uses. The class 1 exemption specifically includes interior alterations involving interior partitions as well as additions to existing structures provided that the expansion not exceed 10,000 square feet in areas where the project is served by public services.

While not originally identified, the proposal also meets the class 3 exemption for the conversion of small structures.

No unusual circumstances that would except application of the exemption has been identified. A potentially significant environmental effect itself does not constitute an unusual circumstance.

The siting of a childcare center in a commercial district is also not an unusual circumstance. An unusual circumstance exists where there is a showing that the project has some feature that distinguishes it from others in the exempt class. No such feature exists here. Similar day care facilities exist throughout the City and are often located inside repurposed single-family homes.

In many circumstances these day care facilities in residential zones as well.

The City also relies on Public Resources Code Section 21083.3(b)/CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, which state that a certified EIR for a general plan may be used to eliminate environmental review for later development projects that are consistent with that general plan.

The proposed project is consistent with the Oakland General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element. Under Section 21083.3, CEQA review of a later project is limited to significant environmental impacts that are “peculiar to” the affected project that were not addressed as significant impacts in the previous EIRs. No such circumstance is present here: both noise and transportation related impacts were studied extensively in a systemic manner, and identified impacts were used to develop the City’s Standard Conditions of Approval.

Issue 3: The City cites Oakland Planning Code Section 17.33.030 to support building use for Limited Child Care Activity.
a. Oakland Planning Code Section 17.10.150 specifically notes that Limited Child-Care Civic Activities includes the provision of day-care services for fourteen (14) or fewer children… When the project was originally presented, childcare was to be offered to six children in the home. The project has now greatly exceeded what is actually permitted in the CN-1 Zone.
b. CN-1 Zone permits Limited Child-Care Activities, with the caveat that the activities are only permitted upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit when located on the ground floor of a street fronting.

Staff Response: The project was approved as a Community Education Civic Activity as described in the notice and approval letter and not as Limited Child-Care. This activity is conditionally permitted in the CN-1 Zone.

Issue 4: City staff notes that in accordance with Section 17.134.050, the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development will be compatible with and not adversely affect the livability or the appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood, with consideration to be given to… the harmful effect, if any, upon the desirable neighborhood character; to the generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets; and to other relevant impacts of development.

Issue 4a: A childcare center serving 48 children will present a major disruption to existing neighboring uses, which includes the tenancy of approximately 40 psychotherapists who Oakland City Planning Commission February 21, 2024
Case File Number PLN22189-A01 Page 12

have offered mental health services for decades from the abutting buildings. These professionals offer an essential service to the community, and require a calm, controlled, and quiet environment for their clients.

Staff Response: As described in staff’s response to Issue 2b, the proposal will meet the City’s performance standards for noise. The noise study (see Attachment E) indicates that the project noise will be inaudible inside the offices:

The sound level inside offices on the adjacent property will be a function of the sound level outdoors and the noise reduction provided by office windows facing the parking lot. Building 5305/5309/5313 windows appear to have double-hung wood frames with single glazing; this type of assembly provides about 15 dB of noise reduction, so interior noise level due to traffic is about 40 dB average and 55 dB maximum. The project noise will be about 10 dB less than the traffic noise and therefore inaudible (underline added by staff for emphasis).

Therefore, the calm, controlled, and quiet environment within the offices will be preserved during operation of the childcare facility.

Note that the text: “the harmful effect, if any, upon the desirable neighborhood character” is no longer part of this requiring finding, because it was deleted as part of the Council approval of the Housing Element-related code amendments that became effective on October 30th, 2023.

Issue 4b: The traffic analysis has not been made available to us, and we reserve the right to review and comment on such a study. The proposed project seeks to serve 48 children, without offering any staff parking and only two pick-up and drop-off street parking spaces. During rush hour when caregivers need to drop off their children, it is unlikely that there will not be issues of congestion, illegal parking, and danger to children who must cross the street to get to school. The proposed crossing guard is being asked simultaneously to direct traffic, prevent illegal parking, and escort children across a very busy intersection.

Staff Response: The following is the condition staff placed on the project regarding a transportation plan:

36. Transportation Plan
Requirement: The applicant shall submit and have approved a transportation plan to limit traffic disruption on College Avenue and assure the safety of students and other patrons on the business. The plan shall include:

A. Two passenger loading areas in front of the parcel for the use of dropping off and pickup up students during peak hours.

B. A plan to stagger drop off times during morning peak hours to reduce congestion in front of the site.

C. An advertised carpool program to be included in literature for parent/guardians.

D. A crossing guard at the intersection of College and Bryant Avenues during peak hours to assist in street crossing and assure that drop off is not creating double parking on College Avenue.

E. A review and inspection by the Bureau of Planning and the Department of Transportation after six and twelve months of operation to assure the center is adhering to the transportation plan.

Oakland City Planning Commission February 21, 2024
Case File Number PLN22189-A01 Page 13

When Required: Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning/Department of Transportation Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

The City’s Department of Transportation reviewed the above condition and determined it sufficient for the operation. Staff believes that the crossing guard will not be overwhelmed with drop-off car traffic, particularly with the requirements to stagger drop off times, the establishment of a carpool program, the proximity of the Rockridge BART Station and AC Transit stops, and residential neighborhoods within walking distance. Staff inspections after six and twelve months will assure that the condition is adhered to.

Issue 4c: The neighborhood is currently relatively quiet, filled with small commercial stores and office buildings. A noise and vibration study to determine the disturbance that will be generated by 48 children must be conducted, particularly in light of the long-standing use of psychotherapy offices in the buildings next door. There is insufficient evidence to show that the sound-rated partitions will be sufficient to keep noise at a manageable level, and the landscaping is unlikely to prevent the noise of children outside of the buildings.

Findings of City staff do not appear to take into account the scale of the project.

Staff Response: As described in staff’s response to Issue 2b, the proposal will meet the City’s performance standards for noise. The noise study (see Attachment E) indicates that project noise will be inaudible inside the offices.

Issue 4d: The neighboring buildings currently hold an easement on the property for emergency egress, which will be negatively impacted by construction and the proposed change in elevation of the buildings. The project will interfere with the use of an existing and critical easement, and the applicant may threaten to attempt to extinguish the easement again.

Staff Response: Any dispute regarding a private easement is a civil issue between the two property owners and is not relevant to this application.

Oakland City Planning Commission February 21, 2024
Case File Number PLN22189-A01 Page 14

KEY ISSUES AND IMPACTS

As addressed in the “Appellant Issues and Staff Responses” Section of this report, staff believes, as conditioned, the childcare center and the office tenants in the adjacent lot would successfully coexist. Traffic and noise analyses indicate that the project will not create CEQA Impacts, and a Condition of Approval requiring a drop off area, a crossing guard, a carpool program, and staggered drop off times will assure a safe operation that will not impede traffic on College Avenue. The noise study also indicates that student play in at the site will be inaudible within the offices. The CEQA exemptions applied by staff are consistent with State law.

Therefore, staff recommends denial of the appeal with the additional Standard Condition of Approval described in staff’s response to Issue 2b, above, related to construction noise and sensitive receptors.

RECOMMENDATIONS:

1. Affirm staff’s environmental determination.

2. Deny the appeal with the additional Standard Condition of Approval described in staff’s response to Issue 2b.

Prepared by:

Neil Gray, Planner IV
Bureau of Planning

Reviewed by:

Robert Merkamp, Zoning Manager
Bureau of Planning

Approved for forwarding to the Planning Commission:

Ed Manasse, Deputy Director
Bureau of Planning

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Project Plans
B. October 12, 2023, Approval Letter
C. October 20, 2023, Appeal
D. November 20, 2023, Traffic Impact Study
E. January 2, 2024, Preschool Play Yard Noise Study
F. Additional input/peer reviews from Appellant sent to staff 2/9/23

SECTIONSECT.

JT.JAN.INT.INSUL.I.D.

JANITORJOINT

INTERIORINSULATIONINSIDE DIAMETER
WSCT.W/OWD.W.C.

VEST.VERT.U.O.N.UNF.TYP.T.O.W.T.V.T.P.D.T.P.THK.T.&G.TER.TEL.T.C.T.B.TRD.

SYM.SUSP.STRL.STOR.STL.STD.STA.S.SK.S.STSPEC.S.N.R.S.N.D.SIM.SHT.SHR.

GYP.

HGT.

HR.HORIZ.H.M.HDWE.HDWD.HDR.H.C.H.B.

GR.GND.GL.G.B.GALV.GA.FUT.FURR.FTG.FT.

GYPSUM

HORIZONTALHOLLOW METALHARDWAREHARDWOODHEIGHT
HOUR

HANDRAILHOLLOW COREHOSE BIB
WT.WP.

W/W.

GRAB BARGALVANIZED

GRADEGROUNDGLASS
GAUGE

FOOTINGFOOT OR FEET

FUTUREFURRING
UR.

FL. FLOOR
FDN.

FLASH.

F.S.FPRF.F.O.S.F.O.F.F.O.C.FLOUR.

FIN.F.H.C.F.E.C.F.E.

EXT.

F.D. F.B. F.A.

EXP.EXPO.EXIST.E.W.C.EQPT.EQ.

FOUNDATION

FIRE HOSE CABINETFIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINETFIRE EXTINGUISHER

FACE OF CONCRETEFLASHING

FULL SIZEFIREPROOFFACE OF STUDFACE OF FINISHFLUORESCENT FINISH

ELECTRIC WATER COOLER

EXTERIOR

FLOOR DRAINFLAT BARFIRE ALARM

EXPANSIONEXPOSEDEXISTINGEQUIPMENTEQUAL
SQ.

SH.

WATERPROOF

WATER CLOSET

WEIGHTWAINSCOTWITHOUTWOODWITHWEST

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

TOP OF WALLTOILET PAPER DISPENSERTOP OF PAVEMENT

VESTIBULEVERTICALURINALUNFINISHEDTYPICALTELEVISION
THICK
STEEL

TONGUE & GROOVE

TOP OF CURB

SYMMETRICAL

TERRAZZOTELEPHONETOWEL BARTREAD

SUSPENDEDSTRUCTURALSTORAGE

SERVICE SINKSTAINLESS STEELSPECIFICATIONSANITARY NAPKIN RECEPTACLESANITARY NAPKIN DISPENSER

STANDARDSTATION
SQUARE

SIMILARSHEETSHOWERSHELF
N.

S.D.SCHED.S.C.D.S.C.

R.W.L.RWD.R.O.RM.RESIL.REQ.REINF.RGTR.REFR.REF.R.D.RAD.

Q.T.P.T.R.PTN.P.T.D./RP.T.D.

PLYWD.PLAS.P.LAM.PRCST.

OPP.OPNG.OFF.O.D.O.C.OBS.O.A.N.T.S.NOM.NO. or#N.I.C.

D.S.

EMERG.E.P. ENCL. ELEV.ELEC.EL. E.J.EA.E.DWG.D.S.P.

DIM.

DWR.DR.D.O.DN.DISP.DIA.DET.D.F.DEPT.DBL.

DOWNSPOUT

ELECTRICAL PANELBOARD

EXPANSION JOINT

ENCLOSUREEMERGENCYELEVATORELECTRICALELEVATION

DRAWINGDRY STANDPIPE

EACHEAST
S.

DRINKING FOUNTAIN

DIMENSION

DRAWERDOOR OPENINGDISPENSER

DOORDOWN

DIAMETER

DEPARTMENTDETAIL
DOUBLE
R.

CLKG.

CTR. CNTR.CTSK.CORR.CONT.CONST.CONN.CONC.COL.C.O.CLR.CLO.CLG.C.G.C.I.CER.CEM.C.B.

B.U.R.CAB.

BOT.BM.BLKG.

CAULKING

COUNTERCOUNTERSUNKCORRIDORCONTINUOUSCONSTRUCTION
CENTER

CONNECTIONCONCRETECASED OPENINGCOLUMNCLEARCLOSET
PT.PR.

PL.

CORNER GUARDCAST IRONCERAMICCATCH BASIN

CEILING
CEMENT

BUILT-UP ROOFINGCABINET

BLOCKINGBOTTOMBEAM

REQUIRED

SOAP DISPENSERSEAT COVER DISPENSER

RAIN WATER LEADERROUGH OPENING

SCHEDULESOLID CORESOUTH

REDWOODROOMSILENTREINFORCEMENTREFRIGERATOR

PAPER TOWEL RECEPTACLE

REGISTERREFERENCEROOF DRAINRADIUSRISERQUARRY TILE

PARTITION

OPERABLE

DISPENSER & RECEPTACLECOMBINATION PAPER TOWELPAPER TOWEL DISPENSER

PLASTIC LAMINATEPLASTER

POINTPAIRPLYWOOD

PLATEPRECAST

OUTSIDE DIAMETER

NOT-TO-SCALE

NOT-IN-CONTRACT

OPENINGOFFICEON CENTEROBSCUREOVERALL

NOMINALNUMBERNORTH
MDF
MUL.MTD.M.O.MISC.MIR.MIN.MH.MFR.MET.MEMB.MECH.M.C.MAX.

APPROX.

ACOUS.

BLK.BLDG.BITUM.BD.ASPH.ASB.ARCH.AL.AGGR. ADJ.A.D.(E)# Ø

ACOUSTICAL

BUILDINGBITUMINOUSASPHALTASBESTOS
BLOCK
BOARD

ADJUSTABLEAREA DRAIN

ARCHITECTURALAPPROXIMATELYALUMINUMAGGREGATE
POUND OR NUMBEREXISTINGDIAMETERLT.

MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARD

MASONRY OPENINGMISCELLANEOUS

MANUFACTURERMINIMUM

MULLIONMOUNTED

MIRRORMANHOLEMETALMEMBRANEMECHANICALMEDICINE CABINETMAXIMUMLIGHT

EXISTING CONTOURS

TOP OF PAVEMENTTOP OF CURB

TOP OF WALLNEW FINISH GRADEEXISTING GRADESPOT ELEVATIONS T.P. 723
685
T.C. 722
T.W. 721720685

NEW OR FINISHED CONTOURSPROPERTY LINEROOM NUMBERROOM NAMEROOM IDENTIFICATION

PLAN INDICATION OF ELEVATION DRAWN

LOCATION WHERE CUT

SECTION IDENTIFICATIONSHEET WHERE DRAWN

SHEET WHERE DRAWNSECTION IDENTIFICATION

INTERIOR ELEVATION
DETAIL

SECTIONWORK POINT

MATCH LINE

KITCHEN EQUIPMENT NUMBER

PARTITION TYPE
BEDROOM102
720
NW
SA2.12
A3.14
E
A2.1A
1 WINDOW NUMBER

DOOR NUMBER

GRID LINES

NUMBERS VERTICAL
3 10
1GENERAL NOTESABBREVIATIONSLEGEND SYMBOLS

EXISTING & PROPOSED SECTIONS

COVER SHEET, ABBREVIATIONS, LEGEND, SYMBOLS, DRAWING LIST

DRAWING LIST
G1.0
KIT.KITCHEN
A1.3A1.1
A3.1

CIVIL DRAWINGS

GENERAL DRAWINGS

ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
BRICK

MORTARPLASTER
METAL
EARTH

SANDSTONE

DEMOLISHED WALLSNEW WALLS

EXISTING WALLS

ROCK FILL

WOOD FINISH

WOOD FRAMINGWOOD FRAMING

TERRAZZO

METAL LATH

PLYWOOD

INSULATION BOARDINSULATION BATTGYPSUM BOARD

CONCRETE BLOCKCONCRETECERAMIC TILE

BITUMINOUS CONCRETE

CONSULTANT DIRECTORY

1. ALL WORK AND MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM TO THE CURRENT MOST STRINGENTREQUIREMENTS OF THE LATEST EDITIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE (CBC),CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE (CPC), CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE (CMC),CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE (CEC), CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE, CALIFORNIA FIRECODE (CFC), UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE (UPC), UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE (UMC),NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE (NEC), NFPA, ETC.2. EXAMINATION OF THE SITE AND PORTIONS THEREOF, WHICH WILL AFFECT THECONTRACTOR'S WORK, SHALL BE MADE BY THE CONTRACTOR WHO SHALL COMPARE ITWITH THE DRAWINGS AND SATISFY HIMSELF/ HERSELF AS TO THE CONDITIONS UNDERWHICH THE WORK IS TO BE PERFORMED. HE/ SHE SHALL, AT SUCH TIME, ASCERTAINAND CHECK ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS AND DIMENSIONS WHICH MAY AFFECT HIS/ HERWORK. ANY CONFLICTS OR OMISSIONS, ETC. SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE OWNERPRIOR TO START OF WORK. NO ALLOWANCE SHALL SUBSEQUENTLY BE MADE FOR ANYEXPENSES TO WHICH HE/ SHE MAY INCUR DUE TO THE FAILURE OR NEGLECT ONHIS/HER PART TO MAKE SUCH EXAMINATION.3. WORK WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE PERFORMED TO PROVIDE A COMPLETELY USEABLE/OPERABLE INSTALLATION WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WORK, BUT WHICH IS NOTSPECIFICALLY NOTED ON THE PLANS OR INCLUDED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS WILL BEPERFORMED AS PART OF THE CONTRACT.4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ARRANGE FOR THE PREMISES TO BE MAINTAINED IN ANORDERLY MANNER THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION. MAINTAINCLEANLINESS AND REQUIRED MEANS OF EGRESS/ ACCESS. PROTECT NON-WORKAREAS FROM DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR FROM NEW WORK. PROVIDE AND MAINTAINTEMPORARY BARRIERS, CLOSURE WALLS, ETC. AS DEMOLITION, DUST, WATER, ANDNECESSARY FOR THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC AND THE EMPLOYEES DAMAGE TOEXISTING STRUCTURES AND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE REPAIRED TO THE SATISFACTION OFTHE OWNER AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CONTRACTOR.5. PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY PERSONNEL, EQUIPMENT, AND TEMPORARY BARRICADES TOPROTECT THE PUBLIC DURING EXCAVATION WORK. PROTECT STRUCTURES,SIDEWALKS, PAVEMENT, FENCES, BENCHES, AND FACILITIES WITHIN OR ADJACENT TOTHE CONSTRUCTION SITE FROM DAMAGE DUE TO SETTLEMENT, UNDERMINING,WASHOUT, OR OTHER HAZARDS CREATED DURING EARTHWORK OPERATIONS.MAINTAIN BENCH MARKS, MONUMENTS, AND OTHER REFERENCE POINTS. REPAIRBROKEN OR CRACKED SIDEWALK CURB AND GUTTER DAMAGE DUE TO EARTHWORK.6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING LEFT OVER MATERIALS,DEBRIS, TOOLS, AND EQUIPMENT INVOLVED AT THE CONCLUSION OF THEINSTALLATION. HE/ SHE SHALL LEAVE THE ALL AREAS CLEAN AND IN PERFECTCONDITION. ALL FIXTURES AND REUSABLE MATERIALS TO BE REMOVED ARE TO BESTORED AND DISPOSED OF PER THE OWNER'S DIRECTION.7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE OWNER IMMEDIATELY OF ANY UTILITIES FOUND INMATERIAL TO BE REMOVED. ARRANGE AND PAY FOR DISCONNECTING, REMOVING,AND CAPPING UTILITY SERVICES WITHIN AREAS OF DEMOLITION OF EXCAVATION.CUTBACK, CAP, DISCONNECT, AND IDENTIFY ALL SERVICES WHICH ARE NOT TO BEUSED. NOTIFY THE AFFECTED UTILITY COMPANY IN ADVANCE OF STARTING THIS WORKAND OBTAIN THEIR APPROVAL. OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMITS FROM THE STATE OFCALIFORNIA DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY IF A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO DESCENDINTO TRENCHES OR EXCAVATIONS 5 FEET OR MORE IN DEPTH PRIOR TOCOMMENCEMENT OF GRADING AND BUILDING WORK.8. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS SHALL ALWAYS TAKE PRECEDENCEOVER SCALED DIMENSIONS.9. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE TO CENTER OF COLUMN, FACE OF STUDS ATINTERIOR PARTITIONS, AND FACE OF FINISH OR FACE OF CONCRETE AT EXTERIOR ANDSHEAR WALLS, OR FACE OF FINISH FOR CLEAR DIMENSIONS OR DIMINSIONS FROM (E)SURFACES UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR INDICATED.10. FLOOR ELEVATIONS AND PLAN DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING AND NEW CONSTRUCTION AREBASED ON FIELD MEASUREMENTS AND SURVEY DATA AND MUST BE VERIFIED BY THECONTRACTOR PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.11. DOOR OPENINGS NOT LOCATED BY DIMENSION SHALL BE CENTERED ON THE WALL ASSHOWN OR SHALL BE LOCATED 4" FROM FINISH JAMB TO FACE OF STUD.12. FINAL LOCATION OF ALL MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT AND ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, PANELBOARDS, METERS, FIXTURES, FLUES, VENTS, ETC., SHALL BE APPROVED BY THEOWNER AND ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. DESIGN AND LAYOUT OF ALLMECHANICAL AND ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTORSUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE OWNER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. CONTRACTOR SHALLPROVIDE ALL FURRED CEILINGS, WALLS, AND SOFFITS NECESSARY TO SUITMECHANICAL/ ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT INSTALLATION.13. ALL NEW PARTITIONS AROUND TOILETS AND CORRIDORS SHALL EXTEND TO THESTRUCTURE ABOVE TO PREVENT SOUND TRANSMISSIONS OVER WALLS.14. EXTEND ALL SOUND RATED PARTITIONS TO THE STRUCTURE ABOVE. FURNISH 4-1/4 LB.DENSITY GLASS FIBER INSULATION SHAPED TO FIT TIGHT SPACES. WALL MATERIALSHALL FIT TIGHT TO THE CONFIGURATION OF THE STRUCTURE ABOVE TO PREVENTSOUND TRANSMISSION OVER WALL.15. VERIFY OPENINGS FOR PIPES AND DUCTS WITH MECHANICAL DRAWINGS AND PROVIDEAS NECESSARY.16. ALL INTERIOR WALLS OVER 8'-0" HIGH AND ALL PLUMBING WALLS SHALL BE DOUBLE 2 X 4NOMINAL STUDS OR 2 X 6 NOMINAL STUDS AT 16" O.C. ALL INTERIOR, AND NONBEARINGINTERIOR PARTITIONS SHALL BE STIFFENED AS NECESSARY, AND COVERED WITH 5/8"GYPSUM WALLBOARD TYPICAL EACH SIDE AND MAY BE OF 2 X 4 NOMINAL WOOD STUDSAT 16" O.C. UP TO 10'-0" HIGH (SEE PARTITION TYPES). FULL HEIGHT PARTITIONS SHALLBE STIFFENED AS NECESSARY AND COVERED WITH 5/8" GYPSUM WALLBOARD TYPICALAND 5/8" TYPE "X" GYPSUM WALLBOARD 1-HOUR CONSTRUCTION AT GARAGE.17. ALL FREE STANDING COLUMNS WITHIN SPACES SHALL BE FINISHED WITH THE FINISHSCHEDULED FOR WALLS UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN OR DETAILED.18. INSTALL TRANSITION STRIPS AT JUNCTION OF DIFFERENT FLOORING MATERIALS. ATOPENINGS PLACE TRANSITION STRIPS UNDER CENTERLINE OF DOOR. PROVIDECHANGE OF COLOR TRANSITION STRIPS AT THE TOP AND BOTTOM OF ALL STAIRS PERADA REQUIREMENTS..19.WHERE ADJOINING ROOMS HAVE COMPOSITION FLOORING OF DIFFERENT COLORS,MAKE CHANGE UNDER CENTERLINE OF DOOR.20. CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE SHALL BE FINISHED AS SPECIFIED.21. WHERE PLASTER OR CERAMIC TILE ABUTS METAL FRAMES PROVIDE CASING BEADS.22. ALL PARTITIONS AROUND SHAFTS SHALL EXTEND FROM FLOOR TO STRUCTURE ABOVE.23. CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN PER CALGREEN SECTION 4.4802 OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EL CERRITO ORDINANCE. CALGREEN FORMS TO DOCUMENT C&D MATERIAL RECYCLING ARE AVAILABLE AT THE ELCERRITO BUILDING DIVISION TO BE FILED PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE. CAN BEPROVIDED BY GREEN HALO.

PROJECT INFORMATION
= DRAWINGS IN THIS SUBMITTAL

COVERSHEET
DESIGN:AFRAND STUDIOMEHDI SHAFIEI5690 BROADWAY TERRACEOAKLAND CA 94618C#510-926-7745 G1.0
10 EXISTING BUILDING ELEVATIONS
CIVIL SURVEY PLANC0.0
A2.1
1 EXISTING 1ST FLOOR PLANA0.2
(2019 CRC) CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE,(2019 CBC) CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE,(2019 CPC) CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE,(2019 CMC) CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE,(2019 CEC) CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE,CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODES:(2019 CFC) CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE,(2019 CGBC) CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING CODE,(2019 T24) ENERGY CODE

CONSTRUCTION CODES
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR:AAE CONSTRUCTION GROUPALI ESLAMIP.O.BOX 4623 BERKELEY CA 94704C#510-774-8387 CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODEG1.2CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODEG1.3CALIFORNIA GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODEG1.4 EXISTING BASEMENT PLANA0.1EXISTING ROOF PLANA0.3
NEW FIRST FLOOR PLANNEW ROOF PLAN CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

OWNER REVIEWDATED 06/13/2022SUNFLOWERS DAYCARE INC.LIFT/ ADDITION REMODEL REVISION 0
5315 COLLEGE AVEOAKLAND, CA 94618MAHTA MARASHI & MEHDI SHAFIEI, OWNER 014-1249-011-03APP:ZW2201671
www.architectural-concepts.net
[email protected]

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

PARCEL MAP
EXISTING SITE PLANC0.1SITE DEMO PLANC0.2

VICINITY MAP
SITE
PHOTOSG1.1
NEW SITE PLANC0.3
A1.2NEW SECOND FLOOR PLANNEW BUILDING ELEVATIONSA2.2
LANDSCAPING DRAWINGSEXISTING LANDSCAPING PLAN L1.1NEW LANDSCAPING PLAN L1.2LIFE SAFETY DRAWINGS EXISTING 1ST FLOOR AREAWOOD DECK WITH STAIRS196 SQFTSTAIR/ LANDING83 SQFTFOYER 28 SQFTFRONT OFFICE #1218 SQFTOFFICE #2120 SQFTOFFICE #375 SQFTBATHROOM38 SQFTCLOSET11 SQFTOFFICE #4106 SQFTOPEN AREA316 SQFTBLDG1ST FLOOR1191 SQFTEXISTING BASEMENT FLOOR AREACRAWL SPACE245 SQFTSTORAGE SPACE694 SQFTBASEMENT BACK STAIRS11 SQFTDECK / STAIRS FOUNDATION288 SQFTBLDG BASEMENT1238 SQFTPROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR AREADIRECTOR'S OFFICE248 SQFTSTORAGE SPACE143 SQFTSTAIR #2 93 SQFTVESTIBULE 88 SQFTMECHANICAL 10 SQFTLAUNDRY 35 SQFTTEACHER'S ROOM610 SQFTOFFICE ROOM209 SQFTBATHROOM 64 SQFTSTORAGE 4 SQFTBLDG BASEMENT GROSS AREA1,649 SQFTPROPOSED 1ST FLOOR AREATEACHER'S ROOM153 SQFTSTAFF 34 SQFTCHILDREN 51 SQFTSTAIR #2` 145 SQFTCHILDREN CARE AREA 1,029 SQFTBLDG 1ST GROSS FLOOR1,525 SQFTPROPOSED 2ND FLOOR AREAKITCHEN153 SQFTSTAFF BATHROOM #2 34 SQFTCHILDREN BATHROOM #2 51 SQFTSTAIR #2145 SQFTCHILDREN CARE AREA 1,030 SQFTBLDG2ND FLOOR 1,525 SQFT PERMIT #BW22002610BUILDING USED FOR:LIMITED CHILDCARE ACTIVITYPER OAKLAND PLANNING CODE:SECTION 17.33.030BOTH FLOORS:PERMITTED FOR DAYCARE USEPER CBC. 452.1.4, EXCEPTION 2.PARKING:REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING : 0PROVIDED OFF-STREET PARKING : 0PER OAKLAND PLANNING CODE:SECTION 17.116.070REAR AND SIDES SETBACK: 0PER OAKLAND PLANNING CODE:SECTION 17.33.03-8

OPERATION CODES

SCOPE OF WORK

1. ADDING CHILD CARE AREA IN BOTHLOWER (BASEMENT/GROUND) & 1ST FLOOR UPPER LEVEL.2. DEVELOPING THE GROUND FLOOR BY LIFTING THE BUILDING 8'-3".3. ADDING TWO EXIT STAIRS AT BOTH CORNERS OF THE BUILDING.

APN: 014-1249-011-03TITLE: SUNFLOERS DAYCARECITY: OAKLAND, CALIFORNIACONSTRUCTION TYPE: V-8OCCUPANCY GROUP:EZONING TYPE:CN-1OCCUPANT LOAD: 2797 / 35 = 80SPRINKLER:NEW PROJECT ROOM SQFT LISTPROPOSED SITE AREA(EXISTING) (PROPOSED) (CHANGE)LOT AREA:3,691 SQ.FT.3,691 SQ.FT.0EASEMENT: 475 SQ.FT. 475 SQ.FT.COVERAGE: 1,238 / 3,691 = 66%1,525 + 336 / 3,691 = 50%.12FAR: 2,429/ 3,691 = .661,525 + 1525 / 3,691 = .83.12BUILDING FLOOR AREA:BASEMENT/ GROUND1,191 SQ.FT.1,649 SQ.FT. 251 SQ.FT.1ST FLOOR1,238 SQ.FT.1,525SQ.FT. 208 SQ.FT.2ND FLOOR 1,525 SQ.FT.1,525 SQ.FT.TOTAL ENCLOSED AREA:2,429 SQ.FT.4,699 SQ.FT.2,270 SQ.FT.STAIR STRUCTURE: (1ST FLOOR) 336 SQ.FT.STAIR STRUCTURE: (2ND FLOOR) 300 SQ.FT.TOTAL STRUCTURE:5,335SQ.FT.

A1.0NEW BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
BAY FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING L1.3
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203 PHOTOS
G1.1
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

CALIFORNIAGREENBUILDINGSTANDARDCODES
C1.2
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

CALIFORNIAGREENBUILDINGSTANDARDCODES
C1.3
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

CALIFORNIAGREENBUILDINGSTANDARDCODES
C1.4
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

CALIFORNIAGREENBUILDINGSTANDARDCODES
G1.5

CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

CIVILSURVEY
C0.0

NORTHNORTH
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

EXISTINGSITEPLAN
C0.11PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"
(E) FENCE 4' ABOVECONCRETE WALKWAY
NORTH
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

PROPOSEDDEMOSITEPLAN
C0.21PROPOSED DEMO SITE PLAN SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0" DEMOLITION NOTESD1D2D3D4D5
D6D7
D9D8
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE TO REMAIN.EXISTING WOOD FENCE TO REMAIN.EXISTING STAIR AND DECK TO BE DEMOLISHED COMPLETE.EXISTING WALKWAY TO BE DEMOLISHED COMPLETE.EXISTING HOUSE TO BE RAISED AND PREPARED FOR RELOCATION.REMOVE EXISING BASEMENT AND FOUNDATIONS COMPLETE. CUTBACK AND CAP UTILITIES, DRAIN LINES, DOWNSPOUTS,ELECTRICAL SERVICE, AND ETC. AND PREPARE THEM FOR NEWWORK.REMOVE REAR ADDITION TO BUILDING.REMOVE TREES AND EXISTING LANDSCAPING IN THE WAY OF NEWWORK.REMOVE STAIRS TO BASEMENT COMPLETE.REMOVE FRONT STAIRS COMPLETE.REMOVE CONCRETE WALL AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDING.EXISITING GATE AND FENCE TO REMAIN.OUTLINE OF NEW BUILDING LOCATION. EXCAVATE THIS AREA TOMATCH BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN. PROVIDE SHORING FOR ANYEXCAVATION DEEPER THATN 5 FEET. PREPARE AREA TO RECEIVENEW WORK.

D10D11
D11
D1 D2
D3
D9
D4
D5
D6
D7
D7
D7D7
D8
D10
D12
D12

COLLEGE AVE
48"1,22M
7"
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

PROPOSEDSITEPLAN
C0.3
(N) DRY-WELLSTROMWATER SYS.
1PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"
12 3
4 5
6 7
891011
SITE PLAN NOTES4" THICK CONCRETE PATIO W/ @4 BARS @ 24" O.C. EACH WAY.PROVIDE LANDING AT EXIT DOORS W/ THRESHOLD FLUSH WITHDECK OR WALKWAY.4" THICK CONCRETE WALKWAY W/ #3 BARS @ 24" O.C. EACHWAY(MAXIMUM SLOPE 1:20). SEE ALSO L1.2 LANDSCAPE PLAN.NEW TACTILE ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE ON OUTSIDE OF DOOR ANDADJACENT TO STRIKE EDGE OF DOOR."ENTRANCE" SIGN W/ TACTILE AS PER CBC-2016 SECTION 1013.4 &11B-703.1; & ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED PER CBC-2016 SECTION1013.2, SEE SHEET ME1.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION OF SIGNS"EXIT ROUTE" SIGN W/ TACTILE AS PER CBC-2016 SECTION 1013.4 &11B-703.1; ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED PER CBC-2016 SECTION1013.2, SEE SHEET ME1.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION OF SIGNSEGRESS PATH OF TRAVEL FROM CLASSROOMS TO PUBLIC RIGHTOF WAY & ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO BE MAINTAINED PERCOMPLIANCE OF SECTION 11B-602 & 11B-307 OF CBC-2016.ACCESSIBLE LIFT - SEE FLOOR PLAN.COURTYARD BELOW.EXISTING ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE.EXISTING ACCESSIBLE CURB CUT.NEW CONCRETE PAD TO FACILITATE NEW GATE LOCATION. 53'-4 3/4" 5'-9"
+/-6'-5"
+/-8"
32'-3 5/8"
24'-7 21/32"
11 10
9 8
6754
2 3
3 3
1 1212

NORTHNORTH
1 1
1 1
12"
1"
3"
2"
2"
11 1/2"
11 1/2"
61"
41 1/2"
42"
11"
11 1/2"12"13" 12 1/2"
5 3
2 2
4 5
9 TO STREEFRONT WALKWAYPARKINGAREA

UTILITYACCESSREAR WALKWAYAREA
1 1
22 22
HVAC1

BASEMENTSTAIRS
279.8031 SQFT
144.8096 SQFT116.1934 SQFT

DECK AREA& STAIRS

DECKSTAIRS
195.8564 SQFT
ENTRYAREA& STAIRS83.1374 SQFT
LARGEYARD1336.5767 SQFT

5.5925 SQFT
SMALLYARD446.5166 SQFT
BUILDING1021.5840 SQFT

10.0801 SQFT
3 6
8 7
10 11

77.9054 SQFT
3 EXISTINGLANDSCAPINGPLAN
L1.11EXISTING LANDSCAPING PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 1RED TIP PHOTINIAMOLLOWSCREEPING LANTANAOSMANTHUS FRAGRANSKATOROSEARTIFICIAL TURFCONCRETE WALKWAYS 23456

LANDSCAPING NOTES
78 SITE COVERAGE
121.5%HVAC PAD7.5%PARKING AREA2.7%BASEMENT STAIRS4%UTILITY ACCESS3.9%REAR WALKWAY AREA5%DECK AREA & STAIRS12%SMALL YARD2%TO STREET FRONT WALKWAY2%ENTRY AREA & STAIRS36%LARGE AREA27%BUILDING 345678
N

SYMBOL LEGEND
2PLANT TYPELANDSCAPE NOTESMATERIAL TYPES
1 1

MATERIAL TYPE
1GRASSCONCRETEWOOD23
91011
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

COLLEGE AVE
48"1,22M
7"

NEWLANDSCAPINGPLAN
L1.21NEW LANDSCAPING PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"
N
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

SITE COVERAGE
1225.3% LARGE YARD7.5% ENTRY #241% BUILDING1.3% ENTRY #334

PLANTING LEGEND
S218

17.3% SMALL YARD3.3% ENTRY #1 & STAIRS1.4% STREET FRONT WALKWAY 567

SHEET NOTES
X
H1EXIST
ARTIFICIAL TURF FALL ZONE AND PLAY STRUCTURE BY OWNERGROUND COVER UNDER PLANTS BY OWNER.REPAIR PICKET FENCE AS NECESSARY, REPAINT, AND RELOCATE (E) GATE TO NEWNORTH ENTRANCE.SEE DRAWING L1.3 FOR BAY FRIENDLY PLANTING REQUIREMENTS AND NOTES.NEW FOUNTAIN BY OWNER. SEE SITE PLAN. 123
4 1
2 2
3 S136
S336
T11
T11
X
X
X
X
X
X
5 5
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

BAYFRIENDLYLANDSCAPING& PLANT LIST
L1.3
UP7:11
UP7:11

STORAGE TEACHERS'ROOM OFFICEROOM

DIRECTOR'SOFFICE

LAUNDRY
W.H.
8'-0"
12'-9"11'-1"11'-1" 64'-8"47'-3" 6'-4"23'-8" 10'-11"
46'-8"16'-2"14'-6" 30'-6"1'-8" 12'-10" 9'-9" 8'-0"
46'-8" 17'-9"8'-0"14'-5"14'-6" 9'-9"
12'-9"11'-1"11'-1" 64'-8"47'-3" 6'-4"23'-8" 10'-11"
LIFT
MECH.

D
W
L
48"x30"
48"x30"54"x60"
60" DIAMETER
60"x60" BATHROOMROOM
STOR.

STOR.STORAGE
610 SF 209 SF
64 SF
4 SF
248 SF
143 SF
88 SF 10 SF
35 SF

VESTIBULE
93 SFSTAIR #2
PATIO
STAIR #1
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

PROPOSEDBASEMENTFLOORPLAN
A1.0SCHEDULES
1PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 1,649 SQ.FT.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1 2
3 4
567891011
12 13
14 15
16 17
18 19
20 J
SHEET NOTESREFER TO GENERAL NOTES SHEET "G1.1" FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION.REFER TO ELECTRICAL PLANS FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL SWITCHES,LIGHTS, RECEPTACLES, SMOKE DETECTORS, ETC.SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY WIRED AND SHALL BEEQUIPPED WITH 24-HOUR BATERY BACKUP.DUCT PIERCING WALL BETWEEN BUILDING EXTERIOR AND INTERIORSHALL BE 26GA. G.I. MATERIALWITH SEALED AT EDGES, AND NOOPENINGS, SEC 302.4.EVERY CHILDCARE ROOM SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE EXTERIORDOOR APPROVED FOR EMERGENCY ESCAPE / RESCUENEW RATED EXTERIOR WALL - EXTERIOR FACE: STUCCO OVERTYVEK & METAL LATH, 1/2" SHEATHING, 2X6 WOOD STUDS @ 16"O.C., R-22 HIGH DENSITY INSULATION. INTERIOR FACE: 5/8" GYP.BOARD TAPE & TEXTURE LEVEL 5 FINISH.EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL - EXTERIOR FACE: WOOD SIDING O/BUILDING PAPER O/ SHEATHING, O/ 2X4 WOOD STUDS, R-22 HIGHDENSITY INSULATION. INTERIOR FACE: 5/8" GP. BD. TAPE & TEXTURELEVEL 5 FINISH.INTERIOR WALLS - 2X4 STUDS @ 16" O.C. WITH 5/8" GYP.BD. EACHSIDE, TAPE & TEXTURE LEVEL 5 FINISH. R-13 AT BATHROOM U.O.N.PROVIDE CEMENT BACKER BOARD AT TILE COVERED WALLS.PLUMBING WALL - 2X6 STUDS @ 16" O.C. WITH 5/8" W.P. GYP. BD.ABOVE TILE ON WET SIDE AND 5/8" GYP. BD. ON DRY SIDE, TAPE &TEXTURE LEVEL 5 FINISH. PROVIDE CEMENT BACKER BD. AT TILEINSTALLATIONS. R-19 BATT SOUND INSULATION AT BATHROOM.

FLOOR PLAN NOTESSTAFF TOILET W/ 1.28 GPF CAPACITY. CONNECT TO SEWER ANDSUM PUMP. SEE SITE PLAN AND PLUMBING PLAN.PROVIDE MECHANICAL VENTILATION THIS ROOM CAPABLE OFPROVIDING FIVE AIR CHANGES PER HOUR - REFER TO ELECTRICALDRAWINGS.ELECTRIC TANKLESS WATER HEATER ON EXTERIOR WALL -PROVIDE SEISMIC STRAPS AT POINTS WITHIN THE UPPER ANDLOWER ONE-THIRD OF ITS VERTICAL DIMENSION. THE LOWERANCHOR / STRAP LOCATED TO MAINTAIN A DISTANCE OF 4 INCHESABOVE THE CONTROLS AND INSULATION PER TITLE-24 ENERGYCALCS. - PROVIDE PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE WITH 1/2" COPPERDRAIN TO OUTSIDE. (PRIDE WATER HEATER VENT THROUGH ROOF)& 12"x12" LOUVER T&B.ELECTRIC HEAT PUMP UNIT ON 18" HIGH PLATFORM- PROVIDELIGHT, SWITCH, 110V RECEPTACLE PER CMC SEC 319. PROVIDE 26GA. SHT. MET. FOR ALL DUCT PENETRATIONS OF WALLS ORCEILINGNOT USED.4" CONCRETE SLAB @ PATIO - SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.PROVIDE LANDING AT EXIT DOORS W/ THRESHOLD.4" CONCRETE WALKWAY (MAXIMUM SLOPE 1:20). SEE SITE PLAN .50-GALLON WH ON 18" HIGH PLATFORM. W/ SEISMIC RESTRAINT.30" SPACE FOR REFERIGERATOR BASE CABINETS (ACCESSIBLE);NEW TACTILE ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE ON OUTSIDE OF DOOR ANDADJACENT TO STRIKE EDGE OF DOOR.CHILD SIZE TOILET BY "AMERICAN STANDARD MODEL #-BABYDEVORO WITH WHITE COLOR.WALL HUNG SINK BY "AMERICAN STANDARD MODEL #-LUCERN (ORAPPROVED EQUAL) WITH WHITE COLOR". WRAP PIPES BELOW WITHPRE-MANUFACTURED TRAP/ PIPE WRAP PROFILE INSULATION.PROVIDE FAUCET-SINGLE LEVER CONTROL BY "DELTA" (MODEL#544WFMPU-OR APPROVED EQUAL)MOPSINK W/ BUCKET HANGER BY "FLORESTONE" (MODEL#MSA-2424 24"X24") OR APPROVED EQUAL."TO EXIT" SIGN W/ TACTILE AS PER CBC-2016 SECTION 1013.4 &11B-703.1; & ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED PER CBC-2016 SECTION1013.2, SEE SHEET ME1.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION OF SIGNS"EXIT ROUTE" SIGN W/ TACTILE AS PER CBC-2016 SECTION 1013.4 &11B-703.1; ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED PER CBC-2016 SECTION1013.2, SEE SHEET ME1.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION OF SIGNSACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANT BASE CABINET NON-ABSORBANT FLOORFINISH IN BATHROOM AND EXTENDING 6" HIGH AT FLOOR AND WALLINTERSECTION WITH SAME MATERIAL AS FLOOR & WAINSCOTT TO AMIN. HEIGHT OF 48" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR; (IN COMPLIANCE W/CBC-2016 SECTIONS 1210.2.1 & 1210.2.2)INSTALL PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AS REQUIRED PERCBC-2016 SECTION 906.3 (SEE SHEET E1 ALSO)EGRESS PATH OF TRAVEL FROM CLASSROOMS TO PUBLIC RIGHTOF WAY & ACCESSIBLE ROUTE DRINKING FOUNTAIN TO BEINSTALLED PER COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 11B-602 & 11B-307 OFCBC-2016.KNEE CLEARANCE SHALL BE PER FIGURE 11B-306.3 OF CBC-2016.SPOUT HEIGHT SHALL BE 36" AFF (SECTION 11B-602.4). SPOUTLOCATION SHALL BE LOCATED 15" MINIMUM FROM VERTICALSUPPORT & 5" MAX. FROM THE FRONT EDGE OF THE UNIT (SECTION11B-602.5). 1 2
34 6
6 6
2A2.2
3A2.2 1A2.2
4A2.2
NORTH
AA2.3
AA2.3
BA2.3
BA2.3
60"X54"30"X48"
60" DIA.

UP7:11
DN 7:11

LIFTTEACHERS'ROOM
DN7:11
DN7:11
60" DIA.

CHILDCARE AREA8'-0"
PORCH
12'-9"11'-1"11'-1" 64'-8"47'-3" 6'-4"23'-8" 10'-11"
46'-8"16'-2"14'-6" 30'-6"1'-8" 12'-10" 9'-9" 8'-0"
46'-8" 17'-9"8'-0"14'-5"14'-6" 9'-9"
12'-9"11'-1"11'-1" 64'-8"47'-3" 6'-4"23'-8" 10'-11"
UP 7:11
DN 7:11
PORCH
STAIR #2
36"X48"
3048
60"X60"
30"X48"
60"X54"30"X48"
DN 7:11

CHILDREN
STAFF
1,029 SF51 SF
34 SF
153 SF
145 SF
STAIR #1
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203 PROPOSED1ST FLOORPLAN
A1.1SCHEDULES
1PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 1,525 SQ.FT.

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
J
1 2
3 4
5678
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
H
SHEET NOTESREFER TO GENERAL NOTES SHEET "G1.1" FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION.REFER TO ELECTRICAL PLANS FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL SWITCHES,LIGHTS, RECEPTACLES, SMOKE DETECTORS, ETC.SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY WIRED AND SHALL BEEQUIPPED WITH 24-HOUR BATERY BACKUP.DUCT PIERCING WALL BETWEEN BUILDING EXTERIOR AND INTERIORSHALL BE 26GA. G.I. MATERIALWITH SEALED AT EDGES, AND NOOPENINGS, SEC 302.4.EVERY CHILDCARE ROOM SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE EXTERIORDOOR APPROVED FOR EMERGENCY ESCAPE / RESCUENEW 1-HOUR RATED EXTERIOR WALL - EXTERIOR FACE: WOODSIDING OVER TYVEK & METAL LATH, 1/2" SHEATHING, 2X6 WOODSTUDS @ 16" O.C., R-22 HIGH DENSITY INSULATION. INTERIOR FACE:5/8" GYP. BOARD TYPE "X". TAPE & TEXTURE LEVEL 5 FINISH.EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL - EXTERIOR FACE: WOOD SIDING O/BUILDING PAPER O/ SHEATHING, O/ 2X4 WOOD STUDS, R-22 HIGHDENSITY INSULATION. INTERIOR FACE: 5/8" GP. BD. TAPE & TEXTURELEVEL 5 FINISH.INTERIOR WALLS - 2X4 STUDS @ 16" O.C. WITH 5/8" GYP.BD. EACHSIDE, TAPE & TEXTURE LEVEL 5 FINISH. R-13 AT BATHROOM U.O.N.PROVIDE CEMENT BACKER BOARD AT TILE COVERED WALLS.PLUMBING WALL - 2X6 STUDS @ 16" O.C. WITH 5/8" W.P. GYP. BD.ABOVE TILE ON WET SIDE AND 5/8" GYP. BD. ON DRY SIDE, TAPE &TEXTURE LEVEL 5 FINISH. PROVIDE CEMENT BACKER BD. AT TILEINSTALLATIONS. R-19 BATT SOUND INSULATION AT BATHROOM.

FLOOR PLAN NOTESSTAFF TOILET W/ 1.28 GPF CAPACITY. CONNECT TO SEWER ANDSUM PUMP. SEE SITE PLAN AND PLUMBING PLAN.PROVIDE MECHANICAL VENTILATION THIS ROOM CAPABLE OFPROVIDING FIVE AIR CHANGES PER HOUR - REFER TO ELECTRICALDRAWINGS.NEW WOOD STAIRWAY AND PORCH W/ 42" HIGH GUARDRAIL AND 34"HIGH HADRAILS.EXTERIOR ELECTRIC ACCESSIBLE LIFT FROM BASEMENT TO FIRSTFLOOR.CONCRETE STAIR TO GRADE - SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.LANDINGS AT EXIT DOORS W/ THRESHOLD ARE FLUSH WITH FLOOR.30" SPACE FOR REFERIGERATOR BASE CABINETS (ACCESSIBLE);NEW TACTILE ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE ON OUTSIDE OF DOOR ANDADJACENT TO STRIKE EDGE OF DOOR.CHILD SIZE TOILET BY "AMERICAN STANDARD MODEL #-BABYDEVORO WITH WHITE COLOR.WALL HUNG SINK BY "AMERICAN STANDARD MODEL #-LUCERN (ORAPPROVED EQUAL) WITH WHITE COLOR". WRAP PIPES BELOW WITHPRE-MANUFACTURED TRAP/ PIPE WRAP PROFILE INSULATION.PROVIDE FAUCET-SINGLE LEVER CONTROL BY "DELTA" (MODEL#544WFMPU-OR APPROVED EQUAL)MOPSINK W/ BUCKET HANGER BY "FLORESTONE" (MODEL#MSA-2424 24"X24") OR APPROVED EQUAL."TO EXIT" SIGN W/ TACTILE AS PER CBC-2016 SECTION 1013.4 &11B-703.1; & ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED PER CBC-2016 SECTION1013.2, SEE SHEET ME1.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION OF SIGNS"EXIT ROUTE" SIGN W/ TACTILE AS PER CBC-2016 SECTION 1013.4 &11B-703.1; ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED PER CBC-2016 SECTION1013.2, SEE SHEET ME1.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION OF SIGNSACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANT BASE CABINET NON-ABSORBANT FLOORFINISH IN BATHROOM AND EXTENDING 6" HIGH AT FLOOR AND WALLINTERSECTION WITH SAME MATERIAL AS FLOOR & WAINSCOTT TO AMIN. HEIGHT OF 48" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR; (IN COMPLIANCE W/CBC-2016 SECTIONS 1210.2.1 & 1210.2.2)INSTALL PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AS REQUIRED PERCBC-2016 SECTION 906.3 (SEE SHEET E1 ALSO)EGRESS PATH OF TRAVEL FROM CLASSROOMS TO PUBLIC RIGHTOF WAY & ACCESSIBLE ROUTE DRINKING FOUNTAIN TO BEINSTALLED PER COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 11B-602 & 11B-307 OFCBC-2016.KNEE CLEARANCE SHALL BE PER FIGURE 11B-306.3 OF CBC-2016.SPOUT HEIGHT SHALL BE 36" AFF (SECTION 11B-602.4). SPOUTLOCATION SHALL BE LOCATED 15" MINIMUM FROM VERTICALSUPPORT & 5" MAX. FROM THE FRONT EDGE OF THE UNIT (SECTION11B-602.5).1-HOUR RATED STAIRWAY WALL WITH HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDINGTO MATCH EXISTING O/ 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP. SHEATHING O/ 1/2" CDXPLYWOOD EACH SIDE.BALCONY WITH 42" HIGH WOOD GUARD RAILING.RETAINING WALL BELOW.OPEN TO BELOW. 192021
3A2.2 1A2.2
4A2.2
AA2.3
AA2.3
BA2.3
BA2.3
DN7:11
DN7:11

CHILDCARE AREA

KITCHEN
6'-4"
8'-0" PORCH
12'-9"11'-1"11'-1" 64'-8"47'-3" 6'-4"23'-8" 10'-11"
46'-8"16'-2"14'-6" 30'-6"1'-8" 12'-10" 9'-9" 8'-0"
46'-8" 17'-9"8'-0"14'-5"14'-6" 9'-9"
12'-9"11'-1"11'-1" 64'-8"47'-3" 6'-4"23'-8" 10'-11"
STAFF

CHILDREN
STAIR #2
STAIR #1
51 SF 1,030 SF / 35 = 29 CHILDREN
34 SF
153 SF
145 SF
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

PROPOSEDSECONDFLOORPLAN
A1.2SCHEDULES
1PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 1,525 SQ.FT.

FLOOR PLAN NOTESSTAFF TOILET W/ 1.28 GPF CAPACITY. CONNECT TO SEWER ANDSUM PUMP. SEE SITE PLAN AND PLUMBING PLAN.PROVIDE MECHANICAL VENTILATION THIS ROOM CAPABLE OFPROVIDING FIVE AIR CHANGES PER HOUR - REFER TO ELECTRICALDRAWINGS.ELECTRIC TANKLESS WATER HEATER ON EXTERIOR WALL -PROVIDE SEISMIC STRAPS AT POINTS WITHIN THE UPPER ANDLOWER ONE-THIRD OF ITS VERTICAL DIMENSION. THE LOWERANCHOR / STRAP LOCATED TO MAINTAIN A DISTANCE OF 4 INCHESABOVE THE CONTROLS AND INSULATION PER TITLE-24 ENERGYCALCS. - PROVIDE PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE WITH 1/2" COPPERDRAIN TO OUTSIDE. (PRIDE WATER HEATER VENT THROUGH ROOF)& 12"x12" LOUVER T&B.ELECTRIC HEAT PUMP UNIT ON 18" HIGH PLATFORM- PROVIDELIGHT, SWITCH, 110V RECEPTACLE PER CMC SEC 319. PROVIDE 26GA. SHT. MET. FOR ALL DUCT PENETRATIONS OF WALLS ORCEILINGNOT USED.4" CONCRETE SLAB @ PATIO - SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.PROVIDE LANDING AT EXIT DOORS W/ THRESHOLD.4" CONCRETE WALKWAY (MAXIMUM SLOPE 1:20). SEE SITE PLAN .50-GALLON WH ON 18" HIGH PLATFORM. W/ SEISMIC RESTRAINT.30" SPACE FOR REFERIGERATOR BASE CABINETS (ACCESSIBLE);NEW TACTILE ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE ON OUTSIDE OF DOOR ANDADJACENT TO STRIKE EDGE OF DOOR.CHILD SIZE TOILET BY "AMERICAN STANDARD MODEL #-BABYDEVORO WITH WHITE COLOR.WALL HUNG SINK BY "AMERICAN STANDARD MODEL #-LUCERN (ORAPPROVED EQUAL) WITH WHITE COLOR". WRAP PIPES BELOW WITHPRE-MANUFACTURED TRAP/ PIPE WRAP PROFILE INSULATION.PROVIDE FAUCET-SINGLE LEVER CONTROL BY "DELTA" (MODEL#544WFMPU-OR APPROVED EQUAL)MOPSINK W/ BUCKET HANGER BY "FLORESTONE" (MODEL#MSA-2424 24"X24") OR APPROVED EQUAL."TO EXIT" SIGN W/ TACTILE AS PER CBC-2016 SECTION 1013.4 &11B-703.1; & ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED PER CBC-2016 SECTION1013.2, SEE SHEET ME1.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION OF SIGNS"EXIT ROUTE" SIGN W/ TACTILE AS PER CBC-2016 SECTION 1013.4 &11B-703.1; ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED PER CBC-2016 SECTION1013.2, SEE SHEET ME1.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION OF SIGNSACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANT BASE CABINET NON-ABSORBANT FLOORFINISH IN BATHROOM AND EXTENDING 6" HIGH AT FLOOR AND WALLINTERSECTION WITH SAME MATERIAL AS FLOOR & WAINSCOTT TO AMIN. HEIGHT OF 48" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR; (IN COMPLIANCE W/CBC-2016 SECTIONS 1210.2.1 & 1210.2.2)INSTALL PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AS REQUIRED PERCBC-2016 SECTION 906.3 (SEE SHEET E1 ALSO)EGRESS PATH OF TRAVEL FROM CLASSROOMS TO PUBLIC RIGHTOF WAY & ACCESSIBLE ROUTE DRINKING FOUNTAIN TO BEINSTALLED PER COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 11B-602 & 11B-307 OFCBC-2016.KNEE CLEARANCE SHALL BE PER FIGURE 11B-306.3 OF CBC-2016.SPOUT HEIGHT SHALL BE 36" AFF (SECTION 11B-602.4). SPOUTLOCATION SHALL BE LOCATED 15" MINIMUM FROM VERTICALSUPPORT & 5" MAX. FROM THE FRONT EDGE OF THE UNIT (SECTION11B-602.5). 2A2.2
3A2.2 1A2.2
4A2.2
NORTH
AA2.3
AA2.3
BA2.3
BA2.3
(E)SLOPED ROOF(P) EXTENTIONFLAT ROOF
12'-9"11'-1"11'-1" 64'-8"47'-3" 6'-4"23'-8" 10'-11"
46'-8"16'-2"14'-6" 30'-6"1'-8" 12'-10" 9'-9" 8'-0"
46'-8" 17'-9"8'-0"14'-5"14'-6" 9'-9"
12'-9"11'-1" 64'-8"47'-3" 6'-4"23'-8" 10'-11"
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

NEW ROOFPLAN
A1.35
1PROPOSED ROOF PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"
A
B
C
D
E
FG
H
12 34567
8 9
101112
J
NOTES:REFER TO GENERAL NOTES SHEET "G1.1" FOR ADDITIONALINFORMATION.REFER TO ELECTRICAL PLANS FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL SWITCHES,LIGHTS, RECEPTACLES, SMOKE DETECTORS, ETC.SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PERMANENTLY WIRED AND SHALL BEEQUIPPED WITH 24-HOUR BATERY BACKUP.DUCT PIERCING WALL BETWEEN BUILDING EXTERIOR AND INTERIORSHALL BE 26GA. G.I. MATERIALWITH SEALED AT EDGES, AND NOOPENINGS, SEC 302.4.EVERY CHILDCARE ROOM SHALL HAVE AT LEAST ONE EXTERIORDOOR APPROVED FOR EMERGENCY ESCAPE / RESCUENEW RATED EXTERIOR WALL - EXTERIOR FACE: STUCCO OVERTYVEK & METAL LATH, 1/2" SHEATHING, 2X6 WOOD STUDS @ 16"O.C., R-22 HIGH DENSITY INSULATION. INTERIOR FACE: 5/8" GYP.BOARD TAPE & TEXTURE LEVEL 5 FINISH.EXISTING EXTERIOR WALL - EXTERIOR FACE: WOOD SIDING O/BUILDING PAPER O/ SHEATHING, O/ 2X4 WOOD STUDS, R-22 HIGHDENSITY INSULATION. INTERIOR FACE: 5/8" GP. BD. TAPE & TEXTURELEVEL 5 FINISH.INTERIOR WALLS - 2X4 STUDS @ 16" O.C. WITH 5/8" GYP.BD. EACHSIDE, TAPE & TEXTURE LEVEL 5 FINISH. R-13 AT BATHROOM U.O.N.PROVIDE CEMENT BACKER BOARD AT TILE COVERED WALLS.PLUMBING WALL - 2X6 STUDS @ 16" O.C. WITH 5/8" W.P. GYP. BD.ABOVE TILE ON WET SIDE AND 5/8" GYP. BD. ON DRY SIDE, TAPE &TEXTURE LEVEL 5 FINISH. PROVIDE CEMENT BACKER BD. AT TILEINSTALLATIONS. R-19 BATT SOUND INSULATION AT BATHROOM.

FLOOR PLAN NOTESEXISTING ROOFING TO REMAIN.EXISITNG GUTTERS TO REMAIN. EXTEND DOOWNSPOUTS TO GRADEBELOW.EXISTING RIDGE.WALLS BELOW SHOWN DASHED.NEW PARAPET WITH MTAL CAP AND TRIM.NEW CRICKET SLOPED TO DRAIN.NEW 3" ROOF DRAIN AND 3" OVERFLOW ROOF DRAIN SET IN 1"DEPRESSION FOR DRAINAGE.NEW 4-PLY BUILT-UP ROOFING SLOPED 1/2" MIN. PER FOOT TODRAIN.NEW PARAPET WITH GABLE ROOF FOR VISUAL DETAIL FROMSTREET.STAIRS BELOW.DECK BELOW.ACCESSIBLE LIFT BELOW.EXISTING VALLEY. 4 3 2
(E)
(E)
(E) (E)
(E)
13 12
3 4
5 6
SLOPE 1/2"/FT. MIN.

SLOPE 1/2"/FT. MIN.

SLOPE 1/2"/FT. MIN.
7 8
9 1011
12 13
3A2.2 1A2.2
4A2.2
AA2.3
AA2.3
BA2.3
BA2.3
(E) ORIGINAL BUILDING(E)EXTENTION AREA
(E) ORIGINAL BUILDING(E)EXTENTION AREA

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
126
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

EXISTINGELEVATIONPLANS
A2.1A-7 (E) EAST ELEVATIONA-6 (E) NORTH ELEVATION
A-9 (E) WEST ELEVATION A-8 (E) SOUTH ELEVATION
(E) METAL HANDRAIL
(E) METALHANDRAIL
(E) WOODTRELLIS
(E) CONCRETESTAIRS (E) WOODSTAIRS(E) CONCRETESTEP(E) WOODHANDRAILS (E) WOODTRELLIS(E) WOODHANDRAIL& STAIRS
(E) CONCRETESTEP
10'-0"9'-6"3'-8" 2'-10"5'-10" 3'-6"3'-4"1'-0"1'-0" 34'-9"3'-6" 3'-6" RIDGE
RIDGE

PARAPET
PLATE
SECOND FL.PLATE
FIRST FL.PLATE
GRADE

BASEMENT

NORTH ELEVATION
10'-0"9'-6"3'-8"5'-10" 6'-4"3'-4"1'-0"1'-0" 34'-9"2'-11" 3'-6" RIDGE
RIDGE
PLATE
SECOND FL.PLATE
FIRST FL.PLATE
GRADE
BASEMENT10'-0"9'-6"3'-8" 2'-10"5'-10" 3'-6"3'-4"1'-0"1'-0" 34'-9" RIDGE
RIDGE

PARAPET
PLATE
SECOND FL.PLATE
FIRST FL.PLATE
GRADE

CLOSE TO(E)WOOD SIDING
10'-0"9'-6"3'-8" 2'-10"5'-10" 3'-6"3'-4"1'-0"1'-0" 34'-9" RIDGE
RIDGE

PARAPET
PLATE
SECOND FL.PLATE
FIRST FL.PLATE
GRADE

BASEMENT
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

PROPOSEDELEVATIONPLANS
A2.23 WEST ELEVATION4 SOUTH ELEVATION
1 EAST ELEVATION 2 NORTH ELEVATION 3/16" = 1'-0" 3/16" = 1'-0" 3/16" = 1'-0" 3/16" = 1'-0"
SHEET NOTES EXISTING RIDGE AND ROOFING.EXISTING EAVE AND GUTTER. EXTEND EXISTINGDOWNSPOUTS TO GRADE.EXISTING TRIM AND MOULDINGS (REPAIR ORREPLACE AS NECESSARY).EXISTING WINDOWS ON TOP FLOOR TO BEREPLACED WITH NEW WINDOWS. SHAPE ANDCONFIGURATION TO MATCH EXISTING.ENLARGE EXISTING WINDOW OPENING TOMATCH THE NEW CONFIGURATION. PROVIDEWINDOWS AND TRIM TO MATCH EXISTING.NEW HORIZONTAL SIDING AT NEW BASEMENT &FIRST FLOOR LEVELS TO MATCH EXISTING.NEW MOULDING AND TRIM AT NEW BASEMENTAND FIRST FLOOR TO MATCH EXISITING.NEW WOOD STAIR WITH WITH NEW WOODRAILINGS.NEW 1-HOUR RATED EXTERIOR STAIRWAY WALLWITH NEW WOOD SIDING AND AND TRIM TOMATCH EXISTING. (STAIR BEYOND SHOWNDASHED).BASEMENT BELOW GRADE SHOWN DASEHED.DOORS AND WINDOWS IN COURTYARD BELOWGRADE SHOWN DASHED.NEW LAP SHINGLES MATCHING EXISTING GABLEEND SHINGLES.2X8 REDWOOD CAP WITH 2X4 REDWOOD TRIM.2X12 BELLY BAND TRIM .EXISTING GRADE.CONCRETE RETAINING WALL AT BASEMENT ANDIN FOREGROUND.NEW DOUBLE HUNG WINDOWS.NEW 3'-0" X 7'-0"" ENTRY DOOR WITH TRANSOM.NEW PAIR OF 3'-0" X 7'-0" GLAZED DOORS W/TRANSOM.NEW PARAPET GABLE WITH TRIM TO MATCHEXISTING.NEW WINDOW OPENINGS, TRIMS, AND WINDOWSTO MATCH ADJACENT AT TOP FLOOR.NEW WINDOW OPENINGS, TRIM, AND WINDOWSON FIRST FLOOR AND BASEMENT TO MATCHEXISTING.NEW ACCESSIBLE LIFT FROM BASEMENT TOFIRST FLOOR. 12 3
4 5
6 7
8 1 9
1011
12 13141516
171819
20 20 20
19 19
18 18
1717
16 15
14 14
14 14
1312
11 1010
9 20
8 8 7 6
6 54 444
4 4 4 4 4
21 2121
22 22 22 22
222222
22 2222 2222 2222
222222222222
23 23

EXISTINGNEW
EXISTING NEWEXISTINGNEWNEW 1
2 1
2 3444
-4'-2" (E)FLOOR LEVEL
+2'-10" (E)FLOOR LEVEL
-4'-2" (E)FLOOR LEVEL
+2'-10" (E)FLOOR LEVEL
(E) ORIGINAL BUILDING(E)EXTENTION AREA

SOUTH ELEVATION
10'-0"9'-6"4'-2" 2'-6"5'-4" 3'-3"3'-7"1'-0"1'-0" 35'-11" RIDGE
RIDGE

PARAPET
PLATE
SECOND FL.PLATE
FIRST FL.PLATE
GRADE
EAVE11"
+139.00'
+144.27'
+155.17'
35'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
10'-0"9'-6"4'-2" 2'-6"5'-4" 3'-3"3'-7"1'-0"1'-0" 35'-11" RIDGE
RIDGE

PARAPET
PLATE
SECOND FL.PLATE
FIRST FL.PLATE
GRADE

BASEMENT
EAVE11"
+139.00'
+144.27'
+155.17'
35'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

PROPOSED& EXISTINGSECTIONPLAN
A3.1

A PROPOSED TRANSVERSE SECTION

C EXISTING TRANSVERSE SECTIOND EXISTING LONGITUDINAL SECTION

B PROPOSED LONGITUDINAL SECTION

ORIGINALBUILDINGDASHED

CITY OF OAKLAND
DALZIEL BUILDING • 250 FRANK H. OGAWA PLAZA • SUITE 3315 • OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612 Planning and Building Department (510) 238-3941
Bureau of Planning FAX (510) 238-6538
TDD (510) 238-3254

Sent Via Email

October 12, 2023

Mehdi Shafiei
5690 Broadway Terrace
Oakland, CA 94618
[email protected]

RE: Case File No. PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue; APN: 014 124901103

Dear Mr. Shafiei:

Your application, as described below, has been approved for the reasons stated in Attachment A, which contains the findings required to support this decision. Attachment B contains the Conditions of Approval for the project. This decision is effective ten (10) days after the date of this letter unless appealed pursuant to the procedures set forth below.

The following table summarizes the proposed project:

Proposal: Addition and alteration to an existing commercial structure for a childcare (Community Education Civic) activity for 48 students.

Planning Permits Required: Minor Conditional Use Permit for a community education civic activity.

Regular Design Review for alterations to an existing facility.

General Plan: Neighborhood Center Mixed Use
Zoning: CN-1
Environmental Determination: 15301 of the State CEQA Guidelines: Minor alterations to existing facilities; and 15183 – Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning
Historic Status: Potential Designated Historic Property (PDHP): OCHS Survey rating:

C3
City Council District: 1

If you, or any interested party, seeks to challenge this decision, an appeal must be filed by no later than ten (10) calendar days from the date of this letter. An appeal shall be on a form provided by the Bureau of Planning of the Planning and Building Department, and submitted via email to : (1) Neil Gray, Planner IV, and [email protected], (2) Robert Merkamp, Zoning Manager, at [email protected], and (3) Catherine Payne, Development Planning Manager, at [email protected]. The appeal form is available online at https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/appeal-application-form. The appeal shall state specifically wherein it is claimed there was error or abuse of discretion by the Zoning Manager or decision- making body or wherein the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Applicable appeal fees in the amount of $2,599.09 in accordance with the City of Oakland Master Fee Schedule must be paid within five (5) calendar days of filing the appeal.

PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 2

If the fifth (5th) calendar day falls on a weekend or City holiday, appellant will have until the end of the following City business day to pay the appeal fee. Failure to timely appeal (or to timely pay all appeal fees) will preclude you, or any interested party, from challenging the City’s decision in court. The appeal itself must raise each and every issue that is contested, along with all the arguments and evidence in the record which supports the basis of the appeal; failure to do so may preclude you, or any interested party, from raising such issues during the appeal and/or in court. However, the appeal will be limited to issues and/or evidence presented to the Zoning Manager prior to the close of the previously noticed public comment period on the matter. For further information, see the attached Interim City Administrator Emergency Order No. 3 and Interim Procedures for Appeals of City Planning Bureau Decisions for Development Projects.

If the ten (10) day appeal period expires without an appeal, you are expected to contact Neil Gray in order to receive the signed Notice of Exemption (NOE) certifying that the project has been found to be exempt from CEQA review. It is your responsibility to record the NOE and the Environmental Declaration at the Alameda County Clerk’s office at 1106 Madison Street, Oakland, CA 94612, at a cost of $50.00 made payable to the Alameda County Clerk. Please bring the original NOE related documents and five copies to the Alameda County C lerk, and return one date stamped copy to the Bureau of Planning, to the attention of Neil Gray, Planner IV. Pursuant to Section 15062(d) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, recordation of the NOE starts a 35- day statute of limitations on court challenges to the approval under CEQA. The NOE will also be posted on the City website at https://aca.accela.com/OAKLAND/Welcome.aspx.

If you have any questions, please contact the case planner, Neil Gray, Planner IV, at (510) 238-3878 or [email protected], however, this does not substitute for filing of an appeal as described above.

Very Truly Yours,

ROBERT D. MERKAMP
Zoning Manager

cc: Ronnie Turner: [email protected]
Naomi Schiff: [email protected]
Chris Buckley: [email protected]
John Allen: [email protected]

Attachments:

A. Findings
B. Conditions of Approval, including Standard Conditions of Approvals

PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 3

ATTACHMENT A: FINDINGS

This proposal meets all the required findings of the Oakland Planning Code (OMC Title 17) and the No Net Loss findings of California Government Code Section 65863 (B)(2) as set forth below and which are required to approve your application. Required findings are shown in bold type; reasons your proposal satisfies them are shown in normal type.

Section 17.136.050 Regular Design Criteria for Nonresidential Facilities and Signs

1. That the proposal will help achieve or maintain a group of facilities which are well related to one another and which, when taken together, will result in a well-composed design, with consideration given to site, landscape, bulk, height, arrangement, texture, materials, colors, and appurtenances; the relation of these factors to other facilities in the vicinity; and the relation of the proposal to the total setting as seen from key points in the surrounding area. Only elements of design which have som e significant relationship to outside appearance shall be considered, except as otherwise provided in Section 17.136.060 .

The proposed addition underneath and to the rear of the existing structure will result in a well -composed design and will relate to structures on College Avenue. The trim, sill, and recess on new windows , the front patio, and other architectural details visible from the street will match the existing building. Further, the home will be rotated to be perpendicular to the street, which will be consistent with other structures on College Avenue. The stairs required on the north side of the building are required for egress under the Building Code but will be screened by a wall with siding that will match the existing and proposed building. The rear addition will have windows and roof forms that will relate to the existing but remain appropriately distinguished from the historic building.

2. That the proposed design will be of a quality and character which harmonizes wit h, and serves to protect the value of, private and public investments in the area.

As described in Finding #1, t he proposal is consistent with the historic design of the building and , when constructed, will be compatible with other Craftsman style buildings in the neighborhood. The building height will be consistent with other structures in the neighborhood.

3. That the proposed design conforms in all significant respects with the Oakland General Plan and with any applicable design review guidelines or criteria, district plan, or development control map which have been adopted by the Planning Commission or City Council.

The site is located in the Neighborhood Center Mixed Use area under the General Plan’s Land Use and Transportation Element (LUTE). The intent of the area is: “to identify, create, maintain and enhance mixed use neighborhood commercial centers. These centers are typically characterized by smaller scale pedestrian -oriented, continuous street frontage with a mix of retail, housing, office, active open space, eating and drinking place, personal and business services, and small scale educational, cultural, or entertainment uses.” The LUTE contains the following Neighborhood Objective: “Provide f or healthy, vital, and accessible commercial areas that help meet local consumer needs in the neighborhoods.” The proposal is consistent with the following LUTE Policies:

• Policy N12.3 Making Day Care Available. High quality day care should be available th roughout Oakland, appropriately sited and designed based on its capacity and attributes. The City should, when appropriate and feasible, require major development projects to provide on and off-site facilities or other means to address potential child care inadequacies and encourage the inclusion of child care centers in major residential and commercial developments near transit centers, community centers, and schools.

• Policy N5.2 Buffering Residential Areas. Residential areas should be buffered and reinf orced from conflicting uses through the establishment of performance -based regulations, the removal of non-conforming uses, and other tools.

• Polciy T2.2 Guiding Transit-Oriented Development. Transit-oriented developments should be pedestrian PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 4

oriented, encourage night and day time use, provide the neighborhood with needed goods and services, contain a mix of land uses, and be designed to be compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods.

Section 17.134.050 – General Use Permit Criteria:

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 g eneration of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets; and to any other relevant impact of the development.

As described in a traffic analysis prepared for the project, the proposal will not have a harmful effect on traffic or surrounding streets. Nearby residential neighborhoods and adjacent commercial facilities will be buffered from noise produced at the facility by landscaping and walls at the side and rear property lines of the site. The scale of the building will be consistent with other buildings in the neighborhood, and, as conditioned, the proposal will not block traffic or endanger students walking to the center.

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 development will have ample room at the site for playground space and the open floor plan is appropriate for the use of children for play and activities. As described above, the proposed additions are compatible with the Rockridge District and the building.

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

The proposal will provide essential childcare services to the community.

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

Design Review Findings, above.

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

See “General Plan Analysis”, above.

Section 17.33.030 Additional CUP Criteria for the CN-1 Zone

1. That the proposal will not detract from the character desired for the area; The existing building is not amenable to a pedestrian shopping experience because of its Craftsman home design. In particular, including a storefront window and removing the grade separation between the sidewalk and ground floor would not be consistent with the historic design of the building. As such, the proposal to provide ground floor childcare activities will not detract from the area. Further, the pedestrian experience will be improved by bringing activity to the property instead of the office uses that have previously been at the site.

2. That the proposal will not impair a generally continuous wall of building facades; PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 5

The project site is not part of a generally continuous wall of building facades.

3. That the proposal will not weaken the concentration and continuity of retail facilities at ground level, and will not impair the retention or creation of an important shopping frontage; The site is not part of an important shopping frontage because it contains a Craftsman building originally designed as a home. It is setback from the street and not attached to neighboring commercial buildings. The historic above-grade entrance and residential facade is not appropriate for retail uses.

4. That the proposal will not interfere with the movement of people along an important pedestrian street; The proposal will not extent into the sidewalk and will not, therefore, impede pedestrian movement.

5. That the proposal will conform in all significant respects with any applicable district plan which has been adopted by the City Council.

See “General Plan Analysis”, above.

California Government Code Section 65863 (b)(2) No Net Loss Findings

If a city, county, or city and county, by administrative, quasi-judicial, legislative, or other action, allows development of any parcel with fewer units by income category than identified in the jurisdiction’s housing element for that parcel, the city, county, or city and county shall make a written finding supported by substantial evidence as to whether or not remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to meet the requirements of Section 65583.2 and to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584. The finding shall include a quantification of the remaining unmet need for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need at each income level and the remaining capacity of sites identified in the housing element to accommodate that need by income level.

No Net Loss Finding 1: The City of Oakland adopted its current 2023-2031 Housing Element on January 31, 2023. The Housing Element identifies the realistic capacity for housing production throughout the current 2023-2031 Planning Period. This capacity accommodates the Regional Housing Needs Allocation, as well as a buffer, which ensures that if certain identified sites are not developed at the realistic capacity, that there would remain a sufficient numb er of units available to meet Oakland's Housing Needs. (See Housing Element, Appendix C, Table C-2.) For purposes of this finding, the buffer is calculated on a quarterly basis according to progress made during the 2023-2031 Planning Period.

Oakland's remaining lower income regional housing needs assessment is 8,021 dwelling units while Oakland's current capacity is 9,992 lower income units, a surplus of 1,971 units. [“Lower income” includes very low income (VLI) and low income (LI) units.]

Oakland’s remaining moderate income regional housing needs assessment is 4,264 dwelling units, while Oakland's current capacity is 4,993 moderate income units, a surplus of 729 units.

Oakland's remaining above moderate-income regional housing needs assessment is 7,084 dwelling units, while Oakland's current capacity is 16,229 above moderate-income units, a surplus of 9,145 units.

No Net Loss Finding 2: The proposed project is located on a site that is identified in the City of Oakland 2023-2031 Housing Element as a Housing Element Opportunity Site.

( ) YES
(X) NO

No Net Loss Finding 3: The proposed project meets the following criteria.

PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 6

(X ) The proposed project is a non-residential development located on a site that was not identified in the City of Oakland 2023-2031 Housing Element. Therefore, the project has no impact on the City’s housing capacity.

( ) The proposed project includes residential development and is located on a site that was not identified in the City of Oakland 2023-2031 Housing Element. Therefore, the project results in an increase in the City’s housing capacity equal to the total units proposed.

No Net Loss Finding 4: The City of Oakland 2023-2031 Housing Element identifies the following realistic capacity for the site.

Lower income units (VLI/LI): NA__________________
Moderate income units: NA_______________
Above moderate-income units: NA______________
Total units: NA_________________

(X) The proposed project is a non-residential development.

( ) The proposed project includes residential development.

Therefore, an analysis of potential net loss must be made, as documented below.

No Net Loss Finding 5: The proposed project includes the following residential unit count:

Lower income units (VLI/LI): NA __________________
Moderate income units: NA _______________
Above moderate-income units: NA ______________
Total units: NA _________________

The project therefore will result in a net increase or net loss of units as compared to the City’s Housing Element projections as follows

Lower income units (VLI/LI): NA __________________
Moderate income units: NA _______________
Above moderate income units: NA ______________
Total units: NA _________________

PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 7

ATTACHMENT B: CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

The proposal is hereby approved subject to the following Conditions of Approval:

Part 1: Standard Conditions of Approval – General Administrative Conditions

1. Approved Use
The project shall be constructed and operated in accordance with the authorized use as described in the approved application materials, and the approved plans dated 5/2/23, as amended by the following conditions of approval and mitigation measures, if applicable (“Conditions of Approval” or “Conditions”).

2. Effective Date, Expiration, Extensions and Extinguishment This Approval shall become effective immediately, unless the Approval is appealable, in which case the Approval shall become effective in ten (10) calendar days unless an appeal is filed. Unless a different termination date is prescribed, this Approval shall expire from the Approval date, or from the date of the final decision in the event of an appeal, unless within such period a complete building permit application has been filed with the Bureau of Building and diligently pursued towards completion, or the authorized activities have commenced in the case of a permit not involving construction or alteration. Upon written request and payment of appropriate fees submitted no later than the expiration date of this Approval, the Director of City Planning or designee may grant a one-year extension of this date, with additional extensions subject to approval by the approving body. Expiration of any necessary building permit or other construction-related permit for this project may invalidate this Approval if said Approval has also expired. If litigation is filed challenging this Approval, or its implementation, then the time period stated above for obtaining necessary permits for construction or alteration and/or commencement of authorized activities is automatically extended for the duration of the litigation.

3. Compliance with Other Requirements
The project applicant shall comply with all other applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws/codes, requirements, regulations, and guidelines, including but not limited to those imposed by the City’s Bureau of Building, Fire Marshal, Department of Transportation, and Public Works Department. Compliance with other applicable requirements may require changes to the approved use and/or plans. These changes shall be processed in accordance with the procedures contained in Condition #4.

4. Minor and Major Changes
a. Minor changes to the approved project, plans, Conditions, facilities, or use may be approved administratively by the Director of City Planning.
b. Major changes to the approved project, plans, Conditions, facilities, or use shall be reviewed by the Director of City Planning to determine whether such changes require submittal and approval of a revision to the Approval by the original approving body or a new independent permit/approval. Major revisions shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures required for the original permit/approval. A new independent permit/approval shall be reviewed in accordance with the procedures required for the new permit/approval.

5. Compliance with Conditions of Approval
The project applicant and property owner, including successors, (collectively referred to hereafter as the “project applicant” or “applicant”) shall be responsible for compliance with all the Conditions of Approval and any recommendations contained in any submitted and approved technical report at his/her s ole cost and expense, subject to review and approval by the City of Oakland.

The City of Oakland reserves the right at any time during construction to require certification by a licensed professional at the project applicant’s expense that the as -built project conforms to all applicable requirements, including but not limited to, approved maximum heights and minimum setbacks. Failure to construct the project PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 8

in accordance with the Approval may result in remedial reconstruction, permit revocation, permit modification, stop work, permit suspension, or other corrective action.

Violation of any term, Condition, or project description relating to the Approval is unlawful, prohibited, and a violation of the Oakland Municipal Code. The City of Oakland reserves the right to initiate civil and/or criminal enforcement and/or abatement proceedings, or after notice and public hearing, to revoke the Approval or alter these Conditions if it is found that there is violation of any of the Conditions or the provisions of the Planning Code or Municipal Code, or the project operates as or causes a public nuisance. This provision is not intended to, nor does it, limit in any manner whatsoever the ability of the City to take appropriate enforcement actions. The project applicant s hall be responsible for paying fees in accordance with the City’s Master Fee Schedule for inspections conducted by the City or a City-designated third-party to investigate alleged violations of the Approval or Conditions.

6. Signed Copy of the Approval/Conditions
A copy of the Approval letter and Conditions shall be signed by the project applicant , attached to each set of permit plans submitted to the appropriate City agency for the project, and made available for review at the project job site at all times.

7. Blight/Nuisances
The project site shall be kept in a blight/nuisance-free condition. Any existing blight or nuisance shall be abated within sixty (60) days of approval, unless an earlier date is specified elsewhere.

8. Indemnification
a. To the maximum extent permitted by law, the project applicant shall defend (with counsel acceptable to the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Oakland, the Oakland City Council, the Oakland Redevelopment Successor Agency, the Oakland City Planning Commission, and their respective agents, officers, employees, and volunteers (hereafter collectively called “City”) from any liability, damages, claim, judgment, loss (direct or indirect), action, causes of action, or proceeding (including legal costs, attorneys’ f ees, expert witness or consultant fees, City Attorney or staff time, expenses or costs) (collectively called “Action”) against the City to attack, set aside, void or annul this Approval or implementation of this Approval. The City may elect, in its sole discretion, to participate in the defense of said Action and the project applicant shall reimburse the City for its reasonable legal costs and attorneys’ fees.
b. Within ten (10) calendar days of the filing of any Action as specified in subsection (a) above, the project applicant shall execute a Joint Defense Letter of Agreement with the City, acceptable to the Office of the City Attorney, which memorializes the above obligations. These obligations and the Joint Defense Letter of Agreement shall survive term ination, extinguishment, or invalidation of the Approval. Failure to timely execute the Letter of Agreement does not relieve the project applicant of any of the obligations contained in this Condition or other requirements or Conditions of Approval that may be imposed by the City.

9. Severability
The Approval would not have been granted but for the applicability and validity of each and every one of the specified Conditions, and if one or more of such Conditions is found to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction this Approval would not have been granted without requiring other valid Conditions consistent with achieving the same purpose and intent of such Approval.

10. Special Inspector/Inspections, Independent Technical Review, Project Coordination and Monitoring The project applicant may be required to cover the full costs of independent third- party technical review and City monitoring and inspection, including without limitation, special inspector(s)/inspection(s) during times of extensive or specialized plan-check review or construction, and inspections of potential violations of the Conditions of Approval.

The project applicant shall establish a deposit with Engineering Services and/or the Bureau of Building, if directed by the Director of Public Works, Building Official, Director of City Planning, Director of Transportation, or designee, prior to the issuance of a construction-related permit and on an ongoing as-needed basis.

PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 9

11. Public Improvements
The project applicant shall obtain all necessary permits/approvals, such as encroachment permits, obstruction permits, curb/gutter/sidewalk permits, and public improvement (“p-job”) permits from the City for work in the public right-of- way, including but not limited to, streets, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, utilities, and fire hydrants. Prior to any work in the public right-of-way, the applicant shall submit plans for review and approval by the Bureau of Planning, the Bureau of Building, Engineering Services, Department of Transportation, and other City departments as required. Public improvements shall be designed and installed to the satisfaction of the City.

Part 2: Standard Conditions of Approval –Environmental Protection Measures

12. Trash and Blight Removal
Requirement: The project applicant and his/her successors shall maintain the property free of blight, as defined in chapter 8.24 of the Oakland Municipal Code. For nonresidential and mult i-family residential projects, the project applicant shall install and maintain trash receptacles near public entryways as needed to provide sufficient capacity for building users.

When Required: Ongoing
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

13. Graffiti Control
Requirement:
a. During construction and operation of the project, the project applicant shall incorporate best management practices reasonably related to the control of graffiti and/or the mitigation of the impacts of graffiti. Such best management practices may include, without limitation:
i. Installation and maintenance of landscaping to discourage defacement of and/or protect likely graffiti- attracting surfaces.
ii. Installation and maintenance of lighting to protect likely graffiti-attracting surfaces. iii. Use of paint with anti-graffiti coating.
iv. Incorporation of architectural or design elements or features to discourage graffiti defacement in accordance with the principles of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). v. Other practices approved by the City to deter, protect, or reduce the potential for graffiti defacement.
b. The project applicant shall remove graffiti by appropriate means within seventy-two (72) hours. Appropriate means include the following:
i. Removal through scrubbing, washing, sanding, and/or scraping (or similar method) without damaging the surface and without discharging wash water or cleaning detergents into the City storm drain system. ii. Covering with new paint to match the color of the surrounding surface. iii. Replacing with new surfacing (with City permits if required).

When Required: Ongoing
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

14. Landscape Plan
a. Landscape Plan Required
Requirement: The project applicant shall submit a final Landscape Plan for City review and approval that is consistent with the approved Landscape Plan. The Landscape Plan shall be included with the set of PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 10

drawings submitted for the construction-related permit and shall comply with the landscape requirements of chapter 17.124 of the Planning Code. Proposed plants shall be predominantly drought-tolerant.

Specification of any street trees shall comply with the Master Street Tree List and Tree Planting Guidelines (which can be viewed at:
https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/oakland-street-tree-species-list-august-2023 and https://www.oaklandca.gov/documents/standard-specifications-for-street-tree-planting, respectively), and with any applicable streetscape plan.

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: N/A
b. Landscape Installation
Requirement: The project applicant shall implement the approved Landscape Plan unless a bond, cash deposit, letter of credit, or other equivalent instrument acceptable to the Director of City Planning, is provided. The financial instrument shall equal the greater of $2,500 or the estimated cost of implementing the Landscape Plan based on a licensed contractor’s bid.

When Required: Prior to building permit final
Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building
c. Landscape Maintenance
Requirement: All required planting shall be permanently maintained in good growing condition and, whenever necessary, replaced with new plant materials to ensure continued compliance with applicable landscaping requirements. The property owner shall be responsible for maintaining planting in adjacent public rights-of-way. All req uired fences, walls, and irrigation systems shall be permanently maintained in good condition and, whenever necessary, repaired or replaced.

When Required: Ongoing
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

15. Lighting
Requirement: Proposed new exterior lighting fixtures shall be adequately shielded to a point below the light bulb and reflector to prevent unnecessary glare onto adjacent properties.

When Required: Prior to building permit final
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

16. Dust Controls – Construction Related
Requirement: The project applicant shall implement all of the following applicable dust control measures during construction of the project:
a. Water all exposed surfaces of act ive construction areas at least twice daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever feasible. b. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). c. All visible mud or dirt tra ck-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour.

PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 11

e. All demolition activities (if any) shall be suspended when average wind speeds exceed 20 mph. f. All trucks and equipment, including tires, shall be washed off prior to leaving the site. g. Site accesses to a distance of 100 feet from the paved road shall be treated with a 6 to 12 inch compacted layer of wood chips, mulch, or gravel.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

17. Criteria Air Pollutant Controls - Construction Related Requirement: The project applicant shall implement all of the following applicable basic control measures for criteria air pollutants during construction of the project as applicable:
a. Idling times on all diesel -fueled commercial vehicles over 10,000 lbs. shall be mini mized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485, of the California Code of Regulations).

Clear signage to this effect shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. b. Idling times on all diesel- fueled off-road vehicles over 25 horsepower shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to two minutes and fleet operators must develop a written policy as required by Title 23, Section 2449, of the California Code of Regulations (“California Air Resources Board Off-Road Diesel Regulations”). c. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. Equipment check documentation should be kept at the construction site and be available for review by the City and the Bay Area Air Quality District as needed. d. Portable equipment shall be powered by grid electricity if available. If electricity is not available, propane or natural gas generators shall be used if feasible. Diese l engines shall only be used if grid electricity is not available and propane or natural gas generators cannot meet the electrical demand. e. Low VOC (i.e., ROG) coatings shall be used that comply with BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3: Architectural Coatings.
f. All equipment to be used on the construction site shall comply with the requirements of Title 13, Section 2449, of the California Code of Regulations (“California Air Resources Board Off -Road Diesel Regulations”) and upon request by the City (and the Air D istrict if specifically requested), the project applicant shall provide written documentation that fleet requirements have been met.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

18. Asbestos in Structures
Requirement: The project applicant shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations regarding demolition and renovation of Asbestos Containing Materials (ACM), including but not limited to California Code of Regulations, Title 8; California Business and Professions Code, Division 3; California Health and Safety Code sections 25915- 25919.7; and Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Regulation 11, Rule 2, as may be amended. Evidence of compliance shall be submitted to the City upon request.

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Applicable regulatory agency with jurisdiction Monitoring/Inspection: Applicable regulatory agency with jurisdiction

19. Archaeological and Paleontological Resources – Discovery During Construction PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 12

Requirement: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(f), in the event that any historic or prehistoric subsurface cultural resources are discovered during ground disturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and the project applicant shall notify the City and consult with a qualified archaeologist or paleontologist, as applicable, to assess the significance of the find. In the case of discovery of paleontological resources, the assessment shall be done in accordance with the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology standards. If any find is determined to be significant, appropriate avoidance measures recommended by the consultant and approved by the City must be followed unless avoidance is determined unnece ssary or infeasible by the City. Feasibility of avoidance shall be determined with consideration of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations.

If avoidance is unnecessary or infeasible, other appropriate measur es (e.g., data recovery, excavation) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while measures for the cultural resources are implemented.

In the event of data recovery of archaeological resources, the project applicant shall submit an Archaeological Research Design and Treatment Plan (ARDTP) prepared by a qualified archaeologist for review and approval by the City. The ARDTP is required to identify how the proposed data recovery program would preserve the significant informat ion the archaeological resource is expected to contain. The ARDTP shall identify the scientific/historic research questions applicable to the expected resource, the data classes the resource is expected to possess, and how the expected data classes would address the applicable research questions. The ARDTP shall include the analysis and specify the curation and storage methods. Data recovery, in general, shall be limited to the portions of the archaeological resource that could be impacted by the proposed project. Destructive data recovery methods shall not be applied to portions of the archaeological resources if nondestructive methods are practicable. Because the intent of the ARDTP is to save as much of the archaeological resource as possible, including m oving the resource, if feasible, preparation and implementation of the ARDTP would reduce the potential adverse impact to less than significant. The project applicant shall implement the ARDTP at his/her expense.

In the event of excavation of paleontological resources, the project applicant shall submit an excavation plan prepared by a qualified paleontologist to the City for review and approval. All significant cultural materials recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and/or a report prepared by a qualified paleontologist, as appropriate, according to current professional standards and at the expense of the project applicant.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

20. Human Remains – Discovery During Construction
Requirement: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5(e)(1), in the event that human skeletal remains are uncovered at the project site during construction activiti es, all work shall immediately halt and the project applicant shall notify the City and the Alameda County Coroner. If the County Coroner determines that an investigation of the cause of death is required or that the remains are Native American, all work shall cease within 50 feet of the remains until appropriate arrangements are made. In the event that the remains are Native American, the City shall contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), pursuant to subdivision (c) of section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If the agencies determine that avoidance is not feasible, then an alternative plan shall be prepared with specific steps and timeframe required to resume construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery, determination of significance, and avoidance measures (if applicable) shall be completed expeditiously and at the expense of the project applicant.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

21. Erosion and Sedimentation Control Measures for Construction Requirement: The project applicant shall implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion, sedimentation, and water quality impacts during construction to the maximum extent practicable. At a minimum, the PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 13

project applicant shall provide filter materials deemed acceptable to the City at nearby catch basins to prevent any debris and dirt from flowing into the City’s storm drain system and creeks.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

22. Source Control Measures to Limit Stormwater Pollution Requirement: Pursuant to Provision C.3 of the Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit issued under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), the project applicant is encouraged to incorporate appropriate source control measures to limit pollution in stormwater runoff. These measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Stencil storm drain inlets “No Dumping – Drains to Bay;” b. Minimize the use of pesticides and fertilizers;
c. Cover outdoor material storage areas, loading docks, repair/maintenance bays and fueling areas; d. Cover trash, food waste, and compactor enclosures; and e. Plumb the following discharges to the sanitary sewer system, subject to City approval:
i. Discharges from indoor f loor mats, equipment, hood filter, wash racks, and, covered outdoor wash racks for restaurants;
ii. Dumpster drips from covered trash, food waste, and compactor enclosures; iii. Discharges from outdoor covered wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and accessories; iv. Swimming pool water, if discharge to on-site vegetated areas is not feasible; and v. Fire sprinkler test water, if discharge to on-site vegetated areas is not feasible.

When Required: Ongoing
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: N/A

23. Construction Days/Hours
Requirement: The project applicant shall comply with the following restrictions concerning construction days and hours:
a. Construction activities are limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Friday, except that pier drilling and/or other extreme noise generating activities greater than 90 dBA shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
b. Construction activities are limited to between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturday. In residential zones and within 300 feet of a residential zone, construction activities are allowed from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. only within the interior of the building with the doors and windows closed. No pier drilling or other extreme noise generating activities greater than 90 dBA are allowed on Saturday. c. No construction is allowed on Sunday or federal holidays.

Construction activities include, but are not limited to, truck idling, moving equipment (including trucks, elevators, etc.) or materials, deliveries, and construction meetings held on-site in a non-enclosed area.

Any construction activity proposed outside of the above days and hours for special activities (such as concrete pouring which may require more continuous amounts of time) shall be evaluated on a case -by-case basis by the City, with criteria including the urgency/emergency nature of the work, the proximity of residential or other sensitive uses, and a consideration of nearby residents’/occupants’ preferences . The project applicant shall notify property owners and occupants located within 300 feet at least 14 calendar days prior to construction activity proposed outside of the above days/hours. When submitting a request to the City to allow construction activity outside of the above days/hours, the project applicant shall submit information concerning the type and duration of proposed construction activity and the draft public notice for City review and approval prior to distribution of the public notice.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building
PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 14

24. Construction Noise
Requirement: The project applicant shall implement noise reduction measures to reduce noise impacts due to construction. Noise reduction measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds) wherever feasible. b. Except as provided herein, i mpact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneuma tically powered tools. However, where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools themselve s shall be used, if such jackets are commercially available, and this could achieve a reduction of 5 dBA. Quieter procedures shall be used, such as drills rather than impact equipment, whenever such procedures are available and consistent with construction procedures.
c. Applicant shall use temporary power poles instead of generators where feasible. d. Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from adjacent properties as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or use other measures as determined by the City to provide equivalent noise reduction.
e. The noisiest phases of construction shall be limited to less than 10 days at a time. Exceptions may be allowed if the City determines an extension is necessary and all available noise reduction controls are implemented.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

25. Extreme Construction Noise
a. Construction Noise Management Plan Required
Requirement: Prior to any extreme noise generating construction activities (e.g., pier drilling, pile driving and other activities generating greater than 90dBA), the project applicant shall submit a Construction Noise Management Plan prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for City review and approval that contains a set of site-specific noise attenuation measures to further reduce construction impacts associated with extreme noise generating activities. The project applicant shall implement the app roved Plan during construction. Potential attenuation measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
i. Erect temporary plywood noise barriers around the construction site, particularly along on sites adjacent to residential buildings;
ii. Implement “quiet” pile driving technology (such as pre -drilling of piles, the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile driving duration), where feasible, in consideration of geotechnical and structural requirements and conditions;
iii. Utilize noise control blankets on the building structure as the building is erected to reduce noise emission from the site;
iv. Evaluate the feasibility of noise control at the receivers by temporarily improving the noise reduction capability of adjacent buildings by the use of sound blankets for example and implement such measure if such measures are feasible and would noticeably reduce noise impacts; and v. Monitor the effectiveness of noise attenuation measures by taking noise measurements.

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Bureau of Building
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 15

b. Public Notification Required
Requirement: The project applicant shall notify property owners and occupants located within 300 feet of the construction activities at least 14 calendar days prior to commencing extreme noise generating activities. Prior to providing the notice, the project applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval the proposed type and duration of extreme noise generating activities and the proposed public notice. The public notice shall provide the estimated start and end dates of the extreme noise generating activities and describe noise attenuation measures to be implemented.

When Required: During construction
Initial Approval: Bureau of Building
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

26. Operational Noise
Requirement: Noise levels from the project site after completion of the project (i.e., during project operation) shall comply with the performance standards of chapter 17.120 of the Oakland Planning Code and chapter 8.18 of the Oakland Municipal Code. If noise levels exceed these standards, the activity causing the noise shall be abated until appropriate noise reduction measures have been installed and compliance verified by the City.

When Required: Ongoing
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

27. Capital Improvements Impact Fee
Requirement: The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City of Oakland Capital Improvements Fee Ordinance (chapter 15.74 of the Oakland Municipal Code).

When Required: Prior to issuance of building permit
Initial Approval: Bureau of Building
Monitoring/Inspection: N/A

28. Construction Activity in the Public Right-of-Way
a. Obstruction Permit Required
Requirement: The project applicant shall obtain an obstruction permit from the City prior to placing any temporary construction-related obstruction in the public right-of-way, including City streets, sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and bus stops.

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Department of Transportation
Monitoring/Inspection: Department of Transportation
b. Traffic Control Plan Required
Requirement: In the event of obstructions to vehicle or bicycle travel lanes, bus stops, or sidewalks, the project applicant shall submit a Traffic Control Plan to the City for review and approval prior to obtaining an obstruction permit. The project applicant shall submit evidence of City approval of the Traffic Control Plan with the application for an obstruction permit. The Traffic Control Plan shall contain a set of comprehensive traffic control measures for auto, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian accommodations (or detours, if accommodations are not feasible), including detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes. The Traffic Control Plan shall be in conformance with the City’s Supplemental Design Guidance for Accommodating Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Bus Facil ities in Construction Zones. The project applicant shall implement the approved Plan during construction.

Initial Approval: Department of Transportation
Monitoring/Inspection: Department of Transportation
PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 16

c. Repair of City Streets
Requirement: The project applicant shall repair any damage to the public right -of way, including streets and sidewalks, caused by project construction at his/her expense within one week of the occurrence of the damage (or excessive wear), unless further damage/excessive wear may continue; in such case, repair shall occur prior to approval of the final inspection of the construction-related permit. All damage that is a threat to public health or safety shall be repaired immediately.

When Required: Prior to building permit final
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Department of Transportation

29. Bicycle Parking
Requirement: The project applicant shall comply with the City of Oakland Bicycle Parking Requirements (chapter

17.118 of the Oakland Planning Code). The project drawings submitted for construction- related permits shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements.

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

30. Transportation Impact Fee
Requirement: The project applicant shall comply with the requirements of the City of Oakland Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance (chapter 15.74 of the Oakland Municipal Code).

When Required: Prior to issuance of building permit
Initial Approval: Bureau of Building
Monitoring/Inspection: N/A

31. Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Requirement: The project applicant shall comply with the City of Oakland Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Ordinance (chapter 15.34 of the Oakland Municipal Code) by submitting a Construction and Demolition Waste Reduction and Recycling Plan (WRRP) for City review and approval, and shall implement the approved WRRP. Projects subject to these requirements include all new construction, renovations/alterations/modifications with construction values of $50,000 or more (except R-3 type construction), and all demolition (including soft demolition) except demolition of type R -3 construction. The WRRP must specify the methods by which the project will divert construction and demolition debris waste from landfill disposal in accordance with current City requirements. The WRRP may be submitted electronically at www.greenhalosystems.com or manually at the City’s Green Building Resource Center. Current standards, FAQs, and forms are available on the City’s website and in the Green Building Resource Center.

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division Monitoring/Inspection: Public Works Department, Environmental Services Division

32. Underground Utilities
Requirement: The project applicant shall place underground all new utilities serving the project and under the control of the project applicant and the City, including all new gas, electric, cable, and telephone facilities, fire alarm conduits, street light wiring, and other wiring, conduits, and similar facilities. The new facilities shall be placed underground along the project’s street frontage and from the project structures to the point of service. Utilities under the control of other agencies, such as PG&E, shall be placed underground if feasible. All utilities shall be installed in accordance with standard specifications of the serving utilities.

When Required: During construction
PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 17

Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

33. Recycling Collection and Storage Space
Requirement: The project applicant shall comply with the C ity of Oakland Recycling Space Allocation Ordinance (chapter 17.118 of the Oakland Planning Code). The project drawings submitted for construction-related permits shall contain recycling collection and storage areas in compliance with the Ordinance. For residential projects, at least two (2) cubic feet of storage and collection space per residential unit is required, with a minimum of ten (10) cubic feet.

For nonresidential projects, at least two (2) cubic feet of storage and collection space per 1,000 square feet of building floor area is required, with a minimum of ten (10) cubic feet.

When Required: Prior to approval of construction-related permit Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

34. Employee Rights
Requirement: The project applicant and business owners in the project shall comply with all state and federal laws regarding employees’ right to organize and bargain collectively with employers and shall comply with the City of Oakland Minimum Wage Ordinance (chapter 5.92 of the Oakland Municipal Code).

When Required: Ongoing
Initial Approval: N/A
Monitoring/Inspection: N/A

35. Public Art for Private Development
Requirement: The project is subject to the City’s Public Art Requirements for Private Development, adopted by Ordinance No. 13275 C.M.S. (“Ordinance”). The public art contribution requirements are equivalent to one -half percent (0.5%) for the “residential” building development costs, and one percent (1.0%) for the “non- residential” building development costs.

The contribution requirement can be met through: 1) the installation of freely accessible art at the site; 2) the installation of freely accessible art within one -quarter mile of the site; or 3) satisfaction of alternative compliance methods de scribed in the Ordinance, including, but not limited to, payment of an in- lieu fee contribution. The applicant shall provide proof of full payment of the in-lieu contribution and/or provide plans, for review and approval by the Planning Director, showing the installation or improvements required by the Ordinance prior to issuance of a building permit.

Proof of installation of artwork, or other alternative requirement, is required prior to the City’s issuance of a final certificate of occupancy for each phase of a project unless a separate, legal binding instrument is executed ensuring compliance within a timely manner subject to City approval.

When Required: Payment of in-lieu fees and/or plans showing fulfillment of public art requirement – Prior to Issuance of Building permit
Installation of art/cultural space – Prior to Issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building
PLN22189; 5315 College Avenue Page 18

Part 3: Project Specific Conditions of Approval

A. Two passenger loading areas in front of the parcel for the use of dropping off and pickup up students during peak hours.

B. A plan to stagger drop off times during morning peak hours to reduce congestion in front of the site.

C. An advertised carpool program to be included in literature for parent/guardians.

D. A crossing guard at the intersection of College and Bryant Avenues during peak hours to assist in street crossing and assure that drop off is not creating double parking on College Avenue.

E. A review and inspection by the Bureau of Planning and the Department of Transportation after six and twelve months of operation to assure the center is adhering to the transportation plan.

When Required: Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning/Department of Transportation Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

37. Window Details
Requirement: The applicant shall submit and have approved details of the windows, including cross sections. The plans shall show the windows having the same trim, sill, and recess, as the existing windows.

When Required: Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
Initial Approval: Bureau of Planning
Monitoring/Inspection: Bureau of Building

Applicant Statement

I have read and accept responsibility for the Conditions of Approval. I agree to abide by and conform to the Conditions of Approval, as well as to all provisions of the Oakland Planning Code and Oakland Municipal Code pertaining to the project.

__________________________________
Name of Project Applicant

__________________________________
Signature of Project Applicant

__________________________________
Date

This Appeal is Based on the Following Erroneous Determinations and Findings of City Staff

1. Non-Compliance with state laws and regulations, in violation of Paragraph 3 of Conditions of Approval. A childcare center of the character and size proposed is required to be licensed under California law, and meet regulations specified in Title 22 of the California Administrative Code.

The proposed childcare center cannot comply with the Cal. Code Regs. Title 22 Sections 101238.2 and 101238.3, which require that licensed childcare must have at least 35 square feet of indoor space and 75 square feet of outdoor activity per child, based on total licensed capacity. For 48 children, the total outdoor square footage required would be 3600, which covers nearly the entire square footage of the proposed property. a. In finding 2 under Section 17.134.050 – General Use Permit Criteria the city states “The development will have ample room at the site for playground space…” without citation to how ample outdoor space is determined. The City states there is ample playground space with no justification for doing so.

2. Environmental Determination – State code sections allowing for CEQA exemption do not apply to this project. An EIR must be performed to evaluate the environmental impacts of the project. a. Section 15301 allows for a CEQA exemption for minor alterations to existing facilities.

This project is not a minor alteration to an existing facility. Applicant’s design review shows that new construction will add 2,270 square feet to square footage of the buildings, which represents a 93.5% increase in usable square footage. In addition, the City acknowledges that the use of the facility will change significantly from a quiet office building to an active childcare facility. In addition to an entirely new floor, new square footage and insulation is being added to every floor of the buildings. The layout of the each of the floors will be converted from individual office use to a more open floor plan to accommodate children and staff. The proposal cannot be considered a minor alteration due to the significant changes in size, layout, and use of the buildings. b. Section 15183 allows a CEQA Exemption for Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning. However, the exemption specifically applies to projects “for which an EIR was certified that do not require additional environmental review.” Based on information presented, we have not received materials that would suggest that an EIR was certified for this project. This CEQA exemption seeks to avoid repetitive environmental reviews. However, no formal environmental review was conducted for major alternations and a novel use of a buildings in the neighborhood in which this project is located. An EIR is critical to understand the effects of the project on noise, traffic, and parking in the neighborhood.
c. Cal. Public Resources Code Section 21151(a) specifically requires an EIR when a proposed project “may have a significant effect on the environment.” Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc. v. Stanislaus County (1995) 33 Cal.App.4 th 144, 151 states that
where substantial evidence in the record supports a “fair argument” the project may have significant environmental effect, an EIR is required even if other substantial evidence indicates there will not be such an effect.
d. Cal. Code Regs Title 14 Section 15382 defines a “significant effect” under CEQA as “a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project,” which includes a project’s effects on… ambient noise.

3. The City cites Oakland Planning Code Section 17.33.030 to support building use for Limited Child Care Activity.
a. Oakland Planning Code Section 17.10.150 specifically notes that Limited Child-Care Civic Activities includes the provision of day-care services for fourteen (14) or fewer children… When the project was originally presented, childcare was to be offered to six children in the home. The project has now greatly exceeded what is actually permitted in the CN-1 Zone.
b. CN-1 Zone permits Limited Child-Care Activities, with the caveat that the activities are only permitted upon the granting of a Conditional Use Permit when located on the ground floor of a street fronting.

4. City staff notes that in accordance with Section 17.134.050, the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development will be compatible with and not adversely affect the livability or the appropriate development of abutting properties and the surrounding neighborhood, with consideration to be given to… the harmful effect, if any upon the desirable neighborhood character; to the generation of traffic and the capacity of surrounding streets; and to other relevant impacts of development. a. A childcare center serving 48 children will present a major disruption to existing neighboring uses, which includes the tenancy of approximately 40 psychotherapists who have offered mental health services for decades from the abutting buildings. These professionals offer an essential service to the community, and require a calm, controlled, and quiet environment for their clients.
b. The traffic analysis has not been made available to us, and we reserve the right to review and comment on such a study. The proposed project seeks to serve 48 children, without offering any staff parking and only two pick-up and drop-off street parking spaces. During rush hour when caregivers need to drop off their children, it is unlikely that there will not be issues of congestion, illegal parking, and danger to children who must cross the street to get to school. The proposed crossing guard is being asked simultaneously to direct traffic, prevent illegal parking, and escort children across a very busy intersection.
c. The neighborhood is currently relatively quiet, filled with small commercial stores and office buildings. A noise and vibration study to determine the disturbance that will be generated by 48 children must be conducted, particularly in light of the long-standing use of psychotherapy offices in the buildings next door. There is insufficient evidence to show that the sound-rated partitions will be sufficient to keep noise at a manageable level, and the landscaping is unlikely to prevent the noise of children outside of the buildings. Findings of City staff do not appear to take into account the scale of the project.
d. The neighboring buildings currently hold an easement on the property for emergency egress, which will be negatively impacted by construction and the proposed change in elevation of the buildings. The project will interfere with the use of an existing and critical easement, and the applicant may threaten to attempt to extinguish the easement again.

5. Per Section 17.33.030 for Additional CUP Criteria for the CN-1 Zone, City staff notes that the proposed project will not detract from the character desired for the area. a. Here, City staff specifically note the significant change in the character of the buildings use, from its inception as a home to its recent use as a relatively quiet office buildings.

City staff notes that the current proposal is economically favorable based on increased activity through a large childcare center, but does not sufficiently address the nuisance and negative externalities of such a project.

Proposed Daycare at 5315 College Avenue
Traffic Impact Study
In the
City of Oakland
Prepared by: Fuad Sweiss, PE
License No C45047 Exp. 3/31/2024
1630 San Pablo Ave, Oakland CA 94612
Date: 11/20/2023
Table of Contents

1. Project Description .................................................................................................... 1

2. Study Area Description ............................................................................................. 1

3. Transportation Analysis ............................................................................................ 2

4. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysis ............................................. 7

5. Conclusion and Findings ........................................................................................... 9

Figures

Figure 1 - Site Location and Study Area (Source: Google Earth) ................................ ............... 2 Figure 2 - Site Connectivity to Public Transit (Source: Google Earth) ................................ ......... 5 Figure 3 - On-Street Parking Spots Adjacent to the Site (Source: Google Earth) ....................... 6 Figure 4 - Proposed Green Parking Spots ................................ ................................ .................. 7

Tables

Table 1 - ITE Trip Generation-Weekday Peak Hour of Generator – Proposed Land Use ........... 3 Table 2 - Default City of Oakland Multimodal Trip Generation Adjustment Factors .................... 3 Table 3 - Application of Mode Split Adjustment Factors ................................ ............................. 4 Table 4 - VMT Screening Analysis Results ................................ ................................ ................ 9

List of Appendix

Appendix A - Project Plans and Layouts
Appendix B - Scope of Work
Appendix C - ITE Trip Generation Output

1 | P a g e

1. Project Description
The existing site is a single parcel with identification as Alameda County Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 014-1249-011-03, with an approximate lot area of 3,734 sq. ft., an approximate Gross Floor Area (GFA) of 2429 sq. ft., and zoning type of Neighborhood Commercial as CN-11.

The existing structure has two levels: a ground floor and a basement. The existing site was in service as a law office.

The new owner is proposing to convert the existing building from an office to a daycare facility.

The proposed structure will maintain the basement, the first floor, and adds a second floor with a total area of 4,699 sq. ft. that includes Children Care Area of 1,029 sq. ft., and1,030 sq. ft. on the 1st and 2nd floors respectively. The proposed basement will mainly be used for storage and staff meeting space. The Gross Floor Area (GFA) for the proposed 1st and 2nd floors is 3050 sq. ft.

There is no off-street parking in the existing site and proposed improvement and there are no net changes to the on-street parking. The proposed improvement will not alter the public right- of-way such as sidewalk width, direction, or channelization of travel lanes. The project plans in Appendix A provide all the information including site plan, quantities, dimensions, and access to the site.

This report follows the scope of work that was approved by the City of Oakland and the City’s Transportation Impact Review Guidelines (TIRG). A copy of the scope of work is provided in Appendix B.

2. Study Area Description
The proposed daycare site is located at 5315 College Avenue, in Oakland, CA, 94618. As shown in Figure 1, the property is located adjacent to the unsignalized intersection of College Avenue and Bryant Avenue. The STOP sign on Bryant Avenue requires all vehicles to stop at the intersection before turning onto College Avenue. A pedestrian crosswalk is provided on the North and East side of the intersection.

College Avenue is a North-South road that runs from Broadway in Oakland through Rockridge and ends at the City of Berkeley. In the study area, College Avenue is a two-lane road with a posted speed of 25 miles per hour including dedicated bike lanes, sidewalks, and on-street paid parking in both directions. Adjacent to the road are mainly one- to three-story commercial buildings and restaurants, including residential units on the upper floors.

Bryant Avenue is a local residential two-lane road with an advisory speed of 15 miles per hour that connects College Avenue to a residential neighborhood. Sidewalks and on-street parking are provided in both directions on Bryant Avenue. Three speed bumps have been implemented along Bryant Avenue as traffic calming devices. The closest one is located within 200 ft of the intersection of College Avenue and Bryant Avenue.

A bike-share facility with 17 docking stations is located on the northeast side of the intersection on College Avenue, right across the project site. Rockridge Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

1 http://gisapps1.mapoakland.com/planmap/planmap.html?apn=014%20124901103

2 | P a g e

station is located at College Avenue and State Route 24 (SR-24), 0.42 miles north of the site.

There are a few bus stops in the study area within a 600 feet distance.

Figure 1 - Site Location and Study Area (Source: Google Earth)

3. Transportation Analysis
This section includes a Trip Generation analysis that estimates the number of trips generated by the proposed daycare and provides a multi-modal trip distribution based on the existing transportation network.

Also, this section includes a proposed Pick-up and Drop-off plan to demonstrate the number of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles arriving and departing the daycare during peak hour time. If required, the plan will provide mitigation to minimize any adverse impact on the capacity of the existing traffic network circulation on College Avenue. This plan is different from the Trip Generation and is meant to provide more insight on how the parents will pick up and drop off their kids using different type of transportation modes.

3.1. Trip Generation
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) produces a document entitled Trip Generation (11th Edition), which is used to predict the number of trips associated with the proposed development. The ITE is an internationally recognized organization that has compiled numerous trip-generation studies to determine trip rates associated with various types of developments including retail, residential, recreational, institutional, industrial and office uses. ITE trip generation rates were utilized to estimate the number of peak-hour trips that would be

3 | P a g e
generated by each future project. Table 1 summarizes the trip generation by the proposed development. The total GFA for the proposed 1st and 2nd floors is 3,050 sq. ft.

It is noteworthy that ITE Trip Generation assumes that all travel occurs using personal vehicles.

Table 1 - ITE Trip Generation-Weekday Peak Hour of Generator – Proposed Land Use Land Use Units*
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
In Out Total In Out Total
Day Care Centre (ITE #565) 3.05* 19 17 36 17 19 36
*Multiply by 1000 sq. ft. GFA.

Table 1 states that the proposed daycare will generate 36 vehicles before any adjustments during either of the peak hours. The ITE Trip Generation outputs are provided in Appendix C.

3.1.1. Modal Split and Internal Capture Adjustments
As stated in the City of Oakland’s TIRG, ITE Trip Generation overestimates motor vehicle trips when applied to urban environments such as many Oakland neighborhoods that have dense setups. To adjust for the ITE overestimates, the City of Oakland has developed mode split adjustment factors for ITE trip generation rates. This adjustment accommodates other modes of trips and available facilities such as accessible public transit, existing bike lanes, and bike- sharing stations, as well as internal trips by walking. The criteria are based on distance from the subway station or/and density. Table 2 shows the default adjustment factors from TIRG.

Table 2 - Default City of Oakland Multimodal Trip Generation Adjustment Factors Table 3 provides the adjusted trips based on the default factors in Table 2, considering the fact that Rockridge BART station is within 0.5 miles distance from the proposed development.

4 | P a g e

Table 3 - Application of Mode Split Adjustment Factors
Distance from
Bart/Amtrak
<0.5
miles
>0.5 miles, &
<1.0 miles
> 1.0 miles
Land Use Type (Density) - - Urban
(>10,000)
Dense Suburban
(6,000 -10,000)
Suburban
(<6,000)
Motor Vehicle Trips 36 - - - -
Transit - - - - -
Bike - - - - -
Walk - - - - -

3.1.2. Public Transit Accessibility
Public transit is one of the most frequently used modes of transportation in urbanized areas such as the City of Oakland. There are four stops within a 650 feet radius of the proposed daycare. Two of the bus stops are located on the north side of the site at the intersection of College Avenue and Manila Avenue. The other two bus stops are located on the south side of the proposed daycare at the intersection of College Avenue and Broadway. The bus stops in the northbound direction serve bus routes 51A, 605, and 851 while the bus stops in the southbound direction serve routes 51A and 851.

Rockridge BART station at College Avenue and SR-24 is the closest subway station with 0.42 miles distance from the site. Also, the public bike-sharing station across the site is very convenient and accessible to the proposed development. Figure 2 exhibits the connectivity between the proposed daycare and the existing transit system on College Avenue.

5 | P a g e

Figure 2 - Site Connectivity to Public Transit (Source: Google Earth)

3.1.3. Parking Availability
No off-street parking space is provided for the property. There are three on-street parking in front of the site including one disabled parking and two paid parking. In addition, there are paid parking spaces available on both sides of College Avenue.

Figure 3 exhibits the location of the existing on-street parking adjacent to the proposed daycare.

6 | P a g e

Figure 3 - On-Street Parking Spots Adjacent to the Site (Source: Google Earth)

3.2. Drop-off and Pick-up Plan
Reviewing a similar facility that is run by the owner of this development indicates that the proposed development’s drop-offs and pick-ups occur during a two-hour period. It means that parents have the flexibility of dropping off or picking up their kids during a two-hour span. This flexibility makes the arriving or departing traffic to/from the daycare scattered into a two-hour window and generates less traffic during the peak hours. A data survey by the owner at a similar facility confirms that 75% percent of parents arrive between 8 AM to 9 AM while the rest arrive from 9 AM to 10 AM. Similarly, 35% of parents pick up their children between 4 PM to 5 PM while the rest pick up their children from 5 PM to 6 PM.

The availability of on-street parking spots on both sides of College Avenue and Bryant Avenue provides enough space for the parents to park and pick up or drop off their kids without blocking the road or impacting traffic circulation in the study area. A quick survey confirms more than 20 on-street parking are available in the immediate block area. To facilitate pick-ups and drop-offs, we are proposing the following options:
• converting the existing two parking spots in front of the daycare into short-term green curb parking zones with a 10-minute parking sign.
• establishing a carpool system service for the children's drop-offs/pick-ups and encouraging parents to use it.
• there will be staff to assist with drop-off/pick-up circulation during the morning and afternoon peak hours.

The proposed daycare is very accessible to public transit, a bike-sharing station, and a pedestrian crossing that facilitates trips to/from the proposed daycare safely without any degradation to the traffic network. Figure 4 exhibits the two green parking spots.

7 | P a g e

Figure 4 - Proposed Green Parking Spots

4. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Analysis The City of Oakland’s TIRG requires an evaluation of potential impacts related to Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) criteria in CEQA transportation studies of proposed land use development projects. TIRG also ensures that potentially significant impacts are studied according to the City’s recognized thresholds of significance. The following section includes the City’s thresholds of significance, methodology, and results of the VMT screening assessment and project-specific analysis.

4.1. CEQA Significance Criteria
The following are CEQA significance criteria established by the City of Oakland as described in the TIRG. A land use project would have a significant effect on the environment if it would:
• Conflict with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the safety or performance of the circulation system, including transit, roadways, bicycle lanes, and pedestrian paths (except for automobile level of service or other measures of vehicle delay); or • Cause substantial additional VMT per capita, per service population, or other appropriate efficiency measure; or
• Substantially induces additional automobile travel by increasing physical roadway capacity in congested areas (i.e., by adding new mixed-flow lanes) or by adding new roadways to the network.

8 | P a g e

4.2. Thresholds of Significance
As described in the TIRG, the following are thresholds of significance related to substantial additional VMT:
• For residential projects, a project will cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds existing regional household VMT per capita minus 15 percent. • For office projects, a project will cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds the existing regional VMT per employee minus 15 percent.
• For retail projects, a project will cause substantial additional VMT if it exceeds the existing regional VMT per employee minus 15 percent.

4.3. Consistency with Plans
As mentioned in TIRG, the City of Oakland‘s adopted Plans and Policies shape the basis for transportation studies. These plans and policies are consulted as part of this report in order to evaluate applied principles and efforts to alleviate environmental effects if needed. This section also includes the justification behind the conclusion that the proposed improvement will not conflict with any plans and policies.
• City of Oakland General Plan - Land Use and Transportation Element (1998): The proposed improvement utilizing the existing site and converting it to a daycare is consistent with the intent of the land use designation in the LUTE. • City of Oakland General Plan - Bicycle Master Plan (2019): The proposed improvement would be consistent with the Bicycle Master Plan (BMP) and would not conflict with any of the bike facilities in the BMP.
• City of Oakland General Plan - Pedestrian Master Plan (2017): The proposed improvement would be consistent with the Pedestrian Master Plan as it would maintain the existing pedestrian facilitate to access the development. • City of Oakland General Plan - Transit First Policy (1996): The proposed improvement is consistent with the Transit First Policy because it is within a half-mile from Rockridge BART station and close to transit corridors on College Avenue. • City of Oakland General Plan - Scenic Highways (1974): The Scenic Highways Element requires the conservation and enhancement of attractive roadways and major streets going through the City. The proposed improvement is not adjacent to roads that are considered part of the existing or future scenic route network. • Central and East Oakland Community-Based Transportation Plan (2007): The proposed improvement has no conflict with the plan.
• Oakland Department of Transportation Strategic Plan (2016): The Oakland Department of Transportation released a strategic plan in 2016 to emphasize project and operational ranking and strategy of the Oakland Department of Transportation.

The improvement does not conflict with the strategies presented in the strategic plan. • Americans with Disabilities Act Policy: The proposed daycare will provide access ramps following the ADA standards and will not conflict with the City’s ADA policy. • Complete Streets Policy: The City of Oakland's Complete Streets Policy requires that Oakland streets provide safe and convenient travel options for all users. There is no off-site improvement that conflicts with the City’s Complete Streets Policy. 9 | P a g e

4.4. Vehicle Miles Travelled Analysis
The VMT screening criteria are provided in TIRG. If the project meets any of the three screening criteria, it will be “screened out” meaning VMT impacts for the project are less-than-significant, thus a detailed VMT analysis is not required.

The VMT screening assessment determined that the proposed improvement meets at least one of the criteria. Thus, the project is exempt from a detailed CEQA analysis because the proposed daycare is considered to cause a less-than-significant impact on the traffic network. Table 4 provides the VMT screening assessment.

Table 4 - VMT Screening Analysis Results
Screening Criteria Description Meet Criteria?
Near Transit Station Site is located within 0.5 miles of a major transit station YES Small project Site generates less than 100 daily vehicle trips - Low-VMT Area Site is located within a low-VMT area -

5. Conclusion and Findings
The following results are concluded from the Transportation Impact Study:
• The estimated number of trips were generated from ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, and utilizing the City’s TIRG mode share adjustment. The proposed daycare would generate 72 daily vehicle trips, including 36 trips during AM and PM peak hours. • The proposed daycare is located within 0.5 miles of Rockridge BART station and close to bus stops.
• The proposed daycare would result in a less-than-significant CEQA transportation impact.

As a result, it concludes that the proposed daycare will not have any adverse impact on the existing traffic network.

APPENDIX A

Project Plans and Layouts

SECTIONSECT.

JT.JAN.INT.INSUL.I.D.

JANITORJOINT

INTERIORINSULATIONINSIDE DIAMETER
WSCT.W/OWD.W.C.

VEST.VERT.U.O.N.UNF.TYP.T.O.W.T.V.T.P.D.T.P.THK.T.&G.TER.TEL.T.C.T.B.TRD.

SYM.SUSP.STRL.STOR.STL.STD.STA.S.SK.S.STSPEC.S.N.R.S.N.D.SIM.SHT.SHR.

GYP.

HGT.

HR.HORIZ.H.M.HDWE.HDWD.HDR.H.C.H.B.

GR.GND.GL.G.B.GALV.GA.FUT.FURR.FTG.FT.

GYPSUM

HORIZONTALHOLLOW METALHARDWAREHARDWOODHEIGHT
HOUR

HANDRAILHOLLOW COREHOSE BIB
WT.WP.

W/W.

GRAB BARGALVANIZED

GRADEGROUNDGLASS
GAUGE

FOOTINGFOOT OR FEET

FUTUREFURRING
UR.

FL. FLOOR
FDN.

FLASH.

F.S.FPRF.F.O.S.F.O.F.F.O.C.FLOUR.

FIN.F.H.C.F.E.C.F.E.

EXT.

F.D. F.B. F.A.

EXP.EXPO.EXIST.E.W.C.EQPT.EQ.

FOUNDATION

FIRE HOSE CABINETFIRE EXTINGUISHER CABINETFIRE EXTINGUISHER

FACE OF CONCRETEFLASHING

FULL SIZEFIREPROOFFACE OF STUDFACE OF FINISHFLUORESCENT FINISH

ELECTRIC WATER COOLER

EXTERIOR

FLOOR DRAINFLAT BARFIRE ALARM

EXPANSIONEXPOSEDEXISTINGEQUIPMENTEQUAL
SQ.

SH.

WATERPROOF

WATER CLOSET

WEIGHTWAINSCOTWITHOUTWOODWITHWEST

UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED

TOP OF WALLTOILET PAPER DISPENSERTOP OF PAVEMENT

VESTIBULEVERTICALURINALUNFINISHEDTYPICALTELEVISION
THICK
STEEL

TONGUE & GROOVE

TOP OF CURB

SYMMETRICAL

TERRAZZOTELEPHONETOWEL BARTREAD

SUSPENDEDSTRUCTURALSTORAGE

SERVICE SINKSTAINLESS STEELSPECIFICATIONSANITARY NAPKIN RECEPTACLESANITARY NAPKIN DISPENSER

STANDARDSTATION
SQUARE

SIMILARSHEETSHOWERSHELF
N.

S.D.SCHED.S.C.D.S.C.

R.W.L.RWD.R.O.RM.RESIL.REQ.REINF.RGTR.REFR.REF.R.D.RAD.

Q.T.P.T.R.PTN.P.T.D./RP.T.D.

PLYWD.PLAS.P.LAM.PRCST.

OPP.OPNG.OFF.O.D.O.C.OBS.O.A.N.T.S.NOM.NO. or#N.I.C.

D.S.

EMERG.E.P. ENCL. ELEV.ELEC.EL. E.J.EA.E.DWG.D.S.P.

DIM.

DWR.DR.D.O.DN.DISP.DIA.DET.D.F.DEPT.DBL.

DOWNSPOUT

ELECTRICAL PANELBOARD

EXPANSION JOINT

ENCLOSUREEMERGENCYELEVATORELECTRICALELEVATION

DRAWINGDRY STANDPIPE

EACHEAST
S.

DRINKING FOUNTAIN

DIMENSION

DRAWERDOOR OPENINGDISPENSER

DOORDOWN

DIAMETER

DEPARTMENTDETAIL
DOUBLE
R.

CLKG.

CTR. CNTR.CTSK.CORR.CONT.CONST.CONN.CONC.COL.C.O.CLR.CLO.CLG.C.G.C.I.CER.CEM.C.B.

B.U.R.CAB.

BOT.BM.BLKG.

CAULKING

COUNTERCOUNTERSUNKCORRIDORCONTINUOUSCONSTRUCTION
CENTER

CONNECTIONCONCRETECASED OPENINGCOLUMNCLEARCLOSET
PT.PR.

PL.

CORNER GUARDCAST IRONCERAMICCATCH BASIN

CEILING
CEMENT

BUILT-UP ROOFINGCABINET

BLOCKINGBOTTOMBEAM

REQUIRED

SOAP DISPENSERSEAT COVER DISPENSER

RAIN WATER LEADERROUGH OPENING

SCHEDULESOLID CORESOUTH

REDWOODROOMSILENTREINFORCEMENTREFRIGERATOR

PAPER TOWEL RECEPTACLE

REGISTERREFERENCEROOF DRAINRADIUSRISERQUARRY TILE

PARTITION

OPERABLE

DISPENSER & RECEPTACLECOMBINATION PAPER TOWELPAPER TOWEL DISPENSER

PLASTIC LAMINATEPLASTER

POINTPAIRPLYWOOD

PLATEPRECAST

OUTSIDE DIAMETER

NOT-TO-SCALE

NOT-IN-CONTRACT

OPENINGOFFICEON CENTEROBSCUREOVERALL

NOMINALNUMBERNORTH
MDF
MUL.MTD.M.O.MISC.MIR.MIN.MH.MFR.MET.MEMB.MECH.M.C.MAX.

APPROX.

ACOUS.

BLK.BLDG.BITUM.BD.ASPH.ASB.ARCH.AL.AGGR. ADJ.A.D.(E)# Ø

ACOUSTICAL

BUILDINGBITUMINOUSASPHALTASBESTOS
BLOCK
BOARD

ADJUSTABLEAREA DRAIN

ARCHITECTURALAPPROXIMATELYALUMINUMAGGREGATE
POUND OR NUMBEREXISTINGDIAMETERLT.

MEDIUM DENSITY FIBERBOARD

MASONRY OPENINGMISCELLANEOUS

MANUFACTURERMINIMUM

MULLIONMOUNTED

MIRRORMANHOLEMETALMEMBRANEMECHANICALMEDICINE CABINETMAXIMUMLIGHT

EXISTING CONTOURS

TOP OF PAVEMENTTOP OF CURB

TOP OF WALLNEW FINISH GRADEEXISTING GRADESPOT ELEVATIONS T.P. 723
685
T.C. 722
T.W. 721720685

NEW OR FINISHED CONTOURSPROPERTY LINEROOM NUMBERROOM NAMEROOM IDENTIFICATION

PLAN INDICATION OF ELEVATION DRAWN

LOCATION WHERE CUT

SECTION IDENTIFICATIONSHEET WHERE DRAWN

SHEET WHERE DRAWNSECTION IDENTIFICATION

INTERIOR ELEVATION
DETAIL

SECTIONWORK POINT

MATCH LINE

KITCHEN EQUIPMENT NUMBER

PARTITION TYPE
BEDROOM102
720
NW
SA2.12
A3.14
E
A2.1A
1 WINDOW NUMBER

DOOR NUMBER

GRID LINES

NUMBERS VERTICAL
3 10
1GENERAL NOTESABBREVIATIONSLEGEND SYMBOLS

EXISTING & PROPOSED SECTIONS

COVER SHEET, ABBREVIATIONS, LEGEND, SYMBOLS, DRAWING LIST

DRAWING LIST
G1.0
KIT.KITCHEN
A1.3A1.1
A3.1

CIVIL DRAWINGS

GENERAL DRAWINGS

ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
BRICK

MORTARPLASTER
METAL
EARTH

SANDSTONE

DEMOLISHED WALLSNEW WALLS

EXISTING WALLS

ROCK FILL

WOOD FINISH

WOOD FRAMINGWOOD FRAMING

TERRAZZO

METAL LATH

PLYWOOD

INSULATION BOARDINSULATION BATTGYPSUM BOARD

CONCRETE BLOCKCONCRETECERAMIC TILE

BITUMINOUS CONCRETE

CONSULTANT DIRECTORY

PROJECT INFORMATION
= DRAWINGS IN THIS SUBMITTAL

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

PARCEL MAP
EXISTING SITE PLANC0.1SITE DEMO PLANC0.2

OPERATION CODES

SCOPE OF WORK

A1.0NEW BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
BAY FRIENDLY LANDSCAPING L1.3
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203 PHOTOS
G1.1
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

CALIFORNIAGREENBUILDINGSTANDARDCODES
C1.2
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

CALIFORNIAGREENBUILDINGSTANDARDCODES
C1.3
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

CALIFORNIAGREENBUILDINGSTANDARDCODES
C1.4
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

CALIFORNIAGREENBUILDINGSTANDARDCODES
G1.5

CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

CIVILSURVEY
C0.0

NORTHNORTH
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

EXISTINGSITEPLAN
C0.11PROPOSED SITE PLAN SCALE 3/16" = 1'-0"
(E) FENCE 4' ABOVECONCRETE WALKWAY
NORTH
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

D10D11
D11
D1 D2
D3
D9
D4
D5
D6
D7
D7
D7D7
D8
D10
D12
D12

COLLEGE AVE
48"1,22M
7"
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

NORTHNORTH
1 1
1 1
12"
1"
3"
2"
2"
11 1/2"
11 1/2"
61"
41 1/2"
42"
11"
11 1/2"12"13" 12 1/2"
5 3
2 2
4 5
9 TO STREEFRONT WALKWAYPARKINGAREA

UTILITYACCESSREAR WALKWAYAREA
1 1
22 22
HVAC1

BASEMENTSTAIRS
279.8031 SQFT
144.8096 SQFT116.1934 SQFT

DECK AREA& STAIRS

DECKSTAIRS
195.8564 SQFT
ENTRYAREA& STAIRS83.1374 SQFT
LARGEYARD1336.5767 SQFT

5.5925 SQFT
SMALLYARD446.5166 SQFT
BUILDING1021.5840 SQFT

10.0801 SQFT
3 6
8 7
10 11

77.9054 SQFT
3 EXISTINGLANDSCAPINGPLAN
L1.11EXISTING LANDSCAPING PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 1RED TIP PHOTINIAMOLLOWSCREEPING LANTANAOSMANTHUS FRAGRANSKATOROSEARTIFICIAL TURFCONCRETE WALKWAYS 23456

SYMBOL LEGEND
2PLANT TYPELANDSCAPE NOTESMATERIAL TYPES
1 1

MATERIAL TYPE
1GRASSCONCRETEWOOD23
91011
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

COLLEGE AVE
48"1,22M
7"

NEWLANDSCAPINGPLAN
L1.21NEW LANDSCAPING PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"
N
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

SITE COVERAGE
1225.3% LARGE YARD7.5% ENTRY #241% BUILDING1.3% ENTRY #334

PLANTING LEGEND
S218

17.3% SMALL YARD3.3% ENTRY #1 & STAIRS1.4% STREET FRONT WALKWAY 567

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

BAYFRIENDLYLANDSCAPING& PLANT LIST
L1.3
UP7:11
UP7:11

STORAGE TEACHERS'ROOM OFFICEROOM

DIRECTOR'SOFFICE

D
W
L
48"x30"
48"x30"54"x60"
60" DIAMETER
60"x60" BATHROOMROOM
STOR.

STOR.STORAGE
610 SF 209 SF
64 SF
4 SF
248 SF
143 SF
88 SF 10 SF
35 SF

VESTIBULE
93 SFSTAIR #2
PATIO
STAIR #1
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

PROPOSEDBASEMENTFLOORPLAN
A1.0SCHEDULES
1PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 1,649 SQ.FT.

UP7:11
DN 7:11

LIFTTEACHERS'ROOM
DN7:11
DN7:11
60" DIA.

CHILDREN
STAFF
1,029 SF51 SF
34 SF
153 SF
145 SF
STAIR #1
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203 PROPOSED1ST FLOORPLAN
A1.1SCHEDULES
1PROPOSED 1ST FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 1,525 SQ.FT.

FLOOR PLAN NOTESSTAFF TOILET W/ 1.28 GPF CAPACITY. CONNECT TO SEWER ANDSUM PUMP. SEE SITE PLAN AND PLUMBING PLAN.PROVIDE MECHANICAL VENTILATION THIS ROOM CAPABLE OFPROVIDING FIVE AIR CHANGES PER HOUR - REFER TO ELECTRICALDRAWINGS.NEW WOOD STAIRWAY AND PORCH W/ 42" HIGH GUARDRAIL AND 34"HIGH HADRAILS.EXTERIOR ELECTRIC ACCESSIBLE LIFT FROM BASEMENT TO FIRSTFLOOR.CONCRETE STAIR TO GRADE - SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.LANDINGS AT EXIT DOORS W/ THRESHOLD ARE FLUSH WITH FLOOR.30" SPACE FOR REFERIGERATOR BASE CABINETS (ACCESSIBLE);NEW TACTILE ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE ON OUTSIDE OF DOOR ANDADJACENT TO STRIKE EDGE OF DOOR.CHILD SIZE TOILET BY "AMERICAN STANDARD MODEL #-BABYDEVORO WITH WHITE COLOR.WALL HUNG SINK BY "AMERICAN STANDARD MODEL #-LUCERN (ORAPPROVED EQUAL) WITH WHITE COLOR". WRAP PIPES BELOW WITHPRE-MANUFACTURED TRAP/ PIPE WRAP PROFILE INSULATION.PROVIDE FAUCET-SINGLE LEVER CONTROL BY "DELTA" (MODEL#544WFMPU-OR APPROVED EQUAL)MOPSINK W/ BUCKET HANGER BY "FLORESTONE" (MODEL#MSA-2424 24"X24") OR APPROVED EQUAL."TO EXIT" SIGN W/ TACTILE AS PER CBC-2016 SECTION 1013.4 &11B-703.1; & ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED PER CBC-2016 SECTION1013.2, SEE SHEET ME1.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION OF SIGNS"EXIT ROUTE" SIGN W/ TACTILE AS PER CBC-2016 SECTION 1013.4 &11B-703.1; ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED PER CBC-2016 SECTION1013.2, SEE SHEET ME1.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION OF SIGNSACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANT BASE CABINET NON-ABSORBANT FLOORFINISH IN BATHROOM AND EXTENDING 6" HIGH AT FLOOR AND WALLINTERSECTION WITH SAME MATERIAL AS FLOOR & WAINSCOTT TO AMIN. HEIGHT OF 48" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR; (IN COMPLIANCE W/CBC-2016 SECTIONS 1210.2.1 & 1210.2.2)INSTALL PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AS REQUIRED PERCBC-2016 SECTION 906.3 (SEE SHEET E1 ALSO)EGRESS PATH OF TRAVEL FROM CLASSROOMS TO PUBLIC RIGHTOF WAY & ACCESSIBLE ROUTE DRINKING FOUNTAIN TO BEINSTALLED PER COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 11B-602 & 11B-307 OFCBC-2016.KNEE CLEARANCE SHALL BE PER FIGURE 11B-306.3 OF CBC-2016.SPOUT HEIGHT SHALL BE 36" AFF (SECTION 11B-602.4). SPOUTLOCATION SHALL BE LOCATED 15" MINIMUM FROM VERTICALSUPPORT & 5" MAX. FROM THE FRONT EDGE OF THE UNIT (SECTION11B-602.5).1-HOUR RATED STAIRWAY WALL WITH HORIZONTAL WOOD SIDINGTO MATCH EXISTING O/ 5/8" TYPE "X" GYP. SHEATHING O/ 1/2" CDXPLYWOOD EACH SIDE.BALCONY WITH 42" HIGH WOOD GUARD RAILING.RETAINING WALL BELOW.OPEN TO BELOW. 192021
3A2.2 1A2.2
4A2.2
AA2.3
AA2.3
BA2.3
BA2.3
DN7:11
DN7:11

CHILDCARE AREA

CHILDREN
STAIR #2
STAIR #1
51 SF 1,030 SF / 35 = 29 CHILDREN
34 SF
153 SF
145 SF
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

PROPOSEDSECONDFLOORPLAN
A1.2SCHEDULES
1PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0" 1,525 SQ.FT.

FLOOR PLAN NOTESSTAFF TOILET W/ 1.28 GPF CAPACITY. CONNECT TO SEWER ANDSUM PUMP. SEE SITE PLAN AND PLUMBING PLAN.PROVIDE MECHANICAL VENTILATION THIS ROOM CAPABLE OFPROVIDING FIVE AIR CHANGES PER HOUR - REFER TO ELECTRICALDRAWINGS.ELECTRIC TANKLESS WATER HEATER ON EXTERIOR WALL -PROVIDE SEISMIC STRAPS AT POINTS WITHIN THE UPPER ANDLOWER ONE-THIRD OF ITS VERTICAL DIMENSION. THE LOWERANCHOR / STRAP LOCATED TO MAINTAIN A DISTANCE OF 4 INCHESABOVE THE CONTROLS AND INSULATION PER TITLE-24 ENERGYCALCS. - PROVIDE PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE WITH 1/2" COPPERDRAIN TO OUTSIDE. (PRIDE WATER HEATER VENT THROUGH ROOF)& 12"x12" LOUVER T&B.ELECTRIC HEAT PUMP UNIT ON 18" HIGH PLATFORM- PROVIDELIGHT, SWITCH, 110V RECEPTACLE PER CMC SEC 319. PROVIDE 26GA. SHT. MET. FOR ALL DUCT PENETRATIONS OF WALLS ORCEILINGNOT USED.4" CONCRETE SLAB @ PATIO - SEE CIVIL DRAWINGS.PROVIDE LANDING AT EXIT DOORS W/ THRESHOLD.4" CONCRETE WALKWAY (MAXIMUM SLOPE 1:20). SEE SITE PLAN .50-GALLON WH ON 18" HIGH PLATFORM. W/ SEISMIC RESTRAINT.30" SPACE FOR REFERIGERATOR BASE CABINETS (ACCESSIBLE);NEW TACTILE ACCESSIBLE SIGNAGE ON OUTSIDE OF DOOR ANDADJACENT TO STRIKE EDGE OF DOOR.CHILD SIZE TOILET BY "AMERICAN STANDARD MODEL #-BABYDEVORO WITH WHITE COLOR.WALL HUNG SINK BY "AMERICAN STANDARD MODEL #-LUCERN (ORAPPROVED EQUAL) WITH WHITE COLOR". WRAP PIPES BELOW WITHPRE-MANUFACTURED TRAP/ PIPE WRAP PROFILE INSULATION.PROVIDE FAUCET-SINGLE LEVER CONTROL BY "DELTA" (MODEL#544WFMPU-OR APPROVED EQUAL)MOPSINK W/ BUCKET HANGER BY "FLORESTONE" (MODEL#MSA-2424 24"X24") OR APPROVED EQUAL."TO EXIT" SIGN W/ TACTILE AS PER CBC-2016 SECTION 1013.4 &11B-703.1; & ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED PER CBC-2016 SECTION1013.2, SEE SHEET ME1.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION OF SIGNS"EXIT ROUTE" SIGN W/ TACTILE AS PER CBC-2016 SECTION 1013.4 &11B-703.1; ILLUMINATED AS REQUIRED PER CBC-2016 SECTION1013.2, SEE SHEET ME1.1 FOR EXACT LOCATION OF SIGNSACCESSIBILITY COMPLIANT BASE CABINET NON-ABSORBANT FLOORFINISH IN BATHROOM AND EXTENDING 6" HIGH AT FLOOR AND WALLINTERSECTION WITH SAME MATERIAL AS FLOOR & WAINSCOTT TO AMIN. HEIGHT OF 48" ABOVE FINISH FLOOR; (IN COMPLIANCE W/CBC-2016 SECTIONS 1210.2.1 & 1210.2.2)INSTALL PORTABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS AS REQUIRED PERCBC-2016 SECTION 906.3 (SEE SHEET E1 ALSO)EGRESS PATH OF TRAVEL FROM CLASSROOMS TO PUBLIC RIGHTOF WAY & ACCESSIBLE ROUTE DRINKING FOUNTAIN TO BEINSTALLED PER COMPLIANCE OF SECTION 11B-602 & 11B-307 OFCBC-2016.KNEE CLEARANCE SHALL BE PER FIGURE 11B-306.3 OF CBC-2016.SPOUT HEIGHT SHALL BE 36" AFF (SECTION 11B-602.4). SPOUTLOCATION SHALL BE LOCATED 15" MINIMUM FROM VERTICALSUPPORT & 5" MAX. FROM THE FRONT EDGE OF THE UNIT (SECTION11B-602.5). 2A2.2
3A2.2 1A2.2
4A2.2
NORTH
AA2.3
AA2.3
BA2.3
BA2.3
(E)SLOPED ROOF(P) EXTENTIONFLAT ROOF
12'-9"11'-1"11'-1" 64'-8"47'-3" 6'-4"23'-8" 10'-11"
46'-8"16'-2"14'-6" 30'-6"1'-8" 12'-10" 9'-9" 8'-0"
46'-8" 17'-9"8'-0"14'-5"14'-6" 9'-9"
12'-9"11'-1" 64'-8"47'-3" 6'-4"23'-8" 10'-11"
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

SLOPE 1/2"/FT. MIN.

SLOPE 1/2"/FT. MIN.
7 8
9 1011
12 13
3A2.2 1A2.2
4A2.2
AA2.3
AA2.3
BA2.3
BA2.3
(E) ORIGINAL BUILDING(E)EXTENTION AREA
(E) ORIGINAL BUILDING(E)EXTENTION AREA

PROPERTY LINE

PROPERTY LINE
126
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

PARAPET
PLATE
SECOND FL.PLATE
FIRST FL.PLATE
GRADE

BASEMENT

PARAPET
PLATE
SECOND FL.PLATE
FIRST FL.PLATE
GRADE

CLOSE TO(E)WOOD SIDING
10'-0"9'-6"3'-8" 2'-10"5'-10" 3'-6"3'-4"1'-0"1'-0" 34'-9" RIDGE
RIDGE

PARAPET
PLATE
SECOND FL.PLATE
FIRST FL.PLATE
GRADE

BASEMENT
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

EXISTINGNEW
EXISTING NEWEXISTINGNEWNEW 1
2 1
2 3444
-4'-2" (E)FLOOR LEVEL
+2'-10" (E)FLOOR LEVEL
-4'-2" (E)FLOOR LEVEL
+2'-10" (E)FLOOR LEVEL
(E) ORIGINAL BUILDING(E)EXTENTION AREA

SOUTH ELEVATION
10'-0"9'-6"4'-2" 2'-6"5'-4" 3'-3"3'-7"1'-0"1'-0" 35'-11" RIDGE
RIDGE

PARAPET
PLATE
SECOND FL.PLATE
FIRST FL.PLATE
GRADE
EAVE11"
+139.00'
+144.27'
+155.17'
35'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
10'-0"9'-6"4'-2" 2'-6"5'-4" 3'-3"3'-7"1'-0"1'-0" 35'-11" RIDGE
RIDGE

PARAPET
PLATE
SECOND FL.PLATE
FIRST FL.PLATE
GRADE

BASEMENT
EAVE11"
+139.00'
+144.27'
+155.17'
35'-0" HEIGHT LIMIT
CONSULTANT:

REVISIONSDATEAPN:

DATE: SHEET TITLE:

SHEET NO.
04/20/2023
0 STAMP:

ARCHITECTURAL
INTERIORS PLANNING509 RAMONA AVENUEALBANY, CA 94706510.517.8567

CONCEPTSARCHITECTURE
[email protected] TRAVERTINO STREETDUBLIN, CA 94566415.798.6203

PROPOSED& EXISTINGSECTIONPLAN
A3.1

A PROPOSED TRANSVERSE SECTION

C EXISTING TRANSVERSE SECTIOND EXISTING LONGITUDINAL SECTION

B PROPOSED LONGITUDINAL SECTION

ORIGINALBUILDINGDASHED

APPENDIX B

Scope of Work

Page | 1

SCOPE OF WORK
FOR THE PROPOSED DAYCARE DEVELOPMENT at
5315 COLLEGE AVENUE, OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA

Project Understanding

The existing site is a single parcel with identification as Alameda County Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 014-1249-011-03, with an approximate lot area of 3,734 sq. ft., an approximate building area of 987 sq. ft., and zoning type of Neighborhood Commercial as CN-11. The existing structure has two levels: a ground floor and a basement.

The owner is proposing to expand the existing building at 5315 College Avenue and convert its use from office to a daycare facility. The proposed structure will expand the basement and the first floors and add a second floor with a total area of 4,699 sq. ft. that includes Children Care Area of 1,029 sq. ft. and 1,030 sq. ft. on the 1st and 2nd floors respectively. There will be no off-street parking provided.

The scope of work statement provides the steps that consulting team will take to satisfy all the City’s requirements for the daycare development including a drop-off and pickup plan to propose mitigations (if needed) to prevent any negative impacts on the traffic flow at College Avenue. The scope of work is based on the City’s Transportation Impact Review Guidelines (TIRG).

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Approach

The CEQA Guidelines on Evaluating Transportation Impacts direct lead agencies to evaluate projects’ transportation impacts based on Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT).

The City of Oakland’s TIRG requires an evaluation of potential impacts related to VMT criteria in CEQA transportation studies of the proposed development. The purpose of this evaluation is to ensure that the potential impacts of the proposed development are captured in the transportation network.

A CEQA evaluation section will be provided that includes the City’s thresholds of significance, describes the methodology and results of the VMT screening assessment, and project-specific evaluation.

Trip Generation

The Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE] produces a document entitled Trip Generation report (10th Edition), which will be used to predict the number of trips associated with the new development.

ITE trip generation land use code number 565, Day Care Center rates will be utilized to estimate the number of peak-hour trips that would be generated by the proposed

1 http://gisapps1.mapoakland.com/planmap/planmap.html?apn=014%20124901103 Page | 2

development.

Pick-up & Drop-off Plan

The drop-off time will be between 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. and the pickup time will be between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m.

The traffic study will examine vehicular and pedestrian circulation around the site and parking options for drop-off/pick-up plans. The plans will present drop-off and pick-up options to improve overall traffic flow and reduce congestion if needed.

Proposed tasks

The traffic study will include the project description, study area description, and a trip generation letter that addresses all the TIRG requirements. The proposed study will document the following:

Task 1: Start-up
• Kick-off Meeting: To discuss the project requirements and the anticipated CEQA process and provide a schedule for the completion of the report. • Project Description: The project description will include all elements identified in the TIRG.
• Study Area Description: The report will provide a brief but complete description of existing transportation infrastructure and conditions in the vicinity of the project.

Task 2: VMT Screening Criteria
• There are three key screening criteria for land use development projects: small size, project location in a low-VMT area, and project location near transit stations.

We will evaluate screening criteria relevant to the site and conclude our understanding.

Task 3: CEQA Requirements Evaluation
• This task will describe the evaluation criteria for the CEQA requirements and present our understanding and assumptions.

Task 4: Trip Generation
• Trip Generation: The report will analyze the multi-modal trips generated by the project and calculate how many auto trips will be distributed through the transportation network and require parking to drop off and pick up children attending the daycare.
• Pickup and Drop-off Plan: The plan will be provided to demonstrate the number of vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles arriving and departing the daycare during peak times. The plan will provide mitigation to minimize any adverse impact on Page | 3

the capacity of the existing traffic network circulation on College Avenue.

Task 5: Parking and Transit Availability
• Parking availability: Study the number of available parking spaces and the demand for those spaces during peak hours.
• Public transit routes: Evaluate the routes taken by public transit to drop off and pick up to/from the daycare.

The CITY OF OAKLAND, APPLICANT, and CONSULTANT have agreed to and accepted the above Scope of Work.

CITY OF OAKLAND PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT

————————————————————————

———————————————————————— ————————————
Printed Name Signature Date

APPENDIX C

ITE Trip Generation Output

Trip Generation Summary
Open Date:

Analysis Date:
7/20/2023
7/20/2023Project: New Project
Alternative:

Alternative 1
Phase:

ITE Land Use Enter Exit Enter ExitEnter Exit TotalTotal Total *** Weekday AM Peak Hour of
Generator
Weekday PM Peak Hour of
Generator Weekday
565 DAYCARE 1

3.05 1000 Sq. Ft. GFA
19 17 36 17 19 36 73 72 145
Unadjusted Volume 19 17 36 17 19 36 73 72 145
Internal Capture Trips 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
19 17 36 17 19 36 73 72 145
Pass-By Trips
Volume Added to Adjacent Streets
Total Weekday AM Peak Hour of Generator Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday PM Peak Hour of Generator Internal Capture = 0 Percent Total Weekday Internal Capture = 0 Percent
P. 1TRIP GENERATION 11, TRAFFICWARE, LLC
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition - Custom rate used for selected time period.
*
Krause Acoustics 2635 Monte Vista Ave.

El Cerrito, CA 94530
Tel (510) 685-9987
[email protected]
To: City of Oakland
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza
Oakland CA 94612
Attn: Neil Gray, Senior Planner
Date: January 2, 2024
Re: Case PLN22189
5315 College Ave. Oakland
Preschool Play Yard Noise Study

1. Introduction
The proposed project is a preschool in a renovated residence. Adjacent property at 5295 College has three office buildings used by health practitioners around an off street parking lot, along with a retail shop and restaurants fronting on College Avenue. Figure 1 shows the project and identifies the buildings on the adjacent lot; both properties are zoned CN-l.

Figure 1 - Project Setting
The primary study objective is to assess the potential impact of project operations with respect to performance standards defined in Chapter 17.120 of the Oakland Planning Code.

A secondary objective is to describe the effect of project noise as perceived inside the adjacent buildings, to address the issue of potential noise intrusion into consultation offices.

The study is based on a sound level survey at the project site to classify existing traffic noise and a play yard noise survey at local preschool. The study uses sound path analysis of the proposed project arrangement to predict the emissions of a similar play yard operation located at the project site.

COLLEGE AVENUE5295NPARKING
5295529952975305530953035301
5313531553215324MANILA
5315 College

Page 2 ends

2. Noise Regulations
Allowable noise levels are defined in City of Oakland Planning Code Section 17.120.050 - Noise, which states as follows:
"All activities shall be so operated that the noise level inherently and regularly generated by these activities across real property lines shall not exceed the applicable values indicated in Subsection A., B., or C. as modified where applicable by the adjustments indicated in Subsection D. or E.

A. Residential Noise Standards ... (N/A)
B. Commercial Noise Level Standards. The maximum allowable noise levels received by any land use activity within any Commercial Zone area ... are described in Table 17.120.02
Table 17.120.02

MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RECEIVING NOISE LEVEL STANDARDS
Cumulative Minutes in Either
the Daytime or Nighttime Anytime
One Hour Time Period
` 20 65
10 70
5 75
1 80
0 85
C. Industrial Noise Standards ... (N/A)
D. In the event that the measured ambient noise level exceeds the applicable noise level standard in any category above, the stated applicable noise level shall be adjusted so as to equal the ambient noise level.

E. Each of the noise level standards specified above in Subsections A., B., and C. shall be reduced by (5) five dBA for a simple tone noise such as a whine, screech, or hum, noise consisting primarily of speech or music, or for recurring impulsive noise such as hammering or riveting.

F. Noise Measurement Procedures. Utilizing the "A" weighting scale of the sound level meter and "slow" meter response (use fast meter response for impulsive type sounds), the noise level shall be measured at a position or positions at any point on the receiver's property. In general, the microphone shall be located four (4) to five (5) feet above the ground; ten (10) feet or more from the nearest reflective surface, where possible. However, in those cases where another elevation is deemed appropriate, the latter shall be utilized."
(Subsection D implies that ambient noise level measurement is a necessary element of the assessment. Subsection E is assumed to be applicable since the noise is primarily speech.) 5315 College

Page 3 ends

3. Sound Level Measurement Method
Sound level data was obtained using SPL Graph acoustic analysis software by Studio Six Digital installed in smartphones. Data was sampled at one-second intervals to approximate "Slow" sound level meter response; the system used "A-weighted" frequency response.

Instruments were calibrated prior to use with a source traceable to national standards.

The SPL Graph system provides a time-stamped list of the individual data values. These were sorted after acquisition to find the statistical percentile values corresponding to Ln criteria used in the Planning Code. The convention in the following analysis is to use the average noise level L20 as a single descriptor for use in discussion.

One system logged sound levels continuously at a fixed station and saved the data at the end of each one-hour record. This system used a micW type I436 measurement microphone.

Short-term measurements were made at various other locations around the site using a similar analysis system and the smartphone internal mic. This roving system logged sound levels at one-second intervals and saved the data at the end of each record of length three to ﬁve minutes.

4. Site Noise Survey
Figure 2 shows measurement stations used for the site ambient noise survey. Fixed Stations A and B recorded long-term trends of traffic noise from College Avenue on different days.

Station A is the nominal location of the proposed play yard. Roving Stations 1 through 7 were used during one session for coincident short-term data to map traffic noise spatial pattern by using the correlations between roving stations and the fixed station.

Figure 2 - Site Noise Survey Stations
4123567BA
5315 College

Page 4 ends

The dominant noise source near the project, especially at the front of the building, is vehicle traffic on College Avenue immediately to the east of the site. Noise level is slightly lower at the rear of the project lot due to distance and partial screening by adjacent buildings. Traffic noise level is significantly lower at Station 3 due to near-complete screening by the project building.

This noise is highly variable in both loudness and character, depending on vehicle mix, speed and separation. The traffic flow is intermittent, as influenced by the timing of nearby traffic lights at the intersections with Broadway and Manila.

A secondary source of ambient noise, especially at the rear of the lot, is traffic on Interstate Route 24, an elevated eight-lane freeway with median rail line about 2000 feet to the Northwest of the site. This noise is essentially steady and broadband with only occasional discrete anomalous events; it is audible during lulls in the dominant College Avenue traffic, and it constitutes the residual sound level or noise floor in the project vicinity.

5. Site Survey Results
The first survey session consisted of continuous recording at Station A from 2 p.m. November 30 through 4 p.m. December 1. The microphone was on a mast outside a window at a distance of three feet from the building and eight feet above the ground.

Figure 3 is a typical hourly survey record; Figure 4 is a 5-minute detail of the full hour.

The detail shows a series of peaks as vehicles pass by, at a rate of about ten per minute; larger peaks are trucks or buses. The residual noise level is about 52 dB.

Figure 3 - Typical Hourly Survey Record
Figure 4 - Hourly Record Detail

5315 College

Page 5 ends

Table 1 lists values of Ln metrics found in analysis of data from five survey sessions at Stations A and B. The table also lists the overall averages of L20 - L0 values.

Table 1a - Site Noise Survey Station A
Date Time Station L20 L10 L05 L01 L0
11/30 2 - 7 p.m. A 55 56 57 60 70
12/01 7 - 11 a.m. A 54 56 58 62 78
12/01 12 - 4 p.m. A 53 55 56 60 71
Average 54 56 57 61 73
A second survey session consisted of continuous recording at Station B on December 8.

The microphone was positioned on a mast outside a window at a distance of two feet from the building and twelve feet above the ground. Portions of the data from 10:00 a.m. to Noon on 12/08 were omitted due to interference from another non-traffic noise source, such as nearby construction activity.

Table 1b - Site Noise Survey Station B
Date Time Station L20 L10 L05 L01 L0
12/08 8 - 10 a.m. B 55 58 60 68 73
12/08 12 - 5 p.m. B 54 56 57 62 80
Average 54 57 58 61 77
The value L20 = 54 dB is used as the basis for reference in the following discussions.

6. Traffic Noise Pattern
A short-term survey was used to assess the variance of traffic noise with respect to location around the property; results are Shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5 - Noise Pattern A roving sound level meter took short-term records at seven locations, with coincident data taken by the
continuous recorder. The roving and base data were
compared to find the difference in sound levels.

Highest sound levels are along the east side of the lot near the dominant source of traffic noise, College
Avenue.

Sound levels along the west side lot line are similar to the base stations except at the middle, where the house
provides significant shielding from the traffic sound path.

The west side of the house is slightly exposed to noise from Route 24, audible only during lulls in local traffic. 535152535454636162
5315 College

Page 6 ends

7. Play Yard Noise Survey
A series of sound level measurements was conducted from November 20 to December 5 at a facility similar to the project as shown in Figure 6. This is located at 1370 Marin Avenue in Albany, at the corner of Santa Fe Avenue. The lot has play yard areas at the side and rear of a two-story house, separated by a low fence.

Location C was used as the base station for continuous data recording and observation of yard activities; it has a direct view of both play yards, at a distance of about 30 feet from the center of each. Other stations along the yard perimeter were used for coincident short-term data to find the variance of play yard noise with location. Stations A and B were used for initial observations but were later dismissed due to excessive traffic noise.

Stations D thru G were used to observe the shielding effect of the school building on sound paths from the side yard to the rear yard.

Figure 6 - Play Yard Noise Survey Stations
Maximum enrollment of the school is 36, with typically 30 - 32 in attendance. The play yards are used for two sessions each day; the younger kids (3's) use the rear yard and the older kids (4's) use the side yard.

The morning session is split into two halves, with 3's in the rear yard from 10:30 to 11:15 and 4's in the side yard from 11:15 to 12:00.

The afternoon session is from 3:15 to 5:00, with the side yard used the entire time and the rear yard used part time.

SIDEYARDABCDEFGREAR YARDSANTA FE AVENUE

MARIN AVENUE
5315 College

Page 7 ends

8. Play Yard Survey Results
Figure 7 shows examples of data from play yard noise surveys.

Figure 7 - Typical Play Yard Noise 11/20/23
`
Table 2 lists values of Ln metrics found in analysis of data from four survey sessions on three days. These represent periods of maximum attendance, activity and noise.

The table also lists the overall averages of values for L20 - L01 and the overall maximum value for L0.

Table 2 - Play Yard Noise Survey Summary
Date Time L20 L10 L05 L01 L0 Kids
11/20 10-11a.m. 68 71 74 79 83 10- 14
11/20 4 - 5 p.m. 65 68 71 74 81 17 - 28
11/28 4 - 5 p.m. 65 69 71 77 82 11 - 27
12/05 4 - 5 p.m. 68 72 75 78 83 15 - 28
Average 67 70 73 77 83
Overall average value of L20 = 67 dB @ 30' is taken as the basis for the following analysis.

5315 College

Page 8 ends

9. Noise Prediction Method
Sound path analysis includes the effects of sound divergence with distance and diffraction around barriers. The sound level Divergence Attenuation term (Ad) between two points located at distances D1 and D2 from a source is calculated using the formula:

Ad = 10 log(D2 / D1), dB
This means that the sound level decreases by about 3 dB if the distance is doubled or increases by 3 dB if the distance is halved.

The barrier attenuation or Insertion Loss (IL) between two points is a function of the Fresnel Number (N), which is the difference (∆) between the length of the direct sound path and the length of the actual sound path around the barrier, compared to the Wavelength (W) of the sound.

N = 2 x ∆ / W
The IL value is determined using the following formula, derived from empirical studies by Maekawa et.al. Practical barrier IL values range from 5 dB to a maximum limit of about 20 dB.

IL = 10 log(3 + 20 N)

10. Noise Prediction Sound Paths
Figure 8 shows locations of sound paths around surrounding structures that act as sound barriers. Point A at the play yard center is 5' above the ground, as are Points B, C and D at the project lot line. Point E is at the third story of Building 5299. Points F, G and H are at the second story of Building 5297. Points I and D are along the only direct sound path from A. Point J is at the second story of Building 5305/5309/5313.

Figure 8 - Sound Path Locations
Barrier Insertion Loss
IL, dB
0 4
8 12
16 20
Fresnel Number
0 1 2 3 4
52995297530553095313AHJGFEIBCD
5315 College

Page 9 ends

11. Noise Prediction - Base Case
Figure 9 shows the barrier geometries used to find the difference ∆ between direct and indirect sound paths. Paths in the horizontal plane go around buildings; paths in the vertical plane go over buildings.

Figure 9 - Sound Path Geometries

BCDEFGH I

26.424.823.153.6A34.826.120.257.6AAAAAAA

35.6 19.850.268.8

20.537.836.592.3
108.123.522.364.6
133.2
120.6

34.8AJ40.796.226.1
AB36.67.925.0
AJ
C

46.618.834.3
A15.918.834.3
AE17.831.133.7

65.733.7AF75.733.8AG99.633.8A133.2 H107.6

91.7 94.9

57.6 53.6

65.8 31.35.497.0

HORIZONTALPLANEVERTICALPLANE
5315 College

Page 10 ends

Table 3 lists the barrier calculations used to predict sound levels using the method of Section 7, based on a source of 67 dB at 30' with wavelength of one foot (i.e., 1000 Hz). Insertion Loss values are limited to a maximum of 20 dB for high Fresnel numbers.

Table 3 - Barrier Calculations
Figure 10 shows the results of Base Case sound path predictions. Sound levels at most receiver locations are from 42 to 46 dB except at H, which has a sound path close to a barrier edge. Locations D and I are on direct sound paths and have sound levels in excess of the limit L20 = 60 dB allowed by the Planning Code.

Figure 10 - Predicted Play Yard Noise, Base Case
BARRIER CALCULATIONS: 67 dB @ 30', 1000 Hz
VERT. PLANEABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJ
DIRECT PATH53.657.635.668.892.3108.1133.2120.696.2
INDIRECT PATH74.381.1 70.194.8110.4133.7 101.6
PATH DIFFERENCE20.723.5 1.32.52.30.5 5.4
FRESNEL NUMBER41.447.0 2.65.04.61.0 10.8
INSERTION LOSS20.020.0 17.420.019.813.6 20.0
DISTANCE ATTEN.2.52.80.73.64.95.66.56.05.1
TOTAL ATTEN.22.522.80.721.024.925.320.16.025.1
SPL 444466464242476142
HORIZ. PLANEABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJ
DIRECT PATH53.657.635.665.891.7108.1133.2120.696.2
INDIRECT PATH69.569.0 82.699.4109.0133.4 99.7
PATH DIFFERENCE15.911.4 16.87.70.90.2 3.5
FRESNEL NUMBER31.822.8 33.615.41.80.4 7.0
INSERTION LOSS20.020.0 20.020.015.910.4 20.0
DISTANCE ATTEN.2.52.80.73.44.95.66.56.05.1
TOTAL ATTEN.22.522.80.723.424.921.516.96.025.1
SPL 444466444246506142
1 614444664642465042
5315 College

Page 11 ends

12. Noise Prediction - Alternate Case
A sound barrier wall could be used to block the direct sound path through the gap between buildings 5303 and 5315. This would be a vertical extension to the security fence between the play yard and the adjacent public access walkway.

Figure 11 - Sound Wall Location
Table 4 lists the results of a study to determine the effect of sound wall height. The direct sound paths to locations D, H and I were analyzed for barrier heights of 8 to 14 feet. The study shows that a height of 8' would reduce sound levels to about 52 dB. Figure 12 shows the results of Alternate Case sound path predictions with 8' barrier hight.

Table 4 - Sound Wall Height Study
Figure 12 - Predicted Play Yard Noise With 8' Barrier

SOUNDWALL
BARRIER CALCULATIONS: 67 dB @ 30', 1000 Hz
VERT. PLANE ABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJ
DIRECT PATH 53.657.635.668.892.3108.1133.2120.696.2
INDIRECT PATH74.381.1 70.194.8110.4133.7 101.6
PATH DIFFERENCE20.723.5 1.32.52.30.5 5.4
FRESNEL NUMBER41.447.0 2.65.04.61.0 10.8
INSERTION LOSS20.020.0 17.420.019.813.6 20.0
DISTANCE ATTEN.2.52.80.73.64.95.66.56.05.1
TOTAL ATTEN.22.522.80.721.024.925.320.16.025.1
SPL 444466464242476142
HORIZ. PLANEABACADAEAFAGAHAIAJ
DIRECT PATH 53.657.635.665.891.7108.1133.2120.696.2
INDIRECT PATH69.569.0 82.699.4109.0133.4 99.7
PATH DIFFERENCE15.911.4 16.87.70.90.2 3.5
FRESNEL NUMBER31.822.8 33.615.41.80.4 7.0
INSERTION LOSS20.020.0 20.020.015.910.4 20.0
DISTANCE ATTEN.2.52.80.73.44.95.66.56.05.1
TOTAL ATTEN.22.522.80.723.424.921.516.96.025.1
SPL 444466444246506142
SOUND WALL CALCULATIONS: 67 dB @ 30', 1000Hz
VERT. PLANEAD-8AD-10AD-12AD-14AH-8AH-10AH-12AH-14AI-8AI-10AI-12AI-14 DIRECT PATH 35.635.635.635.6133.2133.2133.2133.2120.6120.6120.6120.6 INDIRECT PATH36.137.138.540.1133.3133.6134134.9120.8121.2121.7122.4 PATH DIFFERENCE0.51.52.94.50.10.40.81.70.20.61.11.8
FRESNEL NUMBER1.03.05.89.00.20.81.63.40.41.22.23.6
INSERTION LOSS13.618.020.020.08.512.815.418.510.414.316.718.8 DISTANCE ATTEN.0.70.70.70.76.56.56.56.56.06.06.06.0
TOTAL ATTEN.14.418.720.720.714.919.321.925.016.520.422.824.8 SPL 534846465248454251474442
1 52995297530553095313AHJGFEIBC514444534642465242D
5315 College

Page 12 ends

13. Code Compliance Assessment
Commercial Zone noise level standards of Planning Code Section 17.120.050.B, when reduced by 5 dB per the noise characteristic penalty listed in 17.120.050.D, are as follows:

L20 L10 L05 L01 L0
60 65 70 75 80
The ambient sound levels at Stations A and B as summarized in Table 1 do not exceed the values listed above, so the condition of 17.120.050.E does not apply and the above values are the defining allowable limits.

Table 5 lists the LN values at office exterior locations for the alternate case prediction, based on the statistical distribution of the overall average survey result from Table 2. The table shows that the predicted play yard noise of the alternate case is significantly less than the allowable limit in all statistical categories.

Table 5 - Code Compliance Assessment

14. Barrier Construction
Since the barrier insertion loss will be no more than 20 dB, it is not necessary for the wall to be particularly massive, i.e., concrete or masonry. The barrier must be continuous, without any gaps at the bottom or between panel elements.

Recommended barrier design is to use 4 x 4 wood fence framing with a concrete footing to prevent gaps due to damage caused by fence material in contact with damp soil. Each side should have a facing of about one inch thickness. Siding of genuine or faux wood board material should have shiplap or tongue-in-groove edges to prevent gaps between boards; genuine wood should be clear grain and free of knot holes, kiln dried to prevent shrinkage that might cause gaps. Alternate face material for one or both sides is plywood sheathing with cement stucco face.

Recommended barrier height is 8' above the ground elevation at the play yard. The fence top would be 4' above the project porch near the play yard and about 6' above the elevation of the adjacent easement walkway pavement.

SITE BARRIER CALCULATIONS: 67 dB @ 30', 1000 Hz
VERT. PLANE AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ
DIRECT PATH 53.657.635.668.892.3108.1133.2120.696.2
INDIRECT PATH 74.381.1 70.194.8110.4133.7 101.6
PATH DIFFERENCE20.723.5 1.3 2.5 2.3 0.5 5.4
FRESNEL NUMBER41.447.0 2.6 5.0 4.6 1.0 10.8
INSERTION LOSS 20.020.0 17.420.019.813.6 20.0
DISTANCE ATTEN. 2.5 2.8 0.7 3.6 4.9 5.6 6.5 6.0 5.1
TOTAL ATTEN. 22.522.80.7 21.024.925.320.16.0 25.1
SPL 44 44 66 46 42 42 47 61 42
HORIZ. PLANE AB AC AD AE AF AG AH AI AJ
DIRECT PATH 53.657.635.665.891.7108.1133.2120.696.2
INDIRECT PATH 69.569.0 82.699.4109.0133.4 99.7
PATH DIFFERENCE15.911.4 16.87.7 0.9 0.2 3.5
FRESNEL NUMBER31.822.8 33.615.41.8 0.4 7.0
INSERTION LOSS 20.020.0 20.020.015.910.4 20.0
DISTANCE ATTEN. 2.5 2.8 0.7 3.4 4.9 5.6 6.5 6.0 5.1
TOTAL ATTEN. 22.522.80.7 23.424.921.516.96.0 25.1
SPL 44 44 66 44 42 46 50 61 42
SOUND WALL CALCULATIONS: 67 dB @ 30', 1000Hz
VERT. PLANE AD-8AD-10AD-12AD-14AH-8AH-10AH-12AH-14AI-8AI-10AI-12AI-14 DIRECT PATH 35.635.635.635.6133.2133.2133.2133.2120.6120.6120.6120.6 INDIRECT PATH 36.137.138.540.1133.3133.6134134.9120.8121.2121.7122.4 PATH DIFFERENCE0.5 1.5 2.9 4.5 0.1 0.4 0.8 1.7 0.2 0.6 1.1 1.8 FRESNEL NUMBER1.0 3.0 5.8 9.0 0.2 0.8 1.6 3.4 0.4 1.2 2.2 3.6 INSERTION LOSS 13.618.020.020.08.5 12.815.418.510.414.316.718.8 DISTANCE ATTEN. 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 TOTAL ATTEN. 14.418.720.720.714.919.321.925.016.520.422.824.8 SPL 53 48 46 46 52 48 45 42 51 47 44 42
L20 L10 L05 L01 L0
CODE LIMIT60 65 70 75 80
PROJECT 42 45 48 52 58
44 47 50 54 60
46 49 52 56 62
52 55 58 62 68
1 5315 College

Page 13 ends

15. Conclusions
The site sound level survey did not include stations in the adjacent property parking lot. The following discussion is based on cursory observations made on the initial project walk-around.

Traffic noise level in the parking lot is similar to that at the rear of the project, i.e., a steady residual sound level of about 52 dB due to Route 24 traffic with a variable sound level of 55 dB average and 70 dB maximum due to College Avenue traffic.

The loudest project noise outdoors at stations near office buildings, with the alternate case including the sound barrier, is about 52 dB average and 70 dB maximum at location H. This means that the project noise level is slightly less than the ambient noise level, so the project noise may be audible at times. The project noise will be more audible when a peak in playground activity coincides with a lull in traffic.

The sound level inside offices on the adjacent property will be a function of the sound level outdoors and the noise reduction provided by office windows facing the parking lot.

Building 5305/5309/5313 windows appear to have double-hung wood frames with single glazing; this type of assembly provides about 15 dB of noise reduction, so interior noise level due to traffic is about 40 dB average and 55 dB maximum. The project noise will be about 10 dB less than the traffic noise and therefore inaudible.

Building 5297 windows appear to be double-hung metal frames with single glazing; there are numerous through-the-window air conditioning units, apparently one for each office.

This arrangement provides noise reduction of only about 10 dB due to sound passage thru the air conditioners. Interior noise level at location H due to both traffic and the project will be about 45 dB average and 60 dB maximum; the project noise will be slightly audible some of the time and more audible when a peak in playground activity coincides with a lull in traffic. Interior noise level at location F due to the project will be about 10 dB less than the traffic noise and therefore inaudible.

This Report Prepared by:

Nicholas Krause, P.E.
exp.9-31-20229/30/20239/30/2025
Nicholas Krause, P.E.
2635 Monte Vista Ave.

El Cerrito, CA 94530
(510) 685-9987
[email protected]
EXPERIENCE Four decades of design and engineering work in the construction industry, with a specialty of sound and vibration control
EDUCATION Redwood High School, Larkspur CA - Class of 1967 1967 - 1972 U.C. Berkeley, Mechanical Engineering - BSME 1972 Emphasis on machinery dynamics and acoustics
1974 - 1975 U.C. Berkeley - Mechanical Engineering
Graduate research in vibration, impact and wave propagation REGISTRATION Professional Engineer (Mechanical # 17831) California 1976 - 2025 WORK HISTORY:
1976 - 1977 FMC Associates, San Francisco - Mechanical Engineer Central power plants and distribution systems for government facilities 1978 - 1993 Bechtel Group, San Francisco - Sound and Vibration Engineer Noise standards and practices development for company policies Project noise prediction, planning and management
Environmental noise measurements for compliance verification Noise problem assessment and correction
Structure and piping system vibration assessment surveys Rotating machinery balance and bearing condition assessment Temporary instruments used to identify control dynamics faults Structural integrity test instrument fabrication and installation 1994 - 2000 Krause Engineering Services, San Luis Obispo - Noise Consultant Traffic noise surveys and building design for noise plan compliance Interior noise insulation design and testing for building code compliance Environmental noise impact studies for proposed developments Sound level surveys for community noise impact assessment Sound absorption treatments for room ambience management Mechanical equipment noise and vibration controls
2001 - 2023 Krause Acoustics, El Cerrito - Senior Consultant Noise insulation studies for residential and mixed-use projects Environmental noise surveys and impact assessment
Mechanical equipment noise measurements and mitigations Facility noise surveys and noise abatement programs
Construction noise monitoring for ordinance compliance assessment Sound absorption treatments for room ambience management Engineering studies provided by Krause Acoustics:

Exterior Noise Insulation
Apartment Complexes - Oakland, Pismo Beach, San Leandro, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo Homes - Arroyo Grande, Berkeley, Mountain View, Oakland, San Mateo, San Rafael Hotels and motels - Avila Beach, King City, San Luis Obispo, Shell Beach Mixed use developments - El Cerrito, El Sobrante, Oakland, San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria Residential developments - Atascadero, Oakland, Paso Robles, Shell Beach, Templeton Interior Noise Insulation
Business offices - Avila Beach, Berkeley, San Luis Obispo Dental offices - Berkeley, Templeton
Manufacturing plants - Berkeley, Hayward, Nipomo, Paso Robles, San Luis Obispo Residences and hotels - Berkeley, King City, Larkspur, Oakland, San Francisco Senior care centers - San Luis Obispo, Santa Maria
Community Noise Assessment
Airport area hotel and casino - Las Vegas
Amphitheaters - Kensington, Paso Robles, Santa Maria
Car washes - Buellton, Cambria, El Cerrito
Commercial retail centers - Nipomo, Redding, Yuba City
Construction sites - Avila Beach, Berkeley, Las Vegas, Milpitas, Oakland County landfill expansion - San Luis Obispo
HV AC Equipment - Alameda, Lafayette, Piedmont
Miniature golf / go-cart track - Morro Bay
Restaurants and taverns - Berkeley, Oakland
School playgrounds - Berkeley, Cambria, Oakland, Santa Ynez Sound Absorption Treatments
Community activity rooms - Arroyo Grande, Santa Maria
Churches - Alameda. Santa Maria
Health clubs - Oakland, Piedmont, Pismo Beach, Tiburon.

Music studios - Lucas Valley, Oakland, San Francisco, San Rafael Open plan offices - Berkeley, San Francisco, San Luis Obispo, Restaurants - Avila Beach, Berkeley, Oakland, San Luis Obispo, Shell Beach Schools - Nicasio, Santa Ynez, Tomales
Machinery Noise Reduction
Generator power systems - Berkeley, Nipomo
HV AC systems - Alameda, Arroyo Grande, Berkeley, San Rafael Juice bottling production line - Berkeley
Municipal water wells and pipelines - Atascadero, Berkeley, Nipomo Power plant lube oil system - Avila Beach

5315 College Ave, Oakland, CA 94618-1416, Alameda County

APN:
014-1249-011-03

CLIP:
8912800378

OWNER INFORMATION
Owner Name
Marashi Mahta
Tax Billing Zip
94618
Owner Name 2
Shafiei Mehdi
Tax Billing ZIP + 4 Code
1712
Tax Billing Address
5690 Broadway Ter
Owner Occupied
No
Tax Billing City & State
Oakland, CA

LOCATION INFORMATION
Census Tract
4003.00
Flood Zone Code
X
Mailing Carrier Route
C001
Flood Zone Panel
06001C0059G
Subdivision
Vernon Park
Flood Zone Date
08/03/2009
School District
Oakland
Within 250 Feet of Multiple Flood Z
one
No
Comm College District Code
Peralta Jt

TAX INFORMATION
APN
014-1249-011-03
Lot #
3 Tax Area
17001
% Improved
50%
Block ID
M
Legal Description
OFFICIAL RECS 4 PG 8 BLK M PA
RT OF LOT 3

ASSESSMENT & TAX
Assessment Year
2023
2022
2021
Assessed Value - Total
$1,111,800
$182,067
$178,497
Assessed Value - Land
$555,900
$119,528
$117,185
Assessed Value - Improved
$555,900
$62,539
$61,312
YOY Assessed Change ($)
$929,733
$3,570
YOY Assessed Change (%)
510.65%
2%
Tax Year
Total Tax
Change ($)
Change (%)
2021
$4,144
2022
$4,604
$460

11.1%
2023
$17,549
$12,945
281.16%

CHARACTERISTICS
Lot Acres

0.0857
Construction
Wood
Lot Sq Ft
3,734
Effective Year Built
1892
Style
L-Shape
Building Class
D
Gross Area
987
County Use Code
One To Five Story Office Build
Building Sq Ft
987
Universal Land Use
Office Building
Quality
Average
# of Buildings
1 MORTGAGE HISTORY
Mortgage Date
03/10/2022
03/10/2022
Mortgage Amount
$295,000
$295,000
Mortgage Lender
Private Individual
Private Individual
Borrower Name
Shafiei Mehdi
Shafiei Mehdi
Borrower Name 2
Marashi Mahta
Marashi Mahta
Mortgage Purpose
Resale
Resale
Mortgage Type
Private Party Lender
Private Party Lender
Property Details

Courtesy of Jake Allen, MetroList Services, Inc
Generated on:
02/07/24
The data within this report is compiled by CoreLogic from public and private sources. The data is deemed reliable, but is not guaranteed. The accuracy of the data contained herein can be independently verified by the recipient of this report with the applicable county or municipality.

Page
1 /
1 Krause Acoustics 2635 Monte Vista Ave.

A secondary objective is to describe the effect of project noise as perceived inside the adjacent buildings, to address the issue of potential noise intrusion into consultation offices.

COLLEGE AVENUE5295NPARKING
5295529952975305530953035301
5313531553215324MANILA
5315 College

Page 2 ends

Page 3 ends

Instruments were calibrated prior to use with a source traceable to national standards.

One system logged sound levels continuously at a fixed station and saved the data at the end of each one-hour record. This system used a micW type I436 measurement microphone.

Figure 2 - Site Noise Survey Stations
4123567BA
5315 College

Page 4 ends

Figure 3 is a typical hourly survey record; Figure 4 is a 5-minute detail of the full hour.

The detail shows a series of peaks as vehicles pass by, at a rate of about ten per minute; larger peaks are trucks or buses. The residual noise level is about 52 dB.

Figure 3 - Typical Hourly Survey Record
Figure 4 - Hourly Record Detail

5315 College

Page 5 ends

Table 1 lists values of Ln metrics found in analysis of data from five survey sessions at Stations A and B. The table also lists the overall averages of L20 - L0 values.

6. Traffic Noise Pattern
A short-term survey was used to assess the variance of traffic noise with respect to location around the property; results are Shown in Figure 5.

Highest sound levels are along the east side of the lot near the dominant source of traffic noise, College
Avenue.

Sound levels along the west side lot line are similar to the base stations except at the middle, where the house
provides significant shielding from the traffic sound path.

The west side of the house is slightly exposed to noise from Route 24, audible only during lulls in local traffic. 535152535454636162
5315 College

Page 6 ends

Stations D thru G were used to observe the shielding effect of the school building on sound paths from the side yard to the rear yard.

The morning session is split into two halves, with 3's in the rear yard from 10:30 to 11:15 and 4's in the side yard from 11:15 to 12:00.

The afternoon session is from 3:15 to 5:00, with the side yard used the entire time and the rear yard used part time.

SIDEYARDABCDEFGREAR YARDSANTA FE AVENUE

MARIN AVENUE
5315 College

Page 7 ends

8. Play Yard Survey Results
Figure 7 shows examples of data from play yard noise surveys.

The table also lists the overall averages of values for L20 - L01 and the overall maximum value for L0.

5315 College

Page 8 ends

Ad = 10 log(D2 / D1), dB
This means that the sound level decreases by about 3 dB if the distance is doubled or increases by 3 dB if the distance is halved.

N = 2 x ∆ / W
The IL value is determined using the following formula, derived from empirical studies by Maekawa et.al. Practical barrier IL values range from 5 dB to a maximum limit of about 20 dB.

IL = 10 log(3 + 20 N)

Figure 8 - Sound Path Locations
Barrier Insertion Loss
IL, dB
0 4
8 12
16 20
Fresnel Number
0 1 2 3 4
52995297530553095313AHJGFEIBCD
5315 College

Page 9 ends

Figure 9 - Sound Path Geometries

BCDEFGH I

26.424.823.153.6A34.826.120.257.6AAAAAAA

35.6 19.850.268.8

20.537.836.592.3
108.123.522.364.6
133.2
120.6

34.8AJ40.796.226.1
AB36.67.925.0
AJ
C

46.618.834.3
A15.918.834.3
AE17.831.133.7

65.733.7AF75.733.8AG99.633.8A133.2 H107.6

91.7 94.9

57.6 53.6

65.8 31.35.497.0

HORIZONTALPLANEVERTICALPLANE
5315 College

Page 10 ends

Page 11 ends

Table 4 - Sound Wall Height Study
Figure 12 - Predicted Play Yard Noise With 8' Barrier

Page 12 ends

Table 5 - Code Compliance Assessment

Page 13 ends

Oakland City CouncilJuly 16, 2024

Oakland City Council
July 16, 2024