The provisions of this Chapter shall be known as the Design Review Procedure. The purpose of these provisions is to prescribe the procedure for the review of proposals located in areas or on sites, or involving uses, which require special design treatment and consideration of relationships to the physical surroundings. This procedure shall apply to all proposals for which design review is required by the zoning regulations.

(Ord. No. 13357, § 3(Exh. A), 2-16-2016; prior planning code § 9300)

A.

Application for Design Review. Application for design review shall be made by the owner of the affected property, or his or her authorized agent, on a form prescribed by the City Planning Department and shall be filed with such Department. The application shall be accompanied by such information as may be required to allow applicable criteria to be applied to the proposal, and by the fee prescribed in the city master fee schedule. Such information may include, but is not limited to, site and building plans, elevations, and relationships to adjacent properties.

(Ord. 12776 § 3, Exh. A (part), 2006: Ord. 11892 § 22, 1996; Ord. 11816 § 2 (part), 1995: prior planning code § 9302)

Projects eligible for By Right Residential Approval under Chapter 17.95 or 17.96; and projects for Affordable Housing where one hundred percent (100%) of the housing units, other than manager's units, are restricted to very low-, low-, and moderate-income households, and not proposed on a site with a City, State, or National landmark or within an S-7 or S-20 Zone or an Area of Primary Importance (API) as determined by the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, shall not be subject to any of the design review procedures set forth in Sections 17.136.030, 17.136.038, and 17.136.040; and shall instead be subject to the By Right Residential Approval procedure as defined in Section 17.09.040.

(Ord. No. 13779, § 2(Exh. A), 1-16-2024; Ord. No. 13763, § 5, 10-3-2023)

A.

Applicability. A proposal will be exempt from design review if it meets each of the provisions set forth below. All such determinations are final and not appealable:

1.

The proposal is limited to one or more of the types of work listed as exempt from design review in Section 17.136.025B;

2.

The proposal does not require Design Review, Conditional Use Permit or Variance, pursuant to the zoning regulations of Title 17 of the Oakland Planning Code;

3.

The proposal is determined exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);

4.

All exterior treatments visually match the existing or historical design of the building; and

5.

The proposal will not have a significant effect on the structure's character-defining elements. "Character-defining elements" are those features of design, materials, workmanship, setting, location, and association that identify a structure as representative of its period and contribute to its visual distinction or historical significance.

B.

Definition. The following types of work are exempt from design review, pursuant to all provisions in Section 17.136.025(A):

1.

Additions or Alterations.

a.

Projects not requiring a building permit, except if otherwise specified below;

b.

Repair or replacement of existing building components in a manner that visually matches the existing or historical design of the structure;

c.

After notice to the Director of City Planning, demolition or removal of either:

i)

Structures declared to be unsafe by the Building Official or the City Council. "Unsafe structures" means structures found by the Building Official or the City Council, to require immediate issuance of a demolition permit to protect the public health and safety; or

ii)

Structures declared to be a public nuisance by the Building Official or City Council that are not Designated Historic Properties or Potentially Designated Historic Properties.

d.

Except as specified in Section 17.136.030, Accessory Dwelling Units that conform to all regulations in Section 17.103.080 and Chapter 17.88;

e.

Floor area additions within the existing building envelope not involving the creation of a dwelling unit;

f.

Except as otherwise specified in Subsection B.1.g for Non-residential Facilities in the D-DT-JLI, D-CO-5, D-CO-6, CIX-1A, CIX-1B, CIX-1C and CIX-1D Zones, additions not involving the creation of a dwelling unit that are outside the existing building envelope and equal no more than ten percent (10%) of the total floor area or footprint on site;

g.

For Nonresidential Facilities in the D-DT-JLI, D-CO-5, D-CO-6, CIX-1A, CIX-1B, CIX-1C and CIX-1D Zones, additions that are outside the existing building envelope and equal no more than fifty percent (50%) of the total floor area or footprint on site or three thousand (3,000) square feet, whichever is less;

h.

For Commercial, Civic, or Industrial Facilities and the Nonresidential Portions of Mixed-Use Development Projects, any addition or alteration on a roof that does not project above the existing parapet walls; and any addition or alteration not otherwise exempt which is used as a loading dock, recycling area, utility area, or similar open structure addition that is no higher than six (6) feet above finished grade, less than five hundred (500) square feet in floor area or footprint, and is visually screened from neighboring properties; such exemptions shall only permitted where the proposal conforms with all Buffering regulations in Chapter 17.110 and all Performance Standards in Chapter 17.120;

i.

Areas of porch, deck or balcony with a surface that is less than thirty (30) inches above finished grade.

2.

Signs.

a.

A change of sign face copy or new sign face within an existing Advertisement Sign or a change of sign face copy within Business or Civic Sign structures so long as the structure and framework of the sign remain unchanged and the new sign face duplicates the colors of the original or, in the case of an internally illuminated sign, the letter copy is light in color and the background is dark;

b.

Installation, alteration or removal of Realty Signs, Development Signs, holiday decorations, displays behind a display window and, except as otherwise provided in Section 17.114.120(C), for mere changes of copy, including cutouts, on Signs which customarily involve periodic changes of copy;

c.

New or modified Signs conforming to an approved Master Sign Program, pursuant to Section 17.104.070.

3.

Other Projects.

a.

Sidewalk Cafes in the public right-of-way, pursuant to Section 17.103.090;

b.

Solar Power Production Equipment. The installation of Solar Power Production Equipment is exempt from design review within any zoning district;

c.

Projects involving no more than four (4) Vehicular Residential Facilities pursuant to Section 17.103.085, and projects involving any number of Vehicular Residential Facilities when occupied by an Emergency Shelter Residential Activity and located in an area where Emergency Shelter Residential Activities are permitted by-right pursuant to Section 17.103.015;

d.

Electrical Vehicle Charging Stations or other similar facilities;

e.

Microwave and Satellite Dishes that are three (3) feet or less in diameter.

(Ord. No. 13812, § 4(Exh. A), 7-30-2024; Ord. No. 13800, § 3(Exh. C), 6-18-2024; Ord. No. 13779, § 2(Exh. A), 1-16-2024; Ord. No. 13677, § 4(Exh. A), 1-18-2022; Ord. No. 13666, § 3(Exh. A), 11-16-2021; Ord. No. 13435, § 4(Exh. A), 5-2-2017; Ord. No. 13357, § 3(Exh. A), 2-16-2016; Ord. No. 13302, § 5(Exh. C), 4-21-2015; Ord. No. 13251, § 5(Exh. A), 7-29-2014; Ord. No. 13172, § 3(Exh. A), 7-2-2013; Ord. No. 13064, § 2(Exh. A), 3-15-2011; Ord. No. 13028, § 2(Exh. A), 7-20-2010; Ord. No. 12999, § 4(Exh. A), 3-16-2010; Ord. 12776 § 3, Exh. A (part), 2006: Ord. 12417 § 1, 2002)

A.

Applicability. "Small Project Design Review" shall apply to proposals that do not qualify for By-Right Residential Approval as set forth in Section 17.136.023, an exemption from design review as set forth in Section 17.136.025, or require Special Project Design Review as set forth in Section 17.136.038, or Regular Design Review as either determined by the Director of City Planning or as set forth in Section 17.136.040. "Small Project Design Review" proposals shall meet all of the following provisions:

1.

The proposal is limited to one or more of the types of work listed as a "Small Project" in Section 17.136.030(B);

2.

The proposal does not require a conditional use permit or variance, pursuant to the zoning regulations of Title 17 of the Oakland Planning Code;

3.

The proposal is determined exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

4.

The proposal will not have a significant effect on the property's character-defining elements. "Character-defining elements" are those features of design, materials, workmanship, setting, location, and association that identify a property as representative of its period and contribute to its visual distinction or historical significance.

B.

Definition of "Small Project". Small Projects are limited to one or more of the following types of work:

1.

Additions or Alterations.

a.

Repair or replacement of existing building components in a manner that is compatible with, but not necessarily identical to, the property's existing or historical design;

b.

Except as otherwise specified in Sections 17.136.025, 17.136.038, 17.136.040, and 17.136.075, demolition or removal of structures not involving a Designated Historic Property or Potential Designated Historic Property, on a site where the zoning regulations require design review to alter the exterior appearance of the applicable building facility, regardless of whether the owner intends to create a surface parking lot or a vacant lot pursuant to Section 15.36.080;

c.

Except as otherwise specified in Sections 17.136.025 and 17.136.038 for Nonresidential Facilities in the D-DT-JLI, D-CO-5, D-CO-6, CIX-1A, CIX-1B, CIX-1C and CIX-1D Zones, additions not involving the creation of a dwelling unit that are outside the existing building envelope and equal more than ten percent (10%) of the total floor area or footprint on site, but do not exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet or one hundred percent (100%) of the total floor area or footprint on site, whichever is less;

d.

For Commercial, Civic, or Industrial Facilities and the non-residential portions of mixed-use development projects, changes to storefronts or street-fronting facades, such as: (i) replacement or construction of doors, windows; bulkheads and nonstructural wall infill, or (ii) restoration of documented historic fabric;

e.

Accessory Dwelling Units that: 1) do not conform with objective design standards established by the Planning Director or his or her designee pursuant to Section 17.103.080.A.11 proposed in front or on a side of the primary structure; or 2) were established and occupied without Planning or Building approval prior to January 1, 2021, and request a waiver of any provision of the underlying zoning or applicable development standards that would preclude the preservation of said unit, pursuant to Section 17.103.080.A.15;

f.

Other than Accessory Dwelling Units, the creation of new living units entirely within an existing building envelope on a lot that is not located within the S-9 Fire Safety Protection Combining Zone.

2.

Fences, barriers, and similar freestanding walls.

a.

For Residential Zones and Residential Facilities, any fence, barrier, or similar freestanding wall exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height in the front yard and street-side yards, but not exceeding six (6) feet in height, pursuant to Section 17.108.140;

b.

For Commercial and Industrial Zones and S-1, S-3, S-15 Zones, any fence, barrier, or similar freestanding wall exceeding eight (8) feet in height within ten (10) feet of the public right-of-way or any abutting property in a Residential or Open Space Zone, but not exceeding ten (10) feet in height, pursuant to Section 17.108.140.

c.

For Industrial Zones, any fence, barrier, or similar freestanding wall exceeding eight (8) feet in height within ten (10) feet of the public right-of-way or any abutting property in a Residential or Open Space Zone, but not exceeding twelve (12) feet in height, pursuant to Section 17.108.140. Any fence, dense hedge, barrier, or similar freestanding wall located elsewhere on a lot in an Industrial Zone may be permitted to exceed twelve (12) feet in height if installed with additional landscape screening and upon the granting of Small Project Design Review pursuant to the Design Review procedure in Section 17.136.030(C).

3.

Signs.

a.

New or modified Signs, excluding Signs requiring Regular Design Review, Conditional Use Permit or Variance, pursuant to the zoning regulations in the Oakland Planning Code (Title 17); and Signs conforming to an approved Master Sign Program, pursuant to Section 17.104.070;

b.

New or modified awnings or other similar facilities;

c.

Color changes to Signs, awnings or other similar facilities;

d.

Installation of flags or banners having any permanent structure within the public right of way, pursuant to the same regulations for sidewalk cafes in Section 17.103.090.B.

4.

Other Projects.

a.

Exceptions to the parking accommodation requirements for One-Family and Two- to Four-Family Residential Facilities in Section 17.116.300.

C.

Procedures for Consideration—Small Project Design Review. The Director of City Planning may, at his or her discretion, consider an application for Small Project Design Review according to the following Two-Track process, or if additional consideration is required, determine that the proposal shall be reviewed according to the Regular design review procedure in Section 17.136.040.

1.

Track One Procedure—Small Project Design Review Proposals Not Involving a Local Register Property:

a.

The Director of City Planning, or his or her designee, shall determine whether the proposal meets the requirements for Small Project Design Review as set forth in this Section.

b.

Decision by the Director of City Planning. The Director, or his or her designee, may approve or disapprove a Track One proposal determined eligible for Small Project Design Review and may require such changes therein or impose such reasonable conditions of approval as are in his or her judgment necessary to ensure conformity to the applicable Small Project Design Review criteria in Section 17.136.035.

c.

The decision by the Director, or his or her designee, shall be final immediately and not appealable.

2.

Track Two Procedure-Small Project Design Review Proposals Involving a Local Register Property:

a.

The Director of City Planning, in concert with the City of Oakland's Historic Preservation staff, shall determine whether a proposed addition or alteration involving a Local Register Property will have a significant effect on the property's character-defining elements. "Character-defining elements" are those features of design, materials, workmanship, setting, location, and association that identify a property as representative of its period and contribute to its visual distinction or historical significance. Any proposed addition or alteration determined to have a significant effect on a Local Register Property's character-defining elements shall be reviewed instead according to the Regular design review procedure in Section 17.136.040.

b.

Decision by the Director of City Planning. The Director, or his or her designee, may approve or disapprove a Track Two proposal determined eligible for Small project design review and may require such changes therein or impose such reasonable conditions of approval as are in his or her judgment necessary to ensure conformity to the applicable Small project design review criteria in Section 17.136.035.

c.

The decision by the Director, or his or her designee, shall be final immediately and not appealable.

f.

The decision by the Director, or his or her designee, shall be final immediately and not appealable.

(Ord. No. 13812, § 4(Exh. A), 7-30-2024; Ord. No. 13800, § 3(Exh. C), 6-18-2024; Ord. No. 13779, § 2(Exh. A), 1-16-2024; Ord. No. 13763, § 5, 10-3-2023; Ord. No. 13677, § 4(Exh. A), 1-18-2022; Ord. No. 13435, § 4(Exh. A), 5-2-2017; Ord. No. 13357, § 3(Exh. A), 2-16-2016; Ord. No. 13302, § 5(Exh. C), 4-21-2015; Ord. No. 13270, § 3(Exh. A), 11-18-2014; Ord. No. 13251, § 5(Exh. A), 7-29-2014; Ord. No. 13172, § 3(Exh. A), 7-2-2013; Ord. No. 13168, § 5(Exh. A-2), 6-18-2013; Ord. No. 13064, § 2(Exh. A), 3-15-2011; Ord. No. 13028, § 2(Exh. A), 7-20-2010; Ord. No. 12999, § 4(Exh. A), 3-16-2010; Ord. 12776 § 3, Exh. A (part), 2006)

A Small project design review approval shall be granted for proposals that conform to each of the applicable criteria set forth in Subdivisions (1), (2), and (3) below, and if also applicable, to the criteria in Subdivision (4), below:

1.

That for Nonresidential Facilities and the nonresidential portions of Mixed Use Development projects, the proposed design conforms with the adopted checklist criteria for nonresidential facilities, as may be amended;

2.

That for Residential Facilities with one (1) or two (2) primary dwelling units and the residential portions of Mixed Use Development projects with one (1) or two (2) primary dwelling units, the proposed design conforms with the adopted checklist criteria for facilities with 1-2 primary dwelling units, as may be amended;

3.

That for Residential Facilities with three (3) or more living units and the residential portions of Mixed Use Development projects with three (3) or more dwelling units, the proposed design conforms with the adopted checklist criteria for facilities with three (3) or more living units, as may be amended;

4.

That for Local Register Properties, the proposed project will not substantially impair the visual, architectural, or historic value of the affected site or facility.

(Ord. No. 12999, § 4(Exh. A), 3-16-2010; Ord. 12776 § 3, Exh. A (part), 2006)

A.

Applicability. "Special Project Design Review" shall apply to Nonresidential Facilities in the D-DT-JLI, D-CO-5, D-CO-6, CIX-1A, CIX-1B, CIX-1C and CIX-1D Zones that require design review pursuant to the zoning regulations of Title 17 of the Oakland Planning Code, but do not qualify for design review exemption as set forth in Section 17.136.025 or Small project design review as set forth in Section 17.136.030; or require Regular Design Review as either determined by the Director of City Planning or as set forth in Section 17.136.075 and Chapter 17.73.

"Special Project Design Review" proposals shall meet all of the following provisions:

1.

The proposal is limited to one or more of the types of work listed as a "Special Project" in Section 17.136.038(B);

2.

The proposal does not require a conditional use permit or variance, pursuant to the zoning regulations of Title 17 of the Oakland Planning Code;

3.

The proposal is determined exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and

4.

The proposal does not involve the demolition or removal of structures on a site in the CIX-1A Zone as specified in Section 17.136.075, regardless of whether the owner intends to create a surface parking lot or a vacant lot pursuant to Section 15.36.080.

B.

Definition of "Special Project". Special Projects are limited to one or more of the following types of work:

1.

Cumulative additions to Non-residential Facilities in the D-DT-JLI, D-CO-5, D-CO-6, CIX-1A, CIX-1B, CIX-1C, and CIX-1D Zones over a three (3) year period that are outside the existing building envelope and exceed three thousand (3,000) square feet or fifty percent (50%) of the total floor area or footprint on site, whichever is less;

2.

New construction of principal Non-residential Facilities in the D-DT-JLI, D-CO-5, D-CO-6, CIX-1A, CIX-1B, CIX-1C, and CIX-1D Zones.

C.

Procedures for Consideration—Special Project Design Review. The Director of City Planning shall consider an application for Special project design review according to the following Two-Track process, or if additional consideration is required, determine that the proposal shall be reviewed instead according to the Regular design review procedure in Section 17.136.040.

1.

Track One Procedure—Special Project Design Review Proposals Not Involving a Local Register Property:

a.

The Director of City Planning, or his or her designee, shall determine whether the proposal meets the requirements for Special project design review as set forth in this Section.

b.

At the time of Special project design review application, the owner of the affected property, or his or her authorized agent, shall obtain from the City Planning and Building Department, a list of names and mailing addresses of all owners and occupants of the City of Oakland lot or lots adjacent to the project site and directly across the street abutting the project site; a notice poster to install on the project site; and a Notice to Neighboring Property Owners and Occupants form which includes the project description and contact information. Failure to send notice to any such owner where his or her address is not shown on the last available equalized assessment roll shall not invalidate the affected proceedings.

c.

Prior to the subject application being deemed complete, the applicant shall install the notice poster provided at the time of application at a location on the project site that is clearly visible from the street, alley, or private way providing access to the subject lot; and provide by certified mail or delivery to all owners and occupants of the City of Oakland lot or lots adjacent to the project site and directly across the street abutting the project site, a copy of the completed project notice form, as well as a set of reduced plans (consisting of at least a site plan and building elevations that show all proposed exterior work).

d.

All required posting of the site and notification of adjacent and across the street property owners and occupants shall be completed by the project applicant not less than ten (10) days prior to the earliest date for final decision on the application. During the required noticing period, the Planning and Building Department shall receive and consider comments from any interested party.

e.

Decision by the Director of City Planning. The Director, or his or her designee, may approve or disapprove a Track One proposal determined eligible for Special project design review and may require such changes therein or impose such reasonable conditions of approval as are in his or her judgment necessary to ensure conformity to the applicable Special project design review criteria in Section 17.136.038(D).

f.

The decision by the Director, or his or her designee, shall be final immediately and not appealable.

2.

Track Two Procedure—Special Project Design Review Proposals Involving a Local Register Property:

a.

The Director of City Planning, in concert with the City of Oakland's Historic Preservation staff, shall determine whether a proposal involving a Local Register Property will have a significant effect on the property's character-defining elements. "Character-defining elements" are those features of design, materials, workmanship, setting, location, and association that identify a property as representative of its period and contribute to its visual distinction or historical significance. Any proposal determined to have a significant effect on a Local Register Property's character-defining elements shall be reviewed instead according to the Regular design review procedure in Section 17.136.040.

b.

At the time of Special project design review application, the owner of the affected property, or his or her authorized agent, shall obtain from the City Planning and Building Department, a list of names and mailing addresses of all owners and occupants of the City of Oakland lot or lots adjacent to the project site and directly across the street abutting the project site; a notice poster to install on the project site; and a Notice to Neighboring Property Owners and Occupants form which includes the project description and contact information. Failure to send notice to any such owner where his or her address is not shown on the last available equalized assessment roll shall not invalidate the affected proceedings.

c.

Prior to the subject application being deemed complete, the applicant shall install the notice poster provided at the time of application at a location on the project site that is clearly visible from the street, alley, or private way providing access to the subject lot; and provide by certified mail or delivery to all owners and occupants of the City of Oakland lot or lots adjacent to the project site and directly across the street abutting the project site, a copy of the completed project notice form, as well as a set of reduced plans (consisting of at least a site plan and building elevations that show all proposed exterior work).

d.

All required posting of the site and notification of adjacent and across the street property owners and occupants shall be completed by the project applicant not less than ten (10) days prior to the earliest date for final decision on the application. During the required noticing period, the Planning and Building Department shall receive and consider comments from any interested party.

e.

Decision by the Director of City Planning. The Director, or his or her designee, may approve or disapprove a Track Two proposal determined eligible for Special project design review and may require such changes therein or impose such reasonable conditions of approval as are in his or her judgment necessary to ensure conformity to the applicable Special project design review criteria in Section 17.136.038(D).

f.

The decision by the Director, or his or her designee, shall be final immediately and not appealable.

D.

Design Review Criteria—Special Project Design Review. A Special project design review approval shall be granted for proposals that conform with the adopted checklist criteria for Non-residential Facilities in the D-DT-JLI, D-CO-5, D-CO-6, CIX-1A, CIX-1B, CIX-1C and CIX-1D Zones, as may be amended, based on applicable design review guidelines or criteria which have been adopted by the Planning Commission or City Council as part of the Coliseum Area Specific Plan or the West Oakland Specific Plan.

(Ord. No. 13812, § 4(Exh. A), 7-30-2024; Ord. No. 13779, § 2(Exh. A), 1-16-2024; Ord. No. 13763, § 5, 10-3-2023; Ord. No. 13357, § 3(Exh. A), 2-16-2016; Ord. No. 13302, § 5(Exh. C), 4-21-2015; Ord. No. 13251, § 5(Exh. A), 7-29-2014)

A.

Applicability. "Regular Design Review" shall apply to proposals that require design review pursuant to the zoning regulations in the Oakland Planning Code (Title 17) but do not qualify for By-Right Residential Approval as set forth in Section 17.136.023, a design review exemption as set forth in Section 17.136.025, Small Project Design Review as set forth in Section 17.136.038. Except as otherwise specified in Section 17.136.038 for Nonresidential Facilities in the D-DT-JLI, D-CO-5, D-CO-6, CIX-1A, CIX-1B, CIX-1C, and CIX-1D Zones, projects requiring Regular Design Review include, but are not limited to, the following types of work:

1.

Any proposal involving one or more of the facility, activity, building, structure, or development types that require design review pursuant to the zoning regulations in the Oakland Planning Code (Title 17), but does not qualify for By-Right Residential Approval as set forth in Section 17.136.023, a design review exemption as set forth in Section 17.136.025, Small Project Design Review as set forth in Section 17.136.030, or Special Project Design Review as set forth in Section 17.136.038;

2.

Any construction, addition or alteration of structures requiring a Conditional Use Permit or variance, pursuant to the zoning regulations of Title 17 of the Oakland Planning Code;

3.

New construction of one (1) or two (2) dwelling units excluding any permitted Accessory Dwelling Units;

4.

New construction of three (3) or more dwelling units, or adding units to a property for a total of three (3) or more dwelling units on site, excluding any permitted Accessory Dwelling Units;

5.

New construction of principal facilities in the HBX or D-CE Zones;

6.

The creation of new HBX Work/Live unit or HBX Live/Work unit (see Sections 17.65.160 and 17.65.170); any new D-DT Work/Live unit, D-CE Work/Live or D-CE Live/Work unit (see Sections 17.101E.070 and 17.101E.080); or any new CIX, IG, or IO Work/Live units (see Section 17.73.040). This requirement shall apply for both: a) conversions of existing facilities to contain any of these unit types, and b) the construction of new buildings that contain any of these unit types;

7.

Cumulative additions over a three (3) year period not involving the creation of a dwelling unit that are outside the existing building envelope and exceed one thousand (1,000) square feet or one hundred percent (100%) of the total floor area or footprint on site, whichever is less;

8.

Exceptions to the parking accommodation requirements for One- and Two- to Four-Family Residential Facilities in Section 17.116.300;

9.

New or modified Signs not qualifying for a design review exemption as set forth in Section 17.136.025 or Small Project Design Review as set forth in Section 17.136.030;

10.

Proposals for new or modified Telecommunications Facilities, pursuant to Chapter 17.128, but excluding those alterations to existing Telecommunications Facilities listed as a Small Project in Subsection 17.136.030.B.;

11.

Demolition or removal of any structure, or portion thereof, where the replacement project requires Regular Design Review, Conditional Use Permit or Variance;

12.

Demolition or removal of any Designated Historic Property (DHP), Potential Designated Historic Property (PDHP), or structure in the CIX-1A Zone pursuant to Section 17.136.075.

13.

Proposals involving five (5) or more Vehicular Residential Facilities.

B.

Pre-Application Review-Regular Design Review. Prior to application for Regular Design Review, any applicant or his or her representative seeking early project feedback may submit for a pre-application review of the proposal by a representative of the City Planning and Building Department. For projects of a larger scale or involving a significant policy issue, the Director of City Planning may, at his or her discretion, request that an applicant or his or her representative submit for a pre-application review of the proposal. During a pre-application review, the City representative will provide information about applicable design review criteria and pertinent procedures, including the opportunity for advice from outside design professionals. Where appropriate the City representative may also informally discuss possible design solutions, point out potential neighborhood concerns, and mention local organizations which the applicant is encouraged to contact before finalizing the proposal.

C.

Procedure for Consideration of Regular Design Review Proposals which Involve an Initial Decision by the Director of City Planning—Decisions Not Ultimately Appealable to City Council.

1.

Decision by the Director of City Planning. An application for Regular Design Review that is not referred to the City Planning Commission for initial decision as specified in Section 17.136.040(D) shall be considered by the Director of City Planning.

2.

Notification Procedures. Notice shall be given by posting an enlarged notice at a location on the project site that is clearly visible from the street, alley, or private way providing access to the subject lot. Notice shall also be given by mail or delivery to all owners and occupants within three hundred (300) feet of the project site; provided, however, that failure to send notice to any such owner where his or her address is not shown on the last available equalized assessment roll shall not invalidate the affected proceedings. All such notices shall be given not less than seventeen (17) days prior to the date set for decision on the application by the Director. During the required noticing period, the Planning and Building department shall receive and consider comments from any interested party.

3.

The Director or the applicant may seek the advice of outside design professionals. Any interested party must enter into the record any issues and/or evidence to the Director prior to the close of the written public comment period for his or her consideration; failure to do so will preclude the party from raising such issues during the appeal hearing and/or in court. The Director shall determine whether the proposal conforms to the applicable design review criteria, and may approve or disapprove the proposal or require such changes therein or impose such reasonable conditions of approval as are in his or her judgment necessary to ensure conformity to said criteria.

4.

Finality of Decision. A decision by the Director shall become final ten (10) calendar days after the date of initial decision unless appealed to the City Planning Commission or the Commission's Residential Appeals Committee in accordance with Section 17.136.080. Any party seeking to appeal the determination will be limited to issues and/or evidence presented to the Director prior to the close of the written public comment period. In the event that the last date of appeal falls on a weekend or holiday when City offices are closed, the next date such offices are open for business shall be the last date of appeal. Appeals considered by the City Planning Commission or the Commission's Residential Appeals Committee under the procedures specified in Section 17.136.080 shall be final immediately and are not ultimately appealable to the City Council.

D.

Procedure for Consideration of Regular Design Review Proposals which Involve an Initial Decision by the City Planning Commission—Decisions Ultimately Appealable to City Council.

1.

Decision by the City Planning Commission. The Director of City Planning may, at his or her discretion, refer an application for Regular Design Review to the City Planning Commission for an initial decision rather than acting on it himself or herself. In this case, the application shall still be considered a minor permit, but shall be processed according to the procedure in this Subsection. In these instances, any other minor permits associated with the application shall be considered concurrently by the Planning Commission, pursuant to Section 17.130.090. However, if the project involves a major variance or major conditional use permit; requires an Environmental Impact Report (EIR); or results in more than twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet of new nonresidential floor area and is located in any zone other than the D-DT (when not combined with the S-7 Zone or in the D-DT-JLI Zone), D-LM, D-CO, or S-15 Zones, the Director of City Planning shall refer the application to the City Planning Commission for an initial decision rather than acting on it himself or herself.

2.

Notification Procedures. Notice shall be given by posting an enlarged notice at a location on the project site that is clearly visible from the street, alley, or private way providing access to the subject lot. Notice shall also be given by mail or delivery to all owners and occupants within three hundred (300) feet of the project site; provided, however, that failure to send notice to any such owner where his or her address is not shown on the last available equalized assessment roll shall not invalidate the affected proceedings. All such notices shall be given not less than seventeen (17) days prior to the date set for a hearing before the Commission. During the required noticing period, the Planning and Building department shall receive and consider comments from any interested party.

3.

The Planning Commission may seek the advice of outside design professionals. While the hearing is open, any interested party must enter into the record any issues and/or oral, written, and/or documentary evidence to the Commission for its consideration; failure to do so will preclude the party from raising such issues and/or evidence during the appeal hearing and/or in court. The Commission shall determine whether the proposal conforms to the applicable design review criteria, and may approve or disapprove the proposal or require such changes therein or impose such reasonable conditions of approval as are in his or her or its judgment necessary to ensure conformity to said criteria.

4.

Finality of Decision. The initial decision of the Planning Commission shall become final ten (10) days after the date of decision unless appealed to the City Council in accordance with Section 17.136.090. Any party seeking to appeal the determination will be limited to issues and/or evidence presented to the Commission prior to the close of the Commission's public hearing on the matter, in accordance with the above procedures. In the event that the last day of appeal falls on a weekend or holiday when City offices are closed, the next date such offices are open for business shall be the last date of appeal.

E.

Alternative Notification Procedures. If the conditions as set forth in Section 17.130.020 apply, alternative notification procedures discussed therein may replace or supplement the procedures set forth in Subsections C. and D. of this Section.

(Ord. No. 13812, § 4(Exh. A), 7-30-2024; Ord. No. 13779, § 2(Exh. A), 1-16-2024; Ord. No. 13763, § 5, 10-3-2023; Ord. No. 13677, § 4(Exh. A), 1-18-2022; Ord. No. 13666, § 3(Exh. A), 11-16-2021; Ord. No. 13357, § 3(Exh. A), 2-16-2016; Ord. No. 13302, § 5(Exh. C), 4-21-2015; Ord. No. 13276, § 5(Exh. A), 12-9-2014; Ord. No. 13270, § 3(Exh. A), 11-18-2014; Ord. No. 13251, § 5(Exh. A), 7-29-2014; Ord. No. 13172, § 3(Exh. A), 7-2-2013; Ord. No. 13168, § 5(Exh. A-2), 6-18-2013; Ord. No. 13064, § 2(Exh. A), 3-15-2011; Ord. No. 13028, § 2(Exh. A), 7-20-2010; Ord. No. 12999, § 4(Exh. A), 3-16-2010; Ord. No. 12971, § 2(Exh. A), 9-22-2009; Ord. No. 12955, § 2(Exh. A), 7-21-2009; Ord. 12899 § 4, Exh. A (part), 2008; Ord. 12776 § 3, Exh. A (part), 2006: Ord. 12376 § 3 (part), 2001: Ord. 12237 § 4 (part), 2000; Ord. 11816 § 2 (part), 1995: prior planning code § 9305)

Regular design review approval may be granted only if the proposal conforms to all of the following general design review criteria, as well as to any and all other applicable design review criteria:

A.

For Residential Facilities.

1.

That the proposed design will create a building or set of buildings that are well related to the surrounding area in their setting, scale, bulk, height, materials, and textures;

2.

That the proposed design will be sensitive to the topography and landscape;

3.

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

4.

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.

B.

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 some significant relationship to outside appearance shall be considered, except as otherwise provided in Section 17.136.060;

2.

That the proposed design will be of a quality and character which harmonizes with, and serves to protect the value of, private and public investments in the area;

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.

C.

For Local Register Properties that are not Landmarks or located in the S-7 or S-20 Zone:

1.

That for additions or alterations, the proposal will not substantially impair the visual, architectural, or historic value of the affected site or facility. Consideration shall he given to design, form, scale, materials, texture, lighting, landscaping, Signs, and any other relevant design element or effect, and, where applicable, the relation of the above to the original design of the affected facility.

D.

For Potential Designated Historic Properties that are not Local Register Properties: That for additions or alterations,

1.

The design matches or is compatible with, but not necessarily identical to, the property's existing or historical design; or

2.

The proposed design comprehensively modifies and is at least equal in quality to the existing design and is compatible with the character of the neighborhood; or

3.

The existing design is undistinguished and does not warrant retention and the proposed design is compatible with the character of the neighborhood.

E.

For Retaining Walls:

1.

That the retaining wall is consistent with the overall building and site design and respects the natural landscape and topography of the site and surrounding areas;

2.

That the retaining wall is responsive to human scale, avoiding large, blank, uninterrupted or undesigned vertical surfaces;

3.

That the retaining wall respects the natural topography, avoiding obvious scars on the land;

4.

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.

(Ord. No. 13779, § 2(Exh. A), 1-16-2024; Ord. No. 13172, § 3(Exh. A), 7-2-2013; Ord. No. 13090, § 4(Exh. A), 10-4-2011; Ord. 12776 § 3, Exh. A (part), 2006: Ord. 12376 § 3 (part), 2001: Ord. 11816 § 2 (part), 1995; prior planning code § 9306)

A.

The provisions of this Section shall only apply to proposals in the Downtown District (D-DT) Zones and Lake Merritt Station Area District (D-LM) Zones.

B.

Findings.

1.

Any exterior alteration to a character-defining element of a Designated Historic Property (DHP) or Potentially Designated Historic Property (PDHP) that: 1) does not match its exterior historical materials or appearance, and 2) is part of the existing building (not part of any proposed addition) shall be required to meet any applicable criteria in Chapter 17.136 and meet findings (a) and (b), below. The determination of whether a project meets these findings requires consultation with Historic Preservation staff.

a.

Any replacements of exterior character-defining elements are required because repair is not feasible. "Character-defining elements" are those features of design, materials, workmanship, setting, location, and association that identify a property as representative of its period and contribute to its visual distinction or historical significance; and

b.

Consultation with Historic Preservation staff has determined that any replacement or repair that differs from the original feature is compatible with the character of the building, Area of Primary Importance (API) or Area of Secondary Importance (ASI), if applicable, and retains the character-defining appearance of the feature.

2.

Approval of applications for projects in an API that require Regular Design Review approval may be granted only upon determination that the proposal conforms to any applicable criteria in Chapter 17.136 and to the following additional criteria:

a.

Any proposed new construction is compatible with the existing API in terms of massing, siting, rhythm, composition, patterns of openings, quality of material, and intensity of detailing;

b.

New street frontage has forms that reflect the widths and rhythm of the facades on the street, and entrances that reflect the patterns on the street;

c.

The proposal provides high visual interest that either reflects the level and quality of visual interest of the API contributors or otherwise enhances the visual interest of the API;

d.

The proposal is consistent with the visual cohesiveness of the API. For the purpose of this finding, visual cohesiveness is the architectural character, the sum of all visual aspects, features, and materials that defines the API. A new structure contributes to the visual cohesiveness of a district if it relates to the design characteristics of a historic district while also conveying its own time. New construction may do so by drawing upon some basic building features, such as the way in which a building is located on its site, the manner in which it relates to the street, its basic mass, form, direction or orientation (horizontal vs. vertical), recesses and projections, quality of materials, patterns of openings and level of detailing. When some combination of these design variables are arranged in a new building to relate to those seen traditionally in the area, but integral to the design and character of the proposed new construction, visual cohesiveness results;

e.

Where height is a character-defining element of the API there are height transitions to any neighboring contributing historic buildings. "Character-defining elements" are those features of design, materials, workmanship, setting, location, and association that identify a property as representative of its period and contribute to its visual distinction or historical significance. APIs with a character-defining height and their character-defining height level are designated on the zoning maps; and

f.

For additions, the proposal meets either: 1) Secretary of Interior's standards for the treatment of historic resources; 2) the proposal will not adversely affect the character of the property or API; or, 3) upon the granting of a conditional use permit, (see Chapter 17.134 for the CUP procedure) and a hearing in front of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board for its recommendations, a project meets the additional findings in Subsection g., below.

g.

For construction of new principal buildings:

i.

The project will not cause the API to lose its status as an API;

ii.

The proposal will result in a building or addition with exterior visual quality, craftsmanship, detailing, and high quality and durable materials that is at least equal to that of the API contributors; and

iii.

The proposal contains elements that relate to the character-defining height of the API, if any, through the use of a combination of upper story setbacks, window patterns, change of materials, prominent cornice lines, or other techniques. APIs with a character-defining height and their character-defining height level are designated on the zoning maps.

3.

Approval of an application for a project that requires Regular Design Review Approval involving a DHP or PDHP outside of an API may be granted only upon determination that the proposal conforms to any applicable criteria in Chapter 17.136 and either meets each criteria (a), (b), and (c), or only (d), below:

a.

Any proposed new construction is compatible with the existing district and/or building in terms of massing, siting, rhythm, composition, patterns of openings, quality of material, and intensity of detailing;

b.

The proposal reflects the quality and visual interest of the building and/or ASI, or otherwise enhances the visual interest of the building or ASI;

c.

The proposal does not disqualify an ASI as an ASI; and

d.

If a project does not meet either finding (a), (b), or (c), above, approval of applications for projects may still be granted, but only after a hearing in front of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board for its recommendations and determination that the proposal meets the following criteria: The proposal will result in a signature building within the neighborhood, City, or region based on qualities including, but not necessarily limited to, exterior visual quality, craftsmanship, detailing, and high quality and durable materials.

C.

Required Hearings in Front of the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board (LPAB).

1.

Prior to project approval, the following projects require a hearing in front of the LPAB for its recommendations and/or advice to the decision making body:

a.

Any construction of a new principal building in an API;

b.

An addition to an API contributor when required by Subsection 17.136.055.B.2.f.

c.

With the exception of additions that are not visible from a street or other public area, projects in an API that would result in a building taller than the character-defining height of the district, if any. Districts with a character-defining height and their character-defining height levels are designated on the zoning maps. An addition is considered "visible from a street or other public area" if it is located within the "critical design area," defined as the area within forty (40) feet of any street line, public alley, public path, park or other public area.

d.

New construction or an addition to a building when required by Subsection 17.136.055.B.3.d.

e.

Any proposal involving a Local Register Property that requires Regular Design Review approval.

(Ord. No. 13812, § 4(Exh. A), 7-30-2023; Ord. No. 13357, § 3(Exh. A), 2-16-2016; Ord. No. 13276, § 5(Exh. A), 12-9-2014; Ord. No. 13251, § 5(Exh. A), 7-29-2014; Ord. No. 13172, § 3(Exh. A), 7-2-2013; Ord. No. 12955, § 2(Exh. A), 7-21-2009)

A.

Whenever an application is for regular design review in the S-7 Zone, or on a designated landmark site, the Director of City Planning shall refer the proposal to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board for its recommendations.

B.

Whenever an application is for regular design review in the S-20 Zone, and the Director of City Planning determines that a proposed addition or alteration will have a significant effect on the property's character-defining elements that are visible from a street or other public area, the Director may, at his or her discretion, refer the project to the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board for its recommendations. "Character-defining elements" are those features of design, materials, workmanship, setting, location, and association that identify a property as representative of its period and contribute to its visual distinction or historical significance. An addition or alteration is normally considered "visible from a street or other public area" if it affects a street face or public face of the facility or is otherwise located within the "critical design area," defined as the area within forty (40) feet of any street line, public alley, public path, park or other public area.

(Ord. No. 13172, § 3(Exh. A), 7-2-2013; Ord. 12776 § 3, Exh. A (part), 2006: Ord. 11816 § 2 (part), 1995: prior planning code § 9303)

A.

Designation. In any zone, the City Council may designate as a landmark any facility, portion thereof, or group of facilities which has special character, interest, or value of any of the types referred to in Section 17.07.030P. The designating ordinance for each landmark shall include a description of the characteristics of the landmark which justify its designation and a clear description of the particular features that should be preserved. Each ordinance shall also include the location and boundaries of a landmark site, which shall be the lot, or other appropriate immediate setting, containing the landmark. Designation of each landmark and landmark site shall be pursuant to the rezoning and law change procedure in Chapter 17.144.

B.

Design Review for Construction or Alteration. Except for projects that are exempt from design review as set forth in Section 17.136.025, no Building Facility, Telecommunications Facility, Sign, or other associated structure on any designated landmark site shall be constructed or established, or altered in such a manner as to affect exterior appearance unless plans for the proposal have been approved pursuant to the design review procedure in this Chapter and the applicable provisions of this Section. Furthermore, for a publicly-owned landmark, the designating ordinance may require such approval of proposed changes to major interior architectural features.

C.

Regular Design Review Criteria. Proposals involving designated landmarks that require Regular design review approval may be granted only upon determination that the proposal conforms to the Regular design review criteria set forth in Section 17.136.050 and to the additional criteria set forth below in Subdivisions 1, 2 and 3 or to one or both of the criteria set forth in Subdivision 4:

1.

That the proposal will not adversely affect the exterior features of the designated landmark nor, when subject to control as specified in the designating ordinance for a publicly-owned landmark, its major interior architectural features;

2.

That the proposal will not adversely affect the special character, interest, or value of the landmark and its site, as viewed both in themselves and in their setting;

3.

That the proposal conforms with the Design Guidelines for Landmarks and Preservation Districts as adopted by the City Planning Commission and, as applicable for certain federally related projects, with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties;

4.

If the proposal does not conform to the criteria set forth in Subdivisions 1, 2 and 3:

i.

That the designated landmark or portion thereof is in such condition that it is not architecturally feasible to preserve or restore it, or

ii.

That, considering the economic feasibility of alternatives to the proposal, and balancing the interest of the public in protecting the designated landmark or portion thereof, and the interest of the owner of the landmark site in the utilization thereof, approval is required by considerations of equity.

D.

Duty to Keep in Good Repair. Except as otherwise authorized under Subsections B. and C. of this Section, the owner, lessee, or other person in actual charge of each designated landmark shall keep good repair all of the exterior portions thereof, all of the interior portions thereof when subject to control as specified in the designating ordinance, and all interior portions thereof the maintenance of which is necessary to prevent deterioration and decay of any exterior portion.

(Ord. No. 13357, § 3(Exh. A), 2-16-2016; Ord. No. 13172, § 3(Exh. A), 7-2-2013; Ord. No. 13028, § 2(Exh. A), 7-20-2010; Ord. No. 12999, § 4(Exh. A), 3-16-2010; Ord. 12776 § 3, Exh. A (part), 2006: Ord. 12513 Attach. A (part), 2003: Ord. 12237 § 4 (part), 2000; prior planning code § 7002)

A.

With the exception of structures declared to be a public nuisance by the Building Official or City Council, Regular Design Review of the demolition or removal of a Designated Historic Property (DHP) or Potentially Designated Historic Property (PDHP) shall only be approved after the Regular Design Review of a replacement project at the subject site has been approved; however, demolition of nuisance structures must still undergo Regular Design Review for demolition as required by this Chapter.

B.

Regular Design Review approval for the demolition or removal of any Landmark, Heritage Property, structure rated "A" or "B" by the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey, and structure on the City's Preservation Study List that are not in an S-7 or S-20 Zone, or Area of Primary Importance (API) as determined by the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey may be granted only if the proposal conforms to the Regular design review criteria, all other applicable design review criteria, and the following additional criteria:

1.

The applicant demonstrates that: a) the existing property has no reasonable use or cannot generate a reasonable economic return and that the development replacing it will provide such use or generate such return, or b) the applicant demonstrates that the structure constitutes a hazard and is economically infeasible to rehabilitate on its present site. For this finding, a hazard constitutes a threat to health and safety that is not immediate;

2.

If a replacement facility is required by Subsection 17.136.075.A., the design quality of the replacement facility is equal or superior to that of the existing facility; and

3.

It is economically, functionally architecturally, or structurally infeasible to incorporate the historic structure into the proposed development.

C.

Regular Design Review Approval for the demolition or removal of any structure in the CIX-1A Zone, or an S-7 or S-20 Zone, or an Area of Primary Importance (API) as determined by the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey may be granted only if the proposal conforms to the general design review criteria, all other applicable design review criteria, and the following additional criteria:

1.

For the demolition of structures in the CIX-1A Zone; or contributors to an S-7 Zone, S-20 Zone, or API:

a.

The applicant demonstrates that: i) the existing property has no reasonable use or cannot generate a reasonable economic return and that the development replacing it will provide such use or generates such return, or ii) the applicant demonstrates that the structure constitutes a hazard and is economically infeasible to rehabilitate on its present site. For this criterion, a hazard constitutes a threat to health and safety that is not immediate; and

b.

It is economically, functionally, architecturally, or structurally infeasible to incorporate the historic structure, or existing structure in the CIX-1A Zone, into the proposed development.

2.

For the demolition of noncontributors to an S-7 Zone, S-20 Zone, or API: The existing structure is either: i) seriously deteriorated or a hazard; or ii) the existing design is undistinguished and does not warrant retention. For this finding, a hazard constitutes a threat to health and safety that is not immediate;

3.

For the demolition of any structure in an S-7 Zone, S-20 Zone, or API:

a.

The design quality of the replacement structure is equal/superior to that of the existing structure; and

b.

The design of the replacement project is compatible with the character of the district, and there is no erosion of design quality at the replacement project site and in the surrounding area. This includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following additional findings:

i.

The replacement project is compatible with the district in terms of massing, siting, rhythm, composition, patterns of openings, quality of material, and intensity of detailing;

ii.

New street frontage includes forms that reflect the widths and rhythm of the facades on the street and entrances that reflect the patterns on the street;

iii.

The replacement project provides high visual interest that either reflects the level and quality of visual interest of the district contributors or otherwise enhances the visual interest of the district;

iv.

If the design contrasts the new to the historic character, the replacement project enriches the historic character of the district;

v.

The replacement project is consistent with the visual cohesiveness of the district. For the purpose of this item, visual cohesiveness is the architectural character, the sum of all visual aspects, features, and materials that defines the district. A new structure contributes to the visual cohesiveness of a district if it relates to the design characteristics of a historic district. New construction may do so by drawing upon some basic building features, such as the way in which a building is located on its site, the manner in which it relates to the street, its basic mass, form, direction or orientation (horizontal vs. vertical), recesses and projections, quality of materials, patterns of openings and level of detailing. When a combination of some of these design variables are arranged in a new building to relate to those seen traditionally in the area, but integral to the design and character of the proposed new construction, visual cohesiveness results; and

vi.

The replacement project will not cause the district to lose its current historic status.

D.

Regular Design Review Approval for the demolition or removal of any structure rated "C" by the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey or contributes to an Area of Secondary Importance (ASI) as determined by the Oakland Cultural Heritage Survey may be granted only if the proposal conforms to the general design review criteria, all other applicable design review criteria, and to either: 1., 2., or 3., below:

1.

The design quality of the proposed replacement project is at least equal to that of the original structure and the proposed replacement project is compatible with the character of the neighborhood; or

2.

The public benefits of the proposed replacement project outweigh the benefit of retaining the original structure and the proposed replacement project is compatible with the character of the neighborhood; or

3.

The existing design is undistinguished and does not warrant retention and the proposed design is compatible with the character of the neighborhood.

E.

For proposals that have received Design Review approval pursuant to this Section, the issuance of a demolition permit for any structure or portion thereof may be postponed by the Director of City Planning for a period not to exceed one hundred twenty (120) days from the date of application for such permit. The Director may do so upon determination that the structure or portion thereof is listed as a Local Register Property, or is on a study list of facilities under serious study by the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, the City Planning Commission, or the Director, for possible landmark designation under Section 17.136.070 or for other appropriate action to preserve it. During the period of postponement the Board, the Commission, or the Director shall explore means for preserving or restoring the structure or portion thereof. However, demolition may not be postponed under this Section if, after notice to the Director of City Planning, the Building Services Department, the Housing Conservation Division, their respective appeals boards, or the City Council determines that immediate demolition is necessary to protect the public health or safety. Any determination made by the Director of City Planning under this Section may be appealed pursuant to the administrative appeal procedure in Chapter 17.132.

(Ord. No. 13357, § 3(Exh. A), 2-16-2016; Ord. No. 13302, § 5(Exh. C), 4-21-2015; Ord. No. 13251, § 5(Exh. A), 7-29-2014; Ord. No. 13172, § 3(Exh. A), 7-2-2013; Ord. No. 13064, § 2(Exh. A), 3-15-2011; Ord. No. 13028, § 2(Exh. A), 7-20-2010)

Editor's note— Ord. No. 13028, § 2(Exh. A), adopted July 20, 2010, amended Section 17.136.075 in its entirety to read as herein set out. Formerly, Section 17.136.075 pertained to postponement of demolition, and derived from the prior planning code, § 7005, and Ord. No. 12776, § 3, Exh. A (part), adopted in 2006.

Within ten (10) calendar days after the date of initial decision by the Director of City Planning on an application for Regular design review under the procedure specified in Subsection 17.136.040.C, an appeal from said decision may be taken to the City Planning Commission by the applicant, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, or any other interested party. In the case of appeals involving One-Family or Two- to Four-Family Residential Facilities, the appeal shall be considered by the Commission's Residential Appeals Committee. In the event the last day of appeal falls on a weekend or holiday when City offices are closed, the next date offices are open for business shall be the last date of appeal. Such appeal shall be made on a form prescribed by the City Planning and Building Department and shall be filed with such Department, along with the appropriate fees required by the City's Master Fee Schedule. The appeal shall state specifically wherein it is claimed there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Director or wherein his or her decision is not supported by the evidence in the record. The appeal itself must raise each and every issue that is contested, along with all the arguments and evidence in the record, previously presented to the Director of City Planning prior to the close of the written public comment period on the item, which supports the basis of the appeal; failure to do so will preclude the appellant from raising such issues and/or evidence during the appeal and/or in court. The appeal is not de novo. Upon receipt of such appeal, the Secretary of the City Planning Commission shall set the time for consideration thereof. Not less than seventeen (17) days prior to the date of the Commission's or Committee's consideration of the appeal, written notice shall be given to: the applicant; the appellant in those cases where the applicant is not the appellant; adverse party or parties, or to the attorney, spokesperson, or representative of such party or parties; other interested groups and neighborhood associations who have requested notification; and to similar groups and individuals as the Secretary deems appropriate, of the date and place of the hearing on the appeal. During the hearing on the appeal, the appellant will be limited to issues and/or evidence presented to the Director of City Planning prior to the close of the written public comment period for the underlying decision being appealed, as the appeal is not de novo. The appellant shall not be permitted to present any other issues and/or evidence (written, oral, or otherwise) during the appeal process. In considering the appeal, the Commission or, if applicable, the Committee shall determine whether the proposal conforms to the applicable design review criteria, and may approve or disapprove the proposal or require such changes therein or impose such reasonable conditions of approval as are in its judgment necessary to ensure conformity to said criteria. The Commission or, if applicable, the Committee may seek the advice of outside design professionals. The decision of the Commission or, if applicable, the Committee on a proposal being considered under the procedure specified in Subsection 17.136.040.C. shall be final immediately and is not ultimately appealable to the City Council.

(Ord. No. 13779, § 2(Exh. A), 1-16-2024; Ord. No. 13763, § 5, 10-3-2023; Ord. No. 13270, § 3(Exh. A), 11-18-2014; Ord. No. 13172, § 3(Exh. A), 7-2-2013; Ord. No. 13064, § 2(Exh. A), 3-15-2011; Ord. 12776 § 3, Exh. A (part), 2006: Ord. 12376 § 3 (part), 2001: Ord. 11816 § 2 (part), 1995: prior planning code § 9307)

Within ten (10) calendar days after the date of initial decision by the City Planning Commission on an application for Regular design review under the procedure specified in Subsection 17.136.040.D, an appeal from said decision may be taken to the City Council by the applicant, the Landmarks Preservation Advisory Board, or any other interested party. In the event the last date of appeal falls on a weekend or holiday when City offices are closed, the next date such offices are open for business shall be the last date of appeal. No such appeal to the City Council is allowable under the procedure specified in Subsection 17.136.040.C. Such appeal shall be made on a form prescribed by the Planning Director and shall be filed with the Planning and Building Department, along with the appropriate fees required by the City's Master Fee Schedule. The appeal shall state specifically wherein it is claimed there was an error or abuse of discretion by the Commission or wherein its decision is not supported by the evidence in the record. The appeal itself must raise each and every issue that is contested, along with all the arguments and evidence in the record, previously presented to City Planning Commission prior to the close of its public hearing on the item, which supports the basis of the appeal; failure to do so will preclude the appellant from raising such issues and/or evidence during the appeal and/or in court. The appeal is not de novo. Upon receipt of the appeal, the Council shall set the date for consideration thereof. After setting the hearing date, the Council, prior to hearing the appeal, may refer the matter back to the Planning Commission for further consideration and advice. Appeals referred to the Planning Commission shall be considered by the Commission at its next available meeting. Any such referral shall be only for the purpose of issue clarification and advice. In all cases, the City Council shall retain jurisdiction and, after receiving the advice of the Planning Commission, shall hold a hearing on and decide the appeal.

The City Clerk shall notify the Secretary of the City Planning Commission of the date set for consideration thereof. Not less than seventeen (17) days prior thereto, written notice shall be given to: the applicant; the appellant in those cases where the applicant is not the appellant; adverse party or parties, or to the attorney, spokesperson, or representative of such party or parties; other interested groups and neighborhood associations who have requested notification; and to similar groups and individuals as the Secretary deems appropriate, of the date and place of the hearing on the appeal. During the hearing on the appeal, the appellant will be limited to issues and/or evidence presented prior to the close of the City Planning Commission's public hearing on the item, in accordance with the above procedures, as the appeal is not de novo. The appellant shall not be permitted to present any other issues and/or evidence (written, oral, or otherwise) during the appeal process. In considering the appeal, the Council shall determine whether the proposal conforms to the applicable design review criteria, and may approve or disapprove the proposal or require such changes therein or impose such reasonable conditions of approval as are in its judgment necessary to ensure conformity to said criteria. The decision of the City Council shall be made by resolution and shall be final.

(Ord. No. 13778, 1-16-2024; Ord. No. 13596, § 2(Exh. A), 6-2-2020; Ord. No. 13270, § 3(Exh. A), 11-18-2014; Ord. No. 13172, § 3(Exh. A), 7-2-2013; Ord. No. 13064, § 2(Exh. A), 3-15-2011; Ord. 12776 § 3, Exh. A (part), 2006: Ord. 11816 § 2 (part), 1995: prior planning code § 9308)

A.

A design review approval shall be subject to the plans and other conditions upon the basis of which it was granted. Except as indicated in Subsection B. below or unless a different termination date is prescribed, the approval shall terminate three (3) years from the effective date of its granting unless, within such period, all necessary permits for construction, alteration, demolition, or removal, as the case may be, have been filed with the Planning and Building Department and diligently pursued towards completion. Upon written request and payment of appropriate fees submitted no later than the expiration date of this approval, the Zoning Manager, or his or her designee, may grant up to a two-year extension of this date, with additional extensions subject to approval by the original reviewing officer or body. Expiration of any necessary building permit for the project may invalidate the design review approval if said approval or extension period 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.

B.

In order to support implementation of the City's 2023-2031 Housing Element, the following shall supersede the applicable provisions in Subsection A. for the time period of January 31, 2023 to January 31, 2031:

1.

A design review approval granted for the creation of residential units between January 31, 2023 and January 31, 2026 shall terminate five (5) years from the effective date of its granting unless all necessary permits for construction, alteration, demolition, or removal, as the case may be, have been filed with the Planning and Building Department and diligently pursued towards completion within such period. Upon written request and payment of appropriate fees submitted no later than the expiration date of this approval, the Zoning Manager, or his or her designee, may grant up to a three-year extension of this date; and

2.

A design review approval granted before January 31, 2023 for the creation of residential units that has not expired before that date shall be granted an automatic extension to January 31, 2028. Upon written request and payment of appropriate fees submitted no later than the expiration date of this approval, the Zoning Manager, or his or her designee, may grant up to a three-year extension of this date.

(Ord. No. 13779, § 2(Exh. A), 1-16-2024; Ord. 12776 § 3, Exh. A (part), 2006: Ord. 11816 § 2 (part), 1995; prior planning code § 9309)

A.

Whenever design review approval is required for a proposal also requiring one or more other discretionary permits, such as a Conditional Use Permit, Planned Unit Development permit, or variance, the application for design review shall be submitted with the application for said other permit and shall be processed and considered as part of the same proposal. The reviewing officer or body shall, in considering the design review aspects of the proposal, determine whether it conforms to all the applicable design review criteria. Decisions on the design review aspects of a proposal also requiring one or more other discretionary permits, such as a Minor Conditional Use Permit or Minor Variance, shall still be appealable within ten (10) calendar days after the date of decision to the City Planning Commission or City Council to the extent such appeal would otherwise be allowed under Sections 17.136.080 and 17.136.090. In the event the last date of appeal falls on a weekend or holiday when City offices are closed, the next date such offices are open for business shall be the last date of appeal.

B.

Whenever design review approval is required for a proposal also requiring subdivision approval, the application for design review approval shall be submitted with the tentative map or tentative parcel map required by the Oakland Municipal Code, and shall be subject to all the separate procedure and criteria pertaining to design review.

(Ord. No. 13596, § 2(Exh. A), 6-2-2020; Ord. No. 13357, § 3(Exh. A), 2-16-2016; Ord. No. 13064, § 2(Exh. A), 3-15-2011; Ord. 12776 § 3, Exh. A (part), 2006: Ord. 12376 § 3 (part), 2001: Ord. 11816 § 2 (part), 1995: prior planning code § 9311)

Whenever an application for Small project design review or Special project design review has been denied by the Director of City Planning, no Small project design review application or Special project design review application for essentially the same proposal affecting the same property, or any portion thereof, shall be filed within one (1) year after the date of denial; provided, however, that such proposal may be resubmitted as an application for Regular design review.

The limitation of this Section on resubmitting an application for Small project design review or Special project design review shall not apply in instances where the applicant can show, on the face of any subsequent application, changed circumstances sufficient to justify reconsideration of denial of the original application for Small project design review or Special project design review. Applications pursuant to this Section shall be considered by the Director of City Planning. A determination by the Director shall become final ten (10) calendar days after the date of decision unless appealed to the City Planning Commission. In event the last date of appeal falls on a weekend or holiday when City offices are closed, the next date such offices are open for business shall be the last date of appeal. Any such decision by the Planning Commission shall be final.

(Ord. No. 13357, § 3(Exh. A), 2-16-2016; Ord. No. 13302, § 5(Exh. C), 4-21-2015; Ord. No. 13064, § 2(Exh. A), 3-15-2011; Ord. 12776 § 3, Exh. A (part), 2006: Ord. 11816 § 2 (part), 1995: prior planning code § 9312)