Email All Redacted PDF

From: Tom Limon [mailto:tlimon.opc@gmail.
com]
Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2017 2:47 PM
To: Merkamp, Robert
Subject: Fwd: Item #4: 829 21st Street, PLN15408-A01
---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Koonal Parmar < >
Date: Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:58 PM
Subject: Item #4: 829 21st Street, PLN15408-A01
To: nagrajplanning@gmail.com, EW.Oakland@gmail.com, tlimon.opc@gmail.com,
cmanusopc@gmail.com, amandamonchamp@gmail.com,
jmyres.oakplanningcommission@gmail.com, pattillo@pgadesign.com,
pvollmann@oaklandnet.com, smiller@oaklandnet.com
Greetings Planning Commission,

I most likely cannot make the meeting tonight so I am forwarding you my statement that is under
two minutes long when given as a speech.
I am the spokesperson for the owners and tenants of the homes that were greatly affected by the
illegal raising of this building by approximately 5 feet. Our homes are now cast in shadows while
our views have been taken away. Even worse is that our privacy has been lost as well. We now
look out our windows only to see an ugly steel wall three feet away or their illegal windows
looking in to our bathroom and bedroom. Scott Miller has been to my house and can attest to
this. We accepted the city's conditions of approval, reluctantly, as we wanted all of the buildings
lowered to their original height. We realized that the city ultimately came up with a plan that
would not harm the owners of 829 21st street and provide us with the relief we deserve. (i.e. light
wells and keeping the city's rear setback law) I trust, given your vast expertise in planning, that
you see right through the attorney for 829 21st st. Virtually all of her statements are lies or great
misrepresentations at best.
My key points;
1. The building was raised without permits and was not built to code. Given what happened in
Berkeley recently when several people perished from a falling deck,, it is imperative that the
project go through thorough building review, specifically checking the structural integrity of the
building. We fear this building will collapse on us when we are in our backyard. I believe
design review and building department will go over the raising of the building and new
foundation for the construction of light wells.
2. Legalizing this building, after the fact, sets a dangerous precedent for other shady developers
to skip the permit and review process, knowing it is now acceptable to save money on materials
and foundations while having your project get legalized after a few years. As you know, the city
is littered with illegal structures and developments. My opinion is the wrong decision on your
part will most likely inspire future developers to circumvent the system in order to save and
make money.
3. The approval of condition will not displace any owners or create an excessive hardship as their
attorney claims.
4. Finally, we have lost a fair amount of value in our homes from loss of sunlight, views, and
air. This massive structure within our setbacks has severely deteriorated the spatial
relationships. Our homes now look super tiny. My property alone has lost about hundred
thousand dollars in value (100k). The city admitted to being negligent in their due diligence in
regards to inspections and the project overall. This allows the city to rectify their mistake and
make amends to the neighboring homeowners.
I know you will do the right thing when making your decision. Please confirm receipt of this
correspondence. Thanks
KP
From: Lugo, Michelle <MLugo@manatt.com>
Subject: November 16, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 4: 829 21st Street
To: "NAGRAJPLANNING@GMAIL.COM" <NAGRAJPLANNING@gmail.com>,
"EW.OAKLAND@GMAIL.COM" <EW.OAKLAND@gmail.com>,
"TLIMON.OPC@GMAIL.COM" <TLIMON.OPC@gmail.com>,
"CMANUSOPC@GMAIL.COM" <CMANUSOPC@gmail.com>,
"AMANDAMONCHAMP@GMAIL.COM" <AMANDAMONCHAMP@gmail.com>,
"JMYRES.OAKPLANNINGCOMMISSION@GMAIL.COM"
<JMYRES.OAKPLANNINGCOMMISSION@gmail.com>,
"PATTILLO@PGADESIGN.COM" <PATTILLO@pgadesign.com>
Cc: "Crisp, Robia" <RCrisp@manatt.com>, "Lawson, Kristina" <KLawson@manatt.com>
Hello,
On behalf of Robia Crisp, please see the attached .pdf for a copy of the:
November 16, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 4: 829 21st Street;
Appeal of Conditions of Approval Relating to Administrative Decision Approving Permits
to Legalize Existing Live-Work Units (Case File No. PLN15-408)
Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.
Michelle Lugo
Legal Assistant
_______________________
Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP
One Embarcadero Center

30th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
D (415) 291-7548 F (415) 291-7474

MLugo@manatt.com
manatt.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential
information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are
hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY
PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply email and destroy the original transmission and its
attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.
manatt
manatt | phelps | phillips
Robia S. Crisp
Direct Dial: (415)291-7462
E-mail: RCrisp@manatt,com
November 16, 2016
BY E-MAIL NAGRAJPLANNING@GMAIL.COM; EW.OAKLAND@GMAIL.COM;

TLIMON.OPC @ GMAIL.COM; CMANUSOPC@GMAIL.COM;
AMANDAMONCHAMP@GMAIL.COM;
JMYRES.OAKPLANNINGCOMMISSION@GMAIL.COM;
PATTILLO @ PGADESIGN.COM
Oakland City Planning Commission

Oakland City Hall
One Frank Ogawa Plaza, Suite 3315
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: November 16, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda Item No. 4: 829 21st
Street; Appeal of Conditions of Approval Relating to Administrative Decision
Approving Permits to Legalize Existing Live-Work Units (Case File No. PLN15-
408)
Dear Chair Nagraj and Members of the Planning Commission:
This office represents the 829 21st Street Homeowners Association, the owners of five
separate live-work units ("the Homeowners") located within three buildings that each stand at 19 feet,
six inches high, and that prior to their legal conversion in 2010, comprised of one or more large,
vacant warehouse structures. On your agenda for tonight's meeting, our client's appeal of the Zoning
Administrator's August 26, 2016 decision to approve of our request for setback variances with
conditions (the "Decision") appears as Item No. 4.
To provide context, the existing development was constructed in accordance with all plans
and approvals reviewed and issued by the City before any of the Homeowners purchased their
respective units. Three years after the project was complete, a complaining neighbor with whom
some of the Homeowners were and continue to be embroiled in a property line dispute, alleged that
necessary variances were not sought or obtained by a predecessor owner in or around 2007. This
triggered a misguided and unfounded code enforcement proceeding nearly nine years after the alleged
violation occurred, and that is currently the subject of a pending lawsuit filed by the Homeowners
against the City. As discussed below, even assuming the foundation, and consequently the buildings,
were raised in 2007 without the City's approval of required setback variances, the failure of a prior
owner to obtain such variances did not preclude the City from extensively reviewing and requiring
project modifications for the development as it currently exists pursuant to the Conditional Use
Permit, Design Review and subdivision map approval in 2008. This application primarily seeks to
document the legality of these longstanding buildings without further litigation.
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415.291.7400 Fax: 415.291.7474
Albany | Chicago | Los Angeles | New York | Orange County | Palo Alto j Sacramento | San Francisco | Washington, D.C.
manatt

November 16, 2016
Page 2
We have reviewed the Staff Report recommending that you uphold the Decision and deny our
request that you do so with a modification to delete Conditions of Approval No. 23 and 24 ("Project
Specific Conditions of Approval"). Condition of Approval No. 23 would require the installation of
large light wells along property line walls that are twice the width of any windows on abutting
residences. This condition would require significant reconfiguration of the exterior and interior of the
units, which have kitchens and bathrooms alongside these walls. Condition of Approval No. 24
would require the lowering of the height of one of the buildings by almost four feet along nearly 13
feet along the rear yard (or, the removal of the portion of the building within the rear yard setback
entirely). Both conditions would require extensive structural alterations that are wholly infeasible
and in effect, destroy our client's residences. As stated in the Staff Report, Condition of Approval
No. 24 is essentially the denial of the rear yard setback variance and as a practical matter. Condition
of Approval No. 23 similarly amounts to a denial of the side yard setback variance.
For the reasons set forth below, in our application transmittal letter dated December 23, 2015,
in our appeal letter dated September 6, 2016, and as may be presented at the appeal hearing, the
Project Specific Conditions of Approval were imposed in error, constitute an abuse of discretion, and
are not supported by evidence in the record. We respectfully request that you grant our appeal as
requested.
1. The Staff Report Contains Numerous Factual Inaccuracies, Omissions and Condusory
Statements That Cannot Serve as a Basis for the Denial of Our Appeal.
At the outset, we would note that the information provided in the Staff Report contains
numerous factual inaccuracies and omissions that at a minimum, mischaracterize the context for, and
purpose of, our client's request for the setback variances.
(a) Background Historv. First, the Background History provided on Page 3 of the Staff
Report states that the Flomeowners filed the application to legalize the raising of the building within
the required setbacks in response to Code Enforcement proceedings. (Staff Report, p. 3.) While this
is partly true, the Homeowners do not concede that the building was raised nor that they are legally
required to obtain the requested variances. These issues are the subject of the lawsuit filed on behalf
of our client against the City on September 28, 2015 in Alameda County Superior Court. We
subsequently filed the subject application in order to avoid further litigation with the City and in an
effort to take corrective action in accordance with the Notices of Violation and Hearing Examiner's
Decision, to "legalize" the long-standing conditions at the property. A copy of the transmittal letter
included with our application package dated December 23, 2015, which was not included in the Staff
Report, is attached hereto as Attachment 1.
Second, and as a somewhat related issue, the Staff Report repeatedly states that in issuing the
building permit to replace the foundation for the buildings in January 2007, the City directed the then-
manatt

November 16, 2016
Page 3
owner applicant to not raise the building, and concludes that the building was in fact raised at the time
this foundation work was completed. These assertions are not supported by the record.
On page 3 of the Staff Report, staff concludes, "It appears that during this time the building
was raised in height from 15'9" to I9'6", which was beyond the scope of work on the permit
as part of the review of the foundation permit, it was specifically noted as not allowed by
Planning within the City's Permit Tracking System."
The Timeline of Events appearing on page 4 states, "Planning Staff enters note into Permit
Tracking System stating that it is okay to replace foundation but that they may not raise the
structure or alter the exterior of the building."
The Staff Response on page 8 of the Staff Report states, ".. .the prior owner had come in to
obtain a permit to replace the foundation and was explicitly directed not to alter the exterior of
the building. The property owner blatantly altered the exterior despite this direction..."
These conclusory and unfounded statements appear to be based on an entry made by planning
staff in the City's internal tracking system over nine years ago, on January 12, 2007. The entirety of
the subject entry is attached hereto as Attachment 2. The entry does not indicate that the prior owner
was explicitly directed to not raise the building and there is no evidence that the owner then did so.
These inaccurate assertions overstate the significance of internal staff notations yet appear to serve as
the basis for much of staff's reasoning in recommending the denial of the variances as requested.
(b) Timeline of Events.1 The Timeline of Events appearing on page 4 of the Staff Report
omits the fact that between the date that the foundation permit application was filed on December 27,
2006 and the date the building permit was finaled on May 22, 2007, the City conducted five
inspections2 of the foundation. The Timeline also omits the fact that between the date that the
building permit application for the conversion project was filed on December 20, 2007 and the date
that it was finaled on March 1, 2010, the City conducted twelve inspections.3 This is relevant to the
Staff Response explaining that the City cannot be estopped from imposing new conditions because
the City was not aware of the true facts. (Staff Report, p. 8.)
The Timeline of Events also omits the City's issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy on April 9, 2010.
1 Although the Timeline begins with the date of the application for the foundation permit in 2006, there are no records
confirming the height of the building prior to this foundation work being completed. The most recent record provided by
the City that indicates a lower building height is dated in 1950.
2 According to City records, building inspections were conducted on December 28, 2006, April 13, 2007, May 4, 2007,
May 18, 2007 and May 22, 2007. (See Attachment 3.)
3 According to City records, building inspections were conducted on February 14, 2008, March 7, 2008, March 10, 2008,
May 5, 2008, July 9, 2008, August 29, 2008, October 6, 2008, October 10, 2008, October 17, 2008, October 30, 2008,
May 26, 2009, and July 17, 2009. (See Attachment 4.)
manatt

November 16, 2016
Page 4
Finally, we would point out that the City issued Notices of Violation on January 9, 2015,
almost five years after the project was completed in accordance with City-approved plans. Again,
this is relevant to the City's attempt to impose new conditions that were not required as part of the
approval of the conversion project to address the same design issues that were present then.
(c) Significance of the City's 2008 Approval of the Conversion Project. The Staff Report
states that the current application is not directly related to the use of the property granted through the
prior Conditional Use Permit but rather the fact that the building was raised within the required
setbacks without the benefit of the proper permits. It further states: "What the appellant fails to point
out is that the Design Review component of the prior application was based upon a false premise that
the building legally existed in its current state and there was to be no exterior expansion proposed.
That is, the appellant is relying on a permit that purportedly led her to believe that she did not need to
obtain proper permits to build into then-existing front, side and rear setback requirements." (Staff
Report, p. 8.)
The Design Review component was based on accurate information that the building was 19
feet, 6 inches tall and nonconforming with regard to setback requirements. As a point of clarification,
nothing has been built into any of the setbacks and the building footprint has never been expanded.
Further, Staff seems to confuse the partiesthe Homeowners had no involvement with the property
until 2010, and have made no exterior alterations to the buildings. The alleged violation took place
over a decade ago and well before any of the current Homeowners purchased their respective units as
new construction. Staff disregards the fact that the City's 2008 approval of the Conditional Use
Permit and Design Review application, and all related plans, showed and described the buildings as
the currently exist and included project modifications to address the same design issues presented by
the setback variances currently at issue. To Staff's point regarding our reliance on the permit, there
are no facts to suggest that the Homeowners should not have relied on the validity of the conditional
use permit and related building permit.
The approval letter dated May 30, 2008 states that the application for "a Conditional Use
Permit to allow new Live-Work floor area.. .and to allow the re-activation of the prior non
conforming activity and allow the permitted substitutive uses. Design Review to alter the exterior of
the existing buildings, and Tentative Parcel map for five commercial condominiums has been
APPROVED." (Staff Report, Attachment B, Exhibit B.) Related and approved plans all show the
buildings as they currently exist.
2. The Project Specific Conditions of Approval Were Imposed in Error and the Decision
Constitutes an Abuse of Discretion and is Not Supported by the Evidence in the Record.
The findings made by the City in 2008 support the approval of the requested variances
without additional conditions. The Staff Report's analysis of the Zoning Manager's Decision states
that with regard to Condition of Approval No. 23 requiring lightwells, the intent is for the design to
manatt
manatt | phelps [ phillips

November 16, 2016
Page 5
meet the intent of the side setback regulation regarding access to light and air consistent to what
would be available if the building met the required four-foot side yard setback. (Staff Report, p. 6.)
The Staff Report's analysis of the need for Condition of Approval No. 24 requiring the removal of
lowering of the approximately 13-foot portion of the building within the rear yard setback states that
it is necessary to address bulk and height issues that affect the character and setting of the
surrounding homes. (Staff Report, pp. 6-7.)
While we recognize that the approval of setback variances requires separate and distinct
findings, the removal of the large segments of the former building and other exterior design
modifications achieved the same result that the Project Conditions of Approval are intended to
achieve.
In approving the Conditional Use Permit and Design Review application, the City reviewed
plans and information indicating the height of the building as 19 feet, 6 inches, and considered
exterior changes and design alternatives and exterior modifications were made to support the requisite
design review findings. Pursuant to Section 17.136.050(B), the required findings included taking into
consideration whether the buildings were well related to one another and when taken together,
resulted 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." (Staff Report, Attachment B, Exhibit B, numbered page 18.) The findings
also required that the design was of a quality and character that harmonizes with, and serves to protect
the value of, private and public investments in the area. {Id.) Exterior modifications to the buildings
cited to in support of the findings made in 2008 are described as follows:
The proposal will essentially keep the buildings as they are except that
portions of the buildings have been removed to reduce the mass of the
property and allow for more open area on site, and the exterior
appearance of the building is being improved by adding new siding and
windows that will transition the building into more of a
commercial/residential appearance rather than the prior industrial
appearance of the building
The proposed renovation of the building will give the structure a softer
appearance by reducing the mass of the building, and improving the
exterior finishes to allow for a more attractive development as opposed
to the prior industrial appearance of the warehousing activity.
manatt

November 16, 2016
Page 6
{Id.) The approved plans show that where the buildings abut residential lots, entire segments of the
former warehouse building were removed, creating three buildings. Between what are now Buildings
A and B, an approximately eight-foot wide portion of the former building was removed to reduce the
mass of the property. (Staff Report, Attachment D.)
Nothing has changed since the conversion project was completed that would require
additional modification to the buildings. The City could have, and chose not to require the
installation of additional lightwells and the removal or lowering of the portion of the building within
the 15-foot rear yard setback as part of the approval of the conversion project. Similarly, the
complaining neighbor could have appealed and chose not to appeal the May 30, 2008 decision of the
Zoning Manager. These facts further support our client's equitable defenses against the City's
imposition of the new Project Specific Conditions of Approval, as discussed below.
In addition, the findings do not support requiring the Project Specific Conditions of Approval.
For example, the Minor Variance Findings set forth in Section 17.148.050, require a finding that
"strict compliance with the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
hardship inconsistent with the purposes of the zoning regulations, due to unique physical or
topographic circumstances or conditions of design; or as an alternative in the case of a minor
variance, that such strict compliance would preclude an effective design solution improving livability,
operational efficiency, or appearance" The finding contained in the Decision only considers the
overall design and contains no discussion whatsoever of how strict compliance with the setback
requirements would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship inconsistent with the
purposes of the zoning regulations, due to unique physical circumstances or conditions of design or
would preclude an effective design solution improving livability and operational efficiency. The
findings do not reflect all of the relevant circumstances, including the fact that the adjacent lots
maintain setbacks similar to those on the property and that do not appear to satisfy current setback
requirements. (See Staff Report, Attachment C, Site Survey.)
3. The City is Barred from Imposing the New Conditions of Approval Or Otherwise
Revoking Its Prior Approvals By Equitable Defenses of Laches and Estoppel.
In general, the following elements must be established by a party asserting an estoppel

defense: (1) the public agency must be apprised of the facts; (2) the other party must be ignorant of
the true facts; (3) the public agency must have intended that its conduct be acted on, or act so that the
other party had a right to believe it was intended; (4) the other party must rely on the conduct of the
public agency to its injury or prejudice; and (5) the other party must demonstrate that the injury to his
or her personal interests if the government is not estopped exceeds the injury to the public interest if
the government is estopped. (2 Lindgren & Mattas, Cal. Land Use Practice (2015) Sec. 20.51.)
The Staff Report primarily reasons that the City was not apprised of the facts and that
equitable estoppel cannot be applied against the City because "the City did not have accurate facts
manatt

November 16, 2016
Page 7
regarding the illegality of the appellant's development..." (Staff Report, p. 8.) Additionally, Staff
contends that had the City been "apprised of this illegality at an earlier time, it would have
maintained the development was illegal and required proper permits." (Staff Report, p. 9.)
However, the City was in a position that it ought to have known the true facts and as a result,
the true facts are imputed to the City for purposes of estoppel. In City of Long Beach v. Mansell
(1970) 3 Cal.3d 462, 488, a decision of the California Supreme Court cited to in the Staff Report, the
Court explained that the requirement of actual knowledge of the true facts on the part of the party to
be estopped applies in its full force only in cases where the conduct creating the estoppel consists of
silence or acquiescence. "It does not apply where the party, although ignorant or mistaken as to
the real facts, was in such a position that he ought to have known them, so that knowledge will
be imputed to him. In such a case, ignorance or mistake will not prevent an estoppel." (Id. at
491, citing to 3 Pomeroy, Equity Jurisprudence (5th ed. 1941) 809, pp. 217-219, fns. omitted,
[emphasis added].)
Here, the City was in a position that it ought to have known the true facts. The foundation
permit was issued and five inspections were conducted before the permit was finaled. If, as Staff
suggests, the City's directive that the height of the building and exterior of the building remain
unaltered was explicitly and clearly communicated to the then-owner/applicant, it is reasonable to
expect that City inspectors would verify or otherwise take note of the height and exterior of the
building. And later, the City approved the application for the conversion project, which accurately
stated the existing building height of 19 feet, 6 inches. The City's complete failure to discover and
verify the alleged raising of the building in connection with the foundation work completed in 2007,
until 2015 when the project had been fully developed and sold to innocent purchasers, also supports
the equitable defense of laches, which applies when a city has unreasonably delayed in taking
enforcement action and the delay caused the alleged violator a certain degree of prejudice or harm.4
* * * * *
In sum, the existing units were constructed in accordance with all plans and approvals issued
by the City in 2008. Years after the current owners purchased their homes, the complaining neighbor
alleged that necessary variances were not sought or obtained by a predecessor owner, thereby
initiating a wholly unfounded and unreasonably delayed code enforcement proceeding nearly nine
years after the alleged violation occurred. Even if, as the City contends, the buildings were raised in
2007 without the City's approval of necessary variances, the failure of the prior owner to obtain such
variances did not preclude the City from extensively reviewing and requiring project modifications
for the development, which was approved as it currently exists by way of the Conditional Use Permit,
Design Review and subdivision map approval.
4We have ineluded as Attachment 5, and incorporate by reference hereto, letters prepared by individual homeowners in
support of this appeal.
manatt

November 16, 2016
Page 8
The present application seeks to comply with the Code Enforcement direction to obtain
required permits, without further expending the time and resources of the City and the Homeowners,
and to correct or "fill in the gaps" in the City's planning record by documenting the variances that
perhaps should have been but were not obtained at some point in time.
If our appeal is denied, the City and the Homeowners will be in the same position they were in
over a year ago, except that we will be required to file another petition for writ of mandate or amend
our pending petition, to challenge the denial. While litigation proceeds, the Homeowners will
continue to live with uncertainty and under the constant threat that they will lose their homes. We
urge this commission to grant our appeal and uphold the Decision with a modification to delete the
Project Specific Conditions of Approval, thereby avoiding an absurd and inequitable result that does
nothing more than to punish the Homeowners, none of whom had any involvement with the property
when any of the alleged wrongdoing occurred. We appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Robia S. Crisp
RC
Attachments
cc: Kristina Lawson (via email KLawson@manatt.com)
317954929.1
ATTACHMENT 1
PTSIOO-OI UPDATE/QUERY PROJECT INFORMATION 4/15/14 10:00
Applic#* B0705901 Type: C

COMMENTS
Parcel#; 003 -0033-001-00
5/28/02 - Verified owner info, released Itr - nrl
> 05/28/2002 15:49:12 LITTLKNR OAK0831C
OWNERSHIP VERIFIED PER WIN2DATA/RECORDING SALE DATE: 06/07/04
>>> 09/21/2005 09:41:10 WYRIC#L QPADEV0239
DISREGARD PRIOR VERIFICATION
>>> 09/21/2005 09:41:37 WYRlOfL QPADEV02 39
OWNERSHIP VERIFIED PER WIN2 DATA/RECORDING SALE DATE: 03/19/99
>>> 09/21/2005 09:41:49 WYRICdL QPADEV0239
1/12/07: Zoning ok for foundation repair along the entire existing
building footprint, Foundation repair will not raise the existing
wharehouse strcuture, new slab will be on grade as previous.No exterio
r changes. Ok for interior improvements to make ADA compliant bathroom
s. JMH x380B
> 01/12/2007 13:49:17 HERREffJ QPADEV0129
F3=Exit More . ..
ATTACHMENT 2
Robla Crisp
manatt
Direct Dial: (415) 291-7462
E-mail: RCrisp@manatt.com
December 23, 2015 Clienl-MaUor: 49316,030
UY HAND DELIVERY
Peterson Vollmann
Zoning and Major Projects Division Main Office
250 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2114
Oakland, CA 94612-2031
Re: 829 21st Street; Minor Variance and Conditional Use Permit Application in
Connection with Code Enforcement Case Nos. 1500102, 1500100, 1500101,
1500093,1500098, and 1500099
Mr. Vollmann:
As you know, this firm represents 829 21sl Street Homeowners Association, the owners
(the "Owners") of 5 separate live-work units within three buildings located at 829 21s1 Street (the
"Property") in the City of Oakland ("City"). Enclosed with this letter is an application package
for approval of minor variances and minor conditional use permits which, if approved, with
authorize the long existing setbacks at the Property, As you know, the City Building Services
Department issued Notices of Violation dated January 14, 2015, for each of the 5 units, and our
client's violation appeal submitted on February 13, 2015 was denied by letter dated February 23,
2015. An appeal of this decision was denied by decision dated June 30, 2015. A judicial
challenge to the City's decision is now pending in Alameda County Superior Court.
By way of background, prior to 2007 the Property was developed with vacant warehouse
buildings that formerly housed a cardboard factory. City records indicate that as of 1950, the
building height was 15'9". On September 14, 2007, a new owner/developer submitted an
application to the City for a minor conditional use permit ("CUP") to convert the warehouse
building into five live-work units within three buildings. Section 4 of the CUP application and
the related plans state that no change in the height of the building was proposedthe existing
building height was listed as 19' 6" and new building height was listed as 19' 6". By letter dated
May 30, 2008, the City approved the CUP, Building Permit No.B0705901 was issued for the
construction of the live-work units. On April 9, 2010, the City issued Certificate of Occupancy
No. 10-0040, confirming that the buildings were inspected for code compliance. Nearly five
years after the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, the City issued the Notices of Violation
for the action believed to have been taken by the prior owner in 2007. Neither the City nor the
current property owners have been able to determine exactly when the building height was raised
from the record 15'9" to its current height.
One Embarcadero Center, 30th Floor, San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: 415.291.7400 Fax: 415.291.7474
Albany | Los Angeles | New York | Orange County | Palo Alto | Sacramento | San Francisco | Washington, D.C.
manatt
Peterson Vollmann
December 23, 2015
Page 2
The City has alleged that the building was raised approximately seven feet when
foundational work was being completed in late 2006 or early 2007, without the proper City
permits and approvals. It is the City's position that raising the buildings constituted an
expansion of a legally nonconforming use and consequently, the buildings, as raised, violate
certain setback requirements. In order to avoid any further dispute with the City, and in an
attempt to have the existing conditions at the site "legalized" without the need to pursue the
pending litigation, we hereby submit the enclosed application on behalf of the Owners for minor
variances and conditional use permits for front, side and rear setbacks, pursuant to Section
17.148.030 of the Oakland Planning Code and in an effort to take corrective action in accordance
with the Notice of Violation and Appeal Decision. Enclosed please find the following:
1. Basic Application for Development Review
2. Supplemental Findings
3. Assessor's Parcel Map
4. Current Photographs
5. Plans. An updated Survey dated 2015 and Site Plans approved by the City in 2008 in
connection with the approval of a conditional use permit to allow the live-work units
6. Fees. A check made payable to the City of Oakland in the amount of $6,710.09 for fees,
Please let me know if you have any questions or require any additional information. We
appreciate your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
cc: Kristina Lawson (via email Klawson@manatt.com)
315123607.2
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 7 of 9
Record Status: Approved

Record Status Date; 9/14/2007
Job Value: $0.00
Requestor: THOMAS DOLAN ARCHITECTURE
Business Name:
License #:
Inspection Date Inspector Name Inspection Type Status / Result Result Comments
Record ID: B060S619
Address: 829 21STST
APN: 003 003300100
Unit# i
Description: replace perimeter and interior fnd w/new engr'd fnd
Date Opened:12/27/2006
Record Status: Final
Record Status Date: 5/22/2007
Job Value: $40,000,00
Requestor: CHINN,KELLETH JENKINS,DEANE P
Business Name:
License #:
12/28/2006 FIELD CHECK OON CORRECTION NOTICE CORRECnON NOTICE; SEE F24; OK TO
PLANCHECK. KELLETH 326-2646
4/12/2007 WILLIAM M FRAME 03 M INSP CANCELLED
BERGSTROM
4/13/2007 DAVID C MILES FTG/SLAB/EMBED 01P CORRECTION NOTICE
5/4/2007 DAVID C MILES FTG/SLAB/EMBED 01P PARTIAL APPROVAL
5/18/2007 DAVID C MILES FTG/SLAB/EMBED 01P PARTIAL APPROVAL OK BOLTING IS COMPLETED
5/21/2007 STEVE J BRANDEBERRY FINAL BUILDING 04P NO ACCESS/NO PLANS NO ONE AT SFTE - GATE LOCKED
5/22/2007 STEVE J BRANDEBERRY FINAL BUILDING 04P APPROVED FOOTINGS STEMS ONLY- SLAB & REMODLE
SEPARATE PMT
Record ID: 0505365

Address: 829 21STST
APN: 003 003300100
Unit Hi
Description: OVERGROWN VEGETATION, TRASH AND DEBRIS

Date Opened:9/20/2005
Record Status: Abated
Job Value: $0.00
Requestor;
Buslness Name:
License #:
9/15/2005 JAMES B ANDERS OMC - BLIGHT ABATEMENT Viol, verified / not
OMC-In]urlous OMC-1 corrected
10/10/2005 JAMES B ANDERS OMC - BUGHT ABATEMENT Corhplaint ABated Auto scheduled from 62 result on 09/15/05
OMC-Injurlous OMC-1
Record ID: 0208655

Address: 829 21ST ST
APN: 003 003300100
Unit tlx
Description: TRASH AND DEBRIE

Date Opened: 10/16/2002
Record Status: Abated
Job Value: $0.00
Requestor: STAFF-MILLET
Business Name:
License #:
1/13/2003 OMC - BUGHT ABATEMENT Complaint ABated OFFICE PAPERWORK
OMC-lnjurlous OMC-1
http://adhocl.accela.com/AdhocReportWeb/Report/AdapterToReportViewer.aspx?rn=Records\Addre.
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 6 of 9
Requestor: ISIAH KNOX, JR,*****
Business Name;
License #; 659212
Record ID: TPM09658
Address: 829 21STST
APN: 003 003300100
Unlc*i
Description: TPM for 5 commericai condos. Building permit for Work/live conversion has already been Issued.
Date Opened: 1/24/2008 1
Record Status: Approved

Job Value: $0.00
Business Name:
License #: .
Record ID: 30705901
APN;003003300100
Unit
Description: Convert warehouse into live-work units (5).
Record Status: Final
Job Value: $250,000.00
Business Name:
License #:
2/14/2008 STEVE J BRANDEBERRY FTG/SLAB/EMBED 01P PARTIAL APPROVAL PARTIAL FOOTING & S/W OK TO EPOXY
BOLTS
2/14/2008 STEVE J BRANDEBERRY SHEARWALL/ROOF 03N PARTIAL APPROVAL PARTIAL FOOTING & S/W OK TO EPOXY
BOLTS
3/7/2008 STEVE J BRANDEBERRY SHEARWALL/ROOF 03N PARTIAL APPROVAL SHEARWALL/ 326-2646, KELLETH/ REQ
SJB/PRTL EXT.OK, NDS NAIL ATTACH
3/10/2008 STEVE ^ BRANDEBERRY SHEARWALL/ROOF 03N PARTIAL APPROVAL EXTERIOR S/W & PARTIAL ROOF FRAME /
SHEATH
5/5/2008 STEVE J BRANDEBERRY ROUGH 03P NO PROGRESS ANSWER QUESnONS
7/9/2008 WILLIAM M FTG/SLAB/EMBED 01P PARTIAL APPROVAL SEE CARD
BERGSTROM
8/29/2008 STEVE J BRANDEBERRY SHEARWALL/ROOF 03N PARTIAL APPROVAL PARTIAL S/W OK TO COVER SEE REVISED
PLAN
10/6/2008 STEVE J BRANDEBERRY ROUGH 03P PARTIAL APPROVAL OK TO INSULATE DBL SHEAR
10/10/2008 WILLIAM M ROUGH 03P CORRECTION NOTICE R/ DEANE 415-336-6224 S BRANDEBERRY
BERGSTROM
10/17/2008 WILLIAM M ROUGH 03P APPROVED OK TO COVER
BERGSTROM
10/30/2008 STEVE J BRANDEBERRY ROUGH 03P APPROVED S/R OK, TUB/SH WALLS TO COME
5/26/2009 WILLIAM M FINAL BUILDING 04? CORRECTION NOTICE FIRE WALL NEEDS WORK
BERGSTROM
7/17/2009 WILLIAM M FINAL BUILDING 04P PARTIAL APPROVAL FINAL OK LESS PAPER WORK
BERGSTROM
2/3/2010 WILLIAM M FINAL BUILDING 04P INSP CANCELLED
BERGSTROM
3/1/2010 WILLIAM M FINAL BUILDING 04P FINALED IN OFFICE PAPERWORK
BERGSTROM
Record ID: CD07399

APN:003 003300100
Unit #1
Description: minor conditional use permit to convert a vacant warehouse into a live/work structure, lot 9,020 sqft, floor 7,304 sqft
foot (n)4,766 sqft (-794) SDS-1, CD-3
http://adhocl.accela.com/AdhocReportWeb/Report/AdapterToReportViewer.aspx?rn=Records\Addre.
ATTACHMENT 5
November 16th 2016

250 Frank H Ogawa Plaza
Oakland, CA 94612
Re: Appeal 829 21st Street
T o W h o m It C o n c e r n s :
I purchased my unit a t 829 215t Unit #2 in July 2013. I am an artist and full time Head Designer
f o r P o t t e r y B a r n w h e r e I h a v e w o r k e d f o r 1 1 >2 y e a r s . I t h a d b e e n a l o n g t i m e d r e a m f o r m e t o
own a home and after 2+ years of searching I finally found a space that was within my price
r a n g e , w i t h i n a c o m m u t a b l e d i s t a n c e t o w h e r e I w o r k a n d c l o s e t o m y f a m i l y . It w a s a n a d d e d
bonus to find that the neighbors within the compound were friendly, supportive, and that there
was a sense of community already well established.
1 purchased the unit from a couple who had lived there since the buildings were originally put
on the market. I am the second owner of the unit. At the time of purchase neither my realtor
nor myself were made aware of any code violations relating to my unit or the property as a
whole. In no way was I given any disclosure or reason t o believe t h a t t h e r e were potential
violations related to the raising of the height of the building during construction. I relied on the
disclosures as well as public reports t o reasonably assume t h a t my unit was approved as it is
constructed.
We received a notice of violation from the city of Oakland dated January 14, 2015 stating that
our building had been raised without approvals, permits, and inspections prior to any of us
purchasing our units. This was the first time I had heard about this violation. Since then, we
have learned that one of the conditions of approval would require installation of light wells
along t h e back side of our units. As I understand it. Installing light wells would mean that
several portions of my unit would have to be removed from floor to ceiling, several feet deep
into the unit. The portions of the building that would be impacted include the following:
KITCHEN
-Water pipes
-Structural support beams
-Refrigerator
-Dishwasher
-Kitchen sink
-Counter tops
-Pantry & Cabinets
-Radiant heat concrete floors
DOWNSTAIRS BATHROOM
-Water pipes
-Water heater
-Bathroom sink
-Bath Tub
-Radiant heat concrete floors
UPSTAIRS BATHROOM
-Water pipes
-Toilet
-Shower
BEDROOM
-A Portion of the living space
-A Portion of the only/ already small closet space
*Attached are photos of the rooms that would be impacted.
T h e s e c h a n g e s w o u l d m a k e m y h o m e e s s e n t i a l l y u n i n h a b i t a b l e . It w o u l d r e d u c e t h e o v e r a l l
s q u a r e f o o t a g e o f m y p o p e r t y , a n d p r o p e r t y v a l u e . If r e c o n s t r u c t i o n d i d h a v e t o h a p p e n i t
would cause immense financial hardship and be highly disruptive.
It is my belief t h a t Mr Parmar brought this t o t h e city in retaliation for our HOA excercising our
rights on a property line dispute. Mr Parmar has claimed rights t o use our land and is
obstructing access t o t h e back side of our buildings. The HOA had a survey conducted in August
2013 t o confirm that t h e land in question is in fact part of our property. 2 months later he filed
this complaint.
Additionally, I believe that Mr Parmar has used unethical practices to obtain information
regarding this case. On September 15th 2016 I got a call from my realtor saying that the agent
who represented the previous owners of my unit (a friend of his) got a call from Mr. parmar
who falsely claimed that I was putting my unit on the market and that he was representing me.
He asked her for the property disclosures for my unit.
T h i s i s a w r i t t e n s t a t e m e n t t h a t I g o t f r o m t h e s e l l i n g a g e n t -Noni Robinson:
***"! was at an inspection in Union City when the call came at 11:19 am. I didn't get too
much information because my attention was finding out if the home I just sold had some
significant damage. He Introduced himself as KP and he was a real estate agent who is
going to sell the property in which I represented the seller 3 years ago. I cannot
remember which property he was talking about so I told him I would have to get back
with him. He is requesting the package of disclosures that I had for the property. Then
mentioned the address being 829-21st St. #2. I told him if it has been 3 years I will
have to request my broker to obtain the file from Coldwell Banker's storage. It would
take a week. He was dismayed with my response. He gave me his full name as Koonal
Parnar. His telephone number is 473-2544. His email is KoonalParnar@gmail.com"***
For what its worth, perhaps this give you a sense of Mr Parnar's character, i don't think that
our units are actually obstructing a significant amount of light or views for him. I believe that he
is simply trying to create hardship for us as a retaliatory tactic so that we don't pursue defining
our property line with a fence.
I love my home and and my community and I sincerely hope that my neighbors and myself will
be able t o continue living there for many years to come. Please take a moment to look at the
attached photos. These are the walls inside my unit that would be affected by installing light
wells. Thank you for taking time to read this and for your consideration.
Best,
Erin Kelsey.
KITCHEN (Renovated in 2016)

The back wall including sink, counter, dishwasher, refrigerator and cabinets would be effected)
DOWNSTAIRS BATHROOM
The back wall including sink, toilet, bath tub, water heater and laundry closet would be
affected.
UPSTAIRS BATHROOM
-Shower, toilet ,and sink would be affected.
BEDROOM
-Small bedroom would become smaller
CLOSET
Small closet would become smaller
November 13, 2016

Oakland, CA 94612
To whom it may concern:
My name is Travis Novak. I live at 829 21st St., Unit 5. I have worked at FedEx Office for 23 years. I moved from Denver,
Colorado t o Oakland in February 2010 at which time I bought the property at 829 21st St. as new construction. This was
only the second property I have ever purchased. At the time of purchase, neither I nor my realtor was made aware of
any code violations or potential violations associated with this property. There were no disclosures of any kind made by
the developers that sold the property or any other entity. Since I purchased the property, I have made improvements to
t h e backyard a n d kitchen. In April 2 0 1 4 , I w a s m a d e a w a r e o f t h e alleged permit issues by a m e m b e r o f t h e 8 2 9 21st St.
HOA. These alleged permit issues were brought to his attention by Koonal Parmar's attorney. This was the first I had
heard of any potential issues with the permitting of our property. Then in January 2015, I received a Notice of Violation
from the City of Oakland stating that our building had been raised without approvals, permits, and inspections.
As I understand it, in order t o create t h e light wells t o m e e t the conditions of approval a s indicated in t h e Planning
Commission Staff Report, 1 would be required to remove large sections of the single bedroom and adjacent bathroom
making both unusable. Depending on the extent of the proposed light wells, I would also have t o substantially redesign
the downstairs bathroom and kitchen. The proposed changes would significantly reduce the square footage of my home
and reduce its resale value. Though these units are designated work/live units, this is my primary residence and not a
business. Making these changes to a property I bought in good faith with a certificate of occupancy from the City of
Oakland would not only be a huge expense, but a significant disruption of my home and family.
Attached are pictures of my property that indicate the rear facing wall of my home. As you can s e e in the photos, the
rear facing wall is totally taken up by the kitchen and bathroom downstairs and bedroom and bathroom upstairs. There
are no windows on these walls as they are directly adjacent to our neighbor's property.
This entire issue was brought to the city's attention by the neighbor on the other side of our property, Koonal Parmar.
Mr. Parmar is currently involved in a dispute with the 829 21st St. HOA regarding his use and access of our property. Mr.
Parmar h a s claimed t h e right t o u s e a portion o f o u r property a s a n e a s e m e n t . In August o f 2 0 1 3 , t h e HOA had a survey
conducted to verify that this property is in fact part of the HOA. Mr. Parmar submitted his complaint in October 2013 in
retaliation of the HOA asserting our property rights. Mr. Parmar has prevented HOA access to this portion of our
property by intimidation and use of his aggressive dogs. As a result, we have not been able to make repairs to our
property including damage he and his dogs have caused. Mr. Parmar appears to be interested in furthering his own
agenda rather than any civic responsibility. Please note: I have never met Mr. Parmar. His property is adjacent to Unit 1,
2, and 3.
I request that the Planning Commission grants the variance before them. I have been a productive, contributing member
of the city of Oakland for seven years. My neighbors and I that form the 829 21st St HOA are hardworking, regular
citizens who would be severely negatively impacted by the city's refusal to grant this variance.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Travis Novak
Picture is the back side of Unit 4 and 5. On the This is the upstairs bedroom. The light well
right side is our building. The left is Victorian would cut into our 1 wall.
house, that is taller than our building.
Downstairs bathroom. Light well would take out

sink, shower, laundry.
Downstairs kitchen. The light well would remove all of
this and have to be reconfigured.
This is the front of Unit 5 building.

November 13, 2016

Oakland, CA 94612
T o W h o m It Concerns:
In August 2 0 1 1 my wife Catherine (Kitty) and I purchased our h o m e at 8 2 9 21st Street, Unit 1 . Our main
reason for wanting t o buy property in Oakland, specifically West Oakland, is because Kitty has been
renting studio space and has been a member of the art community at American Steel Studios, 1960
Mandela Parkway, since December 2009. We wanted to move closer to her studio than where we
previously lived in Marin County and were excited about becoming Oakland residents as w e saw many
positive changes happening in the area.
W e p u r c h a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y f r o m C h i n n & J e n k i n s I n v e s t m e n t , LLC a n d t h e u n i t w a s o w n e r o c c u p i e d f o r
over o n e year prior to our moving in. During escrow w e received disclosure documents that included a
Certificate of Occupancy with a final inspection approval date of February 4, 2010 issued on April 9,
2010, as well as copies of the blueprints that were submitted and reviewed for a final time on February
7 , 2008. In n o w a y w e r e w e given any disclosure o r reason t o believe that there w e r e any c o d e violations
or potential violations related to the raising of the height of the building during construction. We relied
on the disclosures as well as public reports including a city-issued Building Permit to reasonably assume
that our unit was approved as it is constructed as of today's date.
We received a Notice of Violation from the City of Oakland dated January 14, 2015 stating that our
building had been raised without approvals, permits, and inspections. This was the first time w e had
heard about this violation and w e had no idea what it meant or what w e needed t o do. Since then, w e
have learned that one of the conditions of approval would require installation of light wells along the
back side of our unit which would mean a portion of our unit would have to be removed. As our unit is
designed, this requirement would essentially destroy our home. The portion of the building that would
have to be removed includes structural support beams, toilets in both our bathrooms, the sink and part
of the tub/shower in one of the bathrooms, part of the shower in the second bathroom, our water
heater, radiant floor heating unit, the sink and dishwasher in our kitchen, as well as our only closet.
Basically all of the things that make this unit habitable would have t o be reconstructed and would cause
a considerable financial hardship to us.
We love our home and living in Oakland and are very afraid that should the Conditions of Approval be
required w e would not be able to continue living here. Thank you for consideration of this appeal.
Sincerely,
Eric Gordon
My Name is Bryan Alberstat. I Currently own and live at 829 21st street unit #3,
Oakland, CA
I purchased my unit in December of 2009, as new construction from the

developers. The purchase was made with the help of my real estate agent. We
went through all of the normal procedures and due diligence to establish that the
building was in conformity to all existing regulations, that it had a free and clear
title, that it met with all city zoning and regulations and that it had a clean
certificate of occupancy. There was no indication that there were any problems
with the construction, with the city, or with any code violations. The determination
that the building was free of any encumbrances and safe to purchase was made
upon the evidence produced by sellers disclosures, the title report and all of the
permits granted by the city of Oakland and all public reports. The City indicated
that the building were not in violation of any kind and were issued certificates of
occupancy. I first learned that the city had decided to rescind its opinion about
the buildings when I received a violation notice in the mail from the city, indicating
such.
The changes to the building the city is requesting would effectively destroy my
house in it's current lay out. All of the bathrooms, plumbing, radiant heating
system, laundry room, kitchen and data systems are located to the rear of the
house which is within the area that the city has recently decided no longer
conforms to their previous approval. To remove the indicated areas of the house
the city has requested, would dismantle all of the functional systems and require
essentially rebuilding much of the structure. If these changes were in fact
required the house would remain unlivable for the duration of construction and
the quality of the living space would be greatly diminished.
Regards,
Bryan Alberstat
November 15, 2016
Oakland, CA 94612
To Whom It Concerns:
My name is Robert Conrad Frausto and I live in and own the property located at 829 21st Street #4 Oakland,
CA. 1 am the original owner and purchased my unit in July 2010. In no way, or at any point in time did I receive
any disclosure or reason to believe that there were any code violations or potential violations related to the
raising of the height of the building during construction or at any other time. I relied on the disclosures as well
as public records/reports including a city-issued Building Permit, to reasonably assume my home was approved
as it is constructed, as of today's date. Like my neighbors in the HOA, I received a Notice of Violation from the
City of Oakland on January 14, 2015 stating that my building had been raised without approvals, permits,
inspections, etc. This was the first time I had heard of this violation and I had no idea what it meant. There has
never been any unapproved or unauthorized construction on my home at anytime. It's still unclear to me who is
responsible for such a major oversight if these violation claims are true but I'm confident it's not the innocent
owners or purchasers. I sincerely hope the City Planning Commission can recognize this fact so we can all
move on with our lives.
Sincerely,
Robert Conrad Frausto
i
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Limon <tlimon.opc@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Item #4: 829 21st Street, PLN15408-A01
To: Koonal Parmar < >
Cc: Adhi Nagraj <nagrajplanning@gmail.com>, Emily Weinstein <EW.Oakland@gmail.com>,
Manus Clark <cmanusopc@gmail.com>, Amanda Monchamp
<amandamonchamp@gmail.com>, Jahmese Myres
<jmyres.oakplanningcommission@gmail.com>, Chris Pattillo <pattillo@pgadesign.com>,
"Vollmann, Peterson" <pvollmann@oaklandnet.com>, "Miller, Scott"
<smiller@oaklandnet.com>
Received.
Tom Limon
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 3:58 PM, Koonal Parmar < > wrote:
Greetings Planning Commission,
I most likely cannot make the meeting tonight so I am forwarding you my statement that is under
two minutes long when given as a speech.
I am the spokesperson for the owners and tenants of the homes that were greatly affected by the
illegal raising of this building by approximately 5 feet. Our homes are now cast in shadows while
our views have been taken away. Even worse is that our privacy has been lost as well. We now
look out our windows only to see an ugly steel wall three feet away or their illegal windows
looking in to our bathroom and bedroom. Scott Miller has been to my house and can attest to
this. We accepted the city's conditions of approval, reluctantly, as we wanted all of the buildings
lowered to their original height. We realized that the city ultimately came up with a plan that
would not harm the owners of 829 21st street and provide us with the relief we deserve. (i.e. light
wells and keeping the city's rear setback law) I trust, given your vast expertise in planning, that
you see right through the attorney for 829 21st st. Virtually all of her statements are lies or great
misrepresentations at best.
My key points;
1. The building was raised without permits and was not built to code. Given what happened in
Berkeley recently when several people perished from a falling deck,, it is imperative that the
project go through thorough building review, specifically checking the structural integrity of the
building. We fear this building will collapse on us when we are in our backyard. I believe
design review and building department will go over the raising of the building and new
foundation for the construction of light wells.
2. Legalizing this building, after the fact, sets a dangerous precedent for other shady developers
to skip the permit and review process, knowing it is now acceptable to save money on materials
and foundations while having your project get legalized after a few years. As you know, the city
is littered with illegal structures and developments. My opinion is the wrong decision on your
part will most likely inspire future developers to circumvent the system in order to save and
make money.
3. The approval of condition will not displace any owners or create an excessive hardship as their
attorney claims.
4. Finally, we have lost a fair amount of value in our homes from loss of sunlight, views, and
air. This massive structure within our setbacks has severely deteriorated the spatial
relationships. Our homes now look super tiny. My property alone has lost about hundred
thousand dollars in value (100k). The city admitted to being negligent in their due diligence in
regards to inspections and the project overall. This allows the city to rectify their mistake and
make amends to the neighboring homeowners.
I know you will do the right thing when making your decision. Please confirm receipt of this
correspondence. Thanks
KP

Email All Redacted PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Email All Redacted PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

From: Tom Limon [mailto:tlimon.opc@gmail.

---------- Forwarded message ----------

Greetings Planning Commission,

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you.

Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, LLP

One Embarcadero Center

San Francisco, CA 94111

D (415) 291-7548 F (415) 291-7474

November 16, 2016

BY E-MAIL NAGRAJPLANNING@GMAIL.COM; EW.OAKLAND@GMAIL.COM;

Oakland City Planning Commission

Dear Chair Nagraj and Members of the Planning Commission:

Oakland City Planning Commission

Oakland City Planning Commission

Oakland City Planning Commission

Oakland City Planning Commission

Oakland City Planning Commission

In general, the following elements must be established by a party asserting an estoppel

Oakland City Planning Commission

Oakland City Planning Commission

cc: Kristina Lawson (via email KLawson@manatt.com)

Applic#* B0705901 Type: C

December 23, 2015 Clienl-MaUor: 49316,030

1. Basic Application for Development Review

3. Assessor's Parcel Map

cc: Kristina Lawson (via email Klawson@manatt.com)

Record Status: Approved

Record ID: 0505365

Description: OVERGROWN VEGETATION, TRASH AND DEBRIS

Record ID: 0208655

Description: TRASH AND DEBRIE

Requestor: ISIAH KNOX, JR,*****

Record Status: Approved

Record ID: CD07399

Oakland City Planning Commission

Re: Appeal 829 21st Street

*Attached are photos of the rooms that would be impacted.

KITCHEN (Renovated in 2016)

Oakland City Planning Commission

Re: Appeal 829 21st Street

To whom it may concern:

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Downstairs bathroom. Light well would take out

This is the front of Unit 5 building.

Oakland City Planning Commission

Re: Appeal 829 21st Street

I purchased my unit in December of 2009, as new construction from the

Robert Conrad Frausto

You might also like