SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM CEDAR ZAB Page 1 of 8

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM CEDAR ZAB Page 1 of 8"

Alban Brooks
5 years ago
Views:

1 To: Chair Igor Tregub and members of the Zoning Adjustments Board From: Friends of the R-1A (Toni Mester, Ed Herzog, Susan Henderson, Sara Shumer) December 22, 2016 Re: 908 Cedar Street SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM CEDAR Page 1 of 8 Hearing should be postponed: We request that the public hearing be rescheduled to allow for complete disclosure of the application to the neighbors and the community, who have not been adequately informed about this project and its potential detriment. Not only is the timing of this public hearing three days before Christmas a hindrance to public participation, but the shadow study page A0.2 of the application is not included in the project plans available as attachment 2 on the project status page on the City of Berkeley website. This omission follows a pattern by staff in their publication of prior submissions by the applicant John Newton. The on-line project plans of 1737 Tenth Street (heard and approved by ZAB on October 13 and appealed by us, to be heard by the City Council on February 14, 2017) are similarly incomplete, although the applicant submitted a shadow study. This shadow study is still not posted in the project plans page. The submitted plans for 2212 Tenth Street (application heard by ZAB on December 8 and continued to January 12) also omitted the shadow study until the impacted neighbors of 2210 Tenth Street submitted them to ZAB. They are now available to the public on the project page. Staff has deliberately withheld the schematic evidence of shadowing from the public while dismissing the shadow impacts in the staff reports as typical of an urban setting. Such a finding is not based on objective evidence but an unsupported subjective opinion. Since the applicant has gone to the effort and expense of a shadow study, the submission should be published as part of the project plans. The hearing on 908 Cedar Street should be delayed until the shadow study is made available to the public. We also insist that the shadow study of 1737 Tenth Street be similarly posted as soon as possible. The proposed project is out of scale with the neighborhood: As shown in the streetscape renderings in the plans (page A3.0), the proposed project towers above all the other single story houses on the block as well as adjacent properties on Seventh and Eight Street. The existence of two story houses elsewhere is irrelevant to the detriment caused by the height of the project,

2 Page 2 of 8 specifically the loss of sunlight and privacy to four adjacent properties. The zoning history of the current R-1A zone is so chaotic that all kinds of residential buildings exist somewhere in West Berkeley. To judge the impact of scale, the relevant properties are those most immediate to the proposed project. Shadowing Detriment: The negative impacts on four neighboring properties are indicated by the shadow study and described in the staff report. The single-family residence to the west, 904 Cedar Street is most affected; both the house and the yards would experience new shading in the mornings, especially winter when sunlight is most needed. And yet the staff claims that the impacts would be unavoidable given the proximity of these buildings and the separations permitted. Therefore, the project would not result in substantially detrimental effects related to shadows. This is illogical reasoning. Just because a standard is permitted is no preclusion of detriment. In this case, the plans can be revised to minimize such shadowing through redesign. Martin Greiner, the owner and resident of 904 Cedar, indicated in the applicant s check- list that he wonders if his roof will be shaded. Has the applicant shown Mr. Greiner the shadow study and proposed any alternatives to lessen the detriment to his property? It is obvious that the roof of 904 will indeed be shaded in all seasons, which would reduce the efficiency of a solar array should the neighbor want to install one. Please note that the City of Berkeley does not have a solar roof ordinance that would protect access to sunlight. The property to east, 912 Cedar, is derelict and recently bought by a developer. One of the principals has signed off on the applicant s list as having no objections, and yet the proposed development will cast significant afternoon shadows on the property to the east. Has the new owner of 912 seen the shadow study? The rear yards of 1609 Seventh Street and 1608 Eighth Street will also be shaded during summer evenings, when people most enjoy their open space. Have the owners of these properties been presented with the shadow study? The staff notes these detriments but claims they are unavoidable, which is circular reasoning. These detriments can certainly be avoided by reducing the bulk of both buildings and by honoring the required 20 feet rear yard set-back. Privacy Detriment: The staff report dismisses the privacy impacts of second story windows that overlook the four adjacent properties including the backyards of 1609 Seventh Street and 1609 Eighth Street. People using these backyards would be directly observed through the ample windows of the rear building as shown in the rear

3 Page 3 of 8 elevation on page A2.0. The residents of these homes should enjoy the privacy that backyards normally allow, which could be provided by respecting the 20 rear setback. Has the applicant discussed privacy concerns with the four neighbors? Inadequate open space: The usable open space does not conform to the needs of family living. Most American children are Vitamin D deficient and need to be outside more. The near minimum open space provided by the design for each house is insufficient for outdoor recreation, even a summer barbecue. The 418 square feet of usable open space for the front house is deplorable, but even 563 square feet for the back yard is inadequate for even passive recreation. A strip ten feet deep is hardly large enough for a set of lawn chairs. Reducing the footprint of the houses, which are too large for the lot, could increase the usable open space. The back house is actually larger than the front, at a time when the Planning Commission, at the behest of the City Council, is considering a reduction in second backyard units. Family homes or mini-dorms? The ZAB should consider whether the design of the houses relative to the lot is conducive to family living or to their use as student mini-dorms? Please note that the staff report fails to list and omits the required discussion of a Use Permit under BMC Section 23D , for the addition of bedrooms that would result in more than 5 bedrooms on a parcel. Loss of open space: This project decreases the imperiled green open space directly east of the freeway and railroad, as more and more backyard houses crowd already dense neighborhoods. The loss of gardens, trees and shrubbery to development means a reduction in food production as well as the air quality protections offered by trees and shrubbery. We recommend a postponement in this public hearing so that you, the neighbors, and the greater community can better understand and mitigate the many problems of this project application.

4 Jacob, Melinda SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM CEDAR Page 4 of 8 Subject: FW: Zoning Application 908 Cedar Street -----Original Message----- From: Greg Goodman [mailto:woodwoody@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, :28 PM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) <Planningzab@ci.berkeley.ca.us> Cc: Berkeley Mayor's Office <Mayor@ci.berkeley.ca.us>; Maio, Linda <LMaio@ci.berkeley.ca.us>; Goodman Greg <woodywoodman@me.com> Subject: Zoning Application 908 Cedar Street To those concerned, I am responding to a zoning application at 908 Cedar Street in Berkeley. I live directly across the street from the site of the proposal, and have been here since the early 70 s, Obviously, there have been many changes in the neighborhood since that time, and I have no expectation that it could be otherwise. Yet not all change is necessarily for the better, and that s what you have to decide regarding this application. As the city has grown and accepted greater density, decisions on where that density could reasonably occur have been difficult ones, impacting different communities in different ways. I recall the peace and quiet of my neighborhood in the 70 s and 80 s, and certainly understand why that has changed. One unfortunate decision by the city has already adversely impacted this community along Cedar Street. That decision was to make Cedar Street a major automobile corridor in the attempt to funnel automobile traffic into the rest of the city (and out) from the freeway; along with Gilman, University, Ashby, etc., this formulation of traffic control--and closing off adjacent streets with barriers to protect the citizens (and children playing on those streets--has resulted in disastrous congestion, many more accidents, much greater safety issues in general, and now documented unsafe pollution issues for those ON Cedar Street. I appreciate the trade offs here, but we should be clear that children or adults who wish to play or be outside (or just in their front yards) have been subjected to physically damaging conditions in the name of protecting the folks in other sections of Berkeley. Things are not always fair, choices have to be made, yet this lower income neighborhood seems to have been thrown under the bus in the effort to accommodate transportation problems in other parts of the city. And importantly, it may be that decisions made formally as described above, preordain or prejudice decisions to be made now; this would constitute a double injustice to essentially a historically lower income community. In that context: 1) there are no two-story buildings on this block, resulting in a much more cohesive style of living for the neighbors already present 2) this is not an application for a single two story building, but TWO on the same lot, resulting in a complete restructuring of the density, light, and traffic in this community. Importantly, the lot NEXTt to the applicants is also slated to build additional two two-story buildings on that parcel as well, probably by the same developer. In other words, there will be a radical destruction of the entire street and community if this application is approved, and the lot next door would inexorably be approved under the rubric of the previous decision. So this is obviously not a one-off decisions about one parcel, but a fundamental restructuring of an association of neighbors and community. 3) the business establishments along 4th Street and continuing growth in the adjacent area has already resulted in hundreds of employees seeking parking in the surrounding area, i.e., in front of the houses going up Cedar Street. It is increasingly difficult for people living along this block to find home adequate parking due to this problem already, although some discussions have occurred with those businesses to attempt solutions to this problem. Point being, adding 4 two-story houses to lots with single story buildings will obviously critically impact everybody adversely who lives on this street. 4) some of the folks who live on this street are obviously getting up in age, so to speak, and the additional problems mentioned above have a fundamentally negative impact on their ability to cope with these problems. 1

5 5) it is important to consider whether actually seeing the sky is worthy of consideration; the bright Page street 5 of lights 8 already have essentially removed the stars from viewing, and four two-story buildings on a street of one-story buildings will obviously cast more shadows not just in the day, abut remove yet more sky in the day and night. This goes to the issue of what kind of life ARE we living or hope to? 6) Not all people step up and respond to these problems, for various reasons. But without exception, everyone I have discussed this with on this entire block has registered strong and complete rejection of this application and kind of development for this area. Neighborhoods over time certainly will change their character and style; decisions obviously come into play when there are competing interests. I would suggest, however, that it is critical to heartfully consider the folks who have made their community what it is, and what it means to dismantle the integrity of that life. I had an interesting encounters with both architect and real estate broker representing this plan. After coming to my house to get my signature for this proposal, one said (after I mentioned the parking problems that would ensue) that my concern was misguided because it would be better for me and everyone if we I-- didn t drive or have cars, I was told I should ride a bike, and that this change was better for me; then she got in HER car and drove away to.well, somewhere where SHE lived. I also asked the real estate agent to consider some of these problems and perhaps have a meeting with the neighbors to find any adjustments that might work better for everyone in the planning of these constructions should they proceed with their plan. She said: Why should we do that? I replied that if they wanted cooperation and insightful contributions to accomplish even their goals, it might be better to have more information on what any concerns folks might have, and address them before people staked out hard positions on all sides. She responded that she didn t NEED to do that and implied that it would be a waste of her time. My point here is that development is not always about the people impacted, but the money that can obviously be made. I would ask, that in considering the proposed plan, that you also pursue questions of fairness to people who have built lives IN the community already. We will all die eventually, but how we live matters greatly. Sincerely, Greg Goodman 903 Cedar Street Berkeley, CA

6 Jacob, Melinda SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM CEDAR Page 6 of 8 Subject: FW: Comments on development of 908 Cedar Street From: pattylong@aol.com [mailto:pattylong@aol.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 21, :09 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) <Planningzab@ci.berkeley.ca.us>; Berkeley Mayor's Office <Mayor@ci.berkeley.ca.us>; Maio, Linda <LMaio@ci.berkeley.ca.us> Subject: Comments on development of 908 Cedar Street Dear ZAB Chair Igor Tregub, I live at 901 Cedar Street, across the street from the proposed development at 908 Cedar Street. Having reviewed the online plans, I find several issues of concern: 1. SUNLIGHT IMPACTS. According to Attachment 1: Shadow studies provided with the project application indicate that the proposed new buildings will cast shadows on adjacent buildings, notably the residences at 912 and 904 Cedar Street, immediately east and west, respectively. These potential sunlight impacts are limited in duration and effect and, therefore, reasonable and non-detrimental. Limited in duration and effect simply means that shadows won t occur at night or when the sun is directly overhead. Contrary to what the attachment says, the adjacent properties both the houses and the yards--will be darkened most of the day. Why are the shadow studies not included on the public website? 2. PRIVACY ISSUES: Attachment 1 also states: Second story windows in the new residences facing the eastern and western property lines would create new views to and from the adjacent properties. However, as neighboring dwellings are single story structures, the new sightlines would fall predominantly on roof tops and yard areas. The proposed dwelling would not result in unreasonable privacy impacts. Yards are precisely where residents hope to have some degree of privacy, and sightlines falling on yard areas very much have an unreasonable privacy impact. 3. HEIGHT ISSUES: Attachment 1 states: Although the proposed dwellings are taller and larger than the existing structures in the immediate vicinity, they will be under the 28-foot height limit of the District, and will be compatible with the development pattern for the broader area that is characterized by a mix of oneand two-story buildings. To say that the proposed dwellings are taller and larger than the existing structures in the immediate vicinity is an understatement. If you look at houses on Cedar, between 4 th and 8 th Streets, there are 34 onestory houses and only 2 two-story. While you may choose to make a case for a 2-story structure in the front of the property, there is absolutely no justification for a two-story structure in the rear of the property. Two structures of this height will take away the neighbors sun and privacy for both their house and yard. They might as well be living in caves. Why should a new owner have the advantage of a bigger/higher structure at the expense of the residents who ve lived in the neighborhood for years? Their own property values will decrease as a consequence. 4. PARKING ISSUES: As with any additional residence, there will be more parking on the street, especially given the max-out building plan. Cedar Street is already congested. When I expressed my concerns to one of 1

7 the realtors for this property, she blithely suggested that everyone should just ride bikes (Please Page note: 7 of she 8 had driven a car to the property). In light of these concerns, I am asking that you please delay the public hearing on this project until the neighbors have an opportunity to consider the shadowing impacts and other issues. Currently, the hearing is scheduled so close to Christmas that some neighbors have already headed out of town; and few have had the opportunity to contact the city with their concerns. I am simply asking you to be fair to those most affected by this project. Thank you for your consideration. Patricia Long 2

8 Page 8 of 8 To: City of Berkeley Zoning Adjustments Board 2120 Milvia St. Berkeley, CA Bruce Hansen th St. Berkeley, CA (510) Re: 908 Cedar Street - Use Permit #ZP Dec 20, 2016 Dear ZAB, I'm writing in support of the above referenced Use Permit application, having reviewed the plans. As a long-time resident of this neighborhood (since 1998), I see the need for increased single-family housing. The great number of large new apartment/condo buildings in West Berkeley provide ample housing for more transient professionals, but growing families do not remain long in such housing. We need to attract families who will remain for the longer term and invest in the community, our schools, and local institutions. For families to remain and put down roots, we need more homes of the type proposed in this project that can accommodate families as they grow. The design of these houses is attractive and will enhance the neighborhood. Even though there are not yet two story dwellings in that block, there are already plenty in the neighboring blocks, including a recent addition to my house. Two floors is appropriate and within the scale of the existing neighborhood. I fear that if well designed family housing like this is not permitted, we will gain only large apartment buildings to the neglect of families, who become the long-term foundation of the community. Kind Regards, Bruce Hansen

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Office of the City Manager ACTION CALENDAR June 11, 2013 To: From: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Christine Daniel, City Manager Submitted by: Eric Angstadt, Director, Planning & Development