Z O N I N G A D J U S T M E N T S B O A R D S t a f f R e p o r t FOR BOARD ACTION SEPTEMBER 9, 2010 2956 Shasta Road Appeal of the Zoning Officer s decision to approve Administrative Use Permit #09-20000088 to construct a two-story addition to an existing single-family residence, comprising 313 square feet of living space on the main living level and 338 square feet of garage space as a new lower level, with an average height of 16 feet and a maximum height of 21 feet, and with a side yard setback of 3 feet and a front yard setback of 8 feet. I. Application Basics A. Land Use Designations: General Plan: Single-Family Residential Zoning: R-1H, Single-Family Residential, Hillside District B. Zoning Permits Required: Administrative Use Permit to construct a residential addition greater than 14 feet in average height under BMC Section 23D.16.070.C; and Administrative Use Permit to construct a residential addition greater than 14 feet in average height and a residential addition greater than 20 feet in maximum height under BMC Section 23E.96.070.B; and Administrative Use Permit to reduce the side yard setback from 4 feet to 3 feet and reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet at the location of the addition under BMC Section 23D.04.030.B; and Administrative Use Permit to reduce the side yard setback from 4 feet to 3 feet and reduce the front yard setback from 20 feet to 8 feet at the location of the addition under BMC Section 23E.96.070.C. C. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines ( Existing Facilities ). 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us
2956 SHASTA ROAD ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 2 of 14 September 9, 2010 D. Parties Involved: Applicant / Owners: James and Heather O'Brien, 2956 Shasta Road, Berkeley Appellant: David Lee and Irene Moore, 2958 Shasta Road, Berkeley Other Parties: David Jackovich, 2961 Shasta Road, Berkeley Stefania Pandolfo, 2954 Shasta Road, Berkeley
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 SHASTA ROAD September 9, 2010 Page 3 of 14 Figure 1: Vicinity Map
2956 SHASTA ROAD ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 4 of 14 September 9, 2010 Figure 2: Site Plan
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 SHASTA ROAD September 9, 2010 Page 5 of 14 Table 1: Land Use Information Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation Subject Property Single-family residence R-1H Single-Family Residential Surrounding Properties North Single-family residence R-1H Single-Family Residential South Single-family residence R-1H Single-Family Residential East Single-family residence R-1H Single-Family Residential West Single-family residence R-1H Single-Family Residential Table 2: Special Characteristics Characteristic Applies to Project? Explanation Creeks No No creek is mapped near the project site Oak Trees No No oak trees would be affected by the project Seismic Hazards No The project is within a potential landslide zone under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, but is exempt as a wood framed single-family residence with two or fewer stories Green Building Score N/A The small addition does not require green building review Table 3: Project Chronology Date June 29, 2009 June 23, 2010 June 24, 2010 July 11, 2010 July 14, 2010 August 11, 2010 August 19, 2010 August 26, 2010 September 3, 2010 September 9, 2010 August 23, 2010 Action Application submitted Application deemed complete Zoning Officer's Notice of Decision mailed Mediation session conducted with applicant and neighbor at 2958 Shasta Appeal filed by David Lee and Irene Moore, 2958 Shasta Alternative plans agreed to by applicant and appellant Concerns raised by other neighbors regarding revised plans Zoning Adjustments Board hearing notices mailed/posted Mediation session conducted with all concerned neighbors ZAB hearing on appeal PSA deadline Project must be approved or denied within 60 days after being determined to be exempt from CEQA, or 60 days after adoption of a negative declaration, or 180 days after adoption of an EIR (Govt. Code Section 65950).
2956 SHASTA ROAD ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 6 of 14 September 9, 2010 Table 4A: Development Standards and Original Project Parameters Standard R1-H District BMC Sections 23D.16.070-080 and 23E.96 Existing Addition / Reduction Proposed Total Permitted / Required Lot Area (sq. ft.) 4,989 N/A 4,989 5,000 Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) 1,498 651 2,149 N/A Dwelling Units Building Height Building Setbacks Total 1 -- 1 1 + ADU Average 12 4 16 * 28, addition over 14 req. AUP Maximum 14 8 22 * 35, addition over 20 req. AUP Stories 1 1 2 2 Front 33' 8" at addition - 25' 8" 8'* 20' Rear 9' 7" N/A 9' 7" 20' Left Side 3' 7" -7" 3'* 4' Right Side 5' 7" N/A 5' 7" 4' Lot Coverage (%) 30 9 39 40 Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) 800+ N/A 800+ 400 Parking * Requires AUP 0 (garage converted to storage with false floor) 1 1 1
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 SHASTA ROAD September 9, 2010 Page 7 of 14 Table 4B: Development Standards and Revised Project Parameters Standard R1-H District BMC Sections 22D.16.070-080 and 23E.96 Existing Addition / Reduction Proposed Total Permitted / Required Lot Area (sq. ft.) 4,989 N/A 4,989 5,000 Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) 1,498 814 2,317 N/A Dwelling Units Building Height Building Setbacks Total 1 -- 1 1 + ADU Average 12 4 18 * 28, addition over 14 req. AUP Maximum 14 8 25 * 35, addition over 20 req. AUP Stories 1 1 2 2 Front 32' 4" at addition - 24' 4" 8'* 20' Rear 9' 7" N/A 9' 7" 20' Left Side 3' 7" -- 3' 7" 4' Right Side 5' 7" -- 5' 7" 4' Lot Coverage (%) 30 9 39 40 Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) 800+ N/A 800+ 400 Parking * Requires AUP 0 (garage converted to storage with false floor) 1 1 1 II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood / Area Description: The project is located in a hillside neighborhood of generally modest one and twostory homes along the top section of Shasta Road, one block below Grizzly Peak Blvd. The area is developed with mature trees such that many homes have filtered views toward the west. Many homes are developed with garages close to the street due to the slope of the land, with homes above or below the garage depending on the uphill or downhill location of the lot relative to the street. Lots are generally small, and homes step with the street slope such that neighbors are generally at slightly different elevations from side to side with retaining walls along side property lines.
2956 SHASTA ROAD ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 8 of 14 September 9, 2010 B. Site Conditions: The site is an uphill lot, i.e. the lot slopes up from the street, with a steep driveway leading to a one-car garage (now converted to a storage area with a false floor) and stairs leading to a front porch that serves the one-story dwelling. The dwelling is a three-bedroom, one-bath house constructed in the 1940s. A family room was added at the rear of the dwelling in 1949 and expanded slightly in 1999. It appears that since that time, the garage has been converted to a laundry room and storage area. Parking is provided in the driveway and along the street frontage. There are hedges along the side property lines in the front and side yards, and a large tree in the front yard. A low brick wall separates the front yard from the parking area along the street, and low retaining walls are present in the side and rear yard. The main floor of the house presently sits about nine feet above the street. III. Project Description A. Original Proposal: The applicant, who is the resident and owner, proposes to construct a two-story addition at the front of the existing residence in the location of the present garage and driveway on the north side of the lot (see approved plans in Attachment 1, as described in Table 4A above). It would include a total of 651 square feet of new floor area, including a master bedroom and bathroom on the main floor (approximately 313 square feet) and a new garage on a new lower level (approximately 338 square feet). The addition would have a low slope hip roof, wood siding, and divided lite windows to match the existing residence. The garage would project toward the street with a secondary hip roof at a lower level, stepping down toward the street. The second story would be set back approximately 17 feet from the street, and the one-car garage would be set back 8 feet from the street. The side setback would be reduced from 3 feet 7 inches to 3 feet due to the angle of the house relative to the side lot line. Two uncovered parking spaces would remain available along the street frontage. B. Revised Proposal: Based on the appeal filed by the neighbor to the north, as described more fully below, the applicant has prepared a revised project that would shift the addition from the north side of the lot to the south side. This approach, shown in Attachment 2 and described in Table 4B above, would extend the front of the house from an existing pair of bedrooms, resulting in a slightly larger project because the master bedroom and bathroom would be wider to match the existing house. Interior stairs would be provided to the garage and additional storage space would be provided in the garage level. In all, the revised addition would include 814 square feet of new floor area. The revised addition would also be slightly taller than the original project because the lot has a slight cross-slope. However, the revised project would be setback further from the nearest neighbor to the south, 6 feet to the southern property line instead of the original 3 feet from the north. The existing brick wall along this frontage would be removed to provide for a new driveway, and the existing driveway would be removed and landscaped.
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 SHASTA ROAD September 9, 2010 Page 9 of 14 IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: The neighbors to the immediate north, David Lee and Irene Moore at 2958 Shasta Road, expressed concerns about the project during the initial staff review and during subsequent conversations, site visits, and in writing. Concerns related primarily to a view that is available from a bedroom window towards the Oakland waterfront and SF Bay that would be blocked by the addition. In response, staff required the applicant to provide detailed plans including a site survey, make revisions to the plans, and install story poles. Based on this information, the neighbors continued to believe that the impact would be detrimental to their view, light, and shadows. These neighbors filed the present appeal. Mediation was conducted and revisions were negotiated subsequent to the Zoning Officer's approval that would satisfy the appellant. The revised project would shift the proposed addition to the south. This revision is also represented in story poles installed at the property. In response to this revision, the neighbors to the immediate south, Stefania Pandolfo at 2954 Shasta Road, and across the street, David Jackovich at 2961 Shasta Road, have expressed concern about views, light and privacy. Staff response to these concerns is provided below. A mediation session with all of the concerned neighbors is scheduled as of the writing of this report. The applicant has requested that the ZAB conduct a hearing to consider all of the concerns and options, and to provide direction if compromise is not reached with every party. See Attachment 5 for correspondence received. B. Committee Review: No committee review is required. V. Issues and Analysis A. Zoning Officer Decision: The Zoning Officer's Notice of Decision of June 24, 2010, to approve the original project included the following findings, as more fully stated in Attachment 1: 1. The original project will not be detrimental because: The project would provide a reasonable addition to the existing residence that conforms to the average and maximum height limits for the District, extends an existing building wall along the side yard, and provides a replacement parking space within a garage.
2956 SHASTA ROAD ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 10 of 14 September 9, 2010 The project would step with the slope of the site, keeping the roof line below the existing roof of the house and stepping towards the street, with a front setback similar to those of other houses in the vicinity. The addition would be lower than the immediately adjacent residence and would not cast shadows or block significant views or light. 2. The original project would satisfy all other standards of the Ordinance, and would not unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air or views because: The addition is lower than the existing roof line of the house, would step with the terrain, and would be below the height of the immediately adjacent residence. The addition would not block sunlight to the bedroom window of the residence to the north, the only living area that would be affected by the project, as the eave line is below the height of the window and the roof would have a low slope that would not block sunlight. The addition would not block air flow to the bedroom of the residence to the north, as it is set back from the property line, the eave line is below the adjacent window and the roof would have a low slope that would allow air flow. The addition would not unreasonably obstruct significant views because the only view that could be affected is from the adjacent bedroom window, which does not qualify as a significant view (significant view of the Berkeley Hills, San Francisco Bay, Mt. Tamalpais, or a significant landmark such as the Campanile, Golden Gate Bridge, and Alcatraz Island or any other significant vista that substantially enhances the value and enjoyment of real property). The view that would be affected is an angled and filtered view of the Port of Oakland and environs, which is not a significant view as defined and does not substantially enhance the value or enjoyment of the property to the degree that it is not in primary living space or prominent in the use of the bedroom. 3. The original project would be consistent with the purposes of the H District, in that it would: Implement the General Plan policies regarding Hillside Development, i.e. i. Policy UD-17, Design Elements, In relating new design to the surrounding area, the factors to consider should include height, massing, materials, color and detailing or ornament because the addition will be of the same scale, materials, color and height as the existing residence. ii. Policy UD-24, Area Character, Regulate new construction and alterations to ensure that they are truly compatible with and, where feasible, reinforce the desirable design characteristics of the particular area they are in because the addition will be similar to other residences in the area by using a similar design strategy in stepping, using similar materials, and minimizing grading or contrast with the setting.
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 SHASTA ROAD September 9, 2010 Page 11 of 14 iii. iv. Policy UD-31, Views, Construction should avoid blocking significant views, especially ones toward the Bay, the hills, and significant landmarks such as the Campanile, Golden Gate Bridge, and Alcatraz Island because the only view that could be affected is from the adjacent bedroom window, which does not qualify as a significant view (significant view of the Berkeley Hills, San Francisco Bay, Mt. Tamalpais, or a significant landmark such as the Campanile, Golden Gate Bridge, and Alcatraz Island or any other significant vista that substantially enhances the value and enjoyment of real property). The view that would be affected is an angled and filtered view of the Port of Oakland and environs, which is not a significant view as defined and does not substantially enhance the value or enjoyment of the property to the degree that it is not in primary living space or prominent in the use of the bedroom. Policy UD-32, Shadows, New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows because the addition would not block sunlight to the bedroom window of the residence to the north, the only living area that would be affected by the project, as the eave line is below the height of the window and the roof would have a low slope that would not block sunlight. Protect the character of Berkeley s hill Districts and their immediate environs, because: the residential addition would be lower than the existing roof line of the house, would be of similar form and use similar materials of the existing house and neighborhood, and be consistent with the setbacks and configurations of other homes in the immediate area that have downslope to the street and garages close to the street. No trees would be removed, no major grading would occur, and the street frontage improvements would remain the same. Give reasonable protection to views yet allow appropriate development of all property, because: the residential addition would be lower than the existing roof line of the house and would not project more than two feet beyond the front of the adjacent house to the north, thereby preserving views from the front of the adjacent house, while allowing a reasonable addition of 313 square feet for a master bedroom on the main floor and 338 square feet for the lower garage level, for a total living area of 1,664 square feet on a single level with a lot coverage of under 40%. Allow modifications in standard yard and height requirements when justified because of steep topography, irregular lot pattern, unusual street conditions, or other special aspects of the Hillside District area, because: the site is steeply sloping up from the street, necessitating the provision of a new garage and driveway apron that is more easily accessible from the street and below the existing residential living floor. The new construction
2956 SHASTA ROAD ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 12 of 14 September 9, 2010 is aligned with the existing north wall of the residence and steps with the slope of the site, on a small lot that cannot easily accommodate additional living space or garage on other parts of the lot. The front setback would be consistent with others in the immediate area. B. Key Issues: 1. Appeal Issue: Views and Property Value The appellants are concerned that the addition would block the existing filtered view to the south, toward the Port of Oakland and Bay, from the bedroom window on the side of the house. This view would be blocked by the roof of the addition, which would extend forward to roughly the same setback as the appellants residence. The appellants provide an opinion from an appraiser that indicates a possible 2% diminution in value due to the loss of the view, or about $15,000. Staff Response: The view from the appellants front bedroom was observed by staff and considered in the Zoning Officer s decision, as stated above. While the appraiser indicates that there could be a diminution in value, such changes to the setting of the property are consistent with the development in the area where houses are close together and trees and buildings screen or block views. The existing view is oblique and screened, and does not have a prominent focus such as of the Golden Gate Bridge. Revised Proposal: The view from the appellants front bedroom would be unaffected by the revised project design because the addition would be located over 25 feet from the window and set back to preserve the view from the residence at 2958 Shasta Road. The revised project would not interfere with any other view from any other residence. 2. Appeal Issue: Shadows / Light / Air The appellants are concerned that the addition would cast shadows and interfere with the light available to the bedroom that is located along the south side of the residence adjacent to the proposed addition, and believe that a shadow study should be completed. Light would remain available to the bedroom at all hours of the day. Staff Response: The potential shadow impacts of the addition were considered as part of the Zoning Officer s decision, as stated above. A shadow study is unnecessary to demonstrate that the project would not cast a shadow on any windows given the relative building elevations and setbacks. Revised Proposal: The revised project would have no shadow impacts to the residence at 2958 Shasta Road, and would not cast shadows on any other residence. Light also would remain available to all other windows of other neighbors, as the immediate neighbor at 2954 Shasta Road has windows that
ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2956 SHASTA ROAD September 9, 2010 Page 13 of 14 face north towards the project, shielded by a tall hedge and large tree, and the revised project would locate the addition at least 10 feet from those windows. 3. Issue: Neighborhood Character The appellants are concerned that the proposed project would be out of scale with the neighborhood, particularly because the addition would be close to the side property line, in addition to being close to the front property line. Staff Response: The project was evaluated for consistency with the neighborhood, as presented in the Zoning Officer s decision and summarized above. While staff initially had concerns about the project, those concerns were resolved during the review process based on site visits to the area which showed that this hillside neighborhood is commonly developed in this manner. Revised Proposal: The revised project would remain consistent with the neighborhood character, as it includes a stepped addition that is integrated into the hillside setting. The lower level garage would be close to the street with a low hipped roof leading to a main level master bedroom suite set back further from the street. The low brick wall would remain along a portion of the frontage, a new tree would be planted in the corner of the building to partially screen the addition, and the existing driveway would be removed and landscaped. The setback from the side property line would be greater on the south side with this alternative than on the north side with the original proposal, further reducing potential impacts. 4. Issue: Alternative Options The appellants are concerned that insufficient consideration was given to alternative plans that would reduce impacts to their views, light, and other concerns. The appellants provided a suggested alternative that would place the addition on the south side of the property. That alternative concept has been more fully developed by the applicant and is now being proposed as an option. However, that option has raised concerns of other neighbors; all parties are attending a mediation session on September 3, 2010 to discuss the issues and possible solutions. Staff Response: Staff initially suggested that the applicant could consider alternatives, and worked with the applicant to explore those options. The applicant provided reasons why other options were less feasible; staff therefore worked with the applicant to make some minor changes to the plans. Because the project was found to be acceptable, it was approved as revised. Revised Proposal: Staff agrees that the alternative location of the addition would reduce potential impacts to the appellants property, and would not impose unreasonable impacts on other neighbors considering the building scale and separation, lack of views, and so forth.
2956 SHASTA ROAD ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 14 of 14 September 9, 2010 5. Issue: Procedural Concerns The appellants note that the city expressed concerns about the project and yet approved it. Staff Response: City staff were concerned about the project and its potential impacts, and considered several issues raised by the neighbors to the north. In the end, staff concluded that the project would not be unreasonable and approved the design. Revised Proposal: The revised proposal has also raised procedural concerns among neighbors, in that the public notices refer to the original project. However, the neighbors have also been able to view the story poles, obtain information about the project, been contacted directly and are in mediation, and therefore have adequate opportunity to review and comment on the original project and revised project. C. General Plan Consistency: General Plan consistency was evaluated in the Zoning Officer's decision, as recited above. The revised project would be similarly consistent. VI. Recommendation Because of the on-going discussion among the parties regarding compromise solutions that could serve to meet everyone s objectives, staff recommends that the Zoning Adjustments Board: Consider the original plans, revised plans, and testimony regarding relative merits and concerns, and continue the hearing with direction. Alternatively, the Board could: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Zoning Officer to approve the original project (see Attachment 1), or Approve the modified proposal as presented by the applicant (see plans in Attachment 2) or Approve a modified plan as may be presented based on mediation among the parties. Attachments: 1. Zoning Officer Notice of Decision, including approved Plans and Findings and Conditions, June 24, 2010 2. Revised Project Plans, dated August 20, 2010 3. Appeal of David Lee and Irene Moore, dated July 14, 2010 4. Notice of Public Hearing 5. Correspondence Received Staff Planner: Steven Buckley, sbuckley@ci.berkeley.ca.us, (510) 981-7430