Page 1 of 66. Office of the City Manager PUBLIC HEARING January 31, 2017

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 66 Office of the City Manager PUBLIC HEARING January 31, 2017 To: From: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Dee Williams-Ridley, City Manager Submitted by: Carol Johnson, Director, Planning & Development Subject: ZAB Appeal: 2706 Shasta Road RECOMMENDATION Conduct a public hearing and upon conclusion, adopt a Resolution approving Use Permit No. ZP to construct a new, approximately 2,720 square-foot, threestory, single-family residence with a 300 square-foot attached garage and an average building height of 28 feet on an existing vacant parcel, and to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 8.5 feet, and dismissing the appeal. SUMMARY The appellants appeal points regarding geotechnical concerns, parking and traffic concerns, emergency access and fire hazards, transportation impacts, usable open space, density and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) exemption of the project were adequately addressed and the project will not be out of scale with surrounding development in the area or to other single family dwellings in the Hillside district. FISCAL IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION None CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS On September 22, 2016, the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) held a public hearing and approved the application with conditions of approval by a vote (Yes: Khan, Williams, Hauser, Brazile Clark, O Keefe, Teresa Clarke, Donaldson, Tregub, Pinkston). On October 6, 2016, staff issued a notice of the ZAB decision. On October 20, 2016, Noah Sudarsky and Lily Alexander filed an appeal with the City Clerk. BACKGROUND The project site is an existing 6,364 square foot lot on the east side of Shasta Road, just north of its intersection with Tamalpais Road. The terrain slopes steeply upward toward the east such that the parcels on the east side of Shasta Road are elevated above those on the west side and below those on Northgate Avenue and portions of Shasta Road further north and east as it curves to the uphill. There are two properties (2702 and 2704 Shasta) to the south which are owned by the same owner as the subject owner/applicant, and were concurrently approved for similar development under 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: (510) TDD: (510) Fax: (510) manager@cityofberkeley.info Website:

2 Page 2 of 66 ZAB Appeal: 2706 Shasta Road Public Hearing January 31, 2017 separate use permit applications. Those two parcels are generally similar in size and shape, and share an access driveway with the subject parcel. The ZAB public hearing was originally scheduled for September 8, Following the release of the staff report, a noticing error was identified and the project was re-noticed for the September 22, 2016 ZAB hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY There are no identifiable environmental impacts or opportunities associated with the subject of this report. RATIONALE FOR RECOMMENDATION The issues raised in the appeal letter, and staff s responses, are listed below. For the sake of brevity, the appeal issues are not re-stated in their entirety; please refer to the attached appeal letter (Attachment 2) for the appellants full text. Issue 1: Geotechnical The site is within a slide zone with a landslide history [p. 1 of attached appeal letter.] Response 1: The project site is located within an area susceptible to landslides as shown on the State Seismic Hazard Zones map and the construction of this dwelling is subject to the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (SHMA). Although in one instance the staff report to ZAB erroneously noted that the construction of this dwelling was exempt from the SHMA, a Geotechnical and Geologic Hazard Investigation was prepared as required by the SHMA and subject to peer review by the City s geotechnical consultant, Cotton-Shires. Cotton-Shires concluded in a memorandum dated July 27, 2016, that the report adequately addressed all geotechnical issues and that the recommended project design measure satisfactorily addressed State requirements for investigation and mitigation within the mapped landslide hazard zone. Two typical project conditions of approval were recommended; these were included as adopted Conditions of Approval 12 and 13 and require that the projects building and grading plans follow the recommendations of the applicant s study. The appeal does not provide any evidence to show that the ZAB s acceptance of this report, and application of standard Conditions of Approval was in error or inadequate to address site conditions. Thus, staff recommends that the Council find this appeal point as without merit and dismiss the appeal as to this issue. Issue 2: Parking and Traffic concerns The staff report noted a cursory reference that neighbor concerns included the limited street parking on that stretch of Shasta Road; added traffic... Later in letters to ZAB Neighbors on two adjacent properties (2712 Shasta, 99 Northgate) voiced concern [p. 1 of attached appeal letter.] Page 2

3 Page 3 of 66 ZAB Appeal: 2706 Shasta Road Public Hearing January 31, 2017 Response 2: Correspondence from four neighbors was provided to the ZAB as attachments to the September 8 staff report, which included letters from the residents at 2712 Shasta Road and 99 Northgate Ave (who are also co-signers of the appeal of the letter). Subsequently, additional correspondence was provided to ZAB as attachments to the September 22 staff report. The September 22 staff report informed the ZAB that four neighbors stated concerns or objections to the project during the preapplication contact, including one in a subsequent to the City. The ZAB also heard testimony from neighbors regarding traffic concerns at the September 22, 2016 hearing. In addition, the project at 2706 Shasta Road provides an attached one-car garage. The project meets the minimum required within the R-1(H) district; and is not expected to require the use of additional on-street parking. The appeal does not provide any evidence to show that more parking should be provided for this dwelling than the one space required by the Zoning Ordinance or that the ZAB did not have the opportunity to consider the neighbors concerns. Thus, staff recommends that the Council find this appeal point as without merit and dismiss the appeal as to this issue. Issue 3: Emergency access & fire hazards - The ZAB did not consider whether a three-building development in tight quarters with minimal setbacks and one narrow means of egress might represent a considerable fire hazard we feel [ZAB] should have at least considered whether a fire truck could even access the property. [p. 2 of attached appeal letter.] Response 3: The site is designed so the new single family dwelling would be setback 73 in the front, 6 and 11 on the left and right sides respectively and between 8 6 and 4 in the rear (per the ZAB s direction). Before this project was presented to the ZAB with a recommendation to approve, the driveway which serves the three proposed developments on Shasta was reviewed by the City s Traffic Engineer. Prior to construction, this dwelling must comply with Building and Fire Codes, including access requirements. Technical review of Building, Public Works and Fire codes are not within the ZAB s purview. Setbacks are further discussed below under item 6 (Density). The appeal does not provide any evidence to show that this dwelling would pose a unique fire risk to this site or to neighboring properties, or that site-specific COAs are needed to address Fire, Traffic or Building and Safety concerns. Thus, staff recommends that the Council find this appeal point as without merit and dismiss the appeal as to this issue. Page 3

4 Page 4 of 66 ZAB Appeal: 2706 Shasta Road Public Hearing January 31, 2017 Issue 4: Transportation impacts a Transportation Construction Plan ought to be a central part of what the Council review to find that the project is approvable. [p. 3 of attached appeal letter.] Response 4: To address potential construction-related impacts, project approval included standard condition of approval that requires the applicant to submit and secure approval of a Transportation Construction Plan (TCP) by the Office of Transportation prior to the issuance of building permits. The TCP is required to address all phases of construction particularly any alteration, closure, or blockage to vehicle travel lanes, the storage of building materials, dumpsters, debris anywhere in the public right of way, the provision of exclusive on-street contractor parking, or significant truck activity. The City has used this COA for other new dwellings in the hills area and has found that it adequately addresses potential constructionrelated impacts. In addition, the concern regarding existing and potential traffic was brought up during the public hearing and discussed by the ZAB. The ZAB directed the neighbors to approach the City Transportation Division to discuss potential traffic calming measures to address any existing speeding issues. The appeal does not provide any evidence to show that construction of this dwelling would pose a unique construction-related impact such that the City s standard conditions regarding construction are insufficient or require additional review prior to the submittal of building permits. Thus, staff recommends that the Council find this appeal point as without merit and dismiss the appeal as to this issue. Issue 5: Usable Open Space - The staff report does not in any way carefully or otherwise specifically delineate in the discussion or on the site maps the Usable Open Space for the project. [p. 3 of attached appeal letter]. Response 5: Prior to presenting this project to the ZAB with a recommendation to approve, staff confirmed that the new dwelling would be provided with at least 400 square feet of useable open space, which is the minimum required for a new dwelling in the R-1(H) district. The appeal does not provide any evidence to show that this dwelling would not be provided with the required minimum amount of useable open space. Thus, staff recommends that the Council find this appeal point as without merit and dismiss the appeal as to this issue. Page 4

5 Page 5 of 66 ZAB Appeal: 2706 Shasta Road Public Hearing January 31, 2017 Issue 6: Density - We ask that the [project be] redesigned with less density to reflect the unique characteristics of the site, which is only buildable on a fraction of its total surface area. A tight cluster of three-story homes at this location would be unprecedented [p. 3 of attached appeal letter]. Response 6: The residential density approved by the ZAB was consistent with the R-1 District standard of one dwelling per parcel. In fact, the subject lot area of 6,364 square feet exceeds the minimum lot size required of 5,000 square feet. In relation to building intensity, the new dwelling would cover 18/% of the lot, which is less than the maximum of 40%. Although the project is requesting a reduced rear yard setback, the purposes of the H District 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. These conditions are present at the project site, and provided the basis for the ZAB s approval of the reduction of the rear yard setback. In addition, the subject project has a 73 foot front yard setback where a minimum of 20 feet is required and the two projects concurrently reviewed by ZAB would have similar front yard setbacks which exceed the minimum of 20 feet by 40 feet or more. The Housing Accountability Act (j) requires that when a proposed housing development complies with the applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards, but a local agency proposes to deny the project or approve it only if the density is reduced, the agency must base its decision on written findings supported by substantial evidence that: 1) The development would have a specific adverse impact 1 on public health or safety unless disapproved, or approved at a lower density; and 2) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact, other than the disapproval, or approval at a lower density. The project has one proposed element which does not comply with applicable, objective general plan and zoning standards in the zoning ordinance, a reduction of the rear yard setback. Therefore, the findings required by (j) do not apply to this project. The appeal does not provide any evidence to show that density standards for the R-1 District are inadequate for this site and that the reduced rear yard setback standard is unique or unusual for a property within the Hillside District. Thus, staff recommends that the Council find this appeal point as without merit and dismiss the appeal as to this issue 1 As used in the Act, a specific, adverse impact means a significant, quantifiable, direct and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, polices, or conditions as they existed on the date the application was complete. Page 5

6 Page 6 of 66 ZAB Appeal: 2706 Shasta Road Public Hearing January 31, 2017 Issue 7: CEQA We believe that [the project] should not necessarily be categorically exempt from a CEQA review [p. 3 of attached appeal letter]. Response 7: The project approved by the ZAB was found to be categorically exempt pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines (New Construction of Small Structures). In addition, the ZAB found that none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section apply, as follows: (a) the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, (b) there are no cumulative impacts, (c) there are no significant effects, (d) the project is not located near a scenic highway, (e) the project site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section , and (f) the project would not affect any historical resource. The number of structures described in this section are the maximum allowable on any legal parcel including a single-family residence. The appeal does not provide any evidence to show that project is not exempt from CEQA or that there are any unusual conditions which would require additional review. Thus, staff recommends that the Council find this appeal point as without merit and dismiss the appeal as to this issue. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS CONSIDERED Pursuant to BMC Section 23B D, the Council may (1) reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, the ZAB decision, or (2) remand the matter to the ZAB. CONTACT PERSONS Carol Johnson, Director, Planning & Development Department, (510) Layal Nawfal, Associate Planner, Planning & Development Department, (510) Attachments: 1: Resolution Exhibit A: Findings and Conditions Exhibit B: Project Plans, received August 29, : Appeal Letter, received October 10, : ZAB Staff Reports 4: Administrative Record, Index 5: Public Hearing Notice Page 6

7 Page 7 of 66 RESOLUTION NO. ##,###-N.S. AFFIRMING THE ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD S APPROVAL OF USE PERMIT NO. ZP AT 2706 SHASTA ROAD TO CONSTRUCT A NEW, APPROXIMATELY 2,720 SQUARE-FOOT, THREE-STORY, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WITH A 300 SQUARE-FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE AND AN AVERAGE BUILDING HEIGHT OF 28 FEET ON AN EXISTING VACANT PARCEL, AND TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 20 FEET TO 8.5 FEET IN THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT- HILLSIDE OVERLAY AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL WHEREAS, on January 28, 2016, Matthew Wadlund filed an application for a Use Permit to construct a new, approximately 2,840 square-foot, three-story, single-family residence with a 600 square-foot attached garage and an average building height of 28 feet on an existing vacant parcel, and to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 11.5 feet ( project ); and WHEREAS, on August 26, 2016, staff mailed 110 notices to adjoining property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site, and to interested neighborhood organizations and posted a Notice of Public Hearing at and in the vicinity of the site to inform the public of the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2016, to resolve a noticing error, staff mailed 111 notices to adjoining property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site, and to interested neighborhood organizations and posted a Notice of Public Hearing at and in the vicinity of the site to inform the public of the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Public Hearing; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2016, the ZAB held a public hearing in accordance with BMC Section 23B , and continued the project due to a noticing error; and WHEREAS, on September 22, 2016, the ZAB held a public hearing in accordance with BMC Section 23B , and approved the project; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 2016, staff issued the notice of the ZAB decision; and WHEREAS, on October 20, 2016, Noah Sudarsky and Lily Alexander filed an appeal, signed by 24 Berkeley residents, of the ZAB decision with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, on January 31, 2017, the Council considered the record of the proceedings before the ZAB, and the staff report and correspondence presented to the Council and, in the opinion of this Council, the facts stated in, or ascertainable from this information, do not warrant further hearing.

8 Page 8 of 66 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Berkeley that it hereby adopts the findings and conditions approved by ZAB shown in Exhibit A, for the project depicted in Exhibit B, and approves Use Permit No. ZP Exhibits A: Findings and Conditions B: Project Plans dated received August 29, 2016

9 2706 Shasta Road A t t a c h m e n t 1 F i n d i n g s a n d C o n d i t i o n s S E P T E M B E R 22, 2016 Use Permit #ZP to construct an approximately 2,720 square-foot, three-story, single-family residence with a 300 squarefoot garage and an average building height of 28 feet on an existing vacant parcel, and to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 8.5 feet. PERMITS REQUIRED Page 9 of 66 Use Permit with Public Hearing under Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 23D , to construct a new dwelling unit in the R-1 District; and Administrative Use Permit (AUP) under BMC Section 23E C for a reduced rear yard setback (11.5 feet instead of the required 20 feet). I. CEQA FINDINGS The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code 21000, et seq. and California Code of Regulations, 15000, et seq.) pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines (construction and location of limited numbers of new structures). Furthermore, none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section apply, as follows: (a) the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, (b) there are no cumulative impacts, (c) there are no significant effects, (d) the project is not located near a scenic highway, (e) the project site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section , and (f) the project would not affect any historical resource. II. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL As required by Section 23B A of the Zoning Ordinance, the project, under the circumstances of this particular case existing at the time at which the application is granted, would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, comfort, and general welfare of the persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such proposed use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood, or to the general welfare of the City because: A. The proposal to construct a new single-family dwelling on this vacant lot is consistent with City s policies and goals related to the creation housing units and expansion of the City s housing supply. The single dwelling unit represents the maximum residential density permissible at this site. B. The proposed single-family dwelling will not unreasonably obstruct sunlight on nearby existing dwellings. The impacts of off-site shading by the proposed project are limited by slope, existing trees and building to building separation. Shadow effects will be 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us

10 Page 10 of SHASTA ROAD Findings and Conditions Page 2 of 9 #ZP limited to the property to the north at 2712 Shasta Road, and will not be substantially detrimental. Shadows will not fully shade windows on the dwelling itself at any time of the year, but will fall on the rear yard area for a brief period (less than approximately two or three hours) on winter and summer mornings. However, much of this yard area is shaded by onsite and adjacent trees during this time under current conditions. In addition, the topographic feature to the east, a knoll or ridge topped by the western segment of Northgate Avenue, shades the site in early mornings under existing conditions. C. The proposed single-family dwelling will not unreasonably impact the air or privacy between neighbors, because the setbacks will exceed the side and front setbacks of the District. The reduced rear yard setback will not impact this condition because there are no buildings or routinely used outdoor areas on neighboring properties directly to the rear. The proposed dwelling is adjacent to one proposed new dwelling at 2704 Shasta Road to the south, which would be over 15 feet from the proposed dwelling at 2706 Shasta Road, and an existing dwelling at 2712 Shasta Road to the southwest, which would be nearly 50 feet away. D. The proposed single-family dwelling is found be permissible and non-detrimental with respect to potential view impacts. Portions of the views from houses on Northgate Avenue and Shasta Road to the east of the project site extend over the site. However, due to the distance from and steepness of the slope between the existing and proposed dwellings, and because of the substantial intervening tree cover, the proposed new house will not substantially block views towards the Bay from the neighboring houses or streets. E. The geotechnical report and plans have been reviewed by the City s consulting geotechnical engineer and confirm that the project will not result in detriment to the site or surrounding properties. F. Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23E C, the reduced rear yard setback is consistent with the purposes of the Hillside Overlay District in that it will allow for the placement of the proposed building in the flatter area of the site, allowing for reduced grading, in a location that also avoids impacts to oak trees closer to the front property line. The purposes of the Hillside District under 23E D allow for modification of standard yard requirements due to the topography of the area and other special aspects of the District. The encroachment will, therefore, not adversely affect the character of Berkeley s Hillside District.

11 Page 11 of SHASTA ROAD Page 3 of 9 Findings and Conditions #ZP III. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR ALL PROJECTS The following conditions, as well as all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance, apply to this Permit: 1. Conditions Shall be Printed on Plans The conditions of this Permit shall be printed on the second sheet of each plan set submitted for a building permit pursuant to this Use Permit, under the title Use Permit Conditions. Additional sheets may also be used if the second sheet is not of sufficient size to list all of the conditions. The sheet(s) containing the conditions shall be of the same size as those sheets containing the construction drawings; 8-1/2 by 11 sheets are not acceptable. 2. Applicant Responsible for Compliance with Conditions The applicant shall ensure compliance with all of the following conditions, including submittal to the project planner of required approval signatures at the times specified. Failure to comply with any condition may result in construction being stopped, issuance of a citation, and/or modification or revocation of the Use Permit. 3. Uses Approved Deemed to Exclude Other Uses (Section 23B ) A. This Permit authorizes only those uses and activities actually proposed in the application, and excludes other uses and activities. B. Except as expressly specified herein, this Permit terminates all other uses at the location subject to it. 4. Modification of Permits (Section 23B ) No change in the use or structure for which this Permit is approved is permitted unless the Permit is modified by the Zoning Adjustments Board, in conformance with Section 23B A. Changes in the plans for the construction of a building or structure may be modified prior to the completion of construction, in accordance with Section 23B D. The Zoning Officer may approve changes to plans approved by the Board, consistent with the Board s policy adopted on May 24, 1978, which reduce the size of the project. The Zoning Officer may also approve a maximum two-foot variation to Board approved plans, provided that such variation does not increase a structure s height, reduce the minimum distance to any property line, and/or conflict with any special objective sought by the Board. In the case of modifications to Use Permits for construction of, or additions or changes to, single-family homes which required Board review, the Zoning Officer shall follow Board policy adopted March 13, 1997, as follows: A. Upon applications for modifications to a home where a Use Permit has been granted, Staff shall review the Use Permit to determine if any explicit conditions were placed on the Use Permit that would be affected by the proposed modification. B. If, prior to acting on a Building Permit, Staff becomes aware of controversy over an earlier application, Staff may choose to conduct a more detailed review of the record to determine if conditions were implied by the Board or offered by the applicant (but not included in the Use Permit conditions) that would be affected by

12 Page 12 of SHASTA ROAD Findings and Conditions Page 4 of 9 #ZP the proposed modification (this does not imply that Staff will review the whole Use Permit record for all applications). C. If there are explicit conditions (#A) or implied conditions (#B) affected by the proposed modification, the project shall be brought back to the Board as a Use Permit Modification. D. If there are no explicit conditions that would be affected by the proposed modification, and if Staff is not otherwise aware of implied conditions, and the project would otherwise meet the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, Staff will approve the Building Permit without Board or public review. 5. Plans and Representations Become Conditions (Section 23B ) Except as specified herein, the site plan, floor plans, building elevations and/or any additional information or representations, whether oral or written, indicating the proposed structure or manner of operation submitted with an application or during the approval process are deemed conditions of approval. 6. Subject to All Applicable Laws and Regulations (Section 23B ) The approved use and/or construction is subject to, and shall comply with, all applicable City Ordinances and laws and regulations of other governmental agencies. Prior to construction, the applicant shall identify and secure all applicable permits from the Building and Safety Division, Public Works Department and other affected City divisions and departments. 7. Exercised Permit for Use Survives Vacancy of Property (Section 23B ) Once a Permit for a use is exercised and the use is established, that use is legally recognized, even if the property becomes vacant, except as set forth in Standard Condition #8, below. 8. Exercise and Lapse of Permits (Section 23B ) A. A permit for the use of a building or a property is exercised when, if required, a valid City business license has been issued, and the permitted use has commenced on the property. B. A permit for the construction of a building or structure is deemed exercised when a valid City building permit, if required, is issued, and construction has lawfully commenced. C. A permit may be declared lapsed and of no further force and effect if it is not exercised within one year of its issuance, except that permits for construction or alteration of structures or buildings may not be declared lapsed if the permittee has: (1) applied for a building permit; or, (2) made substantial good faith efforts to obtain a building permit and begin construction, even if a building permit has not been issued and/or construction has not begun. 9. Indemnification Agreement The applicant shall hold the City of Berkeley and its officers harmless in the event of any legal action related to the granting of this Permit, shall cooperate with the City in defense of such action, and shall indemnify the City for any award of damages or attorney s fees that may result.

13 2706 SHASTA ROAD Findings and Conditions Page 5 of 9 #ZP IV. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE ZONING OFFICER Pursuant to BMC 23B D, the Zoning Officer attaches the following additional conditions to this Permit: Prior to Submittal of Any Building Permit: 10. Project Liaison. The applicant shall provide the project planner with the name and telephone number of the individual empowered to manage complaints generated from the project. The individual s name, telephone number, and responsibility for the project shall be posted at the project site for the duration of the project in a location easily visible to the public. The individual shall record all complaints received and actions taken in response, and submit written reports of such complaints and actions to the project planner on a weekly basis. Project Liaison Name Phone # Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit: Page 13 of Revised Site Plan. Plans submitted for grading and building permit approval shall reflect the direction of the Zoning Adjustments Board at their hearing of September 22, 2016, to move the new dwelling closer to the rear property line. This change shall result in a rear yard setback of no less than four feet and a side yard setback of no less than six feet. This change shall result in the dwelling being located further from the existing dwelling at 2712 Shasta Road than shown on the site plan reviewed by the ZAB at their hearing of September 22, Lot Line Adjustment. The applicant shall furnish proof of the approval and recordation of a parcel map creating a legal lot as shown on the project plans for this Use Permit dated September 22, 2016 as the proposed 2706 Shasta Road lot. 13. Geotechnical. The applicant shall implement all geotechnical design recommendations and all geotechnical aspects of project grading and construction and be inspected and tested with appropriate documentation submitted to the City prior to the commencement of any construction activity. 14. Specific Geotechnical Conditions. The applicant's geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. In addition, the Consultant shall consider and estimate the fill settlement for the planned buttress. The design of proposed hardscape and other improvements crossing the buttress fill shall be designed with consideration of the anticipated settlement. The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.

14 Page 14 of SHASTA ROAD Findings and Conditions Page 6 of 9 #ZP The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City Engineer for review prior to granting of a certificate of occupancy. 15. Coast Live Oak Trees. Prior to the commencement of any construction activity, the applicant shall adhere to the coast live oak tree mitigation measures as well as additional measures prescribed by the City Arborist and recommended in the Applicant s March 12, 2016 arborist report and June 4, 2016 addendum to the report. Where additional measures are prescribed, all shall be noted on the construction drawings for this project. The Coast Live Oak trees shall be protected from all injuries that could endanger their survival. Failure to adequately protect the existing oak trees from damage such that it is removed through negligence or intentional action shall require corrective measures as determined by the Zoning Officer. Prior to submittal of a Building Permit application, the applicant shall prepare a treespecific assessment of the project s construction impacts and ongoing maintenance impacts to the coast live oak tree on the property s northern property line just north of the proposed new dwelling. This tree is identified as Oak Tree #1A in the Peter K. Rudy Arborist Report (June 4, 2016) included in the project application. If the assessment concludes that pruning of Oak Tree #1A to accommodate project construction and maintenance would require removal of over 25% of the tree s foliage or would otherwise cause substantial decline of the tree, the project shall be redesigned to avoid the need for such pruning. The assessment and related project revisions, if any, shall be reviewed and approved by the City s arborist and Land Use Planning Division staff. During Construction: 16. Transportation Construction Plan. The applicant and all persons associated with the project are hereby notified that a Transportation Construction Plan (TCP) is required for all phases of construction, particularly for the following activities: Alterations, closures, or blockages to sidewalks or pedestrian paths Alterations, closures, or blockages to vehicle travel lanes (including bicycle lanes) Storage of building materials, dumpsters, debris anywhere In the public ROW Provision of exclusive contractor parking on-street relevant Significant truck activity. The applicant shall secure the City Traffic Engineer s approval of a TCP. Please contact the Office of Transportation at , or 1947 Center Street, 3 rd floor, and ask to speak to a traffic engineer. In addition to other requirements of the Traffic Engineer, this plan shall include the locations of material and equipment storage, trailers, worker parking, a schedule of site operations that may block traffic, and provisions for traffic control. The TCP shall be consistent with any other requirements of the construction phase.

15 Page 15 of SHASTA ROAD Page 7 of 9 Findings and Conditions #ZP Contact the Permit Service Center (PSC) at 2120 Milvia Street or for details on obtaining Construction/No Parking Permits (and associated signs and accompanying dashboard permits). Please note that the Zoning Officer and/or Traffic Engineer may limit off-site parking of construction-related vehicles if necessary to protect the health, safety or convenience of the surrounding neighborhood. A current copy of this Plan shall be available at all times at the construction site for review by City Staff. 17. Construction Hours. Construction activity shall be limited to between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday, and between 9:00 a.m. and noon on Saturday. No construction-related activity shall occur on Sunday or on any Federal Holiday. STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS 18. The applicant shall demonstrate compliance with the requirements of the City s National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit as described in Berkeley Municipal Code Section The following conditions apply: A. The project plans shall identify and show site-specific Best Management Practices (BMPs) appropriate to activities conducted on-site to limit to the maximum extent practicable the discharge of pollutants to the City's storm drainage system, regardless of season or weather conditions. B. Trash enclosures and/or recycling area(s) shall be covered; no other area shall drain onto this area. Drains in any wash or process area shall not discharge to the storm drain system; these drains should connect to the sanitary sewer. Applicant shall contact the City of Berkeley and EBMUD for specific connection and discharge requirements. Discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the City of Berkeley and EBMUD. C. Landscaping shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize the use of fertilizers and pesticides that contribute to stormwater pollution. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat runoff. Where feasible, xeriscape and drought tolerant plants shall be incorporated into new development plans. D. Design, location and maintenance requirements and schedules for any stormwater quality treatment structural controls shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review with respect to reasonable adequacy of the controls. The review does not relieve the property owner of the responsibility for complying with BMC Chapter and future revisions to the City's overall stormwater quality ordinances. This review shall be shall be conducted prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. E. All paved outdoor storage areas must be designed to reduce/limit the potential for runoff to contact pollutants. F. All on-site storm drain inlets/catch basins must be cleaned at least once a year immediately prior to the rainy season. The property owner shall be responsible for all costs associated with proper operation and maintenance of all storm drainage facilities (pipelines, inlets, catch basins, outlets, etc.) associated with the project, unless the City accepts such facilities by Council action. Additional cleaning may be required by City of Berkeley Public Works Engineering Dept. G. All private or public projects that create and/or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface must comply with Provision C.3 of the Alameda County NPDES permit and must incorporate stormwater controls to enhance water quality. Permit

16 Page 16 of SHASTA ROAD Findings and Conditions Page 8 of 9 #ZP submittals shall include a Stormwater Requirement Checklist and detailed information showing how the proposed project will meet Provision C.3 stormwater requirements, including a) Site design measures to reduce impervious surfaces, promote infiltration, and reduce water quality impacts; b) Source Control Measures to keep pollutants out of stormwater runoff; c) Stormwater treatment measures that are hydraulically sized to remove pollutants from stormwater; d) an O & M (Operations and Maintenance) agreement for all stormwater treatment devices and installations; and e) Engineering calculations for all stormwater devices (both mechanical and biological). H. All on-site storm drain inlets must be labeled No Dumping Drains to Bay or equivalent using methods approved by the City. 19. Public Works. Sidewalks and parking lots shall be swept regularly to prevent the accumulation of litter and debris. If pressure washed, debris must be trapped and collected to prevent entry to the storm drain system. If any cleaning agent or degreaser is used, wash water shall not discharge to the storm drains; wash waters should be collected and discharged to the sanitary sewer. Discharges to the sanitary sewer are subject to the review, approval and conditions of the sanitary district with jurisdiction for receiving the discharge. 20. Public Works. Subject to approval of the Public Works Department, the applicant shall repair any damage to public streets and/or sidewalks by construction vehicles traveling to or from the project site. 21. Public Works. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all contractors and subcontractors are aware of and implement all stormwater quality control measures. Failure to comply with the approved construction BMPs shall result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or a project stop work order. 22. Public Works. Plans submitted for building permit shall include replacement of sidewalk, curb, gutter, and other streetscape improvements, as necessary to comply with current City of Berkeley standards for accessibility. 23. Public Works. The removal or obstruction of any fire hydrant shall require the submission of a plan to the City s Public Works Department for the relocation of the fire hydrant during construction. 24. Public Works. If underground utilities leading to adjacent properties are uncovered and/or broken, the contractor involved shall immediately notify the Public Works Department and the Building & Safety Division, and carry out any necessary corrective action to their satisfaction. 25. Public Works. All piles of debris, soil, sand, or other loose materials shall be covered at night and during rainy weather with plastic at least one-eighth millimeter thick and secured to the ground. 26. Public Works. The applicant shall ensure that all excavation takes into account surface and subsurface waters and underground streams so as not to adversely affect adjacent properties and rights-of-way.

17 2706 SHASTA ROAD Findings and Conditions Page 9 of 9 #ZP Public Works. The project sponsor shall maintain sandbags or other devices around the site perimeter during the rainy season to prevent on-site soils from being washed off-site and into the storm drain system. The project sponsor shall comply with all City ordinances regarding construction and grading. 28. Public Works. Prior to any excavation, grading, clearing, or other activities involving soil disturbance during the rainy season the applicant shall obtain approval of an erosion prevention plan by the Building and Safety Division and the Public Works Department. The applicant shall be responsible for following these and any other measures required by the Building and Safety Division and the Public Works Department. 29. Public Works Construction. During construction, the project sponsor should require the construction contractor to implement the following BAAQMD s basic dust control measures: A. Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Watering should be sufficient to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency may be necessary whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. Reclaimed water should be used whenever possible. B. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer). C. Pave, apply water 3 times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. D. Sweep streets (with water sweepers using reclaimed water if possible) at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. 30. Public Works. After construction is complete, all drainage culverts shall be inspected for accumulated sediment. If sediment accumulation has occurred, these drainage structures shall be cleared of debris and sediment. Prior to Issuance of Occupancy Permit or Final Inspection: 31. Compliance with Approved Plan. The project shall conform to the plans and statements in the Use Permit. All landscape, site and architectural improvements shall be completed per the attached approved drawings received dated August 29, 2016, except as modified by conditions of approval. At All Times (Operation): Page 17 of Exterior Lighting. All exterior lighting shall be energy efficient where feasible; and shielded and directed downward and away from property lines to prevent excessive glare beyond the subject property. 33. Electrical Meter. Only one electrical meter fixture may be installed per dwelling unit.

18 Page 18 of 66

19 Page 19 of 66

20 Page 20 of 66

21 Page 21 of 66

22 Page 22 of 66

23 Page 23 of 66

24 Page 24 of 66

25 Page 25 of 66

26 Page 26 of 66

27 Page 27 of 66

28 Page 28 of 66

29 Page 29 of 66

30 Page 30 of 66

31 Page 31 of 66

32 Page 32 of 66

33 Page 33 of 66

34 Page 34 of 66

35 Page 35 of 66

36 Page 36 of 66

37 Page 37 of 66

38 Page 38 of 66

39 Page 39 of 66

40 Page 40 of 66

41 Page 41 of 66

42 Page 42 of 66

43 Page 43 of 66

44 Page 44 of 66

45 Page 45 of 66

46 Page 46 of 66

47 Page 47 of 66

48 Page 48 of 66

49 2706 Shasta Road 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 8, 2016 Use Permit #ZP to construct an approximately 2,720 square-foot, three-story, single-family residence with a 300 squarefoot garage and an average building height of 28 feet on an existing vacant parcel, and to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 8.5 feet. I. Background A. Land Use Designations: General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1(H) Single-Family Residential, Hillside Overlay B. Zoning Permits Required: Use Permit with Public Hearing under Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 23D , to construct a new dwelling unit in the R-1 District; and Administrative Use Permit (AUP) under BMC Section 23E C to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 8.5 feet. C. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines (construction and location of limited numbers of new structures). D. Parties Involved: Page 49 of 66 Owner and Applicant: Matthew Wadlund, 805 Jones Street, Berkeley, CA Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us

50 2706 SHASTA ROAD ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 2 of 12 SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 Figure 1: Vicinity Map Page 50 of 66 Figure 2: Proposed Access Road/Relationship to 2702 and 2704 Shasta Road

51 Page 51 of 66 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2706 SHASTA ROAD SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 Page 3 of 12 Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan

52 2706 SHASTA ROAD ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 4 of 12 SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 Figure 4: Proposed Building Elevations Page 52 of 66 Figure 5: View Section Showing View from East to West from Upslope Residence at 2740 Shasta Road

53 Page 53 of 66 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2706 SHASTA ROAD SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 Page 5 of 12 Table 1: Land Use Information Location Existing Use Subject Property Vacant Surrounding Properties Single Family Dwellings Zoning District R-1(H) General Plan Designation Low Density Residential Table 2: Special Characteristics Characteristic Applies to Explanation Project? Creeks No The project site is not within a creek buffer zone. Green Building Score Yes The applicant submitted a GreenPoint Rated checklist for residential buildings. The checklist indicates that the proposed building would achieve a total score of 159 out of 341 possible, which would exceed the minimum required score of 50. Oak Trees Yes There are approximately nine coast live oak trees on the property that qualify as protected trees under the City s Coast Live Oak Moratorium Ordinance, according to the arborist report for the project (Peter K. Rudy, Certified Arborist, June 2015). None of these trees would be removed; however, one of them is in proximity to the location of the proposed house and most of the others are in proximity to either the proposed uncovered parking space or the existing driveway which would be widened, stabilized and leveled. Tree protection measures are included in the proposed conditions of approval (Condition 13) in Attachment 1. Seismic Hazards Zone - Liquefaction or Landslides Yes Table 3: Project Chronology Date Action The project site is located within an area susceptible to landslides as shown on the State Seismic Hazard Zones map, but not within the Hayward Fault Zone. The applicant submitted a Geotechnical and Geologic Hazard Investigation (Alan Kropp & Associates, November 2015) which confirmed indication of a small localized historic landslide feature at the site, but concluded that the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint with common stabilization methods. This report was peer reviewed by the City s geotechnical consultant who, after several requested additions were made to the report, concluded in a memorandum dated July 27, 2016, that the report, with additional materials added through July 25, 2016, adequately addressed the geotechnical issues. The City s geotechnical reviewer also recommended two project conditions of approval; these are included in proposed conditions of approval 11 and 12 in Attachment 1. January 28, 2016 July 27, 2016 August 25, 2016 September 8, 2016 Application submitted Application deemed complete Public hearing notices mailed/posted ZAB hearing

54 2706 SHASTA ROAD ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 6 of 12 SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 Table 4: Development Standards Standard BMC Chapters 23D.08, 23D.16 and 23E.96 Existing Proposed Permitted/ Required Lot Area (sq. ft.) 6,364 No Change 5,000 Minimum Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) n/a House: 2,720 Not regulated Dwelling Units n/a ADU Bedrooms n/a 3 4 by right Building Height Building Setbacks (feet) Page 54 of 66 Maximum (feet) n/a Maximum Average (feet) n/a Maximum Stories n/a 3 3 Maximum Front (Shasta Road) n/a Minimum Rear n/a Minimum Left (east) Side n/a 6 4 Minimum Right (west) Side n/a 11 4 Minimum Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) n/a 1, Minimum Lot Coverage (%) n/a Maximum Parking (Auto) n/a 2 1 Minimum II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood/Area Description: The project site is on the east side of Shasta Road, just north of its intersection with Tamalpais Road. The terrain slopes steeply upward toward the east such that the parcels on the east side of Shasta Road are elevated above those on the west side and below those on Northgate Avenue and portions of Shasta Road further north and east as it curves to the uphill. This condition affords many residences westward views toward the San Francisco Bay and the Marin headlands. This project is set in a relatively typical urban hillside neighborhood consisting primarily of two- and three-story single-family residences. Because the project site is on a curved street as well as in a hillside area, parcels vary in size and some parcels are irregular in shape and developed in various ways to accommodate the slopes. Parcels on all sides are developed with single family dwellings except for the two directly adjacent to the south, which are vacant, owned by the same owner as the subject owner/applicant, and concurrently proposed for similar development under separate use permit applications. These two parcels are generally similar in size and shape, and share an access driveway with the subject parcel. B. Site Conditions: The subject parcel is steeply sloped upward from Shasta Road and supports a number of mature trees, including protected coast live oaks. The oak trees are primarily located on the sloped portion of the parcel west of the proposed new dwelling, as shown on the site plan (Figure 3). The parcel is undeveloped, except that portion of a flat paved area formerly used as a tennis court, and a portion of an existing driveway to this area from Shasta Road that also crosses the two

55 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2706 SHASTA ROAD SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 Page 7 of 12 adjacent vacant parcels, also occupy much of the eastern approximately one-third of the parcel at the top of its slope. III. Project Description The proposed project is a 2,720 square-foot, three-bedroom, three-story single-family dwelling with an average building height of 28 feet, a maximum height of 33 feet, and an attached 300 square-foot garage. The house would have a modern architectural style with flat roofs and right angles, and would be located generally on the flat area of the former tennis court at the top of the existing slope. Exterior finishes would include painted wood siding, stone tiles and aluminum windows. The rear yard setback would vary from 8.5 to 16 feet; the right side (south) yard setback would be 11 feet; the left (north) side yard setback would be six feet; and the front yard (Shasta Road) setback would be approximately 73 feet. Access to the garage and one uncovered adjacent parking space would be taken from an existing driveway to be widened, stabilized and resurfaced that extends from Shasta Road to the former tennis court, crossing the parcel to the south on the way up the slope, and proposed to serve all three parcels. The driveway would be widened to a minimum of 12 feet in width, leveled and stabilized through construction of an 18-inch retaining wall on parts of the uphill slope. The interior living space would consist of a dining room, kitchen and garage on the first floor; a living room with a deck and an open mezzanine with a small deck on the second floor; and three bedrooms, one with a deck, on the third floor. The portion of the existing paved tennis court on the site would be removed, as it would for the development proposed concurrently on the two similar lots to the south, and the slope of the former tennis court would be recontoured to match the rest of the grade with the placement of fill and landscaping. The existing oak trees west and north of the proposed new dwelling would be maintained on the site. As noted above, the two adjacent parcels to the south are currently vacant and owned by the same owner as the owner/applicant for the subject project. Similar development to the proposed project (single family dwellings of comparable size, set back to the rear of the parcels from Shasta Road, and taking access from Shasta Road via the same driveway) is proposed on those two lots under separate use permit applications. Those applications are being processed concurrently with the subject application and are application numbers #ZP (2702 Shasta Road) and #ZP (2704 Shasta Road). IV. Community Discussion Page 55 of 66 A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: Prior to submitting the application to the City, the applicant erected a pre-application poster and visited surrounding residences to obtain signatures. All neighbors signed, with four stating concerns or objections, including one in a subsequent to the City. These included parking supply; traffic; change of character from open space to residential; loss of the former tennis court space as play area for the neighborhood; potential shadowing of the adjacent

56 2706 SHASTA ROAD ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 8 of 12 SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 property at 2712 Shasta Road, fire department accessibility; impacts to views from 99 Northgate Avenue; geologic hazards; and objections to the proposed reduced rear yard setback. The applicant also erected story poles in March of 2016; these are still in place and reflect the project as proposed. On August 25, 2016 the City mailed 110 notices to property owners and occupants within a 300 foot radius, as well as to interested neighborhood organizations and posted the site in 3 locations. Three s were received at the time of publication of this staff report; they are included in Attachment 4. B. Design Review Committee/Landmarks Preservation Commission Review: No action by any advisory committee is needed for the proposed project. V. Issues and Analysis Page 56 of 66 A. Neighborhood & Land Use Compatibility: The subject neighborhood has a mix of one to four-story single-family dwellings that vary in architectural styles, age, and materials, and the area is characterized by steep slopes and substantial tree cover. The proposed single-family dwelling would be contemporary in style with a flat roof and wood and tile siding. The dwelling would be located generally on the flat area towards the rear of the property to roughly maintain the site s existing slope and tree cover, which would minimize the impact on the street, from which the dwelling would not be prominently visible due to the distance upslope, intervening trees, and the fact that the driveway begins on a separate site to the north. For all of these reasons, staff concludes that the proposed structure would be permissible, appropriate for the location, and non-detrimental. The proposed house complies with all development standards for the R-1(H) District, other than the rear yard setback as discussed further below. B. Potential Shadowing Impacts: As shown in the shadow diagrams prepared for the project (see Attachment 1, sheets SS-1 through SS-3), the degree of new off-site shading that could result from this proposed single-family dwelling is limited by slope, the proposed separation between this dwelling and the dwellings to the east and west, and by existing tree coverage on and off-site. Shadow impacts are summarized as follows: East (2740 Shasta Road). The proposed dwelling would cast a shadow on a portion of this property to the east, but not on existing buildings or substantially shading routinely used outdoor space for extended periods. Shading would be to the yard areas near the property line shared with the subject property. The dwelling at 2740 Shasta Road is substantially uphill from the project site. West (Shasta Road and properties across Shasta Road to the west). Shadows would not fall beyond the subject property line to the west of the proposed project. South (2704 Shasta Road). A similar dwelling is proposed on this vacant property to the south under separate application. No project-generated shadows would fall on the property to the south.

57 Page 57 of 66 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD SEPTEMBER 8, SHASTA ROAD Page 9 of 12 North (2712 Shasta Road). This dwelling is located closer to Shasta Road, so is so is southwest and downslope of the proposed new building. Shadows would not fully shade windows on the dwelling itself at any time of the year, but would fall on the rear yard area for a brief period (less than approximately two or three hours) on winter and summer mornings. However, much of this yard area is shaded by onsite and adjacent trees during this time under current conditions. In addition, the knoll or ridge to the east topped by the western segment of Northgate Avenue shades the site well into winter mornings under existing conditions. The proposed dwelling is therefore found to be permissible and non-detrimental with respect to potential impacts to sunlight for the nearest existing properties and dwellings would be minimal. C. Views and Privacy: Significant vistas that substantially enhance the value and enjoyment of real property are defined as protected views in BMC Section 23F.040 (Definitions view corridors). The project would involve construction of a new threestory dwelling in the Hillside Overlay area, in a neighborhood where north and west facing slopes afford views toward the San Francisco Bay and Marin headlands. Portions of the views from dwellings on Northgate Avenue and Shasta Road to the east of the project site extend over the site. However, due to the distance from and steepness of the slope between the existing and proposed dwellings, and because of the intervening tree cover, the proposed new dwelling would not substantially block views towards the Bay from the neighboring houses or streets. Therefore, staff believes that the dwelling s impacts on views would not be detrimental to the area or neighborhood. The proposed dwelling is adjacent to a proposed new dwelling at 2704 Shasta Road to the south and an existing dwelling at 2712 Shasta Road to the southwest. The proposed new dwelling would be approximately 20 feet from the proposed dwelling to the south and approximately 50 feet from the dwelling to the southwest, with intervening trees and slope. In addition, the north elevation of the proposed dwelling to the south at 2704 Shasta Road has limited window openings (four relatively small windows) and no north-facing decks or patios. Finally, the proposed dwelling to the south at 2704 Shasta Road is proposed by the same applicant, so concerns regarding these impacts are reduced, as future residents will be aware of the configuration and relationship to surrounding buildings before they elect to buy or rent the property. Staff believes the project would not be detrimental regarding privacy. D. Height and Bulk: The proposed new dwelling would be located upslope on the hillside away from the public right-of-way as with most properties in the vicinity on the east (uphill) side of Shasta Road. Because of the substantial distance from the public right-of-way (73 feet) and the intervening tree cover, the building would not significantly affect the look of the site at street level compared to existing conditions. While looking up through the trees the new dwelling would appear to be two or three stories, the setbacks and materials of the front façade are varied, which would further reduce the apparent height and size of the proposed dwelling to help ensure that it is comparable to other existing dwellings. In general, the proposed dwelling is similar in

58 Page 58 of SHASTA ROAD Page 10 of 12 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 bulk and siting as other existing dwellings in the hillside area, and it would not be out of scale with surrounding development in the area. E. Reduced Rear Setback: The project requires an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23E to allow for the reduction of required rear setback from 20 feet to 8.5 feet. This reduction must be consistent with the purposes for the H District, which follow: Implement the Master Plan's policies regarding Hillside Development; Protect the character of Berkeley's hill Districts and their immediate environs; Give reasonable protection to views yet allow appropriate development of all property; 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. The dwelling would be set at an angle from the rear property line, so that the setback would vary from 8.5 to 16 feet. The reduced setback is intended to improve views and to reduce grading and tree removal, as the proposed location would be the flatter portion of the parcel, avoids the existing oak trees, and takes advantage of the proximity to the existing driveway terminus. Staff believes that locating the proposed dwelling in the rear of the lot and partially within the setback would help the project achieve consistency with the purposes of the H District. Positioning the dwelling where proposed allows for a similar configuration as several nearby dwellings on the uphill side of Shasta Road, including the two dwellings proposed on either side and the dwellings on the parcels adjacent to them. As discussed above, the proposed location would not substantially block views from upslope streets or residences, or substantially affect privacy as conditioned. Based on the discussion above, staff believes that the reduced setback would not be substantially detrimental and that findings could be made to support the rear yard reduction as proposed. F. Oak Trees: As noted above, no removal of protected trees is proposed. However, there are approximately eight protected oak trees (seven on site and one on the adjacent parcel to the north) whose root zones extend partially into the area of the proposed house, parking pad or existing driveway proposed for stabilization, widening and leveling. The applicant submitted an arborist report to the city (Peter K. Rudy, March 2016 and June 2016) that was reviewed and approved by the City s arborist and that includes tree protection conditions that are incorporated into the conditions of approval by reference (see Condition of Approval 13), and that would address these impacts. The City s arborist has reviewed and concurred with the report. G. Geotechnical: While the construction of this dwelling is exempt from the State Hazards Mapping Act, a Geotechnical and Geological Hazard Investigation was prepared for the applicant (Alan Kropp & Associates, November 2015). This report confirmed the existence of a small localized historic landslide at the site, but concluded that the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint with common stabilization methods. This report was peer reviewed by the City s

59 Page 59 of 66 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD SEPTEMBER 8, SHASTA ROAD Page 11 of 12 geotechnical consultant who concluded in a memorandum dated July 27, 2016, that the Geotechnical and Geological Hazard Investigation, with additional materials added through July 25, 2016, adequately addressed the geotechnical issues and that the project could be safely engineered accordingly. The City s geotechnical reviewer also recommended two project conditions of approval; these are included in the conditions of approval 11 and 12 in Attachment 1. H. General Plan Consistency: The 2002 General Plan contains several policies applicable to the project, including the following: Policy LU-1 Community Character: Maintain the character of Berkeley as a special, diverse, unique place to live and work. Policy LU-3 Infill Development: Encourage infill development that is architecturally and environmentally sensitive, embodies principles of sustainable planning and construction, and is compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale. Policy LU-6 Safe and Attractive Neighborhoods. Ensure that all residential areas are safe and attractive places to live. Policy LU-7 Neighborhood Quality of Life, Action A: Require that new development be consistent with zoning standards and compatible with the scale, historic character, and surrounding uses in the area. Policy UD-16 Context: The design and scale of new or remodeled buildings should respect the built environment in the area, particularly where the character of the built environment is largely defined by an aggregation of historically and architecturally significant buildings. 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. Policy UD-32 Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows. Policy UD-33 Sustainable Design: Promote environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in new buildings. Staff Analysis: As outlined in Tables 2 and 4 for Special Characteristics and Development Standards, explained in the Project Description, and discussed under the Key Issues section of this report, staff finds that the project, as conditioned, would be: Sited appropriately within its natural environment; Consistent with its built environment; and Adherent to all applicable regulatory requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. In these ways, staff finds that the project responds to each of the City s policy directives cited above. VI. Recommendation Because of the project s consistency with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, and minimal impact on surrounding properties as conditioned, staff recommends that the

60 2706 SHASTA ROAD ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD Page 12 of 12 SEPTEMBER 8, 2016 Zoning Adjustments Board APPROVE Use Permit #ZP pursuant to Section 23B and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1). Attachments: Page 60 of Findings and Conditions 2. Project Plans, received August 29, 2015 (in combination with concurrently proposed #ZP and #ZP ) 3. Notice of Public Hearing 4. Correspondence Staff Planners: Abe Leider, Contract Planner, (510) , and Layal Nawfal, (510)

61 2706 Shasta Road Page 61 of 66 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 22, 2016 Use Permit #ZP to construct an approximately 2,720 squarefoot, three-story, single-family residence with a 300 square-foot garage and an average building height of 28 feet on an existing vacant parcel, and to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 8.5 feet. On August 25, 2016, the City Staff sent out notices for the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) hearing for September 8, Subsequently, Staff was made aware of a noticing error, and the project was continued for the September 22, 2016 hearing. On September 7, 2016, Staff sent new public hearing notices to tenants and property owners within 300 feet of the project site. Additionally, a new Public Hearing Notice was posted. As there are no changes to the proposed project, the Staff Report and Findings and Conditions provided in the ZAB packet for the September 8, 2016 hearing should be referenced for this project. An additional correspondence was received following the publication of the September 8, 2016 report and is attached. Plans and the September 8, 2016 Staff Report are also available online: Attachments: 1. Correspondence Staff Planners: Abe Leider, Contract Planner, aleider@rinconconsultants.com, (510) , and Layal Nawfal, lnawfal@cityofberkeley.info, (510) Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us

62 2706 Shasta Road Page 62 of 66 Z O N I N G A D J U S T M E N T S B O A R D S u p p l e m e n t a l S t a f f R e p o r t FOR BOARD ACTION SEPTEMBER 22, 2016 Use Permit #ZP to construct an approximately 2,720 squarefoot, three-story, single-family residence with a 300 square-foot garage and an average building height of 28 feet on an existing vacant parcel, and to reduce the rear yard setback from 20 feet to 8.5 feet. This Supplemental Staff Report addresses changes to an existing Condition of Approval and the addition of a new Condition of Approval for consideration for this application. Numbering of the Conditions of Approval shall be revised following the inclusion of additional Conditions. New text is underlined. I. Change to Conditions of Approval #13. It was brought to the attention of staff that a portion of the foliage of one of the Coast Live Oak trees on the subject property, labeled as Tree #1A in the Arborist s report is substantially within the area of the proposed project on the subject property. Upon further discussion with the City s Arborist, staff has revised Condition of Approval #13 in order to ensure that any pruning of Tree #1A does not exceed the amount permitted per the City s Coast Live Oak Tree ordinance. 13. Coast Live Oak Trees. Prior to the commencement of any construction activity, the applicant shall adhere to the coast live oak tree mitigation measures as well as additional measures prescribed by the City Arborist and recommended in the Applicant s March 12, 2016 arborist report and June 4, 2016 addendum to the report. Where additional measures are prescribed, all shall be noted on the construction drawings for this project. The Coast Live Oak trees shall be protected from all injuries that could endanger their survival. Failure to adequately protect the existing oak trees from damage such that it is removed through negligence or intentional action shall require corrective measures as determined by the Zoning Officer. Prior to submittal of a Building Permit application, the applicant shall prepare a treespecific assessment of the project s construction impacts and ongoing maintenance 2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA Tel: TDD: Fax: zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us

63 Page 63 of 66 ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 2706 SHASTA ROAD September 22, 2016 Page 2 of 2 impacts to the coast live oak tree on the property s northern property line just north of the proposed new dwelling. This tree is identified as Oak Tree #1A in the Peter K. Rudy Arborist Report (June 4, 2016) included in the project application. If the assessment concludes that pruning of Oak Tree #1A to accommodate project construction and maintenance would require removal of over 25% of the tree s foliage or would otherwise cause substantial decline of the tree, the project shall be redesigned to avoid the need for such pruning. The assessment and related project revisions, if any, shall be reviewed and approved by the City s arborist and Land Use Planning Division staff. II. Additional Condition of Approval Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit. Planning staff has confirmed with the City Engineer that the applicant has applied for a Lot Line Adjustment for the lot configuration shown on the project plans. However, because the adjustment has not yet been formally recorded with Alameda County, staff recommends the addition of the following condition of approval to ensure that the recordation is complete and matches the plan set before building permits may be issued. The applicant shall furnish proof of the approval and recordation of a parcel map creating a legal lot as shown on the project plans for this Use Permit dated September 22, 2016 as the proposed 2706 Shasta Road lot. Staff Planners: Abe Leider, Contract Planner, aleider@rinconconsultants.com, (510) , and Layal Nawfal, lnawfal@cityofberkeley.info, (510)

64 Attachment 4 Administrative Record ZAB Appeal: 2706 Shasta Rd This attachment is on file and available for review at the City Clerk Department, or can be accessed from the City Council Website. Copies of the attachment are available upon request. City Clerk Department 2180 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA (510) or from: The City of Berkeley, City Council s Web site