APRIL 9, 2015 1920 TENTH STREET

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

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]

FOR BOARD ACTION

APRIL 9, 2015

1920 TENTH STREET Use Permit #2007-0063 to demolish a rent-controlled triplex measuring approximately 2,504 sq. ft. and construct 2 three-story buildings measuring approximately 10,134 sq. ft. containing 12 dwelling units, including 3 lower income units, over a 11-space below-grade parking garage.

I. Application Basics

A. Zoning Permits Required: · Use Permit to allow demolition of three existing residential units, under BMC Section

23C.08.010; · Use Permit to allow demolition of a residential building, under BMC Section

23C.08.020; · Use Permit to allow construction of 12 new residential units, under BMC Section

23D.36.030; and · Use Permit to allow a wheelchair ramp to reduce an interior side yard, under BMC

Section 23D.04.030.A.2.

B. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (“In-Fill Development Projects”).

C. Parties Involved: Applicant & Property Owner: JDIP, LLC

Lyman Jee 2070 Allston Way, Suite 3 Berkeley, CA 94704

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 1920 10TH

STREET April 9, 2015 Page 2 of 16

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

Commercial West Berkeley

Zoning District

R-3 Zoning District

R-1A Zoning District

R-3 Zoning District



G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Tenth\1920\UP 07-10000063\zab reports, PHNS

Figure 2: Site Plan

Figure 3: Parking Plan



Table 1: Land Use Information

Location Existing Use Zoning District

General Plan Designation

Subject Property 1920 10

th Street – two-

story triplex R-3 Medium Density Residential

Surrounding Properties

North A duplex and a 4-unit apartment building

R-3 Medium Density Residential

South

A single-family home and a commercial parking lot. Beyond, commercial buildings fronting onto University Avenue

R-3 and C-W

Multiple Family Residential Avenue Commercial

West Across 10

th Street –

multiple family housing. R-3 Medium Density Residential

East Vacant lot; residential R-3 Medium Density Residential

Table 2: Special Characteristics

Characteristic Applies

to Project?

Explanation

Creeks No There are no creeks within 30 feet of the site.

Density Bonus No The applicant is not requesting a density bonus.

Historic Resources No The project site is not a historic resource (see Key Issues section of this report).

Inclusionary Housing Yes The project applicant will restrict three units (or 25%) for very low income households

Oak Trees No None on the project site.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act

Yes

The site is within a designated Liquefaction Zone. A geotechnical engineering investigation was prepared as required by the State Seismic Hazards Mapping Act. The report concluded that the site may be developed in accordance with specific recommendations.

Green Building Yes Preliminary Green Building Score: Passing score – 131. A minimum passing score is 50. Based on the Alameda County GreenPoint rating system.

Table 3: Project Chronology

Significant Dates

Application Description Hearing Date Action

5/11/2008 City received application for 15 for-sale condominium project without affordable units

ZAB Hearing 12/3/2007

Application Continued

1/20/2008 Application for 15 for-sale condominium project without affordable units continued








Continued indefinitely

2/8/2008 Petition to designate 1910 Tenth Street as of Berkeley Landmark or Structure of Merit

LPC Hearing 4/3/2008

Petition Denied

10/13/2013 Revised application for 12 for-rent units and Use Permit application to remove rent-controlled units

- -

1/26/2015 Received revised application for 12 for-rent units, commitment to replace existing rent-control units, and participation in mitigation fee pursuant to BMC § 22.20.065

April 9, 2015

3/26/2015 Public Hearing Notices mailed/Posted April 9, 2015

ZAB Hearing April 9, 2015




Table 4: Development Standards Standard BMC Sections 23D.36.070-080

Existing Proposed Permitted/ Required

Lot Area (sq. ft.) 8,820.5 8,820.5 5,000 min.

Maximum Lot coverage (sq. ft.) – 40% NA 3,378

3,528

Gross Floor Area 1,000 10,134 NA

Residential Units 3 12 NA

Building Height

Average (ft.) NA 35 35’

Stories 2 3 3

Building Setbacks – 3-story building

Front (ft.) NA 33 15

Rear (ft.) NA 15 15

Left Side (ft.) NA 6 61

Right Side (ft.) NA 6 61

Minimum Usable Open Space (sq. ft.) NA 1,200 1,200

Minimum Landscaped Open Space 1,200 1,200

Parking - 1 /1,000 sq. ft. gross floor area NA 11 11

1. The required side yard setback is four feet for the first and second floor, and six feet for the third floor.

II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood/Area Description: The site is located in just north of University

Avenue, between Ninth and Tenth Streets. There are existing commercial buildings along University Avenue (Premier Cru Wine Shop) and a restaurant (Kabana Restaurant). These two commercial establishments form the gateway to the neighborhood from University Avenue. The buildings themselves differ in height, building placement and architecture style. As you go north from University Avenue on Tenth Street, a single-family residence (1922 Tenth St.) separates the project site from Premier Cru Wine Shop. Similarly, a multi-family residential building (1917 Tenth Street) abuts the Kabana Restaurant. Keeping consistent with the neighborhood theme, building height from Premier Cru Wine Shop to the single family residence varies by approximately 6-ft. Kabana Restaurant and the adjacent multi-family residence (1914 Tenth Street) maintain the same building height, but significantly vary in architecture, building placement, openings, etc.

As you go further north, the remainder of the block consists of 6 residential and commercial buildings on both sides of the street with varying heights and architectural styles. The building immediately north of the project site (1914 Tenth Street) is a 2-story residential four-plex built in 1914. The main entrances to units face north to the side yard. The eastern façade, facing Tenth Street, is a massing wall with window insets to break and no significant architectural elements. The building maintains approximately 25-feet front yard setback, which is serves as parking spaces for the units. It maintain approximately 10-feet setback. The properties further north on both sides of the street vary in height, architectural design and building placement. The colors, textures, materials, fenestration, decorative features and details, height, scale, massing and methods of construction vary from building to building. There isn’t a prevailing architectural theme present on the block.



The project site is within West Berkley Plan, which encourages pedestrian and use of bicycle. Transit stops are provided at the corner of University and Tenth Avenues and the intersection of University and San Pablo Avenues. Both of these intersections are a block removed from the project site and all within walking distance.

B. Site Conditions: The site consists of a single parcel and measures approximately

8,820.5 square feet in area. The project site fronts on 10th Street, and is developed with a two-story wood frame triplex and an asphalt parking lot on the back. Vegetation on the project site is very limited and consists of some small areas of grass and ivy. The 1903 Sanborn Map shows a stable located on the property with Strawberry Creek crossing just north of the site. The 1911 Sanborn Map shows the current building labeled as a store and sited to the east of the then-existing stable. By 1929, the stable had been converted to an auto garage and the existing storefront converted to a 2 room dwelling and designated a single family residence. There was no additional significant development on the site until 1985 when a second floor unit was added and the storefront subdivided into 2 dwelling units. The ribbon window which probably was above the store windows and entry remains, but the rest of the storefront has been changed to provide small windows located above eye level into the ground floor residential unit and replaced the rest of the facade with a stucco wall. According to an inspection report recently commissioned by the applicant, the underlying condition of the existing units is such that major repairs are necessary to maintain the structural integrity of the building and the building’s systems and to bring the units up to current City Housing and Building codes. The estimated cost of repairs is approximately $200,000. The report noted that the building is constructed slab-on-grade foundation with stucco exteriors and a flat roof seal with tar and gravel. The building was constructed in 1911 over slab-on-grade foundation without embedded rebar in concrete, due to lack code regulations in effect at the time. The overall conditions appear to be below average with exterior stucco buckling noticeable and innumerable stucco repairs over the years. The inspection report states the existing building requires major upgrades to the electrical, plumbing and heating systems as well as seismic reinforcement throughout the structure to simply maintain it intact.

According to the applicant, the rents on the 3 units are not sufficient to cover the operating costs and the debt service costs for the property. Even when completely rented up in accordance with the rents allowed under the City’s Rent Stabilization Ordinance, the property operates at a net annual loss of more than $7,000 per year.

On April 3, 2008, the Landmarks Preservation Commission found the building to be of no architectural or historical importance and determined that the existing building adds no exceptional value to the existing neighborhood fabric. The applicant has submitted rehabilitation estimates to improve life and safety items, but that would do nothing to improve the character or look of the property.




C. Proposed Projects within Vicinity: There are no other development proposals in the vicinity of this project.

III. Project Description The project involves demolition of an existing triplex and construction of two slender buildings. The project description is summarized below:

Demolition of 1 triplex building;

Removal of 3 rent controlled units;

Construct 2 buildings, consists of 3 stories, with 2 units on each floor, total of 12 units;

Provide 3 replacement units reserved for lower income households;

Comply with the City’s Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee pursuant to BMC § 22.20.065 by providing affordable units or by paying an in-lieu fee;

Provide 1,200 sq. ft. onsite usable open space;

Provide 11 parking spaces, including 1 disabled surface parking space; and

35-ft maximum height.

The existing building contains 3 units that range in size from 1- to 3-bedrom All units are currently occupied. The project is intended to be for-rent housing. This proposal would provide 3 replacement units which would have rents set at levels approved by HUD for lower income households and restrict occupancy to eligible individuals and families according to HUD Section 8 guidelines. In addition, 9 units within the project will fully comply with the City’s Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee pursuant to BMC § 22.20.065. All 3 units are currently occupied and all tenants have signed an agreement to a voluntarily move-out once a building permit is approved for the project. Each Tenant is eligible for supplemental rental assistance in accordance with the provisions of the City’s Relocation Ordinance. The project proponent has committed in writing to provide moving expenses and supplemental rental assistance. Further, each tenant will be given the right of first refusal to move into the replacement units once constructed, subject to income qualification, and those whose income exceeds the HUD eligibility requirements for low income, will be allowed to move into the one of the 9 market-rate units within the project.

The proposed project consists of 2 buildings with 6 units each, 2 on each of 3 floors. A courtyard between the buildings serves as private common landscaped space for the tenants and allows for increased air and light to each unit. The garage would be accessible from Tenth Street. The project will include 11 2-bedroom units, including 1 completely handicap accessible unit and 1 1-bedroom unit. The 2-bedroom units will be approximately 802 square feet and the one bedroom unit will be approximately 687 square feet. All units will include a space for a washer/dryer combination as well as an exterior balcony. Parking for 10 cars, space for bicycle and trash storage will be included in the garage area and one disabled surface parking space will be provided as well. A wooden fence would be built on the property boundaries and the front yard along Tenth Street, which will be landscaped.



The buildings would be stucco-clad with standing-seam metal mansard roofs around the exterior walls and a flat roof over most of central part of each building. Each building would have a maximum average height of approximately 35 feet. Access to the upper floors in each building would be provided by an elevator. Each of the ground floor units would have direct access to the courtyard. The units on the 2nd and 3rd floor will be provided with balconies which would be approximately 4 feet by 7 feet. Because the balconies do not meet the minimum width and length of six feet, they cannot be counted as satisfying part of the usable open space requirement. Instead, the usable open space for the eight units on the second and third floors would be provided by the shared courtyard between the two buildings and the rear yard that will be accessible to all the units. The two buildings would cover no more than 40% of the lots, which complies with BMC §23D.36.070 (E). Both buildings comply with the required setbacks, except the front building, which has a wheelchair ramps located within the side yard, reducing its width to three feet. This interior side yard reduction may be permitted by an Administrative Use Permit, pursuant to BMC § 23D.04.030.A.2A.

IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: On May 11, 2007, the applicant, JDIP, LLC

("JDIP"), submitted a Use Permit application to demolish two existing residential buildings containing a total of 5 dwelling units and constructs 2 three-story building containing 15 condominium units, over an 18-space below-grade parking garage. The project would have merged the lot which front Tenth Street (8,820.5 square feet in area) with lot which fronts on Ninth Street (6,110 square feet in area). The project received objection from the city and the neighborhood. The City’s objection was based on two facts: First, the project at that time consisted of 15 condominium units which would have removed 5 rent controlled units and would not increase the city’s rental housing stock. Second, although it conformed to all zoning requirements, the scope and scale of the project was found to be incompatible with the neighborhood. It was brought to on the Zoning Administration Board (“ZAB”) on December 3, 2007 and continued in definitely on ZAB hearing of February 14, 2008. On February 28, 2015, prior to submitting the revised project to the City, the applicant sent a letter and a full set of plans by certified mail, return receipt, to the neighbors who directly abut the project site or face the site from across Ninth and Tenth h Streets. The applicant followed up on the letters for which he had not received a return receipt and ensured delivery to all those addresses. The project site abuts a total of five legal parcels. The applicant has submitted five written acknowledgements. All five written acknowledgements are from property owners of record and tenants. An owner of property located at 1923 Ninth Street expressed support for the architectural design of the project, but raised concerns about the new project overall massing and that the height may block sunlight. In addition, a tenant at this location also expressed similar concerns, but did not raise objection project.




The owner at 1922 Tenth Street, which is located between the project site and the commercial building facing onto University Avenue, raised no objection of the project, but requested that proposed development should not encroach upon the existing driveway on the north side of the 1922 Tenth Street property. There is a recorded easement of 3’ by 20’ along Tenth Street on the project site. This easement is a portion of the driveway that serves the 1922 Tenth Street property. The proposed revised project fully respects and protects the said easement, and no encroachment into the easement is proposed. At staff’s request, the applicant sent revised plans and full set of plans to all abutting and fronting property owners of record and tenants. Staff has not relieved any object to the revised plans at the time of writing this staff report.

B. Committee Review: No advisory committee review is required for this project.

V. Issues and Analysis A. Environmental Review: The project meets the conditions established in Section

15332 of the CEQA Guidelines, Class 32, and is therefore exempt from CEQA as an infill development project, assuming that the existing buildings to be demolished are not deemed a historic resource. The conditions for this exemption are as follows:

i. The proposed project is consistent with applicable General Plan designations

and applicable General Plan policies (see General Plan and West Berkeley Area Plan Consistency). The proposed project is also consistent with the zoning designation and regulations.

ii. The project occurs within the Berkeley city limits on a project site less than five acres and is surrounded by urban uses.

iii. The site is already developed and has no habitat value for endangered, rare or threatened species.

iv. The project would not have significant effects related to traffic (see Key Issue D), or to noise, air quality or water quality.

v. The site is currently served by utilities and public services, which would be adequate to also serve the proposed project.

B. Demolition of Buildings with Residential Uses: The existing building on the site

proposed for demolition contains 3 dwelling units. Per Chapter 23C.08 of the Zoning Ordinance, the approval of a Use Permit which may be granted only upon the following findings:

A determination that the elimination of the units would not be materially detrimental to housing needs and public interest of the affected neighborhood and the City, and

The building is either unusable or infeasible to repair, or, in the alternative, the demolition is necessary to permit construction of at least the same number of dwelling units as were demolished.



In support of making the required findings, staff notes that the proposed project would replace the 3 demolished dwelling units with 12 new units, increasing the City’s housing supply and replacing older structure in need of maintenance with new construction. In addition, the project would restrict 3 units for lower income households and that 9 units will be subject to the City’s affordable housing mitigation fee pursuant to BMC § 22.20.065. It is staff’s opinion that the findings for granting this Use Permit can be made.

C. Elimination of Rent Controlled Units: As stated above, the existing building on the

site proposed for demolition contains 3 rent-controlled dwelling units. An application to eliminate a controlled rental unit is subject to the findings required by Section 23C.08.030, subdivisions (E) and (F). The ZAB must make all of the findings in those subdivisions in order to approve this application and allow the elimination of controlled rental units. The required findings from subdivisions (E) and (F) are reproduced and discussed below: The dwelling unit to be eliminated is neither occupied nor has a rent set at a level that is affordable by a person or a family of very low income, low income or moderate income, as defined by HUD Section 8 program guidelines (23C.08.030.E.1). All 3 units are currently occupied and rent rates are set at a level affordable by a person or a family of very low income households. However, In support of making the above finding, staff notes that the proposed project would replace all 3 rent controlled units with newly built units that meet current seismic and building code requirements. The applicant has committed in writing to preserve 3 units for the life of the project to lower income individuals and households as defined by HUD Section 8 program guidelines. Therefore, the project does not involve permanent elimination of rent controlled units.

The elimination of the dwelling unit will not adversely affect the supply of housing in the City (23C.08.030.E.2). In support of making the above finding, staff notes the project involves elimination of existing 3 units and construction of 12 new units, thereby, resulting in 9 new rental units. Therefore, the approval of the Use Permit will have a positive effect on the supply of housing in the City.

The applicant cannot make a fair return on investment by maintaining the dwelling unit as a part of the rental housing market (23C.08.030.E.3) In support of making the above finding, staff notes this finding applies to projects that seek to remove rental units from the City’s housing supply. The project, on the other hand, involves demolition of 3 existing units and construction of 12 new units on the same site, thereby resulting in 9 new rental units. Demolition of the existing 3 units is necessary in order to reconstruct a larger project on the same site.

The dwelling unit is in a building that is seriously deteriorated beyond the conditions which might reasonably be expected due to normal use in the written determination of the Building Official and will be rehabilitated to meet City housing code requirements (23C.08.030.F.1). The project would not rehabilitate the existing units, and thus this section does not apply to this case.




The replacement dwelling unit shall be available for occupancy to Households for Lower Income or Very Low Income Households (23C.08.030.F.2). In support of making the above finding, staff notes 3 rent controlled units will be replaced at level of income affordable by person or households of lower or very low income and, therefore, staff feels ZAB can make this finding to approve The elimination of the dwelling unit will not cause displacement of any tenant against that tenant’s will (23C.08.030.F.3). In support of making the above finding, staff notes the applicant has submitted a letter of notification signed by the occupants of all 3 units (see Attachment No. 5). The applicant has notified the existing tenant of his intention to demolish the existing building and replace the existing units. The applicant has offered the tenant the right to return to the replacement subject to income qualifications in accordance with HUD guidelines.

A signed statement supporting the application has been filed from of all of the tenants whose units will be physically modified and from all tenants who may be required to move temporarily (23C.08.030.F.4). In support of making the above finding, the applicant has a letter of notification from all of the tenants supporting the project. In the statement, the applicant has committed in writing to provide moving expenses and supplemental rental assistance and, if they wish, tenant will be given the right of first refusal to move into the replacement units once constructed subject to income qualifications (See attachment No. 5). It is staff’s opinion that the findings for granting this Use Permit can be made.

Staff feels the ZAB board can make all of the above findings in order to approve the demolition of rent controlled units. In the past, ZAB has approved demolition of rent control units and the City Council affirmed ZAB’s decisions (see Attachment No. 7). Although rent controlled units will be removed, the key aspect here is that those units will be replaced and made available to lower income households and preserved for the life of the project.

D. Traffic: The applicant had a traffic study prepared in 2005 by Abrams and

Associates for a larger mixed-use project which included the proposed project site as well as the additional parcels to the south extending to University Avenue (this report is available for review in the Planning Department offices). The mixed-use project evaluated in the study included 9,500 square feet of ground floor commercial development and 100 residential units with underground parking accessed from Ninth Street. The traffic study evaluated four nearby intersections and found the mixed-use project would not change the level of service at any of the intersections. As part of the revised project, Abrams and Associates updated the their study and concluded that the much smaller proposed project on only a portion of the site evaluated in the 2005 traffic study also would not have a significant traffic impact.

E. Parking: The project would provide 11 residential parking spaces, including one

ADA parking, for 12 residential units, where 11 are required. The amount of parking required is calculated on the square footage of the proposed project (approximately 10,584 square feet), based on the requirement of one space per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area (BMC Section 23D.36.080). The 11 spaces include 1 van-accessible handicapped parking space, 9 full size parking spaces, and 1 compact space. Unlike



the other parking spaces located in the basement, the handicapped space is located outside of the basement to provide ease of maneuverability and to ensure that the path of travel between the parking space and the elevator would not run behind any parked cars and be in a visible location.

F. Compatibility with the Neighborhood: The goals and policies of the West Berkeley

Plan and the Berkeley General Plan are described in the next section and include a number of policies to address the compatibility of new development with the scale and character of the existing neighborhood, and ensure that it is well designed.

Scale: The policies of the West Berkeley Plan encourage redevelopment along University Avenue to include housing or offices over ground-floor commercial floor area. The University Avenue Strategic Plan encourages the development of mixed-use buildings that are between two and four stories tall along University within the commercial nodes. The project site is adjacent to the San Pablo Avenue Node and the West University Avenue Node. The zoning provides for commercial development along University Avenue (C-W – West Berkeley Commercial District). There is an area of multiple-family residential development immediately adjacent to the commercial area along University Avenue (R-3, Multiple Family Residential District) which includes the project site. To the north of the site, the zoning changes to Limited Two-Family Residential District (R-1A) on the northerly portion of the block. The existing residential and commercial buildings in the immediate vicinity of the project site are one and two stories tall. A nearby building on the south side of University Avenue at 10th Street is four stories. The proposed three-story buildings will be taller than the existing adjacent development, but consistent with the scale of development intended along University Avenue. Both of the proposed buildings are articulated, providing greater setbacks for portions of each façade and an open courtyard between the two buildings. Given the policy direction for development in this area, and the building articulation, staff considers the scale to be appropriate. Height: Both buildings are within the maximum height allowed in the R-3 Zoning District and are comparable to other existing buildings in the area, although many nearby homes are smaller than the proposed ones, many others are of equal size or larger. Staff believes that the proposed project is similar in height, size, and bulk with other buildings in the immediate vicinity and would not create any significant impacts to surrounding neighbor’s air or be out of scale with surrounding development in the area. The proposed building height of 35-ft will also fit within this existing context where the proposed building will be not be among the lowest or the tallest buildings in the vicinity. Shade and Shadow: The applicant provided shadow studies (see Attachment 6-Shadow Studies) to assess shadow impacts during the months of December and June, two hours after sunrise, noon and two hours before sunset. The project would result in a minor increase in the length of the existing shadows on the adjacent property to the north. On June 21, the shadow from the proposed buildings would shade only a small portion of the side-yard of the adjacent properties to the north of the project site. On December 21, the residential properties north of the project site would be shaded for most of the day, but the single-family home to the south would




not be shaded. Currently, the property to the north of the project site has only limited shading from the existing two-story triplex because of its large setback from its southerly property line. The shading that results from this project appears to be the consistent with developing housing at the density contemplated in the General Plan. Such shading impacts are to be expected in urbanized areas. Therefore, in staff’s opinion, the shading that would result from the project is not unreasonable. Further, General Plan Policy UD-32 regarding shadows provides that new buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows. However, other General Plan policies encourage the development of higher density housing on the site, particularly because of its proximity to transit and its location within walking distance of local services. Project Design: General Plan policies also encourage well-designed buildings that enhance the neighborhood and are interesting in appearance. As mentioned earlier in this staff report, the two proposed buildings have articulation along all facades. The roofline has projecting elements evocative of rafter boards and the standing seam metal roof creates a change in texture and provides shadow lines. The building is still at a preliminary design stage. Staff suggests that attention to several architectural elements would contribute to the building’s design quality and appearance. These are:

Designing the windows so that they are not flush with the exterior wall and perhaps include a projecting framing detail. This will provide shadow lines and serve to break up the building massing.

The unenclosed stairways and hallways are shown as finished in stucco the same as the exterior building walls. Detailing of these building elements, such as including a cap at the top of the wall, openings, or other design details, would create visual interest.

The balconies are shown as finished with stucco walls. These would let more light into the rooms behind them, and appear lighter if they were designed with open railings.

The expansion joints could be placed and used as reveals in the stucco walls. Together with good use of color, this would contribute interest to the large wall planes of the buildings.

Staff has included these design changes as draft conditions of approval.

G. Side yard Encroachment: On the southerly side of Building 2, a wheelchair ramp is located in a nine-foot wide sideyard. It slopes up from the street to a maximum height of four feet above finished grade (not including the additional 2.5 feet of the guardrail for the ramp. The required minimum sideyard setback for the first and second stories in the R-3 District is four feet. The wheelchair ramp maintains a three-foot setback, encroaching one foot into the required side yard. BMC Section 23D.04.030.A.2 permits an encroachment for wheelchair ramps with a Use Permit. It is staff’s opinion that the proposed wheelchair ramp encroachment of one foot into the sideyard should be approved but the guardrail should have an open design to minimize the appearance of bulk. Because the ramp limits access on this side of the building, the



three-foot wide pedestrian pathway will have to be provided along the northerly side of the building which would limit the amount of landscaping that could be provided in this area. Alternatively, stairs could be added at the easterly end of the wheelchair ramp and the three-foot wide pedestrian path provided on the southerly side of the building as an extension of the ramp.

H. Compliance with Usable Open Space Requirements: The project complies with

the usable open space requirements as follows. The three ground-floor units feature direct access to private patio areas, which satisfy the minimum dimensions to qualify as usable open space. The upper floors units feature patios that are six feet in length and width. In addition, the patio/courtyard area is approximately 2,740 square feet, which, together with the patio areas, would meet the minimum open space requirement for the twelve units.

Forty percent, or 1,200 square feet, of the open space is required to be maintained as landscaped area. This will be met by the landscaped portion of the outdoor patios, and landscaped areas within the patio/courtyard area. The site landscaping is at a preliminary design stage, so this requirement is addressed by a draft condition of approval to ensure the 40% requirement is satisfied. The patio/ courtyard area is located above the subterranean garage. Therefore, the landscaped areas should be located in areas not over the garage, such as in the front yards and in the rear yard for Building 1. Where the landscaping is provided over the garage, the final landscaping plans will have to include details demonstrating a sufficient soil depth and drainage to function as landscaping. These areas not over the garage should also be the location of trees o n site, to provide an adequate ground area for the root structures.

I. General Plan Consistency: The 2002 General Plan contains several policies

applicable to the project, including the following: Character and Design 1. 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.

2. Policy LU-7 Neighborhood Quality of Life: Preserve and protect the quality of life in Berkeley’s residential areas through careful land use decisions.

3. 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.

4. Policy UD-17 Design Elements: In relating a new design to the surrounding area, the factors to consider should include height, massing, materials, color, and detailing or ornament.

5. Regulating New Construction and Alterations: Regulate new construction and alterations to ensure that they are individually well-designed and that they are so designed and located as to duly respect and where possible enhance the existing built environment.




6. 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.

7. Policy UD-25 Facades and Exterior Features: Buildings should have significant exterior features and facades that stimulate the eye and invite interested perusal.

8. Policy UD-26 Pedestrian-Friendly Design: Architecture and site design should give special emphasis to enjoyment by, and convenience and safety for, pedestrians.

9. Policy UD-27 Relation to Sidewalk: Projects generally should be designed to orient the main entrance toward the public sidewalk, not a parking lot, and avoid confronting the sidewalk with a large windowless wall or tall solid fence.

10. Policy UD-30 Planting: Ensure that, where feasible, new developments respect and contribute to the urban landscape by retaining existing on-site trees and/or, if appropriate, planting suitable new ones on-site or in the street right-of-way.

11. 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. Whenever possible, new buildings should enhance a vista or punctuate or clarify the urban pattern.

12. Policy UD-32 Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows.

13. Policy UD-33 Sustainable Design: Promote environmentally sensitive and sustainable design in new buildings.

Staff Analysis: There are very limited views across the project site, so the proposed three-story buildings would not adversely affect significant views. There are no significant trees on-site to be retained. The scale and design of the project is appropriate to its surroundings as a transition from the commercial development along University Avenue to the lower density neighborhood to the north. See the Compatibility with Neighborhood discussion in “Key Issues” section of this staff report.

Sustainability 14. Policy H-13 Energy Efficiency: Improve the safety and energy efficiency of new

and existing homes and apartments. 15. Policy EM-5 "Green" Buildings: Promote and encourage compliance with "green"

building standards. 16. Policy UD-33 Sustainable Design: Promote environmentally sensitive and

sustainable design in new buildings. 17. Policy UD-32 Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts

on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows. Staff Analysis: The applicant intends to meet and/or exceed Title 24 energy conservation requirements; instillation and use of Energy Start appliances; and compliance with water conserving landscaping and irrigation requirements.

J. West Berkeley Plan Consistency: The project site is located in the residential core

area of West Berkeley, in the portion north of University Avenue. The West Berkeley Plan recognized the importance of protecting the residential areas. The following 1993 West Berkeley Plan goals and policies are applicable to the project:



Goal 3: Protect residential core neighborhoods from adverse impacts of economic growth-especially traffic and parking congestion and noise. Policy B. Protect the residential core neighborhoods from parking spill-over generated by nearby office and residential uses. Goal 4: Assure that new development in any sector is of a scale and design that is appropriate to its surroundings, while respecting the genuine economic and physical needs of the development.

Staff Analysis: The proposed residential use is clearly consistent with the West Berkeley Plan. The scale and design is consistent with the type of redevelopment contemplated in the Plan. See the Compatibility with Neighborhood discussion in “Key Issues” section of this staff report.

VI. Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested use permit, subject to the attached conditions of approval, to demolish the existing buildings and construct 2 three-story residential buildings as proposed by the applicant and described within this report. The requested permits would further the purposes of the West Berkeley Plan, the Berkeley General Plan and the R-3 District by constructing new residential development in an area suitable for denser development, in close proximity to good bus service, and in a area that encourages pedestrians and bicyclists. The conditions of approval will ensure that the new project will be compatible with the neighborhood because of its scale and design. The project will provide 3 replacement units reserved for lower income households and will comply with the City’s Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee pursuant to BMC § 22.20.065 by providing affordable units or by paying an in-lieu fee.

Attachments:

1. Findings and Conditions 2. Project Plans, received on March 30, 2015 3. Public Hearing Notice 4. Site Photos 5. Tenant Notification 6. Neighbor Signature Page, submitted August 12, 2013 and re-circulated on March 23, 2015. 7. Council Resolutions Affirming ZAB’s Approval of 2452 -56 Bancroft Way and 2134-40 Dwight Way

Staff Planner: Immanuel Bereket, Associate Planner, [email protected] (510) 981-7425.

Date post:	15-Apr-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

APRIL 9, 2015 1920 TENTH STREET

Documents