SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09 … · 2016-09-08 · rather than 21’...

1

Jacob, Melinda

Subject: FW: 1336 Milvia

From: Christopher J. McNamara [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:02 PM

To: Vecchio, Michael <[email protected]>

Cc: 'Jonathan Berlin' <[email protected]>; Bereket, Immanuel <[email protected]>; Zoning

Adjustments Board (ZAB) <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: 1336 Milvia

Actually, after taking a closer look at the AASHTO guidelines, it appears that 24’ is the front wheels and 21’ is the center

of the front axle. Am I mistaken? If not, it seems like under the AASHTO guidelines, 24’ should be the absolute

minimum, but that more may be appropriate to account for the path of the front overhand of the car.

-Casey

From: Christopher J. McNamara

Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:31 AM

To: 'Vecchio, Michael' <[email protected]>

Cc: 'Jonathan Berlin' <[email protected]>; Bereket, Immanuel <[email protected]>;

'[email protected]' <[email protected]>


Thank you Michael.

I did find what appears to be the AASHTO guidelines, which are attached. It looks to me like 24’ should have been used

rather than 21’ because 21’ is the turning radius at the wheel and 24’ is the turning radius at the end of the car. Is there

a reason you did not use 24’?

Also, after our telephone call yesterday in which you asserted that what are referred to as “minimum design standards”

on the City’s website are only guidelines that you are free to deviate from, I looked at the relevant sections of the

ordinance and the guidelines and do not agree.

The requirements regarding parking are set forth in Chapter 23D.12. The requirements of Chapter 23D.12 apply to all

projects in a residential district. (23D.12.020.A.) No use permit may be granted unless all of the requirements of

Chapter 23D.12 have been met. (23D.12.020.D.) “Dimensional requirements and standards for off-street parking

spaces, driveway and other access improvements and maneuvering aisles shall be incorporated in administrative

regulations, subject to the review and approval by the City Manager and the Board.” (23D.12.040.C.) The “guidelines”

set forth in the Basic Parking Requirements and Driveways and Residential Driveways documents are the dimensional

requirements and standards for off-street parking and driveways. Thus, the minimum dimensions must be met in order

to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 23D.12. If they are not met, no use permit may be granted. (23D.12.020.D.)

That the “guidelines” represent minimum requirements is also reflected in documents on the City’s website. The

Development Review for Parking and Circulation document states: “These guidelines represent the minimum design

standards. The one exception is when compact spaces are allowed they can be 16 ft. in length rather than 18 ft.” The

Residential Driveways document states: “The table below lists the City’s width requirements and the maximum number

of cars that will be permitted to back out into the street.” The Basic Parking Requirements and Driveways uses the word

requirements in its title and also on the document in all caps states: “BASIC PARKING REQUIREMENTS.” Thus, I do not

believe the traffic engineer has any authority to permit less than the minimum requirements. If a project meets the

SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 1 of 43

2

minimum requirements, the traffic engineer still has an obligation to determine if the plans are “adequate to create

usable, functional, accessible and safe parking areas and are adequately integrated with the City’s overall street pattern

and traffic flows.” (23D.12.040.B.) But that does not give the traffic engineer the right to allow less than the minimum

requirements, especially, as indicated in Jonathan Berlin’s email to me and confirmed by you during our discussion, you

allowed less than the minimum requirements because, as Jonathan put it, “Michael determined that the proposed

turnaround space for 2 of the 4 off-street parking spaces is adequate, in order to leave a reasonably attractive

residential area on a property with an existing building.”

As we discussed during our telephone call, the proposed development does not meet the minimum parking

requirements for the following reasons:

1. It is not designed to allow 4 cars to turn around and exit the driveway in a forward direction. This requirement is set

forth in the Residential Driveways document. It states that where 4-6 cars are served, no cars can back into the

street. As four cars are served, the turnaround must be suitable for all four cars. During our telephone conversation,

you acknowledged that the proposed plan would only allow for two cars to turn around (which, as discussed below, I do

not agree with). Thus, the proposed plan does not meet this requirement.

2. The aisle for the parallel parking is too narrow. As stated in the Basic Parking Requirements and Driveways

document, the minimum required width of an aisle for parallel parking is 12 feet. The proposed plans show an aisle of

only 11 feet. Thus, the aisle does not meet the minimum required width of an aisle.

3. There is no landscaping between the driveway/aisle and the south lot line. “All paved areas for off-street parking

spaces, driveways and any other vehicle-related paving . . . must be separated from any adjacent rear or interior side lot

line by a landscaped strip at least two feet wide.” (23.D12.080.E.) As you acknowledged during our telephone call, the

plans show no such landscaping.

4. The parking plan is not usable or functional, as required by BMC section 23D.12.040.B. As I stated during our

telephone call yesterday, I do not believe the proposed parking plan is reasonably usable or functional, especially for the

two back parking spots, because there is not a sufficient turnaround space and backing in and out of the spaces would

be very difficult. Your response was that it was theoretically possible for cars to turn around but that you could not

predict whether the residents would actually do so. I do not believe “theoretically possible” satisfies the requirement

that the parking plan be usable and functional. Additionally, your opinion regarding the turnaround space, is based on

an outside turning radius of 21’, which you asserted was the standard used by the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”). As stated above, that radius is for the front wheels; the minimum

radius when considering the entire car is 24’. I believe that if you used 24’ feet instead of 21’ you would not find it

theoretically possible that cars could turn around under the current plans.

5. The parking plan is not safe, as also required by BMC section 23D.12.040.B. As I also stated in my telephone call

yesterday, Milvia is a designated Bicycle Boulevard. Thus, in addition to the regular traffic in a residential neighborhood,

it has a significant amount of bicycle traffic by design. The adjacent building on the south is right on the south and east

property lines. The current building on the subject property is set back less than 10’ from the east property line. Thus,

visibility exciting the driveway is very limited. While drivers could safely exit the driveway in a forward direction, they

would not be able to do so when backing out. As discussed above, if the parking lot is used, all four cars will need to

back out of the parking lot, which will create a dangerous situation. The parking plan is plainly not safe.

I request that you reevaluate the parking plan, or at minimum advise the board that it does not meet the minimum

requirements, as the staff report states that “[t]hese parking spaces meet the City’s traffic engineering requirements in

terms of their dimensions and turning room for drivers to pull in and out,” creating the false impression that the plan

does meet the minimum requirements.

Yours truly,

Casey McNamara


3

From: Vecchio, Michael [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Christopher J. McNamara <[email protected]>

Cc: 'Jonathan Berlin' <[email protected]>; Bereket, Immanuel <[email protected]>


Casey,

We utilize AASHTO templates. AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials. They provide 24’ and 21’ auto turn templates in their manual – as well as turn templates for many

other design vehicles. I am not sure if they are on-line.

Michael Vecchio, P.E.Michael Vecchio, P.E.Michael Vecchio, P.E.Michael Vecchio, P.E. PW, Transportation DivisionPW, Transportation DivisionPW, Transportation DivisionPW, Transportation Division 510 981510 981510 981510 981----6445644564456445


Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:17 PM


Subject: 1336 Milvia

Michael:

Thanks for speaking with me earlier. You mentioned an industry standard of 21’ for the outside turning radius. Where

does that standard come from? Or can you tell me where I might be able to find that standard?

Thanks,

Casey McNamara

Christopher J. McNamara

Partner

Sefton Family Law Group, P.C.

One Sansome Street, Suite 2850

San Francisco, CA 94104

415 539-3336

[email protected]

www.Sefton.com

Please consider the environment before you print this email.

**********************************************************************

CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure

by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-

mail [or at (415) 539-3336] and delete all copies of this message. It is the recipient's responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachments for

viruses.

TAX ADVICE: Pursuant to IRS Circular 230, unless expressly stated to the contrary, any tax advice is not intended and cannot be used to (i) avoid penalties under

the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promote, market or recommend any transaction or matter to another party.


4


Partner




415 539-3336

[email protected]

www.Sefton.com


**********************************************************************




viruses.




1

Jacob, Melinda

Subject: FW: 1336 Milvia

Attachments: TurnRadii,GreenBook2004.pdf




Cc: 'Jonathan Berlin' <[email protected]>; Bereket, Immanuel <[email protected]>; Zoning

Adjustments Board (ZAB) <[email protected]>


Thank you Michael.

I did find what appears to be the AASHTO guidelines, which are attached. It looks to me like 24’ should have been used

rather than 21’ because 21’ is the turning radius at the wheel and 24’ is the turning radius at the end of the car. Is there

a reason you did not use 24’?

Also, after our telephone call yesterday in which you asserted that what are referred to as “minimum design standards”

on the City’s website are only guidelines that you are free to deviate from, I looked at the relevant sections of the

ordinance and the guidelines and do not agree.

The requirements regarding parking are set forth in Chapter 23D.12. The requirements of Chapter 23D.12 apply to all

projects in a residential district. (23D.12.020.A.) No use permit may be granted unless all of the requirements of

Chapter 23D.12 have been met. (23D.12.020.D.) “Dimensional requirements and standards for off-street parking

spaces, driveway and other access improvements and maneuvering aisles shall be incorporated in administrative

regulations, subject to the review and approval by the City Manager and the Board.” (23D.12.040.C.) The “guidelines”

set forth in the Basic Parking Requirements and Driveways and Residential Driveways documents are the dimensional

requirements and standards for off-street parking and driveways. Thus, the minimum dimensions must be met in order

to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 23D.12. If they are not met, no use permit may be granted. (23D.12.020.D.)

That the “guidelines” represent minimum requirements is also reflected in documents on the City’s website. The

Development Review for Parking and Circulation document states: “These guidelines represent the minimum design

standards. The one exception is when compact spaces are allowed they can be 16 ft. in length rather than 18 ft.” The

Residential Driveways document states: “The table below lists the City’s width requirements and the maximum number

of cars that will be permitted to back out into the street.” The Basic Parking Requirements and Driveways uses the word

requirements in its title and also on the document in all caps states: “BASIC PARKING REQUIREMENTS.” Thus, I do not

believe the traffic engineer has any authority to permit less than the minimum requirements. If a project meets the

minimum requirements, the traffic engineer still has an obligation to determine if the plans are “adequate to create

usable, functional, accessible and safe parking areas and are adequately integrated with the City’s overall street pattern

and traffic flows.” (23D.12.040.B.) But that does not give the traffic engineer the right to allow less than the minimum

requirements, especially, as indicated in Jonathan Berlin’s email to me and confirmed by you during our discussion, you

allowed less than the minimum requirements because, as Jonathan put it, “Michael determined that the proposed

turnaround space for 2 of the 4 off-street parking spaces is adequate, in order to leave a reasonably attractive

residential area on a property with an existing building.”

As we discussed during our telephone call, the proposed development does not meet the minimum parking

requirements for the following reasons:

1. It is not designed to allow 4 cars to turn around and exit the driveway in a forward direction. This requirement is set

forth in the Residential Driveways document. It states that where 4-6 cars are served, no cars can back into the

street. As four cars are served, the turnaround must be suitable for all four cars. During our telephone conversation,


2

you acknowledged that the proposed plan would only allow for two cars to turn around (which, as discussed below, I do

not agree with). Thus, the proposed plan does not meet this requirement.

2. The aisle for the parallel parking is too narrow. As stated in the Basic Parking Requirements and Driveways

document, the minimum required width of an aisle for parallel parking is 12 feet. The proposed plans show an aisle of

only 11 feet. Thus, the aisle does not meet the minimum required width of an aisle.

3. There is no landscaping between the driveway/aisle and the south lot line. “All paved areas for off-street parking

spaces, driveways and any other vehicle-related paving . . . must be separated from any adjacent rear or interior side lot

line by a landscaped strip at least two feet wide.” (23.D12.080.E.) As you acknowledged during our telephone call, the

plans show no such landscaping.

4. The parking plan is not usable or functional, as required by BMC section 23D.12.040.B. As I stated during our

telephone call yesterday, I do not believe the proposed parking plan is reasonably usable or functional, especially for the

two back parking spots, because there is not a sufficient turnaround space and backing in and out of the spaces would

be very difficult. Your response was that it was theoretically possible for cars to turn around but that you could not

predict whether the residents would actually do so. I do not believe “theoretically possible” satisfies the requirement

that the parking plan be usable and functional. Additionally, your opinion regarding the turnaround space, is based on

an outside turning radius of 21’, which you asserted was the standard used by the American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”). As stated above, that radius is for the front wheels; the minimum

radius when considering the entire car is 24’. I believe that if you used 24’ feet instead of 21’ you would not find it

theoretically possible that cars could turn around under the current plans.

5. The parking plan is not safe, as also required by BMC section 23D.12.040.B. As I also stated in my telephone call

yesterday, Milvia is a designated Bicycle Boulevard. Thus, in addition to the regular traffic in a residential neighborhood,

it has a significant amount of bicycle traffic by design. The adjacent building on the south is right on the south and east

property lines. The current building on the subject property is set back less than 10’ from the east property line. Thus,

visibility exciting the driveway is very limited. While drivers could safely exit the driveway in a forward direction, they

would not be able to do so when backing out. As discussed above, if the parking lot is used, all four cars will need to

back out of the parking lot, which will create a dangerous situation. The parking plan is plainly not safe.

I request that you reevaluate the parking plan, or at minimum advise the board that it does not meet the minimum

requirements, as the staff report states that “[t]hese parking spaces meet the City’s traffic engineering requirements in

terms of their dimensions and turning room for drivers to pull in and out,” creating the false impression that the plan

does meet the minimum requirements.

Yours truly,

Casey McNamara

From: Vecchio, Michael [mailto:[email protected]]


To: Christopher J. McNamara <[email protected]>

Cc: 'Jonathan Berlin' <[email protected]>; Bereket, Immanuel <[email protected]>


Casey,

We utilize AASHTO templates. AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation

Officials. They provide 24’ and 21’ auto turn templates in their manual – as well as turn templates for many

other design vehicles. I am not sure if they are on-line.


3

Michael Vecchio, P.E.Michael Vecchio, P.E.Michael Vecchio, P.E.Michael Vecchio, P.E. PW, Transportation DivisionPW, Transportation DivisionPW, Transportation DivisionPW, Transportation Division 510 981510 981510 981510 981----6445644564456445


Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:17 PM


Subject: 1336 Milvia

Michael:

Thanks for speaking with me earlier. You mentioned an industry standard of 21’ for the outside turning radius. Where

does that standard come from? Or can you tell me where I might be able to find that standard?

Thanks,

Casey McNamara


Partner




415 539-3336

[email protected]

www.Sefton.com


**********************************************************************

CONFIDENTIALITY

This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure



viruses.




Partner




415 539-3336

[email protected]

www.Sefton.com


4


**********************************************************************




viruses.

TAX ADVICE:

Pursuant to IRS Circular 230, unless expressly stated to the contrary, any tax advice is not intended and cannot be used to (i) avoid penalties under





























1

Jacob, Melinda

Subject: FW: 9/8/16 ZAB Supplement #2


Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:46 AM

To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) <[email protected]>

Cc: Jill Barash <[email protected]>

Subject: 1336 Milvia Street (ZAB Hearing on Sept. 8)

Dear Zoning Adjustment Board Members:

This concerns the proposed development at 1336 Milvia Street (the “Property”) My wife and I own and live at

1332 Milvia with our two teenage daughters. We are the northern next door neighbors of the Property, who, as

the staff report reflects, will be most negatively impacted by the proposed development on the Property. We

strongly oppose the proposed development and have made our concerns known to the outside planners at

Rincon Consultants. Although I sent a number of emails to Abe Leader at Rincon Consultants, it appears that

only two of them made it into correspondence file provided by Rincon Consultants to the board. Some of the

emails that were not included suggests alternative building layouts and parking arrangements that would

minimize the impact to our house or suggests meetings with Rincon Consultants and the neighbors to discuss

our concerns. We sincerely hoped that through dialogue, the developers would propose a plan that gave due

consideration to our concerns. Unfortunately, that did not prove to be the case, and the staff recommendation

seems to just rubber stamp the proposed plans.[1]

Under section 23B.32.040 of the BMC, the cannot approve an application for a use permit unless it determines

that the construction of a building, structure or addition “will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,

morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the area or 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.” As set forth in my prior correspondence with Rincon

Consultants and further discussed below, the proposed development will be detrimental to the safety, peace,

comfort and general welfare of my family and the neighborhood. The proposed development is also

inconsistent with the purposes of R-2A districts, which including the following: “Protect adjacent properties

from unreasonable obstruction of light and air;” and “Permit only that intensity of use which will be compatible

with existing low density residential structures and will not be detrimental to the immediate neighborhood.”

Even if the proposed addition satisfies all the standards of the zoning ordinance (which it does not), it can be

denied if it would “unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air or views.” (BMC 23D.32.090.)

In light of the obvious detrimental impact to all of the adjacent neighbors and the neighborhood in general, we

were surprised by the staff’s recommendation to approve the proposed development. The staff’s

recommendation is not supported by circumstances of the case. As discussed below, the staff either ignored

issues, failed to give due consideration to the relevant circumstance or reached conclusions based on no

apparent evidence.

The proposed development will be detrimental to the peace, comfort and general welfare of my family.

As noted in the staff report, we oppose the project because it will significantly reduce our privacy and

significantly expand the density of the Property. Only one unit has been used since we bought our house six

years ago. As proposed, three of the four units will be right along our property line. The existing duplex does

not meet the current set back requirements. As can be seen from the photo attached at page 26 of Attachment 2

to the staff report, the south side of our house is very close to the north side of the existing duplex on the


2

Property. Our bedrooms and bathrooms are all on the south side of our house, so the windows from the existing

duplex look right into our bedroom and bathroom windows. The proposed new building in the back of the

Property will further reduce our privacy, as it placed right along our property line. The windows of the

proposed new building will look right into our back yard, and the windows on the front of the north side of the

building will look right into our back bedroom and the back of our house. Under these circumstances, it is

impossible for the staff to find, as it purportedly does, “that the project would not significantly impair the

privacy of neighbors.” It will greatly impair our privacy.

The staff seems to go to great lengths to reach its erroneous conclusion, focusing not on the particular project,

but on other properties, such as 1331 Bonita, 1943 Rose, and 1321 Milvia, asserting that because those

properties have rear duplexes that reduce the privacy of their neighbors, the impact to our property is just

typical for the neighborhood. The question, however, is not about other properties; the question is whether the

planned project will have a detrimental impact under “the circumstances of the particular case existing at the

time.” (BMC 23B.32.040.) Identifying three properties that may have a detrimental impact on their neighbors

and then calling the circumstance typical is not considering the particular case of the relevant

project. Moreover, there is no indication of when the duplexes at 1331 Bonita, 1943 Rose, and 1321 Milvia

were constructed, or if they would be allowed under the current zoning ordinance. (Based on the vicinity map,

the duplex at 1943 Rose does not appear to meet the setback requirements.) It is not appropriate to use non-

conforming buildings to use as a bench mark to judge the proposed project.

The staff makes a similar mistake in its discussion of the shadows that will be cast on our property during the

winter months, when, due to short days, sunlight is at a premium. The staff summarized the shadow impacts on

our property as follows: “The west-facing kitchen and master bedroom windows, which are currently shaded in

the morning throughout the year, would experience increased shading during winter afternoons.” And, “New

shadows would almost fully cover the rear yard and deck during the winter at noon and would partially cover

them during winter afternoons.” Nevertheless, the staff concludes that “shadow impacts would be typical of

where two-story rear buildings abut other two-story residences in the neighborhood. Therefore, the project

would not unreasonably obstruct sunlight and would not be substantially detrimental in this regard.” Under the

staff’s reasoning no project would ever unreasonably obstruct sunlight because by definition all buildings of

similar size cast similar shadows. Obviously, the shadows caused by the proposed new building would be

substantially detrimental to our property. It would also be unreasonable as there are a number of alternatives

that would eliminate or minimize the shadows, such as not building the new back duplex, shifting the building

to the south side of the lot, reducing all or part of the building to a single story, reducing the back building to

one unit and shifting the building to the south side of the lot.

The staff’s discussion of views is also flawed. The staff’s reasoning seems to be that, because our view is

already limited, the view would not be substantially degraded by obstructing it. I disagree. As our view is

already limited by a large oak tree and a house to our west, a building that blocks the small view corridor we

have will substantially degrade our view.

The increased density of the Property will also detrimentally impact the peaceful enjoyment of our

property. Obviously, with increased density comes increased noise. How much noise will of course depend

upon how many people live on the property and the age and lifestyles of the people who live there. But, as the

there are ten rooms under the proposed development, there could easily be up to 20 people living on the

property. If a significant number of those people are college students, then it will likely have a significant

impact on us and the other adjacent neighbors.

Each of the issues above should independently be good cause to deny the use permit, but they should not be

viewed in isolation. Considered together, there can be no doubt that the proposed project will be detrimental to

our property and my family’s peace, comfort and general welfare.[2] As discussed above, there are alternatives


3

that would minimize the detriment to our property, such as shifting the building to the south or making it only

one story on the north side of the property. The use permit should be denied.

The proposed development will be detrimental to the neighborhood.

As recognized in the staff report, many people (myself included) in the neighborhood have expressed concerns

about the proposed development’s impact density and on parking. The concerns are well-founded. The

proposed development is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is

predominately single-family residences, with a few duplexes and two apartment buildings (the apartment

buildings appear to have been built in the 60s or 70s and would likely not be approved today). In reaching its

conclusion that the proposed development is compatible with the neighbor scale and character, the staff only

focuses on the multiple-family development in the neighborhood, stating “the proposed new rear duplex and

remodeled front duplex would be compatible with substantial multiple-family development in the

neighborhood.” The staff simply ignores the numerous single-family residences in the neighborhood. If those

are appropriately considered, the board should conclude that the proposed development is not compatible with

the neighborhood.

Additionally, the staff failed to appropriately consider the development’s impact on parking. As everybody in

the neighborhood recognizes, parking is already a problem and many buildings in the neighborhood do not have

adequate parking. The staff did not give due consideration to the issue, as demonstrated by the following: First,

the staff report states that it is not in a Residential Parking Permit Neighborhood. That is wrong. It is in area

“H” and there is a sign indicating such close to the Property. This mistake obviously should raise concerns

about the staff’s evaluation of the parking concerns. Second, there is no indication that any person on the staff

actually observed the parking at any time, most importantly in the evenings when parking is particularly

difficult. It seems strange that the staff would opine on the proposed development’s impact on parking without

any evaluation of the current parking situation. Third, and most troubling, the staff does not know the City’s

traffic engineering requirements, yet included a statement in the report that “These parking spaces meet the

City’s traffic engineering requirements in terms of their dimensions and turning room for drivers to pull in and

out.” After reading this in the staff report yesterday, I contacted Jonathan Berlin and asked him for a copy of

any report completed by the traffic engineer. He responded that there was no separate report, which prompted

the following email exchange:

Me to Jonathan:

Who evaluates whether the City’s traffic engineering requirements have been met? I’m not

trying to hide the ball here Jonathan. I honestly do not see how the current parking plan allows

adequate space for the cars to turn around? I’d like to see how somebody determined that it

would. Is there any written evaluation? If so, can you send it to me? And, can you send me the

requirements? I’ve seen something on line, but I’m not sure it’s the right thing or that its

complete.

Jonathan to me:

Casey, it’s my understanding that Michael Vecchio, a City traffic engineer, reviewed the

project’s compliance with the Berkeley’s standards for the length and width of parking spaces,

turning radius, etc. I don’t have access to these requirements, but I will try to reach Michael to

find out how he made his assessment.

Me to Jonathan:

Thank you. As you note in your recommendation, a number of the neighbors have raised

concerns about parking. It seems like with such an important issue, a written report from the

traffic engineer would have been included. It is also very troubling to hear that you don’t have

access to the requirements and you don’t know how Michael Vecchio made his assessment, but


4

that it is merely your understanding that he did, which suggests that you did not speak with him

yourself but got the information from somebody else. In your recommendation, you

wrote: “These parking spaces meet the City’s traffic engineering requirements in terms of their

dimensions and turning room for drivers to pull in and out.” How can you make that statement if

you don’t know what the requirements are or how Mr. Vecchio made his assessment?

I have not received a response to my last email.

As indicated in my email, it is my understanding that any residential property with parking for four or

more cars must provide space for the cars to turn around so they do not have to back out of the

property. I do not believe the current plan meets those requirements. This is especially important

here. It would be dangerous for the neighborhood and the community in general to have four cars

backing out of the driveway on the Property on a regular basis. Milvia Street is a Bicycle Boulevard and

has a significant amount of bicycle, car, and pedestrian traffic. The south property is right on the

property with no setback from the sidewalk and the front building on the Property has a setback of less

than 10 feet, which would make visibility when backing out difficult in both directions. Thus,

approving a parking plan without a turn-around space that is sufficiently large so that it would actually

be used would be creating a dangerous situation for all those who use Milvia Street, especially

bicyclists.

In addition to the above, I do not believe the proposed development includes the required amount of

open space per unit. Under section 23D.04.050, usable open space cannot include areas that are less

than 10 feet wide. The proposed plans include 149’ of open space for the front unit that is less than 10

feet wide. This area should be excluded from the usable open space calculation. This is not discussed in

the staff report.

The proposed development will have a substantial detrimental and long-term impact on the

neighborhood and in the particular my family and the other adjacent neighbors. The board should deny

the application for the use permit.

Yours truly,

Casey McNamara


Partner




415 539-3336

[email protected]

www.Sefton.com


**********************************************************************


5




viruses.



[1] The staff report asserts that the developers revised the project to address the concerns of the neighbors across

the street at 1335 Milvia. In contrast, the proposed developers have not revised the plans to address our

concerns. [2] Ironically, the staff seems more concerned with the projects impact on the oak tree in the property behind our

house (that cast large shadows over our property in the summer) than the impact on our property. None of the

staff’s proposed conditions address our concerns, but two of the proposed conditions are intended to minimize

the impact to the oak tree.






Date post:	21-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	2 times
Download:	0 times

SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09 … · 2016-09-08 · rather than 21’...

Documents