REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION …...Jul 19, 2017 · Item 7 July 19, 2017 Planning...

Planning Commission

AGENDA REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION

This meeting is held in a wheelchair accessible location.

Wednesday, July 19, 2017 North Berkeley Senior Center 7:00 PM 1901 Hearst Ave / MLK Jr. Way

See “MEETING PROCEDURES” below.

All written materials identified on this agenda are available on the Planning Commission webpage: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=13072

PRELIMINARY MATTERS 1. Roll Call: Pinto, Prakash, Vice Chair, appointed by Councilmember Maio, District 1

Martinot, Steve, appointed by Councilmember Davila, District 2 Schildt, Christine, appointed by Councilmember Bartlett, District 3 Poschman, Gene, Chair, appointed by Councilmember Harrison, District 4 Beach, Benjamin, appointed by, Councilmember Hahn, District 5

Kapla, Robb William, for Councilmember Wengraf, District 6 Fong, Benjamin, appointed by Councilmember Worthington, District 7 Vincent, Jeff, appointed by Councilmember Droste, District 8 Wrenn, Rob, appointed by Mayor Arreguin

2. Order of Agenda: The Commission may rearrange the agenda or place items on the Consent

Calendar.

3. Public Comment: Comments on subjects not included on the agenda. Speakers may comment on agenda items when the Commission hears those items. (See “Public Testimony Guidelines” below):

4. Planning Staff Report: In addition to the items below, additional matters may be reported at the meeting. Next Commission meeting: September 6, 2017.

5. Chairperson’s Report: Report by Planning Commission Chair.

6. Committee Reports: Reports by Commission committees or liaisons. In addition to the items below, additional matters may be reported at the meeting.

7. Approval of Minutes: Approval of Draft Minutes from the meeting on June 21, 2017.

8. Future Agenda Items and Other Planning-Related Events: None.

AGENDA ITEMS: All agenda items are for discussion and possible action. Public Hearing items require hearing prior to Commission action.

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=13072

of 4 Planning Commission Agenda July 19, 2017

ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEMS: In compliance with Brown Act regulations, no action may be taken on these items. However, discussion may occur at this meeting upon Commissioner request. Information Items: None. Communications:

2017-07-19_Commissioner Poschman Re: R-1A Checklist from Notice of Hearing

2017-07-19_Edward C. Moore Re: West Berkeley R-1A Standards

2017-07-19_Toni Mester for Friends of R-1A Re: Proposal for R-1A Development Standards

2017-07-19_Toni Mester Re: Annotated Friends Amends R-1A

2017-07-19_Toni Mester Re: R-1A Annotated Purposes

2017-07-19_Toni Mester Re: R-1A FAR Calculations

2017-07-19_Toni Mester Re: EB Households

2017-07-19_Commissioner Poschman Re: Referral Prioritization Framework

2017-07-19_Commissioner Fong Re: Sample Prioritization Framework

2017-07-19_Commissioner Fong Re: Referral for a Pilot Density Bonus Program

2017-07-19_Commissioiner Schildt Re: Referral Prioritization

2017-07-19_Commissioner Wrenn Re: Prioritizing of Council Referrals

Late Communications: None. ADJOURNMENT

9. Action: Public Hearing: Condominium Map for 2001 Fourth Street Recommendation: Hold a public hearing to consider the tentative tract map to allow

152 residential condominium units and 2 commercial condominium units in a mixed-use building, currently under construction.

Written Materials: Attached. Web Information:

Continued From: N/A. N/A.

10.

Action: Recommendation: Written Materials: Web Information: Continued From:

Public Hearing: Modification to One-Percent for Public Art on Private Projects Ordinance Hold a public hearing to consider changing the percentage value for on-site public art on private projects from 1% to 1.75%. Attached. N/A. N/A.

11. Action: Recommendation: Written Materials: Web Information: Continued From:

Public Hearing: Second Units in R-1A Hold a new public hearing to consider changes to the Development Standards for the R-1A District. Attached. N/A. 5/17/2017.

12.

Discussion: Recommendation: Written Materials: Web Information: Continued From:

Planning Commission Referrals Continue discussion on the new prioritized referrals related Planning. Attached. N/A. 6/21/2017.


Meeting Procedures Public Testimony Guidelines: Speakers are customarily allotted up to three minutes each. The Commission Chair may limit the number of speakers and the length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all items on the Agenda. To speak during Public Comment or during a Public Hearing, please line up behind the microphone. Customarily, speakers are asked to address agenda items when the items are before the Commission rather than during the general public comment period. Speakers are encouraged to submit comments in writing. See “Procedures for Correspondence to the Commissioners” below. Consent Calendar Guidelines: The Consent Calendar allows the Commission to take action with no discussion on projects to which no one objects. The Commission may place items on the Consent Calendar if no one present wishes to testify on an item. Anyone present who wishes to speak on an item should submit a speaker card prior to the start of the meeting, or raise his or her hand and advise the Chairperson, and the item will be pulled from the Consent Calendar for public comment and discussion prior to action. Procedures for Correspondence to the Commissioners: To distribute correspondence to Commissioners prior to the meeting date, submit comments by 12:00 p.m. (noon), eight (8) days before the meeting day (Tuesday) (email preferred):

If correspondence is more than twenty (20) pages, requires printing of color pages, or includes pages larger than 8.5x11 inches, please provide 15 copies.

Any correspondence received after this deadline will be given to Commissioners on the meeting date just prior to the meeting.

Staff will not deliver to Commissioners any additional written (or emailed) materials received after 12:00 p.m. (noon) on the day of the meeting.

Members of the public may submit written comments themselves early in the meeting. To distribute correspondence at the meeting, please provide 15 copies and submit to the Planning Commission Secretary just before, or at the beginning, of the meeting.

Written comments should be directed to the Planning Commission Secretary, at the Land Use Planning Division (Attn: Planning Commission Secretary).

Communications are Public Records: Communications to Berkeley boards, commissions, or committees are public records and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to a City board, commission, or committee, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service, or in person, to the Secretary of the relevant board, commission, or committee. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the Secretary to the relevant board, commission, or committee for further information. Written material may be viewed in advance of the meeting at the Department of Planning & Development, Permit Service Center, 1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor, during regular business hours, or at the Reference Desk, of the Main Branch Library, 2090 Kittredge St., or the West Berkeley Branch Library, 1125 University Ave., during regular library hours. Accommodations Provided Upon Request: To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services Specialist at 981-6418 (V), or 981-6347 (TDD), and/or the Commission Secretary, at least three (3) business days before the meeting date. Five (5) business days are needed to request a sign language or oral interpreter. Note: If you object to a project or to any City action or procedure relating to the project application, any lawsuit which you may later file may be limited to those issues raised by you or someone else in the public hearing on the project, or in written communication delivered at or prior to the public hearing. The time limit


within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge related to these applications is governed by Section 1094.6, of the Code of Civil Procedure, unless a shorter limitations period is specified by any other provision. Under Section 1094.6, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred. Please refrain from wearing scented products to public meetings.

Item 7 July 19, 2017

Planning Commission

DRAFT MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 1

June 21, 2017 2

The meeting was called to order by Staff at 7:03 p.m. 3

Location: North Berkeley Senior Center, Berkeley, CA 4

Commissioners Present: Benjamin Beach, Steve Martinot, Prakash Pinto, Robb William 5

Kapla, Benjamin Fong, Gene Poschman, Christine Schildt, Jeff Vincent, Rob Wrenn. 6

Commissioners Absent: None. 7

Staff Present: Alex Amoroso, Alene Pearson, Sydney Stephenson. 8

ORDER OF AGENDA: Item 10 (Tract Map for 812 Page Street) was moved to Agenda item 9. 9

CONSENT CALENDAR: None. 10

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: 6 speakers. 11

PLANNING STAFF REPORT: The next meeting will be on July 19; there will be no meeting in 12

August; and September 6 will be the September meeting. At the next meeting R-1A issues will 13

be discussed with another Public Hearing; a Public Hearing will be held for an amendment to 14

the One-Percent for Public Art on Private Projects ordinance; and the Green Affordable Housing 15

Referral will be discussed again. 16

COMMUNICATIONS IN PACKET: 17

2017-06-21 Alicia Carter, Re: R-1 Zoning Issue; 18

2017-06-21 Charles Pappas, Vice Chairman of MCC, Re: Late item from Planning 19

Commission 5/17/2017 meeting; 20

2017-06-21 Scout Sheys, Re: R-1A Zoning Changes; 21

2017-06-21 Sonja Trauss, Re: Comment on West Berkeley Downzoning from 5/17/2017 22

2017-06-21 Daniel Shambaugh, Re: West Berkeley Bring Back R-4 Zoning 23

24

LATE COMMUNICATIONS (Received after the Packet deadline): 25

2017-06-21 Gene Poschman, Chairman of PC, Re: Council Action 26

LATE COMMUNICATIONS (Received and distributed at the meeting): 27

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from 06-21-2017 Item 7 Page 2 of 3 July 19, 2017

2017-06-21 Councilmember Worthington, Re: Density Bonus Program 28

CHAIR REPORT: Chair Poschman reminded the Commissioners to let their Councilmember, 29

City Clerk, and the Chair know as soon as possible if they are going to miss a meeting. 30

COMMITTEE REPORT: None. 31

7. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 32

Motion/Second/Carried (GP/RK) to approve the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from 33

May 17, 2017 with two minor corrections. Ayes: Poschman, Beach, Pinto, Wrenn, Martinot, 34

Schildt, Kapla. Noes: None. Abstain: Fong, Vincent. Absent: None. (7-0-2-0) 35

36

8. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND OTHER PLANNING-RELATED EVENTS: None. 37

AGENDA ITEMS 38

9. Discussion: Zoning Ordinance Revision Project 39

The consultant for the Zoning Ordinance Revision Project (ZORP) presented a brief 40

overview of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the ZORP. The Planning Commission asked the 41

consultant questions and offered their opinions on the process. 42

Public Comment: 3 speakers 43

10. Action: Public Hearing: Condominium Conversion for 812 Page Street 44

Staff presented the staff report for the new Condominium Map for 812 Page Street. The 45

Planning Commission asked whether any of the units were below market rate. 46

Motion/Second/Carried (GP/RK) to open the Public Hearing. Ayes: Wrenn, Poschman, 47

Beach, Pinto, Martinot, Schildt, Vincent, Fong, Kapla. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: 48

None. (9-0-0-0) 49

50

Motion/Second/Carried (GP/RK) to close the Public Hearing. Ayes: Wrenn, Poschman, 51

Beach, Pinto, Martinot, Schildt, Vincent, Fong, Kapla. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: 52

None. (9-0-0-0) 53

54

Motion/Second/Carried (GP/JV) to approve the Tentative Tract Map 8355 for 812 Page 55

Street. Ayes: Wrenn, Poschman, Beach, Pinto, Martinot, Schildt, Vincent, Fong, Kapla. 56

Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: None. (9-0-0-0) 57

Public Comment: 1 speaker 58

59

Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from 06-21-2017 Item 7 Page 3 of 3 July 19, 2017

11. Discussion: Quarterly Zoning Ordinance Minor Modifications. 60

Staff presented the proposed modifications regarding ADU parking and the definition of Lot 61

Coverage. The Planning Commission requested staff to examine clarifying the definition of 62

Lot Coverage and to set a public hearing for these modifications. 63

Public Comment: No speakers. 64

12. Discussion: Planning Commission Referrals 65

Staff presented the documents provided in the packet which included the Council’s 66

Prioritized Referral List and the Housing Action Plan Referral List. The Planning Commission 67

discussed the referrals and the different actions they could do with the two lists. They 68

requested to bring the referrals back to discuss at the next meeting. 69

Public Comment: No speakers. 70

The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 pm 71

Commissioners in attendance: 9 of 9 72

Members in the public in attendance: 12 73

Public Speakers: 10 74

Length of the meeting: 3 hours and 26 minutes 75

Item 9

July 19, 2017 Department of Planning & Development Land Use Planning Division

1947 Center Street, Second Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420 E-mail: [email protected]

Staff Report

2001 Fourth Street

Tentative Map #9787 to allow condominium ownership in a one hundred fifty-four (154) unit project with one hundred fifty-two (152) residential condominium units and two (2) commercial condominium units in a five-story mixed-use building under construction at 2001 Fourth Street.

I. Application Basics

A. Chronology of Subdivision Application: April 6, 2017: Map Application submitted.

May 11, 2017: Map Application considered complete.

June 30, 2017: Subdivision Map Act deadline (50 days from complete).

July 19, 2017: Planning Commission hearing (both applicant and staff agreed to extend the deadline).

B. CEQA Determination:

Construction of the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332, of the CEQA Guidelines (“In-fill Development Projects”).

C. Parties Involved:

Applicant: Morgan Read/Read Investments, 2025 Fourth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710

Property Owner: RI Berkeley, LLC, 2025 Fourth Street, Berkeley, CA 94710

2001 Fourth Street Item 9 Page 2 of 4 Planning Commission July 19, 2017

G:\LANDUSE\Boards and Commissions\PC\Staff Reports - Packets\2017 Staff Reports\2017-07-19\Item 9_PH 2001 Fourth TTM\2017-07-19_Item 9_Staff Report_2001 Fourth_SS.docx

II. Background

On December 11, 2014, the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) granted Use Permit #ZP2014-0040, to demolish an existing 41,471 sq. ft. grocery store/office building and construct a 174,612 sq. ft., 5-story, 59-foot tall, mixed-use project with 152 residential units and 8,450 sq. ft. of commercial space. The ZAB found the construction and the uses consistent with the 2002 General Plan, the 1993 West Berkeley Plan, and the applicable provisions of the Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC). On October 8, 2015, the ZAB approved Use Permit Modification #ZP2015-0157, to enlarge and redesign the layout of the ground floor commercial space to increase the project’s gross floor area by 6,636 sq. ft., to 181,248 sq. ft. The project approved by the ZAB included twelve (12) dwelling units affordable to very-low income (VLI) households to comply with Berkeley Municipal Code (BMC) Section 22.20.065. Because the project approved by the ZAB received a density bonus of twenty (20) dwellings, for a period of 30 years1, seven (7) of the VLI dwellings are also subject to additional affordability requirements to comply with State Density Bonus Law (Government Code Section 65915(f)(2)). The City ensures compliance to BMC Section 22.20.065 and to Gov’t Code Section 65915 via a regulatory agreement with the property owner. If any dwelling is sold, prior to the sale, the City and property owner would revise the regulatory agreement to replace the affordability requirements that applied to the rental dwellings with the affordability requirements that would apply to dwellings that are sold. Should that occur, twenty-six (26) dwellings would be subject to the income limits of BMC Section 23C.12.070.A, and if sold prior to year 31, twenty (20) of the twenty-six (26) dwellings would also be subject to the income limits of Gov’t Code Section 65915 for moderate income households.

III. Analysis

A. Subdivision Map Act Consistency: The Public Works Department reviewed the form and content of the Tentative Tract Map application, and has verified that it contains the content required by the Subdivision Map Act, including the subdivision number, the legal address of the legal owner or subdivider, sufficient legal description to define the boundary of the proposed subdivision, the location, pavement and right of way width, grade and name of existing streets or highways, the widths, location, and identity of all existing easements. The Public Works Department has determined that the Tentative Tract Map is suitable for review by the Planning Commission.

B. Tentative Maps Ordinance Consistency (BMC Chapter 21.16): The Planning Commission may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the tentative map

in accordance with BMC Section 21.16.047.

1 In 2015, the State amended this requirement to extend the time period to 55 years, but because this project was approved in 2014, it is subject to the State Density Bonus regulations in place at that time.



According to this section of the BMC, the Planning Commission shall deny approval of the tentative map if it can make any of the following findings from BMC Section 21.16.047.A through 21.16.047.G. Staff analysis relating to whether the findings can be made follow.

A: That the proposed map is not consistent with the applicable general and specific

plans. B: That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with

applicable general and specific plans.

C. The site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Staff Analysis: The subject property and proposed improvements were evaluated and found to be consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and the density was found to be physically appropriate for the site and consistent with applicable zoning regulations, in conjunction with the Use Permit issued by the Zoning Adjustments Board on December 11, 2014. Therefore, Staff does not believe that either Findings A, B or C can be made.

D. That the design of the subdivision or the type of the improvements is likely to

cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, or wildlife, or their habitat.

E. That the design of the subdivision or the type improvements is likely to cause

serious public health problems. Staff Analysis: The potential for substantial environmental damage, or harm to fish and wildlife, or their habitat, or the likelihood of public health problems was evaluated when the Use Permits for the project were approved by the ZAB in order to determine whether any of the exceptions to the CEQA Exemption for in-fill development were present. No potential environmental or public health impacts were found. Staff does not believe that either Findings D or E can be made.

F. That conflicts with existing public access easements, in accordance with Section 6674(g), of the Subdivision Map Act, which states: “That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision.”

Staff Analysis: The City of Berkeley Public Works Department has verified that the proposed Subdivision will not conflict with any easements of record, or with any easements established by judgment of a court.



G. That the design of the subdivision does not provide, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision.

Staff Analysis: Condominium ownership will not alter passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities because no exterior change would occur from the condition approved by the City when the building was approved by the ZAB. Staff does not believe that Finding G can be made.

IV. Public Notice/Comment

BMC Section 21.16.045 requires public notice. Notice was provided as follows:

Published in the Berkeley Voice on Friday, July 7, 2017;

Posted at the subject property on Friday, July 7, 2017; and

Mailed to the applicant and owner of the subject property, and to owners and occupants of properties abutting upon or confronting 2001 Fourth Street, on Friday July 7, 2017.

At the time of the writing of this report, there have been no responses.

V. Recommendation

Because the project is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act, the Tentative Maps Ordinance, and the 2002 Berkeley General Plan, Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: APPROVE Tentative Map #9787 pursuant to BMC Section 21.16.047 and subject to the attached Findings and Conditions (see Attachment 1).

Attachments: 1. Findings and Conditions

2. Tentative Tract Map #9787

3. Condominium Plans for Tentative Map #9787

4. Notice of Public Hearing

Staff Planner: Sydney Stephenson, Assistant Planner, [email protected], (510) 981-7488.

mailto:[email protected]

FINDINGS & CONDITIONS Item 9 – Attachment 1 Planning Commission July 19, 2017

CEQA FINDINGS

1. Construction of the project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (“In-Fill Development Projects”). Furthermore, none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 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 65962.5, and (f) the project will not affect any historical resource.

TENTATIVE MAP FINDINGS

2. Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 21.16.047, the Planning Commission cannot make any of the seven findings for denial of the tentative map for the following reasons:

A. The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the applicable general plan policies

because:

1. The project is consistent with Policy H-19 because by adding 152 housing units, including 12 very-low income units, the project helps Berkeley meet its regional housing need.

B. The design and development of the project proposed to be subdivided is consistent with

the City of Berkeley’s General Plan and West Berkeley Plan because: 1. The project is consistent with Policy LU-3 in that it is an infill development project

that adds 152 units of housing and 8,450 sq. ft. of retail space in a location that is planned for mixed-use development. The project would increase the population proximate to the Fourth Street retail area, and increase the density of development in the University Node area.

2. The project is consistent with Policy LU-7 because it conforms to the applicable zoning standards for the C-W District and will further goals of revitalizing West Berkeley.

3. The project is consistent with Policy UD-24 because with 5 stories along University Avenue the project would reinforce the City’s plans for redeveloping underutilized sites in a way that would increase the quality of the built environment and provide new housing and commercial opportunities. The increase population, new street level retail and quality landscaping will all help to extend the attractiveness and vitality of the Fourth Street retail corridor south, across University Avenue.

4. The project is complies with Policy UD-32 in that the project will cast afternoon shadows on some of the west facing units of the new building at 800 University (The Aquatic) during much of the year. In the morning, shadows would be cast on the some of the east facing units at the Fourth & U project during much of the year, particularly in the summer.

5. The project is consistent with Policies EM-5 and UD-33 because it will meet the City’s Green Building requirements.

C. The project site and proposed improvements were evaluated and found to be consistent

with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and the density was found to be physically

of 2

suitable for the site and consistent with applicable zoning regulations, in conjunction with the Zoning Permits issued by the Zoning Adjustments Board on December 11, 2014.

D. The project will not have negative environmental effects or substantially and avoidably

injure fish or wildlife in their habitat since it is limited to the subdivision of a mixed-use building that was evaluated to determine whether any of the exceptions to the CEQA Exemption for in-fill development relating to environmental damage or harm to fish and wildlife or their habitat, and none were found.

E. The project is not likely to have serious public health problems since it involves the

subdivision of a newly constructed mixed-use building that is built to current building code standards on a site that was evaluated under CEQA to determine whether any significant public health problems were present, and none were found.

F. The project will not conflict with any public access easements, as determined pursuant to

a review by the Berkeley Public Works Department. G. The project will not alter passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities because it was

designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows, in that the new building is provides a large setback from the existing residential building east of the site, such that the sun shadow impacts on the abutting properties will be minimized.

STANDARD CONDITIONS

1. The Final Map shall be submitted for certification and shall be recorded in compliance with the Berkeley Municipal Code, Title 21, and with the Subdivision Map Act of the State of California.

2. Prior to the sale of any unit approved in the Final Tract Map, the Affordable Housing

Regulatory Agreement shall be revised to comply with BMC 23C.12 (Inclusionary Unit Requirements for Ownership Projects) and Government Code Section 65915(f)(4), and approved by the City.

3. A copy of the Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions shall be filed with the Planning and

Development Department prior to approval of the Final Map. 4. The Standard conditions of approval for all subdivisions, new condominiums and commercial

condominium conversions within the City of Berkeley, dated January 1994, applies and shall be satisfied prior to approval of the Final Map.

Item 9 - Attachment 2 Planning Commission

July 19, 2017


July 19, 2017

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BERKELEY PLANNING COMMISSION

PROPOSED PROJECT: 2001 Fourth Street Condominium Map

Where: North Berkeley Senior Center 1901 Hearst Ave. When: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 – 7:00 p.m.

The Berkeley Planning Commission will hold a Public Hearing on the above matter pursuant to BMC Section 21.16 Tentative Maps and the State Subdivision Map Act.

PROPOSED PROJECT INFORMATION: Tentative Tract Map #9787 would create one hundred fifty-two (152) residential condominium units and two (2) commercial condominium units, in a five-story mixed-use building, currently under construction. The development project was approved by the Zoning Adjustments Board on December 11, 2014.

PROJECT APPLICANT: Morgan Read/Read Investments, 2025 Fourth Street, Berkeley, CA, 94710.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: Construction of the project is categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines (“In-fill Development Projects”), and approval of the Tentative Map is also categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines, which involves the operations and permitting of existing facilities involving no expansion of use beyond prior approvals.

TO COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice can be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. The public is advised that the Commission may limit the number of speakers and the length of time allowed to each speaker. Persons wishing to offer testimony are encouraged to submit their comments in writing. Written comments should be mailed or delivered directly to the Land Use Planning Division, 1947 Center Street, Berkeley, CA 94704. Comments received no later than Tuesday, July 11, 2017, will be included in the Commission agenda packet. Comments received thereafter will be submitted to the Commission as supplemental communications at the meeting.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Sydney Stephenson, Assistant Planner, Land Use Planning Division, 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704; PH: (510) 981-7488, FAX: (510) 981-7420, TDD: (510) 981-6903, EMAIL: [email protected].

LEGAL LIMITATIONS: If you object to a project or to any City action or procedure relating to the project application, any lawsuit which you may later file may be limited to those issues raised by you or someone else in the public hearing on the project, or in written communication delivered at or prior to the public hearing. The time limit within which to commence any lawsuit or legal challenge related to these applications is governed by Section 66499.37 of the Government Code, unless a shorter limitations period is specified by any other provision. Under Section 66499.37, any lawsuit or legal challenge to any quasi-adjudicative decision made by the City must be filed no later than the 90th day following the date on which such decision becomes final. Any lawsuit or legal challenge, which is not filed within that 90-day period, will be barred.

COMMUNICATION ACCESS: To request a meeting agenda in large print, Braille, or on audiocassette or to request a sign language interpreter for the meeting, call (510) 981-7480 (voice) or (510) 981-7474 (TDD). Providing at least FIVE working days notice will ensure availability. Agendas available at: www.ci.berkeley.ca.us.


July 19, 2017


http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/

Item 10 July 19, 2017

Planning and Development Department Land Use Planning Division

STAFF REPORT DATE: July 19, 2017 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Sydney Stephenson, Assistant Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Modification to One-Percent for Public Art on Private

Projects Ordinance, BMC 23C.23

INTRODUCTION On May 30, 2017, City Council took action on the following two amendments to the One-Percent for Public Art on Private Projects (One-Percent) ordinance, BMC 23C.23.

1. Eliminate the exemption in Section 23C.23.030 for Commercial Mixed Use District (C-MDU) projects exceeding 75 feet.

2. Increase the percentage value of on-site public art from 1% to 1.75%, Section 23C.23.050.

The noted first amendment was previously considered by the Planning Commission (PC). Therefore, it did not need to be reviewed again by the Planning Commission.

The second amendment, to increase the percentage value of on-site art, was not previously considered by the Planning Commission, thus the PC is required to review the amendment. This staff report includes a brief discussion of other municipalities’ regulations regarding the required percentages, as well as, the proposed language. DISCUSSION Staff briefly researched the same municipalities that were used as examples when the original One-Percent ordinance was drafted, including Pasadena, Walnut Creek, Santa Monica, and Claremont. Pasadena, Walnut Creek, and Claremont public art ordinances all require 1% or less for the value of public artwork on private projects. However, Santa Monica requires on-site public art in the amount of 2% of the construction cost of the project, and 1% of the construction cost as an in-lieu fee. City Councilmember Worthington submitted a report to the City Council for the meeting on May 30, 2017, proposing a revision to the One-Percent ordinance (Attachment 1). The proposed language included increasing the required payment for publically accessible art

Modification to One-Percent for Public Art on Private Projects Ordinance Item 10 Page 2 of 2 July 19, 2017

from 1% to 1.75%, and keeping the 0.8% for an in-lieu fee. The City Council referred the item to the Planning Commission. Staff recommends an additional ordinance change. If the percentage is changed from 1% to 1.75%, then the title of the Chapter 23C.23 should be revised to recognize the increase. See proposed language in the title of the Chapter 23C.23 and Section 23C.23.050 below (Attachment 2): 1. Title Change: Chapter 23C.23 One-Percent Percentage for Public Art on Private

Projects

2. Increase in % Requirement: 23C.23.050 General Requirements

A. Developers subject to this Chapter shall either:

1. Include On-Site Publicly Accessible Art valued at 1% 1.75% of the

Construction Cost. In the event the value of On-Site Publicly Accessible Art

as installed is less than 1% 1.75% of the Construction Cost, an amount

equal to 80% of the difference in value shall be paid to the City as an in-lieu

fee.

2. Pay an in-lieu fee of 0.80% of the Construction Cost to the City as set

forth in Section 23C.23.070. (Ord. 7526-NS § 1, 2017: Ord. 7494-NS § 1

(part), 2016)

CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a Public Hearing, take public comment, and forward the Commission’s recommendation to City Council.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Councilmember Worthington’s report revised from May 30, 2017 Council Meeting

2. Ordinance with proposed changes

3. Public Hearing Notice

http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Berkeley/html/Berkeley23C/Berkeley23C23/Berkeley23C23070.html#23C.23.070

Kriss Worthington

Councilmember, City of Berkeley, District 7

2180 Milvia Street, 5th Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704

PHONE 510-981-7170, FAX 510-981-7177, EMAIL [email protected]

AMENDED CONSENT CALENDAR June 13, 2017

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Councilmember Kriss Worthington Subject: Amend One Percent for Art Ordinance to incentivize fees for the Arts and Culture Plan. RECOMMENDATION: That the Council amend the One Percent for Art Ordinance to incentivize contributions to the Civic Arts Commission’s Arts and Culture Plan. BACKGROUND: Under the current ordinance, developers have the option to spend 1 percent of the total project cost on publicly accessible art on site or pay an in-lieu fee of 0.8 percent to the City to develop publicly accessible art. In order to encourage developers to pay the in-lieu fee directly to the city, we recommend increasing the required payment for publically accessible art to 2 1.75 percent, if being handled directly by the developer, or 1 0.80 percent if the developer contributes the fees directly to the City. The goal is to incentivize developers to pay fees directly to the City, where they could be utilized to implement the new arts and culture plan. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The change could generate additional funds for the city’s Arts and Culture Plan. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY: Consistent with Berkeley’s Environmental Sustainability Goals. CONTACT PERSON: Councilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170 Attachment: 1. Amended Percent for Art Ordinance


July 19, 2017


23C.23.050 General Requirements A. Developers subject to this Chapter shall either: 1. Include On-Site Publicly Accessible Art valued at 1 1.75 percent of the Construction Cost. In the

event the value of On-Site Publicly Accessible Art as installed is less than 1 1.75 percent of the Construction Cost, an amount equal to 80% of the difference in value shall be paid to the City as an in-lieu fee, OR

2. Pay an in-lieu fee of 0.80 percent of the Construction Cost to the City as set forth in Section 23C.23.070.

Item 10 – Attachment 2 Planning Commission July 19, 2017

ORDINANCE NO. #,###-N.S.

AMENDING THE ONE-PERCENT FOR PUBLIC ART ON PRIVATE PROJECTS

ORDINANCE, BERKELEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 23C.23, TO INCREASE

PERCENTAGE OF THE REQUIRED PAYMENT FOR PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE

ARTWORK IN SECTION 23C.23.050.

BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Berkeley as follows:

Section 1. That Berkeley Municipal Code Chapter 23C.23 title is amended to read as

follows:

Chapter 23C.23 One-Percent Percentage for Public Art on Private Projects

Section 2. That Berkeley Municipal Code Section 23C.23.050 is amended to read as

follows:

23C.23.050 General Requirements


1. Include On-Site Publicly Accessible Art valued at 1% 1.75% of the

Construction Cost. In the event the value of On-Site Publicly Accessible Art as

installed is less than 1% 1.75% of the Construction Cost, an amount equal to

80% of the difference in value shall be paid to the City as an in-lieu fee.

2. Pay an in-lieu fee of 0.80% of the Construction Cost to the City as set forth

in Section 23C.23.070. (Ord. 7526-NS § 1, 2017: Ord. 7494-NS § 1 (part),

2016)

Section 3. Posting. Copies of this Ordinance shall be posted for two days prior to

adoption in the display case located near the walkway in front of Old City Hall, 2134 Martin

Luther King Jr. Way. Within fifteen days of adoption, copies of this Ordinance shall be

filed at each branch of the Berkeley Public Library and the title shall be published in a

newspaper of general circulation.


Item 10 – Attachment 3 Planning Commission July 19, 2017

P L A N N I N G

C O M M I S S I O N

N o t i c e o f P u b l i c H e a r i n g

July 19, 2017

1947 Street, Second Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7490 E-mail: [email protected]

Modification to One-Percent for Public Art on Private Projects Ordinance, BMC 23C.23

The Planning Commission, of the City of Berkeley, will hold a public hearing on the above matter, pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 23A.20.030, on Wednesday, July 19, 2017, at the North Berkeley Senior Center, 1901 Hearst Ave. (at Martin Luther King, Jr. Way), Berkeley (wheelchair accessible). The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The City Council requested that the Planning Commission consider the proposed amendment to increase the required payment percentage in the General Requirements, Section 23C.23.050, of the One-Percent for Public Art on Private Projects Ordinance. The proposed change is to increase the required payment for publically accessible art to 1.75 percent in Chapter 23C.23. See proposed language in the title of the Chapter 23C.23 and Section 23C.23.050 below:

1. Chapter 23C.23 One-Percent Percentage for Public Art on Private Projects

2. 23C.23.050 General Requirements


1. Include On-Site Publicly Accessible Art valued at 1% 1.75% of the Construction Cost.

In the event the value of On-Site Publicly Accessible Art as installed is less than 1%

1.75% of the Construction Cost, an amount equal to 80% of the difference in value shall

be paid to the City as an in-lieu fee.

2. Pay an in-lieu fee of 0.80% of the Construction Cost to the City as set forth in

Section 23C.23.070. (Ord. 7526-NS § 1, 2017: Ord. 7494-NS § 1 (part), 2016)

LOCATION: The proposed Ordinance would apply Citywide, in all Districts identified.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: CEQA is used to evaluate physical impacts resulting from changes in use and activity. The One Percent for Public Art on Private Projects Ordinance sets a financial requirement for projects, but has no effect on the development of land or projects. Therefore, this action can be considered exempt from CEQA, per Section 15061.b.3, which states:

"...CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no


MODIFICATION TO ONE-PERCENT FOR PUBLIC ART ON PRIVATE PROJECTS ORDINANCE Page 2 of 2 July 19, 2017

possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA."

PUBLIC COMMENT

Comments may be made verbally at the public hearing and in writing before the hearing. Those wishing to speak at the hearing must submit a speaker card. Written comments concerning this project should be directed to:

Planning Commission Fax: (510) 981-7520 Alex Amoroso, Secretary E-mail: [email protected] Land Use Planning Division 1947 Center Street, Second Floor Berkeley, CA 94704

To assure distribution to Commission members prior to the meeting, correspondence must be received by 12:00 noon, seven (7) days before the meeting date. Fifteen (15) copies must be submitted of any correspondence that requires color printing or pages larger than 8.5” x 11”.

COMMUNICATION ACCESS

To request a meeting agenda in large print, Braille, or on audiocassette, or to request a sign language interpreter for the meeting, call (510) 981-7410 (voice) or 981-6903 (TDD). Notice of at least five (5) business days will ensure availability. Agendas are also available on the Internet at: www.ci.berkeley.ca.us.

FURTHER INFORMATION

Questions should be directed to Alex Amoroso, at (510) 981-7520 or [email protected].


Item 11 July 19, 2017


STAFF REPORT DATE: July 19, 2017 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Greene, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing: Zoning Requirements for Dwelling Units in the R-1A

District

BACKGROUND The R-1A District allows for second Dwelling Units (“second units”) as well as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). Both the City Council and Zoning Adjustments Board have asked for guidance regarding the size of second units and the relationship of these new units to the existing residence on the lot. A separate set of regulations are already in place to address the development of ADUs, and these regulations are not part of the Commission consideration.

Potential modifications to the R-1A regulations has been brought up in Council referrals on September 21, 2010, and July 14, 2015, and a letter from ZAB to the City Council and the Planning Commission on March 31, 2016.

The Planning Commission has considered potential modifications to the R-1A regulations on April 20, 2016, July 20, 2016, September 21, 2016, January 18, 2017, February 15, 2017, April 19, 2017, and May 17, 2017. Staff reports for these agenda items can be found on line. On April 19, 2017, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to set specific development standards for second Dwelling Units in the R-1A District. The changes focused on the following R-1A development standards and that would be applied throughout the district:

A. The minimum lot size required to establish two Dwelling Units; B. The distance between Main Buildings; C. The height of second units; and D. The rear and side yard setbacks for second units.

Staff provided options and recommendations for amendments to these development standards, as well as for aligning the regulations in the Westbrae with those west of San Pablo portions of the R-1A District.

Zoning Requirements for Second Units Item 11 Page 2 of 7 July 19, 2017

Most of the proposed changes were designed to apply to second units built in a rear yard, rather than both units on the property. See Attachments 1 and 2 for the draft zoning language and April 19, 2017 staff report for the options, analysis and recommendations related to these issues. At the April 19, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission asked for information about the number of lots that could be impacted by an increase in the minimum lot size for second units, the number of ADUs which have been approved in Berkeley, and options for reducing front yard setbacks. See the May 17th staff report (Attachment 3) for a discussion of those and staff recommendations related to front yard setbacks. DISCUSSION A number of issues have been added to the most recent Public Hearing notice (Attachment 8). These items are described below. Additional Research At the May 17, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission requested additional information related to two issues:

1. Reducing the height of a second unit in the rear yard to 1 story or 14 feet; and 2. Increasing open space requirements.

After the meeting, staff was informed that members of the Council expressed interest in two additional issues:

1. Creating a Floor-Area Ratio (FAR) for the R-1A District; and 2. Developing a daylight plane standard in the R-1A District.

Staff Considerations and Analysis The staff analysis for the four issues is included below. One of the issues, the height of the rear units, was considered by staff in the April 19th packet. That analysis has not changed based on the more specific height restrictions suggested by the Commission, and is excerpted and included with this report.

Height of rear unit (from the April 19, 2017 report)

Existing standard: The R-1A allows for two main buildings on a parcel/site. Main buildings can be 3 stories and 28 feet tall (35 feet with an AUP). There is no height distinction made between Main Buildings sharing a parcel. (Sections 23D.20.070.C and D). Options: A. Limit the number of stories of second units in rear yards; B. Limit the height of second units in rear yards; or C. Do not have different height requirements for Main Buildings sharing a lot. Potential Issues: One of the primary concerns heard by staff regarding second units in the rear yard is the impact the height will have on neighboring properties. The taller the building, the greater the visual impact, and privacy and shadow


impacts become a concern. Limiting a rear unit to one story would address those concerns, but has its own impacts. One-story limits could lead to buildings with a larger footprint, up to the maximum 40% total lot coverage. Limiting a building to one story could also impact the ability to park a car for the rear unit on the property, as many units use a portion of the ground floor as an attached garage. Finally, a one-story limit could reduce the size of the second unit to the point where it is not significantly different from an ADU, making it a less viable option for property owners.

Increasing open space requirement: Existing standard:

Open space is defined as area which is reserved for “active or passive recreation use and shall be accessible to the occupants of the building, unless otherwise specified in individual District standards”. (Section 23D.04.050; see Attachment 4 for the full definition.) Currently, the R-1A District requires a minimum of 400 sf of usable open space per dwelling unit. This matches the requirement for the R-1, ES-R and R-2 districts; no other districts have a greater open space requirement. The standard does not specify the location of the open space in relation to the units. A property could provide all of the open space in an area that is directly adjacent to only one of the units.

Options:

A. Increase the minimum open space requirement per dwelling unit in the R-1A district.

B. Modify the open space requirement in the R-1A District so that each unit is directly adjacent to at least 400 square feet of open space.

C. Do not change the minimum open space requirement. Potential Issues:

Increasing the open space requirement for the R-1A district will result in that district having a larger open space requirement than other districts in Berkeley.

Modifying the open space requirement would create a different standard in the R-1A than in other residential districts. None of the other residential districts mandate proximity of open space to units.

Creating a Floor-Area Ratio (FAR): Existing standards:

A Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the ratio of the total floor area of the buildings on a property to the area of the property. For example, a property that is developed with a single story building that covers half of the lot would have an FAR of .5 (1 story x .5 lot coverage). If that same building had two full stories added to it, the FAR would be 1.5 (3 stories x .5 lot coverage).


In Berkeley, only commercial districts and manufacturing districts have FARs; none of the residential districts have this development standard. Using the current development standards for maximum lot coverage and stories, the maximum FAR that a property in the R-1A district could have would be 1.2 (a 3-story building covering 40% of the lot). See Attachment 5 for examples of how the FAR would be calculated for recent projects in the R-1A District.

Options:

Develop an FAR development standard for the R-1A district.

Do not create an FAR development standard. Potential Issues:

Developing an FAR requirement would create a different standard in the R-1A districts than other residential districts. No other residential districts have an FAR standard.

Developing an FAR standard in addition to height and lot coverage standards will create redundant requirements, which could be confusing for applicants.

An FAR standard would apply to all buildings on a lot, and could restrict additions on dwelling units at the front of the property.

Creating daylight plane standards: Existing standards:

A daylight plane is a type of building envelope that is designed “to provide for light and air, and to limit the impacts of bulk and mass on adjacent properties”1. They work by reducing the permitted height of a building as it approaches a property line. A daylight plane standard is comprised of a line at a defined angle that begins at a defined height at a defined location and extends toward the interior of the property. Based on staff research, there is no typical standard for a daylight plane. The angle of the plane is usually 45 degrees, but the point from where the line begins can vary based on the height of the starting point and it’s placement on (or in some cases, off) the property. See Attachment 6 for examples of daylight plane standards from other cities. The City of Berkeley does not have a daylight plane standard for any district. In order to develop one, staff would need to identify the conditions that are of most concern to the community, and determine the dimensions that would best address those concerns.

Options:

1 City of San Leandro Zoning Code, Section 2-537.


Develop a daylight plane standard for the R-1A District

Do not develop a daylight plane standard Potential Issues:

Developing a daylight plane standard would create a different standard in the R-1A districts than for other residential districts. No other districts, residential or otherwise, have a daylight plane standard.

Depending on how the standard is defined, it could result in existing buildings being deemed non-conforming.

Based on the orientation of the subject lot and the placement of buildings on adjacent lots, this standard may not limit shadow impacts on adjacent properties.

Developing a daylight plane in addition to other standards could create redundant requirements.

Staff Recommendation: The following staff recommendations are made in the context of each the particular issues. The Public Hearing notice includes 11 different standards for consideration. There may be combined/cumulative effects to modifying several standards. Staff is unable to assess the overall effects of the proposed changes without have more narrow and focused direction from the Commission. The Commission has not been clear in prior deliberations if their intent is to focus development standard changes on the second main building proposed for a parcel, or if the regulations are intended to apply to the entire parcel. The Commission may consider having a discussion of their intent of the R-1A changes, before making specific recommendations on each of the subject areas. This can help inform staff about what the Commission prioritizes and lead to a more coherent outcome.

Staff recommends the following actions related to the four subject areas discussed in this staff report:

Height of rear unit (from the April 19, 2017 report) Staff recommends limiting the rear Main Building to 2 stories, 24 feet average height, with no option to exceed either standard with an AUP. The 24-foot average height will allow for a pitched roof, while still being tall enough to allow for two full stories. This reduction could reduce the visual impact of the second unit from the street. Open Space: Maintain the current minimum standard of 400 sf per unit, as an increase would give this district the largest open space requirements for a residential district in Berkeley. Consider adopting a requirement to locate open space adjacent to each unit as part of a comprehensive review of the residential districts.


FAR: Staff does not recommend adding an FAR standard to the R-1A district, as this would be unique to the R-1A District. Adopting a residential FAR standard could be considered as part of a comprehensive review of the residential districts. Daylight plane: Staff does not recommend adding a daylight plane standard to the R-1A district, as this would be unique to the R-1A District and require significant staff time to consider the appropriate standards. Adopting a daylight plane standard for residential districts could be considered as part of a comprehensive review of the Zoning Ordinance.

These recommendations are shown below with the staff recommendations from the April 19, 2017 and May 17th meetings:

Existing ZO language Staff Proposed Changes

Date of recommendation

Minimum lot for second unit

4,500 sf No change 4-19-17

Separation btw Main Buildings

None 12’, reduction with AUP

4-19-17

Maximum stories

3 2, no AUP to exceed 4-19-17

Average height 28’, up to 35’ with AUP 24’, no AUP for addl height

4-19-17, 7-19-17

Side yard setbacks

4’, reduction with AUP 6’, no reduction 4-19-17

Rear yard setbacks

20’, reduction with AUP

20’, reduction with AUP, up to a limit of

12 feet

4-19-17

Apply to entire R-1A

Different side and rear yard setbacks in area

west of San Pablo

No distinction between Westbrae

and west of San Pablo area

4-19-17

Front yard setback

20 feet, no reduction No change 5-17-17

Open Space 400 feet per unit No change 7-19-17

FAR None No change 7-19-17

Daylight plane None No change 7-19-17

See Attachment 7 for a matrix of these development standards in the R-1, R-1A, R-2 and R-2A Districts.

CONCLUSION


Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1. Consider the research and recommendation included with this report;

2. Consider attached Zoning Ordinance language from the April 19, 2017 meeting (Attachment 1);

3. Consider other options put forward by other Commissioners and the public;

4. Identify preferred options through a vote of the Commission; and

5. Direct staff to develop Zoning Ordinance language to consider at a future meeting.

If the Commission requires more time to consider these options, the Public Hearing should be continued to a date certain.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Ordinance Language (from April 19, 2017 staff report)

2. April 19, 2017 staff report and attachments

3. May 17, 2017 staff report

4. Definition of Open Space (Berkeley Zoning Ordinance)

5. Matrix of estimated FAR of recent ZAB proposals in the R-1A District

6. Examples of Daylight Plane ordinance language from other California cities

7. Matrix of development standards in the R-1, R-1A, R-2 and R-2A Districts


Item 10 – Attachment 1 Planning Commission

April 19, 2017

Proposed amendments to 23D.20.070 and .090 3-31-17

Section 23D.20.070 Development Standards

A. No lot of less than 5,000 square feet may be created.

B. No more than two Dwelling Units shall be allowed. In order to establish two Dwelling Units a lot must contain at least 4,500 square feet of area.

C. Each Main Building shall be limited in height as follows:

Height limit average (ft.) Stories limit (number)

Main Building (front) 28* 3

Main Building (rear) 24 2

All Residential Additions

14** Not Applicable

* The Zoning Officer may issue an Administrative Use Permit to allow a single Main Buildings, or a second Main Building at the front of the property to exceed 28 feet in average height, up to 35 feet in average height ** The Zoning Officer may issue an Administrative Use Permit to allow residential additions to exceed 14 feet in average height, up to the district limit.

D. TheEach Main Building shall be set back from the respective lot lines as follows:

Yard location

Stories (number)

Front Rear* Side** Building separation

Main Building (front)

1-3 20 ft. 20 ft. 4 ft.** 12***

Main Building

(rear)

1-2 N/A 20 ft. 6 ft.

* See Sections 23D.20.070.D.1. and D.4 ** See Sections 23D.20.070.D.2, and D.3, and D.4 *** See Section 23D.20.070.D.5

1. On lots with one Dwelling Unit, Wwhen the depth of any lot is less than 100 feet,

the Rear Yard may be reduced to 20% of the lot depth.


July 19, 2017

Berkeley Municipal Code

Page 2/3

The Berkeley Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 7532-NS, passed February 14, 2017.

2. When the width of any lot is less than 40 feet, the width of each Side Yard for a Main Building at the front of a property may be reduced to 10% of the lot width, but in no case to less than three feet. No Side Yard setback reductions are permitted for rear Main Buildings.

3. The Side Yards on a Corner Lot shall be as follows:

a. On a Corner Lot, where there is a Key Lot to the rear thereof, the street Side Yard of the Corner Lot shall be not less than one-half the Front Yard required or existent on the Key Lot, whichever is smaller. This regulation shall not be applied so as to reduce the buildable area of the lot to a width of less than 20 feet, or to require the Side Yard to be in excess of ten feet.

b. Where a Rear Yard of not less than 50 feet in depth is maintained on a Corner Lot, adjacent to a Key Lot, the Side Yard may be reduced to four feet.

4. The required Rear Yard and/or Side Yard of a lot in those portions of the District west of San Pablo Avenue may be reduced to no less than 12 feet to construct a second Dwelling Unit at the rear of the property, subject to the required finding in Section 23D.20.090.C.

5. For two Main Buildings which contain Dwelling Units, the required building separation may be reduced subject to obtaining an Administrative Use Permit.

E. Maximum coverage may not exceed the following percentages:

1. 40% of the lot area for an Interior or Through Lot.

2. 45% of the lot area for a Corner Lot.

F. Each lot shall contain the following minimum usable open space area for each Dwelling Unit: 400 square feet. (Ord. 6949-NS § 5 (part), 2006: Ord. 6806-NS § 1, 2004: Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999)

Section 23D.20.090 Findings

A. In order to approve any Permit under this chapter, the Zoning Officer or Board must make the finding required by Section 23B.32.040. The Zoning Officer or Board must also make the findings required by the following paragraphs of this section to the extent applicable:

B. To deny a Use Permit for a major residential addition or residential addition subject to 23D.20.070 the Zoning Officer or Board must find that although the proposed residential addition satisfies all other standards of this Ordinance, the addition would unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air or views.

C. In those portions of the District west of San Pablo Avenue, tTo approve an application for reduction of a required Rear Yard, or a reduction in building


Page 3/3


separation interior Side Yard, or street Side Yard, the Zoning Officer or the Board must find that the unit would not cause a detrimental impact on emergency access; or on light, air or privacy for neighboring properties. (Ord. 7426-NS § 12, 2015: Ord. 6980-NS § 2 (part), 2007: Ord. 6763-NS § 11 (part), 2003: Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999)

Item 10 April 19, 2017


STAFF REPORT DATE: April 19, 2017 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Greene, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Zoning Requirements for Second Dwelling Units in the R-1A District

RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the City Council amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to set specific development standards for second Dwelling Units in the R-1A District. BACKGROUND The R-1A District allows for second Dwelling Units (“second units”) as well as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). Both the City Council and Zoning Adjustments Board have asked for guidance regarding the size of second units and the relationship to the existing residence on the lot. This subject has been brought up in Council referrals on September 21, 2010, and July 14, 2015, and a letter from ZAB to the City Council and the Planning Commission on March 31, 2016.

On February 15, 2017, the Planning Commission discussed development standard modifications for second units and other issues which could affect how second units are considered in the R-1A district. Those discussions have lead the Commission to consider modifications to R-1A development standards that may be applied to second Dwelling Units. This Public Hearing is set to consider Zoning Ordinance (ZO) amendments focusing on the following R-1A development standards and that would be applied throughout the district:


Staff has responded to those issues and has provided draft zoning language for the Commission’s consideration. Two members of the public have provided differing proposals addressing second units on a lot. The proposals are included as Attachments 2 and 3.


July 19, 2017

Zoning Requirements for Second Units Item 10 Page 2 of 8 April 19, 2017

These changes will relate to two different types of uses:

Dwelling Unit - defined by the ZO as “a building or portion of a building designed for, or occupied exclusively by, persons living as one household”

Main Buildings – defined by the ZO as “a building which is designed for, or in which is conducted, the principal use on the lot on which it is situated. In any R District and dwelling, except an accessory dwelling unit as defined in this sub-title, shall be deemed to be a main building on the lot.”

For the purpose of this document, the term “second unit” shall be used to describe a detached Dwelling Unit that is also considered to be a Main Building. The terms “Dwelling Unit” and “Main Building” will be used when referencing specific ZO language. The term “Dwelling Unit” will also be used when referring to a single dwelling unit on a property. DISCUSSION At the February 15, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission generally agreed that zoning amendments should focus on modifying development standards and asked staff to bring forward information related to changes to standards for height, setbacks, distance requirements for second units and minimum lot sizes for second units. The Commission did not agree to specific changes in these standards, therefore staff is presenting options within each standard for the Commission to consider. These options are listed and evaluated below. Staff Considerations and Analysis The majority of second units are added behind (in the rear yard) an existing Dwelling Unit. The community concerns expressed regarding these units generally relate to privacy, shadow and visual impacts on the neighbors. In order to address the impacts that can occur when a Dwelling Unit is built in a rear yard, and to clarify how the standards would apply when two Dwelling Units are being built simultaneously, staff has proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments which would apply to the Dwelling Unit at the rear of a property. There are instances where an existing Dwelling Unit is demolished, and the lot is developed with two new Dwelling Units. In these cases, the unit in the front of the parcel would be assessed based on existing zoning ordinance development standards. Possible results of Zoning Ordinance amendments Every lot that currently large enough to permit a second unit would be impacted by changes to the development standards.

Setback limits and building separations: Generally, it can be assumed that the footprint of a second unit would be reduced if the setbacks are increased and building separations are placed, and exceptions to setbacks are removed. A reduction in the footprint could result in an increase in the number of rear units that include a second story.

Height limits: If the height is reduced, buildings will tend to cover more of the lot.

Reducing height or increasing setbacks will limit the building envelope for the second unit, which could lead to less articulation and bulkier buildings.


Increased limits on detached second units could lead to an increase in the number of attached second units, since the proposed changes would apply only to detached second units rather than additions to the original building.

Analysis of Modified Development Standard Proposals Minimum lot size for second units.

Existing standard: The R-1A permits properties with a minimum lot size of 4,500 square feet to establish two Dwelling Units with a Use Permit (Section 23D.20.070.B). Options: A. The minimum lot size where a second unit might be added could be increased

to 5,000 sf; or B. The existing minimum size (4,500 sf) could be maintained. Impacts of increased parcel size: According to the City’s records, there are 1,419 lots in the City which are entirely within the R-1A District. Of these lots, 716 (50%) are 4,500 sf or greater, and are eligible for a second unit. If the minimum lot size for second units is increased to 5,000 sf, the number of lots eligible for a second unit would decrease to 589 (41.5% of the R-1A lots). This would mean that 127 lots would no longer be eligible for a second unit.

Minimum separation between Main Buildings.

Existing standard: The R-1A does not have a building separation requirement between Main Buildings. Options: A. A distance requirement could be added to the R-1A district that is equal to the

R-2 and R-2A distance requirements (8 feet for one story, 12 feet for two stories and 16 feet for 3 stories);

B. A distance requirement that is specific to the R-1A district could be added; or C. The existing condition (no distance requirement) could be maintained. Impacts of building separation requirement: A distance requirement would limit the building envelope for a detached second unit. Often, the area between the units is used to provide required parking for one of the units; when this is the case, the distance between the Main Buildings is generally at least 12 feet wide in order to allow for a vehicle to maneuver into the space and allow passengers to access the vehicle.

Maximum height for second units.

Existing standard: Main Buildings can be 3 stories and 28 feet tall (35 feet with an AUP). There is no height distinction made between Main Buildings sharing a parcel. (Sections 23D.20.070.C and D)


Options: A. Limit the number of stories of second units in rear yards; B. Limit the height of second units in rear yards; or C. Do not have different height requirements for Main Buildings sharing a lot. Impacts of height restrictions: One of the primary concerns heard by staff regarding second units in the rear yard is the impact the height will have on neighboring properties. The taller the building, the greater the visual impact, and privacy and shadow impacts become a concern. Limiting a rear unit to one story would address those concerns, but has its own impacts. One story limits could lead to buildings with a larger footprint, up to the maximum 40% total lot coverage. Limiting a building to one story could also impact the ability to park a car for the rear unit on the property, as many units use a portion of the ground floor as an attached garage. Finally, a one-story limit could reduce the size of the second unit to the point where it is not significantly different from an ADU, making it a less viable option for property owners.

Side yard setbacks.

Existing standard: New dwelling units must be four feet from the side property lines. There is an exception for properties west of San Pablo Avenue, which can reduce the side yard with an AUP in order to construct a Dwelling Unit. Options: A. Increase side setbacks for second units in rear yards regardless of height; B. Increase side setbacks for second units in rear yards based on the height of

the unit; C. Remove the ability to reduce the side yard setback with an AUP; or D. Do not have different setback requirements for front and rear units. Impacts of increased side yard setbacks: Increasing side yard setbacks would push the second unit further away from neighbors to the left and right of the property, which are generally closest to new development. This could increase privacy for these neighbors and lead to a reduction in shadow impacts. Greater side setbacks would also allow for larger side yards which could allow more landscaping options to provide additional privacy for neighbors.

Rear yard setbacks.

Existing standard: New dwelling units must be twenty feet from the rear property line. There is an exception for properties west of San Pablo Avenue, which can reduce the rear yard with an AUP in order to construct a dwelling unit. Options: A. Remove the ability to reduce rear yard setbacks with an AUP; B. Allow rear yard setbacks to be reduced based on the height of the dwelling unit;

or C. Continue to allow unlimited reduced rear yard setbacks.


Impacts of reduction in rear yard setback flexibility: Prohibiting or restricting the reduction of rear yard setbacks could result in smaller building envelopes. This could lead to an increase in two-story second units in rear yards. It also limits the flexibility of staff or the Zoning Adjustments Board from considering reductions when surrounding development would not be impacted.

Aligning regulations throughout the R-1A District.

Existing standard: The R-1A is located in two discrete areas of the city: the residential area west of San Pablo Avenue, and a smaller area north of Gilman (Westbrae). The two areas were both originally zoned R-2 and R-4. Only the area west of San Pablo Avenue allows for an exception to side and rear setbacks with an Administrative Use Permit; the Westbrae area does not allow that option. Options: A. Modify setback requirements so that they are consist throughout the R-1A

District B. Maintain distinction between the Westbrae and west of San Pablo sections of

the district. Impacts of applying same regulations throughout the R-1A district: The only differences between the two sections are the flexibility of the side and rear setbacks. The impact of changes to development in both sections will depend on the actual changes adopted.

Staff Proposal Based on the analysis above, staff proposes the changes shown below. See Attachment 4 to see how these changes compare to the R-1 and R-2 development standards.

Existing ZO language Staff Proposed Changes

Minimum lot for second unit

4,500 sf 4,500 sf (no change)

Separation btw Main Buildings

None 12’, reduction with AUP

Maximum stories 3 2, no AUP to exceed

Average height 28’, up to 35’ with AUP 24’, no AUP for addl height

Side yard setbacks 4’, reduction with AUP 6’, no reduction

Rear yard setbacks 20’, reduction with AUP 20’, reduction with AUP, up to a limit of 12 feet

Apply to entire R-1A Different side and rear yard setbacks in area west of San

Pablo

No distinction between Westbrae and west of San

Pablo area


Lot size – Staff recommends keeping the minimum lot size for a second unit at 4,500 square feet. This will allow all property owners who currently could apply for a second unit to maintain that right. Building separation – Staff recommends a 12-foot building separation between Main Buildings, regardless of height. This separation could be reduced with an AUP, using the same findings as for allowing a reduction in the rear yard setback. Allowing this flexibility could allow the building to be placed further away from the rear yard setback or from other buildings, both on the subject property or on neighboring properties. Building height – Staff recommends limiting the rear Main Building to 2 stories, 24 feet average height, with no option to exceed either standard with an AUP. The 24-foot average height will allow for a pitched roof, while still being tall enough to allow for two full stories. This reduction could reduce the visual impact of the second unit from the street. Side setback – Staff recommends increasing the side yard setback for second units in the rear yard to 6 feet, with no option for a reduction with an AUP. The increased side yard setback, along with the height reduction, will reduce shadow impacts on neighboring properties and could reduce the visual impact of the second unit from neighboring properties. Rear yard setback – Staff recommends maintaining the 20-foot setback, and allowing a limited reduction up to 12 feet with an AUP for lots that are less than 120 feet deep. Some yards are only 100 feet deep, and will have a hard time adding a second unit without some flexibility. Alignment in R-1A – Staff recommends that all development standards apply to all properties in the R-1A district. All of the proposed changes would impact the west of San Pablo section of the R-1A district. The only changes that will impact the Westbrae section are the increased side yard setback, and the possibility of a rear yard setback with an AUP for a second unit. This could allow more area for a building envelope in that section of the R-1A district. Environmental Review The environmental impacts of regulating the development standards of a dwelling unit, from a CEQA standpoint, are not significant. CEQA is used to evaluate physical impacts resulting from changes in use and activity, such as increased development or traffic, on an identified area. The proposed Zoning Ordinance changes could reduce the size of second units allowed in R-1A districts. Depending on the changes selected, it could prevent second units from being considered on some lots based on the size or shape of the lot. For this reason, the project can be considered “exempt” from CEQA, per Section 15061.b.3, which states:


“…CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.”

Dutra Analysis Per Section 65863 of the California Planning and Zoning Code (Attachment 5), a legislative action that will reduce or permit the reduction of the residential density for any parcel to a lower residential density cannot be approved unless the City makes two written findings:

1. The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element; and

2. The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584.

While the changes proposed by staff could reduce the size of a second unit or could make it challenging for certain parcels to accommodate a second unit, it would not reduce the residential density for any parcel. In this case, the Dutra findings would be unnecessary. If other changes are proposed that would reduce the residential density of a parcel, staff would need to consider whether those changes would trigger a Dutra analysis. General Plan Review Staff has determined that no changes are necessary to the General Plan as a result of this draft zoning amendment. The proposed changes would add development standards designed for second units located at the rear of a property, while still allowing a building intensity of 10 – 20 dwelling units per net acre as permitted in the Low Medium Density Residential land use classification. The General Plan has specific policies that support these proposed zoning ordinance changes: 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-7 Neighborhood Quality of Life: Preserve and protect the quality of life in Berkeley’s residential areas through careful land use decisions. Action LU-7.A: Require that new development be consistent with zoning standards and compatible with the scale, historic character and surrounding uses in the area. Action LU-7.B: Carefully evaluate and monitor new and existing uses to minimize or eliminate negative impacts on adjacent residential uses.


Action LU-7.D: Strengthen Zoning Ordinance language to ensure greater protection of solar access to adjacent properties when new projects or additions are proposed. If other changes are proposed that would reduce the building intensity allowed in the R-1A district, staff would need to re-evaluate the consistency of those changes with the General Plan. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Consider the attached Zoning Ordinance language (Attachment 1);


3. Forward the approved zoning language to the Council for consideration.


ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Ordinance Language

2. Friends of R-1A proposal

3. John Newton proposal

4. Matrix of development standards in the R-1, R-1A, R-2 and R-2A Districts (see

January 18th matrix)

5. Section 65863 of the California Planning and Zoning Code (Dutra)


Item 10 – Attachment 1 Planning Commission

April 19, 2017

Proposed amendments to 23D.20.070 and .090 3-31-17


A. No lot of less than 5,000 square feet may be created.

B. No more than two Dwelling Units shall be allowed. In order to establish two Dwelling Units a lot must contain at least 4,500 square feet of area.

C. Each Main Building shall be limited in height as follows:


Main Building (front) 28* 3

Main Building (rear) 24 2

All Residential Additions

14** Not Applicable

* The Zoning Officer may issue an Administrative Use Permit to allow a single Main Buildings, or a second Main Building at the front of the property to exceed 28 feet in average height, up to 35 feet in average height ** The Zoning Officer may issue an Administrative Use Permit to allow residential additions to exceed 14 feet in average height, up to the district limit.

D. TheEach Main Building shall be set back from the respective lot lines as follows:

Yard location

Stories (number)

Front Rear* Side** Building separation

Main Building (front)

1-3 20 ft. 20 ft. 4 ft.** 12***

Main Building

(rear)

1-2 N/A 20 ft. 6 ft.

* See Sections 23D.20.070.D.1. and D.4 ** See Sections 23D.20.070.D.2, and D.3, and D.4 *** See Section 23D.20.070.D.5

1. On lots with one Dwelling Unit, Wwhen the depth of any lot is less than 100 feet,

the Rear Yard may be reduced to 20% of the lot depth.


Page 2/3


2. When the width of any lot is less than 40 feet, the width of each Side Yard for a Main Building at the front of a property may be reduced to 10% of the lot width, but in no case to less than three feet. No Side Yard setback reductions are permitted for rear Main Buildings.

3. The Side Yards on a Corner Lot shall be as follows:

a. On a Corner Lot, where there is a Key Lot to the rear thereof, the street Side Yard of the Corner Lot shall be not less than one-half the Front Yard required or existent on the Key Lot, whichever is smaller. This regulation shall not be applied so as to reduce the buildable area of the lot to a width of less than 20 feet, or to require the Side Yard to be in excess of ten feet.

b. Where a Rear Yard of not less than 50 feet in depth is maintained on a Corner Lot, adjacent to a Key Lot, the Side Yard may be reduced to four feet.

4. The required Rear Yard and/or Side Yard of a lot in those portions of the District west of San Pablo Avenue may be reduced to no less than 12 feet to construct a second Dwelling Unit at the rear of the property, subject to the required finding in Section 23D.20.090.C.

5. For two Main Buildings which contain Dwelling Units, the required building separation may be reduced subject to obtaining an Administrative Use Permit.

E. Maximum coverage may not exceed the following percentages:

1. 40% of the lot area for an Interior or Through Lot.

2. 45% of the lot area for a Corner Lot.

F. Each lot shall contain the following minimum usable open space area for each Dwelling Unit: 400 square feet. (Ord. 6949-NS § 5 (part), 2006: Ord. 6806-NS § 1, 2004: Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999)

Section 23D.20.090 Findings

A. In order to approve any Permit under this chapter, the Zoning Officer or Board must make the finding required by Section 23B.32.040. The Zoning Officer or Board must also make the findings required by the following paragraphs of this section to the extent applicable:

B. To deny a Use Permit for a major residential addition or residential addition subject to 23D.20.070 the Zoning Officer or Board must find that although the proposed residential addition satisfies all other standards of this Ordinance, the addition would unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air or views.

C. In those portions of the District west of San Pablo Avenue, tTo approve an application for reduction of a required Rear Yard, or a reduction in building


Page 3/3


separation interior Side Yard, or street Side Yard, the Zoning Officer or the Board must find that the unit would not cause a detrimental impact on emergency access; or on light, air or privacy for neighboring properties. (Ord. 7426-NS § 12, 2015: Ord. 6980-NS § 2 (part), 2007: Ord. 6763-NS § 11 (part), 2003: Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999)

Item 10 – Attachment 2 Planning Commission April 19, 2017

Recommendations from Friends of the R-1A Steering Committee: Ed Herzog, Susan Henderson, Toni Mester, Sara Shumer Monday March 27, 2017 The R-1A should be an intermediate zone between the R-1 and the R-2, not another version of the R-2. The current allowances are more generous than R-2, resulting in overcrowding of small lots with two large houses. The R-1A should allow one main building. The types of buildings are: A single -family residence

Standards: two stories to 24' average height, solar ready roof preferred. A single-family residence plus an ADU Standards: SFR as above, ADU current code On lots over 5,000 SF, additional types of main buildings are allowed: A stacked duplex Standards: 2 stories to 24' average height, solar ready roof preferred A side-by-side duplex Standards: 2 stories to 24' average height, solar ready roof preferred Standards for all the above options: Front, side, and rear setbacks same as R-1 Rationale for roof heights: the old uniform heights derive from the hills where the dimensions are necessary for a sloping grade. Many flatlands houses are one story, and most new projects that are sensitive to neighborhood scale are being built at two stories.

1

Greene, Elizabeth

From: John Newton <[email protected]>Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2017 8:18 AMTo: Greene, ElizabethSubject: some R-1A thoughts

Hi Beth

My thoughts for new detached rear units in the R-1A zone are: 1. Avg Ht: 24'

2. Stories: 2 3. first floor: min 4' side setback; second floor: min 6' side setback

4. building separation: first floor: min 8'; second floor: min 12' 5. min rear setback: 15'

6. max lot coverage: 40% 7. retain right to condo each unit for separate sale

8. no added restrictions based on minimum lot area or minimum frontage (max lot coverage and setbacks already limit this)

9. no maximum size limit (max lot coverage and setbacks already limit this) 10. provide standard parking (min 1 space)

11. provide standard usable open space (min 400 SF per unit)

some questions arise: what if units are considered "attached"; what if you have two side

by side units? how do you define "rear" etc.....

Let me know if you have any other questions etc Thanks

John


April 19, 2017

Co

mp

aris

on

of

Dev

elo

pm

en

t St

and

ard

s an

d P

rop

ose

d R

-1A

sta

nd

ard

s (4

-19

-17

)

R-1

R-1

A (

exi

stin

g)R

-1A

(p

rop

ose

d -

ne

w la

ngu

age

in

bo

ld)

R-2

R-2

A

Sin

gle

-Fam

ily R

esi

de

nti

alLi

mit

ed

Tw

o-F

amily

Re

sid

en

tial

Lim

ite

d t

wo

Fam

ily R

esi

de

nti

alR

est

rict

ed

Tw

o-F

amily

Re

sid

en

tial

Re

stri

cte

d M

ult

iple

-Fam

ily

Re

sid

en

tial

Dis

tric

t P

rovi

sio

ns

Ge

ne

ral P

lan

De

sign

atio

nLo

w D

ensi

ty R

esid

enti

alLo

w M

ediu

m D

ensi

ty R

esid

enti

alLo

w M

ediu

m D

ensi

ty R

esid

enti

alLo

w M

ediu

m D

ensi

ty R

esid

enti

alM

ediu

m D

ensi

ty R

esid

enia

l

Allo

ws

add

itio

nal

mai

n

dw

elli

ng

un

its?

NO

YES

, lim

ited

to

tw

o u

nit

sYE

S, li

mit

ed t

o t

wo

un

its

YES

, lim

it b

ased

on

lot

size

YES

, lim

it b

ased

on

lot

size

Min

imu

m L

ot

size

fo

r

mo

re t

han

on

e u

nit

N/A

5,0

00

sq

. ft.

5,0

00

sq

. ft.

5,0

00

sq

. ft.

5,0

00

sq

. ft.

Min

imu

m U

seab

le

Op

en

Sp

ace

40

0 s

q. f

t. /

dw

ellin

g u

nit

40

0 s

q. f

t. /

dw

ellin

g u

nit

40

0 s

q. f

t. /

dw

ellin

g u

nit

40

0 s

q. f

t. /

dw

ellin

g u

nit

30

0 s

q. f

t. /

dw

ellin

g u

nit

Max

imu

m L

ot

Co

vera

ge4

0%

: all

typ

es o

f lo

ts4

0%

: In

teri

or

and

Th

rou

gh L

ots

45

%: C

orn

er L

ot

40

%: I

nte

rio

r an

d T

hro

ugh

Lo

ts

45

%: C

orn

er L

ot

35

% t

o 5

0%

, dep

end

ing

on

th

e m

ain

bu

ildin

g h

eigh

t, w

het

her

inte

rio

r,

thro

ugh

, or

corn

er lo

t. D

oes

n't

say

wh

at t

o d

o w

ith

mu

ltip

le m

ain

bu

ildin

gs

35

% t

o 5

0%

, dep

end

ing

on

th

e

mai

n b

uild

ing

hei

ght,

wh

eth

er

inte

rio

r, t

hro

ugh

, or

corn

er lo

t.

Do

esn

't s

ay w

hat

to

do

wit

h

mu

ltip

le m

ain

bu

ildin

gs

1 d

wel

ling

un

it p

er p

arce

l 2

dw

ellin

g u

nit

s p

er p

arce

l hav

ing

a

min

imu

m o

f 4

,50

0 s

q. f

t.

2 d

wel

ling

un

its

per

par

cel h

avin

g a

min

imu

m o

f 4

,50

0 s

q. f

t.

1 d

wel

ling

un

it p

er 2

,50

0 s

q. f

t., p

lus

1

if r

emai

nin

g lo

t ar

ea is

> 2

,00

0 s

q. f

t.

1 d

wel

ling

un

it p

er 1

,65

0 s

q. f

t.,

plu

s 1

if r

emai

nin

g lo

t ar

ea is

>

1,3

00

sq

. ft.

Exam

ple

: 1 d

wel

ling

un

it o

n a

5,0

00

sq

. ft.

lot

Exam

ple

: 2 d

wel

ling

un

its

on

a 5

,00

0

sq. f

t. lo

t

Exam

ple

: 2 d

wel

ling

un

its

on

a 5

,00

0

sq. f

t. lo

t

Exam

ple

: 2 d

wel

ling

un

its

on

a 5

,00

0

sq. f

t. lo

t

Exam

ple

: 3 d

wel

ling

un

its

on

a

5,0

00

sq

. ft.

lot

Ave

rage

He

igh

t Li

mit

s2

8'

/ 3

5' w

ith

an

AU

P2

8'

/ 3

5' w

ith

an

AU

P

28

' / 3

5 '

wit

h a

n A

UP

fo

r fr

on

t

dw

elli

ng

un

it

24

' fo

r re

ar s

eco

nd

un

it

28

' /

35

' wit

h a

n A

UP

28

' /

35

' wit

h a

n A

UP

Flo

or

Are

a/Si

ze L

imit

sN

on

eN

on

eN

on

eN

on

eN

on

e

Max

imu

m S

tori

es

33

3 f

or

fro

nt

dw

elli

ng

un

it, 2

fo

r se

con

d

un

it in

re

ar y

ard

33

Setb

acks

: Fr

on

t2

0'

20

' 2

0'

20

' 1

5'

Setb

acks

: R

ear

20

'

20

' (I

f w

est

of

San

Pab

lo, r

edu

ctio

n

per

mit

ted

to

co

nst

ruct

a M

ain

Bu

ildin

g, w

ith

AU

P a

nd

sp

ecia

l no

n-

det

rim

ent

fin

din

g)

20

' (r

ed

uct

ion

up

to

12

' se

tbac

k

pe

rmit

ted

to

co

ntr

act

a M

ain

Bu

ildin

g, w

ith

AU

P a

nd

sp

eci

al n

on

-

de

trim

en

t fi

nd

ing)

20

' (r

edu

ctio

n p

erm

itte

d t

o c

on

stru

ct

a ad

dit

ion

al m

ain

dw

ellin

gs w

ith

AU

P)

15

'

Dw

elli

ng

Un

it

De

velo

pm

en

t

Stan

dar

ds

Nu

mb

er

of

Dw

elli

ng

Un

its


April 19, 2017

Co

mp

aris

on

of

Dev

elo

pm

en

t St

and

ard

s an

d P

rop

ose

d R

-1A

sta

nd

ard

s (4

-19

-17

)

Setb

acks

: si

de

4'

4' (

If w

est

of

San

Pab

lo, r

edu

ctio

n

per

mit

ted

to

co

nst

ruct

a m

ain

bu

ildin

g,

wit

h A

UP

an

d s

pec

ial n

on

-det

rim

ent

fin

din

g)

4' f

or

fro

nt

dw

elli

ng

un

it

6' f

or

seco

nd

un

it in

re

ar y

ard

4'

(fo

r 3

rd f

loo

r --

6' s

epar

atio

n)

4' (

for

3rd

flo

or

-- 6

' sep

arat

ion

)

Bu

ildin

g Se

par

atio

nn

ot

spec

ifie

dn

ot

spec

ifie

d

12

' (re

du

ctio

n p

erm

itte

d w

ith

an

AU

P)

Spec

ifie

d: 8

' fo

r 1

-sto

ry, 1

2' f

or

2-

sto

ries

, 16

' fo

r 3

-sto

ries

Spec

ifie

d: 8

' fo

r 1

-sto

ry, 1

2' f

or

2-

sto

ries

, 16

' fo

r 3

-sto

ries

Par

kin

g1

sp

ace/

un

it1

sp

ace/

un

it1

sp

ace/

un

it1

sp

ace/

un

it1

sp

ace/

un

it


April 19, 2017

P L A NNI NG

C O M M I S S I O N


April 19, 2017

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7490 E-mail: [email protected]

Amendments to Create Development Standards Specific to Second Dwelling Units in the Limited Two-Family Residential (R-1A)

District

The Planning Commission, of the City of Berkeley, will hold a Public Hearing on the above matter, on Wednesday, April 19, 2017, at the North Berkeley Senior Center, 1901 Hearst Ave. (at Martin Luther King, Jr. Way), Berkeley, California (wheelchair accessible). The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amend Chapter 23D.20 (Limited Two-Family Residential (R-1A) District) to create development standards specific to second dwelling units and amend findings. The development standards to be considered are lot size, height of detached second units, rear and side yard setbacks for detached second units, and distance between main buildings.

LOCATION: R-1A Limited Two-Family Residential District, which are located in two areas: 1) west of San Pablo Avenue, and 2) north of Hopkins Street. A map of the City’s zoning districts is available online: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=6474.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: The proposed changes would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendments to add development standards to second dwelling units would not have a significant effect on the environment. Any proposed discretionary project would be subject to CEQA review. No new uses are proposed to be established or eliminated. No changes to existing development standards or development potential are proposed.

PUBLIC COMMENT & FURTHER INFORMATION

Comments may be made verbally at the Public Hearing, and in writing before the hearing. Those wishing to speak at the hearing must submit a speaker card. Written comments or questions concerning this project should be directed to:

Alex Amoroso Planning Commission Secretary E-mail: [email protected] City of Berkeley Telephone: (510) 981-7520 Land Use Planning Division 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704

To assure distribution to Commission members prior to the meeting, correspondence must be received by 12:00 noon, seven (7) days before the meeting. For items with more than ten (10) pages, fifteen (15) copies must be submitted to the Secretary by this deadline. For any item


April 19, 2017

http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/ContentDisplay.aspx?id=6474

Creating Development Standards for Second Units in the R-1A District NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGPage 2 of 2 April 19, 2017

submitted less than seven (7) days before the meeting, fifteen (15) copies must be submitted to the Secretary prior to the meeting date.



FURTHER INFORMATION

Questions should be directed to Alex Amoroso, at 981-7520, or [email protected].


Item 11 – Attachment 3 Planning Commission July 19, 2017 Item 13 May 17, 2017


STAFF REPORT DATE: May 17, 2017 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Elizabeth Greene, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Public Hearing Continued from 4/19/17: Zoning Requirements for Second

Dwelling Units in the R-1A District

RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the City Council amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to set specific development standards for second Dwelling Units in the R-1A District. BACKGROUND The R-1A District allows for second Dwelling Units (“second units”) as well as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU). Both the City Council and Zoning Adjustments Board have asked for guidance regarding the size of second units and the relationship to the existing residence on the lot. This subject has been brought up in Council referrals on September 21, 2010, and July 14, 2015, and a letter from ZAB to the City Council and the Planning Commission on March 31, 2016.

On April 19, 2017, the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to set specific development standards for second Dwelling Units in the R-1A District. The changes focused on the following R-1A development standards and that would be applied throughout the district:


Staff provided options and recommendations for amendments to these developments standards, as well as for aligning the regulations in the Westbrae and west of San Pablo portions of the district. Most of the proposed changes were designed to apply to second Dwelling Units built in a rear yard, rather than both units on the property. See the April 19th staff report (Attachment 2) for the options, analysis and recommendations.

Zoning Requirements for Second Units Item 13 Page 2 of 4 May 17, 2017

DISCUSSION Additional Research At the April 19, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission requested additional information related to two issues:

1. The number of lots that would be impacted by increasing the minimum lot size for second units to 5,000 sf; and

2. The number of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) that have been built in Berkeley. 3. Options for reducing a front yard setback.

Lots that would be impacted by an increased minimum lot size for second units.

Staff researched the lots that had been identified as larger than 4,500 sf and smaller than 5,000 sf. Of these 127 lots, 11 had been developed with at least one additional unit, either a second Dwelling Unit or an ADU. For more detailed information and the methodology used to determine this figure, see Attachment 3.

ADUs in Berkeley. ADU regulations have changed significantly over the past three years. Based on state requirements and Council direction, the regulations have changed to make it easier for property owners to build ADUs without discretionary review. Staff reviewed building permits and AUP applications from 2012 through 2017. This allowed staff to count applications for “by-right” ADUs, and those ADUs that required discretionary review. The total applications by year are shown below:

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 (partial)

ADU applications

14 11 7 10 18 4

For more detailed information, see Attachment 4.

Staff Considerations and Analysis The Planning Commission already requested staff to evaluate options for reducing front yard setbacks. The staff analysis is included below.

Existing standard: New dwellings must be 20 feet from the front property line. There are exceptions that allow architectural features, such as uncovered stairs and porches to extend up to six feet into a required front yard. The Planning Commission expressed interest in considering reduced front yard setbacks in order to allow more open space in the rear yard and flexibility in positioning a second dwelling.

Zoning Requirements for Second Units Item 13 Page 3 of 4 May 17, 2017

Options: A. Allow reduced front yard setbacks with an AUP if the reduction will allow a rear

yard setback that is larger than required; or B. Do not change the front yard setback requirement. Potential Issues of a modified front yard setback:

Reducing the front yard setback would create a different standard in the R-1A than in other districts. Only the R-S and R-SMU (higher density districts) allow reduced front yards in cases when a smaller setback is appropriate given the setback and architectural design of surrounding buildings.

In most cases, the front yard setback has already been established by an existing Dwelling Unit. Reducing the front setback is generally not feasible with an existing building, and could result in more teardowns of existing Dwelling Units.

In cases where the front Dwelling Unit is demolished, allowing the replacement structure to be placed closer to the front of the lot could provide some additional space in the rear yard.

Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends no change to the front yard setback requirements, since this would be unique to the R-1A and could provide additional incentive to demolish existing Dwelling Units. Reductions to front yard setbacks could be considered as part of a comprehensive review of the residential districts.

CONCLUSION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission:

1. Consider the research and recommendation included with this report;

2. Consider attached Zoning Ordinance language from the April 19, 2017 meeting (Attachment 1);

3. Consider other options put forward by other Commissioners and the public;


5. Forward the approved zoning language to the Council for consideration.


ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Ordinance Language (from April 19, 2017 staff report)

2. April 19, 2017 staff report and attachments

3. Chart showing development of R-1A lot between 4,500 sf and 5,000 sf

4. Chart of ADU applications, 2012 – 2017

23D.04.050 Usable Open Space

The area of each lot which is reserved for Usable Open Space purposes shall be for active or passive recreation

use and shall be accessible to the occupants of the building, unless otherwise specified in individual District

standards. In addition, such areas shall satisfy the following conditions.

A. No area shall qualify as usable open space unless it has a minimum width and length of ten feet, except

that no balcony area may used to satisfy a usable open space requirement unless it has a minimum width and

length of six feet and has at least one exterior side open and unobstructed except for required railings.

B. No more than 50% of the total usable open space required may be satisfied by balconies.

C. An area which is accessible and/or usable only by the occupants of a particular dwelling unit shall be used

to satisfy the usable open space area requirements of only that particular dwelling unit.

D. Except in the case of balconies, usable open space shall be at least 75% open to the sky.

E. No area which exceeds 8% grade shall qualify as usable open space.

F. At least 40% of the total area required as usable open space, exclusive of balconies above the first floor,

shall be a landscaped area. For multiple dwelling uses, such landscaped areas shall incorporate automatic

irrigation and drainage facilities adequate to assure healthy growing conditions for plants.

G. Any usable open space which is not planted shall be developed to encourage outdoor active or passive

recreational use and shall include such elements as decks, sports courts, outdoor seating, decorative paved

areas and walkways which do not serve as entrance walkways.

H. Areas of the lot which do not qualify as usable open space and which are not designated as driveways, off-

street parking spaces or required walkways, shall be retained as landscaped areas.

I. No area designated for off-street parking and loading areas, service areas, driveways, required walkways or

portions thereof or any features that are used for required access to dwelling units, shall be counted as

satisfying any usable open space area requirement. (Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999)

The Berkeley Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 7546-NS, passed May 30, 2017.

Berkeley 23D.04.050 Usable Open Space Page 1 of 1


July 19, 2017

Item 11 - Attachment 5

Planning Commission

July 19, 2017

Address Lot AreaExisting Gross

Floor Area

Existing

FAR

Proposed Gross

Floor Area

Proposed

FAR

908 Cedar

Street5,397 732 .14

front: 1,854

rear: 1,883 total:

3,737

.69

2212 Tenth

Street5,200 1,080 .21

front: 1,644 rear:

1,959 total:

3,603*

.75

1737 Tenth

Street4,545 1,434 .32

front: 1,434

rear: 1,344

total: 2,778

.61

1651 Tenth 4,902 1,043 .21

front: 1,524

rear: 1,621

total: 3,145

.64

1016-1018

Jones Street5,610 974 .17

front: 1,488 rear:

1,019 total: 2,507.45

Methodology Used:

The list below reflects the five most recent projects in the R1-A that went to ZAB and

that proposed building a second unit at the property. Lot Area, Existing Gross Floor

Area, and Proposed Gross Floor Area were pulled from staff reports for these ZAB

meetings. Based on these numbers, Existing and Proposed FAR percentages were

calculated. The values determined for FAR, below, assume that the

Existing/Proposed Floor Areas do not include covered or uncovered areas used for

off-street parking spaces or areas that qualify as usable open space. This

information was cross-checked by looking at plans for each of the properties.

Floor Area Ratios for Properties in the R1-A with Proposed Second Units

*Proposed Gross Floor Area for the front unit was listed as 1,839 sf. The proposed 195

sf attached garage was subtracted from the Gross Floor Area of the front unit. Thus, the

total proposed Gross Floor Area for both properties ends up being 3,603 sf.

City Name Height* AngleLocation of

Measurement Point*

Los AltosLots greater than 70': 11'

Lots less than 70': 19'25

o

Lots greater than 70':

Side property line

Lots less than 70':

Second story setback line

Menlo Park

a. 12'-6" (one-story designs in

R-1-S & R-1-U);

b. 19'-6" (two-story designs in

R-1-S & R-1-U );

c. 19'6" (R-E, R-E-S and R-2)

45o Side setback line

Palo Alto 10' 45o Side lot line

Piedmont25' or above second story,

whichever is lower45

o Side setback

San Leandro 19'6" 45o Side property line

San Mateo 12' 45o Side property line

*Each City has different development standards dependent on lot width, slope of lot, etc. The information here

shows what conforms most to Berkeley's lots in the R-1A. For information on all the different possible iterations

of dimensions, see the ordinances attached with this page.

Examples of Daylight Plane Ordinance Language


July 19, 2017

LOS ALTOS

Chapter 14.06: R1-10 Single Family District

14.06.100 Daylight plane (R1-10).

No structure shall extend above or beyond a daylight plane as follows: A. For lots seventy (70) feet or greater in width, the daylight plane starts at a height of eleven (11) feet at each side property line and at an angle of twenty-five (25) degrees from the horizontal; B. On a lot, which is less seventy (70) feet in width or its entire length, the plane starts at a height of nineteen (19) feet at each second story setback line and proceeds inward at an angle of twenty-five (25) degrees; C. On a site where the grade slopes greater than ten (10) percent from side property line to side property line, the daylight plane at the lower side property line shall be measured from a point equal to the average elevation of the site and proceed inward at an angle of twenty-five (25) degrees; D. An extension of an existing gable roof may project over or beyond the daylight plane when it is determined by the city planner that such projection is necessary to maintain the architectural integrity of the structure; E. Television and radio antennas, chimneys, and other similar appurtenances may project above the daylight plane as provided for in Section 14.66.250. (Ord. 07-312 § 5 (part); Ord. 04-267 § 2 (part))

MENLO PARK

Chapter 16.67: DAYLIGHT PLANES* 16.67.010 Daylight planes in R-E, R-E-S and R-2 zoning districts: Daylight planes for the main dwelling unit are established for each lot as follows: (1) Daylight Plane. A daylight plane shall begin at a horizontal line at a certain distance directly above each side setback line of each lot and shall slope inwards at a forty-five (45) degree angle. The distance between the side setback line and the horizontal line directly above it shall be nineteen (19) feet, six (6) inches above the grade of the side setback line. For an addition to an existing structure, such distance shall be the higher of:

(A) Nineteen (19) feet, six (6) inches above the grade of the side setback line; or (B) Eighteen (18) feet above the underside of the actual first floor, measured at the side wall, or twenty (20) feet, six (6) inches above the grade of the sidewall, whichever is lower.

As used in this section, an "addition to an existing structure" does not include construction over a new foundation or construction cantilevered beyond a new or existing foundation, "grade of the side wall" means the average grade of the highest and lowest points of the natural grade of the portion of the lot covered by the side wall, and "grade of the side setback line" means the average grade of the highest and lowest points of the natural grade of the portion of the lot directly below the side setback line. No portion of the structure shall intrude beyond the daylight plane except for dormers and gables as provided in subsection (2) of this section and chimneys, vents, flues and solar collectors. (2) Gable and Dormer Intrusions. Gables and dormers may intrude into the daylight plane of a lot that is ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less. The permitted intrusion shall decrease on an even gradient from ten feet (10') in the case of a five foot (5’) required side setback to no permitted intrusion in the case of an eight foot (8') required side setback. Thus the permitted intrusion will be six feet (6'), eight inches (8") in the case of a six foot (6') required side setback, five feet (5') in the case of a six and one-half foot (6.5") required side setback, and three feet (3'), four inches (4") in the case of a seven foot (7') required side setback. Calculations of the permitted

intrusion shall include fractional computations when necessary to maintain the even gradient. Gables and dormers may intrude into the daylight plane on one (1) side of a lot only. The gable or dormer must not extend beyond a triangle described as follows:

(A) The base of the triangle is the line formed by the intersection of the building wall with the daylight plane; (B) The aggregate length of the bases of all triangles intruding into a daylight plane shall not exceed thirty feet (30'); and (C) The triangle must be entirely within the maximum building height. (Ord. 1006 § 18 (part), 2014; Ord. 938 § 8 (part), 2005).

16.67.020 Daylight planes in R-1-S and R-1-U zoning districts.

Daylight planes for the main dwelling unit are established for each lot as follows: (1) Daylight Plane. A daylight plane shall begin at a horizontal line at a certain distance directly above each side

setback line of each lot and shall slope inwards at a forty-five (45) degree angle. The distance between the side setback line and the horizontal line directly above it shall be as follows:

(A) Single-story development: twelve (12) feet, six (6) inches above the grade of the side setback line; (B) Development of two or more stories: nineteen (19) feet, six (6) inches above the grade of the side

setback line. For an addition to an existing structure, such distance shall be the higher of:

(i) Nineteen (19) feet, six (6) inches above the grade of the side setback line; or (ii) Eighteen (18) feet above the underside of the actual first floor, measured at the side wall, or twenty (20) feet, six (6) inches above the grade of the side wall, whichever is lower.

As used in this section, an "addition to an existing structure" does not include construction over a new foundation or construction cantilevered beyond a new or existing foundation, "grade of the side wall" means the average grade of the highest and lowest points of the natural grade of the portion of the lot covered by the side wall, and "grade of the side setback line" means the average grade of the highest and lowest points of the natural grade of the portion of the lot directly below the side setback line. No portion of the structure shall intrude beyond the daylight plane except for dormers and gables as provided in subsection (2) of this section and chimneys, vents, flues and solar collectors . (2) Gable and Dormer Intrusions. Gables and dormers may intrude into the daylight plane of a lot as follows:

(A) Single-story development: no permitted gable or dormer intrusions. (B) Development of two (2) or more stories: gables and dormers may intrude into the daylight plane of a lot that is ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less. The permitted intrusion shall decrease on an even gradient from ten feet (10') in the case of a five foot (5') required side setback to no permitted intrusion in the case of an eight foot (8') required side setback. Thus the permitted intrusion will be six feet (6'), eight inches (8") in the case of a six foot (6') required side setback, five feet (5') in the case of a six and one-half foot (6.5') required side setback, and three feet (3'), four inches (4") in the case of a seven foot (7') required side setback. Calculations of the permitted intrusion shall include fractional computations when necessary to maintain the even gradient. Gables and dormers may intrude into the daylight plane on one (1) side of a lot only. The gable or dormer must not extend beyond a triangle described as follows:

(i) The base of the triangle is the line formed by the intersection of the building wall with the daylight plane; (ii) The aggregate length of the bases of all triangles intruding into a daylight plane shall not exceed thirty feet (30'); and (iii) The triangle must be entirely within the maximum building height. (Ord. 1006 § 18 (part), 2014; Ord. 938 § 8 (part), 2005).

PALO ALTO

18.04.030 Definitions:

(44) “Daylight plane” is intended to provide for light and air, and to limit the impacts of bulk and mass on adjacent properties. “Daylight plane” means a height limitation that, when combined with the maximum height limit, defines the building envelope within which all new structures or additions must be contained. The daylight plane is an inclined plane, beginning at a stated height above average grade, as depicted in the development standards for each zone district, and extending into the site at a stated upward angle to the horizontal up to the maximum height limit. The average grade, for the purpose of determining the daylight plane, is the average of the grade at the midpoint of the building and the grade at the closest point on the abutting lot line. The daylight plane may further limit the height or horizontal extent of the building at any specific point where the daylight plane is more restrictive than the height limit applicable at such point on the site. The daylight plane shall be measured separately for each building on a lot, and separately for each side of each building.

PIEDMONT

Chapter 17: Planning and Land Use (Page 103) Daylight plane means a height limitation that when combined with the maximum height limit, defines the maximum building envelope. A new structure or addition must fall within this envelope. The daylight plane is measured from grade at the required side setback, up a distance of 25 feet or above the second story, whichever is lower, and inward toward the center of the property at an angle of 45 degrees.

SAN LEANDRO

2-537: Daylight Planes in R Districts

Daylight Planes are intended to provide for light and air, and to limit the impacts of bulk and mass on adjacent properties. “Daylight Plane” means a height limitation that, when combined with the maximum height limit, defines the building envelope within which all new structures or additions must be contained. The daylight plane may further limit the height or horizontal extent of the building at any specific point where the daylight plane is more restrictive than the height limit applicable at such point on the site. The daylight plane shall be measured separately for each building on a lot, and separately for each side of each building.

A. Applicability. Daylight planes are established for lots zoned RS, RS-40, RS-VP, RO, RD.

B. Daylight Plane. A daylight plane shall begin at a horizontal line 19 feet, 6 inches above the grade of each

side setback line of each lot and shall slope inwards at a 45 degree angle. (Please refer to Residential

Daylight Plane illustration).

No portion of the structure shall intrude beyond the daylight plane except as provided for in Section 4-1654

Building Projections into Yards and Courts.

C. Exceptions. Exceptions may be granted with administrative approval by the Zoning Enforcement Official

(per Section 5-574, as amended).

(Ord. 2007-001 § 1)

SAN MATEO

Chapter 27.18.R1 DISTRICTS—ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS

27.18.050 BUILDING HEIGHT AND DAYLIGHT PLANE.

(b) Daylight plane. No structure shall extend above or beyond a daylight plane having a height of twelve (12) feet at each side property line and extending into the parcel at an angle of forty-five (45) degrees, with the following encroachments allowed:

(1) Television and radio antennas, chimneys, flues, eaves, or skylights;

(2) Dormers or similar architectural features, provided that the horizontal length of all such features shall not exceed a

combined total of fifteen (15) feet on each side, measured along the intersection with the daylight plane;

(3) Gables or similar architectural features, provided that the horizontal length of all such features shall not exceed

a combined total of eighteen (18) feet on each side, measured along the intersection with the daylight plane, and

provided that the intersection of the gable with the daylight plane closest to the front property line is along the

roof line;

(4) Where the finished first floor of an existing dwelling is more than three (3) feet above existing grade and is being

extended by an addition, the initial height of the daylight plane shall be fourteen (14) feet;

(5) Where the slope of a parcel measured between the side property lines at the front setback is fifteen percent (15%)

or steeper, the initial height of the daylight plane shall be fourteen (14) feet on the downhill side of the parcel; and

(6) Where the slope of a parcel measured between the front and rear most points of the structure is fifteen percent

(15%) or steeper, the daylight plane shall be measured at the front setback line and each thirty (30) feet thereafter,

and the height limits established at these points shall be extended horizontally to the next measurement point.

(Ord. 2000-2 § 6, 2000; Ord. 1992-16 § 10, 1992).

Co

mp

aris

on

of

Dev

elo

pm

en

t St

and

ard

s fo

r C

ity

of

Ber

kele

y D

istr

icts

R-1

R-1

AR

-2R

-2A

Sin

gle

-Fam

ily R

esi

de

nti

alLi

mit

ed

Tw

o-F

amily

Re

sid

en

tial

Re

stri

cte

d T

wo

-Fam

ily R

esi

de

nti

alR

est

rict

ed

Mu

ltip

le-F

amily

Re

sid

en

tial

Dis

tric

t

Pro

visi

on

s

Ge

ne

ral P

lan

De

sign

atio

nLo

w D

ensi

ty R

esid

enti

alLo

w M

ediu

m D

ensi

ty R

esid

enti

alLo

w M

ediu

m D

ensi

ty R

esid

enti

alM

ediu

m D

ensi

ty R

esid

enia

l

Allo

ws

add

itio

nal

mai

n

dw

elli

ng

un

its?

NO

YES

, lim

ited

to

tw

o u

nit

sY

ES, l

imit

bas

ed o

n lo

t si

zeY

ES, l

imit

bas

ed o

n lo

t si

ze

Min

imu

m L

ot

size

fo

r

mo

re t

han

on

e u

nit

N/A

5,0

00

sq

. ft.

5,0

00

sq

. ft.

5,0

00

sq

. ft.

Min

imu

m U

seab

le

Op

en

Sp

ace

40

0 s

q. f

t. /

dw

ellin

g u

nit

40

0 s

q. f

t. /

dw

ellin

g u

nit

40

0 s

q. f

t. /

dw

ellin

g u

nit

30

0 s

q. f

t. /

dw

ellin

g u

nit

Max

imu

m L

ot

Co

vera

ge4

0%

: all

typ

es o

f lo

ts4

0%

: In

teri

or

and

Th

rou

gh L

ots

45

%: C

orn

er L

ot

35

% t

o 5

0%

, dep

end

ing

on

th

e m

ain

bu

ildin

g

hei

ght,

wh

eth

er in

teri

or,

th

rou

gh, o

r co

rner

lot.

Do

esn

't s

ay w

hat

to

do

wit

h m

ult

iple

mai

n

bu

ildin

gs

35

% t

o 5

0%

, dep

end

ing

on

th

e m

ain

bu

ildin

g h

eigh

t,

wh

eth

er in

teri

or,

th

rou

gh, o

r co

rner

lot.

Do

esn

't s

ay

wh

at t

o d

o w

ith

mu

ltip

le m

ain

bu

ildin

gs

1 d

wel

ling

un

it p

er p

arce

l 2

dw

ellin

g u

nit

s p

er p

arce

l hav

ing

a m

inim

um

of

4,5

00

sq

. ft.

1 d

wel

ling

un

it p

er 2

,50

0 s

q. f

t., p

lus

1 if

rem

ain

ing

lot

area

is >

2,0

00

sq

. ft.

1 d

wel

ling

un

it p

er 1

,65

0 s

q. f

t., p

lus

1 if

rem

ain

ing

lot

area

is >

1,3

00

sq

. ft.

Exam

ple

: 1 d

wel

ling

un

it o

n a

5,0

00

sq

. ft.

lot

Exam

ple

: 2 d

wel

ling

un

its

on

a 5

,00

0 s

q. f

t. lo

tEx

amp

le: 2

dw

ellin

g u

nit

s o

n a

5,0

00

sq

. ft.

lot

Exam

ple

: 3 d

wel

ling

un

its

on

a 5

,00

0 s

q. f

t. lo

t

Ave

rage

He

igh

t Li

mit

s2

8'

/ 3

5' w

ith

an

AU

P2

8'

/ 3

5' w

ith

an

AU

P2

8'

/ 3

5' w

ith

an

AU

P2

8'

/ 3

5' w

ith

an

AU

P

Max

imu

m S

tori

es

33

33

Setb

acks

: Fr

on

t2

0'

20

' 2

0'

15

'

Setb

acks

: R

ear

20

'

20

' (I

f w

est

of

San

Pab

lo, r

edu

ctio

n p

erm

itte

d

to c

on

stru

ct a

mai

n b

uild

ing,

wit

h A

UP

an

d

spec

ial n

on

-det

rim

ent

fin

din

g)

20

' (r

edu

ctio

n p

erm

itte

d t

o c

on

stru

ct a

add

itio

nal

mai

n d

wel

lings

wit

h A

UP

)1

5'

Setb

acks

: si

de

Item

11

- A

ttac

hm

ent

7

4' (

If w

est

of

San

Pab

lo, r

edu

ctio

n p

erm

itte

d t

o

con

stru

ct a

mai

n b

uild

ing,

wit

h A

UP

an

d s

pec

ial

no

n-d

etri

men

t fi

nd

ing)

4'

(fo

r 3

rd f

loo

r --

6' s

epar

atio

n)

4' (

for

3rd

flo

or

-- 6

' sep

arat

ion

)

Bu

ildin

g Se

par

atio

nP

l;an

nin

g C

om

mis

sio

nn

ot

spec

ifie

d

Spec

ifie

d: 8

' fo

r 1

-sto

ry, 1

2' f

or

2-s

tori

es, 1

6'

for

3-s

tori

es

Spec

ifie

d: 8

' fo

r 1

-sto

ry, 1

2' f

or

2-s

tori

es, 1

6' f

or

3-

sto

ries

FAR

Lim

its

No

ne

No

ne

No

ne

Day

ligh

t P

lan

e

No

ne

No

ne

No

ne

No

ne

Dw

elli

ng

Un

it

De

velo

pm

en

t

Stan

dar

ds

Nu

mb

er

of

Dw

elli

ng

Un

its


July 19, 2017

P L A NNI NG

C O M M I S S I O N


July 19, 2017

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7490 E-mail: [email protected]

Amendments to Development Standards in the Limited Two-Family Residential (R-1A) District

The Planning Commission, of the City of Berkeley, will hold a Public Hearing on the above matter, on Wednesday, July 19, 2017, at the North Berkeley Senior Center, 1901 Hearst Ave. (at Martin Luther King, Jr. Way), Berkeley, California (wheelchair accessible). The meeting starts at 7:00 p.m.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Amend development standards and possibly findings in Chapter 23D.20 (Limited Two-Family Residential (R-1A) District). The development standard changes to be considered are: 1. Increasing minimum lot size required for a second unit from 4,500 sf to 5,000 sf; 2. Reducing height of detached second units in rear yards to 1 story and/or 14’ average height; 3. Increasing open space requirement; 4. Increasing side-yard setbacks; 5. Creating a building setback requirement; 6. Developing options for front yard setback reduction; 7. Increasing rear yard setback; 8. Eliminating differences in development standards between R-1A areas; 9. Reducing maximum lot coverage 10. Creating a Floor-Area-Ratio (FAR) standard for the R-1A District; 11. Developing daylight plane standards to limit shadow impacts; and 12. Allowing exceptions to any of these development standards with an AUP or UP.

LOCATION: R-1A Limited Two-Family Residential District, which is located in two areas: 1) west of San Pablo Avenue, and 2) north of Hopkins Street. A map of the City’s zoning districts is available online: http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/IT/Level_3_-_General/Zoning%20Map%2036x36%2020050120.pdf.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW STATUS: The proposed changes would be exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that the proposed amendments to amend development standards in the R-1A District would not have a significant effect on the environment. Any proposed discretionary project would be subject to CEQA review. No new uses are proposed to be established or eliminated. No changes to development potential are proposed.

PUBLIC COMMENT & FURTHER INFORMATION

Comments may be made verbally at the Public Hearing, and in writing before the hearing. Those wishing to speak at the hearing must submit a speaker card. Written comments or questions concerning this project should be directed to:


July 19, 2017

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/IT/Level_3_-_General/Zoning%20Map%2036x36%2020050120.pdf

http://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedFiles/IT/Level_3_-_General/Zoning%20Map%2036x36%2020050120.pdf

Creating Development Standards for Second Units in the R-1A District NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGPage 2 of 2 July 19, 2017

Alex Amoroso Planning Commission Secretary E-mail: [email protected] City of Berkeley Telephone: (510) 981-7520 Land Use Planning Division 1947 Center Street, 2nd Floor Berkeley, CA 94704

To assure distribution to Commission members prior to the meeting, correspondence must be received by 12:00 noon, seven (7) days before the meeting. For items with more than ten (10) pages, fifteen (15) copies must be submitted to the Secretary by this deadline. For any item submitted less than seven (7) days before the meeting, fifteen (15) copies must be submitted to the Secretary prior to the meeting date.



FURTHER INFORMATION

Questions should be directed to Alex Amoroso, at 981-7520, or [email protected].


Item 12 July 19, 2017


STAFF REPORT DATE: July 19, 2017 TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Alex Amoroso, Principal Planner Alene Pearson, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Council Referrals Discussion: Focus on Affordable Housing

BACKGROUND In Context: The City Council recently sorted and prioritized a substantial number of referrals through their Ranked Range Voting (RRV) process – this is the second year the RRV has been used. The RRV is intended to sort all Council referrals and provide direction to staff, through the City Manager, about what is most important. In addition, the Council also authorized a Housing Action Plan (HAP), including a separate set of referrals, not included in the RRV. Some of these HAP referrals overlap with RRV referrals. In addition, the Council has identified several short-term referrals that are outside the RRV list, and may have to be addressed by staff, depending upon direction from the City Manager. These competing sets of referrals create the basis for workload assessments that Planning staff is currently undertaking. Along with the referrals mentioned above, staff has existing “started” referrals that guide a portion of our workload. A number of other non-Planning Commission related activities engage staff time as well. Staff plans a response to overall Work Plan and priorities at the September 6 Planning Commission meeting. For the July 19 meeting, Planning staff is focusing on a short list of Affordable Housing and related Council referrals. Focus on Affordable Housing referrals: The City Council has identified developing affordable housing as a highest priority. In particular, City Council has referred to Planning Commission multiple referrals that reflect the City’s commitment to prioritize affordable housing development (Attachment 1: Summary of Housing Related Referrals). The list of referrals are not related to the HAP. They come from RRV and some additional short-term referrals that are outside the RRV process. Staff understands that the Council may be prioritizing the HAP referrals at a

Affordable Housing Related Referrals Item 12 Page 2 of 3 July 19, 2017

future meeting. While those referrals are not currently part of the Planning staff consideration, there are overlapping areas of interest identified.

DISCUSSION The referrals found in Attachment 1 suggest a variety of mechanisms -- ranging from fee reductions to permit process streamlining to flexible ground floor uses in commercial corridors -- that encourage development of affordable units. Referrals also leverage Density Bonus and Community Benefits programs to encourage affordable housing production. Several of the referrals overlap in subject area and direction (e.g. expedite/streamline/remove barriers to permits for affordable housing), others conflict (e.g. ground floor uses residential/commercial). The referrals provide a general guide to Council interests and goals, while giving staff some level of direction in approaching the various subjects. Because of the overlapping and sometimes conflicting specifics of the referrals, staff’s approach is to define the high level Council goals and then address referrals that meet more than one goal, can be completed in a reasonable timeframe and can be discrete in nature. Assessing the referrals for Council common goals: Review of the referrals presented in Attachment 1 reveals a set of common goals related to future development projects. Staff understands these to be the following:

Development projects should provide benefits to the community.

Development projects should commit to produce and/or fund affordable housing.

Permit streamlining should focus on projects that provide and/or fund affordable housing.

Approach: In order to maximize resources and results, staff proposes to focus efforts on the common goals City Council’s referrals. A range of actions will be required to achieve City Council’s goals; these include identifying solutions that can be achieved quickly (e.g. “short-term wins”) and developing a path that brings long-term opportunities into focus and fruition. There are referrals, which if addressed, will accomplish multiple Council goals. Other referrals that will only have a limited impact. The following example suggests some of the overlaps:

Local Density Bonus (LDB) Alternative: A local density bonus ordinance can be developed to allow the City to allow additional density bonuses in exchange for more affordable units. LDB would provide options for additional units, could be applied Citywide, and would generate units and or funds to support the goals of the Council. The LDB process could provide additional certainty to the community about the final level/amount of development for any project.

Ground Level Residential Allowances: Allowing Ground level residential instead of requiring ground floor commercial is another focus of several referrals. While this may seem a “quick win” based on existing unleased property, the outcome would have more limited results in actual production of units. Existing ground floor commercial spaces would be difficult to retrofit because they lack many of the

Affordable Housing Related Referrals Item 12 Page 3 of 3 July 19, 2017

features necessary for them to change use from commercial to residential. New buildings could be designed to accommodate residential units on at least a portion of the ground floor, but the number of units provided overall might be more limited unless combined with other development potential, such as LDB.

As can be seen by these examples, there are numerous considerations for each referral. Staff is in the process of considering the referral list in the context of the Council’s goals identified above, and will return to the Commission in September with a proposed workplan and priority referrals. A draft Local Density Bonus ordinance will also be brought forward in September. This action is the result of a short-term referral proposed by Councilmember Worthington (Attachment 2).

ATTACHMENTS

1. Summary of Housing Related Referrals

2. Local Density Bonus Referral – Worthington (5/30/17)

source subject sponsor(s)

City Council

(January 20, 2015)

Allow Non‐commercial Use on Ground

FloorSusan Wengraf

City Council

(January 19, 2016)

Prioritize Predevelopment Funds from

Housing Trust FundKriss Worthington

City Council

(January 19, 2016)

Streamline the Permitting Process for

Housing Projects with a Majority of

Affordable Units

Kriss Worthington

City Council

(September 21, 2016)

Reduce Barriers for the Creation of New

Affordable Housing Through Parking

Reduction and Removal of Structural

Barriers

Lori Droste

City Council

(October 18, 2016)

Expand Downtown Arts District Overlay to

Extend Ground Floor Commercial UsesTom Bates

City Council

(April 4, 2017)

Allow Non‐commercial Use on Ground

Floor

Kriss Worthington, Susan Wengraf,

Kate HarrisonCity Council

(July 11, 2017)

Expedited Review for Affordable Housing

Projects

Sophie Hahn, Cheryl Davila, Ben

Bartlett

City Council

(July 25, 2017 ‐‐ proposed)

Establish a Waiver of Permit Fees for

Certain Affordable Housing ProjectsSophie Hahn, Kate Harrison

City Council

(July 12, 2016)

Develop Community Benefit

Requirements with a focus on Labor

Practices and Affordable Housing

Kriss Worthington

City Council


Land Value Recapture Policy and Inclusion

in the Adeline Corridor Plan

Jesse Arreguin, Kate Harrison,

Sohpie Hahn

City Council


Adeline Corridor Community Benefits

OverlayBen Bartlett

City Council

(May 30, 2017)

Develop a Pilot Density Bonus Program for

the C‐T District to Generate Revenue for

Housing for Extremely Low‐Income

Individuals and for the Homeless

Kriss Worthington, Ben Bartlett

Correspondence with Kriss

Worthington/Zach Cowan

Repeal BMC State of California Density

Bonus Requirements and Add BMC Local

Density Bonus Requirements

Kriss Worthington

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

COMMUNITY BENEFITS

DENSITY BONUS

Summary of Housing Related Referrals

Item 12 - Attachment 1Planning CommissionJuly 19, 2019

Kriss Worthington



PHONE 510-981-7170, FAX 510-981-7177, EMAIL

[email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR

May 30, 2017

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmembers Kriss Worthington and Ben Bartlett, and Mayor Arreguin

Subject: Planning Commission Referral for a Pilot Density Bonus Program for the

Telegraph Avenue Commercial District to Generate Revenue to House the

Homeless and Extremely Low-Income Individuals

RECOMMENDATIONThat the Berkeley City Council refer a City Density Bonus policy for the Telegraph Avenue Commercial District to the Planning Commission to generate in-lieu fees that could be used to build housing for homeless and extremely low-income residents.

BACKGROUNDUnder current state law, new development projects that get a density bonus, allowing up to 35 percent more density, are required to build inclusionary housing. Inclusionary housing is typically defined as below-market rate housing for people who earn 50 percent or 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI).

While it’s great that developers are including some affordable housing in their market-rate projects, affordable housing for the homeless and extremely low-income who don’t qualify for inclusionary units can be provided if developers instead paid fees into the Housing Trust Fund. This can be achieved through the use of a City Density Bonus for the Telegraph Avenue Commercial District, an area where many residents have expressed support for housing the homeless and the extremely low-income.

The City bonus fee would be equal to the in-lieu affordable housing mitigation fee, currently set at $34,000 per unit. Fees paid into the fund could be leveraged with other Federal, State and Regional affordable housing sources, resulting in significantly more affordable housing built through the Housing Trust Fund than currently available. The City has important policy proposals to assist the homeless and extremely low-income residents that urgently need funding.

The pilot program of a City Density Bonus in the Telegraph Avenue Commercial District could go a long way toward easing Berkeley’s critical housing shortage by increasing incentives for developers to add more housing and give the city greater ability to deliver affordable housing.

Page 1 of 2

41Item 12 - Attachment 2Planning CommissionJuly 19, 2017

FISCAL IMPACTSThis proposal will generate millions in new revenue to the Housing Trust Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSThe proposed change is consistent with City Climate Action Plan goals supporting increased residential density. Additionally, new residential construction is subject to more stringent green building and energy efficiency standards and will help reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions.

CONTACT PERSONCouncilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

Page 2 of 2

Communications Planning Commission

July 19, 2017

1

EDWARD C. MOORE

ATTORNEY AT LAW1

2436 Ninth Street Tele: (510) 531-7272

Berkeley, California 94710 E-mail: [email protected]

July 12, 2017 Berkeley Planning Commission Communicated via e-mail North Berkeley Senior Center to Commission Secretary 1901 Hearst Avenue [email protected] Berkeley, CA

Dear Planning Commissioners:

This letter addresses a basic question: how are development standards

and criteria pertaining to applications for a use permit to build housing in the

R-1A districts applied objectively? The answer is relevant to understanding

needs for amendments to the Development Standards (see BMC

23D.20.070) to shore up support for the planning purposes of the R-1A.

Objectivity in applying development standards and criteria is critical to the

long-term efficacy of land-use controls in the residential districts governed

by Berkeley’s Municipal Code (BMC) and General Plan.

For my purposes ‘standards’ and ‘criteria’ are synonyms meaning an

officially sanctioned basis upon which use permits can issue. The phrase

‘standards and criteria’ is taken from the Housing Accountability Act (see

Gov. Code § 65589.5, subd. (j)). My use of the word ‘standard’ refers to

quantitative ‘Development Standards’ specified in BMC sections bearing

that title; the word ‘criteria’ refers to the qualitative development standards

expressed in findings necessary to justify the issuance of any use permit.

To simplify the answer how standards and criteria are to be objectivity

applied this letter focuses illustratively on standards and criteria which limit

the height and stories of Main Buildings in the R-1A Districts.

I. What Are Development Standards and Criteria in Residential Zoning Districts? Development standards and criteria pertaining to the height and

stories of Main Buildings take two distinct forms, quantitative and qualitative.

1Voluntarily inactive as of March 1, 2010. As an inactive member of the State Bar I am

not permitted to give legal advice or represent anyone. I write this letter because of my interests as a west Berkeley homeowner in Berkeley’s planning and urban design. I have not relinquished my right to speak on matters of public interest impacting me personally and the quality of life we enjoy here. While I am a lawyer, I write as an informed member of the public and not as a professional giving legal advice.


2

The substance of these standards and criteria are similar in every

residential district and identical in districts zoned R-1, R-1A, R-2 and R-2A

with regard to maximum building height and the number of stories permitted.

Compliance with the standards and criteria by applicants for a use permit is

supposed to be evaluated ‘objectively’ in every instance. The method of

evaluation differs depending upon whether the development standard or

criterion under consideration is quantitative or qualitative.

A. Quantitative Development Standards. Quantitative height and story

limitations for Main Buildings are set forth subsection C of the section

entitled Development Standards in each of the respective chapters

pertaining to residential districts zoned R-1 through R-5 in BMC Sub-Title

23D, Provisions Applicable in All Residential Districts. The upper limit for a

Main Building in the R-1, R-1A, R-2 and R-2A districts is specified as an

average height of 28 feet and three stories. However, the Zoning Officer is

explicitly authorized to issue an Administrative Use Permit to allow Main

Buildings to exceed 28 feet up to 35 feet in average height and three stories

provided all the development standards and criteria are satisfied.

Two observations:

(1) Assuming a pitched roof, a Main Building with an average height of 28

feet means an actual height approximating 35 feet depending up attic height

and the roof’s pitch; a 35-foot average height would similarly approximate

40 feet in actual height.

(2) The quantitative height and story limitations are quite imprecise as a

development standard apart from specifying the maximums permissible.

Why? Since the same quantitative limits are operative throughout the R-1,

R-1A, R-2 and R-2A districts, the limits must be imprecisely drawn to be

flexible. Quantitative standards are necessarily applied to proposed

projects in zoning districts with different planning purposes and widely

diverse configurations of lots and locations, project particulars and

neighborhood characteristics. They express little more than flexible

maximums and minimums to allow for changes in plans and specifications

to achieve needed compliance with the qualitative development criteria in

the absence of formal design review for residential construction. For

example, a 28-foot three-story Main Building proposed for a backyard is

3

often impermissible even though the projected height is within prescribed

limits. Why? Because given the particular facts and circumstances, such a

proposal makes impossible the necessary findings of compliance with the

qualitative development criteria.

B. Qualitative Development Criteria. Qualitative development criteria are

expressed in the language of specified findings which must be made before

any use permit can issue. The development criteria applicable in every

residential district2 require findings that construction of a building, structure

or addition thereto, under the circumstances of the particular case existing

at the time at which the application is granted, 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;

detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area or neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.

or unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air or views.

II. The ‘Objectively’ of Findings a Proposed Building Complies with the Residential Development Standards and Criteria.

A. Meaning of Objectivity. Objectivity in this context has two meanings:

“1. Of, relating to, or based on externally verifiable phenomena, as opposed

to an individual’s perceptions, feelings or intentions <the objective facts>.

2. Without bias, prejudice; disinterested.” (Black’s Law Dict. [8th ed. 2004],

p. 1103.)

Plans and specifications in a finalized application for a use permit are

‘objective’ within the first meaning of objectivity, as are the physical

characteristics of the proposed building site and its neighborhood. These

objective facts are evident to the senses and can in turn be ‘objectively’

evaluated within the second meaning with reference to both the quantitative

2 See the BMC section entitled ‘Findings’ in every chapter of Sub-Title 23D, to be read together with 23B.32.040 (Findings for Issuance and Denial and Conditions).

4

and qualitative bases governing permissible physical development. Distinct

methods of evaluation -- quantitative and qualitative -- are however

required.

B. Methods of Objective Evaluation.

1. Quantitative ‘Objective’ Methodology. Objectively evaluating plans

and specifications and a building site for purposes of determining

compliance with the quantitative Development Standards (see e.g., BMC

23D.20.070 [R-1A Development Standards]) requires little more than

comparing linear measurements depicted on finalized plans and

specifications with those allowed by the relevant Development Standards in

light of the quantified features of the proposed building site.

2. Qualitative ‘Objective’ Methodology. Objectively evaluating plans and

specifications in light of the particulars of a particular site for purposes of

determining compliance with the qualitative development criteria (see e.g.,

BMC 23D.20.090 [Findings required in R-1A Districts]) implicates the

second meaning of objectivity used when evaluating the objective facts and

circumstances of a particular proposal. The evaluator is to assume as fully

as possible a disinterested frame of mind, one open and free of bias or

prejudice when determining whether or not the proposed building project will

be detrimental, injurious or unreasonable in ways proscribed by the BMC.

Moreover, the conduct required of an evaluator is that of the supposed

conduct, under similar circumstances, of a hypothetical person, the

reasonable man of ordinary prudence,3 who represents a community ideal

of reasonable behavior. The characteristics of this imaginary person include

normal intelligence and mental capacity, normal perception and memory, a

minimum of experience and information common to all the community, and

such superior skill and knowledge as the actor has, or holds himself or

herself out as having when he or she undertakes to evaluate the particular

case. (See Prosser on Torts [West Pub. 1941], p. 224.) In other words, if

objectivity is to rule qualitative findings, the frame of mind required of public

officials, owners, developers and architects, neighbors and concerned

members of the public is that of a disinterested reasonable man with biases

and prejudices held in check, economic and otherwise.

3 The “reasonable man” obviously means a reasonable natural person, male or female.

5

III. Revision of R-1A Development Standards. Proposed revision of the

development standards are pending before this Planning Commission

because the Zoning Adjustments Board (Board) requested clarification of

the quantitative Develop Standards (BMC 23D.20.070) with reference to

permitting construction of Main Buildings in backyards, that is, second Main

Buildings on a single parcel in the R-1A. Completed as well as proposed

projects, when seen from the street or a neighbor’s backyard, or when

reviewed on appeal, raise questions about how the projects were evaluated.

1. A Few Neighborhood Characteristics. The R-1A District west of San

Pablo Avenue embraces much of the Berkeley Land and Town

Improvement Association’s original tract, the second oldest subdivision in

Berkeley (1874) after the Hillegass tract. Association founders, led by

Henry Durant (first UC president, incorporator of the College of California,

teacher learned in the Classics and initiator of higher public education

directly opposite California’s Golden Gate) intended to provide small,

affordable parcels to enable working-class families to build and enjoy the

benefits of home ownership close to places of employment, schooling,

shopping and worship. The adjacent Avery tract was subdivided with similar

intentions. Nicely individuated single-family homes and duplexes

(compared to suburban tract housing) are to this day owned and occupied

primarily by well-integrated4 but less-affluent working-class and lower

middle-class segments of East Bay society. Houses and parcels are

significantly smaller on average than those closer to UCB and downtown

and in more affluent areas of the East Bay. Significantly the R-1A west of

San Pablo has many older apartment buildings (now lawful nonconforming

uses) providing district-wide inclusive and affordable rental housing.

2. Pejorative Economic Incentives. Fueling controversies over the

application of height and story standards to backyard buildings is a fairly

4 A healthy majority in the R-1A District west of San Pablo Avenue are ‘people of color’

who reside in relatively affordable housing compared to other places in Berkeley. Data from the 2015 American Community Five-year Survey by the United States Census Bureau pertaining to the 94710 zip-code area (which includes all the R-1A district west of San Pablo Avenue but also Berkeley’s industrial districts and the commercial district at the foot of University Avenue with its market-rate apartments) indicates 6,802 residents, 3,156 of whom self-identify as White (46%) while 3646 (54%) self-identify as African American, Hispanic or Latino, American Indian, Asian or Pacific Islanders, or some racial mix. Some 79 percent of the residents are 54 years of age or less including 1184 children less than 15 years of age. (American FactFinder – ZCTAA5 94710.)

6

recent impetus on the part of individual developers to exploit the local

explosion in housing values. Small houses are purchased to either tear

down and replace with two supersized Main Buildings on a single parcel

(see e.g., 2009/2011 Ninth St.; the application for 2212 Tenth St.),5 or to

remodel the original house and then build a lucrative backyard Dwelling

Unit. This behavior is increasingly seen throughout R-1A, R-2 and R-2A

zoning districts. Such opportunistic exploitation by developers is enabled by

the poorly thought out Development Standards,6 which are in turn applied

throughout the zoning districts despite varying scales of existing building

and differing land-use purposes. Evaluation of the qualitative criteria

needed for a use permit are too often slanted favoring development by

Zoning Officers and then haphazardly reviewed by appointed and elected

officials if and when appeals to them are made. This development motif

works to undermine the wholesome strengths of the existing R-1A’s pattern

of development as a low to medium density residential area characterized

by a reasonably open and spacious type of development in accordance with

the Land Use Element of the General Plan and BMC 23DE.20.020A

(Purposes of R-1A District).

3. Recommended Changes to R-1A Development Standards. Friends

of the R-1A are not opposed to development if appropriately scaled and well

integrated through good design (see e.g., 2222-2226 Ninth St., 2008-2012

Ninth St., 1911A-C Ninth St.; 2125 A&B Tenth St.). Over time housing west

of San Pablo Avenue has evolved into a healthy warren of appropriately

scaled secondary Dwelling Units discretely interspersed among one or one-

and-a-half story single-family homes and duplexes creating densely packed

neighborhoods with few if any three-story homes. This traditional lower

middle class American housing still yields long-term community benefits for

this landlocked City of Learning, although those benefits are

5 Group Living Accommodation is not a permitted land use in the R-1A (compare R-3

Districts). To the extent supersized Main Buildings (such as those illustrated by the two examples cited) are or will be used by absentee owners to rent bedrooms to individuals, such use is a subterfuge around the prohibition against apartments in the R-1A and is an illegal use. Designs for supersized backyard ‘Main Buildings’ with four bedrooms are obviously not meant as dwellings for families, and their construction in west Berkeley is corrosive to the long-term planning purposes of the R-1A. 6 See Toni Mester, A Brief and Personal History of R-1A Zoning in Berkeley (Feb. 8, 2017 draft), p. 7, 2d full paragraph (28’ and 35’ Main Building height limits in R-1, R-1A and R-2 adopted in 1991 without planning commission referral).

7

underappreciated and mistakenly taken for granted. Currently, political

correctness for densification Populists is to denigrate single-family housing

when calling for supersized, multi-unit construction everywhere to counter

the supposed effects of racist zoning, inherited privilege and an unending

scarcity of affordable housing in a community hosting 50,000-plus students

and staffs of a public research university, a national laboratory and the

union of a plurality of theological schools. Living in the R-1A west of San

Pablo Avenue is still relatively affordable for many less-affluent people of

color (see ante, p. 5, fn. 4) precisely because affordable inclusionary rental

housing is still commonplace and the heavily capitalized investment called

for by Populists has not occurred. Because the R-1A districts are built out

and composed of older residences, new capital investments are sporadic

and justly constrained to home renovations and remodeling or the

construction of various types of backyard Dwelling Units or studios.

Having participated in Berkeley planning processes for over 10 years, it’s

clear to me the ideal of a truly objective case-by-case evaluation of the

qualitative criteria is unrealistic. Too many hidden economic and political

agendas are unchecked. Consequently the quantitative standards must be

tightened in the R-1A if mistakes exemplified by 2009/2011 Ninth Street are

to be prevented. Limiting the height and stories of backyard Dwelling Units

is an obvious big clarifying step in the right direction. The standards might

also be revised to favor duplexes and/or eliminate a confusing distinction

between Main Buildings and Auxiliary Dwelling Units in backyards. The

proposal by the Friends of the R-1A to limit development to a specified

floor/area ratio might work well as a quantified development standard

incident to revising the BMC.

This specially graced City of Learning cannot afford to lose a battle raging

for life enhancing and beautiful architectural patterns in urban design.7 The

public needs us to implement intelligent development standards worth

emulating in creating a wholesome, beautiful and inclusive urbanity.

Very truly yours,

ECM EDWARD C. MOORE

7 See Christopher Alexander et al., Battle for the Life and Beauty of the Earth (Oxford 2012).

To: Alex Amoroso, Secretary, Chair Gene Poschman, and Planning Commission From: Friends of R-1A Re: Our recommendation July 12, 2017 Attached is the latest version of our proposal for the R-1A development standards, approved in a group meeting on July 8. We request that you send our recommendation to the City Council as a package that represents a methodology to preserve the existing pattern of our neighborhoods and to advantage the more affordable forms, the ADU and the duplex. Our Vision Since the nineteenth century, West Berkeley has been a neighborhood of working families. We want to retain its character of smaller homes with ample verdant open space for children, landscape, and gardens. If cars are to be parked off-street, we prefer that they occupy the front, not the center or back of the lots to lessen noise, pollution, and visual blight and to create safe spaces for children to play without the danger of being run over. We want to discourage the construction of large, luxury condo-houses that have raised land prices and contributed to displacement of diverse, low-income households and to promote the more affordable and compact forms of the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and the duplex. Appendix B shows that 80% of East Bay households are comprised of three or fewer persons, 62% one or two persons. The overwhelming need is for smaller units. Three and four bedroom units are likely to attract students and become mini-dorms that are difficult to regulate. In 1991, the City Council imposed uniform height limits of 28 to 25 feet on all buildings regardless of their position on a parcel, an allowance that has wrecked havoc in many flatlands neighborhoods. These heights are out of scale with most blocks in West Berkeley, especially in Oceanview with its one-story cottages, and will shadow such smaller homes and gardens, reducing their value and livability. Therefore we have recommended building heights that are less detrimental and introduced the daylight plane, widely used in other cities to protect property values. We strongly oppose the staff proposal, which does nothing but reduce the outlandish heights of a rear house from three to two stories and impose a modest separation. Not only does the staff proposal ignore the Council and ZAB referrals by not addressing the basic question of the relationship between two detached dwelling units but it also follows the recommendation of one developer. Putting the City’s stamp of approval on the business of a single developer demonstrates prejudice and is highly inappropriate in its disregard for potential detriment to existing properties. This UNFAIR staff proposal promotes the most expensive and exclusive of building options: two luxury single family homes on divided lots with minimal usable open space that degrades the potential for healthy outdoor family living and violates the first purpose of the district: “to recognize and protect the existing pattern.” In the R-1A the dominant pattern is the single -family residence (858 out of 1322 parcels or 65%) followed by the duplex (144 or 11% of total parcels). At least another 100 parcels probably fall into one of these categories but are assigned uses that obscure the form of the buildings. See Appendix A. Our proposal addresses the relationship by using floor area ratio (FAR) to correlate the building allowance to lot size and by imposing other standards that are compatible with existing patterns, while allowing for flexibility. To explicate how these standards achieve the purposes of the district, we have attached an annotated version as well two appendices that provide objective and supporting data.

Proposed amendments to 23D.20.070 and .090

Submitted by Friends of R-1A, July 2017


A. No lot of less than 5,000 square feet may be created. This has become boilerplate. Condominium conversion subdivides the lot de facto even though the parcel retains its APN with 0 square footage as a legal fiction.

B. No more than two Dwelling Units shall be allowed. In order to establish two Dwelling Units in one duplex building a lot must contain at least 4,500 square feet of area. In order to establish two detached units, a lot must contain at least 5,000 square feet of area. An ADU may be established in accordance with BMC 23D.10. Keep the allowance for two units in a duplex to advantage the building form that is cheaper to build: one foundation, one roof, one sewer, a shared wall, compact services and utilities. Increase the required lot size for two detached units to avoid crowding. ADU for reference.

C. Lots with buildings containing more than two dwelling units permitted before the R-1A districts were established are lawful non-conforming buildings subject to BMC 23C.04. Reference to the non-conforming use chapter acknowledges facts on the ground.

D. The floor area ratio (FAR) may not exceed .4 except that a front building containing two dwelling units may have a FAR not to exceed .5. FAR does not apply to the establishment of an ADU. See appendix A to see floor area resulting from various FAR and existing pattern of FAR. Existing SFR parcels have an average FAR of .3-.34 and duplexes .37. Suggested FAR allowances increase the existing FAR. The FAR differential incentivizes the building of a duplex. ADU exception refers to the ordinance above.

E. Each building shall be limited in height as follows:


Front building 24* 2

Rear building 14 1

All Residential Additions 14** Not Applicable

*The Zoning Officer may issue an Administrative Use Permit to allow a single Main Building, or a second Main building at the front of the property to exceed 24 feet in average height, up to 28 feet in average maximum height ** The Zoning Officer may issue an Administrative Use Permit to allow residential additions to exceed 14 feet in average height, up to the district limit for front and rear buildings.

There can only be one main building by definition. The use of the adjectives front and rear is proper grammar and more accurate. 24 feet average height conforms to the existing heights but should be allowed to 28 feet to accommodate a stacked duplex. A rear building of 14 feet in average height can be taller than an ADU, which is limited to 14 feet maximum.

F. Each building shall be set back from the respective lot lines as follows:

Yard location

Stories Front Rear* Side Building Separation

Front building 1-2 20 ft 20 ft 4 ft.** 12 ft*** Rear building 1 20 ft. 6 ft.

*See Sections 23E.20.070.F.1.and F.4 ** See Sections 23E.20.070.F2 and F.3 *** See Section 23E.20.070 F.5 1.

1. On lots with one Dwelling Unit, when the depth of any lot is less than 100 feet, the Rear Yard may be reduced to 20% of the lot depth. 2. When the width of any lot is less than 40 feet, the width of each Side Yard for a Main building at the front of a property may be reduced to 10% of the lot width, but in no case to less than three feet. No Side Yard setback reductions are permitted for rear Main buildings. 3. The Side Yards on a Corner Lot shall be as follows: a. On a Corner Lot, where there is a Key Lot to the rear thereof, the street Side Yard of the Corner Lot shall be not less than one-half the Front Yard required or existent on the Key Lot, whichever is smaller. This regulation shall not be applied so as to reduce the buildable area of the lot to a width of less than 20 feet, or to require the Side Yard to be in excess of ten feet. b. Where a Rear Yard of not less than 50 feet in depth is maintained on a Corner Lot, adjacent to a Key Lot, the Side Yard may be reduced to four feet. 4. The required Rear Yard may be reduced to no less than 15 feet to construct a second Dwelling Unit at the rear of the property, subject to the required finding in Section 23D.20.090.C. 5. For two Main buildings which that contain Dwelling Units, the required building separation may not be reduced subject to obtaining an Administrative Use Permit. A 12-foot separation is barely enough to avoid crowding, considering a minimum side building separation of 8 feet (4 per property) and that a backyard requires 10 feet of open space.

G. Maximum coverage may not exceed the following percentages: 1. 40% of the lot area for an Interior or Through Lot. 2. 45% of the lot area for a Corner Lot. H. Each lot shall contain the following minimum usable open space area for each Dwelling Unit: 500 square feet. (Ord. 6949-NS § 5 (part), 2006: Ord. 6806-NS § 1, 2004: Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999). A front yard with a setback of 20´ or less shall not be counted as usable open space. 400 square feet, the current minimum in the R-1 is treated as a maximum in the R-1A. Increasing it by 100 feet isn’t much but it helps to create a usable backyard. The front yard is a feature of the public streetscape not private open space unless it’s more than the minimum setback of 20 feet. See Oakland 17.126.040(B) for local use of this standard. I. The design of the second story and roof of the front building must allow for maximum

feasible solar access for the subject property and adjacent properties. A 45 daylight plane shall be adopted within one year of the adoption of these amendments.

Realtor Loni Gray, who is familiar with its use in nearby Albany, first brought this feature to the attention of the Commission in February. Other Bay Area cities require the 45º angle setback of upper floors including Palo Alto, Antioch, Menlo Park, San Mateo, and Santa Clara. Others such as Fremont and Richmond have second story setbacks. This architectural courtesy is long overdue.

Section 23D.20.090 Findings A. In order to approve any Permit under this chapter, the Zoning Officer or Board must make the finding required by Section 23B.32.040. The Zoning Officer or Board must also make the findings required by the following paragraphs of this section to the extent applicable: B. To deny a Use Permit for a major residential addition or residential addition subject to 23D.20.070 the Zoning Officer or Board must find that although the proposed residential addition satisfies all other standards of this Ordinance, the addition would unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air or views. Definition and application of standards to prevent such obstruction shall be adopted within one year of the adoption of these amendments. Despite a City Council promise to implement concrete definitions of “unreasonable obstruction”, this was never undertaken, setting the stage for numerous conflicts and appeals over the years. More precise design guidelines are necessary.

C. To approve an application for reduction of a required Rear Yard, the Zoning Officer or the Board must find that the unit would not cause a detrimental impact on emergency access; or on light, air or privacy for neighboring properties. (Ord. 7426-NS § 12, 2015: Ord. 6980-NS § 2 (part), 2007: Ord. 6763-NS § 11 (part), 2003: Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999)

Friends of R-1A Annotations: District Purposes

23D.20.020 Purposes The purposes of the Limited Two-family Residential Districts (R-1A) are to: A. Recognize and protect the existing pattern of low medium density residential areas characterized by reasonable open and spacious type of development in accordance with Master Plan Policy;

Because the subject area was otherwise classified or zoned R-4 and R- before 1967, a large number of parcels, approximately 25%, are non-conforming, falling into different use categories. The “existing pattern” is therefore problematic if the meaning of “pattern” is limited to the number of units, shapes, and sizes, although some blocks are more regular than others. Out of 1322 total parcels, 858 or 65% are single-family residences, the dominant existing pattern. They are eligible for ADUs, the most affordable type of housing development. The second most common pattern on 144 parcels is the duplex, also less expensive to build than two detached units. The SFR and the duplex are the conforming uses that comprise the obvious existing pattern. In Appendix A, we analyze FAR to describe existing patterns as well as to regulate an appropriate amount of allowable building floor-area. All numerical calculations are derived from the City’s parcel database. Allowing two large detached units for sale separately is a relatively new pattern that should be discouraged as it has contributed to rising land values and displacement of low-income residents, 30% of whom are Hispanic. We want to maintain diversity of residents.

B. Protect adjacent properties from unreasonable obstruction of light and air;

This purpose have been disregarded in the staff’s height proposals and recognized in ours. Edward Moore has submitted a discussion of the legal definition of “reasonable” as a subjective measure. We recommend a year for an objective definition of “unreasonable obstruction of light and air “ to be developed.

C. Allow flexibility in the use of property for residential purposes by permitting two Dwelling Units on one lot under limited conditions.

Floor area ratio (FAR) provides such flexibility as well as a guideline to the meaning of “limited conditions” by correlating the allowed livable floor area to the lot size. Accordingly, we suggest that a duplex be allowed on lots of 4500 square feet or more, whereas two detached dwelling units would require a minimum of 5,000 square feet. The ADU would be allowed on a lot of any size according to the ADU ordinance. Because the R-1A districts are flat and not adjacent to parkland, freeways or the coast, the lot size is the only variable condition that could limit building potential. No other definition of “limited” seems relevant to the establishment of two dwelling units, of which there are three options: an ADU, a duplex, or two detached houses. Appendix B shows the size of East Bay households, 80% of which are three persons or fewer. The greatest need is for smaller units, three bedrooms or fewer.

D. In those portions of the District west of San Pablo Avenue, appropriately regulate the rear and side yards for the construction of a Dwelling Unit. (Ord. 6478-NS § 4 (part), 1999)

This purpose should be omitted in the interest of treating the R-1A sections as one zone.

APPENDIX A

Common lot sizes in R-1A with floor area produced by trial floor area ratios (FAR)

lot size #lots FAR .4 FAR .45 FAR .5 FAR .55

5000 70 2000 2250 2500 2750

5200 71 2080 2340 2600 2860

5400 21 2160 2430 2700 2970

6000 45 2400 2700 3000 3300

6500 58 2600 2925 3250 3575

6750 28 2700 3038 3375 3713

Various Uses in the R-1A with average FAR4 digit is the new code for same use as 2 digit

Assessor’s Number of AverageUse Code parcels FAR

11 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 858 .3-.34

12 SFR HOME W/NON-ECO 2ND UN

1200 SFR HOME W/NON-ECO 2ND UN 8 0.4

1600 SFR DETACHED SITE CONDO 14 0.54

21 2,3,OR 4 SINGLE FAM HOMES

2100 2,3,OR 4 SINGLE FAM HOMES 54 0.38

22 DOUBLE OR DUPLEX TYPE- 2U 144 0.37

23 TRIPLEX OR DUPLEX W/ SFR 25 0.49

24 FOURPLEX OR TRIPLEX W/SFR 47 0.5

25 2 UNITS-LESSER QUAL 2200 49 0.4



32 STORE 1ST FLR W/ OFF/APTS 4 0.61

72 RES.PROP.CONVERT 5+ UNITS

7200 RES.PROP.CONVERT 5+ UNITS 4 0.84

73 CONDOMINIUMS-SINGLE RESDL

7300 CONDOMINIUMS-SINGLE RESDL 80 0.5

Parcels with three or more units built prior to 1967 are non-conforming.

EAST BAY OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE

source: ACS S2501 Occupancy Characteristics by city

CITY total units 1 PERSON 1 p. units 2 PERSONS 1 3 PERSONS 3 p. units

ALBANY 7,377 23.2% 1711 31.5% 2324 20.8% 1534

OAKLAND 158,424 34.0% 53864 30.5% 48319 15.6% 24714

BERKELEY 45,917 36.2% 16622 35.0% 16071 14.6% 6704

ALAMEDA 30,708 29.1% 8936 33.8% 10379 17.2% 5282

EL CERRITO 9,981 26.2% 2615 38.3% 3823 17.5% 1747

RICHMOND 36,973 28.3% 10463 26.2% 9687 17.1% 6322

average % 29.5% 32.6% 17.1%

total 289,380 94212 90603 46303

EAST BAY OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS BY SIZE

source: ACS S2501 Occupancy Characteristics by city

4+PERSONS 4 p. units

24.5% 1807

19.9% 31526

14.3% 6566

19.9% 6111

18.0% 1797

28.5% 10537

20.9%

58345

Weights Referral #1 Referral 2

Amount of time to achieve 0.3 H L

Priority from City Council 0.2 M L

Sample Criteria Priority from Planning Dept 0.2 M L

Environmental Impact 0.1 L M

Affordable Housing Impact 0.1 H H

Transit Oriented Development Impact 0.1 L H

Sample Prioritization Framework (With Sample Criteria and Sample Weights)

Kriss Worthington



PHONE 510-981-7170, FAX 510-981-7177, EMAIL

[email protected]

CONSENT CALENDAR

May 30, 2017

To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

From: Councilmembers Kriss Worthington and Ben Bartlett, and Mayor Arreguin

Subject: Planning Commission Referral for a Pilot Density Bonus Program for the

Telegraph Avenue Commercial District to Generate Revenue to House the

Homeless and Extremely Low-Income Individuals

RECOMMENDATIONThat the Berkeley City Council refer a City Density Bonus policy for the Telegraph Avenue Commercial District to the Planning Commission to generate in-lieu fees that could be used to build housing for homeless and extremely low-income residents.

BACKGROUNDUnder current state law, new development projects that get a density bonus, allowing up to 35 percent more density, are required to build inclusionary housing. Inclusionary housing is typically defined as below-market rate housing for people who earn 50 percent or 80 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI).

While it’s great that developers are including some affordable housing in their market-rate projects, affordable housing for the homeless and extremely low-income who don’t qualify for inclusionary units can be provided if developers instead paid fees into the Housing Trust Fund. This can be achieved through the use of a City Density Bonus for the Telegraph Avenue Commercial District, an area where many residents have expressed support for housing the homeless and the extremely low-income.

The City bonus fee would be equal to the in-lieu affordable housing mitigation fee, currently set at $34,000 per unit. Fees paid into the fund could be leveraged with other Federal, State and Regional affordable housing sources, resulting in significantly more affordable housing built through the Housing Trust Fund than currently available. The City has important policy proposals to assist the homeless and extremely low-income residents that urgently need funding.

The pilot program of a City Density Bonus in the Telegraph Avenue Commercial District could go a long way toward easing Berkeley’s critical housing shortage by increasing incentives for developers to add more housing and give the city greater ability to deliver affordable housing.

Page 1 of 2

41

FISCAL IMPACTSThis proposal will generate millions in new revenue to the Housing Trust Fund.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTSThe proposed change is consistent with City Climate Action Plan goals supporting increased residential density. Additionally, new residential construction is subject to more stringent green building and energy efficiency standards and will help reduce per capita greenhouse gas emissions.

CONTACT PERSONCouncilmember Kriss Worthington 510-981-7170

Page 2 of 2

1

To: Berkeley Planning Commission and Planning Staff

From: Chris Schildt

Date: July 12, 2017

RE: Prioritization of city council referrals to planning commission

Below are my initial thoughts on how to prioritize the many city council referrals and items for the

planning commission. I first lay out the various things I considered in determining these priorities, then

list my priorities, and add a few comments on process for moving forward at the end. I refer to two

documents: the matrix of “Referral Tracking, Planning” which was in our June meeting packet, and the

list of “Housing Related Referrals” in the May 30, 2017 city council action calendar (which Gene had sent

out as a late communication for our June meeting).

Considerations

In determining my priorities of items to come before the planning commission, I considered the

following:

- Alignment with city priorities. Affordable housing is clearly the top priority for the city, for

District 3, and for myself. Within housing, there are several sub-areas, each of which are vitally

important in the city right now, including: Preventing displacement of current residents;

production of new, low-income housing; housing for the homeless; and student housing. I

interpreted the city council’s decision to look at the housing-related referrals separate from

other referrals to mean that they see the urgency of addressing the housing-related items first

and as package, and therefore not to subject them to the same ranking process as other items.

- Staff availability and workload. Eleven of the planning-related referrals in the Referral Tracking,

Planning document are listed as already “started.” I evaluated those and made

recommendations based on which of these seem most important based on city priorities. I’d

also like us to consider if we can de-prioritize some older items, to free up staff time for more

urgent items.

- Amount of time. The housing-related referrals are categorized by “short term” and “medium

term”, which I used as a rough guide on how much time they would take to complete.

- Potential impact. We have very limited information available on the potential impact of various

referrals, so I had to make my best guess.

- Council ranking. The city council went through a complicated and thorough process of ranking

non-housing related referrals. Of those referrals that were identified as planning-related, a

subset (though not all of them) would likely involve the planning commission. I reviewed these

referrals and the order that the city council ranked them in.

Based on these considerations, I then listed out all the referrals that are in the pipeline to come before

the planning commission. For the reasons stated above, I looked at them in the following order:

1. Referrals that have already been started by staff (these are items 18-28 in the matrix labelled

“Referral Tracking, Planning” on page 2 where the “council priority” column states “started”)

2

2. Housing related referrals (these are from the May 30, 2017 action calendar – note that I only

looked at ones that seemed relevant for the planning commission to take up, based on our June

13 planning commission meeting discussion of these items)

3. Council-ranked, non-housing related referrals (these are items 1-15 in the matrix labelled

“Referral Tracking, Planning” on page 1)1

There were also five items in the “Referral Tracking, Planning” matrix that were listed with “***” in the

rankings because they are new items and were not ranked. Of those, three are potentially relevant to

the planning commission. Item 30, on tiny homes, may require future changes to the zoning code, but it

seems like there are many other issues that would need to be resolved before it would come to the

planning commission around zoning changes, so I didn’t include it in my rankings for now. Item 31, on

“junior ADUs”, would seemingly not create any more affordable housing units, so I didn’t consider it a

high priority. Item 33, on creating a city density bonus in the Telegraph commercial district, seems like a

high prioritiy, and I hope that it can be combined with Item 28 on developing Community Benefits in the

Telegraph commercial district, which is already started by staff.

Priorities

Below is my prioritization of work to come before the planning commission:

1. Items already started that have an impact on affordable housing. These include:

a. Item 21. “Green Affordable Housing” – staff has been developing reports on this item,

most recently at our February 15 planning commission meeting. We should keep moving

forward on this.

b. Item 27. Streamline permit process for projects which include >50% affordable. Note

that this item is also in the list of housing-related referrals. I would like to know the

status of this item and how we can move it forward.

c. Item 28 (combined with Item 33). Community Benefits for the Telegraph district. I hope

that we can add the recent referral on a City Density Bonus (Item 33) to this item, since

they seem closely related and a high priority for the city. I would like to know the status

of this item and how we can move it forward.

In addition to these, there are several other items listed as started, some which appear to

be quite old (e.g. Items 22, 23, and 24). I’d like to briefly review these with staff and see if

we can de-prioritize any of these so that we can free up more staff time to work on higher

priority issues.

2. Items in the list of housing related referrals that are relevant for the planning commission.

Many of the items in this list are for the Housing Advisory Commission, planning staff, or other

bodies. However, there are at least 6-7 that should come before the planning commission. Of

those, I ranked them based on ones that were categorized as “short term” versus “medium

term”:

1 Note that I didn’t include items 16-17 from that matrix, which were referred to a commission but not ranked. Neither of them were referred to the planning commission.

3

a. Short term:

i. Examine and eliminate barriers to building and renting ADUs. If I recall

correctly, staff have been asked to evaluate the ADU ordinance after one year to

determine how effective it has been and recommend improvements. I know

that Gene Poschman has already been working with staff to look at ADU

production over the last several years. This item seems to me to be one that

staff is already working on, and one that could lead to an increase in affordable

units, with the right incentives in place.

ii. Provide flexibility to establish variable levels of affordable housing

requirements in given areas of the city. Reflect these differences in area plans

(e.g., for San Pablo, Adeline Corridors). This has good potential to increase the

number of affordable housing units produced by new development, particularly

in the Adeline Corridor plan.

iii. Clarify existing preferences in allocating City affordable housing units to

Berkeley residents living within ½ mile and tenants evicted under Ellis Act

and/or Owner Move-In. This has good potential to increase the ability of

residents to stay in the neighborhoods they live in, an important anti-

displacement issue.

b. Medium term:

i. Include Land Value Capture fee in future area development plans. This should

be incorporated into the Adeline Corridor plan, and future area plans (including

maybe the Telegraph district community benefits/city density bonus item).

ii. Create specific per acre density standards. This is my personal highest priority,

because these density standards are important to determining the application

of various state laws, such as the State Housing Accountability Act and the State

Density Bonus, as well as any local density bonuses that may be created (e.g.

along Telegraph). I have heard that a density bonus task force developed

recommendations on this in 2007, but the planning commission did not take

action on it then. I hope those recommendations could form the basis of a new

effort to take this up. I would be very, very interested in helping to move it

forward.

iii. Encourage landlords to accept Section 8 and Shelter + Care vouchers. I also

think this is an important and urgent issue, would suggest prioritizing it in the

short term rather than the medium term.

3. Council-ranked, non-housing related items. These items are listed as Items 1-15 in the “Referral

Tracking, Planning” sheet. Of those listed, I don’t think that items 1, 2, 12 or 15 are items that

the planning commission will need to take up. Of the others, while my opinion at times differs

slightly from the rankings presented, I don’t feel strongly enough about the order to suggest a

re-ranking. In general, I agree with the ranking.

4

Process

Finally, I want to make a few comments about the process for moving forward with the workload in

front of us. It is an impressive, ambitious, and necessary list of things to accomplish, and will certainly

take several years to complete in total. Of the nine items I have prioritized above, I believe they are all of

high priority and substantive work should begin on them in the coming year, if they haven’t already. To

facilitate this, I’d like to strongly urge (1) that the planning commission form one or more

subcommittees to assist staff in moving forward some of these items, such as the density standards or

eliminating barriers to ADUs; and (2) that we aim to reduce meeting cancellations to no more than once

a quarter, rather than every month.

July 11, 2017 To: Berkeley Planning Commission From: Rob Wrenn, commissioner

Re: Planning Commission Prioritizing of Council Referrals Here are what I see as priorities for Planning Commission work, with the higher priority items listed first: Development standard changes to facilitate housing/affordable housing

1) Green Affordable Housing Package # 1: prioritizing housing over parking. (5/30/2017 housing referral). Reduce/Eliminate parking requirements near BART stations and major transit stops; parking maximums, etc.

2) Referral to the Planning Commission (4/4/2017 referral) to Allow Non Commercial Use on Ground Floor. Greater flexibility on ground floor uses.

City Density Bonus/Land Value Capture to generate fees for affordable housing or more units

1) Pilot City Density Bonus for Telegraph Commercial District (5/30/2017 referral). Allow 35% density bonus in return for payment of per unit housing mitigation fee as an alternative to the State Density Bonus requirement to provide onsite affordable units to qualify for the bonus.

2) City Density bonus allowing developers of multi-family up to 15% more density (5/30/2017 housing referral) This would take longer than the above pilot project which could happen more quickly.

3) Land Value Capture (5/30/2017 housing referral) – fee or community benefits for any upzoning. At least the general principle should be established as city policy – when zoning changes create increased value for owners of commercial property and developers, the city should capture a share of the increased value in the form of something that benefits the community.

Streamline permit process for affordable housing 1) Green affordable Housing policy 2 (5/30/2017 housing referral) On the July 11 City

Council agenda is a related item calling for priority status and expedited review for projects with 80% of more affordable housing.

Create Objective Standards for housing development

1) Density standards – units per acre (5/30/2017 housing referral) 2) Solar access/shadowing standards (7/11/2017 Council agenda) 3) Design standards (7/11/2017 Council agenda) – could look at a more “form based”

approach. 4) Density bonus ordinance – once density standards are established, there should be

clear guidelines regarding how they would apply to projects where developers take

advantage of the density bonus, what development standards would be subject to relaxation. A group called the Southside Neighborhood Consortium has proposed creation of such an ordinance. There is no referral for this but I think it fits well with creating objective standards, since a substantial percentage of projects include density bonuses.

5) Once objective standards are in place it would be appropriate to review the permit process for all housing development (not just affordable housing development). Objective standards would hopefully make development less contentious and reduce appeals.

Area Planning/Specific Plans (which can happen concurrently with zoning changes and items listed above)

1) Complete Adeline Corridor plan 2) When funding is obtained, develop a plan to guide development on San Pablo Avenue

(7/14/2015 referral) I would hope that housing development would be a central focus to planning for San Pablo.

Citywide Green Development Requirements/Berkeley Deep Green Building Initiative

1) Consider requiring same green building and TDM measures for C-DMU projects 75’in height or greater throughout commercial zoning districts. (4/26/2016 referral). It strikes me that this item misses the main green building issue, which is that California has a 2020 goal of 100 zero net energy for new residential buildings. http://www.californiaznehomes.com What Berkeley is going to do to try and achieve that should be the major focus of discussion of Green Development Requirements. The Berkeley Deep Green Building Initiative (2/28/2017 referral) is more on target. As far as generalizing from downtown to other districts, besides bicycle parking, car sharing spaces, the City should do the same with the Downtown Area Plan requirement that parking be leased or sold separately from the residence (unbundling of housing and parking)

Rezoning Senior Centers and other publicly-owned sites suitable for affordable housing development

1) Evaluate feasibility of developing affordable senior housing about Senior Centers (5/30/2017 housing referral). To make multi-family development feasible at a reasonable scale would require zoning changes as senior centers are zoning R-2A or MUR. A change to higher density zoning similar to R-S (Southside Plan residential zoning) might make sense for these sites.

2) While looking at senior centers, it might make sense to also look at zoning of other public sites that have been mentioned as housing sites, including BUSD property on Oregon that has been mentioned as a possible site for workforce housing and the North Berkeley BART station, currently zoned “unclassified”, whose parking lot, like other BART station parking lots, could be developed with housing.

http://www.californiaznehomes.com/

Community Gardens/Urban Agriculture

1) Urban Agriculture Package (11/29/2016 referral) 2) Community Garden Zoning (5/10/2016 referral)

Accessory Dwelling Units

1) When staff get to further changes to the ordinance, the issue of ADUs in the MUR district should be considered. Shouldn’t any district that allows single family homes also allow ADUs assuming adequate lot size?

Explanation of Priorities I consider creation of more affordable housing to be the most urgent goal. The City of Berkeley’s March 2016 Community Survey found that “providing affordable housing” was the most important project area for Berkeley voters with 78% of those surveyed saying it was extremely important or very important. Berkeley has not done enough in recent years and fell way short of ABAG’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) goals for housing affordable to low and very low income households (21% and 25% of RHNA respectively) for the 2007-2014. The first update for the 2015-2023 period for Berkeley suggests that we won’t meet the current RHNA without doing more. Affordable housing is also currently a priority for the City Council. The first three groups of items I have listed include things that I hope could be done fairly quickly and should give a boost to affordable housing. Zoning changes related to parking and first floor use should reduce the cost of developing housing so that affordable housing dollars go further. A City Density Bonus could also produce more affordable units and it should be possible to do a pilot version for Telegraph (or the whole Southside) fairly quickly. Streamlining of the permit process could also reduce costs so that affordable housing dollars go further. Creating objective standards to address the Housing Accountability Act will take more time as it would represent a big change to our zoning ordinance, but one that would hopefully result in a smoother approval process for all housing projects not just affordable ones. I would hope that the Planning Commission could start on that process fairly soon. With respect to area planning, once the City finishes with the Adeline Corridor, I hope that it can get going on San Pablo Avenue. Housing, and what can be done to create housing that is affordable to people currently living near Adeline and San Pablo, will be an important aspect of these plans. The first step will be to find money for planning San Pablo. The last four groups of items on my list are not unimportant but are not as urgent in my view. If the State sticks with its plan for requiring Zero Net Energy housing in 2020, state standards will exceed current LEED standards with respect to alternative energy use. One or more senior centers will probably eventually be developed with housing along with other publicly owned sites, but in the short term the City lacks the funds to go forward with such projects, but we should be aware of the need to plan for this eventually.

REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION …...Jul 19, 2017 · Item 7 July 19, 2017 Planning...

Documents

Transcript of REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION …...Jul 19, 2017 · Item 7 July 19, 2017 Planning...