Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
MINUTES - 07132004 - D.3
Original—Clerk of the Board APPEAL MICHAEL ABRAHAM (Applicant & Owner) GLORIA AND GLENN MORRISON (Appellant) CAROL AND JAMES CARMAN (Appellant) COUNTY FILE##DP033065 HEARING ON AN APPEAL BY GLORIA AND GLENN MORRISON AND CAROL AND JAMES CARMAN,ET AL OF A COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION TO APPROVE A 1,037 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT ,WITH A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS UP TO 6 FEET IN HEIGHT IN REQUIRED SIDE YARD AND READ YARD SETBACK.AREAS in the Kensington area. Board of Supervisors Contra Costa County July 13, 2004 11:00 a.m. TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR + County HATE: JULY 13, 2004 SUBJECT: HEARING OF APPEAL BY JAMES & CAROL CARMAN, GLENN & GLORIA MORRISON, ET. AL. OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION FOR A 1,037 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT, WITH A VARIANCE TO ALLOW RETAINING WALLS UP TO 6 FEET IN HEIGHT IN REQUIRED SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD SETBACKS, IN THE KENSINGTON AREA, COUNTY FILE #DPO33065 (MICHAEL & MARY ABRAHAM-APPLICANT &OWNER) (DISTRICT 1). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. OPEN the public hearing, receive testimony and CLOSE the hearing. 2. FIND for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act that the project is Categorically Exempt, Class 1-Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(1). 3. UPHOLD the County Planning Commission's approval of the proposed development plan. 4. DENY the appeal of James & Carol Carman, Glenn & Gloria Morrison, et. al. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: _2L YES SIGNATURE ' ,.. .N RECOMMENDATM 5F COMY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURES : ACTION OF BOARD CIM ,fit 7 A NDED OTHER V TE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND AYES: NOES: _ ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: _ -- ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN ATTESTED .f% %>'•� `'° Contact: Will Nelson(925) 335-1288 JOHN SWEEt I N,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF trig: Community Development Department SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY cc: Michael Abraham (Applicant) ADMINISTRATOR James&Carol Carman(Appellant) Glenn &Gloria Morrison (Appellant) KMAC BY File ;r, DEPUTY July 13, 2004 Board of Supervisors File#DP033065 Page 2 5. ADOPT the findings contained in County Planning Commission Resolution No. 13-2004 with revisions recommended by staff as the basis for the Board approval. 6. DIRECT staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. FISCAL IMPACT None. The applicant is responsible for staff time and material costs associated with the processing of this application. BACKGROUND On October 7, 2003 the applicant filed an application for small lot design review for a proposed 1,037 square foot first- and second-story addition on a substandard lot. During the public review and comment period, requests were received for a hearing before the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning Administrator heard the application on January 5, 2004 and continued the hearing to January 26, 2004 to allow time to consider the oral and written testimony received. On January 26, 2004 the Zoning Administrator approved the development plan application. On March 9, 2004 James & Carol Carman, Glenn & Gloria Morrison and several co-appellants residing on Windsor Avenue appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision to the County Planning Commission. The County Planning Commission heard the application on April 13, 2004 and voted unanimously (6-0, Mehiman absent) to deny the appeal and uphold the Zoning Administrator's decision. In denying the appeal, the Commission determined that the applicant had considered the impacts that the proposed addition could have on neighboring properties and had made an effort through the design to lessen any adverse impacts associated with the addition. On April 21, 2004 the appellants submitted an appeal of the Commission's decision to the Beard of Supervisors. Both applicant and appellants have provided extensive documentation that they feel supports their respective positions on the project's compatibility/non-compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. This documentation is attached. APPEAL DISCUSSION The appeal letter dated and received April 21, 2004 raises the following points: 1. Appellants' property rights and property value will be adversely affected if the proposed addition is permitted; 2. The decision does not comply with the County's adopted General Plan, 3. There is no substantial evidence in the record, nor other record evidence, to support the decision; 4. The decision does not include all findings required by County Code Section 82-10.002(c); 5. County Code Section 82-10.002 has been mistakenly interpreted by the County. These points of appeal are the same issues brought forward to the County Planning Commission in the appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval. No new information has been presented and July 13,2004 Beard of Supervisors File#DP033065 Page 3 no new appeal points or issues have been raised. Staff discussed the appeal points in depth in the report to the Commission dated April 13, 2004 (see attached). Since the filing of the appeal, the Office of the District I Supervisor has been working with all parties to identify alternative(s)that would resolve the appeal. The notice for this hearing includes a variance for retaining walls which allows the Board the flexibility to approve a modification to the project that includes a variance should that type of alternative result from the meetings. REVISION TO FINDINGS The Commission indicated that its approval was based on the findings attached to the staff report dated April 13, 2004. These findings contained a minor error in the finding "D." The sentence reads "The subject house would be the third largest on York Ave. and the ninth largest in the neighborhood," The sentence should have read "The subject house would be the fifth largest on York Ave. and the fifteenth largest in the neighborhood." The Zoning Administrator addressed the correction during the hearing. The corrected text reflects the elimination of the square footage for the applicant's garage, thus providing an equal comparison with the other homes. Staff has attached a revised set of findings for adoption by the Board. These findings are accurate and indicate that the proposed residence would be fifth largest on York Ave. and fifteenth largest in the neighborhood. ADDITIONAL NEIGHBOR'S LETTERS Sixteen letters have been submitted since the Commission hearing; 15 in support of the application and one in opposition. CONCLUSION Both the Zoning Administrator and the County Planning Commission found that the proposal is consistent with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of its height, size, design and location and approved the project. No new information has been submitted and no new issues have been raised in the appeal to the Board that would warrant a reversal of the previous approvals. The appeal to the Board includes the same appeal points that were raised before the Commission and an in-depth discussion of the appeal can be found in the staff report dated April 13, 2004. Staff recommends that the Board uphold the decision of the County Planning Commission and approve the proposed project. As the basis for this approval, staff recommends that the Board adopt a slightly revised set of findings with the text correction previously discussed. ADDENDUM D.3 July 13, 2044 On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered an appeal by Moria and Glenn Morrison and Carol and James Carman, et al of the County Planning Commission decision to approve a design review for a 1,037 square foot first and second story addition on a substandard lot, located at 125 York Avenue in the Kensington area, for purposes of determining neighborhood compatibility, with a variance to allow retaining was up to six feet in height in required side and rear yard setback Catherine Kutsuris of Community Development presented the staff report. On behalf of the applicant, she submitted revised plans, to be known as Scheme G, representing an agreement reached between the applicant and appellants. Scheme G revises the original plans as dated July 13, 2004. The second change is a variance to allow retaining walls up to 6 feet in height in the require side yard and rear yard area. the Final change in the permit condition would be, reflecting an agreement to lower the height of the additions,that the house would be designed for a maximum height of 26 feet 4 inches, and that a minor increase in that limitation of no more thatn 2 inches base on actual construction would not be inconsistent with that condition. In order to incorporate the changes, Ms. Kutsuris recommend that the Board accept the recommendations one and two of today's Board Order; in regard to number 3, Uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed development plan with the modifications just read into the record, and also, with the findings as contained in the County Code, Chapter 26-22006. Note that those are the standard variance findings, that this variance does not constitute a grant of special privilege, that because of special circumstances, the strict application of the zoning regulations would deprive the property owner of rignts enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity, and that the variance would substantially meet the intent and purpose of the respective land use District and those finding could be met by both the size of the property and the topography of the property. Ms. Kutsuris notes the Resolution should be amended to incorporate variance findings as well. There were no speakers on this item. The appellant and applicant stated in person, for the record,that they are in agreement with the plans as described by Ms. Kutsuris today. The Board congratulated the applicants and appellants on reaching an agreement. The Board took the following actions: 1. CLOSED the public hearing: 2. GRANTED the appeal by James&Carel Carman, Gloria and Glenn Morrison, et al of the County Planning Commission decision to approve a design review on lot located at 125 York Avenue in the Kensington area., for purposes of determining neighborhood. compatibility,Michael Abraham(Applicant& Owner), based up modifications implemented today; 3. UPHELD the County Planning Commissions' approval of the proposed development plan, as modified today and with the findings as contained in the County Code, Chapter 26-22046, with the modifications read into the record today; s 4. FOUND for purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act that the project is Categorically Exempt, Class 1-Existing;Facilities; 5. ADOPTED the findings contained in the County Planning Commission Resolution No. 13- 2004 as modified to incorporate variance findings; E. and DIRECTED staff to post a notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. RESOLUTION NO. 13-2004 RESOLUTION OF THE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE COUN'T'Y OF CONTRA COSTA, S'T'ATE OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATING FINDINGS OF THE REQUESTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN SUBMITTED BY MICHAEL & MARY ABRAHAM (APPLICANT & OWNER) (COUNTY FILE #DP033065) IN THE KENSINGTON AREA OF SAID COUNTY. WHEREAS, a request was received on October 7, 2003 by Mary Abraham, for small lot design review to construct a 1,€137 square foot first- and second-story addition to an existing residence in the Kensington area; and WHEREAS, after notice having been lawfully given, requests for a public hearing were received from neighbors James & Carol Carman, David & Sharon Gumz and Glenn & Gloria Morrison on October 20, 2003; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the County Zoning Administrator on January 5, 2004, subsequently continued to January 26, 2004,whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard, and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2004, after the Zoning Administrator having fully reviewed, considered and evaluated all the testimony and evidence submitted in this matter, APPROVED the applicant's request; and. WHEREAS, in letters dated February 3, 2004 and. March 8, 2004, Appellants filed an appeal of the Zoning Administrator's decision to the County Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, after notice thereof having been lawfully given, a public hearing was scheduled before the Commission on April 13, 2004, whereat all persons interested therein might appear and be heard; and. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission finds the application is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(Class 1); and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission determines that Applicant has made an effort in designing the proposed addition to lessen any impacts it might have on the surrounding neighborhood.; and. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Planning Commission makes the following findings with regard to conformance with Contra Costa County Ordinance Code Section 82-10.002(c): 1. Small Lot Desi Review Findin s A. Location — The location of the proposed addition is compatible and consistent with the neighborhood. Two-story houses are widespread and there are many different configurations. In some cases, the entire building is two stories while in other cases only a portion is two stories. Some homes are two stories close to the front of the property while some are two stories towards the back. Still others have two stories at the front and back (examples include 119 St. Albans Rd. and 135 Windsor Ave.). The proposed addition and the resulting building are no different than what is found throughout the area. B. Height — The proposed height is approximately 22 feet, which is consistent with other residential development in the neighborhood. The many Tudor style homes located along Windsor Ave. and St. Albans Rd, are much taller. The homes at 109, 120, 140 and 161 York Ave. are of similar or greater height. Taller homes of different styles can be found throughout the neighborhood. C. Design — The neighborhood is eclectic and includes a variety of architectural styles and design approaches. The proposed addition is designed to be consistent with the style of the existing building, which itself is compatible architecturally with the neighborhood. The proposal for a two-story home that steps up the hillside is also architecturally compatible with other residential development in the neighborhood. The homes at 135 Windsor Ave. and 119 St. Albans Rd. have second stories atop the back of the residences that are similar to the proposed design. D. Size — With the proposed addition, the bulk of the building would continue to be compatible with the neighborhood, as there would still be homes that have greater and lesser mass. The group of Tudor-style homes immediately uphill have greater mass primarily because of their steep roofs. The homes at 109, 120, 140, 161 York Ave. and 119 St. Albans Rd. are all two stories and have greater or similar mass to the proposed building. The subject house would be the third largest on York Ave. and the ninth largest in the neighborhood. WHEREAS, in a letter dated April 21, 2004, Appellants filed an appeal of the County Planning Commission's decision to the Board of Supervisors; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of this Planning Commission will sign and attest the certified copy of this resolution and deliver the same to the Board of Supervisors, all in accordance with the Government Code of the State of California. The instructions by the Planning Commission to prepare this resolution were given by motion of the County Planning Commission on Tuesday, April 13, 2004,by the following vote: AYES: Clark, Wong,Terrell, Snyder, Gaddis,Battaglia NOES: None 2 ABSENT: Mehlman ABSTAIN: None Len Battaglia, Chair of the County Planning Commission County of Contra Costa, State of California A'T'TEST: DENNIS M. BARRY, Secretary County Planning Commission, County of Contra Costa, State of California 3 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FII+lI3ING5 AN 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR DEVELOPMNT PLAN COtNNW PILE ODPO33065 Ofichael&Mary Abraham—,Aaylicant& Owner FINDINGS FOR DESIGN COTy R aired Finding - The proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of its location, height, design, and.size. A. Location --} The location of the proposed addition is compatible and consistent with the neighborhood. Two-story houses are widespread: and there are many different configurations. In some cases, the entire building is two stories while in other cases only a portion is two stories. Some homes are two stories close to the front of the property while some are two stories towards the back. Still others have two stories at the front and back (examples include 424 119 St. Albans Rd. and 135 Windsor Ave.). The proposed addition and the resulting building are no different than what is found throughout the area. B. Height — The proposed height is approximately 22 feet, which is consistent with other residential development in the neighborhood. The many Tudor style homes located along Windsor Ave. and St. Albans Rd. are much taller. The homes at 109, 120, 140 and 161 York .Ave. are of similar or greater height. Taller homes of different styles can be found throughout the neighborhood. C. Desi -- The neighborhood is eclectic and includes a variety of architectural styles and design approaches. The proposed addition is designed to be consistent with the style of the existing building, which itself is compatible architecturally with the neighborhood. The proposal for a two-story home that steps up the hillside is also architecturally compatible with other residential development in the neighborhood. The homes at 135 Windsor Ave. and P-4 119 St. Albans Rd. have second stories atop the back of the residences that are similar to the proposed design. D. Size — With the proposed addition, the bulk of the building would continue to be compatible with the neighborhood, as there would still be homes that have greater and lesser mass. The group of Tudor-style homes immediately uphill have greater mass primarily because of their steep roofs. The homes at 109, 120, 140, 161 York Ave. and 4Q4 119 St. Albans Rd. are all two stories and have greater or similar mass to the proposed building. The subject house would be the third largest on York Ave. and the ninth.largest in.the neighborhood. Proiect Finding - .The proposed addition will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of its location, height, design and size. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. This permit is to allow the construction of a 1,037 square foot addition on a lot that is substandard in area and is approved as shown on the site plan received by the Community Development Department on October 24, 2003, subject to the conditions herein. 2. Payment of Any Supplemental Processing Fees That May Be Due - This application is subject to an initial application fee of$500 which was paid with the application submittal, plus time and material costs if the application review expenses exceed 100% of the initial fee. Any additional fee due must be paid within 60 days of the permit effective date or prior to use of the permit whichever occurs first. The fees include costs through permit issuance plus five working days for file preparation. The applicant may obtain current costs by contacting the project planner. If the applicant owes additional fees, a bill will be sent to the applicant shortly after permit issuance. 3. The addition shall match the existing residence in terms of roofing materials, roof pitch and exterior siding. ADVISORY NOTES THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. IT IS PROVIDED TO ALERT THE APPLICANT TO LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COUNTY AND OTHER.PUBLIC AGENCIES TO WHICH THIS PROJECT MAY BE SUBJECT. A. NOTICE OF 90-DAY OPPORTUNITY TO PROTEST FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, OR OTHER EXACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PERMIT. This notice is intended t6 advise the applicant that pursuant to Government Code Section 66000, et seq., the applicant has the opportunity to protest fees, dedications, reservations, and/or exactions required as part of this project approval. The opportunity to protest is limited to a 90 day period after the project is approved. The ninety (90) day period in which you may protest the amount of any fee or the imposition of any dedication, reservation, or other exaction required by this approved permit, begins on the date this permit was approved. To be valid, a protest must be in writing pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 and delivered to the Community Development Department within 90 days of the approval date of this permit. B. Comply with the requirements of the Building Inspection Department. 2 PERTINENT STAFF REPORTS County planning Commission April 13, 2004 County Zoning Administrator January 26, 2004 and January 5, 20014 REQUIST TO SUM FORK (TERNS (3) KI UTZ LIMIT) Complete this farm and place it in the box near the speakers" rostrum before, addressing. the Board. Name: /C.-0 ' 13A O, z,4. Phone: { Add efiv � + - City., I am speaking for mysolf or urgeni tion f #9 (raw of aronintion) . y�^-d'r/Sr'y.�$t--ti+ �•'L'JG�:.<$,w,,. cwt YCK Y I . I wish to speak on Agenda Item # balre: My comments will be: general for „ against I wish to speak 'on the subject of I do not wish to speak but leave these comments for the Board to consider: Agenda Item.# Com. Community Development Contra Costa County BOARD OF APPEALS COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY APRIL 13 2004 I. INTRODUCTION MICHAEL ABRAHAM (Applicant & Owner), County File #DP033065: Appeal of the Zoning Administrator's approval of a request for design review for a 1,037 square foot first- and second-story addition on a substandard lot, for purposes of determining neighborhood compatibility. The subject property is located at #125 York Ave., in the Kensington area. (R-6/-TOV) (ZA: M-7) (CT: 3920.00) (Parcel #572-140-018). II. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Appeals deny the appeal and sustain the Zoning Administrator's approval of County File #DP033065, subject to the attached conditions of approval and based on the attached findings. III. BACKGROUND The Zoning Administrator opened the public hearing on January 5, 2004, taking testimony from interested parties including the applicant, the applicant's architect, Ray Barraza of the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council and several neighbors. The applicant and neighbors opposing the project submitted additional letters to support their positions. The Zoning Administrator closed the hearing and continued it until January 26, 2004 to allow time for a visit to the site and to consider the oral and written testimony received. At the January 26, 2004 hearing, the Zoning Administrator approved the project as recommended by Staff, without modification. IV. REVIEW OF APPEAL AND STAFF RESPONSE Appellants letter dated March 8, 2004 raised seven "appeal points." Before these points is discussed in further detail, Staff must review the purpose and context of the "small lot" design review process governed by County Code Section 82-1002(c). Many of the County's oldest neighborhoods are largely comprised of substandard lots due to the fact that they were created prior to implementation of zoning. Being S-2 long established, these neighborhoods tend to have a distinct, well developed aesthetic character. It is appropriate to attempt to protect that character through an additional level of design review. The purpose of the design review process is not to protect views, property values, privacy, or any other subjective qualities of individual properties or of the surrounding neighborhood. The purpose is to determine if proposed residential development on substandard lots is consistent and compatible with the aesthetic character of the surrounding neighborhood. Substandard lots are no more inherently likely to affect subjective neighborhood qualities than are standard size lots. In fact, standard size lots are probably more likely to affect these qualities because they have larger building envelopes and therefore allow for larger buildings that could block views, infringe on privacy, etc. If it were the County's intent to protect such neighborhood qualities through the design review process, then the process would extend to every residential lot. Because it does not extend to every lot, it would be discriminatory and unfair to the owners of substandard lots to require that only they be responsible for safeguarding these subjective neighborhood qualities when their lots are no more likely to affect these qualities than are neighboring standard size lots. Several of the appeal points discuss potential affects on views and property values and challenge the Zoning Administrator's findings because the findings do not address those issues. The preceding discussion is essentially the rebuttal to those points as it explains the purpose of the Code and the context under which the Zoning Administrator's findings and decision trust be made. Where Staff responds with "See discussion above," it means that the appeal point fails because it will not acknowledge the intent, purpose and context of the Code and instead attempts to introduce new issues that are irrelevant to the decision. . 1. Appellant's Pro erty Ra hts and Prom-ty Prom- Value Will Be Adversely Affected if the A-pplicant's Proposed Addition is Permitted. Sta„f'Response: See discussion above. 2. The Zoning Administrator's Decision Does Not Comply With the County's General Plan. Staff Response: Appellants cite Goal 3-C(sand Use Element), Policy 3-25 (Land Use Element) along with two sentences from the narrative in Section 9.6 of the Open Space Element to argue that the project is inconsistent with the General Plan. Ibis appeal paint fails on two levels. First, it does exactly what the General.Plan advises against. As stated on p. 1-8: "The policies expressed in this General Plan are intended to be part of an integrated document encompassing concerns which are both compatible S-3 and competing, and it is inappropriate to assess consistency of a singular policy without reference to this framework. " The General Plan contains hundreds of goals and policies and one cannot argue that a project does not conform to the overall intent and purpose of the Plan if it is substantially consistent but does not conform to a small fraction of the goals and policies. Some of the goals and policies are competing,. which means it is impossible for one project to satisfy all of them. The County's job is to interpret the goals and policies and strike the appropriate balance. Second, aside from the fact that the General Plan specifically cautions against reading policies myopically with disregard for the overall context and purpose of the document, the specific text cited by Appellants simply does not support their argument. • Goal 3-C To encourage aesthetically and functionally compatible development which reinforces the physical character of the County. The proposal does not conflict with this goal because it would not alter the physical character or desired images of either Kensington or the County as a whole. • Policy 3-25 Innovation in site planning and design of housing developments shall be encouraged in order to upgrade quality and efficiency of residential living arrangements and to protect the surrounding environment. The County does not interpret this policy to apply to single residential lots located in long-established neighborhoods. It is a guiding policy for larger-scale housing developments (i.e. subdivision, apartment complexes, etc.) and is even more specifically meant to guide development of Planned Unit Districts, which allow a wide degree of design flexibility and must encompass at least 5 acres. The County's interpretation of this policy renders it is irrelevant to this project. • Section 9.6 "Contra Costa County is perceived by many as a desirable place to live and work. A major component in that perception is the scenic vistas which are available throughout the County. " These statements are neither goals nor policies. They are simply part of the narrative within the Open Space Element. The Scenic Resources section of the Element also says that it is concerned with two main scenic resources: (1) scenic ridges, hillsides and rock outcroppings; and (2) the San Francisco BaylDelta estuary system. Further reading within the same section of the Element indicates that the County values the appearance and views othese scenic features, not the viewsfrom them: S-4 "Throughout much of Contra Costa County there are significant topographic variations in the landscape. The largest and most prominent of these hills forms the backdrop for much of the developed portions of the area. Views of these major ridgelines help to reinforce the rural feeling of the County's rapidly growing communities. " ".Individual home sites or housing tracts are sometimes constructed on ridge tops in such a way that the scenic views from the site are superb, but the view of the ridge to all others, including other property owners, is adversely affected In addition, other features of the development...can degrade the scenic quality of an area if they are not carefully designed, located and landscaped" "All new uses along the shoreline should be reviewed for their impact on the visual and scenic aspects of the bay. " This additional narrative from the Plan clearly indicates that the concern lies with the appearance of scenic resources and the potential for development to degrade these resources. The proposed development is too far from either the shoreline or a designated scenic ridge to affect the visual quality of any of these resources. 3. There is No Substantial Evidence in the Record to Support the Zonin Administrator's Findings or Decision. Staff Response: See discussion above. This appeal point also fails because it is generally lacking in any factual information. The record contains substantial evidence in the form of plans, photographs and statistics indicating that the proposed addition and resulting building would be consistent with the heights, sizes, designs and locations of other residences on York Ave. and in the surrounding neighborhood. Appellants disagree with the substantial evidence in the record only because it thoroughly disproves their claim that the neighborhood was "carefully planned" to provide views from as many lots as possible. The appeal letter states that the Zoning Administrator's finding on compatibility of location "ignores the development history of the area and the primary criteria for citing two-story homes -- to maximize the views of every home in the neighborhood " Staff has twice refuted the claim that the neighborhood was carefully designed to provide views (Staff Report dated ,January 5, 2004 p. S-5 — S-6,• Staff.Report dated ,January 26, 2004 p. S-3 -- S-4) and the Zoning Administrator agreed with Staff's conclusions. Staff has visited the neighborhood several times, twice having had the opportunity to speak with residents other than Applicant and Appellants who indicated that the viewsfrom their homes were at least partially blocked, and can S-5 unequivocally state that homes are not sited and/or built in such a way as to respect the views of their neighbors, In addition, applicant has submitted photographic proof clearly illustrating how many of the homes in the neighborhood block other's views. The fact that view blockage exists is indisputable. It is also necessary for Staff to respond to additional points made by Appellants: • The statement on p. 7 of the appeal letter, "[B]ecause of`the well-selected location, site planning- and sensitive development of certain area residences (120 York, 140 York, 161 York) their height does not conflict with other surrounding residences or obstruct their panoramic views despite the fact that they are technically taller than Applicant's proposed addition. " is false. Staff has visited the Applicant's residence and can state with certainty that the building at 120 York Ave. causes a view obstruction from the living room of Applicant's house. It is also clear simply from looking at the relationship of the above referenced houses to their neighbors that additional view blockage exists. • Appellants' contention on p. 8 of the appeal letter that "A finding of size compatibility necessarily requires an assessment of a proposed project's mass in relation to its lot size... " is an opinion and is not supported by substantial facts. This is simply a continuation of their argument that floor area ratio (FAR) should be considered even though the R-6 zoning district does not include regulations regarding FAR and Section 82-1002 does not discuss FAR as a criteria for determining neighborhood compatibility. Appellants continue to hold onto the erroneous notion that mass and floor area are interchangeable terms. Staff has already explained why this is not true and why FAR should not be used to determine if a building's size is compatible with the neighborhood (Staff Report dated January 5, 2004 p. S- 2). 4, The Zoning Adrninistrator Failed to Make a Finding That the Project Would Not Adversely impact the Appellants' and Co-Appellants' Properties and Surrounding Neighborhood. Staff Response: See discussion above as well as 45 below. 5. The Zoning Administrator Abused His Discretion in Determining That the CoMnly Code .Does Not Re wire An Review of a Project's Impacts, Including, But Not Limited to, Height, View and PMRerty Value Impacts on the Surrounding Neighborhood. Staff Response: See discussion above. This appeal point not only defeats itself, but it also undermines much of the remainder of the appeal as a whole. Here S-6 Appellants admit that "impact" is not defined under Section 82-1002(c) and infer that it is therefore left open to interpretation. Consequently, this eliminates any basis for them to argue that the impacts to be reviewed necessarily include views and/or property values. the County has consistently held that this section applies only to aesthetics (i.e. will the proposed building be aesthetically consistent with the neighborhood and will it have any aesthetic impacts in terms of its location, size, height and design?). To accept anything- different at this point would be to ignore the County's documented history of administration and enforcement of Section 82-10002(c) and the intent and purpose of the Code. The history clearly shows that views and property values have not been considerations. The Zoning Administrator did not fail to consider the project's impacts. He considered the impacts that are relevant. 6. The Zoning Administrator Mistakenly Interpreted County Code Section 82- 10.002 By Finding That Because There Are Approximately Eight Lots in the Surrounding Neighborhood That Are Not Substandard A lication of Section 82-10.002 to the Applicant's Substandard Lot Would Be I'Jiscriminato . Staff Response: Appellants have misinterpreted the Zoning Administrator's comments. The Zoning Administrator never made such a finding. Towards the close of the January 26, 2004 hearing, the Zoning Administrator explained his reasoningfor concluding that design review does not encompass view protection. The Zoning Administrator essentially pointed out that it would be arbitrary to consider view impacts only for development on substandard lots since view blockage is not inherently linked to substandard lots. On that basis, he could not conclude that the intent of Section 82-1002(c) was to protect views. 7. The Zoning Administrator Failed to Consider That the Community, As ftresented by the Kensinglon Municipal Advisoa Committee Unanimousl Recommended Denial of this Proiect. Staff Res�pon : The Appellants are correct in stating that the County is under no obligation to accept the recommendations of the .Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee (KMAC). The role of KMAC is purely advisory. Appellants' contention that the Zoning Administrator did not consider KMAC's recommendation is speculative and false considering the fact that the Zoning Administrator stated during the hearing of January 26, 2004 that the decision was based on the evidence in the record, which includes the minutes of K AC's November 26, 2004 hearing. Just because the Zoning Administrator did not agree with WAC does not mean that he did not consider their comments. Appellants erre also correct in stating that some neighbors who had signed petitions and/or submitted letters of support or opposition to the project had changed their minds. Mr. Damon Jordan of 123 Fork Ave., who had at first supported the applicant's proposal, later indicated that he no longer-supported it. Ms. Nancy Sephton submitted a letter dated January 12, 2004 indicating her S-7 intention to qualify previous statements so that they not be misinterpreted as opposition to the project. Said letter from M's. Sephton is attached to the Staff Report dated January 26, 2004. Finally, contrary to Appellants' contention, it is clear that KLIAC does not necessarily represent the community as a whole, since Applicant has submitted a petition signed by several neighbors who continue support the project. V. ADDITIONAL LETTERS Applicant submitted a 20-page letter on March 15, 2004 rebutting the appeal letter and supporting the Zoning Administrator's decision. The letter includes several attachments including photographs and a Board Order indicating approval of a similar application in the East Richmond Heights area. VII. CONCLUSION This appeal generally ignores the intent, purpose and context of Section 82-1002(c). Impacts to views and property values are not considered under the small lot ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance is not to protect such subjective neighborhood qualities, but to make sure that development on substandard lots is aesthetically compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Consequently, no objections have been raised that warrant a reversal of the Zoning Administrator's decision. Staff recommends that the Board of Appeals deny the appeal and uphold the decision to approve County File #DP033065 subject to the attached findings and conditions of approval. t It, t-ILE Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY, JANUARY 26 2004 L INTRODUCTION MICHAEL ABRAHAM tApplicant & Owned, County File #DP033065: Applicant requests for design review approval for a 1,037 square foot first- and second-story addition on a substandard lot, for purposes of determining neighborhood compatibility. The subject property is located at #125 York Ave., in the Kensington area. (R-6/-TOV) (ZA: M-7)(CT: 3920.00) (Parcel#572-140-018). H. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve County File #DP033065 with the attached conditions of approval, based on the attached findings. III. BACKGROUND At the public hearing on January 5, 2004, the Zoning Administrator took testimony from interested parties including the applicant, the applicant's architect, a representative of the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council and several neighbors. The applicant and neighbors opposing the project submitted additional letters to support their positions. The Zoning Administrator closed the hearing and continued it until January 26, 2004 to allow time for a visit to the site and to consider the oral and written testimony received. IV. NEIGHBORHOOD SQUARE FOOTAGE COMPARISON At the request of the Zoning Administrator, Staff obtained square footage data for the residences and parcels in the neighborhood. The data was obtained from ParcelQuest, a records program to which the County subscribes that is updated monthly based on information from the County Assessor. ParcelQuest was last updated in December 2003. The table below shows square footage ranges and indicates how many of the parcels on York Ave., Windsor Ave. and St. Albans Rd. are developed with residences within those ranges. Garage area was not included in the square footage for each residence. S-2 Square footage York Windsor St.Albans # % of residences Ave. Ave. Rd. Parcels Neighborhood <1,000 1 1* 0 2 3 1,000-1,999 14** 10 8 31 48 2,000-2,999 8** 9 5 23 36 >3,000 2 1 5 8 13 Total arcels: 25 21 18 64 100 * APN 572-140-003 is a 20' wide parcel that has not been developed. ** This is current information. If the proposed addition is constructed, the residence will move from the 1,000-1,999 category to the 2,000-2,999 category. With the proposed addition, the subject house would be the 3Fd largest on York Ave. It would be the 9th largest out of the 64 parcels Staff considers to be the neighborhood. Attached is the data for each parcel along with a map showing each parcel labeled with the square footage of the residence upon it. V. RESPONSE TO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION SUBMITTED AT PUBLIC bIEARINCI 1. Neighhborhood _Definition: In the original. report, Staff determined the neighborhood to be those lots on both sides of York Ave., Windsor Ave. (south of Westminster Ave.) and St. Albans Rd. This determination was reached by considering the dictionary definition of neighborhood as well as the comments from the Carmans contained in their letter dated December 1, 2003. In that letter, the Carmans specifically mention York Ave., Windsor Ave. and St. Albans Rd. multiple times and use examples of specific houses from those streets to support their position. Because the Caymans have used these streets to support their argument that the proposed addition is incompatible with the neighborhood, it is quite reasonable for the County to use examples from the same streets to make findings of neighborhood compatibility. In their supplemental letter submitted January 5,2004, the Carmans state, "...while Blocks 5 and 6 of Berkeley Highlands Terrace is the relevant neighborhood, the most accurate definition is not distinctive characteristics,but distinctive topography." Thus, the Caymans acknowledge that Blocks 5 and 6 are relevant and mention them several more times in the January 5 letter. Staff included portions of Blocks 3 and 7 only because the parcels on the east side of St. Albans Rd. and the west side of York Ave. are in those blocks, respectively. However, even a definition that is based on topography supports Staff's earlier determination that the neighborhood can reasonably be considered to include Blocks 5 and 6 and portions of other blocks. Staff has reviewed the USGS Richmond Quadrangle topographic map (20 foot intervals) and the County's finer scale GIS digitized S-3 contour map of the area. These maps both indicate that the overall slope in this part of Kensington is quite constant and does not have substantial abrupt changes. The overall slope between'York Ave., Windsor Ave. and St Albans Rd. is not significantly different than the overall slope for the rest of Berkeley Highlands Terrace. The letter from the Morrisons received January 5, 2004 attempts to define the neighborhood differently by stating that it should only be considered as the homes to which the notice of public hearing was mailed. The notice was mailed to 74 properties, although only 70 are within 300 feet (the remaining four are very close). By the Morrison's definition, Staff's neighborhood definition is too narrow because it considers only 64 parcels. The reason for the different number of parcels is that the notification radius encompasses most of the east side of Arlington Ave. (Block 7), which has more parcels than the west side of St. Albans Rd.,which is what Staff considered.. Staff s determination of neighborhood size appears to be a logical synthesis of the arguments presented by the Morrisons and the Carmans. It encompasses slightly fewer than. 70 parcels; it encompasses York Ave., Windsor Ave. and St. Albans Rd.; and it encompasses an area that has a rather constant slope. 2. Views: In their letter of January 5, 2004,the Morrisons questioned why Staff has devoted a considerable amount of time to discussing views while Staff has simultaneously contended that view considerations are not relevant to the application. In their letters, the Morrisons and Carmans devoted significant effort to discussing views and it would have been improper for Staff' to ignore their comments outright. The Morrisons and Carmans have interwoven a discussion of views with their contention that the proposed addition is incompatible with the neighborhood. Because of this, Staff cannot adequately address their concerns regarding compatibility without a discussion of views. Also in regards to views, the Morrisons in their January 5 letter disputed the following statement made by Staff on page S-5 of the original staff report: "The Tudor houses on the west side of Windsor Ave. fully or partially eliminate the views from at least half of the houses on the east(uphill) side of Windsor Ave." The Morrisons submitted a petition to the Zoning Administrator signed by the residents of 111, 115, 121, 125 and 129 Windsor Ave. stating that they have a bay view from the first floor living area of their houses. There are 10 houses on the east side of Windsor Ave. and five residents signed the petition. On the surface this appears to actually support Staff's statement as true because this is only half of the houses. However, this issue needs clarification. S-4 Staff's statement was in response to the following statement on page 2 of the Carman letter of December 1, 2003: "Now,with this arrangement,the houses on the west side of St. Albans see over the houses on the east side of Windsor, which see over the houses on the west side of Windsor. All have unobstructed views." Staff assumed in the report of January 5, 2004 that the Morrisons and Carmans considered "views" to be sweeping and panoramic. The Carmans have not disputed this assumption and it is actually substantiated by the Morrisons on page 2 of their letter dated December 15, 2003. Therefore, if sweeping, panoramic views are the measuring stick, then Staff's statement is completely accurate. Less than half of the homes on the east side of Windsor Ave. have unobstructed panoramic views. There is no disputing the fact that some of the homes on the east side of Windsor Ave. have views of a portion of the bay. However, if the Morrisons contend that these homes have views simply because part the bay can be seen from their first floor living areas, as is stated on the petition, then their home will continue to have views if the proposed addition is built because large portions of the bay would still be visible. 3. 123 St. Albans Rd.: The residence at 123 St, Albans Rd. is mentioned several times throughout the original staff`report and findings. Staff erred in citing this home. The home Staff intended to cite was 119 St Albans Rd., which is one parcel north. This error has been corrected in the findings. 4. Criteria for IDes p Review Decisions: The Carmans and Morrisons have pointed out in their correspondence that the County Code does not state that views and economic factors are not relevant to the neighborhood compatibility finding, and because of that, such issues should be considered. The land use regulations in the County Code are interpreted and enforced based on what is stated, not what is omitted. For example, the Code includes lists of the uses that are permitted in the various zoning districts. It cannot do the inverse, which would be to list the uses that are not permitted, because it is impossible to anticipate every use that may be proposed. Therefore, if it does not say the use is permitted, then the use is not permitted. Similarly in regards to design review findings, the Code specifically states that projects are to be reviewed in terms of their location, size, height and design. It does not, and cannot, list all of the things that shall not be considered when determining neighborhood compatibility. The logic used by the Carmans and Morrisons, that two negatives equal a positive, cannot be applied to land use regulation. If it were, incompatible uses S-5 such as chemical plants could be established in R-6 residential zoning districts because the Code does not say that they are not allowed. In regards to design review, it is the fact that the Code does not mention views or economic issues that makes them non-factors to the neighborhood compatibility decision. VI. ADDITIONAL LETTER.FROM NEIGHBORS The following residents submitted letters since the January 5, 2004 public hearing. The letters are attached. 1. Paul E.Dorroh, 144 York Avenue. 2. Nancy E. Sephton, 120 York Avenue. VII. CONCLUSION The information submitted at the public hearing on January 5, 2004 is contained in the project file. Additional information obtained or submitted since the hearing is attached to this report. After reviewing the additional information, Staff continues to recommend approval of County File #DP033065 based on the attached findings and conditions of approval. ParcelQuest by GC-DAI A 572-122-GOI-5 2,135456 9,393 572-122-002- 2,817 350 5,400 572-122-003 1,905 394 5.310 572-122-0084 2,133 410 4,943 572-122-009- 1,499 587 41223 572-122-010 1431550 3,697 572-122-0111-f 1,183 200 5,250 1572-123-002 1,9671354 5,6701 X3572-123-003_ 1,7571357 I-6,210-1 57 -123-004-2 2,9011440 5,265 2357 _124-0011-7 3,3191255 3,990 A157 -124-002-E 3,857320 5,291 572-124-003 3,999 341 5,733 572-124-004-1 3,530 368 6,000 572-124-0054 3,309 368 5,950 # 572-124-006-f 1,489 281 4,641 572-124-007-4 1,825 276 4.760 I j 572-124-008- 2,095 34_0 4,7601 572-124-009 2,095 347- 4,9571 { 572-124-010- 1,330 360 -� 3,761; 1572-124-011- 1,099 379 3,700' x,572-124-01_2 1,145374 4,200 572-124-013-1,569;4_24 -_8,4_00 W 572-124-014 1,5871477 4.200 572-124-015- --2,011 330 4.200 572-124-016- 2,210 300 4.200, 572-124-017- 1,393 240 - 4,500i 572-124-01 B-11 2,161 425 --5,700 j 572-140-001-7,t 2,897 282 4,850 1 572-140-002-� 1,2901210 5,940 572-140-003-92,1 60 572-140-004-1 3.839;331 9,600 572-140-005-0 2,229359 - 4,8001 572-140-006-0 1,801 315 4,300 572-140-007 1,240 280 4,300 " 572-140-008- 1,507 351 4,300; 572-140-009 2,189 334 d { 572-140-010-f 2,203 330 4,500 572-140-0114 2,731 509 ; 5,400 } 572-14M 124 2,569 380 ! 5,355 } 572-140-013-2 2,001 378 `• 8,000 572-140-014 u 897 240 4,300 V2-140-015-7 1.955 381 3,800 572-140-016 1,555,396 4,300 572-140-017- 1,3871373 4,300 572-140-018-11 1,3671418 3,800 # 572-140-019-0 1.587 391 4,300 572-140-022- 1,963 400 4,300 572-140-025-Q 1,900 304 7,4001 572-140-027-?, 2,739 8,000 ,572-140-028 i 1,621542 -3,800; x;572-150-001-41 1,751360 5,991; x,1572-150-002-� 1,773 - 4,5771 x ;572-150-003 ! 1,891328 4,200; :572-150-004-S 1,663 306 4,200 X1572-150-005- 2,329 460 4,200; ,!572-150-006-1 1,773 409 4,200{ x'572-150-007-1! 2,203 367_ 814001 x;572-150-008-9 2,270 470 5,200 1572-150-009-7, 1,487,360 -5,300 1572-150-010-5 3,0411418 _ 5,300 &,'572-150-011-3 3,0635 307 ,700_l .__ _ l.e..._.._....._. -- 1572-150-012-11r 2,0791359 4,7001 i 1572_150`013-9 2.463 333 5.500, ""The information provided here is deemed reliable,but is not guaranteed. 1 >• tl �s14�' .;'Sas� �x•Ppm "". ��t� wnr�gi�Y'#+��!-. ,��� �i �"n F"A` � hit7 i�1'�y .. ,94 tr T': C ,ayl" �'{ c�,�{��•�} r�`+ y"� � ,��,� t 4, 'dv `<� Yr 4�yt. ,�q+� 4 r� h tlK E 1 t 4: x' 1 i swc4c +'#d�7?!"if » xt:if� 1P ariR��nn es 'J� � lie6y�' RM: rt 0 •' 1 , ty t`dIY- M h 1. t I(w - JvA- i' yy 5 � jrdf t �� _ ♦ _ ' t # pf r f fx 1 e 1' 9 7rr �n AT v C- it v, to r� ui u� ca ot5 'tea ,,••�,," t�3 t�3 tr G tp *Y. CD d N it V to Y V Sv i w. V 0 vi *000 � Jh .✓ w Y d ��+:a.C, �'ry£}��1 1 t; s a° - ! 34`` •>, :din, \�t.�.Ptr * ' j t ..R �, i`�w fta�r �'. �,/`f\ fixA �1:!/' �. NON r �y� � xsl-, t i!�liR Ur'"+w. e '- �+ '++, zs`/j 4. ( �sl� �'"rc-..,. }s11�;,Ij � ��,iPi !F '41�►w -°yv:r4�fi, 4__ �l "�", A 4. d'�k+ `"^ J lay+ - t 1 - i';aaSEI *�'-y,.�+�^�ti+eZ�{ME fl'i' 1 - t �N. aep e � s kk i f p., eJ,y ,„,,'�tf� t/t /T•AX' �f'1k',.Xyti �r-�.,...,-�^I" /�i _.,na i "M1"^-'*:•;.�`'�s`Y 'l�,aw"'� ki`4 ��/" 't �5,, M fr {elf p�'k F,�, exl4 41.r ,SIN '. s hJ7{a17t1t rit., a ri•^` ri ti ram 1r1 },'11L""!l} .,.mayE� f7 t.tl� ���ff '1i y'* '`43)�!t K..- kV•,i - j s + '1.�1 P ) ><! ar-- ' �..�'"� t � �4 t ^h �' � �� .' r +.7i. a 4{fttt#t,tt{t c, S e k d t s tYji ,,, 1• ,�`"`•'."",1 � �` vEf ti� /YYq,\1 1t� ��ti}t1�� �� i" , -. ��' � �;��, Cr",s+*,,+�L�. y}��,'�y�`y�'.�tl,� 1.,� s£' � � }t/w,`'�'r���,t'f,`t''•+tf,�+,�,�_ ���t`a �7�f £tC Y{I� � `n� '*; s. 1' �,e.x1ll +�„ '�-�t' S1 it� ��'•��� 'L„r,. �5..,,�� • ' 7!'.A �L- y . l''i i'* /,j (� Cyt S:. �t1 t�l 1 w,� 'owM'^F"�`R 1AN v�"':ff f,` aiY�tr y ti E�l`id ?t3 °1.'�`at: 7 ;, u"'1' 3 \�� is �• -w k~+, r+�,, A fit. �, ` e �@r �,r•s tt :.��', v�� t�*yt^s"'�141 �'1f�'��a��+€t�#r°',. �1����t( > fir. s ;1},, IIS Ol ' e ''`°� '�E'` ��'1'�..� �►I"�,Ir�.��i t�t�.�{, fir � l �I� ,ate� �,� � �•• .,, ,,, , ,,.��, t 1'�� �}�,�..r•r t '�• j//t tl �+r�4. �, t it i�2`3� Y }� 1� � t i r � ' t r R a ��,FA ,t <; # •� cei� y�iw��� s£��� S k J ni t ��t` '• � R��i t� !°:�� � r t S[ 4 1� yr �' ' ¢f 1 t ! 1�� f�sP� er! .Ys a FILE Agenda Item# Community Development Contra Costa County COUNTY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR MONDAY JANUARYS 2004 1. LITRODUCTION MICHAEL ABRAHAM (Applicant & Owned, County File #DP033065: Applicant requests for design review approval for a 1,037 square foot first- and second-story addition on a substandard lot, for purposes of determining neighborhood compatibility. The subject property is located at #125 York. Ave., in the Kensington area. (R-6)(ZA: M-7) (CT: 3920.00) (Parcel#572-140-018). 11. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Zoning Administrator approve County File #DP033065 with the attached conditions of approval,based on the attached findings. 111. GENERAL INFORMATION A. General Plan: Single-Family Residential Nigh Density(SP1). B. Zoning: R-6, Single-Family Residential High Density. C. CEOA Status: Categorical Exemption--Class 1, Section 15301(e)(1). D. PrevioussAA llications: 2103101068, an application for small lot review, for which a public hearing was requested by three neighbors. E. Regulator-Prr rams: Alquist-Priolo study zone. The project's location within this zone is has no bearing on this application. IV. AGENCY COMNMNTTS Building Inspection: Stated that the addition must meet applicable building codes. K.ensingLon Muni6 al Advisory Committee: Voted 4-0 to recommend denial of the project based on its height and size being incompatible with the neighborhood, Staff response: S-2 0 The KM:AC minutes state that the members were concerned about view impacts to 11.2 Windsor Ave. This is not a consideration under the small lot ordinance. i The minutes state that the building height is incompatible with the neighborhood. At approximately 22 feet, the height of the building is well within the range found in the neighborhood. Even from the pad level of the garage to the top of the proposed addition, the height is only 28 feet, which is still consistent with the neighborhood. However, the County does not measure buildings that step up the hillside in that fashion. • The minutes discuss floor area ratio. There are no floor area ratio limits specified by the zoning or the general plan. The square footage and FAR have limited relevance because design review focuses on the exterior appearance of the building, not the floor plan. The "size" criterion for determining neighborhood compatibility refers to the building's mass and bulk. The importance of square footage is diminished because it can vary substantially within the building envelope depending on the specific configuration of the floor plan. Two buildings with the same mass can easily have different amounts of square footage. Therefore, one cannot contend that a house is "too big" simply because it has more square footage than its neighbors. In order to gain some numerical understanding of the proposed mass, staff compared the size of the proposed building to the size of the allowed building envelope. The building envelope for this lot is approximately 68,000 cubic feet (maximum building length and width after setbacks are accounted for, multiplied by allowed height of 35 feet). The mass of the proposed building is approximately 38,000 cubic feet, although the precise mass is actually less due to the roof slope and various nooks and crannies in the design (it was staff s intent to illustrate the worst-case scenario). Therefore, approximately 56% of the building envelope is being filled. The zoning district permits the applicant to develop a building nearly twice as large as proposed. V. AREA/SITE DESCRIPTION The parcel is located in Block 6 of the Berkeley Highlands Terrace subdivision in Kensington. This subdivision contains 186 parcels, some of which include multiple lots. The maps for this subdivision were filed January 28, 1914. Berkeley Highlands Terrace is bounded by Arlington Ave. (west), Highland Ave. (east), the Arlington Path (except for eight lots located on its south side) and the school district property (north). The development pattern of this subdivision is ordered, with most lots being long rectangles about 40-45 feet in width. The topography is fairly steep and slopes downward from east to west. The neighborhood is eclectic architecturally, with many different styles and designs. Most homes are two stories. VI. PROPOSED PROJECT S-3 The applicant proposes a 1,037 square foot first- and second-story addition that includes a family room, bedroom, master bedroom, master bathroom, walk-in closet and office. VII. STAFF ANALYSISMISCUSSION A. Site Plan: Because of the lot's 40-foot frontage along Fork Avenue, side yard setbacks of minimum three feet with an eight-foot aggregate are required. The existing building meets the minimum side setback requirements. The side setbacks would not be affected, as the addition would rise straight up on the existing walls. The addition would extend the building backwards but would still maintain a rear setback of 20 feet where minimum 15 feet is required. No construction is proposed that would affect the front setback. The proposed site plan is compliant with the zoning standards in every respect. & Proposed Addition & Exterior Chanes: The proposal is for a first- and second- story addition, measuring 13 feet long by 27 feet 8 inches wide on the first story and 27 feet 11 inches long by 27 feet 8 inches wide on the second story. The addition would total 1,037 square feet and would bring the total house size to 2,908 square feet. Beginning at a point flush with the new rear wall, it would come forward about 43% of the building's length, which substantially diminishes its visual impact when viewed from York Ave. The building currently steps up the slope and at its highest point is approximately 19 feet tall. Because the addition is proposed atop the rear single-story portion, the height of the building still would not exceed approximately 22 feet at any point. Architecturally the addition would be consistent with the existing building, incorporating the same roof pitch, materials, colors and style. C. View lWacts: "View" is a subjective term. Some may consider a house to have a. view even if it is of only one feature, such as the Golden Gate Bridge. The applicant's neighbors consider the view to be panoramic, encompassing the bridges, the bay, San Francisco and Marin. The definition of a view is correct in both cases, as it can be of a single object or of an entire landscape. Staff has visited the homes at 112 and 118 Windsor Ave. to observe and photograph the story poles that have been erected. If the proposed addition is constructed it will block a portion of the sweeping panoramic views currently enjoyed from the street level of each residence. However, each residence will still maintain views from the street level. Additionally, while staff did not visit the upper level of either house, it appears that the proposed addition is far too short to obstruct any views from those levels. Views can be obstructed to varying degrees without being lost. S-4 The R-1 zoning district was applied to this area in 1948. Under that zoning the maximum height of a residence was 38 Feet. In 1955, Ordinance No. 1179 replaced the R-1 district with the R-6 district and established the current height standards. Because the height regulations for this area have not changed since 1955, the adjacent property owners should have realized the development potential of the subject lot and that an addition such as the one proposed, along the view blockage it could create,was always a possibility. The County Code does not confer upon any property owner a right to the air over an adjoining parcel. However, the R46 zoning does entitle a landowner (the applicant) to certain development rights. The County cannot simply bestow additional "rights," such as view protection, on adjacent landowners to which they are not entitled. D. Neighbor's Letters: Several pieces of correspondence have been received related to the proposed project. Staff has attempted to summarize and respond to the key points of these letters. The full text of each letter is attached. Qpponents: 1. James & Carol Carman 118 Windsor Avenue: Requested a public hearing, stating that the addition would have "unacceptable impacts" on them and that it would be incompatible with the neighborhood. A supplemental letter was submitted on December 2, 2003. Photos showing view impacts have also been submitted. Staff's general response to the letter is as follows: The Carmans specifically mention Blocks 5 and 6 of the Berkeley Highlands Terrace subdivision and cite development on York Ave., Windsor Ave. and St. Albans Rd. Staff's opinion is that by basing their argument on examples from only those specific streets and blocks, the Carmans have essentially defined a geographic area that they believe should be used as the benchmark for determining the compatibility of the proposed addition. Blocks 5 and 6 include 43 parcels, or 22% of Berkeley Highlands Terrace. Staff's opinion is that the area that the Carman's consider to be the neighborhood is too narrow for one to fully understand the context in which the addition is proposed. "Neighborhood" is a subjective term. It is defined in the dictionary as an area that typically has distinctive characteristics. Given that definition, one could arguably consider all of Kensington to be a neighborhood. The seven blocks that constitute Berkeley Highlands Terrace could reasonably be considered a neighborhood. Considering the dictionary definition along with the S-5 comments from the Carmans, staff has considered the "neighborhood" to be Blocks 5 and 6 and portions of Blocks 3 and 7 of Berkeley Highlands Terrace. These blocks include all of the parcels fronting both sides of Fork Ave., St. Albans Rd. and Windsor Ave. south of Westminster Ave. This includes 64 parcels, or 34%of Berkeley Highlands Terrace. • The Carmans state that the neighborhood was developed in such a way as to provide views to as many lots as possible and that the views along York Ave., Windsor Ave. and St Albans Rd are unobstructed. Such statements are highly debatable. The significant number of lots that were developed with Tudor-style houses is evidence that view preservation may not have necessarily been the intent. One of the defining characteristics of the Tudor-style is the steep pitch of the roof,which results in houses that are several feet taller than those with a more common roof pitch. If it were true that the neighborhood was designed so that views could be maximized, then the builders would never have employed this house style because the excessive building height blocks views. The Tudor houses on the west side of"Windsor Ave. fully or partially eliminate the views from at least half of the houses on the east (uphill) side of Windsor Ave. On St. Albans Rd. the view obstructions caused by the Tudors are even more severe. Not only do those houses black the views of most of the homes on the east side of St. Albans Rd., but they also fully or partially block the views of the houses addressed 108-124 on the west side of Kenyon Ave., which is the next uphill street. It appears that view preservation for the uphill neighbors was not a major consideration when the Tudor-style homes were built. A different style that incorporated a lesser roof pitch would have allowed views from many more lets along Windsor Ave., St. Albans Rd. and Kenyon Ave. Contrary to the Carman's assertions, the houses in this neighborhood were not designed to respect views, do not necessarily look over each other and there are many obstructed views. • The Carmans contend that in order to maximize the neighborhood's views, the larger houses should be built on the west side of the street with the smaller houses on the east side. However, such a layout only maximizes views for the western houses. In actuality, the layout of the houses should be exactly the opposite. The reason is that the houses on the east sides must be tall enough to see over the houses directly across the street from them since they are built at approximately the same grade (i.e. street level). If the houses on the west sides were taller, then the houses on the east sides would have little or no view, which is the situation on Windsor Ave. and St, Albans Rd., where the two-story houses on the west side block the houses on the east side. The houses on S-6 the west side gain height over the houses on the east side of the street below due to the topography, therefore they do not have to be as big in order to see over their downhill neighbors. The zoning treats every property owner equally, There is no inherent right to have a larger house or a view simply because of the side of the street on which one lives. • Economic factors such as the effect that certain development would have on property values are not evaluated under the small lot ordinance or the California Environmental Quality Act. The potential effect on property value is not grounds for denial of the application. And as stated above, there was always the possibility of this type of development, along with the effect on property values (view)that it entails. 2. David & Sharon Gumz 108 Windsor Avenue: Requested a public hearing, stating that it is `terribly unfair" for a resident to build an addition that obstructs the view of another resident because it would diminish the enjoyment of the neighboring home and decrease its value. They also stated that the home is currently in scale with the neighborhood and that the second story"may not"be compatible. 3. Glenna & Gloria Morrison 112 Windsor Avenue: The Morrisons requested a public hearing and have sent two supplemental letters (attached) dated November 29, 2003 and December 15, 2003. Photos showing view impacts have also been submitted. Staff has responded to most of the Morrison's concerns in the paragraphs above through the discussion of property rights vs. view "rights," FAR and scope of the "neighborhood." The following is staff's response to issues unique to the Morrison's letters: • The applicant has submitted documentation explaining the content of conversations that the took place between him and the Morrisons. In both letters the Morrisons dispute the applicant's portrayal of those conversations. However, it is inappropriate for staff to consider, or to comment on, the content of these conversations as represented by either the applicant or the Morrisons because it is hearsay, • There is mention of a new ordinance for the Kensington area and the Morrisons point out that the proposed addition would be inconsistent with that ordinance. While a new ordinance may be in development, it is not relevant to this application because it has not been adapted by the Board of Supervisors and is not yet law. S-7 4. The Morrisons have submitted a petition signed by 21 neighbors residing on Windsor Ave. who are opposed to the project and agree that the proposed addition is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of its height and size. Proponents: 1. The applicant has submitted a petition signets by 13 neighbors residing on York Ave. who agree that the proposed addition is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of height, location, size and design. The adjacent neighbor residing at 123 York Ave.had previously signed the petition but has since asked that his name be removed. VIII. CONCLUSION The purpose of design review is to determine if a building's design is substantially similar or substantially different than other buildings in the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed addition and resulting building would be consistent with many other homes in the neighborhood in terms of its height, location, size and design. The addition would partially block some of the views that are currently afforded to neighboring homes. While staff understands the concerns of these neighbors, the fact of the matter is that the applicant has a right to develop the property while the neighbors do not have a right to views over his property. In light of the fact that the proposal meets all applicable zoning standards, staff recommends approval of County File #DP033065 based on the attached findings and conditions of approvals APPEAL LETTER NRLLER1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD. t-1 FIFT11 FLOOR STARR I'.0. Box 8177 DuA nLUALIX6z WALNUT CRUX, CALIFORNIA 94596 A PROFESSIO-14AL FACSIMILE (926) 933-4126 LAV CORPORATION TELEPHONE (925) 995-9400 CHRISTIAN M.CARRICAN CMCOMSANoR.com (925)941-3283 March 8, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE 925 335-1222 AND MAIL Planning Commission Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94520 Re: Appeal of January 26, 2004,Zoning Administrator's Decision Approving Desi p Review File DP033065 Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: This firm represents Gloria and Glenn Morrison, 112 Windsor Avenue, and Carol and James Carman, 118 Windsor Avenue, ("Appellants") in connection with the above- referenced application. In addition, Appellants are joined in their appeal by the following"co- appellants": John and Eileen Kramer, 120 Windsor Avenue; Michael and Elaine Emery, 124 Windsor Avenue; Laurent and Chantel Mayali, 126 Windsor Avenue; Ron Loewinsohn and Siv Sandler, 130 Windsor Avenue; William and Donna Stanton, 134 Windsor Avenue; and William and Gloria McNab, 136 Windsor Avenue. On January 26, 2004, the applicant and property owner-Michael Abraham ("Applicant")received "design review"approval for a 1,037 square-foot first and second story addition on a substandard lot located at 125 York Avenue in Kensington(the "Project"). The Applicant's residence, and proposed addition, are located immediately to the west of Appellants' residences, and if the unlawful approval is permitted to stand,Appellants' property rights, property values, and interests in sound and orderly land use planning, will be adversely affected. The purpose of this letter is to detail Appellants' grounds for appeal of the January 26,2004, decision of the Zoning Administrator. For the following reasons, the Zoning Administrator's approval of the Project was an abuse of discretion that must not be permitted to stand: 1. Appellants' Property Rights and Property Value Will Be Adversely Affected if the Applicant's Proposed,Addition is Permitted. Appellants have owned their properties in Kensington for well over 30 years, During this time,they have enjoyed views ofth_e City of San Francisco,the San Francisco Bay, Bay Bridge, Treasure Island, the Golden Gate Bridge, Marin County, and other scenic sites from MOGG1433031565079.1 + W A L N V T C It E E 9 + W V W . M SA N D R . C 0 M + F A L o A L T 0 Planning Commission March 8,2004 Page 2 various locations in their residences. The impact of the proposed addition on Appellants' homes would be devastating, as they would lose a major portion of their existing views,which views would be obliterated by a massive new structure that is out of character with the surrounding neighborhood. When Appellants purchased their respective homes during the 1960's and 1970's, they expected to enjoy the breathtaking views for many years to come, and also anticipated that their property values would continue to rise because of the pristine views and accompanying desirability of the Kensington area. Not surprisingly, when these homes were originally advertised for sale in the 1930's, the location was described as follows: "These homes are ideally situated, on the crest of the foothills high above Albany and Richmond with an inspiring, sweeping view of the Bary, San Francisco, Marin County and the Golden Gate." Appellants' inspiring, sweeping views,that have existed since the 1930's,will be substantially eliminated should the Project proceed as proposed. .Furthermore,Appellants' investment-backed expectations will be shattered should the Applicant's Project move forward as proposed. As demonstrated to County staff and the Zoning Administrator in previous correspondence, the loss of a view in this area can reduce the value of a property by as much as 37 percent. For the County to permit the Applicant to construct an addition clearly intended to and effectively enhancing the value of his home, while destroying the Appellants' view and property value is an abomination. There exist numerous alternative designs that would satisfy Applicant's need for more space, while allowing Appellants to maintain, in whole or in large part,the views that have existed from their residences for approximately 70 years. Staff apparently suggests in its January 5, 2004, Staff`Report,that economic factors will not be evaluated under the County's"design review"procedure. (Centra Costa County Code, § 82-10.002(c).) This interpretation is surprising in light of the plain language of section 6-2.240(c)(1), which provides Appellants the right of appeal where property rights or the value of property is adversely affected. Because the Zoning Administrator stubbornly refused to even consider the Project's clear impacts on Appellants' long standing property rights and the potential adverse affects on their property values as required by the County Code, his decision must not be permitted to stand. 2. The Zoning Administrator's Decision .Does Not Comply With the County's General flan. During the January 5,2004, and January 26, 2004,public hearings, the Zoning Administrator did not consider the issue of the proposed Project's consistency with the General Plan. Not only does the County Code require that all land use decisions be consistent with the General Plan, but the California Supreme Court has held that the propriety of virtually any land use decision depends upon consistency with the applicable General Plan. Lesher Communications.Inc. v. City of`Walnut Creek(1490) 52 C.3d 531, 540, Citizens of Goleta Valley v Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 C.3d 553, 570.) Consistency with the General Plan MOO 4d33031565079.I Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 3 requires more than determining whether the land use designations(in this case, Single-Family Residential High Density)are consistent; it also requires a review of the entirety of the General Plan to confirm that the proposed development is in keeping with the direction the General Plan provides for the future. As stated on p. 9-5 of the County's General Plan, "Contra Costa County is perceived by many as a desirable place to live and work. A major component in that perception is the scenic vistas which are available throughout the County," The County has long recognized that the existence of scenic vistas and views throughout the County adds to the desirability of living in the County. By disregarding the preservation of scenic vistas and views in his land use decision-making,the Zoning Administrator expressly chose to disregard this, provision of the General Flan, and failed to recognize that the desirability of maintaining a residence in.Kensington is directly related to the available scenic vistas and views. Furthermore, section 3-8, Goal 3-C of the County's General flan requires that development reinforce the desired images of the County: "To encourage aesthetically and functionally compatible development which reinforces the physical character and desired images of the County." Because the key physical characteristics and desired images in Kensington are the scenic vistas and views that Kensington residents, including Appellants,enjoy, additions which destroy the scenic vistas and views can not be deemed aesthetically or functionally compatible. In addition,obstruction of Appellants' scenic vistas and views directly contradicts the goal of reinforcing the physical character and desired images of the County. The Applicant's addition does not reinforce the longstanding physical character of the Kensington area.; rather, it obliterates the desired images which have made Kensington a desirable place to live, and therefore is inconsistent with County General flan Gaal 3-C. It is also important to nate that the County's General Plan commands: "Innovation in site planning and design of housing developments shall be encouraged in order to upgrade quality and efficiency of residential living arrangements and toroti tect the surrounding environment."' (Contra Costa County General Plan, section 3-8,Policies 3-25 [Emph. Added].) Applicant's Project not only does not protect its surrounding environment-r it destroys the surrounding environment for Appellants. Appellants have suggested alternative designs to the Applicant, all of which are innovative and would protect the surrounding area. The Applicant has presumably rejected these alternative designs resulting in a.Project that is not an example of "innovation in site planning and design,"as required by the County's General Plan, The F Similarly, Goal 34 of the County's general Plan provides as a County-wide goat: "To encourage a development pattern that promotes the individuality and unique character of each community in the County." 2 Possible alternative designs include(1)reduce the height of the addition to half story, (2) demolish the rear of the residence, lower it by 4.5 feet,and then add the second story,or(3)excavate behind the basement bathroom and stairway to add additional square footage. When asked by the Zoning Administrator at the January S,2004,public hearing whether he would consider any design modifications, the Applicant responded that he would not consider any modifications at this point,and preferred to move forward with the proposed design. In fact,the Applicant has steadfastly refused to modify or compromise his originally-submitted plan one iota. M000\43303\565079A Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 4 County's failure to encourage alternative project designs also directly conflicts with section 3-8, which states: "Flexibility in the design of projects shall be encouraged in order to emphasize scenic qualities and provide for a varied development pattern." Maintenance of scenic vistas, views, and the surrounding environment are important factors the County's General Plan requires the Zoning Administrator to consider in reviewing the suitability of a project design. The Zoning Administrator's failure to even consider this Project's relationship to the General Plan, let alone to make evidence-supported findings in this regard, is a clear abuse of discretion. 3. There Is No Substantial Evidence In The Record To Si upport The Zonin Administrator's Findings tar Decision. A. Relevant Standards. Because the Applicants' Project is located on a substandard lot, section 82-10.402(c) requires review for design compatibility and adverse impacts prior to the issuance of a building permit, In pertinent part, that section reads: If a small lot qualifies for occupancy by a single-family dwelling, then a building permit can issue unless the zoning administrator determines that the proposed dwelling appears not to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. If the zoning administrator makes that determination,the zoning administrator may, but is not required to, schedule a public hearing to review the proposed dwellings' compatibility with and impact on the surrounding neighborhood, in terms of its location,size,height, and design. [Emph. Added.] 'While section 82-10.002(c)does provide for a general design review hearing, it also requires that when such a hearing is held,the Zoning Administrator must review the?proposed dwellings'-- compatibility with and impact on the surrounding neighborhood,in terms of its location, size, and height. Staff informed the Zoning Administrator that to approve the Applicant's project in accordance with the mandates of the County Code,he was required to make a finding that it will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of its location, size, height and design. (Section 82-10.002(c); Staff Report dated January 26, 2044.) By stating that"...I am in concurrence with the staff findings and recommendation and am approving the project as recommended,"the Zoning Administrator apparently approved the following "Findings for Design Compatibility"prepared by Staff. Required Finding—The proposed project will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of its location,height, design and size. MOGG\433031565079.1 Planning Commission March 8,2004 Page 5 A. Location—The location of the proposed addition is compatible and consistent with the neighborhood. Two-story houses are widespread and there are many different configurations. In some cases, the entire building is two stories while in other cases only a portion is two stories. Some homes are two stories close to the front of the property while some are two stories towards the back. Still others have two stories at the front and back(examples include 119 St. Albans Rd. and 135 Windsor Ave.) The proposed addition and the resulting building are no different than what is found throughout the area. B. Height—The proposed height is approximately 22 feet, which is consistent with other residential development in the neighborhood. The many Tudor style homes located along Windsor Ave. and St. Albans Rd. are much taller. The homes at 109, 120, 140 and 161 York Ave. are of similar or greater height. Taller homes of different styles can be found throughout the neighborhood. C. Desi n—The neighborhood is eclectic and includes a variety of architectural styles and design approaches. The proposed addition is designed to be consistent with the style of the existing building, which itself is compatible architecturally with the neighborhood. The proposal for a two-story home that steps up the hillside is also architecturally compatible with other residential development in the neighborhood. The homes at 135 Windsor Ave. and 119 St. Albans Rd. have second stories atop the back of the residences that are similar to the proposed design. D. Size— With the proposed addition,the bulk of the building would continue to be compatible with the neighborhood, as there would still be homes that have greater and lesser mass. The group of Tudor-style homes immediately uphill have greater mass primarily because of their steep roofs. The homes at 103, 120, 140, 161 York Ave. and 119 St. Albans Rd. are all two stories and have greater or similar mass to the proposed building. The subject house would be the third largest on York Ave. and the ninth largest in the neighborhood. Project Finding?— The proposed addition will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of its location, height, design and size. MOCY xA33031565079.3 Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 6 Although, at first glance,these findings appear to address the necessary considerations, upon closer review, each not only fails to address the Project's impacts on the surrounding neighborhood,but also is not supported by any substantial evidence. The Zoning Administrator's "analysis"is belied by and distorts the"on the ground" facts, as documented by the administrative record of proceedings in this matter. The County Zoning Administrator abuses his discretion when his decision is not supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. (Tol2anga Assn for a Scenic Community v. County_of Los Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 515.) "Substantial evidence" means facts,reasonable assumptions based on facts and expert opinion supported by facts. (Friends of Davis v. City-of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.AppAth 1004, 1019.) In light of the substantial evidence presented by Appellants' during the January 5,2004, and January 26, 2004, public hearings evidencing the proposed project's lack of compatibility with and adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and the utter lack of contrary facts,the Zoning Administrator abused his discretion by approving the Project based on the stated findings. B.. There is No Substantial Evidence In the Record To Support the Zonin2 Administrator's Findings That the Pro'ect's Location Size Hei ht and Desi Are Compatible With the SurroundingNeighborhood- As presented by Appellants both before and during the public hearing, the undisputed facts are these. The development of Blocks 5 and 6 of the Berkeley Highlands Terrace subdivisions in Kensington(in which the Project and Appellants' properties are located), was carefully planned. The area was originally subdivided in 1914, with the first residential construction occurring in 1926, when a single residence at 109 York Avenue was constructed.3 At the time the streets in the neighborhood were laid out, they were designed to maximize the views from as many lots as possible. There was no further building on these blocks until 1932, when C.M. McGregor began to build the Tudor style houses on the west side of Windsor, then the east side of Windsor, and finally most of the houses on the west side of St. Albans Rd. Mr. McGregor continued this construction activity through 1939, siting the houses in such a way as to maximize the sweeping and panoramic views. During the last half of the 1930s, other builders developed the remaining lots on Windsor and Mork,paying careful attention to the manner in which the homes were sited. The three homes at 125, 129 and 133 Windsor(on the east side of the street)were constructed as one story residences over garages located at or near street level. When the homes on the west side of Windsor Ave. were developed(126, 130, and 134 Windsor),these homes were built with the second floor below the main floor. With this 3 The 109 York Avenue residence originally was located on three or four lots and is known to be out of character with the subsequent orderly development of the area. It should not be used as a basis for comparison,as it was constructed prior to the development of the surrounding area, has no off-street parking,and encroaches into the rear setback. Accordingly,the Zoning Administrator's use of the atypical 109 York Avenue property as a basis to determine neighborhood compatibility was misguided. MOG3433031565079.1 Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 7 careful site-planning, the developers ensured that the homes on the west side of St. Albans retained views over the homes on the east side of Windsor,which in turn retained views over the homes on the west side of Windsor. All of these homes have carefully designed and planned unobstructed views of the City of San Francisco, San Francisco Bay, Bay Bridge, Treasure Island, the Golden gate Bridge, Marin County, and other scenic sites. This pattern of development continues on York Avenue,where the houses on the east side of York are generally one single story over a garage at street level,or built on two lots. With respect to location, the finding adopted by the Zoning Administrator correctly notes that"[t]wo-story houses are widespread and there are many different configurations. In some cases,the entire building is two stories while in other cases only a portion is two stories. Some homes are two stories close to the front of the property while some are two stories towards the back. Still others have two stories at the front and hack." However, this finding is detached from any factual underpinning, and ignores the development history of the area and the primary criteria for siting two-story homes--to maximize the views of every home in the neighborhood. As noted in previous correspondence to the Zoning Administrator, there are very few two-story houses which are sited uphill on the east side of the street. For example,all but two of the houses on the east side of York Avenue(109 and 161 York, both discussed herein) are single story homes, and the Applicant's home is one of eight such single- story homes in a row. This evidence was ignored by the,Zoning Administrator. In support of the decision, Staff also suggests that because 135 Windsor Avenue is a two-story residence, the Applicant's project should be permitted. However, 135 Windsor Avenue does not provide support for a compatibility finding, as the second story addition was built at that location only after extensive negotiations and design compromise with both the uphill and downhill neighbors to ensure compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. Similarly, 161 York, while on the uphill side of the street, is sited in such a way as to have a southwesterly view that does not obstruct views from the homes above it. In any event, no agreement exists with respect to the Applicant's Project. To the contrary,the Applicant has stubbornly refused to entertain py compromise or design modifications,instead insisting that his Project must be approved as designed irrespective of its impact on Appellants. There is no substantial evidence to support the finding that the Project height is compatible. Unfortunately, the Zoning Administrator has reviewed the height compatibility of the surrounding neighborhood as if the neighborhood existed at a fixed elevation. As noted by Appellants in the administrative proceedings, a more appropriate review for compatibility would take into account the reality that these homes are sited on the slope of a hill. When the hillside nature of the subdivision is taken into account, it becomes clear that certain heights are compatible with the neighborhood when sited in certain locations,whereas a residence of that same exact height is inappropriate and incompatible with the neighborhood when sited on an adjacent lot. For example, because of the well-selected location,site planning, and sensitive development of certain area residences(120 York, 140 York, 161 York)their height does not conflict with other surrounding residences or obstruct their panoramic views despite the fact that they are technically taller than Applicant's proposed addition. MOM43301565079.1 Planning Commission March 8,2004 Page 8 While section 82-10.002(c) does not specifically list"view"as a factor to be considered in determining compatibility, a complete consideration of the impact of a particular project's height on the surrounding neighborhood necessarily involves consideration of the heights, locations, and views of existing residences. If Applicant's Project is permitted, the height will not only be incompatible with the seven(7)residences on York Avenue to its north and south, but will also conflict and be incompatible with Appellants' residences and, through the application of design precedent,the residences of Co-appellants to the east. Such incompatibility cannot be tolerated,and is in conflict with the express direction of section 82- 10.002(c). The Zoning Administrator's finding regarding size similarly fails to be supported by substantial evidence. The proposed Project would have the largest floor area ratio (FAR) on the west side of York Avenue. While FAR is not specifically required to be considered under section 82-10.002(c), it is instructive regarding the compatibility of a project's size with the surrounding neighborhood. If the homes on both sides of York Avenue are compared, the proposed Project would be the fourth largest home in terms of floor area, and the fifth largest in terms of total area. Although Staff dismisses Appellants' FAIL analysis as irrelevant,the square footage analysis prepared by Staff and included in the January 26,2004, Staff Report verifies the monstrous size of the proposed residence (including addition) in relation to the surrounding neighborhood. Under Staff s analysis,which dues not include garage space, the house would be the sixth largest on York Avenue, and the fifteenth largest out of the 64 parcels considered. Considering that the project is located on one of the smallest lots(if not the smallest lot)on York Avenue—the incompatibility of the proposed project with the surrounding neighborhood is glaring. A finding of size compatibility necessarily requires an assessment of a proposed project's mass in relation to its lot size—an exercise the Zoning Administrator failed to undertake. In short, there are no facts, no reasonable inferences based on facts, and no expert opinions based on facts set forth by the Zoning Administrator,the Applicant, or otherwise present in the administrative record that could support a consistency finding or the approval of this Project. To the contrary, because the second story proposed by the Applicant would disrupt this neighborhood,which was carefully planned in the 1930's as evidenced by the testimony and evidence presented by the Appellants,the Project is not compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of location, size, height and design. There is no substantial evidence in the record to support the determination of the Zoning Administrator, and his decision must therefore be overturned. 4. The Zoning Administrator Failed to Make A Finding That the Project Would Not Adversely Impact The Appellants' and Co-Anellants' Properties and Surrounding Neighborhood. While left out of the"required findings"by Staff,the County Code also requires the Zoning Administrator make a finding that the Project will not have an adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood. (Contra Costa County Code, § 82-10.002(c).) Because there is no MaGM43303'665079.1 Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 9 finding with respect to the Project's impacts, and therefore no finding.supported by substantial evidence,the decision of the Zoning Administrator must be overturned and Applicant's Project denied. Moreover, although it is not yet relevant,the record contains no substantial evidence that could support the mandatory finding. S. The Zoning Administrator Abused His Discretion In DeterminingThat the County Code Does Not Require An Review of a Project's IMpacts, Including,But Not Limited To Height,View, and-Prop,-=Value Dm acts on the Surrounding Neighborhood As indicated above, section 82-10.002(c)requires the Zoning Administrator to "...review the proposed dwellings' compatibility with and impact on the surrounding neighborhood,in terms of its location, size, height, and design." This language is mandatory. 'While the Zoning;Administrator purported to review the proposed Project in accordance with the provisions of 82-10.002(c),the Zoning Administrator did not consider the Project's impacts on the surrounding neighborhood as required by law. The Zoning Administrator's failure to consider the Project's impacts on the surrounding neighborhood is documented by his statement at the January 26,2004,public hearing, that the relevant question under section 82710.002(c)was: "Is the residence or modified residence going to be consistent with the surrounding neighborhood?" This question ignores the express and mandatory direction of the Ordinance, and any analysis responding to only this question is arbitrary, capricious,an abuse of the Zoning Administrator's discretion and impermissibly reads the relevant phrase and substantive standard out of it. The Staff'Report prepared for the January 26, 2004 meeting also states that a review of certain impacts is apparently not warranted under section 82-10.002(c)because the County Code does not state that view and economic impacts are required to be considered. Of course,this ignores that in addition to size and height compatibility analysis, size and height irri_pact analysis must be performed. In any event, Staff'compares the absence of a list of relevant impacts in section 82-10.002(c)to an example of a list of permitted uses in a zoning district established by the Code, where the relevant Code sections do not list those uses that are not permitted. Staff is comparing apples to oranges. With respect to section 82-10.002(c), the requirement is that the Zoning Administrator review the project's "impact on the surrounding neighborhood." The question is the definition of"impact,"as section 82-10.002(c)does not provide a list of those impacts to be considered(such as would be the case where the Code provides a list of those uses that are permitted in the various zoning districts). Rather,the lack of definition of"impact"here would be similar to a case where a zoning district provided for "residential"uses leaving the word residential undefined and open to interpretation. Refining impact in the manner suggested by Appellants would not result in chemical plants being established in residential zoning districts as suggested by Staff on page S-S of the January 26, 2004 report. Staff's analysis is misleading, wrong, and must be disregarded, Because the Zoning Administrator is required to consider the Project's impact on the surrounding neighborhood--regardless of the actual definition of impact-his failure to do so is an abuse of discretion. The express terms of the Ordinance cannot simply be disregarded. Mo \433OM565079.1 Planning Commission March 8, 2004 Page 10 Moreover, as explained in detail above,the Ordinance's requirement that design review specifically speak to a project's impacts on a neighborhood, and its consistency in terms of locations, size,height and design, necessarily require an assessment of view and economic impacts in these circumstances. 6. The Zoning Administrator Mistakenly Interpreted County Code Section 82-10.002 By Finding That Because There are Approximately Pi ht Lots In The Surrounding Neighborhood That Are Not Substandard A -10.002 to A licant'sf Substandard Lot Would Be Discriminatory. During the January 26,2004, Zoning Administrator Hearing,the Zoning Administrator stated that his reading of section 82-10.002(c): ...is that it is for design review purposes only. It does not extend to view protection. One reason I have came to this conclusion is that other parcels in the area that are not substandard would not be subject to this level of design review and that they are free to build in compliance without any county review whatsoever in compliance with the objective design criteria of the zoning district. This reading not only ignores the existence of section 82-10.002(c), but renders its placement in the Code superfluous. The clear purpose of this section is to impose a stricter and more rigorous standard of review on substandard lots--even if those lots are located directly adjacent to standard sized lots. In fact, during the same January 26, 2004, meeting,the Zoning. Administrator appeared to recognize this purpose by indicating that the reason the design review process was created was: ...the County saw a pattern of properties that were legally established but were substandard with regard to parcel size and that they were building consistent with the objective zoning criteria but they were otherwise raising issues about compatibility with what otherwise occurred in the neighborhood. And so the County has elected to enact an additional level of review that applies to parols that are substandard with respect to either lot area or average lot width, but not any other parcels. The Applicant's is such a parcel. In light of the understood purpose of section 82- 10.002(c), the Zoning Administrator abused his discretion when he failed to strictly apply section 82-10.002(c)to the Applicant's project because other, non-substandard sized parcels in the area would not be subject to the same level of review. The.Zoning Administrator's tortured interpretation of this provision must not be permitted and, if it is,would result in an effective evisceration of section 82-10.002(c). MOCrG 43301565099.t Planning Commission March 8,2004 Page 11 7. The-Zoninz Administrator Failed to Consider That the Community-, As Re resented bthe Kensin on Munici al Adviso Committee t7nanimously recommended Denial of This Project. On November 26, 2003,the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council ("KMAC") met to consider the proposed Project. After receiving testimony from all interested parties, KMAC members noted concerns about the size of the proposed project, its compatibility with the neighborhood, and its impact on the view from 112 Windsor Ave. In accordance with these concerns,LMAC unanimously passed the following motion: KMAC recommends denial of the substandard lot application on the basis of neighborhood compatibility with respect to size and height. As you know, KMAC was established to advise the County decision-makers on land use planning matters affecting the Kensington community. The purpose for establishing such a body is to have Kensington residents with expert knowledge and experience in the community assisting in the decision-making process of County-wide officials who may simply not have the same breadth of knowledge regarding Kensington. At the January 5, 2004,public hearing, the acting chair of KMAC explained to the Zoning Administrator K,MAC's deliberation process regarding the Applicant's proposed Project. .KMAC indicated that this Project would be 4 to 5 feet higher than the adjacent buildings, and therefore inconsistent with the surrounding area. With respect to size,KMAC based its recommendation, in.part, on an evaluation of FAR,and because the FAR was in excess of the residences in the surrounding neighborhood, KMAC found the proposed Project incompatible. While the County is under no obligation to accept the recommendations of KMAC, such recommendations should be given great weight because of the subject matter expertise of KMAC, particularly when that subject matter involves impacts and design compatibility on substandard-sized parcels. There is no evidence that the Zoning Administrator ever considered the recommendation of KMAC, or the reasons it presented regarding why it recommended denial of Applicant's Project. In considering KMAC's recommendation., it is also important for the Planning Commission to be aware that the opposition to this Project extends far beyond the Appellants and KMAC. There are numerous co-appellants, and staff received evidence and testimony from approximately three other property owners in the surrounding neighborhood in addition to receiving a petition expressing opposition to the Project by nineteen residences on Windsor Avenue(not including Appellants). A number of those who originally supported the Applicant, changed their minds after story poles were erected and they discovered they had been misled by him. Others changed their minds when it became clear that the Applicant intended to rely on his misleading statements, and to refuse to entertain any design compromise proposals. A decision approving the proposed Project would be an affront to the opinions of many longtime MOGGA330565099.1 Planning Commission March 8,2004 Page 12 Kensington residents, and to the orderly land use development those residents have enjoyed over the years. Conclusion: While Appellants respect Applicant's right to remodel and add on to his home within the confines of the applicable law, such development should be compatible with and sensitive to the neighborhood in which the residence is located. It is this compatibility and sensitivity that section 82-10.002(c) expressly requires. Appellants do not seek "property rights" over Applicant's parcel; rather,they seek to ensure that the neighborhood will be preserved and redeveloped in a manner which reflects the orderly development of the community. Approval of this Project would create a dangerous precedent for the Kensington area,by which all residents of Kensington could lose their long established views and the character of the Kensington area would be destroyed. A decision to approve this Project,which has never been modified or compromised in any way, will encourage fixture applicants to ignore the concerns of KMAC and their neighbors, and to engage in the same"winner-take-all,hard-ball"tactics this Applicant has employed. We invite and encourage all members of the Planning Commission to visit the Project site, as well as Appellants' residences at your convenience prior to deliberating on this appeal: Please feel free to contact the undersigned or the Appellants directly should you wish to arrange a site visit or have any questions regarding this letter. Very truly yours, MTLI.E &X TA stian M. igan CMC:KDL cc: Clients Robert Drake, Zoning Administrator Will Nielson, Project Planner Kristina D. Lawson, Esq. Mc \43303\565079.1 MILLER 7331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD. mom} Fl£`CH r""LtltlR . . ARR XAX-j WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 . ° .�, Xt { `�.,.� �.7 ! °: A PROFESSIONAL FACSIMILE(925) 933-4226 LAW CORPORATION TELEPsoNE (925) 935-9440 .. ... ._ - CIIRISTIA.N A4.CARRIGAN CNICO&ISANIR.COM (425)935.9400 April 21, 2004 VIA HAND DELIVERY Will Nelson Contra Costa County Community Development Department 651 pine Street Martinez, CA 94520 Re. Appeal of April 13,2044 Decision of Planning Commission Approving Desim Review pile DP033065 Dear Will: pursuant to section 262.2406 of the Contra Costa County Code, this letter shall serve as the written notice of appeal by Gloria and Glenn Morrison, 112 Windsor Avenue, and Carol and James Caiman, 118 Windsor Avenue,Kensington, California(collectively "Appellants'), of the April 13, 2004 decision of the Contra Costa County Planning Commission upholding the January 26,2004 Zoning Administrator's decision approving design review file DP033065. Appellants also make this appeal on behalf of their co-appellants John and Eileen Kramer, 120 Windsor Avenue;Michael and Elaine Emery, 124 Windsor Avenue;Laurent and Chantel Mayall, 126 Windsor Avenue;Ron Loewinsohn and Siv Sandler, 130 Windsor Avenue, William and Donna Stanton, 134 Windsor Avenue; and William and Gloria McNab, 136 Windsor Avenue. Appellants appeal the April 13, 2004 decision on the following grounds: 1. Appellants' property rights and property value will be adversely affected if the proposed addition is permitted; 2. The decision does not comply with the County's adopted General Plan; 3. There is no substantial evidence in the record,nor other record evidence, to support the decision; 4. The decision dues not include all fundings required by County Code section 8 -10.002(c), MC3t G\433031.572139.1 0 W A L N U T C R E E X W W W . M S A N D R. . C O M A P A L O A L T O 9 Will Nelson April 21, 2004 Page 2 5. County Code section 82-14.002 has been mistakenly interpreted by the County. Additionally,Appellants incorporate by this reference their March 8, 2004 letter to the Planning Conunission setting forth, in detail Appellants' grounds for appeal of the January 26, 2004 decision of the Zoning Administrator, which grounds apply equally to the Planning Conunission's decision. Appellants respectfully request that their appeal be scheduled for public hearing at the first available Board of Supervisors meeting. Please feel free to contact the undersigned should you have any questions regarding this matter. Very truly yours, Z APS. ALTA stian . arrigan CMC:KDL Enclosure cc: Robert Drake Dennis Barry .w MOOT43303\572139A PERTINENT CORRESPONDENCE DRAFT KENSINGTON MUNICIPAL,ADVISORY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES z t !Tr Meeting Venues Conference Room, Kensington Community Center Meeting Date. November 26, 2003, 7.00 pm 1. Present: J. Carman(Chair), E.Detmer, R. Barraza, C Reed and D.Jenkins 2. Minutes of the October 28, 2003 meeting were approved with the following changes: • Item 3,Paragraph 3, second sentence should read..."The owners desire to replace a dilapidated stairway with a new stairway and deck......" • Item 3,Paragraph 3 should read... "In view of the above the project only requires a variance for a 5 ft. secondary front yard set back." 3. Citizens' Comments • In view of the proposed cancellation of the December 2003 KIVMAC meeting J. Smith requested that a meeting be held earlier in January 2004 than the scheduled meeting on January 27,2004 to consider his project at 155 Arlington Ave. LMAC agreed to hold a meeting on January 6, 2003. Depending on the case load it may be necessary to hold another meeting in January 2004. If this is needed it will be held on January 27, 2004. • A.Reed(728 Coventry) advised LMAC that construction at 656 Coventry was active on weekends and that stairs had been constructed which encroached on the side walk area. KMA.0 proposed taking up these matters as Agenda item 8 c). (Mote that because of the length of the meeting consideration of Agenda Items 8 and 9 was deferred until the January 6, 2004 meeting) • .KMA.0 noted that the Kensington Outlook continued to publish the KMAC meeting time incorrectly as 7.30 pm. J. Carman will contact the Outlook editor to correct this error. 4. 120 Windsor Ave. (DP033061).Request for a small lot review for additions to the front and rear plus reconfiguration of an existing rear deck on an existing dwelling on a substandard lot. Chair Carman recused himself from considering this case. R. Barrazza took the chair. This project was considered at the October 2003 KM'AC meeting. LMAC recommended that storey poles be erected to determine the extent of the shadows cast on 118 Windsor by the proposed construction. Consideration of means to reduce the impact of the back deck on the privacy of 118 Windsor was also recommended. These recommendations are made in reference to the project described in the plans dated October 20, 2003, 6. 125 York Ave. (DP033065). Request for a small lot review for a 2d Story addition to an existing dwelling on a substandard lot. J. Carman recused himself from considering this case. R. Barraza took the chair. The proposed project was presented by M. Abraham(Owner) and R. Wolff (Architect).M Abraham stated that he needed more living space than the existing 1.380 ft2 for a growing fivnily.He was initially encouraged by the reaction of uphill neighbors to a proposed fd Storey addition.Because of lot constraints he was unable to add a Y2 storey like some immediate neighbors on York Ave. and building deeper was not viable because of possible drainage problems—the existing house is already dug into the grade and requires a retaining wall. To minimize view impacts on the uphill neighbors(Windsor)the proposed 2"d Storey would be placed as far to the east as possible,would have a low roof pitch or a flat roof and would be no wider than the existing building. 6t Storey poles had been erected so that project impacts could be determined. M. Abraham stated that view impacts were not specifically considered by the substandard lot ordinance. This had been acknowledged by J. Carman in comments on the current and new ordinances (Kensington Outlook, July/August 2003) and had been M. Abraham's experience while a KMAC member. The Storey poles had elicited highly negative reaction from some uphill Windsor Ave. neighbors,while the following York Ave. residents: N. Sephton(120 York), J. Lowery(152 York), H. Bean(118 York), J.Bunker(I 18 York), F. Locher(131 York), M. Bell(134 York.), C. Bell(134 York),E. Reiss (130 York),D. Orestsky (117 York), J. Johnson(129 York),R. Diener(161 York) and M. Balm(148 York)supported the project because of its compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of height, location, size and design. M. Abrahams indicated his continuing willingness to work with his neighbors to develop an acceptable design. R.Wolff(Architect) noted that the Storey poles were located at the edge of the cave overhangs to show the impact of the roof. The bulk of the structure would be less than indicated by the Storey poles by about 2 ft all round. In his design he had tried to preserve neighbors' privacy by placing only a few windows in the rear and by using frosted glass where appropriate. The proposed project would retain the existing two off-street parking spaces. I Carman(118 Windsor) acknowledged the way in which M. Abraham and his architect had discussed the proposed project with him during its development but in his opinion the plan presented was unworkable and could not be modified to make it acceptable to him. He stated that in the original development of Blocks 5, 6 and 7 of Berkeley Highlands Terrace(which now comprise York Ave., St Albans Ave, and Windsor Ave.) the houses were designed and sited to preserve the views of neighbors. The construction of a second Storey on 125 York Ave. is not compatible with the neighborhood with respect to design,height, location and size. To support this statement he distributed data showing that the average floor area ratio (FAR.) of the houses on the east side of York Ave. was 0.45 (range 0.26-0.61), that the current M. Abraham house FAR was 0.49 and that the FAR of the proposed project would be 0.76. He stated that this project could create a domino effect in which the row of 8 single storey houses on the east side of York Ave. were converted to 2 storey structures that would result in the loss of views along the west side of Windsor Ave. G.Morrison(112 Windsor) stated that on the basis of the storey poles the proposed project would have a devastating effect on the views from the primary living areas of his house. He showed pictures taken from his kitchen and living room to illustrate this point. One set of pictures showed the current views. The second set showed the views remaining after the area within the envelope defined by the storey poles had been filled in. G.Morrison presented a petition opposing the proposed project signed by the following Windsor Ave. residents which stated that it was incompatible with the neighborhood and because of its height and size it would result in significant loss of views and property values: P. Carither(100 Windsor),D.Gumz(108 Windsor), S. Gumz(108 Windsor), I Kramer(1.20 Windsor).M. Emery( 124 Windsor),R. Loewinsohn and S. Sandler(130 Windsor),E.Nadolny(125 Windsor)and E. Emery(124 Windsor),L. and C. Mayali (126 Windsor),W. Stanton(134 Windsor), W. and G. McNab (136 Windsor),D. Stanton(134 Windsor),D. and D. Dahrouge and B. Scott(115 Windsor),R..Levin and M. Heisl(111 Windsor),M. Emery(124 Windsor). E. Kramer and R. Loewinsohn (130 Windsor), W. McNabb (136 Windsor),W. Stanton(134 Windsor) and S. Gurnz(108 Windsor) all supported the comments and concerns of J. Carman and G.Morison about loss of views and accompanying property values,the potential domino effect on York Ave. and the neighborhood..compatibility. M. Abraham responded that each properly should be considered uniquely and issues such as a domino effect were inappropriate. He questioned the FAR values cited by I Carman since the County Assessor's records(from which they were obtained) did not always contain the areas of garages and improvements made since the last assessment. Furthermore FARs and views are not relevant to a determination under the current substandard lot ordinance. LMAC members were concerned about the size of the proposed project, its compatibility with the neighborhood and its impact on the view from 112 Windsor Ave. The following Motion was passed 4-0(1 recusal). "KAIAC recommends denial of the substandard tot application on the basis of neighborhood compatibility with respect to size and height. " 7. 300 Coventry Rd. (VR021072). Request for a substandard lot review for a 2"d story addition to an existing dwelling on a substandard lot with two additional requests for three variances: an existing front yard setback variance of 15 ft 8 in. Building li"'IspectiC?n "'����'"++� Cartos Beltodeno Department Director of Building Inspection Costa County Administration Building �,,,J V��t-- 551 Pine Street,3rd Floor, North Wing Martinez,California 94553-1295 (925)646-4108 FAX (925)846-1219 November 24, 2003 Contra Costa County Community Development.Department 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Attn: Will Nelson Subject: Pile#DP033065 Dear Mr. Nelson: The following are Building Inspection comments for file#DP033065: 01. A building permit will be required for the addition and remodel to the existing structure. 02. All work must be done in compliance with 2001 CBC, CEC, CMC and CPC codes as well as current Title 24 Energy Standards and Contra Costa County Ordinances. 03. Structural design calculations by an engineer licensed in the State of California will be required unless the addition and remodeled areas fully comply with the conventional construction criteria as set forth in chapter 23 in the CBC. 04. A site investigation and sails report may not be required for the addition if the new foundation system is consistent with the existing foundation and the existing foundation is performing adequately. 05. The existing foundation will need to be evaluated to determine if it is adequate to support the second story addition unless the addition has its own support system. If you have any questions, please call me at 5-1165. Sincerely, 2 Deborah A. Sandercock, S.E. Senior Structural Engineer LETTERS IIT UPPORT MICHAEL AND MARY ABRAHAM RED 125 YoRx AVEN-LTE KExsixr,Tox,CA 94708 S 10-527-5501 t.! November 19, 2003 VIA FACSIMILE ANIS ORIGINAL BY MAIL Will Nelson 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wind Martinez, CA 94553 Re: 125 York Avenue, Kensington DP DP033065 Dear Mr. Nelson: We are writing this letter to respond to the written opposition which was filed with the County concerning the proposed addition to our home. For the reasons discussed below,we are confident that the proposed addition is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood: I. No Variance Is Requested Or ReAuired The proposed addition is consistent with the R-6 zoning and does not trigger the need for a variance. Specifically,the proposed addition is consistent with front,rear and side yard set backs. It is 7 feet below the 35 foot height limitation set by the applicable code provisions. Also, as confirmed by your site visit,the proposed work is a second-story addition and not a third-story addition. 11. Neighborhood Sun +ort Enclosed with this letter as Exhibit"A" is a copy of a petition signed by the neighboring property owners on York Avenue--each of whom support the proposed addition. Specifically,the property owners of the adjoining York Avenue homes both to the north and south of the subject property(123 and 129 York Avenue)have confirmed in writing their support. In addition,the property owners next to these adjoining property owners(117 and 131 York Avenue)have confirmed in writing their support. Furthermore, the 4 property owners directly across the street(118, 120, 130 and 134 York Avenue)have all provided their written support. Many other York Avenue neighbors --to date, a total of 14 property owners --have signed the petition supporting the proposed addition. 999.007/2835271 Will Nelsen November 1 9,2003 Page 2 III. Location, Size, Hecht And Design With regard to height, as noted above, the proposed addition is 7 feet below the allowed height under the County code and consists of two stories. Over half of the homes on York Avenue have two or more stories. Accordingly, the proposed addition is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of height and the adjoining property owners to the north, south and west have set forth their support in writing. Our home, after the proposed addition is completed,will have three bedrooms. More than half of the homes on York Avenue have three or more bedrooms. The location of the proposed addition is at the back of the property,thereby causing no impact on York Avenue. In fact,from the sidewalk directly in front of 125 York Avenue,the addition will not be visible. The design is compatible with the existing home, enhances the look of the existing home, and preserves two off street parking spaces. IV. The Caymans' and Morrisons' Concerns The Carmans and Morrisons have filed objections with the County due to their concerns about potential impact on their respective views. As discussed below, even though the County's small lot ordinance does not cover views and,therefore,potential view impact is not a relevant criteria for decisions made under this code, as good neighbors my wife and I met with the Carmans and Morrisons (as well as other neighbors)to discuss any potential concerns. These concerns were taken into consideration in the design of the proposed addition. However, simply because we have tried to be good neighbors and have adjusted our design,this does not convert issues which are not relevant under the County's small lot ordinance into relevant issues with regard to the pending zoning determination. The fact that views are not a relevant consideration under the County's small lot ordinance is well known to KMAC,the Morrisons and the Carmans. An article in the July/August 2003 Kensington Outlook, attached hereto as Exhibit"B,"states that KMAC's on- going effort to draft a new ordinance came about because KMAC learned from two of its prior oppositions that it had no standing under the current law to consider views and quotes Mr. James Cayman.of KMAC statement that: "Our experience has been that the small lot ordinance does not do what we want it to do." During the five years that I was a KMAC member,members of the community were repeatedly advised at KMAC hearings that the small lot ordinance does not cover views. Mr. Carman,along with myself and other members,repeatedly made this point to members of the community during this five years period,and Ms. Morrison regularly attended these KMAC meetings. Accordingly, the fact that views are not a relevant consideration under the small lot ordinance is not new or surprising, and is undisputed. Without in any way changing the fact that views are not a relevant consideration, but rather as good neighbors, we chose to meet with the Carmans and Morrisons(and with other neighbors). We explicitly discussed potential impacts. Mrs. Morrison asked that we build the Will Nelson November 19, 2043 Page 3 proposed addition to the east, i.e. toward the rear of the property into our back yard, and to stop the two story portion of the addition in terms of how far west it came over our existing home at a specified point. The proposed addition is exactly where Mrs. Morrison requested it be located and stops, in terms of its western two story extension, as requested. In accommodating Mrs. Morrison's request, my wife and I are sacrificing more of our backyard than we would otherwise choose to give up,and are giving up the western/golden gate view from the proposed upstairs office. As a further accommodation to the Morrisons and Carmans concerns,the proposed roof has an extremely low 2-12 pitch, which will require an additional membrane,at added cost,to be functional and higher maintenance costs in the future. Giving up more of one's backyard,taking on the added costs of a low pitch roof and giving up the view to the west when no zoning ordinance or other law requires it simply to be good neighbors are major accommodations in terms of expense, lower property value and enjoyment of one's property. The above-background information is provided to put the objections in perspective both in terms of legal irrelevancy and in terms of context. (Note: another individual, who is not impacted by the proposed addition, also sent in a letter objecting. However, as this individual is not impacted, and is simply stating a general concern over any development which may have an impact on views,regardless of how minor,the above discussion covers this point.) IV. Conclusion Great care and consideration has gone into the proposed addition. The proposed addition was specifically designed to meet each of the criteria of the small lot ordinance and has wide neighborhood support. We look forward to working cooperatively with the County. If you desire any additional information,please so advise. Thank you for your continuing efforts. Very truly yours, Michael and Mary Abraham Enclosures TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: I HAVE REVIEWED THE PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO 125 YORK AVENUE, KENSINGTON, CALIFORNIA. THE LOCATION, SIZE, HEIGHT AND .DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD. ACCORDINGY, I SUPPORT THE PROPOSED ADDITION. Name Address / Z6 1 � 1 1 1'oc. o r �r e" e. , - I I `7 t2� VC-4Z4 AIG All the Ales"vs Nanprc�t V.S.POSTAG That FitsPAID aeAMoMm Avenue Permit NS 1056 K+meX+ytws.--*K 947oamo3Y Beltwa`(.Cant. K E N N iJ V OUTL -OOK July/August:2003 A publication of the Kensinl ton Coma amity Council Volume 60 Nwnber 6 New ordirmce revised, but controversy ren is TWO-f &S)rStt?l#t Nill aVoidSupm Asor 3obn Gu in bas beenwork« vlsar Gloiq`Is bala:�the rights ofprw- #:�ingtcm municipal Advisory coamcii ung with toaranunity repreatitativos for efty owner to arks on to their homes, ratluesta one within 34 days of notice of same FY'1dews, but oppotum twoymn tovaitethem*nancobutsoina v&le also protecting neighbors righm to the prgect Fmjata tXrirl Old 'Mee Ibtae'ltw feat the ordinance thea an onaons view,tight said air." that exceed the review ptoom for pmjem and is ill-auit- The mnaiona was:adli being Snaiizad square footage to Revisions to a proposed zoning ordi- ad for a ocamaunity Mw Kensington that at pleas tante and were attpede f to be area ratioestebCsalted mot for YAnsszgton,doxignedtoprovide is dam and built-cut, posted on the la"visofswabsite byJuly by the ordirnnce redde nffi with protection egainat the#ass an es from two pmieamw iz 1.They wars mcpected to astebleah a two- would be submitted ofviews,privacy and mudight when ate- reoaa ve us that both paiUV&app=al system for addit on%,ram- to a forma#review tions or navy homas aro built,did little to Ka amt Mimto_i ash Ativ3say Gatmdl venoms and now oamtracdom process1 appe"t opponents. a 1ffi atm'to thw under the plan,Mach;that cotrionn A footage-lo-am Kensington tassidautr got a glimpsa of WoL,rOm had no si ' under t to a dodanated ratio between Ilk Square redo,also knowo as &t plan to revfte the oaf at do t aw 141z a ixtseat art footage of a structure and the am of the a"FAR"is a seat- Sanper WJft Gbk Kenwigbou Property O stem Association lot it sits on would be able to bypess a neon mosoure tsed'in many cities.it pro., meeting May 29. "%U wo we frying to do,"said ssrptr- oviaw unless a neighbor or rho sae ordt mnc.on pop 8 Class Act. Kensington's 2003 grads make the grade ' KankhgWa newest crop of bigb called graduates ma 000ldtrg up big plan form&yawfinmig"the booker sa die nfi iawa top 001[clas to laurning to hcwto tnma gooealiveatab a$30 appe- %* fiteratthe calsfanift culna ryAca only. Adams Waluk#aMcr,Phyllis Jdazy, u Atgadi%who.villi h W down ata mad to f E the university of(slifmrda sit Battialay; bat stay will ltd aiemarlvea reoaalg cm ;4 to opposite side of eta stedum am beak roar taut to 0*4 Nickel"Oil*Vare,Swway High Seheai{gvrgrerrr Co3agy;Asem trryto#avtm fid Cantle HVI Schad(LIC Aran Hiarad,who Va award Stanfbrd 8orkuty) Kenn Pdce,9ed4lay Hipp School(UC Santa&ddan)Pkys s 4a6sw Shot Marga Coaege High NC Serttaley);Cx is Univantg a pteHy osntpta with Want Hutcherson,Saint Maays odepe Kish(CCR"Coats corkage)fleet noel fig to right)..Michdat'NiW Cebom,81108 Mugs Collepe High people wino use a ban as masoct (Ban Diego State UMv ChOofte Ktaip,M Coahe High School(UC San tsago);Btaphan Ctmms,Baha Mary's Collage With Schad When Staphota C:rooms roods (Cdumblt Uatvcrft);Tyler Macon,Saint Mary's Collage No(MaAn 004000,Jule 4044,a Canto Hlgh School(UC Santa Cres);Katt Ciaamaa,Saint Maya CORM Man Sdtaoi(USCY.Antall Shaaat,CPS(UC berWayt Adel tough.M Ceatto High School(UC Sant Cm 1. see grads on page 3 Effort to use school district's reserves to save !�.� �iMMMIAT counselors, small classes falls as deadline loomst VcTMM launch rzcall effa is the Tune 19 board meeting.Prim to fila TasdieraofRic2maoud � am of memeeftog,trlataet Karan Fenton Tawha;and pats trgalady turned out is against Fenton atfdHx7ls. and George Havas tri mosival noti5ca- lenge m,am at eta bond mcditsga dads tion vaters initiated an atlott to recall eio pest moo&to plea„svoft-tak threaten A motion by Went Contra. Caste thetu, and otbary ise onavince ate board to take utsi6ad Sciboul Haan'trustee Elan PlicaPrice and eustaa Jiedrltia Player voted co on and cans arccAretimaafffluar t�,`` to dip into the mole mom to main- touts rntavas 10 aaaiitethe flmdcag ofthe tial of oanned budget ctgw They told the ; F Ysia in the dlifirlors schools eguivaleaa of ray 35 fall ansa- bw4itmust And ase 5dmian to their t��, r, failed w Paas es ata Jams 18 meeting as the edam at an estimated cost of$2.7 million budget woe&am=,7berefmia head d todxrtr)ilete#laehse7gd for The yam but truataca llama.Fenton over wAover tothe bamdwas"Mthe ' }( Tim dienid has eirtq(glad dating are and ChariotChariotFtmusey ldilad the plan. right thing." t a past Hve awa t to dhoduate a prgaotad Foilowirg the cheating,Price add he Though the th aination of dam-en $14 million dd9tat f can file 6saa1 2004 also exPededtnehtaraarnilsrpmPasalta reduction will wipe away riasaly$11.1 budget Tat tomt budget is a q)aebad to be —main das4 ffi 24 forte mgban in atpatsas fcetba d,it will wound$250rnillfms. to grade thiroe,but decided to hid off also tatxiwiatftabmn$9.Susstaottinezafa t Tho ooatmani"grtrwittg ftualrefion Minae the support fYiz UMAS iha reaeaves grant money.The net savings frons elimi- ovc-the district's inabilkty tai find away to wasn't mesa.He said he planned to aavieif noting the 1S7 tardting jobs anodated edam the budget gap without affminagrig the issue at a June 24 special mooting oft with reivi g K,3 dose aims to 31 from 20 � aitmseksa or smell daum for brAr- seeing#fYliaewnatymwemaitrastalks anumb;to just under$1.6ndilion gtstan to grade fhri3e d xrai at between the district and the United neo schools page 3 tt J*1 August 2003 Kensington Oudook Page A Ram the case flies of the KPS Glasa4l9ad Ads At3stoRA PAIlF13trG a nEcORAxrtrc.eerie, Man01i'Rao sd per 1b. medar,w9wprwf mdtgx,rood nda«.m,coke may 1-A9np 8 Mev 17-Mev 24 cccadnteu.Liao.4r ins.xeedastm"fee. OAnoteleft onthawiatishiddof awhita OPahce erected a then$om Berkeley {st2midimnm) '5°'926rtoo toak w[ .9% Toyota on Nbrk Ave.complained of the after doppfng him for Speeding.The man there an ds opt-p.,tet.Cum e.ar tet,isms,.- TOPCOAT PAMERS,old eodd trearmmadp, way the cerwas parked The owner found had a suspended license,gave police a a«'mat.end.p.€rbsleom Worde.End-pg...rnCUOM n*+ F.. dtarf0teal with faledaatnesndwasiu taseSSionofa d.q samea®ds.dmtoratp�.WXMood �«erase+.�nrmet«sed odedocartdocimMe iXt$ P mer to Kerd.sm0 00seek 0099 d Ad nepoc".. euamrda.seodngao nreearea.Leann bdsdd9s. apparently forgot to Sign:the trat& crack pipe. 59 Aft"Ave,Y eti CA 9+707-rd3r.we 321-uu: OA 13-year-old male from San Pablo OA resided on Yale Avenue raported the n° *1 4sut*,V dear'd*1r`�e"`y fe• was arrested or dray a cog theft of a M,10-9 ted.bicycle from in omnis m arse 7«.d WM%Piton+eco,o a aettotraa.K TMM PA nMou,c«trr««.F.", Srig p o,3' .t.arpeimrdat::CamydRoddmot�odadem Lege• ,nom.ice,b.ttios,Pee,m.Emco 3184919, without a hcorsa. In the car front of his home. Pad.oareW..dino«aeoeuytmmI(me-theta police found tools and is OThe Kensington Police m m.t.sa.Poen.a.nasaEi.d ae Kce oma aseTwo SMMG WM a RAr_A s wed for tarries. deportment farwarded a sus ° d P1 w"m4 1gr sed p rt..o«rt dawe,tape.deoor.nyn ms, bu�g pl .arts,pft a Yd«c.n.died read:i.yo«r.«lpt areae.Ca for sr®««clvow rr a dd.Twdie, OPolioa responded to report cious letter to the M.The let- 230-4121 of an"ed met in tore,. ter ptttpertedly signed vACA3to saEAC$aouSE acs rima of 6a.va windowOfa2 apart-`. _ an FBI agent, nam Kon¢C.w.r-sfy3lo dmome.2 bwh..txae, uta.d MAItem 4.CE ,;d Abington.Rrua.. mad on Colusa Ave. warned of a secret mo0anm.taet o.oa by n+runs on r.dd as 527. * rmaS a.edat,p embins and p.tnsns. 5• ,R�r 1009. no,..,470-047. OAn estirameed $1,100 rxsnapjrauy to give worth ofprupaty,iznolu 5ng palicc odfioarS a$arum that tuSSACI-Rdatc re&W6.re create,boor.toes AM'S 2RlEAAnTAM c9Rs,tamWaS,p",mtns, P. a palm Pilot and di' meets them to hear voic- P«.sn.Ser,teat s2sa7sa. Lop . w enj h ash mad. Local roolddoeo-.L gital trope a emit jeer, foeW'.d. Local t.ddeaL camere reported stoltn -.es. Asa.rwrrrcs MACn•MSK tsmrbteawokt fez 724d43Q from an unlocked vola•,_.. OA Colgate resident bW mums mases you cruy:solo*neydrdeds de on Musimetta Ave lsined of hone cells tarn imga.perremamc..R.armcaa avdya S to rmtrrers xw solar ter.sem and upbdmc OA Camelot CL resident reported Yle'• that included heavy breathing. °ro sxa`n h1 E9 se"s• �s27ec7sr. theft of about$320 worth of property UPolice itepounded an '97 Nissan RomXA>R zarr. +geese 10awsP.esr, eaxxruc3aztP°°r'm,xaeb"°,�y r°" including a CD ease containing 20 CDs Soaks after stopping the tsar during a seffi ate«ere,soo«"A'Oda.stag.and riosear ml trod�°�� e cr�neey 36 t belt tmforsemanL lite driver and ran elaobt«e/pimabbs jet..odd jobs.Load rdr.nara. 5rnn a parched cos in his driveway: F� Rte&tasa93c OAn Mdmom Rd.resident reportal the gar failed to produce identification. BDOFOOZNM s PAPAL yIRM4M theft of a 21-spead bicycle valued at Police cited the driver. sane;�rar coni Ree-blot.od. romProa.a«s2s-2790. $1,200 from his garage, 93110 0=408.S• 0000 Rc rm«c risen aawtcrsraf ACC6rdZfabAIIONt It panic MV 25- ,31 scare odea, Lid- ..ret Wreq, sus-9970. PAVIA'S PET CARE.vkaaaa/dsay Pa aro• wa^resnda«.e«nfialdro«edgrlpeoma May 9-M4v 16 OA Windsor Ave.resided called police Bwaea rnma.d.aeNc t xp.d.as 53s9t9t. OA car making a U Tum on Axiington after a mar became rude during a dispute Pea G$AnsrA]Z atlas 2u RtrirnarAw mese, struck apwkodfire truck Nockmagewas over the way his car was blooldng the PaaPRasrruurEuarerwwarta2xsc�aren0• PtaOransro-reader. tepostsd. raudems&veRay.Police reminded the ace n..r.s.a tr0etm+a P e •tan 2rorae.ncru�r rf ao.mrs.2sos s 000dnapM OA aur steroowas Wrong the$300 worth mar pokztSneas oouma. aaaaa w«d.mm yew 239 09.9. batt d.MW,.W.era A..s$ns.22100.hdtred.0 ofprepe#ysculassftma'99Bonds Ovic OPoIsce did a walk-through of the roR DoWs a=On...tams x pet dans rwiole.sloau-9cu. on KirrAve_ Sanest Cemetery at 4:55 set.atter oom- r.A.rme dos r aR.or atdie xWte you are a van- ALSAWAP26 ON KAMAV&Both 2bda.A sea.rtao.A IS «wares 36&5975. O'heowner ore'99 Civic onaStland plaints of voices.'May found no phe- anw;rats elftd.a;mmeda,wgmd-(1)288, at Cowper repotted his car window nomenon of this world to account forthe ASTM CARPRNTM 30 J*r opodoot.m eepdc rraoemee. 121 .aR, bater.mttieore: unshod and a l<"adwood starecitine. voice$. b.mo raoiddms sad reande:e«aa.Owe.WW_ t7$57aa t`AB erre[,5294225. $ d«.9,cabman+,ha*o..%orae,try.ea,dodo,$as OAn unlocked'9 hfaals p&AT#hat OA men was lying down in the middle tea R000es+mo>shthado,Lorpa M1.1o.Loat wSpn�2ssLecKtr.c was left unlocked an Wellesley v;wstolen of the straat on Highgate Road.Police, rrddrdro.«s.sps..tmy925-.0n. U.d.bet.00r weee .sem Sipped o.,..Leets and letarrmoverod m familiar with the man.cor ntittedhim. boas,AwPoll$Is..0.1ar-sin, OAIRd.mddenutrgror#edatotainf OALos Altos Rd resident mpurteda'91 tmaas,emcee aaeo,dh<p.a,our_La,s2f.1993. wiramv9,r3.a,ntauerx2ayn.tssee en.n+me.« $3,000 woordr of property including a Hinson Sump valued at$5,000 Stolen .ommalaat.mea sWxoot..can cater v eta• dedomp computes;a Is"computer and from his ter port. stoP:*ZNW.tr ZLZCMCAL.Lirttae*423101. 3294155. Spededidasin r.idman.dansawed.bowed sad a Palm pilot stolen from his house after a CSA Columt Ave.resided reported a roan tue"c.5 soba,srr4ni. OVM 1MQ1TaASS PIAS•low. breek m through a bastsnant window on his front lawn engaging in an auto- also,AMVM Covenoitt Ckwrt,Rm01o00.ce0 Opolice responded to report of a sloe- ardia tot associated with the develop- bonder on picnic tables at Kensington went of blindness and haryPalms.'Che t,tedtaednt..lsa..rwtyt..eaLrtam.Sarsrxa. bWwAL>caaPtrcAREbyawtsmdaw Park. The pmik fled the scene befbra man fled t o want,bit was later sited cat Srwaaysraa7•as73. maeepe o Seim Lem.Sam z;""etas a so,a ns lice anivad atter lr1 Cerrito police detained him and a «Meet, tuae.6 s Bawd rte°*'.dt 7.a- OA lit Oral rim.driver left a:teen badlythe identified hila Pd�r Sams i Jur. topers A•a prig Rr reea9g�e4 sr.t8.mmrr,try injured onAdhiglonAvows,Police shot OA Parkside Court resided gave S30D in im ue,6193ss,aa a.,.e.avitty adhwd: melte-sW o*w.eatrewama the deans which was user mad. cash to Huse man he hired to go out and m4340- QA resided on Rugby Ave. reported buy oWphes to fix his driveway The rw- hearing footsteps on her roof at 2:30 ase. idem beset ram the men,or his money, Police inspected and found not a creature since, 15Hewett was attains,,net.even a monae. J O pdzm wassised hit Cerrito �� (first tanrtsutet.t"748 tars, Police in in ineidmt involving room them hFJVi�tilll.L[ISI+G NOW ' 20 residential tart»n..tLnrb.�.itp p �tasiayttatrt£tastattegret{as:testto20yAm! youths xunrizsg through Ki�$tiaTG7ON properties. Polios arrested three of the NURSERY SCHOOL Office:510.524-0800 youths for attempted dark .a Proxim d•op:rom r9S0- >8m.Office*5113.5x5.2299 -AN- OKam tad M Cerrito police c_ a.naa errs,oe.dapeaa mi PrOg mn*fit iogdon � r«t�ra+�z9 riuosyrc dd S� arrested two r36t1 for deter Of mall frcam bpm r3aam-ka0Pm Year Ro and home mailboxes in Kensington and 52 -7Z ilii " in� gardens Albanyy.The two followed a postal eeaiw `a a Aw-se..,s..awy--at`eamrrxtet "id♦swte making deliveries. Lo 101 480309'MMMIS AM h9W K WINMY to IMPIFIROWMad ovnt9nte«t sad pegs r "Them IS a review pst:cesS in place residents this sca trove asking them to nough a ohm- , vide a mec iociam,for controlling the that is es eurts sive and at tough as say o5mmett on Specifies of the ordinaace tuna waessmett -M, 5 bulk and siaoofpaojesRtbot amjuappro• oil-commodity around hark" said ruse,it it revised. A putfic fcsisax is o€6outS15per ; pdatofortht#rhotorudghborhoods. Bort 3ows,aKensingtnm-basedambi- mcpoobultobebddbeforatheatnvoyoore parcel in 3 It would, however, only trigger s taa'You shaold that its not duebaakto answer questions people be" Kensington ranow process and not necessarily pro- wide open today.This is not going to and allow for public debatc could wind up bibitaproject from moving fovrard. oureourius.- Proponents believe the ordinsnoe on the ballet, ' Currently the Projects,that aha subject- 13 ndemt 111,4=60A dvisory could pass this flail,but under law it will the cost of put- ad to review aro taus cm parcels lam than t:teas: nerr�rmant o require m ar lrvnmmttal rousse and an ting i# there tr x�d 5.000 Square feat or nacrawor than do fee pamendment to Cxmim Coats County's 'would be aOa Cutaart and fall'rntdm the srf5tirtg stnel3 tot nidi- aid the law sS rt no g plan before it can take aflea betwom S6,0t10 amf$12,000. aroma. MU 21111 a aroraonun to txttnevswr: While that-all happen.before the 'Tbe Brought of prating it on the be)- But opponents of the nava ordinance and of Use first quarter of 2017+4,the ore ire scams ludicrous when the cost to said that the cure nt smOil lot ordinence ea Tawe bw been thaquestion that roansim is how Kensington do 50 is relatively So high," said attasdy wtndd mgrrva reviews for pat j- en -4t_oalitrmroa d0aen t o ro+hai wa will fwdthe$27,M0needed topay for it Carman.who send wrmttmity gmupe c at 70 Portent of es want it to a am Canner,Said she county could pick up any be asked to party up the mosey and noto the law+today requires owners to If all Saes SS expected,that sapetvi- about$7,4700 of the tab,but that residents or they will have to have a fund rais- nuelmin the impact an ncighboa. sorwiL Send a survey out to Kensington would have to coma up with the bsda ice. in.g drive,"It%not imelvode MIGHABL ANIS MARY ABRAHAM 125 Yop,K AVEN-un KENsi aTox,CA 94708 510-S27-5501 December 23, 2003 ZONING DMINISTRATOR HE'XRINQ ,L,_..".-,AGfiNDA ITEM#_ ---M- VIA BAND DELIVERY AT ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING Zoning Administrator c/o Will Nelson 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wind Martinez, CA 94553 Re: 125 York Avenue,Kensington DP DP033065 Dear Sir or Madam: We are writing this letter to respond to: (i)Mr. Carman's December 1,2003 letter; (ii) Mr. and Mrs. Morrison's November 29, 2003 and December 15, 2003 letters; and (iii)KMAC's minutes. For the reasons discussed below, we are confident that the proposed addition is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood: I. Prior points. Each of the points made in our November 19, 2003 letter are incorporated herein by this reference as though set out in full. These points -- including, but not limited to, (i)no variance is required, (ii) views are not an covered by the small lot ordinance, and (iii) the only issue before the County is one of neighborhood compatibility under the small lot ordinance -- will not be reiterated, but remain central to the scope of the single issue actually before the County. 2. The History Of Development. Without waiving or modifying the fact that views are not covered by the small lot ordinance, it is important for purposes of having a fair record to explain why Mr. Carman's December 1, 2003 version of the historical development of the "neighborhood" does not withstand examination. Mr. Carman attempts to limit the "neighborhood" to only the homes on the west side of the 100 block of'Windsor Avenue and to just eight homes on the east side of York Avenue, (excluding without any sound basis the two, two-story homes on the east side of York Avenue as they contradict his version of"appropriate" historical events). However, this overly limited definition of"neighborhood" is without basis in history and is inappropriate under 999.007/294893.1 Zoning Administrator cloWill Nelson December 29, 2003 Page 2 the applicable zoning ordinances. Furthermore, as discussed below, even if one Iimits the definition of"neighborhood" to the Berkeley Highland Terrance portion of Kensington, (which includes all of the blocks and both sides of York Avenue, Windsor Avenue, St. Albans Avenue, Kenyon Avenue, Highland Avenue, Purdue Avenue, and Westminster Avenue), Mr. Carman's assertions as to the history of the development are easily shown to be mistaken. In the history of Kensington, published by the Kensington Improvement Club, of which Mrs. Morrision was and is a director, it provides in relevant part on page 36: "Kensington is essentially a residential community with the majority of lots zoned R-6 for single family dwellings. Homes represent a diversity of building styles, which is one source of Kensington's character and charm.." (See,Tab A.) On page 46, the history of Kensington sets forth a copy of what is held out to be the original subdivisions. (See, Tab A.) As noted above, the Berkeley Highland Terrance subdivision includes all of the blocks and both sides of York Avenue, Windsor Avenue, St.Albans Avenue, Kenyon Avenue, Highland Avenue, Purdue Avenue, and Westminster Avenue. (See, Tab A.) On page 49,the history of Kensington states in part: "In 1914, lots in the Berkeley Highland Terrace were offered for sale by the F.R. Peake Company, and Kensington boasted a total of ten homes." (See, Tab A.) Mr. Carman's December 1, 2003 letter states that the first home built in this subdivision was 109 York.Avenue,one of the two-story homes on the east side of York Avenue. In other words, the starting point for development was a two-story home on the east side of York Avenue. Thereafter, single lots were sold off and individuals developed their real property with`°a diversity of building styles." The fact that two, two-story homes on the east side of York. Avenue exist and impact views from other lots is neither surprising nor unusual within the Berkeley Highland Terrace subdivision. (See, Tab B --pictures of the two, two-story home on the east side of York Avenue.) In fact, 109 York Avenue impacts the view from the Morrisons' home at 112 Windsor Avenue and other homes on Windsor Avenue.. (See, Tab C -- a picture taken from the sidewalk in front of the Morrisons' home showing the side of their home and 109 York Avenue; see also, Tab D -- a picture taken from the pathway between 134 and 136 Windsor Avenue showing the side of 136 Windsor Avenue and the back of 161 York Avenue.) Two story homes on York Avenue are quite common. (See, Tabs B,E --pictures showing eight (8) of the two-story homes on York Avenue.) Similarly, two-story homes are quite common on Windsor Avenue. (See, Tab F -- pictures of some of two story homes on Windsor Avenue, including the east side of Windsor Avenue.) Likewise,two-story homes on St. Albans Avenue are also quite common. (See, Tab G -- pictures of some of the two-story home on St. Albans Avenue, including the east side of St.Albans.) Zoning Administrator cloWill Nelson December 29,2003 Page 3 The fact that homes in this area have been developed or remodeled in a manner which has impact on views is also easily shown. For example, certain of the homes on St. Albans Avenue are so tall that they entirely block the view of the bay from many of the homes located in the 100 block of Kenyon Avenue. (See, Tab H -- pictures taken from the- sidewalk looking between Kenyon Avenue homes in the 100 block of Kenyon Avenue and of the tall St Albans Avenue homes which block Kenyon Avenue homes' views.) Similarly, a home on the east side of Windsor Avenue impacts views from homes located on the west side of St. Albans Avenue. (See, Tab I -- a picture taken while standing (not sitting) on the deck of the home at 118 St. Albans Avenue. Obviously, other homes on St. Albans Avenue are also view impacted by this Windsor Home and the impact would be worse if one sat down to take the picture.) The contention that homes were developed so as to not impact views is also belied by examination of other homes. As noted above, the two-story homes on York,Avenue were developed or remodeled in a manner which impacted other parcels' views. (See, Tabs B-E.) Many other homes were developed or remodeled in a manner which has impact on views. (See, Tabs H-L) Furthermore, the two-story homes at 120 and 130 York Avenue, which are across the street from 125 York Avenue,block part of the view from 125 York Avenue's existing living room and dinning room when one is standing and block the entire view when one is sitting. (See Tab J.) Thus, the argument that the Berkeley Highland Terrace subdivision was developed or remodeled so that no views would be impacted is disproved by a simple walk through the neighborhood, Rather, individuals lots were sold and individuals exercised their constitutional real property rights by developing or remodeling their real property within the allowed zoning envelope. In addition, a walk through the neighborhood also establishes that the proposed type of remodel requested for 125 York Avenue is common within the Berkeley Highland Terrace subdivision. In fact, very similar improvements exist on the east side of St. Albans. Avenue (Tab K -- 113 St. Albans Avenue) and on Windsor Avenue (Tab L -- 135 Windsor Avenue). In addition, a similar KMAC approved remodel was done at the home located on the corner of Westminster Avenue and Arlington Avenue. York Avenue is a short cul-de-sac which comes off of Westminster Avenue just above Arlington Avenue. The similar remodel is located three houses down from where York Avenue meets Westminster Avenue. (See, Tab M -- pictures of the home at the corner of Westminster Avenue and Arlington Avenue, see also, Tab N -- pictures of other similar remodels undertaken in the Berkeley Highland Terrace subdivision.) Thus, a walk through the Berkeley highland Terrance neighborhood reveals the real history of the subdivision and explicitly demonstrates that the proposed addition is consistent with the neighborhood. Zoning Administrator cloWill Nelson December 29,2003 Mage 4 3. Floor Area Ratio. The floor area ratio C FAR) information submitted with Mr. Carman's December 1, 2003 letter is irrelevant, ignores the fact that the proposed addition would result in the 125 York. Avenue home being smaller in square footage than the other, two-story homes on the east side of York Avenue when properly compared, and is clearly inaccurate with regard to the actual square footage number. First, the information is irrelevant because FAR. analysis is not an element or factor under the small lot ordinance. (The Morrisons' December 14, 2003 letter requests that the County consider FAR. information because a proposed draft ordinance -- which has not been enacted -- may one day include FAR analysis as a factor for,consideration, but even if enacted the proposed draft ordinance would not set mandatory FAR. limitations. However, current zoning decisions cannot be made based on what may or may not some day be included in a different ordinance. To do so, would subject the applicants to an unenacted, non-existent standard and would constitute reversible error.) Second, if the proposed addition is built, 125 York Avenue would still be smaller than the other two-story homes on the east side of York Avenue when a proper comparison is made. Review of the County Assessor's square feet figures available on-line through the multiple listing service reveals that the Assessor does not include garage or basement areas. This fact is shown by comparing the 1,871 square foot figure used by Mr. Carman for 125 York Avenue, which includes the garage and basement bathroom, with the County Assessor's office 1,363 square feet figure for 125 York Avenue. This difference in figures is explained by the fact that the Assessor's office is not including garages or basement space in.its figures. Lasing the County Assessor's approach of excluding garage and basement areas, 125 York Avenue after the addition would have 2427 square feet; whereas, the County Assessor's office lists the other two- story homes on the east side of York Avenue as respectively having 2,739 square feet at 109 York Avenue and 2,569 at 161 York Avenue. In other words, after the proposed addition is built, 125 York Avenue would be smaller than the other two-story homes on the east side of York Avenue. Third, the square footage figures submitted by Mr. Carman as part of his FAR analysis are incorrect, unreliable and unusable for analytical purposes. As noted above, unlike the 1,871 square foot figure used by Mr. Cannan for 125 York Avenue, which includes the garage and basement bathroom, the County Assessor lists 125 York Avenue as having 1,363 square feet, thereby demonstrating that the Assessor's office, is not including garages or basement space in its figures. The fact that the County Assessor's office does not include garage or basement space (and often does not include additions) is also shown by Mr. Carman's own three-story home (using the definition of story as defined by the County's code), which is listed on-line as having 2,228 square feet. However, Mr. Carman's home has an eight foot tall basement area, which very large square footage is not included, and has added a bathroom on the third-story, which does not appear to be included, in the on-line Assessor's figures. Similarly, two of the three, two-story homes directly across the street from 125 York Avenue (118 York Avenue and 130 York Avenue) have undertaken additions and, yet, the County Assessor's on- Zoning Administrator c/oWill Nelson December 29, 2003 Page 5 line figures do not reflect this increase in square footage. Thus, as the square footage,figures are incorrect and unreliable, they are unusable for analytical purposes. Furthermore, while Mr. Carman's December 1, 2003 letter states that he is including garages in his FAR square footage numbers, this step is inappropriate as it would punish homes which have two car garages and favor homes with smaller one car garages --when policy is to encourage off-street parking. (In other words, 125 York Avenue is being inappropriately punished by Mr. Carmans' FAR analysis for having a two-car garage instead of a one-car garage,) Therefore, the FAR analysis is not only legally irrelevant, it is also separately of no value due to the inaccuracy and unreliability of its figures and its inappropriate analysis. Fourth, the FAR analysis ignores the fact that the proposed,addition does not require any variance. The proposed addition is 7 feet under the height limitation. All front, side and rear yard set backs are met. The two, off street parking spaces provided by the garage are preserved. An extremely low 2-12 pitch roof, which will require an additional membrane, at added cost, to be functional and higher maintenance costs in the future, is being used. Furthermore, the view of the Golden Gate bridge from the upstairs office was given up to keep the addition within the area requested by Mrs. Morrison. From the sidewalk directly in front of 125 York Avenue,the addition is not even visible. Clearly, the proposed addition is compatible with the neighborhood. 4. Prol)ertv Values Mr. Carman's December 1, 2003 letter states, without proper foundation, that the proposed addition to 125 York Avenue would lower the value of the homes at 112 and 118 Windsor Avenue. However, this assertion is mistaken and without merit as: (1) Even after the proposed addition is built,the Carmans and Morrisons homes will have stunning views. Never mentioned by either the Carmans or Morrisons is'the fact that they will continue to have completely'unimpacted views from windows in the top floors of their homes as well as continue to have magnificent views from the other western facing windows in their homes. (Ibis fact is further discussed in the next Section 5 and at Tab N); and (2) Potential buyers of home -- when considering a home -- understand that other owners of real property have a constitutional right to develop their property within their respective zoning envelopes. Therefore, when considering a home, potential buyers explicitly consider the potential impact of development by other property owners and take this fact into consideration in placing a value on the home. Thus,Mr. Carman's argument fails because it is based on false assumptions and is simply speculation. Speculative arguments do not constitute a valid basis for opposing a project and do not constitute admissible or competent evidence. The argument also fails as it is not an element of or a factor under the small lot ordinance. Furthermore, if the Carmans or Morrisons Zoning Administrator c/oWill Nelson December 29, 2003 Page 6 were truly concerned that potential development of parcels on York Avenue, they have had the opportunity on multiple occasions to resolve these issues to their satisfaction by purchasing these properties or obtaining view easements. Mrs. Morrison stated to us that she regretted the fact that they had not purchased the parcel at 117 York Avenue to avoid the resulting view impact from its development, which parcel was vacant, sold and developed after the date Morrissons had purchased 112 Windsor Avenue. Similarly, 123 York Avenue, which is directly in front of the Morrisons home, was once again sold in the last six months. The Morrisions could have purchased the property, held it or, alternatively, recorded view easements in favor of 112 "Windsor and then resold it. However, they elected to not do so -- despite their regret at having not purchased 117 York Avenue. Likewise, 125 York. -Avenue was on the market for approximately one year prior to our purchasing it. The Carmans and/or Morrisons could have purchased 125 York Avenue, held it or, alternatively, recorded view easements in favor of 112 and 118 Windsor and then resold it. However,they elected to not do so. Father, the individuals who are at risk of actually losing real property value are ourselves. When real property is sold, the potential buyer -- in addition to considering the potential impacts of other parcels development rights --considers what rights the buyer will have to develop his or her own parcel within the zoning envelope. The opponents to the proposed addition are improperly seeking to have the County take the real property rights of the owners of 125 York Avenue -- despite the fact that the proposed addition does not require a variance and, as discussed above and in our prior letter,is clearly compatible with the neighborhood. 5. Views. As publicly stated by KMAC in the Kensington Outlook articled attached to our November 19, 20013 letter, KMAC has learned from the County that the small lot ordinance does not cover views and that KMAC does not have standing to oppose a project based on potential view impact. Yet, KMAC's minutes reveal that it declined to support the proposed addition due to potential view impact. (KMAC's minutes also state -- without providing any factual basis or specifics -- that it declined to support the proposed addition due to concerns about size and compatibility with the neighborhood, which issues have been responded to above.) Similarly, despite being aware of the County's interpretation of the small lot ordinance as not covering views, the Morrisions and Carmans continue to ask the County to turn down the proposed addition due to their concerns about view impact. The Morrisons' correspondence to the County explicitly asks that the project be turned down due to concerns over view impact and have submitted a petition opposing any view impact signed by unaffected neighbors living on Windsor Avenue. Mr. Carman's correspondence -- while styled in the wording of the small lot ordinance -- is when carefully read only concerned about potential view impact because it is the only potential impact to his property. However, the fact that as good neighbors my wife and 1 have attempted to accommodate their view concerns does not convert view impact from being irrelevant to being relevant under the small lot ordinance. Quite simply, Zoning Administrator c/oWill Nelson December 29, 2003 Page 7 applicants should not be punished or taken advantage of simply because they attempted to be good neighbors. KMAC's minutes reflect Mr. Carman's acknowledgement of our good faith efforts to work with our neighbors. Therefore, it is not necessary to address in detail the Morrison's attempt to belittle these efforts in their correspondence to the County. In accommodating our neighbors,we are sacrificing more of our backyard than we would otherwise choose to give up, are giving up the western/golden gate view from the proposed upstairs office, and the proposed roof has an extremely low 2-12 pitch, which will require an additional membrane, at added cost, to be functional and higher maintenance costs in the future. Giving up more of one's backyard, taking on the added costs of a low pitch roof and giving up the view to the west when no zoning ordinance or other law requires it simply to be good neighbors are major accommodations in terms of expense and foregoing enjoyment of one's real property rights. It is worth noting that the Morrisons' correspondence reflects a fundamental misperception and erroneous assumption which underlies and is repeated as the foundation for each of their arguments. Even though the Morrisons names do not appear any where on the title to 125 York Avenue, the Morrisions are under the misunderstanding that they have some sort of undefined right which allows them to preclude development at 125 York Avenue(as well as, one must logically assume, at any other property that might impact their expansive views) and that their purported rights overcome the constitutional real property rights of other property owners. For example, this misunderstanding is reflected in the Morrisons' argument that the giving up the view of the Golden Gate from the proposed upstairs office is not a real sacrifice or accommodation by my wife or myself. Yet, in fact, it is a real sacrifice because the proper starting point and viewpoint is established by the controlling law. property owners have constitutional real property rights to improve their property .within the zoning envelope. Therefore, giving up the view to the west from the proposed office, when giving up the view is not required by the applicable zoning law,.is a major accommodation in terms foregoing enjoyment of one's real property rights. The above issue can be easily put to rest in another manner. If the Morrissons really had no concern about the proposed development extending further to the west and, therefore, had no interest in the accommodations which were made in response to Mrs. Morrisons initial request (which they now term a"what if' conversation), they would have explicitly have said so in their correspondence to the County. The absence of any such statement further establishes the very real nature of the,accommodation. It should also be noted that the Caimans and Morrisions failed to advise the County of and failed to provide any pictures of the unimpacted, expansive views from windows on the top floors of their homes as well as other unimpacted windows. (See,Tab 0 pictures of the top story windows on the Morrisons' and Carmans' homes.) We urge the County to tour all parts of the applicants' and opponents' homes. The Carmans' and Morrisions' correspondence Zoning Administrator cloWill Nelson December 29,2003 Page 8 also fail to acknowledge that, after the addition is built, they will continue to have magnificent views when standing in front of all of their western facing windows, including views of San Francisco and the Golden Gate. The above-background information is provided to put the objections in perspective in terms of legal irrelevancy, context, and the numerous underlying false assumptions. Great care and consideration has gone into the proposed addition. The proposed addition was specifically designed to meet each of the criteria of the small lot ordinance and is clearly compatible with the neighborhood. We look forward to continuing to work cooperatively with the County. Very truly yours, Michael and Mary Abraham Enclosures MICHAEL AND MARY ABRAHAM 125 York Avenue Kensington, CA 94708 510-527-5501 March 12, 2004 Contra Costa County Planning Commission c/o Will Nelson 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,Forth Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: 125 York Avenue, Kensington DP DP033065 Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: We are writing this letter in support of our proposed addition. The Zoning Administrator correctly concluded that the proposed addition to our home complies with the County's small lot ordinance. Substantial evidence exists in the record to support each of the Zoning Administrator's findings and the Zoning Administrator made each of the findings required by the small lot ordinance. In addition, we are writing to respond to the numerous incorrect statements set forth in the opponents' counsel's March 8, 2004 letter (the "opponents' letter"). Unfortunately, the opponents' letter makes a number of incorrect assumptions in order to unfairly attack the County planning staff and the Zoning Administrator. It also attacks and accuses us of being an inflexible and uncaring family, when in fact we have gone to great lengths to accommodate our neighbors' concerns. Great care has gone into the proposed addition's design in order to comply with the small lot ordinance and to minimize any potential impact. The proposed addition is modest. The County staff report has determined that only 56% of the allowable building envelope would be utilized by the existing home and proposed addition. The home with the proposed addition is smaller than 5 other two-story homes on the York Avenue. According to the County planning staff's calculations, the proposed addition is approximately 13 feet below the 35 foot height limit. It also preserves two off street parking spaces and adds to the beauty of the neighborhood by improving our home. The Zoning Administrator's findings explicitly state that the proposed addition is both consistent and compatible with other residential development in the neighborhood. 999.0071287687.1 Planning Commission March 12,2004 Page 2 The proposed addition does not trigger a variance and cannot even be seen when standing on the sidewalk directly in front of the home. Our voluntary accommodations for our neighbors include: sacrificing more of our backyard than we would otherwise choose to give up so that the addition is located where requested by neighbors; sacrificing the view of the Golden Gate Bridge from the proposed upstairs office by stopping the western extension of the proposed addition at the location requested by neighbors; and using an extremely low 2-12 pitch roof. At the January 26, 2004 hearing, the Zoning Administrator confirmed that he had considered a flat roof option,which we had previously had drawn up by our architect and offered to the neighbors, but concluded that the proposed low, 2.12 pitch, multifaceted roof is the better alternative. The Zoning Administrator specifically complemented the design of the proposed roof in terms of its aesthetics and mitigation of impact. The fact that great care and consideration has gone into the proposed addition is also reflected by the fact that a large number of property owners on York Avenue have signed a letter,which is part of the existing record, confirming their support for the proposed addition and stating their opinion that the proposed addition is consistent with the neighborhood in terms of height, size, location and design. Because the opponents' letter also attacks us personally, by ignoring our efforts and voluntary accommodations, and instead incorrectly accuses us of having refused to make any accommodations,we feel it necessary to point out the foregoing accommodations and that we are not uncaring individuals. We are a family, who are active in and strong supporters of the Kensington community. We simply want to stay in our home by expanding within a portion of the applicable zoning envelope to meet our family's needs. Mary Abraham is on the board of directors for the Kensington Community Council, which organization provides after school and adult education programs in Kensington, runs the Kensington Community Center and the Kensington Outlook newspaper. We have been and are very active in Kensington Elementary School funding raising efforts, such as the Garden Party. Our 12 year old son, Robert Abraham., has spent his entire life in this home and has many close friends in the Kensington community. Additionally, Michael Abraham previously served on KMAC for a period five years and continues to assist various Kensington community groups in unofficial capacities. The proposed addition is being sought as our family wishes to remain in our home, in the Kensington community,in housing that meets our needs,and in housing that we can afford. Accordingly, we have worked very hard to propose an addition which complies with the small lot ordinance and have made substantial voluntary accommodations for our neighbors. We take great pride in the design of the proposed addition. Planning Commission March 12,2004 Page 3 I. EACH OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S FINDINGS IS SUPPORTED BY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. The small lot ordinance sets forth the criteria to be used for determining neighborhood compatibility--location, design,height and size. A. Location and Design. The Zoning Administrator explicitly found that the proposed addition complies with the small lot ordinance in terms of location and design. (See County staff January 26, 2004 report and Zoning Administrator's findings respectively at p.p. S-1 to S-7 and p.p. 7«10, (hereinafter "County staff supplemental report").) The Zoning Administrator's findings provide. Location-The location of the, ropo,sed addition is compatible and consistent with the neighborhood. Two-story houses are widespread and there are many different configurations. In some cases,the entire building is two stories while in other cases only a portion is two stories. Some homes are two stories close to the front of the property while some are two stories towards the back. Still others have two stories at the front and back(examples include 119 St. Albans Rd. and 135 Windsor Ave.) The proposed addition and the resulting building are no different than what is found throughout the area. Design-The neighborhood is eclectic and includes a variety of architectural styles and design approaches. The proposed addition is desianed to be consistent with the style of the existina buildin which itself is compatible architecturally with the neighborhood The proposal for a two-story home that stens up the hillside is also architecturally compatible with other residential development in the neighborhood. The homes at 135 Windsor Avenue and 119 St. Albans Rd. have second stories atop the Back of the residences that are similar to the proposed design. (County supplemental report at p. 7, underline emphasis added.) The underline emphasis demonstrates that the opponents' contention that the Zoning Administrator did not make required findings is simply incorrect. The Zoning Administrator explicitly made the required finding, including that the proposed addition was bath "compatible" as well as "consistent" with "other residential development in the Planning Commission March 12, 2004 Page 4 neighborhood." In short, both compatibility with and impact on the neighborhood was considered and addressed by the Zoning Administrator in his findings. In making these findings, bath the Zoning Administrator and County staff personally visited the "neighborhood," made personal observations, considered our submitted plans, and considered the additional submitted evidence, including the evidence submitted by way of our November 19, 2003 and December 29, 2003 letters and exhibits thereto. (See County staff supplemental report at p.p. S-1 to S-5 and p. 7; the County's original January 5, 2004 staff report (hereinafter"County staff report") at p.p. S-2 to S-7; our December 29, 2003 letter at p.p. 1-3 and Exhibits B-O.)i The location of the proposed addition is at the back of the subject property, thereby causing no impact on York. Avenue. In fact, from the sidewalk directly in front of 125 York. Avenue, the addition is not even visible. The proposed addition also preserves two off- street parking spaces and enhances the design of our home. The location of the proposed addition was picked after discussions with the neighbors. (Dote: as set forth in the County staff reports, views are not an element or factor under the small lot ordinance. Furthermore, as pointed out by County staff, the owners of 112 Windsor Avenue and 118 Windsor Avenue will retain unobstructed expansive views from their top floors windows and retain magnificent views of the Golden Cate Bridge and other areas when one walks up to any of their second floor western facing windows. See the County staff report at p.p. S-3 and at S-3 to S-5;the County staff supplemental report at p. S-3 to S-4 and p. 7; Exhibit 0 and p.p. 1-3, 6-8 of our December 29, 2003 letter; p.p. 1-3 to our November 19, 2003 letter and its Exhibit B.) In picking the location, and even though not required by any ordinance and without converting irrelevant issues into relevant issues, but rather as good neighbors, we are voluntarily sacrificing more of our backyard than we would otherwise choose to in order to build the addition where requested by the neighbors. Based on our discussions with the neighbors, we also limited how far west the proposed addition extends and stopped at the specifically requested stopping point to limit any impact. In so doing, we are giving up the western/Golden Gate Bridge view from the proposed upstairs office--a choice we would not otherwise have made. As a further accommodation, the proposed roof is designed to have an extremely low 2-12 pitch, which will require an additional membrane, at added cost, to be functional and higher maintenance costs in the future. As noted previously, at the January 26, 2004 hearing,the Zoning Administrator specifically complimented the proposed roof design and stated that he had I For ease of reference, attached hereto are copies of Exhibits A-0 from our December 29, 2003 letter. This evidence was and is part of the record. Planning Commission March 12,2004 Page 5 considered a flat roof alternative, (which we had previously drawn up and offered), but determined that the low 2-12 pitch roof design was the superior alternative. In fact, as acknowledged in the Zoning Administrator's findings, the very same style of addition exists on the east sides of Windsor Avenue and St. Albans Road. (See County supplemental report at p. 7; Exhibit L [135 Windsor] and K [119 St. Albans].) Furthermore, similar additions also exist through out nearby areas of Kensington. (See Exhibits MN.) Additionally, two-story homes exist throughout the County defined "neighborhood," including two-story homes which have partial view impact on other homes. (See Exhibit B, H, I, J and generally Exhibits B-0 and our December 29,2003 letter.) The Zoning Administrator's finding and County staff's report conclusion that the proposed addition's design and location is compatible and consistent with both the existing home and neighboring residences is supported by the drawings for the addition, the evidence set forth in the County staff original and supplemental reports, the Zoning Administrator and County staff personal visits, and the evidence set forth in our November 19, 2903 and December 29, 2003 letters and Exhibits thereto. (See County staff supplemental report at p.p. S-1 to S-5 and p. 7; County staff report at p.p. S-2 to S-7; and Exhibit A-0 and p.p. 1-8 and Exhibits A-U to our December 29,2003 letter; Exhibit B and pp. 1-3 to our November 19,2003 letter.) Accordingly, it is clear that the Zoning Administrator made the required fundings and that the findings are supported by substantial evidence. B. Height. The Zoning Administrator also found that that the height of the proposed addition complied with the small lot ordinance. (See County staff supplemental report at p. 7.) The Zoning Administrator found that: Height- The proposed height is approximately 22 feet,which is consistent with other residential development in the neighborhood. The many Tudor style homes located along Windsor Ave. and St. Albans Rd. are much taller. The homes of 109, 120, 140 and 161 York Ave. are of similar or greater height. Taller homes of different styles can be found throughout the neighborhood. Therefore, the proposed addition is not out of scale with other homes and is well below the 35 foot height limitation. Planning Commission March 12, 2004 Page 6 The County's original staff report at p. S-3 establishes that, using the County's method for determining height, the proposed addition as shown on the submitted plans is approximately 22 feet, which is approximately 13 feet under the 35 foot height limit. Furthermore, County staff pointed out that even if one used a different method to calculate height, such as from the bottom of the garage to the top point on the proposed roof, the proposed addition is only approximately 27 feet high, which is 8 feet below the 35 foot height limit. (See County staff report at p. -2; and submitted plans for the proposed addition.) As noted above, the Zoning Administrator's height, design and location findings confirmed that: two-story homes exist throughout the County defined "neighborhood;" the proposed addition is not out of scale; many homes are taller than the proposed addition; and the proposed addition is both compatible and consistent with other residential homes in the neighborhood. This finding is supported by the Zoning Administrator and County staff personal visits to the subject neighborhood, including visits to our and the opponents Morrisons' and Carmens' homes. (See County staff report at S-3 and S-4; and tape recording of Zoning Administrator's statements at the January 26, 2004 hearing.) It is also supported by the photographic evidence in the record. (See e.g., our December 29, 2003 letter at p.p. 1-3 and Exhibits B-N [photographs of homes in the neighborhood.) Therefore, the opponents' claim that the Zoning Administrator's findings is without substantial evidentiary support is simply incorrect. Using the County's method for determining height, 125 'York Avenue with the proposed addition would be lower than: the home directly behind it (118 Windsor Avenue, which is an extremely tall, Tudor style, multi-story home, owned by the Carmans -- Exhibit 0); lower in height that 112 Windsor Avenue, which is a very large, multi-story, 3,839 square foot home owned by the Morrisions -- Exhibit 0); lower in height than the two-story home located directly across the street (120 York Avenue -- Exhibit E); and would be lower in height than the two-story home on the same side of York Avenue,just three houses to the north of the subject home (109 York Avenue -- Exhibit B).z The fact that the proposed addition is well below any height limit and is lower than other neighborhood homes is due to the fact that the proposed addition has a low 2-12 pitch roof based on our efforts to be sensitive to the neighbors. 2 A walk through the neighborhood also establishes that the subject home, with the proposed addition, is lower in height than many of the other two-story homes in the County defined "neighborhood," including lower in height than 161 York Avenue, another two-story home on the east side of the street, as well as many of the other homes on York Avenue, Windsor Avenue and St. Albans Road. (See Exhibits B=-0.) This fact is not surprising as we have taken steps to minimize height. Further, many.of the homes in the neighborhood step up with their lot's grade; whereas, 125 York Avenue cuts into the grade -- which explains why the adjacent homes to north and south sides (123 and 129 York Avenue)are currently a half-story taller than the subject home. Planning Commission March 12, 2004 Page 7 Accordingly, the Zoning Administrator's finding of height compliance under the small lot ordinance is clearly supported by substantial evidence in the record and that the required findings have been made. C. Size. The Zoning Administrator determined that the size of the subject home with the proposed addition complies with the small lot ordinance. (See County staff supplemental report at p. 7, which size finding was orally clarified at the January 26, 2004 hearing; see also tape recording of the January 26, 2004 hearing.) At the January 26, 2004 hearing, the Zoning Administrator orally clarified the County staff supplemental report with regard to its comparison of square footage. The Zoning Administrator reiterated his finding that our home,with the proposed addition, complied with the small lot ordinance. Using the figures set forth in the County supplemental report at pp. 9-10 and consistent with the County staff's approach of not including garage square footage,it is clear that the subject home will be smaller in square footage than the other two-story homes on the east side of York Avenue as well as smaller than 3 of the two-story homes on the west side of York Avenue.3 125 York Avenue after the addition would have 2427 square feet (not including the garage). Using the square footage figures set forth in the County's supplemental report (not including garages), the other two-story homes on the east side of York Avenue are both larger, having respectively 2,739 square feet (109 York Avenue) and 2,569 square feet (161 York Avenue). Furthermore, 3 of the two-story homes on the west side of York Avenue are larger, having respectively 2,463 square feet(152 York Avenue), 3,063 square feet (144 York Avenue) and 3,041 (140 York Avenue). (See County staff'supplemental report at p.p. 9-10.) The Zoning Administrator also orally found that the subject home, after the proposed addition, would be smaller than many of the other two-story homes within the County definition of "neighborhood." Examination of the square footage figures in the County staff supplemental report reveals that each of the following homes are larger: 100 St. Albans Road (3,319 square feet), 106 St. Albans Road (3,851 square feet); 114 St. Albans Road (3,999 square feet); 112 St. Albans Road (2,817 square feet); 114 St. Albans Road (3,530 square feet); 118 St. Albans Road(3,309 square feet); 100 Windsor Avenue (2,897 square feet); 112 Windsor Avenue (3,839 square feet); 135 Windsor Avenue (2901 square feet), and 136 Windsor (2.,731 square feet). (See County staff supplemental report at p.p. 9-10.) 3 Garage square footage is not included in considering size as property owners should not be punished for having a 2 car garage instead of a smaller 1 car garage,when public policy supports off-street parking. Rather, preserving a 2 car garage in a residential remodel should be encouraged and constitutes further grounds for supporting a project. Planning Commission March 12, 2004 Page 8 In sum, the subject home with the proposed addition would be smaller than 5 other homes on York .Avenue and smaller than a total of 15 homes in the County defined "neighborhood." It would also be very similar in size to many of the other homes in the "neighborhood." Furthermore, the County staff report at p. S-2 also looked at"size" in terms of the proposed volume compared to the allowed building envelope and determined that only approximately 56% of the building envelope is proposed to be used. The County staff report noted that: "The zoning district permits the applicant to develop a building nearly twice as large as proposed." (County staff report at p. S-2.) The evidence further supports the Zoning Administrator's finding on size. In addition, over half of the homes on York Avenue have two or more stories. (See the Exhibits B and E.) Two-story homes are also both common and wide spread within the County defined "neighborhood." (See the Exhibits B-d and p.p. 1-3 to the our December 29, 2003 letter; Zoning Administrator finding at p. 7.)4 Accordingly, it is clear that the Zoning Administrator's finding of size compliance with the small lot ordinance is supported by substantial evidence and that each of the required findings was made. E. Each Of The Zoning Administrator's Findings Are Supported By Substantial Evidence As demonstrated above, each of the Zoning Administrator's size, height, design and location findings is supported by substantial evidence. The Zoning Administrator expressly found that the proposed addition is Moth compatible and consistent with the neighboring residential development. Therefore, the opponents' contention that required finding were not made is mistaken. No magic.wards are required. The proposed addition's compatibility with and impact on the neighborhood was explicitly considered and addressed by the Zoning Administrator in his findings, which finding were based on his and County's staff personal visits and the other substantial evidence in the record. 4 In addition, after the proposed addition is completed, the subject home will have three bedrooms. More than half of the homes on York Avenue have three or more bedrooms. In fact, more than half the homes on Windsor Avenue and St. Albans Road have three or more bedrooms. Planning Commission March 12, 2004 Page 9 II. THE OPPONENTS' LETTER MAUS A SERIES OF INCORRECT ARGUMENTS. Because the record contains substantial evidence to support each of the small lot ordinance's criteria, the opponents' letter attempts to change what is actually at issue under the ordinance and/or incorrectly accuses the Zoning Administrator and County staff'of having failed to do their job. A. Substantial Evidence. On page 6 of the opponents' letter, it acknowledges that the issue on appeal is whether the Zoning Administrator's findings are supported by substantial evidence. It then cites a series of cases and goes on to incorrectly claim no evidence exists in the record to support the Zoning Administrator's findings. However, as set forth above, the Zoning Administrator's decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record and makes each of the required findings.5 B. Economic issues. Even though the small lot ordinance specifically sets forth the criteria to be evaluated -- design, location, height and size -- and does not include in its criteria economic issues, the opponents' letter claims that a finding on potential economic impact should have been made. This contention is incorrect for several reasons: 1. As the County staff report explains, potential economic impact is not a criterion under the small lot ordinance. (See County staff report at p. 5-6.) This interpretation of the small lot ordinance -- which explicitly sets forth what criteria is to be considered--is correct. 2. In order to mare this argument,the opponents' letter at p. 2 attempts to confuse and mix up two separate issues. One issue is who has standing, under the County code, to appeal. The other issue what is the subject matter on appeal., While the County cede gives individuals who claim their property rights or value of their property is adversely affected the right to appeal (in other words, standing to appeal), this grant of standing does not change the s As explained in the very case law cited by the opponents' letter, the mere fact that the opponents disagree with the Zoning Administrator findings or that some conflicting evidence may exist in the record does not mean and does not establish that the decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Rather, just the opposite is true. In T'opanga Assn. For A Scenic Community v. County cr,f"L©s Angeles (1974) 11 Cal.3d 506, 514, the California Supreme Court reiterated the rule that in reviewing the record for substantial evidence, any reasonable doubts are decided in favor of the administrative findings and decision. In Friends of Davis v. City of Davis (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1015, the Appellate Court upheld the City's interpretation of its design review ordinance and reiterated that, in determining the meaning and scope of local ordinance, the agency's view is entitled to great weight. Planning Commission March 12, 2004 Page 10 subject matter of the appeal. Code provisions concerning standing to appeal do not change the scope of the subject matter of the appeal—which in this case is design review under the small lot ordinance enumerated criteria. As the County's code standing provisions do not change the small lot ordinance's specified criteria, the opponents' argument that the Zoning Administrator needed to make a finding on potential economic impact is simply incorrect. 3. In addition to being beyond the scope of the small lot ordinance's enumerated criteria, the opponents' economic assertion is mistaken and without evidentiary support for the following additional reasons: (i) As set forth in the County staff reports, even after the proposed addition is built, the homes at 112 Windsor Avenue and 118 Windsor Avenue will have stunning views. Never mentioned in the opposition is the fact that the homes will continue to have completely unimpacted views from windows in the top floors of respective their homes as well as continue to have magnificent views from the other western facing windows in their homes. (See the County staff report at p.p. S-3 and at S-3 to S-6 [making this exact point]; the County staff supplemental report at p. S-3 to S-4 [same]; Exhibit 0 and p.p. 1-3, 6-8 of our December 29, 2003 letter; p.p. 1-3 to our November 19,2003 letter); (ii) Potential buyers of home--when considering a home -- understand that other owners of real property have a constitutional right to develop their property within their respective zoning envelopes. Therefore, when considering a home,buyers explicitly consider the impact of potential development by other property owners and take this fact into consideration in placing a value on the home. (See also County staff report at S-4 [adjacent property owners should have always been aware potential development, the County code does not confer upon any property owner a right to the air over an adjoining parcel and property owners have rights to develop their property within the applicable zoning].) Thus,the,.opposition's economic argument fails because it is based on false assumptions, is unsupported by any evidence and is simply speculation. Speculative arguments do not constitute a valid basis for opposing a project and do not constitute evidence; (iii) The individuals who are at risk of actually losing real property rights and value are ourselves. When real property is sold, the buyer — in addition to considering the potential impacts of other parcels development rights -- considers what right the buyer will have to develop his or her own parcel within the zoning envelope. When we purchased 125 York Avenue, we asked and were expressly told that it could be developed with a second-story. The opponents to the proposed addition are improperly seeking to have the County take the real property rights of the owners of 125 York Avenue -- despite the fact that the proposed addition does not require a variance and, as discussed above, is both sensitive to and clearly compatible with the neighborhood; and (iv) Moreover, the improvement of property generally adds value to the entire neighborhood. Here, the proposed addition will add value to the neighborhood, Planning Commission March. l2,2004 Page 11 C. General Plan. The opponents' letter attempts to misread the County's General Plan in order to argue it gives them rights to the air space over our property for purposes of view protection or that it requires the small lot ordinances criteria to be expanded to include view protection. However,these arguments do not withstand examination: 1. To the degree the opponents are claiming that the controlling law requires that the proposed project itself or the issuance of a building permit for the proposed project be scrutinized for consistency with the County's General Plan Land Use Element's polices and goals, they are incorrect. In Elysian Heights Residents.Assn., Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 21, 28-29, the Appellate Court held that -- unlike the requirement that zoning ordinances and subdivision approval be consistent with the General Plan -- the planning law makes no provision for particular projects or the issuance of a building permit for the projects to be scrutinized for consistency with the General Plan's Land Use element's policies and goals (other than in the context of an open space plan, which is not at issue here). Rather,projects and building permits for projects only need to be scrutinized for consistency with the applicable zoning, not with the General Ilan. (Id.) Here,the Zoning Administrator's determination that the proposed project complies with the small lot ordinance is supported by substantial evidence. 2. Moreover, even if the County's General Plan's land use policies and goals were relevant to the examination of the proposed project or the issuance of a building permit for the project, it is clear that the Zoning Administrator's decision is consistent with these policies and goals. The goals set forth in the General Plan state on their face that they are broad goals from which the County's ordinances are derived. The opponents' letter does not (and cannot in good faith) contest the fact that the small lot ordinance is inconsistent with the County's General Plan. Accordingly, the Zoning Administrator's findings under the small lot ordinance (which considered the design, height, location and size of the proposed project and found that the proposed project was both compatible with and consistent with the neighboring residences) is consistent with the General Plan. 3. Furthermore, even if the County's General Plan's policies and goals were relevant to the examination of the proposed project or the issuance of a building permit, they are very general goals and policies, which do not transfer individuals' real property rights to their neighbors and do not dictate specific design requirements. (For example, as noted by the County staff report at -2, neither the County General Plan nor the small lot ordinance contain any floor area ratio requirements.) Planning Commission March 12, 2004 Page 12 4. Moreover, the County's General Plan's Section 3.8 sets forth a wide variety of Policies and goals including-, Efforts to maintain and rehabilitate existing dwelling units in established neighborhood areas shall be supported (Section 3-26); Housing infill shall be supported (Section 3-1); Infilling of already developed areas shall be encouraged (Section 3-8); and Housing opportunities for all income levels shall be created (Section 3-22). Each of these policies is met by the proposed addition and the Zoning Administrator's decision is consistent with these policies. As explained earlier, the proposed addition is being undertaken so that our family can stay in our home, in our community, in housing that meets its needs and that it can afford. The proposed addition also meets each of the General Plan policies or goals cited by the opponents, including: "'To encourage aesthetically and functionally compatible development which reinforces the physical character and desired images of the County;" (Section 3.8, Goal 3-C); To upgrade the quality of residential living arrangements and protect the surrounding environment (Section 3.8, Policy 3-25); To encourage development pattern that promotes the individuality and unique character of the each community in the County (Section 3.8, Goal 3-J); and Flexibility in design of projects shall be encouraged in order to emphasize scenic qualities and provide for a varied development pattern(Section 3.8,Policy 3-18). Here, the Zoning Administrator explicitly found: "The pnposed addition is desi"n d to be consistent with the gy_Ie of the existing building, which itself is. atible ar th klu�tecturally with the neighborhood. The pLogosal for a two-story home that steps my e hillside is ala--.Mc_hitecturally cgMatible with other residential,- develo meat in-the neigbbb The Zoning Administrator also found that the proposed low,2-12 pitch roof was the better alternative than a flat roof. The Zoning Administrator's findings demonstrate that the policies and goals of the County's General Plan have been met. D. Floor Area Ratio. The County staff report at S-2 appropriately responds to opponents' floor area ratio contentions: There are no floor area ratio limits specified by the zoning or general plan. The square footage and FAR have limited relevance because design review focuses on the exterior appearance of the building,not the floor plan. The"size" criterion for determining neighborhood compatibility refers to the building's mass and bulk. The importance of square footage is diminished because it can vary substantially within the building envelope depending on the specific configuration of the floor plan. Two buildings with the same mass can easily have different amounts of square footage. Therefore, one cannot contend that a house is"too big"simply because it has more square footage than its neighbors. Planning Commission March 12,2004 Page 13 In order to gain some numerical understanding of the proposed mass, staff compared the size of the proposed building to the size of the allowed building envelope....[A]ppromiately, 56%of the building envelope is being filled. The zoning district permits the applicant to develop a building nearly twice as large as proposed. Thus, not only is FAR irrelevant, the County staff report establishes the reasonableness of our proposed addition. Furthermore, the evidence supporting the Zoning Administrator's determination as to size compatibility, discussed earlier in this letter in Section I.C., likewise disproves the opponents' FAR contention. (Jur December 29, 2003 letter at p.p. 4-5 also establishes 4 additional reasons as to why the opponents' FAR. contentions and calculations are incorrect. Please see our December 29, 2003 letter's discussion of these points. The oppositions' FAR. analysis also inappropriately compares the proposed two- story home with only single story-homes in order to reach a predetermined result. However, the fact that a proposed two-story home will have a higher FAR score than a smaller single-story home, provide roughly equivalent lot sizes, is self-evident. This self-evident result does not provide any meaningful insight nor does it provide a valid factual basis for any conclusions. As a result, the opponents' FAR contentions are both irrelevant and do not provide any meaningful insight. E. The Small Lot Ordinance And dews. 1. The County's staff report at S-2 to S-7 and supplement staff report at S-2 to S- 5 each make explicit that views are not an element or criteria ander the small lot ordinance. In addition to finding the proposed project's height to be compatible and consistent with neighboring residential development, the County star`report-- in the portion of the report which sets forth what is relevant under the small lot ordinance--provides in summary: * View protection is not a consideration under the small lot ordinance. (County staff report, Section IV,Agency Comments,at S•2.) The County's point is correct and consistent with case law cited in the opponents' letter. In Friends of.Davis v. City of`Davis (2000) 83 Cal,AppAth 1004, 1013, the Court of Appeal held that where an ordinance enumerates specific items or factors,the scope of what is to be considered is limited to that which is specifically enumerated. (See also Elysian Heights Residents Assn. v. City of Los Angels (1986) 182 Cal.App3d 21, 29 [the inclusion of acts or things as coming within a statute precludes the inclusion by implication of other acts or things not listed).) Planning Commission March 12,2004 Page 14 Later, in the portion of the County's staff`report which is responding to the issues raised by the opponents' letters, as distinct from what is relevant under the small lot ordinance, it makes the following points: * Furthermore, if the project is built, the residences at 112 and 118 Windsor will still maintain views from the street level. (County staff report, Section VII, Staff Discussion provided in response to opponents' contentions, at S-3.) * Additionally, it appears that the proposed addition is far too short to obstruct any views from the upper level of either house. (County staff report, Section "`VII, Staff Discussion provided in response to opponents' contentions, at S-3.) * The height regulations [35 feet) for this area have not been changed since 1955 and were higher [38 feet] between 1948 and 1955. Therefore the development potential of the subject lot is not new or surprising. (County staff report, Section VII, Staff Discussion provided in response to opponents' contentions,at S-4.) * "The County Code does not confer upon any property owner a right to the air over an adjoining parcel. however, the R-6 zoning does entitle a landowner (the applicant) to certain development rights. The County cannot simply bestow additional "rights," such as view protection, on adjacent landowners to which they are not entitled." (County staff report, Section VII, Staff Discussion provided in response to opponents' contentions,at -4.) The County supplemental staff report, in response to letters submitted at the January 6, 2004 hearing,provides in relevant part: * "There is no disputing the fact that some of the homes on the east side of Windsor Ave. have views of a portion of the bay. However, if the Morrissons contend these homes have views simply because part of the bay can be seen from their first floor living areas, as stated in the petition, then their home will continue to have views if the proposed addition is built because large portions of the bay would still be visible." (County staff supplemental report, Section V.2.,Response To Letters Of Opposition Submitted At Public Hearing, at S-4.) The fact that County has taken the time to respond to the issues raised by the opponents is appropriate to show the County's acknowledgement of the oppositions' points, but does not change what is relevant to the planning decision under the small lot ordinance. 2. The fact that views are not a relevant consideration under the County's small lot ordinance is well known. An article in the July/August 2003 Kensington Outlook, interviews KMAC's chair Mr. Carman and, based on this interview, reports that KMAC learned from two of its Drior ovoositions that it had no standing under the current law to consider views. (See Exhibit B to our November 19,2003 letter.) Planning Commission March 12,2004 Wage 15 In fact, during the five years that I was a KMAC member, the committee members repeatedly told the community that the small lot ordinance does not cover views. Accordingly, the fact that view impact is not a criterion under the small lot ordinance is not new or surprising. 3. The Planning Commission and Beard of Supervisors each faced and unanimously rejected very similar opposing arguments when considering the proposed second- story addition at the rear of the home at 6535 Claremont Ave., East Richmond heights under the small lot ordinance. The opponent neighbor, an attorney, argued that a second-story was not compatible with the neighborhood and objected to partial view impact. The County staff reports reiterated that views are not a factor under the small lot ordinance and that the proposed addition was the same or lower in height than other homes in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission's and Board of Supervisors' unanimous rejection of the opponent's contentions, along with KMAC reported prior experiences, reflects consistent application under the small lot ordinance. (A copy of the May 7, 2002 unanimous vote and staff report to the Board of Supervisors for the home at 6535 Claremont Ave., East Richmond Heights is attached as Exhibit P.) 4. The foregoing establishes the opponents' contention that the Zoning Administrator was required to make a separate finding on the issue of views is incorrect. Just as with their incorrect argument that a separate finding on potential economic impact was required, the opponents are inappropriately attempting to change and expand the enumerated criteria set forth in the small lot ordinance. 5. Without in any way changing the fact that views are not a relevant consideration,but rather as good neighbors,we met with our neighbors prior to even engaging an architect. As noted previously, in response to our neighbors concerns, we have made serious voluntary accommodations, including: giving up more of our back yard to put the addition where requested, giving up the view of the Golden Gate Bridge from the upstairs office in response to neighbors' request that the addition be limited in how far it extended west over the existing home and using a low, 2-12 pitch roof. As pointed out in the above-quoted staff reports, by undertaking these voluntary accommodations, our neighbors will continue to enjoy unimpacted views from the trip floors of their homes and views of the Golden Gate Bridge and other areas of the Bay from the street levels of their homes. We had hoped that these accommodations would result in thanks and support from our neighbors, instead of opposition. 6. Absent from the opponents' letter is any discussion of the fact that from the top floors of the Carmans' and Morrisons' homes, they will continue to enjoy completely unobstructed views. Also absent from the opponents' letter is the fact that they will continue to enjoy views of the Golden Gate Bridge and other parts of the Bay from all of their street level western facing windows. Consistent with the absence of any mention of these facts is the fact that opponents have not submitted photographs from their many windows which have no impact at all or limited impact. Accordingly, as we do not have access to these properties to submit Planning Commission March 12,2004 Page 16 photographs (other than Exhibit 0 showing the western facing side of these homes), we request that the Planning Commission members tour all parts of our and the opponents' homes so that a fair and balanced perspective is achieved. F. KMAC. The County staff report explains why KMAC's vote -- which the minutes reflect was based on concerns of partial view impact affecting KMAC's chairman, Mr. Carman, own home and one other neighbor's home as well as consideration of inappropriate FAR analysis -- fails to have considered and is not based on what is actually relevant under the small lot ordinance. (See County staff report at S-2.) Therefore, in this instance, KMAC's vote is not probative. Furthermore, the opponents' argument that the County must follow KMAC (regardless of what factors its uses) is incorrect and misunderstands the role of MACs. Pursuant to its enabling legislation,the votes of KMAC -- like all MACs-- are simply advisory. KMAC's votes are not binding on the County and are not entitled to any more weight than the opinions of other members of the community or the opinion of the applicant. This fact is well known to the members of KMAC and, during the five years I served on KMAC, we consistently told applicants that KMAC's votes are only advisory and that the County was free to make its own determination. G. The Qgponents' Alternative-Suggestions Are,Not_Feasible. The opponents proposed changes of limiting the addition to a half-floor or to underground rooms with little or no natural light and air are simply unworkable, cost prohibitive and unreasonable. The opponents previously suggested that we limit any increase in height to 4 feet across the entire addition. However, a 4 foot tall addition would not accommodate a code compliant bedroom or bathroom and, therefore,would not provide the space our family needs. The opponents' alternative suggestion that we demolish half of the existing house to dig down an additional 5 feet into and then expand into the back yard 5 feet below the existing grade is likewise unreasonable, unworkable and cost prohibitive. This proposal ignores the fact that our home already is 4 or 5 feet lower into the grade, when compared to our neighbors. Unlike our adjacent neighbors' homes to the north and south, which step up the grade so that the back half of their homes are currently a half-story higher than our home,no such step-up exists at our home. Going down another 4 or 5 feet would not only be cost prohibitive, but also create strange rooms with no or very little natural air or light and would create incredible water intrusion problems. Due to water run off from the opponents' property as well as rain fall onto our property, the hillside gets saturated during the winter and the portion of our garage which is at the depth being suggested by the opponents gets water intrusion. It is not possible to solve this problem with a French drain since such a drain needs to be able to flow down hill to the street and would come in below street level. Likewise, the opponents' other suggestion that the area Planning Commission March 12,2004 Page 17 behind the downstairs bathroom (which is at garage level) be excavated to create a subterrain room is likewise unworkable, unreasonable and cost prohibitive. The entire house would have to be lifted to excavate underneath it; the entire foundation would have to be redone, the resulting room would have little or no natural light and air; it would create a completely inefficient division of space, would not meet our family's needs, and the extreme water intrusion problem discussed above would exist. At the Zoning Administrator hearing,the opponents made explicit both orally and in writing their opposition to any normal second story addition to our homes Our statement to the Zoning Administrator was simply that, in the face of the opponents' position and due to unworkable nature of the opponents' alternative suggestions, our family needs to move forward with seeking approval of our reasonable proposal. Furthermore, as discussed previously, we have made very significant voluntary accommodations to minimize any impact on our neighbors. H. The Neighborhood's Development History. Without waiving or modifying the fact that views are not covered by the small lot ordinance, it is important to explain why the opponents' version of the historical development of the "neighborhood" sloes not withstand examination. The opponents' letter attempts to limit the "neighborhood"to only the homes on the west side of the 100 block of Windsor Avenue and to just 8 of the homes on the east side of York Avenue, (excluding without any sound basis the two, two-story homes on the east side of York Avenue as they contradict their version of "appropriate" historical events). However, this overly limited definition of"neighborhood" is without basis in history and is inappropriate under the applicable zoning ordinances. Furthermore, as discussed below, even if one limits the definition of "neighborhood" to the Berkeley Highland Terrance subdivision portion of Kensington, (which includes all of the blocks and both sides of York Avenue, Windsor Avenue, St. Albans Road, Kenyon Avenue, Highland Avenue, Purdue Avenue, and Westminster Avenue), the opponents' assertions as to the history of the development are easily shown to be mistaken. In the history of Kensington, published by the Kensington Improvement Club, of which Mrs. Morrision was and is a director, it provides in relevant part on page 36; "Kensington is essentially a residential community with the majority of lots zoned R-6 for single family dwellings. Homes represent a diversity of building styles, which is one source of Kensington's character and charm." (See Exhibit A.) 6 At the KMAC hearing, Mr. Carman advised KMAC that he had not gotten back to us in response to our flat roof drawing because in his opinion it was not a matter of small changes to our proposal. At the Zoning Administrator hearing, Mr. Carman submitted written materials stating that no second story addition was acceptable. Planning Commission March 12, 2004 Page 18 On page 46, the history of Kensington sets forth a copy of what is held out to be the original subdivisions. (See Exhibit A.) As noted above, the Berkeley Highland Terrance subdivision includes all of the blocks and both sides of York Avenue, Windsor Avenue, St. Albans Road, Kenyon Avenue, Highland Avenue, Purdue Avenue, and Westminster Avenue. On page 49, the history of Kensington states in part; "In 1914, lots in the Berkeley Highland Terrace were offered for sale by the F.R. Peake Company, and Kensington boasted a total of ten homes."(See Exhibit B.) Mr. Carman's December 1, 2003 letter to the County states that the first home built in this subdivision was 109 York Avenue one of the two-story homes on the east side of York Avenue. In oth r wards the stggLng point for the neighborhood develo meat was a two- story home on the east side of York Avenue. Thereafter, single lets were sold off and individuals developed their real property with "a diversity of building styles." (See Exhibits A- O.) The fact that two, two-story homes exist on the east and west sides of the avenues within the Berkeley Highland Terrace subdivision is neither surprising nor unusual. For example, eight (8) two-story homes already exist on York Avenue. (See Exhibit B-- pictures of two (2), two-story homes on the east side of York Avenue; Exhibit E-- pictures of six (6) other two-story homes on York Avenue.) Similarly, two-story homes are quite common on Windsor Avenue. (See Exhibit F --pictures of some of two-story homes on Windsor Avenue, including the east side of Windsor Avenue.) Two-story homes are also quite common on St. Albans Road. (See Exhibit G -- pictures of some of the two-story home on St. Albans Road, including the east side of St. .Albans.) The fact that homes have been developed or remodeled in a manner which has impact on views is also easily shown. In fact, the two-story home at 109 York Avenue — which was the first home in the subdivision -- impacts the view from the Morrisons' home at 112 Windsor Avenue and other homes on Windsor Avenue (See Exhibit C-- a picture taken from the sidewalk in front of the Morrisons' home showing the side of their home and 109 'York Avenue.) Likewise, the two-story home located on the east side of York Avenue at 161 York Avenue impacts the view from 136 Windsor Avenue. (See Exhibit D -- a picture taken from the pathway between 134 and 136 Windsor Avenue showing the side of 136 Windsor Avenue and the back of 161 York Avenue.) Planning Commission March 12, 2004 Page 19 Additionally, certain of the homes on the west side of St. Albans Road are so tall that they entirely block the view of the Bay not only from homes on the east side of St. Albans Road, but also from many of the homes located on the west side of Kenyon Avenue in the 100 block. (See Exhibit H -- pictures taken from the sidewalk looping between Kenyon Avenue homes in the 100 block of Kenyon Avenue and of the tall St Albans Avenue homes which block Kenyon Avenue homes' views.) Similarly, many other homes in the neighborhood were developed or remodeled in a manner which has impact on views. (See Exhibits B-I) Furthermore, it is clear that homes on the east side of streets were developed or remodeled in such a manner as to impact views from homes on the west side of the next, higher up street. In addition to the impact from the existing two-story homes on the east side of York Avenue discussed above and shown in Exhibits B-D, similar examples exist on St Albans Avenue and Windsor Avenue. For example, Exhibit G shows a home on the east side of St. Albans Road (141 St. Albans Load) impacting the view of a home on the west side of Kenyon Avenue. Similarly, a home on the east side of Windsor Avenue impacts views from homes located on the west side of St. Albans Road. (See Exhibit I -- a picture taken while standing (not sitting) on the deck of the home at 118 St. Albans Road. Obviously, other homes on St. Albans Road are also view impacted by this Windsor Home and the impact would be worse if one sat down to take the picture.) The contention that homes were developed so as to not impact views is also shown to be incorrect by examination of other homes. The two-story homes at 120 and 130 York Avenue, which are across the street from 125 York Avenue, block part of the view from 125 York Avenue's existing living room and dinning room when one is standing and block the entire view of the Golden Gate Bridge and San Francisco when one is sitting. (See Exhibit J.) Thus, the argument that the Berkeley highland Terrace subdivision was developed or remodeled so that no views would ever be impacted is disproved by a simple walk through the neighborhood. Rather, individual lots were sold and individuals exercised their constitutional real property rights by developing or remodeling their real property within the allowed zoning envelope. In addition, a walk through the neighborhood also establishes that the proposed type of remodel requested for 125 York Avenue is common within the Berkeley Highland Terrace subdivision. In fact, very similar second story improvements already exist on the east side of St. Albans Road (See Exhibit K-- 119 St.Albans Road) and on the east side of Windsor Avenue. (See Exhibit L -- 135 Windsor Avenue). A similar KMAO approved remodel was done at the home located on the corner of Westminster Avenue and Arlington Avenue. York Avenue is a short cul-de-sac which comes ofd'of Westminster Avenue just above Arlington Avenue. The similar remodel is located three Planning Commission March 12,2004 Page 20 houses dawn from where York Avenue meets Westminster Avenue. (See Exhibit M -- pictures of the home at the corner of Westminster Avenue and Arlington Avenue; see also Exhibit N -- pictures of other similar remodels undertaken in the Berkeley Highland Terrace subdivision.) The foregoing evidence is in the record and was before the Zoning Administrator by way of our November 19, 2003 and December 29,2003 letters and their Exhibits. The County staff reports and Zoning Administrator's findings also confirm that the proposed type of addition is common in and consistent with the neighborhood. (See County staff supplemental report at p. 7; County staff report at -lto S-7.) Thus, a walk through the Berkeley Highland Terrance neighborhood -- as demonstrated by the submitted photographs and the County staff and Zoning Administrator personal visits -- reveals the real history of the subdivision, and establishes that the Zoning Administrator's findings are supported by substantial evidence. III. CONCLUSION. Each of the opponents' arguments -- that the Zoning Administrator allegedly failed to make required findings or allegedly failed to consider a required issue or allegedly failed to have substantial evidence to support his findings -- has been addressed and disproved. Based on personal visits, the work undertaken in the County staff, the County staff reports and the other substantial evidence before him, the Zoning Administrator made each of the required findings under the small lot ordinance and correctly found that: "The proposed addition is deli ed to be conintent with the s le of the existin build.in which itself is com atible archiLectaM U1 ,with the nei boyhood, The proR2sal for a two-stn home that ste s u the hillside is also architegturaUy com atible with other residential develo inent in the neighborhood." Great care and consideration has gone into the proposed addition. The proposed addition was specifically designed to meet each of the criteria of the small lot ordinance, to minimize any impact, and to enhance the beauty of our home and the neighborhood. We thank you for your consideration and ask that the Planning Commission approve the proposed project. Very truly yours/ ww".4,� /-I/t�K� Michael and Mary Abraham Attachments Exhibit A } t f 41 zl tV.; s F �i c �8 a.8...�'ta7�,3J.��+4.:Dt��O a 3t�#.3�..�'4�6.JA'Bt'''k'!EA�� _�t1A N' LAND USE Kensington is essentially a residential community with the majority of lots zoned R-6 for single family dwellings. Homes represent a diversity of building styles, which is one source of Kensington's character and charm. In addition to the residential sector,the town has two small commercial areas,one on.Arlington Avenue and the other at Colusa Circle, both of which offer a variety of goods a-nd services to residents within a few minutes' drive. The largest single commercial parcel of land is the Sunset View Cemetery and Mausoleum, which occupy 50.47 acres at the northwestern tip of Kensington. The land was originally part of a larger area pur- chased by George Baxter in 1919 from defaulted mortgages. A portion of this land was put on the market in 1920 as the "Arlington Acres" subdivision, and the { remaining property was developed into the Cemetery. The .Mausoleum was added in 1926 and is under separate management, The San Pablo Filter Plant and the Summit reservoir, owned by the East Bay 77,77 Can ter),C. 1930 .Municipal Utility District, together occupy Photo by Uu1s L.swin another 33.11 acres. The Filter Plant, located at 300 Berkeley Park Boulevard,is a water treatment and pumping plant used to supplement the Orinda Filter Plant. It was built in 1921 and enlarged in 1947. As a supplementary plant only,it is not in continuous use. The grounds also contain a 5.4 million gallon reservoir where treated water is stored and pumped up to Summit Reservoir for distribution. The Summit Reservoir, located on Grizzly Peak Boulevard between Beloit Avenue and Spruce Street,was constructed in 1891, and actually predates the for- mation of the water district in 1923. The reservoir was originally an open body of water, but was covered and landscaped in 1972 in accordance with coater qual- ity requirements. It holds 37 trillion gallons of water to a maximum depth of 14.3 feet. Its overflew elevation is 816.3 feet. Emergency overflow pipes are located on the eastern side of the reservoir to direct the flow of water into the Tilden Park region should an emergency occur. Treated water is pumped to 6,700 house 36 Kr vsnvoroN PAsr AND PM&,rr 7'i i;r �'�1 *� �ti .r'.s; ��ri- �� � � � p, }q R *":> • �* "�!. �� ' � �� •. �to �. � � ni Ie �.,y� �,�� .,, s A � ',t .� �� � rte. 1t , �M ,� 1 c%.a ,,,.'.wM1 .�, �,� .� •. �►� a �. �, .�. �► ��. -.b� �,a�"`��. �� � fi � t �. Ta'► �� � ,"�a �., �:t �� �} � �•��� .� A r r ;� �� � �'� ! • F`� �. ti� � �;:. • R �' 6 I/ 1 . � � , � � w .. The real estate office occupied the space where the beauty parlor is now located,and a restaurant was placed in the northern section of the building, where realtors served prospective clients a free lunch before show- ing them property. The building remains a landmark today; the gateway, however, was removed in 1938. In 1912 the Oakland Traction Company agreed to extend its street car line up Amherst Avenue Looking South,c.1912 Arlington Avenue to Kensington, and tracks (Photo Taken from Wellesley Avenue) were laid by the developer at a cost of Photo by Louis L.Stein $33,000. The"Kensington Park" terminus of streetcar#7 was located in front of the Caudron House. Meikle,Brock,and Skidmore opened their Berkeley Highlands subdivision in 1913. Access to Kensington by street car had now made this and all subdivisions more ages- A sible. In 1914,lots in Berkeley Highland Terrace were offered for sale by the E R.Peake Company,and Kensington boasted a total of ten homes. Some of the first homes were built on Amherst,Ardmore,and Coventry Avenues. At that point,fin ther subdividing was put on hold until the end of World Warr I. El Cerrito was incorporated as a city in 1917. The incorporation movement triggered an intense fight, pitting El Cerrito residents N against the Kensington farmers and dairymen who had occupied the hills for years and had noAw desire to pay city taxes on their farm property" to finance facilities and improvements they would rarely use. They also feared city devel- opment would eventually scuttle their hillside operations. h ' u I 'I�f�Ii I When the proposal for incorporation was first received by the County Board of Arlington Avenue Looking North,e.1912 Supervisors in Martinez, the Supervisors readi- Fellowsbip RD=at LtA Anthem Avenue Homes at Upper Right Current Bur Stop and Parking Arte at Lrft Forrgrwnd ly admitted they knew very little about the area Photo by Louis L.Stein litsroRY AxD D-rvaoPMENT 49 Exhibit B lr: Y S � �'• �' .art E z» k 4 � � L i „x Exhibit C s. ��... Af Ad 4w a f ' '4 ■ � i i' f f f • 1 .................................................... ..............I.,.......... ........... ...................... ................ Exhibit D ` r`fy •.na µ,,,,,,Vi.. ,. y A picture taken from the pathway between 136 and 134 Windsor Avenue showing the side of 136 Windsor Avenue and the back of 161 York Avenue Exhibit E ................................ .................................................................... 120 York f, y i 4 al' 130 York .� �f �Z.'��•'�- 4M."� q st^ yad,it er � ZI a nz � e� � 14 " m•+ o q AW My Mi" • �.' Exhibit F y . L I �7 r y 2 and 3 story homes on eastside of Windsor Avenue A- r � ,A n x � t�f y,SS t ' > V y,bF 14 Vll 1 k 6 ; a t f � wi ear IRV 1� I rG . pis fix'`f R �{ ,.}{y✓, V a � Fri��`�v �k fx v Iwo, A t♦� 'v4�, 4€ I i YFK A 4 �S S po t ; q 1E r.• } �3 i M1', K ! L �w 777, fed'° { u, js fat t } � AN n sn tI yyysss i 1 Alt, slitit kM 00- ✓t s listah 9' -77" pm4r .y h2 r 4` 1 FO t. �l ,� 4T �e a HOW, if byb'y RW guys w Vv "4 G fi 0 w+s '=x V Z s W ME Sv%mm <� & d < $hY took dim sti � o t } ,t.*; _. .Spm S SY J N ' Mi/Mktl. V YY1�4i�C•L.nY��. moo[ MMS " 9 mraY1{; Gra ; �+ 5trsr��fii11 i ... ..................''I'll,............................... . . .............. Exhibit G OW N us N. � N C�[ C t N Cly N r" 125 St Albans 2 story home on the east side of the street Two Story homes on the west side of St Albans A l W r tr t r r� L fu i. _. Two story homes on the west side of St Albans Avenue t. Exhibit H � r Photo taken between 2 homes on the west side of the 100 block of Kenyon, Views of the bay are blocked by a home on the west side of St Albans Exhibit I µ 4 . Photo taken from a deck of a home on the west side of St Albans. The view is impacted by a home on the east side of Windsor. Exhibit J i 6k 4 View from 125 York when standing 120 York 130 York Exhibit K I y F� IC F 'Jii" wyY a w' M3, dq� 1 ik 119 St Albans 2nd story addition on the east side of St Albans Exhibit L east Exhibit M F!gY 4f�� t., rio,.,•ry91SS; ,ifi. � � �'�#{ �+ew..ew!q `.'" tea` r' b t •• • • .•• • t - • • t•• -• • Exhibit N k h 51 Windsor 2nd story addition on the east side of the street n t 4 y` 3 x+'ti 113 Kenyon 2nd story addition on the east side of the street Exhibit O N r t. p # i m T W h t 118 Windsor •?�'� f � 5 3 � 5 # 112Windsor Exhibit P _. . FILE COPY TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . 7t �' .;, , • '- ,.�'` Contra FROM: DENNIS M. BARRY, AICD tirr l E; 3 Costa COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT D.RECTOR County DATE: MAY 7, 2002 SUBJECT: Hearing of appeal by Margaret Epler of County Planning Commission approval of a development plan application for addition to single family residence on a substandard lot that includes variance to lot width and depth In the East Richmond Heights area, County Pile#DP013052 (Victoria Curtis Applicant& Owner) (Sup. Disetrict 1). SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. For purposes of compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, adopt the finding that the project is Categorically Exempt, Class 1-Existing Facilities, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(1). 2. Upheld the County Planning Commission approval of the proposed development pian. 3. Deny the appeal of Margaret Epler. 4. Adopt the findings of the County Planning Commission as the basis for the Board approval. 5. Direct Staff to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: --?L YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON May 7, 2(102 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER X WE M ATLOW A1JDMM FM DOW ACI7 GN. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE ___y (ABSENT None ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION AYES: NOES: TAKEN AND ENTERED ON. THE MINUTES ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN Contact: Will Nelson (925) 335-1208 ATTESTED May 7, 2002 Orig: Community Development Department JOHN SWEETEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD cc: Victoria Curtis (Applicant) OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY Margaret Epler(Appellant) ADMINISTRATOR { _�- File BY ! , � g DEPUTY May 7, 2002 Board of Supervisors File#©P013052 Page 3 sale cause of view blockage. Examples exist where homes that are on relatively flat topography partially block the views of upslope neighbors (6523 Claremont partially blocks 6536 Arlington and 6315 Arlington partially blocks 6341 Highland),just as the applicant's proposed addition will partially block the view from the appellant's property. Homes that step down the hillside also block upslope views (6538 and 6544 Claremont partially block the view from the applicant's property). Therefore, topography does not necessarily determine whether a view will be blocked. A much more determinant factor is the height of the home. The applicant proposes a two-story building that is 23-feet 6-inches tall. Staff, in its report to the County Planning Commission, cited two-story homes in the neighborhood that are taller than what is proposed. Some of those homes block neighboring views. Staff relied on these facts to recommend the finding that the proposal is compatible in terms of location and height. The Zoning Administrator and County Planning Commission adopted the finding. 2. Appellant Concern: Construction of the addition would amount to expansion of a non- conforming use, as the house currently does.not meet the required minimum rear.yard setback of 15 feet. Staff Response: A survey conducted in November 2001 revealed that an addition to the residence completed in the 1970s sits 14 feet 6 inches from the rear property line where minimum 15 feet are required. The applicant has produced a copy of the building permit that allowed the addition.The use itself is conforming, as the General Plan land use designation and the zoning designation are for high-density single-family housing. Therefore, the prohibition on expansion of non-conforming uses does not apply. Were the applicant proposing that the new addition be built flush with the previous addition, a variance would be required to encroach into the required rear yard setback. However, the applicant proposes that the addition be moved 6 inches forward from being gush with the rear wall, thereby ensuring that the new construction will meet the minimum setback requirement. 3. Appellant Concern: County Planning Commissioner Marvin Terrell's experience as a homebuilder in Contra Costa County led him to reach a biased decision. His bias, along with extra-record evidence he produced regarding home construction throughout the County, tainted the proceedings of the Commission. Also, any ether Commissioner with experience as a homebuilder should have been disqualified from the proceedings. Staff Response: This assertion is purely speculative. The public hearing of February 12, 2002 was conducted in accordance with County procedure. No evidence exists to suggest that Commissioner Terrell's experience clouded his judgment, that his comments influenced the decision of any other Commissioner or that any of the Commissioners would have voted differently in the absence of Commissioner Terrell's comments. The Planning Commissioners are selected because their knowledge of the County is of value when making decisions, not detrimental. 4. Appellant Concern: The County has acted "arbitrarily and capriciously" at every step of the design review process, the question of neighborhood compatibility remains unanswered and the County refuses to address and answer the neighborhood compatibility question. ADDENDUM TO ITEM DA May 7, 2002 On this date, the Board of Supervisors considered the appeal by Margaret Epler, (appellant),of the County Planning Commission approval of a development plan application for addition to single family residence on a substandard lot that includes variance to lot width and depth in the East Richmond Heights area, County file#DP013052,Victoria Curtis-Applicant& Owner. Catherine K.utsuris, Community Development Department,presented the staff report and recommendations. The Chair opened the pudic hearing and the following persons addressed the Board on this matter: Margaret Epler, 6550 Arlington,Richmond Victoria Curtis, 6535 Claremont Avenue,Richmond Dennis Maslonkowski, 6535 Claremont Avenue,Richmond. The Chair closed the public hearing. After further discussion, the Board took the fallowing action: ■ CLOSED the public hearing; • ADOPTED the finding that the project is Categorically Exempt, Class 1-Existing Facilities, California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines Section 15301(e)(1); ■ UPHELD the County Planning Commission approval of the proposed development plan; ■ DEFIED the appeal of Margaret Epler; • ADOPTED the findings of the County Planning Commission as the basis for the Board's approval; ■ DIRECTED the Community Development Department to post a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk. -�.. pey.—u' �, � t '�� w -;. 'ut 'f I;., 1 y..; k k t ' �� 1 4 t .t �. ,.;�� :Yt a:, � ,4 r` �i 117 York Ave. Kensington,Ca 94708 April 8,2004 Will Nelson Contra Costa County Community Development 651 Pine St. Martinez,CA 94553 County File #DP033065 Dear Mr. Nelson, This is in reference to the application to add a second story addition to the home of Michael Abraham at 225 York Ave.,Kensington.I think the plans are well within the neighborhood compatibility and I see no reason to deny the approval of this plan. Sincerely, Donia J. Oretsky Helen Bean To: <wnels cd.cccount .use , {x }r :. <hlbean54a@earthllnk.n cc: et> Subject: File#DP033065-Michael�d P�l JbxahP 'sWe&n 04/13/2004 11:56 AM tl Dear Mr. Nelsen, I am writing this email as support for the application by Michael and Mary Abraham to expand their home. We live right across the street from Michael and Mary and will be directly viewing the addition every day after it is finished. After having reviewed the plans, we believe their addition would be very compatible with our neighborhood. In fact, the addition would acid to the architectural interest on our street and improve the neighborhood from our perspective. There are many two story homes on the street and the Abraham's addition is sensitively planned so that its size and height blends in well with the surrounding properties. While its mass is not overbearing on the street frontage, the extra height will add architectural character and interest. We are certain that it will increase property values on our street. We have known Michael and Mary since we moved into our house 4 years ago. They are very nice neighbors and are very active in community. They clearly have the welfare of the community as a top priority in their lives. Due to child care responsibilities, we will not be able to make the hearing tonight in support of their application. Please share this letter with the Planning Commission so they can consider these points as they deliberate the issue. Sincerely, Helen Bean 118 York Avenue Kensington, CA 94708 117 York Ave., 04111H 2 8 10: 24 Kensington,Ca 94708 April 27,2004 Supervisor Jahn Gioia 117 80 San Pablo Ave Suite D, El Cerrito,CA94530 Re; Propossed addition to 12 5 YORK AVE Kensington Sir: It has cone to my attention that the request by .Michael and Mary Abraham (at 125 York Ave.Kensington) for a remodel to their home has been referred to the Beard of Supervisors, even though it was approved by the County_Planning Department and the Zoning Administrator. In looking at the plans for this remodel/addition, I see no reason to not allow these building plans to be approved. They are very much in keeping with the style of our street and neighborhood. Living in Kensington, as I do, it is obvious that we need to make as much use of this valuable land as we can. The Abrahams are not asking for more street roam, but only better use of their limited land area. I know that the neighbors behind me are complaining about their view, but these same people complained about my apple tree which has been here for over 30 years . The owners of 12 5 York Ave. have been wonderful neighbors, and I hope that you will lend your full support in helping them get the necessary approval and get started with this building project. Sincerely, i cc:Will Nelson Donia Oretsky Project Planner 117 York Ave.,Kensington HELENA EDITH WEIL, FSH. D. ERIC A, RIESS pq ,�L� � avi 10, 21 130 YORK AVENUE, KENSINGTON, 70 510-525-3529 April 28,2004 Supervisor John Gioia I I'W San Pablo.Ave. Ste. D El Cerrito,CA 94530 Dear Supervisor Gioia, We are writing to support the request of Michael and Mary Abraham to build an addition on their home at 125 York Avenue in Kensington. We have been their neighbors for almost 4 years and support their proposal for a number of reasons. Michael and Mary have worked very hard to consult with neighbors all over the area to build a structure that would meet the needs of their family but would not negatively impact any nearby property. Ey limiting their proposal to less than half of the allowable space we feel they are proposing a structure that is both in character with the other homes on the street and consistent with the neighborhood yet gives them the room they need. There are at least two other homes on the same side of the street that are currently, and will remain,larger than the structure they are proposing. In using a low pitch roof they have attempted to accommodate neighbors and proposed an addition which requires no variance. The fact that both the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission have voiced strong support for the proposal underscores the reasonable nature of their request. We believe that any homeowner who proposes a project which meets these criteria should be able to use and enjoy their property as they see fit. If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call. Sincerely, Eric A. Riess Dr. Helena Edith Weil rs � 'Fi GVW?`.� r'-J 275 Colgate Rue., 04 JUN 28 Alli 10: 24 Kensington,Ca 94798 Rpril 28,2804 SuperulsorJohn Gtola 11788 San Pablo Rue,Suite D El Cerrito,Ca. 94538 Dear Mr. Giola, I am a resident in Kensington, and I am writing to you to ask you to help get approual for the remodel project p►f Michael and Mary Rbraham at 125 'fork Rue., in Kensington. We recently had occasion to get approual for our building project in Kensington and were so pleased with the County Planning Commision and the care they took in making sure that the poject was in keeping with our neighboorhood . I understand that the Zoning Rdministraator and the Planning Commission haus already approue.d the plans for the Rbraham remodel, and this should be the uerdict we as tax-payers enpect. 1 hope the Board of Superuisors uphold their decision. Sincere! Carolyn Hasselgre 275 Colgate Rue. 7 Jessen Court Kensington, CA 9707 014MN 8 A.1,1 ( : 4 May 2, 2004 t. Supervisor John Gioia 11780 San Pablo Avenue, Suite D El Cerrito, CA 94530 Re: Zoning Permit for Michael and Mary Abraham, 125 York Ave., County file No. DP033065 Dear Supervisor Gioia: We are writing to support Michael and Mary Abraham's application for a permit to an addition to their home at 125 York Avenue in Kensington. We have known both Michael and Mary for many years as Mends and active members of the Kensington Community. We know that Michael has served on KMAC for five years, and Mary has spent several years on the board of the Kensington Community Council, which Don currently leads as President. The community owes both Mary and Michael a great amount for their selfless activities on behalf of others. We have reviewed the plans for the Abraham's addition, and believe it is a reasonable use of their property that does not unduly infringe on the rights of their neighbors or is not inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood. Indeed, we understand that the proposed addition uses only 56%of their available building envelope and the roof is 12 feet under the height limit permitted by the zoning code. We know that they have both worked hard to plan their addition so that it provides the extra room they need, while minimizing the adverse impact on their neighbors. That is probably why the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission unanimously have approved their application for a permit, despite heated opposition from some of the neighbors. We believe it is very unfortunate that the other residents in their immediate vicinity have carried on their campaign to stop the addition. While we understand the neighbors' desire to retain the status quo, the zoning regulations clearly contemplate a reasonable addition to homes, which this certainly is. Therefore, we urge you to support the Abraham's efforts application the Board of Supervisors and vote to affirm the decision of the Planning Commission. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions. Sincerely, Don Specter and Feoma Kenwood cc. Will Felson, Project Planner Contra Costa County Community Development Rept. l4 t J i May 2, 2004 Supervisor Jahn Gioia, : ty I am the homeowner at 131 York Avenue in Kensingto • I support the plan of my neighbors Michael and their home at 125 York Ave. and Mary Abraham to expand (County file DPo33055). The Abrahams have been Very conscientious in the development of their design so that it will have a minimal irn act on ethers. Their project is consistent with the neighborhood in terms of the planned appearance of the finished house. I'd hate to lose such great neighbors because they need to move to a larger home. Thanks for your consideration of this issue. Felix Locher cic will Nelson, Project Planner, Contra Costa Community Development Dept. ..................... . Supervisor John Gioja 11750 San Pablo Ave 014 JUN 28 AM 10*- 24 Suite D f, El Cerrito,CA 94530 May 3,2004 Dear Supervisor Gioia, We're writing you in support of the proposed addition to the home of Mary and Michael Abraham at 125 York Ave., Kensington. The county file is#DP033065. We (Jon Herbst and Karla Clement)reside at 756 Coventry Road in Kensington. Karla serves on the Kensington Hilltop School Site Council and has served on the KE1~ and KASEP boards. Both of us have attended numerous KMAC meetings involving neighbors' proposed improvements. Some of these proceedings have involved folks wanting to make changes to their properties without any regard for the negative impact it might have on the views, property values or quality-of-life for their adjacent neighbors. This is clearly not one of those cases. The Abrahams have made substantial efforts to take into account the impact of their improvements on their neighbors. They are requesting no variances. in fact,their plans specify a second-story addition that is signifigtl by glow the allowable height limitation and includes set-backs that respect the privacy of all concerned. The Abrahams have steadfastly demonstrated good will, patience and a willingness to work with their neighbors in mitigating the impact of the proposed addition,despite being recipients of acrimony on the part of some of their less reasonable neighbors. As you are probably aware,the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission (in a unanimous vote) have each approved the Abraham's plans. No home improvement is completely without some impact on the neighbors. However, we believe that property owners have the right to develop their property if their proposed improvements are reasonable,fit within the guidelines set by the community and minimize the impact on their adjoining neighbors. The Abraham's proposal meets all these criteria. We hope you will vote in support of their plans. Sincerely, May 3, 2044 ipA t.ikJIIt L Yti La�• Supervisor John Gioia 4 JUN G �'� t. 4 11784 San Pablo Ave, Suite D El Cerrito,CA 94534 ,r`VA, ;,'8 RE: The proposed addition to the home of Michael and Mary Abraham 125 York Avenue Kensington, CA 94708 County file ##DP033065 Dear Supervisor Gioia, We are writing this letter on behalf of the Abraham's'proposed addition to their residence on York Avenue. This project was approved last month by the County Zoning Administrator and approved unanimously by the Planning Commission. We have reviewed the drawings detailing the Abraham's' proposed new addition.We are not architects,but we feel that the drawings appear appropriate and keep within the style of their existing home and the character of the neighborhood. Having lived across the street from the Abraham's for several years,it is quite easy for me to envision this addition. I also am quite familiar with the architect who has helped the Abraham's detail this addition.We had also discussed a remodel project with the same architect when we lived on York Ave. I clearly remember that one of the first things this architect said to us was, "Make sure you see your project through your neighbors eyes and be considerate." From my discussions with the Abraham's I believe this is exactly what they have try to do. They have gone out of their way to minimize the impact this proposed remodel would have on their neighbors.My understanding is that this project is actually 12 foot under the zoning height limit:. The Abraham's are very caring, considerate of others and have always been actively involved in the Kensington community. Mary has volunteered extensively in the Kensington Elementary School and has served board positions on the Kensington Education Fund and the .Kensington Community Council.. Michael spent five years serving on the Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee. He has extensive knowledge in issues related to zoning for new additions. We have been.Kensington residents since 1992. During that time we have been active members of the community serving on Board positions at Kensington Elementary School, the Kensington Community Council, the Kensington After School Enrichment Program and the Site Council at Kensington Elementary School. We lived on York Avenue across the street from the Abraham's for 7 years. During that time we did a remodel to our home, so we are well aware of the process involved in approval for new additions to homes in Kensington. It is appropriate that proposals for new additions to homes are reviewed in Kensington. Unfortunately,almost any new addition will have some impact on surrounding neighbors. In our estimation the Abraham's have proposed a reasonable project which minimizes the impacts on their neighbors. We believe that for this reason they should have the right to develop and enjoy their property. Sincerely C.��i.w_ 'a.`�—,"yr�j�y%,-a.r✓Z��C 1'�zZz-sw... ce Prudhomme& Merry Bourne 6 Arlmont Drive,Kensington,CA 94707-1004, (510) 559-8476 May 4, 2006 Supervisor John Gioia 11780 San Pablo Avenue, Suite D Bl Cerrito, CA 94530 Dear Mr. Gioia, We are writing to you regarding the proposed addition to the home of Mary and Michael Abraham at 125 York Ave., Kensington, CA(county#DP033065). We have lived in Kensington since 1990 and currently reside at 260 Arlington Avenue. We have known the Abraham family since the fall of 1997 when our sons started kindergarten at Kensington Hilltop School. Having served on many committees at the school with Mary we can attest to the countless hours and tireless energy she has put into the school and the Kensington community. This year she continued to volunteer at the annual Garden Party Fund Raiser even though her son had left the school. She is truly amazing, someone you can always count on. We are both in the real estate field: Dawn is a loan broker and Bob, a real estate appraiser. The Abrahams have been looking for a new home to accommodate their existing needs for sometime. They want a place where their son, Robert, can feel comfortable as he grows into his upcoming teen years. They also need space to accommodate elderly parents. After exhaustive efforts of searching for a home in Kensington and the surrounding areas they have decided to add on to their existing residence. Unfortunately, we understand there has been some controversy with their planned project decision among the surrounding neighbors. The Abrahams are caring and responsible people who took into consideration the impact their addition would have to the neighbors. Their project is consistent with the neighborhood and they have opted to use a low pitched roof in their design. It is our understanding that the Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission unanimously approved their project. It is unfortunate that the neighbors find it necessary to attack their character because they are pursuing their legal right to develop and enjoy their property. We trust you will allow them to move forward on this addition. Sincerely, Malatesta awn Malatesta �. 67 Arlington Court (YR Iy:,,. ; ' U J° l Kensington, CA 94707 :< 2 May 4, 2004 „s:z c > . Supervisor John Gioia 11780 San Pablo Avenue, Suite D El Cerrito, CA 94530 Bear Supervisor Gioia: We are writing regarding the proposed addition to the home of our friends Mary and Michael Abraham at 125 York Avenue, Kensington(#DP033065 in County files). We hope the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors will approve the Abrahams' project for several reasons: + The Abrahams have worked to minimize the impacts of their addition on their neighbors by choosing a low pitch roof, lower ceilings(8 feet vs. 9 or 10 feet), and greater set-back on their property. • The proposed addition is consistent with, or more modest,than other additions approved and built in Kensington. • The Zoning Administrator and the Planning Commission approved the project, which uses only 56%of the Abrahams' allowed building envelope. . We know the Abrahams considered the option of leaving Kensington to buy a bigger house. We are lucky as a community that they decided to add on to their present home. While her son attended Kensington Hilltop Elementary School, Mary worked tirelessly as a board member of the Kensington Education Foundation, as the budget chair of the Garden Party, as a judge for the Science Fair, as a room parent, as an art volunteer, field trip driver,and classroom volunteer. She has also served on the board of the Kensington Community Council for the past several years. Michael spent 5 years serving on the Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee. They both believe in giving time and service to their community. We also believe that the permitting process should not discourage residents from making their initial design proposals as considerate to neighbors as possible. The process should not encourage residents to plan structures larger or grander than they need so they can"give up" space during negotiations. We appreciate your consideration of this letter and your ongoing work as our supervisor. Sincerely, 4 L � p4a Esther Hill Patrick Schlesinger May 5. '1004 g�$ � m ,� S �yyh y� 5t/�pypy Jiy�y�2r� 3 T ;5 �.Lt�'4d Yi d Sohn Gioia ��31 y�y�iy'tkl k �t_�:�Yi t.. � ` i.�eN .: .�. I 1780 San Pablo Avenue, Suite 1 t rritn< CA 45' Dear NLhr. Gioia, I t TiOV t+�; t .1x regard tib the pd additiot�x the ho��w of I�fich 1 d M r� rahraham al ,125 'York Avenue, Ker ixt tori. (County file DPO33()65) My by � Ko WVj I five at 17 KefT Avenue in Kensington and we have known Michaci and Mary for seven yew. We nlet u1 1997 When our sans started kindergarten at Kensington Ficynentary School. The A h�*s have been �.e Y Cie r' ers t� tc cl t l and hi t1 Ke �tor�C�`o ttt ity. Mar and I ser d together the Kensit t��x€ 1 cation F Und Board I . Our ic�I� Axa I 'whh iste� of` thly mectings discussing h t t es et involve ail the rr�a� r school f ndraiti rs including tl Garden v. T Ietl . and,-Still-a-thonSimultar s sIv. Mary vied on the k,e tsir10.on C Community Council ( CC) uhike-Michael served on the Kenskinon ltlrnticipal: .d,.ri r C omi ittee(KIMAC Marywas also fufl i�parent volunteer-moi Kensington Elet entary School. tier countless number of hours colt isted ofhelping in the C srr►orrism organizing the�cience fair, driving on field tri} . I*JpWg at the school carnival,volunteering in the lid°, and assisting ' the.Vectra art program. Man- is aMays w tip help and her volunteer >ork at the school is constant throughout th �1 :4 Michael °e very Ike and responsible indivi Is ho e d lit of me and energy MtO out cert munim For thepast several ye& they have been looking for a slightly larger home in Kensington.xc r. C;nfr rtu tel ,there arc very fL home�����the Ott t. T1 v wanted to stay,in their� h rh od so they decided to build dditi��ra to their York 1 to . Man f it s In ,.e sat ton hQd dd because the loge the area but seed more s-pace, Mary considefed theinpac1 this prpjec -could hive oil their neighbors< d de e� ' effort to consult and ;hog, them pl, -,of the addition 11vit would f=nHZe the::hnpact on their view. My husband, Ko and I have looked at the lam- and&ej it 19 a Ve >re anahlcproject. ve support ?�It and Michael l iia their vent*e to 0 e . �.o g and p permit and �k.etasingtoat residents hope they- will riot lose their ri�hx'to dt'vcp end ertj��tir ort'�rc�pertt;�; Sincerely, Ker and Laurie 11 sh u. cc. 11,11 elsoroct1rt Contra Costa County Community De elopinent Department tment 4 JUN 28 A 10_ 24 May 5, 2094 Supervisor John Gioia 11780 San Pablo Avenue, Suite D El Cerrito, Ca 94539 Subject: 125 York Avenue Addition Dear Supervisor Gioia: I would like to register my support for the home addition planned by the Abrahams for 125 York Avenue. i live at 118 York Avenue, directly across the street from the planned addition. I believe the addition would benefit our neighborhood in several ways. The Abrahams live in a home built in the 1950s that is relatively small. They are seeking this addition to create a larger home that they can live in with their growing son. Without this addition, it is highly likely that the Abrahams would be forced to move away from the neighborhood. This would be a significant loss to the community because the Abrahams are a very active family. They volunteer many hours to support Kensington's local government, community events, and community services. The design of the addition integrates well with other homes in the neighborhood, as there are many other two-story homes on our street. The design does not overly dominate the street frontage. From our home,the second story is barely perceptible. Overall, I believe the addition will add value to the neighborhood. For these reasons, we ask that you support the Abraham's planned addition. We need to support and encourage improvements to homes that improve property values and accommodate the needs of long-time residents to provide good homes for their families. Thank you, Q Helen Bean 118 York Avenue Kensington, CA 94708 120 York Avenue iut4 2 8 All 10: 24 Kensington,CA 94709 May 10,2004 �iplizv#Iiw-a-n-Pablo Avenue, Suite D El Cerrito, CA 94534 ISE: Proposed addition to the home of Michael and Mary Abraham, 225 York Ave.,Kensington. County File#DP033065 I have been a resident of Kensington since 1966,and on Fork Avenue since 1969. My husband served on the KCSD, the committee of Boy Scout Troop 100, brought about the berm walkway to ;school on Highland Ave., served in the PTA and Dads Club. I also served in the PTA.and sorted books for the Friends of the Kensington Library for years and was a Girl Scout leader as well. So we have always been interested in Kensington as a community serving the needs of all its residents. When the Abrahams were first planning the addition to their house in the above-ref=nced project,I signed a petition that indicated I had no objection to it. Later, a resident of Windsor Avenue, Gloria Morrison,cane to my door and challenged my decision to approve the project as consistent with the neighborhood. I have in the meantime become much more fatnitliar with the planned project,and I remain IN FAVOR.of it on the basis that: The project itself is reasonable and consistent with the immediate and larger neighborhood in size and design; The Abrahams have been reasonable and accommodating in mini-►r*ing the impact on neighbors, been forthcoming from the start by meeting with neighbors most affected, accepting less than they desire and are entitled to in consideration of neighbors, and not entered in bind into the vicious and unnecessary attacks on their motivations and character by some who oppose the project, There is a housing crunch throughout the Bay Area and we need to support adjustments that will allow middle class/income families to afford to remain in Kensington, especially residents who have already given so much to the community themselves as the Abrahams have in their volunteer works. I support the project without reservation. Yours surely, Nancy E. Sephton CC:Will Nelson,lProjed Planner C.C. County Community Development Dept. 120 York Avenue y,l Kensington,CA 94708 May 10,2004 Supervisor John Gioia 1.1780 San Pablo Avenue, Suite D El Cerrito, CA 94530 RE: Proposed addition to the home of Michael and Merry Abraham, 125 York Ave., Kensington. County File#DP033065 I have been a resident of Kensington since 1956, and on York Avenge since 1969. My husband served on the KCSD, the committee of Boy Scout Troop 100, brought about the berm walkway to school on highland Ave., served in the PTA and Dads Club. I also served in the PTA and sorted books for the Friends of the Kensington Library for years and was a Girl Scout leader as well. So we have always been interested in Kensington as a community serving the needs of all its residents. When the Abrahams were first planning the addition to their house in the above-referenced project,I signed a petition that indicated I had no objection to it. Later, a resident of Windsor Avenue, Gloria Morrison, came to my door and challenged my decision to approve theproject as consistent with the neighborhood. I have in the meantime become much more familiar with the planned project, and I remain IN FAVOR of it on the basis that: The project itself is reasonable and consistent with the immediate and larger neighborhood in size and design; The Abrahams have been reasonable and accommodating in minimizing the impact on neighbors, been forthcoming from the start by meeting with neighbors most affected, accepting less than they desire and are entitled to in consideration of neighbors, and not entered in kind into the vicious and unnecessary attacks on their motivations and character by some who oppose the project; There is a housing crunch throughout the Bay Area and we meed to support adjustments that will allow middle class/income families to afford to remain in Kensington, especially residents who have already given so much to the community themselves as the Abrahams have in their volunteer works. I support the project without reservation. Yours sincerely, Nancy E. Sephton CC: Will Belson,PrajW Planner C.C. County Community Development Dept. Lynn M. Signorelli&Tomas Schoenbe l Ri`. ��::5 x as ��%���`°`T� 24 Kerr Avenue , 24 Kensington, CA 9470704 ° g; ° * (510)525-2094 Supervisor John Gioia 11780 San Pable Ave., Suite D El Cerrito,CA 94530 Dear John, We are writing on behalf of The Abrahams with regards to their proposed addition at 125 York Avenue, Kensington(County file#DP033065). We are both Kensington residents for the last eleven years (i.e. one year as renters on Columbia Avenue and 10 years,this May, as homeowners at the above address.) Tomas served as a KPAC member in 1945 and Lynn served as Vice President of the board of The Kensington Nursery school that same year. Lynn is currently a Brownie Girl Scout troop leader (Troop#931)that meets regularly in Building E(third year). After carefully reviewing the plans that R.A.W. Concepts has developed for the Abrahams, we are confident that the proposed addition is in keeping with the architectural integrity of the Abraham's existing home and that it does not negatively impact the `feeling' of the neighborhood. The Abrahams have thoughtfully designed a functional addition which does not need a variance and is well below the square footage,overall height and footprint they could have proposed according to allowable coverages, etc. We are both rather perplexed that certain residents continue to wield sufficient power to block plans that have met both the rigorous zoning and planning requirements that we understand, and very much Appreciate, are necessary to receive approvals within Kensington. Although we are hopeful that the Abrahams will eventually be approved to move forward, it is disconcerting that they can be deterred or delayed by apparently frivolous attempts to block their reasonable, methodical and justifiable proposal. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration and timely intervention in this matter. Sincerely, Lyng i orelli omas Schoenberg J Cc: Will Nelson,Project Planner, Contra Costa County Community Development Department KrcwL* eic *t&Ch r Ccwd�aW `j20 ArU*V w�C,of9470r' ot(� lLe� j CA 94 7 0 r 4 JUN 2 8 P,1110-, Supervisor John Gioia 11* San Pablo Avenue Suite D El Cerrito, CA 94530 Dear Supervisor Gioia, This letter is in support of the proposed addition to 125 York Avenue, Kensington, the home of Mary and Michael Abraham (County file # DP033065). My husband, Chas and I live in Kensington at 20 Arlington Court. We have lived together in Kensington for 15 years. I am a lifetime resident, and my parents still live on Arlington Court. I am a board member of the Kensington Education Foundation, and an active volunteer at Kensington School. I have known the Abrahams for many years. They are both exemplary members of our community. During the six years their son attended Kensington School, Mary was one of the most active volunteers among the parent body. She served as a board member of the Kensington Education Foundation, chaired the Spellathon, coordinated the Science Fair, worked tirelessly on The Garden Party(the school's major fundraiser), volunteered in the classroom, assisted the art teacher, and participated in school events too numerous to list. For the past several years, she has broadened her involvement to include the larger community by serving on the board of the Kensington Community Council (KCC). Michael is a busy professional and dedicated father, who still found time to serve the community by sitting on the Kensington Municipal Advisory Committee (KMA.C) for five years. I have been aware of the Abraham project since its inception. We added on to our home extensively in 2001. Although the scope of our project was much greater than that which Michael and Mary have proposed, they were curious to hear about our experiences with the permit and construction process. When I heard about, and later saw their plans, I felt sure they would have no permit problems, as the scope of their project was entirely consistent with their neighborhood. Michael and Mary did the same thing we did at the outset of the design process. They consulted with thein neighbors, and instructed their architect to design an addition that would minimize impacts. In fact, their final design requires no variances, and uses only a portion of the 0 building envelope. It is 12 feet under the zoning height limit. Our project at 20 Arlington Court did require a variance, and added 1400 square feet to our home. Although our neighbors were affected by our project, they were extremely supportive of our efforts. Our proposal was reasonable, and the finished house is consistent with the other homes on our black. Many, many Kensington homes have additions. It is unfair to deny a homeowner the right to add on to their property just because there will be some impact on the neighbors. If this type of restriction were enforced, none of us would have the right to develop and enjoy our own property. It is unfortunate that the.Abrahams' neighbors desire to deny them this basic right, and even more unfortunate that the process has become adversarial. Mary and Michael Abraham are valued members of our community who seek nothing more than to improve their property and enjoy their home. They have sought at every step of this process to accommodate their neighbors and be fair to everyone. I urge you to support them in their efforts. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very Truly You Kristine L. Cardall cc: Will Nelson Project Planner Contra Costa County Development Department LETTERS IN OPPOSITION James M. Carman, Ph.D. 118 Windsor Avenue Kensington, California 94708 Telephone (4 0) 526-5546 j PI"I I December 2003 Mr. Will Nelson Community Development Department 351 Pine Street, 4b Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 BY FAX&POST Dear Will: RE: DP033065. 125 York Ave—KonsinZan The purpose of this letter is to explain why any second story expansion on any of the eight houses on the east side of York Avenue from 117 through 143 (which includes 125) is not compatible with"the surrounding neighborhood in terms of its location, size, height and design."Further, included is evidence of the severe impacts of the addition at 125 York on the neighbors at 112 and 118 Windsor. If not included in the body of your staff report,we expect that this information will be attached to the file submitted to the Zoning Administrator. It is helpful to begin with some history on the planned development of Blocks 5 and 6 of Berkeley Highlands Terrace. The subdivision of these blocks occurred in 1914, but there ,%vas no development on them until 1926 when a single residence at 109 York Ave. was constructed. This house was originally on three or four lots and is completely out of character with subsequent development. (It is worth noting that the one house on the west side of Windsor Ave. that is not two stories is 108 Windsor. This is because the bulk of 109 York completely eliminates the view from this lot. Therefore, a more modest house was built.) Even at the time the streets in this neighborhood were laid out, it was clear that the planning was designed to maximize the views from as may lots as possible. This can be seen in the photographs No. I & 2 showing the way St. Albans Rd. was build up hill in its first half in order to attain the altitude necessary to build houses that would look over the top of the house planned for Windsor Ave. There was no further building on these blocks until 1932 when C. M. McGregor began to build the Tudor style houses on the west side of Windsor, then the east side of Windsor, and finally most of the houses on the west side of St. Albans Rd. Mr. McGregor continued this activity through 1939. All of his houses were sited in such a way as to maximize views. During the last half of the 1930s, other builders constructed houses on the remaining lots on Windsor and on York. These builders too continued the careful planning of McGregor. The three houses at 125, 129, and 133 Windsor on the east side of the street are all one story over a garage at or near street level. (Note that this is the same siting as 125 York.)These three houses are shown in Photo No. 3. There were only three or four houses in these blocks build after World War II. They too conform to the siting and roof lines described here. Across the street on the west side of Windsor Ave. are 126, 130, and 134. These are all two story homes built with the 2nd floor below the main floor. Please see Photo No. 4. Now, with this arrangement,the Douses on the west side of St. Albans see over the houses on the east side of Windsor, which see over the houses on the west side of Windsor. All have unobstructed views. This is city planning at its finest. The larger, two story homes are on the west side of the streets(Photo No. 5), somewhat smaller and one story homes are on the east side. As shown in Photo No. 6,this pattern continues on the west side of York Ave. Now in order to make this careful planning work,the houses on the east side of York Ave. must be one single story over a garage at street level or be built on two lots. As shown in Photos No. 7 & 8, this is indeed the case. Photo No. 6 was taken from 112 Windsor and shows the line of low roofs which disappear in the distance. To pick up the south end of the street,it was necessary to take Photo No. 8 which shows this pattern continuing. Note that York Ave slopes downward to the south so that the houses at this end of the street have views over the top of the houses on the west side of York. However, they are still one story over a garage in order to allow unobstructed views from the houses above. Additional evidence of the planned compatibility of the houses on the east side of York can be seen in the table preceding the photographs. All houses on the east side are included in this table which is from assessor data and includes garages in the total floor area column. For reasons explained above, 109 York has not been included in the average although since it is built on two lots, its FAR is below the average for this neighborhood. The house at 161 York is excluded because it is sited on the bluff`at the end of the street and has a very different,but wonderful, view perspective.Notice that of the nine remaining houses, three, including 125, are on smaller lots than the others. The house at 143 York, while one story, is built on two lots. The floor areas range from 1,137 to 2,379 and average, without 125,2,011 sq. ft. of living area. The FAR.range from .26 to .61 and average .45. Now look at the proposal for 125 York. It would have the largest floor area and a FAR of.76. Notice that properties on the west side of York Ave. are not affected by what happens on the east side. However,the properties on the west side of Windsor are affected. Allowing a second story at 125 York will establish a precedent that would provide the same right to build a second story to all properties on the east side of York. A domino effect could result and the County would be required to grant all of these requests. That is the reason all of the neighbors on the west side of Windsor Ave. have signed the petition submitted by the Morrison family stating they are opposed to this expansion. The impact is not only on the two properties currently most affected, but by all property owners on the west side of Windsor Ave. The conclusion here is clear. The second story proposed for 125 York Ave. is not compatible with"the surrounding neighborhood in terms of its location, size, height and design." We now turn to the impacts of this addition on the houses at 112 and 118 Windsor. Since 11.2 Windsor is submitting their own evidence on this point, this letter will deal chiefly 2 with 118. Photos No. 9 through 12 show the view obstruction of the story poles on 125 York. Photos 9 & 10 are from the living room of 118 Windsor and Photos 11 & 12 are from the dining room. Photos 9 and I I were taken with a standard tens; 10 and 12 with a telephoto lens. All four tell the same story of the view elimination of all water, Marin County, and the north tower of the Golden Gate Bridge. The New York Times of 18 September 2003 reports the loss of a San Francisco view can reduce the value of the property by about 37 percent. This is not inconsistent with estimates from other view sensitive urban areas in the country. Let's assume the loss to 112 and 118 Windsor to be half that, 18 percent. The current value of 112 Windsor is about$1.5 million and of 118 Windsor is about $1 million. So, the loss of view to these two properties will reduce their value by about $450,000. By any standard, these are significant impacts. The proposal in application DP033065 is in violation of Section 82-10,002(c)of the county code and should be denied. Sincerely, �7 C of K. and James M. Carman Enclosures: One table and 12 photographs 3 FLOOR AREAS OF HOUSE ON EAST SIDE OF YORK AVE. Street No. Total Floor ArSALftTotgl Lot-Aggle FAR 107 1,363 4,300 .55 117 2,163 3,800 .57 123 1,978 4,300 .46 119 1,760 4 300 .41 131 1,951 4,300 .45 135 2,33E 3,800 .61 139 1,137 4,304 .26 143 2,379 81004 .34 AVG. 2,411 .45 109 2,739 81400 .34 161 2.,949 5,355 .55 125 1,871 3,821 .49 Proposed_ 12,908 3,821 .76 Source. County Assessor data. Total.floor area includes garage area. i!✓ p f z x✓ s�� } t- { a:.; z 1myn fV , 1 k4 , f v East Side Windsor, South End • ,lz vt � Ia a f � ! aj t � h , t r t 1 z� t c r t a w 4�1 F {�•4� iY k , �} � VI i�'SII M. t 1'RY?.ij West Side Windsor, Soutl3 Enc! All vi It s t • w.. w r �+ •� ' 4' ,�,ji�{ as fr�� :,.-��� �'as�•�„x. `�,t ;�.tL.- -•--�rA �... ��qYw.,. yy k y x 2 s r Vii? v } t 4 Si 5" y x a .1 r s 4 e } a t � Phi �= n"- x tq ti�m Yip sah t 4vc. �� i c 7. { .. q tik � s. "f 1 Id 4 xi E � i f xxt Y 1 � 4 i ; V 7^ { f Com'• ;� �c �',,.. 'tlY � -t ,IECEIVED .: Remarks for ZA Hearing 5 January 2004 ZONING ADMINISTRATOR HEARING James M.Carman AGENDA ITEM#-4_ - Your task under Section 82-10.002(c),to which staff refers only very briefly in their "findings", is"to review the proposed dwelling's compatibility with and impact on the surrounding neighborhood,in terms of its location, size, height and design." Definitions Let be begin by defining these terms: • Webster's defines"compatibi1hy" as"capable of existing together in harmony." • Webster's defines"impact' as"an impinging." • Using stars' definition of"neighborhood" as an area that typically has distinctive characteristics, I have argued and will argue in a moment that, while Blocks 5 and 6 of Berkeley Highlands Terrace is the relevant neighborhood, the most accurate definition is not distinctive characteristics, but distinctive topography. For example, the siting of houses on the north block of Windsor Avenue is different from the siting of houses on the south block of Windsor Avenue because the topography of the hill changes in that short distance. For the purposes of determining impact and compatibility in the present case, only the east side of York Avenue is relevant. • We agree with staff that"size" is best:measured in terms of bulk. However, staffs analysis here is faulty. First on p. S-2, staff considers the bulk of a house built to the allowable setbacks and height. Clearly, such a dwelling would be incompatible with all the dwellings in blocks 5 and 6. Then in Finding D, staff uses houses that are outside the proper comparison dwellings on the east side of York Ave. In Kensington we have found the floor area and floor area ratio to be very useful operational measures of bulk. We have demonstrated that the proposed expansion will make this dwelling well outside the area of comparison homes. • With regard to"height,"the definitional problem is not with the height shown on the plan but with the comparison homes used by staff, These are not relevant comparisons. As we argued in the attachment to the file, the relevant comparisons are the homes on the east side of York at numbers 207, 117, 123, 129, 131, 135, 139, 143. All of these are a single story built over a,garage below grade. • We have no serious concerns regarding staff's definition of location and design.. CityPlennin.,. _and Berkeley;Hi .hlands mace As a city planner, you know that the first 40 years of the 2e century were probably the golden age of urban planning. In the Bay Area this really means after the earthquake, say from 1910 to 1940. Many of the leading lights of these professions such as Duncan McDuffie, Bernard Maybeck and Werner Hegemann, worked in the Berkeley Hills as developers, architects and planners. The developers of Blocks 5 and 6 clearly learned and followed the leadership of such men in their siting of houses in Blocks 5 and 6. It is worth noting that the infill,homes in these blocks built after WWII all followed the siting and height plan used in the 1930's. It is imperative for the County to interpret its code to 1 reflect excellence in city planning and architecture. Staff makes no attempt to respect the guidance of the luminaries or theory in its analysis. Comparison Houses While not developed until the 1930°s,Blocks 5 and 6 clearly do follow a siting pattern that reflects the excellence in city planning characteristic of the Berkeley Hills. I have described this in detail in my letter of December 1, included in your packet. I need not repeat it here. (I describe there why 109 and 161 York needs to be eliminated from this analysis.)The paint is that for this siting plan to work, all of the houses on the east side of York Avenue through No. 143 are required to be one story of living space. I do indeed mean the verb "refuired"here. Staff attempts to expand the definition of neighborhood that ism ' .y r on its face and gives no consideration to the topography or logic of the siting of residences in Kensington. Indeed, staff makes statements in section VII. D} 1. 2nd bullet(p. S-5)that are simply factually wrong. Other speakers will go into detail on these three paragraphs of the staff report. Staff Definition of Impacts At the top of p. S«6(and at the top of p. S-4), staff has last focus on the fact that we are dealing here only with Section 82-10.002—not R-6 or CEQA. Indeed, the legislative history of this section of code reflects it is intended to deal with situations like the present one that are not covered by the R-6 code but are required for orderly land use. Using the definitions of impact and compatibility defined above,there is no reason why houses on one side of a street should be identical to those on the ether side or that economic factors should not be considered. Likewise, while your Department has found it convenient not to consider view as an impact,there is nothing in the code so stating. Staff at the top of p. S-2 is simply incorrect in this statement. The proposed addition does impinge on the economic value of the homes on the west side of Windsor Avenue and this addition is not capable of existing in harmony with 112 and 118 Windsor. Note the standard here is different from that used for an undeveloped lot. Buyers of a home with a vacant lot in front of it should anticipate that development of said property may have impacts. However, buyers of home with well planned and developed properties in front of them should enjoy the belief that these properties will stay well planned and not expanded in an unharmonious fashion. Floor Area Staff has chosen to ignore the floor area analysis provided with my letter of December 1, included in your packet. This analysis shows clearly that the proposed addition is not capable of existing in harmony even with the other houses on the east side of York. The square footage of the proposed addition would be the largest among the comparison houses;this property is one of the small lots in this comparison set; its FAR is completely 2 out of proportion with the comparison houses. Square footage is a perfectly useable measure of bulk in this case because cathedral ceilings and Tudor design are not issues among these comparison houses. Conclusions and Findings Staff's conclusion on p. S-7 incorrectly redefines Section 82-10,002(c) of the code. Any inspection of the properties in Blacks 5 and 6 must conclude that the proposed addition in this application has impacts on and is incompatible with the surrounding properties on the west side of Windsor Avenue in terms of its size and height. Findings A,B, and D with regard to Location,Height, and Size are deficient and incorrect principally because they refer to incorrect and nonrelevant comparison dwellings but also because they do not address the issues of impacts on the houses on the west side of Windsor Avenue. This application should be denied. Thank.you, 3 GLENN AND GLORIA MORRISON 112 Windsor Avenue 03 DEC —2- `I� 3- 02 Kensington, CA 94708 510-525-7781 November 29, 2003 Via.Facsimile and Original by Mail Mr. Will Nelson 651 Pine Street e Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Proposed addition at 125 York Avenue, Kensington DP No. DP033065 Dear Mr. Nelson: With regard to DP033065, this is a letter with an attached petition signed by neighbors in opposition to the above proposed addition. It is being written as a response to a letter to you dated November 19, 2003 from Michael and Mary Abraham, the owners of the home at 125 York Avenue. The roman numerals shown below correspond to those in the Abraham's letter. 1. No Variance is B&quested or Required We have no comments at this time. II. Neighborhood Support The Abrahams provided you with a petition signed by certain residents on York Avenue that states that the proposed addition is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The petition does not address the impact on the neighborhood. The residents of the borne directly to the north of the Abrahams(123 York. Avenue) initially signets the Abraham petition,but now have requested that their name be removed from that petition. Their letter to KMAC was read before the public at the meeting of November 25. They stated that the height of the proposed addition will have a negative impact on the amount of light reaching their property. So, in fact, all but one of the owners of the houses surrounding the Abraham property have raised objections to this addition. The majority of the the ten households represented on the Abraham petition are on the west (downhill) side of York Avenue, and they are not impacted by any of the properties on the east (uphill) side. What is missing from the Abraham MY. Will Nelson DP033065 November 29, 2003 Page 2 petition are the signatures of any of the residents on Windsor Avenue, the street right above York Avenue. They are the most impacted residents of the neighborhood. In that regard, enclosed with this letter as Exhibit"A" is a copy of a petition signed by the property owners on Windsor Avenue in opposition to the proposed addition. This petition was created and the signatures were obtained by Gloria Morrison personally, it does not include the signatures of the Carmans or the Morrisons because they are the two parties most affected by the proposed addition. It does include all other homeowners on the west side of Windsor Avenue as well as other concerned neighbors. III. Location, Size. Leight and Design We do not believe that the height and size of this addition are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. The Abrahams own one of eight one-story homes in a row on the east side of York Avenue, All of these are homes on very small lots, and, therefore, have been built in close conformity with each other with a living area that is compatible with their lot size. The Abraham's proposed addition would convert their home on one of the smallest lots to a two-story structure which almost doubles the living area. A large two-story house built in the middle of a row of one-story houses is out of proportion both to the size of its lot and to the houses and tots of the neighbors. The Abrahams state that the"...location of the proposed addition is at the back of the property, thereby causing no impact on York Avenue." In fact, as stated above, the neighbors immediately to the north have said it does have an impact on their property. What the Abrahams have not considered is the impact on Windsor Avenue, the uphill properties that are east of their property and the closest to their backyard. Since it is the Windsor Avenue property owners that have a view of the eight single story homes in front of them, the location of the proposed addition has an enormous impact on those residents. That is the reason why so many Windsor Avenue neighbors have signed the attached petition. The Abrahams state that after the proposed addition is completed their home will have three bedrooms. This is not correct, as their present home already has three bedrooms. They now want to build a fourth bedroom, together with a large master bathroom and a separate office. The Abrahams state that more than half of the homes on York Avenue have three or more bedrooms. We believe there are few houses, if any, on York Avenue that have three or more bedrooms including a master bedroom with a master bath and a 132.25 square foot office. Mr. Will Nelson DP033065 November 29, 2003 Page 3 IV. The Carmans' and Morrisons' Concerns The Abrahams have stated that`#...as good neighbors my wife and I met with the Carmans and Morrisons...to discuss any potential concerns. These concerns were taken into consideration in the design of the proposed addition." This is very misleading. The Abrahams first met with us in September, and at that time they verbally assured us that their proposed addition would not have much impact on our view, stating that of course there would be story poles. They then.visited us again, with their architect and proposed drawings but before any story poles had been placed, and once again they verbally assured us that they did not believe the proposed addition would have a major impact on our view. We again stated that we were concerned with our views and the sight of their structure from our primary living areas, and that the story poles must be built for us to see the effect. Then prier to putting up the story poles, the Abrahams obtained the signatures on their petition. Now that we see the story poles, we believe that the Abrahams did not consider us in the least and completely ignored our concerns. We do not believe the Abrahams acted as good neighbors in the least. The Abrahams constantly state that"...views are not a relevant consideration under the County's small lot ordinance...". I disagree. As the small lot occupancy states, the matters to be considered by the County include compatibility with and impact on the surrounding neighborhood, in terms of location, size, height and design. While the Abrahams recognize that compatibility and impact are concerns in proposing their addition, they only relate them to 'York Avenue. The word impact means effect, and the effect on existing views is directly relevant to impact. The primary views being obstructed are those uphill on Windsor Avenue, which they have chosen to ignore. The Abrahams state that"Mrs. Morrison asked that we build the proposed addition to the east, i.e. toward the rear of the property into our back yard, and to stop the two story portion of the addition in terms of how far west it carne over our existing home at a specified point. The proposed addition is exactly where Mrs. Morrison requested it be located and stops, in terms of its western two story extension, as requested." Mr. Abraham made similar statements to IiMAC during its meeting. We are extremely upset with such statements by the Abrahams. They have taken all of this completely out of context during a"what if" conversation on the telephone. Mrs. Morrison never requested where the proposed addition should be located and stopped, as she is not qualified to determine such things. What was left out of their comments is that Mrs. Morrison said that she could not tell exactly what would impact us until there were story poles, and that that is what the story poles are for. Mr. Will Nelson DP033065 November 29, 2003 Page 4 The Abrahams have written a paragraph about how much they have sacrificed in proposing this addition, including"...giving up the western/golden gate view from the proposed upstairs office...", and that they will suffer"...lower property value..." from their sacrifices. They speak as if they already have this view to be sacrificed, and that their property value has already increased because of their initial plans. Where is their concern for those neighbors who will suffer significantly lower property values because of the proposed addition? What they, in fact, are doing is attempting to obtain a view of the bay and increase their property value,while at the same time eliminating a significant portion of the hay view of others and thereby substantially decreasing the property values of those other residents. Conclusion We believe the Abraham proposed addition does not meet all of the criteria of the small lot ordinance, and it does not have wide neighborhood support. This proposed addition is not compatible with the other seven single story homes adjacent to the Abraham's property, and it is totally out of proportion to the size of their lot. The house that the Abrahams want is just too large for the lot they own. Also, the impact of the proposed addition on some of the homes on Windsor Avenue, including our home, would be devastating. Quite simply, from our dining room, we would lose 100% of our view of the Bay Bridge and Treasure Island. (Mr. Abraham stated at the KMAC meeting that he did not take away our view of the western Bay Bridge. This, again, is misleading, because we have never had such a western view!) In addition, from our breakfast room we would lose our entire view of the Bay and of the city of San Francisco, and this would be replaced with a view of their new structure directly in front of us. These are views that we have enjoyed for the 33 years of ownership of our home. This proposed addition would,greatly reduce the happiness we enjoy from owning our home, and, obviously it would cause a substantial decrease in our property value! To allow one party to construct an addition which increases his view and the value of his home at the expense of destroying the view and home value of another party is wrong. We do not believe this should be allowed. If you have any questions about this letter or would like any addition information, please do not hesitate to contact us. Sincerely, Glenn and Gloria Morrison Enclosures GLENN AND GLORIA MORRISON 112 Windsor Avenue 0 3 0 ..` P Kensington, CA 94708 510-525-7781 December 2, 2003 Via Facsimile and by Mail Mr. Will Nelson 651 fine Street 4`h Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553 Re: Proposed addition at 125 York Avenue,Kensington ISP No. DP033065 Dear Mr.Felson: I am enclosing a copy of the petition obtained by Gloria Morrison from those neighbors opposed to the above proposed addition. This is referred to in the letter I sent to you yesterday--I inadvertently forgot to attach it to that letter. This petition is the same as that given to you during your visit to our house last week. Sincerely, lean and Gloria Morrison C RPOSMON'.TO THE PROPOSED SECON STORY ADT3MON TO 125 YORK AVE. The property is located in the middle of a row of eight one-story houses (with garages underneath). The effect of a second story would be incompatible and out of scale and proportion with the surrounding York Avenue neighborhood. Story poles show clearly that the proposed addition would result in a significant negative impact on uphill neighbors because of the addition's height and size and because of the lass of neighbors' views and property values. Accordingly,I am opposed to this project. . NAME .-� f ADDRESS � � • •p..�,. /D�"' 1.%v/:r—> S a.fes 14 U • .t .- .- 12-4 W/t v+cl-<rt •v—e &2JI-114 • �-� �� lam- ��;?►�c�� .�� .. Ave.. tr' e . ......... /fe, tett � Z k vt :.• �..y,..�- L �";{,sy.l�^" ,,,"--)•t....^..•, ,i. / 1. Z.47 /I -z L. 112 Windsor Avenue Kensington, CA 94708 December 15, 2003 Mr. Will Nelson Community Development Department 351 Pine Street, 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez, CA 94553.0095 Re: DP033065 -- 125 York Avenue, Kensington Dear Mr. Nelson: This letter is in response to Mr. Abraham's written correspondence with.LMAC and to the comments he made at the LMAC meeting of November 26. We are very upset and offended by his remarks to KMAC and to the general public, and we feel compelled to set the record straight. In the Abraham's correspondence with the County and with ICAC, they have portrayed themselves as good neighbors who are sympathetic to their neighbors' concerns. They make it sound like all such neighbors have been involved, and that the final plans reflect all concerns expressed to them. In fact, Mr. Abraham has stated in writing and verbally that these plans meet Mrs. Morrison's requests. This is an outrage! The Abrahams have discussed this proposal with us a total of three times. All of these discussions were held before the story poles were erected. Based on Mr. Abraham's initial telephone call with Mrs. Morrison, he now says that he did what Mrs. Morrison requested he do in planning his addition. We cannot understand how, on the basis of a telephone call, which was the first mention of a possible addition and which consisted of many"what Ifs" and ended with"well, that is what story poles are for", anyone could possibly decide that Mrs. Morrison approved of anything. All you have to do is look at the enclosed pictures from our house to realize that Mrs. Morrison would never approve of such an obstruction of her view. Mr. Abraham says that he met with the Carmans and Morrisons and explicitly discussed potential impacts. The only discussions Mr. Abraham had with us were his assurances that his proposed addition would not have much erect on our view. Standing in our dining room, both Mr. Abraham and his architect told us in no uncertain terms that the addition would not be much higher than a certain point on his rooftop. In fact, when the story poles were finally erected, they were several feet higher than what we had been told. We are also quite disturbed by the way Mr. Abraham discusses our views. He does not discuss the impact on our broad sweeping views of the San Francisco Bay Area, including the horizon and the hills beyond, but instead he focuses on a few localized views that we Mr. Will Nelson December 15, 2003 Re: DP033065 Page two will have left after his proposed addition is constricted! And, to make matters worse, he has misrepresented the information concerning the views he says we will have. please be aware that he has never been to our house to see what the impact will be! In Mr. Abraham's letter to KMAC, which he also stated verbally at the meeting of November 26, he said the following: "By taking these steps, we have preserved the Morrisons' view of San Francisco, the Golden Gate Bridge and the northern half of the Bay Bridge." Here are the facts: 1. Our view of San Francisco from our dining room has been partially eliminated; and, from our breakfast room it has been totally eliminated! These are our primary view rooms. 2. Our view of the Bolden Gate Bridge would be impossible for the Abrahams to block! This has nothing to do with changes in his plans, it is just physically impossible for him to build that far north! 3. Our view of the Bay Bridge has been totally elirninated! This is the eastern side. We have never had a view of the"northern"(?)half of the Bay Bridge. Treasure Island obstructs a view of that side of the Bay Bridge, Obviously, Mr. Abraham is only focusing on selected sights--the downtown buildings and the two bridges. He is contracting our overall view into a small very directed view. Our real view is of the entire skyline, including the horizon and the hills above San Francisco, and the lights at night that follow this view area are quite spectacular. In short, Mr. Abraham is not saving our view, he is taking it away! We are enclosing photographs taken from two of our primary living areas, our breakfast roam and our dining room. We use these rooms daily, for eating, entertaining, and for work at home. Our views from these rooms are directly southwest, so they face San Francisco, Treasure Island, and the east end of the Bay Bridge. There are two photos for each view, one showing the view with the story poles and one showing the same view with the story pole area blackened out. The photographs include(the letters correspond to those shown on the photos): Mr. Will Nelson December 15, 2003 Re: DP033065 Page three Breakfast Room: (A) One photo taken while sitting in the chair that I have sat in for 33 years, having coffee and reading the newspaper, working, and having conversations with my wife and guests. (13) One photo taken while standing at the primary window of the room. (C) One photo taken while standing at the primary window of the room at Ix optical, in order to show the background that has been eliminated from view. Dining Room: (D) One photo taken while sitting in the chair that I sit at when entertaining, working, or having meetings. (E) One photo taken while standing at the primary window of the room. (F) One photo taken while standing at the primary window of the room at Ix optical, in order to show the background that has been eliminated from view. We hope that these photographs help you to understand why we believe this proposed addition will have a devastating effect on our views of the Bay Area and on our daily enjoyment of our home. Finally, the Abrahams have constantly said that obstruction of view is not a relevant criteria for decisions made under the code. We have read the small lot occupancy paragraphs included in the code, and we can see nothing in it that says that view will not be considered. What it does say is that compatibility with and impact on the surrounding neighborhood, in terms of its location, size, height and design are to be considerations. It seems to us that the parameters of height and size are directly related to views. In all communities located in the hills, the impact on view is the most dramatic effect an addition can have on neighbors. Because of this, a neve planning ordinance in Kensington has been drafted and approved, the wording of which acknowledges this very issue. In the end, it is clear that the new ordinance is the standard being set by this community. We believe this new ordinance does warrant some consideration in the County's deliberations concerning all newly proposed construction in Kensington. In addition to view impact, the new ordinance addresses floor area ratio (FAR.)for all new construction. Records at the Contra Costa County Assessor's office, giving size of lot and living area(including garage), provide the basis for a calculation of a present FAR of.49 at 125 York Avenue. This ratio is in the middle of the range ofFAR's of other houses on York Avenue and is close to that of.50 approved by the citizens of Kensington for a lot size of 3800 square feet(as reported by Supervisor John Gioia). The FAR will increase to .76 should this proposed addition of a fourth bedroom(not a third bedroom as Imo-. Abraham has stated), master bath and large office be approved. Mr. Will Felson December 15, 2003 Re: DP033065 Page four Mr. Abraham has provided you with a petition signed by York Avenue residents, but it should be noted that this was obtained before any story poles were constructed, and the petition does not address impact. In fact, now that the story poles are up, his northern-most neighbors have requested that their names be removed from the petition. The petition we provided you with was one obtained by Gloria Morrison after the story poles were in place. Three of the four neighbors immediately adjacent to 125 York Avenue have indicated their unhappiness with the proposal. In conclusion, we believe that: I. The proposed addition is'incompatible with the neighborhood in regard to location, because 125 York Avenue is in the middle of a row of eight one-story houses on York Avenue. 2. The proposed addition is incompatible with the neighborhood in regard to height and size, as shown by the excessive FAIL.discussed above. 3. The proposed addition will have a devastating impact on the surrounding neighborhood in regard to height and size. The views and property values at 112 and 118 Windsor Avenue are those immediately effected, but the owners of other houses on Windsor Avenue are reconsidering their plans for additions. Such an economic disaster should not be overlooked by the County. We believe the application for a second story addition at 125 York Avenue should be denied. We thank you for your consideration of our concerns. If we can answer any questions you might have, please do not hesitate to call us. Sincerely, #�" a, Glenn Morrison Gloria Morrison Enclosures- 12 photographs t` Y at P10 W V �qq 'N V L � � x, v; . c .r a , ,t} 9 _ /�i1•g` .may, .M C iW w ra E � W to o.t Cd b L. ro. � bd7 C .rx r 15 Lr n w{ t •.mow .roM10 r"". LSM on s.. 6 > r � � G5 rr Zwc tM,t CB` �M �ws { a rw. iw 4w on � `y 0 c � 0 �.r I sem-- r J` ' wLy e t ? � � \ � ■ � . � § « � - � Q � _ k � � � #2 k � � _ - � � k � 3 � & ■ & c - S d § . _ % 2 - \Z� » � < � \ | \ � . :ƒ ■ - � F < � � k \ \ � ■ ■ § � + ■ � # § � § . � 7 � p ^�/ 2 . � . # k � 2 2 9 � ■ ° . k wl - u ® - � k J § . � § _ ■ k - � § � t . � � t ■ 7 7 � § c � � 3 ; a ( � � ..................................... .... .. ..... .. li I go CC m -c � E � x. i o �°•� fl f a� �y. I' , 2 » � � t � , o - o 0 - \ � / � 2 # \ ctw - . � 22 � J - � § # / t c i = § g a 7 � � ■ � § . � k f # - ¥ % � ( 2 . \ r4 k $ _ * 0 - E � § . � � . . b : \« ( � \ � � © � E2 . � u # � 2 0 \ / � 2 k � k / � 2 � 2 5 » \ & \ � x .,. . . erg �``' �h• t �qpt vi wl � o vi ,..., a � t � 4 , t� :j (M �ift f �r tr' s ; 'TM}� RRy} Wt I ty � qMY V I r . ++ Q lz C 6 t i 03 �n 112 Windsor Avenue Kensington, CA 94705 December 15, 2003 Mr. Will Nelson Community Development Department 351 Pine Street, 4h Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-0095 Re: DP033065 — 125 York Avenue, :Kensington Dear Mr. Nelson: We are requesting a copy of all correspondence received by your office since November 19, 2003 in the case ofDP033065 excluding these sent by the Morrisons or the Carmans. We are willing to pay any casts for such copying. Please call us at (510)5257751, and we will pick up the information. Leave a message if the telephone is not answered. Thank you very much. Sincerely, All-- Glenn Morrisom J&4� lu"� Gloria Morrison t. 112 Windsor Avenue 0 Kensington, CA 94708 (510) 525-7781 December 31, 2003 Mr. Dennis M. Barry Community Development Department 651 Pine Street, e Floor, North Wing Martinez, CA 94553-1229 Re: DP033065 — 125 York Avenue, Kensington Dear Mr. Barry: On advice of legal counsel, we are requesting a postponement of the public hearing of the above mentioned case which has been scheduled.for Monday, January 5 at 1:30 p.m. As of 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, December 31, we have not received a copy of the report to the County Zoning Administrator of planner, Will Felson. Because we are one of the three main parties in this matter, it is imperative that we and our attorney have time to properly analyze this important document and to employ other professional assistance as needed. The lack of time is further compounded by the New Y'ear's holiday on Thursday and the weekend, not usually work bays. We apologize for the tinning of this letter, but we had thought that we would receive the report at approximately the same time as the"NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING' circular. We further request that the hearing be postponed to late February because we will be out of the country from January 15 until February 3 of 2004. Unfortunately this trip was arranged and paid for long before we received the first telephone call concerning this project from Mr. Abraham. Thank you very much for your consideration. A.signed original letter will follow. Sincerely, Glenn Morrison Gloria Morrison A Cc: will Nelsen PRESENTATION TO ZONING ADMINISTRATOR RE: DP033065 By Glenn Morrison on January 5, 2004 Thank you for the opportunity to speak. We are Mr. and Mrs. Morrison, residents of 112 Windsor Avenue. On December 31, 20+03 we requested a postponement of this hearing, but that request was denied. We believe that the proposed addition by the Abrahams at 125 York Avenue is incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood, and it would have a very severe impact on at least three of the neighbors of the Abrahams. We have react planner Will Nelson's report to you, and we have noted many inaccuracies and inconsistencies in this report. The focus of our comments will be on that report, as you already have a copy of our two previous letters sent to the County concerning this project. N.EIGHBORF100D First, to determine if this addition will result in a home that is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood, as used in the Small Lot Occupancy(we will refer to this as an ordinance), then the term"surrounding neighborhood" must be defined. We heartily agree with Mr. Jim Carman's analysis of the history of the development of blocks 5 and 6 of Berkeley Highlands Terrace and the resulting effort to provide bay views for , homeowners, which he provided you in his written responses to the County. We have additional comments in relation to the report of the Staff` ;' Staff uses a definition of surrounding neighborhood to include additional blocks of the Berkeley Highlands Terrace, blocks which are actually quite a distance from York Avenue. We believe this is far too broad. We believe that"neighborhood" should refer ` ro to the,area of homes to which the"NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING-" relating to the Abraham case was mailed. I am referring to the homes within the 300 foot radius from the house at 125 York Avenue. We were not allowed enough time to obtain such a list of these homes from the County,but our informal survey shows that this 300 foot radius fr includes the homes on both sides of York Avenue,both sides of the south side of Windsor Avenue, and the west side of St. Albans Road. It is these homes against which compatibility and impact should be measured in this case. VIEWS 17V GENERAL Next, I want to make a few comments on views in general. We are confused by Staffs argument that"view" is not one of the impacts allowed for consideration under the Small Lot Ordinance, while at the same time using many paragraphs attempting to refute the historic and present-day view statements made by those concerned with the possible loss of view. Glenn Morrison January 5, 2004 DP033065 Page 2 We have read the Small Lot Ordinance and it does not state that view should not be a consideration in determining impact. It says that the scheduled public hearing will be for the purpose of"reviewing the proposed dwellings compatibility with and impact on the surrounding neighborhood, in terms of its location, size, height and design." A proper definition of impact is"effect". In terms of property development in the hills, there can be no greater effect than the obstruction of view! We believe that view is and always has been an important factor in the development of our neighborhood, from the time the first houses were built in the 1930's, to today. We are providing this hearing with the following 5 exhibits which support our belief and which have not been previously available for the Staff report: • A copy of the advertisement of March 1933 from C. M. MacGregor, Builder, advertising an open house for four newly constructed houses on both sides of Windsor Avenue(house numbers 109, 111, 112 and 118). Views of the bay area are mentioned prominently in this ad. • A copy of a joint statement from various homeowners living on the east side of south Windsor Avenue. Contrary to StafFs contention, these people do enjoy a bay view from their first floor living area resulting from the organized approach to development. • Copies of letters from York Avenue residents expressing unhappiness and concerns about the Abraham addition(you already have the petition of opposition from Windsor Avenue residents): o A letter from the residents of 123 York Avenue, the Abrahams' immediate neighbor to the north, asking to be removed from the Abraham petition. A copy of this letter was provided previously to Mr.Nelson at his request. o A letter from the resident of 120 York Avenue, the Abrahams' neighbor directly across the street, expressing support for those who lose views and therefore property value. The letter was mailed directly to Community Development. o Finally, a letter from a resident of 144 York Avenue stating his concern for the economic loss of those who lose views and for the precedent this sets for further requests for expansion permits by the owners of houses on substandard lots which would directly and detrimentally affect him. The letter was mailed directly to Community Development. SPECIFIC VIEWS It is the southwest view from our primary living area that is the most effected by the proposed addition. I am not sure whether or not you have in your packet the several pictures taken from two of the primary rooms of our house showing the impact that this addition would have on our view. The impact is quite devastating. I have copies of the pictures with me if you would like to look at them. Glenn Morrison January 5, 2004 DP033065 Page 3 Staff devotes several paragraphs in the report to attempt to discount or eliminate views as a factor. And yet, in the discussion of the proposed addition, he states that the location is such that it"substantially diminishes its visual impact when viewed from York Avenue." What he doesn't say is that the visual impact when viewed from Windsor Avenue is quite significant, and it is clear from that vantage point that the proposed two-story house is totally out of proportion with the adjacent row of 7 other single story houses on York. Later, Staff provides his analysis of the development of this area, including York Avenue, Windsor Avenue and St. Albans:road, attempting to dispute the analysis made by Mn Carman. Once again, Staff is'focusing on views! We believe Staff s entire discussion of the east versus the west sides of the streets, the use of Tudor homes in the original development, and the resulting loss of views of most of the east-side homes is wrong. Here are some facts that should be considered when drawing conclusions as to why and how our area was developed and the final impact on all neighbors: • The first house built in the area was 109 York Avenue, a two-story house built originally on a double lot more than 75 years ago without obstructing anyone's view. Staff uses this house several times to draw his conclusions that the Abrahams' construction is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. • The next houses built were the Tudor-style houses on Windsor Avenue and St. Albans Road. This includes two Tudor houses on the east side of Windsor mentioned earlier. They were built over 70 years ago. Subsequent development of the area did not eliminate the views of the bay that these homes have today. • The construction of the remaining homes in the area was done such that the homeowners could have views and yet preserve the views of those homeowners already there. Several of these homes, for example our immediate neighbor to our north, were built in spite of knowing that their views were obstructed—the larger homes were already there, the homeowners were aware of this, and yet they wanted to build anyway. Contrary to what Staff'concluded, this is the primary reason why some of the homes here have obstructed views, it is not that Tudor- style houses were built in front of homes and obstructed views. • To summarize specific views, then: • Contrary to what Staff says, the majority of the homes on the east side of Windsor Avenue in fact do have a view. We have obtained the signatures of some of those homeowners confirming this fact. a The homes built on the east side of York, between the original houses at 109 and the end of the block at 161, are all one-story homes. Contrary to what Staff says, they are not built at street level, but these eight one-story homes have been built above a slope and over a garage, and this affords those homes a bay view while preserving the same views of the homes on the west side of Windsor Avenue. a In fact, the home directly across the street from the Abrahams, 120 York, is a two-story house which does not block the view from the Abrahams' living area. { Glenn Morrison January 5, 2004 DP033065 Page 4 When we purchased our house, we were well aware of the orderly development of the area and that the primary reason was to maintain views for as many homes as possible. The Abrahams want to disregard this, and, unlike other construction in our surrounding neighborhood, build an uphill addition, which will provide them with additional views and take those same views away from their neighbors. STAFF FINDINGS Finally, I have a few comments regarding Staff s Findings and Conditions of Approval for the Development Plan: Location (Finding A) • Staff's discussion of two-story houses in order to determine compatibility is incomplete. There are, in fact, very few two-story houses which have been built uphill on the east side of the street. It isn't mentioned that all but two of the houses on the east side of York Avenue are single story houses, and that the Abrahams' house is one of eight such houses in a row. • Examples include 123 St. Albans Road, which is only a one-story house and not within 300 feet of the Abrahams. • Also included is 135 Windsor Avenue; we are aware that the second story addition was built at that location only after extensive negotiations with bath the uphill and downhill neighbors to ensure compatibility. Height(Finding E) • Stam again uses the Tudor-style homes to try to prove a point. There is no mention of the lot sues these Domes are built on, and the fact that they were the original two-story homes.built in the area. • Staff lists four homes on York Avenue that are similar or greater in height as the proposed Abraham home: * 109 York, which was the very first two-story home built in the area 75 years ago, and it obstructed no views. 0 120 York, which is the two-story home directly across the street from the Abrahams, and it is built slightly below street level and does not obstruct the Abrahams' view. b 140 York, which is a two-story home built downhill from the street level and does not obstruct views. 0 161 York, which is a two-story home built at the southern end of the street, and it was built when there was a vacant lot above and did not obstruct views. Glenn Morrison January 5, 2004 DP033065 Mage 5 Desi (Finding Q • Staff's conclusion regarding design is based on only two examples of homes that have second stories atop the back of the house that are similar to the proposed design: 0 135 Windsor Avenue—as mentioned above, this second story addition was made only after approval of the neighbors. 0 123 St. Albans Rd. _this, in fact, is a single story house. But, it is also not within the 300 foot notification area. Size(Finding D) • Staff uses the Tudor-style homes immediately uphill from the Abrahams to conclude that the mass of the proposed Abrahams structure would be compatible. However, he is not considering the lot sues of these homes, and he does not compare mass of the proposed structure to Abrahams' immediate neighbors on York. The Abrahams' proposed structure would use most alll of the available square footage in his lot, whereas other homes in the neighborhood, some built 70 years ago, were not built on all available square footage. • Also, to support his conclusion about mass, he uses 109 York(a house of 2739 sq. ft. on an 8000 sq. ft. lot), 120 York(a house of 2570 sq. ft. on an 8400 sq. ft. lot); 140 York (a house of 3459 sq. ft. on a 5300 sq. ft. lot); 161 York(a house of 2949 sq. ft. on a 5355 sq. ft. lot); and, 123 St. Albans Road, which is not a two story house as stated in the report. • In comparison to this, 125 'York is a house of 1871 sq. ft. on a 3821 sq. ft. lot; and, after the proposed addition, it would be a house of 2908 sq. ft. on a 3821 sq. ft. lot. In my opinion an analysis of size should consider both house and lot sues. Based on this, I believe that the proposed findings of Staff are incorrect and do not support the conclusion about compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, because Staff has decided not to consider obstructions of views, I do not believe that he has properly considered the impact of this proposed construction on the surrounding neighborhood, including the potential for extensive disputes among many neighbors should this proposed addition go forward. In conclusion, we do recognize and respect property owners' rights to build on their property. However, in accordance with the small lot ordinance, construction on a substandard lot should be evaluated in terms of compatibility and impact on the surrounding neighborhood.. In our opinion, the Abrahams' proposed addition fails on both counts. However, we believe that the Abrahams could obtain almost the same square footage they desire by redesigning the addition without a second story. We respectfully request that you deny this application for a permit. Thank you very much. L .Y i 4 WEPW 1933 C. M. MacGregor cordially invites you to inspect on or after Sunday,March 5th four re- cently completer)homes located in the upper foot- hills of Sunset Gables at Windsor and Westminster Avenues two blocks north of Arlington. These homes are only possible in 1933.It has taken THE ABOVE SKETCH the last four years to bring even the highest duality Imagine! The home sketched above materials down to a level that in some cases is below is ideallynei located d a restricted, re- fined cost of manufacturing.Built a few errs ago similar neighborhood...,a view of the g y � whole Bay area from your living houses would undoubtedly have sold for twice the room . . . four bedrooms . , . three present price. They are something entirely new in beautifully tiled baths . . . two car garage and every modern conven. residence values. ience. It is but one of the group of four homes that range in price from ,Feel assured that your visit will not be interrupted . $6,500 to$7,000, by any sales efforts. We are merely holding open DRIVING DIRECTIONS house . . . convinced that once you see these homes Out Arlington to Westminster Windsor.and then two blocks north to Winyou will enthusiastically tell your friends of their the Near the Berkeley Country Club. many merits and low prices. i S M o r-r Son Mock. Sevtxocart tNruLx B9M»O�. Bit t�tt.60^' . .�� poke bit 111 W uadsor The floor plan above shows that each of these homes differ radically from the other in interior treatment,however the same quality of materials and workmanship has gone into the flooring, the work,etc.,as in the others. Briefly this house has four bedrooms,two baths and a washroom,beamed ceiling and fire- place in living room, varied door levels, central heating plant and is artistically decorated throughout Price—$6,500. 109 Windsor—Individual in ulterior and interior appearances. Five bedrooms,two baths and a washroom.Lot 45 x 100 feet.Price$6,750. The construction, and architectural excellence of these homes warrant a higher price than $6,500 to $7,000 but combination of many factors make this price possible. Each is an outstanding home buying opportunity- especially under the I flexible finance plan,available to those who wish to conserve their present capital. Whether or not you intend purchasing a home at this time these modern dwellings invite inspection, if only for the many practical ideas they embody ideas you can stare away until the time you begin planning a home of your own. t K t'rCH E N Nook. BSDILOOM BED%Oo F tN& t BEDROOM �turr�Y LiviNG, Zookt A PORCIP � F ' PLAN of Fi kIT FLOOVL iffil w =, is the pre- _ dominate note of this home as indicated by the above floor plan. The living room has a beamed ceiling, fireplace and a great window at one end framing a panoramic picture of the Bay. The same view is obtained in the dining and breakfast rooms. The kitchen is thoroughly modern with the drain boards, built-in cupboards,range ventilator and file type linoleum.A sunny,ground level laundry room is a few steps dawn from the kitchen with a two car garage and furnace roam adjoining. Com- modious closets are a part of each of the four bedrooms. One of the bed- rooms, with washroom and shower adjacent, has a separate entrance. The three bathrooms are beautifully tiled in harmonious colors, each having a built-in electric heater. All doors are hardwood. Size of lot 45 feet by 100 feet.Price$6,500. , 112 Windsor-This is the home briefly described on the front page, An interesting feature is the individuality of its door plan with the large living room, dining room and breakfast nook arranged in a partial circle about the entrance hall. } LOCATION These homes are ideally situated on the crest of the foothills Nigh above Albany and Ri PRESENTATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION RE: DP033065 By Glenn Morrison on April 13, 2004 Thank you for the opportunity to speak. We are Mr. and Mrs. Morrison, and we have lived at 112 Windsor Avenue for 33 years, and we are speaking in opposition to the proposed addition. A thorough discussion of our concerns, complete with attachments (such as, petitions, tetters from concerned neighbors, etc.), was made before the Zoning Administrator, but it has been left out of the information provided to you. We have read the Small Lot Occupancy (referred to as the ordinance), and we are convinced that this ordinance does in fact permit a review of the impact of the proposed addition at 125 Fork Avenue. This addition will have a devastating impact on the views from our primary living areas and on the value of our property. We will lose one hundred percent of our views of the San Francisca Bay Bridge and Yerba Buena Island and a substantial portion of our view of San Francisco. I don't have to tell you that people pay a premium for homes with views in our area. We have brought two colored photographs for you that shore why we are so concerned. ------Please distribute these photos----- Unlike other houses on Windsor Avenue, the views from the primary living areas of our house, built in 1933, face southwest. The builder, C. M. MacGregor, wisely chose that plan because the house at 109 York Avenue, built in 1926, would obstruct a west view. Still, the original advertisement for our house refers to "sweeping views of the Bay, San Francisco, Marin county and the Golden Gate". A copy of the ad was given to the Zoning Administrator in January, but was not included in your packet. We keep asking ourselves: Why have we been placed in this situation? For 33 years, every day we have sat at our breakfast room table having coffee and talking while we enjoy our views. We have entertained extensively in our dining room, and we and our guests have marveled at the wonderful views of the lights in the Bay Area. The proposed addition would tape most of this away from us, in order to provide those same views to a neighbor who does not wish to consider any impacts on others. We believe that a simple reading of the ordinance shows that there is no reason not to consider views, or for that matter property values, as impacts on neighbors. We have loved our years as residents of Kensington. We have supported our local schools in many ways because our four children attended them over a period of 20 years. In order to promote the values of our community, we have participated in local government and community organizations. We prize the warmth of our neighborhood and the neighborly values that have been so common in Kensington. We wouldn't think of building in such a manner as would be detrimental to the sensibilities or property values of our neighbors. This is what defines a neighborhood, not just addresses on horned ............................................... Presentation of April 12, 2004 Glenn Morrison Page two When we purchased our house, we were well aware of the orderly development of the area and that the primary reason for such development was to maintain views for as many homes as possible. When the house at 117 York Avenue was constructed in front of us, the builder went to great lengths to be sure that our view was not impacted. The Abrahams have disregarded any such considerations in planning to build their second-story addition that will provide them with additional views they desire, but at the cost of taking those same views away from their neighbors. Basically, they are putting their neighbors through this anguish and torment so that they can transform their existing 3 bedroom house into a 3 bedroom house. In conclusion, we recognize and respect the rights of property owners to build on their property. However, we believe that the Abrahams could obtain most of their goals by redesigning the addition in a manner sensitive to the concerns of their neighbors. We respectfully request that you reverse the decision of the Zoning Administrator. Thank you very much, Glenn and Gloria Morrison December 29,2003 TO: Contra Costa.Cougty Zoning Administrator 651 Pine Street,Martine4 CA FROM: Nancy E. Sephton . 120'York Avenue IettsiVun,.CA.14* RE: Public Hearing.on TJ+ev"$k>pMnt P hM of Michael Abr on proper at#125 York Ave.,set for Monday,January 5,2004. Although it appears that the above-re&"ncod development plan does not affect my PrQperty1 have to so rt those neighbors whom it may affect significantly,particularly as ott this hill view and sunlight translate beyond quality of life into money and value of propa y in the"real estate market. if itis determined that one owner lows view and: sunfightwhile,anothetr gains it,I have to support the losers in this hearing. F %11 "ms's`—* {�fl Y`?` � �4 r j ri..L � �f V ✓ G��.sr �" .. ,. -. f I ,.-., et { I3er Fd,, cre �cusl s�gr aettt� € supas ekeI�ct€� fit snic�t review lx the i s ��s t ` ai CA�c 4e,`..'XYexe"Apse a d z d v s + s first eine hi-fi r�.vaq €.ow q,uvb�! � s 'a t st Clt ,+ pl rx tcs ; r�zis t ith I g'I::7 n: a caz �i rs t n i the APp cat . 1 1e t t d t e r : t r io w me t to st��:re t.us :.:' txtca :,r rt _ i'i ,t��4ry sager .... . ... .... : ... ... :::. 1. ::':':.. ..-.. ., ..: .i . ::: .. 1 :. } _.: I .__ G, ,�0,roI,So -t K9F r Dpo �� n4c— We are residents of the east side of south Windsor Avenue, and we have a bay view from the first floor living area of our house. ADDR LESS 11 / q n January 3, 2004 P 'C# X F R CONC STA LOUTY ZC)N1NG AD1VCMSTRAT �E.AR N 5 JANUARY 2004 REQA_RDWG I3P033065 125 YORK AVE KENJ]NgTD N AREA We(I)are owners of the property on the west side of Windsor Avenue,Kensington at the a ess indicated. We(I)are unable to attending subject hearing and hereby grant to J Y,04- (V 46- kVI 16eSft�, W 6 and r authority to represent us at this hearing. We (I)wish to be associated with their remarks made a part of the record of this hearing. NA ADORES 100 Windsor Ave. S*h 108 Windsor Ave. X# : , -1 -tet 120 Windsor Ave. ac q e 1 a.i v, tt y 124 Windsor Ave. 126 Windsor Ave. t�# L�89 t 5,rl Srr►b t 130 Windsor Ave. t i2 134 Windsor Ave. { / ,. 136 Windsor Ave. ___ _... December 29, 200 3 DEC 31 TO: Centra Costa County Zoning Administrator 651 Pine Street,Martinez, CA FROM: Nancy E. Sephton 120 Fork Avenue Kensington, CA 94708 RE. Public Hearing on Development Plan of Michael Abraham on property at #125 `Fork Ave.,set for Monday,January 5, 2004. Although it appears that the above-referenced development plan does not affect my Property, I have to support those neighbors whom it may affect significantly,particularly on this hill view and sunlight translate beyond quality of life into money and Value of in the real estate market. If it is determined that one owner loses view and fight while another gains it, I have to support the losers in this bearing. PAUL E. DCTROH 144 YORK AVENUE KENSINGTON, CALIFORNIA 94706 January 3, 2004 VIAU.S. MAIL PY BY HAW County Zoning Administrator 551 Fine Street Martinez, California 94553 Re: Development Plan Design Review ti. C° Hearing on Application of Michael Abraham r: January 5, 2003 ={ County File# D0033065cri pa=1 Nos572 149-018 Ladies and Gentlemen: As York Avenue residents and neighbors of the Applicant, l do not oppose a reasonable expansion of the house to accommodate the needs of the family. I do, however, wish to express two reservations about the Development Flan as I understand it. First, it appears that the plan contemplates a second story addition that would entirely or substantially block the San Francisco Stay views of at least two neighboring houses. Bay views are not only an amenity, they are a material component of property value in this area. I believe that an addition that eliminates preexisting, long-standing and economically valuable views of neighbors (with the apparent incidental effect of creating a view for the Applicant where none existed before) should be approved only if it can be shown that there is no other, less intrusive configuration that would yield the needed space, and the neighbors losing views are fairly compensated for their economic loss. My second concern is that approval of the flan in its present form, with the substantial increase in height and consequent impairment of uphill neighbors' views, may be viewed as a precedent for other, nearby houses (of which there are five on York Avenue alone) that, like Applicant's, are smaller homes sited on substandard lots. This could lead to further requests for expansion permits in the immediate vicinity that would directly and detrimentally affect me. /1 Sinc6rely yours, 0 108 Windsor Avenue Kensington, CA 94708-10143 April 8, 2004 J Dennis [t1'1. Barry, AICP Community Development Director CCC Community Development Department 851 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553-1229 SUBJECT. Michael Abraham._QgunW File#DP-033065: Addition to 125 York Avenue. ,�enS%rl Dear Mr. Barry: We are probably the only house on the west side of Windsor Avenue--one street above York—without a view of the Bay(because of 109 York, the two-story house which was guilt in 1925, well before subsequent development in the area). Nevertheless, we think that it is unconscionable that someone—in this case, the Abrahams--can move into a house knowing full well its size limitations, and then propose to build an addition which would destroy the views of two homes on Windsor Avenue as well as be out of scale and thus incompatible with its neighboring houses on the east side of York. The residents of the two Windsor homes, 112 and 118 Windsor, bought their houses many years ago, in cart because of the spectacular view from those properties. They paid a premium for that view. And now the Abrahams, whose house is can a substandard lot, are threatening to destroy the treasured view of those long-time Windsor residents. The Windsor people foresee having their stunning view of San Francisco downgraded to a view of the Abrahams' proposed roof and deck. We really do not understand how this can be allowed to take place, especially when the entire surrounding neighborhood was originally deligned to maximize the views from as many lots as possible. (Even we can at least,seg Mt. Tamalpals.) To allow the Abrahams to proceed with their addition will be setting a precedent which would allow all residents(or future residents)on the east side of York to expand their homes upward, thereby shutting out the views of probably all of the properties can the west side of Windsor. Vile might fust as well move dawn to the tenements now and get it over with if the Abrahams' proposed addition is approved. Sincerely, Sharon Gumz David Gumz 108 Winder Avenue Kensington, CA 94708-1043 'Y f ,Ft`` ;; April 6, 2004 Dennis M. Barry, AICP Community Development Director CCC Community Development Department 651 Dine Street Martinez, CA 94553-1229 SUBJECT: M!"91 Abraham. County File#DE03065: Additign tg_125._Yor�.6y-enue KenslagWn Dear Mr. Barry: We are probably the only house on the west side of Windsor Avenue--one street above York-without a view of the Bay(because of 109 York, the tiro-story house which Was built in 1928, well before subsequent development in the area). Nevertheless, we think that it is unconscionable that someone-yin this case, the Abrahams--can move into a house knowing full well its size limitations, and then propose to build an addition which would destroy the views of two harries on Windsor Avenue as well as be out of scale and thus incompatible with its neighboring houses on the east side of York. The residents of the two Windsor homes, 112 and 118 Windsor, bought their houses many years ago, in part because of the spectacular view from those properties. They paid a premium for that view. And now the Abrahams, whose house is on a substandard lot, are threatening to destroy the treasured view of those long-time Windsor residents. The Windsor people foresee having their stunning view of San Francisco downgraded to a view of the Abrahams' proposed roof ,and deck. We reap do not understand how this can be allowed to take place, especially when the entire surrounding neighborhood Was originally desi, to maximize the views from as many lots as possible. (Even we can at least see Mt. amalpais.) To allow the Abrahams to proceed with their addition will be setting a precedent which would allow all residents (or future residents)on the east side of York to expand their homes upward, thereb shutting out the views of probably all of the properties on the west side of Windsor. Vile might juste as well move dawn to the tenements now and get it over with if the Abrahams' proposed addition is approved. Sincerely, Sharon Gumz David Gumz Kathryn and John Stein 32 Beverly Rd. Kensington,CA 94707 (510)524-5393 April 8, 2004 Mr. Don Snyder PLANNING COMIISSION 2716 Oak Rd. #16 Walnut Creek, CA 94598 RE: April 13—Hearing for Morrison et al vs.Abraham Dear Mr. Snyder, Applicant Abraham's house sits on a small lot. As we understand it, the small lot ordinance calls for consideration of a project's impact on the surrounding area. It disturbs us that the Zoning Administrator, Mr. Brake,has opted not to consider the significant and deleterious impact that Mr. Abraham's addition will impose on several of his neighbors' highly valued bay views. We hope you and your colleagues will encourage the Applicant to act in a neighborly and lawful way by modifying his plan to lessen negative impact on neighbors. *Sinc , e. 3 ted Y 120 Windsor Avenue Kensington,CA 94708 April 12, 2004 County File*DP033065 f Abraham Contra.Costa Community Development Department 651 Pine Street Martinez,CA Dear Sir or Madam, We are unable to attend the.April 13`x' public hearing regarding the development plan for 125 York Avenue in Kensington. However, as neighbors who will be affected by any decision reached by the Planning Commission Board, we hope you will consider our position on the matter. We have lived irx Kensington for 15 years and are raising two children here. Our house, which was Built in 1934, is in need of upgrading and earthquake retrofitting. Over the past year we have gone through the process of seeking approval for an extensive remodel of our home at 124 Windsor Avenue. We have received approval from the Zoning Administrator and had planned to begin remodeling the house in June 2004. We continue to meet with our architect in the hose that 125 York will not ultimately receive approval for their addition. If 125 York's project is r ved we will drop u lan io iMp—rovg-ourp=ert . We firmly believe that if their project is approved it will open the floodgates for other such additions on York Avenue. We love living in Kensington and there are many wonderful things about our community but the key feature that gives our homes their monetary value is our beautiful views of San Francisco, the Headlands, and the bridges. It would be imprudent for any Windsor Avenue homeowner to invest significant money in their property if at any time they could lose their western view. We feel it is patently unfair to grant rights to one homeowner at the expense of other homeowners. It is reasonable to expect that our property values will be protected. We rely on county administrators to consider the impact these decisions will have on entire neighborhoods. Sincerely, Jot n and Eileen Kramer 111 Windsor Avenue Kensington, CA 94708 April 13, 2004 Mr. Dennis Berry, AICP Community Development Director Contra Costa County Community Development Dept. 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94553 Re: County Pile #DP 033065 (Abraham) Dear Mr. Berry: We have resided on the east side of Windsor Avenue for 22 years. We have always enjoyed the view of the bay from our dining room windows and would certainly be upset if the Morrisons, who live across the street, were to add to their house in such a way as to take that view from us. For that reason, we support the Morrisons and the C,armans in their effort to protect their view. We are particularly disturbed that anyone would wish to build in a way unfair to neighbors as considerate as the Morrisons and the Carmans. No two couples have done more than these two to make the neighborhood we live into a community. We urge you not to allow a neighbor to block the view of neighbors. Sincerely, / r.) Margaret Meisel (Dr.) Richard Levin jUN 1. 12004 Melvin Stanley Amundsen CtsdTRA cos-r couN TY _ l31 Arlington Avenue CO[A'MUNIT`l DEVELOPMENT Kensington, California 94707 � (510)527.1373 , l V� June 8, 2004 {; r S-upem-*sor John Gioia District 1, Contra Costa County 11780 San Pablo Avenue, Suite D El Cerrito, CA 94530 (5I0)3"72f=5231 tefolipne, (510)374-3429 fax Dear Supervisor Gioia: This letter is k response to two Notices ofTntent to Kinder Adiu&i``rative Decisions sent to us from the Community Development Department regarding the permit for the addition to the property located at 125Y6rk Ave .e in Kensington. We feel it is outrageous that,in a hillside view community such as Kensington(which enjoys worrd--class views), anyone wourcrconsf&r adi m►g lie% to tfieir newly purchased home which would obstruct the view of residences already in existence! What totaldFiregard-f r the enjoyment and-vara of other persons property! We are also highly concerned that the misleading letter of intent dial not specify that a whole new level-woufid&added-to the 1 YY—orlc property. lli Tieigfit was onri'mentioned in feet,not in "stories"as stated in other letters of intent. We hope that future letters of-intent vvff-Fe clear and'conmupt in their format. Perhap s homeowners who are considering additions should state the impact these will have on diel'ne gfiForp in their letter of intent. Sincerely yours, cc: Glenn and Gloria Morrison Melvin Stanley Amundsen and I I dsor,Iensmton 1Gy Amundsean Hammond Jim and Carol.Caenan 118'Windsor, Kensmigton MILLED. 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD. FIFTH FLOOR TARR P.O. Box 8177 JEAL1�4 EL WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 A F R O F E S 9 3 0'�`A L FACSIMILE (925.) 933-4126 LAW CORPORATION TELEPHONE (925) 935-9400 CHRISTIAN M.CARRIGAN CMC®MSANDR.COM (925)935-9400 April 7, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE AND MAIL (925) 335-1222 Planning Commission Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94520 Re: Appeal of January 26, 2004, Zoning Administrator's Decision Approving Design Review File DP033065 - 125 York Avenue Kensington Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: As you know,this firm represents Gloria and Glenn Morrison, 112 Windsor Avenue, and Carol and James Carman, 118 Windsor Avenue ("Appellants"), in connection with their appeal of the above-mentioned approval. In addition, six additional households have joined Appellants in their appeal. IThe purpose of this letter is to very briefly respond to the points raised by the applicants, Michael and Mary Abraham, in their March 12, 2004 letter to the Planning Commission. In addition, the Morrisons and Carmans invite you to visit their respective residences, and the surrounding neighborhood, at your convenience prior to your deliberation on this appeal. It cannot be emphasized enough just how important a site visit is to understanding the true impacts of this project on the surrounding neighborhood. Importantly,both the Morrisons and Carmans remain interested in achieving a compromise with the Abrahams which will allow all parties to achieve their respective goals. In this regard, the Morrisons have employed the services of an architect, and intend to provide examples of alternative designs that could achieve the Abrahams' goal to provide more space for their family, while at the same time preserving the character of the neighborhood. While the Abrahams attempt to show that they have sought such a compromise, they have never visited the Morrison or Carman residences to gain a perspective on the impact of their proposed addition on those residences, and have summarily rejected all previously proposed plan modifications. Unfortunately,the appearance is that the Abrahams are attempting to"bulldoze"their plans through the County entitlement process with complete disregard for the community they purportedly support and enjoy. MOGG\43303\564338.1 4 W A L N U T C R E E K O W W W . M S A N D R . C 0 M 4 P A L O A L T 0 O Planning Commission April 7, 2004 Page 2 Regrettably, much of the information presented in the Abrahams' letter is also presented out-of-context and is therefore potentially misleading. The packet of photographs included with the letter includes absolutely no explanation regarding the development of the area, or the reasons why certain homes were sited in certain locations. Again, we believe it is critical to an informed decision that you come and see for yourself how this neighborhood has, over time, developed in such a way as to maximize the views of the property owners. As an additional example of the out-of-context nature of the Abrahams' statements, in support of their argument that views have continually been impacted throughout Kensington, the Abrahams state that the two-story home at 109 York Avenue impacts the views from the Morrisons home. While true, the Abrahams' statement is misleading because 109 York Avenue was builtrip 'or to the Morrisons' home, and the Morrisons' home was then sited in a southwest facing direction to take advantage of the views which remained in that direction. The Abrahams' inclusion of irrelevant and unexplained data in their letter is an attempt to cloud the real issue—the lack of compatibility with and the negative impact their project will have on the well planned and developed surrounding neighborhood. The Abrahams also continue to suggest that the small lot ordinance should, in effect,be read out of the County Code, and as a practical matter, appear to forget that their lot is substandard. It is because their lot is substandard with respect to size that an additional level of review is required pursuant to County Code section 82-10.002(c). This additional level of review requires the Zoning Administrator to "....review the proposed dwellings' compatibility with and impact on the surrounding neighborhood, in terms of its location, size,height, and design." The express terms of this ordinance cannot simply be disregarded. Ignoring this mandatory review requirement, the Zoning Administrator did not consider the project's impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, and failed to adequately review the project for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. The Zoning Administrator's review of size compatibility only included an analysis of whether the size of the residence was consistent with other residences in the area—again ignoring that the Abrahams' lot is substandard, and thus smaller than many lots in the surrounding neighborhood. The more appropriate analysis would be to compare the lot size to the house size. For example, a 2500 sq. ft. house on a 3804 sq. ft. lot should be compared with similar situations—not with a 2500 sq. ft. house on a 6804 sq. ft. lot as the Abrahams would have it. The Abrahams also mischaracterize the Appellants' intentions as "inappropriately attempting to change and expand the criteria set forth in the small lot ordinance." Appellants seek no such change or extension—rather,they seek merely to have this clearly applicable law applied in a fair and equitable manner to the Abrahams' proposal, which has yet to occur. As indicated above,because the Zoning Administrator is required to consider a project's impact on the surrounding neighborhood, as well as to review its compatibility consistent with the circumstances that exist in the neighborhood,his failure to do so here is an abuse of discretion. MOGG\43303\569338.1 Planning Commission April 7, 2004 Page 3 Because of the inconsistencies and out-of-context nature of the Abrahams' March 12, 2004 letter, we strongly encourage you to visit not only the project site,but also the Morrison and Carman residences to gain a full perspective on this project and its consistency with and impacts on the surrounding neighborhood--in context. The Morrisons and Carrnans would be happy to show each of you how their residences will be negatively impacted, as well as provide you with a walking tour of the neighborhood at your convenience. Please feel free to contact me should you have any questions. Very truly yours, MILLER., STARR®ALIA Christian M. Carrigan CMC:KDL cc: Clients Robert Drake, Zoning Administrator Will Nelson, Project Planner Kristina D. Lawson,Esq. M000\43303\56933 s.r 1331 NORTH CALIFORNIA BLVD. MILLER STA . FIFTH FLOOR ` i P.O. ROX $177 REG 31LI 1 WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596 A PROFESSIONAL FACSIMILE(925) 933-4126 LAW CORPORATION TELEPHONE (925) 935-9400 CHRISTIAN M.CARRIGAN CMC@MSAN13R.00M (925)935-9400 April 13, 2004 VIA FACSIMILE AND HAND DELIVERY Planning Commission Contra Costa County 651 Pine Street Martinez, CA 94520 Re: Appeal of January 26, 2004 Zoning Administrator Decision Approving Design Review File DP033065; Response to Staff Report Dear Honorable Chair and Members of the Planning Commission: As you know, this firm represents Gloria and Glenn Morrison, 112 Windsor Avenue, and Carol and James Carman, 118 Windsor Avenue, ("Appellants") in connection with their appeal of the Zoning Administrator's January 26, 2004 approval of Michael and Mary Abraham's application to construct an addition on their substandard lot at 125 Fork Avenue in Kensington(the"Project"). Appellants are not alone in their appeal of this unlawful decision they are joined in this appeal by the owners of six Kensington residences located in close proximity to the project. This letter incorporates by reference all previous correspondence regarding the above-referenced matter. At the outset of this letter it is important to note that the Staff Report does not contain all of the documents, nor even the key documents, that were submitted to County staff and the Zoning Administrator as part of the public hearing process. For unknown reasons, the submitted written copies of the presentations made by the Appellants at the Zoning Administrator's hearing were not included or referenced in the Staff Report and packet. Additionally,various letters from residents of York Avenue expressing uneasiness with the Abraham's project, a statement from Windsor Avenue residents living on the east side of the street that they have views,the original open house ads for 112 and 118 Windsor Avenue(which featured panoramic views) submitted by the Appellants, and other letters in opposition to the project are not referenced in or attached to the Staff Report. This blanket omission from the Staff Report of almost all relevant documentation and evidence submitted by the Appellants in connection with this appeal causes the Appellants to question the integrity of the County's appeal process,and creates the strong appearance that Staff is improperly biased toward the Abrahams. It would be impossible for the Planning Commission to make a well-informed land use decision MOG043303L570878.t i W A L N U T C R E E P i W W W . M S A N D R . C © m i P A L O A L T O i Planning Commission April 13,2004 Page 2 where staff has intentionally failed to provide the Commission with all relevant information and documentation. It is an outrage that the Staff Report specifically acknowledges the existence of these documents and then fails to include them for the Planning Commission's review. All property owners, including the Appellants, are entitled to constitutional due process and equal protection, including a fair hearing and opportunity to be heard,when the County considers whether to approve development projects. Not only does the Staff Report completely fail to explain to the Planning Commission the points upon which Appellants have based their appeal, but it also surprisingly only tells the Abraham's side of the story. It is fundamentally unfair to the Appellants, and to all residents of Contra Costa County, for Staff to advocate so zealously on behalf of a project applicant and to provide such a biased report where a neutral evaluation of all relevant facts is called for. The omission of almost all Appellant- provided information calls into question the ability of the County to provide the due process protections required by law, and severely limits, if not eliminates, the ability of the Planning Commission to provide a fair hearing on the merits of the Abraham's application. Accordingly, we believe it would be appropriate for the Commission to continue the public hearing on this appeal until such time as all pertinent evidence in the record which has been presently excluded from the Staff Report has been provided for your review. Unfortunately, because of the adversarial nature of the Staff Report, it is necessary for the Appellants to again address Staffs continued mischaracterization of the applicable law, as well as staff s mischaracterization and misunderstanding of points raised by the Appellants. The following sets forth Appellants' rebuttal to Staffs review and response to their appeal. 1. Staff continues to effectively read section 82-10.002(c) out of the County's Zoning Ordinance. On page 2 of the Staff Report, staff writes: Substandard lots are no more inherently likely to affect subjective neighborhood qualities than are standard size lots. In fact, standard size lots are probably more likely to affect these qualities because they have larger building envelopes and therefore allow for larger buildings that could block views, infringe on privacy, etc. If it were the County's intent to protect such neighborhood qualities through the design review process,then the process would extend to every residential lot. Because it does not extend to every residential lot, it would be discriminatory and unfair to the owners of substandard lots to require that only they be responsible for safeguarding these subjective neighborhood qualities when their lots are no more likely to affect these qualities than are neighboring standard size lots. MoC`G\43303\570878.1 Planning Commission April 13, 2004 Page 3 Not only is this analysis of the applicability of section 82-10.002(c) outrageous, it is patently wrong. Such a reading of section 82-10.002(c) disregards the existence of section 82-10.002(c), ignores the legislative history`ofsection 82-10.002(c), and is contrary to the express statements of the Zoning Administrator. As stated by Zoning Administrator Robert Drake at the January 26, 2004 public hearing,section 82-10.002(c) was adopted because: ...the County saw a pattern of properties that were legally established but were substandard with regard to parcel size and that they were building consistent with the objective zoning criteria but they were otherwise raising issues about compatibility with what otherwise occurred in the neighborhood. And so the County has elected to enact an additional level of review that applies to parcels that are substandard with respect to either lot area or average lot width, but not any other parcels. The purpose of section 82-10.002(c) is to require an additional level of discretionary review for development on substandard County properties. At the time it was adopted, the County acknowledged that development of substandard property was more likely to affect the character of a neighborhood than development on standard size properties, and specifically chose to enact an additional level of review for only those properties. The application of this section to substandard-sized lots is not discriminatory or unfair, as Staff has opined,because it applies to only substandard properties. The Ordinance is expressly inapplicable to standard-sized lots. Moreover,to say that application of section 82-10.002(c)to only substandard properties is unfair would render the entirety of the County's zoning regulations discriminatory or unfair, as most of the zoning regulations do not apply to all properties County-wide. As we have indicated previously,a failure to strictly apply section 82-10.002(c)to the Abraham's application is an abuse of discretion. Staff's interpretation of this provision must not be permitted, and we respectfully request that the Planning Commission apply section 82- 10.002(c)to this project, and if necessary, engage the County Counsel's office for a formal legal opinion as to the scope of this provision. 2. There is No Substantial Evidence In the Record to Suvport the Zoning Administrator's Decision. Staff suggests that Appellants' argument that there exists no substantial record evidence to support the Zoning Administrator's decision fails because"it is generally lacking in any factual information." As stated above, Appellants have provided detailed factual information and competent evidence through written letters and documents,as well as through oral testimony at the Zoning Administrator's hearing, which has been omitted from the Staff Report. Were this Commission provided the opportunity to review these documents, it would find that the evidence presented by Appellants proves there is no basis in the record, let alone substantial evidence, to support the findings that the Project's location, size,height, and design, MOGG1433US70878.1 _. _. Planning Commission April 13, 2004 Page 4 are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. Review of the entire record, including documentation submitted by the Appellants,is necessary to determine whether substantial evidence exists. Staff may not merely reference bits and pieces of the record in support of a particular conclusion. On page S-5 of the Staff Report,staff continues to misinterpret the Appellants' contention that floor area ratio(FAR) is a relevant indicator of the mass of structures. Staff states, "Appellants continue to hold onto the erroneous notion that mass and floor area are interchangeable terms." Appellants have never suggested that these terms are interchangeable; rather, as we noted in our previous correspondence, Appellants have presented detailed analyses showing that FAR is a useful tool to determine whether a particular structure's size,mass, and bulk are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. For example, the attached most recent analysis of homes located on the east side of York Avenue provides that out of 11 residences,the Abraham lot is the 9th largest, and the proposed residence would be the 2nd largest in terms of total floor area, and the 1 st largest in terms of FAR. Certainly this information is relevant in a determination of the compatibility of the project with the surrounding neighborhood. Any reasonable person would agree that building the largest residence on the street on one of the smallest parcels is,by its very nature, fundamentally incompatible with the size of other residences in the neighborhood. Because the Zoning Administrator failed to`adequately assess the compatibility of the Project with respect to size,the decision is not supported by substantial evidence, and is an abuse of discretion. Furthermore, Staff continues to ignore that the neighborhood in which the Project is located is on a hillside, and not in the flatlands. 'While certain homes in the neighborhood are indisputably taller than others, the neighborhood does not exist at a fixed elevation, and an appropriate review for compatibility would take into account the hillside siting of particular residences, and the effect of particular heights on surrounding residences. As is the case with this Project,certain heights are plainly incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood when sited on particular lots. 3. The Zoning Administrator Failed to Make A Finding That the Project Would Not Adversely Impact the Appellants' Properties. Section 82-10.002(c)specifically and expressly requires that the Zoning Administrator review the project's impact on the surrounding neighborhood. For your quick reference, section 82-10.002(c)provides in full: If a small lot qualifies for occupancy for a single-family dwelling, then a building permit can issue unless the zoning administrator determines that the proposed dwelling appears not to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. If the zoning administrator makes that determination, the zoning administrator may,but is not required to, schedule a public hearing to review the MOGGi43303\570878.1 Planning Commission April 13, 2004 Page 5 proposed dwellings' compatibility with and impact on the surrounding neighborhood,in terms of its location,size, height, and design. [Emph.added.] The Zoning Administrator and County staff cannot unilaterally eliminate requirements expressly imposed by the County Code. The Staff Report appears to indicate that because"impact" is not defined, no review of a project's impact on the surrounding neighborhood is necessary. Such an interpretation is illogical and ignores the plain language of the provision. While a certain level of discretion and deference is granted to the County in interpreting section 82-10.002(c), this deference does not mean that the County can ignore a plain requirement of the Code. The Code requires consideration of the project's compatibility and impacts, and a finding of no adverse impact is a prerequisite to approval of the Abraham's project. (See, e.g., Saad v. City of Berkeley(1994)24 Cal.AppAth 1206, 1213 [holding that pursuant to the City of Berkeley's Zoning Ordinance,a finding of nondetriment is a prerequisite to the grant of a permit].) Anything less is an abuse of discretion that would not be upheld by a reviewing Court. Conclusion: The adversarial tone of the Staff Report is shocking and inappropriate. It is improper for County staff to brazenly present such biased opinions and to ignore the request of over eight (8)neighborhood residences that the County lawfully review the proposed project in accordance with Section 82-10.002(c). There is an incredible amount of record evidence demonstrating this Project's incompatibility with the surrounding neighborhood. For staff to dictatorially ignore this evidence and exclude it from this Commission's consideration is an abuse of their discretion as public officials. We therefore respectfully request that the appeal be granted on the grounds that the proposed Project is not compatible with and adversely impacts the surrounding neighborhood. In the event that you have not yet had a chance to visit the neighborhood,we would request that the public hearing be continued until such time as all members of the M000W3303\570878.1 _... _. Planning Commission April 13, 2004 Page 6 Planning Commission have had the opportunity to visit the area. Unfortunately,the Staff Report and letter submitted by the project proponent do not accurately or contextually describe or depict the neighborhood or the Project. Very truly yours, MILLER, STARR& REGALIA Christian M. Carrigan CMC:KDL cc: Clients Robert Drake, Zoning.Administrator Will Nelson, Project Planner Kristina D. Lawson, Esq. MOGG A33031570878.t _. . FLOOR AREAS OF HOUSE ON EAST SIDE OF YORK AVE. Street No. Total Floor Area ftTotal Lot Area(ft FAR 107 2,363 :; 4,300 .55 117 2,163 3,800 .57 123 1,978 4,300 .46 129 1,760 4,300 .41 131 1,951 4,300 .45 135 2,336 3,800 .61 139 1,137 4,300 .26 143 2,379 8;000 .30 AVG. 2,011 .45 109 2,739 8,000 .34 161 2,949 5,355 .55 125 1,871 3,821 .49 Pro sed 2,908 3,821 .76 125 York Size Com arison With 10 Properties on East Side of York Size Now Pro sed Lot Area Tied for SP largest Tied for 9P lar est Floor Area 9 lar est 2 largest FAR I 1 largest Sources: County Assessor data; application drawings for 125 York. Total floor area includes garage area. 4 FURTHER ANALYSIS OF DATA FROM STAFF REPORT FOR JAN. 26, 2005 HEARING (53 Properties) Assessor No. Bldg/Liv Area Garage Sgft Total Floor Area Lot SgFt FAR Property Address 572-123-003-4 1757 357 2114 6210 0.34 140 ST ALBANS RD, I• 572-123-004-2 2901 440 3341 5265 0.63 135 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-124-001-7 3319 255 3574 3990 0.90 100 ST ALBANS RD, I 572-124-002-5 3857 320 4177 5291 0.79 106 ST ALBANS RD, F 572-124-0103-3 3999 347 4346 5733 0.76 110 ST ALBANS RD, I, 572-124-004-1 3530 368 3898 6000 0.65 114 ST ALBANS RD, 1, 572-124-005-8 3309 368 3677 5950 0.62 118 ST ALBANS RD, I, 572-124-006-6 1489 281 1770 4641 0.38 120 ST ALBANS RD, 1, 572-124-007-4 1825 276 2101 4760 0.44 122 ST ALBANS RD, I• 572-124-008-2 2095 340 2435 4760 0.51 128 ST ALBANS RD, P 572-124-009-0 2095 347 2442 4957 0.49 136 ST ALBANS RD, I, 572-124-010-8 1330 360 1690 3761 0.45 133 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-124-011-6 1099 379 1478 3700 0.40 129 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-124-012-4 1145 374 1519 4200 0.36 125 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-124-013-2 1569 424 1993 8400 0.24 121 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-124-014-0 1587 477 2064 4200 0.49 115•WINDSOR AV, KE 572-124-015-7 2011 330 2341 4200 0.56 111 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-124-016-5 2210 300 2510 4200 0.60 109 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-124-017-3 1393 240 1633 4500 0.36 105 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-124-018-1 2161 425 2586 5700 0.45 101 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-140-001-7 2897 282 3179 4850 0.66 100 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-140-002-5 1290 210 1500 5940 0.25 108 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-140-004-1 3839 331 4170 11700 0.36 112 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-140-005-8 2229 359 2588 4800 0.54 118 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-140-006-6 1801 315 2116 4300 0.49 120 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-140-0074 1240 280 1520 4300 0.35 124 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-140.008-2 1507 351 1858 4300 0.43 126 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-140-009-0 2159 334 2503 4300 0.58 130 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-140-010-8 2203 330 2533 4500 0.56 134 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-140-011-6 2731 509 3240 5400 0.60 136 WINDSOR AV, KE 572-140-0124 2569 380 2949 5355 0.55 161 YORK AV, KENSI 572-140-013-2 2001 378 2379 8000 0.30 143 YORK AV, KENSI 572-140-014.0 897 240 1137 4300 0.26 139 YORK AV, KENSI 572-140-015-7 1955 381 2336 3800 0.61 135 YORK AV, KENSI 572-140-016-5 1555 396 1951 4300 0.45 131 YORK AV, KENSI 572-140-017-3 1387 373 1760 4300 0.41 129 YORK AV, KENSI 572-140-019-9 1587 391 1978 4300 0.46 123 YORK AV, KENSI 572-140-022-3 1963 400 2363 4300 0.55 107 YORK AV, KENSI 572-140-027-2 2739 0 2739 8000 0.34 109 YORK AV, KENSI 572-140-028-0 1621 542 2163 3800 0.57 117 YORK AV, KENSI 572-150-0014 1751 360 2111 5991 0.35 100 YORK AV, KENSI 572-150-002-2 1773 0 1773 4577 0.39 106 YORK AV, KENSI 572-150-003-0 1891 328 2219 4200 0.53 108 YORK AV, KENSI 572-150-004-8 1663 306 1969 4200 0.47 110 YORK AV, KENSI 572-150-015~-5 2329 460 2789 4200 0.66 114 YORK AV, KENSI 572-150-006-3 1773 409 2182 4200 0.52 118 YORK AV, KENSI 572-150-007-1 2203 367 2570 8400 0.31 120 YORK AV, KENSI 572-150-008-9 2270 470 2740 5200 0.53 130 YORK AV, KENSI 572-150-009-7 1487 360 ;; 1847 5300 0.35 134 YORK AV, KENSI 572-150-010-5 3041 418 3459 5300 0.65 140 YORK AV, KENSI 572-150-011-3 3063 307 3370 5700 0.59 144 YORK AV, KENSI 572-150-012-1 2079 359 2438 4700 0.52 148 YORK AV, KENSI 572-150-013-9 2463 333 2796 5560 0.50 152 YORK AV, KENSI NOW-140-0118 1390 481 1871 3800 0.49 125 YORK AV, KENSI PRO-140-018 2488 420 2908 3800 0.77 125 YORK AV, KENSI 125 York Size Comparison With The 53 Properties Size Naw Proposed Lot Tied for 50th tamest Tied for 50th largest Floor Area 41st largest 12th largest FAR Tied for 27th lamest 3rd largest jrnc126Mar04 M- -- P wE « � +art 4 a► JON ME AS err► F j SOP -E AVE. 1 b A 6 .5.85•a5'E nQ co s.a>•>s e.rEs i+ v N 24 3(w) b co 23 Lo dB�o3lptO20 rn � 1 � Nrn le VIM C. ►7 o G a. n 4a c7 � µ je• ° !° C,3 14 so Aln f} kGC�H .`.J1 Cy \tJJ Pfk t2 v r. .r F 1 l J m C 50 r —� 5n _ - ———= = `-- -----r _ -- -- -- cn r I y 7" 1 11 EAR Y S.v-STHEE? tt,XT 3t I ' ` _____________________� II !- NTYARD----_____-I______._,_._.- I � i H P,L,=100.00' N 81'37'40'E �S ��d,-._..- _-_--_ ___-_ _ _____ ______J _ Ln IT P1 _ M�. �� " { �i4f&ARD , , WqYAIO I j _f8._-8 LQBw... `tE Fns vwo -- SETBACK —.Z E,8L N 00'001=1d j m a o� �� �Lt �3 $ ZND zm @ < r r; r a SECOND STORY ADDITION ° SITE PLAN ABRAHAM RESIDENE-E !, 12 / 5 YORK AVENUE CONCEPTS Ln KENSINGTON, CA 94729 ARCHITECTURE * INTERIORS x P.O.BOX 6175 - ALBANY CALIFORMA • t5?01 525-0211 ------------, { ; i �> E ,._ I ! I ------ _ ar-o• W ---- --------- -- ------ ; r--- -- ---- ----I- 1� , _ ---------- ------ -------------------------------- ! i R fl fl 0 -0 1 I I I I , II I I i , I _ +-2 ' i t � �� � I I 3• � ii ! I IIV t.,J� 1 I II i I F jll i j I i k( II i i i i i I 1.��10• ii - i II -+," - - - - - -d - - - - - -- - - - _ _ _. - - ---fit - _ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - -fit-� - jz x - - _ _ - -- o �o z�0 imp z� m SECOND STAR" ADDITION cX!STiNC ABRAHAM RESIDENCE ❑ Lt11 ® LTJ ❑ �, FU FLOOR PLANS 125 `CORK AVENUE CONCEPTS � KENSINGTON, CA 947ZB ARCHITECTURE * iN7ERJORS ?.O.90x 8175 r ALBANY CALIFORNIA (510)_525-0211 lE0 -------------------------------- Ti_` f � '1.—.... ,23:1/2 6'-0' ( -•.5 �lt I k d 1 1 i I i i irn J� co ___o11-i.. OR x 4 - - - a � x rs yc _ __- .-_ _ ___._. _. _ �A } oz I I �I 1 ---- ----_---_-__ 00 p SECOND STORY ADDITION FLOOR PLANS AOR-ABRAHAM RESIDENCE k Y,.�.,I AVENUE CONCEPTS <ENSIiND ; ON, CA 94708 ARCHITEG r IJRe INT ERICIRS RO.BOX e;76 # ALBAW, CAL1FOWA * (Vi0}525-021i � W oz n im i i zo . T1 i . ilk 00 141M 71 lip :gjr Li 1 , s � I f � Sf2 \ i i I I w it CPCOND STORY ADDITDN co EXICTIN-n ABRAHAM RESIDENCE EL-EVATDNS 'I 25D YD�RK AVENUE- 7f� CONCEPTS K"-NSINC-DN CA 94-tf 0e ARCHITECTURE * INTERIORS m L— i p,0,80X 8{78 + ALBANY CAUFORN1A t (5VS26-0211 A ...____- _ --------________02 FIE € � mod �3 # I 990 I I � -__- - -__- __ I € CQ „ ......... i l 1 v € 4 w € I E € y S r € I N € ------------- --- N", , r 0", , SECOND STORY ADDITION ELEVATIONS ABRAHAM RESIDENCE 125 YORK AVENUE -�rrr�� CONCEPTS KE�,y � t,,(`�''"�' 'A 94/ L�JG� AROHITECTURE x INTERIORS ' L SII G I i.DN, ...., p.t�.gpX 8fY5 A ALBANY CAL!F�OWA a (510)525-02tt NOTIFICATION LIST APN 572-123-003-4 APN 572-123-004-2 APN 572-140-001-7 JEANNE ADELE MCHUGH ROBERT J SCHMITT WILLIAM PHILIP CARUTHERS 140 ST ALBANS RD 135 WINDSOR AVE 100 WINDSOR AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-14.0-002-5 APN 572-140-003-3 APN 572-140-004-1 r DAVID M & SHARON K TRE GUMZ GLENN A & GLORIA X MORRISON GLENN A& GLORIA X MORRISON 108 WINDSOR AVE 112 WINDSOR AVE 112 WINDSOR AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-140-005-8 APN 572-140-006-6 - APN 572-140-007-4 '-. JAMES M & CAROL K TRE CARMAN JOHN P & EILEEN R KRAMER ELAINE C & MICHAEL R EMERY 118 WINDSOR AVE 120 WINDSOR AVE 124 WINDSOR AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-140-008-2 APN 572-140-009 APN 572-140-010-8 LAURENT& CHANTAL MAYALI RONALD LOEWINSOHN LLEWELLYN F STANTON 126 WINDSOR AVE 130 WINDSOR AVE 134 WINDSOR AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94707 APN 572-140-011-6 "" APN 572-140-012-4 '� APN 572-140-013-2 `-- WILLIAM H & GLORIA TRE MCNAB S ROBERT DIENER DWIGHT TRE VORKOEPHER 136 WINDSOR AVE 3050 SHATTUCK AVE P O BOX 5269 KENSINGTON CA 94708 BERKELEY CA 94705 BEAR VALLEY CA 95223 APN 572-140-014 APN 572-140-015-7 ' APN 572-140-016-5 TOR G & CAROLINA BREKKE DAVID LEE WOODSIDE FELIX C LOCHER 139 YORK AVE 135 YORK AVE 131 YORK AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-140-017-3� APN 572-140-018-1 l APN 572-140-019-9 JAY JOHNSON MICHAEL D & MARY C ABRAHAM DAMON D JORDAN 129 YORK AVE 125 YORK AVE 123 YORK AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-140-022-3 ,,/ APN 572-140-025-6 t` APN 572-140-027-2 DOUGLAS J & PATRICIA A HILL FERN T TRE BRASFIELD EDWARD L & LAWRENCE FENOLI� 107 YORK AVE 10 WESTMINSTER AVE 109 YORK AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-140-028 APN 572-150-009-4 APN 572-150-002-2 DONIA J TRE ORETSKY NILOUFAR NOURI GREGORY B & MARGARET M SHE 117 YORK AVE 100 YORK AVE 106 YORK AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-150-003 / APN 572.150-004-8 APN 572-450-005-5 RICHARD F TRE KIDD JOHN T WOOD JOHN S TRE & LAN N TRE NEWM� 108 YORK AVE 110 YORK AVE 114 YORK AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-150-006-3 APN 572-150-007-1 � APN 572-150-008-9 HELEN BEAN NANCY E TRE SEPHTON ERIC RIESS 118 YORK AVE 120 YORK AVE 130 YORK AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-150-009-7 APN 572-150-010-5 APN 572-150-011-3 MARK R & CARA E BELL STEPHEN M & SUSIE H TRE SMITH PAUL E &VIDA E DORROH 134 YORK AVE 7811 NW 55 AVE NT 144 YORK AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 GIG HARBOR WA 98335 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-150-012-1 APN 572-150-013-9 �- APN 572-150-015-4 MICHAEL J TRE KAHN HAROLD J ABRAMS GAWAIN KESSNER 148 YORK AVE 152 YORK AVE 163 ARLINGTON AVE KENSINGTON CA 94707 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94707 APN 572-150-016-2 ' APN 572-150-017"' APN 572-150-018-8 r- MATTHEW A HOCK MICHELLE ZEDEK STEPHEN M & SUSIE H TRE SMITI 161 ARLINGTON AVE 223 8TH AVE 7811 NW 55 AVE CT KENSINGTON CA 94707 PETALUMA CA 94952 GIG HARBOR WA 98335 APN 572-150-019-6 " APN 572-150-020-4 APN 572-150-021-2 DOROTHY M TRE BENSON M WARREN & SALLY TRE DEBENHAM THOMAS M TRE CEMBURA 147 ARLINGTON AVE 143 ARLINGTON AVE PO BOX 1422 KENSINGTON CA 94707 KENSINGTON CA 94707 GRASS VALLEY CA 95945 APN 572-150-022 APN 572-150-023-8 APN 572-150-024-6 ERIN P& STACEY E JANOFF MELVIN S & GLADYS TRE AMUNDSEN DOUGLAS&TERI MORTIMER 135 ARLINGTON AVE 131 ARLINGTON AVE 127 ARLINGTON AVE KENSINGTON CA 94707 KENSINGTON CA 94707 KENSINGTON CA 94707 APN 572-150-025-3 APN 572-150-026-1 APN 572-150-027-9 JOSEPHINE M TRE & LAWRENCE J TREHELMUT TRE &.CHINDARATANA BLASCALAN D & DENISE B COHEN 123 ARLINGTON AVE 119 ARLINGTON AVE 111 ARLINGTON AVE KENSINGTON CA 94707 KENSINGTON CA 94707 KENSINGTON CA 94707 APN 572-150-028-7 APN 572-150-029-5 APN 572-150-030-3 REZA SADJADI LLOYD JR COWELL STEVEN E & LAUREL L HOLLAND 109 ARLINGTON AVE 107 ARLINGTON AVE 105 ARLINGTON AVE KENSINGTON CA 94707 KENSINGTON CA 94707 KENSINGTON CA 94707 APN 572-150-031-1 FERN T TRE BRASFIELD 10 WESTMINSTER AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-124-001-7 APN 572-124-002-5 APN 572-124-003-3 DELMONT S TRE SNYDER DAVID A&JULIA A LEWIS GINA L TRE CLINE 100 ST ALBANS RD 106 ST ALBANS RD 110 ST ALBANS RD KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-124-004-1 APN 572-124-005-8 APN 572-124-006-6 MICHAEL J & R S TRE PLISHNER KEMPER C TRE STONE DAVID B TRE LARGE 114 ST ALBANS RD 118 ST ALBANS RD 120 ST ALBANS RD KENSINGTON CA 94707 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-124-007-4 APN 572-124-008-2 APN 572-124-009 EILEEN J TRE VANHEUIT MARK NG ROBERT L CHARPENTIER 122 ST ALBANS RD 128 ST ALBANS RD 136 ST ALBANS RD KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-124-010-8 APN 572-124-011-6 APN 572-124-012-4 SYLVIA L EVERETT JOHN ILYIN EYLEEN S NADOLNY 133 WINDSOR AVE 714 SYCAMORE AVE 125 WINDSOR AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 MODESTO CA 95354 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 572-124-013-2 APN 572-124-014 APN 572-124-015-7 GILBERT It & LINDA M WARD LOSELIMA HINGANO RICHARD LEVIN 121 WINDSOR AVE 2012 SACRAMENTO ST 111 WINDSOR AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 BERKELEY CA 94702 KENSINGTON CA 94707 APN 572-124-016-5 APN 572-124-017-3 APN 572-124-018-1 JANICE E KOSEL ELLIOT TRE FAN CATHIE TRE KOSEL 109 WINDSOR AVE 105 WINDSOR AVE 101 WINDSOR AVE KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 KENSINGTON CA 94708 APN 570-011-014 SUSAN T TRE TATSUNO 169 ARLINGTON AVE KENSINGTON CA 94707 Dennis M.Barry,AICP Comr-nunity Contra 1tr' 4ommi.in#tY Development Director Development Cost. Department Count County Admintstration Building _- 651 Pine Street 4th Floor,North Wing Martinez,California 94553-0095 Phone, (925)335-1210 r Date` k g$ AGENCY COMMENT REQUEST We request your comments regarding the attached application currently under review. DISTRIBUTION Please submit your comments as follows: wilding Inspection �� _ .HSD,Environmental Health,Concord Project Planner IVSD,Hazardous Materials r_ PIW-Flood Control Tull Size) County File .-- _ PIW-Engineering Svcs(Full Size) Number: ,� '�" 34t Date Forwarded PAV Traffic(Deduced) Prior To:A P! 'Special Districts(Reduced) Comprehensive Planning We have found the following special programs J Redevelopment Agency apply to this application: Historical Resources Information System _. CA Native Amer.Her. Comm. o-Redevelopment Area. CA Fish.&Game,Region US Fish &Wildlife Service YKActive Fault Zone Fire.District' �^ Sanitary District # Flood Hazard Area,Panel# Ls Fater District City 60 dBA Noise Control School District Sheriff Office a Admin.&Comm,Svcs. CA.FPA,Hazardous Waste Site _ Alamo Improvement Association El Sobran P1g..` tying Chml.ttee . Trak Zone MAC DOIT-Dep.Dir r,Co unit CEQA Exempt CAC 114A Alamo Categorical Exeinption Section Community Organizations ; Please indicate the code section of recommendations that are required by law or ordinance. Please send copies of your response to the Applicant&Owner. No comments on this application. Our Comments are attached Cornm.ents` Signature Agency Sxarrcnt planningitemi)latestformslagency commentrequest Date Office Hours Monday n Friday:8:00 a.m.- 5:00 p.m. of irA #q n1n^,Pd the 1 st. 3rd & 5th Fridays of each month