attachment 6 zab 06-23-16 page 1 of 19 · 2016-06-23 · our block has miraculously escaped the...

1

Jacob, Melinda

Subject: FW: For ZAB Packet: Letter of opposition to the 2321 California St project

From: Carla Woodworth [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 1:19 PM

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

Subject: For ZAB Packet: Letter of opposition to the 2321 California St project

BY EMAIL

June 16, 2016

Dear Zoning Adjustment Board Members,

Re: 2321 California Street Project

I join others in Berkeley to express concerns about a proposed development at 2321 California Street.

I am worried about the impact of out-of-scale development on the texture and character of our city. All over town

empty lots are being filled with massive, ugly buildings made of cheap materials with "prison design" narrow windows

and no parking.

This project on California Street represents a jarring departure from the character of neighboring homes: modest

Spanish bungalows or Craftsman dwellings from the early 20th Century. The proposed structure looks more like an

intimidating church in the modern brutal style than a single-family home. Not only does it fail to fit the neighborhood--

it impinges on the sunlight of nearby homes. It appears to be another example of the "mansionization" that is eroding

neighborhoods in other Bay Area cities such as Palo Alto. The coastal cities of the Bay Area are afflicted with a New

Guilded Age of arrogant wealth, which is destroying the ability of low and moderate income families to live

here. Developers are expanding, indeed doubling the size of simple homes without any regard for the aesthetic or social

impact.

I hope you will ask the developer to go back, meet with neighbors and come up with a remodeling plan that will not be

an eyesore and will instead blend into the historic neighborhood.

Sincerely,

Carla Woodworth

2335 Parker Street #2

Berkeley, CA 94704

Virus-free

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.

ATTACHMENT 6 ZAB 06-23-16 of 19

To: Berkeley ZAB Board

From: Glen Schneider, Connie Jacowitz, 2325 California St. Berkeley

Date: June 16, 2016

Subject: Opposition to proposed development at 2321 California St; request for continuance

We have lived in our house here on California Street for 32 years. We feel we know the

neighborhood well. We support incremental development such as second stories in our

neighborhood. We also feel that development should be consistent with the character of the

neighborhood.

We are asking for a continuation on this project. We made progress in the staff sponsored

mediation. We found a way to save one of our magnificent Red Oak street trees that had been

targeted for removal. Unfortunately, the developer abruptly terminated mediation. We believe a

ZAB sponsored continuation would give the needed push to get back to talking to resolve the

remaining issues.

Style out of character with the neighborhood

The current proposal, with its bizarre modernistic façade and strange materials is completely out

of character with the neighborhood. Every house facing the street on our block (including

duplexes and one commercial corner building) is in the 1920’s bungalow style, either craftsman

or Spanish. Our block has miraculously escaped the blight of boxy apartments and modernistic

cubes and we want to keep it whole.

Unreasonable loss of sunlight, views and privacy

The size of the proposed building would make it the largest structure on our block; in fact nearly

twice the square footage of the average single-family residence here.

The neighbors directly to the north of the project (2319) will lose nearly all sunlight on all the

gathering rooms of their south side (kitchen, dining, living rooms) for two full months bracketing

the Winter solstice. This is unreasonable loss of sunlight, at the time of year when it is most

precious. (Please see the shadow studies)

The proposal extends the two story structure 20 feet into the back yard, beyond the common rear

footprint line of four adjacent houses. This in effect puts a wall across one-third our back yard.

We will lose important views of the Berkeley Hills, the sky, stars, and horizons.

And, this extension in effect builds an observation tower in the middle of our block’s back yards,

creating visual line of sight access – to the north, east and south - into at least eight back yards.

Whereas now, all our back yards are intimate and secluded, this will create a huge invasion of

privacy. This is unreasonable.


These losses are particularly difficult to accept given the lavish features of the proposal: walk-in

closet and laundry the size of a bedroom, 9-foot ceilings, and double sink bathroom. It does not

seem fair that we should suffer unreasonable losses to sustain unnecessary luxuries.

Request for Story Poles

In truth, we cannot accurately tell how the proposed changes will affect views and privacy,

because story poles were never erected. Planning staff declined our request for story poles,

saying they are not usually used in our part of town. The developer agreed to erect story poles

during mediation, but none were ever erected. We would like to repeat our request for story

poles, and feel that this alone is a solid basis for a continuation.

There is an additional loss created by the size of the building and its protrusion into the back yard

area. Our back yard is a showcase garden of California native plants. We are a highlight of the

Bringing Back the Natives Garden Tour. Each year in May roughly 400 visitors tour the garden.

This tour is co-sponsored by EBMUD, among other public agencies, to encourage low water,

low waste, low chemical gardening. We feel that the second story of the eastern third of the

proposal will seriously detract from the garden’s visual appeal and put a cloud on the larger

cause of ecological living.

The character of our town is changing and we are worried about the future of our city. Please

protect our neighborhood and support mediation.


1

Jacob, Melinda

Subject: FW: Subject: Kate MacNeill's letter to ZAB expressing concerns of proposed construction at 2321 California St

From: Kate MacNeill [mailto:[email protected]]

Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 3:08 PM

To: Frank, James <[email protected]>

Cc: glen schneider <[email protected]>; Tom Walton <[email protected]>

Subject: Subject: Kate MacNeill's letter to ZAB expressing concerns of proposed construction at 2321 California St

To: Jim Frank and ZAB

From: Kate MacNeill at 2328 Jefferson Ave.

Date 6/15/16

Subject: opposition to 2321 construction project

*Jim, please forward to ZAB for upcoming meeting on June 23, 2016. Thank-you

I am writing this letter to discuss my concerns regarding the proposed construction at 2321 California

street. My name is Kate MacNeill and I have lived at 2328 Jefferson Street for 20 years. My home is directly

behind the California street property.

My home is a sweet 1275 square foot craftsman house, as are most in the neighborhood. I love our quaint

neighborhood and my home. I am a full time worker and have raised 2 wonderful sons here in Berkeley. My

home has always offered me a serene, peaceful and private setting to unwind and relax from my busy life. If

Joey is allowed to build his proposed house, life as I know it will change drastically in a negative way.

My concerns are about the unreasonable loss of privacy and views I will experience if this project proceeds, not

to mention the bizarre architectural design that will be an eyesore in our very cute, historical Magee Spalding

neighborhood.

I have emailed Jim Frank pictures of my home demonstrating the negative impact of the project and letters from

my neighbors protesting this construction. Hopefully you have them all in your packets.

Joey Consos recently purchased the home on 2321 California Street and plans on extending the current footprint

20 feet closer to our shared property line and is doubling the height. If he goes ahead with these plans I will


2

loose all privacy in my backyard and kitchen. The top story has a master bedroom in the back. The east facing

wall is all windows that will afford Joey a view of the Berkeley hills but also a view of my hot tub, rose garden

patio where I bar-b-que and through my kitchen windows. Currently the California St home is roughly the size

of mine so and I am able to enjoy the beautiful sunsets and trees that rise above the rooftops in the

neighborhood. The serenity I experience as I relax in my back yard will be replaced with a view of a house that

towers over my backyard and blocks the sky.

We have met with an architect a few times, to gather information and insight in order to propose feasible

compromises in the design and construction. We tried to come up with ideas that would not decrease Joey’s

living space yet be less intrusive for all neighbors. When we met with Joey he has been nothing but hesitant to

consider any of our concerns or suggested compromises.

The house seems excessive with it’s 9 foot ceilings, which add to the height of the structure, the closets that are

the size of bedrooms and the bathrooms with 2 sinks. He has to remove 6” of soil to accommodate his slab

foundation so we suggested removing additional soil so the house would sit lower. There is a 4 foot rise from

the front sidewalk to the back yard so there is plenty of room to lower and house and still be above sidewalk

level. Our suggestion seemed like a reasonable request but it was shot down. We also suggested lowering the 9’

ceiling heights but again this was not considered.

His original intention was to flip the house, but recently he has said he decided he likes the neighborhood and

wants to move in, so he wants to “build the house he wants and he is within his rights”. I suppose this is true,

however I feel as a Berkeley homeowner I too have rights and they have not been considered. I would think

that if Joey does want to move into the neighborhood he would want to work with his neighbors to come up

with a solution that everyone feels good about.

In closing I would like to say that I do not feel we have been unreasonable yet Joey has walked away from

mediation. We have asked for story poles and he agreed to them yet none were placed. This would have been

quite helpful to further analyze the situation and perhaps put some of our worries at ease, but maybe the

opposite would happen, we will never know.

When he first came to my door to ask for my consent and blessing on his construction I took a look at the

blueprints and although I am not an architect I could tell my life would be negatively impacted. I took him to

my back yard so he could see my concerns and I saw him wince. I read people for a living and could see he had

a brief realization of what he was about to do and how it would impact my life yet still he has remained

inflexible. I would also like to appeal to Joey and ask, “are you sure you need a 2 story modern monstrosity

with 4 bedrooms and 3 bathrooms for you, your wife and young son?”

Sincerely,


3

Kate


1

Jacob, Melinda

Subject: FW: Subject: 5 letters of opposition to the proposed construction at 2321 California St

From: Kate MacNeill [mailto:[email protected]]



Cc: glen schneider <[email protected]>; Tom Walton <[email protected]>

Subject: Subject: 5 letters of opposition to the proposed construction at 2321 California St

Kate MacNeill <[email protected]>

to jfrank

Mr. Franks,

I am Kate MacNeill and I live at 2328 Jefferson Ave. We have not spoken for a while but I recently was given notice that our ZAB

meeting is next week on June 23rd. I wanted to re-email you these 5 emails from neighbors expressing opposition to the Joey's

construction plans for 2321 California Street. Will you please include them in the packet you send to ZAB tomorrow. I will also re-

email you the pictures of my property demonstrating the negative impact I will experience and a personal letter to ZAB that I

composed this morning expressing my concerns, please forward them to ZAB as well.

Thank you for your time,

Kate MacNeill

____________________________________________________________

Kristine Nube <[email protected]> Jan 16 (2 days ago)

Hi Kate- Good to see you tonight. Daniel's putting Camila down, so I thought I'd get the blurb off to you while it was fresh in my mind. Good luck! We are opposed to the current proposed design of the house at 2321 California Street. A six bedroom, concrete “McMansion” that negatively impacts all neighbors in terms of privacy and light is not in keeping with the character and aesthetic of our neighborhood. This is clearly proposed by someone who is entirely profit-driven and with no investment in our neighborhood. I hope that a compromise can be reached which would take into account the developer’s obvious intent to flip this inappropriate house for a large profit with the concerns of long-term home owners in the area—who are the ones truly invested in our Berkeley neighborhood. Kristine and Daniel Nube 2323 Jefferson Ave. ——————————————————————————————————— bill donner <[email protected]>

Jan 16 (2 days ago) Dear Joey, Marianne and I did not have an opportunity to contest your blueprints, so I wanted to voice my concerns. Your plans to add a 2nd story will impact our privacy at 2324 Jefferson Ave.

The linked image cannot be displayed. The file may have been moved, renamed, or deleted. Verify that the link points to the correct file and location.


2

The planned upper story is even closer to our property line than the current single story structure; so it will look into our backyard and cut off our views of sky and the surrounding trees. It distresses me that not only are we affected negatively, but neighbors on all sides will feel the impact of significantly less privacy and sunlight. Also please keep in mind that we live in the Historic McGee-Spaulding District and the modern design of your proposed expansion clashes with the character of our beautiful craftsman neighborhood. -Bill Donner and Marianne Jensen ————————————————————————————————— Kate MacNeill <[email protected] Dennis Nakai: 2330 Jefferson Ave Joey, Dennis Nakai here, I got the blueprints. I am not computer savvy so I came to Kate's to email you. I am formally protesting the structure you plan to build. I don't mind if you stay one level, but the huge two stories you have planned causes me to loose privacy, views and sunlight. I am against you cutting down any trees and the integrety needs to stay a craftsman building and be compatible with the neighborhood. Leave a message on my land line or come by to talk in person (after 2pm). My phone number is: 510-848-4627. Dennis ————————————————————————————————— Laurie Buczek <[email protected]>

9:00 PM (13 hours ago) Peter Brydon, Laurie Buczek, Cody Brydon & Casey Brydon

2320 Jefferson Ave.

Include us in all opposition to the proposed design of the house

at 2321 California Ave. The size and height of it is out of character

with the neighborhood. ______________________________________________________________________________

Hi Kate, This is Keith Johnson, your neighbor two doors down at 2316 Jefferson Ave. (Mr. Franks, I am ccing you on this for your information) I have read the plans for 2321 California St. that were posted on the city of Berkeley’s web site with the zoning application. I can see your concern about how this construction project will reduce the privacy of your back yard (a detriment to your comfort), and share your concerns about the detrimental impact of this architectural design on the character and property values in the neighborhood. I am writing to express my support for your efforts to persuade the Zoning Officer (Mr. Frank) to take your concerns in to consideration when considering this application. And I hope that the builder will cooperate with the neighborhood. I notice that the applicant states that he changed the plans so that instead of a second floor balcony the plans now call for a “green roof” outside of the second floor master bedroom. I think if I were you I would ask the city to require that the plans be changed so that (1) the size of the bed room windows is smaller (i.e. they are now nearly the size of sliding glass door windows, such as could be used to walk out onto the “green roof”), and (2) that the steel beams that would be necessary to support the second floor balcony not be included in the plans, and (3) that the “green roof” be replaced with an angled roof, not as useable as a second floor balcony. I notice that there is a well-placed tree in the line of sight study (p. 34 of the application). This tree is not indicated on any of the other drawings in the package and may have a big impact on your privacy, so it should be clarified (a) whether the drawings submitted to the city are accurate, and (b) what the applicant’s intentions for this tree are if indeed it exists. I would like to make one other comment about the architectural style of the proposed project. The applicant presents a misleading picture of the neighborhood by presenting one example each of several styles of building, as if there is an equal number of each style. This representation is used to justify the choice of a very modern style for this project. This is a misrepresentation of the neighborhood and as such the city is being presented with false evidence upon which to


3

make a decision. The neighborhood is overwhelmingly composed of 1920 bungalows and this style defines the neighborhood, gives it its charm, and contributes quite a lot to the value of the properties here. I understand from talking with you that the builder (Joey) claimed that the modern style is just as popular as the traditional style, and therefore he was comfortable with the idea of being able to flip this house successfully - it would be no problem to find a buyer. This doesn’t make any sense to me. If the traditional style of the neighborhood is just as popular as the modern style and the neighbors want to keep the style of the neighborhood as consistent as possible (and see cash value in doing so) wouldn’t a savy builder who wanted to have the support of the neighborhood for his project listen to the neighbors? I question the good will of this builder, it doesn’t sound like he is a good person to be doing this sort of work in Berkeley. best wishes, Keith Johnson


1

Jacob, Melinda

Subject: FW: Letters in opposition to 2321 California Street development...from Tom Walton

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Tom Walton



Subject: Letters in opposition to 2321 California Street development...from Tom Walton

Jim, thank you so much for all of your time and patience to date regarding this matter.

With ZAB in mind, I just want resend the following on the off chance that they fell through the cracks:

As previously noted, all of the properties that are required to sign the blueprints (the three across California Street to the West plus the ones to the North, South and East of the flipped house) have all written that they oppose the development plans submitted. In addition, elsewhere up and down the block, folks have weighted in:

Micky Duxbury at 2329 California St. writes:

"I am opposed to the current design of the house as it ignores the character and style of homes in the entire neighborhood. It is also distressing that the plans have negative impacts for homes on all sides of the house. I hope that the flipper reconsiders his design in a way that does not impinge on the surrounding houses. He should know that this is an very organized neighborhood and that we will work together to oppose any major intrusion that is not in character with the neighborhood. Surely, he can come to a compromise that is a somewhat larger home but not one that significantly affects sunlight in several directions. He can retain the style of houses on the block and still make the profit he intends to accrue."

Ted Getchell at 2335 California Street writes:

"I agree on all points of contention. Too large, wrong style and clearly profit driven at the neighborhoods expense."

Cathy Cassel and Phyllis Mace at 2308 California Street write:

"We, too, completely agree with our neighbors' concerns about this proposed plan. We are opposed to the size, the negative impact on the neighbors in terms of view, privacy, light and aesthetic character of our street and neighborhood. Thank you for fighting this on all of our behalfs."

SanSan Kwan at 2315 California Street writes:

"This is a disaster. Yes, please add my voice in opposition to the mix. Thanks for your efforts, Tom."


2

Daniel Polsby and Stacy Lavilla at 2326 California Street write:

"Ditto mine and Stacy's objections. How can I help?"

Joel Harris and Amanda Lenning at 2320 California Street write:

"Although I now live in Baltimore, I was born and grew up on California St and am sad to see Berkeley become less "Berkeley" every time I come back...read; developers who exclude the poor and middle class. The proposal for 2321 shows a house that doesn't fit the mold of our block. Please keep us in the loop with regards to any actions that may be underway as I am still very much invested in my neighborhood and wish to return to our old house."

Rebecca Rabkin and Isaac Nicholson at 2306 California Street write:

"We stand with our neighbors in opposing the proposed development at 2321 California Street. This developer's obvious intent is to squeeze every penny he can out of this property (which he undoubtedly intends to sell), to the detriment of the people who actually live here. It is unfortunate that the developer is unwilling to come up with a plan that takes into account neighbors' concerns regarding view, privacy, light and aesthetics. These concerns are unimportant to the developer because he will, as they say, "take the money and run." But they are important to us. We welcome new neighbors that want to make our street, neighborhood, and city a better place to live, but this developer is not one of them."

Keith Johnson at 2316 Jefferson Ave. writes:

I have read the plans for 2321 California St. that were posted on the city of Berkeley’s web site with the zoning application. I can see your concern about how this construction project will reduce the privacy of your back yard (a detriment to your comfort), and share your concerns about the detrimental impact of this architectural design on the character and property values in the neighborhood.

I am writing to express my support for your efforts to persuade the Zoning Officer (Mr. Frank) to take your concerns in to consideration when considering this application. And I hope that the builder will cooperate with the neighborhood.

I notice that the applicant states that he changed the plans so that instead of a second floor balcony the plans now call for a “green roof” outside of the second floor master bedroom. I think if I were you I would ask the city to require that the plans be changed so that (1) the size of the bed room windows is smaller (i.e. they are now nearly the size of sliding glass door windows, such as could be used to walk out onto the “green roof”), and (2) that the steel beams that would be necessary to support the second floor balcony not be included in the plans, and (3) that the “green roof” be replaced with an angled roof, not as useable as a second floor balcony.


3

I notice that there is a well-placed tree in the line of sight study (p. 34 of the application). This tree is not indicated on any of the other drawings in the package and may have a big impact on your privacy, so it should be clarified (a) whether the drawings submitted to the city are accurate, and (b) what the applicant’s intentions for this tree are if indeed it exists.

I would like to make one other comment about the architectural style of the proposed project. The applicant presents a misleading picture of the neighborhood by presenting one example each of several styles of building, as if there is an equal number of each style. This representation is used to justify the choice of a very modern style for this project. This is a misrepresentation of the neighborhood and as such the city is being presented with false evidence upon which to make a decision. The neighborhood is overwhelmingly composed of 1920 bungalows and this style defines the neighborhood, gives it its charm, and contributes quite a lot to the value of the properties here.

I understand from talking with you that the builder (Joey) claimed that the modern style is just as popular as the traditional style, and therefore he was comfortable with the idea of being able to flip this house successfully - it would be no problem to find a buyer. This doesn’t make any sense to me. If the traditional style of the neighborhood is just as popular as the modern style and the neighbors want to keep the style of the neighborhood as consistent as possible (and see cash value in doing so) wouldn’t a savvy builder who wanted to have the support of the neighborhood for his project listen to the neighbors? I question the good will of this builder, it doesn’t sound like he is a good person to be doing this sort of work in Berkeley.

Kristine and Daniel Nube at 2323 Jefferson Ave. write:

We are opposed to the current proposed design of the house at 2321 California Street. A six bedroom, concrete “McMansion” that negatively impacts all neighbors in terms of privacy and light is not in keeping with the character and aesthetic of our neighborhood. This is clearly proposed by someone who is entirely profit-driven and with no investment in our neighborhood. I hope that a compromise can be reached which would take into account the developer’s obvious intent to flip this inappropriate house for a large profit with the concerns of long-term home owners in the area—who are the ones truly invested in our Berkeley neighborhood.

Bill Donner and Marianne Jensen at 2324 Jefferson Ave. write:

Marianne and I did not have an opportunity to contest your blueprints, so I wanted to voice my concerns. Your plans to add a 2nd story will impact our privacy at 2324 Jefferson Ave. The planned upper story is even closer to our property line than the current single story structure; so it will look into our backyard and cut off our views of sky and the surrounding trees. It distresses me that not only are we affected negatively, but neighbors on all sides will feel the impact of significantly less privacy and sunlight. Also please keep in mind that we live in the Historic McGee-Spaulding District and the modern design of your proposed expansion clashes with the character of our beautiful craftsman neighborhood.

Dennis Nakai at 2330 Jefferson Ave. writes:


4

Joey, I got the blueprints and I am formally protesting the structure you plan to build. I don't mind if you stay one level, but the huge two stories you have planned causes me to loose privacy, views and sunlight. I am against you cutting down any trees and the integrity needs to stay a craftsman building and be compatible with the neighborhood. Leave a message on my land line or come by to talk in person. My phone number is: 510-848-4627.

Peter Brydon, Laurie Buczek, Cody Brydon & Casey Brydon at 2320 Jefferson Ave. write:

Include us in all opposition to the proposed design of the house at 2321 California Ave. The size and height of it is out of character with the neighborhood.

Tom Walton

2319 California Street

Berkeley, CA 94703


attachment 6 zab 06-23-16 page 1 of 19 · 2016-06-23 · our block has miraculously escaped the...

Documents