Jacb, Melinda Frm: Subject: Zning Adjustments Bard (ZAB) FW: 3025 Cllege Ave Page 1 f 14 -----Original Message----- Frm: Adam Cper [mailt:cplah@yah.cm] Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 7:00 AM T: Frank, James <JFrank@cityfberkeley.inf>; Zning Adjustments Bard (ZAB) <Planningzab@cityfberkeley.inf> Subject: 3025 Cllege Ave T Whm It May Cncern: We heard abut the appeal related t Rb & Sheila Riemer s backyard fence. We re sending this as a nte f supprt fr their prject, which is acrss the street frm ur huse. We supprt ur neighbr s rights t take reasnable steps t prvide privacy and security where nearby cnstructin has had an impact n their prperty. Having lked at it, we think the Riemer's lattice vertical garden is a reasnable slutin, lks gd and is in scale with the neighbrhd s designs. It des nt impact my views frm my hme and des nt appear t impact views in the neighbrhd. Thank yu, Adam Cper 3040 Cllege Ave 1
Page 2 f 14 January 22, 2017 Igr Tregub, Chairpersn Zning Adjustments Bard (ZAB) 2180 Milvia St. Berkeley, CA 94704 RE: Appeal f Decisin f Administrative Use Permit #ZP2016-0021 (3025 Cllege Ave) Dear Chair Tregub and Bardmembers, Our firm represents Mr. Riemer and Ms. Mran (hereafter Rb and Sheila ), the wner ccupants f 3025 Cllege Ave. We are asking that yu affirm staff s recmmendatin and deny the appeal fr the fence additin at 3025 Cllege Ave. By s ding yu will be permitting Sheila and Rb t mitigate detriment f a prject they were denied the pprtunity t ppse. The Staff Reprt and Findings and Cnditins lay ut excellent reasns fr denying this appeal. What this letter seeks t d is explain why this simple dispute has wund up befre ZAB tnight. The lattice additin t the fence at issue was an attempt t amelirate the harm caused by the cnstructin f a cvered deck at 2700 Prince St. that was dne as a by-right prject, a determinatin that was errneus. (Rb and Sheila have created a supplemental timeline which is attached t this letter. The timeline cntains pictures f the backyard befre and after cnstructin.) Zning Ordinance Precludes By Right Determinatin The cnstructin f the raised attached deck and pergla at its present lcatin shuld never have been allwed as a by-right prject. Our basis fr this cntentin is: The steel pergla is 14 in height (Staff Reprt, pg. 7) which is the trigger height fr an AUP (23D.08.060). We believe it s pssible that the appellant manipulated the grade, which may accunt fr discrepancies. The existing structure exceeds permissible lt cverage (23D.04.040). Lt cverage (building w/ cvered deck) is currently 1883 f 3832 sf. lt 49% where 45% is allwed n a crner lt in an R2A district. Any increase in t the current vilative lt cverage requires a Use Permit (23C.04.070C). At a height f 4 6, this attached deck and pergla extend the building, effectively increasing the structures lt cverage and reduce the usable pen space fr the 4-unit building t much less than the required 300 sf per unit (23D.32.070). 1
Page 3 f 14 Appellant s Misrepresentatins t Staff Lead t the Incrrect By Right Determinatin The appellant (Ms. Jseph) misrepresented bth the height f the prject and the scpe f the remval f screening trees. In fact, there is n recrd f a building permit fr the pergla. Appellant piecemealed her prject. She applied fr just a deck new deck, replace windw (site plan). Yet, after cnstructing the deck w/ rail t a height f 7 (Staff Reprt pg. 7), she built a steel pergla cvering the deck several mnths later. This fllwed the similar pattern t when she remved all the screening trees, which was dne a few mnths befre cnstructin began n the deck. First, telling Rb and Sheila she was nly remving tw small trees and sme shrubs. In fact, she cleared all the screening fliage, afterward sending an email stating srry I didn t mean t mislead yu. I shuld have written I am clearing everything frm the prperty. (See Timeline, pg. 2) Equity Issues Had Sheila and Rb knwn appellants true plan at the utset, they culd have ppsed it r had sme input. Had staff been given the crrect height and true nature f the deck and pergla, they wuld have required at minimum an AUP. Had staff been aware f the pre-existing nn-cnfrming lt cverage, staff shuld have required an AUP. Sheila and Rb and their family were deprived f privacy and security and their right t request that the prject be situated further frm the prperty line r at a lwer height that wuld nt allw an unreasnable impact n their privacy. Prir t the additin f the lattice, peple culd and did lk directly dwn int the backyard f 3025 Cllege Ave. Sheila and Rb repeatedly tried t bring this cnstructin t the attentin f City staff beginning in 2015 with requests fr service, but did nt get a respnse. Cnclusin Had the prcess wrked as designed, and there been ntice and public hearings, a slutin culd have been fund --and we wuldn t be here tnight. The pergla is cnstructed f steel, s it is impractical t demand its remval. Ms. Jseph appealing this decisin by staff is irnic, given that her actins and misstatements created the cnditins frm which she nw appeals. Mrever, nce the vegetatin grws up nt the trellis the lk will be very similar t hw the yard was befre the screening trees were remved and the raised cvered deck cnstructed. Ms. Jseph will have n detriment withut yur apprval, Sheila and Rb will. Whever is at fault in this scenari, it was nt Sheila and Rb. It is wrng fr the appellant t have it bth ways skirt the prcess and then request the City deprive Rb and Sheila their remedy. The appellant shuld nt be 2
Page 4 f 14 rewarded fr misleading and failing t ntify her neighbrs and misrepresenting facts t manipulate the City s prcess. Thank yu fr yur time and cnsideratin f this matter. Best Regards, Nara Dahlbacka 3
Page 5 f 14 3025 COLLEGE AVENUE ZP2016-0021 SUPPLEMENTAL PACKAGE PROVIDED BY ROBERT A. RIEMER & SHEILA A. MORAN This package is prvided as an assist t the Zning Adjustments Bard.
Page 6 f 14 PRIOR TO NEIGHBOR CONSTRUCTION PRIVACY SCREENING TREES/FOLIAGE REMOVED Nvember, 2014 Neighbr emailed me t tell me they were remving 2 small trees and sme shrubs In fact, remved 100% f the fliage including large tree and large shrub alng the fence which had prvided privacy. After the fact, emailed saying srry I didn t mean t mislead yu. I shuld have written I am clearing everything frm the prperty.
Page 7 f 14 CONSTRUCTION OF PATIO March, 2015 Neighbr Builds Elevated Pati Privacy / Safety cncerns Prximity (< 4 ft.) t Riemer fence wuld allw easy views, and even physical access t Riemer yard Rbert reached ut t Jhn Cevasz (Planning) immediately t attempt t discuss March, 2015 Rbert discussin with Jhn Cevasc, inspectr The deck seems versized fr the space and is prbably nt within zning. Cmmented Deck is really tall Nted that the Railing f the deck at the tp f ur fence
Page 8 f 14 June, 2015 Rbert visited neighbr t discuss prch and pergla Privacy / Security / Aesthetic cncerns. Neighbr pintedly stated: Privacy issue is yur prblem. I will d NOTHING t change it. N plan t install privacy screen r fliage alng prperty line July-Sep, 2015 Riemer s have an Immediate cncern as numerus individuals n prch ver the summer Individuals lking int ur yard Yard had n ther fence arund it, s anyne culd access This lasted fr many mnths Prch nly a few feet frm Riemer s s individuals culd ptentially climb ver Several vagrants n prch, several times watching ur children at play Neighbr security fence nt built until 2016
Page 9 f 14 September 7, 2015 RIEMER S FILE NOTICE TO REVIEW CONSTRUCTION FOR CODE COMPLIANCE Sent by Mail and by Fax per requirements. City persnnel ultimately acknwledged receipt, but culd nt explain why n actin was taken. Octber Nvember 2015 Cntinued lack f security and privacy 14 Ft Tall Pergla Cnstructed within 4 Feet f Prperty Line
Page 10 f 14 Nvember 2015 Riemers build Vertical Garden Lattice Is 13 high Nt as tall as Pergla which is 14 tall per Staff Findings Lattice will grw aesthetically appealing vines Riemers did nt have ptin t grw tall prtective vegetatin such as Bamb r Planter Bxes, because f gas lines alng prperty line. Only ptin was t cnstruct an aesthetically appealing Vertical Garden.
Page 11 f 14 January 2016 Discussed with City (Andre) wh recmmended we retrieve and review recrds. We advised him that we believed the deck and verhang shuld have zning review. Requested recrds frm City
Page 12 f 14 January 2016 Riemer s file their AUP AND PAY PROPER FEES $1,930 JANUARY 23-JANUARY 26, 2016 DISCUSS RIEMER PROJECT WITH AVAILABLE NEIGHBORS AND OBTAIN NO OBJECTION FROM 5 OF 6 Went t each neighbr persnally and discussed prject with them. Each neighbr viewed the lattice in its as cnstructed frm. Under Riemer AUP, the neighbrs had a right t vice their cncerns thrugh a prper prcess Opprtunity t vice cncerns wuld have been affrded t Riemer s, had the Neighbr Prch and Pergla undergne Prper Prcess.
Page 13 f 14 February 24, 2016 sent letter t Planning frmally requesting reasns why ur Request fr Service was nt acted n
Page 14 f 14 June 2016 Rbert cmpleted his review f the zning apprvals. Wanted t understand why AUP nt dne there. Was tld Plan Checker wuld have been the ne t call ut fr an AUP. Learned that the Plan Checker was David Lpez Asked Christina Franc t help me schedule an appintment with David Lpez Was unable t reach David r schedule any appintment despite several attempts Was referred t Cde Enfrcement team Nick McIlry and Greg Daniels each referred me back t a different department July 1 July 15, 2016 again reach ut t David Lpez, plan checker via email and telephne. 5 separate attempts, left vicemails with n respnse 6/30/16, 7/1/16 spke t desk trying t get help July 6, 2016 Rbert meeting at Planning Desk Was advised by staff that the 2700 plans had been reviewed again in light f the questins raised, and they agree that errrs were made in apprval. Staff stated that the 2700 prject was nt dne under prper prcess, and if it had been dne under prper prcess, it wuld nt have been apprved. Staff tld me I am still trying t track dwn what happened with the request fr service frm (frm Sept. 2015) yu gave me yesterday. Once I find ut, I ll answer the belw questins. July 12, 2016 Spke t Greg Daniels, fllwing discussin, he advised me it was nt fr his dept. t assist here, and he said it was a matter fr the Planning Dept. Again referred back t anther department. In crrespndence frm Staff was tld Planning made a mistake in permitting the trellis. We have made them in the past and we try t fix them if we can, but building permits have been issued and it s built. In these cases, it s nerus t require the applicant t remve smething was issued a building permit. August, 2016 Meeting with Planning where 2700 plans were reviewed again with supervisr present Cnfirmed that 2700 shuld have had an AUP & neighbrhd input btained