Post on 21-Apr-2020
1
Jacob, Melinda
Subject: FW: 1336 Milvia
From: Christopher J. McNamara [mailto:cmcnamara@sefton.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 12:02 PM
To: Vecchio, Michael <MVecchio@ci.berkeley.ca.us>
Cc: 'Jonathan Berlin' <jberlin@rinconconsultants.com>; Bereket, Immanuel <IBereket@ci.berkeley.ca.us>; Zoning
Adjustments Board (ZAB) <Planningzab@ci.berkeley.ca.us>
Subject: RE: 1336 Milvia
Actually, after taking a closer look at the AASHTO guidelines, it appears that 24’ is the front wheels and 21’ is the center
of the front axle. Am I mistaken? If not, it seems like under the AASHTO guidelines, 24’ should be the absolute
minimum, but that more may be appropriate to account for the path of the front overhand of the car.
-Casey
From: Christopher J. McNamara
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:31 AM
To: 'Vecchio, Michael' <MVecchio@ci.berkeley.ca.us>
Cc: 'Jonathan Berlin' <jberlin@rinconconsultants.com>; Bereket, Immanuel <IBereket@ci.berkeley.ca.us>;
'zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us' <zab@ci.berkeley.ca.us>
Subject: RE: 1336 Milvia
Thank you Michael.
I did find what appears to be the AASHTO guidelines, which are attached. It looks to me like 24’ should have been used
rather than 21’ because 21’ is the turning radius at the wheel and 24’ is the turning radius at the end of the car. Is there
a reason you did not use 24’?
Also, after our telephone call yesterday in which you asserted that what are referred to as “minimum design standards”
on the City’s website are only guidelines that you are free to deviate from, I looked at the relevant sections of the
ordinance and the guidelines and do not agree.
The requirements regarding parking are set forth in Chapter 23D.12. The requirements of Chapter 23D.12 apply to all
projects in a residential district. (23D.12.020.A.) No use permit may be granted unless all of the requirements of
Chapter 23D.12 have been met. (23D.12.020.D.) “Dimensional requirements and standards for off-street parking
spaces, driveway and other access improvements and maneuvering aisles shall be incorporated in administrative
regulations, subject to the review and approval by the City Manager and the Board.” (23D.12.040.C.) The “guidelines”
set forth in the Basic Parking Requirements and Driveways and Residential Driveways documents are the dimensional
requirements and standards for off-street parking and driveways. Thus, the minimum dimensions must be met in order
to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 23D.12. If they are not met, no use permit may be granted. (23D.12.020.D.)
That the “guidelines” represent minimum requirements is also reflected in documents on the City’s website. The
Development Review for Parking and Circulation document states: “These guidelines represent the minimum design
standards. The one exception is when compact spaces are allowed they can be 16 ft. in length rather than 18 ft.” The
Residential Driveways document states: “The table below lists the City’s width requirements and the maximum number
of cars that will be permitted to back out into the street.” The Basic Parking Requirements and Driveways uses the word
requirements in its title and also on the document in all caps states: “BASIC PARKING REQUIREMENTS.” Thus, I do not
believe the traffic engineer has any authority to permit less than the minimum requirements. If a project meets the
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 1 of 43
2
minimum requirements, the traffic engineer still has an obligation to determine if the plans are “adequate to create
usable, functional, accessible and safe parking areas and are adequately integrated with the City’s overall street pattern
and traffic flows.” (23D.12.040.B.) But that does not give the traffic engineer the right to allow less than the minimum
requirements, especially, as indicated in Jonathan Berlin’s email to me and confirmed by you during our discussion, you
allowed less than the minimum requirements because, as Jonathan put it, “Michael determined that the proposed
turnaround space for 2 of the 4 off-street parking spaces is adequate, in order to leave a reasonably attractive
residential area on a property with an existing building.”
As we discussed during our telephone call, the proposed development does not meet the minimum parking
requirements for the following reasons:
1. It is not designed to allow 4 cars to turn around and exit the driveway in a forward direction. This requirement is set
forth in the Residential Driveways document. It states that where 4-6 cars are served, no cars can back into the
street. As four cars are served, the turnaround must be suitable for all four cars. During our telephone conversation,
you acknowledged that the proposed plan would only allow for two cars to turn around (which, as discussed below, I do
not agree with). Thus, the proposed plan does not meet this requirement.
2. The aisle for the parallel parking is too narrow. As stated in the Basic Parking Requirements and Driveways
document, the minimum required width of an aisle for parallel parking is 12 feet. The proposed plans show an aisle of
only 11 feet. Thus, the aisle does not meet the minimum required width of an aisle.
3. There is no landscaping between the driveway/aisle and the south lot line. “All paved areas for off-street parking
spaces, driveways and any other vehicle-related paving . . . must be separated from any adjacent rear or interior side lot
line by a landscaped strip at least two feet wide.” (23.D12.080.E.) As you acknowledged during our telephone call, the
plans show no such landscaping.
4. The parking plan is not usable or functional, as required by BMC section 23D.12.040.B. As I stated during our
telephone call yesterday, I do not believe the proposed parking plan is reasonably usable or functional, especially for the
two back parking spots, because there is not a sufficient turnaround space and backing in and out of the spaces would
be very difficult. Your response was that it was theoretically possible for cars to turn around but that you could not
predict whether the residents would actually do so. I do not believe “theoretically possible” satisfies the requirement
that the parking plan be usable and functional. Additionally, your opinion regarding the turnaround space, is based on
an outside turning radius of 21’, which you asserted was the standard used by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”). As stated above, that radius is for the front wheels; the minimum
radius when considering the entire car is 24’. I believe that if you used 24’ feet instead of 21’ you would not find it
theoretically possible that cars could turn around under the current plans.
5. The parking plan is not safe, as also required by BMC section 23D.12.040.B. As I also stated in my telephone call
yesterday, Milvia is a designated Bicycle Boulevard. Thus, in addition to the regular traffic in a residential neighborhood,
it has a significant amount of bicycle traffic by design. The adjacent building on the south is right on the south and east
property lines. The current building on the subject property is set back less than 10’ from the east property line. Thus,
visibility exciting the driveway is very limited. While drivers could safely exit the driveway in a forward direction, they
would not be able to do so when backing out. As discussed above, if the parking lot is used, all four cars will need to
back out of the parking lot, which will create a dangerous situation. The parking plan is plainly not safe.
I request that you reevaluate the parking plan, or at minimum advise the board that it does not meet the minimum
requirements, as the staff report states that “[t]hese parking spaces meet the City’s traffic engineering requirements in
terms of their dimensions and turning room for drivers to pull in and out,” creating the false impression that the plan
does meet the minimum requirements.
Yours truly,
Casey McNamara
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 2 of 43
3
From: Vecchio, Michael [mailto:MVecchio@ci.berkeley.ca.us]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 8:57 AM
To: Christopher J. McNamara <cmcnamara@sefton.com>
Cc: 'Jonathan Berlin' <jberlin@rinconconsultants.com>; Bereket, Immanuel <IBereket@ci.berkeley.ca.us>
Subject: RE: 1336 Milvia
Casey,
We utilize AASHTO templates. AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials. They provide 24’ and 21’ auto turn templates in their manual – as well as turn templates for many
other design vehicles. I am not sure if they are on-line.
Michael Vecchio, P.E.Michael Vecchio, P.E.Michael Vecchio, P.E.Michael Vecchio, P.E. PW, Transportation DivisionPW, Transportation DivisionPW, Transportation DivisionPW, Transportation Division 510 981510 981510 981510 981----6445644564456445
From: Christopher J. McNamara [mailto:cmcnamara@sefton.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:17 PM
To: Vecchio, Michael <MVecchio@ci.berkeley.ca.us>
Subject: 1336 Milvia
Michael:
Thanks for speaking with me earlier. You mentioned an industry standard of 21’ for the outside turning radius. Where
does that standard come from? Or can you tell me where I might be able to find that standard?
Thanks,
Casey McNamara
Christopher J. McNamara
Partner
Sefton Family Law Group, P.C.
One Sansome Street, Suite 2850
San Francisco, CA 94104
415 539-3336
cmcnamara@sefton.com
www.Sefton.com
Please consider the environment before you print this email.
**********************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-
mail [or at (415) 539-3336] and delete all copies of this message. It is the recipient's responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachments for
viruses.
TAX ADVICE: Pursuant to IRS Circular 230, unless expressly stated to the contrary, any tax advice is not intended and cannot be used to (i) avoid penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promote, market or recommend any transaction or matter to another party.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 3 of 43
4
Christopher J. McNamara
Partner
Sefton Family Law Group, P.C.
One Sansome Street, Suite 2850
San Francisco, CA 94104
415 539-3336
cmcnamara@sefton.com
www.Sefton.com
Please consider the environment before you print this email.
**********************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-
mail [or at (415) 539-3336] and delete all copies of this message. It is the recipient's responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachments for
viruses.
TAX ADVICE: Pursuant to IRS Circular 230, unless expressly stated to the contrary, any tax advice is not intended and cannot be used to (i) avoid penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promote, market or recommend any transaction or matter to another party.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 4 of 43
1
Jacob, Melinda
Subject: FW: 1336 Milvia
Attachments: TurnRadii,GreenBook2004.pdf
From: Christopher J. McNamara [mailto:cmcnamara@sefton.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 11:31 AM
To: Vecchio, Michael <MVecchio@ci.berkeley.ca.us>
Cc: 'Jonathan Berlin' <jberlin@rinconconsultants.com>; Bereket, Immanuel <IBereket@ci.berkeley.ca.us>; Zoning
Adjustments Board (ZAB) <Planningzab@ci.berkeley.ca.us>
Subject: RE: 1336 Milvia
Thank you Michael.
I did find what appears to be the AASHTO guidelines, which are attached. It looks to me like 24’ should have been used
rather than 21’ because 21’ is the turning radius at the wheel and 24’ is the turning radius at the end of the car. Is there
a reason you did not use 24’?
Also, after our telephone call yesterday in which you asserted that what are referred to as “minimum design standards”
on the City’s website are only guidelines that you are free to deviate from, I looked at the relevant sections of the
ordinance and the guidelines and do not agree.
The requirements regarding parking are set forth in Chapter 23D.12. The requirements of Chapter 23D.12 apply to all
projects in a residential district. (23D.12.020.A.) No use permit may be granted unless all of the requirements of
Chapter 23D.12 have been met. (23D.12.020.D.) “Dimensional requirements and standards for off-street parking
spaces, driveway and other access improvements and maneuvering aisles shall be incorporated in administrative
regulations, subject to the review and approval by the City Manager and the Board.” (23D.12.040.C.) The “guidelines”
set forth in the Basic Parking Requirements and Driveways and Residential Driveways documents are the dimensional
requirements and standards for off-street parking and driveways. Thus, the minimum dimensions must be met in order
to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 23D.12. If they are not met, no use permit may be granted. (23D.12.020.D.)
That the “guidelines” represent minimum requirements is also reflected in documents on the City’s website. The
Development Review for Parking and Circulation document states: “These guidelines represent the minimum design
standards. The one exception is when compact spaces are allowed they can be 16 ft. in length rather than 18 ft.” The
Residential Driveways document states: “The table below lists the City’s width requirements and the maximum number
of cars that will be permitted to back out into the street.” The Basic Parking Requirements and Driveways uses the word
requirements in its title and also on the document in all caps states: “BASIC PARKING REQUIREMENTS.” Thus, I do not
believe the traffic engineer has any authority to permit less than the minimum requirements. If a project meets the
minimum requirements, the traffic engineer still has an obligation to determine if the plans are “adequate to create
usable, functional, accessible and safe parking areas and are adequately integrated with the City’s overall street pattern
and traffic flows.” (23D.12.040.B.) But that does not give the traffic engineer the right to allow less than the minimum
requirements, especially, as indicated in Jonathan Berlin’s email to me and confirmed by you during our discussion, you
allowed less than the minimum requirements because, as Jonathan put it, “Michael determined that the proposed
turnaround space for 2 of the 4 off-street parking spaces is adequate, in order to leave a reasonably attractive
residential area on a property with an existing building.”
As we discussed during our telephone call, the proposed development does not meet the minimum parking
requirements for the following reasons:
1. It is not designed to allow 4 cars to turn around and exit the driveway in a forward direction. This requirement is set
forth in the Residential Driveways document. It states that where 4-6 cars are served, no cars can back into the
street. As four cars are served, the turnaround must be suitable for all four cars. During our telephone conversation,
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 5 of 43
2
you acknowledged that the proposed plan would only allow for two cars to turn around (which, as discussed below, I do
not agree with). Thus, the proposed plan does not meet this requirement.
2. The aisle for the parallel parking is too narrow. As stated in the Basic Parking Requirements and Driveways
document, the minimum required width of an aisle for parallel parking is 12 feet. The proposed plans show an aisle of
only 11 feet. Thus, the aisle does not meet the minimum required width of an aisle.
3. There is no landscaping between the driveway/aisle and the south lot line. “All paved areas for off-street parking
spaces, driveways and any other vehicle-related paving . . . must be separated from any adjacent rear or interior side lot
line by a landscaped strip at least two feet wide.” (23.D12.080.E.) As you acknowledged during our telephone call, the
plans show no such landscaping.
4. The parking plan is not usable or functional, as required by BMC section 23D.12.040.B. As I stated during our
telephone call yesterday, I do not believe the proposed parking plan is reasonably usable or functional, especially for the
two back parking spots, because there is not a sufficient turnaround space and backing in and out of the spaces would
be very difficult. Your response was that it was theoretically possible for cars to turn around but that you could not
predict whether the residents would actually do so. I do not believe “theoretically possible” satisfies the requirement
that the parking plan be usable and functional. Additionally, your opinion regarding the turnaround space, is based on
an outside turning radius of 21’, which you asserted was the standard used by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”). As stated above, that radius is for the front wheels; the minimum
radius when considering the entire car is 24’. I believe that if you used 24’ feet instead of 21’ you would not find it
theoretically possible that cars could turn around under the current plans.
5. The parking plan is not safe, as also required by BMC section 23D.12.040.B. As I also stated in my telephone call
yesterday, Milvia is a designated Bicycle Boulevard. Thus, in addition to the regular traffic in a residential neighborhood,
it has a significant amount of bicycle traffic by design. The adjacent building on the south is right on the south and east
property lines. The current building on the subject property is set back less than 10’ from the east property line. Thus,
visibility exciting the driveway is very limited. While drivers could safely exit the driveway in a forward direction, they
would not be able to do so when backing out. As discussed above, if the parking lot is used, all four cars will need to
back out of the parking lot, which will create a dangerous situation. The parking plan is plainly not safe.
I request that you reevaluate the parking plan, or at minimum advise the board that it does not meet the minimum
requirements, as the staff report states that “[t]hese parking spaces meet the City’s traffic engineering requirements in
terms of their dimensions and turning room for drivers to pull in and out,” creating the false impression that the plan
does meet the minimum requirements.
Yours truly,
Casey McNamara
From: Vecchio, Michael [mailto:MVecchio@ci.berkeley.ca.us]
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 8:57 AM
To: Christopher J. McNamara <cmcnamara@sefton.com>
Cc: 'Jonathan Berlin' <jberlin@rinconconsultants.com>; Bereket, Immanuel <IBereket@ci.berkeley.ca.us>
Subject: RE: 1336 Milvia
Casey,
We utilize AASHTO templates. AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation
Officials. They provide 24’ and 21’ auto turn templates in their manual – as well as turn templates for many
other design vehicles. I am not sure if they are on-line.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 6 of 43
3
Michael Vecchio, P.E.Michael Vecchio, P.E.Michael Vecchio, P.E.Michael Vecchio, P.E. PW, Transportation DivisionPW, Transportation DivisionPW, Transportation DivisionPW, Transportation Division 510 981510 981510 981510 981----6445644564456445
From: Christopher J. McNamara [mailto:cmcnamara@sefton.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:17 PM
To: Vecchio, Michael <MVecchio@ci.berkeley.ca.us>
Subject: 1336 Milvia
Michael:
Thanks for speaking with me earlier. You mentioned an industry standard of 21’ for the outside turning radius. Where
does that standard come from? Or can you tell me where I might be able to find that standard?
Thanks,
Casey McNamara
Christopher J. McNamara
Partner
Sefton Family Law Group, P.C.
One Sansome Street, Suite 2850
San Francisco, CA 94104
415 539-3336
cmcnamara@sefton.com
www.Sefton.com
Please consider the environment before you print this email.
**********************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY
This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-
mail [or at (415) 539-3336] and delete all copies of this message. It is the recipient's responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachments for
viruses.
TAX ADVICE: Pursuant to IRS Circular 230, unless expressly stated to the contrary, any tax advice is not intended and cannot be used to (i) avoid penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promote, market or recommend any transaction or matter to another party.
Christopher J. McNamara
Partner
Sefton Family Law Group, P.C.
One Sansome Street, Suite 2850
San Francisco, CA 94104
415 539-3336
cmcnamara@sefton.com
www.Sefton.com
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 7 of 43
4
Please consider the environment before you print this email.
**********************************************************************
CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-
mail [or at (415) 539-3336] and delete all copies of this message. It is the recipient's responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachments for
viruses.
TAX ADVICE:
Pursuant to IRS Circular 230, unless expressly stated to the contrary, any tax advice is not intended and cannot be used to (i) avoid penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promote, market or recommend any transaction or matter to another party.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 8 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 9 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 10 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 11 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 12 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 13 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 14 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 15 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 16 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 17 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 18 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 19 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 20 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 21 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 22 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 23 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 24 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 25 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 26 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 27 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 28 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 29 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 30 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 31 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 32 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 33 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 34 of 43
1
Jacob, Melinda
Subject: FW: 9/8/16 ZAB Supplement #2
From: Christopher J. McNamara [mailto:cmcnamara@sefton.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 9:46 AM
To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) <Planningzab@ci.berkeley.ca.us>
Cc: Jill Barash <jill.barash@gmail.com>
Subject: 1336 Milvia Street (ZAB Hearing on Sept. 8)
Dear Zoning Adjustment Board Members:
This concerns the proposed development at 1336 Milvia Street (the “Property”) My wife and I own and live at
1332 Milvia with our two teenage daughters. We are the northern next door neighbors of the Property, who, as
the staff report reflects, will be most negatively impacted by the proposed development on the Property. We
strongly oppose the proposed development and have made our concerns known to the outside planners at
Rincon Consultants. Although I sent a number of emails to Abe Leader at Rincon Consultants, it appears that
only two of them made it into correspondence file provided by Rincon Consultants to the board. Some of the
emails that were not included suggests alternative building layouts and parking arrangements that would
minimize the impact to our house or suggests meetings with Rincon Consultants and the neighbors to discuss
our concerns. We sincerely hoped that through dialogue, the developers would propose a plan that gave due
consideration to our concerns. Unfortunately, that did not prove to be the case, and the staff recommendation
seems to just rubber stamp the proposed plans.[1]
Under section 23B.32.040 of the BMC, the cannot approve an application for a use permit unless it determines
that the construction of a building, structure or addition “will not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort or general welfare of persons residing or working in the area or neighborhood of such proposed
use or be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements of the adjacent properties, the surrounding area
or neighborhood or to the general welfare of the City.” As set forth in my prior correspondence with Rincon
Consultants and further discussed below, the proposed development will be detrimental to the safety, peace,
comfort and general welfare of my family and the neighborhood. The proposed development is also
inconsistent with the purposes of R-2A districts, which including the following: “Protect adjacent properties
from unreasonable obstruction of light and air;” and “Permit only that intensity of use which will be compatible
with existing low density residential structures and will not be detrimental to the immediate neighborhood.”
Even if the proposed addition satisfies all the standards of the zoning ordinance (which it does not), it can be
denied if it would “unreasonably obstruct sunlight, air or views.” (BMC 23D.32.090.)
In light of the obvious detrimental impact to all of the adjacent neighbors and the neighborhood in general, we
were surprised by the staff’s recommendation to approve the proposed development. The staff’s
recommendation is not supported by circumstances of the case. As discussed below, the staff either ignored
issues, failed to give due consideration to the relevant circumstance or reached conclusions based on no
apparent evidence.
The proposed development will be detrimental to the peace, comfort and general welfare of my family.
As noted in the staff report, we oppose the project because it will significantly reduce our privacy and
significantly expand the density of the Property. Only one unit has been used since we bought our house six
years ago. As proposed, three of the four units will be right along our property line. The existing duplex does
not meet the current set back requirements. As can be seen from the photo attached at page 26 of Attachment 2
to the staff report, the south side of our house is very close to the north side of the existing duplex on the
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 35 of 43
2
Property. Our bedrooms and bathrooms are all on the south side of our house, so the windows from the existing
duplex look right into our bedroom and bathroom windows. The proposed new building in the back of the
Property will further reduce our privacy, as it placed right along our property line. The windows of the
proposed new building will look right into our back yard, and the windows on the front of the north side of the
building will look right into our back bedroom and the back of our house. Under these circumstances, it is
impossible for the staff to find, as it purportedly does, “that the project would not significantly impair the
privacy of neighbors.” It will greatly impair our privacy.
The staff seems to go to great lengths to reach its erroneous conclusion, focusing not on the particular project,
but on other properties, such as 1331 Bonita, 1943 Rose, and 1321 Milvia, asserting that because those
properties have rear duplexes that reduce the privacy of their neighbors, the impact to our property is just
typical for the neighborhood. The question, however, is not about other properties; the question is whether the
planned project will have a detrimental impact under “the circumstances of the particular case existing at the
time.” (BMC 23B.32.040.) Identifying three properties that may have a detrimental impact on their neighbors
and then calling the circumstance typical is not considering the particular case of the relevant
project. Moreover, there is no indication of when the duplexes at 1331 Bonita, 1943 Rose, and 1321 Milvia
were constructed, or if they would be allowed under the current zoning ordinance. (Based on the vicinity map,
the duplex at 1943 Rose does not appear to meet the setback requirements.) It is not appropriate to use non-
conforming buildings to use as a bench mark to judge the proposed project.
The staff makes a similar mistake in its discussion of the shadows that will be cast on our property during the
winter months, when, due to short days, sunlight is at a premium. The staff summarized the shadow impacts on
our property as follows: “The west-facing kitchen and master bedroom windows, which are currently shaded in
the morning throughout the year, would experience increased shading during winter afternoons.” And, “New
shadows would almost fully cover the rear yard and deck during the winter at noon and would partially cover
them during winter afternoons.” Nevertheless, the staff concludes that “shadow impacts would be typical of
where two-story rear buildings abut other two-story residences in the neighborhood. Therefore, the project
would not unreasonably obstruct sunlight and would not be substantially detrimental in this regard.” Under the
staff’s reasoning no project would ever unreasonably obstruct sunlight because by definition all buildings of
similar size cast similar shadows. Obviously, the shadows caused by the proposed new building would be
substantially detrimental to our property. It would also be unreasonable as there are a number of alternatives
that would eliminate or minimize the shadows, such as not building the new back duplex, shifting the building
to the south side of the lot, reducing all or part of the building to a single story, reducing the back building to
one unit and shifting the building to the south side of the lot.
The staff’s discussion of views is also flawed. The staff’s reasoning seems to be that, because our view is
already limited, the view would not be substantially degraded by obstructing it. I disagree. As our view is
already limited by a large oak tree and a house to our west, a building that blocks the small view corridor we
have will substantially degrade our view.
The increased density of the Property will also detrimentally impact the peaceful enjoyment of our
property. Obviously, with increased density comes increased noise. How much noise will of course depend
upon how many people live on the property and the age and lifestyles of the people who live there. But, as the
there are ten rooms under the proposed development, there could easily be up to 20 people living on the
property. If a significant number of those people are college students, then it will likely have a significant
impact on us and the other adjacent neighbors.
Each of the issues above should independently be good cause to deny the use permit, but they should not be
viewed in isolation. Considered together, there can be no doubt that the proposed project will be detrimental to
our property and my family’s peace, comfort and general welfare.[2] As discussed above, there are alternatives
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 36 of 43
3
that would minimize the detriment to our property, such as shifting the building to the south or making it only
one story on the north side of the property. The use permit should be denied.
The proposed development will be detrimental to the neighborhood.
As recognized in the staff report, many people (myself included) in the neighborhood have expressed concerns
about the proposed development’s impact density and on parking. The concerns are well-founded. The
proposed development is not consistent with the character of the neighborhood. The neighborhood is
predominately single-family residences, with a few duplexes and two apartment buildings (the apartment
buildings appear to have been built in the 60s or 70s and would likely not be approved today). In reaching its
conclusion that the proposed development is compatible with the neighbor scale and character, the staff only
focuses on the multiple-family development in the neighborhood, stating “the proposed new rear duplex and
remodeled front duplex would be compatible with substantial multiple-family development in the
neighborhood.” The staff simply ignores the numerous single-family residences in the neighborhood. If those
are appropriately considered, the board should conclude that the proposed development is not compatible with
the neighborhood.
Additionally, the staff failed to appropriately consider the development’s impact on parking. As everybody in
the neighborhood recognizes, parking is already a problem and many buildings in the neighborhood do not have
adequate parking. The staff did not give due consideration to the issue, as demonstrated by the following: First,
the staff report states that it is not in a Residential Parking Permit Neighborhood. That is wrong. It is in area
“H” and there is a sign indicating such close to the Property. This mistake obviously should raise concerns
about the staff’s evaluation of the parking concerns. Second, there is no indication that any person on the staff
actually observed the parking at any time, most importantly in the evenings when parking is particularly
difficult. It seems strange that the staff would opine on the proposed development’s impact on parking without
any evaluation of the current parking situation. Third, and most troubling, the staff does not know the City’s
traffic engineering requirements, yet included a statement in the report that “These parking spaces meet the
City’s traffic engineering requirements in terms of their dimensions and turning room for drivers to pull in and
out.” After reading this in the staff report yesterday, I contacted Jonathan Berlin and asked him for a copy of
any report completed by the traffic engineer. He responded that there was no separate report, which prompted
the following email exchange:
Me to Jonathan:
Who evaluates whether the City’s traffic engineering requirements have been met? I’m not
trying to hide the ball here Jonathan. I honestly do not see how the current parking plan allows
adequate space for the cars to turn around? I’d like to see how somebody determined that it
would. Is there any written evaluation? If so, can you send it to me? And, can you send me the
requirements? I’ve seen something on line, but I’m not sure it’s the right thing or that its
complete.
Jonathan to me:
Casey, it’s my understanding that Michael Vecchio, a City traffic engineer, reviewed the
project’s compliance with the Berkeley’s standards for the length and width of parking spaces,
turning radius, etc. I don’t have access to these requirements, but I will try to reach Michael to
find out how he made his assessment.
Me to Jonathan:
Thank you. As you note in your recommendation, a number of the neighbors have raised
concerns about parking. It seems like with such an important issue, a written report from the
traffic engineer would have been included. It is also very troubling to hear that you don’t have
access to the requirements and you don’t know how Michael Vecchio made his assessment, but
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 37 of 43
4
that it is merely your understanding that he did, which suggests that you did not speak with him
yourself but got the information from somebody else. In your recommendation, you
wrote: “These parking spaces meet the City’s traffic engineering requirements in terms of their
dimensions and turning room for drivers to pull in and out.” How can you make that statement if
you don’t know what the requirements are or how Mr. Vecchio made his assessment?
I have not received a response to my last email.
As indicated in my email, it is my understanding that any residential property with parking for four or
more cars must provide space for the cars to turn around so they do not have to back out of the
property. I do not believe the current plan meets those requirements. This is especially important
here. It would be dangerous for the neighborhood and the community in general to have four cars
backing out of the driveway on the Property on a regular basis. Milvia Street is a Bicycle Boulevard and
has a significant amount of bicycle, car, and pedestrian traffic. The south property is right on the
property with no setback from the sidewalk and the front building on the Property has a setback of less
than 10 feet, which would make visibility when backing out difficult in both directions. Thus,
approving a parking plan without a turn-around space that is sufficiently large so that it would actually
be used would be creating a dangerous situation for all those who use Milvia Street, especially
bicyclists.
In addition to the above, I do not believe the proposed development includes the required amount of
open space per unit. Under section 23D.04.050, usable open space cannot include areas that are less
than 10 feet wide. The proposed plans include 149’ of open space for the front unit that is less than 10
feet wide. This area should be excluded from the usable open space calculation. This is not discussed in
the staff report.
The proposed development will have a substantial detrimental and long-term impact on the
neighborhood and in the particular my family and the other adjacent neighbors. The board should deny
the application for the use permit.
Yours truly,
Casey McNamara
Christopher J. McNamara
Partner
Sefton Family Law Group, P.C.
One Sansome Street, Suite 2850
San Francisco, CA 94104
415 539-3336
cmcnamara@sefton.com
www.Sefton.com
Please consider the environment before you print this email.
**********************************************************************
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 38 of 43
5
CONFIDENTIALITY This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review, use, distribution or disclosure
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient (or authorized to receive for the recipient), please contact the sender by reply e-
mail [or at (415) 539-3336] and delete all copies of this message. It is the recipient's responsibility to scan this e-mail and any attachments for
viruses.
TAX ADVICE: Pursuant to IRS Circular 230, unless expressly stated to the contrary, any tax advice is not intended and cannot be used to (i) avoid penalties under
the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promote, market or recommend any transaction or matter to another party.
[1] The staff report asserts that the developers revised the project to address the concerns of the neighbors across
the street at 1335 Milvia. In contrast, the proposed developers have not revised the plans to address our
concerns. [2] Ironically, the staff seems more concerned with the projects impact on the oak tree in the property behind our
house (that cast large shadows over our property in the summer) than the impact on our property. None of the
staff’s proposed conditions address our concerns, but two of the proposed conditions are intended to minimize
the impact to the oak tree.
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 39 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 40 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 41 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 42 of 43
SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS RD.2 - 1336 MILVIA ZAB 09-08-16 Page 43 of 43