L A N D M A R K S P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I ...

L A N D M A R K S

P R E S E R V A T I O N

C O M M I S S I O N

N o t i c e o f D e c i s i o n

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-7410 ● TDD: (510) 981-6903 ● Fax: (510) 981-7420

E-Mail: [email protected] Website: http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us/commissions/landmarks/default.htm

MEETING OF: February 4, 2010

Property Address: 2232-34 Haste Street

Also Known As: Brower Houses and David Brower Redwood

Action: Structural Alteration Permit Approval

Application Number: LM #08-40000010

Applicant: William Coburn Architects

WHEREAS, the properties known as the Brower Houses and the David Brower Redwood at 2232-34 Haste Street, were designated a City of Berkeley Landmark on August 7, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Brower Houses and David Brower Redwood are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15308 (Actions by Regulatory Agencies for the Protection of the Environment) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, on September 16th, 2008 an application (LM #08-40000010) was submitted proposing to raise the roof height of the existing third floor (“attic”) to correct a code violation for the required ceiling height of the third floor residential unit, and, as directed by the City Building Department, to add an exterior stair to the east façade in order to meet code requirements for a second means of egress from the third floor of a designated City of Berkeley Landmark; and WHEREAS, on October 16, 2008 the application was determined by staff to be incomplete due to the inadequacy of the plan submittal to provide clarity on existing and proposed conditions, staff concern that the proposed third-floor exit stair was too large and intrusive, and that the location of the stair adjacent to the more visible, east elevation of the residence negatively impacted the historic character, massing and design of the building; and WHEREAS, on December 5, 2008, a second letter of incompleteness was issued by staff, requesting that a final decision be made regarding two newly submitted exiting alternatives, one using the new exterior stairwell, the second using the existing interior circulation and exits as retrofitted according the Historic Building Code; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2010, a new applicants statement and new project plans were submitted which locate the exterior stair adjacent to the south-west corner of the 2232 Haste Street residence in the rear yard area between the two houses (see plan drawings in Attachment 3); and

2232-34 Haste Street (LM #08-40000010) February 4, 2010

WHEREAS, on February 4, 2010 the Landmarks Preservation Commission opened the public hearing, took testimony, and after deliberation voted to approve the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Structural Alteration Permit LM #08-40000010 is hereby approved, based on the findings and conditions contained in Attachment 2.

Attachments 1. Staff Report and analysis, dated February 4, 2010 2. Findings and Conditions, dated February 4, 2010 3. Applicant statement and project plans, received January 20, 2010.

VOTE: 9-0-0-0 Aye: Hall, Johnson, Linvill, Ng, Hansen (temporary appointment for Olsen), Packard, Parsons, Pietras, Wagley, and Winkel

Nay: None

Abstain: None

Absent: None

ATTEST:

Jay Claiborne, Secretary, Landmarks Preservation Commission

2222 Harold Way (LM#10-40000001) February 4, 2010

DATE NOTICE MAILED: February 9, 2010

THE APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRES (15 DAYS) AT 5 PM: February 24, 2010 Appeal must be filed with City Clerk by this date.

TO APPEAL THIS MATTER: Pursuant to Section 3.24.300 of the Landmarks Preservation Ordinance: “An appeal may be taken to the City Council by the City Council on its own motion, by motion of the Planning Commission, by motion of the Civic Art Commission, by the verified application of the owners of the property or their authorized agents, or by the verified application of at least fifty residents of the City aggrieved or affected by any determination of the commission made under the provisions of this chapter”. Any appeal submitted by the public must be in writing, specifying the reasons for the appeal. The appeal fee if filed by the applicant is $1445. If filed by a person other than the applicant, the fee is $79. The City Clerk's Department is located on the first floor at 2180 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704; Phone (510) 981-6900.

NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the Landmarks Preservation Commission to approve or deny a Structural Alteration Permit, the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1. You must appeal to the City Council within 15 days after the Notice of Decision of the action of the

Landmarks Preservation Commission is mailed. It is your obligation to inquire with the Land Use Planning Division (981-7410) to determine when a Notice of Decision is mailed.

2. No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. Section 1094.6(b) or approve (Gov. Code Section 65009(c)(5)) a Structural Alteration Permit may be filed more than 90 days after the date the decision becomes final, as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6(b). Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred.

3. In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a Structural Alteration Permit, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project.

4. If you believe that this decision or any condition attached to it denies you any reasonable economic use of the subject property, was not sufficiently related to a legitimate public purpose, was not sufficiently proportional to any impact of the project, or for any other reason constitutes a “taking” of property for public use without just compensation under the California or United States Constitutions, the following requirements apply: a. That this belief is a basis of your appeal. b. Why you believe that the decision or condition constitutes a “taking” of property as set forth

above. c. All evidence and argument in support of your belief that the decision or condition constitutes a

“taking” as set forth above. If you do not do so, you will waive any legal right to claim that your property has been taken, both before the City Council and in court.

cc: City Clerk’s Office 2180 Milvia Street Berkeley, CA 94704

Tom Beil Goring and Straja Architects 729 Heinz Ave, Suite #1 Berkeley, CA 94710

The Tibetan Nyingma Meditation Center c/o Jack Petranker 2018 Allston way Berkeley, CA 94704

Planning Dept. GIS staff 2120 Milvia St. Berkeley, CA 94704

L A N D M A R K S

P R E S E R V A T I O N

C O M M I S S I O N

S t a f f R e p o r t

2120 Milvia Street, Berkeley, CA 94704 Tel: 510.981.7410 TDD: 510.981.7474 Fax: 510.981.7420

E-mail : [email protected]

FOR COMMISSION ACTION FEBRUARY 4, 2010

2232 Haste Street

Structural Alteration Permit LM #09-40000010 for the addition of an exterior stair and the raising of the third floor roof to create a legal apartment. (Prepared by Jay Claiborne, Acting Secretary)

I. Application Basics

A. CEQA Determination: Categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15331 of the

CEQA Guidelines (Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation). B. Parties Involved:

Architect William Coburn 1224 Center Street Oakland, CA 94607

Property Owner Jay Construction 2286 Shattuck Avenue Berkeley, CA 94704

ATTACHMENT 1

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION Page 2 of 8 February 4, 2010

File: \\cobnas1\Planning$\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Haste\2232\LM 08-40000010\2232 Haste SAP SR 02-4-10.doc

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

2232 Haste Street The Brower Houses

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION 2232 HASTE STREET February 4, 2010 Page 3 of 8


Table 1: Project Chronology Date Action

Sept 16, 2008 Application submitted

January 22, 2010 Application deemed complete

January 25, 2010 Public hearing notices mailed/posted

February 4, 2010 LPC hearing

March 23, 2010 PSA deadline1

Project must be approved or denied within 60 days after being deemed complete if exempt from CEQA, or 60 days after adoption of a negative declaration, or 180 days after adoption of an EIR (Govt. Code Section 65950).

II. Background

The property at 2232-34 Haste Street, including the two existing buildings and landscape feature collectively known as the Brower Houses and the David Brower Redwood, was initiated for designation as a City Landmark on August 7, 2008. The language for the Notice of Decision (NOD) was submitted for review by the Landmarks Preservation Commission on September 4, 2008. The designated features of significance for the 2232 Haste Street residential building are listed as follows:

building’s massing, composition, and scale,

fish scale wooden shingles in gables,

regular rectangular, vertically oriented, wooden shingles on second floor exterior walls,

horizontal board siding at first floor and basement level,

trim boards at corners and decorative trim around windows,

original window bays and window placement, particularly on north and east facades,

wooden, double-hung, windows, generally one over one,

mitred diagonal board “boxing” under roof eaves overhanging second floor,

main front door, wooden, with single lite,

open, inset, wooden front porch including turned column and decorative wooden railing, wooden deck flooring and ceiling, and side porch with similar features,

wooden steps to both porches, front and east side, with wooden cheek walls on front porch,

gabled and cross-gabled roof, including “pop out” third floor additions dating to period of significance. Pop-outs have board siding and simplified double-hung windows,

roofing appearance resembling shingles, and

the band of rectangular horizontal panels boxed with board facing along the top of the first story; and

As documented in the nomination report prepared jointly by Berkeley residents Steve Finacom and John English, the front house (2232 Haste) is a two-story Queen Anne Victorian



built in 1887, with a later expanded and usable third story attic. The rear house (2234 Haste Street) is a two-story wood frame, gabled roofed structure, also with a useable attic. A prominent landscape feature of the property where he had lived most of his young life is a single coastal redwood tree that was brought as a sapling from the San Franisco peninsula and planted by David Brower in 1941, a year before he left to serve in WWII. The property was owned and generally occupied by various members of the Brower family from 1902 to 1960. As documented in the nomination report, both houses were subdivided into at least six separate residential units, including the owner’s unit, from as early as 1910. The report also notes that David Brower noted in his autobiography that his father “(raised) the roof to give us dormer windows and sleeping space at 2232 where there had only been an attic before.” From other evidence, the expansion probably occurred between 1916 and 1919. Despite the attic expansion which may have been to accommodate bedroom space for David and his siblings, the large Brower family presumably occupied fairly constrained and perhaps convoluted quarters, since as many as four households came to share the multiple units in the two houses. The multi-unit character of the two houses is clearly part of the historic character of the property. David Brower, whose association with the property is a prime reason for its historic significance, lived for most of his childhood and young adult life at 2232 Haste Street. His parents, Ross and Mae Brower, were married in Berkeley in 1906 and moved to Ann Arbor, Michigan where his father studied engineering. In 1909, they moved back to Berkeley and lived in the family residence at 2232-34 Haste Street, purchased by Ross’ father in 1902, until they found residence nearby at 1402 Carleton Street where David was born in 1912. Four years later, in 1916, they moved back to 2232-34 Haste Street where David lived until he left for the Army in 1942. Upon his return from service in 1945, he and his wife Anne whom he had married while home on furlough in 1943, may have lived in one of the units at 2232 Haste with their growing family. Their first child had been born before they moved back to Berkeley and their second child was born at Alta Bates Hospital in 1946. In 1947, they were able to move into a new house built on a lot they had bought on Stevenson Street in the North Berkeley Hills where they lived until David Brower died at age 88 in 2000.

III. Project Description (taken from the applicant statement) The proposed project includes raising the roof height of the existing third floor (“attic”) to correct a code violation for the required ceiling height of the third floor residential unit. In addition, as directed by the City Building Department, an exterior stair is proposed to meet code requirements for a second means of egress from the third floor. The current design locates the exterior stair adjacent to the west corner of the 2232 Haste Street residence in the rear yard area between the two houses (see plan drawings).

IV. Issues and Analysis

The project was first submitted for review on September 16, 2008. At that time the exterior stair was proposed to be located on the east side of the 2232 Haste Street residence. Due to



the inadequacy of the plan submittal to provide clarity on existing and proposed conditions, the application was determined by staff to be incomplete on October 16, 2008. In addition there was staff concern that the proposed third-floor exit stair was too large and intrusive and that the location adjacent to the more visible, east elevation of the residence negatively impacted the historic character, massing and design of the building. Meetings were set with the City’s Fire Department and Building & Safety Division to review possible alternatives. A second letter of incompleteness was issued by staff on December 5, 2008, requesting that a final decision be made regarding two submitted exiting alternatives, one using the new exterior stairwell, the second using the existing interior circulation and exits as retrofitted according the Historic Building Code. The proposed modifications are in response to an outstanding notice of code violation issued by the Housing Department. The code requires increasing the ceiling heights of the third floor rental unit by approximately two feet. In addition, the Building Department has indicated that interior improvements related to exiting requirements are problematic and that an external exiting stair is the preferred solution. The required alterations to the third floor to raise the roof two feet are designed to retain the existing configuration of the distinctive attic gabled roofs with their non-conforming ceiling height. For the raised portion of the third floor, the exterior will be finished to match the existing wood shingled walls, some existing wood windows will be relocated and the existing composition shingle roof will be replaced in kind by the new roofing. These alterations will be done in a manner consistent with the exterior materials of the existing third floor “attic” expansion, which may have been done initially as early as 1916. The exterior stairway to provide the necessary second means of egress from the third floor unit is designed for a less visible location at the rear of the historic residence. This stair includes a small wood deck at the third level connecting to the apartment, wood landings and risers and “transparent: wood railings consisting of slender vertical wood pickets. Portions of the stair facing the side property line and rear area are enclosed and faced with horizontal wood siding to match the existing wood siding of the house. Landmarks Preservation Ordinance Review Standards and Criteria (Section 3.24.260.C)

1. For permit applications for construction, alteration or repair:

a. For applications relating to property in historic districts, the proposed work shall not

adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the subject property or the relationship and congruity between the subject structure or feature and its neighboring structures and surroundings, including facade, setback and height; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the district. The proposed work shall also conform to such further standards as may be embodied in the designation of the historic district. Comment: The Landmark property is not within a historic district.



b. For applications relating to structure of merit sites, the proposed work shall not adversely affect the architectural features if architectural merit is the basis for designation; nor shall the proposed work adversely affect the special cultural, educational or historical interest or value if that is the basis for designation. Comment: The subject property is not a structure of merit. It is a designated City Landmark.

The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation

1. A property will be used as it was historically or be given a new use that requires minimal change to its distinctive materials, features, spaces, and spatial relationships.

Comment: The building will not undergo any significant architectural changes to continue its most recent use as a single unit residential home. The historic character of a property will be retained and preserved. The removal of distinctive materials or alteration of features, spaces, and spatial relationships that characterize a property will be avoided.

Comment: The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. The new work will restore, rehabilitate, or replace, where required, portions of the historic building, including windows, wood shingles and roofing materials. The introduction of an exterior stair is located in a rear yard between the two historic buildings in a manner that imposes minimal impact on the relationship of the two strucures and where there is little visibility from the street or from the open side yard and highly visible east facing side elevation of the main residence. Characteristic features, spaces, and spatial relationships associated with the architectural style of the building will be preserved.

2. Each property will be recognized as a physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural features or elements from other historic properties, will not be undertaken.

Comment: The proposed project will not lead to any changes that will create a false sense of historical development. The materials for the exterior stair will be similar to those used on the exterior of the two houses but, to the extent that it is visible, the eexit stair will clearly be perceived as a recent addition.

3. Changes to a property that have acquired historic significance in their own right will be retained and preserved.

Comment: The proposed project will not affect any changes to the property that have acquired historic significance in their own right.

4. Distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize a property will be preserved.



Comment: The required alterations and repairs to the exterior of the building will not affect any distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property. The additional wall height for the raised portion of the third floor residencial unit will be finished with wood shingles that match the existing shingle treatment.

5. Deteriorated historic features will be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a distinctive feature, the new feature will match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials. Replacement of missing features will be substantiated by documentary and physical evidence.

Comment: With the exception of the two additional feet of wall height to be shingled, all window openings will reuse the existing window systems and any deteriorated exterior finishes will be replaced to match the old in design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials.

6. Chemical or physical treatments, if appropriate, will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials will not be used.

1. Comment: Chemical or physical treatments will be used where necessary for fire retardant purposes. All treatments will be undertaken using the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to the historic materials will not be used.

7. Archeological resources will be protected and preserved in place. If such resources must be disturbed, mitigation measures will be undertaken.

Comment: There are no known archaeological resources located at this site.

8. New additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction will not destroy historic materials, features, and spatial relationships that characterize the property. The new work will be differentiated from the old and will be compatible with the historic materials, features, size, scale and proportion, and massing to protect the integrity of the property and its environment.

Comment: The new addition raises the roof level of the main portion of the third floor by approximately 2 feet and does not add to the existing footprint of the home. The new exterior exiting stair to serve the third floor unit has a footprint of approximately 87 square feet and will impose only minimal change to the spatial relationship between the two houses on the property. Materials for the third floor height increase will replicate or reuse existing materials. The exterior stair will use fire-retardant wood materials that are compatible with but distinguished from the wood shingle character of the two houses.

9. New additions and adjacent or related new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired.



Comment: The proposed restoration, rehabilitation, and new construction will be undertaken in such a manner that, if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its environment would be unimpaired for the new exit stair for the third floor residence. The height increase for the third floor is, for all practical purposes, non-reversable. The fact that it is being done to meet code requirements for living space means that there is little, if any probability that it would be removed in the future.

V. Recommendation

The proposed project will not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the landmark property and will permit improvements that are required by current building codes to maintain the existing, multi-unit housing. Because the improvements are being done in a manner that is consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, Staff recommends approval of the request pursuant to Section 3.24.260 and subject to the attached findings (see Attachment 1). Additionally, Staff recommends that any further details and/or alterations be brought back to the LPC or a designated subcommittee for direction and approval.

Attachments: 1. Findings 2. Project plans, date stamped January 20, 2010 3. Landmark Designation Notice of Decision (NOD) 4. Public Hearing Notice Staff Planner: Jay Claiborne, [email protected], (510) 981-7429

A t t a c h m e n t 1

F i n d i n g s a n d C o n d i t i o n s

FEBRUARY 4, 2010

File: G:\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Haste\2232\LM 08-40000010\2232 Haste_ Findings & conditions.doc

2232 Haste Street

Structural Alteration Permit LM #09-40000010

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The applicant proposes to:

1. Increase the height of the third floor residential by approximately two feet to meet current building code for the ceiling height of an existing residential unit.

2. Provide an exterior exit stair for the third floor unit to meet current code requirements for a second means of egress.

CEQA FINDINGS

The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15331 of the CEQA Guidelines (“Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation”). LANDMARKS PRESERVATION ORDINANCE FINDINGS

Pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code Section 3.24.260.C.1, the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley makes the following findings:

a. The project involves increasing the wall height of the existing third floor wall and

roof of the existing “attic” unit. Existing gabled roof elements are not part of the living space and will not be altered. Existing windows will be reused where they are to be relocated to serve the rennovation plan. The increased wall area will be finished with wooden shingles that replicate the existing shingled-treatment. A new external exit stair to serve the third floor unit will be added to the site at the back side of the subject building and set back from the west property line in an open area between the two houses. Materials for the exit stair are compatible with and do not detract from the character of the existing landmark buildings. The landmark landscape feature, a mature redwood tree, is not affected. The proposed work will not adversely affect the exterior architectural features of the landmark nor the special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value of the landmark and its site and buildings.

b. The subject property is not part of a historic district.

c. The subject property is a designated City landmark.

ATTACHMENT 2

FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS Page 2 of 2 February 4, 2010

File: \\cobnas1\Planning$\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Haste\2232\LM 08-40000010\2232 Haste_ Findings & conditions.doc

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR’S STANDARDS FOR REHABILITATION

Regarding the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the Landmarks Preservation Commission of the City of Berkeley makes the following findings:

a. The building will not undergo any significant architectural changes to continue its

original use as a multi-unit residential home. b. The historic character of the property will be retained and preserved. The new

work will restore, rehabilitate, or replace, where required, portions of the historic building, including windows, wood trim, and finish materials. The characteristic features, spaces, and spatial relationships associated with the architectural style of the building will be preserved.

c. The proposed project will not lead to any changes that will create a false sense of

historical development.

d. The proposed project will not affect any changes to the property that have acquired historic significance in their own right.

e. The required alterations and repairs to the exterior of the building will not affect any

distinctive materials, features, finishes, and construction techniques or examples of craftsmanship that characterize the property.

f. The deteriorated or relocated historic features and treatment will be replaced to match the design, color, texture, and, where possible, materials of the house.

g. No chemical or physical treatments will be undertaken.

h. There are no known archaeological resources located at this site.

i. The new floor height is required for code compliance and does not increase the existing footprint of the home and does not significantly alter the exterior appearance of the house from the ground level.

j. The proposed exterior exit stair will be constructed in a manner that, if removed in

the future, would insure that the essential form and integrity of the historic property and its setting would be preserved.

CONDITIONS

None

ATTACHMENT 3

L A N D M A R K S P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I ...

Documents

Transcript of L A N D M A R K S P R E S E R V A T I O N C O M M I S S I ...