City of Piedmont

MEMORANDUM

CALIFORNIA

DATE: April 11, 2016 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Kevin Jackson, AICP, Interim Planning Director SUBJECT: Modifications to Chapter 17

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11 RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive this report and staff’s presentation of it, take testimony from members of the public and provide comments and/or direction to staff on specific topics so that revisions to Chapter 17 of the Municipal Code (Code) can be drafted for the Commission’s review at a subsequent meeting. BACKGROUND: On March14, 2016 staff provided information to the Planning Commission and public on the status of planned updates to Chapter 17 in which staff outlined the progress made thus far and proposed an outline for making future progress toward completion of the project to revise the Zoning Code and Design Guidelines. Legal Consultant Upon staff’s request, on March 21, 2016 the City Council approved a contract with attorney Judith Robbins for the purpose of assisting staff with the completion of the Zoning Code revisions, with the oversight of the City Attorney. Ms. Robbins has served as Deputy City Attorney in years past, assisted with the Phase I and Phase II code changes, knows Piedmont and its Code well, and has expertise in writing municipal codes. The Built Environment and Data on Variances Staff researched the type and number of variances the Planning Commission approved and denied for the ten year period 2006 through 2015. The results are provided in Exhibit A, pages 11-22. The overwhelming majority of the variance applications were for additions and remodels on existing homes, not new development. The data shows that of the 539 variances from the Zoning Code that were requested, 445 were approved and 94 were denied. That is an overall approval rate of 83%, with the annual approval rate ranging from a low of 66% in 2009 to a high of 92% in 2013 and 2015. What can be inferred from this data? Either the Commission has become quite lenient or the zoning regulations are to restrictive. As for leniency, we might reference March 2013, which was a point when the make-up of the Commission changed significantly. It was then that three commissioners retired and three new commissioners were appointed. During the years prior to this point the average annual approval rate was 78% from 2006 through 2012. After the change in the Commission’s membership, the average annual approval rate was 88% during the years 2013-2015. Certainly the Page 1 of 22

numbers demonstrate a trend of leniency, but not a trend that negates the data showing that over 75% of all variance requests were being granted before this change in commissioners. Are the zoning requirements too restrictive? In asking this question the commission might compare the regulations with the built environment. Piedmont, except for a few vacant lots, is built-out. The City’s basic neighborhood development patterns have been in place for decades and they tend to serve the residents well. There is no indication that the development pattern will change in the foreseeable future. The research on variance applications indicates that the Planning Commission has long recognized that a large majority of properties are existing nonconforming and that the current regulations do not fit the existing built environment. In the discussion that follows, staff has posited several modifications to the Zoning Code based upon the premise that the regulations might better align with existing development so that property owners are not unnecessarily required to seek a variance. DISCUSSION: In this section staff has outlined various potential changes that the Planning Commission might consider making to the Zoning Code. The intent is to incorporate “improvements” to code language to provide clarity to all users of the Code and to adjust the Code so that the regulations reflect the existing built development pattern of the City. The discussion in this report does not include the topics already discussed by the Commission during prior meetings, minor edits, or a new section numbering system. And as outlined in the Next Steps section at the end of this report, more topics will be discussed at future Planning Commission meeting. Parking Requirements The parking requirements of the current Zoning Code, Section 17.16, requires that a conforming parking space be covered, non-tandem, and at least 9 feet wide by 20 feet deep. A compact parking spot must be 7.5 feet wide by 16 feet deep. Table 1 Variance from Parking space dimensions 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

Approved

Denied 5 2 3 2 2 2 3 5 7 3

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0

34

3

As noted in Table 1 the Commission approved 31 of the 35 requests for a variance from the parking size requirements submitted between 2006 and 2015, recognizing that modern cars are smaller than those that were common when the size regulations were adopted in 1976. The Commission might consider reducing the required size of parking spaces in all zones to be 8.5 feet wide by 18 feet deep for a standard space and 7.5 feet wide by 15 feet deep for a compact space. This would align with the Page 2 of 22

requirements in most other cities in the region. In Zone A, but not in Zone E, every third parking space may be a compact size space. The Commission may want to extend this benefit to Zone E. In Zones A and E, the single-family residential zones, the Code ties the number of conforming parking spaces to the number of rooms “eligible for use as a bedroom” (Bedrooms) as well as dwelling unit size as follows:  A dwelling unit 700 square feet or less 1 parking space required  Dwelling units over 700 square feet, up to 4 Bedrooms 2 parking spaces required  Dwelling units over 700 square feet, 5 to 6 Bedrooms 3 parking spaces required  Dwelling units over 700 square feet, 7 to 8 Bedrooms 4 parking spaces required  and another conforming parking space for every two bedrooms in excess of seven. The required number of parking spaces has been an effective regulation that helps to limit the size of single family homes relative to their lot size, to supply off-street parking that is concealed from view, and to supply affordable housing through the City’s second unit program. Yet between 2006 and 2015, the Commission approved 51 of 59 requests for a variance from the number of required parking spaces. For the majority of these requests the variance was approved because there was no room to add an additional conforming parking space when adding a third or fourth bedroom. Thus, should the Commission want to recommend that the parking space dimensions be reduced, the Commission might want to wait and see whether or not the Code change space dimensions had any effect on the ability of property owners to add more, but smaller parking spaces. Table 2 Variance from Parking space number 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

Approved

Denied

3 3 7 2 2 5 2 3 5 18

0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 2 1

50

8

In addition to Commission deliberations regarding the ability of property owners to supply a conforming number of parking spaces, discussions have also revolved around large garages and the potential negative impacts the mass and bulk of these structures have on the property itself, neighboring properties, the neighborhood streetscape, and the environment, with some mention of families with more than three cars being a rarity, regardless of the number of bedrooms in their home. The Commission may want to consider changing the parking regulations for Zone A and E so that no more than three conforming parking spaces would be required, so that:  Dwelling units over 700 square feet, 5 or more Bedrooms 3 parking spaces required As a separate dwelling unit, a Second Unit would require its own dedicated parking space(s).

Page 3 of 22

Additional benefits resulting from these changes might be less area on the lot covered by structure and hardscape, less bulky garages and carports, and additional room to maneuver cars between buildings. Proposed changes to the number of parking spaces required in Zones C and D will be addressed in a later report. Definition of Structures Currently, the Code defines three different types of Structures: Primary Structures: "Primary Structure" means the building on a lot in which the principal use is conducted. In a residential zone, the "Primary Structure" is considered to be the main residence and includes anything that is twelve inches (12”) or higher above existing or proposed grade, constructed or erected on or in the ground, or attached to something on the ground, including but not limited to buildings, decks, balconies, bay windows, cantilevered upper level projections, building eaves, and in-ground and above-ground swimming pools. A "primary structure" does not include accessory structures, secondary structures, underground facilities, or accessory buildings used as tool and storage sheds, playhouses and similar uses in accordance with Section 5.2.2 of the Piedmont Building Code, driveways, sidewalks, on-grade improvements, patios, parking spaces, fences, hand rails and retaining walls, temporary handicap structures and non-structural decorative elements. Accessory Structures: "Accessory Structure" means a detached subordinate, single-story structure or building on a lot, the use of which is appropriate, incidental to, and customarily or necessarily related to the zone and to the principal use of the lot or to that of a main building on the lot. "Accessory Structure" includes but is not limited to a private garage or carport containing space for no more than four automobiles, servants' quarters, swimming pools, pool houses, garden sheds, and guest houses, as defined in this Section, and Second Dwelling Units approved in accordance with Chapter 17D. Secondary Structures: "Secondary Structure" means a subordinate physical element that is twelve inches (12”) or higher above existing or proposed grade, constructed or erected on or in the ground, or attached to something on the ground, which is intended to functionally or decoratively enhance a property. Secondary structures do not include structures that are used for habitation or the storage of vehicles, but are primarily used for recreation, decoration or are a utility feature. Secondary Structures include but are not limited to built-in fountains, ponds or other water features, barbeques and outdoor fireplaces, hot tubs and spas, children’s play structures, dish antennas, arbors, trellises, gazebos, planter boxes, built-in outdoor furniture, and freestanding utility equipment such as backflow preventers, air conditioners and electrical boxes.

The Commission may want to consider revising these definitions to better clarify what improvements are structure (something that is more than 12 inches above grade) and that should therefore be subject to structure coverage limits and set back requirements because of their bulk on the property. In addition, the Commission may want to consider redefining Secondary Structures to a term other than structure to account for their incidental, temporary and/or decorative nature so that they are not subject to coverage limitations or setback requirements, but retain regulations for where they may be placed (such as within 20-foot setbacks from street property lines). Should the Commission be interested in making such revisions to the Structure definitions, it might consider the following: Page 4 of 22



Adding a definition for Structure, such as: "Structure" means any built feature which is constructed or erected, and which is located on the ground or is attached to something having location on the ground, and that is twelve inches (12”) or higher above existing or proposed grade. “Structure” does not include fencing, retaining walls or Site Features.



Better defining the Structure subtypes, Primary Structures and Accessory Structures, so that "Accessory Structure" includes but is not limited to a private garage or carport containing space for no more than four automobiles, servants' quarters, attached or detached decks or balconies, swimming pools that are above ground, pool houses, ground-mounted solar energy systems, plumbed and/or electrified garden sheds, and guest houses as defined in this Section, and Second Dwelling Units, and "Primary Structure" means the Structure or Building on a lot in which the Principal Use is conducted. A "primary structure" does not include Accessory Structures, Site Features, underground facilities, built features outlined in Section 5.2.2 of the Piedmont Building Code, on-grade improvements, temporary handicap structures, or non-structural decorative elements. 

Changing the term for Secondary Structures and clarifying the improvements included in the revised definition, such as: "Site Feature" means a subordinate built feature or Structure that is intended to functionally or decoratively enhance a property and that is primarily used for recreation, decoration or as a utility feature. Site Features include but are not limited to:  In-ground features such as swimming pools, spas, and ponds;  Structures up to 3 feet in height, such as covered waste cart enclosures, bicycle racks, barbeques and outdoor kitchens, hot tubs and spas, planter boxes, hand rails, built-in outdoor furniture, fire tables and pits, and freestanding utility equipment such as backflow preventers, air conditioners and electrical boxes;  Structures up to 5 feet in height, such as covered waste cart enclosures, fountains, and unenclosed pool equipment  Structures up to 10 feet in height, such as temporary handicap structures, outdoor fireplaces, children’s play structures, private dish antennas, arbors, trellises, gazebos, pool equipment sheds, driveway bridges, landscape lighting, and path lighting; and  Structures up to 15 feet in height, such as pole-mounted outdoor light fixtures and flag poles. Site Features do not include Accessory Structures or Primary Structures or built features outlined in Section 5.2.2 of the Piedmont Building Code,

Measurement of Setbacks Currently setbacks are measured to the closest point of a structure, including eaves, awnings, entry steps and other similar features. As noted in the table below, rarely is a variance from setback requirements disapproved by the Planning Commission, particularly when the proposed nonconforming eave or other architectural projection is architecturally consistent with the existing Page 5 of 22

building. Table 3 Total Variance (2006-2015) Variance from front yard setback Variance from side yard setback Variance from rear yard setback. Total

Approved 106 110 31

Denied 17 25 9

331

62

The Commission may want to consider modifying the Code so that setbacks are measured to the “footprint” of the structure, so that eaves and other features that project a maximum distance from the wall (e.g., 3 feet) or steps and landings that stand a maximum dimension from grade (e.g.:,3 feet) could be located within setback areas. This change might better fit with the as-built development pattern in Piedmont. In doing so, the Commission may want to consider a definition similar to the following: 

"Footprint" means the total land area covered by all Accessory and Primary Structures on a lot, measured from outside of all exterior walls and supporting columns or posts, except that the following shall not be considered in determining footprint: 1. The portions of any uncovered and unenclosed decks, porches, landings, or patios, not including railings, which are less than thirty (30) inches above finished grade and which project no more than 36 inches from the Footprint; 2. The portions of any uncovered and unenclosed balconies and stairways, including railings, which are less than six (6) feet above finished grade and which project no more than 36 inches from the Footprint; 3. Eaves and roof overhangs that project up to 3 feet from the exterior wall surface or supporting column or post; 4. Trellises, awnings and similar structures that project up to 3 feet from the exterior wall surface or supporting column or post.

The Commission will want to keep in mind direction it gave staff during a 2012 discussion of creating better definitions and a hierarchy for public streets, public alleys and private roadways in which the City would maintain a 20-foot setback from public streets but require the same setback along public alleys and private roadways as is required from side and rear property lines. For this purpose the Commission might consider revising the Code to employ the term Street Setback rather than Front Yard or Side Street or Rear Street. Concurrent with a Code revision to measure setbacks to “footprints,” the Commission might consider revising the setback dimensions for each zone to make sure that the regulations do not allow for the projection of features over the property line, maintain some “openness” of side, rear, and front yards, and to be aligned with the Building Code, which states that a building wall parallel to and within 3 feet of a property line cannot have any openings (doors and windows) and that there cannot be any projections (e.g., eaves and gutters) within 2 feet of the property line (except garages, which can have a 4-inch projection). Please see the sections below for each zone for revisions to setback dimensions the Commission might consider.

Page 6 of 22

Zone A (Single-family Residential) Regulations Minimums for lot area and street frontage The majority of properties in Piedmont are in Zone A, the principal use for which is single family residential development. Currently, the Code requires that lots be at least 10,000 square feet in area and have 90 feet of frontage. Using data the City has compiled, the average lot size in Zone A is approximately 7,732 square feet. This includes some very small parcels that are part of larger properties (Key System remnants, properties divided by the Piedmont/Oakland boundary), so the more practical average lot size would be closer to 8,000 square feet. Staff has not been able to compile data on street frontages for lots in Piedmont, but in general they tend to range from approximately 40 feet to 100 feet. As the Commission will have noticed in the Code Compliance section of staff reports most properties are nonconforming in both size and frontage. In 2013 the City Council approved a revision to the Zone A lot size regulations. It reads: Each lot shall have a minimum area of ten thousand (10,000) square feet. However, a new lot may be created with a minimum of eight thousand (8,000) square feet if the mean residential lot size within five hundred feet (500’) of the subject in Zone A is eight thousand (8,000) square feet or less.

In addition, the City Council approved a revision to the Zone A lot frontage regulations. It reads: Each lot shall have a minimum of ninety feet (90') frontage on a public or private street. However, a new lot may be created with a minimum of sixty feet (60’) frontage, where the mean lot frontage within five hundred feet (500') of the subject lot in Zone A is 60 feet or less

In Piedmont the development of new lots through subdivision and lot line adjustments occurs rarely. Zone A lots in the eastern side of the City tend to be greater in area than those in the western side. The Commission might consider a revision that would make a 8,000 square feet the standard minimum. This is approximate average size of lots in the zone. The revision would simplify the code, making it easier for property owners, their design professionals, the Planning Commission, and City staff to determine what requirement applies to a property. In addition, if a new lot were to be created under this provision, a smaller lot might provide some measure of affordability while allowing for a comfortably sized home. Should the Commission be willing to consider an 8,000 square foot lot minimum for Zone A, it might also consider a similar modification to the street frontage requirement, reducing the minimum frontage to 60 feet. Again, this will eliminate uncertainty, and bring the regulation closer to the asbuilt development in the City. Setback requirements Currently, the Code requires the following setbacks in Zone A, which are to be measured to “the nearest point of the structure on the lot nearest the lot line, including all eaves, sills, cornices, or architectural projections”: 20 feet from the front property line, or a side or rear property line that abuts a street 4 feet from a side or rear property line

Page 7 of 22

As outlined above in this report, the Commission might consider revising how setbacks are measured, so that the measurement is to the footprint (walls) of the structure or building. Should the Commission be interested in this revision, it might consider revising the required dimensions for Zone A to accommodate this provision while maintaining reasonable openness in front, side and rear yards, as well as consistency with Building Code regulations. As shown in Table 3, the overwhelming majority of setback variances requested and granted are from the front and side setback requirements. In regards to the front and side/rear street setback to Primary and Accessory Structures, the Commission might consider the following:  Maintaining the current 20-foot minimum, recognizing that the allowance of some architectural projections (e.g., eaves, awning, trellises) and a modicum of uncovered porches and stairs within the setback would alleviate the need for variance requests for these commonly approved architectural features. In regards to the side and rear yard setback requirements to Primary and Accessory Structures, the Commission might consider the following revisions:  Requiring a 5 foot setback from the side and rear property lines to the footprint of Primary Structures; and  Permitting Accessory Structures to be located anywhere within the side and rear setback areas, subject to the following requirements:  The entire building must be located within 35 feet of the rear property line;  The maximum Building Height is 15 feet;  The Structure does not contain any habitable quarters; and  A 5 foot setback from the rear property line is required if the lot is a corner lot and its rear property line is the side property line of the adjacent property to the rear. In regards to the setback requirements to Secondary Structures or Site Features, the Commission might consider maintaining the current regulations as follows:  Site Features that are seven feet (7’) high or less, may be located within the five foot (5’) side and rear yard setbacks subject to Staff Design Review. Site Features that are greater than seven feet (7’) high may be located within the five foot (5’) side and rear yard setbacks subject to Planning Commission Design Review. Site Features of any height may be located in the twenty foot (20’) setback measured from a side or rear street, subject to Planning Commission Design Review. The benefits of these revisions to the setback requirements for Zone A might include: property owners would not need to apply and pay for variance applications for architectural features that are consistent with the architecture of the house and are regularly approved by the Commission; regulations that are consistent with the as-built development pattern of the City in which many existing homes have eaves, landings, porches and stairs located within setbacks; some “openness” of side, rear, and front yards is maintained; the regulations would be aligned with the Building Code, which states that a building wall parallel to and within 3 feet of a property line cannot have any openings (doors and windows) and that there cannot be any projections (e.g., eaves and gutters) within 2 feet of the property line (except garages, which can have a 4-inch projection), and design review would be required for nearly all features that might have a potential adverse impact on neighboring properties.

Page 8 of 22

Lot coverage regulations The limit on the amount of the lot that can be covered by structures is meant to preserve a sense of openness and allow for the penetration of sunlight and the growth of trees and other vegetation. As shown in Exhibit A, between 2006 and 2015 the Planning Commission approved 39 of 51 requests for a variance from the 40% structure coverage limit for the lot for a resulting 76% approval rate. During the Commission’s deliberations of these variance requests, there has been some discussion as to whether non-roofed site and landscape features that do not have a significant height such as trellises, fountains and built-in benches should be included in structure coverage calculation since they are not normally perceived as resulting in the same impacts that a building (e.g., a house, garage, elevated deck, pool house) might have. If the Commission is inclined to make such a determination, it might consider exempting such features from the structure coverage regulations. Such a revision might look like the following: 

No more than forty percent (40%) of the total lot area shall be covered by Primary or Accessory Structures or Site Features, except that in-ground swimming pools that are not supported by a structure or retaining wall, temporary handicap structures, Site Features that do not have a solid roof and are not more than 7 feet in height and total no more than 400 square feet in area, and building eaves shall not be counted toward the 40%.

The current Code defines “Hardscape Surface" as follows: “Hardscape Surface” means any non-landscaped surface where vegetation would not easily grow. "Hardscape Surface" specifically includes, but is not limited to, all primary, accessory and secondary structures; paving materials such as concrete, asphalt, brick, stone, or gravel, or wood, including stepping stones or other similar walkways; swimming pools; and patios, decks, balconies, and terraces. "Hardscape surface" does not include building eaves, landscaping or furniture, statuary, or other individual articles used in conjunction with landscaping which individually do not cover more than ten (10) square feet and cumulatively do not cover more than one hundred (100) square feet.

When explaining to property owners and their design professionals what is meant by the term “Hardscape Surface” and the materials that meet this definition, staff often explains it in reverse: “At least 30 percent of the lot must be covered by living plants and landscape material.” This explanation almost always seems to clarify the requirement and its intent. Should the Commission want to bring such clarity to the Code language, it might want to consider replacing the 70% Hardscape Surface limit regulation with a 30% Landscaped Area minimum. In so doing, the Commission might also consider adding a definition for Landscaped Area to ensure that the area is living plant materials (flora) such as trees, shrubs, flowers and grass, that are planted in and cover the ground (not a decorative container), and that it does not include inorganic mulch (e.g., gravel) as a ground cover beneath the plants. CONCLUSION: There are many reasons to make amendments to Chapter 17. Some revisions are mandatory in order to bring the Code into compliance with the General Plan and Housing Element. Other revisions are more discretionary but equally important to improving planning services in the city. In the preparation of this report, staff wished to start the discussion on topics that may lead to the improvement of the Code, and to seek direction from the Commission on those revisions it would like to see incorporated into the Code.

Page 9 of 22

NEXT STEPS: At the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting on May 9, 2016, staff will return with a subsequent report outlining additional potential revisions to the Code, such as: changes to the uses and/or regulations for Zones B, C, D & E; refinement of the design review criteria for multistory and upper level additions; additional project that would be exempt from design review; and additional projects that would be subject to Administrative Design Review. As the Commission provides direction on the revisions it would like to incorporate into the Code staff will create a draft revised Chapter 17. Once all topics have been discussed and directions provided, staff will bring the draft to the Commission for review and request that the Commission make a recommendation to the City Council or direct staff to make further refinements to the revisions and return again with the draft. Once the Planning Commission has made its recommendation, staff will bring the draft revised Chapter 17 and the Commission’s recommendation to the City Council for its consideration. It is anticipated that the hearings related to this project will occur at regularly scheduled Planning Commission meetings, but it may not be discussed at each monthly Commission meeting due to fluctuations in planning application volumes, other large projects that demand staff attention, and/or staffing levels. In addition, it may be discussed at a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and City Council. During the coming months in which revisions to Chapter 17 will be considered, there will be multiple opportunities for public input, and staff will continue to try to reach out to as many Piedmonters as possible. Staff has already assembled a list of residents who wish to receive notices and staff reports directly via email. Anybody who wishes to be added to the list may contact the planning office by calling 510-420-3039 or by emailing me at [email protected]. As this project gets underway once again, there will be a specific link on the City’s website. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A

Pages 11-22

Summary of Variance Requests 2006-2015

Page 10 of 22

Summary of Variance Requests 2006-2015

2006

EXHIBIT A

Approval Rate: 88% Variance

Parking Side Setback Rear Setback Front Setback Side/Rear Street Setback Structure Coverage Hardscape Surface Coverage Floor Area Ratio Building Height Front Yard Landscaping Total

Approved

Denied 8*** 21 2 16* 4 6 0 3 0 0 60

0 1 0 2** 1 2 0 2 0 0 8

*123 Hagar Avenue - extend to within 10’8” of the front property *310 Pacific Avenue - new garage to extend to within 14’5” of the front property line *261 Scenic Avenue - new “hill hiker” landing and carriage to extend to within 2 ft. and the new wood trellis on the face of the garage to extend to within 3’3” of the front property line *118 Woodland Way - Unknown distance 3-13-06 *216 Ricardo Avenue - Extend garage to front property line *37 Artuna Avenue - new bay window to extend to within 16 ft. of the front property line *1816 Trestle Glen Road - Railing along existing garage *190 Estates Drive - new addition to extend to within 19 ft. of the front property line *110 Sea View Avenue - eave of the portico to extend to within 14’ of the front property line *212 Carmel Avenue - Garage to the front property line *1695 Grand Avenue - entry steps to extend to within 8’6” of the front property line *169 Scenic Avenue - deck to extend to within 3 ft. of the front yard property p p line y stairs to extend to within 12 ft. of the front property line; new fascia on the garage roof to extend to within 4’10” of the front property line *1062 Harvard Road - entry stairs to extend to within 1’6” of the front property line *1649 Grand Avenue - Unknown distance 11-13-06 *34 LaSalle Avenue - Inknown distance 11-13-06 **190 Estates Drive - within 19 ft. of the front property line **141 Woodland Way - entry vestibule to extend to within 14’9” of the front property line *** 5 Nonconforming size *** 3 Nonconforming number

Page 11 of 22

Summary of Variance Requests 2006-2015

2007 Variance Parking Side Setback Rear Setback Front Setback Side/Rear Street Setback Structure Coverage Hardscape Surface Coverage Floor Area Ratio Building Height Front Yard Landscaping Total

EXHIBIT A

Approval Rate: 78% Approved

Denied 5*** 19 8 13* 6 5 3 1 0 0 60

1 7 3 2** 0 1 2 1 0 0 17

*321 Ramona Avenue - porch to extend to within 16 ft. of the front property line *105 Nova Drive - trellis on the new garage to extend to within 19 ft. of the front property line *1080 Harvard Road - dormer to extend to within 12 ft. of the front property line *116 El Cerrito Avenue - Unknown distance 5-14-07 *205 Pacific Avenue - garage pillars and entry stair pillar to extend to within 6’1” and 0’ of the front property line, respectively * 242 Sunnyside Avenue - garage to extend to the front property line and the carport trellis to extend to 3 ft. of the front property line *212 Carmel Avenue - garage to extend to the front property line *140 Monticello Avenue - garage to extend to within 2 inches of the front property line *549 Blair Avenue - garage to extend to within 14 ft. of the front property line *400 Highland Avenue - only one covered parking space measuring 11’3” by 17’8” in lieu of the code required minimum of two *60 Hazel Lane - eave to extend to within 13 ft. of the front property line *123 Greenbank Avenue - house to extend to within 14’4” of the front property line *374 Wildwood Avenue - window addition to extend to within 3’7” of the front property line **157 Mountain Avenue - Garage to extend to property line and new entry stairs to extend to 10’6” of this line **201 Park Way - eaves to extend to within 16’10” of the front property line *** 2 Nonconforming size - 9’4” by 19’3” *** 3 noncomforming number

Page 12 of 22

Summary of Variance Requests 2006-2015

2008 Variance Parking Side Setback Rear Setback Front Setback Side/Rear Street Setback Structure Coverage Hardscape Surface Coverage Floor Area Ratio Building Height Front Yard Landscaping Total

EXHIBIT A

Approval Rate: 78% Approved

Denied 10*** 7 2 13* 0 5 2 3 0 0 42

1**** 6 2 2** 0 1 0 0 0 0 12

*162 Estates Drive - Unknown distance 2-11-08 *551 Blair Avenue - trellis to extend to within 10 ft. of the front property line *4 Park Way - construction to extend to within 15’1” of the front property line *110 Woodland Way - new garage to extend to the front property line *27 Cambridge Way - Unknown distance 5-12-08 *1816 Trestle Glen - Unknown distance 6-9-08 *131 Crocker Avenue - eaves to extend to within 17 ft. (and the garage walls approximately 19’8”) of the front property line *52 Sharon Avenue - awning to extend to within 17’3” of the front property line *155 Maxwelton - new house to extend to within 15’6” of the front property line *1139 Winsor Avenue - Unknown distance 10-13-08 *235 Palm Drive - Unknwon distance 11-10-08 *198 Maxwelton Road - new house to extend to within 17’8” of the front property line and the new raised front entry terrace to extend to 13’2” of the front property line *122 Olive Avenue - new garage to extend to the front property line in **150 Woodland Way - garage to extend to within 12 ft. of the front yard property line **104 Dracena Avenue - overhang to extend to within 8’3” of the front property line *** 7 Nonconforming number *** 3 Nonconforming size **** 1 Nonconforming size

Page 13 of 22

Summary of Variance Requests 2006-2015

2009 Variance Parking Side Setback Rear Setback Front Setback Side/Rear Street Setback Structure Coverage Hardscape Surface Coverage Floor Area Ratio Building Height Front Yard Landscaping Total

EXHIBIT A

Approval Rate: 66% Approved

Denied 4*** 6 2 10* 0 2 1 3 1 0 29

0 5 0 4** 1 3 1 1 0 0 15

*120 Dracena Avenue - garage door to be 10’3” from the front property line *47 Jerome Avenue - porch enclosure to extend to within 6 ft. of the front property line *222 Carmel Avenue - stair to extend to within 13’11” and the eave of the new entry to extend to within 18.9” of the front property line *93 Fairview Avenue - porch eave to extend to within 11’7” and the enlarged entry porch column bases to extend to within 17’7” of the front property line *104 Dracena Avenue - Unknown distance 5-11-09 *634 Blair Avenue - entry roof to extend to within 12’10” of the front property line *21 Bonita Avenue- trellis to extend to within 14’5” of the front property line *1042 Winsor - left side addition to extend to within 15 ft.of the front property line *505 Scenic Avenue - proposed garage to extend to within 1’0” of the front property line *12 York Drive - front yard setback of 6’6” **47 Jerome Avenue - porch enclosure to extend to within 6 ft. of the front property line **139 Lake Avenue - addition to extend to within 14’8” and 18’0”, respectively, of the front property line **210 Pacific Avenue - garage to extend to within 1’11” of the front property line **1042 Winsor Ave - right side porch to extend to within 17 ft. of the front property line *** 2 Nonconforming Size *** 2 Nonconforming Number

Page 14 of 22

Summary of Variance Requests 2006-2015

2010 Variance Parking Side Setback Rear Setback Front Setback Side/Rear Street Setback Structure Coverage Hardscape Surface Coverage Floor Area Ratio Building Height Front Yard Landscaping Total

EXHIBIT A

Approval Rate: 79% Approved

Denied 4*** 9 2 9* 2 1 0 0 0 0 27

2**** 1 0 1** 0 1 0 2 0 0 7

*201 Park Way - trellis over the garage and the new front eave to extend to within 15'8" and 16'7" respectively of the front property line *9 Arbor Drive - overhang to extend to within 5 ft. of the front property line *201 Crocker Avenue - Unknown distance 8-9-10 *201 Park Way - trellis over the garage and the new front eave to extend to within 14'2" and 15'1" respectively of the front property line *941 Moraga Avenue - Unknown distance 9-13-10 *155 Maxwelton Road - construction to extend to within 15 ft. of the front property line *121 Fairview Avenue - arbor to extend to within 5'6" and the new deck stairs to extend to within 17'3" of the front property line *127 Hagar Avenue - fascia to extend to 10'4" of the front property line *14 Littlewood Drive - driveway bridge to within 4'10" of the front property line **127 Hagar Avenue - wood fascia (eyebrow) to extend to within 10' 4" of the front property line *** 2 Nonconforming Number *** 2 Nonconforming Size **** 1 Nonconforming Number **** 1 Nonconforming Size

Page 15 of 22

Summary of Variance Requests 2006-2015

2011 Variance Parking Side Setback Rear Setback Front Setback Side/Rear Street Setback Structure Coverage Hardscape Surface Coverage Floor Area Ratio Building Height Front Yard Landscaping Total

EXHIBIT A

Approval Rate: 71% Approved

Denied 7*** 6 2 5* 3 1 1 1 1 0 27

3**** 2 1 1** 1 2 0 1 0 0 11

*2034 Oakland Avenue - Unknown distance 2-14-11 *38 La Salle Avenue - stairs that are greater than 12 in. above grade to extend to within 6 ft. of the front property line *1761 Trestle Glen - elevator lobby to extend to within 16'7" of the front property line *51 Maxwelton Road - spiral staircase to extend to within 15 ft. of the front property line *958 Kingston Avenue - front entry ramp to extend to within 17 ft. of the front property line **290 Scenic Avenue - upper level to extend to within 2 ft. 1-1/2 in. of the front property line *** 5 Noncomforming number *** 2 Noncomforming size **** 3 Nonconforming number

Page 16 of 22

Summary of Variance Requests 2006-2015

2012 Variance Parking Side Setback Rear Setback Front Setback Side/Rear Street Setback Structure Coverage Hardscape Surface Coverage Floor Area Ratio Building Height Front Yard Landscaping Total

EXHIBIT A

Approval Rate: 89% Approved

Denied 5*** 15 4 12* 1 3 0 0 0 0 40

0 4 0 1** 0 0 0 0 0 0 5

*63 Prospect Road - door awning to extend to within 15'8" to the front property line *233 Estates Drive - roof eave at the northeast corner to extend to within 13'10" of the front property line *6 Lorita Avenue - entry stairs to extend to within 16 ft. of the front property line *4 Park Way - new construction to extend to within 17'7" of the front property line *58 Lake Avenue - new garage to extend to within 5 ft. of the front property line *22 Mesa Avenue - entry stairs to extend to the front property line *618 Moraga Avenue - Unknown distance 9-10-12 *408 Moraga Avenue - front trellis to extend beyond the front property line and 2 ft. into the City right-of-way and the new garage wall to extend to within 6 inches of the front property line *358 Wildwood Avenue - Unknown distance 10-8-12 *1653 Grand Avenue - Unknown distance 11-13-12 *471 Mountain Avenue - side yard stairs to extend to the front property line *50 Woodland Way - eaves of the new garage to extend to within 16'8" of the front property line *419 Hillside Court - driveway bridge structure to extend to within 1'6" of the front property line **419 Hillside Court - driveway bridge structure to extend to within 9 inches of the front property line *** 2 Noncomforming number *** 3 Noncomforming size

Page 17 of 22

Summary of Variance Requests 2006-2015

2013 Variance Parking Side Setback Rear Setback Front Setback Side/Rear Street Setback Structure Coverage Hardscape Surface Coverage Floor Area Ratio Building Height Front Yard Landscaping Total

EXHIBIT A

Approval Rate: 92% Approved

Denied 8*** 16 4 7* 0 3 1 7 1 0 48

1**** 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

*233 Estates Drive - flat roof eave and new parapet structure atop the garage to extend to within 13'0" and 14'9", respectively, of the front property line *58 Lake Avenue - eave to extend 6 in. from the front property line and the new covered front porch to extend 16' 2" from the front property line *99 Crest Road - Unknown distance 8-12-13 *213 Sunnyside Avenue - Unknown distance 8-12-13 *25 Artuna Avenue -parapet extension of the garage to extend to the front property line *77 Oakmont Avenue - garage to extend to the front property line *79 Oakmont Avenue - garage to extend to the front property line *** 5 Nonconforming size *** 3 Nonconforming number **** 1 Nonconforming number

Page 18 of 22

Summary of Variance Requests 2006-2015

2014 Variance Parking Side Setback Rear Setback Front Setback Side/Rear Street Setback Structure Coverage Hardscape Surface Coverage Floor Area Ratio Building Height Front Yard Landscaping Total

EXHIBIT A

Approval Rate: 82% Approved

Denied 12*** 12 1 6* 1 6 0 2 1 0 41

3**** 0 0 2** 1 1 0 2 0 0 9

*330 La Salle Avenue - corner of the upper level addition atop the garage to extend to within 10'9" of the front property line *150 Maxwelton Road - roof on the uppermost level to extend to within 11'1" of the front property line *120 Moraga Avenue - new front porch and the eave of the new raised house to extend to within 7'2" and 11'10", respectively, of the front property line *21 Park Way - Unknown distance 5-12-14 *218 Greenbank Avenue - eave of the new front porch and the new front raised walkway to extend to within 16'17" and 19'6", respectively, of the front property line * 30 Arroyo Avenue - Unknown distance **333 Scenic Avenue - Unknown distance 11-10-14 **30 Prospect Road - Unknown distance 12-8-14 *** 4 Nonconforming Number *** 2 Nonconforming number and size *** 5 Nonconforming size ***1 Unknown parking varience **** 1 Nonconforming size **** 2 Nonconforming number

Page 19 of 22

Summary of Variance Requests 2006-2015

2015 Variance Parking Side Setback Rear Setback Front Setback Side/Rear Street Setback Structure Coverage Hardscape Surface Coverage Floor Area Ratio Building Height Front Yard Landscaping Total

EXHIBIT A

Approval Rate: 92% Approved

Denied 21*** 13 4 15* 7 7 1 1 2 0 71

1**** 1 0 2** 1 1 0 0 0 0 6

*261 Scenic Avenue - Unknown distance 1-12-15 *74 Sea View Avenue - Unknwon distance 2-9-15 *110 Maxwelton Road - Unknown distance 2-9-15 *30 Prospect Road - Unknown distance 2-9-15 *122 Dudley Avenue - Unknown distance 3-9-15 *1454 Grand Avenue - Unknown distance 3-9-15 *1456 Grand Avenue - Unknown distance 3-9-16 *55 Sharon Avenue - Unknown distance 4-13-15 *49 Wildwood Gardens - Unknown distance 4-13-15 *327 Jermone Avenue- Unknown distance 4-13-15 *36 Monticello Avenue - garage with a 9’9” setback *585 Mountain Avenue - Unknown distance 8-10-15 *168 Oak Road - Unknown distance 11-9-15 *1317 Oakland Avenue - Unknown distance 11-9-15 *38 Monte Avenue - Unknown distance 12-14-15 **38 Monte Avenue - Unknown distance 3-9-15 **96 Maxwelton Road - Unknown distance 4-13-15 *** 18 Nonconforming number *** 3 Nonconforming size ****1 nonconforming number

Page 20 of 22

Summary of Variance Requests 2006-2015

Total Variance (2006-2015) Variance from Parking space dimensions Variance from Parking space number Variance from front yard setback Variance from side yard setback Variance from rear yard setback. Total

Approved

Variance from Parking space dimensions 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

Approved

Variance from Parking space number 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Total

Approved

Variance from front yard setback

Approved

Total

Denied

34 50 106 110 31 331

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

EXHIBIT A

3 8 17 25 9 62 Denied

5 2 3 2 2 2 3 5 7 3 34

0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 Denied

3 3 7 2 2 5 2 3 5 18 50

16 13 13 10 9 5 12 7 6 15 106

0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 2 1 8 Denied 2 2 2 4 1 1 1 0 2 2 17

Page 21 of 22

Summary of Variance Requests 2006-2015

Variance from side yard setback

Approved 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Total Variance from rear yard setback

Total

Denied

21 19 7 6 9 6 1 16 12 13 110 Approved

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

EXHIBIT A

1 7 6 5 1 2 0 2 0 1 25 Denied

2 8 2 2 2 2 4 4 1 4 31

2 3 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 9

Page 22 of 22