524 cragmont avenue · 3/27/2014 · applicant: carlos plazola, buildzig, 1211 embarcadero, suite...

Z O N I N G

A D J U S T M E N T S

B O A R D

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 BOARD ACTION

MARCH 27, 2014

524 Cragmont Avenue

Appeal of Administrative Use Permit 2013-0159 to rebuild and expand a home destroyed by fire, involving the addition of a third story, the continuation of non-conforming setbacks in the front and east side yards, and a major residential addition (1,357 square feet) that will result in a 3,054 square-foot residence with a 402 square-foot garage. I. Background

A. Land Use Designations:

General Plan: LDR Low Density Residential

Zoning: R-1H Single Family Residential-Hillside Overlay

B. Zoning Permits Required:

Administrative Use Permit to allow a major residential addition exceeding 600 square feet per BMC Section 23D.16.030;

Administrative Use Permit to construct a residential addition exceeding 14’ in average height, per BMC Section 23D.16.070.C;

Administrative Use Permit to construct a residential addition over 20’ in height in the Hillside Overlay District, per BMC Section 23E.96.070 B;

Administrative Use Permit to horizontally extend a non-conforming front yard per BMC Section 23C.04.070.B; and

Administrative Use Permit to vertically extend a non-conforming side yard per BMC Section 23C.04.070.

C. CEQA Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code §21000, et seq. and California Code of Regulations, §15000, et seq.) pursuant to Section 15301.d and 15303.a of the CEQA Guidelines (“Existing Facilities” and “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”). Furthermore, none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply, as follows: (a) the site is not located in an environmentally sensitive area, (b) there are no cumulative impacts, (c) there are no significant effects, (d) the project is not located near a scenic highway, (e) the project

524 CRAGMONT AVENUE ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD of 18 March 27, 2014

\\cobnas1\Planning$\LANDUSE\Projects by Address\Cragmont\524\AUP2013-0159\Document Finals\ZAB 3-27-2014\2014-03-27_ZAB_Staff Report_524 Cragmont.docx

site is not located on a hazardous waste site pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and (f) the project will not affect any historical resource.

D. Parties Involved:

Applicant: Carlos Plazola, BuildZig, 1211 Embarcadero, Suite D, Oakland, CA 94606

Owner: Vinco Properties, LLC, 1250-A Fairmont Drive, Suite 216, San Leandro, CA 94578

Appellants: Daniel and Sara Sanders, 540 Cragmont Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94708 Gil and Leslie Faust, 535 Cragmont Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94708

Figure 1: Vicinity Map

540 (Appellant)

535 (Appellant)

Subject Property

ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD 524 CRAGMONT AVENUE March 27, 2014 of 18


Figure 2: Site Plan



Figure 3: Elevations



Table 1: Land Use Information

Location Existing Use Zoning District General Plan Designation

Subject Property Residential R-1H Low Density Residential (LDR)

Surrounding Properties

North Residential R-1H LDR

South Residential R-1H LDR

East Residential R-1H LDR

West Residential R-1H LDR

Table 2: Special Characteristics

Characteristic Applies to Project?

Explanation

Creeks No The property is shown on the City’s Creek list, but visual inspection by the owner and a survey by Moran Engineering indicate that the creek is located south of the subject property. City staff verified that the project is outside of the creek buffer

Historic Resources No No designated or potential historic resources on the site.

Oak Trees Yes A Coast Live Oak Tree is located two – three feet from the east property line and approximately 10 feet from the southeast corner of the existing building.

Seismic Hazards No Property is not mapped within any seismic hazard areas.

Fire Zone Yes The property is located in Fire Zone 2.

Soil/Groundwater Contamination

No No record of any uses involving hazardous materials at the subject property.

Table 3: Project Chronology

Date Action

January 14, 2013 Application submitted

March 26, 2013 Plans revised

October 4, 2013 Plans revised

November 19, 2012 Application deemed complete

December 19, 2013 Notice of Administrative Decision mailed/posted

January 6, 2014 Appeal filed

March 12, 2012 Public Hearing Notices Mailed/Posted

March 27, 2014 ZAB Hearing



II. Project Setting A. Neighborhood/Area Description:

The project site is located on Cragmont Avenue, a winding residential street in the Berkeley Hills west of, and below Grizzly Peak Boulevard, and between Alta Road and Acacia Avenue. The neighborhood is characterized by single-family homes in a variety of building styles. Most were constructed in the early to mid-20th century and feature views of San Francisco, the Bay, the Bay and Golden Gate Bridges, and Marin County.

B. Site Conditions:

The property is 50 feet wide by 135 feet deep. It is has an average slope of 30%, with the back of the property approximately 40 feet lower than the elevation of the property at the street. City records indicate that there is a creek along the southern property line at the bottom of the property, however based on photographs supplied by the applicant and the August 27, 2013 survey, the creek does not run on this property. Public Works staff visited the site in June 2013 and verified that the project is outside of the creek buffer. The existing 1,697 square-foot home was badly damaged by a fire in 2005 and has not been habitable since that time. The single-car, attached garage is located at the street level and 2’-6” from the front property line, a setback that is similar to the garages on either side. One portion of the main floor is located 14 feet from the front property line, with the entrance set back another eight feet. The main floor sits approximately five feet lower than the sidewalk and garage. The home is a single-story structure at the front of the lot, and a two-story structure at the back. The building is located almost four feet from the property line on the east side and six feet away from the west property line. The back yard is terraced, but is overgrown and has debris from the fire and more recent foundation work and installation of story poles. There is a large oak tree located two or three feet from the east property line, and approximately ten feet from the southeast corner of the existing building.

III. Project Description The proposed project calls for demolishing the existing house and building a replacement house on the existing foundation. A substantial increase in the floor area would be accomplished by a) adding an additional story and b) expanding the house to the south beyond the existing footprint of the house. These additions would add 1,357 square feet to the house, creating a 3,054 square-foot building, with a 402 square-foot garage. The architectural style of the house would change from a mid-century traditional style with a moderately pitched roof, stucco walls and simple window and door mouldings to a contemporary design featuring a flat roof, glass block and a combination of stucco and natural or roughsawn wood board siding. The house would reuse the foundation of the existing structure and would extend past the back foundation line into the rear yard. The expansion would range from zero feet along the eastern edge of the house, up to 23 feet approximately 14 feet from the east property line, and 13 feet at the western edge of the house. The expansion would be asymmetrical,



located primarily on the southwest corner of the house and angled toward the southwest. The angle is designed to take advantage of the view and to avoid the oak tree adjacent to the east property line. The structure would consist of three floors:

Lower (1st) floor: family room, bedroom and two bathrooms;

Main (2nd) floor: kitchen, dining room, living room, half bath and office; and

Upper (3rd) floor: two bedrooms and two bathrooms. The garage will be situated a half level above the main floor and will have access to the house via a stairway down to the main floor. The back of the home will have a deck on the southwest corner of the third floor, off of the master bedroom, and a 396-square-foot deck on the second floor off of the main living area. The rear yard is proposed to have a patio adjacent to the southwest portion of the house, with a water feature wrapping around the patio from the east side to the southwest sides. The water feature will consist of a ‘waterfall’, (water following the north-south slope of the property with small (3- to 4-inch increment) drops in elevation) and a wading pool approximately three feet deep.

IV. Community Discussion A. Neighbor/Community Concerns: A pre-application poster was erected by the

applicant prior to submitting the application to the City in January 2013. Staff posted the Notice of Zoning Officer Decision on December 19, 2013 at the site and at two locations and sent notices to owners and occupants within a 300 foot radius and to interested neighborhood groups. The Zoning Officer’s decision to approve the Administrative Use Permit (AUP) was appealed in a joint petition by Dan and Sara Sanders, and Gil and Leslie Faust on January 6, 2014. See Attachment 2 for the appeal petition. Staff scheduled the appeal for the March 27, 2014 ZAB hearing. Since the application has been submitted, staff has been in contact with neighbors regarding the project. The concerns have focused primarily on loss of views, the appropriateness of the design, and the height of the project. The applicant revised the plans in March 2013. In order to help address the concerns, staff recommended that the applicant and neighbors use the mediation process provided by the City. One mediation meeting was held on June 7, 2013; see Attachment 4 for the mediator’s comments. The applicant redesigned the project after the mediation meeting in many ways, including the following:

Removed a third floor deck/roof garden;

Removed a second floor expansion four feet beyond the existing foundation at the southwest corner;

Reduced the height of the structure by 1.5 feet;

Pushed the third floor away from the north (front) elevation and toward the south (back) and west; and

Redesigned the elevations.



In addition to the concerns mentioned in the appeal, staff received two other correspondences from neighbors. Sylvain Bournhonesque, the owner of 548 Cragmont, wrote a letter supporting the appeal, and requesting that the new structure be built within the parameters of what the zoning ordinance allows by right. Amrita Singhal, the owner of 515 Spruce, sent staff an e-mail expressing concern about possible water-borne vectors, particularly mosquitoes, which could result from the proposed water features. The water features are not subject to discretionary review, but staff recommends adding a condition that the building plans will indicate how the water shall be circulated to prevent a vector problem. If the features do become a magnet for mosquitoes, Alameda County Vector Control would be the responsible agency. Both communications are included in Attachment 9.

B. Committee Review: No committee reviews are required.

V. Issues and Analysis A. Key Issues:

1. Views (535 Cragmont): The appellants express concern over the loss of views from their respective properties that would result from this project. The Faust family lives across the street at 535 Cragmont and currently enjoy views from their main living area of the San Francisco Bay, West Berkeley and Albany, The Fausts state that they will lose their foreground view of Berkeley and Albany, including the view of the elevated BART tracks, from the main living area. The appellants also state concern about the loss of the view from the carport, and the potential loss of view from the utility room, which could be remodeled to add to the gross living area. Both the carport and the utility room are on the ground floor below the main living area.

Staff considered these impacts in assessing the proposed structural changes to the building. 535 Cragmont currently has an unusually expansive view of the east shore of the Bay, compared to its neighbors, because it overlooks the subject property which is much shorter than most of the homes in the neighborhood. The home would still enjoy views of the Bay, San Francisco and Marin County from the main living area. The primary loss of view would be the tree canopy on the hill behind the project, and a portion of the east shore. The view would continue to include the Marina, Eastshore Park, the I-80 and a few blocks of West Berkeley east of the I-80. See Photos 1-3 of Attachment 7 for existing views from 535 Cragmont. Staff does not consider views from outside main living areas, or potential views from additions to the home. The utility room does not currently have a window that faces the subject property. Based on these factors, the Zoning Officer determined that the addition would not unreasonably limit views of the Bay from 535 Cragmont.

2. Views (540 Cragmont): The Sanders family lives next door, immediately east of

the subject property. The Sanders state that their views will be seriously



impacted, and that this loss will deny them the enjoyment of their property and decrease the value of their property.

Staff visited the property to evaluate the view impacts to 540 Cragmont. The proposed structure would be located to the west of the appellant. Currently, that view, while in the direction of Marin County, is heavily filtered by other buildings and trees, particularly the oak tree that is located between the two properties. See Photos 4-6 of Attachment 7 for existing views from 540 Cragmont. The primary view of the Bay and San Francisco from 540 Cragmont would not be affected by the proposed structure. Based on these factors, the Zoning Officer determined that the addition would not unreasonably limit views of the Bay from 540 Cragmont.

3. Mediation: The appellants express concern about efforts to negotiate with the

applicant, both on their own and through the City’s mediation process. The appellants hired an architectural consultant to help the neighbors understand the technical aspects of the drawings. The appellants state that in the mediation meeting, the developers agreed to consult with the architectural consultant and receive input from him on behalf of the neighborhood related to final plans for the project. According to the appellants, this dialogue did not happen, and the consultant was unable to communicate the neighbors’ ideas, suggestions and objections to the plans being developed to the applicant.

The applicant and the appellants had a mediation meeting on June 7, 2013. See Attachment 4 for a statement from the mediator regarding the mediation process for this project. Staff notes that while it is always preferable for neighbors to try to come to an agreement about a project, it is not a requirement. The mediation services provided by the City attempt to provide a forum for discussion, but mediation services and neighbor agreement are not a requirement of any project.

4. Foundation Work: The appellants question the foundation work that was carried

out on the original foundation. Specifically, the appellants believe the work was done without building inspector involvement (i.e. without a building permit), and are concerned about the location of the work in regards to the east property line (the property line between the subject property and 540 Cragmont).

The applicant applied for and received a Building Permit (#13-1293) to strengthen the existing foundation of the building. The work was reviewed and approved by a building inspector on June 13, 2013. The foundation work did involve pouring concrete at the base of the foundation to reinforce it. In some places, this concrete was poured along the outside of the foundation; according to the plans, this additional concrete and drainage rock would have been approximately 2’-3” thick. Based on concerns of the neighbor, the applicant hired a surveyor to verify the location of the property line between the subject property and 540 Cragmont. The survey indicates that the distance from the existing building on the subject property to the east property is 3.8 feet at northeast (front) corner of the house and 4.2 feet at the southeast (back) corner. Below-grade portions of foundations



are not considered when assessing setbacks. Staff has added conditions regarding foundation work for any addition in the southeast corner of the property to protect the root system of the oak tree (Conditions 15 and 27).

5. Story poles: Story poles are typically required for any major second- or third-story addition in the R-1H district. The appellants mention that these poles have been redone several times and that they are difficult to understand. The appellants also state that an independent surveyor’s measurements found the story poles to be almost two feet shorter than the stated height at the front of the house and more than five feet shorter at the back of the house.

The story poles were installed two different times in order to represent the originally submitted project and the final revisions to the project. The neighbors expressed concerns about the heights of the second set of poles. In response, staff asked the applicant to hire an independent surveyor to measure the height and location of the poles. Moran Engineering took the measurements and found that while the poles at the front of the house (over the existing garage) were accurate, the poles behind that point generally ranged from one foot to 1.5 feet below the height shown on the plans. There were also poles at the back which were not correctly placed, in particular a pole delineating the southern corner of the third story bedroom closest to 540 Cragmont. This pole was approximately six feet west of its proper location, and could not be placed in the correct position because of the oak tree’s canopy. Staff believes that the neighbors’ statement regarding the poles being five feet short in the back refers to the fact that the poles at the back reflect the walking surface of the deck off of the family room, and not the railing that would be around the deck. Staff believes that, while the poles are not completely accurate, the discrepancy is small enough and consistent enough for staff and neighbors to account for that difference when evaluating the project. The existing poles are still well below any significant view features and therefore completely accurate poles would not change staff’s conclusions regarding view impacts. Staff sent the surveyor’s findings, site plan (with staff notes indicating discrepancies) and staff reasoning for not requiring replacement story poles to all four neighbors that had expressed concern about the story pole heights (see Attachment 5).

6. Accuracy of Plans: The appellants question whether the architectural plans

reflect the true situation on the site, such as the degree of downward slope on Cragmont from 522 to 524 to 540. They claim that the relationship of the garage doors of 540 Cragmont to the sidewalk is not accurately reflected, and the story poles make the addition look like it will be higher than shown in the plans.

Staff acknowledges that while the north (street) elevation does reflect a downward slope from 522 to 524 to 540, its depiction of the relationship of the 540 Cragmont garage doors to the sidewalk is not completely accurate. However, the story poles have been verified to a relatively high level of accuracy, and while they are slightly lower than the plans indicate they should be, they give



an adequate visual representation of the proposed project’s view and bulk impacts.

7. Type of Discretionary Review: The appellants question the reasoning behind the

consideration of this project as an Administrative Use Permit (AUP) rather than a Use Permit (UP). They believe that the project should have been treated as a Use Permit since it is not rebuilding and adding on to the existing home, but an entirely new building.

The Zoning Ordinance requires a Use Permit for voluntary demolition of homes and a separate Use Permit for construction of new homes. If this house had been demolished by choice, then this project would have required two Use Permits and a hearing before the Zoning Adjustments Board. However, Zoning Ordinance Section 23C.04.100 makes an exception for homes that are destroyed by an involuntary cause, such as fire or earthquake. In these cases, a house may be rebuilt to the same dimensions and in the same location by right (without discretionary review). Additions to the building are permitted and are treated as if they were additions to the existing building prior to the demolition. The ordinance does not specify limits to the additions that are considered.

8. Building Size and Neighborhood Compatibility: The appellants question the finding that the changes to the building will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. They state that most of the homes in the neighborhood were built in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s and are about 2,000 square feet or less in size. The appellants also claim that:

The proposed house would be twice as large as the house at 540 Cragmont, which is 1,500 square feet or less;

It would be larger and more massive than most of the adjacent houses; and

The drawing (north (street) elevation, page #7) makes the 522 Cragmont appear more massive than the proposed house, but that is because it is at a higher elevation. 522 Cragmont is only about 2,200 square feet in size.

Staff compared the proposed 3,054 square-foot building (3,456 square feet counting the garage) to the neighboring buildings. The applicant is correct in stating that most of the homes were built in the 1930s; of the 10 houses on Cragmont closest to and including 524 Cragmont, eight were built in the 1930s, one in the 1950s and one in the 1960s. This home would be a different architectural style from the neighboring houses, but this would not make it incompatible with the neighborhood. In terms of architectural style, there is not a consistent architectural style in the neighborhood (mid-century traditional, Mediterranean, modern, etc.). Many of the homes have gabled roofs, but there are also examples of flat roofs, such as the building across the street at 535 Cragmont. In any case, while mass, bulk and overall architectural quality are generally within the scope of AUP review, questions of architectural style are generally handled through the design review process, which the Zoning Ordinance does not require in this district.



In terms of size, the proposed structure would be larger than most of the neighboring buildings. However, the area of the home would not be significantly larger than buildings in the immediate area. Staff reviewed the average square footage, based on the County Assessor’s records, of the nine closest houses to the subject property (five across the street, and two on either side). The average square footage of the homes is 2,348 square feet, with a range of 1,446 square feet to 3,849 square feet. The County Assessor’s figures only reflect conditioned space, not garages. The homes on the south side of Cragmont are significantly larger than those on the north side; using just those four houses, the average size is 2,980 sf and the sizes range from 2,106 square feet (540 Cragmont) to 3,849 square feet (520 Cragmont). A table with the figures is shown below:

Table 1: Floor area (in sq ft) of Cragmont homes neighboring 524 Cragmont (Figures are from the Alameda County Assessor records as shown in the City’s Parcel Conditions records and reflect conditioned space.)

In terms of massing, the proposed house would be compatible with the surrounding homes. It would appear to be a two-story home from the street, and a three-story building from the back, just like its neighbors. Its massing would be very similar to its neighbors at 522 Cragmont and 520 Cragmont, which present a full two-story façade extending across most of their respective frontages. The proposed house would extend further back than 522 Cragmont, particularly on the southwest corner of the house. Based on the elevations and story poles, the height of the new house would be equal to or lower than its side neighbors.

9. Privacy and Glare (540 Cragmont): The appellants express concern that the

proposed decks will lead to a decreased sense of privacy and increased noise. The appellants also cite concerns that the project’s stainless steel roofing will impact their master bedroom due to noise generated during rainstorms and bright glare.

Staff notes that most of the homes on that side of the street have rear decks from which the view can be enjoyed. Any privacy concerns would be related to situations when people are outside on their decks. Staff considered privacy for interior spaces of neighboring buildings and found that the proposed location of

Address, north side of Cragmont 523 525 535 539 545 Average

Floor area (sq ft) 1957 2283 2016 1446 1510 1842

Address, south side of Cragmont 520 522 524 540 548 Average

Floor area (sq ft) 3849 2698 N/A 2106 3270 2981



windows and decks would be sensitive to these issues, particularly as they would relate to 540 Cragmont. The decks of the proposed home would be angled away from 540 Cragmont. The main deck would have a planter on top of the east-facing railing which would act as a privacy screen for 540 Cragmont, while the deck on the third floor would have an architectural element on the east side, preventing most views toward 540 Cragmont. The windows on the east side of the proposed building would be minimal, except on the ground floor, where they are screened by an existing fence on the property line. Based on these factors, staff has determined that the addition would not unreasonably impact privacy. Staff reviewed websites of roofing companies that install a range of roofing materials to determine whether metal roofs are noisier than other types of roofs in the rain1. The research indicated that metal roofs installed over plywood, thick underlayment or insulation is not louder in rain storms than other roofs constructed of other materials, such as tile or asphalt shingle. The applicant’s architect has stated that the roofing system will be applied over rigid insulation, with the R rating to be determined by the recommendations of the Title 24 report. Staff recommends that the following condition be added to the Conditions of Approval: The building plans shall detail how the metal roof shall be installed and indicate the type of material that will be used to dampen noise resulting from rain or other material hitting the roof. Staff recommends that the following condition be added to the Conditions of Approval to address concerns about glare from the metal roof: The building plans shall specify the type of material to be used on the metal roof. The material shall either be identified in specifications as having a matte or low-glare finish, or shall be painted with a non-reflective paint.

10. Sunlight (540 Cragmont): The appellants are concerned about the loss of sunlight in the summer and fall on the west side of the house. There is one window on this side of the house, and it is adjacent to the master bedroom. The appellants have additional concerns that this loss of sunlight will allow mold and mildew to develop, possibly leading to serious health issues.

Staff has evaluated the shading impacts of the home on 540 Cragmont. While the addition would shade the master bedroom window, this would not be unreasonable or unusual in an area that has a development pattern of two- and three-story buildings located within 10 feet of each other.

B. General and Area Plan Consistency:

1 http://www.roofingbycurry.com; http://www.mcguireconstructiontoday.com; http://www.savageroofing.com.

http://www.roofingbycurry.com/

http://www.mcguireconstructiontoday.com/

http://www.savageroofing.com/



General Plan Policy Analysis: The 2002 General Plan contains several policies applicable to the project, including the following: 1. Policy LU-3–Infill Development: Encourage infill development that is

architecturally and environmentally sensitive, embodies principles of sustainable planning and construction, and is compatible with neighboring land uses and architectural design and scale.

2. Policy LU-7–Neighborhood Quality of Life, Action A: Require that new development be consistent with zoning standards and compatible with the scale, historic character, and surrounding uses in the area.

3. Policy UD-24–Area Character: Regulate new construction and alterations to ensure that they are truly compatible with and, where feasible, reinforce the desirable design characteristics of the particular area they are in.

4. Policy UD-25 Facades and Exterior Features: Buildings should have significant

exterior features that stimulate the eye and invite interested perusal. Staff Analysis: The project addresses all of the above policies through a design that uses architectural creativity and detail that results in a sensitive in-fill development. While a different design from the other single-family homes in the area, the proposed building is not out of scale with the surrounding neighborhood in terms of massing or height. The design includes architectural detail that enhances its visual interest and helps to reduce the mass of the building. See the Issues and Analysis section of this report for more details.

5. Policy UD-32–Shadows: New buildings should be designed to minimize impacts on solar access and minimize detrimental shadows. Staff Analysis: The project would create additional shadows due to the additional floor and the addition at the back of the house. These impacts are not substantially different from the shadows that the existing two/three story structures currently cast in the neighborhood, and would not represent a significant impact. See the Findings for Approval in the AUP for more details.

6. Policy EM-5–“Green” Buildings: Promote and encourage compliance with “green” building standards. (Also see Policies EM-8, EM-26, EM-35, EM-36, and UD-6.) Staff Analysis: The project at 524 Cragmont has achieved a 117 score, out of a possible 350 points, on a preliminary GreenPoint Rated Checklist. This score exceeds the minimum 50 points required to receive a GreenPoint rating. This project integrates a high level of energy efficiency, exceeding Title 24 by 15%.



VI. Recommendation

Because of the project’s consistency with the Zoning Ordinance and General Plan, and minimal impact on surrounding properties, Staff recommends that the Zoning Adjustments Board: Uphold the Zoning Officer’s decision to approve Administrative Use Permit AUP 2013-0159, with modified conditions related to water features, and reducing noise and glare from the metal roof as presented in Attachment 1, and dismiss the Appeal.

Attachments:

1. Notice of Administrative Decision, AUP2013-0159 (includes approved plans) – with modified conditions 2. Appeal received January 6, 2013 3. Applicant’s rebuttal to the Appeal, received March 18, 2014 4. Statement from mediator 5. Correspondence from staff to neighbors regarding story pole measurements 6. Supplemental Project Plans, including site survey and shadow studies 7. Photographs 8. Public Hearing Notice 9. Correspondence Received Staff Planner: Elizabeth Greene; [email protected], (510) 981-7410

mailto:[email protected]

524 cragmont avenue · 3/27/2014 · applicant: carlos plazola, buildzig, 1211 embarcadero, suite...

Documents