To: Board of Supervisors
From: John Kopchik, Director, Conservation and Development
Report Title: 40 Anson Way Residential Addition Project Appeal (County File #CDDP23-03024)
☒Recommendation of the County Administrator ☐ Recommendation of Board Committee
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. OPEN the public hearing on an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s decision to approve a two-story, 993-square-foot residential addition at 40 Anson Way in the unincorporated Kensington area; RECEIVE testimony and CLOSE the public hearing.
2. DENY the appeal of Kris McClain.
3. DETERMINE that the proposed project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(2).
4. APPROVE a Kensington Design Review Development Plan for the project (County File No. CDDP23-03024).
5. APPROVE the findings in support of the project.
6. APPROVE the project conditions of approval.
7. APPROVE the 40 Anson Way Residential Addition Project.
7. DIRECT the Director of Conservation and Development to file a Notice of Exemption with the County Clerk.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The applicant has paid the necessary application deposit and is obligated to pay supplemental fees to cover all additional costs associated with the application process.
BACKGROUND:
This hearing is an appeal of the County Planning Commission’s March 27, 2024 decision to approve a Kensington Design Review Development Plan (County File No. CDDP23-03024) for a 993-square-foot, two-story addition to the northern side of an existing single-family residence at 40 Anson Way, Kensington.
On May 11, 2023, the applicant submitted a Kensington Design Review application (County File No. CDKR23-00010) for a two-story residential addition to an existing single-family residence to the Department of Conservation and Development, Community Development Division (CDD). Following circulation of a Notice of Intent to Render an Administrative Decision, a letter requesting a public hearing was received on June 7, 2023 from the neighboring property owner at 36 Anson Way. Subsequently, the applicant submitted the CDDP23-03024 Development Plan application.
Kensington Design Review Development Plan CDDP23-03024 was initially heard by the County Zoning Administrator (ZA) on February 5, 2024, during which the ZA accepted testimony from five persons, including the applicant, the property owner, the neighboring property owner, an attorney for the neighboring property owner, and an architect for the neighboring property owner. After receiving testimony and considering the project analysis provided by CDD staff, the ZA approved the Development Plan. Ms. Kris McClain, a neighboring property owner, appealed the ZA’s decision on February 14, 2024.
On March 27, 2024, the County Planning Commission (CPC) heard the appeal of Kensington Design Review Development Plan CDDP23-03024, accepting testimony from five persons, including the applicant, the property owner, the neighboring property owner, an attorney for the neighboring property owner, and an architect for the neighboring property owner. After receiving testimony and considering CDD staff’s project analysis, the CPC voted (4-1) to deny the appeal and uphold the ZA’s approval of the Development Plan. Ms. McClain appealed the CPC’s decision on April 5, 2024.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant requests approval of a Kensington Design Review Development Plan to allow a 993-square-foot, two-story addition behind an existing garage on the northern side of the existing single-family residence at 40 Anson Way. Currently, the northern side of the existing residence is one-story and approximately 13 feet in height. The two-story addition would expand the residential footprint and increase the northerly height of the home to 24 feet.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
The 993-square-foot, two-story addition to the northern side of an existing single-family residence is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(e)(2), which provides a Class 1 exemption for additions to existing structures of no more than 10,000 square feet in an area that is not environmentally sensitive and where all public services and facilities are available for maximum development permissible in the General Plan.
APPEAL
On April 5, 2024, Kris McClain, owner of the northern adjacent residence at 36 Anson Way, filed an appeal of the CPC’s decision to approve the Kensington Design Review Development Plan. The appeal letter, included as Attachment 2, reiterates concerns previously considered by the ZA and the CPC. Summaries of the appeal points in the letter and staff responses are provided below.
Appeal Point 1: The Planning Commission acknowledged that the approval violates the County’s own laws which: (a) require an application for a variance for a three-story project; and (b) require reasonable protection of Ms. McClain’s views, uses, enjoyment, and property values.
Staff Response 1(a): The appellant alleges that the project consists of a third story requiring variance approval based on the definition of “story” in County Ordinance Code Section 82-4.266. This was one of the appeal points considered and dismissed by the CPC based on clarification provided by CDD staff in written materials (CPC Staff Report Section VII(B)) and in oral presentation. At issue is an existing basement located on the opposite side of the existing residence, which the appellant contends should be included in measuring the building height for the proposed addition. Specifically, the relevant consideration as to whether the project violates Section 84-4.802 (Building Height) of the County Ordinance Code that limits the building to a maximum of two and one-half stories in height. Pursuant to the definition of “building height” in County Ordinance Code Section 82-4.214, building height is measured vertically from grade to the top of structure directly above. Since the basement is not located in the area of the proposed addition and is not between grade and the top of the addition, it is not counted when measuring the height of the proposed addition, consisting of two stories and 24 feet in height.
Following the presentation made to the CPC by CDD staff on March 27, 2024, the CPC asked staff a number of questions specific to building height, which demonstrated that the commissioners understood how staff had applied building height ordinances in measuring the proposed addition. No commissioner made any statement suggesting that they disagreed with staff’s interpretation of the building height provisions of the County Ordinance Code, nor did any commissioner state that a variance should be required for the proposed project based on any provision of the County Code.
Staff Response 1(b): The appellant mischaracterizes the findings made by the CPC during the March 27, 2024 meeting. (A video of the meeting is available online for public review at County Planning Commission March 27, 2024 - Mar 27th, 2024 (granicus.com) <https://contra-costa.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=14&clip_id=3224>.) Although all commissioners acknowledged that the project would have some impact on Ms. McClain’s existing views, the consensus view quickly emerged that this impact was not considered “substantial”, which is the standard for consideration in the Kensington Ordinance. The one dissenting commissioner specifically stated agreement that the view impact to Ms. McClain was not “substantial,” but the commissioner desired additional alternative designs be reviewed in an effort to preserve all existing views. Thus, although one commissioner believed that alternative designs should be considered, the CPC’s discussion and actions demonstrate that impacts from the proposed project were not considered substantial based on the evidence in the record. The Kensington Ordinance does not require a comparison of a project with all conceivable alternative designs, rather, it requires the evaluation of potentially substantial impacts that may arise from a specific proposed project. No commissioner stated any objection to the project based on inconsistency with any provision of the County Ordinance Code.
After discussion, the CPC denied the appeal and upheld the ZA’s approval by a vote of 4-1. The findings adopted by the CPC included, among others, that the project proponent has a right to improve the value and enjoyment of their own home, and that the proposed project minimizes impacts on neighboring property owners. Thus, by adopting the findings included in Attachment 1, the CPC explicitly found that the project does not violate the Kensington Ordinance and does not substantially impair the value and enjoyment of the neighbor’s property.
Appeal Point 2: Ms. McClain’s view of Emeryville is a view that should merit “reasonable protection”.
Staff Response: Throughout the planning process, including project review by the Kensington Municipal Advisory Council (KMAC), County Zoning Administrator, and County Planning Commission, the project’s impact on Ms. McClain’s views and the solar impact from an upstairs (second floor) dining room window has been the primary focus of discussion for consideration by the various bodies. To date the project has been considered by the KMAC, the ZA, and the CPC. Each body that has considered the proposed project has acknowledged that the project would impact a view from Ms. McClains home, and each has also found this impact to be less-than-substantial.
At the KMAC meeting on October 25, 2023, one KMAC member commented before making a motion to recommend project approval, that “if [the view of Emeryville] were the primary view of the house, I would be against the project. But it’s not the primary view of the house.” The multiple existing views of San Francisco Bay, including the Golden Gate Bridge and the Bay Bridge, from Ms. McClain’s home that would remain unaffected by the project were also specifically mentioned by the ZA at the February 5, 2024, meeting, and by the CPC at the March 27, 2024 meeting, as prominent considerations in determining the project view impacts to be less-than-substantial. Notably, there was one vote in opposition to the project during the KMAC meeting and one vote in opposition to the project at the CPC hearing. In both cases, the dissenting voters indicated that their vote was not based on a finding that the project had a substantial impact on the neighbor (which is the standard of consideration) but rather, they expressed reservations with the project based on a belief that an alternative design is feasible. As mentioned previously, the Kensington Ordinance does not require a comparison of a project with all conceivable alternative designs, rather, it requires the evaluation of potentially substantial impacts that may arise from a specific proposed project.
The project would impact northerly views toward the City of Emeryville from Ms. McClain’s upstairs dining room window. The view from the impacted window is considered a secondary view, with the primary view being westerly views of San Francisco Bay, toward which Ms. McClain enjoys unobstructed views from five windows in the upstairs (second floor) living area. That the project does not impact any of the neighbor’s numerous existing primary views was the primary consideration by the KMAC, the ZA, and the CPC, each of whom found the project view impacts to be less-than-substantial. The mere existence of any view impact resulting from the project is not evidence that Ms. McClain has been deprived of the reasonable protections afforded under the Kensington Ordinance, as suggested in the April 5, 2024, appeal comments. Therefore, staff finds that reasonable consideration has been given to the impacted views from Ms. McClain’s property, and that the project does not result in substantial impacts to view from the neighboring property.
Appeal Point 3: The definition of “story” in the County Code prohibits approval of the current project without a variance.
The term “story” is defined in Section 82-4.266 of the County Ordinance Code to mean “that portion of a building included between the upper surface of any floor and the upper surface of the floor next above, except that the topmost story shall be that portion of a building included between the upper surface of the topmost floor and the ceiling or roof above. If the finished floor level directly beneath above a basement or cellar is more than six feet above grade at any point, such basement shall be considered a story.” This Code Section defines the term but does not place any limits on how many stories are allowed in any zoning district. For the R-6 Single-Family Residential District in which the project site is located, Code Section 84-4.802 limits “building height” to a maximum of 35-feet and two and one-half stories. The appellant contends that when counting an existing basement on the southern side of the residence that is lower in elevation than both stories within the proposed addition, the project results in a total of three stories, in violation of the County Ordinance Code. However, in evaluating the project’s compliance with building height limitations of the R-6 District, it is necessary to consider the definition of “building height” in Section 82-4.214 of the County Ordinance Code, which states “’Building height’ means the vertical distance measured from grade to the top of structure directly above”. This definition precludes including the existing basement located at one portion of the existing residence with the addition located at an opposite portion of the existing residence. There is no section of the residence where both the basement and addition are located between grade and the top of structure directly above. The County and staff have consistently enforced building height regulations in this manner in Kensington and throughout the County. Pursuant to Code Section 82-4.214, the project proposes an addition measuring 24 feet and two stories in height and is not at variance with the building height limitations for the R-6 District.
Appeal Point 4: Alternative designs exist that would increase space while providing reasonable protection for Ms. McClain as required by the General Plan.
The Kensington Ordinance does not require a comparison of a project with all conceivable alternative designs, rather, it requires the evaluation of potentially substantial impacts that may arise from a specific proposed project. The intent and purpose of the Kensington Ordinance is to balance the rights of the property owner to improve their property with the rights of neighboring property owners to avoid substantial impacts. The absence of substantial impacts resulting from the proposed project, as independently reaffirmed by the ZA and the CPC, supports the applicant’s right to improve the value and enjoyment of the property pursuant to the Kensington Ordinance. There is no provision of the Kensington Ordinance that would compel the project proponent to consider alternative designs when the preferred design has been found compliant with all applicable ordinances, including those protecting views, solar, access, and privacy for neighboring properties. Therefore, this appeal point does not demonstrate that the project was approved in violation of any provision of the Kensington Ordinance or any General Plan policy for the Kensington Area.
Appeal Point 5: The project proponent declines to sacrifice any of their own yard space, and instead insists on expanding upward into Ms. McClain’s view.
The footprint for the proposed addition is located entirely in the rear yard of the project proponent’s property. The proposed project includes a 992.6 square-foot addition, with most of this addition accommodated within a 607.12 square-foot footprint that is presently a portion of the rear yard. The project includes a 385.48 square-foot second story component, located entirely above what is presently rear yard space. Neither the ZA nor the CPC considered the concerns raised by the appellant, reiterated throughout all phases of the planning process, to be substantial enough to outweigh the property owner’s right to construct a two-story addition in conformance with height requirements for the R-6 District. The mere feasibility of the appellant’s preferred single-story configuration offering a similar increase in square footage does not preclude two-story development pursuant to the Kensington Ordinance, or any other provision of the County Ordinance Code.
Appeal Point 6: The project proponent prioritizes their own interest in creating a new view over Ms. McClain’s interest in protecting an existing view.
Notwithstanding the appellant’s perception of the design priorities considered by the project proponent, approval of the project was ultimately based on the County’s independent evaluation of the proposed project in determining whether the project would result in substantial impacts on any neighboring property. Without exception, members of various hearing bodies and committees that have considered the project have found that the view impacts of the project do not substantially detract from the views currently enjoyed by Ms. McClain, including unobstructed views from her five western facing windows of San Francisco Bay that will not be affected by proposed project. Presently, the project proponent’s home does not have any views comparable to those enjoyed on Ms. McClain’s property as well as views available on numerous other properties in the neighborhood. The project would establish a view comparable to those on neighboring properties of the western facing view corridor at the rear of the lot. Unfortunately, the project would also result in a partial view obstruction for one of Ms. McClain’s six second floor windows, leaving her with five windows having unobstructed views. However, as explained in more detail above, staff and various hearing bodies and committees have determined these view impacts to be less-than-substantial in nature.
Appeal Point 7: The project proponent includes unnecessary design elements that increase the height of the project.
The project proposes a two-story addition that is 24 feet in height, whereas Code Section 84-4.802 allows a maximum building height of two and one-half stories and 35 feet. The project is within the maximum allowed building height and would not result in substantial impacts on views, solar access, or privacy enjoyed on neighboring properties. Therefore, there is no basis in the County Ordinance Code to compel the project proponent to consider an alternative design.
Appeal Point 8: The project proponent refuses to move the third-floor addition away from Ms. McClain’s residence.
The project is consistent with all development standards for residential construction and would not result in substantial impacts on views, solar access, or privacy enjoyed on neighboring properties. Therefore, there is no basis in the County Ordinance Code to compel the project proponent to consider an alternative design.
STAFF ANALYSIS
A. General Plan Consistency: The subject parcel at 40 Anson Way is located within the SH Single-Family Residential - High Density General Plan Land Use designation. The SH designation is intended to promote the orderly development of single-family residential neighborhoods. The existing +1,949 square-foot residence consists of +392 square feet of unconditioned garage space and +1,557 square feet of existing conditioned living space. The project entails an addition to increase living area within an existing single-family residence by 993 square feet, resulting in a total of 2,549 square feet of conditioned living space. The proposed addition does not change the established residential use of the site, its residential density, or lot size. Thus, the single-family residential nature of the project does not conflict with the intent and purpose of the SH designation.
The project is also subject to the Policies for the Kensington Area, Policies 3-211 through 3-215 of the General Plan Land Use Element. Collectively, these policies provide for reasonable review of new residential development with protection for existing residences in the Kensington community. New residential projects are evaluated for view impacts, design compatibility, privacy, and solar access. The project’s compliance with each of these policies is discussed below.
Additionally, this report includes discussion of the proposed design, including view impacts, design compatibility, parking, privacy, and solar access, as required by General Plan policies for the Kensington area. Therefore, the project is consistent with General Plan Policies 3-211 through 3-215.
Policy 3-211: Allow for the review of new residential development that provides reasonable protection for existing residences in the Kensington community with regard to: views, design compatibility (including building bulk, size, and height), adequate parking, privacy, and access to sunlight.
This project was initially submitted to the CDD as administrative Kensington Design Review application CDKR23-00010. Upon the CDD’s receipt of a written request for a public hearing on the CDKR23-00010 application in response to public notifications associated therewith, the applicant submitted the current CDDP23-03024 Development Plan application in order to continue the planning process. The processing of this application, culminating in a decision at a noticed public hearing, provides reasonable protection for neighboring property owners by providing a process including public notification and allowing additional opportunities for concerned neighbors to comment on the project before a decision is made. Staff finds the proposed residential addition to be consistent and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and does not anticipate that the addition would result in a substantial impact on views, privacy, or solar access for neighboring properties.
Policy 3-212: Preservation of views of scenic natural features (e.g. Bay, mountains) and the developed environment (e.g., bridges, San Francisco skyline) should be incorporated into the review of development applications.
Section 84-74.404(r) of the Kensington Ordinance defines “view” as “a scene from a window in habitable space of a neighboring residence. The term ‘view’ includes both up-slope and downslope scenes, but is distant or panoramic range in nature, as opposed to short range.” The subject parcel and neighboring parcels are situated on a western facing slope that descends steeply to the west towards the City of El Cerrito. The topography of the area is such that it allows many homes on the hillside to enjoy distant westerly views of city skylines, the San Francisco Bay, Golden Gate Bridge and/or Bay Bridge. On October 6, 2023, at the request of the Kensington MAC, the applicant installed story poles on the subject parcel in order to simulate the height and building mass of the proposed addition. On October 20, 2023, staff was permitted to view the story poles from two neighboring residences at 36 Anson Way (adjacent to and north of the subject parcel) and 39 Anson Way (across the street to the east of the subject parcel) in order to assess potential view impacts. Aesthetically, the proposed addition would have the greatest impact on a southern facing window on the second story of the residence at 36 Anson Way. Existing views from this southern facing window predominantly consist of neighboring residences and neighborhood trees. Since these existing views are not distant or panoramic in nature, they do not constitute a “view” as defined by the Kensington Ordinance. Based on the October 20, 2023, site visit, the proposed addition does not substantially degrade an existing “view” - as defined by the aforementioned County Ordinance - from within any neighboring residence. Therefore, the project preserves views in a manner consistent with Policy 3-212. Staff photographs depicting the story poles from neighboring residences are included below in the Zoning Compliance section of this report.
Policy 3-213: Review proposed residential development for design compatibility with nearby development (e.g. building mass, height, mechanical devices) and provisions for adequate parking.
The project neighborhood consists of a mix of one- and two-story single-family residences. Considering that two-story residences presently exist on immediately adjacent parcels to the north, south, east, and west, the building mass of the proposed two-story addition is consistent and compatible with the design of existing residential development in the vicinity. Additionally, the proposed addition would have a height of 24 feet, which is substantially less than the 35-foot maximum for residential development in the R-6 Single-Family Residential District pursuant to Section 84-4.802 of the County Code. Further, the existing two-car garage on the subject parcel meets the off-street parking requirement for the R-6 District pursuant to Section 84-4.1202 of the County Code. Therefore, based on the foregoing discussion, the project is considered compatible with existing development in the vicinity in terms of design, height, and the provision of adequate parking.
Policy 3-214: New residential development will be reviewed against realistic impacts of privacy and sunlight on surrounding neighbors.
Staff has evaluated the project to determine whether realistic impacts of privacy and sunlight would expectedly arise from the addition. This addition is not expected to affect the privacy or solar access on neighboring parcels to any significant degree, as discussed in more detail in the Zoning Compliance discussion below.
Policy 3-215: Consideration will be given to review of non-residential development in the Kensington community with Policies 3-211 through 3-213 herein.
The proposed project is a residential addition to an existing single-family residence. Thus, this policy does not apply.
B. Zoning Compliance: The subject parcel is located in the R-6 Single-Family Residential District, -TOV Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District, and -K Kensington Combining District. The proposed project does not involve removal or addition of any tree, and therefore, the regulations of the Tree Obstruction of Views Combining District do not apply to this application.
The intent and purpose of the R-6 District is to facilitate orderly development and maintenance of high-density, single-family residential neighborhoods. The proposed residential addition conforms to all R-6 development standards (e.g. front setback, side and rear yards, building height, off- street parking). Therefore, the proposed addition to an existing single-family residence meets the intent and purpose of the R-6 District.
The Kensington Combining District includes seven criteria for approval of the Development Plan. As detailed below, the project satisfies all seven criteria.
1. Recognizing the rights of property owners to improve the value and enjoyment of their property.
Finding: The project is a 993 square-foot two-story addition to the northern side of an existing single-family residence in the R-6 Single-Family Residential District. The proposed addition is in conformance with minimum setback, minimum side and rear yards, maximum building height, and minimum off-street parking requirements applicable to development in the R-6 District. Construction of a residential addition conforming to these development standards is permitted following the application review procedures for the Kensington Combining District, absent substantial impacts to neighboring parcels in terms of views, privacy, or solar access. The property owners have indicated that the increased square-footage is necessary to accommodate the needs of their family, while also providing office areas to better accommodate working from home. Additionally, the proposed two-story configuration will allow for improved views of the San Francisco Bay and city skyline from within the existing residence, similar to those enjoyed by residents of numerous other properties in the immediate vicinity.
2. Recognizing the rights of property owners of vacant lots to establish a residence that is compatible with the neighborhood in terms of bulk, scale, and design.
Finding: The subject parcel is not a vacant lot. Therefore, this criterion does not apply.
3. Minimizing impacts upon surrounding neighbors.
Finding: The project involves a two-story residential addition that is in conformance with all applicable development standards for the R-6 District. Section 84-74.204(b) of the Kensington Ordinance specifies that the ordinance is intended to promote the community’s values of preservation of views, light and solar access, privacy, parking, residential noise levels. The project is consistent with these values as discussed below:
• Views: The appellant refers to photographs showing that the proposed addition, represented by story poles previously installed by the applicant, would block views of the City of Emeryville skyline from a southern-facing dining room window within 36 Anson Way. The Staff Reports prepared for Zoning Administrator (ZA) and County Planning Commission (CPC) hearings included the below photograph taken from the affected window by staff on October 20, 2023, and a discussion of the impact on views from this southern facing window. As noted in prior Staff Reports, existing views from this window predominantly consist of neighboring residences and neighborhood trees that do not constitute a “view” as defined by the Kensington Ordinance.
During the public hearing held February 5, 2024, the owner of 36 Anson Way stressed to the ZA that her southerly views of Emeryville are typically of higher quality, and that the weather conditions on the date of CDD staff’s visit adversely affected visibility. During public hearings held on February 5 (ZA), and March 27, 2024 (CPC), the ZA and CPC separately acknowledged that the project would obstruct views of Emeryville when viewed from the appellant’s dining room window and specified that this alone would not necessarily conflict with the Kensington Ordinance unless it was determined to be a substantial impact to the neighbor’s views.
The appellant’s residence at 36 Anson Way includes several western facing windows which offer unobstructed views across the San Francisco Bay through the Golden Gate. The entire expanse of the Golden Gate Bridge, Angel Island, and Alcatraz Island are prominently visible from multiple vantage points within the appellant’s residence, including kitchen, living room, and bedroom areas located on the upper floor. Despite the relatively poor visibility on the date of staff’s visit, the aforementioned scenic features were immediately apparent on the western horizon. The photograph below provides additional context as to the quality of the viewing corridor to the west, as photographed by CDD staff from the rear yard at the southwestern corner of the appellant’s home on October 20, 2023.
The upper floor of the appellant’s home includes four western facing windows and a sliding glass door, through which they presently enjoy westerly views. The proposed addition would have no impact whatsoever on the western facing view corridor depicted above, as viewed from any habitable area within the appellant’s home. Additionally, when standing directly in front of the appellant’s impacted southern facing window, westerly views towards the bay will remain unobstructed by the addition. The appellant’s existing westerly views are both more numerous and of objectively higher quality than that of their southerly views - in terms of scenic landscape, their visibility in less-than-ideal atmospheric conditions, as well as the lack of existing view obstructions. In approving the project at the public hearing of February 5, 2024, the ZA stated on multiple occasions that a project is not required to demonstrate “no impact” on neighboring properties to comply with the Kensington Ordinance, rather, he specified that some degree of impacts (view, privacy, solar access, or otherwise) are expected to arise from any new construction and that the Kensington Ordinance is designed to prevent substantial impacts, as determined by the County Zoning Administrator, and in the case of appeals, by the County Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors. Considering that the proposed addition to 40 Anson Way would only affect a relatively lower quality southerly view from an upstairs south-facing window, and that it does not impact the primary westerly views from several other habitable areas within the neighboring property owner’s home, the ZA found that the project would have a marginal impact on views enjoyed from appellants property. On March 27, 2024, the CPC agreed with the ZA’s finding that project view impacts on the northerly neighbors’ views of Emeryville are less than substantial and upheld the ZA’s approval of the project. Therefore, the project is consistent with view protections codified in the Kensington Ordinance because it does not substantially degrade the quality of existing views, as enjoyed from several vantage points within habitable areas of the appellant’s home.
• Privacy: The project proposes a two-story addition to the northern side of the existing single-family residence on the subject parcel. The neighboring property nearest to the proposed addition is the adjacent property to the north at 36 Anson Way. All upper-level windows of the residence at 36 Anson Way are oriented either towards the street to the east, or towards the scenic San Francisco Bay to the west. Since the addition does not include any northern or southern facing windows, the project would not substantially impair privacy for next door neighboring parcels, including the residence at 36 Anson Way. Therefore, the project minimizes privacy impacts upon surrounding neighbors.
• Light and Solar Access: The potential for residential construction to limit light and solar access on neighboring properties are predominantly influenced by siting (i.e. setbacks), size, and height. The project includes a two-story addition behind an existing garage on the northern side of the existing single-family residence on the subject parcel. The northern side of the existing residence is presently one-story and approximately 13 feet in height. The two-story addition would expand the residential footprint and increase the northerly height of the home to 24 feet.
The proposed addition would be located at least 42 feet 8 inches and 63 feet 2 inches from the western rear and southern side property lines respectively, and even further from homes located to the east across Anson Way. Therefore, the project would be expected to have negligible impacts to light or solar access on neighboring properties to the south, east, and west of the subject parcel.
The proposed addition would be located 8 feet 3 inches from the northern side property line (where 5 feet is the minimum required) and would be situated approximately 15 to 20 feet south of the existing adjacent residence to the north at 36 Anson Way. The 15 to 20 feet of separation between adjacent residences is typical for development in the R-6 District, where development standards allow for as little as 10 feet of separation. It is not uncommon for adjacent homes in the Kensington community to have less than 10 feet of separation due to lot dimensions and/or existing legal non-conforming residences constructed prior to the implementation of the County zoning code. Additionally, the 24-foot height of the proposed addition conforms to the 35-foot maximum permissible building height for residential development in the R-6 District.
In a letter dated September 18, 2023, the consultant to the owner of the neighboring adjacent property to the north at 36 Anson Way, expressed a concern, amongst others, that the project unreasonably impairs access to daylight by casting shadows on the 36 Anson Way property. The letter includes a diagram depicting shadows cast on the property at 9 AM, 12 noon, and 3 PM on the winter solstice, whereon the proposed addition is approximated to cast a shadow over the western portion of the 36 Anson Way residence and rear yard at 9am, and over the southernmost portions of this residence at noon. Notably, the shadow analysis provided by the neighbor’s consultant is limited to conditions expected at a specific time of year when the daylight hours are shortest (i.e. the sun rises later and sets earlier than any other date) and when the sun rises at its southernmost location in the sky. Using a web-based application (www.suncalc.org <http://www.suncalc.org>) and that shows the movement of the sun for a certain date at a certain place, staff prepared a Shadow Analysis (CPC Staff Report: Exhibit 4, Attachment 7) to approximate the project’s effect on solar access for the summer solstice, and at the equinox. The shadow analysis shows the sun rising further to the north and higher in the sky throughout the rest of the year, and the extent of shadows cast on the northerly parcel are typically much less throughout the year than depicted by the consultant. A subsequent 3D Shadow Analysis prepared by staff utilizing a second web-based application (<https://shademap.app>), confirmed staff’s findings regarding the non-substantial shadow impacts throughout most of the year. The 3D shadow analysis also suggests that the project impacts on solar access on the date of the Winter Solstice would be less significant than previously assumed, and that the appellants upstairs dining room window would only be partially shaded by the project on this date (if at all). Therefore, the project is not expected to affect the neighboring residence’s solar access to any significant degree.
4. Protecting the value and enjoyment of the neighbors’ property.
Finding: As previously mentioned, the addition would not significantly block any views in the project neighborhood or decrease privacy or access to sunlight. Therefore, absent significant impacts on neighboring parcels, the addition would preserve the value and enjoyment of the neighbors’ property.
5. Maintaining the community’s property values.
Finding: The project involves an addition to an existing single-family residence in an established residential neighborhood. The proposal does not involve an incompatible land use that would conflict with the surrounding residential community in a manner that may negatively affect property values. Additionally, the project does not substantially affect scenic views, privacy, or solar access for neighboring parcels to any significant degree. Therefore, the project maintains the community’s property values.
6. Maximizing the use of existing interior space.
Finding: The existing single-family residence consists of a main floor at street level having approximately 1,576 square feet of living area and a 372 square foot two-car garage. A lower level beneath the southern end of the existing residence provides an additional 373 square feet of conditioned living space. There is no existing interior space within the residence that is not presently being utilized as part of the residence. Thus, the 993 square-foot increase in living space sought by the property owners could not feasibly be accomplished within the existing building envelope. Therefore, staff finds that the project maximizes the use of existing interior space.
CONCLUSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Construction of the proposed residential addition is consistent with the SH Single-Family Residential - High Density General Plan Land Use designation and complies with the intent and purpose of the R-6 Single-Family Residential Zoning District and the -K Kensington Combining District. Therefore, staff recommends that the Board of Supervisors deny the appeal and approve Kensington Design Review Development Plan CDDP23-03024 to allow a 993 square-foot two-story addition to an existing single-family residence, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval, which are included as Attachment 1.
CONSEQUENCE OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
If the Board were to deny the project, the property owner would not be allowed to improve their property with a residential addition to the existing single-family residence.