Features

This Tuesday the City Council will consider neighbors’ appeal of a ZAB decision approving the conversion of a small, single-story, single-family house at 2901 Otis St. into a three-story “pop-up” apartment building. One controversial aspect of this proposed project is that the developers propose to provide the three required off-street parking spaces by converting the rear yard into a parking lot. 

Planning staff have argued since May 2003 that the Zoning Ordinance allows such conversions “by right.” That is, no use permit or public hearing is required, there is nothing neighbors can do to stop them, the public has no right of appeal. The city attorney rejected this interpretation in a July staff report to the Planning Commission, finding that parking in required rear yards is prohibited unless, as at 2901 Otis, the yard abuts a street, in which case it may (at the city’s discretion) be allowed by an administrative use permit. No such AUP was issued for this project. The Zoning Adjustments Board, apparently misled by planning staff into believing that the parking was allowed by right, never discussed the detriment to the neighbors, which is a necessary prerequisite to such a discretionary action. 

In residential districts, the Zoning Ordinance also limits vehicle-related paving to 50 percent of a required yard that abuts a street. As the city attorney interpreted “abuts a street” for the Planning Commission, that limit applies to the required rear yard of 2901 Otis, which per the plans approved by ZAB would be at least 80 percent paved parking spaces and driveway. 

As regards 2901 Otis, the City Council should remand it to the ZAB to reconsider parking in light of the city attorney’s findings. More generally, the City Council should discuss the underlying policy issues and provide appropriate guidance to planning staff, ZAB, and the Planning Commission (scheduled to consider revising the relevant sections of the Zoning Ordinance on Nov. 30). 

The diagram shows how allowing parking in required yards affects the maximum development possible on typical 5,000-square-foot corner lots in much of Berkeley, including R-2A, R-3, R-4, and C-SA districts. If parking is allowed only in the non-required portion of the yard, there’s room for only one space, and thus only one unit. If parking is also allowed in the required portion of the yard, there’s room for three spaces, giving developers a strong incentive to convert single-family homes with ample rear yards to three-story, three-unit apartment buildings with the legal minimum of open space. 

Apartments with parking lots instead of yards are unsuitable for families with children. Three-unit buildings are too small to fall under the Zoning Ordinance’s inclusionary housing requirements. Is that the sort of infill development city councilmembers want to promote? 

It seems to me that parking in required yards is fundamentally detrimental to the immediate neighbors, the neighborhood, and the city as a whole. Thus it should be allowed only when it allows some offsetting benefit to neighbors, such as preserving open space on another part of the lot, or to the city as a whole, allowing construction of affordable housing that would otherwise not be practical. Parking should not be allowed in required yards simply to let developers make more money than they would were it located inside the building or if the number of units were reduced. 

Robert Lauriston led neighborhood opposition to the similar “pop-up” project at 3045 Shattuck.