Hello, everyone.
All right, I know we don't have quite a full board right now,
but we are gonna start it off now.
Welcome to the March 12th, 2026
Zoning Adjustment Board meeting.
I will start out as I normally do with the public advisory.
This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model
with both in-person and virtual participation.
The teleconference will be recorded
as any ZAB meeting is recorded,
and all other rules of procedures and decorum
will apply for ZAB meetings
conducted by teleconference or video conference.
Virtual participation.
To access the meeting remotely,
join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device.
Please use the URL, which is accessed through your agenda.
If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen,
then use the dropdown menu and click on rename
to rename yourself to be anonymous.
To request a speak, use the raised hand icon
by rolling over the bottom of the screen.
Join by phone, dial the number in your agenda
and enter the webinar ID, which is also in your agenda.
If you wish to comment during the public comment portion
of the agenda, press star nine
and wait to be recognized by the chair.
Public testimony guidelines.
To speak at a public hearing,
please submit a speaker card to planning staff
prior to the start of the meeting.
So those green cards that are kind of right by the back
are also maybe up front and go fill those out now
and deliver them to staff and we will get to you
as soon as I tell you to come up to the podium
Call your name.
This meeting will be conducted in accordance
with the Brown Act Government Code section 54953.
Any member of the public may attend this meeting.
The chair may limit the number of speakers
and the length of time allowed to each speaker.
For anyone on Zoom right now,
after I call everyone from in person,
I will then tell everyone on Zoom that it's their turn.
Please raise your hand as soon as I do say a project
that we're all, or public testimony is about to go on.
but I will make sure you know when it's time
to raise your hand and when to speak.
And you will go after all those people.
We will now start with roll call
and expert communications.
Thank you.
When I call your name, say if you're here
and if you've had any expert communications.
Commissioner Duffy, looks to be absent.
Chairperson Gaffney.
Present, no expert.
Commissioner Nash.
Present and no communication.
Commissioner Palma Tear seems to be absent.
Commissioner Allen.
Present, no ex parte.
Commissioner Choi.
Seems to be absent, okay.
Vice, Chair Porcidian.
Present, no ex parte.
And Commissioner Sanderson.
Present, no ex parte.
Thank you.
All right, wonderful.
Welcome everyone and welcome Commissioner Nash
for being our alternate today.
And hopefully we see a couple more people roll in,
but we do have a quorum.
So no matter what, we are going to push forward.
We are going to start with public comment
on non-agenda matters.
I'll go over the agenda real fast,
especially for anyone here and online.
All right, so things on the agenda today are item A,
which is the meeting minutes from February 26th.
Item B, which is 2276 Shattuck Avenue, which is on consent.
And then item 7A, which is our theme on action,
which is 600 Gilman.
So anything not about those projects
is we are ready for you.
I know we have two people in person
and I have heard that one person
will be yielding their time to someone else.
So first we're gonna start with Bonnie.
You're coming up first and then you will also.
So we're gonna do three minutes per person.
So that means you will have a total of six
because it sounds like Charlotte, you are, all right, perfect.
So you will have a total of six minutes.
There'll be a timer on the screen.
I'll let you know as when it goes over six minutes
and just try and wrap up pretty quickly after that.
Good evening, Chair and members of board.
Actually, I can't tell if the microphone's on yet.
It might need to be on.
Try to say something real fast.
Okay, the other.
It is on.
I just wanna make sure you guys already have the package
for the supplementary communication number two.
It's probably because I submitted right before noon today.
Hopefully you have that.
Yes, I assume, yeah, as long as it was before the time,
yes, we have that.
Okay, so good evening, Chair and the board member.
I'm here to allow you to active four-year ongoing
misdemeanor criminal non-compliance of state safety mandate
besides the critical data discrepancy
and the potential conflicts of interest
regarding 2425 Durant.
As documented in supplementary communication number two,
The project uses a 19 unit count exhibit two
to secure its high density bonus.
Yet it operates under 15 unit profile
to evade the state safety mandate
for the on-site manager per 25 CCR 42C exhibit one.
For four years, the owner avoids the cost
of this mandatory on-site position
expensive tenant life safety. This has already resulted in fraudulent safety checks, several
preventable emergencies such as a near fatal injury, multiple gas leak, including one had to offload to
tenants and fire department, and a 9-hour unmanned smoke alarm among others. When questioned by tenants
who were forced to investigate law after injury occurred due to the systematic neglect and the
concerns for the state of other tenants. The owner plans to state it has 15 units and a post
off-site management signage as there were none before. See exhibit 3. The timeline of notice
undeniable. Since 2024 management has been repeatedly confronted with 19 unit count
with no on-site manager. This safety vacuum persists despite this document chain of notice,
despite being pointedly notified in the presence of the architect's form in 2024, the community
meeting and that hearings in October 2025 and February 23rd this year, despite the applicant's
team had every opportunity to reconcile their compliance and their data. Please see
It is deeply concerning that the architect of record, a firm represented on this very
board, has continued to present this clean 19-unit application.
This failure to disclose a material safety discrepancy points to a stomach conflict interest,
allowing this project to proceed while the owner maintains an active criminal safety
vacuum at the existing site is a failure of the city's mandatory duty. I request a state on all
permits for 24-25 to rent until violations are cured. It will prevent a potential 9.5 million
liability if the city funds act on administrative bad face by issuing high density bonus. This is
a willful repeated offense by an owner who is consistently woefully short on hands and short on
standards, forcing tenants which were to get mandated carbon monoxide alarms that were missing
for half a decade while insisting the use of questionable secondhand stoves. They are further
important to continue with systematic negligence, leaving a smoke alarm in exiting corridor blasting
for nine hours into the late night on December 9th last year until a tenant had to use a balloon
to knock it off despite being reported in time. It remains missing to this day.
Under BMC 23.404.070, a permanent obtainment through material misrepresentation must be revoked,
let alone retaliation towards tenants.
We cannot enable developers to prioritize greed over the life safety of the community,
especially those who have a track record of cutting corners on other's safety,
be they tenants or hires alike.
They all start from somewhere, while the good people stay silent along the way, as Dr. King plead.
until tragedies like those young Irish lives perished over the balcony on Center Street.
We expect a formal response from this board and the city. Thank you for your time.
Thank you so much for coming here and saying that. We said it even though it's a project that
we cannot speak on, we always appreciate your words and hearing everything. Yeah, of course.
That's what all these public hearings are for. Thank you so much. Let me check online. It looks
So we'll move on to the consent calendar said the 2 items on the consent calendar are the mean minutes from February 26th as well as 2, 2, 7, 6, shadow.
Before I open up to the public, which it doesn't look like I have any cards in person now online. It is your time to raise your hand.
on-line. Now on-line it is your time to raise your hand. But I do want to at least come
to the board too if they have anything to say before I open up the public. This isn't
your last time. I'm not looking at anything. No? I do. I think city staff has something
to say actually about this project. There is a slight change to the conditions of approval.
Thank you. Good evening. There is a revision to the Attachment 3 to the staff report condition
of approval. The revision is to strike out administrative condition 1, C2. The condition
is titled as Final Design Review at the Design Review Committee, DRC. This condition is not
applicable because the existing building is a landmark and Landmark Reservation Commission
is the Commission to Review Design Review.
So we'll revise that, we'll eliminate the DRC
and keep the LPC review as the final.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
And yeah, since I said, love this kind of stuff,
it was interesting.
This is one of the few projects
that doesn't come to Design Review first.
It comes to LPC since it's a registered historical building.
They're actually reviewing it twice.
So unlike where it normally comes to me
and Commissioner Thompson at design review
for both preliminary design review
and a final design review.
It is coming to us for neither.
And so, yeah, it's kind of an interesting take on that.
And we're glad that Landmarks Preservation Committee
has done a good job at reviewing that.
So that is the design review.
Pleased to say that they have reviewed this
and will again after we, if we give them their use permit.
So anyways, that is the only change I will set.
we have no one in-person for public comment and right now I'm not seeing
anyone online raising their hands give it one more second. Alright if not I mean
I'll make a motion to approve the consent calendar but also happy to
obviously discuss too. I'm happy to second. Alright. Alright thank you so we have a
motion in a second to approve the consent calendar which includes the
the approval of the minutes from February 26th.
And also the use permit at 2276 Shattuck Avenue,
striking the condition 1C2 to require final design review
from DRC.
Chairperson Gaffney?
Yes.
Commissioner Nash?
Yes.
Commissioner Allen?
Yes.
Vice Chairperson Young?
Yes.
Commissioner Sanderson?
Yes.
Thank you.
All right.
The motion passes, which means 2276 Shattuck,
you will have your use permit.
the city's staff. And then we'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
move to the next item. We'll
to an applicant presentation.
So yeah, we'll do staff first.
Staff first and then applicant will have five minutes
after that.
Good evening, Zab.
I am Vicki Schlipp, the planner for the project
at 600 Gilman Street.
Before you tonight is application ZP 2025-0064.
The scope of the project is to have three primary uses
on the site and one incidental use.
The proposed primary uses are a public driving vehicle wash,
electric vehicle charging, and vehicle rentals, which is an existing non-conforming use.
The incidental use is food service with a service window.
The permits required for this project are, a variance is required because the driving vehicle
wash is not permitted in the manufacturing research and development zoning district, also called MRD.
The proposed use meets the Berkeley Municipal Code definition for driving and vehicle wash.
Both uses are not permitted.
The project also requires administrative use permits to establish a food service and to create a 30 foot wide driveway.
Electric vehicle charging is allowed by right and the vehicle rental use is allowed by right because it is a continuation of the existing use.
The site is located in the MRD Zoning District.
The block is bound by 2nd Street and East Shore Highway.
Directly parallel to East Shore Highway
is the ramp for the Freeway Pedestrian Bridge,
the Freeway Off-ramp, the East Shore Freeway,
and the Interchange Roundabouts.
The immediate area along Gilman Street
recently underwent major improvements
led by Alameda County Transportation Commission,
The City of Berkeley, Caltrans, and the consultant team
to relieve congestion, reduce collisions,
and improve pedestrian and bicycle access.
The project site is a corner lot.
As part of the multimodal improvements
at the Gilman I-80 interchange,
roundabouts were installed.
On-street parking was removed along the front
of the property on Gilman Street.
The driveways along Gilman Street were removed
and access onto the property was moved around the corner to 2nd Street, which is now a one-way street.
The vehicle rental use was established on the site in 1979 when it was converted from a gas station to a car rental facility.
In 1992, a car wash pad with a drain connecting to the sewer was installed as an ancillary use to serve the car rental operation.
last year in January, 2025 a building permit was finaled for improvements to the site,
including replacing an existing car wash canopy.
The proposed use was a continuation of current use with a new operator.
In February, a building permit was approved for electrical upgrades, including two car
chargers.
In March, the variance and AUP application were submitted, and in April, the City Council
adopted ordinance 7957, which rezoned the area from manufacturing to manufacturing,
research, and development. Vehicle wash and drive-ins are not allowed in this new zone,
nor was it allowed under the previous zoning designation. This slide is the site plan.
It shows where the proposed uses will be. So, as you can see, this is Gilman up here,
second street. The only way to enter into the driveway to enter onto the site is going
south on second street, which is now a one-way street. And the wash, the driveway is here,
the wash structure is here. There's a pay station also here. The rental office and the
food service are within the existing building. There's a takeout window just right in front
of the food service, and then these are the two EV charging stations.
This slide shows the existing elevations on the site.
The top slide here shows the existing building.
This will be the rental office, and this will be the food service with the window.
And then this is a view from 2nd Street, which shows the driveway and where the entry and
exit will be, and this is the structure.
And then there's a pay station here. To approve a variance, the ZAB shall make all of the findings
shown on the slide. The ZAB shall deny a variance if it determines that it is unable to make any of
the required findings. Staff cannot make all the variance findings for approval. There are no
exceptional circumstances specific to the subject property that are generally not applicable to
to other properties in the district.
There are no site constraints that make this variance
necessary to preserve a substantial property right.
The project would adversely affect the house safety
and welfare of persons in the area.
As stated in attachment five of the staff report,
the transportation division has concerns
with the transportation, safety, operational,
and policy conflicts.
Considering the scale of the recently completed
multi-modal improvements at the Gilman I-80 interchange,
staff has significant concerns regarding the feasibility
of locating a public car wash at 600 Gilman Street.
The proposed use appears incompatible with site constraints,
regional transportation investments,
city planning objectives,
and the operational realities of the corridor.
In conclusion, staff is recommending partial denial
of ZP 2025-0064.
Staff recommends denial of the variance
to allow a use not permitted in the MRD zoning district
and approval of the AUPs for the food service
and 30-foot driveway width.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
And we are gonna start with questions for staff,
which actually I have a couple of just kind of
clarifying ones, just to make sure I also kind of know,
yeah, have all my ducks in a row.
So what is the existing non-conforming use
as far as the car wash goes.
There is something that's actually there,
what it was found like at.
So the existing non-conforming use
is the rental car facility and the car wash pad,
as established in 1979 and 1992.
And was a car wash pad entailed as far?
Yeah, what does that entail?
Well, the permit back then didn't
have too much details in it.
So like that one connected to the sewer
and they just had like a simple canopy over.
So it wasn't like a permanent skill structure
as it is now, but...
Okay, so it's not about the use of that.
So that's why I say it's not about the use of it
or I guess we'll be determining that, but it's okay.
Interesting, perfect.
And then as far as the use that it wants to be,
it's trying to be a vehicle drive-through, or it's a hand wash.
It's a drive-through.
Drive-through, okay, perfect, thank you.
This is the new use because it's public.
So before it wasn't open to the public.
It was just for the rental cars.
It was for the rental cars, and so this is public,
and it does meet the current zoning code's
definition of drive-in, is how it's defined.
Okay, wonderful.
Thank you for clarifying all those.
Does anyone else have questions for staff first?
Commissioner Allen?
Yeah, just to piggyback a little bit on the idea
that there is a element of a car wash on the site.
And I'm sorry if I didn't say,
is there a condition of approval that will require
like removal of the pay station or removal of some piece
of what seems to have already been built
so that it wouldn't become easily used by the public?
We did not write in conditions of approval on this,
the approval conditions attached are only
for the food service and the driveway.
So it's a recommendation for denial.
So I guess tonight would be a decision.
I think you answered the question.
Yeah, thanks.
Someone realized it's a tricky situation
and that's why we're gonna have a fun debate.
I guess I should go.
there are a couple of recommendations for this.
The recommendation for the variance for the use
regarding the cleaning facility makes sense.
I'm just wondering, I guess, kind of brainstorming
what do we do with those uses which are permitted
in this manufacturing zone,
specifically the incidental food use and also the driveway,
because it doesn't really make much sense
to approve a permit for a wider driveway
It's a change of use.
Okay.
Not a question then.
No, thank you for keeping us on track on that.
I guess one of my questions would be kind of like,
is, because I was, I was reading just kind of what the definition or what, what we can legally even have as a variance.
Like, can a change of use, is that something that we really, we really can, or is it more about site conditions?
I guess I just wanted to kind of clarify, so we, we can't.
Yeah, it's a development, oh, sorry, my mic is loud.
It's a development standard, so they are permitted to ask for a variance from any kind of development standard.
Okay, okay, good to know. I was still reading that in one to make sure we were clear on that, so.
Okay, are we good on questions for staff? We can always do it again.
Okay, then thank you so much. We will have an applicant presentation for five minutes.
So yeah, applicant, come on up and feel free to connect to your laptop if you have a presentation.
Perfect, don't worry. We will also have a question portion after your presentation, so.
Y'all step.
Yeah, come on up here and yeah, so you'll have five minutes, but we also will ask questions
afterwards.
So if there are things that are left unanswered, we will make sure to ask you any questions.
If you've read my findings for approval, you'll probably know I'm Tim Southwick, Toyota Berkeley,
on Shattuck Avenue for over 50 years.
We have 117 employees on the payroll in Berkeley and probably 20 in Albany.
And we are replacing a – I don't like to call it a car wash.
It is a car wash, but it's not a car wash.
This is a boutique auto salon designed after a beauty shop on University Avenue.
Just think of your mother, your grandmother, when she wanted her hair done she'd get on
the phone, she'd say, I want to make an appointment, I want to get my hair cut, I want to do a
rubbing or whatever they do, and she'd go to the salon.
Well, this is what this is.
This is where someone can go there, and we started it by looking at a car wash in Albany,
a small one, very small car wash, which this is a very small car wash.
It's not a big, fancy car wash.
It's not a long tunnel.
There's not a lot of other things to do there other than go there with an appointment.
We have to build up the business to start that.
You can have a cappuccino while you're there and you can be pampered a little bit.
But this is a brushless car wash.
And it's replacing the car wash on Fulton and Kittredge that was years there, years
ago, and many people at Berkeley have remembered it.
And they can now, finally, in Berkeley, the people of Berkeley can have a brushless car
which most people with upscale cars, Tesla, Mercedes-Benz, Toyota, they can go in there and they can pay a little more money because it takes a little more for this.
But this isn't a high volume. This is not a high volume car wash. This is very low volume.
But the thing is, I got under this project because our attorney, Phil Benta, he got ill.
And then I had to step in and I had to correspond with Berkeley, the city of Berkeley.
of Berkeley, I've got to tell you they were great and this plan that they came out with
was great. The only thing I don't like about it is we don't like the denial. We think that
the denial is, I can't imagine that they did this to us because I tried during this process
of emails back and forth, back and forth to the planning, back and forth, my dear associate
here. Vicki, we're trying to be friendly on this deal, but I felt from the start that
the city of Berkeley had already decided they didn't want a car wash there, when in fact
the property, this property, eight or ten acres right next to us, was sold. We had it
zoned 14 years ago for manufacturing auto, which included a boutique auto salon. That's
That's why we created this figure where people could order a car wash and then in those days
we didn't have electric cars.
But now you're going to get a wash and a charge.
Or someone with an ADA disability of some sort wouldn't even think about buying a car,
buying a Toyota.
Because once they got into the seat of the car, they go to the gas station, who's going
help them with the petrol. Nowadays we have electric cars, we're going to have two electric
cars on this property and that's where the rental comes in. We're going to introduce
people to renting electric cars. Now people that have ADA think that want to, now they
can buy an electric car because we have an attendant, we're going to have an attendant
at this location and this attendant there will help anybody with ADA that wants to plug
in, we'll be able to go there, get a car wash and plug in for charging. And I wanted to
tell you about the people that bought the property that's in that area as you're probably
aware of by now. They went before the city of Berkeley and they had a plan based on a
plan that this man that just left here, Mark, that he put together. And I looked at that
plan after it was the developer turned it down and had 140 parking places, excuse me,
1,400 parking places. And I thought to myself, how could this many people come to Berkeley
every day through that turnabout, 1,400 parking places? So when you look at the city of Berkeley
who's telling us that we have a, it's gonna be congestive,
it's not gonna fit with our plan
that we have for a regional corridor.
Well, I've looked at that corridor for 20 years,
it's been full of graffiti, no one's cleaning it up.
We came in there, we bought a property
and put in a BMW Lexus Collision Center
and then we had a chance to buy this property
two years ago with the infrastructure
in place. So all we had to do is put a state-of-the-art car wash in there. Now I want to jump to
how we're going to facilitate this. Go back. This is just…
Do you have it on your screen? Yes.
That's just Berkeley trivia, which I'll get to. Okay, here we are. You've seen it. You
see the graffiti. We've cleaned it up. We've put a stately fence in. And this is a safe.
We put the same fence on 2-0-7-0 second street
at our Collision Center.
It's been there for 20 years.
No vandalism.
Nobody can climb over this fence unless they really want to.
I mean, it's stately.
It's the entrance to Berkeley.
Just like our project on Gilman Street,
excuse me, on Ashby years ago, we put that in.
We'll get into that if you're interested
after this is over.
But here, here we go.
I want you to look at the way the city of Berkeley
put this denial in place.
Introduce high-volume, auto-centric business.
Hey, wait a minute.
The city of Berkeley doesn't realize
what a boutique auto salon is going to be.
They don't realize that we're going to serve cappuccino.
This is not high volume.
This is over.
We do have to.
I will give you one more sentence.
Yes.
I'm out of time.
Yes.
No, I actually heard it.
And I thought you.
Yes. That was my fault. And we have a small,
but we'll give you two more sentences. Just, you know,
give a little thesis statement at the end. And we also will ask questions.
So this is not your only opportunity.
You want to see my pictures or? Yes.
I want to introduce you to second street in Berkeley.
This is across the street from us. Look at what we're faced with here.
Did you see that? Look at what, look at this rat infested.
That's what we're living with down there.
I'm trying to clean it up here. We cleaned it up, and here you go. Now, here's the car wash that we started with.
We went to Albany. We got this car wash. It's a boutique, small car wash.
This was its original? This was what it looked like originally?
They're still operating.
Okay. Oh, this is different. Okay, so we do...all right, I will have to cut you off here, and we will give you...but this is time for questions.
And thank you so much for your presentation on that. It's all...all of that history is incredibly helpful.
We do. Does anyone want to kick us off with questions for the applicant?
If not, we can also just move on to deliberation.
I mean, so one of my questions is, since you say boutique,
how many people are you able to service at once?
Yeah, how many people are you able to service at once?
Let's talk about queuing. That's how many you want to get?
Yeah, that's to me one of my bigger issues.
There's a big issue in this denial on queuing.
We don't know what queuing is.
During COVID, we opened Joe's Coffee Stop in Albany
at the north end of the Target parking lot.
And the commissioners in Albany, we did it all on Zoom,
and they want to make sure that we weren't going to interrupt
with Target parking.
And I said, OK, that's fine.
For a year or two years, which I offered to Berkeley,
I could do the same thing in Berkeley.
And we have a queuing thing, three in the queue,
shut the gate, three in the queue, shut the gate.
That's why I wanted you to see some of these pictures
because you go through, you'll see that we have right now
ready to go, that's past Tesla Tuesday,
what I'd like to know about.
But anyway, so in Albany, the gate goes down
if the queue gets three.
All right, now that's, so those are good information.
I might have more follow up with that in a bit
or we'll have more discussion, I'm sure, on all that,
because I know queuing and traffic is an issue,
at least for me.
Anyways, save it for comments.
Does anyone have questions first?
Yeah, Mr. Sanderson.
I have a question for staff.
Yeah.
On the definition of,
I understand completely why you're recommending denial
on the variance.
So, but I'm wondering if there's any distinction
between a public car wash that people can just go through
and a car wash that's one stall and you do it by appointment.
I mean, it's still adding a car wash where one's not allowed.
But it's not like the car wash stand on San Pablo where
you drive in and you have.
It would still fall under car wash.
Okay. Yeah, I believe the definition is in the staff report. Yeah, were you washing? Washing? Waxing?
Vehicles?
But does it specify for public use or something?
It doesn't specify like public, but it would be, yeah, having a wash would be.
be? So the current one where they're washing cars rental cars is that allowed
under the code or is that also not allowed? That's not that's not allowed
it's an existing non-conforming. Okay so that's so vehicle wash the definition is
an establishment where the washing waxing or cleaning of automobiles or
similar light vehicles are the primary use include self-serve washing facilities.
Okay so Ava's was washing 30. Yeah sorry we have to direct your
questions for you. Okay so okay that makes more sense that the existing one
was legal nonconforming and and this would be, I don't think you can make
the findings on the variance anyway so okay thank you. And so it would be since
if the only kind of car wash they could have is one that would only be whatever
of rental, the continuation of the rental car wash.
Okay, so that's where that, at least the pad comes in.
Okay, okay, do we have any more questions?
Yeah.
I just wanted to clarify.
The charging car wash and food service would all be private.
There wouldn't be public access for any of that.
There'll be, the only food service
we're gonna have is drinks, no food.
We're not in the food business, but no, how to handle it.
We know how to make a cappuccino.
That's what-
But only if you're there for the-
Our employee will be there.
It won't be at anyone else, no.
And frankly, it's very tough to hire somebody in that area
for what we're trying to do,
but we're gonna make an effort.
All right, I think we're good on commissioner questions.
We're gonna move, open it up to the public now.
So you're good to sit down now.
Thank you so much.
And no, it's good to talk about this as a unique case,
and luckily we have nothing afterwards.
So, we do have no one in person.
And we have a lot of supplemental communication,
but we have Kelly Hammergan online.
So Kelly, I'm going to allow you to talk
and you will have three minutes.
So yeah, you should be good to talk whenever you are able.
Three minutes.
Three minutes.
You're the only one speaking, so go for it.
I just think this is too bad
that you're all probably gonna deny this.
We still have people with cars
and we still need charging stations
and having a charging station there
would probably be a good thing
and maybe encourage more people to have an EV
that don't have a place to charge at home.
So that would be, certainly would be a benefit
if that could be worked out.
And this is not a well-used corner.
So it just seems a shame that we have the zoning
that doesn't allow it.
And it would be good if we could,
I think we should just, it would be good
if we could find a way around it
or give some direction to make a change.
This has been going on for a long time.
I remember it from a presentation
on the biotech project, which is currently stalled,
that was supposed to be in this same neighborhood.
So too bad, really too bad that it can't go forward.
And I wish there were a different way,
but you've got a lot of people on your board.
You've got five of you tonight.
Maybe you can find a way, thank you.
Thank you so much, Kelly, for your comments.
And I did wanna clarify that even if we do deny
the variance and I don't know what we're gonna do tonight,
but the EV charging stations are not a part
that variant, so those still can, we will be voting on whether or not we will approve
those tonight. Those are two separate issues. So indeed, we could still have EV charging
stations there, even if the car wash, as proposed, is not allowed. So, did want to
distinguish that because, yeah, important. I don't see any more hands online or in person,
so I will vote to close the public hearing, or I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
a roll call vote.
We will take a roll call vote.
Everyone approved say yes.
I'm sorry.
I always forget this part.
Aye.
Aye.
Yes.
The same thing.
Aye.
Aye.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right.
Everyone post a nay.
No, I was.
Perfect.
Sorry.
I do mess that up every time.
I kind of forget we have to do it.
I know.
I'll get better at it.
It's only been a year.
Moving on, time for comments which I know we have some
because it's an interesting debate.
Does anyone else want to kick it off?
If not, I can.
Go ahead, someone else.
I'm gonna do like I did last meeting and be like,
you know, I'm gonna start with a motion
and then people can respond to it.
So I will follow the staff's suggested motion.
I don't think the variance findings can be made.
this is a flat square 11,625 square foot site.
There are no constraints on the site.
So the variance finding cannot be made.
I would deny the variance finding.
I would believe also consistent with staff's findings,
the AUP to allow the incidental food service
and also support the AUP for the driveway width
greater than 20 feet.
And I think given the one-way nature of the street
and the in and out and the sort of cutting back over
to access the charging stations,
I'm comfortable with approving a wider driveway.
So there is a motion.
I second.
All right.
And now, of course, let's get this analysis.
I just wanted to clarify for the applicant
and for all the supporters who we heard from
that this decision has nothing to do with the quality of your idea or your service.
It is only a legal limitation that is imposed by the zoning ordinance. So we appreciate
all of your eagerness and your effort to clean up the area and all of that. But this is not
that's why I'm seconding the
And I do also have to say I agree.
I mean, as a quasi judicial body,
we have to look at things just through the lens of the law
and what the zoning ordinance says
and what we are allowed to grant variances as or not.
And those are, they're very strict.
And so I said, I won't belabor
because Commissioner Sanderson did just say it very well.
I mean, said, you know, I worked down over that area.
I do know how bad it gets.
So I just encourage you to find things within that use
and that there can be creative ways to do things,
but we do have to stay within the law.
And no matter what, you know, we will,
I will support the motion as proposed.
So, does anyone else want to say anything else?
Vice Chair Young?
Yeah, just thank you for your really compelling presentation.
But once again, just echoing the sentiment, you know,
our job is to consider permits in their compliance with
applicable allowed uses of the zoning district in which that permit is
contained here car wash is not a permanent use so you know it's the ask
would be for something called a variance you know I could count on one
hand the number of variances I've considered while on this board two of
them have met the findings one didn't that case it was a young family asking
for, you know, an extra bedroom or something along those lines, it was a very compelling
story, but unfortunately in that case we weren't able to make the variance findings. Here we're
not either. So, you know, in the same way that if I tried to open a cafe in my house
in the residential zone, that would not be allowed to use. The same goes for the car
wash in this zone. So, thank you for your presentation.
Thank you, Mr. Allen. Yeah, no, I mean, it is such an interesting issue, because I mean,
in those districts, especially manufacturing
and research and development in West Berkeley especially.
It is a very underutilized area,
but that's gonna take something more than a variant.
That takes something that the city of Berkeley
would actually have to really come together
and figure out how to do.
And I think that is an important conversation
because these areas do really deserve, you know,
I don't know, there's a lot of opportunity for them
and a lot of different things we could do there.
Sadly, that is not what we can do here today.
anything else to say? If not, yeah. Go for it. Commissioner Rush?
This is all very exciting. I'm already learning a lot but seeing as this is my
first meeting and I'm not well versed with the zoning ordinance I don't feel
comfortable voting one way or another so unless my fellow commissioners
recommend something else I'll probably abstain from this vote.
I think we need you for quorum for the approval of the AUP so if you feel
Okay, okay.
Can we deny the variance for
votes but approve the AUP?
We want to make sure everything's of course we want everyone to.
The project wouldn't be approved if we can't pass a motion to approve any part of it.
So, okay.
That makes sense.
So, so it would deny the whole thing if we didn't have that anyways.
So we'll just and sorry, this is I should have asked you this open motion failed
It would automatically deny the variance, but it would also deny the eight piece
Gotcha
So we need five because of the absences the quorum is five can we we can't split that we split in two different motion days
You can't split something into two different motions. It's all one. It's one permit one permit. Yeah, sorry
Just wanted to make sure just to clarify you never know
so
Okay
I'm not sure what this area is.
Perfect. So what what can we
talk to help to help bring you
along because this is so that
it wouldn't delay their project.
Yeah. And I don't want to delay
or cause any obstruction. I'm
not sure what is what this area
is owned for. So yeah, so. So
maybe staff. Yeah, Vicki staff
What always is for me a critical piece with the variance findings is that you have to
make all of them, so I feel like for me the low-hanging fruit was like, is there some
sort of constraint that's unique to this site?
And the answer for me was no, so I don't even need to think about the other four pieces.
But Vicki can speak to what's allowed in the zoning and then maybe reframe the variances.
Thank you, Commissioner Allen.
No, this is a tricky one.
We have another average one.
All right, thank you so much, Vicky.
So this project is in the MRD zoning district,
manufacturing research and development.
In April 15th, 2025, this area was rezoned.
So it used to be a manufacturing zone.
So the, let me try to share my screen.
It was, so the,
So right here, these two blocks, more than two blocks,
this area is MRD, so they opened this area up
to allow research and development
because that wasn't allowed in the manufacturing zone.
It also allowed, let's see.
Now, it allowed other uses, offices, I believe,
that aren't allowed in the uses in the abutting districts,
which are manufacturing.
So this was all, yeah, this all went to city council
last year and was approved to be rezoned
for a different, yeah, for a different use.
And within the allowed uses of that zoning district,
it didn't allow car wash now
and it didn't allow it previously either,
as well as the car wash and the car rental,
small car rentals.
Yeah, and a couple other vehicle uses as well
are prohibited in this area.
And then, sorry, if it's helpful.
Of course.
We also have the district purpose,
which sometimes, instead of going through each allowed use,
Sometimes it's helpful to understand the district purpose.
So the purpose of the district is to support a mix
of industrial and heavy commercial uses,
such as light manufacturing, research and development,
allow office and laboratory uses that support
light industrial and research and development uses,
and provide flexibility to facilitate the development
and reuse of large sites with an urban campus-like environment.
That includes amenities for employees and customers,
and support the development of industrial uses
which satisfy performance standards
that protect the environment.
So that's kind of the overall district purpose.
And that's why those particular uses
are not permitted there because they're not contributing
to that overall purpose, if that's at all helpful.
Yes, I think that obviously is good for us, yeah.
My experience with the city of Berkeley
goes way back till 2003.
And I'd say I was working for the city
from 2003 through 2013, and have kept up with it ever since.
And I don't believe in that period
we approved more than one variance.
And the primary reason is that the situation
has to have some special consideration.
That means if you don't, basically,
if you don't approve the variance,
they don't have property rights.
So in this case, they can still use their property
for other things, but not for a car wash.
So getting a variance approval in Berkeley
is extremely difficult. I mean, I can probably count one more
than this guy can.
So it's really looking at what's left.
If you deny the variance, what's left?
Can they make money with this parcel?
they still have substantial property rights? You know, and they do. And so that's the primary, I mean, whatever else, we can't make that finding that there's a special circumstance that says, you know, if we don't approve the variance, then they basically can't use their property. Thank you.
you. No perfect no and it's all it's all great reminders for all of us and why
why that is especially in these special areas that you know you would think that
being able to change a use could just kind of happen like that but it you
know it's not because it does take a very you know within the variance reading
within the musical code it's a very very strict findings we have to make and
that's why we do have to take it since illegally seriously and but we do still
support West Berkeley and finding out how to continually make it better and
different things we can do but we will have to go within the lines of the law.
How are you feeling over there Commissioner Nash? Yeah, great. You're welcome to ask more questions. We're here for it. We have no one else on the docket after this.
No, that was great. Thanks for giving me the space to ask the question. Wonderful. Yeah, I'm caught up now.
That's why we have such wonderful members of the Commission and the staff here. So thank you all.
And then we will take a roll.
We will take a roll call vote now on the motion. You have a motion by Commissioner Allen and a second by Commissioner Sanderson.
Okay.
Chairperson Gaffney? Yes. Commissioner Nash? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Vice Chairperson Young? Yes. Commissioner Sanderson? Yes. Thank you.
Okay. The motion passes. The, which means that the use permit is de-unied. Or the variance? Oh my gosh. I'm getting that so wrong.
The variance is denied and the use permit,
the AUP is approved and that it still has,
it will be approved 14 days after the notice of decision
is mailed and still has appealable to council
within those times.
Perfect, got that one right at least a little bit.
All right, thank you all for your time.
I know that is not always, you know,
we had a lot of, we did have a lot of letters
to support of that and you know,
we always appreciate hearing from everyone.
And that being said, we will move right along, leave.
All right, do you have any correspondence from staff?
I just wanted to, I remembered at one
of the previous meetings, there was some discussion
because people were asking for waivers
from usable open space, like about how they can bring
more conversations about when we can require more open space.
And I saw that tentatively scheduled
on the 415 Planning Commission agenda,
going to have an objective design standards discussion.
So what was that date again?
4.15, April 15th.
So it's going to be a discussion about objective design
standards.
I think it's just a discussion, so I'm not
sure if there will be a staff report or anything,
in case you guys are interested.
And they'll also be talking about SB 79.
So it might be an interesting meeting for you guys.
So I wanted to just let you know.
All right, thank you.
That's exactly what we're, no, that's really exciting to hear.
And we really appreciate you guys keeping us involved in those.
because, yeah, open space, objective design standards,
things we all love to hear.
We have no subcommittee reports.
I have not seen the designer view,
but I will see them next week.
So be prepared for some interesting thoughts
next SAB meeting.
If anyone else has anything else to say,
if not, I'll make a motion to close on a meeting.
We do need a second.
Okay.
And we have a second by Commissioner Sanderson.
We will, of course, take a roll call vote for our adjournment.
Thank you.
Chairperson Gaffney.
Yes, Commissioner now. Yes, Mr. Allen.
Yes, vice chairperson. Yes. Yes.
Commissioner Sanderson. Yes. Thank you.
Wonderful. Thank you all. I will see you all next month.