We will start by reading, or I will start by reading, 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 in the quorum will apply for ZAB meetings conducted by teleconference.
As any ZAB meeting is recorded and all other rules of procedures in the quorum 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 in 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 to speak, use the raised hand icon by rolling over the bottom of the screen.
To join by phone, dial the number in the agenda and enter the webinar ID, which is also in the 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.
Let's see if there's yellow cards up by the front.
Please fill them out now if you have anything to say,
and if you are online, I will call you after I call the people
who are in person.
I will make sure to tell you when to raise your hand.
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.
All right, first we'll start with roll call
and export a communication.
Thank you.
Commissioner Duffy.
Okay, Chairperson Gaffney.
Here, no ex parte.
Commissioner Thompson.
Present, no ex parte.
Commissioner Kramer.
Present, no ex parte.
Commissioner Allen.
Present, no ex parte.
Commissioner Choi.
Present, no ex parte.
And Commissioner Sanderson.
Present, no ex parte.
Thank you.
All right, wonderful, welcome everyone.
I'll start first with the Land Acknowledgement Statement.
The Commission recognizes that the community we live in
was built on the territory of the Huichun,
the ancestral and unceded land
the Chuchen-speaking Ohlone people, the ancestors and descendants of the Verona, sovereign Verona
band of Alameda County. This land was and continues to be of great importance to all
the Ohlone tribes and descendants of the Verona band. As we begin our meeting tonight, we
acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley, the documented 5,000-year history
of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shell Mound, and the Ohlone people who continue
city of Berkeley to reside in
the East Bay.
We recognize that Berkeley's
residents have and continue to
benefit from the use and
occupation of this unceded
stolen land since the city of
Berkeley's incorporation in 1878.
As stewards of the law,
regulating the city of Berkeley,
it is not only vital that we
recognize the history of this
land, but also recognize that
the Ohlone people are present
members of Berkeley and other
East Bay communities today.
The city of Berkeley will
continue to build relationships
with the Lajon tribe and to
to uphold the intentions of this land acknowledgement.
All right, we will start first with public comment
on non-agenda items.
Once again, things on the agenda,
so be anything that's not on the agenda.
On the agenda today is 841 Folger Avenue,
2614 Telegraph Avenue, and 2700 Shattuck Avenue.
So if you have anything to say about none of those projects,
then now is your time.
I don't look like I have anyone in person,
So, raise your hand online if you have anything to say.
All right, it doesn't look like we have anyone right now on line either.
So, I will move right along.
We were not reordering.
Oh, God in time, Kelly.
All right.
All right, Kelly, you will have three minutes to talk.
Go on ahead.
Okay, I guess I just want to say how disappointed I am since you mentioned 2,700 SHADUC in this.
And I thought that one was gonna be heard separately.
But 2700 Shattuck has asked,
is using one of their concessions to exempt themselves
from bird safe building?
And I think that's just grossly disappointing.
And the impact on-
Can I, sorry, we actually are hearing 2700 static from my, um, from my knowledge, but
is on our action calendar.
Um, so if that is, if your comment is about that, then I would actually say, um, you wait
to the public hearing and we will make sure to give you your time there.
Yeah.
Cause I was confused because you rattled it off with the other two that are on consent.
That was just on the, this was just things on the agenda that yes, yes, I will go over
the consent calendar now.
Do not worry.
2700 is absolutely on the action calendar.
Okay, wonderful.
On that note, we will go to the consent calendar
and she kicked us off well for that
because on the consent calendar is the minutes
for June 11th and then 841 Folger Avenue
and then item number C2614 Telegraph Avenue.
As I said, 2700 Chadwick is on the action calendar
and we'll have a full public hearing.
So all we're voting on right now is those first three items.
So first I will turn to anyone on the commission
if they have anything they'd like to say
about any of those three items,
and then I will open it up to the public.
This won't be your last time to talk.
All right, we're seeing pretty good on that.
Public, I don't have anyone in person,
but if anyone online wants to raise their hand,
said once again for any items on the consent calendar,
now would be your time to speak.
give it one more second okay then I will make a motion to approve the consent
calendar do I have a second I'll second all right we have a second all right
this is to approve the consent calendar chairperson Gaffney yes Commissioner
Thompson yes Commissioner Kramer yes Commissioner Allen yes Commissioner Choi
yes Commissioner Sanderson yes yes all right wonderful the motion passes for
anyone who is on the consent calendar,
you will have your use permit 14 days
after the notice of decision is mailed
and is appealable during that time.
Alright, we are moving right along to what we,
because we actually have an action calendar today,
which is very exciting.
So, 2700 Shattuck Avenue.
We will start by a, oh I see a presentation from staff.
I do see someone's hand raised.
I'm curious if that is someone,
would Sarah Callahan be someone
that needs promotion for,
because it doesn't look like our,
is Sarah Callahan someone you know?
Should I allow them to talk to see
if they're anything at least for, okay.
Sarah Callahan, we're just gonna allow you to talk right now
to make sure we know what you, all right, go ahead, Sarah.
Sure.
I'm just gonna speak in public comment,
so I want to put my hand up here.
Okay, perfect, yeah, put your head down
and I will make sure to be very clear
when the public is ready to comment.
But okay, do we have the applicant team online?
Yeah. Okay, perfect.
Wanna make sure we have everyone that was needed.
All right.
Take it, oh.
Wanna get promoted?
Yeah, are we ready for that?
Evan, Chris, and Robin, and Isaiah.
So yeah, applicant team, if you make yourself known,
would now serve an applicant team.
want to raise your hand so city staff knows to promote you. Does someone want
to go check and see if they are outside? It sounds like it. Yes, it sounds like yes.
Thank you so much, Boshi. Okay, one second everyone. All right, okay, we know where
they are now and we'll get to them. City staff, take it away whenever you are ready.
All right. Good evening, myself, commissioners. My name is Singey Saliki, and I'm the project
planner for the proposed project at 2700 Chadwick Avenue. The request is a use permit for proposed
mixed use residential development with 359 dwelling units, 38 of which are below market
rate. In tonight's presentation, I'll discuss the project scope, application review history,
environmental review, density bonus, state housing laws, and conclude with staff's recommendation on the use permit.
The approximately one acre lot consists of two parcels and has furnished on three streets,
Derby Street to the north, Shattuck Avenue to the east, and Ward Street to the south.
The site is zoned Adeline Corridor Commercial District and
it is within the Adeline Corridor specific plan south Shattuck sub area.
Drowning properties along Shadow Avenue have commercial district zoning while properties beyond the Shadow Corridor generally have residential district zoning.
They are budding property to the west, Berkeley, Iceland, is a designated city landmark.
The site is developed with two single-story commercial buildings located at the northeast and southeast corners of the lot.
buildings and the paved area in between are to be demolished for the proposed
mixed-use project. Within the Adeline Corridor specific plan this sub area
functions as an extension of downtown Berkeley. It includes a range of land
uses including retail and commercial businesses, small offices, housing and car
dealerships. The site was previously used for auto sales and service. The applicant
One is seeking approval to demolish two existing single-story commercial structures to construct
an eight-story, 90 feet and 40 inches, approximately 282,000 square foot mixed use residential
development with 359 dwelling units, including 38 very low-income units.
The project also includes approximately 13,000 square feet of usable open space, 5,100 square
feet of ground floor commercial space, 141 off-street vehicle parking spaces, and 158
bicycle parking spaces. The project is vested under SB 330 as of December 2023.
The full use permit application was submitted in May 2024 and deemed complete in October 2024.
The project's demolition referral was reviewed by the Landmarks Preservation Commission
in April 2025 and LPC took no action to designate land marking. In August 2025,
the applicant submitted a letter requesting CEQA exemption under Assembly Bill 130.
The Design Review Committee held a preliminary design review meeting in May of this year
and forwarded a favorable recommendation to the ZAB with direction for revisions at
Final Design Review, as detailed in the staff report.
Under AB 130, tribal consultation concluded on May 19th for the Lishon Nation that consulted
on the project and on June 2nd for the Muwekma O'Loony tribe who also requested consultation.
Upon conclusion of tribal consultation, staff determined the project is statutorily exempt
from CEQA under AB 130.
On June 25th, the city mailed and posted notices for a public hearing, which brings us to tonight's meeting.
In regards to CEQA, AB 130 is a new law that provides a complete statutory exemption for qualifying urban infill housing development projects.
The applicant submitted a letter requesting that the project be reviewed under AB 130.
The city conducted tribal consultation as required with two tribes.
Lishon Nation, and Muwekma O'Lone tribes.
The project is subject to any enforceable agreements
reached during consultation and to the standard conditions,
unless the tribes and the project proponent mutually
agree not to include certain measures as binding conditions.
Tribal consultation concluded with the applicant
and each tribe reaching an agreement on the conditions
for the project approval.
The city has included the conditions of approval as detailed in the packet.
The applicant requested a density bonus under the state density bonus law.
The project is located in the CAC district, which has a local density bonus program where
the development standards are based on a percentage of affordable units provided on site.
The city determined that the project could utilize the tier two standards as the maximum
based project if the project provided at least 14 percent BMR units. The project is providing 15
percent BMR units and under the city's density bonus procedures the base project is 247 units.
By providing 38 very low income units on the site that's 15 percent of the 247
based project units. The project is eligible for a 50% density bonus or 124 additional units.
The applicant proposes 112 additional units above the base project units
for a total of 359 dwelling units. Under the state density bonus law, the project is entitled to
three concessions and an unlimited number of waivers. The applicant requested two concessions
for the project. Exemption from the bird safe building requirement and exemption from the
percentage for public art on projects on private projects in Luffy. The applicant also requested
to use a concession for exemption from the option to pay in Luffy for inclusionary housing.
However, the city's inclusionary housing requirements are not an eligible concession
under the Density Bono's Law. HCD prepared a letter confirming this,
and this letter is referenced in the staff report and was also printed and shared with you.
Regarding waivers, the applicant requested waivers for height,
lot line setback, floor area ratio, lot coverage, usable open space, and projections
above height limits to accommodate the proposed project on the site.
The project is eligible for approval under the State Housing Accountability Act, or HAA.
Under HAA, because the project is compliant with all objective general plan and zoning standards,
it cannot be denied nor can the density be reduced unless findings can be made that the project would cause specific adverse impact that cannot be feasibly mitigated.
Staff has not identified any adverse impacts that could occur with the construction of the project.
The project is also eligible for SB 330 streamline review and this hearing is the third out of five public hearings that the city can hold for review and decision on the project.
Under AB 130, this hearing is the first possible hearing date after the conclusion of tribal consultation and the city must take action on the project.
Staff recommends that the ZAP approve the use permit subject to the findings and conditions as detailed in the packet.
This concludes staff's presentation.
Wonderful. Thank you so much.
This is a very interesting project. Does anyone want to start by having any questions for staff right now? This won't be your only opportunity.
We'll go with, yep, Commissioner Allen first, and then Commissioner Anderson.
More questions are always good.
It may be, so I am, I do, I no longer follow CEQA law and I am fascinated that a project
that's on the Cortese list can now be categorically exempt.
Is that related to SB 30?
Yes, I believe that's the near misprovision under SB 131.
131, I got my numbers wrong, but okay, I'll look into that, thank you.
Wonderful.
Commissioner Sanderson do you have a question as well?
Yeah, I would like staff to walk through the findings
in the interpretation.
We have one letter that explains that they had three
concessions and different dates that they are approved already.
And then they've included a letter from Lafayette.
So the logic on this is not quite clear to me.
So I'm wondering if staff could boil it down
to its basic parts.
Sure, so they asked for three concessions
that Singay went through
during the staff report presentation.
And in speaking with the city attorney's office,
we have always said that the in-loof fee
is not eligible for a concession.
That's been staff's position,
which is why we haven't had brought any forward,
but that was part of their request.
So our recommendation is that it's not an eligible.
So we didn't prepare the findings for denial
because our position is that we're not denying
an eligible request.
We just don't think it's eligible for a concession.
And the HCD letter goes into the details of why that is,
and it's basically saying that there was guidance,
I think, yeah, for Lafayette.
I don't know, okay.
Yeah.
So, we agree with the HCD analysis that says that it's just not eligible.
The answer is no.
Concessions cannot be used to reduce the project's obligation to provide deed-restricted
affordable housing at the specified income levels because it's contrary to legislative
intent.
And so, that's staff's recommendation.
Okay.
Oh, and then for the timeline, we agree that the dates that they presented are accurate.
This was just the next scheduled hearing.
So we scheduled it for this hearing.
And we did reach out to the applicant
to see if they were amenable to the dates
and we never heard back from them.
They were non-responsive.
So that's where we're at with the timeline.
All right, yeah, yes, Cheryl.
It is interesting that staff is recommending approval
with two concessions and the applicant's attorney
is recommending three concessions.
There was a late-hitting email to ZAB members
that was confidential, and I just want to look at people
and make sure they check their email at the end of the day.
Thanks.
All right, yes, no complicated project.
So ask questions away,
and so this is not your only time to ask to staff.
Mr. Thompson?
Sorry, go ahead.
I saw the email, but I would appreciate
some interpretation of the email.
It was a little dense for me.
I will not interpret the email, but because it
is a confidential message, and I'm awful at trying
to walk that line, I think if I were to make the motion,
I mean, we'll see what we hear from the public,
and we'll hear the presentation from the applicant.
But if the meeting progresses with the information,
think it will. I think a motion from the ZAB to approve with three concessions
would be a conservative approach. But when you say a conservative approach to
approve with three concessions and the third concession was one that HCD has
said is not valid, but so you're saying approve it with three? Well, let's not get
into it quite yet sorry I do understand this is a complicated one so we will
take more deliberation but before any more questions at least for staff right
now once again will be okay wonderful we will have the applicant present now so
applicant come on up whenever you are ready we know when we have questions for
them as well so don't worry get them ready I think your microphone is it try
and turn on the microphone real fast yes great good evening nice to be here with
you all tonight as a Stackhouse of Stackhouse-Dalapena
Tractenburg Architects here with Hudson McDonald
from the project.
So it's a fantastic location at the intersection
of two major boulevards, Shattuck and Adeline,
next to a sports basement here.
It's two blocks from Berkeley Bowl and four blocks to Bart.
It's right on a Derby, a bike boulevard.
It's rated a walker's and biker's paradise.
So we're proposing 359 units, including 38 very low income subsidized units.
Over 5,000 square feet of commercial on two fantastic corner locations.
We're proposing extensive pedestrian streetscape improvements and
great residential amenities including a fitness center, five lounges, a courtyard garden, large solarium, and a rooftop deck.
Here's the ground level plan with a central lobby.
and then retail with enhanced plazas at both corners.
Up on the second floor, there's a central courtyard
with generous openings to the corridors,
a lounge that overlooks a retail courtyard
seating area down below.
Going up to level seven, there is a lounge facing west
and a double height sky lit solarium
with downtown views and views to the hills.
Up on level eight, there's a corner roof deck
looking south and west.
The project is a mix of studios, ones and twos,
all great units with generous and furnishable layouts.
38 of these units will be very low income BMR units
in a full proportional range of the unit types.
Here's a view from Shattuck and Derby
with a corner retail here, the entry lobby and the double high solarium.
A view from Adeline and Ward with a corner retail courtyard and rooftop deck.
Here's a close-up of the corner retail at Adeline and Ward with a commercial courtyard seating.
We're widening the sidewalks, adding new landscape to create an active engaging pedestrian experience.
And a view at the corner of Shattuck and Derby,
where new landscaping and enlarged bulb out
enhance a pedestrian experience.
And overall, we're trying to create a high-quality project
designed to stand the test of time.
As noted in the SAF report, the project is consistent
with the Housing Accountability Act and Housing Crisis Act,
and Density Bonus Law is consistent
with Berkeley's General Plan policies,
zoning and development standards.
Perhaps Berkeley meet its regional housing needs in a transit-oriented development,
provides 38 below market rate units, and it provides 359 new homes for residents who enhance the community.
For these reasons, we ask that you approve the application here tonight.
That concludes my portion of the presentation.
I'm going to turn this thing on here.
Samal?
Good evening, Zab members. My name is Robin Burrell. I'm a Wayne's Attorney of the Hanson-Bridget.
I submitted the letter earlier this afternoon and, you know, granted we had to just a few days to review the conditions prior to this hearing and the staff report.
And, you know, we were taken a little by surprise seeing that there was two concessions being presented and then we saw on page eight that there was some discussion about the third.
You know, we had some extensive discussion around this during the application processing.
I just want to cover some of the highlights in the letter.
You know, the concession the request we made was pretty clear to waive the inclusionary
housing requirements that exceed what is being provided on site.
And so it's similar to the public art, if you waive the underlying requirement, then
you waive the associated in lieu fees.
So we're not – it's not a fee waiver, it's a waiver of the inclusionary housing
standard and along with that, the fees that would be associated in lieu of that requirement.
They're clearly allowed under Density Bonus Law.
We disagree with the applicability of the Lafayette HCD letter.
There are other HCD letters that do speak to this in great detail.
And I will add that the Permit Streamlining Act does have a pretty clear mandatory 30 day review and hearing requirement.
So our request is, as articulated in the letter, to approve the project with the three concessions
that were presented as part of the application, and the third concession being to waive the
inclusionary housing.
The local standards that exceed what is being provided on site, pursuant to state density
bonus law, and that effectively requires a waiver of the low income portion of the inclusionary
housing requirement, given that the project is already providing the maximum 15% very
low-income housing, which is a significant contribution to meeting the affordable requirements
that the city badly needs.
So, thank you.
Thank you.
Do you guys have anyone else, one speaker, is like, are you guys ready for questions?
We're ready for questions.
Okay, wonderful.
Anyone want to kick us off with some questions for, come on, Commissioner Allen?
I just got one question for everybody tonight.
I would love to hear a summary of the tribal consultation and the conditions that resulted
from that consultation.
Do you want to cover that?
Well, it's in the staff.
Oh, come on up here.
We've got to make sure.
Or there.
Either one actually.
You pick on that.
As long as you're on a microphone, so Zoom can hear you.
I think they're detailed in the staff report pretty clearly under the mitigations.
But basically we agreed to have two tribal monitors come and monitor the excavation of
the site and there's some training involved involving trouble representatives
before excavation excavation takes place. And also there's some requirements
around how any discoveries of significant you know of things of things
that could be trouble artifacts need to be handled and that's all pretty well
clearly identified in the staff report.
All right, anyone else, Commissioner Sanderson?
I have a couple of questions.
When I read the letters from Sports Basement,
there were some conditions that they requested.
And can you tell me if you agreed to those requests,
and are they in the conditions of approval?
I don't recall what Sports Basement requested.
At the time, I think they wanted to preserve a view
corridor to their sign, perhaps.
And no, we did not agree to that.
and flooding and drainage?
That'll be dealt with as a matter of standard mitigations.
Okay.
All right, and then also on the Plan Set, L3.01,
which is on page 112 of the PDF,
you see down there on number seven,
it says that 50% of all the plants are native.
Have you, I don't know where that,
if that is a standard that is, you're referring to,
that someone requires, I bet we've seen projects
with much higher percentages of native species.
So I'm just, I'm asking if you would consider
increasing that percentage to more like 75, 80%.
I think that would be fine, as long as they're viable
in the locations they need to be planted.
Yeah, they've been viable in other projects
there's no lack of them.
Yeah, it's certainly something we can bring in address
that final design review.
You okay agreeing to 75?
Well, I mean, you know, it's-
In theory?
Well, I want to be reasonable and because I'm not
exactly sure what conditions we're dealing with
in terms of landscaping.
What kind of lighting conditions are different
and every project and so if we could couch it in if and as appropriate to as recommended
by the expert consultants.
Yeah, we're happy to try to maximize the landscape planning.
If there's something we can substitute out for something that's that non-native and there's
an easy substitution to make that's not a problem.
Okay, good.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I know on DRC we have a lovely landscape architect, Mary,
who is very vigilant about everything.
So I'll make sure to, Mr. Thompson,
I'll make sure to look out for that.
And we thank you guys.
Anyone else have any questions for the applicants?
Mr. Samson.
I guess I'm troubled about the comments
by the Iceland managers and owners.
And were there any other ways that you explored
to resolve their concerns?
Well, we're proposing a building that's
much higher than their sign in.
I think their concern was visibility
of their sign from Shattuck.
So we didn't really see a way to, yeah.
But in the other things, like that they were concerned about
with the flooding and the drainage and all of that
has been as part of normal practice?
Yeah, that's as part of normal practice.
Underpinning, drainage during construction,
all of that kind of stuff is dealt with,
and we always deal with it in a neighborly way
when we're working in the city.
Okay, thank you.
I have one question.
Did you look at any other, like for the concession three,
did you look at any other options outside of that
that would, obviously, this seems like it would be
the first of you pursuing this,
and there's obviously other concessions
that could have been done.
Did you look at any of those?
What was the process to coming up with the concessions you came up with?
Well, we were looking at concessions that we thought would make the project most viable,
I mean in terms of getting out of the ground.
And we did look at, for the longest time we had two and we added in one.
And by the way, the fee was one of those, the waiver, the inlet fee, or the provision
of affordable housing beyond that it was required and the density bonus to meet the city's
inclusionary ordinance, but we picked those that we thought would increase the project's
likelihood of seeing daylight.
Sorry, that's my question so far.
I have one for staff, but I want to at least reprieve, there's no one else for applicants.
I just missed your name and title.
My name is Evan McDonald.
I'm one of the principals at Hudson McDonald.
And what does Hudson McDonald do?
We're real estate developers.
I mean, we did a lot of stuff in, you know,
last project was done 15 years ago.
It was the building next to the Berkeley City Club.
We did the Trader Joe's Project downtown.
We've done a bunch of downtown info projects,
mostly starting in around 2000.
We're very active between 2000 and 2050.
Thank you.
All right, and I think we're good on at least
questions for applicant.
All right, well, it looks like it's here. Welcome to GOES. Down, down. I do have one question for staff real fast before we move on to, um, I guess my question was, in regarding calculating what the, um, I, what the inclusionary housing fee would be for the local ordinance and how that works with the, uh, very low income units that they did already provide, um, because I remember at least reading that it is prorated if they at least do provide a certain amount.
And so, yeah, how is that calculated?
I just kind of want to understand of what even
we would be asking them to pay,
so I can get a bit more of an understanding of that.
Or anyone, oh yeah, sorry.
I'll let staff think on that for one second.
I can, I'll let the project planner
talk to the details about the project,
but I can speak to the inclusionary housing in general.
They, staff will go through,
and sometimes the units overlap, right?
So they'll have below market rate units
that count for their density bonus,
but then also count towards
their inclusionary housing numbers.
So there are units that act as both of those calculations.
So we'll go through and we'll make sure
that their density bonus numbers are correct
and their concessions and waivers related to that pencil out.
And then we'll go through and see how many of those
count towards the inclusionary ordinance.
And once we do that, we can see, okay,
the in-loofee will be X amount
because their density bonus units
only get them this much part of the inclusionary section.
And I don't know if you want to speak
to this project details for this one.
Please, this is fascinating.
This is generally done with HHCS.
So they're the ones who help us with the calculations
and the regulatory housing agreements
that you'll see in the conditions of approval.
They kind of monitor that program.
Sorry, HHDS?
Health Housing Community Services, sorry.
No acronyms.
Thank you. Now we appreciate all of the knowledge on this because it is dense.
Sorry, I know you're all good. Take your time.
So if you look at the in lieu portion of the affordable housing requirements,
so the basically the codified version is in lieu of providing some or all of the
affordable units required under the chapter of the applicant can pay the fee,
the amount which is established by City Council resolution, which I don't know
off the top of my head.
I think that is what CINGA is looking up.
Can you hear me?
Yeah, the fee that would be owed
is a little over $2 million is what?
And that's including the pro-rated version of that
for those 30 units that they did already provide.
Okay, so that was calculated by HHC
or helped calculate by HHCs.
Correct. Okay, interesting.
Learning all about process today.
Does anyone else have any follow up questions?
Yeah, of course, go for it.
If you could just say,
like under this inclusionary housing law,
if they met all of it,
how many units would they need to provide
that would need to be affordable income?
And they're providing 38, I think?
They're only required to provide us as many,
well, they're required to provide a minimum of 15% or 14%,
And so they're providing 15%, which equates to 38 units.
Okay, but there's this conversation
about the inclusionary housing in LOUFI,
which means that there's some other requirement,
like if they met that other requirement
through building the units,
or like doing the units as affordable,
how many affordable units would that be?
I'm not sure.
I believe it's 20%.
Okay.
So they are providing their density bonus over their density bonus 14% at 15%, but they're
not hitting that 20% for the inclusionary.
So that's where that math comes in of like, okay, so they'll do the in-loofy for that
difference in percent, that difference in percentage.
Yeah, no, it's weird.
Yeah, exactly.
The 15% is the state density bonus, and that's where they're getting the 50% density bonus.
And then there is a local, so it's kind of said sandwiched on each other, and then the
the local says 20% is what they need.
And you're saying that they have about,
calculate out 15, so interesting.
I know there's a bunch of math there
that we just don't know if we've,
who has access to that?
Where is that kind of information,
how they do those kinds of calculations?
It's usually in the regulatory agreement after the project.
So it's, they have to submit it.
It has to be finalized by HHCS
prior to building permit issuance,
or maybe final now actually.
But yeah, it's part of the regulatory agreement
they do with housing.
Interesting.
So that two million that we kind of said before,
that number isn't fully definite.
That's kind of still an estimation.
I think it's pretty definite, but it won't,
I mean, nothing is definite
till they have a regulatory agreement.
Gotcha, okay.
That's just kind of they review it again and okay.
Yeah.
Okay.
All right.
Does anyone have any more questions?
More questions about area?
I know this is complicated.
I'm sorry, I'm playing catch up here, new rules.
The tiers, there's a reference to tier two and then tier two, three, and four or something.
Can you just briefly explain to me what the difference is in those tiers,
and is it based on the percentage of units that are guaranteeing to be affordable?
Is there a quick place I could look at it?
Yes, it's the tiers are based on the percentage of affordable units
that are being provided on site and for the CO2,
they are required to provide a minimum
of 14% units, affordable units.
Okay, and they are providing 15%.
Correct. Okay, got it.
Thank you.
No, it's all good, it said it's complicated.
Anyone else before I at least we move to public comments?
This won't be your last time, so.
Yeah, Commissioner Thompson.
So there's the 14 and 15% conversation.
that's the state requirement.
And then the city of Berkeley has an additional requirement
to make it 20%.
And the concession says, we'll pay the two million-ish money
instead of meeting that requirement.
So I guess staff said earlier, contrary
to legislative intent, and that sentence kind of stuck
in my head, are we overriding what
the city's requirement is, if we say we can let that go at 15% instead of the 20%?
Yeah, well, they're... that's why I guess I also... it is a little confusing at least.
So if we made a motion, Jen once said this is not me making a motion, this is just me
spitballing, if we made a motion to approve as staff recommends, then that means that
they would not be getting the concession.
So we would have to recommend something
to add that concession in, from my understanding,
because staff right now has not put it even in here.
So if we did agree with the applicant,
what the applicant is saying is that the concession
is viable, and then we would have to add it in.
Right now, we would be agreeing with staff
and saying that, no, it is going against
the state legislations, what their intent.
And so that's kind of what Saff is saying,
if that helps at all.
Let me see if I can say it back to you in more simple English.
So the state law, for the amount of density bonus they want,
would require 14% of the units be BMR units.
And they are providing 15.
But the local government requires 20%.
And so what they are proposing—just correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm trying to get straight—and so they are proposing for the five percent difference to pay the in-loofy to the city for the five percent of units that they've not provided.
That's what staff—it's what they're going to have to legally do.
Right. We're saying that is what's required.
That's what's legally required is paying that in-loofy because they are not providing the full 20 percent.
proposal is to use a concession to not pay that in the fee.
There we go.
Yes.
And that would be to address maybe the other comment.
It would be a change in policy for the city.
Because our policy has been that that's not eligibility.
Yeah, this would be a first of its kind.
Yes.
This would be making a precedent.
Yes.
This would be making a precedent.
So indeed, that's why this is an exciting meeting today.
All right, any more questions for staff right now until we go to the public?
One second, you can ask staff again.
Yep, go ahead.
Sorry, I'm looking at, so it looks like they're providing
359 dwelling units and 38 of those are very low income.
When I quickly did that math a minute ago,
you have to do it off the base project.
It's very funky.
Yeah, okay, so there's no other fancy things.
No, the math is there.
Good old density bonuses,
on top of another city density bonus, so that's fun.
Or not density bonus.
Anyways, we're gonna move to public comment now.
I do not have any in person.
So Kelly, he's been waiting very patiently.
And I see Sarah as well.
So we're gonna go with Kelly first
and then Sarah will allow you right afterwards.
You guys both have,
you can go up to three minutes right now, why not?
Okay, can you hear me all right?
Yes.
Okay, if you wanna see the ordinance,
which is city law,
that you can look it up under
affordable housing requirements for developers.
and the ordinance says 20% of the units in the building as below market rate. 10% of those are
for very low income and 10% for low income and we have been calculating that off the base project.
So they would be because they've chosen to do all very low income to get the state density bonus
and no low income, and none of the low income units,
that's where they're coming in to paying the in-loof fees.
And you always round up in the calculations
in terms of the units.
So if they were doing all of the 20% as units,
it would be, if it ends up being a partial unit,
it's always rounded up, even if it's only like 2%,
you know, two tenths of a percent, it's always rounded up to the next whole unit.
So, you can read the rules just by looking up
affordable housing requirements for developers.
And that gives you the link to the city ordinance, which is city
laws. So, they are trying to say that they don't have to abide by
city law. And for you to do something different
to tell them they don't have to abide by city law would be precedent setting. And
I would say let them appeal to the city council on it and get the city attorney involved.
So that would be my thing.
I'm concerned about the attitude here that seems to come across in watching and listening to this.
It is concerning that they are getting out of the bird's say glass ordinance,
especially when that solarium up on the top is really a bird hazard,
with glass coming to the corner,
which makes birds think they can fly through it.
If they're not seeing the glass with a straight reflection,
it looks like they can fly through it.
It is really quite a hazard,
which they seem to discount as having any importance.
So that is, that's really quite a shame. As far as the native plants, native plants are
normally much easier to take care of than non-native plants. And it can be quite exciting to see they
have put butterflies on a number of their plants. It's quite exciting to see the butterflies and
and everything that comes along with the plan.
So I think that covers my comments,
but and just to reemphasize,
I caution you to do anything that would be in contradiction
to city law.
Thank you.
Thank you, Kelly.
We appreciate your insight
and taking us to that document.
That's definitely something I will be looking into later.
All right, we have one more person on the iPad.
Let's see, Sarah Callahan.
I will allow you to talk now.
Hi, thank you.
Can you hear me?
Yes.
Hi, my name is Sarah Callahan, and I'm
here today on behalf of Northern California
residents for responsible development, which
represents hundreds of members of the electrical workers,
plumbers, sheet metal workers, and sprinkler fitters
who live, work, and raise their families in Berkeley
and Alameda County.
If the city approves the project under AB 130,
the project must comply with AB 130's workforce standards,
including prevailing wage
or a skilled and trained workforce.
AB 130 says buildings over 85 feet above grade
and height above grade must include work say standards.
And in the staff report,
the project height is 90 feet and four inches,
which is over 85 feet.
Berkeley municipal code says that the parapets and stairs
are included in the building height.
And it says maximum building height
includes the vertical distance of the building
at any point from finished grade
to the top of the roof for parapet walls.
AB 130 does not say that the parapets and roof top stairs
are not included in the building height.
Since the project is over 90 feet tall,
if the city decides that AB 130 applies,
AB 30's workforce standards must be enforced.
The applicant claims that the workforce standards
would make the project unfeasible.
Many developers find that they can build their projects
to make a profit without passing their performance
onto the exploitation of their construction workforce.
It would be detrimental to the health and safety
and general welfare of local workers
if the city does not require the project
to comply with state law requirements
for workforce standards.
We ask that the ZAB confirm the AB 130 workforce standards
that will be applied to the project.
Thank you.
All right, thank you, Sarah.
Since there is no more public comment,
looks like, that I would like to go right into asking staff, can you confirm if the
AB 130 work safe standards apply?
Yes, the AB 130 does have that provision for any building that's over 85 feet in height.
Okay, so it does apply to this?
Yes, and state law would trump our laws, so we will follow state law.
Okay, wonderful.
All right, thank you for asking that question.
Always good to know that.
So, thank you, Sarah.
All right, do we have any more questions or anything for city staff or the applicant before we close the public hearing portion and go into deliberation?
All right.
Then I vote to close the public hearing.
No, I have a second.
We have to do this.
Second?
Thank you.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Aye.
All those opposed say nay.
Perfect.
All right.
Public hearing is now closed.
And, it's okay, we can vote to open it again, of course.
No, no, no, of course we want to hear from the public.
All right, I'd make a motion to open the public hearing.
I know this is silly, we have to do it.
Since I can.
Perfect.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
All those opposed say nay.
All right, thank you.
No, right?
Todd, come on up.
No, you snuck right in.
You always want to hear from the public.
Thank you very much.
Of course.
I appreciate that.
This is about 2,700 shadow.
Yes, absolutely.
We live about 50 yards from it, across the street,
and I would like to make sure that
there's not a demolition permit given to the project
unless they're going to commence construction immediately.
The town already has too many holes in the ground.
Buildings are unused, and they're just waiting for financing.
I don't know what the condition of the financing is.
I don't know when construction's going to start,
but we don't want standing water, an empty lot, and rubble
just waiting for Wall Street to come along and finance them.
So that building is perfectly usable right now.
You could have a dance party, you could roller skate, whatever.
Better a building that could be used for something in the interim
than having a pile of rubble, standing water, and who knows what
on that lot.
So if the construction is not going to commence,
please don't grant the demolition permit
or make the demolition permit contingent
upon the construction starting within a very short time
following the demolition.
I understand the demolition will take a while,
but we don't want it demolished and left blank.
We don't need to have any more vacant lots.
I don't think there is anything
within our purview that will
allow us to do anything or put
any conditions like that.
That is something we can
deliberate during our
deliberation, which we're about
to do.
But yes, we hear you and we feel
your, we do feel the pain.
We do understand.
All right.
I'll make a motion to close the
public here.
Second.
Someone.
Thank you.
and we do feel the pain, we do understand.
Alright, I would make a motion to close the public hearing.
Second, someone?
Second.
Second.
Thank you.
All those in favor say aye.
All those in favor say nay.
Okay, the public hearing is now closed.
I guess just to start with even that, I mean is there anything, I don't, I mean yeah, that
is nothing in our purview that it would allow us to be able to do it.
I would start by asking staff what the standard conditions are for issuance of a demolition
permit? Yes, so right now, in the past we have had the policy that they cannot
even pull their demo permit unless we have an active application for, or
actually until I think their other permit was ready to be issued, but state
law did change. So state law does allow phasing for demolition permits now. So
what we do now is we can only hold it to, we make sure they apply for their
building permit for the new building, but we can't hold the demo until it's
approved so we do what's within our ability but state law did allow phasing
so it has kind of hindered that that process for us a little bit so we do what
we can and within that parameter okay that's all very good knowledge all right
where do you want to start I mean I'll make it pretty known I'm agreeing with
staff so far. I feel the
intents of state and local law
and you know our local law came
from the state intended and
even though I think there might
be, I'll be interested to see
what council says, I am
personally leaning towards what
staff is recommending but
obviously I want to hear
everyone else's opinions.
I have a question for staff.
So with all that discussion
about tier one, two, three and
for, is this the affordable housing density bonus stuff?
Is that consistent with tier two?
Yeah, it's consistent with tier two, so they're stacking the tier two
and the state program, so they're stacking the local and the state.
Okay, thank you.
Come on, I know other people have some opinions, what do you all think?
Well, I think it's difficult.
I understand the conceptions.
I understand why they don't want to pay the in lieu fee.
But on the other hand, that's the whole.
I think they have to.
And I would agree with staff on that.
Otherwise, I mean, I understand that they
want to waver as a bird safe glass and I mean I might disagree but I think they
have a right task for that waiver or concession and we have to approve it. So
I don't know what I'm saying except it's complicated and it makes me anxious
because it's hard to understand that the density bonus in the in-loop fee and
all of that. But I don't see anything that would cause me not to approve it, I
guess, is where I am. Yeah, to me that's a very big precedent and said to me yes
it goes against the intent of what the density bonus is saying and since there
are a lot of different concessions you can have out there or even different
ways to arrange how many affordable units you have, it does sound like there's a
complicated process for that, but it doesn't to me,
I don't know, I'm not convinced that setting a precedent
this big is worth it and that, yeah.
Commissioner Sanderson, and then you guys first.
I have what might be a question for staff.
I'm hearing that there's a difference
between the very low income units and the low income units.
What is that difference translate to in simple human terms?
I don't see simple terms.
Yeah, so basically, all the percentages change and shift
about what is required based on what they're proposing.
So you get higher density bonuses
or you get less inclusionary or whatever the case is
based on how it slides back and forth.
So the more very low income units they propose,
the higher density bonus kicks in
versus if you do, let's say, moderate income,
you're not gonna get as high of a density bonus.
So that's how it's impacted in the state law.
And then for an inclusionary,
it changes the calculation based on that 20%
and the 210%, it just changes the calculation
of which unit counts for inclusionary and which doesn't,
which then impacts the fee.
So that's what the regulatory agreement goes over.
Okay, sorry, my good question asking sales
may have been left at home this morning.
But is there like, we want very low income units
to be attainable for somebody making-
It's like my income level.
So what are the simple-
Oh, the income levels are based on area median income.
Sorry, I misunderstood the question.
Yeah, so it's based on, yeah, state laws,
area median income basically.
And can you put that in dollar terms for me,
even a ballpark?
I can look it up real quick.
Well, I would appreciate that.
I do.
I'm afraid I have a question for the applicant,
but we've already closed the public hearing.
It's okay, we can open it again.
I don't even know why that rule almost exists.
Okay, I'll make a motion to reopen the public hearing.
Second.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
All those opposed say nay.
Perfect.
Opposite, it sounds like we have a question for you.
Mr. Sampson, you're over to him.
My question concerns the two commercial spaces.
They're good sized spaces, 3,000 square feet,
and another one is like 2,400, 2,500 square feet.
have you considered making those smaller spaces
so that we're more likely to get small local
commercial establishments and not,
I mean, the big ones are seeming to go out of business.
And I think if, yeah, if you don't do it,
if you don't, you can get some flexibility
and you can say up to two or, you know, and it's optional,
but I would like to consider them smaller.
design such that they could be subdivided. So typically, tenants won't be identified
until we're under construction.
Because people won't sign leases at this early, early stage.
So, you know, we wanted to provide great corner spaces
that would turn the corner, activate both streets.
They're both, you know, it's a really incredible location
with plazas out in front of each one.
And so, you know.
So, would you have permission to subdivide them
without coming back to Zab?
Yeah, that doesn't need to go back to Zab.
Okay, that's all I was worried about.
So you have the flexibility within the design to go to smaller spaces?
Yeah.
So sometimes, you know, just at this early stage, like if we had one unbroken space of
say like 8,000, we might dot in some lines just to hint at that fact that it may be subdivided
later when the leases start to get signed.
But it is, you're always allowed to subdivide without any permit modifications.
It's just a staff level review of the building permit itself.
If that makes sense, yeah.
Thanks for the question.
Awesome, thank you.
In our commercial spaces, I know we talk obviously a lot about residential, but commercial are also very important.
Hold on, we have a question from previous, or an answer to previous question, and then-
So for very low income, it's up to 50% of the AMI, and
low income is up to 80% of the AMI.
The number I could find really quickly for Alameda County
is for a four-person household,
which might be a little bit larger
than these apartments would hold,
but that would be 159,800, is area median income.
So very low income, 50% of that would be about 80,000,
would be considered very low income
for a four-person household.
It is rigorously adjusted based on household size,
so it will probably be in reality
It's actually for these apartments,
because I don't think any of them are that large,
but in general, those are the numbers
I could find real quickly.
And I do know that data is,
I know we don't wanna make staff dig too much on that,
but I do know there is some,
I could share it on our city's website, or at least,
that is good, that is obviously something we work a lot with,
and so it is good information to know
on what we're asking for.
I have a question regarding that.
I should.
Well, I'll ask the question,
We'll see who can answer it.
So for those, that typology or that category of low income and, well right now we're very
low income, right?
What is the square footage in the TEBU unit we're talking about?
That's what I was asking.
It wasn't identifiable in the drawings that I was going through.
Let me see.
Isaiah, come on up and talk about that.
I know there's plans in here.
The units, what we do when we submit for building permit,
the units will be the whole range of the unit types in the project and they'll be proportional.
And that's, so for instance, if there are 20% two bedrooms in the overall project, they'll be 20% affordable.
They also, in that regulatory agreement, we work with city staff to determine which units.
They get spread all throughout the building, so they'll be on every floor and they'll be of every unit type.
So we work very closely with city staff to provide the most sort of fair and even.
And they're fully distributed throughout the building.
They're not all down on the, say on the second floor in one back corner.
They're, they're, the city staff is.
So it's, so it's pretty much spread throughout the unit type.
Yeah, and so it'll, you know, so it'll serve a whole range of population.
That this building is a mix of studios ones and twos.
And so it'll serve households that are, you know, equally proportioned.
Studios ones and twos.
And as mentioned, the 50% AMI is by household.
So a single person, their 50% AMI is much less than a four person household.
But the AMIs, the ELIs are the sort of the lowest income tier.
I was just trying to process in my head to hit the 5% gap.
There will be 12 more units and it's really not redesigning the building.
It's really about allocation of those extra units.
Okay, I just wanted to clear up the process of what you are thinking and what our process is.
Thank you.
Yeah, because I believe they've already gotten their max density bonus.
you guys have gotten the max amount of density bonus out of the state density bonus?
Yes.
Yes.
The VLI's are maximized at 15%.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So yeah, they already at least have gotten as large as they could have.
All right.
How are we feeling, everyone, any more?
I mean, so I – I guess I had – I had one question, I guess, for staff kind of on this
whole also July 2nd deadline, so once in that the 30 days once in was that 30
days start and how does that kind of thing work because I know it has to yeah
that's part of the AB 130 let me pull up the tape. So that's an AB 130 and says more of the CEQA
determination. Right but in that statute once the determination or once
consultation is concluded it does give you 30 days to approve or disapprove the
project so it's part of that statute. Because that's I mean is that I mean
assuming since we are a part of proving or approving that process and we
only have one meeting a month that almost renders that almost completely
impossible as well I don't know that seems very difficult for you guys to
actually maintain scheduling when we only have one meeting a month if you
only have 30 days. Yes. Because that's kind of what's going on at least with that part. That is correct and
also it can be difficult because the tribal consultation also there's windows
and those windows shift so the tribal consultation has extensions that they
can the tribe can request and we have to approve it they also have a window when
they can request consultation and based on that the time starts in different
places so it can be difficult for staff to anticipate when it's going to
conclude to know okay we have to get on this meeting because we just don't know
when they're going to request and if that request is going to get extended, so there's
no way to program that out with the calendar and it is something that we're working on.
Okay.
Yeah.
I was going to say, I feel for you guys in the scheduling of that and that has nothing
to do with what at least we're voting on, that was just obviously something in one of
our supplemental communications that I just wanted some clarity on.
Yeah.
Not a part of at least the motion that I'm considering making.
But before I make any motion or anything, so I want to make sure everyone's heard out
to the staff recommendation.
How?
Can we just for clarity and
understanding for everyone
sitting up here, where are we
in terms of the staff
recommendation?
I think that was the end of the
last.
So the staff recommendation is
just the two concessions.
So it is not including, it is
not including their third
concession which was to not pay
the in lieu fee, the in lieu
funding per what we're
recommending here is that they
do pay that inclusionary
housing fee because they are
not matching the 20% that the
city requires by, I won't say
by-law because I haven't fully
read it, but yes.
So that is what staff has
proposed.
We also said another option that
is to add in the concession per
the applicant's request.
That is my understanding.
Staff and my, did I get that
pretty right?
Feel free to continue to ask more questions.
I'm like yeah, Commissioner Humpson.
I had a question on the 20% inclusionary act that the city has, and well, I guess I should
look it up what it's done, you know what?
At least you can say it.
Well, I guess I'm uncomfortable with having to, I mean, the state has its requirement
the city has a requirement for a reason and the voters wanted that for a reason and I felt
a bit I want to see this building built um those you know past those two properties every single
day and I would like to see them built and I love this project but I really feel uncomfortable with
not adhering to our city's requirement.
I think we do have more of a housing,
affordable housing crisis in the rest of the state.
Oh, I shouldn't say the rest of the state,
but we have unique requirements and needs here in Berkeley.
I guess maybe that's the...
My understanding is because we deny them
the third concession, which would have allowed them
to not pay for those 5% units,
that they are now obliged to meet
the local inclusionary ordinance to pay for those units is my understanding.
Or appeal to the City Council.
Yeah, right, okay.
Yeah, so this is we will not be the last fight in this I'm sure that will be seen again.
And I think this is a very, as I said, this is setting a major precedence.
It truly, the council needs to hear it and I'm sure it'll go there.
Well, maybe I guess we'll see what we vote on.
Yeah, Commissioner Harrison.
I'm concerned that they're allowed more concessions than they're taking.
So they had asked for three.
We said that the third one, you know, is not valid.
So we're giving them the two.
But they didn't ask for any substitute concession in any way.
And I'm just wondering if that leaves us vulnerable legally.
That's a good question.
I mean, they could have come in and said, okay, you know, we'll give that one up, but
now we want this other third concession that will, you know, that meets our requirements
and can lower the cost.
I think because they disagree on the eligibility issue, they don't want to do that because
they want the city to make findings for denial if we're not going to approve it.
And so I don't think – I think that I'm speculating a little bit on their behalf, but
I think that is probably why because they just there's a disagreement between city staff and the applicant about whether it's eligible.
Yeah, I'd be interested to see whether concessions says that I wish I understood money parts of this more and I do get that is the issue, but that's indeed, you know, yeah, how are we feeling?
All right, yeah, go for it.
I move that we approve the project as proposed, as presented by staff, and I think that's it.
Did you want to add a loose condition around landscaping will aim for 80% native plant for review by DRC?
Sure.
You had mentioned that.
I think it was a good one.
I was just, it's so complicated.
I was like, don't do something.
So yeah, with the added condition of,
I mean, 485% of the landscaping be native species,
as long as they are viable and with advice of the DRC.
And other land, and like a landscape,
pure landscape architect, too, or whatever.
So, all right, that sounds good.
Inside I know Mary on our landscape,
her landscape person on DRC will do a wonderful job.
She is fantastic.
All right, I will second that.
All right, we have a motion and a second.
Chairperson Gaffney?
Yes.
Commissioner Thompson?
No.
Commissioner Kramer?
No.
Commissioner Allen?
No.
Commissioner Choi?
No.
Commissioner Sanderson?
Yes.
All right, the motion fails.
Do we have the substitute motion?
Who wants to go?
If you want to try it, a substitute motion would be to approve the project with three
concessions as described in the Hanson Bridget letter dated July 8, 2026, and with the additional
condition that landscaping the landscape plan will aim for 80 percent native plants for
review by the design review committee.
Can you explain that a little bit?
The third concession would be as they had previously requested it.
The concession that is outlined in the,
yeah, so that the applicant has requested
the third concession that it be exempt from BMC, 23 K-82.
And is part of their initial application
and is summarized in the memo dated July 8th.
Thank you, I just wanted to be sure.
Yeah.
I mean, I really, I've enjoyed the conversation
around density, like density bonuses is complicated,
is an understatement, and it's ever evolving.
And the question of local regulations versus state law,
and interpretation of law, and intent.
And I think there are other paths
that the city of Berkeley could use
to modify what's approved under density,
And I think we've had a good run at it and...
That was quite an incredibly interesting discussion.
Yeah, Commissioner Thompson first and then Commissioner Burke.
Just a quick question on procedure.
If we deny the project then it automatically goes to City Council for them to review or is it purely...
Well, no, you're not...we're not denying the project.
You're proposing an alternate motion to add in the concession that they were requesting,
which is just them not paying the in-loofy.
So if – and then say that motion passes, then they get their use permit with that concession.
Yeah. And so that is what is so far on the table, and we do not have a second yet.
Commissioner Kramer, did you have anything you wanted to add?
I just had a thought, which is that, based on my understanding, the city requires that we do –
that they do 10 percent of low income and 10 percent of very low income.
very low income, but instead they're doing 15% of very low income, which is – so I'm
kind of playing around in my head with, like, is five units of very low income equivalent
to 10 units of low income?
My quick pencil math suggests that it might be, if you look at it like you're getting
like 20 percentage points of AMI reduction.
Well, and I know I do agree with that, and for me it's that it's more about the precedent
it sets for other projects that might not be using that.
Yeah.
Why if it is that small of a difference that I wish they would have worked within that system,
where our system that we set out to, you know, I don't see why that would have been that hard to put in 10%
and then try and do their density bonus another way.
I just feel like they could have worked within ours and it just is making us risk,
I'd said, a huge precedent that someone else could take advantage of.
Even if this project is not taking as much of an advantage of it,
it's that it's more about the precedent in my eyes.
But yes, I think that is a good point.
Those that many below, extremely low units are important
and they did provide a good amount of those.
So that should not be overlooked.
And that is, but I at least still stand with mine so far.
So do we have a second though?
Because I, of course, we will still hear a-
Can I, for staff clarification.
So if you are going to have a concession for the,
So, if you're going to change the approvals for that concession, we probably need to look
at the conditions of approval, because there are some conditions of approval that require
the regulatory agreement.
So it would be condition 4D2 and 3, and then the one after 3, which is – yeah.
So it would be 2D4 and 3, and basically striking, I think, all of 2, because that's the regulatory
agreement for inclusionary housing and then for three just striking the
reference to inclusionary housing under below market rate units so I just wanted
to make sure that's what you're proposing. That is absolutely what I'm
proposing but it would be helpful if you would use more words around it so that
in the transcript from this meeting it gets captured. Okay you want to read
and say where we, you know, what we're crossing out.
Yeah.
So it's condition 4D2, regulatory agreement,
inclusionary housing.
The applicant shall execute a regulatory agreement
and declaration of restrictive covenants
to regulate all affordable units
provided in housing development project.
No building permit shall be issued for the project
until the regulatory agreement
and declaration of restrictive covenants are executed.
And then the following condition below market rate units,
the project shall provide below market rate rental units
BMR units which are required to comply with the State Density Bonus Law Government Code
Section 65915 by BMC Chapter 23.328, Inclusionary Housing and BMC Chapter 23.326, Demolition
and Dwelling Unit Controls. So it just would be striking the BMC Chapter 23.328, Inclusionary
Housing because we would keep the other two frameworks.
Okay, I think that's going to create a problem, because if there's no regulatory agreement
with the city, who's monitoring their compliance?
I mean, we could still use the agreement, we're just changing the numbers from 20 to
50.
So keeping that, because I don't know how you're going to regulate it, otherwise, it
has to be a legal document that says we agree to do A, B, and C.
unless they don't have a legal document with housing,
but it's with planning or something,
but housing knows how to implement this stuff.
So I think because they're asking for a concession
to the inclusionary housing section,
the in lieu fee is just part of that section,
so I'm not sure how specific we can get.
Well, let me find that within that framework,
but we can keep that condition
and then work with the city attorney on that.
Can't you just change the numbers of the units
and say, you know, it's 15 not 20?
And then so that what is,
what does meet the inclusionary limits,
which is the first 15% is covered by the contract
and the 5% just goes away.
So we could say that they have a regulatory agreement
for the units, below-market rate units agreed to
under the density bonus law, which is 15.
Right, that's kind of more of a legal question
because of how they're asking for their concession.
So we can keep that condition in
and we'll work, and staff will work on that.
All right, is there any way we put that in the condition
where it is to speak to the city attorney
before determining, like, is that helpful at all
to have that within our motion?
No.
They would do that anyway.
Okay, perfect.
They just do that anyway.
That's better.
I'm sure they will indeed.
So how are we feeling, Commissioner Allen,
since you are the original maker of this motion,
want to make sure you're clear, we're all clear.
I'm as clear as I can be.
I don't feel great about this but I think this is the right path forward so I
still my motion is still to approve with three concessions as outlined in the
letter and the additional condition around landscaping for native plants and
the understanding that staff will review project conditions with the city
attorney's office and edit as needed around affordable housing compliance and
regulatory agreement and the blow market rate units. All right I second that
motion. All right we have a motion and we have a second. Chairperson Gaffney? No.
Commissioner Thompson? No. Commissioner Cramer? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes.
Commissioner Troy? Abstain. Commissioner Sanderson? Yes.
Alright. The motion passes. The motion passes. Wait, is it? No, we're all... I'm sorry. I miscounted. We're at a lock.
I think there's an I don't really want to say this out loud but watch me say it out
loud into a microphone if we if we were to reconsider the first motion for
project approval as staff has proposed we can with relative confidence
understand that the applicant team will appeal it to City Council it will be
city council, as you stated, city council will make determinations around applicability,
so I guess I would be willing to discuss that or think about.
I have now thought about that more clearly.
as people on the other spectrum said, we still have to – Commissioner Thompson, who's a double no, which is okay.
We also said we accept all, but we'd love to hear from people and how we can help make many of us feel more comfortable.
I just think that this is a big issue. It's a legal question. It's not really about the project itself, you know.
it's about how to finance the project and whether what they're trying to do is legal or not legal.
We have one lawyer who's weighed in but we haven't had you know a broad hearing of from legal staff
on this question. Well we will never have zoning adjustments we won't we have information from
the city. Yes I understand that but I'm saying if we we should not just drop this project
because of the issue of the third concession, you know.
I'm okay adding the third concession.
I'm okay not adding the third concession.
I think we need to approve this project so it can get to the Council
and it can be considered.
I mean we can't, I'm just not comfortable just walking away because we were.
Yeah, I don't think we were.
I don't think anyone is familiar with it.
We will sit here and so we have an answer.
Okay, so we're waiting for third motion.
Well, so yeah, so I'd love to hear from people who are,
is that especially anyone who's abstained or note?
Yeah, Commissioner Thompson.
Well, I guess I'm not qualified
to set a precedent that would change how we, yeah.
I would like someone more qualified to weigh in on that,
specifically on the law side of it.
and yeah I'll put it that way. To me my favorite, I'm putting a pressure
on before I speak I want you to... So I'm doing that at Steam.
You know if my colleague Commissioner Young was here, I know what he would be saying,
that this is about precedence, it's about our stewardship, and it's not really about this one
in case, as you said.
And so, and then the other thing to think about is,
it does go to the council and that is at a higher level.
And it is not as if the observance of the goings on
of this project is being revoked.
It is actually taking it to a higher level
for more inspection and more introspection.
And for that I would approve.
But I guess my initial wavering was really about
the variety of scale, specifically this project,
this proposal, but then at a higher scale,
what is this set as a precedent for other projects
coming in the next few years?
And substandard housing is an issue that is important
to the city, to the population.
So that's why this is not so easy.
So okay, I know what my thinking is now.
Okay.
I would approve. I would approve and take it to the council.
The two can, as proposed by the city staff, along with your native plants recommendation so far.
I will make another motion for that if I have a second.
If we want to try again, I'm happy to debate longer because I obviously want to make sure everyone is comfortable.
But I think this kind of precedent, getting that up to City Council, is to me of the most
importance, they will have more, hopefully, legal things to be able to...
Yeah.
No, Commissioner Kramer, go ahead.
So, the most likely sequence of events, if that passes, if we approve it, as staff has
suggested, is that likely the applicant appeals and then it goes to City Council and then
City Council decides what to do?
Yep.
Yep.
Sorry.
So we used to have a phrase, probably still do, that when it was something that was really
tangling up that we would say, let counsel decide.
Yeah.
Which we have done before.
Because they have more resources to deal with the complexity of the question at hand, and
we can't.
Yeah.
And the intention of where their, you know, their legislation, this local legislation
comes from and why they said it the way they did.
So to me, that's also why I want to hear from them.
I want to know how important that 20% really is to them.
So then we can know how to adapt to projects when they, if they come forth with this.
You know, so I want to make, yeah, Commissioner Tom, was that an answer?
You guys, I know everybody's going to run me out of the place.
Just to be sure, we're now saying that the now,
the question is, is it reopening again that we vote on the project?
One more time, the way it was originally presented by staff, with the in lieu fee added, and who calculates the in lieu fee?
In the agreement, yeah.
There's a formula.
And they do it right with a regulatory agreement?
It's a regulatory agreement that they discuss afterwards, after it gets passed.
Okay, and one of the additional, was that a recommendation on the native plant?
Sorry, condition, but I mean it was also within reason that the native plants would survive
and that they would consult professionals to make sure that it was feasible.
Okay.
Not, yeah.
Is there any conversation on any portion of the bird's safe?
So if they can't do the whole building,
can they just do the atrium part, a piece of it, something?
I don't, to me, that concession is not on the table,
considering it's, yeah, it's something we've set a precedent
of doing that before.
It's well within their right to ask for that concession.
However, we do absolutely hear you, Kelly,
and indeed that corner, we would obviously emphasize,
especially in that corner, if there's any way to, you know,
to fix that and help birds not run into that,
because that does seem like an dangerous corner.
But I don't think we can, there's nothing we can do there.
do hear. We do hear that. Do I have a second? Second. Mr. Sanderson. I'm gonna do it again.
Alright. Chairperson Gaffney. Yes. Commissioner Thompson. Yes. Commissioner Kramer. Yes. Commissioner
Allen. Yes. Commissioner Choi. Yes. Commissioner Sanderson. Yes. Alright. The motion passes
and you would have your used permit 14 days after the notice of decision is mailed unless
it is appealed during that time.
So, all right, that was a very, very interesting discussion.
A very complex topic that I think needed to happen.
It was gonna happen one way or the other sometime.
So, we've had hard hats recently.
We know that was also one, you know, so these are all,
yeah, so very interesting questions that need to be asked.
Last thing we need to do before subcommittee reports.
Commissioner Thompson, do you have it up right now?
I think I just got lined up too.
hold on I think you got it up. So okay switch gears. So at the last DRC we
discussed 2128 Oxford Street which is the project that we have been we approved
the use permit some time ago that's on the corner of Center Street in Oxford
it's the is it the tallest if not one of the tallest properties so we had a very
very in depth and animated discussion and DRC about it.
And there were a lot of recommendations, everything from the appearance at the ground level to
the signage to the shape of the building itself, what it would look like, the landscaping.
They wanted to scale it back a little bit and they want to add more units and less commercial
space.
And it sounds like they really want to get the thing built, so, you know, we've heard
from the public they want to get this going, and I thought that the DRC had some really
good recommendations.
That would make it better for us, the public, who will see this building for probably the
rest of our lives if we live here, and the folks living in the buildings also, it would
have bird safe glass and some ports.
Not all of it, I think it was a certain percentage.
Yeah, so I guess that was the last part.
What was the biggest concern from DRC?
This is also final design review, so our scope is very limited on that.
It's two, because they already have their use permitted, it's already passed here.
So the only things we're really kind of quote unquote allowed to talk about during final design review is landscape being definitely one of them materials.
So, we did a long, lengthy discussion on materials.
It said it's interesting, we tend to talk about things we're not supposed to in final design review, but they can't really do anything.
So, we talked for like two hours, and so we talked about, because they did change the forms around a little bit more since we'd last seen it.
Also, they are coming back for signage, and signage was one of those things we, especially on that building.
because it's, I mean, you guys have seen that Oxford Strip,
it's like 300 feet of, yeah,
and it's all very repetitive storefront.
To me, it still feels Reed's still very kind of mall-like
commercial, so they, to me, I think they have some work
to do on the human level, the base level.
They've done a lot of work on the massing
and seeing it from afar, and I think they're,
I hope they hone in a little bit more on materials.
They changed one of them, and I don't like that one,
But I told them that, so hopefully you'll think about it.
The one thing about storefronts is you just
have to make sure that there's a design guideline in place
once a building operates.
So whatever you guys agree with them,
that goes on for a while.
That's a good point.
So you mean future tenants can't change the appearance of it
and make it look?
OK.
Good point.
I thought, yeah, no, it was actually interesting.
I think we, I mean, I think we vaguely
said that we wouldn't mind having
owners be able to add a little bit more flair to their own spots, because since it is 300 feet,
it's kind of like the same thing that it is. It does feel very kind of like tunnel-like a little
bit, not tunnel-like, but you know. So that was something we were discussing and how signage
kind of plays in with that, and how much we wanted to kind of restrict signage and stuff.
But it will be all, yeah.
And they're using a terracotta finish on a lot of the parts.
the terracotta was really nice. That was part of it, one of the some of the masses of the
terracotta. So yeah, they're using some really beautiful materials. They, this was sad, they
did have a public restaurant on top that they just took away. So I know I was looking forward
to going up there. But that one is no longer. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I understand the complexity.
But as a member of the public, I'm still on this. I know, I know, especially, especially
When you look at the building, it's much more interactive when the people can actually go in the building without living there.
So that was a little bit of a disappointment, but they did—
But they're making it—they've had many meetings with us, too.
They even had a preliminary meeting with me before it even came to DRC.
So they've really done their due diligence, and you can tell they have a lot of care into the building.
And they also made sure to tell us—because that was one question on demolition—
that start before and they said I mean and obviously it's been vacant for a
while so that one's already out the door but they did say they would not start
demolition until they for sure have a hundred percent funding that they will
build it so it's 26 stories I don't know the exact number often about five years
downtown Berkeley with the new Berkeley dorms will have a few 20 plus stories I
think five are allowed per city that downtown we're five yeah we've reviewed
And I think we've reviewed pretty much all five, whether or not I know the McDonald's
was one of them, but the McDonald's is fighting that, though obviously the big hole in the
ground I believe is also one of them.
It's the one next to, yeah, I kind of buy the library, and I connected to the Jatty
Hotel.
That big, yeah, that one I know is one of them.
I said I know the McDonald's is one, I forget quite the other ones, obviously the Oxford
one.
There was a couple more.
Yeah.
But the downtown plan only allows for three.
Oh, is it only three?
I thought it was five.
My recollection was that three could be very tall.
Okay, maybe two were in an interim range.
Gotcha. Okay. That would make sense.
So that was probably our, like, it was a reality.
Yeah, I think we've hit the...
I think we have two. I just couldn't remember if there's more.
Yeah. Sorry. Okay.
Uh, anything comes south?
No? Okay.
All right, I'll make a motion to close the meeting.
Do I have a second?
Second.
Second.
Okay roll call vote. Chairperson Gaffney? Yes. Commissioner Thompson? Yes. Commissioner Cramer? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Commissioner Choi? Yes. Commissioner Sanderson? Yes. See you all next month.