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 listed in your agenda.
If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen, then use the drop-down menu and click on
rename to rename yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak, use the raise hand icon by
rolling over the bottom of the screen. To join by phone, dial the number in your agenda and enter
hear the webinar ID, 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 comment card
to planning staff prior to the start of the meeting.
Looks like a lot of you here in person already saw those.
Those are the green cards right back here.
So if you want to speak, please go fill one of those out.
You also are welcome to cede your time to someone else.
So if you don't feel like speaking,
that someone else wants to go over their two minute time.
That's a great thing to do as well.
We wanna hear from everyone who wants to speak.
So that's there.
And then for everyone on Zoom,
well, actually 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 link of time allowed for each speaker.
So for I said Zoom, everyone on Zoom,
you will also have a chance to talk.
I will give everyone a chance to talk in person first.
I will, and then we will call on you all,
as I announce each project and when the public hearing is,
I will ask everyone to raise their hand in the beginning
so I can get a good tally of kind of how many people
want to speak for each project.
So if your hand is raised for a while, don't worry,
I will come to you, I will call you.
Your voice matters.
All right, we will start with roll call
and ex parte communications.
All right, thank you.
Commissioner Duffy.
Here, no ex parte.
Chairperson Gaffney.
Present, no ex parte.
Commissioner Kramer.
Present, no ex parte.
Commissioner Choi.
Here, no ex parte.
Vice Chairperson Young.
Here, no ex parte.
And then Commissioner Sanderson looks to be absent.
Thank you.
All right, wonderful.
Welcome everyone.
I will at least start off with a land acknowledgement statement
since I haven't been here in a couple of months,
so I wanted to do that.
The commission recognizes that the community we live in
was built on the territory of the Hucium,
the ancestral and unceded land of the Chiu Chien
speaking Ohlone people.
The ancestors and descendant of the Verona Band
of Alameda County.
This land was and continues to be of great importance
to all of 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 the vibrant community of the West Berkeley Shell Mound
and the Ohlone people who continue to reside
in the East Bay.
We recognize that Berkeley's residents have
and continue to benefit from the use and occupation
of the unceded stolen land
since the city of Berkeley's incorporation in 1878.
At the 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 East Bay communities today.
The city of Berkeley will continue to build relationships
with the Luzon tribe and to create meaningful actions
that uphold the intent of this land acknowledgement.
All right, before we begin on our consent calendar
and action calendar, we will start with public comment
on non-agenda matters.
We at least do have one person in person.
You'll go first, Stephen.
So feel free to come on up,
at least just for everyone online.
If there is anything you want to speak after Stephen
on non-agenda items.
So once again, the agenda,
I'll just go over that very quickly.
On the agenda tonight, 2455 Telegraph, 2955 Shattuck,
for this presentation.
So if you have any questions
please feel free to call us
at 1,500 University and 1,201
2nd Street if you have anything
to say about anything other
than those projects, you will
get a time.
We'll do 3 minutes for
non-agenda, we'll do 2 minutes
so far I think for non-so,
yeah, feel free to give them
3 right now.
And anyone for non-agenda raise
your hand now and I will call
on you after Steven.
So Steven you will have 3
I've been many times talking about 2128 Oxford Street.
And in the past couple of months, since October and June,
I haven't been here because I've lost both of my parents.
I've done the Avenue of Public Records requests
to be able to figure out what's going on.
And when you took the vote for the zero foot setback,
which was very disturbing to me,
I did some checking because during that meeting,
it was represented to you that a consultation was made
with the ADA coordinator and that in basically,
things have been okay.
I have an email right here from Adria Brosnan
that after some investigation,
according to the ADA coordinator,
no such consultation took place.
the city of reconcile that. I'm a
city of reconcile that situation.
And I asked the deadline as of
today. And as of yet I have not
gotten an answer. So apparently
they don't want to answer me so
I'm suggesting that maybe the
answer you because you voted on
one of the tallest cities in the
I'm not here to make an
but no, we're going to find
out if they want to put any
furniture fixtures and
instructions on the sidewalk
and we'll see what they have to
say because that will be ADA
violations for sure. So we'll
see. I thought public records
requests would be more
appropriate than pounding my
fists on the podium to say how
into her it would be. So thanks
for listening.
and I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
I think that's a good thing.
just fill that one out.
That's a fact maybe there, Charles.
It's okay, you can do it afterwards.
Come on up.
Well, we were not planning on speaking,
but realized it's a wonderful opportunity
to let you guys know about a very important item
that's coming up before Council on Tuesday,
this coming Tuesday.
Mark and I have been working hard
to get undergrounding of transformers on the agenda.
It's taken, what, a year longer?
The Planning Commission unanimously voted in favor
of this a year ago.
But you may not be aware of why do we care.
The PG&E is trying to save money, God bless them,
but at our expense.
And what they issued previously, if an architect submitted
a plan to the city and asked that something be undergrounded,
the planning department would request
undergrounding permission from PG.
It was always granted.
And as a result, we don't have 30 foot boxes
where we have sidewalks and the public, you know, walking.
I mean, this is in addition to any garage doors
we're gonna have to have.
This is very relevant, obviously, to the work you guys do,
and particularly for your design review.
So the PG&E just summarily announced
that they weren't approving it
anymore.
No, you can't do it unless there
is a specific law on the books
requiring that it be
undergrounded.
So that's what Mark and I have
been working on.
It's finally going to be there
Tuesday night.
It has taken forever to get it
there.
The reason I'm talking to you
guys is you have your council
members, and I don't think the
council is really hip to just
how important this apparently
unimportant thing is to the life
community.
So if you could reach out to
your council members and say,
you know, Charles and Mark
showed up, this is really
important, and we'll try to
reach them too, but coming from
you, I think it would mean a
lot to help our community have
the kind of public space that we
all cherish and need.
Just briefly, the other urban
design issue that this resolves
for is not taking up a retail
space on the ground floor of our
commercial district.
So in addition to a box being
you're going to be out there
somewhere, you've got dead
space.
So hopefully we've resolved it.
It's been much more complicated
than we realized it would be in
dealing with the lawyers and
everything.
But anyhow, if you could reach
out to your council members,
it'd be great.
Yeah, there's one other
consequence of this, which is
very serious that the council
members need to know.
It actually hazards
implementation of the middle
housing plan, which is very dear
to the hearts of the community
and so much of the council.
have a kind of multi-unit project, even five or six units approved, which is what we're
hoping for with the middle housing ordinance, you have to have an on-site transformer. They
are massive. And that one transformer, if it eliminates one unit particularly, and it's
got to be, by the way, in the front, on the street, accessible, okay? So it destroys your
straight frontage. If you've only got a 50-foot wide frontage, you don't have a
project. So it's gonna destroy our middle housing intentions. That's a
problem. I thought it's important that you know that. Thanks. Thank you so much
Charles, and thank you Mark. And I will also agree to that. Someone who also
sits on Design Review works in the industry. It is, you know, it has just
become a thing and we are watching commercial spaces absolutely get taken
up by these huge transformer spaces on most,
every project we've seen out there.
So it is indeed, and obviously it's a bit of a topic tonight
on making sure commercial spaces are lively.
So thank you so much for being here today and letting us know.
Nice to be back and see you guys continuing a good fight.
Quick question, is there any way to find out more based
on what you're talking about or just look at the agenda?
Just the agenda, I don't know if it should be posted by now.
that's what's probably available about it. Yes, what I'll do is I haven't read up those
talking points for council. I'll write them up and get them to you. Okay, and if you want to,
anyone wants to send those out, obviously, thank you so much. Very important thing that has said,
flooded designer view as well, because yeah, it takes up a big 30 feet is not a small portion of
commercial space, even on buildings that have 100 units. So thank you all. We do have, it looks like
one person online at Kelly who wants to also talk about something on non-agenda. So Kelly,
I'm going to allow you to talk. You should be good to go.
Okay. I'm sorry that people didn't look at the calendar that I do. I know I screwed up on the
dates this last time, but the city manager pulled that item, Charles. And so it will not be on the
Tuesday evening agenda. It was pulled at the agenda committee.
Thank you Kelly. So if you want to know what happens at the agenda committees,
people should contact me and I'll tell you. Thank you. Thank you so much Kelly but obviously you
always give a plethora of very important information and you know that's incredibly
Yeah, needed in a debate or discussion like this because yeah, no that transformer discussion is needed. So thank you all. All right. It does look like at least for public comment and non agenda items. We are good. I will be reordering the agenda. Obviously, for the sheer amount of people that we've both gotten supplemental communications and obviously here in person, we will absolutely be pulling. Let me get the exact 2955. So that will get a full public hearing.
the public hearing. So I will
If I'm, we will absolutely be addressing it tonight. So currently it was on the consent calendar, which means it was just could get approved without a full public hearing. Since all of you are here, we want to give it a full public hearing.
So it'll be happening tonight. I might even put it first. I'm guessing since most of us will be here. It'll be the 1st item we hear on our on our public hearing agenda. So yes, you will be speaking about tonight. Do not worry. Stay still. We will hear you right after the consent calendar.
I do believe I would like to I have no one in person who is speaking on our one item on the public hearing. If anyone is online real fast, I would like to see if anyone is speaking on 1201 second street. I'm guessing most people are here. So if you could raise your hand. If you have anything to say for 1201 second street, which is our one item.
or one item that was originally on the action calendar?
I don't believe we have people, okay.
It looks like we do have one.
Nope, it moved.
So I said, I will be, since the bulk of people are here,
what I wanna do, so the new consent calendar will be,
I'm just gonna go over it all full,
new consent calendar with 295 Shattuck removed.
So once again, it's not the consent, it's on the action.
The consent calendar will be 2455 Telegraph Avenue
and the meeting minutes from August 13th.
and then 1500 University Avenue.
That's on the consent, and I'll go over this again.
On the action calendar, first item,
I'm gonna have 2955 Shattuck Avenue.
So that'll be first, and then after that,
we will have 1201 Second Street.
So, once again, the only thing,
we are now gonna go to the consent calendar,
which means if we vote yes for the consent calendar,
then those will automatically get the use permits.
once again, 2955 Shattuck is not a part of this right now.
So first, I would like to bring up the committee.
If there is any comments on the consent calendar,
I will then go to the public.
And remember, I do have one comment
for something on the consent and is at least in support.
And remember that if we vote yes in the consent calendar,
that means it's gonna get to use permit and it's good to go.
I'm still gonna call on you,
but first I'm gonna bring it up to the committee.
the consent calendar is August 13th meeting minutes 2, 4, 5, 5 telegraph and 1500 University. So,
anyone on the committee, do you have anything to bring up before I put it out to the community?
All right, looking good. So, community, I said I will, you know, you guys are, you were in support,
Neil, but Neil, if you'd like to come up and say anything about, it looks like 1500 University,
you are welcome to. It also said it's slated for approval. You're welcome to.
do keep it around uh it's at under two minutes because yeah a lot of people but feel free to
come up it's late for approval we want to hear uh you want to hear you uh go ahead yeah my name
is Neil Mehta i'm speaking on behalf of the university avenue permit my dad is the owner
for the speak a little more on the microphone my dad is the owner for the gas station who's
applying for the permit and i just wanted to speak to explain a little bit um we're trying to make
it more of a place where people can go and get more than just quick snacks and
fuel so the food truck would actually that we already have plans to be a nice
Mexican truck that or Mexican food truck that you know proper hours won't
disturb the piece too much and then for the alcohol it's we're we're not
thinking anything like grab and go just for thing people to take home like
the city. So we have to do a
I do not have a motion to
second street. I am not seeing
online. So I will make a motion
to move the consent calendar or
the new consent calendar once
again which removes to 955
shadak from it. Unless anyone
has anything else to say about
projects or do I have a second.
I'll second that.
Excellent. We have a motion and
a second commissioner Duffy.
If it's okay. I know I just didn't speak up. I actually have a question for staff and it just has to do with regards to
liquor permits and and how we've managed them in the past in the past there's there's typically been a map especially when there's
permits that are that are exceeding the two that are allowed like at this case
there's a third permit and so it's our discretion to understand and find findings
that a third permit is approvable and the criteria which we do that was laid
out clearly, so thank you, but there's, but there was usually there's a map. This
time there was not a map, but I do think that because part of the criteria has to
do with neighborhood convenience and access, the map is quite useful and the
map has been useful in the past because you say, oh, if we are exceeding the
number of permits, are we just adding, like, what are we just adding another
permit across the street from one that's already there? Because we have to see if
if this need has already been served or not.
So the map is really useful.
I just wanna encourage that for staff,
if you could use it, it was absent this time.
Otherwise, that's my discussion of the motion with you.
And if there's any no more discussion,
then we could vote.
I just wanted to bring that up.
I can address that.
Sorry, Russell Roe.
I remember this coming up last time.
I had an alcoholic beverage from it here,
and we definitely hear what you're saying.
The problem, and we would love to do it,
the problem is that we got a message, gosh,
year and a half, two years ago, from IT saying,
we're not supporting this GIS system anymore,
and we have not, at this point, gotten that,
gotten a replacement for that technology,
So what would happen now, if we tried to produce that map,
it would be way outdated and inaccurate.
So, we're trying.
Thank you.
Yes.
And I just wanna say then, though,
it will be very important for us
to see the cumulative impacts of these types of permits,
especially when they're already exceeding
the two that are allowed.
So don't be surprised if there's another permit,
a fourth or a fifth, next door or across the street
or somewhere else, and we'll need the tools
to be able to make that decision.
And I don't think that we have them all.
So a map at a minimum would be very helpful.
So thank you.
Yeah, understood.
Thank you, Mr. Duffy.
No, that's incredibly important.
And those maps, especially for those legal licenses,
are incredibly helpful.
And we need to understand that kind of data.
So thank you for bringing that up, of course.
Is there any other discussion from the board?
I have one to make sure.
All right, perfect.
All right.
Once again, this is just a vote for the consent calendar.
We have a motion and a second.
the motion passes. So anyone a
words. All right we will move on to the action calendar which said so right now
I want to move to 955 Shaddick up first in the action calendar so we will have a
staff presentation first on that then the applicant presentation and then we
will move to community or commissioner questions and then we will move to
comments from the public. Once again people who are here first will have
I'm going to go ahead and do a
second. I'm going to go ahead and
do a second. I'm going to go
ahead and do a second. I'm going
to go ahead and do a second.
I'm going to go ahead and do a
second. I'm going to go ahead and
do a second. I'm going to go ahead
and do a second. I'm going to
go ahead and do a second. I'm
going to go ahead and do a second.
I'm going to go ahead and do a
second. I'm going to go ahead and
do a second. I'm going to go ahead
the city of the city of the
the city of the city of the
the street. The lot is a lot.
The property includes an existing surface parking lot with 15 spaces. There are two existing two-story commercial buildings and one existing one-story commercial building on the lot that are proposed to be demolished.
the property has been used for commercial purposes.
It's surrounded by commercial uses along Shattuck Avenue
with low density residential uses to the east
and high density residential uses to the west of it.
The proposed project would demolish
the three existing commercial buildings
to construct an eight story, 84 feet, nine inches feet tall,
the building. The main components of the mixed use building are the ground floor, bike room, a court yard, lobby, lounge, 24 space, car garage, and the commercial space.
for the 5th floor.
It's an amenity space.
The project includes 31
bedroom, 38, 2 bedroom and 6,
3 bedroom units.
There's an amenity space and
roof deck on the 5th floor and
a roof deck on the 8th floor.
You can see the east and west
elevations on this slide and
the project was submitted to us. The pre application was submitted in December 2023 and use permit application was received in January of 2024 and deemed complete in August of 2024.
The project was at the Design Review Committee
on August 20th and the CEQA determination
and tribal consultation concluded on September
and hence the CEQA determination also dated
at September of this year and here we are at the SAP.
Under the city's density bonus procedure,
the base project is 67 units
as the maximum allowable density for the site.
The base and the eight-story proposed product
both have the average unit size of 1,014 square foot.
By providing for very low-income units,
which is 5% of the base density, the 67 unit,
the project is eligible for a 20% density bonus
the project. The project is a
the city of the city of the
you know will want to have this information because it has to do with
you know how the project is you know masked in such a way but would you be
able to explain how so I understand sorry let me rewind normally density
bonus projects use dwelling units per acre to come up with the base density or
the base project in this case this seems like one of the zoning districts in the
city that doesn't have dwelling units per acre standard. So we use the average unit
size to derive what the maximum allowable density is or that 74 unit figure. Would you
be able to explain how the methodology used to determine what the base number of projects
are pre-density bonus? I think the applicant can speak to that better, but my understanding
is that the applicant uses all the developing standards
to come up with a base and then the number of units
based on the total gross for area
and then utilizing density bonus,
they come up with the proposed design.
And if you wanna add to that, that's the way I assume.
And the way I review it is basically making sure
that the base project complies with the underlying
zoning district development standards,
and if it does, then using calculation of density bonus
and see if the proposed project matches the added density,
if I'm making sense, I hope.
Thank you so much.
This will not be early time for questions,
so feel free to bring that up again.
All right, sounds like we can at least move over
to the applicant.
So applicant, you have five minutes.
give you a timer up on the screen then we'll have another time for commissioner questions
and then move on to public comment. So you'll be promoted. Yeah they'll promote you if you
if you log in through oh team they're getting there. How what's your IP connecting how are you
connecting to the what's your name on the Buddy Williams yeah just his name. Can I stay here with
you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm
right now.
That was too damn long ago.
I have a few.
That was a nice presentation that we put together.
I'm not going to belabor the points she made.
I'll speak a little bit to just the basic urban planning
situation that we had and what we tried to do.
You guys are all familiar with this site over there,
right by Ashby Bart, yeah?
This is an arrow that is nice to see
in terms of showing the density relative to the neighborhood.
You saw that already.
So, in terms of when we determined
what the allowable square footage was for the site,
in terms of a basic urban move was to place as much
of that density along the street as possible.
We went to a mid-rise building,
so that went up to eight stories.
And then with the square footage that we had
and the potentials we had for the size of the site,
it allowed us to place the majority of the building
towards the street.
And also we were able to add a courtyard
as part of this project that goes down to the ground floor.
What you can see as you walk into the building,
you'll be able to view into a landscaped courtyard
that will go back about 100 feet all in.
We also know that there's gonna be sensitivity
for this particular zone relative to the R2 neighbors
to further to the east.
So that's one of the obvious reasons
why we'd push majority of the site
and massing towards the street.
Just in terms of creating an urban edge as well,
it made sense.
In terms of the setbacks,
we're at one foot for our first floor,
then we start at 10 foot setback, floor two,
the site. The site is the 1st.
3, 3, and 4. And then on a.
30 foot with the far north of
the site. Starting at the 5th.
That's 19 feet said back.
And it goes up to the 8th floor.
It's a floor. There's a roof
deck with great views of the
There are so many, so many
places.
We reset the parking as low as
we could for 80 and still have
ADA combination.
And this shows the second,
third and fourth floor 10 feet
and then beyond the far north
of the section is at 19 feet.
These elevations are also part
of your packet as well.
Here's the one view showing the
and then this section of the building is over 50 feet set back from the east. This is the last slide. So what we're trying to do is replace three existing one and two story commercial buildings with about 118 bedrooms, roughly about 120 something new neighbors who'd be able to live in this area and frequent all the local businesses who typically wouldn't be able to afford a single family home in this neighborhood.
and all the goodies that go with
living in that part of Berkeley.
Wonderful. Thank you so much.
Do anyone have any questions
directly for the applicant or
C-staff at this time?
I do.
Yes, I have, Chair Duffy.
Thank you.
Oh my God, I have a commissioner
fee. Sorry, thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Commissioner Gaffney.
Sorry, thank you.
Thank you, Chair Gaffney.
I appreciate it.
I just have at least one question for now,
but one regarding the density bonus.
Happy to clarify, Board Member Young, too, at some point.
But regarding the density bonus here,
I mean, density bonus law has changed even more recently
than three years ago to allow more density
if more affordable units are provided.
I'm curious for your project,
just if you can share, I know it's buried in the data,
but just a question for the applicant.
If you were to use the density bonus
to the fullest extent,
would the project be much larger than,
could it be much larger than once you have?
That's just a question.
Yes, Neelah, you had the delta that you mentioned
in your presentation between allow.
Yes. May I answer?
Sure.
Yeah, so this formula,
the applicant has dedicated 5% of the base to get 20%,
but there are other formulas where you can have 30% BMR,
and that's just an example to get a 100% density,
or 15% BMR to get a 50%.
So, yeah, of course,
if they had used the 30% of the base as bill market rate,
they could have doubled what they are normally allowed in CSA.
But in this case, they've only chosen to dedicate 5%
to get 20%.
5% of the units to be a BMR,
but then 20% of the volumetric bonus, right?
In this case, when otherwise you could have been afforded
50% of the volumetric bonus or even more.
Is that right?
That's right.
Thank you for clarifying.
If we were being aggressive,
it would be eight stories everywhere.
Thank you.
10 feet from the property line.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Duffy.
All good to clarify.
I'll at least jump in with one question I have.
More towards less of the housing end
and obviously I know why a lot of people are here
as the commercial end.
I'll have more of this in discussion
when we actually talk about, I don't know,
but I am curious on this.
So I'm digging through the findings for approval.
I did find something a little bit more on the commercial
and I'm just, I guess, this is more a question for staff
of kind of what the findings were for this
or how the sections even normally,
how you make the findings for something like this.
The Berkeley Municipal Code section is 23.326.070 D.
It's specifically on staff report, page 30,
And it's item number 2A.
And let me just read it.
And I said it's a use permit for demolition
of a main building used for non-residential purposes
on any lot of an accessory building
located in a non-residential district
may be approved only if the ZAB finds that
the demolition will not be materially detrimental
to the commercial needs and public interest
of any affected neighborhood or the city of Berkeley.
And so I guess I was just kind of wondering is that how,
and then there is, it goes on to there's a,
there's number two as well.
So if anyone staff has that up and kind of,
I don't know how, what findings you made for that.
I know obviously we're gonna be talking
about the commercial uses and those going away.
And I know on the ZAB,
we don't normally have a lot of control over that,
but it was interesting to find that
that we're going to be able to
do that. So we're going to be
able to do that. So we're going
to be able to do that. So we're
going to be able to do that. So
we're going to be able to do
that. So we're going to be
able to do that. So we're going
to be able to do that. So we're
going to be able to do that. So
we're going to be able to do
that. So we're going to be able
to do that. So we're going to
do that. So we're going to be
able to do that. So we're going
to be able to do that. So we're
going to be able to do that. So
we're going to be able to do
that. So we're going to be able
to do that. So we're going to
What about the findings for that work because obviously we've had supplemental communication reading that a lot of a portion of the area believes that it will be detrimental. I'm curious. What finding staff is making that limiting the, you know, it looks like it's going down by like 85%. You know, there was a commercial space. Obviously the commercial space is much more limited now. Okay. Yeah. What? What as absence? We're making those findings. What you guys are finding, you know, what that what that means.
Or if what you're finding sorry sorry that might be a little right. I'm happy to clarify. So basically to summarize and hopefully I address your question. The city cannot deny a housing project her unless there are substantial evidence that specific adverse impact to public health and safety.
is being caused and they have very, very specific definition.
I understand that the public might, you know,
believe that there is adverse impact,
but according to the state law,
the specific adverse impact have to be,
let me see,
specific and based on objective standards
and a direct threat to public health and safety.
And they have very specific definition.
So simply neighborhood objections to very valid concern
do not fit within those definition.
And the city cannot make those findings
based on neighborhood opposition basically, yeah.
even within the commercial realm, even though it's correct.
And if Sarah wants to add, yeah, that's correct.
And because it's an objective finding,
we can't rely on that to deny a housing project.
And there's unfortunately no commercial tenant protections
like there are for residential tenant protections
that we do have in the city, unfortunately.
Okay, thank you city staff for clarifying.
Obviously, as we will be hearing from everyone in the public,
just wanted to obviously give a little bit of a brief
on kind of why these kinds of projects
makes our hands a little tied
because of housing laws.
We, this discussion still needs to be had,
but we continue to have it.
So, yeah.
While we're still just asking questions
during the public forum,
and we've got the applicant here, if it's okay.
If I could just ask, maybe if you could just share with us
some of the ground floor,
I know you sort of flipped through it quickly,
but maybe if you could even just take a minute
to share what the ground floor. I know we have the plans in front of us, but I always think it's nice to hear from the applicant about the care or anything that you've responded to regarding design in the neighborhood. And then you also have gone through design review already too. So maybe if you could speak to some of your responsiveness to their comments.
the project. I think it's a good.
the city of the city of the
the city of the city of the.
and then we have a lot of
materials that we need to be
able to share on the ground
floor.
Thank you.
And I'm seeing some setbacks at
the entries a little bit and
some planting.
Is that right?
It is.
And I have an image at this
close-up is we're trying to make
a canopy at the entry, a steel,
and be lit with a, like a 3-form
type material and put a lot of
glazing on the street as well as
It's a it's a good idea to
know this is a process that
takes place on a
street when commercial will be
primarily glazing on the street.
Thank you. I know this isn't
design review. So sorry to make
you go through it again. But
it's not, you know, the topic
came up. So thank you. I just
want to give you the chance to
share to speak to it a little
bit. Thank you so much.
Thank you. We appreciate that.
And obviously, since this, you
know, we know there's about to
be a discussion a lot on the
commercial space. Um, the
design of the ground floor, even
if we don't might not have too
So I'm just going to move that
up.
All right.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Before we open up to public
comment.
Does anyone have any more
questions?
It's like we are good on
questions.
All right.
We will open up to public
comment.
So as I said, right now is your
time for this project to raise
your hand online.
I will go for everyone in
person first, but everyone in
line or online, not in line in
line online, who wants to speak
to 2955 Shattuck, please raise
come up. We're going to give
everyone 2 minutes for this.
Keep it around there. I'll
give you a reminder on 2
minutes. I'll let you go a
little over but try not to go
too far over. We want to give
everyone equal time. Thank you
so much.
Okay. Hi. My name is Joyce
Friedman and I live at to 922
and I live at 2922 Lorena Street,
which abuts the proposed project
and the 15-foot concrete wall
that's going to be built adjacent to my backyard.
Now, I'm in favor of increased housing in Berkeley,
but I have a concern about the setback
proposed from my backyard of one foot,
And I propose that the roots of
my trees and bushes next to the
15-foot concrete wall will be
uprooted and die in the
construction.
And I think the setback from my
property and those of my
neighbours be extended to five
feet which would allow for a
metal grid to be attached to the
wall and some sort of cleaning
vines, not ivy, to be planted in
setback providing a green, visually more aesthetically
pleasing vista.
I'm also concerned about that my west facing solar panels,
which I'm still paying off, would be rendered 70 to 80%
useless from two to three p.m. on.
And I propose you compensate me for this loss
and buy my solar panels.
I'm concerned about the increase of traffic on Ashby
and the intersection of Ashby and Shattuck.
And I propose that you put down adequate loading zones
on Shattuck Avenue to provide for the inevitable surge
in delivery vans, garbage trucks,
and other trucks serving these 74 apartments.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
And I said, I do need to remind people in public,
Please be quiet while people are speaking
so we can hear them.
We will make sure to get everyone's comments,
but thank you so much for speaking.
Please don't interrupt people who are speaking.
We wanna hear them.
All right, thank you.
Ms. Soon, I believe I heard you're ceding your time
to someone I wanted to know who you're ceding it to.
Okay, we can also come back to that.
Do you wanna come back to that?
Okay, sounds good.
I will come back to you.
All right.
Mel McCree, would you like to come up here
and have your two minutes?
Come on.
And Ms. Oona, if there is anyone who comes up
during the time, feel free to raise your hand
and just be like, I'm giving them my two minutes.
Okay, wonderful, thank you.
Thanks very much, my name is Mel McCree.
I'm a registered associate marriage and family therapist
with an office in the building slated to be destroyed.
I did submit a comment in writing,
but I wanted to show up and really say
how important this space is for hundreds of clients
throughout Berkeley, many of whom use Medi-Cal,
Medi-Care, or low fee sliding scale fees,
and who, so about 40 therapists
would be permanently displaced by this project.
We're not gonna be able to afford
to be in the same neighborhood.
It's under market, it's really preserving
a very important public health hub,
serving people who are very underserved.
And four units of affordable housing,
which actually I would qualify for,
are not going to make up for the amount of care that's
going to be obliterated if this project passes.
So I wanted to come and speak really from the heart.
I appreciate that you're constrained in what
you may be able to do.
But this is not just commercial space.
These are sanctuaries for underserved people
who are targeted based on their identities
or are trying to hold on.
And transit serves them.
It serves the therapists.
It's a special place.
the city of Toronto. So thank you.
Thank you so much. Now, thank you for coming to speak tonight. Here you go. And let's see. All right. Christian better better. Come on up. You have your 2 minutes.
property owner on 2928 Marina, which is directly to the east of the project on
the south side of the residential zone. And I want to say I'm generally actually
in favor and in support of new housing development and I don't have any general
objections with this project, that I do have three very specific comments that I
think would help minimize harmful effects on the neighboring residential
properties. The first comment is that the proposal for 29 55 shadow includes a
16 feet high concrete wall and this wall is essentially just the wall of a
parking garage so there's no habitable space behind that. My concern is that
this wall is only one foot from the property line and for comparison the
the currently existing office building
from the therapy offices is five feet away
from that property line.
So the concern that I have with this reduced setback
of that 16 foot high wall is firstly,
it will likely inevitably lead to encroachment
on the neighboring properties
by underground drainage systems.
And it will also encourage trespassing on our properties,
either during the construction or later future maintenance
of the project, which I think none of us would allow.
In addition, there are several mature trees
on my property and neighboring properties
that are along this boundary of the project.
And with a one foot setback,
the root system of these trees
will inevitably get damaged.
Maintaining these trees, however,
is really essential for the project
to enhance the visual appeal
of the otherwise nondescript eastern side of the project.
Therefore I strongly suggest to keep at least five feet
set back from the eastern residential properties
and also implement tree protection plans
for these mature trees on our properties
doing the construction.
Then second comment is just purely aesthetic
and I brought it up with the architect before.
and nearly 16 feet high concrete wall
is just really quite incompatible
with the natural landscaping on the neighboring lots.
Do keep it like a poor sentences.
We're out of time.
Okay, maybe we soon can give it a time.
Yep, perfect.
Give it two more minutes, yep.
And I therefore recommend that the project include
some self-supporting evergreen climbing vines
along that concrete wall to make this more visually
appealing to the residential neighbors to the east.
And then third comment is, again,
considering that this project will be sitting
in the neighborhood consisting largely
of two-story residential buildings,
there will be a lot of negative impact
on these directly adjacent properties.
The concrete and particular financial harm
that we're expecting comes from decreased property values,
as well as lower energy production from our solar systems,
including my own system addressed facing panels.
So in conclusion, a five-storey
building with at least five
feet setback from the eastern
property line and some greenery
on that large concrete wall
would likely be minimizing and
help minimize harmful impact on
the neighbours to the east.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Christian.
All right, wonderful.
Maria, would you come on up?
Have your two minutes.
Okay, good evening.
members of the ZAB, how y'all doin'?
All right, my name is Maria Gracia Galves-Picon
and I live at 2916 Lorena Street.
Our household is a multi-generational black
and Latino family who are active members
of our Lorena Street Community Safety Committee.
I am here to object to the permit, 2955 Shadic,
due to a severe double standard and critical errors
in the applicant's submittals.
My home sits directly northeast of the project,
Caddy Corner to the proposed project.
Yet the applicant omitted our properties,
permitted ADU from their site plan.
Additionally, on pages G009 and G010,
they truncated the shadow drawings
to completely hide the fact
that the building will eclipse our home
and our solar panels in mid-afternoon and onward.
This massive, brutalist building will completely dwarf
our home where my 88-year-old survivor father resides
and take away his sunlight, which will affect his health.
And also, the ADU on my property,
We had to follow the setback limits.
We had to do five feet.
Why does this giant eight-story building
not follow the 15-foot setback that they're supposed to do?
And at least, they're gonna need at least five feet
for general maintenance.
On the north side of the proposed building,
they don't have any setbacks at all.
Right now, it's a parking lot.
Right now, it's beautiful sky and sunshine,
which allows my father, who was a cancer survivor,
88-year-old senior citizen to enjoy his life in Berkeley.
Also, I have a full list of necessary health
and infrastructure mitigations in my five-page PDF
that I sent to you yesterday.
Thank you so much.
No, and we have said we've received
all the supplemental communication.
Move right over that.
Thank you all.
Hans, Hans, come on up.
Hans, please be sure to keep your comments to yourself
you're in the audience. If you want to come up and speak, we are more than happy to hear
you. Thank you for being respectful, everyone.
Hi, my name is Hans Opsel. I'm the owner of 2927 Lorena Street, and I'm submitting a letter
on behalf of Mary Cunningham of 2917 Lorena Street who cannot be present for this meeting.
Can I give this to you? With the balance of my time, I'll read the letter.
The project has a CEQA exemption,
but decisions on the land use division
of the city of Berkeley and the city itself
are still subject to the Constitution
of the United States of America.
Amendment five prohibits private property
from being taken for public use without just compensation.
This applies to property owners on Lorena Street
and further east due to the reduced value of the properties
if an eight-story building is allowed to be built
on this very unique part of Shattuck Avenue.
CSA, South Area Commercial, already adjusts for mixed use,
residential intensity, with a five-story limit
and a 60-foot limit.
An eight-story building will also have an elevator
and heating and cooling apparatus
above their stated 74 feet.
The wedge-shaped area bounded by Adeline to the west
in Ashby to the south and Shattuck to the east
is zoned for commercial applications
and is a stick-story building
closest to the BART station nearing completion.
This is in accordance to all density requirements
near major public transportation, et cetera.
Ashbury is a four lane avenue on the south side
that becomes a two lane when it crosses Shattuck.
Additional properties along Adeline
and this part of Shattuck are also suitable
for increased density and so zone.
The east side of Shattuck from Ashbury to Ward,
where it becomes a major very wide street
and two lane street is zoned for five story construction.
The properties on Lorena Street,
which is immediately behind Shattuck, are aware of that.
An eight-story building is another matter.
I firmly oppose eight stories.
The residential R2 contiguous area
is a historic part of Berkeley,
and any future use of that would change the nature
of this residential area,
and is very far in the future, if at all.
The taking of a very decreased value
on all the affected Lorena Street properties,
having four low-rent apartments to qualify
for public good use or skipping over other available
properties for taller density construction closer to BART,
while properties eight stories that negatively affect
the contiguous historic residential area
is both very poor planning and detrimental
to Berkeley's overall livability.
All right, do make sure to wrap it up in about two sentences.
We're out of time.
Okay.
All right, I'll read the end.
The last paragraph.
Until the death of my sister in 2026,
I inherited the property at 2917
Marina, which was built in the
1800s after suitable repairs
were made.
I was planning to live there.
I was just made aware of this.
I have not listed in detail all
the other problems, such as
traffic, commercial parking for
the building, no night parking
available in residential
streets, privacy, wind
disruptions, and probably
problems that would normally
have been addressed by CEQA or
other appropriate land use
entities.
I mentioned some to comply with
my legal rights and raise them in
in the future, Mary Kononago.
Thank you so much.
I appreciate everyone sticking to the two minute time
or around there, because it's about fairness.
I very appreciate having hearing from all of you guys.
Janice, come on up.
This is the last green card.
Once again, if you do want to speak in person,
you are welcome to come fill out a green card.
Janice, you are the last green card
I have for in-person speaking.
I will move then to online.
Thank you.
So first of all, I'm very happy to see
that there are family sized units
coming to our neighborhood.
I think that's very important.
I do however have three concerns
that I hope you'll discuss tonight in your deliberations.
First is about the safety with the entrance
to the parking garage so close
to the busy Shattuck Ashby intersection.
This was discussed at DRC and they suggested
moving that entrance to the north side of the project.
And I fully support that suggestion.
Second is my concern about the mitigation
for the immediate neighbors.
They've already spoken.
I just want to say I support their requests
for compensation for the shading of their solar panels.
They were encouraged to put these in by the city
and now they're going to lose that access.
And then the thing about the one foot setback,
I just want to ask what is the plan for the maintenance
between the concrete wall and a fence?
how do you get in there to maintain the health
and safety issues that could come up if rodents came
or dead animals or anything got in that space
and how is the owner gonna take care of that?
Thirdly is the discussion about the commercial properties
and I support all the commercial people
who are speaking about this.
They have a lot to lose and we in the neighborhood,
I live in the neighborhood have a lot to lose as well.
DRC suggested opening up the lobby area,
pushing it back into the courtyard area,
since it is so small.
I was so happy to hear Charles Kahn
talk about the vibrant streetscape.
This building takes away a taqueria,
the dessert cafe, and a smoke shop,
and replaces it with one small commercial area.
The applicant said you can see into the courtyard
from the street.
Are people gonna walk down the street
and look at that courtyard,
when they rather go to a therapist's office
or have some kind of other commercial property there.
I really wanna say that they have to put in a warm shell
to promote a restaurant being put on that corner.
We have had a taqueria on this property.
For the 25 years I've lived in the neighborhood,
the community has supported them through COVID.
It is now owned by another person here in the room.
they have a restaurant there.
We really need to have something
for the neighborhood residents to be able to walk to.
You talk about livability,
you talk about vibrant streetscape.
This is what you're taking away from us and replacing.
Thank you. Thank you so much.
All right, appreciate everyone's comment.
We are at least so far done,
once again, an in-person comment.
So I will go to online now.
We're still welcome to spend a speaker on a card for a second, but we have one speaker on zoom. So Kelly, I will like someone else has to allow your time. Someone's going to talk right now.
There's a reason that's not allowed me to.
We're about to give you, okay, Kelly, you should be allowed to talk down. 2 minutes.
We can't hear you yet.
We can hear you.
Go say something.
Okay. Can you hear me now?
Yes, we can go for it.
Okay.
So, I believe that the loss of space for the mental health workers is actually a detriment to the community and would fit that criteria.
for the city.
So I think there should be a hard look at that.
Moving the driveway, this is the area
where I had my car parked and I got hit by a bus
because it's a narrow part of the street.
I wasn't in the car, but it still was damaged from a bus.
I wish that, and it doesn't look like that commercial space
is really going to be usable.
So I think that the whole plan it's unfortunate
that there was not time spent with the community,
with the people who are in that space.
It doesn't sound like those kinds of discussions went on
because I think we would have a better designed building
to fit in this space than what we're getting right now.
And I just wish it was going back to the drawing board
to try and accommodate office space
and usable restaurant space and rearranging the parking.
And I understand it's been in process for three years,
but we still don't have a good plan
that's workable for the neighborhood.
I understand that there is a tried to reduce the impact
through the step downs,
but we still have significant problems with this building.
And I hope that you have a hearty discussion
about ways to fix this.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Kelly.
I am not currently seeing any emails online, online.
If you have any one thing to say, raise your hand.
Doesn't look like we have anyone else.
I think we are done with public comments.
And before we move back to the commission,
I would like to give the applicant a little time
to respond to any part of the public comment.
If you have anything you'd like to say, all right?
All good?
Any questions before we start into public or to commissioner
but obviously questions always first, which was good. If not, feel free to jump
into comments. So some of the comments about the concrete podium portion of the
building that houses the off-street parking got me thinking about what the
city's parking requirements are for residential uses in the CSA zone. And the
The staff report does include a table
that references the CSA's own standards,
but I also understand that the city
has citywide residential parking maximums
for projects within certain proximities of transit.
I think that's 0.5 spaces per unit maximum.
I was wondering if you might happen
to have that information available.
So for Assembly Bill 2097, for state law,
we cannot require parking for any project
that's within half a mile of a transit.
So there, I'm sorry.
So the applicant is choosing to provide parking,
but we cannot require it for state law in this location.
and most locations in Berkeley actually.
Thank you so much.
Yeah, Mr. Choi.
I have a follow-up to Commissioner Young's comment.
Looking at the drawings, the one-foot Eastman setback
and the 15-foot wall is really where
the programmatically the parking garage is in the drawings.
The only thing that I would like to see is,
do you have a plan of the parking?
Is this required to, is this designed to minimum standards?
So there, because above that parking garage the setback,
there is no other structure.
It just shuts out at the roof of the parking garage.
So if you can provide us a drawing, and is there a?
Drawing, the drawings are part of your package.
But the parking spaces and the dimensions
are not part of that information.
If I could just clarify,
there is one dimension on the sheet that is the appropriate,
you know, it says 24 foot two way drive aisle,
but really, that's also just the appropriate backup space.
That's in the drive aisle on sheet A101.
That's page 99 in our packet.
And the stalls are dimensioned as well.
Yeah, it looks like the stalls are 20 foot 2 long.
Okay.
I don't, I see.
Yeah.
Do we have, okay, that sounds like the applicant
has the capability.
We will be sharing it on the screen.
Yeah, there you go.
That's the drama we're looking at on Mars.
Can you see that?
Thank you, Mr. Choi.
Yep.
Okay.
Commissioner Choi, if you're satisfied,
I have a question.
Of course, before Commissioner Rafi.
This is a question for staff
and about the Housing Accountability Act.
And just knowing that the parameters
of the Housing Accountability Act
protecting the density of housing
and the proposed square footage of housing
that we, because of state law,
this housing projects become protected in terms of the density proposed? Two
questions actually. One is if the same density were to be a different shape,
does that fall within the purview of the Housing Accountability Act? That's
one. But the second one more importantly is the parking. Does the
The Housing Accountability Act have anything to say
about the requirement or lack of requirement
or the zoning boards or local jurisdiction
over parking protections for that housing.
Sorry, that's a long question.
So, were there two questions?
There's two, there's just one.
Yeah, one is I understand, of course,
having been here for six years,
that we cannot reduce,
if it's protected by the Housing Accountability Act,
under state law, we cannot reduce
the density of the housing.
My question is then,
can you reconfigure the density of the housing?
One, that's regarding the housing.
The other is, is that within our jurisdiction?
The other question is, can we reconfigure parking,
or even the amount of parking?
Okay, so in terms of reconfiguring, I immediately think of design, and I don't think we can't design the project.
And it is subject to state density bonus and underlying zoning district and both density bonus and underlying zoning district do allow in this specific zone allows modification of standards.
So the reconfiguration of density in my eye is design.
Is that what you mean?
I think regardless of the configuration of density
that are protected by HAA.
But Sarah.
Yeah, I think it would be difficult
because every waiver could potentially,
they can make the case that it's reducing their density
or their average unit size.
So I think it would be a difficult,
I don't know that we can't do it,
but I think it would be very difficult
because of the way the state law is written about waivers
and every setback they have is presumably
to allow that density and that average unit size.
And then regarding.
Does that also apply to parking then?
Are they protect, is that parking also protected?
So this did come up in a different housing project
and appeal because they asked for a waiver
to actually have more than the maximum amount of parking
that the state law does protect actually adding more parking because it helps the
project be financially feasible and that's part of the wave run incentive.
Thank you so much. Yeah. Just to add on to that, does it protect reducing the
parking? Yeah, they could, but based on their request, they could, well, here
there's no reduction of parking because no parking is required, but yeah, it could,
the state law specifically allows them to ask for waivers to parking ratios,
those. Whether it's giving less parking or more parking.
And we're at the required minimum. And there's no required minimum I think. I can provide
some background. I just need a little dive into the parking situation. So there's maximums
and minimums. So when it comes to what is the minimum required number of parking spaces,
There is no minimum required.
As Neela mentioned, there's a stale Ivy 2093, which prevents, 97, thank you, which prevents
a jurisdiction from requiring a minimum number of spaces.
The City of Berkeley does have an adopted maximum, and that is municipal code section
23.32.070, subsection B, for projects within a quarter mile of a major transit stop, which
this qualifies because there's an intersection
of 200 bus routes with certain headways.
I think it's also maybe a quarter mile away
from Ashby Bart.
For projects within that radius,
the maximum parking is 0.5 spaces per dwelling unit.
This project also complies with the applicable local maximum.
I think I can also speak to a little bit
of what our constraints are relative to the HAA
and density bonus law.
So just looking at the HAA, the HAA is very old law
in California and it basically makes it so we are unable
to deny or condition the project at a lower density
unless we make findings that the project would have
substantial adverse impact of public health or safety.
Government code section 65589.5 subdivision F,
if you wanna look it up.
So those findings are basically like there has to be
volcano under the site.
It's defined in such a high threshold
that adverse impacts as defined by the loss of a business
that's beloved would not meet that threshold.
On the density bonus side, we can get into this more later.
Density bonus law has also been around for a long time.
And basically, it allows the project
to include affordable units and get extra density out of it.
In order to build that density, the law
provides that the project may use something called waivers.
So there was a project in Berkeley,
actually the Higby project at Ashby in San Pablo,
that in 2011 was sued by a Berkeley resident.
It went all the way to the California appellate court,
and it was published in an opinion
called Wollmer v. Berkeley 2011.
And there the question was, must the city grant a waiver
to accommodate both the residential units,
and also the amenities that the developer wanted
to build as well.
And the appellate court found in that opinion that yes,
the law makes it such that the city must grant waivers
to accommodate the project as designed.
So the ruling uses the word amenities.
I would venture to guess that parking is also
under that umbrella of what an amenity is.
So we're also constrained in that regard.
So I'll just put those three prongs out as the parameters
that were constrained by the fact
that this follows our objective standards
in our local zoning, the HAA, and density down this law.
One I would like to tack on that
when you talk about amenities,
that would also probably include
the lobby exterior courtyard lounge,
any of those spaces that are also any,
because yeah, that was a part of the conversation
we had at Design Review was debatably limiting
more of those lounge lobby exterior court,
that central courtyard space,
and allowing for some more commercial space.
But I appreciate you bringing up kind of why
we don't have the purview to necessarily be able to say,
like, you have to do that.
Even if I believe the conversation is important,
this'll talk about.
Doesn't mean we can necessarily vote on that.
So thank you all for clarifying
kind of where our hands can be tied.
Do we have anything?
obviously there'll be more, but anyone else
wanna keep going?
The public comment period's still open,
the applicant's still here, so I do have a question
for the applicant, just in terms of design.
15 foot wall, that's one foot setback from the property line
that has a proposed six foot fence on the property line.
How do you maintain that fence
without going over the property line?
I'm not sure. I'm not sure.
that it's not anywhere in our jurisdiction
in terms of maintenance that we would be making decisions.
It's just that it was brought up and that's just wondering.
Information, is that good for everyone?
Even if we don't have control over that.
So yes, said we cannot control that setback.
It is within, or what they are proposing
is within what they are allowed to do.
Do we have, and yes, and so actually,
you know, I'll have another question still,
and that's a good idea.
The public hearing is still
open to I know obviously said
Charles come came up and talked
about the transformer room. Is
that shown that kind of have
that plan up right now is that
currently being shown to that's
that's an area that you cannot
control.
That cannot go to commercial
use. It has to be for a
transformer is that currently
proposed in the plan or.
Yeah, when this is done 3 years
And we've got them together.
And so our our best answer is
by the time this thing gets to
be actually constructed Berkeley
has got their act together to
force it to go underground.
Okay.
So currently we're actually
good that they could lose even
more of it.
That's why it's helpful for us
to go vote if we want that.
But so yeah, it's going to
actually not being even shown.
Yeah, what would happen is that
that bike room would turn into
a transformer room.
Yeah, we'd have to rotate a bit
and then we'll have another prime.
It's important that undergrounding transformer.
It's a hope that that will be amended by the time
this project goes forward in the building permit.
Thank you for clarifying that.
More questions?
There were a lot of questions that came up
about the solar panel.
So a question for staff.
Is there any mechanism by which the developer
can be forced to compensate the folks for the solar panel?
and if there is, what sort of findings would need to occur
for that to happen?
As far as I know,
both the CSA and Density Bonus allows for these
height and setback standards to be waived.
And as far as I know,
we cannot force the applicant to do medication.
It could be requested, but it's not guaranteed.
And then in terms of the homes on Lorena,
I just wanted to point out,
because it came up during comments,
they are in a different zoning district,
they're on R2, versus this property is close to Shattuck
and Ashby, very commercial CSA,
so that the zonings are different,
what is allowed on CSA is different than what is allowed on R2.
And yeah, so the simple answer is no.
But I just wanted to point out these issues as well.
Thank you for clarifying.
Do we have any more questions?
Sounds like we're getting pretty close to at least closing
the public hearing portion of asking questions.
Sounds like we're fairly close to deliberating too.
But if we're already able to at least close,
I'll make a motion to close the public hearing portion.
Our little, we got questions?
All right, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.
Do I have a second?
Commissioner Choi seconds.
I'll take a roll call vote.
All those in favor say aye.
Aye.
All those opposed say nay.
Okay, new public comment portion is closed.
Deliberation.
How are we feeling?
So we have any comments on, I know our hands,
I think that's a good question.
I think that's a good question.
I think that's a good question.
And as we've all kind of discussed the questions,
our hands are as usual, very tied.
We hear everyone's concerns. I know for me on design review,
there are things I kind of wish we could have added more commercial in
certain ways, but.
There, those are all, you know, those are subjective or, you know,
those are not things we can hold.
Hold anything towards.
Even though I have my own wishes.
of course is legally within our required.
And so personally, I don't have too much feedback
for anything we wouldn't change.
But of course, I shouldn't be hearing
everyone else's feedback.
I just have a question.
Of course, Commissioner Joy.
For in the DRC, what was our discussion
about the North wall and the conflict potential
with the neighbors and maintenance and?
So North wall, sorry, go and check, let me see.
North wall being the wall.
The east, the more the east wall along there.
I mean, yeah, there absolutely was of kind of why,
I mean, a lot of times we will have like a five foot step back
and at least have some kind of planting in between that.
The fact that there is truly as we've heard from the applicant,
no way to maintain that area, but yeah,
there was discussion on it.
There's just, we don't, our hands are also tied on DRC.
We can give recommendations, but it's up to them.
They do, and if it's within obviously their legal ability to do so, they are allowed to.
But yes, we did discuss and gave them ideas on what, you know, to do for that.
We talked about specifically possibly doing planting from above, having something hanging
rather than going from below.
That was at least made the main discussion that at least was feasible within a one foot
setback.
the city. I'm not sure if it's a
I'm not sure if it's good to
talk about it but I don't think
it's something that is a very
interesting project to be in
hearing. You know, it is a loss
of the neighborhood in that
respect. And to just talk to
discuss this communication.
But. I have no way to in favor
of them current proposed staff
suggestions as of now.
Unless anyone else does.
of what often happens at the Zoning Adjustments Board.
Because I know for a lot of folks,
this might be your first time.
Or maybe you're just finding out about this process.
So we meet regularly.
And every project that requires a public use permit
has to be heard before us.
So what often happens is we get a use permit for a project.
Often, it's a mixed use project on a commercially zoned mixed
use corridor that abuts a residential district.
And the neighbors nearby that project come out.
And they have to very quickly learn about all of this zoning,
land use craziness, state law, local law.
And so I just want to take a moment
and recognize this is crazy, yes.
It's a little bit wild.
And it's a big deal.
I don't want to make you feel like your concerns are
dismissed.
I just wanna provide a little bit of perspective
what's going on.
This project bested its standards,
or in other words, it locked in what the zoning standards
are back in 2023, so it froze those in place.
Now it's come in for its use permit.
Maybe someday it'll get its building permit.
Maybe someday it'll get built.
Those zoning standards were in place far before 2023.
I don't know if I recall when this particular CSA district
had its standards updated.
What has changed over the last decade
are these state laws that really make it so the provision
of housing is prioritized after what has kind of been
decades of the inverse being true.
In the law itself, in the Housing Accountability Act,
there's a provision that says this law will be interpreted
to afford the maximum weight to the provision of housing.
So, if it feels unfair, it's because it is,
and that's by design.
I just wanna let you know that this is a situation
where we have state, or sorry, both yeah,
statewide and citywide policy decisions that have been made,
and when you have a specific project come,
the benefits of that project are diffuse.
It's the housing market in the East Bay
and the Bay Area and in Berkeley, right?
But the disaminities are hyper local.
So unfortunately you are in that position.
We also have to balance the needs of the city.
So, you know, we'll be moving forward
with that perspective in mind.
So I just wanted to share that.
Thank you, Vice Chair Young.
I mean, with that I will at least make a motion to propose
or to support the motions proposed by city staff.
of the city. And so we have a
Yes, anything else? I would obviously second that.
Okay, thank you. Does anyone else have anything to discuss beforehand? I obviously don't want to take a roll call vote.
If anyone else has anything to say, it seems like we're ready to take a roll call vote though.
Okay, so we have a motion and a second to approve the use permit subject to the findings and conditions in the staff report.
Commissioner Duffy?
Yes.
Chairperson Gaffney?
Yes.
Commissioner Kramer?
Yes.
Commissioner Choi?
Yes.
Vice Chairperson Young?
Yes.
All right, the motion passes.
You will have your use permit 14 days
after the notice of the decision is mailed
unless it is appealed during that time.
So it is appealable during those 14 day period.
Thank you all for coming.
I know these, I know all this stuff is not easy,
but it is just kind of a part of what we have to do here.
And we appreciate you all for being here and being heard.
And so all those make a difference.
So thank you all, thank you all commissioners.
the city. Okay. Next project now. All right. Let's see because we do have a whole second project, which is also we said every project is equally as important. We have our second one. So once again, thank you to 1201 second street for sitting hold while we did that one. I said we got a lot of supplemental communication and had a lot of people here and want to make sure that everyone was heard, even if our hands are tied a lot as as a commission.
as a commission you know that's what we're here for is still to hear public
comment even even yeah when we can't do this much about it so 12 oh one second
streets staff come on set up do of course per usual like the staff
presentation first
I know. I think a lot of them are staff. Yeah. All right. Thank you all so much. And I know that obviously staff and the applicant are all the same. So take away. And we've heard this project a month before. I know you're about to explain kind of where we're at with that. So thank you so much. Good evening.
Good evening, board members and
members of the public.
I'm Vicky Schlepp, one of the
city staff project planners for
the Solid Waste and Recycling
Transfer Station replacement
project at 1201 Second Street.
The applicant is the City of
Berkeley Public Works
Department, Zero Waste Division.
We're actually all up here today
and our secret consultant is up
here too.
The Project Public Scoping
Meeting for the Environmental
Impact Report, or EIR, and the project preview
went before the board on September 14th, 2023.
Subsequently, the draft EIR for the project
was prepared and published on August 3rd, 2026
for a 45-day public comment period,
which ends next week on September 17th.
The purpose of tonight's meeting is twofold.
We will be gathering public comments on their scope
and the content of the draft EIR
and we will also welcome comments on the project design
as this meeting is also a preview of the project
in anticipation of its return to the board
in the first quarter of 2027 for a decision hearing.
There will be no decision on the use permit
at tonight's meeting.
I will start with a summary of the project description
and then I will be passing it over to Mary Bean
the first Carbon Solutions to
talk about the draft EIR.
The project is located in the
Manufacturing District.
The site is bound by 2nd Street
to the west, Cordoniscus Creek
and the city of Albany to the
north, the railroad tracks to
the immediate east, and
Gilman Street to the south.
The site is surrounded by
parcels also in the
Manufacturing District, except
on the northeast side where the
mixed-use light industrial
And to the south is the newly
rezoned Manufacturing Research
and Development Zoning
District.
There are various uses within
the vicinity.
Harrison Park and Berkeley
Skate Park to the west.
Vacant buildings that were
formerly occupied by Pacific
Steel casting to the south.
Artist studios and art
galleries within the landmark
nosy block tannery to the
southeast.
And public storage to the west,
which includes the former
former Berkeley Municipal
Incinerator, a city landmark
building.
The project site consists of
six parcels covering almost
seven and a half acres of land.
Five parcels are city-owned and
the small 1,572 square foot
northwest portion is currently
owned by the Target Corporation.
The site is currently occupied
by the City of Berkeley
Transfer Station facility since
1982.
City materials recovery facilities and ancillary buildings operates independently of city
facilities. The existing transfer facility consists of 72,000 square feet of area and
15 buildings and accessory structures. The proposed project would demolish all the existing
buildings, structures, paving and landscaping and merge the lot into one. The demo referral
was reviewed by the Landmarks Preservation Commission last week on September 3rd, 2026.
The city intends to purchase a parcel from Target and merge all six parcels and construct
a new net-zero energy facility with LEED certification in a two-building design with
accessory structures, new paving, and new landscaping.
The proposed project will have improved traffic circulation with larger entrance areas for
to the public and collection
vehicles, and will improve the
user experience of the public
buyback and drop-off areas.
This slide here shows the north
side of the site with the
transfer station and tipping
floor building, vehicle
maintenance building, wash
building, and scale house.
The north terminus of Second
Street would be repaved and
paved as the main truck entry
while maintaining access to the
driveway of the self-storage
location to the west.
The portion of Second Street
would remain a public right-of-way.
This slide shows the south
portion of the site with the
materials recovery facility
building, the city
administrative offices, and
public buyback and recycling
area.
Trailer and truck parking would
be in the center between the two
main function areas.
Bin repair and storage areas
would be west of the truck
parking areas for public and facility employees.
And this slide shows the existing and proposed project.
The left side shows a view from the intersection
of Gilman and 2nd Street looking northeast.
And the right slide shows a view from the intersection
of Gilman and Harrison Street looking northeast.
And now I will hand it over to Mary Bean
of First Carbon Solution to tell more about the CEQA process.
Thanks.
OK, next slide.
Good evening.
Just waiting for the.
So before I jump into the EIR, we
did want to just point out that one of the main goals
is to maintain service throughout the construction
period, so it'll be phased to allow for temporary on-site operations while specific portions
of the site are redeveloped, temporary relocation of specific activities either within the property
or a diversion of materials to other local processing and disposal facilities.
So under CEQA, when there is a discretionary review that occurs, CEQA's goal is to disclose
any potential impacts, to identify mitigation, to reduce any identified impacts, to inform
the public and decision makers and enhance public participation.
So here's a schematic of the process and we talked a bit, Vicki talked a bit about the
notice of preparation a couple years ago. We had a scoping period. We published the
the draft EIR. We're now in the middle of this slide in the 45-day public comment period,
which ends next week. After that, we will prepare responses to all the comments received
on the draft EIR and then come back for public hearings. EIR is the highest level of environmental
review under CEQA, so we did a complete EIR, looked at all of these topic areas, and for
For many of them we prepared technical studies, so like biological resource assessment, cultural
resource assessment, transportation assessment, and a phase one and phase two hazardous materials
assessment among others.
We also looked at project alternatives.
CEQA requires that you look at a no project alternative, the situation under which the
existing use would continue.
We looked at a one building alternative which actually would have greater impacts.
We found it would have greater impacts related to utilities because there's utility easement
that runs through the center of the site.
So the two building alternative leaves space for access of that utility easement and if
you had a single building, it would just complicate matters if you had to gain access to those
utility lines.
So the proposed project, the two building configuration provides unobstructed access,
all the project objectives and
is the preferred alternative.
Nope.
And then I'd like to reiterate
that tonight's meeting is a
project preview and public
comment session for the draft
EIR.
So does that will not be making
a decision on a project
application tonight?
We ask that commenters please
indicate if the comment is for
the draft EIR or for the project
design and compatibility.
And this slide up here gives
the information that the public
comment period for the draft
EIR ends next week, September
17th, at 5 p.m.
And the comments can be mailed
or emailed, and all the draft
EIR information can be found on
the State Clearinghouse website
or the city's website.
And that concludes staff
presentation.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, I really appreciate it.
We will open it up first to commissioner questions.
Do we have any so far?
And I always said the staff report on this kind of stuff
is all very clear,
because we know you've done a lot of work.
You've done a lot of work,
and this obviously is not the first time,
at least a few of us have seen it,
might be a few times, first time for a few.
Commissioner Choi.
I just have one small question.
South of the current facilities,
By the way, I'm a frequent visitor
and fan of this facility.
So it's nice to know that there will be an upgrade coming.
But south of this facility, there's a,
if you have a stereo or electronic equipment,
you drop it off there.
It always seems very lost where it is and disconnected.
Is that part of, is that being consolidated into this complex?
Yes, it will all be,
and probably the applicant will elaborate more
the city. So I think that's a
good point. I think that's a
good point. I think that's a
good point. I think that's a
good point. I think that's a
good point. I think that's a
good point. I think that's a
good point. I think that's a
good point. I think that's a
good point. I think that's a
good point. I think that's a
good point. I think that's a
good point. I think that's a
good point. I think that's a
On the site will still be done. It's just being three minute like revamped. Okay. Yeah, I know exactly the site you're talking about as well.
Of course, go for it. I have one question. I'm not really sure which section it falls in, but under CEQA you're required to evaluate the transportation aspects. I noticed that there's no sidewalk going towards target.
And as a person who has human transited to Target
and then had very long light bulbs
that they wanted to drop off at this facility,
it was an incredibly long journey from Target to here.
And I'm curious why we chose not to put a sidewalk
connecting those two areas.
Target the story?
Yeah, yeah, a bridge over the creek.
Yeah, so that is the Berkeley-Albany border.
So we can speak on the Berkeley
side, which they did maintain
the creek because the creek is
also along the border where they
did maintain the landscaping of
the creek to protect it.
I can't speak on the Albany
side though, like how that would
work.
Yeah.
When you're talking about a
sidewalk not so long the creek,
it would be along, and obviously
We realize you can't speak to anything on the Albany side.
Is there?
Yeah, yeah.
But on the Berkeley side, right, like, yeah, it's
a dead end on 2nd Street.
Yeah, it dead ends.
And there is no pathway across the street.
You'd have to go down Harrison and then down East Shore, yeah.
OK, and there's nothing in the purview of this project
to include, like, bridging that.
Not at this time, no.
OK, so I've got to clarify.
Any other questions, at least, before we still
have an applicant presentation?
Sounds like, OK, I think it sounds like we're at least
on this.
Thank you so much for joining
us today.
It's good to move to the
applicant's
presentation.
Great, hi, everyone.
I'm Joy Brown, I'm the interim
public works deputy director
and I'm speaking on behalf of
Leticia Haughey, who is our
solid waste and recycling
manager.
She can't be here today in
person and I know she would
love to but she's on Zoom.
And also joined on Zoom is
Wahid Amiri, our other deputy
director.
We are really excited about
this project and we really
wanted to explain why we need to rebuild the transfer station
and what it means to our community
and how it supports the city's long-term zero waste roadmap.
So Berkeley is a unique city, as we all know.
It operates a four stream collection system.
There's landfill waste, organics, bottles and cans,
and fiber.
So the transfer station receives these materials
and keeps them source separated, which really
supports a higher materials recovery rate
and supports our zero waste goals.
The transfer station also supports public self haulers
and our customers and it really functions as a hub
for our smaller communities that are nearby.
City ownership of the transfer station
keeps our zero waste rates tied much more closely
to the actual cost of service
and limits rate payer exposure
to added private transfer and disposal costs.
Local capacity also keeps our collection vehicles
closer to their routes.
without this facility, the city trucks would have to travel to Richmond or
San Leandro, which are the nearest disposal locations to unload. So these
longer trips would increase fuel usage and vehicle emissions and costs.
Maintaining our local Berkeley transfer station supports reliable collection
services and advances the city's climate action goals. You saw some previous
pictures of our current transfer station. I'm hoping many of you have visited it.
It opened in 1982 and the recycling facilities were added in the late 80s and the 90s and
those facilities have way exceeded their useful life and do not meet today's environmental
standards, efficient operational requirements or seismic standards.
The existing site really limits the circulation and efficient queuing.
The proposed replacement facility responds by moving materials and material handling
under cover, which provides much better control of storm water, litter and dust, and improves
traffic flow, worker and public safety.
The public benefit goes beyond the building itself.
Residents gain a safer and more understandable experience.
They gain ways to recover reusable and recyclable material before disposal.
So really importantly, as you can see in these pictures here,
this vision came from the community.
Between November 2018 and May 2019,
they had nine meetings and workshops, listening sessions,
a design charrette, and concept workshops.
And yes, we heard a lot about how great
El Cerritos Recycling Center was,
and how can we make it like that, because it's so easy to use.
So yes, but bigger and better.
That's really our goal.
The rebuild is really a core investment
of our 10-year strategic plan.
Our goal of zero waste was created in 2005
and we're going to be zero waste by 2020.
Well, here we are in 2026.
We're still at 74% baseline diversion rate
and we're trying to hit that 93% target.
So this really identifies more user-friendly experience
and expanded material collection
as infrastructure priorities.
So programs can change over time,
and we need a system that is capable of receiving
and recovering those materials.
Things expand, contract, and change.
Cardboard is much bigger than it was several years ago.
So how we've gotten here.
We have really built this project through many years.
I'm actually, I'm a Berkeley resident,
and I've been an employee for almost 18 years.
So I've heard about this project since I started,
and I really wanna commend Letizia and the whole team
and Mary Beane's team for getting us to this point,
because before it was really very conceptual
and now we're here and it's very exciting.
And community input really led to the study,
the concepts that are before you,
and then we're 10% design and environmental review,
and so we're really excited to keep moving that forward.
It really demonstrates our ongoing community,
to the city's community and our city's values. So a rebuilt transfer station really protects
essential services and it gives Berkeley the infrastructure required to achieve its zero-waste
goals. That's the end of my presentation. So, we're ready for questions. Wonderful. Thank
you so much. Appreciate all the hard work you all have put in. I know this is so many
years coming and still leaving some years to go, but we're doing it. That's so much closer.
the city. I'm not sure what the
the city is. I'm not sure what
visuals are great.
Yes.
The design is going to address
that in a number of ways by
providing more stacking options
for parking so you don't spill
out into the street.
There's also some red curb
painting to ensure people are
parking and creating more
congestion problems, but this
graphic really tells a good
story about how the circulation
will happen and allow for more
efficient stacking.
Yeah.
And just to echo, it's just more
that's really exciting. It is.
It's great. Yeah, that's that's it's already of a pretty nice facility and it's exciting to hear about what the changes. The areas are already making other questions for us. Mr. Young. I remember the.
I'm not sure I'm going to be able to use the updated transportation facilities very soon. I wanted to ask because in the interest of speeding things up, helping the city stay nimble, there was a bill that passed in 2025 that changed how EIRs are done and limited them to only needing to analyze, I think, impacts that are considered substantial.
the EIR now?
I think, I mean, I suppose in
theory, but we're so far along
and we have one more week now
in our comment period, we've
received one letter.
So, we'll be preparing the
final EIR pretty quickly and be
back before you in a couple
months.
So, I think pivoting to a
different issue is something
that's going to happen in the
next couple of weeks.
So, I think it's going to be
a big problem.
I think that's going to be a
different topic.
So, I think it's going to be
a different topic.
so I think pivoting to a different process
would likely mean creating a whole different document
that's in that sort of format.
So you wouldn't gain any time.
I'm glad you brought that up.
By sharing though, because it is,
I mean, seeing obviously this was an original facility
that already was, you know, same use,
those are really exciting things
that can be used in future.
So we don't necessarily have to go through all the hoops
that you all have jumped through
when they don't make sense, of course,
when they do make sense.
What is the expected date of opening,
or planned.
Oh, well, there's a few steps that have to come before that.
One of them being the financing.
That's going to be a key piece of it.
Yes.
Got it.
So stay tuned.
Got it.
That was a magic word.
But it's a five- or six-year construction period.
So once we get to turn dirt, then it's, you know, five seconds.
And thank you for saying how you also were maintaining.
I was very curious on how you were maintaining
use of the facility while also doing five-year construction.
So thank you for already addressing that.
That was one of my questions
and it's really exciting to hear.
Both can happen at once.
I know it's not always easy,
but thank you for your hard work of making that happen.
Yeah.
Maybe just to join the discussion a little bit
on a few different topics.
But, by the way, Young, in terms of scoping,
there are a variety of study areas
that were not studied as well,
which allows for some efficiency, I think,
in looking through this.
There were some, it wasn't the whole list that was shown.
some of those were not applicable, right?
And then looking at the mitigations,
I just have a question
if maybe you could just illuminate a little bit
in terms of any of the mitigations
that you're doing around the creek.
Ah, yes.
A really wonderful quarter to these creeks.
It's almost out to the bay.
Yes, I know.
We spend a lot of time and effort focusing on that
and trying to connect with the good work
that's been done upstream.
One of the main things was to try and ensure
that this design wouldn't exacerbate flooding,
which sometimes is during heavy rain events
is experienced on the site.
So there's some work being done to lay back the creek bed
to give it a little bit more cue factor,
I think is the word of how much volume
it can be moved through,
while also improving the landscaping,
native plantings and public access.
you can actually enjoy that stretch of the creek,
should you choose to do so.
So there's, in terms of mitigation,
there is some work that still needs to be done
hydrologically, just to prove that out quantitatively
that the design is not going to exacerbate
the 25 or 100 year flood condition.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Obviously a very important part of the project
and very exciting to see that part of the creek
getting some love and attention, because, yeah.
Any other comments?
How are we feeling?
Mr. Dahy, who you looked at was just a comment,
I was gonna say something with this.
Of course, please.
In that, just to share the excitement for this,
and as a Berkeley resident,
as someone who also grew up here,
has been there many times, and worked through it.
So just appreciate all the hard work
that you've done thus far.
And you're mentioning about Berkeley being unique.
I just would like to also share.
Berkeley's unique is that the curbside recycling
program was the first in the nation here.
All right.
Our facility is still that old.
It's very exciting fact.
Just saying.
It is.
That's amazing.
Thank you for bringing that up.
We should be into all the hard work.
It takes a lot to make that kind of things happen.
And we get to see a little bit of a little taste of what
all that takes.
So thank you all for your hard work.
We can all make a motion to, um, I, as, uh, as proposed by staff, um,
to approve this is missed as staff proposes unless anyone, obviously I'll
take a second and also discussion.
I think there's no approval.
There's even no,
Oh, you're right.
It's such a rough EIR.
Thank you.
Thank you commissioner Duffy for correcting me.
Um, approve the vibe, approve the vibe.
I mean, and we don't even really have any, you've done such a great job.
We don't even really have anything to even add to it.
I think, unless anyone else has anything else to say.
I just want to thank you for being part of the public process
and making sure the care and diligence around not just
scoping, but also the public engagement process,
I think, is really wonderful.
This is something that we all, it affects us all.
And we affect it.
So I appreciate that transparency and collaboration.
Absolutely.
It makes these kind of meetings, yeah.
Thank you for your time.
Oh, there is.
Oh my goodness, Kelly.
Oh my goodness, thank you so much.
I got a little distracted.
Oh my gosh, Kelly, I'm so sorry.
And anyone else also will say,
Kelly we're about to call on you first.
Anyone else from the public who wants to speak?
I am so sorry, I got a little distracted.
You are absolutely welcome to speak.
Kelly, I'm about to call.
Actually, staff is about to call on you.
Thank you so much.
I am so sorry, public.
That was not my best chair moment.
All right, Kelly, you should be allowed to talk.
We can hear you.
We should be able to hear you.
Okay, so planning for a 100 year flood risk
doesn't really seem appropriate
for our current climate change
because we're having floods that are much larger
and bigger than projections of a 100 year flood.
And this is already an area that is subject
flooding, I see that there are some plans for mitigation, but in terms of the EIR, draft EIR,
I think those need to be expanded for floods that are much larger rather than tsunamis. Tsunami is a
much lower risk. And then it says on here that no fish species were observed, although there is
recognition of the steelhead trout and we do know that at Hopkins Street and
Courtney's Creek that there was a fire in a garbage truck and it the foam
drained into the creek and killed almost all the trout. So and that's a
a protected species.
So I would like to see more attention to that
just because somebody didn't see any fish.
I don't know how long they stood there,
but I think we need more attention to Cordinesis Creek
and flooding than what is here.
And I know the city is going to go ahead on this.
We all know that whenever they get the money,
But I think we need to account for those two things.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Kelly.
And obviously, no, a very important time
to talk about those massive events that can happen,
because they are happening around the world,
and we don't know when it could be us.
So thank you for putting that up.
And once again, sorry, both Kelly and any other member
of the public.
No one else looks like they're online.
Sorry.
Thank you, Vicki, for reminding me.
Yeah, Commissioner Nagy.
to piggyback just on that comment and care because I think it is really
appreciated. I just for the record want to say that I've seen fish numerous
times there. I visited that Creek with my children and that my office is on
Strawberry Creek and I see fish every day. I see fish in Strawberry Creek
easily 30 of them every morning and they're they're about that big. So their
fish are and our creeks are improving it's really wonderful so excited and
and hopefully that this can be part of that improvement.
One thought as well, and I don't know
if this is binding for you, but the 100-year flood
is true, that this is something that I think
we've exceeded a number of times.
It's also the 1% flood, it's not a 100-year flood,
it's a 1% flood, but also, I'm not sure
if this facility is considered an essential facility
in a type of flood or disaster event,
but I do know that when we see floods,
like in Guernville or when the Russian River had flooded,
the amount of waste is really, really enormous.
And it is really essential then
to have a transfer facility like that.
So it would be unfortunate if a flood came
and the facility was compromised in any way.
So just a random comment and thought
that I'm sure you thought of before.
We may have some other this year, right?
With El Nino.
So we're about to see if we have more. We're going to see why we're going to test out those limits. And we have a creek gauge right there at the transportation. We'll be monitoring it pretty closely. That's my turn.
So maybe it'll be an interesting time to see what that is before anything is finalized. We are, as you said, still in the beginning process. We're not in the beginning. We're going to say middle process. You guys have worked for a long time.
to thank you all.
Do we have any other comment?
You said there's no motion to be made.
Just thank you for your hard work and listening to us.
And, you know, since your second time,
it will not be your last.
We will look forward to seeing you all again.
Yeah.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No, no, we've probably all been to the transportation.
We're so excited to see what that becomes.
All right.
Moving right along because we've had a look.
We have no captioner, though.
So at least thank you, Internet, for giving us caption.
No captioner breaks.
not that we need any design review.
Luckily, our design review, that was convenient.
It was the project that we reviewed today.
So that was the first project, the one
that I pulled from consent.
That was our main project, I think our only project
on design review last week.
And we had several people actually
come who were from our supplemental communications.
So one of the big reasons I also pulled it,
because it was a very, to me, so interesting discussion
on commercial space,
even when we don't have purview kind of within that.
We don't have a lot of attendance
a lot of times in design review,
but I know those commercial tenants,
that's their home.
So we're home and it meant a lot.
So thank you all for working on the discussion with me.
And we have a very lengthy discussion on design review
about it.
They didn't make any changes that seemed to be yet.
We'll see what they come out with designer,
final design review. That's not also unheard of. As I said, what we get to say in design
review, plenty of little things usually get on, making any kind of big changes, especially
to like get ground floor or any kind of our very, you know, I understand as a designer
why that is not why you don't make those changes at this time. But anyway, still excited for
the project. Obviously, it's giving us a lot of housing. Thank you all for not minding
we pulled up from consent and having a discussion with everyone so but yeah
anyways that was our that was my subcommittee reports was that one any
staff communication yes so just want to give you guys a heads up the schedule
isn't necessarily finalized yet because I think it still has to go through the
council process but for the next couple months there's a couple meeting changes
so if you can pencil them in if you're available so we can make sure we get
at Quorum.
The first one is we want to have a second meeting in October.
There's a project going on at 1130 Oxford,
which is the Oxford school site,
and they're using AB 130,
and they're in tribal consultation right now.
But as you guys probably remember,
once that concludes, we have to do action within 30 days.
So we're kind of flirting with that timeline right now.
So we think October 22nd,
we're gonna have a special meeting just for that item
so that we comply with the AB 130 timeline.
And then in November, the current meeting
is scheduled for November 12th.
However, council needs to have a special meeting
in November and because of the election,
there's not very many Tuesdays for them to choose from.
So they asked if we would reschedule,
potentially, to November 5th.
So that meeting was probably moving to November 5th.
Okay, and we'll look out for emails
from you all about that, okay.
Yes.
Wonderful, now we understand that you guys are working
and very limited constraints sometimes.
So, of course, we're more than happy to work with those.
So, thank you.
So we're talking two in October and two in November?
We're just one in November.
So the meeting would move, but yeah, two in October.
We'd keep the normal October date.
Because we have different AB 130 projects.
I know obviously our quorum changes, I guess,
depending on who has absences.
Because that gets a little confusing.
As long as we have like, what's our minimum?
I won't even ask that question.
Let everyone go anyways. We'll look out for emails from everyone. I'll make a motion
Well, does anyone else have anything to say vice chair? Yeah, I think you do
Whoever the Oxford applicant is maybe Patrick Kennedy if you're watching this recording in the future consider a mutually agreed upon extension
All right
Look out Patrick entity look out for that one. I'll make a motion to adjourn. Do I have a second? We have to do this second
All right, perfect. All right, Commissioner Duffy
I just want to say thanks to staff tonight and thanks to board member Gaffney. Thank you so much.
Thank you clerk Hernandez-Consales and thank you secretary Price.
Yes. Yeah. Chairperson Gaffney. Yes. Commissioner Kramer. Yes. Commissioner Choi. Yes. Vice chairperson
Young. Yes. Thank you. Yes. Thank you all for making your jobs a lot easier than it could be sometimes.