All right, hello everyone.
Welcome to the October 8th, 2026
Zoning Adjustments Board meeting.
I will first start off by reading the public advisory.
This meeting will be conducted in a hybrid model
with both in-person and virtual participation.
The teleconference will be recorded
as any ZAB meeting is recorded
and all of the rules of procedure in decorum
will apply for ZAB meetings conducted
by teleconference or video conference.
Virtual participation.
To access the meeting remotely, join from a PC, Mac, iPad,
iPhone, or Android device.
Please use the URL which is in your agenda.
If you do not wish for your name to appear on the screen,
then use the dropdown menu and click on Rename
to rename yourself to be anonymous.
To request a speak, use the raised hand icon
by rolling over the bottom of the screen.
To join by phone, dial the number in your agenda
and enter the webinar ID that's also in the agenda.
If you wish to comment during the public comment
portion of the agenda, press star nine
and wait to be recognized by the chair.
Just public testimony guidelines.
To speak at a public hearing,
please submit a speaker card to planning staff
prior to the start of the meeting.
Those are those green cards
that a lot of you have signed already.
If you have wish to speak, please go
and give them to city staff now and I'll put you in.
Anyone online, I will call on you to raise your hand
and I will go over everyone online
after I do all of the public comment in person.
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
in the length of time allowed to each speaker.
All right, we will now do roll call
and ex-parte communications.
Thank you, Commissioner Huttman.
Commissioner Duffy?
Here, and no ex parte.
Chairperson Gaffney?
Present, no ex parte.
Commissioner Thompson?
Present, no ex parte.
Commissioner Cramer?
Present, no ex parte.
Commissioner Allen?
Present, no ex parte.
Commissioner Choi?
Present, and no ex parte.
Vice Chairperson Youngs?
Absent, and Commissioner Sanderson?
Present, no ex parte.
Thank you.
Wonderful.
Well, I want to take a quick second to introduce
commissioner Huttman welcome.
We'd love to give you just like one little second
to say hi and anything about yourself
that you'd want us to know.
Very briefly, good to meet many of you
and to see you resident of Berkeley,
background in affordable housing construction
in San Francisco primarily, but thrilled to be here.
Wonderful, we're so happy to have you.
We have a full commission today and just on time,
we'll let you, to Vice Chair Young's,
we'll call an expert, hey, you've made it just on time.
Thank you. I have expartee to report for applicant Isaiah Stackhouse regarding the project located at the intersection of Russell and Shattuck regarding the project's base density. So I think there's a forum associated with that. I can fill out too. Thank you. Wonderful. And what item number is that again? That's 7A. Perfect. Wonderful. Thank you. Welcome everyone. I will start off now by doing the land acknowledgement statement.
The Commission recognizes that the community we live in
was built on the territory of the Hu-Chun,
the ancestral and unceded land
of the Chuchen-speaking Ohlone people,
the ancestors and descendants
of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County.
This land was and continues to be of great importance
to all the Ohlone tribes and descendants of the Verona Band.
As we begin our meeting tonight,
we acknowledge and honor the unmagical inhabitants
of Berkeley, the documented 5,000 year history
of a vibrant community at the West Berkeley Shell Mound
and the Ohlone people, who continue to reside in East Bay.
We recognize that Berkeley's residents have
and continue to benefit from the use and occupation
of this unceded stolen land
since the cities of Berkeley's incorporation in 1878.
At stewards of the law regulating the city of Berkeley,
it is not only vital that we recognize
the history of this land,
but also recognize that the Ohlone people
are present members of Berkeley
and other East Bay communities today.
The city of Berkeley will continue to build relationships
with the Lausanne tribe and to create meaningful actions
to uphold the intentions of this land acknowledgement.
All right, we will start now with public comment
on a non-agenda matters.
So once again, I will go over the agenda very briefly
and I will go over it again,
just to make sure everyone's clear on everything.
So on the agenda, and once again,
so this is a time to speak on not these items,
on the agenda will be 3048 3050 Shattuck Avenue,
742 Grayson Street,
Sorry, there you go.
2900, 2920 to 2920, Shattuck.
And finally, 701 University.
So if you have anything to talk about not on the agenda,
then now is your time.
I don't have any cards in person.
Those are all for items on the agenda.
I will now call for online.
So online, if you have any comments and not the agenda,
it looks like we have one.
So now I will let Kelly Hamburgan talk.
And if you have any comments, please raise your hand now.
Kelly, you are now allowed to talk.
You have two minutes.
Thank you.
Can you hear me OK?
Yes, we can.
OK.
I'm sorry that I didn't get organized enough
to be there tonight in person, but I
do want to talk about the project at 2029 University that
was passed a long time ago.
And I looked at these plans again.
And maybe some of you or all of you
We'll think this is okay, but I don't.
And that is that on this building in a 75-foot zone,
it grew to be 23 stories and 256 feet.
And the way that they did that, I call a sleight of hand,
or you may call a bait and switch,
is that they did their imaginary plan
And squeezed in eight stories into the 75 feet by doing floor heights of nine feet instead of 10 feet.
And a lobby of 12 feet instead of 15 feet.
And then when they went to do the building, of course, they rearrange everything, added a bunch of floors.
And put in 10 foot floors for the residences.
And I just see this light of hand,
this manipulation of the system to be really dishonest is my take on it.
And I hope that you and the staff would look for this.
I wish that you would call out and have the imagined base plan to really be
an honest portrayal of what's being used to gain a density bonus.
That's my comment for listening.
I can't see you, so I hope you're listening.
Thank you, Kelly. No, thank you for bringing that to our attention.
it's definitely something to keep an eye out for
and we greatly appreciate your attention to detail so much.
You are looking like the only public comment
to at least on non-agenda items.
So I'm going to, all right, yep,
we look like we're all good on that.
So I am not going to reorder any part of the agenda,
but I do want to call attention one change that will be,
and this is for the other Shattuck.
This is not for the Shattuck.
You all are here for today, most for all of my comments.
So this is for 3048 to 3050 Shattuck.
Staff is changing it from recommendation of approve
and we will be continuing that on now.
So once again, that is 3048 Shattuck to 3050 Shattuck,
not the Shattuck you all are here for.
That is still on the agenda
and it will still get a full public hearing.
So all of your comments will be heard tonight.
And once again, that is just the consent calendar will stay
at least right now the consent calendar is the meeting minutes from September
10th, the leave of absence request for Commissioner Thompson and then the use
permit for 3048 to 3050 Shattuck which will change to a continuation so we are
not voting right now to approve that we were voting to continue to another time
and we'll have a different time,
different meeting.
And then currently, which we will debate on right now,
7420 Grayson Street.
So that is currently the consent calendar.
First, I want to open it up to members of the committee
to at least say if there's any comments you have on those
to staff, if you're interested in pulling it,
we will open up to the public comment as well afterwards too,
and then give another time for commissioners.
I just have any, oh, I said once again, okay, sounds good.
So we will open up to said members of the public.
I do not have anyone in person right now.
So online, looks like we have one.
So Kelly, we are gonna allow you to talk.
You will have two minutes.
Okay, so I'm assuming you can hear me?
Yes.
Okay, I have no objection to the request for 742 Grayson.
I just think it's interesting and I want to give you a heads up,
which Debra Sanderson already heard about last night,
is that while this project,
742 Grayson says they're just tearing down
the building because there really isn't market financing for
biotech for the original project for that site,
which really was a nice building.
And then last night we heard about 600 Bancroft.
And that's what I want you to give a heads up on.
So while we have one building saying
there's not a market for biotech,
we have another building proposed for biotech
that's going to add over 500 parking spaces
to aquatic park for a total of 1,467 parking spaces
right next to aquatic park.
And from all appearances, it's a speculation building
that we know have no idea what's going to go in there.
So I just wanted to give you that alert
while you are looking at 742 Grayson.
Thank you very much.
I think my time is up.
Thank you so much, Kelly.
No, and we appreciate that.
and very important when we have projects like that coming out.
Yeah, Mr. Allen.
Yeah, I just wanted to say,
just to clarify with Grayson Street,
that they're not,
that the amendment is to allow for demolition
without a project in place.
And what makes this, I think to me,
unique to make those findings
is that those existing vacant buildings,
and I'm just reading from the staff report,
are vulnerable to vandalism and unauthorized entry,
and the size, condition, and configuration
of the structure makes them difficult to secure,
and a fire was set in the building in March of 2026.
So I appreciate the potential precedent,
and I think this is a unique site
where I'm very comfortable approving the demolition
without a plan behind it.
I think that's wonderfully well said, Mr. Allen,
and definitely why I also feel comfortable
with this as well.
It's not to us saying,
oh, just because anyone who comes forth here,
we would grant that too.
But this is a unique site
and was very laid forth in the staff report
as to why that was.
And I personally also agree with you.
Does anyone else have any more comments before we,
all right, I will make a motion
to move the consent calendar
with the change from three zero item 6C
to be a recommendation to continue.
Probably unapproved.
Second.
All right, thank you.
We have a motion and a second.
Commissioner Huttman?
In favor.
Commissioner Duffy?
Yes.
Chairperson Gaffney?
Yes.
Commissioner Thompson?
Yes, but I'd like to abstain
from the minutes from the last.
Got it.
Commissioner Kramer?
Yes.
Commissioner Allen?
Yes.
Commissioner Choi?
Yes.
Vice Chairperson Young?
Yes.
Commissioner Sanderson?
Yes.
Thank you.
All right, wonderful.
The motion passes.
So for 742 Grayson Street,
you will have your use permit 14 days
after the notice of decision is mailed
and it will be appealable during those 14 days.
All right, wonderful.
We are moving right along to the public hearing.
So first we will start off with 2900 to 2920 Shattuck Avenue
where we will start with a staff presentation.
And actually, while staff is getting set up,
I will ask anyone who wants to speak on this project
online right now to just raise your hand right now.
And I will be sure to make sure all of you guys
are called on after I do everyone in person.
But yes, please know, all of you will be heard.
Good evening, commissioners.
My name is Singhe Saliki and I'm the project planner
for the proposed project at 2900 Shattuck Avenue.
The request is a use permit for a proposed
mixed use residential development with 242 dwelling units.
In tonight's presentation, I'll discuss the project scope,
application review history, density bonus,
and applicable state housing loss.
The CEQA consultant will discuss the environmental review,
and I'll conclude with staff's recommendation
on the use permit.
The approximately 19,500 square foot corner lot
has frontage on Shattuck Avenue to the east
and Russell Street to the north.
The site is zoned south area commercial district.
Surrounding properties along Shattuck Avenue
have commercial district zoning,
while properties beyond the Shattuck corridor
have residential district zoning.
The site is developed with a single-story commercial building
and a small parking lot.
The building and parking lot will be demolished
for the proposed mixed-use project.
Adjacent parcels to the west
contain one and two story residential developments,
while adjacent parcels to the south and east
contain one and two story commercial developments.
Berkeley Bowl Marketplace is to the north
across Russell Street.
The site is served by bus lines on Shattuck Avenue
and nearby Ashby and Adeline.
It is a quarter mile from the Ashby BART station.
This street view from the corner of Shattuck Avenue
Russell Street shows the existing commercial building which is occupied by a hardware store
and auto repair shop. The applicant is seeking approval to demolish the existing single-story
commercial building. The proposed project is an 11-story, 125 feet, 2 inches, approximately
131,500 square foot mixed-use residential development. It would include 242 dwelling
units with 22 very low income units and eight moderate income units. The project includes
approximately 7400 square feet of usable open space in a ground level garden and two roof
decks. It also provides 3700 square feet of ground floor commercial space, 13 off street
parking spaces and 70 bicycle parking spaces. The project vested in March 2022
when the preliminary application was submitted. The applicant submitted a full
use permit application in September 2022 which was deemed complete in December
2022. The project's demolition referral was reviewed by the Landmarks
Preservation Commission in February 2023 and LPC took no action to designate
landmarking. The design review committee held a preliminary design review meeting in March
2023 and forwarded an unfavorable recommendation to the ZAB with comments. The applicant addressed
the DRC's comments and voluntarily took the project to a second DRC meeting for reconsideration in
April 2023. The DRC reviewed the revised design and gave a favorable recommendation to the ZAB
with direction for revisions and final design as detailed in the staff report.
On April 13, 2023, the city mailed and posted notices for a public hearing.
Before the April 27, 2023 ZAB meeting, staff received a few letters from neighbors who
identified the site as a hazardous waste site and disputed staff's recommendation of a
categorical exemption from CEQA. The project was on the consent calendar, but the ZAB hearing was
continued to a date uncertain to allow for the preparation of an initial study. In October 2021,
the project requested an SB131 narrowed CEQA review. An initial study was prepared and reviewed
by the public for 30 days earlier this summer from June to July. On September 24th, the city
mailed and posted notices for the continuation of the public hearing which
brings us to tonight's meeting. The applicant revised the project design
from the version that was submitted in 2023. This slide and the next one
summarized the design changes. Standards for which the project requests waivers
are highlighted in blue and requested concessions are highlighted in yellow.
The revised project increased the building height, number of units, density
bonus and parking. The revised project also increased the gross floor area FAR
lot coverage usable open space and street side setback while decreasing the
commercial area and side setback. Again the standards for which the project
request waivers are highlighted in blue and requested concessions are highlighted
in yellow. Under SB 330 a vested project can be revised if the number of
of residential units or the square footage
of construction changes by 20% or less.
The calculation excludes any increases
that will result from a density bonus,
incentive, concession, or waiver.
The current design adds 21 units
to the vested 222 unit project,
resulting in a total of 242 dwelling units,
which is a 9.5% increase.
The current design also adds 18,845 square feet
to the vested gross floor area of 112,738 square feet,
resulting in a total gross floor area of 131,583 square feet,
which is a 16.7% increase.
Both the change in dwelling units and gross floor area
are less than 20%, so the project retains its vesting
and the city continue to process the use permit application.
The project requests a density bonus
under the State Density Bonus Law.
Under the city's density bonus procedures,
the base project is 142 units.
By providing 22 very low income units on site,
which is 15% of the 142 base project units,
and eight moderate income units,
which is 5% of the 142 base project units,
The project is eligible for a 70% density bonus
or 100 additional bonus units.
The applicant proposes 100 bonus units
of both the base project units
for a total of 242 dwelling units.
Under state density bonus law,
the project is entitled to three concessions
and an unlimited number of waivers.
A concession is a modification of a development standard
that reduces the cost of providing affordable housing.
The applicant requested two concessions for the project
to reduce the usable open space requirement
and to reduce the long-term bicycle parking requirement.
A waiver is a modification of a development standard
that would otherwise physically preclude
the construction of the project
with the permitted density bonus and concessions.
The applicant requested waivers for height,
lot line setback, floor area ratio,
and lot coverage to accommodate
the proposed project on the site.
The project is subject to the
State Housing Accountability Act, or HAA.
Under HAA, because the project is compliant
with all objective general plan and zoning standards,
it cannot be denied, nor can the density be reduced
unless findings can be made that the project would cause
specific adverse impact that cannot be feasibly mitigated.
Staff has not identified any adverse impacts
that could occur with the construction of the project.
The project is also subject to SB 330 streamlined review,
which sets a five hearing limit.
The applicant requested a voluntary second DRC meeting,
which does not count toward the five-hearing limit.
Therefore, this hearing is the fourth
out of five public meetings
that the city can hold to review the project.
The city can hold one additional public hearing if needed,
but it must be reserved
for any possible appeal to city council.
I'll hand it over now to Rincon Consultants
to describe the project's environmental review.
Good evening, ZAB members, Abe, Leader with LenCon Consultants.
We assisted your staff in the CEQA review for this project.
The City determined that this project could be eligible
for a CEQA process that's been in effect
for a bit over a year now.
It's nicknamed the near-miss provision.
And what it says is that a housing project
could qualify for this pathway, which I'll describe,
if it would otherwise be exempt under an exemption
CEQA, except for one thing, one provision that didn't meet or one eligibility requirement that
didn't meet. So, and then when you go on from that, any initial study or EIR, in this case,
initial study prepared for such a project only has to look at that one topic that wasn't met
for the exemption. Okay, next slide, please. So, in this case, we work with your staff to evaluate
the project for a class 32 or infill exemption from CEQA. And as you'll see in the draft in the
final ISMND, went through each eligibility criteria, each of the eligibility criteria,
and each of the environmental criteria to see if the project could qualify for the class 32
evaluation exemption. We also looked at the exceptions to the exemption, which are additional
topics that need to be studied including cumulative impacts, scenic highways, hazardous waste,
and historical resources. So after going through all that evaluation, which is summarized in the
environmental document, we determined there was indeed one criteria that the project didn't meet
for the exemption and that had to do with hazardous materials because the site is listed on a state
database for having a hazardous materials case. It didn't qualify for the class 32, but because
But there was only one such criteria.
It did qualify for the near miss provisions of CEQA.
Okay, next, please.
So a little bit about where we ended up.
We again looked at that one potential impact having to do with hazardous materials.
And the site is within the EMA, the Environmental Management Area of the city.
there it triggers special conditions of approval that are overseen by the
Toxics, your Toxics Management Division. There was two conditions on the site
that we studied. It came up in a number of environmental, technical environmental
reports done. One was a leaking underground storage tank case that's
been removed and the case has been closed and also the historic use of the
site for automotive repair and service. So again, there was two studies, phase one environmental
site assessment and then later phase two environmental site assessment where they actually do subsurface
testing that identified limited diesel range petroleum impact in the groundwater and they
tested that, determined that it was localized to that site and was below thresholds of concern
for human health and that the soil vapor coming from the groundwater underneath did
not also did not exceed residential or commercial screening risks. So those are the findings of the
the two reports and then but in addition to that the city has a standard condition of approval
for projects in the EMA that's you know a fairly robust condition. We also added a mitigation
measure to further ensure that additional investigation is carried out and remediation
if necessary, you know, proper transport of any hazardous materials and site management to protect
workers, residents, and the surrounding community. I just will say the conditions that came out on the
site through the investigations are relatively common conditions. You'll see these all over
Berkeley. They're typically handled on a routine basis by the regulatory agencies and contractors.
So it's pretty much a, it's a fairly routine condition out there.
We've might seen dozens or even hundreds of sites and projects in Berkeley.
Okay, next slide.
So just though it is a narrowed, we can say, CEQA process, this near-misprovision,
it still requires the full public review of whatever document, focused document comes out.
It was a focused environment, initial study, mitigated, negative declaration.
So that had to go through the full CEQA public process,
even though it was narrowed to the one issue.
so I had a 30-day public review period.
I ended in July.
The city received 13 comment letters on it,
and the final ISMND that's in your packet,
I'm hoping, includes responses to all the comments and
concerns about environmental issues that the city received.
None of those comments,
and we added a little bit of additional clarifying information to the final ISMND,
but none of the comments raised substantial new information or changes to
the analysis such that the document would have to be recirculated.
Is there one more slide?
No.
Okay. Thank you.
The project is consistent with the general plan zoning ordinance and applicable state housing laws.
Staff recommends that the ZAB adopt the initial study and approve the use permit
subject to the findings and conditions as detailed in the packet.
This concludes staff presentation and we can answer questions about the project.
All right wonderful thank you staff. I said we'll start with Commissioner
questions, just the staff. This won't be your only time but a good time to start
with any clarifying questions. If not we will, Commissioner Allen. Sure, so the the DRC
had some bullet points of ZAB issues and common bathroom near the roof deck,
replacing the neighbor's fence, minimize curb cuts, improve hallways and
interiors although that's not anything we're going to touch on and circulation issues at the intersections.
Is there any follow up that that you're aware of from those recommendations at DRC or should I hold those for the applicant.
I would hold them for the applicant because they did they're going to respond to those in their final design review.
that's good to bring it down.
So at least the applicant now now is to prepare for that.
Any other at least questions for staff right now
before we go on?
Vice Chair Young first, then Commissioner Sanderson after.
Is final design review included
in the five public meeting limit?
No, it is not a public hearing.
Mr. Sanderson.
Okay, I thought I heard in one of these presentations
that in the current proposal that you had responded
to the issues raised by DRC, but it appears
that that didn't happen.
I guess that's a question to staff.
Did the project respond to those DRC comments,
and or are we holding all of those response
to all of those comments to the final design review?
The project went to DRC twice, and they responded
that is being reviewed today.
The DRC gave a favorable
recommendation and also made
recommendations to ZAB for final
design review.
So the applicant did address the
DRC's comment from the initial
meeting.
Okay, thank you.
And as someone who sits on
design review, I can clarify a
little further too, especially
for things that we should look
out for now, is since after
development, the DRC's
recommendation gave a favorable
available is since after this
they will have their use permit,
so anything that is from our
comments that would be more
linked to a use permit that they
cannot do after they get that
use permit, is that in final
design review we often discuss
materials, details of the
building, nothing that relates
to anything towards its mass or
anything use permit related.
So it's great to bring up and
clarify, and so thank you all
for, yeah.
I have a question on the usable open space
and the waiver or concession, I'm sorry, to reduce it.
When I look at the plans now,
it's the 7,000 whatever square feet of open space
and I guess my question is,
does that take up all of the rooftop area
that is on the plans?
It and where did the other 2000 square feet go?
If it's not, is the whole roof part of the required open space?
No, so the the usable open space is split up between the ground level and the tent floor on the ground on the ground floor.
The usable open space is a garden and it is a, let's see,
we don't have the specific area here,
but it's a garden space and then on the 10th floor,
there are two roof decks that are also included
as part of the usable open space.
Sorry.
So just to clarify again, yeah, I hear a save one more time.
Sorry, I don't scoot around in my computer sufficiently.
It's the young people here.
So I'm looking at drawing on page 827.
And there's a roof deck.
There's an open space roof deck for about 4,000 square feet.
And then there's this other area that looks like it has tables
the open space. So we have a
is a plan at the 11th floor and this portion of it,
here is a part of the usable open space.
And there's a smaller portion
nearer to the intersection of Shattuck and Russell.
That's also a deck that's part of the usable open space.
So the larger portion that's towards the rear of the building
is 3,696 square feet,
and the smaller deck at the corner is 1,045 square feet.
All right, my other question's offsite for the applicant.
Wonderful, no thank you.
And then yeah, the other part of that open space
is on that ground floor.
And it's just a smaller chunk on that first floor.
Any other questions for staff right now?
This doesn't have to be your last time too.
Okay, we will open it up to the applicant then.
Applicant, come on up.
You will have five minutes to make your presentation.
And then we'll ask the applicant questions.
And while they're setting up,
so if anyone new came in and wants to speak on this too,
feel free to write a speaker comment card.
They're the green cards in the back
and they'll give them to me.
Said online if you're still waiting,
said please raise your hand
and I will call on you after we get to everyone in person.
Not quite yet.
Can you hear me now?
Yeah, we can.
Great, thank you.
Thank you, Sangay, for a very thorough presentation.
I'll keep this brief.
Nice to be here with you all tonight.
Isaiah Stackhouse of Stackhouse,
they live in the Trachtenberg Architects.
And with us online are more of the project team members
who can answer questions.
I'll outline those at the end of the presentation.
Okay, so the project is located
at the heart of the Shattuck, Adeline,
and Ashby commercial corridors in the CSA,
where the city encourages mixed use
and high density residential development
to support local retail, transit,
and pedestrian oriented uses.
So it's a fantastic site.
It's really a transit paradise
across the street from a grocery,
close to Bart and on a bike boulevard.
Project overview, we're proposing 242 new residential units
That will include 30 below market rate,
subsidized units, 22 VLIs, very low income units,
and eight moderate income units,
plus a substantial contribution to the city's housing,
affordable housing fund,
and also 3,720 square foot ground level corner retail,
along with residential lobbies
to activate the pedestrian streetscape.
Here's the ground level plan with a corner retail space
on Shattuck and Russell.
Here's the residential lobby
with a garden open space towards the back
and parking access off of Russell.
Here's a typical residential unit plan.
The project is a mix of studios, ones, twos,
and some threes up on the top floor.
Here is a plan at level 11 again with a roof deck here facing west and an additional roof deck open space with an attached lounge and restroom facing east and north.
Here are unit plans again, a mix of studios, 1 bedrooms, 2 bedrooms, and 3s. The 30 units will be spread across.
the building. The building is a
We're going to go to the left of the street.
We're going to go to the left of the street.
We're going to go to the right of the street.
We're going to go to the left of the street.
We're going to go to the right of the street.
We're going to go to the left of the street.
We're going to go to the right of the street.
We're going to go to the right of the street.
We're going to go to the right of the street.
We're going to go to the right of the street.
We're going to go to the right of the street.
We're going to go to the right of the street.
We're going to go to the right of the street.
We're going to go to the right of the street.
back to the glaze wall to the rear is the open space off the residential
lobby and lounge. Here's a detail of the retail streetscape. We're proposing new
street trees and landscaping, highly articulated facades with decorative
canopies and recessed glazing to activate the pedestrian experience. Here's a
detail at the corner retail which will enliven both Shattuck and Russell and
the pedestrian experience on both streets. As noted in the staff report the
project is consistent with the HAA and Housing Crisis Act SB 330. It's
consistent with state density bonus law and consistent with Berkeley's general
plan policies and zoning and development standards. It helps Berkeley meet its
regional housing needs and a transit-oriented development provides 30 below market rate units
plus a substantial contribution to the city's housing fund and it provides 240 new homes
for residents who will enhance the community. For these reasons we ask you to approve the
application here tonight. Thank you and our team is available to answer any questions including
Nathan George, project sponsor, Jenny Arkin of Holland and Knight, and Jen Moser with the environmental group. So thank you. That concludes our brief presentation and here for your questions.
All right, thank you. We'll start off with some questions from the Commission to the applicants. Does anyone have any order staff? But we have the applicant up here. Commissioner Sagerson.
I noticed that the percentage of the landscaping
that was native species was pretty low.
It was about 50% and I would have expected it to be higher
for a project of this size.
So can you explain why it's so low
or can you make a commitment to increase
the percentage of native species?
My understanding is it's up around 80,
but certainly very willing to revisit that
and make sure that it is as high as it can be.
And we would be fine with that being something
that we looked at at final design review.
Okay, good.
I think 80% is acceptable.
But 50 was too little.
Thank you, Commissioner Sanderson.
Go ahead.
Okay, I have one.
The bicycle reduction concession.
What did you do with a space that would have been occupied
by those bicycles?
the building. So that's the the
reason for that and our understanding is that you know it it's what we're
proposing you know we're not proposing zero we are proposing 70 spaces and that
that is in alignment with the expected actual demand I'm sorry it is or is not
that it is that it will be sufficient to meet the demand that's that the project
of what the project sponsor
expects to have.
Okay, so there's some research
that shows that?
Just based on other, you know,
other buildings, but, yeah, I'm
not, I don't have a survey of
that.
The project sponsor is available
for questions, so if you'd like
to ask that of the project
sponsor, he's online.
Yeah, if he is available, or
they are available, obviously,
we would hope to hear.
Yeah, we do expect that to be
it is quite common amongst projects we work on to reduce the bike parking zone.
So is there someone who's online that can answer that question as to how you got at that percentage
and how any analysis that shows that that's comparable to other projects?
Yes the project sponsor here not able to speak there we go. Wonderful. Yes please speak to that
question. We'd love to hear from you. Yes, I'm Nathan George. We have a few many buildings around
Berkeley and downtown and oftentimes even when we've provided additional bike parking it's
underutilized and so we find roughly about one third a quarter of the unit count is what we end
up having for bike parking needs. We also believe this is really close to transit corridor and the
the park station. We don't expect as many much bike usage at this location. Okay, thank you.
All right, thank you. See, do we have any other questions? Yeah, of course, question of humor.
Relatedly, can you talk about what bike parking there is at street level for the folks who are
or using the businesses in the building?
Yeah, there are 10 spaces out for businesses
and residential out on the curb lines.
All right, thank you.
And I guess related to parking as well,
I believe this is a condition of approval
and I just wanna confirm and so everyone knows too
that the residents of this property
that's a very standard one. So,
yes, they will not get the
ability any of us into this
place will not get the ability
to get a residential preferred
parking pass. Um, I'm sure you're.
So obviously this is a mixed use
zone and there is commercial on
the ground floor and the form of a.
the city of the city. And we're
learning about the city of the
city of the city of the city.
And we're learning about the
city of the city of the city.
And we're learning about the
city of the city. And we're
learning about the city of the
city. And we're learning about
the city of the city. And we're
learning about the city of the
city. And we're learning about
the city of the city. And we're
learning about the city of the
city. And we're learning about
the city of the city. And we're
learning about the city of the
city. And we're learning about
the city of the city. And we're
learning about the city of the
city. And we're learning about
the city of the city of the city.
And we're learning about the
in our commercial real estate market. And based on what we're learning, a big driver of that seems to be spaces that are too big for a lot of businesses to be able to justify the lease for. And also, you know, a lot of ground floor commercial being built at the cold shell level without the kind of, you know, improvements that maybe a food establishment would need to instead get a large loan for.
that's a good question. So I'm a
but it's easy to start.
Um, uh, I would say that 3720
is a total, but it's easily
subdivideable, and what's really
nice here is that there's a lot
of frontage on both streets, so,
um, you know, if it were very
narrow and very deep, then that
square footage really could only
go to one or two tenants, but
because it's broad with a lot of
frontage, um, it's easily
subdivideable and very flexible
and you may have something to add to that as well.
Sure, we're very sensitive to that too
and want to encourage the retail space
and activating that as also amenity
to the building tenants.
We have a project under construction on University Avenue
that has almost 5,000 square feet of retail,
but it's subdividable across five different spaces
and we already have three of the five spaces
pre-leased before the building's complete.
We've done a lot to go out to market
provide subsidized rents and tenant improvements
for those residents or new applicants,
or sorry, the new commercial tenants
to be able to move into those spaces.
And just like Isaiah had said,
the way this was designed was not to have an entire space
of 37, 20 square feet, but to have it laid out
so we could divide it up into as many as three
or four spaces of smaller retail.
Thank you, Mr. Choi, there's a lot of concern about from your neighbors about the traffic
especially on this intersection, how are you, especially now if you think about
multiple tenants coming into that corner, what's the attitude in terms of delivery and loading
from the streets to the to the actual commercial space? Yes, they're, you know,
typically, when these projects go for their building permits, DPW will assign, you know,
yellow and white curb loading spaces, you know, along the frontages there.
I'll also say that the the spaces are planned to be built furnished. So there won't be as much
loading for and they're mostly studios so it'll mostly be studio suitcases and just their
personal effects that will be transported so we don't expect big loading vans of furniture
to be moved into the space. The question was more directed towards the commercial spaces rather
than residential. We do have off-street access with parking so a movie if there was an extended
the parking area. So the way the
parking area is going to drop
off they could back into retail
space off of Russell which is a
much quieter Street and. And I'm
load from there. We provide
some access from the back of the
parking area as well. And so,
sorry, just to clarify on that.
That's that area where you're
saying to back up into the area
where those 11 spaces would be
the city of the city of the.
So we've seen some concern from neighbors about the phase two findings and utilization of the near miss provision. I'm wondering staff if you could speak to the commonality of this finding as the consultant mentioned and then if the applicant can speak to track record and mitigating similar conditions on other sites.
It's brand new. Abe, do you want to take that?
This is the first time it's been used. Again, yes, thank you. If the question is about.
The nature of the contamination and how.
How much of a concern is it compared to like common conditions? I think my colleague James Schwartz, he just popped up might want to take that one. That's okay.
Yeah, thank you, Abe. I can answer that question. So the phase 2 environmental site investigation that was conducted by Pangea in 2017 did not find any issues with chemicals in soil or soil gas.
And the only issue they noted was some very limited petroleum hydrocarbons in the diesel range in groundwater.
Those concentrations are slightly above the tier 1 ESL that was used in 2016 for the report.
And that's that ESL is for drinking water. And the reason why that's not a significant concern here is that the groundwater is at 14 feet below ground surface and would not be used for drinking or for irrigation at this project.
The residents of the building, of course, will have municipal water supply, and there
won't be any means by which to come in contact with the groundwater.
And of course, diesel does degrade over time, naturally in the environment, and so if there
were retesting at this point since the data was collected in 2017, the concentrations
would be expected to be even lower than they are right now and may in fact at some point
be below the drinking water standard. But, again, it's not anticipated that anyone
would be exposed to this water as a drinking water source or as an irrigation source. So,
it's not a significant concern. And this is typical in Berkeley. There are many former
light industrial sites throughout the city where there are minor impacts in groundwater
that are naturally degrading over time,
under the oversight of Regional Water Quality Control Board
in the Toxic Substances Division.
Hopefully that answers the question,
but I'm here if you have any others.
It does, thank you.
All right, wonderful.
Any other questions for the applicant?
Commissioner Thompson first,
and then we'll do Commissioner Sanderson.
Oh, or Commissioner Nothing, yeah.
Hold on, sorry, but she had a follow-up question.
With all of this to the applicant, yeah,
on the tracker of mitigation. Oh, thank you.
Yeah, you know, I think in terms of the detail,
you know, the expert there has said it better than I could,
but in terms of what we typically see, yeah, that is true.
You know, a lot of Berkeley
does have environmental management areas and most projects,
you know, well, they're all reviewed by toxics
and they all have a very thorough process
during the building permit process to make sure
that any concerns, whatever they may be,
are very thoroughly analyzed and handled correctly.
Yeah, just to add on to Isaiah
and experience with other project sites
is there's a soil and groundwater maintenance plan
that's required to be submitted prior
to any activity on the site.
And then any site, contaminated soil or smelly soil
It gets encountered during any excavation.
We're required to stop work and provider environment consultant will come and test the soil and follow the SGNP that's provided to the city in terms of disposal of that if we encounter anything.
It's fairly standard protocol for for this.
Thank you. Sorry for cutting off, Commissioner Huttman. Commissioner Thompson, did you have something you wanted to ask?
I just had a question on that on the waiver for the height.
and is this, have we waved the height before
or is this the first time we've done it?
We waved it off.
Go ahead, you can have anyone.
I mean, no, it has been waved before.
We often wave the height.
Yeah, it's common waver.
Yeah, most projects in Berkeley do wave the height.
Yes.
Yeah.
So thank you.
Good to clarify.
No, I appreciate that.
I know there was another one over here.
Go ahead, Deb.
Mr. Duffy? If I may add though those height waivers you only get those height
waivers if you provide below market rate units. So if you don't or if you're not
using density bonus law then you you don't get to try to waive the height. And
so in this case there's 30 below market rate units so they get some waivers they
get some concessions as well that that you've talked about. One clarification
today I think maybe this is just to air it out a little bit but in reading some
of the public comment, I know there's concerns,
it's a very tall building, and there's concerns
about shadows of tall buildings.
And I know that you've done diagrams as you need
to to show what the shadows do.
But just looking at the building and knowing
that its design sort of runs north-south in its thinness,
is it fair to say then that after 12 p.m. or say 12.30 p.m.,
that those five homes that are touching
the rear property line will be in direct sun
for the rest of the day?
Yeah, that's correct.
For the entire year?
That's correct.
Is that fair to say?
Yep, that's correct.
Okay, so after 12.30 pm, shadows are gone forever
and if you lived in that one of those homes,
you'd have direct sun for the rest of the day.
That's right.
and it's very, very good.
It's correct.
Yeah.
Great.
OK.
Just just clearing that up.
Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Duffy, and no one very good to talk about,
especially regarding the height and that that is not given.
Those waivers are not given out of nowhere.
That is for affordable housing.
So thank you for clarifying all that.
Questioners Anderson.
So I've spent a fair amount of time talking with neighbors
next to had large buildings built on the major transit
in the middle and large buildings on ends of both ends of the street and one
of the complaints that they've made is that when a new building comes to town
and is proposed that they often say oh well there'll be a cafe here and that
can be like a community gathering place and then push comes to shove and there
is no cafe and so they a lot of the neighbors in that area are upset that
they don't get anything out of this and so my question to you is whether you
would consider and you don't have we probably have to talk to other people if
you would consider putting in a community room as part of the commercial
space so that the neighbors know that there will be a place for them in this
this building. I don't think there's a community room in the Berkeley Bowl. There is in West
Berkeley Bowl. There is a community space. But, you know, we should probably hear from
some of the neighbors whether they would even benefit that, like that. But, you know, the
longer I do this, the more bothered I get that the small residential homes adjacent
to these buildings, they get the increased tax rate benefit.
They could get additional benefit
from getting to know these new neighbors
so we don't have a two population city,
which is kind of the way we're going now.
And there's no way for these residents
to meet the neighbors who live nearby.
And so often I'm pushing pocket parks
as kind of a neutral place where neighbors and residents
can gather, walk their dogs,
put their babies in the sandbox or whatever.
And that provides them some excuse to meet each other.
I mean, they're not just going to walk up to strangers
like, oh, I'm Joe Smith, you know.
So that's what I'd like you to consider on this
and to consider it as some mitigation
to the social disruption that's caused by a big building
like this that's like between two residential.
I mean, there's stores on the other,
on the West side, East side of Shattuck,
but behind them is another row of single-family homes.
So that's my question.
Yeah. And certainly the intent of the retail there
is to provide access to provide retail that's shared in the community.
Nathan, I don't know if you have thoughts at all about
the allocating space purely to a community room versus providing the retail.
Sure. I can't speak to other developers,
but I can speak to our track record.
Certainly, the one on university that I mentioned before,
we have a large coffee cafe that's going in on the corner.
which has a little bit of a plaza as well that's gonna be a great amenity. We sought out specific
uses for that space. There'll be an addition to the community. The other resident we have or the
commercial tenant we have for that space is Kokoa Creative. It's a special wine brand shop and they
plan on having community events, wine tastings, and things like that to invite the community in
for that neighborhood and so we really seek out retail tenants that are going to be value-add
for both the residents and for the community. Currently as you know it's a model car garage
and a hardware store and we think that this is going to be significantly improving for
the streetscape and activating that for the the neighbors around and will continue to commit to
providing or seeking out commercial tenants that'll be a benefit to the residents.
There's also the larger benefit of providing
households for 242 people and below market rate units,
and these are folks who will shop at Berkeley Bowl and meet neighbors that way as well.
I understand that, but it becomes kind of a two-population city, those who live in the
new high-rise buildings and those who live in the smaller and middle-sized homes that
are on the ground.
And so whenever we can find a way to create opportunities for those two communities to
come together and get to know each other and not feel like, oh, these are the high-rise
people. And these are the local residents who've been here for eons, so that's why I brought it out.
I appreciate the sentiment there for sure.
I'm going to hand out another one for questions.
Well, while you think of it, I will just honestly commend on that's a very interesting idea. And I know
while obviously very hard to implement, you know, that's what pocket parks, a lot of those community
spaces didn't seem like they were possible sometimes until they are. So even just talking about it,
and especially in these urban corridors, you know, the conversation should be had. So thank you,
thank you commissioner Sanders and bring that up.
Well don't worry, we will have another chance.
We have not closed, actually,
we're only just beginning said public hearing
because do we have any more questions?
This will not still be your last time for either,
I'm gonna go to public, oh yeah, commissioner Choi.
Just to add on to that, on the back side,
on the south side of Berkeley Bowl,
there is a linear pocket park.
And unfortunately, your parking access
to the loan spaces is opposite the pocket park,
but there is an opportunity on that intersection
because there's a very nice diner across Street Catty Corner
that if your retail space in that corner,
you can create synergy.
I mean, I think what's nice about this is
we're talking about urban context duality
in terms of the human scale.
And you're talking about engaging the neighbors,
but the introduction of 240 units
does bring about a bustling atmosphere
to that street level,
which can be quite nice for the neighborhood.
So, as you move forward, if you can just put a little bit
more eye to that scale of design and interactivity,
I think that would really be helpful
and a big boon to the neighborhood.
Thank you, Mr. Troy and Commissioner Anderson.
I have, I think, one more comment.
You mentioned having some subsidized rent agreements
that you could use.
There are 30 below market rate units in the project.
Okay, now what about on the commercial?
And I'm concerned whether or not
the hardware store can go back into that commercial space
if there's any financial assistance.
Nathan mentioned that.
Nathan, could you speak a little more about that?
I mean, certainly the model car garage,
they sold the building with the intent
of eventually closing it down.
The hardware store, we've been in discussion with them,
but we're open to continue working with them,
but they haven't expressed a firm willingness
to be able to move back in and to a future space.
So in terms of subsidization,
we talk about additional TIs that we provide above market
and reduced market rent to try to encourage space
they don't stay vacant.
All right, thank you.
I'll miss them.
All right, thank you.
Any more questions before we move just to public comment?
All right, we're looking like we're ready
to move to public comment.
So he said, we'll go to everyone in person first.
I have you all here.
If you have any, if anyone else still needs to,
speaker comment cards are up here online please raise your hand now I will call on all of you
after I get to everyone in person. We will have one minute per person each because we have a lot
of us here and I said I will not going to only go like a sentence or two over because I want to
make sure it's fair to everyone. I said I will try and remind you I'll remind you once the one
minute hits and do wrap it up pretty soon after that. So all right let's get started we will have
I have Joyce Friedman on up first.
There will be a timer up on the screen.
I said I'll also lightly remind of when it gets to one minute.
Hi, I'm Joyce, I'm a resident near the project.
And I just want to say, you know, on the way over here,
driving up Ashby, turning up Shattuck,
there's a lot of congestion and you say,
oh, it's going to, you know, make it more convivial.
Well, it's already convivial.
there's already a lot of traffic turning up there and this building is huge and
this building belongs downtown. We're not downtown where Shattuck comes four
lanes it gets comes into two right there at like Oregon and it's two lanes so I
just can't imagine what the traffic's gonna be and I'm not sure what the
the parking spaces are allowed for this building.
So there's going to be a lot more cars,
240 people or much more than people.
It just seems like 11 stories.
There's something called the,
I wanted to wrap up in a couple sentences.
11 stories is just outside the general plan policy,
usually I was looking at the buildings coming up
and they're like the ones that are.
All right, one more second.
Sorry, you gotta, we do have to figure it out.
I'm almost done.
Okay.
Are like five, six stories.
But to put 11 stories on that corner,
it's just outrageous, outrageous.
Thanks.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Well, and I said, well, there are some changes
that sounds like coming to that intersection.
Commissioner Choi, and once again everyone,
I just want to clarify, I was referring to foot traffic,
not vehicular traffic.
He was referring to foot traffic, not vehicular traffic,
speaking from his previous comments.
And I said the applicant will have a chance
to respond to all this, and I said I do believe
there might be some changes coming to that intersection,
so hopefully we can address those afterwards as well,
but obviously we're here to hear all of your comments.
Larissa Cummings, come on up.
Good evening, I'm Larissa Cummings.
I live right behind the project site.
A group of us submitted comments to the ISMND in July,
very extensive comments that have been disregarded
and ignored.
Yesterday, I emailed the staff planner formal objections
to the staff report, six major concerns.
Most importantly, the city is putting the cart
before the horse.
The California Department of Toxic Substances Control
submitted a formal letter on June 12th of this year
the city of Minnesota. The city of Minnesota is explicitly stating that this historical auto body shop site contains clear risks regarding volatile organic compounds hazardous soil vapors lead paint and asbestos under sequel law. The department's expert warning constitute substantial evidence of a toxic health hazard. This automatically triggers the fair argument standard. Meaning the city cannot legally issue a rushed MND.
by improperly deferring the mandatory preliminary
endorsement assessment to future building permit conditions,
the city is cutting corners and leaving a legal blind spot.
Okay, just one more sentence.
This ad must protect public safety,
follow the DTSC's directives and deny this permit
until a comprehensive environmental review is completed.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, Adam Musters is next.
come on up you'll have your one minute right now and then read during during
him will be after that I will call on you again. Good evening my name is Adam
Masters I'm here today on behalf of Northern California residents for
responsible growth and growth representing hundreds of members of
electrical workers plumbers sheet metal workers and sprinkler fitters who live
work and raise their families in Berkeley and Alameda County. This developer NX
ventures has a checkered history in our community. NX ventures business models do
not reflect the values of this community. The experience at their 1598
university project demonstrated this. Here the project was built by workers
from out of the area who were paid less than area standard wages, they were not
provided basic benefits, and do not provide opportunities for local
apprentices. And the project was a mess with delays and questionable
construction standards. This project, if built right, could result in thousands of
work hours for the local construction workforce, as well as provide much needed
housing that means tens of millions in wages being spent here at our local businesses.
Myself and dozens of local workers and community leaders shut the university project down in
defense of their middle class jobs.
We ask our community to stand with us to protect Berkeley from low road construction.
Anti-worker developers who hire out of state workforce pay lower than area standard wages,
failure to provide adequate benefits and not providing opportunity for local apprentices.
We urge you to look carefully at this project and assist that it meets the needs of our
community.
Thank you so much.
Reed, Duringham, Duringham, come on up.
Donna Mickelson, you'll be after.
It's Dillingham, not Duringham.
Sorry.
Thank you.
I'm one of the residents directly behind the proposed building at the corner of Newberry
and Russell.
The parking in the neighborhood is already bizarre.
We have people parking in driveways.
We have to call the police to get them moved.
Berkeley Bowl shoppers fill up the all of that area. I foresee a huge parking issue
with multiple police calls and
Toa ways and so on that is going to be a disaster
The the project is really totally out of scale with the neighborhood and it is really going to be a huge
impact on not only the neighborhood but also on
Shattuck Avenue and the traffic that will occur there particularly the intersection of Shattuck and Ashby
It'll be a disaster
There needs to be a lot more control under the parking and under traffic
deliveries door dash
Etc. Is going to be a big impact. I think the project size is out of scale and it's not going to work very well
very well, it'll be a big problem for the city and for the neighbours. So I would deny
it.
Thank you for your comment. Donna Mickelson, come on up, and then Gillian Mosley will be
afterwards.
So I believe and hope that I can cede my time to someone else?
Absolutely.
I would like to cede your time too.
the city. And then we'll have a
to be for them, what amenities are going to be provided to them,
and is there going to be any sort of residential support?
Because our students have a 66 percent rate of saying that they are deeply depressed.
They need a lot of help.
They take a big load on our emergency services,
and if you don't have anything in place for them for that,
then forget about it.
Just absolutely forget about this idea.
and then I just I don't know how many like Amazon deliveries a day are we going to have?
How many Grubhub deliveries?
How many out of all of those things,
I don't see anything in this plan that really allocates for that.
Yeah, let's see.
Pets, are you talking about a pet park?
But if even half of them have a pet,
where are these pets going to go?
Where are they peeing? Where are they pooping?
What's happening there?
that's it. That's it. That's it.
the city's city's city. And the
project site. The problem is there's a building that's been landmarked or it's
a structure of merit but under the Berkeley landmark ordinance within one
block of the project site and it does not appear to have been considered. It
seems like Rinkon just arbitrarily decided not to consider the impact of
the project on any of these 16 resources and I don't think that needs CEQA
guidelines. There's no additional backup information other than this one
and I'm happy to talk to you.
I'm happy to talk to you. I'm
happy to talk to you. I'm
happy to talk to you. I'm a
happy to talk to you. I'm a
happy to talk to you. I'm a
happy to talk to you. I'm a
happy to talk to you. I'm a
happy to talk to any of the staff about this. Because I have
happy to talk to any of the staff about this. Because I have
considerable experience in it. To miss Anderson.
but personally as a neighborhood resident,
I would really like to retain eastern supplies.
I would like it much more than a cafe,
and I think most people in the neighborhood would agree.
Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Alright, Daniel Redmond, come on up next.
I'd like to cede my time to,
are you Daniel Redmond?
Yes. Wonderful, okay, perfect.
I have a few other questions.
Yes, please continue.
So this project is 9 to 10 stories higher
than the surrounding buildings.
So if you consider a story of approximately 10 feet,
it's going to be 90 to 100 feet taller
than the surrounding buildings.
That's an incredible height difference.
Then additionally, it's virtually impossible
to render these drawings that the architect showed
accurately and I swear since I have rented many a car enterprise rental on the corner of Ashby and Shattuck that
That building was not rendered properly in sketch
It's going to be way taller than what they've shown
so I would really like to know how they determine the heights in their sketches and
Then the other sketch in context it's a building that's shown in the corner on the left doesn't exist
It's made up, it's not the building that's on that corner.
So what are they showing?
I have lots of questions, one or two more sentences.
Okay, then I would also like to point out
that you've been kind of, it's been,
let's just say articulated.
So you've been, it's been,
the project has been described to you
with really rich terms, like articulated, richly.
Juliet Balcony's, and Liven, I will guarantee you
that it's not gonna be that.
And I do have to stop you there, thank you so much.
And so seating time is totally welcome.
It can be for someone who already spoke.
Susie Bluestone, come on up.
Hi, I'm Susie Bluestone, I'm a 36 year resident
of the 2100 block of Russell Street.
The problem with this project is it represents
way too much greed and no integrity.
It doesn't belong at this scale in Berkeley.
I pray upon you as representatives
for the residents of Berkeley to recognize,
Mrs. Berkeley, let's do the right thing.
I don't know what the emergency evacuation plan is.
I would doubt there's a single firefighter in Berkeley
that thinks this is a good idea.
I don't know what the emergency evacuation plan is.
There is, I mean, there are just numerous ways
that this would impact in adverse ways
and I don't see any mitigation that's possible
for an 11 story building.
I mean, if you were, you know, setting up children's play
and one was building buildings at regular height
and someone was building this, it would be like,
deemed not fair among five year olds,
they would be able to quickly figure that out.
So I don't see why you would let this happen
when something like five stories at this location
would be quite appropriate.
And there are other areas of the city
that need to be revitalized, that need good housing,
and this would not be that.
But it's kind of scary to look at the layout of the designs
because the two things that it reminds me of
is a review of prison design or perhaps public storage.
it does not look like residential space.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
All right, Janice Ching, come on up.
Thank you.
I have a minute from Deborah.
Yes.
Sorry, who was it who gave up their time?
She didn't do a card, but she's good.
Will you come and fill up the card when you get a chance?
You're welcome to do it afterwards.
And then I'm wondering if I can have
the extra 30 seconds from?
I did see that, you can have the 30 seconds.
Thank you, because there are a couple of things
that were said that are not accurate.
Well, there were two minutes in all.
said, well, we'll do, yeah, two minutes, I'll give you some time over. You are, okay,
sounds good, so do make sure you do that. Three minutes, I'll let you go a little
over three minutes. Thank you. Okay, so a couple of things have been said that
aren't true. One is that there are 11 car parking. According to the staff
report, they increased the car parking from 9 to 13 parking spaces and the
staff report also shows that the concession they're asking for the bicycle
decrease is to decrease it from 89 bike circle parking to 60 bicycle parking so
that's a big decrease and also to Commissioner Choi there is no restaurant
kitty corner to this property we all live there we know there's no restaurant
there okay so I want to focus on the open space requirement for the waiver
they're asking for that to eliminate the cost of constructing a larger roof deck
please ask them what the cost savings is because they're supposed to be saying
this is going to prevent them from being able to produce it. And last night the
City Planners told the Planning Commission how important objective
design standards are. In South Berkeley the open space requirement was a hard one
ODS put in place because we have so much less public park space than other parts
of the city. There are numerous studies that link public open space to public
health so if you need a health and safety issue you should listen to the
World Health Organization which states access to safe inclusive public space
is directly linked to children's health development learning and social ties
and is a child's right so you have justification to deny that concession.
Secondly the proposal is asking to increase the car parking and decrease
the bicycle parking to eliminate the cost of enlarging the bike room and
and providing additional racks.
It's unclear, well, anyway,
so I think they're only gonna produce 60,
but regardless, this project is actually
on a bicycle boulevard.
Nobody has said this.
Russell Street by the parking garage is gonna exit,
is the bicycle boulevard,
and Rock Lake Perkley has been talking about
how much more we need to encourage bicycle riding.
This is a major thoroughfare up to College Avenue
and to the schools, Willard and Sylvia Mendez.
And so it's really a shame to give them a concession
to reduce bicycle parking on a bicycle boulevard.
Where else can they build,
where else should they build bicycle parking?
And the project is right across Shattuck
from an eight story project
that you guys just approved a month ago.
You have allowed them to eliminate the donut shop,
the restaurant and the smoke shop
to build another mixed use building
almost directly across the street.
So when you talk about bringing business
and being nice to business,
there are 40 business licenses that are being eliminated
across the street from another project,
and now you're gonna take away the hardware store
and the model garage.
So I don't under, there's a huge disconnect
in you guys saying that you want to bring businesses
to the area, and then the cumulative impact
of the traffic and the deliveries, as already have been said,
is gonna cause a huge back up on Shattuck,
and it's a traffic safety issue where all the lanes merge,
along with the Bicycle Boulevard right there.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
I have a Paul Dillingham, but I can't tell
if you were the Paul Dillingham, nope, different, sorry.
Sorry, got those wrong, come on up, got your one minute.
the city of Davis. And I'm
looking forward to hearing
from you. Can someone similar
name. Thank you. First thank
you to the board members for
good questions about this
project. I want to reiterate
what was said by one or 2
others about. The level of
cumulative impacts that have
been studied. Yeah. I want to
the city of the city of the
the city of the city of the,
next to the building, and the renderings show,
I think five pine trees.
The landscape plan shows 10, I believe.
And it's a minor quibble, but I think it shows
maybe that the level of analysis about the buffer
hasn't been fully resolved yet.
I realize the project has gone back and forth for years,
so it's not gonna be perfect, but I think it's more.
more sense. Thank you. A better closer look at the impacts. Thank you. Thank you so much.
All right. Last one in person right now. Johns Watkins, come on up. You'll be our last in person
and then we'll go to online. So any, we have several online people, please raise your hand
if you want to speak online. We'll go to you next. Hi you guys. Thanks for letting us squawk about
this because it's a monstrosity. Six more, five more stories and you think
that's not going to shadow. You can't see the sunset for blocks around. That's
that big. So those shadows aren't right up the street. It's a mess and it's so
congested there. I just can't believe you can see that. You know it's a
monstrosity. It should be six stories. Thank you. Thank you so much. All right,
we are good for in-persons and anyone who did seed your time do make sure it's
just at least by the end to come give up your comment card and now we'll go to
online. Alyssa Greenberg, you will be first to speak and then Kelly Hammergan,
you will be next. All right Alyssa, you should be allowed to talk. Hi, can you
You hear me? Yes, we can. Okay, great. Uh, so.
I want to say that, you know, things are definitely going to feel different in our neighborhood. This is, this is, I live at Russell and shadok and things are changing really fast here.
We have, as, you know, you have all reference, like, like, 5, 6 different buildings going up around here. We're going to and that's a big change. We're losing all of these mom and pop businesses.
And if we're going to do that, if we're going to increase housing that we desperately need, it needs to be worth the sacrifice.
And if we're going to make that sacrifice, I, as a long time resident would like to see more of a commitment to middle income and low income units.
We have seen that there's like a high percentage that the high percentage low income projects in the area like 2001 Ashby has been really successful.
been really happy to see that happen in the neighborhood, and I believe that the board
should be holding these developers to a higher standard. If that's not the case, I would argue
that as people have pointed out, this is a huge height difference, 11 stories versus
two stories. It really adversely impacts the character of the neighborhood and our
daily life. The traffic is going to be, as some folks have said, really a mess.
because parking already with Berkeley bull is a mess.
And so I would urge the commissioners
to hold the developers to a higher standard.
And if not, to approve lower height and smaller size
so someone else can come in
and build us affordable housing.
Thank you so much.
Thank you.
Sorry, I appreciate everyone keeping them
within the time limit.
I know that is not easy to do.
So I appreciate all of you.
Kelly Hammer, again, you will be up next.
All right, you should be allowed to stop, Kelly.
Okay.
There is only one three bedroom unit.
There are not multiples as indicated by the project reps.
If these are furnished apartments
that indicates a very mobile resident population,
who is this resident population?
There are only 5.8% of family sized units.
Where is the swimming pool that is in the plans on L1.0?
There is no plan for deliveries by Doordash, Amazon Prime,
et cetera.
Artificial grass should not be used on the roof.
Fake grass is 20 to 40 degrees hotter than concrete
under the same conditions and can reach up to 200 degrees.
The public space is unsatisfactory.
The book, Super-Agers, made a direct contact
between green space and emergency room visits
from studies by zip code.
I think it's something that we should consider.
And I would also refer to Chris Murphy's book,
Crisis of the Common Good,
The Fight for Meaning and Connection in a Broken America.
And that is about having public space
and that public space that is shared with the public,
a little bit on the roof.
And that is missing.
I'm at a time.
Thank you so much.
I believe we're done I did see
someone who put their hand down
online so if you do want to
speak right now now is the time.
It looks like we're at least all
good in person and it looks like
we are all good online.
and obviously anyone online or anyone online who has as well.
Yeah, obviously, you know, a lot of comments
and we appreciate them.
And certainly we understand that the, you know,
the building represents a lot of change
and the neighborhood is changing with other projects as well.
And, you know, we understand that's a big change,
but, you know, and if there are, you know,
our additional questions from you guys or particular things
you want us to talk about, we're happy to,
but you know, do you want to acknowledge that, you know,
just sort of in a general sense that we understand,
you know, it's a big change, but we are, you know,
it's a building we're putting a lot of care into,
into making what we think will be really wonderful homes
for 242 new households that will be new neighbors.
none of those neighbors are here to you know they'll be here in the future uh to speak for themselves
to how much they do appreciate the building and um and it's also you know um doing its part
to help the entire community um there it's certainly true there are a lot of studios
in this project there are some two and three bedroom units one project is not going to solve
the housing crisis. It kind of takes all of them and all of us to, you know, to build homes for
people and sometimes, you know, that does make change for the immediate neighbors and we understand
that and we understand that can be hard. So that's our response. All right, thank you. Let's see.
All right. Let's go. Oh, yes, please. No, and I was going to open up to the commission. Do you
Do you want, well, I mean, I'm happy too.
I mean, I said to speak to a lot of the neighbors' concerns
as well, I mean, on what our ability to make any of those
kinds of changes that were requested by the neighbors
is that our hands are very tied by the state density bonus.
And as Isaiah, sorry, the Housing Accountability Act,
and since it is providing both housing and not just that,
but also affordable housing, that they are both allowed
to do what they're doing and also exceed
the development standards that are currently for that zone.
So that everything that they are doing
is within the current, the state density bonus laws.
And to remember that it is, they are new neighbors
and this is a change that will need to happen.
We are still here to talk about how to continue
to make projects better and that is what we will now do
as a commission to keep talking about that.
And before we go into deliberation,
any more questions for both staff or the applicants?
Commissioner Duffy, were you?
Actually, sure.
I do have a question.
Yes, please.
Just for staff and just a point of clarification
because it was brought up,
and we brought it up in the past,
but I just wanna be clear, or can we be clear
about concessions and waivers are not within the purview
of the zoning adjustment board,
but they're at the staff review level
during project application and review, is that true?
Yeah, that's correct because it's a part of state law.
It's under the staff reviews their requests
and make sure basically concessions are requests
that make the project pencil out more affordable
and then waivers are allowing the project
to give the density bonus units.
So we can't require them to do anything
that would reduce the number of units.
If the waiver, they need the height to get the units,
we can't require anything.
Thank you for the clarification.
Thank you.
Now it is incredibly important to figure out
what is within our purview,
and so we can hopefully relay that to you,
and say that we still hear you,
even if we cannot do anything necessarily about it.
But we will still keep going.
Commissioner Sampson.
I just wanna make sure people understand
that the Housing Accountability Act
prohibits us from denying a project
if we're doing so to reduce the density.
So if you want it lower or you want 150 units
instead of 200 and whatever, we can't do that legally.
So the applicant can come in and meet the state laws,
the density bonus law and the Housing Accountability Act,
which restricts us from denying any housing project
because of its density.
So while we understand completely
why this is upsetting to you,
one of the things that state government did was
remove from local government our ability to deny a project
or reduce the density of a project.
So, you know, we're sorry,
but I wanna make sure you all understand the restrictions.
but you can't do anything about it.
Why do you serve on this board?
And you can't do anything about it.
So why doesn't this sit there?
We can't have this.
There are other issues besides the density,
although that's the one that most people are upset about.
So I just wanna be really clear with everyone
that we aren't doing this
because we love 11 story buildings.
We are required by law to review this
and we can't reduce the density.
So we live, I'm sorry, no, it's this commissioner's time,
this commissioner's time, we did have public comment.
This is how we have to do it.
If I may also, the public hearing has not been closed.
So there needs to be a motion to close the public hearing.
Yeah, I was still giving it up to commissioners
to wanna, we're not gonna start deliberation yet.
If anything, but we cannot have anything more from the,
well, yes, if you've already spoken and had your time,
I cannot give more time, that is how it is.
Yes, no, of course, no, you're welcome to still speak.
Go ahead.
You are welcome to.
And since the public hearing is not closed,
but that needs to be.
So while you're coming up,
then the staff report on page 14, policy consistency,
that's where it explains the state law that we're held to,
if you want to read about it and understand more.
like to point out that I've pointed out an error in your categorical exemption from CEQA.
There's a big, big error in it. So you do not, in my opinion, have a categorical exemption.
So how does this project move forward without the CEQA categorical exemption?
Can you say one more time what you think the error is so we can ask staff?
What was the error? What was the error? So we can directly ask staff right now?
Your consultants, Rinkon Consultants claimed that they found 16 historic resources within
0.5 miles of the project.
They said that none were located within the project site or immediately adjacent to the
project.
And they disregarded all the 16 resources that were provided by the Northwest Information
Center.
Now, I don't know if they also checked
your landmark ordinance, but there's a building
that's been reviewed by the Landmarks Board
under your ordinance within one block of the project site.
It does not appear that Ringcon considered
any of the effects of the project
on any of these 16 buildings.
There's just one paragraph in this document, and that's it.
There's no supplementary information,
And in my mind, this is not a professional job.
So I guess I'd like to know this calls into question
your categorical exemption.
All right, thank you.
Your question's clear, we can ask Recon Consultants now
to come and speak directly to that comment.
I'm sorry, one, we can have Recon Consultants
speak directly to that comment now
and be able to hear from them who did it directly.
Okay, today, like right now?
Yes, okay.
Yeah, thank you, Commissioner.
If I may, I brought up the fact that the public comment period was still open because no one
had made a motion.
We were out of public comment green cards and there were no more public comments online.
If there are any more green cards, and I just with all due respect, Chair, this is your
choice, but if there are more green cards, then there's more public comment.
If there aren't any more green cards, then the public comment period is closed, and typically
the chair would say is there a motion to close the public comment period and all
those in favor say aye and I was going to when you're ready okay yeah I was
gonna do that for me what at least I have done before is that we've before I
closed the public comment portion is we ask staff again because then we help
clarify these kinds of questions so I had purposely not closed it yet and since
that if if someone didn't give their time I realize this is a bit maybe
be different than moved on.
But to me I do want to know if someone is willing
to give up their time, I'm willing to hear
the public comment was not closed in my eyes.
Thank you.
Thank you for clarifying, Commissioner Duffy.
I'm very appreciative this man gave me his time
because I pointed out an error.
I want it.
And your time is now over.
And you overlooked it.
No, and I will say, so thank you so much,
and I do want to immediately go to Recon Consultants
or anyone else on the staff team or applicant
to specifically answer that question
about the historical resources adjacent to the property
and how those were analyzed in your report
and how those were addressed.
And I'd like to not say,
consider the one that is less than one block away.
Thank you.
All right, yes, thank you.
So I would like to have someone,
and they said I will make sure to close the public hearing
as soon as I am ready.
And thank you, Commissioner Duffy.
All right, make on consultants.
Thank you.
I just want to make sure everybody,
chair staff is okay with me.
Yes.
Okay.
Thank you for the comment.
Yes, as the commenter said,
part of the cultural resources investigation
is to a record search and it comes up with resources
within a certain radius.
And our cultural resources experts look at that list
and determine whether there's a chance
for offsite impacts to a resource.
In this case, I think the one that was mentioned
is maybe a block away or so.
And our experts didn't think there'd be
called an indirect effect on that resource. Now it's very so we have something called the area
of potential effect which is how far you know out from a actual area of disturbance there could be
an impact and it's extremely rare in a you know very fairly dense urban environment with a
diversity of architectural styles new buildings old buildings it's very rare for there to be a
significant off-site impact to a building that's a block away. The commenter didn't say exactly what
the impact was so I can't give a specific response but it would be highly unusual for a building a
luck way to be affected by a project in this kind of urban environment. All right thank you so much
no we appreciate that and said all right um do we have any at least said in on here before I close
the public hearing time to ask city staff or the applicant all right I'm going to make a motion to
close the public hearing um all those in favor say a second sorry oh I need a second second so sorry
Now, all those in favor say aye.
Aye.
Aye.
All those opposed say nay.
All right, so the public hearing portion is closed.
Now we have time for deliberation to go over all the things we have discussed.
Who would like to kick us off?
Yeah, please, Vice Chair Young.
I'll give the quick gallery tour.
I think I've been starting to do this often.
So, you know, reflecting what our fellow commissions already said, this project and
many housing development projects are taking advantage of several state housing laws that
essentially eliminate the Zoning Adjustments Board's discretion.
Someone asked a good question, why do you exist, if this is the case?
And the really honest answer is because the Zoning Adjustments Board, it existed before
a lot of these state housing laws.
And our local system is highly discretionary,
but the state law system limits what can be done
to purely objective standards.
So the way that that's panned out with this project is
we have actually a rather outdated zoning district here,
the CSA district.
And this project is subject to several laws,
Housing Accountability Act and the Density Bonus Law,
a few of them, they're really big ones. And those two laws essentially limit the kind
of standards that the project can be subject to those that are objective, which has a very
specific definition. Those that are discretionary are kind of non-substantial. We can't really
use them. And unfortunately, the way that our city code is written is it's very discretionary.
If you look through our findings,
they have to do with supporting the public health
and well-being and very, these kind of standards
that are very subjective in nature.
So we're really just able to do this process of checking
to see if the project is compliant
with objective standards.
Why is it so tall?
So the project, as I mentioned, is using this program,
the Density Bonus Law, it's a state law,
And it essentially affords the project added density
in exchange for deed restricted affordable units.
In this project's case, it's using a combination
of very low income and moderate income.
And what they're getting is added units
on top of what would normally be allowed
using just objective standards.
So that process has essentially given the project
the ability to be built up to 11 stories.
is it high?
Absolutely.
Is it able to do that?
The answer is yes.
So, that's where it's really coming from tonight.
Thank you, Vice Chair Young.
Does anyone have anything they'd like to add to that?
I know we have honestly really talked a lot
about this project already
and asked a lot of good questions.
I also can't entertain a motion.
If no one else has any more comments
on the actual project, just wanna make sure.
Yeah, Mr. Murphy?
Yeah, if I could make a comment and then I'll make a motion.
And just to reiterate a little bit,
but also address, what is this real for people?
And I can feel it and we know it,
we've read about it and we've heard it tonight,
but that this cumulative impacts
throughout this neighborhood in particular are very real.
And that currently in South Berkeley,
there's over 10 projects that are going on,
big and small, public realm and private development.
And while we know that it's meant to help address
some of the historical discrimination and harms
and things that South Berkeley really needs,
it also is really disruptive to people.
And I just wanna recognize that
and say that I understand in some way
or about that we hear you and that is real.
Also, when we look at South Berkeley
and you look at this particular block,
This is like the nerdy urban planner in me.
But this is the most constrained block in Berkeley
because it's the little point where the boulevard of Shattuck
is there, and you have Adeline there too.
And both of them are boulevards that are allowed to be upzoned
and can do very tall buildings, as we can see.
And so then you get this one street in between,
and it's really tight.
So I just want to say that when we know that we've already
said how we cannot reduce the density of the project
because it's protected under state law,
I just want to acknowledge that these conditions are hard,
and they're hard at that local level.
And now we all are here because we know there's a housing
crisis, and we know that building more housing, some of us
know that building housing is going to help ease this.
But those immediate impacts, and especially
are very tall buildings, are real.
And so I just want to say that I hear you and appreciate
your advocacy for that.
A couple of other things.
We know that we cannot deny that project
based on its density or change the density.
We also know that we're in this housing crisis.
Now, one data point just to consider though,
in a bigger picture, well actually no,
this is quite local, but the Maude L. Miller building
on just a block away, 87 homes received.
Now you think how big is our housing crisis?
Like how big is it really?
And it's different probably the way we all perceive it.
I grew up in Berkeley and I have friends
that sleep in the streets because it's a crisis.
When we look at the Montebello building,
they had 9,000 applications for 87 homes two years ago.
So we know that the housing demand in this neighborhood
is also very, very real.
And so how did we get here today?
We know that the Housing Accountability Act,
our state elected have decided to take it into their hands
to say that housing that is proposed
and housing can be built and it can be built by right.
And so for us, we cannot reduce the density.
We sometimes might be able to move things
or move things around to make things better.
But the siting of this particular project,
I think, is actually quite convenient
that it stays up against the street
and gives the most room to the rear.
I think that's convenient.
I also know that neighborhood retail
very important in this neighborhood. I know the Ace Hardware Store, been there a bunch.
It, you know, it's not no it's not Ace anymore. It never was. Well, I thought it was because
it. Thank you for your clarification. Neighborhood serving retail is important. Where I was headed
was I know a lot of these projects often have a big lobby on the ground floor. That's just
all residential space.
But this project has a pretty significant amount
of commercial space, and we've talked a bit about it,
but I hope that it could become neighborhood-serving retail.
We have a developer that works in the neighborhood
with other projects and understands Berkeley,
and we have an architect that also works
throughout Berkeley and understands Berkeley,
so I just hope that you'll be able to continue
to invest in the success of our neighborhoods.
With that, I would like to propose
that this project be approved as proposed,
and that's it.
I second.
Is there a second?
No, thank you, very well said,
but no, Commissioner Thompson.
Or no second.
Go ahead, Commissioner.
I should've said this before you made the motion.
I just wanted to say,
I believe this is coming back to DRC again for final review,
and I just ask that you please, please,
please listen to our neighbors who have spoken
and their concerns in those changes that you can do to build
to address their open space and their traffic.
And if there's any creative ways you can make spaces
for the grub hubs and the Amazons that'll come
and try to make it livable for the people who,
for our community, I walk past this neighborhood
when I walk to Berkeley Bowl once or twice a week.
Sometimes I drive, I kind of confess.
But if the weather's nice, I do walk
and please make it as nice as you can for the actual people.
Thank you so much, Commissioner Thompson.
All right.
Is everyone feeling comfortable with the motion?
We are so always open to friendly amendments.
All right, Commissioner Allen.
I just want to say I'm very comfortable with the motion.
Certainly, we'll vote to approve it.
I think the initial study
mitigated negative declaration was a solid document similar to state housing
laws that there are literally new laws every year there are literally new
amendments to CEQA every year and we're seeing more and more ways in which
projects are either exempt for CEQA or the new creative focused initial study
mitigated date negative declaration paths and I'm happy that the city is
is staying on top of it.
Thank you, Commissioner Allen.
Anyone else have any final comments
before we do a roll call vote?
Well, first of all, there was no second.
But also, oh, there was a second, so I think.
And the motion is actually to approve the ISMND,
as well as the project proposed, separate.
Thank you for clarifying that.
And yes, no, we have a motion from Commissioner Duffy
and a second from Commissioner Sanderson.
All right, I'll take a roll call vote on the motion
to approve the MSID and the use permit subject
to the findings and conditions in the staff report.
Commissioner Huttman.
Yes.
Commissioner Duffy.
Yes.
Commissioner, or Chairperson Gaffney.
Yes, Commissioner Thompson.
Abstain.
Commissioner Kramer.
Yes.
Commissioner Allen.
Yes, Commissioner Troy.
Yes.
Vice Chairperson Young.
Yes.
Commissioner Sanderson.
Yes, thank you.
All right, you will have your use permit 14 days
after the notice of decision is mailed
and it will be appealable during those 14 days.
All right, thank you all so much
and thank you everyone who may be a public comment.
I know it was a long one,
but I really appreciate hearing from everyone
and all the commissioners.
We don't have a capture anymore, actually.
So yeah, so we don't have to take a capture and a break.
Does anyone feel like they would like a break
because we don't have a capture anymore.
They do it online.
but I also want to give people time.
It seems, I wouldn't mind moving along,
but I'm happy to give a break.
Feeling okay to move along?
Okay, but yes, just want to be clear.
There is no captioner.
We would give them a break if there was.
All right, so now we will move very long
because we do have a second project.
So 701 University Avenue.
Thank you so much for your patience.
We will go with a staff report.
We will go with a staff presentation first.
it's not a very balanced plan.
No, I mean, there's no way for us to even require change our rules and have a standard
part of the open space is to create a small park because they can come down and say we
don't want to build a park because it costs too much money. So there's, you know, we're kind of stuck.
But, you know, as a architect, I have to be...
Mm-hmm.
So that is the best situation in your heart for the first time.
Right.
And all the things about when you come to the city, I was like, I don't know if there's anything else I can say.
So it reminds me, it doesn't exist, it's every single day of the day.
Oh, I know, I was like, what if someone dries on these?
Okay, I'm going to call everyone back here now since we do have one more project.
All right, no, so 701 University, come and take it away.
We'll have an applicant presentation next, we do this.
Good evening.
Hello everyone, my name is Neelu Karimzadegon
and the project before you is at 701 University Avenue,
also known as 1,904th Street.
This is use permit number ZP2026-0060
to demolish a single story,
1,600 square foot commercial building
at a 99,410 square foot parking lot
located above the landmark West Berkeley Shell Mound.
The subject property is a 2.2 acre site
that occupies nearly an entire city block
within the CW zoning district.
It is included in the area, as I said,
also known as the West Berkeley Shell Mount
that was designated as a city landmark in February, 2000.
The designated landmark area is bounded
by University Avenue on the south,
Hearst Avenue on the north,
Second street on the west and fourth street on the east.
This designation does not include any current
above ground buildings or structures,
including the subject building.
Designation includes the site itself
and all items found subsurfing.
The site is bounded by Hearst Avenue to the north,
fourth street to the east,
University Avenue to the south,
And the train tracks to the west.
It contains a one story approximately 1,600 square foot
commercial building constructed in 1955,
which is proposed to be demolished under this used
permit.
And the building is located to the southwest corner
of the parking lot.
Since this site is part of the landmark West Berkeley Shell
Mount, the project was at the LPC on September 3.
for a structural alteration permit
for the demolition of the parking lot,
the paving and other miscellaneous site features.
It was also reviewed for the demolition referral
of the building that is the subject
of the use permit tonight.
The building is a modest example of modern architecture
featuring wood frame construction,
asymmetrical facade, a very low pitched roof
with overhanging eaves and tar paper roofing.
It originally was served as an office
before being converted in the late 1990s
to an art gallery and later to a fitness studio.
This used permit pertains only to the demolition
of the existing commercial building.
On September 3rd, LPC reviewed the proposed demolition
of this building and weighed the potential
to meet the significance criteria
for City of Berkeley Landmark,
which also aligns with the California Register
of Historic Resources.
It also weighed the potential to meet
the broader City of Berkeley structural merit criteria
and took no action to initiate it for consideration.
Here is a timeline of the project.
The application was submitted on June 4th of this year
and was at the LPC on September 3rd,
and the use permit application was deemed complete
on September 10th,
and that's when staff made the sequel to termination
and public hearing notices were issued
on the 24th of September,
and here we are at the ZAB on October 8th.
The findings, staff report and findings
are provided in the ZAB packet,
and the project meets the findings of approval,
the demolition, the proposed demolition.
The project is categorically exempt
from CEQA per section 5301 of the CEQA guidelines
the project. The project is a
project that is designed for
existing facilities and section
15 3.32 for infill development.
Because of the project
consistency with the standards
and the general plan staff
recommends that zap approves the
with the findings and condition
of approval. Thank you very much.
I want clarification on the project description.
In one place it says it is just the demolition
of that little building.
And another place it refers to that
plus the removal of the asphalt.
And I have environmental concerns
about the removal of the asphalt.
So we just need clarity whether that's in there or not.
I guess I'm about,
I just feel like maybe I'm gonna answer your question,
but maybe, I mean, you'll answer it differently,
but I also was like, woo, two acres of asphalt removed,
but there's a bunch of conditions in there
for erosion control and storage.
I looked at those in my big, and, you know,
what they don't have in there for dust control,
all they have is watering the site twice a day.
So, particulates, as you know, is a big issue.
So, I don't know what to do about it.
I mean, maybe, I mean, all of the other requirements,
the one place it was stated is in that little flyer
from Public Works that had, what do they call it?
Plan, a prevention plan or something like that.
and they talked more and there about exposed soil.
So if those measures are required
that were outlined in that flyer,
which is in the staff report, then I'm okay.
So I guess the question to staff would be
what mitigation measures for dust specifically
as we're moving the asphalt as well as after.
What is in the condition's approval?
So I would refer to standard condition of approval.
I did.
This was a building permit before it was flagged
that it does need a structural alteration permit
with LPC review and a use permit.
And as far as I understand it,
building and safety inspectors check for that.
We have the standard conditions of approval.
And I think the applicant is here tonight
and he can also speak to the specific construction related
methods that they're going to use.
I looked through the standard conditions of approval
and the focus is on storm water control, water quality
and contaminants, but not so much on just plain dust.
I mean, one thing they can do is,
it was in that little flyer from Public Works
said you know you can reseed it quickly so that there's some grass grows there
quickly and I mean there's a variety of things and they're not rocket science
that maybe role could do. We'll talk more about that maybe on so yeah and we'll
ask the applicant again when they come up and maybe that's something we can
said maybe add to it. Any more questions just for staff right now? All right if
not then the applicant is if they're ready now that they are ready they will
they're five minutes to present and yeah and now that you also know that's a
question we have you can maybe answer that in your presentation.
Good evening my name is Shaw I'm representing the applicant and our
construction for this project. I want to talk about a little bit about the
project scope. The scope is to remove the 1,600 existing building and also
to demolish and remove the asphalt,
the whole parking lot of asphalt.
Here is some of the existing picture of the building
and also the asphalt that can give you more information
about the existing condition of the building.
As you can see, the building is almost turned down
and it's in a very bad condition.
This is from the inside of the building.
It's a wooden structure sitting on the top
of the slab on grade, and most part of the building
is already damaged and covered by the plywood
to keep the homeless people away from the building.
As you can see in more pictures,
this is the demolition plan to demo this existing building
and remove the asphalt from the parking lot.
I want to talk about this part,
because there was a question about the desk control
and also about the soon drain control.
As you see, most of the asphalt built like this,
there is an asphalt on the top,
and you have a six inch or four inches AB
and then the existing ground that's called subgrade.
Our scope is to remove the top four inches asphalt.
That means we will leave the six inches A-B,
which is part of the pavement,
and that's a stable structure,
and there will not be any dust,
or there will not be any damage to that.
The reason we will not remove the asphalt
to not disturb the existing ground
because of some of the importance of this area.
And also, when we demo the building,
we will have, we will do dash control.
I want to explain a little bit.
The most dash will be on this building,
will be from the building when we demo the building.
And we will use water to control the dash.
And this is a wooden structure building.
That means when you demo a wooden structure building,
that amount of dash will not be too much.
and we will control that by the water
to not have any issues to the neighbors.
And also, we will clean the area daily
during the work and after the work
to not have any deaths outside the project area.
If we have any stockpile on the job site,
we will cover that by the top when we leave the job site.
And about removing the asphalt, I'm sure you all have seen that we will not demo it with
the jackhammer to make knives or make dust.
We will remove it by the excavator.
It's like peeling off the asphalt from the top of the base rock.
we're doing this there will be minimum desk and also minimize the amount of desk from
the process. We don't need to break down the piece of the asphalt because we will send
it to the recycling site. If there is a concrete, yes, we have to break down the concrete by
by the hammer, but for the asphalt, we will leave it big pieces and send it to the dump
site or to the recycle site. There will not be extra charges for us. The reason we contract
to want to break down the concrete, to not get extra charges for the big pieces. For
the asphalt, there is no requirement for that. We can send it as a big pieces to the dump
side and there will not be any charges that speed up our work and minimize the
deaths also and keep clean the job side there will not be any deaths issues on
the on the job side and we will keep it clean during the during the work.
About the storm drain there is not any any any manhole and any storm drain
In the job site we will cover that by the approved
procedure that the inlet, if there is any close
to the job site when we do any socket or any removing.
And also if there is a rain we will not do demo
because we don't want to make issues to the soon drain.
This is all the process we will do during the work.
and also we submitted this part of the building permit,
part of the demo permit.
They have all these document,
the procedure for the recycling management
for the traffic control, for the desk control.
All of these document has been submitted to the city
and they has been reviewed and approved by the city.
That means we will try to follow every single process
to not cause any issues for the neighbors
and we'll keep the desk as lower as possible.
Thank you, that helps me a lot.
I didn't think about the asphalt and the aggregate.
Yes.
So, you know, that's very helpful.
Thank you.
You're welcome.
Did you have anything else to your presentation?
I think that was very clear though for us.
That's all I have.
Perfect, awesome, no, just wanted to make sure.
And thank you for that very detailed explanation
And it makes sense too that asphalt
is treated differently than concrete.
Do we have any questions currently
for the applicant or for staff?
Okay, I will make a motion to close the public.
Oh, actually, well, and there are, sorry,
I already got ahead of myself.
There were two people in person, obviously,
do not believe there's anyone in person now,
but online, oh, it is you.
It's you as well, okay, that makes more sense, perfect.
So Karina, would you like to speak?
Of course, please, two minutes.
Yeah, go for it.
So nice to be here, Board.
I guess we started our journey with the ZAB Board
probably about nine years ago
when we found out about a particular project
that was slated to possibly go
at the West Berkeley Shellmouth.
And then over many times,
we were able to get a bunch of people here
like you had tonight, except probably hundreds
and kept people up until two o'clock in the morning,
a couple of different times for ZAB
to actually look at this project because it's a sacred site.
And then beautifully, the city of Berkeley
and the Leshon Nation and the Segorte Land Trust
got a big win and we fixed this together.
and we realized that this sacred site needed
to be protected forever.
And so this is the next iteration of that
because we were able to save this site.
And now it's back in indigenous hands
and how we take care of it.
One of the things that we did last year,
at the end of the year, probably around this time,
is that we ran a campaign called Let the Land Breathe.
Because even though we had worked tirelessly
for eight years to tell everybody
that this was a sacred site.
And we had thousands of people that showed up there
and beautiful murals that came up on the land
and people showed up from all over the world
and prayed at that site.
Once we won, people still thought of it as a parking lot
because folks can't get that out of their minds.
So we came up with this idea of about letting the land breathe.
What does it look like to actually peel back that asphalt
and to reimagine this space as open space
and to take this asphalt off
and to bring in tons literally of soil
and create berms there
and to put out California natives
and broadcast flowers on that flower seeds there
while we come up with a plan of what's next for this land
so that people can begin to see it as a green space,
a sacred place, a place for rest,
in a place where there's railroad tracks
and there's shopping,
but there's not a place for people to actually rest.
And so we began to think about this as a place to do that.
We're hoping that we can get this done before El Nino,
and that we could actually have a super bloom in Berkeley
with California natives down there.
And we are hopeful that the zoning board
will help us to figure out that dream of doing that.
We've got a Mellon grant
to actually hire a landscape architect company.
And that we're gonna go through that process
of doing a call out for proposals in the new year.
And we will go through the process
of actually going through a planning process
of what that final plan is going to be.
But while that's happening,
we're hoping to work with the city of Berkeley
to reimagine this space as a place
where we could see California natives again,
where they originally had been along that place
that was part of a marshland
that Strawberry Creek ran across.
And that we hope that, you know,
when we get to a place where we're ready to go forward
with the new plans that we will work together
to reopen that portion of Strawberry Creek,
that this becomes a place where people in Berkeley
could learn about the history.
But also take a rest and to breathe something differently
than we have here now.
So just thank you so much for listening to us.
I hope that this plan that we imagine and we dream of
is not just our imagination and dream,
but it's a dream for everybody that now lives here in Berkeley.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Karina.
And it's just so great to hear, be a part of this.
and just to commend you and everyone else
for all of their very hard work that I know went into this.
And yeah, I know other people have more to say about that.
We will go at least online for our one public comment,
but if anyone else online does have anything to say,
now is the time to raise your hand.
Kelly, Hamgran, I will allow you to talk now.
I'll make it quick.
It's wonderful to see this progressing
And I hope that you make a motion quickly
and just pass this.
Thank you.
Wonderful.
Thank you so much, Kelly.
Oh, there is another one, Francis.
So Francis, I'm going to allow you to talk.
No, go ahead.
Hello, my name is Francis Rancid.
I'm the Land Back Coordinator for Sagore Te Land Trust.
And I've just come to you today
with just a humble heart to ask you guys to approve this.
We have good intentions for the land
and the ancestors beneath it
and to make it a beautiful green space.
And I just want to ask for your approval, thank you.
Wonderful, thank you so much, Frances.
I'm not seeing anyone else online
or obviously here in person.
Oh, no, Cheyenne, people are popping up, good.
Raise your hand if you want to speak.
Cheyenne, you're allowed to talk.
Hi, my name is Cheyenne Zapata, Hoshituhi.
I am one of the Leshon Nation tribal members
and I just hope this gets approved
and that you all may be looking into the future
as I am for a place for my people to come
and be as well as my children
and their children's children.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Cheyenne.
All right, and actually we got another one too, Kat.
All right, you were allowed to talk now, Kat.
Hi, everybody.
I am also just here to say that I am very much
in favor of this project.
And I hope there's absolutely no hesitation in approving it.
And I wish there were more projects like this available
and being proposed and being passed every week.
So just full support and lots of respect.
Thank you.
Thank you so much, Kat.
All right, give it one more second.
If anyone wants to comment, now is the time.
People are sneaking in there,
to make sure all right we oh see there we go um loose loose see you um i apologize i'm saying
that wrong you should be allowed to talk now hi everyone my name is lucy hacobo i am part of
the land team for segore tainLancres and i would i would ask you to please approve of this project
because it would be really beneficial beneficial to the local tribe and also to all the people in
berkeley because they will get to uh you know appreciate and learn more about the clan and
and whose land they're on.
And this project is gonna be done
with a lot of love and affection,
a lot of well-thought steps
in order to make it a beautiful space for everybody
that everybody's gonna benefit for here in the Bay Area.
And it's gonna make Berkeley look way more beautiful
than what it is.
Thank you so much.
All right, and we actually have another one now, Nicole.
We allow you to talk now.
Hello, and thank you for letting me speak.
My name's Nicole Halverson.
I am the finance director at Sagorate Land Trust.
And I also just want to land my voice
in support of this project.
This is a really beautiful example of what kind of dreaming
and imagining and innovation can happen
when indigenous lands are returned to indigenous hands.
And I just really implore this committee
to consider the weight and how incredible this opportunity is
for the City of Berkeley to assist in this next phase
of land back and remediation.
Thank you for your time.
Wonderful, thank you so much, Nicole,
and thank you for everyone.
Think that is it for public comment,
and I appreciate everyone for giving their public comment.
It is so great to hear support,
and I know that a lot of hard work has gone into this project.
Open it up to the commission.
Do we have any comments for anyone?
Yeah, Commissioner Duffy.
I guess, first off, I would just like to make a motion
approve the project as proposed, but then also acknowledge that once a motion
that's made or second we can still discuss the motion as much as we wish
because I know people may have things to say and celebrate about this so that
that's my motion but I also would just like to say you know in honor of the
land acknowledgment that I have read many times that I stand by that we stand
by I make that motion honoring that and I just thank you for for honoring the
the sacred history of that site and teaching many of us
and then stewarding the sacred future of it for everyone.
It's just really special.
It's very Berkeley to me, but it's also bigger than that.
And it is an honor to be a part of it and to witness it.
And that's an honor to make a motion,
even in this simple demolition permit.
I look forward to the future for when
it's flowers and a massive community resource
that you speak of, and we trust you in that stewardship.
Thank you so much, Mr. Duffy.
Mr. Thompson.
When I look at what other cities around the world are doing,
and they're having open spaces, and they're
having places to breathe, and for people to be together,
and I think, why can't we have that here?
And why does it always have to be for money or some capitalist
kind of thing?
I mean it is so refreshing to be able to see something like that actually happening today and not something that we're losing
but something that we're gaining and so
Thank you for that
Thank you so much. Mr. Thompson
Mr. Sanderson, I'm gonna second the motion. I didn't think I heard one
All right. Wonderful. Does anyone else have anything to say awesome? I have anything of sport
If not, we will make a roll call vote. We have a motion. I can't tell if Commissioner Joy. Did you want to say anything?
I can't tell when people put their microphones on.
Okay, I can't tell when you put your microphones on,
if not if you're asking to raise your hand or not.
Okay, then we have a motion from Commissioner Duffy
and a second from Commissioner Sanderson.
All right, I will take the roll call vote
to approve the use permit subject to the findings
and conditions in the staff report.
Commissioner Huttman?
In fact, yes.
Commissioner Duffy?
Yes.
Chairperson Gaffney?
Absolutely, yes.
Commissioner Thompson?
Yes.
Commissioner Kramer?
Yes.
the motion passes. Thank you.
the city of downtown. I'm not
sure Thompson, but you mind
doing early start kicking us
off on the subcommittee reports
for design reveal. So at DRC. We
had a really interesting in
September. It was for the right
off of the freeway at Ashby not
on 1285 E Shore. So where the new roundabout is, on the north side is a really interesting
piece of land there and they want to install a billboard, like an illuminated billboard
in that location. And I think and what DRC was called upon was we were given two samples
and said, which one do you guys like best?
And so the architects weighed in on?
Specifically of the pole.
It was a pole.
Specifically of the pole, yeah.
Right, right.
So it was different.
So the sign itself is 14 feet by 48 feet,
and it's an LED billboard.
There is one already down the road.
This would be a second one, a taller one.
And we gave them a lot of feedback from it.
Now, in exchange, can I talk about that?
I think you should.
I think it's one of the most interesting parts of this.
So the interesting part about that is everybody's like,
well, they're going to remove five billboards
from different places in the city.
So it's an exchange.
So in this large one on the freeway
that you'll see from both directions.
And yeah, and in exchange for five buildings.
And the little ones are the ones right around where we're
driving around within town.
So they're not we're trying to put them in areas with high traffic zones right along the freeway in order to remove them from
Zones that aren't as profitable and also more blight towards us. So right
Right, and we learned a lot about billboards that we I didn't know
And and also it does have some
Some revenue for the city itself. And so it's an interesting project. I know I'm really I guess it's late
It looks like Commissioner Duffy has something to add, please.
No, sorry.
You piqued my interest.
I know we're all going to be home here.
I was going to say the same thing.
No, just one question.
I just find it interesting.
So it will come before us.
And it's not protected by the Housing Accountability Act.
Let's just say that, right?
And other things as well.
And so then it becomes really important to understand,
given that we haven't reviewed this before.
I think thanks for teeing it up for us.
But it'd be important for you to let us know, of course,
to know what our purview is but then where to really understand like where in
the code do we need to know to be effective in looking at this so just
putting it out there that was definitely a staff question it's not gonna go
before is that I wasn't sure if it was a record city council cuz it's tied to a
development agreement it's the way they codified it is that city council has
purview over it so is although DRC looked at the design of the poll it
actually goes to city council
and not setting adjustment for it.
Got it.
So you all got a preview and input moment.
Yeah, city council wanted specifically
our input onto the poll design itself.
So we looked at different poll designs for that.
So that was truly the only thing.
But we learned a lot about this new program
and the main thing we wanted to really do you all
of kind of how interesting that was to learn
that the city was doing that and where it's going.
So yeah, it's going on the new roundabout area
and council will be voting on it.
So it's not still finalized, we were just giving.
What's development agreement?
Development agreement is part of it.
I misspoke.
I'm in a relocation agreement, sorry.
Thank you.
Wonderful.
Was that an IOMI project?
That was the only one.
That was it?
Oh, yes, that was.
It was one of our shorter meetings.
That was an interesting meeting.
All right.
And that was it.
Is there any?
So that was it for subcommittee reports, any staff announcements?
Yeah, I have a couple.
I just wanted to thank you all for your flexibility.
But we do not need to have a second October meeting
because the tribal consultation was extended with the applicant.
So we're good for the November meeting.
It will be a packed meeting because it'll be 1130 Oxford,
and it might also be Golden Gate Fields.
So we should get a lot of presentations, which is nice.
Because for a long time, it was all on consent calendar.
So that's great.
I wanted to let, oh, I want to introduce Jackson.
He's a new staff member on the planning team
and our new associate planner and projects.
So you'll probably see him presenting in short order.
And also let you guys know that at the,
I think it was the last city council meeting,
the city council passed the San Pablo specific plan.
And so they made a specific plan
for the San Pablo corridor
and it includes objective design standards.
And it's really interesting stuff.
If you want to check it out,
it did amend the zoning ordinance
and it sunsetted the West Berkeley plan,
which has mostly been implemented
through the zoning ordinance.
And one thing to keep your eye on is
as part of the objective design standards,
this is one of the first specific plans,
if not maybe the only one that has been adopted
since the state density bonus.
So it'll be interesting to see the,
how it interacts with waivers and concessions
with these objective design standards that we've adopted.
So yeah, I'm sure you'll see a lot of projects.
Awesome, cool.
Yeah, of course, Mr. Sanderson.
Sorry, just to be clear,
we're deleting the meeting on October 22nd.
Yes, we no longer need to have that special meeting.
We'll have the November meeting,
but that date is not the normal date, it's November 5th, so.
November 5th is when we're meeting.
Yeah, okay.
Everyone get that on their calendars now.
November 5th will be the next time you're all here.
Thank you for clarifying.
Yeah, I'm sorry about that.
It's just with the tribal consultation,
everything hinges on when that concludes
and it's just hard, it's a moving target.
So thank you all so much for always being so flexible.
Wonderful.
Thank you so much for clarifying that.
Thank you, Commissioner Kramer.
Commissioner Sanderson, did you have something to add?
Yeah, I served as an alternate
on the Planning Commission last night.
It's been a long week.
And one of the things that came before
planning commission was sort of the development agreement. It was the initial steps of a development
agreement with a company that is proposing research and development where Aquatic Park
is. We had, they had no substance. They did sort of describe what the process is and that
There is a ZAB approval, but it's quite narrow.
So the Planning Commission will have a larger role in it,
I think, than ZAB.
And the Planning Commission members,
you know, it's sort of not clear why.
They brought it for us to understand the process,
but it's like, okay.
And so a couple of Planning Commission members
made it very clear that they were not going to approve
a development agreement, unless they could see very clearly
these are the benefits of the company gets
and these are the benefits that the city gets.
So, because there's a lot of stuff happening
kind of in the background
and the council will be the final approval of it.
So, stay tuned.
Thank you for clarifying that.
That's all very interesting to hear all the different
processes and I'm glad to hear what the planning
commission is doing.
I'm not sure if you're going to be able to do that. I'm not sure if you're going to trust your all work. Any final comments for. All right. I get place. So I actually. I was thinking about just emailing staff about this subject and I figured you could have a little conversation about. Sorry, it's late. I'll make it really quick. But, um, you know, so something that was really relevant to the shadow can rush Russell project, which we just heard is.
a question about the base
project, right, because the
way density about his law works
is the base project is what you
then multiply to go up from.
And so there's this question of
what are the standards applicable
to a base project?
And just for our background as
decision makers, there's a very
important memo that was
circulated in the city in 2021.
You may or may not be aware of
it, but the city, I think at
legal research project about what are the objective standards that are
allowable pursuant to HAA and SDBL. And that memo found that most standards in
our like adopted zoning districts can't be applied because they're subject to
discretionary modification. It came out in August of 2021. I think you'd be great
I'll circulate it or maybe we can circulate it because it's really helpful
is really helpful to kind of understand how this stuff works.
The staff report has kind of a reference to what the number of units are in the base project is,
but we don't really get that much of a detailed look into how that works.
And just for your knowledge, the way that panned out in the CSA district is the site's 19,000 square feet,
the site coverage is subject to.
the density bonus application.
So I just wanted to share that as to
why we went from a zoning district
with actually a stensible height limit of three stories
to an 11-story height project.
So, just wanted to share that.
Thank you.
Oh, thank you.
Come on, make sure you're speaking
your microphone in case anyone is.
Yeah, thank you.
I'm sorry, you said something about like a CSU acronym.
What was that?
Oh yeah, the C-S-A is the acronym for the zoning district
where the project was located on Chadwick.
Commissioner Duffy.
Maybe just to piggyback on that, thank you.
I remember joining the zoning board in 2021
and board member Igor Tragu at the time,
reporting back at this time from the subcommittee
that he was on, which was to help convert
our subjective standards into objective standards.
So there was a committee at the time,
and there were some standards that did become objective
that are now law.
There were others that they were unable to make objective,
like shadow impacts.
So there was a process at which we started to convert,
and there are gaps, apparently, right?
And so just wanna share that there are some,
and there's some history there as well.
So I wasn't on that committee.
It had a really weird, a really funny name, I can't remember,
but that committee exists, and there are people out there.
I also remember that.
Commissioner Allen.
Yeah, and just to pile onto that,
as I mentioned, I was at the American Planning Association
conference down in LA, to which I
went to the legislative session, which was two parts,
because there's so much new housing and other land use
legislation and I will download the PowerPoint presentation
and share that with staff to then share it with commissioners
because it is relevant to the projects
we'll be seeing in the new year.
And then there's some, you'll read it and you'll be like,
oh, they did, you know, that cleans up the hard hat waiver
and there's things that circle back to work
that we've done or decisions we've had to make
over the last year.
Yeah, but it's dense.
Oh no, it's great to hear and thank everyone here
for all of their hard work tonight and beyond.
We've obviously seen a lot, a lot of change
for how long any of us have been on.
Change happens fast and thank you all.
I will make a motion to close the public hearing.
No, close the whole meeting.
♪ Adjourn ♪
Adjourn, thank you.
It's been a long one.
Do I have a second?
To adjourn.
Second.
All right, perfect.
Motion second.
Commissioner Huttman.
Aye.
Commissioner Duffy.
to say Kim, thank you for wrangling all of us
and all the craziness for putting up with my interruptions.
Yes.
Chairperson Gaffney.
Yes.
Commissioner Thompson.
Yes.
Commissioner Cramer.
Yes.
Commissioner Allen.
Yes.
Commissioner Choi.
Yes.
Vice Chairperson Young.
Yes.
Commissioner Sanderson.
Yes, thank you.
All right, see you all November 5th.
Remember that, get it on your calendars.
All right.