ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2391 of 6596
FIGURE 3: In this drawing, specifically entitled “Planting Scheme, West Elevation of California Hall, Boalt Hall, and Philosophy Building”, John Galen Howard illustrated his landscape concept for Campanile Way and environs. The base of the shaft of the Campanile is visible at center / top. Campanile Way descends below it. The Way is now flanked with regular, orb-shaped, trees similar in form to the pollarded London Planes that would be planted. These are the tallest trees. The “foundation plantings” of the buildings are low.
(source: John Galen Howard Collection, Environmental Design Archives, UC Berkeley.)
FIGURE 4: This is a detail from a circa 1916-18 Howard drawing showing Wheeler Hall (then under construction) with the Campanile at upper right. This is largely the same view obtained today when a visitor enters the campus across Sather Gate bridge. Doe Library is at left, and Campanile Way is the narrow slot between Doe and Wheeler. Note, as in the previous photograph, the large, round, London Plane trees along the roadways and the low lawns and foundation plantings by the buildings. (Source: Study for Wheeler Hall, c. 1916-18, John Galen Howard Collection, Environmental Design Archives, UC Berkeley.)
354 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2392 of 6596
FIGURE 5: This undated postcard view of Wheeler Hall, looking southeast from the intersection of Sather Road (foreground) and Campanile Way (with pedestrian, to the left) was probably taken within a few years of 1918, when Wheeler Hall opened to use. It is very useful to illustrate how John Galen Howard and John Gregg planted Campanile Way and intended the plantings to evolve. The original plantings are visible. Note how they almost exactly replicate the planting plan shown in the previous drawing. They include: lawn panels; low shrubs at the corners and adjacent to the roadway; pollarded London Plane trees spaced evenly as “street trees” along both roadways; foundation plantings of shrubs adjacent to the building façade; small trees used as architectural accents on the building facades. Note the Wheeler Hall staircase and arched doorway visible along Campanile Way. Historically, this was visible down Campanile Way. It is primarily the overgrowth of the foundation shrubs in recent decades that have filled in much of the space between roadway and building façade with foliage.
355 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2393 of 6596
FIGURE 6: This detail from John Galen Howard’s 1914 plan for the campus, adopted by the Regents, shows Doe Library and Wheeler Hall as the large “hollow” squares at upper center, and the Campanile as the square dot near the top of the picture. Campanile way descends from top to bottom, through the center of the image. The five buildings at lower left are on the footprint of the future Life Sciences Building. Note along Campanile Way—and, indeed, all the other formal, adjacent, roadways—the double rows of evenly spaced plane trees, and the lawns and other plantings between the roadways and the building facades.
(Source: Phoebe A. Hearst Plan, 1914, John Galen Howard, drawn by Stafford Jory. Environmental Design Archives, University of California, Berkeley.)
356 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2394 of 6596
FIGURE 7: Taken on September 6, 1926, this is a highly useful photograph that illustrates the early 20th century development of Campanile Way. From the top, the curved building is Bacon Library. The Campanile is just below it. The large, square, buildings at center left and center right are Doe Library and Wheeler Hall. Campanile Way runs between them, down to the bottom of the photograph adjacent to West Field, where the Valley Life Sciences Building would be constructed soon after this photograph was taken. Note: the linear roadway; the lines of small, round, regular London Plane trees now planted along the length of Campanile Way; the formal landscape arrangements and entrances to buildings between the roadway and the buildings.
Source: 15th Photo Section, Army Air Corps. Private collection.
357 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2395 of 6596
FIGURE 8: A view westwards from the steps of the Campanile from the very early 1920s. Wheeler Hall at left, doe Library at right. Durant Hall (left) and California Hall (right) beyond. Note the low plantings on either side of the central roadway between the buildings, as well as the low, horizontal, band of trees in the distance. Those are oak and riparian trees along Strawberry Creek in the vicinity of the 1908 Bridge, and they rise no higher than the lower building masses from this viewpoint. The view of the Bay—invisible in the haze in this photograph—would have been a panorama as wide as Campanile Way. (Private collection).
FIGURE 9: A view of similar vintage and orientation to the one above, but without automobiles on South Hall Road. Caption reads, “looking down the center path from the base of the Campanile.” This view clearly shows the Golden Gate, San Francisco shore and Marin Headlands, all as part of the original visual partee planned by Howard. The narrow, low, band of riparian trees along Strawberry Creek in the middle distance lies below the water of the Bay from this viewpoint.
358 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2396 of 6596
FIGURE 10: This excellent, and rare, early 20th century aerial photograph of the campus illustrates a number of important features of the evolution of the campus and Campanile Way. The view is from after 1911 (when the first unit of Doe Library was completed) but before construction of the Campanile began in summer, 1913. At center, the large white building is Doe Library. Above it is North Hall, a narrow, dark building, and beyond that can be seen the dark, towered, Bacon Library and the adjacent flagpole—both just at right center of the photograph. Running west from the flagpole down to the lower right hand corner of the photograph is the Center Street Path, that will become Campanile Way. At left center of the photograph there is a long, linear, pathway running down through the campus parallel to Campanile Way. This pathway marks the center line of the “University Axis” that followed Frederick Law Olmsted’s suggestion of a main axis in the vale that bisected the campus east to west. That is the second “view corridor”, along with the Center Street Path, towards the Golden Gate. It would later be compromised by the construction of Evans Hall and Moffitt Library in the 1960s.
(Source: Blue and Gold yearbook).
359 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2397 of 6596
FIGURE 11: This photograph from the 1916 Blue and Gold yearbook would have been taken no later than spring, 1915. It shows in unusual detail the pathway of Campanile Way, between Doe Library (at right) and the site of Wheeler Hall (left). The slightly crowned, hard-surface, road with slight gutters to either side runs west and downhill in this view towards the Strawberry Creek corridor at the top of the photo. The blurry figure in the center is standing just above the point where Sather Road crosses Campanile Way.
This photograph would have been taken before Howard cleared the miscellaneous shrubs, small trees, and ivy ground cover from along the Way and formalized the plantings with the London Plane Trees, lawns, and foundation plantings.
(Source: 1916 Blue and Gold yearbook. Note that the yearbooks in this era were numbered by the graduation year of the Junior Class. Thus, 1916 was published in Spring, 1915 and covered the 1914/15 academic year.)
360 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2398 of 6596
FIGURE 12: Another view from the 1916 Blue and Gold, showing Boalt (now Durant) Hall. Campanile Way is in the lower right, with Sather Road crossing it from left to right. The tree at extreme right is one of those Howard would soon remove to regularize the landscape of Campanile Way.
361 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2399 of 6596
FIGURE 13: An undated postcard view of the Berkeley campus, from the late 1920s (Stephens Union, built in 1923, is visible but Moses Hall, completed in 1930, is not yet constructed). Note the features of Campanile Way, including the formal roadway, plane trees at regular intervals, low plantings between roadway and buildings, and Sather Road—at center, bottom—crossing Campanile Way at right angles. This is also a good view of the balanced massing of Doe Library (left) and Wheeler Hall (right) on either side of Campanile Way. Private collection.
362 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2400 of 6596
FIGURE 14: A mid-1920s aerial view centered on Campanile Way. This image shows the grouping of four neoclassical buildings around the intersection of Campanile Way and Sather Road (center), with Campanile Way extending further west in a straight line until in disappears into the oaks and riparian landscape along Strawberry Creek. Note the absence of tall trees between the neoclassical buildings.
(Source: photo by Aerograph Company. Private collection).
363 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2401 of 6596
FIGURE 15: Taken around 1930, this photograph depicts the upper end of Campanile Way where it joins South Hall Road. The car is parked on South Hall Road. Doe Library is in the center, California Hall faintly visible at far center left. Campanile Way is where the pedestrians are walking up at left. Note the pollarded London Plane trees at left and center, lining the way, the low shrubbery adjacent to the line of the road, and the lack of tall trees adjacent to the buildings. The Doe Annex / Bancroft Library would be built in the space at right two decades after this photograph.
Source: 1931, “The Book of Berkeley”, Berkeley Chamber of Commerce.
364 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2402 of 6596
FIGURE 16: An undated postcard view, probably 1930s. Doe Library at the left, Wheeler Hall at the right. Note the dark mass of Bacon Library behind the Campanile Note the central, narrow, roadway, and the prominence of the London Plane trees as the major / tallest landscape features between road and buildings. This is also a good view of the relationship of the undeveloped Charter Hill, rear, to Campanile Way and the Campanile. Private collection.
365 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2403 of 6596
FIGURE 17: A detail from a 1935 aerial of the campus, looking up Campanile Way. The riparian corridor of Strawberry Creek crosses the Way at the bottom. The Life Sciences Building is at center left. The London Plane trees are visible lining the entire length of Campanile Way as small, shadowed, dots, and the formal landscape of lawns and shrubs between them and the building facades is also visible.
(Source: Clyde Sunderland photograph, private collection.)
366 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2404 of 6596
FIGURE 18: A view of Campanile Way, probably in the late 1930s, from Sather Tower. The view can be dated because the Life Sciences Building is in place, with landscape (upper right), while the Class of 1940 fountain has not yet appeared adjacent to Wheeler Hall (lower left). This view is one of the best illustrating the character-defining features of the Campanile Way landscape, as designed by John Galen Howard and planted by John Gregg. The central roadway is the dominant feature, connected by formal pathways to building entrances. The London Plane trees line the Way in even rows. Lawns and low shrubs edge the road and pathways. Further back, pressed against the facades of the buildings, are taller shrubs and trees, none of which rise above the first floor to occlude the view down the Way towards the distant Bay and Golden Gate. (Source: Sibley, California Pilgrimage, published in 1952).
Compare this photo with the first view of Campanile Way, today, in Section 2.
367 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2405 of 6596
Figure 19 (Figure 2.2 in New Century Plan). “Views and Landmarks” from the University’s New Century Plan / 2020 Long Range Development Plan. The Campanile is the starred object slightly to upper left of center. Note the view arrow, defined as “Major Views from / into the campus” running westwards (down) from it and extending from the campus out over Downtown Berkeley. This illustrates is the view pointed at the Golden Gate.
368 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2406 of 6596
SECTION 2: PRESENT DAY VIEWS OF CAMPANILE WAY, AND ILLUSTRATIONS OF SIGNIFICANT, CONTRIBUTING, AND NONCONTRIBUTING FEATURES
PHOTO 1: Campanile Way, photographed in 2014. Note formal Thomas Church designed terrace in foreground, symmetrical roadway beyond, allee of pollarded London Plane trees and symmetrical arrangement and setbacks of building masses, flanking and defining the Way. Beyond, the view of the Golden Gate and San Francisco Bay, centered on this axis.
369 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2407 of 6596
Illustrations of Campanile Way features below (all 2015 photographs, Steven Finacom copyright, all rights reserved beyond reproduction of this landmark application in whole for public / non-profit use):
PHOTO 2: Circa 1960 Thomas Church PHOTO 4: View from southwest corner of designed plaza at the top of Campanile Church designed plaza, showing balustrade Way, positioned to transition the Way to and low steps descending towards South South Hall Road, beyond, and to the formal Hall. Both are contributing elements. landscape of the Campanile Esplanade beyond that. Contributing plaza elements include the checkerboard of aggregate paving, edged with brick, with a central, eight sided, planting panel. Plantings themselves are non significant.
PHOTO 4: View looking west from steps of Church designed plaza. Note symmetrical positioning of buildings at left and right, and London Plane tree allee. Haphazard plantings—pittosporum shrubs at far left, grown to tree size, and redwood at far right-- detract from symmetry and constrain the PHOTO 3: Brick steps descending from historic view to the west. Planting panel in Church designed plaza (at right) to foreground. Banner at left celebrates the Campanile Way roadway, left. Low baluster Centennial of the Campanile. Tour group in walls and clipped hedges in center, flank center is looking both west at the Golden steps and edge the western side of the Gate, and east at the Campanile. plaza.
370 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2408 of 6596
PHOTO 5: Looking north/northwest across PHOTO 7: Non contributing parking spaces Campanile Way towards Doe Library (left) along Campanile Way. These shown north and Doe Annex (right). Patchy asphalt of Wheeler Hall. paving, haphazard plantings, bicycle racks at right, and vehicle parking are non contributing. Small brick plaza and light standards, circa 1950, flanking entrance to Doe Library are contributing.
PHOTO 8: Non-contributing utility grates / vaults. Also note shrubbery / pittosporum “trees” raggedly pruned up against Wheeler Hall façade.
PHOTO 6: Significant Class of 1940 fountain (foreground), hexagonal bench seating behind, centered on circa 1940s white flowering plum (in winter dormancy).
PHOTO 9: Contributing London Plane tree at left, formal two level original entrance and brick paving to Wheeler Hall, at right. NON- CONTRIBUTING: dumpsters and recycling bins, asphalt paving “apron” in foreground, pittosporum trees in background.
371 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2409 of 6596
landscape but, instead, simply involves utilitarian removal of some overgrown elements near the ground.
PHOTO 12: Formal central roadway, here PHOTO 10: A non-contributing coastal shown just above intersection with Sather redwood tree stands alone next to the south Road is contributing. Non-contributing façade of Doe Library. The species is too striping and use of portions of roadway for big, and too asymmetrically placed, for service vehicle parking, and patched asphalt Campanile Way. No trees shown in any of paving. Note, at right rear, the well the early landscape plans or photographs maintained landscape around California rise higher than the buildings or visually Hall, including hedges that are clipped intrude as much into the view corridor. annually.
PHOTO 13: View looking east of the northeast corner of Wheeler Hall. Campanile Way at left, Sather Road in foreground. This is a mix of contributing and non-contributing elements. The London Plane trees are significant and contributing, along with the lawn and low hedges at the corner. The mass of pittosporum that PHOTO 11: Illustration of the current, partially blocks the view towards the haphazard, landscape treatment of Campanile in the distance is not Campanile Way. Pittosporum shrub in rear contributing. The utilitarian bollards and was allowed to grow to tree height; asphalt paving in the foreground are not occasional pruning (foreground) does not contributing. shape the tree as part of the neo-classical
372 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2410 of 6596
PHOTO 15: View west, from Sather Road intersection, down Campanile Way. London Plane trees, and low plantings are contributing, along with brick gutter at right which recalls original. Utility grates and covers and patched asphalt paving are not contributing. Dwinelle Hall at upper right.
PHOTO 17: View west, from north of Dwinelle Hall. Original or early brick gutter and London Plane trees, contributing. Asphalt patching not contributing.
PHOTO 18: View east, with main north entrance to Dwinelle Hall on right. Plaza in PHOTO 16: View up Campanile Way, from front of Dwinelle harmonizes with the west of California Hall (behind tree at left). neoclassical character of Campanile Way London Plane trees and conifers on left are and matches plaza at top of Way designed contributing. Brick gutter at left is by Thomas Church. It is contributing. contributing. Benches are contributing, as are the general character of low hedges and foundation plantings.
373 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2411 of 6596
PHOTO 21: View to the west, down Campanile Way, south of the Life Sciences PHOTO 19: View west, from northwest Building. Central / linear roadway is corner of Dwinelle Hall. Life Sciences contributing; asphalt not contributing. Building at right / rear. Small round planter in center probably dates to the Thomas Original brick gutter at left, and replica brick Church era Campanile Way renovations, gutter at right, contributing. London Plane and contains a new London Plane, planted trees contributing. Stairway / entrance to in place of an old / original one that died. Life Sciences Building at center / right is a Parking lot at left, bicycle corral in center 1980s intervention, but compatible with the distance, and rustic rock used to keep historic character of Campanile Way. vehicles from driving over lawns, not contributing.
PHOTO 22: View up Campanile Way from south of Life Sciences Building. Note historic symmetry of the roadway and PHOTO 20: Same vicinity as previous central focus on the Campanile and Charter picture, looking east / uphill. Dwinelle Hall at Hill beyond. Brick gutters at left and right right. Original entrance / steps and flanking contributing. evergreen conifers to Life Sciences, contributing. Bicycle parking and asphalt paving not contributing.
374 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2412 of 6596
in foreground to prevent vehicles from driving into the landscape and the 1980s concrete seat around the oak tree at center right.
PHOTO 23: View from south of Life Sciences Building. Some of the London Plane trees at right have been replanted PHOTO 25: Foot / western end, of with younger specimens, in the proper Campanile Way. 1908 Bridge in the position to maintain the formal allee. Note foreground, with buckeye tree at left. Both flagstone path (circa 1920s) entering from significant features. Tilden Football Players the right. This is also the point where statue in right rear, beyond bridge. Note Campanile Way begins its subtle curve how the lower end of Campanile Way curves towards the 1908 Bridge at its lower end. In to intersect the bridge, and passes beneath the early days of the roadway this is also the an informal canopy of live oaks, transitioning point where the road left the open, sloping, from the formal London Plane tree allee. Life plateau and entered a grove of live oaks Sciences Addition loading dock, at left, adjacent to Strawberry Creek. beyond bridge, non-contributing.
PHOTO 24: Lower end of Campanile Way. PHOTO 26: 1908 Bridge, from downstream. 1908 Bridge at right. Contributing features Concrete bridge, designed by John Galen include Tilden Football Players statue, Howard, is significant, including original center left, and the 1911 memorial bench concrete and original wrought iron railings. behind / beyond it, as well as the flagstone Six pointed star at center is a decorative pathway bisecting the two. All are in their element that recalls a star used as a original, early 20th century, locations. Non University of California symbol in its early contributing features are the rocks scattered decades.
375 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2413 of 6596 City of Berkeley 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project
Letter 14 COMMENTER: Steven Finacom DATE: September 25, 2017
Response 14.1 The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR should have included study of an alternative of a lower-height building which would have eliminated or reduced the project’s partial obstruction of the view from Campanile Way towards the Golden Gate. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for a response to these comments.
Response 14.2 The commenter asserts that the project’s impact on the Campanile Way westward views would be significant, and that the EIR should include mitigation to address this impact. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts and Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to this comment. The commenter also contends that without mitigation for the view impacts “the project would violate” Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines requires public agencies to make certain findings regarding CEQA prior to approving a project, including that mitigation is included in EIRs to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects. As discussed in Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts, no significant environmental effects pursuant to CEQA are identified in the Draft EIR in relation to the partial obstruction of views of the Golden Gate, and therefore Section 15091(a)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines would not apply with regard to this impact.
Response 14.3 The commenter suggests that night time photosimulations should be included in the EIR because lighting associated with the project could “blot out” the visibility of lights on the Golden Gate Bridge. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for a response to this comment.
Response 14.4 The commenter claims that the Draft EIR provides insufficient mitigation for the project’s impacts on historical resources in the Downtown Area, including the Shattuck Hotel. The commenter requests that the EIR more fully discuss the Downtown Area’s cultural and architectural history. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to these comments.
Response 14.5 The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR’s determination that construction vibration would not exceed thresholds for physical damage to historic structures is unsupported. As evidence, the commenter offers that the Shattuck Hotel is a complex building constructed in multiple sections in the early 20th century, partially over a filled/culverted creek channel. The commenter asks if a seismic engineering report has been prepared for the Shattuck Hotel building. Draft EIR Section 4.4, Noise and Vibration, has been amended to further evaluate the potential of construction vibration to damage the Shattuck Hotel and to provide mitigation for potential impacts:
Response to Comments 376 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2414 of 6596 Comments and Responses
As shown in Table 24, vibration levels at the Shattuck Hotel would reach an estimated 0.210 in/sec PPV during use of vibratory rollers on Allston Way, which would not exceed the Caltrans threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV for frequent intermittent sources of vibration. Vibration levels at the F.W. Foss Co. Building and Elks Lodge would reach an estimated 0.029 in/sec which would not exceed the Caltrans threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV for frequent intermittent sources of vibration. The presence of the Strawberry Creek culvert and potentially looser soil around this structure may also dampen vibrations received by the Shattuck Hotel. Therefore, although the Historic Resources Technical Report for the project (ARG 2016; see Appendix C) identifies excavation- related soil movement and ground vibration as a concern with respect to the Shattuck Hotel’s foundations, vibration levels would not be expected to cause structural damage to historic buildings based on the Caltrans threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV for frequent intermittent sources of vibration. Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, also discusses the potential effects of vibration on the Shattuck Hotel and other nearby historic buildings. Nevertheless, the age and historic alterations to the Shattuck Hotel would render it more susceptible to vibration damage relative to modern buildings. Therefore, it is conservatively assumed that vibration impacts would be less than potentially significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation is required. Because vibration from construction activity could potentially damage historic structures in the Downtown Area, Mitigation Measure NOI-6 in the DAP EIR requires measures to monitor and reduce vibration levels. Consistent with this measure, the applicant shall develop a vibration monitoring and contingency plan for the Shattuck Hotel; set up a vibration monitoring schedule; define structure-specific monitoring limits; and address the need to conduct photo, elevation, and crack surveys to document before- and after-construction conditions. In addition, the applicant shall identify contingencies for when vibration levels approach monitoring limits, in order to lower vibration levels or secure the affected structures. Mitigation Measure NOI-6 also requires the applicant to survey structures where monitoring has indicated high levels, and make appropriate repairs or compensation for damage.
SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION This impact would be less than significant without mitigation.Although it is not anticipated that vibration levels at the Shattuck Hotel from construction of the project would exceed the applicable Caltrans threshold of 0.25 in/sec PPV for structure damage, vibration monitoring pursuant to Mitigation Measure NOI-6 from the DAP EIR would further reduce the likelihood of structure damage. In the unlikely event that vibration causes structural damage, this measure would ensure that the applicant makes appropriate repairs or compensation. Therefore, vibration impacts after mitigation would be less than significant.
The commenter also contends that vibration from excavation and pile driving for the proposed foundation could shake and destabilize the Strawberry Creek culvert. Please see Topical Response C: Geology and Soils Impacts for a response to comments about the project’s impacts on the Strawberry Creek culvert.
Response to Comments 377 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2415 of 6596 City of Berkeley 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project
Response 14.6 The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR’s finding of a less than significant impact to the cultural landscape of UC Berkeley is “incorrect and flawed.” The commenter asserts that views from Campanile Way of the Golden Gate and San Francisco Bay are historic resources in their own right, and that obstruction of these views would represent a significant impact. A lower- height building that does not intrude into the viewshed, the commenter asserts, would mitigate this impact. In addition, the commenter cites a staff report to the City Council for a June 30, 2015, public hearing on a landmark application for Campanile Way. The commenter contends that, consistent with this staff report, the EIR should analyze Campanile Way and its view as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to these comments about historic impacts on Campanile Way. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for a response to comments about a reduced-height alternative.
Response 14.7 The commenter references three letters submitted to the Landmarks Preservation Commission during review of the 2015 landmark application for Campanile Way. These letters were written by Harvey Helfand, an architect and retired Campus Planner for UC Berkeley; Gray Brechin, a geographer and historian; and Charles Birnbaum, an expert in historic preservation who consulted with UC Berkeley on its Landscape Heritage Plan. The commenter contends that the view corridor is an essential historic component of the Classical Core of campus. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to these comments about historic impacts on Campanile Way.
Response 14.8 The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR misunderstands the role of Campanile Way in the landscape framework of the UC Berkeley campus. Citing UC Berkeley’s Landscape Heritage Plan, the commenter claims that the view corridor from Campanile Way is one of two key “Formal Distant Views” on campus. The commenter finds that Campanile Way’s formal views are an integral part of the landscape composition of UC Berkeley’s Classical Core and should be protected. In addition, the commenter asserts that the project would have a direct and material impact on the view corridor. By obstructing the view corridor, the commenter asserts that Campanile Way would become just another campus road. The commenter also incorporates by reference the 2015 landmark application for Campanile Way and cites its key points. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to these comments.
Response 14.9 The commenter asserts that the Draft EIR wrongly considers changes to Berkeley’s urban skyline from development and landscape growth in analyzing the project’s historic impact on the Campanile Way view corridor. No previous buildings, the commenter notes, have intruded on this view corridor. The commenter adds that the unobstructed view of the Bay and the Golden Gate, not of Downtown Berkeley, is what makes the view historic. As evidence, the commenter presents a historic view of the Campanile Way view corridor drawn from the 2015 landmark application. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to these comments.
Response to Comments 378 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2416 of 6596 Comments and Responses
Response 14.10 The commenter states that a petition to initiate the process of conferring landmark status on Campanile Way, including its viewshed of Golden Gate and Bay, was submitted to the Landmarks Preservation Commission in September 2017. The commenter provides an anticipated timeline for processing the landmark application, requesting that the City issue the Final EIR after completion of this process. In addition, the commenter asserts that the EIR must account for the potential change in Campanile Way’s historic status. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to these comments.
Response 14.11 The commenter suggests that Mitigation Measure GEO-1 in the Draft EIR does not comply with the City’s creek ordinance (Berkeley Municipal Code Section 17.08.045). Please see Topical Response C: Geology and Soils Impacts for a response to comments about the project’s impacts on the Strawberry Creek culvert.
Response 14.12 The commenter suggests that a mitigation measure in the Draft EIR to require forced-air mechanical ventilation for the proposed 18-story building would result in substantial energy costs. The commenter claims that the Draft EIR does not evaluate the energy costs of this building feature. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.4, Noise and Vibration, the project would be subject to Mitigation Measure NOI-1 in the DAP EIR to provide forced-air mechanical ventilation so that occupants can keep windows closed to control exterior noise. This measure applies generally to development in the Downtown Area where ambient noise exceeds the City’s 70 dBA Ldn exterior noise standard. The project’s energy use is evaluated in Draft EIR Section 5, Energy, consistent with the requirements of Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines. As discussed therein, the project would be subject to Title 24 energy conservation requirements in the 2016 California Energy Code and CALGreen, as embodied in enforceable conditions of approval. The 2016 Title 24 standards, which are 28 percent stronger than the previous 2013 standards for residential buildings, would apply to a variety of building elements such as water, space heating, and cooling equipment; lighting systems; insulation for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings; and appliances. Furthermore, the project would have energy-efficiency and renewable energy features sufficient to attain LEED Gold or equivalent status. Adherence to Title 24 and LEED Gold requirements would ensure that the building does not have substantial energy costs relative to a building of its size not adhering to these energy saving measures.
Response 14.13 The commenter expresses agreement with comments made by Zoning Adjustments Board members that the Draft EIR’s mitigation for loading conflicts should be strengthened. The commenter contends that post-construction changes to loading activity would be too late. In addition, the commenter asserts that the project could generate hundreds of delivery and pick- up stops per day. Finally, the commenter recommends a dedicated off-street area for package delivery. Please see Topical Response E: Transportation/Traffic Impacts for a response to these comments.
Response 14.14 The comment requests that a typographical error on page 182 of the EIR be corrected. This error has been corrected as follows in the Final EIR:
Response to Comments 379 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2417 of 6596 City of Berkeley 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project
The project would not generate a substantial increase in transit ridership that results in result in overcrowding on local or regional transit systems.
The commenter also suggests that the Draft EIR’s finding of a less than significant impact on transit service is suspect, speculating that scores to hundreds of additional riders could use the BART station during peak hours. The applicant adds that cumulative approved and/or built projects in the Downtown Area would add ridership to BART. In addition, the commenter submits that existing conditions during peak-hour commutes are overcrowded and that BART has no ability to expand capacity. Finally, the commenter requests the use of current information, rather than information from the DAP, in evaluating the project’s impact on BART service. Please see Topical Response E: Transportation/Traffic Impacts for a response to these comments.
Response to Comments 380 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2418 of 6596
Jacob, Melinda
From: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: FW: DEIR 2190 Shattuck
From: Tree Fitzpatrick [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 1:31 PM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB)
The DEIR for 2190 Shattuck is weakly inadequate in its casual dismissal of the importance of the view of the SF Bay and the Golden Gate.
The entire campus of the UC of California at Berkeley was platted around both the campanile tower and the view. Setting a special path for the view of the SF Bay, then the Golden Gate that extends the views, hopes, dreams, ambition and destiny represents the manifest destiny of the entire state of CA. UC Berkeley is CA's flagship public university. And UC Berkeley was founded to represent the hopes and dreams of Californians.
It is immoral and unconscionable to allow private developers to hijack the view.
I am astonished that the whole state of California is not in an uproar over the loss of this view. I am more amazed that Cal Alum from Berkerley are not up in arms over this proposed loss.
And I see nothing in the plans for 2190 Shattuck that could possibly compensate the UC Berkeley community, the City of Berkeley and the entire state for what must be one of the most famous, most singular and most spectacular views in the country.
Don't allow some private developers to steal the manifest destiny view of the Golden Gate. The view represents empire, lifting our hearts and minds to the vast Pacific Ocean, reminding us that the horizon has no limits.
Plopping down another ugly glass tower and blocking this precious, irreplaceable view simply cannot be allowed. This is not just about being able to see the Bay and the Golden Gate from Berkeley. Yes, one can see the view from many places in Berkeley. Blocking the view from this state's flagship public university would destroy a statewide vision. It would be a tragedy to give the view away to someone's profit.
Sincerely, Tree Fitzpatrick MS MS JD
1 381 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2419 of 6596 Comments and Responses
Letter 15 COMMENTER: Tree Fitzpatrick DATE: September 25, 2017
Response 15.1 The commenter maintains that the Draft EIR provides an inadequate analysis of views of the Bay and Golden Gate. The commenter asserts that the campus was platted around both the campanile tower and the view, that these views have symbolic importance, and that it would be “immoral and unconscionable” to let private developers change them. The commenter also suggests that the UC Berkeley community, the City of Berkeley and the entire state should be compensated for the project’s obstruction of views. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts and Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to these comments.
Response to Comments 382 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2420 of 6596
September 25, 2017
We are concerned that the draft document erroneously ascribes no impacts to the No Project Alternative, and based on that assumption, erroneously designates the No Project Alternative as the “overall environmental superior alternative”, when we see ample evidence presented within the document to find that the No Project Alternative is in fact the worst environmental alternative by a large margin.
Here is what the draft EIR actually says in conclusion:
“The No Project Alternative would be the overall environmentally superior alternative since it would avoid all project impacts. However, the No Project Alternative would not achieve the basic project objectives as stated in Section 2, Project Description.“
The problem here is that choosing the No Project Alternative would exacerbate a cumulative housing shortage in Berkeley, Alameda County and in the in the Bay Area as a whole that is causing housing prices to skyrocket, increasing the numbers of people forced to commute long distances and building pressure for additional development on pastoral lands at the edge of the region and beyond.
The project is located in Berkeley’s Downtown Plan Area, which is a designated Priority Development Area defined in the Plan Bay Area, the regional plan for reducing greenhouse gas pollution. The EIR for the Plan Bay Area explains the significance of PDAs as follows:
“Together with Priority Conservation Areas(PCAs), PDAs are the foundation for sustainable regional growth and Plan Bay Area.”
As the above statement implies, steering housing production towards the PDAs is one of the central strategies employed by the Plan Bay Area both to reduce greenhouse gas pollution and to conserve open space. Selecting the No Project Alternative for 2190 Shattuck would be detrimental to both of these goals.
Selecting the No Project Alternative would be especially damaging to the region’s ghg reduction efforts because Berkeley’s Downtown PDA is one of the best performing PDAs in the entire 9 County Region with respect to vmt. The irony is that this EIR presents significant evidence to this effect. Consider the following excerpt:
383 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2421 of 6596 “Based on the ACTC travel demand model, residents of the project’s traffic analysis zone in Berkeley travel an average of 4.5 miles per day. This amount of vehicle travel is substantially lower than average daily VMT in surrounding areas: 48 percent below the City of Berkeley’s overall average of 8.7 miles per capita, 58 percent below the Alameda County Planning Area 1 average of 10.7 miles per capita, and 73 percent below the Alameda County average of 16.4 miles per capita. Because the project would generate vehicle trips in an area with relatively low VMT, it would not have an adverse effect related to VMT. Furthermore, as shown in Table 30, public transit would accommodate a substantial portion of the project’s travel demand (an estimated 32 percent), which would reduce the project’s motor vehicle trips. “
If the draft EIR were a little more thorough it would also cited the average vmt for the 9 County region too, as well the average vmt of people forced to commute into the region from a adjoining regions on account of the cumulative housing shortage in the Bay Area. We will ask the appropriate questions.
As compared to the average annual vmt of residents in the project’s traffic analysis zone, what is the average annual vmt of the City of Berkeley as a whole, Alameda County Planing Area 1, Alameda County as a whole, Bay Area Region as a whole, and finally of people who commute into the Bay Area from adjoining regions?
If the No Project Alternative were selected, and the housing demand that would have been accommodated by any of the development alternatives were to be redistributed throughout the rest of the region and beyond, as projected by a reasonable model, how much extra annual vmt would be generated?
It is important to consider the travel demand in the region and beyond because the growing cumulative housing shortage in the county, and in the region as a whole, is causing increasing numbers of workers to commute into Alameda County from other parts of the region and into the Bay Area from adjoining regions. This project can’t be denied without impacting those cumulative shortages.
The EIR conclusion regarding the overall environmentally superior project discounts these effects and assumes that the No Project Alternative would produce no vmt.
According to the CEQA Guidelines, the purpose of the no project alternative is to allow a comparison of the environmental impacts of approving the proposed project with the effects of not approving it. The no project alternative must discuss the existing conditions, “as well as what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project were not approved, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.”
The EIR for the Plan Bay Area offers a better model for evaluating the impacts of the No Project Alternative. Consider these excerpts:
“The No Project and Main Streets Alternatives would result in a greater number of significant and unavoidable impacts compared to the proposed Plan (see “Total” in Table 3.1‐38).
384 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2422 of 6596 In Climate Change and Greenhouse Gases, the No Project Alternative and Main Streets Alternatives would result in two new significant and unavoidable impacts because they would not meet the SB 375 targets for per capita passenger vehicle and light duty truck CO2 emissions.
In Air Quality, ... the No Project Alternative would result in one new significant and unavoidable impact because it would not be expected to meet the goals of the 2017 Clean Air Plan.
The EIR for 2190 Shattuck should follow the lead of the EIR for the Plan Bay Area, and evaluate the No Project Alternative based on an assumption that the housing demand that would have been accommodated by this project would instead be redistributed within the commute shed with vmt which reflects that distribution.
Note that the project will do more than place its residents in an extremely low vmt location, but will also include a set of demand management measures unbundled parking, free transit passes, on site bicycle parking, and on site care share availability. These measures will further advantage the development alternatives in comparison to the No Project Alternative, as these measures are not likely to be consistently applied to housing development elsewhere in the region. Given these facts, we think it would be worthwhile to answer the following question:
Using the same methodology used by Transform, in their Green Trips evaluation, to conclude that building 2211 Harold Way project would save the region 4 million vmt annually, what savings could be attributed to the 2190 Shattuck Ave. project?
Thanks for your attention
Sincerely
Tim Frank, Director
385 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2423 of 6596 City of Berkeley 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project
Letter 16 COMMENTER: Tim Frank, Director, Center for Sustainable Neighborhoods DATE: September 25, 2017
Response 16.1 The commenter expresses concern that the Draft EIR ascribes no impacts to the No Project Alternative and designates it as the Environmentally Superior Alternative, suggesting that it is the “worst” environmental alternative. The commenter asserts that the No Project Alternative would exacerbate a regional housing shortage in the Bay Area that would increase development pressure at the edge of the region. The commenter notes that the Downtown Area is a Priority Development Area, as defined in Plan Bay Area, which is a “foundation for sustainable regional growth.” As discussed in Draft EIR Section 6, Alternatives, the No Project Alternative would involve no construction on the project site, thereby avoiding the project’s significant and unavoidable impact from construction noise. In addition, by retaining the existing building on-site, this alternative would avoid the project’s potentially significant but mitigable impacts from introducing a new building whose design could be incompatible with nearby historic buildings; less than significant impacts related to air pollution during construction; and potentially significant but mitigable impacts related to disturbance of the BART substructure. The No Project Alternative also would avoid the project’s increase in vehicle trips and further reduce the project’s less than significant impact on traffic congestion. Nevertheless, the commenter is correct that the proposed project would further regional environmental, transportation and planning goals related to increasing development density near transit centers, and that the No Project Alternative would not further these goals.
Response 16.2 The commenter asserts that the No Project Alternative would impede the region’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by avoiding development in Berkeley’s Priority Downtown Area. The commenter cites evidence from Draft EIR Section 4.5, Transportation/Traffic, that the project would generate vehicle trips in an area with low vehicle miles traveled (VMT) relative to the whole City and greater Alameda County. The commenter requests a discussion of average annual VMT in the project’s traffic analysis zone vis-à-vis that of the entire City, Alameda County Planning Area 1, Alameda County, the Bay Area region, and commuters from outside the Bay Area. Page 172 in Draft EIR Section 4.5 compares average annual VMT in the project’s traffic analysis zone, the City, Alameda County Planning Area 1, and Alameda County. This discussion is adequate to demonstrate that the project’s traffic analysis zone in the Downtown Area has relatively low VMT. By extension, it is expected that development outside the Downtown Area would have higher VMT.
Response 16.3 Assuming that the No Project Alternative were selected and housing demand were redistributed to the rest of the Bay Area, the commenter asks how much extra annual average VMT would be generated. The commenter suggests that the project cannot be denied without contributing to a cumulative regional housing shortage. The commenter further recommends that the EIR adhere to Plan Bay Area EIR’s approach by assuming that the No Project Alternative would redistribute housing demand. This comment is acknowledged. However, the EIR was drafted using the City of Berkeley’s thresholds of significance for impacts under CEQA, which do not require consideration of these factors, some of which may also be considered speculative. Please refer also to Response 16.1.
Response to Comments 386 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2424 of 6596
DEIR Response to 2190 Shattuck Avenue submitted by Kelly Hammargren
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) written for 2190 Shattuck Avenue proposed Project (Project) is written for the past without consideration to present living patterns or environmental impact mitigation for the future. This is the wrong project for this site.
A development of this size and mass is inappropriate for this site. It is not just that the Project will sit dead center in the Historic Iconic View from Campanile Way and that every DEIR photo simulation shows the Project to be smaller and less intrusive than the actual planned height of 194 feet, it is that the list of problems generated by the Project grows long and the DEIR is wholly inadequate as presented with architectural plans that do not even define the location of bedrooms in two bedroom apartments. The developer and consultants have stooped to a new low in presentation.
The Project DEIR uses obsolete transportation projections completely ignoring the impact on transportation by online shopping deliveries and the use of Uber, Lyft, and similar vehicles which used to be called gypsy taxis as taxi service is provided without taxi licensing. Other transportation studies are postponed. Noise studies ignore the impacts to the Shattuck Hotel guests with travelers sleeping in hotel rooms. Even the Shattuck Hotel restaurant will suffer. Noise studies for Berkeley High School (BHS) do not show where the data for the merged multi‐block campus was collected/projected. The Project sits in the BART ZONE of Influence and excavation for the 2nd level of underground parking will be below groundwater. The Strawberry Creek culvert is within proximity. Allston Way is heavily traveled with pedestrians going to and from the YMCA, Berkeley High School, the Post Office, and the residential neighborhoods. There is no “staging” plan. The Project exceeds the 180 ft height limit.
The Project falls decidedly short on sustainability. Climate catastrophe is already upon us as we look across the globe. Sustainable construction is all electric without natural gas and zero net energy from maximizing renewable sources. Building Living Challenge is the standard to reach. Moderate sized buildings can meet these goals. LEED Gold is so yesterday. Starting in 2018 Volvo will only build hybrid and electric vehicles (EV). It can be expected that other manufacturers will follow suit and soon those hybrids will fold into all EV. Four EV charging stations in a 103 space parking structure is grossly short‐ sighted.
The purported needed objective of market rate housing does not comport with a glut of overpriced units, for‐lease signs throughout the downtown and waiting lists so long for affordable housing that people have trouble adding their name and 800 – 1000 unhoused poor live on Berkeley City Streets.
The developer needs to “gift” this site to the City for a moderate sized 100% inclusionary affordable housing building with a portion of the dwelling units designed as wheelchair accessible and possibly micro units (although this needs further study as to whether it would be discriminatory) to transition some of the 800 – 1000 homeless living on our streets into housing. The City needs to reject this Project proposal in total, accept the “gifting” of the site and work with the developer to find and secure an appropriate site for a development that will not have the detrimental impacts that will transpire if this Project goes forward at this site.
1 387 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2425 of 6596 DEIR Response to 2190 Shattuck Avenue submitted by Kelly Hammargren
The developer needs to consider the costs of appeals, legal delays, overstock of luxury priced units and the changing social and economic environment.
Architectural Plans, Lack of Moderate Size Alternative, Engeo Report The building architectural plan is incomplete and what is presented is inadequate and out of date for current living patterns. The interior of the dwelling units even the location of the bedrooms in two bedroom units is missing. Such an egregious absence of detail should have already made this DEIR a non‐starter for review along with the absence of the moderate height alternative.
The developers with the DEIR consultants have essentially given the City of Berkeley the middle finger by declining to present the requested moderate height alternative. Such action needs to be taken into consideration in evaluating the proposed Project in its entirety. Every page should be read with skepticism. Board members, commissioners and elected city officials should not be fooled or lulled into complacency by being drowned in the DEIR 1000 plus pages with appendices. The thinly disguised propaganda to construct a building that is the antithesis to the needs of Berkeley and as already stated is for a Project that is out of date before a shovel hits the ground or in this case before the DEIR went up for response needs to be rejected. A moderate sized affordable housing project would not only resolve many of the identified problems it would be the project that Berkeley needs.
The engineering reports are inadequate for evaluation of the impacts of this building on BART. The Project is within the BART Zone of Influence as noted in the Engeo report, is subject to the Creek Ordinance and plans place the 2nd level of underground parking below groundwater. These are all conditions that require stringent engineering/construction adherence and thorough evaluation and planning.
After the Millennium Building fiasco in San Francisco, such inadequate evaluation cannot be accepted. Yes, the Millennium Tower is more than three times the size of this building, however, it demonstrates the problems when inspections are inadequate, builders cut corners, nearby/adjacent construction is in the works and board and commission appointees fall prey to promises and are overwhelmed with filler reports that on the surface make it appear that actual work was done, but lack the substance necessary for a thorough evaluation. The following links barely touch the surface of the brewing problems in San Francisco with the Millennium Tower. https://sf.curbed.com/2017/7/19/15998338/millennium‐tower‐leaning‐sinking‐sf‐more http://www.businessinsider.com/millennium‐tower‐wall‐gaps‐fire‐risk‐2017‐7 http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier‐ross/article/Millennium‐Tower‐is‐still‐sinking‐and‐those‐ 12203804.php http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/Millennium‐Tower‐condo‐owners‐feel‐good‐about‐ 12222253.php https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Tower_(San_Francisco) http://www.nbcbayarea.com/investigations/Lead‐Design‐Engineer‐For‐Troubled‐Millennium‐ Summoned‐To‐Testify‐About‐Project‐As‐Homeowners‐Suffer‐Legal‐Setback‐445940283.html https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=sinking+of+millennium+tower+in+san+franci sco&tbm=nws&source=univ&tbo=u&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixmvDbw77WAhWEsVQKHQ5YBSMQt8YBCE 0oAQ&biw=1298&bih=1324
2 388 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2426 of 6596 DEIR Response to 2190 Shattuck Avenue submitted by Kelly Hammargren
Transportation The DEIR leaves critical transportation planning to study after occupancy and uses outdated methods for what is presented. As Berkeley development continues to demolish commercial space and replace offices and businesses with coffee shops, restaurants, pizza parlors and bars, Berkeley becomes the residential suburb to other cities. The DEIR makes person trip projections using obsolete transportation assumptions. The DEIR does not take into account that commuting and transportation has been turned upside down by Uber, Lyft, other similar services and Google buses with comfortable seating and wifi. While these modes take some of the load off adding to the already overcrowded BART, other problems ensue. San Francisco is becoming a traffic jam jungle from the converging Uber and Lyft drivers seeking riders. A market rate project brings 400‐450 to 500 plus new people to the downtown with money in their pocket to call up Uber, Lyft, etc. for every little trip including the trip to catch the Google bus unless, of course, the Google buses add more stops by the new buildings. https://www.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/news/2017/06/13/uber‐lyft‐san‐francisco‐traffic.html http://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/matier‐ross/article/SF‐s‐traffic‐planners‐weren‐t‐expecting‐rise‐ 11262399.php http://sfist.com/2017/06/13/report_uber_and_lyft_bloating_sf_tr.php
Additionally, there is the problem of Uber and Lyft drivers coming from as far away as Fresno to pick up riders, maximize earnings and sleep/nap in their cars between shifts. Some driver’s will come from distant locations drive, circulate, sleep in their vehicles for several days in a row and then drive home. They may just change from Uber to Lyft and start a new shift which puts sleep deprived drivers on the city streets and highways. http://sfist.com/2016/03/03/uber_drivers_sleeping_safeway_parking_lot.php
Even more overwhelming than the increased Uber, Lyft vehicles for person trips are the delivery trucks for products ordered online. With brick and mortar stores disappearing and replaced with online shopping, there is a steady stream of deliveries. Amazon bought Whole Foods. This is only going to increase the number of deliveries. Even when items are ordered together, they often arrive packaged separately in a box with packing materials. From reports and even my own observation of my two neighbors who work from home, one person can fill the recycling bin with the empty boxes and packaging materials from online orders. Now multiply that times 400 – 450 maybe 500 residents and one can see that the planned garbage recycling area is wholly inadequate, plus a very large area is needed for the drop off of all these boxes. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/16/science/recycling‐cardboard‐online‐shopping‐ environment.html?_r=0
All these packages ordered online are delivered by a multiple of carriers. Some are even delivered by Uber drivers as was the case for my neighbor’s order Saturday. These delivery trucks, vans, cars, usually double park. Online shopping and deliveries to a building on a two‐lane street that is already congested will turn the area into a nightmare. http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2015/02/04/department_of_transportation_online_shoppi ng_is_clogging_america_s_roads.html
3 389 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2427 of 6596 DEIR Response to 2190 Shattuck Avenue submitted by Kelly Hammargren
A project that is 100% affordable housing would not only make a dent in our affordable housing crisis it would in addition house people who use AC transit – public transportation and do not fill every little whim with an online order hence another delivery and the packaging that goes with it.
In addition to the above, there is no identified staging area. The Project sits in a school zone. The front of the building is on the main thoroughfare through the downtown and the side of the building for the underground parking entrance and exit is a busy narrow side street across from the main hotel with the downtown YMCA at the end of the block. There are enough pages of diagrams and numbers to make one’s eyes gloss over, but the volumes of pages lack the much needed substance. The transportation analysis during construction with the absence of identified staging area and use of obsolete methods to calculate trips after occupancy makes the entire projections foolishly inadequate.
Housing Elements The Project purports as an objective that market rate housing is a much needed commodity. There are for lease signs throughout the downtown for market rate housing while wait lists for affordable housing are so long that people in need have trouble adding their name. 3000 on wait lists is reported by those seeking affordable housing as common. Construction for market rate housing is more than healthy. The number of for lease signs show a glut of market rate housing while affordable housing is barely being built. As documented by the Housing Elements, it is affordable housing that is underbuilt and needed. The 800 – 1000 people on the street demonstrate the ongoing desperate need. http://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/05/26/opinion‐truth‐berkeleys‐homeless‐policy/
4 390 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2428 of 6596 DEIR Response to 2190 Shattuck Avenue submitted by Kelly Hammargren
The Housing Elements population trend shows that Berkeley was at 116,716 in 1970 and 112,580 in 2010. Latest projections are that population is getting closer to the 1970 peak. Berkeley has been building, however, the building is for luxury priced units and speculation creating an affordability crisis.
5 391 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2429 of 6596 DEIR Response to 2190 Shattuck Avenue submitted by Kelly Hammargren
The unit distribution of 21% micro units, 23% studio units, 34% one‐bedroom and 22% two‐bedroom does not comport with household size.
For Berkeley to meet the Housing Element Regional Needs Housing Assessment objectives, new construction should be no more than 47% market rate. With all the recent construction in Berkeley as zero to 10% inclusionary affordable housing it is obvious why there is an affordability crisis. Adding
6 392 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2430 of 6596 DEIR Response to 2190 Shattuck Avenue submitted by Kelly Hammargren another market rate Project exacerbates this crisis. And, this is why along with every problem covered by this writer and others, the project for 2190 Shattuck Avenue needs to be a 100% inclusionary affordable housing building.
Building Height, Measure R and the Historic Iconic View from Campanile Way The total Project height has been stated at public hearing as 194 feet. The DEIR photo simulations show a Project under 180 ft with distortions throughout the DEIR. Placement is also in question and cannot be considered with any sense of accuracy without drones, cranes or some other visual method to validate placement in simulations.
The first photo which follows here is directly from the DEIR. DEIR Photo Appendix A Part 1 2190 Photo Simulations Photos Base of Campanile South Side https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedImages/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_‐ _ZAB/Base%20of%20Campanile%20‐%20south%20side%20‐%20
The second photo is a close‐up of the center of the DEIR simulation. Close‐up of the DEIR Photo Appendix A Part 1 2190 Photo Simulations Photos Base of Campanile South Side ‐ Project with lines added for emphasis https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedImages/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_‐ _ZAB/Base%20of%20Campanile%20‐%20south%20side%20‐%20
The third photo is the Plaza on Campanile Way Center – Project https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedImages/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_‐ _ZAB/Plaza%20on%20Campanile%20Way%20‐%20center%20‐%20project.jpg
The fourth photo is the Plaza on Campanile Way Center close‐up showing the diminution of the Project in comparison to the height of the tree. https://www.cityofberkeley.info/uploadedImages/Planning_and_Development/Level_3_‐ _ZAB/Plaza%20on%20Campanile%20Way%20‐%20center%20‐%20project.jpg
7 393 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2431 of 6596 DEIR Response to 2190 Shattuck Avenue submitted by Kelly Hammargren
8 394 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2432 of 6596 DEIR Response to 2190 Shattuck Avenue submitted by Kelly Hammargren
9 395 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2433 of 6596 DEIR Response to 2190 Shattuck Avenue submitted by Kelly Hammargren
10 396 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2434 of 6596 DEIR Response to 2190 Shattuck Avenue submitted by Kelly Hammargren
11 397 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2435 of 6596 DEIR Response to 2190 Shattuck Avenue submitted by Kelly Hammargren
The documentation for the 180 ft height limit as defined by Measure R 2010 will be submitted separately including the City Council transcript draft – unofficial Text which can be verified by watching the video for the June 29, 2010 meeting and the July 13, 2010 meeting. The 180 ft height limit is the total building height including all extensions as clearly documented in the June 29, 2010 and July 13, 2010 hearings. The height is not 180 ft to the parapet with 14 ft or more above the 180 ft limit as Planning Department employees repeatedly declared in the December 8, 2015 appeals hearing.
In conclusion, this is the wrong building for the wrong site and the wrong design. The DEIR is completely inadequate. If a high‐rise development is approved, it needs to be vastly improved in sustainability, reduced in height to meet the voter approved limit and placed on a site that will not block the historic view, traffic impacts will not affect the safety of sensitive receptors or clog major thoroughfares and busy side streets and where construction noise will not disrupt hotel guests and decimate hotel business with economic loss to the City and community. On all levels it is affordable housing that is needed. Micro units is a discussion that needs to be taken up in public hearings and thoroughly reviewed by the Planning Commission. All the impacts/repercussions need thorough review before the Pandora’s Box is opened. This is a rapidly changing world and it is a disservice to the community to even consider constructing a 9 digit dollar building that will stand for decades steeped in obsolete design and thinking without responsible thorough review.
Kelly Hammargren
12 398 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2436 of 6596 Comments and Responses
Letter 17 COMMENTER: Kelly Hammargren DATE: September 25, 2017
Response 17.1 The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR “is written for the past without consideration to present living patterns or environmental impact mitigation for the future.” The commenter further contends that the project is not appropriate for the project site. These comments are noted; however, because the commenter does not offer specific information or analysis regarding the Draft EIR, a specific response is not possible. All comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration. The commenter contends that the photosimulations in the Draft EIR show the project to be smaller and less intrusive than the “actual planned height of 194 feet.” Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for a response to this comment. Finally, the commenter asserts that the Draft EIR is inadequate because it does not include floor plans that define the location of bedrooms in two bedroom apartments. The precise location of each bedroom within its respective unit is not necessary to provide an analysis of the project’s potential environmental impacts pursuant to CEQA. The commenter does not present information or analysis to support the contention that floor plans for each unit are required to convey the project’s environmental impacts. As discussed in CEQA Guidelines Section 15124, an EIR’s project description “should not supply extensive detail beyond that needed for evaluation and review of the environmental impact.” Floor plans are not among the items listed as essential to an EIR project description. No changes to the EIR are warranted in response to this comment.
Response 17.2 The commenter claims that the Draft EIR uses “obsolete” traffic projections that ignore the impact of online shopping deliveries, Uber, Lyft, and other ride-share services. Please see Topical Response E: Transportation/Traffic Impacts for a response to comments about delivery activity, and about ride-share services.
Response 17.3 The commenter suggests that the Draft EIR ignores noise impacts to the Shattuck Hotel, including guests sleeping in hotel rooms and patrons of the hotel restaurant. Draft EIR Section 4.4, Noise and Vibration, analyzes impacts from construction noise on the Shattuck Hotel. As discussed therein, the project would have a significant and unavoidable impact on nearby sensitive receptors from construction noise, as anticipated in the DAP EIR for Downtown Area projects involving extended periods of construction. The commenter also asserts that noise studies for Berkeley High School do not show where data for the “merged multi-block campus” was collected or projected. Noise measurements for the Draft EIR were taken in the immediate vicinity of the project site at Shattuck Avenue and Allston Way, but not at Berkeley High School. Because the Draft EIR does not include noise measurement data for Berkeley High School, it is unknown which data the commenter references. This comment does not provide specific comments on the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR on which to base a specific response. See also responses 10.16 and 10.17.
Response to Comments 399 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2437 of 6596 City of Berkeley 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project
Response 17.4 The commenter asserts that the project site is within BART’s zone of influence and that excavation would be below the groundwater level. These comments are consistent with the Draft EIR’s analysis in Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, of structural stability impacts related to the BART substructure and potential groundwater dewatering impacts. As discussed there, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Response 17.5 The commenter notes that the Strawberry Creek culvert is near the project site. Please see Topical Response C: Geology and Soils Impacts for a response to comments about the project’s impacts on the Strawberry Creek culvert.
Response 17.6 The commenter suggests the Allston Way has heavy pedestrian traffic with people going to and from the YMCA, Berkeley High School, the Post Office, and residential neighborhoods. Please see Topical Response E: Transportation/Traffic Impacts for a response to comments about the project’s impacts on pedestrian safety and about construction-period impacts on pedestrian circulation.
Response 17.7 The commenter asserts that the project lacks a staging plan. As noted in the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared for the project (see Appendix 4 to the Infill Environmental Checklist), construction staging for the project would occur along the project site’s Allston Way frontage. Mitigation Measure T-3 would require the development and implementation of a construction traffic management plan to minimize overall disruptions and ensure that overall circulation in the project area is maintained during the construction period. Implementation of this measure would reduce the construction-period impact on circulation to a less than significant level. The commenter also claims that the project would exceed the City’s 180-foot height limit. Please see Topical Response D: Downtown Area Plan Height Limits for a response to this comment.
Response 17.8 The commenter contends that the project’s proposed attainment of LEED Gold (or equivalent) status is not sustainable with regard to climate change, and that Living Building Challenge is the standard to reach. As discussed on page 67 of the Infill Environmental Checklist (Appendix A to the Draft EIR), the project’s estimated greenhouse gas emissions of approximately 1,085 metric tons of CO2e per year would not exceed the BAAQMD threshold of 1,100 metric tons per year. Furthermore, the project’s greenhouse gas emissions would be consistent with attainment of the State’s most recent emissions goals under Senate Bill 32. Therefore, the project would have a less than significant impact related to climate change. Nonetheless, the commenter’s assertion that the project should adhere to stricter sustainability standards is noted and will be forwarded along with all comments to City decision-makers for their consideration. The commenter also asserts that the four proposed electric vehicle charging stations in the parking garage would be insufficient to meet demand. Based on usage of such charging stations at recent Berkeley projects, the City has determined that four stations would suffice to meet demand from the proposed project. In addition, a standard condition of approval required
Response to Comments 400 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2438 of 6596 Comments and Responses
for all “large” projects is that at least 10% of the project parking spaces for residential parking and 3% of the parking spaces for non-residential parking shall be pre-wired to allow for future Level 2 (240 Volt/40 amp) plug-in electric vehicle (EV) charging system installation, as specified by the Office of Energy and Sustainable Development. Any Level 2 EV charging systems installed at parking spaces will be counted toward the applicable pre- wiring requirement.
Response 17.9 The commenter maintains that the applicant’s proposed objective of providing market-rate housing is not borne out due to a glut of overpriced units in Downtown Berkeley, while there are waiting lists of people for affordable housing. This comment is noted, although it does not address aspects of the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR on which to base a specific response. All comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration.
Response 17.10 The commenter requests that the applicant “gift” the project site to the City for a 100 percent inclusionary affordable building including wheelchair-accessible units and transitional housing for homeless. The commenter further suggests that the City should work with the developer to secure an alternative site that would have less detrimental impacts. This comment is noted, although it does not address aspects of the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR on which to base a specific response. All comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration.
Response 17.11 The commenter suggests that the applicant must consider the costs of appeals, legal delays, overstock of luxury housing units, and social and economic conditions. This comment is noted, although it does not address aspects of the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR on which to base a specific response. All comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration.
Response 17.12 The commenter asserts that the proposed site plans are incomplete because they fail to show the location of bedrooms in two-bedroom units. For the purpose of evaluating the project’s environmental impacts under CEQA, it is not necessary to know the precise orientation of bedrooms in the proposed housing units. As part of the project’s permitting process with the City, outside of the environmental review process, the applicant will be required to submit final plans that provide such detail for review by the City.
Response 17.13 The commenter expresses opposition to the project and support for a moderate-sized affordable housing project and a project with a shorter height. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for a response to the comment about a reduced- height alternative. The commenter’s preference for an affordable housing alternative is noted; however, such an alternative is not required pursuant to CEQA as no significant impacts in regard to housing affordability are identified. The commenter also suggests that the EIR should be read with skepticism and is “propaganda.” This comment is noted. As required by CEQA, the entire Draft EIR was made
Response to Comments 401 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2439 of 6596 City of Berkeley 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project available to the public and interested groups and agencies for a 45-day public review period for review and comment. Public comments are compiled and responses provided in this Response to Comments document.
Response 17.14 The commenter contends that construction with BART’s zone of influence, below the groundwater level, and subject to the creek ordinance requires stringent evaluation and planning. The commenter also provides links to articles about engineering problems with the Millennium Building in San Francisco. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, the project would have a less than significant impact related to the stability of the BART substructure with implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-2. This measure would require City review and approval of a site-specific geotechnical investigation and final engineering and design plans for adherence to BART’s guidelines in its zone of influence. In addition, this measure would require monitoring of groundwater dewatering and recharging if the existing groundwater level is expected to drop by more than two feet. Please see Topical Response C: Geology and Soils Impacts for a response to comments related to the creek ordinance.
Response 17.15 The commenter claims that the Draft EIR relies on obsolete transportation assumptions, not taking into account Uber, Lyft, similar services, and Google buses. Please see Topical Response E: Transportation/Traffic Impacts for a response to these comments.
Response 17.16 The commenter maintains that ride-share services catering to people at the project site would put sleep-deprived drivers on City streets and highways. Please see Topical Response E: Transportation/Traffic Impacts for a response to comments about ride-share services.
Response 17.17 The commenter asserts that an “overwhelming” number of delivery trucks for products ordered online, such as by Amazon, would serve the project site. The commenter also asserts that online deliveries would result in double-parking activity. Please see Topical Response E: Transportation/Traffic Impacts for a response to comments about delivery trucks and loading conflicts. In addition, the commenter suggests that the proposed garbage recycling area would be inadequate to accommodate boxes and packaging materials associated with online deliveries. This comment is noted, although it does not address aspects of the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR on which to base a specific response. All comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration.
Response 17.18 The commenter asserts that a 100 percent affordable housing project would alleviate the affordable housing crisis while providing housing to people who more public transit and fewer online deliveries. This comment and the commenter’s preference for such a project are noted and will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration.
Response 17.19 The commenter maintains that the Draft EIR’s analysis of transportation impacts during construction is inadequate because it does not identify the project’s staging area. Please
Response to Comments 402 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2440 of 6596 Comments and Responses
see Topical Response E: Transportation/Traffic Impacts for a response to comments about the staging area and construction-period impacts on transportation.
Response 17.20 The commenter claims that the project would exacerbate a glut of market-rate housing while affordable housing is underbuilt. The commenter further suggests that new construction should be no more than 47 percent market-rate for Berkeley to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment objectives. This comment is noted, although it does not address aspects of the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR on which to base a specific response. All comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration.
Response 17.21 The commenter asserts that the total project height “has been stated at public hearing as 194 feet” but that the photosimulations in the Draft EIR depict the project at 180 feet in height, and that there are “distortions throughout the” Draft EIR. The commenter further contends that the location of the proposed project cannot be considered accurate without the use of “drones, cranes or some other visual method to validate placement in simulations.” The commenter includes illustrations to support these contentions. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for a response to these comments. The commenter does not provide specifics on other claimed “distortions” in the Draft EIR, so a specific response is not possible for that aspect of the comment. The commenter goes on to maintain that the City’s regulations do not allow any portion of a building, including projections for mechanical equipment or parapets, beyond 180 feet within the DAP area. Please see Topical Response D: Downtown Area Plan Height Limits for a response to these comments.
Response 17.22 The commenter concludes by expressing opposition to the project. This assertion is noted, although it does not address aspects of the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR on which to base a specific response. All comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration. In addition, the commenter maintains that the Draft EIR is inadequate and all impacts need thorough review. Please see Responses 17.1 through 17.21 for discussions of the commenter’s individual comments about the project and the EIR.
Response to Comments 403 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2441 of 6596
Jacob, Melinda
From: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: FW: 2190 Shattuck
From: Biff Stockton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 3:17 PM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB)
ZAB, Please do not allow this building to be built. It is a TERRIBLE idea for so many reasons. An 18‐storey building would be disastrous at this location and destroy downtown. It would make it unlivable, especially for bicyclists and disabled, but really for everyone. It would destroy the Berkeley skyline and the view of the Bay for everyone uphill including from campus. It would also destroy the most beautiful movie theater in town, the only one left with balcony seating like the old days, and the theater which shows independent and foreign films. One of the most important and cherished arts facilities in town. The plan for a new theater is dismal, ridiculously inadequate, and probably won't ever be built, just like the historic Fine Arts Theater, which was promised back to the community but was a hoax. This project is a disaster to the community in every way, and the legacy of the corrupt Bates/Rhoades alliance. Please stop it now, using whatever measures you can. Thank You, Biff Stockton 2902 Ellsworth Street
1 404 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2442 of 6596 City of Berkeley 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project
Letter 18 COMMENTER: Biff Stockton DATE: September 25, 2017
Response 18.1 The commenter expresses opposition to the project, asserting that it would have adverse effects on Downtown Berkeley, bicyclists, disabled persons, views of the Berkeley skyline and the Bay, and “the most beautiful movie theater in town.” The comment regarding the theater appears to address the approved 2211 Harold Way Mixed-Use Project, located adjacent to the project site, which involved replacing the existing Shattuck Cinemas with a new movie theater. The proposed project would not involve demolition or alteration of movie theaters in the Downtown Area. The commenter’s opposition to the project is noted. Although the comment does not address aspects of the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR on which to base a specific response, all comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration.
Response to Comments 405 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2443 of 6596
Jacob, Melinda
From: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: FW: Comment on 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Nityan Nair [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 11:30 PM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB)
Hello,
I fully support this project (2190 Shattuck Avenue) and the housing that it provides. I believe that it is a good fit for its downtown location and its impact to the surrounding area will be minimal. Please approve it as soon as possible.
Thank you, Nityan Nair
1 406 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2444 of 6596 Comments and Responses
Letter 19 COMMENTER: Nityan Nair DATE: September 25, 2017
Response 19.1 The commenter expresses support for the project. The comment is noted, although it does not address aspects of the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR on which to base a specific response. All comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration.
Response to Comments 407 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2445 of 6596
Jacob, Melinda
From: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) Subject: FW: 2190 Shattuck Avenue proposal
From: Charlene Woodcock [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017 4:57 PM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB)
Members of the Zoning Board:
I strongly urge that you reject this project as proposed on the grounds that it fails to meet standards and requirements of CEQA and of Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan/Measure R.
The DEIR summary states that the project will "#2. Generate much-needed, highly livable, transit-oriented, and sustainable market rate housing” but this is a false and/or meaningless statement. Berkeley has a glut of market rate housing and an urgent need for low income and below median income housing. Neither 20% low income units nor an in-lieu fee begin to be sufficient to justify more market-rate housing downtown.
By primarily serving potential residents of above median income, this project would alter the demographics of Berkeley’s downtown, a CEQA prohibition. Only by providing for residents of mixed incomes and reserving at least 50% of its residential units for low income and below median comparable to current downtown residents can it preserve existing demographics.
According to the DAP, the character of new development must be considered through the lens of good urban design and consideration for Downtown’s historic settings. Context – geographic and cultural – presents critical design considerations that help lead to projects that fit the place.
This project does not meet the requirement that new building designs respect the existing historic fabric of our downtown. Instead, like both the building proposed for 2211 Harold Way and the one proposed for the Bank of America site, it is a pastiche of architectural elements, the apparent product of design by committee. It is hugely out of scale with its surrounding buildings the Shattuck Hotel and the next north three-story building. It lacks the aesthetic distinction and integrity that our downtown deserves.
It makes no pretense of striving for the highest level of energy and resource efficient design, as Measure R requires the City Council to ensure:
”The Council shall regularly evaluate the Plan adopted as a result of this measure for its impacts on environmental goals, aesthetics, livability, economic vitality, housing growth and affordability, sustainability, and other factors, and shall consider adjustments to the Plan’s policies and development regulations to better attain desirable outcomes and address unacceptable negative impacts.”
So far as I know, there has been no effort to update the energy-efficiency requirements of the DAP and Measure R. LEED Gold is not a meaningful criteria for designing buildings that will meet the state’s 2020 requirement of zero net energy.
Measure R with its proposed 3 180-foot and two 120-foot tall buildings was presented to Berkeley voters as a compromise to the former mayor’s plan for many more high rise buildings in our downtown, whether or not they served our needs. Measure R, heavily funded by developers and real estate speculators, allows but does 1 408 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2446 of 6596 not require our city government to approve such buildings. They should only be approved if they unequivocally serve our existing city’s needs.
The voters of Berkeley made very clear in last fall’s election that we do not wish to give our city over to real estate developers who push inappropriate proposals through our approval process and then try to sell them for immediate profit, as Joseph Penner tried to do with 2211 Harold Way in January.
To slow the current devastating gentrification, Berkeley urgently needs good-quality, energy-efficient, well- designed mixed income residential buildings, built to appropriate scale with their surroundings, especially for families and low income residents. People who work in Berkeley can no longer afford to live here. People whose families have lived here for generations are being forced out of their homes, especially people of color. Neighborhoods west of Sacramento that once were restricted to African Americans are rapidily gentrifying and being dominated by wealthy newcomers.
It is not the obligation of Berkeley’s elected representatives to ensure profits for developers. Rather it is your obligation to ensure stability of housing for our existing population, with new buildings financially accessible to the whole range of residents and built to the zero net energy standard the state will require in just two and a half years.
The needs of wealthy newcomers to Berkeley have already been met by the many projects approved in the past ten years. But these, nearly all built by for-profit developers, do not meet our needs and have unbalanced the racial, cultural, and economic diversity that enhances our city and which we prize. That is why Berkeley voters forced a change of values in the 2016 election..
Sincerely,
Charlene M. Woodcock 2355 Virginia Street Berkeley 94709
2 409 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2447 of 6596 City of Berkeley 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project
Letter 20 COMMENTER: Charlene Woodcock DATE: September 25, 2017
Response 20.1 The commenter urges the City to reject the project, citing an assertion that it would fail to meet the requirements of CEQA, Berkeley’s Downtown Area Plan and Measure R. The commenter objects to the Draft EIR’s statement that the project would “generate much- needed, highly livable, transit-oriented, and sustainable market rate housing” because Berkeley has a glut of market-rate housing. This quotation from the Draft EIR is from a summary of the applicant’s proposed objectives for the project, not the City’s environmental analysis of the project. While the commenter’s objection to the applicant’s objective is noted, it does not address aspects of the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR on which to base a specific response. All comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration, along with the commenter’s assertions regarding housing affordability. The commenter also asserts that the project would violate CEQA by primarily serving residents above median income, thereby altering the demographics of Berkeley’s downtown. According to Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, a project would have a significant impact related to population and housing if it: a) induces substantial population growth, b) displaces substantial numbers of existing housing, or c) displaces substantial numbers of people. As discussed on page 110 of the Infill Environmental Checklist (Appendix A to the Draft EIR), the project would not displace existing housing. As discussed further in that section, the project would not have a significant impact related to demographic change, population or housing.
Response 20.2 The commenter asserts that the project does not meet a DAP requirement for the design of new development fit into the Downtown’s historic setting. The commenter maintains that the project is “a pastiche of architectural element,” “out of scale,” and lacking in “aesthetic distinction.” Please refer to Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to concerns about the project’s compatibility with historical resources and Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for responses to comments about aesthetic impacts.
Response 20.3 The commenter suggests that LEED Gold status would not ensure that the proposed building meets the State’s 2020 requirement of zero net energy. While the commenter is correct that the State’s Title 24 energy standards will require new development to be zero net energy starting in the year 2020, this requirement will only begin applying to projects in that year. As discussed on page 65 of the Infill Environmental Checklist (Appendix A to the Draft EIR), the proposed project would be subject to the State’s existing 2016 Title 24 requirements (or the existing Title 24 requirements whenever the applicant submits a building permit application). The commenter also maintains that Measure R does not require the City to approve tall buildings, and that such building should only be approved if they “unequivocally serve” the City’s needs. The commenter further contends that Berkeley voters do not wish to give their city over to real estate developers seeking to sell their projects for a profit. These comments
Response to Comments 410 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2448 of 6596 Comments and Responses
are noted, but do not address aspects of the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR on which to base a specific response. All comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration.
Response 20.4 The commenter asserts that Berkeley needs energy-efficient, mixed income residential buildings built to appropriate scale, in order to slow gentrification. This comment is noted, but it does not address aspects of the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR on which to base a specific response. All comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration.
Response to Comments 411 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2449 of 6596 Public Hearing Comments
4 Public Hearing Comments
Verbal comments received at the two public hearings (Landmarks Preservation Commission, September 7, 2017; and Zoning Adjustments Board, September 14, 2017) are presented below in transcript form and individually numbered, with responses following.
Response to Comments 412 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2450 of 6596
ROUGHLY EDITED COPY CITY OF BERKELEY LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION MEETING ITEM 6D 2190 SHATTUCK AVENUE REMOTE BROADCAST CAPTIONING SEPTEMBER 7, 2017
Services provided by: QuickCaption 4927 Arlington Avenue Riverside, CA 92504 Daytime Telephone - 951-779-0787 After-Hours Telephone - 951-536-0850 Fax Number - 951-779-0980 www.quickcaption.com
* * * * *
This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
* * * * *
1
413 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2451 of 6596 >> The next item on the agenda -- (inaudible).
So since you are our resource on the current plan, do you know about this -- how the ZAB --
One of my concerns on this item -- other referrals with ZAB.
We get the referral, and we have essentially four or five days to cogitate about it, and then we have to act.
If we decide to continue an item because we don't have enough information, very often the applicant says, well, we have been working on this for years, or we have been working with City staff.
And I think in this case this item has said that.
They said we have been talking to the city for years working with them on -- the project.
So my question, or maybe it is -- is that we get these referrals a couple months in advance.
So I don't want this commission to be put in a position being seen as an obstacle to a project as it is --
But we are often inadvertently put in that position because it seems to be assumed that it will go on our agenda, we will act at that meeting, and then it will move on to ZAB or DRC.
>> I'm actually very sensitive to that comment in that our goal is usually to get it in front of you as soon as possible.
And in fact, if we can get it in front of you before it is deemed complete, that is even better.
But that doesn't always happen.
2
414 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2452 of 6596 Because we do like to allow, if there is going to be a continuance, to have that start sooner so it doesn't result where they say it has been a long time.
One other thing that I want to point out, another thing that the
City's done is at the end of your agenda you'll see there is a list of pending demolitions.
And so they do pop up early.
I know you don't have any evidence at that point, but at least the intent with that is to flag properties as soon as we know about them so that you know about them.
But your comment's taken, and that is what our goal is, generally, to give you as much time as possible so it isn't seen as a delay by having these continuances.
>> Okay.
Thanks.
That was very helpful.
And I only ask is because it has come up many times.
Several months ago we had a case where a project was presented,
I started asking questions about the construction -- and all of a sudden they said I can't answer these questions.
I wrote that report six months ago and I haven't looked back at it.
So it made me wonder where has the report been sitting for six months?
>> Sure.
3
415 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2453 of 6596 >> So anything we can do to bring this forward two or three months in advance when it is ready to go to ZAB would be really helpful.
>> Taken.
Thank you.
>> I still want to make sure nobody is here is item 6B or 6C, the 2510 Channing Way or 2009 Addison, because we did decide to take no action on those matters.
So there is no reason.
>> I will make a comment on 6C.
>> Sure.
>> It was just about that I agree with -- (inaudible) -- and I just wanted to point out -- in the staff report.
It says that 2009 Addison Street is not adjacent to any -- well, that simply isn't true.
Immediately north of it is the UC theater.
(Inaudible) -- it shows what the map's legend called partially --
The UC theater is very much still there.
So I think these -- I often see these maps at landmarks -- (inaudible) -- but there is something about the -- that maybe needs to be looked at more carefully.
Thank you.
>> Thank you.
Okay.
The next item is item 6D, the draft environmental impact report for 2190 Shattuck.
4
416 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2454 of 6596 This has been referred to the commission.
And the -- on the website.
We did not receive it in the packet.
We basically have to view it online.
Has anybody submitted any comments on item 6D?
>> Vice Chair, before we get started, we have the EIR consultant and the staff planner here, and if you are interested, I would like to allow for a little bit of time so they can present a little bit about the environmental impact report and an overview of where the project is.
>> Thank you.
>> Just as a reminder, this was put on the agenda at the request of the chair, so we are just being responsive to that request.
So it is not a normal referral, per se, but that is how we put it on the agenda.
>> I didn't hear the question.
You said it was put on the agenda --
>> At the request of the chair.
>> Oh, sorry.
>> Would those involved on this item please come forward?
>> Thank you.
>> Good evening, Mr. Chair and commissioners.
I have been asked to give an overview of the EIR process and where it stands.
Should I keep it brief and give you some context?
>> Can you state your name?
>> Yes, I'll get there in a second.
5
417 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2455 of 6596 My name is Abe Leider from Rincon Consultants.
We are helping your staff prepare the environmental impact report.
>> Thank you.
>> So to give a little overview of the project and the EIR process and status and then the inclusion of the EIR.
First I want to give you a -- so you know where the environmental impact report process is.
The notice of EIR was sent in January.
The building was listed on your agenda listed at the end in
January.
The existing building was put on for demolition.
There was an EIR scoping session.
The EIR was published and sent out for public review August 10th for a 45-day period that ends on September 25th.
So the project was involved in the existing -- building on the southwest corner of Shattuck and Allston and construction of an 18-story building with 274 residential units above about 10,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor and parking being a two-level subterranean garage.
Copies of the draft EIR are available online and --
This project qualifies for a type of streamlined review under
CEQA which limits what the -- exactly looks at.
The eligibility for this -- we talk about it -- but it is eligible since the project is an urban site, satisfies performance
6
418 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2456 of 6596 measures set up by CEQA, and is consistent with the policies of community -- basically, the Downtown Area Plan.
So as part of the environmental impact report, we prepared an in-fill environmental checklist, which you know is an initial study, that screens out the issues that warrant further examination in the EIR.
And based on that checklist, the issue areas studied in the draft EIR are air quality, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise, and traffic.
And significant but minimal impacts were identified in each of these issue areas.
There is one significant unavoidable impact identified in the area of construction noise.
For your purposes, I want to spend a little more time on the cultural resources impacts.
There were essentially three potentially significant cultural resources impacts identified in the draft EIR.
One of them was the -- first of all, I should say that the building itself was determined in the study not to be a historic resource, the Walgreens building.
So the direct demolition of that building was found not to be a significant impact.
But the impact analysis did look at the potential impacts to other historic resources nearby by an introduction into this new structure.
Our documents stated there was a potential impact there, so design measures are recommended as mitigation.
7
419 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2457 of 6596 That should help the building be compatible and not have an affect on the adjacent resources in the node, the Shattuck Hotel and others.
That is one impact.
The other impact had to do with vibration impact during construction and -- for example, the Shattuck Hotel is across the street.
We needed a vibration impact study to look at the distance and materials and the exact levels of vibration that are estimated and sound that would be causing damage to the adjacent nearby historic resources.
The third impacts had to do with use from -- and basically the
Campanile.
I expect that most of you are familiar with this particular issue about the project and the analysis found that the project would not result in a substantial adverse change to the cultural landscape of the -- of the campus, which is the resource in question there -- themselves have been studied in the EIR -- and they were found to be adverse due to the blockage of the views.
But because of the streamlined EIR, CEQA doesn't allow the city to call it a significant impact.
Although it is disclosed as an adverse impact.
There is also policy inconsistency, inconsistency with the policy by -- in the EIR.
These are discussed in this context.
And just real quickly I'll go on to list the alternatives.
The environmental impact report has to look at alternatives that the project can use to identify and meet the objectives.
8
420 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2458 of 6596 The EIR listed a no-project alternative, things stayed the same, and a reduced parking alternative, less trips, less parking available in the underground parking garage.
And as I mentioned, the close of the comment period is
September 25th.
And the avenue for submitting comments is written.
It has to be e-mail or letters.
The City website has information, and you will notice you can submit those.
And also verbally on the hearing on September 14th next Thursday at the Zoning Adjustments Board.
The purpose of that hearing is specifically to take comments from the ZAB and vote on the --
The overview.
>> Thank you.
Do you have any questions?
Steve.
>> I have a question.
So I was there for the scoping session -- recognizing the project alternative reduced heights -- and I wanted to ask why that wasn't -- that didn't become an alternative.
>> The in-fill streamlined provisioning says that a reduced project alternative may not be studied, nor offsite alternative.
There was, I believe, some discussion about a smaller building, instead of stepping back, take a bigger mass of the lower area, but it
9
421 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2459 of 6596 wouldn't have had much of an impact on the view blockage, in my reflection.
However, what I would like to say is those are the cove comments that we hope to get from you and everybody as far as written comments or spoken on the subject when people comment on the EIR.
>> Then we might not get a chance to discuss it.
I guess my follow-up comment is you have this convoluted -- in my view -- convoluted language that is sort of mirroring the Harold Way conversation that says that it is not -- the view impact is not an impact on an historic resource.
Can you clarify the description of Campanile Way as a historic resource or a non-historic resource?
>> I can read to you what our historic resource reference told me, but again, that is a question or a comment that can be made on the draft EIR in a more formal way.
But when I asked them to give some, you know, bulleted background points addressing some of these questions -- first of all, the information is in the EIR.
If you are saying it is lacking or it doesn't really explain it, the City may need to explain it more.
But the 2004 landscape heritage plan identified Campanile Way as a contributing element to the cultural landscape and identified East Bay views as one of the area's defining features.
So the views themselves in the analysis are not historic resources in their own right.
They are a character-defining feature.
10
422 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2460 of 6596 So there is an effect tot view should change over time, of course, in a number of ways.
That is not sufficient to reduce the actual historic resource or make it ineligible.
>> How would this change --
>> -- (inaudible).
>> So I still don't -- I guess I see two sides.
I don't see how you acknowledge that it is a character-defining feature of Campanile Way, but there is no historic impact if the view is lost.
>> If you would like a more satisfying answer to that question,
I would strongly encourage you submit that -- -- I'm not the person -- -- (inaudible).
>> Well, I just bring up about 35 years of looking at EIRs, I have never seen a final EIR give satisfactory answers to questions raised.
So I did want to say -- can I make a comment at this point?
>> Sure.
>> -- -- if Campanile Way were a historic resource, would your analysis change?
>> If the view of Campanile Way was?
>> Yeah.
>> I don't know.
I would have to ask our experts about that.
Sounds like it, but I wouldn't know -- --
>> And how would -- how would it be defined as an historic resource.
11
423 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2461 of 6596 >> That would be a great question that we can answer at a later date with comments.
>> Okay.
So as a follow-up to that, what if something about the nature of the project or resources changes before the final EIR was issued?
Would you then respond to that and make it a -- in the final EIR is that the conclusion?
>> We can definitely look at it and figure that out.
>> I wanted to ask you, you said there's probably no effect on the stability of the adjacent resources, the Shattuck Hotel and the post office.
The creek that runs under the Shattuck Hotel, does that extend all the way across the street there?
>> Within the street corridors, within the street -- between the two buildings.
>> You don't think that a demolition and reconstruction on that same creek bed on the bottom of the Shattuck Hotel -- if shaken from the other side, normally already --
>> It is not stable soil -- -- so that itself is built and has to be remediated through geotechnical engineering.
>> And how can you calculate what the effect of the Harold Way building is going to be?
It seems like that is --
>> Harold Way.
>> Yeah, the building next to the Shattuck Hotel, where the project will presumably be built.
12
424 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2462 of 6596 >> The approved project?
>> Whatever.
But the creek is under all of that stuff, and mainly it is under the hotel, and the hotel is a historic building.
And I haven't seen the report, so I don't know how that is calculated, but it seems that it is pretty speculative.
>> -- -- comment on the EIR, or questions.
>> Vice Chair Schwartz, just a quick comment in clarification.
Abe several times has mentioned that the comments need to be submitted.
I just want to say if anybody has anything they think needs to be reflected in the final EIR, the avenue to convey that to the city is either in writing or to the Zoning Adjustments Board next week.
So for example, I'm taking it and I'm hearing all of this stuff, but we are not going to make these official comments that are then going to be responded to in the final EIR.
So just to say it again, anything that has been said tonight, if you want it to be in the final EIR, please put it in writing or attend the
Zoning Adjustments Board meeting.
>> Could we make this in the form of a resolution of the commission, that we politely request that this list of considerations that are being addressed -- in the same way that we would -- because I think the letter coming from the commission that reflected the resolution, if there was a resolution, would have more impact than individual letters going to the ZAB.
13
425 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2463 of 6596 So if we passed a resolution saying that we are concerned about whatever it is, then could that be relayed to another body?
I would think it would.
I don't see why it wouldn't be.
>> One way to do that is you could say tonight you are going to send the chair or the vice chair to the zoning board to speak.
>> We can send the person if they wanted to go, but also we could just send them a letter.
My point is if we could as a resolution create a letter to the subsequent bodies.
I don't see why that wouldn't work.
>> You know, I would have to think about that more.
The reason being, when the City released the notice of availability and laid out a public comment path for the city and the community, it said written comments and the Zoning Adjustments Board.
>> Well, suppose I drafted -- are we going to take a break -- we can draft something and you can pass it and you can decide whether or not the communications are transmitted.
>> Sure.
>> Another option might be to form a subcommittee that can draft a letter and submit it to the zoning board and to the EIR comment during the open period.
And then if we vote on it, we could then say the whole commission has approved that letter by a particular vote.
We have done that before, it seems like.
14
426 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2464 of 6596 >> And the idea with that would be whatever the letter said, it would have to reflect whatever was said tonight.
So it wouldn't drift, necessarily, between what was conveyed.
>> That is correct.
It doesn't hurt to -- well, the zoning board -- next week --
>> Next Thursday.
>> Next Thursday, so there is really not enough time for a -- (inaudible).
One suggestion for the chair, that we make a written statement.
So I would like to move that we convey to the Zoning Adjustments
Board at their hearing next week that we disagree that the Campanile views are not a historic resource and that we ask for a revised or recirculated
EIR that studies a reduced height alternative that would mitigate impacts on the views.
And someone can pass around a large picture from the EIR that shows how this building would -- in the view corridor.
>> Similar to Harold Way.
>> The agenda didn't say and the commission may do these things.
The commission can't list every possible thing they want to do.
>> The public has a right to comment.
>> Oh, I'm aware.
It is just we weren't at the point -- we are not going to deny you the right to comment.
Actually, I did make a motion.
So I will withdraw the motion until we have had public comment.
>> And these are on this item.
15
427 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2465 of 6596 >> (Inaudible).
>> Are there any other comments from the commission before I ask for comments from the public?
All right.
Carrie, you put it in card.
Is it on this item?
>> Mm-hmm.
I wasn't going to speak, but I thought I would clarify.
I assumed I would say be there to see -- instead, I'm here.
And I had done preparation, because next week it is on the zoning board and I'm on the zoning board.
So I assumed I would be taking notes of the comments that you had and I would relate them.
Because I can tell you after three months being on the zoning board they do not care about cultural resources.
So this is your job.
And I did request this be on the agenda tonight.
It wasn't going to be on the agenda, which is pretty shocking considering that there are impacts to cultural resources and potential impacts to cultural resources.
To answer your question, Becky, Strawberry Creek goes under the middle of the street and is within the creek setback.
Remember a few years ago when you couldn't build within the creek setback?
Well, apparently now you can go up 18 stories.
16
428 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2466 of 6596
The original creek bed is underneath the original Shattuck Hotel just on the other side of the street and no one really knows whether or not that is going to have impact from the Harold Way building or this building here.
So these are subjects that in years past we would have had experts who did the EIR in front of us to be able to ask questions, as
Becky has seen so many times on this commission, that is not the case tonight.
So we don't have anyone to talk to about the conclusions they came to or the mitigations they are suggesting.
So I did take notes.
I will take those notes with me.
But anything in writing is a good thing.
And like I said, I just don't think the zoning board will look at cultural resources seriously, and I do think it is your duty.
>> Kelly Hammargren.
>> Are we recording tonight?
>> We are, yes.
>> You are recording?
Okay.
It wasn't clear.
There seems to be a problem with the connection with the website and the -- on the city website.
So I can't see everything that I wanted to see.
But as far as the creek is concerned, when we were going over the Harold Way project, it was said that the creek wasn't under Harold Way
17
429 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2467 of 6596 anymore and the culvert wasn't near Harold Way, so we didn't need to be concerned about it, that it was over on the other side of the street.
So now that we have 2190, evidently the creek is moved again because now it is farther away.
2190 is closer to Harold Way.
So either -- I don't think it is under the Shattuck Hotel anymore.
It is closer to this building.
So that should have been considered.
As far as the pictures and the places on this building, it should be pretty much dead center in that view.
And we really do need drones to know where this building is going to be.
And according to the projections of the building, that tree to the next to the building, if you go up to the base of Sather Tower, move over to the left, you'll get a view of the top of the Wells Fargo building, which is 178 feet.
And that Wells Fargo building is the same height as the top of the tree that is next to the projection of this building.
And this building is 194 feet, so it is really 16 feet taller than what is within that picture.
So I would suggest to you, all of you, that you actually go up to see the tower and take a look.
All you need to do is just a little bit -- (inaudible).
18
430 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2468 of 6596 As far as this not being a historic resource, if you go to the
COIT tower, which you would consider a historic building, there is a mural in that building of the bay and of the Berkeley Clock Tower.
So the site and the view is really a historic view, and it was important to implement --
And that is on the first floor.
>> Thank you, Kelly.
John English.
>> Okay.
I have been reading the draft environmental impact and its frankly tortured reasoning, convoluted rationalizing as to why allegedly the view from the Campanile Way from the Golden Gate -- they are trying to say that is not a historic resource.
It is merely an aesthetic resource.
Well, no, it is a terribly important historic resource -- the history of the university and the history of Berkeley.
And the resource is strongly defined.
It is not just the pathway itself that is literally called
Campanile Way within part of the campus.
It is also its projection westwards, the air space that projects westward towards the bay and the Golden Gate.
This terribly important place was a vital part of the university's planning back 40 years before Berkeley was incorporated as a city.
19
431 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2469 of 6596 When the first campus buildings were built, north and south hall, they flanked the upper end of the pathway, which is now called
Campanile Way.
So back to the environmental impact report, which I find is utterly unconvincing on this question, the whole Campanile Way and the vista it involves is a historic resource.
And this project, just look at pages 100-106 -- 109 of the draft environmental impact report.
The visual simulations they show, the new building here would horrendously invade the remaining visible portion of the original vista.
The environmental impact report even tries to address the concern by saying, well, this is much narrower than it was originally because of overgrown trees and shrubs.
Well, you know, simply because the vista is narrower than what it used to be, what remains is all the more priceless.
So I could go on and on about this, however, I would refer you to a February 6th of this year letter from -- addressed to the staff to
Leslie Mendez that said much of what I am now saying.
And among other things, that there should be a consideration of having not just a smaller version -- I think it was there for some years -- but for a shorter version of the tower, of the proposed tower.
So I would say that the Downtown Area Plan, although the
Downtown Area Plan said that it should be about a total of three, 180-foot tall buildings within the inner core of downtown, that by no means guarantees any particular site.
20
432 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2470 of 6596 This particular site is the worst possible place that you would put a 180-foot building.
So I'm trying to -- but having read the EIR, it is utterly inaccurate on this point.
Thank you.
>> The last card I have is Leila Montrose.
>> Good evening.
I'm Leila Montrose. And I'm here on behalf of BAHA.
If you are going to insight me and agitate me while I'm up here,
I'm going to get up and speak.
I hope this is being recorded somehow.
I'm a land use attorney, and this is the first time in well over
20 years -- I don't know exactly how many years I have been a land use attorney.
The purpose of a hearing like this tonight under CEQA is to take public comment and to take your comment.
And the EIR preparer is required to answer those questions and comments that come up at the public hearing.
That is the whole purpose of it.
If the final EIR fails to answer each comment and answer each and every question that is asked, be it by the public and by you, it is a failed final EIR and the court will throw it back to the city.
And the reason for that is because the whole purpose behind the
CEQA is to make sure that there is a vetting of environmental impacts.
That is the whole idea, is for the public and the decision-makers to have the opportunity to really vet what the
21
433 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2471 of 6596 environmental impacts may be and whether the mitigations that are proposed are adequate.
Whether the EIR is adequate.
That's the whole idea of it.
I have never in all of my years of doing CEQA cases ever had an
EIR come up in front of a group of decision makers and say, well, that's a good question.
Write a letter to us and, yeah, we will look at that.
That is not the idea at all.
And it is actually the responsibility of the City, not the EIR preparer in the first instance.
What is supposed to happen is there is a recommendation of all of the comments that are made here tonight and all of the questions that you want to ask.
They go into the city planning department.
The planning department then decides.
They can take the recommendations, whatever it may be, and ask that the EIR preparer respond to it.
They can -- the staff can make a list of all the comments.
They can get a transcription and charge the applicant for the cost of the transcription, which is a very typical way of doing it.
So you don't have to write a letter.
You can if you want.
If you want to appear -- it would be better for you to appear in front of the ZAB.
If you want to do that, you can.
22
434 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2472 of 6596 But you are not required to.
And if gentleman wants to -- whoever it is, wherever he is -- wants to continue telling people write a letter about that, we don't have to answer it tonight, he does that at his own risk.
And he will have to redo the EIR process from the very beginning because that is what happens when the court sends it back.
You have to start all over again.
It is up to him if he wants to take that risk.
And the only other thing that I suggest your commission do, pass the recommendation system and make a point to ask all the questions on the record that you want to ask and make all the comments that you want to make tonight, and then ask the city staff to let you know that they are recording it and what they plan to do with it.
Thank you very much.
>> Thanks, Leila.
I have some follow-up questions.
>> What am I going to say?
I already said it.
>> So one of the other things that I heard the ZAB say during the scoping session was to use the -- not to use visual simulations.
And here is the EIR, very visual simulations.
And those of you who have been around for a long time will recognize these as sort of visual simulations that were done in the 1980s where you took a little snapshot and you pasted it in the EIR.
So I remember the ZAB saying, put up a drone.
23
435 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2473 of 6596 Use GPS and photograph that and create a wire-frame diagram, or something like that, of the building.
So I wanted to ask about the process to develop these visual simulations and how accurate you believe they are and why you didn't put up a physical object that would show the exact lines.
>> We believe that there are accurate photo simulations that are done.
Depending on the way you reference -- (inaudible) -- the standard photo simulation.
>> How does --
>> There definitely is -- drone simulation is a way to do it.
>> The ZAB asked for that.
So you are saying that wasn't necessary?
>> It wasn't done.
>> It wasn't done.
Okay.
So how do you establish where the ground is in an image like this where you cannot see the base of the building?
>> It is done with georeferencing, GIS layers.
And there is an explanation in the EIR.
I tried to find it when I sat down.
And also can explain it more fully in response to comments.
>> -- --
>> It is 180 feet, I believe, plus -- (inaudible).
>> 194 feet.
24
436 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2474 of 6596 >> I don't have that right off the top of my head, but there are potential projections.
>> That is a useful thing to know, how tall the building is if you are going to do a visual simulation.
It has to be accurate.
So (inaudible).
I do want to say that I don't know anybody who is against the building -- I'm not against the building --
Because a building on this site would actually be, I think, the biggest housing building in downtown because of the size of the site.
But I am -- a too-tall building on the site, and the city does have the discretion to regulate that.
And as one of our public commenters said, the downtown plan allows three, 180-foot buildings.
It does not mandate it on any particular site.
The city allows those buildings to be -- --
So let me go back to the motion.
Wordsmithed -- --
Does anybody else wish to comment before?
>> Yes.
I just wanted to ask the staff to respond to Ms. Montrose's comment.
Because I would like to know if it is possible to have -- or if we could specifically request that a transcript of this meeting be made in whatever form for the verbal record to be put into the record for the EIR calling for a response.
25
437 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2475 of 6596 Because her understanding is the same as mine.
We have asked questions, we have asked questions in a proper venue.
Because the questions all should be answered.
This is an official notification to the EIR process that these questions have been raised tonight.
We would like to have answers.
And I have no objection to belt and suspenders also doing the letter or something, but I would like to get a response from the city staff, if they are not too busy, to this particular request.
>> So I just have to say something.
The LPC does not have -- you are not a decision body over this project.
The process for CEQA for when an EIR is put forward is to go through the decision bodies and have the scoping meetings as well as the comments on the EIR at the public meetings.
If this project requires a structural alteration permit, it wouldn't be before the LPC.
Your chair put this on as a discussion item.
It was on the agenda.
It was not publicly noticed.
We are here as a courtesy and not as a deflector of your answers, but just to give you an overview of the project.
So whether the agenda or discussion, put in a transcript and submitted to the ZAB, I don't know about that.
That would be a question for the secretary to follow up on.
26
438 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2476 of 6596 In terms of the fact that was not a noticed hearing.
I'm sure Greg can follow up on that.
>> Would you like to follow up on that, Greg?
>> It wasn't noticed to the public to allow public comment.
>> No, but could a transcript of this meeting be --
>> If the recording is audible and the transcriber could type it up, perhaps.
>> So if we passed a resolution -- in addition to anything else we ask for -- to get you to submit a record of this meeting into the EIR process on our behalf.
Certainly, if you say we are not the decision-making body, we wouldn't submit it as a decision-making body.
We would submit it as a concerned party of the individual sort.
>> Well, I haven't heard the commission make a motion yet.
>> Okay.
I move that the record of this meeting be submitted to the EIR process on this project as the opinion of the members of the committee.
>> Okay.
>> Is there a second?
>> I'll second the motion.
>> So it is a motion to say there will be a transcript.
>> I would like to suggest a friendly amendment that we also send the representative to the ZAB next week to express the record of this discussion to the ZAB.
>> Yes.
I'll second.
27
439 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2477 of 6596 >> All those in favor?
Do you accept that friendly amendment?
>> I accept that, yes.
>> Becky has moved that all the comments that were recorded tonight be transcribed and be presented as the opinion of the Landmarks
Preservation Commission to the actual environmental impact report comments and to also be related to the ZAB.
Is that right?
>> Yes.
>> And also a member of our commission go to the ZAB meeting and comment accordingly.
>> The seconder of the motion -- all those in favor.
All those opposed?
>> We have one abstention.
Did commissioner --
>> Did you vote.
>> Yes, I did.
>> I'm sorry.
I didn't see it.
Discussion?
>> I would like to make a comment.
That both culturally environmentally, one thing that unites all of the major projects that come through the city seem to indicate that these are buildings for commuters.
And by nature it is an environmental impact because of this, if it is so, involves traffic and emitting surface -- which we have to walk
28
440 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2478 of 6596 on top of to get where we are going because it will all be gridlocked because of all the people who live in this town.
As far as the cultural elimination of culture -- and these are places for commuters -- the cultural aspects are going to occur -- going to go to a movie or a restaurant or a bar.
Maybe something else.
But the culture -- these buildings are going to change the culture of the city.
And I think that is a great note.
Berkeley will not be a city.
It will be a theme park with little places that we can act --
>> If I understood the EIR consultant, you suggested that views are aesthetic issues and therefore not the purview of this particular kind of an EIR because it has a checklist EIR, it has special loopholes, I guess you could say.
But the historic resources would be something that should be studied.
And I would argue -- this is on the basis of working at the university for many years -- although I cannot cite chapter or verse because it has been too long since I have looked at any of the documents, that the view from the campus, from the Campanile, was a basic part of the thinking beginning with Frederick -- continuing through the first competition and -- plan, which didn't get implemented in the -- plan, which it did, and every subsequent permutation of the -- plan.
The view is not something that can be detached as an aesthetic concept.
29
441 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2479 of 6596 The view is intrinsic to the design of the University of
California, Berkeley campus.
And if that isn't historic, perhaps I'm not a lawyer -- I'm a retired architect -- but it seems to be it is very basic, that it is something this commission has the right to consider and it is something that the city must consider.
>> Just a point.
Does the commission wish to amend their prior motion that said everything we just said as part of the record that would also include this?
>> We didn't say "just said."
We said "all of our discussion."
>> The intention is.
>> Yes, before and after the motion.
>> All those in favor of the amendment -- was there a second?
>> Did Chris ask --
>> I thought the comments were going to be recorded.
>> Yes.
And you have a comment?
>> So I saw this on a preview at the DRC.
A point that came up for me was the Downtown Area Plan has a whole section on historic resources.
And while this is not Harold Way, and we are not doing a structural alteration permit and the exterior standings are applicable here, I didn't really see any evidence in the application, drawings, any of the architect's entire was study was that there was really ever any
30
442 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2480 of 6596 consideration of the opinion of the district guidelines -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- in downtown where -- you know, there is a mention of the argument is basically the same as the Shattuck Hotel.
My impression was that there wasn't a serious analysis of the historic context.
I would make the recommendation that we now have a historic survey of Shattuck.
And there is a lot of data that was gathered, and that should be considered.
With particular view of the lower --
>> Are there any additional comments from anybody.
>> I would like to see -- I am an even further retired lawyer than Chris is a retired architect, but I would like to see the authority for saying that you don't have to pay any attention to the view shed because it was just an aesthetic element of the whole picture.
I think that would be sort of like the analogy that struck me as the cupola that once fell off the old city hall and there was a big cry -- I think Loni Hancock was mayor -- and there was a big fuss about putting it on.
The cupola is not essential to the building.
It is a little separate thing on top of it and it fell off.
But you couldn't really argue that the building without the cupola was the same building as it was with the cupola because the cupola is only aesthetic.
31
443 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2481 of 6596
And if we have a little aesthetic frill on our perception of the aesthetics of the Campanile as a whole, I would like to see the authority that says you can just toss that away.
>> Well, there still remains the question of who goes to the
ZAB?
Are you available to go?
>> I would prefer -- because I think you are the most knowledgeable about this case.
>> I would be willing to go if Chris --
>> I can't say whether I'm available right now.
>> Would you go --
>> May we have a motion now as to Steve Finacom being the representative to the ZAB -- sits on the ZAB --
>> I would so move that Steve be our representative to ZAB.
>> Is there a second?
>> I'll second.
>> Shannon seconded.
All those in favor?
And I think we also have two of Becky's motions to include all the comments subsequent to her motion.
Does somebody want to make that motion?
>> I'll make that motion.
>> I'll second.
>> All those in favor?
All right.
I think we are done with item 6D.
32
444 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2482 of 6596 City of Berkeley 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project
MEETING: Landmarks Preservation Commission DATE: September 7, 2017
LPC Commissioner Comments
Response LPC.1 The commenter asks why the Draft EIR does not analyze a reduced-height alternative. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for a response to comments about this alternative.
Response LPC.2 The commenter asks for clarification on whether Campanile Way is a historical resource. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to these comments.
Response LPC.3 The commenter suggests that if the view corridor is a “character-defining feature” of Campanile Way, the project’s obstruction of that view should be an impact on historic resources. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to these comments.
Response LPC.4 The commenter asks if the Draft EIR’s analysis would change if Campanile Way were designated as a historical resource. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to these comments.
Response LPC.5 The commenter asks how Campanile Way would be defined as a historical resource. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts.
Response LPC.6 The commenter asks how the Final EIR would address changes in the nature of the project or the designation of historical resources. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to comments about the current landmarking initiative’s effect on the EIR process.
Response LPC.7 The commenter asks if the creek that runs under the Shattuck Hotel extends all the way across the street. Please see Topical Response C: Geology and Soils Impacts for a response to comments about the project’s impacts on the Strawberry Creek culvert.
Response LPC.8 The commenter asks if demolition and construction on the project site would affect the stability of nearby structures. Please see Topical Response C: Geology and Soils Impacts for a response to comments about the project’s impacts on the Strawberry Creek culvert, and see
Response to Comments 445 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2483 of 6596 Public Hearing Comments
Response 14.5 for revisions to the EIR about the project’s impact on the stability of the adjacent Shattuck Hotel. The commenter also asks how to calculate the effect of the Harold Way building on soil stability. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, cumulative development including the proposed project and the approved 2211 Harold Way Mixed-Use Project would have a less than significant impact on stability with adherence to the California Building Code and BART’s guidelines for construction within its zone of influence.
Response LPC.9 The commenter states that the creek is mainly under the Shattuck Hotel, a historic building. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, the historic alignment of Strawberry Creek is located approximately 50 to 100 feet south of the project site and has been artificially filled. However, the existing culverted creek is located beneath the westbound lane of Allston Way, adjacent to the south of the project site. Please see Topical Response C: Geology and Soils Impacts for further description of the Strawberry Creek culvert’s location. The commenter also suggests that the Draft EIR’s analysis of the project’s impact on the stability of nearby structures seems speculative. Please see Topical Response C: Geology and Soils Impacts for a response to comments about the project’s impact on the adjacent creek culvert.
Response LPC.10 The commenter states that the project would have impacts to cultural resources. Please see Draft EIR Section 4.2, Cultural Resources, for an analysis for the project’s impacts in this issue area. For further discussion of the project’s impacts on historical resources, please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts.
Response LPC.11 The commenter states that project would involve construction of an 18-story building within the creek setback. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, the project would involve construction within approximately 24.6 feet of the centerline of the Strawberry Creek culvert. Please see Topical Response C: Geology and Soils Impacts for a response to comments about the project’s impacts on the Strawberry Creek culvert. The commenter also contends that no one knows whether the project and the approved Harold Way building would have impacts related to the original creek bed under the Shattuck Hotel. Please see Response 14.5 for revisions to the EIR with regard to the project’s impact on the stability of the Shattuck Hotel.
Response LPC.19 The commenter suggests that the photosimulations used in the Drat EIR are based on out of date methods wherein a rendering of the project is simply pasted onto a photograph. The commenter suggests that drones should be used for visual simulation purposes, and that GPS data should then be used to create a digital model of the proposed building. The commenter also appears to suggest that story poles or other visual markers on the site be used. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for a response to these comments.
Response to Comments 446 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2484 of 6596 City of Berkeley 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project
Response LPC.20 The commenter asks how the photosimulations used in the Draft EIR establish the ground level when the base of the proposed building is not visible. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for information on the methodology used for the simulations.
Response LPC.21 The commenter asserts that visual simulations should be accurate. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for a response to this comment.
Response LPC.22 The commenter maintains that although the DAP allows three 180-foot buildings, the City has discretion to regulate those height of individual projects. Page 29 of the Draft EIR acknowledges that the DAP allows for a development potential of “three buildings up to 180 feet” in the Downtown Core Area. As noted by the commenter, such development potential does not guarantee approval of an individual proposed building with a maximum height of 180 feet.
Response LPC.23 The commenter suggests that the project would contribute to traffic “gridlock.” As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.5, Transportation/Traffic, while the project would add vehicle trips in the Downtown Area, intersections near the project site would continue to operate at an acceptable level of service of LOS D or better under Baseline plus Project conditions. Furthermore, the project would not considerably contribute to a significant cumulative impact to traffic flow at any intersection under Cumulative plus Project Conditions.
Response LPC.24 The commenter maintains that major projects in Berkeley, including the proposed project, would change the city’s culture. This comment is noted but does not pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a specific response. All comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration.
Response LPC.25 The commenter asserts that the aesthetic and historic aspects of the view corridor from Campanile Way cannot be detached. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for a response to comments about the project’s aesthetic impacts on the view corridor, including a discussion of the relationship between aesthetic and historic resource impacts for an infill project. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to comments about the project’s historic impacts on the view corridor.
Response LPC.26 The commenter suggests that the applicant’s proposed plans do not appear to have considered the district guidelines (presumably referring to the Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines). While this comment does not pertain to the Draft EIR’s analysis of the project, please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to similar comments about the building’s compatibility with the Downtown Berkeley Design Guidelines.
Response to Comments 447 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2485 of 6596 Public Hearing Comments
The commenter also claims that there was no serious analysis of the project’s historic context and recommends consideration of a historic survey of Shattuck Avenue. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to comments about the project’s compatibility with nearby historical resources.
Response LPC.27 The commenter asks why the aesthetic element of the viewshed from Campanile Way can be ignored. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for a response to comments about the project’s aesthetic impacts on the view corridor.
LPC Public Comments
Response LPC.12 The commenter suggests that the location of the Strawberry Creek culvert as identified in the Draft EIR is inconsistent with that identified during review of the Harold Way project. This comment may result from confusion between the creek’s historic alignment and its current culverted alignment. As discussed in Draft EIR Section 4.3, Geology and Soils, the historic alignment of Strawberry Creek is located approximately 50 to 100 feet south of the project site and has been artificially filled. The existing culverted creek is located beneath the westbound lane of Allston Way, adjacent to the south of the project site. Please see Topical Response C: Geology and Soils Impacts for further description of the Strawberry Creek culvert’s location.
Response LPC.13 The commenter asserts that the use of drones is required to accurately project, visually, where the building would be in the view from the UC Berkeley campus, and discusses other buildings in the vicinity and their appearance relative to the project and project site. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts for a response to this comment.
Response LPC.14 The commenter submits that Coit Tower has a mural of the Bay and the Berkeley Clock Tower. This comment is noted but does not pertain to the analysis or conclusions of the Draft EIR, and therefore does not require a specific response. All comments will be forwarded to the City’s decision makers for their consideration. The commenter also contends that the view from the Campanile is historic. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to comments about the historic importance of views from Campanile Way.
Response LPC.15 The commenter asserts that the view from Campanile Way to the Golden Gate, including its projection westward toward the Bay, is an historical resource because of its importance in the planning of UC Berkeley’s first buildings. Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to comments about the historic importance of views from Campanile Way.
Response to Comments 448 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2486 of 6596 City of Berkeley 2190 Shattuck Avenue Mixed-Use Project
Response LPC.16 The commenter maintains that visual simulations in the Draft EIR show that the project would “horrendously invade” the view corridor from Campanile Way. The commenter further asserts that even though the growth of landscaping since the construction of Campanile Way has narrowed the original view corridor, the remaining view is “all the more priceless.” Please see Topical Response B: Historic Resources Impacts for a response to comments about the historic importance of views from Campanile Way.
Response LPC.17 The commenter requests consideration of a building with shorter height. Please see Topical Response A: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts. The commenter also suggests that although the DAP allowed three 180-foot tall buildings in the inner core of Downtown Berkeley, that does not guarantee such development on any particular site. Page 29 of the Draft EIR acknowledges that the DAP allows for a development potential of “three buildings up to 180 feet” in the Downtown Core Area. As noted by the commenter, such development potential does not guarantee approval of an individual project.
Response LPC.18 The commenter asserts that EIR preparer is required to adequately answer questions and comments from public hearings, or else a court will force reconsideration of the EIR. This Response to Comments document summarizes and responds to comments from the LPC hearing that pertain to the Draft EIR.
Response to Comments 449 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2487 of 6596
ROUGHLY EDITED COPY CITY OF BERKELEY ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD MEETING REMOTE BROADCAST CAPTIONING SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
Services provided by: QuickCaption 4927 Arlington Avenue Riverside, CA 92504 Daytime Telephone - 951-779-0787 After-Hours Telephone - 951-536-0850 Fax Number - 951-779-0980 www.quickcaption.com
* * * * *
This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be totally verbatim record of the proceedings.
* * * * *
450 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2488 of 6596
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
THIS MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER AT 7:06.
STAFF, WOULD YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL, AND ASK FOR EX
PARTES?
>> HAPPY TO.
BOARD MEMBER BRAZILE CLARK.
>> B. Clark: I SPOKE ABOUT SHATTUCK AVENUE.
>> BOARD MEMBER SHEAHAN?
>> PRESENT, NO EX PARTE.
>> O'KEEFE?
>> PRESENT, NO EX PARTE.
>> BOARD MEMBER KAHN.
>> I SPOKE WITH THE APPLICANT REGARDING SHATTUCK
AVENUE, DESIGN REVIEW ISSUES.
>> WE WILL NEED YOU TO FILL OUT THE EX PARTE SHEET.
BOARD MEMBER OLSON?
>> PRESENT, NO EX PARTE.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK STAFF NOT TO GIVE OUT MY EMAIL
OR PHONE NUMBER.
I DON'T WANT TO BE CONTACTED BY APPLICANTS AND I HAD
SOMEONE TRY TO CONTACT ME.
>> WE DON'T, BUT I WILL MAKE SURE.
>> SOMEHOW THEY GOT IT AND I DON'T APPRECIATE IT.
>> BOARD MEMBER TERESA CLARKE?
451 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2489 of 6596
>> I GOT AN EMAIL FROM, I THINK IT WAS JASON OBERMAN
ABOUT 2190.
>> THANK YOU.
VICE CHAIR PINKSTON?
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: PRESENT, AND I TOO RECEIVED
A PHONE CALL AND EMAIL FROM THE APPLICANT AND JASON OBER MAN,
2190 SHATTUCK.
THEY WANTED TO BRIEF ME, I SAID I READ MY PACKET AND
DIDN'T NEED A BRIEFING.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE VISUAL SIMULATIONS AND THE LACK OF
DRONE PHOTOGRAPHY.
>> GREAT, THANK YOU.
>> CAN I ADD SOMETHING?
>> SURE.
>> FOR THE RECORD, I DID, JASON, SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN
TO BLOW YOU OFF I JUST PREFER NO EX PARTE COMMUNICATION.
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, SAME FOR ME.
>> FOR THE RECORD, SAME FOR ME, I DON'T THINK THAT HAS
TO BE DISCLOSED.
>> I DIDN'T RESPOND.
>> IT'S NOT A COMMUNICATION.
>> THERE'S NO REAL COMMUNICATION.
IT'S JUST CAN WE TALK AND I DIDN'T RESPOND.
>> Chair I. Tregub: ONE WAY COMMUNICATION.
>> I FIGURE IT DOESN'T HURT TO SAY IT.
452 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2490 of 6596
I'M NOT FILLING OUT THE FORM.
>> CHAIR TREGUB?
>> Chair I. Tregub: PRESENT AND I DID HAVE A
DISCUSSION WITH JASON AND DON PETERSON ABOUT 2190 SHATTUCK ABOUT
THE DRAFT E.I.R.
SO NOW WE ARE GOING TO MOVE ONTO -- I ACTUALLY
HAVEN'T RECEIVED ANY SPEAKER CARDS ON ANYTHING YET.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON
ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA?
SEEING NONE, WE WILL MOVE DIRECTLY TO THE AGENDA.
WE HAVE A CONSENT CALENDAR RIGHT NOW.
COMPRISING OF ACTION MINUTES FROM AUGUST 24th.
AND 1680 SCHWARTZ STREET.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WISHING TO PULL ANYTHING FROM
CONSENT OR AMEND ANYTHING?
ARE THERE ANY MOTIONS TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR?
>> J. Selawsky: I WILL MOVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
>> SECOND.
>> Chair I. Tregub: SECONDED BY CHARLES.
FOR FORMALITY I WILL ASK STAFF TO PLEASE CALL THE
ROLL.
>> HAPPY TO.
TERESA CLARKE?
>> Chair I. Tregub: 1680 SCHWARTZ STREET.
453 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2491 of 6596
>> BOARD MEMBER OLSON?
>> YES.
>> BOARD MEMBER KAHN.
>> YES.
>> SELAWSKY?
>> YES.
>> O'KEEFE?
>> YES.
>> SHEAHAN.
>> YES.
>> AND BOARD MEMBER BRAZILE CLARK.
>> YES.
>> VICE CHAIR PINKSTON?
>> YES.
>> AND CHAIR TREGUB.
>> Chair I. Tregub: YES.
THANK YOU.
MINUTES ARE APPROVED AND 1680 SCHWARTZ STREET YOU HAVE
YOUR USE PERMIT, IT'S APPEALABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ONTO A PRESENTATION BY STAFF ON THE
DENSITY BONUS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE STEPHEN BUCKLEY WHO IS
OUR PLANNING MANAGER.
I DON'T KNOW IF HE HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF THE ZAB IN THE
PAST SIX MONTHS.
454 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2492 of 6596
>> Chair I. Tregub: WELCOME.
>> THANK YOU.
I'VE BEEN HERE ABOUT SIX MONTHS, I THINK ONCE BEFORE,
AND I WAS IN FRONT OF MOST OF YOU THEN AND I HOPE TO MAKE THIS
AT LEAST A SEMI-ANNUAL EVENT, IF NOT MORE OFTEN.
I'M HERE THIS EVENING TO DISCUSS WITH YOU SOMETHING
THAT YOU ARE ALL PROBABLY FAIRLY FAMILIAR WITH IN TERMS OF
DENSITY BONUS BUT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS UNDERTAKING A
VARIETY OF ZONING CODE UPDATES.
WE ARE CALLING IT THE ZORP.
THE ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW PROJECT.
AND IN THAT, THERE'S A WHOLE LOT OF TECHNICAL THINGS.
CLARITY THINGS.
REORGANIZATION, TO MAKE IT MORE FUNCTIONAL.
AND THEN THERE ARE TOPICAL AREAS THAT ARE A LITTLE
MORE COMPLICATED AND THIS IS ONE OF THEM.
I WANTED TO COME AROUND AND JUST RUN THIS BY YOU.
AS CONTEXT, I ALSO PRESENTED THE SAME MATERIAL TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION LAST WEEK.
SO WE ARE HOPING THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A
LITTLE DISCUSSION OF ISSUES YOU EXPERIENCE WHEN YOU ARE DEALING
WITH DENSITY PROJECTS AND WE WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE SOME OF THOSE
ISSUES AND LOOK FORWARD TO A POSSIBLE REVISIONS THAT WOULD
CLARIFY SOME OF OUR PROCEDURES.
455 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2493 of 6596
ALSO JUST IN LIGHT OF ONGOING STATE LAW REVISIONS,
JANUARY 1ST, 2017, THERE WERE REVISIONS THAT TOOK EFFECT AND
EVERYONE HAD TO SCRAMBLE AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY MEANT.
STATE WIDE WE SEE THAT WITH ACCESSORY UNITS, DENSITY
BONUS, EVERYTHING IN FLUX EVERY YEAR.
I WILL RUN THROUGH A FEW OF THOSE THINGS AND WE CAN
HAVE A CONVERSATION AND LOOK AT WHAT COMES NEXT.
OKAY, SO.
IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE, AS I MENTIONED, 6515 DISCUSSES
DENSITY BONUS LAW.
IT'S STATE WIDE, IT'S A MANDATE, EVERY CITY AND COUNTY
AND EVEN SAN FRANCISCO AS A CITY AND COUNTY MUST FOLLOW THIS
LAW.
SO WITH THAT CONTEXT, WE ALSO GET TO CONSIDER A LOCAL
LAW THAT BUILDS UPON THAT, THAT'S PART OF THE CONVERSATION HERE,
WE DON'T HAVE A LOCAL LAW HERE NOW.
WE HAVE A PARAGRAPH THAT BASICALLY SAYS WE INTEND TO
FOLLOW STATE LAW.
WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE ARE OBLIGED TO DO BUT TAKING IT
BEYOND THAT, WE SEE SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO BE CLEARER ABOUT THE
LOCAL PRACTICES AND LOCAL ENHANCEMENTS TO A STATE LAW.
SO BASICALLY GOVERNMENT CODE 65915 SAID IT'S THE
INCLUSIONARY OR LOWER-INCOME UNITS INCLUDED IN A PROJECT AT THE
DEVELOPER'S DISCRETION, WHICH THEN ENABLES THEM TO ASK FOR A
DENSITY BONUS, CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS.
456 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2494 of 6596
SO THE DENSITY BONUS IS AUTOMATIC.
IT'S A FORMULAIC THING.
THE WAY THE DENSITY BONUS WORKS, -- NEXT
SLIDE -- THERE'S A PROPORTIONAL INCREASE IN DENSITY TO THE
BASE PROJECT SO THAT YOU TAKE WHAT IS OTHERWISE ALLOWABLE IN A
TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT YOU MIGHT SAY YOU HAVE A
CAPACITY FOR SIX UNITS ON A PROPERTY.
YOU TAKE A PROPORTIONAL INCREASE OF THAT BASED ON THE
NUMBER OF INCLUSIONARY UNITS SAY THEY INCLUDE ONE AFFORDABLE
UNIT, THAT MEANS THEY GET TWO OR THREE BONUS UNITS.
DEPENDING ON THE LEVEL OF AFFORDABILITY.
MANY DISTRICTS DON'T HAVE THOSE DENSITY STANDARDS.
SO WE BACK INTO A DENSITY THAT IS KIND OF AT THE
DEVELOPER'S DISCRETION, REALLY.
WHAT WE HAVE ARE SETBACKS AND HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA
RATIO BUT WE DON'T HAVE UNITS.
WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN REPEATEDLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE
PROJECTS IS WE KIND OF GO, WELL, YOU KNOW THIS IS KIND OF THE
BOX AND THIS IS KIND OF THE SIZE OF THE UNITS AND WE ARE GOING
TO SAY IT'S SOMETHING LIKE 20 UNITS.
THAT'S WHAT THE DEVELOPER WANTS.
WE COME UP WITH A NUMBER THAT MAKES SENSE AND THEN WE
DO MATH TO SEE HOW MUCH IS THE BONUS ON TOP OF THOSE UNITS.
AND IN BERKELEY, THE DENSITIES THAT WE HAVE GIVEN
THOSE CONSTRAINTS ARE PRETTY LOW, ACTUALLY.
457 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2495 of 6596
IN TERMS OF THE SETBACKS, THE COVERAGE, THE HEIGHT AND
SO THIS IS THE BASE PROJECT, YOU LOOK AT SETBACKS AND HEIGHT AND
FLOOR AREA RATIO.
AND THEN WE LOOK AT THE DENSITY BONUS RATIO, THAT'S
THE 35% BONUS.
THEN THEY GET THE CONCESSIONS AND THE WAIVERS AND
THOSE ARE THINGS THAT HELP THEM GET EVEN MORE, SO IT'S NOT JUST
UNITS, BUT IT'S ALSO MORE FLOOR AREA, LOWER SETBACKS, TALLER
BUILDINGS AND SO THOSE ARE THINGS THAT, AS CONCESSIONS THEY ARE
ENTITLED TO ASK FOR AND GET, AND AS WAIVERS WE ARE ABLE TO
NEGOTIATE.
AND I'LL GET INTO MORE DETAIL ON THAT NEXT.
SO THE BASE PROJECT, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE A SITE AND
IT'S BOUNDARIES.
NEXT.
YOU LOOK AT THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
YOU DEFINE A BOX.
AND IT'S BASICALLY THE OTHER COMPONENT OF THE BASIC
BOX IS ONE USE PERMIT.
SO IT'S BASICALLY WHAT YOU CAN DO WITHOUT ASKING FOR
ANYTHING SPECIAL.
SO THAT IS YOUR BASE PROJECT.
IT INCLUDES HEIGHT, OPEN SPACE, PARKING.
SETBACKS.
>> Chair I. Tregub: EXCUSE ME.
458 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2496 of 6596
I THINK THERE ARE SOME QUESTIONS.
>> I MIGHT FORGET IT.
CAN YOU GO BACK A SLIDE?
SO WHO DETERMINED THE SECOND BULLET POINT REQUIRES ONLY ONE USE
PERMIT?
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY DECIDED?
>> YEAH, SO, WHEN WE SAY BASE PROJECT.
WE HAVE -- WE HAD TO COME UP WITH LOCAL PROCEDURES.
AND A FUNDAMENTAL ONE IS A BASE PROJECT IS ONE USE
PERMIT BECAUSE ANY NEW BUILDING REQUIRES A USE PERMIT, SO THAT'S
THE ONE THAT YOU GET.
BUT OTHER USE PERMITS ARE POSSIBLE FOR SETBACKS,
HEIGHT, PARKING REDUCTIONS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE THAT THE NEGOTIATION POINT AS
PART OF THE WAIVERS AND CONCESSIONS RATHER THAN A BASE PROJECT
BECAUSE THEN WE ARE ALREADY GIVING THINGS AWAY BEFORE WE HAVE
STARTED TALKING ABOUT DENSITY BONUS NEGOTIATIONS.
>> THEN YOU GET LESS AFFORDABLE UNITS.
>> THAT'S THE DILEMMA.
THAT'S WHY WE ARE BRINGING THIS TO YOU.
THE THRESHOLD TO GET THE QUALIFYING UNITS, SAY 20% OF
THE PROJECT, TO GET THE DENSITY BONUS UNITS AT 35% OF THE
PROJECT, THOSE ARE STILL SMALL NUMBERS.
AND SO IT DOESN'T REALLY WORK IN BERKELEY.
SO WE ARE GETTING THERE.
459 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2497 of 6596
SO, GO AHEAD.
WE LOOK AT THE FLOOR AREA --
>> J. Selawsky: CAN I ASK, ARE YOU GOING TO RETURN TO
CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS IN MORE DETAIL.
>> YES.
>> Chair I. Tregub: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK IF POSSIBLE TO
LET STEVE RUN THROUGH THE PRESENTATION AND ASK QUESTIONS AT THE
END.
>> THAT'S FINE, I APPRECIATE KNOWING WHERE THE
STICKING POINTS ARE.
WE WILL JUST RUN THROUGH THIS.
WE DO THE FLOOR AREA, WE LOOK AT RESIDENTIAL VERSUS
COMMERCIAL.
WE ONLY COUNT THE RESIDENTIAL WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT
THE UNITS.
WE COME UP WITH SOME GROSS FLOOR AREAS, IN THIS CASE
AS AN EXAMPLE, 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESIDENTIAL, AVERAGE UNIT
SIZE OF 1,000 GIVES YOU 20 UNITS FOR YOUR BASE PROJECT.
IN THIS DRAWING, THE GREEN AND THE PURPLE ARE THE BASE
PROJECT.
THE BASE PROJECT, THE PURPLE ARE THEN THE QUALIFYING
UNITS.
SO IF YOU HAVE 20 UNITS, AND YOU PROVIDE 20%
AFFORDABLE, THOSE ARE THE FOUR PURPLE, YOU STILL HAVE THE
REMAINING GREEN AS MARKET RATE.
460 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2498 of 6596
IN RETURN FOR THOSE FOUR PURPLE, THEY GET SEVEN MORE
MARKET RATE UNITS, THOSE ARE THE YELLOW.
SO YOU HAVE A TOTAL PROJECT OF 27, AND FOUR OF THEM
ARE AFFORDABLE.
AND THIS IS A PRETTY COMMON BASE PROJECT ABOUT THIS
SCALE.
SO WE ARE GETTING FOUR, WE ARE GIVING SEVEN.
THOSE FOUR ARE RESTRICTED FOR 55 YEARS AT AN
AFFORDABLE LEVEL, INCOME RESTRICTED AND RENT RESTRICTED OR SALE
RESTRICTED.
SO FAIRLY ONEROUS BUT SMALL NUMBERS OF UNITS.
AND THE REST IS MARKET RATE.
AND SO THEY STACK UP, THE PROBLEM IS THEY STACK THOSE
INTO THE PROJECT, SO THE DENSITY BONUS CONCESSION IS, OH, WELL,
THEY ARE GOING TO GO TALLER BECAUSE, TO GET THOSE UNITS, THE
BASE PROJECT ALREADY FILLS THE ENVELOPE THEY ARE ALLOWED.
THAT'S BY DEFINITION.
SO THE DENSITY BONUS UNITS ARE ON TOP.
AND THEY TYPICALLY GO ABOVE BECAUSE THOSE ARE MORE
VALUABLE UNITS WHEN THEY GO TALLER.
SO THEY BASICALLY ASK FOR THOSE THINGS NECESSARY TO
ACCOMMODATE THE BASE PROJECT AND THOSE BONUS UNITS.
WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM SOMETHING THAT MAKES THAT
POSSIBLE.
THEY INCLUDE FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS.
461 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2499 of 6596
IT'S LIKE I ALSO NEED REDUCED PARKING, BECAUSE PARKING
IS EXPENSIVE TO BUILD.
THEY CAN ASK FOR REDUCED FEES BUT THEY GENERALLY
DON'T, BECAUSE THAT'S HARDER TO GET, OR TO EXPECT TO GET.
IT HAS TO BE PROPORTIONAL.
IF WE GIVE THEM THE HEIGHT AND REDUCED PARKING, AT
THAT POINT THERE'S NOTHING LEFT THEY CAN ASK FOR IN TERMS OF
FEES BECAUSE WE HAVE GIVEN THEM ENOUGH THAT'S PROPORTIONAL TO
THE BONUS.
WHEREAS WAIVERS AND REDUCTIONS ARE THEN PHYSICAL
THINGS.
SO RATHER THAN AIMED AT MAKING THINGS FINANCIALLY
FEASIBLE AND JUST THE DENSITY BONUS, THERE ARE ALSO OTHER THINGS
THAT MIGHT MAKE THE PROJECT BETTER.
SO REDUCED YARDS.
AGAIN, MORE HEIGHT, LESS OPEN SPACE, THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THERE'S EVEN MORE PHYSICAL THINGS THEY CAN ASK FOR
AND WE HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO SAY NO TO THOSE THINGS THAT ARE
KIND OF ICING ON THE CAKE THAT MAKE THE PROJECT BETTER BUT MAYBE
NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
THIS GRAPHIC IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE EVEN MORE BUILDING
BLOCKS SHOWING THE SETBACKS.
I THINK YOU GET THE IDEA.
YOU HAVE SEEN THESE BEFORE.
462 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2500 of 6596
SO GIVEN THAT CONTEXT, WHAT WE SEE AS ISSUES, OR
OPPORTUNITIES.
WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT DENSITY BONUS PROJECTS WE SEE
THE BASE PROJECT IS PRETTY SMALL.
THE QUALIFYING UNITS THAT WE GET ARE VERY FEW AND THE
PROJECTS END UP ASKING FOR OTHER WAYS OF GETTING MORE.
AND SO, IN BERKELEY YOU HAVE WHAT I'M DESCRIBING OTHER
USE PERMITS.
YOU CAN ASK FOR A USE PERMIT TO REDUCE SETBACKS, AND
TO GO TALLER.
WHAT HAPPENS IS DENSITY BONUS IS PRETTY MUCH
AUTOMATIC.
IF THE DEVELOPER PROVIDES THE QUALIFYING UNITS WE HAVE
TO GIVE THEM THE BONUS AND WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM THE CONCESSIONS,
WHEREAS USE PERMITS ARE DISCRETIONARY, SO YOU HAVE MORE CHANCE
TO SAY NO TO THOSE.
THOSE TEND TO BE WHERE THE DEVELOPER PILES ON MORE
UNITS, BECAUSE THEY CAN.
IN BERKELEY THERE'S MORE USE PERMITS YOU CAN STACK ON
TOP OF USE PERMITS AND SO THOSE USE PERMITS DON'T REQUIRE
AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THERE'S SORT OF A PUSH AND PULL.
BECAUSE WE HAVE AN INCLUSIONARY HOUSING ORDINANCE THAT
IS SEPARATE FROM DENSITY BONUS.
463 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2501 of 6596
WE REQUIRE 20% AFFORDABLE BUT YOU CAN ALSO PAY A FEE
TO BUY OUT OF THOSE.
AND WE HAVE TO DOUBLE COUNT DENSITY BONUS UNITS FOR
OUR INCLUSIONARY UNITS.
BY STATE LAW.
SO WE ARE IN THIS DILEMMA WHERE WE ARE GIVING MORE AND
MORE FOR LESS AND LESS.
AND SO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS FIND WAYS TO
ENCOURAGE APPLICANTS TO GIVE US MORE DENSITY BONUS UNITS TO USE
DENSITY BONUS MORE AND USE PERMITS LESS AND TO MAKE THAT
ATTRACTIVE WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THOSE TRADE OFFS WOULD BE
FOR THOSE UNITS.
SO BONUSES ABOVE 35% ARE REALLY KIND OF THE NEXT WAVE.
IN EMERYVILLE, SAN FRANCISCO AND OTHER PLACES HAVE
BONUSES THAT GO BEYOND 35%.
BECAUSE THAT'S USUALLY THE STATE LAW MAXIMUM.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN HOW WE
SET UP THE RATIOS AND WHAT THE CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS MIGHT BE.
THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE HEADED.
INSTEAD OF THE USE PERMITS THAT PILE ON TOP, WE
INSTEAD WOULD HAVE DENSITY BONUS THAT WOULD INCREMENTALLY ADD
MORE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL.
IF WE GIVE MORE DENSITY BONUS, WHAT DO WE GET AS A
CITY?
464 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2502 of 6596
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WE TALKED ABOUT WAS THE BASE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THEY ARE STILL KIND OF NEBULOUS.
SO WE HAVE A WRITTEN PROCEDURE THAT TALKS ABOUT HOW TO
DEFINE A BASE PROJECT.
WHAT'S INCLUDED AND WHAT'S EXCLUDED.
AND IT'S BEEN USED FOR, AT LEAST A DECADE, I WOULD
SAY.
BUT IT HASN'T BEEN CODIFIED.
SO WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT WRITING IT INTO THE CODE AS
A DEFINITION OF BASE PROJECTS SO THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS RIGHT UP
FRONT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
THE OVERLAP OF INCLUSIONARY HOUSING WHERE WE HAVE
LOCAL RULES THAT SAY IF YOU ARE DOING FOR SALE HOUSING, YOU ALSO
HAVE TO INCLUDE AFFORDABLE UNITS BUT THEY ARE DOUBLE COUNTED FOR
DENSITY BONUS.
HOW CAN WE PULL THOSE APART AND TRY TO GET, AGAIN,
MORE.
WHICH WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THOSE ORDINANCES.
SO THAT'S MY BASIC INTRODUCTION.
I'M HAPPY TO FIELD QUESTIONS AND AS I SAID, HAVE A
CONVERSATION WITH YOU.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
465 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2503 of 6596
AND ON A PERSONAL NOTE, I THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY
REFRESHING THE WAY YOU DESCRIBED IT, SO THANK YOU FOR THAT.
JOHN AND THEN SHOSHANA.
>> J. Selawsky: THANK YOU.
BASICALLY I WILL ASK WHAT THE PROCESS IS FOR THIS.
I HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS IN A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT
PLACES.
SO IT WILL GO THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSION, IT WILL
GO THROUGH CITY COUNCIL AND THERE WILL BE SOME CHANGES, IS THAT
CORRECT?
BUT AS IGOR STATED, I JUST WANT TO SAY, I HAVE NEVER
HEARD ANYBODY IN PLANNING SAY WE ARE GIVING MORE AND MORE AND
GETTING LESS AND LESS.
THAT WAS VERY REFRESHING, THANK YOU.
I APPRECIATE THAT.
BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN MY SENSE FOR, I DON'T KNOW HOW
LONG.
BUT AGAIN, THE PROCESS.
CAN YOU JUST RUN THROUGH WHO IS GOING TO DO WHAT AND
WHERE IT'S GOING TO END UP?
>> SURE.
AS YOU SAID, I WENT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THEY ARE THE ADVISORY BODY TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
FOR ORDINANCES.
466 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2504 of 6596
I WILL BE TALKING TO YOU FOLKS, MAYBE DESIGN REVIEW,
TO GET THEIR VIEW WHEN THEY ARE TRYING TO APPLY OUR LOCAL
PRACTICES.
AND WE HAVE BEGUN DRAFTING SOME REVISIONS.
WE ARE IN THE LEGAL REVIEW STAGE AT THIS POINT.
TRYING TO MAKE SURE WHAT THE PLANNERS ALL CREATIVELY
CAME UP WITH WOULD ACTUALLY WORK UNDER THE LAW.
AND IN PARTICULAR, THE FEE IDEA AND HOW WOULD YOU SET
A FEE?
AND HOW WOULD YOU SORT OF UNDUE THE USE PERMIT OPTION.
SO THOSE ARE BIG TICKET, LEGAL AND COMMUNITY ISSUES WE
WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO SOME OUTREACH ON.
SO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WOULD THEN MAKE THEIR
RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL.
WE ARE HOPING TO AT LEAST GET IN FRONT OF COUNCIL BY
MAYBE BY THE END OF THE YEAR WITH SOMETHING.
PROBABLY NOT EVERYTHING.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THE CALENDAR YEAR, NOT THE FISCAL
YEAR, RIGHT?
>> I WILL LEAVE THAT OPEN.
>> Chair I. Tregub: SHOSHANA.
>> I WANT TO USE THAT ONE.
IT SOUNDED LIKE FROM YOUR PRESENTATION THERE'S NO
NEXUS REQUIRED BETWEEN A WAIVER AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY?
IS THAT TRUE?
467 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2505 of 6596
OR IS THERE A NEXUS STILL REQUIRED FOR THE WAIVERS.
IS THIS SOMETHING THEY WANT OR DO THEY HAVE TO HAVE A
GOOD REASON?
>> YOU KNOW, THE WAY THE LAW HAS EVOLVED, IT IS
CONFUSING BECAUSE THE CONCESSIONS ARE ABOUT REAL IDENTIFIABLE
COST SAVINGS AND THE WAIVERS ARE ABOUT SORT OF REAL IDENTIFIABLE
FEASIBILITY.
WELL, OKAY, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE THOSE AS TWO
DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE THEY ARE WRITTEN AS TWO DIFFERENT
SECTIONS.
SO WE INTERPRET THE FIRST AS MOSTLY FINANCIAL AND THE
SECOND IS MOSTLY PHYSICAL.
YOU GET 1, 2 OR 3 DEPENDING HOW MANY UNITS YOU
INCLUDE.
WHEREAS THE WAIVERS ARE MORE, LIKE I SAID,
DISCRETIONARY.
THEY ARE MORE LIKELY A USE PERMIT WAIVER OF A
DEVELOPMENT STANDARD.
>> SO IF WE WERE TO, MAYBE THIS IS TOO BROAD OF A
QUESTION FOR YOU TO ANSWER BUT IF WE WERE TO DENY A WAIVER, THAT
AN APPLICANT WAS ASKING FOR, WHAT TYPE OF FINDING WOULD THEY
HAVE TO MAKE?
>> I SEE WHERE YOU ARE GOING.
468 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2506 of 6596
THE NEXUS AND THE DISCRETION IS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SAY
IT HAS AN IDENTIFIABLE PHYSICAL IMPACT THAT JUSTIFIES ITS
DENIAL.
SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE WHEN YOU SAY THIS PROJECT HAS
UNREASONABLE SHADOW IMPACTS.
YOU CAN SAY THAT WAIVER HAS AN UNREASONABLE PRIVACY
IMPACT.
THAT'S WHERE THE NEGOTIATION STARTS.
YOU CAN SAY WHERE DOES THAT IMPACT BECOME ACCEPTABLE.
>> YOU AUTOMATICALLY GET THE WAIVERS, YOU GET AT LEAST
TWO?
THE ONE THAT JUST WENT IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR ANYWAY.
THEN THE OTHER TWO ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY AND THEY ARE
RELATED TO A REDUCED COST.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEW LANGUAGE IN THE LATEST
VERSION PASSED BY THE STATE.
SO YOU GET TWO AUTOMATICALLY AND THEN THE OTHER ONE'S
YOU ARE ASKING FOR HAVE TO REDUCE COST AND THOSE ARE MORE
DISCRETIONARY.
THAT'S HOW I READ IT WHEN I'VE DONE THIS.
BUT MY MAIN QUESTION FOR THE CITY IS WE MADE THE
DETERMINATION ON WHAT A BASE PROJECT IS.
AND TO ME, IF YOU ARE ASKING FOR A USE PERMIT TO
INCREASE THE SIZE OF YOUR PROJECT, THAT IS THE NEW BASE PROJECT.
469 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2507 of 6596
AND THEN THE NUMBER OF UNITS YOU CAN GET UNDER THAT
SHOULD BE THE NEW BASE PROJECT.
SO IF YOU ARE ADDING -- SO THAT IS UNDER OUR
DISCRETION.
I'M NOT SURE WHO MADE THE DECISION AND WHY THEY MADE
THAT TO MAKE THE BASE PROJECT SO SMALL.
SO WHAT I FEEL THEY DID, IF YOU ARE GIVING THEM A USE
PERMIT FOR ADDED HEIGHT, SEPARATE FROM ALL THE CONCESSIONS AND
WAIVERS AND ALL THAT, AND THEN YOU ARE GIVING THEM ANOTHER, THAT
SHOULD THEN HAVE THE BASE, SHOULD BECOME PART OF THE BASE
PROJECT AND YOU SHOULD APPLY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, DENSITY
BONUS TO THAT AS WELL.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE DISCRETION.
I'M NOT SURE WHO AND WHEN THAT DECISION WAS MADE AND
HOW IT'S CODIFIED RIGHT NOW.
THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD BE VERY INTERESTED IN
UNDERSTANDING BETTER.
I THINK THAT'S THE CRUX OF THE PROBLEM WITH OUR
SYSTEM, SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A NUMERICAL DENSITY TO IT.
>> I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.
IF WE HAD A LARGER BASE PROJECT WE WOULD GET MORE
QUALIFYING UNITS UP FRONT TO JUSTIFY THE DENSITY BONUS.
THE PROBLEM IS THEN, IF YOU MAX OUT THE USE PERMIT
PROVISIONS, FIRST, AND THEN YOU APPLY 35% DENSITY BONUS, YOU ARE
GOING TO HAVE, THAT IS THEN A MUCH LARGER PROJECT.
470 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2508 of 6596
>> T. Clarke: BUT YOU GET MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS.
THAT'S REALLY THE INTENT OF THE DENSITY BONUS IS TO
TAKE WHAT YOU CAN BUILD ON THAT SITE AND THEN INCREASE IT ABOVE
THE STANDARDS.
AND SO IF YOU ARE ALLOWING UNDER A USE PERMIT TO
INCREASE THE HEIGHT, OR REDUCE THE PARKING OR WHATEVER TO MAKE
MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTIAL, I MEAN THAT'S THE
REAL -- THE INTENT WAS TO ALLOW THAT.
WE AREN'T ASKING, USE PERMIT ISN'T A VARIANCE.
ALLOWING WHATEVER WE HAVE UNDER THE USE PERMIT I THINK
SHOULD BECOME PART OF THE BASE PROJECT.
IF, FOR INSTANCE, THE PROJECT AT ADELINE WHERE PEOPLE
ADDED -- THE DEVELOPER ADDED USE PERMITS ON TOP AFTER THE BASE
PROJECT WAS DONE.
THEN THEY ADDED ANOTHER USE PERMIT ON TOP OF THAT AND
GOT MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE, MORE UNITS, NOW IT'S PART OF THE BASE
PROJECT, THE PERCENTAGE SHOULD BE APPLYING TO THAT, IN MY
OPINION.
I THINK WE CAN DO THAT NOW.
I'M NOT SURE WHY THE CITY DOESN'T THINK THAT.
OR THE PEOPLE WHO MADE THE RULES UP DON'T THINK THAT.
SO THAT'S WHERE I WOULD WANT THE CITY TO PROVIDE SOME
RATIONALE.
BECAUSE TO ME, THAT'S OUR PROBLEM.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
471 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2509 of 6596
>> Chair I. Tregub: TERESA, WHEN YOU WERE REFERENCING
THE NEW STATE DENSITY BONUS LAW, IS THAT FROM THIS YEAR?
>> T. Clarke: YEAH, IT JUST WENT INTO EFFECT JANUARY
1st, 2017.
SO THERE'S NEW PROVISIONS BEING IMPLEMENTED.
THAT'S PROBABLY WHY THE CITY IS TRYING TO SCRAMBLE.
THEY ARE MAKING IT EASIER FOR DEVELOPERS TO TAKE
ADVANTAGE OF IT AND BUILD MORE HOUSING.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
IT MIGHT BE INTERESTING TO SEE, AS YOU WERE GOING
THROUGH THE SLIDES TO ADD AN IMPACT ANALYSIS CONTRASTING WHAT
EXISTED BEFORE THIS YEAR AND WHAT EXISTS NOW WITH THE STATE
DENSITY BONUS LAW.
WE WILL JUST GO DOWN THE ROW.
>> SO 20 YEARS OF DOING LAND USE LAW, I'VE SEEN A LOT
OF DIFFERENT WAYS OF HAVING THE DENSITY BONUS DESCRIBED TO ME.
THE CRAZIEST OF ALL WAS PROBABLY SHATTUCK AT DELAWARE,
THE TWO DIFFERENT SIDES OF THE STREET, ONE BUILDING ENDED UP
WITH 85-ISH UNITS, THE OTHER WITH LIKE THREE DOZEN BECAUSE THE
FIRST PROJECT USED UP ALL THE AVAILABLE UNITS THAT COULD BE
BUILT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I LOOK FORWARD TO THIS PROCESS AND HAVING SOME
SURETY IN THE OUT COMES.
IT PROBABLY DOESN'T MEAN STARTING FROM SCRATCH BECAUSE
OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE THIS.
472 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2510 of 6596
SO MAYBE BERKELEY CAN LEARN FROM THEM.
FROM MY 14 YEARS ON DESIGN REVIEW, MY PET PEEVES IS WE
HEAR THE PITCH FOR A PROJECT AND HOW MANY AFFORDABLE UNITS THEY
ARE GOING TO BUILD AND THE PROJECT ENDS UP GETTING SOLD AND
INSTEAD OF BEING SENIOR HOUSING, IT'S MARKET-RATE HOUSING.
WE NEED TO HAVE SURETY IN THE PROCESS THAT WE WILL GET
THE AFFORDABLE UNITS WE ARE PROMISED.
AND THAT GOES FOR U.C. LEASING AN ENTIRE BUILDING
GROUND FLOOR TO ROOF.
BECAUSE I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU DO THEN, BUT
PLEASE, PLEASE, BUILD IT IN SO WE ACTUALLY GET THOSE UNITS.
I'M ASSUMING THIS WON'T AFFECT NEIGHBORHOODS.
THEY WILL STILL BE SAVED FROM INCREASED DENSITY.
THESE WILL BE IN OUR IDENTIFIED TRAFFIC CORRIDORS.
IS THAT WHAT THE PLAN STILL IS?
>> WELL, DENSITY BONUS APPLIES EVERYWHERE.
SO IT DEPENDS ON WHAT A BASE PROPERTY CAN ACCOMMODATE.
>> C. Olson: BUT IT'S STILL OVER FOUR UNITS?
>> YEAH, THAT'S HOW THE MATH WORKS.
BECAUSE YOU ARE USUALLY DOING 20%.
>> C. Olson: I UNDERSTAND, IT'S JUST THAT WE ARE
SEEING A LOT OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES BROKEN DOWN INTO SMALLER
UNITS.
YOU ARE BEING VERY GENEROUS WHEN YOU SAY 1,000 SQUARE
FEET.
473 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2511 of 6596
BECAUSE I HAVEN'T SEEN 1,000 SQUARE FEET IN ABOUT 15
YEARS.
>> I UNDERSTAND.
I WAS GOING TO COMMENT THAT WAS A GENERIC CALCULATION
JUST FOR THE EASE OF MATH
>> C. Olson: I APPRECIATE THAT.
ANYHOW, I THINK IF WE HAVE CLARITY ABOUT WHAT'S
DISCRETION, VERSUS BY RIGHT, IT WILL HELP ALL OF US TO MAKE
BETTER DECISIONS.
BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE AN ABILITY TO FIND DETRIMENT
BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME PROJECTS THAT STILL HAVE DETRIMENT.
AND I'M THINKING OF 2701 SHATTUCK FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO
HAVE BEEN PART OF THAT.
WHICH YOU MIGHT LOOK UP WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED THERE AND
WHY IT'S BEEN DENIED.
IT'S HARD TO DO THIS STUFF.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
>> MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAIVERS IS CONSISTENT WITH
TERESA'S SO IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO THAT AND MAYBE REPORT BACK TO
US.
PARTICULARLY WHERE HEIGHT IS CONCERNED, IF THE
ONLY -- YOU SAID THAT DEVELOPERS WANT TO GO UP BECAUSE THEY
GET BETTER VIEWS.
474 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2512 of 6596
IF THE SITE CONSTRAINTS ARE SUCH THAT YOU CAN'T GO
OUT, I PRESUME YOU AREN'T GOING TO DIG INTO THE GROUND AND HAVE
BASEMENT UNITS.
THERE ARE SITUATIONS WHERE PHYSICALLY, THE ONLY WAY TO
PROVIDE THE 35% OR WHATEVER PERCENTAGE IS ASKED FOR IS BY GOING
UP.
AND IF THAT WERE THE CASE, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY,
WE CANNOT DENY THAT ON THE BASIS OF SHADOWS OR VIEWS.
WE MIGHT ASK THAT THE MASSING BE ARRANGED DIFFERENTLY
IF IT CAN BE AND WE HAVE DONE THAT.
TO IMPROVE VIEWS.
BUT WE CAN'T DENY THE UNITS.
AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY?
>> THAT'S GENERALLY TRUE.
>> WE MIGHT ASK THEM TO GO TWO STORIES BUT PUSH IT TO
THE STREET SO THEY DON'T ADVERSELY AFFECT THE NEIGHBOR BEHIND.
IT'S JUST GOOD FOR US TO KNOW WHAT THE PARAMETERS OF
OUR NEGOTIATION ARE.
THANK YOU.
THE OTHER QUESTION IS USE PERMIT VERSUS ADMINISTRATIVE
USE PERMIT.
THE EXAMPLE THAT TERESA QUOTED WAS AN INTERESTING CASE
AND A LITTLE DISTURBING I THINK FOR MANY OF US.
THERE WAS A BASE PROJECT THAT HAD DENSITY UNITS, YOU
KNOW, A FEW.
475 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2513 of 6596
JUST A COUPLE.
LOW-INCOME UNITS APPLIED AND DENSITY BONUS APPLIED AND
THEN THERE WAS AN A.U.P. FOR ADDITIONAL FLOOR ON TOP OF THAT,
THAT DIDN'T HAVE THE UNITS APPLIED.
AND WE ALL WANTED THE UNITS TO BE APPLIED TO THAT BUT
IT'S NOT CLEAR WE HAVE THE LATITUDE TO DEMAND IT.
THE WAY IT'S BEEN CALCULATED NOW ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU
TOLD US.
I'M INTERESTED IN WHO SAID THAT YOU ONLY GET ONE.
IF YOU COULD HAVE, IT SHOULD BE APPLIED, WHATEVER
MARKET RATE UNITS YOU ARE ASKING FOR YOU SHOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE
THE AFFORDABLE UNITS WITH THEM.
THAT SEEMS LIKE, DUH.
IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO FOR DENSITY BONUS.
I THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.
>> I HEAR YOU.
THERE'S A DIFFERENT WAY OF LOOKING AT IT WHEN THESE
PROCEDURES WERE DONE.
WE WANT TO TAP DOWN THE EFFECT OF BONUSES.
BUT I THINK SINCE THEN THERE'S BEEN THIS OTHER
INTERPRETATION ON USE PERMITS THAT THEY CAN BE STACKED ON TOP OF
THE DENSE THE BONUS PROJECT.
>> C. Kahn: SOUNDS LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO BE.
>> THE POLES HAVE SWITCHED.
476 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2514 of 6596
WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO REACH EQUILIBRIUM
AGAIN.
>> C. Kahn: MY HOPE IS THIS DOESN'T REQUIRE AN ACT OF
COUNCIL TO EMPOWER US TO DO THAT.
IT SEEMS IF UNDER THE DENSITY BONUS LAW, IF YOU COULD
SECURE A USE PERMIT FOR MARKET-RATE HOUSING AND YOU MUST PROVIDE
AFFORDABLE UNITS IN ORDER TO GET THE DENSITY BONUS THAT IT IS
WITHIN OUR PREROGATIVE AS THE ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD, TO SAY,
HEY, WHATEVER MARKET RATE UNITS YOU ARE ASKING FOR, YOU BETTER
GIVE US THE AFFORDABLE UNITS FOR ALL OF THEM.
MAYBE YOU NEED TO TALK TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO GET A
CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT POWER, MAYBE I'M WRONG.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
DENISE?
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: THANK YOU FOR DOING THIS.
THIS IS THE MOST COGENT EXPLANATION, NOT FOR LACK OF
TRYING.
THANK YOU.
I THINK A LOT OF WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS GREAT.
DEFINE THE BASE PROJECT CLEARLY.
YES, WE SHOULD HAVE FEWER USE PERMITS THAT STACK AND
MORE DENSITY BONUS UNITS.
HOWEVER YOU FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT.
YOU ARE HEADED INTO THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
477 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2515 of 6596
SO THAT'S A GOOD THING.
I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DEFINE
POPULATION STANDARDS.
IF WE SAID FOR THE PURPOSE OF BERKELEY WE WANT THE
UNIT SIZE THAT FITS IN OUR BASE BOX TO BE SMALLER.
SO IF OUR BASE BOX IS 10,000 SQUARE FEET, IF THAT'S
1,000 SQUARE FOOT UNIT, THAT'S TEN UNITS AS THE BASE PROJECT BUT
500 SQUARE FOOT, THAT'S 20 UNITS IS THE BASE PROJECT WHICH MEANS
WE WOULD GET NUMERICALLY MORE UNITS IF THE VOLUME IS WHAT IS
INCREASES BY 35% AS OPPOSED TO THE UNIT COUNT.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A THING.
BUT WE ARE SEEING VERY FEW THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT UNITS
PARTICULARLY IN MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS BECAUSE PEOPLE CAN'T
AFFORD TO PAY $5,000-$6,000 IN RENT FOR A NEW 1,000-SQUARE FOOT
UNIT.
THERE'S SOME WAY TO DEFINE OUR STANDARDS TO GET MORE
UNITS, WITH THE NEIGHBOR'S EXPERIENCE IS PARTLY THE IMPACT OF
DENSITY BUT A LOT OF IT IS THE IMPACT OF A VISUAL BOX THAT'S
BIGGER THAN WHAT THEY THOUGHT.
SO IF YOUR ZONING BASE IS FOUR STORIES AND YOU GET A
30% INCREASE ABOVE THE BASE OF THE VOLUME OF THE BUILDING,
COULDN'T THAT BE TWICE AS MANY AFFORDABLE UNITS?
IF WE JUST CHANGE THE WAY WE DO THE MATH.
THAT SEEMS A MUCH SIMPLER CHANGE THAN TO SET ZONING
STANDARDS IN EVERY CITY.
478 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2516 of 6596
THAT'S HIGHLY CONTROVERSIAL AND ARGUABLY HEADED AWAY
FROM WHERE HOUSING IS GOING, TO HAVE MORE AFFORDABILITY, YOU
NEED MORE SMALLER UNITS.
IF YOU SET A DENSITY STANDARD THAT IS FEWER PEOPLE PER
ACRE, IT'S MUCH HARDER TO ALLOW MORE DENSITY IN EXISTING IN-FILL
COMMUNITIES WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO HEAD BECAUSE OF
CLIMATE CHANGE.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> IT MAKES SENSE.
WE EXPLORED THAT USING RAW FLOOR AREA RATIO.
LET'S JUST GO WITH THAT, LIKE YOU SAID, A BOX.
IT SORT OF IMPLIES NUMBER OF PEOPLE, NUMBER OF PARKING
SPACES, OPEN SPACE.
SO IT'S POSSIBLE.
WE HAVE STARTED TO EXPLORE THAT AS ONE OPTION.
SO THANK YOU.
>> I THINK WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS WE WANT MORE
AFFORDABLE UNITS AND WE WANT YOU TO GET US THAT.
SO THAT'S A GOOD DIRECTION.
IF BERKELEY DOES ADD PUBLIC BENEFITS OR ADD FEES OR
ADD INCLUSIONARY, ONE THING I WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER DOING IS
ADDING MIDDLE INCOME ON SITE UNITS.
RIGHT NOW THE DENSITY BONUS IS TARGETED FOR THE VERY
LOW END OF THE INCOME SPECTRUM.
WHEN THIS LAW WAS WRITTEN THAT WAS THE NEED.
479 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2517 of 6596
THAT'S BEFORE CONSTRUCTION COSTS HAD GROWN OVER 100%
AND NOW PEOPLE CAN'T AFFORD TO BUILD MIDDLE-INCOME HOUSING.
THERE ARE NO TARGETED AFFORDABILITY PROGRAMS FOR
TEACHERS.
THEY MAKE TOO MUCH MONEY TO QUALIFY AS LOW INCOME AND
DON'T MAKE ENOUGH TO RENT OR BUY A HOME IN THE MARKET.
SO THERE'S AN ACTUAL DIRE NEED IN COMMUNITIES TO HAVE
MORE AFFORDABILITY, AT A HIGHER END OF THE INCOME SPECTRUM THAN
JUST THE VERY LOW, LOW INCOME UNITS WHICH IS REALLY ALL WE GET
IN THE DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM.
SO IF BERKELEY ADDS THINGS TO OUR DENSITY BONUS
PROGRAM, I WOULD ENCOURAGE US TO HOUSE THE MISSING MIDDLE.
PUBLIC SERVANTS, TEACHERS, RESTAURANT WORKERS, PEOPLE
WHO ARE GAINFULLY EMPLOYED WHO DON'T MAKE TOO LITTLE OR DON'T
MAKE ENOUGH.
AND THEN MAYBE WE LOOK AT OTHER CARROTS TO GET MORE OF
WHAT WE WANT WHICH IS MORE ON SITE AFFORDABILITY.
LIKE SPECIAL EXPEDITING, IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN A
CERTAIN AMOUNT OF AFFORDABILITY.
A TRUNCATED PROCESS, WHERE YOU GO TO THE HEAD OF THE
LINE.
SOME WAY FOR US TO GET THE AFFORDABILITY WE WANT BY
OFFERING INCENTIVES FOR PEOPLE TO DO WHAT WE WANT, INCLUDING THE
DENSITY BONUS.
>> THANK YOU.
480 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2518 of 6596
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU, DENISE.
OVER HERE I THINK WE HAVE PATRICK?
>> P. Sheahan: WHAT I FIND THE MOST PUZZLING NUMBER IN
THE EQUATION IS THE 35% MAXIMUM.
THERE WAS REFERENCE MADE TO TAKING THE AVERAGE UNIT
SIZE AS A BASIS FOR CALCULATING THE BONUS.
FRANKLY I GOT LOST IN THE EQUATION.
A PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT CAME THROUGH HERE AND HAD
VERY LARGE UNITS.
A NUMBER OF 3-BEDROOM UNITS.
WHICH OBVIOUSLY THEN, DEPRESSES THE EVENTUAL COUNT OF
AFFORDABLE UNITS BECAUSE THE AVERAGE UNIT SIZE IS LARGE.
IT KIND OF LOOKED LIKE A CYNICALLY CONCEIVED PLAN TO
DO THAT.
THAT SEEMED TO BE THE OUTCOME.
ALSO THE USE PERMIT APPLIES TO HEIGHT AND SETBACKS AND
SO FORTH WERE APPLIED IN A WAY QUITE LARGE EXCESS STRUCTURE AND
I ASKED OR SUGGESTED THE APPLICANT COULDN'T YOU SIMPLY PUT THE
PARKING UNDERGROUND WHICH HAS BEEN DONE ON A NUMBER OF PROJECTS
AND THEREFORE YOU REDUCE THE OVERALL ABOVE GROUND BULK OF THE
BUILDING BUT YOU STILL ACHIEVE YOUR 35% BONUS.
SO WHAT YOU DID DIDN'T APPLY IN THIS CASE.
WHAT POWER DOES PLANNING OR THE ZONING BOARD HAVE TO
NEGOTIATE THAT PLAY?
481 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2519 of 6596
SAY OKAY, YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THIS AND THAT TO
THE SHAPE AND AMASSING THE BULK TO ACCOMMODATE THE BONUS BUT
HERE IS WHAT YOU WILL HAVE TO DO TO GET IT.
HOW DO WE BE INVOLVED BOTH IN SHAPING THE POLICY OR
EVENTUAL FORMULAS THAT ARE APPLIED AND ALSO HOW DO WE HAVE THE
OPPORTUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN SHAPING THE ACTUAL OUTCOME OF THE
PROJECT BECAUSE THEY ARE ALL DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, THE PRESENTATION IS
APPRECIATED, THIS REALLY DOES HELP WITH A BASE UNDERSTANDING OF
THE PROCESS.
A PATH BY WHICH THE BOARD IS INVOLVED, LIAISON TO THE
BOARD, PLANNING, THESE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE DEVELOPERS.
IT SEEMS, PARTICULARLY IN THE CASE I CITED, IT JUST
SEEMED LIKE AN EXCESSIVE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN EXCHANGE
FOR A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF AFFORDABLE UNITS AND A RESULTANT,
WILDLY EXCESSIVE BULK OF HEIGHT IN THE PROJECT AND CONSEQUENTIAL
IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I FOR ONE WOULD VOLUNTEER TO PARTICIPATE AT SUCH A
LEVEL.
BECAUSE THESE COME BACK TO US AND THEN WE ARE TRYING
TO DIG BACK INTO IT AND EFFECT A MORE POSITIVE OUTCOME BUT AT
THAT POINT IT'S DIFFICULT BECAUSE THE PROJECT HAS BEEN MADE AND
DESIGN PRESENTED AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN INVOLVEMENT EARLY ON
THAT IS ACTUALLY MEANINGFUL TO THE ACTUAL OUTCOME.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU, PATRICK.
482 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2520 of 6596
BRAZILE, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING?
>> B. Clark: YES, I HAD A QUESTION.
ON STEP TWO WHERE IT SAYS DEFINE THE DENSITY BONUS
PROJECT, IF WE ARE LOOKING AT THE NEW PROJECT TOTAL 27, WILL
ONLY 2 BE VERY-LOW INCOME OUT OF THAT ENTIRE PROJECT?
>> YEAH.
IF THEY GO FOR THE VERY-LOW.
THE LOW INCOME IS 20% OR FOUR UNITS.
BUT IF THEY GO FOR VERY LOW, THEN IT'S 11% OR 2 UNITS.
>> B. Clark: OKAY, IF THEY GO FOR VERY LOW, THERE'S NO
LANGUAGE TO INCLUDE UNITS FOR LOW INCOME OR MODERATE INCOME AT
THE LOCAL LEVEL?
>> CORRECT.
AT THE LOCAL LEVEL WE DO HAVE A SEPARATE ORDINANCE
THAT REQUIRES 20% LOW INCOME.
SO THERE'S SORT OF A WAY --
>> B. Clark: WHAT WOULD THOSE NUMBERS LOOK LIKE IN THE
PROJECT ILLUSTRATED HERE.
>> 20% IS 10% VERY LOW AND 10% LOW.
THAT'S OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE.
IT'S USUALLY THERE'S A DISCONNECT.
SO THE APPLICANT GETS TO FIGURE OUT HOW THE MATH WORKS
FOR THEM, WHETHER THEY WANT TO TRY TO DO THE 20% INCLUDING VERY
LOW AND LOW FOR BOTH DENSITY BONUS AND LOCAL ORDINANCE OR IF
THEY WANT TO BUY OUT OF SOME OF THOSE OTHER UNITS.
483 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2521 of 6596
>> B. Clark: THEY CAN CHOOSE TO DO TWO VERY LOW INCOME
AND BUY OUT OF THE LOW-INCOME.
>> YES.
>> B. Clark: IS THERE LANGUAGE WE CAN PUT IN TO NOT
ALLOW THAT FOR THE CITY TO CHOOSE AND NOT GIVE THAT OPTION TO
THE DEVELOPER?
>> WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE MORE THAN ONE ORDINANCE TO
DO THAT.
>> B. Clark: OKAY.
>> I MEAN, IT'S POSSIBLE.
WE COULD CHANGE THE PROPORTIONS.
BUT WE ARE TRYING TO FIND THE INCENTIVE THAT WOULD
EITHER GET US ALL THE MONEY SO THAT WE CAN GO AND SPONSOR
TRANSITIONAL HOUSING OF OUR OWN OR ALL THE UNITS SO THERE'S A
CRITICAL MASS.
BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S KIND OF A MIX AND MATCH.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU SO MUCH.
JOHN?
>> J. Selawsky: I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE COMMENTS.
FIRST I LIKE THE COMMENTS OF MY COLLEAGUES, PATRICK,
ALL OF YOU, EVERYBODY.
THANK YOU.
BUT I WILL SPECIFICALLY CITE A COUPLE THINGS DENISE
MENTIONED.
484 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2522 of 6596
FIRST I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH THE NEED FOR
MODERATE INCOME HOUSING AND THAT'S KIND OF NOT ON THE MAP.
SO IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION AND FIGURE
OUT WHERE THAT FITS IN AND HOW THAT FITS IN.
BUT I'M GOING TO TAKE MINOR OBJECTION TO HER LOWER
SQUARE FOOTAGE.
IF WE ARE BUILDING 500 SQUARE FOOT UNITS WE AREN'T
BUILDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR ANY FAMILY I CAN IMAGINE.
AND FAMILY HOUSING IS ON MY LIST OF THINGS WE ARE NOT
BUILDING.
WE ARE NOT PROVIDING.
AFFORDABLE FAMILY HOUSING.
SO I THINK WE HAVE A DEEPER DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT THAT
DOES TO OUR CITY AND WHAT OUR CITY LOOKS LIKE IN 20 YEARS IF WE
HAVE 20 OR 30,000 500-SQUARE FOOT UNITS AND NOTHING ELSE.
SO THAT I JUST WANT TO OBJECT, A MINOR OBJECT BECAUSE
I THINK WE NEED 500 AND 800 SQUARE FOOT HOUSES, WE NEED THAT FOR
FAMILIES WITH 2-3 KIDS OR WE AREN'T GOING TO HAVE FAMILIES IN
BERKELEY.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE NEED DIVERSE AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
IT'S NOT A ONE-SIZE-FITS-ALL.
WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DIVERSITY AND WHAT THE NEEDS
ARE, IF WE ARE GOING TO MAINTAIN A REALLY DIVERSE COMMUNITY.
WHICH INCLUDES FAMILIES OF ALL KINDS.
THANKS.
485 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2523 of 6596
SO WE NEED A DEEPER DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD A COMMENT, IF I COULD.
I KNOW WE HAVE A BIG AGENDA.
I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSCORE WHAT JOHN JUST SAID.
I THINK THAT WE GET SO CAUGHT UP IN COUNTING UNITS WE
FORGET TO COUNT BEDS AND SOMETIMES IF YOU HAVE TWO 4-BEDROOM
UNITS, YOU ARE GETTING 8 BEDS FOR PEOPLE TO REST THEIR HEADS AT
NIGHT THAT THEY CAN AFFORD.
WHEREAS IF YOU HAD THREE 2-BEDROOM UNITS YOU WOULDN'T
HAVE AS MUCH.
AND WE KNOW THAT THE SIZES ARE THE SAME.
THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE AVAILABLE IS EQUIVALENT
BECAUSE ONE KITCHEN TAKES SPACE TOO, AS DOES A DINING AND LIVING
ROOM.
I WANT TO ADD TO JOHN'S COMMENTS.
IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT UNIT COUNT, IT'S REALLY ABOUT BED
COUNT, WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SLEEP AT NIGHT.
AND ALSO I WANT TO ENDORSE BOTH OF MY COLLEAGUES
CONCERNED ABOUT THAT MISSING MIDDLE.
THEY HAVE THAT KIND OF PRESENCE IN THEIR MIX.
WHATEVER WE CAN DO LET'S GET MORE AFFORDABILITY.
>> CAN I CLARIFY WHAT I SAID?
I DIDN'T MEAN WE SHOULD ONLY HAVE 500 SQUARE FOOT
UNITS.
486 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2524 of 6596
I AGREE WITH YOU.
>> [OFF MIC].
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT.
IF WE HAVE FOUR STORY ZONING, GOING TO SIX STORIES IS
THE MAXIMUM TOLERABLE PHYSICAL AREA THEY CAN HANG WITH AND A LOT
OF TIMES THEY CAN'T HANG WITH THAT.
SO IF WE HAVE A SIX-STORY BOX, WE ARE NOT REALLY
TELLING THE DEVELOPER TO BUILD 1,000-SQUARE FOOT UNITS.
WE ARE GIVING THEM THE DENSITY BONUS NUMERICALLY FOR
HOW MANY UNITS BASED ON THAT 1,000 SQUARE FEET.
I'M SAYING IF WE ARE GOING TO GET A NUMERIC NUMBER OF
UNITS LET'S GET THAT.
RIGHT NOW IF OUR NUMBER IS 1,000, THAT NUMBER IS
ASPIRATIONAL, WE WISH WE HAD MORE 1,000-SQUARE FOOT FAMILY
UNITS.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIZE OF THE BUILDINGS, AND HOW BIG
THOSE UNITS ARE.
>> 500-700 SQUARE FEET.
>> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN MY GUESS.
LET'S ACKNOWLEDGE WHAT'S HAPPENING AT THIS POINT IN
TIME AND GET THE BEST DEAL WE CAN FOR THE MOST PEOPLE.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU TO ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR
COMMENTS.
I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO AS WELL EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN
SAID.
487 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2525 of 6596
I HAD A COUPLE OF UNIQUE THINGS.
MOSTLY QUESTIONS.
I THINK WHAT HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED YET AND I WOULD BE
CURIOUS TO GET AN ANSWER.
HOW DOES THIS INTERFACE WITH THE HOUSING
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT?
ABOUT A MONTH AGO WE SAW ONE WITH THE SETBACK
PROVISIONS FOR THAT AREA.
SO WE ACTUALLY WERE UNABLE TO HAVE DISCRETION OVER
ANYTHING EXCEPT THE WAIVERS.
CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE ABOUT HOW THESE TWO ORDINANCES
INTERFACE WITH EACH OTHER?
>> SURE.
YEAH, I GUESS I CAN ADD THAT TO MY LIST OF ISSUES.
BASICALLY IT'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A STATE MANDATE THAT
OVERLAPS WITH LOCAL PLANNING.
SO THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, AS YOU SAID IF A
PROJECT CONFORMS TO ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN SORT OF OBJECTIVE
STANDARDS THEN IT BASICALLY HAS TO BE APPROVED.
UNLESS THERE'S A VERY SPECIFIC PHYSICAL IMPACT THAT
THERE'S NO WAY TO MITIGATE.
IT CAN'T BE HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE, IT HAS TO BE A
HEALTH AND SAFETY.
GENERALLY WE HAVE MORE DISCRETION IN AREA LIKE VIEWS.
488 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2526 of 6596
BUT HEALTH AND SAFETY YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT FIRE
PROTECTION AND FLOODING, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS.
IT'S A VERY POWERFUL LAW.
IT MANDATES YOU APPROVE THINGS THAT MEET YOUR
STANDARDS.
SO WHEN YOU HAVE A PROJECT THAT MEETS SETBACK HEIGHT
AND DENSITY, THAT'S WHAT ZONING IS FOR, YOU GIVE THEM THE BASIC
STANDARDS THEY SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO BUILD SOMETHING ON THE
PROPERTY ACCORDING TO THOSE STANDARDS.
BUT WHEN YOU GET INTO DENSITY BONUS, THAT'S WHERE YOU
START TO NEGOTIATE YOUR WAIVERS AND CONCESSIONS SO THE HOUSING
ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, WE BELIEVE DOESN'T APPLY TO DENSITY BONUS
PROJECTS.
SO THEY ARE SIMILAR IN THAT THEY ARE MANDATES BUT THEY
HAVE DIFFERENT EFFECTS.
>> BUT TWO OF THOSE WAIVERS ARE BY RIGHT UNDER THAT
LAW.
I THINK IT'S TWO.
IF YOU ARE DOING THE 20% YOU GET TWO.
>> THERE'S A SLIDING SCALE DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH.
>> Chair I. Tregub: I'VE BEEN GETTING A LOT OF
QUESTIONS THAT I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO ANSWER ABOUT THAT PROJECT
SO CORRECT ME IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS WRONG.
AT THAT TIME, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DID WHAT THEY NEED
TODAY QUALIFY FOR THOSE TWO WAIVERS, WE HAVE TO APPROVE SOME
489 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2527 of 6596
KIND OF SET OF WAIVERS BUT IT WAS DISCRETION OVER WHAT THEY
COULD APPROVE AND SEPARATELY I'M WONDERING.
THE SPECIFIC WAIVER THE APPLICANT ASKED FOR WAS
WAVERING A REQUIREMENT THAT 40% OF THE AFFORDABLE UNITS WOULD GO
TO SECTION 8, OR SHELTER PLUS CARE APPLICANTS.
WHICH DIDN'T REALLY SEEM TO FIT INTO THE CATEGORIES
THAT HAVE BEEN OUTLINED HERE.
I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THAT.
>> THE WAIVERS ARE THE GENERAL DEVELOPMENT, GENERALLY
SPEAKING.
I THINK THE CONCESSION THEY WERE ASKING FOR WAS THE
SECTION 8 BECAUSE THAT WAS AN AFFORDABILITY RESTRICTION THAT
WOULD MAKE THEIR PROJECT LESS FINANCIALLY VIABLE BECAUSE IT WAS
MORE ONEROUS FOR THEM.
YOU HAVE TO GIVE IT IF IT'S FINANCIAL AND IT'S
BELIEVABLE.
>> Chair I. Tregub: YEAH, BELIEVABLE IS PROBABLY
OPERATIVE.
I THINK MY LAST QUESTION -- SORRY.
I'VE BEEN THINKING A LOT ABOUT WHAT DENISE AND JOHN
SAID AND WONDERING HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPLIT THE BABY IF WE
CAN.
AND THIS 50% A.M.I. REQUIREMENT TO QUALIFY FOR THE
DENSITY BONUS CAME FROM THE 80'S AND IT MADE SENSE.
490 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2528 of 6596
RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A LOT OF NEEDS FOR WORKFORCE HOUSING
AS WELL AS EXTREMELY LOW INCOME HOUSING.
IS THERE A WAY TO, IF THE UNITS PROPOSED IN THE
PROGRAM THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDES AVERAGE OUT TO 50% A.M.I.
BUT SOME OF THEM MIGHT BE 30% A.M.I. AND OTHERS MIGHT BE 80% OR
130 OR 140% A.M.I., IS THAT SOMETHING, I'M NOT SPEAKING RIGHT
NOW TO THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS BUT WOULD THAT BE LEGAL UNDER
STATE CODE?
>> WELL, THAT'S PART OF OUR LEGAL DISCUSSION RIGHT
NOW.
IS A LOCAL DENSITY BONUS LAW ESSENTIALLY FREE TO
IMPROVISE ALL THE WAY FROM THE ZERO PERCENT TO YOU KNOW INFINITY
AND WITH ALL THE CONCESSIONS AND WAIVERS, IF ITS LOCAL COULD IT
BE ENTIRELY NEW.
OR DOES IT STILL HAVE TO START WITH THE 0-35% STATE
BONUS WITH ALL THE STATE BELLS AND WHISTLES FIRST.
I THINK WITH THE WORKFORCE HOUSING, MODERATE INCOME,
THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, IF YOU GIVE MORE THAN
35% BONUS YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ASK FOR DIFFERENT KINDS OF
THINGS.
SO THAT'S KIND OF THE TENSION WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW.
IF YOUR BASE PROJECT MAXES OUT THE DEVELOPMENT
ENVELOPE AND NOW WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A 50 OR 100% DENSITY BONUS
TO GET WHAT WE WANT, THOSE ARE GOING TO BE SOME BIG PROJECTS.
491 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2529 of 6596
THERE'S A DEFINITE GIVE AND TAKE THAT WE ARE GOING TO
BE TRYING TO GIVE CASE STUDIES IS HOW WE WILL LOOK AT IT AND
SHOW YOU HOW THESE CHANGES IN THE RULES MIGHT ACTUALLY PLAY OUT
ON A PROPERTY YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
THE TENSION IS PALPABLE.
I HAVE ONE MORE, I THINK FOLLOWING UP ON BRAZILE'S
QUESTION.
IF IT WERE TO BE SIGNED INTO LAW, WOULD THAT IMPACT
ANY REQUIREMENTS WHERE MAYBE DEVELOPERS HAVE TO INCLUDE, INSTEAD
OF BUYING OUT OF IT.
>> THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES, THAT WOULD CHANGE THE LAW
OF THE LAND.
BACK TO BEFORE FIVE YEARS AGO.
OUR LOCAL ORDINANCE ALSO HAS A FEE PROGRAM ALREADY.
SO THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN GET OUT OF PROVIDING THE
UNITS IS STILL THERE.
I THINK IT HAS A PURPOSE.
DISPERSED UNITS ARE GREAT.
BUT SOMETIMES THEY ARE HARD TO MANAGE AND MONITOR AND
THE CITY HAS ITS OWN PROGRAMS THAT NEED TO BE FUNDED SO THE FEE
PROGRAM DOES HAVE ITS BENEFITS.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
AND FINALLY THE JOINT DENSITY BONUS.
PATRICK, I TRIED TO PROPOSE A SUBCOMMITTEE.
492 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2530 of 6596
THE COUNCIL DIDN'T ACCEPT IT AT THE TIME.
BUT I THINK MAYBE IT'S HIGH TIME TO TRY AGAIN.
I'VE BEEN TALKING TO STAFF ABOUT IT.
I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN STAFF'S MIND BUT I THINK
GREG YOU FELT THAT IT MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE TO PURSUE.
WE DID HAVE A JOINT DENSITY BONUS SUBCOMMITTEE, I
BELIEVE IN 2006, THAT NOW COUNCILMEMBER WENGRAF AND MAYOR
ARREGUIN USED TO SERVE ON.
SO THEY HAD FOLKS FROM THE ZAB, THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND THE HOUSING COMMISSION.
MY COMMITTEE IS TO CONTINUE TO EXPLORE THAT AS A
POSSIBILITY BECAUSE WE ARE THE ONES HAVING TO DEAL WITH THESE
PROJECTS WHEN IT COMES TO ZAB AND IT'S PROBABLY GOOD TO HAVE
SOME DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND OTHER
COMMISSIONS THAT INFLUENCE THE PROCESS.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, THIS HAS BEEN
INFORMATIVE.
I HAVE ONE SPEAKER CARD, THIS IS A PUBLIC COMMENT
ITEM, SO IF ANYBODY ELSE WISHES TO SPEAK TO THIS YOU CAN SEE
STAFF UP FRONT.
ALEX YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES.
>> THANK YOU, GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
QUICKLY I WANT TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER PINKSTON IN
THIS MIDDLE, MEDIAN INCOME HOUSING LARGELY BECAUSE OF OUR
493 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2531 of 6596
INCLUSIONARY ZONING FROM BERKELEY ONLY COVERS THAT LOW INCOME
AND VERY LOW INCOME.
DEVELOPERS HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO BUILD THAT MEDIAN
INCOME HOUSING.
A LOCAL DENSITY BONUS COULD GET AROUND THAT AND I'M
ALMOST POSITIVE WE NEED COUNCIL TO ACT ON THAT.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO PUT THAT PRESSURE, WE GET THAT
TEACHER HOUSING.
I ALSO WANT TO PUSH BACK ON SOME OF THE ATTITUDES SOME
OF YOU EXPRESSED THAT WE AREN'T GETTING ENOUGH FOR WHAT WE ARE
GIVING AWAY.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE FACTS ON THE
GROUND.
WE ALL AGREE WE NEED MORE SUBSIDIZED HOUSING,
ABSOLUTELY.
BUT THE WAY TO DO THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY TO DEMAND
HIGHER BURDENS.
2209 ADELINE, LARGE CONTENTIOUS HOUSING, ENDED UP
GETTING 18% SUBSIDIZED UNITS.
FROM EVERYTHING I HEARD THEY CAN'T GET FINANCING, THEY
CAN'T GET ANYBODY TO BUY THAT PROJECT.
ALL OF THAT IS MOST LIKELY GOING TO BE FOR NOTHING
WHICH IS INCREDIBLY DEPRESSING.
IT'S BECAUSE WE GOT GREEDY, OR PEOPLE GOT GREEDY AND
ASKED TOO MUCH.
494 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2532 of 6596
I THINK THE MATH WE NEED TO CONSIDER 20% OF ZERO IS
ZERO.
I THINK BERKELEY HAS MAYBE LOST SIGHT OF THAT.
I WOULD LIKE TO THINK WE CAN REWRITE A LOCAL DENSITY
BONUS TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
2100 SAN PABLO, WHEN THE LOCAL INCLUSIONARY WENT FROM
10 TO 20%, THERE WERE 91 MARKET RATE UNITS, 8 WERE GOING TO BE
AFFORDABLE UNITS, DESPERATELY NEEDED BUT WHEN IT JUMPED TO 20%
THAT ENTIRE PROJECT SHIFTED TO MARKET RATE SENIOR HOUSING, WHICH
HAS NO INCLUSIONARY PERCENTAGE.
SO WE LOST 8 SUBSIDIZED UNITS.
20% OF ZERO IS ZERO.
I CAN GO ON AND ON.
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL WHAT WE ASK FOR
BECAUSE THERE IS BEING TOO GREEDY.
THANKS.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
AND KELLY?
>> I'M SORRY I ARRIVED LATE.
I WILL HAVE TO LOOK THE AT THE PRESENTATION WHEN I GET
HOME ON THE VIDEO.
I HAVE BEEN AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS BECAUSE I
KNOW CITY COUNCIL PASSED AN ORDINANCE FOR 20% ACROSS-THE-BOARD
WHETHER THERE WAS DENSE THE BONUS OR NOT DENSITY BONUS AND I
DIDN'T SEE THAT WHEN I WAS SCROLLING THROUGH THE CODE.
495 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2533 of 6596
I KNOW THEY PASSED IMPACT MITIGATION FEE WHICH I
DIDN'T SEE AS I WAS SCROLLING THROUGH THE CODE.
I'M NOT SURE HOW THE STATE LAW YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT
IMPACTS THE CITY ORDINANCES THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN PASSED TO
INCREASE DENSITY BONUS.
AS FAR AS OTHER SPEAKERS WE KNOW SOME OF THEM DON'T
BUILD.
THEY GET PROJECTS ENTITLED.
BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE, I'M SURE YOU KNOW, YOU ARE
LOOKING AT WHAT'S IN THE BOOKS, WHAT'S IN THE CODE BOOK BUT IT
DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE UP-TO-DATE WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
THANKS AGAIN FOR YOUR TIME.
THAT'S LOTS TO CHEW ON.
AND I'M SURE WE WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE MORE
CONVERSATIONS.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> Chair I. Tregub: WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO 2190
SHATTUCK AVENUE.
THIS IS A REVIEW AND COMMENT ON THE DRAFT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
AGAIN, IT IS REVIEW AND COMMENT, NO ACTION IS PROPOSED
FOR TONIGHT.
WE WILL GIVE STAFF A MINUTE TO GET SET UP.
>> THANK YOU.
496 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2534 of 6596
>> Chair I. Tregub: WHENEVER YOU ARE READY.
>> THANK YOU, GOOD EVENING.
I'M LESLEY MENDEZ, PROJECT PLANNER.
MIXED USE 2190 SHATTUCK AVENUE ALSO KNOWN AS THE
WALGREENS SITE.
THIS MEETING, WE ARE HERE TO RECEIVE COMMENTS IN THE
DRAFT E.I.R. PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET, NOT THIS PACKET BUT TWO
PACKETS AGO SO YOU HAVE LEISURELY TIME TO GO THROUGH IT.
I JUST WANT TO GO OVER OUR PROCESS BECAUSE WE WILL DO
THIS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
I WILL GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROCESS HERE
TONIGHT AND WE WILL BE FOLLOWED BY THE APPLICANT TEAM WHO WILL
GIVE A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT AND THE PROJECT OBJECTIVES.
AND THEN WE WILL GO BACK TO THE STAFF CONSULTANT
RINCON WHO WILL DESCRIBE THE D.E.I.R. AND THE CONTENTS OF WHAT
IS IN IT.
SO I WILL LET THEM INTRODUCE THEMSELVES AS WELL.
BUT WE HAVE JONATHON FROM RINCON CONSULTANTS AND I
WILL LET THE APPLICANT TEAM INTRODUCE THEMSELVES.
FIRST OF ALL, THE E.I.R. PROCESS, AS YOU KNOW, THE
CITY FILED A NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN E.I.R. IN JANUARY OF
THIS YEAR.
THE PROJECT CAME BEFORE THE ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD
ON JANUARY 26th TO DISCUSS WHAT IS BROUGHT UP IN THE E.I.R.
IT WAS A PROJECT PREVIEW AS WELL.
497 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2535 of 6596
AFTER THAT CLOSED THE CITY PREPARED THE DRAFT E.I.R.
WE FILED A NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY ON AUGUST 10th.
DURING THE TIME THE PUBLIC PERIOD WHICH ENDS WE
SOLICIT COMMENT AS FAR AS THE ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD WHO HAS
DISCRETIONARY APPROVAL ON THIS PROJECT.
AT THE REQUEST OF THE CHAIR OF THE L.P.C. IT DID GO TO
THE L.P.C. LAST WEEK.
AS A NOT PUBLICLY NOTICED MEETING WE DIDN'T TAKE
PUBLIC COMMENTS BUT A TRANSCRIPT WAS PREPARED BASED ON THE AUDIO
RECORDING SO THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOU IN THE SECOND
SUPPLEMENTAL THIS EVENING AND THAT IS GOING INTO THE PUBLIC
RECORD, AS PART OF THAT SUPPLEMENTAL THERE'S ANOTHER COMMENT
FROM A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC.
SO AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE CITY
WILL RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS.
WE WILL BE PREPARING HOPEFULLY WHAT WILL BE CONSIDERED
THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOCUMENT, AS WELL AS ANY CHANGES TO THE
E.I.R.
AND IF ALL GOES WELL THAT WOULD BE THE FINAL E.I.R.
THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED TO YOU, THE ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD FOR
CERTIFICATION.
PROBABLY AT THE TIME OF USE PERMIT HEARING AS WELL.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.
SO TO REITERATE THIS MEETING IS TO TAKE COMMENTS ON
THE ADEQUACY OF THE D.E.I.R.
498 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2536 of 6596
THE D.E.I.R. IS THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT.
WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, IF WE CAN.
IF THEY ARE KIND OF BRIEF.
IF IT'S MORE OF A DISCUSSION ITEM, WE WILL BE TAKING
THAT BACK TO RESPOND TO THEM, WE WILL BE TAKING NOTES ON ALL
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.
BUT SOME, IF IT GETS TOO IN DEPTH OR WE WILL HAVE TO
GET INTO IT, THAT WILL BE PART OF OUR RESPONSE TO COMMENTS.
SO, JUST ONE OTHER QUICK THING.
I'M JUST GOING TO BRING UP RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DO KNOW
THAT WILL COME UP AND THAT WAS THE QUESTION ON USING DRONES AS
STORY POLES.
WE DO NOT DO THAT, THE CITY HAS A POLICY AGAINST
DRONES.
WE DIDN'T REVISIT IT WITH THE NEW CITY ATTORNEY.
FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION ON HOW WE PROCESSED I WILL
LEAVE THAT TO RINCON.
THANK YOU, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS BUT IF
POSSIBLE I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO THE MILL CREEK TEAM.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE HOLD THEM.
I WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME THE APPLICANT TEAM.
YOU HAVE UP TO FIVE MINUTES.
>> I'M DON PETERSON, I'M WITH MILL CREEK, I REPRESENT
THE DEVELOPER AND OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
499 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2537 of 6596
I WILL BE BRIEF WITH MY COMMENTS.
I'M JOINED BY MY TEAM INCLUDING THE PROJECT ARCHITECT
DWIGHT SHERMAN WHO WILL SPEAK FOR A MINUTE OR TWO AS WELL.
SO HERE IS THE PROJECT RENDERING, THE PERSPECTIVE AT
THE NORTHWEST CORNER.
A HALF ACRE PROPERTY, WE ARE RIGHT AT THE FRONT DOOR
OF THE DOWNTOWN BART STATION SO IT'S VERY MUCH A TRANSIT
ORIENTED SITE.
IT'S KNOWN AS THE WALGREENS SITE.
THERE'S AN EXISTING WALGREENS AND WALGREENS EXPRESSED
A DESIRE TO COME BACK INTO THE PROPERTY ON THE GROUND FLOOR,
THEY HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS UNDER THEIR LEASE AGREEMENT.
SO WE ARE WORKING WITH THEM AT THIS POINT.
THE OTHER THING I WOULD MENTIONED WITH REGARDS TO THE
RENDERING, YOU NOTICED THE MULTILEVELED TERRACED DESIGN, THERE'S
REALLY THREE ELEMENTS TO THE MASSING, THE BASE, THE CENTRAL AND
THE UPPER ELEMENT.
THE BASE ELEMENT SETS BACK 15 FEET AND UP TO 120 FEET
OR 12 STORIES AND THEN ANOTHER SETBACK OF 65 FEET TO THE TOWER
PORTION, WHICH AGAIN, GOES UP TO 18 STORIES.
NEXT.
THESE ARE IN THE DRAFT E.I.R.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF PROJECT OBJECTIVES OUTLINED.
WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO REVITALIZE AN IMPORTANT BLOCK IN
DOWNTOWN BERKELEY.
500 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2538 of 6596
WE ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP A SUPERIOR BUILDING.
PROMOTING SUSTAINABILITY.
WE ARE ALSO GENERATING MUCH-NEEDED HOUSING.
EITHER 55 AFFORDABLE UNITS ON SITE, OR AN AFFORDABLE
FEE WILL BE PAID AT $37,000 A UNIT, WHICH WILL RESULT IN $10
MILLION PLUS TO THE HOUSING FUND.
WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH A THRIVING LIVABLE
COMMUNITY AND INHABIT THAT PARTICULAR INTERSECTION, MOST NOTABLY
ALSTON WAY.
IT'S A LONG RECTANGULAR SITE THAT JETS BACK NEARLY 230
FEET ALONG ALLSTON.
I WOULD MENTION THAT MAP, THE SHADED AREA, THE
DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN COURT AREA, IT'S A FAIRLY LIMITED COURT AREA
BETWEEN KITTREDGE, UNIVERSITY AND OXFORD, THAT'S THE AREA WHICH
YOU CAN APPLY FOR THESE PERMITS FOR THE 180-FOOT HEIGHT.
NEXT.
PROJECT ATTRIBUTES.
TRANSIT ORIENTED, MIXED USE.
274 HOUSING UNITS, WE WILL HAVE 10,000 SQUARE FEET ON
THE GROUND.
UNDERGROUND PARKING, TWO LEVELS OF PARKING
UNDERGROUND.
103 STALLS WHICH IS TO PARK APPROXIMATELY 3.5 TO 1.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE DOWNTOWN AREA PLAN.
501 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2539 of 6596
WITH THAT I WILL HAVE MY PROJECT ARCHITECT TALK ABOUT
BRIEFLY SOME SPECIFIC ASPECTS TO THE DESIGN.
>> WITH MY ONE MINUTE AND FIVE SECONDS LEFT.
THIS IS A MODEL OF THE DOWNTOWN CORE AREA.
THE DENSEST PART OF IT.
YOU CAN SEE WE START AS WE ALWAYS DO, INTEGRATING A
CONCEPT INTO THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT OF EXISTING BUILDINGS BUT
ALSO SOME OF THE NEWER BUILDINGS THAT ARE COMING DOWN THE PIKE.
THIS STEPPED MASSING IS DESIGNED TO RELATE TO THE
EXISTING CONTEXT BY CREATING EXTENDING THE STREET WALL OF HOTEL
SHATTUCK AND THE TALLER PART OF THE MASSING IS SETBACK MID BLOCK
WHICH COMMUNICATES WITH SOME OF THE LARGER BUILDINGS, CHASE, AND
WELLS FARGO AND SOME OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS.
NEXT.
THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING THE OTHER WAY FROM THE
RENDERING THAT DON WAS SHOWING YOU FROM THE TRIANGLE LOOKING TO
THE SOUTH.
YOU COULD SEE HOW IT'S DRAWN ACROSS THE LOWER VOLUME
WHEN IT STEPS TO THE MID VOLUME AND THE TALLEST VOLUME,
SOMETHING TO BREAK THE MASSING DOWN TO BITE-SIZED PIECES.
NEXT.
DOWN AT THE GROUND FLOOR PLAN REALLY NICE
CONSTELLATION OF FEATURES.
10,000 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL SPACE IN BLUE.
502 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2540 of 6596
WE ARE HOPEFUL TO ATTRACT A NEW BETTER VERSION OF WALL
SCREENS TO COME BACK AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE.
IT'S REALLY DESIGNED TO EXTEND THE NEW B.A.R.T. PLAZA
WHICH IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND WILL BE UNVEILED BEFORE THE END
OF THE YEAR.
SO THERE IS THE ART WALK BENCHES, BIKE RACKS.
YOU MIGHT THINK OF IT LIKE AN OUTDOOR VERSION OF THE
ARTS PASSAGE SOMETHING WE DID A FEW YEARS AGO.
THE CRUX OF THE MASSING THAT CREATES SOMETHING NEW AND
INTERESTING ON ALLSTON IS THIS ENTRY PLAZA.
KIND OF A BUFFER ZONE WHERE CARS COME AND GO.
NEXT.
SOME VIEWS LOOKING AT THAT MAIN ENTRY AND STEPPING
BACK A LITTLE FURTHER TO LOOK AT THE WEST FACADE.
THE DESIGN IS TO SHOW OFF SOME OF THE FEATURES.
NOTABLY THE TERRACE FEATURES.
COMMUNITY LIFE INSIDE THE BUILDING BUT PROVIDE AN
INTERESTING LOOK OUTSIDE THE BUILDING.
ANOTHER PROMINENT FEATURE ARE THESE MOVABLE SHUTTERS,
EXTERIOR SHADING WHICH CREATE A VERY DYNAMIC AND INTERESTING
FACADE FOR THE BUILDING.
NEXT.
THIS IS A ZOOM IN OF THE LOWER BASE BUILDING, YOU
COULD SEE SOME OF THE RICH MATERIAL, STORE FRONT OF THE
WALGREENS.
503 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2541 of 6596
WITH THAT I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE CITY AND RINCON
TEAM TO CONTINUE ON.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
>> GOOD EVENING, BOARD MEMBERS MY NAME IS JONATHON
BERLIN WITH RINCON CONSULTANTS AND WE ARE WORKING ON THE
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF 2190 SHATTUCK.
WE ARE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE DRAFT E.I.R. AND OUR
FINDINGS SO FAR.
AND TO TAKE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS.
FIRST I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT
SITE IF WE COULD FLIP TO SLIDE TWO.
WE ALREADY LOOKED AT THE SITE LOCATION.
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS UNDER
CEQA, WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION THE SENSITIVE LAND USES IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA NEAR THE PROJECT SITE AND FOCUSED ESPECIALLY ON
THE IMPACTS OF THOSE LAND USES, INCLUDING THE B.A.R.T. STATION
NEXT DOOR, THE HISTORIC, IF WE CAN GO BACK, THANK YOU.
THE HISTORIC SHATTUCK HOTEL AND SCHOOLS LIKE BERKELEY
HIGH AND BERKELEY CITY COLLEGE.
WE ALSO IN NOTING THIS IS AN IN-FILL SITE IN THE
DOWNTOWN AREA, MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT NEAR A MAJOR
TRANSIT STOP, THAT BEING THE DOWNTOWN BERKELEY B.A.R.T. STATION,
WE CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
504 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2542 of 6596
THE PROJECT IS AN ELIGIBLE IN-FILL PROJECT UNDER CEQA
WHICH MEANS IT QUALIFIES FOR STREAMLINING RELATIVE TO A NORMAL
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.
WE LOOK AT THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED E.I.R. FOR THE
WHOLE DOWNTOWN AREA AND WE LOOK AT ITS ANALYSIS OF ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACTS AND WEIGH AGAINST THAT.
WOULD THE PROJECT INTRODUCE A NEW SIGNIFICANT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OR MORE ADVERSE IMPACT RELATIVE TO WHAT WE
ALREADY EVALUATED FOR THE WHOLE DOWNTOWN AREA.
THAT'S HOW WE APPROACH THIS ANALYSIS.
I WANT TO FOCUS ON THE SIGNIFICANT ISSUES WITH THIS
PROJECT WHERE WE FOUND AN IMPACT THAT WOULD BE LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT, OR SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE.
THE FIRST IS AIR QUALITY.
FOR ANY PROJECT OF THIS SCALE, THERE ARE CONSTRUCTION
EMISSIONS, AND WE FOUND IT CONSISTENT WITH THE DRAFT E.I.R.'S
ANALYSIS MITIGATION MEASURE TO REDUCE DUST EMISSIONS WOULD APPLY
TO THIS PROJECT AND REDUCE CONSTRUCTION EMISSIONS TO A LESS THAN
FURTHER MORE THE EMISSIONS WOULD NOT EXCEED ANY THRESHOLD.
WE PAID A LOT OF ATTENTION TO THIS AREA KNOWING IT WAS
AN AREA OF CONCERN TO THE COMMUNITY.
ONE QUESTION IS WOULD THE DESIGN OF THE PROJECT THE
APPLICANT JUST DISCUSSED BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT OF NEARBY
HISTORIC RESOURCES, ESPECIALLY THE SHATTUCK HOTEL TO THE SOUTH.
505 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2543 of 6596
OUR FINDINGS IS IT WOULD LARGELY BE CONSISTENT IN
FOLLOWING THE DESIGN OF THE SHATTUCK HOTEL AND DOWNTOWN AREA
GUIDELINES, HOWEVER WE ARE REQUIRING MITIGATION TO TWEAK THAT
DESIGN TO BUILDINGS AND WALLS TO BE MORE COMPATIBLE WITH THAT OF
THE SHATTUCK HOTEL NEXT DOOR.
IF WE CAN STAY ON THAT SLIDE, THANK YOU.
WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT VISUAL IMPACTS AS WELL.
WE FOUND THESE TO BE LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT AS THEY
PERTAIN TO AESTHETICS AND AS THEY RELATE TO CULTURAL RESOURCES
BUT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE OF CONCERN TO THE COMMUNITY.
IN THE IN-FILL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST WE HAVE AN
EVALUATION OF AESTHETIC IMPACTS.
ANY TIME YOU HAVE AN IN-FILL PROJECT IN A TRANSIT
PRIORITY AREA, MIXED USE LIKE THIS, UNDER FAIRLY RECENT STATE
LAW WE CANNOT CONSIDER AESTHETICS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
SO WE HAD THAT AS AN INFORMATIONAL DISCUSSION IN THE
IN-FILL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST.
IN THAT ANALYSIS WE CONCLUDED PUTTING UP AN 18-STORY
BUILDING THAT WOULD BE HIGHLY VISIBLE FOR CAMPANILE WAY.
ADVERSE VISUAL EFFECTS BUT FROM PERSPECTIVE OF CEQA A
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT UNDER THAT STATE LAW.
FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF CULTURAL RESOURCES WE
CONSIDERED THE EFFECT ON THAT VIEW CORRIDOR AS THE CHANGING
VIEWS AFFECTS THE QUALITY OF THE CLASSICAL CORE OF THE CAL
BERKELEY CAMPUS AS A CULTURAL LANDSCAPE.
506 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2544 of 6596
AS A CULTURAL RESOURCE.
AND OUR FINDING IS THAT THE PROJECT WOULD HAVE A LESS
THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THAT AS A CULTURAL LANDSCAPE BECAUSE
THE CHANGE IN VIEW WOULD ONLY ALTER ONE COMPONENT OF WHAT MAKES
CAMPANILI WAY AS A CULTURAL LANDSCAPE.
WE CAN GET INTO MORE PARSING THAT IF YOU HAVE
QUESTIONS.
SO MOVING ONTO GEOLOGY AND SOILS.
THE PROJECT IS RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THE STRAWBERRY CREEK
CULVERT.
AND THE B.A.R.T. TUNNEL AS WELL.
WE ARE PROPOSING MITIGATION FOR THE APPLICANT TO MAKE
SURE WHEN THEY EXCAVATE AND PUT IN TEMPORARY SHORING THAT
PROTECTS THE STABILITY OF THE CULVERT AND DOESN'T AFFECT THE
WATER FLOW AND ALSO FOR THE PROJECT TO ADHERE TO B.A.R.T.'S
GUIDELINES FOR BUILDING IN THEIR ZONE OF INFLUENCE.
SO MOVING ONTO NOISE, WE FOUND NEW RESIDENTS ON THE
PROJECT SITE WOULD BE EXPOSED TO A GOOD DEAL OF NOISE BECAUSE
SHATTUCK IS A BUSY ROADWAY.
HOWEVER, WITH MITIGATION FOR PROPER EXTERIOR MATERIALS
YOU COULD REDUCE INTERIOR NOISE TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
LEVEL.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE.
FOR TRAFFIC WE RELIED ON TRAFFIC STUDY BY KITTLESON
THROUGH THE APPLICANT'S TEAM.
507 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2545 of 6596
WE ARE ADAPTING MITIGATION FROM KITTLESON TO ENSURE
THAT TEMPORARY EFFECTS AFFECTING PEDESTRIAN AND BIKE
CIRCULATION THAT THOSE COULD BE MITIGATED.
THAT BY PUTTING IN A DRIVEWAY TO THE PROPOSED GARAGE
THAT COULD HAVE EFFECT ON PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ON THE A.C. TRANSIT
BUS STOP, ON BIKE CIRCULATION AS WELL.
SO WE HAVE MITIGATION IN THERE TO MINIMIZE THOSE
CONFLICTS AT THE INTERFACE OF DRIVEWAY AND ALLSTON.
WE ARE PROPOSING A SIX MONTH PERIOD OF MONITORING THAT
ACTIVITY TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOT INTERFERING WITH TRAVEL ON
ALLSTON.
MOVING ONTO TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES WE ARE RECENTLY
REQUIRED UNDER STATE LAW TO EVALUATE THIS ISSUE AREA WHICH
WASN'T CONSIDERED UNDER THE DOWNTOWN AREA E.I.R.
WITH STANDARD MITIGATION IN CASE THOSE RESOURCES ARE
UNCOVERED DURING EXCAVATION THIS BECOMES A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT
IMPACT.
AND LASTLY WE IDENTIFIED ONE SIGNIFICANT AND
UNAVOIDABLE IMPACT FROM CONSTRUCTION NOISE.
THIS WAS ANTICIPATED IN THE DRAFT E.I.R.
ANY TIME YOU HAVE AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION,
IN THIS CASE 27 MONTHS WE ARE EXPECTING, THE DRAFT E.I.R. FINDS
A DENSE URBAN ENVIRONMENT THAT IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO PREVENT
ANNOYANCE FROM CONSTRUCTION NOISE TO NEIGHBORING USES.
508 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2546 of 6596
THAT SAID WE ARE APPLYING MEASURES FROM THE DRAFT
E.I.R. TO REDUCE TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE FROM THE TIME OF
CONSTRUCTION AND NOISE CONTROLS.
LASTLY WE CONSIDERED TWO, O.M.B.
IN-FILL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST, THIS IS AN
APPENDIX TO THE E.I.R.
ALL OF THESE ARE CONSIDERED THERE AND THE ONE'S
POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT ARE IN THE E.I.R.
AND THEN LASTLY ON ALTERNATIVES, ON THE NEXT SLIDE
PLEASE, WE CONSIDERED TWO ALTERNATIVES.
NORMALLY IN CEQA, OR AN E.I.R. YOU MIGHT CONSIDER A
LARGER RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES.
HOWEVER FOR A QUALIFYING IN-FILL PROJECT LIKE THIS,
CEQA DOESN'T REQUIRE CONSIDERATION OF AN ALTERNATE BUILDING
DENSITY OR INTENSITY.
AND GIVEN THAT, WE FOCUSED ON THE TYPICAL NO PROJECT,
NO BUILD.
OR A REDUCED PARKING ALTERNATIVE WHICH WOULD PROVIDE
SUBSTANTIALLY FEWER PARKING SPACES IN THE GARAGE.
AND OUR FINDING IS THAT THAT ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE
MARGINALLY ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR BY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF
TRAFFIC ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT.
AND WITH THAT, WE WELCOME YOUR COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS.
ON THE LAST SLIDE, THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IS OPEN
UNTIL SEPTEMBER 25th FOR SUBMITTING WRITTEN COMMENTS.
509 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2547 of 6596
THANK YOU.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
DID YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE DRONE ISSUE THAT STAFF HAS
ELUDED TO.
>> SURE I CAN ADDRESS THE DRONE ISSUE.
SO WE SPOKE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL VISION, WHO PREPARED
THE PHOTO SIMULATIONS FOR THIS PROJECT AND THEY RELIED ON
DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY AND CAD FILES PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, NOT
ON DRONES.
THANK YOU.
AND THEIR PERSPECTIVE IS THAT DRONES WOULD NOT ADD A
BENEFIT TO VISUAL SIMULATION.
THAT IS NOT UNDER PROVIDED BY THE DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY.
DRONES MIGHT PROVIDE ADDED VALUE IF YOU WANTED TO MARK
THE CORNERS OF THE BUILDING UP AT THE 180-FOOT HEIGHT TO SEE
STORY POLES AT THAT HEIGHT.
OR TO HAVE AN AERIAL VIEW.
HOWEVER, PEOPLE ON CAMPANILE WAY ARE VIEWING THIS FROM
EYE LEVEL REFLECTED IN DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY AT GROUND LEVEL.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR ANYONE HERE?
TERRY.
>> T. Clarke: I WANT TO FOLLOW-UP ON THE DRONE.
I HAVE A CLOSE FRIEND WHO DOES THIS FOR A LIVING.
510 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2548 of 6596
HE SAID IT WOULD BE VERY USEFUL, AS YOU SAID VISUAL
STORY POLES FOR US TO UNDERSTAND.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T THINK THIS SUBJECT IS GOING TO GO AWAY.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
DENISE?
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: WHAT IS THE REDUCED PARKING
ALTERNATIVE?
DOES THAT LOP OFF A FLOOR OF PARKING OR CUT DOWN THE
STALLS?
HOW WOULD THAT BE ACCOMMODATED IN THE BUILDING.
>> IT WOULD PROVIDE 58 PARKING SPACES VERSUS THE
PROPOSED 103 FOR MOTOR VEHICLES.
THAT IS GIVEN.
OUR BEST JUDGMENT WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT ON HOW
THIS ALTERNATIVE WOULD PLAY OUT, IT WOULD NOT NECESSARILY LOP
OFF ONE OF THE TWO PROPOSED LEVELS OF PARKING BECAUSE YOU NEED
TO PROVIDE ENOUGH PARKING SPACES, 58 PLUS THE MECHANICAL SPACE
AND ANCILLARY FACILITIES WITH THE BUILDING THAT MIGHT REQUIRE
TWO UNDERGROUND LEVELS.
>> Chair I. Tregub: SHOSHANA?
>> S. O'Keefe: CAN YOU TALK IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL
ABOUT THE MITIGATION FOR, SORRY, THE MONITORING PLAN FOR
PASSENGER UNLOADING.
511 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2549 of 6596
YOU SAID THEY WILL OBSERVE IT FOR SIX MONTHS AND DO
WHAT?
WHAT IF IT POSES A PROBLEM?
WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE?
IN THE D.E.I.R. IT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT CONTROLLING
WHEN COMMERCIAL LOADING WOULD HAPPEN BUT IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING
ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD ADDRESS IF PASSENGER LOADING WAS A PROBLEM.
>> SURE, LET'S PULL UP THE MITIGATION MEASURE HERE.
BASED ON THOSE MONITORING RESULTS, IF ADDITIONAL
STRATEGIES ARE NEEDED TO CONTROL LOADING ACTIVITY, TO PREVENT
DOUBLE PARKING, THAT OBSTRUCTS TRAFFIC, TO PREVENT PARKING IN
RED ZONES.
THIS COULD BE EITHER FROM COMMERCIAL VEHICLES WHEN THE
PROPOSED 25-FOOT COMMERCIAL LOADING SPACE ALONG ALLSTON IS
OCCUPIED.
WHAT HAPPENS IF ANOTHER VEHICLE NEEDS TO PARK.
WHAT ABOUT UBER PARKING.
DOES IT OBSTRUCT PARKING BY DOUBLE PARKING OR PARKING
IN A RED ZONE.
SO MONITOR THAT ACTIVITY FOR SIX MONTHS TO SEE IF IT'S
ACTUALLY POSING A CONFLICT TO MOVEMENT, TO CIRCULATION ON
ALLSTON WAY, AND IF SO, THEN WORK WITH THE CITY'S TRAFFIC
ENGINEERS TO ADDRESS THAT PROBLEM.
>> S. O'Keefe: AND THEN MY FOLLOW-UP, WHAT CAN THE
TRAFFIC ENGINEER DO?
512 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2550 of 6596
YOU IDENTIFIED A PROBLEM.
BUT WHAT IS THE MENU OF SOLUTIONS?
ARE THERE ANY?
OR IS THAT BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE D.E.I.R.
>> WE CAN LOOK AT IT AND GET BACK.
>> WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AND DISCUSS THAT WITH THE
APPLICANT'S TRAFFIC ENGINEER AS WELL.
A MENU OF OPTIONS IS VERY COMMON IN CEQA FOR
MITIGATION.
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE EXACT IMPLEMENTATION IS UNCERTAIN,
SO IT'S AN APPROACH WE CAN TAKE.
>> I JUST WANT TO COMMENT ON CAMPANILE WAY.
IT'S A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT, BECAUSE THE OPENNESS TO THE
WEST REALLY IN LARGE PART, I REALLY THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO
ADDRESS THAT AND CONSIDER MITIGATION TO RECOGNIZE THAT QUALITY.
>> Chair I. Tregub: WE ARE GOING TO GET TO COMMENTS
AFTER PUBLIC COMMENT.
>> I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHY HAVEN'T YOU DONE SO.
OKAY, THE OTHER QUESTION.
HAS CONSIDERATION BEEN GIVEN TO THE POTENTIAL
DAYLIGHTING OF STRAWBERRY CREEK IN THE FUTURE?
>> FOR THE LATTER QUESTION, NO CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN
GIVEN TO DAYLIGHTING STRAWBERRY CREEK.
513 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2551 of 6596
IN THE DRAFT E.I.R. WE LOOKED AT WHAT WAS PROPOSED AND
WHETHER THAT COULD HAVE EXISTING IMPACTS ON THE UNDERGROUND
CULVERT.
I GUESS I WOULD ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.
IS THE CONCERN ABOUT THE QUALITY OF VIEWS AN AESTHETIC
IMPACT ON THE CORRIDOR OF CAMPANILE WAY AND A COMPONENT OF THAT?
>> WITH THE EXPERIENTIAL QUALITY.
>> THEY ARE WEIGHTED ISSUE.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ADVERSE EFFECT ON THE VISUAL
EXPERIENCE OF PEOPLE ON CAMPANILE WAY.
WE ARE CONSTRAINED BY CEQA BY STATE LAW IT DOESN'T
ALLOW A CEQA ANALYSIS FOR AN ELIGIBLE IN-FILL PROJECT TO
CONSIDER ANY AESTHETIC IMPACT SIGNIFICANT.
SO IT'S KIND OF A MATTER OF PARSING LANGUAGE.
SO WE TRY TO DISCUSS THE FULL VISUAL EFFECT.
IT HAS TO BE A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
YES?
>> C. Olson: THERE WILL BE MORE ON THAT SUBJECT
COMING.
>> Chair I. Tregub: I'M SURE THERE WILL BE.
I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THE CULVERT FOR STRAWBERRY
CREEK.
I DIDN'T SEE ANY ANALYSIS THAT INCLUDED AN AGE OF THAT
CULVERT, IS THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE?
514 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2552 of 6596
>> IT IS, WE CAN FIND IT.
>> C. Olson: WHEN I FIRST GOT ON LANDMARKS, A
COMMISSIONER FOR PUBLIC WORKS TOLD ME THERE WERE SOME CULVERTS
OLD ENOUGH TO BE LANDMARKED.
>> MY RECOLLECTION IS WE DID STUDY THAT SO WE CAN TRY
TO FIND THAT.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
THE LANDMARK PRESERVATION COMMISSION, AS YOU HEARD, AT
THE REQUEST OF ITS CHAIR DISCUSS THIS PROJECT AND EMPOWERED MR.
FINACOM TO SUMMARIZE SOME OF ITS FINDINGS.
STEVE, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THREE MINUTES.
IF YOU CAN TRY TO GET IN CLOSE TO THREE MINUTES AS YOU
CAN.
>> THANK YOU.
I SHOULD SAY LANDMARKS COMMISSION DISCUSSED THIS FOR
38 MINUTES SO I'M TRYING TO CONDENSE IT.
THE L.P.C. HAD IT'S REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING AND
DISCUSSED THE D.E.I.R. AND HAD PUBLIC TESTIMONY, THERE WERE
SEVERAL THOUGHTFUL COMMENTS, THE COMMISSION VOTE TO SEND A
REPRESENTATIVE TONIGHT AND I'M THAT REPRESENTATIVE.
THIS IS A SUMMARY AND I CONDENSE THIS INTO BASIC
POINTS.
SOME ARE SUMMARIZING AND OTHERS USING EXACT QUOTES.
515 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2553 of 6596
FIRST PUBLIC IMPACT AND PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION IF THE
RESIDENTS ARE ASSUMED TO BE COMMUTERS USING ALREADY OVER LOADED
B.A.R.T. AND BUSSES.
THE STRAWBERRY CULVERT IS UNCLEAR.
THEY POINTED OUT THAT THE CREEK WAS NOT UNDER THE
SHATTUCK HOTEL AND TO THE NORTH AND NOW THAT WE HAVE A BUILDING
PROPOSED TO THE NORTH, SUDDENLY THE CREEK SEEMS TO HAVE MOVED
BACK TO THE SOUTH.
THE STATUS AND LOCATION OF THE CREEK SEEMS TO BE
REARRANGED TO ACCOMMODATE WHATEVER IS UNDER STUDY, THIS NEEDS A
LITTLE MORE REVIEW.
THE VISUAL ANALYSIS OF THE CAMPANILE WAY.
E.I.R. SAID ZAB REQUEST SEND A DRONE THE EXACT HEIGHT
OF THE BUILDING, 194 FEET DOWN CAMPANILE WAY CORRIDOR.
COMMENTING ON THE ISSUE OF THE CITY PROHIBITING DRONES
I WAS HERE AUGUST 27th DURING ALL THE DEMONSTRATION, DRONES
EVERYWHERE HUNDREDS OF POLICE IN BERKELEY.
IF DRONES WERE THERE FOR THAT WE COULD USE ONE FOR 15
MINUTES.
EVERYONE BELIEVED THIS WAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OR
HISTORIC RESOURCE.
I WANT TO QUOTE CHRISTOPHER ADAMS WHO SPEAKS FROM THE
VIEW POINT OF WORKING FOR UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA FOR A LONG
TIME AS A PLANNER AND FAMILIARITY WITH THE PLANNING AND HISTORY
OF THE BERKELEY CAMPUS.
516 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2554 of 6596
HE SAID THE VIEW FROM THE CAMPUS WAS A BASIC PART OF
THE THINKING CONTINUING TO COMPETITION AND BERNARD PLAN WHICH
DIDN'T GET IMPLEMENTED AND THE HOWARD PLAN WHICH DID AND EVERY
SUBSEQUENT PERMUTATION.
THE VIEW IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DETACHED AS AN
AESTHETIC CONCEPT.
IT'S INTRINSIC TO THE DESIGN OF THE BERKELEY CAMPUS
AND IF THAT ISN'T HISTORIC SEEMS THAT IS VERY BASIC SOMETHING
THE CITY HAS A RIGHT TO CONSIDER AND MUST CONSIDER.
COMMISSIONER ON THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION NOTED DESIGN
GUIDELINES HAVE NUMEROUS COMPONENTS ABOUT RECOMMENDING DESIGN
SENSITIVE HISTORIC RESOURCES AND THEY ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS
DESIGN.
HE SAID I DIDN'T SEE ANY EVIDENCE IN THE APPLICATION
IN THE DRAWINGS AND ARCHITECT'S CONTEXTUAL STATEMENT MY
IMPRESSION THERE WASN'T A SERIOUS ANALYSIS OF THE HISTORIC
CONTEXT.
THE L.P.C. JUST COMPLETED A WHOLE PROCESS FOR
REVIEWING THE DOWNTOWN AND IDENTIFYING NUMEROUS HISTORIC
RESOURCES BUT IN THIS LITTLE BUBBLE IT SEEMS ONLY THE SHATTUCK
HOTEL IS REFERRED TO AS A HISTORIC PLACE.
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD CEQA REQUIRES PROJECTS CONFORM AND
THIS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY OF BERKELEY'S GENERAL PLAN
WHICH CALLS FOR PROTECTION OF VIEWS FROM THE CAMPANILE TO THE
GOLDEN GATE.
517 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2555 of 6596
THERE WERE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT WHY THE E.I.R.
DIDN'T ANALYZE A SHORTER BUILDING WHICH WOULD MITIGATE THE
IMPACTS TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCE BUT STILL PROVIDE A SUBSTANTIAL
AMOUNT OF HOUSING.
IT WAS CLEAR NO ONE WHO SPOKE FROM L.P.C. EXPRESSED
OPPOSITION TO A LARGE IN-FILL BUILDING.
THE OPPOSITION WAS TO A TALL BUILDING THAT WOULD BLOCK
A VIEW.
CAMPANILE WAY HAS BEEN INITIATED BY A PETITION BY 56
CITIZENS IN THE CITY OF BERKELEY.
THAT WAS SUBMITTED LAST THURSDAY AND REPORTED TO THE
COMMISSION MEETING.
THAT CONSTITUTES FORMAL INITIATION.
IN OCTOBER THEY WILL PRESUMABLY SET A HEARING AND
LIKELY BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR THEY WILL VOTE ON THE
APPLICATION AND DESIGNATION.
FORMAL HISTORIC STATUS OF CAMPANILE WAY MAY WELL
CHANGE BEFORE THE E.I.R. IS ISSUED.
THE E.I.R. PROCESS FOR THIS BUILDING, PREPARED TO
RESPOND IF DESIGNATED AS A FORMER CITY OF BERKELEY LANDMARK.
I WILL JUST CONCLUDE BY SAYING I WILL ASK THE QUESTION
OF THE PROJECT TEAM ABOUT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE F.E.I.R. IF
THE STATUS CHANGED AND THE ANSWER TO THE LANDMARK COMMISSION
SAID IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU READ US A LETTER SO MAYBE ONE OF
YOU CAN ASK THAT AND GET A MORE SPECIFIC RESPONSE ON THAT.
518 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2556 of 6596
THANK YOU.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE HAVE COMMENT CARDS FROM DWIGHT SHERMAN.
AND THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED BY JOHN ENGLISH, AND
SHARLENE WOODCOCK.
IS DWIGHT STILL HERE?
>> HE IS PART OF THE APPLICANT TEAM.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
SO JOHN, YOU ARE NEXT FOLLOWED BY SHARLENE, ALEX AND
KELLY.
>> OKAY, I AGREE WITH WHAT HE SAID.
IF YOU LOOK TO THE STATE LAW CITED ABOUT IN-FILL
PROJECTS IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THE BAN ON CONSIDERING
AESTHETIC EFFECTS DOES NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE EFFECTS ON
HISTORIC RESOURCES AND THE VISTA AROUND CAMPANILE WAY AS A
CHANNEL OF OPEN SPACE IS ITSELF A TERRIBLY IMPORTANT HISTORIC
RESOURCE THAT NEEDS TO BE RECOGNIZED.
I REMEMBER THAT EARLY THIS YEAR THIS BODY SUBJECTED
STRONGLY THAT THE E.I.R. INCLUDE AN ALTERNATIVE WHICH WOULD BE
LOWER THAN THE PROPOSED BUILDING.
THE DRAFT E.I.R. HAS NOTHING ABOUT THIS.
I WOULD STRONGLY URGE A LOWER PROJECT BE POSED AS AN
ALTERNATIVE.
IT COULD BE EIGHT OR NINE STORIES WITHOUT AFFECTING
THE HISTORIC VISTA.
519 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2557 of 6596
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF
BERKELEY RESIDENTS AND SAY THIS PROJECT DOESN'T SERVE OUR NEEDS.
WE HAVE A GLUT OF MARKET-RATE HOUSING IN BERKELEY.
>> CAN YOU SPEAK LOUDER?
>> THIS PROJECT DOESN'T SERVE OUR NEEDS.
WE HAVE WAY TOO MUCH MARKET-RATE HOUSING AVAILABLE AND
WE HAVE AN OBVIOUS LACK OF LOW-INCOME AND MEDIUM INCOME HOUSING
IF YOU LOOK AT THE FIGURES ON THE ABAG QUOTAS.
IT'S PRETTY SHAMEFUL.
CITY COUNCIL HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE REGULATIONS
OR ZONING RIGHT UP UNTIL THE FINAL BUILDING PERMIT IS OFFERED.
THERE ARE MANY PROJECTS THAT NEED TO BE EXAMINED FOR
WHAT WE NEED HERE NOW.
WE NEED MIXED INCOME, AFFORDABLE HOUSING WE NEED
ENERGY EFFICIENT ZERO NET ENERGY BUILDINGS.
AND OF COURSE WE NEED TO RESPECT THE CAMPANILE WAY
VIEW SHED, THANK YOU.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
KELLY?
I'M SORRY, ALEX AND THEN KELLY.
>> MY CRITICISMS AREN'T DIRECTED AT PLANNING STAFF OR
CONSULTANTS AND MORE SO DIRECTED AT CEQA AND HOW IT'S AN
AMAZINGLY ANTIQUATED AND EXTREMELY LIMITED WAY TO ANALYZE THESE
IN-FILL PROJECTS.
520 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2558 of 6596
LOOKING THROUGH THESE VERY LONG PROJECT, GLOBAL
WARMING MENTIONED ONCE, CLIMATE CHANGE ONCE.
THERE'S NO CALCULATION HOW THIS WILL AFFECT COMMUTING
PATTERNS IN A WHOLISTIC WAY, IF WE ARE PUTTING 300 PEOPLE ON TOP
OF B.A.R.T., VERSUS 300 PEOPLE IN THE FAR EAST BAY THEY WILL BE
DRIVING 80 MILES EVERYDAY, FIVE DAYS A WEEK, 50 WEEKS A YEAR,
THE GLOBAL WARMING POTENTIAL OF THOSE ARE DRAMATICALLY
DIFFERENT.
THIS BUILDING IS A TOOL TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING.
THAT'S WHY WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT IT.
IT'S PUTTING 300 PEOPLE ON TOP OF AN ELECTRIFIED
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WHERE CARBON EMISSIONS ARE ZERO.
THEY WILL EITHER USE THAT OR WALKING TO B.A.R.T.,
WALKING TO THEIR JOB IN DOWNTOWN BERKELEY A JOB HUB ITSELF.
THIS IS AN AMAZINGLY INADEQUATE WAY TO ANALYZE THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THIS PROJECT.
CALLING THIS REVIEW ENVIRONMENTAL IS REALLY KIND OF
INSULTING CONSIDERING GLOBAL WARMING IS THE NUMBER ONE
ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM FACING THIS WORLD.
QUICKLY I WANT TO SAY, IF YOU SQUINT YOU CAN SEE THE
BAY WHEN THE WORLD IS LITERALLY ON FIRE.
WHAT ARE OUR PRIORITIES?
THIS IS AMAZING TO HEAR THIS.
IF THAT'S OUR PRIORITY WE CAN'T CALL OURSELVES
PROGRESSIVES.
521 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2559 of 6596
WE SHOULD BE EMBARRASSED.
THIS BUILDING NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT AS A TOOL TO
FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING.
THAT'S THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
THANK YOU.
>> Chair I. Tregub: KELLY?
>> GO AHEAD AND PASS IT OUT.
JUST ON THE TRANSPORTATION, WHAT I NOTICED WE HAVE
AMAZON TRUCKS ALL THE TIME, AMAZON DELIVERIES AND I THINK THAT
SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE TRANSPORTATION.
WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT ALL THE ORDERING PEOPLE DO AND
THE TRANSPORTATION.
DO YOU HAVE YOUR PICTURES NOW?
PATRICK SHEAHAN IF YOU WENT TO THE VIEW TODAY, WHEN
YOU WERE AT THE BASE OF THE CAMPANILE, IF YOU STEPPED TO THE
LEFT, IF YOU DID, IF YOU STEPPED OVER TO THE LEFT YOU CAN SEE
THE TOP OF THE CHASE BANK.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE AGREED ON, IT'S 178 FEET.
SOME PEOPLE DISAGREE THAT IT'S 180 FEET.
BUT IF YOU STEP OVER TO THE LEFT YOU CAN SEE THE CHASE
BANK AND THAT IS ABOUT THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE TREE.
SO I DREW A LITTLE LINE THERE FOR YOU ON THE PICTURE
SO THAT YOU CAN USE THAT AS A REFERENCE.
522 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2560 of 6596
AND THEN IF YOU TAKE THAT SAME REFERENCE AND GO BACK
TO YOUR E.I.R. AND LOOK AT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING YOU WILL
SEE THAT IT IS NOT DRAWN AS TALL AS IT ACTUALLY IS.
SO THIS BUILDING IS 194 FEET, AS I'VE SAID IN THE
D.R.C. MEETING, NOT 180 FEET.
SO IT'S GOING TO BE TALLER THAN HOW IT'S DRAWN IN THIS
PICTURE.
IT IS BIGGER AND THEN I JUST WENT TO GOOGLE MAPS AND
MADE AN ESTIMATE OF THE VIEW CORRIDOR, MY GUESS IS THIS BUILDING
IS DEAD CENTER IN THE VIEW AND IT'S NOT IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
I THINK WE NEED THE DRONE.
OR SOMETHING.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
THANK YOU, KELLY.
>> I GUESS MY TIME IS UP?
>> Chair I. Tregub: YES.
>> ALL RIGHT.
>> Chair I. Tregub: I'M GOING TO PROPOSE THAT WE TAKE
A QUICK CAPTIONER'S BREAK NOW.
CAN WE DO FIVE MINUTES?
IS THAT TOO ONEROUS?
SEVEN MINUTES.
>> SEVEN-EIGHT.
>> Chair I. Tregub: ALL RIGHT, SEVEN-EIGHT.
EIGHT MINUTES.
523 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2561 of 6596
[BREAK].
>> Chair I. Tregub: WE ARE NOW OUT OF RECESS.
WE ARE ONTO COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD.
WHAT WE WILL DO IS ACTUALLY GO DOWN THE LINE.
STARTING WITH, LET'S PUT TERESA ON THE SPOT FIRST.
EVERYONE WILL HAVE UP TO THREE MINUTES.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO USE ALL THREE.
AND WE CAN ALSO SUBMIT COMMENTS IN WRITING AS WELL IF
WE DON'T FINISH.
>> T. Clarke: I'LL PASS FOR NOW.
>> Chair I. Tregub: OKAY.
>> C. Olson: YOU PUT ME ON THE SPOT EARLIER.
FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY I'VE BEEN ON
COMMISSIONS A LONG, LONG TIME.
WE ALL HAVE A JOB TO DO.
IT JUST MAKE IT'S REALLY CRAZY FOR US WHEN MEMBERS OF
THE PUBLIC SAY THINGS THAT ARE INTENTIONALLY INFLAMMATORY, IT
DOESN'T HELP OUR PROCESS.
WE ALL NEED TO GO THROUGH OUR PROCESS.
THE CONSULTANTS HAVE A PROCESS, THE STAFF HAS A
PROCESS, THE PUBLIC HAS A PROCESS AND WE HAVE A PROCESS.
UNTIL LAST WEEK I WAS CHAIR OF THE LANDMARKS
PRESERVATION COMMISSION, I REQUESTED THIS ITEM BE PUT ON THE
BALLOT -- I MEAN THE AGENDA LAST WEEK.
524 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2562 of 6596
BUT I WASN'T A MEMBER LAST WEEK SO I DIDN'T GET TO
COMMENT ON IT.
SO THESE COMMENTS ARE SEPARATE FROM THE ONES THAT COME
FROM THE COMMISSION.
I ALSO WAS PART OF LOOKING AT THE HISTORIC RESOURCES
FOR CAMPANILE WAY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO AND I LOOK FORWARD TO
BEING PART OF THE PROCESS AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AGAIN.
BECAUSE IN FACT, FREDERIC ARMSTEAD IS ABOUT THE MOST
FAMOUS LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT EVER.
HE WAS THE FIRST LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT EVER AND HE WAS
BROUGHT BY THE COLLEGE OF CALIFORNIA TO LOOK AT THE POTENTIAL
SITE FOR THE CAMPUS IN 1885.
WHEN HE CAME HE WAS PUT UP IN A HOTEL IN SAN FRANCISCO
AND HE HATED IT BECAUSE IT WAS FOGGY.
HE TOOK THE FERRY FROM SAN FRANCISCO TO BERKELEY AND
HERE IT WAS SUNNY AND BEAUTIFUL AND HE JUST FELL IN LOVE.
AND HE SAT DOWN ON A SPOT WHAT IS NOW CAMPANILE WAY
AND FELL IN LOVE WITH THE VIEW OUT WHAT WAS THEN THE GOLDEN
GATE.
YES, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS CALLED, THE GOLDEN GATE.
THERE WAS NO BRIDGE.
IT'S CALLED THAT BECAUSE THE SUNSETS AND THE WATER
LIGHTS UP.
525 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2563 of 6596
HE IS THE ONE WHO FIRST RECOMMENDED THIS VIEW CORRIDOR
SHOULD BE MAINTAINED AND BECOME AN ACCESS TO THE UNIVERSITY
CAMPUS PLAN.
YOU GUYS WILL NO DOUBT HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT.
I WAS DISAPPOINTED THERE WASN'T A BETTER DISCUSSION
ABOUT IT IN THE E.I.R.
I DON'T HAVE ANOTHER MINUTE.
SINCE THE DOWNTOWN PLAN THERE WAS A SURVEY DONE OF THE
DOWNTOWN BY THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION AND A CONSULTANT GROUP AND
STAFF AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE ELIGIBLE AS A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
THAT HASN'T GONE TO COUNCIL YET BUT ALL THE WORK HAS
BEEN DONE, THE D.E.I.R. FORMS ARE DONE FOR ALL THE BUILDINGS AND
CEQA REQUIRES WE CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S A HISTORIC
DISTRICT.
THERE'S LIKE 95 LANDMARKS IN THE DOWNTOWN.
WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THERE'S A HISTORIC DISTRICT AND
THIS BUILDING WOULD BE IN THE MIDST OF IT, THE ONLY OTHER THING
I WANT TO SAY I WAS PART OF THE GENERAL PLAN PROCESS IN
2001-2002 AND WE HAVE POLICIES THAT RELATE TO VIEWS.
NOT ONLY FROM THE CAMPANILE BUT TO THE CAMPANILE.
SO I HOPE EVERYBODY REMEMBERS THAT ICONIC VIEW OF THE
CAMPANILE IS SOMETHING THAT SYMBOLIZES BERKELEY AND WE NEED TO
PROTECT THAT VIEW CORRIDOR.
I OTHERWISE WILL ENDORSE THE COMMENTS THAT CAME FROM
THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION.
526 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2564 of 6596
I THOUGHT THEY WERE VERY WELL DONE.
THANK YOU.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
CHARLES?
>> C. Kahn: I'M GOING TO PASS FOR NOW.
>> Chair I. Tregub: DENISE?
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: I THINK I WILL HAVE
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION WHEN WE GET TO THE MERIT'S OF THE PROJECT.
I AM CONCERNED THE DESIGN STILL NEEDS SOME WORK BUT I
UNDERSTAND THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMISSION IS WORKING ON THAT SO I
WON'T BRING UP THOSE ISSUES, THOSE ARE REALLY MERITS ISSUES.
I THINK SOME THAT HAVE BEEN VISUALIZED IN MY MIND ARE
LESS CEQA IMPACT AND MORE MERITS ISSUE.
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE E.I.R. AS SUFFICIENT
INFORMATION TO MAKE A DECISION.
BUT I THINK IT'S FINE TO START LOOKING AT WHAT THAT
MIGHT LOOK LIKE BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE DISCRETION ON THE ISSUES
CURRENTLY BEING DEBATED.
BECAUSE THIS IS SUCH A HOT BUTTON TOPIC, I AM
DISAPPOINTED WE DIDN'T GET STATE-OF-THE-ART PHOTOGRAPHY, I
UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE STAFF HAS GIVEN AND I KNOW UNDER CEQA
WE WERE TIERING OFF AN EXISTING E.I.R.
IF THERE'S A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION YOU CAN
STILL MAKE A DECISION.
527 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2565 of 6596
I'M COMFORTABLE WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION AND I'M
COMFORTABLE MOVING TO THE MERITS.
I THINK THE E.I.R. NEEDS TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENTS
MADE BY THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION AND OTHER ZAB MEMBERS.
I JUST DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO WHAT'S ALREADY
BEEN COMMENTED ON.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
I WILL GO NEXT.
I WANT TO KEEP THIS FAIRLY BRIEF.
THERE WERE A FEW, FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU, THAT WAS A
REALLY, I THOUGHT A GOOD PRESENTATION THAT ENCAPSULATED SOME OF
THE LIMITATIONS AS WELL AS SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF CEQA AS
AMENDED.
A FEW THINGS THAT RESONATED WITH ME JUST HEARING
PUBLIC TESTIMONY THAT I WAS HOPING COULD BE EXPLORED IN MORE
DETAIL.
IN THE FINAL E.I.R., THE QUESTION ABOUT CULVERTS AND
CREEKS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE SITE BECAUSE I RECALL
SEVERAL ZAB MEMBERS DID PROPOSE THAT A SHORTER BUILDING BE
STUDIED IN THE ANALYSIS AND IT'S NOT DETERMINATIVE, IT'S JUST
FOR THE PURPOSE OF STUDYING AND SEEING WHAT ALL THE ALTERNATIVES
ARE.
IT WOULD BE NICE IF THERE WAS THAT OPTION AVAILABLE.
I WILL SAY THAT WITH REGARDS TO THE ALTERNATIVE WITH
FEWER PARKING SPACES I MAY HAVE MORE TO SAY ABOUT THAT WHEN WE
528 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2566 of 6596
GET TO THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT BUT I FOR ONE GENERALLY TEND TO
SUPPORT PEOPLE OVER CARS, HOUSING OVER PARKING AND I WONDER IF
THAT ALTERNATIVE WAS CARRIED OUT TO ITS CONCLUSION IF ONE, THERE
MIGHT BE MORE OPPORTUNITIES TO, WHATEVER ENVELOPE IS PROPOSED TO
HOUSE BECAUSE PARKING IS EXPENSIVE, THE FUNDS THAT COULD BE
SAVED FROM THAT COULD PROVIDE ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY BENEFITS,
THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL WORKFORCE HOUSING.
IT COULD BE ADDITIONAL TRANSIT BENEFITS, WHATEVER THE
CASE MIGHT BE.
JUST AN INTERESTING THOUGHT AND I'M GOING TO BE
EXPLORING THAT MORE IN CONCERT WITH MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
THIS IS MORE OF A LIMITATION OF THE WAY THE
ASSOCIATION OF M.T.C., METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION, WHICH
HAS KIND OF SWALLOWED UP ABAG, I DO THINK THE IMPACT OF
TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS SHOULD BE STUDIED IN ANY ANALYSIS.
THAT INCLUDES PLATFORMS LIKE UBER AND LYFT.
HOPEFULLY RESIDENTS WILL BE WALKING AND BIKING AND
TAKING PUBLIC TRANSIT BUT SOMETIMES THEY WILL BE USING OTHER
OPTIONS.
I BELIEVE THAT THE METROPOLITAN TRANSIT COMMISSION, IN
AND OF ITSELF, DOESN'T DO ENOUGH TO STUDY THE GREENHOUSE GAS
EMISSION IMPACTS.
INTERESTING FOR THIS ANALYSIS TO CAPTURE SOME OF THAT,
TO THE EXTENT IT CAN BE PREDICTED.
AND IT MIGHT ACTUALLY BE USED.
529 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2567 of 6596
IT COULD BE HELD UP AS A MODEL FOR WHAT OTHER IMPACT
ANALYSES SHOULD BE LIKE.
FINALLY, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ENOUGH EXPERTISE ABOUT
TOPOLOGY TO SAY WHETHER A VIEW FROM A DRONE HAS A HIGHER
RESOLUTION OR IS MORE REALISTIC THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY BEING
DONE.
I TOO HAVE SEEN DRONES IN BERKELEY WHEN WE HAD THE
PEACE DAY IN JANUARY SHORTLY AFTER THE NEW COUNCIL WAS
INAUGURATED WE ALL HELD HANDS AND STOOD IN CIVIC PARK AND THERE
WAS A PEACE DRONE THAT PHOTOGRAPHED THAT.
I DO THINK IF THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTS FEEL IT WOULD
YIELD TO MORE ACCURATE ANALYSIS, THEN IT'S AN OPTION THAT SHOULD
BE PURSUED.
THANK YOU.
JOHN?
>> J. Selawsky: THANK YOU.
I SOMEWHAT AGREE WITH DENISE THOUGH I HAVE SOME
COMMENTS TO MAKE.
I THINK THE DRAFT E.I.R. AS FAR AS IT GOES IS THE
DRAFT E.I.R. BUT THE COMMENTS -- PART OF THESE MAY BE GOING
FORWARD AS WELL.
I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE CREEK MAPS.
HISTORY OF THE CULVERT, CULVERTS AND STRAWBERRY CREEK
THROUGH ALLSTON AND THAT AREA.
530 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2568 of 6596
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ALTERNATIVES AS POINTED OUT
ALREADY BY OUR CHAIR.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE USEFUL FOR US.
IT'S NOT MANDATORY BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT WOULDN'T
BE HELPFUL.
AND I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT MANDATORY.
I ALSO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE 180-FOOT BUILDING IS
ACTUALLY 190 FEET.
PLUS, IF THE 180 FEET HELPS WITH THE VIEW CORRIDOR
MAYBE WE SHOULD CONSIDER JUST LIMITING IT TO 180 FEET, PERIOD.
AND I'M NOT SURE THAT IT DOES HELP THE VIEW CORRIDOR,
BUT IF THE 58 MOVING DOWN TO 58 PARKING SPACES HELPS THE VIEW
CORRIDOR, LET'S LOOK AT THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT
THAT VIEW CORRIDOR AND MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS IF POSSIBLE, WHERE
POSSIBLE.
I'M ALSO GOING TO TALK ABOUT WHAT I THINK WILL BE A
MESS ON ALLSTON WAY.
THERE'S ALREADY A PARKING GARAGE ENTRANCE AND EXIT.
THERE'S ONE ON CENTER STREET AS WELL.
MAYBE THAT WILL MOVE ALL TO CENTER STREET.
YOU HAVE THE POST OFFICE, YOU HAVE THE Y.M.C.A.
I SUSPECT IT'S GOING TO BE A MESS DURING CONSTRUCTION.
BUT AFTER CONSTRUCTION AS WELL.
U.P.S., FED EX, UBER, LYFT, EVERYONE OF THESE DELIVERY
PICK UPS DOUBLE PARK ALL OVER TOWN EVERYWHERE ALL THE TIME.
531 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2569 of 6596
TO BELIEVE THEY AREN'T GOING TO DO THAT ON ALLSTON WAY
IS DELUSIONAL.
I THINK WE REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT AND WE ALSO, I
HAVE NO ISSUE WITH DENSITY DOWNTOWN.
BUT EVERYBODY WHO CITES B.A.R.T. APPARENTLY DOESN'T
RIDE ON B.A.R.T. DURING COMMUTE HOURS BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY OVER
CAPACITY AND WE ARE BUILDING MORE AND MORE DEVELOPMENTS ON OR
NEAR B.A.R.T..
WHICH IS ALREADY OVER CAPACITY.
I WILL SAY IT AGAIN.
SOMEBODY NEEDS TO LOOK AT THAT AND ANALYZE THAT.
THANK YOU.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
SHOSHANA?
>> S. O'Keefe: MY MAIN COMMENT IS SORT OF A REHASHING
OF MY QUESTION EARLIER.
I'M NOT SUPER SATISFIED WITH THE MITIGATION
EXPLANATION FOR PASSENGER LOADING.
OH IF IT'S A PROBLEM WE WILL LOOK AT IT FOR SIX MONTHS
BUT I WANT TO SEE WHAT THE OPTIONS ARE.
JUST LOOKING AT IT ISN'T A MITIGATION.
AND WE WILL WORK WITH THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS ISN'T
ENOUGH OF A MITIGATION, SO I WANT TO SEE A LOT MORE DISCUSSION
ABOUT THAT AND I WANT TO ECHO JOHN'S COMMENTS I'M CONCERNED
532 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2570 of 6596
ABOUT THE TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON ALLSTON, AND I'M ALSO VERY
CONCERNED ABOUT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.
I BROUGHT THIS UP DURING THE SCOPING SESSION.
AT THAT TIME DURING THE PRESENTATION THERE WERE A
NUMBER OF SAFETY MEASURES LISTED AND I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY
WHAT THEY WERE BUT MY RECOLLECTION IS THERE WERE MORE THAN
WHAT'S IN THIS E.I.R.
I'M NOT SATISFIED WITH MITIGATIONS FOR PEDESTRIAN
SAFETY AND THIS IS AN ISSUE I'M KIND OF PERSONALLY TAKING UP.
NOT SO MUCH ANYWHERE BUT I USED TO BE ONE OF THOSE
MOMS WITH THE STROLLER WHO WOULD GET OFF THE BUS AND WALK TO THE
Y AND THERE'S HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE DOING THAT EVERYDAY.
THAT'S A PARTICULAR LIFESTYLE.
AND YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A STROLLER AND LITTLE KIDS
RUNNING AND MY SON WOULD GET OUT OF THE STROLLER AND RUN AND I
WOULD SCREAM BECAUSE HE WOULD ALMOST GET HIT BY A CAR AT THE
GARAGE.
THAT HAPPENS TO A MILLION PARENTS EVERYDAY, AND IT'S
REALLY TERRIFYING.
THERE'S A LOT OF PEDESTRIANS THERE AND A LOT OF KIDS
AND TO ADD ANOTHER BUSY DRIVEWAY IS REALLY CONCERNING TO ME.
I SAW THERE WERE A COUPLE FREE STANDARD MITIGATION
MEASURES FOR PUBLIC SAFETY BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING
ABOVE AND BEYOND GIVEN THE EXTREMITY OF THE IMPACT THERE.
533 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2571 of 6596
LASTLY I UNDERSTAND WE DIDN'T HAVE TO LOOK AT MANY
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES.
BUT I'M DISAPPOINTED THERE ISN'T ONE FOR A LOWER
HEIGHT.
I BELIEVE MR. ENGLISH BROUGHT UP THIS IDEA.
THAT GIVEN THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE ISSUE OF THE VIEW
IMPACTS, WHICH I UNDERSTAND WE DON'T ALL AGREE ON HOW MUCH THE
E.I.R. SHOULD BE TALKING ABOUT THAT BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK
IT'S AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.
IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE HAD A PROJECT ALTERNATIVE THAT
WAS SIGNIFICANTLY SHORT, I'M NOT ADVOCATING THAT I JUST THINK
THAT WOULD BE WORTH LOOKING AT GIVEN THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
ISSUE.
OTHERWISE GOOD JOB, EVERYONE.
IT'S A GOOD E.I.R.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU, SHOSHANA.
>> I WOULD ECHO THE COMMENTS THROUGH CAMPANILE WAY AND
STRAWBERRY CREEK.
AND I THINK THE E.I.R. IS A PERFECTLY APPROPRIATE
PLACE TO INCLUDE ROBUST COMMENTARY ON THESE SUBJECTS AND NOT
SIMPLY DISMISS THEM BECAUSE OF SOME TECHNICAL READING OF WHAT AN
E.I.R. CONSISTS OF.
THIS ACTS AS A PREVIEW THAT WILL COME BACK TO THIS
BOARD AND IT'S HELPFUL TO HAVE A FULL DISCUSSION OF THESE ISSUES
AHEAD OF TIME.
534 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2572 of 6596
SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE FLESHING OUT THOSE ISSUES WHICH
HAVE BEEN WELL ARTICULATED BY MANY PEOPLE.
I WILL SAY AGAIN, I THINK STRAWBERRY CREEK COULD BE A
POTENTIAL FOR DAYLIGHTING.
IT WAS CONSIDERED ON CENTER WHERE STRAWBERRY CREEK IS
NOT AND HERE STRAWBERRY CREEK IS, OR ALMOST WHERE IT IS.
ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF BUILDINGS, CERTAINLY LOWER
ALTERNATIVE IS THE ALTERNATIVE THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED
REGARDLESS OF THE TECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE E.I.R.
THERE ARE NOT ONLY MANY REASONS BUT YOU ARE PRESENTING
A REAL ALTERNATIVE IN PARKING SPACES BELOW GROUND DOESN'T REALLY
HAVE MUCH OF AN IMPACT ON THE OVERALL PROJECT OR THE
ENVIRONMENT.
THE HEIGHT FOR NOMINAL 180 FOOT BUILDINGS IS A REAL
PROBLEM MAT EC ONE.
I WOULD ASK STAFF TO REVIEW THE VOTE RELATIVE TO THE
DOWNTOWN PLAN THAT AUTHORIZED 180 FOOT BUILDINGS WHAT THE BASIS
OF THAT WAS.
WELLS FARGO AND CHASE BUILDINGS WERE IDENTIFIED AS THE
MARKERS FOR THAT HEIGHT.
HOW HEIGHT WAS CALCULATED.
HOW HEIGHT WAS REDEFINED AFTER THE VOTE BY THE PUBLIC
AND APPROVED BY COUNCIL.
535 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2573 of 6596
ALL OF WHICH CONSPIRED IN THE CASE OF HERALD WAY
DRAMATICALLY INCREASED THE HEIGHT, WHICH WAS EVENTUALLY APPROVED
OVER WHAT, IN MY READING WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE VOTERS.
HERE WE HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT DOING THE SAME.
I THINK THIS DESERVES ANALYSIS TO SATISFY THE NAGGING
QUESTION, WHAT IS THE HEIGHT AND WHAT IS IT DEFINED BY AND HOW
IS IT APPLIED FOR PROJECTS.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
BRAZILE?
>> B. Clark: WELL, I DON'T HAVE MANY MORE ADDITIONAL
COMMENTS.
I ECHO THE CONCERNS OF THE HEIGHT IN REGARDS TO
CULTURAL RESOURCES AND TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC BUT I DON'T,
THERE'S ALSO QUESTIONS ABOUT POPULATION AND HOUSING.
WE KNOW HOW MANY UNITS THERE WILL BE BUT WILL THERE BE
AN ESTIMATE ON HOW MANY PEOPLE WILL ACTUALLY BE LIVING IN THE
BUILDING.
THE EFFECT ON THE POPULATION DENSITY THERE.
ALSO THE SECTION OF PUBLIC SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE
PUBLIC AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY WHO WILL BE LIVING THERE AND
THAT ALSO TIES TO RECREATION THAT THE BUILDING MAY HOUSE THAT
MIGHT BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF THAT
COMMUNITY.
THOSE ARE ALL MY COMMENTS.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
536 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2574 of 6596
WE WILL GO BACK TO THE TWO COMMISSIONERS WHO PASSED.
TERESA?
>> T. Clarke: I THINK THE VIEW WILL COME UP WHETHER
IT'S IN THE E.I.R. OR NOT.
SO I THINK THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO DEAL WITH THAT.
BECAUSE THAT IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THERE.
SO I THINK IN TERMS OF HOW THE E.I.R. HAS IDENTIFIED
IT, I THINK IT WOULD BE NICE TO UNDERSTAND ANOTHER ALTERNATE BUT
I THINK WE WILL HAVE TO DO THAT DURING THE ZONING ADJUSTMENTS
PROCESS PROBABLY.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
>> C. Olson: CAN I JUST ADD A COUPLE THINGS.
SORRY, I THOUGHT EVERYBODY HAD TERRIFIC COMMENTS,
THANK YOU.
>> Chair I. Tregub: WE HAVE CHARLES.
BUT GO AHEAD.
>> C. Olson: I WANT TO SAY NO ONE HAS BROUGHT UP THE
SHATTUCK HOTEL AND IT'S RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AND I DON'T
THINK THE E.I.R. ADDRESSES ADEQUATE IMPACTS NOISE, TIMES OF
CONSTRUCTION, VIBRATION AND PARKING.
SORRY, YOU TALK ABOUT UBER ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET.
NO, NO, THEY NEED THEIR GUESTS DROPPED OFF AND PICKED
UP.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
537 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2575 of 6596
>> C. Kahn: I THINK ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WHERE CEQA
REALLY TRIES TO ADDRESS A LARGE RANGE OF ISSUES AND WE ALWAYS
WANTED TO DO MORE THAN IT'S SOMETIMES DESIGNED TO DO.
I THINK THE COMMENTS TONIGHT ARE BOTH VERY MUCH
OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT DESIGNED AS WELL AS SUPPORTING IT
ILLUSTRATE THAT.
I HAVE SYMPATHY FOR BOTH OF THOSE OBJECTIONS TO CEQA
THE WAY IT'S DRAFTED.
BOTH ON ALEX'S SIDE.
I THINK IF IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HAVING URBAN IN-FILL IS A GOOD WAY
TO ADDRESS GLOBAL WARMING.
IT DOESN'T ADDRESS THE VIEW CORRIDOR WHICH IS A VERY
IMPORTANT PART, IN MY OPINION, OF BERKELEY'S HISTORICAL
RESOURCE.
I DON'T THINK WE CAN RELY ON THE E.I.R. TO DO THESE
THINGS BECAUSE OF THE WAY CEQA IS FORMULATED BUT THAT DOESN'T
MEAN THAT WE DON'T IGNORE THEM AS A ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD.
I LOOK FORWARD TO THE DISCUSSION AS IT EVOLVES AND I
APPRECIATE THE CITIZENS WHO CAME TO SPEAK.
WHATEVER YOUR PERSPECTIVE, I APPRECIATE EVERYONE
TAKING THE TIME TO COME AND TALK ABOUT YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT HOW
WE MANAGE THE LIMITED LAND WE HAVE AVAILABLE IN OUR TOWN AND IN
OUR WORLD.
SO THANK YOU.
538 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2576 of 6596
>> Chair I. Tregub: DENISE?
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: I WANT TO PIVOT TO THE
MERITS WHY WE ARE ALL HERE.
I KNOW WHEN I'M AN APPLICANT I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO
GET TO THE FINAL HEARING AND THERE ARE ISSUES I HAVE NOT
ADDRESSED YET SO I WILL GIVE YOU A PREVIEW.
WHAT I HEARD FROM MY COLLEAGUES AND ALSO FROM THE
E.I.R. CONSULTANT ARE THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE HISTORIC
CONTEXT ISN'T SUFFICIENTLY REFLECTED IN THE ARCHITECTURE AND YOU
MENTIONED THERE WOULD BE A MITIGATION OF THAT EFFECT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY THAT.
BUT I WOULD LIKE TO.
MAYBE WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT IN A SECOND.
CERTAINLY, AND YOU BROUGHT THAT UP WITH CONTEXT OF THE
SHATTUCK HOTEL.
THERE ARE SPECIFICS OR GEOMETRIES THAT THE NEW
BUILDING DOESN'T REALLY REFLECT AT ALL.
THERE'S A STREET WALL BUT IT'S MUCH HIGHER THAN THE
STREET WALL IN THE DISTRICT.
THEIR MATERIALITY AND THE WAY IT SHAPES AND FORMS THE
BUILDING IS LOVELY BUT IT COULD PERHAPS BE THE BUILDING'S SAME
SQUARE FOOTAGE AND IT COULD MORE ACCURATELY.
I'M NOT SURE HOW WE GET THROUGH THAT BUT I THINK WHAT
YOU ARE HEARING FROM THE COMMISSION, THAT'S A CONCERN.
539 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2577 of 6596
SO YOU SHOULD MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT
THAT AND TALKING TO STAFF ABOUT HOW TO GET THERE.
I ALSO THINK YOU ARE HEARING THE VIEW IMPACT IS AN
IMPACT WE INTEND TO ADDRESS.
JUST SAYING IT'S NOT AN IMPACT UNDER CEQA DOESN'T MEAN
WHAT IS DRAWN WILL BE APPROVED.
AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU WANT TO DEAL WITH THAT BUT
I THINK YOU NEED TO BE AHEAD OF THAT ISSUE.
PERHAPS THERE'S A WAY OF BLENDING BOTH BY LOOKING AT
HISTORIC BUILDINGS.
WELLS FARGO GIVES YOU AN IDEA, LOW MIDDLE TOP, THE WAY
THE FENESTRATION IS HANDLED.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A COPY CAT BUT THERE'S A RHYTHM
TO THAT BUILDING THAT YOUR BUILDING DOESN'T EMBODY.
IN TERMS OF THAT RHYTHM OF HEIGHT IN THE DOWNTOWN
SHOULD BE KIND OF WHAT WE LOOK FOR PARTICULARLY AS YOU GET INTO
VIEW IMPACTS AND MAYBE THE TALLEST PARTS OF THIS BUILDING NEED
TO BE FLATTENED OUT AND MORE MASSING NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT TOWARDS
SHATTUCK WHICH WOULD BE THE WAY THE WELLS FARGO AND B OF A
BUILDING ARE, THE MASSING ARE CLOSE TO THE PRIMARY STREET.
I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE MASSING GUIDELINES IN THE
DOWNTOWN PLAN BUT WE ARE TRYING TO BALANCE OBJECTIVES.
IF I UNDERSTAND MY COLLEAGUES CORRECTLY, THAT VIEW IS
PART OF THE PROBLEM.
I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE WANT TO GET TO MERITS.
540 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2578 of 6596
I THOUGHT I WOULD RAISE THAT TO YOU NOW.
STAFF, WHAT DID YOU HAVE IN MIND WITH MITIGATIONS
ABOUT ARCHITECTURE.
WHAT DID YOU THINK THEY WERE REALISTICALLY GOING TO
DO?
>> SO, AS YOU PROBABLY KNOW, THIS IMPACT AND
MITIGATIONS DISCUSSED IN THE E.I.R. UNDER IMPACT CI1 IN THE
ARCHITECTURAL SECTION.
WE DO HAVE OUR CULTURAL RESOURCES CONSULTANT AND SHE
CAN TALK ABOUT HOW THEY DID THAT ANALYSIS AND CAME TO THAT
CONCLUSION AND DEVELOPED THOSE MEASURES.
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: SURE AND I WOULD LIKE TO
HEAR WHAT THEY MEAN.
WHAT DID YOU HAVE IN MIND AS THEY ARE WALKING UP HERE?
>> THIS IS SARAH HAHN WITH ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
GROUP.
>> HI, I'M SARAH HAHN WITH ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
GROUP.
LET ME ASK YOU WHAT YOU MEAN ABOUT WHAT WE MEAN.
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: AS I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU
SAY YOU HAD MITIGATIONS ABOUT ECHOING OR REFLECTING OR HAVING
THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDING FIT INTO ITS HISTORIC CONTEXT.
MY QUESTION OF YOU IS WHAT DID YOU MEAN?
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT THAT?
HOW DOES THE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT DEAL WITH THAT?
541 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2579 of 6596
WHAT WE MEANT, WE THOUGHT THE KIND OF SLANTED ALUMINUM
PANELS DIDN'T NECESSARILY -- CONTRAST WITH THE SURROUNDING
HISTORIC RESOURCES AND WE SUGGESTED THE DESIGN BE MORE VENEER TO
REFLECT THE PATTERN OF THE STREETSCAPE TO PRESERVE THE SETTING
OF THE SHATTUCK HOTEL AND OTHER CONTRIBUTORS TO THE DISTRICT.
IN GENERAL FOR COMPATIBILITY.
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: WAS THAT THE SHADES.
THE FACT THE BALCONY WAS CHEVRON SHAPED OR ALL OF THE
ABOVE.
>> I BELIEVE FIRST THROUGH SIXTH STORY, THE BASE WHERE
IT'S CLOSEST TO THE HISTORIC RESOURCES.
DO WE HAVE IN OUR DESIGN GUIDELINE PICTURES OF GOOD?
>> YOU POSTED THOSE PICTURES.
>> I HEARD THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT ONLY HAD ONE IT'S
ACTUALLY REALLY WORTH HAVING.
IT WILL TELL YOU THE DO'S AND DON'T'S.
AND FRANKLY THIS DOESN'T JUST GO FLOORS 1-6.
IT GOES ALL THE WAY UP BECAUSE WE WANT SOMETHING
THAT'S HANDSOME.
IT TALKS ABOUT FENESTRATION, RECESSED WINDOWS.
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: SO COULD THE E.I.R. PERHAPS
PULL MORE OF THAT GUIDANCE INTO THE E.I.R. SO THE MITIGATION IS
MORE SPECIFIC AND GIVES THE APPLICANT MORE INFORMATION TO WORK
WITH SO OUR INTENTION IS MADE MORE CLEAR?
542 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2580 of 6596
>> TO SAY MORE WHAT IT PROPOSES WE HAVE MORE SLOTTED
ERECT VERSUS THE ALUMINUM.
SOUTHERN FACADE FACING THE SHATTUCK HOTEL WHICH IS WHY
THAT'S MORE OF AN ERECT -- WALL TO WALL TREATMENTS THAT MATCH
THOSE OF SURROUNDING BUILDINGS MORE.
SPECIFICALLY THE SHATTUCK HOTEL.
CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG THAT APPLIES TO HOW MUCH
WINDOW VOID TAKE UP SPACE VERSUS THE BLANK WALL AND HAVING THAT
REFLECT MORE THE PROPORTIONS OF THE SHATTUCK HOTEL.
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: AND THE IMAGES ARE HELPFUL.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO PUT THEM IN THE DOCUMENT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION.
HOW DID YOU COME TO YOUR FINDINGS THAT THERE IS LITTLE
TO NO IMPACT?
FROM THE CAMPANILE VIEW.
WHAT WAS THE PROCESS?
>> THAT STEMMED OUT OF THE HERALD WAY E.I.R. THAT WAS
COMPLETED A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
WE STUDIED IN DEPTH THE ISSUE OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCE
ISSUE ON THE CAMPUS ONE OF THE MAIN DETRIMENTS WAS THE 2004
CAMPUS PLAN OR HISTORIC LANDSCAPE STUDY AND IT IDENTIFIED KEY
LANDSCAPE FEATURES RELATED TO THE CENTRAL CORE OF THE CAMPUS.
CAMPANILE WAS ONE OF THE FEATURES.
THERE WERE SEVEN MAIN COMPONENTS.
543 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2581 of 6596
AND OUR ANALYSIS WAS THAT IN AND OF ITSELF THE VIEW IS
NOT A HISTORIC RESOURCE.
AND THE FINDING OF LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT WAS
THAT THE CAMPANILE WAY AND THE HISTORIC, THE HISTORIC LANDSCAPE
OF THE CORE OF THE CAMPUS WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE.
OVERALL HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE DESPITE THIS
ENCROACHMENT ON THE VIEW.
>> OKAY, IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, ONE THE
CAMPANILE WAY IS NOT CONSIDERED A HISTORIC RESOURCE.
>> NOT IN AND OF ITSELF.
>> B. Clark: AND TWO, YOU USE THE HERALD WAY AS A
MARKER?
>> WHY ARE YOU USING HERALD WAY INSTEAD OF THIS MARKER
INDEPENDENTLY?
>> THE BUILDING ISN'T HISTORIC.
WE STUDIED IT AT THAT TIME AND OUR WORK FROM THAT
E.I.R. TRANSFERRED TO THIS.
IN TERMS OF THE HISTORIC RESOURCE ANALYSIS.
THE ENCROACHMENT OF THE VIEW IS DIFFERENT OUR ANALYSIS
HINGES ON THE FACT THE VIEW ITSELF IS NOT A RECOGNIZED HISTORIC
RESOURCE.
IT'S A COMPONENT OF A LARGER LANDSCAPE BUT THE LARGER
LANDSCAPE DOESN'T LOSE IT'S ABILITY TO COMMUNICATE ITS OVERALL
HISTORIC SIGNIFICANCE WITH THE VIEW ENCROACHMENT.
544 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2582 of 6596
>> B. Clark: IF CAMPANILE WAS DESIGNATED A HISTORIC
RESOURCE THAT WOULD CHANGE YOUR ENTIRE ANALYSIS?
>> THAT WOULD CHANGE.
>> B. Clark: THANK YOU.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
I GUESS JUST REINFORCING THE COMMENT THAT HAS BEEN
BROUGHT UP, IF IN FACT THE CAMPANILE WAY IS DESIGNATED AS A
LANDMARK AND AGAIN, THAT'S NOT A DETERMINANT OF STATEMENT, I
HAVE NO IDEA BUT THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THE E.I.R. SHOULD AT
LEAST LOOK AT SO THAT IN CASE THAT WERE TO HAPPEN WE WOULD NOT
WANT AN E.I.R. THAT IS CAUGHT FLATFOOTED.
I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND
ECHO CHARLES'S COMMENT.
A BIG THANK YOU TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC HERE TO
SPEAK TO THIS.
WHATEVER YOUR PERSPECTIVE IS ON THIS PROJECT.
I WILL ASK PERMISSION FROM MY COLLEAGUES IF WE COULD,
FOR TWO MINUTES TAKE A DIFFERENT ORDER OF BUSINESS.
AND MOVE TO THE JEFFERSON PROJECT FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE
OF ALLOWING ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC TO PROVIDE HIS COMMENTS FOR
A.D.A. REASONS BECAUSE HE HAS TO LEAVE.
ARE THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT?
THANK YOU.
ELI, WHENEVER STAFF IS READY YOU WILL HAVE YOUR
OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE YOUR 2 MINUTES OF COMMENTS.
545 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2583 of 6596
>> I'M NOT ELI, I'M JONAH.
>> Chair I. Tregub: JONAH, SORRY.
>> [OFF MIC].
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY, MEETING -- [OFF MIC].
>> Chair I. Tregub: EXCUSE ME.
I DON'T KNOW IF ITS POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO COME CLOSER TO
THE MIC?
MAYBE WE CAN HAVE THE MIC, THERE WE GO, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> GETTING BACK TO THE REAL MAIN TOPIC.
I SUPPORT THE REDESIGN OF THE NON-ACCESSIBLE HOUSE.
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ASPECT TO ACCOMMODATE PEOPLE WITH
DISABILITIES.
I UNDERSTAND THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS.
HOWEVER, BERKELEY, HISTORICALLY, IS THE CENTER OF THE
DISABLED MOVEMENT.
AND SOME OF THESE CONCERNS WERE ECHOED BACK WHEN THE
ED ROBERTS CAMPUS WAS GOING TO BE BUILT.
YES, THERE IS A DISABLED POPULATION HERE.
AND I THINK WITHIN REASON, WITHIN A.D.A. REASONS, THE
PROJECT SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO AHEAD.
AFTER ALL, SOME OF YOU IN THIS ROOM INCLUDING THE
NEIGHBORS THAT MIGHT HAVE A LITTLE OPPOSITION WILL EVENTUALLY
BECOME DISABLED AND YOU WILL WISH YOU HAD MORE DISABLED
PROJECTS.
546 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2584 of 6596
I RESPECT WE HAVE OUR DIFFERENCES BUT WHEN I ADDRESSED
THE LANDMARKS COMMISSION, THE DISABLED INVASION HAS ALREADY
HAPPENED.
SO I THINK IT'S BEST TO COOPERATE, YEAH I HEAR THE
SOUND, WITH MR. SCHWARTZ PROJECT AS AN ACCOMMODATION TO DISABLED
AND SENIOR PEOPLE WHO CAN'T GET INTO HIS HOUSE NOW WHICH MEANS
WE HAVE TO DO MORE EVENTS IN THE SYNAGOGUE, WITH ALL DUE
RESPECT, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE ACCESSIBILITY IS.
I WILL LOOK FORWARD TO THE COMMISSION MOVING FORWARD
FAST.
AND THAT'S IT.
I JUST WANT TO SAY A LAST THING WITH REGARD TO FUTURE
PROJECTS, THE DISABLED IMPACT, I APPRECIATE THE COMMISSIONER WHO
BROUGHT UP THE SAFETY ISSUE BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN HIT BY 8-9 CARS.
SO I WANT IT NOTED.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
SO WE WILL NOW GO BACK TO REGULAR ORDER OF BUSINESS
AND TAKE UP 1546 FIFTH STREET AS SOON AS STAFF IS READY.
>> GOOD EVENING, ZAB MEMBERS.
THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ZONING OFFICER'S DECISION TO
APPROVE AN A.U.P. AT 1445 FIFTH STREET.
THE APPROVED PROJECT WOULD CONSTRUCT FOUR DETACHED
THREE-STORY APPROXIMATELY 1800 SQUARE FOOT SINGLE FAMILY
547 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2585 of 6596
DWELLINGS EACH WITH AVERAGE HEIGHT OF 33 FEET ON A 6,250 SQUARE
FOOT VACANT LOT.
EACH WOULD BE LOCATED TOWARD THE NORTH SIDE OF THE
PROPERTY WITH A 12-FOOT DRIVEWAY THAT WOULD RUN THE LENGTH OF
THE LOT NEAR THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE TO PROVIDE ACCESS FOR
FOUR OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.
THE PARCEL IS IN WEST BERKELEY AND THUS THE
APPLICATION IS ALSO SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW.
THIS PORTION OF THE M.U.R. DISTRICT PROVIDES
TRANSITION BETWEEN THE MORE EXCLUSIVELY RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO THE
EAST AND THE INDUSTRIAL AREAS TO THE WEST.
THE ZONING OFFICER DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED
PROJECT WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT EXCEED THE
M.U.R. STANDARDS FOR MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FLOOR AREA,
HEIGHT OR LOT COVERAGE.
THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD ALSO MEET OR EXCEED THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR SETBACKS, PARKING AND USABLE SPACE AND NO
SHADOW IMPACTS WOULD OCCUR.
AN APPEAL OF THE A.U.P. AND STAFF APPROVAL WAS
SUBMITTED JUNE 15th, 2017.
AND THE APPEAL WAS PRESENTED AT THE DESIGN REVIEW
COMMITTEE IN JULY.
THE COMMITTEE DISMISSED WITH A FEW RECOMMENDATIONS THE
PLANTING STRIP ALONG THE DRIVEWAY BE WIDENED WHERE POSSIBLE AND
548 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2586 of 6596
THE CURB CUT BE REDUCED GIVEN APPROVAL FROM THE TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION.
THE APPEAL LETTER CONTAINS SEVERAL POINTS.
THEY INCLUDE CONCERNS THAT THE PROJECT, THE PROPOSED
GARAGES ARE TOO SMALL FOR FUNCTIONALITY, THE PROJECT SHOULD BE
SUBJECT TO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION FEE, THE APPLICANT
HAS NOT BEEN TRANSPARENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE ROOF DECKS
WILL CREATE PRIVACY IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH.
THE PROJECT WILL REDUCE ON STREET PARKING.
IN ADDITION THE APPELLANT WRITES THAT THE LOT IS NOT
VACANT.
STAFF NOTES THE EASTERN PORTION IS CURRENTLY USED AS
PART OF A LARGER PARKING LOT THAT SERVES THE COMMERCIAL AND
WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BLOCK.
ZONING CERTIFICATES FOR THESE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BLOCK INDICATE THAT PARKING SPACES ARE
PROVIDED ON THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
HOWEVER IT APPEARS THE CITY DID NOT CONFIRM THE
LOCATION OF THE PARKING SPACES WHEN THOSE ZONING CERTIFICATES
WERE APPROVED.
AND THEIR PARKING OCCURS ON A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT
PROPERTY.
HOWEVER THE ZONING CERTIFICATE DOESN'T CONSTITUTE
APPROVAL OF ANY USE NOT SHOWN IN THE APPLICATION.
549 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2587 of 6596
IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE APPROVED ZONING CERTIFICATES
DO NOT CONTAIN EVIDENCE THAT THE REQUIRED PARKING WOULD BE
PROVIDED ON A DIFFERENT PROPERTY, THEY DO NOT VALIDATE APPROVAL
OF PARKING AT THE SUBJECT PARCEL AND THEREFORE THE CITY CANNOT
PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY AND REMOVING
THAT PORTION OF THE PARKING LOT.
THE FINAL APPEAL POINT THE STAFF REPORT ADDRESSES IS
THAT THE PROPERTY CONTAINS ONE COAST LIVE OAK TREE SUBJECT TO
THE CITY'S TREE REMOVAL ORDINANCE.
UPON RECEIVING THE APPEAL LETTER STAFF CONFIRMED THE
TREE IS IN FACT ON THE SITE AND SUBJECT TO THE REMOVAL
ORDINANCE.
THE ORDINANCE PROHIBITS THE REMOVAL UNLESS IT'S A
POTENTIAL DANGER TO LIFE OR LIMB DUE TO THE CONDITION OF THE
TREE OR DANGER TO PROPERTY AND THE ONLY REASONABLE MITIGATION
WOULD BE THE REMOVAL OF THE TREE.
STAFF REFERRED THE PROJECT TO THE CITY'S ARBORIST WHO
INSPECTED THE TREE ON AUGUST 25th AND ADVISED THE TREE IS
SUBJECT TO THE REMOVAL ORDINANCE, CANNOT BE REMOVED AND THAT NO
CONSTRUCTION OR PARKING OCCUR WITHIN TEN FEET OF THE TREE'S
TRUNK TO ENSURE CONTINUED VIABILITY.
IN RESPONSE TO THIS DETERMINATION ON SEPTEMBER 5th,
THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED REVISED PLANS TO RETAIN THE COAST OAK
TREE BY REVISING FLOOR PLANS FOR BUILDING NUMBER TWO.
550 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2588 of 6596
I WANT TO NOTE THAT BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WORKED SO
QUICKLY TO MEET DEADLINES AND GET THE PLANS FOR THIS HEARING
SOME OF THE OTHER APPLICATION MATERIAL DOESN'T REFLECT THOSE
REVISED PLANS INCLUDING THE TABULATION FORM AND THAT'S NOTED IN
MY STAFF REPORT ALSO.
BECAUSE OF THE PROJECT'S CONSISTENCY WITH THE
ORDINANCE THE MINIMAL IMPACT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES STAFF
RECOMMENDS THE BOARD APPROVE THE A.U.P. AND DISMISS THE APPEAL
AND I WANT TO ADD A COUPLE REVISIONS THAT CHAIR TREGUB POINTED
OUT WE WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS THE
STANDARD EFFICIENT LANDSCAPING CONDITION.
AND THEN IN THE CONDITION THAT TALKS ABOUT THE
APPROVED PLANS, THE CORRECT DATE SHOULD BE SEPTEMBER 5th, NOT
APRIL 4th.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS?
NOW WE WILL CALL THE APPELLANT AND THEY WILL HAVE FIVE
MINUTES AND WE WILL CALL THE APPLICANT FOR UP TO FIVE MINUTES.
IS THE APPELLANT HERE?
NIELS TRAYNOR?
WELL, SINCE THE APPELLANT IS NOT HERE WE ARE GOING TO
NOW CALL UP THE APPLICANT TEAM FOR FIVE MINUTES.
>> OKAY, I WILL TAKE OFF THIS EVENING, IT'S BEEN A
LONG NIGHT ALREADY.
551 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2589 of 6596
IT'S NICE TO SEE YOU, I'M ELISA I'M A LAND USE
ATTORNEY AND I'M BEEN PRACTICING IN BERKELEY SINCE 1990.
I SERVED ON ZAB FOR SIX YEARS AND WHEN I WASN'T I
BROUGHT MANY PROJECTS HERE, MOSTLY AFFORDABLE HOUSING INCLUDING
SENIOR HOUSING AND HOUSING FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES, LONG
TERM HOUSING FOR HOMELESS TEENS AND MORE.
WHEN I CAN FIND IT, I ALSO LIKE TO BRING LOCALLY
DEVELOPED MID TO SMALL SIZE CODE COMPLYING PROJECTS THAT HAVE
RESPECT FOR OUR GENERAL PLAN, OUR AREA PLAN AND OUR ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS.
THE M.U.R. DISTRICT WAS ENVISIONED IN THE WEST
BERKELEY PLAN, THIS WAS DEVELOPED WHEN I WAS WRITING MY MASTER'S
THESIS ON WEST BERKELEY PLANNING IN THE 90'S, IT'S CODIFIED IN
OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, A TRANSITION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
TO THE EAST AND INDUSTRIAL AREAS TO THE WEST.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE BAND.
HERE IS THE RESIDENTIAL SECTION.
THIS IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.
THE M.U.R. IS JUST A BLOCK AND A HALF DEEP.
THIS PROJECT SITE IS RIGHT HERE.
IT'S M.U.R.
NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS SMALL.
552 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2590 of 6596
WHAT THIS SHOWS IS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS HERE AND
INCREASING SCALE AND M.U.R. WHERE WE GET A MIX OF COMMERCIAL AND
RESIDENTIAL.
WE JUMP IN SCALE AGAIN, THE LARGEST SCALE IS IN HEAVY
INDUSTRIAL AT THE WEST EDGE OF TOWN.
NEXT SLIDE.
THERE'S A LONG LIST OF PERMITTED USES IN THIS ZONE.
SOME ARE MEDICAL OFFICES.
LIGHT MANUFACTURING, WHOLESALE WAREHOUSING.
A CAB DEPOT, LAUNDRY MAT, VET CLINIC, MORTUARY IS EVEN
PERMITTED IN THE M.U.R.
NEXT SLIDE.
LET'S JUST LOOK AT THIS BLOCK THAT WE ARE TALKING
ABOUT.
YES THERE ARE SOME MID SIZED COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS THIS
IS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE SITE AND THIS ONE SHOWS A
SAW TOOTH COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON THE ADJACENT CORNER BUT THERE
ARE ALSO RESIDENCES AND IN MY OPINION, THIS BLOCK, IT HAS
MAINTAINED A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD FEELING.
NEXT SLIDE.
WHICH IS WHY OUT OF ALL OF THE PERMITTED USES IN
M.U.R., THE LAST ONE, RESIDENTIAL, I THINK THIS IS THE
APPROPRIATE USE TO FOCUS ON FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE.
STAFF WAS ABLE TO APPROVE IT AT STAFF LEVEL.
MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS 1250 SQUARE FEET.
553 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2591 of 6596
THIS PROVIDES MORE, F.A.R. WOULD ALLOW MORE THAN
9,000, WE ARE PROPOSING LESS THAN 7,000.
WE ARE PROVIDING TRIPLE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIRED AND
TWO FEET LOWER THAN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT.
NEXT SLIDE.
IT WAS APPROVED BY STAFF WITH JUST THE STANDARD
CONDITIONS.
NEXT SLIDE.
AND STAFF WORKS THROUGH THE APPEAL ITEMS ONE AT A TIME
AND CHECKS THEM OFF.
THE ONE NEEDED HELP FROM US IS THE OAK TREE.
NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS THE OAK TREE, I WILL OUTLINE IT, THIS BALL,
THE DIAMETER OF THE TRUNK IS A QUARTER INCH INTO THE PROTECTED
CATEGORY.
NEXT SLIDE.
HERE IS THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN THAT OAK TREE IS RIGHT
ABOUT HERE.
NEXT SLIDE.
HERE IS THE REDESIGN WHERE, ACTUALLY A 20-FOOT
DIAMETER.
LUCY MENTIONED A TEN-FOOT RADIUS BUT IT'S A 20-FOOT
RADIUS AROUND THE OAK TREE WHICH CARVED OUT A MAJOR PORTION OF
THIS BUILDING WHICH ECHOES ALL THE WAY UP TO THE SECOND AND
THIRD FLOOR.
554 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2592 of 6596
I AM BRINGING YOU EXACTLY WHAT WE AS A COMMUNITY
IDENTIFIED AS GOALS AND PLANNED FOR IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND
I HOPE YOU ALWAYS EXPECT PROJECTS TO FULFILL OUR PLANS.
THAT'S OUR GOAL, I'M HERE FOR YOUR QUESTIONS AND OF
COURSE EAGER FOR YOUR APPROVAL.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
ANY QUESTIONS?
CARRIE.
>> C. Olson: SO THE OAK TREE.
I USED TO HAVE NONE AND I HAD A VIEW OF THE GOLDEN
GATE AND NOW I HAVE TWO MASSIVE THINGS BLOCKING MY VIEWS.
WHEN YOU SAY THAT RIGHT NOW IT'S A QUARTER INCH OVER,
IT'S STILL 12 INCHES, RIGHT?
>> THE MEASUREMENT IS THE CIRCUMFERENCE.
I THINK 18 INCHES OF CIRCUMFERENCE IS WHAT WE PROTECT.
>> YOU HAVE A SMALL TREE.
>> YES.
>> AND SOME DAY YOU WILL HAVE A VERY LARGE TREE.
HAS THAT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THAT
IN CAN PEE.
>> CANOPY.
>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN ACCOUNTED FOR?
>> WILL IT DISTURB YOUR FOUNDATION.
HAVE YOU HAD AN ARBORIST --?
>> TWO OF THEM.
555 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2593 of 6596
THE CITY ARBORIST SAID TECHNICALLY YOU WOULD ONLY NEED
TO PRESERVE TO THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE BUT BECAUSE THIS TREE
HASN'T BEEN PRUNED, HE ESSENTIALLY DOUBLED THAT TO CREATE,
ACTUALLY A VERY LARGE SPACE.
OUR PRIVATE ARBORISTS THINKS IT'S EXCESSIVE BUT WE
DON'T WANT TO ARGUE THAT, IT'S FINE.
SO IT WOULD HAVE A 20-FOOT DIAMETER SPACE.
>> C. Olson: AND DO YOU RETAIN OWNERSHIP OF THESE
HOUSES, OR WILL YOU --
>> NO.
>> C. Olson: SO WILL THE NEW OWNER, IS THERE ANY WAY
TO MAKE SURE THEY MAINTAIN, I CALL TREES LIKE THIS CHILDREN.
IS THERE SOME WAY TO MAKE SURE THEY WATCH OVER THEIR
CHILDREN?
>> AS THE STAFF REPORT NOTES WE PUT IN A COUPLE EXTRA
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT ASK THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP A PLAN
WITH THE CITY ARBORIST FOR DURING CONSTRUCTION AND AFTER
CONSTRUCTION FOR CARING FOR THE TREE.
SO THAT INCLUDES THINGS LIKE PUTTING UP A FENCE DURING
CONSTRUCTION, IF ANY ROOTS ARE FOUND THEY NEED TO CONTACT THE
CITY ARBORIST BEFORE DOING ANYTHING WITH THEM.
AND THEN AFTERWARDS THERE NEEDS TO BE A PLAN TO MAKE
SURE THE TREE IS MAINTAINED.
556 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2594 of 6596
>> C. Olson: THIS IS A NEW PET PEEVE OF MINE BECAUSE I
DID A DESIGN REVIEW ON BANCROFT AND DANA AND THE OAK TREE BEHIND
IT, WHICH WE WERE SO CAREFUL ABOUT IS NOW DEAD.
AND IT'S HUGE, IT'S MASSIVE.
JUST TAKE STAFF'S SUGGESTIONS SERIOUSLY.
>> THE POINT AT WHICH A TREE BECOMES SUBJECT TO THAT
ORDINANCE IS 18 INCHES FOR CIRCUMFERENCE.
THE TREE TODAY, OR AS MEASURED IN AUGUST WAS 24 INCHES
IN CIRCUMFERENCE.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
YES?
>> I DIDN'T HAVE A QUESTION BUT I HAD A COMMENT.
I THOUGHT THAT'S WITH A PRETTY LUCID PRESENTATION AND
I APPRECIATE IT.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
THANKS FOR YOUR TIME.
WE HAVE TWO SPEAKER CARDS.
ONE FROM JEFFREY SPUN, IF YOU WANT TO COME UP.
AND ZYDA.
>> MY NAME IS JEFFREY SPAWN AND I LIVE IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD.
I LIVE ABOUT FIVE DOORS AWAY FROM THIS PROPOSED
PROJECT.
AND THE FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY IS THANK YOU FOR ALL
OF YOUR TIME.
557 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2595 of 6596
THIS IS EXHAUSTING.
AS A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, YOU SHOULD KNOW THAT YOU
WORK ALL DAY, YOU GO ACROSS THE BRIDGE, YOU HAVE DINNER, YOU
JUST WANT 20 MINUTES OF TELEVISION AND GO TO BED SO TO HAVE
MEMBERS COME TO YOU IN OPPOSITION OF THIS PROJECT IS A PRETTY
SIGNIFICANT EFFORT FOR US, JUST SO YOU KNOW.
MY REQUEST TONIGHT IS VERY SIMPLE WHICH IS TO TABLE
ANY VOTE UNTIL FURTHER INFORMATION CAN BE GATHERED ABOUT THIS
PROJECT.
WE HAVE BEEN IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN BERKELEY FOR
SEVERAL YEARS.
I LIVED HERE 20 YEARS AGO WHEN I TAUGHT AT THE
UNIVERSITY, I TAUGHT MULTICULTURAL EDUCATION.
WE MOVED HERE FOR THE COMMUNITY VALUES.
I WANT TO ADD SOME NEW INFORMATION FOR THE PLANNERS
AND FOR YOU AS THE ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD.
WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT A ZONING ADJUSTMENTS BOARD
WAS FOR SEVERAL YEARS.
WE AREN'T OPPOSED TO BUILDING OR DEVELOPING.
WE BUILT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT BECAUSE WE WERE BUILDING WE WERE APPROACHED BY
YOUR APPLICANT FOR THIS PROJECT, THE OWNER AND THE ARCHITECT.
WHO WAS VERY PROUD TO TELL US ABOUT HOW HE WAS ABLE TO
CIRCUMVENT ZONING, CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKING, TO HAVE
EXTREMELY SMALL GARAGES HE WOULD THEN HAVE HIS REAL ESTATE AGENT
558 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2596 of 6596
PROPOSE COULD BE CONVERTED TO STUDIOS SO EVERYONE WOULD PARK ON
THE STREET.
SO WE HAVE BEEN AWARE OF WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THREE
PROJECTS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE SAME APPLICANT, THE SAME
ARCHITECT AND I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE DUE DILIGENCE DONE
AND SINCE THERE'S A PETITION I JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT TODAY THAT'S
BEEN CIRCULATING OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT FOR
SEVERAL MONTHS, I THINK IT WARRANTS TABLING OF THIS VOTE UNTIL
YOU CAN HAVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING ON
HERE.
I REALLY APPRECIATE IT.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
COULD YOU CLARIFY THE NATURE OF THE PETITION.
NEIGHBOR PETITION FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> YOU ARE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW HOW THIS
GOES.
OUR VERY CLOSE FRIEND -- WE MOVED TO THIS
NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE I'M AN ART DEALER.
WE LIVE IN THE ARTS DISTRICT.
IT'S NOT JUST M.U.R. DISTRICT, IT'S DESIGNATED AS ARTS
DISTRICT.
WE HAVE BEEN 20 ARTIST FRIENDS WHO LIVE IN THAT
NEIGHBORHOOD.
559 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2597 of 6596
SOME TOLD ME THERE'S ANOTHER NEIGHBOR WE DIDN'T KNOW
WHO STARTED THIS PETITION IN OPPOSITION OF THIS PROJECT
PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE PARKING ISSUES.
I KNOW PARKING DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A BIG DEAL BUT IT'S
AN ENORMOUS IMPACT ON A COMMUNITY.
ONE OF THE ARTISTS IS AN OLDER WOMAN WHO TEACHES AT
NIGHT AT AN ART SCHOOL.
SHE COMES HOME, HER HOUSE DOESN'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY,
IT'S AN OLDER HOME SO SHE HAS TO PARK NOW FURTHER AND FURTHER
AWAY FROM HER HOUSE.
IT'S NOT THE SAFEST OF NEIGHBORHOODS AT NIGHT YET.
MAKING SURE PEOPLE AREN'T FILLING THE NEIGHBORHOOD
BASED ON GREED.
>> I THINK THAT PETITION IS INCLUDED AS AN ATTACHMENT.
>> Chair I. Tregub: SO IT'S ON THE RECORD.
JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE.
ZYDA?
>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.
I'M A PROPERTY OWNER ON FIFTH STREET AND I'VE BEEN A
PROPERTY OWNER THERE FOR ABOUT 18 YEARS.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY ALSO I'M NOT OPPOSED TO BUILDING.
HOWEVER I DO HAVE SOME IMPORTANT CONCERNS ABOUT THIS
PARTICULAR PROJECT AND WE NEED MORE SPECIFIC INFORMATION ON IT.
I'M ALSO AWARE THAT THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS IN
A PETITION WHICH YOU HAVE THAT WENT AROUND THAT NEIGHBORS WERE
560 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2598 of 6596
SIGNING SO I WOULD LIKE A BETTER IDEA OF THE IMPACT THE PROJECT
WOULD HAVE ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD SINCE THE NEIGHBORS ARE DEEPLY
CONCERNED ABOUT THIS.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF WE COULD REVIEW THIS PROJECT
IN ANOTHER MONTH SO WE COULD HAVE MORE INFORMATION AND HAVE A
CHANCE TO COMMUNICATE MORE WITH MY NEIGHBORS AND HAVE A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF THE DETAILS OF THIS PROJECT AND ITS IMPACT ON
THE COMMUNITY.
I THINK IT HAS A STRONG IMPACT.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
JUST A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU, DID YOU RECEIVE NOTICE
OF THIS PROJECT PREVIOUSLY.
AND IF SO, WHEN WERE YOU FIRST MADE AWARE OF THE
EXISTENCE OF THIS PROPOSAL?
>> I GOT SOMETHING IN THE MAIL, PRIOR I HADN'T HEARD
ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
>> Chair I. Tregub: AND WHAT WERE THE NOTICING
REQUIREMENTS?
>> SURE, AS THE STAFF REPORT NOTES, THE APPLICANT HELD
A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING INCLUDED IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS A
LIST OF PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED AND INVITATION.
AND A PRE-APPLICATION POSTER, IT'S BEEN THERE THROUGH
THE ENTIRE A.U.P. PROCESS AND WE SENT OUT THOSE NOTICES TO
PEOPLE WITHIN 300 FEET OF THE PROJECT SITE AND POSTED AT THREE
AREAS AROUND THE SITE TWO WEEKS AGO.
561 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2599 of 6596
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
>> ALL I KNEW WAS THE GREEN SLIP THAT I GOT IN THE
MAIL, THAT'S ALL I KNEW IN THE PROJECT, WHICH WAS ABOUT 3-4
WEEKS AGO.
AND SOME OF THE OTHER NEIGHBORS WERE EXPRESSING THE
SAME THING.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
HOW CLOSE TO THE PROJECT DO YOU LIVE?
>> PARDON ME?
>> Chair I. Tregub: HOW CLOSE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
DO YOU LIVE?
>> I'M RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SO THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKER CARDS THAT I HAVE.
THIS WILL NOW GO BACK TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO START US OFF?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE
PROJECT AS CONDITIONED WITH THE LATEST REVISION WITH THE OAK
TREE BEING PROTECTED.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
IS THERE A SECOND?
>> C. Kahn: FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION.
>> Chair I. Tregub: WE HAVE CARRIE AND JOHN.
562 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2600 of 6596
>> C. Olson: I HAVE A QUESTION THAT I'M COUNTING ON
THE REST OF YOU WHO ARE MORE EXPERIENCED AT THIS THAN I TO
ANSWER.
IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP THAT THE PARKING MIGHT NOT BE
ADEQUATE AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF PEOPLE HERE THINK THE
PARKING IS ADEQUATE AND I GUESS I QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT A
GARAGE COULD BE TURNED INTO A STUDIO UNIT AND WHAT THAT WOULD
TAKE ASIDE FROM JUST, YOU KNOW, CREATING IT.
IT WOULDN'T BE LEGAL, RIGHT?
>> I ASSUME YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE GARAGES.
THE PARKING SPACES IN THE GARAGES WERE REVIEWED BY THE
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND
SHOULD BE FINE FOR ACCESS.
IN ORDER TO CONVERT THOSE GARAGES INTO BEDROOMS THE
CITY WOULD REQUIRE THE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES WOULD BE
RELOCATED SOMEWHERE AND THE SPACES WOULD NEED TO BE CODE
COMPLIANT.
>> Chair I. Tregub: DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?
>> C. Olson: IT DOES.
>> Chair I. Tregub: AND JOHN?
>> J. Selawsky: TO FURTHER ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE
CONVERTED A GARAGE, WE DIDN'T HAVE TO PROVIDE PARKING BUT
EVERYTHING HAS TO BE PERMITTED.
YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS.
563 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2601 of 6596
EVENTUALLY -- IF YOU ARE ADDING BATHROOMS AND
KITCHENS AND THE LIKE THEN THERE'S ADDITIONAL PERMIT.
THERE'S ADDITIONAL BURDENS OR PERMITTING.
SO YES THERE WILL BE PERMITTING IF ANY OF THESE ARE
CONVERTED.
MY QUESTION WAS TO STAFF.
IS 10 X 18 A STANDARD GARAGE?
I HAVE NO CLUE.
>> 10 X 18 IS A TYPICAL SIZE FOR A PARKING SPACE
THAT'S NOT WITHIN A GARAGE.
IT'S USUALLY BIGGER WITHIN A GARAGE.
>> 10 X 18 FALLS WITHIN YOUR STANDARD.
>> WITHOUT EXCEPTION.
>> J. Selawsky: SO THAT KIND OF ADDRESSES ONE OF THE
ISSUES FOR ME.
THAT'S IT FOR ME RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU.
>> THE SITE PLAN IS CONFUSING.
IT SHOWS THE DRIVEWAY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SHEET, I
DON'T KNOW WHAT NUMBER IT IS, IT DOESN'T HAVE A NUMBER ON IT.
THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THE DRIVEWAY.
THE SITE PLAN ISN'T CONFORMING TO THIS.
THAT VICINITY MAP YOU ARE LOOKING AT HASN'T BEEN
REVISED BASED ON THE REVISIONS FOR THE TREE.
>> I THINK THE GROUND FLOOR IS ACCURATE.
564 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2602 of 6596
>> THE DRIVEWAY IS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
IT'S NOT THE RIGHT PLAN.
BUT YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE ALL THE DRIVEWAYS HAVE THE
CORRECT ACCESS.
THE ONE IN THE BACK IS NOT IN A GARAGE.
>> J. Selawsky: THERE WAS THAT ALLEGATION THE
APPLICANT AND THE ARCHITECT HAD WORKED ON TWO PREVIOUS PROJECTS
IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BOTH OF WHICH GARAGES WERE CONVERTED AND
PARKING WAS LOST.
I KNOW EACH PROJECT STANDS BY ITSELF.
PRIOR PROJECTS REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY BEARING ON THIS.
BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY HISTORY OR RECORD OF ANY OF THAT?
WHAT DO WE MAKE OF IT, IS WHAT I'M ASKING.
>> WE DON'T HAVE A RECORD OF ANY COMPLAINTS.
THERE ARE NO ENFORCEMENT CASES ON PROPERTIES LIKE
THAT.
I WOULD SAY I'VE SEEN THOSE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE
NEIGHBORHOOD, CARS ARE SOMETIMES PARKED OUTSIDE OF THOSE
GARAGES.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY REQUIREMENT THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO
PARK INSIDE YOUR GARAGE.
WE JUST HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT SAYS THE GARAGE NEEDS
TO BE ABLE TO FIT A CAR.
>> SO THERE'S A DRIVEWAY LEADING TO THE GARAGE.
ARE THEY PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY OR ON THE STREET?
565 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2603 of 6596
>> DRIVEWAY.
>> J. Selawsky: WHICH IS PERFECTLY LEGAL.
IT'S OFF STREET.
OKAY, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION.
MORE OR LESS.
>> THIS GOES TO A CONDOMINIUM MAP AT THE PLANNING
COMMISSION AND THEN THEY CAN PUT THAT IN THE HOMEOWNER'S
ASSOCIATION REQUIREMENTS.
BUT AT THIS TIME WE AREN'T APPROVING A CONDOMINIUM
MAP.
>> I DON'T BELIEVE EVEN IF IT WENT THROUGH A CONDO MAP
WE WOULD APPROVE PARKING OUTSIDE OF THOSE GARAGES BECAUSE THAT
WOULD BLOCK ACCESS FOR THE HOUSES TO THE WEST.
>> SO IT WILL PROBABLY BE IN THE HOMEOWNER'S
ASSOCIATION, THAT'S HOW IT WOULD BE ENFORCED.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE -- OH CARRIE, GO AHEAD.
>> C. Olson: I WANT TO BRING UP THE ROOF DECK ISSUE
AND PRIVACY ISSUE.
I THINK THERE'S AN EASY WAY TO PROVIDE SCREENING.
A PLANTER BOX WITH PLANTS OF SUBSTANTIAL HEIGHT TO
BLOCK IT OFF.
COULD WE ADD --
>> I JUST WANT TO ADD THIS IS ONE OF THE ISSUES THE
DESIGN REVIEW LOOKED AT AND IT WAS DISMISSED IF THE APPLICANT
566 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2604 of 6596
WORK WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH ON LANDSCAPING THAT COULD
HELP WITH SCREENING FOR PRIVACY.
>> Chair I. Tregub: IS THAT A CONDITION?
A DESIGN CONDITION OF APPROVAL.
>> CONDITION OF APPROVAL FOR THE DESIGN REVIEW
APPROVAL.
>> Chair I. Tregub: OKAY.
I WILL MAKE A VERY BRIEF STATEMENT.
I LIVE NOT TOO FAR FROM THIS PROJECT.
KIND OF IN THAT GENERAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
I'M CLOSER TO 10th STREET BUT THIS IS ONE OF MY
FAVORITE NEIGHBORHOODS IN BERKELEY, I'M VERY PROUD OF MY OCEAN
VIEW.
THIS IS HARD.
PARTICULARLY IN A MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AREA.
THERE ARE SOME CLASHES BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND OTHER
USES.
SOME WOULD SAY THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE FOR MORE MASSIVE
PROJECTS.
THERE ARE ALLOWANCES FOR PROJECTS TO BE ON A LOT.
I THINK WITH PARKING AND I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE
CONCERN.
I HAVE WALKED BY EVERY SINGLE BUILDING ON THAT BLOCK
MANY TIMES.
567 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2605 of 6596
THE PREFERENTIAL PARKING REQUIREMENT, THIS IS THE LAST
PLACE IN BERKELEY THAT DOESN'T HAVE IT BUT IT IS COMING.
IT IS COMING TO THAT AREA.
SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
THAT WOULD PROBABLY MITIGATE SOME OF THE CONCERNS.
I WANT TO POINT OUT THIS PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH
THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
THE CITY WENT THROUGH AN EXPENSIVE PROCESS WHEN IT
DIDN'T APPROVE ANOTHER PROJECT ON HASKELL THAT WAS IN COMPLIANCE
WITH THE HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT.
THERE ARE CERTAIN DECISIONS THAT ARE OUT OF OUR HANDS.
THE QUESTION WE HAVE TO ASK IS DOES THIS HAVE ADVERSE
IMPACT ON PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY AND IS THERE NO MEASURE TO
MITIGATE.
I'M UNABLE TO MAKE FINDINGS THAT WOULD SAY THAT.
THERE IS NOTHING THAT I'VE HEARD OR SEEN SO FAR THAT
SUGGESTS THIS IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL IDENTIFIABLE CODE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS AREA.
AND I WANT TO THANK THE APPELLANTS.
UNFORTUNATELY THE APPELLANT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE HERE
TONIGHT BUT I WOULD LIKE TO THANK THE APPELLANT WHERE EVER YOU
ARE, IF IT WASN'T FOR THE APPEAL THE ISSUE OF THE OAK TREE
WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN UNCOVERED AND NOW WE CAN ENSURE THAT OAK TREE
IS PROTECTED.
SO THANK YOU.
568 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2606 of 6596
GO AHEAD, CARRIE?
>> C. Olson: I WANTED TO SECOND WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
I FEEL FOR THE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE IT SO OFTEN COMES
DOWN TO PARKING.
BUT I THINK THE PROTECTIONS ARE THERE TO MAKE SURE
THOSE GARAGES STAY GARAGES.
AND I KNOW NEIGHBORS WHO PAY ATTENTION AND THEY WILL
MAKE SURE THEY ARE GOING TO STAY GARAGES.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
YES?
>> I JUST HAVE A SMALL SUGGESTION FOR THE APPLICANT TO
CONSIDER.
THAT WOULD BE FOR THE GARAGE, THE UNIT CLOSEST TO THE
STREET, IT'S PART OF THE QUESTION BUT I'M NOT ASKING FOR AN
ANSWER.
PERHAPS THE ENTRY COULD BE OFF THE COMMON PARKING CORE
WHICH WOULD ALLOW A SINGLE WIDTH CURB CUT RATHER THAN THE WIDER
CURB CUT AND I THINK, IF I UNDERSTAND STAFF, THAT WOULD OBVIATE
THE NEED FOR A USE PERMIT FOR THE WIDER CURB CUT.
>> YOU ARE RIGHT.
THERE IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT REQUIRED FOR A
DRIVEWAY THAT IS WIDER THAN 20 FEET.
>> I THINK THAT MIGHT HELP TO ALLEVIATE THE
POSSIBILITY OF SOMEONE PARKING IN THE OPENING OF THE GARAGE BUT
NOT ACTUALLY GOING ALL THE WAY IN THE GARAGE, FOR INSTANCE.
569 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2607 of 6596
WHICH DOES HAPPEN.
AND I THINK WOULD IMPROVE THE STREET PRESENTATION TO
THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE OTHER ITEM I THINK RAISED IN THE APPEAL, THIS MAY
WELL BE THE FIRST OF A SERIES OF PROJECTS ON PROPERTY UNDER
COMMON OWNERSHIP.
AND IF THIS IS BEING PRESENTED, ONE AT A TIME TO
CIRCUMVENT THE REQUIREMENT FOR HAVING INCLUSIONARY HOUSING.
MAYBE STAFF CAN COMMENT ON THAT.
I PRESUME IT'S STILL A STAND-ALONE PROJECT, SO THAT
CAN'T BE CONSIDERED BUT IT SEEMS LIKE A VALID ISSUE TO AT LEAST
DISCUSS.
>> Chair I. Tregub: IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A
CONDO CONVERSION PROCESS INCLUDING A MAP.
THERE WOULD BE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.
>> JUST BECAUSE YOU OWN A PARCEL DOESN'T MEAN YOU
CAN'T OWN OTHER PARCELS.
THIS IS ONE PARCEL.
>> SO THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING MITIGATION HOUSING FEE
APPLIES ON A PER PROJECT BASIS.
EVEN IF THERE WERE TWO PROJECTS WITH FOUR UNITS EACH,
THAT FEE WOULD NOT APPLY BECAUSE THEY ARE SEPARATE PROJECTS.
AND THE CITY, AS OF NOW, IS NOT AWARE OF ANY
ADDITIONAL PROJECTS.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
570 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2608 of 6596
THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT WAYS IN THIS COMMISSION WHICH
OUR HANDS ARE TIED.
DENISE?
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: I'M READY TO VOTE ON THIS.
I UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORS' CONCERNS.
I APPRECIATE THAT AND I APPRECIATE IT'S A BIG EFFORT
TO COME HERE AND WE ARE GRATEFUL THAT YOU DID.
>> [OFF MIC]
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: THE NEIGHBORS IN GENERAL BECAUSE IT'S
LATE AND YOU HAVE BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: BUT WHAT WE GET TO LOOK AT
IS WHAT ARE THE RULES AND DOES THE PROJECT MEET THE RULES.
THE RULES IN THIS DISTRICT ARE INCREDIBLY BROAD.
AND THEY WOULD ALLOW THE ENTIRE PROPERTY TO BE COVERED
WITH BUILDINGS GREATER THAN ONE STORY.
THEY WOULD ALLOW A VARIETY OF COMMERCIAL USES THAT
COULD HAVE MUCH MORE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT THAN THE PROPOSED HOMES
THAT ARE HERE.
AND I FOR ONE AM GRATEFUL WE ARE SEEING FOUR
FAMILY-SIZED HOUSES WHERE WE COULD HAVE A BIG COMMERCIAL
BUILDING.
BECAUSE IT MEETS ALL THE ZONING STANDARDS BECAUSE WE
DON'T HAVE ANY OPTION TO NOT APPROVE THE PROJECT UNDER THE
HOUSING ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, BECAUSE WE HAVE A COMMERCIAL ZONE
571 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2609 of 6596
THAT COULD HAVE GONE TO A COMMERCIAL USE AND INSTEAD IS GOING
WITH FOUR, WHAT APPEAR TO BE FAMILY-STYLE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, I'M
GRATEFUL THAT WE HAVE THIS BEFORE US.
WE MENTIONED WHAT WE NEED ISN'T 500 SQUARE FOOT
STUDIOS, IT'S FAMILY HOUSING.
WE HAVE FAMILY HOUSING, WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL AND
APPRECIATIVE, IT MEETS THE ZONING AND WE AREN'T HAVING USE
PERMITS THAT WE ARE OFTEN SEEING IN THESE PROJECTS.
I'M PREPARED TO MOVE AHEAD TO VOTE.
>> Chair I. Tregub: BRAZILE?
>> B. Clark: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION --
>> SUBSTITUTE MOTION.
>> B. Clark: SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO APPROVE WITH
PATRICK'S SUGGESTION SO WE DON'T NEED A SECOND A.U.P.
>> Chair I. Tregub: WOULD THAT REQUIRE AN ASSOCIATED
USE PERMIT THOUGH?
>> IT MAY NOT REQUIRE AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT BUT
IT WILL ABSOLUTELY REQUIRE THE OKAY FROM THE TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION.
WE COULD PUT IN THE CONDITION, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT
TRANSPORTATION SIGNS OFF ON IT.
>> J. Selawsky: SUBJECT TO TRANSPORTATION APPROVAL.
>> WE WILL APPROVE IT ONLY IF THEY AGREE TO THE
CHANGE.
OR ARE YOU SAYING IT WOULD COME BACK?
572 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2610 of 6596
>> NO, I WOULD NOT LIKE IT TO COME BACK.
>> THE CONDITION IS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
TRAFFIC DIVISION.
>> Chair I. Tregub: IF THE TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
SAYS IT'S FEASIBLE THEN THE CONDITION WOULD APPLY.
BUT IF THEY SAY IT'S NOT FEASIBLE, THE PROJECT WOULD
GO FORWARD AS IS.
>> YEAH.
>> Chair I. Tregub: IS THAT SOMETHING, RATHER THAN
MAKING A SUBSTITUTE MOTION PERHAPS --
>> AND THE AMENDMENT.
>> ARE YOU FRIENDLY TO THAT?
IS THE SECONDER FRIENDLY TO THAT?
THANK YOU.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY SINCE EVERYONE DID TALK A LOT
ABOUT HOW THEY FELT CONFLICTED, I DON'T FEEL CONFLICTED.
I THINK OVERALL THE IMPACT OF THESE, AS WE FILL IN THE
CITY, IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT IMPACT IN TERMS OF PROVIDING
HOUSING FOR EVERYONE.
IT BLENDS IN VERY WELL.
I LIVE IN AN R4 DISTRICT AND WE HAVE HOUSES IN THE
BACK.
WE HAVE LARGE HOUSES IN THE BACK.
AND WE HAVE SMALL HOUSES IN THE FRONT AND WE HAVE LOTS
OF HOUSES AND IT ACTUALLY FEELS VERY COMFORTABLE AND ANYWAY, I
573 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2611 of 6596
THINK THIS KIND OF IN-FILL WILL BENEFIT THE CITY OVER THE LONG
TERM.
SO I REALLY WANT TO ENCOURAGE IT.
I KNOW IT MIGHT BE A SHOCK TO PEOPLE IN THE DISTRICT
BUT THIS IS THE ZONING IN THE DISTRICT AND it's a TRANSITIONAL
DISTRICT SO I THINK WE SHOULD FEEL FINE ABOUT APPROVING THIS.
>> Chair I. Tregub: THANK YOU.
I THINK WE ARE READY FOR STAFF --
>> WE NEED A SECOND.
>> Chair I. Tregub: RATHER THAN THE
SUBSTITUTE -- THEY WERE FRIENDLY TO THE AMENDMENT.
>> CHANGE IT TO A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND BOTH CHARLES
AND I ACCEPT IT.
>> Chair I. Tregub: I THINK WE ARE READY TO VOTE.
>> ROLL CALL?
>> Chair I. Tregub: PLEASE.
>> [CALLING ROLL].
>> Chair I. Tregub: THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED.
IT IS APPEALABLE TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR THEIR TIME.
I HAVE A RED EYE TO CATCH SO DENISE WILL CHAIR THE
LAST PROJECT.
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: I JUST HAVE A RED EYE AT
10:30.
LET'S TAKE UP 2334 JEFFERSON AVENUE.
574 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2612 of 6596
STAFF REPORT AND THE APPLICANT CAN COME FORWARD SO YOU
CAN GO AFTER THE STAFF REPORT IS CONCLUDED.
>> THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE USE PERMIT APPLICATION
2334 JEFFERSON AVENUE TO RAISE AN EXISTING 2,543 SQUARE FOOT TWO
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING FOR A NEW AVERAGE HEIGHT 23 FEET 10
INCHES AND TO CONVERT 515 SQUARE FEET OF THE EXISTING BASEMENT
INTO LIVING SPACE.
THE PARCEL IS IN THE R2 ZONING DISTRICT.
THE PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT ARE ONE A.U.P.
FOR RESIDENTIAL ADDITION GREATER THAN 14 FEET AND ADDITIONAL
A.U.P. FOR THE NON CONFORMING FRONT YARD SETBACK.
20 FEET IS REQUIRED AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
EXTEND THAT UPWARDS.
BESIDES THE FRONT YARD THE EXISTING PROPOSED
DEVELOPMENT EXCEED REQUIRED SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACKS.
IN THE ORIGINAL OCTOBER 2016 APPLICATION THEY PROPOSED
TO RAISE IT FIVE FEET INSTEAD OF FIVE FEET SIX INCHES.
THEY SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL SIX INCHES IN APRIL AND SAID
THIS WOULD ACCOMMODATE A GRADE CHANGE WHICH THEY UNDERESTIMATED
BEFORE THE SURVEY WAS COMPLETED.
A.U.P.'S ARE GENERALLY REVIEWED AT STAFF LEVEL,
HOWEVER, IT ALLOWS TO ZAB IF THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT LEVEL OF
NEIGHBORHOOD INTEREST.
IN THIS CASE THE BOARD MUST REVIEW AND ACT ON THE
APPLICATION IN THE SAME MANNER AS OTHER USE APPLICATIONS.
575 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2613 of 6596
THE CITY HAS RECEIVED SEVERAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM
NEIGHBORHOODS.
THOSE CORRESPONDENCE INCLUDE LETTERS FROM THE NEIGHBOR
AT THE NORTHERN ABUTTING AT 2332 JEFFERSON AND NEIGHBOR OPPOSITE
ACROSS THE STREET AT 2327 JEFFERSON.
THESE NEIGHBORS EXPRESS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROPOSED
PROJECT INCLUDING IMPACTS ON LIGHT, AIR AND PARKING.
VOLUNTARY SPONSORED MEDIATION SERVICE BUT THE
APPLICANT DECLINED MEDIATION.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION
BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IT WON'T HAVE A DETRIMENTAL IMPACT ON
SUNLIGHT.
THE SHADOW STUDIES SHOW AN INCREASE ON TWO NEIGHBORING
DWELLINGS.
THEY WILL AFFECT THE DWELLING TO THE NORTH AT ALL
AREAS DURING THE WINTER.
AND WILL AFFECT ALL THE WINDOWS ON THE SOUTHERN
FACADE.
HOWEVER, THE EXISTING BUILDING ALREADY CASTS SHADOWS
ON ALL OF THOSE WINDOWS.
AND SOME OF THEM ARE ALMOST COMPLETELY SHADED
CURRENTLY.
WHILE THE EXISTING SHADOWS TEND TO PARTIALLY SHADE THE
WINDOWS THE SHADOWS CREATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD
COMPLETELY COVER THE WINDOWS DURING SOME HOURS.
576 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2614 of 6596
THE ADDITION WILL CREATE NEW SHADOWS TO THE SOUTH AT
2336 JEFFERSON WHICH WILL OCCUR DURING THE MORNING AND AFFECT
TWO BASEMENT WINDOWS.
IN ADDITION THE PROJECT IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE
DETRIMENTAL TO AIR BECAUSE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE BUILDING TO
BUILDING SEPARATION PATTERN OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IT MEETS
THE MINIMUM AND SIDE YARD SETBACKS AND PROPOSES TWO STORIES
WHERE AS MANY AS THREE R ARE ALLOWED.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE BOARD RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: QUESTIONS OF STAFF?
JOHN.
>> J. Selawsky: THE SHADOW STUDY WAS SUBMITTED OR DONE
BY WHOM?
>> SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT.
>> J. Selawsky: APPLICANT.
IT'S NOT OUR TYPICAL SHADOW STUDY.
AND IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING.
I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT NOT A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
BUT CAN YOU RUN THROUGH THAT AGAIN, WHAT MONTHS OF THE YEAR AND
WHAT IS IMPACTED IN AS MUCH DETAIL AS YOU CAN?
>> SURE.
THE STAFF REPORT GOES THROUGH ALL THE WINDOWS THAT
WOULD BE AFFECTED.
ESSENTIALLY THE BUILDING TO THE NORTH THE PROPOSED
PROJECT WOULD SHADE ALL OF THE WINDOWS ON THAT SOUTH FACADE.
577 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2615 of 6596
DURING THE WINTER.
>> ONLY THE WINTER MONTHS?
>> CORRECT.
>> HOWEVER, THE EXISTING BUILDING ALREADY CASTS
SHADOWS ON THOSE WINDOWS, IN SOME CASES ALMOST COMPLETELY.
SO THE PROPOSED PROJECT WOULD FILL UP THE REST OF THAT
SPACE THAT'S NOT SHADED RIGHT NOW.
>> J. Selawsky: BUT AGAIN ONLY IN THE WINTER MONTHS?
>> CORRECT.
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
YOU GET FIVE MINUTES TO TALK TO US ABOUT YOUR
APPLICATION.
>> GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS.
MY NAME IS ASAF SHOR, I'M APPLYING FOR THE USE PERMIT.
WE RESIDE WITH OUR TWO SONS AND PARENTS WHEN THEY COME
FOR EXTENDED STAYS FROM THE EAST COAST.
WE PURCHASED THIS HOME WITH THE INTENT TO RAISE IT.
THE SIX OF US ARE SQUEEZING INTO A MAIN LEVEL WITH TWO
BEDROOMS AND A BATHROOM.
THERE'S ALSO A BARELY HABITABLE BONUS ROOM IN THE BACK
CREATED FROM AN ENCLOSED PORCH.
THE BASEMENT IS ABOUT SIX FEET TALL AND SOME OF THE
PIPES AND BEAMS ARE LOWER SO AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S A DANGER FOR ME
TO TRY TO WALK AROUND IN THERE.
578 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2616 of 6596
WHEN WE PURCHASED THIS HOME, WE REALIZED THAT JUST BY
RAISING THE BASEMENT FROM 18 FEET TO 23 FEET WE WOULD BE ABLE TO
CONVERT THE ENTIRE BASEMENT INTO LIVING SPACE FOR US.
AND AT THE TIME THAT WAS VERY APPEALING NOT GOING
NEARLY TO MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 28 FEET YET BEING ABLE TO HAVE A LOT
OF NEW LIVING SPACE.
IN ADDITION WE BENEFIT FROM BASICALLY GETTING RID OF
THE STEPS TO ENTER THE HOUSE AND THAT WOULD MAKE IT EASIER FOR
US TO BRING THE STROLLERS IN THE HOUSE, ALLOW US TO INVITE A
LONG-TIME FRIEND, I GUESS JONAH SPOKE, BASICALLY MAKING THE
HOUSE ACCESSIBLE.
AND REALLY, FOR US, AS WE AGE, MY PARENTS, MY FATHER
HAS PARKINSON'S AND YOU KNOW, WE JUST WANT IT TO BE AN
ACCESSIBLE HOUSE.
THAT WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE ADVANTAGES.
I MENTIONED IT BECAUSE NONE OF THE NEIGHBORS WERE
ASKING, IF YOU WANT MORE LIVING SPACE, WHY CAN'T WE CREEP DOWN
LIVING A DUGOUT BASEMENT AS FIRST FLOOR AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S
PART OF WHY THAT DIDN'T APPEAL TO US.
BUT IN ANY CASE, EVERYTHING THAT WE PROPOSE IN OUR
PLAN MEETS THE CITY REQUIREMENT AND CONSISTENT WITH EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE COUNTED AT LEAST SIX THAT HAVE SECOND STORIES.
579 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2617 of 6596
THE HOUSE PRETTY MUCH DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET AND
TO THE SIDE, EVEN AFTER THIS HOUSE IS RAISED THE A FOOT AND A
HALF TALLER THAN THIS HOUSE WILL BE.
AND SO, I DON'T THINK THIS IS ATYPICAL FOR THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AND ZAB HAS APPROVED A NUMBER OF HOUSES NEARBY OF
SIMILAR SIZE AND SHADOWING.
IN ADDITION TO CONFORMING TO THE STANDARDS WE ARE
TRYING TO DO RIGHT BY THIS HOUSE AND THE PLANET.
IT WAS BUILT 97 YEARS AGO, IT NEEDS SIGNIFICANT
UPGRADES AND WE ARE GOING TO BUILD ALL ELECTRIC HOUSE WITH SOLAR
PANELS ON THE ROOF AND PROBABLY NOT A NET ZERO HOUSE BUT NEAR
NET ZERO HOUSE.
I ACTUALLY HAVE NOT MET DAVID, MY NORTHERN NEIGHBOR
DIRECTLY.
WE MADE SOME ATTEMPTS TO REACH EACH OTHER EARLY ON IN
THE PROJECT, I SENT HIM SOME CERTIFIED LETTERS, HE DIDN'T
RESPOND.
EVENTUALLY HE DID RESPOND TO AN EMAIL.
WE WERE TO MEET SEVERAL WEEKS LATER, HE CANCELLED AT
THE LAST MINUTE, TWO DAYS BEFORE AND THEN MY OVERTURE AFTER THAT
HE SIMPLY IGNORED.
THE PLANNER SUGGESTED MEDIATION TO DISCUSS THE
PROJECT.
IN APRIL I CONTACTED SEEDS, THEY HEARD FROM HIM THREE
WEEKS LATER HE COULD MEET A MONTH AFTER THAT.
580 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2618 of 6596
WE DIDN'T THINK THERE WOULD BE A COMPROMISE BECAUSE WE
THOUGHT WE WERE ASKING FOR THE MINIMUM NEEDED FOR THE PROJECT.
AND EVER SINCE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE HAVEN'T HAD
PLEASANT FACE-TO-FACE, WE HAVEN'T HAD PLEASANT INTERACTIONS WITH
HIM, SPECIFICALLY MY FATHER IN LAW HAD A VERY UNPLEASANT
EXPERIENCE.
I GUESS I'M ASKING YOU TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT.
I'M NOT REALLY INTERESTED IN MEDIATING WITH HIM.
I'M SURE THERE ARE QUESTIONS AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO
ANSWER THEM WHEN ASKED DIRECTLY WHEN I HAVE MORE TIME.
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: THANK YOU.
QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
I DON'T SEE ANY, THANK YOU.
SO LET'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAVE A FEW SPEAKER CARDS THIS EVENING.
THE FIRST SPEAKER WILL BE JOEY, FOLLOWED BY MICHAEL
FOLIAN.
>> HI, I'M A HOMEOWNER ON THE 2300 BLOCK OF CALIFORNIA
STREET.
IT'S RIGHT BEHIND 2334 JEFFERSON.
I WELCOME THE -- I FULLY SUPPORT THE PROJECT.
I WELCOME ADDITIONAL FAMILY-FRIENDLY HOUSING TO THE
NEIGHBORHOOD AS YOU GUYS SAID EARLIER TODAY.
581 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2619 of 6596
THE SCALE AND SIZE OF THE HOME, AND THE CHARACTER OF
THE HOME IS IN LINE WITH OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON
JEFFERSON.
THERE ARE ALREADY A FEW STORY HOMES AND ALL THROUGH
THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE ARE TWO STORY HOMES.
THE SHADOW REPORT INDICATES IT ADDS ONLY A MINIMAL
AMOUNT THAN THE CURRENT HOME CASTS.
DON'T FORGET THE ROOM DOESN'T GO DARK, IT STILL
RECEIVES INDIRECT LIGHT.
ON THIS HOME I PARTICULARLY LIKE THE WELCOMING FRONT
PORCH.
AND THE FAMILY ROOM BEING ORIENTED TO THE STREET AND
ON THE GROUND LEVEL IS A VERY NEIGHBORLY FEEL.
I ALSO LIKE THE MODERN TAKE ON THE TRADITIONAL BAY
WINDOW ON THE FRONT ELEVATION.
I FIND IT DISHEARTENING TO CONSISTENTLY SEE BERKELEY
NEIGHBORS OPPOSE PROJECTS CLEARLY WITHIN THE ZONING GUIDELINES.
I HAVE HEARD SOME JUSTIFY THIS BY SAYING THIS IS JUST
WHAT BERKELEY NEIGHBORS DO.
BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE IT THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
THERE ARE UNNECESSARY FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS TO THE
HOMEOWNER AND THE CITY IS USING PRECIOUS STAFF TIME AND
RESOURCES TO PREPARE FOR THESE HEARINGS.
582 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2620 of 6596
IF THE CITY OF BERKELEY WERE TO START DENYING
APPLICATIONS BECAUSE OF WINTER SHADING WE WOULD ALL SEE OUR
PROPERTY VALUES PLUMMET.
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: THANK YOU.
MICHAEL --
>> MY NAME IS MICHAEL AND I HAVE LIVED ON AND OWNED A
HOME ON THE 2300 BLOCK OF JEFFERSON FOR NEARLY 60 YEARS, I SAY
THIS NOT TO BOAST BUT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND MY FAMILY AN I HAVE
BEEN PAYING TAXES AND VOTING IN BERKELEY FOR THAT AMOUNT OF
TIME.
THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS A HUGE PART OF MY LIFE.
SO WHEN PROJECTS ARE PROPOSED ATTEMPTING TO BREAK UP
THE NEIGHBORHOOD I WILL OPPOSE IT.
THE ORIGINAL PLAN CALLED FOR RAISING IT BY FIVE FEET.
ONCE THIS WAS EXPOSED THIS WAS MET WITH MUCH
OPPOSITION FROM THE NEIGHBORS BUT INSTEAD OF COMPROMISING THE
OWNERS OF 2334 HAD THE GAL AND APPLIED FOR A PERMIT TO RAISE THE
STRUCTURE EVEN HIGHER.
2334 JEFFERSON IS ALREADY ONE OF THE LARGEST
STRUCTURES ON THIS BLOCK.
SO BY RAISING IT, THIS WOULD MAKE IT STICK OUT IN A
WAY THAT DOESN'T FIT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I AM REFERRING TO THE LETTER FROM MICHAEL BRADLEY THAT
LIVES DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE PROJECT.
583 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2621 of 6596
TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALL
HOMES LIKE THESE SHOULD BE RESTORED AND REMODELED IN A WAY THAT
FITS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE WILL NOT ONLY STICK OUT LEAK A
SORE THUMB BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY WOULD ADVERSELY AFFECT THE HOME
TO THE NORTH BY CASTING LARGE SHADOWS TAKING AWAY LIFE AND
PRIVACY AND WARMTH IN THE HOME.
AS IN THE CASE WITH MANY PROJECTS LIKE THIS.
IT DOESN'T KEEP THE NEIGHBORHOOD DIVERSE NOR
AFFORDABLE.
ONE INTERESTING THOUGHT, I MEASURED THE WIDTH OF THE
STREETS AROUND JEFFERSON AND COMPARED THE STREETS TO JEFFERSON.
JEFFERSON IS NOT AS WIDE.
SO A TALLER STRUCTURE WOULD BE MORE NOTICEABLE
COMPARED TO THE NEIGHBORING HOMES.
CALIFORNIA AND SPALDING STREETS TO THE WEST ARE 50
FEET WIDE.
McGEE AND ROOSEVELT TO THE EAST ARE 43-FEET WIDE.
JEFFERSON IS ONLY 41.
HE HAD NO DESIRE TO LISTEN.
ALSO AGREED TO GO TO MEDIATION BUT ASKED STAFF,
REJECTED THAT OFFER.
I WAS EVEN OUTRIGHT BRIBED WITH A DONATION TO MY
CHURCH BASICALLY TO SILENCE ME.
584 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2622 of 6596
DAVID AND I GATHERED 36 SIGNATURES OF VERY CONCERNED
NEIGHBORS WHO OPPOSE THIS PROJECT AND OTHERS LIKE IT.
EVEN THE DISTRICT 4 --
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: CAN YOU WRAP UP PLEASE, YOU ARE OUT
OF TIME.
>> IT SAYS WE HAVE THREE MINUTES.
I'M ALMOST DONE, I HAVE HALF A PARAGRAPH, EVEN THE
DISTRICT 4 REPRESENTATIVE IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
I RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING YOU HOLD OFF ON APPROVING
THIS PROJECT UNTIL THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS ARE PROPERLY
ADDRESSED AND COMPROMISES ARE MADE, THANK YOU.
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: NEXT SPEAKER IS DAVID
YUSHIMA.
>> HELLO, MY NAME IS DAVID FUJIMA, I HAVE LIVED AT
3222 JEFFERSON FOR OVER 30 YEARS.
I RAISED MY TWO KIDS WITH MY WIFE.
I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO MAKE TWO POINTS TONIGHT.
THE FIRST IS MY OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSAL.
THE SECOND REALLY WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT IS TO POINT
OUT A PROBLEM THAT IS AFFECTING THE ENTIRE RESIDENTIAL SECTIONS
OF DISTRICT 4.
WE HAVE 36 PEOPLE THAT HAVE SIGNED THE PETITION
AGAINST THIS AND SIMILAR PROJECTS.
585 ATTACHMENT 5 - Administrative Record Page 2623 of 6596
SINCE I ONLY HAVE TWO MINUTES I WILL START WITH MY
OBJECTIONS BUT FIRST FROM THE BEGINNING THIS PROJECT HAS HAD A
HISTORY OF INACCURATE SHADOW STUDIES THAT WERE SUBMITTED.
EVEN THE CURRENT SHADOW STUDY IS INACCURATE.
I ACTUALLY MEASURED THE 8'6 SHADOW LINE CALLED OUT BY
THE ARCHITECT AND THAT LINE IS RENDERED INCORRECTLY ON THE
DRAWING.
THE DRAWING IS FOR DECEMBER 21st AT NOON, WHICH IS THE
SOLSTICE, DARKEST PART OF THE YEAR.
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM MY POSTING, IT'S AN ATTEMPT TO
PORTRAY THE EXISTING SHADOW AS GREATER THAN IT IS.
IT SHOWED THE ENTIRE WINDOWS WERE BLOCKED.
THAT'S NOT TRUE, I SUBMITTED A PHOTOGRAPH IN NOVEMBER
THAT SHOWS IT'S NOT TRUE.
SECONDLY I WANT TO POINT OUT IN ORDER TO JUDGE SHADOW
DETRIMENT YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE PATTERN OF SUNLIGHT THROUGHOUT
THE DAY AND IN ALL SEASONS, ESPECIALLY DURING THE FALL, WINTER
AND SPRING.
BECAUSE DIRECT SUNLIGHT AT THAT TIME PROVIDES HEATED
AND LIGHT IN THE FORM OF ENERGY GENERATING POTENTIAL.
MY SECOND POINT, IT'S A PROBLEM THAT'S AFFECTING ALL
OF DISTRICT 4 BECAUSE WHAT'S HAPPENING IS INVESTORS COME IN,
RAISE HOUSES, THERE'S ALWAYS A SHADOW DETRIMENT BUT THE PROBLEM
IS WE DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROPERLY JUDGE SHADOW DETRIMENT.
>> Vice Chair D. Pinkston: THANK YOU.
586