Berkeley City Council Special Meeting on ZAB Appeal for 2274 Shattuck Avenue – April 22, 2025

The Berkeley City Council held a special meeting on April 22, 2025, beginning at 6:04 PM, to consider a single agenda item: an appeal of the Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) decision to approve Use Permit #ZP2023-0079 for a 17-story mixed-use residential building at 2274 Shattuck Avenue. The project proposes to demolish the historic United Artists (UA) Theater (except for the front façade and lobby), build 227 dwelling units (including 23 very low-income density bonus units), one ADA parking space, and a ground-floor cafe. Staff recommended dismissing the appeal and affirming ZAB's approval.

Public Comments & Testimony

• In support of the project (against the appeal): Speakers included Kara Bins, Jake Price, Alan Chamorro, Sean Carseng, Sarah Bell, Kaveya Chattrabathy, Theo Gordon, and a representative from East Bay for Everyone. They argued that the housing crisis requires urgent action, the theater is no longer economically viable, and the project preserves the historic façade and lobby while providing needed housing and tax revenue. Some noted that the theater's interior has been heavily altered and is in poor structural condition, and that state law (AB 1633) requires approval.
• In opposition to the project (supporting the appeal): Speakers included Tom Lippe (attorney for appellant Save the UA Berkeley), Connor Mitchell, Moni Law, Therese Polletti, Laura Linden, Gregory Sharpin, Madeleine Roberts, Alan Michon (owner of Grand Lake Theater), Greg King, and many others. They argued that CEQA requires a full environmental impact review because the theater is a state historic landmark and the project would cause substantial adverse change to a historical resource. They disputed the structural claims, saying the building is a steel-reinforced fortress and that the auditorium and original Art Deco details remain intact behind multiplex partitions. They stressed that demolishing the theater would be irreversible and that downtown needs cultural venues, not another stalled project. Several speakers accused the developer of misleading statements and criticized the city's process for granting a CEQA exemption without public input.

Discussion Items

• Staff Presentation: Sharon Gong, principal planner, summarized the project and staff’s CEQA determination. She noted that the project qualifies for a Class 32 infill exemption because it preserves the character-defining features (the upper Shattuck façade) identified by the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC). Staff found that the auditorium no longer conveys historic significance due to extensive alterations and deterioration. She also explained that AB 1633 requires the city to determine exemption within 90–180 days and that ZAB’s approval was consistent with all applicable objective standards.
• Appellant Presentation: Tom Lippe argued that CEQA Section 21084(e) prohibits a categorical exemption if a project “may cause a substantial adverse change” to a historical resource, and that the fair-argument standard applies. He cited the city’s own consultant (Rincon) who concluded demolition would cause substantial adverse change. He contended that AB 1633 did not override this more specific statute.
• Applicant Presentation: Robin Barral (attorney for Panoramic Interests) defended the staff’s CEQA exemption, stating that AB 1633 establishes a substantial-evidence standard for these infill projects and that the applicant provided sufficient evidence. Patrick Kennedy (project sponsor) noted that the theater was offered to the operator for $1/year but they declined, and that the building is structurally unsafe. He said the project will restore the façade and lobby as required by the LPC.
• Council Deliberation: Councilmembers disclosed ex parte contacts. Councilmember Taplin recused himself due to potential conflict. Councilmembers Tregub, Bartlett, Blackaby, Lunaparra, Humbert, O’Keefe, Kesarwani, and Mayor Ishii each spoke. Several expressed personal sadness about losing the theater but concluded that state law, the CEQA exemption, and the need for housing compelled them to support the project. Councilmember Tregub noted the absence of any concrete alternative plan for saving the theater. Councilmember Blackaby questioned staff and both parties about whether the auditorium is a character-defining feature. The staff and applicant said it is not; the appellant argued it is, citing the Rincon report and photographs of intact ornamentation.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to close public hearing: Approved unanimously (8-0, with Taplin absent).
• Motion to affirm the ZAB decision and dismiss the appeal: Councilmember Bartlett moved; Councilmember Humbert seconded. The vote was 7-0 in favor (Kesarwani, Bartlett, Tregub, O’Keefe, Blackaby, Lunaparra, Humbert, and Mayor Ishii all voted yes; Taplin was absent and had recused himself). The motion carried, thereby approving the Use Permit and allowing the project to proceed.