Hi everyone, good evening.

I'm gonna call us to order.

Today is Wednesday, July 23rd, 2025.

And I'm calling to order the special meeting of the Berkeley City Council.

Can you please take a room?

Councilmember Kessarwani.

Here.

Taplin.

Present.

Bartlett.

Appears to be absent.

Trakeup?

Present.

O'Keefe.

Is absent.

Blackaby.

Councilmember Blackaby on the roll.

I'm here.

Thank you.

Luna Para.

Present.

And Mayor Ishi.

Here.

Oh, to your off-mute.

Thank you.

Okay.

So today is a special meeting, but we do have a brief announcement, so I'll ask that you come forward and share.

You can give your public comment.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Council.

My name is Ryan Lau, external affairs representative at AC Transit.

So after two years of extensive review and updating of our bus network and uh robust public outreach, uh we are about to launch uh AC Transit's uh realign service change August 10th.

Um so as a reminder, um, this is a response to post-pandemic era um changes in ridership uh due to hybrid work and remote work and that sort of thing.

Um, and we're doing so with the understanding that we have a constrained budget due to uh lower revenues and increasing costs, and we've weighed all of our decisions through uh filter of uh guiding principles of reliability, equity, and frequency, um, while also ensuring that we have sufficient workforce to um uh deliver reliable service to the community at large, but in particular uh low-income and transit dependent communities.

Um, so right now we have gone live on our website.

That's kind of our central hub for all the route profiles and new schedules uh and the like.

Um we're also gonna have um on bus uh uh materials, uh advertisements, brochures and car cards.

We're also pushing out digital through e-news and social media and and the like.

Um and so uh just wanted to remind everybody we're also doing um ambassador uh shifts at uh various bus stops throughout the um the network so that people are aware, uh not caught off guard before they go into effect August 10th.

So um appreciate the time.

Um we're also bagging stops.

There's 1500 that we're touching, so it may take a little bit of time um before the specific changes for your bus stop to to um actually uh get flagged with signage.

So I uh encourage everybody to go to www.actransit.org/slash realign.

Um I also left some uh brochures with rows.

So thank you so much, appreciate it.

We got them.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate your comment and your time to come here to speak with us about this.

Okay, moving on.

So we are moving on to item number one, which is land, which is the landmarks preservation commission appeal for two four two five Durant, uh landmark application number LMIN 2024-008.

And I'm gonna open the public hearing and pass it on to staff.

Thanks, Mayor Ishi.

Good evening, council members.

I'm Jordan Klein, director of planning and development, and presenting on all three items this evening will be Robert Rivera, senior planner, and I think he's pulling up the slide deck now for item one.

Yep, let me pull up the slides and I'll share it to our zoom.

Should be available, all right.

Good evening, council, uh, madam mayor.

My name is Robert Rivera, and I'm a senior planner with the land use planning division.

Before you this evening is an appeal of a landmark preservation commission decision to designate the subject property at 2425 Durant Avenue as a city landmark.

I'll present the review history of the proposed designation and provide some project-specific details before addressing the appeal.

The upcoming slides provide a summary of the relevant permit and landmark review milestones.

On November 18th, 2024, the city received a preliminary use permit application pursuant to SB 330.

The use permit application was then submitted on November 21st.

Then on December 13th, the preliminary use permit application was deemed complete and vested to the date of submittal, November 21st.

Then on December 31st, the city received a landmark or structure of merit application for the subject property, which initiated formal consideration of the site for historic designation.

And then on January 13th, 2025, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site, as well as to interested neighborhood organizations.

And then on March 6th, the LPC held the public hearing, and after reviewing the record and receiving public comment, the commission voted to designate the property located at 2421 Durant Avenue as a city landmark.

On March 13th, the use permit application was deemed complete.

And then on April 15, 2025, the appellant filed an appeal of the LPC's decision, which brings us to today's hearing.

Before I present the project's location and details, I want to correct an error with regard to the LPC's notice of decision.

The LPC's notice of decision that was mailed to the applicant incorrectly included all properties.

The notice of decision should have excluded 2425 Durant Avenue and the rear cottage.

The LP's decision is narrowly focused on 2421 Durant Avenue.

A supplemental memo, which was included, with a revised notice of decision, includes a redline strike-through format to reflect the removal of those buildings from the city landmark designation.

The appellant was made aware of the error and would still like to continue the appeal hearing, regardless of the new narrow scope.

Moving on to the project location, this slide shows the zoning designation and location of uh 2425 Durant Avenue.

The property is located in the RSMU residential south side zoning district, which allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses and encourages a higher density multi-story uh developments closer to major shopping, transportation, and employment centers.

In terms of the historic context, the subject property is surrounded by multiple designated historic structures, including the Cambridge apartments, the Fred Turner Building, the Bartsfield, and the Alborough.

These upcoming slides show a street level view of the subject property.

2421 Durant Avenue is a two to three-story over basement Victorian with a tower roof, rectangular footprint, and wood siding and shingle exterior.

It's a stick style and includes horizontal and vertical band details, decorative trusses and gables at the primary elevation and overhanging eaves with exposed rafter ends.

It was constructed in 1886.

2425 Durant Avenue, which is excluded from the landmarks designation, is a two-story plus attic flat that was built in 1905.

This shows the rear cottage, which was also excluded from the landmark designation.

It was built in 1906 and is a simple craftsman-style two-story cottage.

Moving on to the main appeal issues, I'd like to briefly summarize the key appeal issues and a more detailed discussion can be found in the staff report.

The appellants claim that the landmark designation is prohibited by SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act, claiming that it places the housing project at risk by imposing new standards after the application was deemed vested and complete.

Under state law, once an SB 330 preliminary application for a housing development project is submitted and deemed complete, it is protected from the application of new policies or standards, which include historic designations.

The LPC designated the site as a historic landmark on March 6, 2025, after the vested rights had been established, which in this case the preliminary application was deemed complete on November 21st, 2024.

So any subsequent changes to zoning or local regulations, including the discretionary decisions, such as a local landmark designation, are not applicable to the housing development project.

And accordingly, staff recommends reversing the designation because it cannot be applied to the proposed project under state law.

Staff recommends that council conduct the public hearing and adopt a resolution reversing the LPC's decision to designate the property at 2421 Durant Avenue as a city landmark.

Alternatively, council may continue the public hearing, affirm or modify the LP's decision, or remand the matter back to the LPC.

This concludes that's presentation, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Um I'm wondering if we should take questions now or if there are other presentations.

Yeah.

I think typically we go straight to the uh five-minute presentation by the appellant.

Yeah, let's do that.

So in this case, um the uh applicant is going to be the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, and then it looks like our appellant is already coming forward.

Thanks, and so landmarks who's speaking today.

The uh the applicant is uh is Baja, the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, and the application was submitted by Anthony Bruce, but I believe there's another person here to present on behalf of Baja.

Who is speaking?

There's somebody that's uh virtually.

Oh, someone speaking virtually, okay.

Sorry, that was my question.

Thank you.

I can get you that name.

Uh, is it Isaac?

Yes.

Okay, Isaac is on.

Okay.

Okay.

You have your five minutes.

Thank you very much, and good evening, Mayor, members of the city council, staff, and happy summer.

Um, I want to once again thank the staff for uh such a thorough and succinct response uh to this issue.

Landmarks commission, I hope is going to be in better alignment uh with state law after this, and I regret that Baja's invited folks out tonight because it is a legal issue and not a political issue.

Um these are really cool old old buildings, uh, no doubt about it.

And every building in Berkeley has a history, but that doesn't make them historic resources.

Um these buildings are otherwise somewhat unremarkable, but none of that matters tonight.

What matters is that the landmarking, the designation shouldn't have occurred in the first place, um, and we are opposed to that designation under any circumstance, the property, property in the buildings, et cetera.

Um, and their histories, by the way, are now very well documented and recorded uh in the record here tonight.

I only have three requests uh to leave with you here.

First, adopt the staff recommendations as they're written.

Uh it's taken us some time to get here and come to these understandings.

And also, by the way, for the next project, which is in a similar circumstance.

I would like to request a refund of our appeal fees, if that's possible.

But lastly, I want to just point out having been a landmark secretary for some amount of time in the past, as well as a planning manager.

The landmarks ordinance was written in the 1970s to late 1970s.

It has not been substantially updated since then.

When are we going to create a new landmarks preservation ordinance that better aligns with our city's ideals and how we uh know that we need to address housing today?

Uh, because I think that if we were to do that, we wouldn't have situations like this in front of us that I think were generally unnecessary.

So thank you very much.

Happy to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you.

And then our next speaker is online, and we'll call you back for questions too.

All right, um, so Isaac is on, and Isaac, you should be able to speak.

I see my time.

I'm the first one.

So we've got so they have five minutes to speak, so that's how long we'll have.

Okay, thank you.

Um Good evening, everyone.

Um good evening, council.

Um, my name is Isaac Warshower.

I'm a Berkeley resident.

Um, and I'm speaking tonight on behalf of the Berkeley Architectural Heritage Association, of which I'm a board member.

Um, the history of the Southside neighborhood is one of continual transformation, and so too is the history of this property, on which one structure after another was added over the years.

These additions increased the density of the property more than tenfold, but the history of the site remained perfectly legible in the ensemble of buildings.

Let this be a lesson for the city at large.

For historic preservation to serve as an educational force, the history of its development needs to be evident in its building stock.

Um, and I actually had a question for the staff or for the clerk.

I submitted a couple of slides to present.

I wonder if those are on hand.

Um, you as a panelist, um, if you have the slides available, can share your screen to share those, but we do not have those um readily available.

Can we pause his time?

I'm sorry, I just want to.

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware of uh that I need to present.

Um, just a second.

I do have them on this computer, yes.

All right, all right, I'll I will continue.

So 2421 Durant, the only structure noted in the features to be preserved by the LPC, um, is noted in the Appalachia Historical Resource Evaluation is one of the last remaining residents in residences in its vicinity, much less a residency from its early period of construction.

Here's an image of the house soon after it was constructed, at a time when Berkeley's earliest university associated neighborhood was only just starting to fill in.

There's a house in front of it, but otherwise, the block on which it is on is largely empty.

The very fact that the appellants historical evaluation considers the property vestigial is what can is what actually renders it historically significant as a great educational force.

Without 2421 Durant, the city is one step closer to losing one of the last reminders of the historical depth of the neighborhood.

The real pity is that the landmark designation under consideration leaves plenty of room for dramatic redevelopment.

Although we at Baja believe the entire ensemble of buildings had historical significance, the LPC chose to designate only 2421 as a carrier of the features to be preserved.

As a result, the rest of the parcel could easily be used for new housing, much like the housing currently going up at the landmark Latrell House, only a few blocks away.

That's the image on the right.

And as you can see, 2421 Durant actually occupies a larger parcel than in Latrell House.

Such development would accommodate both many more units and preserve the significance of the parcel as an educational force.

Now, council members, you might say, and I'm sure you will, that your hands are tied by state law, and that we simply aren't allowed to landmark this property.

And to that, I say these things.

The city previously interpreted state law such that landmarking would have symbolic value and perhaps protect the historic features of the property under future development applications.

This remains in our analysis a reasonable interpretation of state law and something the council should get to the bottom of tonight.

And second, even if your hands are tied today, this landmark designation and appeal is a shameful reminder that the city has not fulfilled its obligation under the law to plan comprehensively for historic preservation.

The city has repeatedly promised to make appropriations for a citywide historic survey, but these funds have never materialized.

And let me remind the council that the city is required to undertake this as part of its housing element EIR.

Such a survey would allow the Berkeley community to assess the educational value of its built environment across the board, and crucial properties like this wouldn't fall through the cracks, and moreover, they can be designated proactively before they are threatened by redevelopment.

Every year that passes without such a survey will result in more loss of properties like this.

And little by little, Berkeley's building stock will no longer tell its history.

And let me add that historic preservation is important because the history might be exists in the written record, as the appellant indicated tonight, but that history is not experienced on a daily basis, and it's not something that the average Berkeley resident can appreciate.

And the value of historic preservation is that there is a sense of a history of a place in the course of its built um environment.

And it's important for the city, given these unfortunate um like schedules and state law coincidences and all these other things that are coming together that make protection difficult in this case, despite all that, it's important for the city to take this lesson and move forward proactively um to preserve the history of the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um council members, do you have any questions?

Yes, go ahead, council member.

Oh, I'll turn this on.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um have the LPC of uh state law landmarking this property after application.

Yes, the uh that have uh in SB30 SB 330 vesting are made overlap.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Tragub.

Thank you.

I have a question of the appeal that's just made.

I don't know if it was an appeal point.

Um, comprehensive historical um that was referenced um something to the effect of the city previously made a commitment or allegedly made a commitment as to do that as part of its housing element.

Can you expand on um this particular element?

Um I'm not sure I have been made familiar with um this particular point.

Sure.

Thank you.

I can feel that.

Um the environmental impact report uh that the city completed in association with the adoption of the 2023 to 2031 housing element, identified some uh significant unavoidable impacts, and one of those was the potential loss of historic resources in Berkeley and one of the mitigation measures that the city identified uh to mitigate the impacts of uh of this was the development of a citywide historic context statement.

And I do want to um it's a little different than a comprehensive survey, um, but a citywide historic context statement to help inform policy making and decisions around historic preservation in Berkeley, and that is still as an outstanding action.

Thank you.

I don't want to get too far afield from what is before us, but can you just in general terms state how is that um to be delivered um item?

How is it being tracked?

Is it something that the planning department is working on or plans to work on, or is it part of a referral?

Um, can you just kind of provide a general statement of where this is housed?

Absolutely.

That is in the planning department's work plan, and it's something that we are seeking funding for whether through grant funding or uh an allocation of general funds or other potential funding sources.

So that is that's part of our work plan.

Okay, Councilmember Blackaby.

Thanks, madam mayor.

I just have two quick questions for staff process questions, is what I understand.

Um, if uh if this property had been landmarked prior to November 18th, 2024, and the planning department received uh an SD 330 application, what would how would that have unfolded at that point?

Yeah, if the property had been landmarked prior to the application filing, it would be considered a cultural resource under CEQA and it would have gone through uh presumably a focused environmental impact report to evaluate the loss of the resource.

Okay.

And so the process obviously would have been very different, unfolded very differently.

It would have been more review of that uh of the impact on that resource and a determined nation made at that point.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um and looking forward, because we know that not all of these housing projects that are um that get to reach this point necessarily proceed and conclude.

Is there a point at which if the council decided tonight uh to um to reverse the landmarking status and at some point this project did not was not completed, uh could it be landmarked?

What how would that unfold down the road downstream?

Sure.

Um if um so uh if this project were um to not proceed, you know, there's certain timelines in which the project has to be completed, and if the project were to lose its entitlement, or actually it's not yet entitled, and if it did not become entitled, then if the project were canceled, um, then there would be an opportunity where the vested rights under the preliminary SB 330 application would expire, and subsequent to that expiration, there could be an opening for a new landmark application to proceed.

Okay, thank you.

Those are helpful on the process side.

Thanks.

Okay, thank you.

Um Councilmember Lunopara.

Thank you.

Um I have a question for the appellant.

Um I'm curious if the appellate can lay out any design features that they're planning to preserve in the new development.

Thank you for the question, council member.

Um, we are not planning to preserve any of them because it's being replaced by uh approximately proposed to be replaced by a quite large apartment building, uh, and there aren't uh features on these buildings that would be worth preserving towards that end.

Okay, thank you.

That's my question.

Um I also have a question for staff and something I kind of wanted to clear up because I asked my um LPC commissioner about how the LPC generally goes about projects like this, where the um the application for landmark status is submitted after uh projects papers are pulled.

Um, and it is HAA, it's covered by the HAA.

Um, and they said that the LPC essentially takes a position of um, you know, viewing the landmark on its on its merit, um, and knowing that the HAA protects the project regardless of whether it's considered a landmark or not.

Um, and so I'm curious.

I guess if there's if you have any thoughts on that or if there's if that is if you agree with that read of how the LPC operates.

I think the explanation that you were provided by your LPC member sounds consistent with with their practice and how this has proceeded on other applications.

Okay, thank you.

Um, and do you know if this has been an issue in other projects recently?

Do you mean specifically the the landmarking after vesting?

Or yeah, as in the if the landmarking um stops the project from happening, essentially.

No, the landmarking has not stopped projects from proceeding.

Okay, um, I'm curious if the appellant can speak to why this landmark status would stop this project or would prevent this project from proceeding.

Sorry to call you back up.

No, that's okay, and I'm glad to jump in here as much as possible.

You're gonna hear more about it uh from the next appellant who's in a similar circumstance.

I would say uh to begin with, though, that we have been delayed now uh as a result of what's going on here.

As staff indicated earlier, they were setting public hearing for this project back in March.

It's now uh July, and so we've been held up this amount of time uh on this issue.

Um, this the state law is pretty clear with respect to what has happened after a preliminary application has been submitted, and one of the effects of what a landmarking does in this circumstance is it chills the ability of us, our client developers to get funding for the project.

We have to record deed restrictions.

Um the insurance companies and the lenders look very very carefully at these things, and you're taking yourself out of the A category and you're putting yourself in the C category if we fetter a development project uh with something like this.

That's why the state law was passed the way it was.

And Berkeley had a reputation in the past that was quite notorious around this issue in the early 2000s and the late 90s.

Uh and so the state law uh is an attempt to stop that kind of abuse, uh process abuse relevant housing production.

Thank you.

And my final question is if you're confident that um this project can move forward as planned, if this appeal is granted.

I'm quite confident we um we're uh watching the market very very carefully.

Um, you know, our policy victories the last few years have led to an incredible amount of new housing uh openings in Berkeley over the last couple of years.

The market's been impacted.

Some projects aren't going to move forward.

This project is in a location um that we absolutely plan uh to move forward with um and look forward to providing a great deal of new housing right close to the edge of the South Edge campus where it belongs.

Okay, great.

Thank you so much.

Those are all my questions.

Thank you.

I just want to check before I go back to Councilmember Traga to see if anyone else has questions.

No, okay, Councilmember Draco.

Sorry, um, Mark, can you can come back up?

Might as well just stay there.

It's okay.

I don't have my steps in yet today.

This might help.

Um I know that in the past um I'm I'm going to use the word older housing stock because I I know historical housing stock has a particular context.

Um sometimes has been relocated to other parts of the city where they now continue to be and remain preserved.

Um I was curious if any consideration has been given to at least explore possible relocation of this subject property.

I appreciate that question, and I've been on both sides of it a few times here in Berkeley, and it's worked a couple of times.

Offer the structures for a dollar to see if there's real interest in the community in moving them.

We've engaged in a couple of these in the past where there's a lot of enthusiasm for a potential mover to move a structure, but it ended up costing the project months to realize that that wasn't gonna happen.

But we will make an earnest effort to do so.

We even reach out to Baja if they wanted to and allow them to advertise that fact.

We would work something up like we have in the past.

Okay, thank you.

And then a question for staff.

Um should there be um the possibility of moving such a property to a different site should one be available and feasible.

Um speaking generally, um what kind of um I know that everything has to go through a process, so I'm just asking um if consideration can be given by staff or what has been done in the past to try to facilitate around up, you know, approvals should something be um available to be moved and feasible to do.

Um what can the city do on um on its side?

Certainly uh I can say that I've actually worked on I worked on uh helping facilitate the permitting of the house move off of the uh site where currently the the northeast corner of haste and telegraph, um, where one of the most interesting buildings in Berkeley currently stands.

Uh so yes, we would we would do what we can to facilitate permitting uh to facilitate a house move.

Thank you.

Um council Councilmember Luna Parr has another question.

Thank you.

Yeah, and uh I appreciated the comment about the hasten telegraph building.

Um sorry, I I meant to ask this earlier, but I'm not feeling well and not in the right mind.

I'm curious if you can speak to the status of the building on the inside.

How many units are inside, and what is the general structural status and habitability of it?

I think that's a question for me.

I have not been inside the building.

I haven't been inside the building um personally, uh, but folks have lived there uh more or less recently, and of course, um those folks have been informed of the project, and you know, there's a number of units.

I can't remember off the top of my head, uh, maybe nine or eleven.

Might be as many as nineteen in this case, it would all get replaced as a as a part of the future project.

I think it's it's it's subject to the new demolition ordinance, correct?

Sorry, I didn't mean to.

Um I don't I don't I cannot recall off the top of I didn't prepare that's a zoning adjustments board kind of question.

I don't I didn't prepare uh for that, but I can figure that out in just a moment if you like.

Staff may have that information at hand right now.

Um I think that I think that um our staff are discussing that to answer that question for you.

And and once we get the answer, we can we can circle back to it.

Unless Jordan maybe you have you know, I I think uh I'd like to avoid asking specific questions about the development project because the development project is not what is before city council consideration of the development project is is specifically not before.

Um it's really strictly limited to the consideration of the landmark designation.

Okay, we we've just lost the forum, so we have to take a minute.

I'm sorry.

We we are limited because we have folks that are online, not in the uh area, so um and council member.

I see you have your hands up, so when we come back, then I will go to you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm sorry, I'd like to ask the foot that folks just kind of leave leave staff alone since they're presenting and they're sitting up there, they need to be you know paying attention to what they're doing.

So if you have questions, you're welcome to ask the clerk.

Um thank you.

So, do not say that you get that question.

Oh, yeah, that's really great.

Okay, we have a term.

Okay, we have quorum again.

One, two, three.

Okay, very good.

Thank you.

No worries.

I'm it's just hard because we've got a lot of folks online and they're not in in the city.

So um, okay, so um any other questions before we move on?

Okay, and yes, Ben, I think Councilmember Bartlett, I'm sorry.

Do you have a question?

Oh yes, please, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh my question is uh for um uh for staff.

Question, uh, so can you help me understand, and I guess the audience is well.

Uh when Mr.

Rhodes mentioned this being as much a legal issue um as much as a uh uh sort of divation issue.

What exactly is the legal issue at play?

Uh I guess I somehow disagree that it's a legal issue, it's really a policy call.

Um so um I can elaborate on on the policy questions, but the staff report and Jordan's report and and others have sort of delved into that.

It's not really a legal issue because as mentioned earlier, I think by the applicant and staff would agree with that.

The designation doesn't apply to this housing project.

Um the designation has been made, but it's symbolic and it doesn't apply to this project.

Okay.

Does that answer the question and Jordan?

Feel free to.

Yeah, I that wasn't quite the angle.

I think maybe the question, but go ahead.

And I'm sorry, folks, I know if you have a discussion, if you're gonna have a conversation, please just take it outside so that we can focus on what's going on here.

Yeah, I would just add to the city attorney's comments that I and I want to acknowledge that staff changed our recommendation on this item uh uh from the recommendation to LPC to the recommendation to city council after further consideration of the statute, the timing of the applications, as well as the potential of the designation to uh pose a constraint on housing production as described by the appellant in their comments.

Um so those are all of the um pieces of information that inform staff's decision to change our recommendation to city council, um and you know uh the city attorneys is attorney is it framed it as a policy question for council to consider.

Um you know, and we're here to answer any other questions you have um that can inform your decision.

Okay, thank you.

That's all uh council member taplin.

Yeah, I just wanted to follow up.

Um, so is it that staff changed the recommendation to counsel given that the LPC designation would impose a constraint upon the project that might conflict with SB330?

Yeah, that I think uh not uh so there's the SP 330 considerations, so SP 330 bars us from designating attaching a designation that could impact a project, right?

And that that is clear.

Uh I think um there's also other uh prohibitions in the government code from municipalities taking actions to contrain the production of housing.

Um, and that also informs staff's recommendation on this matter.

Understood, thank you.

And then for the appellants earlier, you spoke about the chilling effect that the LPC designation has had on this project.

Could you elaborate on that?

It's already cost us four months of time in a public hearing and having the project's entitlement improved.

If the landmarks uh uh question is to stand, uh we face uh future uncertainty from lenders uh because of the landmark status.

Uh, and we face uh potential uncertainty from insurance providers as well.

Um this has the chilling effect that is very much a violation of state law, as stated in the state density bonus law, in our opinion and in the opinion of the attorney for the next project as well, whose letter I'm sure you've read same set of circumstances, but w we very much believe this to be a uh uh prima facie legal issue.

Thank you.

Um, I'd like to ask the city attorney to ex expand upon what she was saying.

Just I guess I have to say I disagree with the developer's attorney's letter and the developer that it's a legal, it's a prima facial legal issue.

It's really a policy issue because the designation is symbolic and it doesn't apply to the project.

The project is vested.

But the city council, and this is something that the um staff has laid out very coherently before you in the staff report and in the presentation, has the option to um reverse course and from a policy perspective decide that for various other reasons.

The applicant has mentioned, for example, the chilling effect, maybe there's financing issues, there's other circumstances that um bolster the argument why the uh designation shouldn't stand.

So I think it's important to to sort of be crisp about our thinking that it's not that you're legally prohibited.

The designation has been made, but it doesn't have a legal effect because it doesn't apply to the project.

The project is vested, its rights are frozen in time.

And and I apologize if this is too technical, but um I think it it's it's worth um being clear about it.

Yeah, I guess I guess the reason I was confused is because it says on one of the slides that the staff recommends reversing the designation because it cannot be applied to the proposed project under state law, and I guess that was why I had understood that it to be this part of it is an illegal issue.

So that's correct.

That statement is correct.

Okay, great.

I guess maybe one way to think about it is that the designation is just symbolic.

And um Jordan, do you want to elaborate?

Yes, the designation can't apply to the project.

And there's and so I think that's why, like if it only applies to the parcel, then that's why you would call it symbolic because the parcel would be like the project is still free to come in and demolish the building, right?

Because the designation can't apply to the project.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, all right.

So um I think then in that case we can move on from council questions and go to public comment.

So if you have public comment, you can come up here to the side.

Good evening.

Uh, Russia, could you move the uh mic closer to me, please?

You can pull it all the way.

Yeah, there you go.

Good evening.

Um, my name is Bonnie Zhu.

Uh I'm a resident at 2421.

I appreciate you giving me the chance for public to speak about this matter.

Uh I want to ask uh the historical value.

Does that include cultural value or civic value, given that uh this uh location is right next to uh UC Berkeley campus and the street names is even at named after the first UC Berkeley president?

And the reason why Brun is uh probably um previously uh the party for the preservation, such a symbolic designation already show you that the previous owner of this uh location had done preservation and won one award for its aesthetic appealing for this building.

So uh right now I'm asking a question about do we preserve certain kind of a cultural civic or moral value of this building or the current uh the landlord who is gonna be building a 20-floor building at the current location who currently every 13 from last time I heard uh resident tenant of Berkeley is his, and this uh tenant, he uh this landlord, the in contrast, previous uh landlord was a generous kind, and this current uh owner, when he took over the ownership, then right the COVID hits, or the most of the many of the uh landlords of Berkeley um automatically just offering the rent deduction, given that's such a difficult time for everyone remote everything.

But at this location, it raised to the maximum legal maximum.

Not only that, they didn't provide any safety check every year for for seven or the seven years they purchased this location, and it even mono um thank you.

I'm sorry, time is up.

Thank you for your public comment.

They didn't install the no, I'm sorry you can't speak.

Probably detector, you're I'm so sorry, but your your time is up, so you your comment is over.

Thank you.

Are there other comments?

Folks, if you have a public comment, can you just line up over here so I know how many people are speaking?

Is anyone else speaking on this matter?

Okay, can you can you walk over there, please?

You're welcome to sit on the other side, but just you know, okay.

Yes, um, Mark and I were on the landmarks commission at the same time, and at that time it was very important as each building was designated, and we considered each designation as a single.

In this case, it's a last standing in the south of campus, the south of campus, my friends, people who are taking care of Berkeley now is becoming nameless, soulless, and a housing place that has lots of for lease signs, and Mark knows about building.

I'm sure building now um has a lot more risks to it.

Is it gonna be rented?

This woman spoke at the landmarks commission.

It was very heartfelt, and she lives in the building.

People have lived in those two buildings for many many years, and I'm sure they're probably the units are more hospitable than what might be built in the eight stories, 10 stories.

It's not just one.

Anthony Bruce landmarked it because it was what was left.

Going up Durant in the South Campus area on telegraph, the housing, the building.

Are you working for money or are you working for the future of our town to have a soul and to have a place?

Because money is driving the Yimby mantra.

Money that is, there are for lease signs everywhere in Berkeley, and we are even on the precipice of students not coming internationally into our town that were the reason the Bank of America site was torn down for the first Asian students to come over.

Really, we are in a turn of events, a new time, and let's it's irreplaceable what Anthony searched for us in the case.

And our landlord your time is endorsed.

Ma'am, thank you.

Folks, I am a stickler for time, so you're gonna have your two minutes, and that's what you get.

I'm sorry, but we're trying to we've got a lot of things to cover tonight.

I want to make sure we're getting through this meeting and we're being respectful to everyone's time.

Okay, you have two minutes.

Good evening, council members.

I'm Steve Finnick.

I'm I'm a member of the landmarks commission.

Um, the appointee of the distinguished counselor from District 4.

Um, and uh I think I'm the only LPC member here tonight.

So if you have any questions about uh what the LPC does or how the process works, um I'm happy to try to answer those.

Um I came up because uh Councilmember Taplan had asked a question earlier, and correct me if I uh don't under didn't understand it right, but you asked um if uh if the commission knew um what it was doing in context of SP 330 when it landmarked the property.

Is that right?

Um, pardon.

We don't respond to comments or commentary, I understand.

Yeah, so um so I wanted to clarify the commission has been operating for the past three years or so under a letter from the city attorney, which said um uh basically what the staff have explained that uh the you have uh uh if a property is landmarked after the SP 330 proper project um application is vested, then the landmarking can proceed, but it doesn't apply to that project.

Um that's that's what the commission uh voted.

Well what our understanding was when we voted on designating this property, and it was unanimous vote from the commission.

Afterwards, um the the change in policy, which the city attorney spoke to is very very recent.

Um we didn't learn about it until our meeting at the beginning of this month.

So I just wanted to clarify that we were entirely in alignment with what city staff and the city attorney had advised on policy uh procedure.

Does that make sense everybody?

I hope so.

And I'm happy to answer any of the other questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, are there other comments online?

Yes, um, we have one raised hand, and Kelly Hamergan, you should be able to speak.

Hello.

Um it's really quite a stunning house.

Um, and it would be a shame to lose it, and it's a shame that they can't just design a project around it and leave it so that we can have what was history in Berkeley, and we can have what is new in Berkeley, and it would be a shame to just mow everything down and only have what's new and and not have a variety of buildings.

Um the designation is symbolic, which means that they can still tear it down anyway, but it it really would be a shame.

It would be so much better to build around it and save it.

Um there was a roads project that I read about in the paper.

You know, we were all supposed to get this project at the California theater, and that's now dead.

Um I walked downtown today and I walked by the big hole in the ground of a building project, which seems to be dead.

It does have a pretty fence around it, but it doesn't appear to be going anywhere.

I go to the design review committee meetings, I go to the zoning adjustment board meetings, and what I see year after year is projects get approved that just never seem to go anywhere.

So it would be a shame to lose this house and then just have another hole in the ground because we hear that there can't be enough money made on the project, which is what we heard about the California theater, what about a week and a half or two weeks ago?

Um so I would really encourage you to um uh dismiss the appeal, um let the uh design historical designation stay.

It's not gonna um it would be great if we could do that, and we'd have a variety of buildings in the city.

Thank you.

Thanks, Kelly.

Other comments online?

Yes, our next speaker is Krishna.

Krishna, you should be able to speak.

Hello.

Uh I'd like to cede my time to Isaac if that's possible.

Um Isaac already spoke during the period for um the applicant.

However, if you'd like to speak during this time, you may.

Sure.

Um, I just wanted to say that I'm a student at Berkeley, and I think it's people like me who are possibly the most immensely affected by decisions such as these that were not part of the decision-making process.

So I wanted to come here and voice my opinion and just let you know that we want to live in a beautiful neighborhood.

We don't want big high-rise buildings where we cannot see past them.

Um we're already having so many university housing units coming up.

We had one more new unit come up just very recently, and they are finding it very difficult to fill that housing in the first place.

So we truly appreciate if we can have a more beautiful surrounding to be around because it really helps our mental health.

Thank you.

Are there other comments online?

Um, that was our last raised hands.

Okay.

Um, we are gonna go to our uh comments.

Actually, is yeah, don't we move to the I was gonna say is there a move motion to move to close the public hearing?

Second hearing.

Okay, thank you.

Can you take the role please?

Uh yes, and uh, mayor, um, prior to closing the public hearing, um, would the council members like to disclose any ex parte communications?

Oh, council member.

Um, sometime in the fall of 2024, I was contacted by the applicant about this project uh at the time uh the discussion was limited to uh legal implications uh under FB 330.

Okay, anyone else?

All right, in that case, um, can you take the role, please, Clerk?

Yep.

Um, Councilmember Caserwani, yes.

Taplin?

Yes, Bartlett.

Yes.

Traga?

Aye.

O'Keefe is absent, Blackaby?

Yes.

Luna Para?

Yes.

Humbert?

Yes.

That was a yes.

And Mayor Ishii?

Yes.

Okay.

Um, Councilmember Humbert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um, I've I've got uh a fairly lengthy set of comments on on this item, and I would um ask your indulgence uh for me maybe to exceed five minutes on this one.

I will um my comments on the the succeeding items will be much shorter.

Thank you.

That's fine, thank you.

And maybe go ahead and turn that off, because otherwise it's gonna beep in the middle of your comments.

And then I'll then I'll jump.

Um in my view, there are there are in fact uh two main issues at hand, and I think these will also apply to item two, the Kittridge project.

First question, and and I think it's worth going to is one of the merits.

Do the structures at 2421 and 2425 Durant, I guess actually the only, you know, the the more elaborate um ornate one is the one that the designation uh is purportedly symbolically attached to.

Do they meet the criteria for a landmark designation?

The second question, of course, is one of process can and should the city designate landmarks on sites with projects that have submitted pre-applications and thus have vested under state law.

And I have to say that for this particular project on Duran, I've struggled with these questions around the landmark designation and appeal.

Although I don't find the 2425 structure particularly noteworthy, it's nice.

If I could wave a magic wand or pick it up and put it on a truck, I might preserve it and double the height of the new housing on the 2425 site or relocate something to another site.

But despite my despite my personal feelings, I think we have to operate within the bounds of the municipal code and state law and our and broader circumstances that are in play right now.

In reality, um my preferred magical options are likely infeasible, and we face we continue to face a severe housing crisis.

Despite rents that remain unaffordably high, Berkeley is seeing a slowdown in home building because of rising construction costs and interest rates, and yes, the burdens we impose locally, the city does.

If we were can to consider historic preservation values in pure isolation, we'd landmark everything because pretty much everything has a historic value greater than zero, and perhaps that's what some people want.

But that's not what the people who voted us into office expect of us.

They expect us to look at the big picture and follow the law.

And within the law, they expect us to balance the competing interests and challenges we face as we weigh the historic value of existing buildings.

As much as we try to insist that landmarking decisions are based on purely objective criteria, it's just not the case.

It's unavoidably true that it will ultimately come down to subjective value judgments, with the exception of the criterion related to inclusion on state or federal registries, which isn't applicable here.

Every single one of our landmarking criteria incorporates the word value into its language, and even inclusion on state and federal registries itself comes as a result of value judgments.

They're always going to be contextual.

So while I believe that at least 2421 has some non-zero historic value, and maybe significantly more than that, I don't think that value rises to the level that would justify a landmark designation for the property.

I'm going to go through the criteria.

For the criterion of architectural merit, the municipal code establishes three tests.

Property that is the first, last, only, or most significant architectural property of its type in the region.

The region.

This property does not appear to meet this criterion.

The word region is key.

There are numerous similar structures in our region, and I've not seen evidence that this one is the first, last only, or most significant.

And I don't think the argument can be made that the neighborhood is the region, because the word neighborhood is used elsewhere elsewhere in the same criterion section.

In this particular test, it was if this particular test was meant to be based on neighborhood, it would have said neighborhood.

B.

Properties that are prototypes of or outstanding examples of period styles, architectural movements, or construction, or examples of the more notable works of the best surviving work in a region of an architect, designer, or master builder.

And again, I think the building is lovely, but it's not prototypical, and I don't think it rises to the level of being an outstanding example.

Again, the notion of something being outstanding is inherently subjective.

There are, in fact, other even more impressive examples of this style of architecture across the city and in the region.

I don't think this criterion is met.

And once again, I don't think the regional standard is being met.

For example, the Bajas uh website has an entire page of surviving and better examples of this particular architect's work in San Francisco.

And while, and this is clearly not the best or last remaining of his example of his work in the region, and it's not even in fact the last example of his work in Berkeley, since as I understand it, the Masonic Temple was designed by him and is in fact an existing landmark.

So the next item is architectural examples criteria, worth preserving for the exceptional values they add as part of the neighborhood fabric.

And of course, this is the one I struggled with the most.

I think the 2421 structure adds a value to the neighborhood fabric, but I don't think we can call it exceptional.

As much as I love this home and the history it prompts me to imagine, I don't think this structure represents exceptional value for the overwhelming majority of Berkeley residents and passers-by.

When people think about Southside and its defining structures, I'm willing to bet that few, if any people thought of these two buildings.

And while I'm sure many people would agree that the building's lovely, 2421, I doubt that many would identify it as integral to the neighborhood.

And finally, since these structures are not listed on state or federal registries, that criterion is moot.

That's the other criteria.

All of the remaining criteria relate explicitly to non-architectural values.

For cultural or educational value, I don't think these structures meet the standards.

Neither is associated with a particular notable cultural movement, and I don't think either serves as an educational force, which is a strange and amorphous standard in my view.

Historic value, that's another criterion, and that's the last one.

It leaves the it it means to embody and express the history of Berkeley, Alameda County, California or the United States.

This is another highly, you know, subjective, amorphous, and elastic standard since every structure embodies or expresses history to some degree.

The landmark application appears to argue that the structures embody and express history because they are representative of an early pattern of residential development and representative of the continuing residential development in this area.

And I don't think that's compelling.

Setting the bar so low for historic value means that almost any residential structure would be representative of an early pattern of residential development or of continuing residential development.

Indeed, building the proposed project would also be representative of continued residential development, which illustrates the incredible looseness of this justification.

An argument for historic value that seems to materialize not independent independently but also at the same time a project is proposed should be treated with some scrutiny.

This was not nobody sought to landmark it before the um before the the development application was submitted.

In my view, the fact that this property was not the subject of such a landmarking designation prior to the project application, despite Berkeley's very liberal approach to the designation of landmarks, is a telling factor.

For all these reasons, I believe the landmark preservation commission committed error in designating this landmark on the merits of the question.

And now turning to process, I think it's fairly cut and dry.

For any proposed project that submits a preliminary application, state law says that we can only apply the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect at the time the application was submitted.

Landmarking this property at this time and attempting to apply resulting standards would clearly, in my view, maybe the city attorney disagrees with me, but I my view is it's a violation of state law.

And it is because of the burden that it places.

It's it seems to me it's not entirely symbolic because it places a burden on this property.

You know, theoretically, we could adopt the landmark and not apply the standards, but I mean it seems kind of moot uh to do so.

I do worry about um liability, um uh exposing the city to liability from the from the developer, um, from the applicant, and from the state.

Um, if the state believes that simply adopting a landmark represents the intempted imposition of a new standard, they could come after us.

Um, so you know, I'm not convinced that SB 330 allows um symbolic requirements, especially if those symbolic requirements constitute a burden on developing the property.

So, for all these reasons, I think that approving this landmark at this time would represent a breach of process and an unacceptable risk for the city.

Um I intend to vote in favor of granting the property owners' appeal and overturning the decision of a landmarks preservation commission.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, and just to be transparent to my council colleagues, Councilmember Humbert had asked earlier, and that's why I gave him extra time, but I know we aren't really trying to keep within our five minutes.

So thank you.

I appreciate you checking in.

Um, okay, Councilmember Trake or Taplin, I'm sorry.

No worries.

Uh, thank you very much.

Uh, I will be speaking extemporaneously, so please feel free to tie me, and I will be far less eloquent.

Just fair warning.

Um, I was not planning to speak tonight, and I do appreciate getting the background of this building.

Um, it I do feel that I must say that neither the city will like.

There are structures and societies that predate both the city and the university.

Our history did not begin in the 1800s, and um uh, you know, I I do have a deep love for the city's history.

I really appreciate learning about it.

I just also wish that we would bring forward our history at other times than when there might be a new building happening, because not like not liking tall buildings or new buildings, uh, seeing four lease signs do not make this structure worthy of a landmarking status, in my opinion.

And I've tried all these years to really hold on to the belief that we are utilizing our power to landmark um because we value our history, and that's not about like tying up things in process or blocking new housing.

But I, you know, respectfully what I heard tonight is making that harder to maintain as a belief.

And I will also be voting to um uphold the appeal.

Um I always over amazing things to say, but I'm I'm losing those.

Um but I I'll leave it there unless I unless the further inspiration, but I think you know, I mean, Mr.

Humbert, uh, my colleague really kind of took the words of my mouth, so yeah.

Thank you.

Um, Councilmember Trakeb, and then um we're gonna go online to Council Member Bartlett.

Thank you.

I work for my constituents and a little over $85,000.

So that's if that's considered working for money, so be it.

Um, I have um a few comments.

Uh first of all, um, this is really um I I anticipate we're going to be as um staff has noted in their um materials, we anticipate seeing more of uh these kinds of um projects either come before us or and or the LPC post-SB 330.

Uh and there are um two important um values to keep in mind um that all of us are striving to balance um one around historical preservation and the other around um meeting our housing affordability, meeting and hopefully exceeding our local and regional housing affordability goals.

Um I too have struggled mightily with this particular appeal.

Um I do agree with the comments of my um colleague uh on my right.

Um I uh I am not sure that I could make the claim that this um has special significance, but that is not to say that I really appreciate very much both the value of the architecture and the history uh behind this project.

Um to that end, um the challenge is on.

Um I hope that there is an opportunity um to move this building somewhere.

Um, and when I was serving on the zoning board, um we approved a few, not many, but several um such uh relocations.

I believe some of them are now uh proudly um standing um in my district.

Um, and I would love to see something like that happen, if at all possible.

Uh with that said, um, I think state law is quite clear on this point.

Um, and uh just uh on that basis alone, um, I feel that um I have no choice but to um support the staff recommendation uh and what I will say to the demolition um concerns um this was my very first vote on the council um last year.

Um I'm proud to have been part of a council that approved what I believe to be one of the strongest demolition ordinances in the nation.

Um that doesn't to be clear that does not keep buildings from being demolished, but what it does is it ensures robust and lasting protections for sitting tenants.

And while this is not before us today, I wanted to just reference that.

Thank you for this opportunity.

Thank you.

Councilmember Bartlett.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm on my phone out here.

Uh it's interesting divine timing here.

Uh, because when I wake up later when the day starts, I'm gonna be visiting uh sites associated with Alexander the Great.

So very interesting uh timing.

Uh you know, to to the uh to the historical preservation uh community, I appreciate your work, this your efforts.

Um we do a beautiful city, lots of architectural marbles, so much historical import, different places.

Um, but unfortunately, I don't think this is the place.

And I think if it had, you would have done it before the application for the building.

Uh, you know, I just think it's important that when it comes to this, when it comes to these these processes we have to beautify our city, protect our culture, uh, that it's used with integrity and not used as a tool of weaponization to stop development.

And uh your point about the the for rent signs uh that's good.

Lots of rent signs are good.

It means landlords are competing for tenants, and when you compete for tenants, you lower the rent.

So that's good, which is our rents falling.

Very clear.

Um, so yeah, I'm gonna vote to hold the appeal.

And uh I do I think we need to really kind of come to grips here and sort of reevaluate uh our tools for preserving our landmarks and determining them.

I think we need a new criteria that's rooted in community interest, community value, uh more specific community value that's expressed through a legacy of culture, uh, whether it's physical or otherwise, uh, because otherwise we're kind of now we're going into the CEQA abuse territory, and we saw where the state um just curtailed use of sequa because we was used.

So we want to avoid that.

So let's say get our house in order and really go about the business of beautifying our community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Kessarwani, and just so we're clear on the order because we're hopping back and forth between online and in person.

Um, after Councilmember Kessarwani will be Council Member Lunapara, then Blackaby since he hasn't gone yet, and then Taplin.

Thank you very much, Madam Mayor.

Uh, thank you to our planning staff for your presentation.

Thank you to the appellant and the applicant um for your comments and for um comments from members of the public.

Um I I do just want to level set, I I think my colleagues have pointed this out as our staff have as well, and our city attorney has as well, but the landmarking, if we were to proceed with that and agree with the landmark preservation commit commission, it would be purely symbolic, meaning it would have no practical effect on the future project.

Aside from uh it sounds like some of the financing issues, it would not cause the project to be required to preserve any element of that uh very charming old home, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

So when we are being asked to do that, remember there's no practical effect for uh taking that symbolic action.

But there the practical effect is that we invite legal risk, because our staff is advising us that state law gives the applicant vested rights, and we are hearing concerns that even this symbolic landmarking uh affects their ability to proceed with the project.

They've already had a four-month delay.

Um, and I'm concerned about what we're hearing about how this could affect financing or how it may already affect financing.

So I, you know, for me this is really about process.

And, you know, I I'm actually I I find it actually um disappointing that this even came to the landmark preservation commission because as our planning director noted, uh, we need to do that historic context statement and survey so that we know we have an understanding of which structures in our city have historic merit, right?

Which ones are cultural resources, so that we we can just level set that, and we don't have these situations where it seems to me in this case and the next case that we're going to be looking at, an applicant submits a use per an application for a use permit, and then we have other folks in the community who seem to take notice and want to try to landmark that structure.

That's not a good process.

I just want to say that.

It's it's one, it doesn't treat all historic structures and cultural resources fairly.

It seems that the ones that are subject of these use permits get heightened scrutiny.

So that's not fair.

Um and it slows down these projects.

You know, I I want to preserve our historic structures.

I think and cultural resources, I think we all do, uh, but we we have to do it fairly.

And so I just want to express my commitment to funding that survey because we have tried to fund it in the past.

We have had difficult budgets, but I think uh with these appeals tonight, what we're seeing is that there are costs to not funding the survey, right?

We're here because we didn't do the survey, and we have these one-off situations that we now have to adjudicate.

So I'm disappointed in that, and I hope we can fix that moving forward.

Um so with that, I would like to make a motion to uphold the appeal and reverse the landmarks preservation commission decision.

Um, for the purposes of discussion, I just want to make that motion.

I do understand we we need to hear from some other members of our council seconds.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Lunapara.

Thank you.

Um I first want to say that I agree with our city attorney and disagree with the appellant that this is a legal issue.

In my opinion, a theoretical financial burden on the development does not count as the city preventing the development from happening and does not violate the HAA, since this is this would be a symbolic decision.

I don't want to hide behind a state law while we make this decision.

However, I do want to tie myself to a lot of councilmember Humbert's comments.

Um, and I ultimately don't think that this building reaches the standard for a historic designation.

Um, and I also agree with Councilmember Taplin and Bartlett in that it is really frustrating that we decide to care about historic places after a development is proposed.

I think that this building, especially, which I've walked by hundreds, if not thousands of times, regularly gets lost in a very lively and beautiful neighborhood.

The building next door, 2419 Durant, I believe, much better encompasses the spirit and history of the neighborhood.

I also want to say that I hear um both the current tenant and the student resident that gave public comment earlier, and I would love to hear from you, especially to discuss our design standards about new development.

At the same time, I want to say that there are so many things that make a neighborhood beautiful.

Um, and I fundamentally do not believe that we need to freeze our city in Amber to preserve and honor our history.

Um I was going to make the motion, but Councilmember Casarwani beat me to it.

Um, those are all my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Blackaby.

I'll be brief.

Um thanks, Madam Mayor.

I just want to associate myself with the comments of all my colleagues, particularly Councilmember Humbert, who very articulately laid out the case, both on the merits as well as on the process and kind of legal and policy sides of this.

Um I also uh agree with uh what Mr.

Worshower said in his comments, and also Councilmember Kessarwani picked up in her comments, which is um, you know, we should be much more strategic and proactive about identifying the um properties that have historic merit in our city and make sure we are preserving those and not doing it as an afterthought um as new development projects are uh coming to the fore.

So again, I so I agree with Councilmember Kesselwani and others that I think funding, even in this period where you know we are in a tight budget environment to avoid sort of these kind of conflicts down the road and also just be more strategic and thoughtful and take the time to do this right, doing the historic context survey and identifying those significant properties starting now and getting ahead of it so we know what we want to preserve ahead of time uh is smart and is good for the community and good for uh preserve preserving the historical um uh sites of significance in our city.

So I appreciate the motion from um uh council member Kessler.

Oh we lost him but I think we can move on to council member taplin's comments so we still have two more items left folks thanks I'll just be very brief um I do think it's important to think about whose history matters and why you know I think multiplexes in the Elmwood and throughout the city are part of the city's history apartment buildings in South and West Berkeley and throughout the city are part of the city's history and student housing in the South site and downtown and elsewhere are also part of the city's history and I also think it's a little um surprising that this has progressed so far given the clear implications of state law so I do think it's warranted to bring our local ordinance into alignment with the state law thank you okay um I just want to say that I agree with my colleagues and I'm also interested in this citywide historic context statement I think that that makes sense Councilmember Kesserwani I'm glad you brought that back up again um and I know we have a motion on the floor so I'd love to move us forward and ask the clerk to take roll please all right on the motion councilmember Kazarwani yes taplin yes Bartlett yes and uh Black and be says he lost power and is returning shortly uh council member Trago aye oh Keith is absent um it does not appear as though Blackabee is back on yet um council member lunapara yes Humbert yes Mayor Ishii yes and I don't see Bartlett on yet so we I'm sorry um Blackaby thank you that's okay I think so motion um he'll be noted as absent okay I think the motion carries so yes okay very good thank you thank you all for coming and thank you to staff for your presentation uh but don't go anywhere because we have another one um so we're moving on to number two which is the landmarks preservation commission appeal two one three eight Kittridge landmark application LMIN 2024-0006 and I'm gonna open the public hearing starting with a presentation from staff I'm sorry do you mind could you please could you please not speak to staff because they're they're working thank you okay go ahead thank you very much.

Thank you very much counsel um the next appeal is 2138 Kit Ridge Street this is an appeal of a landmark preservation commission similar to the other one um to designate the subject property at 2138 Kit Ridge as a city landmark similar to I'll present the review history of the proposed designation provide some project specific details before addressing the appeal the upcoming slides provide a summary of the relevant permit and landmark review milestones starting on no on February 14th 2024 the city received a preliminary use permit application pursuant to SP 330 then on April 4th the preliminary use permit application was deemed complete and vested to that date then on August 6th the appellant submitted a use permit application under SB 330 that application was deemed complete on September 5th 2024.

Subsequently on October 30th 2024 the city received a landmark or structure merit application for the subject property which initiated formal consideration of the site for historic designation.

Although a public hearing was initially scheduled for January 6, 2025, it was postponed to February 6 to allow for additional time for public notice and to address questions raised by interested parties on January 2025 public hearing notices were mailed to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the site, as well as to as well as to interested neighborhood organizations.

The LPC held the public hearing on February 6th, and after reviewing the record and receiving public comment, the commission voted to designate the property as a city landmark.

Then finally, on March 24th, the appellant filed an appeal of the LPC's decision, which brings us to today's hearing.

This slide shows the zoning designation and location of 2138 Kittridge.

The property is located in the C D C DMU zoning district, downtown core sub area, which allows for a mix of residential and commercial uses and encourages higher density development in downtown Berkeley.

The primary structure on the site, historically known as the Fitzpatrick House, and later as the Pepper Tree Tea Room, is situated near the northwest corner of the lot.

Its north facing facade is built directly along the northern property line, fronting Kit Ridge Street, and a one-story carport structure is located at the rear of the site, occupying the southwest corner and spanning the full width of the rear property line.

In terms of historic context, the site is located just outside the boundaries of the Berkeley Historic Civic Center District.

It's surrounded by multiple designated historic structures, including the Masonic Temple, Tupper and Reed Building, and the Heslit Silk Store Building.

Here's a view of the subject property.

It shows a street level view of the Fitzpatrick House.

Uh the building reflects a hybrid of colonial revival and modern uh influence Georgian revival styles.

Here's another view of the facade and the decorative windows.

Here are the eastern and western fringes showing the horizontal shiplap wood siding, the multi-pane double-hung windows with molded wood trim, and the decorative cornice that frames a roof line.

Moving on to the main appeal issue.

This is a summary of the appeal issues and staff's response.

A more detailed discussion can be found in the staff report.

Again, the appellant claims that the landmark designation is prohibited by SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act, claiming that it places the housing project at risk by imposing new standards after the application was deemed complete.

Under state law, once an SB 330 preliminary application for a housing development project is submitted and deemed complete, it's protected from the application of new policies or standards, including historic designations.

The LPC designated the site as historic landmark on February 6, 2025, after the vested rights had been established, which in this case, the preliminary application was deemed complete on April 4th, 2024.

Any subsequent changes to zoning or other local regulations, including discretionary decisions such as a local landmark designation, are not applicable to the housing development project.

And accordingly, staff recommends reversing the designation because it cannot be applied to the proposed project under state law.

Staff recommends that council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution reversing the LPC's decision to design the property at 2138 Kit Ridge Street as a city landmark.

Alternatively, council may continue the public hearing, affirm or modify the LPC's decision or remand the matter back to LPC.

This concludes that's presentation, and I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Um can I have the appellant come forward, please?

You'll have five minutes for your presentation.

And as you've heard, you only need two, you said?

Okay.

And as you've heard, I'm a stickler for time, so.

Good evening, Mayor and City Staff.

All right, city staff and council.

My name's Bill Schrader.

I own the Austin Group, a development company, and the affiliated entity that owns the Studio 1 property before you tonight.

We support staff's report reversing the landmarking of our property.

Would ask for your yes votes this evening.

I did want to take a couple of minutes to provide some clarifications for the public record.

There may be, as you've heard tonight, some lingering questions regarding prospectively landmarking properties here in town.

While on the surface, it may appear to be an innocuous decision and only impacts the development if the initial developer fails to build the approved project.

This is not true.

As a prospective landmarking impacts the project lender's collateral and also impacts the project's title, and clearly violates SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act, as pointed out, both in our appeal and the staff report.

Second, we have been working closely with the state's housing and community development department, sometimes referred to as HCD.

They agree with our position.

In fact, at HCD's request, we provided them a list of all the previous projects that had properties also prospectively landmarked.

I would highly recommend that the city look at reversing those decisions as I do not believe any of those projects have moved forward.

I have also looked closely at the cost of this appeal process to our project.

The delays in legal costs exceed a half a million dollars, resulting in me potentially having to raise the project rents by approximately $50 a month per unit on our tenants in this very small project.

It also costs the city a year's worth of property taxes and other revenue collections.

Lastly, and I'm gonna try to be polite here.

I do not believe it's in the city's best interest to have a landmarks committee that seems to operate like an extension of Baja.

Frankly, I believe this is how we all got here tonight.

If the city wants to landmark particular buildings in Berkeley that it considers important historic resources, it needs to happen before housing developers in good faith decide to move forward on a new project.

Not after we've done preliminary due diligence, we've checked all the available resources, only to have Baja file an appeal with the intended goal of stopping housing development, which is exactly what happened in this case.

In fact, their opening paragraph specifically stated this, they filed it to stop the development.

With that, thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Please turn off your phones, folks.

Thank you.

Is there an applicant here to speak?

Or maybe online.

I believe it's Isaac again online.

Okay.

Uh, thank you, Isaac.

I see your hand.

You will have five minutes.

Thank you.

Um, I'd like to begin to address some of the allegations leveled by the appellant about uh about Baja, both Baja's intentions with regard to historic preservation and um and the LPC's relationship with Baja.

Historically, Baja has been very involved in story preservation in the city, partly because the members of Baja were involved in the formation of the landmarks preservation ordinance in the very beginning.

Um, but and second of all, Baja has undertaken in the absence of investment by the city many of the uh many of the functions that the LPC was given in the landmarks ordinance.

That includes gathering archives of information about the the historic buildings in the city, um, it includes conducting surveys of historic property, and as a result, Baja has become an indispensable research resource for the study of the historic resources in the city.

Furthermore, Baja's mission is not to prevent any change in the city.

And I know that the interests of Baja and of people who are opposed to particular developments have at times coincided, but in this case, I can speak to the motives of Anthony Bruce, and that these are buildings that have been on the radar of Anthony Bruce for many, many years, but he happens to be one man and the only paid staff member at Baja, and there are many, many buildings to consider in the entire city.

So the fact that this happens at the last minute is not the desire to go around stopping all developments that ever come up in the city.

It comes out of a desire to do the things that are most urgent given extremely limited resources.

And Baja is ready, as always, to collaborate with the city on proceeding with comprehensive historic preservation planning.

It just requires a small amount of investment, requires a small amount of planning, and it also requires system understanding in a kind of in a participatory way what is important about the history.

As an undergrad, I was an archaeology major, and I understand very and I focused on the prehistory of North America, and I understand that the history of the Bay Area begins long before the Spanish arrives, and certainly long before the university was established here.

But I also understand that in the absence of any preservation protections, very little physical remnant of prehistoric settlement in Berkeley remains.

And if we are to protect all the stories that Berkeley contains, we have to pursue preservation in a systematic way and do so not just to protect the what seem to be gleaming architectural examples, things that you notice walking down the street, but also protect buildings that are not obviously remarkable, but are important for understanding the historical development of the city so that people who are here can understand whether at a conscious or a subconscious level where the city has been and where they are trying to take it.

So Baja does not come at this as a purely NIMBY organization, and I can speak for myself as an architect who designs affordable housing for a living, that I my livelihood depends on new housing production, but I'm also invested in the preservation of the built uh of aspects of the built fabric that express Berkeley's history.

Furthermore, I would like to indicate that that Kittridge Street has been um recognized as an historic research resource over the years.

And let me show a couple of slides.

So in the uh Shadow Avenue Commercial Corridor Historic Context and Survey, it was indicated as a possible contributing structure to a proposed historic district.

This has a clear historical merit, and it was identified by the appellance historic resource evaluation as a potential for local potential uh property for local designation.

And furthermore, I want to make sure that the city understands that this property falls under an exception to the infill housing exemption to CEQA because it has been recognized in a historic resource and drafts uh well versions that were sent to the city of the historic resource evaluation indicated that it would be an historic resource under CEQA.

So that's important to get out of the way.

And then secondly, I would like to uh point out that the city's EIR for the housing element isn't simply about producing a context statement.

Um it is about producing a cultural resources survey of the entire city, and so fulfilling the EIR, the EIR obligations under CEQA requires the city not only to produce a context statement, which has some importance, but also to proceed with a survey of the entire city so that we can understand where resources are and proactively try to protect them.

And lastly, um, on behalf of Baja, I would like to submit that we agree with the CPU's interpretation of the process.

The time is up, Isaac, thank you.

Thanks for your presentation.

Um I'd at this time I'd like to see if anyone has any ex-party partheid communications to disclose.

Yes.

I did speak with the search reader in the spring.

In the spring, okay.

All right, I did as well.

In the March of 2025, um, my team and I attended a tour of the property provided by the appellant.

Okay, anyone else?

Oh, Councilmember Bottle.

Thank you.

Yeah, also on March 31st, um, I had a meeting with uh the appellant at the property.

Second, I also apologize for the previous.

I asked that my vote be recorded as yes on the previous item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep, Councilmember Luna Para.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Yeah, in the spring, my sp my staff spoke with the appellant, um, and I submitted the expert a form to the clerk.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Yes, and just make sure everyone turns in their forms for that.

Um, okay.

Do we have council questions on this one?

Um just checking in with Councilmember Luna Paras since I can't see you.

Okay.

No, no, no questions.

Very good.

Okay, can I take public comment then, please?

Folks, if you have a public comment, can you come line up here?

Or are you all here for three?

Yes, okay.

That's good to know.

All right, come on up.

Hi everyone, my name is Steven Schuyler.

Um, I live at the Oxford Plaza apartments at the corner of Kittard Street in Oxford, and um I've been there since 2009.

I'm an original resident there, right next door to the California movie theater, and right across the street from this property.

And I think what's important to understand for everybody on the staff on the city council, is that the human part, the people part, how this all affects the people who already live in these neighborhoods, where developers need to take responsibility for when they build these buildings and all the people and the traffic from the con the construction and once they're built, all the people and everything who are there coming and going from school and how it affects the disabled people and all this other stuff.

Nobody really spends a lot of time talking about that part.

We're been spending a lot of time talking about buildings and codes and all that.

I like some people to start talking about people, and uh, I'm really concerned.

And now we hear about the California theater is dead.

Oxford Street is Center Street is now two or three years, they're just decided to hold, and it's all fenced off and boarded up, and they disconnected their utilities so they can't reopen for business.

So that's gonna sit there all boarded up like just a really bad part of town in this middle of Center Street, downtown Berkeley.

This is not okay, this is not okay, and now the builder's gonna be responsible for whatever happens in our neighborhood.

Everybody's responsible for whatever choices you make.

There's people behind every decision you make.

Remember that.

Thank you for your comments.

Um folks, if you have a comment, can you just make sure to line up so I know who else is speaking?

Who else is anyone else speaking for this item?

Okay, go ahead.

Good evening, I'm Leela Moncharge, and uh, I will speak of my own behalf because I thought Isaac did such a good job for Maha.

Um, I think that where this council is making a mistake, is you're not looking at what the promises were that were made by the state, and that you all believed it.

And I I really recommend you go out and take a walk around the downtown area and other parts of the city, and look how far this promise has really taken anybody.

You know, a city's job is never to encourage blight, but I'm gonna tell you if the things I'm hearing and the things I'm seeing are true.

This gentleman that just spoke, you need to open your eyes, and you need to start evaluating just how well you're doing with the promise, because it needs to have some kind of result that does, in fact, as promised by the state, that does reduce homelessness, and they're all doing, you know, better than they were before.

The housing is really pretty good on that score.

Uh it is, you know, you you're talking about.

Well, the rents came down.

The students can't afford those rents, they can't afford to live in those buildings that have the swimming pool and all that other kind of stuff, and you can't hide behind the state because when the state's done with a promise that they haven't kept, you're left here.

This is this is our city, and here you are.

And so I'm just encouraging you to look at the other side of this promise that you could legislate your way out of expensive housing, and you could legislate your way out of homelessness, and it's it's all because of the promise.

So I'll speak on that.

Thank you.

Bye.

Thank you.

Are there comments online?

No, Mayor.

There are no hands raised online.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Um a hand just was raised.

If you'd like to speak on Zoom, please use the raise hand function.

Um our speaker is Tony.

Tony, you should be allowed to speak.

Um good evening, everybody.

It's Tony Mester in District 2.

Um, I want to uh thank uh Mr.

Isaac Washauer for his uh insightful comments about um planning for preservation rather than doing it um bit by bit piece by piece a compreh a more comprehensive view um and I agree with that very much you know I I turned 82 uh recently and one of the good things about getting old is you get a sense of history.

You know, you develop a sense of of history and historical trends, and uh I've lived in Berkeley for over half a century.

I came here in 1972, and I do think that we're seeing a kind of death by a thousand cuts.

You know, it's this demolition here.

Well, this building isn't that important, and then there's this demolition over here, and then there's you know, and it's all for a higher cause.

Um and this is not going, this is not a good thing, and I want to before I uh sign off tonight, uh, give a shout out to the late uh John English, who um was a professional planner and a professional preservationist who befriended me, um, taught me about the density bonus, took me around town and showed me with his expert eye what buildings represented historically, aesthetically, and we need that people like John.

Unfortunately, we lost him.

Uh he was a wonderful man.

Those people who knew John English know what I'm talking about.

We need more preservationists that can dedicate themselves to saving what's important in Berkeley.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Tony.

Mayor, that was our last raised hand.

Okay.

Council members, do you have comments?

Should we close the um public hearing?

Second.

Thank you.

Um Councilmember Tracub.

Sorry, we need to take the roll.

Yeah.

All right, to close the public hearing.

Councilmember Cassarwani?

Yes.

Taplin, Bartlett, yes, Tracub.

Aye.

O'Keefe is absent.

Blackaby?

Yes.

Lunapara?

Yes.

Humbert.

Yes.

And Mayor Ishi.

Yes.

I'm sorry, go ahead, Councilmember Tracob.

Thank you.

Um, I'm gonna try to um separate out uh the issues that were raised by members of the public, and I really do appreciate um members of the public's participation.

Some of them I know are my constituents.

Um, as the representative for this district, I can assure you that I walk the streets of my district every day.

I am if you're concerned about um the issues of a lack of um activation um in some key streets, so am I, and our office is working every day to try to uh in the face of a very challenging macroeconomic climate, move the needle on that.

Um I will note that this again is a quasi judicial matter.

Uh I I appreciate what a colleague of mine said about uh on the previous appeal.

If he could wave a magic wand, I wish I could wave a magic wand or have one as well.

Um, but I don't.

And I uh remember when I was on the zoning board, and we denied um an approval of something that uh ended up then being appealed in court based on state law at that time, and the city lost that case.

So, not only did uh that building get demolished anyway.

Not only did the sitting tenant on that property get displaced anyway, and this is before we had the strong demolition ordinance that we do now, but the city then had to pay a not insignificant amount of money to the applicant.

Um so I remember that because it guides me in um trying my best when facing quasi-judicial decisions like this to balance different equities and also do my best to understand what the state law is saying, uh and I very much um believe um that at least I'm in agreement with the city attorney and our staff.

Um and so um I will be voting uh to support the appeal.

Um not uh, you know, obviously there's uh it's it's bittersweet um for me to do that, but I I also hope that um not only um is my vote today in conformance with what I understand state law to be, which I think is quite clear on this point, but also with the hope that we will be able to realize our community-centered people-centered vision.

Um, and I will just note that in the appeal itself, uh, there is a statement from 1904 when this building in question was being proposed.

Um, yeah, on January 4th, 1904, the Berkeley Daily Gazette reported plans to erect a large building at Shattock Avenue in Kittridge.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Humbert.

Thank you, Madam Mayor.

Um this one will be much quicker.

Um, for similar reasons uh to those that I gave for the Durant landmarking application.

I feel that the landmark application for 2131 Kittredge lacks merit.

Um, 2138 is not a state or federal landmark.

Um, I don't believe it's architecture or aesthetics meet the levels necessary for the relevant preservation criterion, it's you know, some Georgian revival features on a brick building that's that's uh applied to an older building.

I mean that's um uh not that significant.

I see no evidence of sufficient cultural or uh educational value, and I don't think that merely being an example of a storefront uh in a residential attached to a residential home represents uh a historic embodiment worthy of preservation in the neighborhood or broader context.

Um I think designating this as a landmark would would be a, you know, it was a a real mistake and would cheapen landmark preservation in Berkeley in general.

And on the issue of burden, um, uh I've got to say that the um appellant here clearly demonstrated that we're talking about very significant dollars that have cost the applicant as a result of this process.

So there is a there's a real burden to this symbolic designation.

Um I I therefore intend to vote in support of granting the appeal and overturning the decision of the landmarks preservation commission with respect to this building.

Thank you.

Well, I will just briefly say that it would have been nice to be able to hear what about this building made it so that it should be a landmark, because I would agree with Councilmember Humbert to his points that he made there.

And to the person who commented on people and considering people, I just want to say that is one of the reasons why I'm going to be supporting this because I know that there are many people who don't have homes, and um, and when we talk about disabled people, well, there are people who are disabled that are also unhoused in our community, and um, not to mention that a lot of these new buildings are more accessible for people who have disabilities.

So I just feel like that reasoning is is not strong enough.

Um so anyway, I'm gonna move forward and see if there's a motion.

I will move uh the staff recommendation.

Second.

Clerk, can you take the roll, please?

Okay, on the staff recommendation, Councilmember Ketzerwani?

Yes.

Yes.

Bartlett.

Yes.

Aye.

Oh, Keith is absent.

Blackaby?

Yes.

Lunapara?

Yes.

Humbert?

Yes.

And Mary Ishi.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, motion passes.

Thank you all.

Um, we're gonna take a 10 minute break.

Thank you, Staff.

All right, mics are on.

Okay.

Hi everyone, we're coming back.

If I could have you take your seats, please settle down.

Thank you.

All right.

We are moving on to item number three, the zoning adjustments board appeal for 2655 Shaddock use permit ZP 2024-0057.

And I'm going to open the public hearing and we'll have a presentation from staff.

Great.

Thank you, Mayor.

Presenting for staff again is Robert Rivera.

Thank you very much, Council.

The third appeal is 2655 Shaddock Avenue.

It's an appeal of the zoning adjustment board decision to approve a use permit to demolish a one-story 8,185 square foot non-residential building and construct an eight-story 85-feet, roughly 84,000 square foot mixed-use residential building containing 97 dwelling units, including 10 very low-income units, roughly 2,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space, and 41 vehicle parking spaces.

I'll present the review history of the proposed project and provide project specific details before addressing the appeal issues.

The upcoming slides provide a summary of the relevant permit and landmark review milestones beginning in on December 4th, 2023.

The city received a preliminary use permit application pursuant to SP 330.

The prelim application was deemed complete and thereby besting rights on December 12th.

The use permit application was submitted on May 22nd, 2024, and after a couple of rounds of review was deemed complete on August 18th.

Then on February 6, 2025, the LPC held a public hearing and took no action to initiate a landmark or structure of merit designation.

On February 20th, the DRC held a public hearing and provided a favorable favorable recommendation to the ZAB.

Then on February 27th, the city mailed public hearing notices to property owners and occupants within 300 feet of the project site, as well as to interested neighborhood organizations.

Then on March 13th, 2025, the Zab held a public hearing and voted to approve the use permit.

The city received an appeal from nearby residents on March 26, 2025, which brings us to today's hearing.

The project site is located along the northeast corner of Shatdock Avenue and Derby Street within the Adeline Corridor commercial district.

The project site is surrounded by primarily commercial uses and mixed-use buildings to the north, south, and west.

A vacant auto sale site is located directly to the north of the product site, and to the west across Shattock Avenue is a mix of commercial uses, the Berkeley fire station, and residential apartments.

Approximately 2,000 square feet of ground floor commercial space and 41 vehicle parking spaces are provided.

The proposed project is also providing 4,720 square feet of usable open space, 48 bicycle parking spaces, and new street street trees on Shaddock and Derby.

Here is here shown is the west elevation facing Shaddock Avenue.

Shown here is the south elevation facing Derby Street.

And this is the east elevation facing the existing residential.

The proposed project qualifies as a housing development project under SB 330 and is entitled to density bonus under state law.

The density bonus is calculated based on the site's base density, which is the maximum number of units allowed on site while fully complying with the applicable district's development standards such as height, setbacks, usable open space, and parking.

The density bonus is then determined by the percentage of total units dedicated as affordable and their affordability level.

For this site, the base density or the maximum number of units allowed is 65 dwelling units.

The proposed project is providing 10 very low-income units, which is 15% of the total units, and under state law that permits a 50% density bonus.

50% of the 65 units is 33 units.

Added to the base density, that's a maximum total of 98 units.

The project is providing 97 units.

Moving on to the appeal issues, this is a summary of the appeal issues and staff's response.

A more detailed discussion can be found in the staff report.

The first appeal issue relates with parking requirements.

The appellant requests to eliminate parking entirely in order to shorten the eastern wing.

If it's not possible, the appellants request to move the driveway from Derby Street to Shaddock Avenue in order to reduce traffic.

Parking maximums are regulated by BMC Section 23.322.070B.

This section states that the residential that residential projects may not exceed a 0.5 off-street parking space per dwelling unit.

The project is permitted a maximum of 49 parking spaces and is proposing 441 parking spaces, which is consistent with the requirement.

And because this is a SB 330 project, the city may not impose stricter parking limitations as the development rights are considered vested under state law.

Here's a closer view of the 41 parking spaces provided.

The applicant has also included double stacked parking spaces to preserve space.

The second appeal issue relates to ground floor commercial space.

The appellant claims commercial space is unwarranted and requests the removal of the commercial space in order to redesign the project with regards to height and circulation.

Under the CAC zoning district requirements, ground floor commercial with a depth of 30 feet is required.

And the project is providing 27 feet and 10 inches, which is and it's also requesting a waiver to reduce this requirement.

Um the city does not have the authority to require the applicant to modify a waiver request or to redesign the project as it is a SB 330 project.

The third appeal issue relates to shade and shadow.

Appellants claim the proposed project would create shade impacts eastward along Derby Street and would further impact air privacy and property values for the adjacent homes.

The shadow studies submitted indicate new shadows would fall in nearby residence.

However, these would be limited in duration and extent and affect only portions of the building for a few hours of a day only during certain times of the year.

Such shadows are typical in a built urban environment and are not considered detrimental to the surrounding residential uses.

To address shadow and privacy, the proposed project includes additional trees and screening plants at the ground level, as well as the landscape roof on the second second floor.

And further, all stories above the first floor are set back 20 feet from the nearest residential property line to further minimize potential privacy impacts.

Appeal issue four is related to density bonus.

Appellants claimed the proposed project was not properly noticed because the public could not review the base project, which warrants restarting the process.

Staff has followed all procedures required by state law, and there are no grounds for denial of the project or restarting the process.

Appellants claim the city and the ZAB are incorrectly applying the inclusionary housing ordinance and the affordable housing in lieu fees are too low.

The proposed project is providing fifteen percent uh very low income below market rate units on site, and we'll pay a prorated in lieu fee, which is consistent with the requirement of 20%.

So they'll pay a five percent uh in loo fee.

Uh further, the affordable housing in Lou fee was recently analyzed and found to be similar to the city's typical contribution towards providing on site 100% affordable housing.

Staff recommends that council conduct a public hearing and adopt a resolution affirming the ZAB's decision to approve the use permit at twenty-six fifty-five Shaddock Avenue.

Alternatively, council may continue the public hearing, reverse or modify the LPC's decision, or remand the matter back to the LPC.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

Um, we're available for any question.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

Um can I have the appellant come forward, please?

And you will have five minutes to speak.

Thank you.

Sorry, I pulled out the presentation early.

Oh, I have the appellants appellance.

Sorry, I uh is the issue that we're having trouble with screen sharing, or?

Yeah, okay.

And because I think do you have the same presentation?

No, a different.

I see.

Yeah, but it's not it's it's the real footage.

I just made it to work.

Look at that carrier.

Hover on that, let's see what it says.

Yes, but there was a message.

And then on.

Do you have a microphone?

No, I could do.

Let me put let me hold it up and uh someone is on muted online, I think.

Yeah.

We are trying to get the presentation on for the appellant.

Technically, we tested this before and it worked, and now it's not.

Oh okay.

Is it is it working now or not at all?

I'm gonna try to work around.

Okay.

I'll play the sound out of the computer, put the microphone next to it and see if that's added.

Okay, got it.

All right, we're gonna give this a shot, everyone.

Well, come back to the screen.

Or is it a video?

Can it be shared with someone?

Yeah, you see what is both the main spectrum, isn't it?

See, see, the only thing for COVID is for the situation.

I like this, and I won't even need to use it.

And they could connect it.

This guy is here.

Oh, yeah.

I don't know if that's everyone.

That's a great thing.

Oh, sure.

Okay.

We're going to see much more than that.

Yeah, yeah.

No, you know what I mean?

She's a little bit of it.

And there's no one you can't do with that.

It's not a good one.

So you have to do that.

That's a good one.

Well, which one is it?

So like I think it's a good thing.

No, you do it right now.

I don't think I would follow the road.

I'm up.

You know what?

I can see it's not a good idea.

I just think it's just a little bit of a second one.

We don't have a lot of people who are all right.

So we see that.

And then we can use the line.

Okay, I want to give you a few more minutes to try to do this, but it a couple more minutes, but I'd like to get going with our meetings.

I'm gonna give you two more minutes and then and then we need to move forward.

No, I'm sorry.

That's just you're saying two more minutes and that's it.

Okay.

Can we do something unusual since this is not what we we tested this?

I'm sure you test it.

What so what are you asking for?

It has to be visible to everyone.

I can you can you talk us through it or something?

I I think we really need to move on with the meeting because it's the trouble is it's what is the what is the problem is that to understand the issues you have to be able to see it, and that's why we filmed it and we went to some extent to make a two minute and fifty second video that shows it because otherwise it's it's much more comprehensible if you can see it.

And so you is is there like we can't get that video onto someone else's computer or can someone explain it?

That's fine, but let's try to figure out let's try to figure out a different way.

So it's just clerk, is there a reason why it can't get played on someone else's laptop?

Um we're not sure if there's a compatibility challenge.

Um it was mentioning that it was a Mac drive and staff um devices are um are not Macs.

So we did try to pull it up on our machines.

Could we play the Vimeo link?

Do you have a Vimeo link?

Vimeo.

Yeah, do you have a link?

Sure.

Can you share that link with someone please?

Okay, we can play it here in the room, sure.

No, I mean, can you uh it's it seems like the problem is related to your computer, so could you share send email that link over to our clerk and they can play it from the laptop there?

Okay, there we go.

All right.

Millennial.

That's intergenerational.

Sorry.

I'm barely, so that's why I can sort of reference, but can't do it.

That would work so you can do that.

Is it is it on your are you are you having trouble emailing it or you emailed it or you're having trouble emailing it?

Okay, you just emailed it.

Okay.

All right.

Seems like we're moving forward.

So I'm still thinking I might find that line before.

Okay, I think we've given sufficient time to try to figure this out, and unfortunately we're having some technical difficulties and won't be able to see this video, but I, you know, if if you'd like to have us play it, and then you can speak over it, that's fine.

But we can see it.

The problem is the sound.

So if you can talk, yeah, that's what I was suggesting.

So I think we should uh do that and then move forward.

So I'm we've got the clock set for five minutes.

You'll have five minutes to speak, and we will play the video and and start it when you're ready.

Ready?

Yep.

Roll it.

Welcome to Derby Street, a residential street of small homes, densely populated, yet quiet enough for the city to designate it as a bike route.

Located just east of Shattock.

This block starts just after the curve or Adeline and many fast cars joint Shattock.

This is twenty six fifty-five Shattock.

This stretches deep into Derby past Walker Street.

The proposed two story, the proposed two building, eight story, ninety-seven unit project wants to put their driveway on Derby directly across from Walker Street.

That idea has already been judged as a public safety hazard.

In nineteen ninety-seven, the city council voted to place the driveway to this large lot, then a video store, and said it should be on Shattock.

Then at that point, the city built a dedicated lane for vehicles to move safely on to exit Shaddock and access the property via a two-way driveway on twenty six fifty-five Shattock.

This is the dedicated lane for vehicles exiting the property.

Just merge safely back onto Chaddock.

This is the dedicated left turn lane to the in the center divider for the sole purpose of turning into this property.

Berkeley City Council voted to spend money to build traffic infrastructure for the purpose of keeping kids walking to and from Willard Junior High safe to keep residents, their vehicles, and bikes safe, and to keep the added noise and pollution off Derby.

We believe, and previous council votes ratified, that the driveway for this property remain on shaddock.

Solving this problem also opens up a way to mitigate the shade cast by a five-story building scant feet from its closest neighbor.

They will be shaded every day for at least three hours before sunset for most days of the year.

On June 21st, a half dozen houses will be darkened three hours before sunset, not to mention dozens of windows looking into their backyard.

If the driveway remains on shadow, developers could put their garage where a portion of the commercial space is now located.

That could lower the back building by a full story.

Commercial space south of the driveway could comply with zoning and could provide a cafe for all.

The number of residential units would remain the same.

The project must be directed to preserve a set of hundred-year-old barrelief panels that have been judged historically and aesthetically significant.

The owner and developer currently presides over a blighted property, trash, graffiti, open gates, an encampment, and abandoned cars.

This project is not shovel ready.

We are told there is no money.

They have time to redesign a safer, more respectful project, keep the driveway on Shatdock, move the parking or get rid of it, preserve the historic features, compensate or mitigate the detriments of this to the surrounding properties.

We understand the state law has increasingly deprived citizens of control over their lives and environment and handed it over to powerful units, interests.

A relevant law in this case, SB 330.

But in our view, this law cannot trump public safety issues that were previously decided by the Berkeley City Council.

If a driveway to a large property on Derby was deemed dangerous in 1997, that driveway would still be dangerous 30 years later.

Is what should take effect in regards to SB 330.

Nor should state law require a city to abandon or destroy valuable publicly financed infrastructure that was built for public safety, nor should our city allow a speculative project of 90 percent market rate housing to deliver a design that is flawed and threatens our neighborhood with dangers and detriments.

This law allows for only five public meetings, and one of the meetings regarding historic preservation was held in secret without notice.

It appears legally dubious to count a secret consultation as a meeting.

When this project was first noticed over a year ago, Betsy and I asked Jordan Klein of the planning department to keep it surprised.

We were not.

Our first notice was when the project went to the DRC.

When asked why we weren't noticed, their response was simply sorry.

We could not speak to planning department staff, but were given an outsourced person of some sort who is coordinating the project but did not have access to emails or records of the department.

We are not asking for anything outrageous.

These are reasonable objections to quantifiable dangers and detriments.

State law cannot prohibit you from protecting public safety.

We come to you in hopes that you can help us instead of politicians dispensing privileges to powerful people.

We are asking you to stand up for the people who live here now, the people who pay taxes, live and vote in Berkeley.

We have legitimate concerns about issues that impact our real lives.

This is your opportunity to stand up for the people in Berkeley.

Thank you.

Perfect, perfect timing.

Is the applicant here to speak?

Yes.

You will have five minutes to speak.

Good evening, staff.

Council, mayor.

This is Buddy Williams, Studio KDA architects.

I just have a few images because he gave a great presentation earlier.

Just to I know that design is not part of our remit this evening in terms of this appeal, but I can give a few pointers as to how the building took its shape and why.

Sure.

Can you speak up a bit and maybe yeah, maybe position the mic?

Thank you.

Right, though.

Next slide.

As was mentioned, we've got majority of uh the commercial aspect on the west side of the street along Shattock and residential R2 to the east.

This lot has a bit of a bend on the west side, and given its size and shape, ideally we would want to uh place uh double-loaded corridor type apartment buildings, and we often have a much more skinny site, but with this site, we had the opportunity to take most of the mass and put it to the west part of the site.

Let's do the next slide.

I just have five.

So the majority of the building, eight stories, is along Shattock.

And as you can see in the top right photo, the remainder of the building is the five stories at the eastern side.

Go to the next one.

I think it's the last one.

And so on the right side, there's a blue dashed line, which is where we were allowed to put building.

And also it's important to note that on the right side of the building could have been eight stories.

But as it is now, we held the building back further at the second and third floor, and also took those three floors and put that mass and pushed it towards the west side of the building and put commercial, which is not only by code, but desirable there on the western portion of the building at the ground floor.

Any other design any other questions in terms of situational aspects of the project?

Sure.

So um that your presentation is complete.

Okay, thank you.

Council members, do you have any questions?

Yes.

Council member, uh, I'm gonna let council member Bartlett go first since this is his district.

I know you're trying to unmute, and then council member Trackup.

Uh thank you for your presentation.

And um I guess I guess my issues are some of my questions for you are uh when you were designing the driveway, uh, why the impetus to move it from Shatdock to Derby?

By code, it is supposed to be off of Derby.

So we were following planning code.

The when we do this in other locations, it's important to take the access of the driveway off of the most busy street where majority of people are walking along the avenue.

That's what we do in other locations throughout the city, especially on San Pablo.

We would take off in San Pablo, we would always go off the side streets, similar to Shattock, and that's because walking across that driveway entry than there is on the busier street, either Shattock, University, San Pablo, is all kind of the same thing.

Does that code intersect with our bicycle route code as well?

This code comes from the uh Adline Corridor Pacific plan.

The site is within the Adelaide Corridor Specific Plan, which was approved in 2020.

And the specific plan has design strategies for parking and activation of the primary street frontages, including locating parking at the rear of the site and promoting active ground floor commercial frontages at the primary frontage, which is supposed to increase pedestrian activity and uh create a more um comfortable experience for the pedestrian.

And um, also I'm wondering um this for the designer again here as well.

Uh so why the parking?

You know, the city has uh taken steps to really make the city more um bike and pedestrian friendly to reduce the number of cars in the streets district, um, has uh uh tremendous number of uh pedestrian and bicycle injuries and fatalities of interacting with cars.

So uh, you know, we worked hard to reduce the need for parking and and it really when we can not require new buildings, specifically on transit corridors, like this one uh close to the campus, close to downtown, close to bark, close to bus lines, uh, to require parking.

So what's your thinking around requiring parking?

Yeah, it was a client call for two reasons.

One, they felt that it was far enough away from campus to warrant the parking, and second is that this building is being set up as condo as well as apartments, and that's just the expectation for a condo development is to include parking.

We are technically, as was mentioned under parked for maximum, but for this particular development, that was the clients' call it that was the best mix for their terms of being able to uh move those units.

Not at this time.

Thank you, Councilmember Trackup.

Thank you.

One of my questions was actually going to be about parking.

So maybe this is now a question to staff.

Can you speak more to the staff contention that the city may not impose stricter parking limitations under state law?

And what I'm basically wondering about is does this part of the state law have the same power and effect as the housing accountability act?

The part about state law where it's similar to the historic designations where there are vested tenative tenant rights.

And under state law, what the rules that were in place when the application was deemed vested is what is being applied, regardless if it's a parking minimum or a parking maximum.

Um because it's within a transit oriented uh development, but the parking maximum is set at, and we we wouldn't be able to change or alter that maximum requirement.

Um and it would be against you know SP 330 and the vested tentative rights.

Okay, can and can you remind me again?

Um is this um just like it is this basically within the limit of what the parking maximum is, or um yeah.

Correct, yeah.

Okay.

What they're proposing is the maximum amount of parking allotted for this site.

Uh the maximum was 45, and then they're proposing 40 41, I think.

Under the maximum.

Okay, thank you.

Um I wanted to, this may be for the applicant, but it might also be for staff.

I'm just trying to con I'm looking at the south elevation uh facing Derby on the slides, and I just want to confirm that fifth story, the edge on the eastern side, um, or uh, you know, the kind of the end of the step back above the little stub.

Is that about 60 feet or so?

I'm looking at the elevation drawings, but it doesn't provide a specific elevation for that.

Are you talking about at the fifth top of the fifth floor?

Yes, eighty five with the paragraph, and okay, so about sixty.

Thank you.

And then um, I didn't see this as an appeal point, but since this was brought up by the appellant um staff, could you provide some context about that initial meeting and the um contentions that were made by the appellant about noticing?

Are you referring to the the LPC meeting, the ZAB meeting?

I guess it was well, it's just what I heard on record now.

I I guess the this it was the LPC meeting that was being referred to.

I'm not sure.

Okay, I can't speak to the specific contentions that were made, but I I we can say that all of our uh required noticing procedures were followed.

Okay, thank you.

Those are all my questions.

Thank you.

Other questions from council members?

Oh, council member Blackaby, I see your hand.

Thanks, Madam Mayor.

I just had two questions.

Um first for the applicant.

Um we heard from the appellants um some questions about some of these barrelief features.

We've certainly seen other designs of other new uh developments in recent past where some of those features, even if not of particular historical significance, some of those features have been maintained in the new design.

Just curious if you had any intention or thoughts about what you might or might not do with those vowel relief elements of the current building.

Sure.

Deeper in the packet, there are some images that we created after we had our meeting with LPC when we went to we went to DRC, we gave that as an example of how to save those two murals that are part of the existing building.

They're really nifty, and we we originally showed them as part of the gate entry sequence in front of the courtyard, and their preference at that time was to place them within the building uh on the building elevation proper.

So we said, look, make it a condition or recommendation that we'll place them on the building proper facing SHATOC as opposed to being part of the entry uh space, but to answer your question, we want to save them, and we're cool with that, and we showed it as one potential in the drawings, and it was talked about, and we decided that sure we'll place it on the on SHATAC instead.

That makes that's fine with us in terms of being able to exhibit those and make a plaque and a story about it as well.

Awesome.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um, and then the second question for staff.

Uh, I noticed on appeal issue three questions about the potential shade impacts and you'd sort of done the analysis and um had characterized that that's a it's a typical impact in a birth a built urban environment, not considered detrimental.

Just curious, like how do you make that determination?

Is there a level of shade at some point where you where the the scales would be tipped and what that might what might that look like versus what's being presented here?

If you could help articulate that, that would be great.

Yeah, yeah, the the zoning code doesn't have a objective standard for shade.

It's largely subjective.

There aren't any um you know measurements or but but uh shade study was conducted and found to be typical with the average shade that that comes across uh in an urban device environment.

Um SP 330, unfortunately, without objective standards, uh there isn't a threshold that we could enforce on the project without having some objective standards for for shade and shadow.

So it's a largely subjective uh determination.

Do you envision a scenario where you're like, wow, that is extreme, and I'm just curious if you could envision something.

Just help me think through that.

Not for this project, so I'm just saying in general.

Could you could you envision a project that's proposed with such detrimental extreme shade impacts that you'd be like, you know what?

That's too much.

Yeah, it might have to be determined based on lumens or some sort of objective standard um conducted for the existing conditions versus the proposed project and and what that looks like.

As we all know, the the sun and the angle of the shade changes, the year.

So it would really have to be some sort of analysis with with um underlying findings uh to create that kind of metric, okay.

I'm just you know, just thinking that you know, it's sometimes thinking of what the what the most extreme cases and working back is helpful to know like maybe where that line gets drawn.

So I just encourage us to be thinking about that.

But um, okay.

Uh but I appreciate the the context.

Uh that's all I got.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, other questions?

Okay.

In that case, we um oh, first of all, I just want to see if um folks have any ex parte communic communications that they need to disclose.

Did I ask that already?

I'm sorry, we had a big break, and I want to make sure.

Sorry, I don't have a hand raised button on uh on this phone I'm using, but I want I'd want to follow the question.

Sure, go ahead.

Yeah, this is for this back to the our city staff here.

So I'm just trying to I try to understand again.

Um, I guess building off of Councilman Blackaby's questions.

So to determine whether it was too much beyond a subjective sort of analysis, you would need to do an objective study.

Is that is that what you're saying?

I think that we're saying that um council could consider adopting objective standards related to uh related to solar access, but absent absent and objective standard.

We cannot uh make a determination of detriment that we would use to deny a project.

That's not permitted under state law.

Oh, okay.

Well, kind of seem because it seems a bit um a bit confusing because in in your in the statement we have here, it makes it like you made a determination that was minimal and it was normal when in actuality.

I've been to the site and I've seen the the houses next door to it, and uh you know it's pretty easy to imagine that they'll be encased in uh shadows and solar panels, we run it useless by this living with such proximity to such a large building.

So I guess you know, maybe you want to restate that and say we're unable to make a determination due to our inability to do so.

Because that's that's that seems to be more accurate, right?

Yeah, I appreciate that input, council member.

Okay, councilmember Traga, did you uh have a disclosure?

Yes.

Uh on July 17th.

My staff had a phone conversation with the appellant.

Okay.

Um, so now let's move on to public comments.

You're welcome to sit back if you'd like.

Thank you.

Yeah, thanks.

Do folks have public comment?

Please, please line up here.

I also need to report one ex parte.

Thank you, council member.

Yeah, um, also on uh July 17th, I meant uh with the appellants with respect to this project.

Okay, great.

Everyone, just make sure you submit your disclosures to the clerk's office.

Okay, is this everyone who wants to speak?

Okay, go ahead.

Come on up.

And for folks online, if you would also like to speak to this, please go ahead and raise your hand now.

Good evening.

Uh, I want to say thank you for having us here and for having this meeting.

Uh I live in the property uh right behind this property where it'll be developed.

So this impacts me directly.

Kind of kiddie corner.

I'm touching the corner of our property is touching this one.

And uh we did receive notice that there was going to be development on this property, and my wife and I are actually very supportive of more housing and development that is harmonious with what is already happening.

Our objection is the height of the building and how tall it is.

Uh the other buildings are five stories on our block or six.

The other issue that came up, people talking about uh foot traffic um uh intersecting with the street.

I know he was saying we're trying to move this cars away from Shaddock, but I used to work in the old Berkeley Bowl building where the Honda dealership is now, and uh they were actually required.

I don't know the details, but they did move the uh driveway access to the garage to Shaddock Avenue over a similar objection to keep it off of the side street because when I worked there, it was thank you.

I appreciate your comment.

Thank you.

Hi, uh I'm Michael Barco.

I was told that there was two minutes, or there are too many speakers to so we have a lot of speakers, yeah.

So you'll have one minute.

Go ahead.

Your time is running.

So I don't want you to.

So I'd like to ask for a couple of volunteers to extend my sure.

You can have up to four minutes, so okay.

So let's get going.

Go ahead.

It looks like you've got I'm gonna take them from the three people who are right here, just so I'm clear.

That was process.

So I'd like to start the clock again.

I was just asking a process question.

I'm not making my presentation.

I'm sorry, but this is still part of your time.

So go ahead and use your time.

Okay, thank you very much.

Okay, 20 years ago, I was present when the Hollywood Video Chain wanted to locate at the same address.

Our group, South Shaddock Neighbors Association worked with city staff, ZAB, and the city council for some time.

Specifically, we work to put the entrance and exit from this property on Shaddock Avenue.

I just want to interject here that this is not a cookie cutter approach to development.

And the first speaker who presented an opposition, uh didn't doesn't understand that we're not like any other street in the country.

In fact, we have a bicycle route going up that street, and we have many school children who are walking and playing on that street on their way to Willard.

We also have a woman whose mother was hit by a car at that intersection, and none of that has been considered.

Neither killed at that intersection.

Um, and um uh no study was done to contradict the study that was done in 1995, which recommended strongly that the entrance be on SHATOC for safety reasons, and that study should sign, should stand.

The traffic engineer uh met with us and told us that he was he was going to put that on, or he was going to advise the council to put it on SHATOC, and the council agreed with him.

Um, so I think that should be considered, and what we're asking as the uh South Shattock Neighborhood Association is that this go back to Zab for reconsideration.

There's already been a report from the traffic engineer that recommended that that entrance be on SHATOC, and that is our major concern.

It's a safety concern, and it's worth not rushing and sending it back back to ZAB so that they can look at that report, and the the developer can present contradictory evidence, but the city has already made a decision that that needs to be on SHATOC, and in fact, it was put on Shattock as the slideshow demonstrates.

Uh we reached uh an agreement with the owner of the property and with the city, and the most important part of that agreement was that that entrance be placed on Shattock to protect the safety of our neighbors, particularly our children.

In 1995, the city's zonings zoning adjustment board issued its findings, which you have in your package there because I sent them in.

Um they recommended uh serious mitigation on the project.

Two years later, because we started this in 1995, two years later, the city manager wrote us under item one in your packet, and I can quote him.

Um, the meeting so let's see here.

Sorry, a little anxious here.

In order to close the Derby Street entrance, you and I must do everything.

He's addressing that to us to minimize risks to pedestrians in autos.

I understand that Chuck DeLoo, he's the traffic engineer, has found a safe way to close Derby Street, and I will do whatever it is necessary to make it work.

That's in your packet.

On the second page, he says, I understand that Chuck Deluxe has met with you.

I'm sorry, your time is up.

Thank you.

Thanks for your comments.

So I'm asking that just go back to that for further consideration.

I'm sorry, thank you.

You're welcome.

All right.

Sorry, folks, you know you heard me.

Um I'm strict on time.

Okay, go ahead.

Well, since I only have a minute, I'm gonna shorten what I want to say.

I've been in Berkeley since 1969, and the very area we're talking about now, building affordable housing and at Mark, we used to be owned by mostly African Americans.

In 1970, it was 21 percent African Americans in the city.

Now it's down to 7%.

And you keep saying you're building affordable housing, the average rent in this city is $2,700.

That's not affordable, number one.

And the vacancy we can't even tell because you don't do audits.

How do I know?

Because I was on the soda tax commission, we asked for an audit of how many vacancies were in the new buildings, so the system that you have is not keeping up with what we really need.

We do need more affordable housing, but we don't need to build eight six-story, eight-story, nine-story buildings.

You need to fill the vacancies of the places that you have now.

And a bigger problem for the city is all those small businesses that are closed on Shatdock.

What are you doing about that?

Thanks, Joy.

Hi, my name is Charlotte Shimora, S H I M U R A.

Is someone willing to give me a minute or two?

Hi.

I take the gentleman's here.

Okay.

I want to say that 30 years ago, that driveway on Shattock was approved.

Just like Michael said, it's in your supplemental packet.

We worked on this project for two damn years to make sure that the city and the neighborhood was in agreement, and they said it must be on shadow.

It's still there.

It's worked for almost 30 years.

The next thing is the uh person who wants to build this eight-story building.

If they put that driveway on Shaddock, you're gonna have a draw, excuse me, on Derby.

You're gonna have a driveway on Derby, which is there now, which that's that building on the apartment five-story apartment building that's across the street.

It already has a driveway on Shaddock.

And then you've got Walker Street.

Excuse me, I'm sorry, Derby.

And then you've got on Walker Street, which is just like for a hundred feet from the other driveway on Derby, you've got another street where children are playing there.

Okay.

If you put a third driveway in there on Derby, it's crazy.

It's crazy.

And then it's a bike lane, and then you've got 41 cars coming in and out of there, and then you've got children going up to Martin Luther King.

I'm telling you that driveway on Shaddock has worked for 30 years.

Another thing about the shade, you need you need to study this more because I think that your compass on the studies was wonky.

I don't think it was very correct.

I stood in front of the existing apartment house on the uh the corner there, which is already built at 4 45 this afternoon.

We're talking about today, July, and it was already in shade.

Your time is up.

It was already in shade.

I'm sorry, your time is up.

We've got many more speakers.

So please, I'm sorry.

Look at supplemental package.

I thank you.

Your time is up, though.

Thank folks.

Come on, please.

Please be respectful of our time here.

We've got a lot of folks.

I want to make sure we hear from everyone.

I'm sure we have people online too.

Come on up.

Okay, sure.

Are you Betsy?

Okay.

All right, Betsy.

You'll have two minutes.

Uh a third minute from this woman back here.

If you need two minutes, you only need two minutes.

Save your minute for someone else.

Okay, go ahead.

Hi, go ahead and pull the mic down too so we can hear you better.

Thank you.

I'm Betsy Dittmars.

I'm the neighbor with the house and yard that's due east of the project.

My son doesn't like it if I joke about surviving the construction.

So instead, I'll make a small point about uh the Shaddock side and then read from letters submitted by neighbors uh across up the street, Mark and Liza, for a larger interview overview.

Uh on the retail space, if you agree that we should have a cafe on that corner of Shaddock and Derby, please don't make the mistake that was apparently made elsewhere of forgetting to include the necessary infrastructure, piping and venting, et cetera.

Okay, and it would be great to use the historic uh bar reliefs, et cetera, to frame the cafe.

Just an idea.

Now the two larger perspectives.

Uh Liza writes, we urgently need smart community focused development in this area.

Development that revitalizes our streets, respects the character of the neighborhood, and meets the real needs of Berkeley residents.

Unfortunately, the proposed eight story building currently under consideration fails to meet that standard.

Markheads, as we all know, a developer's role is to maximize profit while adhering to the applicable rules and regulations.

From what I can tell, the current proposal meets the letter of the law.

However, I see this particular project as a kind of hostile takeover of the century old neighborhood.

It scales completely out of step with the surrounding environment.

The five and eight story walls of apartments will introduce significant light and sound pollution, fundamentally altering the daily experience of those of us who live here.

As Berkeley embraces much needed new housing, this is a pivotal moment to ensure that our city becomes a haven for thoughtful innovative urban design and not just a canvas for maximizing fellow profit.

Thank you.

Two minutes, she kept it.

Okay.

If we have them, do I have them?

Yes.

So if you give if you gave a minute already, then you can't give another one.

But there is someone, there's someone here in the front.

So did you want one or two more?

I could I have three minutes total.

Three minutes total.

So I'm gonna take one from this woman here in the front, and then this one woman over here in the plat.

Thank you.

This person go ahead.

I just wanted to start out by um thanking assembly members Blackabee and for his question about the objective standards for shade.

And I'm just curious about objective standards that exist for traffic because I just really want to hammer this point.

This putting the driveway where it is currently proposed to be is right opposite a cul-de-sac street where I played when I was a little kid.

Decades of children have played.

I was hit by a bike going too fast on that street.

I can only think what would happen when eight stories worth of people are ordering Amazon packages and every single one is turning around in that narrow cul-de-sac.

It's a dangerous proposition.

It's on a bike lane, it's on a street that I see every day, dozens and dozens of kids walking up to school.

Shattock is uh that intersection, um, is a dangerous one to cross.

We shouldn't be introducing the danger of shadow into the neighborhood.

At the last meeting, we got a, I don't know if it was binding, but a suggestion to make the driveway right turn only.

I really appreciate the comments of the family to our north.

Uh that proposal would mean that every car that's coming out of the driveway would turn on to Carlton if they're trying to go east, because they'd go up a block and then turn east on Carleton, and that introduces danger to that neighborhood.

They've said that the same kind of thing has already happened with other one-way driveways.

It makes so much sense for the city to take the significant investment that you all made when you put a dedicated left turn lane off of Shaddock and a dedicated right turn lane out of this property.

That is an expensive thing to build, which would be orphaned if the proposal is uh going to proceed in the way that it's currently proposed to do.

Um I'm curious, you know, if you could ask your staff about, you know, if you have to be listening to these objective standards, are there objective standards for public safety?

Because I think that this would violate them.

And I'd really like uh somebody to speak to that.

The other uh last thing I wanted to say was, you know, the staff gave you other options than just approving this.

You could modify it or modify the ZAB um approval, you could send it back to the LPC.

We just we're not trying to stop this from uh from housing from getting built.

We're trying to uh help you guys know what the neighborhood needs to have safe housing in the neighborhood.

And a big part of that is taking more time to consider this.

If you vote on this proposal and approve it tonight, we really hope that all of you will continue to apply the kind of soft pressure and authority that you have as council people to help us work with the developer to make this better.

And if you see a way to sending this back to the LPC or sending this back to ZAB with uh modifications, we'd really like you to explore that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, next speaker.

Hi.

Um I just wanted to say once again, as you can tell, there's people behind every decision you make by all these people behind me.

Um, this goes on to this issue of putting this entrance, all these um people are gonna be instead of where it should be on Shaddock Avenue, where there's more space.

I'm gonna clarify a point that I made that I think was miss.

When I talked about access for disabled people, I'm not talking about the entrance and exit of a building.

I'm talking about the sidewalk itself.

That's what I'm talking about.

When you start putting a whole bunch of people on a sidewalk that's not meant to have a bunch of people on it, you create a problem for people who are blind and in wheelchairs.

I know of a couple people who are blind and who are people who are in wheelchairs, they already have a problem.

And when you put a building that size, you're gonna make a bigger problem, and you will be responsible for whatever decision you make.

Good evening.

My name is Louise Rosencrantz, and I live on Derby Street, and I was part of that 1995 discussion decision of putting that lovely entrance on Shattock.

And uh Vice Mayor Model Sherrick at the time was our representative and worked hard on this, and we would like that to be remembered.

If you look on this page three of your site plan, you can see how beautifully it's designed so that you can go in on Shaddock, you can park, you can unload your luggage.

There's a big commercial space there.

They can get their trucks unloaded there.

That's what is designed for.

It's structure that was built so that the decisions would be made on SHATOC, not on Derby.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I have three quick points to make that haven't been made.

One is about um the objective standards.

I just have to say the city spent a lot of money on the J.

SISL project, and a lot of time was spent on that, and no objective standards came out of it.

And now you're using that to say we can't stop these things.

You gotta get these objective standards in.

Um, the second thing I want to say about the parking 41 cars coming out, they come out in the morning when people leave for their commute.

That is when the children are going up Derby on their bikes and on and walking to school.

That you have to think about the timing of that.

And the third thing I want to say is um it's been said that this project has to have parking because it's so far from campus.

I live three blocks further south than this project.

I walk downtown all the time.

My husband works at the university and walks every day back and forth to school.

So parking is not needed because it's too far from campus.

Other projects are being built without parking.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, my um, I'm from a neighborhood that's pretty safe.

I live in the Claremont, and we don't have the middle housing pressures that the rest of Berkeley has.

And I've been to a couple of hearings, and it's incredible how you, when you hear the people, it's like you are a solid commission council that's determined to build, build, build.

And why aren't you seeing that the building now has diminished the downtown, Telegraph avenue?

All over town, small businesses, the buildings that are being built that you're so proud of to build more of, it's destroying the structure and the fabric and the humanity of our town and even the commerce.

So, where are you making the money?

Are you making the money from the university, department of the university, city of Berkeley, Department of the University?

Are you making the money from the developer fees?

Thanks for your comments.

That's crazy.

It's really obvious.

Sorry, your time, your time is up.

And for the record, we're not getting money from anybody's.

We're getting paid.

We're getting paid by the city.

And anyway, I'm not even gonna go into that.

All right.

Are there are there comments online?

Yes, we have speakers online.

The first speaker is Tony.

You should be allowed to unmute.

Good evening.

It's Tony Mester again.

With just one minute, I will speak to the driveway issue.

Um I don't believe that it is um that I believe you have the power for health and safety reasons to change the driveway.

Um and if you look towards a decision that the council made, I think it was last year, perhaps the year before, on Harrison and San Pablo Avenue, the council did change the driveway from uh Harrison Street to San Pablo Avenue.

So I believe you have the power if you find health and safety issues.

I'm not a lawyer, but um I have in my memory the health and safety um uh issue uh gives you um the leeway to make that decision, and there is another option you have, which is not to close the public hearing, but to continue the public hearing to get more information if you need it.

Thank you, Tony.

Other folks online?

Next speaker is Cheryl Davala.

Charlie, you should be able to unmute.

So can you hear me?

Yes, okay.

Um, Cheryl Davila, former council member to the city of Berkeley.

This has been on the council out in front of the council for quite some time, uh, even when I was on council.

And I remember the people all wanted the driveway not to be on Derby Street.

There's a lot of issues there.

Um yeah, that's a good question that the last person uh asked about who's getting the money.

Uh, yeah, maybe your salaries coming from the city of Berkeley, but who knows where that other money is?

Because the developers are totally um capitalizing on these buildings.

Look at the water.

Look at the aquatic park.

Can you that whole freaking monstrosity is empty?

Empty.

Our next speaker is Kelly Hammergren.

Kelly, you should be able to unmute.

Um, thank you.

I won't use my total minute.

Um, I just hope that you all will listen to the neighbors on the Derby Street issue.

And it wasn't too long ago that I was going through some old paperwork from Berkeley, and uh how Berkeley declared that you wanted to have uh solar rooftop solar and to protect that, and that was part of your climate goal, and it's just really such a shame that that is gone.

I thank you, Kelly.

Next speaker is Raymond Barclaw.

Raymond, you should be able to speak Raymond Barclaw, you should be able to speak.

Please unmute if you'd like to provide comments.

Should we move on?

Raymond, you should be able to speak.

It looks like you've unmuted.

That's our last raised hand.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

Um so now that we've taken public comment, is there a motion to close the public hearing?

So moves.

Second.

Clerk, could you take the roll, please?

Councilmember Caserwani.

Yes.

Taplin?

I.

Bartlett.

Yes.

Trakeb.

I.

O'Keefe is absent.

Blackaby?

Yes.

Lunapara?

Yes.

Humbert?

Yes.

Mayor Ishi.

Yes.

Thank you.

Um council members.

Uh Councilmember Taplin has comments.

Uh thank you.

I actually have a question.

No, that's okay.

Um, first off, in the during your presentation, you mentioned the aisle and corridor plan.

I was wondering if you could elaborate on that and its um applicability to the elements of this project.

Sure, sure.

The Adeline Corridor specific plan was adopted in 2020.

Um and the site is within the area specific plan boundaries.

The specific plan has design strategies for um parking and activation of the primary street frontage.

Um the primary street frontage uh being Shattock Avenue in this case.

Uh the specific plan includes policies that limit parking on primary streets, uh, minimizes visual impact of parking, including parking garage entrances on primary streets, um, and providing active ground floor uses on that frontage to ensure that um the the area has a active pedestrian frontage and uh pedestrian experience um and that's that's what's consistent with what's proposed.

The the APC has looked at relocating the driveway, um, but the decided that it was insufficient use of of space um and in coordination with our colleagues from Department of Transportation, the preference was to put the the driveway um on Derby Street away from the more active pedestrian and vehicle uh congestion on on Shaddock.

Thank you.

I I uh the last thing you said, you mentioned the pedestrian vehicle congestion on Shaddock.

Okay, that's what I heard.

Thanks.

Um thank you very much.

Um I know that this is not on the agenda for tonight, so we can't really discuss it, but I did want to say that we are updating our bicycle plan.

Um I look forward to to that.

Thank you, Councilmember Traegu.

Yeah, I also have a question for staff.

Um I I recall um on the ZAB um on several occasions um being able to relocate uh the driveway.

Um particularly within the San Pablo corridor.

Um so can you just clarify if state if there have been any changes to state law on the point around our discretion if we choose to to be able to um decide on um what we believe is the most appropriate location of a driveway.

Can I feel this one?

Um thank you.

Thank you for the question.

I appreciate it.

I also want to just um acknowledge um the comments from the neighbors and certainly sympathize with a desire to uh minimize vehicular traffic on their neighborhood street.

Um Roberts noted that transportation staff reviewed this and uh did not comment to require moving it off of Derby and and it's our understanding that their preference uh that is that it be on Derby.

Um notably the uh Robert has cited the uh the consistency with an adopted plan by the city of Berkeley that the uh like the goals and policies in this in an adopted plan, and uh I believe that that that limits council's uh authority to attach a condition or require the amendment of the project or deny the which would effectively be denying the the project as proposed uh which which is compliant with established standards and in an adopted plan folks please uh is there it's not your time to speak thank you i i appreciate that and i um i want to clarify i certainly do not mean to question uh the knowledge of the traffic engineer i am i'm trained as an engineer i'm not a traffic engineer i will defer such things to the experts um my question was about this question so i appreciate that is there anything that in state law that you would interpret or the city attorney would interpret as limiting our discretion on this point i'm not sure if i can speak to that specifically actually um it sound from what i just heard from jordan it sounds like this there was a specific plan that was adopted and there's some indication that we don't want to impose conditions that are inconsistent with that is is that sort of what the um I haven't personally studied that document closely so um I'm not prepared right now as we speak as we sit here to kind of opine on that in an out ad hoc way but I can take a look at it and and come back.

Understood thank you so much.

Okay other comments.

Councilmember Bartlett I did you have a comment I know you can't raise your hand on the phone.

Go ahead.

Yes thank you madam mayor and so that's those really the that's the crux of my question here too is also I guess the city attorney in the planet so is the does the Adeline corridor plan from our discretion of public safety because having spent much time right here I walk by here every day right there's a new building with a driveway on on right there on Derby and then now this larger building will have a driveway across the street from it in the middle of this bike path the school in my district we have bike to work days once a year and bike school days and we have to keep people safe and it just seems uh incomprehensible that we would subject that many bicyclists and kids to that on flow of cars and deliveries in almond almost it seems completely unreasonable and and we know there was a basis for this because we did a study for this years ago and that's why it's on shadow and that and by the way that drive on shadow is being used by the city right now as a loading area for its reverse repair of sewage stuff across the street and the guy when I talked to him said it's a perfect location for this because the way it's set up you can load your and unload quite easily quite safely so it just seems like I'm not convinced that we don't have the powers to maintain a safe condition when our resident threats take specifically when we we have specifically dedicated energy and legislation and litigation to protect bicycles and pedestrians in this district so I think keeping with uh with that with that spirit and that trajectory of safety I think we're in bad form uh to to go against it now.

Yeah council member taplin uh thank you i i do want to point out that we did adopt this plan in 2020 it was a council adopted plan it's not quite clear to me why these concerns weren't raised then if they weren't.

But I do have questions about the traffic mitigations of the project it was proposing.

If someone could speak to that traffic do you have a specific mitigation that your requirements that apply there?

Required that you'd like to explore oh I'm not requiring.

I was just wondering whether what mitigations were being contemplated for the project.

So the project would be subject to the standard uh transportation demand management program as part of the the project review and ultimate um sign-off at the time of certificate of occupancy.

Um that's kind of the thing there that helps to uh manage the trip generation and the management on site.

So TDM.

TDM.

Thank you.

Councilmember, oh yeah, can I let me continue?

So I mean, I guess to the architect here.

Uh I don't know if you have the capacity to make decisions.

Um, I'm wondering uh a couple of points here.

One, would you voluntarily consider keeping the driveway where it is?

So you can you can be merciful and safe uh to the pedestrians and bicyclists in this district, this neighborhood.

And I'll follow up as well.

Sorry, you have a you have the question for KDA.

Is that what you're saying?

Yeah.

Come on up to answer the question.

This SB 330 project doesn't allow for rules to be changed after the application has been submitted.

We played by the rules that were in place at the time of our application, which is to place it upon Derby, as evidenced by specific plans and as confirmed by the traffic engineer.

We don't want, and the reason why the Adeline Civic Plan was drawn, we don't want an 18-foot wide driveway and garage and gate on Chaddock, and we don't want we think it's the majority of people and bicycles are on SHATOC, not on Derby.

It's a bicycle path.

And it's not your apartment buildings across the street also exit on the side streets.

We're doing what the other apartment buildings are in that locality.

So no, so repeating.

I think you've answered the question.

Thanks.

Councilmember Bartlett, are you finished with your comments?

No.

So regarding the uh another one, and again, I guess we're going to voluntary territory here.

This is um uh a huge request, uh huge request, uh, but I think again it's a one of mercy, uh, not just to the neighbors, but again to people who will be likely to be struck by these cars uh as they as they bike and walk up that street.

Um, would you forego the parking?

Since we really don't want parking, and I assure you you don't need it.

Your residents whether they cut whether they're condo owners or renters will not need cars.

So would you I think you're some of the concerns it up front by eliminating some or all of the parking on site?

The answer would be no.

It was a reasonable developer who has experience in this area, felt that that was the best combination for that project, it's under the maximum allowed, and 30 years ago when that original entry was there, it was more providing enough parking.

That's that's an irony, but so that's the desire of this applicant at the time that the application was made.

Thank you.

Anything else that's all my comments.

Okay, that's it.

Sorry, there's a little bit of a lag, so I apologize for cutting you off.

Um okay.

Uh Councilmember Kessarwani.

Thank you very much, madam Mayor.

Thank you, planning staff for your presentation.

Um, thank you to everyone who gave public comments.

Uh, you know, I I want to say that I, you know, I am sympathetic to the concerns expressed by neighbors related to traffic.

And you know, I think it's been made clear that uh we do not have the authority to make a shift of the driveway, a condition of approval.

I understand there's going to be transportation demand management strategies that are used.

I was curious, you know, with the driveway proposed on Derby, um, did our transportation staff consider any sort of improvements to the street to encourage people to exit the driveway towards Shaddock and away from the neighborhood.

I know that's sometimes a strategy that's used.

I think of the Trader Joe's building that actually has the diverter so that people cannot take the shortcut from the neighborhood.

I was wondering if you could speak to whether any of those strategies had been considered.

You know, I that's not something that we are able to speak to now.

However, it's something that I think transportation staff absolutely would take a look at during the uh post-entitlement phase if the project is like once what the project is actually looking at construction, uh, transportation staff would consider, for example, a right turn requirement out of uh out of the driveway or other uh mitigation measures or or investments in the street to mitigate any uh any potential impacts.

Okay, so um obviously we cannot tie that to the vote tonight, but we are hearing that the transportation staff in their regular uh course of doing business related to this project will look at that.

And so I just want to express my um support to make sure that we consider how we direct the traffic flow from that driveway.

Um, you know, we didn't hear neighbors request that, but I I think that that would be preferred if if um those cars were sort of directed to Shattock and away from the neighborhood.

Um so that you if they want to go into the neighborhood, of course they can go around.

Um, and then I don't know um if there's anything else we can do in the street.

You know, I'm thinking of the intersection at Sacramento and Virginia, where we have all of those improvements and trying to direct traffic flow in certain ways.

So that's what I'm hoping we would we could consider for this area.

Um the other uh issue I I just wanted to mention, somebody asked about the money.

You know, where is the money going?

Uh what's going on?

So, you know, I just want to clarify.

So when this site is redeveloped, the property tax resets, correct, to a much higher level based on the assessed value of this new property.

So that would likely be uh do you have any estimate of what that annual property tax bill would be?

Well, I imagine.

I imagine the new uh valuation would be in the in the tens of millions, and so um the new property tax bill might be in the hundreds of thousands, low hundreds of thousands would be my guess.

Okay, so low hundreds of thousands for property tax.

I also just wanted to note um that this development would have 10 very low-income units, and um, but our our requirement is higher.

We actually were asked for 20 percent.

So my understanding is in addition to those 10 very low-income units on site, they would also have to pay the affordable housing inclusionary fee.

Um, do you have an estimate of how much they would need to pay?

Because I see it's it's an 84, 80, roughly 85,000 square foot building.

I know we give a discount on the first 5,000 square feet.

Um, so that would also be a very high figure.

If you're able to give us that number, I'll give you a bit a bit of time.

I also, while you calculate that, there is the Berkeley Unified School District fee that this project would also be subject to, correct?

That's correct, and that's roughly five dollars per square foot.

Uh this is roughly 85,000 square feet, so by my math, that's 422,000 going to the school district to support our public schools.

There's also an arts fee.

Um, those are the major fees that I know of.

Are there other fees that this project would be required to pay?

I think you've covered them, Councilmember.

Okay, so I I do want to get that that figure of the what's going into the Affordable Housing Trust Fund to develop 100% affordable housing elsewhere.

So they're providing 15% uh affordable.

The requirement is 20% BMR.

Um, and that's calculated based on the residential floor area, which is roughly 80 84,000 square feet.

Um, and that would be five percent of that.

And I think roughly the fee, which was recently updated is approximately sixty-two dollars per square foot.

So we're looking at something like 260,000.

Okay.

Okay, so and and I so I got it wrong.

It's 15% is the 10 units that are very low income.

So that's why it's only five percent more for the fee.

So I think that the biggest thing is the property tax revenue resetting.

Um, so I you know, so and and that's not to mention the 97 dwelling units that are gonna have um new residents uh in this neighborhood.

Some of them will be ownership units, correct?

How many condos are proposed?

Do you know?

Don't quote me, it's like 15.

Okay, so those are 15 ownership units, and then the balance are rental units.

Those residents, you know, my expectation is they are going to eat, shop, play in this downtown area, and there will be a multiplier effect in terms of the sales tax revenue that the city gets, the um the economic stimulus to our downtown and small businesses.

I just don't want us to lose sight of that, and I and I do recognize that I I didn't hear anybody say that they were against this project.

I do recognize you have some specific concerns related to certain things.

Um the way that these, and I'm gonna wrap up the way that these state laws are structured.

Uh, you know, I I think it's clear we we don't have the authority to change the proposal.

Um we cannot add any conditions of approval to this.

Uh, but having said that, I I do want to recognize that the the bulk of the massing is on SHATOC.

They didn't have to do that, correct?

You could have done eight stories right up against that home on Derby, correct?

If you wanted to, and we could have said nothing to that because we don't have the authority to change the design.

So I I do appreciate I I think you have been largely um uh sensitive to the built environment that there is there is greater height and commercial activity on shadows so therefore you've put the bulk of the massing there and and have less on Derby, and um I you know I hope that we can address some of the traffic issues post entitlement.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Um Councilmember Humbert, please excuse me, folks.

Come on.

That's very inappropriate.

Excuse me, I'm sorry, you're you're welcome to write a letter afterwards, but it's completely inappropriate for you to speak out during this meeting.

Councilmember Humbert.

Thank you, madam mayor.

Um, with apologies to the applicants and appellants, my comments will be really pretty brief on this, um, with respect to issues one and two, the number of parking spaces and the driveway driveway location and the provision and massing of the retail space.

It the project appears to be meeting all the objective standards in place at the time the application was submitted.

We've heard that I am completely sympathetic to the neighbors' concerns about traffic.

Um, and I'm hoping and consistently with the comments of consistent with the comments of uh council member Kesselwani that that our public works uh transportation division really bears down and really tries to do some work here to make sure that it's um the exit is as safe as possible, the exit and entrance for cars.

Um but consistent with staff's finding in state law, the city really can't require anything different.

Um with respect to issue three relating to shadows, um we don't have the discretion to do anything about that.

Um regarding issue number four, I don't see any evidence the project was improperly noticed or lacked legally required public hearings, and this notion of a separate base project hearing uh strikes me as legal fiction.

Um, the base project is is a mathematical calculation.

Um issue number five.

I see no convincing evidence staff incorrectly calculated the applicable inclusionary percentage or in loo fee, and I appreciate Councilmember Kessarwani kind of going into how that works uh in some level of detail.

Um I have I feel like I have no choice but to vote to reject the appeal and affirm the ZABS decision regarding the proposed 2655 Shadow project.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I have a couple questions.

Um, I'm curious if there are loading zones um around this building, just so I have a sense of that.

Um, will there be most likely to be the bulb out on Shadow?

On SHATOC, okay.

I just want to make sure because that is something that I think does help um in terms of providing a safe space for you know passengers to get in and out and also um and also deliveries to be made as well.

Thank you.

That's good to know.

And then I also just want folks to know I I hear your concerns, you know, about the safety piece, and I've also heard what um is my understanding is that it's safer actually to go out on a quieter street.

I heard you say that, I heard our staff say that.

And so I I want to clarify for folks, I don't think that we're prevented from making the decision of whether to move it onto SHATEC or onto Derby, but I do want us to recognize that there are studies that are done around what is safe and what is not.

I understand sometimes that's that's contradictory to how we might um see an issue, and I think that that's what makes this really complicated and hard.

But I mean we have staff that are professionals that advise us in this, and and I'm inclined to follow our staff's recommendation on this to do what they believe is safe and what our our um information tells us is safe.

I will, however, commit to following up on this right turn only piece.

I think that that's really important, and and again, I hear I hear folks concerned.

Um, and I know that this can get very confusing, so I just want to acknowledge that with these things.

There's a lot of pieces to it, and um you know, and so I thank you all for your comments and for staff's presentation.

Um, and with that, I think there are no more comments, so I will see if there is a motion.

I have a quick comment.

Oh, okay.

Councilmember Bartlett.

Thank you.

Uh so uh the neighbors, I want you to know.

Um, I hear you, and uh, you know, I really understand where you're coming from.

Unfortunately, the objective design standards we will not won't come back to us until 2026, uh, but they're underway.

Uh so I understand this is going to impact your your economic economic utility of your solar panels.

Uh, and and anyone who goes there to visit this will see the driveways across from each other uh will create a dangerous condition, and so it's enforcement that we can't make any conditions uh to mitigate that risk that danger there, but I suspect we will be back here at your court through liability anyway.

As it happened multiple times since I've been in office, so that being said, um, I see no I have no legal choice, I have no legal option to vote against this project on any real legal basis, but understand that the mitigations uh will come sooner or later.

Okay, is there a motion?

Yes, I uh motion to adopt a resolution denying the appeal and affirming the zoning adjustment board decision to approve use permit uh number ZP 2024-0057 uh to demolish a one-story 8,185 square foot non-residential building and construct an eight-story 84,399 square foot mixed use residential building, et cetera, as as it's stated in the staff report.

Clerk, can you take the roll, please?

Councilmember Kessarwani, yes, taplin.

I Bartlett, yes, Tragub?

Aye.

O'Keefe is absent.

Blackaby, yes.

Lunapara, yes, Humbert?

Yes, Mayor Ishii?

Yes.

Thank you.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

So moved.

Second.

To adjourn, Kessarwani?

Yes.

Taplin?

Yes, Bartlett?

Yes, Tragub?

Aye.

O'Keefe is absent.

Blackaby?

Yes.

Lunapara?

Yes.

Humbert?

Yes.

Mayor Ishii?

Yes.

Alright, meeting is adjourned.

Thank you all very much.

Yeah, you agree with this.

We did a great job.