supplemental item rd1 - 0/2435 san pablo zab 12-12-2019 ...€¦ · from: toni mester...

1

From: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB)Subject: FW: corrected supplemental communicationAttachments: Ingram resonse to Studio KDA t2.pdf

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Toni Mester [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 12:00 PM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) <[email protected]>; Powell, Greg <[email protected]> Cc: whit ingram <[email protected]> Subject: corrected supplemental communication

ZAB: please use the corrected copy attached of the Ingram communication. One paragraph was the wrong color. Thanks, Toni

SUPPLEMENTAL ITEM RD1 - 0/2435 SAN PABLO ZAB 12-12-2019

of 16

Letter received via email from Whit Ingram November 27, 2019 RE: 2435 San Pablo Ave. StudioKDA Response in green December 9, 2019 Whit Ingram response to KDA in red December 10 Having consulted with our neighbors since the original introduction of the development at 2435 San Pablo Ave in January with the Developer and Architect, two subsequent DRC meetings, a meeting with the City Planner, and four neighborhood group meetings over the course of 2019, we have many concerns and we suggest numerous changes be made to the 2435 San Pablo Ave Project. Our goal is that the project creates a livable space for residents and to mitigate negative impacts on the neighborhood of which they will be a part : Poet’s Corner. 1. Safety: The dormitory lay out of this building has too many bedrooms for each full kitchen which may create discomfort and potential danger for female tenants similar to the problems of co-ed dormitories on college campuses that have lead to a spike in sexual assaults. We suggest a redesign of the floors with fewer rooms per full kitchen and more full kitchens ie as in the Architects referred model ‘Star City’. Cluster rooms into two pods/ smaller groups per floor with each group having its own full kitchen per floor. Increase security within the floors and between the pods with locked divisions. We agree, the security of the shared communal spaces is vital to the success of this project and the comfort of the residents. The floor plan we are now presenting to ZAB has increased the amount of common space per bedroom to 45 SF per room, and is more than both the San Jose Co-Living code requirements (20 SF per room) and the StarCity Minna project (41 SF per room) we referenced at the last DRC meeting. We feel having one common space on each floor is safer than more, smaller spaces. The owner has agreed that all of the common areas will be monitored with security cameras 24 hours a day. WI: We cannot comment on the latest floor plan revision because it hasn’t been posted. The co-living standards used in San Jose and San Francisco should be reviewed by the Berkeley Planning Commission in creating standards for Berkeley, which does not at this time have relevant standards. What kind of security cameras monitored by whom? Tenants will not welcome or accept surveillance of their activities in common areas, which is really invasive. Reinstate onsite parking without which women will also be at risk going in and out at night. The parking was eliminated in part as a response to neighbor concerns about traffic and safety issues along Dwight Way. We also felt that having a garage entrance on San Pablo, adjacent to the bus stop, created an undesirable street facing facade, with little space for an entrance to the building and none for a retail space. WI: The neighbors are united in favor of the maximum off-street spaces possible; the neighbor next to the driveway naturally expressed concern that cars using the driveway might be disruptive, but it should not be a problem or used as an excuse to cut the cost of a garage. There is a potential for the development to become a single hotel, but a one year lease could help. There could also be a problem regarding short-term rentals such as AirBnB which would need to be stopped through applying Code re Tourist Hotels and loopholes therein vis a vis Use Permits. It is important to minimize the number of people moving in and out of the building and the Owner is interested in having tenant sign long term leases, perhaps with 6 or 12 month minimums, and definitely longer than the City required minimum stay of 14 days for Residential Hotels. The owner will not allow tenant to sublease their rooms out to programs like AirBnB. WI: We don’t consider 6 and 12 months to be long-term leases, and we feel that the cramped living conditions will produce constant tenant turnover. 14 days or less defines a short term rental in the


of 16

Berkeley code and is not peculiar to residential hotels. This project was first designated as a residential hotel in the published documents on December 4, and there are no descriptions of the standards and requirements of a residential hotel in any of the project documents. 2. Building Profile: Realign the bedrooms on the East side of the third floor to resemble the 4th floor minus the balconies, which are intrusive to the privacy of the neighbors. There are already balconies on every residential floor facing South. To create a balcony on the fourth floor for 3 rooms creates an inequality. The effect of this will also reduce the shadow effect. Include that the parapet (balcony railings be 4 feet high and of solid construction) with planters on top of them. This will soften the feeling of a massive structure in Residential backyards and provide some privacy. We have proactively reduced the building mass by reducing the size of the fourth floor, pulling it an additional 10’ to the West and 20’ from the rear property line. The building mass has also been designed much smaller than a potential 6-story, with density bonus project could have been. Solid balcony railings and planters are included at the balcony edges on the East side of the building to provide more privacy to neighbors. WI: We haven’t seen these plans, which have not been made public and so cannot comment. Neither can be address a hypothetical other building. 3. Parking: This project eliminates off street parking in favor of bike parking. It is most likely the residents will have personal cars. Our area is not eligible for a 2 hour Prefered Parking Permit. Off street parking needs to be reinstated at 9 spaces and consider restricting parking to Electric vehicles. Reduce the bike parking because there are at least 20 ‘For Go’ Bikes available at San Pablo/Channing. The parking requirement for Dormitories in the parking section of C-W 23E.64.080 is one spot for every five residents; plus one manager. West Berkeley Plan Goals/Policies 1.2 ‘Require consolidated Parking concentrated vs dispersed.’ According to Published Plans there is no Parking so it is hard to know where the Resident Manager is to park his van/truck. Put parking back in the ground floor now that it is acknowledged verbally that Dwight/San Pablo is a ‘Node’ which requires Retail/Commercial. The owner has agreed to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan which includes providing all tenants with an unlimited monthly AC Transit bus pass and restricting any tenants in the building from being eligible for a Residential Preferential Parking Program. While we appreciate the presence of “For Go” rental bikes available nearby, we believe the building design should continue to provide a generous amount of bike parking as rental programs may become unavailable and we anticipate many tenant will own their own bikes. WI: The neighborhood does not have permit parking, and the short leases and high turnover in this hotel will inevitably result in many guests who do not know or use the local transit system or own bicycles. The project will need essential parking for emergencies, management, disabled, and ride-share cars at a minimum. 4. Roof Deck: Require all roof open space to be on the West side of the building – along San Pablo Avenue. Require elimination of the East side roof deck. Space on the roof could be used for solar panels or greater setback, eliminating 3 rooms on the 4th floor. Require a posting of signs that informs residents of the city noise ordinance, no amplified music and no music or loud noise is allowed after 10:00PM. The owner will agree to further pulling back the East roof deck 10’ more feet from the back property line, making it 30’ from the rear property. The property management will enforce the noise ordinance. WI: The revised roof deck has not been made public so we cannot comment on a plan we haven’t seen.


of 16

5. Shadow: This development casts significant East to West shadow over properties in Byron St and beyond. Our suggestion is that additional setbacks will help to relieve this. Code has stipulations regarding health and safety. ‘Findings’ for Use Permit Ord Admin 23B Use Permit 32.040 ‘ Will not be to detriment to health/ safety/peace/morals/comfort or general welfare of persons’ Design Review Guidelines encourage Year Round Solar Access for adjacent buildings. Discretion: reduce shadow by reconfiguring. See the response to Building Profile above. WI: We haven’t seen the latest plans and cannot comment at this time. A complete revised shadow study should accompany the new plans. 6. Kitchens: This project has one kitchen per floor to serve between 12 - 15 rooms. Restricted kitchen hours from 6am - midnight and Kitchen Cleaning to be required in the Lease as a condition of approval. As Code stipulates no fumes into Residential neighborhoods a scrubber should be a condition on each kitchen exhaust to filter out odors and carcinogens from the kitchen. To eliminate fire danger in rooms cooking appliances should be restricted to microwaves. All mechanical systems, including ventilation and exhaust will be Code compliant. Also, the ventilation for the common kitchens will be roughly 70’ west of the rear property line and over 50’ in the air to further minimize any impact on the neighbors. WI: What kitchen appliances will be supplied in the common area? How many stove top burners, etc. In the private rooms, what heating appliances will be supplied? What will be the common kitchen hours? What ventilation does code require? 7. Laundry: If it is to be on the Roof Deck Laundry needs to be placed on the West Side. Does the Code allow for an enclosed laundry on the roof deck or if that is enclosed is that considered a 5th floor? If so the laundry should be located on another floor with an increase in size. The Laundry room is centrally located near the elevator and stairs for ease of access and away from the neighbor to the East, while the West roof deck is reserved for outdoor common space. Yes, laundry rooms are allowed on the roof by code and has been reviewed by the Planner. There is an extreme under provision of Washer Dryer Stacks with only 4 being provided for 42 rooms with 1.2 residents/ room in the Plan. This is inconvenient and unhygienic. As a reference, we are showing nearly twice the number of required machines (~1 per 10 rooms) as is required by the San Jose Co-Living code (1 per 20 rooms). WI: Berkeley doesn’t have laundry standards. How many machines exactly (washers and dryers) will be located in the roof laundry? 8. Loading Zone: Currently there is only a Yellow Zone in the plans but this is limited to commercial vehicles only. A White Zone would also need to be implemented for 5-minute drop offs. Yes, a white passenger pick-up and loading zone area will replace the existing curb cut and driveway north of the bus stop. Wi: What happens to the yellow zone? Where will it be? Where will commercial delivers come in? 9. Liquefaction:


of 16

Require Dewatering Discharge Permits into the Dwight Way storm drain. It be a condition that the property line be monitored for soil movement during construction. High water tables and unstable soil conditions in the area have created problems in the past. Require the owner of the project to be responsible for the cost of repairs to neighbors. The residents directly behind the development are in immediate danger because there is a rise in elevation. The applicant should build a retaining wall before any construction to insure against soil movement for adjacent properties because of this ledge. A Geotech Engineering firm has been hired, as is required, to ensure that all construction is conducted safely and to ensure neighboring properties are protected from any damage. WI: Will the neighbors be consulted on this contract and will the contract be made public? 10. Trees: Require mature trees be planted in the 10-foot space on the east side of the building. 24” box trees, with an average height of 10’ are proposed for the project WI: We prefer taller trees planted in the ground. Which species will be planted? 11. Retail: According to verbal conversation, not yet in the Published Plan, it has been recognized that Dwight /San Pablo is on a ‘Node’ and so must provide Retail/Commercial not residential on the Ground Floor. The ground floor retail needs to be of a size to be able to ‘attract’ and ‘intensify’ commercial opportunities as the development is on a pedestrian serving ‘Node’ which is required to do so by The West Berkeley Plan: Goals/Policies 1.4. If the city wants the San Pablo corridor to develop, as it says it does, the Dwight Way/San Pablo intersection must be stocked with Retail to create competition and diversity with the stores. Accordingly there is no longer Residential on the ground floor which opens up the space for a larger Retail Operation which would be more marketable to interested parties. Verbally, according to this reconfiguration Retail is planned at 801SF. This is too small and needs to be increased considerably. NB: Purposes in CW Zone is ‘to be of real Commercial Benefit’ as it is in the West Berkeley Plan ie Retention, Attraction, Intensification. 801 SF does not meet this requirement. Increase the size of the retail operation.. The area of the commercial space, if needed to be enlarged, could incorporate some of the storage space to the east. WI: what kind of retail will the project be seeking? 12. Aesthetics: Following Design Code the building should be in ‘Harmony’ with its surroundings re scale, color, form, and texture. Re-envision the development to meet code re ‘Compatibility’. Regarding The West Berkeley Plan: Goals/Policies : 4. Sensitivity to the character of adjacent residential is particularly important re Mixed Use Developments. 4.1 Minimization of abrupt change of building scale. 4.2. To use increased setback/upper story and landscaping to reduce impact. 4.3 To be respectful of existing architecture. Design Review Guidelines: Street facades should be in harmony with surroundings particularly when in strong contrast. Windows/Doors should be sensitive to the neighborhood. The design of the building, including the scale, color, form, and texture, has evolved based on design review feedback and currently represents the approved direction from the Design Review Committee. WI: We feel that neighbors should have input on the color and other design elements because we have to look at the building every day. The current modern design clashes with the traditional early 20th century architecture of the buildings next door.


of 16

1

Jacob, Melinda

From: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB)Subject: FW: supplemental communication 2435 SPAAttachments: Ingram resonse to Studio KDA to Ingram.pdf

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Toni Mester [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 11:47 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) <[email protected]>; Powell, Greg <[email protected]> Cc: whit ingram <[email protected]> Subject: supplemental communication 2435 SPA Hi ZAB and Greg, The attached is a supplemental communication from Whit Ingram. He doesn’t type, so he dictated over the phone. It’s in color. Please confirm receipt. Thanks, Toni Mester


of 16

Letter received via email from Whit Ingram November 27, 2019 RE: 2435 San Pablo Ave. StudioKDA Response in green December 9, 2019 Whit Ingram response to KDA in red Having consulted with our neighbors since the original introduction of the development at 2435 San Pablo Ave in January with the Developer and Architect, two subsequent DRC meetings, a meeting with the City Planner, and four neighborhood group meetings over the course of 2019, we have many concerns and we suggest numerous changes be made to the 2435 San Pablo Ave Project. Our goal is that the project creates a livable space for residents and to mitigate negative impacts on the neighborhood of which they will be a part : Poet’s Corner. 1. Safety: The dormitory lay out of this building has too many bedrooms for each full kitchen which may create discomfort and potential danger for female tenants similar to the problems of co-ed dormitories on college campuses that have lead to a spike in sexual assaults. We suggest a redesign of the floors with fewer rooms per full kitchen and more full kitchens ie as in the Architects referred model ‘Star City’. Cluster rooms into two pods/ smaller groups per floor with each group having its own full kitchen per floor. Increase security within the floors and between the pods with locked divisions. We agree, the security of the shared communal spaces is vital to the success of this project and the comfort of the residents. The floor plan we are now presenting to ZAB has increased the amount of common space per bedroom to 45 SF per room, and is more than both the San Jose Co-Living code requirements (20 SF per room) and the StarCity Minna project (41 SF per room) we referenced at the last DRC meeting. We feel having one common space on each floor is safer than more, smaller spaces. The owner has agreed that all of the common areas will be monitored with security cameras 24 hours a day. WI: We cannot comment on the latest floor plan revision because it hasn’t been posted. The co-living standards used in San Jose and San Francisco should be reviewed by the Berkeley Planning Commission in creating standards for Berkeley, which does not at this time have relevant standards. What kind of security cameras monitored by whom? Tenants will not welcome or accept surveillance of their activities in common areas, which is really invasive. Reinstate onsite parking without which women will also be at risk going in and out at night. The parking was eliminated in part as a response to neighbor concerns about traffic and safety issues along Dwight Way. We also felt that having a garage entrance on San Pablo, adjacent to the bus stop, created an undesirable street facing facade, with little space for an entrance to the building and none for a retail space. WI: The neighbors are united in favor of the maximum off-street spaces possible; the neighbor next to the driveway naturally expressed concern that cars using the driveway might be disruptive, but it should not be a problem or used as an excuse to cut the cost of a garage. There is a potential for the development to become a single hotel, but a one year lease could help. There could also be a problem regarding short-term rentals such as AirBnB which would need to be stopped through applying Code re Tourist Hotels and loopholes therein vis a vis Use Permits. It is important to minimize the number of people moving in and out of the building and the Owner is interested in having tenant sign long term leases, perhaps with 6 or 12 month minimums, and definitely longer than the City required minimum stay of 14 days for Residential Hotels. The owner will not allow tenant to sublease their rooms out to programs like AirBnB. WI: We don’t consider 6 and 12 months to be long-term leases, and we feel that the cramped living conditions will produce constant tenant turnover. 14 days or less defines a short term rental in the


of 16

Berkeley code and is not peculiar to residential hotels. This project was first designated as a residential hotel in the published documents on December 4, and there are no descriptions of the standards and requirements of a residential hotel in any of the project documents. 2. Building Profile: Realign the bedrooms on the East side of the third floor to resemble the 4th floor minus the balconies, which are intrusive to the privacy of the neighbors. There are already balconies on every residential floor facing South. To create a balcony on the fourth floor for 3 rooms creates an inequality. The effect of this will also reduce the shadow effect. Include that the parapet (balcony railings be 4 feet high and of solid construction) with planters on top of them. This will soften the feeling of a massive structure in Residential backyards and provide some privacy. We have proactively reduced the building mass by reducing the size of the fourth floor, pulling it an additional 10’ to the West and 20’ from the rear property line. The building mass has also been designed much smaller than a potential 6-story, with density bonus project could have been. Solid balcony railings and planters are included at the balcony edges on the East side of the building to provide more privacy to neighbors. WI: We haven’t seen these plans, which have not been made public and so cannot comment. Neither can be address a hypothetical other building. 3. Parking: This project eliminates off street parking in favor of bike parking. It is most likely the residents will have personal cars. Our area is not eligible for a 2 hour Prefered Parking Permit. Off street parking needs to be reinstated at 9 spaces and consider restricting parking to Electric vehicles. Reduce the bike parking because there are at least 20 ‘For Go’ Bikes available at San Pablo/Channing. The parking requirement for Dormitories in the parking section of C-W 23E.64.080 is one spot for every five residents; plus one manager. West Berkeley Plan Goals/Policies 1.2 ‘Require consolidated Parking concentrated vs dispersed.’ According to Published Plans there is no Parking so it is hard to know where the Resident Manager is to park his van/truck. Put parking back in the ground floor now that it is acknowledged verbally that Dwight/San Pablo is a ‘Node’ which requires Retail/Commercial. The owner has agreed to implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan which includes providing all tenants with an unlimited monthly AC Transit bus pass and restricting any tenants in the building from being eligible for a Residential Preferential Parking Program. While we appreciate the presence of “For Go” rental bikes available nearby, we believe the building design should continue to provide a generous amount of bike parking as rental programs may become unavailable and we anticipate many tenant will own their own bikes. WI: The neighborhood does not have permit parking, and the short leases and high turnover in this hotel will inevitably result in many guests who do not know or use the local transit system or own bicycles. The project will need essential parking for emergencies, management, disabled, and ride-share cars at a minimum. 4. Roof Deck: Require all roof open space to be on the West side of the building – along San Pablo Avenue. Require elimination of the East side roof deck. Space on the roof could be used for solar panels or greater setback, eliminating 3 rooms on the 4th floor. Require a posting of signs that informs residents of the city noise ordinance, no amplified music and no music or loud noise is allowed after 10:00PM. The owner will agree to further pulling back the East roof deck 10’ more feet from the back property line, making it 30’ from the rear property. The property management will enforce the noise ordinance. WI: The revised roof deck has not been made public so we cannot comment on a plan we haven’t seen.


of 16

5. Shadow: This development casts significant East to West shadow over properties in Byron St and beyond. Our suggestion is that additional setbacks will help to relieve this. Code has stipulations regarding health and safety. ‘Findings’ for Use Permit Ord Admin 23B Use Permit 32.040 ‘ Will not be to detriment to health/ safety/peace/morals/comfort or general welfare of persons’ Design Review Guidelines encourage Year Round Solar Access for adjacent buildings. Discretion: reduce shadow by reconfiguring. See the response to Building Profile above. WI: We haven’t seen the latest plans and cannot comment at this time. A complete revised shadow study should accompany the new plans. 6. Kitchens: This project has one kitchen per floor to serve between 12 - 15 rooms. Restricted kitchen hours from 6am - midnight and Kitchen Cleaning to be required in the Lease as a condition of approval. As Code stipulates no fumes into Residential neighborhoods a scrubber should be a condition on each kitchen exhaust to filter out odors and carcinogens from the kitchen. To eliminate fire danger in rooms cooking appliances should be restricted to microwaves. All mechanical systems, including ventilation and exhaust will be Code compliant. Also, the ventilation for the common kitchens will be roughly 70’ west of the rear property line and over 50’ in the air to further minimize any impact on the neighbors. WI: What kitchen appliances will be supplied in the common area? How many stove top burners, etc. In the private rooms, what heating appliances will be supplied? What will be the common kitchen hours? What ventilation does code require? 7. Laundry: If it is to be on the Roof Deck Laundry needs to be placed on the West Side. Does the Code allow for an enclosed laundry on the roof deck or if that is enclosed is that considered a 5th floor? If so the laundry should be located on another floor with an increase in size. The Laundry room is centrally located near the elevator and stairs for ease of access and away from the neighbor to the East, while the West roof deck is reserved for outdoor common space. Yes, laundry rooms are allowed on the roof by code and has been reviewed by the Planner. There is an extreme under provision of Washer Dryer Stacks with only 4 being provided for 42 rooms with 1.2 residents/ room in the Plan. This is inconvenient and unhygienic. As a reference, we are showing nearly twice the number of required machines (~1 per 10 rooms) as is required by the San Jose Co-Living code (1 per 20 rooms). WI: Berkeley doesn’t have laundry standards. How many machines exactly (washers and dryers) will be located in the roof laundry? 8. Loading Zone: Currently there is only a Yellow Zone in the plans but this is limited to commercial vehicles only. A White Zone would also need to be implemented for 5-minute drop offs. Yes, a white passenger pick-up and loading zone area will replace the existing curb cut and driveway north of the bus stop. Wi: What happens to the yellow zone? Where will it be? Where will commercial delivers come in? 9. Liquefaction:


of 16

Require Dewatering Discharge Permits into the Dwight Way storm drain. It be a condition that the property line be monitored for soil movement during construction. High water tables and unstable soil conditions in the area have created problems in the past. Require the owner of the project to be responsible for the cost of repairs to neighbors. The residents directly behind the development are in immediate danger because there is a rise in elevation. The applicant should build a retaining wall before any construction to insure against soil movement for adjacent properties because of this ledge. A Geotech Engineering firm has been hired, as is required, to ensure that all construction is conducted safely and to ensure neighboring properties are protected from any damage. WI: Will the neighbors be consulted on this contract and will the contract be made public? 10. Trees: Require mature trees be planted in the 10-foot space on the east side of the building. 24” box trees, with an average height of 10’ are proposed for the project WI: We prefer taller trees planted in the ground. Which species will be planted? 11. Retail: According to verbal conversation, not yet in the Published Plan, it has been recognized that Dwight /San Pablo is on a ‘Node’ and so must provide Retail/Commercial not residential on the Ground Floor. The ground floor retail needs to be of a size to be able to ‘attract’ and ‘intensify’ commercial opportunities as the development is on a pedestrian serving ‘Node’ which is required to do so by The West Berkeley Plan: Goals/Policies 1.4. If the city wants the San Pablo corridor to develop, as it says it does, the Dwight Way/San Pablo intersection must be stocked with Retail to create competition and diversity with the stores. Accordingly there is no longer Residential on the ground floor which opens up the space for a larger Retail Operation which would be more marketable to interested parties. Verbally, according to this reconfiguration Retail is planned at 801SF. This is too small and needs to be increased considerably. NB: Purposes in CW Zone is ‘to be of real Commercial Benefit’ as it is in the West Berkeley Plan ie Retention, Attraction, Intensification. 801 SF does not meet this requirement. Increase the size of the retail operation.. The area of the commercial space, if needed to be enlarged, could incorporate some of the storage space to the east. WI: what kind of retail will the project be seeking? 12. Aesthetics: Following Design Code the building should be in ‘Harmony’ with its surroundings re scale, color, form, and texture. Re-envision the development to meet code re ‘Compatibility’. Regarding The West Berkeley Plan: Goals/Policies : 4. Sensitivity to the character of adjacent residential is particularly important re Mixed Use Developments. 4.1 Minimization of abrupt change of building scale. 4.2. To use increased setback/upper story and landscaping to reduce impact. 4.3 To be respectful of existing architecture. Design Review Guidelines: Street facades should be in harmony with surroundings particularly when in strong contrast. Windows/Doors should be sensitive to the neighborhood. The design of the building, including the scale, color, form, and texture, has evolved based on design review feedback and currently represents the approved direction from the Design Review Committee. WI: We feel that neighbors should have input on the color and other design elements because we have to look at the building every day. The current modern design clashes with the traditional early 20th century architecture of the buildings next door.


of 16

1

Subject: FW: supplemental communications 2435 SPAAttachments: 2435_ZAB3.docx

From: Toni Mester [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 10, 2019 8:10 AM To: Zoning Adjustments Board (ZAB) <[email protected]>; Powell, Greg <[email protected]> Subject: supplemental communications 2435 SPA

Hi Greg, I finished reading the documents that staff posted on December 4 on the 2435 San Pablo Avenue project page and have attached some further comments for the record. Please include in supplemental communications for the ZAB meeting of December 12, re: 2435 San Pablo Avenue. I will appreciate a confirmation of receipt. Thank you Toni Mester


of 16

To: Zoning Adjustments Board From: Toni Mester RE: 2435 San Pablo Avenue, meeting of December 12, memo #3 December 9, 2019 I have reviewed all the information that staff posted on December 4 and have some additional comments and analysis as a supplemental communication. I will try not to repeat the points that I have already made. 1. Not a residential hotel. Busy with the crisis at Aquatic Park, I was not paying attention to this project until the Ingrams invited me to a meeting at KDA on November 20. So I studied the plans. The meeting was attended by Charles Khan, Eric Waterman, Janis Chin, Dean Metzger, Una and Whit Ingram, and Virginia Warheit. I asked how the affordable housing mitigation fee would be applied and was told that it was a dormitory, which was exempt. Later, I tried unsuccessfully to find the dormitory designation in the project record but assumed it would show up later. That’s why I wrote in my first submission that the project was “not a dormitory.” On Dec 4, staff posted an August 22 memo from Eric to Leslie Mendez that said they had classified the project as a residential hotel, which is also exempt from the inclusionary housing requirement the affordable housing mitigation fee (23C.12.020B and 22.20). This project as currently designed is not a dormitory for the reasons I explained (the kitchen facilities); nor is the project a residential hotel and/or consistent with a residential hotel; in fact, co-living projects are contrary to the definition and intent of a residential hotel. A residential hotel is a non-transient hotel that contains six or more guestrooms or efficiency units used as primary and permanent residences [CA health and safety code 50519 (b)(1)]. Berkeley’s zoning code doesn’t appear to contain standards for residential hotels; most references to residential hotels are contained in the Rent Board regulations. The only reason that the project is classified as a residential hotel is to avoid paying the affordable housing mitigation fee. Co-living projects serve a transient population with leases of a year or less. They are designed as up-scale hostels that cater to young professionals who need a place while they look for permanent housing, fulfill contracts, take courses, visit friends, do research, or travel in a leisurely fashion. Co-living facilities are not primary and permanent residences. For example, Starcity, one purveyor of co-living in the Bay Area, typically offers leases of 4, 6, and 12 months. It’s a legitimate niche in the real estate market, but co-living does not provide primary and permanent housing. The features of 2435 San Pablo Avenue are an extreme adaptation of the co-living concept of individual bedrooms and shared space, which does not lend


of 16

https://starcity.com/

https://starcity.com/

itself to permanent housing. The project is overcrowded with inadequate kitchen facilities, lounge (relaxation and social) space, and no exercise area or places to work at a desk in either the private and common rooms. The overcrowded project lacks privacy, security, and adequate kitchen and work facilities that support human life. 2. The ground floor of 2435 San Pablo Avenue has been a moving target that has produced four different iterations depending on whether or not the project was deemed to fall within the Dwight Way/San Pablo Avenue node (23E.64.040C4). It does, but that wasn’t the understanding at the second DRC meeting and the basis of the design DRC examined. One remedy for this mistake would be to remand to DRC, but their earlier recommendations to create more space for tenants in both the private and common areas were ignored so it’s doubtful their input would sway the developer to produce a more livable project because he obviously wants to stuff as many tenants into the floor area as possible, to cut costs, and maximize his profit. Despite the fact that DRC suggestions do not seem to be binding, a process that presented a false depiction of the ground floor to the DRC is irregular and suspect. 3. The project is not described in the zoning code Young adults have been co-living in apartments and houses without any special allowances for years. But there’s a practical limit to how many people can share a kitchen and other common spaces. When a developer proposes residences with 15 bedrooms to a kitchen that has one stove, one refrigerator, and one sink, the city needs to respond by creating some standards through a public process at the Planning Commission to regulate the ratio of bedrooms to kitchens and other shared space, among other specifications. Otherwise, the City could be setting a dangerous precedent by allowing degraded living conditions. The zoning code is also silent on the standards for a residential hotel. 4. Yes, 2435 San Pablo Avenue is substandard Projects that do not adhere to set community standards and laws are non-compliant or non-conforming. I have already argued that the project is substandard in the kitchen provisions, which could lead to food spoilage, theft, odors, noise, and infestation. I have also stated at the KDA meeting and in my December 4 letter that the layout lacks security, too few locked doors, which is especially dangerous for women who could be stalked and harassed within the building. There is no management plan that describes the lease arrangements, furnishings, services, and provisions; no manager’s apartment; no off-street parking for essential and emergency vehicles including the manager, disabled, delivery, or car share. There is nowhere to work, either in the private or common areas, no room for a desk or table in a quiet place that would allow a professional such as a


of 16

teacher or anybody who works at home to productively apply their trade. Because of its inadequacies of kitchen facilities and absence of workspace at a time when many people work either entirely or intermittently at home, the project fails to provide the necessities to maintain human life and is substandard. If I were sitting on the ZAB, I don’t know what I would prefer: denial, remand, or continuation. I don’t believe that approval at this juncture is acceptable or required. I hope that my comments help the Board decide and that I have covered the bases.


of 16

Berkeley Neighborhoods Council

P.O. Box 5108 Berkeley, CA 94705

Dedicated to improving the quality of life for all by creating

a unified neighborhood voice for promoting livability and resolving problems

Website:www.berkeleyneighborhoodscouncil.com

E-mail: [email protected]

Planning Director Timothy Burroughs December 8, 2019

Planning Department – City of Berkeley

1947 Center Street, 3 Floor

Berkeley, CA 94704

Dear Planning Director Timothy Burroughs,

We are writing to recommend that the mixed-use development at 2435 San Pablo Avenue be remanded to

the Design Review Committee (DRC) because two critical changes have been made since it was approved

by the DRC in July: the use category as a residential hotel and the project’s location within the Dwight

Way/San Pablo Avenue node. Neither change was made public until December 4, preventing proper

review and comment.

At both May and July DRC meetings, the project was presented as a group living accommodation (GLA)

"providing co-living accommodations,” but has since been changed to "providing co-living

accommodations consistent with non-transient residential hotels" in order to avoid paying the Affordable

Housing Mitigation Fee.

In an August 22 memo from Erik Waterman to Leslie Mendez , Mr. Waterman, the applicant, informs Ms.

Mendez, the planner, they would now be defining their GLA as a non-transient Residential Hotel, which

would have triggered a completely different discussion at DRC and thus merits a new review, especially

since the City does not have standards for building new residential hotels and must rely on state law and

the building code, including fire and safety regulations. Neither does Berkeley’s zoning code have a

residential use or standards for “co-living.” Tenants who share living space in new construction normally

occupy units that pay the Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee.

Secondly, the project was originally presented as being within the Dwight Way/San Pablo Avenue

Designated Node until Mr. Waterman emailed Ms. Mendez on June 27 with measurements that put the

project outside the node. That substantially changed the ground floor layout presented to the DRC in July

to exclude commercial and include a live/work unit, tenant bedrooms adjoining a common kitchen, and a

manager’s apartment, taking into consideration the DRC request for strong onsite management. It was this

ground floor plan that was passed by the DRC in July. On November 15, Ms. Mendez informed Mr.

Waterman by email that Principal Planner Greg Powell and Land Use Planning Manager Steve Buckley

had determined that the project was indeed within the Node and therefore subject to restricted ground floor

uses. As a result, staff once again changed the ground floor plans, reinstating the commercial space and

removing the manager’s apartment. The memo from Leslie Mendez to Erik Waterman and the new ground

floor plan were also not made public until December 4.

At the July DRC meeting, the discussion revolved around issues of livability such as inadequate pantry

space, storage, desk space, and closets, all with the assumption that the private rooms were rental units

“affordable by design” which would address the City’s housing need. None of these improvements that


of 16

about:blank

about:blank

about:blank

about:blank

would have required an increase in the size of the private rooms were adopted.

We would also like to lodge a complaint about the way the information was made available to the public

on the Planning Department website. Until Wednesday, December 4, 2019, only information through July

2019 was posted on the project page. All of the documents from August to December, including the

applicant statements, changes to the plans, and the two memos mentioned above were posted one day

before letters were due if they were to be included in the ZAB packet. As a result, neighbors crafted letters

and arguments based on outdated and incomplete information. In the interest of a legal process,

transparency, fairness, and an appropriate review, this project should be remanded to the DRC with

accurate and complete information including city and state regulations pertinent to residential hotels and

the C-W nodes.

Proceeding with the ZAB hearing as scheduled will tell us a lot about the Planning Department and your

management of its affairs. BNC and the neighborhoods understand that development will happen. What

we and the neighborhoods do oppose is the Planning Department allowing development to degrade their

quality of life.

We hear a lot about the need for affordable family housing from our elected officials, yet your department

appears to do very little to make it happen. Instead, all our planners do is plan check and work hard finding

ways to accommodate the project as the developer wants it. The Zoning Ordinance is stretched to the point

that it is of no use to anyone.

When will the City Manager, Mayor and Council Members begin to look at our neighborhoods as an asset

to be nurtured rather than squandered?

Respectfully,

The Berkeley Neighborhoods Council Executive Committee

Dean Metzger - Chair

Shirley Dean – Vice Chair

Janis Ching - Treasurer

David Ushijima - Secretary

Meryl Siegal – Committee Member


of 16

supplemental item rd1 - 0/2435 san pablo zab 12-12-2019 ...€¦ · from: toni mester...

Documents